Dublin Airport New Runway/Infrastructure.

rainbowdash · 18-05-2013 10:47am

markpb wrote: »

Ireland already has more than enough airports without building more of them just so people can feel closer to one. Building a new airport and all its associated infrastructure is expensive and not to be done on a whim.

Well realistically they should consider closing Shannon if a baldonnell was to go ahead, there is a lot of waffle talk about railway lines to shannon and all the rest but if Shannon and cork were downgraded and baldonnell upgraded, along with a greatly improved train service from limerick and cork to Dublin heuston, stopping at the airport, it could be a win win all round.

The politicians will have one of it though.

Peregrine · 18-05-2013 11:59am

rainbowdash wrote: »

Well realistically they should consider closing Shannon if a baldonnell was to go ahead, there is a lot of waffle talk about railway lines to shannon and all the rest but if Shannon and cork were downgraded and baldonnell upgraded, along with a greatly improved train service from limerick and cork to Dublin heuston, stopping at the airport, it could be a win win all round.

The politicians will have one of it though.

That'd be a stupid thing to do. Cork is Ireland's second largest city and ORK is doing quite well at the moment, recession passenger declines is almost stable now. The only thing it's missing is transatlantic but Shannon has that. I don't think we can justify having both Cork and Shannon if Shannon's passenger numbers keep on declining but building an airport at Baldonnel is no reason to close Shannon in the side of the country.

How can you justify "downgrading" Ireland's second largest airport in Ireland's second largest city and telling them to travel to Dublin's second major airport which will cost hundreds of millions to build from scratch?

Shamrock231 · 18-05-2013 12:48pm

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...

GCU Flexible Demeanour · 18-05-2013 3:32pm

markpb wrote: »

Ireland already has more than enough airports

I think this is spot on. Any budget airline wanting to serve Ireland is spoilt for choice.

The issue here is not about budget airline access. It's about a necessary upgrade to the runway of the only airport capable of competing with other significant European destinations. By that, I don't mean LHR and the like. But Dublin's short runway disadvantages Ireland as a region, when competing with mid to smaller capitals and regional cities like Lisbon or Manchester.

There actually isn't that big an issue with people accessing the airport from Dublin's wider catchment. If there was, Shannon would be doing a lot better.

basill · 18-05-2013 8:31pm

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 · 19-05-2013 12:17am

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?

Shamrock231 · 19-05-2013 12:20am

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.

Razor44 · 19-05-2013 12:22am

how bad is the surface on 10/28 now?

rxan90 · 19-05-2013 12:22am

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?

Shamrock231 · 19-05-2013 12:26am

Razor44 wrote: »

how bad is the surface on 10/28 now?

IIRC, an aircraft had an accident there a few months back when it hit a chunk of concrete that had broken loose, so that's how bad it is.

Shamrock231 · 19-05-2013 12:28am

rxan90 wrote: »

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?

Correct, there is no longer a forced Shannon stopover, but at the time, the local SNN TDs wanted to ensure that there was always going to be a stopover and did everything in their powers to ensure that that would stick around, including the shortening of the requested length for 28/10 so that long haul jets couldn't make it out of Dublin with a full fuel load.

GCU Flexible Demeanour · 19-05-2013 12:56pm

Shamrock231 wrote: »

Correct, there is no longer a forced Shannon stopover, but at the time, the local SNN TDs wanted to ensure that there was always going to be a stopover and did everything in their powers to ensure that that would stick around, including the shortening of the requested length for 28/10 so that long haul jets couldn't make it out of Dublin with a full fuel load.

You'll find some echoes of that in Dail debates going back.

http://www.oireachtas-debates.gov.ie/D/0354/D.0354.198412120040.html
Dáil Éireann - Volume 354 - 12 December, 1984
Written Answers. - Dublin Airport New Runway.

604. Mrs. Owen asked the Minister for Communications if he intends to follow the recommendations contained in a report dated April 1981, prepared by representatives of Aer Lingus, Aer Rianta and the Department of Transport and Power, concerning the need for a new runway at Dublin Airport of approximately 9,000 feet in length.

