AIRPORTS
Each speech listed here is an edited speech. If you'd like to see the speech or debate in full, please go to the Oireachtas website and click on "Seanad Eireann" and then "Seanad Debates" and click on the relevant date as listed with each speech on this page.
Shannon Airport (25/10/07)
Withdrawal of Routes from Shannon Airport (10/10/07)
Aer Lingus and Privatisation (11/10/06)
Aer Lingus Privatisation (23/05/06)
Cork and Shannon Airports after break-up of Aer Rianta (26/04/2006)
Dublin Airport (19/05/05)
Second Terminal At Dublin Airport (20/04/05)
Shannon Airport
25/10/07 - I raise regularly in this House issues relating to the regions, especially the west. I do not understand what is going on in regard to Shannon Airport. This is the most political of all airports and the one that has taken more time than other airport, yet senior personnel in various Departments found it unnecessary to tell the political leadership, and the permanent Government appeared to keep this out of the sphere of political influence. Serious questions must be asked.
We know the Department of Transport and the Marine decided not to tell the Minister. We also know the Department of the Taoiseach decided not to tell the Taoiseach. We further know the Department of Transport and the Marine decided it was important enough to tell the civil servants in the Department of the Taoiseach but it was not important enough to tell any of the political leadership. We know that Aer Lingus found it important enough to communicate with the Dublin Airport Authority but that the Dublin Airport Authority, which was responsible for ensuring the viability of the Shannon Airport business plan, found it unnecessary to tell the Shannon Airport development group. Serious questions must be answered. We have been kept in the dark.
This is a bad day for politics if we have now reached the stage where the 226 people who are elected to the Dáil and Seanad to deal with these issues apparently know nothing about what is going on and these serious decisions are being taken in another sphere. Will the Leader raise with the Taoiseach the importance of clarifying all the issues? The Leader knows I am not raising this matter in any petty, party political fashion. This is as important to the Members on the Government side as it is to the Members of the Opposition. We should set up an ad hoc committee of the Houses or this House with compellability powers to call witnesses to find out who knew what, who told whom and why information was not passed on.
Back to top of page
Withdrawal of Routes from Shannon Airport
10/10/07 - We do not need to be objective about this matter. There is nothing objective about a decision which tears the heart out of a region and a community. This should never have happened because we forecast it last year. We said this would be the death knell of the regions.
The Minister is right, this is a private company and there is a fiduciary duty on the management to make the best profit possible. It would be completely wrong and in breach of all governance principles for the board to try to undermine a decision that was not in the best interests of the stakeholders. We know that but we knew it last year too.The people of Shannon and the mid-west region have lost out because we did not take notice of what could have been anticipated.
Could the Minister of State do something for Shannon Airport such as put in a rail head, to make it the only airport on this island that would have an advantage over every other airport? There are two or three stations within four or five miles of the airport. Why not put that in now and give Shannon that advantage?
Back to top of page
Aer Lingus and Privatisation
11/10/06 - Growing up we learned much about selling and buying. If one was to bring something to fair day, sell it at a rock bottom price, see it back on the market half an hour later without even having to feed it and buyers queuing up to buy it, one would not be let out again for two years until one had copped on and learned a few things. That is what has happened at Aer Lingus.
When we discussed this issue months ago we asked if somebody could point out a privatisation either here or in the UK that has worked. What is extraordinary about the Aer Lingus case is that there was unanimity on the left and on the right of political comment that this was a bad deal and it has proven to be a bad deal. We are seeing the same thing happen that happened in Eircom. We are seeing the company being shoved off at rock bottom prices. We are seeing huge profit taking, millionaires being created and we will then see asset stripping and no doubt the company will come back onto the market in one form or another.
In the meantime we are creating a duopoly or a monopoly and prices will be screwed up again so that profits are increased and the consumer pays. At the end of the day we will try to sort it all out in a couple of years’ time by some form of regulation. It is an appalling episode in management. We need to discuss this issue, put our views on the table and talk about it. I do not come from the philosophical position of being anti-privatisation. That is not what I am talking about. I am talking about the practicalities and the realpolitik, ordinary people, consumer rights and where we are going in terms of managing the economy.
