# Mary Coughlan performance as Employment Minister



## papervalue (11 Feb 2010)

What do you think of her performance in employment porfolio. Never really hear much about her. I find her performance extremely poor. At times i feel that we do not even have an employment minister with all the close downs etc. I know their is a lot of people on jobs benefit/assisitance doing everything they can to get a job but no oppurtunties out their. I like to see her doing more to save jobs under threat. The only one in present gov i see with any minister potential is Brian Lenehan.

Maybe create a foreign minister for emplyment to travel world for most of the year with aim of bringing big companies to Ireland. Tap up as many of the high quality ones as possible


----------



## Purple (11 Feb 2010)

I've ranted here on this topic before.


----------



## Mpsox (11 Feb 2010)

The days of large mulitnationals setting up in Ireland is largely dead and buried, we're too expensive a country in comparison to too many other countries around the world. There will be exceptional cases for reasons of skills and language, and we shouldfn't stop trying to get them in, but the Dells of this world will never set up here again. Hence the emphasis should change to helping ourselves, helping entrepreneurs and growing our local and especially exporting firms.

Mary C is very like Brian C, great for cutting ribbons when times are good, doesn't have a clue what to do now that times are not so good. The FAS saga is a good enough example of her incompetence


----------



## RonanC (11 Feb 2010)

Mary Coughlan is the Minister for Enterprise, Trade and Employment and has overall responsibility for this Department.

Minister Dara Calleary has responsibility for Labour Affairs


----------



## liaconn (11 Feb 2010)

Mpsox said:


> The days of large mulitnationals setting up in Ireland is largely dead and buried, we're too expensive a country in comparison to too many other countries around the world. There will be exceptional cases for reasons of skills and language, and we shouldfn't stop trying to get them in, but the Dells of this world will never set up here again. Hence the emphasis should change to helping ourselves, helping entrepreneurs and growing our local and especially exporting firms.
> 
> Mary C is very like Brian C, great for cutting ribbons when times are good, doesn't have a clue what to do now that times are not so good. The FAS saga is a good enough example of her incompetence


 
Not a fan of Mary Coughlan, but most of the FÁS saga took place long before she became Minister for Enterprise, Trade & Employment.


----------



## Purple (11 Feb 2010)

liaconn said:


> Not a fan of Mary Coughlan, but most of the FÁS saga took place long before she became Minister for Enterprise, Trade & Employment.



yep, on Mary Harneys watch.


----------



## Shawady (11 Feb 2010)

Mpsox said:


> The days of large mulitnationals setting up in Ireland is largely dead and buried, we're too expensive a country in comparison to too many other countries around the world. There will be exceptional cases for reasons of skills and language, and we shouldfn't stop trying to get them in, but the Dells of this world will never set up here again. Hence the emphasis should change to helping ourselves, helping entrepreneurs and growing our local and especially exporting firms.


 
You have to wonder where the jobs of the future are going to come from. Big employers like the public, construction and banking sector will not employ the same number of people as before.

I read one article recently that stated from 2000-2007 we only created a couple of thousand jobs in the export sector.


----------



## DerKaiser (11 Feb 2010)

papervalue said:


> Maybe create a foreign minister for emplyment to travel world for most of the year with aim of bringing big companies to Ireland. Tap up as many of the high quality ones as possible


Good suggestion - China would be a great place to target.



Mpsox said:


> The days of large mulitnationals setting up in Ireland is largely dead and buried, we're too expensive a country in comparison to too many other countries around the world. There will be exceptional cases for reasons of skills and language, and we shouldn't stop trying to get them in, but the Dells of this world will never set up here again. Hence the emphasis should change to helping ourselves, helping entrepreneurs and growing our local and especially exporting firms.


 
One of the first things to do is to encourage imaginative enterprise domestically.  There are large sums of money being thrown around at the moment, it would be a shame if these all go to propping up zombie banks with absolutely nothing passed on in the form of credit for start ups, etc.

I wouldn't give up on the idea of us being affordable for the following reasons:

We've probably 250,000 recently unemployed.  Tens of thousands of these are competent workers.  

We've already seen significant drops in wages and cost of living.  

We'll have a tonne of state owned commercial property that can be used strategiaclly in attracting jobs.

The euro has started to ease against the dollar and sterling.

There are a lot of positives to work with here.  I wish Mary Coughlan would come out and both say and do something about it.


----------



## Staples (11 Feb 2010)

papervalue said:


> Maybe create a foreign minister for emplyment to travel world for most of the year with aim of bringing big companies to Ireland. Tap up as many of the high quality ones as possible


 

Mary Coughlan (and other Ministers) already go regularly on international trade missions and other events (including the St Patrick's day trips) where the return to Ireland is extremely positive.

But the usual media commentary around these events centrs on their cost rather than their value e.g how much her hotel room cost, whether she got her hair done, etc. It should be little wonder if she decided to restrict her exposure and this, ultimately, would be to the detriment of us all.


----------



## dontaskme (11 Feb 2010)

Purple said:


> yep, on Mary Harneys watch.


 
Mary Harney's husband was chairman of FÁS for a while, one of the board members of Anglo was previously on the board of FÁS and the whole shebang was founded by Bertie Ahern under the Labour Services Act 1987.

The usual suspects, in other words.


----------



## z104 (11 Feb 2010)

Lets just reflect on the amount of jobs she's helped to create and retain!

Tumbleweeds roll accross the street

Owl hoots


----------



## mathepac (11 Feb 2010)

Staples said:


> Mary Coughlan (and other Ministers) already go regularly on international trade missions and other events (including the St Patrick's day trips) where the return to Ireland is extremely positive...


