Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

Dublin Airport New Runway/Infrastructure.

Options
24567293

Comments

  • Registered Users Posts: 68,832 ✭✭✭✭L1011


    Upgrading Baldonnel still leaves EIDW without a runway capable of taking larger planes. They're not going to want to go to the budget-port.

    There wouldn't be a big windfall either. An undeveloped airport does not sell for much and then we'd have to start funding landing fees, etc, for the air corps from the current account.


  • Moderators, Education Moderators Posts: 26,402 Mod ✭✭✭✭Peregrine


    It would surely make more sense to upgrade Baldonnell, even if only for budget airlines serving Europe.

    It would immediately ease M50 traffic.

    It would be accessible for South county Dublin.

    It would be easily rail connectable

    It would create competition.

    It would be much more accessible for Limerick, Cork, Port Laoise etc.,

    In the event of an incident/ accident / weather event at one airport the other may still be operable.

    The government could sell it to a private operator, generating a big windfall.


    Dublin's 19m passengers a year isn't enough to justify a second major airport and there's no point in having 2 smaller airports. DUB would still have a small runway.

    Also, DUB isn't exactly inaccessible for people from other parts of the country. The M50 and M1 will take you there just fine. DUB can be connected to the rail grid rather well with Metro North. It would serve the whole Northside and Swords while connecting the airport to Dublin city. The best thing a small airport at Baldonnel can get is a Luas extension which takes 45 minutes to get to city centre.

    A whole new airport will have to be built at Baldonnel and there are housing estates on 3 sides of the airfield.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 2,858 ✭✭✭Bigcheeze


    But is it fair to say that the DAA won't be looking for any State funds to build it. They'll be raising their own finance, as they have for their past developments like T2; it's a commercial investment.

    There's not much commercial about it when the DAA has a monopoly in the capital city of a small island. Raising airport charges to pay for it is not commercial, that's just a unique monopoly position.

    It would be interesting to know what license fee the state could generate by licensing a second airport in the Dublin/Leinster region. That would benefit the state in revenue and benefit the consumer in competition.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 878 ✭✭✭rainbowdash


    Nimrod 7 wrote: »
    Dublin's 19m passengers a year isn't enough to justify a second major airport and there's no point in having 2 smaller airports. DUB would still have a small runway.

    Also, DUB isn't exactly inaccessible for people from other parts of the country. The M50 and M1 will take you there just fine. DUB can be connected to the rail grid rather well with Metro North. It would serve the whole Northside and Swords while connecting the airport to Dublin city. The best thing a small airport at Baldonnel can get is a Luas extension which takes 45 minutes to get to city centre.

    A whole new airport will have to be built at Baldonnel and there are housing estates on 3 sides of the airfield.

    Its 23.5M passenger numbers that a new runway is being proposed for, not 19M.

    From Limerick to Dublin airport is probably 2 hrs and more, and you need to allow for the M50 and possible chaos on that road which can happen as its pretty saturated. Baldonnel is about 1.5hrs from Limerick, mightn't sound a lot but all of a sudden its just a bit further than Shannon from Limerick.

    Baldonnel is about 2kM from the Cork, Limerick and Galway lines to Dublin, so it could be easily rail connected to our 4 biggest cities, especially if a terminal and runway were constructed in the direction of the existing railway line.

    Yes a new airport would have to be built but the proposal is 2 billion for a new runway, I am just questioning if a new airport would be logical and cost effective?


  • Moderators, Education Moderators Posts: 26,402 Mod ✭✭✭✭Peregrine


    Yes a new airport would have to be built but the proposal is 2 billion for a new runway, I am just questioning if a new airport would be logical and cost effective?

    It will cost a tenth of 2bn.

    The idea has actually been looked at many times. MOL wanted to buy Baldonnel couple of years ago too I think.


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 68,832 ✭✭✭✭L1011


    Yes a new airport would have to be built but the proposal is 2 billion for a new runway, I am just questioning if a new airport would be logical and cost effective?

    The proposal is not and never has been 2bn for a new runway.

    The actual cost would not cover the cost of building passenger facilities at Baldonnel, let alone the local road upgrades required, train stations and transfer buses, etc, that you suggest.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 878 ✭✭✭rainbowdash


    Sorry, I saw 2 billion mentioned earlier in the thread, I thought that was from a reliable "source" if its only 200m then that's obviously a different matter entirely.


