McEvaddy open to US military use of Knock

ArthurDent

McEvaddy open to US military use of Knock

14 January 2007 20:20
Businessman Ulick McEvaddy has confirmed that he will discuss letting the US military use Knock Airport at its next board meeting in March.

Mr McEvaddy, who was appointed to the board of the airport last month, said he would be in favour of anything that would benefit Knock Airport and the people of Mayo.

He said he saw no reason why US military planes could not land at Knock.
http://www.rte.ie/news/2007/0114/knock.html

Is this guy for real? So basically anything for money is ok - according to him. I'm not so sure the "people of Mayo" would be rushing up to thank him for bringing miltary planes to Knock - of course I could be totally wrong.

InFront

I'm sure he would just love it. The first problem I can see for him, is why would the Americans be interested in his airport? They have a perfectly reasonable siutation with Shannon at the moment, and I daresay with better facilities. I don't see why the Americans would pay much attention to this.

Victor

This will answer a few questions.

http://integrator.hanscom.af.mil/2006/July/07132006/07132006-16.htm

WASHINGTON (Dow Jones)--A pair of well-heeled Irish investors are taking on big defense companies in the race to sell flying gas stations to the U.S. Air Force.

Irish investor Ulick McEvaddy has little U.S. name recognition, but he is one of the richest men in Ireland and a well-known developer there. He and his brother Des are active in Irish politics - sometimes controversial - and were recently involved in efforts to build a new terminal at Dublin International Airport.

The brothers also own Omega Air. Officially based in the U.S., the company owns a fleet of cargo, passenger and military aircraft, including a Boeing Co. (BA) 707 tanker on lease to the U.S. Navy. Last month, they announced plans to make a bigger play for U.S. business with a pledge of up to 60 modified DC-10s.

...

Of further note further down:

McEvaddy wouldn't discuss any rendition-related overtures. But he did serve as an intelligence officer during 10 years in the Irish Army.

...

Do we need to be watching ourselves as well as the Americans?

flogen

Yup - he's made his money from Omega Air in the US, and why is anyone surprised? He's a businessman for God's sake!

Management at Shannon and politicians defending the use of the airport by US military have always said it made financial sense, they've never shied away from that fact... I think I saw Martin Cullen or someone on RTE news a good few months ago basically listing off the millions the US use of shannon means for the Airport (and the exchequer).
It's a logical argument too - if they moved onto it being an idealogical one (in that they did it to support the war effort) they'd find themselves in much choppier and voter-unfriendly waters.

ArthurDent

Victor wrote:

This will answer a few questions.

http://integrator.hanscom.af.mil/2006/July/07132006/07132006-16.htm

Of further note further down:Do we need to be watching ourselves as well as the Americans?

Cheers Victor very interesting

ballooba

Mr McEvaddy is an old buddy of the Haughey's:

Sunday Independent 23.09.01

McEvaddys loan their jet to the Haugheys

CHARLES HAUGHEY and his wife Maureen have flown to the south of France in a Gulfstream jet owned by businessmen brothers Des and Ulick McEvaddy, the Sunday Independent has learned.


Last night, the Haugheys celebrated their golden wedding anniversary in a Cannes restaurant where they dined on the first night of their honeymoon 50 years ago. They were joined by their four children and their spouses, who, unlike their parents, flew at their own expense.


Mr Haughey, who is selling his Kinsealy home and estate for over £30m, is expected to use the next fortnight to view properties, as he prepares to divide his time between Ireland and France after the sale of Abbeville.


It's not the first time that the McEvaddys have aided the political elite. A significant controversy blew up two years ago when it was revealed that Tánaiste Mary Harney and Minister for Foreign Affairs Mr McCreevy had holidayed at the brothers' villa.


The McEvaddys want to build a new terminal at Dublin Airport.



