Ryanair no-frills Terminal

Pier C was the mistake, not T2. Who builds a pier which can only have gates on one side. Note that T2 is about 20 times the size of Pier C.

That makes sense Victor .

However I still wonder if it's in the wrong place , its terribly crowded around there and means all the traffic will still be coming off the M50 M1 interchange which is a mess already , but thats a debate for another thread .

I heard on the radio ( Newstalk ) this morning that MOL's jolly to Hahn was not a great success and had backfired , they didn't say why any ideas ?

Has anyone flown to ' Paris ' with FR ? The terminal there is a tent not even a shed ( unless its been rebuilt ).

What you ( Victor ) was saying about the airport not being laid out right is correct

Dublin has been added to on an ad-hoc basis, hey they even stuck the maintainence hangars next to the terminals. Properly laid out, an airport would have enough space for contemplated growth, based on 50 year projections,

But think about it, even in the wildest imaginations did people think that the millions of people would be using DUB now , after all look at the old terminal, its a pretty building and must have worked perfectly back in the 50s/60s with Viscounts and Heralds etc , where the largest aircraft carried 100-120 people.

In fact look at LHR , who in their right mind would ever build the terminals in the centre of the airport like that now ?

In Utopia, I am sure all airports would have room to expand , remember Denver is the centre of a huge plain , and has tons of space .

I am confused why ORK have only built 2 airbridges , I know FR and other low-cost don't like to use them because they preclude the use of the rear steps and slow the turnaround down, but really ...... some imagination

Chris_533976 wrote:

Build the Outer Ring Road and stick a new Dublin Airport out there on a patch of new land, somewhere near the M4. How does that sound? Not too far out and easier to get to.

Like a waste of money :-)

You're forgetting there's more to an airport than just a handful of planes and passengers. What about all the ancillary services and logistics companies that need to be based nearby? Moving airport would be a huge, totally unwarranted job. Splitting the airport into two wouldn't achieve anything.

Also, the majority of flights going to/from the airport pass over sea rather than residential areas. If a new airport was to be built inland, all the NIMBYs would come out in force to object to the extra traffic, the extra noise, the pollution, yada. Rule #1 in Ireland: If you build it, they'll object.

Hopefully they will join the integrated ticketing system.

daveirl wrote:

This post has been deleted.

Planning should never take that long. Delays in planning/red tape can lead to the finished product being out of date by the time it is built. Luas is a prime example of that, goal posts being moved and all that.

Chris_533976 wrote:

Munich really cant be judged vs. Dublin. Dublin was built and is now being expanded. Munich was built far out from Munich but they had to demolish an entire town to build it.

I think Munich is a very comparible. The major difference between the two was that since development of the site was needed Dublin has not had any sort of coherent masterplan.

Chris_533976 wrote:

That said, better things could be done with Dublin. Close the current airport and open a nice new one midway between the N4 and N7 interchanges on the proposed Outer Ring Road.

Thats a terrible attitude to have, the whole Dublin airport campus is very underdeveloped apart from the 'horseshoe'. Look at the Ulich McEvaddy presentation on the above link.

DublinAirport-Map.jpg

Consultants have recently stated that the only other location nearest Dublin that could be used for a new airport capable of handling the future numbers would have to be at Portlaoise. Fly paths over the city centre are not possible.

Can't compare Hahn to Dublin - Hahn was an ex military base and out in the sticks - Baldonnel is the better comparison to Hahn (hint). Does MOL's terminal estimate include the cost of reworking the airport roads to accommodate his terminal or does someone else have to pay?

So you can't build a new terminal to replace two old ones in an existing airport space with a

• an infield pier including sub-runway tunnel
• a new multistory car park
• a cablecar to the long term car park
• new approach roads
• new air cargo facilities
• a 35-40million ultimate capacity in the new Terminal 1
• a 55 million ultimate capacity when Terminal 3 is redeveloped?
• an additional runway to add to an existing four.

Someone should have told the Greater Toronto Airport Authority it couldn't be done before they, uh, built it. It's costing squillions (about 3 billion Euro) and there are negatives (the cablecar should have been light rail and should have included links to nearby rail - there is no metro stop at an airport which handled 30.9 million passengers and half a billion tonnes of air cargo in 2006) but the new Terminal 1 itself is exactly what Dublin needed and isn't getting - a modular structure with a defined plan for the future in the context of a non-profit airport authority.