Welcome. Sorry we ran slightly over on the press conference there, so we're running just a couple of minutes behind. Joining me is Howard Millar, as you know, our deputy CEO and CFO. We're going to briefly run through the slide presentation. I'd do this quickly because you've seen a significant amount of it before, and then we'll open it up to questions and answers. Strong for the half year numbers this morning. We're still technically in the offer period for Aer Lingus. Our offer is now going to Phase 2 regulatory process with Brussels so therefore, I can't really comment any detail in Aer Lingus. That's just the kind of the usual fully replaced half covering we need to call to [ph] . Europe's also only ultra-low cost carrier continues to grow very strongly with the lowest-fare, lowest-cost model continues to succeed dramatically across Europe. And interestingly, statistics is that our excluding fuel per passenger cost of EUR 26 in the half year is now more than 50% lower than our next closest competitor, easyJet, and significantly lower than any of the other European competitors. As a result, we're growing strongly 79 million passengers on 1,500 routes from 51 bases across Europe. In terms of fares, the Ryanair average fare in the half-year was EUR 53. easyJet's average fare is more than 50% higher. And everybody else that we're competing with in Europe, which is where a lot of the growth opportunity will come from in the current years, average fare is more than double those of Ryanair. Customer service this year continues to improve despite what you might read in the media over the summer. We've got a phenomenal on-time performance. 93% of all flights this summer on time, rather that was helped by the fact that there…

No.

We'll move to questions. We're on the web cam so just going to expect you to say your name and who you represent for the viewers. And we may return to them after we've dealt with most of the questions here.

It's Jarrod Castle from UBS. I'm just going to limit it to two, I guess. The 120 million target, you currently got a fleet of let's say roughly, 300 planes. Does it mean you have to buy another 150 to get to 120 million passengers? And then I guess, you said probably no plane deal for the next 3 to 5 years, will you just keep building up the cash balance now that you're going to be throwing a lot of cash for, I guess, for March 14? And then just secondly, just, I guess, some housekeeping. What was the currency impact on yields for the quarter and I'm just talking about pounds, that you're converting into euros. And just secondly, I mean, what is the yield environment looking like in terms of your forward bookings? Is it around 2% given the guidance? The yield environment on your forward booking, is it around 2%, just given the half year guidance.

I'll give you the aircraft one first. For us to go to 120 million passengers, we need to add probably about 200 aircraft over the next 10 years there will be some replacement of our older aircraft as well. But we already have more than sufficient. I mean, we have -- within our own operations sufficient growth for 4% to 5% traffic growth for the next 2 years with the new aircraft [indiscernible] that takes care of summer 2013. We will then be able to deliver 4% growth by sitting at fewer aircraft on the ground in the winter of '13, '14 and the winter of '14, '15, if need be. I think we would look to -- we could do a short term, whether re-leasing or be opportunistic in buying aircraft or airlines that go bust. And so we don't see the need. When I say, it's unlikely that there'll be an aircraft order in the next 12 months, I do think there'll be an aircraft order in the period of 1 to 3 years for deliveries within years 3 to 5, if that makes some sense. And I think we'll continue to be opportunistic in that. There'll clearly be further aircraft closures, I mean, if you look at say, for example, some of Boeing's order book on the MAX aircraft at the moment, they have 100 aircraft from Norwegian, not sure Norwegian confirmed the 100 aircraft. At Ryanair [ph] in for a 100. Southwest have ordered 150, but then said they're not taking any more aircraft deliveries until their ratio return goes back to 15%, which could be a long time. So I'm not sure about how robust the order book according to manufacture is and the real test to that is the strength in the secondhand aircraft…

Yes. In the half year, the impact was about 2.4% of the movement of 6%. And interesting on the other side, on the cost side, it is a significant contributor to the 2% adverse movement on fuel. That is quite a lot of moving parts in those. But the actual -- it was slightly lower than 2.4%, just below 2%. So much of the increase in first half unit cost was due to the movement of sterling on both sides, a little bit more because we have a big percentage of our revenues in sterling than we have in cost.

And just coming back to the airplane potential deal, will you just continue to build a cash balance now?

