Dahlgardo wrote:

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.

Ryanair is the product of our society, they are selling what people are buying. There is a reason why legacy carriers downgraded their product. Naturally there is always going to be a market for both legacies and LCCs, its size will depend on many different factors, of course. Personally I don't fly on either Wizz Air or Ryanair but I do appreciate what they did for air travel, they forced others to lower their fares to a more reasonable level.

Terrier79 wrote:

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 are referring to the closure of Lauda then you have to understand that they are not leaving Vienna, they are merely replacing one brand with another. No different than when LH replaced mainline with Eurowings in certain markets.

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.

which means? If they can't get their beak wet? Then NOBODY can? What are they Kidding? They're the flag carrier of whom?

Dmoney wrote:

WayexTDI wrote:

Dmoney wrote:

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.

Ryanair did receive LEGAL state aid in exchange for service to Cognac during a certain period of time, they pulled out of the market prior to the end of the agreed-upon time effectively breaking the contract; they refused to pay back part of the aid until their plane got seized in Bordeaux.
There are also numerous complains related to Ryanair refusing to comply with EU 261 rules; and numerous lawsuits as well.

There's numerous examples of that all over the internet, and GLANKG provided some.

That's Ryanair's MO: bend and break as many rules as you can, refuse to comply when caught with your pants down, grudgedly agree to comply when threatened with actual retaliation (such as asset seizure).

Blerg wrote:

Terrier79 wrote:

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 are referring to the closure of Lauda then you have to understand that they are not leaving Vienna, they are merely replacing one brand with another. No different than when LH replaced mainline with Eurowings in certain markets.

There is no closure of Laudamotion yet. If the replacing brand with dubious contracts will be accepted by the Austrian government remains to be seen.
On the other hand every employee at Eurowings has solid contracts under the german law. Small details make up a big difference

oldJoe wrote:

Blerg wrote:

Terrier79 wrote:

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 are referring to the closure of Lauda then you have to understand that they are not leaving Vienna, they are merely replacing one brand with another. No different than when LH replaced mainline with Eurowings in certain markets.

There is no closure of Laudamotion yet. If the replacing brand with dubious contracts will be accepted by the Austrian government remains to be seen.
On the other hand every employee at Eurowings has solid contracts under the german law. Small details make up a big difference

Yes, like the tiny detail that Austria might revise its laws, or at least find a way around them in order to provide loan guarantees to Austrian Airlines. Funny how everyone ignored that part.

leghorn wrote:

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

I'm not a fan of any airline CEO, they always seem to use their government contacts and somehow manage to the most out of their situation (they have a good PR department). However, the difference is that they know how to play the game during this crisis. One of my managers learned me to choose your battles. I think Ryanair should do the same and not go after the airlines which currently receive state aid as it's a battle you likely will not win. Better to wait for the second round (which will come around September/October). Or even better, ensure that parliaments give restrictions to the state aid which may be beneficial for you (such are require the airlines who receive aid to scale down certain markets). I think such a strategy has more chances of success.

Blerg wrote:

Yes, like the tiny detail that Austria might revise its laws, or at least find a way around them in order to provide loan guarantees to Austrian Airlines. Funny how everyone ignored that part.

They've learned from the Swiss who ensured that easyJet Switzerland was deemed not eligible for state aid as well.

Blerg wrote:

oldJoe wrote:

Blerg wrote:

If you are referring to the closure of Lauda then you have to understand that they are not leaving Vienna, they are merely replacing one brand with another. No different than when LH replaced mainline with Eurowings in certain markets.

There is no closure of Laudamotion yet. If the replacing brand with dubious contracts will be accepted by the Austrian government remains to be seen.
On the other hand every employee at Eurowings has solid contracts under the german law. Small details make up a big difference

Yes, like the tiny detail that Austria might revise its laws, or at least find a way around them in order to provide loan guarantees to Austrian Airlines. Funny how everyone ignored that part.

Eurowings following German labour law is a fact. If only your 'tiny detail' was a fact.
I don't see how Austria will need to change law to help OS, the proposed aid is almost certainly in line with existing Austrian and EU law. Which bit are you struggling with?

WayexTDI wrote:

Dmoney wrote:

WayexTDI wrote:

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 on 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.

Ryanair did receive LEGAL state aid in exchange for service to Cognac during a certain period of time, they pulled out of the market prior to the end of the agreed-upon time effectively breaking the contract; they refused to pay back part of the aid until their plane got seized in Bordeaux.
There are also numerous complains related to Ryanair refusing to comply with EU 261 rules; and numerous lawsuits as well.

There's numerous examples of that all over the internet, and GLANKG provided some.

That's Ryanair's MO: bend and break as many rules as you can, refuse to comply when caught with your pants down, grudgedly agree to comply when threatened with actual retaliation (such as asset seizure).

Just provide some evidence, that's all. Ryanair have absolutely got stung for state aid from regional airports but then had to repay it. So they've not received any subsidies.

If you have an example of them getting state aid do show.

LJ wrote:

They've learned from the Swiss who ensured that easyJet Switzerland was deemed not eligible for state aid as well.

This keeps on being repeated but it is not correct. EasyJet didn’t qualify by revenue for the support Swiss is poised to receive (not airline specific measures this is for all business of a certain size and above) but EasyJet DOES qualify for the support package for the revenue bucket they do fall in. So to say they are not eligible for state aid is not correct. They are eligible for the same aid as any other company their size.

GLANKG wrote:

Blerg wrote:

oldJoe wrote:

There is no closure of Laudamotion yet. If the replacing brand with dubious contracts will be accepted by the Austrian government remains to be seen.
On the other hand every employee at Eurowings has solid contracts under the german law. Small details make up a big difference

Yes, like the tiny detail that Austria might revise its laws, or at least find a way around them in order to provide loan guarantees to Austrian Airlines. Funny how everyone ignored that part.

Eurowings following German labour law is a fact. If only your 'tiny detail' was a fact.
I don't see how Austria will need to change law to help OS, the proposed aid is almost certainly in line with existing Austrian and EU law. Which bit are you struggling with?

Then go and read what I posted earlier since you clearly missed that post.

It seems the EU has approved French state aid for AF, so Ryanair's posturing is moot.

– The European Union approved 7 billion euros ($7.6 billion) in loans and guarantees that the French state is providing to Air France.

Air France will get 3 billion euros ($3.28 billion) in direct loans from the French state and a 4 billion euro ($4.37 billion) bank loan guaranteed by the state, the airline said in a statement.

https://www.detroitnews.com/story/busin ... 111658686/

France would never accept that it couldn't save AF; Germany would never accept that it couldn't save LH. When EU rules don't work for Germany and France, EU rules are changed.

