Ryanair - how one airline is dictating its own media agenda

stephenoleary

Good morning all,

My name is Stephen, and this is my first post in the aviation and aircraft forum.

Each week, I analyse one news topic - this week, I chose Ryanair. While the report was inspired by the recent coverage about the potential new jobs in Dublin, the main focus is on their online press coverage over the last 12 months.

http://olearyanalytics.com/the-ryanair-story-how-one-airline-is-dictating-its-own-online-media-agenda/

Any and all feedback is welcome,

Thanks,

Stephen

Cunsiderthis

Hi Stephen,

I'm not sure what are the results of your analysis, or what your opinion is on your analysis. Did you forget to say in your post?

Dacian

Well in my opinion FR and MoL work on the principle that "any news is good news". Hence we see weekly statement designed to get people/journalists to repeat the word 'Ryanair' as much as possible. And this works, MoL takes every opportunity to state the phrases "Ryanair, The low fares Airline", "high cost airlines", etc.

Remember the furoe over the pay toilets suggestion? ...or the constant harping on about the EUR10 travel tax? (the other airlines are against this too,but don't whine about it,FR is so profitable it can absorb this tax) Or want about the free airtime FR got over O'Learys taxi plate?

Currently FR are pretending they were going to create jobs in Dublin to embarass the govt and the DAA. FR are demanding hanger 6 which is already leased to EI. Meanwhile there are 4 empty hangers availible which between them are larger than H6, in addition the DAA have offered to build a NEW hanger specifically for FR. If the facility and the jobs were so important to FR,they would accept 1 of these options,or at least talk to the DAA who own the hanger.

kippy

Dacian wrote: »

Well in my opinion FR and MoL work on the principle that "any news is good news". Hence we see weekly statement designed to get people/journalists to repeat the word 'Ryanair' as much as possible. And this works, MoL takes every opportunity to state the phrases "Ryanair, The low fares Airline", "high cost airlines", etc.

Remember the furoe over the pay toilets suggestion? ...or the constant harping on about the EUR10 travel tax? (the other airlines are against this too,but don't whine about it,FR is so profitable it can absorb this tax) Or want about the free airtime FR got over O'Learys taxi plate?

Currently FR are pretending they were going to create jobs in Dublin to embarass the govt and the DAA. FR are demanding hanger 6 which is already leased to EI. Meanwhile there are 4 empty hangers availible which between them are larger than H6, in addition the DAA have offered to build a NEW hanger specifically for FR. If the facility and the jobs were so important to FR,they would accept 1 of these options,or at least talk to the DAA who own the hanger.

Would pretty much agree 100% with that.

sflemings

Dacian wrote: »

Well in my opinion FR and MoL work on the principle that "any news is good news". Hence we see weekly statement designed to get people/journalists to repeat the word 'Ryanair' as much as possible. And this works, MoL takes every opportunity to state the phrases "Ryanair, The low fares Airline", "high cost airlines", etc.

Remember the furoe over the pay toilets suggestion? ...or the constant harping on about the EUR10 travel tax? (the other airlines are against this too,but don't whine about it,FR is so profitable it can absorb this tax) Or want about the free airtime FR got over O'Learys taxi plate?

Currently FR are pretending they were going to create jobs in Dublin to embarass the govt and the DAA. FR are demanding hanger 6 which is already leased to EI. Meanwhile there are 4 empty hangers availible which between them are larger than H6, in addition the DAA have offered to build a NEW hanger specifically for FR. If the facility and the jobs were so important to FR,they would accept 1 of these options,or at least talk to the DAA who own the hanger.

Well aparently all the other hangers are for line maintenance and not heavy maintenance. That is why he wants hanger 6 as this has all the lifting equipment already installed and not currently used by EI for their heavy maintenance, which is in France
How long do you think it would take to build a new hanger? That would take years. MOL isn't going to wait years.

basill

Word on the street was that FR wanted Hanger 6 in order to turn it into a terminal - or at least to threaten the DAA that it would in order to drive down its fees even more. The fact that Aer Lingus got in first has driven MOL crazy.

