Shannon Airport (Feb 2012 - Jan 2014)

dr.fuzzenstein

Clareman wrote: »

There used to be regular Concorde training held there

I remember working in a callcenter in the 90's and everytime one of those flew overhead, i had to say "hang on, Concorde", because you couldn't even hear yourself over the noise.
Once saw one parked up at the terminal and the engines going full blast, it was a riot.
Miss the old birds.

Munstermissy

Mal-Adjusted wrote: »

Timmy Dooley discussing it now on the radio...

And what had the bauld Timmy have to say about it?? This is the same guy that voted with the government at the time of the Aer Lingus Heathrow debacle. He is some plonked, stood on my door step in May that year campaigning for re-election and I asked him why Aer Lingus were not investing in opening new routes Ex Shannon. He said shur Shannon doesn't need Aer Lingus, Ryanair were great, blah blah... I replied that we needed more airlines to compete and less of a monopoly here in Shannon. How he got re-elected the last time out, I will never know. Rant over:D

Cosmo Kramer

lotusm wrote: »

It will also mean the DAA will no longer be subsidising Shannon Airport.

If the DAA are not going to be subsidising the place, then who is? Someone is going to have to pick up the tab for the €8m approx annual losses.

Will the bill just be going straight to the tax payer from now on?

Sunny Disposition

GCU Flexible Demeanour wrote: »

Bear in mind it's not intrinsic to the airport. DAA will still be servicing Cork Airport's debts, too.

I think it's a sensible compromise.It does make for a clean sheet, and I agree that's important in establishing this as a new opportunity.

QUOTE]




It's only sensible from a DAA point of view.
ARI was set up by Shannon execs to protect Shannon's viability, its far more 'intrinsic' to Shannon than the DAA, for example the staff are in Shannon.
Shannon's debt is nowhere near as significant as the value of ARI.
The suspicion is that the DAA can't let it go because they've made a bags of their own financial situation following the development of T2 and Varadkar is backing them.
What's actually happening is that a Shannon resource is propping up Dublin, which could easily start making significant losses without ARI.
I'd advise people interested in this to go on the companies office site and look at the ARI accounts which were filed last week or the week before.

GCU Flexible Demeanour

Cosmo Kramer wrote: »

If the DAA are not going to be subsidising the place, then who is? Someone is going to have to pick up the tab for the €8m approx annual losses.

Will the bill just be going straight to the tax payer from now on?

That's where the Shannon Development assets come in. That said, those assets also require restructuring; the tourism stuff, like Bunratty, is a loss maker at present.

I'd said it's pretty clear that Shannon Airport will need to shed more costs/jobs, especially if the plan is to grow traffic with budget carriers like Ryanair.

Sunny Disposition wrote: »

It's only sensible from a DAA point of view.

ARI was set up by Shannon execs to protect Shannon's viability, its far more 'intrinsic' to Shannon than the DAA, for example the staff are in Shannon.

What makes it valuable is the international holdings - there's nothing intrinsically "Shannon" about that. It's a group asset, funded out of group earnings. The options would be either some kind of pro-rata split, or (as has been done) covering Shannon's debts in exchange for it's share in the value of the enterprise.

Bear in mind, Shannon Airport is getting the Shannon Development property assets - which is a gift from the Irish taxpayer. Shannon is doing quite well out of the deal; the job now is simply to make something of these breaks.You'll appreciate, no-one is offering Knock Airport a debt write-off or the rent roll of a substantial industrial estate.

Sunny Disposition

GCU Flexible Demeanour wrote: »

That's where the Shannon Development assets come in. That said, those assets also require restructuring; the tourism stuff, like Bunratty, is a loss maker at present.

I'd said it's pretty clear that Shannon Airport will need to shed more costs/jobs, especially if the plan is to grow traffic with budget carriers like Ryanair.What makes it valuable is the international holdings - there's nothing intrinsically "Shannon" about that. It's a group asset, funded out of group earnings. The options would be either some kind of pro-rata split, or (as has been done) covering Shannon's debts in exchange for it's share in the value of the enterprise.

Bear in mind, Shannon Airport is getting the Shannon Development property assets - which is a gift from the Irish taxpayer. Shannon is doing quite well out of the deal; the job now is simply to make something of these breaks.You'll appreciate, no-one is offering Knock Airport a debt write-off or the rent roll of a substantial industrial estate.