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-52527517
strings attached for all the real world difference they'll make

MIflyer12 wrote:

It seems the EU has approved French state aid for AF, so Ryanair's posturing is moot.

– The European Union approved 7 billion euros ($7.6 billion) in loans and guarantees that the French state is providing to Air France.

Air France will get 3 billion euros ($3.28 billion) in direct loans from the French state and a 4 billion euro ($4.37 billion) bank loan guaranteed by the state, the airline said in a statement.

https://www.detroitnews.com/story/busin ... 111658686/

France would never accept that it couldn't save AF; Germany would never accept that it couldn't save LH. When EU rules don't work for Germany and France, EU rules are changed.

I think strictly legal speaking EU hasn't changed rules to accommodate AF, what they did is publicly recognising the current situation as 'exceptional occurrences' termed in the treaty on state aid, and the commission approved a temporary framework to issue fast track approvals. By April EC had already approved 1.9 trillion euros bailouts across EU.

Ryanair is not only operating in Austria, they should be suing all of them.

Blerg wrote:

GLANKG wrote:

Blerg wrote:

Yes, like the tiny detail that Austria might revise its laws, or at least find a way around them in order to provide loan guarantees to Austrian Airlines. Funny how everyone ignored that part.

Eurowings following German labour law is a fact. If only your 'tiny detail' was a fact.
I don't see how Austria will need to change law to help OS, the proposed aid is almost certainly in line with existing Austrian and EU law. Which bit are you struggling with?

Then go and read what I posted earlier since you clearly missed that post.

Yesterday I posted ORF interview and report, if you can't read German perhaps you could try google translate before launching an attack.
Proposed OS package includes: 267 million equity, which is around 7% LHG stake; 410 million loan guarantees, 90 million non-repayable grant for fixed costs.
Now can you tell me which bit requires change of law?

Anyways, SPÖ pressures direct LH investment via Öbag, Kurz looks firm when he said 'they are only ready to help if there are concessions in return', we are not sure if LH will accept it yet. So next time get yourself informed before you accuse people for ignoring something that hasn't happened.

GLANKG wrote:

MIflyer12 wrote:

It seems the EU has approved French state aid for AF, so Ryanair's posturing is moot.

– The European Union approved 7 billion euros ($7.6 billion) in loans and guarantees that the French state is providing to Air France.

Air France will get 3 billion euros ($3.28 billion) in direct loans from the French state and a 4 billion euro ($4.37 billion) bank loan guaranteed by the state, the airline said in a statement.

https://www.detroitnews.com/story/busin ... 111658686/

France would never accept that it couldn't save AF; Germany would never accept that it couldn't save LH. When EU rules don't work for Germany and France, EU rules are changed.

I think strictly legal speaking EU hasn't changed rules to accommodate AF, what they did is publicly recognising the current situation as 'exceptional occurrences' termed in the treaty on state aid, and the commission approved a temporary framework to issue fast track approvals. By April EC had already approved 1.9 trillion euros bailouts across EU.

He's just an EU basher. Not interested in the facts, because they are inconvenient.

Dmoney wrote:

WayexTDI wrote:

Dmoney wrote:

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.

Ryanair did receive LEGAL state aid in exchange for service to Cognac during a certain period of time, they pulled out of the market prior to the end of the agreed-upon time effectively breaking the contract; they refused to pay back part of the aid until their plane got seized in Bordeaux.
There are also numerous complains related to Ryanair refusing to comply with EU 261 rules; and numerous lawsuits as well.

There's numerous examples of that all over the internet, and GLANKG provided some.

That's Ryanair's MO: bend and break as many rules as you can, refuse to comply when caught with your pants down, grudgedly agree to comply when threatened with actual retaliation (such as asset seizure).

Just provide some evidence, that's all. Ryanair have absolutely got stung for state aid from regional airports but then had to repay it. So they've not received any subsidies.

If you have an example of them getting state aid do show.

Seems you are too busy to read this report
https://www.transportenvironment.org/si ... rports.pdf

Just some icebergs:

Paris Vatry, an airport with 108,000 passengers in 2017, which Ryanair uses to operate flights to Porto, Portugal, received €3m in public subsidies that year - or just under €30 per passenger. Ancona Airport in Italy received a marketing contribution of €3m in 2018.
https://www.corriere.it/economia/17_mar ... 7af8.shtml

other similar direct grants:
La Rochelle - 1,600,000€
http://ebook.charente-maritime.fr/eBook ... udget2018/

Tours - 960,000€
http://www.regioncentre-valdeloire.fr/f ... t_2018.pdf

Rodez - 649,574€
https://aveyron.fr/sites/default/files/ ... p_2018.pdf

Dole - 2,339,811€
http://www.jura.fr/wp-content/uploads/2 ... P-2019.pdf

The list goes on and on.

European Court of Justice (ECJ) sided with the Commission in four cases taken against airports in France and Germany which are operated by Ryanair. The airports (Angoulême, Nîmes, Pau in France and Altenburg-Nobitz in Germany) had entered into marketing services agreements (MSAs) with Ryanair which involved funding advertising on the airline’s website, funding which the Commission found to constitute state aid.
https://ec.europa.eu/newsroom/comp/item ... ir&lang=en

Conclusion: ME3 have never received any subsidies.

marcelh wrote:

GLANKG wrote:

MIflyer12 wrote:

It seems the EU has approved French state aid for AF, so Ryanair's posturing is moot.

– The European Union approved 7 billion euros ($7.6 billion) in loans and guarantees that the French state is providing to Air France.

Air France will get 3 billion euros ($3.28 billion) in direct loans from the French state and a 4 billion euro ($4.37 billion) bank loan guaranteed by the state, the airline said in a statement.

https://www.detroitnews.com/story/busin ... 111658686/

France would never accept that it couldn't save AF; Germany would never accept that it couldn't save LH. When EU rules don't work for Germany and France, EU rules are changed.

I think strictly legal speaking EU hasn't changed rules to accommodate AF, what they did is publicly recognising the current situation as 'exceptional occurrences' termed in the treaty on state aid, and the commission approved a temporary framework to issue fast track approvals. By April EC had already approved 1.9 trillion euros bailouts across EU.

He's just an EU basher. Not interested in the facts, because they are inconvenient.

Strictly speaking, AF's bailout are loans and loan guarantees.

So they get cash, but they need to repay it.
Cash will be burned as they try to stay afloat, so their net assets will deteriorate over time, straining their relaunch.
The only advantage is that they get to service debt with cheaper debt at lower interest rates, but considering how short-term the loans are, the advantage will be minimal.


