Dublin Airport New Runway/Infrastructure.

Jamie2k9

IE 222 wrote: »

Do Norwegian and Hatford really need to use CBP. Id assume queuing times in them airports is similar to arriving into busy EU airports.

Narrow bodies jets in the afternoon are not a strain on USPC or stand space.

Stephen Strange

JCX BXC wrote: »

They fly from Belfast, Cork and Edinburgh to these airports though?

Hence why The Veteran said all the flights. Preclearing in DUB and SNN takes some of the strain off and allows them to effectively look after all the other flights.

JCX BXC

Stephen Strange wrote: »

Hence why The Veteran said all the flights. Preclearing in DUB and SNN takes some of the strain off and allows them to effectively look after all the other flights.

Well you could just slightly alter the arrival time and then have no issues?

While it's just as handy to do it in DUB/SNN in the afternoon, I can't see Norwegian flying uncleared to these airports being a big problem for CBP.

trellheim

I;ve no objection to CBP if they set a max throughput limit and did not allow flights to be scheduled that exceeded CBP's clearance throughput .

Bussywussy

They're building an extension at the moment....
409C is opposite side to 401C.i go by stand number not gate numbers as I haven't an iota

Jamie2k9

EI121 wrote: »

How will PAX get from CBP to that gate? Considering if gate 401 is in use.

They're building an extension at the moment....
409C is opposite side to 401C.i go by stand number not gate numbers as I haven't an iota

409C will be gate 407 (possibly 409 depending on bridge used) and I expect it will operate like they converted gate 410 to allow US aircraft departures.

Really?
Nothing showing in their booking engine for 2018 as far as I can see.

It's there, takes a small break in NY until Feb and then back,

409C will become available for Widebody aircraft when they roll out the automatic guidance docking...

Isn't it great to see technology get used if only 8 years to late....

Mebuntu

Bussywussy wrote: »

409C will become available for Widebody aircraft when they roll out the automatic guidance docking...

Are you saying that T2 was built with no automatic guidance and men with bats are still guiding the aircraft in or is it only at that gate?

Jamie2k9

Mebuntu wrote: »

Are you saying that T2 was built with no automatic guidance and men with bats are still guiding the aircraft in or is it only at that gate?

It was built with it and an underground fuel system but they have not been used yet but both will be eventually...

Automatic guidance only stated since EY moved to T1 and it was installed there AFAIK.

IE 222

Jamie2k9 wrote: »

Narrow bodies jets in the afternoon are not a strain on USPC or stand space.

Although they're smaller numbers they do add up when mixed together.

Mebuntu

Jamie2k9 wrote: »

It was built with it and an underground fuel system but they have not been used yet but both will be eventually...

Automatic guidance only stated since EY moved to T1 and it was installed there AFAIK.

I had to look up the date that T2 opened - it was Nov 2010 - so the obvious question has to be why is it not being used after more than 7 years?

I wasn't aware that old T1 now had auto guidance so how did FR manage to get it operational and the posh boys at T2 didn't?

Intriguing, to say the least.

Jamie2k9

Mebuntu wrote: »

I had to look up the date that T2 opened - it was Nov 2010 - so the obvious question has to be why is it not being used after more than 7 years?

I wasn't aware that old T1 now had auto guidance so how did FR manage to get it operational and the posh boys at T2 didn't?

Intriguing, to say the least.

Only 1 stand has it in T1, it was for the EY move back in January. As for it not been used, I guess Aer Lingus and handlers decision. Not sure.

VG31

Jamie2k9 wrote: »

Only 1 stand has it in T1, it was for the EY move back in January. As for it not been used, I guess Aer Lingus and handlers decision. Not sure.

Is that 305?

In relation to fuel system, infrastructure is there in T2 but they needed new tanks and a new pipe to the port but local objections (surprise) along its intended route have cause delays (NIMBYs).

Jamie2k9

Deleted User wrote: »

In relation to fuel system, infrastructure is there in T2 but they needed new tanks and a new pipe to the port but local objections (surprise) along its intended route have cause delays (NIMBYs).

They are apparently getting it ready for use, the link to DPort won't be in place and not really a problem.

Is that 305?

Its stand 316C which is 305 or 307 I think, EY double Air Bridge.

Mebuntu

Jamie2k9 wrote: »

Only 1 stand has it in T1, it was for the EY move back in January. As for it not been used, I guess Aer Lingus and handlers decision. Not sure.

