US government subsidising Ryanair at the expense of Aer Lingus

Impetus

This morning’s New York Times (Saturday) has an item on complaints by US airlines like Delta that the US government is subsidising the borrowing cost of foreign airlines (eg Emirates) using the US government owned Ex-Im bank.

“The rise of Persian Gulf airlines has been a boon to Boeing as they snap up its large jets, sometimes with the help of loan guarantees from Washington.
But now one of Boeing’s oldest customers, Delta Air Lines, is attacking that financing, saying the government is subsidizing foreign competition that could cause a new wave of trouble for American carriers.” I can think of a European airline whose rise has also been a big boon to Boeing - Ryanair.

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/06/28/business/airlines-rivalry-amplifies-fight-over-bank-guarantees.html?ref=business&_r=0

I had a look at Ryanair’s last annual report (2013), (a Boeing only customer), and page 98 reveals that Ryanair too is receiving US government subsidies to buy American aircraft from the US gov owned Ex Im bank in Washington.

This is unfair US government sponsored competition against Airbus and every European airline that does not use American aircraft (eg Aer Lingus). This leaves the Irish public purse to carry the can for business lost by Aer Lingus to Ryanair.

http://corporate.ryanair.com/docs/corp/investor/2013/final_annual_report_2013_130731.pdf

You can add to this the fact that Ryanair is providing a massive database of Europeans to a US company (Navitaire) who are the outsourcing company for reservations etc, which act is very questionable after all the Snowden revelations. This is not necessarily a reflection on Navitaire - Snowden has shown that the NSA take information anyway they can from internet pipes feeding Google etc and probably Navitaire.

Arthur Beesley

Probably? Possibly? Probably not? Meaningless?

steve-o

They are in fact subsidising Boeing. Aer Lingus are free to buy Boeing planes.

LMAO I'm sure Aer Lingus got a hand with loans for their Airbuses.

This is an age old argument who's giving and getting government subsidies to buy/sell their aircraft. What's deemed a leg up and what's not. At the end of the day for the last few years Boeing and Airbus are neck and neck for sales neither one or the other can be seen to be getting a huge advantage through these issues. If one or the other was outstripping the other in sales then yes it would be a huge issue.

More of an issue is the advantages the gulf airlines are getting from their governments through low/no tax and cheap loans and fuel.

You don't see the airlines whining about killing off the charter airlines now they are doing most if not all of the bucket and spade flights. Not many charter airlines flying into airports at the weekends now that most of the current airlines are flying to Spain and Portugal etc. But you will see them whine when the gulf carriers come into their back gardens and start upsetting their apple carts. Not so much in Ireland as our carrier only cares about stuff to the west but if one of the gulf carriers started a route to the west from Dublin they would be up in arms.

Cessna_Pilot

If Aer Lingus had a big fleet of Boeing machines instead of Airbus they would be in the same position. They are more than welcome I'm sure to be order Boeing if they wanted.
Rest assured Aer Lingus are by no means getting shafted here as op impies.
This is a non issue.

paddy145

Impetus wrote: »

This is unfair US government sponsored competition against Airbus and every European airline that does not use American aircraft (eg Aer Lingus). This leaves the Irish public purse to carry the can for business lost by Aer Lingus to Ryanair.

From the article you linked to "Airbus, receives similar help from European agencies", so defeats any point your trying to make I would have thought?

As previous poster also pointed out Aer lingus have always been free to buy Boeing.

BonkeyDonker

US Government in helping US company shocker. However, is the Ex-Im bank under review at the moment, with strong pressure from some lobbies to scrap it.

Anyway, Ryanairs biggest benefit from Boeing was having a load of cash and wanting aircraft straight after 9/11, when nobody else did and airlines were cancelling orders in their droves. This allowed Ryanair to dictate the really low price they got the aircraft for, as Boeing needed the orders to help keep the doors open.

Phil_Lives

when Ryanair can sell almost a billion of bonds at a comically low interest rate it is all academic. They can get money at practically no cost at the moment.

BonkeyDonker

Phil_Lives wrote: »

when Ryanair can sell almost a billion of bonds at a comically low interest rate it is all academic. They can get money at practically no cost at the moment.