Minister for Communications (Mr. J. Mitchell): Bearing in mind the age of the Dublin Airport runway system, which dates from the mid-forties, the developments in size and weight of aircraft in recent years and the need to provide for long term traffic needs at the airport, a detailed examination of the airport's future runway requirements was carried [2423] out in the late seventies by a working group. The group recommended that a new east/west 9,000 feet runway should be built. Aer Rianta endorse the working group's report and the company have advised me that the operational life of the existing main runway cannot be guaranteed beyond 1988.

In the light of these considerations I will shortly be seeking formal Government approval for the level of investment necessary for a new runway at Dublin Airport. I am not, therefore, yet in a position to indicate the length of the proposed runway or the nature of the instrument landing system to be provided. I should make it clear that while details of the funding arrangements for the project have not yet been finalised it is expected that the project will be funded primarily from non-Exchequer sources, i.e. borrowing by Aer Rianta and the company's own resources. Completion and operation of a new runway at Dublin Airport will not hinder or adversely affect operations at Shannon Airport. I can assure the Deputy that there will be no change in Government policy under which Shannon is Ireland's only designated transatlantic gateway for traffic to and from Ireland.

http://www.oireachtas-debates.gov.ie/D/0367/D.0367.198606060003.html
Dáil Éireann - Volume 367 - 06 June, 1986
US Preinspection Facilities at Shannon Airport: Motion.
It is worth drawing the attention of the House to a phrase in the Minister's speech. He says that officers of the United States Immigration and Naturalisation Service would conduct in Ireland, at Shannon in the first instance, inspection of passengers and aircraft crew required by the US laws. Is it proposed to have this elsewhere and, if so, why? What the Minister said is borne out by [1481] Article IV of the agreement in the Schedule to the Bill where it says:

Preinspection may be conducted at additional locations in Ireland by agreement, expressed in writing, of both Governments.

Why should it be held anywhere else other than Shannon? Has it to do with the proposal which I regard as rather dubious in terms of public expenditure of a new runway at Dublin? For what purpose other than trans-Atlantic flights is that proposed runway required at a cost of £30 million? That proposal has been made for ten or 15 years and it never came to fruition. I do not see the operation of Dublin Airport being adversely affected by the absence of a very long runway that could take fully laden trans-Atlantic flights. We are entitled to ask why that should be the case. The context of Article IV of this draft agreement seems to suggest that, as soon as the runway is provided, these facilities will be provided in Dublin. We have a tendency at official level to think that everything must happen in Dublin and, if it is not happening in Dublin, it is not happening at all.

And, push coming to shove, the Shannon lobby got its way. It's being quickly forgotten, but very virulent politics had a huge impact on Dublin Airport. Politics is why there isn't a 3,000 metre runway there for the last twenty years (and more).

murphym7 · 20-05-2013 10:01am

I am not sure why Dublin needs a second runway. Even at 23.5M passengers its still 10 million passengers less that Gatwick currently have operating with one runway. Is it a vanity project? Honest question, I am not an expert. But it does seem odd that Gatwick can run one runway with 34 million passengers but Dublin needs a second runway with 10 million passenegrs less.

veetwin · 20-05-2013 10:13am

murphym7 wrote: »

I am not sure why Dublin needs a second runway. Even at 23.5M passengers its still 10 million passengers less that Gatwick currently have operating with one runway. Is it a vanity project? Honest question, I am not an expert. But it does seem odd that Gatwick can run one runway with 34 million passengers but Dublin needs a secondthird runway with 10 million passenegrs less.

Good question.

Jhcx · 20-05-2013 10:39am

murphym7 wrote: »

I am not sure why Dublin needs a second runway. Even at 23.5M passengers its still 10 million passengers less that Gatwick currently have operating with one runway. Is it a vanity project? Honest question, I am not an expert. But it does seem odd that Gatwick can run one runway with 34 million passengers but Dublin needs a second runway with 10 million passenegrs less.

If they just made the current one longer we would easily be able to manage to the standard of Gatwick.

urajoke · 20-05-2013 12:17pm

veetwin wrote: »

Good question.