Back to top of page
Aer Lingus Privatisation
23/05/06 - It is not ten years since the House discussed the future of Telecom Éireann in a debate which revolved around issues such as privatisation, nationalisation and state ownership. We should look back and learn from that debate. I recall Senators using arguments about having to wait for months to get a landline and the need for investment to ensure broadband was available throughout the country, as reasons to sell off Telecom Éireann. What was the result of the privatisation of the company? It created a couple of dozen more millionaires and allowed Eircom to be used as a vessel and plaything for asset strippers. We have now returned to the position of having to wait months for a landline and 80% of the country does not have access to broadband. A debate on this issue is needed.
We must forget the old ideas of nationalisation, privatisation and state ownership and instead examine whether we need to hold, let go of or use differently the assets still in State hands and determine whether our priority is nationalisation, privatisation or competition. I believe it is the third of these considerations. Senators should state honestly whether they believe that those who will buy Aer Lingus will do so with a view to investing in Ireland’s airports and services for its citizens. I do not want to hear their views on whether the State should own assets or long philosophical discourses on privatisation and nationalisation. Senators, without resorting to jargon, should state what they envisage will happen if we choose to privatise Aer Lingus.
Back to top of page
Cork and Shannon Airports after break-up of Aer Rianta
26/04/2006 - When the break up was discussed here there was an element of political manoeuvring and politicking on the issues. There was genuine interest in discovering what would work and be best for each locality.
The debate on privatisation versus nationalisation and keeping facilities in safe hands is another issue. The country has gone beyond this. People want a good service that gives taxpayers good value. There is no problem in introducing competitive elements, but neither is there anything wrong with a company being owned by the State if it works well, and this is my view on Aer Lingus. There is nothing wrong either in considering privatisation if it is in everybody’s best interest. I had doubts about the break up of the airports and I expressed them at the time. Now that it has happened let us make it work and give the individual airports a good chance.
Let us show people that we can have trust and confidence in recommendations such as these. In other words, if the Minister wants to sell the idea of the privatisation of Aer Lingus later in the year — on which I will argue against him — he will want people to have trust and confidence in what he will have to say. As matters stand, if he stands up on the issue, we will think that the last time we had a discussion on the airports we were sold a pup. We walked out of the debate with a different understanding of what was going to happen. It is important that we have trust and confidence in what we are told before we argue over crossing the t’s and dotting the i’s.
What needs to be done? We need investment in these airports. Currently they are not being marketed. The authorities are working hard at getting additional routes, which is crucial, but they are not marketing them. I use Cork and Shannon airports. I used Shannon Airport three times within the past six months and find it a great airport as it is so easy to get through. This is attractive to passengers. People from as far north as Mayo, who would be almost equidistant from Dublin and Shannon, now prefer to get to where they want to go from Shannon. Some people in the south west only consider holiday destinations they can reach through Cork or Shannon.
There is a surge of support for these airports and there are significant possibilities that can be made work. Tourism bodies should be more closely linked with airport authorities but this is not happening. It happens in places such as Knock, which enjoys a significant number of flights. The importance of these regional airports is not marketed. In fact, the description of these international airports as “regional” should be dropped. They provide a service to many destinations.
The value offered to those flying through Cork and Shannon is of major importance. Both are traveller-friendly airports that I wish to see promoted. I wish both airports to be debt free so they can hit the ground running. This will allow them to market themselves, expand and provide a service to the communities.
Back to top of page
Dublin Airport
19/05/05 -I agree that we need an urgent debate on the airport and transport policy. There are different points of view. Mine differs from that of many in this House. I have never been convinced that the privatisation of Aer Lingus would bring us a better deal. I have not seen that happen in any other privatisation to date.
I agree with the concept of competition, on the other hand. I have listened to the Minister for Transport, Deputy Cullen, who said that two competing terminals have never been successful in any airport in the world. There is a great deal of information in the ether. It is right that we have the Minister here to explain exactly what is happening, so we can offer our views on it and formulate a position on the future development of the national airline and the country’s main airport. I ask that we have an early debate on transport.
Back to top of page
Second Terminal At Dublin Airport
20/04/05 - I am well acquainted with Dublin Airport as I live beside it and many of my neighbours work there. I have visited many airports worldwide but have encountered only one in the past two years, Gerona Airport, in which free parking was provided. I returned to this airport twice in the past three months and discovered that once it began attracting more business, those parking their vehicles were subject to a charge.
