Mr. Cathal Guiomard:

The Dublin Airport Authority published architectural plans and business plans for a second terminal on the October bank holiday weekend of 2006. The Commission for Aviation Regulation carried out a study of the T2 project which concluded in June 2007. We were keen to have an early investigation of the matter because the T2 project, in terms of its costs and the size of the building, was very substantial. We were also very mindful that commitments would be made once the building had been completed that would have to be funded over subsequent decades and the implications for airport charges could be considerable. We sought to establish that the users of the airport wished to have this facility built and that the construction costs were reasonable. We published a report on our website in June 2007 containing considerable analysis related to that matter. We expressed concerns from as early as January 2007 that the building was very large, even relative to the passenger traffic forecasts the Dublin Airport Authority published to accompany the plan. These have turned out to be too ambitious and, even relative to that much higher level of traffic that was forecast, the building was still large.

The commission engaged with the industry, including Aer Lingus, and the Dublin Airport Authority. There was also a Government direction at the time. All of them were supportive of the building of T2 and I have to say that Ryanair's position, although it did not wish the T2 that was subsequently built to proceed, was supportive of a second terminal being built. It, too, believed, that traffic would warrant additional capacity at the airport. As it has turned out, the increase in passenger traffic that was envisaged has not materialised to date and passenger numbers have declined substantially. The implications for the charges at the airport have been considerable.

The commission backloaded the cost of T2 and the terminal's full costs have not fed their way into airport charges thus far. Our plan would be that this will happen as the building is more intensively utilised. Nonetheless, the traffic decline and cost increase resulted in a substantial increase in charges in 2009. As the Deputy noted, this has given rise to controversy and complaint then and since.