Not really.

It's not like all three could be in use simultaneously and to suggest they could is naive. Using 2 in the mornings has a huge impact on operations at Dublin. Yes it gets the departures away but it has a knock on impact on arrivals. Delaying them in the air especially the morning Atlantic arrivals and then it's complicated to get them onto their stands. Airfield works are not allowed. Tow traffic is hugely restricted etc etc

Gatwicks 34 million is achieved by having a lot more Heavies using the airport therefore bringing in more passengers per plane. Yes Gatwick is busier I don't dispute that. Dublin currently doesn't need a second runway. Yes it would make life much easier and would dramatically reduce delays.

I would support building the runway now on the basis the DAA could save money as it is currently cheaper to build stuff now than it was before or will be in the future.

Most airports in the world that have a reasonable traffic volume use two parallel runways to reduce complexity and increase efficiency.

Why did we need a second M50 bridge ? why did we need three lane roads ? because you build in capacity not fight fires afterwards trying to catch back up to the curve, I remember having to sit in rush hour traffic on the M50 because of the toll booths and because we all had to squeeze on to the one bridge.

The time to build a second runway was 10 years ago. Traffic is starting to increase again, slowly yes but it is increasing. Therefore wear and tear is increasing.

Yes Dublin needs a longer runway always should have had one but the Westerners blocked that. It is an attraction for operators and its also a huge safety benefit for pilots.

@basill The cost to restore 11/29 is probably not worth the money especially if you could build a proper parallel runway for a few quid more. The benefits are limited, the aircraft that can use it is limited, the opportunities to use it are limited by weather and its offset track.

28 is being used efficiently when there is high volumes of traffic. Most pilots don't know the spacing required for lander-lander or lander-departure-lander do you ?

It's hard to second guess crews at times. Sometimes you provide a gap for a departure only for that crew to get to the holding point and say they are not ready. Wasted gap. Or to taxi to slow and miss another gap or take for ever to ask for taxi. I can provide the tower with departure spacing if you want but that's not efficient for arrivals. I could provide no gaps for departures but you would whine that you had to wait 10 mins to take off. Gaps take time to build in and close up its not instantaneous. We are not mind readers in approach we do our best to judge when the tower needs the gaps.

Remote parking-11/29 is good enough for that at the moment.

Redesign taxiways-ATC have implored the DAA to do that but its like the NRA's budget money only for repairs none for new builds, the future plans are there to improve taxi routes but money is the problem.

GCU Flexible Demeanour · 20-05-2013 12:43pm

urajoke wrote: »

<...> Gatwicks 34 million is achieved by having a lot more Heavies using the airport therefore bringing in more passengers per plane. Yes Gatwick is busier I don't dispute that. Dublin currently doesn't need a second runway. Yes it would make life much easier and would dramatically reduce delays. <...>

It is fair to observe, as well, that analysis behind the new runway proposal has taken account of consideration of Gatwick to see what can be done to maximise capacity of the existing runway. For instance, this report from 2004:

http://www.aviationreg.ie/_fileupload/Image/ASA_JULY04.pdf

In principle, all airports with a single runway with similar infrastructure (eg rapid exit taxiways) should have similar hourly capacities. Gatwick is generally regarded as ‘best in class’ in this aspect. Any differences between Dublin and Gatwick are largely due to infrastructure differences, traffic mix and operational procedures.

That's not particularly to say that increasing capacity means both increasing length and a second runway. Just to point that, indeed, this process hasn't ignored what's been done in Gatwick or elsewhere.

BeardySi · 20-05-2013 1:17pm

Also on the LGW argument, don't they have a second shorter runway in parallel to the main which can be used when the main runway is in need of maintenance/repair work? - It's just too close to the main runway to be used at the same time....

urajoke · 20-05-2013 1:27pm

Treadhead wrote: »

Also on the LGW argument, don't they have a second shorter runway in parallel to the main which can be used when the main runway is in need of maintenance/repair work? - It's just too close to the main runway to be used at the same time....

It's existence is there purely for your first point. They want a second runway but have similar issues with NIMBY's.

