Léim ar aghaidh chuig an bpríomhábhar
Gnáthamharc

Dáil Éireann díospóireacht -
Tuesday, 14 Jun 1994

Vol. 443 No. 7

Adjournment Debate. - Aeroflot Rights At Shannon Airport.

I am grateful for the opportunity to raise this matter which is of grave concern to workers at Shannon Airport and others who have an interest in it. I put on record my appreciation of the Minister's interest in this matter when I raised it with him some months ago and the trouble he went to with regard to it. I hope his response tonight will allay some of the fears of those working in Shannon Airport and in the region generally.

It is important to clarify that I am not seeking general pick-up rights to New York for Aeroflot but merely that they be entitled to carry transit passengers from the former USSR states which, in effect, is a continuation of the situation which pertained up to two years ago when Aeroflot was the only airline operating out of the then Soviet Union. Aer Lingus currently carries to New York a small number of passengers who originate in Minsk and travel on Air Belavia as far as Shannon. I understand this business is worth about £1 million to Aer Lingus but the loss in terms of ground handling revenue should the service be discontinued to Aeroflot would be at least four times that.

Air Ukraine currently flies eight times weekly to New York from Kiev via Shannon but their circumstances are rather difficult and there may be changes in that in the short term. Their service could be guaranteed if they were in a position to fly to Shannon and have their passengers carried further by Aeroflot. They would, of course, have major difficulty regarding their currency if they were forced to transfer their passengers to Aer Lingus at that stage. There is also a regular service from St. Petersburg which could terminate at Shannon, with considerable advantage, were passengers in a position to transfer on to the Moscow-New York flight.

The cost of travelling with Aer Lingus, though subsidised for those travelling from Minsk, is a major deterrent to the numbers travelling. If transit rights to Aeroflot were available the number of passengers availing of the service would be multiplied tenfold or more and the Kiev business would be guaranteed.

The most worrying aspect is that a partial or total pull out by Aeroflot from Shannon would be a complete loss to Ireland. It could be argued in the case of the changes under the Cahill plan that Shannon's losses were largely held in Dublin though there is no evidence of the promised gains from Manchester and London. However, in the case of Aeroflot, airport authorities in Prestwick, Stansted and elsewhere are waiting for them with open arms, cheque books and pick-up rights. It would be a monumental tragedy if the excellent groundwork by Aer Rianta in attracting the Russians to Ireland and the great development which took place under Aer Rianta International were undermined. The presence of Aeroflot and other eastern airlines at Shannon has been a major plank of Aer Rianta's hub strategy. It is widely believed that many of the recommendations in the task force report which we hope to see published in the next week or two hinge on the presence of Aeroflot at Shannon. There is great potential for developing this already fruitful relationship and it should not be thrown away. Our geographic position as a natural air cross-roads between the Americas and the emerging states of Eastern Europe means we have an outstanding opportunity to share in the massive expansion of tourism and trade which will inevitably follow US and European investment in Eastern Europe.

The arrival of Aeroflot at Shannon made the airport profitable and guaranteed year round services and jobs not just at the airport but in the surrounding area. It guaranteed continued work for Aer Lingus ground handling staff. If is widely believed that the decision to deny Aeroflot transit rights from the former Soviet states has been taken in an effort to protect the Aer Lingus service on the transatlantic route. I share the genuine wish of every Shannon worker that Aer Lingus should prosper and that the new air bus fleet will guarantee its future on the north Atlantic and the continuation of the new daily year round service.

Unfortunately Aer Lingus continues to undermine its credibility at Shannon. On the second day of the new air bus service the flight from Shannon was held up because the crew was an hour late arriving from Dublin. Airport workers had been told this crew was based at Shannon. Twice in the past week the flight from New York to Shannon did not operate because the Shannon plane was switched to the Dublin route on the return flight. It is difficult to persuade people involved in tourism and business interests in the Shannon region to take Aer Lingus executives seriously when the airline has failed twice to get its flights into Shannon since the inception of the service.

