Archive for the ‘Governmental’ Category
It is being alleged that a couple of Indian carriers are being refueled by the state owned oil company but not paying for the fuel. Sounds like a ‘Mediterranean’ subsidy – but on the Indian subcontinent. How very… creative.
On another completely unconnected note. ::)
An unlikely partnership?
I shambled through Boston a little while ago and initially got subjected to the usual routine. All travelers know it by now but this time it was slightly different. The security operative was kind, thoughtful, and funny making the run through the gauntlet a pleasant experience. Just as I was about to clear his area he let it slip that he was a commuter airlines captain who had lost his job…. Well I hope you found another my friend.
The TSA has a hell of a job but on both sides of the Atlantic the species are a little similar. We KNEW what would happen on September the 12th 2001. It stands to reason, all a bureaucrat monolith needs to swell its power and influence is a great activator – and it got it.
We all understand the need for security, we live at the pointy end and are responsible for delivering it. What rankles is the tawdry way that we are treated and subjected to what can best be described as security for security’s sake. We are low hanging fruit, easy to hit and point to as a shining example of “The security apparatus in action’. Bullocks!
See what Robert Mark has to say about a recent issue over in the US concerning the TSA – it makes interesting reading.
Call Ryanair what you want, they look a bit like a pit bull terrier at the moment.
Ryanair is to sue the EU over its of its repeated failure to take action against state aid for national carriers. They have a point and one which I am sure the parties involved would like to put to one side. It is a matter of public record that Air France and Alitalia received substantial ‘assistance’ at a time when they were ailing, the Italian carrier still is – seriously ailing and looking for a buyer. Heavens knows what kind of makeup will need to be applied to make the ugly sister glow well enough to attract a suitor. Makeup applied with a trowel I think – sensitive timing?
This point is of course arguable and that no doubt is what both the EU and State Governments are going to be doing at length.
Does Ryanair think that this might buy them a little sympathy or leeway? Will this enable them to cut a deal behind closed doors? Heck, this is the EU – do they do that sort of thing?
Ryanair to sue European Commission over airline ‘state aid’
By Caroline Muspratt
Budget airline Ryanair plans to sue the European Commission for what it called the EC’s “repeated failure” to take action on a number of complaints over state aid for national airlines.
Ryanair said the complaints involved Air France, Lufthansa, Alitalia and Olympic Airways and were submitted to the Commission over a year ago. It claimed that the complaints involve hundreds of millions of euros in alleged “illegal state aids being granted by the French, German, Italian and Greek governments to subsidise their flag carrier airlines.” Ryanair said it had called on the Commission several times to investigate these claims, but it had not done so.
Ryanair is now in the process of submitting a complaint against the Commission to the European Courts.
Related story – EC to investigate alleged state aid at German, Finnish airports
The Indonesian airline industry was dealt a blow by the European Commission, which reportedly has banned all 51 registered Indonesian carriers from operating into the EU.
While no Indonesian airlines currently fly to EU member states, an EU spokesperson warned that “European citizens should avoid flying with these carriers. They are really unsafe,” in a statement cited by The Times of London.
The move follows the Indonesian government’s decision to revoke the operating certificates of nine airlines that failed to improve safety standards after a series of accidents earlier this year. The Directorate General of Civil Aviation found that none of the country’s 20 major carriers met international safety standards, including eight that were given three months to rectify significant shortfalls or facing grounding.
In April, US FAA lowered Indonesia’s safety rating to Category 2 while the State Dept. criticized the DG’s review.
Indonesia’s ambassador to the EU, Nadjib Riphat Kesoema, reportedly claimed that “Indonesian airlines are safe” and said he hoped the EU would review its decision at an October meeting. A number of carriers, including Garuda Indonesia, Lion Air, Mandala Airlines and Indonesia Air Asia, recently have placed significant orders for 737NGs and A320s to replace aging fleets.
by Geoffrey Thomas ATW
What a blow to the prestige of Indonesia and a ‘timely’ move on behalf of their regulators. By intervening they stand a chance of cleaning up their act and meeting conditions for a return to ‘respectability’. Their credibility will hopefully (for them) be protected/enhanced by being proactive. What a shame it probably took a major kick from the EU/FAA to prompt the action, as was almost certainly the case.