The comparison with Gatwick is only there as they have a single runway. Whereas Manchester airport is something that Dublin has tried to aspire to in terms of the second runway for a similar number of movements and passengers.

Peregrine · 20-05-2013 4:32pm

murphym7 wrote: »

I am not sure why Dublin needs a second runway. Even at 23.5M passengers its still 10 million passengers less that Gatwick currently have operating with one runway. Is it a vanity project? Honest question, I am not an expert. But it does seem odd that Gatwick can run one runway with 34 million passengers but Dublin needs a second runway with 10 million passenegrs less.

1) Runway 10/28 is in a horrible state
2) Runway 10/28 is too short, Gatwick's main runway isn't

Gatwick's second runway is the same length as Dublin's main runway. A 2.6km main runway for Dublin is a joke, even Shannon got a proper 3.2 km runway.

Yes Dublin could do without a longer runway for a few more years but what's the point in saying "Well we're screwed now.." When our passenger numbers become 23-25m and all we have is a short runway with bits of concrete coming off it?

We have time now to actually a build a proper 3.6km so it's ready when passenger numbers hit 23m and then the current runway can be closed and repaired.

Razor44 · 20-05-2013 7:03pm

we will end up with a M50 situation again, only fixed when its at a stand still, way beyond its capacity. now really is the time to do it.

Funny point on the M50, it was originally planed as a 3 lane motorway with twin bridges over the River. The minister at the time decided Dublin wold never need a 3 lane motorway. how much did it cost to upgrade in the end?

that sort of thinking and lack of planning needs to be left in the past.

murphym7 · 20-05-2013 7:08pm

Nimrod 7 wrote: »

1) Runway 10/28 is in a horrible state
2) Runway 10/28 is too short, Gatwick's main runway isn't

Gatwick's second runway is the same length as Dublin's main runway. A 2.6km main runway for Dublin is a joke, even Shannon got a proper 3.2 km runway.

Yes Dublin could do without a longer runway for a few more years but what's the point in saying "Well we're screwed now.." When our passenger numbers become 23-25m and all we have is a short runway with bits of concrete coming off it?

We have time now to actually a build a proper 3.6km so it's ready when passenger numbers hit 23m and then the current runway can be closed and repaired.

Why is a longer runway important? If Dublin can manage with the shorter one now, what will change in the future that a longer one would be important? Do we think that the A380 will become a feature? What routes Would support that kind of capacity?

If the issues you outlined above are the only concerns then refurb the existing main runway and if needed extend?

jamo2oo9 · 20-05-2013 7:21pm

With a longer runway, you could have carriers offering destinations to middle-east, Asia, West Coast America/Canada and Africa. The biggest potential route is most likely a west coast american route (SFO, LAX, LAS, SEA or YVR) and Asia with a codeshare to Australia or something alike. This would be more popular for American carriers as they would be allowed to utilise larger aircraft on high density routes with high demand like JFK, BOS and ORD.

I think the 10-28 is in dire need of a complete refurbishment and a new, longer runway is needed in order to minimise the disruption of the airport's expansion.

Let's say we're 10 years from now. The runway is basically broken and the DAA haven't secured the funding for the parallel runway. DAA is forced to close 28 and use the shorter 16-32 runway will can have a massive affect of airport's traffic flow and the number of miles the aircraft can cover with limited fuel. This wouldn't be good for DAA and certainly not for Ireland's economy as it will affect the tourism significantly. Yeah, there's Shannon, Cork and Belfast but those airports wouldn't be of an interest to major carriers like Emirates, Etihad and it couldn't serve Dublin when it's nearly 200km away.

TheFitz13 · 20-05-2013 10:00pm

If Dublin gets 19m passengers with only european, East-coast american and middle eastern routes image what it would get from all around the world

there is high-demand for long haul air travel at Dublin

Peregrine · 20-05-2013 10:50pm

murphym7 wrote: »

Why is a longer runway important? If Dublin can manage with the shorter one now, what will change in the future that a longer one would be important? Do we think that the A380 will become a feature? What routes Would support that kind of capacity?

