Great news for Shannon

mayotom

Announcement expected on Shannon Airport authority - RTE News

There are strong indications that the announcement will include the establishment of Shannon Airport as an independent authority, to include its adjacent industrial zone, under a single management model.

finally they may be released from the shackles of the DAA and hopefully make the future brighter for Shannon

mayotom

mayotom wrote: »

Announcement expected on Shannon Airport authority - RTE News



finally they may be released from the shackles of the DAA and hopefully make the future brighter for Shannon

Hopefully the taxpayer will not have to bail them out for the full 100 million debt, instead of adding it as a levy to passengers that actually use the airport and its services as per the Knock development levy. (People who can afford to fly can surely afford the minimal fee that keeps these airports without sufficient passenger numbers running as a local service)

Unless they can secure more business there will also likely have to be job losses or wage reductions as well to reduce the yearly 8 million deficit. But it at least will allow them to decide there own future and if ran properly has good potential.

Henry Ford III

It's an important step, but balancing the books will require new airlines and routes, and a significant cost reduction programme too.

kilburn

well it is bein amalgamated with Shannon Development and taking the Shannon free zone into it also so I am sure this was done to negate the annual loss by supplementing it with the rental income and estate contributions that DEvco receives

jeepers101

With regards to air traffic controller jobs does this mean that the two year training program will no longer take place in Shannon?

highlydebased

jeepers101 wrote: »

With regards to air traffic controller jobs does this mean that the two year training program will no longer take place in Shannon?

That is run by the IAA and not the DAA so I don't see any change there.

Limerick91

can somebody please explain why this is such a good idea for Shannon

lotusm

Good for the Taxpayer more like... has to stand on its own two feet from now on in... has to cut costs by 70% then maybe it will be profitable :rolleyes:

highlydebased

Limerick91 wrote: »

can somebody please explain why this is such a good idea for Shannon

Because it will be run on a commercial basis and not a political one.

Sterling Archer

Queue the daa going that's ours that's ours

Zonda999

About time for this to happen indeed. I think its time to face p to the fact that all our current airports are not viable in their current form.. Shannon really suck out though, now it has a chance to cut its costs, pretty substantially I would say, and try to attract some new routes

donvito99

Standby for Timmy Dooley comment!

pclive

Im sure Ryanair will be looking for another deal?

Sterling Archer

donvito99 wrote: »

Standby for Timmy Dooley comment!

Pathetic really

munchkin_utd

pclive wrote: »

Im sure Ryanair will be looking for another deal?

indeed

although what that then would mean for their flights out of the other western seaboard airport like Knock/ Kerry/ Cork who knows.

Neworder79

Ryanair statement

"Transferring Shannon from one failed semi-state, the DAA, to another, SFADCO ( Shannon Free Airport Development Company), means that there will be no real change or reform nor radical cost reduction or efficiencies, but rather lots of continuing political interference and bureaucratic mismanagement," the statement said.

"Shannon’s traffic has fallen from over 3.6m in 2007 to 1.6m in 2012 and Ryanair does not believe that a semi-state company like SFADCO will make Shannon either cost competitive or efficient."

Ryanair’s Stephen McNamara described the "transfer of Shannon from one semi-state quango to another" as a missed opportunity to introduce real change and reform as well as "real competition between the Govt-owned airports".

Read more: http://www.irishexaminer.com/breakingnews/business/ryanair-daa-changes-a-missed-opportunity-550795.html#.T6pw7duUAhw.twitter#ixzz1uNejQFkB

xflyer

Agree with the Ryanair statement completely. Unless they start to get the airport operating on a commercial basis, nothing much will change. Or worse it will end up like Galway, open but moribound.

Delancey

The devil is in the detail - the key question is what happens to the Shannon debt ? If they have to suck it up then they are left in a very poor position.
Doubtless legacy manpower levels ( ie overstaffing ) will require sharp reductions.

gate22

ok so DAA will only be Dublin and Cork, and SNN will be debt free thanks to Dublin covering the €100 million, and crk v snn is even playing field? plus snn will no longer lose 8mil a year?