Examples in the last 12 months please in hundreds of high-quality sustainable jobs created? (discount recent announcements about low-rent, scripted, call-centre positions)


----------



## gebbel (11 Feb 2010)

Mary's heart is in the right place but let's call a spade a spade: she is hopelessly incompetent in this most critical of political roles. The whole country knows it.


----------



## papervalue (11 Feb 2010)

gebbel said:


> Mary's heart is in the right place but let's call a spade a spade: she is hopelessly incompetent in this critical of political roles. The whole country knows it.


 
+1

for the sake of the country, she should be moved to a less demanding porfolio and find an backbecher who is fresh and looking for a challenge as none of current cabinet look up to job. even bring in some one from opposition such as richard bruton to do the job.


----------



## papervalue (11 Feb 2010)

RonanC said:


> Mary Coughlan is the Minister for Enterprise, Trade and Employment and has overall responsibility for this Department.
> 
> Minister Dara Calleary has responsibility for Labour Affairs


 
i have an interest in what goes on in govertment of country, but minister dara calleary, never heard of him, did not even know he existed.

but the book stops with mary


----------



## chlipps (11 Feb 2010)

Just looked at the list of alternative ministers in FF... Not many options available.

Saw pic of Dara Calleary... never before saw him... 

Only one that I see that may put in better performance might be Dermot Ahern...best of bad lot maybe..


----------



## PyritePete (12 Feb 2010)

gebbel said:


> Mary's heart is in the right place but let's call a spade a spade: she is hopelessly incompetent in this most critical of political roles. The whole country knows it.


 
+1, I also find her smug. During the whole Lisbon treaty saga, I found her repulsive


----------



## sunrock (12 Feb 2010)

It is not Marys fault that multinationals are not coming here,no matter how incompetent she is.Multinationals that manufacture in Ireland and export from here have many cheaper alternatives  even in Europe where countries such as Poland have copied our model.Retaining the ones we have should be the priority. 
We need to develop our own indigenous industries which have been ignored because politicians and the bigwigs of the IDA preferred mingling with giant american multinationals and trips stateside than humble irish start ups.Granted this has worked out well but the game is now up and these IDA bigwigs are now going to have to get their hands dirty in helping irish start ups and the politicians need to put their energy and money behind these  irish manufacturing companies.


----------



## Complainer (13 Feb 2010)

liaconn said:


> Not a fan of Mary Coughlan, but most of the FÁS saga took place long before she became Minister for Enterprise, Trade & Employment.


True, but she was directly responsible for approving Rody's payoff.


----------



## pudds (14 Feb 2010)

Its not just Mary thats incompetent....its the whole seebang unfortunately


----------



## Purple (15 Feb 2010)

pudds said:


> Its not just Mary thats incompetent....its the whole seebang unfortunately



I don't think they are all nearly as bad as her, she's special.
It now seems that she played a blinder in keeping 500 jobs out of the country... dis she read her brief when she took the post?


----------



## Capt. Beaky (15 Feb 2010)

Complainer said:


> True, but she was directly responsible for approving Rody's payoff.


And for hundreds of Ryanair jobs heading for Bonny Scotland . If her hand was being forced, she should say so. Or have the cojones to return to her original profession.


----------



## Complainer (15 Feb 2010)

Capt. Beaky said:


> And for hundreds of Ryanair jobs heading for Bonny Scotland . If her hand was being forced, she should say so. Or have the cojones to return to her original profession.


Don't believe everything O'Leary says. If there was money in it for Ryanair, he'd have found a way to make the deal happen before now. Watch out for much drama over the next few days, followed by a 'throw the toys out of the pram' trantrum from MO'L blaming the world for his woes.


----------



## Capt. Beaky (15 Feb 2010)

No, I don't believe all he says but I take all he says onboard. Mary O Rourke's agenda in the old days fuelled this argy-bargy. The idea of the government not wanting to interfere in third party business is, if it weren't so serious, laughable. The government interfere quite a lot in these things. If that was any other firm, all the stops would be pulled out. And what are FG doing? They should state what they see as right. This is in the national interest.


----------



## Lex Foutish (15 Feb 2010)

Complainer said:


> Don't believe everything O'Leary says. If there was money in it for Ryanair, he'd have found a way to make the deal happen before now. Watch out for much drama over the next few days, followed by a 'throw the toys out of the pram' trantrum from MO'L blaming the world for his woes.


 
Complainer, I feel the same way about Mr. O' Leary. The King of Spin. And he has the country in a tail spin over it!


----------



## chlipps (15 Feb 2010)

Capt. Beaky said:


> #And what are FG doing? They should state what they see as right. This is in the national interest.


 
+1... I fear the horse will have bolted before FG state what is right... (note I have no preference FF or FG).. but they spend most of their time whinging in the dail and never seem to agree on what it best for the country.


----------



## gianni (15 Feb 2010)

Lex Foutish said:


> Complainer, I feel the same way about Mr. O' Leary. The King of Spin. And he has the country in a tail spin over it!



While I'm no fan of Mary Coughlan's I'd have to agree with the above too.


----------



## Leper (16 Feb 2010)

Yep, I don't trust Michael O'Leary either.  Michael O'Leary is good for Michael O'Leary.


----------



## Niall M (16 Feb 2010)

We dont have to like or trust Michael O Leary, but the 500 people out of work might like the government to make an effort to meet him and see if this is for real and if they can get a job from him.


