Aer Lingus

FlutterinBantam · 30-03-2006 7:39pm

No harm at all ..as long as its privatised and run as a proper commercial company ..not as safe nest for wasters and whingers who are afraid of a hard days work.

walshb · 30-03-2006 8:21pm

And why does it have to be sold in order to run properly. This is what I do not get, it's running fairly OK now. Why fix something if it's not broken?. Those so called whingers have the company as it is now which is profitable and to say they are all the same is very wrong. A lot of those workers are there for two reasons, to make money and for the love of the job. In every company, private or not you will get dossers and guys who are on power trips, including the Willie Walshs'. Bottom line is that is not necessary to sell the company to make it a success, just shake it up and improvise.

DublinWriter · 30-03-2006 8:59pm

walshb wrote:

Bottom line is that is not necessary to sell the company to make it a success, just shake it up and improvise.

No, the bottom line is that it needs €500million capital investment to replace it's transatlantic fleet.

Now given the A&E crises, do you think any government will seriously spend that kind of money on aeroplanes?

Shake it up and improvise? It's a major business, not a jazzercise routine.

Willie Walsh already 'shook-it-up' and leaned off all the fat, including selling off the paintings on the walls in HQ offices.

Remember, if it wasn't for Willie Walsh, you wouldn't have any big green planes to get all tingly about today.

I'm all for privatising the company, but it mustn't allowed to be asset-stripped by VC's as Eircom was.

walshb · 30-03-2006 9:48pm

Don't use the health crisis as a reason, money is no issue as regards that problem. I wonder how poor old Aer Lingus coped before Willie. Isn't he amazing, so much so, where is he now I ask. He's a businessman whose sole purpose is to make money and lots of it, not for us the customers, but for himself. You hardly think that no money should be given to Aer Lingus, being in Government control means it is entitled to Government money as are all areas in this country. Aer Lingus needs money just like any other semi state.
The company as far as I'm concerned is just as much entitled to it as the health department, education department etc etc. And it's a damn sight more entitled to it than the businessmen who want to take it over.

It was nice debating with you guys, but I'll leave it. Everyone has their beliefs and views. I guess I just am a little prouder of its beginnings and its status on this island and feel it should continue to be the property of this country, no excuses.

GOAT_Ali · 30-03-2006 9:53pm

DublinWriter wrote:

I'm all for privatising the company, but it mustn't allowed to be asset-stripped by VC's as Eircom was.

And what law can prevent this type of scenario from happening?, that's my whole point as regards its potential sale. It can be destroyed by this behavior

DublinWriter · 30-03-2006 10:22pm

walshb wrote:

I wonder how poor old Aer Lingus coped before Willie.

Where the f*ck were you in 2000/2001 when Aer Lingus was a couple of months away from total bankruptcy? It was all over the 6.1 news for a week!

Do you know *anything* about what happened to Sabena?

Isn't he amazing, so much so, where is he now I ask. He's a businessman whose sole purpose is to make money and lots of it

Where is he now? Chairman of one the biggest and most prestigious airlines in the world, that's where. Successfull businessmen make jobs. End of story.

If you believe that nationalised industry still works in the 21st century, then move to France.

ballooba · 30-03-2006 10:23pm

GOAT_Ali wrote:

Look Balooba, obviously we'll never agree on this one. You give me the impression that really nothing is sacred or nothing should be considered truly Irish and basically anything is for sale in your eyes.

Complete horsesh:t. Plenty of things are sacred The Dail, The GPO (building, not An Post itself), Dublin Castle, Newgrange, The Burren, The Ardagh Chalice, The Book of Kells, Christchurch Cathedral, Asgard I, Kilmainham Gaol.

Notice something about the above? Not one of them is a business.

Would you be so nostalgic about ESB if it was being privatised? No? Maybe because it's not as 'glamorous' in your eyes as Aer Lingus.

ishmael whale · 30-03-2006 10:28pm

Stimpyone wrote:

Eh, what would it have to do with the european commision?. The government would simply be a majorty stake holder in a floated company.

They could object to anything for whatever reason, it's their prerogative.

If you look at the link below you’ll see several cases where the Commission has been successful in getting the European Court to strike out ‘golden share’ arrangements, in situations which in principle were much the same as the Aer Lingus slots issue.

Remember you are not talking about the State being a majority shareholder. As you say yourself, the situation is more likely to be the State maintaining a minority holder with the hope of being able to impose conditions on the holders of the majority stake. That formula has been tried elsewhere, and found incompatable with EU law.

I don’t hold with any of the misty-eyed nonsense about Aer Lingus and those lovely adverts with Gabriel’s Oboe as the background music. But I dare say someone could find a better use for the Heathrow slots than flying little planeloads of Paddies back and forth. The only reason for keeping Aer Lingus in public ownership is to protect the slots, and that might be enough of a reason.

