Sponsor Message:
Civil Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Ryanair And The Charleroi Controversy  
User currently offlineN79969 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Posted (10 years 7 months 1 week 2 days 8 hours ago) and read 2512 times:

I have been reading about this and have some questions. I realize that there are other threads but I want to start a real simple and discrete one.

This is my basic understanding of the situation: some airports have paid Ryanair to operate flights and competitors have complained that this unfair on the basis that they cannot obtain the same deal.

Please feel free to correct me if I am wrong.

Are these carriers complaining that they cannot get the same agreements prospectively or that they could not get them at the same time Ryanair negotiated?

If it is former, I think they have no basis to complain. If it is the latter, they have a valid point.

Thanks in advance.



7 replies: All unread, jump to last
 
User currently offlineBrusselsSouth From Belgium, joined Aug 2001, 623 posts, RR: 5
Reply 1, posted (10 years 7 months 1 week 2 days 6 hours ago) and read 2490 times:

Hi N79969,

In the case of Charleroi (and other similar airports), the problem is that the airport is public owned. So subsidies offered to Ryanair are public subsidies, which I think are considered as illegal government aids (in this case, aids from the regional Walloon government).

For their defense, Charleroi Airport (BSCA) are claiming that the same package of conditions was (and still is) available to any airline wishing to fly from the platform. Those conditions were (according to them) offfered to Virgin Express in the past, and to french LCC FlyEco recently.

Regards
BrusselsSouth


User currently offlineLj From Netherlands, joined Nov 1999, 4401 posts, RR: 0
Reply 2, posted (10 years 7 months 1 week 2 days 1 hour ago) and read 2411 times:

According to EU law any other airline should be able to get the same package of conditions (all benefits) as Ryanair if under an identical situation. However, there is another point and that is that the subsidy may only be given for a fixed (short term) period. Needless to say there is no definition of how long a subsidy may last thus plenty of work for lawyers.

User currently offlineBobrayner From United Kingdom, joined Apr 2003, 2227 posts, RR: 7
Reply 3, posted (10 years 7 months 1 week 2 days ago) and read 2318 times:

As I understand it, any other airline that wanted to provide a similar service could step up to the plate. So, why is it unfair?

For comparison - local bus services are usually unprofitable, so the local government has to subsidise them; and they often get better value by paying a private company to do it rather than by doing it in-house. If there is some kind of blanket regulation about public funding of transport services provided by a private operator, you can cancel most local bus services.

An airport authority / local government / whatever is unlikely to see any benefit in offering a subsidy package exclusively to one carrier - they lose any competition. If Ryanair were the only airline capable getting this package, they'd quickly find a way to gouge them; Ryanair would provide a much more competitive service if they know that they're replaceable. Hell, Ryanair might not even be the best airline to meet their needs; why should they keep their options closed?

Local government (&c) is often inefficient, and sometimes corrupt, but I don't think this is an example.



Cunning linguist
User currently offlineLj From Netherlands, joined Nov 1999, 4401 posts, RR: 0
Reply 4, posted (10 years 7 months 1 week 1 day 22 hours ago) and read 2257 times:

For comparison - local bus services are usually unprofitable, so the local government has to subsidise them; and they often get better value by paying a private company to do it rather than by doing it in-house. If there is some kind of blanket regulation about public funding of transport services provided by a private operator, you can cancel most local bus services.

Incorrect, local bus services are all offered in an open bidding proces (and nobody may be excluded from the bidding). The EU regulation is very clear on what is allowed and what not. In the case of Charleroi a few issues (the alledged exclusivity of the contract and the duration of the contract) led the EU to take action after complaints by competitors.

An airport authority / local government / whatever is unlikely to see any benefit in offering a subsidy package exclusively to one carrier - they lose any competition. If Ryanair were the only airline capable getting this package, they'd quickly find a way to gouge them; Ryanair would provide a much more competitive service if they know that they're replaceable. Hell, Ryanair might not even be the best airline to meet their needs; why should they keep their options closed?

There are a lot of reasons to give an exclusive contract to a certain airline. one of it that the airline in question may demand this. It depends soly who is the stronger party the airline or the airport.


User currently offlineSteph001 From Germany, joined Oct 2003, 315 posts, RR: 1
Reply 5, posted (10 years 7 months 1 week 1 day 22 hours ago) and read 2227 times:

What about subsidies to other airlines in the EU? I'm not sure about this, but I have an example that looks almost like a subsidized flight. Luxair flies daily LUX-SCN-MUC , where the LUX-SCN leg is only 100 km long (maybe I should post this in the topic about the shortest flight Smile) and I am pretty sure that they don't generate profits on that leg. Do you know if there are subsidies going to Luxair? I just want to add that it looks like Ryanair is not the only subsidized airline and that some High Cost Carriers benefit from subsidies, too.

User currently offlineLuxair_ca From Luxembourg, joined Feb 2002, 54 posts, RR: 0
Reply 6, posted (10 years 7 months 1 week 1 day 18 hours ago) and read 2129 times:

may i add something to your post Steph001

Luxair flies this flight, as it takes along a lot of passengers every day from SCN to MUC. It is just like those flights in the US where airlines make a stop somewhere, some Pax board, and they continue...that has nothing to due with subsidizing

thanks


User currently offlineN79969 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 7, posted (10 years 7 months 1 week 1 day 15 hours ago) and read 2081 times:

Thanks to all for the replies. I share Bob's (among others) view on the matter. Although the Charleroi funds may be public, I think a more nuanced viewed of the situation would not treat them as 'subsidies.' Charleroi airport is not keeping a failing business afloat. Those kinds of subsidies are bad and create harmful economic distortion.

Rather it seems that they are paying for a service that generates 'positive externalities' for the region. That is actually a wise use of public funds. If the same incentive package is available to all, then I think the fairness argument is bogus.

My next question is whether competitors are raising a dubious legal challenge to eliminate a competitor? This occured in Dallas, TX when American Airlines tried to restrict Love Field flights to mostly (or exclusivel?) intra-state service in order to protect its DFW hub.


Top Of Page
Forum Index

This topic is archived and can not be replied to any more.

Printer friendly format

Similar topics:More similar topics...
Ryanair And The 787? posted Sat Mar 11 2006 00:59:52 by Qantas744ER
Ryanair And The 717? posted Tue Jan 22 2002 11:15:51 by BestWestern
Ryanair And Its HHN Base - The Future posted Fri Apr 21 2006 23:36:59 by Pe@rson
Ryanair, STN Wait Times And The Stansted Express posted Thu Sep 4 2003 16:25:09 by Ssides
Air New Zealand And The 747's Future. posted Tue Dec 19 2006 03:54:37 by CX747
CO And The B-737 posted Mon Dec 18 2006 15:41:04 by Jetskipper
AC And The A340 posted Sat Dec 16 2006 04:29:22 by LAXdude1023
Why Ted, Song And The Like? posted Sun Dec 10 2006 17:07:25 by FlyMD
Commutair And The Q200 posted Wed Dec 6 2006 01:45:19 by BatonOps
Ryanair: Why Not Charleroi-Stansted? posted Mon Dec 4 2006 17:46:46 by Spantax