This is totally different from receiving capital injections like is rumored for LH or OS.
They are getting cash that they don't need to repay and can fully utilise to relaunch and crush competitors in the first years after this.


I wonder if AF-KLM really needed the 10 billions though.
With airplanes grounded, staff at home, loans and leases mitigated (terms extended and deferred principal payments), aircraft deliveries deferred, they should have enough with a billion per year for maintenance, training, aircraft parking, front and backoffice, overhead, interests on debt, required insurance, real estate leases.
They don't have to pay for crew and operational staff, fuel, catering, handling, airport charges, marketing, operational maintenance, etc...
1 billion or 2 million per aircraft per year should be more than sufficient to manage non-capital fixed costs of a gounded airline the size of AF-KLM.

This being said, if they try to get ahead of the demand and end up flying empty aircraft, they're going to blow through the 10 billions in less than a year.

This is one of the big problems facing the relaunch or opening countries again.
When there are no customers or not enough of them, it's better to stay sheltered until enough customers are out there to run efficiently and profitably.
With most of the 50+ generation sheltering and avoiding unnnecessary movements, the most lucrative 30% of the market is not coming back until there is a vaccine. The rest of the market will also bereluctant to expose itself.

Airlines will be in worse shape a year from now than they are today.

So not getting a loan while others are is plain torture, getting a loan is by no means a gift, and getting free money is just unfair.

I would have no problem with the LH Group receiving loans, in tranches correlated to the duration and extent of the fleet groundings.
Same for AF-KLM and IAG.
If the bailouts were structured like that and with clearly defined criteria equal to everyone in the EU, I would even tell MOL that him not getting a loan is the risk you expose yourself when you run a PAN-European airline where you compete with airlines that protect national interests.

But this is not the case here, flag carriers are strategising to make use of the situation to run competitors into the ground and lower labour conditions for their own workforces.

GLANKG wrote:

Dmoney wrote:

WayexTDI wrote:

Ryanair did receive LEGAL state aid in exchange for service to Cognac during a certain period of time, they pulled out of the market prior to the end of the agreed-upon time effectively breaking the contract; they refused to pay back part of the aid until their plane got seized in Bordeaux.
There are also numerous complains related to Ryanair refusing to comply with EU 261 rules; and numerous lawsuits as well.

There's numerous examples of that all over the internet, and GLANKG provided some.

That's Ryanair's MO: bend and break as many rules as you can, refuse to comply when caught with your pants down, grudgedly agree to comply when threatened with actual retaliation (such as asset seizure).

Just provide some evidence, that's all. Ryanair have absolutely got stung for state aid from regional airports but then had to repay it. So they've not received any subsidies.

If you have an example of them getting state aid do show.

Seems you are too busy to read this report
https://www.transportenvironment.org/si ... rports.pdf

Just some icebergs:

Paris Vatry, an airport with 108,000 passengers in 2017, which Ryanair uses to operate flights to Porto, Portugal, received €3m in public subsidies that year - or just under €30 per passenger. Ancona Airport in Italy received a marketing contribution of €3m in 2018.
https://www.corriere.it/economia/17_mar ... 7af8.shtml

other similar direct grants:
La Rochelle - 1,600,000€
http://ebook.charente-maritime.fr/eBook ... udget2018/

Tours - 960,000€
http://www.regioncentre-valdeloire.fr/f ... t_2018.pdf

Rodez - 649,574€
https://aveyron.fr/sites/default/files/ ... p_2018.pdf

Dole - 2,339,811€
http://www.jura.fr/wp-content/uploads/2 ... P-2019.pdf

The list goes on and on.

European Court of Justice (ECJ) sided with the Commission in four cases taken against airports in France and Germany which are operated by Ryanair. The airports (Angoulême, Nîmes, Pau in France and Altenburg-Nobitz in Germany) had entered into marketing services agreements (MSAs) with Ryanair which involved funding advertising on the airline’s website, funding which the Commission found to constitute state aid.
https://ec.europa.eu/newsroom/comp/item ... ir&lang=en

Conclusion: ME3 have never received any subsidies.

Thanks for all this research. Seems like Dmoney refuses to admit the facts, which is a lost cause (just like MOL I'd say).

GLANKG wrote:

Blerg wrote:

GLANKG wrote:

Eurowings following German labour law is a fact. If only your 'tiny detail' was a fact.
I don't see how Austria will need to change law to help OS, the proposed aid is almost certainly in line with existing Austrian and EU law. Which bit are you struggling with?

Then go and read what I posted earlier since you clearly missed that post.

Yesterday I posted ORF interview and report, if you can't read German perhaps you could try google translate before launching an attack.
Proposed OS package includes: 267 million equity, which is around 7% LHG stake; 410 million loan guarantees, 90 million non-repayable grant for fixed costs.
Now can you tell me which bit requires change of law?

Anyways, SPÖ pressures direct LH investment via Öbag, Kurz looks firm when he said 'they are only ready to help if there are concessions in return', we are not sure if LH will accept it yet. So next time get yourself informed before you accuse people for ignoring something that hasn't happened.

Well, the answer is still in this forum, it's not my fault you can't read. Maybe don't rush the next time as such actions only degrade the level of debates on this fine forum. I will no longer continue this discussion with you as it's pointless, like debating with a wall.

Waterbomber2 wrote:

marcelh wrote:

GLANKG wrote:

I think strictly legal speaking EU hasn't changed rules to accommodate AF, what they did is publicly recognising the current situation as 'exceptional occurrences' termed in the treaty on state aid, and the commission approved a temporary framework to issue fast track approvals. By April EC had already approved 1.9 trillion euros bailouts across EU.

He's just an EU basher. Not interested in the facts, because they are inconvenient.

Strictly speaking, AF's bailout are loans and loan guarantees.

So they get cash, but they need to repay it.
Cash will be burned as they try to stay afloat, so their net assets will deteriorate over time, straining their relaunch.
The only advantage is that they get to service debt with cheaper debt at lower interest rates, but considering how short-term the loans are, the advantage will be minimal.


This is totally different from receiving capital injections like is rumored for LH or OS.
They are getting cash that they don't need to repay and can fully utilise to relaunch and crush competitors in the first years after this.


I wonder if AF-KLM really needed the 10 billions though.
With airplanes grounded, staff at home, loans and leases mitigated (terms extended and deferred principal payments), aircraft deliveries deferred, they should have enough with a billion per year for maintenance, training, aircraft parking, front and backoffice, overhead, interests on debt, required insurance, real estate leases.
They don't have to pay for crew and operational staff, fuel, catering, handling, airport charges, marketing, operational maintenance, etc...
1 billion or 2 million per aircraft per year should be more than sufficient to manage non-capital fixed costs of a gounded airline the size of AF-KLM.

