Dublin Airport New Runway/Infrastructure.

LXFlyer · 21-10-2014 10:46am

I suspect they mean nine new services for the airport - they're new routes for the individual airlines concerned.

Tangey99 · 22-10-2014 11:56am

Deleted

man98 · 30-10-2014 12:09am

I know this is off topic, but I feel it doesn't warrant a thread or to resurrect a year old one - is there anything interesting coming into Dublin from 11:00? Thanks in advance.

Jamie2k9 · 30-10-2014 1:08am

man98 wrote: »

I know this is off topic, but I feel it doesn't warrant a thread or to resurrect a year old one - is there anything interesting coming into Dublin from 11:00? Thanks in advance.

When?

Now there will be the EK inbound and outbound, couple of US departures with US, DL and EI.

Tenger · 30-10-2014 1:24am

man98 wrote: »

I know this is off topic, but I feel it doesn't warrant a thread or to resurrect a year old one - is there anything interesting coming into Dublin from 11:00? Thanks in advance.

I assume you mean 11am tomorrow....there was a Corsair B744 in this evening....perhaps it leaves at 1100?

man98 · 30-10-2014 1:42am

Jamie2k9 wrote: »

When?

Now there will be the EK inbound and outbound, couple of US departures with US, DL and EI.

Nighttime plane spotting sounds fun. But yes, tomorrow morning.

Tenger wrote: »

I assume you mean 11am tomorrow....there was a Corsair B744 in this evening....perhaps it leaves at 1100?

Never seen a B744 in DUB before!

Taajsgpm · 30-10-2014 3:27am

seanmacc wrote: »

Build it now and actually have a piece of infrastructure ready to go at a time when we actually need it.

We had to wait for Dublin to come to a standstill before the M50, Port Tunnel and Luas were built. Why are we so allergic to forward planning here?

If we build the runway the planes will come.

Right on Sean

b757 · 30-10-2014 4:22am

Tenger wrote: »

I assume you mean 11am tomorrow....there was a Corsair B744 in this evening....perhaps it leaves at 1100?

No 747, get off that Facebook!

Idbatterim · 10-11-2014 5:14pm

passenger numbers up 10% in October...

http://www.dublinairport.com/gns/at-the-airport/latest-news/14-11-10/Passenger_Numbers_Up_10_In_October.aspx

Almost 2 million passengers used Dublin Airport in October, which was a 10% increase on the same month last year. Passenger volumes to and from continental Europe increased by 7% during the month, as almost 1 million passengers travelled to European destinations in October.Just over 700,000 passengers travelled to UK destinations during October, a 9% increase compared to October last year. Transatlantic traffic to North America increased by 24% with just under 200,000 passengers travelling on this route sector last month. Traffic to other international destinations in the Middle East and North Africa, increased by 31% to just over 57,000.Passenger numbers on domestic routes declined by 2% with almost 6,400 people travelling on domestic flights last month.Almost 18.6 million passengers have used Dublin Airport in the first 10 months of this year, which is a 7% increase on the same period in 2013.

http://www.independent.ie/life/travel/travel-news/dublin-airport-one-of-the-fastestgrowing-in-europe-30731945.html

Bo91 · 31-12-2014 11:13am

Would be great to hear the latest on this . Will it happen ?

jamo2oo9 · 31-12-2014 2:16pm

Bo91 wrote: »

Would be great to hear the latest on this . Will it happen ?

Once 25m pax use the Dublin Airport in one year, that'll trigger the start of building the parallel runway.

KoolKid · 04-01-2015 1:30am

Will it be parallel?
I heard it was going to follow the old 11-29 path.,

Peregrine · 04-01-2015 1:42am

KoolKid wrote: »

Will it be parallel?
I heard it was going to follow the old 11-29 path.,

I've only heard talk of a parallel runway. The cuurent planning permission is for a parallel runway.

Irish Steve · 04-01-2015 1:42am

parallel. with the eastern end pretty much in the area of the 29 threshold, but running parallel to avoid all sorts of issues with conflicts of flight paths.

Given the prevailing wind direction at Dublin, I have to make the comment that replacing 23 with 28 was a poor decision, in that strong winds from the south west end up causing problems on both 16 and 28 especially for the smaller aircraft.

Razor44 · 04-01-2015 1:51am

Also isnt 16 going to disappear when the new runway is built....dunno how good an idea that is tbh.

Irish Steve wrote: »

Given the prevailing wind direction at Dublin, I have to make the comment that replacing 23 with 28 was a poor decision, in that strong winds from the south west end up causing problems on both 16 and 28 especially for the smaller aircraft.

FWVT · 04-01-2015 1:53am

What'll happen the Boot Road if the parallel runway goes in? It'll be a hell of a long diversion down to St. Margaret's and back up for the guys heading into the ATC centre.

Irish Steve · 04-01-2015 2:15am

FWVT wrote: »

What'll happen the Boot Road if the parallel runway goes in? It'll be a hell of a long diversion down to St. Margaret's and back up for the guys heading into the ATC centre.

The Boot road will be gone, and you may be be very sure that as a semi state, there will be serious and long winded negotiations with the IAA on the essential compensation package that will be required before the new runway can be brought into use

I think it's only relatively recently that some Aer Lingus staff were made to give up the extra allowance they got with the move of their office from O'Connell Street to the airport. despite the fact that they worked at the airport anyway, and never went near O'Connell Street.

