RW10 threshold extension

gate22

Just wondering will the threshold ever be extended to encourage and assist the ultra long haul traffic for now and the future EIDW. Any truth that the grass area was originally in the plans but with an objection from another airport wanting to have a longer runway it was never filled in?

urajoke

gate22 wrote: »

Just wondering will the threshold ever be extended to encourage and assist the ultra long haul traffic for now and the future EIDW. Any truth that the grass area was originally in the plans but with an objection from another airport wanting to have a longer runway it was never filled in?

No plans to lay any new 'concrete' at Dublin.

Land was made available for a longer runway but yes a certain western airfield and it's politicians objected to a longer runway at Dublin. There was a link to Dail minutes on the objection on here months ago.

Peregrine

urajoke wrote: »

Land was made available for a longer runway but yes a certain western airfield and it's politicians objected to a longer runway at Dublin. There was a link to Dail minutes on the objection on here months ago.

I don't remember those minutes but here's two I have saved:

One from Desmond O'Malley in 1988.

The one reservation I have about the proposal for which this guarantee is needed is that it is proposed to build a new runway of 8,650 feet at Dublin Airport. That does not seem to me to be an inordinate lenght. I am relieved in fact to find that it is only that length because the proposals of some years ago were that a runway of between 10,000 and 11,000 feet would be built at Dublin Airport.

The proposal some years ago was that a runway of between 10,000 and 11,000 feet would be built at Dublin Airport. At that time — and this goes back over a period of ten years — I expressed some very serious reservations about any such proposal because I realised that if that happened Aer Lingus, whose commitment to Shannon Airport and that region is and always has been negligible, indeed their attitude is almost hostile, would immediately avail of the opportunity to cut out Shannon Airport altogether and have all of their trans-Atlantic flights landing only in Dublin. I am not [928] sufficiently expert in this to know if it is possible for them to do this with a runway of 8,650 feet, but would rather think it unlikely. Certainly, I should think it would be dangerous for fully laden 747 aircraft with full fuel on board to try to take off from a runway of that length. It may be physically possible to do it, but I do not know if it is within the limits of safety. I should like an assurance from the Minister of State that this is not the intention. I want that assurance, not as something that is passed on from Aer Lingus, whose word I would not accept on a matter like this, but as Aer Rianta's decision and the Department's decision that even if it were physically possible for a fully laden 747 or similar type plane to take off on a trans-Atlantic flight, that it would not be allowed to do so.

http://debates.oireachtas.ie/dail/1987/12/04/00005.asp#N62

And another one from.. O'Malley again.

It is worth drawing the attention of the House to a phrase in the Minister's speech. He says that officers of the United States Immigration and Naturalisation Service would conduct in Ireland, at Shannon in the first instance, inspection of passengers and aircraft crew required by the US laws. Is it proposed to have this elsewhere and, if so, why? What the Minister said is borne out by [1481] Article IV of the agreement in the Schedule to the Bill where it says:

Preinspection may be conducted at additional locations in Ireland by agreement, expressed in writing, of both Governments.

Why should it be held anywhere else other than Shannon? Has it to do with the proposal which I regard as rather dubious in terms of public expenditure of a new runway at Dublin? For what purpose other than trans-Atlantic flights is that proposed runway required at a cost of £30 million? That proposal has been made for ten or 15 years and it never came to fruition. I do not see the operation of Dublin Airport being adversely affected by the absence of a very long runway that could take fully laden trans-Atlantic flights. We are entitled to ask why that should be the case. The context of Article IV of this draft agreement seems to suggest that, as soon as the runway is provided, these facilities will be provided in Dublin.

http://debates.oireachtas.ie/dail/1986/06/06/00004.asp#N133

Shamrock231

Cringe worthy stuff there...

urajoke

Nimrod 7 wrote: »

I don't remember those minutes but here's two I have saved:

One from Desmond O'Malley in 1988.



http://debates.oireachtas.ie/dail/1987/12/04/00005.asp#N62

And another one from.. O'Malley again.



http://debates.oireachtas.ie/dail/1986/06/06/00004.asp#N133

That's the one I think

urajoke

Shamrock231 wrote: »

Cringe worthy stuff there...