Point is that it is intrinsically more 'Shannon' than intrinsically 'Dublin'. It was set up by Liam Skelly and other local execs because Shannon was in danger of losing out when inter EEC duty free ended. It's been based in Shannon since the start, and it was an initiative taken because Shannon didn't have the throughput of passengers that the other airports had.
The industrial estate is in a pretty bad way now and it's very dubious if it's of more value to Shannon than ARI either.
The devil will be in the detail of what the Government releases, but the suspicion is that Shannon will be left in a v weak position, shorn of ARI or even a share of its profits, but with some tax designations that hopefully will bring in adequate business.
I think bringing Knock into it is a bit disingenuous, the new Shannon entity is to be a public body, with a commercial mandate, Knock is entirely private.
The treatment of Shannon can certainly be compared to that of Cork and Dublin, the other State airports, but saying Knock isn't getting a debt write off like Shannon is would be the equivalent of saying Knock isn't getting a company worth hundreds of millions like the DAA are.
Anyway, there's my tuppence worth, it may all work out, set to be some positive announcements in the next few weeks so there will probably be a good start.

Cosmo Kramer

Cosmo Kramer wrote: »

If the DAA are not going to be subsidising the place, then who is? Someone is going to have to pick up the tab for the €8m approx annual losses.

Will the bill just be going straight to the tax payer from now on?

They could sensibly just do what they do in Knock, make the passengers that use the airport pay for it with a levy instead of taxpayer subsidies. If people get a good local service i'm sure they would have no problem paying for it. It would save having to drive to Dublin.

Also last weeks interview in the western people with Michael O'Leary appears to contradict what alot of posters here have been saying about Shannon. Its also demonstrates that using a levy to make an airport pay for itself is not having an adverse effect.
http://twitter.com/WesternPeople/status/265778331620896769

Also Sunny Disposition, the entity that owns Knock is not really private. Its a non profit organisation whose goal is to benefit the whole western region any profit is reinvested in the region, hence the excellent local support of the airport. The fact that in reality it is a public entity for the western region its legacy debt should be treated the same ways as Shannon and written off by the taxpayer.

Sunny Disposition

Deleted User wrote: »

They could sensibly just do what they do in Knock, make the passengers that use the airport pay for it with a levy instead of taxpayer subsidies. If people get a good local service i'm sure they would have no problem paying for it. It would save having to drive to Dublin.

Also last weeks interview in the western people with Michael O'Leary appears to contradict what alot of posters here have been saying about Shannon. Its also demonstrates that using a levy to make an airport pay for itself is not having an adverse effect.
http://twitter.com/WesternPeople/status/265778331620896769

Also Sunny Disposition, the entity that owns Knock is not really private. Its a non profit organisation whose goal is to benefit the whole western region any profit is reinvested in the region, hence the excellent local support of the airport. The fact that in reality it is a public entity for the western region its legacy debt should be treated the same ways as Shannon and written off by the taxpayer.

The fact is there are three State airports, rightly or wrongly. Good luck to Knock, it's a success story.

GCU Flexible Demeanour

Sunny Disposition wrote: »

Point is that it is intrinsically more 'Shannon' than intrinsically 'Dublin'.

Well, no, it's just another State asset; in this particular case, funded out the deep pockets of the State airport company. But there's actually no intrinsic reason why it should be used to fund airports than, say, fund Primary Care Centres in the health sector. When it was part of the one group, location wasn't a particular issue - other than the general policy of locating as much work as possible in Shannon. So, no, in the split there's no reason to give Shannon Airport dibs on it.

And, in fairness, if Shannon Airport can't make a go of it starting from zero debt, it's not worth saving. However, I'm only mentioning that negative to hint at the need to move around to a positive. The elements are there to make a fresh start, and hopefully they will be grasped.

Sunny Disposition wrote: »

The industrial estate is in a pretty bad way now and it's very dubious if it's of more value to Shannon than ARI either.

But, sure, exactly the same is being said about ARI - it needs access to the DAA's income stream to fund re-investment in its assets.

Sunny Disposition wrote: »

... but with some tax designations that hopefully will bring in adequate business.

