Daz why would he wipe out a company he has just invested €300m of his shareholders money in?

Don't listen to his media rubbish. He detests the media almost as much as his staff.

Today's Sunday Times suggests that EI is now looking at focusing its efforts on developing existing short haul routes, which seems to be a departure from the last strategy, which appeared to focus on short haul routes of more than 2h. Regardless of what s/h routes are operated, FR can still complete with them, route for route if it chooses; it's already signalled a significant increase in s/h routes ex-DUB if the planned takeover fails, so why not proceed with long haul plans?

There's been very little said by EI about long haul; OK, growth on t/a routes is stalled by the Open Skies thing, but what about eastbound growth?

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/newspap...426416,00.html

He only bought shares to try and takeover the company, if he cant take
over the company he could sell them at a profit, just because you buy shares, you dont have to keep hold of them.

Fine in theory, but how do you dump nearly a fifth of shares of a company onto the market without making a loss - particularly if people know that once you've sold out, you're going to make life incredibly difficult for the company in question?

In this respect, I see MO'L being a little stuck; he has also said that he intends to remain an investor in EI for the foreseeable future.

I tend to believe he is involved for the long term; much of what he intends to achieve for EI could still be achievable even if FR were a minority shareholder. From EI's perspective, isn't it a bit disingenuous not ignore a shareholder with 1/5 of the airline's shareholding, particularly if that shareholder could help it get major discounts on new aircraft or help it prepare for the onslaught of new US competition?

I see what your saying but I dont think he would have long to wait until
EI's other shareholders would rip his arm of to get that stake back into their own hand.

akerosid
 

DM's best hope of gaining immediate growth on long-haul is to team up with his ex-employers Emirates. They have the largest order book for wide-body aircraft in the world. Plus - Aer Lingus have one thing which EK covet badly: those slots at LHR, which Aer Lingus/Ireland woulnd't need if they had a sufficient long-haul operation out of Dublin.

EI have one advantage over all the US carriers - they're a OneWorld partner with American, and the two together can feed traffic to each others short-haul networks on their respective sides of the Atlantic.

Actually EI are no longer a oneworld member. From April(I think, maybe a month or two out, correct me if Im wrong) They will still retain a code-share realtionship with many of the carriers in oneworld, but a formal member EI no longer is.

If EI wants to grow, they should look seriously at aquiring the A346s that EK has apparently cancelled. Buy em cheap, and the economics might be OK, especially as interim lift while they wait for the XWB. There might be payoad issues out of DUB tho? At any rate there are at least 10 free slots comming available on the 330/340 line. They would do quite nicely as medium-term lift until the next gerneration is available, and they should be going for a song.

As for the american carriers, I personally dont see them as huge threat, let us remember that EI has a cost base which can successfully fend off FR. Although the Americans have more compeditive costs these days, I seriously doubt their costs come within an asses roar of EI's. The only problem with EIs long haul network is its relatively limited scope, especially eastwards. (oh ya, PTVs as well!)

I certainly agree with your comment about LHR. I think that with the
likely steep increase in green taxes in the UK - not to mention ever
more stringent security procedures, transit via LHR becomes all the more
undesirable. Indeed, if anything, it should be discouraged - and not
just in favour of AMS, FRA, CDG etc, but in favour of long haul to Asia,
direct.

I have long wondered if EI could team up with EK with regard to its
impending order for 787s (given EK's relationship with Airbus, I think
we can safely say 350s are out?!). EK is still looking at the 787 as an option (although, I think, at present, it's more focused on the larger widebodies, due to the problems with the 380 and 346.)

The thing that concerns me is that with the cost cutting plan DM has
recently signalled, does EI have the commitment to develop the kind of
long haul product EI needs, to be able to compete? If not, maybe it is
best just to feed into EK, or else, to develop the long haul low cost
concept on eastbound routes out of Ireland.

