Terminal 2, Dublin Airport.....Whats Your Opinion?

[Sky_Captain]

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. :ok:

[Jorge Newberry]

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.

[akerosid]

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.

[Irish Steve]

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.

[Jorge Newberry]

The politicians wouldn't be corrupt if there weren't plenty of people willing to corrupt them and reelect them knowing them to be corrupt... offthread so I'll shut up now.

[MarkD]

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.

[Sky_Captain]

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" :eek: 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:mad: 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 :E

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.

[Tom the Tenor]

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?

[akerosid]

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.

[Sky_Captain]

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 :eek: 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.

[eastjimmy]

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

[Irish Steve]

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/Lv_pres_GenTemplate.asp?strPage_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 :mad:

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:yuk: :yuk: :yuk:

[Teddy Robinson]

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 :yuk:

4) I will have retired before it opens... in fact we all will :hmm:
But I have no doubt my great grandchildren will enjoy the new terminal/ runways should they ever have reason to travel to Dublin :rolleyes:

[Sky_Captain]

First bag in 15 minutes
I think that means it will be first bag off the aircraft 15 minutes after it has come onto stand :p
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!
Shamrock, i'm sure calcutta has a better airport than all those in Ireland :}

S.C.

[My names Turkish]

Akerosid,

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 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.

[Teroc]

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.

[hobie]

No doubt about it ..... these guys need an "Irish Forum" on PPRuNe :cool:

[the grim repa]

need to get a life,more like.

[akerosid]

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]

need to get a life,more like. How amusing :eek: 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. What do you think Turkish, 1 euro to drive your car onto the departures road and say 5 euro an hour for short term car parking :oh:

Way to go akerosid, look forward to seeing what you got.

S.C.

[My names Turkish]

What do you think Turkish, 1 euro to drive your car onto the departures road and say 5 euro an hour for short term car parking

Only 1 Euro! You communist! It would have to be at least 1.80 of which the Government charges 1 euro tax. You would also be required to que for 45 mins to enter and exit. If three lanes are needed one will be built.

P.S as a a little boy in the early 1980's I was looking at these white posts marking out the proposed M50 through marley park. Nearly 25 years ago they were put there, its still not all finished!

[Sky_Captain]

I don't know about you guys, but I think this will be the decision: "McEvaddys providing 180m euro for a 40pc stake, with SIPTU stumping up 67m euro for 15pc and the state investing 200m euro for the remaining 45pc".

This is one of the proposals for a joint venture, and since McEvaddy has SIPTUs support, and Bertie bows to the unions, I think this might be the outcome. While Junior minister Noel Ahern has already said he would support a PPP involving the Dublin Airport Authority, SIPTU and the McEvaddys to build the terminal.

The DAA is promoting a rival plan to build the second terminal on a site it already owns on the east side of the airport. So what happens to all the hangars, and the jobs of those who work for FLS (I know they have just changed, can't think of the name).

We need a proper airport terminal to rival other great terminals in europe, there is such potential for growth, and right now all we have are 15 air-bridges (jetways), one of which is the worlds very first airbridge that was shipped accross from the US after being bought second hand :{ and a handful of walk out gates, and even less bus gates. All together we have about 33 contact gates in Dublin (30 if the C Pier is used for wide bodys).

Does anybody know any links to view the goverments and DAAs proposals that are being studied?

S.C.

[Tom the Tenor]

As for PPPs, well let me tell yez all about those lads - the School of Music in Cork was awarded a load a money in October 1999 by Minister Micheal Martin for a planned PPP between the Dept of Education and private investors for a new state of the art school of music. What has happened since then? Zero. My understanding is that there is something in PPPs the bureaucrats in Europe do not like, the detail of which I do not know. So if a PPP is given the nod for Dublin Airport there is at least a fair chance this could also run into trouble?

The sad thing about a lot of the above posts that the guy who gets really screwed here remains the Dublin Airport passenger. The passenger pays a hefty amount of his ticket in airport tax, he pays what will shorty be huge fees for airport parking and then gets flaed waiting in lengthy queues for "Security" and at the end of his journey has to hang around like a spare Pr!ck waiting for his lost bags but at least in Dublin there is much less likelihood of him getting soaked to the skin comin' and goin' to the aeroplane.

Meanwhile, a lot of ex Aer Rianta loafers are still in situ drawing handsome salaries and those that are gone are drawing equally handsome state sponsored pensions and are laughing away here at us all on their way to the St Gobanait's Airport Credit Union etc. The Irish state airports have been and still are run by the trolley pushers and the perfume sellers lest there be no doubt about that!

And if you think things are bad at Dublin Airport, well I could tell you facts!

[My names Turkish]

and right now all we have are 15 air-bridges (jetways), one of which is the worlds very first airbridge that was shipped accross from the US after being bought second hand

Thats never true is it? Which one?

[Bearcat]

yes an Irish debate area is required on this forum...i agree

[Sky_Captain]

Turkish, if you ever park on stand 8 its right in front of your nose. rarely used, mostly for Lourdes flights since it connects to the baggage hall in the old terminal building. But its the real deal, the very first airbridge, driven it a few times myself, if you turn the wheels 360 degrees by accident, you pull all the electrical wiring with it and leave it out of operation for some time.

Could you imagine an Irish forum, the amount of Ryanair disputes in there. probably clean up the rumours & news page quite nicely :p aswell as being constantly filled with somebody asking how life as a Ryanair pilot is :}

S.C.

[akerosid]

I don't know about you, but I actually find all of this somewhat depressing! How did we, with all the education and knowledge we have, come to a situation like this? How does the world's largest exporter of software and pharmaceuticals end up with such a miserable air freight sector (apart from the fact that we missed the chance to have UPS/Fedex open a base here, due to the stopover?) ...

I think we need to take a decision here; we fight. Aviation is important to every economy, but to Ireland, it's vital. We have enough geographical and competitive hurdles to face without an internal enemy - be it lack of vision, obstructionism, shady politically motivated deals or whatever else - holding us back.

I hope the McEvaddy project goes ahead, but unfortunately it looks like the North Apron site, which will probably be too small by the time it opens (and as for the traffic mayhem it will cause - sheesh!), but let's get things moving. As soon as the lobby group's website is set up, I'll let you know; the more info and participation the better. It's all very well for me to be criticising the length of 10/28, because I'm not a pilot (although a jump seat addict back the days when flying was fun :{ ) , but with pilots and professionals backing this, it will be a lot more effective.

Setting out a dedicated aviation manifesto, making sure aviation is noticed and that it's no longer an afterthought or a political football, that will go a long way to making a huge difference, not just to economic growth, but the general enjoyment of using Irish airports - either as pilots/aircrew/employees or the general travelling public.

[Tom the Tenor]

Gosh, akerosid, there is some passion there, sure enough!

The trouble is that at the state Irish airports of Dublin and Cork, things are a lot worse than what actually meets the eye. You have to come to terms with that situation. Why is it like this? Unlike us, they have no passion, they have no interest in seeing aviation succeed at Dublin and Cork. Their pay remains the same whether the airports are full of aeroplanes or are empty.

The snn crowd are on the ball though - they don't miss a trick. Ryanair should run a daily Palermo-Shannon. The Sicilians could come over for lessons!

[akerosid]

Just had a look at Aertel there and it looks as if the PDs are sticking to their guns ... Sen. Tom Morrissey makes a good point in that after going through all the trouble of splitting Aer Rianta, it seems like a retrograde step not to have competition. I sincerely hope the PDs stick to this; I wish even more that Harney had taken over from Brennan instead of Cullen; at least she could have curtailed The Dear Leader's socialist leanings. One might argue that the opposite is the case for Cullen; having survived the whole fiasco over his PR problem (ironic that!), he is almost definitely not going to stand up to Ahern if he continues to peddle the SIPTU line.

This is what I find most annoying; does anyone get the impression that aviation is just a trophy that Ahern can throw to the SIPTU crowd to keep them onside? Don't get me wrong, I'm certainly not anti-union, but I think a line has been crossed here. A government is elected and has a duty to the people; that discretion/power/responsibility can't be surrendered to anyone else - union or whoever. But this is what we're seeing. SIPTU wants more of the airline and a shareholding (socialism my foot!) in the terminal. And the reason they've come this far is because there really isn't the recognition or interest in giving aviation the ability to lead and facilitate economic growth, like it has done in Singapore or Dubai. This can happen, but not as things are now.

Tom, is there any info you can give on the situation; I realise that there may be a limit to what you can say, but it would be interesting to hear a few examples?

ps - any EI 330 pilots - views on the length of 10/28, as you're affected most by this?

[Irish Steve]

ps - any EI 330 pilots - views on the length of 10/28, as you're affected most by this?

I'm not a 330 driver, but from what I've heard, most of the time it's not an issue for them. The 330's for LAX seem to get out OK, and that's with freight on as well, though I don't know how much more they might be able to take if the length of 10/28 was longer. Have a friend who flies them, so will try to find out.

The big question on length is related to cargo, I do know that Singapore are limited with the 747-400F, they can't take a full load out with fuel for any sensible distance.

It's becoming clear that there's a groundswell of common opinion about this, though now the thread's been moved, we might not see so much comment on it:sad:

I think there's a lot of people that want to see DUB making it's full contribution to the success of Ireland Inc., but as it stands now, it's a major embarassment.

With any luck, and some more agressive lobbying, who knows, we might even get to see some realistic options instead of the crazy panic that's now setting in after so much time has been wasted. Anyone with half an eye for the way DUB is growing has known that these changes should have been started several years ago, but for all sorts of reasons, most of them invalid, it's been long fingered. Now, with the crisis of capacity already only too apparent, the best they can come up with is another fudge that won't address most of the real issues.

