Ryanair no-frills Terminal

jimmycrackcorm · 13-04-2007 11:26am #1

http://www.unison.ie/irish_independent/stories.php3?ca=9&si=1811984&issue_id=15504

Ryanair brought journalists over to Germany to show them how they converted a hanger into a terminal for €10m. The DAA is proposing that they build dublins second terminal for hundreds of millions which we all will have to pay for.

While the DAA say you can't compare dublin with a smaller airport - I don't see why Ryanairs approach can't work here ( I don't mean converting a Hanger but building a simple terminal). Perhaps the DAA is confusing Terminal with Temple.

talkingclock · 13-04-2007 12:17pm

I can imagine how a "ryanair no frills terminal" looks like: like an empty warehouse but you pay 20 euro a chair for while you are waiting to get boarded...

dmeehan · 13-04-2007 12:57pm

talkingclock wrote:

I can imagine how a "ryanair no frills terminal" looks like: like an empty warehouse but you pay 20 euro a chair for while you are waiting to get boarded...

typical wisecracks expected when talking about ryanair :rolleyes:

the "ryanair" terminal in Hahn (its not actually owned by ryanair) does all that it needs to do: get passengers in and out of planes etc. while it is great to go through airports like the new terminal in cork, the same service can be achieved by using lower-cost terminals such as Frankfurt-Hahn etc.

Does anyone have passenger numbers for terminals such as HHN or ORK?

Chris_533976 · 13-04-2007 1:44pm

Hahn is fine, went through it a year ago and its perfectly adequate, except for Departures which I found a little weird, simply because passport checking is in a weird place.

I'd still love to know how Cork managed to spend as much as they did, with the farcical results that they got for it.

daveirl · 13-04-2007 2:09pm

This post has been deleted.

Idbatterim · 13-04-2007 6:17pm

http://www.ryanair.com/site/EN/news.php?yr=07&month=apr&story=gen-en-130407 "The Regulator has confirmed that the already high charges at Dublin airport will double because of current "developments” proposed by the Dublin Airport monopoly." What already high chares? they are way lower than id expect them to be, I constantly hear Dublin airport has the lowest charges for any major airport in Europe, is this not true? you only have to fly into or from England to see what high and rip off charges really are! I like MOL but i think there has to be a bit of a balance. Also havent the government approved plans to have the 3rd terminal as a private operation? Given that the terminal is only going to be for 15m passengers and the airport passenger numbers are growing at 2m p.a the new terminal will barely be finnished before they have to start all over again. Passenger numbers last year were 21.5 million, lets say they increase by 2 million pa over the next 2 years. By 2009 thats roughly 28 million passeners that T1 is going to be handling when T2 opens. We all know about the lack of forsight here, but shouldnt T2 atleast be able to accomodate 20 million passengers? Also the pathetic roads system around the airport is laughable, instead of having flyovers and underpasses, for a junction that isnt exactly the red cow, we have a signal controlled roundabout, pathetic!

jackofalltrades · 13-04-2007 9:36pm

While the DAA say you can't compare dublin with a smaller airport - I don't see why Ryanairs approach can't work here ( I don't mean converting a Hanger but building a simple terminal). Perhaps the DAA is confusing Terminal with Temple.

Using a converted hangar as a Terminal is OK in a regional airport with Ryanair, a no frills carrier as its main customer. But when it comes to an airport that serves a capital city and is the 9th busiest in Europe I think you need to spend a little more and getting something that we can be proud of and the will WOW customers. Remember its not just low fare paying customers that we are trying to attract to Ireland. And the cost of T2 is in line with Terminals at other European airports.

By all means I think we should build a basic as possible Terminal for Ryanair, provided that MOL is never given any press coverage ever again.:)

kleefarr · 13-04-2007 9:41pm

Sorry! But I saw the thread title and immediately thought..

Shed!

But after reading it I realise it'll maybe slightly bigger than that.

kleefarr · 13-04-2007 9:46pm

Chris_533976 wrote:

Hahn is fine, went through it a year ago and its perfectly adequate.

Agreed. I saw nothing wrong with it at all. Although it was about seven years ago since I was last through there. Only thing was, it was miles away from anywhere.

embraer170 · 13-04-2007 10:01pm

Idbatterim wrote:

you only have to fly into or from England to see what high and rip off charges really are!

In England the government Air Passenger Duty may be ridiculous (and just doubled recently) but airport charges aren't always that bad.

kleefarr · 13-04-2007 10:11pm

And the amenities are generally very good.

Red Alert · 13-04-2007 10:20pm

Does anyone care about the state of a bus shelter? In an ideal world, you'd get on the plane, pay your fare to the driver and sit in a seat.

BendiBus · 13-04-2007 11:04pm

I'm hoping Dublin airport and the airlines serving it have a bit of ambition.