It would suit EK fine, I'm sure, to take feed from EI, but in an age
when we're more focused on the enviornmental friendliness of routes,
isn't it better to take them right to a major Asian hub, such as BKK or
HKG. It would be a bit of a pyrrhic victory just to change one connection point (LHR) for another, DXB.

Also, EI is no longer in oneworld and I think that while there is some
scope for developing a r'ship with AA, most US carriers are trying to
develop capacity on long haul routes? Wouldn't they rather operate their
own services?

With regard to the environmental issues, it occurred to me that with ever more stringent environmental issues and standards, is it realistic or fair for the EU to continue to insist on the current 1:1 on t/a routes. If O/S fails to get the go ahead when the EU meets the US later this year, we could still be stuck with the current regs if the EU decides to dig its heels in. Perhaps the govt could argue that the obligation placed on it by another EU agency trumps this and in that way, get around it? Worth a try? :ok:

Remember, these aircraft are on the same production line as the 330s, so they can be delivered as such; the 330 is about the only widebody that's actually working for Airbus, so I would expect all of these production slots to be converted to 330s. Indeed, DM mentioned some time ago (albeit before EK cancellation - and indeed, the FR plans - were announced) that Airbus was offering it three 330s for 2008 delivery; nothing since ... Getting 330s is a transitional phase for EI and doesn't preclude 787s, although of course, Airbus will bend over backwards to get EI on board with the 350XWB; a 330 customer going for 787s is exactly the message it doesn't want to send out.

PTVs are a must if EI wants to be a serious player on long haul routes, even if it goes down the long haul low cost route. DM has recognised this pretty soon after taking over, although he hasn't done anything about it; I would expect to see a new product in J and Y classes being introduced with the two new 330s being introduced next year.

Well if you add the two already on the way to that three, along with the 10 EK slots, the ballpark figure for the future EI fleet. Assuming that all of the 332s were kept(but the 333s dumped) gives a total of 18. I assume that Airbus would be offering these a/c at exceptional prices, especially if EI were also to commit to the XWB for deliver c2015. I think the 332 could do BKK OK, but would be slightly payload limited to SIN? JNB should also be possible? Maybe someone with more knowlage of the specs could confirm?
Let us remember that the A330 is still a really, really good and economical a/c.Especially on Eis surrent network. Also the american airlines will still be operating 757/767s to Ireland untill possibly 2020. EI needs a long haul fleet, 787 is hard to come by and the XWB will most likely sufer delays. By taking the best of the current aircraft available, but still having NGs on order, EI can avoid trouble should there be delays with whatever NG widebody it goes for.

New product is definately hoped for, but what are the chances? We all had money on new cabins b4 DXB, but looked what happened.

Just Spotted ...
 

New routes announced today

http://www.rte.ie/business/2006/1031/aerlingus.html

Is it just me or are Cork-Manchester and Dublin-Athens the only ones there that are actually new routes.

Why don't Aer Lingus fly to Cardiff? The Dublin route is currently provided by Aer Arann, but surely Aer Lingus would make more sense between the two airports?

Aer Lingus go through the same process of announcing new routes and increases in frequencies while also cutting back elsewhere. Just having a quick look at the booking engine for July seems to suggest that both Almeria and Bristol are being dropped (just looked at the first few detinations).

It would be sad to see Bristol go again - first route of the airline - also a great city as I found out for the first time recently and Bath of course. It seems like the same as what happened to Liverpool this year - go on a UK route for a while, drop it back from daily to 5 weekly and then drop it altogether. Hope I'm wrong about that. Id they aren't doing Bristol I can't see them doing Cardiff as they haven't been there in modern times. What are the odds that Newcastle will end up the same way next year?

Valencia seems to have gone too.

are those not seasonal routes ?

ALSO, perhaps the bristol timings havent been loaded into the system yet .................. or your correct and that route is facing the AXE

CWL
 

Would have thought that CWL would have been an ideal opportunity for EI given passenger volumes that FR carried (they were well on the way to twice daily when commercials with the airport authority resulted in them pulling the plug).