JODY CORCORAN

and McCreevy/Harney's :

Examiner 21.09.99

McEvaddy denies interest in £150m deal

Dan Collins and Evelyn Ring
MULTI MILLIONAIRE businessman Ulick McEvaddy was attempting last night to protect his political friends in high places from immersion in a boiling controversy amid opposition accusations that the proposed £150 million Dublin Airport rail link to the city began to smack of passports for sale type deal making.
The McEvaddy contacts with senior Cabinet members, including the Minister for Finance and the Tánaiste, were part of “a fact finding mission to ascertain how a rail link to Dublin Airport would work”.
Ulick McEvaddy added “we are not making a proposal nor do we intend to make a proposal for any consideration by the Government.
“As a company we feel that it makes good sense, as well as being a democratic right, to make the Government aware at the earliest possible time of any concept we might have which might be useful to the Government’s own thoughts and plans,” he said.
In reference to the time spent by the Minister for Finance, Charlie McCreevy, and the Tánaiste, Mary Harney, in his South of France holiday villa, McEvaddy said, “I place special value on life long friends, irrespective of who they are or what their politics are, and have no hesitation in offering them hospitality of any kind.”
Meanwhile, Fine Gael’s Deputy Ivan Yates said his party will table a number of motions in advance of the Government’s publication of the National Development Plan, to ensure that public private partnerships were subjected to a transparent selection process.
The opposition, he added, would not sit idly by and allow private lobbying and ministerial or cabinet selections to dominate any proposed partnerships.
Meanwhile, the Minister for Finance, Charlie McCreevy, has denied that there was any impropriety in his dealings with Ulick McEvaddy. Mr McCreevy spent a holiday in Mr McEvaddy’s villa in the South of France just weeks after discussing proposals for an airport rail link with the millionaire businessman.
Mr McCreevy said he was well aware of cabinet rules about declaring gifts and that, when the time came, he would do what was necessary in relation to this matter.
Tánaiste, Mary Harney, has strongly rejected suggestions that she may have been compromised as a result of her stay as a guest at Mr McEvaddy’s villa.
She said if she had known her friendship with the McEvaddy’s was going to become a political football, she probably would not have stayed at their holiday home in the south of France.

He's ireland's very own arms dealer and also owns 150 acres next to Dublin Airport where he want's to build a second terminal.

Manic Moran

The majority of the troop movements at Shannon are co-incidental: The US charters out aircraft from a company which for business reasons happens to use Shannon as a maintainance and support facility. If he basically owns Knock, and also is looking to create his own 'military charter fleet', I see no particular reason Knock can't be an option. Watch Shannon object though: The US military flights are the difference between red and black ink.

NTM

walrusgumble

monsignor horan would turn in his grave

DaBreno

As a Mayo native, can I just say Im disgusted. Ulick McGee needs to piss off.

walrusgumble

looks like mayo people will be out protesting again, hopefully the rest f the country will follow

(prob wont make much difference thou, dail never seem to listen, then again there is an election coming, time for enda kenny to earn his money)

Judt

Let's cut off all ties to Britain while we're at it, from economic to the RAF search and rescue aircraft which regularly train with the Irish Air Core.

RedPlanet

Judt wrote:

Let's cut off all ties to Britain while we're at it, from economic to the RAF search and rescue aircraft which regularly train with the Irish Air Core.

Yeah that makes perfect sense..:rolleyes:
Lookit the guy is obviously a tackless war profiteer.
Maybe the Church could weigh in on this, considering the history of the airport and that it's chiefly utilized by religious pilgrims.

Tea drinker

Judt wrote:

Let's cut off all ties to Britain while we're at it, from economic to the RAF search and rescue aircraft which regularly train with the Irish Air Core.

I think we should break from the pound while we're at it.

oscarBravo

RedPlanet wrote:

Maybe the Church could weigh in on this, considering the history of the airport and that it's chiefly utilized by religious pilgrims.

It's what now?

lostexpectation

this guy has kept himself under the radar as chief war profiteer in Ireland, its top oil distributors that he owns and fuels the military with at shannon.

co-incidental, wow the verbs you come up with to describe backing of illegal invasion and occupations NTM ??

the thing is the church were chief architects in starting the use of shannon by the US military did you see the rocky road to dublin there was small bit mentioned there about the US wanting to use Shannon to fly to korea at the time I think and the gov being not so keen but US amb asked the archbishop to lean on the gov which he did saying you must be part of the fight against communism!!!

Victor

oscarBravo wrote:

It's what now?

It carries pilgrims to the Shrine of Mammon.

I think he meant the main purpose was to have been to bring pilgrims.

purple'n'gold

Tea drinker wrote:

I think we should break from the pound while we're at it.