Yes, I think there would be no special dividend next year. I'd be very surprised if there'd be one in 2 years' time. I think our focus now, having done 2 special dividends of nearly EUR 1 billion in the last 3, effectively 3 years, I think that's enough for the moment. We now will focus on building up cash partly because I think financing market is tight. We did a fantastic -- Howard's team did a fantastic job. We raised aircraft on an aircraft financing bond at run [ph] rate of 1.7%, which compares to the Air Berlin which did a bond at 11%. But I would want to be -- I think we would need to be putting down more cash on the next aircraft order just given the state of the worldwide financing market.

Alexia Dogani from Liberum. I just have 2 questions at the moment. Just firstly, can you explain why the fuel guidance has been reduced from sort of the start of year from EUR 320 million to EUR 260 million and what is driving that? And then secondly, if you could give us an update on the reserve seating safety and sort of how the take-up has been in Q2 and obviously you've increased there for now this winter?

The fuel -- I mean, it's a combination of 2 things: one, we've got slightly fuel, for the non-hedged portion of fuel has been slightly weaker through the summer, and we've been a beneficiary of that. So we've also been very active in kind of managing in fuel efficiency policy. We have a team that manages fuel, both what we put into plane, regulating the speed, largely the speed, height which our air pilots can fly the planes. We're actually we've been slowing down the speed of the aircraft in order to conserve or to reduce fuel usage, and there's been a number of other measures as well largely by requiring using our OFTN [ph] to require pilots to fly in compliance with our SOPs, the standard operating procedures, which is speed, height, rate of deceleration, rate of acceleration. And that has been significant, particularly when you bill over the first half year result for EUR 1 billion. And that will continue. The second part of the question was?

Reserved seatings.

It continues to rise. I mean, there's been -- I think we've seen, in some cases, when we first launch reserve seating, the take was very high on the longer flights, so like the Canaries, those longer kind of charter-type routes. Increasingly, this spread across the entire system. We're seeing now through the summer, we were routinely running at more than 50% of reserve seats across the network being sold. But I think, what's been more interesting in the whole reserved seating sale is the fact it hasn't cannibalized priority boarding. It's almost been where the bulk reserve seating. Reserve seating obviously includes the priority boarding. But reserve seating is almost been incremental to priority boarding. I think priority boarding has gone from 8% back to about 7% of passengers, whereas reserve seating is running now typically close to 50%. Now we think it'll be weaker in the winter than in the summer. But we would like -- we think it will keep building towards about 50% of reserved seating over the full year, not in FY '13 but into FY '14. We will see about 50% of all the reserve seats being sold, higher on longer routes and more business type routes, lower on really price-sensitive markets like Poland, for example, has a very poor uptake at reserved seating and priority boarding generally. But I think as people become aware of the service, that the service is there and that gives them the advantage to board last, get the front rows of seats on first, there's an increasingly big take-up. I mean I see it myself particularly on the Dublin-London routes, where at this time last year, there was very few people in reserve seats now, routinely, we see 50%, 100% of these seats on those flights. Our reserve seats on those flights are being taken up.

Do you expect to sort of roll it off to the whole plane, eventually?

I think it's unlikely. I don't believe in rolling it out to the whole plane. I would be concerned in our model if we roll out reserve seats to the whole plane. You go back to where we started, I think we'd be stuck up in the pub or in the duty free shop knowing that they've an allocated seat, they don't have to show up until the departure time. And that's core to our punctuality and why our punctuality so good. I think we would look for opportunities maybe to roll it out a little bit more because we're now to 7 seats -- 6 rows of seats. We may go to 8, 10 rows of seats. I think it's highly unlikely that we'll roll it out across the entire aircraft. We're certainly still in the easyJet model, which seems to be obviously the other way of doing it. And I'd say, you say, everybody has now got an allocated seat, but the first things as those of you who book early pay a fee. When we think there's a tipping point where we think I would rather that we continue to have a priority boarding service and a reserved seating service. But it will extend the number of rows of reserved seats and target it that way because that I think is the way that you don't compromise your punctuality. The difference with an easyJet is that increasingly easyJet are operating at congested airports like Gatwick, like Charles de Gaulle, they're allowing building in longer flight times and longer turnarounds. So they're less exposed to delays as a result of allocated seating. But that's not to say they're not maybe right. We might be also be the [indiscernible] there, but I would, at this point in time, suspect we'll keep going with our strategy. I don't necessarily believe I think the danger for all this that we would run into too many flight delays if went to all allocate it and people suddenly got back to the ill discipline of, "Ah, I have my seat, so I don't need to be down there early."

