Ryanair urges EU chief to 'quit' over air traffic strike disruption
Michael O'Leary, the group chief executive of Europe's largest airline by passenger numbers, said in an interview with Business Live that Ursula von der Leyen had failed to get to grips, at an EU level, with interruption to overflights following several recent disputes in France.
The latest action began on Thursday and is due to conclude later today, forcing thousands of flights to be delayed and cancelled through French airspace closures.
Mr O'Leary told presenter Darren McCaffrey that French domestic flights were given priority during ATC strikes and other nations, including Italy and Greece, had solved the problem through minimum service legislation.
He claimed that the vast majority of flights, cancelled over two days of action that began on Thursday, would have been able to operate under similar rules.
Mr O'Leary said of the EU's role: "We continue to call on Ursula von der Leyen - why are you not protecting these overflights, why is the single market for air travel being disrupted by a tiny number of French air traffic controllers?
"All we get is a shrug of their shoulders and 'there's nothing we can do'. We point out, there is."
He added: "We are calling on Ursula von der Leyen, who preaches about competitiveness and reforming Europe, if you're not willing to protect or fix overflights then quit and let somebody more effective do the job."
The strike is estimated, by the Airlines for Europe lobby group to have led to at least 1,500 cancelled flights, leaving 300,000 travellers unable to make their journeys.
Ryanair itself had axed more than 400 flights so far, Mr O'Leary said. Rival easyJet said on Thursday that it had cancelled 274 services over the two days.
The beginning of July marks the start of the European summer holiday season.
The French civil aviation agency DGAC had already told airlines to cancel 40% of flights covering the three main Paris airports on Friday ahead of the walkout - a dispute over staffing levels and equipment quality.
Mr O'Leary described those safety issues as "nonsense" and said twhile the controllers had a right to strike, they did not have the right to close the sky.
DGAC has warned of delays and further severe disruption heading into the weekend.
Many planes and crews will be out of position.
Mr O'Leary is not alone in expressing his frustration.
The French transport minister Philippe Tabarot has denounced the action and the reasons for it.
"The idea is to disturb as many people as possible," he said in an interview with CNews.
Passengers are being advised that if your flight is cancelled, the airline must either give you a refund or book you on an alternative flight.
If you have booked a return flight and the outbound leg is cancelled, you can claim the full cost of the return ticket back from your airline.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Telegraph
23 minutes ago
- Telegraph
European banking is no longer a laughing stock
Questor is The Telegraph's stock-picking column, helping you decode the markets and offering insights on where to invest. Until a few years ago, most investors regarded any suggestion to buy shares in Europe's banks with derision and mirth. Years of zero and negative interest policies (Zirp and Nirp) from central banks coupled with the increased regulatory scrutiny that followed the global financial crisis (GFC) made these companies exceptionally poor investments. However, all that began to change when the US Federal Reserve increased rates in March 2022. Other central banks, including the European central bank, soon followed suit, ending the protracted period of Zirp and Nirp policies. Banks make money based on the difference between what they pay for short-term funds from depositors and the amounts they receive from long-term lending. Positive interest rates are vital to the profitability of this enterprise. So, the change in monetary regime has led to a surge in bank earnings. And because the industry's post-GFC penance meant most banks began this period of profit revival with fortified balance sheets, rising profitability has translated into bumper cash returns for their shareholders. Share prices have followed suit, especially in Europe where valuations were hugely depressed during the sector's nadir. The Stoxx Europe 600 Banks index has delivered a 265pc total return, which compares with 150pc from the S&P 500 index measured in Euros. France's BNP Paribas has been making good share price gains but has nevertheless lagged the sector – but increasing amounts of smart money is betting it is set to make up the ground.