I'll be interested to see if this comes off for them. The EU struck out the Shannon Free Zone tax break (along with the IFSC tax break) as it found no applicable grounds to exempt it as a State Aid.

Sunny Disposition wrote: »

I think bringing Knock into it is a bit disingenuous, the new Shannon entity is to be a public body, with a commercial mandate, Knock is entirely private.

For what it's worth, the State can't actually give an unfair advantage to any State company, unless there's some really pressing public interest. So, in fairness to Knock, they actually could complain that the Government is undermining their business.

I'm not saying they'd win, and I take it that the State has cleared the Shannon package with the European Commission. I'm just saying that, in principle, Knock could argue that this State support of Shannon is at their expense.

repsol

Cosmo Kramer wrote: »

If the DAA are not going to be subsidising the place, then who is? Someone is going to have to pick up the tab for the €8m approx annual losses.

Will the bill just be going straight to the tax payer from now on?

The yanks want it for refuelling military aircraft.They won't come out and buy it but don't be surprised if "American investors" step in. 8 million is **** all to the US govt.

Clareman

The financials for the airport aren't as clear cut as they owe 8 million over, the DAA run their accounts through a central process, so all rental/car parks/fees go into 1 pot and then they do an approximation of each airport. Aer Rianta International will be a loss to the balance sheet of the airport, it was a great initiative when it was setup (for Moscow airport I think), but it's good that there'll be money from the renting out of office space if nothing else.

lotusm

Clareman wrote: »

The financials for the airport aren't as clear cut as they owe 8 million over, the DAA run their accounts through a central process, so all rental/car parks/fees go into 1 pot and then they do an approximation of each airport. Aer Rianta International will be a loss to the balance sheet of the airport, it was a great initiative when it was setup (for Moscow airport I think), but it's good that there'll be money from the renting out of office space if nothing else.

So who will fund the "Shannon Development entity" i.e the Taxpayer ... :rolleyes: One way of funding the 8 million loss a year would be a development fee like they have in Knock of €10 for out going passengers ... at least the way it would be competing equally

Clareman

lotusm wrote: »

So who will fund the "Shannon Development entity" i.e the Taxpayer ... :rolleyes: One way of funding the 8 million loss a year would be a development fee like they have in Knock of €10 for out going passengers ... at least the way it would be competing equally

It'll be up to the airport to be self-sustaining, Knock have their ideas, Shannon can have theres

lotusm

Looks like what is good for Shannon should be not be a unfair competitive disadvantage to Knock....;)


http://www.advertiser.ie/mayo/article/52593/mulherin-to-seek-government-support-for-major-development-work-at-knock-airport

Mulherin to seek Government support for major development work at Knock airport

Mayo Advertiser, June 01, 2012.
By Joan Geraghty
Mayo Fine Gael TD Michelle Mulherin is calling on the Government to grant Ireland West Airport Knock concessions similar to those provided recently to Shannon Airport, following a rebuff from Minister for Transport Leo Varadkar on the issue.
Deputy Mulherin expressed concern at the response she received from Minister for Transport Leo Varadkar to her request that he set out plans for development and support of Ireland West Airport Knock.
“The Minister has stated that any development of Knock airport is a matter for the management of the Airport as it is a privately owned entity,” she said.
“This attitude to Knock has to be put to bed once and for all. The strategic significance of Knock Airport for the future development of the west and northwest giving us the connectivity for business and tourism we require to operate in the global village the world has become vital. Nobody wants to be driving 200 to 300km after they arrive at an airport to get into our region.”
Deputy Mulherin is arranging to meet shortly with the Ministers for Transport and Tourism and the Taoiseach to discuss the strategic significance of Knock Airport for the future development of the west. She is proposing that international consultants be appointed to draw up a set of development proposals for Ireland West Airport “before Knock is disadvantaged by the massive investment which is proposed for Shannon Airport, which includes a debt write-off of €100 million and a merger with Shannon Development and Estates which will provide the airport with a yearly revenue stream”.
“Not only is a write-off required of the capital debt the airport carries there also needs to be significant investment in the airport infrastructure such as construction of hangars and associated facilities and development of the industrial zone with the benefit of special tax designation around the airport,” said Deputy Mulherin.
“The development of such facilities would help make Knock self-financing. The airport and industrial area should receive investment and support and marketing from Enterprise Ireland, the IDA and Tourism Ireland.
“The baton of the founding fathers of Knock Airport needs to be firmly seized,” she added. “We need to have vision and determination to realise its potential for the benefit of the entire region now. Now is the time for action before Knock’s competitiveness is disadvantaged by the massive investment which is proposed for Shannon Airport.
“Now is the time for Government to work out a joint plan with the trustees of Knock Airport for its future sustainable development. This will require it buy in at the highest level in the Departments of Finance, Transport and Enterprise.
“I intend to meet shortly with the Ministers for Transport and Tourism and the Taoiseach to discuss the situation.”

