Airlines for America

(A4A) has once again called for the removal of a passenger cap at Dublin Airport (DUB). According to a report by the Irish Independent, the lobby group representing US airlines warned that the cap could cause “irreparable damage” to both Ireland’s economy and US carriers.

This is not the first time A4A has warned that the cap could cause “irreparable damage.” The lobby group previously raised this concern, claiming that the passenger cap violates the US-EU Open Skies Agreement.

A clear night at Dublin Airport with a quad engine aircraft taking off

Photo: Peter Krocka | Shutterstock

A4A added that Dublin Airport

is a critical transatlantic link between the US and Europe and that the removal of the passenger cap would unlock “new opportunities for business.” In letters seen by The Irish Independent, which were sent to senior figures in Fine Gael and Fianna Fáil during government formation talks, A4A senior vice president Keith Glatz said:

“Removing the cap would not only strengthen Dublin Airport’s status as a vital hub for connectivity but would also unlock new opportunities for businesses, passengers and the broader economy.”

The annual 32 million passenger cap has raised concerns among airlines who argue that it hinders economic growth and tourism.

A4A alleged breach of the Open Skies Agreement

In October 2024, Airlines for America, which represents US carriers including American Airlines, United Airlines, Delta Air Lines, and JetBlue Airways, argued that the passenger cap at Dublin Airport is a direct violation of the US-EU Open Skies Agreement. In a statement to RTE, a representative for A4A said:

“The decision from the IAA to apply a restriction on passenger numbers for operations at Dublin Airport is a violation of the US-EU Open Skies agreement.

“The filing made today is part of our ongoing effort to urge all governments involved – the Irish government, the European Commission, and the US government – to urgently resolve this matter before irreparable damage is done not only to US airlines, but also to Dublin Airport and the Irish economy.”

In response to the annual passenger cap, A4A has also teamed up with Aer Lingus, airport operator daa, and Ryanair to take legal action against the Irish Aviation Authority (IAA) to have the cap removed.

Related

Airline Argument Sways Irish High Court To Pause Dublin Airport Passenger Cap

The stay order will grant airlines, including Aer Lingus and Ryanair, more time to possibly remove the passenger cap at Dublin Airport.

Notably, the Irish High Court has decided to move the matter of the passenger cap at Dublin Airport to the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU), with Judge Barry O’Donnell explaining his decision by saying that it was impossible to resolve the case without a reference to the CJEU.

Ryanair Boeing 737-800 landing at Dublin Airport DUB shutterstock_1682557102

Photo: Croatorum | Shutterstock

On December 11, 2024, O’Donnell said:

“By way of a very brief summary of what are detailed factual and legal issues, a central issue for the determination of the proceedings will be the question of whether the IAA was entitled to have regard to certain planning conditions that attach to developments at Terminals 1 and 2 at Dublin Airport, which are described as the 32mppa conditions (32 million passengers per annum).”

In a statement on December 11, Ryanair welcomed the decision, with the low-cost carrier saying that it believed the CJEU would deem the passenger cap illegal. According to the airline, Dublin Airport has the capacity to welcome up to 60 million passengers per year.

“Ryanair regrets that it has been forced to waste time and money on this legal action which would not have been necessary if failed Green Transport Minister Eamon Ryan has just issued a direction to the IAA to prioritise growth, rather than pandering to a 17-year-old planning restriction to address road traffic concerns which no longer exist.”

Related

Dublin Airport Passenger Cap: Ireland’s High Court Refers Dispute To European Union

The decision was made after some of the stakeholders in the case asked whether the court should refer to EU legislations.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *