Hannah Daly’s Post

Hannah - this is the mantra from the aviation sector and if you speak out the Aviation Leaders have a fit and accuse you of Agenda's and anti-business sentiments etc. and whine that you don't believe them about gettng it right by 2050 - in 26 years time, when most of them will have made their money and gone - leaving their detrious for others to heal - probably too late. They are incapable of having an honest discussion and elucidating the truth and then sitting down with all staekeholders and working out together what we are going to do to meet and reach these huge targets. The EU are moving the goal posts closer, as I predicted, by looking for 90% emission reductions by 2040 - 16 years away. If we continue in silos, as we are now, we will spend most of our time fighting each other - whilst the world slowly roasts - but isn't that what the politicians and emitters want - kick the can down the road. I don't have an easy quick answer - there si no easy answer - but to claim that by 2050 we will be net-zero with no actual quantifiable real hard plan is beyond belief #climatecrisis

Hannah Daly the increase in emmissions if the Cap is lifted is certainly worrying and should not happen. What is the solution if we want to increase passenger capacity but contain emmissions? The cap, imho, should be on emmissions not passenger numbers, DAA should be incentivised to ensure emmissions per passenger km are lowered as an important step along the transition journey. How 🤔 by use of more efficient aircraft, biofuels and SAFs in time maybe electric or H2. This requires government locally and centrally to set policies which incentivise the right behaviour. Overtime in stages the total emmissions can be reduced to get us to Net Zero. If Net Zero is seem only as a 2050 target we will certainly miss it, we need to be held to our interim targets.

A cap on pax numbers is not an environmental measure (what enviro incentive does it provide?). IIRC the original reason for the cap back in 2007 were infrastructure concerns. Those may still be a valid reason to maintain the cap (32M pax and still no rail link, seriously?), but not environmental considerations. Airport emissions are those related to the operation of the airport (buildings, ground support equipment, transportation, etc etc). I don't think those will increase by 750,000 tonnes. Flight emissions are accounted for elsewhere (ETS, CORSIA, ...) and need to be dealt with at multinational level. It is not correct to assign them to an individual airport.

Hannah Daly Here's my innovative design for what could turn aviation upside down. It seems impossible, but it fits exactly within the laws of physics, and can also be proven. However, this cannot be shared publicly with everyone. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DWtsvLNQu5k&t=11s and feel free to watch (part 2) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FfZWREGKoJ8&t=26s

Hannah, what would also be illuminating is to see how increased pax feeds into Kenny's remuneration package: just remember where he cut his teeth

Can you guys also sort out the trash baskets? this is because migrants seem to lose their passports in them, on the 300-meter walk to customs control. Thank you Dublin Airport for keeping our vulnerable folks safe. ☘

I totally agree Hannah Daly. Why is there no interest in modern #airships to supplant jet aircraft on relativeky short flights (to cities as far away as Amsterdam and Paris & closer)? For a near doubling of journey time there would be a ~90% reduction in emissions!

Until flying with Hydrogen or electrically driven engines arrive..