Lets face it there was never going to be "up to 500 jobs". That was his direct quote in the letters published over the weekend in the Sunday Independent. If you read very carefully what he said it was UP TO 500. 1 job is up to 500 as far as I can see. So he gets a cheap hanger, creates 1 job and banks a nice big subsidy from the IDA and puts the boot into Aer Lingus and the government of the day at the same time.

His plans were no doubt to threaten the DAA that he will check in his passengers at his all in one hanger in the hope of a discount on his fees. Of course the nice people at the DAA are starting to work him out just like those in Shannon. One minute he was pulling out and now he seems to be consolidating his flights. Remember it was only a few years ago when he was seemingly going to move his operation to Baldonnel!

These "mythical jobs" were never going to grace these shores. He will have local development agencies around Europe queuing up to line his pockets with subsidies that Ireland would never want to match.

You are right though. Any publicity in his eyes keeps him in the media for free. It also stops the analysts from asking questions such as:-

- how many aircraft do you have parked not flying around Europe
- how are your loads on a like for like basis
- how many airports around Europe are cottoning onto your tactics and asking for a reasonable level of fees
- how do you plan on buying new aircraft if you can't screw over Boeing and Airbus as you did in the past
- whats the market value of your aircraft given their relatively low spec

His problem is that he is flying most of the city pairs around Europe so there is little room for further expansion. Also his product is crap and compounding that he has made his customers extremely price sensitive. Now that most other airlines have sorted out their cost bases they are able to offer favourable fares. When given the option many customers will opt for a legacy/national carrier rather than FR as they know that when the sh*t hits the fan they will at least get home and more than likely get compensated as well without having to sit on a premium rate phone line all day getting fobbed off until they give up.

sflemings

IMO I reckon he knew the whole time that he would never get that hanger and that this whole operation was to make the government look very bad turning down the jobs (which he has) and Ryanair look great (well that's up to people's own opinion!).

tricky D

Their PR work is excellent (whatever your views on other matters). The newsflow is aggressive and incessant which keeps the brand right out in the limelight.

stephenoleary

Cunsiderthis wrote: »

Hi Stephen,

I'm not sure what are the results of your analysis, or what your opinion is on your analysis. Did you forget to say in your post?

Hi,

Thanks for the feedback. There were four main findings from the analysis, listed at the bottom of the post:

1. Ryanair, in the majority of cases, dictate their own media agenda.
2. They generate far more column inches online than any of their competitors, most notably Aer Lingus.
3. For an Irish company, they generated significant international coverage in the US, UK and Germany.
4. Michael O’Leary, while popular, features in a limited number of total articles mentioning Ryanair.

I try to avoid including my own personal opinion in the analysis, and simply present the findings of the research.

Cunsiderthis

whodini wrote: »

Hi,

Thanks for the feedback. There were four main findings from the analysis, listed at the bottom of the post:

1. Ryanair, in the majority of cases, dictate their own media agenda.
2. They generate far more column inches online than any of their competitors, most notably Aer Lingus.
3. For an Irish company, they generated significant international coverage in the US, UK and Germany.
4. Michael O’Leary, while popular, features in a limited number of total articles mentioning Ryanair.

I try to avoid including my own personal opinion in the analysis, and simply present the findings of the research.

This is a discussion forum so for you to decide not to discuss your view suggests it may not be the best place for that.

stephenoleary

tricky D wrote: »

Their PR work is excellent (whatever your views on other matters). The newsflow is aggressive and incessant which keeps the brand right out in the limelight.

Based on the findings of my research, I would have to agree. Ryanair and O'Leary in particular certainly divide opinion. It's clear from the feedback both here, and on the blog, that many people feel this is yet another PR stunt intended to embarrass the government and won't lead to any meaningful investment of job creation from Ryanair.