----------



## Capt. Beaky (16 Feb 2010)

Leper said:


> Yep, I don't trust Michael O'Leary either. Michael O'Leary is good for Michael O'Leary.


What exactly don't you like about O Leary? His abrasive attitude? His straightforwardness? His success in building a low-cost airline into the world's biggest low-cost airline? Managing to grow the business almost every year since he took over? Or perhaps you like the old days better - when a trip to London was the equivelent of three weeks wages! Lots of people don't like O Leary but when asked to articulate their hate ........... it is usually because of believing what they read in the papers, government spin, believing Airport Authority and Aer Lingus halftruths, hissy fits at boarding gates (all the rules and regs are clearly stated on the web site) or not being able to think independently. And as for "O Leary being good for O Leary"? Jeez, has he not done air travellers a very big favour?


----------



## Shawady (16 Feb 2010)

The sticking point seems to be hanger 6. It look like O'Leary specifically wants this one for heavy maintanence although it is currently owned by Aer Lingus and they do all their heavy work in France now.
There may be more to it, but on the radio yesterday many ex-SR technic workers backed O'Leary and believed his version of events. Anyone interviewed said they would be happy to work for him.


----------



## gianni (16 Feb 2010)

Capt. Beaky said:


> What exactly don't you like about O Leary? His abrasive attitude? His straightforwardness? His success in building a low-cost airline into the world's biggest low-cost airline? Managing to grow the business almost every year since he took over?


 
I don't mind any of the above. Not the biggest fan of his abrasive attitude but thats neither here nor there.



Capt. Beaky said:


> Or perhaps you like the old days better - when a trip to London was the equivelent of three weeks wages!


 
Don't remember the bad old days... too young !



Capt. Beaky said:


> Lots of people don't like O Leary but when asked to articulate their hate ...........


 
I don't hate him. I don't believe he acts in anyones interests other than his/Ryanairs. He is a great businessman not a champion of the people.

Some specifics re the hangar 6 issue that make me sceptical of his true intentions... 
1) did Ryanair try to secure it after SRT vacated it ? If not, why not ? 
2) Is hangar 6 the only suitable hangar on the campus for what Ryanair want to do ? 
3) is this just a roundabout tactic for getting a subsidy for setting up an operation in Dublin Airport ?

I often travel Ryanair and have no problems with their hidden charges (I don't think they're hidden), their customer service (have always had pleasant interactions with their staff) or their aircraft (I don't need a 1st class seat for a 1 hr flight).


----------



## Firefly (16 Feb 2010)

I'm a fan of Ryanair in that I hate to fly with them but love the reduced fairs at Aer Lingus that have ensued.
Aparently hangar 6 is the issue. The DAA have alegedly offered to build him a new one but he refused. This looks like a strategic play to weaken Aer Lingus IMO. The jobs are the carrot.


----------



## Slash (16 Feb 2010)

We have known for a long time that Ms Coughlan is out of her depth, but no amount of moaning here on AAM or elsewhere will have any impact on her career. She is in the job for poiltical reasons.


----------



## Sunny (16 Feb 2010)

People don't have to like or trust Michael O' Leary but the simpe question that needs to be answered is why after Ryanair made the offer of creating 500 jobs, there wasn't a high level team from the Government and the relevant agencies camping at his door to get in to see him to see what the problem was. I bet if it involved a trip abroad to Silicon Valley, there would have a been trade mission organised. Instead she writes him a couple of letters.


----------



## Lex Foutish (16 Feb 2010)

Slash said:


> We have known for a long time that Ms Coughlan is out of her depth, but no amount of moaning here on AAM or elsewhere will have any impact on her career. She is in the job for poiltical reasons.


 
Fair point, Slash, but I think she'll be moved soon, sideways, at least, because more and more, she's becoming the story and governments don't like situations like that.


----------



## Shawady (16 Feb 2010)

She is useless. One of the biggest failures of Cowen is to not move her from that portfollio. She is totally out of her depth.


----------



## ccbkd (16 Feb 2010)

Sweet This post will be deleted if not edited immediately, she is terrible, an embarassment and damning reflection on the state of politics


----------



## Firefly (16 Feb 2010)

Sunny said:


> I bet if it involved a trip abroad to Silicon Valley, there would have a been trade mission organised. Instead she writes him a couple of letters.


 
I bet if John O'Donohue was minister this would have been organised in a jiffy!


----------



## Niall M (16 Feb 2010)

did they meet, any idea how it went?


----------



## Shawady (16 Feb 2010)

Niall M said:


> did they meet, any idea how it went?


 
They are meeting this evening. He wants the hanger.

[broken link removed]


----------



## cork (16 Feb 2010)

He wants the hanger.

He is using the media effectively to get it.

DAA have a Board & Aer Lingus have a lease.

But Hey! Government should  put pressure on the board and nullify a legal lease.


----------



## Complainer (16 Feb 2010)

Would be interesting to know how the Aer Lingus got the lease to that hanger? Was there open market competition for the lease?


----------



## Niall M (16 Feb 2010)

http://www.ryanair.com/ie/news/o-leary-invites-tanaiste-to-meet-on-300-jobs

the plot thickens, where are the aer lingus workers....


----------



## Capt. Beaky (16 Feb 2010)

Complainer said:


> Would be interesting to know how the Aer Lingus got the lease to that hanger? Was there open market competition for the lease?


Good question Complainer. Worth investigating.


----------



## ashambles (16 Feb 2010)

Vanity is at the heart of this hanger dispute, hanger 6 unless I'm mistaken is that nice big modern building on your right as you enter the airport. If in Ryanair hands O'Leary could easily put up some big Welcome to Ryanair signs on it, or even some hurtful banners. 

