ACCC blocks Virgin Blue, Air New Zealand alliance

[lovestotravel]

Lol +1

I for one might buy some DJ shares... They can hardly get more bad news only way is up

Oh yes it can, much much worse in fact!

The DOT has notified VA that they only "tentatively" wish to deny the application, they now have 14 days to "please explain" why they shouldn't deny it!

The ACCC have pretty much said the same thing, but not sure of the time-frame for the ACCC to say a complete NO.

So it could get alot worse for VA at this stage!

At this stages it's all a "tentative" No, with "please provide more details" before we probably say No again!

 

[dajop]

Of course they do - but I would guess that creating a super player with 55% share is probably a stretch.... Now if DJ and Emirates had proposed a hookup - I think that would have been waved through with smiles....

Yet it's OK to have a player in the domestic market with what 65% (?? not sure) market share that has said they will rule a line in the sand to defend?

I guess the main concern is that it's all very good and well to prevent this sort of alliance in the interest of competition and the consumer, but we all know the airline industry is hardly the most profitable industry in the world, and in the long term players like DJ can get driven out the market (ie they go bust) and where does that leave the competitive environment?

 

[ANstar]

From Crikey...


"
Samuel is believed to remain an invited guest of the Qantas Chairman’s Lounge club rooms. He was asked this morning if it was appropriate that he continue to enjoy the benefits of that exclusive club and its hospitality at a time when he is making decisions that affect Qantas and its main Australian competitor.
The question has been ignored, twice. Samuel is a man of integrity, and can be expected to resign from the Chairman’s Lounge."


I wonder if he has indeed given this "perk" up. HArdly Ethical.

 

[samh004]

From Crikey…

"Samuel is believed to remain an invited guest of the Qantas Chairman’s Lounge club rooms. He was asked this morning if it was appropriate that he continue to enjoy the benefits of that exclusive club and its hospitality at a time when he is making decisions that affect Qantas and its main Australian competitor.
The question has been ignored, twice. Samuel is a man of integrity, and can be expected to resign from the Chairman’s Lounge."


I wonder if he has indeed given this "perk" up. HArdly Ethical.

That is completely wrong. If he’s impartial, he really should be impartial, and not be receiving benefits of a competitor. If he wants to keep his "benefits" he shouldn’t be able to make the decision. Judges remove themselves when they can’t be impartial, same should apply.

I wont if this sort of thing could be brought up in court?

 

[odysseus]

I'd still expect an impartial decision in spite of the benefits. It's not as though the benefit was given or is likely to be withdrawn for any reason related to the decision.

 

[samh004]

I'd still expect an impartial decision in spite of the benefits. It's not as though the benefit was given or is likely to be withdrawn for any reason related to the decision.

If that was the case I’d expect him to answer truthfully on questions brought to him about it. Silence isn’t truthful.

Regardless, I also don’t think it influenced his decision, but he shouldn’t have allowed himself to make the decision in spite of his connections.