WayexTDI wrote:

SheikhDjibouti wrote:

It's quite amusing to see the Ryanair shareholders posting here. Some more obvious than others.

And to be fair, MOL has half a point.

Any country considering giving taxpayers money to an airline, should share it out amongst all the airlines.... that pay significant taxes into that countries tax system.

But if you adopt a Flag of Convenience, or register your business in a Tax Haven, then you should be prepared for the downside too.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flag_of_convenience

And that's the problem with MOL: not only does he want his cake and eat it too, but he wants the baker's wife and the bakery as well.
He is a business genius, but I perceive him as a despicable human being (at least in his role of CEO).

Ryanair isn't begging for money.
You must have it confused with Lufthansa who is dictating conditions.
I don't hear the same vibes coming out of AZ, IB, AF-KLM.

Perhaps it's time for a leadership change at the head of Lufthansa, the bully attitude is not exactly going to help the company.

Go and look at the actual words Carsten Spohr says. No threats were made it’s media hype. ZDF had the actual internal LHG footage on their twitter feed.

The Green party won't (and rightly so) make it easy should Ryanair actually seek aid, in fact they could introduce minimal fare or carbon tax to reduce Ryanair's presence in Austria after the pandemic, given the climate emergency as well as how Ryanair treated its employees and customers (even Ischgl vows to ditch party tourism, regardless whether it woke up to the horror or just seize the opportunity or a bit of both) After all the public voted die Grünen into government, this is not Trump land.

On the principle it is indeed a dilemma situation for Austrian government and many (although not as bad as MOL moaned about since they didn't apply anything, he won't let SRB take that kind of publicity alone should he's in that shoe), but these are extraordinary times, when was last time Austria closed border for example? And if Germany, Netherlands and France are doing the same, I can't see valid reason to grill OS's performance in particular here.

GLANKG wrote:

The Green party won't (and rightly so) make it easy should Ryanair actually seek aid, in fact they could introduce minimal fare or carbon tax to reduce Ryanair's presence in Austria after the pandemic, given the climate emergency as well as how Ryanair treated its employees and customers (even Ischgl vows to ditch party tourism, regardless whether it woke up to the horror or just seize the opportunity or a bit of both) After all the public voted die Grünen into government, this is not Trump land.

On the principle it is indeed a dilemma situation for Austrian government and many (although not as bad as MOL moaned about since they didn't apply anything, he won't let SRB take that kind of publicity alone should he's in that shoe), but these are extraordinary times, when was last time Austria closed border for example? And if Germany, Netherlands and France are doing the same, I can't see valid reason to grill OS's performance in particular here.

Green Party also insisted environmental policies be applied to state aid given to OS yet in the end no such clauses were presented anywhere in preliminary proposals. So I highly doubt that they would be relevant when it comes to Ryanair/Lauda.

As for OS, they are particularly grilled because the money they will get will not be for them to be reformed, it will be merely used to maintain a status quo.

Blerg wrote:

GLANKG wrote:

The Green party won't (and rightly so) make it easy should Ryanair actually seek aid, in fact they could introduce minimal fare or carbon tax to reduce Ryanair's presence in Austria after the pandemic, given the climate emergency as well as how Ryanair treated its employees and customers (even Ischgl vows to ditch party tourism, regardless whether it woke up to the horror or just seize the opportunity or a bit of both) After all the public voted die Grünen into government, this is not Trump land.

On the principle it is indeed a dilemma situation for Austrian government and many (although not as bad as MOL moaned about since they didn't apply anything, he won't let SRB take that kind of publicity alone should he's in that shoe), but these are extraordinary times, when was last time Austria closed border for example? And if Germany, Netherlands and France are doing the same, I can't see valid reason to grill OS's performance in particular here.

Green Party also insisted environmental policies be applied to state aid given to OS yet in the end no such clauses were presented anywhere in preliminary proposals. So I highly doubt that they would be relevant when it comes to Ryanair/Lauda.

As for OS, they are particularly grilled because the money they will get will not be for them to be reformed, it will be merely used to maintain a status quo.

Cheap fare to Ibiza concerns the Greens more. The Greens let OS off the hook easily doesn't mean they have to help Ryanair on exact same terms, for they are different sized company, operating differently within Austria and thus contributing differently to Austrian economy and labour market. It is not unfair to ask MOL to follow social partnership if they want state aid for instance.

I actually don't see many grilling OS's recent performance, it certainly wasn't MOL's complaint. I am not sure if has much to do with the original post. You certainly made your point clear - that OS isn't worthy saving, but clearly Austrian government differs, and I think the public consensus too.

NYCVIE wrote:

Anyways, as I said this is posturing from MOL. He knows that if he seriously requested the aid it would come with many provisions they don't want. I would imagine there would also be limitations given a good amount of Lauda services don't even touch Austria.

The whole argument of state aid and the EU is largely irrelevant anyways because the EU has already made it clear that they will allow aid to airlines (see- AF/KL/SK,Condor).

It is also truly beyond me that Malev, Cyprus, Alitalia state aid is being compared to the type of loans we are discussing here. Malev and Cyprus were forced bankrupt because Hungary and Cyprus governments, respectively, were infusing money that they realistically were not expecting to get back and towards carriers that had no chance of becoming viable. It is different to what we are talking about now because these are a) loans that will be repaid and b) they will come with significant provisions that will lead to concessions from the airlines receiving them.

oxonrow wrote:

Why are so many of you so down on FR? A late entrant onto the market that managed to shake things up. Yes, we should weed out unfair practices, but the way the law is laid out the airline does bring connectivity to places that didn't have it before or had no competition. Legacy carriers do not benefit from indirect subsidies? Can anyone seriously argue that? We have a major problem in this industry in Europe, where our petty nationalisms get in a way and make for a highly imperfect market. The likes of FR actually do tremendously well transcending this obstacle and we're all better for it as consumers. Next step is the environment, a serious issue to address, but let's move this discussion up a notch.

I applaud Ryanair for truly revolutionizing air travel in Europe and making it more accessible for more people. I think that is extremely important to recognize. I don't think Ryanair's issue is that they are stateless. It is that even in non-Irish countries that they have significant operations in, they make every attempt to circumvent those countries' labor laws. The aircraft are registered elsewhere and the employees are all on foreign contracts. So in that scenario, what real claim do they have for any sort of government aid?

