Willie Walsh May Move BA To DUB

Pat Dunne

Willie Walsh makes a statement that he may well move BA to DUB http://www.irishtimes.com/business/transport-and-tourism/iag-boss-willie-walsh-warns-of-dublin-move-for-ba-1.2462963

lord lucan

Willie subscribing to the MO'L school of threatening to quit if they don't get their way. Heathrow will eventually get its 3rd runway and all will be well with the world. Just a nice bit of political posturing by WW.

roundymac

A lot of sabre rattling going on IMO. Some EU proposal doing the rounds at the moment to allow foreign airlines (mainly middle east) to buy more than 50% stakes in EU airlines, also about employing staff on non EU contracts. Naturally being supported by airlines and some airports in order to reduce costs.
This is from an article on Irish Examiner's wed edition. I am unable to link it, maybe some one else can.

(IMO it's a load of ****e, given out by someone to a lazy journo in return for a free lunch)

LXFlyer

He has a point though. Once again we see a major infrastructural decision kicked down the road to purely suit party politics. Just goes to show that it doesn't just happen in Ireland as so many people seem to think.

Cameron doesn't want to damage Zac Goldsmith's chances of winning the London mayoral election in the spring, and has deferred the decision until after that.

Tenger

I agree. No way IAG can 'leave LHR'. It is the home of BA.
Sabre rattling, sure isn't IAG legally a Spanish company anyway (this was done to appease the patriot souls in Spain who argued that IB was being bough by BA when IAG was established)

arubex

About time that Mr Walsh stopped whining about "rip-off Heathrow" ( his words ) and started taking action.

And I don't think an additional runway at Heathrow will really mollify him, since HAHL propose to reclaim the cost through additional charges to airlines.

Here's hoping this is the beginning of the end of Heathrow dominance.

Noxegon

Still, this is an opportunity for DUB – if the second runway is built there's scope for a significant expansion to transatlantic services at the very least...

Jamie2k9

lxflyer wrote: »

He has a point though. Once again we see a major infrastructural decision kicked down the road to purely suit party politics. Just goes to show that it doesn't just happen in Ireland as so many people seem to think.

Cameron doesn't want to damage Zac Goldsmith's chances of winning the London mayoral election in the spring, and has deferred the decision until after that.

He also doesn't want a General Election so soon, he has a tiny majority and he stands to lose a couple of MP's if he backs and he is barley a year in.

Such a project here would never be considered never mind kicked down the road, that is the big difference.

When a new Runway opens BA will have a lot of cost cutting to be competitive again.

LiamaDelta

He's also trying to protect his valuable slots at LHR. Once a third runway is built and more slots become available the value of his current assets (slots) will drop.

Balf

Jamie2k9 wrote: »

He also doesn't want a General Election so soon, he has a tiny majority and he stands to lose a couple of MP's if he backs and he is barley a year in.

Such a project here would never be considered never mind kicked down the road, that is the big difference.

I'm not so sure. I think when we look at the UK politics around the issue, we do see that we're no so different.

I know all such comparisons can be taken too far. But the influence of local London politics on the agenda could be compared to the influence of groups like Portmarnock residents and North County Dublin airport and airline workers on our agenda.

Similarly, when you see comments from regional cities like Manchester and Birmingham to the effect that "London gets everything", you can sort of see where the West of Ireland learned its politics.

Finally, didn't the UK similarly have a burst of overdeveloping regional airports, with every region eagerly expecting its airport to be an engine for growth. Monsignor Horan was seen as taking his inspiration from Lourdes; his vision could equally be seen as following Durham Tees Valley Airport.

It might look less ludicrously parochial when the discussion is between sizeable cities like Manchester and London. But I think it does show that we share the same political culture, which includes this inability to see a gain for one region as a gain for all. UK is undeniably better off if London is sucessful; same for Ireland and Dublin. But the political agenda is hostile to that view - plus, the local politics of Dublin and London can also exert a strong anti-development influence on national questions.

Its a wonder that Heathrow's five and Dublin's two terminals exist.

LXFlyer

Jamie2k9 wrote: »

He also doesn't want a General Election so soon, he has a tiny majority and he stands to lose a couple of MP's if he backs and he is barley a year in.

Such a project here would never be considered never mind kicked down the road, that is the big difference.

When a new Runway opens BA will have a lot of cost cutting to be competitive again.

I'm pretty sure that the proposal would be passed - enough Labour MPs would back it and the SNP have made favourable noises about it.

There is no chance of a general election for some considerable time - he has more than enough wriggle room.

This is all about the London Mayoral election and nothing else.

Jamie2k9

lxflyer wrote: »

Jamie2k9 wrote: »

He also doesn't want a General Election so soon, he has a tiny majority and he stands to lose a couple of MP's if he backs and he is barley a year in.

Such a project here would never be considered never mind kicked down the road, that is the big difference.

When a new Runway opens BA will have a lot of cost cutting to be competitive again.

I'm pretty sure that the proposal would be passed - enough Labour MPs would back it and the SNP have made favourable noises about it.

There is no chance of a general election for some considerable time - he has more than enough wriggle room.

This is all about the London Mayoral election and nothing else.

It would pass but currently Gov have just 4 seats of a majority, with this they stand to lose at least 2 if they follow through on giving the go ahead. I expect a decision may well not be made until after thr EU referendum at the earliest as seats could also go depending on what concessions are given.

LXFlyer

Jamie2k9 wrote: »

It would pass but currently Gov have just 4 seats of a majority, with this they stand to lose at least 2 if they follow through on giving the go ahead. I expect a decision may well not be made until after thr EU referendum at the earliest as seats could also go depending on what concessions are given.

They have an effective working majority of 16.
http://www.parliament.uk/mps-lords-and-offices/mps/current-state-of-the-parties/

The speaker and 2 deputy speakers and Sinn Fein don't vote.

That's why there is zero chance of a general election.

The deferral of this important strategic issue is down to nothing more than Cameron not wanting to have to defend going back on his "no ifs, no buts" speech prior to the 2010 general election, keep the Conservative London mayoral candidate, Zac Goldsmith, on board, and not rocking the boat in general in London prior to that election.

Meanwhile we have yet another study on the topic despite an in depth one already favouring Heathrow.

Purely party politics.

Tenger

LiamaDelta wrote: »

He's also trying to protect his valuable slots at LHR. Once a third runway is built and more slots become available the value of his current assets (slots) will drop.

The problem with that logic is that slots are only valuable if you A) sell them, use them. So far IAG are doing B more than A.

Jamie2k9

lxflyer wrote: »

They have an effective working majority of 16.
http://www.parliament.uk/mps-lords-and-offices/mps/current-state-of-the-parties/

The speaker and 2 deputy speakers and Sinn Fein don't vote.

That's why there is zero chance of a general election.

The deferral of this important strategic issue is down to nothing more than Cameron not wanting to have to defend going back on his "no ifs, no buts" speech prior to the 2010 general election, keep the Conservative London mayoral candidate, Zac Goldsmith, on board, and not rocking the boat in general in London prior to that election.

Meanwhile we have yet another study on the topic despite an in depth one already favouring Heathrow.

Purely party politics.

Fair enough but they have no chance of winning Mayor in London anyway so a pointless exercise.

J.pilkington

lxflyer wrote: »

He has a point though. Once again we see a major infrastructural decision kicked down the road to purely suit party politics. Just goes to show that it doesn't just happen in Ireland as so many people seem to think.

Exactly saw that "only in Ireland' crap being spoken in the Dublin runway by a poster.

LXFlyer

Jamie2k9 wrote: »

Fair enough but they have no chance of winning Mayor in London anyway so a pointless exercise.

I wouldn't be so sure about that either.

LiamaDelta

Tenger wrote: »

The problem with that logic is that slots are only valuable if you A) sell them, use them. So far IAG are doing B more than A.

Yes true, but they do have an inherent value on the balance sheet. Virgin last week managed to sell a bond backstopped by their slot 'ownership'. So keeping the value of them high is in his interest. Also more slots means more competition.

Marcusm

LiamaDelta wrote: »

Yes true, but they do have an inherent value on the balance sheet. Virgin last week managed to sell a bond backstopped by their slot 'ownership'. So keeping the value of them high is in his interest. Also more slots means more competition.

They would only appear on the balance sheet if acquired for cash, is a very limited number. VS's bond is more reflective of its particularly difficult financing position given restrictions on its ownership. The intangible nature of LHR landing rights (as opposed to US physical gates) makes them less attractive as a financing proposition. Personally, based on my experience, I believe that this bond was structured to appear to satisfy the requirements of infrastructure funds but in reality it's not an infrastructure asset given the restrictions of transferability to alternative operators.

Mostly smoke & mirrors/window dressing.