Should Aer Lingus be privatised:Poll

arcadegame2004

There is a better case of maintaining ownership of a national asset and taking a dividend each year. Also the tax and wage contributions of Aer Lingus to the Irish economy are far higher than Ryan Air's simply because of all its overseas bases and staff. And if Ryan air continue their policy of employing eastern european workers at low wages even more money will flow out of the economy.

Taxes and dividends from Aer Lingus are a drop in the ocean compared to the 26 billion euro budget. We don't need them to be in State ownership. Aer Lingus should be removed from political-interference. It should be able to take decisions on a commercial-basis, not on the basis of an electoral-timetable.

Aer Lingus will survive in the private-sector. TSB, ACC and ICC are still there aren't they.

Forcing Aer Lingus to bear the full brunt of going out in the world on its own (to coin a phrase) would lead to it becoming more self-reliant, and to finding commercial solutions for its own problems instead of nagging the taxpayer for a bailout Ryanair won't be getting (or needing).

monument

We don't need them to be in State ownership.

You don't want ANYTHING to be state owned, what's your point?

Aer Lingus should be removed from political-interference.

So it will be a airline for profit and noting more.

It should be able to take decisions on a commercial-basis, not on the basis of an electoral-timetable.

Get you cheap flights - it's electoral time. :rolleyes:

Aer Lingus will survive in the private-sector.

Is anyone saying they will or wont?

Forcing Aer Lingus to bear the full brunt of going out in the world on its own (to coin a phrase)...

Try and answer questions, not coin a phrases.

...would lead to it becoming more self-reliant,

What like Eircom?

and to finding commercial solutions for its own problems what problems?

What problems?

instead of nagging the taxpayer for a bailout Ryanair won't be getting (or needing).

What bailout? What BIG EVENT do you know that is going to happen that's not going to effect Ryanair? And why are you still talking about Ryanair?

Mighty_Mouse

Forcing Aer Lingus to bear the full brunt of going out in the world on its own (to coin a phrase) would lead to it becoming more self-reliant, and to finding commercial solutions for its own problems instead of nagging the taxpayer for a bailout Ryanair won't be getting (or needing).

I didn't think Aer Lingus was in trouble? If the Air Line is not in trouble and competing successfully under public ownership then whats the point in privatisation? Is it for the sake of privatisation itself?

The benefits of public ownership in this circumstance far outway the benefits of privatisation if you ask me. The fact that, as an Island on the edge of Europe, our air transport industry is a guaranteed service which can be manipulated if necessary for the greater good of the country is no bad thing IMO.

My 2c

secret_squirrel

arcadegame2004 wrote:

Taxes and dividends from Aer Lingus are a drop in the ocean compared to the 26 billion euro budget

By that definition so is the occasional bail out.

arcadegame2004 wrote:

Aer Lingus will survive in the private-sector. TSB, ACC and ICC are still there aren't they.

Forcing Aer Lingus to bear the full brunt of going out in the world on its own (to coin a phrase) would lead to it becoming more self-reliant, and to finding commercial solutions for its own problems instead of nagging the taxpayer

Aer Lingus are doing damn well in the public sector - why change a winning formula?
IT IS self reliant.
IT doesnt need to nag the taxpayer (Govt actually) for a handout that it DOESNT need.

BuffyBot

TSB, ACC and ICC are still there aren't they

Well, that would depend on your definition of "still there". TSB absorbed in to IL&P, ACC is a shadow of itself and owned by Rabobank (based in the Netherlands) and the ICC - well, there isn't even an ICC now, it's Bank of Scotland (Ireland).

arcadegame2004

Aer Lingus are doing damn well in the public sector - why change a winning formula?

Past performance is no guarantee of future performance. And Aer Lingus have a bad history, despite their recent success.

Tuars

arcadegame2004 wrote:

Past performance is no guarantee of future performance. And Aer Lingus have a bad history, despite their recent success.

If 'past performance is no guarantee of future performance' then its 'bad history' is irrelevant. So your point is?

I'd be more interested in your answer to this question...

secret squirrel wrote:

Aer Lingus are doing damn well in the public sector - why change a winning formula?
IT IS self reliant.

