Shannon-Heathrow discussion [merged]

Poxyshamrock

Schuhart wrote:

So have you always been a Unionist, or just since it was suggested that your uncle might have to travel with Ryanair?

Unionist? HAHAHA

And as for the Ryanair thing. It's nothing to do with being snotty and having to fly with Aer Lingus. It means that you can no longer get to Heathrow from Shannon. Think of the inconvenience that will cause...business meetings, citybreaks in london, connecting flights to Australia etc.

billy the squid

Hagar wrote:

Excuse me, here is the sum total of my posts in this thread:








If you intend to ban me for that, I must inform you that I will take the matter to feedback.

You should also know that disputing a moderators adjudication (sp) in a thread and taking it off topic can also get you banned, which it has done for a week.

Mr E

In the interest of fairness, jbkenn has also been banned for a week for abuse.

Sponge Bob

The loss of the shannon heathrow flights is equally bad news for Galway, Heathrow is 2 hours from Stansted on the other side .

The ONLY bit good news is that the Galway-M50 trip will be near enough 2 hours by 2009 which is nearly what Galway -Shannon was on a friday before Ennis was bypassed.

A lot of Heathrow-Shannon traffic was UK trying to fly to Boston and other Aer Lingus US destinations. There was also a codeshare with American Airlines, I take it they are pulling out too.

There will be NO more Aer Lingus flights out of Shannon by the end of the summer season in 2008 I would now think

Schuhart

Irish Wolf wrote:

Care to expand your declaration of Shannon's piracy?

Does it need expansion? Or do you feel the compulsory stopover amounted to something else?

Poxyshamrock wrote:

Unionist? HAHAHA

So you don't mind this redeployment of resources within the country.

Poxyshamrock wrote:

It means that you can no longer get to Heathrow from Shannon. Think of the inconvenience that will cause...business meetings, citybreaks in london, connecting flights to Australia etc.

Presumably anyone travelling to London can (within reason) use a service to any airport there, not just Heathrow. And, in fairness, the country isn't exactly short of airports with services to London.

As for connecting flights, presumably Cork is reasonably accessible and if a side-benefit of this move is to promote scale in Cork Airport so that it can truly become self sustaining, all the better. (This is something Shannon never managed despite the expensive breaks given to it).

But there is yet another option. Shannon Airport management could get off its arse and attract in a flight from some other hub airport, if the demand for such a service truly exists. Its not as if the end of the Stopover isn't coming with plenty of warning. If people in the region are still operating with the mindset that the Government will hijack planes heading elsewhere and force them to land in Shannon, then they've only themselves to blame if they're left sitting on a big pile of nothing.

jbkenn

jbkenn wrote:

have a look at the Shannon Airport website and see where you can go from Shannon, not great, at least with onward connections from Heathrow you can travel the world.

jbkenn

While I accept that this EI decision is ridiculous especially with the load factors (I'll get back to that in a minute) but can't you pretty much have onward connections to any major airport in Europe via Dublin?Hows that any different to doing the same via heathrow?

Getting back to the decision,I cannot fathom it at all if the load factors are high.
It doesn't make economic sense unless basing the EI short haul planes at Shannon was costing more money than they were earning?
Is heathrow the only non U.S EI route from shannon? if so then they might be able to claim the basing costs there are too high vis a vis growing their time tables to other shannon to routes.

Michael O Leary must be laughing at this decision otherwise as it's highly illogical.

Schuhart

Tristrame wrote:

can't you pretty much have onward connections to any major airport in Europe via Dublin?Hows that any different to doing the same via heathrow?

That would involve admitting that Dublin should be seen as a national resource and developed accordingly - they'd rather pay homage to London.

Tristrame wrote:

It doesn't make economic sense unless basing the EI short haul planes at Shannon was costing more money than they were earning?
Is heathrow the only non U.S EI route from shannon? if so then they might be able to claim the basing costs there are too high vis a vis growing their time tables to other shannon to routes.

I'm not an insider, but from what I've heard you seem to be in the right space. Heathrow is the only non US EI route, so presumably the economies of scale aren't there to staff it with local crews which leaves you paying subsistance expenses. EI will be operating several services out of Belfast (it being a city of circa 600,000 souls) to various European destinations and they seem to intend to have Belfast based staff operating them.

Sierra Oscar

It seems that the Shannon Development Community heard nothing of this -

http://www.rte.ie/news/2007/0806/aerlingus.html?rss

Shannon Development, the regional economic development body for the Shannon area, has said it is very surprised to hear that Aer Lingus is to end its Shannon to Heathrow service.

It added that the Shannon to Heathrow route is a key service for business and tourism and a successful one for Aer Lingus and the region.

The group is very disappointed at the proposed withdrawal of the Shannon to Heathrow service and is seeking information and a meeting with Aer Lingus representatives as soon as possible.
Advertisement

Aer Lingus currently operates four flights a day from Shannon to Heathrow.

The official announcement of the transfer of flights is expected to be made by the company's Chief Executive Dermot Mannion after he meets Aer Lingus personnel in Shannon tomorrow morning.

He will then attend a news conference at Stormant in the afternoon.

