Great news for Shannon

kona

globemaster1986 wrote: »

Shannon is a ghost town because the routes are not there. They are not there because the DAA would not cut costs which lets face it, is much needed! Bring those routes back and people will fly from Shannon over Dublin. The routes were still viable when Ryanair pulled them which was after this whole recession started. People still want to travel, still want to go abroad on holidays etc, its one of the things a lot of people have not sacrificed during this recession, demand is there for travel. Currently people go to Dublin and Cork as there is very little choice of routes from Shannon, simple as that.

Well, we will see if it really was the DAA holding shannon back in a few years

Shannon would want to get real , target areas that you can make money in, I.E Freight, Heavy maintenance , storage etc , forget about the glamour, the 1950s are over and in having a Beer out of a pan am 707 :P

globemaster1986 wrote: »

Seriously, for a match weekend? Everybody knows Ryanair will jack up the prices for matches be it Soccer or Rugby! Aer Lingus do it too just maybe not as much that time:D

But I thought ryanair are cheap

L1011

globemaster1986 wrote: »

Have you seen the Aer Lingus Regional prices?? Not competitive with Ryanair

There is a reason Ryanair aren't operating the routes EIR are. Because it wouldn't be possible to make money flying a 738 with those kind of loads.

Ryanair would probably have to charge higher prices due to extra costs.

You can "believe" routes would be viable all you want, but FR don't cut routes that are; and do cut routes that aren't. And for all their bluff, bluster and bull****, they operate in to many airports that are far more expensive to use than DUB or SNN. Routes were cut as the money wasn't there, reducing airport prices - a tiny element of overall costs - is not going to offset the fact that fuel is HUGELY more expensive than when the routes were cut.

globemaster1986

I'm not saying they deliberately made it lose €8M per year (that is daft) what i'm saying is they deliberately made sure it was not competing with Dublin airport and taking traffic from it. A lot of people from the mid-west region travel to DUB because it has many routes that SNN does not. While this will always be the case there is certainly demand for more European routes from SNN, France, Spain etc. They were viable before Ryanair pulled out and people are still going to those places, just through Dublin and Cork now as they have no/few options from Shannon.

Only time will tell but I believe Shannon can get passenger numbers back up to at least 2.5M per annum if it can get the right routes/airlines involved, and it need not be Ryanair

globemaster1986

MYOB wrote: »

There is a reason Ryanair aren't operating the routes EIR are. Because it wouldn't be possible to make money flying a 738 with those kind of loads.

Ryanair would probably have to charge higher prices due to extra costs.

You can "believe" routes would be viable all you want, but FR don't cut routes that are; and do cut routes that aren't. And for all their bluff, bluster and bull****, they operate in to many airports that are far more expensive to use than DUB or SNN. Routes were cut as the money wasn't there, reducing airport prices - a tiny element of overall costs - is not going to offset the fact that fuel is HUGELY more expensive than when the routes were cut.

I never said anything about Ryanair operating those routes instead. Well aware of the cost of fuel and the differences in operating costs thanks very much. It is not just airport charges, there are legacy staff costs and more that need to be addressed. It needs to be leaner to start being more competitive

globemaster1986

globemaster1986 wrote: »

I'm not saying they deliberately made it lose €8M per year (that is daft) what i'm saying is they deliberately made sure it was not competing with Dublin airport and taking traffic from it. A lot of people from the mid-west region travel to DUB because it has many routes that SNN does not. While this will always be the case there is certainly demand for more European routes from SNN, France, Spain etc. They were viable before Ryanair pulled out and people are still going to those places, just through Dublin and Cork now as they have no/few options from Shannon.

