Dublin routes news and general chat

Jack1985 · 06-01-2020 4:21pm

LRD will be going no where near MSP. Sorry but the LR is very much limited by the runway at DUB, adding extra fuel tanks (with fuel!) further exacerbates that problem as performance is limited by planned TOW.

Board Walker · 06-01-2020 5:48pm

Lots of irish Electricians working there in the past 6 years. All complaining about the lack of flights now.

kevinandrew · 06-01-2020 6:00pm

Jack1985 wrote: »

LRD will be going no where near MSP. Sorry but the LR is very much limited by the runway at DUB, adding extra fuel tanks (with fuel!) further exacerbates that problem as performance is limited by planned TOW.

In fairness, while MSP is within the advertised range, it’s not what I’d describe as comfortable particularly when taking real world conditions into account. I really hope Aer Lingus wasn't planning their future network based off the glossy catalog Airbus sent them but it’s looking like they may well have done.

Now the failure to reach MSP is one thing but if the later A321LR models aren’t even capable of reaching the likes of IAD from Dublin’s runway, that is a serious underperformance and total miscalculation by Aer Lingus. It essentially means they have a very expensive New York area aircraft and nothing more, IAG won’t be impressed.

I wonder if we’ll even see them take the remaining four frames, none of them have appeared in the production list yet.

trellheim · 06-01-2020 7:05pm

What is wrong with refueling and/or adding a few pax at Shannon for these flights. I mean surely that would have mitigated a 40 pax offload.

The facilities for this are all in place including the preclearance area.

kevinandrew · 06-01-2020 7:50pm

trellheim wrote: »

What is wrong with refueling and/or adding a few pax at Shannon for these flights. I mean surely that would have mitigated a 40 pax offload.

The facilities for this are all in place including the preclearance area.

It could be done but it’s likely to be completely ruled out as an option already for various reasons.

It would attract huge negative media attention, headlines with ‘Return of the Shannon Stopover’ would no doubt be splashed across the papers, social media and various websites.

Operationally it would add time and cost to what is a tightly run transatlantic operation.

Shamrockj · 06-01-2020 8:10pm

Worst case scenario they can just change EWR,JFK and BOS to all neo operation and use those 330s for different routes that the neo cant do.

john boye · 06-01-2020 9:13pm

Shamrockj wrote: »

Worst case scenario they can just change EWR,JFK and BOS to all neo operation and use those 330s for different routes that the neo cant do.

That really would be the worst case. They're some of the busiest TATL routes in the summer. No way would they switch them to all LRs.

LeakRate · 06-01-2020 9:23pm

Shamrockj wrote: »

Worst case scenario they can just change EWR,JFK and BOS to all neo operation and use those 330s for different routes that the neo cant do.

Not an option, nevermind pax numbers, but the 330 is required for its freight capacity, which they carry a massive amount of on these routes.

denis halpenny · 06-01-2020 10:11pm

Just on the point of Norwegion, at the rate its going there will be no Norwegion presence left in Dublin.

L1011 · 06-01-2020 10:43pm

When EI left CPH, FR were there in the actual airport along with DY and SK. SK were double daily in summer and yields were garbage for everyone and even worse with 5 daily - I got two people return with bags for 80 all in that winter on DY. Nearly full flight but clearly not making money

Strumms · 06-01-2020 10:54pm

trellheim wrote: »

What is wrong with refueling and/or adding a few pax at Shannon for these flights. I mean surely that would have mitigated a 40 pax offload.

The facilities for this are all in place including the preclearance area.

Fuel, handling and maintenance costs all increase with a stopover. I’d presume this would be added to the price of tickets... plus the route might become slightly less attractive for people knowing they’d need to drag their arse off the aircraft just to Q up for some administrative exercise in SNN. Doesn’t appeal to me from the sounds of things.

VG31 · 06-01-2020 11:35pm

denis halpenny wrote: »

Just on the point of Norwegion, at the rate its going there will be no Norwegion presence left in Dublin.

Last summer IIRC, Norwegian flew from Dublin to Oslo, Copenhagen, Stockholm, Helsinki, Newburgh, Providence and Hamilton.

Now they only fly to Oslo and Copenhagen (seasonal).

EchoIndia · 06-01-2020 11:50pm

California Dreamer wrote: »

Just on a side note, were the 757's promised elsewhere or in theory could the agreements be extended with ASL?