If this is the case, it may prove a turning point in public opinion towards the carrier.

stephenoleary

Cunsiderthis wrote: »

This is a discussion forum so for you to decide not to discuss your view suggests it may not be the best place for that.

That's a fair point. However, I feel by presenting the information, I can open up the discussion to others, namely those with an interest in the airline and aviation industries.

lazywhole

Im just hoping that this news is not a cover for something else,like lay offs in dublin and then blaming it on the goverment or the daa for not letting them have hanger 6

tricky D

whodini wrote: »

Based on the findings of my research, I would have to agree. Ryanair and O'Leary in particular certainly divide opinion. It's clear from the feedback both here, and on the blog, that many people feel this is yet another PR stunt intended to embarrass the government and won't lead to any meaningful investment of job creation from Ryanair.

If this is the case, it may prove a turning point in public opinion towards the carrier.

It's more likely to keep the Ryanair brand prominent in people's minds. It's excellent branding strategy when the product isn't quite so good. It barely matters what the merits of the content are. Remember the toilet charging and standing up travel rubbish amongst others, but that still got people talking in the pub etc. for ages (still does today) and as a byproduct thinking about Ryanair. That's great branding.

alpha2zulu

Leaving aside the rights and wrong of hanger6gate, but its just incredible how every story spun out by Ryanair ends up as a media Circus. Seeing Kenny/Cullen/Cowen and friends more animated in the Dail today than they have been for years.

Plowman

This post has been deleted.

PILOT

agreeing with Plowman here, Ryanair have one to the smallest marketing budgets of any LCC's. They create brand awareness in the form of free marketing/publicity, and what better way to create a news story than the announcement of jobs at the moment, people will side with FR because of the "percieved 500 jobs" which would be created by the Irish airline at its home base.

Just a note to say that this story has made it into the English newspapers. Here in London and got a quick flick through the paper, media seems to side with FR rather than government.

Gekko

He apparently met with Enda Kenny before this all kicked off and I wonder is he doing them a favour by stirring things up - Enda giving FF a bashing in the Dail and the whole furore - no doubt expecting a favour back if FG are next in govt.

donkey balls

Gekko wrote: »

He apparently met with Enda Kenny before this all kicked off and I wonder is he doing them a favour by stirring things up - Enda giving FF a bashing in the Dail and the whole furore - no doubt expecting a favour back if FG are next in govt.

i heard kenny earlier today on today fm news saying he wants to save the jobs in north dublin and meath?
never knew we head a maintenance facility in meath

i

Dacian

sflemings wrote: »

Well aparently all the other hangers are for line maintenance and not heavy maintenance. That is why he wants hanger 6 as this has all the lifting equipment already installed and not currently used by EI for their heavy maintenance, which is in France
How long do you think it would take to build a new hanger? That would take years. MOL isn't going to wait years.

Hanger 4 can fit a B747. With a bit of modification you can get 2-3 B738s in there for heavy MX. A mate is an engineer at DUB,thats my source. He says 4 hangers are empty,between them FR could get more space than H6,all they need is a bit of equipment upgrade to do heavy MX. He also says DUB isn't a great place foe FR heavy MX. Local wages/rates are "high cost" (to quote Mick) and DUB isn't such a big hub for them anymore (realtive to other FR bases) so routing aircraft through DUB for their MX would be harder than at some of their Euro bases.

I think the current situation is FR getting the boot into the DAA, the govt while looking like saviours to the media/uninformed public. Getting the hanger and thus annoying EI would be a bonus.

Foggy43

I thought Ryanair didn't keep their aircraft long enough to require heavy maintenance? I would class heavy maintenance as 'C' and 'D' checks.

Dacian

So now its Aer Lingus's fault.........

Irish Independant Thurs 18th:
"Aer Lingus rejected Coughlan's hangar plea
TANAISTE Mary Coughlan asked Aer Lingus if it would move out of the hangar at the centre of the controversy over 300 jobs -- but it refused.................But Mr Mueller refused to budge from the celebrated Hangar 6, so that the 300 aircraft maintenance posts promised by Ryanair for Dublin Airport could be secured by the Government."

