Dublin Airport Passenger numbers up 14% in January!

Idbatterim

http://www.dublinairport.com/gns/at-the-airport/latest-news/15-02-06/Almost_1_5_Million_Passengers_Travel_Through_Dublin_Airport_In_January.aspx

Almost 1.5 million passengers travelled through Dublin Airport in January, a 14% increase over the same period last year. Passenger volumes to and from continental Europe grew by 18% with almost 690,000 passengers travelling to European destinations during the month. UK traffic grew by 10% with almost 591,000 passengers travelling on this route sector in January. Passenger volumes to and from North America increased by 5%, with more than 102,000 passengers travelling to the United States and Canada in January. Other international traffic, principally to the Middle East and North Africa increased by 39%, as nearly 69,000 passengers travelled on flights to and from these locations in January. Almost 4,500 passengers travelled on domestic services last month, which was a 29% increase on the same period last year.

I was eagerly awaiting these figures, after Ryanair announced 30% growth in January year on year. We need 15% growth this year to hit the 25 million mark, now the numbers probably wont quite reach the 25,000,000 mark, but I wouldnt be totally shocked if they did. A lot of new routes and increased frequencies from the summer on and with the general upturn here etc...

Strewth 14%, any significant events in Jan like concerts etc that would have drawn extra traffic or was there anything in Jan 2014 like a strike that may have caused a dip ?

Great figures I would expect it to be 7-9% this year, hopefully more.

kub

Meanwhile the DAA are still dreaming of a parallel runway, typically in this country it won't be built until traffic reaches probably over 30 odd million at this stage.
Just with that constant rise in numbers the thing should be in the construction phase now.

L1011

kub wrote: »

Meanwhile the DAA are still dreaming of a parallel runway, typically in this country it won't be built until traffic reaches probably over 30 odd million at this stage.
Just with that constant rise in numbers the thing should be in the construction phase now.

The DAA would have the diggers out in the morning if allowed - its the CAR that are insisting nothing till 25m is hit. Which was 23.5m until they realised that was coming up very very soon.

KCAccidental

any chance we could PPP the new runway and toll it? :P

Chris_5339762

I hate to mention the fact that Gatwick is ~35 million off one (albeit bigger) runway. Still plenty of scope for delaying tactics

Idbatterim

yeah but the difference is the Gatwicks runway isnt a pathetic 2500 m... Bloody hell i was reading about the main airport in Athens earlier, 2 x 4000m IIRC, when the Greeks get something right that you dont, its pretty damning...

kub

Idbatterim wrote: »

yeah but the difference is the Gatwicks runway isnt a pathetic 2500 m... Bloody hell i was reading about the main airport in Athens earlier, 2 x 4000m IIRC, when the Greeks get something right that you dont, its pretty damning...

There is no words in Greek for the Irish term, 'It'll do'.

L1011

kub wrote: »

There is no words in Greek for the Irish term, 'It'll do'.

Nor for "we'll pay for this", though

fr336

kub wrote: »

Meanwhile the DAA are still dreaming of a parallel runway, typically in this country it won't be built until traffic reaches probably over 30 odd million at this stage.
Just with that constant rise in numbers the thing should be in the construction phase now.

Not just an Ireland thing - have you heard of Heathrow?

Idbatterim

they have been fobbed off once with the 23.5 million - 25 million goal post changing, I dont know if the regulator would attempt it again...

FWVT

Remember last January was pretty stormy, so a good few flights were cancelled. Not 14% of them, but February was also stormy, so we may see a similar increase this month too as this month is looking pretty benign weatherwise.

I only ask as last year one of the months was well down due strike action versus the previous year. Just wondering whether there was anything unusual that caused a sudden jump or as it looks a proper 14% increase which I'm delighted with.

Irish Steve

kub wrote: »

There is no words in Greek for the Irish term, 'It'll do'.

And there is nothing that I'm aware of that's equivalent to "the Shannon Lobby", which was even more of a damning factor in the design and construction of 28.

Idbatterim

I only ask as last year one of the months was well down due strike action versus the previous year. Just wondering whether there was anything unusual that caused a sudden jump or as it looks a proper 14% increase which I'm delighted with.