Two have already been ferried to Goodyear AZ and are reportedly earmarked for freighter conversion. The third is meant to be following suit, having been ferried DUB-SNN today after withdrawal.

goingnowhere · 06-01-2020 11:55pm

The obvious option is to run IAD, EWR, YYZ as a double A321

That gets you 3 A330's you can send elsewhere

trellheim · 07-01-2020 12:35am

Strumms wrote: »

Fuel, handling and maintenance costs all increase with a stopover. I’d presume this would be added to the price of tickets... plus the route might become slightly less attractive for people knowing they’d need to drag their arse off the aircraft just to Q up for some administrative exercise in SNN. Doesn’t appeal to me from the sounds of things.

Missing my point somewhat. Yes I know all that.

its already a precleared flight I was referring to the fact that it would be landing and parking in a precleared sheepdip so no need to reclear . If all it does is fuel the odd time winds and temps dont permit the takeoff with trip fuel then why not top up in SNN i.e I am not talking about a regular stop.

I am obviously missing some obvious fact here like how on earth is the reality (and huge interline cost or hotac) of booting 40 pax better than a short refuelling stop in Shannon

07-01-2020 12:41am

trellheim wrote: »

Missing my point somewhat. Yes I know all that.

its already a precleared flight I was referring to the fact that it would be landing and parking in a precleared sheepdip so no need to reclear . If all it does is fuel the odd time winds and temps dont permit the takeoff with trip fuel then why not top up in SNN i.e I am not talking about a regular stop.

I am obviously missing some obvious fact here like how on earth is the reality (and huge interline cost or hotac) of booting 40 pax better than a short refuelling stop in Shannon

Because it’s not just “a top up”. They would only depart Dublin with enough fuel to get to Shannon and then fuel for the Shannon US flight, otherwise there could be landing weight issues and increase brake temps causing longer than planned turns till they cool enough. The landing of a precleared flight at an intermediate airport might require an offload to reclear (just a guess). There is landing charges, handling charges, extra cycles on the frame, added maintenance costs as a result.

Idbatterim · 07-01-2020 12:48am

I find it hilarious when I get ridiculed for ever questioning the daa or Aer Lingus , competence / decision making !

Sincerely hope mcevaddy cam get his terminal built !

Locker10a · 07-01-2020 2:33am

Idbatterim wrote: »

I find it hilarious when I get ridiculed for ever questioning the daa or Aer Lingus , competence / decision making !

Sincerely hope mcevaddy cam get his terminal built !

Don’t see how a new terminal would solve the issues being discussed here ...

But anyway, it seems EI are indeed not happy with Airbus, as was discussed here before there’s be no publicity around the delivery of this “new modern aircraft that’s going to open new markets“ it’s becoming clear why now there’s obviously teething issues that need to be sorted out. Long term I still think the 321neolr will be a success for the airlines that operate it

Idbatterim · 07-01-2020 6:20am

I wonder what is happening to the terminal linked hotel. Surely a potential gold mine !

Beersmith · 07-01-2020 7:14am

Nah its the same crap I got before for questioning why there wasn't a Dublin Zagreb route on here. Now Croatian Airlines have been running it for years.

Idbatterim · 07-01-2020 8:16am

goingnowhere wrote: »

The obvious option is to run IAD, EWR, YYZ as a double A321

That gets you 3 A330's you can send elsewhere

Is this a sound idea ?

L1011 · 07-01-2020 8:43am

Vegas posts deleted. Idbatterim is not to post on this thread again.

trellheim · 07-01-2020 10:29am

Deleted User wrote: »

Because it’s not just “a top up”. They would only depart Dublin with enough fuel to get to Shannon and then fuel for the Shannon US flight, otherwise there could be landing weight issues and increase brake temps causing longer than planned turns till they cool enough. The landing of a precleared flight at an intermediate airport might require an offload to reclear (just a guess). There is landing charges, handling charges, extra cycles on the frame, added maintenance costs as a result.

Fine re the top-up - agreed, and yes, I know its not a free touch and go . As to the rest - really ?

dropping 40 pax beats a refuelling stop ?

L1011 · 07-01-2020 10:40am

trellheim wrote: »

Fine re the top-up - agreed, and yes, I know its not a free touch and go . As to the rest - really ?

dropping 40 pax beats a refuelling stop ?

