https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-46152849

We know someone who is not going to be happy.

"It is unfortunate that the state had to take such action, which led to the inevitable inconvenience of the 149 passengers on board the immobilised plane," the French civil aviation authority said.

Apparently first time a Ryanair aircraft is seized. The message sent here is strong.
Aircraft visibly being EI-EBG (base STN), still grounded at BOD for now.

They should outsource their planes into another entity to avoid such actions.

Fantastic news! Have waited for this to happen.

When do the Dutch do the same in Eindhoven Airport?

kalvado wrote:

So this is over a subsidy paid to FR by a regional airport - which later deemed illegal... Good luck to the airport ever getting any service again...

So, let me get this straight...the French regional airport paid ~$500,000 to RyanAir which was later deemed illegal by the European Union...so the French Government seized the British Aircraft?

I'm so against Brexit, but the European Union is absolutely out of control. The people who paid the money are the ones who broke a law. RyanAir accepted the money, one assumes, in good faith (or their lawyers should be fired, fiduciary duty and all) that this was above board.

Lunacy, absolute lunacy.

[photoid][/photoid]

Zaf wrote:

They should outsource their planes into another entity to avoid such actions.

Or they could comply with the court's order and pay what they were ordered to pay.

WorldFlier wrote:

kalvado wrote:

So this is over a subsidy paid to FR by a regional airport - which later deemed illegal... Good luck to the airport ever getting any service again...

So, let me get this straight...the French regional airport paid ~$500,000 to RyanAir which was later deemed illegal by the European Union...so the French Government seized the British Aircraft?

I'm so against Brexit, but the European Union is absolutely out of control. The people who paid the money are the ones who broke a law. RyanAir accepted the money, one assumes, in good faith (or their lawyers should be fired, fiduciary duty and all) that this was above board.

Lunacy, absolute lunacy.

errrr.....Ryanair is Irish, not British. Has absolutely nothing, nothing to do with Brexit....

Ryanair has paid the €525,000 to get its aircraft released. Why not pay up in time and avoid all the problems? Because Ryanair thought they could get away with it.

Thibault973 wrote:

Or they could comply with the court's order and pay what they were ordered to pay.

I don't actually see how this is a matter for FR. Presumably the Airport paid the subsidy to FR in good faith and FR took that money and used it assuming that it was legitimate. If a subsequent EU decision rules that the Airport paid an illegal subsidy then the EU should prosecute the Airport.

DALCE wrote:

WorldFlier wrote:

kalvado wrote:

So this is over a subsidy paid to FR by a regional airport - which later deemed illegal... Good luck to the airport ever getting any service again...

So, let me get this straight...the French regional airport paid ~$500,000 to RyanAir which was later deemed illegal by the European Union...so the French Government seized the British Aircraft?

I'm so against Brexit, but the European Union is absolutely out of control. The people who paid the money are the ones who broke a law. RyanAir accepted the money, one assumes, in good faith (or their lawyers should be fired, fiduciary duty and all) that this was above board.

Lunacy, absolute lunacy.

errrr.....Ryanair is Irish, not British. Has absolutely nothing, nothing to do with Brexit....

Sure does have things to do with Brexit. It is the EU's abuse of power forcing a sovereign nation to act as "debt-collector" for a fictitious crime.

WorldFlier wrote:

So, let me get this straight...the French regional airport paid ~$500,000 to RyanAir which was later deemed illegal by the European Union...so the French Government seized the British Aircraft?

I'm so against Brexit, but the European Union is absolutely out of control. The people who paid the money are the ones who broke a law. RyanAir accepted the money, one assumes, in good faith (or their lawyers should be fired, fiduciary duty and all) that this was above board.

Lunacy, absolute lunacy.

Great rant. Shame it's all completely off target.

Eurohub wrote:

I don't actually see how this is a matter for FR. Presumably the Airport paid the subsidy to FR in good faith and FR took that money and used it assuming that it was legitimate. If a subsequent EU decision rules that the Airport paid an illegal subsidy then the EU should prosecute the Airport.

Let me explain. FR as a company operating in the EU should comply with EU law. That includes refunding subsidies that they shouldn’t have gotten in the first place.

