Aer Lingus to be sold

nice_guy80

I cannot believe the government are going to sell Aer Lingus.

A successful Irish business, vital to the Irish economy and tourism, with growing revenue, new aeroplanes on order, huge cash reserves.

Fine Gael are mad to sell off stuff to raise money to buy the next election via job stimulus programmes.

jake burns

Agree, as laf just said on v Browne, enda claimed this morn at 8am he couldn't comment cos he didn't know enough bout it, but by 8pm he had it sold!

Sand

Why should the Irish government be in the airline business anymore than it should be in the cornershop business? The Irish state has certain strategic interests, none of which require them to own or manage a specific airline. Ryanair has for a very long time been the "national" airline despite the contempt and spite of Official Ireland. Aer Lingus would be charging 1,000 euro for flights to Birmingham if it wasn't for Ryanair.

For Forks Sake

nice_guy80 wrote: »

I cannot believe the government are going to sell Aer Lingus.

A successful Irish business, vital to the Irish economy and tourism, with growing revenue, new aeroplanes on order, huge cash reserves.

Fine Gael are mad to sell off stuff to raise money to buy the next election via job stimulus programmes.

Aer Lingus was sold by FF in 2006.

Regarding the planes on order, do you really think that given the states financial situation, that ponying up for quarter shares in planes is a good use of taxpayers money?

BoJack Horseman

Let governments govern
Let businesses do business.

The government's coffers will survive without the 0.03% of revenue that EI contributed annually.

nice_guy80 wrote: »

job stimulus programmes.

Wait... what?.... jobs!
Bastards!...... F*cking bastards.... nothin worse than jobs

nice_guy80

BoJack Horseman wrote: »

Let governments govern
Let businesses do business.

The government's coffers will survive without the 0.03% of revenue that EI contributed annually.


Wait... what?.... jobs!
Bastards!...... F*cking bastards.... nothin worse than jobs

In a certain sense you are correct.
However, we are an island nation and we need to protect our access to the USA and Europe.

The current government schemes such as jobbridge have been a sham

And yes, Fianna Fail sold 75% off in 2006.
But the airline has totally transformed itself in the meantime.
I think having that 25% stake means the nation's interests were protected

BoJack Horseman

nice_guy80 wrote: »

However, we are an island nation

Knowing this blindingly obvious truism, then why aren't ferries nationalised?

we need to protect our access to the USA and Europe.

Strange then that under private ownership EI routes have grown & grown.

If you gave information confirming the cessation of direct flights to the US or Europe from Ireland, please post it..... As this would be big news

And any data indicating that a government owned EI would have been as aggressive in its growth would be helpful.

nice_guy80 wrote: »

I think having that 25% stake means the nation's interests were protected

What are those "interests"?
What have the governments directors on the EI board done to preserve same?

markpb

nice_guy80 wrote: »

I think having that 25% stake means the nation's interests were protected

How does having a minority shareholding protect us exactly?

WheatenBriar

nice_guy80 wrote: »

In a certain sense you are correct.
However, we are an island nation and we need to protect our access to the USA and Europe.

This is a common misconception from people who don't fully understand the situation
Heathrow is full,IAG want to use DUB as a hub to take the business they cannot run through Heathrow from other UK regions
That means growing transatlantic routes not reducing them

The current government schemes such as jobbridge have been a sham

A lot aren't and given the Irish dole is treble that of the UK and it comes with medical cards plus
Job bridge pays a premium above that putting people out to work who otherwise wouldn't be
It's far from perfect but at least it gives people a start/something to do and stops them falling into the unemployable,nothing on their cv for a long time category

And yes, Fianna Fail sold 75% off in 2006.
But the airline has totally transformed itself in the meantime.
I think having that 25% stake means the nation's interests were protected

All that gave the government was a dividend,nothing else and with the vagaries of the airline business nothing at all in the years of losses,something inevitable without the kind of consolidation in this deal

fxotoole

Sand wrote: »

Aer Lingus would be charging 1,000 euro for flights to Birmingham if it wasn't for Ryanair.

I doubt that. Plenty of other competitors fly between Ireland the UK to keep competition going. BMI for example

irishash

I think a lot of debate is going to be generated because of this decision. My opinion is that the government have a stake in the (formally) national airline, a buy out offer came in, and they did more than any private investor would do in terms of trying to secure concessions from IAG in respect of the sale (Heathrow slots, job security, Brand name retained).

