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

Who actually wants the Dublin Airport passenger cap abolished?

  • 12-10-2025 08:02PM
    #1
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2, Paid Member Posts: 13,409 ✭✭✭✭


    So I saw the CEO of Stripe moaning about "a few residents of Fingal" being able to decide how many people can go through Dublin Airport per year

    Skipping past the fact that its several hundred thousand people, I can't help but wonder who is actually going to benefit from the cap being abolished

    So before I dive in, some disclosure. I live close to the airport and am affected by the noise of the planes. However the airport was here first so I knew what I was getting into when we bought the house. I would say the early morning flights are the worst as there's usually a lot of background noise at other times of day anyway

    Regarding the passenger cap, I realise the airport is struggling to stay below it but so far the only people who seem to be upset are DAA and a bunch of airline CEOs who apparently aren't making enough money

    As arguments go for removing it, the main ones seem to be more jobs and cheaper flights.

    I personally don't think it'll lead to many more jobs as the country is pretty close to full employment already. Most likely DAA will just try to utilise the existing airport resources more and keep the same number of employees as much as they can

    Same for cheaper flights, there's a lot of cost pressure on airlines and they tend to only offer low prices on routes they compete on. I wouldn't be surprised if any savings from removing the passenger cap are pocketed by the airline instead of being passed on

    So regarding the cap, I agree it needs to be reviewed but I think this should be an ongoing process between various stakeholders instead of completely abolishing it

    However the attitude from DAA in particular seems to be to try and work around FCC and just lobby their personal TD of choice

    It seems pretty pointless in any case since FCC isn't able to enforce it

    I also can't help but wonder if there's an opportunity here to force some investment into other airports. I know there was some grumbling about it being "not economically viable" but that mostly seemed driven by DAA who aren't likely to want to invest in the competition

    I have a suspicion that people living in Galway, Limerick or Wexford might be happier to drive an hour to a nearby airport rather than 3 hours to Dublin and possibly have to spend extra on parking or an overnight hotel

    "The internet never fails to misremember" - Sebastian Ruiz, aka Frost



«13456718

Comments

  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2, Paid Member Posts: 13,409 ✭✭✭✭the_amazing_raisin


    I suppose I should actually ask the question of the audience. Do you think abolishing the passenger cap is a good idea, and if so, why?

    "The internet never fails to misremember" - Sebastian Ruiz, aka Frost



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 23,777 ✭✭✭✭ted1


    we live on an island. Having a cap on the number of people who can come and go is ridiculous



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 8,779 ✭✭✭Trampas


    If airlines thought flying to cork, Shannon etc was worth it they would but most think not. Unless the government guarantee them revenue to fly to other airports otherwise they fly to Dublin. On the cap level it needed to rise and it shouldn’t be a local county council who decides what’s best. You would have council members deciding what’s best for their election than what they believe or what’s best for the country.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2, Paid Member Posts: 13,409 ✭✭✭✭the_amazing_raisin


    Its a cap on one airport, not total visitors

    I agree that the cap needs to be reviewed, however total abolishment seems like a bad idea

    Perhaps FCC isn't the body that should hold the decision, however there should still be a public body in control

    Previously FCC were reviewing applications to raise the cap and requested more information from DAA. Instead DAA launched a publicity campaign to remove the cap

    "The internet never fails to misremember" - Sebastian Ruiz, aka Frost



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 12,701 ✭✭✭✭Jim_Hodge


    There's no incentive to increase visitor numbers or business trips in having peopke fly to airports they don't want to fly to or from. If demand was there for the other airports they would be used. The population and business interests are on the east coast. The cap was only ever in place to relieve pressure on the then access road infrastructure. Things have changed with regard to traffic congestion since 2007. A cap that purely limits the number of people using an airport is farcical.



  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,100 ✭✭✭Charles Babbage


    It is not rocket science, the 10 million extra people who will travel probably want it abolished.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2, Paid Member Posts: 17,779 ✭✭✭✭astrofool


    Everybody except those that chose to live or were born in a house near the airport and some members of the Green party (so vote green Fingal if you want to see it curtailed).

    Fingal CC need to stop messing around (blocking demolition of spiral ramps?) or they'll completely lose control of it.

    Other airports already get subsidies, famously, Shannon was enforced usage and it just forced transatlantic flights away from Ireland (might as well go via Heathrow or Gatwick if you have to piss about in Shannon on the way).



