Ryanair Boss: "Recession Would End Environmental Nonsense Among Chattering Classes"
by Sami Grover, Carrboro, NC, USA on 02. 7.08
When we reported that British Airways was seeing its profits squeezed by the twin threat of rising oil prices and increased competition from rail, commenter Ecobore suspected it had more to do with the budget airlines than it did any shift to greener travel. Budget airline Ryanair, however, is certainly not to blame as CEO Micheael O’Leary has just announced that he expects to see a 50% cut in profits due to higher oil prices – this announcement comes hot on the heels of his deputy CEO suggesting environmental concerns may already be impacting demand for flights. O’Leary, however, continued his tradition of baiting environmentalists with his usual strong language, by saying that he would actually welcome a recession as it would put an end to efforts to curb air travel:
"We would welcome a good, deep, bloody recession for 12 to 18 months… [it would put an end to the] environmental bullshit among the chattering classes that has allowed Gordon Brown to double air passenger duty. We need a recession if we are going to see off some of this environmental nonsense."
We guess O’Leary won’t be taking Eurostar any time soon… ::The Guardian::via site visit::
I'm not sure I even understand What he ment by that.
What's wrong with these people? They are hoping for a recession to prove a point? Nice double-negative. Get a life!
Another name to add to the list. Boy oh boy, those trials are going to be epic. :)
One word: stooopid.
O'Leary's comments can be ignored. His behaviour is far more "loony" than any environmentalist's. But he does so love to bait and pull shameless publicity stunts for the sake of self promotion. A deeply unpleasant character.
But enough about him. What's interesting is what's going to happen to the low cost carriers in the coming years.
Ryanair has $2 billion worth of orders with Boeing in the form of 27 737-800s and easyjet has $4 billion worth of orders with Airbus in the form of 100 aircraft. With all the consumer debt we have in the UK and a recession brewing, I'd be that one of the first belt tightening actions will be cutting out some of those city breaks.
Keep an eye on those load factors - there's turbulent times ahead for the low cost carriers.
What trials? _We're_ the ones about to be on trial. He's right, in so much as a recession stands to undo a lot of the forward motion that's been made on pan-green issues. Let the 1st world countries start to see a real change in the standard of living among the middle class, a real hurt, and all sorts of demagoguery will be spouted. Look at the conflation already with immigration vice terrorism, and you'll see tommorrow's potential headline...
"Enviromental Alarmist Destroying Economy."
Worries the hell out of me.
Many big business types like O'Leary have forgotten our purpose here on earth: to care for this abundant world as gently and respectfully as we can.
It is not about how many possessions we can accumulate or how much more comfortable we can be than others. It is about respect for being allowed to borrow the earth's gifts for a short time.
We are charged with returning what we use in better shape than we received it! The air, the land, the water, and all plants & animals are to be treated with gratitude and care. It is not about humanity’s bling and aircraft bong!
Randy
O'Leary is simply wrong. Environmental issues will remain a priority amongst those people for whom it already is a priority and will remain a priority amongst the political class. That is not going to change whether there is a recession or not. He is deeply confused about human nature and politics; the only way people would forget about the environment is if we had a mega-recession akin to that of the Great Depression - that's about as likely as O'Leary getting out of the airline business and getting into the bicycle business.
Second, it may well be that the politicians lay off a bit from trying to reduce people's airline flying, but that will be because a recession in and of itself will get people to stop flying so much. After all, if a negative economy is ameliorating the problem of excessive flying, why would the politicians waste time trying to fix a problem that is fixing itself? However, once the economy started picking up again and excessive flying started to resume, the policians would once again start to hone in on legislating solutions. O'Leary is deluding himself if he thinks a recession will permanently stop politicians from finding a way to curb excessive air travel. He's very good at that, self-delusion.
Sounds like a desperate man having to point the blame somewhere.