Please make sure that the details of the web site are clearly posted, so that as many people as possible can make their views known before it's too late.

Cheers

[akerosid]

Just reading through today's papers, the Indo has a particularly forceful article on the whole mish-mash, better known as "Irish Aviation Policy".

Apparently, there's a construction mogul named McNamara who wants in on the game, with a view to building the proposed new terminal in the midfield area; he has apparently bought a 100 acre site adjoining DAA land, but he has the right idea. His proposed terminal would handle 30-40m ppa. Of course, the Indo often gets excited about big new infrastructural proposals, but given what seems to be on offer - a smallish terminal squeezed into the space available on the current site, it's a definite improvements. Thankfully the PDs are digging their heels in on this whole thing. Of course, McNamara's proposal will probably delay the whole "decision making" (no, please, don't laugh) process back a few weeks.

I read also that Alan Joyce is staying at Jetstar. He says, in an interview with the Tribune, that "assurances were given on the airline's future". However, that doesn't leave too many more in the running; I can't think of any other major aviation figures in the mix (is Tony Tyler of Cathay still there?), which again makes life difficult for the airline; how do they raise the funds they need to raise for fleet replacement without a reputable and known CEO in place?

It's a :mad: disaster area, this whole aviation policy. How did we, a modern, developed and progressive nation, manage to make such a dog's breakfast of such an important area of our economic development?

[MarkD]

Building a terminal that far west opens up the possibility of a M50 link away from M1 junction or even N2 if you ran the road as a combo with a rail link (see my post Page 1).

As for Irish posts on AA&R - since page 1 is essentially a bunch of posts on the minutiae of various UK airports maybe it is time for an Irish version of Dunnunda/Godzone (can anyone come up with a name) - flying in ireland etc. is all fine but passing trade from other pprune forums who want to keep an eye on the irish scene aren't likely to look there - and sorry akero but I don't like ezboard much either :D

[My names Turkish]

Mark D, I'd like to see that too, and I reckon PPRuNE Towers is the man to ask but I suspect the answer your going to get is that they are trying to reduce the amount of forums and reduce bandwith used. The question has been asked before and the answer was if you want it you can pay for it!

You know what they say though! If you don't ask...

[Bearcat]

a dogs breakfast? no they made a total dogs arse out of the whole policy....further no doubt the govt policy that is about to be shown to the great unwashed as in ourselves will be lauded as ground breaking. If people (as much as I dislike his HR policy) such as Mr O'Leary didnt kick sh*t in corners aviation in ireland would still resemble the key stone cops. Irish Aviaition policy and the lego land terminal are a disgrace and I agree with all the sentiments shown.

[Toulouse]

A few examples of the disgraceful state of DUB. Flew into DUB from TLS on Thursday. Arrived at about noon to that wordurful and cosy, actually, meant to say sh**ty Pier A. What an embarrasement. Anyway after 40 minutes queing to get through passport control on an intra EU arrival, got to the baggage reclaim area. Of course there still wasn't any sign of our luggage. Now, what really made me laugh here is that arriving from pier A we arrived at the new end of the baggage reclaim hall and the first 6 luggage belts were all empty and not being used, and our luggage was put on the second last belt!? Anyway, One hour and 35 minutes I exited the terminal building with my one piece of luggage... all this after a 1 hour 45 minute flight.

Saga continues... arrived at DUB on Sunday morning at 5:45, and as I ws still half asleep didn't notice anything strange except the airport was packed as usual. Proceeded to use EI's fast check ckeck-in service, then proceeded to checkin my luggage at a bag drop desk and suddenly realised there were literally thousands of people queining and police all over the place... Apparently Aer Lingus baggage handlers had decided to have a lightening strike and call a "mandatory union meeting" because... wait for it... they felt that as the clock had gone forward an hour that night, they some how worked out that they had had to get up an hour earlier and should be paid for an extra hour! Anyway, my flight was closing at 06:35 for a 7 am departure, at 07:10 I eventually managed to checkin my baggage and then joined the ridiculous security queue. Anyway, boarded about 15 minutes later, and sat on the plane for about 35 minutes awaiting the final passengers to arrive. And of course, my luggage arrived in TLS a day later (yesterday morning). Really, I don't think any of these baggage guys have a right to the job and should all just be fired. No excuse for this type of strike action with "no advance notice given" and holding all the pax hostages. Anyway, following their logic, in October when the clocks go back, EI should deduct one hour from their pay!

If only we could get Bertie and Co. to use DUB for a couple of days as "normal passengers" with no VIP treatment given to them, maybe, if they aren't actually as stupid as they seem to be, they might actually realise the mayhem DUB experiences on a daily basis.

[Cosmic Star]

Apparently Aer Lingus baggage handlers had decided to have a lightening strike and call a "mandatory union meeting" because... wait for it... they felt that as the clock had gone forward an hour that night, they some how worked out that they had had to get up an hour earlier and should be paid for an extra hour!

As much as we all love MOL, you can see why he doesn't want to deal with unions though can't you? Dublin Airport Unions seem to be a specially mutated form of loopers.

Anyway, following their logic, in October when the clocks go back, EI should deduct one hour from their pay!

Toulouse, love it! You should go for Willys job.

[MarkD]

Because 2005 is the first year the clock went back... :rolleyes:

this is really about SIPTU's manoeverings over Terminal 2 I suspect, where quid pro quos are being hammered out (EI privatised and T2 part-union) but some of the siptu heads are apparently figuring out that when the firing squad comes out post-privatisation, it will be siptu workers and not the other unions against the wall.

[schoolkid]

While in principle i would be
in favour of a private T2, in reality if the unions are not happy they could easily cause a major fianna fail backlash in the next election.This could potentially mean the loss of a few dail seats to the opposition.

If we then imagine that a fine gael, labour, green party coalition scrapes into power it could spell much worse news for irish aviation in the long run.....through say tax on jetA1 or whingeing about pollution stopping development of the industry in ireland.The dublin airport unions would also have a better friend in government than FF and the PDs.

P.S feel free to disregard these comments as rubbish

[akerosid]

Sometime this has got to stop; the blurring of the lines between the government's duty and union power is dangerous. The govt has a duty, which cannot and should not be delegated, to conduct aviation policy (as well as a policy for every other area); simply because it's not interested, it's not sufficient reason to delegate it or use it as a bargaining chip with unions. What's next? You think they'll be happy with just aviation policy. This is about power and the unions won't stop as long as Ahern is around; the more power they get, the more they'll want and the more they have, the more leverage they'll have when it comes to throwing tantrums when they don't get what they want.

As I said, I sincerely hope the PDs stick to their guns; Bertie was more than happy it seems, to do a quiet little deal, which would have held back the ability of aviation to contribute to economic growth for many years; if as a result of that, they were to suffer at the poles, I'd have very little sympathy. OK, a coalition govt involving FG/Lab/Greens :{ could happen (although I think FF/Lab is more likely), but the message needs to be got across. No more will parties regard aviation policy as an also ran, to be relegated to the back pages of the manifesto. If nothing else, that would be a worthy goal of the new lobby. I'd like to see every party show the level of vision they have for aviation and the potential it has for economic growth (again, except for the greens, who should keep their policy very much to themselves and be kept as far away from aviation policy as possible.)

My big concern is that if the FFers got away with the North Apron terminal, controlled by DAA, this terminal would nearly be at capacity by the time it opened and it certainly wouldn't be long before it approached that level. What happens then? Here's an area of economic development which SHOULD be contributing to - and leading growth, but because of poor planning, it's actually holding it back. If it's determined that there's not enough capacity in years ahead, what happens? Marketing is scaled back and with it, growth. Now when this happens at what is - in any country, one of the leading catalysts for economic growth, it's a major issue. That's not being recognised now - and it needs to be.

By planning well down the road, by having a long term plan which provides for growth 10, 15 or 20 years down the road, you ensure that (a) there is capacity to meet demand, but also, that the marketing efforts are there to make sure this capacity is filled. This is one of the key reasons why competition is necessary: the airport's growth will not be in the hands of one operator, but there will be two operators, both competing around the world to bring in new traffic (and not just pax traffic either). Now, if one of them decides it's not going to provide the capacity and scale back its marketing, that's its prerogative, but at least their lack of vision/energy won't hold back economic growth.

[Jorge Newberry]

Tax exile in Jersey not keen on unions. There's a shock.

[The_Bean_Counter]

Drug lord on the run in Holland supports Dublin workers ?

[Jorge Newberry]

Never said I supported SIPTU and if you check my earlier post in this thread you'll see I'm quite pro M o'L.

[akerosid]

Just for the record, Jorge Newberry, I am not a tax exile; I happen to live in Jersey.I work where I work; it just happens to be Jersey and my antipathy is not so much towards SIPTU as towards the government for giving them the influence they have. I'm certainly not anti-union and frankly, living in a place where there is almost no employment legislation, we could probably do with greater union representation here!

I have an ordinary 9-5 job and I just happen to be interested in aviation. Sure, you can put a "tax exile" spin on it, but there's nothing I can do about that.

[Irish Steve]

Definitely not a tax exile, and have very close experience of both DAA & SIPTU, and as far as I'm concerned, neither of them should be able to control what happens at Dublin.

DAA as Aer Rianta have demonstrated only too well exactly how to make a monumental b:mad:ks of running an airport effectively. Now, if one was to accept that they view it as Ireland's largest pub, maybe we'd all understand more clearly their priorities:E :E

SIPTU running things? They've been doing that for the last god knows how long, with all the restrictive practices that got several companies, including EI, into all sorts of problems.