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 18,691 ✭✭✭✭Idbatterim


    Are you aware the cap is illegal? It's in the courts... I'm sick of the dishonesty... you all care about emissions etc? Addressing the chronic infrastructure deficit here, which they refuse to do, would cut emissions drastically. We've had electrified rail for decades, we don't have commercial size battery planes yet...



  • Moderators, Politics Moderators, Paid Member Posts: 44,549 Mod ✭✭✭✭Seth Brundle


    Are you aware the cap is illegal?

    When was it found to be illegal? A link to the ruling would be helpful.

    Help Keep Boards Alive. Support us by going ad free today. See here: https://subscriptions.boards.ie/ .



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 102 ✭✭thenuisance


    I would be interested to find the breakdown of that figure. There seem to be a number of figures suggested for the increase - from 4 million to 10 million but the commonest seems to be an increase from 32m to 40m i.e. 8m. How many of these business travellers? Tourists? What is their ultimate destination - i.e. are they simply using Dublin as a transfer hub? How will they travel to and from the city centre?

    8m passengers would be 4m each way. If the majority (let's say 80%) stay in Dublin for 3 nights then we are looking at 9.6m bed nights per year - which is just under 9000 bed nights for each night of the year which at roughly 2 to the room is 4500 hotel/airbnb rooms. If you increase the cap you need to add those rooms. Airbnb is already squeezing accomodation in the city and hotels and residential housing have to compete for construction and infrastructure resources.

    These 3.2m passengers each way (9000 per day) have to use the current transport infrastructure to get to and from Dublin Airport.

    If the number of passengers using Dublin as a transfer hub quadruples - does the airport have the capacity to handle this - restaurants, toilets etc?

    The point is that the likes of O'Leary and the DAA can come out with these requests oblivious to the downstream effects. I would love to see their plans that outline the consequences of their actions and how they think they can be dealt with.



  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 26,857 ✭✭✭✭Mrs OBumble


    I have a suspicion that people living in Galway, Limerick or Wexford might be happier to drive an hour to a nearby airport rather than 3 hours to Dublin and possibly have to spend extra on parking or an overnight hotel

    Nope: buses between Dublin Airport and Galway run roughly once an hour. Buses from Knock and Shannon are a lot less frequent, don't run early/late and so often involve an overnight stay. Dublin for the win!



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


    its a good question.

    firstly, the old chestnut of a "few people".

    this is a common refrain from those who want to silence debate (various vested interests), or those who know absolutely nothing about the issue other than they're angry because the gutter press told them it was a nanny state bureaucacy thing. (for a nice sum no doubt).

    so anyway, the flights pass over the entire width of dublin from east-west/west-east. and beyond.

    and no you didn't have to move your home into way of the flight path which was already there, in certain cases the flight path came to you.

    this is what certain interests use to dismiss the issue and paint it to the dumb masses as a 'few people' in the immediate surrounds whinging.

    the rest of the debate may continue, win lose draw or whatever results.

    But dont be taken in by that 'few people' shyte. they know that to be bollox, and they're repeating it to you. thats a fact. if nothing else, if more flights means the second coming and peace on earth, they are still lying to you.

    Post edited by CardF on

    MORELOGIN.

    HIDE YOUR COMPUTER PROFILE FROM MODS.

    ITS 100% FREE.

    YOU'RE 100% UNTOUCHABLE.

    SEARCH: MORELOGIN.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2, Paid Member Posts: 15,390 ✭✭✭✭Dial Hard


    Genuine question: why do you think the cap should stay in place, given it was originally put in place in 2007 because of traffic concerns that predated the M50 being extended and upgraded?



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,040 ✭✭✭Dazler97


    I think it's stupid it's in operation since 2007(the passenger cap that is) before terminal 2 was opened, we have the new runway let's take advantage of it, we are well able for 45M a year , and they said ages ago that they wouldn't open a 3rd terminal until it hits 55M passengers a year which at this stage seems unlikely if they continue this ridiculous cap , less flights to keep it under 32M mean more planes being full and there for no more availability



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,587 ✭✭✭RoyalCelt


    To answer your question I want it lifted and quite a few of that airport's planes fly over my house.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 8,378 ✭✭✭Jinglejangle69


    Im laughing at people who think lifting the cap will bring in all these extra passengers to spend money in the economy.


