Shannon Airport Thread [Mod Warning in First Post]

Cookiemunster wrote: »

The runways in Cork and Knock are too short to take fully laden heavys, which is what most of these diverts are. And Dublin is closed over night.

I'm a wee bit puzzled. Dublin only closes on Christmas Day.

In extremis, even Cork might be used in an emergency.

https://www.irishexaminer.com/breakingnews/ireland/dutch-plane-makes-emergency-landing-at-cork-airport-117973.html

Sunday, October 19, 2003 - 11:03 AM
A KLM jumbo jet with 432 passengers on board has made an emergency landing at Cork Airport.

The plane was en route from the West Indies to Holland when the captain radioed ahead to report a problem on board.

It’s believed that a fire broke out on board around 250 miles off the south coast of Ireland.

Balf wrote: »

I'm a wee bit puzzled. Dublin only closes on Christmas Day.

In extremis, even Cork might be used in an emergency.

Dublin closes at night. So if a divert station is needed at 2am, its useless.

RocketRaccoon wrote: »

Dublin closes at night. So if a divert station is needed at 2am, its useless.

No it doesn’t, even on Christmas day they could accept a divert if the emergency was so bad.

Jamie2k9 wrote: »

No it doesn’t, even on Christmas day they could accept a divert if the emergency was so bad.

There will be no Air Traffic Control on Christmas Day.
Unlikely Fire Crew either.

Very desperate emergency to opt for Dublin on Christmas Day.

Ennisman

Dublin is closed on Christmas Day. The Ethiopian flight on Christmas Day landed at Shannon last year (and previous year too I believe). That's not to say that Dublin couldn't accept a diversion if it really had to or there was no other option.

Yes its closed but ATC and Fire are on duty.

Ennisman wrote: »

Dublin is closed on Christmas Day. The Ethiopian flight on Christmas Day landed at Shannon last year (and previous year too I believe). That's not to say that Dublin couldn't accept a diversion if it really had to or there was no other option.

And this year.

hondabanner wrote: »

Norwegian gone January February and March

It's now official.

New York Stewart will take a winter break from from January 12th until March 31st.

There is no mention of Boston Providence winter schedule, but it seems from their website that there are no flights available from December to the end of March too.

Norwegian Air to reduce Dublin and Shannon services to US (Irish Times)

Decision base on cost savings, says airline

Norwegian Air is to halve the number of flight from Dublin to New York for the winter with two daily flights resuming at the end of March.

Daily flights from Shannon to New York Stewart International Airport in Newburgh, New York, will cease on January 12th. The service will resume at the rate of five times per week on March 31st, the airline intends to maintain the route as a summer-only service from 2019 onwards.

Up to 100,000 passengers have flown with the airline to and from Shannon Airport since July, 2017 when they commenced services with four weekly direct flights to New York Stewart International Airport and Providence International Airport.

However their decision to scale back comes as it reduces flights from Europe to Stewart International Airport to 11, the least it has offered since first landing at the airport 17 months ago. This coming January will see Norwegian terminate its London Gatwick to Singapore route after 15 months of operation.

Head of Communications with Norwegian, Anders Lindström said the decision was cost based. “In order to ensure a more successful and profitable operation, Norwegian will shorten parts of its winter schedule from Newburgh, during periods when demand is much lower. As a cost disciplined company, we continuously monitor and evaluate our route network and these changes have been made as part of our commitment to reducing costs”.

“We are seasonally adjusting routes across our entire network to be even more competitive, including a number of other US routes as well, so not just to Ireland. And it’s only effective during the most quiet travel period,” Mr Lindström added.

He explained that the decision not to return Shannon to its original volume of flights in the busier season is due to a greater demand in Dublin. “Our route capacity is always based on demand in the market”.

Customers that have already booked flights have been informed of the changes and offered a full refund or a rebooking option.

Shannon Airport chief criticises lack of Government support (Irish Times)

Airport will have to spend €10m on baggage screening upgrade.

The chief executive of State-owned Shannon Airport has criticised the Government’s policy of not supporting it for infrastructure projects, calling it “counter-intuitive”.

Speaking to The Irish Times, Matthew Thomas said new security equipment the airport needed to satisfy EU rules would cost the airport €10 million but would not add any commercial value.

While the Government could support the airport for this project and not breach EU state-aid rules, he said its stated policy was not to support semi-State airports in this regard.