Only time will tell but I believe Shannon can get passenger numbers back up to at least 2.5M per annum if it can get the right routes/airlines involved, and it need not be Ryanair

SNN customers north of SNN are now using Knock to go to Portugal,Spain, Germany, Italy, Croatia, Canaries etc etc. C'ant see ryanair giving up those routes too easy to other airlines unless they are flying them themselves out of SNN. So in the end you will have to play ball with O'Leary.

globemaster1986

kona wrote: »

Shannon would want to get real , target areas that you can make money in, I.E Freight, Heavy maintenance , storage etc , forget about the glamour, the 1950s are over and in having a Beer out of a pan am 707 :P

Agree 100% with that. These are the areas the DAA have neglected to explore fully for Shannon. And I say fully before somebody links that Lynx Cargo proposal

troposphere

Since US customs preclearance started has there been much of an increase in corporate aircraft passing through Shannon? Did they ever get anywhere with trying to get the US to extend it to cargo preclearance?

L1011

globemaster1986 wrote: »

I never said anything about Ryanair operating those routes instead. Well aware of the cost of fuel and the differences in operating costs thanks very much. It is not just airport charges, there are legacy staff costs and more that need to be addressed. It needs to be leaner to start being more competitive

You really don't appear to be aware of them, if you think a route that was canned for not being viable in 2006 when there were more passengers and cheaper fuel would suddenly be viable when a fractional part of the costs are reduced. And you most certainly did say things about Ryanair operating those routes instead - just read your own posts.

What legacy staffing costs are you referring to? Because any staffing costs encountered over and above airport charges aren't staff of the airport authority.

globemaster1986

Deleted User wrote: »

All SNN customers north of SNN are now using Knock to go to Portugal,Spain, Germany, Italy, Croatia, etc etc. C'ant see ryanair giving up those routes too easy to other airlines unless they are flying them themselves out of SNN. So in the end you will have to play ball with O'Leary.

Yes either Knock or Dublin as these routes are not available when once they were and were profitable. And they are profitable from Knock now. Go figure?

Ryanair are not the only game, I would love to see Easyjet come to Ireland. I know Ryanair drove them out of Dublin before but this time they would not be in direct competition unless Ryanair come back to SNN with these routes

globemaster1986

MYOB wrote: »

You really don't appear to be aware of them, if you think a route that was canned for not being viable in 2006 when there were more passengers and cheaper fuel would suddenly be viable when a fractional part of the costs are reduced. And you most certainly did say things about Ryanair operating those routes instead - just read your own posts.

What legacy staffing costs are you referring to? Because any staffing costs encountered over and above airport charges aren't staff of the airport authority.

Which routes are these then?? How were routes with load factors in the high 70's and 80's not viable?

I would love you to quote where I said anything about Ryanair operating EI Regional routes? I made one comment in relation to cost on a match weekend, nothing about Ryanair operating the routes, that was another poster.

SNN is over staffed I believe and the word is paid very well

globemaster1986

globemaster1986 wrote: »

Yes either Knock or Dublin as these routes are not available when once they were and were profitable. And they are profitable from Knock now. Go figure?

Ryanair are not the only game, I would love to see Easyjet come to Ireland. I know Ryanair drove them out of Dublin before but this time they would not be in direct competition unless Ryanair come back to SNN with these routes

I've seen several airlines try to compete with Ryanair in Knock and each time Ryanair won. There doing the same with Lufthansa now. Sometimes they would have flights running within an hour of its competitor to the same destination and prices almost free. There is not the passenger numbers here to fill two planes. As soon as the competitor pulls out the prices go back up.

If Easyjet does an exclusive deal with SNN and keeps Ryanair completely out of there then it might bring some good competition.

kona

Whats the DAA/ Aer Lingus/ SRT / insert here, pension deficit?? Not wanting to go off topic but writing off 100million for shannon would go someway towards this which would benefit ALOT of people whose pensions are ****ed because of asshats running it badly , it would also allow the state to sell its share in EI and get some cash, its would in turn allow EI to begin a new stage, and perhaps even explore routes from shannon?

L1011

globemaster1986 wrote: »

Which routes are these then?? How were routes with load factors in the high 70's and 80's not viable?

I would love you to quote where I said anything about Ryanair operating EI Regional routes? I made one comment in relation to cost on a match weekend, nothing about Ryanair operating the routes, that was another poster.

SNN is over staffed I believe and the word is paid very well

Load factor != yield.

Ryanair don't carry cargo. Their only profit comes from passengers. A plane that is 80% full of passengers that all paid below cost for their ticket is not making money.