Non union isn't going to work either, as anyone with close experience of MoL will tell you, so there's going to have to be some very careful work done by the politicians for any plan to have even the ghost of a chance of working, and with their past track record in these sorts of areas, I don't rate the chances at all.

What's needed is a fundamental rethink of so much of DUB it's not funny. They can patch and fudge as much as they like around the edges, it won't solve any of the fundamental issues that have been long fingered for the last decade or more.

Cargo capacity, access to the airport, links other than road, vehicle parking, runway capacity, aircraft parking, airport internal infrastructure, proper segregation of inbound and outbound pax, especially in Pier A, decent working conditions airside, that's only the beginning of the list, some of it has been discussed here already, and neither DAA or SIPTU are even close to having answers to these issues, with some of them, the only body that can have answers is government, and all of the politicians are
s:mad:t scared of doing anything approaching sensible in case it loses them a few votes in the next election, so if in doubt, do nothing until the EU forces the issue, then they can plead "external pressure so don't blame us for decisions that we had to take to keep the EU happy".:*

In the meantime, the rest of the world looks on in amazement at the worse than banana republic conditions that are an every day occurrence at what should by now have become a showcase for modern Ireland.

What it's actually become is a monstrous embarassment to anyone that knows anything about modern aviation, and now, with the way things are developing, it can only get far worse.

Then, in theory, it should get better, but that will only be so if some very urgent and coordinated decisions are made not just about what happens next week, but also about what happens in 2015 and beyond. None of the players I've seen involved in the present sparring seems to be capable of seeing beyond the end of the year, let alone 20 years hence, and that is going to be the crunch issue that could have serious implications for the entire Ireland Inc:D

[Tom the Tenor]

Irish Steve's paragraph two above says it all about Dublin and Cork Airports.

These ex Aer Rianta types are so far gone in their "Work" practises it will be nigh impossible for change to occur until the generation literally dies out.

There is little sense of pride and little sense of responsibility in the job for most of the "Try the Airport way of life" people.

One aeroplane, ten aeroplanes or nil aeroplanes on the ramp - it is still the same pay.

And as for drenched to the skin wet and windswept passengers walking more than a thousand feet or wheelchair pilgrim passengers being pushed the same thousand feet up the ramp at Cork to the Britania 767 last weekend - well, the question is - Who are they? What are airbridges?

The viz at Cork now is 2 km and falling. Still no CAT III. Could yet be an evening of diversion disaster later at Cork.

Who cares?

[akerosid]

Very well said, Irish Steve.

I share your frustration (as you've seen). I know I've talked a lot about aviation's contribution to economic growth and as important as that is, one of the basic needs is to have an efficient and well planned airport. It is SO important and this is what I can't fathom. You'd think that an island nation would see the importance of aviation to its economy and future; why then does every single inch have to be like extracting teeth.

When you see places like Singapore - and despite their reputation, there's nothing they can do that we can't, given the determination and INTEREST FROM THE TOP, it's frustrating that we just can't plan ahead. It can't just be five years down the road, as this new North Apron terminal will be. You've got to have growth planned ahead. We need to know NOW where growth will come from in ten years time. The DAA clearly needs a right kick in the pants. One could give them a list of what they should do, but they can just use the Aviation Regulator as an excuse ... "oh, we'd like to do that, but the Aviation Regulator won't allow us to spend anything".

Basically, until we have competition - which, of course is being fiercely resisted - there's going to be no improvement and something which could make a huge difference to the economy - and indeed, the simple enjoyment of travelling, which it should be - will be denied us.

[akerosid]

Today's Sunday Business Post has a very interesting story on the new terminal. Apparently, an international firm of architects - Skidmore Owings & Merrill (apparently very well known and have designed quite a few terminals) produced a report for Aer Rianta, in which they considered the currently proposed location - the north apron - as the least attractive site.

Boxed in by the new hangar and the old terminal and outward growth limited by the proximity to the new taxiway, it would not be able to have any more than 30 stands (fewer, if the terminal is to be used for widebodies) and worse still, would not be able to accommodate the airport's growth to 30m.

So, the gov't, saying that they expect growth to reach 30m in ten years, give us a terminal that CANNOT provide that growth. What the hell is going on? Of course, a part of the reason is that the DAA doesn't seem to own the required land on which a suitable terminal could be located, but surely someone in the Dept of Transport could have noticed this. Perhaps they did, but it got "lost" in the political murk.

So, what happens now? More lessons not learned; another example (like the runway being too short) of a lack, deliberate or otherwise, of long term planning. :mad: :rolleyes: :{ :\

[MarkD]

DAA needs to get in bed with the guy on the west side right now. Screw McEvaddy - he's thought he held all the cards for long enough but giving it to him would be another Westlink toll bridge.

DUB doesn't need a second terminal to do the same as the first. There are two airline paradigms now, and since Baldonnel has been essentially ruled out as Dublin-Stansted, we might as well have one in T2.

[Idunno]

Yes Akerosid, I saw that article too, and I logged on today specifically to point out to you that you (on this very thread) declared the Pier D option to be superior to the McEvaddy/SIPTU terminal!

It now emerges that Aer Rianta/the Government have supressed the independant report that heavily criticises the Pier D option - the one you praised.

Do you work for Ryanair perchance?

Mr.McEvaddy has brought SIPTU into his deal in a clever move to outflank O'Leary. I don't think he's STUPID enough to sink tens of millions of his own money into a project that SIPTU are going to blow on him.

The McEvaddy terminal is better because its in the right location, and better because it defuses the IR clash at DAP.
Get over it.

[akerosid]

Idunno,

I'm looking at the previous responses I made in relation to this topic and it seems to me that from the very first, I raised the suspicion that the North Apron site wouldn't be up to the job. Have you gone right back to the very first comments on this thread? I'm confused as to where I said what you think I said. I have raised doubts (and not just on this forum, incidentally!) about the North Apron site for some time.

However, I may not have been so strident about Pier D; indeed, as a means of adding extra capacity, it's probably a good idea. We can't wait another four years for new capacity to be added.

Can you copy/paste where I said I favoured what is currently being criticised by Skidmore Owings & Merrill?

And no, I don't work for Ryanair!

[akerosid]

I don't usually like posting political things (and before anyone asks, I'm not an FG member), but I think this call by Olivia Mitchell makes a lot of sense:



Friday 8th April 2005

DAA site for second terminal would restrict economic growth, limit new
flights & push up costs – Mitchell

Fine Gael Transport Spokeswoman Olivia Mitchell TD has warned that Dublin
Airport Authority’s proposals for a second terminal at Dublin Airport would
limit capacity, restrict the number of new flights and push up costs.

“Reports that the Cabinet is set to approve a publicly-owned second
terminal at Dublin airport next week are extremely disappointing. It would
be very short-sighted for the Government to put Dublin Airport Authority in
charge of the second terminal. The site preferred by Dublin Airport
Authority (DAA) is the wrong location because it only has capacity for
limited growth. The restricted nature of the site would force the DAA to
develop a long, narrow, one-sided terminal offering fewer aircraft stands,
which would reduce the commercial viability of the terminal. This in turn
would require higher landing charges making Dublin less successful in
attracting airline business.

“The design of the new terminal would also add to the existing problems at
Dublin Airport, because it would force millions of new passengers, as well
as the current 18 million passengers, through the narrow congested corridor
between the existing terminal and the car park. And major demolition work
would be required causing further congestion, extra costs, and the loss of
precious capacity during the construction phase.

“The Authority commissioned a report by Skidmore Owings Merrill, at a cost
of several million euros, which rejected this site on capacity grounds. I
challenge Transport Minister Martin Cullen to publish this report. In fact,
all reports express the same reservations, including the independent report
commissioned by Fingal County Council for its Development Plan, as well as
the Government’s own consultants’ report.

“Allowing the private sector to develop and own the new terminal would be a
much better solution because it would produce a double-sided terminal with
greater flexibility. Its midfield location, between the existing and the
planned runways, is a design concept which has become an international
norm.

“By choosing the DAA site the Government would demonstrate a complete lack
of vision, and would still have to build the midfield terminal at some
stage in the future. Of course, the smaller terminal is more attractive to
the DAA, because it would not have to market the terminal aggressively in
order to reach full capacity. However, this decision should not be about
the needs of the DAA. This is an island nation and our growth as a country
is inextricably linked to a successful and dynamic aviation policy, and
developing links with the emerging Asian economics. The absence of
competition in a publicly-owned third terminal would remove the incentive
to attract new airline business to Ireland. If the Government settles on
the DAA it would be a short-term solution prior to the development of a
third midfield terminal.”

-------------------------------------------------------------------------

I endorse this 100%; the building of the North Apron site wouldn't be "the end of the world", but it would - as FG points out - put off the day when we have to look at the midfield site.

Unfortunately, it still looks as if the North Apron site is preferred.

Any luck with that quote, Idunno? It may well be that I got mixed up, but if you go to my very first post on this thread, I was clear in expressing my doubts about the north apron site.

[Irish Steve]

Unfortunately, it still looks as if the North Apron site is preferred.

My read on this is that the North Apron (Pier D) is the short term quick and dirty fix to get DAA out of the monumental hole they've dug for themselves by doing nothing for too long.

I've already made my feelings on that one well known, but to save people looking, it's easy.

Pier D will be an unmitigated disaster, for all sorts of reasons that are well know, and commented on in many places.

Equally, what's going to be needed, urgently, is a second terminal in mid airfield, and that's been recognised too, but it now seems that for all sorts of reasons, that's a problem.