If the issues you outlined above are the only concerns then refurb the existing main runway and if needed extend?

Yes Dublin is "managing" with a short runway. A short runway means less take off distance, which restricts the amount of weight an aircraft can take on board. A huge percentage of an aircraft's weight when it's taking off is the amount of fuel it carries to burn on the way. The less fuel it can take, the shorter it's range.

So in short, shorter runway - less weight - less fuel - less range

Here's a list of popular aircraft that can't take off at max take off weight from Dublin:
777, 747, 787, A340, A330, A380 and many others..

Someone please correct me if I'm wrong anywhere.

Refurbish and extend 10/28, and use 16/34 for a year while that's being done? And still be left with one runway for the future?

Shamrock231 · 20-05-2013 11:04pm

The big issue arises in that 28/10 needs MAJOR work done on it, and 34/16 just can't handle all the traffic, there are no RETs, and it's length limits all of the Middle east flights and if SFO is relaunched, they'd likely have to do a stopover in SNN for fuel, which could easily ruin the economics of the route. ORD and MCO also could be impacted on hot, humid days with low pressure and a full load, so really, closing 28/10 isn't an option.

Tenger · 20-05-2013 11:13pm

TheFitz13 wrote: »

If Dublin gets 19m passengers with only european, East-coast american and middle eastern routes image what it would get from all around the world

there is high-demand for long haul air travel at Dublin

DUB already gets passenger traffic from "all around the world".....currently those numbers are channelled through the USA, the Mid-East, LHR and Europe.

Jamie2k9 · 21-05-2013 12:40am

Shamrock231 wrote: »

The big issue arises in that 28/10 needs MAJOR work done on it, and 34/16 just can't handle all the traffic, there are no RETs, and it's length limits all of the Middle east flights and if SFO is relaunched, they'd likely have to do a stopover in SNN for fuel, which could easily ruin the economics of the route. ORD and MCO also could be impacted on hot, humid days with low pressure and a full load, so really, closing 28/10 isn't an option.

I think SFO will be fine without a stop over but the fact is that 10/28 isn't in best of conditions and will need significant work in the future and for this to be done a new runway is needed and when its being built it needs to be of good length and be the average size of European airports. It will allow increase route lengths and larger jets, DAA came up with the 3600m size from doing research with potential airlines.

Here's a list of popular aircraft that can't take off at max take off weight from Dublin:
777, 747, 787, A340, A330, A380 and many others..

The 9 A350's due to Aer Lingus in 2016, 8 and 9 will have restrictions also

Razor44 · 21-05-2013 2:20am

Jamie2k9 wrote: »

The 9 A350's due to Aer Lingus in 2016, 8 and 9 will have restrictions also

i think Aer Lingus said that in order to get the max money from there A350's they will have to look at basing them in the UK, cant remember where i saw that, it was a EI statement though. The runway was the main factor on this position

Jamie2k9 · 21-05-2013 2:27am

Razor44 wrote: »

i think Aer Lingus said that in order to get the max money from there A350's they will have to look at basing them in the UK, cant remember where i saw that, it was a EI statement though. The runway was the main factor on this position

Can't see that happening but as EI have had a major change of management and the carriers direction over the last few years anything said in the past has no bearing on the future that's anything pre Christoph Mueller.

Only impact with A350 is cargo will be limited IMO.

Razor44 · 21-05-2013 1:22pm

Jamie2k9 wrote: »

Can't see that happening but as EI have had a major change of management and the carriers direction over the last few years anything said in the past has no bearing on the future that's anything pre Christoph Mueller.

Only impact with A350 is cargo will be limited IMO.

ah cool! thats good at least

Idbatterim · 26-03-2014 9:17am

Thought I would bump this as I reckon Dublin will hit 23.5 million pax by summer of next year based on current growth and the host of new routes and increased frequency on existing routes...

Dublinflyer · 26-03-2014 10:19am

A more pressing issue at the airport right now is space in check in and aircraft stands during the first wave.

billie1b · 26-03-2014 12:04pm

Dublinflyer wrote: »

A more pressing issue at the airport right now is space in check in and aircraft stands during the first wave.