  • Moderators, Motoring & Transport Moderators Posts: 9,867 Mod ✭✭✭✭Tenger


    TheFitz13 wrote: »
    BTW i heard air asia X are considering coming to DUB regardless of the runway or not...... once they get their A350'S :)

    Why would an airline fly into an airport where they were restricted in the max load they could take on their aircraft? AirAsiaX operate on the "pile them high" policy
    TheFitz13 wrote: »
    It dosent really matter about the cost but when it's finished... It could make Dublin as big as Munich or Barajas (Madrid)........ Maybe even schipol (doubt it though)
    No it wouldn't.


  • Registered Users Posts: 5,818 ✭✭✭donvito99


    10/28 will surely have to be repaired/overhauled in the next few years anyway.


  • Registered Users Posts: 696 ✭✭✭TheFitz13


    We dont need a new airport or upgrading of baldonnell. we just need a new runway at EIDW that is 3km or more... we also need expanding of the taxiways...... you'd think when they had built the taxiways+runway they would have put a bit of width into them..... God i hate the DAA! >:(


  • Advertisement
  • Closed Accounts Posts: 12,078 ✭✭✭✭LordSutch


    MORE 4 Now!

    All about the Vulcan's mission to bomb the airfield in Port Stanley in 1981.

    If you're lucky you will get the whole thing on More4 +1 at Midnight.


  • Registered Users Posts: 65,420 ✭✭✭✭unkel
    Chauffe, Marcel, chauffe!


    TheFitz13 wrote: »
    If its between 1m and 2m euro an acre for 840 acres...

    For unusable farmland that will never be zoned? That's ridiculous! That figure need to be divided by the guts of a hundred :)


  • Registered Users Posts: 10,713 ✭✭✭✭Jamie2k9


    Bigcheeze wrote: »
    There's not much commercial about it when the DAA has a monopoly in the capital city of a small island. Raising airport charges to pay for it is not commercial, that's just a unique monopoly position.

    It would be interesting to know what license fee the state could generate by licensing a second airport in the Dublin/Leinster region. That would benefit the state in revenue and benefit the consumer in competition.

    Most cities have 1 airport which are all monopoly. Dublin charges are like most European airports and below many of them but because people here FR doing big PR about them everything thinks they are correct. They are paying more at other airports than DUB.

    Dublin Bus have a monopoly for the city don't see you pointing that out. The world is full of monopoly's so deal with it weather its right or wrong doesn't come into it.
    It would surely make more sense to upgrade Baldonnell, even if only for budget airlines serving Europe.

    The locals would be delighted having jets flying in all day everyday. Think about what you are suggesting adding to jets going right over Dublin city, the extra fuel burn for a better flight path wouldn't keep loco's there very long.


  • Registered Users Posts: 2,843 ✭✭✭sparrowcar


    TheFitz13 wrote: »
    We dont need a new airport or upgrading of baldonnell. we just need a new runway at EIDW that is 3km or more... we also need expanding of the taxiways...... you'd think when they had built the taxiways+runway they would have put a bit of width into them..... God i hate the DAA! >:(

    That's twice you've said that now :rolleyes:


  • Registered Users Posts: 1,589 ✭✭✭Stealthirl


    Would it not be a more obvious/cheaper option to extend 10/28 when it is getting redone while also extending taxiways to allow A380 operations in the future ?

    Apart from the 77W at MTOW what currant and future AC are limited on 10/28 ?


  • Registered Users Posts: 10,713 ✭✭✭✭Jamie2k9


    Stealthirl wrote: »
    Would it not be a more obvious/cheaper option to extend 10/28 when it is getting redone while also extending taxiways to allow A380 operations in the future ?

    Apart from the 77W at MTOW what currant and future AC are limited on 10/28 ?

    10/28 will likely be closed once there is a new runway opens for major works to be carried out before it returns to service.


  • Registered Users Posts: 7,561 ✭✭✭andy_g


    Jamie2k9 wrote: »
    10/28 will likely be closed once there is a new runway opens for major works to be carried out before it returns to service.

    And to be fair it needs to be resurfaced sooner rather than later.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 878 ✭✭✭rainbowdash


    TheFitz13 wrote: »
    We dont need a new airport or upgrading of baldonnell. we just need a new runway at EIDW that is 3km or more... we also need expanding of the taxiways...... you'd think when they had built the taxiways+runway they would have put a bit of width into them..... God i hate the DAA! >:(

    If you live in Dublin then that might suit, but if you live in Cork, Limerick, Waterford, Kilkenny etc. etc. then an airport with lots of cheap flights from Baldonnell adjacent to a direct heavy rail link and a relatively uncongested motorway could be extremely advantageous.

    Even if you live in south Dublin it would be no further than the existing airport.


