Sir, – I refer to Senator Sean D Barrett's letter (March 3rd) supporting the case put forward by Una Mullally to wait and think of the long-term consequences before accepting IAG's bid. I say IAG deliberately because the Senator refers three times to British Airways, and not once to IAG. I wonder why? Could it be the Senator and many of his fellow politicians have not grasped the reality of the consolidation that is taking place in the global airline industry, and instead see the bid as an old-fashioned asset-stripping exercise? I prefer to back Willie Walsh and the current Aer Lingus management, because at least they know what they are talking about, unlike those in Leinster House. What would happen if IAG withdrew its offer? We should not forget there is one significant shareholder waiting in the wings, and also a strong Middle East interest. Aer Lingus would be very much "in play" with all the uncertainty that would go with that status. The Cabinet and other shareholders should look to the future and accept the bid, thereby ensuring the Aer Lingus premium brand becomes an integral part of the IAG global network. – Yours, etc,
MIKE CORMACK,
Blackrock, Co Dublin.
Sir, – There has been an inexplicable amount of cheerleading of the mooted takeover of Aer Lingus by IAG, possibly because the suitor is “one of our own” in Willie Walsh. There is uncertainty over every promise made by IAG. However, there is one absolute certainty. As it is almost impossible for new competition to emerge on the Heathrow route due to the shortage of slots, a monopolist carrier will do the logical thing – put up prices. The consumer will be the certain loser. A recent example of this is the Dublin to London City Airport route. Prices have fallen by 50 per cent compared to 2014 as there are now three airlines competing where there used to be just one. – Yours, etc,
DAVID COOKE,
Skerries,
Co Dublin.