Airport Efficiancy Improvement

enda1

Just floating a quick thought I had.
To be honest I have not thought of all the inns and outs, but am looking for some brainstorming.

The idea is to de-centralise the check-in, security and all the hassle that goes along with airports. Somehow inspired by the idea of being able to clear U.S. immigration and customs in Ireland, how about pushing that one step further and clearing all the security and other hassles in a number f strategic hubs of choice.

Increasingly over the years, air travel has become a commodity but remains a bureaucratic and tiresome mess. The time it takes to get from Dublin city centre to Barcelona city centre seems to consist of about 2 hours air time, 3 hours Dublin side and 2-3 hours Barcelona side depending on airport and if you've checked in or not a bag (assuming public transport both ways too). This amounts to about only 25% of the time to cover 99% of the distance - a crazy situation you'll all agree surely.

Firstly this may necessitate us entering Shengen, so assuming that, how about we pass security at a bus station/train station/other collection depot (preferably a transport hub though). Our plane ticket will no longer be from Dublin airport to Barcelona Reus, but from Busaras to Central Station Barcelona for example. So you guarantee your place on each leg of transport as well as guaranteeing the passengers for the bus operators. The bus would then clear the passengers and drive directly to the door of the plane. Large bags would go into a special removable compartment on the bus (which would directly be loaded onto the plane) and your hand luggage you'd take with you onto the plane.

I could foresee the time shrinking easily by 1 hour or more each side of the journey, pushing the efficiency to close to 50% of time in the air.

There are surely many flaws to these plans, so friendly input requested to fine tune!

Stark

If they were looking for ideas that made sense, they'd get rid of that stupid liquids rule.

enda1

Stark wrote: »

If they were looking for ideas that made sense, they'd get rid of that stupid liquids rule.

Wouldn't speed things up though.
I agree its a real pain and silly rule though.

I'm talking efficiency improvement here.

LXFlyer

enda1 wrote: »

Just floating a quick thought I had.
To be honest I have not thought of all the inns and outs, but am looking for some brainstorming.

The idea is to de-centralise the check-in, security and all the hassle that goes along with airports. Somehow inspired by the idea of being able to clear U.S. immigration and customs in Ireland, how about pushing that one step further and clearing all the security and other hassles in a number f strategic hubs of choice.

Increasingly over the years, air travel has become a commodity but remains a bureaucratic and tiresome mess. The time it takes to get from Dublin city centre to Barcelona city centre seems to consist of about 2 hours air time, 3 hours Dublin side and 2-3 hours Barcelona side depending on airport and if you've checked in or not a bag (assuming public transport both ways too). This amounts to about only 25% of the time to cover 99% of the distance - a crazy situation you'll all agree surely.

Firstly this may necessitate us entering Shengen, so assuming that, how about we pass security at a bus station/train station/other collection depot (preferably a transport hub though). Our plane ticket will no longer be from Dublin airport to Barcelona Reus, but from Busaras to Central Station Barcelona for example. So you guarantee your place on each leg of transport as well as guaranteeing the passengers for the bus operators. The bus would then clear the passengers and drive directly to the door of the plane. Large bags would go into a special removable compartment on the bus (which would directly be loaded onto the plane) and your hand luggage you'd take with you onto the plane.

I could foresee the time shrinking easily by 1 hour or more each side of the journey, pushing the efficiency to close to 50% of time in the air.

There are surely many flaws to these plans, so friendly input requested to fine tune!

I'm not sure where you're getting your landside journey times from?

If I were going from Dublin City Centre, I would allow 45 minutes travel time on the 747/748 (it has never taken me more than that), and 1 hour 15 minutes at the airport ahead of departure time, so that's 2 hours, and then 20 minutes wait for a bag and 40 minutes to get into Barcelona from BCN airport using the Aerobus (and it usually only takes 25 minutes) so that's 1 hour on that side.

Total landside time 3 hours - half the time you quote. As a reasonably frequent flier that is I would suggest realistic for someone travelling alone or a couple without kids. I've certainly made that trip in those times. With kids maybe add 15 minutes extra at each end?

Using Reus I would suggest is not a fair comparison as it is a regional airport and not Barcelona's main airport and travel times are naturally going to be longer.

Therefore your split is more like land 3 hours, air 2.5 hours (current Aer Lingus scheduled times), which is more nearer 50% than 25% of the journey.