The Guardian
30 minutes ago
- The Guardian
Across Europe, the financial sector has pushed up house prices. It's a political timebomb
'The housing crisis is now as big a threat to the EU as Russia,' Jaume Collboni, the mayor of Barcelona, recently declared. 'We're running the risk of having the working and middle classes conclude that their democracies are incapable of solving their biggest problem.' It is not hard to see where Collboni is coming from. From Dublin to Milan, residents routinely find half of their incomes swallowed up by rent, and home ownership is unthinkable for most. Major cities are witnessing spiralling house prices and some have jaw-dropping year-on-year median rent increases of more than 10%. People are being pushed into ever more precarious and cramped conditions and homelessness is rapidly rising. As Collboni asserts, housing lies at the heart of surging political disfranchisement across mainland Europe. The crisis is fuelling the far right – linked, for example, to the support for Alternative für Deutschland in Germany and the recent victory of the Dutch anti-Islam Freedom party. Housing has become a primary engine of inequality, reinforcing divisions between the asset-haves and have-nots and disproportionately affecting minority groups. Far from offering security and safety, for many in Europe housing is now a primary cause of suffering and despair. But not everyone is suffering. At the same time it is robbing normal people of a comfortable and dignified life, the housing crisis is lining the pockets of a small number of individuals and institutions. Across Europe in recent decades the same story has unfolded, albeit in very different ways: power has shifted to those who profit from housing, and away from those who live in it. The most striking manifestation of this shift is the large-scale ownership and control of homes by financial institutions, particularly since the 2008 global financial crisis. In 2023, $1.7tn of global real estate was managed by institutional investors such as private equity firms, insurance companies, hedge funds, banks and pension funds, up from $385bn in 2008. Spurred by loose monetary policy, these actors consider Europe's housing a particularly lucrative and secure 'asset class'. Purchases of residential property in the euro area by institutional investors tripled over the past decade. As a London-based asset manager puts it: 'Real estate investors with exposure to European residential assets are the cats that got the cream,' with housing generating 'stronger risk-adjusted returns than any other sector'. The scale of institutional ownership in certain places is staggering. In Ireland, nearly half of all units delivered since 2017 were purchased by investment funds. Across Sweden, the share of private rental apartments with institutional investors as landlords has swelled to 24%. In Berlin, €40bn of housing assets are now in institutional portfolios, 10% of the total housing stock. In the four largest Dutch cities, a quarter of homes for sale in recent years were purchased by investors. Even in Vienna, a city widely heralded for its vast, subsidised housing stock, institutional players are now invested in every 10th housing unit and 42% of new private rental homes. Not all investors are the same. But when the aim is to make money from housing it can mean only one thing: prices go up. As Leilani Farha, a former UN special rapporteur, points out, investment funds have a 'fiduciary duty' to maximise returns to shareholders, which often include the pension funds on which ordinary people rely. They therefore do all they can to increase prices and reduce expenditure, including via 'renoviction' (using refurbishment as an excuse to hike rents), under-maintenance and the introduction of punitive fees. When the private equity giant Blackstone acquired and renovated homes across Stockholm, it increased rents on some of the homes by up to 50%, the economic geographer Brett Christophers found. 'Green' retrofits in the name of sustainability are also an increasingly common tactic. The corporate capture of our homes has not sprung out of thin air. Decades of housing market privatisation, liberalisation and speculation have enabled the financial sector to tighten its grip on European households. From the 1980s in places such as Italy, Sweden and Germany, government-owned apartments were transferred en masse to the private market. In Berlin, for example, vast bundles of public housing were sold overnight to large corporations. In one single transaction, Deutsche Wohnen purchased 60,000 flats from the city in 2006 for €450m; just €7,500 per apartment. With the role of welfare states in housing provision dismantled, many countries reached for demand-side interventions such as liberalising mortgage credit. This fuelled widespread speculation, pushed up house prices and encouraged extreme levels of household indebtedness. The resulting financial crisis of 2008 provided fresh opportunities for investors. Countries such as Spain, Greece, Portugal and Ireland became a treasure trove of 'distressed' assets and mortgage debt that could be scooped up at bargain prices. Despite the widespread devastation caused by the crisis, Europe's dependence on the financial sector for housing solutions only intensified in the years that followed. As power has shifted to investors and speculators, and governments have become ever more reliant on them, so it has been withdrawn from residents. In order to incentivise or 'de-risk' private investment, governments across Europe have weakened tenant protections, slashed planning regulations and building standards, and offered special subsidies, grants and tax breaks for entities such as real estate investment trusts. One group in particular has borne the brunt of this: renters. Renters have seen their rents skyrocket, living conditions deteriorate and their security undermined. In Europe, some investment funds have directly driven the displacement of lower-income tenants and overseen disruptive evictions. Powerful financial actors have done a great job at framing themselves as the solution to, rather than the cause of, the prevailing crisis. They have incessantly pushed the now-dominant narrative that more real estate investment is a good thing because it will increase the supply of much-needed homes. Blackstone, for example, claims to play a 'positive role in addressing the chronic undersupply of housing across the continent'. But the evidence suggests that greater involvement of financial markets has not increased aggregate home ownership or housing supply, but instead inflated house prices and rents. The thing is, institutional investors aren't really into producing housing. It is directly against their interests to significantly increase supply. As one asset manager concedes, housing undersupply is bad for residents but 'supportive for cashflows'. Blackstone's president famously admitted that 'the big warning signs in real estate are capital and