EU muddies the waters again!
 

As if we didn't have enough to contend with, the EU's plans to tax emissions is going down extremely badly in Washington and seems likely to delay the whole O/S process even further:

http://www.nasdaq.com/aspxcontent/Ne...ternational.na

If this is the case, then what justification has the EU to hold Ireland back? The Times article cited the Netherlands case, but the Dutch were among the first EU countries (if not the first) to enter into O/S with the US; what will the EU do here? Tell them to go back to the original deal? Hardly likely. Yet, they will stop us from moving forward. Funny how they take no action against France, Germany, Italy, Belgium and the Netherlands, yet hold us back ...

Akerosid, maybe you haven't heard it yet, but in the EU the rules are made by Belgians, ratified by Germans, observed by the Irish, and IGNORED by everyone else!

The strange thing about the EU commission is that it contains one C McCreevy who only the other day said what a http://www.rte.ie/business/2006/1110/mccreevy.html phenomenal company Ryanair is. He said it changed peoples lives without a hint of irony. Well Charlie opression will change peoples lives even in Ireland.

With the likes of McCreevy around Aer Lingus can expect no favours in Europe until O'Leary clicks his fingers, then just watch Charlie jump. :uhoh:

Well, since FR is now a significant shareholder in EI, now would be the time to click his fingers, although I think we need a little bit more than that. The government needs to take a pretty firm line on this; taking "no" for an answer, when our transatlantic access is held way behind that of virtually all other EU countries is simply not an option.

It's all very well to say that EU rules are made for the benefit of certain countries and only observed by others, but where does that get us? How is it consistent with the fundamental tenets and principles of the EU for Ireland's interests to be regarded as expendable in the EU's quest for some higher goal, which may not be achievable in the short term? We can't simply take this lying down. If it means using the Constitution as a bargaining chip and insisting that some protection is built in to stop the Commission acting in this
way in future, then so be it.

I'm sorry if I'm sounding over-excited about this issue, but I've been involved in the SNN stopover issue for sixteen years now, since my college days. I wish this nonsense had been solved by our own government(s) years back, but neither the interest nor the backbone was there to do the job. Now, when it is there, we've swapped one obstacle for another one - which should be the standard bearer for competition. And it's holding us back; I can't help drawing a parallel with the Poles greeting the Russian troops as liberators after the war ... :*

It's been said SO often that long haul is the key to EI's future. I don't work for EI, but I would urge anyone who does to make a big fuss about this - write to politicians, MEPs etc - make sure EI is not screwed over by the Commission. Don't waste time; DO IT NOW!

And what basically is the problem with foreign ownership..??

Is that a rhetorical question Flame? Or are you serious?
If you do the research you'll find the following:

Since 1938, all American airlines must be at least 75% owned by US citizens. Any previous effort to change to that requirement has been resisted.
Under the Open Skies negotiations the EU is demanding that rule be abolished.

On September 11th 2001 a gang of middle-eastern terrorists hijacked 4 US aircraft and used them to kill thousands of Americans.

In February 2006, US politicians of every stripe opposed and eventually prevented the sale of 6 US ports to a Dubai Ports company - on the grounds of National Security. It was pointed out that at least 2 of the 9-11 hijackers were from the UAE (Dubai) and the clear inference was that foreigners (especially Arabs) might use their ownership of the ports as both economic and terrorist weapons against the US.

Foreign terrorists have already used aircraft as weapons against the US.

See a connection here yet??

I'd recommend you read this article to familiarise yourself with the issues:
http://www.michnews.com/artman/publi...le_12821.shtml

US Bilateral
 

For years EI, Aer Rianta and successive governments stood back waiting for the EU to take the thorny politcal issue of the SNN stopover out of their hands. How ironic that the EU is now behaving like the Irish Governments of old.

6 months from an election it's unlikely that Cullen or Bertie will rock any boats but after that the last great sacred cow (i.e the Shannon Stopover) will surely fade into history.

It probably won't have any major impact on SNN in the Short-term as EI say they will maintain SNN JFK and SNN BOS. As for SNN's main competitor (the airport with the one airbridge) I need say no more!

