Madam, - I am pleased to see from letters you have published recently that people are beginning to understand the real difference between Aer Lingus and Ryanair.
Sive Cassidy (October 22nd) and Henry Murdoch (October 24th) give two examples of the contrast between the "no-frills" carrier and the "full service" airline. I am quite sure that by now a lot of your readers will be aware of this difference but there are many people who still believe that the only difference is that Ryanair is cheaper. They therefore believe (as did Mr Murdoch) that a takeover of Aer Lingus by Ryanair would be "good for customers". Please let me try to explain why this is simply not so.
But firstly let me emphasise that I am not going to be critical of Ryanair. It has done a wonderful job at providing very cheap air transport on a point-to-point basis without "frills". It caters for a huge market: people who would otherwise have gone on charters, by boat and rail or bus, or who would not have gone abroad at all.
But it is important also to recognise what it does not do and also to understand the basic principle contained in the phrase: "You pay your money and take your choice" - by and large, you get what you pay for and pay for what you get.
For in addition to the huge market for which Ryanair is ideal, there is another market, large but segmented, for which Ryanair is not suited. The various segments include:
Upmarket passengers who are prepared to pay for better accommodation including a guarantee of a clean aircraft, short-notice availability, seat selection (avoiding the "tarmac scramble") the opportunity to change or cancel and so on (i.e., people often on expense accounts who do not stay in hostels or eat in McDonalds on their trips).
People with disabilities who need special attention, older people, or those who may not be sufficiently "computer literate" to search for the bargains.
Connecting passengers, either on the same airline or to another airline, who are not catered for by the point-to-point carriers but need guaranteed connections.
Long-haul passengers: the "no frills" carriers show no interest in these because of the higher costs involved.
Cargo and mail (and this includes human remains): Ryanair is certainly not interested and we saw what happened when Aer Lingus tried to withdraw from that business.
As an island off an island off the mainland of Europe, we Irish depend on good transport for both business and pleasure, for commerce and tourism. Experience has taught us that we cannot rely on outsiders to provide this for us; we must rely on our own. Fortunately we can do that now.
Ryanair is one of the best "no-frills" airlines in the world (as long as we do not expect it to provide more than we are paying for). Aer Lingus is - and I have no hesitation in saying this - one of the best small, full-service airlines in the world. It has now reduced its cost levels to the point where it can compete in the "cut-throat" modern market. Let us keep the best of both worlds by retaining them both, and keeping them separate: competing to the extent that they need to, but basically each catering for the somewhat different needs of our community.
I sincerely hope that Aer Lingus's cost reduction programme does not go too far; it is easy to say that one can carry more passengers with fewer staff if one "outsources" the work but ignores the consequences. We have one "no-frills" airline; we don't need two.
Judging from recent statements, I believe the Government favours the view I have outlined. I sincerely hope so. - Yours, etc,
W. J. MURPHY, Malahide, Co Dublin.