...which you nicely side-stepped as you fell back onto the cliché.

Seaneh

Yes it should.

Privitisation of State run companies across Europe and North America has without a doubt made Air, Rail and Electrical companies far more efficient (With the exception of The British Rail system which is a disgrace, something like 8 regional comanies and a few national companies and no cooperation at all).


So yeah, Privitisation is a good thing.

MadsL

Aer Lingus no longer will carry 'remains' back to Ireland it was revealed today, as they have decided to forgo short-haul 'cargo' business. They currently carry 1200 bodies a year.

Can you imagine how much 'excess-baggage' Ryanair woould charge for this.

arcadegame2004

If 'past performance is no guarantee of future performance' then its 'bad history' is irrelevant. So your point is?

The only absolute guarantees in life are birth and death. But a long-term analysis of the fortunes of Ryanair and Aer Lingus gives cause for belief that Aer Lingus will fare better in the private-sector than in the public-sector, especially now that the Government is forbidden from investing in it.

Those who play up Aer Lingus's recent success are espousing the usual short-termism for which Socialism is notorious.

Tuars

arcadegame2004 wrote:

... a long-term analysis of the fortunes of Ryanair and Aer Lingus gives cause for belief that Aer Lingus will fare better in the private-sector than in the public-sector...

According to the experts past performance is no guarantee of future performance .

You're also ignoring the numerous subsidies and payoffs that Ryanair have received over the years (mostly by bullying and threatening the governments of small regions such as ourselves).

I don't share your faith that unfettered privatisation will benefit the Irish consumer. If there was reasonably strong regulation of the market then maybe we would have a chance. As it stands we're lambs to the slaughter of the big corporations.

Lennoxschips

Those who play up Aer Lingus's recent success are espousing the usual short-termism for which Socialism is notorious.

Erm, didn't capitalists invent that whole stock market thing?

secret_squirrel

arcadegame2004 wrote:

Those who play up Aer Lingus's recent success are espousing the usual short-termism for which Socialism is notorious.

Nicely argued there - why is it when ever you cant back up your arguments you fall back on meaningless ideological claptrap. The only people who have introduced ideology into this thread are those of you who believe in privatisation at any cost - not becuase it would be good for aer lingus, their customers and the country, but simply because you cant stand the thought of state owned companies.

Make an economic and social argument for the privatisation and I would support it - but the fact is you cant. Its doing as well in the Public sector as it would in the private and with the imminent loss of another 1300 workers there is absolutely no case for privatisation since it will now make money hand over fist.

Tuars

From today's Irish Independent (reg. reqd.):

Aer Lingus is to axe its business class and pull out of the One World Alliance. The moves are part of the change to a no-frills airline which has already provoked fury from commercial users.

Exporters discovered last week that interline cargo would not be carried from September 1, and no cargo anywhere in Europe from January 1. Customer service staff at the state airline said they were receiving irate phone calls from major multi-national companies.

"It has been murder at ground level here over the past few weeks, and it's causing major ructions with companies who are used to booking with us," an Aer Lingus employee said.

"Companies have been coming up and threatening to pull out of Ireland if this goes ahead. People are asking to speak to Willie Walsh, and they are now saying they will contact the Minister for Transport direct.

"The whole point of business class is that you can ring and book flights at the drop of a hat. And the business class section on the flights is always full, don't let anyone tell you otherwise."

The Aer Lingus source questioned why Willie Walsh was being allowed to make these changes prior to an official go ahead for privatisation.

So it looks like Aer Lingus is reducing consumer choice to make it more attractive if it is privatised. Tell me again how privatisation is good for the consumer and good for the country?

BuffyBot

^^

I think I predicted that one a while back

Champ

Aer Lingus is to axe its business class and pull out of the One World Alliance. The moves are part of the change to a no-frills airline which has already provoked fury from commercial users.