godfrey

Right...
Shannon Airport has suffered for decades at the hands of the DAA, but the unions are now shouting objections as it finally is to become autonomous. This smells to me like the lazy-arsed, protected union workers are fearful their game might at last be up.

What do you think?

bannerlady20

It look's like Shannon will be separated from the Dublin Airport Authority on the 31st of December.

http://www.rte.ie/news/2012/1201/government-to-separate-airport-authorities.html

golfball37

godfrey wrote: »

Right...
Shannon Airport has suffered for decades at the hands of the DAA, but the unions are now shouting objections as it finally is to become autonomous. This smells to me like the lazy-arsed, protected union workers are fearful their game might at last be up.

What do you think?

I think the unions have been wrong on a lot of things but anyone thinking or believing the DAA leaving Shannon is a good thing is not in full receipt of the facts.

there are 350 jobs on the line in the short term, the staff aren't even being told who their emnployer is in January. the unions had no input to the business plan and their own independent consultants called the plan flawed and wishful thinking. Predicating all their forecasts on a 50% growth next year whilst in the thraws of global recession is ludicrus, frankly.

In short I think the govt has not thought this through enough, if seperation happens as propsed today on Jan 1st there will be no Shannon airport in 2 years time.

Lady Chatterton

For anyone who is interested, Matt Cooper (Today FM) is doing an item on Shannon Airport in a few minutes (a podcast will be available on the website after the show too).

Sunny Disposition

Saw in today's paper that SIPTU are balloting members on strike. It seems premature, but it also seems that the task force has a lot to say about competitiveness, which presumably means reducing the worker's incomes.

golfball37

SIPTU ain't calling for a ballot on the split or Independence they are balloting to get what the DAA owes its Shannon workers before they are cut adrift.
The whole of the mid west should support the workers on this but it will be spun that they are striking because of the split when thats not true at all.

GCU Flexible Demeanour

golfball37 wrote: »

SIPTU ain't calling for a ballot on the split or Independence they are balloting to get what the DAA owes its Shannon workers before they are cut adrift.

What does it owe them? Are there arrears of pay or something?

golfball37

GCU Flexible Demeanour wrote: »

What does it owe them? Are there arrears of pay or something?

Yes -pay and pension. The workers took a voluntary cut a few years ago that was to be restored at a later date.

Brennans Row

There is a good two page read plus an Editorial about Shannon Airport’s future in this week’s Limerick Leader.

The Leader laments: Nine wasted years of Limbo have passed since Seamus Brennan’s announcement Shannon would be separated from DAA but the Shannon Airport Authority, was in truth, never in control of its own destiny.

The Mid-West region should keep a close eye on the pace of progress made here!

Also Liam Skelly wrote a good article about Aer Rianta International.

ARI Pioneers Condemn Semi-State Debt Trade-off (Limerick Leader)

Four former Shannon Executives argue Dublin Airport has stripped assets worth five times what Shannon Debt is.

See attachment.

GCU Flexible Demeanour

golfball37 wrote: »

Yes -pay and pension. The workers took a voluntary cut a few years ago that was to be restored at a later date.

Grand, but isn't that now for their new employer to sort out. Presumably the future restoration has something to do with the fortunes of the airport improving. They'll still be working at the airport.

Brennans Row wrote: »

Also Liam Skelly wrote a good article about Aer Rianta International.

It's not that good; he clearly fudges the extent to which ARI was funded from Aer Rianta resources (there's a grudging mention of the bulk of the money for one of the airport stakes not coming from ARI), and the repetition of the line about the three airports having the same status up to 2004 is ludicrous, in a context where Shannon had both its special tax regime and its artificial monopoly on trans-Atlantic flights. It's propaganda.

