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.

Waterbomber2 wrote:

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.

Such as BA, AF or the likes of EK and QR are „stealing“ jobs from Frankfurt, Munich or Zurich? Jesus, please!

Waterbomber2 wrote:

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.

Please provide a source backing this frank statement.

Waterbomber2 wrote:

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.

One-way is the one magic word. Then there are things like booking classes and fare conditions playing a role. Well, a fully flexible, fully refundable one way ticket booked a day before the flight can cost a fortune. That’s no secret.

Waterbomber2 wrote:

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

Yes, and they are also very transparant who has to pay for it (*cough* Eurobonds *cough*). The same Eurobonds you are also want because of "solidarity".

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.

You have to look at the bigger picture. Some airlines may be loss-making, but they generate a lot of added value for the country.
To go back on topic: Ryanair doesn't add a lot of value, because they need subsidies to fly from one rural airport to another...

seahawk wrote:

the airline industry will also shrink to a sustainable level filled by local demand.

Go, tell that Emirates.

Or are you just setting up Lufthansa specific rules and call that a “fair competition” afterwards?

seahawk wrote:

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.

Oh Lufthansa takes me from any airport in Germany to India, trust me. Tried that out multiple times and it works. And to New York also. As well as Los Angeles, Johannesburg, Bangkok, Tokyo, Singapore and many many other places inside and outside of Europe.

So I guess you support the full opening of the market to the ME3?

seahawk wrote:

So I guess you support the full opening of the market to the ME3?

Personally I have no issue with that.

Terrier79 wrote:

seahawk wrote:

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.

Oh Lufthansa takes me from any airport in Germany to India, trust me. Tried that out multiple times and it works. And to New York also. As well as Los Angeles, Johannesburg, Bangkok, Tokyo, Singapore and many many other places inside and outside of Europe.

Try that with Ryanair.....

marcelh wrote:

Terrier79 wrote:

seahawk wrote:

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.

Oh Lufthansa takes me from any airport in Germany to India, trust me. Tried that out multiple times and it works. And to New York also. As well as Los Angeles, Johannesburg, Bangkok, Tokyo, Singapore and many many other places inside and outside of Europe.

Try that with Ryanair.....

The‘d drop me in Pune and tell me that I’m in Mumbai-East.

marcelh wrote:

Terrier79 wrote:

seahawk wrote:

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.

Oh Lufthansa takes me from any airport in Germany to India, trust me. Tried that out multiple times and it works. And to New York also. As well as Los Angeles, Johannesburg, Bangkok, Tokyo, Singapore and many many other places inside and outside of Europe.

Try that with Ryanair.....

Why do I have to use LH for that? I can use EK, QR, KLM, BA, AF .....

viennafly wrote:

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.

Another lie that some people hope will be parroted often enough to be believed true.

So back to topic, which was Ryanair threatening EU over state aid for airlines.

Any new complaints about IB receiving aid from Spain? A state, where other than Germany, FR has a strong presence and also flies within the country?

seahawk wrote:

marcelh wrote:

Terrier79 wrote:

Oh Lufthansa takes me from any airport in Germany to India, trust me. Tried that out multiple times and it works. And to New York also. As well as Los Angeles, Johannesburg, Bangkok, Tokyo, Singapore and many many other places inside and outside of Europe.

Try that with Ryanair.....

Why do I have to use LH for that? I can use EK, QR, KLM, BA, AF .....

You’re supposed to be opposing all the legacies based on your posts or is it only LHG you have a problem with?

Terrier79 wrote:

So back to topic, which was Ryanair threatening EU over state aid for airlines.

Any new complaints about IB receiving aid from Spain? A state, where other than Germany, FR has a strong presence and also flies within the country?

Not heard but undoubtedly that will come. I hope Ryanair doesn’t just make noise for a change but actually files the suit. I would love for this to be properly, ideally publicly sorted out.

RvA wrote:

seahawk wrote:

marcelh wrote:

Try that with Ryanair.....

Why do I have to use LH for that? I can use EK, QR, KLM, BA, AF .....

You’re supposed to be opposing all the legacies based on your posts or is it only LHG you have a problem with?

