Dublin Airport New Runway/Infrastructure.

EICVD

Carnacalla wrote: »

I disagree with that, if it was all about charges, how come they didn't pick SNN?

Is hazard a guess & say SNN was more expensive. It's obvious ET aren't in DUB just to give Irish people a direct flight to LAX

JCX BXC

EICVD wrote: »

Is hazard a guess & say SNN was more expensive. It's obvious ET aren't in DUB just to give Irish people a direct flight to LAX

SNN was actually looking for it first. I doubt DUB would be cheaper tbh, if they were it's a big missed opportunity, but it seems unlikely that it was just cost.

Anyway we will see what materialises. If ET get a nice pax base built up who knows.

highlydebased

SNN were pushing for a cargo flight instead. There's a link to an interview with someone from ET saying so

lateconnection

Carnacalla wrote: »

I'd be unsure, if Aer Lingus announce LAX then Ethiopian may quickly move their whole operation elsewhere.

I would say that LAX is the likeliest route to be relaunched under IAG, and it probably would pose a threat to Ethiopian.

Van.Bosch

EICVD wrote: »

I disagree, it's all about charges at DUB for ET, any pax they take to LAX from here is a bonus.

I think their large advertising campaign for flights to Hollywood would indicate it is more than a bonus but i agree it is not the main focus.

lord lucan

Article in today's indo online about the future parallel runway, not a whole lot new but at least it's being looked at now. My gut tells me this article was put out to start cranking up the pressure for an early start to the project whilst the numbers are still sub 25m.

http://www.independent.ie/irish-news/plans-for-new-dublin-airport-runway-ready-for-takeoff-31267030.html

Jamie2k9

lord lucan wrote: »

Article in today's indo online about the future parallel runway, not a whole lot new but at least it's being looked at now. My gut tells me this article was put out to start cranking up the pressure for an early start to the project whilst the numbers are still sub 25m.

http://www.independent.ie/irish-news/plans-for-new-dublin-airport-runway-ready-for-takeoff-31267030.html

If all goes well 2017 could see the trigger for the runway so realistically the daa have 2 years to make final decisions and submit a new application.

FWVT

What way would departures work on parallel runways? Would departures turning south only ever use R28L and vice versa, or could they use the other runway? The reason I ask is to do with the length of taxiing. You'd imagine Ryanair would prefer 28R/10L to save on taxi times. Or will it be simply one for landing, the other for take-offs?

BonkeyDonker

FWVT wrote: »

What way would departures work on parallel runways? Would departures turning south only ever use R28L and vice versa, or could they use the other runway? The reason I ask is to do with the length of taxiing. You'd imagine Ryanair would prefer 28R/10L to save on taxi times. Or will it be simply one for landing, the other for take-offs?

That may be determined by planning conditions. I cannot remember the full details of the previous permission but movements were weighted in favor of the existing 10/28 with some "Irish" conditions as well I believe.

Idbatterim

I flew out from Dublin on Thursday, the flight was meant to depart at 5pm, it didnt take off until 5:30pm, we were queuing at the foot of runway 28 AFAIK for almost half an hour! Below is a link to an article in todays independent... Hopefully they go for a runway over 3km...

Mr Walsh said IAG wanted staff in Aer Lingus to be excited about the takeover deal, and insisted it was for the long-term.
As well as expanded transatlantic routes, he said there were opportunities for the airline in Asian destinations.
"You'd start with India, Japan and China," he said.
"I think China could be a real opportunity as Ireland has real trade links with China. Our experience with BA in China is that it is a slow burn and takes a long time."

http://www.independent.ie/business/irish/iag-boss-willie-walsh-wants-expanded-aer-lingus-to-target-asian-destinations-31268685.html

jamo2oo9

Idbatterim wrote: »

I flew out from Dublin on Thursday, the flight was meant to depart at 5pm, it didnt take off until 5:30pm, we were queuing at the foot of runway 28 AFAIK for almost half an hour!

You were departing during rush hour so delays would've been common around that time. Same thing for between 5am-7/8am

LXFlyer

Idbatterim wrote: »

I flew out from Dublin on Thursday, the flight was meant to depart at 5pm, it didnt take off until 5:30pm, we were queuing at the foot of runway 28 AFAIK for almost half an hour! Below is a link to an article in todays independent... Hopefully they go for a runway over 3km...



http://www.independent.ie/business/irish/iag-boss-willie-walsh-wants-expanded-aer-lingus-to-target-asian-destinations-31268685.html

Departure time in the timetable is the time the aircraft pushes back, not the time it takes off.

What time was the aircraft on stand at the destination?

