Who actually wants the Dublin Airport passenger cap abolished?

The reason they're all in the one place is because you keep dodging them.

But, here we go:

You said you would reduce demand. When asked how you would reduce demand, you panicked and edited your post to say you would reduce the prices.

Ignoring, for a second, that this would increase demand, which is the opposite of what you originally wanted to do, HOW WOULD YOU DECREASE PRICES?

actually, on checking this i was right first time round.

i offered an hypothetical of reducing demand, which would indeed reduce price.

which is correct. perfectly in line with basic microeconomics.

the opposite mechanism being increasing demand would increase prices.

offering more flight capacity at the airport would indeed reduce prices initially. as my opponent suggests. passengers having more flights to choose from.

however, that capacity will fill farily quickly. as lower prices induce demand.

Leading to upward pressure on prices over time as the increasing demand kicks in.

In line with the analogy of building more roads, which works for a while, and then just means more users and more traffic.

That's not a typo, that's just the wrong word completely.

A few posts later I said:

"Right then reduce price. Thank you for pointing out it was me and not somebody else."

Is that a dodge?

Yes, it is. You were asked HOW you would reduce prices, multiple time, by multiple people. You dodged it at the time, and you've just dodged it again. The last line in the post by me you just quoted was "how would you reduce prices" and you've literally just dodged it.

I wouldn't decrease prices. 

This contradicts everything you've said over the last week on the matter. Okay then, we’re back to square one………how would you reduce demand, in that case, if you're not going to reduce prices?

Hypothetical? You didn't offer anything of the sort, and that's what everyone is asking you for. You said "reduce demand", then ignored anyone who tried to get you to elaborate. That's not a hypothetical, that's just a statement. You refused to actually provide one, despite the many requests.

Also, your logic doesn't pass the smell test. What you're essentially saying is "1 More flights = 2 more supply = 3 Lower prices = 4 Increased demand = 5 Higher prices, in the long run". The demand is already there, so, without increased supply, the prices will be increasing anyway. So instead of doing 1-5 above, and getting a few years of lower prices, you want to go straight to number 5 and the higher prices without going through 1-4. How is that better?

Make it make sense?

This post is in 20/11/ 25 …

In ten years time, ,, Baldonnel Aerodrome ,, will be on the hook, to be Dublin's second Airport .. we need it..

I love the lying and hypocricy! Worried about aviation emissions, are you worried about the rampant over consumption of the planet? Fast fashion endless disposable single use crap etc ... Spare me!

That not true I've hit grid lock at the weekends and the middle of the night coming off a late flight.

M50 perfectly fine lol.

I would say if space permitted then 2 shorter runways would have made more sense than one longer one. I'm open to correction but to my knowledge the only plane that couldn't land at Dublin due to the runway being too short was the AN-225 and spending money on a runway for one plane shows a level of silliness in the upper management decisions

I wouldn't call it a sum-negative though I would also point out that Shannon still has the longest runway in Ireland at 3,199m

Airlines are also, in theory, forced to choose other airports on the island to fly into and out of so it promotes regional investment.

That's demonstrable false though. The cap was based on the design capacity of T1 and T2. It had nothing to do with distributing air traffic nationally. Airlines operated freely out of Dublin for 16 years. Without a single flight being prevented by the cap. And the original wording of the cap stated that once reached, there should be application submitted to expanded further. The cap is about planning for the future, not limiting air traffic.

Two shorter runways would have made no sense. There's no benefit to 4 runways. And depending on how short they were, some flights would be limited.

I'm open to correction but to my knowledge the only plane that couldn't land at Dublin due to the runway being too short was the AN-225 and spending money on a runway for one plane shows a level of silliness in the upper management decisions

This is mistaken on two counts.
The primary purpose second runway wasn't to serve bigger planes. It's was to increase capacity. The single runway capacity was around 35-40m. The parallel runways can serve 80-90m. Obviously we needed a added a runway.
It's more about taking off than landing.. The south runway is underspec for long range aircraft. Eg. Extended range 777s, A340/350 and 747s. They need reduced weight to operate from the south runway.

I wouldn't call it a sum-negative though I would also point out that Shannon still has the longest runway in Ireland at 3,199m

And Shannon is that length so that it could accommodate the Space Shuttle. More silliness?

what part is nonsense. what % of the people using the airport actually exit it? Its not the same as Dublin airport which services an island population. lots of trains and road provide alternative routes that simply aren't an option for islanders.

Frankfurt also has 4 runways.