You directly compared FR to EIR prices. If that isn't trying to compare what they'd do on a route, nothing is.

"SNN is over staffed" - again, why do you think this has any impact over and above airport charges? Your 'answer' isn't an answer. The only staff that Ryanair has to pay for over and above those provided with its airport charges are its own and its own contractors. This has nothing to do with SNN's staff.

globemaster1986

MYOB wrote: »

Load factor != yield.

Ryanair don't carry cargo. Their only profit comes from passengers. A plane that is 80% full of passengers that all paid below cost for their ticket is not making money.

You directly compared FR to EIR prices. If that isn't trying to compare what they'd do on a route, nothing is.

"SNN is over staffed" - again, why do you think this has any impact over and above airport charges? Your 'answer' isn't an answer. The only staff that Ryanair has to pay for over and above those provided with its airport charges are its own and its own contractors. This has nothing to do with SNN's staff.

So Ryanair have to fill the aircraft to make any money? Wow! Been on many a Ryanair flight, don't ever think I've seen 100% occupancy.

I merely said prices are jacked up for match weekends! Nothing about operating costs. Everybody knows they jack up prices when there are matches, they have been doing it since the late 90's, maybe even before that!!!

Well if you are paying more staff than you actually need that means you need to charge more to cover your costs. Basic economics there!

L1011

globemaster1986 wrote: »

So Ryanair have to fill the aircraft to make any money? Wow! Been on many a Ryanair flight, don't ever think I've seen 100% occupancy.

No.

Some routes are significantly higher yield and the break-even point is at a much lower load. Routes from SNN were not high yield. This is why they were cancelled.

If Ryanair was attempting to make a point about charges (Which are lower than they pay at many other airports), they would have dropped *all* flights.

Which they didn't. Instead they dropped the already loss making ones.

globemaster1986 wrote: »

I merely said prices are jacked up for match weekends! Nothing about operating costs. Everybody knows they jack up prices when there are matches, they have been doing it since the late 90's, maybe even before that!!!

All airlines do this, particularly FR. However, why are you going on about this? This is not where you made your comparison.

You directly said that EIRs prices were not comparable with FRs. You can only make a comparison on the same route, hence you were quite specificly suggesting FR would operate the same routes. Are you not able to remember what you wrote?

globemaster1986 wrote: »

Well if you are paying more staff than you actually need that means you need to charge more to cover your costs. Basic economics there!

You're still not answering the question.

What costs, at SNN, would an airline have to deal with that are NOT its standard airport charges and are related to the airline authorities staffing costs?

You appear to be having serious trouble backing this up.

globemaster1986

MYOB wrote: »

No.

Some routes are significantly higher yield and the break-even point is at a much lower load. Routes from SNN were not high yield. This is why they were cancelled.

If Ryanair was attempting to make a point about charges (Which are lower than they pay at many other airports), they would have dropped *all* flights.

Which they didn't. Instead they dropped the already loss making ones.



All airlines do this, particularly FR.



You're still not answering the question.

What costs, at SNN, would an airline have to deal with that are NOT its standard airport charges and are related to the airline authorities staffing costs?

You appear to be having serious trouble backing this up.

You must be some kind of troll lol! Most of the routes dropped by Ryanair are now operating from Knock. Why? Maybe its cheaper! Certainly not because its a more populated region! Have you any figures to show these flights were loss making?

I don't know what you want me to answer, I said nothing about "other" charges. I have no evidence for something I didn't say, I doubt you have either. I am merely assuming, with the relationship to the DAA, unionised jobs for the boys etc culture that operating costs/staffing costs are higher at SNN that at Knock for example. The fact that many of the Ryanair routes operated out of SNN are now operating from Knock may support that.

I am not knocking SNN, I am from the area and I want SNN to succeed and I believe it can, I just believe that the DAA was more interested in Dublin primarily, then Cork. Only time will tell if SNN can stand on its own two feet but I certainly believe with the right people/airlines/routes involved it can! And this time we need to try and keep the g*bsh*te politicians out of it!

