Should Aer Lingus be privatised:Poll

FinalWord

I heard Cunnard liners, the shipping company are going to buy aer lingus, the merged company will be called cunnilingus, has anyone else heard this ?

chill

FinalWord wrote:

I heard Cunnard liners, the shipping company are going to buy aer lingus, the merged company will be called cunnilingus, has anyone else heard this ?

It's like they say.......... if you can't join them ....lick them !

therecklessone

chill wrote:

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

What local routes? As has already been pointed out, Aer Lingus only fly Dublin-Shannon (and that is part of their transatlantic route structure and a result of government policy).

Are you refering to routes ex-Cork and Shannon to the UK/Europe by any chance?

drane2

Cork wrote:

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?

Bzzt. Ryanair received a state subsidy sometime during the 1980s, before Michael O' Leary's time.

secret_squirrel

chill wrote:

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.

What if any research did you do before making such unfounded and inaccurate comments?

1. Aer Lingus has no local routes apart from the Dublin-Shannon stopover - something it has no control over since it forms part of an international treaty between ireland and the US. There are little or no costs from this that customers have to subsidise.

2. Thousands of unecessary employees? There are only about 3500 Aer Lingus employee's and even the management have only proposed job cuts of 1200 over the next 3 years to fund their cheap fares across the Atlantic. Again your claims have no foundation.

3. How come when Ryan Air charge high fares for last minute travel they are a model of how a good airline should be run, but when aer lingus do they are 'bloated and ineffecient'?

Whether you want to admit it or not Aer Lingus fares have dropped significantly in recent years - more so than most other airlines. Pricewise Aer Lingus was always on a par with other full service airlines, and are significantly cheaper than most of them now as they gradually work their way towards a 'few frills' airline.

In short you are talking about an Aer Lingus that hasnt existed for at least 2 years. Check your 'facts' before posting.

A note on employee's :
The number of ryan air employee's is much higher than they quote simply because they employee lots of contract labour, thus making the number of actual employees look low - which is just an exercise in book keeping to keep accountants and analysts happy. The fact is an airline has so many operating restrictions around it that it is very difficult to get below a key number without playing those kind of games. Even EasyJet Ryan Air's closest contender has far more on balance sheet employee's than them - perhaps because unlike Ryan Air they actually value them.

Bebop

Who owns Aer Lingus?
The Workers and unions do, certaintly not the taxpayers, they call the shots,
This fact will be recognised when they hand out 15% of the shares to the workers, this is why most of them support the proposed privatisation, the union leadership, on the other hand will oppose the move because they are firmly wedded to the idea of a state run airline, if only because they are finding it hard to retain members in the private sector,

The Shannon stopover will be the first casualty when the US signs the new open skies agreement with the EU, we might see more protests there but this time pleading with the US to land more planes there to safeguard jobs

arcadegame2004

Thousands of unecessary employees? There are only about 3500 Aer Lingus employee's and even the management have only proposed job cuts of 1200 over the next 3 years to fund their cheap fares across the Atlantic. Again your claims have no foundation.

Aer Lingus employs one person for every 1,200 passengers. Ryanair employs one person for every 5,000 passengers. Are you seriously suggesting that ALL of that disparity is caused by what you are talking about?

Why, for example, does Aer Lingus need a catering-division?

Anyway, contract labour is less expensive that employeeing them full-time. Aer Lingus could cut costs and charge lower fares if they shopped around for the cheapest contract.

Lennoxschips

Aer Lingus employs one person for every 1,200 passengers. Ryanair employs one person for every 5,000 passengers. Are you seriously suggesting that ALL of that disparity is caused by what you are talking about?

Aer Lingus have a lot of ground staff at Dublin, Shannon and Cork airport doing business for other airlines. If you check in for a British Airways flight out of Cork then it's an Aer Lingus person behind the desk who checks you in, an Aer Lingus stairs you climb up to the plane and and Air Lingus truck that gives you the push-back.

Aer Lingus runs a lot of the airline infrastructure in this country, some of which RyanAir also uses.



This is another reason why Aer Lingus is a valuable state asset. Not just in financial terms, but in social-economic terms as well.

arcadegame2004

Aer Lingus runs a lot of the airline infrastructure in this country, some of which RyanAir also uses.

Sounds like Aer Lingus have a conflict of interest then. The Competition Authority need to investigate that.

This is another reason why Aer Lingus is a valuable state asset. Not just in financial terms, but in social-economic terms as well.

"valuable state asset.." shades of the arguments against the privatisation of Irish Shipping. Equally nonsensical.

The consumer needs choice. How would you like it if we had only one political-party in Ireland? That's what having a monopoly is like, in industrial and economic terms. Equally unacceptable.

Lennoxschips

The consumer also likes to have a steady job without fearing getting sacked at any moment.

