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 - Terminal 2

silverharp

I dont kow much about the new terminal to be honest but having been though the Airport recently its hard to see the need for an additional terminal at a time when the economy is going to be sluggish for several years.
How will it effect the old terminal?

Find more posts tagged with

dublin

airport

terminal 2

Quick Links

Comments

darkman2

http://www.dublinairportauthority.com/TDA/FAQs/introt2.html

A "tour" of the terminal.

myhead

Furet wrote: »

Hi there. That question is for a different forum really (Commuting & Transport). This thread is about Terminal 2, not Ryanair.

Cmon forget about the shiney architecture and worry that it will be empty unless we can tempt a major airline to use dublin as a hub. Its madness with a decrease in passengers using dublin airport to build this. The decrease is not helped by the government and airport duties, and yes (Ryanair) boss Michael o Leary is 100% right in this matter. We shall pay for it in the end!

runway16

myhead wrote: »

Cmon forget about the shiney architecture and worry that it will be empty unless we can tempt a major airline to use dublin as a hub. Its madness with a decrease in passengers using dublin airport to build this. The decrease is not helped by the government and airport duties, and yes (Ryanair) boss Michael o Leary is 100% right in this matter. We shall pay for it in the end!

The same mentality that had a 2 lane M50 - And it is Ryanair that is actually responsible for much of the drop by cutting capacity in the 1st place. The current terminal is still at capacity. The airport is still constrained at many times in terms of stand availability. Most of it is old and past it - it badly needed new development, at teh very least to take pressure off much of the old building so it can be torn down (which Pier A and B badly need). The US flights are using terrible immigration facilities that are not fit for purpose. There isnt enough passport control capacity in Pier B and you cant move it anywhere else because that is already full.

Only in Ireland would people actually argue against having capacity to grow. And it will grow again... believe it or not.

O'leary is a ****wit who only skews everything to favour his companies needs at that specific moment in time. For years he banged on about "calcutta" type facilities... remember?

myhead

runway16 wrote: »

The same mentality that had a 2 lane M50 - And it is Ryanair that is actually responsible for much of the drop by cutting capacity in the 1st place. The current terminal is still at capacity. The airport is still constrained at many times in terms of stand availability. Most of it is old and past it - it badly needed new development, at teh very least to take pressure off much of the old building so it can be torn down (which Pier A and B badly need). The US flights are using terrible immigration facilities that are not fit for purpose. There isnt enough passport control capacity in Pier B and you cant move it anywhere else because that is already full.

Only in Ireland would people actually argue against having capacity to grow. And it will grow again... believe it or not.

O'leary is a ****wit who only skews everything to favour his companies needs at that specific moment in time. For years he banged on about "calcutta" type facilities... remember?

Your simply not understanding, lets be realistic unless we have the people to fill your building its pointless. its cart before the horse as usual in this country. building before planning. lets see how it pans out, I wish it to work out but im not holding my breath.:rolleyes:

KCAccidental

myhead wrote: »

its cart before the horse as usual in this country.

in an Infrastructural sense Ireland has NEVER been cart before the horse.

the horse has usually bolted by the time the cart is built in this country.

munchkin_utd

myhead wrote: »

Your simply not understanding, lets be realistic unless we have the people to fill your building its pointless. its cart before the horse as usual in this country. building before planning. lets see how it pans out, I wish it to work out but im not holding my breath.:rolleyes:

wrong

what ireland normally does is presume that nothing will change and when EVERYTHING goes belly up and is bursting at the seams then try and react and change it .

Examples..
- The entire school situation in greater Dublin. Houses built, young families moved in, suddenly no schools and panic and chaos ensues. Obviously the schools should have been built FIRST, but heck, in Ireland (apart from T2) building anything that isnt stuffed to the seams on the first day is a waste
- The M50, crap junctions, not wide enough, now costing 100s of millions to fix. And a bit more panic and chaos during the process.
- Cork south ring road: one of the busiest roads in ireland yet it wasnt built with freeflow junctions from the start. Plenty of chaos there too whilst the corkonians suffer the result of building without the necessary capacity from the beginning.

and you could go on and on.
Terminal 2 is a breath of fresh air that it ISNT going to be stuffed to the rafters and needing to be meddled with within a couple of years.

If you have ever experience the new Iberia Terminal in Madrid or the Lufthansa terminal in Munich you'll appreicte what a proper airport is like that isnt as crowed as a Mountjoy prision cell.

but nope.
calcutta conditions bursting at the seams like in Dublin T1 is a much better way to do things.

ilovegermany

myhead wrote: »

Cmon forget about the shiney architecture and worry that it will be empty unless we can tempt a major airline to use dublin as a hub. Its madness with a decrease in passengers using dublin airport to build this. The decrease is not helped by the government and airport duties, and yes (Ryanair) boss Michael o Leary is 100% right in this matter. We shall pay for it in the end!

