Aer Lingus to order 3 A380's
Join Date: Aug 1999
Location: Dublin, Ireland
Posts: 1,879
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Thanks, Sky_captain!
I saw the minister talking about the whole terminal thing; he was an interviewed about the whole airport thing and suggested that the idea of EI (or FR) operating a terminal was mischievous. He is certainly against airlines operating terminals.
As for the runway, the new runway is unlikely to be open until 2012, so that's seven years. I really see no prospect of that being brought forward. A 777 would have a to knock a good 20-30t off its MTOW to operate from 28, so that's really not an option. It could just about make HKG.
We could "get by" with the runway as it is, but I think as a country, we're past the stage where we should be happy with just "getting by". The current runway is too short. Period. For t/a flights, it's fine, but if EI wants to fly to Asia, then it'll have problems. The A330-200 could probably do HKG, so I guess that's the baseline they'll use, but let's take a wider view. The government recently issued an Asia Strategy Report, which had some very interesting ambitions and targets, all very creditable - but no recognition of what would be needed to achieve these (i.e. transport links etc.) This should have been part of it; for something as important as this, there needs to be co-ordination, but did we see it? Of course not. There's no vision from "on high", so the civil service doesn't feel under any pressure to deliver.
If the runway could be extended to a decent length, a top class regional hub like Seoul could come into range from DUB; nonstop. Now, you may think that's ambitious, but if you want to be competitive, you've got to reduce transport costs. Airlines spend billions on long haul aircraft, so they're not going to want to fly to places where the performance of their aircraft is limited (e.g. above - SQ's 777s have an MTOW of 297t, so why operate from an airport where that's cut by 30t?!). The worry is that over the next few years, our economy might be hit by an international economic slowdown or downturn; if our competitive position is undermined by poor vision, a lack of planning or potential being undermined by these shortcomings, we're going to suffer more than is necessary. By creating opportunities rather than restricting them and anticipating what we need to do to ensure we can access new markets more economically, we can achieve a lot, but you can go blue in the face (trust me, I know) trying to get this message across and the interest JUST ISN'T THERE.
We can make aviation serve our economic needs much more efficiently, but it's going to need the swift application of pitchforks to buttocks to get it to happen. It needs that level of pressure; an "either do it or your fired" approach. This govt by consensus stuff is complete BS as far as aviation is concerned. It's just a shield for a lack of interest and putting political survival ahead of national economic needs.
Oh yes and I'd still like to EI A380s.
I saw the minister talking about the whole terminal thing; he was an interviewed about the whole airport thing and suggested that the idea of EI (or FR) operating a terminal was mischievous. He is certainly against airlines operating terminals.
As for the runway, the new runway is unlikely to be open until 2012, so that's seven years. I really see no prospect of that being brought forward. A 777 would have a to knock a good 20-30t off its MTOW to operate from 28, so that's really not an option. It could just about make HKG.
We could "get by" with the runway as it is, but I think as a country, we're past the stage where we should be happy with just "getting by". The current runway is too short. Period. For t/a flights, it's fine, but if EI wants to fly to Asia, then it'll have problems. The A330-200 could probably do HKG, so I guess that's the baseline they'll use, but let's take a wider view. The government recently issued an Asia Strategy Report, which had some very interesting ambitions and targets, all very creditable - but no recognition of what would be needed to achieve these (i.e. transport links etc.) This should have been part of it; for something as important as this, there needs to be co-ordination, but did we see it? Of course not. There's no vision from "on high", so the civil service doesn't feel under any pressure to deliver.
If the runway could be extended to a decent length, a top class regional hub like Seoul could come into range from DUB; nonstop. Now, you may think that's ambitious, but if you want to be competitive, you've got to reduce transport costs. Airlines spend billions on long haul aircraft, so they're not going to want to fly to places where the performance of their aircraft is limited (e.g. above - SQ's 777s have an MTOW of 297t, so why operate from an airport where that's cut by 30t?!). The worry is that over the next few years, our economy might be hit by an international economic slowdown or downturn; if our competitive position is undermined by poor vision, a lack of planning or potential being undermined by these shortcomings, we're going to suffer more than is necessary. By creating opportunities rather than restricting them and anticipating what we need to do to ensure we can access new markets more economically, we can achieve a lot, but you can go blue in the face (trust me, I know) trying to get this message across and the interest JUST ISN'T THERE.
