kaitak
Posts: 8947
Joined: Wed Aug 18, 1999 5:49 am

No, It Can't Be - But It Is! Irish Aviation 25

Wed Dec 13, 2006 3:53 am

Yes, it is, my friends - our 25th thread. The Indian group has got up to No 37, but we'll catch them up - and we're dealing with a right bunch of cowboys at home anyway!

Welcome monsieurs, sit yourselves down and meet the best thread starter in town -
As for the rest, all of them crooks, rooking the guests and cooking the books.
Seldom do you see
Honest men like me
A gent of good intent,
who's content to be,
Master of the Thread,
doling out the charm,
ready with a handshake and an open palm,
tells a saucy tale,
makes a little stir,
customers appreciate a bon viveur ...

Welcome my friends, roll up one and all, and welcome to our Glorious 25th. Sit down, enjoy and share in the mad world that is Irish aviation ...

This one will probably take us up to Christmas, so let's hope that Santa has something nice to bring us over the Holiday season. I have my little list ...
 
User avatar
shamrock350
Posts: 4657
Joined: Mon Mar 28, 2005 12:38 am

RE: No, It Can't Be - But It Is! Irish Aviation 25

Wed Dec 13, 2006 4:01 am

Happy 25th Irish Aviation!

I hope Aer Lingus will at least order A330s before the end of January. Those 3 A330s that were rumoured for 2008 have probably been lost or reserved for EI but didn't Thai order 8 A330s this week?
 
dstc47
Posts: 1259
Joined: Thu Sep 16, 1999 3:53 am

RE: No, It Can't Be - But It Is! Irish Aviation 25

Wed Dec 13, 2006 4:06 am

Nice to see Ireland creeping upward, still a long way from the success of the Indian thread, but getting there.

Very little about the regional airports on this thread, heavily EI/FR & DAA oriented - any news from the provinces?
 
kaitak
Posts: 8947
Joined: Wed Aug 18, 1999 5:49 am

RE: No, It Can't Be - But It Is! Irish Aviation 25

Wed Dec 13, 2006 4:24 am

Well, there was the Aer Arann announcement of four new regional routes today, which was at the end of the last thread?

I know there are more Indian threads than Irish thread, but given the slight difference in scale, I think we're more than holding our own!

That said, I think Ireland can learn lessons from India; the PM, Dr. Manmohan Singh is one very bright guy - a US educated economist and former head of the Indian Central Bank; his predecessor, an affable rather other-worldly type, didn't have much interest in aviation and transport issues and the infamous Indian civil service was allowed to run riot and basically hold everything up, but under Singh (and his civil aviation minister, Praful Patel), things have really motored; the airline industry has been effectively deregulated, international flights have increased hugely with dramatic increases in flights and new bilaterals (for example, with the UK) and there are huge developments - much needed, from my experience, I can tell you - at Indian airports. But they're moving in the right direction; the interest and understanding is there and they're making progress.

Anyway, still looking to hear what happened in Brussels today; frankly, if Cullen doesn't get the right deal, he can stay there ...

As for EI and new aircraft, yes, certainly, they should place an order asap, but it should have happened by now. I still say that they need to be looking at next Summer and what extra capacity will be needed; if Cullen can bring home the bacon, EI will need new aircraft and if the Spanish authorities are good enough to sign the dead cert for Air Madrid, then EI should have two more aircraft; one more should do the trick - it really should be a GE aircraft, although an A340 might be a possibility. I guess it depends on what's available.

How long should EI need to plan and market the new routes? I'm working on the assumption that everything is planned and just needs the green light from Cullen to get it going - new cities selected, schedules ready, marketing campaign etc., all ready to go. This will be a big test for EI's management; the introduction of the DXB route was not entirely satisfactory - they had better get the new US cities right ...
 
al2637
Posts: 227
Joined: Mon Oct 16, 2006 1:11 am

RE: No, It Can't Be - But It Is! Irish Aviation 25

Wed Dec 13, 2006 4:36 am

Quote:
Your logic escapes me. It is easy enough to add to the lenght of a runway that is in use. And since it would be FAR cheaper to add to the existing runway than build (perhaps, maybe, someday) an all new runway, it would appear you should be arguing for addition to the present runway instead.

Well no, I think Dublin does need 2 runways eventually, which is why I think the DAA are doing some good forward planning by starting to build it now. My point is in the context of the construction of another runway, it doesn't make sense to extend the existing one...

You have to remember it would take 2/3/4 years before the go ahead was ever given for an extension anyway. Even tho I am an aviation enthusiast, I'd be first on the protest line (along with Mr O Leary) to oppose an extension at this time.

Who do we propose pays for it? Increase in charges?

As I said, I do think we have a capacity issue and the new terminal is needed ASAP, but that's a different issue.

Quote:
Destination 1: a very wealthy economy, but small and peripheral - doesn't have much feed, and its runway doesn't allow the acft to be used at full stretch.

Destination 2: much poorer, but lower labour costs, full length runway, excellent ground connections - by road/rail.

The airline will pick the one with the cargo demand.
 
Poitin
Posts: 2651
Joined: Wed Jan 25, 2006 6:32 am

RE: No, It Can't Be - But It Is! Irish Aviation 25

Wed Dec 13, 2006 5:03 am

Quoting Al2637 (Reply 4):
The airline will pick the one with the cargo demand.

IF they have someplace to load/unload the plane. Kaitak has been complaining for months and months about the relative lack of cargo handling facilities at DUB.

Quoting Al2637 (Reply 4):
Well no, I think Dublin does need 2 runways eventually, which is why I think the DAA are doing some good forward planning by starting to build it now. My point is in the context of the construction of another runway, it doesn't make sense to extend the existing one...

I don't agree at all, given the stupidities I have seen from DAA. I refer to many posts from Kaitak, Smokeyroscoe and others.

Last summer an IB plane had a fire while landing on 10/28 and shut the whole airport down for hours because it was on the active. That alone was proof DUB needs to long runways -- today.
Now so, have ye time fer a pint?
 