Also to the layperson it seems big enough and well placed enough to at some stage even be turned into a terminal - a low cost one even. While that's fanciful I'm sure if it was out of DAA hands they'd have all sorts of nightmares about what could happen.

The DAA aren't going to let Ryanair have the most prestigious standalone real estate in the airport without a fight - just as well they've their buddies in FF onside. 
A few hundred jobs are inconsequential to the egos in the DAA, and sadly it seems our ironically titled Minister for Enterprise, Trade and Employment.

I note now she's looking for a business plan. This might seem outwardly professional except that Ryanair's customer for the servicing will be Ryanair, from a business point of view that simplifies things so much that the business plan is plainly obvious.

This isn't a startup looking for money, what's the point in asking an admittedly annoying but extremely successful company to prove they know what they're doing when picking a location to service their planes. How about we see Coughlan's emigration based business plan for the economy


----------



## Complainer (16 Feb 2010)

I wonder how many of Micko's 300 jobs are real jobs, and how many will be 'agency' jobs, with the workers employed by some Latvian employment agency, to ensure that Irish employment law can be safely ignored?


----------



## mathepac (16 Feb 2010)

> ... the plot thickens, where are the aer lingus workers....


What a silly question. They are taking a union-negotiated, employer-approved tea break, probably with the bould Mary C.


----------



## Purple (16 Feb 2010)

Complainer said:


> I wonder how many of Micko's 300 jobs are real jobs, and how many will be 'agency' jobs, with the workers employed by some Latvian employment agency, to ensure that Irish employment law can be safely ignored?



I take from that you are in favour of protectionism, keeping the have-nots away from the opportunity to earn good money in a high cost economy. It's just as well that the Americans, Germans and British didn't share your views between 1950 and 1990. If they had then they would have kept our emigrants out and their money at home and we’d still be the economy that capital forgot. You don’t strike me as a Dev fan and you are certainly no fool so I don’t see comely maidens and frugal comfort fitting into your vision of what Ireland should be but without foreign direct investment and the decades of emigrants sending money back here, earned by undercutting local labour, said maidens and frugality would be all we’d have.

I’m not convinced that Ryan Air are doing anything other than stirring the pot or that these jobs were ever really on the table, but I have no issue with people from other countries working here.


----------



## Deiseblue (16 Feb 2010)

mathepac said:


> What a silly question. They are taking a union-negotiated, employer-approved tea break, probably with the bould Mary C.


What an equally silly reply !
All employees , unionised or not , are entitled under working time act to tea breaks , employer approval doesn't enter the equation.
Try not to let your anti union bias cloud the issue in question.


----------



## gunnerfitzy (17 Feb 2010)

[broken link removed]

So no deal. I would normally discribe myself as a MOL fan however I do wonder if he was sincere about this facility. It seems he will only do a deal if he gets this specific hanger. Why not have a purpose-built hanger constructed? Surely he cannot expect to have the legal occupiers evicted just because he has more jobs to offer? This whole story has a bad smell to it.


----------



## Purple (17 Feb 2010)

gunnerfitzy said:


> [broken link removed]
> 
> so no deal. I would normally discribe myself as a mol fan however i do wonder if he was sincere about this facility. It seems he will only do a deal if he gets this specific hanger. Why not have a purpose-built hanger constructed? Surely he cannot expect to have the legal occupiers evicted just because he has more jobs to offer? This whole story has a bad smell to it.



+1


----------



## Capt. Beaky (17 Feb 2010)

Karma baby! DAA has never played fair. Bolstered by that gravel voiced harridan from Westmeath, the seeds of this spat were sown years ago. Why do that bunch of arrogant, overpaid muppets in Leinster House continue to villify O leary's incredible enterprize. They have, from the start of his meteoric rise, used the DAA to 'keep him in his place'. This has been a spectacular failure, yet they insist on carrying on the charade. Where are the equally inept opposition? Drinking pints in the departure lounge?


----------



## Shawady (17 Feb 2010)

Michael O'Leary would never pass up the opportunity to show up the government or DAA but it sounds like he has a valid point. Hanger 6 was designed for heavy maintainence but Aer Lingus gets all of that done in France now. He has made a better arguement for Aer Lingus to move to a smaller hanger than the government has of not moving them. Ryanair and the government own 60% of Aer lingus anyway so surely they make a decision to save jobs.
Both sides are sticking to their guns but if O'Leary gets his way 300 jobs may be created, whereas no jobs will be created if the government  doesn't chnage its position.


----------



## Latrade (17 Feb 2010)

gunnerfitzy said:


> [broken link removed]
> 
> .... This whole story has a bad smell to it.


 
My exact feeling from the start. So much so when it "broke" I actually felt sorry for Coughlan. I think her reply in writing was reasonable. Yes the state and IDA do and will be party to negotiations, but MOL's starting point was unreasonable.

This stuff about if it were BA or Microsoft is largely rubbish for the main reason that those companies would have negotiated with the owner of the property directly. MOL refused (with good reason or not) to even speak to the DAA, if after he had tried and discussion broke down, then it would have been appropriate for the government and IDA to step in. 

Again, he even said if it were the likes of Microsoft, the government would have "built them a park". Very true, but then that implies Microsoft would be flexible in their arrangements and wouldn't insist on one building and only one building. I mean, what about locating it at Shannon? But that's not on MOL's agenda, nothing beyond Hanger 6 will be considered.