    All it does is increase the amount of people leaving Ireland for two weeks to the canaries amounting to a net zero contribution to the economy😀



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


    image.png

    yes mick, yes. keep me awake with your thrusting jets. ive been a bad northsider.

    MORELOGIN.

    HIDE YOUR COMPUTER PROFILE FROM MODS.

    ITS 100% FREE.

    YOU'RE 100% UNTOUCHABLE.

    SEARCH: MORELOGIN.



  • Moderators, Regional Abroad Moderators Posts: 2,589 Mod ✭✭✭✭Nigel Fairservice


    I'd love to use Cork airport more but it just doesn't have the range of flights. It's great if you want to go to the UK or Spain but not so much for other places. Cork just couldn't support flights to a lot of destinations Dublin offers.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,702 ✭✭✭con___manx1


    They should build a new airport. Let foreign investors do it if the gov doesn't want to pay for it. I think 30 million is the limit for dublin



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,509 ✭✭✭CPTM


    Not affected by the noise. But what will the increase in emissions mean in terms of our carbon budget? Will we have to spend "billions on purchasing carbon credits", or will an increase of flight activity not affect that number?:



  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 40,844 ✭✭✭✭Mellor


    It's not a cap on who can come and go, it was a cap based on the planned growth of the airport and the design capacity of the airport. It was intended for 2006 to 2016. DAA were expected to have made plans and expanded to 40m by now. They're left it way too late.

    FWIW, FCC didn't impose the cap. Their original condition was "the year the airport reaches 30m, submit new plans to expand". There's an obvious loophole there, so appeal it was made a limit cap of 32m. The process to increase was still the same. DAA left it way to late to action - perhaps strategically.

    The traffic thing is a bit of a myth. Traffic was mentioned with the condition, but the report also noted the issue would be resolved by 2012-ish. The cap was really based on two things, FCC's initial plan to provide a second terminal to service ~30m people by 2016, and the design that the DAA submitted in response to the LAP. During the process DAA where ask to confirm the capacity of the design submitted and they literally stated it was 32m.
    FCC documents predict a need for 38m by 2025.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 23,777 ✭✭✭✭ted1


    it’s a cap in that restricts the number of people who can come and go.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 18,691 ✭✭✭✭Idbatterim


    The emissions thing is also garbage, the planes will just fly somewhere else.. w



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 40,844 ✭✭✭✭Mellor


    The cap was introduced with the grant for T2, which was designed for 32m. With other works since there, and other efficiencies, the airport can do more than that now, but nowhere near 45m. The runway could handle 80-90m, but there are bottlenecks like security.
    DAA have 2 applications in at the minute, 36m with no works, based on an assessment of current capacity.
    And 40m based on a huge infrastructure upgrade. By the time that work is complete, and others, it will probably end up around 44m.



  • Moderators, Politics Moderators, Paid Member Posts: 44,549 Mod ✭✭✭✭Seth Brundle


    So, @Idbatterim I assume this means you're not able to show that the cap is illegal (as per your last post)?

    Help Keep Boards Alive. Support us by going ad free today. See here: https://subscriptions.boards.ie/ .



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 15,963 ✭✭✭✭Flinty997


    I don't get the fear of saying no to unrestricted expansion of the airport company.

    Its bursting at the seams.

    Move everything to Dublin Mega City one and drag all the population through one bottleneck seems a little myopic.

    What do people gain by making it even busier more congested.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 40,844 ✭✭✭✭Mellor


    I think everyone understands the impact of the cap. The point is that the purpose was nothing to do with restricting access to the country.

    It could have been lifted before a single seat was affected.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,587 ✭✭✭RoyalCelt


    They don't keep me awake and my partner uses ear plugs. But the planes aren't even the reason for that.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,095 ✭✭✭✭Red Silurian


    Agreed, in a wide sense the removing of the Dublin cap would make Shannon much more attractive, at least from a consumer perspective as it wouldn't be nearly as busy



  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 6,507 ✭✭✭positron


    Wouldn't triple glazing etc help? OP could probably cash-in on the increase in house prices with higher number of passengers (more jobs, metrolink etc) and move somewhere not too far but far enough to be away from the noise.

    It's sounds unfair to hold the whole country back for the convenience of a village/town.



Advertisement