D A A to operate the new terminal in Dublin Airport

Joey the lips

I have to say it was with great joy i saw the news that DAA has been given the chance of operating the terminal in Dublin airport.

DAA staff in my opinion are lucky. They are paid a fair wage. The receive a pension entitlement. They have a union. They may not be perfect to work for but they are the best of the bunch of alternatives.

What would an alternative consist of.

Chances are staff would be paid a min wage. They would receive no pension entitlement and unions would be disallowed.

I have to say in a race to the bottom the alternatives did not shape up and noel dempsey did not accept them. I thank god that sheamus brennan(RIP) was not in that position at this time.

I wonder can people look at this. Look at the fact that dispite our love of the goverment they looked at the competition and saw that they were not up to spec. I wonder can people realise that the jobs created here will actually be good jobs.

Or am i an eternal optimist.....


http://www.rte.ie/aertel/images/113-01.gif

Sleepy

You're probably an optimist. Most likely these will be over-unionised, over-paid positions which will lead to Dublin Airport having high charges and ultimately high flight costs for all of us.

Joey the lips

Sleepy wrote: »

You're probably an optimist. Most likely these will be over-unionised, over-paid positions which will lead to Dublin Airport having high charges and ultimately high flight costs for all of us.

You have no understanding of airport charges then if you can say that. I thought you might like at the positive aspect of good jobs with the min expected benefits.

However it seems you more favor a race to the bottom... Why?

Sand

Im a little unclear Joey, is your OP masterful satire....or is it actually serious?

Joey the lips

Sand wrote: »

Im a little unclear Joey, is your OP masterful satire....or is it actually serious?

It depends on what side of the fence your on but i am very saterical at being serious.

Poly

I come from the sick of government quango, taxpayer being screwed again by cute hoorism, side of the fence.

Joey, You're seriously praising Dempsey?

This is the man who gave us E-voting FFS!

Joey the lips

Poly wrote: »

I come from the sick of government quango, taxpayer being screwed again by cute hoorism, side of the fence.

Joey, You're seriously praising Dempsey?

This is the man who gave us E-voting FFS!

So do i believe it or not. I am thanking god the man had sense. However I would love to see the terms that were not favorable. I imagine its more because of the lack of political contrabutions than the concerns of the working class.

Koloman

It's a scandalous decision! We will now have two badly run terminals at the airport instead of one.

In the UK they are breaking up airport monopoly's whereas here the government are creating an even bigger monopoly.

Seamus Brennan will be spinning in his grave.

MaceFace

Just remind me again how much the head of the DAA is on again?

dan_d

What were the other options?
I'm not sure if you're being wholly or partially sarcastic in your original post....

Poly

dan_d wrote: »

What were the other options?

I'd say we will find out, I'm sure there were plenty of very qualified companies in the running, they should be very rightly smelling a rat.

http://www.rte.ie/news/2010/0310/daa.html

"Fine Gael Transport Spokesman Fergus O'Dowd has criticised the Minister for his handling of the competition issue.
In a statement this afternoon, Mr O'Dowd said: 'This is yet another Dempsey Disaster. At least €850,000 has been spent on a competition to choose an operator for Terminal 2.
'But the Minister has now scrapped the competition and decided to hand the contract over to the DAA.
'This is yet another example of a State monopoly blocking any competition.'

Joey the lips

Koloman wrote: »

It's a scandalous decision! We will now have two badly run terminals at the airport instead of one.

In the UK they are breaking up airport monopoly's whereas here the government are creating an even bigger monopoly.

Seamus Brennan will be spinning in his grave.

How do you come to that conclusion. If the minister deems the competition not to be up to the standard to be acceptable and only DAA was acceptable surely this leads you to believe the alternative is far far worse?

Or is it that we would like to see two terminals run in such a manor that one is the preferential terminal for higher paying carriers meaning most likely that low cost carriers have low cost standards in the terminal operation?