The Department of Transport, Tourism and Sport did not respond to a request for comment.

Surely users of the airport should fund it!

British Airways flight BA292 from Washington to Heathrow diverting to Shannon.

jasper100 wrote: »

Makes no odds, if it wasnt shannon they would divert somewhere else. Its over 3000 miles new york to shannon, another 1 or 200 miles to dublin or manchester wouldnt make much difference.

If shannon closed down tomorrow aircraft would just divert elsewhere.

Once again, just to show how much ****e you were spouting. 2 diverts today in the space of 10 minutes, one medical.

RocketRaccoon wrote: »

Once again, just to show how much ****e you were spouting. 2 diverts today in the space of 10 minutes, one medical.

Nobody is disputing the role of Shannon for diverts. Its importance has significantly reduced over the last 20 years largely due to tech advances. This is what people are saying.

PS - opting for Shannon makes a lot of commercial sense for bean counters. Most airlines have prefered airports and costs are a major part of a non emergency divert and SNN shouldnrightly exploit this.

Jamie2k9 wrote: »

Surely users of the airport should fund it!

Terrorism knows no borders.

National authorities are responsible for internal security.

European Commission (Press release)

Delivering on the Security Union: Commission proposes EU certification system for airport security equipment and to promote a more competitive EU security industry

European Agenda on Security: Paving the way towards a Security Union

Brennans Row wrote: »

Speaking to The Irish Times, Matthew Thomas said new security equipment the airport needed to satisfy EU rules would cost the airport €10 million but would not add any commercial value.

I don't like his attitude, on several grounds.

It's the mindset that security is someone else's problem. It strikes me as perfectly reasonable that airports have responsibilities to provide safe services.

Should we follow the Brexit route? Then we wouldn't have to worry about the damn EU forcing us to invest in security equipement to protect airport customer.

Jamie2k9 wrote: »

Surely users of the airport should fund it!

Try telling that to Knock and Kerry

notharrypotter wrote: »

Try telling that to Knock and Kerry

It would be more than a little sad for Shannon Airport to be putting itself in the same category as airports with 2,000m runways, each serving well less than half Shannon's current passenger traffic.

Does Shannon really aspire to match Farranfore?

I was answering the previous poster.
Government will pay the cost of the security for Knock and Kerry.
Dublin passengers courtesy of the DAA will pay for Cork.

notharrypotter wrote: »

I was answering the previous poster.
Government will pay the cost of the security for Knock and Kerry.
Dublin passengers courtesy of the DAA will pay for Cork.

Shannon Group is a multi million euro group. If Gov paid for Shannon then they should pay for Dublin/Cork.

Knock/Kerry are regional airports and costs will be way lower. Not quiet the same thing.

jasper100

RocketRaccoon wrote: »

Once again, just to show how much ****e you were spouting. 2 diverts today in the space of 10 minutes, one medical.

And if Shannon didn't exist the planes would just continue on to the next available airport. The atlantic is 3100 mides wide, there is no requirement to have diversion airports every 3100 miles.

People seem to think that this diversion airport service is "vital" which is nonsense.

Shapey Fiend

Balf wrote: »

I don't like his attitude, on several grounds.

It's the mindset that security is someone else's problem. It strikes me as perfectly reasonable that airports have responsibilities to provide safe services.

Should we follow the Brexit route? Then we wouldn't have to worry about the damn EU forcing us to invest in security equipement to protect airport customer.

Plane travel is the safest medium of travel in the world. I'm not entirely sold on the idea that these naked body scanners are more effective than the regular metal detectors (or that x-ray equipment should be operated and maintained by lay people). Well trained security staff who use their common sense to assess sketchy behavior and body language are enough. Of course if we're forced to buy the stuff then that's that but it does seem like a waste of money.

Balf wrote: »

I don't like his attitude, on several grounds.

It's the mindset that security is someone else's problem. It strikes me as perfectly reasonable that airports have responsibilities to provide safe services.

Should we follow the Brexit route? Then we wouldn't have to worry about the damn EU forcing us to invest in security equipement to protect airport customer.

You are missing his point here.

Since the EU requires all airports to upgrade their security systems, for example equipment to detect explosives in luggage, he is merely pointing out that the government is not restricted by EU law for it to fund state or private airports to cover these costs.