No mention of the fact that Aer Lingus has already accepted over 200 former SR Technics employess onto their payroll. 250 vs 300....similar numbers.


Imagine if it was the other way around and EI wanted to boot FR out of facilities they legally lease,imagine the cries of outrage and f*ck you from Mick then.....

sflemings

Foggy43 wrote: »

I thought Ryanair didn't keep their aircraft long enough to require heavy maintenance? I would class heavy maintenance as 'C' and 'D' checks.

C maintenance is done every 12-18 months. D maintenance is done every 4-5 years.
So they would definately have their aircraft that long.

AlekSmart

Dacian,this is good news surely ...

No mention of the fact that Aer Lingus has already accepted over 200 former SR Technics employess onto their payroll. 250 vs 300....similar numbers.

Do you have any stats to accompany this..grades,conditions of employment etc...?

Del2005

From today's Indo. Seems they did make an offer and were done over by the DAA/Gov.

Ryanair made €13m offer for hangar months before rival


By Anne-Marie Walsh Industry Correspondent

Saturday February 20 2010

PRESSURE is mounting on the government to explain why a €13m Ryanair offer to take over an airport hangar and create 500 jobs was turned down.

New revelations raise questions about why the proposal was not pursued and Aer Lingus was instead granted a legally binding lease on hangar 6 at Dublin Airport.

Under the contract, Aer Lingus cannot be forced to surrender the hangar unless Dublin Airport Authority (DAA) needs it for development.

It can be revealed that:

* Ryanair made a detailed €13m offer for the former SR Technics hangar 6, months before Aer Lingus moved in, although Aer Lingus did not offer new jobs. It kept on just 96 workers out of the 250 engaged in its line maintenance.
* The Department of Transport has also indicated that Aer Lingus had first option on the hangar although the Taoiseach said there was a competition for it in the Dail.
* The department told the Irish Independent that Aer Lingus had "rights to occupy" the hangar for the maintenance of its fleet.

Rights

But when pressed on the nature of those rights, the department said it could not comment as "commercial contracts between Aer Lingus and the DAA are a matter for them alone".

Tanaiste Mary Coughlan has said an obstacle to the Ryanair offer was its refusal to deal directly with the DAA.

But many details were given in Ryanair's letter last year of its offer, including its willingness to pay the existing rent of €200,000 a year.

The letter was sent to the chief executive of the IDA, Barry O'Leary, before SR Technics pulled out of Dublin Airport.

The proposal from Mr O'Leary offered the "largest job creation success story in Ireland in 2009".

He said the airline would pay the same price for hangar 6 as the DAA had paid to buy back the leasehold from SRT.

The proposal said Ryanair would locate a substantial proportion of its heavy maintenance operation to the hangar. It also said the airline had no desire to own the building.

Mr O'Leary assured the IDA the airline would agree to any lease restriction that would mean the hangar could only be used for maintenance.

The letter said he understood that DAA paid around €20m to buy back the leasehold in hangars one to six.

Based on an estimate that the floor space of hangar 6 was two-thirds of the total space, he said it would reimburse the IDA two-thirds, or €13.33m of the €20m fee.

The letter said the transaction would be "by some considerable distance the largest job creation success story in Ireland in 2009".

Along with the successful bidder for SRT, Dublin Aerospace Ltd, now located in hangar 5, the two operations could have created up to 750 jobs.

Former SR Technics workers are also furious that the aviation firm left the country with €35m of taxpayers' money.

This was made up of €20m paid by the DAA for the hangar leases and a further €15m rebate on statutory redundancy payments.

Meanwhile, it has emerged that the unemployed workers have suffered another blow -- their retraining courses have been cancelled.

