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
19-05-2013, 00:26   #61
Shamrock231
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 723
Quote:
Originally Posted by Razor44 View Post
how bad is the surface on 10/28 now?
IIRC, an aircraft had an accident there a few months back when it hit a chunk of concrete that had broken loose, so that's how bad it is.
Shamrock231 is offline  
Thanks from:
Advertisement
19-05-2013, 00:28   #62
Shamrock231
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 723
Quote:
Originally Posted by rxan90 View Post
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?
Correct, there is no longer a forced Shannon stopover, but at the time, the local SNN TDs wanted to ensure that there was always going to be a stopover and did everything in their powers to ensure that that would stick around, including the shortening of the requested length for 28/10 so that long haul jets couldn't make it out of Dublin with a full fuel load.
Shamrock231 is offline  
Thanks from:
19-05-2013, 12:56   #63
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Posts: 2,254
Quote:
Originally Posted by Shamrock231 View Post
Correct, there is no longer a forced Shannon stopover, but at the time, the local SNN TDs wanted to ensure that there was always going to be a stopover and did everything in their powers to ensure that that would stick around, including the shortening of the requested length for 28/10 so that long haul jets couldn't make it out of Dublin with a full fuel load.
You'll find some echoes of that in Dail debates going back.
Quote:
http://www.oireachtas-debates.gov.ie...412120040.html
Dáil Éireann - Volume 354 - 12 December, 1984
Written Answers. - Dublin Airport New Runway.

604. Mrs. Owen asked the Minister for Communications if he intends to follow the recommendations contained in a report dated April 1981, prepared by representatives of Aer Lingus, Aer Rianta and the Department of Transport and Power, concerning the need for a new runway at Dublin Airport of approximately 9,000 feet in length.

Minister for Communications (Mr. J. Mitchell): Bearing in mind the age of the Dublin Airport runway system, which dates from the mid-forties, the developments in size and weight of aircraft in recent years and the need to provide for long term traffic needs at the airport, a detailed examination of the airport's future runway requirements was carried [2423] out in the late seventies by a working group. The group recommended that a new east/west 9,000 feet runway should be built. Aer Rianta endorse the working group's report and the company have advised me that the operational life of the existing main runway cannot be guaranteed beyond 1988.

In the light of these considerations I will shortly be seeking formal Government approval for the level of investment necessary for a new runway at Dublin Airport. I am not, therefore, yet in a position to indicate the length of the proposed runway or the nature of the instrument landing system to be provided. I should make it clear that while details of the funding arrangements for the project have not yet been finalised it is expected that the project will be funded primarily from non-Exchequer sources, i.e. borrowing by Aer Rianta and the company's own resources. Completion and operation of a new runway at Dublin Airport will not hinder or adversely affect operations at Shannon Airport. I can assure the Deputy that there will be no change in Government policy under which Shannon is Ireland's only designated transatlantic gateway for traffic to and from Ireland.
Quote:
http://www.oireachtas-debates.gov.ie...606060003.html
Dáil Éireann - Volume 367 - 06 June, 1986
US Preinspection Facilities at Shannon Airport: Motion.
It is worth drawing the attention of the House to a phrase in the Minister's speech. He says that officers of the United States Immigration and Naturalisation Service would conduct in Ireland, at Shannon in the first instance, inspection of passengers and aircraft crew required by the US laws. Is it proposed to have this elsewhere and, if so, why? What the Minister said is borne out by [1481] Article IV of the agreement in the Schedule to the Bill where it says:

Preinspection may be conducted at additional locations in Ireland by agreement, expressed in writing, of both Governments.

Why should it be held anywhere else other than Shannon? Has it to do with the proposal which I regard as rather dubious in terms of public expenditure of a new runway at Dublin? For what purpose other than trans-Atlantic flights is that proposed runway required at a cost of £30 million? That proposal has been made for ten or 15 years and it never came to fruition. I do not see the operation of Dublin Airport being adversely affected by the absence of a very long runway that could take fully laden trans-Atlantic flights. We are entitled to ask why that should be the case. The context of Article IV of this draft agreement seems to suggest that, as soon as the runway is provided, these facilities will be provided in Dublin. We have a tendency at official level to think that everything must happen in Dublin and, if it is not happening in Dublin, it is not happening at all.
And, push coming to shove, the Shannon lobby got its way. It's being quickly forgotten, but very virulent politics had a huge impact on Dublin Airport. Politics is why there isn't a 3,000 metre runway there for the last twenty years (and more).
GCU Flexible Demeanour is offline  
20-05-2013, 10:01   #64
murphym7
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 1,900
I am not sure why Dublin needs a second runway. Even at 23.5M passengers its still 10 million passengers less that Gatwick currently have operating with one runway. Is it a vanity project? Honest question, I am not an expert. But it does seem odd that Gatwick can run one runway with 34 million passengers but Dublin needs a second runway with 10 million passenegrs less.
murphym7 is offline  
(3) thanks from:
20-05-2013, 10:13   #65
veetwin
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 1,879
Quote:
Originally Posted by murphym7 View Post
I am not sure why Dublin needs a second runway. Even at 23.5M passengers its still 10 million passengers less that Gatwick currently have operating with one runway. Is it a vanity project? Honest question, I am not an expert. But it does seem odd that Gatwick can run one runway with 34 million passengers but Dublin needs a secondthird runway with 10 million passenegrs less.
Good question.
veetwin is online now  
Advertisement
20-05-2013, 10:39   #66
Jhcx
Registered User
 