Co existed with BRS DUB well with both routes growing.

Also an excellent way of using the BRS aircraft if they're dropping the route.

I'd be surprised to see Valencia going! Bristol wouldnt surprise me!

doesnt suprise re EGGD....Loads and yields were crap. As a driver it is and always was a sh@t hole in bad weather.

Bristol city itself is a fine place and I always think of Jill Dando (RIP) departing 27 as the town on the beach on the 09 end is where she came from.

There are a few seasonal routes going; we had our last DUB flight of the Summer here in Jersey today and although they'll be back next Summer, it's only going to be two weekly. Oh well.

Here's a little snippet from Airwise; some good and bad news for EI - good on the overall pax numbers, but t/a seems to have taken a hit from the whole security fiasco recent months, with load factors down about 7% to 72%; hopefully, it's just temporary. http://news.airwise.com/story/view/1162296499.html

With regard to fleet changes, I see from various threads on A.net that Air Madrid is teetering, due to continued serviceability and reliability issues; they've had flights delayed for over a day and in one case, by 60h and it's expected that the Spanish CAA will pull their licence. One of their aircraft, an A330-300, has been grounded at BCN for a good while - the aircraft formally known as EI-SHN. HOWEVER, they do have two GE powered A330-200s. Just a thought ...

On the whole Open Skies issue, I started a thread on this and the general vibe is that the actual agreement could be a long, long way off, in which case we need to see Plan B in place, from the govt. If the issue holding up agreement is something which is completely irrelevant to us (US airline ownership issues), then we really should be pushing for movement. This 50/50 Shannon nonsense can't go on for another year.

Bearcat

Things never change apparently. I have a slim volume written by a man who worked at the old Bristol (Whitchurch) Airport in the 1930s. Part of his duties consisted of preparing a weather report (not a forecast, he was at pains to point out) by looking at the wind sock and wind vane for wind speed and direction, and looking towards the hill beyond Long Ashton which if clear would give a visibility of beyond six miles.

The information was then converted into a code, known as the Q Code, which was transmitted by radio telegraph to Baldonnel for the information of the pilot of the daily Aer Lingus flight (DH Dragon) from Dublin to Bristol which service had commenced on 27 May 1936.

The problem was of course the weather had often deteriorated by the time the aircraft reached the West Country and I guess those pilots had as much trouble at times in landing at Whitchurch as you do on occasions at Lulsgate.

The City Council should have gone for Filton when they had the chance, but that's another story.

It will be a great pity if the Aer Lingus DUB-BRS service lapses again. It only re-started two or three years ago, after a gap of a few years that followed an unbroken run from the route's inception (WW II apart).

Furthermore, this winter's schedule appears to have increased to 6 x weekly from the summer's 5 x weekly.

It's a shame about the loads and yield. Of course with one daily rotation it isn't possible to do a daytrip so I suppose business pax like my son who sometimes needs to be in Dublin for only one day use Ryanair.

I was always a bit surprised that the Aer Lingus Airbus seemed to be timed for the early afternoon about an hour after the lunchtime Ryanair. I suppose it's all down to aircraft utilisation.

Overall, with the extra Ryanair flights and their 738s instead of 732s, the first nine months of 2006 on the Bristol-Dublin route has seen 270,000 pax compared to 220,000 in the first nine months of 2005.

Will be very sorry to see you go again.

Well CWL would have been a good decision, Aer Arann are charging a lot more than either FR or EI at Bristol currently yet it seems to be a popular route.

Aer Lingus-Ryanair deal could be too small for EU
 

A hostile takeover of Aer Lingus by Ryanair could be too small in size to justify an EU competition probe, the Financial Times said today.



http://www.rte.ie/business/2006/1101/aerlingus.html


JAS

When does it have to be decided by?

I seem to remember some date in mid-November being mentioned.