Ireland is about more than RYANAIR. Its a total embarrassment coming into Dublin Airport, its worst than a lot of Airports in third world countries in terms of space, queuing conditions and generally being too small for purpose.

Contrary to Ryanair's assertions the old terminal does not have a 25-30 million capacity - probably more like 12-15 million.

The new terminal offers the capacity for a phased refurbishment of the old terminal and closure of the truly embarrassing bits (Basement check in at Area 14 and better spacing of stands). At the moment Ireland needs a terminal and a half, in ten/fifteen years we'll need 2 fully operating terminals.

We have a total peasant mentality in this country when it comes to infrastructure.

munchkin_utd

ilovegermany wrote: »

The new terminal offers the capacity for a phased refurbishment of the old terminal and closure of the truly embarrassing bits (Basement check in at Area 14 and better spacing of stands). At the moment Ireland needs a terminal and a half, in ten/fifteen years we'll need 2 fully operating terminals.

We have a total peasant mentality in this country when it comes to infrastructure.

Funny that. I'd put area 14 down as the most pleasant part of dublin airport currently!!
The main checkin area is so chronically unfit for purpose and overcrowded that its nice to get into the basement where its not so packed and you also have the self service terminals and self service checkin baggage facilities.

I do agree that the current setup is embarassing for ireland as a tourist destination.
Many Irish people think that the only people that use the airport are Irish LEAVING the island going on holidays.
Its not.

Dublin Airport is the first impression of Ireland that millions of visitors get. Imagine paying nearly a thousand euros for a flight from the US to Ireland (which are the current prices for august) and landing to the hovel that is Terminal 1.
And not because of choice. Its because thats the best Ireland has to offer!!!

Its a pure disgrace to the country that will be rectified (for non ryanair customers) when Terminal 2 opens.

Jayuu

Just wondering if anybody here who volunteered to be a "test passenger" had heard anything from the DAA. I registered on the site a couple of weeks back but have received nothing since.

eia340600

darkman2 wrote: »

http://www.dublinairportauthority.com/TDA/FAQs/introt2.html

A "tour" of the terminal.

From the off, I've been sceptical about passenger flows in the new terminal.This "tour" only heightens my fears.

For starters, departing passengers have to rise 2 floors after check in for security and shopping, only to have to descend 2 floors again to get to the gates.OR (USA bound passengers) descend 3 floors and rise another.
This is done so that arriving passengers only have one level change.

In the current terminal departing passengers have NO level changes and arriving passengers have one(after getting off the plane).

Not only do passengers have to change floors time and time again, but departing and arriving passengers actually intersect on the 1st floor of the terminal!!Never have I seen this happen outside of tiny regional airports.By the looks of things, departing passengers will have to walk through the ever present crowds of waiting plebs to get to security.

This layout is there because of the "bridge" over the T1 road.However, the roads were re-arranged to suit the new terminal, not the other way round.Therefore the bridge was unnecessary, and a more traditional and more effective terminal could have been designed.

Even if the bridge had to be there, a more flow friendly layout could have been adopted, with arrivals on the ground floor, check-in on the first and security on the 2nd, with the pier layout changed respectively.
Or arrivals on the top with check-in and security below.

In other words there were a million different possibilities that could have been used to design a more user friendly Terminal.I am dubious about T2 in that respect.

I hope I'm wrong, but I think T2 will be an incredibly annoying place to pass through..But I guess I'll have to wait and see...

Plowman

This post has been deleted.

irishdub14

Looking Good!

http://www.dublinairportauthority.com/TDA/Image_Bank/t2_construction_gallery.html

Plus a new newsletter:

http://www.dublinairportauthority.com/TDA/Latest_Newsletter/DAAezine2.pdf

runway16

myhead wrote: »

Your simply not understanding, lets be realistic unless we have the people to fill your building its pointless. its cart before the horse as usual in this country. building before planning. lets see how it pans out, I wish it to work out but im not holding my breath.:rolleyes:

With all due respect, I work in a senior position in the airlines at Dublin airport and I can tell you for fact that the current terminal is already over capacity and has been for a very long time. There just is not enough space at Dublin airport for a variety of functions essential to the proper running of the airport.

There arent enough aircraft parking stands
There arent enough Passport control facilities.
The Baggage system is below spec and is stretched.
The US immigration facility gets DANGEROUSLY overcrowded.
The Boarding gates at Pier A and B were designed for smaller aircraft and lower loads and are not big enough for the throughput being experienced.
Pier A is not fulfilling current security regulations and is only being allowed to operate with derogation because there isnt enough room anywhere else.
Facilities for staff are awful, there is not enough room for ramp equipment because of squeezing everything into too small a space.

I could go on and on....