Of course I am sure that in the sale contract that will be drawn up, all of these things would have a shelf-life (slots for 10 years, brand name phased out over same period, etc). But this is normal business. The unions are upset because.....well they are always upset. I am sure there are a few union officials who have done quite well out of Aer Lingus over the year (My opinion, not fact, don't hammer me on this one). I feel the government have done a good job here. They did not rush in, they have protected the interests of the country and the business quite well in terms of getting the concessions they wanted and they have been advised that it is a very fair price for the shares.

If the taxpayer did not have a stake in the business, this could have been a hostile takeover, the slots lost, jobs slashed and the same outcome would have happened (aer lingus sold). The opposition (esp FF) are always going to take the line that this is a bad deal because they don't want to be seen to be agreeing with Enda and Co, but the fact is FF sold off most of the company years ago, effectively privatising it anyway.

The government should focus on national infrastructure that is firmly in its control as opposed to having a stake in a private company that generated "some" revenue.

donaghs

fxotoole wrote: »

I doubt that. Plenty of other competitors fly between Ireland the UK to keep competition going. BMI for example

And there was "competition" before Ryanair entered the market. But why was it so expensive to fly to the UK before Ryanair?
"The old BA/Aer Lingus cartel used to claim that its fares between Britain and Ireland were low by international standards."
http://www.independent.ie/opinion/comment/aer-lingus-deal-should-set-off-alarms-bells-31035295.html

So less competition can increase the likelyhood of cartel-like agreements/understandings.

Also, on some routes out of Ireland, the choice is either Aer Lingus or Ryanair. If Aer Lingus drop out of these routes, Ryanair can charge more.

Larbre34

Aer Lingus needs capital and it needs strategic partners, the IAG umbrella is a decent one and better than being eaten by wolves at a later stage by one of the other alliances. Theres always a bit of romance about Aer Lingus, but without a deal like this it wouldnt exist at all by 2030. If you want to be proud of a national carrier, how about Ryanair with its 90 million passengers and its 300+ aircraft.

For Reals

Sand wrote: »

Why should the Irish government be in the airline business anymore than it should be in the cornershop business? The Irish state has certain strategic interests, none of which require them to own or manage a specific airline. Ryanair has for a very long time been the "national" airline despite the contempt and spite of Official Ireland. Aer Lingus would be charging 1,000 euro for flights to Birmingham if it wasn't for Ryanair.

The above argument is a cop out for selling off public interests. Suddenly Ryanair is the national airline? What ever suits your cause.
Of course you could argue the government has no more reason to be in the airline business...or the water business, gas business, or the garbage disposal business or the broadcasting business or the telecoms business, or the roads business or the construction business....we could go on.

Isn't the point of owning or holding controlling interest of any entity so the government can have a say, on behalf of the people, in regards to it's running? Not that they do, but they've the possibility of fighting our corner, should a government with the publics interests at heart ever come into power?

To be fair Enda couldn't comment, it was all up in the air so to speak...no wait he was in the process of selling.
Sell, shuffle books, lie, anything to bring in money. It's like selling your house to pay the electricity. You'll be homeless but the books will balance. Good man Enda.

No Voter And Proud

Why should it not be sold?
We have no need to own an airline as a nation, no more than we need a bank or a spar.

irishash

For Reals wrote: »

The above argument is a cop out for selling off public interests. Suddenly Ryanair is the national airline? What ever suits your cause.
Of course you could argue the government has no more reason to be in the airline business...or the water business, gas business, or the garbage disposal business or the broadcasting business or the telecoms business, or the roads business or the construction business....we could go on.

Isn't the point of owning or holding controlling interest of any entity so the government can have a say, on behalf of the people, in regards to it's running? Not that they do, but they've the possibility of fighting our corner, should a government with the publics interests at heart ever come into power?

To be fair Enda couldn't comment, it was all up in the air so to speak...no wait he was in the process of selling.
Sell, shuffle books, lie, anything to bring in money. It's like selling your house to pay the electricity. You'll be homeless but the books will balance. Good man Enda.

Almost every single European nation had a national airline at some stage or another. But as modern economies developed and the European union was formed, most sold off the stake they had in the airlines, due to cost cutting, privatisation or some other reason.

