Who actually wants the Dublin Airport passenger cap abolished?

so personally you stand to gain marginally at best. same for all of us. except those with interests.

im not excited at all by the residual trivial benefits, even if there werent the downsides.

and i dont see how others can be. average joe will maybe save a few quid, possibly. so why the flow of headlines.

well because the real beneficiaries will very much benefit.

since its above capacity

I saw that there's large numbers of new housing being built in the Kinsealy/Balgriffin areas of North Dublin which is directly on the flight paths into the airport so noise can't be that much of an issue for people… unless they want to live in silence and in which case i suggest they move to rural Donegal…

Provide evidence to back up post, to prove claimed "facts". But you acknowledge you haven't done that, so great.

"far right dog whistle". - Again off topic, and a sign that your offerings on the topic dont hold water. Kind of cringey too.

You just claimed it didn't happen, now you're tying to dodge the question. Say it all really.
And it's not off topic, it highlights the agenda behind your ridiculous notions.

I'm sure it will help, but if we keep countering the alleviating effect of improvements with more and more people then the end result will be no progress on the congestion front at all.

There would be no progress if we add as much people, as that which we alleviate. But if you alleviate more then it reduces.
The metro will handle 50m passengers per year. That will be a much bigger reduction that 8m more passengers, many of whom don't go into the city.

"Dublin airport is not just for people in Dublin." - Never said it was. Strawman.

Sigh. You said "Dublin does not need more flights".

Adding available new flights to an already plentiful offering in Dublin, while other regions lack options is not the way to cultivate our cities or regions.

Considering Dublin hasn't been able to meet demand, and had to cut slots. Flights are not "plentiful".

No I didn't, it was a direct copy paste.

Missed the second part that explained the revenue was due to premium cabins. But luckily I was able to enlighten you.

 So book earlier if its important, bigger picture here. Im sure it will have convenience benefits for others.

Booking early doesn't change the number of seats. If there is a demand of 4m-8m extra seats, that's 4-8m inconvenienced.

Your final point was naturally in keeping with the rest of that flailing jumble, a complete strawman.

There is no strawman there. You idea was literally nonsensical. The fact you can't offer anything to back it up highlights how idiotic it was.
Claiming my points are strawman arguments is a pretty weak attempt. You've literally said to fore flights else where. LMFAO. That is hilariously naïve. It pointing that out is a jumble to you, well that jsut further cements by point that you are clueless about how an airport works.

It's funny how your 'evidence' came after the accusation. How did you know I was gonna do all of that after you accused me of being angry whiteout evidence? That's some prediction, you must be some man for the lotto numbers. Highlighting the fact that someone is arguing in bad faith is not being angry. Using words like horsesh1t isn't either, while we're at it. And your entire argument has been sunk. Which is why you're trying to portray me as angry when, in reality, I couldn't give a flying fcuk about you, your nonsense or even Boards as a whole. You're attacking the poster because you can't attack their post.

You are cherrypicking sentences and points that you think you can counter and you are ignoring the others that show you up as being either clueless or arguing in bad faith. You said Dublin to London overland is comparable in price to air travel. It is not. You then accused me of factoring accommodation costs into only one side of the equation, until I pointed out that it really only factors on one side of the equation. You have abandoned both of these arguments because they were shown up for the nonsense that they are. Flying is cheaper, and quicker, in the vast majority of cases, no matter what way you slice it.

It is almost triple the price for a return journey over land/sea without taking a lot of other things into account. The costs involved are much greater and increase exponentially once you are travelling anywhere that is further than a 90 minute flight away because you have to factor in accommodation on top of everything else. You abandoned both of these arguments almost immediately when it was pointed out how hollow they are. This is the argument that was blown out of the water. Your argument, remember, from post #213?

Food: If I fly return to London for the day, I won't eat at all on the plane; on either the outgoing or return flight. I will eat at my destination, but that's usually provided free of charge and is of substantially higher quality than anything you'd get on the road. I can be back in Dublin without ever having put my hand in my pocket for food over the entire day. I'll be back home eating a proper home dinner that's been cooked at home like a regular weekday. This cannot be said for overland travel. Saying "ah you were gonna eat anyway" is misleading. I was, but the cost and quality involved are vastly different.

Wagging the finger and pointing at the extra train ticket cost from Stansted while pointedly refusing to factor in petrol/diesel on a road trip is the height of bad-faith arguing. This hasn't been mentioned once by anyone. A 600mile round trip from Holyhead to central London costs about €150 in diesel at average UK prices. Again, this is more expensive than the flight itself but is left out of the debate for some reason. Lying by omission.