To be honest people make travelling through an airport a far more difficult process than it actually is by not checking in online, bringing (on occasion) excessive amounts of luggage, and waiting until the last minute at security to get their things ready rather than doing it beforehand.

If (and it is a big IF) people were more organised, you could definitely get through the airport far more quickly. However that is impossible as some people are never organised!

enda1

I'm quite a frequent traveller too and at times cut things extremely close, but we are told to be at the airport 2 hours before hand.

More and more airports are regional, and I was even generous in choosing Barcelona cause of its long flight time, if it were London it would be even worse!

Airports are just a bag of hurt and not a nice place to be. I'd find travelling much more stress free and I think quite a bit quicker if the approach I mentioned came into being.

People en mass are idiots. So to expect some miracle improving everyone's slowness in their treatment of airports is just not gonna happen.

LXFlyer

enda1 wrote: »

I'm quite a frequent traveller too and at times cut things extremely close, but we are told to be at the airport 2 hours before hand.

More and more airports are regional, and I was even generous in choosing Barcelona cause of its long flight time, if it were London it would be even worse!

Airports are just a bag of hurt and not a nice place to be. I'd find travelling much more stress free and I think quite a bit quicker if the approach I mentioned came into being.

People en mass are idiots. So to expect some miracle improving everyone's slowness in their treatment of airports is just not gonna happen.

The only reason airports tell you to be there that long in advance is so that you will use the restaurant facilities and buy products. In other words so that you will spend money. Let's be realistic about that.

I have never shown up 2 hours in advance - usually 1 and a quarter hours or 1 hour if I've no bags to check in.

However, if you are making a case on journey times then I would respectfully suggest that choosing airports such as Reus that are not a principal airport for a city is not realistic - the only people who will call that Barcelona are Ryanair. Barcelona realistically has one airport - BCN.

For London, there are Heathrow, Gatwick, Luton, Stansted or London City which have 1 hour 20 minutes gate-to-gate times appx.

I think to suggest that your time from Dublin city to plane is 3 hours is excessive. I would say 2. At the other end of the journey if it were London it would be about 1 hour 15 minutes, Barcelona an hour. Certainly not 2-3 hours.

You need to put the journey into context - how many people, age etc, and use specific airports.

For a single traveller who travels frequently the times above are realistic.

KevR

They are trialing high quality holograms at Manchester Airport on approach the security screening area with a view to decreasing wait times for security.

L1011

enda1 wrote: »

Wouldn't speed things up though.

I beg to differ. Adds a significant number of minutes at security when you're caught behind the (inevitably female, inevitably 20-45 year old) people who don't understand the rule.

As goes time to plane, I have done 40mins from door of airport to plane, caused by a traffic delay, being put in Area Z in the longstay and a delay on the longstay bus. Aer Lingus in-terminal self checkin, carry on only. This *should* be doable at all times in an efficient airport with a sensible airline.

xper

enda1 wrote: »

Firstly this may necessitate us entering Shengen, so assuming that, how about we pass security at a bus station/train station/other collection depot (preferably a transport hub though). Our plane ticket will no longer be from Dublin airport to Barcelona Reus, but from Busaras to Central Station Barcelona for example. So you guarantee your place on each leg of transport as well as guaranteeing the passengers for the bus operators. The bus would then clear the passengers and drive directly to the door of the plane. Large bags would go into a special removable compartment on the bus (which would directly be loaded onto the plane) and your hand luggage you'd take with you onto the plane.

I'm all for thinking outside the box but I don't see how this would help. All you've done is move the check-in, security and gate location several miles from the aircraft.

cson

A few simple changes would create a tangible efficiency imo;

[a] Bag Check-In; Ideally this would be removed to a separate area where those checking in bags would go. Similar to the EI basement in DUB except on a larger scale. This has the effect of separating passengers checking in bags and those only bringing carry on. Two separate security points could also improve this at either end. This would be the biggest logistical change.

Complete ticketless travel; i.e. get rid of 90% of the check in desks on departures level. Have your Aer Lingus/BMI machines but basically no check in desks.

[c] Show every stupid ****er that turns up to security on their yearly holiday the scene from Up In The Air where Clooney goes through every type of traveller that takes ages before showing the efficient asians are the ones to be behind. I mean it's pretty ****ing simple to make it a painless process; wear a jacket -> put everything in pockets into a jacket pocket -> put jacket & belt in tray -> put on jacket and belt straight after passing through and get out of the way. Simples; should take 10 mins max.