The fact that we are selling a minority stake in Aer Lingus does strike at the heart of the interests of every irish person, no more than the selling of Guinness to Diagio all those years back.

the only European countries that have majority stakes in airlines are Bulgaria, Croatia, Cyprus, Czech Republic, Estonia, France, Latvia, Poland, Portugal, Romania, Serbia and Slovenia. The vast majority of these are eastern European countries that may find it difficult to get private enterprise to fund an airline.

karma_

Yeah, it totally makes sense to take a profitable investment made by the state that generates a nice return for the taxpayer and instead funnel all that money to the private sector.

Fúcking libertarians.

For Reals

irishash wrote: »

Almost every single European nation had a national airline at some stage or another. But as modern economies developed and the European union was formed, most sold off the stake they had in the airlines, due to cost cutting, privatisation or some other reason.

The fact that we are selling a minority stake in Aer Lingus does strike at the heart of the interests of every irish person, no more than the selling of Guinness to Diagio all those years back.

the only European countries that have majority stakes in airlines are Bulgaria, Croatia, Cyprus, Czech Republic, Estonia, France, Latvia, Poland, Portugal, Romania, Serbia and Slovenia. The vast majority of these are eastern European countries that may find it difficult to get private enterprise to fund an airline.

I don't believe my family and I paid taxes to set up and improve the brewing at Guinness.

I was chiming in on the argument that the government has no business in...'fill in space'. Aer Lingus or no, we need somebody to try ensure we get a fair deal in any area of public interest. I know it's naive and laughable to assume that would be this, or lets face it any previous government, but at least the mechanisms should remain in place.
Eircom....'please broaden your broadband reach to include rural areas, ah go on'.

One could argue that as an Island, we should maintain a stake but to be fair I rarely use Aer Lingus and yes, if not for Ryanair they'd really rip us off. Expect Ryanair to increase prices too.

sdanseo

Larbre34 wrote: »

Aer Lingus needs capital and it needs strategic partners, the IAG umbrella is a decent one and better than being eaten by wolves at a later stage by one of the other alliances. Theres always a bit of romance about Aer Lingus, but without a deal like this it wouldnt exist at all by 2030. If you want to be proud of a national carrier, how about Ryanair with its 90 million passengers and its 300+ aircraft.

Ryanair are a hugely successful airline, nobody could possibly deny that. Aer Lingus though have a sentimental attachment that FR, even if they doubled EI's standards of customer care would have trouble matching.

Seeing the harp on the ground on foreign soil just doesn't feel the same as seeing the Shamrock. For that reason the brand absolutely has to be protected and that, together with the Heathrow slots, as much as anything were responsible for the government retaining a share.

Notwithstanding the above concerns I generally agree with the idea of IAG owning EI provided they don't get too greedy and shift everything to eastern Europe and sacrifice ground based jobs here. Iif anyone was to buy it, IAG are the ones we want owning it (imagine if Ryanair were let near it for example). A compromise is needed and I think has been pretty much reached in the carte blanche the government will hold over some matters. I'm concerned by the potential outsourcing mentioned in this super-secret report that Mícheál Martin spilled under privelige earlier on. While I loathe Clare Daly, she is an ex-EI staff member and is right to hold Enda to account, especially as he apparently hasn't seen the report but FF have. How did that happen?

For Reals wrote: »

I don't believe my family and I paid taxes to set up and improve the brewing at Guinness.

That's an horrendously unfair comment. The responsibility of the state where it owns a company is to improve it and make it profitable so as to generate a return for the exchequer. In the same way, when selling any of these high-profile brands that are exported, the state has a responsibility to make sure the brand is retained because in the case of either Guinness, EI or many others, the brand drives revenue in more ways than one, through tourism for example, and continues to drive revenue to the state indirectly once sold.

Granted, there are many companies that are or were state owned that aren't or historically weren't profitable, but those have almost always been utilities or infrastructure, the maintenance of which is in the public interest.

irishash

For Reals wrote: »

I don't believe my family and I paid taxes to set up and improve the brewing at Guinness.

I was using this as an example of the emotional attachment/attitude that we Irish have to certain brands/companies that we feel we have a vested interest in.