I am slightly confused and yet curious why no one sees this as being good for employment in north dublin.

donkey balls

i would like to find out what Dempsey means by the other tenders not been upto standard and meeting the pre reqs. the sooner he is gone out of transport the better the man is a fool.
as for the DAA i remember years ago my company needed to get airside access with our company vehicles we had an insurance policy that covered the company for millions more than the one the DAA insited we take out with them,yet the same policy was accepted through out europe with other airport operators.

Joey the lips

donkey balls wrote: »

i would like to find out what Dempsey means by the other tenders not been upto standard and meeting the pre reqs. the sooner he is gone out of transport the better the man is a fool.
as for the DAA i remember years ago my company needed to get airside access with our company vehicles we had an insurance policy that covered the company for millions more than the one the DAA insited we take out with them,yet the same policy was accepted through out europe with other airport operators.

agree with you on noel dempsey but whats your point on the insurence, the DAA insisted you take out a policy for airside access that they understood more than yours. That surely is not a crime. In fact I imagine its overkill protection.

B0X

Joey the lips wrote: »

I am slightly confused and yet curious why no one sees this as being good for employment in north dublin.

It's probably good for employment in north Dublin, but on the flip side, it's terrible for everyone else.

Joey the lips

B0X wrote: »

It's probably good for employment in north Dublin, but on the flip side, it's terrible for everyone else.

Why? Airport charges are regulated. In fact if you take the way some airline charge they are charging illegally. As in going out and coming back but the airport only charges for going out.

Dannyboy83

Joey the lips wrote: »

I am slightly confused and yet curious why no one sees this as being good for employment in north dublin.

Why do you believe this is good?
What other potentially negative impacts do you see arising out of this?
What is the opportunity cost?

silverharp

Joey the lips wrote: »

How do you come to that conclusion. If the minister deems the competition not to be up to the standard to be acceptable and only DAA was acceptable surely this leads you to believe the alternative is far far worse?

Or is it that we would like to see two terminals run in such a manor that one is the preferential terminal for higher paying carriers meaning most likely that low cost carriers have low cost standards in the terminal operation?

I am slightly confused and yet curious why no one sees this as being good for employment in north dublin.

you are picking winners and losers. The winners so far have been lucky contractors got to build the "money no object crystal cathedral" the losers will the flying public who will have pick up the tab by paying higher charges for the next 20 years. Not to mention the tourists that will not turn up becasue we are less competitive then elsewhere.
I assume you support all the restrictive practices in the professions? and if not why the double standards. Or would you like the Aer Lingus monopoly reinstated so that a flight out to the continent might cost the equivalent of a week's salary as it used up until the 1980's
Its all linked, allow monopolies to exist and the blowback is felt somewhere else.

Joey the lips

Dannyboy83 wrote: »

Why do you believe this is good?
What other potentially negative impacts do you see arising out of this?
What is the opportunity cost?

Good jobs, Jobs with above the min wage. Jobs with a pension and jobs with a union. How would you feel if it were your kids working here.

Negative impacts. The fact that competition did not weigh up. Meaning they were vetted. No competition was capable of providing the service up to the min standard. They were given the chance.

Oppertunity. The competition dropped the ball.


All this comes on an announcement that 17% of all contracts awarded by the state are awarded outside the state. This is a massive 10% above the EU adverage. So i wonder if the BAA came in. Ran the terminal and employed europeans from outside the country would we be far more happier.

Now we have a situation where management running the current terminal can apply there expertise in running this one as efficent...

Poly

Joey the lips wrote: »

Now we have a situation where management running the current terminal can apply there expertise in running this one as efficent...

as the first one perhaps? Anyone who has the misfortune of travelling through a DAA airport will testify that they are amatuers.
This will be the death of tourism

Joey the lips

Silverharp2 wrote: »

you are picking winners and losers. The winners so far have been lucky contractors got to build the "money no object crystal cathedral" the losers will the flying public who will have pick up the tab by paying higher charges for the next 20 years. Not to mention the tourists that will not turn up becasue we are less competitive then elsewhere.
I assume you support all the restrictive practices in the professions? and if not why the double standards. Or would you like the Aer Lingus monopoly reinstated so that a flight out to the continent might cost the equivalent of a week's salary as it used up until the 1980's
Its all linked, allow monopolies to exist and the blowback is felt somewhere else.[/QUOTE]

The first part not highlited has not a shread of proof or do you have links>

as for the second part. watch tonights news and you will see why aerlingus will never have a monoply

Again...are aerport charges not fixed.. or was that missed.