I cant think of anything remarkable in January last year, the gathering last summer is pretty much they only thing that springs to mind for me that might have brought more people than normal in... I read yesterday that Cork airport are trying to get the Dublin link going again, I think that I read 500,000 people used it at its peak in 2008...

And there is nothing that I'm aware of that's equivalent to "the Shannon Lobby", which was even more of a damning factor in the design and construction of 28.

if this stopover was in place and legally binding, why was it not built longer regardless, in case that was no longer the case in the future, i.e. exactly what happened?!

LXFlyer

Deleted User wrote: »

I only ask as last year one of the months was well down due strike action versus the previous year. Just wondering whether there was anything unusual that caused a sudden jump or as it looks a proper 14% increase which I'm delighted with.

I don't think strikes were the issue in 2014 - it was down to when Easter fell (March -v- April).


Apart from those two months the year was pretty consistent.


January 14 -v- January 13 was up 10%.

Peregrine

Idbatterim wrote: »

I cant think of anything remarkable in January last year, the gathering last summer is pretty much they only thing that springs to mind for me that might have brought more people than normal in...

That was in 2013.

Idbatterim wrote: »

if this stopover was in place and legally binding, why was it not built longer regardless, in case that was no longer the case in the future, i.e. exactly what happened?!

This pretty much sums up what happened:

Nim wrote: »

Desmond O'Malley, 1988:

The one reservation I have about the proposal for which this guarantee is needed is that it is proposed to build a new runway of 8,650 feet at Dublin Airport. That does not seem to me to be an inordinate lenght. I am relieved in fact to find that it is only that length because the proposals of some years ago were that a runway of between 10,000 and 11,000 feet would be built at Dublin Airport.

The proposal some years ago was that a runway of between 10,000 and 11,000 feet would be built at Dublin Airport. At that time — and this goes back over a period of ten years — I expressed some very serious reservations about any such proposal because I realised that if that happened Aer Lingus, whose commitment to Shannon Airport and that region is and always has been negligible, indeed their attitude is almost hostile, would immediately avail of the opportunity to cut out Shannon Airport altogether and have all of their trans-Atlantic flights landing only in Dublin. I am not [928] sufficiently expert in this to know if it is possible for them to do this with a runway of 8,650 feet, but would rather think it unlikely. Certainly, I should think it would be dangerous for fully laden 747 aircraft with full fuel on board to try to take off from a runway of that length. It may be physically possible to do it, but I do not know if it is within the limits of safety. I should like an assurance from the Minister of State that this is not the intention. I want that assurance, not as something that is passed on from Aer Lingus, whose word I would not accept on a matter like this, but as Aer Rianta's decision and the Department's decision that even if it were physically possible for a fully laden 747 or similar type plane to take off on a trans-Atlantic flight, that it would not be allowed to do so.

http://debates.oireachtas.ie/dail/1987/12/04/00005.asp#N62

And another one from.. O'Malley again.

It is worth drawing the attention of the House to a phrase in the Minister's speech. He says that officers of the United States Immigration and Naturalisation Service would conduct in Ireland, at Shannon in the first instance, inspection of passengers and aircraft crew required by the US laws. Is it proposed to have this elsewhere and, if so, why? What the Minister said is borne out by [1481] Article IV of the agreement in the Schedule to the Bill where it says:

Preinspection may be conducted at additional locations in Ireland by agreement, expressed in writing, of both Governments.

Why should it be held anywhere else other than Shannon? Has it to do with the proposal which I regard as rather dubious in terms of public expenditure of a new runway at Dublin? For what purpose other than trans-Atlantic flights is that proposed runway required at a cost of £30 million? That proposal has been made for ten or 15 years and it never came to fruition. I do not see the operation of Dublin Airport being adversely affected by the absence of a very long runway that could take fully laden trans-Atlantic flights. We are entitled to ask why that should be the case. The context of Article IV of this draft agreement seems to suggest that, as soon as the runway is provided, these facilities will be provided in Dublin.

http://debates.oireachtas.ie/dail/1986/06/06/00004.asp#N133

Idbatterim

£30,000,000 for an adequate runway! LOL It will only cost several times that now...

Idbatterim

Idbatterim wrote: »

£30,000,000 for an adequate runway! LOL It will only cost several times that now...

And if they had built it 30-40 years before that it would have probably been about £3 million. In 30 years time it will cost even more it's just the way it goes.