Shannon Airport to be split from DAA

Cosmo Kramer

questionmark? wrote: »

Good luck to them indeed. With European competition rules I'm sure other airlines that are competitive would be just fine.




Ryanair left because the charges were simply to high for the airport that Shannon is. I doubt they would just up sticks if they owned an airport. It would be in their interest to ensure the airport is as efficient and profitable as possible. They would tell the unions to go take a run and jump and staff to the levels that are actually required.


I could also see transatlantic flights increasing dramatically as Ryanair would market it as a transit airport. The DAA would not be impressed.

This whole suggestion is completely nuts. Why would Ryanair have any interest in owning Shannon - the suggestion is thrown around that somehow MOL would be delighted to get his hands on it? The man runs an airline, he doesn't buy airports - and if he was to start buying them, why on earth would he buy an airport like Shannon that he couldn't make money from when they were basically paying him to fly there?

People need to understand that Shannon is a bloated oversized drain on the tax payer. Always has been, always will be. It is a basket case airport that could never be run profitably by anyone. Therefore no matter how many re-structures of the place are undertaken and no matter how the figures are disguised and massaged, the end result is that the wider public will always be funding the airport on behalf of the people of the mid-west to the tune of millions of euro year after year as long as the place stays open. Of course it never will be closed, so the cycle just continues indefinitely.

Growler!!!

questionmark? wrote: »

Ryanair left because the charges were simply to high for the airport that Shannon is.

Cosmo Kramer wrote: »

why on earth would he buy an airport like Shannon that he couldn't make money from when they were basically paying him to fly there?

Wait I'm confused. Were Shannon charging Ryanair too much or were Shannon paying Ryanair. Two conflicting views, with the truth forgotten about to fit posters agendas......

Growler!!!

Growler!!! wrote: »

Wait I'm confused. Were Shannon charging Ryanair too much or were Shannon paying Ryanair. Two conflicting views, with the truth forgotten about to fit posters agendas......

Shannon were paying Ryanair to land there at one stage, when that state sponsored/taxpayer funded scheme finished and Ryanair were asked to pay a higher fee they left. The routes mainly went to Kerry and Knock which were more efficient and therefore had cheaper fees.

I have a feeling you already knew that.

Now the government are trying another new tax funded/bailout scheme to support Shannon. If they throw enough money at it eventually some of it has to stick.

imurdaddy

Deleted User wrote: »

Shannon were paying Ryanair to land there at one stage, when that state sponsored/taxpayer funded scheme finished and Ryanair were asked to pay a higher fee they left. The routes mainly went to Kerry and Knock which were more efficient and therefore had cheaper fees.

I have a feeling you already knew that.

Now the government are trying another new tax funded/bailout scheme to support Shannon. If they throw enough money at it eventually some of it has to stick.

And will be returning in 2013

donvito99

If O'Leary wants to buy any airport, it's Baldonnel!

Peregrine

donvito99 wrote: »

If O'Leary wants to buy any airport, it's Baldonnel!

Unfortunately for him it's not on sale
I do believe Baldonnel is heavily under used given it has a medium sized runway, close proximity to Dublin, close to the Red Luas line etc. and space for expansion but I'd hate to see it go to budget airlines, nothing against Ryanair.

I've seen people say the Air Corps should be relocated to Shannon and Baldonnel should be opened as a second airport for Dublin, of course the actual need to do that at the moment is non existant

highlydebased

questionmark? wrote: »

Ryanair left because the charges were simply to high for the airport that Shannon is..

Wrong- it is because Shannon actually wanted to charge Ryanair something trivially small as opposed to, free use!

Tenger

questionmark? wrote: »

...........Ryanair left because the charges were simply to high for the airport that Shannon is. I doubt they would just up sticks if they owned an airport.....


.....I could also see transatlantic flights increasing dramatically as Ryanair would market it as a transit airport. The DAA would not be impressed.