Ideally the most common flight [DUB-LON] should take 2hrs 12mins from stepping off the 747/748/Aircoach/Car Park Bus to stepping on the Stansted Express/Gatwick Express/Easybus

5mins - Bus Park to Depatures
- Instantly procede to security
15mins - Security [absolute max time it should take]
7mins - Walk to Pier D
15mins - Between arriving at the gate and boarding the aircraft
1hr 15mins - Flight time
15mins Arrival gate to transport link

It goes without saying this is for a carry on only passenger and that times may vary slightly depending on the London Airport you fly to. But basically without any major delays and everything going to plan you should be getting from the DUB coach park to sitting on the train into London in 2.5hrs max.

[Alternatively just use LCY and avoid the majority of travel retards. IF I had the dosh it'd be Cityjet to LCY all the time.]

runway16

Much of this has already happened. The check in process has been decentralised to your home or laptop by means of online check in if you have no bags. Therefore, passengers travelling with baggage are already segregated, as if you have no baggage, you can check in online or at kiosk, and bypass the check in area altogether (At T2, you can easily do this - they even have kiosks in the car park building)

If you choose not to check in online, then its really your problem - the airline has already decentralised that to the ultimate - ie to your home or office.

Security is a different one - how are you going to do that? You must maintain a secure area in the terminal and the only way to do that is check everyone as they enter it. Decentralising it to boarding gates is a mess as has been shown at other airports with security staff getting delayed at another flight, and then making it late to the next gate etc. Having it central is in the passengers interest as there all resources can be deployed to serve all passengers. You will still need to do all this as at a remote point. Just because its not an airport in the conventional sense doesnt remove the need to completely secure it, segregate the air passengers from anyone else at the remote point, screen all of their hold and carry on baggage etc etc.

Passport control can be made easy - again, you have a number of electronic options at airports like Amsterdam and Paris - again, its up to people to use them. The biggest improvement would be to be to have all immigration desks actually staffed to speed the queues - we've all been there - hundreds of passengers and only 2 immigration officers, with 15 desks available.

I dont see how your bus idea is going to cut it - apart from turning bus stations that are completely ill equipped to handle the complexities into an absolute nightmare. Remember, inline baggage screening appartus is big bulky equipment - each bag must be secured. Bus stations arent designed for that, and new build ones would just replace the airport terminal. Where's the gain?

I agree with LXflyer - one hour at an airport is more than enough in most cases.

And finally, Reus isnt Barcelona - no matter what Ryanair try to tell you. Reus is Reus - a spanish town in its own right and was never reffered to as any kind of Barcelona until Ryanair came along.

enda1

All right fair enough its probably a no-go, but I hate airports!!

n.catenthusiast

Stark wrote: »

If they were looking for ideas that made sense, they'd get rid of that stupid liquids rule.

There is a phased plan by the European Union to relax the liquids restrictions.

The first phase comes into force in April of this year, when passengers from 3rd countries transferring through European airports will be able to have their liquids scanned in specific liquids, aerosols & gel scanning machines.

Davidth88

Years ago BOAC , BEA and PanAM operated this sort of system in London

You would check in Central London , your bag would go into the bus , and then you wouldn't see it again until you got to the other end.

Even now you can check in at Paddington on the Heathrow Express .

The security issues surrounding bags now make this very difficult/ challanging / But not without merit.

If you could do the security checks at the railway stations, then ensure that the passengers didn't ' mingle ' , it's not impossible I suppose.


On the idea of doing security at each gate , Amsterdam does this , to my opinion it seems to work quite well.

runway16

enda1 wrote: »

All right fair enough its probably a no-go, but I hate airports!!

Ha ha! I know the feeling mate!

But some out of the box thinking is a good thing, as lets face it, the airport experience is far from perfect!

But, people need to use the options that are open to them. If you travel a lot, you get to know how to make your own life easier. Online check in, be ready for security with everything in its place and straight to the gate. It is possible to do in as stress free a way as possible.

The airlines in particular have a vested interest in making it as easy as possible, because bear in mind, all these check in desks and baggage equipment are costly, and as many as those as they can get rid of, the better, as it reduces costs and makes your life easier.

FR make it as difficult as possible in many ways, because they are not afraid of cutting costs to the point where it becomes an inconvenience. Most full service airlines will not do that as it damages the brand.

