Ryanair's proposal to complete its purchase of EI has been formally rejected today.
FR, of course, is throwing its toys out of its cot and announcing an appeal. It claims political interference, but given the quality of its proposals for alternative competition in the market, one has to wonder if the government actually needed to lobby. FR's proposals became more laughable by the day. Flybe? Come on, seriously!
Anyway, FR is likely to string this along for quite a while. I suspect that part of MO'L's anger is pressure from the board and shareholders pretty angry about this plan; FR is stuck with a shareholding worth far more than its original price and on top of that, how many millions spent on legal fees (excluding the appeal now imminent). This has been a hugely costly exercise for FR.
Some time ago, EI lost a legal bid to force FR to sell its shareholding; there is no legislation to force FR to do so, but I am wondering if the failure of this third bid changes things. We can say this of FR's shareholding:
1. It does nothing for EI; FR contributes nothing to EI, and never has done.
2. With the failure of this bid, it has no future strategy for EI.
3. Its continued shareholding in its principal competitor cannot be said to be in the best interests of the consumer or the market.
You can create a legal test from the responses to these statements (phrasing them as questions), which can be built into legislation, and FR should, in fairness, be given the opportunity to respond. It should be given the opportunity to show that its continued shareholding serves a constructive purpose and the best interests of the consumer; personally, I don't believe it can do so.
I realise that the British OFT has still to rule on FR's shareholding in EI, but even if for "optics" alone, I'd much rather see any compulsory sale coming from Ireland rather than the UK.