Sign in. It’s quick, free and it’s up to you.
An account is an optional way to support the work we do. Find out more.
RETURN FLIGHTS HOME to Ireland for Christmas may cost up to €1,000 as a result of the passenger cap at Dublin Airport, Ryanair CEO Michael O’Leary has claimed.
O’Leary was invited to appear before the Oireachtas Joint Committee on Transport and Communications with other Ryanair top officials this afternoon to give the airline’s views on passenger cap at Dublin Airport.
During his submissions O’Leary took aim at DAA – the commercial semi-state company that runs Dublin Airport – and the Irish Government, and claimed that the passenger cap was severely restricting the country’s growth and that other countries were “laughing at” Ireland.
He also strongly criticised the lack of parking options at the airport and claimed that the Metro North would not be of great assistance to getting people to and from Dublin Airport.
A number of TDs made contributions throughout the committee, with Fianna Fáil TDs from Clare and Cork City Cathal Crowe and James O’Connor using the opportunity to encourage Ryanair to expand more into Cork and Shannon airports.
Fine Gael TD for Fingal Alan Farrell took issue with a number of the statements made by O’Leary as well as some of his fellow TDs, arguing, for example, that planning permission would be needed to construct any new car park.
Passenger cap
Current planning permission at Dublin Airport states that the annual passenger cap, meaning the maximum number of people who are able to go through the airport each year, is set at 32 million.
O’Leary has long been very critical of the cap, called for the Minister for Transport Eamon Ryan to resign and has claimed that the limit has impacted his business.
As things stand, DAA – the semi-state company that runs Dublin Airport – applied for planning permission in December to expand and improve infrastructure and expand Dublin Airport. Among this was a proposal to increase the passenger capacity at the airport from 32 to 40 million passengers a year.
The planning application documentation ran to over 7,000 pages and almost 700 drawings. Fingal County Council came back to DAA in February seeking additional information.
Taking this into account, along with likely appeals and legal action, it is likely to take a lengthy period before final approval will be granted. O’Leary claimed it would take four years. However, a DAA spokesperson rejected this, saying “there is no reason” why it should take that length of time.
In the meantime, Ryanair says, the cap is constraining the growth of its company in Ireland and the growth of the country in general. O’Leary said as a result of the cap, the price of flights to Ireland could soar this Christmas.
“There is going to be a critical issue, and I would urge all the politicians here, there is going to be a massive crisis here this Christmas,” he told the Committee.
“We have applied for all our slots for this winter including the extra slots that we routinely run.
“The fares to and from Dublin this Christmas will be probably €500 one way and about €1000 return and the government and politicians are going to get the blame for it,” O’Leary said, without specifying where these flights are from.
He said this “suits me fine”.
“I mean if you cap Dublin Airport we’ll make out like bandits. I’ll make a fortune this Christmas.”
No growth in Ireland
In his opening submission, O’Leary reiterated that Ryanair is Europe’s largest and fastest growing airline, and that it will continue to grow this year, but that none of this growth would be in Ireland, as a result of the cap.
The Ryanair CEO also said that the airline had planned for four new jets to be based at Dublin Airport but that these had now gone elsewhere. He said other countries’ airports “were laughing at us” as the country was not taking the growth opportunity.
He has been highly critical of Transport Minister Eamon Ryan in the past, and again took aim at him today.
O’Leary said that Ryanair had met with the minister in March and had “put in front of him the most ambitious traffic and tourism growth initiative that this country has ever seen”, but that the airline had heard nothing back.
O’Leary said that the Government and Minister Ryan had two solutions at their disposal to get rid of the cap. The first, he said, was “emergency legislation” to amend the Planning and Development Act.
The second was for the Minister for Housing to make airports “strategic infrastructure” under the Planning and Development Strategic Infrastructure Act 2006, and issue a ministerial direction to An Bord Pleanála to scrap the passenger cap.
DAA
The Ryanair CEO was highly critical of DAA, claiming the organisation mismanages the airport, and taking issue in particular with plans by DAA to build a tunnel under
ABP granted final permission in April for the airport to build a vehicle underpass in the middle of the airfield to connect the Eastern Campus with the West Apron. DAA has said it is important for the Airport’s future. growth.
However, O’Leary and Ryanair have been highly critical of the project, saying it is unnecessary. A DAA spokesperson defended the runway today following O’Leary’s comments:
“The underpass is needed to support growth in the next two decades and for the safe and efficient running of the airport,” the spokesperson said
The other options that Mr O’Leary mentioned were considered but were not viable from a safety point of view and would have led to congestion and wouldn’t work at a major hub airport.