Joey the lips

Poly wrote: »

as the first one perhaps? This will be the death of tourism

Stupid assumption. the DAA take a raw material and produce a finished good... The tourist. The more tourists that travel through the greater the revenue.

Poly

Joey the lips wrote: »

Stupid assumption. the DAA take a raw material and produce a finished good... The tourist. The more tourists that travel through the greater the revenue.

Are you a troll?

Joey the lips

Poly wrote: »

Are you a troll?

Are you paying attention....?

donkey balls

Joey the lips wrote: »

agree with you on noel dempsey but whats your point on the insurence, the DAA insisted you take out a policy for airside access that they understood more than yours. That surely is not a crime. In fact I imagine its overkill protection.

eh no my companies policy covered more than the DAA one which is used in the likes of CDG/FRA/LHR were we have other basis.

Taxipete29

This is a complete policy U-turn and an absolute disgrace.

The DAA cant run T1 efficently,how the hell are they going to manage a second one. Terminal 2 should of been built and operated with private money. The taxpayer should have no financial exposure to this at all.

How much is it going to cost us to bail out the DAA when it all goes belly up??

ei.sdraob

what a load of rubbish @Joey the lips your OP is


if the DAA didnt exist in its current state:

* there would now be 500 less unemployed technicians/engineers in this country

* and billions that were spent on that white elephant of new terminal could have went instead to ensure jobs are kept in Shannon and other airports

:mad:

OhNoYouDidn't

Koloman wrote: »

It

In the UK they are breaking up airport monopoly's whereas here the government are creating an even bigger monopoly.

Yes, because the UK is exactly the transport model we should follow....

This went to tender. The private companies interested were not able to put a case forward that they could do it better.

All problems in Dublin airport at the moment are due to a lack of space, thats a political decision, not the fault of the DAA.

OhNoYouDidn't

ei.sdraob wrote: »

* and billions that were spent on that white elephant of new terminal could have went instead to ensure jobs are kept in Shannon and other airports

How is a new terminal in Dublin a 'white elephant'? The current terminal is running at over 120% capacity and its clear expansion was needed.

seamus

Joey the lips wrote: »

Chances are staff would be paid a min wage. They would receive no pension entitlement and unions would be disallowed.

Shocking. Welcome to an efficient company. Minimum wage is not a bad thing. There are hundreds of thousands of people doing jobs in this country which are not deserving of anything more than the minimum wage. The amount you get paid is a reflection of how replaceable you are and how difficult your job is. Many, if not most jobs can be done by a trained monkey and staff can be replaced with a day's notice, so why shouldn't they be paid minimum wage?

If they want more money, they can go off and work for it.

What people need to start understanding is the average industrial wage, pensions, extra holidays, paid sick leave and all the other things that the unions strike for, are not entitlements. They're benefits, bonuses, nice-to-haves.

This is yet another transport disaster by Dempsey. Both terminals should be taken under the ownership of a state body and every five years companies put in their tenders to manage the facilities. This means that the DAA would need to perform and consistently perform in order to keep their place.

Jobs-wise, it doesn't matter what company is running the terminal. People are going to be employed either way.

OhNoYouDidn't

seamus wrote: »

This is yet another transport disaster by Dempsey. Both terminals should be taken under the ownership of a state body and every five years companies put in their tenders to manage the facilities. This means that the DAA would need to perform and consistently perform in order to keep their place.

Why? Private companies failed to win an open tender. That tender will be reviewed. Whats the problem.

The lunatic right on this board would be better able to argue their case if each and every privatisation of a state asset was not an unmitigated disaster that saw an across the board deterioration of services.

