Rabbitte Chooses Jumbo Jets over Hospital Beds

Nuttzz

tut tut Pat tut tut

Progressive Democrats Senator John Minihan has expressed surprise at the change in direction of Labour Leader Pat Rabbitte who has publicly declared he would support prioritising jumbo jets over hospital beds.

'Deputy Rabbitte has clearly pinned his colours to the mast on this issue,'
according to Minihan.

'In a radio interview this afternoon, Deputy Rabbitte said he would support
the Government investing a billion euros in Aer Lingus instead of investing
it in hospital beds.'

'This is from the Leader of a political party that daily calls for greater
Government spending in everything - roads, rails, schools and hospitals -
without ever letting the voting public know where the money is to come
from.'

'Rather than alienate their trade union paymasters, Deputy Rabbitte is now
saying he would pump one billion euros into an airline.'

'The time has now come for Deputy Rabbitte to state clearly where he stands
on the question of state investment and whether his interest lies with jumbo
jets or hospital beds.'

therecklessone

Thats not very Euro-minded of Progressive Democrats Senator John Minihan, surely it should be Airbus not Boeing we'd be buying?

cdebru

surely a company withs profits heading for over 100million euro this year could borrow the money needed interest rates are so low
why should it have to be sold off
or the government put the money in
actually micheal oleary said this was a red herring as all they have to do is lease the aircraft they need

SkepticOne

cdebru wrote:

surely a company withs profits heading for over 100million euro this year could borrow the money needed interest rates are so low
why should it have to be sold off
or the government put the money in
actually micheal oleary said this was a red herring as all they have to do is lease the aircraft they need

I don't think there's any reason for either the Government putting any money into Aer Lingus or keeping it under public ownership. Most of the debate seems to be driven by unions, on the one hand, within the company who feel more secure if the government is there to bail them out in the event that they can't compete and senior management on the other, who stand to earn large bonuses out of privatisation. Very little is to do with what is best for the country.

cdebru

SkepticOne wrote:

I don't think there's any reason for either the Government putting any money into Aer Lingus or keeping it under public ownership. Most of the debate seems to be driven by unions, on the one hand, within the company who feel more secure if the government is there to bail them out in the event that they can't compete and senior management on the other, who stand to earn large bonuses out of privatisation. Very little is to do with what is best for the country.

I think it would be madness for an island nation to put our national airline in private hands
just as it was madness of the highest order to put our telecommunications network in to the hands of tony and george
just look at the broadband issue and how eircom have held up the roll out of broadband

SkepticOne

cdebru wrote:

I think it would be madness for an island nation to put our national airline in private hands
just as it was madness of the highest order to put our telecommunications network in to the hands of tony and george
just look at the broadband issue and how eircom have held up the roll out of broadband

The problem with broadband in Ireland is not privatisation per se, but rather the fact that there is little competition. Those countries that are doing well, have such competition and most of them don't have large scale public ownership of telcos. I think most people would agree that the publically owned Telecom Eireann monopoly was pretty woeful too from the point of view of the consumer. The challange in Ireland is to get that competition in place as quickly as possible.

But there is a case to be made for public ownership of infrastructure in some instances. For example, in the electricity distribution business, there not much change change from one year to the next. Innovation that would normally be driven by competition is not the key priority and so public ownership makes a certain amount of sense. Whereas the generation of electricity is subject to innovation (and therefore can benefit from competition) the distribution of it is pretty much down to the same methods and techniques of a generation ago.

In the case of Aer Lingus, where is the benefit to the country from public ownership? Most of the improvements to flying have not come from public ownership but rather from competition with the likes of British Midland and Ryannair. Public ownership only leads to conflict of interest. If the State is making money out of an airline, there will always be a tendency to create policy that props up this state asset to the detriment of competition, which is the driver of improvement to the flying public. This was the case up until the 90's where a duopoly (effectively a cartel) existed between Aer Lingus and BA on the Dublin/London meant that it cost 300 euros for a return flight. So much for public ownership keeping prices down.

Sleepy

The best thing for Aer Lingus would be to sell it off. As it stands the unions have the airline crippled. The airline can't raise the money it needs for expansion. The government aren't allowed to give them bail out money any more (and why should they have to?).

We live in the 21st centruy, not the 19th, jobs aren't for life any more and the sooner public sector employees realise this the better.

Comparing Aer Lingus to Eircom is child-like over-simplification. Eircom had (and still have) no effective competition and a monopolistic control over the infrastructure in question. Aer Lingus have been repeatedly battered by their competitors, with Ryanair in particular murdering them on almost every front (personally I've always found Ryanair to even offer better service than the snooty tarts that Aer Lingus hire)

Rabitte's right in one sense though, the money's been put into Health already. The problems in the health service are to do with terrible management rather than a lack of funding. A further investment of €100m into the black hole of middle management of the health service would be unlikely to get any improvement (unless perhaps it was used to pay redundancy settlements).

cdebru

Sleepy wrote:

The best thing for Aer Lingus would be to sell it off. As it stands the unions have the airline crippled. The airline can't raise the money it needs for expansion. The government aren't allowed to give them bail out money any more (and why should they have to?).

We live in the 21st centruy, not the 19th, jobs aren't for life any more and the sooner public sector employees realise this the better.

Comparing Aer Lingus to Eircom is child-like over-simplification. Eircom had (and still have) no effective competition and a monopolistic control over the infrastructure in question. Aer Lingus have been repeatedly battered by their competitors, with Ryanair in particular murdering them on almost every front (personally I've always found Ryanair to even offer better service than the snooty tarts that Aer Lingus hire)

Rabitte's right in one sense though, the money's been put into Health already. The problems in the health service are to do with terrible management rather than a lack of funding. A further investment of €100m into the black hole of middle management of the health service would be unlikely to get any improvement (unless perhaps it was used to pay redundancy settlements).

How can you say that an airline that is going to make over 100 million euro profit is crippled by unions
or has been battered by its competitors
it is one of the most successful airlines in europe at a time of rising fuel prices
you obviously have a bias against aerlingus for some reason and only debase your arguement by describing aerlingus employees as "snooty tarts"

over 2000 people have already left aer lingus i dont think anybody there thinks they have a job for life

there is nothing to stop the government from putting money in but i dont see why they would have to as any money needed could easily be borrowed the same way a private company would borrow to expand

i mostly agree with you on the health service too much money put into management layers that dont really serve any purpose not enough into doctors /nurses where it is needed

Victor

cdebru wrote:

surely a company withs profits heading for over 100million euro this year could borrow the money needed interest rates are so low

They need the government, as sharholder, to approve the borrowing

SkepticOne wrote:

Most of the debate seems to be driven by unions, on the one hand, within the company who feel more secure if the government is there to bail them out in the event that they can't compete

Under EU rules the government can't nail them out, look at Sabena.

cdebru

Victor wrote:

They need the government, as sharholder, to approve the borrowing.

so what s to stop the government approving them borrowing the money

Victor wrote:

Under EU rules the government can't nail them out, look at Sabena.

yes they can not bail them out or subsidise them but they dont need to be bailed out
they can invest in the company the same as any share holder can invest in a company to allow expansion.