cranes'. In other words, they need shortages to keep prices high. Where corporate capital does produce new homes, they will of course be maximally profitable. Cities such as Manchester, Brussels and Warsaw have experienced a proliferation of high-margins housing products such as micro-apartments, build-to-rent and co-living. Designed with the explicit intention of optimising cashflows, these are both unaffordable and unsuitable for most households. Common Wealth, a thinktank focusing on ownership, found that the private equity-backed build-to-rent sector, which accounts for 30% of new homes in London, caters predominantly to high-earning single people. Families represent just 5% of build-to-rent tenants compared with a quarter of the private rental sector more broadly. These overpriced corporate appendages are a stark reminder of the market's inability to deliver homes that fit the needs and incomes of most people. While housing lies at the heart of political disillusionment today, it is for the same reason becoming a primary trigger for mobilisation across Europe. In October 2024, 150,000 protesters marched through the streets of Madrid demanding action. Some governments, including Denmark and the Netherlands, are introducing policies to deter speculators. But real estate capital continues to hold the power, so it continues to get its way – including by exploiting loopholes, and lobbying against policies that put profits at risk. In 2021, Berliners voted in favour of expropriating and socialising apartments owned by stock-listed landlords. But under pressure from the real estate lobby, politicians have stalled this motion. That same year Blackstone – Spain's largest landlord with 40,000 housing units – opposed plans to impose a 30% target for social housing in institutional portfolios. Struggles against the immense structural power of real-estate interests will be hard fought. In recent decades we have been living through an ever-intensifying social experiment. Can housing, a fundamental need for all human beings, be successfully delivered under the machinations of finance capitalism? The evidence now seems overwhelming: no. As investors have come to dominate, so the power of residents has been systematically undermined. We are left with a crisis of inconceivable proportions. While we can, and should, point the finger at corporate greed, we must remember that this is the system working precisely as it is set up to do. When profit is the prevailing force, housing provision invariably fails to align with social need – to generate the types of homes within the price ranges most desperately required. In the coming years, housing will occupy centre stage in European politics. Now is the time for fundamental structural changes that reclaim homes from the jaws of finance, re-empower residents and reinstate housing as a core priority for public provision. Tim White is a research fellow at Queen Mary University of London and the London School of Economics studying housing, cities and inequality
The Herald Scotland
an hour ago
- The Herald Scotland
Labour reshapes the retail landscape, and not for the better
These measures are costing UK retailers £5 billion this year. Indeed, the cost of employing people in entry-level jobs has risen by over 10% for full-time and 13% for part-time workers, reducing future job availability. That will also lead to change, but not for the better. We estimate these increases will threaten 13,000 part-time jobs in Scottish retail over the next three years. Read more: This matters: flexible retail roles are a vital stepping stone for many, whether it's a first job out of school or a part-time role for those returning to the workforce or with caring responsibilities. Public policies which reduce job opportunities in retail and scupper the first rung back onto the career ladder for many fly in the face of the government's welfare reforms which aim to bring more people back into the workforce. The cumulative burden of public policy is weighing on the industry, holding back investment in skills and high streets. More is in the pipeline with the Employment Rights Bill and the new extended producer responsibility for packaging levy. Any further tax hikes in this autumn's UK Budget could make things trickier still. Furthermore, some of the challenges – such as sluggish growth – have frankly been added to by ministers themselves. Last summer government figures were keen to hammer home a message about the poor state of the public finances they had inherited, underestimating the negative impact that would have on consumer sentiment. Read more: Added to the government's own decisions are those outwith its control, including international instability and the more volatile economic policy choices of the US, which have enormous implications. To alleviate international tariffs UK ministers have moved swiftly and positively to conclude trade deals with the USA, EU, and India, which should help keep down prices for consumers. Sir Keir's government has sought to tackle many of the urgent economic issues facing the nation. In addition to the trade deals this can be seen in the consequential announcements on energy and transport infrastructure and planning. A long-standing issue for retailers has been the onerous business rates system. The business rate is at a 26-year high and has to be paid regardless of profitability. From the Exchequer's viewpoint it's a steady source of revenue even during turbulent economic times. Reform has therefore proven difficult. To the UK government's credit they've accepted the retail industry pays too much and plan a permanent rates reduction for England's shops, beginning in April. Read more: That said the government needs to sand down the roughest edges of the proposals, including the misbegotten notion that larger anchor stores should be saddled with a rates surcharge to help fund the changes. This would simply make high street rejuvenation more difficult. Meanwhile, whether Holyrood will cut retailers' rates bills remains unclear. Ministers are making good on their pledge to reform the Apprenticeship Levy. This is being rebranded as a growth and skills levy and retailers operating in England will be able to spend the receipts on a wider range of training for staff. That's good for retailers operating down south, including Scottish headquartered firms like Dobbies Garden Centres and Schuh. Unfortunately, here in Scotland the levy seems set to remain little more than a tax on employment, hampering retailers' investment in skills. Unlike counterparts down south, retailers here are unable to spend any of the £15 million they stump up annually for the levy. Ministers risk fumbling the chance of reform that benefits Scots employers too. A year into their term in office the Labour Government can point to some solid progress but with the key yardstick being economic growth, the jury is still out on whether they can deliver. David Lonsdale is director of the Scottish Retail Consortium.
