New Irish aviation lobby group

[Grounded]

A new Irish aviation lobby group has been established, to push for a recognition of aviation's potential as a catalyst for economic development and growth. The group has been established by a small group of aviation industry observers - who have no commercial connections, nor are we influenced by any other organisation - has developed a series of policies intended to tackle obstacles to aviation's ability to achieve its potential as a growth contributor.

Please feel free to visit our website at www.grounded-ireland.com , where you can find our policies and proposals.

I've been involved in aviation issues for a number of years; indeed, I began lobbying on the Shannon stopover as far back as 1991; did I ever think I'd have to wait 14 years for it to wind down? No, but you've got to press on. What amazes me is that one would think that a country like Ireland, given that we are an island on the periphery of Europe (let's call a spade a spade) would place a priority on having an aggressively growth driven aviation policy. But, as you've seen on other threads and posts, progress has been like extracting teeth from an unanaesthetised shark.

You'll also notice on our website that we've developed a "Policy Help" section, the objective of which is to work with the major political parties to help them to develop aviation policies. We don't want to write the policies for them; we want to encourage them to consider the potential of this area and develop a set of policy proposals that can support, not obstruct or limit, economic growth.

[Lurker]

Link does not work.

Can you post an alternative?

[Conor]

Link fixed.

[TheBanned]

Isn't aviation the biggest contributor (on a per passenger mile basis) to global warming?

Shouldn't countries all unite to discourage tourism, because on a net basis it contributes very little if anything to countries like Ireland or Britain.

Couldn't a lot of business travel be replaced by telecommunications?
Why is aviation fuel so lightly taxed?

[qtman]

We don't want to write the policies for them; we want to encourage them to consider the potential of this area and develop a set of policy proposals that can support, not obstruct or limit, economic growth.

I've just read your policy section. Its very vague, and pumped with all sorts of 'speak'; maybe its just me, but I have no idea what you are actually proposing. Surely a lobby group must have some sort of proposals?

My impression is that you are a front for Ryanair. Where do you stand on ownership of state aviation assets? I don't think its realistic for you to ignore questions of idealogy.

[Grounded]

Let me take the points one by one.

Firstly, what's "speak"?

Secondly, we're not a front for anyone. We are a completely independent group of aviation industry observers. We aren't connected with any commercial organisation, we don't act for them and we don't stand to gain in any way from anything we advocate - financially or otherwise.

Thirdly, we're not particularly guided by ideology. One of the problems we have identified is that aviation has, for so long, been a prisoner of other political considerations, or subject to political horse trading of some sort and that is the case today; to our knowledge, no one has ever said: look aviation can deliver growth, let's let it. Let's look at what we need it to deliver and identify what the obstacles to this are.

If you want to press the point on ideology (and I'll get to the question of the sale of state assets in a moment), let me put my cards on the table ... quite literally in this case. If you were to write all of the various departments of government on a cards and set them down on the table, then identify which ones could contribute most AT THE LEAST COST, which would they be? I submit that aviation is pretty well top of the list. Look at what it can deliver and the cost of making it do so is not huge, even significant, financially. It's a question of taking the brakes off it and actually letting it fly ... so to speak! Given the cost of the other major departments - health, education etc, it seems very odd - and unwise - not to let something which can make a huge contribution to economic development do so.

As to state assets, I believe that airports, themselves, should be retained within state control, because they are primary generators of economic growth BUT the terminals themselves should be operated independently, with competition. This can be made to work. As for Aer Lingus, I believe it should be privatised; I am, frankly, appalled at people who call themselves socialist, advocating state investment in Aer Lingus, which would be at the expense of areas like education, law enforcement and health, which need it. A strong Aer Lingus, serving our national needs, can attract outside investment and can develop, but we've seen the effects of the dead hand of government interference and ideological obstacles.

Well, that's enough for now, I think!

[david]

What’re gonna do when the oil runs out?

[david]

What’re gonna do when the oil runs out?

" "

Right.

[watch-this-drive]

Isn't aviation the biggest contributor (on a per passenger mile basis) to global warming?

I dont think so, I saw some figures before that said Car drivers are worse

[watch-this-drive]

What’re gonna do when the oil runs out?

David - did you read the Economist special section on this about a week ago?
It basically said nobody alive is going to live longer enough to see that and similar to the stone age (it didnt end because people ran out of stones)
the oil age isnt going to end because people run out of oil.