EIBoston
Posts: 366
Joined: Fri Sep 29, 2006 11:18 pm

RE: No, It Can't Be - But It Is! Irish Aviation 25

Wed Dec 13, 2006 5:36 am

Quoting Kaitak (Reply 3):
one more should do the trick - it really should be a GE aircraft, although an A340 might be a possibility. I guess it depends on what's available

Do you really think EI would go for a 340? Correct me if I'm wrong but aren't they considered poor in relation to running costs??
 
kaitak
Posts: 8947
Joined: Wed Aug 18, 1999 5:49 am

RE: No, It Can't Be - But It Is! Irish Aviation 25

Wed Dec 13, 2006 5:45 am

It definitely would not be their first choice and they wouldn't go for it if A330s were available, BUT at very short notice, would they be able to get their hands on them, that's the question? Now, if they come to the end of January and they get all the US rights sorted out and everything in place, they're not going to drop the route just because they can't get the right plane and in that situation, if 330s can't be acquired, then A340s might have to be considered. They can't be used to the west coast, so we'd be talking PHL, possibly Florida or ORD. It would only be for a year, since (hopefully) the new 330s would come in 2008.

On the other hand, with 2 A330s already coming in May and June and the chance of two 330s from what was once Air Madrid, they may not have to consider this.

We'll just see how things work out, but the priority is getting the US access for next Summer ...
 
EIBoston
Posts: 366
Joined: Fri Sep 29, 2006 11:18 pm

RE: No, It Can't Be - But It Is! Irish Aviation 25

Wed Dec 13, 2006 6:47 am

Thanks Kaitak,

Again excuse me for asking but why can't the 340 goto the West Coast? They have the range for this?? Runway problems?
 
pilot21
Posts: 983
Joined: Sun Oct 24, 1999 8:28 am

RE: No, It Can't Be - But It Is! Irish Aviation 25

Wed Dec 13, 2006 7:02 am

Quoting Kaitak:
By the way, I see Air Madrid has the sword of Damocles hanging over it. Two nice, shiny GE powered A330-200s there, should a certain airline need them for next Summer ...


Kaitak, pls look about 8 or 9 Irish threads back for my brief history on these birds. EI would be better off waiting a yr and getting new ones direct from Airbus. EI QC failed the Air Transit birds, and I would hope and assume would do the same with these 2. The delays and problems Air Madrid are encountering are mainly due to fleet break-downs!

On a side note, did you see that when OS said they would get rid of their A330-200 fleet, they received 36 requests from other airlines for them! Airbus can get it right sometimes!

Quoting Al2637 (Reply 130):
eerrmm.. they are... hence they plan on building a 2nd runway BEFORE it is actually required....


Actually, as part of the planning process, the DAA have given assurances to the local residents that the 2nd runway won't come on line until the current one is at maximum capacity, hence the 2011/2012 go-live date!
Aircraft I've flown: A300/A310/A320/A321/A330/A340/B727/B732/B733/B734/B735/B738/B741/B742/B744/DC10/MD80/IL62/Bae146/AR
 
EI787
Posts: 1230
Joined: Wed Feb 01, 2006 4:06 am

RE: No, It Can't Be - But It Is! Irish Aviation 25

Wed Dec 13, 2006 7:22 am

I see that Aer Lingus have now extended their online check in to passengers travelling with hold baggage.
 
kaitak
Posts: 8947
Joined: Wed Aug 18, 1999 5:49 am

RE: No, It Can't Be - But It Is! Irish Aviation 25

Wed Dec 13, 2006 7:40 am

At the rate they're going, it won't be around in 2011; 2012 looks like pushing it. I don't want to flog this thing to death, but I do think that we need to differentiate between the DAA's own cost/benefit analysis and the wider national interests. We have built part of our economic recovery on exports and yet, no one in government seems to be in the least bit disturbed that the DAA can predict growth of 4% over the next nine years, to 2015 (which involves basically no marketing and growth from existing traffic) and this is particularly surprising given the govt's ambitious targets in the Asia Strategy Report (let alone the need to develop other markets).

What this tells me is that the DAA has no interest in cargo, so it should be made easy for them: they don't have to be involved in it. They've had their chance. The 50ha site can be sold to a respected international group, such as SATS or HK Airport Cargo, which has experience in developing freight traffic. Ideally, I'd like to see the senior DAA management replaced by consultants from Schiphol, Changi, HKG or some other major airport, with experience of long term planning and development, and marketing too.

I know I've said this so often, but over the ten years that Bertie Ahern has been in government, it has become abundantly clear that aviation is very low down the priority list and that the government does the bare minimum to avoid being accused of doing nothing; it does not act responsibly on aviation issues without have a sharpened pitchfork prodded into their buttocks constantly. I take no pleasure in saying that, but we have so much evidence to support it; we have to be ahead of the curve. We need to take a far tougher line; that means leadership; that means setting out exactly what is needed and identifying obstacles - and obstructionists. This BS we put up with, these comfort with mediocrity, this failure to link related government projects and departments together when it's blatantly clear that they should work together, has to be ended. There needs to be ambitious, long term targets and the airport needs to be made to work far more effectively as an engine of growth.
 
EI321
Posts: 4788
Joined: Tue Jul 07, 2009 4:43 pm

RE: No, It Can't Be - But It Is! Irish Aviation 25

Wed Dec 13, 2006 9:18 am

My post from the last thread:

Quoting Danny (Reply 122):
And in airport as large as DUB we only need one 8k ft runaway?

If we were still in the late 80s, yes. If we are considering the situation today, well the answer you are looking for can be found in the length of the new runway. There was no need for a large runway when 10/28 was designed, as there were not any flights though DUB that required spending the extra funds on one. Its like building a terminal, a motorway [M50 anyone  Smile], or any infrastructure project. You build what is considered economically optimum by the professional consultants and design experts. In a budget constrained enviroment like 1980s Ireland, elements of a project that are not nessessary are often dropped due to limited funding. For instance, its likely that DUB will one day have 50m passengers p/a, but theres no point rushing to build a 30m p/a terminal 2 right now, the additional capacity will be added closer to the time when its needed. Returning to the M50 example, original estimates projected that the road would be used by about a quarter of the traffic that it is currently being used by, but that was the best information available at the time.