The state aid given by the airport was deemed illegal as it didn’t meet the criteria for acceptable state aid. Ryanair took the money and was told to pay it back and didn’t, so like anyone recovering a debt, they are entitled to seize an asset to get paid (it happens quite often). The asset was a Boeing 737 and it was seized, the debt was repaid. Nothing to do with Brexit, has everything to do with illegal state aid being repaid

chunhimlai wrote:

When do the Dutch do the same in Eindhoven Airport?

When Ryanair refuses to pay there as well, I'm sure they will. However it's too early for that, you got to give them a chance to pay. Payment is usually done within a month, and the month isn't over yet.

Jetty wrote:

Eurohub wrote:

I don't actually see how this is a matter for FR. Presumably the Airport paid the subsidy to FR in good faith and FR took that money and used it assuming that it was legitimate. If a subsequent EU decision rules that the Airport paid an illegal subsidy then the EU should prosecute the Airport.

Let me explain. FR as a company operating in the EU should comply with EU law. That includes refunding subsidies that they shouldn’t have gotten in the first place.

Very true. In this case it turned out Ryanair did have the money to pay it back, only they didn't want to. But when they had to, they did. All at once.

I'm sure if they didn't have the money anymore, which could be the case with smaller airlines, an arrangement could have been made. They could have paid it back in terms. That would have been acceptable. Only because Ryanair was stupid enough to not pay at all, they lost their aircraft.

kalvado wrote:

Good luck to the airport ever getting any service again...

It's not the fault of the airport, they're bound to the law as well. It appears they wanted to give a subsidy to Ryanair, only they weren't allowed to do so.

Besides, with the number of aircraft that Ryanair has, they got to fly them somewhere. Sooner or later they end up at that airport again. The difference is that Ryanair is no longer in a position to demand, they're in a position to accept. The airport can set the terms and if Ryanair doesn't accept they don't have anywhere to fly their aircraft.

kalvado wrote:

Assuming money were used to actually provide service - which is possible even if one considers FR to be a public enemy - that leaves private company on a hook for actions of government entity, as provided services cannot be taken back.

I'd say FR is on a hook for actions of themselves. When receiving a subsidy they could do their due diligence to confirm that the potential subsidy is legal and thereby avoid this situation. Even if you consider them on a hook for actions of a government: a court has to confirm the governments action if FR uses their legal options.

FR took a gamble and lost. Nothing new BTW. Apple payed $ 15 billion in a similar situation: https://www.theverge.com/2017/12/4/1673 ... -agreement

Besides all the discussion about legal/illegal subsidies, I personally found the fact of 500.000€ subsidies by an airport that size extremely irritating. It's a lot of money and I'm struggling to see benefits and added values in it. Maybe someone can help me out here?

Both parties should be held responsible: Bordeaux for paying and Ryanair for accepting; both have been in the EU long enough to know that the Sardinians have to eat carzu mazu on the downlow, so why, if the members of the EU act as one, would both entities participate in a transaction that would raise eyebrows no matter where it is?

idlewild wrote:

Both parties should be held responsible: Bordeaux for paying and Ryanair for accepting; both have been in the EU long enough to know that the Sardinians have to eat carzu mazu on the downlow, so why, if the members of the EU act as one, would both entities participate in a transaction that would raise eyebrows no matter where it is?

It was Angouleme airport that paid, not Bordeaux.

Angouleme-Cognac Airport lost 65% of its passengers between 2006 and 2007, and 78% between 2003 and 2007 (source: https://www.aeroport.fr/view-statistiqu ... champniers). So, they were trying to revive the traffic.
However, Ryanair left in 2010 after the subsidies dried out, they left ANG. Which meant they should not have started it in the first place as it was not financially sustainable.

In any case, Ryanair was told to pay by a tribunal, chose to ignore it; they lost, I'm not going to cry for them.

errrr.....Ryanair is Irish, not British. Has absolutely nothing, nothing to do with Brexit....

Um, yeah, that's what I was thinking, too.

