SIPTU want to run an airline

SuperMacs

Why do SIPTU always have to have a say in things?
What do SIPTU know about running an airline in 21st century Europe?
We now know to run an airline in Europe these days you need to be at least a little bit tough. eg Michael O'Leary aka Ryanair.
If not, your going to go to the wall like Swiss and Sabena.

The state can not run an airline, and I certainly do not trust the state to run it. Therefore what is the problem with the state selling their share?

Its a tough world. I do not have a cushion of a nice Union to protect me if my business goes bust. And as a taxpayer why should I pay for SIPTU members to keep there jobs.

BuffyBot

The state can not run an airline, and I certainly do not trust the state to run it.

Well evidently, they can. They're running it at the moment and it seems to be ticking along reasonably well. To me, it seems that the point is should they be running it..

Akrasia

We should keep the asset in the hands of the public, you never know, we might need it as a public utility in a few years when Oil starts to run out, jet fuel starts to get really expensive, and all the 'low cost' airlines start to go bust.

The whole 'privatise everything because the state can't run businesses properly' argument was destroyed after the privatisation of Eircom (the state now have to build another network of phone lines because Eircom aren't providing an adequate service) and Irish Steel which changed to Irish ispatt and was liquidated, the privatisation of the railways in the U.K. was a disaster.

billy the squid

SuperMacs wrote:

Why do SIPTU always have to have a say in things?
What do SIPTU know about running an airline in 21st century Europe?
We now know to run an airline in Europe these days you need to be at least a little bit tough. eg Michael O'Leary aka Ryanair.
If not, your going to go to the wall like Swiss and Sabena.

The state can not run an airline, and I certainly do not trust the state to run it. Therefore what is the problem with the state selling their share?

Its a tough world. I do not have a cushion of a nice Union to protect me if my business goes bust. And as a taxpayer why should I pay for SIPTU members to keep there jobs.

This was the mentality of the PDs back in '99 when they sold off eircom. Now look at the state of it.

The state have been running the airline for the past 60 odd years so I can't understand why you would not trust them to run it. I would be horrified if our national airline was producing some of the horror stories from disgruntled Ryanair passengers.

Isn't IBEC just another union, only for employers.

mountainyman

SuperMacs wrote:

Why do SIPTU always have to have a say in things? .

That is the Irish partnership system if you don't like move to Angola.

SuperMacs wrote:

The state can not run an airline

yes it can

SuperMacs wrote:

Its a tough world. I do not have a cushion of a nice Union to protect me if my business goes bust.

Close down your business and join a Union.

MM

dRNk SAnTA

The fact that the privatisation of eircom did not work does not mean that privatisation never works. It happens all the time all around the world and often does work.

Ok eircom didn't work but the reason is quite simple and how it was ever allowed to happen is beyond me. Telecom Eireann was a state-run monopoly. The whole point of privatisation should be removing that monopoly - not simply putting the monopoly into private hands. A privately owned monopoly is obviously not any better than a state run monopoly. The thing to do should probably have been to keep the network in public ownership and allowed private companies to offer their services over it -creating fair competition.

Anyway, my point is that this is a whole different situation. There is already competition in the airline market in Ireland and the government will maintain the infrastructure (e.g. the airports). Aer Lingus needs investment and the government aren't willing to do it. Even if it all goes wrong, as long as there is demand for routes in and out of ireland, there will be plenty of airlines willing to offer them. Aer Lingus should be a competitive airline, not a just a cushy job centre.

SuperMacs

mountainyman wrote:

Close down your business and join a Union.
MM

You got to be kiddin me.
If that was the case. There would be no one making money.
Everyone would be sitting on a nice public sector number. And demanding money.

Join a union is the lazy option.
If the public decide they don't want to buy garden gnomes anymore. Then the garden gnome industry collopases.
It doesn't matter how much the union shout, or demand nationalisation of the garden gnome industry. No one is buying gnomes.
All the union will want to do is demand state subsides for manufacturing unwanted garden gnomes.

SuperMacs

wrt State running airlines.
Yes they can, and have being. But have being making a mess out of it.
How much taxpayers money has being shoveled into AerLingus. And it still nearly went to the wall how many times?
Take example RyanAir...taxpayers money!!!

New EU says no state subsides anymore. And dam right too, I do not want to subsides an airline so that passengers get a "free" cup of coffee. I do not care if the coffee is free, or not, just as long as I am not subsiding the coffee.

SuperMacs

mountainyman wrote:

That is the Irish partnership system if you don't like move to Angola.

Naw...going to stay put and vote them out next time.

SuperMacs

BuffyBot wrote:

Well evidently, they can. They're running it at the moment and it seems to be ticking along reasonably well. To me, it seems that the point is should they be running it..

how many times has AerLingus nearly caved in?

dRNk SAnTA

dRNk SAnTA wrote:

Aer Lingus needs investment and the government aren't willing to do it. Even if it all goes wrong, as long as there is demand for routes in and out of ireland, there will be plenty of airlines willing to offer them. Aer Lingus should be a competitive airline, not a just a cushy job centre.