Airline timetables generally allow for some delays, so that the day's schedule is robust and maintained.

Idbatterim

13% passenger increase last month, busiest every May...

http://www.dublinairport.com/gns/at-the-airport/latest-news/15-06-07/Record_Passenger_Numbers_In_May_At_Dublin_Airport.aspx

1.1 million extra passengers welcomed so far this year

A record number of passengers travelled through Dublin Airport in May.

Passenger numbers grew by 13% last month, with more than 2.2 million passengers travelling through the airport. This made it the busiest May ever in the 75 year history of Dublin Airport.

“The latest monthly figures from *ACI Europe reported that Dublin Airport passenger traffic continues to grow at around three times the European average,” said Dublin Airport Managing Director, Vincent Harrison.

Almost 1.2 million passengers travelled to and from continental Europe in May, a 12% increase compared to last year. UK traffic recorded a 13% increase, with almost 754,000 passengers travelling last month.

Passenger volumes to and from North America grew by 13%, with almost 234,000 passengers travelling this route sector in May.

Other international traffic, which includes flights to the Middle East, increased by 22% in May, with over 56,000 passengers travelling these routes during the month.

More than 6,000 passengers travelled on domestic routes last month, which was a 5% decrease on last year.

Passenger numbers at Dublin Airport have increased by 14% in the first five months of this year, as almost 9 million passengers used the airport. The major increase in passenger numbers means that Dublin Airport has already welcomed more than 1.1 million extra passengers so far this year.

“The record growth in passenger numbers is good news for the Irish economy as a recent economic impact study shows Dublin Airport supports almost 100,000 jobs both locally and nationally.

“Every one million additional passengers at Dublin Airport supports more than 1,000 extra jobs in the industry,” Mr Harrison added.

(*ACI, Airports Council International represents over 400 airports worldwide.)

MJohnston

So, I think it's fair to say at this point that no month has been a fluke, and we're likely going to have a 13-14% annual increase by the end of the year. That trigger threshold is going to look mighty silly if we're 300k off and it still doesn't happen. Has anyone ever figured out whether it is a 12-month rolling count, or a calendar year?

Jamie2k9

That trigger threshold is going to look mighty silly if we're 300k off and it still doesn't happen. Has anyone ever figured out whether it is a 12-month rolling count, or a calendar year?

We are not going to add 3.7 million passengers this year. Suspect 2 or 2.2 million to take it past the 2008 peak and reach around 23.9 million so over a million for the trigger.

Jamie2k9

Jamie2k9 wrote: »

We are not going to add 3.7 million passengers this year. Suspect 2 or 2.2 million to take it past the 2008 peak and reach around 23.9 million so over a million for the trigger.

IAA were suggesting at their open days that 24 million passengers would use Dublin this year, so you are spot on in your guess.

Brian CivilEng

MJohnston wrote: »

Has anyone ever figured out whether it is a 12-month rolling count, or a calendar year?

It's a rolling count, in any 12 month period. So if Feb '15 to Jan '16 is 25map, the trigger is met.

L1011

Getting a rolling 12 month with two easters in it (April 15-March 16) will provide a helpful distortion of maybe 100k also.

BonkeyDonker

L1011 wrote: »

Getting a rolling 12 month with two easters in it (April 15-March 16) will provide a helpful distortion of maybe 100k also.

Or about 0.4%. a bad summer here and people going abroad would be more beneficial.

FWVT

What were the reasons why the old R23 was not expanded in favour of building R28 way back when? As I remember the area there was space to the SW (Harristown) that could have accommodated the expansion.

The reason I ask is that 23 seems the optimum alignment when it comes to severe wind events. So many times we've seen the airport closed due to strong winds from that direction, and although the highest incidence of winds (light-moderate) come from the R28 direction, the highest STRONGEST winds - when crosswind components get tested and closures have resulted - have come from a general 210-230 direction.

L1011

BonkeyDonker wrote: »

Or about 0.4%. a bad summer here and people going abroad would be more beneficial.

Very true. All adds up though

Irish Steve

05/23 had limitations with length, and it would have been problematic putting in a second parallel runway, and the profile under the departure from 23 was not ideal for the noise and safety footprint, and also made for more issues with the traffic at Baldonnel.

28 does have issues with strong winds, as on occasions, they are right in the middle between 16 and 28, which can cause problems for the smaller aircraft.

I just hope that this time round, Dublin gets what's right for Dublin, rather than what's acceptable to the Shannon lobby, which compromised the length of 10/28, and has resulted in the loss of some cargo services, as the operator couldn't get a fully loaded aircraft out of 28 with fuel for a non stop flight.

