Sir, - The purpose of Dermot Walsh's letter (September 6th) concerning the "Shannon stop", and Garret FitzGerald's remarks thereon (August 10th), is not entirely clear. Must he demonstrate that SIGNAL, a Shannon Airport lobby group, remains alive in a thriving airport despite removal of the compulsory stop rule - which, in SIGNAL's view, was vital for the airport's survival?
That comment may seem ungracious, as Mr Walsh makes a complimentary and unexpected reference to a paper, Survival in a Bloodhath, which I read to the Chartered Institute of Transport in 1983. However, in that paper I did not "vigorously argue against direct American flights into Dublin". The paper reviewed twenty odd years for Aer Lingus on the Atlantic and the self serving and inconsistent attitudes of a variety of parties, particularly those of the US Administration over that period. It implied criticism of the gullibility of those who believed that additional rights for US carriers would do great things for Irish tourism.
The paper's reference to Dublin rights illustrated that point. A year earlier (1982) a US carrier, Panam, had been allowed rights into Dublin (via Shannon). Instead of doing - as promised - the divil and all for Irish tourism", Panam not merely failed to use its new rights. but abandoned Ireland entirely.
There are still those who put excessive faith Bin us carriers e.g. Enda Kenny, Minister for Tourism (Irish Times, July 18th, 1995). In vain, perhaps, one hopes that they may learn something from the new lesson administered by World Airways this year the sudden abandonment of much trumpeted services from Newark and Los Angeles to Shannon, Dublin and Belfast.
Yet, specifically in relation to the compulsory Shannon stop on transatlantic scheduled flights, the argument that it was impeding the growth of Irish tourism became increasingly clear in the years subsequent to my 1983 paper. The whole pattern of US Europe flights changed as new US and European gateways opened up, and US mega carriers entered an increasingly liberalised market. The continuation of the stop threatened any further development of air services into this country.
I became involved in the argument for change, as the SIGNAL people knew very well at the time. It is a little perverse to represent otherwise.
In suggesting that change was delayed by fear on the part of successive ministers of the political consequences of disturbing the Shannon rule, Garret FitzGerald (August 6th) was hardly making a party political point. Dermot Walsh, on the other hand, must be making some such point in three references to Fine Gael.
Odd that he should refer to people from that party, who were not near the centre of the controversy, but fails to mention Minister Geoghegan Quinn's silencing in 1992 of Aer Lingus and Bord Failte on the subject of the Shannon stop, before announcing some weeks later that the case for a change in policy "had no merit". Her immediate successor and (electorally more secure) Fianna Fail colleague, Brian Cowen, who initiated change in 1994, receives no mention at all.
Yes, I remain curious about Mr Walsh's motives for writing to you. Is he asking that the changed Shannon rule be reversed? I think not; there must be some other agenda. Yours, etc..
Ard na Mara,
Mullach Ide,
Co Atha Cliath.