Joe 90

Deleted User wrote: »

Hopefully the taxpayer will not have to bail them out for the full 100 million debt, instead of adding it as a levy to passengers that actually use the airport and its services as per the Knock development levy. (People who can afford to fly can surely afford the minimal fee that keeps these airports without sufficient passenger numbers running as a local service)

Unless they can secure more business there will also likely have to be job losses or wage reductions as well to reduce the yearly 8 million deficit. But it at least will allow them to decide there own future and if ran properly has good potential.

Why the fixation with a passenger levy? It will only piss off potential passengers and so discourage the low cost airlines from setting up shop.

L1011

Joe 90 wrote: »

Why the fixation with a passenger levy? It will only piss off potential passengers and so discourage the low cost airlines from setting up shop.

If you view that users posts, he vehemently defends Knock's one as not being sneaky (refusal to let airlines roll it in to ticket prices, etc). So maybe he just likes handing cash over at the gate?

Delancey wrote: »

The devil is in the detail - the key question is what happens to the Shannon debt ? If they have to suck it up then they are left in a very poor position.
Doubtless legacy manpower levels ( ie overstaffing ) will require sharp reductions.

Being left in the DAA.

Joe 90

Joe 90 wrote: »

Why the fixation with a passenger levy? It will only piss off potential passengers and so discourage the low cost airlines from setting up shop.

Simply because of fairness in competition. Does this not breach state aid rules ?. How is Knock and Cork supposed to compete when SNN is getting bailed out to the tune of 100 million once there infrastructure is built. No doubt once they spend another fortune on infrastructure in SNN they will have to be bailed out again. Knock should give that one a go. What will happen SNN this time if they make another disaster out of it ??

Will the government give equal amount of money to these other two competing airports ? Very unlikely.... You have one airport running on a tight budget and run efficiently that gets passengers to pay for its infrastructure up the road from one with overstaffing, overpaid and wasteful that is in effect getting bailed out by the taxpayer. I Would be very surprised if there isn't objections from Cork and Knock.

MYOB, If the taxpayer wants to pay that 10 euro development fee in KNock for all passengers that would be great. Just can't see Mr Vradker been so generous. It was Ryanair that refused to allow it into the ticket price. In private enterprise you look after your customer in this case Ryanair. That's where SNN went wrong.

There we go, everyone wants there debt written off now, announcement by Dara Calleary FF TD this afternoon.

http://www.mayotoday.ie/index.php/browse-mayo-news-by-category/business/item/4673-knock-airport-calls-on-govt-to-speed-up-development-plans.html

There you go MYOB they might be an end to the development levy if Vradker just applies the same rules to other airports, which is now been looked for. Im sure you would support this debt write off and the removal of the development fee on all Knocks passengers. Just let the taxpayer pay for it.!!! Can't see the passengers in Knock been so willing to pay this in the future if there is a chance the Taxpayer will pay it.

Suits

I was very much under the impression better fuel/range of airliners largely did for Shannon....what exactly will their sell be? The road network means Shannon is 2 and a bit hours from Dublin, will Shannon really be that much of a beacon that it will convince airlines to put on another route?

I fear that the old "Irish large sense of small scale" syndrome is back.....

globemaster1986

It's about time SNN was separated from the DAA. I firmly believe that the DAA has mismanaged SNN and promoted DUB ahead of it as this was their primary interest. The fact is the people running the DAA in Dublin had no interest in SNN and so deliberately kept its costs high so as it could not compete with/take business away from DUB.

The truth is I hate going to Dublin, it's a h*le of an airport! I would much rather fly out of SNN and would pay a €10 premium for the privilege if necessary. What is needed is to get a LCC like Ryanair or Easyjet in. When SNN was having 3.6M passengers per year it was when Ryanair had 5 aircraft based there, they pulled 3 of them out because of cost disputes, not because they weren't selling the seats!!

Neworder79

When SNN was having 3.6M passengers per year it was when Ryanair had 5 aircraft based there, they pulled 3 of them out because of cost disputes, not because they weren't selling the seats!!

