Goodbye Aer Lingus

Junkyard Tom

Fr_Dougal wrote: »

How would an airline 'die roaring'?

Aaaaaaarrrrghh...

kona

Junkyard Cat wrote: »

You know, if a major war broke out in Europe, or if there was some sort of catastrophe like a massive Tsunami or some other calamity.. a fleet of aircraft under control of the government could be essential for rescuing/evacuating people, bringing in supplies/aid etc.

I'm sure Ryanair would do that :rolleyes:

AllGunsBlazing

mossleycnoc wrote: »

Rather one sided interview on RTE Six One news with some guy from tourist federation extolling the virtues of the deal. Seems like the elite have already decided that the airline should go. Not really sure that disposal of Heathrow slots is in the national interest tbh.

Wouldn't mind seeing that pile of sh_it being privatised next.

Fr_Dougal

john_bane wrote: »

many airlines are trying to get out of heathrow , its like traffic in galway city over there

as another poster pointed out , IAG may now use Dublin as another hub

They wouldn't need to buy EI to use Dublin as a hub. They're after the Heathrow slots, end of.

Duck Soup

My name is URL wrote: »

Because it doesn't make them a lot of money. It's been very very close to collapse at least a few times over the last 20 odd years and has had to be bailed out.

Last year, Aer Lingus recorded a €61m operating profit. No one doubts that the banks in which the government has controlling interests will be pumping out stupendous profits for a decade to come.

So why sell?

BonkeyDonker

HIB wrote: »

You honestly think aer lingus won't find a more profitable route to occupy those slots, once their short term commitment to those slots expired?

I just can't see how a couple of hundred million euro is a big enough prize to risk losing those slots.

They must be worth many multiples of that to the local economy.

If there were more profitable uses they would have used them by now - Aer Lingus have nothing stopping them from transferring the slots as things stand.

Cork has connections to both Amsterdam and Paris as well as Heathrow for onwards connections Eastbound, and indeed westbound. Shannon is just up the road with direct connections to America and onward from multiple airlines. The need for a connection to Heathrow should, like any other connection, be a commercial one, not one based on a twenty year old requirement.

AMKC

Graham wrote: »

I can't see IAG wanting to take on the ultra-lcc model of Ryanair. They haven't before, why do you think that will change now?

IAG have not no but that company is relatively new. British airways however did try and they failed.
As for Aer Lingus. They did try to do the same as Ryanair for a while but changed to what they do know as they were losing money trying to compete directly with Ryanair.Aer lingus do at time,s do sales now maybe not as cheap as Ryanair but better service and more comfort over Ryanair.
As for IAG cutting jobs at Aer Lingus. I don,t think there will be many as a lot of jobs have gone there in the last few years and Aer Lingus is a lot more efficient and much better run than it used to be. Iberia was a different animal altogether. It was very badly run and had a lot of inefficienties in it. IAG have turned it around there was job loses yes but it is on its way to now making profits. The Group has already made profits.
I think IAG,s takeover of Aer Lingus will be good for it. they will have 7 full years of security where else will you get that today. The company could run into big problems if something major where to happen in the world again like another financial shock maybe in a few years and without a group like IAG to back it up could end up in big trouble.

WheatenBriar

Duck Soup wrote: »

Last year, Aer Lingus recorded a €61m operating profit. No one doubts that the banks in which the government has controlling interests will be pumping out stupendous profits for a decade to come.

So why sell?

I'd agree holding onto AIB would be good but the EU won't allow that on an ongoing basis
I see no reason to hold 25% of an airline
One or two operating profits doesn't make a summer,a huge loss at any time common in the airline business would wipe that
Plus they need to buy planes

cml387

As someone mentioned earlier, I remember when (state owned ) Aer Lingus and (state owned) BA carved up the DUB LHR route between them and charged exactly the same fare. In 1982 that was 150 pounds return. Ryanair and others tried to compete, but the government used to get advice from Aer Lingus as to whether a new airline on the route could be a viable entity. Aer Lingus would come back and say, surprisingly, no, it would not be viable. This nonsense went on until Seamus Brennan forced Aer Lingus not to compete with/kill off Ryanair's plans for a service to Luton.

