We are used to him in Ireland, either by way of radio interviews or provocative newspaper advertisements, castigating Bertie Ahern, the taoiseach (or prime minister as O’Leary referred to him until he was told this alienated people), government ministers (most famously Mary O’Rourke), airport authorities and trade unions. Now he has achieved a heightened prominence in Britain by similarly confronting those in authority. On Friday, with an actor playing Winston Churchill by his side, he mocked the restrictions that ban the carrying of water bottles and toothpaste onto aircraft as “insane”. The combination of irreverence and straight talking was badly needed.
The Ryanair chief executive and Willie Walsh, formerly of Aer Lingus and now at British Airways, have provided a wonderful antidote to the excessive caution of the British government since the claim on August 10 that a terrorist plot against transatlantic airlines had been foiled.
O’Leary and Walsh have questioned the authorities’ response publicly and purposefully. They have pointed out that you are allowing terrorists to win if you disrupt your way of life excessively to protect against their threats. They have argued forcefully that the increased security requirements forced upon the British Airports Authority (BAA) are excessive and that it is not staffed sufficiently to implement them properly.
O’Leary has asked that queues be moved speedily and the British Army brought in to help if the terrorist threat is so serious. The government hasn’t delivered on that, nor on the call for a return to the standards for taking hand luggage on board.
Of course the two airline chiefs are motivated by selfishness, but that doesn’t mean they aren’t right or that others won’t benefit if they win the argument. Both Ryanair and British Airways have lost millions in revenue as a result of flight cancellations. This is especially galling for the Irish airline, as it does not fly transatlantic routes and was not the subject of the terrorist threat. But as well as incurring the expense and inconvenience of ridiculous security demands, it may lose even more business should a climate of fear be allowed to persist.
Advertisement
It is not just the fear of explosion, added to the possibility of mechanical failure or crash, that dissuades people from flying. In my case, and I suspect for many others, the inconvenience of lengthy airport queues and the hassle of dealing with baggage makes air travel a burden rather than an enjoyment. Not even cheap fares provide sufficient incentive, and they may not remain cheap if airlines have to cover the cost of new security arrangements.
Longer queues seem likely in the future, especially if the luggage restrictions remain in place. This is potentially very damaging to Ryanair, which recently improved its profit margins by charging customers for checked-in baggage. About one in four Ryanair passengers now travels with just hand-held baggage (a figure Aer Lingus plans to emulate), which helped lift Ryanair’s profits in the three months to the end of June to €115.7m. Its profit margins of 20% are among the highest in the aviation industry globally.
Rising fuel prices were already a threat to those margins. Meanwhile, Ryanair is due to take delivery of dozens of new aircraft at a cost of billions. O’Leary knows that one crash or terrorist attack would be disastrous for his airline, so it is not in his interests to compromise security or safety. Ryanair says it supports “all sensible and effective security measures”, but believes they should be targeted towards at-risk flights or groups that pose a threat.
In favour of the arguments put forward by O’Leary and Ryanair are the facts. In the five years since 9/11, there have been no fatalities from terrorist attacks in either the European Union or America. The security levels applied up until August 10 worked, and consumer confidence returned quickly from 2002 onwards as O’Leary suspected it would (and which prompted his audacious order of dozens of aircraft in the aftermath of 9/11).
John Reid, the British home secretary, is promising he will enforce security to such a degree that not a single person will die as a result of a terrorist attack upon a plane. That seems laudable, but in reality it’s a sham. If Reid is so concerned about the loss of life among transport users, why is such zero tolerance not applied to other forms of travel? Since 9/11 the number of people killed on European and American roads every three days is equivalent to the number on a packed Boeing 747. That works out at about 45,000 people a year in America and the same in Europe. But where is the rush to enforce safety on our roads?
Advertisement
It is also more dangerous to travel by train or Tube than by airline. About 200 died in the Madrid train bombings and another 50 in last year’s London bus and Tube bombs. The London Underground was not closed after the bombings of July 2005 and nor were onerous restrictions introduced on boarding trains or carrying luggage. So why should the aviation industry, which already enjoys a far higher level of security, be forced to endure further disruption?
O’Leary is clearly spoiling for a fight. He has given the authorities seven days to sort out the mess or face legal action for loss of earnings. Ryanair has been e-mailing other airlines looking for support for a £300m suit in damages.
The possibility of legal action should not be taken lightly by the authorities. In common with many other businesses, Ryanair has a tendency to treat the law as a commercial weapon rather than as a way of looking for justice. It has fought the Irish air regulator in the courts on a number of occasions and has not flinched when the strategy has gone wrong, such as when the High Court recently decided the airline had acted disgracefully in a case against its own pilots.
The problem for many of O’Leary’s critics is that his analysis of the airline industry, its needs and its impact on the overall economy is usually right. His most trenchant criticisms of Ahern and O’Rourke related to the failure to build a second, independent terminal at Dublin airport. Correctly, O’Leary blamed the government’s kowtowing to union interests for retarding development at the country’s most important gateway. Few, other than those with a vested interest in maintaining the status quo, could argue persuasively that the new second terminal, to be controlled by the same operators, is the best solution.
O’Leary’s instinct for passengers’ needs is just as acute. He believes people want reliable travel at affordable prices, even if the conditions are not necessarily comfortable and the foreign airports are some distance from their ultimate destination. The success of Ryanair supports his view. It might not be for everyone, but why allow snobbishness to remove the choice?
Advertisement
As he is not slow to boast, the average fare into and out of Ireland before Ryanair revolutionised air travel was €270, more than a week’s wages for most. Only 2m or so passengers travelled into and out of the country each year, many using boats instead of planes. Today, Ryanair’s average fare is now just over €40. This year more than 25m passengers will fly to and from Ireland.
They won’t all be on his planes, but O’Leary’s recent claim that Ryanair — and not Aer Lingus — is now the Irish national airline is essentially correct. He recently announced 12 new routes out of Dublin and, taken with other recent routes out of Shannon and Cork, Ryanair is providing far more choice to consumers. The boom in the Irish tourism market is largely down to the intake he has facilitated.
Ireland does not want that trade to be damaged. Ryanair is a national treasure and O’Leary is probably the most noteworthy Irish business figure of the past 20 years — and as important as all but a small number of politicians.
For that reason his spat with the British authorities should not only be noted but also supported. If they don’t listen to him, then air travel will not only become more expensive again, but more, far more irksome than even the most uncomfortable Ryanair flight. And you won’t necessarily be any safer than you are already.