Not to call you an ignorant American but the posted worker rule is pretty clear and not unique to airlines. Ryanair workers run the same rules as everyone else

GLANKG wrote:

Blerg wrote:

GLANKG wrote:

The Green party won't (and rightly so) make it easy should Ryanair actually seek aid, in fact they could introduce minimal fare or carbon tax to reduce Ryanair's presence in Austria after the pandemic, given the climate emergency as well as how Ryanair treated its employees and customers (even Ischgl vows to ditch party tourism, regardless whether it woke up to the horror or just seize the opportunity or a bit of both) After all the public voted die Grünen into government, this is not Trump land.

On the principle it is indeed a dilemma situation for Austrian government and many (although not as bad as MOL moaned about since they didn't apply anything, he won't let SRB take that kind of publicity alone should he's in that shoe), but these are extraordinary times, when was last time Austria closed border for example? And if Germany, Netherlands and France are doing the same, I can't see valid reason to grill OS's performance in particular here.

Green Party also insisted environmental policies be applied to state aid given to OS yet in the end no such clauses were presented anywhere in preliminary proposals. So I highly doubt that they would be relevant when it comes to Ryanair/Lauda.

As for OS, they are particularly grilled because the money they will get will not be for them to be reformed, it will be merely used to maintain a status quo.

Cheap fare to Ibiza concerns the Greens more. The Greens let OS off the hook easily doesn't mean they have to help Ryanair on exact same terms, for they are different sized company, operating differently within Austria and thus contributing differently to Austrian economy and labour market. It is not unfair to ask MOL to follow social partnership if they want state aid for instance.

I actually don't see many grilling OS's recent performance, it certainly wasn't MOL's complaint. I am not sure if has much to do with the original post. You certainly made your point clear - that OS isn't worthy saving, but clearly Austrian government differs, and I think the public consensus too.

I guess we are back at anti-FR wishful thinking.

Laudamotion needs to treated equal to OS, otherwise FR will stop the aid to OS by legal means and this will mean the end for OS, which would be good for Austria and Vienna, as the market can be filled by modern and competitive airlines.

Waterbomber2 wrote:

WayexTDI wrote:

SheikhDjibouti wrote:

It's quite amusing to see the Ryanair shareholders posting here. Some more obvious than others.

And to be fair, MOL has half a point.

Any country considering giving taxpayers money to an airline, should share it out amongst all the airlines.... that pay significant taxes into that countries tax system.

But if you adopt a Flag of Convenience, or register your business in a Tax Haven, then you should be prepared for the downside too.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flag_of_convenience

And that's the problem with MOL: not only does he want his cake and eat it too, but he wants the baker's wife and the bakery as well.
He is a business genius, but I perceive him as a despicable human being (at least in his role of CEO).

Ryanair isn't begging for money.
You must have it confused with Lufthansa who is dictating conditions.
I don't hear the same vibes coming out of AZ, IB, AF-KLM.

Perhaps it's time for a leadership change at the head of Lufthansa, the bully attitude is not exactly going to help the company.

It's important to look at the whole history of Ryanair, not just the last week or so.
Ryanair has also extracted as much money as possible from local government (and then ask for more), they have abused the workers law system, all this in time when other airlines were working fine without (so many) subsidies; they got caught with their pants down numerous times.
Now, they're just pointing at the money other airlines are getting to help them to get through this pandemic and whine: it's basically "do as I say, not as I do".

I think a lot of EU countries are fed up with his attitude and are basically sending him the bill now.

I won't shed a tear on Ryanair or MOL.

Blerg wrote:

GLANKG wrote:

Blerg wrote:

Green Party also insisted environmental policies be applied to state aid given to OS yet in the end no such clauses were presented anywhere in preliminary proposals. So I highly doubt that they would be relevant when it comes to Ryanair/Lauda.

As for OS, they are particularly grilled because the money they will get will not be for them to be reformed, it will be merely used to maintain a status quo.

Cheap fare to Ibiza concerns the Greens more. The Greens let OS off the hook easily doesn't mean they have to help Ryanair on exact same terms, for they are different sized company, operating differently within Austria and thus contributing differently to Austrian economy and labour market. It is not unfair to ask MOL to follow social partnership if they want state aid for instance.

I actually don't see many grilling OS's recent performance, it certainly wasn't MOL's complaint. I am not sure if has much to do with the original post. You certainly made your point clear - that OS isn't worthy saving, but clearly Austrian government differs, and I think the public consensus too.

I guess we are back at anti-FR wishful thinking.

You may very well perceive it like that, but the way Ryanair treats people isn't going unnoticed in Austria where labour movement has been strong, MOL ways of communication and operation would most likely not gone down well with Austrian political circle too. It is what it is, he can continue crying foul, but OS will get loan, Ryanair might also get it if he is prepared to talk and accept loans with attached terms.

Not even the mighty MOL could stop multiple EU nations bailing out thousands of businesses. IAG just got something too init.

seahawk wrote:

Laudamotion needs to treated equal to OS...

Why? Does Austrian or EU law require this? Can you point to relevant law?

see here: https://ec.europa.eu/competition/consum ... id_en.html

leghorn wrote:

see here: https://ec.europa.eu/competition/consum ... id_en.html

https://ec.europa.eu/competition/state_ ... _11_en.pdf
This is the treaty on state aid. Some forms of state aid are allowed.
2b of Article 107 states 'aid to make good the damage caused by natural disasters or exceptional occurrences'

EC has since March adopted a temporary framework for State aid measures to support the economy in the Covid-19 coronavirus outbreak (the Temporary Framework). What OS (likely) got from Austria will almost certainly be approved by EC, so will be KLM/AF/LH/IAG bailout. Margrethe Vestager also indicates further relaxation of rules in the coming week.

seahawk wrote:

Laudamotion needs to treated equal to OS, otherwise FR will stop the aid to OS by legal means and this will mean the end for OS, which would be good for Austria and Vienna, as the market can be filled by modern and competitive airlines.

In proportion sure. Relevant is how much each contribute to the Austrian economy and then work out from there what Laudamotion is due in relation to that.
If OS was to fall over though, would Laudamotion pick up the long haul passenger and belly cargo that Austrian contributes?

Dmoney wrote:

NYCVIE wrote:

Anyways, as I said this is posturing from MOL. He knows that if he seriously requested the aid it would come with many provisions they don't want. I would imagine there would also be limitations given a good amount of Lauda services don't even touch Austria.

The whole argument of state aid and the EU is largely irrelevant anyways because the EU has already made it clear that they will allow aid to airlines (see- AF/KL/SK,Condor).