Having a few billion in the bank probably helps. But like you say its cheaper for them to currently borrow money than to spend what they have.

Impetus

BonkeyDonker wrote: »

Having a few billion in the bank probably helps. But like you say its cheaper for them to currently borrow money than to spend what they have.

Ryanair's credit rating for bonds is BBB at the moment. The US gov has an AA rating (and had an AAA rating) which delivers a much lower funding cost. Ryanair can piggyback on the US gov credit rating to buy aircraft. State subsidies are generally illegal in the EU, and it doesn't matter that Aer Lingus could buy Boeing aircraft if they wanted to. It is a state sponsored bribe in my books.

In 2011, 2012 and 2013 Ryanair had a net interest expense. There is a lot of off-balance sheet stuff in Ryanair's real liabilities - eg mainly related to aircraft leases which can carry requirements for cash in blocked accounts.

It is only now that this subsidy is making news, because the NY Times decided to make it news last night. One suspects that the EU competition people will be having a look at the issue.

Many companies and individuals were being conned by rigged foreign exchange and gold markets in London over the past decades. This too has only come to light in the last year or so. It is no consolation to say that the FX or bullion customer could have gone elsewhere to buy their requirements. Fiddles like these have an overall affect on market prices globally. And a cost for those who are not government subsidized.

paddy145

Your thread title is terribly misleading

L1011

Canada does similar for Bombardier sales. Its not as explicit for Airbus but there's still assistance in financing available there too.

Tenger

steve-o wrote: »

They are in fact subsidising Boeing.......

At the end of the day this is the salient view to take on this article.

You can be damn sure that Boeing would offer similar financing terms to Aer Lingus in an effort to win them back to Boeing.
Both big manufacturers will do pretty much anything to steal orders from each other/ protect their current orders.

Bazzy

When will the ryanair bashing stop sweet jesus

Worry about the big american companies here paying tax

GarIT

Anything that harms Aer Lingus is good news to me.

Tenger

GarIT wrote: »

Anything that harms Aer Lingus is good news to me.

Blatant airline bashing. Infracted.

Tenger

Bazzy wrote: »

When will the ryanair bashing stop sweet jesus........

I think the replies above have pointed out that the OP was incorrect in his interpretation of the newspaper article. Any 'Ryanair bashing' has been nipped in the bud.

smurfjed

OP, the EXIM bank made a $1bn profit last year and succeeded in achieving sales of American products that may otherwise have gone to European or Asian companies. The Europeans do exactly the same thing, in fact i remember a recent article that Airbus were considering opening their own bank in order to ensure that their customers got the required credit. This is American politics at play, the representative for Delta wants to get rid of the EXIM, the representative for Boeing wants to keep it. But just remember that this not only applies to commercial aircraft, but to military equipment etc. It also has a positive role to play on US imports as in some cases the payments are made in products rather than cash, i.e., oil, gas etc.

Impetus

smurfjed wrote: »

OP, the EXIM bank made a $1bn profit last year and succeeded in achieving sales of American products that may otherwise have gone to European or Asian companies. The Europeans do exactly the same thing, in fact i remember a recent article that Airbus were considering opening their own bank in order to ensure that their customers got the required credit. This is American politics at play, the representative for Delta wants to get rid of the EXIM, the representative for Boeing wants to keep it. But just remember that this not only applies to commercial aircraft, but to military equipment etc. It also has a positive role to play on US imports as in some cases the payments are made in products rather than cash, i.e., oil, gas etc.

Volkswagen, BMW, Audi etc have their own bank too to help fund sales of products. But it is not funded by the German or any other government. The Central Bank of Ireland made 1.5 billion € in "profit" last year. Despite the fact that it is totally unproductive as an entity, and failed to prevent the financial crisis Ireland has been through during the past seven years or so. Government monopolies, particularly those in the financial sector can make virtually any amount of "profit" they want.

Impetus

GarIT wrote: »

Anything that harms Aer Lingus is good news to me.

This sentence reads pretty sick to me.... perhaps you would like to elaborate ?

Impetus

paddy145 wrote: »

Your thread title is terribly misleading

In what way, please?

Jack1985

Impetus wrote: »

In what way, please?

