Ryanair Cuts Winter Flights & Jobs
Jim Mason
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
-----
17.06.09
Ryanair Cuts Winter Flights & Jobs
AS IRISH GOVT?S €10 TAX DEVASTATES TOURISM
Ryanair, Ireland?s largest airline, today (17 June) announced cuts in its
winter based aircraft, flights and jobs at Dublin and Shannon Airports as
the Government?s €10 tourist tax continues to devastate Irish traffic and
tourism.
In the first five months of 2009 traffic at Dublin Airport has fallen by
11%, a loss of 1 million passengers in just five months. If this traffic
collapse continues for the full year it will mean the loss of 2.5 million
passengers, 2,500 jobs at Dublin Airport and €750 million of tourism spend
in the Irish economy in 2009.
Ryanair today announced that it will cut its base aircraft by one at both
Dublin (from 17 to 16) and Shannon (from 4 to 3) this winter, resulting in
the loss of 350,000 passengers and 350 jobs at Dublin Airport and a further
300,000 passengers and 300 jobs in Shannon Airport.
Further cuts in winter flight and traffic numbers will be announced in the
coming months if the Government fails to scrap this €10 tourist tax.
Ryanair will switch these aircraft and continue to grow in lower cost/no
tourist tax countries such as Belgium, Holland, Greece and Spain where
governments have recently scrapped tourist taxes and airport charges to
promote tourism.
Ryanair confirmed that these winter cutbacks can be reversed if the
Government scraps its €10 tourist tax.
Ryanair announced reductions as follows for the winter 2009 schedule:
A 25% cut in Shannon based aircraft (4 to 3).
A 6% cut in Dublin based aircraft (17 to 16).
A cut of 36 flights per week at Shannon.
A cut of 44 flights per week at Dublin.
The loss of 650 airport and tourism jobs.
The loss of €750 million in tourism spend.
Ryanair?s Michael O?Leary said:
?The Irish Government?s €10 tourist tax is ?tourism suicide? which is
devastating visitor numbers and jobs. Price sensitive visitors are
switching to lower cost destinations in Europe where governments welcome
tourists, not tax them.
?Ryanair will remove one aircraft from both Dublin and Shannon this winter
and further cuts can be expected in the coming months if the €10 tourist
tax is not scrapped. If the tourist tax is scrapped these cuts, and the
tourism collapse, will be reversed.
This tourist tax will raise just €125 million per annum and for this tiny
tax revenue the Irish government will lose over 2,500 jobs and more than
€750 million in tourism spend, the VAT receipts on which would exceed €150
million?.
Hialflyer
"Jim Mason" <_@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:MPG.24a35f2fd...@news.individual.net...
News Release
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
-----
Ryanair?s Michael O?Leary said:
The usual RYR Bulls**t. The passengers flying with them are reducing but it
is never anything to do with them. It is always someone else's fault.
I would also like to know how the loss of one aircraft at each base would
account for 300/350 jobs lost.
Roland Perry
on Wed, 17 Jun 2009, Jim Mason <_@gmail.com> remarked:
>
>Ryanair, Ireland?s largest airline, today (17 June) announced cuts in its
>winter based aircraft, flights and jobs at Dublin and Shannon Airports as
>the Government?s €10 tourist tax continues to devastate Irish traffic and
>tourism.
So nothing to do with the credit crunch?
>Ryanair today announced that it will cut its base aircraft by one at both
>Dublin (from 17 to 16) and Shannon (from 4 to 3) this winter, resulting in
>the loss of 350,000 passengers
There's no loss of passengers if they all crowd onto the remaining
planes, which this press release surely admits are no longer full.
>and 350 jobs at Dublin Airport and a further
>300,000 passengers and 300 jobs in Shannon Airport.
It takes 300-350 people at the airport to keep *each* aircraft going?
Surely not.
--
Roland Perry
Jim Mason
> In message <MPG.24a35f2fd...@news.individual.net>, at 21:15:14
> on Wed, 17 Jun 2009, Jim Mason <_@gmail.com> remarked:
>
> >
> >Ryanair, Ireland?s largest airline, today (17 June) announced cuts in its
> >winter based aircraft, flights and jobs at Dublin and Shannon Airports as
> >the Government?s €10 tourist tax continues to devastate Irish traffic and
> >tourism.
>
> So nothing to do with the credit crunch?
Just a convenient excuse for RYR to blame someone else for it's falling
passenger numbers on their routes into Dublin which has nought to do with
tourist tax but lots to do with the fact it is one of the most ridiculously
expensive places to eat and drink in Europe.
