Second runway at EIDW delayed

RadioRetro

As it says in the thread title, this report in the IT says no new runway before 2019.

lintdrummer

Here's the article for mobile users:

A second runway at Dublin airport is unlikely to be built until after 2019 according Dublin Airport Authoritydocuments.The authority is seeking consultants to devise a masterplan to direct how to develop the airfield in the absence of a second runway.Permission for Terminal 2 and for a second runway at the airport was granted by An Bord Pleanála six years ago. While the new terminal was constructed, the authority announced in December 2008 that it intended to postpone development of the new parallel runway due to decline in passenger numbers.The runway was expected to cost in the region of €300 million.The Commission for Aviation Regulation has said the authority would only be able to recoup the cost of the runway through airport charges if and when passenger numbers recover to peak levels of 23.5 million. The airport was used by 19.2 million passengers last year.The authority’s current masterplan which was published in 2010 and was due to run until 2035, envisaged the new runway being in operation by last year. The authority is seeking a new interim masterplan which will reflect the fact that the runway was not built and is unlikely to be constructed within the current decade.In its tender documents the authority notes that “circumstances have changed” since the preparation of the 2010 masterplan.“A considerable amount of time has elapsed since the preparatory studies were completed for this project, passenger traffic fell by 20 per cent and new business opportunities are emerging that need to be provided for.”The biggest change, the authority says, has been the decision to defer the construction of the runway.“The most significant deviance from the 2010 Masterplan is that it presumed the delivery of a parallel runway by the year 2012.“As the parallel runway has not been delivered, an interim update of the 2010 masterplan is required.”It should take into account the business needs of the airport and should not be dependent on the delivery of a second runway.“The general outlook for this interim updated Masterplan will be to the year 2019, which is likely to bring us to the end of the next regulatory period, but, more importantly, it shall reflect the period within which Dublin airport is likely to remain a single runway operation.”The authority says it sees the updating of the masterplan as a “stepping stone” towards the realisation of the full plan.The interim plan should provide for the most practical, efficient use of the existing infrastructure – the airfield terminals and piers.Specifically consultants will be required to provide a plan for the future growth requirements on the airfield, create a framework for sustainable development that meets regulatory and legislative requirements as well as environmental considerations, and make provision for additional aviation business opportunities.While the interim plan must not be dependent on the construction of a new runway, it must safeguard the eventual delivery of a parallel runway which remain a “key plank of the airport’s development” the authority says.

Shamrock231

That's ridiculous, what do they expect to do with the current 28/10 which really needs to be dug right down to the foundations and rebuilt while they wait. If they don't build the new runway till 2019, it's likely going to be 2020/1 till it's ready and then they'll have to shut down 28/10 for a year or two to get it rebuilt. Heck by that stage 28/10 will have likely turned into a gravel runway...

castie

300m for a runway???

Is it built of solid gold? (Jokes aside I know nothing about building a runway but this sounds like alot...)

Shamrock231

Seems high enough, but I'd guess that acquiring the land for the runway could be a big enough part of the cost. Also have to remember that a runway has very deep foundations, so there'll be a large material cost there.

L1011

300M was a boomtime estimate but its not going to be cheap either way. Land and construction costs have fallen, but there's a lot of other quite expensive things required - lighting and ILS don't come cheap for starters, and there'll also be significant reconfiguration of the rest of the airfield to support it.

Peregrine

I think DUB had a 4% growth in the first five months compared to last year and I definitely don't think it declined in June either. If there's a 4-5% growth overall in 2013 compared to last year, that'll be around 20m passengers. And if that growth continues for the next three years, we'll have over 23.5m in 2017. And 10/28 at this stage will be non existent.

Shamrock231

I think the issue the airport is facing is not that it needs the new runway for added capacity at the moment or extra movements, but that 28/10 has become unsafe and is literally falling apart.

I was quite surprised to see they'd postponed it, I guess the money isn't there but it's going to be a real false economy when they have to close 28/10 for a year to rebuild it and all they have left is 16/34, which would involve a number or flights having to use SNN or other airports to fuel up in after they leave Dublin as they just wouldn't be able to get off 16/34 with a heavy load. That will cost them dearly.

urajoke

I'll give the DAA the benefit of the doubt here and say that they have more figures and knowledge of the state of 28 than anyone here so I can only assume that the condition of 28 isn't as bad as we think and they reckon it will last till 28R is constructed.

basill

Much better to delay and buy up the land when prices have peaked again. No doubt some new housing estates will be up and running as well so they can compensate them at the same time under a compulsory purchase order. Sure its the way its done in Ireland.

No different to the health system. You could buy up thousands of acres on the M50 for a greenfield site and build the biggest combined hospital imaginable with easy access. But no it makes much more sense to be adding on a block here and there and dealing with planning issues for the next decade.

Well done.

urajoke

basill wrote: »

Much better to delay and buy up the land when prices have peaked again. No doubt some new housing estates will be up and running as well so they can compensate them at the same time under a compulsory purchase order. Sure its the way its done in Ireland.

Well done.

Land all ready bought.

Laws block building of estates under the approaches to the runways at Dublin. Hence why it's pretty much green fields on the approach to 28 and 10.