For all the incompetence of Coughlan, I'm thinking of hanging up my voting boots. I could have written the response from the opposition in my sleep, on the back of a fag packet. I give up. How much political rope do you need to give to an opposition to show their worth and might? And yet again we get by the book, poor attempts at political point scoring. 

The MOL situation is seedy, but Coughlan also mishandled the whole thing. 500 jobs is no laughing matter and there could have been less direct means of state intervention.


----------



## Purple (17 Feb 2010)

I don’t believe that there were ever 500, or even 300,  job for Dublin. Ryan Air are way too smart to open a facility like that in Dublin where costs are high and they will have to pay the DAA for each plane that takes off or lands. I see this as a publicity stunt combined with PR spin to deflect what would have been major criticism when they placed the jobs in another country. Now he can blame the government and walk away smelling of roses.


----------



## Firefly (17 Feb 2010)

I tend to agree - he ended the meeting after 45 mins with the minister...clearly not the actions of someone who really wanted something. 

Also begs the question - what kind of value are shareholders of Aer Lingus getting when it has a (presumably expensive) vacant maintenance hangar in Dublin when employing maintenance staff in France?


----------



## Shawady (17 Feb 2010)

Purple said:


> Ryan Air are way too smart to open a facility like that in Dublin where costs are high


 
In an alternative business plan put forward last year, employees were willing to take a 20% cut in wages to keep the operation open. Combined with having a ready made facility and fully trained staff ready to go it might have been a runner. He put it to the government to call his bluff. I aggree however that O'Leary would never pass up a chance for a PR stunt. I suppose we will never know now.


----------



## Purple (17 Feb 2010)

Shawady said:


> In an alternative business plan put forward last year, employees were willing to take a 20% cut in wages to keep the operation open. Combined with having a ready made facility and fully trained staff ready to go it might have been a runner. He put it to the government to call his bluff. I aggree however that O'Leary would never pass up a chance for a PR stunt. I suppose we will never know now.



I presume he (and others) allowed time to elapse before talking about taking over some of the capacity/ facilities of SRT because they didn’t want to face any of the TUPE obligations. From a business point of view this was the correct decision. The real question is did the DAA know that Ryan Air were sniffing around hanger 6 and if they did then why did they sign a lease with Aer Lingus in December when they could have made more money directly, and indirectly, from Ryan Air. Remember that every plane that is serviced there has to land and take off at the airport, incurring all related charges.


----------



## DB74 (17 Feb 2010)

It will be a cold day in hell before Michael O'Leary gives a hoot about 300 jobs in Ireland or anywhere else.


----------



## Sunny (17 Feb 2010)

Another question worth asking is what did the DAA pay for the hanger and on what terms did it lease it to Aer Lingus as I don't understand why Aer Lingus would pay for hanger of that size that is purpose built for heavy aircraft maintenance to do general line maintenance. It doesn't make any commercial sense.

There is something wrong with the whole story from both sides.


----------



## Sunny (17 Feb 2010)

DB74 said:


> It will be a cold day in hell before Michael O'Leary gives a hoot about 300 jobs in Ireland or anywhere else.


 
Thats crap. You may not like him or respect him but he built up that company from nothing creating thousands of jobs along the way. Of course he wants the best deal for the company. Thats his job and is no different to any other employer


----------



## Caveat (17 Feb 2010)

Sunny said:


> Thats crap. You may not like him or respect him but he built up that company from nothing creating thousands of jobs along the way. Of course he wants the best deal for the company. Thats his job and is no different to any other employer


 
+1

Michael O'Leary the big bad bogeyman who has done nothing for this country and whose planes are fuelled by liquidised babies


----------



## DB74 (17 Feb 2010)

I do like Michael O'Leary and admire him for doing what he has done with Ryanair but to claim that wanting the hangar is about anything other than profit for Ryanair is laughable.


----------



## Sunny (17 Feb 2010)

DB74 said:


> I do like Michael O'Leary and admire him for doing what he has done with Ryanair but to claim that wanting the hangar is about anything other than profit for Ryanair is laughable.


 
Of course he wants profit for Ryanair. Who claims that isn't what he wants. There is no law that says he can't make a profit and create 300 jobs at the same time.


----------



## DB74 (17 Feb 2010)

You're putting words in my mouth/post there Sunny. I never said that there is any law against making a profit. 

But lets not pretend that O'Leary wants to create 300 jobs - he wants to make a profit.

He is merely using the media in an attempt to bully the government and the DAA

If he was serious about creating the 300 jobs then why not take up the government offer of a new custom-built hangar, the building of which will also create jobs incidentally.


----------



## Sunny (17 Feb 2010)

DB74 said:


> You're putting words in my mouth/post there Sunny. I never said that there is any law against making a profit.
> 
> But lets not pretend that O'Leary wants to create 300 jobs - he wants to make a profit.
> 
> ...


 
Intel only want to make a profit but we would bow at their feet if they announced 300 jobs are to be created.

Like I say, something doesn't sound right in the whole saga. Ryanair are correct to ask why is a semi state company offering to build a whole new facility using taxpayers money when another facility is in place but is not being utilised by a company that the State also owns a large stake in.

The fact that he gets to have a go at the Government, DAA and Aer Lingus is an added bonus for O'Leary.


----------



## Purple (17 Feb 2010)

DB74 said:


> If he was serious about creating the 300 jobs then why not take up the government offer of a new custom-built hangar, the building of which will also create jobs incidentally.



 Any business who invests to create jobs will fail. If they invest to create profit and that happens then the jobs will follow. Basically jobs are a by-product.


