
Stelios Haji-Ioannou of Easyjet: I was asked ‘how are you going to fly into Belfast with an orange airline?'
EasyJet
began flying out of
Belfast
in the late 1990s and then, more importantly, after he met a Kerry woman, Orla Murphy, and, later, became father to Aria, the couple's seven-year-old daughter.
The
Greek Cypriot
billionaire knows a few things about divided islands: 'One of my earliest memories as a kid is the invasion of Cyprus in 1974. I remember we were all scared,' he says, 'it was a very vivid memory.'
Today, Haji-Ioannou – better known simply as Stelios – has created the inaugural
North
–South Business Co-operation Awards with Co-operation Ireland to encourage cross-Border entrepreneurship and start-ups on the island of Ireland.
His connection with Ireland goes back to the early days of the low-cost carrier EasyJet. In 1995, he had considered flying out of Belfast but shied away because 'it was considered always a difficult route'.
READ MORE
Fortunes, however, changed after the 1998 Belfast Agreement, with EasyJet beginning with three flights a day from Belfast. Today, it carries seven out of every 10 people who fly into or out of Northern Ireland.
Stelios Haji-Ioannou of EasyJet at Glin Castle. Photograph: Mark Hennessy
Remembering the early days, he tells The Irish Times: 'I remember one of the comments in '98 was, 'How are you going to fly into Belfast with an orange airline?'.
I mean, can you imagine?'
The billionaire is speaking in a bedroom in Glin Castle, one of three temporarily converted into offices while the family holiday in Co Limerick on the banks of the Shannon, in the ancestral home of the Knights of Glin.
The historic location – the home of the Black Knight of Glin, one of the Fitzgeralds of Desmond, since the early 14th Century – is popular with the family because it 'is close to home' for his partner, whom he met after she had moved to Monaco.
'My daughter's name is Aria, A-R-I-A. We chose a name equally easy to pronounce in Greek and English. We tried others, but they weren't so easy to pronounce,' Haji-Ioannou says.
In time, he hopes his daughter will take charge of the family's philanthropic arm, the Stelios Foundation: 'I wanted to do something more substantial in Ireland because, obviously, I'm spending time here.
'I have family here now. One day, hopefully, this foundation will be run by her, and I want to have a bigger project in Ireland.'
Stelios Haji-Ioannou is no longer involved as an executive in EasyJet. Photograph: Chris Radcliffe/Bloomberg
Many of his relatives left Cyprus after the 1974 invasion. In 2004, he returned after the border crossings that divided the Mediterranean island were opened: 'It was a time when I had started seriously to think about giving back to society.'
So began in 2008 the Stelios Bi-Communal Business Co-Operation Awards, which offers more than €400,000 in prizes annually to Greek Cypriot and Turkish Cypriot business people who are prepared to work together.
It started quietly because he was not sure how welcome the awards would be: 'Because very often in Cyprus, there is misinformation that, you know, you're a traitor if you're doing business with the other side.'
Bar Covid interruptions, the awards have flourished. Winners like prizes, he says with a smile: 'But the other thing they like is the endorsement, the clarification that it's actually approved, it's legal, it's lawful to do business with the other side.'
The idea to bring it to Ireland came after Haji-Ioannou listened to a speech from former Irish ambassador to London and Washington Dan Mulhall at a lunch in Monaco attended by the principality's Prince Albert.
'I approached him, and I said, 'I'm doing this in Cyprus. Do you think it might work in Ireland?' Immediately, he said 'yes', and the rest is history. He introduced us to Ian Jeffers of Co-Operation Ireland,' he says.
The awards will be made in Castle Leslie in Co Monaghan in October: 'Hundreds of applications have been downloaded, so people are thinking about it. Hopefully, we're going to have a good set of first winners and then they will become the ambassadors.'
Today, he divides his time in three – a third is spent on the Easy family of brands, a third goes on his philanthropic work and the remainder on investments that have diversified his interests far beyond aviation.
No longer involved as an executive in EasyJet, he still gets 25c for every passenger the airline flies. Last year, it carried more than 70 million passengers: 'The best decision I ever made after creating EasyJet was to keep the name in my own company.'
Aviation is getting tougher, with higher fuel costs and future emissions charges, but Haji-Ioannou sees no return to the crippling charges that passengers paid in an era before EasyJet and Ryanair.
Questioned about his one-time direct opponent,
Michael O'Leary
of Ryanair, Haji-Ioannou says: 'He's made a lot of money, so I think he's a very successful businessman. There's no doubt about it.'
The two men clashed repeatedly and bitterly during the 1990s and 2000s, with the Greek Cypriot once calling Ryanair's customer service 'appalling', while O'Leary had to apologise for calling him a liar.
'He's made a lot of money for himself, for his shareholders. Some of the rhetoric is designed to reduce customer expectations. He has this philosophy that if you lower the expectations of the customer, you can lower your costs.
