Woops! Yep it was, had AA in my head checked aa.com there for flight 92 today instead of yesterday and showed it as on-time :O, still though can see why they parked remote, turned a B763 around in less than 1hour 10mins - Impressive.

Nope, landed as AAL92 and held remote for over an hour, engines off. Saw it with my own two eyes. Landed 1051, got onto 404C at 1215, scheduled ETA 0800. Honest.
1335 so I suspect cabin cleaning was light :)

So if there's never been an issue with long haul stand availability, why were they initially advised their stand would be free in 40 mins? There was space to be used, but perhaps limited to B757 sized gates?

Pier 4 (E) is under very heavy use until 1 pm daily. There is issues with stands at times however with increased US staff, minor stand changes and better scheduling of T/A flights have improved things a lot this season.

Only certain stands are used by T/A carriers downstairs (6) and then the few upstairs (3) when AA arrived this morning 5 downstairs were being used + delayed DL pax. The 40 minute ETA was right but EI's BOS flight left stand 18 minutes lather. As for the free stands it wouldn't of being given them because it was not a gate accessible for US passengers or it would of blocked two short haul stand. Then there is EI short haul in the mix which have to be given some priority.

As for dropping off at Pier 3, I'm not sure that was possible as it was very full at that time. 1 A310, 1 A330, 1 763, 2 A321, 1 320, 2 319 and possibly 1 B757 (could of being towed to remote by then)

AA ORD service usually causes the biggest issues as it either on time or hours late!

Yeah it was possible :) Anyhoo thanks for the info, seems someone dropped the ball somewhere as that's an appaling customer experience at the end of an overnight long haul.

Do you know if the gates used by US Airways and UNITED B757s can't take the larger B763? That might have been the issue on wingspan. Both flights had gone and both gates were free. 405 and 406.

Gates 401-406 can all take widebody.

The US Airways flight departed form 404 which is stand 402C, following that departure stands 402L and 402R then in use so 402C was not available.

When AA landed it was the busiest time for L/H passengers and as they missed their slot so getting a stand straight away was unlikely however the stand where it was allocated there was a hydroponic leak and an aircraft was not towed to a remote stand for a number of hours.

I only recall such a long wait once or twice and that was when a T/A flight arrives 60 minutes ahead of time before any short haul departures took place.

If you fly the route with AA, it won't be a shock as AA92 manages an on time performance of just 40%!

AA Suspend JFK for the winter
 

All, am scouting out a YYZ-ROI with a smallie (3.3yrs at departure) just after Christmas. Most obvious is the Dublin nonstops with AC and EI, but DUB is Rouge now and the rep on Rouge here is woeful. Am 6'2" myself so legroom can be an issue although willing to pay a premium if it is available. Is there anything that would push me towards AC as despite being a bit dearer and only being 4 weekly EI seems the better call? TIA.

AC Rouge is summer only and it's on a par with Air Transat, if you want legacy Air Canada you'll need to book over Heathrow and the B777s are moving from 9 to 10 abreast down the back.

Aer Lingus isn't seasonal (yet) but DUB-YYZ in winter will be *quiet* on a good day IMHO.

SOE

AC Rouge announced year round service when it transferred to Rouge. Last I checked it was 3 weekly for winter.

As for Rouge V AC, DUB is the same old aircraft with new paint and crewed by staff on worse T&cs, so nothing has really changed.

Lordy you're right, that's going to be a bloodbath! Canada in February is somewhat....niche.

Its hard to judge how it may work out however two carriers is a big ask considering for years nobody wanted it year round.

Aer Lingus have the better cost base/aircraft and feed to the route. They do cut to 3 weekly for most of Q1 2015 but Air Canads have lots of numbers on % of pax connecting at LHR so with that in mind they must think a year round service is viable however EI may not be part of the plan....

If it doesn't work for both WJ will have no problem making it work.

BA diverting a B777 (LHR-JFK) 18.05 departure, on a medical. Staying for the night.

Over 2.3 million passengers in July, up 6%. In pax terms its over 130k.

2014 to date, almost 12.3 million up 7%.

Latest News > Over 2.3 Million Passengers In July At Dublin Airport

United 747 approaching from Harrisburg. American football match bringing many extra flights?

The most interesting visitors will be overflying Croke Park on Saturday.....

TARON announce a second route to Lasi from 30 October operating once weekly.

Latest News > Almost 2.3 Million Passengers In August At Dublin Airport

August passengers up 6% to just under 2.3 million. Year to date just under 14.8 million up 7% (900,000).

If numbers were to remain flat for next 4 months then numbers would be approx 21.1 million for the year but there is lots of growth planned numbers should reach somewhere around 21.5 million this year.

Finnair announce 6 weekly seasonal service to Helsinki from 30 March 2015. Norwegian only managed one season alone on the route. They currently offer a 2 weekly service. Operated by Flybe with E-190 and meets Asia connections.

http://www.finnairgroup.com/mediaen/...l_1691916.html

Civilians to staff immigration 24/7 at both terminals by December 2015 to allow 125 police do other work. E-gates are to operate outside of 9-5 hours also.