We can make aviation serve our economic needs much more efficiently, but it's going to need the swift application of pitchforks to buttocks to get it to happen. It needs that level of pressure; an "either do it or your fired" approach. This govt by consensus stuff is complete BS as far as aviation is concerned. It's just a shield for a lack of interest and putting political survival ahead of national economic needs.
Oh yes and I'd still like to EI A380s.
Join Date: Sep 1999
Location: ME
Posts: 5,502
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
akerosid,
There are a lot of airlines computing on the LHR- Asia routes, I would have thought that at least one of them would have analyzed the benefits of flying into Dublin, the fact that none of them are operating the route leads me to believe that:
1: They haven’t analyzed the route.
2: They have analyzed it and realized that the market isn’t there!
What do you think?
Mutt
There are a lot of airlines computing on the LHR- Asia routes, I would have thought that at least one of them would have analyzed the benefits of flying into Dublin, the fact that none of them are operating the route leads me to believe that:
1: They haven’t analyzed the route.
2: They have analyzed it and realized that the market isn’t there!
What do you think?
Mutt
Rebel PPRuNer
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: Toronto, Canada (formerly EICK)
Age: 51
Posts: 2,834
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Dublin:
The fact is that Dublin Airport cannot operate legitimately as a major European airport until every passenger can transfer airside to another aircraft if they so wish.
Already DAA are muttering about increasing charges to fund 10L/28R so it looks like DUB will be fast approaching YYZ fees except we can't expect something like YYZ T1 for the money that will be spent!
Dublin at present does not fit the bill. Until then the connecting traffic to put 555+ (and in an EI config it will be "+") passengers on an A380-800 is going to be tough.
Aer Lingus:
EI's policy since 2000 or so has been to reduce fleet types to condense fleet training and have fewer spare crew and spares. F50/146/73x all chopped, now just 32x/33x. Any new type will incur an initial cost and an ongoing cost where commonality with the existing types is not present. Unless Airbus will pick up the tab for a lot of the initial cost that is a big burden for EI.
Jim posits the new money will pay for all this. The new investment money will be a good thing if:
(a) it ever happens at all
(b) the investment groups aren't frightened off by EI's continual fights with the unions, their proximity to MOL, their primary base at a hodgepodge like DUB and the fact that even when .gov.ie has sold the last share they will still probably find ways to legislatively hobble them (as Air Canada is with the Public Participation Act).
The 777/787 order, replacing the 333/332 as it will, is very like the situation at AC. A viable proposition likely to be screwed because of management mishandling of one or more union groups.
A380-700:
The next A380 model will be the -900 if it ever happens, because EK is on record as wanting it and they will want more than three if they start writing cheques.
The development cycle for Airbus at present means this project must take its place in the queue behind A388 delivery, A350 development, A330K, A400M, all of which are approved projects.
More important than 387 in the to-do list is 320NG and it would be folly of Airbus to behave otherwise, although their ceding of the 310 market to the 783 was a surprise.
A 387 would be too close to the heavy 773s and 747A to repay development costs - the 388 is having enough trouble in this department.
Four engines for longhaul is on the way out unless a couple of 359s or 773ERs go down in the far out Pacific or catastrophic problems are found with 100k lb+ engines. Not likely but not impossible. I'm going with not likely.
The fact is that Dublin Airport cannot operate legitimately as a major European airport until every passenger can transfer airside to another aircraft if they so wish.
Already DAA are muttering about increasing charges to fund 10L/28R so it looks like DUB will be fast approaching YYZ fees except we can't expect something like YYZ T1 for the money that will be spent!
Dublin at present does not fit the bill. Until then the connecting traffic to put 555+ (and in an EI config it will be "+") passengers on an A380-800 is going to be tough.
Aer Lingus:
EI's policy since 2000 or so has been to reduce fleet types to condense fleet training and have fewer spare crew and spares. F50/146/73x all chopped, now just 32x/33x. Any new type will incur an initial cost and an ongoing cost where commonality with the existing types is not present. Unless Airbus will pick up the tab for a lot of the initial cost that is a big burden for EI.
Jim posits the new money will pay for all this. The new investment money will be a good thing if:
(a) it ever happens at all
(b) the investment groups aren't frightened off by EI's continual fights with the unions, their proximity to MOL, their primary base at a hodgepodge like DUB and the fact that even when .gov.ie has sold the last share they will still probably find ways to legislatively hobble them (as Air Canada is with the Public Participation Act).
