DUBLIN
Join Date: Sep 1999
Location: EIDW
Posts: 271
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Looks like the building work at Pier D is moving ahead very quickly, its starting to take shape as can be seen here ..
http://www.planepictures.net/netshow.php?id=532569
http://www.planepictures.net/netshow.php?id=532569
Join Date: Aug 1999
Location: Dublin, Ireland
Posts: 1,879
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Effect on DUB of Irish/US bilateral changes?
I was just wondering about the effect of a change in the Irish/US bilateral regulations, next month (if the EU doesn't obstruct it), which would allow the ratio of flights to change from the current 1:1 to 3:1. US carriers are probably waiting to see how things pan out, before planning for capacity next year; I'd expect most existing SNN flights to survive (after all, they'll need to if they want flights to DUB), BUT they'd look pretty silly if they had only one DUB flight for each to SNN, when they could have three.
Leaving aside EI, let's look at the Americans:
CO Second EWR made nonstop; daily to IAH.
DL CVG, BOS?
(It'll be interesting to see where they'll be sending those 757s they're allegedly converting to ETOPS)
US CLT, possibly second to PHL (although they have a shortage of acft)
AA JFK? BOS? MIA/DFW
(This will be an interesting one; I'm guessing that although EI is no longer in oneworld, they'll come to an agreement with AA, since feed through these major AA hubs will be vital)
NW If they last that long ... can't see what else they can do? MEM or MSP seem unlikely?
UA Will probably wait until stopover is completely gone, although they do have ETOPS 757s, which they could send to SNN and then do DUB-SFO, IAD, ORD?
So, certainly a double edged sword for EI, BUT for numbers, a big boost for DUB (and let's not think of where the DAA is going to put all of these aircraft!!!), but from the point of view of making an application to the EU Commission, that's a hell of a lot of new capacity and for the EU to say NO to this would certainly cause a lot of political problems - particularly if the EU wants to rescusitate the Constitution ...
Don't forget that the EU used Competition Law as the grounds to take action against Germany a few years back, leading to the decision which allowed the EU to take negotiating power into its own hands, so to use that power now to maintain a competitive disadvantage would be hypocritical in the extreme.
Leaving aside EI, let's look at the Americans:
CO Second EWR made nonstop; daily to IAH.
DL CVG, BOS?
(It'll be interesting to see where they'll be sending those 757s they're allegedly converting to ETOPS)
US CLT, possibly second to PHL (although they have a shortage of acft)
AA JFK? BOS? MIA/DFW
(This will be an interesting one; I'm guessing that although EI is no longer in oneworld, they'll come to an agreement with AA, since feed through these major AA hubs will be vital)
NW If they last that long ... can't see what else they can do? MEM or MSP seem unlikely?
UA Will probably wait until stopover is completely gone, although they do have ETOPS 757s, which they could send to SNN and then do DUB-SFO, IAD, ORD?
So, certainly a double edged sword for EI, BUT for numbers, a big boost for DUB (and let's not think of where the DAA is going to put all of these aircraft!!!), but from the point of view of making an application to the EU Commission, that's a hell of a lot of new capacity and for the EU to say NO to this would certainly cause a lot of political problems - particularly if the EU wants to rescusitate the Constitution ...
Don't forget that the EU used Competition Law as the grounds to take action against Germany a few years back, leading to the decision which allowed the EU to take negotiating power into its own hands, so to use that power now to maintain a competitive disadvantage would be hypocritical in the extreme.
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Ireland
Posts: 290
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
CO to DUB-EWR will probably go 2 daily. IAH is a very longshot, due to their lack of aircraft, and they could use the aircraft needed for that route on another route, most likely to Asia. SNN-EWR will also stay. However, who knows what will happen; 737's? 757's? daily? who knows?