L1011

globemaster1986 wrote: »

You must be some kind of troll lol! Most of the routes dropped by Ryanair are now operating from Knock. Why? Maybe its cheaper! Certainly not because its a more populated region! Have you any figures to show these flights were loss making?

There's more passengers on them from Knock, oddly enough. Higher yield on the fares too.

globemaster1986 wrote: »

I don't know what you want me to answer, I said nothing about "other" charges.

Yes you did:

"It is not just airport charges, there are legacy staff costs and more that need to be addressed"

Something you've not been able to justify what you meant by posting, despite a few attempts to do so and now some believe that you never wrote it.

Airport charges at SNN are nothing out of the ordinary for what FR pays elsewhere. They would pay them if routes were profitable and they DO pay them for quite a few routes already.

Airport charges are a tiny, tiny fraction of what it costs to operate a flight. Airlines do not close masses of routes due to getting a fractionally better deal elsewhere.

Even if SNN allowed Ryanair to land for free, the economics wouldn't make sense for the routes they closed, as the difference in costs since then is gone entirely - due to fuel.

The other factor is that a lot of routes Ryanair end are ended due to subsidies - where they are *paid* by the airport or local authority to bring in passengers - ending. Any of these where SNN was the other end - you ain't going to see that route reappear, ever.

globemaster1986

MYOB wrote: »

There's more passengers on them from Knock, oddly enough. Higher yield on the fares too.



Yes you did:

"It is not just airport charges, there are legacy staff costs and more that need to be addressed"

Something you've not been able to justify what you meant by posting, despite a few attempts to do so and now some believe that you never wrote it.

Airport charges at SNN are nothing out of the ordinary for what FR pays elsewhere. They would pay them if routes were profitable and they DO pay them for quite a few routes already.

Airport charges are a tiny, tiny fraction of what it costs to operate a flight. Airlines do not close masses of routes due to getting a fractionally better deal elsewhere.

Even if SNN allowed Ryanair to land for free, the economics wouldn't make sense for the routes they closed, as the difference in costs since then is gone entirely - due to fuel.

Yes staff wages and possible over staffing. That was all I was referring to. I never said anything about letting them land for free, actually wouldn't agree with doing that at all.

Yes thank you as I already said I am aware of increases in the cost of fuel and I know there will be differences from airport to airport, however I doubt the cost of fuel between Shannon and Knock would be all that much. It usually varies more from country to country as a result of different duties/taxes etc.

You can jump down my throat all you like but I think SNN is viable. There is a large catchment area and it can work. This is a forum for discussion afterall, if you don't agree with me that's fine I'm not going to be a condescending prick to you about it!

L1011

globemaster1986 wrote: »

Yes thank you as I already said I am aware of increases in the cost of fuel and I know there will be differences from airport to airport, however I doubt the cost of fuel between Shannon and Knock would be all that much. It usually varies more from country to country as a result of different duties/taxes etc.

Where on earth are you getting *anything* about there being differences between SNN and NOC? Never mentioned. Not an issue.

The cost of fuel is *significantly higher* than it was in 2006. That's all the matters. The routes were unprofitable in 2006 (if they were profitable, they would not have cancelled them). SNN could charge them zero and the increase in the cost of fuel would ensure the routes were *still* not profitable.

Suits

globemaster1986 wrote: »

Seriously, for a match weekend? Everybody knows Ryanair will jack up the prices for matches be it Soccer or Rugby! Aer Lingus do it too just maybe not as much that time:D

Crowds dont generally travel in numbers for the Amlin though!:P

In all seriousness the sport "pull" to Shannon from a Munster Rugby point of view is set to take a serious tumble with the new IRFU player rules!(rugby becomes aviation related from this point of view):D

globemaster1986

MYOB wrote: »

Where on earth are you getting *anything* about there being differences between SNN and NOC? Never mentioned. Not an issue.

The cost of fuel is *significantly higher* than it was in 2006. That's all the matters. The routes were unprofitable in 2006 (if they were profitable, they would not have cancelled them). SNN could charge them zero and the increase in the cost of fuel would ensure the routes were *still* not profitable.