Yes it is a very simple case. Ryanair got a huge subsidy to fly between Angouleme and London. In 2010 they stopped that fly but wanted to keep the full subsidy....
https://www.theguardian.com/business/2018/nov/09/ryanair-plane-held-in-france-to-end-long-row-over-illegal-subsidies

The aircraft has been released and flew back home to STN

euroflyer wrote:

The aircraft has been released and flew back home to STN

after FR paid what they were supposed to. Hopefully they'll learn a lesson out of this. If you want to do business somewhere then you oblige by the local laws. Pretty simple really.

WorldFlier wrote:

Sure does have things to do with Brexit. It is the EU's abuse of power forcing a sovereign nation to act as "debt-collector" for a fictitious crime.

I still don't see how France impounding an Irish registered aircraft has anything to do with Brexit.

Maybe if you rant a little more...

Clarification? Is this Ryanairs fault? Did they know that Bordeaux gave them it illegally or not?

With Ryanair on this one.

They got the subsidy to pay for those flights and they ran the them. If the subsidies were illegal the French authorities should be punished, not get the money back.

3AWM wrote:

With Ryanair on this one.

They got the subsidy to pay for those flights and they ran the them. If the subsidies were illegal the French authorities should be punished, not get the money back.

I'n no defender of FR but in this instance I have to agree, the money was paid to FR, they accepted in good faith and provided the flights, now the subsidy has been ruled illegal the local council wants their money back. If you follow this through FR should be able to claim from the people who flew at less than cost price due to the subsidy, in turn they should be able to claim back from the local businesses they spent their holiday cash at.
Of course its all farcical, the people who paid the illegal subsidy to FR should not only lose their money, but should also be fined for handing it over in the 1st place.

To Bongodog and 3AWM: this is not how it works under UE law. Ryanair knew - or at the very least their attorneys should have known - that subsidies are conditional and subject to UE review and have to be repaid by the entity which received them if the subsidies are deemed illegal. This has happened numerous times in other cases and the UE is not going to change its laws to please Ryanair. The purpose here is to punish those who solicit or obtain subsidies that distort competition. I agree that it would be even better if the repayment was collected by the UE rather than the government that provided the subsidy in the first place, but governments (they are not always stupid) refused this neat arrangement when negotiating UE treaties (but the UE can impose fines on governments for other misbehaviors, but that is another topic). Incidentally, Ryanair had to repay 1 million EUR in total. For some reason, they had already paid half but refused to pay the balance, hence the impoundment.

I think RyanAir could have done itself a disservice by cutting the flights the moment the subsidies ended, making it impossible to declare the payments rather a start aid than subsidies.

Knowing something of how the tentacular French government works, this was likely the "Regional" governing board that whined to the EU. The Region of Aquitaine was looking for some FR flights for their anglophone customers and a lifeline for a podunk airport. Why did they agree to a subsidy IN THE FIRST PLACE if they knew it was illegal? This is nothing but the over-reaching arm of the legiferous EU sticking their nose into local French business at the behest of the cynical Regional government. The airport in Angouleme has NO competition. The only reason FR received a subsidy was because the Region of Aquitaine went begging to them in the first place.

Samrnpage wrote:

Clarification? Is this Ryanairs fault? Did they know that Bordeaux gave them it illegally or not?

The aircraft was impounded in Bordeaux (BOD); but it wasn't BOD that gave the subsidy, it was Angouleme (ANG).

Please guys, read the thread and the articles correctly...

N212R wrote:

Knowing something of how the tentacular French government works, this was likely the "Regional" governing board that whined to the EU. The Region of Aquitaine was looking for some FR flights for their anglophone customers and a lifeline for a podunk airport. Why did they agree to a subsidy IN THE FIRST PLACE if they knew it was illegal? This is nothing but the over-reaching arm of the legiferous EU sticking their nose into local French business at the behest of the cynical Regional government. The airport in Angouleme has NO competition. The only reason FR received a subsidy was because the Region of Aquitaine went begging to them in the first place.

The FR flights to ANG were between 2008 and 2010; at which time ANG was in Poitou-Charentes until January 1st, 2016.
Brussels and the EU ordered France to recover 870,000 Euro on July 23, 2014, way before Aquitaine and Poitou-Charentes were to merge into what's known now as New Aquitaine (the law was passed on December 17, 2014).