However, what will swing the issue in the end will be the interplay of union pressure and the forthcoming election on the one hand and the political difficulty of investing money in a State airline for reasons few can relate to on the other. I don’t think our strategic national interest in the slots will feature much in anyone’s thinking, and I expect the Government would be happy to spin that this can be looked after with a golden share arrangement even if they know it would not stick if challenged.

http://europa.eu.int/comm/internal_market/capital/framework/court_en.htm

http://lawzone.thelawyer.com/cgi-bin/item.cgi?id=112482&d=204&h=252&f=209
Germany must give up 'golden share' in VW, says European Commission
The difference of opinion between the European Commission and Germany over the lawfulness of the State's golden share in car manufacturer Volkswagen culminated today when the Commission announced that it was taking the matter to the European Court of Justice……..

Armed with the findings of the Court in earlier cases involving golden shares held by France in the oil company Elf, by Belgium in gas company Distrigaz, and by Portugal in certain energy and telecom companies, the Commission has now stepped up the pressure on Germany. The Court recognised that golden shares could be valid in certain circumstances, such as the State's security, but on the back of these earlier judgments, it is now difficult to imagine that Germany's arguments in relation to VW will stand before the ECJ. Germany's case will not be helped either by the UK's recent announcement that it will dispose of its golden share in the airport services operator BAA after a Court ruling in May 2003.

BendiBus · 30-03-2006 10:43pm

ishmael whale wrote:

The only reason for keeping Aer Lingus in public ownership is to protect the slots, and that might be enough of a reason

I think it's already been said, but the value of the Heathrow slots is becoming less and less important as Aer Lingus develops it's own route network and stops being a shuttle service feeding BA long haul. If they can be sold to fund a long haul fleet then that's great. It will save us all from having to transit through the hell that is Heathrow. And we can all take pride in seeing the shamrock in Dubai, Hong Kong, Sydney and Capetown

If I want to go to London I'll go to Gatwick (which Aer Lingus could get back into if it wants)

ishmael whale · 31-03-2006 1:05pm

I think your point is possibly right – seeing access to Heathrow as crucial could just be a legacy of old ways of thinking. And certainly I’ve no problem in principle with the sale of Aer Lingus.

But I think we do need to be clear that selling Aer Lingus means it will be a fully commercial operation. Golden shares will not enable the State to maintain any meaningful control – which may not necessarily be a bad thing. However, we do need to be clear that if their new owners decide Heathrow – Dubai is a more profitable route than Heathrow – Dublin, then that’s what they’ll do.

Eoin · 31-03-2006 1:10pm

ishmael whale wrote:

I think your point is possibly right – seeing access to Heathrow as crucial could just be a legacy of old ways of thinking. And certainly I’ve no problem in principle with the sale of Aer Lingus.

But I think we do need to be clear that selling Aer Lingus means it will be a fully commercial operation. Golden shares will not enable the State to maintain any meaningful control – which may not necessarily be a bad thing. However, we do need to be clear that if their new owners decide Heathrow – Dubai is a more profitable route than Heathrow – Dublin, then that’s what they’ll do.

This is true, however are there any controls currently in place to ensure that they do provide a service between London and Dublin? Or do they have the authority to drop this route in their current format?

BendiBus · 31-03-2006 1:53pm

eoin_s wrote:

This is true, however are there any controls currently in place to ensure that they do provide a service between London and Dublin? Or do they have the authority to drop this route in their current format?

There will be a profit to be made on Ireland-Heathrow well into the future (BMI use LHR slots to serve DUB without being forced to) so I don't think it should be forced on Aer Lingus by way of law. It could end up being another farce like the Shannon stopover where business and common sense are cast aside for local political considerations.

dowlingm · 31-03-2006 3:26pm

eoin_s

Aer Lingus are not statutorily obliged to serve LHR (as Cork found out, the only place they have to serve is Shannon, and then only if they want to keep flying to the US) :rolleyes:

Furthermore, when EI becomes a public company the company's obligation is primarily to shareholders unless legislation (like the Air Canada Public Participation Act) forces obligations on them. The Minister can instruct his Board appointees to oppose any move to drop LHR but I don't think that is currently the case.

Therefore, to answer your question - Aer Lingus could drop LHR and sell their slots at any time. However, they are codesharing with BA and would have to deal with ending that arrangement also. I don't think they would do so in a million years btw, it's SIPTU scaremongering - the only guy who would have done it is WW and he's gone and taken his O'Leary aping fantasy to BA.

Dublin-London is still one of the heaviest air traffic markets in Europe with significant business content, so there is money to be made for the moment, especially with A321s and A320s being the sole equipment (no 146s from time to time) and making good use of the slots.

Aer Lingus

Comments