Terminal 2, Dublin Airport.....Whats Your Opinion?
Thread Starter
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Everywhere
Posts: 190
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Terminal 2, Dublin Airport.....Whats Your Opinion?
Last night (March 22nd) RTE1, Irelands national TV Broadcast station, aired the weekly debate programme "Prime Time". The main topic of discussion was the proposal to build a second terminal at Dublin airport. Michael O'Leary, CEO of Ryanair, and Michael Halpenny, SIPTU National Industrial Secretary, argued the virtues of public and private enterprise. The irish goverment were invited to send a spokesperson to the debate, but they refused.
Donagh Diamond reported on the manoeuvering that appears to have sealed a public sector expansion at Dublin airport. Included in this report were different proposals from the goverment to expand the already over crowded terminal by adding another boarding/arrival pier, "Pier D", or to build a second terminal, built and run by the state, on state-owned land. A private proposal discussed was with Ulick McEvaddy, chief executive of Omega. McEvaddy who has submitted his own plan to build a second terminal, described the proposal as “bankrupt'‘, saying the terminal, if constructed on the state-owned site, would “end up like the M50 inadequate from the day it starts operations'‘. The most recently proposed goverment scheme would scupper McEvaddy's plan to build a €450 million private terminal on his lands next to the airport.
After the report, the debate continued with Michael O'Leary slamming the goverment for being too slow to come to an agreement over the second terminal. Michael O'Leary warned Ryanair would take a legal challenge to any plan to give the terminal contract to the existing airport authority. He stated that there are several private companies competing against the goverment to build the second terminal, all of which would not seek money from the tax payers, but would fund the building costs themselves. Ryanair is included in the list of companies.
"Competition is good for business, even the dogs in the street know that competition is good" stated Michael O'Leary.
In response to the propsals, Michael Halpenny defended the SIPTU position. The Union’s letter of the 27th of January, clearly sets SIPTUs position which is as follows:
"We strongly favour a second terminal.
· It should be Designed, Built and Operated by the Dublin Airport Authority as part of our national aviation infrastructure.
· The second terminal should not result in the diminution of Security and Quality of employment at the airport.
· It is only in the absence of such provision that the Union would support the McEvaddy proposition on the clear agreement that it would be operated on a basis that would not lead to the diminution of Security and Quality of employment".
Transport minister Martin Cullen is now studying all the options on the second terminal site and is expected to bring proposals to cabinet shortly.
McEvaddy, said the latest plan would cause maximum possible disruption to 18 million business and tourism passengers over its four-year construction.
It would require extensive demolition at the airport before construction started, including four hangars owned by the former FLS Aerospace, the airport's church and an Aer Lingus building.
“This is the same bankrupt philosophy that the previous board (of Aer Rianta) proposed over the past 10 years,” said McEvaddy.
Industry sources have speculated that the airport's short-term car park would also have to be partly demolished to accommodate wider road access.
So my question to all at pprune is whats your opinion? I worked on the ground for nine years at Dublin airport before leaving last year. I've seen how overcrowded it becomes, how poor the facilities are, how strange the security arrangment is, and how much of a joke the 300 million Euro Pier C is. I for one would rather see a private enterprise building the second terminal, and for it not to be in state hands. I agree with Michael O'Leary, competition is what we need, and disagree with SIPTUs position. Though i'm not saying I favour Ryanairs terminal proposal, I actually like the McEvaddy plan for terminal 2.
Regards,
S.C.
Donagh Diamond reported on the manoeuvering that appears to have sealed a public sector expansion at Dublin airport. Included in this report were different proposals from the goverment to expand the already over crowded terminal by adding another boarding/arrival pier, "Pier D", or to build a second terminal, built and run by the state, on state-owned land. A private proposal discussed was with Ulick McEvaddy, chief executive of Omega. McEvaddy who has submitted his own plan to build a second terminal, described the proposal as “bankrupt'‘, saying the terminal, if constructed on the state-owned site, would “end up like the M50 inadequate from the day it starts operations'‘. The most recently proposed goverment scheme would scupper McEvaddy's plan to build a €450 million private terminal on his lands next to the airport.
After the report, the debate continued with Michael O'Leary slamming the goverment for being too slow to come to an agreement over the second terminal. Michael O'Leary warned Ryanair would take a legal challenge to any plan to give the terminal contract to the existing airport authority. He stated that there are several private companies competing against the goverment to build the second terminal, all of which would not seek money from the tax payers, but would fund the building costs themselves. Ryanair is included in the list of companies.
"Competition is good for business, even the dogs in the street know that competition is good" stated Michael O'Leary.
In response to the propsals, Michael Halpenny defended the SIPTU position. The Union’s letter of the 27th of January, clearly sets SIPTUs position which is as follows:
"We strongly favour a second terminal.
· It should be Designed, Built and Operated by the Dublin Airport Authority as part of our national aviation infrastructure.
