Michael O'Leary has described the Fine Gael proposal to build a second airport in the Greater Dublin Area as insane.

Ryanair's stance may well be coloured by their access to what is, in effect, a highly subsidised Dublin Airport. Interesting, is it not, that Dublin Airport is unique in being the only main capital city airport Ryanair uses? Is it not also notable that the DAA is proud of the fact that Dublin Airport, at €6.34 per passenger, had the lowest
passenger charge of all major airports in Europe, at less than 50% of the European average charge, according to DAA CEO Declan Collier? What else is so cheap in Celtic Tiger Ireland?

Passenger charges at Dublin Airport only include €0.07 (7 cents) for the use of the vast publicly-owned land bank (2,500 acres) at Dublin Airport. That is a subsidy of maybe €20 per passenger. Coincidentally, London City Airport, just sold for €1.1 billion, has an average charge of about €27 per passenger. It is also noteworthy that this tiny private airport of 110 acres with 1/10 of the passengers of Dublin Airport is worth nearly double the €600 million figure put by the regulator on the whole of Dublin Airport.

If this uncompetitive subsidy were removed, as it might have to be under competition rules, the case for a second airport to be built on the thousands of hectares of state-owned cutaway bog within 50 km of Dublin would be overwhelming. Dublin Airport would become a higher cost but more sustainable and efficient Dublin City Airport and could continue to be an "engine of growth" for the Fingal Area. Business in Fingal would thrive with reduced road congestion and Dublin Airport would be in a better position to cater for a higher value-added business clientele while a second GDA airport would cater more for the higher volume, lower cost users. Travel time and congestion for users south of the Liffey as far as Wexford/Waterford would be reduced for a well-chosen site, say in the area of Newbridge. (Most Dublin Airport users come from south of the Liffey).

If a proper economic assessment were made of this second airport proposal as an alternative to the expansion plans of Dublin Airport this subsidy element would become transparent. A proper cost benefit analysis of Dublin Airport's expansion plans, as is actually required by the Department of Finance, would also include the huge road traffic congestion costs (time-wasting) imposed on the economy by this unsustainable development plan. The National Roads Authority is very concerned that the benefits of the €1.1 billion M50 upgrade will be wiped out by the additional traffic generated by IKEA. If the airport expands to 60 million passengers, as planned by the DAA, that will add about six times the worst daily traffic volume of IKEA to the same road network. UPROAR estimates that the DAA's expansion proposal will lead to a net write-off of some €4.5 billion. See our grounds of appeal against the Terminal 2 expansion at http://norunway.com/t2a/appt2.htm.

That is not some abstract figure but represents a real loss of value to this economy. On the other hand, given the cheap land available, lower trafficongestion implications and many other benefits that could arise from a well-chosen site, a second airport serving the Dublin Area would yield at least an annual real rate of return of 7.4% as required by the aviation regulator and would operate at about the same passenger charge as currently at Dublin Airport but without the subsidy. Many spin-off benefits would follow which could not arise in congested Fingal such as
new jobs where they are needed and a whole new town with affordable homes close to the workplace.

On the surface, it is a bit of a surprise that Michael O'Leary, the champion of market competition, does not favour such a new airport development. At an airport conference on 23/24 October last, he was asked why he would not build his own airport and "compete the pants off Dublin Airport." In his answer he attacked only the notion of a second airport for Dublin City. The same nuance appeared in his attack on Fine Gael's plan. He seems to be carefully avoiding condemning the idea of a second airport outside Dublin City, which might make more sense than building another airport in the congested southern suburbs of the city.

The Fine Gael proposal is not site-specific. As well as Baldonnel and Weston, it includes consideration of a second airport located outside Dublin City, possibly in adjacent counties and serving the Greater Dublin Area. O'Leary only attacked the most vulnerable part of the proposal. He may be keeping his options open for the future. In the meantime he may have done the sums and sees that, with a subsidised Dublin Airport provided to him by the taxpayer, there would be no case
for him to look for (or build) a second GDA airport that would not actually be cheaper to operate. However, if that subsidy were removed and he and his passengers were faced with landing charges of €25 or so, like London City Airport, he would change his tune. The national interest is, however, a different matter, and it would likely be well served by such a new state-of-the-art airport serving the Greater Dublin Area and adjacent counties.

The only responsible way to determine what is in the national interest is to undertake a thorough independent evaluation of all realistic options for our future aviation infrastructure capacity needs. It should also take due account of the looming peak-oil crisis, global-warming and climate-change and the inevitable impact higher fuel prices and environmental taxes will have on aviation and the associated
drive for unsustainable airport expansion.