Jhcx's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2012
Posts: 2,762
Quote:
Originally Posted by murphym7 View Post
I am not sure why Dublin needs a second runway. Even at 23.5M passengers its still 10 million passengers less that Gatwick currently have operating with one runway. Is it a vanity project? Honest question, I am not an expert. But it does seem odd that Gatwick can run one runway with 34 million passengers but Dublin needs a second runway with 10 million passenegrs less.
If they just made the current one longer we would easily be able to manage to the standard of Gatwick.
Jhcx is offline  
20-05-2013, 12:17   #67
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Posts: 713
Quote:
Originally Posted by veetwin View Post
Good question.
Not really.

It's not like all three could be in use simultaneously and to suggest they could is naive. Using 2 in the mornings has a huge impact on operations at Dublin. Yes it gets the departures away but it has a knock on impact on arrivals. Delaying them in the air especially the morning Atlantic arrivals and then it's complicated to get them onto their stands. Airfield works are not allowed. Tow traffic is hugely restricted etc etc

Gatwicks 34 million is achieved by having a lot more Heavies using the airport therefore bringing in more passengers per plane. Yes Gatwick is busier I don't dispute that. Dublin currently doesn't need a second runway. Yes it would make life much easier and would dramatically reduce delays.

I would support building the runway now on the basis the DAA could save money as it is currently cheaper to build stuff now than it was before or will be in the future.

Most airports in the world that have a reasonable traffic volume use two parallel runways to reduce complexity and increase efficiency.

Why did we need a second M50 bridge ? why did we need three lane roads ? because you build in capacity not fight fires afterwards trying to catch back up to the curve, I remember having to sit in rush hour traffic on the M50 because of the toll booths and because we all had to squeeze on to the one bridge.

The time to build a second runway was 10 years ago. Traffic is starting to increase again, slowly yes but it is increasing. Therefore wear and tear is increasing.

Yes Dublin needs a longer runway always should have had one but the Westerners blocked that. It is an attraction for operators and its also a huge safety benefit for pilots.

@basill The cost to restore 11/29 is probably not worth the money especially if you could build a proper parallel runway for a few quid more. The benefits are limited, the aircraft that can use it is limited, the opportunities to use it are limited by weather and its offset track.

28 is being used efficiently when there is high volumes of traffic. Most pilots don't know the spacing required for lander-lander or lander-departure-lander do you ?

It's hard to second guess crews at times. Sometimes you provide a gap for a departure only for that crew to get to the holding point and say they are not ready. Wasted gap. Or to taxi to slow and miss another gap or take for ever to ask for taxi. I can provide the tower with departure spacing if you want but that's not efficient for arrivals. I could provide no gaps for departures but you would whine that you had to wait 10 mins to take off. Gaps take time to build in and close up its not instantaneous. We are not mind readers in approach we do our best to judge when the tower needs the gaps.

Remote parking-11/29 is good enough for that at the moment.

Redesign taxiways-ATC have implored the DAA to do that but its like the NRA's budget money only for repairs none for new builds, the future plans are there to improve taxi routes but money is the problem.
urajoke is offline  
Thanks from:
20-05-2013, 12:43   #68
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Posts: 2,254
Quote:
Originally Posted by urajoke View Post
<...> Gatwicks 34 million is achieved by having a lot more Heavies using the airport therefore bringing in more passengers per plane. Yes Gatwick is busier I don't dispute that. Dublin currently doesn't need a second runway. Yes it would make life much easier and would dramatically reduce delays. <...>
It is fair to observe, as well, that analysis behind the new runway proposal has taken account of consideration of Gatwick to see what can be done to maximise capacity of the existing runway. For instance, this report from 2004:
Quote:
http://www.aviationreg.ie/_fileuploa...ASA_JULY04.pdf

In principle, all airports with a single runway with similar infrastructure (eg rapid exit taxiways) should have similar hourly capacities. Gatwick is generally regarded as ‘best in class’ in this aspect. Any differences between Dublin and Gatwick are largely due to infrastructure
differences, traffic mix and operational procedures.
That's not particularly to say that increasing capacity means both increasing length and a second runway. Just to point that, indeed, this process hasn't ignored what's been done in Gatwick or elsewhere.