· The second terminal should not result in the diminution of Security and Quality of employment at the airport.
· It is only in the absence of such provision that the Union would support the McEvaddy proposition on the clear agreement that it would be operated on a basis that would not lead to the diminution of Security and Quality of employment".
Transport minister Martin Cullen is now studying all the options on the second terminal site and is expected to bring proposals to cabinet shortly.
McEvaddy, said the latest plan would cause maximum possible disruption to 18 million business and tourism passengers over its four-year construction.
It would require extensive demolition at the airport before construction started, including four hangars owned by the former FLS Aerospace, the airport's church and an Aer Lingus building.
“This is the same bankrupt philosophy that the previous board (of Aer Rianta) proposed over the past 10 years,” said McEvaddy.
Industry sources have speculated that the airport's short-term car park would also have to be partly demolished to accommodate wider road access.
So my question to all at pprune is whats your opinion? I worked on the ground for nine years at Dublin airport before leaving last year. I've seen how overcrowded it becomes, how poor the facilities are, how strange the security arrangment is, and how much of a joke the 300 million Euro Pier C is. I for one would rather see a private enterprise building the second terminal, and for it not to be in state hands. I agree with Michael O'Leary, competition is what we need, and disagree with SIPTUs position. Though i'm not saying I favour Ryanairs terminal proposal, I actually like the McEvaddy plan for terminal 2.
Regards,
S.C.
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: Buenos Aires
Posts: 98
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
1.
I greatly admire Michael O'Leary and think we all owe him a "Thank You" for the kick up the backside he has delivered to Aer Lingus and other, older, airlines in Europe too for that matter.
2.
His only duty is to make money for Ryanair shareholders and his opinion about what is good for Dublin Airport/air transport in Ireland has to be seen in that light.
3.
He's only interested in the free market and competition when it suits him. Witness the subsidies he gets to send his jets to middle-of-nowhere airports.
4.
Private-sector involvement in the development of Dublin Airport? Great idea provided that it *really* tends to benefit competition. Bad idea if it's just away of replacing Aer Rianta with a single private-sector actor, which, quite legitimately, has nobody's interest's at heart but it's own.
I greatly admire Michael O'Leary and think we all owe him a "Thank You" for the kick up the backside he has delivered to Aer Lingus and other, older, airlines in Europe too for that matter.
2.
His only duty is to make money for Ryanair shareholders and his opinion about what is good for Dublin Airport/air transport in Ireland has to be seen in that light.
3.
He's only interested in the free market and competition when it suits him. Witness the subsidies he gets to send his jets to middle-of-nowhere airports.
4.
Private-sector involvement in the development of Dublin Airport? Great idea provided that it *really* tends to benefit competition. Bad idea if it's just away of replacing Aer Rianta with a single private-sector actor, which, quite legitimately, has nobody's interest's at heart but it's own.
Join Date: Aug 1999
Location: Dublin, Ireland
Posts: 1,879
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
My first concern is with the location of the new terminal; if you have a look at the plan for the new runway, the parallel taxiway seems (from what I can see) to limit the potential for outward expansion (i.e. a parallel satellite) for the north apron site. To my mind, building in potential and space for growth should be a priority. That's surely one of the lessons that should have been learned. And this from an airport which built a runway which is a good 1,500' less than it shoudl be.
I think there should be competition; I'm glad to see the PDs (finally!) develop some backbone on this matter.
I think there should be competition; I'm glad to see the PDs (finally!) develop some backbone on this matter.
Join Date: Mar 1999
Location: Ashbourne Co Meath Ireland
Age: 73
Posts: 470
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I too have both used and worked in DUB over the years, as staff, a pilot and a passenger.
At it stands at the moment, it's an unmitigated disaster.
There's no sensible public transport infrastructure, the roads in and out are already way over capacity, badly designed and poorly linked to the external structure.
There's no rail link, there's no central bus and coach parking, they are all over the place, it's overcrowded already in the "pinch points", and Pier D can only make it worse.
The security system is a disaster, at busy periods the queues meet in the middle of the check in area, and at peak periods, forget it!
The baggage handling area in Pier C is a total disaster, whoever designed it had never been near a real airport in their lives, it's the wrong shape and size for working with containers, and there's nowhere to put containbers that are needed "soon". The routes in and out or both inbound and outbound baggage areas are dangerous when it's wet, let alone when there's frost on the ground, and if they put Pier D where they're planning to put it, even more flights will leave without bags loaded, as they can't get them through the system in time now, and it's going to be an even longer trip to get them to the aircraft on Pier D. A passenger checking in at the last minute ( standby for example) that has checked bags will be VERY lucky if they get to the flight, by the time they've been "in the system" for up to 12 minutes before arriving in the sort area, and then have to be taken by (slow) battery powered vehicle to the aircraft, which can mean waiting to cross active taxiways to get to the remote stands....................
