Madam, - Judging by Tony MacGabhann's reaction (September 11th) to my letter of September 7th, it appears I hit a raw nerve. However, for someone who, in his first sentence, claims not to know what it was about, he certainly takes exception to something in it.
I can't speak in defence of the rest of the rather long list of those who incur his displeasure, but I feel I must respond to the personalised tirade against "the Aidan McGraths of this world".
In his second paragraph he says that it isn't unusual to have "restrictive conditions" in the articles of a commercial company. But if the meaning of the clause in question were as he suggests, it could hardly be described as "restrictive".
My point - which he claims he didn't understand - is that there is a deliberate misinterpretation by Dermot Mannion and Noel Dempsey, of the relevant clause. The phrase "to dispose of" certainly includes the meanings he lists, but is not confined to those. For example: "To determine the fate of; to exercise the power of control over; to fix the condition, application, employment, etc. . ."
The Aer Lingus proposal to move landing slots from Shannon to Belfast is clearly covered by that definition. So the Government has a duty to ensure that this restriction is adhered to, whether through legal action, or by exercising its rights on our behalf as shareholders, in helping reverse this decision. But it seems that, despite giving absolute assurances in the Dáil on this very point last April, it is now about to countenance this blatant infringement of both the spirit and the letter of the articles of association.
A lot of lip-service is paid to the welfare of shareholders by those opposed to the reversal of this decision. But when the same shareholders wish to exercise their rights to exert some influence in this regard, they are often subjected to the kind of irrational abuse typified by Mr McGabhann's outburst. - Yours, etc,
AIDAN McGRATH, Chestnut Court, Athlone, Co Westmeath.