Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

Dublin Airport New Runway/Infrastructure.

15152545657280

Comments

  • Registered Users Posts: 19,015 ✭✭✭✭murphaph


    Tenger wrote: »
    And using a very expensive longhaul aircraft on a very short sector is a very easy way to lose money. Why not use your Ferrari for the school run? Its a bit blunt but thats the analogy, use the aircraft designed for the job at hand.
    in some parts of the world it's very commonplace to use wide bodies on short haul though isn't it? (mainly Asia but also I think in Australia)


  • Registered Users Posts: 1,490 ✭✭✭Noxegon


    For what it's worth, I took a Biman Bangladesh 777 a few weeks ago from Sylhet (ZYL) to Dhaka (DAC) – it was a twenty minute flight.

    That's mostly because the airline does triangular routes, though – international->ZYL->DAC->international.

    I develop Superior Solitaire when I'm not procrastinating on boards.ie.



  • Closed Accounts Posts: 2,189 ✭✭✭drdeadlift


    murphaph wrote: »
    in some parts of the world it's very commonplace to use wide bodies on short haul though isn't it? (mainly Asia but also I think in Australia)

    Yip was thinking this too.

    Made me think of the 744sr,think they removed the centre tanks and winglets and squeezed many more seats in.
    Maybe in japan they deal with having less choice better...squeeze em on to the train


  • Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 702 ✭✭✭Simon2015


    MJohnston wrote: »
    On EI - why not?


    Widebody planes take longer to turn around they would not be suitable for short haul routes.


  • Registered Users Posts: 4,124 ✭✭✭goingnowhere


    EI do use A330's on some bucket and spade flights to Spain during the summer, then have shown up in LHR and AMS from time to time to catch up from disruption


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 10,460 ✭✭✭✭MJohnston


    Simon2015 wrote: »
    Widebody planes take longer to turn around they would not be suitable for short haul routes.

    I was referring to it purely for use on popular with business class long haul routes, SFO being a prime example. They're definitely missing out on selling on average at least 10 more business class seats per trip on that route, anecdotally.


  • Moderators, Social & Fun Moderators Posts: 14,783 Mod ✭✭✭✭AndyBoBandy


    MJohnston wrote: »
    They're definitely missing out on selling on average at least 10 more business class seats per trip on that route

    How do you know this? I'm curious.


  • Registered Users Posts: 18,078 ✭✭✭✭JCX BXC


    EI do use A330's on some bucket and spade flights to Spain during the summer, then have shown up in LHR and AMS from time to time to catch up from disruption

    The bucket and spade routes (AGP-7pw, FAO-2pe) are really just effective use of capacity.


  • Moderators, Business & Finance Moderators, Motoring & Transport Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 67,069 Mod ✭✭✭✭L1011


    MJohnston wrote: »
    I was referring to it purely for use on popular with business class long haul routes, SFO being a prime example. They're definitely missing out on selling on average at least 10 more business class seats per trip on that route, anecdotally.

    359 will solve that. 380 is an insane capacity increase.

    Double daily on smaller craft is also more sensible


  • Registered Users Posts: 10,460 ✭✭✭✭MJohnston


    L1011 wrote: »
    359 will solve that. 380 is an insane capacity increase.

    Double daily on smaller craft is also more sensible

    I wasn't suggesting I was in any way correct to say they should be looking at A380s, I'm just curious as to the reasoning (I haven't been keeping on the debate). But I'm glad to hear about the 350s, looking it up, seems like another couple of years before we'll see them in service?


  • Advertisement
  • Moderators, Business & Finance Moderators, Motoring & Transport Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 67,069 Mod ✭✭✭✭L1011


    MJohnston wrote: »
    I wasn't suggesting I was in any way correct to say they should be looking at A380s, I'm just curious as to the reasoning (I haven't been keeping on the debate). But I'm glad to hear about the 350s, looking it up, seems like another couple of years before we'll see them in service?