840

If you're referring to the EU anti-trust review, the deadline for EU authorities to approve the deal (in their so-called 'Phase 1' is December 6th. That Financial Times article stating that the two companies don't meet EU thresholds (ie. 'too small') is pure and utter nonsense.

So Aer Lingus are going to use their 2 new long haul planes to increase frequencies on existing routes.

http://www.rte.ie/business/2006/1102/aerlingus.html

hoped they might have been adventerous and tried something new, but i guess they have to defend their market.

I was just looking at the Aer Lingus website and I noticed that they offer onward connections to many US cities via New York. The flights being operated by American Airways. Have they been doing this for long or is this a new initiative?

Apparently, DM was on Marion Finucane's radio show yesterday and was pressed on the relationships between EI and Airbus and Boeing. DM said that the relationship between EI and Boeing was just as good as FR's relationship "and EI was currently in negotiations with Boeing for a particular type of aircraft".

Very good interview - was challenged on the business value issue and the fuel surchages and other points. Almost sure he said that 4 extra A320s and 2 extra A330s would be on for next summer but wonder if I picked that up wrong.

I thought it was 2 a320's and 2 a330's for next summer? Perhaps they're picking up extra aircraft from Airbus/Lessor???? If they are taking 4 a320's next summer, maybe we will see further frequency increases, new routes for winter 07, or new routes from cork?

The announced expansion plans only require a single additional Dublin-based aircraft from the first weekend in June. So, one way or another, there is further short-haul expansion to be announced for next summer.

I doubt if it will cease; at the end of the day, it's business for AA and it works for EI, so why would they want to throw this away.

As for EI's fleet, DM mentioned a few weeks back - before the FR takeover plans became known - that Airbus was talking to them about three A330s for 2008 delivery.

The problem for EI is that the current regulatory "black hole" is making life very difficult for EI from a planning standpoint; if the rule is changed to 3:1, then EI should be allowed to add new routes, but that's not at all certain. It should be, in that if O/S is agreed, we'll revert to the Nov 05 plan and if it isn't, then Ireland should be allowed to proceed with that agreement. There's no way the EU can justify a claim that changing the SNN stopover issue undermines its negotiations with the US and I think there are also competition and environmental law issues which the govt can use. I can't see the US govt objecting to a change in the stopover ratio, so I doubt if they'll object; US carriers won't either. I'm just wondering what the EU could do if the Irish govt decided to proceed and deem the EU approval as given - particularly given:
a) a conflict of laws, and
b) the current situation was never anticipated when the Commission took Germany and other countries to the ECJ

I can't see the govt having enough backbone to do this, but I do suspect that Cullen is growing impatient over the issue.

Ryan2000
 

When Openskies does eventually come in, will the Shannon lobby have the neck to ask for another transition period?.

They can thank their lucky stars that this one didn't kick on 1st Nov in as they'll have more transatlantic flights than ever in 2007.

Biddy Early must be praying for them!

You can't rule it out, particularly with an election coming up, but I doubt if they'll get it; the Americans won't have it. Besides which, the deal that now exists has been approved by the EU and included in the whole EU/US deal - whenever that happens; as things are, we are the ONLY EU country out of the 25 which won't have O/S from Day 1.

The real question, I think, is what happens if the overall O/S is delayed beyond 2008. It could still happen and in that case, would SNN get a transitional period - and airlines stand for it? EI would hit the roof (and as a privatised carrier, it would be able to say what it feels). The thing that bugs me is, even if the EU/US deal doesn't go ahead, why not allow Ireland to proceed with the reduction in the ratio of DUB/SNN flights from next year; that cannot possibly affect or undermine EU negotiations with the US, but it would make a very positive difference to EI. Can't see the Americans objecting either (what they did object to was full O/S for Ireland before everyone else got it), because their carriers must be pretty cheesed off with the 50/50. For EI, it means certainty and knowing when they'll be able to add new cities and when they'll have to add new aircraft.