It has always been planned to build a second runway, metro and terminal in Dublin Airport eventually (and im talking back in the 1960s here), it just was not financially possible until now. Im not defending the DAA, they should not exist in their current form.

Quoting Poitin (Reply 124):
Ah yes, let's us not make Ireland an easier place to visit, or else the damn tourist might come here, fill up the pubs, stay at hotels, spend money at the restaurants, give employment to thousands of Irish. No, we should tear the damn airport down, we should. Things are good enough as they are, they are!

Please understand, Im not saying that in my opinion there should not be a longer runway at DUB, Im trying to explain why for various reasons there is not one currently.

Quoting Danny (Reply 127):
MAD 13451
FRA 13123
ATH 13123

The majority of those have long runways because they have always needed them due to the fact that they have historically had many l/h flights. This also is the reason why SNN has a long runway. Airports like ATH and MAD need particularly long runways due to high air temperatures.

Quoting Poitin (Reply 129):
However, perhaps we should look for one, so we can feel good about DUB not being the worst EU capital city airport.

Despite its infrastructure deffeciency, there are several major airports in europe that offer an experience that is worse than DUB. LHR is far worse. IMHO, CDG2, despite being new, is also a terrible passenger experience.

Quoting Smokeyrosco (Reply 135):
I do believe there is a business case for a lager runway

So do I. Im not saying that DUB does not need a larger runway, Im specifically saying that extending runway 10/28 (bearing in mind that there is planning permission for a larger runway already) is not worth it from the DAAs point of view.
 
kaitak
Posts: 8947
Joined: Wed Aug 18, 1999 5:49 am

RE: No, It Can't Be - But It Is! Irish Aviation 25

Wed Dec 13, 2006 3:56 pm

Well, here's an interesting - and very timely - little news snippet which very well reflects what I've been trying to say.

http://app.sprinter.gov.sg/data/pr/20061213994.htm

Singapore and Ireland sign Open Skies deal. Unlimited beyond rights, without limits on capacity, frequency or aircraft type. Terrific, great news, so we're all set. Singapore Airlines can now fly from here to anywhere beyond Ireland and started services to Dublin immediately.

Er, no ...

Why? Because the runway does not allow SIA to fly nonstop from DUB to SIN with a 777. Is that really such an unreasonable demand, in the 21st century - that an airport of a major European capital should be able to support a long haul nonstop by what is effectively the long haul workhorse of the airline industry? I don't think so. (And let's not mention for the moment that the options for flying beyond are pretty slim, given our bilaterals with the US and Canada. And also that the options for significantly expanding and building air cargo routes are undermined by a lack of air cargo infrastructure and future planning.)

So, we enter into a very exciting new bilateral, with lots of opportunity for growth, but on three separate levels - nonstop passenger flights, beyond rights and air cargo growth - the regulatory environnment and the DAA have scuppered opportunity. Surely I'm not the only person to think this is completely nuts?

EI321, you say it's not worth it from the DAA's point of view, but surely this situation shows that it should not be down to the DAA's decision. Something like this, which has an effect on long term national growth surely cannot be left to an organisation with the long term planning competencies of the DAA?
 
kaitak
Posts: 8947
Joined: Wed Aug 18, 1999 5:49 am

RE: No, It Can't Be - But It Is! Irish Aviation 25

Wed Dec 13, 2006 4:09 pm

Our minister shows his teeth: good on you, Michael!

http://www.ireland.com/newspaper/finance/2006/1213/1165221968840.html

This is a subscription site, so if you can't read it:

Cullen tells EU Commission, we're prepared to wait until January (when there is another significant meeting), but not much longer and if there is no agreement then, Ireland would seek its own bilateral with the US. So there.

Ireland's stance was supported strongly by the Netherlands and Spain. Ole!
 
jwmd123
Posts: 405
Joined: Fri May 12, 2006 7:12 pm

RE: No, It Can't Be - But It Is! Irish Aviation 25

Wed Dec 13, 2006 5:58 pm

Quoting Kaitak (Reply 13):
Singapore and Ireland sign Open Skies deal. Unlimited beyond rights, without limits on capacity, frequency or aircraft type. Terrific, great news, so we're all set. Singapore Airlines can now fly from here to anywhere beyond Ireland and started services to Dublin immediately.

Kaitak, looks like this report has been rubbished.

Also, nice to see the EU are not going to give up on O/S

EU to try again on open skies deal

December 13, 2006 07:18
EU transport ministers yesterday said they would back one more attempt by the European Commission to negotiate an open skies agreement with the US.

Last week, the US halted talks over what appears to be an unwillingness to loosen their restrictions on foreign ownership of US-based airlines.

Americans can buy up to 49% of European airlines, but Europeans can buy only a maximum of 25% of a US carrier.


The commission is to meet the US side in January, and may offer to do a deal without seeking changes to the ownership structure of airlines. That would be good news for Aer Lingus, which takes delivery of two new Airbus planes in March and wants to expand its flight schedule to North America.

Meanwhile the Department of Transport is this morning rubbishing an overnight report quoting a Singaporean official as saying that Ireland and Singapore have signed an open skies agreement between the two countries which would allow airlines from both countries to fly on to other destinations.
 
EINA330
Posts: 29
Joined: Tue Dec 12, 2006 7:34 pm

RE: No, It Can't Be - But It Is! Irish Aviation 25

Wed Dec 13, 2006 7:28 pm

Good morning and Merry Xmas to one and all.I just joined yesterday but have been a lurker for years,so this is my very first post.Nothing much to add just yet except to say that one of the highlights of the year was seeing the Qantas 707 coming in to Dublin last week.What a sight and what a sound!!
I will contribute more as the discussion unfolds.  Smile
 
jwmd123
Posts: 405
Joined: Fri May 12, 2006 7:12 pm

RE: No, It Can't Be - But It Is! Irish Aviation 25

Wed Dec 13, 2006 9:16 pm

Ryanair new routes but six scrapped

December 13, 2006 10:53
Ryanair has announced six new routes and an increase in the number of flights from Cork and Shannon. But it is also dropping six routes.