I urge the Minister to reconsider the position in the context of the task force report.

I should like to put on record the Government's appreciation of Aeroflot's contribution to Shannon Airport over the past 20 years and hope that this partnership, which has yielded benefits to both sides, will continue to develop well into the future.

Our air links with Russia have grown from Shannon Airport being initially an important transit point to its now being an important hub linking the Russian Federation with a whole range of points in the western hemisphere. Following the break up of the Soviet Union, we were one of the first countries formally to sign an air transport agreement with the Russian Federation in March 1993. In this agreement and subsequently outside the formal agreement, we have given very generous rights to the Russian Federation at Shannon Airport. These rights exceed those available to the Russian Federation anywhere else in the European Union.

I should like to spell out clearly these rights. Aeroflot Russian International Airlines has full fifth freedom rights at Shannon, that is, rights to pick up all transfers and local traffic for all points in Central and South America and for Washington and Miami in the USA and Gander in Canada. On top of this we have, outside the agreement, given Aeroflot temporary fifth freedom rights to Chicago and Tampa, Florida, at Shannon.

Aeroflt has recently sought wayport rights, that is, rights to pick up transfer traffic from points in the former USSR states to all points in the United States. Given that Aeroflot already has these rights to all the points I mentioned earlier, including Washington and Miami, what is really at issue here is rights to New York and Boston. Contrary to press reports, these rights were not formally available under the old agreement with the USSR. Pick up rights for transfer traffic to New York have never been granted by my Department to any airline other than Aer Lingus.

It has never been policy to grant rights to third country operators on transatlantic routes served by Irish carriers. Granting rights, either full fifth freedoms or unrestricted transfer rights to New York, could have major implications for the continued viability of Aer Lingus's transatlantic operations. It is against this background that the Aeroflot request has been examined.

I do not have to remind this House of the level of worry and concern in the Shannon region when the original Aer Lingus proposal for a transatlantic service was unveiled in the strategy for recovery, and the subsequent sense of relief when, following Government approval for the new A330 aircraft, Aer Lingus was in a position to announce a daily year round Shannon-New York service. I am anxious to be as helpful to Aeroflot at Shannon as possible but not in a way which would compromise the daily Shannon-New York service.

Aer Lingus advised my Department that it has a contract with Belavia, the Belarus airline, which operates twice weekly into Shannon, to carry traffic onward to and from New York. According to the company this traffic is worth £1 million per annum to Aer Lingus. Currently Belavia is the only non-Russian CIS airline disembarking passengers at Shannon. On the other hand, Aeroflot contends that traffic is being lost by Shannon to other destinations, for example Warsaw, Prague, Helsinki etc, due to the lack of competitiveness of Aer Lingus prices. It claims it could entice this traffic to Shannon if it had the rights to pick up all CIS transfer traffic.

Following conflicting claims regarding the importance of CIS transfer traffic at Shannon, my Department convened a meeting of interested parties on 24 May to establish certain facts. On the basis of the information provided at the meeting the following interim, and I stress interim, decision was made by my Department: Aeroflot would be granted additional ad hoc rights to operate wayport rights to all destinations, including New York but only in respect of traffic from the Russian Federation, and no fifth freedom or wayport rights for non-Russian Federation traffic would be granted to Aeroflot in respect of points served by Aer Lingus, that is Boston and New York at present.

My Department has sought further information from the various parties on CIS traffic and comparative prices for such traffic. The matter will be kept under review in the light of this information and future developments in transatlantic traffic to and from former USSR states.

Finally, I should point out that there is no connection between the overflying of Shannon by Aeroflot on its Moscow-New York services and the recent decision regarding wayport rights. It has been public knowledge for a considerable time that when suitable aircraft were available the Moscow-New York services would operate direct. The acquisition of new Western aircraft capable of the non-stop service has given rise to the recent announcement. My Department has for some time been examining proposals to seek extra traffic opportunities to offset these developments. The recent granting of the new substantial additional rights to Aeroflot is an indication of our goodwill in this regard.

Barr
Roinn