This being said, if they try to get ahead of the demand and end up flying empty aircraft, they're going to blow through the 10 billions in less than a year.

This is one of the big problems facing the relaunch or opening countries again.
When there are no customers or not enough of them, it's better to stay sheltered until enough customers are out there to run efficiently and profitably.
With most of the 50+ generation sheltering and avoiding unnnecessary movements, the most lucrative 30% of the market is not coming back until there is a vaccine. The rest of the market will also bereluctant to expose itself.

Airlines will be in worse shape a year from now than they are today.

So not getting a loan while others are is plain torture, getting a loan is by no means a gift, and getting free money is just unfair.

I would have no problem with the LH Group receiving loans, in tranches correlated to the duration and extent of the fleet groundings.
Same for AF-KLM and IAG.
If the bailouts were structured like that and with clearly defined criteria equal to everyone in the EU, I would even tell MOL that him not getting a loan is the risk you expose yourself when you run a PAN-European airline where you compete with airlines that protect national interests.

But this is not the case here, flag carriers are strategising to make use of the situation to run competitors into the ground and lower labour conditions for their own workforces.

You can look it up in the 2019 full year report
The staff costs of the group were 8.139.000.000€ in 2019
So that 10 billion euros wont be enough if customers dont return fast

Blerg wrote:

GLANKG wrote:

Blerg wrote:

Then go and read what I posted earlier since you clearly missed that post.

Yesterday I posted ORF interview and report, if you can't read German perhaps you could try google translate before launching an attack.
Proposed OS package includes: 267 million equity, which is around 7% LHG stake; 410 million loan guarantees, 90 million non-repayable grant for fixed costs.
Now can you tell me which bit requires change of law?

Anyways, SPÖ pressures direct LH investment via Öbag, Kurz looks firm when he said 'they are only ready to help if there are concessions in return', we are not sure if LH will accept it yet. So next time get yourself informed before you accuse people for ignoring something that hasn't happened.

Well, the answer is still in this forum, it's not my fault you can't read. Maybe don't rush the next time as such actions only degrade the level of debates on this fine forum. I will no longer continue this discussion with you as it's pointless, like debating with a wall.

You: 'Austrian law allows loan guarantees maximum amount of €120 million or the company's three month revenue, they might change law to help OS'
Me: 'loan guarantees in the proposed package is 410 million, no need to change law'
You: you can't read.

BUT did you miss the link you posted states 'a quarter's revenue for Austrian would be around 527 million euros'?

I don't debate you, I correct accusation based on false information on public forum.
I also don't think you cannot read English just as German, but your anti OS bailout obsession binded you. There is absolutely zero evidence to suggest the likely OS bailout wouldn't stand with existing Austria/EU law.

GLANKG wrote:

Blerg wrote:

GLANKG wrote:

Yesterday I posted ORF interview and report, if you can't read German perhaps you could try google translate before launching an attack.
Proposed OS package includes: 267 million equity, which is around 7% LHG stake; 410 million loan guarantees, 90 million non-repayable grant for fixed costs.
Now can you tell me which bit requires change of law?

Anyways, SPÖ pressures direct LH investment via Öbag, Kurz looks firm when he said 'they are only ready to help if there are concessions in return', we are not sure if LH will accept it yet. So next time get yourself informed before you accuse people for ignoring something that hasn't happened.

Well, the answer is still in this forum, it's not my fault you can't read. Maybe don't rush the next time as such actions only degrade the level of debates on this fine forum. I will no longer continue this discussion with you as it's pointless, like debating with a wall.

You: 'Austrian law allows loan guarantees maximum amount of €120 million or the company's three month revenue, they might change law to help OS'
Me: 'loan guarantees in the proposed package is 410 million, no need to change law'
You: you can't read.

BUT did you miss the link you posted states 'a quarter's revenue for Austrian would be around 527 million euros'?

I don't debate you, I correct accusation based on false information on public forum.
I also don't think you cannot read English just as German, but your anti OS bailout obsession binded you. There is absolutely zero evidence to suggest the likely OS bailout wouldn't stand with existing Austria/EU law.

Calm down man ( or lady ? ) You have spended so much time in research to providing facts. Thank you for this !!!
He simply can`t accept these facts for whatever reason ?
By the way , his last post is against the forum rules wich clearly says : respect other users AND debating the topic !
From the source he provided the headline starts : "Ryanair may .... followed by IF , that says alot !
Not more than a public stund.

Dmoney wrote:

WayexTDI wrote:

Dmoney wrote:

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.

Ryanair did receive LEGAL state aid in exchange for service to Cognac during a certain period of time, they pulled out of the market prior to the end of the agreed-upon time effectively breaking the contract; they refused to pay back part of the aid until their plane got seized in Bordeaux.
There are also numerous complains related to Ryanair refusing to comply with EU 261 rules; and numerous lawsuits as well.

There's numerous examples of that all over the internet, and GLANKG provided some.

That's Ryanair's MO: bend and break as many rules as you can, refuse to comply when caught with your pants down, grudgedly agree to comply when threatened with actual retaliation (such as asset seizure).

Just provide some evidence, that's all. Ryanair have absolutely got stung for state aid from regional airports but then had to repay it. So they've not received any subsidies.

If you have an example of them getting state aid do show.

Say what ???
If a gangster get jailed and get out of jail , is he a proper person ?
I just repeat your own words : "Ryanair took state aid from regional airports" which says clearly they took aid , doesn`t it ???

Amsterdam wrote:

Waterbomber2 wrote:

marcelh wrote:

He's just an EU basher. Not interested in the facts, because they are inconvenient.

Strictly speaking, AF's bailout are loans and loan guarantees.

So they get cash, but they need to repay it.
Cash will be burned as they try to stay afloat, so their net assets will deteriorate over time, straining their relaunch.
The only advantage is that they get to service debt with cheaper debt at lower interest rates, but considering how short-term the loans are, the advantage will be minimal.


This is totally different from receiving capital injections like is rumored for LH or OS.
They are getting cash that they don't need to repay and can fully utilise to relaunch and crush competitors in the first years after this.


I wonder if AF-KLM really needed the 10 billions though.
With airplanes grounded, staff at home, loans and leases mitigated (terms extended and deferred principal payments), aircraft deliveries deferred, they should have enough with a billion per year for maintenance, training, aircraft parking, front and backoffice, overhead, interests on debt, required insurance, real estate leases.
They don't have to pay for crew and operational staff, fuel, catering, handling, airport charges, marketing, operational maintenance, etc...
1 billion or 2 million per aircraft per year should be more than sufficient to manage non-capital fixed costs of a gounded airline the size of AF-KLM.