Brennans Row

GCU Flexible Demeanour wrote: »

It's propaganda.

Propaganda

I think your dismissal of the people who pioneered ARI in the 1980s is farcical.

For example, I can remember reading when that Shannon Company pulled off a coup by opening the Duty Free Shops in Moscow.

It raised many an eyebrow that a small west of Ireland airport, with a can do attitude, could do business in the Soviet Union like that.

It is very refreshing to read of people who were involved in semi-state bodies to level such biting criticisms like that.



For the record the article was a joint contribution from

• Liam Skelly (Former Director Shannon Airport; Director General ARI)
• Michael Guerin (Former Director Shannon Airport; Director General ARI)
• Michael Hanrahan (Former Financial Manager Shannon Airport; Manager Moscow Duty Free)
• David Hope (Former Purchasing Director Shannon Airport; Manager Moscow Duty Free)

GCU Flexible Demeanour

Brennans Row wrote: »

Propaganda

I think your dismissal of the people who pioneered ARI in the 1980s is farcical.

But, sure, it's justified. They were working for a State company - ARI is a national asset. They can't claim it for Shannon, as if it was some personal property.

And that's just the general observation. There's a lot of hot air expounded about Shannon, when the foundation of the thing was an artificial State monopoly. The extent to which the focusing of State incentives for aviation in Shannon retarded national development can probably never be properly established. How do you measure what might have been? All we can say is the national returns from Shannon have been paltry. And we surely can't help noticing how national US connectivity has improved since the final ditching of the stopover.

All of which is terribly negative, and we shouldn't be terribly negative. Shannon and Dublin are splitting, which should be best for both. It shouldn't come down to having to remind ourselves of all the wrongs inflicted on the country by Shannon lobbying. At the same time, if you consider the reaction from Knock Airport, it should be reasonably clear to all that Shannon is not exactly loved on that account.

This bunch of old farts should know better than to wheel out with this nonsense. Shannon now has the freedom they say they wanted - although, substantially, its the freedom they already had as Shannon Development never lost the legal remit to develop traffic at the airport. The job is to get on with it. If these guys are so hot, they'll leave the DAA in their trail within ten years.

Sunny Disposition

GCU Flexible Demeanour wrote: »

But, sure, it's justified. They were working for a State company - ARI is a national asset. They can't claim it for Shannon, as if it was some personal property.

And that's just the general observation. There's a lot of hot air expounded about Shannon, when the foundation of the thing was an artificial State monopoly. The extent to which the focusing of State incentives for aviation in Shannon retarded national development can probably never be properly established. How do you measure what might have been? All we can say is the national returns from Shannon have been paltry. And we surely can't help noticing how national US connectivity has improved since the final ditching of the stopover.

All of which is terribly negative, and we shouldn't be terribly negative. Shannon and Dublin are splitting, which should be best for both. It shouldn't come down to having to remind ourselves of all the wrongs inflicted on the country by Shannon lobbying. At the same time, if you consider the reaction from Knock Airport, it should be reasonably clear to all that Shannon is not exactly loved on that account.

This bunch of old farts should know better than to wheel out with this nonsense. Shannon now has the freedom they say they wanted - although, substantially, its the freedom they already had as Shannon Development never lost the legal remit to develop traffic at the airport. The job is to get on with it. If these guys are so hot, they'll leave the DAA in their trail within ten years.

Calling people old farts is in bad taste and weakens your argument. If they were all black or English rather than retired would you refer to that? You should delete that comment. I feel more respect should be shown for Liam Skelly, without whom ARI would never have came into being. Have you achieved as much as he has?

While there's certainly a strong case for giving all three airports a slice of ARI profits, and some of the men who wrote that article have argued for that to happen, the DAA shouldn't have it exclusively either, although the debate is somewhat beside the point now.

Here's an article written when Fianna Fáil announced it was putting forward a bill on keeping ARI with Shannon. I think the points made by Skelly about the profits made from the ARI investment in Birmingham are interesting and it shows the State Airports act wasn't the drag on the DAA that is sometimes made out.
http://www.clarechampion.ie/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=12236:former-airport-heads-campaign-for-retention&catid=42:transport&Itemid=60

Sunny Disposition

godfrey wrote: »

Right...
Shannon Airport has suffered for decades at the hands of the DAA, but the unions are now shouting objections as it finally is to become autonomous. This smells to me like the lazy-arsed, protected union workers are fearful their game might at last be up.

