Aer Lingus - 2 [Archive]

EI896

14th Aug 2006, 09:11

Flew to Glasgow last week and I got a very good deal with EI ! The plane was full and their service was excellent ! In fact it was a lot better than FR's ! I notice prices on board EI flights for tea/coffe etc are way cheaper than FR's ! Its time EI improved their long haul service and brought it up to the high standard that they have on their short haul routes ! I think EI's fares are very good especially if you book early and are flexible ! The cheapest return flight into Heathrow at the mo is around €75 ! Its around €60 with FR for the month of August ! Its costs around €13 to travel into london city from stansted and €5 from heathrow by train and tube respectively ! Total fare with EI into london city €80 tube(€5) =€85
Total fare with Ryanair €60 + train (€13 train) + baggge fee + credit card charge = around the same as EI ! And whose service is better and has more comfortable seats ??????? EI

Who would want to fly with Ryanair !!!!!!!

Finally someones talking sence!!! Aer Lingus always have and always will be better than Ryanair what you pay on Ryanair is what you get 1cent no pitch on seats no pocket in front, Ryanair try and make it as uncomfertable as f*cking possible, it's grotty, crews not trained and unhelpful don't do their jobs properly I could be here until tomorrow. Aer Lingus I thin kis one of the most friendly Courteous and at least they clean up their planes on landing last time I travelled with Ryanair I found bread crumbs on my table an a used babies nappy in the pocket in front when I asked for it to be dissposed they said "What you pay is whayt you get" I wrote to Ryanair and told them about this and yet the same reply "what you pay is what you get" I hope Ryanair pull out of Cork and make way for EI and REA cause nobody likes them. Now they're trying to know EI out of Spain which is totally stupid cause people wan't to get proper food and not bloody buns that taste like card-board!!!

Shanwickman

14th Aug 2006, 09:57

You say there are no pockets in front, then a few lines further on you say that you found a used baby nappy in "the pocket in front".

apaddyinuk

14th Aug 2006, 11:26

Shanwickman

Until very recently Ryanair had a mix of planes with and without seat pockets. Not sure if they are all refitted now but there you go!

EI896

14th Aug 2006, 15:04

Shanwickman, I traveled with Ryanair in 2003 since then they have started eliminating pockets on new a/c with will eventually bring them to have no pockets.

akerosid

17th Aug 2006, 03:17

The US DOT has said it won't be in a position to provide details of its proposed new rules on foreign o/ship and mgmt of US carriers by the EU Transport Council meeting on the 12th October. This is extremely bad news for Aer Lingus, with privatisation coming up next month and comes on top of the increased threat from FR.

http://www.unison.ie/irish_independent/stories.php3?ca=35&si=1671595&issue_id=14507

What are the options here? The EU says it is still hopeful that a deal can be done by year-end, but even that's not terribly helpful; even if the US does come up with new rules, there's no guarantee that these will be acceptable and while negotiations are ongoing, it's highly unlikely that the EU will allow the govt to negotiate a special deal or dispensation with the US or even to proceed with the deal announced last November. That said, Cullen will be under severe pressure to provide some comfort to potential investors next month. With short haul coming under severe pressure, long haul is the airline's big hope and if growth is stunted there, it makes life difficult on two levels; firstly, the mere fact of not being able to grow, but secondly, the fact that because they don't know WHEN they're going to get rights, they can't plan fleet expansion.

The EU holds all the cards, so if they say "no" to the govt, as they're likely to, there's little hope of their minds being changed. However, the one remote possibility is that since the EU position has the effect of imposing a competitive disadvantage on Aer Lingus and since the proposed Irish/US mini deal doesn't pose a competitive disadvantage to any other country, the govt could threaten to insist on a provision in any reworked EU Constitution to prevent the EU from acting in this way; it's a very long shot (and pretty unlikely), but there's very few cards for the govt to play.

Tom the Tenor

17th Aug 2006, 08:01

This latest setback once again plays into Shannon's hands.

akerosid

17th Aug 2006, 11:22

It may give a short term advantage, but the expectation is that the US will have its proposals by year end; however, just an expectation and there have been so many setbacks and pitfalls over the years, that it's not reasonable to be confident about this. Even if they do present new proposals, will they be acceptable? Meanwhile, even though EI doesn't have any interest in buying in a US carrier, it - and most other EU carriers - lose out, and this at a time when US carriers are throwing capacity onto the Irish market with jets diverted from the domestic market.

akerosid

18th Aug 2006, 18:06

In correspondence with the EU, I was advised that if negotiations between the EU and the US hit problems, the EU could give the Irish (or anyone else) permission to renegotiate with the US, subject to the following:

- The agreement would be subject to EU approval and would have to contain certain clauses (since the mini deal was made under EU supervision, we can assume that these clauses were in there?), and
- The EU had to be satisfied that granting the right to negotiate would not compromise or undermine ongoing EU/US negotiations. Given that the sticking point is not something which concerns Aer Lingus, they can hardly claim this is the case. Furthermore, since our US bilateral is easily the most backward, counter-productive and anti-competitive of any of the 25 EU states, amending it to allow our "mini deal" to go ahead could hardly be regarded as a threat to any other member state.

Furthermore, since the EU has said its confident that a deal can be done by year end and since, at this stage, Aer Lingus can't do anything more for the Winter, what difference would it make for the EU to allow the minister to give assurances in relation to increased US access in time for privatisation? That's really all EI and potential investors need right now. (And if Open Skies doesn't go ahead as planned, the mini deal still can, because it won't make any difference to the sticking point.)

The govt really needs to take a hard line on this. If the privatisation is a flop and if EI doesn't get the funds to increase its fleet and add new US routes, the airline will be in serious trouble and MO'L will make it hurt ...

INLAK

19th Aug 2006, 16:33

EI should put US expansion on the back burner and go east and south.

ryan2000

19th Aug 2006, 17:48

Can't see the US making any concessions before November's election. EI need to let the Government know that the situation is very serious.

This isn't a time for political games.

It's potentially as serious as the Autumn of 2001 for Aerlingus. We must allow the transitional agreement to come into effect.

johnrizzo2000

19th Aug 2006, 20:35

Maybe with all this stalling on the open skies, we might see HongKong, CapeTown, Bangkok or just an increase in flights to Dubai and the US!

akerosid

19th Aug 2006, 20:58

We don't actually need any concessions from the Americans; it's the EU which is providing the obstacle. The Americans have been pushing our lot for years to move towards Open Skies and it was only grudgingly that they agreed to a phased period for letting the stopover die. The Americans would be only too happy to agree that the Irish-US deal comes into effect, regardless of the O/S problems; that's the stage we're at now. Since no Irish airline has any interest in controlling a US carrier, there'll be no objections at Congress level.

As for other long haul routes, yes, of course, they should do that, BUT there are a number of issues here:
- It's well known in the US market and that's its traditional long haul stamping ground, so it's relatively easy to establish itself in new markets.
- Similarly, it's less well known in Asia and without wishing to kick EI, its long haul product isn't quite Cathay. To establish themselves there, they'll need significant investment in the service product; do they want to do that?
- Is the A332 the optimal aircraft for these routes, particularly on the homebound legs? The A332 should be ok for BKK, possibly HKG, but KUL and SIN are out.

So, with that in mind, I think the focus will be on N/A routes; the minister has a month to get the green light from the EU to allow the Irish/US mini-deal to go ahead as it is; nothing will happen this winter; all that is wanted is an assurance for potential investors.

ryan2000

19th Aug 2006, 23:16

Minister has been remarkably silent on the matter. Is the Shannon lobby
trying to stall the agreement for as long as possible?

akerosid

20th Aug 2006, 04:46

There's not much he can usefully say, publicly, on this matter. His efforts and those of his department should be focused on getting the green light for EI on t/a access. I think that the Shannonsiders have accepted that the end for the stopover is nigh.

Quite a few interesting articles in today's papers - the Sunday Times has a large article on EI and the SBP as well; the Sunday Indo has a story on fears about the privatisation being a flop. That can't be allowed to happen; for EI's floatation to be a disaster would put its future seriously at risk, especially as far as long haul expansion is concerned and one thing that Cullen knows he can do about this is to be able to say, in advance of the privatisation (which will be in the last week of September), is that EI can expand its US routes on the basis of last year's mini-deal.

Incidentally, one of the papers (I think it was the ST) gave a list of the airline's priority list for US growth: SFO, Philadelphia, Florida, Mid-Atlantic (BWI?) and Texas. One question that occurs to me is this: Could EI return to BWI and MCO, on the basis that it did previously, i.e. without these cities counting as one (or two) of three cities is can add under the "mini deal"?

INLAK

21st Aug 2006, 15:15

Or they could return to them under the illusion of a "charter operation" as was done with MCO before.

akerosid

21st Aug 2006, 16:59

I think they could do that; WW once said that BWI would work without the stopover; MCO would obviously work for the Summer and they'd only have the stop in one direction, but also no cargo.

Still, there's a hell of a difference between settling for 1:1 and going for what the mini-deal should allow, 3:1. Cullen needs to push hard for this; after all EI has been through over the past few years, the EU should not be allowed to mess things up, particularly over something as irrelevant to EI as foreign o'ship of US carriers. They need to play hard ball too; Bertie has considerable clout at EU level, having concluded the Constitution deal during our last presidency, so he has a role to play. It's not just EI's interests; it's ours as a whole which will be undermined, so if the EU wants its next Constitution to get anywhere (bearing in mind it needs a referendum in Ireland), "don't mess EI about" should be the message coming from Merrion St.

ryan2000

21st Aug 2006, 17:38

The Americans will have no problem with the 3:1 . Cullen will be pushing an open door if he really wants to get this implemented. But does he?

akerosid

21st Aug 2006, 17:59

Perhaps the question is, does Ahern? I think he and Cullen both do. Cullen's silence through all of this is interesting; he has neither committed himself to a particular result, but nor has he rejected it as impossible. I suspect that the Dept of Transport has its own Plan B in place for some time, i.e. if there is a delay here, this is what we'll do and this is what EI will do.

They know that they'll have little problem with the Americans, but it's the Eurocrats who are the big obstacle. Now, there is, understandably a suspicion, given the past few years' experience, that they may not be trying quite so hard, but I suspect that there is general expectation in the west that the Shannon stopover is gone and they're working to that assumption. However, I also suspect - and I may be extremely naive in this - that there is a realisation at govt level that if EI can't develop its long haul routes, they're at FR's mercy; it's not just a question of not wanting O'Leary to kill EI (though that in itself would be reason enough), but also the fact that EI's growth and development of long haul is crucial to economic growth in future; foreign airlines may come and go, but EI needs to be there, growing and developing its network. For that, a successful privatisation - and fleet renewal - is essential.

Am I right? We'll find out in the week or so leading to privatisation ...

akerosid

24th Aug 2006, 18:35

Next week is IPO time for Aer Lingus, leading to privatisation on or about the 25th September.

It's also expected that the govt will issue a statement about Open Skies sometime during the next week or two, which will hopefully provide some confidence for the whole process. Dermot Mannion will be starting the roadshow on or about the 4th September.

Interesting points in this article from the Guardian:

http://money.guardian.co.uk/businessnews/story/0,,-1856906,00.html

Most we're aware of already - long haul fleet, developing hub at DUB etc, although I wonder if the recent problems at LHR (which aren't going to end anytime soon) will make Dublin a more pleasant alternative? Certainly, the DAA will need to be made do its part (and with the EUR265m it picked up from the Great Southern Hotels sale, it can hardly plead poverty), particularly as regards connection facilities.

Fingers crossed ...

FlyingV

28th Aug 2006, 14:45

Govt, Aer Lingus detail privatisation plans

http://www.rte.ie/news/2006/0828/aerlingus.html

Aer Lingus price range by second week in Sept

http://www.rte.ie/business/2006/0828/aerlingus.html

akerosid

28th Aug 2006, 19:40

The govt and EI have said that one of the key results of the privatisation will be investment in long haul fleet expansion, but so far, the "vibes" have been pretty poor, as far as reports coming out are concerned. I think the govt - and potential investors - realise now that if the privatisation process is to be a success, the govt needs to get clearance from the EU to proceed with the Irish/US mini-deal. Who knows how long the other issue will take? It could be all over by Christmas and indeed, the EU has indicated that it is optimistic that this will be the case, but then it could go on for another year.

The core issue is that since the sticking point - US airline ownership and access to LHR - has nothing to do with EI, what harm for the EU Commission if it gives the green light? The fact is that of all EU countries, our bilateral with the US is the most restrictive; virtually every other country has Open Skies or close to it - the UK (and I think, Greece, but that's their problem) being the exceptions, which means that the delays don't cost them as much as they cost EI. The govt needs to play hardball on this, if it's interested in the privatisation being a succes; otherwise, investment brokers may recommend holding off until the O/S issue is sorted out.

As far as eastbound growth is concerned, Shanghai was mentioned as a possibility, which is "out of the blue", given that HKG, BKK, SIN and KUL were said to be the front runners. Interesting option - particularly for freight, but again, is the 332 the ideal freight carrier and again, if they go for anything bigger, can DUB handle it - runway restrictions? And furthermore, if they do go east, they'll need to rethink their service product pretty dramatically ...

Charlie Roy

28th Aug 2006, 20:04

The govt needs to play hardball on this

Well said, you should offer your consultancy services to Aer Lingus / the government. It'd probably work out a whole lot cheaper than the current consultants they're paying, and save AerLingus a small fortune :}

A bit unrelated, but I was on the Aerlingus site there one night a few months ago and the booking engine was showing flights to Bangkok, Hong Kong and Cairo :confused: Didn't notice any out of place US services.

Aer Lingus definitely need to focus on the US market, but Hong Kong would be a winner if marketed adequately. (That's the problem half the time isn't it!)

Aer Lingus should never forget or neglect its European routes either, that would simply be disastrous :ouch: Cork (of course) has potential routes screaming out left right and centre: Frankfurt, Dusseldorf, Milan, Glasgow, Venice, Palma, New York, and Brussels (of course).

INLAK

28th Aug 2006, 22:58

As far as eastbound growth is concerned, Shanghai was mentioned as a possibility, which is "out of the blue", given that HKG, BKK, SIN and KUL were said to be the front runners.
I also heard Tokyo as a possible too.

Interesting option - particularly for freight, but again, is the 332 the ideal freight carrier and again, if they go for anything bigger, can DUB handle it - runway restrictions?
The air cargo business is booming at the minute, especially in the far east. A tidy profit could easily be turned on an A330F based frieghter operation.

ryan2000

29th Aug 2006, 07:28

EI has a great chance to expand out of Cork. In fairness they have already 4 aircraft based there but Ryanair's stubborn refusal to open new routes there leaves the field open to them.

I understand that the old terminal is already beginning to take on a semi derilict look witlh furniture removed and many fittings pulled from the walls.

Bearcat

29th Aug 2006, 10:17

Aer Lingus need to sort out a pilot base there before any more expansion....otherwise with so many crews overnighting there, they'll need to buy a motel for them.

840

29th Aug 2006, 10:33

Aer Lingus should never forget or neglect its European routes either, that would simply be disastrous :ouch: Cork (of course) has potential routes screaming out left right and centre: Frankfurt, Dusseldorf, Milan, Glasgow, Venice, Palma, New York, and Brussels (of course).

There is still plenty of scope for short-haul expansion.