DAA have experience running the airport and in the constraints they have its hard to see how they could do a better job. It clearly makes sense to have one comapany running the airport as a cohesive whole.

seamus

OhNoYouDidn't wrote: »

Why? Private companies failed to win an open tender. That tender will be reviewed.

Will it? When's the last time the tender for T1 was reviewed?

Fratton Fred

What's the problem? I use the airport a lot and I don't have an issue with DAA at all, other than the fact the the airport needs a good clean and a coat of paint.

The only problem currently is a sever lack of space which the new terminal will bring.

Ok, it could have been done cheaper, but do you really want someone's first impression of Dublin to be "Cheap".

MaceFace

Fratton Fred wrote: »

What's the problem? I use the airport a lot and I don't have an issue with DAA at all, other than the fact the the airport needs a good clean and a coat of paint.

The only problem currently is a sever lack of space which the new terminal will bring.

Ok, it could have been done cheaper, but do you really want someone's first impression of Dublin to be "Cheap".

Your view of the airport is only from a consumer point of view, and to be honest, compared to many European airport standards, Dublin is not very good.

However, the real issue is around the actual management. An example being the long history of the DAA refusing planning permission for anything near the airport claiming that it will interfere with the operation of the airport, but six months later, they scoop up the land and build on it themselves.

The chief exec is on over €12k a week for running a company that has no competition.

Joey the lips

Taxipete29 wrote: »

This is a complete policy U-turn and an absolute disgrace.

The DAA cant run T1 efficently,how the hell are they going to manage a second one. Terminal 2 should of been built and operated with private money. The taxpayer should have no financial exposure to this at all.

How much is it going to cost us to bail out the DAA when it all goes belly up??

Why is it a complete U Turn. Would you get into a taxi with someonw who could not drive or knew the city.. So why do you expect the govt to hire someone that this not bid and meet the criteria. A bit of a double standard there considering all the protesting we have to listen to.

ei.sdraob wrote: »

what a load of rubbish @Joey the lips your OP is


if the DAA didnt exist in its current state:

* there would now be 500 less unemployed technicians/engineers in this country

* and billions that were spent on that white elephant of new terminal could have went instead to ensure jobs are kept in Shannon and other airports

:mad:

The tanaistes discussion and michael o leary discussion has nothing to do with the DAA and aer lingus lease on hanger 5 is another subject and nothing to do with terminal 2. As for terminal 2 being a white elephant. It has not opened yet. A bit premature and OTT.

OhNoYouDidn't wrote: »

How is a new terminal in Dublin a 'white elephant'? The current terminal is running at over 120% capacity and its clear expansion was needed.

This fact would be lost but its true. Its just a shame your the only one awake.

Fratton Fred wrote: »

What's the problem? I use the airport a lot and I don't have an issue with DAA at all, other than the fact the the airport needs a good clean and a coat of paint.

The only problem currently is a sever lack of space which the new terminal will bring.

Ok, it could have been done cheaper, but do you really want someone's first impression of Dublin to be "Cheap".

This was the type of respoonse I expected not the childish rants so far.

MaceFace wrote: »

Your view of the airport is only from a consumer point of view, and to be honest, compared to many European airport standards, Dublin is not very good.

However, the real issue is around the actual management. An example being the long history of the DAA refusing planning permission for anything near the airport claiming that it will interfere with the operation of the airport, but six months later, they scoop up the land and build on it themselves.

The chief exec is on over €12k a week for running a company that has no competition.

Every airport in europe refuses building around it. Its not an uncomon practice and your other point... The ce salery. Why did you not go for the job.


I must say I am disapointed. I expected more of a positive discussion on the benefits and the oppertunities this generates. Its become lost on bitterness and self loathing. I hope your kids or indeed yourselves get a chance of a job there. Then you will see an opinion change I am sure.

dogbert27

Joey I suppose the cynic in everyone can see that the DAA were never in any danger of NOT getting the contract.