The new routes are Barcelona-Cagliari, Bremen-Malaga, London Stansted-Brussels (Charleroi), Bergamo-Valladolid, Pisa-Cagliari and Rome-Madrid.

Ryanair is also increasing the frequency of flights on its Cork-Liverpool, Shannon-Edinburgh and Shannon-Manchester routes.


The six routes being scrapped are Brussels-Salzburg, Liverpool-Kerry, Pisa-Friedrichshafen, Frankfurt-Billund, Frankfurt-Shannon and Newcastle-Oslo.


Shame to see Shannon & Kerry losing routes.

One big surprise is the STN to Brussels, I thought there was an issue with them flying there (subsides or something)
 
User avatar
shamrock350
Posts: 4657
Joined: Mon Mar 28, 2005 12:38 am

RE: No, It Can't Be - But It Is! Irish Aviation 25

Wed Dec 13, 2006 9:19 pm

Welcome EINA330!

In relation Aer Lingus and extra A330s it looks like SU might be about to sign a deal with Airbus for 10 A330s with quite early delivery slots! I expect early 2008 so what is Aer Lingus up to? They have money right? So why is it taking so long to order.
 
kaitak
Posts: 8947
Joined: Wed Aug 18, 1999 5:49 am

RE: No, It Can't Be - But It Is! Irish Aviation 25

Wed Dec 13, 2006 9:27 pm

Welcome on board, EINA330; hope you enjoy being part of our happy little band of Irish aircraft enthusiasts!

I see Cullen has been quite forthright in his stance on the whole stopover issue, referring to Shannon being "cosseted" and warning that it should not take any comfort from delays in O/S being agreed. Fighting talk - at last! Looks as if the govt isn't going to hang about on this; it will give the Commission until January and then, we go it alone. Frankly, I don't think there's a chance in hell of O/S being agreed in January, so the govt is going to move forward and hopefully, something will be agreed in time for new routes next Summer; I guess this is why EI hasn't moved ahead with new Asian routes this year.

http://www.unison.ie/irish_independe...hp3?ca=9&si=1740320&issue_id=14996

The other question is, given the minister's comments, I wonder if he will stick to the original plan, or seek just to proceed with the 3:1 plan announced last November; I tend to believe that's what he will do, since that's really all EI can manage next Summer, BUT if (as one can reasonably expect) the O/S are delayed for years, hopefully there will be more routes added and a further loosening of restrictions for 2008.

Quoting JWMD123 (Reply 15):
Meanwhile the Department of Transport is this morning rubbishing an overnight report quoting a Singaporean official as saying that Ireland and Singapore have signed an open skies agreement between the two countries which would allow airlines from both countries to fly on to other destinations.

I wonder what happened here; maybe the Singaporeans spoke too soon; it's not like them to make mistakes this this - that's usually our job. I hope whatever the obstacle is here can be resolved as a matter of urgency, but as I said above, it's kind of academic until the DAA gets its act together. Mind you, if we get O/S agreed by next Summer, that could open some opportunities for SQ ... Perhaps a cargo route to the US?
 
EINA330
Posts: 29
Joined: Tue Dec 12, 2006 7:34 pm

RE: No, It Can't Be - But It Is! Irish Aviation 25

Wed Dec 13, 2006 9:43 pm

Thanks for the welcome guys,actually I've been spotting since the early '80s,just a little slow on the uptake of technological advances.
Speaking of Airbus,wasnt there a rumour at the time of the 330 order that Aer Lingus were to take some A319s.What happened to those?or was it pure scuttlebutt?
 
Danny
Posts: 3714
Joined: Thu Apr 25, 2002 3:44 am

RE: No, It Can't Be - But It Is! Irish Aviation 25

Wed Dec 13, 2006 9:47 pm

Quoting Al2637 (Reply 4):



Quoting Kaitak (Reply 3):
if the Spanish authorities are good enough to sign the dead cert for Air Madrid, then EI should have two more aircraft; one more should do the trick - it really should be a GE aircraft, although an A340 might be a possibility. I guess it depends on what's available.

Although there is need for capacity I do not believe EI should get this desperate to add another type to the fleet. Need to keep costs under control.

Quoting Al2637 (Reply 4):
My point is in the context of the construction of another runway, it doesn't make sense to extend the existing one...

It will take a couple of years before 28R is available. A couple of years ago airlines were still flying 727. At the current development/growth rate "a couple of years" is ages. We should wait this long. All dreams about DUB becoming a hub will be gone by then.

Quoting Al2637 (Reply 4):
You have to remember it would take 2/3/4 years before the go ahead was ever given for an extension anyway.

this is something I cannot understand / accept. Why should it take 4 years to add 2000 ft of runaway? In other countries they do it within 1 year. It could be ready before 2008 summer season.

Quoting Al2637 (Reply 4):
Who do we propose pays for it? Increase in charges?

We will have increase in charges anyway.

Quoting EIBoston (Reply 8):
Again excuse me for asking but why can't the 340 go to the West Coast? They have the range for this?? Runway problems?

Runaway is too short. Ooops.

Quoting Kaitak (Reply 13):
Singapore and Ireland sign Open Skies deal. Unlimited beyond rights, without limits on capacity, frequency or aircraft type. Terrific, great news, so we're all set. Singapore Airlines can now fly from here to anywhere beyond Ireland and started services to Dublin immediately.

Er, no ...

Why? Because the runway does not allow SIA to fly nonstop from DUB to SIN with a 777.

Runaway too short again?

Quoting Kaitak (Reply 19):
I see Cullen has been quite forthright in his stance on the whole stopover issue, referring to Shannon being "cosseted" and warning that it should not take any comfort from delays in O/S being agreed. Fighting talk - at last! Looks as if the govt isn't going to hang about on this; it will give the Commission until January and then, we go it alone. Frankly, I don't think there's a chance in hell of O/S being agreed in January, so the govt is going to move forward and hopefully, something will be agreed in time for new routes next Summer; I guess this is why EI hasn't moved ahead with new Asian routes this year.

They should be talking directly to US already. No way OS will be agreed by January. I bet it won't be agreed by Jan 2008 as well. Anyway it is good to see some determination on the government tide.
 