Aquitaine and BOD (which has always been in Aquitaine) have nothing to do with the subsidy.

My error, yes, Angouleme is in the former region of Poitou-Charente. The premise of my rant stays the same, just replace one french Region for another. It was likely Segolene Royal hereself, as head of the Region during those years, who directly "negotiated" with FR for flights to her sleepy airport.

WorldFlier wrote:

DALCE wrote:

WorldFlier wrote:

So, let me get this straight...the French regional airport paid ~$500,000 to RyanAir which was later deemed illegal by the European Union...so the French Government seized the British Aircraft?

I'm so against Brexit, but the European Union is absolutely out of control. The people who paid the money are the ones who broke a law. RyanAir accepted the money, one assumes, in good faith (or their lawyers should be fired, fiduciary duty and all) that this was above board.

Lunacy, absolute lunacy.

errrr.....Ryanair is Irish, not British. Has absolutely nothing, nothing to do with Brexit....

Sure does have things to do with Brexit. It is the EU's abuse of power forcing a sovereign nation to act as "debt-collector" for a fictitious crime.

It would have something to do with Brexit if Ryanair was a british carrier, they are not. It's not a british aircraft and thus has noting to do with Brexit.

LetsGoOutside wrote:

To Bongodog and 3AWM: this is not how it works under UE law. Ryanair knew - or at the very least their attorneys should have known - that subsidies are conditional and subject to UE review and have to be repaid by the entity which received them if the subsidies are deemed illegal. This has happened numerous times in other cases and the UE is not going to change its laws to please Ryanair. The purpose here is to punish those who solicit or obtain subsidies that distort competition. I agree that it would be even better if the repayment was collected by the UE rather than the government that provided the subsidy in the first place, but governments (they are not always stupid) refused this neat arrangement when negotiating UE treaties (but the UE can impose fines on governments for other misbehaviors, but that is another topic). Incidentally, Ryanair had to repay 1 million EUR in total. For some reason, they had already paid half but refused to pay the balance, hence the impoundment.

What is the UE and why would it be involved in a EU action?

rbavfan wrote:

LetsGoOutside wrote:

To Bongodog and 3AWM: this is not how it works under UE law. Ryanair knew - or at the very least their attorneys should have known - that subsidies are conditional and subject to UE review and have to be repaid by the entity which received them if the subsidies are deemed illegal. This has happened numerous times in other cases and the UE is not going to change its laws to please Ryanair. The purpose here is to punish those who solicit or obtain subsidies that distort competition. I agree that it would be even better if the repayment was collected by the UE rather than the government that provided the subsidy in the first place, but governments (they are not always stupid) refused this neat arrangement when negotiating UE treaties (but the UE can impose fines on governments for other misbehaviors, but that is another topic). Incidentally, Ryanair had to repay 1 million EUR in total. For some reason, they had already paid half but refused to pay the balance, hence the impoundment.

What is the UE and why would it be involved in a EU action?

UE, EU: same difference, different language.

But the common perception of the term regardless of language is EU, how often if ever do we see the term UE ever used!

Here in the United Kingdom we're going through the process of leaving the EU as in the European Union not the UE, I have never seen that term used by the media, U.K. Government or anywhere else to be honest and considering that the term EU is commonplace and used in all documentation I'm surprised that the term UE is even being used here on a.net.

Those who are arguing Ryanair should be entitled to keep the subsidies are missing a key point, that is that even Ryanair does not agree with their position!

Ryanair has never argued they should be entitled to keep illegally awarded subsidies. As a matter of fact, they have already reimbursed the French regional government about half the subsidies received. The €525,000 over which the aircraft was impounded is the balance.

Ryanair took the position they are owed that amount in damages for an unrelated claim of breach of contract against the regional government, and therefore should not have to refund that portion of the subsidies. Since the two actions are separate and their claim of breach of contract not fully adjudicated yet, the courts have disagreed. Ryanair was simply trying to run out the clock in the hope they would win their case or force the regional government into a settlement.