Well theres the knub of it.
Go to the voters and say you are going to invest hundreds of millions in Aer Lingus or go to the public and say you are going to spend it on health and education instead.

Which do you think the public will go for,the airline or the health and education sector?

It's a no brainer.

I'm not entirely sure what SIPTU have in mind here but they're onto a losing battle when it comes to the public taxes funding an airline.
They may be playing hard ball yet behind the scenes negotiating realistically.
I hope thats what they are doing.

SuperMacs

dRNk SAnTA wrote:

Anyway, my point is that this is a whole different situation. There is already competition in the airline market in Ireland and the government will maintain the infrastructure (e.g. the airports). Aer Lingus needs investment and the government aren't willing to do it. Even if it all goes wrong, as long as there is demand for routes in and out of ireland, there will be plenty of airlines willing to offer them. Aer Lingus should be a competitive airline, not a just a cushy job centre.

The government are not allowed to invest in AerLingus. EU rules.
They have to stand on own two feet without state cushion.

Akrasia

the same number of times that almost every other Airline had to be bailed out I would Imagine.

RyanAir are a much newer airline, and have only been through one crisis (after september 11) which didn't even affect them very much (ryanair don't fly to america)

Akrasia

SuperMacs wrote:

The government are not allowed to invest in AerLingus. EU rules.
They have to stand on own two feet without state cushion.

the government can invest in Air Lingus if it's to expand the fleet. People who say they can't are either deliberately lying, or have a poor understanding of the situation.

If they don't invest, it's for ideological reasons, like what they're doing to Dublin Bus now, by deliberately starving them of investment to make them look bad to pave the way for privatisation. It's a PD neo-liberal ideology and it has failed in so many places already we would be stupid to try it here.

Akrasia

Akrasia wrote:

If they don't invest, it's for ideological reasons, like what they're doing to Dublin Bus now, by deliberately starving them of investment to make them look bad to pave the way for privatisation. It's a PD neo-liberal ideology and it has failed in so many places already we would be stupid to try it here.

How would it be conservative ideology to run down something before you sell it?
Thats patent nonsense.

SuperMacs

Akrasia wrote:

the government can invest in Air Lingus if it's to expand the fleet. People who say they can't are either deliberately lying, or have a poor understanding of the situation.

If they don't invest, it's for ideological reasons, like what they're doing to Dublin Bus now, by deliberately starving them of investment to make them look bad to pave the way for privatisation. It's a PD neo-liberal ideology and it has failed in so many places already we would be stupid to try it here.

Dublin Bus is different. Its an infrastructure. Same as the airports, infrstructure.
AerLingus can be relaced by another airline, therefore no free money.
I am sure the state can "invest" but again there are rules. The investment would have to be a real investment like a loan from a bank.
But will be looked at to make sure it is not subsides disguised as investment.

What is the point in the state investing in Aer Lingus. The air lines might as well go to the banks.

Aer Aerann is allowed to get subsides. They are considered a regional airline serving areas that private airlines would not serve.

BuffyBot

But have being making a mess out of it.
How much taxpayers money has being shoveled into AerLingus. And it still nearly went to the wall how many times?

How much taxpayers money was shovelled into almost every state-owned airline in the past? Answer: a lot.

how many times has AerLingus nearly caved in?

Nearly never made the grade. The fact is that they are now making money, and require investment to expand, so they can make even more.

What is the point in the state investing in Aer Lingus. The air lines might as well go to the banks.

Strategic interest?

SuperMacs

BuffyBot wrote:

SuperMacs wrote:

What is the point in the state investing in Aer Lingus. The air lines might as well go to the banks.

Strategic interest?

The state runs the Republic of Ireland.
It is not an investment bank.
If it was it would have being black listed bank years ago.
And the politicians are propably the worst people to make decisions in this area. Leave it to the banks.

Strategic interests???
There is no strategic interest anymore.
If you want to travel to anywhere in the world there are a multiude of airlines battling for your euro to fly you there.

BuffyBot

Leave it to the banks.

Yes, because Financial institutions have the best interests of others at heart.

If you want to travel to anywhere in the world there are a multiude of airlines battling for your euro to fly you there.

While the going is good there surely is. When the going gets tough, as it undoubtedly will again, you'll see routes get chopped and most airlines will retreat from their expansion plans. A lack of good air connections has knock on effects on the economy, and investment etc. So how is there "no strategic interest" anymore?

Akrasia

Earthman wrote:

How would it be conservative ideology to run down something before you sell it?
Thats patent nonsense.

the ideology is to say 'it needs more investment and the only way to get that investment is through the private sector'

Akrasia

SuperMacs wrote:

The state runs the Republic of Ireland.
It is not an investment bank.
If it was it would have being black listed bank years ago.
And the politicians are propably the worst people to make decisions in this area. Leave it to the banks.