'I remember O'Leary as an accountant, ex-KPMG who was very shy and didn't talk to the media. He's become this very, very prominent personality largely because the media give him a lot of time,' he says.
'I haven't spoken to him for years. In the early days we used to every now and then meet or speak. Nothing personal. Because I don't have a day-to-day role in EasyJet, I don't have a reason to speak to Michael O'Leary.'
Hashtags

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles

Irish Times
3 hours ago
- Irish Times
‘The stress is inhumane': Second Dublin council pauses scheme to buy homes of tenants at risk of homelessness
The number of families at risk of homelessness due to the lack of funding for the tenant-in-situ scheme has risen to more than 160, after a second local authority in Dublin paused applications. The scheme allows local authorities to buy properties that host tenants facing eviction because the landlord is selling. It applies to tenants who have received a notice of termination, are deemed at risk of homelessness and who qualify for social housing support such as the Housing Assistance Payment (HAP) or the Rental Accommodation Scheme (RAS). New restrictions were applied to the scheme this year, including a stipulation that the home must be in the HAP or RAS system for at least two years. READ MORE There have also been lengthy delays in the issuing of Government funding to the scheme, as Minister for Housing James Browne conducted a review of its terms. In June, Dublin City Council confirmed it had paused all new applications to the scheme as its 2025 budget had already been allocated. The council had 104 applications to the scheme by March. Fingal County Council has now confirmed it is in the same position and will not be proceeding with any more purchases under the scheme. In a letter sent to Sinn Féin TD for Fingal West Louise O'Reilly, the local authority said its budget for 2025 'has been exhausted' after it made 32 acquisitions under tenant in situ, with one remaining sale going through the conveyancing process. This compares to 121 tenant-in-situ acquisitions made in 2024. 'There were 60 tenant-in-situ applications that were paused at the beginning of the year and did not proceed due to limited funding,' the council said. [ More than 100 families in Dublin at risk of homelessness as tenant-in-situ applications paused Opens in new window ] One of those applications was by a woman and her young child who are living in rental accommodation in Balbriggan. Ms O'Reilly said the woman's child was due to start school in the area in September but now they are at risk of homelessness. The woman received a notice to quit in August 2024 and applied for the tenant-in-situ scheme in March. Ms O'Reilly said the woman understood she was accepted for the scheme until she learned last month about the council pausing applications. 'The stress she is under is inhumane. She has also lost valuable time that she could have been searching for somewhere to live while believing that the tenant-in-situ purchase was ongoing,' Ms O'Reilly said of her constituent. 'The Government has now literally removed the only homeless prevention measure that my constituents had. It is beyond heartbreaking to see the human impact of this decision on families and especially on children,' she said.


Irish Times
5 hours ago
- Irish Times
Does it make sense to hold onto my husband's bank shares and his stockbroker account?
I know that you have done your best to try to explain the misery that befell many of us when the banks were taken over by the Government. But some of us are remedial and still don't quite understand where we now stand. My late husband worked in AIB and had his life's savings in AIB shares. (For safety he diversified into equally 'safe' BOI shares!). I recall that, before the crash, his AIB shares were worth about €450,000. They were held with Goodbody's . I don't know why. My December 2024 statement states that, as of now, I have close to €25,000 invested roughly evenly across the two big banks. READ MORE Last month, I paid an annual charge of €701,61 to Goodbody's (Cumulative Effect of Costs and Charges on Returns), of which €501,61 was in non-Goodbody charges My questions are as follows: Should I close this account with Goodbodys since I have never done – and don't plan to do – any trading. Is there any point in hanging on to these shares in the hope that, when the banks are making millions again, they might feel sorry for those of us who lost everything and offer some kind of compensation? In fairness, AIB continues to pay my widow's pension. Ms J.R. The first rule in making sense of investments is understanding what you are paying for the opportunity of gain. Charges can fundamentally affect your return so it is important to get a proper fix on them. I get the sense you're not too sure why you are paying the amount you are paying Goodbody's to manage this portfolio of shares and cash. I've spoken to Goodbodys who, no more than their rivals, can be difficult o tie down on the question of fees. To their credit, they have suggested you contact them directly so that they can walk you through exactly what the charges are and for what service. As usual, I have not given any of your identifying details to them as I did not have your explicit permission to do so but they tell me they have offered an experienced person on standby to deal with you directly on this matter. I'll pass those details on to you. Charges aside, there are a couple of big issues here. First, should you hold on to the shares and second, should you continue to hold an account with Goodbody's or any other broker? Let's take those in reverse order. You have kind of answered the second question with your assertion that since your husband died and you inherited these shares, you