EIA340600
Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
I had this to say on another forum and, unfortunately, I may not have been completely wrong.
Originally Posted by eia340600:
http://www.dublinairportauthority.co…s/introt2.html
A “tour” of the terminal.
From the off, I’ve been sceptical about passenger flows in the new terminal.This “tour” only heightens my fears.
For starters, departing passengers have to rise 2 floors after check in for security and shopping, only to have to descend 2 floors again to get to the gates.OR (USA bound passengers) descend 3 floors and rise another.
This is done so that arriving passengers only have one level change.In the current terminal departing passengers have NO level changes and arriving passengers have one(after getting off the plane).
Not only do passengers have to change floors time and time again, but departing and arriving passengers actually intersect on the 1st floor of the terminal!!Never have I seen this happen outside of tiny regional airports.By the looks of things, departing passengers will have to walk through the ever present crowds of waiting plebs to get to security.
This layout is there because of the “bridge” over the T1 road.However, the roads were re-arranged to suit the new terminal, not the other way round.Therefore the bridge was unnecessary, and a more traditional and more effective terminal could have been designed.
Even if the bridge had to be there, a more flow friendly layout could have been adopted, with arrivals on the ground floor, check-in on the first and security on the 2nd, with the pier layout changed respectively.
Or arrivals on the top with check-in and security below.In other words there were a million different possibilities that could have been used to design a more user friendly Terminal.I am dubious about T2 in that respect.
I hope I’m wrong, but I think T2 will be an incredibly annoying place to pass through..But I guess I’ll have to wait and see…”
I had this to say on another forum and, unfortunately, I may not have been completely wrong.
Originally Posted by eia340600:
http://www.dublinairportauthority.co…s/introt2.html
A “tour” of the terminal.
From the off, I’ve been sceptical about passenger flows in the new terminal.This “tour” only heightens my fears.
For starters, departing passengers have to rise 2 floors after check in for security and shopping, only to have to descend 2 floors again to get to the gates.OR (USA bound passengers) descend 3 floors and rise another.
This is done so that arriving passengers only have one level change.In the current terminal departing passengers have NO level changes and arriving passengers have one(after getting off the plane).
Not only do passengers have to change floors time and time again, but departing and arriving passengers actually intersect on the 1st floor of the terminal!!Never have I seen this happen outside of tiny regional airports.By the looks of things, departing passengers will have to walk through the ever present crowds of waiting plebs to get to security.
This layout is there because of the “bridge” over the T1 road.However, the roads were re-arranged to suit the new terminal, not the other way round.Therefore the bridge was unnecessary, and a more traditional and more effective terminal could have been designed.
Even if the bridge had to be there, a more flow friendly layout could have been adopted, with arrivals on the ground floor, check-in on the first and security on the 2nd, with the pier layout changed respectively.
Or arrivals on the top with check-in and security below.In other words there were a million different possibilities that could have been used to design a more user friendly Terminal.I am dubious about T2 in that respect.
I hope I’m wrong, but I think T2 will be an incredibly annoying place to pass through..But I guess I’ll have to wait and see…”
The extension could be completed within normal working hours for the most part, as the crosswind runway could be used for the vast majority of flights.The runway in Manchester was completely resurfaced over a number of nights without disruption so it’s certainly do-able.
At the moment you can fly to Australia with one stop but there is definitely room for competition.The current operators (Etihad) do extraordinarily well and often require multiple rotations a day on flights to Dublin and have done well throughout the recession.
@Bluetonic wrote:
There is enough land already in ownership for both the new parallel runway and an extension to the current main runway.
Fantastic…I wonder how much an extension would actually cost in that case…Couldn’t be much more than a small stretch of motorway plus a bit added on for special drainage and grip requirements..
Absolutely.I can’t imagine a couple of fields costing too much money at any rate but could surely be bought for pittance now.Land purchases are required for the 2nd runway anyway.I’d imagine that the DAA’s proposal for a second runway was put forward because they thought that they’d get it in the boom years, but now that money is tight they should be considering the least expensive projects that offer them the most.
Agreed. But in terms of runway Dublin cannot handle a fully loaded 777 with its current length.Air France do fly 777’s into Dublin regularly but these do not have the amount of fuel on board required for undertaking transatlantic flights.
The required takeoff length for a fully loaded A330 ranges from 2,220 to 2,500 metres.
The required takeoff length for a fully loaded B747 ranges from 3,090 to 3,320 metres.
The required takeoff length for a fully loaded B777 ranges from 2,500 to 3,536 metres, but only the least used models require 2,500 while the most popular models require 3,536.That means that only 88 out 1,141 777’s can go from Dublin.Dublin Airport’s longest runway is 2,637 metres which means it is able to handle an A330 comfortably, but not a B777 or B747.
Your definitely right about the second runway though.It won’t be required for another while (optimism?). But operators such as Singapore Airlines and Cathay Pacific have said that they would fly into Dublin if it had a longer runway, which can be achieved with a few land purchases and a runway extension.
