Who actually wants the Dublin Airport passenger cap abolished?

JFC.

You are rewriting history here, and making stuff up in order to save face.

You accused me, baselessly, of being angry in post #248, with SFA to back it up.

I highlighted this in post #252, and then you replied in post #263 saying "It's funny how you say I have zero evidence for suggesting that you're posting in an angry way, and then in the first paragraph……" You are talking about the first paragraph of post #252 here.

Which came AFTER the accusation in post #248. You used future posts which hadn't happened yet as back up for an accusation that was made before those posts existed. You have failed to show a single sentence where I'm actually being angry, and instead just vaguely waving your hands and going "oooh, look at the angry poster….."

Your feeble attempts at discrediting me are as transparent as they are pathetic. Go ahead, though, keep showing your true colours, chief.

Your argument that flying is cheaper is based on -

1……Flying to the furthest (ie cheapest) London airport (something you actually accused me of selecting, though you now ignore the fact that you first raised the specific airport),

2…..With no bags

3……With a return on the same day (so you want to include accommodation in my cost but not in yours, which makes no sense)

4…..While seemingly walking from Stansted (notable for not being in London) to London (where the train leaves you), and

5……With free food

If you were able to read my posts correctly, you'd see that I'm not just talking about London……I'm talking about pretty much every single airport that is further afield than, say, Manchester or Leeds Bradford. Which is 99.9% of the airports in the world, including every single airport in Europe outside a handful of maybe 5 or 6.

1. I wasn't the one who selected London initially, it was being used as an example in the thread as a typical day/business trip that happens multiple times each day long before I started talking about it. The furthest airport out was highlighted as an example which disproved the claim that overland was cheaper, because the cheapest return flight was less expensive than the cheapest ferry one-way ticket.
2. People usually don't take checked bags with them on a day trip, especially when talking about business trips. There's no need, outside of maybe a laptop or a holdall or whatever.
3. Yes, returning that evening. That's what happens on a day trip. Which is what we're talking about. If you take a day trip by coach or if you drive it, as was suggested earlier in the thread, by you, if I'm not mistaken, then this is impossible. You'll need to stay overnight somewhere, meaning it's no longer a day trip. If the tenner for the stansted express that doesn't affect the coach is being factored in, then accommodation for the overnight stay that doesn't affect the plane should also count.
4. This is a blatant lie……….Stansted express has already been factored in to every single price ever since it was brought up. And guess what, it's STILL a fraction of the price of your suggestions. All of them. The flying options are so much quicker and cheaper that the extra tenner to get from the airport makes pretty much zero difference.
5. All other things being equal, if I'm travelling for 8hrs return taking 2 planes, and you're travelling for 15hrs return on the ferry/train or 23hrs on the ferry/coach/car, you are going to incur more food costs than me. This is simple maths. Of course my food is gonna be cheaper when I'm sitting at home than yours is when you're sitting in a cafe at the ferry terminal.

Bottom line is flying is cheaper, almost all the time, in almost every single scenario. It is almost always much, much quicker too. Your attempts at pretending otherwise have failed at every single step so far. And yet here you are, still banging that drum. Your drum is busted and your drumsticks are in splinters. You're wrong to say it's cheaper. And you're STILL pretending that it's 'comparable' when anyone with a brain can see it is not.

Remember, your argument is that this constitutes the vast majority of cases - it clearly doesn't.

I never claimed this was the vast majority of cases. This is another lie. I claimed that flying is cheaper in the vast majority of cases. Which it is. I also claimed the opposite. The vast majority of trips out of Ireland are to places further away than London, which cannot be done in single day UNLESS you fly, which makes it even more expensive again to go your way.

I think we can conclude that, outside of your very specific set of highly unusual specifications which in no way constitutes the vast majority of cases as you claim, overland price is indeed comparable to air.

Anyone who concludes this is straight up wrong and needs to back to their leaving cert maths books. 'My circumstances' aren't actually mine (I didn't introduce them, remember) and they are neither highly specific nor are they unusual. About 4.5 million people make this trip per year, that's about 90,000 per week. It was once the busiest route in Europe and is still near the top. And here's the kicker……….it's still cheaper than 99.9% of all of the other destinations someone could fly to. You keep pretending otherwise, but we can all see through that charade.