Then there's the hassles of no facility whatsoever to drive through to pick up arriving passengers, no sensible facilities for collecting elderly or disabled passengers, as the parking close to the terminal is always full of new Merc's and BMW's, with no disabled spaces, or pick up area............
I could go on, but as far as I'm concerned, Aer Rianta (as was) (and some of the handling agents) need a monumental kick where it hurts, and even then, they probabaly won't notice, so it will be an even bigger shambles than it is now.
If SIPTU get to call the shots, then the new pier will suffer from the same problems as the present system. There are other issues as well.
Access to the ramp for staff, and cargo, and catering is already over capacity, there's one entrance/exit, it's supposed to be secure, and to the innocent it looks that way as every driver and passenger has to leave the vehicle, have their ID checked, partially strip and walk through the scanner, reclothe, return to the vehicle and enter the ramp. Add more movements to that scenario, it's not going to take much imagination to see what the implications of that scenario are. Trying to get a main deck hi loader through that system is a nightmare, as it's so tight and narrow, which delays things even more.
Then there's the problem of keeping the place operating while all this building work is done. It was bad enough when Pier C and the new 6 bay was being done, Pier D is out in the middle of the existing apron area, so there will be massive problems with getting contractors personnel, vehicles and supplies out to the work area.
As it looks right now, DUB is going to become the laughing stock of Europe very soon, and with the present supposed planners capacity for making a total balls of the job, we'll be lucky if DUB is working properly in 10 years time.
The M50 was planned in the early 80's. As a direct result of poor management, poor planning, government inertia and the intervention of tree huggers and the like, it's still not finished, and parts of it are already over capacity, and that's before the port tunnel opens and adds even more HGV's to the section that's already under the most pressure.
M O'L wants to do it his way. That's fine for FR, but probably would not suit any other carrier. Then again, with the way FR are growing, before too long they probably could fill a terminal all on their own, so maybe they should be allowed to build one, at least that way the rest of the airport would be free of the rugby scrum around the gate 15 minutes before departure.
Then of course, there's the second runway. the existing one is too short to allow things like 747 freighters to operate fully loaded, and the 28 threshold is so close to the existing terminals, it causes huge problems for arriving flights, as they can't get to the ramp because of the backlog of departures. the thought of a terminal and runway being built in parallel defies the imagination!
All in all, I suppose the best way to describe the situation is that this is the point where some of the less comfortable legacies of the Celtic Tiger come home to roost. We're about to reap the legacy of the corruption of the politicians (and it's not over yet, the brown envelope is still alive and kicking), and the failure of the politicians to really deal with the semi state mentality that fills the aviation industry still. Add to that some of the other things already mentioned, and DUB is going to be a very unpleasant place for some time to come.
At it stands at the moment, it's an unmitigated disaster.
There's no sensible public transport infrastructure, the roads in and out are already way over capacity, badly designed and poorly linked to the external structure.
There's no rail link, there's no central bus and coach parking, they are all over the place, it's overcrowded already in the "pinch points", and Pier D can only make it worse.
The security system is a disaster, at busy periods the queues meet in the middle of the check in area, and at peak periods, forget it!
The baggage handling area in Pier C is a total disaster, whoever designed it had never been near a real airport in their lives, it's the wrong shape and size for working with containers, and there's nowhere to put containbers that are needed "soon". The routes in and out or both inbound and outbound baggage areas are dangerous when it's wet, let alone when there's frost on the ground, and if they put Pier D where they're planning to put it, even more flights will leave without bags loaded, as they can't get them through the system in time now, and it's going to be an even longer trip to get them to the aircraft on Pier D. A passenger checking in at the last minute ( standby for example) that has checked bags will be VERY lucky if they get to the flight, by the time they've been "in the system" for up to 12 minutes before arriving in the sort area, and then have to be taken by (slow) battery powered vehicle to the aircraft, which can mean waiting to cross active taxiways to get to the remote stands....................
Then there's the hassles of no facility whatsoever to drive through to pick up arriving passengers, no sensible facilities for collecting elderly or disabled passengers, as the parking close to the terminal is always full of new Merc's and BMW's, with no disabled spaces, or pick up area............
I could go on, but as far as I'm concerned, Aer Rianta (as was) (and some of the handling agents) need a monumental kick where it hurts, and even then, they probabaly won't notice, so it will be an even bigger shambles than it is now.
If SIPTU get to call the shots, then the new pier will suffer from the same problems as the present system. There are other issues as well.
Access to the ramp for staff, and cargo, and catering is already over capacity, there's one entrance/exit, it's supposed to be secure, and to the innocent it looks that way as every driver and passenger has to leave the vehicle, have their ID checked, partially strip and walk through the scanner, reclothe, return to the vehicle and enter the ramp. Add more movements to that scenario, it's not going to take much imagination to see what the implications of that scenario are. Trying to get a main deck hi loader through that system is a nightmare, as it's so tight and narrow, which delays things even more.
