The initial nonstops from DUB to the US, back in 1994, were by the old 747-100s, which presumably had to use max reserve power.
It's very convenient that they can blame the lack of direct flights (which was as a result of an artificial, govt imposed regulation, still partially in effect today) for the runway length being as it is. Back in 1989, it must surely have been known that this wouldn't last forever. I feel sure that an active decision was taken on this, but it will probably never be revealed.
However, let's focus on the "now". EI's new CEO, Dermot Mannion, has already spoken of the possibility of flights to Asia; there are rumours that EI is looking for something larger than A330-200s and 787s ... Now, without getting into that argument, how is a 777, or even a 332 going to cope with a nonstop to SIN, KUL or HKG on a Summer's day, at 20 degrees? Even if they have a late night departure, it's still going to have to be at full welly (to use the technical term!). As we all know, operating engines at full power on all takeoffs can't be good for economics or engine wear. But it looks like we're stuck with 10/28 at its current length until 2012.
Let's face it, t/a flights are OK ex-DUB, but not ideal. Going longer haul, there will be problems. What I'd like to know, as an example is, if you compare the MTOWs from a runway of DUB's length with (say) MAN, how much of a difference is there, even at a low temperature?
More siginificantly, however, as a matter of policy, will EI's growth plans be affected (let alone the prospects of other long haul flights) by the DAA's lack of vision and the govt's lack of oversight. As naive as it must sound, we really need a bit of vision on this, but I'm not hopeful.