Sponsor Message:
Civil Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Ryanair Asked To Refund EUR 4m To CRL  
User currently offlineBrusselsSouth From Belgium, joined Aug 2001, 623 posts, RR: 5
Posted (9 years 7 months 2 weeks 6 hours ago) and read 2656 times:

Hi all,

Just read in the news (Belgian newspaper Le Soir, article here : http://www.lesoir.be/rubriques/eco/page_5171_252467.shtml (only in French)), that Charleroi Airport (BSCA) is to send a letter to Ryanair in the next few days, asking FR to refund EUR 4 million of illegal aids.

David Gering, Ryanair's sales director for Benelux (Belgium, Netherlands, Luxembourg), acknowledged that the amount of the refund had to be fixed before September 15th, although he refused to comment on the exact amount. He also told that Ryanair would pay on time, while waiting for the result of their appeal.

Gering sees an "enormous potential for growth" at CRL, but only if Ryanair can negociate a new deal with BSCA. Among the arguments of Gering :

- We consider our aircrafts to be buses with wings, and think they shouldn't pay to stop there or there.
- We bring so much to the local economy that we shouldn't have to pay to use the airport.


Regards
BrusselsSouth

41 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlineAirblue From San Marino, joined May 2001, 1825 posts, RR: 11
Reply 1, posted (9 years 7 months 2 weeks 6 hours ago) and read 2611 times:

- We bring so much to the local economy that we shouldn't have to pay to use the airport.

So also all the big factories bring so much to the local economy...why they should pay the tax??




User currently offlineJGPH1A From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 2, posted (9 years 7 months 2 weeks 6 hours ago) and read 2601 times:

Expect loud swearing noises from the direction of Dublin anytime now !

Re FR thinking they're so special they shouldn't have to pay for the airport ? FR are the people that NEED the airport - after all, the city of Charleroi didn't build the airport so it would have a fun place to hang out on Sunday afternoons - they built it so planes could land ! Buses don't (or shouldn't) need special roads - they use roads that were there anyway (most of the time).

Presumably FR pay ATC user fees when their planes fly across national air space. Do they have a problem with that too ? After all, the air was always there, nobody built it. What they are paying for, to ATC and Airports, is for the INFRASTRUCTURE without which they cannot operate safely.

This whole "We're doing you a huge favour flying to your crappy no-account airport so kiss our arse" attitude that FR have is just nauseating. FR fly to CRL because they MAKE MONEY doing so - bitching about the landing fees etc is just trying to make MORE money. They need to learn that they're not that special.


User currently offlineMrniji From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 3, posted (9 years 7 months 2 weeks 6 hours ago) and read 2586 times:

- We consider our aircrafts to be buses with wings, and think they shouldn't pay to stop there or there.
- We bring so much to the local economy that we shouldn't have to pay to use the airport.


 Big thumbs up Man, now they are driving crazy! Airblue got it correct.. willsee what MOL and Pe@rson will say!  Big thumbs up


User currently offlineBCAL From United Kingdom, joined Jun 2004, 3384 posts, RR: 17
Reply 4, posted (9 years 7 months 2 weeks 6 hours ago) and read 2562 times:

I might be wrong but I think before FR started flying into CRL, hardly anybody used the airport and no airlines had any regular services to/from there. So what is wrong by offering an incentive for an airline to become the first major carrier hoping that this will attract others to follow and/or local businesses to benefit from the influx of visitors?

CRL offered FR an incentive. FR accepted. CRL saw traffic start and grow. Both were happy. So FR should not refund a single euro, let alone 4 million.




MOL on SRB's latest attack at BA: "It's like a little Chihuahua barking at a dying Labrador. Nobody cares."
User currently offlineSabena 690 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 5, posted (9 years 7 months 2 weeks 6 hours ago) and read 2553 times:

@BCAL: why do I and the other taxpayers have to pay for the people flying to/from CRL on FR?

The support given to FR is so big that it is only logic that they have to pay a small part back.

Take away all the support this airline get's, and I'd be surprised if their profits would still be as big as they now are with tickets being sold for peanuts at the taxpayers' cost.

Frederic


User currently offlineMrniji From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 6, posted (9 years 7 months 2 weeks 5 hours ago) and read 2512 times:

So what is wrong by offering an incentive for an airline to become the first major carrier hoping that this will attract others to follow and/or local businesses to benefit from the influx of visitors?

CRL offered FR an incentive. FR accepted. CRL saw traffic start and grow. Both were happy. So FR should not refund a single euro, let alone 4 million.