It is also truly beyond me that Malev, Cyprus, Alitalia state aid is being compared to the type of loans we are discussing here. Malev and Cyprus were forced bankrupt because Hungary and Cyprus governments, respectively, were infusing money that they realistically were not expecting to get back and towards carriers that had no chance of becoming viable. It is different to what we are talking about now because these are a) loans that will be repaid and b) they will come with significant provisions that will lead to concessions from the airlines receiving them.

oxonrow wrote:

Why are so many of you so down on FR? A late entrant onto the market that managed to shake things up. Yes, we should weed out unfair practices, but the way the law is laid out the airline does bring connectivity to places that didn't have it before or had no competition. Legacy carriers do not benefit from indirect subsidies? Can anyone seriously argue that? We have a major problem in this industry in Europe, where our petty nationalisms get in a way and make for a highly imperfect market. The likes of FR actually do tremendously well transcending this obstacle and we're all better for it as consumers. Next step is the environment, a serious issue to address, but let's move this discussion up a notch.

I applaud Ryanair for truly revolutionizing air travel in Europe and making it more accessible for more people. I think that is extremely important to recognize. I don't think Ryanair's issue is that they are stateless. It is that even in non-Irish countries that they have significant operations in, they make every attempt to circumvent those countries' labor laws. The aircraft are registered elsewhere and the employees are all on foreign contracts. So in that scenario, what real claim do they have for any sort of government aid?

Not to call you an ignorant American but the posted worker rule is pretty clear and not unique to airlines. Ryanair workers run the same rules as everyone else

How am I ignorant and where did I say only airlines are affected? I said that Ryanair goes out of their way to save costs by not employing employees on local contracts and not paying local taxes. I didn't say they were the only ones. I was saying that given that they do engage in this practice, it makes things a bit more complicated when you are considering a national government's responsibility to subsidize or give a loan to a foreign airline with foreign registered aircraft and staff not even on local contracts. Not that this is outright illegal but FR has also been fined by local govt's for this...

GLANKG wrote:

leghorn wrote:

see here: https://ec.europa.eu/competition/consum ... id_en.html

https://ec.europa.eu/competition/state_ ... _11_en.pdf
This is the treaty on state aid. Some forms of state aid are allowed.
2b of Article 107 states 'aid to make good the damage caused by natural disasters or exceptional occurrences'

EC has since March adopted a temporary framework for State aid measures to support the economy in the Covid-19 coronavirus outbreak (the Temporary Framework). What OS (likely) got from Austria will almost certainly be approved by EC, so will be KLM/AF/LH/IAG bailout. Margrethe Vestager also indicates further relaxation of rules in the coming week.

make good damage??? make good damage by allowing the incumbents to re-enforce their stranglehold on the local market.

GLANKG wrote:

Margrethe Vestager also indicates further relaxation of rules in the coming week.

This battle if it is fought will be fought in the ECJ. She hasn't the executive powers of a U.S. President. or the powers that the current holder of that office would tell you he has.

leghorn wrote:

GLANKG wrote:

leghorn wrote:

see here: https://ec.europa.eu/competition/consum ... id_en.html

https://ec.europa.eu/competition/state_ ... _11_en.pdf
This is the treaty on state aid. Some forms of state aid are allowed.
2b of Article 107 states 'aid to make good the damage caused by natural disasters or exceptional occurrences'

EC has since March adopted a temporary framework for State aid measures to support the economy in the Covid-19 coronavirus outbreak (the Temporary Framework). What OS (likely) got from Austria will almost certainly be approved by EC, so will be KLM/AF/LH/IAG bailout. Margrethe Vestager also indicates further relaxation of rules in the coming week.

make good damage??? make good damage by allowing the incumbents to re-enforce their stranglehold on the local market.

Yes that’s the EU treaty. Obviously you need to be there already to be eligible for such aid, both OS and Lauda are VIE market incumbents.
‘Re-enforce’ part is your interpretation of the law, it seems Austrian, German, Spanish, Belgian, Dutch, French governments have a different interpretation and are more then keen to help leading airlines.

leghorn wrote:

GLANKG wrote:

Margrethe Vestager also indicates further relaxation of rules in the coming week.

This battle if it is fought will be fought in the ECJ. She hasn't the executive powers of a U.S. President. or the powers that the current holder of that office would tell you he has.

Wrong, the mentioned state aid under temporary framework will still have to be approved by EC. The holder of the office is a ‘she’ by the way.

Even the most vocal opposition of current state aid scheme so far - the Spanish government hasn’t hinted the slightest possibility of ECJ route, I’d be looking forward to it should MOL really goes that far.

so you agree then. Ryanair have grounds for complaint and the process to pursue it.

Depends on what will actually happen, if they still don't apply state aid then what can they do? The EU and pretty much the entire world are keen to bailout major firms this time, good luck at ECJ if they go mad trying to undo EC Temporary Framework which involves thousands of businesses. If they do apply but Austria government says no then there is a case, but I haven't see any reports of such. So what grounds do they really have now and what process to purse? Although MOL is someone who usually gets what he wants and has a fine form of getting direct and indirect subsidies from local governments, if he's the one who doesn't get this time he may very well keep complaining regardless if he actually wants such loans or not.

seahawk wrote:

Laudamotion needs to treated equal to OS, otherwise FR will stop the aid to OS by legal means and this will mean the end for OS, which would be good for Austria and Vienna, as the market can be filled by modern and competitive airlines.

Modern and competitve airlines ? Who they are ? Airlines which can not supply EU rules at the lowest means at all ? Try to go around every legal laws in hope to get rid of it ? And if your so called modern and competive airline is FR , they act as much as possible to go around of this.
There is no different by law if someone is a old gangster or a modern gangster , at the end of the day it`s still a gangster !

At the end of the day, no matter how much money Austrian Airlines receives, they'll be back for more. Once air traffic resumes they will still have to face Lauda and Wizz Air and their fare dumping in Vienna. OS already suffered from this so I don't see what will change. It will be business as usual.

GLANKG wrote:

‘Re-enforce’ part is your interpretation of the law, it seems Austrian, German, Spanish, Belgian, Dutch, French governments have a different interpretation and are more then keen to help leading airlines.

The governments just don't consider Ryaniar as essential. Moreover, it's not a task of a government to ensure cheap air travel for its citizens. It's their task to protect vital infrastructure, which Ryanair doesn't provide. Is it fair, No, but life isn't fair.

LJ wrote:

GLANKG wrote:

‘Re-enforce’ part is your interpretation of the law, it seems Austrian, German, Spanish, Belgian, Dutch, French governments have a different interpretation and are more then keen to help leading airlines.

The governments just don't consider Ryaniar as essential. Moreover, it's not a task of a government to ensure cheap air travel for its citizens. It's their task to protect vital infrastructure, which Ryanair doesn't provide. Is it fair, No, but life isn't fair.

Do you have a source to back your argument that governments don't consider FR as essential?