The state provides social goods and services to the citizens of the state. Transport is an essential service for an island nation. We could rely on private companies, but that is taking a risk. What if the new owners of Aer Lingus decide that they won't carry home Coffins anymore or if they start asking for stupid prices for this essential service? What if there's a war?

Strategic interests???
There is no strategic interest anymore.
If you want to travel to anywhere in the world there are a multiude of airlines battling for your euro to fly you there.

um, strategy is for more than just the short term. There are loads of things that could have a huge impact on global air travel. We could end up having to set up a new airline in 10 years time, just like the State pretty much has to set up a new telecoms service now.

John R

Earthman wrote:

How would it be conservative ideology to run down something before you sell it?
Thats patent nonsense.

Only if providing value for the taxpayer is the goal.

If pushing forward a warped ideology while earning a packet on the side for you and your mates is the goal it is an excellent plan.

The privatisation of British Rail is a perfect example.

The system was starved of funding for decades, particularly under the Thatcher government. They were squeezed for so long that the system was running extremely efficiently in financial terms without huge compromises in essentials such as safety and track maintenance.

When it was eventually carved up and sold off (to companies that had a surprisingly large amount of high-ranking Conservatives as directors) it took no time at all for the cost structure to fall apart under the new top-heavy high-profit system. Almost immediately state subsidies rose (even under the supposedly pro private Conservatives) and have continued to do so ever since. Even so it was not until the collapse and partial re-nationalisation of Railtrack that the huge decline in safety standards and essential on-going maintenance was brought under control.

It isn't conservative ideology or liberal economics in the same way that communist Russia wasn't marxist communism, it is the real-world consequence of blondly applying those ideologies.

gilroyb

Akrasia wrote:

RyanAir are a much newer airline, and have only been through one crisis (after september 11) which didn't even affect them very much (ryanair don't fly to america)

No entirely true. September 11th had a major effect on Ryanair. O'Leary saw the opportunity of all the state airlines doing badly and used the slack in the market to put in major orders for new planes at massive discounts. The entrapreneur was able to seize an opportunity while the State airlines froze. There might be a lesson there somewhere.

SuperMacs

Akrasia wrote:

The state provides social goods and services to the citizens of the state. Transport is an essential service for an island nation. We could rely on private companies, but that is taking a risk. What if the new owners of Aer Lingus decide that they won't carry home Coffins anymore or if they start asking for stupid prices for this essential service? What if there's a war?

SuperMacs wrote:

Strategic interests???
There is no strategic interest anymore.
If you want to travel to anywhere in the world there are a multiude of airlines battling for your euro to fly you there.

um, strategy is for more than just the short term. There are loads of things that could have a huge impact on global air travel. We could end up having to set up a new airline in 10 years time, just like the State pretty much has to set up a new telecoms service now.

um...I have a load more of more important and different areas on my list for strategic interest, and at risk.
Yes transport is important. But what is the risk of it going belly up and leaving us stranded? Very minimal. "Low" risk.

More important...oil supplies.
More important...more money to road infrastructure
More important...more money to rail infrastructure

There is an amount of money.
You spread that about and cover areas of strategic interest. And you weigh in risk associated with not spending the money.

So...whats the risk invovled with not spending money on AerLingus? Are we going to end up stranded? Nope.
Best spend your money on hospitals and roads instead.

murphaph

SuperMacs wrote:

Naw...going to stay put and vote them out next time.

I hate to tell you SuperMacs that the alternative to this shower most probably includes Labour, and if you thought FF were pandering to the unions with this so-called partnership crock then just wait till Labour get back in. I am no right-wing conservative either, I like the idea of unionisation in general but we hve a distorted version of unionisation in Ireland whereby they are hugely over represented in the public sector (ie, the non-wealth generting sector). It is grossly unfair that you and I have to work and generate wealth to pay public sector employees who demand more and more of our money from us in their virtually guaranteed jobs for life. I'd have a lot more respect for a government that stood up to the unions and ditched 'partnership' altogether. Public servants should be purely paid on performance like most everybody else-if they don't perform they don't get pay rises. What has any good worker to fear from that? Why should a lazy good for nothing pubic servant get the same pay rise as a hardworking dedicated public servant? We all know there are plenty of great public servants doing a bloody good job but then we have the lazy ignorant and sometimes rude ones too. I had the pleasure of deling with both types today (Declan in Driver Testing in Ballina, pleasant professional man, telephone receptionist in same-rude discourteous wagon).

As for AL, well I want it to grow and prosper. Ryanair have a much larger fleet than AL these days because they have had the cash to buy planes. AL need to expand and need cash to do it. I don't want my tax money being spent on buying aeroplanes-sorry, we have far greater public priorities like schools, healthcare, universities, roads and so on. An airline is not something a government should be spending tax revenue on IMO so it has to be floated.