GCU Flexible Demeanour is offline  
20-05-2013, 13:17   #69
BeardySi
Registered User
 
BeardySi's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Posts: 1,484
Also on the LGW argument, don't they have a second shorter runway in parallel to the main which can be used when the main runway is in need of maintenance/repair work? - It's just too close to the main runway to be used at the same time....
BeardySi is offline  
Advertisement
20-05-2013, 13:27   #70
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Posts: 713
Quote:
Originally Posted by Treadhead View Post
Also on the LGW argument, don't they have a second shorter runway in parallel to the main which can be used when the main runway is in need of maintenance/repair work? - It's just too close to the main runway to be used at the same time....
It's existence is there purely for your first point. They want a second runway but have similar issues with NIMBY's.

The comparison with Gatwick is only there as they have a single runway. Whereas Manchester airport is something that Dublin has tried to aspire to in terms of the second runway for a similar number of movements and passengers.
urajoke is offline  
20-05-2013, 16:32   #71
Peregrine
I can't believe I ate the whole thing
 
Peregrine's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Posts: 20,467
Quote:
Originally Posted by murphym7 View Post
I am not sure why Dublin needs a second runway. Even at 23.5M passengers its still 10 million passengers less that Gatwick currently have operating with one runway. Is it a vanity project? Honest question, I am not an expert. But it does seem odd that Gatwick can run one runway with 34 million passengers but Dublin needs a second runway with 10 million passenegrs less.
1) Runway 10/28 is in a horrible state
2) Runway 10/28 is too short, Gatwick's main runway isn't

Gatwick's second runway is the same length as Dublin's main runway. A 2.6km main runway for Dublin is a joke, even Shannon got a proper 3.2 km runway.

Yes Dublin could do without a longer runway for a few more years but what's the point in saying "Well we're screwed now.." When our passenger numbers become 23-25m and all we have is a short runway with bits of concrete coming off it?

We have time now to actually a build a proper 3.6km so it's ready when passenger numbers hit 23m and then the current runway can be closed and repaired.
Peregrine is offline  
20-05-2013, 19:03   #72
Razor44
Registered User
 
Razor44's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Posts: 650
we will end up with a M50 situation again, only fixed when its at a stand still, way beyond its capacity. now really is the time to do it.

Funny point on the M50, it was originally planed as a 3 lane motorway with twin bridges over the River. The minister at the time decided Dublin wold never need a 3 lane motorway. how much did it cost to upgrade in the end?

that sort of thinking and lack of planning needs to be left in the past.
Razor44 is offline  
(2) thanks from:
20-05-2013, 19:08   #73
murphym7
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 1,900
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nimrod 7 View Post
1) Runway 10/28 is in a horrible state
2) Runway 10/28 is too short, Gatwick's main runway isn't

Gatwick's second runway is the same length as Dublin's main runway. A 2.6km main runway for Dublin is a joke, even Shannon got a proper 3.2 km runway.

Yes Dublin could do without a longer runway for a few more years but what's the point in saying "Well we're screwed now.." When our passenger numbers become 23-25m and all we have is a short runway with bits of concrete coming off it?

We have time now to actually a build a proper 3.6km so it's ready when passenger numbers hit 23m and then the current runway can be closed and repaired.
Why is a longer runway important? If Dublin can manage with the shorter one now, what will change in the future that a longer one would be important? Do we think that the A380 will become a feature? What routes Would support that kind of capacity?

If the issues you outlined above are the only concerns then refurb the existing main runway and if needed extend?
murphym7 is offline  
20-05-2013, 19:21   #74
jamo2oo9
Registered User
 
jamo2oo9's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Posts: 5,680
With a longer runway, you could have carriers offering destinations to middle-east, Asia, West Coast America/Canada and Africa. The biggest potential route is most likely a west coast american route (SFO, LAX, LAS, SEA or YVR) and Asia with a codeshare to Australia or something alike. This would be more popular for American carriers as they would be allowed to utilise larger aircraft on high density routes with high demand like JFK, BOS and ORD.

I think the 10-28 is in dire need of a complete refurbishment and a new, longer runway is needed in order to minimise the disruption of the airport's expansion.

Let's say we're 10 years from now. The runway is basically broken and the DAA haven't secured the funding for the parallel runway. DAA is forced to close 28 and use the shorter 16-32 runway will can have a massive affect of airport's traffic flow and the number of miles the aircraft can cover with limited fuel. This wouldn't be good for DAA and certainly not for Ireland's economy as it will affect the tourism significantly. Yeah, there's Shannon, Cork and Belfast but those airports wouldn't be of an interest to major carriers like Emirates, Etihad and it couldn't serve Dublin when it's nearly 200km away.
jamo2oo9 is offline  
20-05-2013, 22:00   #75
TheFitz13
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2013
Posts: 695
If Dublin gets 19m passengers with only european, East-coast american and middle eastern routes image what it would get from all around the world

there is high-demand for long haul air travel at Dublin
TheFitz13 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