Boards.ie uses cookies. By continuing to browse this site you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Click here to find out more x
Post Reply  
 
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
18-05-2013, 01:07   #46
Stealthirl
Registered User
 
Stealthirl's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Posts: 1,434
Would it not be a more obvious/cheaper option to extend 10/28 when it is getting redone while also extending taxiways to allow A380 operations in the future ?

Apart from the 77W at MTOW what currant and future AC are limited on 10/28 ?
Stealthirl is offline  
Advertisement
18-05-2013, 01:11   #47
Jamie2k9
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Posts: 9,592
Quote:
Originally Posted by Stealthirl View Post
Would it not be a more obvious/cheaper option to extend 10/28 when it is getting redone while also extending taxiways to allow A380 operations in the future ?

Apart from the 77W at MTOW what currant and future AC are limited on 10/28 ?
10/28 will likely be closed once there is a new runway opens for major works to be carried out before it returns to service.
Jamie2k9 is offline  
Thanks from:
18-05-2013, 01:46   #48
andy_g
Thrown out of the realms of lunacy
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 6,226
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jamie2k9 View Post
10/28 will likely be closed once there is a new runway opens for major works to be carried out before it returns to service.
And to be fair it needs to be resurfaced sooner rather than later.
andy_g is offline  
(3) thanks from:
18-05-2013, 09:52   #49
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 873
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheFitz13 View Post
We dont need a new airport or upgrading of baldonnell. we just need a new runway at EIDW that is 3km or more... we also need expanding of the taxiways...... you'd think when they had built the taxiways+runway they would have put a bit of width into them..... God i hate the DAA! >
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.
rainbowdash is offline  
Thanks from:
18-05-2013, 10:37   #50
TheFitz13
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2013
Posts: 695

Quote:
Originally Posted by rainbowdash View Post
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.
i get where your coming from but whats the point in spending alot of money expandng it (making it into a commerical airport) rather than putting a nice, wide, long runway at EIDW........ (i live beside EIDW and love planespotting....hehe )

maybe i IF dublin gets too congested then baldonnel can come into place as a low-cost airport like luton or somthing like that
TheFitz13 is offline  
Advertisement
18-05-2013, 10:38   #51
markpb
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Posts: 7,772
Quote:
Originally Posted by rainbowdash View Post
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.
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.

If nothing else, how much opposition would it face from local residents? It would never happen and while we're talking about it, Dublin Airport would be starved of investment (ot at least starved of the decision to allow them to borrow).

Last edited by markpb; 18-05-2013 at 10:41.
markpb is offline  
18-05-2013, 10:47   #52
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 873
Quote:
Originally Posted by markpb View Post
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.
rainbowdash is offline  
18-05-2013, 11:59   #53
Peregrine
I can't believe I ate the whole thing
 
Peregrine's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Posts: 20,463
Quote:
Originally Posted by rainbowdash View Post
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?
Peregrine is offline  
18-05-2013, 12:48   #54
Shamrock231
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 723
Quote:
Originally Posted by rainbowdash View Post
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...
Shamrock231 is offline  
(3) thanks from:
Advertisement
18-05-2013, 15:32   #55
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Posts: 2,254
Quote:
Originally Posted by markpb View Post
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.
GCU Flexible Demeanour is offline  
18-05-2013, 20:31   #56
basill
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Posts: 984
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.
basill is offline  
(4) thanks from:
19-05-2013, 00:17   #57
rxan90
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Posts: 61
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?
rxan90 is offline  
19-05-2013, 00:20   #58
Shamrock231
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 723
Quote:
Originally Posted by rxan90 View Post
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.

Last edited by Shamrock231; 19-05-2013 at 00:25.
Shamrock231 is offline  
(2) thanks from:
19-05-2013, 00:22   #59
Razor44
Registered User
 
Razor44's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Posts: 650
how bad is the surface on 10/28 now?
Razor44 is offline  
19-05-2013, 00:22   #60
rxan90
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Posts: 61
Quote:
Originally Posted by Shamrock231 View Post
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?
rxan90 is offline  
Post Reply

Quick Reply
Message:
Remove Text Formatting
Bold
Italic
Underline

Insert Image
Wrap [QUOTE] tags around selected text
 
Decrease Size
Increase Size
Please sign up or log in to join the discussion

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search



Share Tweet