This being said, if they try to get ahead of the demand and end up flying empty aircraft, they're going to blow through the 10 billions in less than a year.

This is one of the big problems facing the relaunch or opening countries again.
When there are no customers or not enough of them, it's better to stay sheltered until enough customers are out there to run efficiently and profitably.
With most of the 50+ generation sheltering and avoiding unnnecessary movements, the most lucrative 30% of the market is not coming back until there is a vaccine. The rest of the market will also bereluctant to expose itself.

Airlines will be in worse shape a year from now than they are today.

So not getting a loan while others are is plain torture, getting a loan is by no means a gift, and getting free money is just unfair.

I would have no problem with the LH Group receiving loans, in tranches correlated to the duration and extent of the fleet groundings.
Same for AF-KLM and IAG.
If the bailouts were structured like that and with clearly defined criteria equal to everyone in the EU, I would even tell MOL that him not getting a loan is the risk you expose yourself when you run a PAN-European airline where you compete with airlines that protect national interests.

But this is not the case here, flag carriers are strategising to make use of the situation to run competitors into the ground and lower labour conditions for their own workforces.

You can look it up in the 2019 full year report
The staff costs of the group were 8.139.000.000€ in 2019
So that 10 billion euros wont be enough if customers dont return fast

The staff are mostly, with the exceotion of essential staff, on unemployment benefits now so it's fine.
If they launch too fast and end up paying staff to fly empty planes, then yes, they will burn through their loans very quickly.

Waterbomber2 wrote:

Amsterdam wrote:

Waterbomber2 wrote:

Strictly speaking, AF's bailout are loans and loan guarantees.

So they get cash, but they need to repay it.
Cash will be burned as they try to stay afloat, so their net assets will deteriorate over time, straining their relaunch.
The only advantage is that they get to service debt with cheaper debt at lower interest rates, but considering how short-term the loans are, the advantage will be minimal.


This is totally different from receiving capital injections like is rumored for LH or OS.
They are getting cash that they don't need to repay and can fully utilise to relaunch and crush competitors in the first years after this.


I wonder if AF-KLM really needed the 10 billions though.
With airplanes grounded, staff at home, loans and leases mitigated (terms extended and deferred principal payments), aircraft deliveries deferred, they should have enough with a billion per year for maintenance, training, aircraft parking, front and backoffice, overhead, interests on debt, required insurance, real estate leases.
They don't have to pay for crew and operational staff, fuel, catering, handling, airport charges, marketing, operational maintenance, etc...
1 billion or 2 million per aircraft per year should be more than sufficient to manage non-capital fixed costs of a gounded airline the size of AF-KLM.

This being said, if they try to get ahead of the demand and end up flying empty aircraft, they're going to blow through the 10 billions in less than a year.

This is one of the big problems facing the relaunch or opening countries again.
When there are no customers or not enough of them, it's better to stay sheltered until enough customers are out there to run efficiently and profitably.
With most of the 50+ generation sheltering and avoiding unnnecessary movements, the most lucrative 30% of the market is not coming back until there is a vaccine. The rest of the market will also bereluctant to expose itself.

Airlines will be in worse shape a year from now than they are today.

So not getting a loan while others are is plain torture, getting a loan is by no means a gift, and getting free money is just unfair.

I would have no problem with the LH Group receiving loans, in tranches correlated to the duration and extent of the fleet groundings.
Same for AF-KLM and IAG.
If the bailouts were structured like that and with clearly defined criteria equal to everyone in the EU, I would even tell MOL that him not getting a loan is the risk you expose yourself when you run a PAN-European airline where you compete with airlines that protect national interests.

But this is not the case here, flag carriers are strategising to make use of the situation to run competitors into the ground and lower labour conditions for their own workforces.

You can look it up in the 2019 full year report
The staff costs of the group were 8.139.000.000€ in 2019
So that 10 billion euros wont be enough if customers dont return fast

The staff are mostly, with the exceotion of essential staff, on unemployment benefits now so it's fine.
If they launch too fast and end up paying staff to fly empty planes, then yes, they will burn through their loans very quickly.

What unemployment benefits?
Do you mean that the governments are paying the salaries of AF en KLM employees?
In Holland the government will stop paying salaries for companies probably sometime this summer.
Will the french government keep paying salaries of all those french companies for another 8/10/12 months?

Has it Occurred to anyone that Mike O'Leary is Huffing and Puffing like the Big Bad Wolf? It Ryanair folded tomorrow? Would Europe be worse OFF?
If Ryanair folded today? Who Exactly would not get where they need to GO? And If Ryanair quit today? Who would be stranded in Europe with actually NO Way Home?? If anyone can answer that? then those questions ALONE would tell you how much actual Value Ryanair actually Has.
Are they the value of a Southwest? If WN were to close tomorrow? their loss would be felt Deeply in the USA, But their operation would be covered within the week.(well? Month,,) What would it take to replace Ryanair? Or Can they Be replaced and their operations Absorbed in the EU?

Amsterdam wrote:

Waterbomber2 wrote:

Amsterdam wrote:

You can look it up in the 2019 full year report
The staff costs of the group were 8.139.000.000€ in 2019
So that 10 billion euros wont be enough if customers dont return fast

The staff are mostly, with the exceotion of essential staff, on unemployment benefits now so it's fine.
If they launch too fast and end up paying staff to fly empty planes, then yes, they will burn through their loans very quickly.

What unemployment benefits?
Do you mean that the governments are paying the salaries of AF en KLM employees?
In Holland the government will stop paying salaries for companies probably sometime this summer.
Will the french government keep paying salaries of all those french companies for another 8/10/12 months?

The governments in Europe are paying airline staff to stay home and they will have no choice but to continue to do so for as long as the crisis persists.
Even if the temporary unemployment measues can end due to a legal duration limit, airlines have the option to layoff staff so they can be moved from temporary unemployment benefits to standard unemployment benefits.

strfyr51 wrote:

Has it Occurred to anyone that Mike O'Leary is Huffing and Puffing like the Big Bad Wolf? It Ryanair folded tomorrow? Would Europe be worse OFF?
If Ryanair folded today? Who Exactly would not get where they need to GO? And If Ryanair quit today? Who would be stranded in Europe with actually NO Way Home?? If anyone can answer that? then those questions ALONE would tell you how much actual Value Ryanair actually Has.
Are they the value of a Southwest? If WN were to close tomorrow? their loss would be felt Deeply in the USA, But their operation would be covered within the week.(well? Month,,) What would it take to replace Ryanair? Or Can they Be replaced and their operations Absorbed in the EU?

