FG Policy Fact Sheet

[qtman]

[quote=hiding behind a poster]

Privatisation of Aer Lingus.

Deregulation of 25% of the Dublin bus market.

Metro to Dublin Airport by 2007.

Independent competing terminals at Dublin Airport by 2007.

And this differs from current Government policy in what way?

I think you're missing my point. The fact is that all these are commitments which were made either in the 2002 election manifestos of FF and the PDs, or in the negotiated programme for Government. In terms of actual delivery, the privatisation of Aer Lingus still hasn't happened, which has not only reduced the value of the airline as international conditions worsen, but also hugely delayed the expansion plans that are essential to their survival. Instead of the deregulation of 25% of the Dublin bus market, all we have is a proposal (which still hasn't got anywhere) to deregulate 15%. As for the Airport Metro by 2007 - well, there hasn't even been a planning application lodged yet. And the independent competing terminals plan has been shelved.

My point is that given such an abysmal record of delivery, its a bit rich for the PDs to say that FG need to "start producing some meat"[/quote:1np2ojdj]

I didn't say anything about "meat".

I'm asking a simple question: in what way does FG Transport Policy differ from FF Transport Policy?

And are we seriously to believe that FG will be able to deliver on a right-wing transport agenda while they are in Government with Labour, when a FF in government with the PDs can't?

And as a rider: why is expansion necessary for the survival of Aer Lingus?

[hiding behind a poster]

I'm asking a simple question: in what way does FG Transport Policy differ from FF Transport Policy?

Well that wasn't really the initial question, and anyway there aren't massive differences - the problem is that the current government's failure to deliver has made the transport problems we face far worse.


[quote:3o3xhv78]And are we seriously to believe that FG will be able to deliver on a right-wing transport agenda while they are in Government with Labour,

The key aspect of a transport policy is not whether its right-wing or left-wing - its whether it will solve the massive transport problems that we face. Anyway, a common transport policy position will be agreed between FG and Labour prior to the election, so there's no reason to believe they won't deliver it in power.

And as a rider: why is expansion necessary for the survival of Aer Lingus

[/quote:3o3xhv78]

Big issue, that..... :wink: But, in short -

1) The airline industry in Europe is moving towards consolidation into a smaller number of larger carriers - Aer Lingus needs to expand into one of those to avoid being taken over.

2) The upcoming Open Skies agreement will allow far greater access to the Irish and European market for US carriers, as more destinations will be able to serve/be served by Irish airports. Aer Lingus needs more long-haul aircraft in its fleet in order to be able to compete on those routes, and routes to the Middle East and Far East - as long-haul is the most consistent profit generator for a flag-carrier airline.

3) If Ryanair continues to expand at its present rate, and Aer Lingus stands still, Aer Lingus will simply be blown out of the water on Irish routes to the UK and Europe - particularly when extra terminal capacity finally comes on stream at Dublin. Indeed the only reason Aer Lingus were able to get a foothold on the low-cost European routes was because of Ryanair's row with the DAA over a second terminal at Dublin - if Ryanair had started more European routes a year or two earlier, Aer Lingus (still restructuring at the time) would've struggled to keep up. Fact is that a Ryanair that's much bigger than Aer Lingus would be able to simply train its guns on Aer Lingus and blow them away - unless Aer Lingus expands to keep up.

[qtman]

1) The airline industry in Europe is moving towards consolidation into a smaller number of larger carriers - Aer Lingus needs to expand into one of those to avoid being taken over.

Is it now? Can you highlight one major acquisition or takeover in the last 3 years? And how do you explain the explosion of small low cost airlines? And how would a privatised Aer Lingus, which would still be a very small airline in the European market, be protected from takeover, even if there was a tendency towards consolidation? Surely, the best protection rests in state ownership?

2) The upcoming Open Skies agreement will allow far greater access to the Irish and European market for US carriers, as more destinations will be able to serve/be served by Irish airports. Aer Lingus needs more long-haul aircraft in its fleet in order to be able to compete on those routes, and routes to the Middle East and Far East - as long-haul is the most consistent profit generator for a flag-carrier airline.

Why do we need privatisation to buy more long-haul aircraft? Aer Lingus could secure corporate finance at the same rate as would be expected in ROI from a public equity placement.

And long haul air transport will only be profitable (and popular) for another 10-15 years. You are aware of the the current trend in oil prices?

3) If Ryanair continues to expand at its present rate, and Aer Lingus stands still, Aer Lingus will simply be blown out of the water on Irish routes to the UK and Europe - particularly when extra terminal capacity finally comes on stream at Dublin. Indeed the only reason Aer Lingus were able to get a foothold on the low-cost European routes was because of Ryanair's row with the DAA over a second terminal at Dublin - if Ryanair had started more European routes a year or two earlier, Aer Lingus (still restructuring at the time) would've struggled to keep up. Fact is that a Ryanair that's much bigger than Aer Lingus would be able to simply train its guns on Aer Lingus and blow them away - unless Aer Lingus expands to keep up.

Firstly, Aer Lingus does not compete in the same market as Ryanair, and I fail to see how a privatised Aer Lingus will be in any way better equipped to deal with competition than a publically-owned Aer Lingus, particuarly when Aer Lingus is coping perfectly well with the threat from Ryanair on the few routes that it does share with them.

Public equity markets demand far higher returns on investment than state-sponsored investment, and it is possible for private companies to go under too, you know.

[Gladstone]

WHY do we need bus compitition? Can't we just invest in Dublin bus? DB is not THAT bad that we need to dump them for private operaters I think they provide a pretty good service actually.

[Sidewinder]

WHY do we need bus compitition?

Because competition is always good, the Free Market is always perfect, and anyone who suggests that some socially important assets should be in State hands to ensure they benefit the people and not investor's pockets is a mad Stalinist that will usher in a dark age of poverty, oppression and gulags if they ever got into power. Obviously.

[factual]

WHY do we need bus compitition?

Because competition is always good, the Free Market is always perfect, and anyone who suggests that some socially important assets should be in State hands to ensure they benefit the people and not investor's pockets is a mad Stalinist that will usher in a dark age of poverty, oppression and gulags if they ever got into power. Obviously.

Its important to ditinguish between competition and ownership. So a firm that faces competition will behave in a different way, even if it is state owned.

The problem for me is not the totem of ownership, but the problem that competition can result in the entrants cherry-picking high income and populated parts of town getting a great service and those who live in poor and deprived areas getting very little. I think its for these reasons that Sinn Fein generally would oppose too much competition in bus routes.