Worker's rights and health benefits in the EU are far better than in the US and it's mainly because we don't listen to free market loonies.

arcadegame2004

The consumer also likes to have a steady job without fearing getting sacked at any moment.

Unemployment in US :5.7%.
Unemployment in France: 11%
Unemployment in Germany:11%
Unemployment in Spain: 10%

Hmmmm....

monument

In a capitalist environment, worker’s rights and full employment do not go hand and hand.

The unemployed in the US are less well of then in countries with social nets such as those in most European countries. In addition, a large percentage of people in the US are in questionable back to work programs.

chill

therecklessone wrote:

What local routes? As has already been pointed out, Aer Lingus only fly Dublin-Shannon (and that is part of their transatlantic route structure and a result of government policy).

Are you refering to routes ex-Cork and Shannon to the UK/Europe by any chance?

To be honest I was generalising - in that IF there are any routes that the irish people and our politicians feel need to be maintained yet they are uncommercial... then my statement applies.

Lennoxschips

Unemployment in US :5.7%.
Unemployment in France: 11%
Unemployment in Germany:11%
Unemployment in Spain: 10%

Hmmmm....

You're being selective. You just happened to choose the three countries in Europe with the three highest unemployment rates.

bonkey

arcadegame2004 wrote:

Sounds like Aer Lingus have a conflict of interest then. The Competition Authority need to investigate that.

Not if what they are supplying is a natural monopoly, in the same way that - for example - the electrical supply grid is.

What competition could there be? You want a second airport for Dublin?

The consumer needs choice.

You seem to be mistaking privatisation with the breaking of a monopoly.

Last time I checked, the consumer had choice - Aer Lingus were not the only airline flying in and out of Ireland. Ergo the customer has choice there.

If you are referring to the management of an airport, then you're still off the mark, because privatisation would mean that each airport would still be run by one company each, resulting in no new competition or choice.

So what are you saying? That we should privatise AerLingus to make it possible for someone to build second airports near the existing ones (or in the same catchment areas) ??? If so, then I haven't seen a single argument from you explaining how this makes financial sense (cause airports ain't cheap).

If its not what you're saying, then your "choice" argument appears to be as inaccurate as many of the "facts" you seem to throw up.

Speaking of which :

Unemployment in US :5.7%.
Unemployment in France: 11%
Unemployment in Germany:11%
Unemployment in Spain: 10%

Unemployment in Ireland (from a mag read on my last flight home, a few weeks ago) : 4.6%

It would seem that our model beats even the US', so I really can't see what you're on about.

Also, you should actually check out how much privatisation the US has done. I think you'll find that "virtually none" will be the answer, and that where it has done it, it has generaly been an unmitigated disaster. So if you're gonna propose them as a model to follow, it would seem to be teh case that nothing nationalised should be privatised.

jc

AngelofFire

News for die hard free market worshippers:

Aer Lingus said they would not follow British Airways route of Hiking Fares in light of the increase in fuel costs.

So much for semi state bodies being inefficant

Bebop

speaking as a die-hard market advocate, its strange how anybody proposing that the state gets out of the Airline/Turf/electricity/telecomms/transport etc, business is accused of right-wing motives, but advocates of public ownership act out of concern for the public good and are not prisioners of any ideology or party

The semi states have had their day, their main purpose was to provide employment when jobs were scarce, in an era of full employment they are no longer needed, the board of Aer Lingus is stuffed with FF/PD political cronies, they need to be given their notice and the Labour Party should wake up and smell the cappucino like most of their European brethern

chill

arcadegame2004 wrote:

Unemployment in US :5.7%.
Unemployment in France: 11%
Unemployment in Germany:11%
Unemployment in Spain: 10%

Hmmmm....

It is not possible to compare unemployment figures for the US with Europe. The US unemployment figures are notoriously under reported because the the lack of welfare there. Hundreds of thousands or more people are well known never to sign on as unemployed because of this and because of the stigma.

secret_squirrel

Bebop wrote:

the board of Aer Lingus is stuffed with FF/PD political cronies, they need to be given their notice

And it is these very cronies that are currently forcing privatisation and job cuts down aer lingus' throat. doing exactly what you want them to ..Ironic eh?

Bebop

Wrong, market forces are dictating that aer Lingus sholud cut costs or go bust

therecklessone

arcadegame2004 wrote:

Sounds like Aer Lingus have a conflict of interest then. The Competition Authority need to investigate that.

How so? If other airlines make use of Aer Lingus equipment because they have failed to provide their own, why would the Competition Authority be concerned?

