Should Aer Lingus be privatised:Poll

Cork

Lennoxschips wrote:

Ryanair provided none of this and contrived to make a loss. Go figure.
.

The government has never had to bail out Ryanair.

Owning an airline is no essential for a modern day state.

Instaed of giving us a pop station - why can't RTE give us an Irish version of BBC Radio 5?

arcadegame2004

Originally posted by Monument
Why are you obsessed with them making massive amounts of profit, then them providing better service to their flyers, and in their long distance routes, a good public service out of Ireland – which RA are not providing?

The consumer should be the judge of who is providing a good service. Not the unions. In an environment of true competition, without market-distorting state-bailouts, where the state-owned company does not have things unfairly weighted in its favour by inequitable rules, the most profitable companies will tend to be those whose can provide an acceptable quality of service at a price most people are willing to pay.

When Irish Shipping was privatised, the unions used similar arguments about "strategic importance...island nation. etc." and the ships are still coming/going to/from the ports. Why would it be any different if Aer Lingus was sold? It would also make the taxpayer a tidy sum which would be nice compensation for having to bail-out the company gawd knows how many times!

Aer Lingus will not always be profitable. Another September 11th is a real possibility. Look at the chaos that caused to Swissair and others. The company had to close down.

It is surely then in Aer Lingus's interest that a potentially necessary share issue to save the company from potential future liquidation would be an available tool at its disposal. The Left would rather Aer Lingus was liquidated that countenance a share issue. Such is their dogmatic :"means justify the ends" ideology.

monument

Cork wrote:

Owning an airline is no essential for a modern day state.

The people of a so-called modern day state do not want the bare essentials.

Cork wrote:

Instaed of giving us a pop station - why can't RTE give us an Irish version of BBC Radio 5?

BECAUSE 2FM IS FUNDING RADIO ONE!!!???

arcadegame2004 wrote:

The consumer should be the judge of who is providing a good service. Not the unions. In an environment of true competition, without market-distorting state-bailouts, where the state-owned company does not have things unfairly weighted in its favour by inequitable rules, the most profitable companies will tend to be those whose can provide an acceptable quality of service at a price most people are willing to pay.

Overall, who is the providing the cheapest flights from Ireland to the US?

arcadegame2004 wrote:

It would also make the taxpayer a tidy sum which would be nice compensation for having to bail-out the company gawd knows how many times!

Like Eircom?

arcadegame2004 wrote:

Aer Lingus will not always be profitable. Another September 11th is a real possibility. Look at the chaos that caused to Swissair and others. The company had to close down.

It is surely then in Aer Lingus's interest that a potentially necessary share issue to save the company from potential future liquidation would be an available tool at its disposal. The Left would rather Aer Lingus was liquidated that countenance a share issue.

What are you talking about? AI survived, and has improved since 9-11 - so I really don’t understand how this fits into your overall argument.

Wait a second… the right-wing side of me agrees, and to add to your idea… the government should sell ALL government owned land and buildings before a potential value drop. Then because they have no land and buildings, the government could shut up shop and let private industry take over – the new government could be like a trade body, or something. We’d make so much money ever one could have a euro to spend on the private services – everyone, err, some people making profit – what joy that would be!… everyone would be a winner… well, if they get the permission, and pay for the use of the word ‘winner’, oh joy!

arcadegame2004 wrote:

Such is their dogmatic :"means justify the ends" ideology.

It was my understanding that the above is a right-wind ideology.

Oh, sorry, my mistake, it's the means justify the ends, when the ends is short-sighted profit making… like the Iraq war.

Cork

monument wrote:

BECAUSE 2FM IS FUNDING RADIO ONE!!!???

No, the licence payer is funding this turkey. With high DJ salary levels - I think the Irish public deserves better than cheap talk radio and a pop station.

Irish Shipping was said to be of national importance. The same arguements are being used again.

The state does not have to be involved in transport.

The same goes for VHI. What does VHI provide that BUPA does not?

The money raised by selling off Aer Linngus will help to build infrastructure. The government will no longer have the head ache of looking at cyclical trends in the aviation sector.

Aer Lingus is going to becaome a no frills airline so unions will have to be radical or redundant.

Profit will be of paramount importance to Aer Lingus without giving the consumer a bad deal no metter who takes ownership of it.

Tuars

Cork wrote:

The state does not have to be involved in transport.

Cork wrote:

The money raised by selling off Aer Linngus will help to build infrastructure.

