Dublin Airport New Runway/Infrastructure.

CoisFharraige wrote: »

For runway movements, yes. But they have chronic delays on the ground for taxi and push everyday during the summer much like Dublin.

Generally this not the case for LGW in my experience ~ 30-40 DUB-LGWs in the last 12 months

1. Landing is usually from the east so its a long taxi time back down to the terminal but its not delayed in my experience but its only a couple of minutes

2. Typical waits at LGW inbound were for the buses to arrive - this is now gone for the CTA flights with the new domestic gates, however it leaves a long long walk to the arrivals concourse

So takeoffs

Push and start normally no problem, taxi usually very quick ground are normally very good at scheduling you in and the tower doesnt mess around ... pity they're not on LiveATC but thats their law

In general I feel for Dublin with 10/28 landing planes seem to get very large gaps in which to land which screws up the waiting departures this doesnt seem like a flight crew thing but more an ATC wish to have an easy life ; this is very evident while watching while sitting in the queue. I am not a pilot but it seems to me LGW manage this better.

Virtually all of Dublins problems are related to the ground infrastructure and layout.

Okay one of the reasons less separation is possible in LHR etc is their number of holding points, they can tailor the departure sequence to account for wake far more easily. Having 3,600m+ of runway means they can launch a medium from an intersection halfway down the runway on a short sector while someone else is lining up on the threshold.

As for arrival spacing there's the RETs onto the Sierras in DUB which are not full RETs because the Sierras are too close to the runway and so a nice gentle turn allowing the arrivals to vacate at high speed is not possible, they have to do in excess of a 90 degree turn at the end of the short RET at low speed. If they could get off those exits faster then the minimum arrival separation could be shortened using time based separation like what is used in LHR (assuming no wake separation requirements).

Had the chance to stop off at the viewing area this morning at Dublin around 6.30 am for about an hour. I was mighty impressed by the efficient use of runways 28+34 for departures and a separation time gap of 90 seconds between departing and arriving aircraft on 28. It looks like some taxiway works are ongoing between piers 3+4 is that part of the Pace project works and what else is ongoing at the moment?

https://twitter.com/DubChamNews/status/1172472290589708288

Kermit.de.frog wrote: »

https://twitter.com/DubChamNews/status/1172472290589708288

Is all of UK/Europe, 70% of the traffic not east!

I guess those routes don’t have business class, which is fair enough.

Photographed the new control tower last night waiting to board my flight to Glasgow, looks good

Tower looks great, some view from up there too.

Interesting article about future terminal here. Helsinki etc have way more connecting traffic going east than we do. I’d way prefer to see this developed by mcevaddy than the Daa.

In relation to congestion and the capping at 32,000,000 build a bloody trumpet interchange! How long has this been going on ? Maybe a metro to a major airport might be an idea too ...

https://m.independent.ie/business/irish/mcevaddy-in-it-for-the-long-haul-at-dublin-airport-38520367.html

Ulick McEvaddy walks up a bucolic lane in north Co Dublin, past an old farmhouse and cattle among an impressive stand of trees.

But this is no ordinary country lane: Dublin airport's soaring new ATC tower dominates the skyline and, close by, aircraft engines roar. An Ethiopian Airlines Dreamliner jet sits at the top of the lane on new concrete that comes right up to the hedge at the edge of McEvaddy's land - more than 130 acres situated right between Dublin airport's runways.

The hedgerow also marks the fault line between McEvaddy's - and his brother Des's - 23-year ambition to build an independent passenger terminal at Dublin Airport and the unwavering insistence of airport authority DAA that it should remain the only game in town.
Over two decades ago, when McEvaddy first tried to build a terminal on this land, the runway was clearly visible from this spot across some fields. But the airport's concrete has pushed ever further west as passenger numbers have grown and reaches McEvaddy's hedge. It can spread no further in this direction without his co-operation.

"They blocked up this gate," he says, standing where country lane meets taxiway. "Probably so we couldn't claim some kind of right of way."

