|
CX indicated they couldn't serve DUB 11 years ago because of the runway (4 Asian carriers were consulted by daa on runway size), yet the runway hasn't changed but aircraft technology has. Yes they are probally restricted in terms of payload but 3,100m should be more than sufficient.
Of the 4 the only other potential service would be SQ/Scoot on the B787 (FYI Scoot make Ryanair look like a 5 star carrier, they would be terrible here over SQ) Pilots just like a lot of runway in front of them, Cathay seem to do OK off the existing runway at DUB which is shorter. SQ also manage the 13 hour MAN-SIN with an A350 off 23R which is 2897m declared TORA. These services wouldn't be operating if the payloads were uneconomic. We're not flying 747 Classics and DC-8s anymore. What's the problem? IALPA didn't raise such concerns in 2004 or more recently when the plans were revised in 2016 publicly. None of there pilots will ever get a chance to fly to Asia the way things are going. Something wrong when a union claims to have the nations interests at heart. The publicity stunt failed to gain any traction and it suddenly came out during a dispute with Ryanair which was heavily covered. |
You are obviously not a pilot, so here’s some information for you. At the moment, most long haul aircraft departing Dublin this summer cannot land safely back in Dublin if they have a serious problem after takeoff because of the runway length. The longer the runway the safer an immediate return to landing because of the faster speeds on landing in most emergencies. The longer runway means that the engines don’t have to produce full power on takeoff thus preserving the engine life and reducing the yaw produced by an engine failure. a longer runway means no restrictions on passangers and freight carried, thus making the flight cheaper for the airlines. If Dublin is serious about being a hub and creating more jobs for Irish pilots and other workers it needs the right infrastructure. who remembers the M50 extra lane debacle. So knowing this now, you may understand why IALPA seeks the longest runway it can get. |
IIRC,
the original planning permission from 2007, first submitted in 2004, was for 3,100m. Since then, the DAA has moved to a preference for a 3.660m build. see the Capital Investment Plan 2010-2014 http://www.aviationreg.ie/_fileuploa..._2010-2014.pdf section 8.1.3 Physical requirements of new runway, Page 51. JAS |
Originally Posted by waffler
(Post 10232727)
You are obviously not a pilot, so here’s some information for you. At the moment, most long haul aircraft departing Dublin this summer cannot land safely back in Dublin if they have a serious problem after takeoff because of the runway length. The longer the runway the safer an immediate return to landing because of the faster speeds on landing in most emergencies. The longer runway means that the engines don’t have to produce full power on takeoff thus preserving the engine life and reducing the yaw produced by an engine failure. a longer runway means no restrictions on passangers and freight carried, thus making the flight cheaper for the airlines. If Dublin is serious about being a hub and creating more jobs for Irish pilots and other workers it needs the right infrastructure. who remembers the M50 extra lane debacle. So knowing this now, you may understand why IALPA seeks the longest runway it can get. |
The A359 is the first ULR capable widebody that can get out of Dublin when wet, and that’s a crucial bit;wet. EK regularly have to offload up to 20T of cargo when the runway is wet. The other crucial bit is high temps. The SFO and LAX 330s often have to offload in hot calm days too. The 777x in all likelihood will not get off the new runway when wet at MTOW. So really if DUB are serious about getting Tokyo, Singapore or South America on the departure boards in future, it’ll be A359 or nothing. |
The key question is this 'Is a 3600m runway essential for long haul or is it a nice-to-have?' If DUB already has commercially viable non-stop service to LAX and HKG off its current 2637m runway then a 3110m has got be a big improvement. MAN has at best 3200m (23L) with similar long sectors to DUB operating viably also from 23R (2897m). Additional runway length comes at a cost of tens of millions of Euros which has to be funded through airport charges and is of real value only on a few occasions each year. I have done Performance A training and I know all about flex thrust and variable V1 figures, but airports have to make commercially sound investment decisions. Runways much longer than 3000m are rarely needed with a low airport elevation and a Northern European climate.
|
Originally Posted by roverman
(Post 10233228)
The key question is this 'Is a 3600m runway essential for long haul or is it a nice-to-have?' If DUB already has commercially viable non-stop service to LAX and HKG off its current 2637m runway then a 3110m has got be a big improvement. MAN has at best 3200m (23L) with similar long sectors to DUB operating viably also from 23R (2897m). Additional runway length comes at a cost of tens of millions of Euros which has to be funded through airport charges and is of real value only on a few occasions each year. I have done Performance A training and I know all about flex thrust and variable V1 figures, but airports have to make commercially sound investment decisions. Runways much longer than 3000m are rarely needed with a low airport elevation and a Northern European climate.