Why Heathrow is such a prize also escapes me, a disaster of an airport. Schipol is a far better airport with just as many international connections and is an extra 15 minutes flying time away.

And strategic importance? We have no national sea carrier bringing goods into Ireland and yet no one sees that as a problem.

It's all down to a union conspiracy between the Aer Lingus staff and Aer Rianta staff at DUB (there is a seamless connection between the two) and craven and cowardly politicians in North Dublin, and in Cork and Shannon.

The funny thing is that whatever future Aer Lingus has within IAG, it has no future outside it.

One of the few bright spots in recent years is the amount of people from Northern England using Dub as a gateway to the US. This could be cemented by a link up with BA marketing it to take the pressure off Heathrow.If short sighted politicians kybosh the deal then it will be a tragedy.

Menas

Duck Soup wrote: »

Last year, Aer Lingus recorded a €61m operating profit. No one doubts that the banks in which the government has controlling interests will be pumping out stupendous profits for a decade to come.

So why sell?

Do you know how much of a loss Aer Lingus has made since its inception in 1936? And how much the tax payer has lost in that time?

The airline needs major investment that neither of the two big shareholders are willing to put in to it. So it needs to be sold or it will fold.

54and56

mossleycnoc wrote: »

Seems like the elite have already decided that the airline should go.

You do know that the airline is already privatised and "we" only own 1/4 of it?

54and56

BonkeyDonker wrote: »

If there were more profitable uses they would have used them by now - Aer Lingus have nothing stopping them from transferring the slots as things stand.

Cork has connections to both Amsterdam and Paris as well as Heathrow for onwards connections Eastbound, and indeed westbound. Shannon is just up the road with direct connections to America and onward from multiple airlines. The need for a connection to Heathrow should, like any other connection, be a commercial one, not one based on a twenty year old requirement.

I used to be a very regular long haul traveller and I'd always avoid connecting through Heathrow. I'd use any of the other UK airports, Copenhagen or Amsterdam long before I'd use Heathrow and even now when I travel to London I'm fairly agnostic about which airport I use. I tend to choose based on it's proximity to my final destination.

ThisRegard

Duck Soup wrote: »

Last year, Aer Lingus recorded a €61m operating profit. No one doubts that the banks in which the government has controlling interests will be pumping out stupendous profits for a decade to come.

So why sell?

They sold years ago, why aren't people getting that? Have a look back at its condition when it was in complete state control.

TheQuietFella

wendell borton wrote: »

Its looking like the government are going to sell our 25% stake in Aer Lingus. Given their form of kowtowing to corporate interests its little surprise.

Maybe we should have had a referendum on it?

Disappointed to see another flagship Irish company now in foreign hands!

54and56

TheQuietFella wrote: »

Maybe we should have had a referendum on it?

Disappointed to see another flagship Irish company now in foreign hands!

Yeah, Willie Walsh. How much more foreign could you get?

54and56

kona wrote: »

I'm sure Ryanair would do that :rolleyes:

And what choice would they have if the army take over their HQ at gun point?

end of the road

RayM wrote: »

I'm no fan of privatisation of public utilities, but I've never really understood why the state should own an airline.

i suppose its some security in terms of that industry that if for whatever reason the others pulled out we would still have an air link. of course that is dooms day stuff but still.

end of the road

darkpagandeath wrote: »

Maybe it will become competitive now.

its very competitive. not everyone wants ryanair style everything

end of the road

Valetta wrote: »

It's only 25%. Won't make a blind bit of difference, 'cept for they will have more dosh to give away in the budget, just before the election.

meh, i'd doubt they will even have that

Sheep Shagger

Best result for the state (to sell).

IAG has deep pockets to fund new fleet requirements in the future (something the taxpayer doesn't have).

London has five airports so LHR isn't the bed all in end all, long haul feeder traffic has been moving to the likes of Paris, Amsterdam and the Middle East anyway.

Comparisons to Iberia are incorrect, that was a basket case when IAG took it over. Aer Lingus is (for the moment) a profitable business, even the regional part of the business is growing and profitable. That's not the reason why a government should keep a business though - long term an airline needs money to survive (capital expenduture).