I think we have different views on this. I mean, it's certainly -- we've been very surprised I think that the take up of reserved seating penetration rates are well above where we expected. There is, as Michael said, a consumer learning process. And it is a big jump to extend it out to all the seats because you get into a whole lot of different issues, which I understand from [indiscernible] media this morning that easyJet are experiencing on board. So we need to look at it very closely, see how they get on with this. But certainly, all our experiences, certainly, on the longest sector is very, very successful.

Edward Stanford from Oriel. Two questions, if I may. You mentioned that you're being excluded from the sale prices of Stansted. To what extent are you able to and/or having substantive conversations with the potential bidders about the sort of deal that you might get into? And secondly, a completely different question, I think you mentioned you had quite a good late bookings in the latter part of the first half. To what extent did that continue into the third quarter?

On Stansted, we have no discussion with them since the formal sale process kicked off. We've had extensive discussions with most of the 4 consortia, well, all of them. If the final 4 that have been inside [ph] in the press are the final 4, then we've had discussions with all of those. In all cases, the discussion was remarkably similar. If you significantly, i.e. reverse the price doubling in 2007, we will deliver you very rapid and very significant traffic growth, which will be self financing given that you're getting this thing for a steal and you don't need a lot of CapEx to handle that traffic growth. And if you don't significantly reduce those charges, then I think you're faced with no traffic growth or possibly continuing traffic decline. And there's been -- each of the discussions, there've been variants on that kind of discussion. So I think they all are aware of the fact that Ryanair is willing to grow very rapidly. They're all well aware of what the costs are we want for that kind of traffic growth. And I think there would be -- I'd be very disappointed if there isn't a meeting of minds on that with whoever the new order will be. The real problem for us is, can the new order get in there quickly enough so that we can start growing in summer 2013. And I'm fairly sure that Ferrovial will find some way to delay the process into Q1 of next year rather than doing it pre-Christmas. So they can kind of contaminate the whole summer '13 and preserve or influence what happens at Heathrow for at least one more summer. But -- and if you had any useful regulatory function here in the Competition Commission or the CAA, they…

Maybe about close on bookings...

Yes. What we've seen in the last -- certainly, in the last 9 months or so, is that change to closing bookings has been quite strong. So we've seen that consumers are making that decision to travel somewhat later. And you may see with some of the other guys, some of the carriers are seeing that as well. So that's generally a positive trend in terms of drive in bookings particularly notably across to somewhere [ph] when we got the bad stretch of weather.

But I mean, again, just to push some a little bit of caution into the outlook, the bit that would worry me most would be the tendency of European governments to continue to impose very unexpected taxes on air travel. The Spanish government doubled the charges at Madrid and Barcelona in the 1st of July with almost no notice to anybody. And the Italians doubled air traffic control charges in Italy without any notice or they quadrupled without any arrears. We got told after the event. With the [indiscernible] in Italy. With -- the first time we heard of it was actually when the first -- the bill came through. So, yes, you've got to be very careful here because I think and the danger if you look at the success and the amount of money the U.K. government raise out of APD, there is an unlikelihood that there will be more of this type of stealth taxation, particularly of air travel, particularly of short-haul air travel, which could have short-term impact on our numbers. I think over the medium term, as long as it doesn't distort the price differential between us and the competition, it won't change the growth model. But in the short term, I'd be very cautious, particularly into Q2 and into next year's numbers. Although I know I can't restrain some of you. I'd be just a little bit cautious. It's not hard. It's very easy to put a blue-sky scenario together, but I think we should be cautious because there will be more political or regulatory shock to the system. Who's next?

Andrew Light from Citi.

One effect of Stansted -- is it a simpler question of just lowering the value of the asset base, and therefore, the tariffs will come down accordingly. Would you think there's some obvious cost-reduction areas at Stansted that could be addressed or should be addressed?