Has to be said that a large part of the Ryanair base growth at Shannon back then was driven by the booming economy and ample discretionary spending of the day. They were also turning the screw on Dublin and Cork with very low fares to stimulate demand.

That day is long gone and it's not clear if many of the old routes would survive todays economy, especially competing with AerLingus Regionals more efficient aircraft, and with many of the old routes now established and profitable at Ireland West and Cork down the road.

globemaster1986

Neworder79 wrote: »

Has to be said that a large part of the Ryanair base growth at Shannon back then was driven by the booming economy and ample discretionary spending of the day. They were also turning the screw on Dublin and Cork with very low fares to stimulate demand.

That day is long gone and it's not clear if many of the old routes would survive todays economy, especially competing with AerLingus Regionals more efficient aircraft, and with many of the old routes now established and profitable at Ireland West and Cork down the road.

I believe many of those routes would be viable! People from Limerick,Clare, Galway and Tipperary would mostly rather fly from Shannon if the routes were there. People are still travelling despite the recession.

Have you seen the Aer Lingus Regional prices?? Not competitive with Ryanair

Neworder79

True Ryanair are generally cheaper and do stimulate demand. But as I said Ryanairs prices in 2006 may not be sustainable today (lower demand, higher fuel costs, higher airport costs).

And the reason Aer Lingus Regional prices are high is they have far less seats to fill on small turboprops and offering more frequency. They can cream off the high yield passengers willing to pay. Those passengers are the profit layer Ryanair would need to sustain low fare routes.

kona

globemaster1986 wrote: »

I believe many of those routes would be viable! People from Limerick,Clare, Galway and Tipperary would mostly rather fly from Shannon if the routes were there. People are still travelling despite the recession.

Have you seen the Aer Lingus Regional prices?? Not competitive with Ryanair

Not from shannon they are not. Compared to Dublin its a ghost airport. Spend a day there and count how many flights with people leave, even then they may not be full.

Aviation is well compeditive, if those routes were viable they will be flown. Although if you threw 100 million at ryanair, im sure they would fly the aircraft empty:pac:


Ive flown out of shannon on EI regional to manchester for a match last december, was well cheaper than Ryanair.

globemaster1986

kona wrote: »

Not from shannon they are not. Compared to Dublin its a ghost airport. Spend a day there and count how many flights with people leave, even then they may not be full.

Aviation is well compeditive, if those routes were viable they will be flown. Although if you threw 100 million at ryanair, im sure they would fly the aircraft empty:pac:


Ive flown out of shannon on EI regional to manchester for a match last december, was well cheaper than Ryanair.

Shannon is a ghost town because the routes are not there. They are not there because the DAA would not cut costs which lets face it, is much needed! Bring those routes back and people will fly from Shannon over Dublin. The routes were still viable when Ryanair pulled them which was after this whole recession started. People still want to travel, still want to go abroad on holidays etc, its one of the things a lot of people have not sacrificed during this recession, demand is there for travel. Currently people go to Dublin and Cork as there is very little choice of routes from Shannon, simple as that.


Seriously, for a match weekend? Everybody knows Ryanair will jack up the prices for matches be it Soccer or Rugby! Aer Lingus do it too just maybe not as much that time:D

Dacian

globemaster1986 wrote: »

...........The fact is the people running the DAA in Dublin had no interest in SNN and so deliberately kept its costs high so as it could not compete with/take business away from DUB.....

So the DAA organisation deliberately ensured a part of their business lost E8M per year?

Those mean Dublin people, refusing to reduce the wages of the honest SNN workers.......


Shannon suffers the same problem as Dublin/Cork. A previous semi-state company with legacy pay scales having to become lean and streamlined to compete in the modern aviation economy. DUB at least had the base level traffic to help it along, SNN however has seen a huge drop in traffic. The SNN stopover historically inflated the traffic stats of SNN. The removal of the Stopover rule has seen the increase in US-Ireland service over the last 3-5 years.