I have a problem with the amount of help LH is getting. If you consider that in Germany the state already pays the wages of the employees temporarily not needed, I see no reason for such a big amount of money given to LH and it is a huge amount even compared to what Iberia or even AF/KLM are getting.

seahawk wrote:

Why do I have to use LH for that? I can use EK, QR, KLM, BA, AF .....

And you can - but don’t have to - use Lufthansa.

All of the airlines mentioned above (except BA) are fully or partiality state owned enterprises. All of them have received state aid in this crisis.

So what’s your specific problem with Lufthansa which you do not have with the others?

seahawk wrote:

I have a problem with the amount of help LH is getting. If you consider that in Germany the state already pays the wages of the employees temporarily not needed, I see no reason for such a big amount of money given to LH and it is a huge amount even compared to what Iberia or even AF/KLM are getting.

So jealousy paired with misinformation and a good portion of anti-German bias.

It’s not that the state that pays the wages of employees temporarily not needed, it is the insurance which every Lufthansa employee and Lufthansa themselves have paid for in every month, every year of regular employment. Money they could not invest in shiny new aircraft.

The amount of support which is reported now by the way seems to be more or less the same as AF-KL. The ME3 will be as Intransparent as ever but it’s foolish to assume their support would be less.

Waterbomber2 wrote:

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 #&$.

To be honest, I would support state aid on the the condition that the aid is not used to support these types of flights. However, Rome and BCN (to a certain extend) are not 100% leisure destinations.Thus no Ibiza, PMI or AGP.

seahawk wrote:

marcelh wrote:

Terrier79 wrote:

Oh Lufthansa takes me from any airport in Germany to India, trust me. Tried that out multiple times and it works. And to New York also. As well as Los Angeles, Johannesburg, Bangkok, Tokyo, Singapore and many many other places inside and outside of Europe.

Try that with Ryanair.....

Why do I have to use LH for that? I can use EK, QR, KLM, BA, AF .....

Without state aid there won't be any EK, QR KLM, AF, IB and probably no BA anymore.

fraT wrote:

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.

This shouldn''t be the criteria. The criteria should be what is the impact on other companies when an airline goes down. In The Netherlands the entire flower trade depends on KLMs network as do some large exporters (for example ASML) to distribute their products around the world. As such the Dutch government decided that the loss of KLM at this point of time costs more than saving it. However, it will come at a price for KLM. You can apply the same logic for LH. Will German companies able to transport their goods in teh same way should LH be gone? Probably not on short and medium term. Hence why state aid for LH makes sense. The number of employees working for LH should be irrelevant as the government shoudl force the airline to shrink and leave flights the 100% leisure destinations to competitors or anyone else.

LJ wrote:

seahawk wrote:

marcelh wrote:

Try that with Ryanair.....

Why do I have to use LH for that? I can use EK, QR, KLM, BA, AF .....

Without state aid there won't be any EK, QR KLM, AF, IB and probably no BA anymore.

fraT wrote:

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.

This shouldn''t be the criteria. The criteria should be what is the impact on other companies when an airline goes down. In The Netherlands the entire flower trade depends on KLMs network as do some large exporters (for example ASML) to distribute their products around the world. As such the Dutch government decided that the loss of KLM at this point of time costs more than saving it. However, it will come at a price for KLM. You can apply the same logic for LH. Will German companies able to transport their goods in teh same way should LH be gone? Probably not on short and medium term. Hence why state aid for LH makes sense. The number of employees working for LH should be irrelevant as the government shoudl force the airline to shrink and leave flights the 100% leisure destinations to competitors or anyone else.

Valid points however I was talking about FRA airport employees and not the LH employees.

Terrier79 wrote:

So back to topic, which was Ryanair threatening EU over state aid for airlines.

Any new complaints about IB receiving aid from Spain? A state, where other than Germany, FR has a strong presence and also flies within the country?