If your argument is based on climate change denial

My argument is not about climate change denial. At all. I never once mentioned anything that could lead anyone to that conclusion. You're just trying to shoehorn it into the conversation to, presumably, gaslight people into thinking my argument is weaker than it actually is.

I haven't included the cost of petrol/diesel because the cost of petrol/diesel when you get a SailRail ticket is nil - like, duh. You're now making up arguments I never made to accuse me of lying by omission, which says a lot about your argument.

This is what you said:

Someone else said you can't be expected to drive to Europe - but of course you can.

This is you telling everyone they can drive to Europe. I neither lied nor omitted anything. You are pretending this never happened, which is both. If you're driving around Europe, your costs are going to skyrocket, but you never factored the fuel costs into any of your calculations, you're still pretending it's cheaper. When it's not.

Look, it's clear as day that you have ethical concerns about flying. And that's okay. Telling people that it's unethical and inconsiderate is also okay. What's not okay is pretending that it's somehow better for anything other than the planet. It's not better for the person travelling, not better for their wallet and it's certainly not better for their family who are sitting at home waiting for them……."sorry love, I know I'm normally home and all for 7pm but some randomer on the internet who likes to lie to strangers and misrepresent their arguments isn't happy with it and told me I should drive to that meeting in Wimbledon, so I'll see you on Saturday morning instead" just isn't gonna fly for most people, sorry.

Stop lying. Flying is much, much cheaper the vast majority of the time. Pretending otherwise just shows you up as not arguing in good faith. Your ethical argument will either live or die on its own merit, if you start making **** up to bolster that argument, it'll wither and die on the vine because nobody will take you seriously if you have to lie to make your point.

And pretending that flying is comparable in price to the ferry and train/bus/car is a lie. It has been shown time and time again on this thread.

Music to my ears. As I was saying road improvement won't be done on schedule, so our own corruption and incompetence is likely to delay any poor decision as regards DUB.

You are confirming you ignorance of the planning process again here. I said the works need to be complete prior to the cap being raised, not prior to a decision. How would the work take place before the decision to approve those works.

The process is; Decision on DUB planning, work takes place, conditions triggered as work is complete.
The work is in stages over years and the conditions (cap or otherwise) could be in stages.

The foolish aviation nerds who think gooning over a plane landing should be prioritized over national infrstructure.

An international airport is not national infrastructure?

What I'm against is the slow drift of turning the city into a disaster while spinning each step on the garden path they're leading us down as progress. Yes, Dublin hasn't imploded, we'd notice that, its just been slowly changed at our expense and to the gain of people who likely dont live here.

You're agaisnt "Dublin changing". Who exactly coming to Dublin is changing it? Hmmm.
You repeated say Dublin can't handle more flights that the cap. I guess the annual numbers for 2025 will test that.

The rest is just waffle more ignored questions. Just a magic plan to fore 8m people to the west.

it does though, some of the more vocal supporters just want the cap removed for the sake of hobby related nonsense.

there are other types too, those who want the cap removed out of political vindictiveness, being interested in getting one over on the greens, a certain minister, etc.

and those who associate this issue to other stories of stalled development and decide its all the same thing, that it all just goes in one nimby category. all sorts of reasons. the plane nerds just happen to be the most dim with the most stupid reason imho.

if you think its pointless to discuss anything with me then do us both a favor. just dont.

In this thread people only travel from Dublin, and mostly only to London. No one drives to London or Europe. Car ferries are a myth. Etc.

If the shutdown is for 24hrs and the traffic is ~90% in 1 airport, then thats the country ~90% cut off from air travel.

Bar the sea alternatives to UK, France, Spain, etc. We are then effectively cut off from the continent. Restarting and getting back to full function would probably make that closer to 48 hours.

This happened at Heathrow with the electrical issue in March, where the initial downtime was 24 hrs with normal operations not resumed for at least 72 hours. Naturally some of the other UK airports took on some of the overflow, because there was at least some kind of normal distribution of planes allowing them to do so. Rather than 90% (or however many) of planes in 1 place.