To be honest, Ryanair is a blessing for those living near small airports and don't want to go to a mega airport. However, it's telling that Wizz Air takes a much less vocal approach in the same matter than the always vocal MOL.

Waterbomber2 wrote:

The governments in Europe are paying airline staff to stay home and they will have no choice but to continue to do so for as long as the crisis persists.

Most (if not all =) schemes are not for airline employees specifically. Moreover, if they usually have break clauses when a company starts earning x% of their original revenue, the company cannot use the scheme anymore.

Waterbomber2 wrote:

Even if the temporary unemployment measues can end due to a legal duration limit, airlines have the option to layoff staff so they can be moved from temporary unemployment benefits to standard unemployment benefits.

I'm sure that the standard unemployment benefits aren't as lucrative (for the employee) as the current temporary ones. In addition, it usually takes some time to shed your employees (especially in Europe). Thus in the meantime it will cost the airline extra.

strfyr51 wrote:

Has it Occurred to anyone that Mike O'Leary is Huffing and Puffing like the Big Bad Wolf? It Ryanair folded tomorrow? Would Europe be worse OFF?
If Ryanair folded today? Who Exactly would not get where they need to GO? And If Ryanair quit today? Who would be stranded in Europe with actually NO Way Home?? If anyone can answer that? then those questions ALONE would tell you how much actual Value Ryanair actually Has.
Are they the value of a Southwest? If WN were to close tomorrow? their loss would be felt Deeply in the USA, But their operation would be covered within the week.(well? Month,,) What would it take to replace Ryanair? Or Can they Be replaced and their operations Absorbed in the EU?

Interesting question.

I don't think Europe needs Ryanair at all.
They are mostly a leisure airline, that has facilitated the rise of overtourism and overconsumption of airtravel to an unsustainable level.
Had covid-19 not occured, it is my judgement that there in the near future would have been implemented legal measures that would target overtourism, frequent airtravel and carbon emissions.

If you are a business traveller there are also plenty of alternatives to Ryanair.

So yes, Ryanair could disappear tomorrow, and the EU would not worse off.
There would be a decline in the tourism industry, but that would probably be a good thing, all things considered.

Waterbomber2 wrote:

Amsterdam wrote:

Waterbomber2 wrote:

The staff are mostly, with the exceotion of essential staff, on unemployment benefits now so it's fine.
If they launch too fast and end up paying staff to fly empty planes, then yes, they will burn through their loans very quickly.

What unemployment benefits?
Do you mean that the governments are paying the salaries of AF en KLM employees?
In Holland the government will stop paying salaries for companies probably sometime this summer.
Will the french government keep paying salaries of all those french companies for another 8/10/12 months?

The governments in Europe are paying airline staff to stay home and they will have no choice but to continue to do so for as long as the crisis persists.
Even if the temporary unemployment measues can end due to a legal duration limit, airlines have the option to layoff staff so they can be moved from temporary unemployment benefits to standard unemployment benefits.

Standard unemployment benefits, do you mean fireing employees? Terminating contracts?
With almost 90.000 people working at AFKLM and staff costs of +8 billion euros a year, they need to fire how many do you think to keep the costs payable if there is still weak business demand in the winter? 20.000 people? 30.000?
What do you think the unions will do?
Fireing people is also expensive in Holland, some employee groups are entitled to immediate high compensations by the company when they get fired.
Its all not so easy as you write.

Dahlgardo wrote:

strfyr51 wrote:

Has it Occurred to anyone that Mike O'Leary is Huffing and Puffing like the Big Bad Wolf? It Ryanair folded tomorrow? Would Europe be worse OFF?
If Ryanair folded today? Who Exactly would not get where they need to GO? And If Ryanair quit today? Who would be stranded in Europe with actually NO Way Home?? If anyone can answer that? then those questions ALONE would tell you how much actual Value Ryanair actually Has.
Are they the value of a Southwest? If WN were to close tomorrow? their loss would be felt Deeply in the USA, But their operation would be covered within the week.(well? Month,,) What would it take to replace Ryanair? Or Can they Be replaced and their operations Absorbed in the EU?

Interesting question.

I don't think Europe needs Ryanair at all.
They are mostly a leisure airline, that has facilitated the rise of overtourism and overconsumption of airtravel to an unsustainable level.

Had covid-19 not occured, it is my judgement that there in the near future would have been implemented legal measures that would target overtourism, frequent airtravel and carbon emissions.

If you are a business traveller there are also plenty of alternatives to Ryanair.

So yes, Ryanair could disappear tomorrow, and the EU would not worse off.
There would be a decline in the tourism industry, but that would probably be a good thing, all things considered.

Overtourism is in some cities an issue, but it's not that without Ryanair that it would dissapear. Intra Europe a lot of people flying with the legacies and their "leisure brands" (Vueling, Eurowings, Transavia) or TUI, Jet2, Corendon, Peagsus, Sunexpress, et cetera. And yes, also EasyJet, Norwegian, WizzAir and Ryanair. But Ryanair also flies a lot of cheap labor from Eastern Europe to Western Europe, just as Wizz Air does. So Ryanair has some value and a collapse will bring some problems. But it won't bring Europe to a grinding stop. Fares will rise and competition will be less, but it might be a good start to stop the race to the bottom and value traveling by air.

leghorn wrote:

Dahlgardo wrote:

strfyr51 wrote:

Has it Occurred to anyone that Mike O'Leary is Huffing and Puffing like the Big Bad Wolf? It Ryanair folded tomorrow? Would Europe be worse OFF?
If Ryanair folded today? Who Exactly would not get where they need to GO? And If Ryanair quit today? Who would be stranded in Europe with actually NO Way Home?? If anyone can answer that? then those questions ALONE would tell you how much actual Value Ryanair actually Has.
Are they the value of a Southwest? If WN were to close tomorrow? their loss would be felt Deeply in the USA, But their operation would be covered within the week.(well? Month,,) What would it take to replace Ryanair? Or Can they Be replaced and their operations Absorbed in the EU?

Interesting question.

I don't think Europe needs Ryanair at all.
They are mostly a leisure airline, that has facilitated the rise of overtourism and overconsumption of airtravel to an unsustainable level.
Had covid-19 not occured, it is my judgement that there in the near future would have been implemented legal measures that would target overtourism, frequent airtravel and carbon emissions.

If you are a business traveller there are also plenty of alternatives to Ryanair.

So yes, Ryanair could disappear tomorrow, and the EU would not worse off.
There would be a decline in the tourism industry, but that would probably be a good thing, all things considered.

