Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

Dublin Airport New Runway/Infrastructure.

Options
1…1819212324…291

Comments

  • Options
    #602
    Idbatterim
    Registered Users Posts: 17,849 ✭✭✭✭Idbatterim


    how much does the DAA make on fuel stops, what way do they charge?


  • Options
    #603
    LXFlyer
    Registered Users Posts: 17,603 ✭✭✭✭LXFlyer


    The schedule change appears to be effective May 10th.

    ET500 Addis Ababa - Dublin - Washington daily (arrive DUB 04:50, depart 05:50)
    ET502 Addis Ababa - Dublin - Toronto MoWeFr (arrive DUB TuThSa 05:00; depart 06:00)


  • Options
    #604
    LXFlyer
    Registered Users Posts: 17,603 ✭✭✭✭LXFlyer


    Deleted User wrote: »
    Confirmed by their schedule/timetable daily 777-200LR and 3 times a week 787-8. Not bad

    On Monday morning from 0530 to 0600 there will be three Ethiopian aircraft on the ground at Dublin.

    Not quite true!

    Addis Ababa-Toronto operates MoWeFr, transiting Dublin on TuThSa.

    Addis Ababa-Dublin-Los Angeles operates WeFrSu, so it will be in Dublin on MoThSa - so there will be three Ethiopian aircraft in Dublin on Thursday and Saturday mornings, not on Mondays!


  • Options
    #605
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 0 ✭ [Deleted User]


    lxflyer wrote: »
    Not quite true!

    Addis Ababa-Toronto operates MoWeFr, transiting Dublin on TuThSa.

    Addis Ababa-Dublin-Los Angeles operates WeFrSu, so it will be in Dublin on MoThSa - so there will be three Ethiopian aircraft in Dublin on Thursday and Saturday mornings, not on Mondays!

    Thanks for the correction, tried doing it on the fly, failed horribly.


  • Options
    #606
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 0 ✭ [Deleted User]


    FWVT wrote: »
    Why are they changing to DUB? Cost?

    I'd say they got a deal they couldn't refuse.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #607
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 0 ✭ [Deleted User]


    Idbatterim wrote: »
    how much does the DAA make on fuel stops, what way do they charge?

    Landing charges etc.


  • Options
    #608
    BonkeyDonker
    Registered Users Posts: 571 ✭✭✭BonkeyDonker


    Will they be de-boarding during the refueling, and while the times are not great possibly getting pre-clearance for the IAD flight?


  • Options
    #609
    Jamie2k9
    Registered Users Posts: 10,684 ✭✭✭✭Jamie2k9


    BonkeyDonker wrote: »
    Will they be de-boarding during the refueling, and while the times are not great possibly getting pre-clearance for the IAD flight?

    Operating from T1


  • Options
    #610
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 0 ✭ [Deleted User]


    BonkeyDonker wrote: »
    Will they be de-boarding during the refueling, and while the times are not great possibly getting pre-clearance for the IAD flight?

    I wouldn't think they'll deboard and no pre clearance, 60mins is not long enough time to do everything.


  • Options
    #611
    Kenny2012
    Registered Users Posts: 1,349 ✭✭✭Kenny2012


    Ethiopian Airlines is planning to boost capacity to North America from late-June 2015, according to recent schedule update. In addition to planned 3 weekly Addis Ababa – Dublin – Los Angeles Boeing 787-8 service from 19JUN15, the Star Alliance member will operate larger aircraft to Washington Dulles from 21JUN15 and Toronto from 01JUL15 (ADD departure). Planned schedule as follow.

    Addis Ababa – Washington Boeing 777-300ER replaces -200LR, daily service
    ET500 ADD2230 – 0340+1FCO0440+1 – 0810+1IAD 77W D
    ET501 IAD1100 – 0730+1ADD 77W D

    Addis Ababa – Toronto Boeing 777-200LR replaces 787-8, 3 weekly service
    ET502 ADD2240 – 0350+1FCO0450+1 – 0850+1YYZ 77L 135
    ET503 YYZ1120 – 0730+1ADD 77L 246


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #612
    Khuitlio
    Registered Users Posts: 90 ✭✭Khuitlio


    Great to get confirmation that Ethiopian plan to refuel in Dublin.
    I'm presuming that the IAD and YYZ passengers will be counted. Very conceivable that ET could add over 200,000 to the passenger figures.