Ah, right, by T1 I thought you meant it was in for all piers attached to T1.

T2 isn't just for Aer Lingus, though. I'd have thought that a newly-built modern Terminal would have auto guidance operational by default.

Why would the DAA not turn it on on the wishes of only one airline? There must be more to it than that. Are they charging too much extra for it and nobody wants to pay to use it?

NH2013

No automatic guidance installed on Pier 4 yet, was not installed as the primary user of the pier (Aer Lingus) did not wish to pay for the cost of the installation, circa €65,000 -€70,000 per unit per stand, cheaper just to guide aircraft the last 50m the old fashioned way. Underground fuel pipes currently being set up for regular use, should be up and running in the early new year.

Bussywussy

Jamie2k9 wrote: »

Mebuntu wrote: »

I had to look up the date that T2 opened - it was Nov 2010 - so the obvious question has to be why is it not being used after more than 7 years?

I wasn't aware that old T1 now had auto guidance so how did FR manage to get it operational and the posh boys at T2 didn't?

Intriguing, to say the least.

Only 1 stand has it in T1, it was for the EY move back in January. As for it not been used, I guess Aer Lingus and handlers decision. Not sure.

313,314,316 and 318 have it.its being rolled out across the airport and not anything to do with Aer Lingus not paying for it as the DAA have been training EI staff how to use it.

Bussywussy

Jamie2k9 wrote: »

Mebuntu wrote: »

I had to look up the date that T2 opened - it was Nov 2010 - so the obvious question has to be why is it not being used after more than 7 years?

I wasn't aware that old T1 now had auto guidance so how did FR manage to get it operational and the posh boys at T2 didn't?

Intriguing, to say the least.

Only 1 stand has it in T1, it was for the EY move back in January. As for it not been used, I guess Aer Lingus and handlers decision. Not sure.

313,314,316 and 318 have it.its being rolled out across the airport and not anything to do with Aer Lingus not paying for it as the DAA have been training EI staff how to use it.

trellheim

Why is it needed. I would have thought one thing Dublin had plenty of was lads with paddles

Irish Steve

Depending on the aircraft size, it can be quite tricky to get the nose wheel on the right spot as "the man with the paddles" has to stand a very long way back from the aircraft in order to still be visible from the flight deck, especially in the case of the double deck aircraft like the 747 and 380, so that effectively means having to have 2 people to get on to stand.

The advantage of automatic guidance on to stand is that it's closer to eye level, so the flight deck crew can see that system more easily, and it also means that an aircraft can get on to stand without the ground crew present, as long as there's no steps or other obstructions in the way, and at certain times of day, that can be a help, given that ground crews may not be on stand when the aircraft arrives on stand. That's very often an issue in the early hours with the Transatlantic flights, as depending on the winds, they can arrive as much as an hour early, so the ground crews may not be available for them.

On some stands, it's quite hard for the marshaller to get the needed clearance distance from the aircraft without being in a dangerous position, like in the middle of a roadway, and it's no help at all to have something like a catering truck obstruct the view line at the critical stages of the arrival on stand. If the marshaller has to move, or worse loses their sightline of the position, there is the potential for damage to the aircraft or infrastructure of the stand.

Then, there's the issue of accuracy. If the marshaller is a long way from the hammerhead lines, so being assisted by a second person, and the aircraft is being positioned by the first officer, but the marshaller is on the captain's side of the aircraft, that can mean that 4 people are actually having to sequence the information about exactly when to stop. Stopping short is relatively easy to fix, going beyond the line is not so easy, as it means using a push back tug to move the aircraft back after the engines have been shut down, and the tug is not usually on stand for arrival, as it's probably being used for other aircraft at that time, especially on long haul turnrounds, which can be 2 or 3 hours on stand. With some aircraft types, the positioning of the nosewheel has to be very accurate to avoid positioning problems with the airbridge and other support equipment, and clearance issues at the other end from aircraft arriving and leaving other stands.

So, all in all, automatic guidance systems on the stands are very much the way to go, for a number of reasons, as outlined above.

TheFitz13

Jamie2k9 wrote: »

They are apparently getting it ready for use, the link to DPort won't be in place and not really a problem.



Its stand 316C which is 305 or 307 I think, EY double Air Bridge.