O’Leary was also highly critical of parking at Dublin Airport, and said the airport should use its land to build temporary car parks for the summer and busier months. He said this would not require planning permission, but this was again rejected by the DAA.
“If adding more parking at Dublin Airport was as simple as Mr O’Leary suggests then we would have done it already,” a spokesperson said.
“To add parking spaces, you need planning permission and the local planning laws state that no more additional parking spaces are currently allowed in the vicinity of Dublin Airport.
We have considered and continue to explore every viable option to increase the number of parking spaces available to our passengers.
To embed this post, copy the code below on your site
Why are they constantly referred to as girls, when 1 woman is 30?
@Ariana:
Have you been living under a rock the past few weeks? Don’t you know that any foreigner under the age of 35 is now considered a minor?
That’s probably a nod to those ‘girls,girls,girls’ signs in red light areas.
Very strange for 4 women, the youngest being 21, to be refferred to as little girls!
@Ariana: headlines nothing else….
”Four little girls” aged 21, 22, 23 & 30. It doesn’t get much more patronising than that. Yet these supposedly vulnerable ”little girls” have had their income stolen by the state and look set to be deported. So much for decriminalising sex workers. Very telling that the supposed anti-trafficking NGO warriors are nowhere to be seen.
@David On Tour: if you bothered your are to read the article you would see the women wanted to be sent home. Ireland can’t deport EU citizens for a summery offence dimwit
@Karl Carroll: They wouldn’t need to be ‘sent home’ if sex work was actually decriminalised. Isn’t that what the NGOs and Fitzgerald are supposed to be pushing for?
Yeah why wouldn’t they want to be sent home.Thats where they wired the 100 grand they made working in the relief agency. Innocent they are definitely not.
Is this a spoof Willie Byrne investigating a brothel?
Brilliant!
He the man
Quite bizarre on a number of levels.
First of all , the women involved weren’t ‘young’ per se. The reflex impression gained by the headline is that the people involved were say 17 – 19. Not 21 -30 years of age.
One cant help thinking the headline refers to the bizarre reference by the Detective as these ‘little girls’ . Presumably , the detective refers to them as such to self-promote his saviour status to the judge , which he underlines again by stressing ‘trafficking victims’.
Clearly the women involved were not forcibly trafficked – otherwise ,relief and a willingness to embrace the role of ‘trafficking victims’ status would help their case . That they were adamant that they were there voluntarily seems to be utterly disregarded by the condescending gardai referring to some mysterious ‘ Dublin or Belfast’ pimps .
Is that really what passes for detective work nowadays?
And the landlord – why was he not questioned on who was paying his rent? Surely , if the gardai were concerned about organised crime , then presumably the landlord could shed light on the ‘third party’ who pays the rent ?
Then to confiscate their €5,000 AND fine them €200 each while BELIEVING them to be victims. JFC!
Guarantee that there was no survelliance as described by the detective – this raid was done almost on the spur by neighbour complaints and so the garda involved just ‘sexed’ up the case for self-serving reasons. Just shoe-horn the ominpotent auld ‘Dublin or Belfsat pimp’ and you can patronise the women involved as mush as you like .
There are plenty of known brothels in all major towns & cities which the Gardai could raid but don’t . This raid certainly didnt occur to fight crime.
The very nice guard was trying to get them off the charges by suggesting mitigation, most probable too btw.
@Range Rover P38:
But then why was the landlord not questioned ? Allowing your premise to be used as a brothel is currently a criminal offence – never mind , if a venue for some criminal organisation based in ‘Dublin or Belfast’ or somewhere .
Tbh, if i was a detective and i genuinely thought they were trafficking victims, i’d be damn sure i’d speak to the landlord and see what his story was regarding payments.
In this case, ‘ ah,shure’ , lets get rid of them by glibly referring to them as victims, little girls and then confiscate their money AND fine them for their impertinence at being perceived victims even when they’re adamant they’re not.
@John Mac: Exactly. And where are the protests of Ruhama, Rachel Moran, ICI & TORL at the treatment of these ”prostituted women”? Or do these particular sex workers not count as the right sort of victim?
Why the reluctance to accept their own testimony that this was their decision? It’s like a purposeful denial of their agency. From what I read there is no evidence to suggest someone else involved and even evidence to the contrary. Saying they wouldn’t have the wherewithal to organise it themselves, why? Because they are women? How demeaning. Fair play to the judge though for highlighting the landlord, probably the first recognised tenancy rip off that hasn’t been excused.