The Co Mayo man is in ebullient mood as he strolls up the lane. He believes the future shape of Dublin Airport could be decided in the coming months. Decisions due to be taken by the aviation regulator could favour his plan. Backed by Dubai-based investment fund Tricap, he hopes to spend €2bn building a terminal to ultimately handle 30 million passengers a year, spurred on by the rapid growth of Dublin as a transatlantic hub.

It is a plan long scoffed at by those - including DAA - who believe, firstly, Dublin does not need a new terminal and, secondly, that even if it did, the state company has alternative sites.

"I never give up on something," says McEvaddy. "For 23 years I've tried to build a terminal and I just don't give up. It's as simple as that. And with our partners now we have the right ingredients. We are hopeful our planning application will go in this year."

When DAA got the go-ahead a decade ago to build Terminal 2 that dealt a long-term blow to the McEvaddy plan. And when the 130-acre strategic landbank he co-owned with other developers went in to Nama that seemed to kill the plan forever, or at least open up the prospect that the land would ultimately fall under state control.

But McEvaddy's deal with Tricap saw him regain full control of the land and, ever since, he has quietly worked away to develop an alternative to DAA's plan to spend €2bn expanding the existing airport to handle 40 million passengers a year.

"Our architects are right now putting the finishing touches on our plan for Terminal 3 on the western campus at Dublin Airport," says McEvaddy. "Within a short time period, we will be putting forward our plan as an alternative to the DAA plan for expansion. Ours will be a much more cost effective option. The land is here and ready to go. Instead of DAA spending what is €2bn of state money to handle eight million more passengers, we and our partners will spend €2bn to eventually handle [an extra] 30 million passengers."

DAA's detailed €2bn capital programme to grow the airport incrementally over the next decade will see it build new piers at the existing terminals and add aircraft stands and other currently constrained airside infrastructure. It argues that because of changes in the way airports operate, a third terminal is not actually required.

But now a major question mark hangs over that plan. The aviation regulator has proposed lowering DAA's maximum passenger charge cap by 22pc and is due to announce a final decision.

DAA chief executive Dalton Philips has made no bones about what that will do to his expansion plan: "With a 22pc reduction, we can't finance this €2bn programme. Therefore, we can't build the infrastructure the country needs," he has said.

While the airlines will be delighted with the cut, there has been surprise in aviation circles that the regulator would look to deal the semi-state company such a difficult hand at a time when growth at the airport is a vital economic driver.

But McEvaddy says he was not surprised by the regulator's proposed cut. He believes that, should it be confirmed in the coming weeks, it may actually be the regulator's way of forcing DAA to look again at the unconstrained, wide open land west of the airport, much of it owned by McEvaddy.

"They will be forced to buy into our plan by the regulator. The regulator is sensible and so are the planners," he says. When An Bord Pleanála granted permission to DAA for a second terminal at the eastern, built-up end of the airport, it included a planning restriction limiting the airport to 32 million passengers a year because of surface access constraints.

The airport has now effectively hit that passenger limit and McEvaddy says he is considering a legal challenge to ensure this planning restriction is adhered to.

"That is not something I would like doing because I want to see this airport grow not stymied," he says, but adds that such a challenge could help force the Minister for Transport to hasten what he sees as an inevitable decision to look west.

"The planners long ago identified the road infrastructure as the problem on the eastern side of the airport, particularly the airport roundabout that is the main access point to the M1. It is going to be very difficult for them to build an overpass here without huge disruption. We don't have that problem on the western side," he says.

Under the McEvaddy plan, a new dual-carriageway, paid for by the private consortium, would be built to link the new terminal to an existing interchange on the M2 motorway 3.6km across open countryside to the west. "The planners were thinking ahead and built that interchange because they knew it would be needed to link into the western side of the airport," said McEvaddy.

A review of the capacity needs for Ireland's state airports by consultants Oxford Economics, published by the Minister for Transport last October, found the road system around Dublin Airport is indeed "under pressure", adding that increased passenger numbers would exacerbate this. It predicted that by 2050 Dublin could have a total of between 49 million and 62.5 million passengers.

