Not sure who you are quoting when you say:

suddenly he 'realises' the problem and 'rushed' to save the company with a 'stroke of genius' that nobody else could've thought of??

Would Walsh have had difficulty (political or otherwise) making all those people redundant when he first took over? Correct me if I am wrong but I seem to remember Aer Lingus was recording huge profits around the time he took over (as was just about everyone else who could remember to breath).

Then 2001 came along, things not so perfect (global economic downturn had started) and then Sept 11 and wallop. Possibly something to do with timing, but Walsh along with every other CEO of the airlines that survived acted. They had to whether they liked it or not.

I'm not quoting anyone - its the 'conventional wisdom' spread about my a fawning media and lapped up by the sheeplike public.
Huge profits?!:}
So funny - how you said in your previous post the company was 'always a drag on the taxpayer' and the next it was making 'huge profits'!
You're a bit confused I think.:ugh: Which is it??
Well ALRIGHT THEN!! So he did no more than what everybody else would've done! As I said already!
Now we're getting somewhere!
Walsh's 'genius' was in fact based on nothing more than a simple twist of fate. Nothing genius about it - just obvious actions that should've been taken years earlier anyhow, only he was too fat dumb and happy, and chose to be a good little civil servant instead, go with the flow, keep his head down, and feather his own nest.

No confusion here, however here are some figures regarding Aer Lingus to assist:


1971: loss IR£2.39 million
1981: loss IR£11.2 million
1994: loss IR£1.12 billion in 1994 (yes billion)
1996: profit IR£41 million
1998: profit IR£55 million
2000: 72 million euro profit
2001: 50.4 million euro loss

Number of bail-outs received in the 70's, 80's and 90's? More than one and all Irish taxpayers money which the country found very difficult to afford as it was very very skint back in those days.

But yes it made a big profit in the middle of a humungous economic boom. And this was the time to rationalise staff? Difficult to say the least. More like impossible.

Who said Walsh was a genius? Not me. But clearly good enough to take correct and difficult decisions when required in my opinion. Many would agree. Perhaps not you but there you go.

Who or what to believe?
 

Mary Harney has gone on record with comments that are not going to help this go away. As she is in theory No 2 to Ahern, it makes "interesting" reading.

For the full report, go to http://www.rte.ie/news/2006/0518/aerlingus.html

For what it's worth, there is no way the unions at Dublin would have accepted anything like the cuts that were eventually required at the time of Walsh's arrival, even if some of the proposed cuts could have been justified. That just wasn't the way things were done in semi state bodies then, and even now, making drastic changes in semi state bodies is still akin to mating elephants. You only have to look at the shambles that surrounds anything to do with progress at Dublin airport to realise that the problems are much deeper than at most places, and take a lot longer to resolve. For many years the same was true at Aer Lingus, which made for huge problems when the time eventually came for a harsh dose of realism to be injected at the core.

Good - so we can again agree that Aer Lingus was always a profitable company. Even when it made a loss in 2001 the net result over 2 years was a PROFIT of 20M.
Not much of a 'drag on the taxpayers' really then, eh?

That figure you quoted for 1994 is Expletive Deleted! Show me a link to that alleged 1Billion loss in 1994! In fact - show us links for ALL those other figures too - you can't be trusted.

You've fallen into the trap of sucking up the myth encouraged by the Government, that hundreds of millions of pounds were poured into a black hole called Aer Lingus. Nothing could be further from the truth. In its 60 years the Company received £175 million in 1993 as part of the Cahill plan and £60 million in the previous 50 years. A total of 235M, and that includes the initial investment to found the airline.

It made 100M in profit last year alone, and is valued at 600M on flotation.

The NET result will show that Aer Lingus has been hugely PROFITABLE over the long run and a highly valuable public assett. We haven't even touched on the inward revenue generated for the State by tourist links provided by Aer Lingus, or indeed the industrial development and investment in Ireland inc. which was made possible by air links with the US and Europe.
Nor have we considered the millions of pounds/euro generated in taxes for the state by the employees of the company, nor the millions of euros generated for businesses serving the airport and Aer Lingus.

The numbers are staggering when you think about it.
Except of course when you'd rather NOT think about anything - except what you're TOLD to think.