Aer Lingus was well subsidised in terms of discounts when it went all Airbus as well, easyJet you could right a chapter on. Subsidies/Discounts are the norm, nobody ever pays list price - So If I'm honest I see no issue with states subsidising airlines to buy their aircraft to boost jobs in their own country. No brainer.

smurfjed

Your title is misleading as the US is supporting US built aircraft that happen to be purchased by Ryanair and not Aer Lingus. If EI decided to purchase the 787, that support would be available to them.

Airbus bank...
http://www.airbus-group.com/airbusgroup/int/en/news/press.20140214_airbusgroup_bank.html

Airbus Financing concepts
http://www.arabnews.com/news/592841

The thing that Delta are missing is that the ME carriers offer superior inflight services that appeal to passengers

smurfjed

I see no issue with states subsidising airlines to buy their aircraft to boost jobs in their own country

The EXIM bank is not subsidising. Take Saudi for instance, the airline is government owned, it decides to buy aircraft from Boeing but doesn't have the required 6 billion in cash, so EXIM gets involved, they pay Boeing, and the Saudis pay them in future oil deliveries. So everyone is happy, sorry almost everyone is happy with the exception of Delta.

smurfjed

According to a draft of the speech obtained by the Journal, Anderson (Delta CEO) is expected to propose that the bank continue supporting sales of Boeing widebody jets to a limited number of airlines that lack alternative finance options, at least for as long as rival Airbus Group NV enjoys similar backing from European export-credit agencies.
"Delta's position in regard to the U.S. Export Import Bank hasn't changed. Delta has consistently said reforms are needed to stop U.S. taxpayer subsidized financing to our foreign competitors. The Bank should not be reauthorized without significant reforms," Hiroko Okada, a Delta spokeswoman, said in an email to Reuters.
Anderson is expected to emphasize in his speech that he doesn't want Ex-Im to shut down, arguing that the bank has a vital role in preserving U.S. manufacturing jobs, the daily reported.

So basically, please don't shut down the EXIM bank as it will affect US jobs (not just Boeing), but please don't allow them to offer loans to any of our competitors :)

Umm, how about offering better services to your passengers and let the market decide.

Impetus

smurfjed wrote: »

So basically, please don't shut down the EXIM bank as it will affect US jobs (not just Boeing), but please don't allow them to offer loans to any of our competitors :)

Umm, how about offering better services to your passengers and let the market decide.

Absolutely.

That is why I try and fly Lufthansa every time. Where I live Lufthansa group and Ryanair are the main choices for many destinations.

I remember recently pressing the call bell - on a Lufthansa flight. On a brand new, spotless A-321. I wanted a glass of water to take a tablet. The flight attendant was over in less than a minute.

I said "Ich möchte ein Glas Wasser bitte." (I could have said it in English - Lufthansa staff English is generally perfect). But a linguistic impurity like this would spoil the moment. She handed me a glass of water from her hand - no trolley, a totally random request from a call bell event. One suspects that Lufthansa have noticed that water is a popular demand mid flight, and their cabin team are ready to deliver same, seamlessly to flight guests - an alien concept for Ryanair and to a lesser extent Aer Lingus. Compare and contrast with Ryanair. Invariably there would be a demand for pieces of silver for a glass of water, even if one was in a coma. And it would be executed in an amateurish manner.

Many Lufthansa flights are cheaper than Ryanair. Lufthansa serve big city airports - unlike the ex military airfields Michael O'Leary seems to like. And Lufthansa does not have the benefit of 12.5% a corporate income tax rate or discounted social protection contributions. While I have no time for the French social protection racket where the contribution can equal 57% of salary, it seems to me that Mr O'Leary is "getting a good deal" with Irish social contribution rates and outsourcing and making pilots pay for training etc. Not to mention borrowing the US government's AA credit rating to buy jets on credit.

smurfjed

Not to mention borrowing the US government's AA credit rating to buy jets on credit.

With all due respect, you have no clue as to the rates offered by EXIM to any customer, just because they can source cheap credit, it doesn't mean that they will pass than on to customers.

Impetus

smurfjed wrote: »

With all due respect, you have no clue as to the rates offered by EXIM to any customer, just because they can source cheap credit, it doesn't mean that they will pass than on to customers.