You don't get out much, do you? You are an out of touch prejudiced Dinosaur with a vendetta and you have no place in the modern world.
Many people browsing this forum and beyond depend upon Ryanair and other LCCs to see their families and friends regularly.
Many fly Ryanair for business as their times or destinations happen to suit them better than what other airlines might offer. Over 142 million passengers in the last year and you think that all Ryanair are is just a tourism airline.
Your hatred of Ryanair shines through and it strips you of the ability to think rationally as to how vitally important privately owned independent airlines are to mass public transportation in Europe. It is a pillar of the EU Community transportation strategy. If Labour is a factor of production then low cost Civil Aviation is Europe's Silk Road.
If Ryanair were to fail you'd be directing your ire and making disparaging remarks about the next LCC that takes up the viable routes they serve. Unviable routes don't last long in Ryanair.
Away with you and your risible Antoinette babble which many of us here in the real world find quite offensive.

Same as the legacy hatred. I don’t understand the need for any hatred towards any airline at all. This is airliners.net, you’d expect it to be a place for avgeeks and airliners to chat. No place for hatred of any kind but hating airlines is in either way a weird emotion and taking things a tad too personal.

There isn't legacy hatred. There is hatred of dominant players abusing their position to extort money from Government or Customer or to treat captive Customers shabbily.

leghorn wrote:

There isn't legacy hatred. There is hatred of dominant players abusing their position to extort money from Government or Customer or to treat captive Customers shabbily.

There is plenty of legacy hatred on here especially as of late. Not saying you’re in that bucket.

I think what you describe goes for any business, any industry and any where. Business do what they can do advance themselves and deliver profit.
No airline sets out to treat their customers badly.
The abuse of position you mention or extorting money from anyone means nothing without back up. Is a change fee extortion? Getting subsidies for flying a route is that extortion? Trying to reduce labour cost is that abuse of power?

Would be interested to understand your point of view better.

RvA wrote:

leghorn wrote:

There isn't legacy hatred. There is hatred of dominant players abusing their position to extort money from Government or Customer or to treat captive Customers shabbily.

There is plenty of legacy hatred on here especially as of late. Not saying you’re in that bucket.

I think what you describe goes for any business, any industry and any where. Business do what they can do advance themselves and deliver profit.
No airline sets out to treat their customers badly.
The abuse of position you mention or extorting money from anyone means nothing without back up. Is a change fee extortion? Getting subsidies for flying a route is that extortion? Trying to reduce labour cost is that abuse of power?

Would be interested to understand your point of view better.

The "you're not getting off this Island for less than a month's average wages" attitude is what rankled me most about flying with the monopolistic legacy and it isn't something I'd want to see return.

leghorn wrote:

RvA wrote:

leghorn wrote:

There isn't legacy hatred. There is hatred of dominant players abusing their position to extort money from Government or Customer or to treat captive Customers shabbily.

There is plenty of legacy hatred on here especially as of late. Not saying you’re in that bucket.

I think what you describe goes for any business, any industry and any where. Business do what they can do advance themselves and deliver profit.
No airline sets out to treat their customers badly.
The abuse of position you mention or extorting money from anyone means nothing without back up. Is a change fee extortion? Getting subsidies for flying a route is that extortion? Trying to reduce labour cost is that abuse of power?

Would be interested to understand your point of view better.

The "you're not getting off this Island for less than a month's average wages" attitude is what rankled me most about flying with the monopolistic legacy and it isn't something I'd want to see return.

What island, when (travel & booking period) where to, with whom and for how much? I’ve always found reasonable fares to anywhere in the world unless it’s a peak time of year and I’m looking way too late in the booking window.

Ireland before Ryanair.
Ireland's societal and economic growth was totally stunted due to the incestuousness of the relationship between Aer Rianta, Aer Lingus and Government.

Generally speaking, is there really a need for a plethora of national airlines in Europe? A number of them could be consolidated into language-based airlines, but are propped up by national governments for no real reason. A flag carrier is meaningless to quality of life or basically anything.

leghorn wrote:

Ireland before Ryanair.
Ireland's societal and economic growth was totally stunted due to the incestuousness of the relationship between Aer Rianta, Aer Lingus and Government.

If you can agree on a fair discussion , here we go
Honestly, I`m German and have maybe more Irish friends ( straight friends ) than Germans , but I can`t agree that you can fly out of Ireland on cheap fares wich are based on subsidies of other EU members.

can't make head nor tail of that sentence.

leghorn wrote:

can't make head nor tail of that sentence.

"Head" is I understand your point of few and "tail" is, I don`t want my tax money spend on subsidies. Simple as that !

Lufthansa return flights to Dublin outside of peak season often wouldn't be much short of that despite having both Aer Lingus and Ryanair on the same route. I can only assume they have a captive audience who are forced to book Lufthansa through their travel service provider. The don't seem to compete on price and their service isn't appreciably better.

leghorn wrote:

Lufthansa return flights to Dublin outside of peak season often wouldn't be much short of that despite having both Aer Lingus and Ryanair on the same route. I can only assume they have a captive audience who are forced to book Lufthansa through their travel service provider. The don't seem to compete on price and their service isn't appreciably better.

So just to be clear everything you’ve said thus far is based on your experience on Ireland-Germany travel?

No. I like to take short trips around Europe and when based on an Island you have to use whatever routes are available from whichever carrier. The thought of being able to jump in to a car and travel to all these destinations was a bit mind-blowing at first.

GLANKG wrote:

Dmoney wrote:

WayexTDI wrote:

Ryanair did receive LEGAL state aid in exchange for service to Cognac during a certain period of time, they pulled out of the market prior to the end of the agreed-upon time effectively breaking the contract; they refused to pay back part of the aid until their plane got seized in Bordeaux.
There are also numerous complains related to Ryanair refusing to comply with EU 261 rules; and numerous lawsuits as well.

There's numerous examples of that all over the internet, and GLANKG provided some.

That's Ryanair's MO: bend and break as many rules as you can, refuse to comply when caught with your pants down, grudgedly agree to comply when threatened with actual retaliation (such as asset seizure).

Just provide some evidence, that's all. Ryanair have absolutely got stung for state aid from regional airports but then had to repay it. So they've not received any subsidies.

If you have an example of them getting state aid do show.

Seems you are too busy to read this report
https://www.transportenvironment.org/si ... rports.pdf

Just some icebergs:

Paris Vatry, an airport with 108,000 passengers in 2017, which Ryanair uses to operate flights to Porto, Portugal, received €3m in public subsidies that year - or just under €30 per passenger. Ancona Airport in Italy received a marketing contribution of €3m in 2018.
https://www.corriere.it/economia/17_mar ... 7af8.shtml

other similar direct grants:
La Rochelle - 1,600,000€
http://ebook.charente-maritime.fr/eBook ... udget2018/

Tours - 960,000€
http://www.regioncentre-valdeloire.fr/f ... t_2018.pdf

Rodez - 649,574€
https://aveyron.fr/sites/default/files/ ... p_2018.pdf

Dole - 2,339,811€
http://www.jura.fr/wp-content/uploads/2 ... P-2019.pdf

The list goes on and on.