Planning permission already granted for current design but thankfully the DAA are planning on improving the design. Even all the environmental hurdles and NIMBYs objections have been surmounted.

Nice rant though

homerjay2005

why do they call this a second runway when there already is two in operation in Dublin?

Razor44

As we dont have the figures the DAA do its hard to really make a judgement on the delay. But I cant help but feel its a bad move. Is there not a bit of buid it and they will come to this. After all they want dublin to a transatlantic hub......thus needing a longer better runway

Or am I way off?

urajoke

homerjay2005 wrote: »

why do they call this a second runway when there already is two in operation in Dublin?

People with little knowledge will call it a "2nd runway" when it should be called the parallel runway.

Jamie2k9

Nimrod 7 wrote: »

I think DUB had a 4% growth in the first five months compared to last year and I definitely don't think it declined in June either. If there's a 4-5% growth overall in 2013 compared to last year, that'll be around 20m passengers. And if that growth continues for the next three years, we'll have over 23.5m in 2017. And 10/28 at this stage will be non existent.

Not to sure if it will break the 20 million mark but an estimate until end of June would be that 19.5 million for 2013 will be achived but July, August and September should see growth, winter isn't looking to bad either so I think 2013 could hit 19.8 million or .9 at a push.

urajoke

Razor44 wrote: »

As we dont have the figures the DAA do its hard to really make a judgement on the delay. But I cant help but feel its a bad move. Is there not a bit of buid it and they will come to this. After all they want dublin to a transatlantic hub......thus needing a longer better runway

Or am I way off?

It's about MONEY and the lack of it.

The current runway is fine for the current and growing level of traffic the problem is the unknown state of the runway and how long is left on its clock.

LeftBase

homerjay2005 wrote: »

why do they call this a second runway when there already is two in operation in Dublin?

I hate to play the role of CPL/IR flight instructor but technically Dublin has 4 runways(10,16,28,34). 10/28 have different characteristics for take off in relation to stopping distance(ASDA for 10 is 35m longer afaik). TODA for 16/34 is also different(you have 122m more to get to screen height on 16 than you do on 34).


*Above figures not taking commercial safety factors in to account*


Also a word of advice to those perusing CPL/IR training. Even if there is only 1 strip of tarmac there are 2 runways! I was told rather gruffly when doing my IR: "If you are given 10 as the active on the stand because the wind is 100/10 and they change it to 28 because the wind suddenly goes to 280/10(and lots of kids are stuck with silly faces for life) and you have worked out an ASD of 2710m...congratulations....you've made the 6.01 news!"

Shamrock231

LeftBase wrote: »

"If you are given 10 as the active on the stand because the wind is 100/10 and they change it to 28 because the wind suddenly goes to 280/10(and lots of kids are stuck with silly faces for life) and you have worked out an ASD of 2710m...congratulations....you've made the 6.01 news!"

I don't follow...

I get the 2 different runways bit, just not sure how that applies to the above quote...

LeftBase

Shamrock231 wrote: »

I don't follow...

I get the 2 different runways bit, just not sure how that applies to the above quote...

Yeh sorry I read that back and it is a little jargon heavy. ASDA is the Accelerate Stop Distance Available. Accelerate Stop Distance is the distance you need to stop the aircraft if you recognise a problem before V1(the speed when you are committed to take off as you will not have enough runway to stop). At Dublin 10 has a published ASDA of 2728m while 28 has an ASDA of only 2693m. In my above example of the wind doing a 180 degree turnaround a calculated ASD of 2710m would be fine for 10(you may need an under pants change mind you) however on 28 you would run 17m off the end of the runway. So while the 2 runways are similar in many ways it is that little difference that will ruin your day.

The above is an example to the kind of things that need to be taken in to account in commercial flying when changes of runway/route etc are thrown at you.

Shamrock231

LeftBase wrote: »

Yeh sorry I read that back and it is a little jargon heavy. ASDA is the Accelerate Stop Distance Available. Accelerate Stop Distance is the distance you need to stop the aircraft if you recognise a problem before V1(the speed when you are committed to take off as you will not have enough runway to stop). At Dublin 10 has a published ASDA of 2728m while 28 has an ASDA of only 2693m. In my above example of the wind doing a 180 degree turnaround a calculated ASD of 2710m would be fine for 10(you may need an under pants change mind you) however on 28 you would run 17m off the end of the runway. So while the 2 runways are similar in many ways it is that little difference that will ruin your day.

The above is an example to the kind of things that need to be taken in to account in commercial flying when changes of runway/route etc are thrown at you.

Oh, right, okay I actually got that, I thought there was some hidden joke in there I was missing... :pac: My Bad...

Am I right in thinking though that most takeoffs at V1 if you hit on the brakes, you'll still have some space left and not stop on the edge of the tarmac, it's only on very particular cases where runway length is the limiting factor and it's more likely to be an obstacle that need to be cleared at the end of the runway, or was I misinformed?

LeftBase

Shamrock231 wrote: »

Oh, right, okay I actually got that, I thought there was some hidden joke in there I was missing... :pac: My Bad...

