DUBLIN - 2

[EI-A330-300]

Ryanair may cut further capacity here as profits rise - The Irish Times - Tue, Jan 31, 2012

Where offically does dub sit in relation to other european airports regarding charges. not just passenger but airbridge use, landing fees etc etc.

DUB is one of the lowest charges in Europe. Spain have the lowest but DUB is well below capitial city airports across Europe.

Incident: Etihad A332 at Abu Dhabi on Jan 30th 2012, rejected takeoff due to false line up

EY figures seem to be holding up with EK also flying to Middle East if those pax numbers are correct.

[dublinaviator]

Originally Posted by EI-EIDW

The increase in charges was know since 2009 so it was not recent at all.

The decision of the aviation regulator to approve the increase may have been taken in 2009, but its implementation was only due this year. Fortunately, the DAA decided to postpone the increase, but thats not enough, they should be coming down.

Originally Posted by EI-EIDW

So if Aer Lingus are not happy with charges why are they basing extra aircraft and increaseing flights?

They're not basing extra aircraft, they've actually reduced their fleet size and capacity on many routes. If you're referring to Aer Lingus Regional, thats all down to Aer Arann, not Aer Lingus.

Originally Posted by Noxegon

Okay, I'll give you that. Still, I'd put it to you that the DUB landing fee is insignificant in terms of the overall cost of a flight. DUB could be €2 per passenger and the airlines would still look for it to be cheaper.

As was proved with Shannon, a €10 tax (passed on to passengers) could be the difference between whether an airline makes a profit or loss on a route.

Originally Posted by Shamrogue

Leo was spot on.

Airlines will moan about charges, the press are happy to carry the headlines as it's pandering to the public/tourist organisations. It gets the airline in question free advertising and keeps them top of mind for the consumer. Politician takes a rattling - so what's new.
All business's do the same - rant about rates, or the price of the lecky or whatever. If you don't - it'll keep going up till you are no longer in business.

Householders do it - water charges etc. No one rings up and thanks the waterboard or whoever for putting up a rate.

If you drop the taxes to zero, and further reduced landing charges - in two years time there would be moaning that terminal 2 looked more like an old cow shed and how could it be allowed to get that way.

Shamrogue, this isn't a tax on business, the airlines pay their share of tax like everyone else and nobody is calling for them to pay nothing in tax, that would be stupid. This is a tax on tourists visiting this country, and at a time when we're competing for tourists more than ever and relying on the tourism sector to provide some growth in the economy. It makes no sense, and whatever little revenue it brings in is no doubt outweighed by the negative impact it has on the greater economy.

But seen as you want to use analogies, do you think we should increase corporation tax? Its the same principle, at a time when we're trying to bring inward investment to the country and attract companies like Google, IBM, Faceb00k etc., it would be stupid to increase corporation tax. Again, whatever short-term gain we might get in increased tax revenue would be outweighed by the long-term damage it would do to FDI prospects, and would result in job losses as many companies would just up and leave, which Dell and others have proved they have no problem doing, no matter how big their presence is.

Originally Posted by EI-A330-300

DUB is one of the lowest charges in Europe.

Compared to Heathrow or Paris-CDG maybe, but you're comparing an airport with a throughput of circa 18 million a year with airports that have a throughput of 50 million+ a year.

[PPRuNeUser0176]

They're not basing extra aircraft, they've actually reduced their fleet size and capacity on many routes. If you're referring to Aer Lingus Regional, thats all down to Aer Arann, not Aer Lingus.

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??????

On airport charges they are lower thatn airport that handle in the region of 20 million, will find the survay if I can and post it.

As was proved with Shannon, a €10 tax (passed on to passengers) could be the difference between whether an airline makes a profit or loss on a route

So the passenger pays for the air fare and at the airport so the airlines can make a profit.

[Jack1985]

Aer Lingus Regional Schedule | Peak Season - June 18th to June 25th 2012

A/C 1 - ATR72:

EI3280 DEP DUB 06:40 ARR BRS 07:50 MTWTFSS
EI3281 DEP BRS 08:15 ARR DUB 09:30 MTWTFSS

EI3292 DEP DUB 10:10 ARR CWL 11:20 MTWTFSS
EI3293 DEP CWL 11:45 ARR DUB 12:55 MTWTFSS

EI3246 DEP DUB 13:30 ARR ABZ 15:05 -----S-
EI3247 DEP ABZ 15:30 ARR ORK 17:00 -----S-

EI3246 DEP DUB 15:00 ARR ABZ 16:35 MTWTF-S
EI3247 DEP ABZ 17:00 ARR DUB 18:30 MTWTF-S

EI3258 DEP DUB 18:10 ARR EDI 19:25 -----S-
EI3259 DEP EDI 19:50 ARR DUB 21:00 -----S-

EI3298 DEP DUB 19:10 ARR CWL 20:20 MTWTF-S
EI3299 DEP CWL 20:45 ARR DUB 21:55 MTWTF-S

A/C 2 - ATR72:

EI3250 DEP DUB 06:40 ARR EDI 07:55 MTWTFSS
EI3251 DEP EDI 08:20 ARR DUB 09:30 MTWTFSS

EI3222 DEP DUB 10:00 ARR GLA 11:10 MTWTFSS
EI3223 DEP GLA 11:35 ARR DUB 12:40 MTWTFSS

EI3224 DEP DUB 13:10 ARR GLA 14:20 M--TF-S
EI3225 DEP GLA 14:45 ARR DUB 15:50 M--TF-S

EI3254 DEP DUB 13:10 ARR EDI 14:25 -----S-
EI3255 DEP EDI 14:50 ARR DUB 16:00 -----S-

EI3908 DEP DUB 16:30 ARR RNS 19:20 -----S-
EI3909 DEP RNS 19:50 ARR DUB 20:40 -----S-

EI3258 DEP DUB 18:10 ARR EDI 19:25 MTWTF-S
EI3259 DEP EDI 19:50 ARR DUB 21:00 MTWTF-S

A/C 3 - ATR72:

EI3220 DEP DUB 06:50 ARR GLA 08:00 MTWTFSS
EI3221 DEP GLA 08:25 ARR DUB 09:30 MTWTFSS

EI3252 DEP DUB 10:00 ARR EDI 11:15 MTWTF-S
EI3253 DEP EDI 11:40 ARR DUB 12:50 MTWTF-S

EI3904 DEP DUB 10:00 ARR RNS 12:50 -----S-
EI3915 DEP RNS 13:20 ARR ORK 14:05 -----S-
EI3916 DEP ORK 14:35 ARR RNS 17:25 -----S-
EI3905 DEP RNS 17:55 ARR DUB 18:45 -----S-

EI3314 DEP DUB 13:15 ARR BLK 14:10 M-WTFSS
EI3315 DEP BLK 14:35 ARR DUB 15:30 M-WTFSS

EI3908 DEP DUB 13:30 ARR RNS 16:20 -T-----
EI3909 DEP RNS 16:50 ARR DUB 17:40 -T-----

EI3226 DEP DUB 16:20 ARR GLA 17:30 M-WTF-S
EI3227 DEP GLA 17:55 ARR DUB 19:00 M-WTF-S

EI3228 DEP DUB 19:25 ARR GLA 20:35 MTWTFSS
EI3229 DEP GLA 21:00 ARR DUB 22:05 MTWTFSS

NON-BASED - ATR72:

EI3287 DEP BRS 17:20 ARR DUB 18:30 MTWTFSS
EI3288 DEP DUB 19:00 ARR BRS 20:10 MTWTFSS

Main Changes:

*Edinburgh increased from 14PW to 21PW.
*Glasgow increased from 31PW to 36PW.
*Bristol reduced from 20PW to 14PW.

[Noxegon]

As was proved with Shannon, a €10 tax (passed on to passengers) could be the difference between whether an airline makes a profit or loss on a route.

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.

Compared to Heathrow or Paris-CDG maybe, but you're comparing an airport with a throughput of circa 18 million a year with airports that have a throughput of 50 million+ a year.

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?

[PPRuNeUser0176]

Agree with the last post but think its time to move on from the airport charges, they will never please everyone and its getting a little boaring at this stage.

[Cyrano]

Regarding the Aer Arann schedule above, where is the DUB-BOH going to fit in? On the Bournemouth thread it's suggested that this will be departing DUB about 1600, departing BOH about 1730.

On Jack's Aircraft 2 there is a gap from 1550 to 1810 - not enough, but maybe some more prising apart to be done to fit this in? Or will the gap be used to send that aircraft to IOM while a 42 goes to BOH?

Update: OK, based on today's press release the Bournemouth flight will leave DUB at 1430 and leave Bournemouth at 1620.

[Shamrogue]

Missing the Point

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

[DublinPole]

I am a little baffled by the Krakow reduction, as there would be quite alot of "Irish" tourist traffic in addition to Polish migrants on that route. However, I guess there is also alot of competition!!

Aer Lingus dug their own hole with Krakow and traffic bled to Ryanair over the last 12-18 months because of some very strange decisions when it comes to diversions if the airport was closed due to fog/snow or some other reason that really annoyed the hell of out a large number of passengers who voted with their feet and left.

On a good few occasions EI bound Polish flights seemed to take a liking to diverting to Berlin over 500km away rather than the nearest open airport. I had a friend who was waiting for another friend in Krakow for a flight, and pretty much every other flight diverted to Katowice or another regional airport that day but the EI flight was the only one diverted to Berlin despite all other airports in Poland being open. This happened a few times last year from what I saw on arrivals/departure boards.