Opps Intel ain't too happy about it :rolleyes:
http://breaking.tcm.ie/2004/08/22/story162928.html

Probably because they invested all that money into that new fab in Ireland
http://www.custompc.co.uk/news/news_story.php?id=57905 ; only to find out that it's going to be somewhat awkward to move the produce... :rolleyes:

arcadegame2004

Aer Lingus is to axe its business class and pull out of the One World Alliance. The moves are part of the change to a no-frills airline which has already provoked fury from commercial users.

It's doing that NOW while it is in the public-sector. You see? The unresponsiveness to demand of semi-state companies. Increases the argument for privatisation is you ask me.

Tuars

arcadegame2004 wrote:

It's doing that NOW while it is in the public-sector. You see? The unresponsiveness to demand of semi-state companies. Increases the argument for privatisation is you ask me.

No actually. These changes are prompted by the drive for privatisation.

Arcade, I'm trying to give you the benefit of the doubt but I think you're arguing based on an ideological principle rather than the practicalities of this particular case.

Let me bring you up to speed on this particular case. This government has no objection in principle to privatisation of Aer Lingus. Their only worry is that the timing will be right to get the best price.

Meanwhile Willie Walsh is cutting the company left, right and centre to in order to target the lucrative no-frills market.

And while this is great for the financials of the company it is not compatible with the broader welfare of the country.

If Ryanair becomes another Aer Lingus then what sort of choice is that for the consumer?

You claim that the market can provide the choice that we need but this is plainly not the case as is evidenced by Aer Lingus's move to the low-cost-no-frills model while the business needs of the country require something else, something that the private companies are not interested in offering.

arcadegame2004

And while this is great for the financials of the company it is not compatible with the broader welfare of the country.

Why not?

Tuars

arcadegame2004 wrote:

Why not?

Please have the courtesy to read the links to the news items in the original post from me and the follow-up from Champ.

I cannot educate you if you're not willing to learn.

star gazer

originally posted by arcadegaem2004
Why not?

The termination of services reduces this countries competitive advantage. Willie walsh has a job to do but so has the nominal shareholder who is answerable to the electorate.

lucernarian

Could Arcadegame2004 tell me how reducing the choice of consumers is a good thing? At the moment, I'm glad that there is still an airline that looks after disabled people in Irish airports, to say the least.

arcadegame2004

Well I am sure that there are plenty of other airlines, including foreign airlines, that will be perfectly willing to seixe the opportunity to seize the market-share that Aer Lingus is alienating by this move.

By the way, whoever here is saying that Aer Lingus is democratically accountable to us: does the One World decision not seem to contradict this?

I don't recall getting a vote for the Chairman of Aer Lingus. So how is it "democratically accountable" to us?

sliabh

To_be_confirmed wrote:

Could Arcadegame2004 tell me how reducing the choice of consumers is a good thing? At the moment, I'm glad that there is still an airline that looks after disabled people in Irish airports, to say the least.

Ryanair do provide services to disabled people. They just bitch and whine about it. And even if both airlines said in the morning that they wouldn't it's a small matter for the government to pass a law requiring them to do so. Which is much better than the government founding/buying/running an airline to provide that service.

Those advocating government ownership of Aer Lingus seem to be starting from the position that unless there is a reason not to then the Govenrment should own companies. I think it's generally accepted internationally that the opposite is the case.

And as for the choice argument, it hardly applies to something like business class. If you argue that we need a state airline because the other airlines are not providing some of the features/perks that we feel are needed then I would turn that back and say should the government be involved in every industry where the existing service offering is not 100%.

e.g. If my local newsagent does't stock the particular magazine I want then maybe we should have nationalised news agents? Or maybe the state should force An Post to sell every newspaper and magazine in their outlets?

star gazer

originally posted by sliabh
And as for the choice argument, it hardly applies to something like business class. If you argue that we need a state airline because the other airlines are not providing some of the features/perks that we feel are needed then I would turn that back and say should the government be involved in every industry where the existing service offering is not 100%.

So your argument is that the government should either be all in or all out, your choice being all out of the business world. Even the American government subsidises its airlines and yet you think it inappropriate for the irish airline to make decisions in the best interests of the irish nation and by extension it's only shareholder.

