There has been a lot of noise in the last few months over the plan to cap passenger numbers at Dublin Airport next summer at 25.2 million, within the annual cap of 32 million. A Greek chorus has wailed about the serious consequences of complying with the limit set on passenger numbers by An Bord Pleanála, when it approved the expansion of the airport back in 2007.
Michael O’Leary, the Ryanair chief executive, has been banging on about the cap for most of the year making one apocalyptic prediction after another. The stratospheric Christmas airfares he warned of, if the cap was not lifted before the end this year, have yet to materialise. The focus has moved on to next summer.
He is not alone in his anxiety about the potential consequences. Corporate travel agents have predicted major business disruption. French tour operators say French fans won’t come to the Six Nations Rugby clash with Ireland next March. Regional airport operators say it will cost them money.
Willie Walsh, the Irishman who heads up the International Air Transport Association, branded the cap an international joke. The US department of transport has asked the Irish Aviation Authority (IAA) – which implements the cap – to find “an immediate and temporary solution” to the problem before it starts to cost their airlines money. Even the DAA, formerly known as Dublin Airport Authority, chipped in, warning of dire consequences for the economy and tourism if the cap is not increased. It wants it increased to 40 million.
Christmas dinner for under €35? We went shopping to see what the grocery shop really costs
Western indifference to Israel’s thirst for war defines a grotesque year of hypocrisy
Tasty vegetarian options for Christmas dinner that can be prepared ahead of time
Eurovision boycott, Ozempic, bike shed: Here's what Irish Times readers searched for most in 2024
It was hard to see what the airline’s problem was; they would not be able operate as many flights in and out of Dublin but presumably they would all be full?
The warnings all had two things in common: an abundance of hyperbole and shortage of detail about how the cap would actually cause the sort of economic damage being predicted.
It was hard to see what the airline’s problem was; they would not be able operate as many flights in and out of Dublin but presumably they would all be full?
There was a moment of clarity this week when the airlines succeeded in getting the High Court to freeze the implementation of the cap for next year pending the outcome of a full appeal. The court stopped the IAA from allocating landing and take-off slots to airlines for next year: the process by which the cap is actually set
The court seemed to put great store on an argument that had only been mentioned in passing over the last few months. (It got mention in the US department of transport letter to the IAA.) The High Court was told that if airlines lost landing and take-off slots at Dublin Airport as a result of the cap being imposed, they would also risk losing the corresponding slots at the reciprocating airports because they are usually renewed annually on a “use them or lose them” basis.
The costs to the airlines could be very significant. Ryanair told the court that the loss of historic Dublin Airport slots would hamper its right to retain such corresponding slots at 67 other European destinations. The consequences for the economics of its network, which involves aircraft flying multiple routes from multiple airports each day, are obvious.
It’s not surprising this argument has not featured very much in the last few months of public scaremongering by the airlines. It is entirely self-serving. Much better to position yourselves as guardian of the national interest and recruit a few allies to help you make the argument.
But when it comes come to the High Court you need more than the fears of a few French travel agents to halt a process that ultimately would force a State agency to break the planning laws.
The High Court has now ordered the IAA to halt the allocation of slots for next year pending the full hearing, on the basis that “the balance of justice ‘overwhelmingly’ supports pausing the IAA cap”.
The DAA has already warned that a failure to adhere to the cap risks putting it in breach of the terms of the airport’s planning permission and exposes it to enforcement action and potential criminal sanction.
December 3rd has been set for the full hearing*, and it is unlikely that the issue will be resolved at that level of the High Court. The case could go on for years, and even if the IAA is ultimately successful, it seems inevitable that the DAA will be forced to breach its planning permission in the meantime.
The idea that the right of airlines to make money should somehow trump the obligation of a State body to comply with planning laws is an interesting one and it will be interesting if the High Court comes to this conclusion when it hears the case in full.
The case will be of great interest to the promoters of data centre operators and wind farm investors among others whose planning permission – if they can get it – comes with strings attached.
It might be better if Fingal County Council spares everybody’s blushes by agreeing to the DAA’s application to have the cap increased to 40 million.
*This article was amended on November 7th