It's a bit like a position in a company being filled internally but the company still has to advertise the position as being open and go through the motions of one or two interviews before declaring that the best candidate for the job was found to be already in the company.

ei.sdraob

Joey the lips wrote: »

The tanaistes discussion and michael o leary discussion has nothing to do with the DAA and aer lingus lease on hanger 5 is another subject and nothing to do with terminal 2. As for terminal 2 being a white elephant. It has not opened yet. A bit premature and OTT..

it has everything to do with the discussion

in your OP you painted a rosy picture of unionised and well paid workers, this are the same people who are responsible for screwing up recently and ensuring that 500 jobs are lost forever from economy

unions are very similar in their mode of operation to cartels, their well being comes at a price of other groups being screwed

in the case of DAA they screwed those technicians by not grasping them jobs, and they screwed the public in general by wasting alot of money on a terminal which is needlessly too large

Sleepy

Joey the lips wrote: »

You have no understanding of airport charges then if you can say that. I thought you might like at the positive aspect of good jobs with the min expected benefits.

However it seems you more favor a race to the bottom... Why?

I favour a race to the top. We should be trying to motivate people to be productive and to create wealth, not to work according to strict demarcation lines in an unskilled job that they're over-paid for.

meditraitor

ei.sdraob wrote: »

unions are very similar in their mode of operation to cartels, their well being comes at a price of other groups being screwed

in the case of DAA they screwed those technicians by not grasping them jobs, and they screwed the public in general by wasting alot of money on a terminal which is needlessly too large

+1 capatalist greed

OhNoYouDidn't

ei.sdraob wrote: »

it has everything to do with the discussion

in your OP you painted a rosy picture of unionised and well paid workers, this are the same people who are responsible for screwing up recently and ensuring that 500 jobs are lost forever from economy

unions are very similar in their mode of operation to cartels, their well being comes at a price of other groups being screwed

in the case of DAA they screwed those technicians by not grasping them jobs, and they screwed the public in general by wasting alot of money on a terminal which is needlessly too large

1: Are you seriously suggesting we take Mick O'Leary at face value on the hanger 5 issue about creating technician jobs? Honestly now.

2: This has nothing to do with unions. For all we know if a private operator had one they would have had a unionised workforce. Red herring.

3: Do you accept that the best tender won?

4: The new terminal is not too big. Now the airport can actually expand to have more flights to different locations and the existing terminal will be a more comfortable for visitors. This is generally considered a good thing.

OhNoYouDidn't

Sleepy wrote: »

I favour a race to the top. We should be trying to motivate people to be productive and to create wealth, not to work according to strict demarcation lines in an unskilled job that they're over-paid for.

and we can, of course, trust Irish businesses to raise wages as productivity increases? My shiney swiss.

The legislation was required to protect staff because our business classes are simply not trustworthy enough to do the right thing.

Taxipete29

Joey the lips wrote: »

Why is it a complete U Turn. Would you get into a taxi with someonw who could not drive or knew the city.. So why do you expect the govt to hire someone that this not bid and meet the criteria. A bit of a double standard there considering all the protesting we have to listen to..

If you wanna make it personal at least check your facts. I havent been a Taxi driver for several months now and its not about me or what I do this is about the Govts policy.

The u-turn is on the policy of breaking up these monopolies. Why have the tendering process at all if they were just going to give it to the DAA all along.

Have you seen the proposals from the other interested parties?? If not how do you know they werent up to scratch?? Dempseys word is no word imo. Show us the evidence.

Sleepy

OhNoYouDidn't wrote: »

and we can, of course, trust Irish businesses to raise wages as productivity increases? My shiney swiss.

The legislation was required to protect staff because our business classes are simply not trustworthy enough to do the right thing.

Someone collecting luggage trolleys in an airport is doing a job you could almost literally train a monkey to do. There is no reason for this role to ever be paid more than minimum wage, regardless of the performance of the company, the employees contribution is miniscule.

ei.sdraob

OhNoYouDidn't wrote: »

1: Are you seriously suggesting we take Mick O'Leary at face value on the hanger 5 issue about creating technician jobs? Honestly now.

2: This has nothing to do with unions. For all we know if a private operator had one they would have had a unionised workforce. Red herring.