IB is getting a 1 billion EUR 70% state-guarantee on a loan for itself and VY.
200 aircraft in the fleet.
Balance sheet effect: zero, just securing liquidity.
Competition effect: minimal, just surviving

LH is getting 6 billions in equity that they can keep, with minimal harm and diluton of existing investors, and 3.5 billions straight from a government bank.
Swiss getting 1.5 billion CHF 85% state-guarantee on a loan.
Awaiting more money from Belgium and Austria.
750 aircraft in the fleet.
Balance sheet effect: LH: 6 billions capital injection from the government, 3.5 billion in direct loans they can make disappear. LX: Loan pursued a bit excessive for its size but still acceptable.
Competition effect: LH : don't get me started. LX: Easyjet CH being rejected constitues an unfair advantage.

Air France-KLM: all loans, so just securing liquidity, although we need to take a look at whether they really needed 10 billions, seems excessive. AF-KLM were not insanely profitable so they had less margin to build liquidity over the years. Low market capitalisation, so not easy to issue new equity.
US airlines: all loans except for payroll partially covered by grants, the rest covered by loans and airlines' own liquidities. Loans are a bit excessive in amounts, big profits at some airlines before this crisis, lots of share buybacks which reflect of poor financial management.


So as you can see, it's Apples and oranges.

Most people here seem unhappy with the size and way the LH rescue subsidy is being constituted.
Add the fact that LH was the largest and most profitable aviation group in Europe until 2 months ago, no excuse for low liquidity.
Here there are no question marks, there clearly is a problem.

Terrier79 wrote:

seahawk wrote:

I have a problem with the amount of help LH is getting. If you consider that in Germany the state already pays the wages of the employees temporarily not needed, I see no reason for such a big amount of money given to LH and it is a huge amount even compared to what Iberia or even AF/KLM are getting.

So jealousy paired with misinformation and a good portion of anti-German bias.

It’s not that the state that pays the wages of employees temporarily not needed, it is the insurance which every Lufthansa employee and Lufthansa themselves have paid for in every month, every year of regular employment. Money they could not invest in shiny new aircraft.

The amount of support which is reported now by the way seems to be more or less the same as AF-KL. The ME3 will be as Intransparent as ever but it’s foolish to assume their support would be less.

Wrong, it is the insurance every employee and every employer in Germany pay into which is the administrated by the federal employment agency. So in the end other employers and all employees in Germany pay for Lufthansa.

seahawk wrote:

Terrier79 wrote:

seahawk wrote:

I have a problem with the amount of help LH is getting. If you consider that in Germany the state already pays the wages of the employees temporarily not needed, I see no reason for such a big amount of money given to LH and it is a huge amount even compared to what Iberia or even AF/KLM are getting.

So jealousy paired with misinformation and a good portion of anti-German bias.

It’s not that the state that pays the wages of employees temporarily not needed, it is the insurance which every Lufthansa employee and Lufthansa themselves have paid for in every month, every year of regular employment. Money they could not invest in shiny new aircraft.

The amount of support which is reported now by the way seems to be more or less the same as AF-KL. The ME3 will be as Intransparent as ever but it’s foolish to assume their support would be less.

Wrong, it is the insurance every employee and every employer in Germany pay into which is the administrated by the federal employment agency. So in the end other employers and all employees in Germany pay for Lufthansa.

And all other companies in Germany and other countries with similar arrangements. Including other airlines.

EasyJet CH keeps getting mentioned but they have access to government backed funds too and have have equal access to short term working like any other company.

seahawk wrote:

[...] Germany the state already pays the wages of the employees temporarily not needed

seahawk wrote:

Wrong, it is the insurance every employee and every employer in Germany pay into which is the administrated by the federal employment agency. So in the end other employers and all employees in Germany pay for Lufthansa.

See, see, you correct your own false statements and do not claim any longer that it is the state who pays? Bravo.
And regarding the insurance: .It is the character of an insurance that many pay in but only a few have to be paid out in an insurance case. Nothing to see here, move on.

Terrier79 wrote:

seahawk wrote:

[...] Germany the state already pays the wages of the employees temporarily not needed

seahawk wrote:

Wrong, it is the insurance every employee and every employer in Germany pay into which is the administrated by the federal employment agency. So in the end other employers and all employees in Germany pay for Lufthansa.