    Early 2018 for the first one based on the current firing order and expected production rate.


  • Registered Users Posts: 28,403 ✭✭✭✭vicwatson


    Jamie2k9 wrote: »
    What do you want to know....

    I want to know will the runway go ahead if DAA dont get the concessions they want?

    Have you the answer? Are you the CEO? CEO wouldn't answer the question yesterday on two radio stations.


  • Registered Users Posts: 571 ✭✭✭BonkeyDonker


    vicwatson wrote: »
    I want to know will the runway go ahead if DAA dont get the concessions they want?

    Have you the answer? Are you the CEO? CEO wouldn't answer the question yesterday on two radio stations.

    I imagine it will go ahead. The runway is needed badly as it stands. I will imagine over time the DAA will look to have any restrictions lifted and given the lead time to get the actual runway built they have time to work on this.


  • Registered Users Posts: 10,654 ✭✭✭✭Jamie2k9


    vicwatson wrote: »
    I want to know will the runway go ahead if DAA dont get the concessions they want?

    Have you the answer? Are you the CEO? CEO wouldn't answer the question yesterday on two radio stations.

    Yes of course it will


  • Registered Users Posts: 17,483 ✭✭✭✭LXFlyer


    vicwatson wrote: »
    I want to know will the runway go ahead if DAA dont get the concessions they want?

    Have you the answer? Are you the CEO? CEO wouldn't answer the question yesterday on two radio stations.

    Do you not want the runway to go ahead?


  • Registered Users Posts: 2,126 ✭✭✭KwackerJack


    medoc wrote: »
    Just curious as to how often the 16/34 "cross wind" runway is used. I mean when it's needed because of wind as opposed to any other planned closure of the main runway. Is Dublin ever likely to need a second runway on the 16/34 alignment?

    It's great when standing at the end of 16......Can't get any closer on landing unless your in the plane!!


  • Moderators, Home & Garden Moderators, Technology & Internet Moderators Posts: 24,789 Mod ✭✭✭✭KoolKid


    It's great when standing at the end of 16......Can't get any closer on landing unless your in the plane!!

    Try Lanzarote or Saint Marteens for your next holiday. You'll love it.


  • Moderators, Motoring & Transport Moderators Posts: 6,521 Mod ✭✭✭✭Irish Steve


    At the risk of throwing a spanner in the works, I was under the impression that the (2007?) plan as approved, which can be built now, has 2 specific issues, the first being that it means the end of 16/34, and the second, possibly more significant, the horizontal separation between the 2 runways is now not considered enough to allow parallel operations.

    If that's correct, then it would seem to me that to proceed with a flawed plan is an incredibly short sighted decision, given that it won't be quick or easy to subsequently move either of the runways to overcome the separation issue, if that is the case.

    Can anyone in the know confirm or deny these 2 issues?

    Shore, if it was easy, everybody would be doin it.😁



  • Registered Users Posts: 1,000 ✭✭✭thomil


    At the risk of throwing a spanner in the works, I was under the impression that the (2007?) plan as approved, which can be built now, has 2 specific issues, the first being that it means the end of 16/34, and the second, possibly more significant, the horizontal separation between the 2 runways is now not considered enough to allow parallel operations.

    If that's correct, then it would seem to me that to proceed with a flawed plan is an incredibly short sighted decision, given that it won't be quick or easy to subsequently move either of the runways to overcome the separation issue, if that is the case.

    Can anyone in the know confirm or deny these 2 issues?

    From what I've gathered from the Ruling of An Board Pleanala on the Dublin Airport Website (Community Relations section), 16/34 will be kept as a runway, but its use is to be minimised, and only used when deemed the safest option by ATC.
    As for the distance between the runways, the minimum distance for parallel precision operations is 1311 meters. The new runway will be 1.6 kilometres north of the existing runway, so well within regulations.

    Good luck trying to figure me out. I haven't managed that myself yet!