EXIM is a guarantor. If a company has a BBB or CCC credit rating and they buy US merchandise on credit, the interest rate reflects the AA rating of the US government rather than the much higher rating that a CCC rated borrower would pay, thanks to EXIM. If you want a low cost home mortgage get a US government guarantee and you would probably be able to finance the house at around 2% or so. The chances of both you and the US gov going bankrupt at the same time are close to zero.

Of course there is no guarantee that this saving will be passed on to the end customer. Ryanair will get whatever the market will bear. Irrespective of the cost of funding or aircraft or crews or whatever.

Nonoperational

Impetus wrote: »

Absolutely.

That is why I try and fly Lufthansa every time. Where I live Lufthansa group and Ryanair are the main choices for many destinations.

I remember recently pressing the call bell - on a Lufthansa flight. On a brand new, spotless A-321. I wanted a glass of water to take a tablet. The flight attendant was over in less than a minute.

I said "Ich möchte ein Glas Wasser bitte." (I could have said it in English - Lufthansa staff English is generally perfect). But a linguistic impurity like this would spoil the moment. She handed me a glass of water from her hand - no trolley, a totally random request from a call bell event. One suspects that Lufthansa have noticed that water is a popular demand mid flight, and their cabin team are ready to deliver same, seamlessly to flight guests - an alien concept for Ryanair and to a lesser extent Aer Lingus. Compare and contrast with Ryanair. Invariably there would be a demand for pieces of silver for a glass of water, even if one was in a coma. And it would be executed in an amateurish manner.

Many Lufthansa flights are cheaper than Ryanair. Lufthansa serve big city airports - unlike the ex military airfields Michael O'Leary seems to like. And Lufthansa does not have the benefit of 12.5% a corporate income tax rate or discounted social protection contributions. While I have no time for the French social protection racket where the contribution can equal 57% of salary, it seems to me that Mr O'Leary is "getting a good deal" with Irish social contribution rates and outsourcing and making pilots pay for training etc. Not to mention borrowing the US government's AA credit rating to buy jets on credit.

Ryanair is a buy on board airline. Everyone knows this. It's the way they operate. It's lovely that Lufthansa have psychic flight attendants though. That's really cool.

Your posts just sound silly now at this stage to be honest.

carpejugulum

Airbus has also been heavily subsidized.

Marcusm

Impetus wrote: »

i

This is unfair US government sponsored competition against Airbus and every European airline that does not use American aircraft (eg Aer Lingus). This leaves the Irish public purse to carry the can for business lost by Aer Lingus to Ryanair.

Your viewpoint is too narrow; Aer Lingus could and may have obtained export credit financing for the Airbus aircraft - this is split across the UK, French and German export credit guarantee agencies. Indeed, Aer Arann may have used similar financing for its ATRs.

Airlines based in the manufacturing bases (US, UK, France and Germany) do not generally qualify for export credit guarantees but airlines elsewhere do. I have been involved in both Boeing and Airbus financings across UAE, other Gulf, East Asian and South Asian carriers.

Impetus

Nonoperational wrote: »

Ryanair is a buy on board airline. Everyone knows this. It's the way they operate. It's lovely that Lufthansa have psychic flight attendants though. That's really cool.

Your posts just sound silly now at this stage to be honest.

So speaks a "nonoperational" Ryanair, perhaps self appointed, spokesperson, who has little intelligent to offer to the discussion?

Good staff training is not psychic stuff. Neither are Lufthansa's spotlessly clean aircraft. It all requires focus on how best to serve the customers' needs - like Lufthansa's fast boarding using two or three automated self service boarding pass readers at each gate, instead of Ryanair and Aer Lingus's time wasting (requiring multiple staff) checking of ID documents at the gate (which they copied from GB), and again checking boarding passes on boarding the plane. Taking the friction out of boarding greatly speeds the turnaround - without forcing people outside in the rain, wind and snow to also use the rear door.