There was a plan to use SNN as the preferred option of Biz Jets so as to avail of the US CBP facilities, an innovative idea in my opinion.
SNN needs to look at increasing its markets from non-commercial passenger flying to allow it to compete against NOC and ORK. Maybe more cargo flying and/or MX operations as evidenced by the new TransAero base.

kona

globemaster1986 wrote: »

Shannon is a ghost town because the routes are not there. They are not there because the DAA would not cut costs which lets face it, is much needed! Bring those routes back and people will fly from Shannon over Dublin. The routes were still viable when Ryanair pulled them which was after this whole recession started. People still want to travel, still want to go abroad on holidays etc, its one of the things a lot of people have not sacrificed during this recession, demand is there for travel. Currently people go to Dublin and Cork as there is very little choice of routes from Shannon, simple as that.

Well, we will see if it really was the DAA holding shannon back in a few years

Shannon would want to get real , target areas that you can make money in, I.E Freight, Heavy maintenance , storage etc , forget about the glamour, the 1950s are over and in having a Beer out of a pan am 707 :P

globemaster1986 wrote: »

Seriously, for a match weekend? Everybody knows Ryanair will jack up the prices for matches be it Soccer or Rugby! Aer Lingus do it too just maybe not as much that time:D

But I thought ryanair are cheap

L1011

globemaster1986 wrote: »

Have you seen the Aer Lingus Regional prices?? Not competitive with Ryanair

There is a reason Ryanair aren't operating the routes EIR are. Because it wouldn't be possible to make money flying a 738 with those kind of loads.

Ryanair would probably have to charge higher prices due to extra costs.

You can "believe" routes would be viable all you want, but FR don't cut routes that are; and do cut routes that aren't. And for all their bluff, bluster and bull****, they operate in to many airports that are far more expensive to use than DUB or SNN. Routes were cut as the money wasn't there, reducing airport prices - a tiny element of overall costs - is not going to offset the fact that fuel is HUGELY more expensive than when the routes were cut.

globemaster1986

I'm not saying they deliberately made it lose €8M per year (that is daft) what i'm saying is they deliberately made sure it was not competing with Dublin airport and taking traffic from it. A lot of people from the mid-west region travel to DUB because it has many routes that SNN does not. While this will always be the case there is certainly demand for more European routes from SNN, France, Spain etc. They were viable before Ryanair pulled out and people are still going to those places, just through Dublin and Cork now as they have no/few options from Shannon.

Only time will tell but I believe Shannon can get passenger numbers back up to at least 2.5M per annum if it can get the right routes/airlines involved, and it need not be Ryanair

globemaster1986

MYOB wrote: »

There is a reason Ryanair aren't operating the routes EIR are. Because it wouldn't be possible to make money flying a 738 with those kind of loads.

Ryanair would probably have to charge higher prices due to extra costs.

You can "believe" routes would be viable all you want, but FR don't cut routes that are; and do cut routes that aren't. And for all their bluff, bluster and bull****, they operate in to many airports that are far more expensive to use than DUB or SNN. Routes were cut as the money wasn't there, reducing airport prices - a tiny element of overall costs - is not going to offset the fact that fuel is HUGELY more expensive than when the routes were cut.

I never said anything about Ryanair operating those routes instead. Well aware of the cost of fuel and the differences in operating costs thanks very much. It is not just airport charges, there are legacy staff costs and more that need to be addressed. It needs to be leaner to start being more competitive

globemaster1986

globemaster1986 wrote: »

I'm not saying they deliberately made it lose €8M per year (that is daft) what i'm saying is they deliberately made sure it was not competing with Dublin airport and taking traffic from it. A lot of people from the mid-west region travel to DUB because it has many routes that SNN does not. While this will always be the case there is certainly demand for more European routes from SNN, France, Spain etc. They were viable before Ryanair pulled out and people are still going to those places, just through Dublin and Cork now as they have no/few options from Shannon.