See, see, you correct your own false statements and do not claim any longer that it is the state who pays? Bravo.
And regarding the insurance: .It is the character of an insurance that many pay in but only a few have to be paid out in an insurance case. Nothing to see here, move on.

Just the fact that the additional money for the insurance comes from the state budget.

Dmoney wrote:

WayexTDI wrote:

Waterbomber2 wrote:

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.

What are you talking about?
Ryanair has done it numerous times: receive help from local government in exchange for X flights a day for Y months/year. Then, when it turns out not as profitable as they wanted (or for whatever else reason), they pull out of the market while flipping the bird to the local authorities. And, when sued for breach of contract, they ignore any and all court injunction... until someone seizes their aircraft for repayment. Has happened more than once.
That, and the numerous labor laws broken, EU laws broken on ticker reimbursement/compensation, etc.

MOL complains about the EU or some European countries not playing fair with Ryanair and its subsidies? Well, MOL isn't playing fair with local governments, European countries or customers.
He's getting a taste of his own medicine and don't like it. Tough luck.

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.

No one forced passengers to fly Ryanair; but passengers chose to fly Ryanair due to its cheaper fares thanks to taxpayers money (airport subsidies, social frauds, etc) and even passengers' own money (delayed or even denied ticket reimbursement or compensation due to Ryanair's own fault, EU 261 comes in mind).

So, it's no lie, just real facts proven year after year after year...

Waterbomber2 wrote:

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.

1. Can you source a claim that the LH group has over FIVE HUNDRED flights to Italy? That is very close to the number of flights AZ has IN TOTAL...
2. They are in FRA, MUC, and ZRH because they're in FRA, MUC, and ZRH. This is where airlines that are chasing connections have chosen to hub although I'd speculate the percentage of connections in ZRH is far lower than the LH hubs. I don't even really understand what you're trying to say with why should the jobs be there? Because they are?
3. There are no stolen Italian jobs. LH has found they can make good money connecting Europe and the world to Italy. There maybe could have been more jobs in Italy itself but the Italian national carrier is a failure on all fronts and even with endless funding from the Italian government cannot compete. Is that LH or any other carrier's fault? This argument will always fail if you're comparing to AZ, quite possibly one of the most subsidized and bailed out carriers ever.

NYCVIE wrote:

1. Can you source a claim that the LH group has over FIVE HUNDRED flights to Italy? That is very close to the number of flights AZ has IN TOTAL...

I think 500 daily flights is too much but it must be around 200 daily flights (I estimate around 60 by Air Dolimiti. Milan/Rome are combined another 60 daily departures for the entire LH Group and the remaining 80 is easily covered by the remaining flights)

WayexTDI wrote:

Dmoney wrote:

WayexTDI wrote:

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.

What are you talking about?
Ryanair has done it numerous times: receive help from local government in exchange for X flights a day for Y months/year. Then, when it turns out not as profitable as they wanted (or for whatever else reason), they pull out of the market while flipping the bird to the local authorities. And, when sued for breach of contract, they ignore any and all court injunction... until someone seizes their aircraft for repayment. Has happened more than once.
That, and the numerous labor laws broken, EU laws broken on ticker reimbursement/compensation, etc.

MOL complains about the EU or some European countries not playing fair with Ryanair and its subsidies? Well, MOL isn't playing fair with local governments, European countries or customers.
He's getting a taste of his own medicine and don't like it. Tough luck.

Sorry Wayne, none of what you've said is true. Why are you lying ? They've got done for illegal state aid and repaid that. The ones where they won the court case was shown to be commercial negotiation in court.

If you have evidence for your claims you need to provide it.

viennafly wrote:

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.

Ryanair have never had a serious accident so safety claims don't make sense. They've also never received any subsidies....