Ryanair says EC to block Aer Lingus takeover, vows to fight ‘unlawful’ decision
Ryanair said yesterday that it expects the European Commission to block its proposed €1.48 billion hostile takeover of Aer Lingus and vowed to fight the decision vigorously.
The EC has until July 4 to issue a ruling on the merger, but Ryanair CEO Michael O’Leary said “leaked” documents indicate the proposed combination will be blocked. “The European Commission’s decision to prohibit this merger between two EU airlines which between them represent just 5% of European airline traffic is not just unprecedented, but in our view unlawful,” he said. He noted that the EC has given a “rubber stamp” to mergers between much larger carriers such as Air France/KLM and Lufthansa/Swiss.
“It is obvious that the Commission is applying a unique and unprecedented set of rules in the Ryanair/Aer Lingus case,” O’Leary said in Brussels. “One can only conclude that the European Commission’s decision to prohibit is a political one to appease the Irish government.”
The EC refuted Ryanair’s claim and denied the leak. “It is very easy to criticize a decision which has not yet been taken,” competition spokesperson Jonathan Todd told Thomson Financial News.
Airbus needs a good clean run at its manufacturing effort to deliver on the promises that it has made to its customers. A undelivered promise is worth zip; the one that matters is the one that comes on cost, and performing exactly as it said in on the aluminum.
EADS/Airbus has a very short time window to sort out its woes, there is a limit to the tolerance of the airlines and the other humans in the manufacturing machine. None of us know what will happen if confidence collapses across the board. Boeing does have a fair idea though….
Aviation Week – Robert Wall
Extracts only – article incomplete.
Airbus is at risk of missing 2007 aircraft deliveries if strikes at production facilities mainly in Germany and France continue.
So far, the strike actions in response to threatened job cuts haven’t caused the aircraft maker to back off its 440- to 450-unit output target, but Hans Peter Ring, the EADS and Airbus CFO, warns that continuation of the labor turmoil could cause some deliveries to slip into next year. “We are on the critical path and close to being on the very critical path,” he told analysts in commenting on EADS first-quarter financial results.
More trouble on the horizon as workers see the writing on the wall.
EADS also hopes to draw up soon a short list of the most promising buyers and partners for the sites Airbus is looking to unload, mainly Filton, U.K., Nordenham, Germany, and Meaulte, France. Ring says there’s been much interest, and narrowing the field could happen before the end of July, although it’s more likely to occur after the European summer vacation break that lasts most of August.
It’s not that we don’t want the EU to succeed when it takes on major, high stakes technology based projects… is it? ESA has been a notable success and certainly made the US think when NASA had its hiccup with Challenger.
Goodness knows, we plough so much money into that giant quango, and like the UK Health Service, the UN and just about every other massive bureaucracy, the EU seems to swallow massive wads of our cash at an absurd rate to little effect.
But didn’t you smile when the concept of a European owned and administrated GPS system was first floated? Our cousins across the water (who made their own earlier) must have been laughing into their ‘Bud’ having seen it all before. Did it seem like another opportunity to divert the gravy train to… heavens knows where? Yes, it did rather, didn’t it?
Time rolls on – hold onto your hat; the Gallileo project has now moved house and all concerned in this stellar project can relax and jack up their tenders yet again.
We are saved! – the ‘Government’ is taking the reigns.
Avweb source Reuters
It looks like Europe’s space-based navigation system will be government operated after the consortium of companies that were to build and run it effectively quit the project on Thursday. The consortium, led by Airbus parent EADS, had until May 10 to come up with a plan to get the Galileo project back on track and working toward deployment. But, according to Reuters, the consortium was plagued by infighting and nervous of the $3 billion cost so it let the deadline pass.
Shortly thereafter, European Union Transport Commission head Michele Cercone said the government would take over the project. Cercone said the consortium wanted the EU to assume the debt and take all the risk out of deploying the system so it made more sense to assume the project without them. The EU hopes to have the system partially operational by early 2011 and fully operational by 2012.
How does it go? ‘Do it once, do it right.’ Or did perhaps the men from the Euro-Ministry know that this would be the direction eventually taken? Perhaps the European political consensus would not have permitted this project to start unless private equity was involved from the beginning. Was the delusion that the risk was being transfered to the private sector and not the public purse was needed to see the nascent, high prestige project leave the launch pad?