European Court of Justice (ECJ) sided with the Commission in four cases taken against airports in France and Germany which are operated by Ryanair. The airports (Angoulême, Nîmes, Pau in France and Altenburg-Nobitz in Germany) had entered into marketing services agreements (MSAs) with Ryanair which involved funding advertising on the airline’s website, funding which the Commission found to constitute state aid.
https://ec.europa.eu/newsroom/comp/item ... ir&lang=en

Conclusion: ME3 have never received any subsidies.

Yes so four of them WERE state aid and therefore Ryanair had to repay the state aid. The others are the usual traffic for discounts commerical agreements. I'm not sure what you find so hard to understand? It's normal in any business to get discounts for volume and the discounts can take many forms.

The difficult part is where it strays into regional state aid. It's also worth pointing out regional development is legitimate so incentives can be provided. The line is often drawn at displacement, was economic activity displaced from one place to another purely through subsidies. So what Airbus did in the US would definitely be considered state aid as they extorted states one against another for factory and took huge dollops of cash. But if there are regional RD hubs like say Sheffield in the UK you can take subsidies for say research centres without breaking state aid. They also need to be open to anyone.

It's an interesting area and one in which the EU has by far the best rules. The outright extortion you get in the US by large corporates in the US is a disgrace.

Dmoney wrote:

GLANKG wrote:

Dmoney wrote:

Just provide some evidence, that's all. Ryanair have absolutely got stung for state aid from regional airports but then had to repay it. So they've not received any subsidies.

If you have an example of them getting state aid do show.

Seems you are too busy to read this report
https://www.transportenvironment.org/si ... rports.pdf

Just some icebergs:

Paris Vatry, an airport with 108,000 passengers in 2017, which Ryanair uses to operate flights to Porto, Portugal, received €3m in public subsidies that year - or just under €30 per passenger. Ancona Airport in Italy received a marketing contribution of €3m in 2018.
https://www.corriere.it/economia/17_mar ... 7af8.shtml

European Court of Justice (ECJ) sided with the Commission in four cases taken against airports in France and Germany which are operated by Ryanair. The airports (Angoulême, Nîmes, Pau in France and Altenburg-Nobitz in Germany) had entered into marketing services agreements (MSAs) with Ryanair which involved funding advertising on the airline’s website, funding which the Commission found to constitute state aid.
https://ec.europa.eu/newsroom/comp/item ... ir&lang=en

Conclusion: ME3 have never received any subsidies.

Yes so four of them WERE state aid and therefore Ryanair had to repay the state aid. The others are the usual traffic for discounts commerical agreements. I'm not sure what you find so hard to understand? It's normal in any business to get discounts for volume and the discounts can take many forms.

The difficult part is where it strays into regional state aid. It's also worth pointing out regional development is legitimate so incentives can be provided. The line is often drawn at displacement, was economic activity displaced from one place to another purely through subsidies. So what Airbus did in the US would definitely be considered state aid as they extorted states one against another for factory and took huge dollops of cash. But if there are regional RD hubs like say Sheffield in the UK you can take subsidies for say research centres without breaking state aid. They also need to be open to anyone.

It's an interesting area and one in which the EU has by far the best rules. The outright extortion you get in the US by large corporates in the US is a disgrace.

What makes you think 'Ryanair had to repay the state aid?' they were legit so no way would Ryanair repay them. The one case they were ordered to repay was because they broke the contract by pulling out before the end of the deal, and it eventually took French authorities to seize a Ryanair 737 on tarmac to force MOL pay. It was also not 4 cases, there are 35 such in the report I posted. Obviously most (if not all) are legit, like Derry, Kerry, Knock threw millions each year to lure FR to boost connectivity.

About commercial agreements, I find it simple and plain, they are subsidies, ECJ has ruled those MSAs with FR are state aid. I don't have a strong opinion about each subsidy mentioned above, I am not sure I'd agree 'FR's model is not sustainable' as the report and AF/LH argued. But surely claiming 'FR has not received any subsidies' is fake news?

The thread is about FR complaining about OS bailout.

Austria announced 15 billion bailout funds for troubled companies as the situation is unprecedented, OS is one of the largest employers in land and played a vital role in the wider economy. Naive to think they won't be part of it, they submitted an application about 767 million last Tuesday, but government demands LH concessions. We haven't heard about MOL since, maybe he will sue them or maybe he will back down, let's see.

Some compared different governments bailout programs, but let's not forget that Austria and Germany are both sovereign states, each has its own tax regime and labour system. When it comes to what to do with LH, Berlin probably weighs in more about Adidas' 3.3 billion bailout rather than considering a foreign company's treatment or an outcast who comes and goes when regional subsidy initiatives suit them. When Austria closed border to Germany, you'd get a sense that EU is not US, bailouts are not industry focused but nationality based, it's just the reality.

Easyjet just got £600m loan from UK after being shoved away by Swiss government don't they, maybe FR should be more open about talking to Dublin? So far they insisted they could weather through (like Wizz and BA) but what if demand doesn't come back for a few years as VS's analysis?

GLANKG wrote:

The thread is about FR complaining about OS bailout.

Austria announced 15 billion bailout funds for troubled companies as the situation is unprecedented, OS is one of the largest employers in land and played a vital role in the wider economy. Naive to think they won't be part of it, they submitted an application about 767 million last Tuesday, but government demands LH concessions. We haven't heard about MOL since, maybe he will sue them or maybe he will back down, let's see.

Some compared different governments bailout programs, but let's not forget that Austria and Germany are both sovereign states, each has its own tax regime and labour system. When it comes to what to do with LH, Berlin probably weighs in more about Adidas' 3.3 billion bailout rather than considering a foreign company's treatment or an outcast who comes and goes when regional subsidy initiatives suit them. When Austria closed border to Germany, you'd get a sense that EU is not US, bailouts are not industry focused but nationality based, it's just the reality.

Easyjet just got £600m loan from UK after being shoved away by Swiss government don't they, maybe FR should be more open about talking to Dublin? So far they insisted they could weather through (like Wizz and BA) but what if demand doesn't come back for a few years as VS's analysis?

You can literally read the name of the thread, it's not about Austria as you claim, it's about subsidies provided by various (almost all) EU nations to their national carriers.