Civilians to staff immigration desks at airport - RTÉ News

The honeymoon could be over very soon.

Ryanair threatens legal action over charges - RTÉ News

Transport Minister told regulator to allow charges increase by 22% between 2015-2019 and FR taking legal action if its not withdrawn. Final ruling on charges not until next Month. Most other airlines want money spend on T1 to be developed.

"Most airlines". I think you can safely exclude AL, Emirates, Etihad and the US carriers. Quite possibly a minority of airlines using Dublin want money spent to upgrade their terminal but don't want to foot the bill. What's the FR success rate in the courts running at these days?

AA/US, BA, BE, DY (and L/H leg), TK, WX, LH, EY and LX.

Of course Aer Lingus don't want it as everybody has paid for their terminal.

Pier 3 flexibility is a big one which is not included and repeated calls by airlines for it.

Sorry but am I missing something here? Whats the point of having a regulator if a government minister, who is barely a wet week in office can overrule them anyway?

And 22% is quite a big jump to be fair. Kind of negates some of the benefits of getting rid of the travel tax imo. Its just going into the pockets of the DAA, rather than the revenue, and will be passed on to Joe Soap as usual

Vlid

The consumer wont benefit if they are cut. We have not benefitted from the travel tax cut. The last period saw a 40% increase so not as bad. Most likely out come will probably be a 10% to keep everybody happy.

You know we are footing the bill for SNN, that 100 million would go along way offsetting the increase.

Any answer on what the purpose of the regulator is if Pascal can come along and over rule them?

Seems others are asking the same question

Aer Lingus calls for end to political interference

Is this a massive sentence or what ... Had to think about this a bit ...

On the face of it, yes. It, basically, says that the Regulator can :mad: off and the DAA can charge what they like for whatever they want to do. When did the Irish Government ever have an aviation policy? Is this written down somewhere that we can read?

Good to see FR and EI united on this one.

The only government policy used to be " Protect Shannon at all costs", now I don't know what it is

Dept. of Transport and Sport website

A NATIONAL AVIATION POLICY FOR IRELAND

Here is the new policy.

Thanks Confused.

That explains the infrastructure projects being spoken of

Remember the lower charges go the worse off EI will be as FR will be able to cut costs even more and widen the gap while EI are always trying to drive up yield. EI have done well over the last few years while FR were kept at bay. They are feeling the pinch already especially this coming winter.

I know there is other reasons for EI doing well but their SH operation annually does not make major profit and with increased presence from FR it wont help as EI are on higher chargers as it is.

I'm astounded by what I read........

Dublin is by far the largest Airport in EI's airports served therefore any reduction in charges will have a very substantial immediate benefit to their profitabily and bottom line, increase likewise will have a significant impact as they need to increase fares to cover.

If EI fly 3 million pax from Dublin and an increase of €5, it means they have to try and recover that from Pax, IF they can, if not they in the hole for €15 Million per year. That would be on 30% of their total passengers numbers. So cost €1.5 per passenger spread through all passengers.

IF FR fly 3 million from Dublin and can't increase fares, the same costs apply, however they can spread that €15 million over 84 Million passengers, or 3.5% of their total passengers. So cost €0.17 per passenger.

I doubt EI management seeing their costs go up 22% feel that they will be way better off because Ryanair don't get a benefit.

The Minister is elected - the Regulator is appointed to carry out Govt policy - same in every country

Nope

The Minister is appointed and in actual fact he doesn't even need to be an elected member of Irish Parliment. He can be appointed by Irish Prime Minister to Irish Senate.

Conversely, if FR slash services as a result of increased charges (not an option for EI), that would have an upside for EI in terms of competitive pressures.

Sounds like neither EI nor FR will have much clout here ...

and DAA would then claim we need to increase charges yet again as fewer passengers

I don't think this adequately explains the position; it's extremely rare for a Senator, let alone an appointed Senator, to serve as a Minister. And it's irrelevant in the current context.

The more apt observation is that aviation policy is set collectively by Government. In this instance, after many years of (as another poster said) protecting Shannon at all costs, policy is now promoting the longer-term development of Dublin in the context of the national economy. Even at that, the policy document is peppered with the superfluous addition of "and Shannon" to many statements that really only apply to Dublin.

But, at least, the objective of the policy is reasonably clear.

The Regulator seems to be just assessing the short-term commercial interests of EI and FR. This is a good political intervention, the kind that rarely happens.

I don't understand your logic. Abolition of airport duty = FR introduces more flights/pax, EI to a lesser extent. If the duty is replaced by punitive DAA charges then FR/EI = fewer flights/pax. FR will be seriously :mad: off having kept their side of the bargain. They should have known better than to trust any politicians and, in particular, the current lot who have reneged on more promises than the 10 previous administrations.