Aer Rianta didn't get control of the land that's needed to do the job properly. BIG mistake, but who's surprised by that, they've made a complete b:mad:ks of everything else they've done in recent years, why should this be an exception. The only reason they've not been shafted before now is that they were making obscene profits out of running Irelands largest pubs (Not hard), so no one other than Michael O'Leary wanted to change the status quo

Given the way that compulsory purchase orders can be made for just about everything else, why is making sure of the future of a NATIONAL ASSET that is even more vital to the success of Ireland INC such an issue.

Maybe the real problem is that Bertie hates flying, so anything to do with flying brings him out in something unpleasant. The longer the entire cabinet dithers and splutters, the clearer it becomes that they don't have the skills or the will to actually produce anything that looks even remotely like joined up writing.

IRELAND needs a world class international airport. The fact that over 50% of the population lives on the East coast would tend to suggest that Dublin, which also happens to be the capital city, might just need the facility.

Then again, I suppose that if the political will was there, they could always build a TGV track from Dublin to Shannon, and move the airport there. To avoid the political backlash from the East Coast, they could even do the checkin before boarding the train.

If they did it right, it might actually be quicker to get to SNN by TGV than it is to get to DUB by road from the O'Connell St Bridge.

Then again, I've just killed that idea, when did the recent politicians here do ANYTHING that matters right:O .

[Dream] Another option would be to build a brand new airport with TGV grade fast rail links to DUB, SNN, ORK, and other places, somewhere right in the middle. There's plenty of old bog out there that could be used, next to no hills or other obstructions to get in the way, and there's so few residents left now that the noise and other issues could easily be overcome. Just think, a brand new state of the art airport less than an hour from any of the major cities of Ireland. It could be done, given some real money. And, even better, it would kill all the problems about the rivalry between DUB/SNN/ORK, as they'd not be needed any more.:E [/Dream ]


You only have to look at the disaster of the roads policy to see how inept and incompetent they are. Perhaps what's needed is a dose of reality.

In another thread, someone suggested that politicians should be forced to travel like the rest of us are, so no fast escorts through the traffice, no using bus lanes, no breaking the speed limits, no VIP treatment at airports or rail stations, no special VIP flights by helicopter because it's quicker.

I wonder how quickly things would change if something like that happened? Pretty fast I suspect:E :E .

Another good idea would be to make the Govt Jet obey the Shannon stop rules when Bertie is popping over to deliver shamrock or whatever. If he had to drop into SNN for an hour in each direction, I wonder what the reaction would be:E :E

[cormacshaw]

I am curious as to why only the North Apron and the Midfield options have been mentioned here (Granted they are apparently the frontrunners and the ones that the media are talking about almost exclusively and which have cheerleaders shouting for them, be it an airport authority, a developer or a politican). If I recall a recent irish times article correctly (I may not), the South East site option, i.e., a site directly south of the landing zone for Rwy28, was actually the preferred one of the Skidmore Owings Merrill report (the child in me can't help mention that 'skid more' and '0 wings' is unfortunate).

The South East site had the merits of having loads of room, relatively close to the existing terminal with easy access (no tunnel required), easy access to both M1 and M50, on the proposed Metro route. Its drawbacks were that it would require aircraft using 10L/28R, when built, to cross 10R/28L (but is that really a show stopper?) and the land would require re-zoning which is not something that politicians have found hard to do when it suits their own needs, never mind the National Interest (TM)

The failure to foresee the bleedin' obvious is something that constantly blights infrastructure development in Ireland. There are already worrying signs in the T2 drama.
One is the apparent impossibility of serving the Midfield terminal option, if choosen, with the proposed Portmarnock rail link or Metro. This appears to have been dismissed and listed as a disadvantage of this option. Despite the fact that both rail projects and the terminal have been contemplated for years but are still vague drawings on maps, no one has seemed to even considered putting a very slight curve in the Metro line or extending the raillink so that the Midfield site can have a station. Muppets!

Another is perhaps something that just hasn't gotten a public mention but I can't rule out the possibility that the issue is just being conveniently ignored. How would a Midfield T2 be linked to T1? I am suspicious of the proposed cost of the developer's plan. Does it include the tunnelling needed to run roads/lightrail or whatever from T2 under a runway and a lot of apron and open ground to T1? And where will this all pop up? Does he think the someone else will pay for this? I just fear the non-plan is to have buses running several miles around the perimeter.

[MarkD]

Could be something to do with aircraft having to cross 10R/28L to get to 10L/28R?

Since we haven't seen the report I'm guessing here.

[akerosid]

Just saw a snippet on UTV Internet, in which the minister has refused to reveal any timescale for the construction of the new terminal.

I would imagine the spin machine is working overtime, to come up with good excuses for whatever announcement is going to be made next week (assuming it is actually going to happen next week!)

Let's just assume, for the purposes of this thread, that they go ahead with the North Apron site. Where next? Leaving aside the fact that the govt, ITSELF, said that pax numbers would reach 30m within 10 years and they go ahead with a terminal that they've been told will be too small, it's not going to be the end of the world. What we do need to focus on is ensuring that when extra capacity is needed next, it is planned and ready to go.

What we've seen here, over the past few months (if not years) is a lesson in "how not to plan airport capacity". What can we learn from this?

- Make sure that there is long term planning - not just by the DAA or even by the competing terminal, but by the Department of Transport. Ultimate responsibility for ensuring that aviation can serve national needs rests with them.

- Make sure that the design capacity is known and that there is awareness of how long it will take to reach this, monitoring year on year growth AND bearing in mind that if there's competition between terminals, the new terminal will reach its design capacity more quickly.

- Know how long its going to take to plan, get approval for, tender, design and build a new terminal; make sure that terminal has growth potential built into it.

We're not going to just accept this; the handling of this is scandalous and it needs to be tackled head on. This must never happen again.

[Irish Steve]

Its drawbacks were that it would require aircraft using 10L/28R, when built, to cross 10R/28L (but is that really a show stopper?)

It's not going to help. There are already too many pinch points in the SE corner, and adding even more movements there is not going to help

Another issue is that if the terminal is "outside" the existing airport, some of the essential roads will be killed, which makes for even more traffic chaos.

If it's south of the runway, it will end up being single sided, so reduced capacity, most modern terminals can take aircraft on both sides, increasing the capacity.

There's a lot of buildings that are going to make SE corner difficult, and most of them are new, so getting rid of them will be expensive!

By the time a clearway for 28 (L) is left, the building is going to be almost on top of the M50. That's also going to add to the hassles.

A tunnel under the existing terminal and ramp is not going to be cheap, but it's by no means rocket science, LHR did it years ago, and the tunnelling equipment is probably not far away, they've not finished the tunnel to Dublin Port yet, and the end of that is pretty close to the airport.

As Akerosid says, what's needed is some realistic joined up thinking that's planning NOW for the requirement in 10 years time, not panic knee jerk responses to this summers crisis!

And of course, DAA now has even more egg on it's face, having comprehensively failed a security audit last weekend. Wonder how they will wriggle out of that one?

[Tom the Tenor]

Best wrigglers, duckers and divers in the business! That's how!

"Try the Airport way of life." Remember that one!?

[Idunno]

OK Akero, I had to go looking for the comment but I found it, not on this thread actually, but here. (http://www.pprune.org/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=166190&perpage=15&pagenumber=5)
Page 5.
Look at what's happening now: SIPTU's going to have a share in the new terminal, decide where it will be (a very bad location, considering the need for future growth) and dictate the conditions for EI's part privatisation.

What do you say to that, now that the facts proved you wrong?

[akerosid]

Idunno,

That clearly relates to the north apron option. SIPTU's clearly stated view is that it's first preference is for the DAA option. See where I said "considering the need for future growth"? Surely it's clear from that, that I was referring to the north apron site; there would be no limitation on growth with a midfield terminal, which is why I said that.

So, there's no inconsistency in what I said at all. Yes, SIPTU has said it's second choice would be the McEvaddy site, but it was definitely the north apron site I had in mind when I said that.

So, I don't really feel the need to say anything. :cool:

[Idunno]

It seems to me that you've been ambiguous in everything you've said then. Your inference clearly was that because SIPTU was involved in a particular project you were agin it. The only project that SIPTU are involved in is the McEvaddy option, ergo - you were agin it.

The facts speak for themselves.
An independant report that criticised the North Terminal idea was swept under the carpet by Aer Rianta and the Government.

The proper option is the McEvaddy one.

The SIPTU involvement is GOOD and your objections to it are groundless unless you think McEvaddy is a total idiot prepared to throw away money - his numerous financial successes would indicate otherwise.

Anything involving O'Leary is - by miles - worse than anything involving SIPTU, because O'Leary has only one aim, which is to line his own pockets at the expense of working people.

Get thee behind me - Satans little helper.

[Irish Steve]

The SIPTU involvement is GOOD

I'm not so convinced. SIPTU has a clear agenda to maintain as many of the existing restrictive practises as possible, and in some cases, they are very restrictive. Also, I can forsee a bull and cow of a row between MO'L and SIPTU if they are closely involved in Terminal 2, as it's very clear that FR want out of the main terminal. I don't think there would be a quick or easy answer to that conundrum.

A mid field terminal is going to have to happen. I don't think anyone with any sense is going to disagree with that. Where, what size, how it's funded, who controls it, they are all a different matter that needs to be clarified urgently, in that the second terminal is also urgent, Pier D will only be a very short term stop gap, and the problems it will add to an already overcrowded check in and arrivals system don't bear thinking about for too long.

I just hope that someone at a political level is going to put the interests of IRELAND Inc ahead of votes and local popularity. History suggests that's unlikely to be the case, regrettably.