What is this magical infrastructure you keep banging on about? You've already absolved the state of responsibility for providing anything at all as far as I can see.

Infrastructure => roads => transport for example. No?

monument

Cork wrote:

No, the licence payer is funding this turkey. With high DJ salary levels - I think the Irish public deserves better than cheap talk radio and a pop station.

Sorry, maybe I’m mistaken, but did the latest RTE figures not show that 2FM is profitable, and it’s profits go as far as to fund RTE Radio One?

cheap talk radio a view, nothing more, and a pop stationand BTW ‘pop’ derives from the word popular!!!

Cork wrote:

The state does not have to be involved in transport.

As I have said before, some people would sell the roads and footpaths.

Cork wrote:

The money raised by selling off Aer Linngus will help to build infrastructure. The government will no longer have the head ache of looking at cyclical trends in the aviation sector.

Cyclical trends... transport, health, weather, roads, voters…

Cork wrote:

Aer Lingus is going to becaome a no frills airline so unions will have to be radical or redundant.Profit will be of paramount importance to Aer Lingus without giving the consumer a bad deal no metter who takes ownership of it.

Who wants to fly Ryanair to the US? anyone?

arcadegame2004

You are right Cork. The old-chestnut of "strategic national island interest etc." was trotted out when Irish Shipping was privatised, and the scaremongering warnings of the sky falling never came true. Nor would it if Aer Lingus was privatised.

The Unions have historically had to eat their words umpteen times, as their prophecies of doom were shown up for the Marxist trash they are.

They fought the introduction of competition in the airline-sector. They wanted to force Irish people to continue handing Aer Lingus 400 Irish pounds to fly out of this country.

They cling like a vice to Leninist mantras that have been discredited by the failure of central planning in the former Eastern Bloc - a bloc openly sympathised by many in the old Workers Party/Democratic Left/now current members of Labour.

They will shreik their dire warnings till they breathe their last breathe, because they are infused with ideological extremism, and while their intentions may be genuinely well-meaning, their ideological position has consistently failed Ireland, no more so than in the years preceding the 1989s.

There solution to the problems of the Health-Service is to throw endless money at it. In this, they ignore the coinciding of the doubling in Health spending with the failure of the Health-Service to improve its service to patients. But to paraphrase the "Charge of the Light Brigade" poem, as far as they are concerned "here's not to question why, here's just to do and die, into the valley of death, goes the 6 billion euro".

Their hostility to privatisation is mainly because they want to hold Ireland to ransom. We see this in their starvation of the ATM's, their endless stupid transport-strikes, and their blanket opposition to the consumer's right to choose. Small wonder trade-unions are so unpopular with the public in every recent opinion-poll, with their 30% pay-claims!

RainyDay

Cork wrote:

The government has never had to bail out Ryanair.

That's debatable. Some would consider the deals given to Ryanair by the state-owned airports to be a bail-out. Some would consider the state funding of the additional insurance that was required by all airlines in the immediate aftermath to be a bail-out. O'Leary is currently haggling about how much of this cost he has to repay.

Cork

Cork wrote:

monument wrote:

BECAUSE 2FM IS FUNDING RADIO ONE!!!???

No, the licence payer is funding this turkey. With high DJ salary levels - I think the Irish public deserves better than cheap talk radio and a pop station.

I

Nonsense Cork.
2fm is consistently popular in the ratings relative to the other stations( and therefore the public want it, ergo your contention that they deserve better doesnt hold,if it wasn't popular it wouldn't make money) and it's advertising profits go to cross subsidise other areas of RTÉ.

arcadegame2004

What is this magical infrastructure you keep banging on about? You've already absolved the state of responsibility for providing anything at all as far as I can see.

Well I would call the failure to reap improvements in the Health-Service after a doubling of Health-spending a scandalous failure by the State. The same can be said about the scandalous state of disrepair many schools around the country lie in. Clearly new ideas are needed because the tired old leftwing formula of just throwing money at all our problems without making reforms has FAILED.

Tuars

To be honest I don't think it can be reduced to saying that left or right wing ideologies are responsible. I think that's too simplistic.

The deficiencies in the Health service could be seen as a failure of a left-leaning mindset while the defieciencies in the telecommunications sector could be seen as a failure of right-leaning policies.

I wouldn't support either of those points of view. I don't believe that the motivations for either were driven by ideologies. And for all the talk of left-wing Labour and the right-wing PDs I do not believe that any party in Ireland is a slave to a left/right wing ideology. They tend to take each issue in isolation and (especially with FF/PDs) just make it up as they go along.