AA will probably stay daily/ 5weekly (winter) DUB-ORD, and probably seasonal BOS-SNN
DL will probably go daily DUB-ATL, and I dont know what the loads are like for DUB-SNN-JFK. The SNN-ATL apparently isnt performing that well
US Airways will probably go year round DUB-PHL, and seasonal SNN-PHL
NW to Detroit is interesting. Its a long flight for a 757, and they havent go the best of reputation in the states! We'll see what happens with them!
AA will probably stay daily/ 5weekly (winter) DUB-ORD, and probably seasonal BOS-SNN
DL will probably go daily DUB-ATL, and I dont know what the loads are like for DUB-SNN-JFK. The SNN-ATL apparently isnt performing that well
US Airways will probably go year round DUB-PHL, and seasonal SNN-PHL
NW to Detroit is interesting. Its a long flight for a 757, and they havent go the best of reputation in the states! We'll see what happens with them!
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Ireland
Posts: 82
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
You would find that SNN-ATL is actually doing very well. They put a B764 on SNN-ATL but only a B763 on DUB-ATL.
The loads are too low on the US Airways services to be operated year round from either airport.
The loads are too low on the US Airways services to be operated year round from either airport.
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Ireland
Posts: 32
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Delta
Wish that were the case Rally, but insiders at DL have pointed to overall disappointment with the loads on the SNN-ATL. Of the "new routes" (i.e since they de-linked it from the DUB service) it has been one of the disappointments.
The 764 was scheduled on the route, possibly in expection of higher loadings. It has harder to switch aircraft to match capacity to demand mid way through a flying season than you would think!
Hopefully next year brings better things for the service! One would assume it is back to a single shared DUB-SNN-ATL for the winter?
The 764 was scheduled on the route, possibly in expection of higher loadings. It has harder to switch aircraft to match capacity to demand mid way through a flying season than you would think!
Hopefully next year brings better things for the service! One would assume it is back to a single shared DUB-SNN-ATL for the winter?
Join Date: Aug 1999
Location: Dublin, Ireland
Posts: 1,879
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I think the main reason they put a 763 to DUB and a 764 to SNN is that the 764 is still in "domestic" configuration, with a domestic first class and this is why, like AC, this is sold as an all-Y class flight. DUB would have a strong Business Class market and J class pax would more than likely not accept this product.
I see Michael Broughton, BA's chairman, is quoted in today's Indo as saying Open Skies might be as much as seven years away. Of course, you have to acknowledge that BA has a vested interest in Open Skies NOT happening - despite whatever else he says - because that will mean they'll lose the stranglehold on LHR. So, BA is more than happy with the current situation; as long as they can get the Americans and British squabbling away for a few years, they're happy to let them - and throw spanners in the works if they look like they might be close to agreement.
From an Irish perspective, the prospect of another seven years of the SNN stopover is simply not an option; either the EU will give us the green light to go ahead with a new bilateral with the US, or the govt should look at the possibility of opting out of the process altogether. When the EU took over negotiating rights with the US, never was it anticipated that something as peripheral as US airline ownership - irrelevant to most EU carriers - would be the sticking point.
I see Michael Broughton, BA's chairman, is quoted in today's Indo as saying Open Skies might be as much as seven years away. Of course, you have to acknowledge that BA has a vested interest in Open Skies NOT happening - despite whatever else he says - because that will mean they'll lose the stranglehold on LHR. So, BA is more than happy with the current situation; as long as they can get the Americans and British squabbling away for a few years, they're happy to let them - and throw spanners in the works if they look like they might be close to agreement.
From an Irish perspective, the prospect of another seven years of the SNN stopover is simply not an option; either the EU will give us the green light to go ahead with a new bilateral with the US, or the govt should look at the possibility of opting out of the process altogether. When the EU took over negotiating rights with the US, never was it anticipated that something as peripheral as US airline ownership - irrelevant to most EU carriers - would be the sticking point.
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Ireland/UK
Posts: 95
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I've flown twice this summer on US Airways PHL-DUB, full loads...
