DUB departure gates to be renumbered on Wednesday
 

Irish Times story.

Dublin departure gates are apparently to be renumbered (D --> 1xx, A --> 2xx, B --> 3xx, etc.). I can see some logic in this but anticipate a bit of chaos at first!

The Irish Times piece is generally coherent but includes the odd assertion
:confused:

With these references to C and E, I assume they mean that if in the future, when T2 opens, and if there is no renumbering and its gates are labelled "Exx", then some people might be confused. As opposed to the current situation where B is one way and A and D are the other way - not confusing at all! ;)

The new numbering sequence makes no logical sense at all!!

As a passenger passes through security today, the Pier identification is (including the new as yet unopened 'E'), left to right, 'E', 'C', 'B', 'A', 'D', with letters being allocated as the areas were built.

From Wednesday, passengers will have, left to right, 4nn, 3nn, 1nn, 2nn.

I don't know about you, but I expect number to increase left to right. All the DAA has done is move the deck chairs. The boarding areas are still being designated as they are built, rather than being logical or easy to use.

Why not have given it a little thought and reallocated as follows;

E --> 101, 102, ....
C/B -->201, 202, ..
A --> 301, 302, ...
D --> 401, 402, ...

Just a thought ...

JAS

.
Logic?? Aren't you forgetting we are talking about the DAA here.

Does anyone have any infomation on TOM662 to San Jose. Is it a cruise flight???

yes it stopped in dub to pick up pax on way frm HUY and was stopping in SFB for crew change, i think there are a couple more with other airlines over the next couple of months.

It was for Fred Olsen Cruises. Though the HUY website showed went from MAN instead of HUY for some unknown reason

It was delayed for a few hours so maybe thats why it went from MAN.

New photos of Terminal 2 here:

T2 Construction Gallery

Wow, looking at shot nine gives a real feel for how big it is.

http://www.dublinairportauthority.co...s/New_T2_9.JPG

I can't help but wonder if the right thing to do is mothball Terminal One until the traffic builds back up, moving everything to the new building!

Hangar 6 or Terminal 3
 

Michael O'Leary has been quite vocal over the past few days about his desire to get his hands on the former SR Tecnics Hangar 6 in Dublin, saying Ryanair will create 300 aircraft maintenance positions if they can get the building.

Given that things with Ryanair are sometimes not what they seem, could it be that the promise of 300 maintainance jobs is just a ruse? Afterall FR are looking to purchase the hangar not lease it. See the below quote from The Irish Independent.

Would Dublin be a cost effective maintenance base for the Ryanair fleet? Even beyond cost effective, would it be the least expensive and offer Ryanair the best value?

Perhaps FR would like to take ownership of Hangar 6 then transform it into "Terminal 3" for their own use thus breaking their ties with the DAA. Or am I just one conspiracy theory away from needing a new layer to my tin foil hat?

JAS

I think we are as a nation may be getting a bit sick listining to Pope Michael Oleary of the Holy rip off. All he wants is some publicity and something for nothing. Get over your buzz MOL. Poor baba dont like talking to those nasty DAA men so lets make a fuss and maybe they will go away!

Hangar 6
 

please correct me if I'm wrong here but there may be more to this than meets the eye. MOL might be onto something here. when EI had that building years ago there was room on the ramp for 3 widebodies and as they were part of the hangar's site there were no fees for parking aircraft there. It's also very close to the access to the old smaller runway that commuter aircraft used to use.

Add the large amount of office space that's there and you could possibly see FR converting it into a low cost passenger terminal as well as operational hangar. MOL had looked a few years ago to build a low cost terminal. Maybe this could be the way to get around it and give the DAA a run for it's money.

I've also heard as a RUMOUR that EI were going to move their entire headquarters operation to the hangar and redevelop their current head quarter building into a hotel to lease out to someone else. That was something that Willie Walsh has considered during his tenure there. Hence EI's possible requirement for Hangar 6.

As I said some of this is speculation but I'm nearly sure that the parking of aircraft by hangar 6 site did incur parking fees.

He may be onto something, but the fact of the matter is that he wanted the minister to intervene in a relationship which had already been established; the DAA had leased the building to EI; what exactly is the minister expected to do? To intervene in that could give rise to a civil action by Aer Lingus ("incitement to breach of contract")?