Parking in Dublin is expensive. It is amazing to hear people complaining about parking costs in the airport but passing no comment on the similar prices in locations across the road. It is a question of Dublin prices. If the Dublin Airport Authority were to provide free parking, there would be Members who claimed this was typical of the public service and its inability to make a shilling. The authority is charging €20 per day for parking because that is what the public is prepared to pay. This is what market forces and privatisation are about.
With regard to security, Senator Daly is correct that it is very frustrating that passengers with connecting flights are obliged to undergo security checks more than once. However, the same situation pertains in Los Angeles, Heathrow, Stansted, JFK and so on. This is now international practice.
If one travels to Stansted Airport with the airline owned by “Mr. Efficiency”, Michael O’Leary, one must disembark the aircraft, collect one’s luggage, walk half a mile to the end of the terminal, go through the check-in process and walk back again in order to take one’s connecting flight. This is how Mr. O’Leary, the god of the private sector, manages the process in his operation. It is not his fault that it must be so but rather it is the security requirement. This is the reality. As Senator Feighan observed, the private bus operator which was to solve all our problems in Dublin Airport will not allow buses to depart until there are enough passengers to render such journeys economically viable.
We must recognise that this economic reality will also apply in the case of the new terminal. Services will not be cheaper. However, the Fine Gael motion is correct in its contention that the Government should have made progress on the new terminal. It is inexcusable that this has not been done.
I shall conclude by outlining the main issues. First, if a new terminal is built, the number of security checkers per passenger will not be any more than it currently is because it would not pay for airport management to appoint more. Second, it is not the case that only one new terminal is required. This issue has caused such ideological conflict that one may ask why we cannot have a terminal for each ideology. Let SIPTU build one and Senator Daly’s constituent in Ennis, Mr. Michael McNamara, build another. None of us will be concerned as long as there is a train link between the three terminals. The best man will win in this situation, just as it should be.
However, the motion is correct in urging the Government to take a decision on this issue.
Such a development will create more jobs and more capacity. We must recognise, however, that it will not reduce the cost of parking in Dublin Airport or the security queues. Those responsible for building and operating the terminal will want to make a profit and will scale back their costs as far as possible.
Back to top of page
Seanad debates are available in full on the Oireachtas website
Each speech listed here is an edited speech. If you'd like to see the speech or debate in full, please go to the Oireachtas website and click on "Seanad Eireann" and then "Seanad Debates" and click on the relevant date as listed with each speech on this page.
Shannon Airport (25/10/07)
Withdrawal of Routes from Shannon Airport (10/10/07)
Aer Lingus and Privatisation (11/10/06)
Aer Lingus Privatisation (23/05/06)
Cork and Shannon Airports after break-up of Aer Rianta (26/04/2006)
Dublin Airport (19/05/05)
Second Terminal At Dublin Airport (20/04/05)
Shannon Airport
25/10/07 - I raise regularly in this House issues relating to the regions, especially the west. I do not understand what is going on in regard to Shannon Airport. This is the most political of all airports and the one that has taken more time than other airport, yet senior personnel in various Departments found it unnecessary to tell the political leadership, and the permanent Government appeared to keep this out of the sphere of political influence. Serious questions must be asked.
We know the Department of Transport and the Marine decided not to tell the Minister. We also know the Department of the Taoiseach decided not to tell the Taoiseach. We further know the Department of Transport and the Marine decided it was important enough to tell the civil servants in the Department of the Taoiseach but it was not important enough to tell any of the political leadership. We know that Aer Lingus found it important enough to communicate with the Dublin Airport Authority but that the Dublin Airport Authority, which was responsible for ensuring the viability of the Shannon Airport business plan, found it unnecessary to tell the Shannon Airport development group. Serious questions must be answered. We have been kept in the dark.
This is a bad day for politics if we have now reached the stage where the 226 people who are elected to the Dáil and Seanad to deal with these issues apparently know nothing about what is going on and these serious decisions are being taken in another sphere. Will the Leader raise with the Taoiseach the importance of clarifying all the issues? The Leader knows I am not raising this matter in any petty, party political fashion. This is as important to the Members on the Government side as it is to the Members of the Opposition. We should set up an ad hoc committee of the Houses or this House with compellability powers to call witnesses to find out who knew what, who told whom and why information was not passed on.
