Madam, - This correspondence has dragged on rather longer than most - reflecting, I suppose, the significance of the subject and the degree of controversy it has aroused. Two particular aspects of it are striking.
Firstly, those debating the issue are roughly divided into people who reside in the leafy suburbs of the Pale and those who reside somewhat farther west. It seems that the Government, despite "decentralisation" is in the former category.
Secondly, many people think that an airline, once it is "privatised", can do what it likes, or at least what its top management decides - just like, say, a canned beans factory.
That is not completely true: states control their own airspace and many still jealously guard air traffic rights as important national assets (the EU is regarded as a single state). Tony MacGabhann (September 11th) thinks Aer Lingus "could relocate its main operating base to Dubai". Possibly, but it wouldn't get operating rights from any of the countries it wanted to fly to in Asia or Africa.
So, while I do not think that the Irish Government or the EU would or should impose public service conditions on any airline licence, the fact remains that, without an operating licence, an airline cannot operate.
Which brings me to the shareholding in Aer Lingus retained by the Government on our behalf. I have no doubt that this was intended to protect the public interest from the dangers that "privatisation" implied, with particular reference to the Heathrow slots.
The question then arises: is the dropping of the Shannon-Heathrow service against the public interest? Despite residing in leafy Malahide, I believe it is. And may I emphasise that the question is not "Shannon or Belfast?" I believe Aer Lingus should serve both.
For reasons that would be entirely different from those of "you know who", I hope we get our egm.
At least Mr MacGabhann accepts that the company is "answerable [ only] to its shareholders". - Yours, etc,
WJ MURPHY,
Malahide,
Co Dublin.