Aer Lingus - 2
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Belt 7
Posts: 86
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Yeah, I was just nitpicking for the sake of mischief. DL's BusinessElite is way ahead of EI Premier, and they are planning to upgrade it in the next few years. And they have a half decent frequent flier programme which is key to the business market.
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Ireland
Posts: 290
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
DL's flights to JFK are sold as all-economy,with Gold-Medallion, etc getting preference to use upgraded seats. The 767 they use is still in domestic configuration, so they let their frequent fliers sit in the domestic first cabin! EI's premier cabin is in dire need of replacement. DL's cabin is far better, and CO's cabin is even better! AerLingus offer great service and their crew are fantastic, but they need to upgrade their interiors!!!!
Join Date: Aug 1999
Location: Dublin, Ireland
Posts: 1,879
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
This is because the 767-400ERs were previously used on domestic services and didn't have an international business, like the 763s do. Frankly, I thought DL might use a 763 to DUB, which one would expect to be a pretty lucrative route from a business perspective?
Incidentally, don't the first two EI 332s come up for D checks pretty soon (I think 'EWR was delivered in 1999?), in which case one would that they could be refitted with up to date IFE/seatback TV at that stage.
On the subject of new aircraft, while the A332 is "only game in town" at the moment - i.e. in terms of aircraft available right now, rather than 2012 - I see Aeroflot has "cancelled" an order for 22 787s, with BA and SIA apparently chasing the slots. While the 787-8 is the smallest of the family, it's by no means a small aircraft; while slightly shorter than the 332, it is wider. QF's Jetstar subsidiary is using these in a 2 class (premium economy/Y) on its new services, in a 303 seat layout. I'm sure EI is actively considering all options, but just for the sake of discussion ...
Incidentally, don't the first two EI 332s come up for D checks pretty soon (I think 'EWR was delivered in 1999?), in which case one would that they could be refitted with up to date IFE/seatback TV at that stage.
On the subject of new aircraft, while the A332 is "only game in town" at the moment - i.e. in terms of aircraft available right now, rather than 2012 - I see Aeroflot has "cancelled" an order for 22 787s, with BA and SIA apparently chasing the slots. While the 787-8 is the smallest of the family, it's by no means a small aircraft; while slightly shorter than the 332, it is wider. QF's Jetstar subsidiary is using these in a 2 class (premium economy/Y) on its new services, in a 303 seat layout. I'm sure EI is actively considering all options, but just for the sake of discussion ...
Join Date: Jun 1997
Location: 5530N
Posts: 845
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
you'll be waiting! was on a AL 330 recently.....i thought i saw a part of the ceiling collapsing but was relieved to see it was a TV from the dark ages the size of a concrete slab being lowered down for the masses to enjoy. What a joke.
Those 330s are more or less in the same cabin state since they began to role off the production lines in 1994.
Aer Lingus need to get the finger out yesterday.
Those 330s are more or less in the same cabin state since they began to role off the production lines in 1994.
Aer Lingus need to get the finger out yesterday.
As far as I know all the 330s are getting a makeover during their winter overhauls while the 2 new aircraft will have all the bells and whistles so expect a better product next year 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Belfast
Posts: 143
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
EI 332s can't be upgraded to full seat back IFE
Akerosid
I'm sure that I have read here that the IE 330-200 can't have the latest IFE system as the extra weight would leave them short of range for LAX?
Possibly even applies to the 330-300 for ORD
I'm sure that I have read here that the IE 330-200 can't have the latest IFE system as the extra weight would leave them short of range for LAX?
Possibly even applies to the 330-300 for ORD
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Baile Átha Cliath, Éire
Posts: 25
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
as far as the weight issues to LAX with the 332 thats balony. one the of 332's -DAA already has PTV's. the only weight issue is with the current 333's which would be rangle limited to east coast US ops, ORD being out of the question. remember the baseline 333 model is only a medium range airliner and not a "long hauler" per se.
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Ireland
Posts: 290
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I think they should go all out, and put flat-beds in J. If they want to attract business, and launch new long haul routes, and develop DUB into a hub, they need to give people a reason to want to fly with them. They can pack their flights with economy passengers, as they have mastered low fares in that cabin. But J class want more! If they want to get people flying to/from US and onto Europe, they must realise they are up against BA, VS, CO, AF etc.
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: cork , ireland
Posts: 90
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
A friend of mine was training in dub recently and had a briefing by some marketing chap. There is a new premier product to be rolled out this winter which includes new seating, screens and service etc. Not to sure when but soon
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Leeds, UK & Cork, Ireland
Posts: 1,080
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Considering that the 333 would be limited to west coast if PTV's were fitted, so what? These are the routes most in need of the extra capacity the 333 offers, and the 333s rarely, if ever, venture to LAX or DXB.