What's going to be equally fundamental is stand space, especially on T2, there are already significant issues with availability of wide body stands on T2, and that's not going to get any better if BA end up operating more long haul flights out of Dublin, which is clearly their aim, and we've already seen significant problems around the 34/28 threshold area with congestion and restricted space that has led to wing tip to rudder collisions on a number of occasions.

As the numbers increase, the access land side is also going to get worse, despite the addition of the T2 access, the departure road at T1 is still a disaster, and doesn't work well, what would make a lot more sense would be to have the set down lanes either side of the centre lane, so that the middle lane becomes the through lane, and there are set down lanes that have access to a pedestrian walkway either side of the through lane, which would be a LOT safer, especially for set down with small children involved. It would also help considerably if the pedestrian through route from the car and bus park was NOT on the same level as all the traffic on the departure road. At peak periods, if there's no spaces either side of the through lane, then the best method of dealing with that is for the excess traffic to go round the loop again. Another option would be to have a facility for drop off and pick up at the long stay carparks, using the existing bus feeders to transfer passengers in to the terminals. The junction at the entrance is going to have to be upgraded to make it free flow from the M1, and at some stage, there is going to be a requirement for new terminal type facilities at the St Margarets end of the runways, for things like Cargo, and the like, and maybe short haul services.

Ideally, we should also be pushing for other services like rail to have access, and the bus and coach areas need to become much more interchange oriented, there's no good reason for the assumption that everyone is either coming or going through the airport, with the routes that all converge on the airport, interchanging between different routes needs to be made much easier than it is at present, and there is a desperate need for a drop off point in the bus area to facilitate people that are using the bus services but not flying in or out of the airport.

There's a mountain of issues for things like baggage handling airside, with a lack of storage space for containers used for long haul flights, bad and in some cases dangerous access to baggage belts that restrict easy access, and a whole raft of other issues that cause delays and other problems for the companies that do the handling, but because it's out of sight of the travelling public, they don't get the attention that they should.

DAA face some significant challenges, and their track record of dealing with issues is not great, some of the design decisions that have been made over the years have been very questionable, but there are the usual issues that because it's semi state, regardless of how bad the decisions were, there's no accountability or responsibility for those decisions.

FWVT

Irish Steve wrote: »

05/23 had limitations with length, and it would have been problematic putting in a second parallel runway, and the profile under the departure from 23 was not ideal for the noise and safety footprint, and also made for more issues with the traffic at Baldonnel.

But there was room to expand 23, as I said. And the noise footprint, well engines have come a long way since then. Departure profiles, no problem putting in an early right climbing turn, à la JFK. Keeps traffic away from BAL and even further away from the city than the current 16 departures. If NY can do it with JFK and LGA then so can we.

28 does have issues with strong winds, as on occasions, they are right in the middle between 16 and 28, which can cause problems for the smaller aircraft.

That was precisely my point about using 23. In the strongest winds there would be little crosswind.

lucernarian

Irish Steve wrote: »

05/23 had limitations with length, and it would have been problematic putting in a second parallel runway, and the profile under the departure from 23 was not ideal for the noise and safety footprint, and also made for more issues with the traffic at Baldonnel.

I have read somewhere before that if 28R was built first, that 05/23 could have been left open. Was that a feasible proposition?

What is the current expected price tag for the planned parallel runway?

Irish Steve

If 23 had been kept, there would have been even more constraints and restrictions on what could have been done in terms of terminal expansion and parking stands, a massive proportion of the old 23 is now under tarmac or concrete as part of the parking areas, if it had remained an active runway, however desirable that would have been, the potential for expanding the parking and terminal area would have been very much restricted.

The approach to 23 was "interesting" in strong winds, due to the valley on short final, the combination of the dip and the buildings combined to make it challenging to fly an accurate approach on short final. Yes, there are possible ways to make the departure profile less intrusive, but the decisions that were made at the time were probably also influenced by political pressures, the impact of the profile of 28 was considerably less than that of 23, much of what's now under the 28/10 profile didn't exist 20 or more years ago when the decisions were being made.

Some of the factors would have been more safety related rather than noise related, large aircraft accidents are very rare, but if they do happen, it's better that they don't happen over heavily populated areas if that can be arranged.

Yes, noise levels have improved massively compared to the days of 737-200's and the like, which helps, but the ideal scenario is to avoid overflying heavily populated areas at low levels, and in that respect, 10/28 has a much lesser impact than 05/23. Extending 23 would have had a much more significant impact on the roads around the western side of the airport, it was relatively easy to divert the one road that had to be closed, but lengthening 23 would have meant much more in the way of diversions or closures of roads, and a lot more low level air traffic over the Finglas area. While noise levels have improved, the increased use of twin engine rather than 4 engine aircraft does mean that in the worst case scenario of a heavy twin with an engine failure, they don't climb as well as the older 3 and 4 engine types, which can be worrying for the people underneath them.