Eugene Norman

Whisky Mac wrote: »

Do you know how much of a loss Aer Lingus has made since its inception in 1936? And how much the tax payer has lost in that time?

The airline needs major investment that neither of the two big shareholders are willing to put in to it. So it needs to be sold or it will fold.

What have previous loses to do with present day profits?

end of the road

Graham wrote: »

Often the best place for history is in the past.

not in this case.

end of the road

BenEadir wrote: »

This is easily dealt with by the Govt making it attractive for airlines to fly in and out of Ireland's publicly owned airports and by making it easy for someone (M O'Leary perhaps) to develop a private airport which would a) increase capacity into and out of Ireland and keep the publicly owned airports cost competitive.

New York has three international airports in close proximity. It is a much much bigger market than Dublin but I bet if the Govt relaxed the bureaucracy someone would invest in a modern functional airport to compete with DAB similar to how Glasgow and Glasgow Prestwick operate and they are only 40 miles apart.

How about Dublin Naas airport?

considering there is little interest in many of our other airports as it is, i'd suggest your point has no basis

end of the road

Je_suis_Jean wrote: »

When governments meddle in commerce the result is usually inefficient loss making organisations.

no . they would be that way whatever. sometimes the government need to medal.

Je_suis_Jean wrote: »

Privatisiation saved X amount of Iberia jobs

well unless you don't want an airline, jobs would have to exist.

Je_suis_Jean wrote: »

otherwise the tax payer would just keep subsidising losses to keep "jobs" which weren't needed.

wrong. no they wouldn't. the jobs were needed. it was much easier to privatize then to bother going after different markets and making the effort. privatization did nothing apart from have the air line go after a different market which the government refused to allow them chace in the first place as the government wanted control

cml387

end of the road wrote: »

wrong. no they wouldn't. the jobs were needed. it was much easier to privatize then to bother going after different markets and making the effort. privatization did nothing apart from have the air line go after a different market which the government refused to allow them chace in the first place as the government wanted control

I think you're a bit confused here. Are you saying that the government interfered with the state controlled airline and stopped them getting new routes? Surely an argument for privatisation I would have thought.

end of the road

Graham wrote: »

Shocking, the residents of Cork may now have to use the air services provided such that they're maintained on a commercial rather than social basis.

fixed. yes, your right however, we must only use things that are provided on a commercial basis, and we must not have things for social reasons. they must all be proffit making for private shareholders

54and56

end of the road wrote: »

considering there is little interest in many of our other airports as it is, i'd suggest your point has no basis

The other airports are simply in the wrong locations. Airports need to serve a densley populated market where there is sufficient demand for high traffic. Knock, Shannon and to a lessor extent Cork don't have the market dynamics of greater Dublin. It's just an economic fact, not a Dublin Vs country thing.

end of the road

Massimo Cassagrande wrote: »

My abiding memory of Cunnu Lingus is getting shafted up the chuff by them on flights to the UK back in the eighties. I hope they die roaring. Still can't get past the hate tbh..

thats what had to be payed to make the flights viable.

end of the road

Graham wrote: »

Still no facts then?

Use them or loose them. Remember those slots next time you or your neighbours choose to save €20 flying Ryanair.

not at all. these slots are vital to ensure links with customers in the uk some of who will be foreign businesses, which in return will bring us more links and customers for our services and products, bringing much needed funds into the economy

54and56

end of the road wrote: »

no . they would be that way whatever. sometimes the government need to medal.

I think you mean "meddle" not medal.

Please give me an example of where a Govt run business is more productively efficient or profitable than a privately run one?

end of the road wrote: »

well unless you don't want an airline, jobs would have to exist.l

Publicly run companies are almost always overstaffed and inefficient.

end of the road wrote: »

wrong. no they wouldn't. the jobs were needed. it was much easier to privatize then to bother going after different markets and making the effort. privatization did nothing apart from have the air line go after a different market which the government refused to allow them chace in the first place as the government wanted control

If the Govt owned Iberia why did they prevent themselves going after a different market? Sorry but that's pure revisionist BS. The airline was a classic bloated public service run entity bleeding the taxpayer dry. Privatisation turned an obese organisation into a slimmed down fit for purpose airline. End of.