 Big thumbs up !!!  Big thumbs up !!! You guys always appeal for fair competition.. as sabena says, why giving a govt subsidy, market-disorting.. why should others pay?? Weird comment!  Big thumbs up



User currently offlineBCAL From United Kingdom, joined Jun 2004, 3384 posts, RR: 17
Reply 7, posted (9 years 7 months 2 weeks 5 hours ago) and read 2504 times:

@Sabena 690: In the same way as you are asking why you and other taxpayers have to pay for the people flying to/from CRL on FR, I must ask why my taxes go on things that I totally disapprove of. For starters, why should I pay for the people traveling on Virgin Trains, who are partly subsidized in the UK? The Italians might be asking why they should pay for the people flying on Alitalia too. The list is endless and the only people who can answer are the politicians and civil servants.




MOL on SRB's latest attack at BA: "It's like a little Chihuahua barking at a dying Labrador. Nobody cares."
User currently offlineMrniji From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 8, posted (9 years 7 months 2 weeks 4 hours ago) and read 2474 times:

. For starters, why should I pay for the people traveling on Virgin Trains, who are partly subsidized in the UK? The Italians might be asking why they should pay for the people flying on Alitalia too

You can't compare apples and ostrish eggs..


User currently offlineAirblue From San Marino, joined May 2001, 1825 posts, RR: 11
Reply 9, posted (9 years 7 months 2 weeks 3 hours ago) and read 2433 times:

The Italians might be asking why they should pay for the people flying on Alitalia too. The list is endless and the only people who can answer are the politicians and civil servants.

First of all I want to point out I'm against to any more subsidies to Alitalia.

But at least Alitalia give a job to 22.000 Italian family. Ryanair hasn't any employees in CRL cause they work with Irish contract and mainly the 50 F/As and 25 pilots based there are not Belgian.



User currently offlineBrusselsSouth From Belgium, joined Aug 2001, 623 posts, RR: 5
Reply 10, posted (9 years 7 months 1 week 6 days 12 hours ago) and read 2364 times:

Hi,

I have nothing against Ryanair, as I have nothing against incentives from an airport for attracting an airline, as long as law is respected. Let's not forget that if FR has to pay back some subsidies, that's only because those subsidies were judged illegal by an european court.

Public subsidies are welcome on specific routes, such as the Public Service Obligation (PSO) routes in the UK, where an essential air service to remote islands (Barra comes to mind) could not be profitably sustained. (see http://www.dft.gov.uk/stellent/groups/dft_aviation/documents/page/dft_aviation_508138.hcsp) But it's of course not the case of the routes FR flies from CRL.

I support the development of CRL but not at any price. The taxpayers' money would be better spent in promoting the airport or creating efficient ground links to it, rather than focusing on offering incredible incentives to one operator, leading to a situation where FR are (almost) the only customer. Don't forget that nothing prevents Ryanair from leaving completely the airport if they can't get what they want. What would be the return on the public investment in such an event ? Fortunately, I recently saw signs that BSCA management were aware of this, trying to focus more on attracting new customers.

Finally, while I don't discuss the fact that the arrival of FR had a positive impact on local economy, I just don't think the extent of this benefit is so large. First, the destinations offered by FR from CRL are mainly leisure destinations (with some exceptions). Secondly, the vast majority of passengers landing at CRL go to Brussels. Third, the kind of businesses in the Charleroi area are not especially interested in low-cost international airlinks. Fourth, the amount of good, solid jobs created is low compared to the amount of money invested in FR.

Just my opinion.
Regards
BrusselsSouth


User currently offlinePe@rson From United Kingdom, joined Jan 2001, 19097 posts, RR: 53
Reply 11, posted (9 years 7 months 1 week 6 days 10 hours ago) and read 2308 times:

Isn't it odd how governments didn't mind using huge amounts of taxpayers money - probably into billions to pay for state-run carriers, yet nowadays they're complaining about small subsidies? A little unfair and contradictory, I think. Shouldn't the governments repay the taxpayers for all the money they've used to support their state-controlled airlines? I think so. Hell, I could go on FR probably 10 times after that payment.


"Everyone writing for the Telegraph knows that the way to grab eyeballs is with Ryanair and/or sex."
User currently offlineBestWestern From Hong Kong, joined Sep 2000, 6953 posts, RR: 57
Reply 12, posted (9 years 7 months 1 week 6 days 10 hours ago) and read 2303 times:

Pearson... Two wrongs don't make a right.

FR have been found in a court of law to have illegally received taxpayer money. They should repay it, and will do so.








The world is really getting smaller these days
User currently offlinePe@rson From United Kingdom, joined Jan 2001, 19097 posts, RR: 53
Reply 13, posted (9 years 7 months 1 week 6 days 9 hours ago) and read 2297 times:

And governments who spent billions of taxpayers money on state-owned and run airlines should also have to repay it. Hardly a just situation. Still, the 4m EUR is nothing compared to what the governments spent on their airlines, and FR will repay it.