Those advocating government ownership of Aer Lingus seem to be starting from the position that unless there is a reason not to then the Govenrment should own companies. I think it's generally accepted internationally that the opposite is the case.

Those advocating the dismantling of non core branches of the Aer lingus business seem to be starting from a position that any service dropped by Aer Lingus will have no appreciable effect on irish business interests. Tunnel vision isn't going to solve the issues around Aer Lingus.

bonkey

arcadegame2004 wrote:

Well I am sure that there are plenty of other airlines, including foreign airlines, that will be perfectly willing to seixe the opportunity to seize the market-share that Aer Lingus is alienating by this move.

And were they actually capapble of competing with the service AL was previously offering there, they would have already made inroads into that market already.

The fact that they didn't means that realistically speaking the consumer will end up with either a more expensive service or a reduced service over what AL were providing.

Again...the consumer doesn't benefit.

jc

sliabh

star gazer wrote:

So your argument is that the government should either be all in or all out, your choice being all out of the business world.

No that is not my view. But "Aer Lingus needs to stay in state ownership so we have a business class" has to be one of the most laughable arguments for state ownership I have heard.

star gazer wrote:

Those advocating the dismantling of non core branches of the Aer lingus business seem to be starting from a position that any service dropped by Aer Lingus will have no appreciable effect on irish business interests.

This would assume that this are services that are needed and not available anywhere else. As a person who used to fly business class with Aer Lingus all the time I can live with it going.

The freight thing is not a major issue either as other companies are providing short haul air freight out of Ireland. I know this too as my we used to use them with my previous employer to priority ship products.

star gazer

originally posted by sliabh
This would assume that this are services that are needed and not available anywhere else. As a person who used to fly business class with Aer Lingus all the time I can live with it going.

Good for you. But not everyone is the same as you. There is no doubt that some businesses and other business class travellers have accepted the low cost model, but choice is important to some people who want to be able to pick up the phone at the last minute and get on a plane at the last minute.

No that is not my view. But "Aer Lingus needs to stay in state ownership so we have a business class" has to be one of the most laughable arguments for state ownership I have heard.

Aer Lingus has just proved that it doesn't need to be privatised to be a successful company while retaining services that might not fully fit in a privatised version.

The freight thing is not a major issue either as other companies are providing short haul air freight out of Ireland.

The exporters association seem to have a problem with the loss of service. But what would they know they only represent the ones that use the service.

sliabh

star gazer wrote:

Aer Lingus has just proved that it doesn't need to be privatised to be a successful company

Which again assumes that the default state of a company should be - In State Hands.

star gazer wrote:

The exporters association seem to have a problem with the loss of service. But what would they know they only represent the ones that use the service.

They are a representative body, and like the hauliers association with the super trucks in the port tunnel, or the IFA and farm subsidies they are expected to bitch and whine about any change. Otherwise their members begin to wonder why they are paying out a sub to them all the time.

And anyway I don't think they are saying that without AL there will be no short haul air cargo out of Ireland.

star gazer

originally posted by sliabh
Which again assumes that the default state of a company should be - In State Hands.

The Airline is in State hands and is making a profit while maintinaing services that have provoked calls from several multinationals to have them kept. Because this is a successful company the burden of proof is for the advocates of change.

They are a representative body, and like the hauliers association with the super trucks in the port tunnel, or the IFA and farm subsidies they are expected to bitch and whine about any change. Otherwise their members begin to wonder why they are paying out a sub to them all the time.

If they misrepresent their members or run around in a pointless campaign, they will lose their members a lot faster. They have a job to do they are doing it.

And anyway I don't think they are saying that without AL there will be no short haul air cargo out of Ireland.

just a lesser service which will at least inconvenience some of their members with a 'messy' situation with some probably put out a lot more.

Cork

Aer Lingus is giving up on business class and cargo to Europe.

It is no longer a national carrier. A carrier that we had to watch TV ads with music from the Mission and smiling stewardesses.

The Green shamrock is only a logo. Aer Lingus is just another airline. One of many.

Aer Lingus may even ditch the one world allience.