Yes the cost of fuel is higher than 2006. It will be higher in SNN, NOC, DUB, ORK and everywhere else so whether the routes are operating from NOC or SNN makes no difference when it comes to the cost of fuel.

You keep saying these routes were unprofitable, do you actually have any proof other than "they wouldn't have cancelled them if they were profitable"? Because I find it odd how these routes are suddenly profitable from NOC. All they have done is move them to another airport, I believe that says something. To be honest I am speculating but I believe you are too as you have no evidence to support your theories either.

We can just agree to disagree, only time will tell whether SNN can support itself, not either one of us muppets:D

globemaster1986

Suits wrote: »

Crowds dont generally travel in numbers for the Amlin though!:P

In all seriousness the sport "pull" to Shannon from a Munster Rugby point of view is set to take a serious tumble with the new IRFU player rules!(rugby becomes aviation related from this point of view):D

Agreed, the Amlin is a poor mans HEC!;)

I think you are doing Munnster Rugby fans a disservice there Suits, yes there are a lot of bandwagoners as Leinster have currently but the core support is very large and most of them will continue to travel to support Munster. HEC and even Magners weekends away have become rather addictive for most:D

L1011

globemaster1986 wrote: »

Yes the cost of fuel is higher than 2006. It will be higher in SNN, NOC, DUB, ORK and everywhere else so whether the routes are operating from NOC or SNN makes no difference when it comes to the cost of fuel.

Why do you keep mentioning this? The price at different airports has no relevance. You're persisting with this (which was never mentioned by anyone else and has no relevance) when you drop other parts of your argument when they cease to be convenient.

globemaster1986 wrote: »

You keep saying these routes were unprofitable, do you actually have any proof other than "they wouldn't have cancelled them if they were profitable"? Because I find it odd how these routes are suddenly profitable from NOC. All they have done is move them to another airport, I believe that says something. To be honest I am speculating but I believe you are too as you have no evidence to support your theories either.

We can just agree to disagree, only time will tell whether SNN can support itself, not either one of us muppets:D

Ryanair don't run routes for any reason other than profit.

NOC has a very different passenger base than SNN; the routes at NOC are not the same routes as SNN regardless of where they are going to. It is entirely plausible for a route to be profitable from NOC and not be from SNN. Its not like the airports are beside each other. They are not "shannon's routes".


How much do you actually think the difference in charges between the two airports is? You appear to think its somewhere exponentially higher than it actually is. Remember that NOC insists on passengers forking over another tenner directly to them, which impacts on what fares you can get away with charging. There is very little difference in charges.

xflyer

Look we all live in the real world. Even the likes of me who has a bit of information on the subject. Last year my wife and I wanted a holiday. We fancied the Canaries. We went to a travel agent. After some discussion we decided on Tenerife. We had a choice, Knock or Dublin. Well Dublin is two hours away and Knock one hour from Galway. Tough decision? No.

SNN didn't come into it. Ryanair or anyone else didn't provide the service to Tenerife from Shannon. We all know why. If Ryanair don't fly out of Shannon then it's because Shannon won't play Ryanair's game. So I travel to the big hill in the middle of Mayo because the people there are pragmatic enough to realise that there is no reason anyone will go there unless the price is right.

That's the leap Shannon needs to make.

You can bitch about Ryanair as much as you like but their job is to make money for Ryanair not for some airport with a history.

globemaster1986

MYOB wrote: »

Why do you keep mentioning this? The price at different airports has no relevance.

Because you keep bringing it up. I know it has no relevance, think you are finally getting the point. It's not like it explains why they moved those routes to NOC.


Ryanair don't run routes for any reason other than profit.

Stating the obvious.

NOC has a very different passenger base than SNN; the routes at NOC are not the same routes as SNN regardless of where they are going to. It is entirely plausible for a route to be profitable from NOC and not be from SNN. Its not like the airports are beside each other.

No the airports are not beside each other but many passengers who previously would have used SNN now use NOC and SNN has a bigger catchment area.

