Goodbye Aer Lingus

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..

So why didn't you fly with somebody else, then?

It's not like there weren't alternatives.

It's just that few of them were any better.

It's advances in technology, as much as deregulation, which have brought more planes to more places and brought costs down.

Graham wrote: »

Accountability to who, you? Should the cabinet have run this by you before making any decisions/recommendations?

If you don't know what has/hasn't been provided and you certainly have no idea what will be provided you're not really in a position to start waving the 'no accountability' flag.

You two have totally won me over, best thing is collect the 300 million.

What can we sell off next, I'm for the bridges in Dublin, I never use them.

eeepaulo wrote: »

You two have totally won me over, best thing is collect the 300 million.

What can we sell off next, I'm for the bridges in Dublin, I never use them.

I know you are being sarcastic but there is a serious point here which is the separation of nationally important infrastructure from operating companies.

It's strategically important for Ireland to have easy access to international flights hence there is an argument for the Govt to either run or (preferably IMHO) contract out the running of infrastructure assets such as airports and ports (as Irish Rail are just about to do with Rosslare Port http://www.independent.ie/business/irish/operations-at-investmenthungry-rosslare-port-to-be-privatised-31256510.html) but there is little or no argument for any Govt to run the operating companies who use the aforementioned infrastructure. To ensure the Govts strategic objective (lot's of connectivity to meet demand) is met all they have to do is provide the right regulatory and supervisory environment to attract private operating companies.

Sell the operating companies, encourage competition and multiple operators to enter the market and retain ownership of but contract out management of the infrastructure.

Sorted.

Quin_Dub wrote: »

~€400M from the sale which will be put into a "Communications Investment Fund" to be spent on Broadband programs etc. - Very good

yeah. because its going to be spent on that. FG would never lie to us now would they?

Quin_Dub wrote: »

7 year protection of the Heathrow slots - Bit silly, but keeps the union muppets onside

what "union muppets" people who look after their members are not muppets, only anti-workers rights types would think so

Calina wrote: »

The most effective way for the government to protect the Heathrow slots is not by guarantees or rules or legal agreements.

It is by ensuring the economy is healthy and growing.

no, guarantees rules and legal agreements is the best way as they are protected no matter what for 7 years

Eugene Norman wrote: »

In general I think that this is a good idea, at this time.





Asking why the State ever owned an airline is like asking why the state owned the electricity companies, or telephone lines, or railways. The private capital wasn't there at the time.

and for the railways, it never will. in saying that the state should own the electricity and telephone lines to ensure no private monopolies

end of the road wrote: »

and for the railways, it never will.

Never say never - http://www.nbcnews.com/id/33599744/ns/business-us_business/t/buffett-buying-burlington-northern-railroad/

end of the road wrote: »

the report should published because the people were shareholders in the company so were entitled to know whats in the report

Wrong. It is the Govt who are they shareholders and they have asked for and received all the information they need to make this decision on our behalf.

Where would you draw the line at what "we" are entitled to know? Perhaps we should all have access to all public sector employees HR files and performance reviews? We are paying them each and every public servant so shouldn't "we" have access to the payroll data so we know how much "we're" paying each and every one of them?

I bet you don't fancy that idea do you?

Je_suis_Jean wrote: »

Wrong. It is the Govt who are they shareholders and they have asked for and received all the information they need to make this decision on our behalf.

Where would you draw the line at what "we" are entitled to know? Perhaps we should all have access to all public sector employees HR files and performance reviews? We are paying them each and every public servant so shouldn't "we" have access to the payroll data so we know how much "we're" paying each and every one of them?

I bet you don't fancy that idea do you?

we are the shareholders as its our money going into it. the government doing something on our behalf means nothing as they cannot be trusted to act in the best interests of the people. there not doing this in my name

Je_suis_Jean wrote: »

Competition lowers cost and promotes innovation.

not in a lot of cases. britain for example. so called "competition" in the energy sector has brought cosy cartels. also, competition doesn't guarantee innovation. for example, the british bus market. where regulation does exist, councils and transport regulators have to do it all bar the running because the private companies cannot be trusted if left to their own devices. other then that, the companies are free to do as they please meaning little services. as much as our state operators have problems i'd rather have them then not.