@cryans wrote:
But looks like the new terminal will suffer a similar fate as the old central Termainl building which opened its doors in 1940, I think a war broke out or something so it must have been idle for many years. As will this new T2 be quite empty for many years at huge expense. 🙁
The 40’s terminal was designed with an eventual capacity of 15 m.p.p.a. This was raised to 20 m.p.p.a and eventually 23m.p.p.a with the opening of area 14 check in.T2 is designed to cater for 15 m.p.p.a. T1 will be cut back to cater for a max of 20 m.p.p.a again after T2’s opening.
This will leave 19 million passengers between the two terminals which have a combined capacity of 35 m.p.p.a.So both terminals will be handling just above half of their capacity.I believe that this is a comfortable level with enough room for growth in the coming years.
It’ll be quite a while before we get up to 35 m.p.p.a but if the DAA try hard enough to market their prime position in Europe, customs and border preclearance and extrra capacity then growth should happen quickly(provided they get a new runway capable of handling fully loaded long range aircraft such as the Boeing 777 and Airbus A340).
Most of these flights can be completed in two legs, something that services from Dublin to US secondary cities couldn’t improve on.If I want to go to, say, Charlotte I either fly direct to New York (Aer Lingus) and onto Charlotte (Jetblue) or I fly to London and straight to Charlotte.Two changes.
Dublin just dosn’t have the demand for routes to lots of secondary cities on its own.The only way for it to get them is to try become a major hub (as every other European airport is trying to do).I’m not saying it shouldn’t try but the reality is that 4 major hubs, with even more relatively major ones, in Europe is probably all that’s required now.
Unless Dublin gets that parallel runway it wants PLUS an extension to its current runway it can’t become a hub.
@PVC King wrote:
I would love to see Aer Lingus develop swap codeshares with a US carrier opening up new US destinations to unlock their impressive European route network.
They already have codeshares with Jetblue and United Airlines that open up a vast amount of cities to Aer Lingus passengers.They even have through-checked bags and it’s all on one ticket.
A video tour from DAA : http://www.dublinairportauthority.co…s/introt2.html
From the off, I’ve been sceptical about passenger flows in the new terminal.This “tour” only heightens my fears.
For starters, departing passengers have to rise 2 floors after check in for security and shopping, only to have to descend 2 floors again to get to the gates.OR (USA bound passengers) descend 3 floors and rise another.
This is done so that arriving passengers only have one level change.In the current terminal departing passengers have NO level changes and arriving passengers have one(after getting off the plane).
Not only do passengers have to change floors time and time again, but departing and arriving passengers actually intersect on the 1st floor of the terminal!!Never have I seen this happen outside of tiny regional airports.By the looks of things, departing passengers will have to walk through the ever present crowds of waiting plebs to get to security.
This layout is there because of the “bridge” over the T1 road.However, the roads were re-arranged to suit the new terminal, not the other way round.Therefore the bridge was unnecessary, and a more traditional and more effective terminal could have been designed.
Even if the bridge had to be there, a more flow friendly layout could have been adopted, with arrivals on the ground floor, check-in on the first and security on the 2nd, with the pier layout changed respectively.
Or arrivals on the top with check-in and security below.In other words there were a million different possibilities that could have been used to design a more user friendly Terminal.I am dubious about T2 in that respect.
I hope I’m wrong, but I think T2 will be an incredibly annoying place to pass through..But I guess I’ll have to wait and see…It looks well though..
They could ,but they won’t because they don’t have the economic lubrication required to start work on the tower.. the market is partially on top of the watchtower foundations…Can’t see too many market-goers sticking around to long with the sounds of pneumatic drills ringing in their ears either.
@cgcsb wrote:
In this article, Crosbie seems to indicate that Point Village will be complete in 2014
I don’t know where in that article you got “point village ready for 2014”
It simply says that the “Parlor” will stay there ’till 2014.
That means the chance of the watchtower springing up in the next 4 years are low, unless they’ve devised some system to build through occupied space.
Someday though….we’ll have a shiny building that’s taller than anything you could see in Cork…..Someday…..
How big are those screens…They don’t look overly massive, which is a bit of a shame.God knows we love overly massive…
Didn’t really realise how big it was until now
http://i656.photobucket.com/albums/uu281/anetpics2009/023.jpg
http://i656.photobucket.com/albums/uu281/anetpics2009/025.jpg
Slight bifurcation on current theme :
With the current expansion of the airport (New Terminal & 2nd runway perhaps), anyone out there know if the current control tower will be high enough to sufficiently cover the movement of aircraft and diverse vehicles on the tarmac, or would a taller structure be necessary ?Yup they will need a new control tower.Rumour has it that it is to be 80m high.
jimg,
“Sraid Ui Connaill Iochtarach” is not “makey-up bollocks”.On the contrary O’ Connell is a make-do translation from the IRISH surname “Ui Connaill”.Just as “Teach Saggard” isn’t a botched translation of Saggart Village.It is the opposite.Saggart village is a botched translation of “Teach Saggard”.
Iochtarach means lower.
Sraid means street.
Although I do understand your point that O’ Connell street never had an Irish name.
In fairness though that sign should be removed.It is litter, vandalism.