Absolutely, and stop speaking English and supporting premiership teams. And of course no more looking at English tv.

oscarBravo

Victor wrote:

I think he meant the main purpose was to have been to bring pilgrims.

Maybe, but that's definitely not what he said.

Dontico

i'm against non-european military planes using our airports.

reasons, brief:

1-its not being neutral.

2-as a civilised country, we shouldnt be connected to bloodthirsty barbarians.

3-most importantly its not practical. if the terrorists see us as siding with the usa, they could target us. our airport security is terrible. the usa war planes are a security risk. one bomb can take away an uncountable amount of money compared to the money invested.

Tea drinker

Interesting stuff allright... anywhere I can get more info, what's this rocky road.
This is almost as interesting as the fact that Donald Rumsfeld and our own Peter Sutherland are on the board of the swiss company that supplied the Nuke reactor to Iran.... sorry off topic but couldn't hold it in.

lostexpectation wrote:

this guy has kept himself under the radar as chief war profiteer in Ireland, its top oil distributors that he owns and fuels the military with at shannon.

co-incidental, wow the verbs you come up with to describe backing of illegal invasion and occupations NTM ??

the thing is the church were chief architects in starting the use of shannon by the US military did you see the rocky road to dublin there was small bit mentioned there about the US wanting to use Shannon to fly to korea at the time I think and the gov being not so keen but US amb asked the archbishop to lean on the gov which he did saying you must be part of the fight against communism!!!

ballooba

lostexpectation wrote:

this guy has kept himself under the radar as chief war profiteer in Ireland, its top oil distributors that he owns and fuels the military with at shannon.

He hardly flies below the radar!?!?!? :rolleyes:

He was involved in a huge scandal with Mary Harney and Charlie McCreevy over T2 at Dublin Airport a few years back.

He has a controversial facility for processing Nuclear Waste in the UK.

He was a friend of the Haughey's for years.

There's a fair bit of controversy over the land he owns at Dublin Airport regarding zoning etc.

The McEveaddy brothers, aren't exactly shy, just because you've never heard of them.

Manic Moran

lostexpectation wrote:

co-incidental, wow the verbs you come up with to describe backing of illegal invasion and occupations NTM ??

1) I believe you'll find it's an adjective, not a verb. Verb being an action, and adjective being a description.

2) With regards to the troop movements, Shannon is merely carrying out its business arrangement with a civilian airline which has used the airport since before the Iraq war started. If the airport starts saying 'We will break our contract at will because we don't like your choice in client', it will find itself at something of a disadvantage in the realm of competition with other airports. Shannon will lose its viability as a provider of maintainance and support services.

NTM

lostexpectation

Manic Moran wrote:

1) I believe you'll find it's an adjective, not a verb. Verb being an action, and adjective being a description.

2) With regards to the troop movements, Shannon is merely carrying out its business arrangement with a civilian airline which has used the airport since before the Iraq war started. If the airport starts saying 'We will break our contract at will because we don't like your choice in client', it will find itself at something of a disadvantage in the realm of competition with other airports. Shannon will lose its viability as a provider of maintainance and support services.

NTM

ah yes this is how these 'business' people turn horrific invasion and troops movements and possible renditions into some type of virtue

Manic Moran

Well, realistically, if someone's going to make money off it, why not let it be Shannon? Even the Almighty UN has sanctioned the continued presence of US and other troops in Iraq, even if they weren't so keen on the initial invasion, so the money's got to go somewhere.

At any rate, it's an issue of precedence: Airlines want a reliable support structure. If Shannon proves unreliable, then nobody is going to want to use it, even after the Iraq campaign is long gone. If you really do want to make Shannon unviable, be sure in your call to also propose how you're going to keep the local economy going.

NTM

RedPlanet

Shannon was doing business long before the yanks invaded Iraq Manic Moran.

Dontico

Manic Moran wrote:

Well, realistically, if someone's going to make money off it, why not let it be Shannon? Even the Almighty UN has sanctioned the continued presence of US and other troops in Iraq, even if they weren't so keen on the initial invasion, so the money's got to go somewhere.

At any rate, it's an issue of precedence: Airlines want a reliable support structure. If Shannon proves unreliable, then nobody is going to want to use it, even after the Iraq campaign is long gone. If you really do want to make Shannon unviable, be sure in your call to also propose how you're going to keep the local economy going.