have never done – and do not plan to do – any trading. There is no obligation to hold your shares through a broker although you will need to engage a broker should you ever decide to sell them. These days, shares are 'dematerialised'. This means that any paper share certificates you hold – which used to be the legal proof of ownership – are now worthless. Instead, details of your shareholdings are held in electronic form by the 'registrar', the company that manages the list of shareholders for each of these banks. In this case, a company called Computershare is share registrar for both banks. You can keep track of your shares and any dealings in them by registering with Computershare here for access to their online investor centre. You'll need very basic details – your unique shareholder reference number for each shareholding – which you should be able to find on communications from the companies, or from Goodbody. The key thing here is that you do not need to hold your shares through a stockbroker and, if you are not trading in shares, it makes little sense to be paying annual charges for the privilege – never mind over €700. Based on the current value of your account, as outlined in your query, the Goodbody's annual charge amounts to over 2.75 per cent, which certainly strikes me as very high, especially for an account with no activity. I cannot think of an explanation Goodbody's could provide that would make this a sensible proposition for you. Unless you plan to sell the shares now given you already appear to be paying Goodbody for the service, I would pull the plug on the Goodbody account and keep track of the shares through the Computershare Investor Centre. If you do want to sell later, you can always 'shop the market' to see who will sell them for you at the lowest charge. That brings us to the other issue – should you hold on to these shares at all? As an AIB lifer, it is not entirely surprising – if not exactly sensible – that he invested heavily n the bank's shares. Back then, he may have been able to do so at preferential rates or through some employee share programme. He was correct that it made sense to diversify given the concentration of his investment. I have no idea if he took advice at that time but the notion of diversifying from having all your investments in one bank stock by investing in the State other large listed back was mad even back then. All his eggs were still in the banking basket and we all know what happened there. People like your husband saw their savings effectively go up in smoke. In AIB's case, quite apart from the bank bailout that saw the value of his shareholding crash, he also went through the one for 250 share consolidation in 2015 that knocked a further 75 per cent of the value of his savings. In the case of Bank of Ireland, in 2017, it gave shareholder one new share for every 30 previously held but, of course, it too saw the value of existing investors' shareholdings decimated by the post-crash bailout. Given the number of shares your husband, and now you, hold in both banks, it is clear his investment in both was significant. You do not say when you inherited these shares which is a key point. Any investment gains (or in his case losses) die with a shareholder. So when you inherited the shares, their base value will be whatever they were worth at that time. The losses your husband suffered are, unfortunately, irrelevant. Assuming you inherited some time since late 2010, you are actually in profit on both those shares right now – albeit a long way of recovering the sort of level they traded at when your husband had them before the crash. So if you do sell, and assuming your gain is more than €1,270, as I assume it will be, you will be paying capital gains tax at 33 per cent on those 'profits'. I'm not a share analyst, nor a qualified financial adviser, so I cannot say what you might expect these shares to do in the future, though it is fair to say that most analysts see some upside for both as the State has now exited their bailout investment despite cuts in European Central Bank interest rates that have padded their profits in recent years. The bigger question is whether you are comfortable with stock market investments in individual shares. Even if you are, it would be advisable to consider proper diversification – something you might discuss with Goodbody when you meet them and before you make any decision to close that account. Whatever you do, I would certainly not bank of either lender offering any compensation to the shareholders it gutted during the crash, now that they are back to earning millions of euro. They may say how sorry they are for what happened – and have done – but they're not that sorry. And, to be fair to them, that is the nature of stock market investment. It carries risk – hence the good sense in diversification – and when things go wrong, shareholders will find themselves at the bottom of the pecking order when it comes to people being taken care of. That is the reality of shareholder investment. Investing in Ireland's banks used to be considered almost as good as investing in government bonds, with dividend income as icing on the cake. The crash reminded us not to take such things for granted. And much and all as investors must take responsibility for their own risk, I would not be giving AIB any credit for paying your widow's pension. That is part of the Ts & Cs of your husband's occupational pension scheme - not some munificence on the part of the bank. Please send your queries to Dominic Coyle, Q&A, The Irish Times, 24-28 Tara Street, Dublin 2, or by email to , with a contact phone number. This column is a reader service and is not intended to replace professional advice


Irish Times
11 hours ago
- Irish Times
Is Ireland ready for drab Soviet-style apartment blocks?