What do you think?

To be fair Shannon is only under the DAA since 2004. I think you're being a bit harsh on the workers, no one wants to see their pay or conditions hit and thats likely to happen now, particularly as the task force report says it's necessary.

GCU Flexible Demeanour

Sunny Disposition wrote: »

Calling people old farts is in bad taste and weakens your argument.

I'm not for turning. Their contribution to this debate is contemptible.

Sunny Disposition wrote: »

While there's certainly a strong case for giving all three airports a slice of ARI profits, and some of the men who wrote that article have argued for that to happen, the DAA shouldn't have it exclusively either, although the debate is somewhat beside the point now.

Precisely. The matter has been resolved by wiping Shannon's debts; what's probably happening is Shannon Airport management are rounding up some old farts as stalking horses. They can't lose - formally agree that the split of assets is fair, while being two-faced through the old fart mechanism.

Sunny Disposition wrote: »

Here's an article written when Fianna Fáil announced it was putting forward a bill on keeping ARI with Shannon. I think the points made by Skelly about the profits made from the ARI investment in Birmingham are interesting and it shows the State Airports act wasn't the drag on the DAA that is sometimes made out.
http://www.clarechampion.ie/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=12236:former-airport-heads-campaign-for-retention&catid=42:transport&Itemid=60

The article is biased propaganda, and wrong from it's first sentence. BOTH Liam Skelly and Michael Hanrahan have been campaigning for Shannon to retain ARI for months and at last Friday’s press launch they offered some non-political expertise on the situation. If they are campaiging, they clearly are being political.

Their account is doubly contemptible, as they are misrepresenting things. Great Southern Hotels were sold as the group was loss-making - it was another drain on AR, and ultimately Dublin Airport, revenues. They are making an utterly contemptible contribution to the discussion; if this is reflective of their general approach, it displays the extent to which local Shannon management have been part of the problem.

They are stoking old arguments that have now been settled. All that's obvious is the extent to which Shannon Airport's financial dependence on Dublin rankled with them. So, undoubtedly, they do their best to find a sympathetic audience in local papers for a twisted and biased account of Shannon's history.

Anyway, the Regulations for the split are on the Dail agenda. By the year's end, hopefully this sorry tragedy of Shannon's hampering of national aviation development will be over. Sorry to be so negative about it. But I'm not exactly the cause of the bad air. I'd actually prefer to end it by leaving the past behind, and hoping Shannon Airport finds a successful future alone.

Brennans Row

GCU Flexible Demeanour wrote: »

This bunch of old farts should know better than to wheel out with this nonsense.

Ah that's pure wind-up-merchant tripe, you are dragging the discussion down to an insulting level.

You should take the long view to appreciate what these people have achieved there.

The Irish State decided to build its transatlantic airport at Shannon in the 1930s.

It was a strategic site, ideal for both land and seaplanes.

When the airport officially opened in 1945 its flying-boat basin was already practically obsolete.

From day one, the ever changing nature of aviation always brought new opportunities and challenges for Shannon, which practically came every decade.

In the fifties and sixties Shannon was geographically well positioned as a refuelling stop between Europe and America.

The danger of been by-passed by long-haul aircraft motivated people like Brendan O'Regan and Paul Quigley to look for new ideas to create revenue for the airport.

They innovated Duty Free Shopping, Catering Flight Kitchens, Mail Order Sales, Bunratty Banquets, Industrial Tax Free Zone Estate, Air freight, Pilot In-Flight Training Base (Concorde, etc), Aeroflot - Fuel Farm Joint Venture, Aer Rianta International, Air Traffic Control Centre, Shannon Aerospace, US Emigration facilities.

People from all over Ireland came to live in the Shannon new town which has a population of 10,000 today.

These boring old farts as you call them, were worth their salt and I personally salute their part in modernising Ireland.

Incidentally the map of Shannon is taken form a German school textbook, we must have been doing something right if they are using it as an example of industrial development.