Yes exactly, tows in the morning in and around the first wave is poxy, and with RYR increasing the aircraft to 25 in DUB for the summer schedule, its only gonna get worse

LoonyLovegood · 26-03-2014 12:12pm

I was flying out earlier in the month, I saw the early Etihad flight (I think) sitting opposite Pier D. I think the pax were still on it. I've been stuck on a plane when there was no room for us to deplane before, it was bad enough, but that was after a three hour flight. After a 7/8 hour one I'd be fit to be tied.

Suasdaguna1 · 26-03-2014 12:20pm

Nimrod 7 wrote: »

Here's a list of popular aircraft that can't take off at max take off weight from Dublin:
777, 747, 787, A340, A330, A380 and many others..

Someone please correct me if I'm wrong anywhere.

Refurbish and extend 10/28, and use 16/34 for a year while that's being done? And still be left with one runway for the future?

Re the 330....it can get off 28/10 if dry and not low pressure at max mtow but more than likely one has to use the "BUMP" option which is about 2000lbs of extra thrust per eng ....Wet forget it.

Dublin badly requires a 10000' runway.

dubdaymo · 26-03-2014 12:22pm

and with RYR increasing the aircraft to 25 in DUB for the summer schedule, its only gonna get worse

Yes it will and also because the DAA stubbornly decided to build T2 where it is and create two new heavily congested cul-de-sacs right in close proximity to the main runway. You have and will have three queues all jammed together, one for take-off, another for incoming trying to get in to stand and a third waiting to get off stand.

Razor44 · 26-03-2014 1:23pm

dubdaymo wrote: »

Yes it will and also because the DAA stubbornly decided to build T2 where it is and create two new heavily congested cul-de-sacs right in close proximity to the main runway. You have and will have three queues all jammed together, one for take-off, another for incoming trying to get in to stand and a third waiting to get off stand.

you see the American and US airways 757's early in the morning sitting over on the papa taxiway (i think) waiting for a stand on T2....must be infuriating as a pax and pilot.

Stinicker · 26-03-2014 2:02pm

This happened me in July with Etihad on the early arrival, we were on the ground at least 30mins before getting to the jetway and starting to deplane

FuzzyDunlop100 · 26-03-2014 2:12pm

Suasdaguna1 wrote: »

Re the 330....it can get off 28/10 if dry and not low pressure at max mtow but more than likely one has to use the "BUMP" option which is about 2000lbs of extra thrust per eng ....Wet forget it.

Dublin badly requires a 10000' runway.

What's "BUMP"?

I'm assuming the Emirates/Etihad 777's wouldn't attempt a takeoff on 28/10 if wet, what about if dry?

Simon Gruber Says · 26-03-2014 2:47pm

FuzzyDunlop100 wrote: »

What's "BUMP"?

It's a function of a particular engine to deliver extra power if required by operation at a higher speed temporarily. It is however not available for an A330 and is not something that should be used regularly as it's shortens periods between engine maintenance.

basill · 26-03-2014 3:19pm

Simon Gruber Says wrote: »

It's a function of a particular engine to deliver extra power if required by operation at a higher speed temporarily. It is however not available for an A330 and is not something that should be used regularly as it's shortens periods between engine maintenance.

Bump thrust IS available on some of the A330s.

handtight · 26-03-2014 3:39pm

In response to the points raised on Baldonnel/Casement (CAB) as a second airport.

Distance between the two facilities is 20Km or 20mins travel time.

As pointed out CAB operates at maybe 10% capacity which is a waste of public money. As a piece of prime real estate it currently attracts no income whatsoever, a lost opportunity.

Instead of upgrading CAB to full airport, why not operate as T3 for Dublin Airport? On this basis could be used for regional traffic to UK/Europe or as a dedicated facility for Ryanair or Stobart Air. Passengers can be bused quickly between the two and long term a rail link could be considered.

This would relieve the pressure on main airport and hence obviate the need for a second runway.

Final point, Belfast supports two airports and competition between them helps drive down costs.