Join Date: Aug 1999
Location: Dublin, Ireland
Posts: 1,879
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Ryanair has - surprise, surprise - objected to the plans to the airport's terminal 2 and has offered to build a cheaper terminal with higher pax capacity.
In fairness, one can understand FR's frustration, in that they'll face a higher pax service charge, but not benefit from the new facilities. That said, there is a measure of obstructionism for the sake of it, given that FR wants to make life as uncomfortable as possible for EI at DUB and delaying a terminal will obviously help in that.
It would be interesting to see the full extent of MO'L's proposals and the grounds of objections; I'm still amazed that no one has blown the whistle on the DAA's attempts to separate the cost of the terminal from that of Pier E.
In fairness, one can understand FR's frustration, in that they'll face a higher pax service charge, but not benefit from the new facilities. That said, there is a measure of obstructionism for the sake of it, given that FR wants to make life as uncomfortable as possible for EI at DUB and delaying a terminal will obviously help in that.
It would be interesting to see the full extent of MO'L's proposals and the grounds of objections; I'm still amazed that no one has blown the whistle on the DAA's attempts to separate the cost of the terminal from that of Pier E.
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Ireland
Posts: 290
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
US airways flights from Dublin have been selling really well all summer. They have been regularly oversold, and with talks of EI interested in flying to PHL, I think US could manage year round DUB-PHL
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Shenzhen & Cork
Posts: 86
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Following on from Askeroid's post above, here is an article from today's Irish Independent which sheds some more light on the issue of Ryanair's objections to the new terminal. Incidentally, I love the third last paragraph where the following quote appears: "Dublin Airport is also the second most efficient airport in a peer group of 25 European airports, in terms of ratio of costs to passenger numbers." 
yeah, right!
Gloves off in battle on DAA airport terminal
by Tom McEnaney
RYANAIR ended a nine-month detente with Dublin Airport Authority (DAA) yesterday when it outlined plans to vigorously oppose DAA's plans for a second terminal at Dublin Airport.
"You can't trust DAA to build an efficient, low-cost terminal," Mr O'Leary said, calling the planned terminal "badly designed, in the wrong location, (and) is five times more expensive than other similar terminal facilities in the UK and Europe".
Mr O'Leary has for many years been a very vocal thorn in DAA's side, but last year after DAA came under new management the Ryanair chief executive laid his problems with the authority aside and said he would support plans for the new terminal.
To mark the announcement, which was made in the days before Christmas of last year, he dressed in a Santa Claus outfit and posed for photographers with a piece of cake labelled 'humble pie'.
The only props at yesterday's press conference were two over-head projectors used to detail what Ryanair sees as the deficiencies in DAA's plans for the new terminal.
Mr O'Leary has also dusted off the airline's own plans for a new terminal, which he said would cost €250m.
There were few details on the Ryanair proposal which Mr O'Leary wants to see built to the north of the airport adjacent to Pier D, which is almost exclusively used by Ryanair. The site for the Ryanair proposal is currently occupied by hangar buildings owned by DAA.
Mr O'Leary's comments were timely, coming on the first day of the Bord Pleanála hearing into DAA's planning application for the new terminal.
Industry sources pointed out that Mr O'Leary's comments may also have been timed to damage Aer Lingus, the expected occupant of the new terminal, which is due to publish its flotation price.
DAA's rejected the accusations. It said: "The maximum airport charge at Dublin Airport, at just over €6 per passenger, is the lowest of any major airport in Europe.
"Nonetheless, according to an analysis carried out for the Aviation Regulator in 2005, Dublin Airport is also the second most efficient airport in a peer group of 25 European airports, in terms of ratio of costs to passenger numbers."
Mr O'Leary said that DAA's plans for a second terminal would cost €700m. DAA said the cost would only be €400m.