Analysis of state aid to selected Ryanair airports
Almost a quarter of the EU airports served by Ryanair are likely to be loss-making and propped up by taxpayers’ money.
https://www.transportenvironment.org/si ... rports.pdf

France seizes Ryanair plane in Bordeaux over EU subsidy dispute
https://www.france24.com/en/20181109-fr ... commission

Ryanair received Scottish Government subsidy (yet withdrew from Glasgow in 2018).
https://theferret.scot/critics-say-no-g ... t-subsidy/

€35 million in subsidies were paid to Ryanair by various French airports in 2006
https://voxeurop.eu/cs/node/256041
https://www.irishtimes.com/news/ryanair ... s-1.659808

Conclusion: ME3 never received any subsidies.

GLANKG wrote:

Analysis of state aid to selected Ryanair airports
Almost a quarter of the EU airports served by Ryanair are likely to be loss-making and propped up by taxpayers’ money.
https://www.transportenvironment.org/si ... rports.pdf

France seizes Ryanair plane in Bordeaux over EU subsidy dispute
https://www.france24.com/en/20181109-fr ... commission

Ryanair received Scottish Government subsidy (yet withdrew from Glasgow in 2018).
https://theferret.scot/critics-say-no-g ... t-subsidy/

€35 million in subsidies were paid to Ryanair by various French airports in 2006
https://voxeurop.eu/cs/node/256041
https://www.irishtimes.com/news/ryanair ... s-1.659808

Conclusion: ME3 never received any subsidies.

Of course FR received subsidies, which airline hasn't? Main difference is that FR can survive without those as they have not been the main growth factor for them. Also, it says a lot about their business model if all those airports and governments are willing to give them money.

More information on Austrian Airlines bailout. Last week the airline applied for €767 million but the Austrian Chancellor said the following:

'“we will, of course, find a way to work with Lufthansa,” Kurz said, “but Lufthansa is and remains a German company, so there can be no state aid” without something in return.'

Seems like the strings the Austrians are trying to attach are not for OS but rather for LH Group. Let's see what the government asks for.

https://www.brusselstimes.com/all-news/ ... ncessions/
------------------------------------------------------

According to another source, opposition parties in Austria are putting pressure on Kurz to request shares of LH Group in return for investing in Austrian Airlines. Even though Austrian Airlines applied for loan guarantees with the government, it will be problematic as Austrian law allows it but for a maximum amount of €120 million or the company's three month revenue. Now it remains to be seen what Vienna does and if it breaks/revises its own law to accommodate Lufthansa's business in Austria.

https://www.businesstimes.com.sg/transp ... rlines-aid

In the meantime, Ryanair, Europe’s most ethical airline group, threatens to close down its Vienna subsidiary Laudamotion.

“"Lauda is having a very difficult conversation with the Austrian Airlines union down there. We have given them until May 20 to accept significant pay cuts and a new CLA" (collective labour agreement), O'Leary told Reuters in an interview.
If they refuse, the airline's Austrian base will close and Ryanair will step up in Vienna, he said.”

https://www.nytimes.com/reuters/2020/05 ... rview.html

In preparation to the closure, the Vienna slots have already been transferred to Ryanair:

“The slots for Vienna of the Austrian Ryanair base LaudaMotion (formally an Austrian GmbH) were transferred to the parent company Ryanair.” (via google translate)

https://www.austrianwings.info/2020/04/ ... n-ryanair/

I predict that Laudamotion will be gone for good end of the month and MoL will loudly blame the unions and the Austrian government for failing so badly.

Terrier79 wrote:

In the meantime, Ryanair, Europe’s most ethical airline group, threatens to close down its Vienna subsidiary Laudamotion.

“"Lauda is having a very difficult conversation with the Austrian Airlines union down there. We have given them until May 20 to accept significant pay cuts and a new CLA" (collective labour agreement), O'Leary told Reuters in an interview.
If they refuse, the airline's Austrian base will close and Ryanair will step up in Vienna, he said.”

https://www.nytimes.com/reuters/2020/05 ... rview.html

In preparation to the closure, the Vienna slots have already been transferred to Ryanair:

“The slots for Vienna of the Austrian Ryanair base LaudaMotion (formally an Austrian GmbH) were transferred to the parent company Ryanair.” (via google translate)

https://www.austrianwings.info/2020/04/ ... n-ryanair/

I predict that Laudamotion will be gone for good end of the month and MoL will loudly blame the unions and the Austrian government for failing so badly.