Then there's the problem of keeping the place operating while all this building work is done. It was bad enough when Pier C and the new 6 bay was being done, Pier D is out in the middle of the existing apron area, so there will be massive problems with getting contractors personnel, vehicles and supplies out to the work area.
As it looks right now, DUB is going to become the laughing stock of Europe very soon, and with the present supposed planners capacity for making a total balls of the job, we'll be lucky if DUB is working properly in 10 years time.
The M50 was planned in the early 80's. As a direct result of poor management, poor planning, government inertia and the intervention of tree huggers and the like, it's still not finished, and parts of it are already over capacity, and that's before the port tunnel opens and adds even more HGV's to the section that's already under the most pressure.
M O'L wants to do it his way. That's fine for FR, but probably would not suit any other carrier. Then again, with the way FR are growing, before too long they probably could fill a terminal all on their own, so maybe they should be allowed to build one, at least that way the rest of the airport would be free of the rugby scrum around the gate 15 minutes before departure.
Then of course, there's the second runway. the existing one is too short to allow things like 747 freighters to operate fully loaded, and the 28 threshold is so close to the existing terminals, it causes huge problems for arriving flights, as they can't get to the ramp because of the backlog of departures. the thought of a terminal and runway being built in parallel defies the imagination!
All in all, I suppose the best way to describe the situation is that this is the point where some of the less comfortable legacies of the Celtic Tiger come home to roost. We're about to reap the legacy of the corruption of the politicians (and it's not over yet, the brown envelope is still alive and kicking), and the failure of the politicians to really deal with the semi state mentality that fills the aviation industry still. Add to that some of the other things already mentioned, and DUB is going to be a very unpleasant place for some time to come.
Rebel PPRuNer
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: Toronto, Canada (formerly EICK)
Age: 51
Posts: 2,834
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
What I would like to see:
Build T2 west of T1 between 10L/28R and 10R/28L. Spec for narrow body locos and charters. A barn for planes (like STN).
Remove all non-interlining airlines from T1. Use the space freed up to rebuild T1 as a proper terminal with whizzbang new facilities like being able to transfer between flights without going landside.
Build the DART spur from the Belfast line near Howth Junction to the Navan line near Hartstown, east-west with stops at T1 and T2 and/or build a DART-spec metro line from somewhere near Balbriggan through Swords to T1 where it intersects the DART Spur. This line to continue to O'Connell Street and preferably St. Stephen's Green or further south.
[why give a damn about rail connections, especially west of EIDW? Read the Fingal Council planner's report on 10L/28R and you'll see.]
As to who should own it? The airlines and the DoT should draw up the specification required and all parties including DAA tender for it.
However, I think competition between terminals is less important - let MOL have his shed because all he will do is moan all through the process about "gold plating" if full-service airlines use T2 and require more services than he wants to provide. It's probably better for one authority to be responsible for the airport as a whole than have the shenanigans one reads on D&G relating to SYD.
Build T2 west of T1 between 10L/28R and 10R/28L. Spec for narrow body locos and charters. A barn for planes (like STN).
Remove all non-interlining airlines from T1. Use the space freed up to rebuild T1 as a proper terminal with whizzbang new facilities like being able to transfer between flights without going landside.
Build the DART spur from the Belfast line near Howth Junction to the Navan line near Hartstown, east-west with stops at T1 and T2 and/or build a DART-spec metro line from somewhere near Balbriggan through Swords to T1 where it intersects the DART Spur. This line to continue to O'Connell Street and preferably St. Stephen's Green or further south.
[why give a damn about rail connections, especially west of EIDW? Read the Fingal Council planner's report on 10L/28R and you'll see.]
As to who should own it? The airlines and the DoT should draw up the specification required and all parties including DAA tender for it.
However, I think competition between terminals is less important - let MOL have his shed because all he will do is moan all through the process about "gold plating" if full-service airlines use T2 and require more services than he wants to provide. It's probably better for one authority to be responsible for the airport as a whole than have the shenanigans one reads on D&G relating to SYD.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Everywhere
Posts: 190
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
What I don't understand is why Tánaiste Mary Harney stated: "The only issues that are important here are capacity and competition… who may own such a facility is not the issue but rather competition that will drive efficiency for consumers and capacity so that the long delays that are being experienced by too many passengers can be eliminated.”
"Long Delays"
This woman like the rest in the goverment have no idea what a delay is, other than when they have to wait for the goverment Gulfstream IV to line up and take off from Dublin Airport to Baldonnel. They don't deal with the check-in congestion, or have to spend over 40 minutes queueing to get through one of the two security entrances the airport has, or have to sit in a terminal who's heating runs constantly through out the summer and air conditioning through the winter. They don't deal with the cockroach infested Mezzanine, or having to stand for over half an hour waiting on their bags from the baggage hall, no they get "Protocol" to take them directly to and from their aircraft.