NTM

as i said earlier.
one terrorist can take far more money than what the yanks have put in. life is pretty dam expensive.

Manic Moran

RedPlanet wrote:

Shannon was doing business long before the yanks invaded Iraq Manic Moran.

Indeed, but I submit that Shannon also was not arbitrarily saying 'We don't like your choice of customer, so pack your bags and move', or otherwise having an environment which put forward incentives to move away. Once that starts happening, airlines might be more willing to consider more reliable locations. For example, World Airways transferred from Shannon to Frankfurt after that incident with the US Navy 737. They are not ceasing their operations of which the US military is only one of its customers, and though there may be short-term satisfaction that 'at least they're not landing in Ireland', there's no reason for the airline to go through the expense of going back to Shannon once the US ferry mission is over. The effects of such an arbitrary policy would last far longer than the large-scale US involvement in Iraq.

NTM

lostexpectation

Manic Moran wrote:

Well, realistically, if someone's going to make money off it, why not let it be Shannon? Even the Almighty UN has sanctioned the continued presence of US and other troops in Iraq, even if they weren't so keen on the initial invasion, so the money's got to go somewhere.

At any rate, it's an issue of precedence: Airlines want a reliable support structure. If Shannon proves unreliable, then nobody is going to want to use it, even after the Iraq campaign is long gone. If you really do want to make Shannon unviable, be sure in your call to also propose how you're going to keep the local economy going.

NTM

it doesn't seem shannon is viable even with the troops movements... it was always a crock, so ther goes your arguement

Manic Moran

I seem to recall Shannon made something akin to a E3million profit in the latest year's figures. Troop movements accounted for somewhere just under E15million in revenues.

NTM

RedPlanet

Manic Moran wrote:

I seem to recall Shannon made something akin to a E3million profit in the latest year's figures. Troop movements accounted for somewhere just under E15million in revenues.

NTM

I seem to recall Shannon almost always incurring a loss and existing by subsidies. I also seem to recall an investigation by the EU on the dodgy business deals between the government, Ryanair and Shannon Airport.

Manic Moran

So which do you advocate then: Closing Shannon, or higher subsidies?

NTM

RedPlanet

I'm all for subsidising public transport.
But Shannon is not public transport.

Let it stand or fall on it's own merits.
But subsidizing the place for the US military to use it for part of their wars of aggression?
Give me a break!

Manic Moran

Fair enough, but my understanding is that a large portion of the local economy is dependant on Shannon airport. If the government lets it collapse, (a) there are going to be a fair amount of unhappy campers, and (b) some alternate plan (probably also involving taxpayer's Euros) will be required to compensate.

What I'm getting at is that the situation is a bit more complex than simply 'Troops out:' A larger frame of reference is required. As long as you provide alternatives which also take these extra issues into account, feel free to continue.

NTM

RedPlanet

I don't know about you, but I have to go where the jobs are.
That means moving.
I don't expect charity, nor do i ask for it.
I don't know why the people around Shannon are so bloody special.

sovtek

Manic Moran wrote:

The effects of such an arbitrary policy would last far longer than the large-scale US involvement in Iraq.

NTM

...and if the World Court ever rules on the Iraq War a fair few from the airline you spoke of may end up in the Hague.

sovtek

Manic Moran wrote:

What I'm getting at is that the situation is a bit more complex than simply 'Troops out:' A larger frame of reference is required. As long as you provide alternatives which also take these extra issues into account, feel free to continue.

NTM

The Geneva Convention nor the Nuremburg Charter mention effects of local economies that profit from war crimes.

lostexpectation

Manic Moran wrote:

I seem to recall Shannon made something akin to a E3million profit in the latest year's figures. Troop movements accounted for somewhere just under E15million in revenues.

NTM

I think half the profit is some sort of switcharoo around between dublin and shannnon, I seem to remember they could earn even that more if they charged them ATC costs, how dare they let down the local economy by not doing so. Of course somebody is going to say they'd lose that contract if they did hmm...

I wonder what word describes people like him, I dunno maybe something old that your teachers told you didn't exist anymore, like tyrant or imperialist or something inbetween that and war profiteer there must be a good descriptive word, like mercenry which still applies sharply to the soldier that go to Iraq.