  • Registered Users Posts: 57 ✭✭is this username available


    Has there been any update on how this will be funded? Presume they have yet to go to bond market?


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 18,078 ✭✭✭✭JCX BXC


    <SNIP> We don't need unsubstantiated comments that are off topic. Thanks


  • Registered Users Posts: 17,483 ✭✭✭✭LXFlyer


    thomil wrote: »
    From what I've gathered from the Ruling of An Board Pleanala on the Dublin Airport Website (Community Relations section), 16/34 will be kept as a runway, but its use is to be minimised, and only used when deemed the safest option by ATC.

    Well with two parallel runways they would only need to use 16/34 when crosswinds require it.

    The need to use it when repairs are required to one runway will be finished.

    So I don't really see that being an issue.


  • Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 702 ✭✭✭Simon2015


    Whatever happened to plans to build a 2nd Airport in Dublin during the boom ?


  • Moderators, Motoring & Transport Moderators Posts: 6,521 Mod ✭✭✭✭Irish Steve


    Simon2015 wrote: »
    Whatever happened to plans to build a 2nd Airport in Dublin during the boom ?

    If you look at the An Bord Pleanala report, (just been reading some of it for different reasons, and it's NOT light reading) there were never any serious plans for a second Dublin airport, Baldonnel is not suitable for all sorts of reasons, Gormanston is too small, and a completely new airport in the Midlands somewhere would get mired in all manner of objections and issues for decades.

    Shore, if it was easy, everybody would be doin it.😁



  • Registered Users Posts: 18,078 ✭✭✭✭JCX BXC


    Simon2015 wrote: »
    Whatever happened to plans to build a 2nd Airport in Dublin during the boom ?

    You could give a fair guess;)


  • Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 702 ✭✭✭Simon2015


    If you look at the An Bord Pleanala report, (just been reading some of it for different reasons, and it's NOT light reading) there were never any serious plans for a second Dublin airport, Baldonnel is not suitable for all sorts of reasons, Gormanston is too small, and a completely new airport in the Midlands somewhere would get mired in all manner of objections and issues for decades.


    Well maybe Ryanair could help get a 2nd Dublin Airport built since they hate the DAA so much.


  • Registered Users Posts: 10,654 ✭✭✭✭Jamie2k9


    Simon2015 wrote: »
    Well maybe Ryanair could help get a 2nd Dublin Airport built since they hate the DAA so much.

    They don't anymore and they are realizing that major airports are pricey, some of the comments towards the daa went to far and old management played a big role in breakdowns. Kenny Jacobs has taught one or two how to communicate publicly, no names of course.....

    Aer Lingus are also played a role at DUB in terms of FR and will continue to do so more than ever.

    Anyone remember Tullamore plans of Dublin West as old FR would market it!


  • Registered Users Posts: 1,355 ✭✭✭jimbis


    Jamie2k9 wrote: »

    Anyone remember Tullamore plans of Dublin West as old FR would market it!

    Major European cargo hub being thrown around with that aswell wasn't there?

    Is it me or does 2020 seem a bit close to have the parallel runway operational. I know they have planning and own most/all land required.... But this is Ireland....


  • Registered Users Posts: 1,490 ✭✭✭Noxegon


    Simon2015 wrote: »
    Well maybe Ryanair could help get a 2nd Dublin Airport built since they hate the DAA so much.

    I had a letter in the Irish Times about that maybe a decade ago – suggesting Dublin South (Wexford).

    I develop Superior Solitaire when I'm not procrastinating on boards.ie.



  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 915 ✭✭✭Bussywussy


    jimbis wrote: »
    Major European cargo hub being thrown around with that aswell wasn't there?

    Is it me or does 2020 seem a bit close to have the parallel runway operational. I know they have planning and own most/all land required.... But this is Ireland....

    Dunno if parallel will be in ops by 2020 but the runway will.
    The lack of aircraft Widebody stands is very evident.


Advertisement