It is not clear if there will be any lay-offs at Shannon but there are fears that more than 100 jobs could be lost at the airport.

The Aer Lingus move to Belfast will result in the creation of at least 100 jobs there.

Six services from Belfast to mainland Europe are also expected to be introduced by the airline.

The government have a large stake in Aer Lingus, is there anything they can do I wonder? Aer Lingus's first priority should be to the people of the Republic - not the North. In my opinion.

therecklessone

Sierra Oscar wrote:

The government have a large stake in Aer Lingus, is there anything they can do I wonder? Aer Lingus's first priority should be to the people of the Republic - not the North. In my opinion.

Aer Lingus are a private company, there first priority should be to their shareholders.

Unfortunately though Sierra,the government are not allowed thanks to E.U competition laws to order EI to opperate a SNN-LHR service if it's loss making or to subsidise it.

EI's first priority is to make a profit.
They will and should be asked to justify this decision with a good economic reason.The government as a share holder could ask them to do that and in theory,it could make things difficult for them if they are pulling out of this route if it does make a profit.
This is something we don't know for certain but it's the angle locals should take if I were them.

Schuhart

Sierra Oscar wrote:

Aer Lingus's first priority should be to the people of the Republic - not the North. In my opinion.

And I always associated Shannon with displaced Northern nationalists. I never realised Unionism was also so strong there.

Sierra Oscar

Tristrame wrote:

Unfortunately though Sierra,the government are not allowed thanks to E.U competition laws to order EI to opperate a SNN-LHR service if it's loss making or to subsidise it.

EI's first priority is to make a profit.
They will and should be asked to justify this decision with a good economic reason.The government as a share holder could ask them to do that and in theory,it could make things difficult for them if they are pulling out of this route if it does make a profit.
This is something we don't know for certain but it's the angle locals should take if I were them.

Indeed - It will be very interesting to see the reason behind the decision. No doubt a lot of public debate is in store...:)

@Schuhart - Whatever.

Sponge Bob

If AL pull out of Shannon or go summer only I will do my best never to fly with them again or send any business their way for any reason . Thats because I simply loathe Dublin Airport and that bloody M50

They have options on more a320s so if the problem is short term aircraft availability they should lease one or two for Belfast .

As Shannon-Heathrow is codeshared with BA I wonder if an appeal to Willie Walsh for BA to take over the route may be in order .

Business is business so **** Air Lingus.

vkid

According to a Clare TD this morning the loads were extra-ordinarily high on these flights. Political decision it seems and Shannon suffers again so i would say as a shareholder the government are well aware of what is happening and nothing will happen. Wonder what the unions will make of it though? Moving jobs to the north, part of the UK?

highlydebased

I will be setting up a petition to try save the flight (or persaude another airline to operate it). Wont be setting it up for another 10 days or so seeing as I am away

Sierra Oscar

vkid wrote:

According to a Clare TD this morning the loads were extra-ordinarily high on these flights. Political decision it seems and Shannon suffers again so i would say as a shareholder the government are well aware of what is happening and nothing will happen. Wonder what the unions will make of it though? Moving jobs to the north, part of the UK?

Who was the TD?

parsi

Time now for SFADCo and the Airport authority to get up off their collective asses and attract additional traffic to the airport. Relying on EI and FR is the height of madness.

Perhaps the Shannon workers should have spent their energies into promoting their airport rather than knocking Knock and Galway ?

I have visions of Micky O'Leary turning up tomorrow to suggest that his landing fees be recalculated now that he'll have a virtual stranglehold.

therecklessone

Why do people keep suggesting its a political decision?

Aer Lingus is a private company, do people really think they are acting on instructions from government?

More likely that Aer Lingus see Belfast as a growth area and would rather concentrate their resources there. They are due to announce up to six new routes from their new Belfast base.

vkid

Private company or not, the government are still the largest shareholder..

vkid

Sierra Oscar wrote:

Who was the TD?

Tony Kileen! who also questioned if it was political!
http://www.rte.ie/business/2007/0806/aerlingus.html

therecklessone

vkid wrote:

Private company or not, the government are still the largest shareholder..

So you're suggesting the government is pulling the strings?

MooseJam

where's Shannon, I always thought it was in Cork ?

vkid

therecklessone wrote:

So you're suggesting the government is pulling the strings?

it would be naive of anyone to think the government have no influence in any matter relating to Aer Lingus.

therecklessone

So vkid, what motivated the government to instruct Aer Lingus to pull the SNN-LHR route?

golden

Aer Lingus might be a private company but the Government can intervene and demand that flight operators have to service certain airports.

Having no Shannon/Heathrow will have knock on effects throughout the midwest not just airport staff. So perhaps the Government should look at the bigger picture here and use the leglisation to demand flight operators to have a daily flight to Shannon/Heathrow.

It would be more cost effective for the Government to intervene as there will be more people claiming the social.

Schuhart

parsi wrote:

Perhaps the Shannon workers should have spent their energies into promoting their airport rather than knocking Knock and Galway ?

