nav[aria-label="Primary Navigation"] { padding: 0; & ul { list-style: none; width: 100%; display: flex; flex-direction: row; justify-content: start; align-items: start; gap: 30px; padding: 0; & li { margin: 0; } & ul li { list-style: none; } } }

Child Item

Dublin Airport New Runway/Infrastructure.

TheFitz13

Dublin Airport has planning permission to build a new parallel runway to the north of the existing main runway. The Regulator has determined that this new runway can only be funded by airport users when annual passenger volumes through Dublin Airport reach 23.5 million. Annualised passenger numbers in 2012 will be in the region of 19 million and current forecasts indicate that the 23.5 million target for bringing a new runway into operation, will be reached in or about 2019. What do you all think?

Find more posts tagged with

Quick Links

Comments

[Deleted User]

You’re still not addressing the reduction in Seat capacity for Dublin.

The Veteran

The plan if implemented would probably require deplaning in SNN to clear USCBP in Shannon as only direct flights to the US can preclear. When ET started ops, everyone had to deplane in DUB en route to LAX to satisfy the TSA. Of course, ET doesnt preclear. If a flight was to originate in DUB and stop in SNN, the hold luggage could probably preclear in DUB but not sure the US would accept the human cargo without they deplaning into a secure zone in SNN and then reboarding or something similar.

Maybe the opportunity for SNN and BA is to feed regional traffic into SNN to swap planes to the US in SNN, using the BA LCY flight (as a sort of a model) and allow EI to focus its transfer traffic in DUB.

EI could remove all flights except TA from Pier 4 and that would reduce stand pressure in Pier 4. Towing is a nightmare as it requires ATC clearances and live traffic gets priority

trellheim

The plan if implemented would probably require deplaning in SNN to clear USCBP in Shannon as only direct flights to the US can preclear. When ET started ops, everyone had to deplane in DUB en route to LAX to satisfy the TSA. Of course, ET doesnt preclear. If a flight was to originate in DUB and stop in SNN, the hold luggage could probably preclear in DUB but not sure the US would accept the human cargo without they deplaning into a secure zone in SNN and then reboarding or something similar.

I think you have me the wrong way round, its SNN->DUB->USA and the return is USA->DUB->SNN although without DAA forcing airplanes off pier 4 I can't see them going for it as cycles and revenue/fuel burn/pilots probably wouldnt work for them

The Veteran

trellheim wrote: »

I think you have me the wrong way round, its SNN->DUB->USA and the return is USA->DUB->SNN although without DAA forcing airplanes off pier 4 I can't see them going for it as cycles and revenue/fuel burn/pilots probably wouldnt work for them

Sorry, yeah had you wrong there but the same point remains, on the US abound legs, I’m sure there would be preclearance issues to overcome.

The Veteran

trellheim wrote: »

I think you have me the wrong way round, its SNN->DUB->USA and the return is USA->DUB->SNN although without DAA forcing airplanes off pier 4 I can't see them going for it as cycles and revenue/fuel burn/pilots probably wouldnt work for them

Sorry, yeah had you wrong there but the same point remains, on the US abound legs, I’m sure there would be preclearance issues to overcome.

The Veteran

trellheim wrote: »

I think you have me the wrong way round, its SNN->DUB->USA and the return is USA->DUB->SNN although without DAA forcing airplanes off pier 4 I can't see them going for it as cycles and revenue/fuel burn/pilots probably wouldnt work for them

Sorry, yeah had you wrong there but the same point remains, on the US abound legs, I’m sure there would be preclearance issues to overcome.

trellheim

DOnt know; if it only calls at US precleared stops whats to stop it but I suppose we cants speak for Homeland sec

JCX BXC

Look, I'm all for increasing TA flights at SNN but that simply doesn't make sense. Either you preclear all passengers in SNN, or you do it in DUB (causing more issues), or you do it in the US (removing all incentive for passengers boarding in SNN).

Keep in mind Shannon is already having a struggle with stands during the peak summer time for US flights.

I simply don't see a logical solution with Shannon included, unless you try to advertise easy access to Shannon for passengers from West Dublin, Kildare and Laois (which I doubt the DAA will ever vouch for).

The Veteran

DUB and SNN are of course Competitors so can’t \ won’t co-operate with each other.

trellheim

OK folks I take all the points. You dont have to board pax at SNN this is NOT about that ; its only to get A330s off the T2 stands in Dub and service them elsewhere ; as someone pointed out above BA service a lot of heavies at Cardiff and CWL-LHR on a 777 is not a ticket you can buy.

This is the busiest time Dublin's ever had so its not going to get any better in T2 - if EI or Norwegian stick another 6 TATLs on next year what magic space will they use . If the US airlines had put on the same amount of services eastbound we had put on westbound DUB would be rightly messed up

goingnowhere

EI does most of its servicing in Dublin for its A330 or Bordeaux, be completely pointless to fly around empty for maintenance when you can simply taxi up 16/34

[Deleted User]

trellheim wrote: »

OK folks I take all the points. You dont have to board pax at SNN this is NOT about that ; its only to get A330s off the T2 stands in Dub and service them elsewhere ; as someone pointed out above BA service a lot of heavies at Cardiff and CWL-LHR on a 777 is not a ticket you can buy.

This is the busiest time Dublin's ever had so its not going to get any better in T2 - if EI or Norwegian stick another 6 TATLs on next year what magic space will they use . If the US airlines had put on the same amount of services eastbound we had put on westbound DUB would be rightly messed up

What do you mean by service them ?

