Originally Posted by EI-EIDW
FYI they are basing a extra A320 next summer.
Increaseing 22 routes and reducing just 3. (as posted a few pages back) and that does not include EI regional flights. So are they reducing capacity on many routes??????
Aer Lingus have consistently reduced capacity over the last couple of years, and their fleet has reduced from 42 down to 37, with 1 of those currently in storage.
Granted, they are increasing capacity on a lot of routes this summer which don't get me wrong is great to see, but the point I'm trying to make to you is that just because they're going ahead with a modest net expansion doesn't mean they have no issue with DAA charges, which you tried to imply earlier. Aer Lingus aren't like Ryanair, they can't afford to play chicken with the DAA and pull out a load of aircraft from Dublin until charges come down, they have no choice
but to expand from Dublin. Ryanair on the other hand are a global brand and can just move aircraft to other bases that are more profitable. But it is well known that Aer Lingus, along with CityJet, are one with Ryanair on the issue of airport charges.
Originally Posted by Noxegon
You're stating your opinion as a fact. I'd see it differently; Ryanair was operating unprofitable routes which were on borrowed time anyway, and when the tax came along it was a great excuse to use to throw their toys out of the pram. And yes, that's opinion too.
It wasn't my opinion, I was just stating a fact, i.e. that many routes have very thin yields and a modest increase in airport charges can make routes, that
were profitable, unprofitable overnight.
Thin yields aside, look at it this way - the hard won €97 million in cost-cutting that was achieved by the Aer Lingus greenfield programme was wiped out overnight by the aviation regulator's decision to approve the DAA's request to increase charges, which are only postponed - they will be introduced eventually.
Originally Posted by Noxegon
I don't think passenger throughput is really relevant to this discussion -- but if you insist, I'd have thought economies of scale would mean that an airport handling fifty million passengers per year should really be charging *less* per passenger than one handling eighteen million, wouldn't you agree?
Not unless they can afford to, which the likes of Heathrow and Frankfurt can. We can't. And passenger throughput is very relevant when you're drawing comparisons between Dublin and the likes of Paris-CDG, Frankfurt, Heathrow etc.
Originally Posted by Shamrogue
Dublinaviator,
You are missing my point on the tax issue. Ryanair have reported higher profits and indeed so will a number of airlines. If you take a cost out from a fare - ie in this case €3.000 Gov tax. Most airlines will not reduce their fares by €3.00. It will be used to increase profits. They might claim they will. But ultimately it's a tight business and anywhere an airline sees an opportunity to increase profits it will be taken - simple logic - any business would do the same.
However, €3.00 will not decide a passenger coming to Ireland or not. Far more radical plans need to be played out.
But look at the amount of free press the airlines gain from objecting to the €3.00.
Regards
Shamrogue
Shamrogue, again this isn't a tax on airlines, its a tax on tourists. Its only collected from airlines for convenience. So just that alone is reason enough to get rid of it - its not helping our case for increasing tourism numbers and whatever little revenue it brings in is outweighed by the negative effects it has on the greater economy. As I said as well, €3 added on to each passenger fare can be the difference between whether or not a route is profitable.
I can see where you're coming from, but I just personally think the government, in conjunction with the DAA, should be doing a lot more to allow airlines expand and increase passenger numbers, and thereby increase tourism. Taxing tourists and increasing charges does nothing for that cause.