LJ wrote:

GLANKG wrote:

‘Re-enforce’ part is your interpretation of the law, it seems Austrian, German, Spanish, Belgian, Dutch, French governments have a different interpretation and are more then keen to help leading airlines.

The governments just don't consider Ryaniar as essential. Moreover, it's not a task of a government to ensure cheap air travel for its citizens. It's their task to protect vital infrastructure, which Ryanair doesn't provide. Is it fair, No, but life isn't fair.

I think that vital infrastrcutrues or essential infrastructures should be used to say vitalising infrastructures.
It's a bit ridiculous to refer to large legacy airlines or flag carriers as essential or vital infrastructures when they are competing with many other airlines and half of the traffic at their hubs is connecting low-yielding traffic that they "steal" from other cities, while they are charging crazy high fares to milk their own O&D travellers.
The mere fact that flag carriers and legacy airlines are competing for market share at the expense of O&D, and growing way beyond their essential sizes proves that the essential status is being abused to crush competitors and gain an edge.

Cheap air travel is essential and vital for Italy/Spain/Greece/Croatia/Hungary's huge tourism industries, but also for East-European countries.

One could also argue that a lot of business travel is really non-essential, while tourism can't be done over the internet.
I've been to many big trade shows and also represented companies at major trade shows and quite frankly I dind't feel like any business was being done there that couldn't have been done over the phone or email. Like John Leahy said, the yearly big shows were merely a way to set a deadline to ongoing negotiations.
Tourim on the other hand can't be done over the phone or email, it is meant to serve a social purpose of reenergising working people and studying children and are life goals for many people, a purpose that people find for working. sure local tourism is also an option, but are you going to the same places for your whole life from kid to grandpa?

So sitting at a desk of a multinational in Paris or Frankfurt, you may have a totally different view than a general manager of a hotel sitting at his desk in Venice or Barcelona.

WayexTDI wrote:

Waterbomber2 wrote:

WayexTDI wrote:

And that's the problem with MOL: not only does he want his cake and eat it too, but he wants the baker's wife and the bakery as well.
He is a business genius, but I perceive him as a despicable human being (at least in his role of CEO).

Ryanair isn't begging for money.
You must have it confused with Lufthansa who is dictating conditions.
I don't hear the same vibes coming out of AZ, IB, AF-KLM.

Perhaps it's time for a leadership change at the head of Lufthansa, the bully attitude is not exactly going to help the company.

It's important to look at the whole history of Ryanair, not just the last week or so.
Ryanair has also extracted as much money as possible from local government (and then ask for more), they have abused the workers law system, all this in time when other airlines were working fine without (so many) subsidies; they got caught with their pants down numerous times.
Now, they're just pointing at the money other airlines are getting to help them to get through this pandemic and whine: it's basically "do as I say, not as I do".

I think a lot of EU countries are fed up with his attitude and are basically sending him the bill now.

I won't shed a tear on Ryanair or MOL.

Just FYI this isn't true. Ryanair haven't got any subsidies as the EU is strict on state aid normally. Any regional airports which gave excessive landing charge reductions got done for state aid and Ryanair had to repay all of it. EU is good on that shit, all the extortion that Boeing does of local governments (or Airbus did to Alabama) isn't allowed.

Blerg wrote:

LJ wrote:

GLANKG wrote:

‘Re-enforce’ part is your interpretation of the law, it seems Austrian, German, Spanish, Belgian, Dutch, French governments have a different interpretation and are more then keen to help leading airlines.

The governments just don't consider Ryaniar as essential. Moreover, it's not a task of a government to ensure cheap air travel for its citizens. It's their task to protect vital infrastructure, which Ryanair doesn't provide. Is it fair, No, but life isn't fair.

Do you have a source to back your argument that governments don't consider FR as essential?

Despite that stating the obvious (how much cargo does Ryanair transport, how much economic centers worldwide does Ryanair connect), I give you some reasons why they are gving money to LH, AF/KL and you can decide yourself if Ryanair meets those definitions.

The Netherlands

The network of intercontinental destinations served by Schiphol is of immense importance to the
Dutch economy and employment. Many companies opt to locate in the Netherlands because of its
good accessibility. Schiphol is one of the best-connected airports in Europe. This is vital to a very
open economy like that of the Netherlands. A financially sound Air France-KLM with an extensive
network centred on its Schiphol hub is essential to safeguard this connectivity going forward.

Letter of 24 April 2020 to the House of Representatives from Minister of Finance Wopke Hoekstra and Minister of Infrastructure and Water Management Cora van Nieuwenhuizen on possible support measures for Air France-KLM
https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=20&ved=2ahUKEwi9-5qK1JTpAhVC2qQKHVXpD-EQFjATegQIBBAB&url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.government.nl%2Fbinaries%2Fgovernment%2Fdocuments%2Fparliamentary-documents%2F2020%2F04%2F24%2Fletter-on-possible-support-measures-for-air-france-klm%2FLetter%2Bon%2Bpossible%2Bsupport%2Bmeasures%2Bfor%2BAir%2BFrance-KLM.pdf&usg=AOvVaw0CQSjU7t3sPx2lWenDa1sC

Does Ryanair fit this description? No.

Germany

Speaking on a German radio station on Monday, Peter Altmaier, economy minister, said Berlin wants “large and important companies that play a role in the world market to remain competitive after the crisis,” according to Reuters

https://www.cnbc.com/2020/04/27/coronavirus-air-france-klm-to-receive-up-to-12-billion-in-state-aid.html

Does Ryanair play a role in world market? No, thus not essential

Switzerland

Transport Minister Simonetta Sommaruga explained the move at a press conference in Bern, stating that aviation was part of the country’s “critical infrastructure”: over one-third of Switzerland’s exports leave by air, while one-sixth of imports come by air, she said. The aid, first mooted by Sommaruga three weeks ago, comes with strict conditions, primarily that the funds used are only to be used for Swiss infrastructure. And while SWISS – a subsidiary of German group Lufthansa – and Edelweiss will benefit, EasyJet Switzerland will not, and must look to its British parent company to solve its liquidity issues, the government wrote.Likewise, the Swissport and Gategroup companies, which operate services, logistics, and catering for the aviation industry, are not directly eligible, since they are internationally active and majority-owned by Asian investors.

https://www.swissinfo.ch/eng/aviation_swiss-airlines-to-get-almost-chf2-billion-corona-aid-boost/45725518

If easyJet Switzxerland isn't considered "critical infrastructure" then Ryanair is certainly not.