Jack1985

Impetus while I don't disagree with your points regarding Lufthansa's innovation at boarding gates, I think its a bit much to say EI/FR time wasting is due to multiple staff - Both airlines are very much streamlined, Lufthansa is a carrier overstaffed fighting with its employes to implement cuts and offspringing its operation to in-house loco's bound to fail. Also regards turnarounds FR does in 25 minutes nearly every time and at the airports it doesn't they are usually major ones, Aer Lingus standard is about 40 minutes - Lufthansa aren't that great with turnarounds outside of Germany if I'm honest.

without forcing people outside in the rain, wind and snow to also use the rear door.

The only reason FR do this is to achieve the 25 min turn, although at some airports they do use sole airbridges (majority of major Spanish airports) - Boarding through a jetbridge especially with lots of families on the flights is the biggest hassle going, always a scrum at the bulkhead and always causing longer boarding times.

Cessna_Pilot

Impetus wrote: »

So speaks a "nonoperational" Ryanair, perhaps self appointed, spokesperson, who has little intelligent to offer to the discussion?

Good staff training is not psychic stuff. Neither are Lufthansa's spotlessly clean aircraft. It all requires focus on how best to serve the customers' needs - like Lufthansa's fast boarding using two or three automated self service boarding pass readers at each gate, instead of Ryanair and Aer Lingus's time wasting (requiring multiple staff) checking of ID documents at the gate (which they copied from GB), and again checking boarding passes on boarding the plane. Taking the friction out of boarding greatly speeds the turnaround - without forcing people outside in the rain, wind and snow to also use the rear door.

What does this have to do with your original post?

Impetus

Marcusm wrote: »

Your viewpoint is too narrow; Aer Lingus could and may have obtained export credit financing for the Airbus aircraft - this is split across the UK, French and German export credit guarantee agencies. Indeed, Aer Arann may have used similar financing for its ATRs.

Airlines based in the manufacturing bases (US, UK, France and Germany) do not generally qualify for export credit guarantees but airlines elsewhere do. I have been involved in both Boeing and Airbus financings across UAE, other Gulf, East Asian and South Asian carriers.

Surely the fact that export credit guarantees only apply to exports is irrelevant/anathema in the current era of no government subsidies to business? If nothing else, it is anti-competitive to airlines based in countries like FR, DE, US and GB? Ryanair operates in three of these markets both domestically and on an intra-state basis.

Impetus

Cessna_Pilot wrote: »

What does this have to do with your original post?

I am following on the post by http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=91042756&postcount=25 about providing a quality service to the customer.

An alien concept to most Irish companies (and their customers too if people like you are representative of the latter).

Marcusm

Impetus wrote: »

Surely the fact that export credit guarantees only apply to exports is irrelevant/anathema in the current era of no government subsidies to business? If nothing else, it is anti-competitive to airlines based in countries like FR, DE, US and GB? Ryanair operates in three of these markets both domestically and on an intra-state basis.

Export credit guarantees permit trade to happen; if every exporter needed to evaluate the legal systems and credit quality of each potetnial purchaser in overseas countries it would soon go broke. It is not the only trade finance mechanism, you also have forfaiting, discounting, letters of credit etc etc.

Export credit guarantees are not intended to be a subsidy but a means of ensuring that trade can internationalise - a fee is paid for the guarantee which is meant to reflect the value fo the guarantee. Different airlines in various countries must submit financial data and a determination is made of the cost to them. It has made a particular difference during the financial crisis where little finance was available on an unguaranteed basis.

The fact that Ryanair operates in the UK, France and Germany is irrelevant. It is an Irish airline. Export credits are not generally seen as necessary for the US, France, Germany or the UK as there are fairly well understood legal and financial systems which exporters can assess or get finance from someone who has assessed them.

Impetus

Jack1985 wrote: »

Impetus while I don't disagree with your points regarding Lufthansa's innovation at boarding gates, I think its a bit much to say EI/FR time wasting is due to multiple staff - Both airlines are very much streamlined, Lufthansa is a carrier overstaffed fighting with its employes to implement cuts and offspringing its operation to in-house loco's bound to fail. Also regards turnarounds FR does in 25 minutes nearly every time and at the airports it doesn't they are usually major ones, Aer Lingus standard is about 40 minutes - Lufthansa aren't that great with turnarounds outside of Germany if I'm honest.