They are many countries that Aer Lingus does not fly to. It would be far better if Aer Lingus was swallowed up by a bigger Air line thus giving Irish people to fly to Oz, New Zealand etc.

bonkey

Cork wrote:

It is no longer a national carrier.

Why? Do you define a national carrier as one with business class and/or cargo facilities?

Aer Lingus may even ditch the one world allience.

Yes indeed.

See firstly, there is this thing called a cost/benefit analysis. Aer Lingus has come to the determination that - for its new vision of a business model - the costs of being in OWA outweigh the benefits.

The same also holds true for frequent flyer miles - it made more sense to ditch the cost and transfer the savings directly into where people want to see them : lower ticket prices.

They are many countries that Aer Lingus does not fly to.

Name one airline which is any different. Just one. One airline that flies to all - or nearly all - countries in the world.

It would be far better if Aer Lingus was swallowed up by a bigger Air line thus giving Irish people to fly to Oz, New Zealand etc.

Dear lord...

when my mate emigrated to Oz, I coulda sworn he flew there. Obviously not. He musta taken a boat, or swam or something??? And then my other mate did a business trip to NZ. How on earth did he get there and back in such a short time, if not by flying?

Get real, Cork. Even if bought out, the range of routes available to someone travelling from Ireland will not significantly change. All that may change is the carriers.

I'd go even further, and say that if Europe were to go through a real rationalisation of its airlines, and end up with < 5 major carriers left, what would happen is a decrease in route choice.

jc

Lennoxschips

As "Cork" may know, Aer Lingus flies from Cork to London Heathrow, Amsterdam, Milan, Barcelona, Paris, Malaga, Alicante, Nice, Munich, Faro and Rome! Invaluable and popular services for the south of Ireland, which Ryanair basically couldn't be arsed to fly. (Ryanair has no time for Cork airport, they only do one destination: Stanstead)

arcadegame2004

So your argument is that the government should either be all in or all out, your choice being all out of the business world. Even the American government subsidises its airlines and yet you think it inappropriate for the irish airline to make decisions in the best interests of the irish nation and by extension it's only shareholder.

America should not be subsidising its airlines. They seem to want free-trade but only when it suits them.

I am sick and tired of the reference being made so often by my opponents on this issue to the Irish nation being a "shareholder" in Aer Lingus. What that means in reality, is Bertie, etc, i.e. politicians. The general-public has NO say in the running of Aer Lingus. There would be more democracy in a privatised Aer Lingus where the shareholders could vote in or out the management etc.

Cork

Lennoxschips wrote:

As "Cork" may know, Aer Lingus flies from Cork to London Heathrow, Amsterdam, Milan, Barcelona, Paris, Malaga, Alicante, Nice, Munich, Faro and Rome! Invaluable and popular services for the south of Ireland, which Ryanair basically couldn't be arsed to fly. (Ryanair has no time for Cork airport, they only do one destination: Stanstead)

I agree. This may have more to do with Aer Rianta than either Ruanair or Aer Lingus. But many Muster people still have to travel to Dublin to get basic flights to UK destinations.

Why? Do you define a national carrier as one with business class and/or cargo facilities?

Bonkey, I meant that Aer Lingus no longer have to concern itself with national or regional economic interests.

It is a commercal airline just like many more. It is a good thing that it is being run using the private sector business model.

lucernarian

originally posted by arcadegame2004
I am sick and tired of the reference being made so often by my opponents on this issue to the Irish nation being a "shareholder" in Aer Lingus. What that means in reality, is Bertie, etc, i.e. politicians. The general-public has NO say in the running of Aer Lingus. There would be more democracy in a privatised Aer Lingus where the shareholders could vote in or out the management etc.

The public has an indirect say in Aer Lingus through the politicians that we elect.

How would there be more democracy in a privitisation if only a select few people can have a direct say in Aer Lingus? Democracy is supposed to involve all citizens. At least under the current system all over-18s who are citizens has some sort of indirect say in the running of the company.

In any case, ask yourself the question: If a company is willing to buy another company, then that must mean, in a capitalist world, that the 1st company believes it will make money sooner or later. That means if a company expects to make money out of it, why shouldn't the state expect to make an overall profit from its investment?