From Dublin an expansion of Scandinavian services - Oslo, Copenhagen, Stockholm, Helsinki. When they are added to the EU, services to Romania and Bulgaria. There's even potential in services to places like Istanbul or Moscow. And potentially more holiday routes - Palermo, Somewhere in Greece.

From Cork more UK routes - Glasgow, Manchester. More sun routes - Palma, Almeria, Valencia. Baltic Destinations - Riga. Frequency increases on existing routes. I'm not sure I agree on all your routes. I feel the A320 is too large an aircraft for Cork-Germany. Also, Dusseldorf (Amsterdam) and Brussels (Amsterdam & Paris) could have a negative impact on existing yields.

The most interesting question for short-haul though is how they handle a situation where they try to turn Dublin into a transatlantic hub. They'll need to up the frequency to double-daily on a number of routes (particularly UK) and need to consider night-stopping as well. This could require a rethink of existing routes in terms of how it could fit into an overall strategy, rather than how many passengers can be shifted point-to-point.

Interesting times ahead.

akerosid

29th Aug 2006, 11:21

I agree that there's still considerable opportunity on s/h; Mannion has already mentioned Russia and Greece. However, I have to say I'm very uneasy about the idea of developing another hub in Europe; to me, it's inviting disaster. EI needs to consolidate its position at its home base; establishing a new base in Europe only invites other carriers - particularly low cost carriers - to go in and compete against it; it has to get itself established and it has to face all the costs associated with a new base - crews, support staff etc ... all money far better (and more urgently?) spent at home.

There are so many stories in business - not just aviation - of companies which made a mess of things because they lost focus. In the old days, as a state owned company, EI could rely upon the state to pull it out of trouble; in the new, privatised environment, there's no safety net. Aer Lingus's focus needs to be on developing short haul and particularly, long haul. It needs to develop an effective hub at DUB (although opinion is divided on whether the day of hubs as passed). I'd much rather see EI investing the money it might spend on building a Eurohub on boosting its long haul network, its service product and other "home" areas, rather than opening up a whole new area for other carriers to attack it on. It doesn't need to do this. Why be diverted from where the important battle really is?

ryan2000

29th Aug 2006, 20:46

Ryanair are booming on Cork Dublin. If EI do create a major hub there they should find some way of feeding Cork traffic into it. Most people who've switched from the train to the Plane are getting to like the service a lot.

Also Cork-JFK with a small A330 would give EI a massive advantage in over its competitors even it diluted the SNN JFKyield slightly.

Flame

29th Aug 2006, 22:16

Expect an annoucement re Dublin - Athens in the next few weeks from EI

Tom the Tenor

30th Aug 2006, 00:10

An EI A330-200 is a no go for routine operations on Cork-New York. Will not happen. I have good counsel on this one.

akerosid

30th Aug 2006, 06:39

I recall that this was an idea put about when WW was in charge. Has any progress been made on it since DM came in, or is it a dead duck.

Just thinking about it, they could have a three class service on t/a routes:

- A decent J class, with PTV, AVOD, (nearly) lie flat seats, new FFP (also for full fare Y class),
- Redesigned Y class, 32-33" pitch, PTV/AVOD. Free food/drink
- New no-frills, 30" pitch, 9 abreast on 330, pay for food, no interlining, pay for IFE.

The 330 isn't really great at 9 abreast, but if it's a low cost, no frills, cheap service, it's worth looking at. At the end of the day, it's only a matter of time before no-frills comes to long haul and EI should be ahead of the curve, particularly with FR breathing down its neck. If they don't someone else will.

When they get the new type, whatever it is, the no frills Y class could have pay-PTV/AVOD. Ultimately, this would become the main Economy Class, with the current Y class becoming the premium product (with slightly higher pitch).

EI896

30th Aug 2006, 08:32

I think a Brussles route out of EICK would be an excellent expansion for Aer Lingus if the costs were low,

SN Brussles were in last year and I have a cousin over there in Brussles and he found himself driving out to Cheroli to go to EINN and then to get a bus home to Cork, becasue Ryanair have very low prices and SN Brussles were through the roof!!! So if Aer Lingus made that route to main airport in Brussles to Cork he'd have an easy time getting home.

The Glasgow expansion would be good the loads were meant to be excellent on the Loganair route, and I don't know why they gave it up? It seems fairly stupid to me? So if Aer Lingus or Ryanair even steped in and provided a route to Prestwick or the main airport in Glasgow it would be excellent.

840

30th Aug 2006, 09:25

An EI A330-200 is a no go for routine operations on Cork-New York. Will not happen. I have good counsel on this one.

I tend to agree that it won't happen unless some other airline shows signs of operating Cork-New York. In terms of what you've heard, is it a purely business decision or are practicalities like the length of runway and lack of a parallel taxiway in Cork involved.

I think a Brussles route out of EICK would be an excellent expansion for Aer Lingus if the costs were low

The Glasgow expansion would be good the loads were meant to be excellent on the Loganair route, and I don't know why they gave it up? It seems fairly stupid to me? So if Aer Lingus or Ryanair even steped in and provided a route to Prestwick or the main airport in Glasgow it would be excellent.

Two problems here.

Firstly, specifically with the Brussels route, you have to take into account the impact on yields to Amsterdam and Paris. There is a direct hourly train from Amsterdam airport to Brussels and the journey time is a little over two hours. This is the most common way people travel between Cork and Brussels. It is entirely practical to leave Cork on the morning Amsterdam flight and still be in Brussels by midday using this service. Similarly, you can leave Brussels as late as just before 5 pm and still make the evening Amsterdam-Cork rotation. Travelling up from Paris is another option. Aer Lingus have to be very careful with their yield out of Cork and any flight to Brussels is likely to mostly rob passengers off existing EI services.

Secondly, on a more practical level all their aircraft in Cork are fully utilised. Any new routes would require either a new aircraft or dropping of service or frequency on existing routes. Who knows, maybe one of the couple of A320s still to be delivered will be assigned to Cork, but it would be a while yet before it turned up.

EI896

30th Aug 2006, 09:38

Well When I travelled over to Paris this year it was just people going on holiday to France or French tourists going home. No buisness men and you have to think about people in the government like Brian Crowley is an EU commisioner or something I saw him get oof a LHR flight in Cork probably coming from Brussles so if a flight for him was there what would you chose? and if I was to pick the flight to Brussles or to Amsterdam and get the train, the flight time from Cork is about the same time to Brussles so it's always going to be another easier option, and if Aer Lingus had a flight to Brussles you'd proably find that the prices would be the same for Amsterdam or Paris so I think here train beats plane.

Sorry in advance 840 if I sounded any way rude in this post.

840

30th Aug 2006, 09:59

What you need to understand is that, with the exception of SNN-CRL, all the options you are discussing - including connecting in London - involve an Aer Lingus flight anyway. So, if they launched flights to Brussels, they would take pax off their own existing services. The question is whether the number of new passengers that could be developed would justify the reduced yields on those services.

akerosid

1st Sep 2006, 18:05

Apparently, two A330s are now u/s in the US, one at ORD (EI-JFK) and the other at BOS. Anyone know what the problem is; this must be putting quite a bit of pressure on ops, particularly as the ORD aircraft has been there two nights (?)

The rate of 330 breakdowns seems to be quite high this Summer compared to previous years; are there root causes (lack of Airbus support, particular problems occurring repeatedly, for example?)

--------------------------------------------------------------------

On the home front, EI is said to be focusing on short haul flights of over 2hrs, as a (the?) major growth area, believing that pax will prefer EI over FR on longer flights. Russia, Greece and Scandinavia are being targeted.

The 320's range (albeit at 150 pax) from DUB is around 2600nm, which brings most of Europe and North Africa - even as far east as Tehran (yeah right, I think they'll leave that one to FR!) - with the 320's range.

http://gc.kls2.com/cgi-bin/gc?PATH=&RANGE=2600nm@DUB&PATH-COLOR=&PATH-UNITS=mi&SPEED-GROUND=&SPEED-UNITS=kts&RANGE-STYLE=best&RANGE-COLOR=&MAP-STYLE=

It does offer scheduling advantages as well, since EI can use overnight downtime to operate to places such as DME, IST, LCA, possibly even CAI), maximising utilisation.

hafez

1st Sep 2006, 18:13

BA and Air France fly 777's and 747s to CAI, I think people would rather travel through Heathrow than have to sit on an A320 for that long!

akerosid

1st Sep 2006, 18:54

I know they do and there are other options besides - KLM, Lufty, Turkish, etc, BUT if EI can do it cheaply why not; after all, travelling through LHR, you have to interline, change terminals, go through security, pay extra taxes, etc. At the end of the day, most travellers go on a budget and the lower the proportion of that going on the trip there and back, the better.

A little swish marketing (call it the Pharoah-plane :ok: ), good deals on hotels etc. and it could work. Sure it's five hours on a 320, but if it's quicker and cheaper ...

ryan2000

1st Sep 2006, 23:44

Cork to Copenhagen or Stokholm would give EI a monopoly from the South of the country. No competition from SAS, Braathens or Finnair.

akerosid

3rd Sep 2006, 11:37

Can anyone confirm rumours that a second A330-200 (i.e. a third A330) is due for delivery next May (apparently on 7 year lease from CIT?).

Given doubts about the airline's ability to expand its US markets from next Summer, I'd be surprised to see this, unless the airline has secretly been given the nod from Kildare Street that the EU Commission is willing to give the green light?

Also, given the reliability problems with A330s in recent days (and indeed during the Summer), is it planned to keep the older 330s in service until the new fleet arrives from 2012, whichever type that will be?

Bearcat

3rd Sep 2006, 12:47

[QUOTE=akerosid;2821781]Can anyone confirm rumours that a second A330-200 (i.e. a third A330) is due for delivery next May (apparently on 7 year lease from CIT?).
QUOTE]

hmmm your gettin hot. Aircraft 3 is definitely in the pipeline.

post sept.... you will see a raft of annoucements.

A very hot rumour is a batch of 777s are on the way.....lets see if emirates play a part here!!:)

akerosid

3rd Sep 2006, 15:47

Very interesting! 777s would be very nice. I've heard that EK is trying to set up a leasing outfit and I wonder if that would be a source of aircraft in the future.

I've been wondering about EK's potential r'ship with Aer Lingus; with its own huge requirement for an aircraft in the class EI wants (787-10/A350XWB), perhaps EI might get some cost advantage from getting in on the coat-tails of that. I don't think EI was ever very enthusiastic about the original 350, being just a warmed over 350, but I think Boeing would have to do a hell of a lot of talking to see off the 350XWB, but if it can do a deal with EK and EK has a r'ship with EI and the price is right ... EK has, of course, had a pretty tepid relationship with Airbus recently.

Charlie Roy

4th Sep 2006, 20:11

With all these new routes being introduced by Ryanair in direct competition with Aer Lingus, is it worrying days for EI or will they be able to fight off FR on these routes ?

The increase in frequency on the Dublin to Berlin and Rome flights are really going to hit Aer Lingus hard. More and more Irish people will fly on these routes for the cheaper fares, more varied schedules, and the fact the airports concerned are central and not 100km south of wherever. :\

Germans and Italians barely know that Aer Lingus exist but have certainly heard of Ryanair.

Faire d'income

5th Sep 2006, 11:58

RB please tell me the article you refer to was not the psychotic rant from Shane Ross??? It was a typically pathetic article from a tired bitter old hack.

That article basically painted Aer Lingus, its unions, the Government, the banks, the brokers and any possible investors as the bad guys while people like him ( he didn't elaborate other than mention the lazy option that is the taxpayer ) were the victims.

Ross said in the past that Ryanair is a 'model' Irish company. That is how much he thinks of the average taxpayer.

Bearcat

5th Sep 2006, 13:25

latest re the 2 a330s to be delivered early/mid 2007. Rumour has it people taken off production line on A330 to A380.....delay of 6 months. Boeing offering 777s to tide them over. AL was a launch customer for ETOPS on the A330.....will they on the 787?? rumours abound!!!!

AL are about to be pasted by FR if they let FR muscle in on their bread and butter routes. Interesting FR going on rte's to Canary Is. This is very interesting considering their av sector time are mostly 1 and a half hours.

Vapor

5th Sep 2006, 14:25

It does seem that Ryanair are targeting Aerlingus European routes from Dublin now. If Aerlingus loose this battle then the Country will have a Ryanair monopoly. Not a good prospect for anybody.

akerosid

5th Sep 2006, 16:45

It would surprise (and disappoint) me greatly if Airbus tried to mess A330/340 customers about, just because it can't get the 380 right. Isn't Airbus under a contractual r'ship to Aer Lingus to provide the new aircraft; if it welches on this, well they don't deserve the business.

I'm glad that Boeing isn't letting EI's business go without a fight; it's clearly very much in EI's interest, even if - at the end of the day - they do end up going Airbus.

The thing that worries me about FR is that although EI has said it feels its best option is to focus on short haul routes of 2h+, FR's three most recent route plans have been on such routes. I really hope EI can fend FR off, but it will come down to cost. What is to stop FR from matching EI route for route, so if (as expected) EI announces ATH in the near future, FR does exactly the same - and with other routes too? One hopes that they have better things to do with their aircraft and there are many, far weaker European flag carriers to cause heartache for, but over the next few weeks, I can see FR going out to make life extremely unpleasant for EI.

Charlie Roy

5th Sep 2006, 16:58

but over the next few weeks, I can see FR going out to make life extremely unpleasant for EI.

Again today there's more Aer Lingus bashing on FR's website ("Latest News" section).

akerosid

5th Sep 2006, 17:51

Unfortunate error there by EI; what was the reason for the average fare being underquoted? In any case, if EI declared the error, how can it be accused of lying. Clearly, FR isn't too interested in semantics!

I note see today that Airbus's CEO/MD has announced a freeze in recruiting, which would probably require staff being transferred to the 380 line, although I still find it hard to fathom why they would pole-axe the 330; with the 340 as good as dead and the 380 struggling, the 330 is the only element of their widebody line which is actually getting anywhere - and Airbus is going to put their r'ship with airline customers under threat - particularly airlines like EI, which are potential 350XWB/787 customers.

Obviously, I'd love EI to get 777s (and presumably any 777 deal would be a precursor to a 787 deal down the road), but how many is Boeing talking about? Two new (?) acft to replace the two being ordered for next May/June, or more, to replace the older 330s, which - despite their relatively young age - seem to be giving more and more reliability problems. (Finally, is there any common thread/cause for these breakdowns?)

Bearcat

5th Sep 2006, 19:48

i have yawned for years at the specualtion re where AL is going but I think it has reached as in now the most important juncture in its history.....a lot will tell post privitisation.

The only way I see AL fighting back against FR is aggressively.....post September one may see a different style from AL.....they'll have to react otherwise M O'L will wipe the floor with AL and he has started.......he'll cherry pick profitable AL rte's and dump seats on them.

akerosid

5th Sep 2006, 20:09

I can see MO'L making this month HELL for EI and the privatisation process; he will try everything to make the process as uncomfortable as possible and to sow doubt about the airline's future prospects; it wouldn't surprise me if he put out the possibility of "bringing forward" plans to go on long haul routes, since this is clearly where EI's best prospects are. (It wouldn't have to be true - just as long as he destabilises the process - if he can do that and scupper EI's chances of raising funds for long haul development, he'd probably view it as a start).