It will be a pain getting to the hangars in that area too, especially from the Swords side.

Won't do a lot for the trade at the Boot Inn either.

Jamie2k9 · 04-01-2015 3:03am

Razor44 wrote: »

Also isnt 16 going to disappear when the new runway is built....dunno how good an idea that is tbh.

That's the plan however a lot of opposition to it so would expect changes on that front.

KoolKid · 04-01-2015 8:46am

Razor44 wrote: »

Also isnt 16 going to disappear when the new runway is built....dunno how good an idea that is tbh.

I don't see the logic in having 2 parallel runways and no alternative in the event of strong crosswinds.

billie1b · 04-01-2015 10:48am

KoolKid wrote: »

I don't see the logic in having 2 parallel runways and no alternative in the event of strong crosswinds.

You see thats the problem right there, logic and DAA dont mix together

donvito99 · 04-01-2015 6:37pm

Heathrow, Gatwick and ors manage. Does EIDW suffer from more blustery conditions?

FWVT · 04-01-2015 7:02pm

donvito99 wrote: »

Heathrow, Gatwick and ors manage. Does EIDW suffer from more blustery conditions?

Yes. Heathrow and Gatwick do not suffer from the same frequency of strong winds from 150-230 °, which is where our R16 is a lifesaver. Take that way and well, there will be several days per year when flights will be grounded .

Can I ask what the reason for removing 16 would be? It wouldn't be interfering with 28R.

man98 · 04-01-2015 7:20pm

FWVT wrote:

Can I ask what the reason for removing 16 would be? It wouldn't be interfering with 28R.

Funding? It costs a lot to maintain a runway, and with 10,000 feet of tarmac more than before the bean counters have decided to close it I suppose...

04-01-2015 7:33pm

Last I heard the DAA were going to resubmit planning permission for the runway to be longer slightly further north and to RETAIN 16.

LXFlyer · 04-01-2015 8:00pm

FWVT wrote: »

Yes. Heathrow and Gatwick do not suffer from the same frequency of strong winds from 150-230 °, which is where our R16 is a lifesaver. Take that way and well, there will be several days per year when flights will be grounded .

Can I ask what the reason for removing 16 would be? It wouldn't be interfering with 28R.

The reason was that it was proposed to extend pier B outward to such an extent that the tip of the pier would be adjacent to the current runway.

Whether this remains the case is another thing.

See the attached file.

basill · 04-01-2015 9:27pm

It's the problem when you live in a country with light to non-existent regulation. They should have been told years ago to reinstate 11/29 which would take off the pressure on 28, then come back and revisit when the demand for a parallel runway exists. And keep their beady little hands off 16.

I am not sure the controllers in lhr would share the enthusiasm for only having E/W parallel runways. R23 was a lifesaver on really gusty days. It also gave them options when the other runways were blocked or needed work. Nowadays on a really windy day it's all about slot delays, holding and sometimes increased separation on approach. And then invariably a max cross wind landing. Must be lots of fun after a longhaul flight.

Pat Dunne · 04-01-2015 9:47pm

lxflyer wrote: »

The reason was that it was proposed to extend pier B outward to such an extent that the tip of the pier would be adjacent to the current runway.

Whether this remains the case is another thing.

See the attached file.

Can you give a link to the complete document where you got the attachment from.
Thanks

Peregrine · 04-01-2015 10:01pm

I, too, was wondering where you got that from. I think I've seen it before but I can't remember where. I thought it was the recent CIP proposal but I found a slightly different one in that.

Edit: Found it.
http://www.aviationreg.ie/_fileupload/image/2009-03-02_daa_cip_2010-2014.pdf
Page 31. Anyone know what label 49 is? They don't have a legend for the numbers.

Tenger · 04-01-2015 10:31pm

Pat Dunne wrote: »

Can you give a link to the complete document where you got the attachment from.
Thanks

Cant remember the name of the document but I saved that image myself. Read it 2-3 years ago. Image of airport design is titled "EIDW 2035"

Irish Steve wrote: »

.............as a semi state, there will be serious and long winded negotiations with the IAA on the essential compensation package that will be required before the new runway can be brought into use

I think it's only relatively recently that some Aer Lingus staff were made to give up the extra allowance they got with the move of their office from O'Connell Street to the airport. despite the fact that they worked at the airport anyway, and never went near O'Connell Street. ....

What do you consider "relatively recently"
O'Connell st office was closed approx over 5 years ago, staff there were offered options to transfer to airport based sections.

Irish Steve · 04-01-2015 10:45pm

Tenger wrote: »

Cant remember the name of the document but I saved that image myself. Read it 2-3 years ago. Image of airport design is titled "EIDW 2035"
What do you consider "relatively recently"
O'Connell st office was closed approx over 5 years ago, staff there were offered options to transfer to airport based sections.

My understanding of it from a radio program that I only had half an ear to some years ago was that some of the cabin crew were still getting a "transport" allowance based on the change from O'Connell St to the airport that happened a long number of years ago, and nothing recent, but it was one of those "anomalies" that are the speciality of union negotiators and semi state companies. There were questions being asked at the time about the reason for it still being paid, and no one was able to come up with a valid reason, given that in a lot of cases, the travel distance to work had been reduced, not increased.

Dublin Airport New Runway/Infrastructure.

Comments