[Idunno]

Steve, SIPTU are a fact of life at DAP and the sooner everyone cops on to the fact and starts dealing with reality the sooner we'll get the project off the ground.

Whinging about unions is becoming less and less supportable in the face of employer abuses in this country, and O'Leary is the leader of the pack.

I'm no great fan of SIPTU, and I'm not a member, but when the chips are down I know who's side I'm on - and it ain't the Devil Incarnate.

[Tom the Tenor]

When the chips were down and when it really mattered in a number of employments that I have been in SIPTU were useless.

SIPTU's interest is in the members' subs. After that it all gets very wishy washy.

SIPTU are no one's saviour.

From a paid up member.

[Irish Steve]

I too was a paid up member of SIPTU, and there were a lot of things that I didn't like, but couldn't change because there was no way to change them.

That doesn't mean I have to like the idea of them controlling things in Terminal 2.

I don't like the idea of DAA controlling things either, and they are supposed to know what they are doing.:yuk:

no way for FR to run the show, that's a non starter, we all know their agenda.

I don't have a problem with McAvaddy running things, he's not done a bad job with Omega over the years, and at least there's a sensible aviation based link there, which is a big improvement on some of the potential partners.

The bottom line is that some of the decisions that are being agonised over now should have been made at least 2 years ago, and in some cases even longer. We're going to end up paying a massive price for inaction, as usual, and it won't be the people that failed that pay it, it will be the users of the airport that suffer as a result of the cowardice of the politicians.

[conor_mc]

SIPTU are a fact of life at DAP and the sooner everyone cops on to the fact and starts dealing with reality the sooner we'll get the project off the ground.

Idunno,

That statement runs counter to the very concept of introducing competition into Dublin Airport, and is the very lethargic, maintain-the-status-quo attitude which has dogged almost every major public-infrastructure project in this state.

SIPTU do not have a divine right to involvement in all things DUB. In fact, as a taxpayer, I object to their continued intervention in the planning, and obstruction of the development, of a vital national resource - a resource to serve the people of Ireland and not serve the interests of SIPTU.

They are mandated to represent their existing members and do not have any authority to represent those additional jobs which have yet to be created at a new terminal. Their only goal in this whole saga is to secure their own interest in the new terminal, thereby securing subs from the new workforce.

[Idunno]

When the chips were down and when it really mattered in a number of employments that I have been in SIPTU were useless. Tom, don't you think its funny that on the one hand SIPTU are portrayed as Looney Lefties who'll bring DAP to a standstill at the drop of a hat, while you - a member - fault them for being weak and laissez faire?

Which is it??

The truth is that there is a war being waged against working people in this country, in the name of greed and the vaulting ambition of a handful of wealthy people. These people have the state media in their back pocket, and they use it to make sure a never-ending stream of anti-union propaganda is peddled to the public. Its a very succesful campaign...it has to be, when you consider that in spite of exploitation and bullying by the likes of O'Leary and the Turkish building company GAMAs theft of workers wages - the unions are still represented as the greatest single threat to society and the economy.

conor_mcs comment is a good example of what I mean. He has swallowed the propaganda, hook line and sinker, and to him (and thousands of others) it is SIPTU, not Bumbling Bertie, or the ineffectual 'decision makers' (so called) of the DAA/Aer Rianta management who are to blame for the shambles at DAP.

Codswallop.

[akerosid]

Idunno wrote:

"It seems to me that you've been ambiguous in everything you've said then. Your inference clearly was that because SIPTU was involved in a particular project you were agin it. The only project that SIPTU are involved in is the McEvaddy option, ergo - you were agin it."

That's wrong. SIPTU has gone on record, on numerous occasions, to say that it favoured the DAA proposal, which means the north apron site. My previous post (and your quote from another previous post) refers - as I have explained - to the north apron site.

With the greatest respect, you seem to be picking up on everything I have said. Have I given you offence in any way? If I have, I'm sorry, but let's not keep falling out over this. For once and for all, my comments were directed at the fact that the north apron site is not a good idea.

I do, however, object to a union investing in a commercial undertaking. To my, that's not what a union is for. What happens when there's an industrial dispute which threatens their financial interest in the project? Whose side will they be on then? I think they have crossed a line.

Can we move on, please?

[Idunno]

SIPTU has gone on record, on numerous occasions, to say that it favoured the DAA proposal, which means the north apron site. They've said they prefer the North Terminal as a first choice, and only if O'Leary is not involved, but they are financially involved in only one project - McEvaddys.

You used the word SHARE in your original comment. Here it is again: SIPTU's going to have a share in the new terminal
Where is SIPTUs "SHARE" in the North Terminal option?

They have no SHARE in the North Terminal - surely thats why you should like it?
By your logic (keep out the unions at all costs) the North Terminal is preferable, and damn the rest of the consequences - and its exactly the same logic as O'Learys!

I do, however, object to a union investing in a commercial undertaking. To my, that's not what a union is for. Really?! Are you forgetting that the Telecom Eirann workers own 15% of that company? And in fact their share holding has further increased since the privatisation? And are you not aware that the company is in massive profit? In March 2004 they announced an operating profit of €118m - an increase of 39 per cent on last year. There was NO disruption at the company. Its a smooth running and profitable enterprise!
What happens when there's an industrial dispute which threatens their financial interest in the project? Whose side will they be on then? I think they have crossed a line. What happens is that the workers, having become STAKEHOLDERS in the company would be CRAZY to see their investment crash. This introduces a level of common sense and practicality into the equation that is missing in the traditional capitalistic model of a GAMA or a RYANAIR or AER RIANTA.

The sooner the unions are dragged into the risk taking and reward sharing, the sooner things will improve at DAP.

[Tom the Tenor]

The cage is being rattled here? Some of the Dublin Airport ex Aer Rianta "Workers" are getting a little jittery?

Breaking a little sweat are we? A new experience perhaps?

[Idunno]

Tom, I'm in IMPACT, not SIPTU, and it doesn't affect me one jot who owns T2.
The only one who should be getting jittery is O'Leary - he's been sidelined. And I'm lovin' it.

[akerosid]

Idunno,

I'm no fan of MO'L myself and I'm certainly not a part of the wealthy few who have the media in their back pocket. My sole and only interest in this issue is that we get the capacity going forward to ensure that DUB can meet future requirements. I believe that DUB, as the most important generator of economic growth in the country, should have its capacity growth planned well in advance, so that we don't end up with this shambles in another 5-10 years' time, if (as I fear) the north terminal project goes ahead?

Now, if I've offended you with my comments about unions, I'm sorry. I was not aware that SIPTU was/will be/would be financially involved in the McEvaddy terminal. Mea culpa.

I don't think it's fair to portray me as anti-union, but to my mind - as I said, unions have an important role, but I think that investing their member's hard earned money in a commercial enterprise is probably not the best idea. Again, I see a potential conflict of interest.

The amazing thing is, despite our bickering, that we probably agree on a lot more than we disagree on.

We both agree that (I think?) that the terminal should be on a midfield site and not on the north apron, which we agree is cramped and doesn't offer long term growth.

We both agree that DUB is badly run by the DAA and before it, Aer Rianta,

We both agree that competition is necessary to improve the standard of the airport, and

We both agree that the problems at the airport are due to bad planning.

So, why the bickering. I don't believe that I have been ambiguous or misleading. Can we just bury the hatchet and move ahead? :cool:

[Idunno]

Akerosid, I'm not trying to get at you, or bicker with you, but its important that there are no false impressions or misunderstandings about this issue because that is exactly the kind of confusion that O'Leary and his ilk thrive on.

SIPTU and IMPACT are sworn enemies at DAP because IMPACT have steadily been displacing SIPTU from their once primary position there. So to say that I, as an IMPACT member would be miffed about SIPTU not getting their own way (as Tom The Tenor mischeivously suggests) is absolute bollox and laughable.

On the other hand, I'm not going to favour O'Leary or his cohorts in front of any union, no matter what I think of them, because when it comes down to brass tacks (and it eventually will) we're just workers in the same boat together. Whatever is done to, or said about SIPTU today will be done to, or said about IMPACT tomorrow.

I think IMPACT missed the boat BIGTIME when they didn't wipe SIPTUs eye on this McEvaddy deal.
But SIPTU have been even more clever in that they are offerring the option to join the venture to all DAP employees, IMPACT/SIPTU, or dissenter. And NO they aren't 'spending their members money', its all being offered on a voluntary basis. You opt in or out as you choose and you raise the investment yourself through facilities they've negotiated with the banks.

Now tell me this....if someone offered you a pre-arranged loan at low interest and no money down, which entitled you to a bargain basement share in the new terminal at DAP, would YOU turn it down?
No?
Me either.

And having bought into it, and being required to service your repayments...would YOU act the maggot and walk off the job every other day?

No?
Me either!

Brilliant, isn't it. O'Leary must be spitting.

One last thing.
If you sense any 'negativity' it might be because you have a history of blindly swallowing management bull**** which I find repulsive. Your lick arsing of Willy Walsh turned my stomach.

[Irish Steve]

Valid points.

I guess where I'm coming from is that historically, Aer Rianta / EI/ SIPTU etc had very cosy little arrangements that was so riddled with restrictive practises, it wasn't funny.

As examples. Driver A would drive a electric truck to stand X, where 2 other people would then load it. The Driver would then drive it to the inbound baggage hall, where he would then have to wait for other loaders to arrive to offload. The problem there was that the "others" were not allowed to travel in the same vehicle, (even though it had enough seats for them to do so) so that means extra expensive equipment, and more staff than are needed to do the task. That's cost, expense, call it what you will, but it has serious implications for the recipient of the service.