FR left SNN as the SAA refused to extend their original contract. As with most airports new routes get landing charges reduced or waived for the first few years. FR took advantage of this and when the term of the offer was up they demanded an extension. SNN refused, FR left in a huff. Nothing to do with too high charges or increasing charges, FR refused to accept that an airport needs to make money too, they do not simply exist for the privilege of FR flying in a few times a week.


The idea of SNN as an FR transit hub has merit. However it goes against a number of the FR core business model......no connections offered means no missed flight compensation, emphasis on cabin baggage only means low risk of lost bag compensationa, single aircraft type makes daily ops easier to organise and reduces MX costs.

kub

I wonder if the foot fall was in Shannon, would Ryanair have walked away? Jsut consider some of their operations ex Cork, they are at this stage obvioulsy paying full whack but are still there.

GCU Flexible Demeanour

kub wrote: »

I wonder if the foot fall was in Shannon, would Ryanair have walked away? Jsut consider some of their operations ex Cork, they are at this stage obvioulsy paying full whack but are still there.

I'm not saying it holds water, but Michael O'Leary told the Oireachtas Transport Committee that the problem in Shannon was a lack of year-round business.

On the general initiative, I find it hard to make comprehensive sense of where it leaves things. Unions in Shannon seem to want to stay with the DAA - which is presumably not in the programme. We've Knock complaining and, even if their case fell, I'd take it that a complaint to the European Commission could delay things.

And, most of all, the tax relief for aviation services won't be limited to Shannon. I think this is a good thing - I had been wondering how Dublin Aerospace would be left if Shannon companies were able to undercut them. But I don't see how it creates an incentive for businesses to cluster in Shannon - which is presumably the strategy.

Shannon's only unique features are the long runway and the US pre-clearance for private jets. Is that enough to really support these 850 new jobs? I'd expect it might be enough to help a debt-free Shannon to hang on in there, but hardly enough for it to thrive.

Irish Steve

Hmmmm........

Now that DAA are out of the Shannon scenario, how do we set about getting them out of the Dublin scenario as well, with a condition that they also take SIPTU with them as well.

irishbloke77

kub wrote: »

I wonder if the foot fall was in Shannon, would Ryanair have walked away? Jsut consider some of their operations ex Cork, they are at this stage obvioulsy paying full whack but are still there.

I think the offers on opening new routes generally go for up to five years, with each years charges gradually getting higher in the five years. As far as I can see from Cork, the only routes they do there for at least 5 years would be stansted and maybe gatwick at this stage. These routes seem to get good numbers from most places that start them, especially stansted for ryanair.

Would they get a deal if another airline already does or did the route? Or is it if it is their first time doing the route they get the offer of a discount?

flanzer

Irish Steve wrote: »

Hmmmm........

Now that DAA are out of the Shannon scenario, how do we set about getting them out of the Dublin scenario as well, with a condition that they also take SIPTU with them as well.

Why? Are they seriously impacting on your travelling life? Do they offer a poor level of service to you?

mayotom

Calls for Shannon Airport to keep Aer Rianta International - RTE News

So not happy with a big bailout and €13 million annual subsidy they want more. Shannon has gotten a great deal already, its time to get to work and make the airport financially viable, not spend their time moaning and looking for more.

Fact of the matter ARI was always a state company, as is Shannon and the DAA, why should one be used to subsidise the other, Maybe Spin off ARI as an independent company and let it continue to operate successfully as is has for many years without squeezing it for every penny to prop up inefficient operations in DUB/ORK/SNN

GCU Flexible Demeanour

mayotom wrote: »

Fact of the matter ARI was always a state company, as is Shannon and the DAA, why should one be used to subsidise the other.

I think you've a good point - a similar discussion took place on another thread.

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?p=82125817#post82125817

I'd hope the news item is just RTE pulling out a pre-recorded filler. It would be quite sad to think that Shannon Airport isn't just getting on with the job of building on the huge opportunity given to it in the form of the elimination of its debt to build business. If these retired Aer Rianta staff in the Mid-West have anything to contribute, it is surely to add that process and not to act as stalking horses to see if a few extra bob can be shaken out. The deal is done.

Shannon got a very fair settlement, and the best of luck to them with it.