----------



## DB74 (17 Feb 2010)

Sunny said:


> Intel only want to make a profit but we would bow at their feet if they announced 300 jobs are to be created.


 
When did Intel run to the press to ask for a competitor to be chucked out of a legally-leased building without first consulting with the landlord because they don't on with them?

The whole thing smacks of cheap PR by O'Leary.


----------



## Hoagy (17 Feb 2010)

Purple said:


> The real question is did the DAA know that Ryan Air were sniffing around hanger 6


 

I think they did.

http://www.ryanair.com/doc/news/2010/tanaiste-letter-to-ryanair-aug-09.pdf


----------



## Sunny (17 Feb 2010)

Hoagy said:


> I think they did.
> 
> http://www.ryanair.com/doc/news/2010/tanaiste-letter-to-ryanair-aug-09.pdf


 
The terms of the arrangement between the DAA and Aer Lingus need to be made public. Something is not right about the whole thing. There is no way that Aer Lingus is leasing that hanger on commercial terms.


----------



## Bronte (17 Feb 2010)

Sunny said:


> The terms of the arrangement between the DAA and Aer Lingus need to be made public. Something is not right about the whole thing. There is no way that Aer Lingus is leasing that hanger on commercial terms.


 
I'm wondering this myself.


----------



## DB74 (17 Feb 2010)

If Ryanair wanted the hangar so badly then why not enter into discussions with the landlords, the DAA?

The letter from Mary Coughlan to Ryanair would indicate that they thought this was a good idea too.


----------



## ashambles (17 Feb 2010)

It's getting clearer Hangar 6 would have been a terminal. This is, according to a Labour spokeman (Tommy Bruen?) on Morning Ireland, what everyone up in the airport thinks (fears more likely).

It's perfectly placed as a terminal, probably just need buses to get people to the planes.

If Ryanair could open a terminal there a couple years down the line, then they could easily absorb the higher costs of operating here for maintenance. Even if they eventually moved that maintenance away from Hangar 6. RA could easily guarantee hundreds of maintenance jobs if they could get the low cost terminal, since the terminal savings would dwarf the maintenance salaries.

I'd guess the hangar could be turned into a terminal for a few 10s of millions, so it would pay for itself within years and possibly just months. Quicker than the intergenerational costs of T2 at least. 

So Ryanair's side is pretty easy to understand. Probably would even admit if directly asked especially now that the game is almost over.

The DAA's (+FF) defensive move is also simple, they've no chance of T2 paying for itself if Ryanair avoids most of their charges. They'd prefer Hangar 6 knocked down than used by Ryanair. 

What's not so clear is why Aer Lingus are playing along with the DAA as if they were still both tied at the semi-state hip. My guess is the DAA are effectively paying them to use the hangar (e.g. offering them a cheaper rent for hangar 6 than for the smaller hangar they moved from).


----------



## Sunny (17 Feb 2010)

He offered to have clauses inserted that stopped the hangar being used as a terminal if that's what people feared. I don't really buy that argument. Unlikely that planning permission would ever be granted for a third terminal anyway.


----------



## Slash (17 Feb 2010)

ashambles said:


> It's getting clearer Hangar 6 would have been a terminal.



This is only a rumour put about by someone with a vested interest in the status quo. DAA could have included a clause in the lease stating that the hangar could not be used as a terminal.

This is all about the unions who dominate Aer Lingus/DAA. The unions do not want those former members in SRT to go over the fence to be employed by non-union Ryanair. Aer Lingus/DAA/Government will put out all sorts of rumours about Ryanair's motives.

It's a disgrace.


----------



## Howitzer (17 Feb 2010)

Slash said:


> This is only a rumour put about by someone with a vested interest in the status quo. DAA could have included a clause in the lease stating that the hangar could not be used as a terminal.
> 
> This is all about the unions who dominate Aer Lingus/DAA. The unions do not want those former members in SRT to go over the fence to be employed by non-union Ryanair. Aer Lingus/DAA/Government will put out all sorts of rumours about Ryanair's motives.
> 
> It's a disgrace.


Sounds closer to the truth.


----------



## olddog (17 Feb 2010)

DB74 said:


> If Ryanair wanted the hangar so badly then ................



You dont seem to understand, Ryanair can pick almost anywhere in Europe for a service location. 

Given that most of their planes are based in mainland Europe, it is far from obvious that Ireland is the best location for this facility ! 

With regard to H6 & why pick it : would you all please recall that Mr O'Leary has from time to time considered a long haul operation. If this were to progress then he will need a maintenance hangar able to cope with wide body aircraft. H6 fits the bill.

Rgds

Olddog


P.S. Did I read somewhere that RYR get their donkeys refurbed in Isreal ?


----------



## Firefly (17 Feb 2010)

Presumably if Ryanair went long-haul, somewhere near Standsted would make more sense?


----------



## DB74 (17 Feb 2010)

olddog - the question of why O'Leary didn't attempt to enter negotiations with the DAA instead of running to the press still hasn't been answered.

And also I don't see how you post answered my query in the first place.


----------



## Deiseblue (17 Feb 2010)

Slash said:


> This is only a rumour put about by someone with a vested interest in the status quo. DAA could have included a clause in the lease stating that the hangar could not be used as a terminal.
> 
> This is all about the unions who dominate Aer Lingus/DAA. The unions do not want those former members in SRT to go over the fence to be employed by non-union Ryanair. Aer Lingus/DAA/Government will put out all sorts of rumours about Ryanair's motives.
> 
> It's a disgrace.


                                                                                                                                                                                 I just knew that someone would try to pin this on the Unions !