I agree with you totally that EI has to be aggressive, although not in the same, in your face manner as MO'L; it needs to be best where it matters - a good quality, friendly and efficient service - as stress free as possible, without the meanness of FR. I tend to believe that A321s will play a larger role in the EI fleet, because a 220 seat 321 is about the only narrowbody which will have equivalent seat-mile costs to, or better than, the FR 738s. It can also improve utilisation by offering overnight services to places like ATH, LCA, IST, DME etc.

If EI can start new routes 4-5 weekly (not just 1-2 wkly, that's just asking for it) with A321s and do so in such a way that it would not make commercial sense for FR to take them on, then it has a way forward; EI could also allege predatory practices, bearing in mind that there must be lots of much weaker EU flag carriers FR could pick on rather than targeting EI, which already has margins second only to FR - higher even than EZY and much higher than the likes of AZ, IB, LH, SK etc. Go pick on them!

From the govt's perspective, if it wants this process to work, it needs to take a tough line with the EU on the whole Open Skies nonsense; either it will get the green light (which - according to correspondence I've received from the EU - it is entitled to) or it will go ahead on this basis; the greater the threat FR poses on short haul, the more urgent it becomes to get long haul working.

Just a spotter

6th Sep 2006, 08:35

Be careful what you wish for .... they wouldn't ... would they? :eek: :p

http://www.cardatabase.net/modifiedairlinerphotos/search/photo_search.php?id=00007321

Now back to the serious stuff ... :\

As for EI's roots, don't forget that the airline has a history of innovation, although not all of it successful for various reasons.

Examples;
Branching out of the core business into leasing & maintenance
One of the first state owned flag carriers to base aircraft outside their 'state'
Europe's first all jet airline

There's also a long history of T/A medium haul, plus a decade of long haul to LA.

With the right strategy, correct aircraft and a managment team with vision and capitol, coupled with a flexible workforce, EI could very well make a gower of the oppertunites ahead.

Think about this; 4th highest number of slots at EGLL, short, medium and long haul options from a major world hub ... if they get it right.

JAS

waffler

6th Sep 2006, 10:34

If O Leary tries to interfere with the floatation then its clear he sees Aer Lingus as a threat to him. Just because ryanair begin a new route does not mean it will be a success.Many times the Aer Lingus and Ryanair flights arrive together an Manchester and most of the time Aer Lingus are carrying more passangers.Ryanairs new route to Berlin has not decreased the Aer Lingus load.Would you like to spend 8 and a half hours with Ryanair and its mobile phone chatting passangers?,Fuertaventura return.Yes Aer Lingus must keep its costs in order and supply its customers with a better product but they are aware of that.If both airlines compete on the same route its the foreign airline that will suffer.The business is there for both airlines if they dont try to destroy each other.

akerosid

6th Sep 2006, 11:37

I think if FR/MO'L were to go out and target EI, shareholders in FR could justifiably ask why they are not targeting other flag carriers, which have considerably lower margins and struggling much more.

There is also a potential advantage EI has on longer flights - not just the better service, but the fact that FR (so far) prefers not flying overnight. If EI were to serve the likes of ATH, IST, LCA, etc, it could operate the service overnight from Dublin and have it back to DUB in time for another day's flying; if FR were to do so, it would do the route by daylight, eating up utilisation which could be used on shorter routes (preferably elsewhere).

I agree with your comment that there is a market for both airlines to exploit without crossing each other's paths and that FR is not necessarily the winner if they do, but I still think FR is going to make life as tough as possible in the lead up to EI's privatisation and don't think that won't include spreading scare stories or planting rumours like long haul routes or the like - purely to spook investors.

akerosid

11th Sep 2006, 17:31

The Dept of Transport has confirmed that it will be seeking approval next month (i.e. after the privatisation) from the EU Commission to allow the Irish/US deal agreed last November to go ahead. The Sunday Business Post reports that there have been concerns from fund managers (yeah, and everyone else for the past ten years! :\ ) that the lack of access would deter investors, since long haul is supposed to be the key to the airline's growth.

http://www.thepost.ie/ezineSBP/story.asp?storyid=17164

Although there has to be some disappointment that the deal cannot happen sooner, the fact that the approach to the EU is being made public must indicate some level of confidence at the outcome. That said, the govt must be prepared to play hardball. There are issues of Competition Law, insofar as if the Commission rejects the govt's approach and insists on the Irish deal continuing as is, the effect of this will be to maintain a competitive disadvantage for EI (and indeed, Ireland generally). That said, it is difficult to see what the EU could possibly gain from getting in the way, particularly as the Irish situation meets the EU's conditions for giving the go ahead: (i.e. that the proposed bilateral meets the EU's requirements - it was negotiated under EU supervision, AND the fact that increased Irish access could have no effect on ongoing negotiations, since the issue causing the delay - ownership of US carriers - is of no relevance to EI).

Getting the go ahead for increased access is particularly important for EI because for the first time, it will give is certainty as to when it can add new routes and consequently, when it can add capacity. Assuming the EU gives the green light next month, it will make life much easier for EI to conclude negotiations with manufacturers and lessors for adding capacity on the long haul routes.

ryan2000

11th Sep 2006, 20:18

The Government and its predeccessors have been playing hardball with themselves on this issue for years. They knew that increased access would be good for the country but pandered to local interests in Shannon.

Aerlingus prior to Willie Walsh taking over didn't even whisper about the need for a more liberal US Ireland agreement.

Its ironic that the EUnow stand in the way of common sense.

akerosid

11th Sep 2006, 20:24

The former management actually did as much as it was allowed to do; when she was minister, Maire Geoghegan Quinn banned anyone from EI from making public comments on the stopover and even wanted them to discipline anyone that did!

However, it was Bernie Cahill who persuaded then transport minister, Brian Cowen, to change the rule to the current 1:1 (which was only supposed to be transitional) on the basis that the airline could not justify investment in new aircraft (the old 747s being pretty long in tooth at the time) if the rule remained as it was.

That said, it is fair to say that there was a lot of lethargy, but the main fault has to lie squarely with govt; it had no vision and even less interest and of course, as we know, a rudderless vessel is completely at the mercy a strong wind and that blew from the midwest. All told, it's been a pretty pathetic and embarrassing history.

FlyingV

12th Sep 2006, 12:19

Shares to be issued between €2.10 & €2.70 valuing the airline at between €1.1 billion and €1.3 billion

http://www.rte.ie/business/2006/0912/aerlingus.html

840

14th Sep 2006, 08:40

Article about the possible financial implications of pulling out of OneWorld and a few other bits about Aer Lingus

http://www.examiner.ie/irishexaminer/pages/story.aspx-qqqg=business-qqqm=business-qqqa=business-qqqid=13291-qqqx=1.asp

(Free Reg Required)

Charlie Roy

20th Sep 2006, 09:33

I have just noticed that Aer Lingus are now offering 18 European destinations from JFK via Dublin.

Great idea! Let's hope they market it properly ;)

840

20th Sep 2006, 09:46

I have just noticed that Aer Lingus are now offering 18 European destinations from JFK via Dublin.

Great idea! Let's hope they market it properly ;)
I was booking a flight from Faro to Cork this morning and I noticed New York was in the list of available options. I wondered at the time if it was new.

Unfortunately, most of the destinations have their own direct flights to New York, but a few (Malaga, Faro) don't.

If they could offer it to a lot of the Eastern European cities that they serve, there could be a big market for people who can't fly directly. Also, there's a market from LA, Chicago and Boston to British cities where New York is the only available transatlantic flight.

akerosid

20th Sep 2006, 18:03

Ridiculous isn't it; why can't they have a simple majority vote and be done with it; why should everyone else be held because of SIPTU's procedures? Thankfully, it's just local issues and hopefully, these can be sorted out.

Interesting article in this month's Irish Air Letter about Aer Lingus developments, particularly in relation to long haul:

This month's Irish Air Letter has some very interesting points on EI and in particular, long haul:

- EI has reportedly identified five cities it wishes to serve - SFO, PHL, MIA, IAD and DFW. (Not news to many of us, particularly the first two, but interesting to see the list nonetheless)
- EI sees a need for 14 long haul aircraft, either 350XWB or 787, mostly likely the -9 model (according to IAL)
- Times report suggested no hurry to order, possibly 2 yrs, by which time an economic slowdown would have taken hold and manufacturers under greater pressure to give good deals (an extremely flawed argument in my view!)
- A "wait and see" strategy could involve EI constraining long haul growth, however, this might not "sit well" with investment cty and a key factor for it (investment community) will be how well EI's mgmt handles the fleet renewal process.
- EI's long haul product would have to be updated, since it's now considerably behind the competition and particularly if EI is considering eastbound growth (because t/a pax obviously don't count!:confused: )
- EI will also need to look at current A330-300s and whether these should be replaced, as they'll be nearly 20 by the time new long haul fleet is introduced in 2012-3.
- New aircraft are a -202 and a -302, not a -301 as had been rumoured (and feared). Two A320s also coming next year (not 3, as had been thought).
- New Open Skies with US may be a double edged sword, as this would invite competition from US carriers, such as US, UA, NW - the stopover acting as a barrier to most of them. However, EI's costs per available seat mile are among the lowest of any t/a carrier, at around 10.85 cents (US); Alitalia's are among the highest at 17.44. Of course, if EI starts to invest in long haul that will go up.

Interesting developments then; of course, the key to the long haul development is the govt's success in getting the green light from Brussels next month, to allow the govt to press ahead with a separate deal with the US.

Charlie Roy

20th Sep 2006, 20:48

Ridiculous isn't it; why can't they have a simple majority vote and be done with it; why should everyone else be held because of SIPTU's procedures? Thankfully, it's just local issues and hopefully, these can be sorted out.

RTE reporting that an agreement has been reached :ok: Phew!
Doesn't give any details of the agreement though... Maybe Shannon got 14 new millionaires tonight :}

http://www.rte.ie/news/2006/0920/aerlingus.html

waffler

22nd Sep 2006, 10:40

How does this make life tougher for Aer Lingus ? Ryanair will generate extra business to the canaries and take some pax from the charters .Some pax will fly with Ryanair once and say never again. Aer Lingus have been living with Ryanair for 20 years and have not folded yet.

daz211

22nd Sep 2006, 10:57

waffler

I think the last 20yrs are no comparison to the last 2 months, Ryanair has announced so many routes that Aer Lingus has to feel the punch, and as far as pax flying with Ryanair once and then never again, your living in a dream world fueled by media reports, If Ryanair pax only traveled once with the airline then the company wouldnt be the biggest in europe and routes would be closing every day due to lack of interest, what I see is more and more pax, more and more route, more and more aircraft and more and more profit.

akerosid

22nd Sep 2006, 18:37

I think we are going to see a lot more changes and not all will be good for EI; I don't think EI will be fatally damaged by FR, but I do worry about the long haul issue. I don't believe

What I do believe is of more immediate concern to EI is what happens after next month, if (hopefully when) the govt gets the green light for expansion in US markets; this IS very much a double edged sword for EI, in that airlines which previously flew "one for one" will now feel pretty silly not to take full advantage of the new regulations, especially since they can use ETOPS 757s on Irish routes. That's going to result in a lot more competition; EI needs to make sure it can get its service product right and it needs to be ahead of the game - not just in quality, but in anticipating changes, such as long haul, low cost. Routes between Ireland and the US are going to get an awful lot more crowded and that's only next year, if (as anticipated by last year's deal) they start with 3:1 and then move to total Open Skies from 2008.

EI currently has the lowest CASM (cost per available seat mile) of any t/a airline, but a lot of that has been the result of zero spending on its service product during that period and that has to change, but it needs to develop a product which will not only be good, but which will dissuade other carriers (particularly MO'L's long haul) from following it into a new market. I think EI needs to start sooner rather than later with a new LH-loco product and for that, it needs to get the most economical aircraft available? How does an 8 abreast 330 compare to a 10 abreast 777?

apaddyinuk

24th Sep 2006, 14:14

I cannot help but notice that Aer Lingus appear to have finally reverted back to the origional Aer Lingus Corporate image and removed all the yellow and red Dot Com rubbish from the checkin areas. Is this a permanent move or just an exercise to make the company look more professional in light of privatisation?

Skipness One Echo

25th Sep 2006, 10:17

The Aer Lingus logo doesn't work with the green livery. It looks like a cheap add on. bmi (and baby!!) and BA don't need it, why do Aer Lingus?
Drop the tatty logo methinks.

apaddyinuk

25th Sep 2006, 11:59

Skipness, i think you may have missed my point....they have dropped it!!!

Shamrock 125

25th Sep 2006, 18:20

flew through TLS the other day and the dot.com logo was still on display at check-in and the departure screen at the gate. on another note, TLS....what a terribly laid out airport

akerosid

25th Sep 2006, 21:13

Interesting article in this week's FI about EI:

http://www.flightglobal.com/Articles/2006/09/26/Navigation/177/209120/Aer+Lingus+eyes+post-IPO+expansion.html

Not a lot we didn't know already, but interesting nonetheless.

akerosid

26th Sep 2006, 17:38

I received correspondence today from the EU Commission, in relation to the whole Open Skies issue. In brief ...

- Decision by US administration to postpone "final rule" (on foreign o'ship of US carriers) regrettable; US has however reaffirmed to M. Barrot a commitment to conclude an EU/US air transport agreement by year end. Utmost importance that process towards conclusion continues.

- Commission is acutely aware of the difficulties that further difficulties would pose, in particular for Ireland and Aer Lingus ... doing utmost to secure successful outcome to these negotiations ("these" meaning EU/US, rather than EU/Ireland and Ireland/US?)

I pointed out that in the Commission's first reponse to me, they set out the conditions under which an individual member state could be permitted to enter direct negotiations with US and that Ireland satisfied both of these (i.e. that proposed agreement - which was negotiated under EU auspices - contained clauses required by EU, and that allowing separate deal to go ahead would not compromise ongoing negotiations).

Obviously, Commission couldn't be expected to give firm yes/no, but to me suggests that they'd rather Ireland waited. Maybe compromise will be that if no deal is reached by year end or in time for Summer 2007, airlines will be able to go ahead. However, since EU has voiced its optimism that deal will be done and since any new deal wouldn't take effect until next Summer, one can suggest that it's "no skin off EU's nose" to allow Irish deal to go ahead.

akerosid

27th Sep 2006, 11:17

Well, EI has begun trading on the stock market, today - 27th Sept 06 - and not before time. Trading began at EUR2.10 and it has been climbing a bit since - not sure what the price is right now.

What is the process from here? The airline is expected to raise some EUR500m from the floatation and use that to fund its long term fleet acquisitions; does anyone know how long this process is likely to take; some have said (I think in The Times) that the airline might wait two years, but I think that's unlikely - particularly as the investment community wouldn't have it.

Presumably, we're likely to see a spate of announcements from next month (if not even sooner)?

akerosid

28th Sep 2006, 17:42

Today's IT reports that the airline is now preparing to immediately use some of the €535 million of proceeds produced by the sale. Chief executive Dermot Mannion said European manufacturer Airbus was making "positive soundings" about a new deal involving some wide bodied A330 aircraft. He said there was a possibility of two or three of them becoming available sometime in 2008, although they would need to be ordered before that.

But he refused to rule out something emerging from talks with Boeing which is pitching its highly fuel efficient 787 Dreamliner to airlines. Boeing, however, is at a disadvantage because the waiting times for the Dreamliner are longer than the A330.