What the government approaches to eircom and the Health service have in common is incompetent and insufficient analysis of the problem followed by incompetent implementation of the wrong solutions.

I am not opposed to privatisation in principle if it delivers what it promises, i.e. good value and good quality of service for the customer and improved competiveness for the country overall. However, I am sceptical that these benefits will accrue. I see the current situation at Aer Lingus as one where the management are attempting to line their pockets at the expense of the customers, the workers, and the long term interest of the country, and are hoping that the government will cave in like they did with eircom, and hand them the airline for a song.

BuffyBot

The government has never had to bail out Ryanair.

Incorrect. The Government, while Brennan was Minister for Transport in the past, saved Ryanair from biting the dust. Granted it was the early days, but the government still had to intervene to help the airline out.

An interesting account of the incident is included in "Ryanair: How a Small Irish Airline Conquered Europe" by Siobhan Creaton.

arcadegame2004

I see the current situation at Aer Lingus as one where the management are attempting to line their pockets at the expense of the customers, the workers, and the long term interest of the country, and are hoping that the government will cave in like they did with eircom, and hand them the airline for a song.

Explain how privatising Aer Lingus would be "at the expense of the customers"? Explain how Aer Lingus are more likely to reduce fares if they are in the public-sector? Explain how Aer Lingus will ever be able to compete with Ryanairs super-low fares when the public-sector unions are able to bully the management out of making the reforms needed to reduce costs to a level where such prices could be charged. I always consider a price-war to be in the interest of the consumer.

Privatising Aer Lingus would compensate the public for the years of money thrown doen the Aer Lingus sink in the form of bailouts in times of failure (rewarding failure in effect) during 1991 and before. We would regain the good money that was thrown after bad and actually be able to use it to resolve issues like infrastructural improvement, the national-debt, the National Pensions Reserve Fund (which Labour wanted to raid in 2002) etc.

The "national interest" case for maintaining State-ownership of Aer Fungus was also made with regard to Irish Shipping before it was privatised and has proven nonsensical scaremongering.

I see Aer Lingus as a COMPANY. It's sole purpose should be commercial. Ryanair is solely commercial and the Irish people have given it a massive endorsement by making it the most profitable airline in Ireland. The European people have followed suit, making Ryanair well on the way to claim the prize of the largest airline in Europe.

But the biggest question, which the opponents of privatisation on this BB have REFUSED to answer is this: (for the umpteenth time I place this question though in despair of getting an answer :rolleyes: ):

When the next aviation downturn comes around, how would you keep Aer Lingus from collapsing, in the context of the EU ban on state bailouts of failing companies? They should be allowed to raise money through share issues like they did with a minority-stake in 2001.

As long as Aer Lingus is prevented from raising money in this way, they will always have one arm tied behind their back in the battle with Ryanair.

The only countries whose Government's want to maintain state-owned airlines are Cuba and North Korea.

therecklessone

arcadegame2004 wrote:

Explain how Aer Lingus will ever be able to compete with Ryanairs super-low fares when the public-sector unions are able to bully the management out of making the reforms needed to reduce costs to a level where such prices could be charged.

They don't need to. Aer Lingus are doing a rather decent job surviving between the low fares of Ryanair and the high fares of full service carriers like BA and Lufthansa. They've removed the paper ticket and free cup of tea but still fly you to a central destination and treat you with at least a small amount of civility.

arcadegame2004 wrote:

I always consider a price-war to be in the interest of the consumer.

Really? I thought the price war between Ryanair and Go on the Scottish routes ex-Dublin was a bad thing for the consumer, in that it removed a choice of low-cost airlines to and from Glasgow/Edinburgh.

I've just noticed this thread on PPRuNe regarding Aer Lingus and a possible move away from the Oneworld alliance.

http://www.pprune.org/forums/showthread.php?threadid=140337

This would not be a good move.

Cork

arcadegame2004 wrote:

The only countries whose Government's want to maintain state-owned airlines are Cuba and North Korea.

That about sums it up. It is about time that socialist movement in Ireland was brought into the 21st century.

Telco Unions had no problem with the privatisation of Eircom and Dick Spring even sat on its board.

Being opposed to privatisation on the grounds that the state should have a foot hold in all fasets of economic activity is nonsense.

Should we have a state run newspaper? A state run chain of burger joints?

