Advertisement
Help Keep Boards Alive. Support us by going ad free today. See here: https://subscriptions.boards.ie/.
https://www.boards.ie/group/1878-subscribers-forum

Private Group for paid up members of Boards.ie. Join the club.
Hi all, please see this major site announcement: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058427594/boards-ie-2026

Dublin Airport New Runway/Infrastructure.

1345346348350351366

Comments

  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 11,006 ✭✭✭✭Jamie2k9




  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,554 ✭✭✭EchoIndia


    The next question is whether this will be appealed to the High Court. 🤔



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2, Paid Member Posts: 9,914 ✭✭✭blackwhite


    RTE reporting:

    The number of flights permitted at the airport as a whole has increased from an average of 65 a night to 95 between 11pm and 7am.

    Up to now, flights were not allowed to take off or land on the second runway, known as the north runway, between 11pm and 7am, but they can now use the runway up to midnight and from 6am.

    https://www.rte.ie/news/dublin/2025/0717/1523927-dublin-airport-flights/



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 11,006 ✭✭✭✭Jamie2k9




  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 75,224 ✭✭✭✭L1011


    Various Asian routes have been held back. These would bring down airfreight costs to/from major markets for both imports and exports as well as make business travel easier



  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 327 ✭✭jwm121


    Counted 101 movements tonight between 11pm and 7am, so a slight reduction. A shame that they didn't get the cap reduced to no longer include the vital 6am-7am hour. But still a positive outcome nonetheless. Hopefully they may now get on with the 40 million cap application with Fingal and maybe finally get some route expansions for this winter fingers crossed.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 370 ✭✭Qaanaaq


    Won't they need proper grounds for an appeal? Like there was a flaw in the process that ABP followed to come to its decision. Not just that you don't like the decision.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 370 ✭✭Qaanaaq


    But in the winter there is much less holiday flights at 1am etc. It's now based on an annual count



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2, Paid Member Posts: 19,601 ✭✭✭✭LXFlyer


    That is true, but they could argue that ACP didn’t put enough consideration on certain matters.

    Sadly for the delivery of new infrastructure quickly in this country, the bar for allowing an application for a judicial review to proceed is very low - just look at the BusConnects core bus corridors - one of them is in judicial review over the planned location of a bus stop.

    Post edited by LXFlyer on


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 41,138 ✭✭✭✭Mellor


    Yup. I referenced that in my post - in the brackets. All planning conditions apply from completion. That's how they work. The permission was also valid to 2017. So when drafted, so the expectation was was the 65 limit would be enforce with a few years - ie ahead of growth. But the DDA sought an extension due to GFC. That basically created a loophole, but the completion closed that loophole.

    The fact they were able to exceed the limit doesn't create an ongoing permission - hence the current enforcement. I'd be surprised if many years out of the last 40 were 90-100 range.

    I literally said that it was only activated when the runway as complete in my post, lol. Which doesn't change anything I said.
    Being technically able to exceed in between grant and completion, doesn't create any ongoing usage permission.
    They were breeching the conditions and need to back through the formal process. The increased rate was irrelevant.



  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 41,138 ✭✭✭✭Mellor


    I wouldn't call the runway planning application unrelated to the use of the runway.

    Some nights do hit 100. But over 2023 they did 33k. So this is a slight increase over that.
    And and 50% increased over the actual permitted numbers.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 567 ✭✭✭Thunder87


    But it's not the use of "the runway", it's a blanket statement that applies to the airport as a whole.

    Constraints on things like capacity and flight numbers to me shouldn't be set through almost throwaway conditions on once off planning applications, they should be determined by a regulator and frequently reviewed and updated as conditions change



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,566 ✭✭✭Economics101


    RTE has a very biased headline in its reporting of this:

    https://www.rte.ie/news/dublin/2025/0717/1523927-dublin-airport-flights/



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 555 ✭✭✭dublin12367


    that headline is “reckless”. Amazes me how such a small number of people get so much media coverage when so much is at stake.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 370 ✭✭Qaanaaq




  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 8,473 ✭✭✭Jinglejangle69


    Cant be burning kerosene in your house lads with the climate and all.


    But keep burning 12k litres on a flight to the canaries and let’s increase the number of flights!!