Good to see an updated product comming along though. Bout Time!
Join Date: Aug 1999
Location: Dublin, Ireland
Posts: 1,879
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I think you mean A330s will be confined to the east coast (with IFE)? Yes, but as you say, they pretty much always have been. I think that if the older 330s were refitted with IFE, they would be fine for BOS/JFK, but possibly not ORD, which is still one of the longest A330-300 sectors. The next A333, for delivery for next June, is a higher gross weight model, so it shouldn't have a problem. I would assume it will probably be confined to the ORD route?
Interesting snippet in today's Sunday Business Post, about the Dubai route and new efforts to get new US access:
http://www.thepost.ie/post/pages/p/s...790-qqqx=1.asp
The article says (at the end) that if Ireland is granted new routes to the US, it might have competitive consequences for other EU countries, but I would say that if the new US access is NOT granted, it would effectively amount to the imposition of a competitive advantage against EI; NO other EU country has a bilateral as insanely anti-competitive as ours; most other countries have pretty close to Open Skies (even the UK, despite Bermuda II is pretty liberal), so I can't see that being an excuse that will hold water.
Interesting snippet in today's Sunday Business Post, about the Dubai route and new efforts to get new US access:
http://www.thepost.ie/post/pages/p/s...790-qqqx=1.asp
The article says (at the end) that if Ireland is granted new routes to the US, it might have competitive consequences for other EU countries, but I would say that if the new US access is NOT granted, it would effectively amount to the imposition of a competitive advantage against EI; NO other EU country has a bilateral as insanely anti-competitive as ours; most other countries have pretty close to Open Skies (even the UK, despite Bermuda II is pretty liberal), so I can't see that being an excuse that will hold water.
Join Date: Aug 1999
Location: Dublin, Ireland
Posts: 1,879
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
FF MEP says "no EU/US deal"?
http://www.rte.ie/aertel/p117.htm
I wonder if he's heard this unofficially from govt or EU sources; whatever the source, I wonder what he wants? What else can the govt do to safeguard SNN? This guy is actually a northwest MEP, so SNN isn't even in this constituency. It's far easier for people to use Carrickfinn or Sligo to fly to DUB and then to the US. Leaving that aside, however, how much protection does SNN actually need? With so many of the US carriers using 757s (with DL to come this year), SNN's t/a access - even if the ratio of DUB/SNN flights is to change - hardly likely to decline, but the most important thing is that what happens to SNN is going to be influenced by SNN alone; the days of holding DUB (or anywhere else for that matter) back to help it are gone. Indeed, I sincerely hope that provision is made for ORK access to the US; a 757 service to BOS or JFK/EWR should certainly work.
I wonder if he's heard this unofficially from govt or EU sources; whatever the source, I wonder what he wants? What else can the govt do to safeguard SNN? This guy is actually a northwest MEP, so SNN isn't even in this constituency. It's far easier for people to use Carrickfinn or Sligo to fly to DUB and then to the US. Leaving that aside, however, how much protection does SNN actually need? With so many of the US carriers using 757s (with DL to come this year), SNN's t/a access - even if the ratio of DUB/SNN flights is to change - hardly likely to decline, but the most important thing is that what happens to SNN is going to be influenced by SNN alone; the days of holding DUB (or anywhere else for that matter) back to help it are gone. Indeed, I sincerely hope that provision is made for ORK access to the US; a 757 service to BOS or JFK/EWR should certainly work.
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Ireland
Posts: 1,455
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Clare was tagged on to the North West Euro constituency before the last election.
Are management and the majority shareholders going to continue to stay silent in order to prop up a few politicians in the mid west?
The muted reaction to the news that the Stopover was due to be phased out from 1st November shows that this issue can be buried once and for all with a small bit of pressure.
As for Cork if they can't even secure a replacement for Loganair on Cork Glasgow I wouldn't hold my breath on them attracting a JFK/BOS service.
A 757 would probably work but EI are best placed to go there due to their massive marketing power on both sides of the Atlantic.
The Walsh/Kearney team spoke several times about it publicly before they left in 2004.
Are management and the majority shareholders going to continue to stay silent in order to prop up a few politicians in the mid west?
The muted reaction to the news that the Stopover was due to be phased out from 1st November shows that this issue can be buried once and for all with a small bit of pressure.