EIBoston
Posts: 366
Joined: Fri Sep 29, 2006 11:18 pm

RE: No, It Can't Be - But It Is! Irish Aviation 25

Wed Dec 13, 2006 10:49 pm

Went thru my usual morning routine of coffee and rte.ie, bbc.co.uk, indo online etc. Saw all the reports on O/S and the Singapore. Of course what I should have done was come on here and find all the news in the one place! Should have known better Smile

Now Mr Cullen them are fighting words! Now back them up with actions. I really hope he does. He said that the whole Shannon and O/S thing is stopping up to 22 new routes between US and Ireland.
 
dstc47
Posts: 1259
Joined: Thu Sep 16, 1999 3:53 am

RE: No, It Can't Be - But It Is! Irish Aviation 25

Wed Dec 13, 2006 10:58 pm

I see City of Derry Airport lost their case to try to keep the terms of their deal with Ryanair confidential.


We may learn more within two weeks.
 
al2637
Posts: 227
Joined: Mon Oct 16, 2006 1:11 am

RE: No, It Can't Be - But It Is! Irish Aviation 25

Thu Dec 14, 2006 12:48 am

Guys,

The reality is the current runway is not going to be extended... the DAA don't want it, Ryanair don't want it, I think I remmeber an interview with DM saying he didn't need it....

And now we want those airlines (who don't want it) and their passengers to also pay for it?? Come on!

Quote:
this is something I cannot understand / accept. Why should it take 4 years to add 2000 ft of runaway? In other countries they do it within 1 year. It could be ready before 2008 summer season.

Really? They go from not even having made a decision it is necessary to planning/design/construction/test to being operational in 1 year? Where?

As I keep saying, where there's yield there's a way  Smile
 
User avatar
shamrock350
Posts: 4657
Joined: Mon Mar 28, 2005 12:38 am

RE: No, It Can't Be - But It Is! Irish Aviation 25

Thu Dec 14, 2006 2:39 am

Quoting EINA330 (Reply 20):
Speaking of Airbus,wasnt there a rumour at the time of the 330 order that Aer Lingus were to take some A319s.What happened to those?or was it pure scuttlebutt?

Well Aer Lingus did order A319s when under Willie Walsh but they converted them to A320s. Toulouse has mentioned that he would like to see EI order A319s so they can stay on the DUB-TLS route all year round among other routes. Unfortunately I think it's more likely that EI will order more A320s and even A321s.
 
kaitak
Posts: 8947
Joined: Wed Aug 18, 1999 5:49 am

RE: No, It Can't Be - But It Is! Irish Aviation 25

Thu Dec 14, 2006 3:38 am

Now that the govt has made a clear decision to move forward with a greatly expanded bilateral and new flights, what happens next? It's probably fair to say that the chances of O/S happening as a result of next month's meeting are pretty well zilch, so the govt will try and move ahead with the deal agreed with the US, last November.

A few questions arise:

1) The airline has already announced its provisional plans for next Summer, based on "Plan B" - i.e. nothing changing. Will these now go ahead and will the new US flights be on top of these?
2) If this is the case, EI will need to get hold of new aircraft for next Summer, since the two new A330s are "spoken for" in Plan B.
3) Will they seek to launch all three next Summer (as they're entitled to) or start with two.
4) The two "known" target cities are SFO and PHL, but the third is rumoured to be either DFW or MIA, both AA hub cities; given that AA will want to take advantage of the ability to increase DUB access, will there be a codeshare on both flights, with AA taking one (say MIA) and EI flying to Dallas.

If EI operates all three routes, they will need three more aircraft; how does it get hold of these; it's not easy to get A330s. I note what is said above about the Air Madrid A330s, but if these aircraft can be brought up to full working condition and equipped with new IFE, that should be feasible. The word is that NM will have its licence pulled with the end of the month and assuming EI wants to operate new routes starting in May, that's easily enough time to do this.

I mentioned the 340 because there was a report of RG looking for two 340s and some aircraft were identified, one ex-CAL (pretty new) and one ex-AC, I think. It wouldn't be the ideal choice, BUT it would be for one year and assuming EI actually gets those 3 A330s for 2008 delivery that DM has been talking about, that should do the trick.

Things are finally "looking up" for Aer Lingus!
 
User avatar
shamrock350
Posts: 4657
Joined: Mon Mar 28, 2005 12:38 am

RE: No, It Can't Be - But It Is! Irish Aviation 25

Thu Dec 14, 2006 4:00 am

Indeed they are Kaitak and thanks for the update on the situation!

I'm concerned that other airlines are ordering A330s with the latest being SU ordering quite a large amount rumoured to be around 10. Why is Aer Lingus not ordering these A330s? Could something be going on with Boeing. I would have expected to see Aer Lingus order in November for A330s and around about now for A350s/787s but as of yet nothing.

[Edited 2006-12-13 20:02:10]
 
EIDAA
Posts: 444
Joined: Thu Oct 26, 2006 12:12 am

RE: No, It Can't Be - But It Is! Irish Aviation 25

Thu Dec 14, 2006 4:14 am

With regard to the A330s with Air Madrid, if Air Madrid was to cease operations shortly, yes there would be a total of 5 A330s without a home, but I think EI would be hard pressed to get a lease term as short as one year on any widebody aircraft, those lessors would rather put the aircraft away for quite a bit longer than that.

Looking at the Air Madrid A330 fleet, you can see that all five are on operating leases from the following lessors:-

MSN 54 - AWAS (ex EI-SHN) (GE Powered)
MSN 82 - AerCap (PW Powered)
MSN 205 - ILFC (GE Powered)
MSN 211 - ILFC (GE Powered)
MSN 362 - Avequis (PW Powered)

Obviously the two that would be of interest would be 205 and 211, both ex-Volare aircraft, as EI would probably not want to introduce a new sub-fleet of two Pratt powered aircraft - although granted, they introduced DAC powered A320s on short term leases a few years ago...