One possibility occurs; the EU has ticked Ireland off about CO2 emissions - the Environment Dept of the Commission; however, another Commission Dept - Transport - is forcing the govt to maintain the most environmentally unfriendly use of a large passenger aircraft - the stopover. In that circumstance, can the Irish govt say that it is required by the Commission to reduce emissions and therefore, the 50/50 is no longer sustainable and if the Transport Commissioner wants to sue, the Irish govt will join the Environment Commissioner as a co-defendant ...?

No votes in changing the Bi-Lateral
 

RB

I'm not involved in the aviation sector, so this is very much an outsiders (call me a consumer) view;

The sad and simple truth is that the Irish Government has no interest/motivation in changing the current US-Irl aggrment. There are not enough votes for a political party to bother.

The Shannon lobby have long been motivated enough the keep pressure on the politicians in Counties Clare and Limerick, warning of impending doom at the ballot box if the stop over were removed, where as the staff of Aer Lingus and (forermerly) Aer Rianta in North County Dublin have only been agitated when job cuts were mentioned, otherwise, they didn't give a damn about the agreement enough to raise it as a political issue with their represntives or make it an issue.

If the majority of those whose livelyhoods depended on improving air transport in Ireland (i.e. the then semi-state employees of Aer Lingus and Aer Rianta in Dublin Airport) couldn't be bothered to raise it as an issue, then why sholuld anyone bother changing it? The management of both organisations were (until the privatisation of EIN) unable to comment on the arrangement.

JAS

I think the reason things will change is that it's a totally different ball game now. The bleating of the Shannon stopover lobby, while not completely silent, has become a lot quieter. Not out of resignation alone, but I suspect that they understand (a) that it's unsustainable, (b) that with all the US carriers throwing 757s onto t/a routes, there's enough business for them to pick up and most fundamentally, (c) that, all things considered, the forced stopover doesn't actually help SNN much. I would be surprised if there were NO comments/points about this during the next election, but I suspect it will not be the major one.

Then you have the fact that EI is now privatised and can be a lot more vocal and even if it isn't, it has FR on board as a shareholder and it will want to see major growth on long haul. I also detect some impatience at govt level on this issue.

With the Democrats likely to take control of the US House of Representatives this evening, this is going to change things in the US and I don't think that will augur well for O/S at all. This will serve only to increase the pressure on the govt and ultimately, one hopes, the EU, to allow Ireland to change the ratio of flights. For the govt to be seen to acquiesce in something which is manifestly against our interests is very poor policy.

Maybe I'm being over-optimistic (it wouldn't be the first time), but I think that, one way or another, we will see change this coming Summer.

Ryan2000
 

It's high time that the Board spoke publicly and bluntly about the Shannon Stopover. The previous political constraints are no longer an issue or are they?

Shannon Stopover
 

We can't forget the fact that the government still own 25%. They still have a lot of power in the running of the company. If the Shannon stopover becomes an election issue they will do whatever gets the most votes. As well as that Siptu won't be too happy with Shannon workers losing their jobs. The Shannon stopover is completely ridiculous, and bad for the environment, but it could be around for some time to come

A couple of other questions to satisfy my own mind. Its safe to say that this summer and indeed this year we have seen a lot of tech problems with A330's, i think the latest one being an a/c stuck in AGP for a few days. Well in years gone by we have seen the wet lease of the MD11 from World, was that not part of the equation at all this year? They knew about all the problems. Why wasnt something done like wet leasing for the summer season?

Is it not obivious to all in EI that the 330s are in serious need of overhaul and its simply not acceptable just to patch them up for another few weeks before something goes wrong again. Incidentally when are the next C and D checks scheduled for those a/c? On a tech issue, exactly how long does the 330 spend over water on the TA routes? And whats the ETOPS on a 330? Would it not be in their own best interests if the TA aircraft were kept in top form to prevent a loss over the atlantic which would send the share price into freefall?????

A recent trip to AGP on the 330, I paid the extra €35 for the premier seats. How in the name of god do they justify charging €3000 for DUB-JFK?