Our goverment which I did not vote for, has its head stuck up its A
when it comes to Dublin airport. It wasted 300 million of taxpayers money on Pier C, which every morning can only accomidate two Aer Lingus A330s and two other 'smaller' aircraft. McEvaddy plans to build an entire new terminal, with plenty of gates for 450 million, so who looks like the bright spark and who looks like an ass.......The goverment. And for some reason SIPTU, who represent the workers, want the goverment to build and run the second terminal 
Its kind of obvious then about corrupt politicians, but what can be done to stop back handers and brown envelopes being handed to Bertie and the gang. Plenty of people would go to extremes to have their company build the new terminal, and if the goverment and the tax payers are the ones funding this, then you know its going to go WAY OVER budget
If Michael O'Leary or Ulick McEvaddy are reading this, I hope one of you get to build the terminal. At least we wouldn't be stuck in the 1980's, but for some reason I just can't see Mary Harney being too happy if it was you Michael, even if her PDs insist it is to be independently owned and operated.
S.C.
"Long Delays"
This woman like the rest in the goverment have no idea what a delay is, other than when they have to wait for the goverment Gulfstream IV to line up and take off from Dublin Airport to Baldonnel. They don't deal with the check-in congestion, or have to spend over 40 minutes queueing to get through one of the two security entrances the airport has, or have to sit in a terminal who's heating runs constantly through out the summer and air conditioning through the winter. They don't deal with the cockroach infested Mezzanine, or having to stand for over half an hour waiting on their bags from the baggage hall, no they get "Protocol" to take them directly to and from their aircraft.Our goverment which I did not vote for, has its head stuck up its A
when it comes to Dublin airport. It wasted 300 million of taxpayers money on Pier C, which every morning can only accomidate two Aer Lingus A330s and two other 'smaller' aircraft. McEvaddy plans to build an entire new terminal, with plenty of gates for 450 million, so who looks like the bright spark and who looks like an ass.......The goverment. And for some reason SIPTU, who represent the workers, want the goverment to build and run the second terminal Its kind of obvious then about corrupt politicians, but what can be done to stop back handers and brown envelopes being handed to Bertie and the gang. Plenty of people would go to extremes to have their company build the new terminal, and if the goverment and the tax payers are the ones funding this, then you know its going to go WAY OVER budget
If Michael O'Leary or Ulick McEvaddy are reading this, I hope one of you get to build the terminal. At least we wouldn't be stuck in the 1980's, but for some reason I just can't see Mary Harney being too happy if it was you Michael, even if her PDs insist it is to be independently owned and operated.
S.C.
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: Cork, Ireland
Posts: 1,625
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Youse are all getting excited now about the future new terminal at Dublin and the possiblility of the DAA ex Aer Rianta gang again having control. And you are quite right to be getting windy. Looks at the history in the running of both Dublin and Cork! Dont panic Mr Manawring! The only airport that has ever got it's way in gettin' anything that it ever wants has been and still is Shannon Airport. Bertie Aherne might be in the business of keeping a few votes locally by getting into bed with the Dublin Airport workers and their unions but the real game is still to protect the peculiar dogdy deals and stopover status quo that is Shannon Airport all of which means one thing down here and that is the screwing of Cork Airport.
Jaychus, I am beginning to sound like O'Leary on the TV show last night! That does not mean I am wrong, though?
Jaychus, I am beginning to sound like O'Leary on the TV show last night! That does not mean I am wrong, though?
Last edited by Tom the Tenor; 23rd Mar 2005 at 20:10.
Join Date: Aug 1999
Location: Dublin, Ireland
Posts: 1,879
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The general consensus seems to be that DUB is a disaster; it is sad, not just that things have been let get to this state, but that the plans for the future don't seem to be recognising what kind of mess the airport is now. That's not going to change if you have the DAA in charge; it's not just competition, it's making the airport a pleasant experience. Is there any specific reason why DUB can't be as pleasant an experience to use as Singapore or Schiphol? I see no reason and if the DAA won't do it, find someone who will.
Again, I repeat what I said about the new terminal; IT'S GOING TO BE TOO SMALL. It's too close to what will be the new parallel taxiway to be able to expand outwards and it looks (from what I'm reading in today's papers) like it's going to be intended as a low cost facility. Low cost on short haul is fine, but what about long term developments? Is anyone looking beyond Europe. What about cargo, too? Can anyone explain to me why, when our economy is the fastest growing in Europe, cargo traffic through Dublin is not keeping pace with this? Surely we need competition there too.
We have a new runway which will (only if all planning and objections are got through in time) be open in 2012. We're stuck with a runway of 8,650' until then. And this while Bertie and the rest of them travel to China, Japan, Korea, ASEAN etc. trying to drum up trade? Doesn't that strike anyone as odd (to put it very generously?)
