Air China - Beijing to Dublin

jamo2oo9

Was on twitter there a min ago and I read a tweet from Shamrock GoldCircle saying that Air China to fly Beijing to Dublin starting this April coming.


Does anyone have any sources for this. Can't find anything through Google search and maybe confirm it is true.

Jamie2k9

jamo2oo9 wrote: »

Was on twitter there a min ago and I read a tweet from Shamrock GoldCircle saying that Air China to fly Beijing to Dublin starting this April coming.


Does anyone have any sources for this. Can't find anything through Google search and maybe confirm it is true.

No definite information but I think it will happen, its like DUB-SFO, know for moths before it actually was announced. China and DUB has being years in the making.

urajoke

It would be long overdue to be honest. It'll be interesting to see what pans out.

hfallada

Well there is a huge amount of Chinese in Ireland so it would make economic sense. Also Emirates to China from Dublin is a joke. I ended up with a 20 hour layover on my return flight.

Razor44

is the runway not an issue for this route?

either way if it does happen, will be good for dublin airport! T2 is starting to get crowded

urajoke

Razor44 wrote: »

is the runway not an issue for this route?

either way if it does happen, will be good for dublin airport! T2 is starting to get crowded

No it shouldn't be an issue, it's a similar distance as Dublin to San Francisco, both would use an A330-200 but going east to Beijing would have the benefit of a tailwind.

Razor44

urajoke wrote: »

No it shouldn't be an issue, it's a similar distance as Dublin to San Francisco, both would use an A330-200 but going east to Beijing would have the benefit of a tailwind.

ahhh, i see! cheers.

donvito99

The cargo alone should sustain this. Exciting to see more routes looking beyond Abu Dhabi and Dubai and further east instead.

That being said, Air China can't match EY/EK for service/hard product.

FWVT

Ok, just a PPL here, so please correct me if I'm way off.

DUB-PEK is 4476 NM. (DUB-SFO is 4430 NM)
DUB R10/28 TORA 2637 m (8652 ft).

For DUB-PEK:
Going on these data (very roughly), I take a take-off weight of around 215,000 kg for this range. Taking the Chart 3-3-1 Page 4 of the above link shows a maximum allowable density altitude of around 1500 ft for an 8652-ft runway.

Taking DUB R28's average elevation 220 ft and a hot and humid summer day for Dublin (zero wind, temp 25 C, dewpoint 15 C, QNH 1000 we get a density altitude of 2100 ft, which would leave the aircraft Shanghaied in Dublin.

Of course we would only get a few such days in Dublin, and mostly in high-pressure situations, so increasing the QNH to 1030 hPa brings the DA down to a doable 1100 ft. It is possible, though, that given DUB's limited length, there could be a handful of days per year when conditions are on the limit. Probably not a reason to reject a route, though for the SFO route it does become a much bigger issue (though it is unlikely that we get zero wind at Dublin with those conditions above).

Suasdaguna1

FWVT....MTOW a330 300 circa 232tons.....using bump Perf figs rwy 28/10 a go.....unless wet and low press.

Remember prevailing winds will be a tail wind from Dub to Peking on the law of averages if performance an issue ex dub......they have the rwy lengths ex china.


It's a go says me, re performance.

dm09

FWVT wrote: »

Ok, just a PPL here, so please correct me if I'm way off.

DUB-PEK is 4476 NM. (DUB-SFO is 4430 NM)
DUB R10/28 TORA 2637 m (8652 ft).

For DUB-PEK:
Going on these data (very roughly), I take a take-off weight of around 215,000 kg for this range. Taking the Chart 3-3-1 Page 4 of the above link shows a maximum allowable density altitude of around 1500 ft for an 8652-ft runway.

Taking DUB R28's average elevation 220 ft and a hot and humid summer day for Dublin (zero wind, temp 25 C, dewpoint 15 C, QNH 1000 we get a density altitude of 2100 ft, which would leave the aircraft Shanghaied in Dublin.

Of course we would only get a few such days in Dublin, and mostly in high-pressure situations, so increasing the QNH to 1030 hPa brings the DA down to a doable 1100 ft. It is possible, though, that given DUB's limited length, there could be a handful of days per year when conditions are on the limit. Probably not a reason to reject a route, though for the SFO route it does become a much bigger issue (though it is unlikely that we get zero wind at Dublin with those conditions above).

The distance between Dublin and Los Angeles is roughly 4482 NM, Aer Lingus ran this route for 15yrs, Did they ever encounter any problems like the scenario you outlined above?

FWVT

Suasdaguna1 wrote: »

FWVT....MTOW a330 300 circa 232tons.....using bump Perf figs rwy 28/10 a go.....unless wet and low press.

Remember prevailing winds will be a tail wind from Dub to Peking on the law of averages if performance an issue ex dub......they have the rwy lengths ex china.


It's a go says me, re performance.

Someone above said an A332 though. I know about the prevailing winds, I'm just playing devil's advocate.

FWVT

dm09 wrote: »

The distance between Dublin and Los Angeles is roughly 4482 NM, Aer Lingus ran this route for 15yrs, Did they ever encounter any problems like the scenario you outlined above?