Absolute hogwash
What's next - unions to blame for Henry's handball ?


----------



## starlite68 (17 Feb 2010)

Slash said:


> DAA could have included a clause in the lease stating that the hangar could not be used as a terminal.
> 
> .


 oleary would always find a way to get out of any clause...he is one slippery fish!


----------



## olddog (17 Feb 2010)

Firefly said:


> Presumably if Ryanair went long-haul, somewhere near Standsted would make more sense?



Firefly, 

Indeed yes, except its unlikely Mr G Brown will make any meaningful contribution for such a thing to be set up there.

Thats why these things tend to be in ( olddog takes cover ) godforesaken places like Prestwick ( or indeed SNN as is LTs Shannon Aerospace )


----------



## olddog (17 Feb 2010)

DB74 said:


> olddog - the question of why O'Leary didn't attempt to enter negotiations with the DAA instead of running to the press still hasn't been answered.



Thats down to DAA behaviour in the early days of RYR.




DB74 said:


> And also I don't see how you post answered my query in the first place




My postie was addressed to those posting who seemed to think that airframe maintenance is not an international business rather than 'your question in the first place'


----------



## Complainer (17 Feb 2010)

Slash said:


> This is only a rumour put about by someone with a vested interest in the status quo. DAA could have included a clause in the lease stating that the hangar could not be used as a terminal.
> 
> This is all about the unions who dominate Aer Lingus/DAA. The unions do not want those former members in SRT to go over the fence to be employed by non-union Ryanair. Aer Lingus/DAA/Government will put out all sorts of rumours about Ryanair's motives.
> 
> It's a disgrace.





Deiseblue said:


> I just knew that someone would try to pin this on the Unions !
> 
> Absolute hogwash
> What's next - unions to blame for Henry's handball ?



It's actually quite funny that Slash's first post starts out by castigating other for spreading rumours, and then proceeds to make up a much bigger rumour (and a fairly nonsensical one, given that the SRT jobs are long gone now).

Anyway, pity Mary didn't ask Micko how many of the 300 would actually be Ryanair employees, or how many would be employees of some distant agency registered in some jurisdication where employee rights are a dirty word. Many Ryanair pilots and cabin crew are not paid by Ryanair, but are 'contracted' through agencies to avoid obligations under employment law.


----------



## Caveat (18 Feb 2010)

Deiseblue said:


> I just knew that someone would try to pin this on the Unions !


 
...and I knew too that if someone did, you would defend the unions unconditionally.


----------



## Sunny (18 Feb 2010)

Complainer said:


> Many Ryanair pilots and cabin crew are not paid by Ryanair, but are 'contracted' through agencies to avoid obligations under employment law.



You are going into Willie O'Dea territory there. Just because Ryanair outsource some of their jobs to agencies, it doesn't mean the employees are not covered by employee legislation. To imply that Ryanair are operating some sort of sweat shop is ridiculous in the extreme.


----------



## Firefly (18 Feb 2010)

Complainer said:


> Many Ryanair pilots and cabin crew are not paid by Ryanair, but are 'contracted' through agencies to avoid obligations under employment law.


 
So what? As long as they operate under employment law, I don't see the problem. I also can't remember the last time Ryanair went on strike, which isn't bad considering how ruthless & profit centered they are perceived to be.


----------



## Complainer (18 Feb 2010)

Sunny said:


> Just because Ryanair outsource some of their jobs to agencies, it doesn't mean the employees are not covered by employee legislation. To imply that Ryanair are operating some sort of sweat shop is ridiculous in the extreme.


That's exactly how Irish Ferries got around Irish minimum wage legislation.


----------



## csirl (18 Feb 2010)

Arent their two companies now occupying the former SR Technics premises? The newly formed Dublin Aerospace and Aer Lingus Maintenance. Both of these companies employ 100s of people. Is Ryanair advocating that these companies should be removed from Hanger 6 and replaced by Ryanairs employees? Doesnt that mean that there will be 100s of job losses in these companies?

According to these links ,there are 226 Dublin Aerospace workers and 350 AL workers. A lot more employment than Ryanairs 300 jobs.

http://www.entemp.ie/press/2009/20090902.htm

[broken link removed]


----------



## Sunny (18 Feb 2010)

Complainer said:


> That's exactly how Irish Ferries got around Irish minimum wage legislation.


 
Why are you comparing Ryanair to Irish Ferries? It is nothing like it. Ryanair don't bring staff over from Latvia, base them in Dublin and pay them the Latvian minimum wage. Are Ryanair staff paid less than the minimum wage? Are their pilots still not covered under working time directives?


----------



## homeowner (18 Feb 2010)

I dont get the arguments against RA.  So what if OLeary has an alterior motive, who cares?  Let him do what he wants with it if he creates 500 jobs.  H6 was empty when he asked for it July last year.  DAA subsequently leased it to AL in November.  If Coughlan had got off her backside back when H6 was requested she'd be enjoying many photo ops as the staff start back to work.  Now its a mess since AL are already in there.  She's a disaster.


----------



## sinbadsailor (18 Feb 2010)

You only have to weigh up the number of times you hear her name in the media and then whether the news story is positive or negative.

A politicians performance will be judged on what they do for the good of the section of society their ministry represents. She is a disaster because a) she has no backbone to stand up to the vested business interests or worse still b) she takes very good care of vested interests and things suffer as a result.

She is a poster child for the sorry state or our politicians. We need to take a leaf from France's book and they need to take a leaf from the UK's book. We should cause more of a racket when we are pushed around and they should have the honor to resign their positions when they are either in error or make significant mistakes. We need to show them that they are answerable to us, not the other way around.