Another thing, I would prefer if any dividends paid out went to a democratically accountable body, i.e the government so that the money would(should) be spent on something that benefited society instead of investors who would use it for personal gain. For example, I see that eircom will have to pay something in the region of €600 million in dividends instead of spending it on urgently needed infrastructure development.

Tuars

Cork wrote:

...I meant that Aer Lingus no longer have to concern itself with national or regional economic interests.

It is a commercal airline just like many more. It is a good thing that it is being run using the private sector business model.

But if Aer Lingus in its move to the private sector business model no longer conderns itself with national or regional economic interests then who will?

Aer Lingus with all the advantages it has as the incumbent, native airline has made a decision that it can make more money from low-cost flights than from business class and cargo (note these are profitable, just not as profitable as low-cost flights).

How do you expect the private sector to fill the gap left by Aer Lingus when other companies don't even have those advantages?

Lennoxschips

This may have more to do with Aer Rianta than either Ruanair or Aer Lingus.

How is it to do with Aer Rianta that Aer Lingus flies direct to 11 destinations from Cork and Ryanair flies to only one? I think it's more to do with O'Leary being too mean/cheap to fly into Cork. Nobody is stopping him.

But many Muster people still have to travel to Dublin to get basic flights to UK destinations.

There are direct flights from Cork to the following UK desinations: Birmingham, Bristol, Cardiff, East Midlands, Edinburgh, Glasgow, Leeds, Liverpool, London, Manchester, Plymouth and Southampton.

If it was up to Ryanair you'd have to fly through Stanstead to get to all these destinations, because that seems to be their attitude towards Cork passengers.

monument

arcadegame2004 wrote:

America should not be subsidising its airlines. They seem to want free-trade but only when it suits them.

I am sick and tired of the reference being made so often by my opponents on this issue to the Irish nation being a "shareholder" in Aer Lingus. What that means in reality, is Bertie, etc, i.e. politicians. The general-public has NO say in the running of Aer Lingus. There would be more democracy in a privatised Aer Lingus where the shareholders could vote in or out the management etc.

Basically, “this issue” has little to do with Aer Lingus, and a lot to do with your view that private companies should run the country and that democracy measured by how many people part with their cash for something.

If reference to statements on “Irish nation being a "shareholder"”, well the state is, and if you don’t think our government is democracy, maybe you might try to consider changing it into a more democratic system not a privately controlled one?

arcadegame2004

Basically, “this issue” has little to do with Aer Lingus, and a lot to do with your view that private companies should run the country

No because the part of my contribution to this thread that you quote before saying that refers to the unwelcome (in my view) US subsidies to airlines there. You may not be aware that the airlines in the US are all in the private-sector. So it's not comparing like with like if you are suggesting that airlines are state-owned over there. Even so, subsidising even private-sector companies distorts the market and reduces the incentives for private-sector airlines to improve their quality of service and reduce their prices to gain more consumers. It also harms European competitors to US airlines.

If, under EU laws, Ireland is forbidden from bailing out semi-state companies, or any companies, then what is the point in Aer Lingus being in State-ownership? Forget "strategic interests/planning etc.". Politicians are not the best people to run companies. Law and order is of far greater concern to the public.

spongebob

arcadegame2004 wrote:

You may not be aware that the airlines in the US are all in the private-sector. So it's not comparing like with like if you are suggesting that airlines are state-owned over there.

The large US airllnes receive vast ongoing subsidies from the taxpayer over there, additionally at any given time in the past 10 years at least 2 out of the top 5 are in Chapter 11 and not paying their debts or getting them written off . Thats in adition to the ongoing subsidies

They are only nominally private entities . Aer Lingus is far more privatised and self standing as it is .

M

star gazer

originally posted by arcadegame2004
America should not be subsidising its airlines. They seem to want free-trade but only when it suits them.

America values the strategic resource that they have, a comprehensive air infrastructure.