Of course we did not pay taxes to benefit Guinness (beyond favourable tax break and business incentives) but you could stretch to say we did pay for the improvement of the brewing through taste testing we had to pay for...:)

Godge

There is a huge misunderstanding about what should remain in public ownership in a modern economy.

For an island nation like Ireland, we should have at least one large airport (Dublin) and one large port (Dublin or Cork) in public ownership. The rest can be sold off. There is no need to retain ownership of airlines or shipping companies that use these assets as it is relatively easy to lease if required and in times of emergency the assets could be seized.

France wouldn't even need that.

Beyond that, the gas, electricity, broadcasting and water network should remain in public ownership. No need to have companies that use those networks be publicly owned.

The only mistake we have made in privatisation is Eircom, we should have kept the infrastructure and sold the rest.

Sentimental attachment to a national airline is folly.

BoJack Horseman

For Reals wrote: »

Isn't the point of owning or holding controlling interest of any entity so the government can have a say, on behalf of the people, in regards to it's running?

No.

The point of state ownership of companies is clientalism & stroke politics.

'Public interest' worries can be usually managed by regulation & statute.

View

karma_ wrote: »

Yeah, it totally makes sense to take a profitable investment made by the state that generates a nice return for the taxpayer and instead funnel all that money to the private sector.

Fúcking libertarians.

You might want to remember the old answer to the question "How do you become a millionaire?"

The answer is "Start as a billionaire and then become an airline owner"

If that doesn't tell you about how precarious an industry the airline business is, nothing will.

Eric Cartman

this is a good thing for Ireland and will set up Shannon as a hub to connect the US to parts of asia and eastern europe avoiding busy places like heathrow.

the only downside is for the lazy, overpaid, union controlled staff currently at the airline who will get their comeuppance in 7 years if they don't shape up.

I for one wholeheartedly welcome this decision.

Eric Cartman

karma_ wrote: »

Yeah, it totally makes sense to take a profitable investment made by the state that generates a nice return for the taxpayer and instead funnel all that money to the private sector.

Fúcking libertarians.

yeah because selling it during one of its fights for life that it has every few years is such a good idea, the government are selling it before they have to keep it afloat again.

sdanseo

Eric Cartman wrote: »

this is a good thing for Ireland and will set up Shannon as a hub to connect the US to parts of asia and eastern europe avoiding busy places like heathrow.

the only downside is for the lazy, overpaid, union controlled staff currently at the airline who will get their comeuppance in 7 years if they don't shape up.

I for one wholeheartedly welcome this decision.

Unions may make staff unreasonably militant at times but I think it's unfair to label many of them as lazy and overpaid. There are probably plenty who earn relatively little on newer contracts although that might be a statement more applicable to industry as a whole than specifically to Aer Lingus.

EI was and remains a company which invites its employees to build a career, rather than work as a contractor (take for example Ryanair whose cabin crew are all outsourced). The staff there have families to feed and there should always be more benefits for an employee willing to essentially make the company theirs for life rather than the casual worker.

I do agree though that the union mentality does all too often go too far and that some do take advantage, and in time, yes, conditions will probably worsen to an extent, but that shoudln't be to the detrement of the hard working. The airline is profitable, pays well and as a result gets to pick from the cream of the crop of applicants and as a result of all of that the customer gets a better experience and is often willing to pay more for that, which restarts the cycle. I for one would always travel with Aer Lingus unless the price difference vs FR was astronomical.

Sand

For Reals wrote: »

The above argument is a cop out for selling off public interests.
Of course you could argue the government has no more reason to be in the airline business...or the water business, gas business, or the garbage disposal business or the broadcasting business or the telecoms business, or the roads business or the construction business....we could go on.

I've no argument with the government holding *actual* strategic assets or investing in and controlling water, telecoms, etc infrastructure where natural monopolies exist. But I don't see an airline as a strategic asset, infrastructure or a public interest anymore than Supermacs is. There is 40ish airlines flying routes into and out of Ireland. It isn't the 1930s anymore.

nice_guy80

Eric Cartman wrote: »

this is a good thing for Ireland and will set up Shannon as a hub to connect the US to parts of asia and eastern europe avoiding busy places like heathrow.

the only downside is for the lazy, overpaid, union controlled staff currently at the airline who will get their comeuppance in 7 years if they don't shape up.

