Here's the article I referred to;
Sunday Tribune (Irish) Business Section,
25th November 2001,
Brian Carey (Auth),
With O'Leary now on the cusp of securing the deal of his business life, a 10-year low-charges agreement at the most important airport in his universe, it is worth examining just how beneficial O'Leary and Ryanair will be for Irish tourism. Is the deal going to be good for Michael or good for tourism? Are the two the same? And most importantly is Aer Rianta and its chairman Noel Hanlon about to roll over and let O'Leary charge triumphantly into Dublin Airport?
The answer to the final question is a resounding "no". The airport authority will this week entertain the government's expert committee on the response of the tourism industry to the 11th September. It will spell out a few home truths.
First off, if Aer Rianta offers Ryanair landing charges at £1 skull for 10 years, it must do the same for other carriers. That means Aer Rianta's income from aeronautical charges will be £14M next year. The company's rates and insurance bill next year will be £16M Its interest bill is almost £18m.
By law. Aer Rianta has a commercial mandate. It also has bond-holders owed EU250M and owes a further EU100M to the European Investment Bank. The new low charge regime will put the company into losses, threatening a default on its bonds. Does the government want another struggling semi-state in north county Dublin?
A new "pier" is not a new terminal, it is Just a spur off an existing terminal, Aer Rianta charges are broken down on the basis of landing fees road access and security. Passengers trundling to the new pier would use the same road access to the airport, the same runways for takeoff and landing, and the same security. For all that, the airports regulator reckons airlines should be charged £4.41 a passenger. So how can the airport charge £1 a passenger to Ryanair's customers? It is understood that regulator Bill Prasifka examined the idea of setting up a low-cost pier at Dublin, The expert committee might ring Prasifka for his view.
The coup de race will cut atraight to the chase and might go something like this: "Yes, we will offer a £1 a skull landing charge. Yes we will offer a lO year deal. We will even throw in some marketing support and cut-price office accommodation. But we will not offer it in Dublin at a pier constructed by you, we will offer It in Shannon".
Shannon is almost as far from Dublin as Ryanair's new European hub, Hahn, is from Frankfurt. And, interestingly the owner of Frankfurt Airport is a 73% shareholder in Hahn, yet there was no cut price deal on offer to Ryanair at the main airport.
But this is all about tourism.
Which part of the country Is suffering most from the drop off in the transatlantic traffic? The west.
Which part of the country would benefit from a new "low cost airport" at Shannon?
The west.
And which airport will be wiped off the map if the EU finally declares open skies across the Atlantic and hence desperately needs to develop new routes?
Shannon.
The move will represent a major departure in airport policy It will be aimed at incentivising traffic into Shannon, an airport currently operating at under one-third of its capacity But most importantly the move would not just be a knee jerk reaction to events of 11 September. The new Pier D at Dublin will not be constructed until 2003, so where is the great deal for Irish tourism in its hour of need?
O'Leary is offering new routes from Shannon as a barter for his new pier but that hardly represent a proactive policy for the western airport.
It would benefit all airlines, not just low fares, not just Ryanair.
If Aer Rianta wants to play dirty it can always highlight the current situation with Go. Chief executive Barbara Cassani told the Financial Times that the airline was considering pulling off at least one of Its Dublin routes, The reason: the aggressive response from Ryanair to its arrival. The Irish airline also saw off Virgin Express from Shannon.
O'Leary told this newspaper in September that he would not stand for any operator coming Into Ireland and "trying to eat our lunch". Are these the actions of a man who has the best interests of Irish tourism at heart, rather than that of Ryanair?
O'Leary wants a long term low charge deal at Dublin, the same as he has at Beauvais, Charleroi and Hahn. Aer Rianta says Dublin is an international airport, not a dressed-up former military field, and one third of all passengers going through Dublin are business passengers who expect better facilities (even if they don't get them). It has a role to play in tourism development but that is not its function.
O'Leary's best defence is that Ryanair will deliver. It always has and it is now emerging as one of the most powerful forces in european aviation. Aer Rianta should have developed Shannon as a low-cost hub yearsago. But it didn't. It was far more interested in over-spending on facilities in Dublin, engaging in retail development rather than airport management.
Does the government want Michael O'Leary to become the most powerful man in Irish tourism? Equally, can it rely on Aer Rianta to provide a service that will really tempt tourists and really develop Shannon as a stand-on-its-own-two-feet airport?
Questions, questions.