[Edited 2004-09-09 12:15:41]


"Everyone writing for the Telegraph knows that the way to grab eyeballs is with Ryanair and/or sex."
User currently offlineSabenapilot From Belgium, joined Feb 2000, 2714 posts, RR: 47
Reply 14, posted (9 years 7 months 1 week 6 days 9 hours ago) and read 2284 times:

governments who spent billions of taxpayers money on state-owned airlines should also have to repay it.

So let me get this clear:
You are saying a SHAREHOLDER should not be allowed to invest in his OWN company?
 Nuts


User currently offlinePe@rson From United Kingdom, joined Jan 2001, 19097 posts, RR: 53
Reply 15, posted (9 years 7 months 1 week 6 days 9 hours ago) and read 2277 times:

What? I am saying it was unfair that billions of taxpayers' money was spent on state-run airlines, yet governments are nowadays complaining when FR receives small subsidies - so small in fact that it seems laughable when compared to the amounts spent by governments on state-run airlines. If FR has to repay it, so should the governments.


"Everyone writing for the Telegraph knows that the way to grab eyeballs is with Ryanair and/or sex."
User currently offlineBestWestern From Hong Kong, joined Sep 2000, 6953 posts, RR: 57
Reply 16, posted (9 years 7 months 1 week 6 days 9 hours ago) and read 2268 times:

Pearson... again two wrongs dont make a right. If an airline can get investment to turn itself around from its shareholder. thats OK, if an investor would do the same. In this case, I'm thinking EI and IB (who eventually got their act together).

Its not OK in terms of AZ and OA, who have abused the situation, and who should have followed SN down the restructure route. They should be forced to repay the loans. Nobody in their right minds would invest in those carriers.



The world is really getting smaller these days
User currently offlineSabenapilot From Belgium, joined Feb 2000, 2714 posts, RR: 47
Reply 17, posted (9 years 7 months 1 week 6 days 9 hours ago) and read 2265 times:

Again Pearson,

are you saying a SHAREHOLDER may not invest in his OWN company then, if that shareholder happens to be a government?  Nuts

And what is exactly your point in your last reply?

Simply because it WAS unfair that billions of taxpayers' money WAS spent on state-run airlines (note the past tenses you've used yourself), we should all just shut up and not complain about proportionally smaller sums FR receives (note the present tense)?

So you are using things from the past, which you happen to boo yourself over and over again on this forum, to justify wrongdoing today?  Nuts








User currently offlineBestWestern From Hong Kong, joined Sep 2000, 6953 posts, RR: 57
Reply 18, posted (9 years 7 months 1 week 6 days 9 hours ago) and read 2253 times:

Sabena Pilot... OA and AZ should be forced to return some investment money, even if it was in the past. These carriers should no longer be operating, as they are not viable, unlike the new EI, IB and SN - three profitable airlines.


The world is really getting smaller these days
User currently offlinePe@rson From United Kingdom, joined Jan 2001, 19097 posts, RR: 53
Reply 19, posted (9 years 7 months 1 week 6 days 9 hours ago) and read 2243 times:

The fact is FR will repay what it must. There is no doubting that. I think it’s unfair that governments – past and present from England to wherever else – have spent huge amounts of taxpayers’ money to run state airlines. I believe that airlines should be private enterprises and so should not use taxpayers’ money. This is just my personal opinion. But as I’ve said, FR will repay what it must and that’s all that matters.  Smile


"Everyone writing for the Telegraph knows that the way to grab eyeballs is with Ryanair and/or sex."
User currently offlineDonder10 From Canada, joined Oct 2001, 6659 posts, RR: 22
Reply 20, posted (9 years 7 months 1 week 6 days 9 hours ago) and read 2234 times:

You are saying a SHAREHOLDER should not be allowed to invest in his OWN company?


Could say the same about the local(Wallonia?)government and CRL.
Has CRL started construction on expanding the terminal yet?


User currently offlineBestWestern From Hong Kong, joined Sep 2000, 6953 posts, RR: 57
Reply 21, posted (9 years 7 months 1 week 6 days 9 hours ago) and read 2233 times:

Pearson.. I agree - They should be private operations, and free from all government intervention on a commercial front. (Route restrictions, bilaterals, etc)




The world is really getting smaller these days
User currently offlinePe@rson From United Kingdom, joined Jan 2001, 19097 posts, RR: 53
Reply 22, posted (9 years 7 months 1 week 6 days 8 hours ago) and read 2216 times:

Are you being sarcastic, BW? It's very hard to tell with you.  Wink/being sarcastic


"Everyone writing for the Telegraph knows that the way to grab eyeballs is with Ryanair and/or sex."
User currently offlineVfw614 From Germany, joined Dec 2001, 3905 posts, RR: 5
Reply 23, posted (9 years 7 months 1 week 6 days 8 hours ago) and read 2215 times:

Under European law, there are subsidies which are illegal and subsidies which are legal. Those who receive illegal subsidies, for example because they strike some under-the-table deals, have to repay them. Those who follow the rules, don't have to repay them. Simple as that.

