Sign in. It’s quick, free and it’s up to you.
An account is an optional way to support the work we do. Find out more.
UPDATED 18.29
THE DAA HAS said that Dublin Airport has “dramatically improved its position” in studies of international airports, although figures leaked today show that it is ranked 98th in a global survey.
The London Times (subscription needed) published figures from a confidential report from the trade body Airports Council International. The survey of passengers in principal airports worldwide shows that Dublin Airport is ranked 98th out of 146 international airports. It is one place ahead of London Heathrow but behind airports in Calcutta, Johannesbourg and Athens.
A Dublin Airport Authority spokesperson told TheJournal.ie said that Dublin Airport doesn’t pitch itself at the ‘A’ level of infrastructural comfort and space that some of the Asian airports do. He said:
We benchmark ourselves against our peers, which are large European airports, often in capital cities, IATA LOC C is the standard in more of these airports.
The spokesperson added that the levels of service standard related “purely to the design of the physical infrastructure – they do not relate to customer service levels.”
The survey is what is known as an ASQ – or Airport Quality Data. It is not meant to be released publicly and is designed to provide benchmarking information for airports. A Dublin Airport Authority spokesperson told TheJournal.ie that it was important to determine if like was being compared with like.
The ASQ, for example, ranks Humberside – a small regional airport in England – at number nine. That airport sees around half a million passengers a year. In 2010, Dublin Airport dealt with 18.4m passengers and that figure was down an estimated 730,000 because of flight disruptions during severe winter weather and the volcanic ash crisis.
A spokesperson from the DAA said:
It is important in any benchmarking study to compare like with like.
When benchmarked against European airports that handle between 5 and 25 million passengers per annum, Dublin Airport comes eighth out of 25 in the most recent study.
Dublin has dramatically improved its position relative to its peers over the past few years due in part to the huge improvements that we have made in facilities at the airport that have transformed the passenger experience.
Dublin was eighth in the out of 25 in the most recent study carried out in the fourth quarter of 2010, but was 24th out of 25 in the third quarter of 2006.
The survey questions passengers on a wide range of issues from perceived friendliness of staff and cleanliness of toilets to operational issues.
The London Times says the top three airports in the ASQ rankings are, in this order, Singapore Changi, Incheon Seoul and Hong Kong International. Dublin Aiport comes in at No.98 just one rank ahead of London Heathrow, and also ahead of Gatwick (106), Stansted (109), Madrid (117), Frankfurt (126) and Paris Charles de Gaulle (137).
However, a DAA spokesperson said that Dublin Airport “does not set out to match airports that are designed to IATA level of service A, such as Changi in Singapore”. He added:
We benchmark ourselves against our peers, which are large European airports, often in capital cities. IATA LOS C is the standard in most of these airports and that is our core benchmark.
Terminal 2 was designed to IATA level of service C. Changi is designed to level of service A, while Terminal 5 in Heathrow is level of service B. Like Dublin, Gatwick is a level of service C airport.
The DAA also says that the leaked report is from the second quarter of 2010, before Terminal 2 opened.
We are hopeful that our benchmark scores will improve further in the coming months, as Terminal 2 opened in November and is now handling about 40 per cent of Dublin Airport’s traffic.
The IATA level of service grades are as follows: A= Excellent, B = High, C = Good, D = Adequate, E = Inadequate, F = Unacceptable.
To embed this post, copy the code below on your site
I agree with the sentiment here, but naming a law after a victim is never a good idea.
Absolutely the law in this regard could and probably should be amended, but when it is named after an innocent victim, then anyone who opposes the law will be seen as opposing the victim (Brendan) and being in favour of the offender.
This can lead to a poorly-drafted law being passed because no one wanted to challenge it.
It’s better for laws to be neutral, not try to play on people’s emotions, and they should be fully thought through.
I see what you’re saying and agree.
This is easily one of the best journal comments I’ve ever read. Agree completely. I also think we should be wary of pinning all blame on one thing; most accidents are caused by speeding and poor roads. Drink is a factor in about 1/3 AFAIR, but it’s usually massive amounts over the limit rather than an extra glass or red. Driver fatigue is a much greater risk for example, and there is no law against it…
This happens all the time in America as an emotional argument for bad law. My sympathies to any victims, but it is not appropriate to use their name as a legal argument.
