Dublin Airport New Runway/Infrastructure.

10/28 will surely have to be repaired/overhauled in the next few years anyway.

Bigcheeze wrote: »

There's not much commercial about it when the DAA has a monopoly in the capital city of a small island. Raising airport charges to pay for it is not commercial, that's just a unique monopoly position.

It would be interesting to know what license fee the state could generate by licensing a second airport in the Dublin/Leinster region. That would benefit the state in revenue and benefit the consumer in competition.

Most cities have 1 airport which are all monopoly. Dublin charges are like most European airports and below many of them but because people here FR doing big PR about them everything thinks they are correct. They are paying more at other airports than DUB.

Dublin Bus have a monopoly for the city don't see you pointing that out. The world is full of monopoly's so deal with it weather its right or wrong doesn't come into it.

It would surely make more sense to upgrade Baldonnell, even if only for budget airlines serving Europe.

The locals would be delighted having jets flying in all day everyday. Think about what you are suggesting adding to jets going right over Dublin city, the extra fuel burn for a better flight path wouldn't keep loco's there very long.

Would it not be a more obvious/cheaper option to extend 10/28 when it is getting redone while also extending taxiways to allow A380 operations in the future ?

Apart from the 77W at MTOW what currant and future AC are limited on 10/28 ?

Jamie2k9 wrote: »

10/28 will likely be closed once there is a new runway opens for major works to be carried out before it returns to service.

And to be fair it needs to be resurfaced sooner rather than later.

rainbowdash wrote: »

If you live in Dublin then that might suit, but if you live in Cork, Limerick, Waterford, Kilkenny etc. etc. then an airport with lots of cheap flights from Baldonnell adjacent to a direct heavy rail link and a relatively uncongested motorway could be extremely advantageous.

Even if you live in south Dublin it would be no further than the existing airport.

What makes you think that there'd be loads of cheap flights?
First off Aer Lingus wouldn't move there, as they need Dublin for their transatlantic flights and for their connections.

Secondly, if you think Ryanair would pass on the lower airport charges to their customers then you've another thing coming. Ryanair will charge as much as they can get away with, if they can charge €75 for a flight out of Dublin at the moment and people are willing to pay that, then they're not suddenly going to charge them €5 less just because of the lower landing fees, they're simply going to keep the price at €75 and then make €5 more profit on each flight at the expense of the airport and the passengers.

People need to get rid of this notion that Ryanair's purpose is to offer lower fairs to passengers, that's not the case, the only thing Ryanair is here for is to make a profit, and as large a profit as they can. Nothing wrong with that, that's business, but people need to kick this notion about them being the be all and end all when it comes to lowering fares.

Thirdly, Ryanair would probably be the only one to move, Aer Arann would need to stay at DUB to allow the connections from regional get to Mainline Aer Lingus. BA, EK, EY, AA, DL, UA, US, LH I can't see moving either. Maybe some charter airlines might but that's the extent of it.

If you split the airlines up into two different airports then you're only going to dilute the income of the airports and their ability to provide proper services, without realistically any change in price for the consumer.

Just my €0.02...

I will leave aside the debate about a new runway. As an interim measure from a pilots perspective:-

- the Atc bosses and DAA need to go and see how LGW manages with a single runway, reduced separation and living in the shadow of Heathrow which severely constrains them
- runway 11/29 needs to be returned to service and all turbo prop and light jets can use this runway subject to Wx and operational requirements.
- build proper remote parking spaces for the end of lease stuff
- complete redesign of all taxiways and building of new ones.
- complete change of taxi routings using the shortest route possible rather than knee jerk reactions being thrown in just because one crew has a bad day.

rxan90 wrote: »

Off topic a bit here, but I think that when they built 10/28 they made it WAY too short. If they extended it on either end, not even going straight up to the fence, they could have easily made it 4000 metres. I don't know why they didn't, and left a HUGE area on both ends, with seemingly no purpose apart from to make the aircraft come in higher up and keep the landing lights within the fence (safety perhaps)? But compare it to how much "run-off" space is left in 16/34 - yes, the planes come in lower, and nothing bad/dangerous has ever happened (not to talk about how little extra space before the runway in some other airports, Princess Juliana in St Maarten, Toronto's Runway 23, etc). Why did they not take full advantage of all their available space on the "off chance" an aircraft might overrun?

Because they wanted long haul jets to use SNN instead. It was quite political around the time that 28 was built. They wanted to build it longer but the government at the time said roughly "Sure what would you need a long runway for, you're only going to be flying down to stopover in Shannon anyways. *Grins Menacingly* "

Also, the main point here isn't really length though, at the moment there's no real restriction on length for 28/10, unless there were flights to the middle east launched. The point being that in a couple of years, traffic is going to pick up considerably, and then we're going to have to build a new runway, but it'll be more expensive then, and not only that, but after the new runway is built, the current 28/10 has deep structural problems and will need major work done on it. Meaning that even if 6 years down the line, work starts on the new runway, and is completed in say 18-24 months. Then 28/10 will need to be closed for a further period. Meaning that from the point of when we hit the capacity level of the current runway, we're going to need to wait another 3-4 years till the extra capacity will actually materialise, when we could start work on it now and for much much cheaper than in a few years when construction has picked up.

Shamrock231 wrote: »

Because they wanted long haul jets to use SNN instead. It was quite political around the time that 28 was built. They wanted to build it longer but the government at the time said roughly "Sure what would you need a long runway for, you're only going to be flying down to stopover in Shannon anyways. *Grins Menacingly* "

So ridiculous, look what Shannon is like now. No flights from Dublin "have" to stop there any more, right? I think that obligation finished about 5 years ago?