I've no idea. Anyone?

urajoke

FWVT wrote: »

I've no idea. Anyone?

Occasionally, sometimes sorted by using the slope on the other end or by offloading some cargo. Never heard of it cancelled due to runway length though.

Indeed we have had 747-300's off the runway going to Japan back in 2004, little cargo though they didn't bring bibs or balls etc ;)

Tenger

dm09 wrote: »

The distance between Dublin and Los Angeles is roughly 4482 NM, Aer Lingus ran this route for 15yrs, Did they ever encounter any problems like the scenario you outlined above?

I believe that EI did have some infrequent days when the flight was weight restricted. I can remember hearing about the flight going with 40-60 empty seats due weight.......however I expect the valuable cargo was kept onboard. And as we saw this route ran successfully from 1999-2009.

Madpaddy79

CPT was always managed with 332.

ozzy jr

urajoke wrote: »

Occasionally, sometimes sorted by using the slope on the other end or by offloading some cargo. Never heard of it cancelled due to runway length though.

Indeed we have had 747-300's off the runway going to Japan back in 2004, little cargo though they didn't bring bibs or balls etc ;)

2002

747 travel had a 747 from Dublin to Tokyo on one of their trips but it refuelled in Moscow on the way.

kub

With the way long range routes are increasing in DUB, isn't it a shame that they could not have built a runway as long as the one in SNN?

Then i suppose this country is not known for forward planning is it?

Jamie2k9

kub wrote: »

With the way long range routes are increasing in DUB, isn't it a shame that they could not have built a runway as long as the one in SNN?

Then i suppose this country is not known for forward planning is it?

Nothing stopping them except funds to do it.

DieselPowered

Its interesting to note that China Airlines (not Air China) currently offer Taipei Taiwan from Dublin which take the routing DUB-AMS-BKK-TPE. Air Lingus complete the initial Dublin to Amsterdam leg and China Air onwards from there.

Their website even includes Dublin as a starting point:

Suasdaguna1

Tenger wrote: »

I believe that EI did have some infrequent days when the flight was weight restricted. I can remember hearing about the flight going with 40-60 empty seats due weight.......however I expect the valuable cargo was kept onboard. And as we saw this route ran successfully from 1999-2009.

Perf figs tweked and more accurate now. Wet and QNH 950 might see issues.

urajoke

Jamie2k9 wrote: »

Nothing stopping them except funds to do it.

Well Shannon airport and their cronies did 30 years ago. Now it's planning rules and the commission for aviation regulation.

2002 or 2004 all the same to me. Plus I think the Cape Town flight stopped in the canaries occasionally for fuel.

owenc

Well this is indeed fascinating. Dublin is starting to become a mini international hub.It probably will not affect me that much but it is good for down there. I think if the growth continues and they get a few more international routes there will be no need to goto london heathrow at all.

South Africa and South America would be good but there also needs to be a few more american cities such as Dallas and Seattle.

mooseknunkle

What would the flight time be,about 10 hours or so?

dm09

mooseknunkle wrote: »

What would the flight time be,about 10 hours or so?

Roughly same distance as Los Angeles so depending on conditions approx 10hrs East and 11.5hrs West i'd imagine

Stinicker

Excellent, I really hope this is true, more choice to Asia is always good and to be able to avoid the queues in Dubai and the horrors of Emirates 777-300ER would be excellent. Can you transit the PRC without a visa?

Bessarion

kub wrote: »

With the way long range routes are increasing in DUB, isn't it a shame that they could not have built a runway as long as the one in SNN?

Jamie2k9 wrote: »

Nothing stopping them except funds to do it.

Nothing but funds stopping them now perhaps.
The length of the runway at DUB was deliberately left shorter than SNN through the lobbying of politicians from the Mid-West. Local interests (and the need to be re-elected) trumped long term strategic planning for the nation.

BonkeyDonker

Bessarion wrote: »

Nothing but funds stopping them now perhaps.

Which will be raised through an increased passenger charge. Which I believe cannot be increased until passenger get back above 23m per year. (maybe 24)

mickger844posts

DieselPowered wrote: »

Its interesting to note that China Airlines (not Air China) currently offer Taipei Taiwan from Dublin which take the routing DUB-AMS-BKK-TPE. Air Lingus complete the initial Dublin to Amsterdam leg and China Air onwards from there.

Their website even includes Dublin as a starting point:

I've done this exact route many times over the last 9 years or so. It breaks down like this. Dublin to Ams with Aer Lingus. With China Airlines Amsterdam to Bangkok which is 11 hrs 30 mins on average. Get off the plane in Bangkok and go through security checks for the third time then board the same plane 90 mins later to fly the last leg to Taipei which is 3 hrs 30 mins. Not far off 24 hours travelling. Did it for the first time with my 18 month old twin boys in September and it was not as easy journey for sure. In future we will probably go through Hong Kong as you don't need to go through security when transferring to another flight.

whitebriar

Why would you go via Hkg,when there are direct flights via Lhr to Beijing,so only one connection?

jamo2oo9

whitebriar wrote: »

Why would you go via Hkg,when there are direct flights via Lhr to Beijing,so only one connection?

His final destination is Taipei so regardless of who he goes with, he'll still have to get there with four flights minimum