Ryanair is indeed the most ethical airline because they are very honest about who they are and what their goal is. Don't see what's so controversial there. People who apply to work there know very well what to expect.

Blerg wrote:

Terrier79 wrote:

In the meantime, Ryanair, Europe’s most ethical airline group, threatens to close down its Vienna subsidiary Laudamotion.

“"Lauda is having a very difficult conversation with the Austrian Airlines union down there. We have given them until May 20 to accept significant pay cuts and a new CLA" (collective labour agreement), O'Leary told Reuters in an interview.
If they refuse, the airline's Austrian base will close and Ryanair will step up in Vienna, he said.”

https://www.nytimes.com/reuters/2020/05 ... rview.html

In preparation to the closure, the Vienna slots have already been transferred to Ryanair:

“The slots for Vienna of the Austrian Ryanair base LaudaMotion (formally an Austrian GmbH) were transferred to the parent company Ryanair.” (via google translate)

https://www.austrianwings.info/2020/04/ ... n-ryanair/

I predict that Laudamotion will be gone for good end of the month and MoL will loudly blame the unions and the Austrian government for failing so badly.

Ryanair is indeed the most ethical airline because they are very honest about who they are and what their goal is. Don't see what's so controversial there. People who apply to work there know very well what to expect.

However, your definition of "ethical" seems to be diferent from the commonly used definition fot the world "ethical" (unless you consider this behaviour corporate socially responsible).

BTW this would clearly solve our discussion as once Laudamotion is closed, they don't have to apply for state aid from the Austrian government.

Blerg wrote:

GLANKG wrote:

Analysis of state aid to selected Ryanair airports
Almost a quarter of the EU airports served by Ryanair are likely to be loss-making and propped up by taxpayers’ money.
https://www.transportenvironment.org/si ... rports.pdf

France seizes Ryanair plane in Bordeaux over EU subsidy dispute
https://www.france24.com/en/20181109-fr ... commission

Ryanair received Scottish Government subsidy (yet withdrew from Glasgow in 2018).
https://theferret.scot/critics-say-no-g ... t-subsidy/

€35 million in subsidies were paid to Ryanair by various French airports in 2006
https://voxeurop.eu/cs/node/256041
https://www.irishtimes.com/news/ryanair ... s-1.659808

Conclusion: ME3 never received any subsidies.

Of course FR received subsidies, which airline hasn't? Main difference is that FR can survive without those as they have not been the main growth factor for them. Also, it says a lot about their business model if all those airports and governments are willing to give them money.

Apparently I wasnae addressing to you. But quite interesting thought here, if I may apply the same logic, what says about their business model if Austrian government is willing to give OS money, or Italy to AZ, or France to AF then?

And I wouldn't be so confident to conclude FR can survive without subsidies, if you read the report then you should be aware there is a case that Ryanair might not be so profitable without those in the past. As for now nobody knows how long does it take for demand to recover, we could be talking months or years who knows when's next FR flight taking off. (We also don't know how FR's competitors are faring through the crisis, OS could be strengthened and could also go bust, even AZ could finally find the magic money tree.)

LJ wrote:

Blerg wrote:

Terrier79 wrote:

In the meantime, Ryanair, Europe’s most ethical airline group, threatens to close down its Vienna subsidiary Laudamotion.

“"Lauda is having a very difficult conversation with the Austrian Airlines union down there. We have given them until May 20 to accept significant pay cuts and a new CLA" (collective labour agreement), O'Leary told Reuters in an interview.
If they refuse, the airline's Austrian base will close and Ryanair will step up in Vienna, he said.”

https://www.nytimes.com/reuters/2020/05 ... rview.html

In preparation to the closure, the Vienna slots have already been transferred to Ryanair:

“The slots for Vienna of the Austrian Ryanair base LaudaMotion (formally an Austrian GmbH) were transferred to the parent company Ryanair.” (via google translate)

https://www.austrianwings.info/2020/04/ ... n-ryanair/

I predict that Laudamotion will be gone for good end of the month and MoL will loudly blame the unions and the Austrian government for failing so badly.