As a basic principle, aviation - particularly in a peripheral, island nation - should be a facilitator and leader in economic growth. Our problem in Ireland is that bad planning, lack of vision, downright obstructionism and lack of political interest has resulted in aviation holding back this growth and we're going to see more of the same of this. We hear talk of 30m pax in ten years' time; does anyone really think there is space on the north apron for a terminal which can take this extra capacity? I doubt it, but as things are going, this new proposed terminal will be full and at breaking point before any planning is done for the next stage. It seems like the only reason the Midfield site was rejected was because the government didn't want private individuals benefiting from critical infrastructural projects; THAT'S the kind of mindset we're dealing with here!
I'm currently in the process of setting up a lobby group on this, because I really think we need a long term vision - not five or even ten years down the road, but beyond. There seems to be an impression that once the decisions due to be made in the next two weeks are so, are made, that's it and they won't need to look at aviation again for a long time. Sure, O'Leary speaks for FR, but who speaks for the national need? We need - and can have - an airport worthy of a dynamic, growing city and we're not going to get it until or unless there is sustained pressure.
Again, I repeat what I said about the new terminal; IT'S GOING TO BE TOO SMALL. It's too close to what will be the new parallel taxiway to be able to expand outwards and it looks (from what I'm reading in today's papers) like it's going to be intended as a low cost facility. Low cost on short haul is fine, but what about long term developments? Is anyone looking beyond Europe. What about cargo, too? Can anyone explain to me why, when our economy is the fastest growing in Europe, cargo traffic through Dublin is not keeping pace with this? Surely we need competition there too.
We have a new runway which will (only if all planning and objections are got through in time) be open in 2012. We're stuck with a runway of 8,650' until then. And this while Bertie and the rest of them travel to China, Japan, Korea, ASEAN etc. trying to drum up trade? Doesn't that strike anyone as odd (to put it very generously?)
As a basic principle, aviation - particularly in a peripheral, island nation - should be a facilitator and leader in economic growth. Our problem in Ireland is that bad planning, lack of vision, downright obstructionism and lack of political interest has resulted in aviation holding back this growth and we're going to see more of the same of this. We hear talk of 30m pax in ten years' time; does anyone really think there is space on the north apron for a terminal which can take this extra capacity? I doubt it, but as things are going, this new proposed terminal will be full and at breaking point before any planning is done for the next stage. It seems like the only reason the Midfield site was rejected was because the government didn't want private individuals benefiting from critical infrastructural projects; THAT'S the kind of mindset we're dealing with here!
I'm currently in the process of setting up a lobby group on this, because I really think we need a long term vision - not five or even ten years down the road, but beyond. There seems to be an impression that once the decisions due to be made in the next two weeks are so, are made, that's it and they won't need to look at aviation again for a long time. Sure, O'Leary speaks for FR, but who speaks for the national need? We need - and can have - an airport worthy of a dynamic, growing city and we're not going to get it until or unless there is sustained pressure.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Everywhere
Posts: 190
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Here Here akerosid, I couldn't have said it better myself. Cargo is a prime example of another reason why we need to expand the airport beyond its boundries, and why this goverment needs to understand the mistakes of the past and learn from them. Ireland has the highest percentage in Europe of computer and system production, and is still growing economically. Why is it that more is not done to intice cargo companies to invest in Ireland. Look what happened when Aer lingus said it was going to stop carrying cargo, Microsoft and several other companies threathened to pull out of Ireland if this happened and with that the goverment stepped in.
But not going off the issue, the DAA should not be allowed to control a second terminal. You'll have to throw up a post about that lobby group akerosid.
S.C.
and with that the goverment stepped in.But not going off the issue, the DAA should not be allowed to control a second terminal. You'll have to throw up a post about that lobby group akerosid.
S.C.
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: ireland
Posts: 70
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
i aggree totally with ttt regarding the shafting of ork for the sake of the white elefant that is shannon airport. when this new board take over finally i hope they have the balls to stick their neck out and go for the jugular of shannon its weak its been proped up by several governments for decades. while cork has been left with scraps from the table. the place is crying out for major upgrades to the various nav aids and of course the airbridge fiasco looks like being true. i contacted simon covney the other day and well it does not look good, but if the minister got his finger out he could iam sure turn it around. perhaps if the members of the dap board who got those fancy watches a while back ^put them for sale on e bay or something like that it would set the ball rolling and maybe pay for a tyre or two for the air bridges. am i crazy or what?? i just feel so bad that these bridges will not be installed and i can just see it now when the smiley faces at the airport board will have a press day to announce the terminal opening and we will have all the various politicians about trying to get into photos, saying what a great day it is for the air port but when they step out side it will be still the same old wind and rain beating down on them. maybe then the penny will drop????
rgs
ej
rgs
ej
Join Date: Mar 1999
Location: Ashbourne Co Meath Ireland
Age: 73
Posts: 470
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I just went over to the DUB web site to check a time of arrival for a flight tomorrow morning from EMA, as I'm meeting a passenger off it.