User currently offlineSolnabo From Sweden, joined Jan 2008, 847 posts, RR: 2
Reply 24, posted (9 years 7 months 1 week 6 days 8 hours ago) and read 2203 times:

Ryanair to start ticketselling for 1 (one)Skr!!!! Hell, not even a quarter.....

From Skavsta and Västerås. To.....I dunno Big grin

SAS, start to dig you´re grave  Big grin

Micke



Airbus SAS - Love them both
25 BestWestern : "Are you being sarcastic, BW? It's very hard to tell with you. " Sarcastic... moi... In this Case... I wasn't being sarcastic... Governments dont run
26 JGPH1A : Re: one profitable route (FCO LIN) - a route I'm still surprised FR havent started flying x10 daily. Don't be silly - that would be a route people act
27 BestWestern : What I really mean is CIA BGY service at a similar frequency to STN PIK or STN DUB. If they can fill flights on STN PIK they can fill flights on CIA B
28 Post contains images QIguy24 : Solnabo, They have done that several times now. And I still haven't seen SAS gone dugging it's own grave yet
29 JGPH1A : BW I can't see BGY-CIA being quite as convenient as LIN-FCO. LIN is downtown, minutes from the centre of Milan, and FCO has the train to the centre of
30 TW741 : First of all I´d like to say hello to this community - in fact I just payed the membership for having the possibility to say some words on FR and the
31 Pe@rson : Mr JPG & Mr BW - I don't personally see a CIA-BGY service materialising, but I do hope it does! CIA is quite a bit closer to central Rome than FCO. Th
32 BestWestern : Ryanair will start a CIA BGY service within 12 months, and it will be a success. As a frequent CIA user when a good LCC served it from STN, its a grea
33 Pe@rson : I have no doubt that it'd be a success, but I'm interested in your source about it starting within 12 months.
34 Airblue : Milan-Rome is a business route where people ask frequencies and flexibility. Leisure pax like more the train that in Italy is very cheap compared to o
35 Post contains links BrusselsSouth : Hi again, As I wrote in my initial post, BSCA (the CRL airport authority) was to send a letter to Ryanair asking them to pay pack EUR 4 million of sub
36 BestWestern : The same thing about leisure passengers taking the train could be said for the UK 8 years ago. Ryanair have an excellent network of cities in Italy, p
37 TW741 : BrusselsSouth: Now, it's pure MOL style. I personally find such an attitude scandalous. What do you think ? It is just another statement showing in a
38 BCAL : BrusselsSouth: Now, it's pure MOL style. I personally find such an attitude scandalous. What do you think ? I personally admire MOL for being so bold
39 BrusselsSouth : Being direct doest not prevent from staying polite. We haven't received any letter, but if we do I think it would get a pretty short reply. I think it
40 Airblue : The same thing about leisure passengers taking the train could be said for the UK 8 years ago You don't know the Italian situation. In two years the j
41 BestWestern : Air Blue - AZ are fleecing passengers between Rome and Milan with stupidly high fares. This is why FR will work. The cheapest current AZ Rome Milan re
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 Asked To Transfer Rome Flights This Winter posted Wed Jul 18 2007 17:29:45 by Revo
AF Asked To Stop Deporting Immigrants posted Fri Jul 13 2007 12:10:22 by BuyantUkhaa
Will We See Ryanair Flights To Kosice Or Poprad? posted Fri Jul 6 2007 19:19:13 by SlovakFlight
Ryanair Set To Fly From Belfast City posted Mon Jun 25 2007 12:57:34 by BHD
Ryanair To Use 747 To Canary Islands!? posted Sun Oct 8 2006 21:06:53 by EZYAirbus
Ryanair To Allow Passengers To Use Mobile Phones posted Wed Aug 30 2006 11:52:17 by EI787
Ryanair Reduce NQY In Response To Fees posted Tue Nov 8 2005 13:22:53 by 7LBAC111
Ryanair To PIK - What To Expect? posted Wed Apr 16 2003 00:32:33 by Caravelle
Ryanair Q1 Profit Up 68% To €39 000 000 posted Tue Aug 6 2002 09:56:53 by Singapore_Air
Ryanair "to Cry" To Get Lower Airport Fee! posted Mon Mar 11 2002 11:43:14 by Airblue