Dublin Airport New Runway/Infrastructure.

Pat Dunne

Rojomur wrote: »

Looks from that picture like the works on the North/south runway underpass is well underway

Work is much more advanced than that map is showing. I‘d agree with the earlier poster that the map is at least 12 months out of date.

Rojomur

Rojomur wrote: »

Looks from that picture like the works on the North/south runway underpass is well underway

What runway underpass ?

donvito99

Deleted User wrote: »

What runway underpass ?

Access from the Terminals to the West Apron without having to cross 16/34, as far as I know.

donvito99

donvito99 wrote: »

Access from the Terminals to the West Apron without having to cross 16/34, as far as I know.

There is no underpass, the surface vehicle crossing point has been completed.

There are plans/dreams for a tunnel but they are a long way off.

donvito99

Question - why was the present main runway built? The previous SW/NE runway was only about 300m shorter than the new one AFAIK. Would it not have been easier to just extend?

Or was it to bring overflight traffic away from the likes of Blanch, Finglas and Swords?

BonnieSituation

donvito99 wrote: »

Question - why was the present main runway built? The previous SW/NE runway was only about 300m shorter than the new one AFAIK. Would it not have been easier to just extend?

Or was it to bring overflight traffic away from the likes of Blanch, Finglas and Swords?

The scope for expansion wasn't there.

Northern Cross Route (M50) had a landbank reserved so that puts a kibosh on that idea for starters.

Then you reduce the capacity for aprons and terminals being expanded based on that orientation.

And then in the future, when we have a need for another runway where do you put that?

Look at the aerial photography of the airport and see what might have been entailed. The right decision was made just based on a cursory glance.

EchoIndia

The 10/28 parallel runway plan was first mapped in the 1970s or maybe even the 1960s. Originally the northern one of the pair was intended to be built first but clearly that did not happen.

Pat Dunne

EchoIndia wrote: »

The 10/28 parallel runway plan was first mapped in the 1970s or maybe even the 1960s. Originally the northern one of the pair was intended to be built first but clearly that did not happen.

October 1968.
https://www.dublinairport.com/blog/2019/06/26/history-of-dublin-airport-s-north-runway

Donegal Storm

Pat Dunne wrote: »

Work is much more advanced than that map is showing. I‘d agree with the earlier poster that the map is at least 12 months out of date.

There's up to date satellite imagery available here

https://apps.sentinel-hub.com/eo-browser/?lat=53.43157&lng=-6.26095&zoom=13&time=2020-04-25&preset=1_TRUE_COLOR&datasource=Sentinel-2%20L2A

Updated daily though doesn't do a pass over Dublin every day and also obviously dependant on cloud cover

yannakis

Donegal Storm wrote: »

There's up to date satellite imagery available here

https://apps.sentinel-hub.com/eo-browser/?lat=53.43157&lng=-6.26095&zoom=13&time=2020-04-25&preset=1_TRUE_COLOR&datasource=Sentinel-2%20L2A

Updated daily though doesn't do a pass over Dublin every day and also obviously dependant on cloud cover

An even clearer version from yesterday
https://apps.sentinel-hub.com/eo-browser/?lat=53.43173&lng=-6.26093&zoom=14&time=2020-05-05&preset=1_TRUE_COLOR&datasource=Sentinel-2%20L2A

LXFlyer

And another clear view here from a few days ago:

https://twitter.com/paul_deegan/status/1256900855779004421?s=21

Rojomur

Great photos. They really show how much room there is available to sort out the bottleneck between the end of runway 34 and the 400 gates...probably wont be a problem for a while again though...

Rojomur

Rojomur wrote: »

Great photos. They really show how much room there is available to sort out the bottleneck between the end of runway 34 and the 400 gates...probably wont be a problem for a while again though...

I think you mean how little room there is ..............don't you ?