In particular I hope Aer Lingus is really trying to develop a long haul network in all directions, not just west to America and plans to use Dublin as a hub for transfers. Transfer passengers can and do consider their transfer airport when booking flights.

Look at all the Middle/Far East airports providing top quality airports and competing for Europe/Australia traffic.

A shed, while fine for Ryanair (and I'd be using it all the time) does not serve all requirements.

Franz Ferdinand · 13-04-2007 11:24pm

Yeah, we don't ALL want to travel cattle class.
We aren't all bleedin' back-packers and skangers.

If O'Leary wants that kind of terminal let him bugger off to Baldonnel or Weston or somewhere and build his sheep pen there.

I like comfort. I can afford it - and I"M WORTH IT.:p

daveirl · 14-04-2007 12:06am

This post has been deleted.

MLM · 14-04-2007 1:05am

Chris_533976 wrote:

Hahn is fine, went through it a year ago and its perfectly adequate, except for Departures which I found a little weird, simply because passport checking is in a weird place.

I'd still love to know how Cork managed to spend as much as they did, with the farcical results that they got for it.

As far as I know only 80 million euro was spent on the actual Terminal building in Cork. The remainder, 100 million or thereabouts, went into infrastructure. 80 million on an airport terminal is not extravagent. What is totally ridiculous is the fact that they wouldn't spend another 1.2 million for three extra airbridges.

markpb · 14-04-2007 10:56am

Red Alert wrote:

Does anyone care about the state of a bus shelter? In an ideal world, you'd get on the plane, pay your fare to the driver and sit in a seat.

But back in reality airports are places where passengers spent an appreciable amount of time. For a two hour flight, you'll probably spent 2-4 hours in airports. For trans-at flights, you'll spent 4-6 hours in airports. If something goes wrong, you could spend far more. If you're transferring (which is probably pretty rare in Dublin but well worth promoting), you'll spend more time again.

Shops, restaurants, business lounges, economy lounges, proper facilites for families with babies as well as the general feel for the place (spaciousness, light, cleanliness) are important when you're in the same building for several hours.

For all this time, it's nice to have something better than a bare-facilities shed. I wouldn't advocate spending silly amounts of money but neither should we reject everything that isn't absolutely essential as money wasting.

In any event, I suspect MOL doesn't care about this issue all that much, as long as we're here discussing this, the Ryanair brand is firmly in our minds and that is a job well done.

antoinolachtnai · 14-04-2007 12:18pm

Do you not see the reason why you have to spend so long at the airport? It's so that you'll have more time to spend in the shops and so that the airport can charge the shops higher rent to pay for the oversized terminal.

The result is the very long walks you get to the gates.

By all means, have 'extras' at the airport, but why not keep all the facilities in separate, self-funding buildings on the landside, where they wouldn't have such an impact on customer charges?

Having an airport that is comfortable for use and for transfers has relatively little to do with the finishes you use and how much you spend, and an awful lot to do with how well you design it.

a.

Red Alert · 14-04-2007 1:11pm

The reason we all spend so long in airports is precisely because of their insistence on it, and sadly the airlines and government are complicit in it.

Calina · 14-04-2007 1:25pm

antoinolachtnai wrote:

.....The result is the very long walks you get to the gates....

Other airports manage not to inflict this on you. Terminal 2 in Paris CDG is a case in point - the gate is a two minute walk from check in most cases. Even T1 which is not such a great terminal (although it's improving) gets you from the plane to the exit in 5 minutes.

The long walks I think happen in Heathrow and Dublin because of a lack of joined up thinking and trying to fix things on the fly rather than standing back and looking very far forward into the future. T1 in Heathrow is a disaster in that it has extremely long walks but not much in the way of shopping. So I think that your theory isn't the whole story.

I think imaginative design has a lot to do with it.

Zoney · 14-04-2007 1:49pm

antoinolachtnai wrote:

Do you not see the reason why you have to spend so long at the airport? It's so that you'll have more time to spend in the shops and so that the airport can charge the shops higher rent to pay for the oversized terminal.

I've had to wait in airports with nothing but a café or two after security. I've been in major airports that have only a handful of shops (at least in the international building) - certainly they'd only have to keep people in the building 30 mins to have them visit all the shops.

I think it's over-cynical to suggest the shops are the priority - I think it is just that air travel is grossly inefficient, people end up stuck for hours at airports, and as a *result* it makes sense to have shops serving this captive market.

If a stricter line is taken on airlines compensating passengers for missed connections etc. - perhaps people won't arrange journeys with such long dwell times at airports between flights.

Chris_533976 · 14-04-2007 2:02pm

If you want departures next to check-in, go to Kerry airport. They're right next to each other, to the point of literally being the door next to the check in desk.