Sounds reasonable. But, at the end of the day, isn’t part of the problem that the Western seaboard is paved with airports that can’t achieve much apart from taking business off each other.

therecklessone wrote:

Why do people keep suggesting its a political decision?

And, in particular, can no-one appreciate the amount of mirth they’re provoking with this suggestion, given that Shannon owes its existence to politically motivated decision making.

ninty9er

I'm a bit nonplussed at 2 things here.

1. Pulling SNN-LHR
2. Why people think it's political

A possible reason behind it could be the limited number of AL's landing slots at LHR (which though intangible to an extent have a higher financial value than all of the company's other assets pooled). I'm saddend by the decision, though it's hardly unexpected. I imagine it was political pressure the has KEPT it this long, never mind lost it. I would imagine that O'Leary could fly to LHR at a significanlty higher cost than LGW and LTN, or alternatively LDN.

No doubt Dermot Mannion doesn't give a sh1t about SNN as this will be a great cost cutting venture for AL, which will mean a big bonus for him next March when the 2007 annual report is complete.

AA pulled out because airport management made no effort to keep them, as I'm sure is the case with AL. What do you expect when all they have to offer passengers at 6am is an airport with no services. Shannon was more attractive in the 1980s than it is now. You could get off a flight from wherever at 5am, get a breakfast, get a drink, get a paper etc...now you have to wait until 8:30 and at that you can't even get the drink or the breakfast!!

This boils down to bad management by SAA and nothing else. It is one of only 2 airports in Europe, 11 in the WORLD that can land an Airbus A380. It has Western Europe's longest runway and is used in thenmain for training purposes...this is nothing to do with the airlines..it's all to do with the management not making it worth their while.

I was against the sale of AL from the start and now I think it's time for the Cabinet to seriously consider a buyback to 100% This is a company that could easily pay for itself and if it had no shareholders to satisfy could be extremely successful with comfortable modern aircraft, instead of worn out bangers!!

Rant over.

heyjude

vkid wrote:

Private company or not, the government are still the largest shareholder..

Largest shareholder yes, majority shareholder no. The government's level of influence over AL roughly equates to the size of its shareholding, though it can punch above its weight through its control of airports and its regulatory role.

It is true that Aer Lingus's main responsibility is to its shareholders, but I doubt whether that responsibility extends just to whether a route is profitable or not, surely if I have an aircraft on one route and it makes €1m profit per year and I find that I could make €1.5m by using the same aircraft on another route, then business logic would suggest that you move it. You are trying to maximise the return on company assets.

ninty9er wrote:

I was against the sale of AL from the start and now I think it's time for the Cabinet to seriously consider a buyback to 100% This is a company that could easily pay for itself and if it had no shareholders to satisfy could be extremely successful with comfortable modern aircraft, instead of worn out bangers!!

Rant over.

There is no chance that the government will consider a 100% buyback, for several reasons, for starters the cost would run into hundreds of millions and would be much higher than what they received when they sold their shares, the exchequer isn't as full with cash as it was when the shares were sold, how could they justify spending hundreds of millions buying back AL shares when they have other things such as schools, hospitals etc to spend money on. They would also be handing Michael O'Leary a huge profit(since he would never sell at the price he bought his shares and would be in a position to name his own price - how likely is that :rolleyes: )

It should also be noted that one of the main reasons the government gave for selling its shares was to provide funds to enable Aer Lingus to buy new planes, so how can you now say that they should buy a majority shareholding to buy new planes, this was why they sold them in the first place! Besides I could also see the EU having problems with this idea. And how many of the Aer Lingus fleet are "worn out bangers" ?

ninty9er

heyjude wrote:

There is no chance that the government will consider a 100% buyback, for several reasons, for starters the cost would run into hundreds of millions and would be much higher than what they received when they sold their shares, the exchequer isn't as full with cash as it was when the shares were sold, how could they justify spending hundreds of millions buying back AL shares when they have other things such as schools, hospitals etc to spend money on. They would also be handing Michael O'Leary a huge profit(since he would never sell at the price he bought his shares and would be in a position to name his own price - how likely is that :rolleyes: )

I know there's little chance of it happening, but it doesn't mean it shouldn't happen

heyjude wrote:

It should also be noted that one of the main reasons the government gave for selling its shares was to provide funds to enable Aer Lingus to buy new planes, so how can you now say that they should buy a majority shareholding to buy new planes, this was why they sold them in the first place! Besides I could also see the EU having problems with this idea. And how many of the Aer Lingus fleet are "worn out bangers" ?

Screw the EU at this stage!! We've benefitted greatly from it, but it should keep it's nose out of internal state matters, just the same as the Cabinet doesn't stick it's nose into the business of City and Co. Councils across the country.

Quite a significant majority of AL aircraft are in excess of 15 years old and some of the fleet were that age when acquired!!

Profitablilty should be evident in the company's asset inventory rather than the CEO's bonus package

hobie

Hagar wrote:

No need to worry.
As long as you have the Ft. Bragg - Shannon - Baghdad flights you'll be fine.

I'm trying to figure out how Baghdad flights will help all the mid west traffic presently using LHR as a gateway to the whole $$$$$$$$$$$$$ world ....

I'll sleep on it .....