All of a sudden it has become fashionable to slam everything built for the future in this country on the grounds of being a waste. The same people were usually the ones complaining when we under specified infrastructure in the past.

Airports have to be build ahead of demand because of the long lead in times otherwise you get years of the sort of congestion we once had at the airport. If a fire had broken out in that building in the height of summer, a lot of people would have died due to the crushing levels of congestion.

Forget O'leary. He has an agenda to frustrate Aer Lingus's Growth plans and make as much trouble for the government because he hasnt got his way.

T1 would burst at 30 million pax. It was bursting at 22 million for god sake. Dublin added an extra 4 million pax in one year in 2007. The need is there, but of course the bog mentality that just loves to complain about everything knows better....

JupiterKid

runway16 wrote: »

With all due respect, I work in a senior position in the airlines at Dublin airport and I can tell you for fact that the current terminal is already over capacity and has been for a very long time. There just is not enough space at Dublin airport for a variety of functions essential to the proper running of the airport.

There arent enough aircraft parking stands
There arent enough Passport control facilities.
The Baggage system is below spec and is stretched.
The US immigration facility gets DANGEROUSLY overcrowded.
The Boarding gates at Pier A and B were designed for smaller aircraft and lower loads and are not big enough for the throughput being experienced.
Pier A is not fulfilling current security regulations and is only being allowed to operate with derogation because there isnt enough room anywhere else.
Facilities for staff are awful, there is not enough room for ramp equipment because of squeezing everything into too small a space.

I could go on and on....

All of a sudden it has become fashionable to slam everything built for the future in this country on the grounds of being a waste. The same people were usually the ones complaining when we under specified infrastructure in the past.

Airports have to be build ahead of demand because of the long lead in times otherwise you get years of the sort of congestion we once had at the airport. If a fire had broken out in that building in the height of summer, a lot of people would have died due to the crushing levels of congestion.

Forget O'leary. He has an agenda to frustrate Aer Lingus's Growth plans and make as much trouble for the government because he hasnt got his way.

T1 would burst at 30 million pax. It was bursting at 22 million for god sake. Dublin added an extra 4 million pax in one year in 2007. The need is there, but of course the bog mentality that just loves to complain about everything knows better....

Well said. I completely agree. T2 is very much needed and it is needed now. The only quibble I have about T2 was the fact that Pier C - itself only built in 1999/2000 - was demolished to make way for T2. That was atrocious planning and a huge waste of money.

runway16

JupiterKid wrote: »

Well said. I completely agree. T2 is very much needed and it is needed now. The only quibble I have about T2 was the fact that Pier C - itself only built in 1999/2000 - was demolished to make way for T2. That was atrocious planning and a huge waste of money.

I agree with you about Pier C, but I think it was Pier C that was the mistake and not T2. When Pier C was built, it was built to the wrong design (it should have been sited where Pier E is being built), it was too narrow, and it needed its own check in / arrivals facilities. T2's location really corrects what went wrong when Pier C was built.

I still believe T2 isnt ambitious enough, and that a new terminal site with one large terminal should have been developed at west lands.

But try convincing the new breed of "we dont need its" and "its a waste of moneys" and "but O'leary says its bad" people that seem to have sprung up all over the country since the Recession.

spacetweek

myhead wrote:

Your simply not understanding, lets be realistic unless we have the people to fill your building its pointless. its cart before the horse as usual in this country. building before planning.

Incredible that there are still people who don't understand building for the future.
T2 isn't building before planning; it's building *as a result of* planning. It's rare example of it in this country (the motorways being another) and please let's not have it bashed or (in your case) misrecognised.

We'll have the people to fill the building within the next decade or two. The corrollary of this is that we won't have to have any construction up at the airport for another decade or two - which is great news.

runway16 wrote: »

I agree with you about Pier C, but I think it was Pier C that was the mistake and not T2. When Pier C was built, it was built to the wrong design (it should have been sited where Pier E is being built), it was too narrow, and it needed its own check in / arrivals facilities. T2's location really corrects what went wrong when Pier C was built.

Although I agree that Pier C was built wrongly, I don't agree that it should have been left there on the grounds that it was only 10 years old. When something is wrong, you fix it; you don't leave it there. If you leave it there, it just goes on being a problem for years and years. The works for T2 were so big that the replacement of C gets lost in the haze anyway.

murpho999

myhead wrote: »

Your simply not understanding, lets be realistic unless we have the people to fill your building its pointless. its cart before the horse as usual in this country. building before planning. lets see how it pans out, I wish it to work out but im not holding my breath.:rolleyes:

Jaysis I hate this attitude.

So if it was up to you. Stick with the old terminal with packed check in areas, often long security queues etc, wait for the economy to turn around and passenger numbers to turn around in say 5 years time, then discover that Terminal 1 can't cope. Go through design, planning and construction of T2, say another 5 years, so in around 2020 we could have a building fit for the numbers.