I for one wholeheartedly welcome this decision.

You had the same issue with unions on the Dunnes strike thread.

Bitter about people fighting for better employment conditions?

Sand

Sand wrote: »

But I don't see an airline as a strategic asset

The State doesn't own or control AL, nor the Heathrow slots. An asset must be owned, otherwise it just is not an asset.

However, the slots certainly are of strategic importance. The degree of connectivity with Heathrow and therefore the world is not to be understated. Those slots are lucrative, and although Ireland does not own them, it effectively controls their disposal through its board appointments.

Ireland is going to forever lose that protection for a relatively inconsequential, once-off payment and absolutely no legal protection from the leasing (as opposed to the sale) of those highly sought-after slots to other airlines.

yet again, the dastardly vassalage of the Irish Government to the supposed kindess of multinational companies dilutes and renders ineffective its own ability to safeguard the best interests of society.

sdanseo

A Tyrant Named Miltiades! wrote: »

The State doesn't own or control AL, nor the Heathrow slots. An asset must be owned, otherwise it just is not an asset.

Not true. Unless and until this deal is signed and sealed, the state owns enough of the company to have an effective veto in its eventual fate.

Even when the deal goes through, the terms look likely to leave the government with a fairly major say in how the Heathrow slots are, if ever, disposed of.

sdanseo

sdanseo wrote: »

Not true. Unless and until this deal is signed and sealed, the state owns enough of the company to have an effective veto in its eventual fate.

Did you even read what I wrote? I said the State effectively controls against the disposal of the slots, which I distinguished from ownership.

Even when the deal goes through, the terms look likely to leave the government with a fairly major say in how the Heathrow slots are, if ever, disposed of.

I doubt IAG are foolish enough to want to sell something as valuable the Heathrow slots.

They'll just lease them to other companies under their control instead.

Godge

A Tyrant Named Miltiades! wrote: »

However, the slots certainly are of strategic importance. The degree of connectivity with Heathrow and therefore the world is not to be understated. .

I just don't understand how people can keep repeating this as if it were a truism.

It was true in the aviation world pre-Ryanair and pre-Open Skies, not any more.

Madrid, Frankfurt, Paris, Manchester, Gatwick, Amsterdam, Helsinki, Dubai are all better options depending on where you want to fly.

sdanseo

A Tyrant Named Miltiades! wrote: »

Did you even read what I wrote? I said the State effectively controls against the disposal of the slots, which I distinguished from ownership.

Perhaps accidentally, you contradicted yourself. You said the government neither owns or controls the airline or its slots, and then you said it effectively controls the slots.

A Tyrant Named Miltiades! wrote: »

I doubt IAG are foolish enough to want to sell something as valuable the Heathrow slots.

They'll just lease them to other companies under their control instead.

My reading of the deal yesterday from what was said in the Dáil was that would be something the government could veto, and that they would have to at least be used for Irish routes to maintain connectivity to this country?

Godge wrote: »

I just don't understand how people can keep repeating this as if it were a truism.

It was true in the aviation world pre-Ryanair and pre-Open Skies, not any more.

Madrid, Frankfurt, Paris, Manchester, Gatwick, Amsterdam, Helsinki, Dubai are all better options depending on where you want to fly.

It's still extremely important. Ryanair offer direct connections to only two of those major hubs you've mentioned, and probably the weakest two bar perhaps Vantaa for international connections at that. No other Irish airline flies to Heathrow.

BoJack Horseman

Godge wrote: »

I just don't understand how people can keep repeating this as if it were a truism.

I don't get this either.
Its a line from a bygone era.

Equally good or superior hubs like Frankfurt, Amsterdam, Paris or Dubai exist.
I don't understand the horny-ness for Heathrow's connectivity?

And if Heathrow did have a flight that Frankfurt or Paris didn't, I doubt its of any measurable importance to the Irish economy.

Admittedly I've only flown east of Europe 3 times.... The first was via Heathrow,
a mistake I didn't make a second time.

Godge

BoJack Horseman wrote: »

I don't get this either.
Its a line from a bygone era.

Equally good or superior hubs like Frankfurt, Amsterdam, Paris or Dubai exist.
I don't understand the horny-ness for Heathrow's connectivity?

And if Heathrow did have a flight that Frankfurt or Paris didn't, I doubt its of any measurable importance to the Irish economy.