The boarding scrum, the queing up for boarding etc are all the things that stress the experience out for me, so Ii just avoid Ryanair. There are alternatives, and they are not always as costly as you think!

Carawaystick

runway16 wrote: »

Security is a different one - how are you going to do that? You must maintain a secure area in the terminal and the only way to do that is check everyone as they enter it.

Why? It's not done for trains where you can have over a thousand people on one train vs <200 fro most planes.

THe whole sharp items craic is bull, you can get steel forks now airside in resteraunts in DUB, or aboard american airplanes. There's a locked door to the cockpit now, no one's gonna hijack anyone with a nail clipper.

THe liquid rule is officially a secret by our lords and masters the EU, and the only evidence offered by "experts" in an english and welsh court was that it took them about 30 goes to make a liquid explosive that worked in ideal conditions.... but apparently I'm a security risk if my single bottle of deodorant isn't in a sealed transparent plastic bag, but once I close the seal it's totally safe....

runway16 wrote: »

Passport control can be made easy - again, you have a number of electronic options at airports like Amsterdam and Paris - again, its up to people to use them. The biggest improvement would be to be to have all immigration desks actually staffed to speed the queues - we've all been there - hundreds of passengers and only 2 immigration officers, with 15 desks available.

This could be removed by forming a schengen+ zone if the brits would sign up to something like this.

In Ireland it could be drastically improved by having domestic/cta passengers bypassing the cops. I don't have to show mein papieren when I go from Cork to Dublin by train, why do I need to do so when I take the cheaper flying option?


I was in Luton today - THere you can pay the airport £3 and get priority security clearance. They have 5 metal detectors and only 3 were open, generating a queue and getting their extra £3 a skull - inefficiency in action.

runway16

Carawaystick wrote: »

Why? It's not done for trains where you can have over a thousand people on one train vs <200 fro most planes.

THe whole sharp items craic is bull, you can get steel forks now airside in resteraunts in DUB, or aboard american airplanes. There's a locked door to the cockpit now, no one's gonna hijack anyone with a nail clipper.

THe liquid rule is officially a secret by our lords and masters the EU, and the only evidence offered by "experts" in an english and welsh court was that it took them about 30 goes to make a liquid explosive that worked in ideal conditions.... but apparently I'm a security risk if my single bottle of deodorant isn't in a sealed transparent plastic bag, but once I close the seal it's totally safe....




This could be removed by forming a schengen+ zone if the brits would sign up to something like this.

In Ireland it could be drastically improved by having domestic/cta passengers bypassing the cops. I don't have to show mein papieren when I go from Cork to Dublin by train, why do I need to do so when I take the cheaper flying option?


I was in Luton today - THere you can pay the airport £3 and get priority security clearance. They have 5 metal detectors and only 3 were open, generating a queue and getting their extra £3 a skull - inefficiency in action.

I'm sorry mate, but you are going way off on a tangent here. I have no desire to discuss the rights and wrongs of the security regime with you - that isnt what this thread is about. I dont agree with many security measures either, but they are there, they must be enforced, and if we didnt here in Ireland, we would see our landing rights around the world being revoked.

The poster asked why couldnt airport services be decentralised - I answered that based on Regulations we currently have in force, which wont be changed by me or you, or even by our own government. If we removed security measures unilaterally, you would see the United States for one barring us immediately from flying to their airports.

Your point about Schengen is also irrelevant - what do you do for Non EU flights???

Del2005

enda1 wrote: »

Just floating a quick thought I had.
To be honest I have not thought of all the inns and outs, but am looking for some brainstorming.

The idea is to de-centralise the check-in, security and all the hassle that goes along with airports. Somehow inspired by the idea of being able to clear U.S. immigration and customs in Ireland, how about pushing that one step further and clearing all the security and other hassles in a number f strategic hubs of choice.

Increasingly over the years, air travel has become a commodity but remains a bureaucratic and tiresome mess.

There would be no need to decentralise any airport operations if they ran the airports correctly.

Any time I've queued in an airport there have always been closed booths/machines beside the queue. Sometimes with loads of staff standing around doing, apparently, nothing.

If the airports/airlines managed their facilities and staff correctly there would be a lot less queuing. But airports aren't ran for passengers.

runway16

Thats the main issue. Things are run too close to the bone in the industry due to the constant cost pressures.