On the driving to Germany thing, this is what I mean about cherrypicking……most people don't care about how 'carbon intensive' it is. Especially when it's costing an extra €500 or €600 to do it your way because you have to stop and stay in a hotel on the way over and again on the way back and pay for fuel and all the other expenses that aren't yet factored in. Which, again, was your entire argument from the start….that it's comparable in price, remember? It is anything but comparable, and the further afield you're travelling, the greater the disparity is in prices. You've also now invented a car full of companions to accompany you on this fictional road trip when, in reality, most would be doing it on their own.

RE: Time……..this is the one resource we all get a limited, unknown, finite amount of from the get go. Of course I value it. If you want to waste days on the road, by all means, go right ahead. If you want to look down on others while you're at it, denigrating how much they value their limited time in this world, then fire away chief. But don't pretend it's cheaper, or quicker, when it is neither, except in the extreme outlying cases. You claimed driving to Germany is possible. It is, but not without a lot of sacrifices, money being top of the list as per usual.

When people counter and point out holes in your arguement that’s exactly what should happen. I’m based up my points by references to planning , development history, LAP. You’ve provided none.

Thats not a mutually exclusive statement. I can say 'Dublin does not need more flights' and that doesn't infer another place also doesn't. More off the point flailing

Infer? Do you mean imply?

So you acknowledges that areas around Dublin, that are best served by DUB wil need more flights.
Dublin is also predicted to grow in the next few decades so demand will also increase. I wonder where is best to serve them.
The transport (rail, land, air) solution needs to support that growth. It’s not hard to understand.

What? fore flights else where?

Force flights elsewhere. Have you forgotten your own ridiculous suggestions.

You haven’t made a point in multiple posts. Just dodgy everything and failing to deny your agenda.

You’re wasting you time. I already pointed out the roads have expanded since 2006, that the road access limit was a known temporary restriction.

He’ll fudge your question then ignore it as it proves him wrong.

To infer means to pick up on a subtle meaning that hasn't been directly stated, to 'read between the lines'.

To imply means to say something without actually saying it, to give someone the breadcrumbs so that they can read between the lines OR to suggest one thing is a logical consequence of another thing…….such as suggesting Dublin not needing more flights doesn't automatically mean everywhere else also doesn't.

Infer is what the person listening/receiving the message does, imply is what the speaker/person delivering the message does.

You meant imply.

On the M50 situation, this road has pretty much been at or over capacity since it was opened. If you added 2 more lanes tomorrow, it would be filled by the weekend. If you build it, they will come. The entire point of the road is to keep traffic out of the city centre, traffic that doesn't need to go through town that was previously forced to do so. It has become the default option for going anywhere in Dublin, pretty much. Airport traffic alone makes up a sizeable portion of this.

Other PT options for accessing the airport would make a measurable impact on this. Extra lanes on the M50 will just mean even more of a snarl-up when a crash eventually happens. A cross-city light rail system would take huge pressures off the M50, especially after the first high profile crash that slows everything except for the metro to a crawl, and everyone sees that it's the better option.

This is getting away from the main point of the thread, however. The cap should be lifted. A visitor tax should be introduced. Money raised should be boxed off for airport transport upgrade works.

I'm confused……..That is what you said, isn't it?……………"I can say 'Dublin does not need more flights' and that doesn't infer another place also doesn't."

If you replace the word infer with the word imply, your sentence makes complete sense.

If you replace infer with "and not infer" it's still a load of nonsense.

You made a bags of it, it's no big deal, just own up to it instead of windmilling about trying to tell people they're in the wrong.

wouldnt the jams resulting from the increased traffic cause more rage incidents, especially once people get to their exit after sitting for ages in a bottleneck?

also very offputting for international investment. to see such incompetence as upping the arrivals to an airport without a rail connection and a doubling down on an already over capacity motorway.

@CardF apologies, post didn't quote properly

I'm well aware what the topic is.

I'm also well aware that you used, and are continuing to use, the wrong word in the wrong place and getting all bent out of shape about it. You're the one who threw a strop about being pulled up on, what you have now admitted to be, something that doesn't make any sense. That's the reason for the pedantry, your "give me strength" comment. Don't start implying (👀) that others are making a fool of themselves when the opposite is true.

I can say Dublin does not need more flights and not infer that another place also doesn't.

No, you can't. You cannot infer anything from your own words because you already know the exact meaning of those words and what you are trying to say. To infer means to assume the meaning of something because the meaning isn't explicitly stated.

You can say "Dublin doesn't need more flights" and not imply that everywhere else also doesn't, which is what you are trying to say, is it not? Your refusal to accept this just shows you up for a poster who should not be taken seriously.