On Tuesday (10 February), the Irish Government took formal steps through the Cabinet to remove the longstanding 32 million annual passenger cap at Dublin Airport. The move signifies a shift in transport infrastructure policy and reflects broader discourses about national infrastructure, international connectivity, planning frameworks, and economic positioning.
The passenger cap was introduced in 2007 as a planning condition associated with the construction of Dublin Airport’s second terminal. It was designed to limit passenger growth in line with concerns for traffic congestion and noise concerns from local community groups. Over time, actual passenger numbers have consistently exceeded this limit, with a reported 36 million passengers passing through the airport in 2025, highlighting tensions between current planning restrictions and the growth of economic travel.
Government approval of a draft Dublin Airport (Passenger Capacity) Bill 2026 now provides the Minister for Transport with the powers to revoke or amend the existing cap and address any future capacity limits. The objective behind this legislation is to modernise the policy framework which governs airport capacity and align it with current travel volumes and economic objectives. In parallel with this legislation being progressed by the Minister, an ‘Infrastructure Application’ has been lodged by the Daíl and is currently progressing through the planning system. This application seeks to raise the passenger cap and develop several supporting capacity advancement projects including a new Integrated Transport Centre. These supporting measures provide the necessary infrastructure to facilitate Dublin Airport’s increase in passengers.
Government officials have outlined the removal of the cap as a response to outdated restrictions that no longer reflect the operational realities at Dublin Airport. From an infrastructure policy perspective, the cap was viewed as a potential constraint on Ireland’s ability to maintain and further develop international air connectivity, which is viewed as integral to trade, tourism and economic competitiveness. Minister for Transport, Darragh O’ Brien said of the cap’s removal that: ‘This Government recognises the strategic importance of Dublin Airport as our primary international gateway and the vital role it plays in supporting economic growth, connectivity and jobs across the State’.
The passenger cap removal comes after reports of mounting pressure on the Irish government from US aviation lobby groups. It was reported last month that a US lobby group, Airlines for America (A4A) had asked the US government to strongly consider the curtailment or suspension of flights by Irish airlines between the capital and the United States. They argued that the cap was damaging to the economic interests of American airlines operating or hoping to operate out of Dublin airport.
While several organisations within the travel industry have come out in strong vocal support for the legislative change, representatives from environmental groups and local communities have expressed concerns. Issues cited include noise impacts, traffic congestion and the implications of the cap removal against Ireland’s climate commitments. Other complaints included airline travel being continually prioritised from Dublin Airport, which handled more than 80% of all flights in Ireland last year, and fewer incentives for people to travel in and out of Ireland’s other airports.
Government is clearly prioritising this legislation. The Cabinet is expediting its progress, and the Minister has indicated that enactment should take place as soon as possible. Meanwhile, business group Ibec has proposed that the legislation should be passed by the end of the Summer. Moreover, Ryanair CEO Michael O’Leary has called for the passenger cap to be lifted by St. Patrick’s Day.
This alignment between government prioritisation and business advocacy underlines the perceived economic importance of removing the cap. However, competing external pressures, particularly environmental concerns and opposition from local communities, may influence both the legislative timeline and the substance of the final law.