LJ wrote:

Blerg wrote:

LJ wrote:

The governments just don't consider Ryaniar as essential. Moreover, it's not a task of a government to ensure cheap air travel for its citizens. It's their task to protect vital infrastructure, which Ryanair doesn't provide. Is it fair, No, but life isn't fair.

Do you have a source to back your argument that governments don't consider FR as essential?

Despite that stating the obvious (how much cargo does Ryanair transport, how much economic centers worldwide does Ryanair connect), I give you some reasons why they are gving money to LH, AF/KL and you can decide yourself if Ryanair meets those definitions.

The Netherlands

The network of intercontinental destinations served by Schiphol is of immense importance to the
Dutch economy and employment. Many companies opt to locate in the Netherlands because of its
good accessibility. Schiphol is one of the best-connected airports in Europe. This is vital to a very
open economy like that of the Netherlands. A financially sound Air France-KLM with an extensive
network centred on its Schiphol hub is essential to safeguard this connectivity going forward.

Letter of 24 April 2020 to the House of Representatives from Minister of Finance Wopke Hoekstra and Minister of Infrastructure and Water Management Cora van Nieuwenhuizen on possible support measures for Air France-KLM
https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=20&ved=2ahUKEwi9-5qK1JTpAhVC2qQKHVXpD-EQFjATegQIBBAB&url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.government.nl%2Fbinaries%2Fgovernment%2Fdocuments%2Fparliamentary-documents%2F2020%2F04%2F24%2Fletter-on-possible-support-measures-for-air-france-klm%2FLetter%2Bon%2Bpossible%2Bsupport%2Bmeasures%2Bfor%2BAir%2BFrance-KLM.pdf&usg=AOvVaw0CQSjU7t3sPx2lWenDa1sC

Does Ryanair fit this description? No.

Germany

Speaking on a German radio station on Monday, Peter Altmaier, economy minister, said Berlin wants “large and important companies that play a role in the world market to remain competitive after the crisis,” according to Reuters

https://www.cnbc.com/2020/04/27/coronavirus-air-france-klm-to-receive-up-to-12-billion-in-state-aid.html

Does Ryanair play a role in world market? No, thus not essential

Switzerland

Transport Minister Simonetta Sommaruga explained the move at a press conference in Bern, stating that aviation was part of the country’s “critical infrastructure”: over one-third of Switzerland’s exports leave by air, while one-sixth of imports come by air, she said. The aid, first mooted by Sommaruga three weeks ago, comes with strict conditions, primarily that the funds used are only to be used for Swiss infrastructure. And while SWISS – a subsidiary of German group Lufthansa – and Edelweiss will benefit, EasyJet Switzerland will not, and must look to its British parent company to solve its liquidity issues, the government wrote.Likewise, the Swissport and Gategroup companies, which operate services, logistics, and catering for the aviation industry, are not directly eligible, since they are internationally active and majority-owned by Asian investors.

https://www.swissinfo.ch/eng/aviation_swiss-airlines-to-get-almost-chf2-billion-corona-aid-boost/45725518

If easyJet Switzxerland isn't considered "critical infrastructure" then Ryanair is certainly not.

So still no source to back your claim? Just because you believe it doesn't make it true. Also, simply because those governments want to protect their own doesn't mean they don't consider FR as an essential business, especially Germany where Ryanair plays a big role in many airports. Just like FR doesn't play a certain role (like the ones you quoted above), the same can be said about AF-KL, LH or LX. So please, don't let your bias cloud your judgement.

I guess, future will tell us who is right and who is not.
As LJ listed above, a lot of EU governments seem to agree that neither FR not U2 and their owned entities are entitled to government aid, at least in the form the legacies are receiving.
We will see whether that will be challenged in court. MOL has always been a bigmouth but when it comes to his money (especially in the current situation), he will check at least twice whether the costs for such lawsuits are smartly invested.

So just accept that there might be a different view on this topic. I also accept your point of view although I strongly disagree.

Blerg wrote:

governments want to protect their own doesn't mean they don't consider FR as an essential business

If you want to look at it objectively, you can take into consideration if an airline tend to pay local taxes and employ people locally, or they use forein contracts, tax havens and try to avoid local taxes.
An airline with a strong local presence should offcourse be more eligible for support locally.

As for Austria, there are some local rules with regard to laying off people that Ryanair don't adhere to.
I'm sure someone with deeper knowledge than me on this issue can elaborate on that.

Waterbomber2 wrote:

LJ wrote:

GLANKG wrote:

‘Re-enforce’ part is your interpretation of the law, it seems Austrian, German, Spanish, Belgian, Dutch, French governments have a different interpretation and are more then keen to help leading airlines.

The governments just don't consider Ryaniar as essential. Moreover, it's not a task of a government to ensure cheap air travel for its citizens. It's their task to protect vital infrastructure, which Ryanair doesn't provide. Is it fair, No, but life isn't fair.

I think that vital infrastrcutrues or essential infrastructures should be used to say vitalising infrastructures.
It's a bit ridiculous to refer to large legacy airlines or flag carriers as essential or vital infrastructures when they are competing with many other airlines and half of the traffic at their hubs is connecting low-yielding traffic that they "steal" from other cities, while they are charging crazy high fares to milk their own O&D travellers.
The mere fact that flag carriers and legacy airlines are competing for market share at the expense of O&D, and growing way beyond their essential sizes proves that the essential status is being abused to crush competitors and gain an edge.

Cheap air travel is essential and vital for Italy/Spain/Greece/Croatia/Hungary's huge tourism industries, but also for East-European countries.

One could also argue that a lot of business travel is really non-essential, while tourism can't be done over the internet.
I've been to many big trade shows and also represented companies at major trade shows and quite frankly I dind't feel like any business was being done there that couldn't have been done over the phone or email. Like John Leahy said, the yearly big shows were merely a way to set a deadline to ongoing negotiations.
Tourim on the other hand can't be done over the phone or email, it is meant to serve a social purpose of reenergising working people and studying children and are life goals for many people, a purpose that people find for working. sure local tourism is also an option, but are you going to the same places for your whole life from kid to grandpa?

So sitting at a desk of a multinational in Paris or Frankfurt, you may have a totally different view than a general manager of a hotel sitting at his desk in Venice or Barcelona.

So, business travel isn’t necessary and we just need cheap holiday travel to the Mediterranean coast countries?

The term vital infrastructure is interesting to me. So while the big hub airlines are the drivers behind their hub airports’ huge economic impact (easy to google). Connecting their hub cities and countries to the world moving both passengers and cargo in high quantities, somehow this makes them no more vital than Ryanair moving traffic to holiday destinations? Does that help at the originating airport end (call it Dublin, Eindhoven whatever) to boost the economy by having flights to Alicante etc?