I am serious...Can you explain to me, why, the likes of Richard Branson (of the U.K) should not own say, a 90% share of Delta Airlines. Why does any Government insist that its airlines be owned by at least 75% of its own nationals, bearing in mind, according to your own post, this US law is in force since 1938

A) Its got to do with the ability of the US government to take possession of a/c should they need them. If the airline and hence its a/c were not owned by a member of US allies there could be problems.

Now however Unions and ploiticians want to keep the status quo. They fear the importation of EU stlye Lo-Cos and work practices, which are far more effecient than their US counterparts.

Bertie should(but wont) tell the comission to take a running jump in regards to a new bilateral. He should go ahead and make a deal anyway and then let the EU take us to court. Why is it one rule for the likes of rance and Germany withregads to rules and subsidies, and another for us? I guarantee that this would not go any father than a lawyers letter, so long as the bi-latteral does not preclude other EU rights, etc.

EI also need to be seriously vocal on this, perhaps link up with one of their major shareholders to create an awful stink.......

EI-RB, this is an issue I've been pondering for some time. I would have thought that, since free competition is one of the EU's guiding principles (and ironically, the basis on which the EU took other EU countries to court), it would be ultra vires for the Commission to impose a situation on another country or undertaking (i.e. EI!) which amounted to a competitive disadvantage. This is what it has now done. Ideally, the govt should be allowed to say that since the EU's block on the govt moving ahead with a more realistic and competitive bilateral, this effectively amounts to a competitive disadvantage and is therefore null and void and consequently, approval is deemed to have been given. That's what I would like to happen ... but sadly, it's not as simple as this!

That doesn't mean we're completely out of options, although the options remaining are pretty drastic. The main option is that the Taoiseach demands that any new EU constitution put before the Irish people (which it would have to be) would not be passed unless it has a clause which prohibited the Commission (or indeed any other EU institution or agency) from imposing a competitive disadvantage. I think there are very good grounds for doing this, because what the EU is doing is grossly unfair, whatever legal nicety it hides behind.

As I mentioned above, the problem is now worse than that outlined by the Sunday Times, in that the EU's environmental proposals have gone down like a lead balloon with Washington and they may well say "sod off" and let the O/S issue die. In that case, negotiations between the two parties will be deemed no longer to exist and then, even by the EU's own rules (though it will probably change them, to suit its purposes, as it usually does) we can enter direct negotiations with the EU.

I do like the idea of calling the EU's bluff and going ahead, particularly as it would give the govt the opportunity to challenge the EU to demonstrate the equality of treatment it has shown to the different EU countries; when the imminent judgment on EU action against the Netherlands (the first countries to introduce O/S with the US) is given, what action will the EU take against the Dutch? The same action as it did against the Germans, French, Italians etc and it is the RESULT of this imbalance that we need to focus on, because it amounts to the imposition of a competitive disadvantage.

I have looked at the possibility of opting out of O/S completely, but I don't think that's a runner, because it has been the subject of an EU case. However, as an expression of protest against the EU's stance, it would be well worth taking and it would help if the Taoiseach raised it at the next leaders' summit, next month, along with the demand to amend the Constitution. In other words, focus on the goal and whatever it takes, do it. The EU can do this the easy way or the hard way, but in the end, with or without their help, we're moving forward.

So much for a free market economy. Is this much interference in commercial business a good or a bad thing by a government...??

This isn't quite as drastic as it sounds; the US has long operated what is known as CRAF - the Civil Reserve Air Fleet, which means that US carriers are paid a certain amount to have certain suitable aircraft (Pan Am had most of its 747s fitted with side cargo doors, for example) available when it needed to engage in military action.

Frankly, I don't consider this an issue that should cause a delay; if aircraft belonging to a certain airline are required by the CRAF in times of war/ emergency, I don't see how this would change as a result of a foreign airline having an interest in the carrier.

What I really wonder is, if US businesses and airlines aren't willing to buy into their airlines, many of which are in Ch 11, why would foreigners necessarily be? Much of what is being argued about is potentially academic and unlikely to come to fruition and frankly, I've long suspected - in the case of BA and AA - that part of BA's strategy in suggesting a buyout of AA - is to ask for something it knows is a non-runner, with the hope that it will cause such a political melee that the whole O/S issue will die. BA's bottom line is that it DOES NOT WANT any change to t/a access to/from Heathrow - no CO, no DL, no BMI, no one else.