Cringe worthy indeed especially the bit where he said he couldn't believe Aer Lingus's word on how much runway length was needed to launch a fully laden 747 but preferred to have Aer Rianta and DoT block them from doing it even if it was possible.

EchoIndia

Obviously before PD "free market" thinking took hold, but in reality an indicator of the power of the Shannon lobby (certainly in those days) as far as any politicians from Limerick or Clare were concerned.

keith16

Goes to show how regional interests in this country are prioritised over the strategic national interest.

notharrypotter

One from Desmond O'Malley in 1988.

25 year old dail transcripts wow!

basill

You should watch Reeling in the Years. Same old tired faces appear. Every 5 years or so they just rotate into and out of power. No reason to believe that the leopards have changed their spots.

Tenger

EchoIndia wrote: »

......an indicator of the power of the Shannon lobby (certainly in those days) as far as any politicians from Limerick or Clare were concerned.

Aer Lingus, whose commitment to Shannon Airport and that region is and always has been negligible, indeed their attitude is almost hostile, would immediately avail of the opportunity to cut out Shannon Airport altogether and have all of their trans-Atlantic flights landing only in Dublin..............I should like an assurance from the Minister of State that this is not the intention.........but as Aer Rianta's decision and the Department's decision that even if it were physically possible for a fully laden 747 or similar type plane to take off on a trans-Atlantic flight, that it would not be allowed to do so.

Absolutely shocking that he was so arrogant to even go on record about this. I know that this was 25 years ago but now we are in a situation where decisions made then are affecting us now. And some people in SNN wonder about their drop in business over the lat 5-10 years. The World moves on....

Shamrock231

Yeh, the arrogance is something else. Perish the thought of Aer Lingus wanting to run itself on a commercial basis. :rolleyes:

notharrypotter

This is Ireland and we like our politicians to do things for the locals to ensure reelection next time round.

In all seriousness the Dublin Airport Authority is currently been run on a commercial basis so the relevance of political strokes from 25 years ago is moot.

It has been decided that there will be a new runway in Dublin when the traffic warrants it.

This figure is agreed with the economic regulator.

Regarding the actual runway itself I am sure that the Dublin Airport Authority is taking account of likely traffic types and services when deciding the optimum length to be built.

The Aer Lingus long haul fleet; current and future plans; will also be a major factor.

I am confident that when the current economic regulation expires that a certain airline will be banging on the door refusing to pay for any length beyond their particular needs.

Carawaystick

Which runway in the expansion plan was to be extended? Was it the new one built over 11/29 or 10/28

gate22

11/29 was to become 10L/28R a brand new runway altogether on the path close enough to 11/29. The green area was in the plans originally for the 10/28 and they stopped short to please other demands :-( but its a waste of land that could have been useful

Carawaystick wrote: »

Which runway in the expansion plan was to be extended? Was it the new one built over 11/29 or 10/28

Carawaystick

And was the new north runway 28r/10L going to be longer, or were both going to be lengthened? Or was the new one to be same length as existing 28/10

Peregrine

Carawaystick wrote: »

And was the new north runway 28r/10L going to be longer, or were both going to be lengthened? Or was the new one to be same length as existing 28/10

Are you referring to the current proposed runway? If yes, it was originally planned to be 3.1km, planning permission was granted but later they said it should be 3.6km long (I think most people would agree) but then it was shelved during the recession.

If you're talking about the one discussed in the Dáil transcripts, that is 10/28. Originally planned to be 11,000 feet, then 10,000 but that was still almost as long as a certain other runway in the West so finally built at 8,650 ft in 1989.

Edit: Just read the thread properly and see that you're referring to the proposed 10L/28R.