Am I right in thinking though that most takeoffs at V1 if you hit on the brakes, you'll still have some space left and not stop on the edge of the tarmac, it's only on very particular cases where runway length is the limiting factor and it's more likely to be an obstacle that need to be cleared at the end of the runway, or was I misinformed?

To lay it out as most pilots would see it...you may be able to get it slowed down from V1 in the remaining runway...however if attempt to stop at or above V1 you dont you are totally to blame. In fact standard procedure in most if not all airlines is for the pilot flying to take their hand off the throttle when V1 is called(this is because they will not be retarding them until climb power is being set). Once you hear V1 you are going into the air unless the wing is off or the plane is damaged to the extent it will not fly(in which case there is no set procedure bar trying not to let yourself down on the CVR). When I was doing sim training in the A320 the instructor randomly without warning retarded to idle the number 1 lever just before he called V1 and I had to take the aircraft into the air(simulated air) regardless.


Many of the FTOs who train CPL/IR students are based in aerodromes where the runway is too long for ASDA to be a real issue on the training aircraft. Nevermind ASD on the take off roll many of the aircraft could climb to 50 feet or higher and still have enough runway to land on remaining if the engine failed. Sure even the MEPs at NFC and AFT could get back on to 25 at Weston or the runway at Cork if needs be on a Winter day with a decent wind and low enough temperature.

GCU Flexible Demeanour

Shamrock231 wrote: »

<...> If they don't build the new runway till 2019, it's likely going to be 2020/1 till it's ready and then they'll have to shut down 28/10 for a year or two to get it rebuilt. <...>

But is it certain that works to the existing runway cannot be done while minimising disruption? Presumably other airports have similar issues.

http://www.metwashairports.com/dulles/761.htm

urajoke wrote: »

It's about MONEY and the lack of it.

The current runway is fine for the current and growing level of traffic the problem is the unknown state of the runway and how long is left on its clock.

Is the issue the level of debt that the DAA is servicing?

However, it is also fair to say that runway length is an issue. Would there be some way of structuring a project to both lengthen and refurbish the existing runway, at less cost than €300 million?

L1011

GCU Flexible Demeanour wrote: »

But is it certain that works to the existing runway cannot be done while minimising disruption? Presumably other airports have similar issues.

http://www.metwashairports.com/dulles/761.htm

Really isn't the same. That's the only crosswind runway with three fully serviceable parallel runways, two longer than it.

10/28 is Dublin's longest runway, meaning that if 16/34 is the only in use (or even if 11/29 was brought back during reconstruction), some flights would be unable to take off at the required weight. This might be just about arrangeable if we could be guaranteed decent weather in late autumn into winter, but we can't be.

urajoke

GCU Flexible Demeanour wrote: »

But is it certain that works to the existing runway cannot be done while minimising disruption? Presumably other airports have similar issues.

http://www.metwashairports.com/dulles/761.htm
Is the issue the level of debt that the DAA is servicing?

However, it is also fair to say that runway length is an issue. Would there be some way of structuring a project to both lengthen and refurbish the existing runway, at less cost than €300 million?

You can't really refurbish a runway that's in use, what would happen when you got to the middle third of the runway? It becomes unusable.

There was a plan to lengthen the runway I don't know what happened to it.

The debt is like everyone's debt at the moment, if you aren't earning enough to pay the mortgage on it you aren't making inroads into the principle. They would find it very hard to get another loan if they aren't paying off enough from the previous one.

Part of the planning permission states no new runway till pax hits 23.5mpa. So there in a catch 22. They need passengers numbers to earn money and hit the magic number for the runway.

murphym7

urajoke wrote: »

You can't really refurbish a runway that's in use, what would happen when you got to the middle third of the runway? It becomes unusable. There was a plan to lengthen the runway I don't know what happened to it.

The debt is like everyone's debt at the moment, if you aren't earning enough to pay the mortgage on it you aren't making inroads into the principle. They would find it very hard to get another loan if they aren't paying off enough from the previous one.

Part of the planning permission states no new runway till pax hits 23.5mpa. So there in a catch 22. They need passengers numbers to earn money and hit the magic number for the runway.

Why can't they refurbish this runway? Plenty of other aiirports do, a recent example is the Heathrow live show a couple of weeks ago. I have seen plenty of shows on TV of other major airports doing the exact same thing. Just curious as to why DUB is different?

urajoke

murphym7 wrote: »

Why can't they refurbish this runway? Plenty of other aiirports do, a recent example is the Heathrow live show a couple of weeks ago. I have seen plenty of shows on TV of other major airports doing the exact same thing. Just curious as to why DUB is different?

Read the full thread. I stated much early the problem is a foundation issue now, resurfacing is just a temporary fix for a much deeper issue. They resurfaced at heathrow and dublins was done a few years ago.

Peregrine

murphym7 wrote: »

Why can't they refurbish this runway? Plenty of other aiirports do, a recent example is the Heathrow live show a couple of weeks ago. I have seen plenty of shows on TV of other major airports doing the exact same thing. Just curious as to why DUB is different?

It's completely different. The Heathrow runway was being refurbished, 10/28 has to be rebuilt.

10/28 is refurbished too.