Its to do with the cap because if we distribute* our traffic increasingly in 1 place then its an inevitability that this is where we end up one day, up the creek 90/95% cut off. It will happen.

*(or allow the market to distribute)

You don't have to plan everything around it, but you do have to take it into consideration. Its another point against continued growth, or over-growth. Along with the associated noise and traffic issues, and the dishonest pushing for cap removal by the few with any interests.

Recent incidents which have caused degrees of operational failure include:

September 19th. Ransomware attack. 100+ flights diverted, cancelled or delayed.

September 20th. Security/potential bomb alert. 20-30 flight cancellations.

October 4th. Storm Amy. 115 flights cancelled, 18 flights diverted.

September 2024. ESB related power outage.

April 2023. Runway closure following takeoff technical issue.

Pre-independenc history aside, the current distribution is before all else down to govt planning, govt initiated the project which then capitalized and attracted a market. As should be the case, the country directing major strategic projects.

(yes im aware theres semi state involvement now)

However, the market is (besides our own people) just a bunch of foreign people passing through and not giving a merry toss about Ireland once their travel is done. As is the case with any of us when travelling.

So no, they should not be free to dictate our national infrastructure, considered of course, but ultimately its our responsibility to plan our own country. And we, if we're smart, may not want to plan it on the basis of ~90% of our options being in 1 place. Which I'm sure the market would happily do so on the basis of their travel related whims. Congestion and flight noise are not issues for them. Sprawl and centralization and failing regional towns also arent.

"People should be free to create the demand where they want it. Airports development should be based on that demand."

No they shouldn't. And no it shouldn't.

Other airports can be supported by govt investment both in the region and the aiport and the limiting of Dublin based flights to whatever ridiculous market share is already there ~85% or whatever it is.

From now on you get 1 question. Im getting bored of teaching you.

Why luckily? Why.

Talking about questions that never get answered. What wonders do await the average Dub with this glory of more passengers arriving to our already congested city?

There you go, theres my 1 question. What is yours.

Well your 2nd last point has some kind of logic to it. Lets not.

Thats not really a benefit to the average Dub. Or at best its some kind of background micro-benefit. Joe Bloggs who doesnt work in tourism gets nothing effectively.

On average, if you're reading this you stand to benefit just about … fck all … from increased airport numbers.

Dublin can grow. It can of course sprawl further hypothetically. Maybe have 40% of the countrys population. I dont know how exactly the infrastructure would cope. Upgrades to everything would probably be needed, even complete demolitions and rebuilds. I can't imagine what would be done as regards congestion and the city centre. Dublin area pricing would probably be even more wild, and real estate in 'Not-Dublin' might plummet. A LOT of people would really only have the 1 option (apart from emigration), Dublin or bust, pay through the nose cause Dublins the only game in town. Sounds like the sht we have already just worse.

Shannons relatively far from Dubin or Cork. Pretty low population in the region, and not much going on there with everything being focused in the capital. So not much demand. And that will continue if we keep piling everything and everyone into Dublin.

There's only xenophobia in that post if you want to find it. I don't know why you would, or what you hope it to achieve. Bit pathetic but whatever.

lol what in the name of the sweet lord do you mean i didnt answer the first one.

• 1: You still haven't explained why a small low density city like Dublin is restricted from growing

Answer: Dublin can grow. It can of course sprawl further hypothetically. Etc etc. As above.

Second time answering. I'm sure certain projects would be needed, we have congestion so thats 1 restriction. If the city centre can barely budge now (thanks again to centralization) then how's it going to move with even more people. Maybe the fabled metro can fix that. But what about the congested arterial 'N' routes. If the city sprawls out further will we need an outer orbital motorway? Dublin is functionally full. And the density varies with commuters coming in/out.

Is it answered now?

We already have excellent links to other countries from DUB. If 1000 jobs should result from the cap removal then good for the new employee but the average Dubliner still benefits by what? The equivalent of 1500th of a job. Hard to express that in terms of benefit to the average person, but basically the average person in Dublin gets no benefit.

All Joe Bloggs gets is more people and noise, and more population centralization/capitalization.

(the execs pushing it will be rolling in cash though, so well done to them)

What are you trying to achieve with this xenophobia bilge? For arguments sake I am a xenophobe, so what.