Yes, absolutely! That was the time to rationalise staffing levels - when the company had the money to fund redundancies and incentivise the excess numbers to leave.
Most of the dead wood was in administration personnel, not in the productive operations side of the company. It would have improved the bottom line and increased efficiency. Aer Lingus now manages its admin just as well with a quarter of the pen pushers.

This is just more waffle. He was an opportunist handed an opportunity. He blew it by getting greedy.

Prior to Mr Mannion being appointed as the new boss in EI were there any options for new aeroplanes cancelled? Just a query.

Idunno you're a gas man as they say but I am getting very bored with this, so you are entirely right and I am entirely wrong. Aer Lingus has always been a great success, never cost the Irish tax payer a cent, the money didn't go missing it was resting, everyone on board was worth their weight, etc, etc, if it hadn't been for those darn interfering kids in Ryanair we could have got away with it, etc, etc, blah, blah, and there goes a flying pig.

I like it, good reply Idunno!

...but before I do, I forgot to mention not only am I wrong so is:

Mary Harney,
Mary O'Rourke (note: Fianna Fail but not north county Dublin...),
Most Irish taxpayers who did not work for Aer Lingus,
The entire board of B.A.
and of course Willie Walsh and oh I forgot to mention Elvis wasn't too happy about the financial arrangements either.

Get real, if Aer Lingus hadn't been dug out of the **** all of those times, it wouldn't be still around. That is life, even for semi-state black holes.
A few glorious years in the late 90's and 2000 does not make it a financial success.

PS: actually got around to reading your last load of drivel and spotted this:

In fact - show us links for ALL those other figures too - you can't be trusted.

You cheeky boy! Anyway as you appear to have difficulty using google here is one link for you:

http://www.fundinguniverse.com/compa...y-History.html

There are others but I'll leave that to you to find.

OK guys, can we turn down the temperature a bit!

Idunno, you're right - I never met WW, but one thing I do know for certain is that over the last nine years or so, Ahern has had an appalling record on aviation policy. You've seen it with the airport and on so many other areas. There is no interest or pro-activity; things only happen because the govt is pushed into doing them.

I believe - possibly quite wrongly - that WW tried to twist Ahern's arm into making the airline go public by floating the MBO issue. In saying that, my aim is not to defend WW, but to point out that prodding with a sharpened pitchfork is the only way to get the govt to move on aviation policy. Look at the airport as an example; about six months was spent last year debating it (and you'll recall that you and I argued about that too) and the solution was politically motivated. We didn't even know where the terminal was going to be until September and even then, no one noticed that it completely blocked off growth for cargo traffic/access to parking stands.

This is the kind of mentality we're dealing with. It's incredibly frustrating that in a country so dependant on air transport, there is such a lastlustre, lethargic and disinterested approach to aviation policy and that has to be challenged. It's simply not acceptable that it is simply a pawn in a chess game. But we accept that and here, we allow ourselves to be sidetracked by what WW did or didn't do a few years back. Focus on the future: how is an interest in - and proactivity in - aviation policy going to be encouraged?

Couldn't agree more aeroskid, the future is more important and leaving it in the hands of those politician clowns is far from ideal.

However coming back to the original business of the thread, I don't think I have ever agreed with Mary Harney in the past but compared to Ahern's spiteful remarks, I think she is much closer to the truth in her evaluation of WW. Ahern hasn't and won't repeat the essence of what he said as he has clearly made a right eejit of himself. Parliamentary privilege or not.

Is it absolutely necessary for you to abuse and patronise people who don't agree with you. As I said above, I don't particularly care about WW. I'm trying to look to the future. The key issue is whether the current government has sufficient interest in or ability to recognise the importance of aviation to the Irish economy. I tend to doubt it.

We can argue about what WW did or didn't do or to whom. You say I am trying to give WW a positive spin; I'm merely saying that in order to get the govt to take action on aviation issues, YOU NEED TO PROVOKE THEM. They will NOT act responsibly of their own volition; aviation is a very low priority for them and that needs to be changed. And while you accuse me of giving WW a positive spin, you constantly give him a very negative spin, to the extent that you defend the single biggest threat to aviation's ability to serve the Irish economy - the Taoiseach.