Not enough check in staff, not enough security staff, and not enough immigration staff.

L1011

runway16 wrote: »

Thats the main issue. Things are run too close to the bone in the industry due to the constant cost pressures.

Not enough check in staff, not enough security staff, and not enough immigration staff.

Checkin staff are the airline; security are the airport, immigration are the police - it can't really be blamed on any single source or indeed industry (aviation and law enforcement are different industries!) for cost pressures. I think the acceptance of poor performance across the board is the main problem.

runway16

Respectfully, I disagree. I work in the airline industry, and it all boils down to the cost of the ticket and the desired return to shareholders.

Check in staff are reduced to the minimum to keep costs down.

Airports keep security costs to the minimum, because the airlines wont pay charges that would justify more of them, because they are under pressure to keep costs down.

Immigration are slightly removed from the ticket purchase equation becuase that's a state run service.

Security staff and check in staff are all employed by airline or airport companies and so all come under the heading of aviation industry employees.

L1011

If you just *look* at the number of security staff in Dublin literally sitting around, its obvious its a case of poor performance being acceptable not costing cutting. Birmingham is much the same; Manchester even worse.

Carawaystick

runway16 wrote: »

I'm sorry mate, but you are going way off on a tangent here. I have no desire to discuss the rights and wrongs of the security regime with you - that isnt what this thread is about. I dont agree with many security measures either, but they are there, they must be enforced, and if we didnt here in Ireland, we would see our landing rights around the world being revoked.

The poster asked why couldnt airport services be decentralised - I answered that based on Regulations we currently have in force, which wont be changed by me or you, or even by our own government. If we removed security measures unilaterally, you would see the United States for one barring us immediately from flying to their airports.

Your point about Schengen is also irrelevant - what do you do for Non EU flights???

Link to the evidence of these security regulations?? apparently the EU think it's too secret to tell us - So I call that horsesh1te. If there's problem let them explain it in open court so we all can know what these regulations are.

I'd imagine the amount of non Irl/CTA/Schengen passengers is a small fraction of the total air passengers so most people wouldn't be delayed on arrival. Schengen and CTA comprise more than EU also: IOM, CH etc.

runway16

My, this subject really seems to get your goat....

OK, leave the EU out of it.

Ireland has a National Aviation Security Programme which defines our rules with regard to security - of course, we have to respect our own rules. (They are of course comply with EU regs) If you dont want to take my word for it, then go have a look yourself, im not going to do your searching for you.

The US also stipulate that certain standards are met or they will not allow a state's airlines to fly direct to the US. One regulation sets the security check standards, another requires that all flights to the US must now depart from Closed gate areas (ie gates not open to other passengers from other flights) etc etc. There's plenty on that on the net as well. Im not making it up, so I dont feel compelled to provide you with evidence. I work in the industry so if you dont want to believe me, thats up to you.

Whole countries have been had their categories reduced to prohibit direct flights from those countries to the US before because they did not meet the US security standard, so there is precedent: it isnt merely a threat.

Look, I agree with you that security is mostly theatre. But its there, like it or not, and it is what influences the design of airport facilities. I'd love to change that as im sure would you, but the chances of it are pretty low.

Carawaystick

I've searched for this before. If you have the text to annex1 I'd love to see it.
http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=OJ:L:2006:286:0006:0007:EN:PDF

If you don't have the text to annex1, how do you know what the rules are?

I see you ignored the passport control avoidance stuff for arriving passengers.

runway16

You ignored what I told you about the national aviation security programme....

This debate was about airport facilities and design. You have taken on a conspiracy theorist tangent about whether security regulations are valid / justified. I've agreed with you most of it is theatre - yet you have persisted in arguing with me on the basis that somehow you feel we can get away without having aviation security. Believe me, id love nothing more than to not have to go through the charade that is security day in day out, and be treated as a threat by some jumped up clown who has less security clearance than I do. But there is a legal basis for it under Irish law, there are implications for our landing rights abroad if we do not have a security regime. You just dont seem to accept this.

I can only conclude at this stage that you are arguing for the sake of it.

And on the passport issue, yes, most passengers could avoid it if we joined Schengen. I believe we should join Schengen - but we have not, and that is the reality, and because of that, all arriving passengers must undergo some kind of ID check, be it a passport check, or a confirmation that they have arrived from within the CTA.

