Who actually wants the Dublin Airport passenger cap abolished?

You disagree with 3 ai's.

And An Bord Pleanala, and the chief exec of Failte Ireland.

1. road capacity is insufficient. you said it wasn't. it is.
2. hotel capacity is insufficient. you said it wasn't. it is.

Have some self respect, just stop.

It would be good if you had some kind of reset button.

But ok here we go again. If there were 200 extra then that could at least address the insufficient construction rate (which has produced a shortage), rather than just trying to keep pace. It would be incredibly difficult to achieve, a 14% increase as mentioned before, to add this 200 on top. But if pulled off it could maybe address the shortage.

Then I'm told that in fact 'no' the 200 is part of the current rate, not on top. Ah, I see. So there won't need to be a 14% increase. Hallelujah. Great. One minor downside that this rate, the current rate, has left the city with a shortage.

So now I've been told in this thread that

(1) there isn't a shortage of hotel spaces. When the dogs in the street know there is, when 3 different ai know there is, when the chief exec of Failte Ireland knows there is, when the newspapers know there is, when the state broadcaster knows there is, when An Bord Pleanala knows there is.

And when even astrofool now knows there is.

And (2) that we're going to build our way out of the (non-existent) shortage, not with a 14% increase noo noo, but at around the current rate, which has produced a shortage. While theres a pronounced construction staffing shortage. (and a hospitality staff shortage too)

Do we have some kind of convincing figures for this miracle on the liffey, a reference, a well sourced graph perhaps? No. My sources below.

https://www.independent.ie/business/dublin-needs-multiples-more-than-the-2600-hotel-rooms-built-in-2023-in-the-years-to-come-study-finds/a1098178673.html

https://mylittlehome.ie/build-back-home-irish-construction-workers-return-home-campaign/

Your sources: trust me bro.

We made the terms of our disagreement exceedingly clear. Post 397.

I am indeed disappointed.

Took almost an hour and a half from touching down on the runway to getting out of the red car park last night. If the passenger cap gets increased it would make the situation worse. If anything the passenger cap should be lowered to improve the customer experience

I kinda figured as much but in any case increasing the cap would make these busy times worse while decreasing the cap would make it better. This time last year at Shannon Airport we were 20 minutes from touchdown to driving out of the park4less, the major difference between the 2 airports is the passenger numbers

Just looked into this thread, which seems kind of mad in places. Sure decreasing the cap would make it better in DUB. You could of course eliminate delays entirely by reducung the cap to zero 😁.

That’s insulting the Third World!

Airports occasionally get unusually busy for any number of reasons - delayed flights, diversions taking resources etc. These delays can happen no matter the size or capacity of the airport.

Airports should have the capability to respond to busier times though, especially when yesterday was scheduled to be a busy day with a lot of families coming back from their mid-term holidays. I'm not sure exactly how far in advance Dublin Airport are made aware of Aer Lingus schedules but I would expect them to be able to staff their facility properly at these times

While a fixed sea crossing to France is quite obviously not happening any time this century (or likely ever), there are significant obstacles even to the shorter Ireland-UK ones that are unlikely to be overcome anytime soon either.

Agreed, fixed links are highly unlikely to happen, but given the current options are 24h on a boat to France or Spain or a 2-3hr flight sail-rail is not really a viable alternative

They do. But it is not reasonable to expect there never to be delays.

Not every delay, no, but I'd argue that these delays are predictable and avoidable. Maybe I was just extremely unlucky because I rarely fly Dublin but a bit more professionalism would have been nice

Everyone's getting a PITA reading this nonsense, so I don't think I'll be replying much further after this.

You think the majority of the 4.5m people flying to/from London do so to Stansted, for a day trip, with no baggage (even an overhead bag), without getting onward transport?

No, that's not what I'm saying at all. You're just inventing arguments out of thin air because you cannot counter the actual argument being made. The majority of the people flying to London (not Stansted, London) do so without checked luggage, presumably for day/business trips based on their attire and general conversation. I've seen them, I've been talking to them, I've been doing it for years. The one time I had to check some luggage, there were 5 others waiting at the carousel for bags. Everyone else was already gone. That's 5 out of about 180 souls onboard. I'd call that the majority. The bit in bold is just ragebait at this stage. The money for onward travel was already discussed in post #206, about 15 mins before you ever even addressed me on this thread. I'll not be taking the bait, thanks.

I mean, for starters, only a million of those actually go to Stansted, so straight off you're wrong there.

I would be wrong, if that's what I said, but it wasn't, so I'm not

The overhead bins tend not to be empty on those flights, so you're wrong about no baggage being the norm. You're clearly wrong about not using onward transit. You're almost certainly wrong about the day trip bit too (given how popular a transit hub it is).

The overhead bins are full of carry-ons. Yes they still cost money, but other posters have shown you at this stage that you're talking nonsense. We're clearly talking about paying for checked luggage here, but you keep strawmanning away at multiple other arguments that aren't being made. I'm not clearly wrong about onward travel either. I already told you, flight plus stansted express is still cheaper than sail and rail. Multiple times. It's a bit weird that you refuse to acknowledge this.

Heathrow (and twice as many people fly to/from Heathrow as Stansted) is not cheaper than SailRail. You say it's €59 for a one-way ferry ticket, and a ferry/rail combo is more expensive - no it's not. It's €59 for the entire trip from Dublin to London.