  • Registered Users Posts: 696 ✭✭✭TheFitz13


    If you live in Dublin then that might suit, but if you live in Cork, Limerick, Waterford, Kilkenny etc. etc. then an airport with lots of cheap flights from Baldonnell adjacent to a direct heavy rail link and a relatively uncongested motorway could be extremely advantageous.

    Even if you live in south Dublin it would be no further than the existing airport.

    i get where your coming from but whats the point in spending alot of money expandng it (making it into a commerical airport) rather than putting a nice, wide, long runway at EIDW........ (i live beside EIDW and love planespotting....hehe :o:D)

    maybe i IF dublin gets too congested then baldonnel can come into place as a low-cost airport like luton or somthing like that :)


  • Registered Users Posts: 9,309 ✭✭✭markpb


    If you live in Dublin then that might suit, but if you live in Cork, Limerick, Waterford, Kilkenny etc. etc. then an airport with lots of cheap flights from Baldonnell adjacent to a direct heavy rail link and a relatively uncongested motorway could be extremely advantageous.

    Even if you live in south Dublin it would be no further than the existing airport.

    Ireland already has more than enough airports without building more of them just so people can feel closer to one. Building a new airport and all its associated infrastructure is expensive and not to be done on a whim.

    If nothing else, how much opposition would it face from local residents? It would never happen and while we're talking about it, Dublin Airport would be starved of investment (ot at least starved of the decision to allow them to borrow).


  • Advertisement
  • Closed Accounts Posts: 878 ✭✭✭rainbowdash


    markpb wrote: »
    Ireland already has more than enough airports without building more of them just so people can feel closer to one. Building a new airport and all its associated infrastructure is expensive and not to be done on a whim.


    Well realistically they should consider closing Shannon if a baldonnell was to go ahead, there is a lot of waffle talk about railway lines to shannon and all the rest but if Shannon and cork were downgraded and baldonnell upgraded, along with a greatly improved train service from limerick and cork to Dublin heuston, stopping at the airport, it could be a win win all round.

    The politicians will have one of it though.


  • Moderators, Education Moderators Posts: 26,402 Mod ✭✭✭✭Peregrine


    Well realistically they should consider closing Shannon if a baldonnell was to go ahead, there is a lot of waffle talk about railway lines to shannon and all the rest but if Shannon and cork were downgraded and baldonnell upgraded, along with a greatly improved train service from limerick and cork to Dublin heuston, stopping at the airport, it could be a win win all round.

    The politicians will have one of it though.

    That'd be a stupid thing to do. Cork is Ireland's second largest city and ORK is doing quite well at the moment, recession passenger declines is almost stable now. The only thing it's missing is transatlantic but Shannon has that. I don't think we can justify having both Cork and Shannon if Shannon's passenger numbers keep on declining but building an airport at Baldonnel is no reason to close Shannon in the side of the country.

    How can you justify "downgrading" Ireland's second largest airport in Ireland's second largest city and telling them to travel to Dublin's second major airport which will cost hundreds of millions to build from scratch?


  • Registered Users Posts: 726 ✭✭✭Shamrock231


    If you live in Dublin then that might suit, but if you live in Cork, Limerick, Waterford, Kilkenny etc. etc. then an airport with lots of cheap flights from Baldonnell adjacent to a direct heavy rail link and a relatively uncongested motorway could be extremely advantageous.

    Even if you live in south Dublin it would be no further than the existing airport.

    What makes you think that there'd be loads of cheap flights?
    First off Aer Lingus wouldn't move there, as they need Dublin for their transatlantic flights and for their connections.

    Secondly, if you think Ryanair would pass on the lower airport charges to their customers then you've another thing coming. Ryanair will charge as much as they can get away with, if they can charge €75 for a flight out of Dublin at the moment and people are willing to pay that, then they're not suddenly going to charge them €5 less just because of the lower landing fees, they're simply going to keep the price at €75 and then make €5 more profit on each flight at the expense of the airport and the passengers.

    People need to get rid of this notion that Ryanair's purpose is to offer lower fairs to passengers, that's not the case, the only thing Ryanair is here for is to make a profit, and as large a profit as they can. Nothing wrong with that, that's business, but people need to kick this notion about them being the be all and end all when it comes to lowering fares.

    Thirdly, Ryanair would probably be the only one to move, Aer Arann would need to stay at DUB to allow the connections from regional get to Mainline Aer Lingus. BA, EK, EY, AA, DL, UA, US, LH I can't see moving either. Maybe some charter airlines might but that's the extent of it.

    If you split the airlines up into two different airports then you're only going to dilute the income of the airports and their ability to provide proper services, without realistically any change in price for the consumer.