(It seems to be comparing apples and oranges, so to speak, as getting more A330s is not necessarily inconsistent with an order for 787s, since it will be 2012 before 787-9s become available, assuming that's the version EI would get if it went down that road. If EI were dealing with a lessor which had both 330s and 787s on its books, this might be a strong possibility).

Good news as well from Leinster House; here are two Dail Questions on the Open Skies issue:

Dáil Question
No: 1086 + 1115

*To ask the Minister for Transport the steps he has taken to request EU
permission to proceed with the more liberal Irish/US bilateral negotiated
in the expectation of open skies but now vital to Aer Lingus prospects; the
response he has received from the EU ; and if no response has been
received, has the urgency of a decision has been communicated to them.
- Olivia Mitchell.

* For WRITTEN answer on Wednesday, 27th September, 2006.

Ref No: 28734/06
Dáil Question
No: _______

*To ask the Minister for Transport if the transitional agreement on the
Shannon bilateral arrangement with the US, negotiated in November 2005, and
due to come into force from November 2006 to April 2008 will be suspended
in view of the fact that it was predicated on the successful negotiation of
an EU US Open Skies Agreement; and if he will make a statement on the
matter.
- Pat Breen.

* For WRITTEN answer on Wednesday, 27th September, 2006.

Ref No: 29484/06

Answered by the Minister for Transport
(Martin Cullen)

Reply

I propose to take questions 1086 & 1115 together.

In November 2005 EU and US negotiators concluded work on the text of a
first-phase EU-US Open Skies agreement. The text was unanimously endorsed
at the December 2005 Transport Council subject to sufficient progress by
the US side on opening up ownership and control of US airlines to EU
investors The formal US process of changing its ownership and control rules
was expected to be concluded in August 2006 so that a final decision could
be taken at the October Transport Council. However, due to difficulties on
the US side the rule-making process has been extended.

I am fully committed to the view that the liberalisation of air transport
services between Ireland and the US will deliver major benefits for Irish
business and tourism. I have had detailed discussions with EU Commissioner
Barrot and have strongly urged the Commission to continue engagement with
the US Authorities so that they can be in a position to bring forward a
proposal for decision at the October Transport Council that will
incorporate the Irish transition arrangements.

In the absence of progress at EU level I intend to seek to implement, in
accordance with the applicable Community law, the essential elements of the
transitional arrangements by way of an amendment to the Ireland-US
bilateral Air Services Agreement.

This is obviously of immense importance to EI, not just because of the new routes offered, but because of the certainty it gives; I doubt very much if the minister would be as forthright about his intentions if this plan was unlikely to get EU approval.

In another bit of good news, the US embassy has announced a new deal with the Irish govt, whereby all Irish flights will use domestic gates at US airports:

New agreement between the Irish and US governments will see flights from Irish airports will soon be allowed to arrive at the domestic gates of United States airports, enabling passengers to simply collect their luggage and go.
Under plans announced by the US embassy yesterday, passengers will undergo full "pre-clearance" by US officials working at Dublin and Shannon airports.he United States Embassy wishes to announce that consultations with Irish authorities are now underway for CBP to introduce full pre-clearance, which would supplement current passport screening at Dublin and Shannon Airports with the agricultural and customs checks that are conducted at US airports for arriving passengers.

"The consultations, which have been led by Ambassador James C. Kenny on the US side, are focused on prospects for the provision of necessary facilities for full pre-clearance, in connection with Dublin Airport's construction plans and Shannon Airport's development strategy."

Hugely significant, I think.

akerosid

4th Oct 2006, 19:04

Any idea of how long we'll be waiting for the new developments - routes, acft and service product? Just curious; I know EI has only started trading officially on the stock market this week, but me being me, I'm not the most patient!

Heard a few interesting rumours - possibility of BFS-LHR, 2 or possibly 3 A330s for delivery in 2008 (if they order pretty soon).

It will also be interesting to see what effect the recent foul-ups at Airbus will have on the A350 and in particular on its entry into service. Airbus has already said that the formal launch will be delayed and that can't be good news; looks that service entry for the existing carriers is now 2013, which is probably pushing it a bit for EI? This was hinted at, here, a few weeks back and I wonder if there's any more on Boeing's offer of 777s? (I wonder if the more recent rumours about FR and 777s was intended to "spur" EI into a decision?!)

On the subject of the 787, there was a cutaway in last week's Flight and I played around with it to see what some EI configs might look like. They're not, of course, 100% accurate, but I don't think they're too far out and only intended to give ballpark figures anyway. The aircraft seems to be pretty much in the ballpark of what EI needs, even the -8. http://p078.ezboard.com/fdublinairportforumfrm2.showMessage?topicID=988.topic

Finally, with the likelihood that a new Irish/US deal will be approved by the EU to go ahead, notwithstanding the wider EU/US problems, I wonder where that leaves other routes, such as those to Asia and South Africa? These are definitely lower down the priority list in EI's eyes (try saying that quickly ;) ) than US destinations and with a lack of suitable acft, I'm wondering if they will be deferred at least until 2008, possibly even 2009?

brian_dromey

4th Oct 2006, 20:35

An intersting thought was mentioned on another forum, EI using its A320/A321s on overnight services to places like Moscow(perhaps also ATH/PFO, etc, etc) EI certainly used to operate charters for Budget Travel(pre tui days!) in this way, and it seemed to work quite well. It is a really good way of pushing up utilisation of the fleet to the max. EI dont appear to have any extra a/c (except one) comming in for next year, so it would seem that this is the only way to launch some new routes?

On another thought....EI seem to have rolled out the 'tradtional' sinage, I wonder if there is going to be a major product upgrade? The long-haul cabins definately need it...they were lookng scruffy three years ago! But perhaps we may see the introduction of a C cabin on short haul? Deli-Bag, lounge access, etc? especially on routes like AMS LHR CDG MAD FRA, etc.

While I'm at it, have EI re-fitted the a321s yet or do they still have the cloth seats? The 321s seem to have fallen out of favour with some european operators so perhaps EI could pick up a few of these quite cheaply?

akerosid

4th Oct 2006, 21:07

There are actually three A320s coming next year, from what I understand.

I agree that operating overnight routes is a good idea and certainly something that could be tried with some of the proposed new longer routes like Athens, Moscow, Istanbul etc, because you also get the advantage of the time difference. An A320 leave DUB for say DME could leave at about 11pm and be back home at about 8am, in time for a full day's flying.

As for the A321s, the only airlines I'm aware of that are getting rid of them are bmi (some going to Monarch) and SAS, which has never been terribly good at this whole standardisation thingy (the term "smorgasbord" is particularly apt!), but they both have IAE engines. I think the attraction to EI is that this is the only type which could have costs per seat mile which could come anywhere close to FR's 738s, being a 212 seater.

840

5th Oct 2006, 15:42

I've been watching this all day, but I was under the impression that 90% of shares were required for a takeover of EI.

Cyrano

5th Oct 2006, 15:50

Ryanair offer already the subject of very extensive discussion on this thread in Rumours and News (http://www.pprune.org/forums/showthread.php?t=246718&page=3) - let's keep it in one place.

brian_dromey

8th Oct 2006, 21:47

Just wonderng about T5 and EI, even though it is leavng oneworld will EI still be using the new T5 or staying at T1?

Off Stand

8th Oct 2006, 22:23

It's staying where it is. Only BA in T5.

daz211

9th Oct 2006, 08:02

Or maybe MOL will build a tin shed next to T5 for RYR/EI flights.:E

apaddyinuk

9th Oct 2006, 11:42

Just wonderng about T5 and EI, even though it is leavng oneworld will EI still be using the new T5 or staying at T1?

Lets ask that question again....With EI probably maintaining its links with BA after leaving oneworld, Will EI move to T3 with the rest of the oneworld airlines as has already been confirmed before EI announced exiting the group????
I seriously doubt they will remain in T1 as a non-aligned carrier as STAR will be there, T4 is supposed to be the terminal where non-aligned carriers use!

Off Stand

9th Oct 2006, 12:08

Good point paddy, I had forgotten about that. I stand be corrected.

Camels Hoof

17th Oct 2006, 00:16

Leo Hairy-Camel "Yep, the very same. 8.5 million shares at €3.05. Yesterday’s market close was at €2.87, which makes for a loss of €1.53 million on the first day.
WELL DONE, LADS! Glad I don’t listen to the Dwarf for my investment advice. Gee whiz, I hope all this jiggery-pokery doesn’t drive the shares south of €2.80 again and into the sweet spot. RYR might yet not need to improve upon their offer after all. Thanks heaps, Evan. You are to investment advice what Bob Ayling was to the higher aspirations of corporate lawyers everywhere. HEMLOCK."

Let's look at this logically Mr. Hairy-Camel. The loss of 1.53million Euro pales into insignificance when compared to the loss of 193million Euro (note absence of decimal point :eek: ) in market cap by Ryanair over the last 10 days. Strangely enough this has happened since the Ryanair takeover bid for Aer Lingus was launched.

Check it out out : 16th October http://www.ise.ie/app/equityDetails.asp?equity=12724

6th October
http://www.ise.ie/app/equityDetails.asp?equity=12724&start_day=6&start_month=10&start_year=2006

Funny old thing that a lot of the press has concentrated on this relatively small loss by a Pension fund and not the massive lack of confidence displayed by the now ex-shareholders of Ryanair. I'd say your sweating under your 'stylish' checked collar. Your investors are baling out in numbers!

Enjoy the retirement.

schoolkid

17th Oct 2006, 18:45

could dobs intervention have any relevance to a story in last thursdays indo business section
a few weeks ago ryr ran a ad promoteing new flights from dublin-malta featureing a picture of him with the caption 'free flights all you pay is TAXES'
apparently haveing a go at o brien for registering a tax residency in malta

in the indo, daire o brien talked about how o brien was 'very sore at the jibe' and how o brien suddenly started dispensing advice to the esot.

wheather or not someone would actually buy millions of euro of overpriced shares because of a grudge is for you to decide!!!

Faire d'income

17th Oct 2006, 19:11

wheather or not someone would actually buy millions of euro of overpriced shares because of a grudge is for you to decide!!!

Really, do you think all Michael O'Leary is above such behavior?

FlyingV

17th Oct 2006, 22:32

The Indo managed to predict this last Thursday
http://www.unison.ie/irish_independent/stories.php3?ca=35&si=1703646&issue_id=14749
When it was revealed that O'Brien had recently registered a tax residency in Malta, Michael O'Leary was quick out of the traps with an ad (see illustration) taking the mick out of the telecoms billionaire.
Insiders say that O'Brien was very, very sore at the jibe.
Is he so angry that he'll raid the coin jar next to his bed and snap up '3pc or 4pc' of Aer Lingus himself?
O'Leary would then have to call and ask for forgiveness (and the shares).
Now that really would be a conversation worth hearing.

neidin

17th Oct 2006, 23:15

Called today to recommend a friend to join Ryanair as a Captain and was told FR was now stopping hiring Captains until next March. Could it be true?

I know they have stopped taking FO's until March. What has happened? Are FR cancelling deliveries?

840

18th Oct 2006, 08:10

Denis O'Brien is a shrewd businessman and wouldn't be paying out that kind of money because of some fit of pique.

There are three reasons he may have made this investment
Because he anticipates a higher Ryanair bid and thinks he can make a profit fro this
Because he sees Aer Lingus as a good medium-term investment
Because he thinks that the companies share price doesn't reflect its the difference between its assets and liabilities and there is money to be made by breaking it up

OneWorld22

18th Oct 2006, 08:33

840, you obviously have no clue about how big the ego's are of some businessmen here in Ireland. You only have to look at property developer Sean Dunne to see that in his purchase of the land at Jury's.

This of course is about Ego and this has now become a pathetic game between two of the biggest ego's you will ever come across. Add in the Unions, the Government, the Aer Lingus management also to that mix and it's a boiling pot of ego and testostrone that has no reason or attachment to reality.

It's pathetic.

The_Bean_Counter

18th Oct 2006, 11:11

Of course O Brien might have another motive

Hi Bertie

I have x% of Aer lingus and can help you out of a hole

Now, you know that small matter of Mr Mahon and his inquries

Ah, say no more Bertie, of course I will

Bye

akerosid

18th Oct 2006, 11:30

I think the first motive is most likely, if it's just personal satisfaction he's after. Buy at €2.90 (or whatever) and get your opponent to buy at €3.5.

With the recent problems Bertie has had, he'll steer well clear of any behind the scenes deals.

What concerns me most of all is that, whatever people say of MOL, he's the only one who has presented anything close to a coherent vision of EI's future, whether you agree with it (or even believe it or not); it's more than a little concerning that his vision of EI is more exciting than DM's. I think the big concern I would have about the "stop FR" motive of EI, unions, etc is that it doesn't seem to go further than that. There are HUGE opportunities for EI out there, particularly on long haul, once the stopover nonsense is out of the way, but the danger is that once the stopover is out of the way, the American heavy guns - CO, DL, AA, US etc - will be throwing major capacity our way. If this happens, can EI on its own stand up to it? Is 12-14 787s going to be enough? It's not just the threat, but the opportunities which are of concern, and this is why I raised the issue of pre-clearance and customs issues last week (much the moderators' chagrin!).

I don't mean to cause offence to anyone in what I say and please don't take any, but given the choice, I'd much rather see EI and FR join forces (even if only on long haul) to take full advantage of this, than to see it fall to the US carriers; that's an unnecessary and avoidable outcome and it can be avoided, but only if EI puts pride aside.

Given the Taoiseach's recent success in bringing the DUP and SF together (despite the hitches), surely it would be a good idea for the govt to convene meetings of all the interested parties - IALPA, SIPTU, Ryanair (yes, in the same room), DO'B etc, so that a workable long term plan can be developed; the danger of a perception that there's fighting in the cockpit with no one flying the plane is appropriate here. Let's look beyond just "stopping FR" and make sure EI is well positioned for the opportunities ahead.

OneWorld22

18th Oct 2006, 13:10

We're in dangerous waters here there is no doubt about it. This company was floated by the Government and whatever the unions say, their members in AL were behind it because they made a few bucks. The decision was made, you float a company, it is open to people buying or selling it's shares,
it's not very complicated really. And just because it's FR we now have this collective squeal from the usual suspects. The SIPTU mob (AKA "Burke's Mafia" in the old days), the bearded semi-state loons, the pension chasers in AL, the old Aer Rianta golden circle still in the DAA, the rabble that tried to fight FR long ago and stop them competing with AL (and BA for that matter). Remember folks the days of 3 million passengers? Empty aprons for the majority of the day, air fares out of reach of ordinary citizens, no development allowed at or around the airport?
Basically a big socialist grip on the main access point on this island.

It maybe different today, the airport is bursting and still the bearded loons cry foul if someone comes along and actually offers to build a new terminal out of their own goddamn pocket!

It's like Disneyland out there, always was and always will be as long as those Larkinite loons still cling onto power. Laughable to hear of them as well crying for a white knight like Emirates to swoop down and actually buy Aer Lingus!!!

SIPTU's heartfelt concern for competition is really touching. I presume they will now call for the deregulation of the electricity sector and open up the ESB to badly needed competition? Of course not, their workers on
140,000 grand a year at poolbeg would have a meltdown. how about Dublin Bus then? Irish Rail????

Tom the Tenor

18th Oct 2006, 16:10

Bullseye from OneWorld22! Yes.