Admittedly I've only flown east of Europe 3 times.... The first was via Heathrow,
a mistake I didn't make a second time.

I've been through Paris, Copenhagen, Amsterdam, Manchester, Gatwick, Frankfurt and Rome, all much more pleasant experiences than Heathrow.

I am not aware of any destination that requires a Heathrow connection.

sdanseo

sdanseo wrote: »

Perhaps accidentally, you contradicted yourself. You said the government neither owns or controls the airline or its slots, and then you said it effectively controls the slots.

It doesn't own or control either, i.e. not in law. Not directly.
It effectively controls the slots, although in theory the state directors could today vote for disposal of the slots without government control.
I don't see the contradiction that you appear to see here.

My reading of the deal yesterday from what was said in the Dáil was that would be something the government could veto, and that they would have to at least be used for Irish routes to maintain connectivity to this country?

They can in theory veto the sale, and even that is questionable according to the lawyers.

What's to stop IAG leasing the slots within IAG, to Iberia or Vueling, or to major international airlines desperately hungry for more slots at Heathrow?

sdanseo

BoJack Horseman wrote: »

I don't get this either.
Its a line from a bygone era.

Equally good or superior hubs like Frankfurt, Amsterdam, Paris or Dubai exist.
I don't understand the horny-ness for Heathrow's connectivity?

And if Heathrow did have a flight that Frankfurt or Paris didn't, I doubt its of any measurable importance to the Irish economy.

Admittedly I've only flown east of Europe 3 times.... The first was via Heathrow,
a mistake I didn't make a second time.

Godge wrote: »

I've been through Paris, Copenhagen, Amsterdam, Manchester, Gatwick, Frankfurt and Rome, all much more pleasant experiences than Heathrow.

I am not aware of any destination that requires a Heathrow connection.

There's also the fact that EI (and thus most Irish owned) connections to any of the above are far less frequent than Heathrow, DUB-LHR being the second busiest commerical route in the world. There's something like 16 services daily.

A Tyrant Named Miltiades! wrote: »

It doesn't own or control either, i.e. not in law. Not directly.
It effectively controls the slots, although in theory the state directors could today vote for disposal of the slots without government control.
I don't see the contradiction that you appear to see here.

They can in theory veto the sale, and even that is questionable according to the lawyers.

What's to stop IAG leasing the slots within IAG, to Iberia or Vueling, or to major international airlines desperately hungry for more slots at Heathrow?

You appeared to contradict yourself, I see the distinction you were making. However while it's a technical difference, in real terms it's the same and so its importance is very real. You're right also what Irish control of the slots would appear to be strengthened with the deal in that regard, or at least that's the image they're putting out.

The simple answer to your question is that I wish I knew. There would appear to be very little point in giving the government carte blanche in being able to veto the sale of the slots if using them in the way you've suggested would still be allowed.

The J Stands for Jay

nice_guy80 wrote: »

In a certain sense you are correct.
However, we are an island nation and we need to protect our access to the USA and Europe.

There's loads more airlines flying out of Ireland to north america than just aer lingus.

BoJack Horseman

sdanseo wrote: »

There's also the fact that EI (and thus most Irish owned) connections to any of the above are far less frequent than Heathrow, DUB-LHR being the second busiest commerical route in the world. There's something like 16 services daily

Heathrow is 13 per day
Paris is 7
Amsterdam is 6
Rome is 3
Frankfurt is 2.

Hypothetically if IAG reduced the Dub->Lhr by 3 a day, either the others are fuller or Gatwick picks up the slack.... Or CDG/Shipol gets higher demand.

Its not worth rending garments over, the gov are still right to take the money.

The J Stands for Jay

A Tyrant Named Miltiades! wrote: »

The State doesn't own or control AL, nor the Heathrow slots. An asset must be owned, otherwise it just is not an asset.

However, the slots certainly are of strategic importance. The degree of connectivity with Heathrow and therefore the world is not to be understated. Those slots are lucrative, and although Ireland does not own them, it effectively controls their disposal through its board appointments.

Ireland is going to forever lose that protection for a relatively inconsequential, once-off payment and absolutely no legal protection from the leasing (as opposed to the sale) of those highly sought-after slots to other airlines.

yet again, the dastardly vassalage of the Irish Government to the supposed kindess of multinational companies dilutes and renders ineffective its own ability to safeguard the best interests of society.