The 777/787 order, replacing the 333/332 as it will, is very like the situation at AC. A viable proposition likely to be screwed because of management mishandling of one or more union groups.
A380-700:
The next A380 model will be the -900 if it ever happens, because EK is on record as wanting it and they will want more than three if they start writing cheques.
The development cycle for Airbus at present means this project must take its place in the queue behind A388 delivery, A350 development, A330K, A400M, all of which are approved projects.
More important than 387 in the to-do list is 320NG and it would be folly of Airbus to behave otherwise, although their ceding of the 310 market to the 783 was a surprise.
A 387 would be too close to the heavy 773s and 747A to repay development costs - the 388 is having enough trouble in this department.
Four engines for longhaul is on the way out unless a couple of 359s or 773ERs go down in the far out Pacific or catastrophic problems are found with 100k lb+ engines. Not likely but not impossible. I'm going with not likely.
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: Scotland
Posts: 107
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
although their ceding of the 310 market to the 783 was a surprise.
Besides... the A380 has kept them uber busy.
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Everywhere
Posts: 190
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Mutt, from what I hear BMI have looked at operating long haul out of Ireland, not sure about asia but there is talk of using DUB for their current roiutes and saving money on slots and fees at LHR.
The fact is that Dublin Airport cannot operate legitimately as a major European airport until every passenger can transfer airside to another aircraft if they so wish.
ery true, and can not happen in the current terminal, imagine what will (or wont be) able to happen in the new terminal.
Akerosid, I think we should all just move out of Ireland. Your in Jersey right, whats it like over there?
S.C.
The fact is that Dublin Airport cannot operate legitimately as a major European airport until every passenger can transfer airside to another aircraft if they so wish.
ery true, and can not happen in the current terminal, imagine what will (or wont be) able to happen in the new terminal.
Akerosid, I think we should all just move out of Ireland. Your in Jersey right, whats it like over there?
S.C.
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: No Fixed Abode
Posts: 484
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
If they decided to extend the current 29/11, it would allow 28/10 to remain fully operational until complete, and then think about extending 28 when you have another runway for all to use.
Whatever happens, a longer runway is years off yet.
Whatever happens, a longer runway is years off yet.
Not Manchester
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Salford
Posts: 506
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
That happened because they were too busy rubbishing the 787 and not paying attention to what exactly the latter is being targeted at.
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: Scotland
Posts: 107
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Still asking the obvious questions eh?
Well, to humor you, the answer is: Common sense.
Look at Airbus's attitude towards the 7e7/787 until they launched the A350.
"The A330 will suffice"
"A re-engined A330 is all we need"
etc
Then, we have the A380. A huge project in more ways than one, and it willl have occupied a good deal of their strategists, engineers and such.
Common sense tells you that the huge A380 project, coupled with their disbeleif in the validity of the 7e7/787 led to them loosing sight of its intended markets.
Boeing did much the same with the advent of the A320. They were too busy buring their heads in the sand to realise it was a good project.
How refreshing it is to know you can't censor me here
Well, to humor you, the answer is: Common sense.
Look at Airbus's attitude towards the 7e7/787 until they launched the A350.
"The A330 will suffice"
"A re-engined A330 is all we need"
etc
Then, we have the A380. A huge project in more ways than one, and it willl have occupied a good deal of their strategists, engineers and such.
Common sense tells you that the huge A380 project, coupled with their disbeleif in the validity of the 7e7/787 led to them loosing sight of its intended markets.
Boeing did much the same with the advent of the A320. They were too busy buring their heads in the sand to realise it was a good project.
How refreshing it is to know you can't censor me here
Last edited by Bmused55; 11th Jul 2005 at 19:39.
Not Manchester
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Salford
Posts: 506
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Common sense.
How refreshing it is to know you can't censor me here
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: Scotland
Posts: 107
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Yes, I do actualy have a source, but this sort of thing is not written down on a website for the all to read.
But again, like on your forum, all you do is pick a word or two, form an opinion and disregard the rest of the explination. How about you actualy read what I've said, and check it out for yourself.
But again, like on your forum, all you do is pick a word or two, form an opinion and disregard the rest of the explination. How about you actualy read what I've said, and check it out for yourself.
Not Manchester
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Salford
Posts: 506
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Swift edit, pal..... a very good move indeed. 
Now, to return to matters that are worthy of attention........
Provided that the runway and terminal at DUB were extended/improved there's no actual concrete reason why EI couldn't order and operate a number of A380s at some future date, is there?