The Mrs and I spent about 5 hours at DUB waiting for a connecting flight last Friday. It was more than 5 years since my last visit to Dublin Airport and the airport now has so much easy success and money that headaches at Cork and Shannon can be sidelined indefinitely. Dublin is where it is all at to be sure at the Irish airports. Aer Lingus, Ryanair and the Dublin Airport Authority are making money hand over fist. No wonder Michael O'Leary wants to get a hold of Aer Lingus. I would bet he would like to takeover the DAA as well? There is little sentiment, it has to be all about maxing out profits.

The Aer Rianta golden circle still in the DAA. Nice one, OW22! You know your stuff and have been around the block all right. I salute you.

akerosid

19th Oct 2006, 17:07

No progress on Open Skies ...

Interesting this, because with all the kerfuffle about EI and FR, the minister saw fit not to say anything about this publicly; the fact is that his trip to Europe last week to try and get progress on US access and approval for direct negotiations with the US wasn't successful. Here's the PQ ...

-------------------------------------------------------------------------

*To ask the Minister for Transport the status of the transitional
Ireland US aviation agreement and the EU US Open Skies talks; if these
matters were discussed at the recent Council of Ministers meeting; the
outcome of these talks; and if he will make a statement on the matter.
- Olivia
Mitchell.

* For WRITTEN answer on Tuesday, 17th October, 2006.

Ref No: 33284/06

Answered by the Minister for
Transport
(Martin
Cullen)

REPLY

I can confirm that the EU US Open Skies deal was discussed at the
Transport Council on 12 October 2006. The Council underlined the
importance it attaches to the conclusion of the EU US air
transport agreement. It reaffirmed its unanimous satisfaction with the
text of the draft agreement negotiated in November 2005 but
regretted the further delay in the US position on the ownership and
control issue.

The Council requested the Commission to continue its efforts, on the
basis of further contacts with the United States to secure a
satisfactory and balanced outcome with the necessary safeguards,
including the transitional provisions, with a view to a decision at
the December Transport Council.
This would fulfill the commitments set out in the conclusion of the
June
2006 EU US Summit in which both parties reaffirmed the commitment to
reach agreement by the end of the year.

----------------------------------------------------------------------

That's all well and good, if it happens by year end - which many observers think is unlikely. BA, of course, is anxious to delay and obstruct the process as much as possible, since it clearly doesn't want more competition on t/a routes out of LHR. That said, how would it have POSSIBLY affected the EU, any airline competitors and indeed, the resolution of sticking points over EU/US Open Skies, if Ireland was given the go ahead to move ahead to relax the stopover, as last November's deal anticipated?

If the O/S deal doesn't go ahead by the end of the year, there's not going to be a lot of time for EI to adjust, particularly with schedules for two new acft to plan, and indeed other long haul routes to market and schedule, if it can't expand in the US. Really, we should have insisted on getting this last week.

S-crew'd

26th Oct 2006, 08:55

Taken from RTE News (http://www.rte.ie/news/2006/1026/aerlingus.html)

Further cuts needed at Aer Lingus - CEO
Management at Aer Lingus has said that further job losses and cost-cutting will be needed at the company, regardless of the outcome of the Ryanair takeover bid.

The position was outlined to staff representatives last night by the Aer Lingus Chief Executive, Dermot Mannion. Speaking on RTÉ Radio's Morning Ireland, Michael Halpenny of SIPTU said his union had been unaware of the latest management announcement and he had sought a meeting with Mr Mannion this morning.

Last night's meeting at the airline's head office was told that major changes were required, and if they were not delivered then the airline could once again find itself in crisis.

Mr Mannion said existing agreements would have to be re-examined, cost-cutting exercises would be implemented and there would be significant job losses.
It is understood Aer Lingus' catering section and its sales and marketing operations in the United States will come under scrutiny in a review of the airline's operations.
There are fears that that the proposed measures could lead to serious industrial unrest at the recently-floated airline.

akerosid

26th Oct 2006, 17:25

Isn't it strange also, that just as the prospect of an FR takeover of EI arises, there seems to be a door for EI employees to take, to cash in their shares in the event of a takeover, with the added incentive of whatever tax deal FR works out?

Is DM/EI walking into a trap here? MO'L has clearly cottoned on to this ...

http://www.finfacts.com/irelandbusinessnews/publish/article_10007814.shtml

Alternatively, could it be that DM has finally tumbled to the realisation that EI's best hope of success on t/a routes - even when the stopover ratio is reduced - is to have FR on board as a partner? When the ratio is relaxed, the US carriers will make life very hard for EI, not just in the knowledge that EI might be leaning towards FR - something which they don't want to see happen, but also because if they can operate 3 flights to DUB for every 1 to SNN, they'd be mad not to. Whatever way you cut it, the intensity of competition on t/a routes is likely to increase drastically and maybe EI realises that the 12-14 acft it has been talking of won't be nearly enough - not just for survival, but to take advantage of the major opportunities ahead - but in order to take full advantage, EI needs the help of FR.

I suspect that DM is playing a very clever game; it could, of course, be a very serious error, but I'd like to give him the benefit of doubt ...

daz211

27th Oct 2006, 19:52

What a good move by RYR pilots get as many as you can, before they go up in price then sell them to MOL for a profit, make a bit of cash :D .
what other reason is there?

MarkD

27th Oct 2006, 21:39

how about EI and FR pilots fancying some leverage over their respective managements if they end up being the casting votes?

daz211

28th Oct 2006, 17:11

But the thing is, MOL wont stop here if the takeover falls through,
he wont lose money or face, he will go head to head with EI and I would not put it past him to buy another airline or even just aircraft for longhaul and go head to head on all routes, EI will become a tiny airline with high prices and tiny routes its not what I want but its what MOL wants and he normaly gets what he wants. So if I worked for EI I would be thinking, do I
want to work for a timy airline that will be cutting routes and jobs or would I want to work for an airline that announces new routes almost every month and buys new a/c 3x a year.

en2r

28th Oct 2006, 17:19

daz211

The EI staff qute obviously don't share your opinion

daz211

28th Oct 2006, 17:32

so your telling me that MOL will just roll over, put his hands up, say
"o" well, never mind, It was worth a go and thats the end of it.
Now that would be Irish.

en2r

28th Oct 2006, 17:41

daz211

I really do not appreciate your racist comments. If you want to express your opinion thats fine but there is no need to start being racist to Irish people

daz211

28th Oct 2006, 17:48

I am so sorry if my comment upset you it was an attempt at a light hearted joke and I think you knew it:= , One half of my family is Irish from Dingal bay so I have nothing against the Irish, anyway you didnt answer my question, will he or wont he roll over ?

en2r

28th Oct 2006, 17:55

daz211

I didn't think it was a light hearted joke. I found it extremely insulting. Just because you have Irish relatives doesn't mean you can make derogitory comments about Irish people. I don't think MOL will just roll over, but at the same time I don't think Dermot Mannion will if given half a chance by the shareholders. I don't think Ryanair will enter the long haul in the foreseeable future if they don't take over Aer Lingus. I also think Aer Lingus are onto a gold mine with their expanding operations at Cork which leaves them with huge potential, especially given the fact that MOL had a big spat with Cork Airport

daz211

28th Oct 2006, 18:02

well once again Im sorry if I upset you:rolleyes: .
I myself would like RYR to start long haul flights, but I also think that
an EI take over might not be the best way forward, I would rather MOL
just bought some bigger wide bodied a/c and done it that way, however
I think he would rather take EI as this would show the likes of BA and VS
that he means business.

Faire d'income

28th Oct 2006, 23:37

akerosid

29th Oct 2006, 04:25

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/newspaper/0,,176-2426416,00.html

daz211

29th Oct 2006, 08:19

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.

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.

akerosid

29th Oct 2006, 09:26

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?

daz211

29th Oct 2006, 09:59

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.

Robertkc

30th Oct 2006, 15:47

Alternatively, could it be that DM has finally tumbled to the realisation that EI's best hope of success on t/a routes - even when the stopover ratio is reduced - is to have FR on board as a partner?

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.

When the ratio is relaxed, the US carriers will make life very hard for EI...

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.

brian_dromey

30th Oct 2006, 16:15

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!)

akerosid

30th Oct 2006, 16:55

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:

akerosid

30th Oct 2006, 17:07

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!)

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.

brian_dromey

30th Oct 2006, 18:24

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.

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 a spotter

30th Oct 2006, 18:34

Ryanair asks EU permission to buy Aer Lingus

Ryanair today asked the European Commission for permission to acquire Aer Lingus, according to the European Commission website.

http://www.rte.ie/business/2006/1030/ryanair.html

mind you the picture with the story as told by "The Times of Malta" over the weekend reminds us of bygone fleet commonality between FR & EI!

http://www.timesofmalta.com/core/article.php?id=241265

JAS

840

31st Oct 2006, 09:11

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.

a1234

31st Oct 2006, 12:41

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?

dublinamg

31st Oct 2006, 15:19

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?

VanBosh

31st Oct 2006, 15:39

Valencia seems to have gone too.

Provance

31st Oct 2006, 15:50

are those not seasonal routes ?

Provance

31st Oct 2006, 15:58

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

cym

31st Oct 2006, 16:05

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.

johnrizzo2000

31st Oct 2006, 16:16

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

Bearcat

31st Oct 2006, 17:34

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.

akerosid

31st Oct 2006, 18:07

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.

MerchantVenturer

31st Oct 2006, 18:43

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.

a1234

31st Oct 2006, 19:13

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.

Just a spotter

1st Nov 2006, 15:44

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

840

1st Nov 2006, 16:07

When does it have to be decided by?

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

Robertkc

2nd Nov 2006, 07:50

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.

VanBosh

2nd Nov 2006, 09:00

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.

en2r

2nd Nov 2006, 15:27

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?

akerosid

5th Nov 2006, 11:51

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".

dublinamg

6th Nov 2006, 13:12

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.

johnrizzo2000

6th Nov 2006, 14:04

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?

840

6th Nov 2006, 14:37

akerosid

6th Nov 2006, 17:21

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

6th Nov 2006, 18:44

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!

akerosid

6th Nov 2006, 21:15

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 ...?

Just a spotter

7th Nov 2006, 11:50

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

akerosid

7th Nov 2006, 18:18

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

7th Nov 2006, 20:26

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?

en2r

7th Nov 2006, 20:55

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?
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

airbourne

8th Nov 2006, 02:28

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?

blaggerman

8th Nov 2006, 22:35

That's a fair achievement by DL considering they don't have business class to JFK!

blaggerman

9th Nov 2006, 18:17

Yeah, I was just nitpicking for the sake of mischief. DL's BusinessElite is way ahead of EI Premier, and they are planning to upgrade it in the next few years. And they have a half decent frequent flier programme which is key to the business market.

johnrizzo2000

9th Nov 2006, 19:02

DL's flights to JFK are sold as all-economy,with Gold-Medallion, etc getting preference to use upgraded seats. The 767 they use is still in domestic configuration, so they let their frequent fliers sit in the domestic first cabin! EI's premier cabin is in dire need of replacement. DL's cabin is far better, and CO's cabin is even better! AerLingus offer great service and their crew are fantastic, but they need to upgrade their interiors!!!!

akerosid

9th Nov 2006, 19:55

This is because the 767-400ERs were previously used on domestic services and didn't have an international business, like the 763s do. Frankly, I thought DL might use a 763 to DUB, which one would expect to be a pretty lucrative route from a business perspective?

Incidentally, don't the first two EI 332s come up for D checks pretty soon (I think 'EWR was delivered in 1999?), in which case one would that they could be refitted with up to date IFE/seatback TV at that stage.

On the subject of new aircraft, while the A332 is "only game in town" at the moment - i.e. in terms of aircraft available right now, rather than 2012 - I see Aeroflot has "cancelled" an order for 22 787s, with BA and SIA apparently chasing the slots. While the 787-8 is the smallest of the family, it's by no means a small aircraft; while slightly shorter than the 332, it is wider. QF's Jetstar subsidiary is using these in a 2 class (premium economy/Y) on its new services, in a 303 seat layout. I'm sure EI is actively considering all options, but just for the sake of discussion ...

johnrizzo2000

9th Nov 2006, 20:07

DL is putting BusinessElite on its Dublin-JFK from Jan07! I'd love to see EI offering J, Y+ and Y! I should hope for a new J cabin first!

Bearcat

9th Nov 2006, 22:19

you'll be waiting! was on a AL 330 recently.....i thought i saw a part of the ceiling collapsing but was relieved to see it was a TV from the dark ages the size of a concrete slab being lowered down for the masses to enjoy. What a joke.

Those 330s are more or less in the same cabin state since they began to role off the production lines in 1994.

Aer Lingus need to get the finger out yesterday.

waffler

10th Nov 2006, 10:41

As far as I know all the 330s are getting a makeover during their winter overhauls while the 2 new aircraft will have all the bells and whistles so expect a better product next year :ok:

CaptJ

10th Nov 2006, 11:12

Akerosid

I'm sure that I have read here that the IE 330-200 can't have the latest IFE system as the extra weight would leave them short of range for LAX?
Possibly even applies to the 330-300 for ORD

Shamrock 125

10th Nov 2006, 13:20

Akerosid
I'm sure that I have read here that the IE 330-200 can't have the latest IFE system as the extra weight would leave them short of range for LAX?
Possibly even applies to the 330-300 for ORD
as far as the weight issues to LAX with the 332 thats balony. one the of 332's -DAA already has PTV's. the only weight issue is with the current 333's which would be rangle limited to east coast US ops, ORD being out of the question. remember the baseline 333 model is only a medium range airliner and not a "long hauler" per se.

johnrizzo2000

11th Nov 2006, 13:38

I think they should go all out, and put flat-beds in J. If they want to attract business, and launch new long haul routes, and develop DUB into a hub, they need to give people a reason to want to fly with them. They can pack their flights with economy passengers, as they have mastered low fares in that cabin. But J class want more! If they want to get people flying to/from US and onto Europe, they must realise they are up against BA, VS, CO, AF etc.

eick320

11th Nov 2006, 14:05

A friend of mine was training in dub recently and had a briefing by some marketing chap. There is a new premier product to be rolled out this winter which includes new seating, screens and service etc. Not to sure when but soon

brian_dromey

11th Nov 2006, 19:48

Akerosid
I'm sure that I have read here that the IE 330-200 can't have the latest IFE system as the extra weight would leave them short of range for LAX?
Possibly even applies to the 330-300 for ORD

To the best of my knowlage the 332s are fine with PTV's for west coast. In fact the sole 332 with PTV's regularly serves LAX.

Considering that the 333 would be limited to west coast if PTV's were fitted, so what? These are the routes most in need of the extra capacity the 333 offers, and the 333s rarely, if ever, venture to LAX or DXB.

Good to see an updated product comming along though. Bout Time!:p

akerosid

11th Nov 2006, 23:51

I think you mean A330s will be confined to the east coast (with IFE)? Yes, but as you say, they pretty much always have been. I think that if the older 330s were refitted with IFE, they would be fine for BOS/JFK, but possibly not ORD, which is still one of the longest A330-300 sectors. The next A333, for delivery for next June, is a higher gross weight model, so it shouldn't have a problem. I would assume it will probably be confined to the ORD route?