If I go by some of the comments here this seems the case but I am unsure if I am either understanding something incorrectly or that is really what is intended.

RvA wrote:

Waterbomber2 wrote:

LJ wrote:

The governments just don't consider Ryaniar as essential. Moreover, it's not a task of a government to ensure cheap air travel for its citizens. It's their task to protect vital infrastructure, which Ryanair doesn't provide. Is it fair, No, but life isn't fair.

I think that vital infrastrcutrues or essential infrastructures should be used to say vitalising infrastructures.
It's a bit ridiculous to refer to large legacy airlines or flag carriers as essential or vital infrastructures when they are competing with many other airlines and half of the traffic at their hubs is connecting low-yielding traffic that they "steal" from other cities, while they are charging crazy high fares to milk their own O&D travellers.
The mere fact that flag carriers and legacy airlines are competing for market share at the expense of O&D, and growing way beyond their essential sizes proves that the essential status is being abused to crush competitors and gain an edge.

Cheap air travel is essential and vital for Italy/Spain/Greece/Croatia/Hungary's huge tourism industries, but also for East-European countries.

One could also argue that a lot of business travel is really non-essential, while tourism can't be done over the internet.
I've been to many big trade shows and also represented companies at major trade shows and quite frankly I dind't feel like any business was being done there that couldn't have been done over the phone or email. Like John Leahy said, the yearly big shows were merely a way to set a deadline to ongoing negotiations.
Tourim on the other hand can't be done over the phone or email, it is meant to serve a social purpose of reenergising working people and studying children and are life goals for many people, a purpose that people find for working. sure local tourism is also an option, but are you going to the same places for your whole life from kid to grandpa?

So sitting at a desk of a multinational in Paris or Frankfurt, you may have a totally different view than a general manager of a hotel sitting at his desk in Venice or Barcelona.

So, business travel isn’t necessary and we just need cheap holiday travel to the Mediterranean coast countries?

If essential business travel was the only justifiable reason for airlines to exist, the legacy and flag carriers wouldn't be needing anything larger than narrowbodies even for intercons.

Also, if we look at legacy airlines or flag carriers, many routes they run are leisure-oriented.
For instance, the LH group has over 20 daily flights into Venice in the middle of August, enough to keep 6 to 7 aircraft busy.

Check for yourself: https://www.lufthansa.com/de/en/timetab ... SULTS_LIST

What about all the flights to PMI, BCN, Lamezia Terme, Naples, Rome, Tenerife, pretty much all of Greece and Portugal.
Plus all the seats those destinations fill on intercontinental sectors.

More than 10 daily flights to Ibiza.

Essential infrastructure of my #&$.

Waterbomber2 wrote:

RvA wrote:

Waterbomber2 wrote:

I think that vital infrastrcutrues or essential infrastructures should be used to say vitalising infrastructures.
It's a bit ridiculous to refer to large legacy airlines or flag carriers as essential or vital infrastructures when they are competing with many other airlines and half of the traffic at their hubs is connecting low-yielding traffic that they "steal" from other cities, while they are charging crazy high fares to milk their own O&D travellers.
The mere fact that flag carriers and legacy airlines are competing for market share at the expense of O&D, and growing way beyond their essential sizes proves that the essential status is being abused to crush competitors and gain an edge.

Cheap air travel is essential and vital for Italy/Spain/Greece/Croatia/Hungary's huge tourism industries, but also for East-European countries.

One could also argue that a lot of business travel is really non-essential, while tourism can't be done over the internet.
I've been to many big trade shows and also represented companies at major trade shows and quite frankly I dind't feel like any business was being done there that couldn't have been done over the phone or email. Like John Leahy said, the yearly big shows were merely a way to set a deadline to ongoing negotiations.
Tourim on the other hand can't be done over the phone or email, it is meant to serve a social purpose of reenergising working people and studying children and are life goals for many people, a purpose that people find for working. sure local tourism is also an option, but are you going to the same places for your whole life from kid to grandpa?

So sitting at a desk of a multinational in Paris or Frankfurt, you may have a totally different view than a general manager of a hotel sitting at his desk in Venice or Barcelona.

So, business travel isn’t necessary and we just need cheap holiday travel to the Mediterranean coast countries?

If essential business travel was the only justifiable reason for airlines to exist, the legacy and flag carriers wouldn't be needing anything larger than narrowbodies even for intercons.

Also, if we look at legacy airlines or flag carriers, many routes they run are leisure-oriented.
For instance, the LH group has over 20 daily flights into Venice in the middle of August, enough to keep 6 to 7 aircraft busy.

Check for yourself: https://www.lufthansa.com/de/en/timetab ... SULTS_LIST

What about all the flights to PMI, BCN, Lamezia Terme, Naples, Rome, Tenerife, pretty much all of Greece and Portugal.
Plus all the seats those destinations fill on intercontinental sectors.

More than 10 daily flights to Ibiza.

Essential infrastructure of my #&$.

So, to be essential infrastructure your criteria is no leisure targeted flights or destinations, right?
Never mind how those destinations might help make certain other routes sustainable enough to operate (allowing for pax and cargo to flow).

I don’t think you understand how airports (and relying hugely on the home airlines) contribute to the overall economy so I suggest you look into that before deciding what you deem essential infrastructure or not. I am fairly sure UK finds LHR essential, NL finds AMS essential infrastructure. And if you believe the home airlines there have no part in making those airports essential (so they are by definition essential too) then I don’t know what to tell you.

Waterbomber2 wrote:

I think that vital infrastrcutrues or essential infrastructures should be used to say vitalising infrastructures.
It's a bit ridiculous to refer to large legacy airlines or flag carriers as essential or vital infrastructures when they are competing with many other airlines and half of the traffic at their hubs is connecting low-yielding traffic that they "steal" from other cities, while they are charging crazy high fares to milk their own O&D travellers.

It does make sense when that "stealing" makes it possible to make money to destinations all over the world, and therefore your hub is becoming more attractive as a place for foreign companies.

Waterbomber2 wrote:

The mere fact that flag carriers and legacy airlines are competing for market share at the expense of O&D, and growing way beyond their essential sizes proves that the essential status is being abused to crush competitors and gain an edge.

What is an "essential" size? The size of KLM is essential to The Netherlands and their economy.

Waterbomber2 wrote:

Cheap air travel is essential and vital for Italy/Spain/Greece/Croatia/Hungary's huge tourism industries, but also for East-European countries.

True, but those "flying bus companies" don't have to fly a lot from big intercontinental hubs. But it has been proven they can't sustain connections between rural airports without a lot of subsidies from local authorities, so that "cheap air travel" is offered too cheap to the customers.

The whole connecting traffic has very little economic effect. Those people do not even enter the country.

Why does Lufthansa fly from Munich or Frankfurt or Berlin, why does BA fly from Heathrow? Because that is where the Customers are. Those airlines not enjoying the favour of Government can't get in to those airports. Their opportunities to get in to those airports depending on the inefficient legacy incumbents from vacating the airports in part.
Irrespective of whether the airline in question is a conventional full service airline or a LCC their continued existence is threatened. Not only can they still not get in to those big airports but the incumbents have been gifted a war chest with which to undercut them and drive them out of business.

When you consider that they are the incumbents and yet didn't build up a war chest of their own their financial embarrassment is a crisis of their own making and they should suffer the consequences.

This isn't like the 2008 crisis as there is a lot of investors out there looking for investment opportunities, not just in Aviation but elsewhere. The vacuum will be filled if Lufthansa or AF or KLM or BA shrink to become smaller companies.

seahawk wrote:

The whole connecting traffic has very little economic effect. Those people do not even enter the country.

Do you believe the BS you are writing or do you just want to provoke?

Frankfurt Airport is the biggest employer in the state of Hessia besides the state/city governments. Do you really think that is just because of the O&D traffic? Of course not. So lots of jobs are relying on LH (in that case). How many employees does FR has in the region who are paying their taxes here? Not many.
The same goes for basically all major hubs in Europe.
So stating that the hub function does not have an economic effect is just plain wrong.

It will be interesting to see whether FR stays in FRA when they have to pay the same fees as every other carrier. If I remember correctly the discounted rates were granted for the first three years of every new route and FR will reach this timeline soon. Wizz has already dropped out.

fraT wrote:

It will be interesting to see whether FR stays in FRA when they have to pay the same fees as every other carrier. If I remember correctly the discounted rates were granted for the first three years of every new route and FR will reach this timeline soon. Wizz has already dropped out.

They won't be able to stay in FRA if Lufthansa drive them out through below cost selling. I need Ryanair and Aer Lingus to stay in Frankfurt because if Lufthansa is the last man standing thanks to illegal state support or legal state support reallocated to unfair competition then I will not be able to travel at an affordable rate. I don't need €40 return flights but I'll take them while they are there. I need return flights under €100. If Lufthansa drive the competitors out then I'm looking at €250 to €300 return flights in off-season which I will not pay.
There are more people living in the locality than just the employees of Lufthansa. The needs of millions of us mere passengers ace the needs of Lufthansa employees.

Dahlgardo wrote:

Blerg wrote:

governments want to protect their own doesn't mean they don't consider FR as an essential business

If you want to look at it objectively, you can take into consideration if an airline tend to pay local taxes and employ people locally, or they use forein contracts, tax havens and try to avoid local taxes.
An airline with a strong local presence should offcourse be more eligible for support locally.

As for Austria, there are some local rules with regard to laying off people that Ryanair don't adhere to.
I'm sure someone with deeper knowledge than me on this issue can elaborate on that.

If you are taking all those things into consideration then you also have to consider how profitable or not the business is before giving it state aid.

fraT wrote:

seahawk wrote:

The whole connecting traffic has very little economic effect. Those people do not even enter the country.

Do you believe the BS you are writing or do you just want to provoke?

Frankfurt Airport is the biggest employer in the state of Hessia besides the state/city governments. Do you really think that is just because of the O&D traffic? Of course not. So lots of jobs are relying on LH (in that case). How many employees does FR has in the region who are paying their taxes here? Not many.
The same goes for basically all major hubs in Europe.
So stating that the hub function does not have an economic effect is just plain wrong.

It will be interesting to see whether FR stays in FRA when they have to pay the same fees as every other carrier. If I remember correctly the discounted rates were granted for the first three years of every new route and FR will reach this timeline soon. Wizz has already dropped out.

Seahawk's point is that the jobs created by connecting traffic could be anywhere, why should they be in Frankfurt or Munich or Zurich?
The LH Group has over 500 daily flights going in and out of Italy, stealing Italian jobs to create more jobs in Frankfurt, Munich and Zurich.
With subsidies, they can steal even more jobs from other places.

You can see now that these subsidies could lead to a trade war within the EU.

Give me 10 Billions today, I'll start an airline with a fleet of 500 aircraft anywhere you want in Europe and drive LH out of business within 3 years and displace all the jobs to that location.
Alternatively, give me 10 billions as LH CEO and I'll run all our competitors out of business as soon as this is over and make Germany great again.

And the BiaS already shows in your screenname, most of us just want to see a fair European market with competition.

I would also like to emphasis one aspect.
If an airline gets more state aid than other airlines during bad times, you can bet that they are receiving bigger state aids in good times too.

My lady works for a government agency of a country that I won't name and the agency paid 5000 USD for a one-way ticket in economy class in low season with the country's flag carrier for a 10 hour flight. She didn't even get lounge access, an upgrade or nothing. She could have gotten the ticket for 1/5th of that amount with a competing carrier or 1/4th with the same carrier by booking it herself.
She was shocked at how the government wastes taxpayer money but I nuanced that it's just a subsidy.

Some countries are just better at cheating than others.
The coronavirus crisis only exposes how big the cheating is.

seahawk wrote:

The whole connecting traffic has very little economic effect. Those people do not even enter the country.

Wrong. They fill the longhaul plane and make the flight viable and different places will be connected.

marcelh wrote:

seahawk wrote:

The whole connecting traffic has very little economic effect. Those people do not even enter the country.

Wrong. They fill the longhaul plane and make the flight viable and different places will be connected.

They can fill a smaller plane or fewer flights per day.
They can also fly with a competitor and transit in another hub.

Subsidies should not be used to fill larger long haul planes and make a larger aircraft or more frequencies viable.
Subsidies should not be used to direct passengers to one airline or hub or country over another.

Waterbomber2 wrote:

fraT wrote:

seahawk wrote:

The whole connecting traffic has very little economic effect. Those people do not even enter the country.

Do you believe the BS you are writing or do you just want to provoke?

Frankfurt Airport is the biggest employer in the state of Hessia besides the state/city governments. Do you really think that is just because of the O&D traffic? Of course not. So lots of jobs are relying on LH (in that case). How many employees does FR has in the region who are paying their taxes here? Not many.
The same goes for basically all major hubs in Europe.
So stating that the hub function does not have an economic effect is just plain wrong.

It will be interesting to see whether FR stays in FRA when they have to pay the same fees as every other carrier. If I remember correctly the discounted rates were granted for the first three years of every new route and FR will reach this timeline soon. Wizz has already dropped out.