The Irish Independent has learned that some redundant workers have been told that their degree courses, due to start this year, have been cancelled. This is because funding from the European Globalisation Fund -- which provides EU money in the wake of large-scale job losses -- has not yet become available.

- Anne-Marie Walsh Industry Correspondent

http://www.independent.ie/national-news/ryanair-made-836413m-offer-for-hangar-months-before-rival-2071911.html

Plowman

This post has been deleted.

lord lucan

Plowman wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Yeah,i thought this was just another MOL publicity stunt and a chance to bash the DAA. The more i read about it the more it appears Ryanair were genuine with their offer and if so why in the name of jaysus did they get an excellent proposal turned down for the lesser proposal of EI?

I know Ryanair and the DAA have a coloured history but there's any number of agencies that could've acted as intermediaries and thrashed something out. Was the DAA playing hardball and giving the finger to MOL,if so it's one of the biggest own goals in Irish Aviation history.

bladeruner

Del2005 wrote: »

From today's Indo. Seems they did make an offer and were done over by the DAA/Gov.



http://www.independent.ie/national-news/ryanair-made-836413m-offer-for-hangar-months-before-rival-2071911.html

Now call me a die hard sceptic but if this was written in any newspaper other then the "independent" then I might believe it .I guess I will have to wait until it is published in a newspaper where it dosnt feel as if their entire aviation news desk is edited personally by michael O'leary .

The independent puts the boot into every other airline in ireland except Ryanair . it may or may not have something to do with the full page advertisements that Ryanair buys every now and again.

I would imagine we will get the full story on sunday from the Times or SBP.

Alpha Papa

+1

Let me know if one appears.

Cheers

Dacian

AlekSmart wrote: »

Dacian,this is good news surely ...Do you have any stats to accompany this..grades,conditions of employment etc...?

Turns out that I was incorrect. It seem that EI have 200 workewrs in H6,but only 100 of them are former SRT. And my cynicism tells me they would be employed on higher salaries then what FR were offering (assume the EI union rules would mean they get the same as exisitng EI workers,anyone confirm?)

I too am sceptical about that Indo article by Ann-Marie Walsh,her previous aviation articles are very badly researched.

It seems to me that EI are paying more than FR offered so they got it. Any businees would do the same if renting facilities. Now FR want to get it given to them by the govt. Read todays article concerning our national aviation policy in the Irish Times.

Alpha Papa

http://www.rte.ie/news/2009/1217/aerlingus.html

Alpha Papa

Statement by Declan Collier to Joint Oireachtas Committee on Transport - February 24, 2010

The Dublin Airport Authority (DAA) has a mandate to operate and develop the State’s three airports at Dublin, Cork and Shannon.

A fundamental element of that mandate is for the DAA to ultimately own the property assets at its Irish airports on behalf of the State. We do this to protect key elements of national infrastructure on behalf of the taxpayer and to ensure the proper long-term development of our three airports. On behalf of the State, we do not provide for any commercial company to own key property assets at our Irish airports. That has always been the case. The DAA leases or licences its key property assets to protect the long-term strategic interests of the taxpayer.

In accordance with that mandate, the DAA signed legally binding contracts with SRT to acquire the leasehold interests in Hangars 1-6 at Dublin Airport in February 2009. The hangars are in a strategic location for the long-term development of Dublin Airport and SRT had decided to withdraw from Ireland and was selling its property assets.

DAA, and its predecessor Aer Rianta, had always been the ultimate landlord for the SRT hangars, which were held in two separate leases. One lease covered hangars 1 to 5, a maintenance garage, some offices and other related areas. The second lease covered Hangar 6.

In the wake of SRT’s withdrawal, there were a large number of proposals for alternative aircraft maintenance operations at Dublin Airport. The Government established a taskforce and the IDA and Enterprise Ireland were asked to assess the proposals that were received with regard to the use of the former SRT facilities at Dublin Airport.

