Madam, - The reluctance of the Government to intervene in the Aer Lingus withdrawal from the Shannon-Heathrow route raises the question of the purpose of the 25 per cent stake it holds in the company. If this shareholding was not intended to influence the strategic development of the company in support of the Government's vision for the country, what purpose was envisaged for it? Vision and innovation have been the hallmark of Shannon, inspired by such early leaders as Brendan O'Regan. The duty-free area there and the Shannon Free Zone were the first of their kind in the world. Surely some innovative thinking on Aer Lingus's part could identify four landing slot pairs for the Shannon route out of the 39 available to the airline at Heathrow.
The former taoiseach, Seán Lemass, considered the establishment of Aer Lingus to be his proudest achievement, and recognised Shannon airport as "a development which would prevent us from being cut off from the rest of the world". Heathrow is the central hub of world travel and the existing air connection is vital to the economy of the mid-west region. Heathrow is not merely a location in London, but is a gateway to the wider world. In this era of globalisation, international connectivity is more vital than ever and an asset that should be fought for tooth and nail. - Yours, etc,
Senator MARY WHITE, Seanad Éireann, Leinster House, Dublin 2.
Madam - Éamon Ó Cuív and other Ministers are quoted as saying that whilst they are opposed to the ending of the Shannon Heathrow route, they will not "interfere" in the running of Aer Lingus.
Surely as a 25 per cent shareholder they have not only the right but a duty to influence Aer Lingus to act in the best interests of its stakeholders - in this case the interests of the Irish public on whose behalf the shares are held? Indeed with Ryanair holding another 28 per cent of shares, there is clearly a majority of Aer Lingus shareholders who are opposed to the move. Is the Aer Lingus board not answerable to its shareholders? Is that not why Ryanair have sought an egm? If the Government shareholding is to be purely passive, why was it stated at the time of privatisation to be strategic, specifically in relation to the Heathrow slots?
Or is this just another case of the Government trying to have it both ways: playing to the Shannon gallery whilst in reality doing nothing to discharge its responsibilities as a shareholder and as a Government? It is for the Government to define the national interest and to act on it. Clearly it has the power to act. The question is whether it truly believes that the Shannon-Heathrow link is in the national interest. A little more honesty on this point would be appreciated. - Yours, etc,
FRANK SCHNITTGER, Red Lane, Blessington, Co Wicklow.