Franz Ferdinand · 14-04-2007 5:48pm

markpb wrote:

In any event, I suspect MOL doesn't care about this issue all that much, as long as we're here discussing this, the Ryanair brand is firmly in our minds and that is a job well done.

You hit the nail bang on the head my friend.

tonc76 · 14-04-2007 6:02pm

Calina wrote:

I think imaginative design has a lot to do with it.

Imaginative design and the implementation of it generally costs €€€€

Victor · 15-04-2007 1:29am

Red Alert wrote:

Does anyone care about the state of a bus shelter? In an ideal world, you'd get on the plane, pay your fare to the driver and sit in a seat.

Then Anto stabs the pilot and flies the plane to Tallaght.

tonc76 wrote:

Imaginative design and the implementation of it generally costs €€€€

Quite the opposite.

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, terminals (expandable on a modular basis) between the runways and space for 4-8 runways.

Look at Denver Airport

antoinolachtnai · 15-04-2007 12:36pm

tonc76 wrote:

Imaginative design and the implementation of it generally costs €€€€

Imaginative design is very cheap in the context of a EUR 500m project. You will get a lot of imaginative design for EUR 50m. Of course you need analysis and understanding to drive the imaginative process.

It doesn't cost any more to implement a good design than a bad design. You set a budget at the outset. It's just another constraint.

Dublin Airport is designed around retail. There is no question about this. Everything about it is oriented around retail. Delays in getting into the Arrivals? Because it's overcroweded with retail, making it impossible to split up the arrival gates.

Transfer facilities? No space for them, because the Departures area is packed with retail.

Long queues at entrance to airside - because you have to be screened before you enter the large, shared retail area. Remember, at peak time, a large proportion of the people in the queue to be screened have later flights and don't really need to be screened for another 45 minutes or longer, after the peak has passed.

That said, there is nothing wrong with retail. Retail, in the proper place, is great in an airport.

The new terminal for the A380's in CDG was specifically designed around retail (they wanted to have the gates within view of the retail stores, because research showed that travellers were unwilling to shop until they had been within sight of the gate).

I think the design in Kerry (and other places where the gate and the check-in are adjacent) is great!

Chris_533976 · 15-04-2007 3:11pm

Kerry does need an expansion though, theres only about 1/2 the number of luggage trollies that are needed, and people cant physically fit into the baggage reclaim hall after getting off the flight, leaving people stranded in the rain.

tonc76 · 15-04-2007 6:55pm

Victor wrote:

Quite the opposite.

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, terminals (expandable on a modular basis) between the runways and space for 4-8 runways.

Look at Denver Airport

The fact of the matter is that we do not have the ability to turn back time and make everything right. DAA can only work with what is in place at the moment and try develop the airport site within the constraints already laid out.

When I said "Imaginative design and the implementation of it generally costs €€€€" I meant architects tend to try come up with innovative ideas to leave their mark on a project which tends to cost €€€€

antoinolachtnai · 16-04-2007 12:03am

That is why we have people called 'managers' and 'cost accountants'. A building is a machine. It serves a function. You build it to serve that function, economically.

It could be that the function of the airport is to impress people when they land, and that's fair enough, but why load the cost of a cathedral on nonbelievers?

Calina · 16-04-2007 8:48am

tonc76 wrote:

The fact of the matter is that we do not have the ability to turn back time and make everything right. DAA can only work with what is in place at the moment and try develop the airport site within the constraints already laid out.

When I said "Imaginative design and the implementation of it generally costs €€€€" I meant architects tend to try come up with innovative ideas to leave their mark on a project which tends to cost €€€€

I believe both Munich and Helsinki grasped nettles and built brand new airports and closed old, inadequate airports in the last twenty years. My view is that this could have been done in Dublin except they've built housing estates all over the perimetre of the city. But no one would have had the guts to do here because it's easier to spend loads of money over the long term just doing sticking plaster work than it is to budget up front for a major new development designed according to needs which although requiring a load of money up front probably costs less in the long term. Dublin Airport has been extended/had work done on it several times in the last ten years. It is disgraceful.

Anyway, the tendency in this country is to do as little as possible.

Imaginative design doesn't have to cost €€€€ if it's managed correctly. To imply otherwise is a cop out and we're damn good at it in this country.

Davidth88 · 16-04-2007 11:14am

Hi,

I have never been to Hahn , but if it's like the ' no-frills' terminal at CDG then it's just a block building with ' virtual ' gates where you get buses.

This MUST make the turnaround time longer , something I came across in Rome recently where my flight was delayed 40 mins because FCO ( Rome airport ) had run out of buses.

The critisism of T1 at LHR is reasonable , but think about it T1 I think was built in the early 70's , and the central area of LHR was built/designed just after the war !

