Terminal 2 for Dublin Airport goes ahead,

secret_squirrel

see here

But now they are talking about a 3rd terminal as well!! With what justification? Coz the unions will get their grubby mits on the second one per chance? Afaics DAA have delusions of Grandeur. 3 Terminals and 2 runways - thats better than Gatwick ffs.

ishmael whale

Its a complete farce. At the end of the day, its not really crucial whether the second terminal is run by the private or public sector. The idea of building two extra terminals just because they can't agree on a single Government approach is painful.

murphaph

What they said. F***ing twats couldn't run a country if they were paid (oh wait, they are, hansdomly). 3 effing terminals???!!! If they'd let McEvaddy just build their poper T2 then that alone would cater for demand well into the future, but oh no, that wouldn't do. I hope McEvaddy sues them and their ridiculous decision to expand the eastern site is blown apart in court.

secret_squirrel

here

SeanW

Bulding a third terminal just because you can't figure out how to build the second (if that's what happened) sounds really stupid and inept, but then again I think ineptitude characterises this government, and this is a decision in a similar vain.

At least they're done dithering though.

enterprise

Lets just be glad the 2nd terminal has been approved (and I get roasted by saying this) and to be built and (hopefully) operated by the DAA.

The 3rd terminal won't be built anytime soon, they just mentioned that to sweeten up the PD's.

weehamster

Well the good news is that the DAA is building the 2nd terminal so the cost will be far less to the taxpayer than if a private company was building it.

I actually have no problem on who runs it, it shouldn't make any real difference.

As for the 3rd Terminal, emm where is this supposed to be built. In fact im confused on where the 2nd is being built. I thought the DAA building a paralel runway so where is the room for 3 terminals?

SeanW

T2 is to be built on the East of the Airport site, T3 is to be one of those Terminal West jobs.

weehamster

Sorry Sean, East for T2? Im more confused The only thing east is the motorway. The west site I know but I would thought this should be for the 2nd terminal site not the third, as its between the paralell runway. Is there a map?

Flukey

This is going to run and run. Meanwhile of course, we need an improved airport!:(

MrPudding

weehamster wrote:

Well the good news is that the DAA is building the 2nd terminal so the cost will be far less to the taxpayer than if a private company was building it.

I am obviously missing something here. How can a terminal being built by taxpayers money be cheaper for the tax payer than a terminal being built by a private company at no cost to the taxpayer?

My understanding is the the exsisting hangers will be knocked down to make way for the new terminal, in the DAA plan anyway. Is this correct?

The thing I like best about this announcement is that even in the unlikely event that the DAA don't win the tender to run the terminal whoever does has to have the same terms and conditions for the employees as already exists. I would imagine that will make it quite hard to offer services any cheaper than the exsisting terminal, which I thought was the whole point.

MrP

cullenswood

enterprise wrote:

Lets just be glad the 2nd terminal has been approved (and I get roasted by saying this) and to be built and (hopefully) operated by the DAA.

The 3rd terminal won't be built anytime soon, they just mentioned that to sweeten up the PD's.

Hear, hear. There will never be a third terminal

murphaph

weehamster wrote:

Sorry Sean, East for T2? Im more confused The only thing east is the motorway. The west site I know but I would thought this should be for the 2nd terminal site not the third, as its between the paralell runway. Is there a map?

No map I'm afraid. The DAA terminal is to be located in the far NE corner of their lands. Roughly where the Team hangar is now. It's shoe-horning a terminal in there and it will run out of capacity as was pointed out to government in a €3.5m consultant's report. It will be very difficult to expand given the restrictions this site has. It is bounded on 3 sides by immovable objects (The M1, current T1 and the new runway when it's built), to the north it is bounded by a minor road. The McEvaddy proposal was the one you saw placed between the runways. That was the one to go for AFAIC.

SeanW

TV3 showed a graphic last night about the proposals for the Airport, I got a screen capture.

Sarsfield

SeanW wrote:

TV3 showed a graphic last night about the proposals for the Airport, I got a screen capture.

That big round yellow terminal should make for some pretty exciting approaches to rwy28, and an excellent view of aircraft taking off from rwy10 :eek:

Victor

The realisitic locations are between the TEAM hangar and the older hangars and at the existing cargo terminal (next to Pier A). Both would need a little demolition, but warehouses are cheap. They would however be convenient for rail links.

The red line on the larger map is the boundary of the DAA land.

secret_squirrel

SeanW wrote:

TV3 showed a graphic last night about the proposals for the Airport, I got a screen capture.

They are digging test foundations for a terminal at the green blob on the screen capture. Its behind the pikey camp the other side of the taxiway from the last SRT hangar.
Go in the back way to the airport from the Cloghran roundabout and you can see it.

Lennoxschips

MrPudding wrote:

I am obviously missing something here. How can a terminal being built by taxpayers money be cheaper for the tax payer than a terminal being built by a private company at no cost to the taxpayer?

Because airports are cash cows and all the money that the airlines get charged will now end up in government coffers as opposed to going towards the maintenence of some businessman's private jet. (It will go the Bertiejet instead hehe )

secret_squirrel

Lennoxschips wrote:

Because airports are cash cows

Tell that to Shannon and cork!

saobh_ie

Yeah. Shannon and Cork never made a profit although the group Aer Rianta (Dublin, Cork and Shannon) never once operated at a loss and always contributed massive amounts to the government coffers.

Although I think this year is Dublin is screwed because it was loaded with the other two airports previous acrued debts? They're already operating at a loss at this point with no expections for turning a profit... ever? Not as long as the regulator keeps landing fees at a level which is free compared to other airports in europe of comparable size.

I think it was 12 28 they were lengthening, widening or something’s... maybe it was a building. In any case they wanted to do major works costing 32 Million which they could easily afford given the profits for that particular year but instead the government told them to borrow the money and took the 32 million (and the rest) to tidy up its budget.

Although as a disclaimer this is just a story I heard. Which is all any one has heard about the airport since before the break-up and pretty much all of it is lies. Except for the incident I've described here, I've been assured of its accuracy.

Anyway, its one incident of a long running pattern of interference by a succession of inept governments for which the Dublin Airport is their only profitable endeavour well, save taxing everything.

Victor

Not quite true. AR was originally merely a brand name for the then Dept of Transport / Communications / whatever and did receive money.

Any shareholder is entitled to dividends.

saobh_ie

Makes sense Vic but we (the people) are the shareholders really and the various governments are just people we trust to look after it for us for a little while.

Do we want them damaging it over the long term? Surely taking a little less than usual for one year, which would have probably been an eighth of what they got from tax on cigarettes, and making it back ten fold in ten years?

Without government rejection of every proposed development to the airport it would have two runways, three terminals and AerRianta would probably be breaking ground on Dublin South in two years time. As things stand it’ll go the same way as the big extension.

AerRianta (to the sounds of the sixties): We’d like to build this.
Government: *Laughter*

70’s: We’re still interested in this…

80’s: You’ll consider it. Thanks.

90’s: Well, That’s a bit small compared to what we wanted in the 70’s… better than nothing though so…

00’s: Well, Thanks for that, now let us take the gloves off and get people to use it. Oh and we’d like this, and this and one of those.

secret_squirrel

saobh_ie wrote:

Without government rejection of every proposed development to the airport it would have two runways, three terminals and AerRianta would probably be breaking ground on Dublin South in two years time.

But there was/is very little justification for any of that. Even the justification for the 2nd terminal is a bit borderline imo. Especially now that the unions are so heavily involved achieving 25mins turn around is going to be tricky.

Victor

saobh_ie wrote:

AerRianta would probably be breaking ground on Dublin South in two years time.

A second airport probably doesn't make sense until you hit in the order of 30m passengers+. It makes connections a tad difficult.

secret_squirrel

Dont forget the main reason for a 2nd terminal was solely for Budget flights with a 25min turnaround - with Airlines getting fined if they exceeded this. If the 2nd terminal is going to be heavily unionised thats going to go right out the window.

D'Peoples Voice

there is a god!

http://www.businessworld.ie/rankednews2.htm?s=index.html;s2=rankednews2.htm;r=3;a=1216160
Ryanair sues Govt over DAA 2nd terminal

Tuesday, July 19 13:01:40

(BizWorld)

Low-cost airline, Ryanair, today said it has launched a legal suit against the Irish Government to overturn the decision to allow a second Dublin Airport terminal be built by the Dublin Airport Authority (DAA).

Ryanair said it will be challenging the decision on competition and public procurement grounds under Article 82 and Article 86 of the European Treaty.

"Under EU competition rules, Governments must comply with the same rules as local authorities and semi-state companies, and put all such contracts out to open tender. They must also apply the rules in relation to open competition and the provision of services as apply to all companies and private undertakings," a statement from Ryanair said today.


"The decision of Bertie Ahern's Government to award the construction of the second terminal to the Government owned airport monopoly, without tender, or any consideration of the benefits from private construction, particularly when that Government has already received 13 expressions of interest from private sector companies to build and operate a competing second terminal, is unlawful. In fact this approach offers no choice or saving to the public, just more cost. Ryanair also believes the decision is totally wrong given the already proven failure of the Dublin Airport Authority to run the first terminal efficiently," it added.

Chief Executive, Michael O'Leary, said the Government is "clearly breaking EU competition rules".

"Our legal advisors are confident that this unlawful decision can be challenged and overturned in the Irish courts. Ryanair is taking this case because this is the only way we can end the queues, the waste, the inefficiency and the incompetence of the Dublin Airport Monopoly," he said.

Thomond Pk

The hearing has been adjourned until October thereby holding Aer Rianta / DAA up until then.

Victor

Sounds like huff. The government isn't awarding any contract, it is merely allowing DAA build a new terminal on DAA's land.

Now there may be competition arguments, but I don't think theres any sustainable complaint on procurement grounds, seeing as DAA itself will be tendering the construction (or parts thereof), because DAA don't employ construction workers (perhaps the have a half dozen painters / electricans / plumbers for maintainence work, I don't know).

secret_squirrel

How is the construction being funded? If there are Govt backed loans etc then surely there will be contracts associated with them that MOL can challenge.

Victor

The government merely amends existing law / regulation and/or buys more shares. No "contract" involved.

SeanW

Oh great. Lawsuits. Yet more excuses for the government to dither on the 10 year transport plan.

Thomond Pk

I don't think they can as it is a ten year plan they will simply make a provision for the cost and if they are prudent increase the provision by 12% for another set of design fees this proposal is typical Aer Rianta Moscow 1988 inspired visual wall-paper.

Are we so bankraupt of ambition that we allow Stansted a budget airport miles outside the development boundary of London constitute a much more impressive gateway to that City that our Legacy Carrier terminal that is bursting at the seams. If Cullen were smart he would buy DeBlacham & Meaghars architectural plan drawings from O'Leary and build something of merit.

Victor

So how many airports have DeBlacam & Meagher built as opposed to projects built for Ryan Air directors?