Dublin Airport New Runway/Infrastructure.

Population growth in FCC is not only from new arrivals, but also from local already established families growing.(i.e. not static)

If you go back to post 1 the talk is of Dublin airport being in the 20 million range in 2013. Today the talk is of aspirations for 40 million. To double the size of such a large noisy place in the space of 10-15 years, in the vicinity of high growth suburbs of the capital would obviously have negative affects on a great many people. A great many more than you can tell to move or suck it up. No point denying it.

I hate to be the one to tell you this, but strategic essential infrastructure like Dublin Airport is more important than anything you mention there.

I do have to say, your commitment to the NIMBY bit is somewhat impressive.

I disagree that developing 'strategic essential infrastructure ' trumps everything. Human implications regarding health should be put first to a reasonable extent.

I believe that reasonable extent is being stretched far too wide. Can Dublin airport better utilise its land/resources? Yes but I'm against expansion just because its strategic essential infrastructure. strategic essential infrastructure.

I'm smart enough to know that for economic reasons airlines won't fly the regional airports and trying to force it won't work. However that does not mean mean Dublin airport can keep expanding no matter the consequences.

Exactly this. And this whole cap nonsense was never an issue until the airline bosses and an ex-Ryanair employee who happens to be the head of the DAA brought it up as an issue. Conflict of interest anyone?

It was in response to the 'what else should we stop expanding' question.

https://aircraftnoise.dublinairport.com/2025/02/03/complaints-dashboard/

The opposite is true. Very little annoyed. 150 people made complaints in May. We don’t halt or restrict a major airport and its perks for 150 people.

The cap became an issue when the numbers reached 32m. No conspiracies.

Some of you need to build a bridge and get over it! The amount of rubbish posted on this once very informative thread over the last few days has been laughable.

Your last paragraph is a contradiction of the other person on here yesterday. He/she wanted flights diverted to Waterford & Cork yet you seem to accept this will never happen. Do you not all sing off the same hymn sheet?

No, we do not. I'm smart enough to realise that that will never happen.

My gripe is that Dublin airport is being expanded to a ridiculous level. There is only so many resources - land, etc. Just because we are an island and Dublin airport is of national strategic importance (whatever term was used) does not mean we feck everything around it.

Noise pollution is okay (not all would agree but its managable for most) for now. Are we saying in 20 years when demand requires 60 million passengers and 4 terminals do we CPO more and more land to satisfy demand?

Economics should never trump health (within reason). Now its only a few close residents who have it bad. What happens when the effects are much worse (more runways, flights, buildings) etc?

And they have around 40 million options for doing so currently. If convenience is the issue then you should know that some people want to be able to fly in and out of the country without travelling hours to Dublin and paying extortionate parking/taxi fees.

Im only answering quotes and speculation on what ive posted.

You, and others, try to minimalize the numbers affected. You tried to make it only 150 people affected. When its clearly been shown to be at least 4 times that number. The true figure likely to be much higher since most people dont bother to formally complain, on any issue. Thankfully Fingal county council recognize the issue, and do act on behalf of all those affected. From Malahide to Dunboyne. Our health is more important than some new budget route to santa ponza. Thousands of other options available already, pick one and be content for once.

I'm aware that there is available land. My point was that what happens when that land is used and we are at capacity again? Lets say all that land is used and the airport is at capacity again, what happens?

Australia is expecting huge growth. But Sydney airport, is close to the city and residents. And has no flights 12-6am. It does much higher volumes that Dublin. The new airport (an hours from the city) is 24/7, and a long term cap of 80-90m.
London city airports have various restrictions.
24/7 is wrong for Dublin Airport (basically a city airport). But so is a total ban. A limited quota would be fine.

Keeping Dublin at 32m for the rest of its days was never a plan or the intent of planning authorities. That's just tabloid sensationalism in relation to ongoing applications. The 32m masterplan is decades old.

No mention of an upper limit, or a long term. Just interested parties chasing the short term maximum profit. 33 million passengers per annum wasnt even on the books 10 years ago. That would have been considered an amazing success and surely a maximum beyond what was known possible. Now its painted as failure. And not enough. Never content.

The part is bold is simply not true. Complete and utter made up nonsense.

The 2006 Local Area plan (FCC) identified that the airport had an short term requirement for 30m. And it projected (based on traffic growth) that by 2025 it'd reach 38m.
The plans for T1X and T2 plans were submitted for the intended growth for 2006-2016. It as literally framed as a "A 10 year plan" to cover up to 30/32m pax.

Obviously they couldn't predicted the GFC. So it was 2018/2019 before we reached 32/33m (total pax). Then comes Covid and growth slows. 6 years later we're back at 33m (counted as through the door).

So no, this wasn't some impossible, unpredicted success. This was infact, pretty close to, but slower than predicted growth.
I've said repeatedly on this thread, they should have lodged the 40m application in 2019 at the latest.

Dublin airport is subject to infrastructural limitations, such as road capacity, and utilities development - power, water. Which are the responsibility of Fingal county. (Which owes a duty to the citizens of Fingal).

Road capacity is not an issue and wasn't expect to be an issue to growth.
According to the FCC (2006), their existing services have capacity to manage 36m passengers.
The capacity report indicates the airport infrastructure can manage 36m comfortably.

Which is why the No Build application is for 36m, and the Infrastructure application is for 40m (though will prob end up at 44,)

5.Makes a mockery of national planning laws…

How does expanding the airport make a mockery of planning laws? The construction of a new airport is to be subject to, in accordance with planning approval.

A cap was agreed, by law. And has been breached.

The cap was a temporary cap. Intended to be in place until such time that the airport was required to be further developed, and thus the cap required to be raised

Given current numbers, we've clearly passed that point.