Interesting snippet in today's Sunday Business Post, about the Dubai route and new efforts to get new US access:

http://www.thepost.ie/post/pages/p/story.aspx-qqqt=IRELAND-qqqm=news-qqqid=18790-qqqx=1.asp

The article says (at the end) that if Ireland is granted new routes to the US, it might have competitive consequences for other EU countries, but I would say that if the new US access is NOT granted, it would effectively amount to the imposition of a competitive advantage against EI; NO other EU country has a bilateral as insanely anti-competitive as ours; most other countries have pretty close to Open Skies (even the UK, despite Bermuda II is pretty liberal), so I can't see that being an excuse that will hold water.

akerosid

14th Nov 2006, 19:51

http://www.rte.ie/aertel/p117.htm

I wonder if he's heard this unofficially from govt or EU sources; whatever the source, I wonder what he wants? What else can the govt do to safeguard SNN? This guy is actually a northwest MEP, so SNN isn't even in this constituency. It's far easier for people to use Carrickfinn or Sligo to fly to DUB and then to the US. Leaving that aside, however, how much protection does SNN actually need? With so many of the US carriers using 757s (with DL to come this year), SNN's t/a access - even if the ratio of DUB/SNN flights is to change - hardly likely to decline, but the most important thing is that what happens to SNN is going to be influenced by SNN alone; the days of holding DUB (or anywhere else for that matter) back to help it are gone. Indeed, I sincerely hope that provision is made for ORK access to the US; a 757 service to BOS or JFK/EWR should certainly work.

ryan2000

14th Nov 2006, 20:17

Clare was tagged on to the North West Euro constituency before the last election.

Are management and the majority shareholders going to continue to stay silent in order to prop up a few politicians in the mid west?

The muted reaction to the news that the Stopover was due to be phased out from 1st November shows that this issue can be buried once and for all with a small bit of pressure.

As for Cork if they can't even secure a replacement for Loganair on Cork Glasgow I wouldn't hold my breath on them attracting a JFK/BOS service.

A 757 would probably work but EI are best placed to go there due to their massive marketing power on both sides of the Atlantic.

The Walsh/Kearney team spoke several times about it publicly before they left in 2004.

en2r

14th Nov 2006, 20:21

http://www.rte.ie/aertel/p117.htm

I wonder if he's heard this unofficially from govt or EU sources; whatever the source, I wonder what he wants? What else can the govt do to safeguard SNN? This guy is actually a northwest MEP, so SNN isn't even in this constituency. .
Yes it is. The constituencies were changed last time with the reduction in the number of Irish MEPs and Clare is now in the West constituency so he is just speaking for his constituents. Aer Lingus is no longer a state airline. Why should it be forced to land in Shannon when it is both uneconomic and bad for the environment.Most of the passengers are going on to Dublin anyway. The Shannon Stopover should be axed and people from Clare/Limerick should have to go to Dublin like the rest of us have been doing for years. Shannon has long been the darling of the Government. This stance has been hugely damaging to Cork, and in ways even to Dublin. It must stop once and for all.

ORAC

19th Nov 2006, 07:25

The Times (http://www.timesonline.co.uk/newspaper/0,,176-2459764,00.html): Aer Lingus faces EU rejection on Atlantic deal

THE European Union is likely to block plans by the Irish government to do a side deal with America to expand Aer Lingus’s transatlantic operations after a similar arrangement involving the Netherlands was found to violate EU law.

Paolo Mengozzi, an advocate general of the European Court of Justice (ECJ), has said the Netherlands “failed to fulfil its obligations as a member state” by having bilateral talks with America. If an advocate general’s opinion is upheld by the ECJ, as happens in the majority of cases, it means that EU countries will not have the alternative option of striking individual deals with the US.

Last year, America agreed in principle that Aer Lingus could fly to three additional cities in America, beyond its existing US gateways: New York, Boston, Chicago and Los Angeles. But the pact was contingent on an EU-US “open skies” deal.

Bertie Ahern, the taoiseach, said last week that Ireland would by-pass Brussels to open direct negotiations with Washington. He said: “We have been putting all of our efforts into getting an EU-US agreement . . . it is generally believed now with the way Congress has turned out that there would not be support (for) an EU-US agreement because of their own internal and external concerns.”

James Oberstar, set to take over the chairmanship of the US House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee and a key player in the new Democratic leadership in Congress, has already outlined his opposition to the tentative open skies pact. Protectionist sensibilities have been raised by the American airline industry’s problems since 9/11.

Ahern said he recently discussed the notion of Ireland proceeding with its own bilateral talks with the US at a meeting with the president of the European Commission, Jose Manuel Barosso. “Obviously, we would need their agreement, or at least tacit support, or, at worst, not blocking us in any way,” Ahern said.

akerosid

19th Nov 2006, 11:12

So, how do we incentivise EU co-operation. There are several grounds upon which this is unacceptable to us - not just EI specifically, but the fact that this effectively amounts to the imposition of a competitive disadvantage. The article refers to the Netherlands, but the Netherlands has Open Skies and although the EU took action against most other countries which have O/S, they didn't do anything to force them to backtrack. Now, despite the fact that we have the most insanely anti-competitive bilateral with the US, the EU seems to be forcing us to maintain it in place, DESPITE the fact that the issue holding up EU/US negotiations has nothing to do with Ireland (foreign ownership of US carriers).

Is the govt going to take this lying done? More than likely, yes, BUT we still have not seen the US proposls on foreign o/ship, so maybe these will be acceptable to the EU (although the real question is whether they're acceptable to Congress). If, after they are released, we still cannot get increased US access, the govt will have to assess its options:

- On environmental grounds: the govt has been ticked off by the EU about its failure to reduce CO2 emissions and yet, here is another part of the commission insisting that we maintain in place THE most environmentally unfriendly use of a large aircraft.

The joker card has to be the Constitution, if all else fails. If this is the way the Commission seeks to treat our interests, notwithstanding the fact that changing the regulations would have absolutely no effect on the EU/US negotiations, then we need to rattle sabres on this front; at the very least, the govt should insist that a provision should be included in any new EU constitution that no EU institution can impose a competitive disadvantage on any other members state. If the EU wants its constitution passed, it can start living in the real world; what Ireland is asking for is completely reasonable and doesn't post a competitive disadvantage to any other country.

Meccano

19th Nov 2006, 18:06

Get real Akerosid. The US public and government will never accept foreign ownership.
Open skies is a dead duck and private deals are illegal. This is one heck of a bind.

akerosid

19th Nov 2006, 19:56

Frankly, Meccano, I don't give a rodent's posterior what happens about foreign ownership of US carriers; that's for the EU and US to sort out; what I do find extremely irritating is that the EU can simply block us like this.

When the EU took the various EU countries to Court initially, it was on the grounds of Competition Law and now, we have the EU IMPOSING competitive disadvantage; how realistic is it to accept this. Once and for all, we need to get a focus on getting this nonsense out of the way, even if it means opting out of the whole EU Open Skies process. As EI-RB says, quite rightly, what Ireland wants poses no competitive disadvantage to any other country; our current bilateral and even the change to 3:1 is considerably behind any other EU countries; there is a clear difference of treatment and assuming the EU wants its Constitution passed, it will need to realise that it cannot act in this high handed, arrogant matter. This is an abuse of power, nothing less. We can address it the easy way (they let us do what we ask, which is reasonable) or the hard way (we make it very clear that the Constitution is at stake and that the govt will not put any Const. before the Irish people which does not include new provisions to stop this kind of thing happening in future).

We cannot simply write off another Summer, so everything needs to be on the table. And EI-RB, believe me, the words I would like to choose would probably get me a sharp dressing down, so I shall restrict myself to the words of Capt. Blackadder: I think the phrase rhymes with Clucking Bell. :mad: :ugh: :ugh: :{

akerosid

20th Nov 2006, 18:32

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/NewsStory.aspx?cpath=20061120\ACQDJON200611201311DOWJONESDJO NLINE000519.htm&selected=9999&selecteddisplaysymbol=9999&StoryTargetFrame=_top&mkt=WORLD&chk=unchecked&lang=&link=&headlinereturnpage=http://www.international.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 ...

Meccano

20th Nov 2006, 23:22

Funny (http://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!

Faire d'income

21st Nov 2006, 00:25

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:

akerosid

21st Nov 2006, 05:09

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!

Flame

21st Nov 2006, 06:19

Get real Akerosid. The US public and government will never accept foreign ownership.

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

Meccano

21st Nov 2006, 11:44

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/publish/article_12821.shtml

ryan2000

21st Nov 2006, 12:08

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!

Flame

21st Nov 2006, 14:31

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.

http://www.michnews.com/artman/publish/article_12821.shtml

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

brian_dromey

21st Nov 2006, 16:03

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.......

akerosid

21st Nov 2006, 17:35

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.

Flame

21st Nov 2006, 17:51

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.

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

akerosid

21st Nov 2006, 19:18

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.

mccloud

21st Nov 2006, 20:31

It appears that the EPT disclosures in the Company Announcements section of the www.ise.ie (http://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/announcementDetails.asp?ID=1342270

akerosid

21st Nov 2006, 20:52

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!

840

22nd Nov 2006, 07:43

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.

Cyrano

22nd Nov 2006, 08:21

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...

asianfly

22nd Nov 2006, 10:37

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.

akerosid

22nd Nov 2006, 16:59

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

MarkD

22nd Nov 2006, 21:03

what, not 100%? :)

Robertkc

24th Nov 2006, 10:00

mccloud
if you ask Morgan Stanley to trade in EI shares on your behalf, I don't see why Ryanair would be mentioned.
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.

akerosid

26th Nov 2006, 18:34

OK, people, just a few thoughts on how we "encourage" the EU to see things our way on increased US access. A few points to include in your letters to TDs and MEPs:

- What EI is seeking is not unreasonable; even with the change to 3:1 in favour of DUB, EI has less US access than any other major EU carrier.
- The Commission, despite being (and having a responsibility to be) a standard bearer of competition, has succeeded in making EI's competitive position worse.
- The Commission's use of its discretion has been unfair; while it has taken no action against countries against whom it won cases in 2003 in relation to O/S (and is unlikely to take action against the Netherlands), it has taken action to stop Ireland moving forward.
- The Commission has interpreted the mandate given to it by the ECJ in 2003 to justify the imposition of a competitive disadvantage on a member state (and on airlines in that country); it's very unlikely that a mandate from the ECJ could be interpreted in such a way;
- The Commission cannot use the excuse of a potential or long term agreement with a third party (in this case the US) to justify the imposition of a competitive disadvantage on a member state.

So, what the govt needs to do is to offer the EU two alternatives, let's call them "easy way" and hard way".

Just a few thoughts on EU Law and how we need to handle the Commission; basically our trump card is the EU Constitution. We send a message to the EU Commission: easy way or hard way.

EASY WAY:
They accept that there was no way that letting Ireland go forward with a limited change to its bilateral could have any affect on (a) the competitive position of other member states or (b) its negotiating position with the US. The EU expresses no objection and gives its blessing to proceed.

HARD WAY:
They dig their heels in. No change. Even though everyone else has much more liberal access, there will be no change for Ireland.
The govt's response:
1) Proceed with new agreement with US, on basis of Nov 05 agreement.
2) Take EU Commission to ECJ and seek guidance on limits of its mandate, particularly arising from 2003 case. Also, extent of Commission's power of discretion. Also, test extent to which EU Commission can impose a competitive disadvantage on a member state.
3) This will take about 2-3 years to get to Court, but EU Constitution will not be put before people until ECJ gives ruling and govt will not put new Constitution before people (Ireland being one of the countries whose people need to approve it in referendum) unless protective clauses introduced to stop this kind of abuse in future.

I'm sorry to be bashing on at this ad nauseum, but it is SO important to EI's future that we get this right; why should YOUR airline be treated like this by the EU, held hostage to a situation which is totally beyond its control, to be prevented from competing effectively by the very people whom we thought would get us past all this stopover nonsense. So, get out those pens and start writing letters!

asianfly

27th Nov 2006, 16:04

Aer Lingus aims for deals with Oneworld airlines

Sunday, November 26, 2006 By David Clerkin
Aer Lingus is in talks with other airlines in the Oneworld Alliance to allow its passengers to access their airport lounges and continue to earn frequent-flyer miles on their services after the airline quits the alliance next year.

The airline will leave the alliance at the end of March as part of a plan to streamline costs. But it has started negotiations with American Airlines, Qantas and Cathay Pacific, to strike bilateral deals that will ensure mutual recognition of frequent flyer points with effect from April.

Aer Lingus passengers will be eligible to collect points for their Aer Lingus account when they travel on the other airlines’ services and will also be able to use Aer Lingus points to qualify for free flights or upgrades on services operated by the three airlines.

The deal with American Airlines will also allow Aer Lingus passengers to access the airline’s lounges at US airports, although there are no plans to strike similar deals with Qantas or Cathay Pacific.

Aer Lingus also said it hoped to strike a similar deal with British Airways ‘‘in the near future’’. Agreements with other Oneworld members, which include Finnair, Spanish carrier Iberia and Chilean operator LAN, have yet to be put in place, however.

Passengers will also be able to carry forward frequent flyer miles from their existing accounts for use under the new arrangements. But flights with the Oneworld airlines that do not sign a bilateral deal with Aer Lingus can only be booked before the end of March.

asianfly

27th Nov 2006, 16:09

and here is an interesting analysis by the Sunday Business Post on the takeover battle.

Aer Lingus game is far from over

Sunday, November 26, 2006 By David Clerkin
Horse-racing fans know the difficulty of picking a winner from a crowded field.

But as the smoke cleared after Ryanair’s swoop on Aer Lingus appeared doomed to failure last week, the task of identifying which of the drama’s main players came out ahead looked even more challenging.

Aer Lingus chief executive Dermot Mannion can be satisfied that he successfully battled to keep the airline out of Ryanair hands. The Aer Lingus Employee Share Ownership Trust (Esot) reinforced its position as protector of staff interests with a comprehensive rejection of the takeover.

The fringe players - the airline pilots’ pension fund, the pilots’ investment group and telecoms billionaire Denis O’Brien - are left to count substantial investment losses after seeing the Aer Lingus share price fall well below the levels at which they bought heavily. They can at least console themselves, however, that their building of a combined stake of 6 per cent achieved the strategic objective of blocking the Ryanair move for the time being.

But Ryanair chief executive Michael O’Leary, who wreaked havoc on Aer Lingus management by taking a significant 19 per cent share in the airline but ultimately fell short in his quest for overall control, is unlikely to be too disappointed with his position.

The extent of last week’s Esot landslide, which saw a 97 per cent vote against Ryanair’s approach, made O’Leary’s strategy, which included attempts to court Aer Lingus employees, seem even more curious than it had first appeared.

O’Leary had raised eyebrows in recent weeks by effectively conceding that the success of his takeover plan lay in the Esot’s hands and encouraging its members to back the deal. It is unlikely, however, that O’Leary had failed to see the rejection coming. He had never sugarcoated his plans for an Aer Lingus under his control, instead pledging to go to war on the airline’s cost base.

As recently as last Tuesday, the day before the result of the Esot vote was known, he derided Aer Lingus management for being ‘‘soft on staff costs’’ and for granting ‘‘excessive pay increases.

‘‘Ryanair believes Aer Lingus is over-staffed,” he wrote in a letter to shareholders - hardly the sentiment that he would have expressed if he seriously expected the Esot to get behind him.