Aer Lingus charged an arm and a leg for basic flights over to the UK. Many Irish had no alternative but to get the boat.

To many - flying with the big shamrock airline was never an option.

arcadegame2004

Originally posted by therecklessone
I've just noticed this thread on PPRuNe regarding Aer Lingus and a possible move away from the Oneworld alliance.

Speculation.

therecklessone

arcadegame2004 wrote:

Speculation.

Did I say otherwise?

monument

Cork wrote:

Telco Unions had no problem with the privatisation of Eircom and Dick Spring even sat on its board.

Being opposed to privatisation on the grounds that the state should have a foot hold in all fasets of economic activity is nonsense.

What the hell? The state is now building a new network in the form of the MANs - they sold Eircom and now are building a new network! - nonsense I tell you, nonsense!

arcadegame2004 wrote:

Well I would call the failure to reap improvements in the Health-Service after a doubling of Health-spending a scandalous failure by the State. The same can be said about the scandalous state of disrepair many schools around the country lie in. Clearly new ideas are needed because the tired old leftwing formula of just throwing money at all our problems without making reforms has FAILED.

There was me thinking it was a right-wing government throwing money at all our problems without making reforms. How wrong I must be.

arcadegame2004 wrote:

You are right Cork. The old-chestnut of "strategic national island interest etc." was trotted out when Irish Shipping was privatised, and the scaremongering warnings of the sky falling never came true. Nor would it if Aer Lingus was privatised.

Who has said the sky would fall?

arcadegame2004 wrote:

They fought the introduction of competition in the airline-sector.

Yes they did, pass governments did little to help. But a lot has changed at AI, thanks in a large part to the staff.

arcadegame2004 wrote:

They wanted to force Irish people to continue handing Aer Lingus 400 Irish pounds to fly out of this country.

arcadegame2004 wrote:

They cling like a vice to Leninist mantras that have been discredited by the failure of central planning in the former Eastern Bloc - a bloc openly sympathised by many in the old Workers Party/Democratic Left/now current members of Labour.

Oh, so now we’re on a rampage of name calling of unions and the Labour party

arcadegame2004 wrote:

They will shreik their dire warnings till they breathe their last breathe, because they are infused with ideological extremism, and while their intentions may be genuinely well-meaning, their ideological position has consistently failed Ireland, no more so than in the years preceding the 1989s.

Ideological extremism, genuinely well-meaning, has consistently failed, that remind me of some people.

arcadegame2004 wrote:

There solution to the problems of the Health-Service is to throw endless money at it.

Sell it?

arcadegame2004 wrote:

Their hostility to privatisation is mainly because they want to hold Ireland to ransom. We see this in their starvation of the ATM's,

Workers not wanting to endanger them selves, how selfish!

arcadegame2004 wrote:

their endless stupid transport-strikes,

Endless? Name-calling?

arcadegame2004 wrote:

and their blanket opposition to the consumer's right to choose.

NEWS FLASH: PUBLIC HATES… PRIVITE SECTOR, PUBLIC SECTOR, UNIOINS, RAIN, THEIR LIFES… READ THE EXCLUSIVE INSIDE!

arcadegame2004 wrote:

Small wonder trade-unions are so unpopular with the public in every recent opinion-poll, with their 30% pay-claims!

Why? Is this because of the endless name-calling (like the above) that the majority of the media go into?

BuffyBot

arcadegame2004 wrote:

Speculation.

It's speculation alright, but it's certainly doing the rounds, and it's mounting. EI's service cuts seem to be the main bones of contention.

Take for example EI's services cuts on the DUB - LHR route. They code share this with all the Oneworld partners, one of which is BA. BA of course now target (and advertise) themselves as a "full-service" airline, which provides in-flight snacks, after-care if things go wrong even on short haul.

However, the don't fly the DUB-LHR route themselves, it's a codeshare with EI. The idea behind alliances such as Oneworld is that the passenger can expect a reasonably uniform level of service across all the partners. People booked on a BA ticket tend to expect a level of service comparable to a flight operated by BA itself. Aer Lingus no longer provides that level of service. (Rumour has it EI never bothered to tell BA about the change in their in-flight catering either, until they removed the in-flight service, and BA weren't too impressed with EI for the reasons above).

Of course, Aer Lingus's removal of the TAB frequent flyer program doesn't help. Another alliance benefit is that frequent flyer programs become interoperable..but hold on, Aer Lingus doesn't have one - so there is that benefit to the other Oneworld partners lost.