Ryanair is indeed the most ethical airline because they are very honest about who they are and what their goal is. Don't see what's so controversial there. People who apply to work there know very well what to expect.

However, your definition of "ethical" seems to be diferent from the commonly used definition fot the world "ethical" (unless you consider this behaviour corporate socially responsible).

BTW this would clearly solve our discussion as once Laudamotion is closed, they don't have to apply for state aid from the Austrian government.

At the end of the day does it really matter what is commonly referred to as ethical? I mean at one point in our time many unethical things were considered ethical. I think not lying is pretty ethical and Ryanair is really doing that. They are very upfront and open about who they are and what they do.

Lauda being shut down wouldn't put an end to this discussion because FR is complaining on an EU level. It will become extremely interesting now when the Austrian government will have work around its own laws to help OS out.

seahawk wrote:

Ryanair is a highly successful European airline that has reduced the ticket prices and revolutionized air travel in Europe. They do not want help, all they want is a fair competition, which means letting uncompetitive and fat airlines die.

Ha. If that's what you call revolutionary, I'd hate to see what you call something that really is revolutionary.

Here's a plane. Here's loads of cheap seats. I will remove loads of costs to the detriment of a lot of people. I will refuse to give refunds unless forced and you keep on at me for long enough. Here's a cheap fare.

Yep, revolutionary.

I'm assuming 1st class is also revolutionary, but in the opposite sense?


Sent from my SM-G930F using Tapatalk

Junglejames wrote:

seahawk wrote:

Ryanair is a highly successful European airline that has reduced the ticket prices and revolutionized air travel in Europe. They do not want help, all they want is a fair competition, which means letting uncompetitive and fat airlines die.

Ha. If that's what you call revolutionary, I'd hate to see what you call something that really is revolutionary.

Here's a plane. Here's loads of cheap seats. I will remove loads of costs to the detriment of a lot of people. I will refuse to give refunds unless forced and you keep on at me for long enough. Here's a cheap fare.

Yep, revolutionary.

I'm assuming 1st class is also revolutionary, but in the opposite sense?


Sent from my SM-G930F using Tapatalk

Is FR the only airline that sells tickets that can't be refunded?

Kurz's ZIB2 interview and report (in German only): https://orf.at/stories/3163833/
In the first round talk with Carsten Spohr Kurz laid out his position, there won't be aid unless Austria will get something in return, they are also preparing for alternative. Gernot Blümel mentioned boosting VIE hub and protecting future jobs, LH also has to present future prospects and the role of OS. ORF also talked about 7% stake.

Spohr earlier said he doesn't want state influence: https://www.zeit.de/2020/19/lufthansa-c ... oronavirus

EU top court forces Ryanair to be honest about ticket prices

Junglejames wrote:

Here's a plane. Here's loads of cheap seats. I will remove loads of costs to the detriment of a lot of people. I will refuse to give refunds unless forced and you keep on at me for long enough. Here's a cheap fare.

The EU top court in the meantime has ruled that Ryanair, Europe's most revolutionary airline, has to change the way it advertises its oh so cheap tickets.

"The Court of Justice of the EU has directed that airlines must indicate the fees charged for paying by credit card as well as the VAT on domestic flights from the first time their prices are published on the internet. The CJEU said airlines must also indicate any check-in fees payable at the start of a booking process where no method of checking-in free of charge is offered as an alternative."

https://www.thejournal.ie/ryanair-eu-co ... 6-Apr2020/

An important step towards fair competition, excatly what Ryanair is asking for.

It is really hard to have a discussion about how Ryanair and Laudamotion are going to respond to the lockdown because people insist on whataboutery and slinging mud at Ryanair.

Ryanair have invested hundreds of millions in Laudamotion and taken loses mainly because Lufthansa is fighting tooth and nail to keep them out of DACH region.
Lufthansa were making huge loses on those routes in competition with Laudamotion and while their fares were still higher they were hoping that people would pay a small premium to continue flying on Lufthansa or associated company aircraft rather than Laudamotion/Ryanair.