You really have -- it's only when you actually analyze the regulatory accounts for Stansted. You realize just how much cost padding has gone on there. I mean I think taking out from under the BAA will reduce Stansted's cost by about we think between GBP 20 million and GBP 30 million a year. I mean, for example, in 2010, about something of the order of GBP 10 million of Heathrow's electricity cost was reversed back into Stansted on a what the BAA euphemistically called it redistribution of electricity charges, group electricity charges, following the sale of Gatwick. What it had to do with Stansted was beyond us. And when you actually drill down into it, they said the BAA just by the way that the electricity allocation has been wrongly allocated in 1993 between Heathrow, Gatwick and Stansted when Stansted traffic was about 1.5 million passengers per annum. And somehow they f***** up the reallocation of the -- they underallocated electricity from Heathrow to Stansted at that point in time. It was just a rampant doctoring of the books, where if you have any regulator worth their salt, they'd been all over it like a rash. The fact that they allowed the EUR 200 million of the fare [ph] of the SG2 project, which originally they told us that the SG2 don't go ahead, it's at the BAA's risk, the BAA will carry that risk. Lo and behold, you finish up in time the RAB face [ph] every year and that's the cost of recovery. So there's been rampant profiteering being outtaken by Ferrovial in recent years. There's clearly no capital or CapEx acquired at Stansted. It has [indiscernible] capacity particularly with our model now, over 70% of passengers at Stansted will buy in [ph] passengers really don't check in a bag, carry only 1 carry-on bag. Therefore, they -- you could easily -- the current capacity of the terminal in Stansted is about 30 million. I think it's closer to 40 million. If we could get Stansted up from 17 million to 30 million, 35 million passengers with almost no CapEx whatsoever. And all it needs is someone in there with a focus on growing. And if you grow traffic, the benefits in terms of retail in the ancillary business are amazing. If you look at an interesting quote from Stansted's own the statutory accounts, which of course are entirely different from the regulatory accounts, the statutory accounts have some wonderful euphemisms in it such as that Stansted continues to benefit from a passive regulatory regime, that's why the traffic continues -- is expected to decline in 2012. This will more than be made up for by revenue increases in passenger charges and commercial sales, naked [indiscernible] profiteering.

They have enough staff, security staff, to man every security point 366 days of the year.

In the last 5 years, the traffic at Stansted declined by 25%. The security staffing has doubled. That is apparently explained away by Stansted, "Well that's because of the liquids ban that was introduced in 2007." Now if only most of their [indiscernible] adjusted to that, Manchester staff at [indiscernible] hasn't increased at all in the last 5 years. While their traffic has -- it hasn't grown but it hasn't declined by as much as Stansted. And then just all they've been doing is gaming the regulatory. To be fair, it's very hard to blame Ferrovial. You have an idiot regulator deal that's asleep most of the time. What else do you do? You just game the system. You increase the -- you understate the regulatory recovery and you overstate the actual for underlying profitability because you know you're going to be forced to sell it in 2 or 3 years' time. If you can delay the sale for 2 or 3 years while you max out the profitability, well and good. And ultimately, I don't think it would make a difference going forward because I'm not sure the regulatory asset base would be the regulatory model doing forward. There'll be a bit more competition between Stansted and Heathrow and Gatwick, and that will ultimately drive charges.

All right. Can I just ask by how much Gatwick charges came down under the new ownership and also same for Manchester when it starts to compete with everybody, just get an order of magnitude?

What interesting is that what they've done at Gatwick and Stansted is actually charge the [indiscernible] but it's been a much more like almost the way the airlines do it. Pricing at Gatwick has come down materially in the afternoon and off-peak periods. So they're out there actively trying to stimulate growth and volume at off-peak rates, whereas they jacked up charges at the peak rates. So one of the big problems for easyJet going forward is that they keep getting screwed by Gatwick for all the base aircraft that you have there. Manchester has done pretty much the same thing. One of the things we've complained most, especially about Stansted is that at Stansted, there's no off-peak charging. And there isn't much of a peak at Stansted anymore anyway. But there's no off-peak charging. They won't give any discount, for example, for winter traffic, which we've requested in the last number of years and which is why we just ground the aircraft. And the reality is, there's no incentive for them to do that because Stansted has been very happy in recent years to have fewer passengers but a higher yield per passenger and higher commercial yield per passenger because they know they're going to be forced to sell it. It makes more sense to do it that way. But I hope we have a change under a new owner. Next question, whoever's got the microphone.

Penny Butcher from Morgan Stanley. Two questions, the first probably for Howard. Just to understand in terms of the cost evolution over the next couple of years, say, pre-aircraft order. I mean, you're talking about currency being a factor mostly in the 2% increase. Would it be fair to assume that we're talking flattish underlying in the midterm? Or do you have other reasons to expect inflation to be in that sort of 2% range x currency?

It's very difficult to give much guidance beyond the end this year, Penny. But I think as we set out earlier on this year, we don't really see any real significant drivers increase in the cost base. And so unless, we get the crazy stuff like we had in Italy where we've got a quadrupling of charges retrospectively, and that's the kind of stuff that can upset [ph] the cost base. But over the medium term, we don't see really any great drivers of cost increase.