They don't currently operate any large Boeing types - but do operate the A320, A 321 and A330 so one might reasonably think that Airbus would have at least a slight edge in any future wide-body procurement by EI.
Having said that, I personally think we'll see the A380 in Ryanair livery before we'll see it in Aer Lingus livery.
Now, to return to matters that are worthy of attention........
Provided that the runway and terminal at DUB were extended/improved there's no actual concrete reason why EI couldn't order and operate a number of A380s at some future date, is there?
They don't currently operate any large Boeing types - but do operate the A320, A 321 and A330 so one might reasonably think that Airbus would have at least a slight edge in any future wide-body procurement by EI.
Having said that, I personally think we'll see the A380 in Ryanair livery before we'll see it in Aer Lingus livery.
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Pub
Age: 36
Posts: 128
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I think it was Mark who said that the new runway (not expected to open until 2012!) won't be long enough to handle the 744/380
Join Date: Aug 1999
Location: Dublin, Ireland
Posts: 1,879
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hi all,
It is a disgrace, as Mark D. says, that you can't transfer from one flight to another at DUB unless you go landside. It's even more amazing that in all the furore over security queues a few weeks back, that barely got a mention!
As for Asia, Mutt, I think a lot of airlines have taken the view that Ireland is a relatively small market best served out of London. There have been a few problems for us here; firstly, the two biggest carriers on routes to Asia have been BA/QF, neither of which would be likely to operate directly to DUB - certainly with 744s. QF might look at it if it got 772s, but I'm not holding my breath and of course, we can't wait for them. Other airlines like SQ and MH have looked and I think they came to the conclusion that the business wasn't there. However, I know for a fact that DUB is on EK's list. I've had that confirmation from the airline itself (and I've lobbied them fairly strongly).
As for EI, I think the Boeing types are the best; the A350 just leaves me cold. They seem to make up the figures as they go along. The 787 is wider; it's a completely new design and not just a rehash of an existing (admittedly excellent) fuselage design. The 787 uses new, lightweight technology and given Boeing's recent aggressiveness (with AI and AC - and I think AC will eventually do a deal), it won't let EI go without a big fight. There is a curious position re EI, in that because of the doubt over the whole Shannon stopover thing and the "imminent" EU/US deal, EI will need to react quickly and get aircraft at possibly short notice if it gets the green light. Now, as we know, A330s and 777s are thin on the ground, so the winning manufacturer may well be the one which makes sure EI gets the acft it needs when it needs them.
Which brings me to bmi/Virgin. I see a UK airline (possibly others) taking advantage of the new open skies deal; I don't think it will be BD, since they have an acft shortage. I do, however, see a distinct possibility that VS could be interested and this happened, VS would tear strips off EI, on quality grounds.
It is a disgrace, as Mark D. says, that you can't transfer from one flight to another at DUB unless you go landside. It's even more amazing that in all the furore over security queues a few weeks back, that barely got a mention!
As for Asia, Mutt, I think a lot of airlines have taken the view that Ireland is a relatively small market best served out of London. There have been a few problems for us here; firstly, the two biggest carriers on routes to Asia have been BA/QF, neither of which would be likely to operate directly to DUB - certainly with 744s. QF might look at it if it got 772s, but I'm not holding my breath and of course, we can't wait for them. Other airlines like SQ and MH have looked and I think they came to the conclusion that the business wasn't there. However, I know for a fact that DUB is on EK's list. I've had that confirmation from the airline itself (and I've lobbied them fairly strongly).
As for EI, I think the Boeing types are the best; the A350 just leaves me cold. They seem to make up the figures as they go along. The 787 is wider; it's a completely new design and not just a rehash of an existing (admittedly excellent) fuselage design. The 787 uses new, lightweight technology and given Boeing's recent aggressiveness (with AI and AC - and I think AC will eventually do a deal), it won't let EI go without a big fight. There is a curious position re EI, in that because of the doubt over the whole Shannon stopover thing and the "imminent" EU/US deal, EI will need to react quickly and get aircraft at possibly short notice if it gets the green light. Now, as we know, A330s and 777s are thin on the ground, so the winning manufacturer may well be the one which makes sure EI gets the acft it needs when it needs them.
Which brings me to bmi/Virgin. I see a UK airline (possibly others) taking advantage of the new open skies deal; I don't think it will be BD, since they have an acft shortage. I do, however, see a distinct possibility that VS could be interested and this happened, VS would tear strips off EI, on quality grounds.