In terms of route network, Aer Lingus doesn't add all that much to one as vast as the Oneworld alliance.

Iberia are also rumoured to be unhappy with Aer Lingus' expansion into the Spanish market - again one of the percieved benefits of an alliance is that the constituant networks don't encroach on each other, but compliment.

All in all, Aer Lingus isn't giving all that much to it's Oneworld partners so there is no real reason for them to keep the airline within the alliance. With Aer Lingus going down the budget airline route, there seems little advantage in staying in an alliance like Oneworld.

I give it a few months more, at most, before they leave (or are forced to leave - take your pick)

Tuars

arcadegame2004 wrote:

But the biggest question, which the opponents of privatisation on this BB have REFUSED to answer is this: (for the umpteenth time I place this question though in despair of getting an answer :rolleyes: ):

When the next aviation downturn comes around, how would you keep Aer Lingus from collapsing, in the context of the EU ban on state bailouts of failing companies? They should be allowed to raise money through share issues like they did with a minority-stake in 2001.

As long as Aer Lingus is prevented from raising money in this way, they will always have one arm tied behind their back in the battle with Ryanair.

You could argue that this restriction forces them to be more responsible in their running of the airline i.e. that they put in a reasonably sound long-term strategy for the future of the company rather than relying on the boom-and-bust cyles of the industry and the stock market to carry them. It limits their exposure to the short-term demands of the share price and shareholders and allows them (or rather forces them) to be a bit more prudent and actually reinvest profits in the company rather than cream them off (again see eircom for a real-life example of this scenario playing out).

Of course if the government can't bail out Aer Lingus then what's the big deal if they get into trouble? No taxpayers money will go to saving them. Then we can all go fly Ryanair and everyone will be happy .

I disagree that Aer Lingus is not a strategic asset. Outside of the lucrative Dublin-London route and a handful of other Dublin-Europe routes the Irish air routes are not very lucrative. They cannot be maintained without subsidy. If we are truly interested in decentralisation and implementing the NSS then it is vital that we have a regular air service to the regions. Aer Lingus is a key part of this strategy. Privatisation would force Aer Lingus to focus on the more lucrative Dublin-London route rather than the regional routes as this is where shareholders would see the real value. How real the value would be for Irish citizens (especially outside of Dublin) is questionable.

secret_squirrel

Only one problem with that point - Aer Lingus dont have any domestic routes any more - apart from a token Dub-Snn or 2. All the regional routes are flown by Aer Aarran.

Tuars

secret_squirrel wrote:

Only one problem with that point - Aer Lingus dont have any domestic routes any more - apart from a token Dub-Snn or 2. All the regional routes are flown by Aer Aarran.

Aer Lingus fly from Shannon and Cork to the UK and Europe. (I did say part of the strategy). It should be a lot more. With privatisation it would be much less.

bonkey

arcadegame2004 wrote:

Another September 11th is a real possibility. Look at the chaos that caused to Swissair and others. The company had to close down.

Will you please stop making stuff up.

Swissair, when it went bankrupt, had the highest average percentage of seats filled of any mainstream airline across Europe. September 11 had absolutely nothing to do with its financial collapse.

Secondly, it did not close down. Swissair was merged with Crossair, with the resultant company being called Swiss (or Swiss International Airlines, I think is the full name).

jc

Tuars

Tuars wrote:

Aer Lingus fly from Shannon and Cork to the UK and Europe. (I did say part of the strategy). It should be a lot more. With privatisation it would be much less.

Why would it much less, other than because there isn't a worthwhile profit on some internal routes.
You seem to be saying that the less profitable routes are being flown because the airline is in public ownership
Ergo the taxpayer( as the majority owner and the person who is supposed to be the beneficiatary of any profit other than what is reinvested into the airlines plant and machinery ) is losing out because the lucrative routes are cross subsidising the by now few non profit routes.

Why should the tax payer for that matter subsidise either directly or by proxy through public ownership ( via the non closure of unprofitable routes ) the availability of anybodies flights?
It's neither a social or prudent use of public funds in my view which is ironic given that unions are generally socialist in their thinking.