Still, if any of these were to join the fleet, they would probably be hanging around for a few years, not just a matter of months.
Most Flown:- G-BUVA (20 Flights), EI-DEB (12 Flights), EI-JFK (11 Flights)
 
kaitak
Posts: 8947
Joined: Wed Aug 18, 1999 5:49 am

RE: No, It Can't Be - But It Is! Irish Aviation 25

Thu Dec 14, 2006 4:16 am

I'm pretty baffled by the delay, but I would imagine that Airbus persuaded it to wait for the A350 to be launched, because obviously, Airbus needs every customer it can get. If Airbus can provide a good deal and in particular, provide EI with the aircraft it needs in the meantime, it could have a deal, but I still think the 787 is the more likely of the two.

Even though the A350-900 enters service in 2013, there are quite a few airlines which have it on order, ahead of EI, so if EI were to order it, it might be 2014-15 before it gets it; can it wait that long? Doubtful.

However, the MOST important thing for EI is getting the new access it is looking for and thankfully - after so much delaying and inaction, this looks like it's around the corner.
 
EIBoston
Posts: 366
Joined: Fri Sep 29, 2006 11:18 pm

RE: No, It Can't Be - But It Is! Irish Aviation 25

Thu Dec 14, 2006 4:16 am

Quoting Kaitak (Reply 26):
so the govt will try and move ahead with the deal agreed with the US, last November.

What are the main points of this agreement?

I don't think any new deal will be in place in time for EI to change its 2007 Summer plans. Plus as you say they would need some more big birds which would be tough. Alot of airlines are looking for interim solutions while waiting for 787/350 delivery slots.
 
EI321
Posts: 4788
Joined: Tue Jul 07, 2009 4:43 pm

RE: No, It Can't Be - But It Is! Irish Aviation 25

Thu Dec 14, 2006 4:19 am

Quoting Kaitak (Reply 26):
If EI operates all three routes, they will need three more aircraft

Not nessessarily. ORD, LAX, MCO and DBX all started out on 3xweek frequncies. Two aircraft would do for three new cities.

Quoting Kaitak (Reply 26):
Things are finally "looking up" for Aer Lingus!

So we have been hearing for a loooong time! I'll agree when I hear it officially!
 
kaitak
Posts: 8947
Joined: Wed Aug 18, 1999 5:49 am

RE: No, It Can't Be - But It Is! Irish Aviation 25

Thu Dec 14, 2006 4:23 am

The main points of the deal are that the ratio of the flights between DUB and SNN will increase from 1:1 to 3:1 and that EI can add three new cities in the US.

Given that is at stake, in terms of extra business and tourism revenue, as well as the ability of EI to develop its L/H routes, why hang about? The Americans have never made any secret of their disdain for the SNN stopover and with US carriers always anxious to increase their t/a routes, they won't be objecting.

So, considering all of this, why shouldn't the deal be in place by next Summer? Things happen when people want them to happen and I think that, at last, that will is there.

Sure, getting aircraft will be tough and they may not be able to add all three routes they want, BUT two will do and they can add the third, and perhaps others, from 2008.

I'm more optimistic than I have ever been about this and as someone who has been pushing for an and to the stopover since the early 1990s, I am looking forward to it!

Next stop, Canada! (Oh, and Singapore, too!)
 
User avatar
shamrock350
Posts: 4657
Joined: Mon Mar 28, 2005 12:38 am

RE: No, It Can't Be - But It Is! Irish Aviation 25

Thu Dec 14, 2006 4:31 am

Quoting EIDAA (Reply 28):
Obviously the two that would be of interest would be 205 and 211, both ex-Volare aircraft

Do you know how healthy these birds are? I thought they were the main reason for the delays.

If Airbus really wants an A350 order from EI they better have got a good deal for them with A330s and early delivery slots.
Maybe Aer Lingus will announce all the orders at once like what SQ did with the 20 A350XWBs and 19 A330s.

Airbus are offering their best long-haul aircraft to A380 costumers like TG, SQ and LH. This could also be why Aer Lingus are still not announcing any orders but now that most of the A380 costumers seem to be happy maybe things will move forward and Airbus will focus on A330 and A350 sales.

I cant wait to see what Aer Lingus updated version of Premier class will look like and especially what the all new premier class will look like in April.
 
EIBoston
Posts: 366
Joined: Fri Sep 29, 2006 11:18 pm

RE: No, It Can't Be - But It Is! Irish Aviation 25

Thu Dec 14, 2006 4:43 am

Quoting Kaitak (Reply 33):
So, considering all of this, why shouldn't the deal be in place by next Summer? Things happen when people want them to happen and I think that, at last, that will is there.

Don't get me wrong I am delighted that things are looking a little better now but I'm not sure how forcefull the govt will be. Talk is cheap and there is an election coming up soon. (politicians in the Shannon region will also have their say on this) If Mr Cullen moves in Jan on this I guess there is a chance of Summer 2007 but there are too many 'if's for my liking. And of course then there is the certain lack of aircraft to do the job. Hope I'm wrong!
 
kaitak
Posts: 8947
Joined: Wed Aug 18, 1999 5:49 am

RE: No, It Can't Be - But It Is! Irish Aviation 25

Thu Dec 14, 2006 5:19 am

I think the time is right now, because don't forget that with 757s doing a lot of t/a routes, the number of flights and routes from SNN is increasing. I think the obstacles are surmountable.

Now, what's all this about Singapore. The Dept of Transport "rubbished" the overnight report from Singapore, but Aertel now reports (see page 2 of this report) that Singapore and Ireland have indeed signed an Open Skies bilateral.

http://www.rte.ie/aertel/p132.htm

Don't know what happened last night; maybe Singapore just jumped the gun; I did think "rubbished" was a bit too strong a phrase; why not just simply "refused to confirm or deny"?

Although the runway is currently too short for n/s, perhaps SIA (which is reported to have expressed interest in a DUB route) would settle for operating via another city, as long as there was a commitment to a longer runway within a reasonable timeframe. It wouldn't be unheard of for SQ to do this; BCN is served via MXP and some MAN flights go through ZRH.
 
Poitin
Posts: 2651
Joined: Wed Jan 25, 2006 6:32 am

RE: No, It Can't Be - But It Is! Irish Aviation 25

Thu Dec 14, 2006 5:44 am

Is anyone attending the FR stock holder special meeting tomorrow?
Now so, have ye time fer a pint?
 