Included in the Ryanair's estimate of the cost is €150m write-off on Pier C, which it said "they (DAA) now propose to scrap altogether. DAA said the Pier C cost only €60m and more than half of it will be incorporated in the new terminal. Mr O'Leary said he object to An Bord Pleanála, the Commission for Aviation Regulation, the Competition Authority and the European Commission.
yeah, right!Gloves off in battle on DAA airport terminal
by Tom McEnaney
RYANAIR ended a nine-month detente with Dublin Airport Authority (DAA) yesterday when it outlined plans to vigorously oppose DAA's plans for a second terminal at Dublin Airport.
"You can't trust DAA to build an efficient, low-cost terminal," Mr O'Leary said, calling the planned terminal "badly designed, in the wrong location, (and) is five times more expensive than other similar terminal facilities in the UK and Europe".
Mr O'Leary has for many years been a very vocal thorn in DAA's side, but last year after DAA came under new management the Ryanair chief executive laid his problems with the authority aside and said he would support plans for the new terminal.
To mark the announcement, which was made in the days before Christmas of last year, he dressed in a Santa Claus outfit and posed for photographers with a piece of cake labelled 'humble pie'.
The only props at yesterday's press conference were two over-head projectors used to detail what Ryanair sees as the deficiencies in DAA's plans for the new terminal.
Mr O'Leary has also dusted off the airline's own plans for a new terminal, which he said would cost €250m.
There were few details on the Ryanair proposal which Mr O'Leary wants to see built to the north of the airport adjacent to Pier D, which is almost exclusively used by Ryanair. The site for the Ryanair proposal is currently occupied by hangar buildings owned by DAA.
Mr O'Leary's comments were timely, coming on the first day of the Bord Pleanála hearing into DAA's planning application for the new terminal.
Industry sources pointed out that Mr O'Leary's comments may also have been timed to damage Aer Lingus, the expected occupant of the new terminal, which is due to publish its flotation price.
DAA's rejected the accusations. It said: "The maximum airport charge at Dublin Airport, at just over €6 per passenger, is the lowest of any major airport in Europe.
"Nonetheless, according to an analysis carried out for the Aviation Regulator in 2005, Dublin Airport is also the second most efficient airport in a peer group of 25 European airports, in terms of ratio of costs to passenger numbers."
Mr O'Leary said that DAA's plans for a second terminal would cost €700m. DAA said the cost would only be €400m.
Included in the Ryanair's estimate of the cost is €150m write-off on Pier C, which it said "they (DAA) now propose to scrap altogether. DAA said the Pier C cost only €60m and more than half of it will be incorporated in the new terminal. Mr O'Leary said he object to An Bord Pleanála, the Commission for Aviation Regulation, the Competition Authority and the European Commission.
Join Date: Aug 1999
Location: Dublin, Ireland
Posts: 1,879
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Continuation of: http://www.pprune.org/forums/showthr...200552&page=13
Clearly, the DAA is trying to shoe-horn this terminal into the lands it owns at DUB; it considered the area of the old EI hangars, but came to the conclusion that the cost (and time involved) of cleaning up the area would be prohibitive. This new area, although small, was all that's available; don't forget that the area on the other side of the airport is owned by other people, such as the McEvaddys, who want to build a terminal themselves; they do have a 50 acre site, but whether that is good enough is unclear.
I personally think that the big issue here is government oversight; the govt has said in the past that DUB is part of the state's critical infrastructure, yet it has repeatedly allowed the DAA to have its head; the DAA has done nothing on cargo capacity, runway length and the govt has itself been obstructive and disinterested in opening the airport to competition, something which I believe needs to happen.
Next Summer will be a very busy one as far as t/a traffic is concerned. The govt is expected to be successful in getting EU approval to expand t/a flights, based on the US/Irish agreement of last November and this will allow t/a airlines operating from SNN to treble the number of flights they operate from DUB (i.e. they must be operating from SNN to avail of this); there is another factor too, very much to DUB's benefit, which is that under an agreement reached last week, Irish-US flights will arrive into domestic gates at US airports, which will make it a lot easier to connect and this should make DUB a much more popular connection point. The big Achilles Heel: Dublin Airport.