|
Originally Posted by Una Due Tfc
(Post 10233094)
The A359 is the first ULR capable widebody that can get out of Dublin when wet, and that’s a crucial bit;wet. EK regularly have to offload up to 20T of cargo when the runway is wet. The other crucial bit is high temps. The SFO and LAX 330s often have to offload in hot calm days too. The 777x in all likelihood will not get off the new runway when wet at MTOW. So really if DUB are serious about getting Tokyo, Singapore or South America on the departure boards in future, it’ll be A359 or nothing. In addition to A350, the B787s and A330 NEOs should be capable of fly most route at full or almost full MTOW. In general max MTOW isn't possible from the vast majority of airports (ultra long route) across the globe. DUB will not fail to attache n airline who wants to serve with a runway of 3.110 or 3.600. |
Originally Posted by EI-A330-300
(Post 10233579)
The newer A333 shouldn't have many problems heading to SFO with cargo?
In addition to A350, the B787s and A330 NEOs should be capable of fly most route at full or almost full MTOW. In general max MTOW isn't possible from the vast majority of airports (ultra long route) across the globe. DUB will not fail to attache n airline who wants to serve with a runway of 3.110 or 3.600. As said above, the longer the runway the more capacity it provides. Narrowbodies can jump on and get going at an intersection whilst the heavies are still taxiing or lining up down the end, and tower controller can increase movement rate and reduce waiting times by tailoring the sequence of departures to have minimal wake turbulence delays. You want to minimize the instances of aircraft following ones of a higher wake category, so if you’ve got 3 320s/737s and 2 330s, send the 2 330s down the end, launch the narrowbodies off intersections and then send the 2 heavies out one after the other, otherwise the narrowbodies have to sit and wait for a couple of minutes for the wake from the heavy to dissipate. The above situation is for single use runway ops ie departures only. Mixed ops allows arrivals to break up wake turbulence waits. |
daa have announced plans to spend €900 million by 2023 on new stands and piers at the airport.
* €500 million on southern side (T2 side) and €400 million on northern side (Ryanair area) * Stands will increase from 112 to 147 * Enhance security, immigration and US immigration will be expanded They will borrow money to fund it and not increase passenger charges because airlines could move aircraft and necessary to stave off competition from rival gateways in Britain and Europe. Indications T2 will get its new pier while T1 will get new pier via busing passengers Full plans to be published next month. https://www.irishtimes.com/business/...port-1.3621033 |
TAP appear to have confirmed there return after saying it was under consideration a few months ago. Not on sale yet. |
TAP confirm 2 daily LIS operated by A319./320.
Depart LIS 07.05 and 14.00 Depart DUB 10,35 and 17.30 https://nit.pt/out-of-town/viagens/t...ublin-basileia |
Minneapolis starts 8 July operated by B752 - 6 weekly others say daily
DUB-MSP 14.10-16.55 MSP-DUB 19.00-08.40 Montreal, starts 8 August operated by A321LR - daily DUB-YUL 18.50-20.50 YUL-DUB 22.20-09.40 |
Any thoughts on what will be done with the A321LR in the daytime?
It's too long a period to leave it lying idle, but the Malaga or Faro would probably strain the time a little too much, as any delay would be impossible to recover. Heathrow would be asking for trouble with slots and delays, while Schiphol or CDG are also risky. Is there enough demand on routes like Nantes, Bordeaux or Toulouse to justify its use? |
I think CDG is a safe bet, last year management spoke of the A321LR's potential in offering a seamless product on key European routes to the US via Dublin and they would be considering a number of routes including London or Paris. I don't think it's a coincidence they've opted for Montreal as the launch route for the A321LR.
|
Over 3.2m in August up 6%
European 1.7m up 6% UK 927k - no chnage (FR cancellations?) Transatlantic 465k up 14% Other Int 111k up 16% Domestic 12k up 23% 2918 to date over 21.2m up 6% https://www.dublinairport.com/latest...dublin-airport |
|
Looks like DUB will end up with 31-31.5 million passenger for this year.
|
31-31.5 million passenger for this year |
Originally Posted by Wycombe
(Post 10269781)
Astonishing really when you think that the population of the whole if the island of Ireland is under 6m. And that it's not the only Airport that serves them.
FWIW, latest estimated population figures NI 1.87m (NISRA, June 2018), Ireland 4.85m (CSO, April 2018), so 6,72m overall. Still has a way to go to recover to the pre-famine high of 1841 with 8.2m-8.5m. JAS |
| All times are GMT. The time now is 05:11. |
Copyright © 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.