Okay. And second question is, you referred earlier on to potential changes in the major carriers and Western Europe still being the source of growth. I mean, what markets are you talking about there? You mentioned, obviously, the U.K.-based opportunity. But say, for example, Iberia announces a fairly significant restructuring. Is that enough to get to you back to that market right now or do you still think the charging mechanism is impediment to adding capacity back to Spain?

No, I think we're continuing to grow in Spain although like it's selective, we're declining in Alicante where screwing us around in air bridges but growing elsewhere. I mean I think it's hard to identify which market and which comes first, which is second, which is third. Because you look at that, there would be significant structuring of Iberia short-haul in the Spanish market. There'll be a very significant restructuring of those in the Scandinavian market. Iberia or Alitalia is absolutely set for a very significant short-haul restructuring. And Air Berlin has no choice but to do a very significant short-haul restructuring. So Luft will be a very significant restructuring in the Polish market, but it's pretty small anyway. So there'll be lots of different opportunities that you can identify and be point to. In the U.K., to be fair, BAA has largely restructured the short-haul either down to the kind of minimum short-haul fee. But the charge for airlines here, Thomas co car [ph] told that very again reducing the fleet sizes, that market is going to, I think, disappear. I'm not sure yet that the likes of that the second tier types the Jet2s and these people whether they're really long this world, particularly as we and easyJet expand to places like Manchester, Liverpool in this business would have been wholesale. So those kinds of opportunities, it's very easy to see how we get from 80 million to 120 million passengers over the next 5 or 10 years as those opportunities unfold. What we would ask if that they don't unfold kind of chaotically. What we want to see is a gradual kind of reduction and managed reduction of Iberia short-haul capacity and Atalia's loss making short-haul capacity SAS-es. What we really don't want to see is the kind of structural catastrophe like a Malév closing or a Spanair closing because it's much harder for us to take up those opportunities immediately, whereas somebody gradually, some big behemoth, gradually dying under the weight of its own excess kind of bloated weight is a much better way for us to expand.

And well just to follow up quickly to that, what about -- I mean, I gather you were asked the questions this morning in the press conference about Moscow and et cetera, et cetera, et cetera. What about other markets? Is North Africa worth looking at again or is that a similar issue?

We continue to talk. We're looking in North Africa. We've had some discussions with the Russians. We're looking at Israel. But in the context of where's the next 50% of growth going to come from, they'll be small. There are opportunities there. And we can't do London, Moscow at the moment because the registration is now ashamed, does not allow us to do it. We're talking to some airports in the former Russian states, Georgia, Ukraine, again. But dialogues and those negotiations going on with those airports, but they'll be relatively small compared to, I think, the opportunities in Western Europe, Central Europe and Poland, which are very large area of growth for us this year with the new bases in Poland and the new bases in Budapest. Those opportunities continue. Whereas in the kind of the rush to look at Israel and Moscow, people take their eyes off the opportunities that there are in Liverpool and Manchester in the East Midlands because they're not kind of fashionable. There's going to be lot of growth for us in those big, strong cash mint [ph] in the next 12 months largely because easyJet are kind of removing capacity out of those markets.

Damian Brewer, RBC. A couple of questions. You've mentioned Stansted but in a more broader context as European air traffic movements continue to sink, is there more to do with other airports in Europe in terms of revisiting what you pay them and revisiting those that you've maybe not gone to before that could go to again in future with a better economic case? And then secondly, inspired by a few carriers, but it doesn't seem to have taken off yet in Europe, people seem to fight for overhead baggage space. Is it something you'd ever consider paying for getting them to pay partly for?

Okay. On the new airports, I think most importantly, we have about 3 teams of airports, new airport, new route development people who are in almost continuous dialogue with airports both existing and new airports, airports that we have previously flown to before, now we're still talking to. Alicante, for example, we have an operation at the moment to grow them by 600,000 passenger next year despite that the airport has lost 1 million passengers this year all on the back of this ridiculous imposition of mandatory airport use and airport -- and airbridge fees. So those -- that dialogue continues all the time. We have, at any given time, a mix of probably 20, of course, the offers on the table from new airports that we don't fly to, from airports that we flew to but have a row with Stansted or an airport that we're presently flying to who want more growth. And we're all the time balancing those deals to see which gives us the best new deals. So, yes, there's lots of opportunities and continued growth opportunities in European airport. I think the opportunities are getting better. We're certainly being approached by more airports in Spain and Scandinavia and Italy, where I think airports that wouldn't have talked to us previously are now genuinely terrified that they're going to lose 20%, 30% of their short-haul side carrier business and unfortunately, may not like this course talking to us but recognize that we're the only show in town. In terms of the charge with the carry-on bags, I think it's an interesting concept. We're looking closely at what Spirit are at, at the moment. I wouldn't say never. I think it may be something we may do at some point in time in the future. But for…