Heathrow slots are not important anymore, especially if DUB is delevoped as a hub. There's loads of access to airports in the UK from Dublin, getting anywhere further afield, avaiding Heathrow is an advantage, and something that passengers pay extra for.

McGaggs

McGaggs wrote: »

Heathrow slots are not important anymore,

Why do very smart airline executives then spend tens of millions of euro on individual Heathrow slots?

They should read boards.ie and save themselves a fortune perhaps.

Or perhaps Heathrow slots are important for connectivity and access to London and the City and the world.

The J Stands for Jay

The government stake is/was 75%. This gives no veto whatsoever. An ordinary resolution just needs a majority, a special resolution needs 75% vote.

WheatenBriar

Godge wrote: »

I just don't understand how people can keep repeating this as if it were a truism.

It was true in the aviation world pre-Ryanair and pre-Open Skies, not any more.

Madrid, Frankfurt, Paris, Manchester, Gatwick, Amsterdam, Helsinki, Dubai are all better options depending on where you want to fly.

Aye but as it stands,people choose Heathrow for onward connections ,there has to be a reason for that
It's a far easier airport now that BA are doing DUB LHR all in T5 and up to now EI have been in the new star alliance terminal 2(that might change)
I don't see an issue with the slots,the demand is there so why would IAG not want to keep fulfilling it?
The demand is also there in Cork and Shannon

On the whole I can see this take over as good,especially at Dublin in terms of new jobs but for the consumer,expect AA to leave Dub and transatlantic pricing to rise
Also the new routes will be mostly filled by the UK feeder traffic,most of those will be going to the states and not stopping in Ireland so no tourism bonus
Good for the airport yes but the downstream jobs potential I think is over played

The J Stands for Jay

A Tyrant Named Miltiades! wrote: »

Why do very smart airline executives then spend tens of millions of euro on individual Heathrow slots?

They should read boards.ie and save themselves a fortune perhaps.

Or perhaps Heathrow slots are important for connectivity and access to London and the City and the world.

They are important in making money for airlines. They arent important for connectivity for Ireland.

McGaggs

McGaggs wrote: »

They are important in making money for airlines.

Let me repeat. Airlines spend tens of millions on individual slots. They don't do this for stupidity. They do this because Heathrow is an important global hub, as well as offering proximity to the City. Ireland would do well to maintain our present connection with it.

I wouldn't claim that Ireland would wither ruinously if it lost access to Heathrow, but clearly it would damage Irish business somewhat. Given the relatively small, once-off amount being offered by IAG, which is not going to make a difference to the Irish finances, I just don't see the point of this sale, nor its rush through the Oireachtas.

nice_guy80

Aer Lingus' fares are cheaper than many of its rivals

especially to the north american market.

I just think it is very short sighted to be selling off a good Irish company to a multinational conglomerate.

BoJack Horseman

nice_guy80 wrote: »

I just think it is very short sighted to be selling off a good Irish company to a multinational conglomerate.

It was only a good company since it went private & started making money.

Cashing in on 20 years of profit?
Fine by me.

For Forks Sake

nice_guy80 wrote: »

Aer Lingus' fares are cheaper than many of its rivals

especially to the north american market.

I just think it is very short sighted to be selling off a good Irish company to a multinational conglomerate.

AL was sold off by FF in 2006.

I have never found AL to be the cheapest option to any North American destination either.

sdanseo

McGaggs wrote: »

The government stake is/was 75%. This gives no veto whatsoever. An ordinary resolution just needs a majority, a special resolution needs 75% vote.

It was 25.1%.

Godge

nice_guy80 wrote: »

Aer Lingus' fares are cheaper than many of its rivals

especially to the north american market. .

Which destinations and which rivals? Just so I can check.

nice_guy80 wrote: »

I just think it is very short sighted to be selling off a good Irish company to a multinational conglomerate.

Why? Is this a feeling in your bones or have you analysed the Aer Lingus balance sheet and profit statement to produce good financial reasons why it shouldn't be sold.

The J Stands for Jay

sdanseo wrote: »

It was 25.1%.

That makes sense. I guess 25% is just easier for TV and newspapers to report.