If FR wants a hangar at DUB, there is plenty of space for it to do so; there are other hangars more than capable of taking 738s, so it just adds to the questions that need to be asked of FR/MO'L.

Mary Coughlan spent €160,000 according to a response to an FOI request from the Irish Times travelling on the government jet with Willie O' Dea to see another Michael in Texas a while ago trying to persuade him to save the jobs of Dell workers in Limerick.

Maybe she should be a bit more proactive about trying to save jobs in Dublin. Or maybe if Michaels surname was Dell instead of O'Leary things might be different.

Even if he gets the hangar, he cant just decide to use it as a passenger terminal of any sort. There would be planning permission for change of use first of all which i really doubt he would succeed with.

Mary Coughlans performance in Houston relating to DELL would not be an example of how to save jobs. Yes they spent 160k but have nothing to show for it. Not 1 job was saved. If rumours are to be believed around Limerick/DELL, they did more harm than good to the irish governments reputation on that particular junket..

From the agreement between Aer Lingus and the DAA regarding Hangar 6:

"save that it is expressly acknowledged that notwithstanding anything contained in or implied by this agreement if the licensor requires at any time the licenced area or any part of the licenced area for the purpose of the aircraft operation or development of Dublin Airport the licensee shall yield to the licensor the full free and vacant possession of the licenced area."

In this case, the Licenced area is Hangar 6, the licensee is Aer Lingus, and the Licensor is the DAA.

No wonder Ryanair want to buy the Hangar rather then lease the space from the DAA under these conditions. The DAA have been doing this for years and not just to ryanair: car rental companies, self service check in kiosks and baggage handlers accommodation have all been "moved to facilitate the development of the airport" by the "licensor" in the past, and in all cases the "new licenced areas" have been provided at a hefty increase in the rental costs.

So essentially, a "lease agreement" with the DAA under the aforementioned terms is merely the equivalent of selling your soul to the devil.

PS: The aforementioned terms also indicate how the DAA could exercise this clause in it's agreement with Aer Lingus in order to facilitate the sale of Hangar 6 to Ryanair: this would definitely facilitate the "development of the airport," would it not?

O'Leary blames Tánaiste as Ryanair to take 300 jobs elsewhere | BreakingNews.ie

So, poor old MC is at fault because she wouldn't tell EI to vacate a hangar for which it had entered into a lease with the DAA. Well, wasn't she unreasonable!

What did O'Leary expect? Why would/should the minister intervene; did it cross his mind (I'm sure it did!) that she could not actually - legally - do what she was being asked to do. MO'L was just being a petulent little p****k, asking for something he knew he wasn't going to get, not to mention the fact that he was playing with the hopes of so many unemployed ex-SRT employees.

If he was so darn keen on having hangar space, why not use the other hangars, or a new-build hangar, like he's going to get at PIK; why is he asking for something different at DUB from what's getting at Prestwick? What will he ask of other European airports? Shall we expect Iberia, LOT, CSA or others, to be moved out of their hangars?

Really, he is just acting up for publicity and frankly, it's despicable.

Hangar 6
 

Bottom line. There is no way that the DAA (and, thus the Govt.) would agree to permit their flagship hangar to be adorned with the Ryanair logo and staffed with non-union personnel. MOL would know that already so it was all just a stunt but also an ideal opportunity to have a go at embarrassing and exposing the entire grouping of Govt., DAA and Aer Lingus all at the same time. These three have been in cahoots since the beginning at DUB and it will never change.

I'm a little confused. How were Aer Lingus embarrased? They had nothing to do with it apart from legally occupy the building he was after. In fact now that it's mentioned i'm curious as to see how the DAA were embarrased either. My understanding is Ryanair never dealt with them in the first place.

Did MOL say why the deal at Prestwick can't apply to Dublin?? i.e. build a new hangar.
Maybe he has a hidden agenda..Sad really, playing with the hopes of the recently redundant Dublin aircraft maintenance workers.
The only solution I could see is that Aer Lingus be induced to leave, i.e. have a new hangar built for them and to walk away from the Hangar 6 lease at a nice profit.