Simon Gruber Says · 26-03-2014 3:43pm

basill wrote: »

Bump thrust IS available on some of the A330s.

You mean by using the TO/GA detent rather than FLX/MCT for takeoff or an actual BUMP function on the throttle levers?

BonkeyDonker · 26-03-2014 3:57pm

FuzzyDunlop100 wrote: »

What's "BUMP"?

I'm assuming the Emirates/Etihad 777's wouldn't attempt a takeoff on 28/10 if wet, what about if dry?

Why not - they would not be even close to fully loaded - its only a six hour flight from an aircraft that can do 12+ hours with ease.

handtight wrote: »

In response to the points raised on Baldonnel/Casement (CAB) as a second airport.

Distance between the two facilities is 20Km or 20mins travel time.

As pointed out CAB operates at maybe 10% capacity which is a waste of public money. As a piece of prime real estate it currently attracts no income whatsoever, a lost opportunity.

Instead of upgrading CAB to full airport, why not operate as T3 for Dublin Airport? On this basis could be used for regional traffic to UK/Europe or as a dedicated facility for Ryanair or Stobart Air. Passengers can be bused quickly between the two and long term a rail link could be considered.

This would relieve the pressure on main airport and hence obviate the need for a second runway.

Final point, Belfast supports two airports and competition between them helps drive down costs.

Why not run it past weston and that can be used for the really small stuff.....

But on a serious note - it would cause chaos - you would need a dedicated rail line, as you could not guarantee connection times otherwise. And that is without even taking into account the money required to upgrade BAL to a suitable level for commercial operations - think terminal, fire services, poor weather equipement etc. Then there would be airspace issues, especially with the Dublin mountains in close proximity.

It would be easier, both financially and politically to just throw the money at Dublin - you would get more bang for your buck.

Dublinflyer · 26-03-2014 4:09pm

handtight wrote: »

In response to the points raised on Baldonnel/Casement (CAB) as a second airport.

Distance between the two facilities is 20Km or 20mins travel time.

As pointed out CAB operates at maybe 10% capacity which is a waste of public money. As a piece of prime real estate it currently attracts no income whatsoever, a lost opportunity.

Instead of upgrading CAB to full airport, why not operate as T3 for Dublin Airport? On this basis could be used for regional traffic to UK/Europe or as a dedicated facility for Ryanair or Stobart Air. Passengers can be bused quickly between the two and long term a rail link could be considered.

This would relieve the pressure on main airport and hence obviate the need for a second runway.

Final point, Belfast supports two airports and competition between them helps drive down costs.

In theory this would be a great idea but the financial investment to even run BAL as a T3 type operation would be huge. They would need ATC, a full fire service, police and ground handling, public transport. I don't think the local residents would be too happy about 737's landing and taking off either. They would also have to create a fuel storage area that could handle mid size commercial aircraft. I also doubt we could guarantee a 20 minute transfer from there to Dublin airport.

It's an idea that was first suggested back in 1995 and has been debated since but I can't ever see it happening.

Suasdaguna1 · 26-03-2014 4:54pm

Simon Gruber Says wrote: »

You mean by using the TO/GA detent rather than FLX/MCT for takeoff or an actual BUMP function on the throttle levers?

Simon, your barking with the big dogs here. Just leave it. Bump is available on most 330 models.

Simon Gruber Says · 26-03-2014 5:09pm

Suasdaguna1 wrote: »

Simon, your barking with the big dogs here. Just leave it. Bump is available on most 330 models.

I'm only going from what I've been told. Obviously my information was wrong then.

Please explain it to me then if you're one of the "big dogs" as you say.

lord lucan · 26-03-2014 5:41pm

Can we please not have another thread descend into "I know more than you know" bull****. Keep it civil everyone.

Idbatterim · 26-03-2014 9:17pm

with baldonnel, it would still leave the problem of having a very short main runway at the current airport! Surely tender prices now will be well cheaper when construction starts to ramp up again though increased capital expenditure and we see a return of the home / commercial building industry. Also when does PP lapse?

Dublin Airport New Runway/Infrastructure.

Comments