As for Cork if they can't even secure a replacement for Loganair on Cork Glasgow I wouldn't hold my breath on them attracting a JFK/BOS service.
A 757 would probably work but EI are best placed to go there due to their massive marketing power on both sides of the Atlantic.
The Walsh/Kearney team spoke several times about it publicly before they left in 2004.
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Cork, Ireland
Posts: 730
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
http://www.rte.ie/aertel/p117.htm
I wonder if he's heard this unofficially from govt or EU sources; whatever the source, I wonder what he wants? What else can the govt do to safeguard SNN? This guy is actually a northwest MEP, so SNN isn't even in this constituency. .
I wonder if he's heard this unofficially from govt or EU sources; whatever the source, I wonder what he wants? What else can the govt do to safeguard SNN? This guy is actually a northwest MEP, so SNN isn't even in this constituency. .
Ecce Homo! Loquitur...
EU to Block Aer Lingus Atlantic Deal
The Times: Aer Lingus faces EU rejection on Atlantic deal
THE European Union is likely to block plans by the Irish government to do a side deal with America to expand Aer Lingus’s transatlantic operations after a similar arrangement involving the Netherlands was found to violate EU law.
Paolo Mengozzi, an advocate general of the European Court of Justice (ECJ), has said the Netherlands “failed to fulfil its obligations as a member state” by having bilateral talks with America. If an advocate general’s opinion is upheld by the ECJ, as happens in the majority of cases, it means that EU countries will not have the alternative option of striking individual deals with the US.
Last year, America agreed in principle that Aer Lingus could fly to three additional cities in America, beyond its existing US gateways: New York, Boston, Chicago and Los Angeles. But the pact was contingent on an EU-US “open skies” deal.
Bertie Ahern, the taoiseach, said last week that Ireland would by-pass Brussels to open direct negotiations with Washington. He said: “We have been putting all of our efforts into getting an EU-US agreement . . . it is generally believed now with the way Congress has turned out that there would not be support (for) an EU-US agreement because of their own internal and external concerns.”
James Oberstar, set to take over the chairmanship of the US House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee and a key player in the new Democratic leadership in Congress, has already outlined his opposition to the tentative open skies pact. Protectionist sensibilities have been raised by the American airline industry’s problems since 9/11.
Ahern said he recently discussed the notion of Ireland proceeding with its own bilateral talks with the US at a meeting with the president of the European Commission, Jose Manuel Barosso. “Obviously, we would need their agreement, or at least tacit support, or, at worst, not blocking us in any way,” Ahern said.
THE European Union is likely to block plans by the Irish government to do a side deal with America to expand Aer Lingus’s transatlantic operations after a similar arrangement involving the Netherlands was found to violate EU law.
Paolo Mengozzi, an advocate general of the European Court of Justice (ECJ), has said the Netherlands “failed to fulfil its obligations as a member state” by having bilateral talks with America. If an advocate general’s opinion is upheld by the ECJ, as happens in the majority of cases, it means that EU countries will not have the alternative option of striking individual deals with the US.
Last year, America agreed in principle that Aer Lingus could fly to three additional cities in America, beyond its existing US gateways: New York, Boston, Chicago and Los Angeles. But the pact was contingent on an EU-US “open skies” deal.
Bertie Ahern, the taoiseach, said last week that Ireland would by-pass Brussels to open direct negotiations with Washington. He said: “We have been putting all of our efforts into getting an EU-US agreement . . . it is generally believed now with the way Congress has turned out that there would not be support (for) an EU-US agreement because of their own internal and external concerns.”
James Oberstar, set to take over the chairmanship of the US House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee and a key player in the new Democratic leadership in Congress, has already outlined his opposition to the tentative open skies pact. Protectionist sensibilities have been raised by the American airline industry’s problems since 9/11.
Ahern said he recently discussed the notion of Ireland proceeding with its own bilateral talks with the US at a meeting with the president of the European Commission, Jose Manuel Barosso. “Obviously, we would need their agreement, or at least tacit support, or, at worst, not blocking us in any way,” Ahern said.
Join Date: Aug 1999
Location: Dublin, Ireland
Posts: 1,879
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Where do we go from here?
So, how do we incentivise EU co-operation. There are several grounds upon which this is unacceptable to us - not just EI specifically, but the fact that this effectively amounts to the imposition of a competitive disadvantage. The article refers to the Netherlands, but the Netherlands has Open Skies and although the EU took action against most other countries which have O/S, they didn't do anything to force them to backtrack. Now, despite the fact that we have the most insanely anti-competitive bilateral with the US, the EU seems to be forcing us to maintain it in place, DESPITE the fact that the issue holding up EU/US negotiations has nothing to do with Ireland (foreign ownership of US carriers).