The first EI A330s ended up doing 10-14 years before being shifted off or even scrapped. These had to do the Shannon stopover for most of their career

The next batch are all still here, hitting 20.

That's the kind of service life reduction it can cause. They'll have done the maths on which works out better financially.

IQO · 07-01-2020 2:25pm

Jamie2k9 wrote: »

Indeed and now its been announced officially twice weekly including fifth freedom on HEL-DUB.

https://www.dublinairport.com/latest-news/2019/11/27/juneyao-air-to-launch-new-dublin-shanghai-route

Meanwhile FR have increased freq on Warsaw next summer, cant think why...

Return prices for DUB to SHA around 300e now:

https://www.secretflying.com/posts/dublin-ireland-to-shanghai-china-for-only-e378-roundtrip/

Teebor15 · 08-01-2020 9:39am

goingnowhere wrote: »

EI used to fly to route and did reasonably well back 5+ years ago. It's a question of profit and they can make more money elsewhere.

ARN is the most likely Nordic destination to come back, Finnair already have HEL covered. DY are in serious trouble and are retreating. FR has met massive push back locally which forced them out. Not from SAS or DY but from the locals themselves who refused to fly FR. One of the airports FR flew to has now closed.

EI dropped Copenhagen as well that route was performing poorly even with a A319 and had SAS and FR (well Malmo) competition. EI had flown to Copenhagen since the 1960's. EI at that time of pulling out of the Nordic re established eticketing/interlining with SAS for connections, EI and SAS previously jointly operated DUB-CPH on a code share like deal many many years ago.

I'm curious, which airport has closed?

Van.Bosch · 08-01-2020 9:41am

Teebor15 wrote: »

I'm curious, which airport has closed?

Rygge?

Teebor15 · 08-01-2020 9:56am

Van.Bosch wrote: »

Rygge?

Yeah your probably right. Reading it again i guess he's talking about the Nordic countries as a whole whereas I initially read it as just the Stockholm airports.

Tabnabs · 08-01-2020 10:06am

goingnowhere wrote: »

ARN is the most likely Nordic destination to come back, Finnair already have HEL covered. DY are in serious trouble and are retreating. FR has met massive push back locally which forced them out. Not from SAS or DY but from the locals themselves who refused to fly FR. One of the airports FR flew to has now closed.

Except that's not what happened at all. A new travel tax was introduced and FR, who already had a pretty poor offering in Rygge pulled out altogether and went elsewhere in Norway.

Closure to civilian traffic

The airport announced on 24 May 2016 that it would cease civilian operations by 1 November 2016, stating that the Norwegian air passenger charge made Rygge uncompetitive. Ryanair, the airport's largest customer (the only other airline offering a few regular services being Norwegian Air Shuttle), had earlier announced it would pull out of Rygge if the air passenger charge was not removed.[7] Ryanair accounted for around two thirds of traffic at the airport and served 29 destinations, of which 16 were year-round, from Moss/Rygge as of October 2016. Business travellers did not really use the airport. Attempts were made by typical business airlines on domestic flights and destinations like London, which were not successful.[citation needed] Business travellers usually require frequent departures and Ryanair offered sparse schedules with often a few flights per destination and week. The attempts on domestic flights were also less attractive since Rygge could not compete with Gardermoen on frequency.

On 1 June 2016, Ryanair confirmed it will close its base at Moss/Rygge by 29 October 2016. Ryanair subsequently cancelled 16 routes to/from the Oslo area entirely, while moving 8 routes to Sandefjord Airport, Torp and 2 routes to the primary Oslo Airport, Gardermoen. Ryanair wrote that the tax forced them to halve their traffic to and from Norway. Since Rygge could not sustain half the traffic, the decision was made to close it.[8][5] The last aircraft to depart was an empty Ryanair Boeing 737-800 on a ferry flight to Göteborg on 30 October.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moss_Airport,_Rygge#Closure_to_civilian_traffic

Rygge is now a signifiant airfield for the RNoAF.

On another note, ARN is consistently the cheapest destination of the three capital cities that SAS fly to, and the least popular for "locals" to transit through.

goingnowhere · 08-01-2020 4:35pm

There were union issues in Denmark and even instructions to local authority staff not to fly FR on official business

https://www.theguardian.com/business/2015/jul/17/ryanair-closes-denmark-operation-temporarily-to-sidestep-union-dispute

Dublin routes news and general chat

Comments