While there, after first firing off an E-mail complaint about the lousy user interface of the timetable system, I then came across the biggest laugh of the lot.
If you fancy a laugh, take a look at what they say is supposed to happen.
http://www.dub.aero/AR_Dublin/Live/L...ge_Name=DN_SLA
Supposedly, there is a service level agreement with Dublin airport, the handling agents, and the airlines.
First bag in 15 minutes? That's a joke for more than a few flights, especially if Circusair are handling it, they don't give the flight enough handlers to allow some of the crew to go to the baggage hall that soon, unless you're Delta or Continental.
Last bag in 45? That's another joke, for the same reasons.
Queue for security check average 7 minutes. The only way this will happen is if they include in the averages calculation the time between 01 & 06 when there's nothing much leaving anyway!!
I haven't laughed so much at something that's supposed to be serious in a long time. Trouble is, they believe it. Do I? Do I
At least I will be able to go to sleep tonight comfortable in the knowledge that my friend arriving in the morning will receive the best of service in accordance with the terms of this Service Level Agreement.
Excuse me while I go outside and barf
While there, after first firing off an E-mail complaint about the lousy user interface of the timetable system, I then came across the biggest laugh of the lot.
If you fancy a laugh, take a look at what they say is supposed to happen.
http://www.dub.aero/AR_Dublin/Live/L...ge_Name=DN_SLA
Supposedly, there is a service level agreement with Dublin airport, the handling agents, and the airlines.
First bag in 15 minutes? That's a joke for more than a few flights, especially if Circusair are handling it, they don't give the flight enough handlers to allow some of the crew to go to the baggage hall that soon, unless you're Delta or Continental.
Last bag in 45? That's another joke, for the same reasons.
Queue for security check average 7 minutes. The only way this will happen is if they include in the averages calculation the time between 01 & 06 when there's nothing much leaving anyway!!
I haven't laughed so much at something that's supposed to be serious in a long time. Trouble is, they believe it. Do I? Do I
At least I will be able to go to sleep tonight comfortable in the knowledge that my friend arriving in the morning will receive the best of service in accordance with the terms of this Service Level Agreement.
Excuse me while I go outside and barf
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Bear Island
Posts: 598
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
1) Any improvement would be better than nothing.. as a passenger handling facility the place is a disaster area, and in some respects an accident waiting to happen.
2) Any transport infrastructure would be better than nothing...it's so isolated that o'leary took his inspiration from it and called Hahn Frankfurt !
3) It will take even longer than the "slightly too small freight tunnel" or the so called "M" 50 to so much as get off the drawing board, never mind to the bribary stage
4) I will have retired before it opens... in fact we all will
But I have no doubt my great grandchildren will enjoy the new terminal/ runways should they ever have reason to travel to Dublin
2) Any transport infrastructure would be better than nothing...it's so isolated that o'leary took his inspiration from it and called Hahn Frankfurt !
3) It will take even longer than the "slightly too small freight tunnel" or the so called "M" 50 to so much as get off the drawing board, never mind to the bribary stage
4) I will have retired before it opens... in fact we all will
But I have no doubt my great grandchildren will enjoy the new terminal/ runways should they ever have reason to travel to Dublin
Last edited by Teddy Robinson; 23rd Mar 2005 at 23:47.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Everywhere
Posts: 190
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
First bag in 15 minutes
This airport needs to broaden its size and infrastructure instead of trying to build on top of a dangerously overcrowded building. If the new terminal is built to the west on McEvaddys land between the parallel runways, large steps need to be taken. For those a little unsure of what Dublin has regards transport and infrastructure, there is one main motorway connected to the airport (The M1 Dublin - Belfast) which in turn is connected to Dublins only ring road (almost) the M50. There are several local buses that connect to the airport and Dublin city centre, and there is no train or tram lines that go anywhere near the airport.
The solution is simple to see but not to out goverment. We need a train service, possibly with an underground station that would be between both terminals. Connections to the M50 from the M1 and N2 need to be improved (since the N2 wil be the easiest way into terminal 2), and the M50 needs to have more than 2 lanes each way, and the shrubbery used as the central devider needs to be replaced
im sure Calcutta Airport has a better website!
S.C.
Before "Ze Germans" get here
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: ?
Posts: 319
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Akerosid,
I think that they are worried it will turn into another Westlink toll plaza. They don't want to give away any more fre lunches.
I could not agree more with what you were saying otherwise though. The lack of vision and ambition in this country is very sad. I spent a bit of time in the US and I wish we could behave a little more like them when it comes to aviation and infrastructure. They just seem to get on with it for the greater good of the people and don't put up with B.S like this. We seem to be so eager to shoot ourselves in the foot.