The only reason FR do this is to achieve the 25 min turn, although at some airports they do use sole airbridges (majority of major Spanish airports) - Boarding through a jetbridge especially with lots of families on the flights is the biggest hassle going, always a scrum at the bulkhead and always causing longer boarding times.

Ryanair makes a total mess of the design of their service and especially documentation. When they started using seat assignment first, the seat number was in small print on the boarding pass. Many people spent a minute or two fiddling with torn A4 home computer printed limp pages on probably 80 gsm paper trying to find where they should sit. The seat number (and not stupid advertising which wastes ink and space) should scream out to the customer in big print. It is all about emphasis of matter and white space. If the airline requires to keep some part of the boarding pass at the gate, the document should be a two page document with one watermarked "passenger copy" - eg as Iberia do.

The "new" website is still extremely bureaucratic and time consuming, and is not 100% TLS for security (from the starting page). Checking in requires one to have one's passport number and expiry date - no other airline requires this for Euroepan flights (dictator gov Spain from non-Schengen countries excepted).

Clueless, amateurish, low quality, badly designed, downmarket, Irish!

smurfjed

OK so this has turned from a discussion about the EXIM bank to an anti Ryanair tirade......

Waste of time

Impetus

smurfjed wrote: »

OK so this has turned from a discussion about the EXIM bank to an anti Ryanair tirade......

Waste of time

Typical Oirish negative view of the world.

It would be preferable if Ryanair became more guest friendly a la Lufthansa...... One might even forgive the free money from uncle sam if Ryanair treated its customers with respect, as one encounters with world class companies.

At the moment Ryanair is an "abuse anything" you can machine, with con merchant pricing on many / most routes. Add a checked bag and it is often more than the ticket cost. Inflight the catering options are 1960s on British Rail style. Unhealthy, rubbish, un-inspriing. Not refreshing. Ryanair reminds me of an Irish government department in the 1970s or 1980s. Fortunately most Irish government departments have become far more user friendly than Ryanair.

Ryanair is abusing the system. Pilots have to pay for their own training. I'm an accountant and lawyer by profession and back in the day the firms I worked for paid for my training fees + gave me in-house training + gave me 10 weeks paid time to go away and study for the professional exams each year.

It is no different from being a pilot or an accountant or lawyer. You must have the best training for the job.

On a good runway with Lufthansa you don't feel the landing or takeoff. Ryanair pilots for some reason drop the aircraft on the runway with a thud. I'm talking 5 m/s wind speeds.

One is not engaged in a rant against Ryanair. On the contrary how can one make Ryanair and Aer Lingus better serve the customer (or flight guest in Lufthansa lingo)....

nuckeythompson

EU grants were the reason EI snapped up all those airbus

Impetus

nuckeythompson wrote: »

EU grants were the reason EI snapped up all those airbus

Please spew. ie provide hard facts. Why didn't the same EU give "grants" to Ryanair?

Peregrine

Impetus wrote: »

Typical Oirish negative view of the world.

It would be preferable if Ryanair became more guest friendly a la Lufthansa...... One might even forgive the free money from uncle sam if Ryanair treated its customers with respect, as one encounters with world class companies.

At the moment Ryanair is an "abuse anything" you can machine, with con merchant pricing on many / most routes. Add a checked bag and it is often more than the ticket cost. Inflight the catering options are 1960s on British Rail style. Unhealthy, rubbish, un-inspriing. Not refreshing. Ryanair reminds me of an Irish government department in the 1970s or 1980s. Fortunately most Irish government departments have become far more user friendly than Ryanair.

Ryanair is abusing the system. Pilots have to pay for their own training. I'm an accountant and lawyer by profession and back in the day the firms I worked for paid for my training fees + gave me in-house training + gave me 10 weeks paid time to go away and study for the professional exams each year.

It is no different from being a pilot or an accountant or lawyer. You must have the best training for the job.

On a good runway with Lufthansa you don't feel the landing or takeoff. Ryanair pilots for some reason drop the aircraft on the runway with a thud. I'm talking 5 m/s wind speeds.

One is not engaged in a rant against Ryanair. On the contrary how can one make Ryanair and Aer Lingus better serve the customer (or flight guest in Lufthansa lingo)....

What does any of this have to do with the OP?