But this was not the first of O’Leary’s tactics to suggest that he may not have been as committed to the goal of an immediate takeover of Aer Lingus as it first appeared.

The plan was always ambitious with less than 60 per cent of the company available to buy in the predictable event that the government and the Esot decided to retain their stakes.

He shunned the approach that proved successful on two occasions for buyers of Eircom, the other former state company in which employees had a significant interest.

Both deals saw the buyers, the Valentia consortium and more recently Babcock and Brown, strike partnership deals with the Eircom Esot to get them on board and retain them as part-owners of the acquired business.

Although O’Leary said he was prepared to work with the Aer Lingus Esot as a fellow shareholder, he placed less emphasis on the need to sweeten the deal and instead lumped it in with other shareholders with a take the money or leave it approach.

His previous track record on union relations would have required him to be even more conciliatory, not less, than Valentia or Babcock.

But perhaps the most revealing sign of O’Leary’s true intentions, in retrospect, was the manner of his bid, which was made after he built up a 16 per cent stake within days of Aer Lingus making its stock-market debut.

News of the approach sent the share price soaring from €2.51 to over €2.80 immediately, removing the scope for Ryanair to meaningfully increase its stake. It could only acquire a further 3 per cent at prices less than €2.80 and was precluded from buying at prices above €2.80 under stock exchange rules.

O’Leary dismissed early questions over whether his bid was serious, saying he was spending the serious sum of €200 million on his initial stake in the airline. But he also considered the likely consequences of making the takeover offer with just 16 per cent of Aer Lingus in his pocket, when he could have simply disclosed his interest at that point without going as far as making a full bid. He would then have been free to build a stake without the €2.80 constraint, up to a maximum of almost 30 per cent - a much stronger position from which to mop up the remaining 20 per cent necessary to assume control.

It is also worth noting that Ryanair made no effort to increase its stake over the last two weeks, when the Aer Lingus share price dipped back below the crucial €2.80 threshold.

This was either a signal of acceptance that the bid had failed, or one of O’Leary being happy that he held as many aces as he needs for now.

As the Aer Lingus share price dipped towards the €2.65 mark last week, non-aligned shareholders were left to look towards Mannion’s team, which has spent considerable time arguing that €2.80 undervalued the company and that the best prospects for a higher share price lie in remaining independent.

Investors will make up their own minds over the weeks and months ahead. While Mannion now has one eye fixed on his share price and is reliant on an unlikely alliance of politicians, employees and billionaires to keep Ryanair at bay, O’Leary can sit and wait, comfortable in the knowledge that no one else can take over the main competitor in his home market.

If the share price continues its downward trend and the bottom line starts to hurt as the airline struggles with even more intense competition from Ryanair, his mantra that €2.80 per share is ‘‘a generous offer’’ may ring in shareholder ears, and look even more generous if Aer Lingus cannot deliver a higher price on its own.

Mannion, meanwhile, was given an unwelcome ultimatum last week by the Takeover Panel, which said he had just a week to provide more details on the cost-cutting plan he paraded as part of his defence strategy.

It will be difficult to do this without treading on union toes.

So, while Mannion and the Esot enjoy a slender lead, they may worry that the final whistle is now in O’Leary’s lips. And the game may just be beginning.

nosher

28th Nov 2006, 19:34

Ryanair has increased it's stake in Aer Lingus to 25% after spending E85 Million this afternoon.

akerosid

28th Nov 2006, 19:51

This is unexpected; I thought, after the rejection by ESOT, that FR would gradually begin to offload some of its shareholding, but they're not giving up yet. They seem to have conceded that they won't take over full control, so what is the gameplan here? Why buy more shares if they know they won't have full control; doesn't 19% say "we're interested in EI's future" just as well (and €85m cheaper) than 25%?

It's going to be interesting to see how this pans out ...

http://www.rte.ie/aertel/p107.htm

akerosid

29th Nov 2006, 04:31

It's actually 26.2%, not the 25% stated last night. FR can increase its shareholding to 29.9% without having to make another bid and since - once its bid lapses on the 4th Dec, it has to wait a year to make another bid - it will be interesting to see whether it does so. I think it will.

I think FR's behaviour towards EI over the next year will also dictate what it will do; if it's content just to be a long term minority shareholder, it won't want to be too harsh in competing with EI, BUT if its intention is, ultimately to buy out the airline, it will probably see it worthwhile to (a) drive the price down considerably (the lower it is, the easier for it to acquire more shares when the time comes) and (b) it will also persuade EI to make some of the cuts it has been suggesting; it probably makes more sense for EI to have to deal with SIPTU, because the prospects of SIPTU sitting down with FR are not encouraging.

And what of MOL's stance on other EI growth issues, such as long haul; will it be as reticent as DM in challenging the govt and the Commission on the whole Open Skies issue and EI's ability to build its transatlantic route network?

840

29th Nov 2006, 07:37

doesn't 19% say "we're interested in EI's future" just as well (and €85m cheaper) than 25%?

It does make Ryanair the largest shareholder, greatly increasing their ability to cause havoc for the board.

Bearcat

29th Nov 2006, 11:12

agree 84O...in the short term the plus is it gives DM the slash hook re jobs as the unions will side with DM. The other option is siding with leo and he'll blitz the place.

very interesting times....the big thing here is by purchasing such a vast tranch of shares in AL, FR now is king of the roost re what goes at Dub airport and if another suitor comes into town. If there were potential big player investors out there, they'll back off as they'd have to cozy in with FR.

AL share price will be based now on performance of the co. and not on potential bidders.

Board meeting may become very interesting. Can FR demand a place at the table??

akerosid

29th Nov 2006, 14:07

I'm sure there must be rules as to how many directors shareholders are entitled to appoint, based on their holding. I think that in EI's case, this will have to be reviewed, because (apart from the worker directors), all directors are appointed by the govt, which now holds about 28% (?). FR can bring its holding to that amount - indeed to 29.9% - and once it gets to that level, it could probably insist on two.

Then there are the others: IALPA/Tailwind, the ESOT, etc? I wonder if the govt could appoint Denis O'Brien as a director, even though his own holding isn't sufficient to justify a seat?

Incidentally, I came across this speech by one Mr. James Oberstar, a member of the US House of Representatives and head of the powerful transport cttee, which will be involved in the open skies issue. Basically, he is opposed to any change to the rule which increases the ability of foreign carriers to own shares in US carriers. Call it protectionism, but that's the way it is; anything that the DOT proposes in the new rule which goes beyond this will probably be shot down. Translation: Open Skies is on ice.

http://www.oberstar.house.gov/index.asp?Type=B_PR&SEC={00ED92DA-AC14-4AFA-8792-FAEA4515297B}&DE={0E3FD783-88AC-4CC1-9716-A1D25718E118}

That's not necessarily bad news for us; if this is the case, then the ability of the Commission to tell us to hold back and keep to 50/50 (and now new US routes) will be undermined; the govt will probably tell them to sod off and there are legal grounds for it to take action against the Commission, if it gets in the way.

However, what we don't yet know is when this decision will be made; the sooner the better, from our vantage point, because the sooner EI knows when it can add new routes (and consequently, when it needs to add more aircraft), the better.

akerosid

30th Nov 2006, 11:20

The EU has delayed until the 20th December a decision on Ryanair's planned takeover of EI, which was originally scheduled for the 6th; the EU move has apparently been triggered by FR's decision to increase its shareholding to 25%. The airline can still, under Irish takeover rules, increase its holding to 29.9% without having to make another bid.

So, what can the EU do? Well, for a start, it will need to consider the opposition and the likelihood of FR actually being able to take over the airline, as it wishes; with over 46% of shares against it, that will be difficult, so it's hard to argue that competition will be undermined and I can't see FR being asked to axe routes on which both airlines compete, as there is no evidence of collusion or of fares being controlled?

http://investing.reuters.co.uk/news/articleinvesting.aspx?type=mergersNews&storyID=2006-11-30T110255Z_01_L30709795_RTRIDST_0_AERLINGUS-EU-UPDATE-1.XML

akerosid

1st Dec 2006, 05:33

Here's a PQ tabled by FG's Olivia Mitchell on the SNN stopover issue, which gives some indication of the govt's position.

------------------------------------------------------------------------

*To ask the Minister for Transport if he will make representations at EU
level pointing out the competitive disadvantage imposed on Ireland by
prohibiting a bilateral pending the completion of the stalled EU wide
open skies deal with the US in view of the fact that other EU countries
already have bilateral open skies agreements with the US
- Olivia Mitchell.

* For WRITTEN answer on Wednesday, 29th November, 2006.

Ref No: 40869/06 Proof: 142

Transferred (from) Taoiseach -- 29/11/2006 -- Question No 642 (Written)
Answered by the Minister for Transport
(Martin Cullen)

Reply

The liberalisation of air transport services between Ireland and the US
would deliver major benefits for Irish business and tourism. I have
drawn to the attention of the Commission and colleagues in the Council
of Ministers that the conclusion of an open skies agreement would have
particular benefits for Ireland compared to Member States (15 of 25)
that already have open-skies agreements with the US. Those Member States
already enjoy an advantage in unrestricted access to route rights for
the development of air services to and from the US.

Following the agreement reached with the US Authorities to providing for
an orderly change to the Shannon-stop arrangements in the context of the
proposed EU US Open Skies agreement it is very disappointing that that
agreement has still not been finalized. This is due to problems that
have arisen on the US side in making changes to the US rules on
ownership and control restrictions for airlines. Following the US
mid-term elections earlier this month it is widely perceived that the
rulemaking procedures will, at a minimum, be delayed further. I should
point out however that the US administration has not yet stated how it
intends to proceed in this matter following those elections.

I informed Government in September this year of my intention to pursue
all possible avenues to provide for the entry into force at the earliest
possible date of the EU US open skies agreement including the
transitional arrangements relating to Ireland already agreed between the
EU and the US I also indicated that, in the event that an EU US
agreement is not achievable within a reasonable timeframe, I intend to
seek to implement, in accordance with applicable Community law, the
essential elements of the transitional arrangements relating to Ireland
by way of an amendment to the Ireland US bilateral air services
agreement.

While allowing some time for clarification of the intentions of the US
administration following the US elections, I am considering all of the
options to progress this matter as soon as possible including the legal
issues arising under Community law in relation to an amendment of the
Ireland US bilateral air services agreement.

suasdaguna

2nd Dec 2006, 09:37

heard an FR flight into cork circa 2200 hrs local bragging how much %age they owned of Aer Lingus over the air to AL crews on approach. How pathetic and nobody is impressed.

Marvo

2nd Dec 2006, 09:47

Actually Suasdaguna; some Rynanir pilots have been buying EI shares as part of the tailwind scheme - The aim is to STOP O'Leary taking over Aer Lingus ! I am not quite sure of your intention with your last post but I hope the comment supposedly heard by a Ryanair pilot was one of support...

ryan2000

2nd Dec 2006, 22:10

Interesting to read that EI are seeking to renegotiate charges at Irish Airports.

It seems everybody is trying to reduce costs except the King Canute like DAA and their minions in Shannon and Cork!

To be fair the Shannon board looked for cost cuts when the reality of the Ryanair deal became clear but the Unions won't budge and no doubt the issue will be kicked into touch untill after the next election and most probably the one after that as well.

akerosid

4th Dec 2006, 20:02

Here's an article from this week's Flight, which summarises very well the position between the EU and the US on Open Skies:

http://www.flightglobal.com/Articles/2006/12/05/Navigation/177/210918/US+election+results+cloud+open+skies+prospects.html

Rough translation: stalemate. There seems to be absolutely no room for movement, so it's absolutely vital that the govt pushes as hard as possible on this. Ultimately, there is absolutely nothing to be gained by the Commission holding us back, because the issue blocking agreement really has nothing to do with us. If they do dig their heels in, then the Constitution (which Ireland has to approve by referendum) will need to be brought into the mix. It's completely up to the Commission as to whether it wants this to happen ...

Just by way of addition, I received a response from an MEP to whom I wrote and she had got feedback from the Commission; clearly, they are going to play hardball on this and are completely unsympathetic to the Irish position:

* We have been informed by Commissioner Barrot that "the transitional
period foreseen for Shannon airport will commence as and from the date
that full agreement has been reached and Open Skies is in operation".

* By taking Germany and seven other member states to the ECJ the
Commission acted functionally as upholder of EC Law. It could be argued
that the Commission has yet to take action in accordance with the
Court's ruling because it still believes it will get an EU/US agreement
soon. The Commission is of the view that a positive outcome will result
from the negotiations. Therefore, initiating proceedings against Germany
and others might not be necessary because all bilaterals will be
replaced when Open Skies begins.

* As you mention the Commission has recently taken a case against the
Netherlands. The Commission claims that modifications to the original
1957 agreement in 1992 resulted in the Netherlands entering into a "new
agreement" which fell within the Community's exclusive competence
following the adoption of Community Regulations in this field. Moreover,
the Commission claims that the agreement could lead to non-Dutch
Community airlines being treated differently to Dutch airlines, thereby
breaching Article 52 of the EC Treaty.The Advocate General has ruled in
favour of the Commission against the Netherlands. From this it would
appear that for Ireland to have its own bilateral deal would also be
contra to EC law.

* The possibly of using the Constitution as a bargaining chip
notwithstanding, it is most probable that the Open Skies talks may well
be concluded before the Constitution treaty talks are.

I enclose below the latest statement to Parliament of the European
Council in relation to Open Skies:

* 'The negotiations on the aviation agreement between the EU and
the United States were concluded in March 2005. The EU is now awaiting
the outcome of the internal procedures to be carried out by the US
authorities. These procedures are intended to bring up to date the
'amended rules' governing the administration of data concerning foreign
nationals by US airlines. In the meantime, all the discussion partners
have emphasised the importance of complying with the negotiated
agreement, since it offers all the EU Member States an 'open skies'
arrangement with the United States and clears the way for the removal of
restrictions on transatlantic flights in the future. Relations between
Ireland and the United States are dealt with only as one component of EU
-US agreement to be concluded in the near future. At all events, the
discussions will not encompass the possibility of a bilateral agreement
between Ireland and the United States.'
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The basic thrust is that the Commission is entirely satisfied to see Ireland stuck with its 50/50 for the next 2-3 years and it could easily be that length of time - the duration of the new Congress at least - before this issue is sorted out. Bear in mind also that part of the reason for the delay is that the EU Commission is seeking concessions which (a) it knows are politically unacceptable in the US (see the Flight article above) and (b) are of interest only to a minority of EU member states and yet, it sees it as completely justifiable to maintain a competitive disadvantage in place against Ireland. There are very significant grounds here for legal action to be taken against the Commission at the ECJ.

ryan2000

4th Dec 2006, 23:05

Ireland maintained this competitive disadvantage against itself for decades. They have now got caught up in an EU US wrangle due to Irish governments dragging their feet for so long.

The fact that AA CO and DL has increased its flights to Ireland ( SNN stopovers) has completely undermined the case for amending the bilateral
agreement.

Why hasn't the bilateral with Canada been amended if the Government is really interested in open skies. Aerlingus could make Dublin Toronto work at least during the summer months.

We also need to hear more from the EI board in relation to these matters.

840

5th Dec 2006, 07:53

I can't see the government threatening to block the EU constitution on this one. In fact if the EU wasn't involved, I can't imagine them trying to amend the bilateral. Although they can see the economic sense in dropping the stopover, they are far too worried about vote loss in Clare, Limerick East and Tipp North and want to present this as a decision that has been forced by Brussels.