"For years flying has been the preserve of rich f*****s. Now everyone can afford to fly." Michael O'Leary.
http://www.paulkilduff.com/ruinair.htm
Randy, I very much appreciated your comment; it was beautifully put.
Cheers,
Steve
If any of you have ever tried to start and operate a business, the goal is to provide a service to the customer at the best possible price, while maintaining a proffit.
What environmentalist fail to realise is that there is a large risk associated with starting and running a business. If you can do it effectively there is a great reward in terms of proffit which is the motivation for starting a business in the first place!
If the goverment keeps increasing taxes and impact fees (for the environment or otherwise) many people who were considering starting a business won't do it because there will be no reward(proffit) Those who have a business will shut down. There go the jobs, and people who pay taxes etc.
The business man above is just frustrated that in an industry so regulated by the government, to add another fee or tax undermines his ability to turn a proffit and serve his customers.
Although it is important to protect the environment we also must recognise the impact it has on the economy and jobs and business.
Wouldn't it be more productive to strive to look at ways to make air travel more environmentaly friendly , through bio-fuels or more efficient engines etc. than to use the government to penalize companys financially.
Environmentalism should use capitolism to solve their problems not government power.Using the gov't takes freedoms and jobs from familys, and proffits from companys.
I think he means that a recession would make less people travel by air.
thats treason.
hang him from an airplane wing.
Fly Ryanair...NEVER!!!
The fundamental flaw in Neil's comments, along with those of most people to adhere to the doctrine of Laissez-faire capitalism, is that outside influences on a market are necessarily negative, and by definition will hurt market participants (either customers or the businesses providing goods and/or services). According to their theory, businesses should be left alone to function in a vacuum of authority and regulation to achieve the most efficient results.
However, well designed legislation and policies that affect the marketplace absolutely do not destroy a market, but rather give it a nudge to reshape it so that the path from business to customer is adjusted to reflect the new market condition. The result will be new business opportunity, and not the persecution of entrepreneurs and investors as it is so often claimed.
It is the responsibility of a government to provide for the protection and well-being of its citizens, and in our global society the food and fresh-water shortages that will result from unchecked climate change will adversely affect all of us. The only manner by which governments can protect their citizens from these (and other) climate change dangers is through regulation of the environmental impact created by all industries. The result will be a slightly altered market place, but airlines will continue to fly and consumers will continue to travel to where they need to go.
It just may be, though, that with appropriate and intelligent legislation and policies the old-guard of airlines will become more fuel-efficient, and consequently less damaging to the environment. For if they don't, there will be another entrepreneur who creates a new business model for air travel, one that incorporates sustainability into their model. Either way, the economic catastrophe described by those fearful of regulation just will not occur.
It's simple what happened here...Ryanair depends on the volume of passengers...if more and more people travel, his profits will soar, if people become more conscious of the rise in emissions and therefore hastening of global warming, and cut back on travelling by air on such short distances, then his bottom line will do just that...hit the bottom.
He was clearly incensed at that prospect when he made this remark. Bless his soul.
I wonder if the environmentalist trend really is just a trend, or if we can actually sustain it? For one thing, people will have to start talking to each other in real life, rather than in forums on the computer. As I type I'm realising the irony of discussing environmental issues on a computer in a house in Canada. I do consider myself environmentally conscious, but people can always do more, and what I'd really like is a goal to work towards, so that I feel like there's some hope for the world.
Just putting this out there to mull over ... has there been a precedent in history for this? Would it be possible to live in an environmentally sustainable world at all? How are we going to convince the entire world to do that? North Americans can see the error of their ways, but what about countries who have traditionally had a lower standard of living? What's to stop them having another industrial revolution or wanting to live like North America has been living?
I think people generally have to prove that they can be happy living without all mod cons, which may mean a return to farming communities, which may mean the demise of the internet and a lot of technology ... I'm not saying it will happen overnight, but it would be nice to have a clear, common goal to work towards.