Rojomur

No i think it shows theres plenty of room. There are already plans in the Airport future capital spending projects plans to widen the pinch point. A link was posted a few months back. Completion of this would allow two wide body aircraft to pass thus eliminating the need for an A330 trying to enter the east side of the 400 gates to hold back until an exiting aircraft of any size leaves this area. Two narrow body can currently pass. I proposed that there was room to run another taxiway out from the Southgates as far as the boundary fence and along side to the beginning og runway 34 and runway 28. This imo would allow aircraft to not have to go bavk out through the pinch point and line up south of runway 28/10 at a new waiting point. Other airports have done this.

Irish Steve

The problem with your proposal is that there is no way to do that without compromising the approach lights of 28, and impinging into the safe zone of 28 that is required for ILS operations. Both of those options would significantly downgrade the operational capability of the runway, which won't be acceptable for a huge number of reasons. if it was possible, it would have already been done a long time ago.

Rojomur

Im approaching this from absolutly zero Aviation qualifications but im just drawing attention to what Dallas Forthworth have done( DFW )to counter a similar problem. On google maps runways 35L and 35 C have whats callel a perimeter taxiway in what appears to be a tight enough area of ground at the end of the runways. Ill try and include a link here to the document...(i cant seem to manage a map image on phone)

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=https://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/20110008362.pdf&ved=2ahUKEwjVjpfWnaPpAhVIasAKHYZoCK4QFjAKegQIAhAB&usg=AOvVaw0G_IVrq5wQf_rovovLSPAF

I was flying through Dallas years ago and the plane i was on went around on this taxiway and i thought it was a great infrastructural addidion for letting planes cross active runways and it brought me back to thinking of Dublin's bottleneck problem.

If you say it cant be done then thats a shame...however im living in Ireland long enough to know that those in power whom have capibility of pulling off a project...sometimes dont have the expertise or drive to find solutions to glaring gaps in infrastructure. Rail link to airport being cancelled/shelved time after time being the most glaring one for this thread

Noxegon

Irish Steve wrote: »

The problem with your proposal is that there is no way to do that without compromising the approach lights of 28, and impinging into the safe zone of 28 that is required for ILS operations. Both of those options would significantly downgrade the operational capability of the runway, which won't be acceptable for a huge number of reasons. if it was possible, it would have already been done a long time ago.

Random thought - could a solution be shaving a few hundred metres off the existing runway after 28R/10L is open? Presumably short haul and thus the majority of flights don’t require the full length.

Irish Steve

Noxegon wrote: »

Random thought - could a solution be shaving a few hundred metres off the existing runway after 28R/10L is open? Presumably short haul and thus the majority of flights don’t require the full length.

Not a good idea, in that it's already too short for some operations, if anything, they will be looking at ways to extend it to facilitate operations of all types, there will be times when 28L/10R as it will become will be required for long haul departures.



Much longer term, a better solution will be to have terminal facilites between or beside the runways at the western end of the airport, rather than trying to squeeze yet more into an already overloaded area, while I can understand the financial side of building offices in the core area by T2, from an operational aspect, yet more traffic and people squeezed into that area seems to be to be complete insanity, given the absence of any rail link and the total inadequacy of the road network in and out of the place.

LXFlyer

Noxegon wrote: »

Random thought - could a solution be shaving a few hundred metres off the existing runway after 28R/10L is open? Presumably short haul and thus the majority of flights don’t require the full length.

The planning permission requires the predominant use of a specific runway for arrivals/departures at particular times of the day to minimise noise impact on Portmarnock residents.

That would have an impact on your idea.

Kermit.de.frog

I wonder how quickly it will take to return to high passenger volumes.

Going to be excess capacity for a while but I hope they don't make the mistake of putting new infrastructure on ice!

PinOnTheRight

Kermit.de.frog wrote: »

I wonder how quickly it will take to return to high passenger volumes.

Very difficult to predict, but the general consensus seems to be it's going to take 2-4 years to return to 2019 traffic levels.

zega

Kermit.de.frog wrote: »

Going to be excess capacity for a while but I hope they don't make the mistake of putting new infrastructure on ice!