    Just my €0.02...


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 2,257 ✭✭✭GCU Flexible Demeanour


    markpb wrote: »
    Ireland already has more than enough airports
    I think this is spot on. Any budget airline wanting to serve Ireland is spoilt for choice.

    The issue here is not about budget airline access. It's about a necessary upgrade to the runway of the only airport capable of competing with other significant European destinations. By that, I don't mean LHR and the like. But Dublin's short runway disadvantages Ireland as a region, when competing with mid to smaller capitals and regional cities like Lisbon or Manchester.

    There actually isn't that big an issue with people accessing the airport from Dublin's wider catchment. If there was, Shannon would be doing a lot better.


  • Registered Users Posts: 1,348 ✭✭✭basill


    I will leave aside the debate about a new runway. As an interim measure from a pilots perspective:-

    - the Atc bosses and DAA need to go and see how LGW manages with a single runway, reduced separation and living in the shadow of Heathrow which severely constrains them
    - runway 11/29 needs to be returned to service and all turbo prop and light jets can use this runway subject to Wx and operational requirements.
    - build proper remote parking spaces for the end of lease stuff
    - complete redesign of all taxiways and building of new ones.
    - complete change of taxi routings using the shortest route possible rather than knee jerk reactions being thrown in just because one crew has a bad day.


  • Registered Users Posts: 62 ✭✭rxan90


    Off topic a bit here, but I think that when they built 10/28 they made it WAY too short. If they extended it on either end, not even going straight up to the fence, they could have easily made it 4000 metres. I don't know why they didn't, and left a HUGE area on both ends, with seemingly no purpose apart from to make the aircraft come in higher up and keep the landing lights within the fence (safety perhaps)? But compare it to how much "run-off" space is left in 16/34 - yes, the planes come in lower, and nothing bad/dangerous has ever happened (not to talk about how little extra space before the runway in some other airports, Princess Juliana in St Maarten, Toronto's Runway 23, etc). Why did they not take full advantage of all their available space on the "off chance" an aircraft might overrun?


  • Registered Users Posts: 726 ✭✭✭Shamrock231


    rxan90 wrote: »
    Off topic a bit here, but I think that when they built 10/28 they made it WAY too short. If they extended it on either end, not even going straight up to the fence, they could have easily made it 4000 metres. I don't know why they didn't, and left a HUGE area on both ends, with seemingly no purpose apart from to make the aircraft come in higher up and keep the landing lights within the fence (safety perhaps)? But compare it to how much "run-off" space is left in 16/34 - yes, the planes come in lower, and nothing bad/dangerous has ever happened (not to talk about how little extra space before the runway in some other airports, Princess Juliana in St Maarten, Toronto's Runway 23, etc). Why did they not take full advantage of all their available space on the "off chance" an aircraft might overrun?
    Because they wanted long haul jets to use SNN instead. It was quite political around the time that 28 was built. They wanted to build it longer but the government at the time said roughly "Sure what would you need a long runway for, you're only going to be flying down to stopover in Shannon anyways. *Grins Menacingly* "

    Also, the main point here isn't really length though, at the moment there's no real restriction on length for 28/10, unless there were flights to the middle east launched. The point being that in a couple of years, traffic is going to pick up considerably, and then we're going to have to build a new runway, but it'll be more expensive then, and not only that, but after the new runway is built, the current 28/10 has deep structural problems and will need major work done on it. Meaning that even if 6 years down the line, work starts on the new runway, and is completed in say 18-24 months. Then 28/10 will need to be closed for a further period. Meaning that from the point of when we hit the capacity level of the current runway, we're going to need to wait another 3-4 years till the extra capacity will actually materialise, when we could start work on it now and for much much cheaper than in a few years when construction has picked up.


  • Registered Users Posts: 658 ✭✭✭Razor44


    how bad is the surface on 10/28 now?


  • Registered Users Posts: 62 ✭✭rxan90


    Because they wanted long haul jets to use SNN instead. It was quite political around the time that 28 was built. They wanted to build it longer but the government at the time said roughly "Sure what would you need a long runway for, you're only going to be flying down to stopover in Shannon anyways. *Grins Menacingly* "

    So ridiculous, look what Shannon is like now. No flights from Dublin "have" to stop there any more, right? I think that obligation finished about 5 years ago?


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 726 ✭✭✭Shamrock231


    Razor44 wrote: »
    how bad is the surface on 10/28 now?

    IIRC, an aircraft had an accident there a few months back when it hit a chunk of concrete that had broken loose, so that's how bad it is.


Advertisement