Just going back maybe what Penny said earlier on, if you are to look at our cost base, I would say probably the biggest opportunity in the airports and handling cost because we group those 2 together. I think there are still very significant opportunities out there to use our size of scale. And as our growth rate slows down to look at moving that capacity around to what gives us the best offer.

Who's got the next question? Neil Glynn - Crédit Suisse AG, Research Division: Neil Glynn from Crédit Suisse. If I could start with the question, you've highlighted potential financing challenges for Norwegian but arguably, their recent base charges provide an interesting snapshot onto the future developments since obviously a good amount of overlap with you in Spain and also in London. Just interested in your approach, do you fend that off -- fend that minor threat off head on or do you take a more wait-and-see approach?

For Norwegian. If they had to be threatened by an airline that has an average fare of over EUR 100 -- to be fair, I think Norwegian has a nice model. It's very much a niche player at the moment. And it depends. I think Norwegian's success is a by-product of SAS' failure. I think the real threat for Norwegian, though, is as SAS significantly restructures, the dangers that will kind of arrive up in Scandinavia in which case, the Norwegian model is in deep s***. And they would be a viable competitor in the Scandinavian marketplace for the moment. But on the couple of times that we've come up against the Norwegian of Dublin, of Stansted, they have retreated quite sensibly. And [indiscernible] they were there, main bases in all of the Riga. But when we went to all of Riga, but I think within 6 months of us showing up at Riga, they'd gone back to offload [indiscernible], which is -- I think to be fair, they've enough sense to follow the easyJet strategy, which is to stay out of Ryanair's way, and where Ryanair is short, get out of the way. But they have really significant challenges. I think there would be an enormous challenge for Norwegian to fund and find a home for 200 short-haul aircraft, but good luck to them. Neil Glynn - Crédit Suisse AG, Research Division: Just a second question on you mentioned that the first quarter some softness in Eastern Europe and also in Spain, can you give us an update as to whether things are improving? Is that improving with along with the rest of your network?

I think what we said in first quarter has largely continued through into the second, and we think the third quarter; yields in Central Europe, particularly out of the new bases in Warsaw and Budapest are very low. We are engaged in pretty imaginative competition with Wizz Air at those marketplaces. Wizz Air tends to have a kind of a -- they're kind of flip-flop around a bit. They have a weak credit. They decide they want to compete with us on price in which case, they go down to like PLN 4. We get out to PLN 1. After a week, they've gone back up to PLN 300. So we may go back up to PLN 10. And so I'm not sure what their policy is. But I mean, we have a very simple philosophy. We have 80% load cycle at those bases that performing very well but at very low prices. I think that will serve us growth over time when Wizz realizes they have no future in competing with us head-to-head but if they want to, the want to. Spain is a slightly different issue. In Spain, the business is growing strongly. The fares aren't bad, but you have this government-sponsored thievery going on where there are AENAs. They pass the load that doubles AENA's charges overnight, which will have a very damaging effect on traffic volumes at the Spanish airports. I think you're seeing one of the reasons why easyJet has closed in Mediterranean base. And why Iberia is going to have very significant cutback in their short-haul operations is this kind of doubling of airport charges. And you can't -- I think the Spanish government camps [ph] can be fatten up by AENA for some sort of spectacular asset sale while at the same time completely trashed both their tourism industry and use their employment numbers over there. Who's next?

Peter Hyde from the Liberum. Just 2 questions. One is that I noticed ancillary revenue keeps kind of outperforming passenger fares. Do you think that's going to be a trend that continues? Do you still think the 20% target is there or is it too low? Or what are your thoughts on that? And then coming back to Spain, I mean, I know we don't really know, but I mean, if Iberia was to restructure quite materially, when you talk about offers on the table, do you think there might be some quite significant offers or do you see those significant offers on the table now on the basis that, I mean, you've just said Spain has got significant unemployment, I mean, needs to get its economy moving somewhat? And would you consider materially increasing your capacity in Spain if Iberia was the materially reduce its capacity?