And as ever, guess who gets stuck in the middle? Yep, it's us as usual. Poor Aer Lingus and Ireland, with a government with scant interest in air transport issues unless it is actually forced to do so.

Who's Buying/Selling?
 

It appears that the EPT disclosures in the Company Announcements section of the www.ise.ie website are causing some confusion regarding who is buying or selling.

Am I correct in saying that if I ask Morgan Stanley to sell or short 1.1m EI shares, the EPT document will only refer to Ryanair in the Offerer/Offeree section, not to me, the actual buyer, as Ryanair is the Offerer and is linked to Morgan Stanley? Some appear to think that it's Ryanair that doing the buying and selling and I'm not so sure.

http://www.ise.ie/app/announcementDe...asp?ID=1342270

Write to your MEPs
 

OK, people, here's a link to the EU Parliament's Irish website, where you'll find a list of the Irish MEPs. Why not drop them a line and express your feelings about the EU Commission's stance against increasing our transatlantic access.

http://www.europarl.ie/meps/idublin.html

As well as Dublin MEPs, copy in the members of the Parliament's Transport Cttee (Sean O'Neachtain, Jim Higgins and Kathy Sinnott); I've sent a letter to all Dublin and "East" MEPs this evening. May not achieve a lot, but can't do any harm - and it certainly can't help if the same message comes across from a number of people; pilots - perhaps suggest that IALPA do the same, if it hasn't done so already.

It's been said so many times before that long haul is the key to Aer Lingus's future; here we have the Commission, which should be the standard bearer for competition and competitiveness, effectively preventing Aer Lingus from competing fairly. DON'T TAKE IT LYING DOWN!

Jim Higgins and Sean O Neachtain both have Shannon in their constituencies and O Neachtain has spoken in favour of the protection of Shannon, so I couldn't see much joy.

If anyone wants to write to Sinnott, play up the impact on Cork Airport's ability to offer transatlantic flights. Cork is in her constituency - in fact she's based in Inishannon, which is pretty close to Cork Airport. Also, as an American who is resident in Cork, it might be an issue for her.

mccloud

McCloud: I see what you mean about confusion, but if you ask Morgan Stanley to trade in EI shares on your behalf, I don't see why Ryanair would be mentioned.

Reading the link you post does make me think (and I am open to correction) that Morgan Stanley, acting on behalf of Ryanair, have shorted a million EI shares, i.e. sold shares that they don't own yet, presumably in the expectation that the EI share price will soon fall (e.g. after the ESOT vote results come in and the takeover bid is declared dead) and they'll be able to make money from this.

It does make me wonder who wants to buy EI at €2.73 just now, though...

I think Cyrano is spot on. Shorting the stock was a good idea if one believed that MOL would go no further with his bid. EI shareholders don't have much upside given that MOL has stated that he won't improve on his offer (and which he must abide by for a year). With no possibility of an immediate buyout or a bidding war, the share price will most likely lose some of its lustre. Furthermore, with FR on board as a significant minority shareholder, there may well be a discount factor involved given that institutional investors may be wary of a a fractious relationship between the holy trinity of MOL, Mannion and EI management, and the unions. Combined with the ongoing open skies delays and increased competition on its short haul routes (from the Chief Mischief Maker at FR), things ain't looking all that rosy. Upshot of all this is that is a gradual drift back below MOL's offer price is likely and that will act as an upper ceiling on the share price for the coming year.
From an operational perspective, it will be interesting to see how FR manages its quest for domestic domination. SNN is all theirs now, the easyboys have fled the Irish battlefield, and Arann are facing the FR wrath on their busiest and most profitable route. DUB is split between the two, but EI have Cork to themselves. For how long is anyone's guess though.

Well, the votes have been counted; it's a 97% vote for "sod off, MO'L".

http://www.breakingnews.ie/2006/11/22/story286187.html

what, not 100%? :)

Ryanair would be mentioned because Morgan Stanley is advising Ryanair and Irish (& UK) Takeover Rules specify that any dealings by related parties must be disclosed.

Therefore, and just to clarify - all of the EPT Disclosures you see from Morgan Stanley are shares (bought & sold) on behalf of Insitutional Clients.

IF Ryanair itself were to buy/sell any shares, they themselves would have to make the disclosure.