    What a joke.

    Post edited by Jinglejangle69 on


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 333 ✭✭davebuck


    Some observations as below on the ruling.

    Annual cap now 35,672 as against 13,000 Draft summer/winter proposal in the draft decision so potential for higher summer figures ie. rough count 110 movements during peak 7 months and 80 movements during off peak 5 months or potential to adjust.

    Extra 2 hours for the North runway and no restrictions on take off hours as in draft proposal 6-8am

    Noise quota not sure where the cargo flights fit in?

    Allows the PP for the passenger cap to move forward hopefully.

    Looking at the London airports night time restrictions which I know is not comparing like for like it does seem to be a workable solution.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,968 ✭✭✭sparrowcar


    How does that doctor woman who built a house under a planning approved runway get so much air time?

    She took a gamble building the house and it back fired. The amount of whinging and false information from that residents group is shocking.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 333 ✭✭davebuck


    Because it makes good viewer air time, now when did they buy the house and build on? I would bet after North runway got planning permission in 2007. As you say gambled back fired and now crying unfair



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 440 ✭✭moonshy2022


    no matter what, her house was always going to be just over 1200m off the centreline to the new runway.



  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 327 ✭✭jwm121


    If the instrument departure is ever changed to straight out of 28R, I'd laugh when she hears the exact same level of noise. There's now way she never even heard the south runway prior to the opening of the north runway. Calling the ruling which pretty much leaves the amount of movements per night the exact same as what it is currently and allows one of the most strategic pieces of infrastructure in the country to operate and function properly for the entire island ''reckless'', is a complete joke.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 10,533 ✭✭✭✭cgcsb


    I think RTÉ uses this as rage bate, the amount of comments on that condemning her for looking for compo.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 10,533 ✭✭✭✭cgcsb


    It's an oddity that a local municipality can hobble the operation of the national airport. There is absolutely no way that the Dutch government would let Schipol's operation be reduced by some local authority, that's their gateway to the world and that's a country that has land borders. We are an island, it's our main way in or out.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,955 ✭✭✭Nermal


    In a nation ruled by lawyers process is more important than outcomes. The UK is sinking under the same problem.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,566 ✭✭✭Economics101


    The real oddity is that in most respects Irish Local Authorities have very little power, and largely act as agents for the implementation of national policies. This makes the stranglehold they have on a national issue,via the planning system, really egregious



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 10,533 ✭✭✭✭cgcsb


    Indeed. It's odd because if you want to build a railway or even a bus corridor, you have to go straight to the national planning authority. But if you want to make changes to an international airport, the 9th largest in the EU, you go to Fingal County Council. Make it make sense.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 440 ✭✭moonshy2022


    I was reading an article this morning about the NDP and where it stands as the government is about to update the plan. One point was made on water treatment and how it is currently being held up for the last number of years by 1 ONE just ONE sea swimmer. That this delay could lead in the next couple of years to NO local authority being able to approve ANY new residential property development in the greater Dublin area. With a property crisis already in full swing this is mental.

    The planning system in the country needs to be fixed and massively streamlined. Individuals and small groups of people should NOT be allowed hold entire populations to ransom. Especially with a defence filled with lies and mistruths to garner sympathy. Any objection to planning should cost an individual a sum of money, maybe €500 against a house extension, €2000 against a new estate, €5000 agains a major capital development etc. off the back of this any objection should be heard and completed within 6-8 weeks. Any appeal within 4 weeks. Nonsense objections need to stop.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 990 ✭✭✭HTCOne


    The Airlines have been ignoring the cap for months. The A4A case in particular highlights the illegality of the cap. Everyone has known where this is going for quite some time, the courts just need their pound of flesh (€) first.

    Post edited by HTCOne on


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 6,347 ✭✭✭Chris_5339762


    Schiphol is probably a bad example… the government themselves were trying to force them to reduce flight numbers by such an insane amount; to stop the use of Schiphol as a transfer airport. Until the Americans told them they'd reduce Dutch - US flights if they did!



  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 980 ✭✭✭LiamaDelta


    Partly because the airport themselves requested to be decategorised as strategic national infrastructure in 2019.



Advertisement
Advertisement