Okay. I think ancillary -- I think still our general guidance is at a 20%. So it gets -- historically, we're getting very good at kind of exploiting ancillaries and increasing the takeup and differentiating the problem between seatings like priority boarding and reserved seating. And we've been genuinely surprised by how well reserved seating has taken up without cannibalizing priority boarding. But ultimately, the revenue, the average fare performance in recent years has been sluggish which is partially to separate slightly [ph] distorted. I do think over the medium term, average fares will rise a bit more, not because we have been putting prices up. I think just because competition will be putting short-hauls up so significantly. I still think we're likely for next year to stay slightly ahead of 20% on ancillary revenues. But I think on longer term, 20% ancillary revenues, 80% scheduled revenues is where it will fall. In terms of Spain, I think Spain is a very interesting marketplace. Like most airline restructurings, I think Iberia will do not one big bang. It will be 3 or 4 different goes at it before they eventually get it right. I think really having gone through the process there Aer Lingus and more recently with BAA will be pushing I think for more revolutionary approach, but it's a very politicized market down there as we found to our -- as we found out this somewhat particularly in the area of safety. And I think there are certain markets in Spain where the local politics lends itself to them doing more revolutionary-type deals, particularly our experiences been in the islands, the Balearics, the Canaries, where to be fair to them, the airport and the local politicians seem to have a lot more independence from the dead hand of…

Without getting on about it, but you're kind of having a vision of more over period of time than the sort of big bang, let's say, in 6 months' time or 3 months' time or even a year's time.

It's more 3 to 5 years than big bang 6 months' time. That's not to say there won't be a big bang in 6 month's time, but for a big bang in 6 months' time, you need Iberia to implode. That's not going to happen. I think Iberia will restructure significantly but not on a revolutionary scale.

Geof Collyer from Deutsche. I have 2 quick questions. Can you split out the EUR 97 million increase in ancillary revenue since the reserve in priority boarding and the other internet sales. And then secondly, given that you've given document you've provided remedies is for every single reet [ph] with Aer Lingus, are you able to say what proportion of Aer Lingus you would expect to keep before your remedies were accepted?

The answer to your first question is we wouldn't be able to break out of the analysis of ancillary down there kind of quarterly or a half-year basis. We do it on an annualized basis. But it's not all, the growth of the EUR 97 million hasn't all just been reserved seating and priority boarding. There are other things in there like credit card, income, at [indiscernible]. We've also been bedrest [ph] targeting with the dividend [ph] -- increase in-flight sales. So it's generally well spread across most of the sectors, in car hires.

Hotels. The penetration rate has improved...

The best thing on the plan is we're getting at the penetration and increasing penetration across most of the segment. There've been no significant decline in any particular segment, and they've all contributed to growth in ancillary revenues. On the second part of the question, which I have forgotten again. Yes, the ambience of the remedies. If the [indiscernible] were taken up we would be handing over about 25% Aer Lingus 9.3 million passengers would be handing over 2.5 million out of 3 million of Aer Lingus' existing traffic. We'll be switching those aircraft away from some of those aircraft away from the Irish airports to all the European airports. There would be no job losses. There would be actually job growth because Aer Lingus aircraft would still fly except somewhere else, and then the other airlines will come into Dublin and create new jobs. So this kind of myth that it will result in a big decline in jobs is untrue. We are not closing any part of Aer Lingus' operation, but we'll be switching aircraft elsewhere. But it will account I think in total from between something [ph] 2.5 million and 3 million of Aer Lingus' existing passenger base. And we would still have that factored into our overall objective of growing Aer Lingus' traffic from 9.5 million to 50 million passengers within the 5-year period would still -- would take account of those -- of that switch. So net-net for Ireland, there will be further traffic growth from Aer Lingus, but also from the up front buyers. Next question? Okay, folks, there are no more...

Are we going to take any...

Are we going to take any questions from overseas? No. Okay. Thanks, everybody. As I said, we are on a week-long roadshow, which is partly I have to apologize we're doing the conference call here so early. I'm on the way to the West Coast. Howard is going to the East Coast of the States. Anybody have the follow-up questions, we'll be here for a few minutes or route it back to the Investor Relations. We'd have to get back to you later on in the week or early next week. Thanks very much, everybody.

Thank you.