Back to top of page
Withdrawal of Routes from Shannon Airport
10/10/07 - We do not need to be objective about this matter. There is nothing objective about a decision which tears the heart out of a region and a community. This should never have happened because we forecast it last year. We said this would be the death knell of the regions.
The Minister is right, this is a private company and there is a fiduciary duty on the management to make the best profit possible. It would be completely wrong and in breach of all governance principles for the board to try to undermine a decision that was not in the best interests of the stakeholders. We know that but we knew it last year too.The people of Shannon and the mid-west region have lost out because we did not take notice of what could have been anticipated.
Could the Minister of State do something for Shannon Airport such as put in a rail head, to make it the only airport on this island that would have an advantage over every other airport? There are two or three stations within four or five miles of the airport. Why not put that in now and give Shannon that advantage?
Back to top of page
Aer Lingus and Privatisation
11/10/06 - Growing up we learned much about selling and buying. If one was to bring something to fair day, sell it at a rock bottom price, see it back on the market half an hour later without even having to feed it and buyers queuing up to buy it, one would not be let out again for two years until one had copped on and learned a few things. That is what has happened at Aer Lingus.
When we discussed this issue months ago we asked if somebody could point out a privatisation either here or in the UK that has worked. What is extraordinary about the Aer Lingus case is that there was unanimity on the left and on the right of political comment that this was a bad deal and it has proven to be a bad deal. We are seeing the same thing happen that happened in Eircom. We are seeing the company being shoved off at rock bottom prices. We are seeing huge profit taking, millionaires being created and we will then see asset stripping and no doubt the company will come back onto the market in one form or another.
In the meantime we are creating a duopoly or a monopoly and prices will be screwed up again so that profits are increased and the consumer pays. At the end of the day we will try to sort it all out in a couple of years’ time by some form of regulation. It is an appalling episode in management. We need to discuss this issue, put our views on the table and talk about it. I do not come from the philosophical position of being anti-privatisation. That is not what I am talking about. I am talking about the practicalities and the realpolitik, ordinary people, consumer rights and where we are going in terms of managing the economy.
Back to top of page
Aer Lingus Privatisation
23/05/06 - It is not ten years since the House discussed the future of Telecom Éireann in a debate which revolved around issues such as privatisation, nationalisation and state ownership. We should look back and learn from that debate. I recall Senators using arguments about having to wait for months to get a landline and the need for investment to ensure broadband was available throughout the country, as reasons to sell off Telecom Éireann. What was the result of the privatisation of the company? It created a couple of dozen more millionaires and allowed Eircom to be used as a vessel and plaything for asset strippers. We have now returned to the position of having to wait months for a landline and 80% of the country does not have access to broadband. A debate on this issue is needed.
We must forget the old ideas of nationalisation, privatisation and state ownership and instead examine whether we need to hold, let go of or use differently the assets still in State hands and determine whether our priority is nationalisation, privatisation or competition. I believe it is the third of these considerations. Senators should state honestly whether they believe that those who will buy Aer Lingus will do so with a view to investing in Ireland’s airports and services for its citizens. I do not want to hear their views on whether the State should own assets or long philosophical discourses on privatisation and nationalisation. Senators, without resorting to jargon, should state what they envisage will happen if we choose to privatise Aer Lingus.
Back to top of page
Cork and Shannon Airports after break-up of Aer Rianta
26/04/2006 - When the break up was discussed here there was an element of political manoeuvring and politicking on the issues. There was genuine interest in discovering what would work and be best for each locality.
The debate on privatisation versus nationalisation and keeping facilities in safe hands is another issue. The country has gone beyond this. People want a good service that gives taxpayers good value. There is no problem in introducing competitive elements, but neither is there anything wrong with a company being owned by the State if it works well, and this is my view on Aer Lingus. There is nothing wrong either in considering privatisation if it is in everybody’s best interest. I had doubts about the break up of the airports and I expressed them at the time. Now that it has happened let us make it work and give the individual airports a good chance.
Let us show people that we can have trust and confidence in recommendations such as these. In other words, if the Minister wants to sell the idea of the privatisation of Aer Lingus later in the year — on which I will argue against him — he will want people to have trust and confidence in what he will have to say. As matters stand, if he stands up on the issue, we will think that the last time we had a discussion on the airports we were sold a pup. We walked out of the debate with a different understanding of what was going to happen. It is important that we have trust and confidence in what we are told before we argue over crossing the t’s and dotting the i’s.
