Aer Lingus - 5
I am intrigued by your comment about crewing. I would assume you are referring to flight crew. On the transatlantic the only flights that have (had) 3 flight crew were the west coast. JFK/BOS/ORD etc are all 2 crew with a single overnight for the most part. There is the occasional 2/3 night longstop but that is down to rostering and to fit into the schedule and nothing to do with unions or pilot requests etc.
In any organisation, with obvious regard to regulations, work practices need to be realistic and not place unreasonable burdens on staff or the company. It was previously reported in 2005 that plans for a DUB-CPT route was abandoned because no agreement could be reached between EI and their unions over the rostering.
JAS
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: London (Babylon-on-Thames)
Age: 42
Posts: 6,168
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
No one wants to hear. In the meantime you only have to look at the success of the middle east operators at Dublin airport to see what potential there was for long haul destinations.
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: UIP : 4° 10’ 0” W, 47° 58’ 0” N
Posts: 341
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Cabin Crew and pilots in October 2006 pre privatisation made agreements with the aer lingus managment to 'fly anywhere' under certain terms depending on flight times, number of sectors and in what direction. no stone was unturned and it's quite comprehensive. I saw a copy of it before and includes directions that they don't fly eg CPT.
on a totally different subject, I'm hearing that EI will not use the US customs clearance facilities in SNN. is this true? Anyone hear anything more about this? The reason behind it that I"m hearing is that inflight sales of duty free would not be permitted and subsequently auxillary revenues would drop. that and the fact that they have to pay for the facility doesn't make it worth for them is what I'm hearing.
one wonders will the customs and immigration facility in SNN become a white elephant?
on a totally different subject, I'm hearing that EI will not use the US customs clearance facilities in SNN. is this true? Anyone hear anything more about this? The reason behind it that I"m hearing is that inflight sales of duty free would not be permitted and subsequently auxillary revenues would drop. that and the fact that they have to pay for the facility doesn't make it worth for them is what I'm hearing.
one wonders will the customs and immigration facility in SNN become a white elephant?
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: London
Posts: 278
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Aer Lingus said that they wont be using the customs clearance facilities at Shannon until the same facilities are available at Dublin because Aer Lingus said they would face "severe logistical difficulties" in a situation where their ex Shannon flights would be precleared and their ex Dublin flights would not.
Aer Lingus will use it, just not right away.
Aer Lingus will use it, just not right away.
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: London (Babylon-on-Thames)
Age: 42
Posts: 6,168
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Why of all the nations on Earth is Ireland the only one to be granted this "honour" by the US Government. I assume the staff in place at DUB and SNN are all US nationals? What do the US get out of this?
Join Date: Nov 1999
Location: Ireland
Posts: 1,621
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
C.
@EISNN
Are you saying there is a written agreement between EI and their staff/unions explicitly stating what destinations they agree not to operation to and that CPT, amongst others, is listed?
If so, two questions;
a) do you have any insight into the criteria used to exclude destinations?
b) what other destinations are listed?
===
As to using smaller AC on 'lighter' routes, if EI wanted to do that and it made sense, given that they are wedded to the fleet commonality strategy then the easiest way would be to convert some Airbus order options as A319's or A318's or lease in a number of the type. While that may not be the most cost efficient "seat-mile" option, it would offer staffing/training/maintenance efficiencies.
JAS
Are you saying there is a written agreement between EI and their staff/unions explicitly stating what destinations they agree not to operation to and that CPT, amongst others, is listed?
If so, two questions;
a) do you have any insight into the criteria used to exclude destinations?
b) what other destinations are listed?
===
As to using smaller AC on 'lighter' routes, if EI wanted to do that and it made sense, given that they are wedded to the fleet commonality strategy then the easiest way would be to convert some Airbus order options as A319's or A318's or lease in a number of the type. While that may not be the most cost efficient "seat-mile" option, it would offer staffing/training/maintenance efficiencies.
JAS
Last edited by Just a spotter; 12th Jul 2009 at 10:48.
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: UIP : 4° 10’ 0” W, 47° 58’ 0” N
Posts: 341
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
@JAS
No what I was saying is that they have agreed a "FLY ANYWHERE AGREEMENT". Basically it gives the company a chance to open up routes to ANYWHERE in the world and set agreement is already there depending on length of flight and how many sectors. No specific airport is listed. It was for example
** duty time of 6+ westbound there'd be minimum agreed crew/pilot, turn around and no crew rest area (beds), sector payment
** duty time of 10+ eastbound with two sectors perhaps an extra crew member/pilot and crew rest area, sector payment
** duty time of 11+ southbound and 2 hours time difference, extra crew member, crew rest area, sector payment
It was more detailed than this and quite comprehensive from what I can remember. There were other parts to it besides number of crew, turn around times, sector payment and whether there were crew beds or not but I can't remember.
