Have Cowen and Coughlan been telling the truth about Ryanair offer of 500 jobs?

[orbit]

As I understand it Aer Lingus always had legal first right to the lease and ryanair knew that.

Not sure what you mean by "legal first right".

Look at it this way. SRT had a lease that presumably gave them security of tenure. The DAA bought that lease back again when SRT left.

Aer Lingus may have had some blocking right to prevent Ryanair (or anyone they didn't want) from getting it, but the fact is they had to pay big money to buy the lease back from the state.

[COLOR="Red"]The state could have refused to sell the lease back to Aer Lingus[/COLOR] and that might have resulted in a stalemate with nobody being able to use it. But if this all played out away from the public glare, then the only rational outcome would have been the lease going to the company most able to make use of the facility, ie. Ryanair.

That is what Mary C, should have focused her attention on achieving.

[MPB]

But 97 "real" jobs in Ireland. Remember them?

1100 redundancies. Remember them?

Herr Meuller should lay off 2200 Aer Lingus staff tomorrow, then re employ half of them the next day and then claim he has created 1100 new jobs.

You would probably fall for that one as well, would,nt you, thicko!

[tonic]

Not newly created jobs, merely 97 saved from the dole queue. Stop spinning you will make yourself dizzy.

Did they already work for Aer Lingus? If the answer to that question is no, then they're new jobs. Stop trying to fit square pegs into round holes, just to suit your argument.

[tonic]

1100 redundancies. Remember them?

Herr Meuller should lay off 2200 Aer Lingus staff tomorrow, then re employ half of them the next day and then claim he has created 1100 new jobs.

You would probably fall for that one as well, would,nt you, thicko!

You've already made a fool of yourself on this matter once, leave it alone now.

[tonic]

Not sure what you mean by "legal first right".

Look at it this way. SRT had a lease that presumably gave them security of tenure. The DAA bought that lease back again when SRT left.

Aer Lingus may have had some blocking right to prevent Ryanair (or anyone they didn't want) from getting it, but the fact is they had to pay big money to buy the lease back from the state.

[COLOR="Red"]The state could have refused to sell the lease back to Aer Lingus[/COLOR] and that might have resulted in a stalemate with nobody being able to use it. But if this all played out away from the public glare, then the only rational outcome would have been the lease going to the company most able to make use of the facility, ie. Ryanair.

That is what Mary C, should have focused her attention on achieving.

Lets not look at it anyway until we know the facts of the Aer Lingus claim on the lease. All we know at the moment is that everyone is agreed that they DID have some sort of legal claim.

Why you want to make up your mind that a claim you know nothing about could have been easily overturned, is beyond me.

[greengoose2]

Did they already work for Aer Lingus? If the answer to that question is no, then they're new jobs. Stop trying to fit square pegs into round holes, just to suit your argument.

No, they worked in the Airline industry in Ireland. If they were SRT then chances are they were Team AL at some stage and depending on their age were probably AL anyway.

And if some of the latest redundancies get jobs in Mados they will not be new jobs either.

[tonic]

No, they worked in the Airline industry in Ireland. If they were SRT then chances are they were Team AL at some stage and depending on their age were probably AL anyway.

And if some of the latest redundancies get jobs in Mados they will not be new jobs either.

Excellent and expected logic. So, until we get 250,000 or so "old" jobs back, we can't have any "new" jobs.

Well done. A new high for p.ie (unless you previously reached that standard on another board)

[darkhorse]

From the start, Ryanair knew better than anyone that they had no right to hangar 6 - but they must have had so much fun watching the political establishment tear each others hair about over their fake offer of 500 jobs. MOL has a devious sense of humour and would have enjoyed the controversy immensely.
Tell me one corporation or business that would not love to see their competitors humiliated and ejected from the new HQ?
This 'job offer' was a complete fraud from the beginning and I pity any suckers who believed them.

[greengoose2]

Excellent and expected logic. So, until we get 250,000 or so "old" jobs back, we can't have any "new" jobs.

Well done. A new high for p.ie (unless you previously reached that standard on another board)

[orbit]

Lets not look at it anyway until we know the facts of the Aer Lingus claim on the lease. All we know at the moment is that everyone is agreed that they DID have some sort of legal claim.

Why you want to make up your mind that a claim you know nothing about could have been easily overturned, is beyond me.

Look again at the bit in bold and the bit in red, because those are indisputable facts. The state really didn't have to rush into selling the lease back to Aer Lingus, while it knew that a better offer was on the table from Ryanair.

At least, that's the logical explanation for what went on. Maybe, this is Alice in Wonderland, and Aer Lingus really did pay 20 million for a building that it already owned. I think that's unlikely though.

But I agree with you to this extent. The full details of the leases/agreements must be made public as soon as possible, in order to resolve this question.