Marshalling on to stand. One organisation refused to allow it's lead agents to be trained on marshalling, so a line maintenance engineer had to come to the stand to bring it in to position. Later, another engineer had to come to do the headset for the pushback. That's an inappropriate use of the skills and training of a maintenance engineer, and was/is a regular cause of delays as the aircraft sits 30 Metres short of the stand waiting for the engineer, and then in some cases, blocks 6 or 7 other stands as well. I've regularly seen aircraft having to wait 10 minutes to be marshalled in.

Equally, I don't subscribe to the methods used by some of the other handling companies. There is no way that it's reasonable to expect a crew of 6 to do a complete unload and reload of an A300 charter flight in an hour, when the airline refuses to have enough bins on station to allow the bags to be loaded into bins in the hall as they are checked in. To have to empty the bins of the inbound bags, then take the empty bins back to the aircraft, load them on the ramp, sometimes in foul weather, and at the same time produce bingo cards so that if some moron is missing his bag can be located, then put the bins in the aircraft, no way can a crew of 6 do that in an hour, it's physically impossible, yet SA management expect that level of commitment on a regular basis.

SIPTU don't get involved in dealing with that sort of hassle either, believe me, they keep well away from it, and I've seen some of their actions in "negotiating" with management, and it's not a pretty sight on either side. The thought of trying to get and then operate any sort of sensible manning agreement on Terminal 2 fills me with dread, I doubt it would be acheiveable in my lifetime.

Then there's the issue of equipment. Most of the handling agencies do the occasional swap to get someone out of trouble, but even that goodwill attitude is being eroded by the problems of "cost" and "profit". I can't see how that one will be resolved easily either, or do you see a scenario where company A will have to have another sub division with it's own equipment to operate terminal 2?


As an example. Airline A uses pier A normally. For whatever reason, weather, congestion, tech aircraft, they can't get on to their normal stand, so they end up over on a stand on the "other" terminal. Who's going to handle it? The handler from T1, or T2. If the T2 handler hasn't got a push back bar, how are they going to get it off stand? Will handling companies (Aviance, Servisair, Sky Handling) be allowed to operate in both terminals, or will there have to be different entities for each terminal, and different charges for each service, depending on who provided it?

I can see the admin sections dissapearing under a mountain of paper, and this is supposed to reduce costs.

Then there's the problem of interlining and "cooperation" between the various companies. It doesn't work very well now, and it's going to be even worse if there are 2 seperate terminals to consider, with the time required to get bags from one to the other. It can take 2 hours for a bag off Aer Lingus to get to Aer Arran now, imagine if there's a terminal change as well in that loop.

There's a lot more to this than meets the eye, and the more I think about it, the more I become convinced that no one has really worked out how this is going to be made to work, and it needs to be worked out and agreed in writing before one single sod is turned.

Pier D is easy. That's just another pier on the existing terminal infrastructure. It's going to cause all sorts of problems, but it's the quick and dirty fix that will have to be done to keep things moving.

Terminal 2 is another matter altogether, even things like phone/data lines will be a major issue, in that at present, they are all centralised through one switch area. T2 will need computer links, and in some cases, the connection will be to a system or server in the T1 area.

There are so many issues that have not even been explored yet, let alone resolved.

[Idunno]

Fair enough Steve, we all know the baggage handlers history.

But as a pilot, I've sat in on negotiating sessions with our Flight Ops managers, and what I've seen - time after time - is ignorance and stupidity from them. Utter blockheadedness which makes you want to tear your hair out at the roots. They played power games, lied, cheated, dissembled, procrastinated, twisted, reinterpreted, ignored and destroyed all hope of reasonable negotiated compromise on almost every issue, even the most petty and trivial ones.

We still played their game, working through the process with patience, until eventually they would just throw up their hands and call on the Labour Court to sort it out for them. In effect abandoning their posts and their duty to take responsibility for managing their own company.

Then, when the Labour Court had done their job for them by producing a finding that neither side was happy with (usually just a line drawn straight down the middle) they'd ignore it anyhow and continue as if it all never happened...knowing we wouldn't strike. Reasonable chaps that we are!

You look at baggage handler bollox and throw up your hands...I look at it and think - those guys kicked back, while we just snivelled.

Irish management is rotten, from the top down. The top being bumbling Bertie and his FF feckers, right down through the nouveau langers like O'Leary, to the petty bourgeoisie in lower and middle management at almost every Irish company.

Things are getting out of hand now. The gloves are coming off. This is war. And I don't give a damn if the bugger by my side is a bolshy loader or baggage handler, I'm not playing O'Learys divide and conquer game any more.

[akerosid]

I agree with what you're saying; we all have frustrations about what's going on in Irish aviation. Things certainly need to change and quickly. Not just the big infrastructural things like terminals etc, but at the personnel level and the general integrity of Irish business life.

I've always believed, rightly or wrongly, that one of the big problems in Irish business has been a bad example from on high and I put the blame for this on our dear former leader, CJH. As Oliver Flanagan, an FG TD once famously said, "there was no sex in Ireland before TV", one might well say "there was no corruption in Ireland before CJH"; maybe there was, but I always feel that CJH brought it into the mainstream. And I think that for all the tribunes, investigations etc, it's never really changed that much.

Quite how I got to CJH from Dublin Airport is another thing, but I guess Abbeville is under the approach path!

But getting back to the airport, the Indo reports this morning that Comrade Minister is still not ready to bring a decision on the new terminal to the cabinet. Big shock, that. They are, apparently, expected to make a decision on a rapid rail link to the airport next month. Frankly, my position is this: I'd prefer to see the terminal being on the midfield site; I hope that a change of mind to this location is causing the delay and hopefully, too, the PDs' insistence on competition. However, if the terminal goes on the north apron site, it's not the end of the world. What it will mean is that we'll need to ensure that the planning for the midfield terminal site(s) is well under way, so that in can be in place when the planned terminal reaches capacity; that should include a major increase in freight handling capacity as well. Basically, a midfield development is inevitable and they'd really be best advised to do it now.

With regard to WW, I'm sorry if what I said made your stomach turn; my intention in saying what I said was not so much to praise WW, but to criticise the Taoiseach. I really believe that a lot of the problems we have now in Irish aviation are due to the Taoiseach's political instincts - offend as few people as possible by making as few decisions as possible and whoever shouts loudest gets their own way. There's a complete lack of vision; no willingness to look down the road ("we won't be in office then, why should we?") and see what will be required. Successive ministers, with the possible exception of SB, have always seemed to be happy to leave aviation policy to civil servants, with the results as we see them now. I'm not blaming the civil service, since it's not their job to innovate. The shocking issue, to me, is that despite it being as plain as the nose on one's face, no one has really recognised how effective a catalyst for economic growth aviation has been for Ireland and no-one has really allowed it (unless forced by the EU) to develop without any stupid, backward, half-arsed rules and out-dated bilaterals. THAT'S WHAT I want to see.

And as far as the terminal is concerned, I don't care who is involved in it, as long as we get capacity in place when we need it, in future. Unfortunately, it's very difficult to be optimistic about the future. The same planning mentality that gave us a main runway of 8,650' is likely to be responsible for a terminal that may well be close to capacity shortly after opening. :mad: :mad: :* :{

[Irish Steve]

I need to clarify something here.

My understanding is that the North apron project is NOT a new terminal, it's Pier D, which will be part of and an addition to the existing terminal ABC structure, still using the existing check in and baggage hall infrastructure. It will be in the middle of the existing apron structure up around the 100's areas, and will have an overhead walkway linking it back to the old terminal building.

As such, while it's needed yesterday, it does nothing at all to address all the other issues like parking, transportation access, overcrowding in the check in and arrival area, congestion at the security checks etc etc,

A mid field new terminal 2 will be stand alone, will need it's own infrastructure, access, etc. That's a very different scenario, is still going to be needed, as is the second runway, and work on both should have already been started.

What then has to be addressed is things like rail, additional parking, in the right places, and links to that parking, cargo capacity both on and off ramp, and other issues that are fundamental to the future, but at the moment, they are still in the air and don't seem to be on the agenda at all.

On the subject of bolshy loaders, I wasn't one of them, my attitude got me into deep water, as far as I was concerned, there was an aviation job to be done that I could do, and I did it. Quite a few people didn't like it, as they couldn't do what I was doing, they were'nt trained, so were excluded from things like ground to air radio operation when towing. That didn't go down well at all, and there were other issues as well, but it's not often that you get people with a ME CPL/IR working on the ramp. Such is life.

I've no time at all for most of the management I've seen in that area, and precious little for the union side, neither of them seemed to have any ability at all to plan, organise or negotiate. Snarl, and maybe bite, but that was about the limit of the skills, and it does no one any favours.

Non unionised isn't acceptable either, I've seen very clearly the Mo'L operation, and that's also unacceptable, for all sorts of reasons.

As I think I said earlier, to make DUB work properly is going to take a fundamental change at the core, and one of the most contentious will be the removal of the semi state mentality and attitudes.

I've done work for a number of them over the last 15 years since moving from the UK, and the more I've seen, the less impressed I have been, every one of them had a huge workforce that became very offended if they were expected to actually do a days work for a days pay. That's no longer acceptable either, somewhere between the 2 extremes of MO'L & Semi state there should be an acceptable middle ground. Getting it to work, and keeping it that way will be a challenge that I fear is beyond any of the management I've seen in the last 10 years, but it has to be done.

[Tom the Tenor]

Seamus Brennan - gone.
Willy Walsh - gone.
John Smyth, Cork - gone.