    They will be operating:
    6 x 787 (capacity = 270) for 7 weeks in May and June (3xADD-DUB, 3xDUB-YYZ)
    14 x 77L (capacity = 329) for 6 weeks in May and June (7xADD-DUB, 7xDUB-IAD)

    Then they start LAX and upgage IAD to 77W and YYZ to 77L:
    12 x 787 for 28 weeks (3xADD-DUB, 3xDUB-LAX, 3xLAX-DUB, 3xDUB-ADD)
    6 x 77L for the remainder of the year (26 weeks) (3xADD-DUB, 3xDUB-YYZ)
    14 x 77W (capacity = 399) for 28 weeks (7xADD-DUB, 7xDUB-IAD)

    At a load factor of 60% that's over 200,000 passengers! :D


  • Options
    #613
    JCX BXC
    Registered Users Posts: 18,140 ✭✭✭✭JCX BXC


    Wouldn't be like Dublin to inflate figures now would it? :):):)


  • Options
    #614
    Jamie2k9
    Registered Users Posts: 10,684 ✭✭✭✭Jamie2k9


    Carnacalla wrote: »
    Wouldn't be like Dublin to inflate figures now would it? :):):)

    SNN style isn't i?


  • Options
    #615
    JCX BXC
    Registered Users Posts: 18,140 ✭✭✭✭JCX BXC


    Jamie2k9 wrote: »
    SNN style isn't i?

    300,000 compared to 8,000?


  • Options
    #616
    Jamie2k9
    Registered Users Posts: 10,684 ✭✭✭✭Jamie2k9


    Carnacalla wrote: »
    300,000 compared to 8,000?

    I'm sure they will be clearly stated, in the daa's interest to clearly state such passengers from a regulation point of view on airport charges...


  • Options
    #617
    JCX BXC
    Registered Users Posts: 18,140 ✭✭✭✭JCX BXC


    Jamie2k9 wrote: »
    I'm sure they will be clearly stated, in the daa's interest to clearly state such passengers from a regulation point of view on airport charges...

    Shannon state there's pretty well too, its just well over 99% of the Irish population won't be looking to where they stated it.

    Everything Shannon does is wrong until Dublin gets some....


  • Options
    #618
    lord lucan
    Registered Users Posts: 9,575 ✭✭✭lord lucan


    Carnacalla wrote: »
    Wouldn't be like Dublin to inflate figures now would it? :):):)
    Carnacalla wrote: »
    .....
    Everything Shannon does is wrong until Dublin gets some....
    Quit the trolling, that's the second thread in a week you've done this and it won't be tolerated.


  • Options
    #619
    MJohnston
    Registered Users Posts: 10,561 ✭✭✭✭MJohnston


    Carnacalla wrote: »
    Wouldn't be like Dublin to inflate figures now would it? :):):)

    It's already been noted that the passenger figures are important in order to trigger the new runway process - so I would say that it's very much legitimate to count these flights as part of the airport's capacity, for that purpose. They may not be passing through the terminals, but they will be using up space and facilities, and that's exactly what the runway and related projects are influenced by. In fact, does anyone know why they chose "passengers through the airport" as the trigger anyway?


  • Options
    #620
    GCU Flexible Demeanour
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,257 ✭✭✭GCU Flexible Demeanour


    MJohnston wrote: »
    They may not be passing through the terminals, but they will be using up space and facilities, and that's exactly what the runway and related projects are influenced by.
    Indeed, these are real passengers in the sense that they are actually arriving en route to another location for a necessary fuel stop. It's not like Dublin Airport was arranging to fly them around in a circle, and count them twice. Or like there's a legal obligation on them to land there.
    MJohnston wrote: »
    In fact, does anyone know why they chose "passengers through the airport" as the trigger anyway?
    My understanding (which better informed people might be able to correct) is that the Regulator isn't, strictly speaking, deciding on a trigger for the runway. The Regulator is determining the charges that Dublin Airport can levy on airlines, on the basis that market forces would not offer a sufficient discipline. Hence, the Regulator is setting out what costs he's willing to recognise in setting the charge, with the intention of giving the Airport a reason to keep costs down.

    So, strictly speaking, Dublin Airport could initiate the project tomorrow. But they'd have to find the money from within their existing resources.