As usual really the middle ground is about right , you want a terminal to be comfortable , easy to get to the aeroplanes, and preferably look nice ( and perhaps in this day and age be energy efficient )

T2 at Dublin to my mind is being built in the wrong place , arn't they knocking down half the new(ish ) C gates to fit it in ? Also I hope they are including the Metro stn in the price ?

Victor · 16-04-2007 3:22pm

tonc76 wrote:

When I said "Imaginative design and the implementation of it generally costs €€€€" I meant architects tend to try come up with innovative ideas to leave their mark on a project which tends to cost €€€€

There is a big difference between being imaginative and the "re-inventing the wheel" that many Irish architect do.

Davidth88 wrote:

T2 at Dublin to my mind is being built in the wrong place , arn't they knocking down half the new(ish ) C gates to fit it in ?

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.

Davidth88 · 16-04-2007 4:09pm

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

tonc76 · 16-04-2007 6:47pm

antoinolachtnai wrote:

That is why we have people called 'managers' and 'cost accountants'. QUOTE]

Calina wrote:

Imaginative design doesn't have to cost €€€€ if it's managed correctly. To imply otherwise is a cop out and we're damn good at it in this country.

Victor wrote:

There is a big difference between being imaginative and the "re-inventing the wheel" that many Irish architect do.

Do you think this whole plan was drawn on the back of a box of fags? These plans have been ongoing behind the scenes for years. There are 3 of industry's biggest hitters involved in this project. DAA are not just talking about fitting out a hangar ala MOL, but a complete infastructure package to serve what will be an international airport in years to come.

daveirl · 16-04-2007 7:00pm

This post has been deleted.

GusherING · 16-04-2007 7:10pm

Has anyone been to Schipol (sp?) airport in Amsterdam. Now thats slick architecturally, efficient to get round and well designed with great infrastructure links. Its what we should be aiming for. I'm sure the landing fees are high enough but if thats what you get for it, I'm all for it.

jimmycrackcorm · 17-04-2007 12:19am

While I can appreciate that Dublin should have an impressive airport, people should get a choice. One can draw an easy comparison with the expensive air travel from pre-ryanair days. Who wants to pay €400 for a flight to the UK now?

Chris_533976 · 17-04-2007 1:47pm

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.

markpb · 17-04-2007 2:10pm

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.

BendiBus · 18-04-2007 10:29pm

#Elites wrote:

haha that made me laugh:D

you: single ticket to Newyork please

pilot: thats 10€ sir.

you:I've only got a €20

pilot:Exact fare only. Here's a change ticket. You can only redeem it in person in our downtown Baghdad office.

antoinolachtnai · 19-04-2007 9:53am

Hopefully they will join the integrated ticketing system.

Winters · 19-04-2007 12:17pm

Victor wrote:

Look at Denver Airport

A better look at Denver (Space for 12 runways!):

http://www.airport-technology.com/projects/denver/

I think Munich is the best example of best practice in airport design. Sadly the ad hoc current designs for Dublin Airport are making the same mistakes as before. Eventhough a masterplan was conducted in the last 5 years it flies against the face of the international norm of airport design.

http://www.airport-technology.com/projects/munich/

Here is a list of recent presentations from a conference I attended regarding airport design:

http://www.fdb.ie/TSAD_Airport_Conference.aspx

The Munich presentation is particularly impressive.

Winters · 19-04-2007 1:56pm

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 · 19-04-2007 2:49pm

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.

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.

Winters · 19-04-2007 3:24pm

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.

Gloryboys · 07-05-2007 9:47pm

Well I called it the R.A.T the Ryan Air Terminal - having elderly people land there and expect them to be subjected to that walk is crazy!! Just back from Copenhagen airport - what luxury! The Screens above the baggage belt tell you how long you will await you luggage! Plus there is the train station just about in the airport whisking you to town in 20 mins! Thats the kind of investment that is needed! In Dublin you cannot even cross the street in safety cos there is a paucity of pedestrian crossings - suppose we sould start there!!

dowlingm · 08-05-2007 3:52pm

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.

Winters · 08-05-2007 8:17pm

Toronto Pearson looks like an extremely constained site. Dublin is very lucky in comparison.

Major difference between the two would be the masterplan that Toronto devised, applied and stuck to (for the most part).

Is the DAA non profit?

Captain Boycott · 08-05-2007 9:15pm

BendiBus wrote:

you:I've only got a €20

pilot:Exact fare only. Here's a change ticket. You can only redeem it in person in our downtown Baghdad office.

Don't laugh though. I remember the old BA shuttle between Belfast and LHR. You bought your ticket on board (from a hostie)! I was only a kid mind you, so I'm not sure how you got on board in the first place without paying! My Dad looked after such minor details.

Ryanair no-frills Terminal

Comments