Is the govt going to take this lying done? More than likely, yes, BUT we still have not seen the US proposls on foreign o/ship, so maybe these will be acceptable to the EU (although the real question is whether they're acceptable to Congress). If, after they are released, we still cannot get increased US access, the govt will have to assess its options:
- On environmental grounds: the govt has been ticked off by the EU about its failure to reduce CO2 emissions and yet, here is another part of the commission insisting that we maintain in place THE most environmentally unfriendly use of a large aircraft.
The joker card has to be the Constitution, if all else fails. If this is the way the Commission seeks to treat our interests, notwithstanding the fact that changing the regulations would have absolutely no effect on the EU/US negotiations, then we need to rattle sabres on this front; at the very least, the govt should insist that a provision should be included in any new EU constitution that no EU institution can impose a competitive disadvantage on any other members state. If the EU wants its constitution passed, it can start living in the real world; what Ireland is asking for is completely reasonable and doesn't post a competitive disadvantage to any other country.
Is the govt going to take this lying done? More than likely, yes, BUT we still have not seen the US proposls on foreign o/ship, so maybe these will be acceptable to the EU (although the real question is whether they're acceptable to Congress). If, after they are released, we still cannot get increased US access, the govt will have to assess its options:
- On environmental grounds: the govt has been ticked off by the EU about its failure to reduce CO2 emissions and yet, here is another part of the commission insisting that we maintain in place THE most environmentally unfriendly use of a large aircraft.
The joker card has to be the Constitution, if all else fails. If this is the way the Commission seeks to treat our interests, notwithstanding the fact that changing the regulations would have absolutely no effect on the EU/US negotiations, then we need to rattle sabres on this front; at the very least, the govt should insist that a provision should be included in any new EU constitution that no EU institution can impose a competitive disadvantage on any other members state. If the EU wants its constitution passed, it can start living in the real world; what Ireland is asking for is completely reasonable and doesn't post a competitive disadvantage to any other country.
Join Date: Aug 1999
Location: Dublin, Ireland
Posts: 1,879
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Frankly, Meccano, I don't give a rodent's posterior what happens about foreign ownership of US carriers; that's for the EU and US to sort out; what I do find extremely irritating is that the EU can simply block us like this.
When the EU took the various EU countries to Court initially, it was on the grounds of Competition Law and now, we have the EU IMPOSING competitive disadvantage; how realistic is it to accept this. Once and for all, we need to get a focus on getting this nonsense out of the way, even if it means opting out of the whole EU Open Skies process. As EI-RB says, quite rightly, what Ireland wants poses no competitive disadvantage to any other country; our current bilateral and even the change to 3:1 is considerably behind any other EU countries; there is a clear difference of treatment and assuming the EU wants its Constitution passed, it will need to realise that it cannot act in this high handed, arrogant matter. This is an abuse of power, nothing less. We can address it the easy way (they let us do what we ask, which is reasonable) or the hard way (we make it very clear that the Constitution is at stake and that the govt will not put any Const. before the Irish people which does not include new provisions to stop this kind of thing happening in future).
We cannot simply write off another Summer, so everything needs to be on the table. And EI-RB, believe me, the words I would like to choose would probably get me a sharp dressing down, so I shall restrict myself to the words of Capt. Blackadder: I think the phrase rhymes with Clucking Bell.
When the EU took the various EU countries to Court initially, it was on the grounds of Competition Law and now, we have the EU IMPOSING competitive disadvantage; how realistic is it to accept this. Once and for all, we need to get a focus on getting this nonsense out of the way, even if it means opting out of the whole EU Open Skies process. As EI-RB says, quite rightly, what Ireland wants poses no competitive disadvantage to any other country; our current bilateral and even the change to 3:1 is considerably behind any other EU countries; there is a clear difference of treatment and assuming the EU wants its Constitution passed, it will need to realise that it cannot act in this high handed, arrogant matter. This is an abuse of power, nothing less. We can address it the easy way (they let us do what we ask, which is reasonable) or the hard way (we make it very clear that the Constitution is at stake and that the govt will not put any Const. before the Irish people which does not include new provisions to stop this kind of thing happening in future).
We cannot simply write off another Summer, so everything needs to be on the table. And EI-RB, believe me, the words I would like to choose would probably get me a sharp dressing down, so I shall restrict myself to the words of Capt. Blackadder: I think the phrase rhymes with Clucking Bell.