Je_suis_Jean wrote: »

Monopolies, particularly private monopolies are the polar opposite.

fixed. state monopolies are better then private monopolies

Graham wrote: »

Correct, they're doing it as the elected Irish Government.

they aren't. i didn't elect them, so they aren't doing it in my name. this should have been put to the people

awec wrote: »

I am not sure you know how democracy works.

The government are elected to work on our behalf. They make decisions on our behalf.

Not every single person has to agree with every single decision.

If every taxpayer had to be consulted and informed of every decision the government makes then nothing would ever get done.

i didn't vote for them, so there not making decisians on my behalf

end of the road wrote: »

unions are as relevant today as they were in the 90s 80s 70s and before. very relevant. they are needed, necessary, and do good work for their members

You really are hilarious. So this is a picture of success and relevance then?

Uncle Ben wrote: »

I don't think the unions of the 70s or 80s would have supported jobsbridge or gateway schemes.

Who cares what they would or wouldn't have supported. the days of the free market being bullied by a hard core of union activists are well and truly over forever*

Never say forever :eek:

Je_suis_Jean wrote: »

OK, let me explain again. The actual rail network is a national asset the managing of which should be contracted out.

no it shouldn't. it must remain within state hands for the greater good of ensureing safety and keeping it going dispite the little it gets. britain tried that and they got railtrack, a company who struggled, could and didn't do much, wasn't able to manage its infrastructure and didn't know what it had. and of course the various rail crashes under its rein. it proved that the railway infrastructure isn't viable in private hands and cannot be trusted in private hands.

Je_suis_Jean wrote: »

For that to happen the private operator just needs to be 15% more efficient than the current state operator.

wrong. it can't be any more efficient. the nature of the track doesn't allow it and to allow it would cost billions, something that we haven't got and isn't going to come from private capital. thats the reality. also, looking at our neighbour where such investment has been viable and the service is more intensive but in private hands, large scale cancelations of services when things go wrong is rife as the bare minimum of staff to run the average service is employed meaning no leeway should things go wrong.

Je_suis_Jean wrote: »

My own anecdotal evidence seeing loads of Irish Rail workers sloping around Heuston station and chatting in little groups for extended periods of time give me great confidence that a private operator of the network would not only deliver cost savings for "we" the taxpayers but would also provide them with enough profit to take on the task.

wrong. the proffits would have to come from double or quadruple subsidies which would mean more of a cost to the tax payer, along with extremely higher fares.

Je_suis_Jean wrote: »

Same goes for outsourcing the operation of the trains. Just do it more efficiently and it's a win win for everybody.

its not. again there would need to be huge subsidies to ensure a return for those companies shareholders. it can't be run more efficiently without huge investment in track where possible, and some of the lines can't be upgraded any further to be any more intensive. also, such companies would only employ the bare minimum of staff to run the average service but not enough to allow cover or not enough cover, meaning should something happen there would be large scale service cancelations and more. its just to costly for the problems it would bring. the current system for all its faults keeps services going

Je_suis_Jean wrote: »

If I'm not mistaken that's how the LUAS operates and it's a very efficient cost effective service.

luas cannot be compared to a heavy rail system. its a small light rail system which is self contained

Uncle Ben wrote: »

Hoping for a walk through vote tomorrow in relation to the sale. It might result in a few more LP tds getting it in the neck when they return to the Northside and Shannon for the long weekend. Tick Tock.

The reality is the decision is made and the Dail debate is simply a sideshow allowing TD's who's constituencies are affected to do a bit of grandstanding which will go down well locally and help offset the parish pump brigade who will seek to hang them out to dry because they put the national interest ahead of local or trade union interest.

It's just a game and two days is enough time for them all to do a bit of self congratulating on how they fought to ensure .....blah blah blah..... for their constituents.