Hope I made myself more clear this time. sometimes I'm too tired and I don't sound very logical.
No what I was saying is that they have agreed a "FLY ANYWHERE AGREEMENT". Basically it gives the company a chance to open up routes to ANYWHERE in the world and set agreement is already there depending on length of flight and how many sectors. No specific airport is listed. It was for example
** duty time of 6+ westbound there'd be minimum agreed crew/pilot, turn around and no crew rest area (beds), sector payment
** duty time of 10+ eastbound with two sectors perhaps an extra crew member/pilot and crew rest area, sector payment
** duty time of 11+ southbound and 2 hours time difference, extra crew member, crew rest area, sector payment
It was more detailed than this and quite comprehensive from what I can remember. There were other parts to it besides number of crew, turn around times, sector payment and whether there were crew beds or not but I can't remember.
Hope I made myself more clear this time. sometimes I'm too tired and I don't sound very logical.
Last edited by EISNN; 13th Jul 2009 at 07:14.
Why of all the nations on Earth is Ireland the only one to be granted this "honour" by the US Government. I assume the staff in place at DUB and SNN are all US nationals? What do the US get out of this?
Yes and Mr O'Leary thought he'd make a profit this year and got it spectacularly wrong, so perhaps being realistic in ones predictions when they are based on shifting sands is more honest.
You claim to know the industry but you miss the point of hedging? I've lost all confidence in your posts as you clearly have an agenda. Fuel hedging is a long term game you can't simply point the finger and cry foul when it ges on way its that short term thinking that cost Ryanair dear last year.
I checked up on your last point. Your information is wrong. There have been no fare well packages for some time and none are planned.
http://www.aerlingus.com/Corporate/P...FINAL_2303.pdf
Slide 20 show how they expected to have between €400 - €430 million in cash at the end of 2009 but they now expect their operational results to be significantly worse that originally forecast so this cash statement is likely to be even lower. They accept to have dropped net cash of €200 Million in 2009.
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Northern Ireland
Posts: 2,782
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
And how in gods name can Aer Lingus share value honestly effect Ryanairs profit....BULL SH1T!
this is correct, Ryanair made a significant write down in the value of its share value of Aer Lingus, and that is because Aer Lingus is not now worth (in share value) the value that it was worth when Ryanair bought the shares.
MOL made it quite well known that a write down in the value of Aer Lingus shareholding would be relevant for the final results.
This is also a big issue for the group of Aer Lingus pilots who borrowed approx €10M to buy up Aer Lingus stocks to avoid Ryanair gaining a majority, they figures with the government share the employee share and their share it made sense. Sadly for them the shares have not performed and they now must repay about €1.3M this year to the lender for the initial loan... Hard times or what...
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: UK
Posts: 489
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
This is also a big issue for the group of Aer Lingus pilots...
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Northern Ireland
Posts: 2,782
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
You really should stop regurgitating the rubbish that a certain FR insider posts in the terms and endearment section
The sunday business post and Irish times reported this story. So you for one should read what the media has to say and respond accordingly rather than make big assumptions that I have been regurgitated anything from another thread. I dont know any Ryanair insiders and dont rely on same but I do know a few Aer Lingus people who are were part of the group who invested.
The Tailwind issue has been mentioned by me on here before and Pilot investors looking at write offs of up to €40k.
The borrowed €10M from RBS, put up €15M and bought circa 10 Million shares. RBS sought refinancing and the loan now with another lender.
Total Shareholding Investment now worth less that €5.5 Million.
Idea that some one else took their loss is a joke, they responsible for it all and had to put up the cash for the €15 Million which is now gone and the difference between the amount repaid to RBS and what could be borrowed for new lender as no chance lender would have lent €10M to repay RBS.
Not a nice position to be in to keep funding something where you have already lost a fortune.
The borrowed €10M from RBS, put up €15M and bought circa 10 Million shares. RBS sought refinancing and the loan now with another lender.
Total Shareholding Investment now worth less that €5.5 Million.
Idea that some one else took their loss is a joke, they responsible for it all and had to put up the cash for the €15 Million which is now gone and the difference between the amount repaid to RBS and what could be borrowed for new lender as no chance lender would have lent €10M to repay RBS.
Not a nice position to be in to keep funding something where you have already lost a fortune.
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: UK
Posts: 489
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Not a nice position to be in to keep funding something where you have already lost a fortune.
OR throw some cash in to try and secure your own future. Its a no brainer if you ask me or maybe I am missing something. Maybe the man from Mullingar wasn't really lying afterall and it was in our best interests to throw our lot in and sell our shares. Yeah he wouldn't mislead anyone now would he. Surely not!
And the Irish public of course would be much better off with his much promised lower fares as a result of his monopoly over 80% of the traffic flowing through the country. Well thats what he reckons so surely it must be true as well.