I'm reading your thread hoping to learn more about these these banks(though, not from your anti-Ryanair point of view) and here you are ranting about a completely unrelated topic that's been discussed to death on this forum.

Impetus wrote: »

Please spew. ie provide hard facts. Why didn't the same EU give "grants" to Ryanair?

Because they didn't buy EU aircraft?

billie1b

Somebody above had to pay for a gate bag or maybe a boarding card fee.....
I dont think he/she realises that all pilots in most companies pay for their type rating or else their company pays and the pilot pays it back every month through salary deduction.
Same with cadetships, the cadet pays a hefty lump sum up front and another during the course of their training and then monthly when training is complete.
Seems to me someone just wants to do some FR/EI bashing with no knowledge of any of it.

Impetus

Perhaps a few people here are blind or deep in the ryanair pocket? I did say "One is not engaged in a rant against Ryanair. On the contrary how can one make Ryanair and Aer Lingus better serve the customer (or flight guest in Lufthansa lingo)...."

Who please has an agenda contrary to this objective?

billie1b

Impetus wrote: »

I did say "One is not engaged in a rant against Ryanair. Who please has an agenda contrary to this objective?

for one who is not 'ranting', you are doing a good job of it, you also seem to be the one with the agenda, maybe its your hands deep in Lufthansas pockets

Impetus

billie1b wrote: »

for one who is not 'ranting', you are doing a good job of it, you also seem to be the one with the agenda, maybe its your hands deep in Lufthansas pockets

I can declare with 100% assurance that I have nothing to do with Lufthansa other than using the airline and having a Miles & More card.

Anyway why would Lufthansa do a few posts on boards.ie on how Ryanair / Aer Lingus could refresh themselves?

smurfjed

I have been involved in both Boeing and Airbus financings across UAE, other Gulf, East Asian and South Asian carriers.

Did anyone notice this posting??

We had a great opportunity to discuss an interesting subject with someone who has experience in the field.... but unfortunately we have gone down the road of Ryanair bashing.

Any chance of going back to the original topic?

Jack1985

I think it's more Lufthansa would be needing advise from both on how to run profitable short haul networks, not flying routes which they lose money on the run their long haul network. As well this they own nearly every slot in Frankfurt leaving it one of the most difficult airports to get allocated flexible slots and then have the cheek to complain the M/E carriers are operating like "Stealth" airlines, LH, AF/KL and the majors in the states have a serious issue with change, rather they seek to complain and fail to change when the real issue is they have far less superior products against there rivals which are winning customers.

Tenger

smurfjed wrote: »

......
We had a great opportunity to discuss an interesting subject with someone who has experience in the field.... but unfortunately we have gone down the road of Ryanair bashing.

Any chance of going back to the original topic?

Any more anti- airline ranting and bans will be handed out.

The thread was OK for page 1-2...then the wheels came off. The OP obviously has an issue with the 2 main Irish airlines. If you want to start a general "how can FR/EI improve?" then do so.

FR are hugely successful without needing to emulate/follow Lufthansa. Live with it. 89 million pax did so in 2013.

Your posts about reek of airline bashing and an agenda.

Impetus

smurfjed wrote: »

Did anyone notice this posting??

We had a great opportunity to discuss an interesting subject with someone who has experience in the field.... but unfortunately we have gone down the road of Ryanair bashing.

Any chance of going back to the original topic?

By all means. The airline industry has been riddled for decades by political domination and cluelessness.

I have no problem with low pax vol flights being gov subsidized on a tender basis by gov - eg DUBKRY. There is no service DUBORK since Ryanair entered the market and departed. Leaving 700,000 people with no choice but to use CDG, LHR, LGW, AMS or BRU etc as an transit point rather than DUB where there isn't an ORK > destination direct service.

Back in the day it was possible t do ORK DUB at around 06h30, and connect with lots of flights to the rest of Europe / world within an hour or so. The idiots in control of Dublin airport have spent perhaps 300 to 500 million erecting glass barriers at DUB to prevent easy connections. In any efficient European Airport - eg AMS, ZRH, BCN, one can get off one flight and board another without going through the "controls" racket. Time wasting friction. Similar to the financial friction caused to airlines who don't get EX IM gov subsidized finance.