Not Manchester
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Salford
Posts: 506
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Interesting point about VS.
After all, how difficult would it really be to pack a couple of A340s or B747s off to Filton for a repaint and to set up "Virgin Ireland" , complete with shamrocks, blarney and extra leprechauns?
Branson would revel in it. He'd probably dye his beard green for the launch party.
After all, how difficult would it really be to pack a couple of A340s or B747s off to Filton for a repaint and to set up "Virgin Ireland" , complete with shamrocks, blarney and extra leprechauns?
Branson would revel in it. He'd probably dye his beard green for the launch party.
Cool Mod
Join Date: Apr 1998
Location: 18nm N of LGW
Posts: 6,185
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
You have a few posts to bring this topic back to a level that removes childish rants, bickering and backbiting - not to mention abuse and insults.
I have removed Jim from the argument and Bmused55 is pushing it - and you can be censored! Gentlemen, behave like one please.
PPP
I have removed Jim from the argument and Bmused55 is pushing it - and you can be censored! Gentlemen, behave like one please.
PPP
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Cork,Ireland
Posts: 17
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
hmmm interesting discussion you got here casab et al.
Please allow me to put forward my understanding of this topic and respond if I need correcting!
It seems to me three main arguments against A380 procurement have been outined here
i)procurement cost
ii)home market
iii)infrastructure at our capitals airport.
At the moment with Aerlingus making net profits below 5 million for last year with a relatively high load factor it seems to me that A380 procurement would be out of the question for quite a while. A jump from 290 seats to 555 seats would probably not be favoured unless a substantial increase in market happens to ensure high load factors rem.Possibly this could happen if they opened new routes to lets says south east Asia,oceania.
But then this does open the question as to where these 560 tonne jets could fly from.Dublin? a recent Airbus study suggested that runway slabs would experience stress and strain levels close to those of the A340-600 so perhaps runway strength at Dublin would be adequate.
Perhaps if the infrastructure is adapted.I dont know whether this would require runway dimensions to be changed but it is expensive.BAA the Heathrow operators estimated spending at some $772 million to reposition taxiways and rebuild Pier 6 to accommodate the A380 and its passengers. The Port Authority of New York and New Jersey expected to spend in excess of $179 million on airside improvements at JFK, a figure that does not include terminal costs.
For dublin the extra cost of repositioning groundmanouvering signage ,and lighting perhaps would push the cost beyond reason.Somewhat I don't think our government would be willing to cash that cheque.This leaves Shannon as an option.Its certainly is long enough ,but would the cost of infrastructure costs justify its developement into some sort of irish hub?
Perhaps with the current market and load factors Aerlingus should stick to A330 or possibly A350 aircraft when they debut at the end of this decade?
These are merely questions and pleasecorrect me if I seem wrong - in reason and with the proper backup of course
Please allow me to put forward my understanding of this topic and respond if I need correcting!
It seems to me three main arguments against A380 procurement have been outined here
i)procurement cost
ii)home market
iii)infrastructure at our capitals airport.
At the moment with Aerlingus making net profits below 5 million for last year with a relatively high load factor it seems to me that A380 procurement would be out of the question for quite a while. A jump from 290 seats to 555 seats would probably not be favoured unless a substantial increase in market happens to ensure high load factors rem.Possibly this could happen if they opened new routes to lets says south east Asia,oceania.
But then this does open the question as to where these 560 tonne jets could fly from.Dublin? a recent Airbus study suggested that runway slabs would experience stress and strain levels close to those of the A340-600 so perhaps runway strength at Dublin would be adequate.
Perhaps if the infrastructure is adapted.I dont know whether this would require runway dimensions to be changed but it is expensive.BAA the Heathrow operators estimated spending at some $772 million to reposition taxiways and rebuild Pier 6 to accommodate the A380 and its passengers. The Port Authority of New York and New Jersey expected to spend in excess of $179 million on airside improvements at JFK, a figure that does not include terminal costs.
For dublin the extra cost of repositioning groundmanouvering signage ,and lighting perhaps would push the cost beyond reason.Somewhat I don't think our government would be willing to cash that cheque.This leaves Shannon as an option.Its certainly is long enough ,but would the cost of infrastructure costs justify its developement into some sort of irish hub?
Perhaps with the current market and load factors Aerlingus should stick to A330 or possibly A350 aircraft when they debut at the end of this decade?
These are merely questions and pleasecorrect me if I seem wrong - in reason and with the proper backup of course