With the construction of the new pier and terminal, the airport is losing widebody parking stands and is the existing Pier B big enough (particularly the area currently used by US Immigration) to handle the expected significant passenger influx/throughput. The current airside connection channel is barely big enough for two people to pass, side by side - that needs to be worked on.
I don't want to be seen as complaining gratuitously, but clearly, nothing is going to happen as long as FF is in charge of aviation policy; they simply will not apply the metaphorical pitchfork with anything like enough determination.
Ultimately, what needs to happen is that the operation of both terminals needs to be by professional, experinced, independent operators and the DAA should be relegated to the regulatory side of operating an airport, for which it would get service charges/rental from the terminal operators.
Clearly, the DAA is trying to shoe-horn this terminal into the lands it owns at DUB; it considered the area of the old EI hangars, but came to the conclusion that the cost (and time involved) of cleaning up the area would be prohibitive. This new area, although small, was all that's available; don't forget that the area on the other side of the airport is owned by other people, such as the McEvaddys, who want to build a terminal themselves; they do have a 50 acre site, but whether that is good enough is unclear.
I personally think that the big issue here is government oversight; the govt has said in the past that DUB is part of the state's critical infrastructure, yet it has repeatedly allowed the DAA to have its head; the DAA has done nothing on cargo capacity, runway length and the govt has itself been obstructive and disinterested in opening the airport to competition, something which I believe needs to happen.
Next Summer will be a very busy one as far as t/a traffic is concerned. The govt is expected to be successful in getting EU approval to expand t/a flights, based on the US/Irish agreement of last November and this will allow t/a airlines operating from SNN to treble the number of flights they operate from DUB (i.e. they must be operating from SNN to avail of this); there is another factor too, very much to DUB's benefit, which is that under an agreement reached last week, Irish-US flights will arrive into domestic gates at US airports, which will make it a lot easier to connect and this should make DUB a much more popular connection point. The big Achilles Heel: Dublin Airport.
With the construction of the new pier and terminal, the airport is losing widebody parking stands and is the existing Pier B big enough (particularly the area currently used by US Immigration) to handle the expected significant passenger influx/throughput. The current airside connection channel is barely big enough for two people to pass, side by side - that needs to be worked on.
I don't want to be seen as complaining gratuitously, but clearly, nothing is going to happen as long as FF is in charge of aviation policy; they simply will not apply the metaphorical pitchfork with anything like enough determination.
Ultimately, what needs to happen is that the operation of both terminals needs to be by professional, experinced, independent operators and the DAA should be relegated to the regulatory side of operating an airport, for which it would get service charges/rental from the terminal operators.
Guest
Posts: n/a
Terminal
I completly agree with the last posting, FF have done precious little for Irish aviation.
One of the larger European Airport-terminal operators should be given the responsibility of building and/or operating it. A private company would make sure there would be no money-wasting delays. I believe this would be the case if the PD's had there way.
One of the larger European Airport-terminal operators should be given the responsibility of building and/or operating it. A private company would make sure there would be no money-wasting delays. I believe this would be the case if the PD's had there way.
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Ireland
Posts: 290
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I'd love to know what FR's loads are like on the Dublin to Cork. Between RE and fR theres a fair few flights per day! Domestic figures had been down a bit before FR started, so I wonder what they're like now!
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Ireland nowadays
Posts: 1,440
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I would say that Waterford is simply too close to Dublin. At under 100 miles, the car or train is too fast in comparison. This is especially true when you consider that some of the large towns in Waterford's catchment - Kilkenny, Wexford - are even closer to Dublin again.
Guest
Posts: n/a
Ya, thats true. It's just in a report published sometime ago into the future of the airpoprt there was some recommendations including the introduction of a link to DUB and an extension of the runway...in hindsight I guess it was published before RYR launched the ORK route.
Any news/gossip/etc etc around Dublin that does NOT invlove the goings on of either Aer Lingus or Ryanair, othe airlines area available!!!!