Only time will tell but I believe Shannon can get passenger numbers back up to at least 2.5M per annum if it can get the right routes/airlines involved, and it need not be Ryanair

SNN customers north of SNN are now using Knock to go to Portugal,Spain, Germany, Italy, Croatia, Canaries etc etc. C'ant see ryanair giving up those routes too easy to other airlines unless they are flying them themselves out of SNN. So in the end you will have to play ball with O'Leary.

globemaster1986

kona wrote: »

Shannon would want to get real , target areas that you can make money in, I.E Freight, Heavy maintenance , storage etc , forget about the glamour, the 1950s are over and in having a Beer out of a pan am 707 :P

Agree 100% with that. These are the areas the DAA have neglected to explore fully for Shannon. And I say fully before somebody links that Lynx Cargo proposal

troposphere

Since US customs preclearance started has there been much of an increase in corporate aircraft passing through Shannon? Did they ever get anywhere with trying to get the US to extend it to cargo preclearance?

L1011

globemaster1986 wrote: »

I never said anything about Ryanair operating those routes instead. Well aware of the cost of fuel and the differences in operating costs thanks very much. It is not just airport charges, there are legacy staff costs and more that need to be addressed. It needs to be leaner to start being more competitive

You really don't appear to be aware of them, if you think a route that was canned for not being viable in 2006 when there were more passengers and cheaper fuel would suddenly be viable when a fractional part of the costs are reduced. And you most certainly did say things about Ryanair operating those routes instead - just read your own posts.

What legacy staffing costs are you referring to? Because any staffing costs encountered over and above airport charges aren't staff of the airport authority.

globemaster1986

Deleted User wrote: »

All SNN customers north of SNN are now using Knock to go to Portugal,Spain, Germany, Italy, Croatia, etc etc. C'ant see ryanair giving up those routes too easy to other airlines unless they are flying them themselves out of SNN. So in the end you will have to play ball with O'Leary.

Yes either Knock or Dublin as these routes are not available when once they were and were profitable. And they are profitable from Knock now. Go figure?

Ryanair are not the only game, I would love to see Easyjet come to Ireland. I know Ryanair drove them out of Dublin before but this time they would not be in direct competition unless Ryanair come back to SNN with these routes

globemaster1986

MYOB wrote: »

You really don't appear to be aware of them, if you think a route that was canned for not being viable in 2006 when there were more passengers and cheaper fuel would suddenly be viable when a fractional part of the costs are reduced. And you most certainly did say things about Ryanair operating those routes instead - just read your own posts.

What legacy staffing costs are you referring to? Because any staffing costs encountered over and above airport charges aren't staff of the airport authority.

Which routes are these then?? How were routes with load factors in the high 70's and 80's not viable?

I would love you to quote where I said anything about Ryanair operating EI Regional routes? I made one comment in relation to cost on a match weekend, nothing about Ryanair operating the routes, that was another poster.

SNN is over staffed I believe and the word is paid very well

globemaster1986

globemaster1986 wrote: »

Yes either Knock or Dublin as these routes are not available when once they were and were profitable. And they are profitable from Knock now. Go figure?

Ryanair are not the only game, I would love to see Easyjet come to Ireland. I know Ryanair drove them out of Dublin before but this time they would not be in direct competition unless Ryanair come back to SNN with these routes

I've seen several airlines try to compete with Ryanair in Knock and each time Ryanair won. There doing the same with Lufthansa now. Sometimes they would have flights running within an hour of its competitor to the same destination and prices almost free. There is not the passenger numbers here to fill two planes. As soon as the competitor pulls out the prices go back up.

If Easyjet does an exclusive deal with SNN and keeps Ryanair completely out of there then it might bring some good competition.

kona

Whats the DAA/ Aer Lingus/ SRT / insert here, pension deficit?? Not wanting to go off topic but writing off 100million for shannon would go someway towards this which would benefit ALOT of people whose pensions are ****ed because of asshats running it badly , it would also allow the state to sell its share in EI and get some cash, its would in turn allow EI to begin a new stage, and perhaps even explore routes from shannon?

L1011

globemaster1986 wrote: »

Which routes are these then?? How were routes with load factors in the high 70's and 80's not viable?