As for Mr. O'Leary, we all know he is a ruthless businessman, but it is that sort of drive and ingenuity that makes change and keeps the world changing (for better or worse, but at least its a change of direction). Yes he may have an ulterior motive, but in the end it is about Mary's ego and that of the government thinking that no-one can push them around, again that they are answerable to no-one


----------



## Purple (18 Feb 2010)

homeowner said:


> H6 was empty when he asked for it July last year.  DAA subsequently leased it to AL in November.  If Coughlan had got off her backside back when H6 was requested


That's the key piece of information, thanks homeowner. The rest is fall-out from her inaction.


----------



## DB74 (18 Feb 2010)

homeowner said:


> H6 was empty when he asked for it July last year.


 
Who did he ask? The landlords or the Dept Enterprise?


----------



## homeowner (18 Feb 2010)

DB74 said:
			
		

> Who did he ask? The landlords or the Dept Enterprise?



He asked her to act as an intermediary with the landlords on his behalf due to his bad relationship with DAA.

Thats a perfectly sane request.

Are you suggesting had he asked the DAA directly that he'd have the hanger now?

She should have bent over backwards to negotiate the deal.
Its what she gets paid to do - negotiate with companies and get jobs for ireland.  She has flown all over the world in this capacity but she cant cross the hall to the dep of transport to request meeting with DAA and kick start negotiations?


----------



## DB74 (18 Feb 2010)

How do you know that the DAA/Dept Enterprise weren't already in discussions with Aer Lingus at that point?

The deal was signed in December 2009 so can we presume that discussions were ongoing long before that.

How come the offer of 500 jobs went down to 300 so quickly.

Why does O'Leary not take up the offer of a brand new custom built hangar as is the case in Scotland?


----------



## sinbadsailor (18 Feb 2010)

DB74 said:


> Why does O'Leary not take up the offer of a brand new custom built hangar as is the case in Scotland?



Maybe becuase he would have to wait 10 years for it, and the DAA would probably make it impossible to do it in any reasonable time frame. He is wise to avoid that option.


----------



## Sunny (18 Feb 2010)

DB74 said:


> How do you know that the DAA/Dept Enterprise weren't already in discussions with Aer Lingus at that point?
> 
> The deal was signed in December 2009 so can we presume that discussions were ongoing long before that.
> 
> ...


 
We don't know. That's the whole point of trying find out exactly what deal was done with Aer Lingus and on what terms.

We can't presume anything. Brian Cowan said there was a competition for the hanger. Ryanair said they never heard anything about it.

Because 200 jobs went to Scotland but that was only a couple of weeks ago.

Another question is why are they offering to spend taxpayers money to build a brand new hanger when one exists that is not being used for what it was designed for.


----------



## DB74 (18 Feb 2010)

All very good points, to which I have no answer really.

I'm all out of ideas now.


----------



## Firefly (18 Feb 2010)

So, what to ye think will be the outcome? I think the gov will have a story that another hangar could have been built but Ryanair chose to move the jobs abroad.


----------



## Complainer (18 Feb 2010)

Sunny said:


> You are going into Willie O'Dea territory there. Just because Ryanair outsource some of their jobs to agencies, it doesn't mean the employees are not covered by employee legislation. To imply that Ryanair are operating some sort of sweat shop is ridiculous in the extreme.





Firefly said:


> So what? As long as they operate under employment law, I don't see the problem. I also can't remember the last time Ryanair went on strike, which isn't bad considering how ruthless & profit centered they are perceived to be.



[broken link removed]

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/ireland/article4188626.ece

http://www.indymedia.ie/article/79421

http://www.pprune.org/terms-endearment/71686-brookfield-aviation-surrey.html


----------



## Sunny (18 Feb 2010)

Complainer said:


> [broken link removed]
> 
> http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/ireland/article4188626.ece
> 
> ...



So...........

Again, what law are they breaking? Are they paying below minimum wage? Are they making their staff work beyond their legal hours? Are they using orphans to clean their planes?

You said Ryanair were using outside agencies to avoid their obligations under employment legislation. You have not backed that up.


----------



## Slash (19 Feb 2010)

It transpired during the week that, whereas Mary Coughlan was afraid to ring Michael O’Leary, she did in fact ring Christoph Mueller, the German CEO of Aer Lingus. The conversation went like this:

MC:  Good morning, Christoph, Mary Coughlan here. Can ye vacate Hangar Six?

CM:  Nein

MC:  No, Six.

CM:  Nein

MC:  Six!

CM:  Nein

MC:  Six!!

It went on like this for about 45 minutes. Eventually, Mary just hung up because she had to attend a meeting with a lobby group from her constituency called “Donegal for Tax Evasion”.


----------



## DB74 (19 Feb 2010)

Or possibly like this:

MC: Good morning, Christoph, Mary Coughlan here. What will it take for ye vacate Hangar Six?

CM: Sechs?

MC: Ah come on now Christoph, I'm very flattered but it's jobs we want, not knobs

CM: Knobs? I'm sorry. My English is not very good. We want Sechs.

MC: Christoph please. I never had this problem when Willie (Walsh) was in charge. I miss Willie.

CM: I'll be over on the next flight!


----------



## PyritePete (19 Feb 2010)

DB74 said:


> Or possibly like this:
> 
> MC: Good morning, Christoph, Mary Coughlan here. What will it take for ye vacate Hangar Six?
> 
> ...


 
Christoph is a better man than I am


----------