This is daft neither one of us is getting anywhere. Summary:

You don't think the routes are viable from SNN and I do. No point debating it further, time will tell.

globemaster1986

xflyer wrote: »

Look we all live in the real world. Even the likes of me who has a bit of information on the subject. Last year my wife and I wanted a holiday. We fancied the Canaries. We went to a travel agent. After some discussion we decided on Tenerife. We had a choice, Knock or Dublin. Well Dublin is two hours away and Knock one hour from Galway. Tough decision? No.

SNN didn't come into it. Ryanair or anyone else didn't provide the service to Tenerife from Shannon. We all know why. If Ryanair don't fly out of Shannon then it's because Shannon won't play Ryanair's game. So I travel to the big hill in the middle of Mayo because the people there are pragmatic enough to realise that there is no reason anyone will go there unless the price is right.

That's the leap Shannon needs to make.

You can bitch about Ryanair as much as you like but their job is to make money for Ryanair not for some airport with a history.

Agreed. No bitching about Ryanair on my part, was merely saying they moved to NOC for a reason.

L1011

Firstly to respond to the bits written in red:

YOU are the only one who keeps trying to compare fuel prices at different airports. Stop pretending I ever mentioned it, thanks.

globemaster1986 wrote: »

No the airports are not beside each other but many passengers who previously would have used SNN now use NOC and SNN has a bigger catchment area.

And virtually all of SNN's catchment area has motorways to DUB. Rather a lot of NOCs has cart-tracks

globemaster1986 wrote: »

You don't think the routes are viable from SNN and I do. No point debating it further, time will tell.

Come back in two years and see if Ryanair have done anything route development wise, other than possible try to bully existing or new carriers off their routes (ala with Easyjet).

globemaster1986 wrote: »

Agreed. No bitching about Ryanair on my part, was merely saying they moved to NOC for a reason.

Because the routes from there make money.

globemaster1986

MYOB wrote: »

Firstly to respond to the bits written in red:

YOU are the only one who keeps trying to compare fuel prices at different airports. Stop pretending I ever mentioned it, thanks.




And virtually all of SNN's catchment area has motorways to DUB. Rather a lot of NOCs has cart-tracks




Come back in two years and see if Ryanair have done anything route development wise, other than possible try to bully existing or new carriers off their routes (ala with Easyjet).




Because the routes from there make money.

You keep bringing up how fuel prices have changed, my point is they have changed everywhere so that is not a reason for moving routes to NOC.

Yes we have motorway to Dublin, but most of us would fly out of Shannon given the choice regardless of motorway or cart tracks.

Yes we will have to see what happens but I can say with some certainty that if they do open new routes (especially to holiday sestinations) they will get bums on seats! And they can be any carrier. Ryanair bullying them may come later but as mayotom said an exclusive deal with a carrier to prevent Ryanair doing this would be an option, if it's possible, not sure if that can be done legally.

L1011

globemaster1986 wrote: »

You keep bringing up how fuel prices have changed, my point is they have changed everywhere so that is not a reason for moving routes to NOC.

NOC is not SNN. Just because routes were unprofitable at SNN does not mean that they will be unprofitable at NOC.

The ONLY point I made about fuel was that any putative reduction in SNN charges will only be a fraction of how much fuel has gone up since they left.

globemaster1986 wrote: »

Yes we will have to see what happens but I can say with some certainty that if they do open new routes (especially to holiday sestinations) they will get bums on seats! And they can be any carrier. Ryanair bullying them may come later but as mayotom said an exclusive deal with a carrier to prevent Ryanair doing this would be an option, if it's possible, not sure if that can be done legally.

We'll see. I'm extremely confident that the standard Ryanair bull**** and bluster will be just that. Not going to see any routes returned from NOC.

Expect to see court action if exclusive deals are done.

highlydebased

MYOB wrote: »

NOC is not SNN. Just because routes were unprofitable at SNN does not mean that they will be unprofitable at NOC.

The ONLY point I made about fuel was that any putative reduction in SNN charges will only be a fraction of how much fuel has gone up since they left.




We'll see. I'm extremely confident that the standard Ryanair bull**** and bluster will be just that. Not going to see any routes returned from NOC.

Expect to see court action if exclusive deals are done.

I do not expect any major difference in monies made in NOC compared to SNN.