These anti-terror measures are the remit of the government, just like any other anti-terror costs incurred at the airport.

https://twitter.com/defenceforces/status/976176997817831424

State spent €1.5m on security at Shannon in 2016 (Clare Herald)

JCX BXC

jasper100 wrote: »

And if Shannon didn't exist the planes would just continue on to the next available airport. The atlantic is 3100 mides wide, there is no requirement to have diversion airports every 3100 miles.

People seem to think that this diversion airport service is "vital" which is nonsense.

The question is would it make a difference in terms of EPTOS. If so, then Shannon has a much larger financial impact than is ever made out.

jasper100 wrote: »

And if Shannon didn't exist the planes would just continue on to the next available airport. The atlantic is 3100 mides wide, there is no requirement to have diversion airports every 3100 miles.

People seem to think that this diversion airport service is "vital" which is nonsense.

This particular flight today was from IAD to LHR, it was over Wexford and turned back.

Shapey Fiend wrote: »

Of course if we're forced to buy the stuff then that's that but it does seem like a waste of money.

Again, I'd repeat that if we want to follow the UK out of the EU, we won't have to worry about these pesky European rules.

And, for what its worth, the issue seems to be around baggage scanners rather than people scanners.

IMHO, its crass for Shannon Airport to dismiss this as not adding any commercial value. Incredibly detached attitude to security, particularly from an Airport serving the US.

Brennans Row wrote: »

You are missing his point here.

Since the EU requires all airports to upgrade their security systems, for example to detect explosives in luggage, he is merely pointing out that the government is not restricted by EU law for it to fund state or private airports to cover these costs.

I'm not missing his point at all.

His point is that Shannon, which is meant to operate as a commercial entity, should get the financial supports given to much smaller airports, namely Knock and Kerry.

Just because. It's not like better detection of explosives in airline luggage has any commercial value, because passengers don't mind the occassional disintegration of their aircraft in mid flight.

I know the guy is English. But it's the most incredibly ignorant bog-Irish view to come out with. If a pig farmer said it, the kind who holds up his trousers with a bit of binder twine, you excuse it on the grounds that he'd left school aged twelve.

But for an airport management to say they don't see a commercial angle to airport security. Facepalm doesn't do it.

kilburn

Wow small bit hysterical

Balf wrote: »

Again, I'd repeat that if we want to follow the UK out of the EU, we won't have to worry about these pesky European rules.

And, for what its worth, the issue seems to be around baggage scanners rather than people scanners.

IMHO, its crass for Shannon Airport to dismiss this as not adding any commercial value. Incredibly detached attitude to security, particularly from an Airport serving the US.I'm not missing his point at all.

His point is that Shannon, which is meant to operate as a commercial entity, should get the financial supports given to much smaller airports, namely Knock and Kerry.

Just because. It's not like better detection of explosives in airline luggage has any commercial value, because passengers don't mind the occassional disintegration of their aircraft in mid flight.

I know the guy is English. But it's the most incredibly ignorant bog-Irish view to come out with. If a pig farmer said it, the kind who holds up his trousers with a bit of binder twine, you excuse it on the grounds that he'd left school aged twelve.

But for an airport management to say they don't see a commercial angle to airport security. Facepalm doesn't do it.

Those pesky EU rules are proportionate.
They are based on the fact that connectivity is important in the modern world.

It recognises that some airports will NEVER cover their costs (Knock and Kerry).

Others will cover their day to day expenditure but for large scale projects they WILL need state support (Shannon and Cork).

If you care to search for them they correctly allow state support for safety at airports.

And you can rightly expect the DAA to submit thier funding request when Cork needs to invest in this type of equipment.

Fortunately Ireland realises that been part of a trading block of almost 500 million people is a worthwhile endeavour.

When the UK eventually leaves the EU they will just take all current and FUTURE EU aviation regulations and just replace the words EU with UK.

Simply on the international stage they are small fry and will just conform to what the EU/USA/China want.

notharrypotter wrote: »

And you can rightly expect the DAA to submit thier funding request when Cork needs to invest in this type of equipment

I very much doubt it, but the expectation that Shannon should be treated like Farranfore is only part of the issue.

The real clanger is dismissing airport security as something with no commercial value. I doubt that Penny's would say shop security has no commercial value, in a context where few fatalities result from shoplifting.

Its an astonishing comment for an airport to make; I honestly don't see why anyone would feel a need to defend that attitude.