Aer Lingus *used* to provide extensive ground handling at Dublin/Cork/Shannon and Heathrow airports (yes, Heathrow!), but I presume that will be scaled back in any cost-cutting exercise, what with the need to concentrate on the core business.

therecklessone

bonkey wrote:

If you are referring to the management of an airport, then you're still off the mark, because privatisation would mean that each airport would still be run by one company each, resulting in no new competition or choice.

So what are you saying? That we should privatise AerLingus to make it possible for someone to build second airports near the existing ones (or in the same catchment areas) ??? If so, then I haven't seen a single argument from you explaining how this makes financial sense (cause airports ain't cheap).

Just checking that people do realise Aer Rianta manage the three state airports, and privatising Aer Lingus would do nothing to introduce competition at airport level.

arcadegame2004

Also, you should actually check out how much privatisation the US has done. I think you'll find that "virtually none" will be the answer, and that where it has done it, it has generaly been an unmitigated disaster. So if you're gonna propose them as a model to follow, it would seem to be teh case that nothing nationalised should be privatised.

But hardly anything was in the public-sector in the FIRST place over there compared with over here, so naturally it hasn't happened over there to the same extent as say, Britain.

I agree that the liberalisation of the power-market in California was greatly mishandled. But in my opinion that owes more to the precise methodology that they used. I feel that a different form of liberalisation could have succeeded. I personally feel that if the ESB was to be privatised, then the power-generation part of the company is what should be sold, with the network of lines remaining in State-hands. I say this because of the way Eircom has behaved with regard to the local-loop (not the same sector but the same principle applies). Just because a particular methodology of privatisation and liberalisation has not worked in the US does not mean that done a different way it couldn't have succeeded.

BTW Bonkey, with regard to your points, I respond "why not" to the idea of two airports in Dublin. It's like Calcutta in Dublin Airport with all the overcrowding. Furthermore, competition between 2 or more airports in Dublin could ultimately help reduce airline fares due to competition for airline-traffic on the basis of the airports undercutting each other's landing-charges, thus feeding into airline fares by reducing the cost-base of the airlines.

Lennoxschips

Two airports is hardly convenient.

therecklessone

Lennoxschips wrote:

Two airports is hardly convenient.

Why?

Bebop

You cannot just build an airport, just think about the planning hassle, the last completely new airport built was Narita in Japan which cost billions, they had to create a new island out of landfill, Aer Rianta is sitting on a valuable national asset
If you want to know how well semi states pay their workers, look at ALSAA: the Aer Rianta & Aer Lingus Social & Althletic club at Dublin Airport or the ESB Club beside Shelbourne Park, these state of the art clubs with swimming pools, bowling alleys and all weather pitches cost the tax payer millions, Monopolies can charge what the like and pay their strike-happy workforce whatever they demand, RyanAir workers and most taxpayers like me have nothing to compare with that

chill

bonkey wrote:

Also, you should actually check out how much privatisation the US has done.

Exactly what has there been in the US to privatise ? Airlines ? Buses ? Phone companies ? Electricity ?

Please let us have a list.

Lozjm

Bebop wrote:

You cannot just build an airport, just think about the planning hassle, the last completely new airport built was Narita in Japan which cost billions, they had to create a new island out of landfill, Aer Rianta is sitting on a valuable national asset
If you want to know how well semi states pay their workers, look at ALSAA: the Aer Rianta & Aer Lingus Social & Althletic club at Dublin Airport or the ESB Club beside Shelbourne Park, these state of the art clubs with swimming pools, bowling alleys and all weather pitches cost the tax payer millions, Monopolies can charge what the like and pay their strike-happy workforce whatever they demand, RyanAir workers and most taxpayers like me have nothing to compare with that

Excuse me but im an aerlingus employee and i Do pay taxes ! - and ALSAA membership is not free but subsidised

RicardoSmith

Bebop wrote:

Wrong, market forces are dictating that aer Lingus sholud cut costs or go bust

I thought that they are in profit, and profits are increasing not decreasing?

Lennoxschips

I can't believe I have to explain why having one main airport is better than having many smaller airports.

One large airport:

One tower.
One terminal complex.
One motorway link.
One onsite fire brigade.
etc.

Two smaller airports:

Two towers.
Two terminal complexes.
Two motorway links.
Two onsite fire brigades.
etc.

But then again, Dublin is the city with a state of the art 80,000 all-seater stadium, and we're in the process of building a 50,000 all-seater stadium too. Two airports would fit in perfectly with this policy of waste and illogical planning.

Cities with multiple airports are massive cities where they simply don't have the room to build one airport that is big enough to handle all the traffic. New York, Paris, London, Tokyo etc. There's really no point in building multiple airports in Dublin. Overcrowding at the current airport is not due to there not being enough airports in Dublin, it's due to years of bad planning at the current site. Copenhagen is a city of the same size as Dublin, they have one decent airport and it does everything they need.