"We find that in the short term, incremental expansion of Terminals 1 and 2 is desirable, because a third terminal cannot be available in time to relieve the short-term capacity issues at the airport," said the report.

Expansion to a 40 million capacity on the current site "is very plausible, setting aside issues of surface access - which is subject to relaxing the 32 million planning restriction, put in place to allow evaluation of surface access issues."

McEvaddy has seized on the word "plausible" as less then a full-throated endorsement of the DAA plan, regardless of whether the regulator follows through with its bombshell on passenger charges.

The Oxford Economics report also raises doubts about DAA's plans for further incremental expansion to 55 million passengers, saying they are "plausible", setting aside surface access issues.

The report said any decision around the timing of T3 must take into account that any measures to remodel T1 and T2 beyond 40 million passengers "are likely to be very disruptive."

"So if a third terminal is to be built, a decision would be required at the latest in time to avoid the commencement of large-scale remodelling of the existing terminals. On Oxford Economics' central forecast, that means by about 2031, which would require a decision on a third terminal early in the 2020s," it said.

The next government could find itself having to make that decision. The issue will only become more pressing if the aviation regulator turns the screw on passenger charges. The report was also clear about where a new terminal should be located. "Surface access issues in the wider road network may make it overall a better solution for Ireland to pursue a third terminal in the western part of the airport, rather than allowing much further expansion in the eastern campus," it said.

It did identify two sites for T3 close to the existing airport, which would be easier to integrate but would face surface transport constraints. But the west offered "an unconstrained site where it will be easier, cheaper and less complicated to develop the core terminal and stands, assuming land is made available."

Minister for Transport Shane Ross said when he published the report he wanted to ensure there was "an examination of the merit of introducing competition in the provision of terminal services", adding that "the report confirms that this is a possible option".

While all of that sounds encouraging for the McEvaddy plan, he has been here before. All the same advantages existed before the T2 decision. And before any such plan can hope to succeed, McEvaddy's consortium will need to be granted access to the existing airport infrastructure, for example, runways and taxiways.

"That is something the regulator can help us with because he will decide what we need to pay the DAA for that access," he says, adding that the consortium will seek such access soon.

McEvaddy cites legal advice that his consortium will have a legal right to access to the airport runways should they develop the western campus. The same legal advice suggests that if a decision were made to develop the western lands but to force him to sell first that he would be in a strong position to resist.

"Any attempt to compulsorily acquire the property will be capable of successful resistance but even if unsuccessful in resisting the lands being acquired, the value of the lands will be the real market value."

Critics of McEvaddy are quick to rubbish his plan whenever it surfaces. "McEvaddy has been talking about this terminal for decades and he still has nothing but a cow field", they say.

McEvaddy himself shrugs off the scepticism: "Read Oxford Economics and you will see that I am right," he says as he walks along his country lane. "They want to wait me out. That's the game. But I don't give up."

I echo what a lot of you say. I think this is a very wasteful country. I’m sure more stands are needed and the new runway badly needed, but spending another two billion to facilitate eight million extra passengers ?! Wtf?! It will handle what roughly this year ? 34,000,000

road_high wrote: »

Several times lately flying out of T2 I was surprised how empty and underused the gates area was. These were peak travel times too. Not sure I see the need for a T3 just yet. Using what’s already there especially more security lines (there’s always so many closed) would surely do for now

Remember if flying when US services are operating departures are over two floors so the place can look empty.

Donegal Storm wrote: »

T2 in general is poorly laid out I think, too much space given over to landside which is half empty even at peak times, the big queuing area before security is oversized and always empty with security itself then cramped into a small room. The shopping area airside is cramped and overcrowded with nowhere near enough seating or quiet lounging areas

With some better use of space (and the new proposed pier) they could definitely deal with the next 10 years of growth

Yea much of it is a huge area of overhead space dedicated to air basically. T2 shops and eats are crap enough