Laudamotion might not make it out of this crisis while Ryanair continues.
They are paying leases for most of that Laudamotion fleet.
Ryanair now hasn't to worry about supplies of aircraft so they can afford to go back to 737s and they have commitments to take 737s that they are not so sure they have routes for.
The Polish and Maltese AOCs are now available.
The Austrian Pilot's union hasn't got a strong bargaining position. I could see A320s coming off lease and being replaced by 737s with either a Laudamotion livery or a Ryanair livery and if those pilots aren't type rated on 737 then too bad for them.

Blerg wrote:

I think not lying is pretty ethical and Ryanair is really doing that. They are very upfront and open about who they are and what they do.

There's a difference in being upfront/open and ethical.

What is revolutionary about Ryanair is, that they looked at airtravel, took out everything that was nice (like being seated next to your wife and children) so they could nickel and dime you to death.
You might think that is smart business, but at the end of the day when you take a step back and look at what you have created, you can start wondering if your business has made the world a better place.

With Ryanair I can't think of many things that has become better.
But I guess it is a personal preference as to what kind of society you want to live in.

leghorn wrote:

It is really hard to have a discussion about how Ryanair and Laudamotion are going to respond to the lockdown because people insist on whataboutery and slinging mud at Ryanair.

Shedding light on Ryanair, its business ethics and moral to the discussion, adds important background information to this discussion. Isn't this, according to the thread title, a discussion about Ryanair at first? I find it important to understand what kind of company it is that threatens the EU over state aid for other airlines.
Ryanair is a controverse company to say the least, and talking about the dark side of it has nothing to do with slinging mud.

You are just obsessing over things which are well known to all here. It is well known that Ryanair push every boundary except safety to the breaking point.
The topic here is Ryanair and state aid. Ryanair aren't taking state aid; they are cutting one's coat according to one's cloth and if that means they shrink their fleet or close down a brand then that is what they will do.

leghorn wrote:

The topic here is Ryanair and state aid. Ryanair aren't taking state aid; they are cutting one's coat according to one's cloth and if that means they shrink their fleet or close down a brand then that is what they will do.

So far they are not taking state aid, that is indeed correct. At this moment, Ryanair reacts with other harsh measures to the Corona crisis, i.e. mass job cuts, salary caps for remaining employees, closing down bases,closing down subsidiaries, leaving their staff just behind. This is the kind of "business ethics" and "social responsibility" we talked about earlier.

"Irish airline Ryanair announced mass job cuts on May Day and salary caps for remaining employees, as the low-cost flyer made a U-turn on its bullish insistence on being able to ride out the virus outbreak unscathed. [...] CEO Michael O’Leary had previously played up his company’s ability to weather the pandemic’s devastating impact on air travel demand – down more than 90% in Europe – by highlighting Ryanair’s €4 billion in cash reserves.
https://www.euractiv.com/section/aviati ... -job-cuts/

Is Ryanair listed on a register of Charities?
Labour is required for service delivery and service is not being delivered so surplus labour will be shed where possible. You might as well be complaining about the sun leaving you in darkness a couple of hours every day. If you don't like that then live a nomadic life within the arctic and antarctic circles but be prepared for the compromises which must be made.

leghorn wrote:

Is Ryanair listed on a register of Charities?
Labour is required for service delivery and service is not being delivered so surplus labour will be shed where possible.

Certainly not as they have proven over the decades

It is a question of business ethics how a company responds to this crisis. Ryanair remains true to itself as a turbo-capitalist company. On the other hand, with their harsh reaction they are making themselves redundant and that might in the end become a big issue for them. If they find themselves in a situation where they need to ask for state aid (and this should not be ruled out), they will have a hard time argumenting in how far they are "critical infrastructure" if they can just close down the shop without showing corporate responsibility.

If you apply the same measure to other airlines then Ryanair are no worse than the others.
Lufthansa won't take aid if it means they can't fire staff and trying to fire or re-negotiate packages for similar percentages of their workforce.
IAG looking to fire or reduce conditions for similar proportion of their workforce too.

It appears that Ryanair is everyone's whipping boy around here although Management in other companies are just as morally flexible.