3: Do you accept that the best tender won?

4: The new terminal is not too big. Now the airport can actually expand to have more flights to different locations and the existing terminal will be a more comfortable for visitors. This is generally considered a good thing.

1. I don't particularly like Mick, but yes DAA and the govt should have done everything to secure them jobs, anyone who is proposing job creation in this day and age deserves to be treated better

2. It has everything to do with unions, Unions breed a lazy entitlement culture thats rotten to the core, without the Unions incompetent people would be fired, have any heads rolled at DAA and/or the govt for loosing them jobs?

3. once again was anyone fired for this incompetency (the costs spiralled out of control, from 170 million to 1300 million)?

4. I dont care if they build a dozen of these terminals if it was private money being used, but that wasnt the case was it? Other airports and customers will now suffer over many years to cover the costs, the taxes have already been raised and then theres the retarded tourist tax, and not to mention passenger numbers have went down (and of course other airports like Shannon are practically empty)

/

OhNoYouDidn't

ei.sdraob wrote: »

1. I don't particularly like Mick, but yes DAA and the govt should have done everything to secure them jobs, anyone who is proposing job creation in this day and age deserves to be treated better

If you honestly believe that Ryanair were going to create 500 technician jobs on that site, you seriously need to catch a grip. He wanted that site to set up a rival terminal via the back door. While I agree we should be listening to any job creation proposals, his bluff should have been called here. He no more had a plan to create those jobs than the man on the moon.

ei.sdraob wrote: »

2. It has everything to do with unions, Unions breed a lazy entitlement culture thats rotten to the core, without the Unions incompetent people would be fired, have any heads rolled at DAA and/or the govt for loosing them jobs?

This is based on the premise that MOL was playing it straight, and if you believe that....

Its the unions fault that MOL couldn't provide a cohesive business plan for another companies land. I really have heard it all now.

ei.sdraob wrote: »

3. once again was anyone fired for this incompetency (the costs spiralled out of control, from 170 million to 1300 million)?

Tender is to run the terminal, not build it. Different debate.

ei.sdraob wrote: »

4. I dont care if they build a dozen of these terminals if it was private money being used, but that wasnt the case was it? Other airports and customers will now suffer over many years to cover the costs, the taxes have already been raised and then theres the retarded tourist tax, and not to mention passenger numbers have went down (and of course other airports like Shannon are practically empty)

Dublin needs a second terminal. Shannon is empty because its too big an airport beside a dump of a city no-one wants to visit built for clientalist reasons. Are you seriously arguing that people who want to fly into Dublin be direceted to Shannon because it has capacity?

But, and I shudder to think what your logic will be here, how exactly would a private company building this facility generate revenue without 'customers suffering to cover the costs'?

You are struggling here big time. Thats the problem with you idealogues. It all goes horribly wrong when your theory is applied to the real world.

Joey the lips

dogbert27 wrote: »

Joey I suppose the cynic in everyone can see that the DAA were never in any danger of NOT getting the contract.

It's a bit like a position in a company being filled internally but the company still has to advertise the position as being open and go through the motions of one or two interviews before declaring that the best candidate for the job was found to be already in the company.

Your wrong there. The reason the govt put the the new terminal out for tender was because of the public and the opposition did not like the fact it was being given to aer rianta. Now the competitors did not come up to spec and the govt is still wrong. I agree that the decision is only valid if we know the requirements and the nearest on offer but this is the facts,

ei.sdraob wrote: »

it has everything to do with the discussion

in your OP you painted a rosy picture of unionised and well paid workers, this are the same people who are responsible for screwing up recently and ensuring that 500 jobs are lost forever from economy

unions are very similar in their mode of operation to cartels, their well being comes at a price of other groups being screwed

in the case of DAA they screwed those technicians by not grasping them jobs, and they screwed the public in general by wasting alot of money on a terminal which is needlessly too large

Right. I can make this easy. You dont like unions. I do. End of discussion. The nurses and taxi drivers despite the taxi driver below tend to agree with unions as well.