As the owner of the hangars, the DAA then negotiated directly with any party that came through this state-sponsored competition process and was interested in renting hangar space. Separately, a number of companies also approached the DAA directly in relation to taking hangar space.

By the end of August 2009, the sale of hangers 1 to 5 and related properties had been completed. The DAA was in negotiations during the spring and summer of last year with potential new tenants for the hangars. At all times, the DAA fully assisted the various State agencies and Government departments in their job creation efforts.

By July of last year, the DAA had negotiated commercial terms with Dublin Aerospace (for Hangar 5 and part of Hangar 1), maintenance firm M50 (for the former SRT garage) and Ryanair (for Hangar 2 and part of Hangar 1). Ryanair negotiated and signed a commercial licence for both hangars directly with the DAA.

The situation relating to Hangar Six was much more complicated. Hangar Six was held within a complex structure of companies, originally established for the benefit of Aer Lingus and related parties in the early 1990s.

Because of this structure, Aer Lingus had to give permission to allow SRT to sell Hangar Six to the DAA. An additional issue that had to be resolved was the fact that SRT had an obligation to continue to provide maintenance services to Aer Lingus at Dublin Airport. The DAA initially understood that SRT and Aer Lingus had come to an agreement in relation to this issue.

Such a scenario could have allowed the DAA to lease the hangar to a range of potential users other than Aer Lingus. If Aer Lingus indicated that it was happy to vacate Hangar Six and cease having its maintenance activities carried out there, then the DAA could have licensed the hangar to another party. This did not happen.

During the spring and summer Aer Lingus’ ultimate intentions relating to Hangar Six remained unclear. It also emerged in the summer that there existed a scenario whereby, under certain circumstances, Aer Lingus could have been able to regain full control of Hangar Six at no cost.

The talks between SRT, Aer Lingus, and the DAA in relation to the DAA completing the purchase of Hangar Six continued through the summer. Meanwhile, SRT was also seeking to get another firm to take over the Aer Lingus maintenance contract. There was also the prospect that SRT would agree a new maintenance supplier with Aer Lingus and that new provider could then have licensed Hangar Six from the DAA with the permission of Aer Lingus.

Throughout the period from February until September, the DAA was examining its legal options to force the completion of the contract and take possession of Hangar Six.

The DAA was on the verge of entering court proceedings against Aer Lingus on at least three occasions during this period to force the completion of the purchase of Hangar Six. However on each occasion the legal advice we received from senior counsel was that the outcome of any such court challenge was at best uncertain.

By the early autumn, Aer Lingus had still failed to agree a position with SRT in relation to its maintenance contract. Despite being offered the use of hangars three and four, Aer Lingus made it clear that it was not going to move out of Hangar Six. The DAA again considered its legal options but it was now clear that the best option was to negotiate a commercial licence with Aer Lingus for Hangar Six.

By concluding a 20-year commercial licence with Aer Lingus in December at a market rent, the DAA successfully created €24 million in value for the State

Through its actions, the DAA protected a strategic property asset and also created significant value for the State, as the company effectively doubled its purchase price in less than a year. Ryanair told the IDA it would buy Hangar Six for €13.66 million when the rental agreement concluded last year shows that the hangar is worth more than double the amount offered by Ryanair.

I would now like to set out the position in relation to Ryanair and Hangar Six. Ryanair approached the Department of Enterprise Trade and Employment in February 2009 in relation to buying Hangar Six. Ryanair refused to negotiate with the DAA directly in relation to Hangar Six throughout last year despite the fact that the airline signed two other hangar licences with the DAA during 2009.

The DAA was willing to engage with Ryanair in relation to using any of the former SRT hangars for aircraft maintenance. Notwithstanding the legal complexities relating to Hangar Six, it was possible that the hangar could subsequently have become available for use by Ryanair or other third parties. If Hangar Six had become available for rent to Ryanair, the DAA would have been more than happy to licence the facility to Ryanair at a commercial rent, subject to the normal terms and conditions that apply to key property assets at our airports.