Men HAD to be involved, we corrupt all women and at the same time, make all their bad decisions for them!
@Jeffrey McMahon: actually it was wrong to insult the landlord. They could have rented elsewhere if they wanted.
The reason for not accepting the testimony should be obvious, because trafficked people are often induced, threatened or lied to about what will happen if they point any fingers.
@Karl Carroll: So the best course of action is to arrest them, confiscate their earnings and impose individual fines, then tell them their landlord was ripping them off? Is this how we should treat supposed trafficking victims?
@David On Tour: they should be but on a plane and sent back where they came from and not allowed return end of….
@Peter donnelly: So in your view, (contrary to that of the Gardaí and the propaganda of local NGOs) they weren’t coerced or trafficked?
David – do you mean contrary to their sworn statement given to the police that they operated alone? A sworn testimony that would normally be enough to firmly convict anyone else. You mean that these women disrespected our police and courts by lying to them?
@Gone Feisin: I simply asked Peter Donnelly a question regarding his post.
And I replied, oh the joy of the internet in connecting people. Your previous comments are all of the same strain. Either these women are innocent victims lying to police and therefore guilty OR they ran the brothel themselves and are guilty. Either way, not legal.
@David On Tour: Yes, absolutely arrest them, this gets them away from the gangs controlling them.
if they wont speak after that then what would you suggest? Oh yeah,legalising it because thats solved all the problems in Germany and Holland, right?
@Gone Feisin: And either they were indeed trafficked by persons unknown, in which case they should not have been arrested and fined or they were here of their own free will, in which case the proposed decriminalisation so enthusiastically promoted by the govt and NGOs should be illustrated up front. After all, what could possibly be gained by prosecuting sex workers (who are all supposedly ‘victims’) for the non-crime of working together for safety?
@Karl Carroll: No-one is advocating legalisation as in Germany & Holland Karl. Sex workers, Amnesty, the WHO & UNAIDS all favour decriminalisation, as in New Zealand.
Yeah working together for safety, but if there was a guy there who helped them organise it then he trafficked them? The double standards on this issue is ridiculous. The proposed legislation is not in force at the minute, they knew this and deserve to be punished. Taking their money is punishment for illegal earned funds. They got off light
Sometimes I don’t understand peoples angles here. So a woman can say shes trafficked and govt believes her, provides santuary et al and everything is good, woman says she isn’t trafficked, she’s lying to protect or coerced, govt provides santuary et al and everything is good. Where is the part where a woman realises she is unskilled but attractive and can make serious money selling a product that is always in demand and can have a life she wants?
@Gone Feisin: You’d need to ask TORL / ICI etc & Frances Fitzgerald that question. According to them, no woman could possibly consent to being a sex worker. Therefore they are left with the first two options you mention.
Ya know, I dunno jack about commercial space but I’m beginning to think, you could throw a bunch of cash at some landlord for a unit and open up anything you feckin like and the authorities wouldn’t come near you
@Eugene Walsh:@Eugene Walsh: and this is based on the fact that the brothel was raided and shut down? That’s sound logic!
Man they interviewed must have got some shock…be kinda hard to explain away..
He only went in there to get directions on how to get away from there!
What happened to the 5000 grand, was it taken or returned to these ladies. Calling them girls, not accepting there sworn testimony that each one was guilty of running a brotel reduced the charges these women could be found guilty off. Blaming some invisable pimps from Northern Ireland or Dublin who trafficked them into Ireland made them is ways victims of cruel men instead of enterprising women who enjoyed a tax free holiday in Ireland while making a bit of money. Escort Ireland has pages covering every county for years now, a complete menu of fornacation for Irish men and women. In some cases people who have no other means of getting a ride, it’s more of a health service really. Word must have spread in Eastern European countries that money can be made with very little chance of detection by gardai even though it’s one website, no need for the dark web in Ireland. The only disadvantage is that you are charged by the half hour. We Irish like getting value for money so these ladies would have worked hard for the earnings. The ex nuns and feminists will be devising more legislation to curbs people’s enjoyment driving women like this into the arms of real crimmials and gangsters.
Ageists
Ah God love those” little girls”, They hadn’t a clue what they were doing.my a*se! Am I missing something here?
Legalise and regulate. State out of adults bedrooms .
have your say