In the postwar years, a rapidly urbanising Soviet Union embarked on a mass construction programme. It built standardised, mass-produced, cheap, drab blocks of apartments intended as temporary for 20-25 years. Typically floor areas were just 30-40sq m (equivalent to three standard parking spaces). Led by Nikita Khrushchev, they became known as Khrushchyovkas. This week, Minister for Housing James Browne issued new apartment standards that resurrect the old Khrushchyovkas as the urban housing ambition for 21st century Ireland. It is now possible to build entire blocks of 32sq m studio bedsits with no limit on the number of residents sharing a corridor or lift. Up to half of these homes may have no private amenity space. On urban sites, communal outdoor space is negotiable, and on larger schemes developers can design out playgrounds and childcare facilities . Local authorities may no longer require space to be set aside for laundry, clothes-drying, gyms, community or cultural use. There is no transparency about where these standards originated, and they came into force immediately without public consultation, pre-legislative scrutiny or a regulatory impact assessment. Almost a Trumpian executive order, the suddenness and absence of transition arrangements have brought uncertainty into the entire sector, risking delays, additional costs and, inevitably, legal action. It seems in direct defiance of the Department of Finance's recent warning that 'in order to attract private capital, policy certainty is key'. This uncertainty is more likely to shake confidence than to 'get apartment building moving'. A new Planning Bill – as yet unseen – is to be rushed through, putting in doubt current planning applications, local authority development plans, statutory housing needs and demand assessments, and indeed forecasts for infrastructure capacity. READ MORE So are these changes justified? The Minister claims savings of a 'an average of €50k and up to €100k cost reduction per unit', although no calculations are provided. His own department's most recent figures for urban apartment development indicate hard construction costs of almost €180,000 (incl VAT) to build a 37q m one-person studio. On this basis, cutting 5sq m from the structure would only save about €3,500 (incl VAT) (€615/m2 structure costs + VAT = €698x 5 = €3,490 structure costs) given no reduction in other hard costs (kitchen, bathroom, windows, doors, heating, plumbing, electrics, etc). In all likelihood any potential savings would be wiped out within months on redesign, tender inflation of 3 per cent annually and finance. [ Government measures designed to drive apartment building are 'not as effective in practice as envisaged' Opens in new window ] The Minister may believe that squeezing more smaller apartments into the same building will result in lower unit costs. Evidently, a studio for one person will be a cheaper unit than an apartment for two, three or more. Without the evidence, this seems more spin than worked solution. We might hope that developers and investors won't buy into these lower standards. Experience tells us otherwise. When lower standards for build-to-rent apartments and co-living were introduced, it wiped out the 'viability' of urban build-to-sell which was marginally less profitable. Consequently, investment funds now control more than 17,000 new rental apartments, according to figures reported in the Business Post, while only 943 were sold in Dublin, Cork, Limerick and Galway cities in the last six years, CSO figures show. In response to these changes, many investors will pause to assess whether the uncertainty, disruption and legal risks are worth it. So how might they jump? Let's imagine an apartment block of 100 units with permission for 50 two-bedroom apartments, 25 one-bedroom and 25 studios. Using typical rents for new-build apartments in Dublin, our 100-unit scheme could generate a rent roll of €275,000 per month (gross). However, replacing it with 178 small studios could bring in €370,000, a 35 per cent increase. This is certainly enough to send many back to the drawing board. But regardless of how – or when – they jump, this week's announcement gifted all residential landowners a new profit (on paper) from increased development potential. Land is valued on the 'residual' of the end value less the development costs. When the future rent roll increases, it brings up the current land value. This windfall is now booked on the balance sheets and baked in, eventually to be paid in higher rents and mortgages – in one stroke both worsening the 'viability' of larger apartments, and widening the affordability gap. So how many people could be housed in these newly configured buildings? Taking, our example above, a permitted block of 100 apartments can now squeeze in 178 studios. Good news for the 'supply target' with a 78 per cent increase in units on the site. Unfortunately, not so good for anything else. Small units are very inefficient: a block of 178 studios can only legally accommodate 178 people, whereas the same space laid out as 100 apartments can house 275. In fact, the larger 2016 Dublin City Council standards could comfortably fit more than 300 people in a mix of units -all with decent, flexible living conditions, suited to couples, families and sharers. So, in our example, for the same development cost and the same drain on limited construction resources, Browne has incentivised 78 per cent more units, but housed 41 per cent fewer people. Bizarrely, his initiative may give us poorer quality homes while taking longer and costing more. Browne says that he is 'prepared to take risks'. Perhaps consider these risks – of regulatory capture; of rejecting evidence-based plans and democratic processes; of further inflating land values; of incentivising a glut of over-priced substandard homes; of ignoring the 50 per cent of households with children; of believing that squeezing out a washing machine or space for a pram will tip the balance of international financial markets in Ireland's favour. Ireland's speculative housing system has legacies of boom and bust, planning irregularities, ghost estates, low standards, over-inflated values, market crashes and deep recessions that are both recent and painful. We are still paying the price for the last time developers were left to decide what to build, where, and at what quality and cost. In this complex ecosystem even seemingly minor decisions are not without major consequence. If his new Housing Minister doesn't see the risks, Taoiseach Micheál Martin surely should. Orla Hegarty is an assistant professor at the School of Architecture, Planning and Environmental Policy, UCD