More Unncessary Eu Meddling?

[ToraToraTora]

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-207336/Ryanair-ruling-brings-fears-cheap-flights.html

[Gromit]

Public money should not be used to subsidise a private commercial airline.
In this instance Belgian tax payers were adding to a foreign airlines profits.

If these deals between airports own by the local authority are exclusive to one carrier, and not available to all carriers, then the situation is anti-competitive.

[youngmafbog]

If we were French we would be taking to the streets and burning something.

However, being run by a load of eurocrats we will roll over and take it where the sun don't shine

[youngmafbog]

//Public money should not be used to subsidise a private commercial airline. //

So should the French not subsidise Air France then?

or is that one ok in your book?

[Gromit]

ymb,

Air France is not really a private company, the French Government still own a large chunk of it.

But no, the state run airlines should not be subsidised either. But that is a different argument.

[Gromit]

If instead of airline parking, let's compare it to car parking.

Imagine two multi-storey car parks, side by side.
One is privately owned and the other is owned by the Council.
The Private one charges £10 a day.
The Council one pays motorists £10 a day to use its car park. It can do this because local council tax payers pay the running costs out of their taxes.
So the commercial car park gets no customers, and the one where the council subsidises your parking is full.

Do you think that would be fair, or competitive, or should be allowed?

Michael O'Leary, is like the man receiving a tenner to park his car, and complaining that the subsidy paid for by the tax payer has been banned.

[ToraToraTora]

Very poor analogy gromit. Paying for customers is what advertisers do in effect. Small airports are delighted to pay Ryan air for bring them customers, that's the free market, no different to coca cola sponsoring the superbowl. In your car park analogy the private one would not exist.

[youngmafbog]

Surely the bigger picture is not being looked at. The airport subsidises for a reason - to attract people there which will have a knock on effect to the local populous. (And who would go to Walonia rather than Bruxelles airport otherwise?)

[Gromit]

Tora

Its not the free market when taxpayers are undercutting the private airports.

That is unfair competition.

Call yourself a capitalist.

[ToraToraTora]

if the public sector choose to use their resources thus, that too is part of the free market.