Don't underestimate the NIMBY factor, we need good quality airports, and the employment etc that they bring, but there are very few people that actually welcome having a large airport close to their houses, and you only have to look at the fuss that goes on around Weston, despite it having been there long before most of the houses, to realise that a vocal minority can cause huge problems.

FWVT

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ESjS9jWgMqQ

lord lucan

Irish Steve wrote: »

As the numbers increase, the access land side is also going to get worse, despite the addition of the T2 access, the departure road at T1 is still a disaster, and doesn't work well, what would make a lot more sense would be to have the set down lanes either side of the centre lane, so that the middle lane becomes the through lane, and there are set down lanes that have access to a pedestrian walkway either side of the through lane, which would be a LOT safer, especially for set down with small children involved. It would also help considerably if the pedestrian through route from the car and bus park was NOT on the same level as all the traffic on the departure road. At peak periods, if there's no spaces either side of the through lane, then the best method of dealing with that is for the excess traffic to go round the loop again. Another option would be to have a facility for drop off and pick up at the long stay carparks, using the existing bus feeders to transfer passengers in to the terminals.

I've no idea if there's any proposal to address the T1 departures ramp but it will close for 3 months later this year for structural repairs so hopefully it may be an area that is looked at in terms of layout.

FWVT

Irish Steve wrote: »

If 23 had been kept, there would have been even more constraints and restrictions on what could have been done in terms of terminal expansion and parking stands, a massive proportion of the old 23 is now under tarmac or concrete as part of the parking areas, if it had remained an active runway, however desirable that would have been, the potential for expanding the parking and terminal area would have been very much restricted.

The approach to 23 was "interesting" in strong winds, due to the valley on short final, the combination of the dip and the buildings combined to make it challenging to fly an accurate approach on short final. Yes, there are possible ways to make the departure profile less intrusive, but the decisions that were made at the time were probably also influenced by political pressures, the impact of the profile of 28 was considerably less than that of 23, much of what's now under the 28/10 profile didn't exist 20 or more years ago when the decisions were being made.

Some of the factors would have been more safety related rather than noise related, large aircraft accidents are very rare, but if they do happen, it's better that they don't happen over heavily populated areas if that can be arranged.

Yes, noise levels have improved massively compared to the days of 737-200's and the like, which helps, but the ideal scenario is to avoid overflying heavily populated areas at low levels, and in that respect, 10/28 has a much lesser impact than 05/23. Extending 23 would have had a much more significant impact on the roads around the western side of the airport, it was relatively easy to divert the one road that had to be closed, but lengthening 23 would have meant much more in the way of diversions or closures of roads, and a lot more low level air traffic over the Finglas area. While noise levels have improved, the increased use of twin engine rather than 4 engine aircraft does mean that in the worst case scenario of a heavy twin with an engine failure, they don't climb as well as the older 3 and 4 engine types, which can be worrying for the people underneath them.

Don't underestimate the NIMBY factor, we need good quality airports, and the employment etc that they bring, but there are very few people that actually welcome having a large airport close to their houses, and you only have to look at the fuss that goes on around Weston, despite it having been there long before most of the houses, to realise that a vocal minority can cause huge problems.

I don't agree about the lack of opportunity for the expansion of 23. I have extended it to 3000 m in the image below. There would still have been room for expansion of the terminal, with Pier D somewhere down near T2 ("Commons") and the approach to 28, or back around the northeast Coachman's Inn area. The West Apron could have been put in the place I've moved it to.

Ok, then the question now would be where to put 23R, but I don't think that way back then they were thinking about parallel runways.

EchoIndia

So in that 05/23 scenario aircraft would be landing (with northerly ops) over Ballymun and the M50 at about 500 (?) feet and departing over Swords. One of the main advantages of 10/28 is that the extended centreline in both directions is free of any substantial habitation. Considering the amount of moaning that goes on here when runway 34 is occasionally used, I think you would struggle to find acceptance of a main runway configuration which guaranteed that most movements would overfly residential areas at quite low altitude. If you look at the map here for Dublin and accompanying commentary you can see that on an annual basis the prevailing wind is slightly more westerly than southerly. http://www.met.ie/climate/wind.asp

Razor44

Having said all that would 05/23 be a better crosswind runway then 16/34, just in terms of orientation?