User avatar
shamrock350
Posts: 4657
Joined: Mon Mar 28, 2005 12:38 am

RE: No, It Can't Be - But It Is! Irish Aviation 25

Thu Dec 14, 2006 5:56 am

At least Ireland is getting some kind of open skies deal!
Did Aer Lingus ever hint any interest in Singapore? If so wouldn't this justify a runway extension seeing as A330s wouldn't make it, would they?
I'd be happy to see SQ flying to DUB but an Aer Lingus route to SIN would be great.
 
Poitin
Posts: 2651
Joined: Wed Jan 25, 2006 6:32 am

RE: No, It Can't Be - But It Is! Irish Aviation 25

Thu Dec 14, 2006 6:08 am

Quoting Shamrock350 (Reply 38):
At least Ireland is getting some kind of open skies deal!
Did Aer Lingus ever hint any interest in Singapore? If so wouldn't this justify a runway extension seeing as A330s wouldn't make it, would they?
I'd be happy to see SQ flying to DUB but an Aer Lingus route to SIN would be great.

They could always refuel at DXB.  Smile
Now so, have ye time fer a pint?
 
kaitak
Posts: 8947
Joined: Wed Aug 18, 1999 5:49 am

RE: No, It Can't Be - But It Is! Irish Aviation 25

Thu Dec 14, 2006 6:10 am

Yes, Aer Lingus has hinted at interest in Singapore when it first mentioned the possibility of a route to Asia ... about three or four years ago. Hmm.

A330-200s would probably make it there, but not back, at least not with a profitable load; the winds on the way back are pretty strong and in addition, you can end up being kept at a relatively low level by Indian ATC.

It really would save a lot of trouble in every way if we just extended the runway; I mean, how much is 1500' x 200' of concrete; just get it done.

As for EI and Asia, I think it will happen, but they really should have done it by now; if the likes of SQ or TG get into Dublin, that's going to affect them, because these are blue chip airlines; TG was falling down on the innovation and product development side for a long time, but it was now caught up and it would certainly give EI a run for its money.
 
User avatar
shamrock350
Posts: 4657
Joined: Mon Mar 28, 2005 12:38 am

RE: No, It Can't Be - But It Is! Irish Aviation 25

Thu Dec 14, 2006 6:24 am

Hopefully EI will get to Asia before they get to Ireland! I think Aer Lingus need to expose these new routes a bit more. They didn't mess up DXB apart from timings and DM admitted that the routes didn't start off too well but after a while passenger numbers were up and next January is looking good for the route.
How well did Aer Lingus advertise Dubai in Ireland?
 
ei 168
Posts: 61
Joined: Wed Oct 17, 2001 3:00 am

RE: No, It Can't Be - But It Is! Irish Aviation 25

Thu Dec 14, 2006 6:25 am

Here's an interesting article about todays announcment. It mention's dublin's runway being to short.

http://business-times.asiaone.com/
 
kaitak
Posts: 8947
Joined: Wed Aug 18, 1999 5:49 am

RE: No, It Can't Be - But It Is! Irish Aviation 25

Thu Dec 14, 2006 6:37 am

Thank you very much for copying this article, Ei 168. Well, doesn't that put a different complexion on what we were discussing earlier in this thread.

Here it is, in black and white:

"But long range passenger flights between Singapore and Dublin will have to be put on hold until Dublin airport's runway is expanded in order to cater for SIA's long-range B777 aircraft."

For years, the DAA has been saying, "ah sure 'twill do", and "we're grand" and here we have a major prospective customer saying, straight out, "we need to get this done". It goes back to what I was saying in that last thread: the DAA should not get a veto in something like this; this goes far beyond the mere profitability of the airport. It goes to the heart of our need to develop long haul routes to new markets.

Well, this thread is motoring along - we've got increased US access sorted and now, perhaps the runway as well!
 
EI787
Posts: 1230
Joined: Wed Feb 01, 2006 4:06 am

RE: No, It Can't Be - But It Is! Irish Aviation 25

Thu Dec 14, 2006 6:44 am

Quoting Kaitak (Reply 36):
The Dept of Transport "rubbished" the overnight report from Singapore

Well all has changed now!

Dept. Of Transport Press Release:

Quote:
Cullen announces new open skies agreement with Singapore

13 December 2006

Transport Minister, Martin Cullen, TD, today (Wednesday 13 December 2006) announced the conclusion of negotiations on an air services or 'open skies' agreement between Ireland and Singapore. This agreement has been put in place following a meeting earlier this year between Minister Cullen and the Ministry for Transport in Singapore. It has the potential to further develop new trade and tourism markets between the two countries. The agreement, which will come in to effect in 2007, will allow Singapore and Irish carriers to fly directly to and from Singapore and Ireland.

The conclusion of the negotiations between Ireland and Singapore were formally witnessed today in Singapore on behalf of Minister Cullen by Ireland's Ambassador to the country, His Excellency, Richard O'Brien. The agreement will be formally signed in the new year.

Speaking today, Minister Cullen said: "This 'open skies' agreement is an important building block in the process of forging new business, investment and tourism linkages between Ireland and Singapore. It is another significant step in building our aviation services with South East Asia - and possible future links between Ireland and Australia. While Ireland has a long history of air services linking Ireland with Europe and the U.S. there were no services to the far-east until recently. In fact, it is only over the last 12 months that our first east-bound long haul services were inaugurated by Gulf Air between Dublin and Bahrain and by Aer Lingus between Dublin and Dubai".

The Minister added: "Ireland is an island nation with a very open economy on the periphery of Europe. Good, competitive air links are essential to facilitate economic growth and investment and to promote tourism. In 2005, Ireland exported goods to Singapore to the value of €775 million. We are therefore seeking to facilitate the development of as many routes as possible linking Ireland to key centres for business and tourism. This will be achieved by continuing to conclude liberal regulatory arrangements with non-EU states and facilitating greater access on all long haul routes."