The Unions want to keep things nice and cosy and I just can't believe how quick Bertie is to pander to them. They will **** it up even further if they get their grubby mitts on it, may as not be built.
I am sorry to say it but I bet its the way it will go, and ryanair and the other loco's won't want anything to do with it and we will be left with another pier C.
It seems like the only reason the Midfield site was rejected was because the government didn't want private individuals benefiting from critical infrastructural projects; THAT'S the kind of mindset we're dealing with here!
I could not agree more with what you were saying otherwise though. The lack of vision and ambition in this country is very sad. I spent a bit of time in the US and I wish we could behave a little more like them when it comes to aviation and infrastructure. They just seem to get on with it for the greater good of the people and don't put up with B.S like this. We seem to be so eager to shoot ourselves in the foot.
The Unions want to keep things nice and cosy and I just can't believe how quick Bertie is to pander to them. They will **** it up even further if they get their grubby mitts on it, may as not be built.
I am sorry to say it but I bet its the way it will go, and ryanair and the other loco's won't want anything to do with it and we will be left with another pier C.
Join Date: Feb 2000
Location: A galaxy far far away
Posts: 71
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Regarding the First bag/Last bag scenario it can be done and is done every day by the Ryanair baggage handlers.
From chocks in to bags on baggage belt takes your average ryanair crew about 10 mins, sometimes quicker. 25 mins to turn the aircraft around entirely. The ryanair model is extremely efficient.
Now....Ive seen another set-up with another airline where because "its Not my job to drive the truck" we dont get a truck out to the aircraft for a while. Eventually a truck arrives, bags are offloaded and driven into the baggage hall.
The truck driver walks away because "Its not my job to offload the truck". Eventually handlers arrive to offload the truck but the truck remains sitting at the belt blocking everyone else because "its Not my job to drive the truck out of the baggage hall".....Get the picture ?....15 minute first bag !!! No way if youre company uses this model. When you have numerous airlines using the same belts this leads to chaos, especially during busy periods.
From chocks in to bags on baggage belt takes your average ryanair crew about 10 mins, sometimes quicker. 25 mins to turn the aircraft around entirely. The ryanair model is extremely efficient.
Now....Ive seen another set-up with another airline where because "its Not my job to drive the truck" we dont get a truck out to the aircraft for a while. Eventually a truck arrives, bags are offloaded and driven into the baggage hall.
The truck driver walks away because "Its not my job to offload the truck". Eventually handlers arrive to offload the truck but the truck remains sitting at the belt blocking everyone else because "its Not my job to drive the truck out of the baggage hall".....Get the picture ?....15 minute first bag !!! No way if youre company uses this model. When you have numerous airlines using the same belts this leads to chaos, especially during busy periods.
Join Date: Aug 1999
Location: Dublin, Ireland
Posts: 1,879
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Good idea, Hobie!
Sky_Captain, thanks for your comments (and thanks, "My name is Turkish" as well!). The lobby is still planned and I'm hoping it will be up and running soon. We have a working name, "Grounded" and I've done most of the writing and policy issues; once the website is available, we'll be lining up ... TOGA power, Config 3 ...
We're hoping to do things in a non-combative way, in that we'll set out the ideas and not allow ourselves to get into personalised bickering. I realise that there's an awful lot of frustration (and you saw that in my post), but we can't give any excuse for attention to be drawn away from this. There's absolutely no reason why our air transport infrastructure and forward planning can' be as good as Singapore's; the difference is interest and understanding. The lobby project is long term, beyond whatever decisions are made next week (and have to be unmade/amended later!)
As soon as I have more info and we're ready to go, I'll post info on it ...
Sky_Captain, thanks for your comments (and thanks, "My name is Turkish" as well!). The lobby is still planned and I'm hoping it will be up and running soon. We have a working name, "Grounded" and I've done most of the writing and policy issues; once the website is available, we'll be lining up ... TOGA power, Config 3 ...
We're hoping to do things in a non-combative way, in that we'll set out the ideas and not allow ourselves to get into personalised bickering. I realise that there's an awful lot of frustration (and you saw that in my post), but we can't give any excuse for attention to be drawn away from this. There's absolutely no reason why our air transport infrastructure and forward planning can' be as good as Singapore's; the difference is interest and understanding. The lobby project is long term, beyond whatever decisions are made next week (and have to be unmade/amended later!)
As soon as I have more info and we're ready to go, I'll post info on it ...
Thread Starter
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Everywhere
Posts: 190
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
need to get a life,more like.
any more like that?Everybody has a right to an opinion Grim, if you don't like it, then don't participate in the thread. It might be nice where you are, but i've worked long enough at Dublin airport and now fly home to it often enough to know that changes need to be made and that the goverment and the DAA are not the ones who should be building and operating the new terminal.
I think that they are worried it will turn into another Westlink toll plaza.
Way to go akerosid, look forward to seeing what you got.
S.C.