Aer Lingus objects to new DUB runway
Thread Starter
Join Date: Aug 1999
Location: Dublin, Ireland
Posts: 1,879
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Aer Lingus objects to new DUB runway
The Irish Indo reports this morning that EI is objecting to a new €100m runway at DUB (parallel to the current 10/28), citing the high cost of the project.
There seems to be some confusion about the Aer Rianta plans, because the report also quotes a Michael O'Leary plan to extend the shorter runway and I'm not sure if he's talking about 16/34 or 10/28 (I suspect the former). However, Aer Rianta is said to be talking about plans to extend a runway, to be completed by 2009; if (as I suspect), this refers to 10/28, AR needs a right clip around the ear!
The current length of 10/28 has long been believed to have been influenced by a desire to minimise the prospects for long haul flights (particularly t/a, due to the stopover) from DUB. Whether this is true or not, I'm not sure. Whatever the reason, if DUB is to expand its long haul network - and particularly if a competing terminal is to be built at DUB, this runway will need to be lengthened.
Can EI/FR pilots throw light on this issue; can/should the existing 10/28 be extended a lot sooner? Surely a parallel runway is needed if the airport continues to grow, as 28/34 can't be used together. Does IALPA have a view?
There seems to be some confusion about the Aer Rianta plans, because the report also quotes a Michael O'Leary plan to extend the shorter runway and I'm not sure if he's talking about 16/34 or 10/28 (I suspect the former). However, Aer Rianta is said to be talking about plans to extend a runway, to be completed by 2009; if (as I suspect), this refers to 10/28, AR needs a right clip around the ear!
The current length of 10/28 has long been believed to have been influenced by a desire to minimise the prospects for long haul flights (particularly t/a, due to the stopover) from DUB. Whether this is true or not, I'm not sure. Whatever the reason, if DUB is to expand its long haul network - and particularly if a competing terminal is to be built at DUB, this runway will need to be lengthened.
Can EI/FR pilots throw light on this issue; can/should the existing 10/28 be extended a lot sooner? Surely a parallel runway is needed if the airport continues to grow, as 28/34 can't be used together. Does IALPA have a view?
Rebel PPRuNer
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: Toronto, Canada (formerly EICK)
Age: 51
Posts: 2,834
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
call me cynical, but the death of the proposal for CPT etc. means EI don't need extra runway right now, and keeping cap on air movements keeps them from extra competition, particularly A340 and 777 max weight competition...
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: LAX
Posts: 59
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
runway extension
The current runway of 28/10 will have it's threshold extended in the future to eventually reach what is now the old Swords road which will be closed or possibly re-routed.
The 16/34 cannot be extended the the south as it will interfer with the M50 motorway and the blocks of flats to the south of the field and cannot be extended as they would have to put several thousand tons of earth as the start of the runway would need to be elevated.
The runway which is being extended is 29/11 per the 60yr plan issued by Aer Rianta.
They had a fair at the end of the year in the airport showing their plans and what was to be expected.
Why ALT are objecting to it if it is true is beyond me as a new runway will increase the airport capacity and bring more possible chances of revenue to all carriers.
The other headache in the airport from my point of view is parking
Aer Rianta in their wisdom shown in the latest AIP show that they will be closing the light aircraft parking A & B to make more stands and hence no forth coming area being offered for parking.
There are 4 self manouvering stands where i have parked my G4 but these too are going soon to make room for Pier D.
Aer Rianta the airport authority don't have a proper executive air terminal in Dublin and don't realise that although the private jets carry small amounts of passengers they actualling carry most of the main business people who make the main business decisions in the country of Ireland .,......yet they make them park miles from the terminal building and shun them when crews like us request better parking facilities but they just don't listen.
As far as Aer Rianta mgmt are concerned the corporate traffic should be moved to Baldonnel or Gormanstown but NOT IN THEIR BACK YARD!!!!!
The 16/34 cannot be extended the the south as it will interfer with the M50 motorway and the blocks of flats to the south of the field and cannot be extended as they would have to put several thousand tons of earth as the start of the runway would need to be elevated.
The runway which is being extended is 29/11 per the 60yr plan issued by Aer Rianta.
They had a fair at the end of the year in the airport showing their plans and what was to be expected.
Why ALT are objecting to it if it is true is beyond me as a new runway will increase the airport capacity and bring more possible chances of revenue to all carriers.
The other headache in the airport from my point of view is parking
Aer Rianta in their wisdom shown in the latest AIP show that they will be closing the light aircraft parking A & B to make more stands and hence no forth coming area being offered for parking.
There are 4 self manouvering stands where i have parked my G4 but these too are going soon to make room for Pier D.
Aer Rianta the airport authority don't have a proper executive air terminal in Dublin and don't realise that although the private jets carry small amounts of passengers they actualling carry most of the main business people who make the main business decisions in the country of Ireland .,......yet they make them park miles from the terminal building and shun them when crews like us request better parking facilities but they just don't listen.
As far as Aer Rianta mgmt are concerned the corporate traffic should be moved to Baldonnel or Gormanstown but NOT IN THEIR BACK YARD!!!!!
Thread Starter
Join Date: Aug 1999
Location: Dublin, Ireland
Posts: 1,879
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
This is a job for SuperSeamus . . .
Joking apart, something needs to be done to ensure that the runway issue is dealt with satisfactorily. I am glad to read of plans to extend 10/28, which I believe should be a priority; there is certainly sufficient space to allow the runway to be extended to at least 10,000' within the current confines of the airport, particularly from the 10 end.
But if this can be done, wouldn't a shorter parallel runway (as a realignment of 11/29 do the trick - something about 8,000' or so?) The need for a parallel runway is clear, but the big problem is that if long haul flights are to be developed and particularly if a new terminal operator is to be introduced, a longer runway will be needed. From the viewpoint of the new operator, it will want to have a free hand, devoid of any bilateral (e.g. stopover) or physical (runway length) restrictions. It doesn't augur well that we seem to be imposing both, hence the need for the minister to get involved and order an extension of 10/28 as soon as practicable.
But if this can be done, wouldn't a shorter parallel runway (as a realignment of 11/29 do the trick - something about 8,000' or so?) The need for a parallel runway is clear, but the big problem is that if long haul flights are to be developed and particularly if a new terminal operator is to be introduced, a longer runway will be needed. From the viewpoint of the new operator, it will want to have a free hand, devoid of any bilateral (e.g. stopover) or physical (runway length) restrictions. It doesn't augur well that we seem to be imposing both, hence the need for the minister to get involved and order an extension of 10/28 as soon as practicable.
Rebel PPRuNer
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: Toronto, Canada (formerly EICK)
Age: 51
Posts: 2,834
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
What one hears is that management tried to screw the crew into very dubious terms to operate the route. The crew said, no way.
see here:
http://www.irishaviation.net/forums/...ML/000602.html
see here:
http://www.irishaviation.net/forums/...ML/000602.html
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: Dublin/Ireland
Posts: 116
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
dublin's 10/28
Aer-Rianta's last master plan contained the extented runway going to the swords road and also the much talked about pier D,neither were completed.I think the airlines objections are a result of Aer-Rianta's take it or leave approach and poor facilities available at Dublin,one only has to look at the queues at the security desk in Dublin,s terminal.Lets hope the new terminal gets the go ahead shortly and maybe in 3or4 years time we might have a proper terminal