This is you getting the wrong end of the stick. AGAIN. When I say ferry, I mean ferry&train combo.

But the main thrust of the point is that it's still ONE. FCUKING. WAY. A return flight to Heathrow, with no checked bags, can be done for under €100, with no extra travel costs because it's on the Tube. Your way is more expensive and takes almost twice as long. This is not 'comparable' by any stretch. And that's one of the more expensive options when flying.

It's hilarious that you're still digging the food hole. It's utter nonsense, but I think at this stage you can't let it go. You've even quietly dropped the "free food at your destination" nonsense without any attempt at explanation.

If you're travelling for 15 hours and I'm travelling for 5, you'll spend more on me on food while travelling. Same for 9hrs vs 5 hrs. That's basic maths, I don't know how to spell it out any simpler for you. Unless the times are almost identical, one will incur more cost. I haven't ignored anything about the free food either. When I travel to London for the day, I get free lunches. If I was on the ferry/train during lunch time, I wouldn't. That means it's an extra cost for me, which makes it more expensive again.

And I don't know how I'm "restricting my cheap fares to places that are closer to Dublin than London"? What such places have I named? I've been talking about London all the time here.

No, you haven't…..this is another lie to cover for the fact that you're speaking out of your hole on this subject. In post #248 you said:

Someone else said you can't be expected to drive to Europe - but of course you can. Again, this was how people travelled up until maybe a generation ago. Christy Moore didn't sing that "Joxer packed his German phrasebook, and his Ryanair boarding pass" for example.

This is you talking about driving to Europe. It has been in the mix ever since then, I've referenced it in pretty much every post I've made in this thread since you brought it up. In a thread where you are blue in the face pretending that not-flying costs the same as flying (it doesn't) to then introduce this without factoring in all of the extra costs that go with it (like overnight accommodation that wouldn't be required when flying) is intellectually dishonest, but that's par for the course with you and your nonsense.

You're trying to make a claim that sail/rail is about the same price. It's not. It's about the same, maybe, if you're travelling to anywhere that's nearer to us than London, and, even then, it's still more expensive in most instances and still takes longer, while you conveniently ignore the fact that time is money. This is where the niche element comes into it. It's only comparable when travelling to Cardiff or Manchester or similar. It's not comparable when it comes to London. It's multitudes more expensive when talking about anywhere even further afield than that. Your examples are the ones with the very restricted set of circumstances.

"Carbon emissions aren't really known" - wow. There's a pretty big claim. Have you any evidence at all to back that up? The site I've been linking actually asks you for the specific aircraft, so don't go telling me all flights are different when the site I linked takes that into account. What do you have that tops that? Because you've just thrown the claim out there with no backup at all, and it's a pretty big claim.

They're not known. Not exactly. Here's a scenario, seeing as you have difficulty understanding it:

A) I flew to London in June and plane was at 28,000 feet for most of it. No turbulence, tailwind, made great time. B) The same plane making the same journey in the middle of September had loads of turbulence, flew at 21,000 feet into a headwind and had to make two attempts to land. Same journey, same plane, completely different fuel consumption profile and vastly different to the figures posted on your website, which we'll call C).

How much smaller is A than B and how close to C is either of them? The answer is you don't know because you've no idea what the emissions are for either of the actual, real world journeys are, you only know what the average is in perfect conditions, according to some website, which you've done SFA to verify.

This is what I mean by "they're not really known". Nobody has the exact figures. Same with driving. If I drive to London tomorrow, will it be the same as if I drove last Tuesday week? Spoiler alert: will it fcuk. The traffic jam outside Birmingham added an extra 45 mins, plus the car was heavier then because there were more people and………too many variables. You cannot point to a figure and say, definitively, "this is the amount of emissions for that journey". Nobody can. And here's the real kicker, nobody gives a flying fcuk, pardon the pun. Not really.

SailRail (which was the original discussion I picked you up on) doesn't go to the Azores or Malta, so I don't know why you're bringing those sort of destinations up now.

This is what I mean about you being dishonest and cherry picking the pieces you respond to. I mentioned 7 destinations and you ignored 5 of them, highlighting two as unreachable by ferry. Malta can be reached by ferry, so you actually only mean 1 in 7 cannot be reached by ferry, or 14%. And you're using this as a win? You think this proves your point, while ignoring the other 86% of destinations that poke holes in your argument? These are not the actions of a serious person. You also are highlighting the "this is what I originally picked you up on" as if it was me who's changed the parameters of the discussion when it was YOU who introduced driving (joxer, remember?) and then pretended you didn't. Your refusal to speak about the other 5 is unsurprising.

You can get the ferry to the UK or France, train/drive to Italy, Ferry to Sicily and ferry to Malta. It will cost you an arm and a leg, though, in fuel and in hotels for those times when you need to sleep, and it'll take you about 3 days travel each way. But you think it's comparable, somehow……..The fact that the Azores cannot be reached by ferry is yet another win for the plane, by the way.

But forget about them. Let's do Greece. You show me how much and how long it takes to go to Greece via trains, cars and ferries, and I'll show you how much it costs to fly a family of 4 there, bags included, and we can compare notes. I won't hold my breath.

Mod Edit: Warned for personal abuse

creating more capacity will lower prices.

… which will in turn create more demand which will rebound prices back up.

like building roads to counter traffic. just brings more cars.

induced demand. (maybe even cobra effect of making prices higher and roads worse).