James, thank you for your comment. The idea of naming the campaign has achieved its objective. We wanted a name/theme that would resonate and generate debate much like Megan’s Law and Sarah’s law in other jurisdictions and for hideous offences. We strive to ensure that Brendan’s Law seeks justice, not vengeance for all victims of drunk drivers and we are navigating our way through due process and democracy. If the proposals are flawed they will be challenged. As a communications professional I remain objective and as Christina knows and accepts myself and the team must approach this campaign objectively if anything is to be achieved and not allow emotion to influence our decisions. We do not want bad law. We want a just, fair and pro active bill to go through each and every examination it will face. I hope this clarifies the name theme and thank you once again for your comment. Dr. Nick Flynn.
In the states it would be vehicular manslaughter, here it’s just a traffic violation!
Hello Mike, its actually a summary offence, Cases are dealt with by Administrative Law in other jurisdictions. Here its Common Law. Speaking to non nationals there is a perception (right or wrong) we are soft on I suppose what can best be described in general as “white collar” crime.
That makes complete sense.
This won’t happen. The drink driving legislation in this country is very complex and cases are fought tooth and nail by defendants. The reason being is there have been Judges, Barristers, TD’s, Senators, Gardai charged with same and the loopholes won’t be closed. Plus theres the presumption of innocence until proven guilty.
TD’s, Judges, Guards & Senators!?! Where did you pull that little nugget from!?! The reason there are loopholes is because there’s a lucrative market for defence Barristers to find same & save their clients driving licences!! Losing your right to drive & the consequences that follow; ie. job, family, lifestyle is often too much for most & they fight it tooth & nail to keep on the road! Drink Driving legislation is some of the most scrutinised in this country for loopholes!! There’s money to be made in the defending of these charges, loopholes will always be found, closed with amendments, but new ones found!! Nothing to do with drink driving TD’s, Judges & Guards!
Members of all the aforementioned have appeared in court in the last few years for drink driving and they were highly publicised. And you are backing up my point ib relation to the legal loopholes.
Hello, may I say there is anecdotal evidence that suggests those with deeper pockets can afford to hire the very best. I do not mean this as an insult to any legal professional but the safe, sure way to eliminate the huge variance in sentencing is to bring in mandatory sentencing. From our research a very high percentage of killer drivers are appearing before the court for the first time. A defendant is entitled to put forward mitigation arguments but at this point in time discretionary sentencing can a d does result in added stress to an already traumatized family. The criminal who killed Brendan and Lee will serve 18 months for each life. I would not like to be the person to explain the logic behind that sentence to the little girl who will never see her father – Lee’s daughter. Setting aside without prejudice the licence of a charged defendant will not negate the presumption of innocence. In this specific instance it will be a matter for the court to decide the appropriate penalty. Very few cases actually go to trial. An early guilty plea is considered beneficial to the defendant.
James. I absolutely agree with you.
Laws based on emotion don’t work and that is why they should never be considered.
I am not aware of any law based on emotions. Laws are triggered by necessity, fiscal governance and occasionally as a result of a public outcry. The process may result from an emotional response but in the end there are many, many layers to navigate until a law or an amendment is placed on the statute books and the original emotion is long forgotten, as it should be.
It’s called due process. People are entitled to the presumption of innocence. We already have enough draconian drunken driving laws due to successful lobbying by sectional interest groups. It won’t change the behaviour of the tiny minority of drivers who endanger others by driving drunk however, it will be oppressive for the rest of motorists. If we treated other forms of crime (e.g. assault and burglary) in Ireland as seriously as we treat driving offences, we would be living in a fascist state.
I respectfully disagree with your point. The innocent majority of drivers have nothing to fear from well debated good law Barry. Drink driving is a crime. You forfeit your rights when you knowingly break the law and I do not consider this comment to be fascist in nature or content Barry.
Nick, I would respectfully suggest you peruse the provisions of the Road Traffic Acts 1961 to 2011. The legislation already contains a number of statutory presumptions which reverse the burden of proof in the subsequent criminal trial forcing the defendant to effectively prove his innocence. Notwithstanding these right wing provisions, the law reports are littered with examples of Garda incompetence and, occasionally, more sinister behaviour. No democratic criminal justice system should confer upon the Executive arm of government, namely the Gardaí, the potential of falsely imprisoning a citizen without proper due process (i.e. a trial where the prosecution bears the burden of proof, not the defendant). This proposal is an affront to the presumption of innocence and seek to usurp the role of the Courts by imposing a penal sanction, through the deprivation of the use of one’s car, until such time at that person proves his innocence. Are you, as a taxpayer, prepared to fund the cost of the losses associated with the loss of one’s car in circumstances where the prosecution is dismissed?
Nuffsaid, nobody in this country has a right to drive. they are given a licence to drive. it is a privilege not a right. Maybe people need to realise that.