Let's not do as if Ryanair is a benevolent entity that kindly took an offer for a subsidy in exchange for providing service.

Ryanair targets airports and demands subsidies, often ending flights after the subsidy ends.

This is no different from the EU demanding Ireland to retrieve billions of taxes from Apple, which the Irish government refused to do for some time.

The EU is supposed to be a free market with harmonized rules, you can't benefit from that and skirt some of the rules to gain an advantage over the competition.

WorldFlier wrote:

DALCE wrote:

WorldFlier wrote:

So, let me get this straight...the French regional airport paid ~$500,000 to RyanAir which was later deemed illegal by the European Union...so the French Government seized the British Aircraft?

I'm so against Brexit, but the European Union is absolutely out of control. The people who paid the money are the ones who broke a law. RyanAir accepted the money, one assumes, in good faith (or their lawyers should be fired, fiduciary duty and all) that this was above board.

Lunacy, absolute lunacy.

errrr.....Ryanair is Irish, not British. Has absolutely nothing, nothing to do with Brexit....

Sure does have things to do with Brexit. It is the EU's abuse of power forcing a sovereign nation to act as "debt-collector" for a fictitious crime.

Why is it considered "abuse of power" of EU when it is a French authority seizing a plane at French airport for another French entity?

Aesma wrote:

The EU is supposed to be a free market with harmonized rules, you can't benefit from that and skirt some of the rules to gain an advantage over the competition.

I’m more or less neutral on FR, but I struggle to understand how it makes sense for aviation subsidies to be harmonized across a bloc as large as the EU. If we accept that subsidies are sometimes legitimate, then why should SNN necessarily have the same subsidy regime as ATH?

Cunard wrote:

But the common perception of the term regardless of language is EU, how often if ever do we see the term UE ever used!

Here in the United Kingdom we're going through the process of leaving the EU as in the European Union not the UE, I have never seen that term used by the media, U.K. Government or anywhere else to be honest and considering that the term EU is commonplace and used in all documentation I'm surprised that the term UE is even being used here on a.net.

Because not everyone in the EU, let alone the world or this forum, speaks English as first language. So, sometimes, acronyms get mixed up when one write in a language that not native to him/her.

I'm thinking these people who are claiming this is because of Brexit (when Ryanair is an Irish carrier with Irish-registered aircraft) are just looking for an excuse to throw s**t at the EU and their aviation laws.

Cubsrule wrote:

Aesma wrote:

The EU is supposed to be a free market with harmonized rules, you can't benefit from that and skirt some of the rules to gain an advantage over the competition.

I’m more or less neutral on FR, but I struggle to understand how it makes sense for aviation subsidies to be harmonized across a bloc as large as the EU. If we accept that subsidies are sometimes legitimate, then why should SNN necessarily have the same subsidy regime as ATH?

I have no idea of the rules. Ryanair gets plenty of subsidies in plenty of places so they're probably the best experts on that matter ! They probably interpreted some language some way knowing it had a good chance of being found illegal but a good chance of no one caring enough to bring it up.

Aesma wrote:

Let's not do as if Ryanair is a benevolent entity that kindly took an offer for a subsidy in exchange for providing service.

There is nothing "benevolent" about providing a service in the free market environment of the EU. Even the good burghers of Angouleme didn't begrudge them that economic reality in exchange for regular service from their small airport.

Ryanair targets airports and demands subsidies, often ending flights after the subsidy ends.

If that were the case in Angouleme, why weren't they actively pursuing flights before the Regional government came knocking?

This is no different from the EU demanding Ireland to retrieve billions of taxes from Apple, which the Irish government refused to do for some time.

The two cases have little in common. One is a case of the EU asking Ireland to do their bidding. The retrieved taxes will go to the EU. The other is a case of a regional government recuperating a EU subsidy. The money will stay with them.

The EU is supposed to be a free market with harmonized rules, you can't benefit from that and skirt some of the rules to gain an advantage over the competition.

It may be the pipe dream of the crystal palace bureaucrats in Brussels but the economic reality on the ground is far from harmonious. How did FR "skirt" rules by openly accepting an EU funded enticement for service? There was NO competition for service to Angouleme.