Projects still 100% going ahead
North runway(obviously)
Hold baggage screening upgrade
16/34 overlay

Nijmegen

PinOnTheRight wrote: »

Very difficult to predict, but the general consensus seems to be it's going to take 2-4 years to return to 2019 traffic levels.

Lot of different forward looking speculation, including in this piece below but with an interesting tidbit on demand post 9/11 and post 2008.

https://www.barrons.com/articles/airline-demand-coronavirus-outbreak-911-attacks-51583960866

After 9/11 US carriers saw 12 months of year-over-year enplanement declines. It took 22 months of year-over-year growth to reach pre-9/11 levels. By comparison, the financial crisis and recession led to year-over-year traffic declines for 18 months, which took two years to recover from.

So in total in the US it was 3 years to recover from 9/11, 1 of which was decline, and 3.5 years for the Great Recession, 1.5 of which was decline.

Obviously a bigger world than the US and lots of new and novel factors to consider here (the length of the virus being a danger to life being the great unquantified) but I’d say 3 years looks like your minimum, when you consider the wider economic damage and the scale of permanent layoffs, fleet retirements etc going on.

IngazZagni

For Dublin airport 2007 and 2008 saw the peak of traffic levels for the previous boom. It wasn’t until 2015 that traffic levels matched those of 2007. This could be far worse for aviation than the previous cycle. However it’s still all speculation so let’s wait and see.

trellheim

It wasn’t until 2015 that traffic levels matched those of 2007. This could be far worse for aviation than the previous cycle. However it’s still all speculation so let’s wait and see.

Correct ! With a two-week quarantine ( as a current example) there is little incentive to travel except in necessity whereas the previous economic depression people still wanted to travel

IngazZagni

IngazZagni wrote: »

For Dublin airport 2007 and 2008 saw the peak of traffic levels for the previous boom. It wasn’t until 2015 that traffic levels matched those of 2007. This could be far worse for aviation than the previous cycle. However it’s still all speculation so let’s wait and see.

This isn't the same. Technically that was a long recession that lasted for nearly 5 years 2009-2014.

This isn't the same yet.......at the moment.

No one strictly knows yet how long this will last. If the aviation world adapts through use of masks and there is limited waves afterwards then we could see a bounce next year especially if a vaccine is effective. Or it could just be another virus that floats around we will have to live with. People at the moment are itching to get back to normality..........or near normal.

I personally don't think the two are comparably. Governments are already talking about dealing with the aftermaths differently. Thankfully lessons have been learnt from 2008/9 and austerity has been shown as not the way forward. Money is cheap at the moment for us to borrow, it wasn't in 2009.

Beechwoodspark

IngazZagni wrote: »

For Dublin airport 2007 and 2008 saw the peak of traffic levels for the previous boom. It wasn’t until 2015 that traffic levels matched those of 2007. This could be far worse for aviation than the previous cycle. However it’s still all speculation so let’s wait and see.

Definitely. Glad there is a sense of realism on this forum. There is NO NEED for extra facilities at Dublin.

Beechwoodspark

Ppl are looking to get back to normality yes but very few want to get on a flight and breath recycled “dirty” air full of potentially infected droplets for a good while yet and i ask you - who can blame them?

Spanish Eyes

Beechwoodspark wrote: »

Ppl are looking to get back to normality yes but very few want to get on a flight and breath recycled “dirty” air full of potentially infected droplets for a good while yet and i ask you - who can blame them?

We are told that recycled air on board an aircraft is to hospital standards. Yes, we are told that, and it may be true.

The bigger issue is crowd control and distancing in the airport itself IMV, plus the fact that travel insurance is going to be difficult to get re cover for Covid in any case. I know within EU the EHIC will prevail, but what about repatriation.

And getting to your destination if you do not or can't hire a car. So many things.

Many will be cautious, many will not care and will go anyway.

Tenger

Beechwoodspark wrote: »

Definitely. Glad there is a sense of realism on this forum. There is NO NEED for extra facilities at Dublin.

Yet history has shown the the best time to invest/commence in future capital projects is during a recession when credit and labour are cheaper and/or easier to obtain.