I am sick and tired of the reference being made so often by my opponents on this issue to the Irish nation being a "shareholder" in Aer Lingus. What that means in reality, is Bertie, etc, i.e. politicians. The general-public has NO say in the running of Aer Lingus. There would be more democracy in a privatised Aer Lingus where the shareholders could vote in or out the management etc.

Ultimately political responsibility for what happens at Aer lingus is with the Minister for transport, if people see him not interfering when they think he shouldn't they will be happy, however if they see a deteriorating service that is damaging to our economy or even just our reputation, and the minster doesn't put down a few markers for the direction of the company then they will be less inclined to give that minister a favourable performance review (ie elections). It's not direct democracy but it is democracy.

origninally posted by Tuars
How do you expect the private sector to fill the gap left by Aer Lingus when other companies don't even have those advantages?

Indeed, Aer lingus aren't leaving routes, just reducing the services on such routes, it would probably not be feasible for an airline to take up a route just to take cargo.

star gazer

originally posted by arcadegame
Forget "strategic interests/planning etc."

It's not really plausable to forget strategic interests when dealing with the future of one of ireland's dominant airlines especially when the State is involved.

Politicians are not the best people to run companies. Law and order is of far greater concern to the public.

Politicians are there to run the country, therefore taking strategic interests into account, taking planning issues into account and how certain courses of action will affect the irish economy. if they aren't doing that then they aren't doing their job. Law and order may be more important but they care too about the economy.

originally posted by Cork
They are many countries that Aer Lingus does not fly to. It would be far better if Aer Lingus was swallowed up by a bigger Air line thus giving Irish people to fly to Oz, New Zealand etc.

That's why being part of the oneworld alliance is important, making transfers more seemless as baggage gets moved automatically.

Bebop

Muck wrote:

The large US airllnes receive vast ongoing subsidies from the taxpayer over there, additionally at any given time in the past 10 years at least 2 out of the top 5 are in Chapter 11 and not paying their debts or getting them written off . Thats in adition to the ongoing subsidies

They are only nominally private entities . Aer Lingus is far more privatised and self standing as it is .

M

US airlines are getting bankrolled by the federal government?
but they are still going broke?

Both of these sweeping statements cannot be true

All US airlines are owned by their stockholders, they do not receive ongoing subsidies, the US government gave money to the airlines to stay in business after the slump that followed 9-11, this was a once off
Aer Lingus and most other European carriers were bailed out at the same time for the same reason

Ryanair based their business model on Southwest Airlines of Texas, most US airlines follow this basic pattern, some are no frills, some are full service. you pay your money and take your choice.
Aer Lingus could be a full service airline, I would gladly pay more for a few frills and a more user friendly policy and the friendly attitude that Aer Lingus do so well


Most Aer Lingus employees want privatisation,the IMPACT members who are in the majority have accepted it, the ones taking the lump will do well, the others who stay on will get shares in the newly privatised airline,

I believe Aer Lingus will do well once the bony hand of the politicians is lifted, we might even get some truth in the debate over the Shannon stopover
But then again..we might not

monument

arcadegame2004 wrote:

No because the part of my contribution to this thread that you quote before saying that refers to the unwelcome (in my view) US subsidies to airlines there. You may not be aware that the airlines in the US are all in the private-sector. So it's not comparing like with like if you are suggesting that airlines are state-owned over there. Even so, subsidising even private-sector companies distorts the market and reduces the incentives for private-sector airlines to improve their quality of service and reduce their prices to gain more consumers. It also harms European competitors to US airlines.

If, under EU laws, Ireland is forbidden from bailing out semi-state companies, or any companies, then what is the point in Aer Lingus being in State-ownership? Forget "strategic interests/planning etc.". Politicians are not the best people to run companies. Law and order is of far greater concern to the public.

Law and order is of far greater concern to the public??? WTF???

Why did you pick 'law and order', do you not want that to be run by the private sector?

Anyway, would you not pick health, education, and employment to be of far greater concern? - or would the private sector run these better?

bonkey

arcadegame2004 wrote:

If, under EU laws, Ireland is forbidden from bailing out semi-state companies, or any companies, then what is the point in Aer Lingus being in State-ownership?

Thats a slight misrepresentation of EU law, I think.