> >Ryanair today announced that it will cut its base aircraft by one at both
> >Dublin (from 17 to 16) and Shannon (from 4 to 3) this winter, resulting in
> >the loss of 350,000 passengers
>
> There's no loss of passengers if they all crowd onto the remaining
> planes, which this press release surely admits are no longer full.
>
> >and 350 jobs at Dublin Airport and a further
> >300,000 passengers and 300 jobs in Shannon Airport.
>
> It takes 300-350 people at the airport to keep *each* aircraft going?
> Surely not.
Indeed.
Cheeky
wrote:
The rough rule of thumb always quoted in ye olde days was that for
every 1,000,000 pax 1,000 aviation-related jobs were generated.
Low-cost airlines brought this down to 4-600.
pete
I reckon the thinking is something like this:
If an airline makes �6 profit per pax, then 10,000 fewer relates to 60K loss
on profits. When you take all the overheads into account (floorspace, back-
office personnel, NI, salary/wages etc.) an employee probably costs about �60k
per year.
Obviously the numbers are variable and doesn't mean that the _airline_ employs
these people directly - they could be from service companies. The other side of
the coin is that if people aren't spending their money on flights, then they're
spending it on other things, so job losses in aviation may mean there are jobs
gained in other sectors.
So while it makes a nice, juicy headline, it's probably just PR.
Roland Perry
Thu, 18 Jun 2009, Cheeky <m...@privacy.net> remarked:
>>It takes 300-350 people at the airport to keep *each* aircraft going?
>>Surely not.
>
>The rough rule of thumb always quoted in ye olde days was that for
>every 1,000,000 pax 1,000 aviation-related jobs were generated.
>Low-cost airlines brought this down to 4-600.
When Ryanair added some routes to EMA they said 500K more pax "will
support 1,800 jobs in the Midlands and deliver a visitor spend of
�150m."
Which is even more than their "300 jobs from 300K pax" at Shannon.
I asked someone (member of public) just now to guess how many extra jobs
one more aircraft would create, and he said "maybe one more baggage
handler" :)
--
Roland Perry
tim.....
"Roland Perry" <rol...@perry.co.uk> wrote in message
news:063X7$c420O...@perry.co.uk...
The problem is that each extra aircraft is going to create lots of extra
"half" jobs. To actually fly the aircraft for the year probably needs 4, or
maybe 5 shifts of 7 staff on the plane.
But at ground level it's going to create an extra 30 minutes of work for the
dispatcher per take off, but they're are going to be spread across the day
and at different locations, so the same person can't do all this extra work.
And the same with baggage handlers, gate staff and check in staff. There
are probably about 30 extra 30 minutes of work created, requiring 15
different people to do them.
tim
Roland Perry
Jun 2009, tim..... <tims_n...@yahoo.co.uk> remarked:
>The problem is that each extra aircraft is going to create lots of extra
>"half" jobs. To actually fly the aircraft for the year probably needs 4, or
>maybe 5 shifts of 7 staff on the plane.
>
>But at ground level it's going to create an extra 30 minutes of work for the
>dispatcher per take off, but they're are going to be spread across the day
>and at different locations, so the same person can't do all this extra work.
>And the same with baggage handlers, gate staff and check in staff. There
>are probably about 30 extra 30 minutes of work created, requiring 15
>different people to do them.
Does it work the other way round? Stop flying one of your dozen
aircraft, and you can sack a whole dispatcher who has no other duties
all day than that one plane's flights?
To some extent, airports are "serial" organisations because planes take
off one after another. As a result check-in can deal with one flight,
then move onto the next, when that's done. So cancelling one flight
doesn't necessarily put people out of work, it just means the people
have an extra half hour break.
--
Roland Perry
Buddenbrooks
"tim....." <tims_n...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
news:7a191kF...@mid.individual.net...
. There
> are probably about 30 extra 30 minutes of work created, requiring 15
> different people to do them.
>
Expect to see the same staff at the booking office to the checkin to the
boarding control.
This will mean that checkin will close at the appointed time even if there
is a queue.
Neil Williams
<knights...@budweiser.com> wrote:
>Expect to see the same staff at the booking office to the checkin to the
>boarding control.
>This will mean that checkin will close at the appointed time even if there
>is a queue.
I thought they already did that, especially at smaller airports?
Neil
--
Neil Williams
Put my first name before the at to reply.
Roland Perry
21 Jun 2009, Neil Williams <wensl...@pacersplace.org.uk> remarked:
>>Expect to see the same staff at the booking office to the checkin to the
>>boarding control.
>>This will mean that checkin will close at the appointed time even if there
>>is a queue.
>
>I thought they already did that, especially at smaller airports?
Yes, it's quite common when a [non-flag] carrier only has a few flights
from an airport (which can be a big airport of course).
--
Roland Perry