At all times the DAA kept the Government departments informed about developments relating to the Hangar Six sale. The DAA also informed Ryanair directly that another party was in advanced negotiations in relation to the hangar during last summer. The DAA did not reveal the identity of the other party to Ryanair, as this was commercially confidential.

The DAA did not inform Ryanair about the complex structure surrounding Hangar Six, as to do so would have breached confidentiality relating to the operation of Aer Lingus, which is Ryanair’s largest competitor at Dublin Airport.

However, the DAA is now aware that Ryanair had been informed of the complex structures relating to Hangar Six – and the requirement for Aer Lingus’ consent to any change of ownership as early as February 2008 - a full 12 months before Ryanair contacted the Government with its Hangar Six proposal.

In September, when it became clear that Aer Lingus was not going to vacate Hangar Six, Ryanair was informed by the IDA that Aer Lingus had legal rights and the hangar would not become available. The DAA has offered Ryanair a number of alternatives to Hangar Six, including a possible new facility built to its specifications. But Ryanair has refused to engage with the company on this matter.

Under the terms of the 20-year licence that Aer Lingus now has, the DAA has no authority to remove Aer Lingus from the hangar to be replaced by any other commercial customer. The only circumstance, under which Aer Lingus could be moved, is if the DAA required the hangar for the future development of Dublin Airport.

In that case, and in that case only, the DAA would be obliged to give Aer Lingus 24 months’ notice and either provide an alternative existing facility that met Aer Lingus’ approval or build it a new hangar to the same specifications elsewhere. A similar clause applies to every other comparable tenant.

We understand that the Attorney General has examined the relevant clause in the Aer Lingus contract and has confirmed that the DAA cannot move Aer Lingus to allow Ryanair or any other commercial tenant take possession of the hangar. The DAA has also received its own legal opinion that Aer Lingus cannot be moved in favour of another commercial tenant.

The DAA strongly rejects recent allegations that it has somehow stood in the way of job creation or has negotiated a sweetheart deal with Aer Lingus. Nothing could be further from the truth.

In relation to the deal with Aer Lingus, as indicated earlier in this statement, the DAA explored every possible avenue to maximise the commercial options available to it for all the hangars acquired including Hangar Six.

It was only when it became clear that the long-standing legal interest in and the complexities relating to Hangar Six limited the DAA’s options in relation to Hangar Six that the DAA moved to conclude a 20-year licence for Hangar Six with Aer Lingus. This deal was done at a market rent and created significant value for the State in a hugely depressed property market.

The DAA does not have a specific mandate to create jobs. Its primary role is to operate and manage the State’s airports. But where it is commercially feasible the DAA is always willing to support employment creation. In relation to the former SRT hangars, the DAA has at all times acted to facilitate any new commercial business that wished to locate there.

Acting with State agencies and directly with any and all interested parties, the DAA has secured tenants for the hangars. These businesses will create and support 365 new jobs. Dublin Aerospace is creating up to 230 new jobs. Aer Lingus is employing 100 former SRT workers and maintenance firm M50 will employ up to 35 people.

The DAA is also pleased to inform members of the committee that it is currently in very advanced discussions with another aircraft services firm that will create a further 120 new jobs at Dublin Airport. These jobs are dependent on achieving clarity without further delay that Hangar 3, which has been offered to Ryanair as a possible alternative to Hangar Six, is still available.

A successful outcome in this regard would mean that the DAA has concluded agreements with aircraft maintenance companies that will create, or close to, 500 real jobs at the former SRT site.

At all times during this process the DAA has behaved commercially but responsibly, and in the best interests of its shareholder and the taxpayer.

We would also reiterate that the DAA has been and remains available to discuss any reasonable hangar requirements that Ryanair may have.

We have shown that Hangar Six is not available. Unfortunately, Ryanair’s irrational insistence that only Hangar Six will meet its needs seems to rule out any chance of locating these jobs at Dublin Airport.
Ends

February 24, 2010