    The Regulator's statement is below - I think it's interesting to read, just to get a flavour of how his assessment is constructed. I know many of us have a firm belief that this investment is worthwhile - and I'd agree with that. But it is good to have an independent voice saying "here, I'm not letting them charge whatever they like, justified with crowd-pleasing projects."

    http://www.aviationreg.ie/_fileupload/2014-05-29%20Press%20Statement.pdf


  • Options
    #621
    davebuck
    Registered Users Posts: 243 ✭✭davebuck


    Are the DAA adding new gates to the end of the 100s pier where Ryanair are based? there seem to be a lot of work at that end of the pier.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #622
    Peregrine
    Moderators, Education Moderators Posts: 26,399 Mod ✭✭✭✭Peregrine


    davebuck wrote: »
    Are the DAA adding new gates to the end of the 100s pier where Ryanair are based? there seem to be a lot of work at that end of the pier.

    There's a new apron being constructed to the north of that pier.


  • Options
    #623
    billie1b
    Registered Users Posts: 3,810 ✭✭✭billie1b


    They built the pier too short, somebody cocked up and it was built two stands too short, when the mistake was 'noticed' they decided to keep going with what they had. Thats why stands 111L/111R non contact stands. DAA were saying for ages that they had to apply for planning permission to get it extended to the original design


  • Options
    #624
    jamo2oo9
    Registered Users Posts: 5,780 ✭✭✭jamo2oo9


    billie1b wrote: »
    They built the pier too short, somebody cocked up and it was built two stands too short, when the mistake was 'noticed' they decided to keep going with what they had. Thats why stands 111L/111R non contact stands. DAA were saying for ages that they had to apply for planning permission to get it extended to the original design

    Why do you need planning permission to extend when the original planning permission included those two stands at the end?


  • Options
    #625
    billie1b
    Registered Users Posts: 3,810 ✭✭✭billie1b


    jamo2oo9 wrote: »
    Why do you need planning permission to extend when the original planning permission included those two stands at the end?

    I dont know, we were all stumped by that one too


  • Options
    #626
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 0 ✭ [Deleted User]


    jamo2oo9 wrote: »
    Why do you need planning permission to extend when the original planning permission included those two stands at the end?

    Planning permissions have time limits, I saw plans years ago that had that pier taking a turn and being 2-4 gates longer, I think it was to be added later on, expect extra doors to be added to the pier as they don't have enough for the number of gates it serves now.


  • Options
    #627
    Chris_5339762
    Registered Users Posts: 5,864 ✭✭✭Chris_5339762


    They need to improve the automatic walkways on the way out to the 100 gates. Adding more to the end of that is giving very long walk times, amongst the longest I know as it stands.

    Edit: And improve them on the way back too when you land. The walkways are less than half the length they could easily be.

    Edit2: And a passport free UK arrivals area, thats a bugbear of mine.


  • Options
    #628
    Jamie2k9
    Registered Users Posts: 10,684 ✭✭✭✭Jamie2k9


    Deleted User wrote: »
    Planning permissions have time limits, I saw plans years ago that had that pier taking a turn and being 2-4 gates longer, I think it was to be added later on, expect extra doors to be added to the pier as they don't have enough for the number of gates it serves now.

    Expect not, FR will not want it nor pay for it, I expect 5G will be used for busing if it becomes a major problem.


  • Options
    #629
    billie1b
    Registered Users Posts: 3,810 ✭✭✭billie1b


    Jamie2k9 wrote: »
    Expect not, FR will not want it nor pay for it, I expect 5G will be used for busing if it becomes a major problem.

    FR have already been in contact with DAA numerous times about the pier being extended to its original length, they are constantly giving out that Pier 1 is not big enough for the flights it handles at the moment.


  • Options
    #630
    VG31
    Registered Users Posts: 3,420 ✭✭✭VG31


    Wasn't there a prefab like building that was attached to Pier D that was demolished a year or two ago?


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #631
    Jamie2k9
    Registered Users Posts: 10,684 ✭✭✭✭Jamie2k9


    billie1b wrote: »
    FR have already been in contact with DAA numerous times about the pier being extended to its original length, they are constantly giving out that Pier 1 is not big enough for the flights it handles at the moment.

    Being in contract for something doesn't translate into paying for something. It won't happen medium term. FR will use 200 gates or buses when required.


Advertisement