I myself got caught up in something similar in November 2010, flight to WAW diverted to SXF as WAW closed due to snow cabin crew told us that all airports in Poland were closed and had to divert to Berlin. Friend of mine waiting in Warsaw for me saw that the flag carriers were diverting to Lodz, Krakow, Katowice, Poznan amongst others, AL was the only carrier to divert outside Poland and the only airport closed was WAW and that was for just 60 minutes to clear the runway.

Fortunately for EI there is no competition to Warsaw so it didn't really bleed customers to FR on that route, but the Krakow one most certainly did.

[PPRuNeUser0176]

Regarding the Aer Arann schedule above, where is the DUB-BOH going to fit in? On the Bournemouth thread it's suggested that this will be departing DUB about 1600, departing BOH about 1730.

On Jack's Aircraft 2 there is a gap from 1550 to 1810 - not enough, but maybe some more prising apart to be done to fit this in? Or will the gap be used to send that aircraft to IOM while a 42 goes to BOH?

Update: OK, based on today's press release the Bournemouth flight will leave DUB at 1430 and leave Bournemouth at 1620.

Blackpool will also increase fomr 6 weekly to daily. EI website still showing it at 6 weekly.

Latest News > Dublin Airport Welcomes Aer Lingus Regional Expansion

[dublinaviator]

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.

[j636]

Why was LH DUB-FRA cancelled this morning? Was due to fly to Moscow and turned up at the airport at it was cancelled.

Read that passengers due in last night were put up in hotels last night but the aircraft still landed in DUB at around midnight. Something to do with smell of burning when the engines were started in FRA.

[PPRuNeUser0176]

Whatever the reasons for it being canclled the aircraft that arrived last night didn't depart until 17.22 today (empty) to FRA.

[Noxegon]

Many routes have very thin yields and a modest increase in airport charges can make routes, that were profitable, unprofitable overnight.

Quite true, but that's not what you actually said.

As was proved with Shannon, a €10 tax (passed on to passengers) could be the difference between whether an airline makes a profit or loss on a route.

I don't believe that the big batch of routes operated by FR from SNN were ever profitable; rather, that the travel tax was a convenient excuse to cover the potential embarrassment of a failed experiment.

[stab3.5up]

Ldy-dub

Ldy thread has various comments regarding resumtion of ldy dub route. anyone any further info or ideas

[dublinaviator]

Originally Posted by Noxegon

I don't believe that the big batch of routes operated by FR from SNN were ever profitable; rather, that the travel tax was a convenient excuse to cover the potential embarrassment of a failed experiment.

Well both of us are drawing assumptions here on whether or not the routes from Shannon were profitable. But Ryanair aren't in the business of operating unprofitable routes, unless of course its to get rid of competition . I'm not saying there weren't any unprofitable routes, but to say they never made a profit out of their SNN operation is a bit far-fetched, especially considering the duration of their contract with the SAA. I think its safe to say that most of the routes they operated from SNN were low yielding routes operating on thin margins, and the lack of a better deal with SAA management coupled with a new €10 travel tax turned barely profitable routes into loss-making ones, and the fact that they pulled so many routes before their contract with the SAA ended shows they weren't willing to operate loss-making routes for the sake of contractual obligations.

[thebig C]

Hey DublinPole

Thanks for that info. I knew there had to be more complex reasons as the DUB-KRK route is one that should be able to sustain 2 carriers. Although, I had noted that alot of the Polish I know seemed to opt for RE as opposed to EI! This is something thats also been commented on in relation to US flights.

EI seemed to be able to push LOT/Central Wings off the DUB-WAW route. However, it will be interesting to see what happens if Ryanair start operations from Modlin.

C

[stab3.5up]

There was some talk i think last summer of lot having another go at the dub waw but like many notions airlines had nothing came of it.

i think thats a market best left to fr to be honest. i believe lot pulled the route as they got very business class passengers.

[PPRuNeUser0176]

Aer Lingus would make more money by sending the aircraft to Spain instead of Krakow and thats what they have done. Don't see why people are making a big deal about it being reduced.

Warsaw whats the deal about it. FR and EI operated to Warsaw for a long time but FR pulled it becasue of charges in Warsaw, if they start it again then the comsumer wins with lower fares from both carriers.

[PPRuNeUser0176]

Latest News > Dublin Airport Pays

The rebates are being paid to operators that grew their passenger numbers at Dublin during 2011. Among those receiving rebates are; Aer Arann, Aer Lingus, Etihad Airways, Lufthansa, Norwegian, SAS, Swiss, Turkish Airlines and US Airways.

So Malev service to BUD as gone. They didn't get to operate this mornigns flight to BUD, Im sure Aer Lingus and Ryanair will cover the loss and wonder if they owed much to the DAA.

Tail wind pushes CityJet towards break-even point - The Irish Times - Fri, Feb 03, 2012

Ourmieres also said CityJet would be increasing the frequency of flights from Dublin to London City Airport from March 25th – operating up to six flights a day from the current five. It also plans to resume its seasonal route between Dublin and Pau from May 18th.

The Pau flights leave DUB Friday morning and return Monday afternoon.