What needs to be done? We need investment in these airports. Currently they are not being marketed. The authorities are working hard at getting additional routes, which is crucial, but they are not marketing them. I use Cork and Shannon airports. I used Shannon Airport three times within the past six months and find it a great airport as it is so easy to get through. This is attractive to passengers. People from as far north as Mayo, who would be almost equidistant from Dublin and Shannon, now prefer to get to where they want to go from Shannon. Some people in the south west only consider holiday destinations they can reach through Cork or Shannon.
There is a surge of support for these airports and there are significant possibilities that can be made work. Tourism bodies should be more closely linked with airport authorities but this is not happening. It happens in places such as Knock, which enjoys a significant number of flights. The importance of these regional airports is not marketed. In fact, the description of these international airports as “regional” should be dropped. They provide a service to many destinations.
The value offered to those flying through Cork and Shannon is of major importance. Both are traveller-friendly airports that I wish to see promoted. I wish both airports to be debt free so they can hit the ground running. This will allow them to market themselves, expand and provide a service to the communities.
Back to top of page
Dublin Airport
19/05/05 -I agree that we need an urgent debate on the airport and transport policy. There are different points of view. Mine differs from that of many in this House. I have never been convinced that the privatisation of Aer Lingus would bring us a better deal. I have not seen that happen in any other privatisation to date.
I agree with the concept of competition, on the other hand. I have listened to the Minister for Transport, Deputy Cullen, who said that two competing terminals have never been successful in any airport in the world. There is a great deal of information in the ether. It is right that we have the Minister here to explain exactly what is happening, so we can offer our views on it and formulate a position on the future development of the national airline and the country’s main airport. I ask that we have an early debate on transport.
Back to top of page
Second Terminal At Dublin Airport
20/04/05 - I am well acquainted with Dublin Airport as I live beside it and many of my neighbours work there. I have visited many airports worldwide but have encountered only one in the past two years, Gerona Airport, in which free parking was provided. I returned to this airport twice in the past three months and discovered that once it began attracting more business, those parking their vehicles were subject to a charge.
Parking in Dublin is expensive. It is amazing to hear people complaining about parking costs in the airport but passing no comment on the similar prices in locations across the road. It is a question of Dublin prices. If the Dublin Airport Authority were to provide free parking, there would be Members who claimed this was typical of the public service and its inability to make a shilling. The authority is charging €20 per day for parking because that is what the public is prepared to pay. This is what market forces and privatisation are about.
With regard to security, Senator Daly is correct that it is very frustrating that passengers with connecting flights are obliged to undergo security checks more than once. However, the same situation pertains in Los Angeles, Heathrow, Stansted, JFK and so on. This is now international practice.
If one travels to Stansted Airport with the airline owned by “Mr. Efficiency”, Michael O’Leary, one must disembark the aircraft, collect one’s luggage, walk half a mile to the end of the terminal, go through the check-in process and walk back again in order to take one’s connecting flight. This is how Mr. O’Leary, the god of the private sector, manages the process in his operation. It is not his fault that it must be so but rather it is the security requirement. This is the reality. As Senator Feighan observed, the private bus operator which was to solve all our problems in Dublin Airport will not allow buses to depart until there are enough passengers to render such journeys economically viable.
We must recognise that this economic reality will also apply in the case of the new terminal. Services will not be cheaper. However, the Fine Gael motion is correct in its contention that the Government should have made progress on the new terminal. It is inexcusable that this has not been done.
I shall conclude by outlining the main issues. First, if a new terminal is built, the number of security checkers per passenger will not be any more than it currently is because it would not pay for airport management to appoint more. Second, it is not the case that only one new terminal is required. This issue has caused such ideological conflict that one may ask why we cannot have a terminal for each ideology. Let SIPTU build one and Senator Daly’s constituent in Ennis, Mr. Michael McNamara, build another. None of us will be concerned as long as there is a train link between the three terminals. The best man will win in this situation, just as it should be.
However, the motion is correct in urging the Government to take a decision on this issue.
Such a development will create more jobs and more capacity. We must recognise, however, that it will not reduce the cost of parking in Dublin Airport or the security queues. Those responsible for building and operating the terminal will want to make a profit and will scale back their costs as far as possible.
Back to top of page
Seanad debates are available in full on the Oireachtas website