Now, I really don't want to get into a drawn out argument with you; we saw that on the Aer Lingus thread a few days ago and it ruined it for other people, so please, let's be courteous. More importantly, let's focus on the things we can change. WW is BA's problem now; the other BA is ours ...

Idunno

You are treading thin ice.

If you continue with snide and abuse in your posts you will find yourself unable to make posts. Your other post that my colleague Evileyes removed, and together with your later one it shows that you have no sense of debate. Slagging others will not be tolerated. They have as much right to their opinion as you do. Please take heed, you will not have another warning.

The Taoiseach has really put his foot in it over this issue, with challenges to come out fighting. Actually, I'm really surprised he did this, because it is unlike him; it's usually very difficult to get him to express an opinion on anything.

There's a lovely quote from Pat Rabbitte in response to the Tainiste's comment about what Bertie actually meant. I've leave you to read it ...

http://www.unison.ie/irish_independe...issue_id=14057

Hi akerosid,

Any chance you could cut and paste some of that Indo report. I'm not an Indo subscriber and would like to see what Mr.Rabbitte had to say. Used to be one of my local TD's - good bloke - believe or not a genuinely good honest politician.

Actually hold that akerosid, I found coverage in the Examiner (it's free!):

http://www.irishexaminer.com/text/st...96864&n=996892

How odd, I'm not a politician or a lawyer but it appears every opposition party and even the coalition partner have taken the same position as me: disgraceful comment and an abuse of parliamentary privilege. Mr. Ahern you are the weakest link, goodbye.

PS: good work moderators, your intervention was timely, that Idunno bloke was beginning to wind me up. He nearly suckered me into hurling abuse back at him but I (just barely) managed to hold back. I think I may have to subscribe to pprune now!

Idunno

that E100m euro operating profit was E2m net after exceptionals from Willie's axe swinging.

As another former EI'er who saw the light and escaped during the Walsh years I had the opportunity to meet and work with him on occasions. Whether you liked his style or not there was no doubt that there was a very active and ruthless mind working in the background. Did his masterplan go too far - possibly. Did the staff contribute to the turnaround - undoubtably, but not without alot of wailing and gnashing of teeth from Bertie's buddies in SIPTU and to an extent in IMPACT (and not forgetting a significantly increased shareholding).

As for Bertie having a swipe at WW, typical of his get votes at any cost attitude. Whilst I'm not so sure I'd like to see "Inda" as Taoiseach I'd love to see Bertie fall.

GodsCountry,

What a choice indeed. Will be interesting to see how that works out next year!

I agree with your comment regarding WW in that there has to be "very active and ruthless mind working". I did mention earlier on, before a certain gentleman started to flame me, that BA would not go into hiring WW on newspaper headlines. They had to study him closely and obviously they liked what they found.

I remember my grandfather saying to me years ago "Ireland is a nation of begrudgers". I thought that had all long since past based on the outward success of recent years but maybe not. Just imagine if a successful American airline CEO type had been parachuted in to Aer Lingus to take over and do what WW did. Would he have been castigated by Ahern and others? No, they would have said "Jaysus, why didn't we think of that, you've saved the company, halleyuyah, we'll make a saint of you yet". But an Irishman does it and what happens, they jump all over him and defame him in the Dail.

Well the begrudgers can **** off as far as I'm concerned. That same man now runs one of the greatest airlines in the world and I for one hope he is a great success.

RogerIrrelevant you make the common mistake of believing the figures that are published about Aer Lingus.

The predicted loss for 2001 was €130m. The actual loss posted was €50m. A close look at the books would reveal some interesting decisions made after 911. A lot of money seems to have left the company at a time when Mr Walsh warned the board ( Dentists and B&B owners ) they could be guilty of reckless trading.

EI-DAA appears to have been purchased ( not leased ) after 911. What did an A330 cost in 2001? Also some serious fuel hedging seems to have taken place after 911. Odd for a company that was allegedly trading from week to week.

The only source of the story that Willie Walsh saved Aer Lingus from doom is eh...Willie Walsh.

I choose not to believe him. You choose otherwise, fair enough.