Doesn't the EU look at proposed subsidisation, bail-outs etc. and decide whether or not they are justified, merited, and fair.

What EU law opposes is giving one EU-based company unfair advantages over other EU-based companies through state intervention.

At the end of the day, though, none of this strikes me as terribly pertinent to the argument. For me, there's a very simple question to be answered : what reason is there for having a state-owned international carrier.

Aer Lingus does not operate most of the internal routes in Ireland. There are precious few international routes that it is the sole carrier on....and of those, there are even fewer (if any) that it operates at a loss. Therefore, one has to ask what the benefit to the state is.

The only benefit that I can see...other than bragging rights...is that privatising the airline may result in significant job loss, both directly and indirectly, as the resources to run the airline are folded into the purchaser's organisation over time. I'm unsure and undecided as to whether or not this is sufficient cause to keep the airline. I haven't seen any other reason put forward (again, other than bragging rights....which is sometimes referred to as National Pride in this type of discussion).

National airlines, particularly in Europe, strike me as an anachronism. It made sense once upon a time, but I'm not convinced it does any more.

Having said all of that, the last thing I would like to see done is that AL be sold off in a quick cash-grab in a manner similar to how Eircon was, resulting in a lose-lose situation all round....

Oh yeah...that, and the notion of employees of the airline being given a stake in the privatised body. Although such eventualities may be a reality given the power of unions (particularly in Ireland), I find it distasteful.

jc

Lennoxschips

There are precious few international routes that it is the sole carrier on....and of those, there are even fewer (if any) that it operates at a loss.

Precious few? There are actually numerous outes that it is the sole carrier on. I would even chance to say that they are the sole carrier on the majority of their routes. I'll have to look this up when I have time.

amarc

Aer Lingus always seemed like a national institution to myself, I relished the sight of their green planes as a child. If privatisation would harm it's image or reputation, then I would be against it.

arcadegame2004

Having said all of that, the last thing I would like to see done is that AL be sold off in a quick cash-grab in a manner similar to how Eircon was, resulting in a lose-lose situation all round....

But Eircom was different in that they were left in control of the local-loop. Aer Lingus will not be in control of any airports so in the private-sector they would not be able to squeeze out the competition or dominate them in the way that Eircom arguably is. And what's wrong with a cash-grab? It could speed up the NDP and/or help save for future State-pensions or badly-needed school-repairs.

America values the strategic resource that they have, a comprehensive air infrastructure.

More about the "strategic-resource". Yawn! Such a vast country - the richest in the world - will never have a problem finding airlines to connect with the nations on the other side of the Atlantic. To much money is at stake and not just for the US. Don't make excuses for them. Their subsidisation amounts to discrimination by the US against European companies including Ryanair.

Both of these sweeping statements cannot be true

Oh yes they can. State-subsidies can cause a company to become complacent, you see.

Aer Lingus always seemed like a national institution to myself, I relished the sight of their green planes as a child. If privatisation would harm it's image or reputation, then I would be against it.

And green paint on the wing of an AL plane is crucial to our national-identity is it? AL should learn to stand on its own too feet and it needs to let go of the Dept. of Transport's apron and pursestrings for that to happen, in order to avoid future Oliver-Twist scenarios of "please Minister can I have some more". It needs to be divorced from its traditional victim-mentality to succeed in the long-run. I couldn't care less about having a national-airline. British Airways is sortof considered as Britain's national-airline though it is privatised so even if you wanted one there is no need for it to be State-owned. It is manifest that trade-unions in semi-states are far more militant and ideological that those in the private-sector and the people have had enough of that.

amarc

arcadegame2004 wrote:

And green paint on the wing of an AL plane is crucial to our national-identity is it?

I don't think I stated, or implied, that it was crucial to Ireland's national identity. An error occurred in my expression or you interpretation of it, hopefully now it will be resolved. I was expressing the sentiments I hold towards AL, though I feel the image conveyed by AL forms an integral part of Ireland's image amongst travellers/tourists - and for this reason I wouldn't want to change, as AL does a good job of presenting Ireland to the world.