Seahawk's point is that the jobs created by connecting traffic could be anywhere, why should they be in Frankfurt or Munich or Zurich?
The LH Group has over 500 daily flights going in and out of Italy, stealing Italian jobs to create more jobs in Frankfurt, Munich and Zurich.
With subsidies, they can steal even more jobs from other places.

You can see now that these subsidies could lead to a trade war within the EU.

Give me 10 Billions today, I'll start an airline with a fleet of 500 aircraft anywhere you want in Europe and drive LH out of business within 3 years and displace all the jobs to that location.
Alternatively, give me 10 billions as LH CEO and I'll run all our competitors out of business as soon as this is over and make Germany great again.

And the BiaS already shows in your screenname, most of us just want to see a fair European market with competition.

I would also like to emphasis one aspect.
If an airline gets more state aid than other airlines during bad times, you can bet that they are receiving bigger state aids in good times too.

My lady works for a government agency of a country that I won't name and the agency paid 5000 USD for a one-way ticket in economy class in low season with the country's flag carrier for a 10 hour flight. She didn't even get lounge access, an upgrade or nothing. She could have gotten the ticket for 1/5th of that amount with a competing carrier or 1/4th with the same carrier by booking it herself.
She was shocked at how the government wastes taxpayer money but I nuanced that it's just a subsidy.

Some countries are just better at cheating than others.
The coronavirus crisis only exposes how big the cheating is.

Nice try. Lufthansa took advantage of the incompetence of the Italians not able to run an airline efficiently.

MOL is ridiculos - he made his airline big with airport subsidies (tax money) and social fraud (tax money) and now complains, if fair employers receive aid for innocent problems...

viennafly wrote:

MOL is ridiculos - he made his airline big with airport subsidies (tax money) and social fraud (tax money) and now complains, if fair employers receive aid for innocent problems...

I suppose if you repeat a lie often enough some people will believe it but Ryanair is the airline it is because over 100 million per year(in the past) chose to fly with them without anybody twisting their arms to do so.

marcelh wrote:

Waterbomber2 wrote:

fraT wrote:

Do you believe the BS you are writing or do you just want to provoke?

Frankfurt Airport is the biggest employer in the state of Hessia besides the state/city governments. Do you really think that is just because of the O&D traffic? Of course not. So lots of jobs are relying on LH (in that case). How many employees does FR has in the region who are paying their taxes here? Not many.
The same goes for basically all major hubs in Europe.
So stating that the hub function does not have an economic effect is just plain wrong.

It will be interesting to see whether FR stays in FRA when they have to pay the same fees as every other carrier. If I remember correctly the discounted rates were granted for the first three years of every new route and FR will reach this timeline soon. Wizz has already dropped out.

Seahawk's point is that the jobs created by connecting traffic could be anywhere, why should they be in Frankfurt or Munich or Zurich?
The LH Group has over 500 daily flights going in and out of Italy, stealing Italian jobs to create more jobs in Frankfurt, Munich and Zurich.
With subsidies, they can steal even more jobs from other places.

You can see now that these subsidies could lead to a trade war within the EU.

Give me 10 Billions today, I'll start an airline with a fleet of 500 aircraft anywhere you want in Europe and drive LH out of business within 3 years and displace all the jobs to that location.
Alternatively, give me 10 billions as LH CEO and I'll run all our competitors out of business as soon as this is over and make Germany great again.

And the BiaS already shows in your screenname, most of us just want to see a fair European market with competition.

I would also like to emphasis one aspect.
If an airline gets more state aid than other airlines during bad times, you can bet that they are receiving bigger state aids in good times too.

My lady works for a government agency of a country that I won't name and the agency paid 5000 USD for a one-way ticket in economy class in low season with the country's flag carrier for a 10 hour flight. She didn't even get lounge access, an upgrade or nothing. She could have gotten the ticket for 1/5th of that amount with a competing carrier or 1/4th with the same carrier by booking it herself.
She was shocked at how the government wastes taxpayer money but I nuanced that it's just a subsidy.

Some countries are just better at cheating than others.
The coronavirus crisis only exposes how big the cheating is.

Nice try. Lufthansa took advantage of the incompetence of the Italians not able to run an airline efficiently.

Very true.
Italians are too honest and transparent about subsidising their airline and don't have an urge to dominate the world.

Germans subsidise all their industries a lot, they just don't advertise it so much.

Here are examples:

Secret German auto subsidies exposed
May 24, 2017

Handelsblatt found the German car industry, long suspected of having an overly-cozy relationship with the Merkel-lead government, had vacuumed up and average of €11.5 billion ($A17.2b) a year in assistance, subsidies and just plain handouts since 2007.

https://www.motoring.com.au/secret-germ ... ed-107275/
https://www.handelsblatt.com/today/comp ... 4bfNoz-ap3


It's not hard to make businesses look profitable when subsidies flow in through the back door.
In the airline business, subsidies are rthe rule rather than the exception. Take out the subsidies and most airlines will be loss-making.

fraT wrote:

seahawk wrote:

The whole connecting traffic has very little economic effect. Those people do not even enter the country.

Do you believe the BS you are writing or do you just want to provoke?

Frankfurt Airport is the biggest employer in the state of Hessia besides the state/city governments. Do you really think that is just because of the O&D traffic? Of course not. So lots of jobs are relying on LH (in that case). How many employees does FR has in the region who are paying their taxes here? Not many.
The same goes for basically all major hubs in Europe.
So stating that the hub function does not have an economic effect is just plain wrong.

It will be interesting to see whether FR stays in FRA when they have to pay the same fees as every other carrier. If I remember correctly the discounted rates were granted for the first three years of every new route and FR will reach this timeline soon. Wizz has already dropped out.

Just because many work in an industry does not make it is sustainable against global competition. Just like the coal mining industry once was one of the biggest employers in Germany and has now completely disappeared, the airline industry will also shrink to a sustainable level filled by local demand. In that case airlines like FR do actually serve the population, because they fly to the destination the people living within the catchment area actually want to fly., while Lufthansa takes a person from New York to India, this does nothing for the local community.

leghorn wrote:

viennafly wrote:

MOL is ridiculos - he made his airline big with airport subsidies (tax money) and social fraud (tax money) and now complains, if fair employers receive aid for innocent problems...

I suppose if you repeat a lie often enough some people will believe it but Ryanair is the airline it is because over 100 million per year(in the past) chose to fly with them without anybody twisting their arms to do so.

Doesn't make it better that so many people don't care about safety and fair working conditions either - they still just use and opportunity, MOL constructed the system.