Should Aer Lingus be privatised:Poll

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.

arcadegame2004

I feel the image conveyed by AL forms an integral part of Ireland's image amongst travellers/tourists

What evidence have you for that? My image of Aer Lingus is of an inefficient, strike-ridden airline. A year or two of profitability pales in comparison with Ryanair's many years of spectacular success. If AL remains state-owned then sooner or later the cracks in the Socialist system will mean a return to the bad old days. A rejection of Willie Walsh's proposals on MBO could spark his resignation or sacking as a sop to the FF Left, ushering in a return to statist interference in AL's affairs and a return to strikeaholicism.

- and for this reason I wouldn't want to change, as AL does a good job of presenting Ireland to the world.

Many would say Westlife, U2 etc. do a great job of representing Ireland to the world. Should we nationalise them!??! :rolleyes:

amarc

arcadegame2004 wrote:

What evidence have you for that?

I need to provide evidence so that my personal opinion on something as subjective as a company's image has credibility?

arcadegame2004 wrote:

My image of Aer Lingus is of an inefficient, strike-ridden airline. A year or two of profitability pales in comparison with Ryanair's many years of spectacular success. If AL remains state-owned then sooner or later the cracks in the Socialist system will mean a return to the bad old days. A rejection of Willie Walsh's proposals on MBO could spark his resignation or sacking as a sop to the FF Left, ushering in a return to statist interference in AL's affairs and a return to strikeaholicism.

If you are going to criticise me for not providing evidence (where it isn't warranted, but regardless...) perhaps you should not make a reply consisting solely of opinion and unsubstantiated speculation? Either way the reply was irrelevant as I have specifically only commented on one aspect of the argument due to the other issues (the ones you cited) not concerning me.

Many would say Westlife, U2 etc. do a great job of representing Ireland to the world. Should we nationalise them!??! :rolleyes:

A flawed analogy that alludes to a moot point - does not deserve a serious response (sorry) :P

Edit: typo

star gazer

originally posted by arcadegame2004
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.

On what routes does Ryanair compete with American airlines?

More about the "strategic-resource". Yawn!

Actually if you stopped and thought about it the strategic resource issue is probably more important than the few hundred million the exchequer gets today, maybe we would be better off with a higher volume of no-frills passengers in the tourist sector (although tour operators would disagree), but maybe not better off economically if some of our transport arteries are taken away making it harder to export from this country.

Mighty_Mouse

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

Jasus Arcadegame! You do come out with some crackers!! lol. Are you in fact Willie Wlash in disguise?

lucernarian

originally posted by myself
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.

Arcadegame2004, I'm still waiting for an answer.

therecklessone

Cork wrote:

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.

I've just spent five days in Sweden, Cork, and had an easier time understanding the locals than this post from you...

What the hell has a TV advertisement got to do with the status of the airline?

You do realise that Irish people currently have the option of travelling to Oz and NZ, don't you? How would Aer Lingus being bought by another airline change this? Or improve it for that matter?

And why would anyone seriously welcome the airline being swallowed by any other airline? So that they can hive off the Heathrow slots for their own gain? Who would you have purchase EI? British Airways, British Midland, Lufthansa? Great, lets support competition by surrendering to our competitors...

therecklessone

Cork wrote:

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

Again with the semi-state bashing.

How is it that Aer Lingus can launch new routes from Cork yet Michael O'Leary keeps mouthing off about how he won't launch new Irish routes until Aer Rianta drop their charges? Surely Ryanair should be concerned with attracting new business, if EI think its there then Ryanair can definitely open new routes and attract customers (its what they do best).

Aer Rianta provide a conveniant excuse for MOL concentrating his business in larger markets rather than giving Irish consumers the choice he claims he wants to support.

therecklessone

BuffyBot wrote:

^^

I think I predicted that one a while back

Join the club.

Of course, the thoroughly knowledgeable AG2004 dismissed it as speculation...

star gazer

The cargo service goes tommorrow for routes apart from trans-atlantic and Germany roughly 12% of volume, unknown value of goods transported on those routes though.
The interline service agreements go tommorrow, their cargo services will all have ceased by January 1st. Interline meant daily services to hub airports for cargo which meant cargo had access to a large number of airports efficiently from Dublin, Shannon and Cork.

arcadegame2004

You do realise that Irish people currently have the option of travelling to Oz and NZ, don't you? How would Aer Lingus being bought by another airline change this? Or improve it for that matter?

So if nothing will change (in your view) then why are you opposing privatisation of Aer Lingus?