As Idunno says aviation management in Ireland stinks. From the bottom up as much as any other way? Look at the geniuses that are being hired! Some of the former Aer Rianta workers at Cork and probably at Dublin should everyday get down on their bended knee and thank God for their soft well paying jobs.

Aer Rianta knew f*ck all about competition and this near charade about DAA, CAA and whatever you are having yourself is not going to change very quickly on 1st May, 2005. The same loafers, trolley pushers and perfume sellers will still be calling the shots on a day to day basis.

You know, I have often thought lately about calling for a sworn public inquiry into the running of the state airports in Ireland but what would be the point? The public are being flaed enough as it is.

Dublin's ridiculously short runway brings me again back to the snn stopover. Unrestricted growth has not been allowed at Cork and Dublin Airports due to the stopover and short runways. It has been an huge restrictive practise going on now for sixty years.

This has been Irish Government policy and has been supported as such. The perversion of this policy is now coming out but the damage has been done at both Dublin and Cork.

More than a public inquiry maybe a Truth and Reconcilliation Commission would be a better solution to unravelling the madness that has choked Irish aviation for the past decades?

It will continue to be painful for many years to come for all of us who love aviation, Ireland and for our states of mind!

[akerosid]

It's a sad tale, unfortunately, but not irrecoverable.

I think one of the main issues in Irish aviation is that it's never been a hot political issue. I have to say that in itself is amazing, given our position and its importance to economic development. However, a large part of the problem was that it's potential (and indeed, aviation generally, was never fully understood - or at least only by a small few).

I think we can condense the issue down to a few key questions, which could be put to political parties:

1. Do you accept that aviation is the most cost effective catalyst for economic growth?
2. If so, doesn't it make sense to ensure that (a) it has all the support it needs - planning, infrastructure and removal of limitations/impediments - to make sure it achieves that potential.

Remember that if/when aviation is unleashed from all the nonsense that surrounds it, it can be a win/win situation. We identify an element of the economy which can deliver very satisfactory growth and do so at at relatively little expense; although the terminals etc. will be expensive, they can be funded without state funds. Similarly, the regulatory change can achieve a lot without costing anything (significant.)

We need to make sure that's understood and once the aviation lobby gets up and running (which I'm glad to say will be quite soon - hopefully this weekend), we'll make a start on making sure that's understood.

Steve, my understanding was that Pier D was to be built outwards from roughly where the old North Terminal is now and it would be linked to the north apron terminal, which would be built through hangars 1-4.

[Idunno]

More than a public inquiry maybe a Truth and Reconcilliation Commission would be a better solution to unravelling the madness that has choked Irish aviation for the past decades? Bang on Tom. Both sides are in the trenches, and will remain there until (in my opinion) management start by acting in a responsible and honest fashion. Then people like me...a pilot making a six figure salary, in charge of 150 lives and an aircraft worth tens of millions...won't be totally sympathetic to the bolshy b'stards on the ramp who stick their fingers up managements nose at every possible opportunity.

Fat chance.
The last time anybody tried it was Michael Foley, and we all know what they did to him.

[Irish Steve]

Steve, my understanding was that Pier D was to be built outwards from roughly where the old North Terminal is now and it would be linked to the north apron terminal, which would be built through hangars 1-4.

that must be pier D Mk 2 then, the plan I saw, alebeit a while backl was for a "detached" pier over in the area that's sort of the dead ground triangle in the middle of all the remote stands from the 70's up to the 100's, with some jetways and some non jetway gates all around it. At that time, there was no baggage handling or check ins as such in that area, it was just another pier to make more gates available.

Maybe there's a new plan that I've missed along the way, and if that's the case, it's even more crazy to be looking to put a new terminal round that side, if nothing else, while modern jets don't need the same levels of maintenance that the older ones did, they still need somewhere to work on them, and taking out hangars seems to me to be retrograde.

[conor_mc]

conor_mcs comment is a good example of what I mean. He has swallowed the propaganda, hook line and sinker, and to him (and thousands of others) it is SIPTU, not Bumbling Bertie, or the ineffectual 'decision makers' (so called) of the DAA/Aer Rianta management who are to blame for the shambles at DAP.

Idunno,

I think we're all starting to come to a consensus here in that aviation policy in this country needs to be sorted out asap. What we disagree on is how to go about doing it.

I don't have a problem with unions - if they exist in principle to protect their members from being royally shafted. My problem with unions is that in practice, they set up restrictive work practices which do nothing but protect unneccessary jobs - jobs which are unnecessary purely because restrictive work practices have hindered positive expansion in the first place!

I'm not a fan of MOL, nor Bertie, nor SIPTU. However, one comment which really brought home to me the problem with Ireland in general came from one of the McEvaddy brothers (can't remember which) in a Tribune article a few years(yes, years!) back, on the subject of a second terminal. Basically, he said that in 10/12 years the major hubs of Europe (LHR, AMS, Frankfurt) will be virtually saturated. There's an opening there for another hub to take up the slack. But in Ireland, that a crappy Pier D expansion which will be overflowing by the time it's opened is even being considered is a damning indictment of our policy-makers. But part of that problem is that our policy-makers, as somone else said here, aren't thinking things through, but are responding to the loudest shouts - in this case, SIPTU.

If SIPTU had any balls, they'd back the government on chosing the policy which would create the MOST JOBS, full stop. They can then compete with your union, IMPACT, for membership. If they could really back up their rhetoric, they'd have nothing to fear. As I see it, they can't - they're actually running scared of IMPACT. In that, I take my hat off to IMPACT - from what I can gather they at least seem to have the workers best interests at heart, rather than the interests of the union as an organisation (i.e. subs!).

[cormacshaw]

In an effort to dispel any confusion on what the options are, there follows an executive summary (of the kind favoured by certain ministers) of the possible future developments. The graphic below is taken from the Enviornmental Impact Statement for the proposed northern runway and shows the runway/taxiway layout superimposed on an aerial photo of the airport as it is now. I've added some graphics to show the building proposals (ignore the red and blue lines).

Pier D and Terminal 2 are two separate projects.

Pier D is simply an extension of the existing terminal to provide extra contact stands. Its (approximate) footprint is shown in green. The main building would be connected to the current terminal via a glass-encased elevated walkway that would curve around the listed 'Old' Terminal (the only construction at the airport of architectural merit). IIRC, Pier D would provide a net gain of just 8 contact stands.

As for the second terminal, there were 13 expressions of interest initally evaluated (I think the number has been whittled down since). They were spread over four possible sites, marked by orange rings: A - North Adjacent (Northern Apron); B - Western Remote (Midfield); C - South Adjacent (Cargo area); D - South Remote. Sites A and B had multiple proposals each, with the Ryanair proposal being one of those for A. It is the only one that I saw any building details for - they did thing for the press with a building model. Its approximate footprint is shown in purple. It has nose in stands along its entire northern side, extends pretty far west towards the centre of the field and has more stands on the southern facing side at this western end. It appears to me that the Ryanair proposal is incompatible with Pier D (I had also assumed at this stage that a 'go' for Terminal 2 would kill off Pier D if it wasn't started in any case). Other proposals for site A may not interfere with Pier D. I am not sure how far east teh Ryanair terminal proposal extends and therefore how many of the hangers would have to go - I think that the big easternmost SR Techniks (ex FLS) hanger may be left untouched.
http://homepage.mac.com/cormacshaw/xpih/graphics/EIDW_future.jpg

[irishair2001]

Hi Guys,
I don't know if any of you remember going back a good few years ago the Aer Rianta publicity machine used to put out artists impressions and drawings of the proposed new piers,terminals and infrastructure for Dublin Airport.the first one was to be a satellite C that was to be a copy of B and would extend down to where the cargo area is now,this was cancelled to due to predictions that the passenger growth needed to justify it .would not materialise.

Then after that fiasco and the building of pier C ,they had a model at the Holiday fair that showed a remote pier in front of pier C (where the stands are now)connected to pier C by an underground walkway,this model also showed a pier that would have been an extension to the link building, extending out in front of the old Terminal building,needless to say none of this ever materialised and all that ever happened over the years was a few temporary modifications that became permanent,you only have to look at Dublin Airport from the perimetre road to see the cock up that has been made, Pier A ,or the mosque as it is more well known as and the rest of the buildings that look like a case study for Scrapheap Challenge,but all this was done or innitiated in the bygone days ,when air travel was for a select number, so Aer Rianta got away with spinning this crap and the vast majority of these travellers swallowed it as being the vision of the future,as another Irish Politician once said "People are like mushrooms,you keep them in the dark and feed them ****e" and this is still the perception of the DAA and our great socialist leader Bungling Bertie.

[akerosid]

I recall that proposal, now that you mention it. It is all quite a muddle.

The design shown for the FR terminal seems a lot bigger than I had thought; I understood (possibly quite wrongly) that it would only go as far as Pier D and pier D would link to T2. (I do hope that they're going to rename the piers, because it's going to be terribly confusing if it's (from left to right) C, B, A and D.)

The DAA has been very coy about the terminal design; I asked them about this some time ago and they'd only say that the new terminal design would be approved by the minister after easter. Will it be, like Pier C, just a long pier with nose in stands, or will there be piers jutting out? Or is there room for that?

Also, given the need to reduce congestion, won't the access roads and set-down areas need to be back from what's now the main road. Won't this push the terminal back further?

Finally, I wonder if it's possible, looking at what's likely to be proposed, to determine the passenger handling capacity of it (per hour and from that, per year)? I recall discussing this with an architect friend of mine and she said that a long pier with one side only of nose in stands was one of the least efficient designs possible.

Personally, I think if they go ahead with the North Apron site, it will be a national scandal. It's bad enough without the govt having said that the airport will handle 30m pax in ten years and then to provide us with a terminal which won't be able to meet that target.