How is using valuable runway slots flying empty planes about useful to the Dublin operation ?

Hire more tug drivers and drag the heavies off the stand as soon as they are deboarded and bags off. Problem solved with stands.

You do realise that the DAA are starting a program to increase stands by roughly 25 don’t you ?

markpb

trellheim wrote: »

OK folks I take all the points. You dont have to board pax at SNN this is NOT about that ; its only to get A330s off the T2 stands in Dub and service them elsewhere ; as someone pointed out above BA service a lot of heavies at Cardiff and CWL-LHR on a 777 is not a ticket you can buy.

If I remember correctly, BA are forced to fly LHR-CWL several times a week to maintain a slot.

LXFlyer

markpb wrote: »

If I remember correctly, BA are forced to fly LHR-CWL several times a week to maintain a slot.

That was British Meditteranean Airways.

BA have had a maintenance facility at Cardiff for donkey’s years.

[Deleted User]

markpb wrote: »

If I remember correctly, BA are forced to fly LHR-CWL several times a week to maintain a slot.

BA have BAMC I think at Cardiff, they do a lot of work on 747 and 777’s down there.

CoisFharraige

Deleted User wrote: »

markpb wrote: »

If I remember correctly, BA are forced to fly LHR-CWL several times a week to maintain a slot.

BA have BAMC I think at Cardiff, they do a lot of work on 747 and 777’s down there.

Yes, they do. That’s why they brought the LAS fire aircraft there for maintenance and many other heavies.

irishgeo

if the tower is pretty much completed construction wise, how does it another 2 years to fit it out.

plodder

irishgeo wrote: »

if the tower is pretty much completed construction wise, how does it another 2 years to fit it out.

It's pretty far from complete. Only the bare frame of the cab is built yet.

Peregrine

irishgeo wrote: »

if the tower is pretty much completed construction wise, how does it another 2 years to fit it out.

But it isn't..

Construction will go on until 2019. And it will be operational in 2020 after extensive testing and training.

afatbollix

A couple of photos I took on Sunday. Looks like the shell is almost finished.

D Trent

https://www.rte.ie/news/dublin/2018/0828/988131-dublin-airport/

0lddog

Will be a fun place during lightning storms ..............

Pat Dunne

It will be intteresting to see what happens when it becomes enveloped by low cloud. I recall seeing this on at least one occasion earlier this year.

JCX BXC

Pat Dunne wrote: »

It will be intteresting to see what happens when it becomes enveloped by low cloud. I recall seeing this on at least one occasion earlier this year.

Or perhaps, for them it'll be interesting not to see at all.

irishgeo

Pat Dunne wrote: »

It will be intteresting to see what happens when it becomes enveloped by low cloud. I recall seeing this on at least one occasion earlier this year.

Might be putting in a system to track planes on the ground.

CoisFharraige

Pat Dunne wrote: »

It will be intteresting to see what happens when it becomes enveloped by low cloud. I recall seeing this on at least one occasion earlier this year.

Yes, controller said this to me last time I was up. She said that it’ll be so high that even when the cloud layer won’t be extremely bad, that they’ll be in cloud quite often and thus will be forced to go into LVPs. Remember the tower’s actually 88m ish tall (off the top of my head) so around 290feet high. Currently cloud has to be below 200ft for LVPs to come in and often they’re just on the edge of that and going into and out of LVPs. Now that extra 100ft will have to be added onto that and therefore it’ll put LVPs into force more often.

irishgeo wrote: »

Pat Dunne wrote: »

It will be intteresting to see what happens when it becomes enveloped by low cloud. I recall seeing this on at least one occasion earlier this year.

Might be putting in a system to track planes on the ground.

They have had this for years with the SMR antennae: https://www.skybrary.aero/index.php/Surface_Movement_Radar

rameire

would it have been logical to place a windowed lookout halfway up the tower, to facilitate low cloud or is that just a total waste?

Tenger

CoisFharraige wrote: »

...........Remember the tower’s actually 88m ish tall (off the top of my head) so around 290feet high. Currently cloud has to be below 200ft for LVPs to come in and often they’re just on the edge of that and going into and out of LVPs. Now that extra 100ft will have to be added onto that and therefore it’ll put LVPs into force more often.............

Well thats just great!

JCX BXC

CoisFharraige wrote: »

Yes, controller said this to me last time I was up. She said that it’ll be so high that even when the cloud layer won’t be extremely bad, that they’ll be in cloud quite often and thus will be forced to go into LVPs. Remember the tower’s actually 88m ish tall (off the top of my head) so around 290feet high. Currently cloud has to be below 200ft for LVPs to come in and often they’re just on the edge of that and going into and out of LVPs. Now that extra 100ft will have to be added onto that and therefore it’ll put LVPs into force more often.

So it'll be 200ft as opposed to 100ft? Often you hear alot of pilot grievance when they're told "cloud base 200ft, CAT I ILS approach"

Shedite27

CoisFharraige wrote: »

Yes, controller said this to me last time I was up. She said that it’ll be so high that even when the cloud layer won’t be extremely bad, that they’ll be in cloud quite often and thus will be forced to go into LVPs. Remember the tower’s actually 88m ish tall (off the top of my head) so around 290feet high. Currently cloud has to be below 200ft for LVPs to come in and often they’re just on the edge of that and going into and out of LVPs. Now that extra 100ft will have to be added onto that and therefore it’ll put LVPs into force more often.

Is there much actually done by eye these days? I assume all monitoring in the air is done by radar/computers, is it more for monitoring ground movements?