In 9 years of being Taoiseach, I can never remember Bertie Ahern sticking his neck out over an issue. I wouldn't hold out much hope of him setting a precedent here.

ryan2000

5th Dec 2006, 12:22

Does anyone know what the status of Cork and Knock is in relation to scheduled transatlantic flights. In 2004 the Department were ready to give Aer Arann permission to operate to JFK from ORK.
It appears that their is a loophole in the bilateral which allows an Irish Airliine to operate from any Irish Airport to BOS JFK or ORD.
There were further reports that further changes were made last year at the time of the negotitions in relation to the transition period at SNN.

sawtooth

5th Dec 2006, 16:32

Flyglobespan have applied to the US DOT to fly LPL - NOC - JFK and GLA - NOC - BOS, so I guess a flight originating in another country avoids the stopover laws??

akerosid

5th Dec 2006, 18:07

Well, this adds fuel to the fire, but it may well clarify matters as well. If the whole airlines ownership issue is off the table (and it was never of any interest to EI anyway), it should hopefully "encourage" the Commission to take a more rational view.

http://www.rte.ie/business/2006/1205/airlines.html

akerosid

13th Dec 2006, 17:26

... and San Francisco and somewhere else as well.

Looks like this is it! Mr. Cullen has said that he will wait until January for Open Skies to happen (fat chance of that) and then proceed with a bilateral with the US, which - assuming it's along the lines of the special deal agreed in November 2005, should allow EI to add three new US cities and the ratio of DUB:SNN flights to change to 3:1. It will also allow a pretty significant influx in US carriers to DUB. (How DUB is going to handle these ... well, let's just focus on he positive for now! ;))

Cullen also had some critical words for the SNN lobby, warning them not to take comfort from the delays to Open Skies. He was apparently on RTE radio this morning, denouncing the stopover as archaic!

So, what's next. I'm guessing that EI already has the plans ready to roll - it certainly should have and once the deal is done with the US, the new flights can be launched.

A few questions arise:
1) The airline has already announced its provisional plans for next Summer, based on "Plan B" - i.e. nothing changing. Will these now go ahead and will the new US flights be on top of these?
2) If this is the case, EI will need to get hold of new aircraft for next Summer, since the two new A330s are "spoken for" in Plan B.
3) Will they seek to launch all three next Summer (as they're entitled to) or start with two.
4) The two "known" target cities are SFO and PHL, but the third is rumoured to be either DFW or MIA, both AA hub cities; given that AA will want to take advantage of the ability to increase DUB access, will there be a codeshare on both flights, with AA taking one (say MIA) and EI flying to Dallas.

CCR

13th Dec 2006, 17:54

Akerosid,

Does the current US bilateral specifically prevent scheduled transatlantic services from other Irish airports such as Cork and Knock???
I.E. Can there be a direct Cork-New York service without the Shannon stopover obstacle??

akerosid

13th Dec 2006, 18:01

I think the current one does, although obviously, if this new deal goes through, that will change. I couldn't see EI 330s flying from ORK to the US, BUT I could definitely see the likes of CO, DL or AA being willing to consider flights to EWR/JFK or BOS. There must be a fair proportion of the Corkonian diaspora which would love the opportunity for a direct flight home.

I certainly hope it happens and it's certainly not impossible; many US carriers have been converting 757s to ETOPS standard for use on flights to Europe.

Cyrano

13th Dec 2006, 20:28

CCR

CCR:
My recollection (admittedly I don't have the document in front of me and haven't read it for a while) is that there's some flexibility for Irish (not US) carriers to operate directly from points other than Dublin/Shannon, i.e. the Shannon stopover is only in respect of Dublin frequencies. In other words, Cork (or Knock) to the US would not need to stop in Shannon.

ryan2000

13th Dec 2006, 23:19

The end of an era for SNN ? I wouldn't hold my breath. They're past masters at running rings around politicians of every persuasion. For 60 years they've bucked the market forces so don't write them off yet.

Tom the Tenor

13th Dec 2006, 23:45

My recollection from my last reading of the bilateral about 2 years ago via a link on a pprune posting was that the key phrase as regards any operations from Cork or Knock to the USA included the quote "An aircraft of Ireland" so that indicates an Irish airline is free to conduct flights from Cork and Knock without the inclusion of a snn stop but not so by a U.S. airline.

Anyway, never thought I would lead myself to this point but let Cork get a GLA flight restored before any new focus on N America! Snn has it all too wrapped up, Cork is hardly yet up to the challenge of securing America fligths? Let us have small steps first.

CCR

14th Dec 2006, 11:46

Shannon has daily services from New York, Boston, Chicago and Atlanta.
Cork has a lot of US Multi-national industry and more than double the population of the Shannon region. Its a no brainer that scheduled transatlantic services (not charter) would be a success. So apparently the only impediment under the current bilateral seems to be the requirement for it to be an Irish based airline to do transatlantic services from Cork and no Irish airline has 737-700 or 757 ETOPS aircraft which I think are the only types of aircraft that can use Cork's relatively short runway (7000 feet) to do transatlantic services that are not weight restricted. Until then, the majority of Cork passengers to the US will continue to connect through Dublin or London:ugh:

akerosid

14th Dec 2006, 11:57

However, with Ireland hopefully entering into a new bilateral deal with the US in the near future, replacing the current one, surely this idiocy can be corrected?

One concern that arises with regard to the wider O/S issue: how long will Ireland wait; negotiations between Ireland and the US could go on for quite a while, with the result that we could lose our chance. Hopefully some action can be taken which will avoid the significant potential for growth next year being lost?

airbourne

15th Dec 2006, 05:00

Question for akerosid: EI will be making the good money at this time of year! So in the event of a tech aircraft. where do they genearally get a long haul replacment? Also, where could you get short term long haul leasing from and what are the approx rates? Did the MD11 from World a few years ago have EI cabin crew on it?

Does EI have a deal set in place for getting replacement aircraft at short notice?

Worst case senario, Will an A321 cross the pond?

Load of questions there for you!

TA!

akerosid

15th Dec 2006, 05:21

Good morning Airbourne!

As to where EI gets a spare aircraft at a busy time of the year, I think it's a question of "wherever they can"; I would imagine that they have certain sources that they call and just work down through a list; given the demand for suitable aircraft, there can't be a guaranteed source; no one is going to have a 330, 777 or MD11 just lying around for use on the spur of the moment.

They have used Corsair, North American, Martinair and others in the past, so it's really a question of asking all of these airlines at the time and hope the ageing EI 330 can be repaired asap.

As to lease rates, I really can't say.

The A321 couldn't do the pond; it's not just range, but ETOPS clearance too.

Hope that helps anyway.

akerosid

15th Dec 2006, 11:14

Aviation Letter reports that these will be:

EI-DUO Delivery May 07 A330-202
EI-DUZ Delivery June 07 A330-301*

(*I thought it had been decided that this would be a -302?)

dublinamg

15th Dec 2006, 13:43

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.

Again from IAL the 2 'extra' A320 that Dermot Mannion mentioned aren't coming until November and December. That probably means there won't be any more new routes for the Summer schedule.

akerosid

16th Dec 2006, 11:54

I was actually talking about Aviation Letter (the small A5 size magazine), as opposed to Irish Air Letter! However, since I've just got the new Irish Air Letter in the post ...

The airline says that it two new A330s "available to be deployed" in 2008, to advantage of any new developments in the Irish-US air services agreement. Hopefully, EI will know more about that next month. However, I recall DM talking about A330s becoming available in 2008 and I'm nearly sure he referred to three?

airbourne

17th Dec 2006, 04:25

After I asked about the 321, I found out the ETOPS myself anyway! But thanks.

The other thing that Im a bit curious about it the 330s itself. Obiviously the main probs are that most of the older a/c are going tech quite a lot. Why is this? The older models are only 12-13 years old! How long did their 747s fly for? Is there a fundmental problem with the 330? Or is there just a refusal by EI to update the interiors, IFE etc (yes I know weight concerns) We can all sit here and moan about the EI t/a product, but thats us? has anyone up the chain at EI noticed that theres a problem? Have any of the EI execs ever flown, BA, VS, or any of the american carriers? €3k for a premier seat, and no guarantee that the ptv will work or even the seat for that matter.

Incidently, anybody any idea of the amount of recent tech a/c in the a320 family recently?

Bearcat

17th Dec 2006, 08:28

there is no issue re 320 family going tech more....sometimes as with all feets one gets a spate of snags at the one time. 320 fleet is generally very reliable comnsidering the amoumt of hours per 24 hours they are in use.

johnrizzo2000

17th Dec 2006, 12:09

[quote=airbourne;3023855]After I asked about the 321, I found out the ETOPS myself anyway! But thanks.

The other thing that Im a bit curious about it the 330s itself. Obiviously the main probs are that most of the older a/c are going tech quite a lot. Why is this? The older models are only 12-13 years old! How long did their 747s fly for? Is there a fundmental problem with the 330? Or is there just a refusal by EI to update the interiors, IFE etc (yes I know weight concerns) We can all sit here and moan about the EI t/a product, but thats us? has anyone up the chain at EI noticed that theres a problem? Have any of the EI execs ever flown, BA, VS, or any of the american carriers? €3k for a premier seat, and no guarantee that the ptv will work or even the seat for that matter.

EI are not refusing to update their A330's! The fact is, they are fighting a major battle with FR on most of their European routes, and just got privatised, and not forgetting the FR proposed take-over! I'm sure EI are working on replacing older A330's, and updating cabins, but where are they going to get replacements????? Newer wide-body aircraft are far and few between! There isnt many 2 year old A330's or 777's lying around!!!

snipes

17th Dec 2006, 14:08

All EI 330s are being upgraded during C checks this winter. All done by March april(ish).

akerosid

17th Dec 2006, 17:13

So, all of the -200s will have PTV/updated IFE installed in Economy Class?

Also, in relation to next Summer, is the airline still hoping to have new routes to the US ready to go, or is it sticking to the current "Plan B"; it seems a terrible waste of what could be a very lucrative season to write it off, just because the regulatory issues aren't sorted out?

I guess it's a question of what aircraft it can get hold of in the short term?

airbourne

17th Dec 2006, 19:15

Yes it wil lbe interesting to see what 'make over' the 330 cabins are given. Probab just a lick of paint and some new carpet! As for PTVs? ha! No chance! Now I know Im just pissing into the wind here, but really what are the chances of EI doing anything right? For years they looked down on FR as being the crap of the industry. They had the chance to open up new routes, get new aircraft etc but no! They stuck with their average product and tried to win on the 'irish' factor! In came FR, and kicked there asses! Now Im no fan of FR, but EI only opened up more routes after FR got there first!

EI should go LGW. Feed into the traffic for VS. Afterall if you bring anything weighing more than a packet of crisps on to a FR flight you get charged through the nose! Imagine all the excess weight charges on package hols to Florida!

akerosid

17th Dec 2006, 19:25

It's a whole different ball game now for EI on long haul; if they mess things up next year - particularly as regards benefiting from a new bilateral (assuming Cullen can arm-twist the Commission into letting us have a new deal), investors will be pretty cross. EI is apparently feeling the pressure on short haul, so it's all the more vital to get long haul working properly.

What concerns me is that if there is no go on new t/a flights, what else do they have for next Summer? Sure, they have "Plan B", which is just more flights on existing routes, but what else? If - as is rumoured - SQ and/or TG fly to DUB, what's left in Asia? Sure, HKG, but given the choice between either of these airlines and EI, which would people choose; EI hasn't really invested in Y Class at all. There comes a time when you can't just depend on bargain basement fares. You can't sell all of your seats for buttons; there comes a time when you have to charge higher fares and people will just say, "well, if we have to pay (say), €1500, we'll fly with SQ, TG etc." - and the tragedy is, there's nothing either of these airlines does that EI cannot.

So, basically: let's see what happens on long haul for 2007. If (as I expect and hope), EI can expand, but instead they muck it up and growth is stunted, then it may well be time to start shopping around for new senior management ...

Bearcat

17th Dec 2006, 22:56

last two posts...spot on

Lets see how long current ceo lasts....losts of rumours there.

airbourne

17th Dec 2006, 23:42

Isnt that just great, an multimillion euro business counting on a 'plan b' if all else fails!? Typical Irish! Im not a mad fan of the fly east idea. It would take A LOT for me to fly with EI, knowing what their long haul product is like to Asia when the choice of so many other different other airlines who actually care about their Y class pax. Ok, so its a commute to the Uk or mainland Europe. But on my next trip to the US I seriously considering taking a flight to LGW for the VS flight. Its an airline that I wouldnt mind spending the extra for premium economy.

True what akerosid says, sell seats for buttons only gets you so far. So on a flight to JFK in jan its €3k in premier or €400 in economy. Im not willing to pay €3k but I am willing to pay more than €400 for a nicer seat, better service, better meals, nice staff and not having to strain my eyes to see the tv screens which may or may not drop down and even when they do the quality is better on a 15th generation porno copy VHS that you got from a school friend!:ugh:

Has DM actually ever gone anywhere t/a in premier? Is he aware of the crap service that his airline provides?

On a side note, would you pay $500 for a premier seat on the JFK - DUB flight on top of your economy price?

akerosid

18th Dec 2006, 17:29

We've heard so much in the lead up to privatisation about how "long haul is EI's best hope" (or similar), so this is the year where this is proven. With FR, even as a big shareholder, snapping at its heels, it's as important as ever.

Open Skies is the key and just thinking about it today, there are two scenarios:

- Scenario A. The EU and US meet and do a deal. In this case, we go back to the Nov 05 agreement and proceed in that manner, i.e. move to 3:1 and EI adds three new cities.

- Scenario B. The EU and US meet and fail to do a deal, or defer their negotiations to a few months down the road. In that circumstance, Ireland and the US will agree a deal to get the Nov 05 deal on the road. Why waste time; I would expect the Americans and the Irish to be talking now, so that if things between the EU and US go pear shaped at the end of January (as expected), Aer Lingus won't be held back.

This being the case and provided the govt can get an indication from the Americans that they would be open to moving forward with the deal as agreed last November, then why not just proceed on this basis and waste no time? Once the EU and US negotiations collapse, the Irish and US authorities can just move ahead; indeed, given that the deal is effectively already made, why not just agree it in advance. If there is the requisite level of commitment on all sides, but particularly on the government's side, we can get this moving. I really can't see the Americans objecting; their airlines don't enjoy the stopover any more than EI does.

If, however, we come to the end of February and nothing happens, then questions will need to be asked. It would be unforgivable, given the huge increase in t/a traffic achievable under a new bilateral. To me, that's crunch time No1. Crunch time No2 is getting the right product in place for the Summer.

That means all aircraft that can take up to date PTV should have it; the whole t/a product - not just J Class - should be revitalised and dusted down; to say that EI is unable to give a good service is ridiculous; the professionalism and experience is there; it just needs investment and a bit of imagination.

Now if those two things can be done by next Summer, then all okay; if not, then I think shareholders will start asking some very pointed questions - and I can see the first post-privatisation AGM being a blast ...

Incidentally, can anyone tell me if the new A330-300 is a -301 or a -302; the JP Airline fleets reports that it's a -302 (with an MTOW of 233t), whereas other - equally authoritative - sources report that it's a -301.