[Irish Steve]

It's already too late!!!

DUB today was delaying passengers by up to 2 hours at security, and DAA have admitted on the news this evening that there is no short term fix to the problem.

Looking at the map above, I can't see anything other than the area B option working.

A pier in the cargo area would be a disaster, there's not enough cargo handling space now, and to remove it and the stands that are used would make it even harder to process cargo, which is not sensible.

The Pier D option is short term. It should have been started a couple of years ago to have been any help. Now, it's too late, and the entire thing is already in meltdown, as has been demonstrated today so clearly.

If area B is used for a new terminal, there's an option then some way down the line to have another terminal further west, parallel to the new terminal, similar to Denver, and that should provide enough space and gates to cover for a long time.

More congestion in the existing terminal area by putting T2 over the old hangar area is doomed, there's too much concentrated in that area already, adding even more will only cause total grid lock.

Area C, the south east corner, is going to put too much pressure on the crossing areas in the vicinity of the 28L/34 threshold, and remember that there are days when 16/34 has to be used because of the weather. Trying to get even more movements in that area just isn't going to work.

Having said that, the area B proposed is a problem, there are hangars, the entire IAA complex and the new tower, and the fire station blocking one side of the access to the area on the map, so that's going to have to be addressed.

As we've said previously, the biggest problem of the lot is a total and absolute abandonment by Aer Rianta/DAA and the governement of any sort of coherent long term strategic plan for aviation, with the results that we've now seen today. SIPTU are an issue, but the real problem, and the one that's not going to be solved for a very long time, is DAA & government. They are the ones that have totally lost the plot, and risk losing a lot more if they don't get their act together very rapidly.

Ideally, a number of heads should roll, but given the semi state culture, that's not going to happen, in over 15 years I've yet to see any head of a semi state resign (or be fired) because they've made a total b:mad:s of the job, so we're now stuck with a crowd of failed incompetents with no clear plan, trying to muddle through a complete shambles!!!

[Irish Steve]

Cormacshaw,

Update based on some more thoughts later in the evening.

From what I can recall of some detailed plans I saw, pier D was going to cover a much larger area than you've outlined, and was going to have more than 8 stands, as it was going to take pretty much the entire triangle of land that's in the centre of the remote stands north of pier A., which is stands 76 to about 126, with gaps.

Another thought, might be crazy, but it would help more than some.

A whole collection of elevated multi level portacabins in the area at present used for parking and cargo aircraft, parallel to Pier C, stands 49 to 61 could help, as they could then be used as holding areas for the passengers using aircraft on those stands. At the moment, they all end up being bussed out to the stands, so that needs space in the existing terminal, and causes hassle because of the problem of getting buses out there. There would be space for at least 10 to 12 contact stands out there, and they are large enough to take 330s and 747's which would solve some problems now, especially in the mornings with all the large transatlantics.

[cormacshaw]

akerosid wrote:The design shown for the FR terminal seems a lot bigger than I had thought; I understood (possibly quite wrongly) that it would only go as far as Pier D and pier D would link to T2.
There have been two distinct Pier D plans. One was granted planning permission in 1999. A second larger design, intended as a low cost, fast turn-around facility was granted plannign permission in 2002. I've dug out a copy of the report by the inspector for An Bord Pleanála for the appeal by Ryanair and Portmarnock residents against granting of planning permission for latter. One of Ryanairs objections was that Pier D's location would "'may likely prejudice' the location of a Second Terminal". In the photo of the model of I saw, Ryanair's proposed T2 definitely extended into the area of Pier D (stand/manouvering space, if not the buildings themselves).
The report also clearly states that Pier D is to be connected to the link building between Pier A and the Main Terminal via an elevated walkway (which would run around the eastern side of the Old Terminal and not the western side as I have depicted above). This incidently was one of the contentious issues with Pier D as it would partially obscure the Old Terminal, a protected structure.
The DAA has been very coy about the terminal design
The Northern apron site was the location for several proposals, including Ryanair's. Is the DAA pushing for one in particular or just that location or has it said sod all them, we have our own idea? Also, only some of the submitted T2 proposals contained full layout plans and they would not be fully 'locked off' at this stage. They may well end up picking a site and then assessing from scratch what to build?
Will it be, like Pier C, just a long pier with nose in stands
The Ryanair model was just that but with stands on the southern side of the western end too (its these that would definitely clash with Pier D). Other submissions may differ but there is not a lot of room available between the site and the northern runway.

Irish Steve wrote:
A pier in the cargo area would be a disaster, there's not enough cargo handling space now, and to remove it and the stands that are used would make it even harder to process cargo, which is not sensible
The site C option appears to have been totally put aside anyway. The initial evaluation of submissions recognised the need to relocate completely the hangers or cargo facilities if Sites A or C were chosen and suggested that Sites B or especially D could provide the alternative. All very costly of course.
If area B is used for a new terminal, there's an option then some way down the line to have another terminal further west
I am not sure where the exactly Site B is other than being midfield, it could indeed be further west. As far as future development goes, if the design spans the entire midfield area, it would make more sense to build as far west as you can and then make further terminal/airside developments towards the east, otherwise you'd end up tearing up landside facilities. Of you go for the Dallas-Forth Worth option and build a central corridor for landside access and put your initial terminal facilities at the eastern 'head' and leave room to north and south for further airside development.
Having said that, the area B proposed is a problem, there are hangars, the entire IAA complex and the new tower, and the fire station blocking one side of the access to the area on the map, so that's going to have to be addressed.
This is trivial. There is plenty of room between these sites to locate taxiways and service roads running east-west. I wouldn't be surprised if the western hangers/aprons were relocated but the tower and fire station would in fact end up in an ideal midfield site, as is common elsewhere.I also presume that most aircraft would access Site B via taxiways running north-south to the parallel taxiways of the current and future runways.
From what I can recall of some detailed plans I saw, pier D was going to cover a much larger area than you've outlined, and was going to have more than 8 stands
It may indeed be a bit bigger than the footprint above but not too much - according to the An Bord Pleneala document, the building measures 30m x 287m (an A330 is 60m long for comparision above) and two storeys (14m) high. Its also not clear to me if it is straight or has a dog-leg as depicted above - I've seen 3rd-party diagrams showing both.
It would indeed have 12 stands (6 either side) but as Ryanair asserted in its objection it would eliminate 4 existing stands (not clear if this includes remotes), therefore a net gain of 8.
A whole collection of elevated multi level portacabins in the area at present used for parking and cargo aircraft
You'd still have to bus the passengers out to the portacabins so I don't see how that would solve anything. DAA's masterplan does have a provision for a remote pier there alright but with an underground connection. You could have a portacabin/temporary building solution somewhere landside to hold passengers that were to be bused to remote stands.

The discussion on Pier is probably moot. The DAA has been instructed not to build anything until the T2 decision is made. The T2 proposals Evaluation document states "An independent terminal development would be likely to remove the need to build Pier D in the short term, but would not remove the need to replace Pier A, and potentially redevelop Pier B in the existing terminal."

[akerosid]

It looks, today, as if the government is seeing sense as it aims for an accommodation between the FFers and the PDs. The compromise is expected to be a third terminal, in the midfield area. There is a concern that the proposed second terminal is going to be limited in capacity. The apparent plan is that the third terminal would only be built if the airport pax numbers climb towards 30m. That's fine, as long as the planning etc. for the new terminal is put in place well before it's needed, so that the new terminal can be in place when we need it.

This is a very significant step in the right direction; it still means a second terminal on the north apron site (one can't help wondering if the midfield site could be brought forward and we'd only have two); however, it is certainly reassuring that the PDs are digging their heels in.

The operation of T2 still remains a sticking point; on the one hand, MO'L will sue if the DAA gets to operate the new terminal, but the Attorney General has been called in to give an opinion on whether the DAA can be excluded (as the PDs want). I think that if there's a fair and open tender for the terminal's operation, including the DAA, that should be enough. If the DAA loses (as it probably should, against any competition), then that suits almost everyone (except, perhaps the DAA.)

One can't help wondering what would have happened if FF had done this on its own? We'd have got the capacity constrained T2 on its own, still operated by the DAA, and no effort to look beyond that.

[akerosid]

Well, it was too good to be true!

The government has still not reached agreement (or more specifically, the Taoiseach has not managed to balance the demands of the PDs and SIPTU) on the whole terminal issue. We were told last Tuesday that a decision would be reached this Tuesday (tomorrow) on the Aer Lingus issue and it was not expected, at that time, that a decision would be reached on the terminal; now, we're told that the government is going to hold the whole thing over - Aer Lingus and all; one newspaper said yesterday that the terminal issue could drag on as far as Autumn.

It is, of course, unacceptable, that there should be a linkage between Aer Lingus and the terminal issue; the only thing they should have in common is that they're aviation issues. Logically, one would expect that if they've made a decision on Aer Lingus (and the increased t/a access), then these should be announced, so that they can focus their attention on the terminal issue.

There's still a very slim chance that the new terminal issue could be decided in time for tomorrow, but it was dismissed by the media. The issue is just going to drag on. The third terminal issue is seen as part of the deal, but Harney still wants the DAA kept out of T2.

It seems that the Taoiseach's role in this is just to adjudicate; clearly, he has no interest in the result, as long as the unions aren't upset and he isn't undermined himself. It's just a clear example of weathervaning; he spends millions on spin doctors, experts, consultants and the whole lot, but he is so paralysed by the fear of losing power that he is unable to take decisions. And people wonder why there is so much cynicism about politics. :mad: :mad: :mad: