PAUL MURPHY T.D. wants us to nationalize Aer Lingus

lawred2

Jack1985 wrote: »

Aer Lingus Group DAC and Aer Lingus Ltd are registered in Ireland, it's 4,000 employees pay tax in this state.

Aer Lingus is owned by IAG is it not?

IAG can't just take the profits. They can take the losses too. The Irish state is probably already propping up Aer Lingus with the Covid19 employee subsidy programme.

Why on earth would the Irish government invest money in an entity it doesn't own?

SozBbz

lawred2 wrote: »

I know you weren't - but you jumped in in response after I raised that issue with that poster. Don't defend another poster's posts if you don't want to stand over them or have those viewpoints attributed to you.

I can have an opinion without agreeing with everything another person has said, and I can also post when I want without needing to abide by your arbitrary rules.

I've clarified my opinion, and you still seem to want to have the last word, so knock yourself out.

Jack1985

lawred2 wrote: »

Aer Lingus is owned by AIG is it not?

IAG (at least refer to the correct organisation) are the controlling entity. The Airline remains registered in the ROI.

The consequence of a failure of EI with 4,000 people directly unemployed - Which could effect more than triple than indirectly versus the cost of a cash injection would cause much more severe issues for the state.

I must stress a cash injection which may be required. EI have not stated they are seeking anything, however as the airline has suffered a 90% collapse in revenue along with airlines around the world it doesn't take much to go figure.

Topgear on Dave

lawred2 wrote: »

Where's the evidence that he's not genuine?

He's a TD but has little interest in forming a government or taking responsibility for serious decisions while he collects 96 grand a year plus expenses.

Meanwhile my brother is out of work, my mother has barely left the house in a month, education is being interrupted for a generation of children and I tune in to the 6 o clock news to find out haw many people died today with this virus (almost normalised to the point of it being the ****ing football results).

I am deeply unamused by his little publicity stunt when there are more serious things that TDs need to concern themselves with.

lawred2

Topgear on Dave wrote: »

He's a TD but has little interest in forming a government or taking responsibility for serious decisions while he collects 96 grand a year plus expenses.

Meanwhile my brother is out of work, my mother has barely left the house in a month, education is being interrupted for a generation of children and I tune in to the 6 o clock news to find out haw many people died today with this virus (almost normalised to the point of it being the ****ing football results).

I am deeply unamused by his little publicity stunt when there are more serious things that TDs need to concern themselves with.

How would he do that? By defecting to FF I suppose.

lawred2

SozBbz wrote: »

I can have an opinion without agreeing with everything another person has said, and I can also post when I want without needing to abide by your arbitrary rules.

I've clarified my opinion, and you still seem to want to have the last word, so knock yourself out.

neither arbitrary nor a rule - don't be so precious

lawred2

Jack1985 wrote: »

IAG (at least refer to the correct organisation) are the controlling entity. The Airline remains registered in the ROI.

The consequence of a failure of EI with 4,000 people directly unemployed - Which could effect more than triple than indirectly versus the cost of a cash injection would cause much more severe issues for the state.

I must stress a cash injection which may be required. EI have not stated they are seeking anything, however as the airline has suffered a 90% collapse in revenue along with airlines around the world it doesn't take much to go figure.

Well that was clearly a typo - given that I referred to them as IAG only about 5 posts before this one. So a bit of cheap shot really. But bully for you on taking it all the same.

Jack1985

lawred2 wrote: »

Well that was clearly a typo - given that I referred to them as IAG only about 5 posts before this one. So a bit of cheap shot really. But bully for you on taking it all the same.

Clarifying you were confusing two separate entities which could lead people to garner incorrect information. Definitely a cheap shot. :rolleyes:

lawred2

Jack1985 wrote: »

Clarifying you were confusing two separate entities which could lead people to garner incorrect information. Definitely a cheap shot. :rolleyes:

Sure. You're just out there working for the public.

JCX BXC

Laughed at that interview, his comments about Willie Walsh and MO'L knowing nothing about the industry are about 7 minutes in.

What a clown.

He seems insistent that most countries will look at nationalisation, does he not recognise the different financial states of different airlines? Alitalia (which he referred to a few times) has been struggling immensely with finances the last few years, AF/KLM aren't doing so good, however IAG is doing quite well.

If your argument for nationalisation is purely on an employment basis, the argument is very weak and won't stand.

kevinandrew

lawred2 wrote: »

Why on earth would the Irish government invest money in an entity it doesn't own?

The same reason the British Government would invest in British Airways or the Spanish Government in Iberia.

The airline is strategically important to the country, evidenced by its recent China operation alone! Even without that, Aer Lingus is the only home based carrier that serves long haul markets, either directly via its own extensive North American route network or through long standing code shares with other global airlines. This along with cargo capability, government contracts, direct and indirect job creation, tourism, reputation and overall economic contribution makes Aer Lingus a worthy candidate for any support should it be required.

You can argue about who owns what until the cows come home, it's the operations of the business that matters most and Aer Lingus' operations are 100% Irish based and focused.

I'm not a big advocator for government involvement in private companies and I'm completely against re-nationalisation of Aer Lingus but if the airline requires help, it should be considered on its performance, viability and it's importance to the state. With all those considered, the answer should be pretty clear.

AndyBoBandy

Also, when IAG bought Aer Lingus, didn’t Aer Lingus have €700M cash in the bank, so unless that’s been squandered, Aer Lingus are in rude financial health.

Jack1985

lawred2 wrote: »

Sure. You're just out there working for the public.

Charming! When you have no agrument insult I love it.

lawred2

Jack1985 wrote: »

Charming! When you have no agrument insult I love it.

Well that was hardly an insult was it? Where was the insult?

It's a bit rich on your part really when you yourself resorted to highlighting typos...

Let's leave this little dance shall we.

lawred2

kevinandrew wrote: »

The same reason the British Government would invest in British Airways or the Spanish Government in Iberia.

The airline is strategically important to the country, evidenced by its recent China operation alone! Even without that, Aer Lingus is the only home based carrier that serves long haul markets, either directly via its own extensive North American route network or through long standing code shares with other global airlines. This along with cargo capability, government contracts, direct and indirect job creation, tourism, reputation and overall economic contribution makes Aer Lingus a worthy candidate for any support should it be required.

You can argue about who owns what until the cows come home, it's the operations of the business that matters most and Aer Lingus' operations are 100% Irish based and focused.

I'm not a big advocator for government involvement in private companies and I'm completely against re-nationalisation of Aer Lingus but if the airline requires help, it should be considered on its performance, viability and it's importance to the state. With all those considered, the answer should be pretty clear.

Fair points well made. But the Irish state will already be supporting many of AL's employees through a very generous subsidy. Investing more capital to cover operational losses of a foreign owned cash rich company seems unnecessary.

nc6000

Wouldn't this effectively be state aid which I believe is banned by the EU which is why there are no state airlines anymore? I would have thought a former MEP would have known that.

kevinandrew

lawred2 wrote: »

Fair points well made. But the Irish state will already be supporting many of AL's employees through a very generous subsidy. Investing more capital to cover operational losses of a foreign owned cash rich company seems unnecessary.

But you realise it would only happen if that foreign owner is no longer cash rich?

IAG has already publicly stated that it's against state aid and will work with its own cash reserves to maintain its airline brands along with restructuring etc. to ensure long term viability but if this crisis continues they may have no option but to approach the governments of their airline brands home bases for support.

With everyone else doing it (Wizz Air just got a payout from the British) they'll be foolish not to explore it as a near enough last resort option.

lawred2

kevinandrew wrote: »

But you realise it would only happen if that foreign owner is no longer cash rich?

IAG has already publicly stated that it's against state aid and will work with its own cash reserves to maintain its airline brands along with restructuring etc. to ensure long term viability but if this crisis continues they may have no option but to approach the governments of their airline brands home bases for support.

With everyone else doing it (Wizz Air just got a payout from the British) they'll be foolish not to explore it as a near enough last resort option.

Should IAG not go to the Spanish Government?

I'm 100% sure that they would explore every possible source of cash. They'd be negligent not to. But the Irish state would not want to be handing cash over without some stake or bond in AL in return surely?

What were the terms of Wizz Air's disbursement?

Cookiemunster

Harry Palmr wrote: »

It's always someone else's job to save the world isn't it?

I am doing my bit actually. Recycling, using LED bulbs across the house, turning things off when I don't need them, heavily insulating the house, driving only when I need to, etc.

However my little bit or grounding the whole airline industry permantly won't 'save the planet' (the planet will be fine BTW no matter what we do to it). Its impact is tiny compared to the actual low hanging fruit in power generation, farming and transport. No amount of demonising the industry is going to change that.

kevinandrew

lawred2 wrote: »

Should IAG not go to the Spanish Government?

I'm 100% sure that they would explore every possible source of cash. They'd be negligent not to. But the Irish state would not want to be handing cash over without some stake or bond in AL in return surely?

What were the terms of Wizz Air's disbursement?

Wizz Air qualified for an initial £300 million from British Government's Coronavirus fund, the airline itself hasn't announced the exact figure is has received but that's the likely figure. The airline is listed on the London Stock Exchange, has a UK air operating cert and it's own Wizz Air UK business. Technically it doesn't even need the money, it's just cheap cash that's readily available. Wizz already had €1.5 billion in the bank at the end of March!

Easyjet said in early April it also qualified, it received £600 million. Virgin Atlantic however has yet to quality, its first request was rejected due to a lack of assets and tradable debt, it's now trying to source cash before the end of May or it's curtains according to Branson.

As for IAG approaching the Spanish Government, what do you think?

Only Iberia and to a lesser extent Vueling are important to Spain, neither British Airways or Aer Lingus are vital to the Spanish economy or provide notable service to the nation apart from their own home markets. Why would Spain want to prop up British Airways and Aer Lingus? It makes far more sense for the individual airlines to approach their home based governments for the support if required.

I've explained the strategic importance of Aer Lingus to Ireland, that can be replicated for BA to the UK and Iberia to Spain. The rest should explain itself.

Shamrockj

lawred2 wrote: »

Aer Lingus is owned by IAG is it not?

IAG can't just take the profits. They can take the losses too. The Irish state is probably already propping up Aer Lingus with the Covid19 employee subsidy programme.

Why on earth would the Irish government invest money in an entity it doesn't own?

The Irish government had no problem putting money into banks they didn't own not so long ago!

lawred2

Shamrockj wrote: »

The Irish government had no problem putting money into banks they didn't own not so long ago!

They did indeed put money into Irish banks but they did so for ownership in return.

They didn't do it for nothing.

Shamrockj

lawred2 wrote: »

They did indeed put money into Irish banks but they did so for ownership in return.

They didn't do it for nothing.

It would be the exact same scenario? The whole thread is on Paul Murphy saying Aer Lingus should be nationalised.

lawred2

Shamrockj wrote: »

It would be the exact same scenario? The whole thread is on Paul Murphy saying Aer Lingus should be nationalised.

That is what Paul Murphy said.

But the cash injections being discussed do not seem to be coming with any forms of ownership.. especially the UK examples put forward. You either qualify for that scheme or you don't.

WizzAir is one example given.. the British state doesn't seem to have taken any stake in that airline.

Dr Devious

Murphy has that kind of head on him that you would just love to smack very hard. Still see the smug puss on him in the back ground when Joan Burton was cornered by that gang of work shy dole scroungers.

Shamrockj

lawred2 wrote: »

That is what Paul Murphy said.

But the cash injections being discussed do not seem to be coming with any forms of ownership.. especially the UK examples put forward. You either qualify for that scheme or you don't.

WizzAir is one example given.. the British state doesn't seem to have taken any stake in that airline.

WizzAir is getting a loan which will have to be repaid. It's not the same thing... how would the british government get ownership when they will be looking for the money back?

lawred2

Shamrockj wrote: »

WizzAir is getting a loan which will have to be repaid. It's not the same thing... how would the british government get ownership when they will be looking for the money back?

ok that makes much more sense... thanks for clarifying

AL can have as much cheap Irish Government money as it wants as long as it is repaid... It will be getting more than enough state aid in employee supports as it is.

I can't see for a second the Irish Government seeing fit to take a stake in AL... after selling it's last holding only a few years ago.

Paul Murphy for Taoiseach. Or at the very least Minister for Transport, Employment and Innovation.

Shamrockj

lawred2 wrote: »

ok that makes much more sense... thanks for clarifying

AL can have as much cheap Irish Government money as it wants as long as it is repaid... It will be getting more than enough state aid in employee supports as it is.

I can't see for a second the Irish Government seeing fit to take a stake in AL... after selling it's last holding only a few years ago.

Interest rates are super low which will help should it come to it.
I agree, for now I dont see it happening. Down the like who knows

Better Than Christ

I'd be a big fan of nationalising vital public services and ensuring that they exist for the benefit of society and not their shareholders. A premium airline is not a vital public service.