Patsyjoe as a truck driver I disagree. It is a necessity for me. Also agree with the due process comment. Anyone that has not been proven not guilty of a crime should not be punished. You are assuming that the law always get it right. My view is the law doesnt get it right 50% of the time & should be challenged. In particular speed camera vans are not correct most of the time & my research suggests that when these cases are defended properly the cases are thrown out most of the time. This is starting to become the norm in the UK as police forces are abusing their power over motorists. Police abusing power is a worse crime than drink driving & its accuring everwhere.
Michael I appreciate your position on a number of points of law and I agree justice is not always best served. However this campaign seeks to close loopholes where they exist relating to those who willfully turn their cars into lethal weapons once they get behind the wheel under the influence. We are not taking a high moral ground stance on this and no person in authority should abuse the power vested in them. Our campaign seeks justice for the families of the dead, a death that is completely avoidable. God knows accidents will occur but these deaths and the maiming of survivors are preventable providing a fair, balanced law is enacted. Thank you.
Whilst I fully understand the feelings of the poor woman for her loss I am totally opposed to the proposed change she calls for . Indeed I am opposed to even the draconian laws against the enforcement of drink-driving laws such as roadside testing! What I want to see is severe penalties swiftly applied. And in the case of injury or death as a result of any toxic substance found in anyone involved immediate custodial sentences equal to those for murder, driving life ban on release, right of insurance reclaim against any of the perpetrators assets. The law is at the moment a money spinner and in cases like the death of this poor woman’s son too slow to provide resolution both for her and those like her and the perpetrators as well.
And should equally those caught texting while driving, which has been proven to be more dangerous than DUI.
To Brehon Law, what you propose is not possible hence the need for change. To do as you suggest could provoke a Constitutional Rights debate as it would mean the introduction of an Administrative Law system rather than the Common Law we employ. Even in Europe the law is way stricter than here. Immediate confiscation of a car and a subsequent auction is one example. However Inote the Gardai can impound an uninsured vehicle so maybe we are heading the right way.
To Brehon Law, what you propose is not possible hence the need for change. To do as you suggest could provoke a Constitutional Rights debate as it would mean the introduction of an Administrative Law system rather than the Common Law we employ. Even in Europe the law is way stricter than here. Immediate confiscation of a car and a subsequent auction is one example. However I note the Gardai can impound an uninsured vehicle so maybe we are heading the right way.
The basic problem is alcohol, and it’s misuse, and getting it into people’s that alcohol and driving is a no no.
What about setting the alcohol limit for drivers at zero, as they have in some European countries.
Your argument is based on the idea that every human is a rational being. Sadly we aren’t especially while under the influence. That’s why education will not fully solve the problem. Closing ridiculous loopholes in the law like this one and bringing in more than mickey mouse sentences for people who kill others on the road is needed alongside education.
Michael there was talk a few years ago of zero drink limit, and I think it can’t be brought in because of the likes me cough bottles have alcohol in them and other things to
the likes of cough bottles.
pely u won’t then u don’t know and can’t genuinely comment!
Brendan and lee so dearly missed 100% agree with this law should be mandatory…
totally agree with the law ppl know the limit and know they want to anywhere they should abide to the limit if not don’t bother your arse driving get a designated driver and get a taxi home. thinking saves lives until u know someone(which hop
I am very familiar with the R T A and subsequent amendments and though not an expert by any means if I understand you properly you are referring to points of law that transcend the entire legal system, not just the R T A Just today there is a suspect held in custody in connection with a fatal shooting. It appears to be a family member. He will be released on bail, probably on a Section 4 holding charge, pending further serious charges at a later date. Specifically in traffic cases where offences are committed and if serious enough a person is charged pending the trial. I agree there are grey areas where perhaps more thought should have been given but the defendant has the right of appeal to the highest court in Ireland and beyond. Garda incompetence can result in aquittal. However, we are not campaigning for across the board reform. We want one proposed change – i.e. the setting aside of the drivers licence without prejudice once charged. If this is unconstitutional then so be it. The remaining elements of Brendan’s Law are contained within existing legislation apart from the mandatory element. I am delighted to say we now have the offer of assistance from an experienced Barrister, for which we are very grateful. Your point is well made yet the amendments you refer to passed through the Dail without any problems. There are areas that need re-visiting but that is outside the scope of the campaign. We will not pursue anything that is not universally accepted as good and just law.
Thanks to all who posted comment. We genuinely seek two way communication. We are learning as we go on therefore your comments and constructive criticisms are welcome.
have your say