The Ireland Singapore air services agreement in itself will not allow both countries the automatic right to fly in to a third country.

http://www.transport.ie/viewitem.asp?id=8626&lang=ENG&loc=1887
 
kaitak
Posts: 8947
Joined: Wed Aug 18, 1999 5:49 am

RE: No, It Can't Be - But It Is! Irish Aviation 25

Thu Dec 14, 2006 7:02 am

"We are therefore seeking to facilitate the development of as many routes as possible linking Ireland to key centres for business and tourism. This will be achieved by continuing to conclude liberal regulatory arrangements with non-EU states and facilitating greater access on all long haul routes."

Interesting choice of words; now comes the time to give them meaning; if the govt really wants to facilitate these new routes, make sure DUB Airport has the infrastructure to allow this to happen.
 
Poitin
Posts: 2651
Joined: Wed Jan 25, 2006 6:32 am

RE: No, It Can't Be - But It Is! Irish Aviation 25

Thu Dec 14, 2006 7:18 am

Quoting Kaitak (Reply 40):
t really would save a lot of trouble in every way if we just extended the runway; I mean, how much is 1500' x 200' of concrete; just get it done.

Actually, only 45 meters wide -- about 150 feet is all that is needed. I would like to see more than 1500 feet added, at least 2000, assuming the other new runway is 12000.

Quoting Kaitak (Reply 43):
"But long range passenger flights between Singapore and Dublin will have to be put on hold until Dublin airport's runway is expanded in order to cater for SIA's long-range B777 aircraft."

However, "there is no business case for it as both FR and EI don't want it."

Oh yeah, let's keep them foreigners out.

DUB needs two 10,000 foot runways as a minimum, and one should go to 12000 feet -- or else nothing larger than an 738 (FR) or 330 (EI) will visit DUB, as they are now not visiting. And as for DUB -- SIN, you need that 12000 footer.
Now so, have ye time fer a pint?
 
smokeyrosco
Posts: 1441
Joined: Mon Dec 12, 2005 10:21 am

RE: No, It Can't Be - But It Is! Irish Aviation 25

Thu Dec 14, 2006 7:20 am

The Open skies is great news.

Also I'm not sure if this was posted but some news about SNN (excluding the bit in Indo which blames SNN for us not having a proper open skies with the US)

http://www.rte.ie/business/2006/1213/shannon.html

Quote:
Shannon Airport seeks 200 lay-offs

December 13, 2006 14:51

Management at Shannon Airport have put their final cost-cutting proposals to unions in a bid to secure cost reductions worth around €10m a year.

The company is seeking more than 200 voluntary redundancies, along with increased flexibility in work practices and rosters across all its divisions. It also plans to outsource its aircraft and ground catering division, and to introduce franchises at the airport.

But the company will stipulate that franchisees and outsourcing companies must negotiate with unions where workers want to be represented by them. It has also agreed that policing and security services will not be outsourced. The total cost of the estimated restructuring package is around €35m.


The redundancy package will be based on 7-10 weeks per year of service, capped at 145 weeks. There will be additional incentives for those aged over 60, and staff can avail of pension from 55. The redundancy package exceeds that negotiated for Great Southern Hotels employees earlier this year. Employees choosing to stay will receive a €10,000 lump sum for full-time staff, and pro rata payments for part-timers.

The package will apply only to staff of Shannon Airport. Employees at Shannon Hotel Management College, Bunratty and other corporate staff will be excluded. The company wants agreement that the deal will not set any precedent for future negotiations. Unions are expected to ballot on the package over the coming weeks.

A spokesperson for Shannon Airport said the company had agreed with the Labour Relations Commission not to comment publicly on the talks. The proposals are the result of lengthy negotiations between unions and Shannon Airport management chaired by Labour Relations Commission chief executive Kieran Mulvey.
John Hancock
 
Poitin
Posts: 2651
Joined: Wed Jan 25, 2006 6:32 am

RE: No, It Can't Be - But It Is! Irish Aviation 25

Thu Dec 14, 2006 7:35 am

Quoting Smokeyrosco (Reply 47):
The redundancy package will be based on 7-10 weeks per year of service, capped at 145 weeks. There will be additional incentives for those aged over 60, and staff can avail of pension from 55. The redundancy package exceeds that negotiated for Great Southern Hotels employees earlier this year. Employees choosing to stay will receive a €10,000 lump sum for full-time staff, and pro rata payments for part-timers.

145 weeks severance pay! My god, I should have gone to work in Ireland and joined the SIPTU!. Three years of full pay for getting laid off. Where do I sign up?

(In the US you are lucky to get 10 weeks max, usually only 3 or 4.)
Now so, have ye time fer a pint?
 
EIBoston
Posts: 366
Joined: Fri Sep 29, 2006 11:18 pm

RE: No, It Can't Be - But It Is! Irish Aviation 25

Thu Dec 14, 2006 7:56 am

Quoting Kaitak (Reply 43):
Well, this thread is motoring along - we've got increased US access sorted and now, perhaps the runway as well!

Kaitak you may need to increase flaps a little. You are going way too fast Smile
 
kaitak
Posts: 8947
Joined: Wed Aug 18, 1999 5:49 am

RE: No, It Can't Be - But It Is! Irish Aviation 25

Thu Dec 14, 2006 3:30 pm

Ah, but we don't do slow speeds on this thread; it's full well, throttles to the firewall, take no prisoners!

Here's an interesting little story in today's Indo:

http://www.unison.ie/irish_independe...p3?ca=35&si=1740611&issue_id=14998

"Airlines" are apparently calling on the DAA to stop work on T2 because of the cost. It's not stated which airlines are involved, but I'd give €10 that FR is among them (possibly the only one?). I doubt that EI is among them ...

And I see they are still referring to the €395m terminal! Quite a neat trick by the DAA, that - obscuring the true cost of the terminal costs. Lucky the DAA don't build airplanes. ("€50m for our new superjet - doesn't include engines, interior, cockpit wiring, empennage ...")

I still say that MO'L should have applied his famous words about travel agents to the DAA: "take the "f*****s" out and shoot them".

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: a380787, AS512, ASG32Mi, AWACSooner, iceberg210, ikolkyo, Jal1975, JetBuddy, kaitak, PA515, pdxdlfan, qf789, rhuns, traindoc, ty97, Viscount724, Yahoo [Bot] and 291 guests