I would love you to quote where I said anything about Ryanair operating EI Regional routes? I made one comment in relation to cost on a match weekend, nothing about Ryanair operating the routes, that was another poster.

SNN is over staffed I believe and the word is paid very well

Load factor != yield.

Ryanair don't carry cargo. Their only profit comes from passengers. A plane that is 80% full of passengers that all paid below cost for their ticket is not making money.

You directly compared FR to EIR prices. If that isn't trying to compare what they'd do on a route, nothing is.

"SNN is over staffed" - again, why do you think this has any impact over and above airport charges? Your 'answer' isn't an answer. The only staff that Ryanair has to pay for over and above those provided with its airport charges are its own and its own contractors. This has nothing to do with SNN's staff.

globemaster1986

MYOB wrote: »

Load factor != yield.

Ryanair don't carry cargo. Their only profit comes from passengers. A plane that is 80% full of passengers that all paid below cost for their ticket is not making money.

You directly compared FR to EIR prices. If that isn't trying to compare what they'd do on a route, nothing is.

"SNN is over staffed" - again, why do you think this has any impact over and above airport charges? Your 'answer' isn't an answer. The only staff that Ryanair has to pay for over and above those provided with its airport charges are its own and its own contractors. This has nothing to do with SNN's staff.

So Ryanair have to fill the aircraft to make any money? Wow! Been on many a Ryanair flight, don't ever think I've seen 100% occupancy.

I merely said prices are jacked up for match weekends! Nothing about operating costs. Everybody knows they jack up prices when there are matches, they have been doing it since the late 90's, maybe even before that!!!

Well if you are paying more staff than you actually need that means you need to charge more to cover your costs. Basic economics there!

L1011

globemaster1986 wrote: »

So Ryanair have to fill the aircraft to make any money? Wow! Been on many a Ryanair flight, don't ever think I've seen 100% occupancy.

No.

Some routes are significantly higher yield and the break-even point is at a much lower load. Routes from SNN were not high yield. This is why they were cancelled.

If Ryanair was attempting to make a point about charges (Which are lower than they pay at many other airports), they would have dropped *all* flights.

Which they didn't. Instead they dropped the already loss making ones.

globemaster1986 wrote: »

I merely said prices are jacked up for match weekends! Nothing about operating costs. Everybody knows they jack up prices when there are matches, they have been doing it since the late 90's, maybe even before that!!!

All airlines do this, particularly FR. However, why are you going on about this? This is not where you made your comparison.

You directly said that EIRs prices were not comparable with FRs. You can only make a comparison on the same route, hence you were quite specificly suggesting FR would operate the same routes. Are you not able to remember what you wrote?

globemaster1986 wrote: »

Well if you are paying more staff than you actually need that means you need to charge more to cover your costs. Basic economics there!

You're still not answering the question.

What costs, at SNN, would an airline have to deal with that are NOT its standard airport charges and are related to the airline authorities staffing costs?

You appear to be having serious trouble backing this up.

globemaster1986

MYOB wrote: »

No.

Some routes are significantly higher yield and the break-even point is at a much lower load. Routes from SNN were not high yield. This is why they were cancelled.

If Ryanair was attempting to make a point about charges (Which are lower than they pay at many other airports), they would have dropped *all* flights.

Which they didn't. Instead they dropped the already loss making ones.



All airlines do this, particularly FR.



You're still not answering the question.

What costs, at SNN, would an airline have to deal with that are NOT its standard airport charges and are related to the airline authorities staffing costs?

You appear to be having serious trouble backing this up.

You must be some kind of troll lol! Most of the routes dropped by Ryanair are now operating from Knock. Why? Maybe its cheaper! Certainly not because its a more populated region! Have you any figures to show these flights were loss making?

I don't know what you want me to answer, I said nothing about "other" charges. I have no evidence for something I didn't say, I doubt you have either. I am merely assuming, with the relationship to the DAA, unionised jobs for the boys etc culture that operating costs/staffing costs are higher at SNN that at Knock for example. The fact that many of the Ryanair routes operated out of SNN are now operating from Knock may support that.