There's also one on stand 315 as Ethiopian use it, and with the works on the apron EY has been put on 316L where it only uses one airbridge

Fattes

[Deleted User] wrote: »

In relation to fuel system, infrastructure is there in T2 but they needed new tanks and a new pipe to the port but local objections (surprise) along its intended route have cause delays (NIMBYs).

There is no need for a pipe to port for it to be operational that is absolute nonsense!

J.pilkington

Fattes wrote: »

There is no need for a pipe to port for it to be operational that is absolute nonsense!

Have you more info?

It’s my understanding that the existing storage and infrastructure at the airport fuel depot was not adequate to serve the new fuel system and plan was upgrade this in line with a pipe from port.

However planning objections delayed the upgrade of the airport fuel terminal because the design depended on whether a port pipe existed or not and in the end they had to go ahead with no port pipe so in reality the objections did delay this as had there been no objections the upgrade would have been long completed.

They are just finishing up these major upgrades of the airport fuel terminal which has to incorporate no port pipe.

Bussywussy

TheFitz13 wrote: »

Jamie2k9 wrote: »

They are apparently getting it ready for use, the link to DPort won't be in place and not really a problem.



Its stand 316C which is 305 or 307 I think, EY double Air Bridge.

There's also one on stand 315 as Ethiopian use it, and with the works on the apron EY has been put on 316L where it only uses one airbridge

315 doesn't have it,Etihad are using that stand a lot recently

markpb

I don't think the pipe is related. Someone from DAA gave a talk to the engineers society recently and the pipe came up. He said it was nothing to do with daa, they had their own fuel reservoir which they were extending but they were happy to work with the private company independently building the pipe to provide them access.

Captain_Crash

Irish Steve wrote: »

Then, there's the issue of accuracy. If the marshaller is a long way from the hammerhead lines, so being assisted by a second person, and the aircraft is being positioned by the first officer, but the marshaller is on the captain's side of the aircraft, that can mean that 4 people are actually having to sequence the information about exactly when to stop.

This reminds me of a procedure EI used on the 747 when marshaling them in. The 747 didn't come with a taxi light as standard and most airlines weren't bothered with it (even on the 400 it was only an option). So whoever was taxiing the aircraft would turn on their "runway turn off" light.

This way, when the aircraft came on stand, the ground crew could visually tell who was steering by looking at the turn off light and in turn, know which side to stand on. The light was turned off before the turn in to avoid blinding anyone.

Jamie2k9

As the place continues to get busy auto guidance and underground fuel systems are critical to ensuring efficient operations.

Bussywussy

Jamie2k9 wrote: »

As the place continues to get busy auto guidance and underground fuel systems are critical to ensuring efficient operations.

I've seen crews working on painting those underground fuel manholes in the last few days....
The auto docking system when fully integrated will then give out the slot times etc etc like LHR

Fattes

J.pilkington wrote: »

Have you more info?

It’s my understanding that the existing storage and infrastructure at the airport fuel depot was not adequate to serve the new fuel system and plan was upgrade this in line with a pipe from port.

However planning objections delayed the upgrade of the airport fuel terminal because the design depended on whether a port pipe existed or not and in the end they had to go ahead with no port pipe so in reality the objections did delay this as had there been no objections the upgrade would have been long completed.

They are just finishing up these major upgrades of the airport fuel terminal which has to incorporate no port pipe.

The pipe is a private venture bye the two fuel company's that service the airport, the underground fuelling system does not require the port pipe system to function. Airports such as Zurich etc operate this fuel system via tanks without a pipe.

As for the objections to the pipe ultimately, it is a cost cutting exercise to remove the expense of vehicular and drivers from the fuel companies. It serves no other function in reality.

plodder

Fattes wrote: »

The pipe is a private venture bye the two fuel company's that service the airport, the underground fuelling system does not require the port pipe system to function. Airports such as Zurich etc operate this fuel system via tanks without a pipe.

As for the objections to the pipe ultimately, it is a cost cutting exercise to remove the expense of vehicular and drivers from the fuel companies. It serves no other function in reality.

I thought that pipe plan was a bit of a stretch. They wanted to dig up the entire road from the port to the airport. The amount of disruption it would have caused would be phenomenal. Should have been done when the port tunnel was built (if at all). They are lucky to have the port tunnel now anyway, and a fairly uncongested, toll-free route between the two locations.