Additionally, what of the thousands of passengers who arrive at our airports from outside the EU daily? On a busy day at Dublin, perhaps 4000 passengers arrive from the US alone.

So im going to repeat - I am not engaging on the rights and wrongs of security or immigration control. What I am debating is why airports are designed the way they are. The laws are there, you just seem to think we can ignore them. Sure, i'd love to. It would make my day far easier.

And yes, I do know what rules are contained in the National Aviation security programme of Ireland. I have been trained on it. It is not for discussion in a public forum for obvious reasons.

antoinolachtnai

One of the big problems that I see with the airport is people arriving too early for their flights. So if I am on a commuter-type 7.30 flight, there is a high probability I will end up in the queue behind people who are going on an 8.30 flight, because (a) I don't arrive until 40 minutes before the flight is due to depart, because I've handluggage only and I'm used to it and (b) the people for 8.30 flight are less frequent fliers and are inclined to heed the airport's advice to arrive 2 hours in advance.

As a direct result, you need more staff than you strictly should, because the demand is uneven. As an indirect result, you end up with far more passengers than are necessary on the airside. As a result, the airside area has to be much larger to accommodate them. This in turn drives up the amount of capital required to build the airport.

The solution to this would seem to be to encourage people to arrive at the airport in the correct 'window' for their flight, and to keep them away from the security until their flight is nearly ready to board.

A lot of problems could also be resolved by ensuring that there is sufficient access. For example, the access from the baggage hall to the arrivals hall in Dublin Terminal 1 does not seem to be adequate. This could easily be remedied by changing the arrangement of partitions at customs. However, it would entail moving one or both of the leaseholders on either side, and this might be the problem.

Similarly, the setup at the taxi rank is not adequate to load taxis fast enough, even when there are plenty of taxis, and this leads to unnecessary delays.

It isn't all about efficiency of course. There are also issues in relation to the emotional experience of the airport. There are improvements that could be made to the atmosphere in an airport. Look at the security process, for instance - does it really need to be so tense? Could some gentle lighting, soft music and appropriately placed benches make it a more friendly affair. Dublin Airport has some particular problems in this area. The video and voiceover before the security area (at least the last time I saw them) are like something out of a sci-fi movie. BAA have actually toned down their videos, presumably to reduce the tension levels.

munchkin_utd

I'd agree with the last poster, the procedure in security could be improved without necessarily going to the length of what the op suggested in moving it off site altogether
some ideas....

- frequent traveller special quick security queue,
for those either with gold cards (i.e. maybe not frequent to Dublin, but know how to prep for airport security in advance), or pre registered with DAA as a frequent Dublin traveller (to take account of ryanair/ airlingus lack of a programme in itsself).
If you could somehow separate those who know what they are doing, from the clueless, at least those who know what they are doing arent stuck in a queue behind someone who doesnt even know about the liquid restrictions existing in the first place.

- lessen dwell times AT security scan machine -
the first time you have an opportunity to put your stuff in a tray is when you are standing at the scanner, essentially causing the scanner to have dwell time whilst waiting for you to finish loading the tray & emptying pockets.
If people somehow could be organised to fill their tray before the actual san machine itsself, then you have zero dwell time.
Even double the length of the tray loading area before the scanner so that a couple travelling together can load 2 trays simultaneously, rather than assuming that everyone is traveling as an individual.

- separate out high maintenance individuals -
I noticed the last time I traveled with wife and child, we took forever to get through the scanning despite being frequent fliers, due to all the buggy and baby stuff with us, not to mention having a lively child to mind at the same time as throwing stuff into trays!!
If you had travellers with infants/ clueless pensioners separated from the rest, the overall speed of the other lines would increase.
For those slowed down by being old or having a child with them, it also wouldn't be the worst to be in a relaxed leisurely (slow) line, seeing as you are probably 3 hours before the flight anyhow!

dowlingm

munchkin_utd wrote: »

I'd agree with the last poster, the procedure in security could be improved without necessarily going to the length of what the op suggested in moving it off site altogether
some ideas....

- frequent traveller special quick security queue,
for those either with gold cards (i.e. maybe not frequent to Dublin, but know how to prep for airport security in advance)

Hmm... maybe Ireland could talk to the US and Canadian governments about joining NEXUS to speed through immigration. As for Fast Track queues - they could offer the airlines who have business class Heathrow style FastTrack queues in exchange for higher fees to pay for the extra staffing.