Remember this building was planned and committed to during the boom, when T1 was really struggling, and this recession, although serious and deep, will not last forever and things will some day turn around, and now for once we will have a major piece of infrastructure that is ready for that pick up.

Also, a recession is a time to do these projects, not only for future planning but it creates employment but also Government can get better value for money as prices for tenders become more competitive.

murpho999

eia340600 wrote: »

From the off, I've been sceptical about passenger flows in the new terminal.This "tour" only heightens my fears.

For starters, departing passengers have to rise 2 floors after check in for security and shopping, only to have to descend 2 floors again to get to the gates.OR (USA bound passengers) descend 3 floors and rise another.
This is done so that arriving passengers only have one level change.

In the current terminal departing passengers have NO level changes and arriving passengers have one(after getting off the plane).

Not only do passengers have to change floors time and time again, but departing and arriving passengers actually intersect on the 1st floor of the terminal!!Never have I seen this happen outside of tiny regional airports.By the looks of things, departing passengers will have to walk through the ever present crowds of waiting plebs to get to security.

This layout is there because of the "bridge" over the T1 road.However, the roads were re-arranged to suit the new terminal, not the other way round.Therefore the bridge was unnecessary, and a more traditional and more effective terminal could have been designed.

Even if the bridge had to be there, a more flow friendly layout could have been adopted, with arrivals on the ground floor, check-in on the first and security on the 2nd, with the pier layout changed respectively.
Or arrivals on the top with check-in and security below.

In other words there were a million different possibilities that could have been used to design a more user friendly Terminal.I am dubious about T2 in that respect.

I hope I'm wrong, but I think T2 will be an incredibly annoying place to pass through..But I guess I'll have to wait and see...

Really don't see what the problem is with changing levels, up and down an escalator a couple of times what is the problem?

Your point about intersecting Departing and Arriving passengers is wrong. This happens in major international airports quite often, Schiphol being a perfect example.
Don't see the problem with it. Departing people are heading for their gates and arrivees are heading for baggage/passport control. Do not see how it will cause a problem.

L1011

Ah now, Schiphol is not a model anywhere should aspire to...

murpho999

MYOB wrote: »

Ah now, Schiphol is not a model anywhere should aspire to...

Why not? It's a pretty easy airport to get in and out of, no means perfect, for me some walks to gates, especially Aer Lingus' is very long, and they often don't have enough Immigration Police on the desks, leading to longer queues than there should be, but apart from that it's a nice airport, that works, and is generally pleasant to be in.

KC61

The same happens in Frankfurt and Barcelona as well.

irishdub14

New Article on T2:

http://www.independent.ie/national-news/inside-the-controversial-terminal-2-as-it-gets-ready-for-takeoff-2267945.html?start=2

How is it Controversial??

Plowman

This post has been deleted.

Craig Fay

irishdub14 wrote: »

New Article on T2:

http://www.independent.ie/national-news/inside-the-controversial-terminal-2-as-it-gets-ready-for-takeoff-2267945.html?start=2

From that:
"And, should the upturn arrive, there is space for a further pier to be added to cater for those jet-setting generations of the future."

I thought one of the planning conditions was that they couldn't the expand the terminal?

Plowman

This post has been deleted.

Craig Fay

Plowman wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

I didn't mean in regards to space, but thought I seen here that ABP made it one of the conditions on granting planning permission.

df1985

darkman2 wrote: »

http://www.dublinairportauthority.com/TDA/FAQs/introt2.html

A "tour" of the terminal.

good video to see the terminal but christ some of the cheesy stuffy yer man was coming out with was cringeworthy!

runway16

murpho999 wrote: »

Really don't see what the problem is with changing levels, up and down an escalator a couple of times what is the problem?

Your point about intersecting Departing and Arriving passengers is wrong. This happens in major international airports quite often, Schiphol being a perfect example.
Don't see the problem with it. Departing people are heading for their gates and arrivees are heading for baggage/passport control. Do not see how it will cause a problem.

Security regulations require that departing and arriving passengers do not mix in the airside portion of the terminal (ie beyond security control). AMSTERDAM gets away with it, like Pier A in Dublin, because it is an older design, but no new facility can allow it.

The only point in T2 where they will mix is landside, after the 1st escalator up from check in, where the departing pax will quickly ascend to the next level, so it is not an issue in this case.

Ghall

Looking forward to seeing the new terminal open, hoping to fly out to Orlando later in the year from T2.

Jayuu

The US immigration control will be a huge advantage in Terminal 2 as well.
Lets face it, nobody minds doing all that stuff at the start of the journey when you're all excited about going away as opposed to the other side when you're tired and you just want to get to your destination.