I am not knocking SNN, I am from the area and I want SNN to succeed and I believe it can, I just believe that the DAA was more interested in Dublin primarily, then Cork. Only time will tell if SNN can stand on its own two feet but I certainly believe with the right people/airlines/routes involved it can! And this time we need to try and keep the g*bsh*te politicians out of it!

L1011

globemaster1986 wrote: »

You must be some kind of troll lol! Most of the routes dropped by Ryanair are now operating from Knock. Why? Maybe its cheaper! Certainly not because its a more populated region! Have you any figures to show these flights were loss making?

There's more passengers on them from Knock, oddly enough. Higher yield on the fares too.

globemaster1986 wrote: »

I don't know what you want me to answer, I said nothing about "other" charges.

Yes you did:

"It is not just airport charges, there are legacy staff costs and more that need to be addressed"

Something you've not been able to justify what you meant by posting, despite a few attempts to do so and now some believe that you never wrote it.

Airport charges at SNN are nothing out of the ordinary for what FR pays elsewhere. They would pay them if routes were profitable and they DO pay them for quite a few routes already.

Airport charges are a tiny, tiny fraction of what it costs to operate a flight. Airlines do not close masses of routes due to getting a fractionally better deal elsewhere.

Even if SNN allowed Ryanair to land for free, the economics wouldn't make sense for the routes they closed, as the difference in costs since then is gone entirely - due to fuel.

The other factor is that a lot of routes Ryanair end are ended due to subsidies - where they are *paid* by the airport or local authority to bring in passengers - ending. Any of these where SNN was the other end - you ain't going to see that route reappear, ever.

globemaster1986

MYOB wrote: »

There's more passengers on them from Knock, oddly enough. Higher yield on the fares too.



Yes you did:

"It is not just airport charges, there are legacy staff costs and more that need to be addressed"

Something you've not been able to justify what you meant by posting, despite a few attempts to do so and now some believe that you never wrote it.

Airport charges at SNN are nothing out of the ordinary for what FR pays elsewhere. They would pay them if routes were profitable and they DO pay them for quite a few routes already.

Airport charges are a tiny, tiny fraction of what it costs to operate a flight. Airlines do not close masses of routes due to getting a fractionally better deal elsewhere.

Even if SNN allowed Ryanair to land for free, the economics wouldn't make sense for the routes they closed, as the difference in costs since then is gone entirely - due to fuel.

Yes staff wages and possible over staffing. That was all I was referring to. I never said anything about letting them land for free, actually wouldn't agree with doing that at all.

Yes thank you as I already said I am aware of increases in the cost of fuel and I know there will be differences from airport to airport, however I doubt the cost of fuel between Shannon and Knock would be all that much. It usually varies more from country to country as a result of different duties/taxes etc.

You can jump down my throat all you like but I think SNN is viable. There is a large catchment area and it can work. This is a forum for discussion afterall, if you don't agree with me that's fine I'm not going to be a condescending prick to you about it!

L1011

globemaster1986 wrote: »

Yes thank you as I already said I am aware of increases in the cost of fuel and I know there will be differences from airport to airport, however I doubt the cost of fuel between Shannon and Knock would be all that much. It usually varies more from country to country as a result of different duties/taxes etc.

Where on earth are you getting *anything* about there being differences between SNN and NOC? Never mentioned. Not an issue.

The cost of fuel is *significantly higher* than it was in 2006. That's all the matters. The routes were unprofitable in 2006 (if they were profitable, they would not have cancelled them). SNN could charge them zero and the increase in the cost of fuel would ensure the routes were *still* not profitable.

Suits

globemaster1986 wrote: »

Seriously, for a match weekend? Everybody knows Ryanair will jack up the prices for matches be it Soccer or Rugby! Aer Lingus do it too just maybe not as much that time:D

Crowds dont generally travel in numbers for the Amlin though!:P

In all seriousness the sport "pull" to Shannon from a Munster Rugby point of view is set to take a serious tumble with the new IRFU player rules!(rugby becomes aviation related from this point of view):D