Runway Jobs Take Off at Dublin Airport!
City Wide News North West edition 24 Aug 2006

Opposition group UPROAR are declaring something of a victory in their opposition to Dublin Airport Authority's planned second runway

Dublin Airport consultants admit that DAA estimates of jobs and income created directly and indirectly by the new runway will not be additional, and are not economic benefits.

The Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) prepared for the proposed new runway by DAA consultants in 2005 contains an 'Employment and Economics' chapter which argues that jobs and income to be created directly and indirectly by the new runway were substantial and could be taken as economic benefits of the new runway. These jobs would be lost if the runway was not built, according to the EIS. In the EIS Part 1, the Non-Technical Summary it is concluded: "The impact of the proposed new runway in 2025 would be around 30% more local, regional and national employment and annual income. This translates into around 3,900 and €l45
million in income (at 2001 prices) locally, 7,200 jobs and €451 million of income regionally, and 11,900 jobs and €741 million of income nationally."

However, according to an UPROAR spokesperson, "buried in the main report is an admission in technical jargon that these jobs and income benefits are gross, not net (additional), but this caveat is subsequently ignored everywhere else in the report and is flatly contradicted in its summary, just quoted above."

UPROAR said that these runway-related jobs would not be additional and therefore could not be claimed as economic benefits. "In a situation of near full employment, if jobs result, they will be sucked in from elsewhere," UPROAR predicts. This will create problems for local employers and businesses trying to recruit people with similar skills, and add to road congestion and wage and property price inflation in Fingal, a spokesperson claims. "Further, pulling even more jobs into the Dublin area flies in the face of National Spatial Strategy and decentralisation policy, meaning that such action by the DAA is a national economic cost, not a benefit," he says, adding that, on the other hand, moving jobs away from Dublin would be a net economic benefit.

The response of airport consultants to UPROAR's criticism of the runway job benefits is to state: "...it was never implied that the jobs created and income generated directly and indirectly by the project would be additional to the economy." They further concede: "It is agreed that the jobs supported and the income generated are not a measure of economic benefit."

In spite of this claim and withdrawal, the DAA's own website has stated: 'The overall impact of a new runway would be to facilitate additional aircraft and passenger traffic, thus adding another 30% to local, regional and national employment and to annual income.'

"Not only is there no caveat here, but also the use of the term "adding" to local, regional and national employment, clearly contradicts that caveat and the consultants' claim that it has "never" been abused," says an angry UPROAR member.

Instead, UPROAR believes real jobs and income can be created if any additional airport capacity required is developed elsewhere, either at Cork or Shannon or at a second Dublin Airport located away from established communities but adjacent to the Greater Dublin Area.