The only reason that I can think of off hand, in favour of such a cross subsidisation ( and ergo for state ownership, given that the cross subsidy would not happen in private ownership )would be to promote industry and tourism within the hinterland of the regional airport.
That would be a good reason alright but it might be seen by Europe as a government support equivalent to lower corporation taxes at some point.
If it's happening( and you Tuars by what you have said reckon it is happening ) then it's pardon the pun flying under the radar of the E.U authorities and a reasonable strategy.
It would need the highly profitable low cost model to continue on all routes for it to work though.
There would be no funds/profits for the cross subsidisation otherwise.

Tuars

Earthman wrote:

Why should the tax payer for that matter subsidise either directly or by proxy through public ownership ( via the non closure of unprofitable routes ) the availability of anybodies flights?
It's neither a social or prudent use of public funds in my view which is ironic given that unions are generally socialist in their thinking.

For the same reason that we build roads, rail, subsidise bus routes, and telecommunications infrastructure in areas where it is not directly profitable.
We're trying to buld up a critical mass whereby the economy of the regions can take off. Industry (and in deed people) will only locate in the regions if the infrastructure is there. It's a chicken-and-egg without government intervention.

The only reason that I can think of off hand, in favour of such a cross subsidisation ( and ergo for state ownership, given that the cross subsidy would not happen in private ownership )would be to promote industry and tourism within the hinterland of the regional airport.
That would be a good reason alright but it might be seen by Europe as a government support equivalent to lower corporation taxes at some point.
If it's happening( and you Tuars by what you have said reckon it is happening ) then it's pardon the pun flying under the radar of the E.U authorities and a reasonable strategy.

It is happening.Many (if not all) regional routes are subsidized by the government. Aer Arann would not survive without the subsidy.

Tuars

Tuars wrote:

It is happening.Many (if not all) regional routes are subsidized by the government. Aer Arann would not survive without the subsidy.

Thats what I thought.
I've no objection to that and neither should the E.U if every E.U government is allowed to do it as an incentive for their deprived areas.

Lennoxschips

Aer Lingus fly from Shannon and Cork to the UK and Europe. (I did say part of the strategy). It should be a lot more. With privatisation it would be much less.

Exactly. I live in Amsterdam and am from Cork. Aer Lingus flies the only direct route between these two destinations. I don't know off the top of my head how profitable this service is, but it definitely has economic benefits for the south of Ireland. This is what I mean when I say Aer Lingus provides a service to the Irish people that other airlines do not. Ryanair only flies to one destination out of Cork, London Stanstead.

Tuars

I was searching for some background material and I found this: Aer Lingus Bill 2003 - Seanad Debate . (hit the + to expand it...nice interface once you get used to it - not much good for linking though )

It gives a lot of background information and raises many of the points discussed here.

It also goes into the circumstances surrounding the rescue of Aer Lingus after 9/11. Interesting to note that the government was not allowed to bail out the company then (as may have been implied in the discussion here) but seems to have been instrumental in providing a framework for rescuing the company. Management, employees, and unions all contributed to the turnaround within this framework.

It's long but worth reading if you're interested in the issue (also note it's in two parts, the second one with some interesting stuff from Mary O'Rourke).

Here's a random ( ) quote I pulled from it.

It is a fact that in the 50 odd years of its existence from 1937 until the early 1990s, Aer Lingus received virtually no equity injection from the State at all. In the early 1990s when [Fianna Fail and Labour] were in Government, it received IR£175 million. It then ran into financial difficulties again in the aftermath of 11 September 2001, yet even in that context it did not receive any further financial assistance from the State.

Cork

Aer Lingus is already running it's business using the private sector business model.

This will continue with Aer Lingus becoming a no frills airline.

Ownership won't really metter too much.

Other bloated semi states should take note.

The government cannot wait for Aer Lingus to go belly up like SDS.

SDS should have been flogged off years ago.

State Monopolies are in decline. Competition is on the way for both Bus Eireann and Aer Rianta. This will be good for consumers.

But semi states need to be able to adapt to consumer needs. Aer Lingus has done a lot of cost cutting but it will have to cut even more.

This is irrespective of who will own the company.

chill

Tuars wrote:

Aer Lingus fly from Shannon and Cork to the UK and Europe. (I did say part of the strategy). It should be a lot more. With privatisation it would be much less.

But it wouldn't have to be. The government would be free to offer local regional incentives under existing EU laws that would make it worthwhile keeping specific routes open.
At least in this scenario the airlines would be efficient and the subsidy publicly visible instead of what we have now, a chronically inefficient and bloated Aer Lingus overcharging every customer in order to pay for local routes and the wages of thousands of unnecessary employees.