Sleepy wrote: »

I favour a race to the top. We should be trying to motivate people to be productive and to create wealth, not to work according to strict demarcation lines in an unskilled job that they're over-paid for.

Over paid to clean sh1t... Interesting. Whats over paid when it comes to cleaning up after some of the filthiest people. Would you imagine your kids over paid.

Taxipete29 wrote: »

If you wanna make it personal at least check your facts. I havent been a Taxi driver for several months now and its not about me or what I do this is about the Govts policy.

The u-turn is on the policy of breaking up these monopolies. Why have the tendering process at all if they were just going to give it to the DAA all along.

Have you seen the proposals from the other interested parties?? If not how do you know they werent up to scratch?? Dempseys word is no word imo. Show us the evidence.

Because the competition did not meet the min standard. Again. I ask would you be happy getting in a taxi with someone that does not know dublin. btw I agree I would like to see the evidence.

Sleepy

Joey the lips wrote: »

Over paid to clean sh1t... Interesting. Whats over paid when it comes to cleaning up after some of the filthiest people. Would you imagine your kids over paid.

TBH, I've been over-paid in the past myself.

Joey the lips

Sleepy wrote: »

TBH, I've been over-paid in the past myself.

Well done for being honest. The next time you feel your over paid i have a couple of charities that will benefit.

Taxipete29

Joey the lips wrote: »

Because the competition did not meet the min standard. Again. I ask would you be happy getting in a taxi with someone that does not know dublin. btw I agree I would like to see the evidence.

I answer to your question, No I wouldnt and I get your point.

I dont know where you get that I dont agree with unions as you say above???

MaceFace

Joey the lips wrote: »

Why is it a complete U Turn. Would you get into a taxi with someonw who could not drive or knew the city.. So why do you expect the govt to hire someone that this not bid and meet the criteria. A bit of a double standard there considering all the protesting we have to listen to.



The tanaistes discussion and michael o leary discussion has nothing to do with the DAA and aer lingus lease on hanger 5 is another subject and nothing to do with terminal 2. As for terminal 2 being a white elephant. It has not opened yet. A bit premature and OTT.





This fact would be lost but its true. Its just a shame your the only one awake.



This was the type of respoonse I expected not the childish rants so far.



Every airport in europe refuses building around it. Its not an uncomon practice and your other point... The ce salery. Why did you not go for the job.


I must say I am disapointed. I expected more of a positive discussion on the benefits and the oppertunities this generates. Its become lost on bitterness and self loathing. I hope your kids or indeed yourselves get a chance of a job there. Then you will see an opinion change I am sure.

What has Hangar 5 to do with anything?
Maybe a reading of some facts (read this) will clear up the confusion you have on things.

As for your response to my points, I expected more of a positive discussion as not every airport in Europe (as you claim) refuses building around it only to go and build there own structures shortly after in exactly the same place. Totally immoral and anti-competitive.

And as for 12k a week for the CEO, how can you defend that amount for someone who runs a monopoly and has no competition?

I think you are either one of those unskilled labourers that bring the bags from the plane to the collection belt or you are just trying to be argumentative for the sake of it.

Joey the lips

MaceFace wrote: »

What has Hangar 5 to do with anything?
Maybe a reading of some facts (read this) will clear up the confusion you have on things.

As for your response to my points, I expected more of a positive discussion as not every airport in Europe (as you claim) refuses building around it only to go and build there own structures shortly after in exactly the same place. Totally immoral and anti-competitive.

And as for 12k a week for the CEO, how can you defend that amount for someone who runs a monopoly and has no competition?

I think you are either one of those unskilled labourers that bring the bags from the plane to the collection belt or you are just trying to be argumentative for the sake of it.

You would have saved yourself time if you looked at the result of this investigation. The rule of the airport is to object to every developmets within a 6mile radius from my memory. This is there since the state owned aer rianta.

The CEO is paid the same as most in his position, I dont need to defend it.

Your ignorence on the last bit does not deserve any more of a response then to say that work is contracted out to private companies. Just the very thing you wanted the minister to do. Ironic.