BA vs Virgin Atlantic - BA Pays Big-Time
Aug 2nd, 2007, 07:05 AM
#1
Original Poster
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 78,320
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
BA vs Virgin Atlantic - BA Pays Big-Time
The long feud between Goliath British Air and relatively upstart Virgin Atlantic has been going on for years. Either over landing slots or unfair competition and business practices, etc.
Court just ruled that BA has to pay millions to Virgin for price collusion.
A weird thing though was that apparently BA and Virgin colluded themselves to set trans-Atlantic prices artificially high - limiting the normal competitive pricing. But apparently Virgin then turned in BA after doing so.
Don't have particulars but as usually am rooting for likes of Virgin Atlantic in hopes more competition keeps air fares low.
Court just ruled that BA has to pay millions to Virgin for price collusion.
A weird thing though was that apparently BA and Virgin colluded themselves to set trans-Atlantic prices artificially high - limiting the normal competitive pricing. But apparently Virgin then turned in BA after doing so.
Don't have particulars but as usually am rooting for likes of Virgin Atlantic in hopes more competition keeps air fares low.
Aug 2nd, 2007, 07:32 AM
#2
Join Date: Apr 2003
Posts: 17,268
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Why on earth are you rooting for the bearded buffoon?
Both companies committed the same crimes. Virgin squealed first - which was smart, but doesn't alter the fact they were just as criminal. Nor the fact that they're every bit as open as BA to class action suits from passengers who think they can prove they were ripped off.
If this case makes European businesses less tempted to fix prices (or to "accommodation" as the practice was known back in those innocent days country managers of Megacorps could openly discuss their accommodation policies at minuted meetings in front of dozens of colleagues), it's good thing.
But - the point once made - letting one scoundrel off scot free really isn't something that shouod be tolerated much longer.
Both companies committed the same crimes. Virgin squealed first - which was smart, but doesn't alter the fact they were just as criminal. Nor the fact that they're every bit as open as BA to class action suits from passengers who think they can prove they were ripped off.
If this case makes European businesses less tempted to fix prices (or to "accommodation" as the practice was known back in those innocent days country managers of Megacorps could openly discuss their accommodation policies at minuted meetings in front of dozens of colleagues), it's good thing.
But - the point once made - letting one scoundrel off scot free really isn't something that shouod be tolerated much longer.
Aug 2nd, 2007, 07:37 AM
#3
Original Poster
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 78,320
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
that seemed the weird thing - why Branson's bullies got off Scot free (Scots - pardon the term) and BA paid just because Virgin squeeled - i guess it's like plea bargaining.
Why root for Virgin - even though they are big guys there still the little guy vis-a-vis BA.
I've always kind of like Sir Richard even though he's a meg-egomaniac it seems who will do anything for publicity that in turn increases his bottom line.
Gotta like someone who started out with a renegade student magazine on a barge in Little Venice - i think Richard still has that barge!
Why root for Virgin - even though they are big guys there still the little guy vis-a-vis BA.
I've always kind of like Sir Richard even though he's a meg-egomaniac it seems who will do anything for publicity that in turn increases his bottom line.
Gotta like someone who started out with a renegade student magazine on a barge in Little Venice - i think Richard still has that barge!
Aug 2nd, 2007, 07:41 AM
#4
Join Date: Oct 2004
Posts: 4,725
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It had to do with fuel surcharges didn't it?
I was really surprised thqt a US tribunal would let VA off so easily just for being a snitch.
Seems they won threefold -they got BA and got off free and got the profit.
I was really surprised thqt a US tribunal would let VA off so easily just for being a snitch.
Seems they won threefold -they got BA and got off free and got the profit.
Aug 2nd, 2007, 07:54 AM
#5
Join Date: Jun 2006
Posts: 17,549
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Actually, BA was fined $246 million by <b>Britain's</b> Office of Fair Trading in addition to the $300 million fine from the US.
It is apparently due to the Office of Fair Trading's "leniency policy" that VA is "not expected to face a fine because it reported misconduct to authorities..." this last from the 2 August '07 "Washington Post" story on the subject.
Given thei I am not sure I would agree that the US authorities "let VA off" but perhaps I'm just not as sophistocated as some in interpreting events.
It is apparently due to the Office of Fair Trading's "leniency policy" that VA is "not expected to face a fine because it reported misconduct to authorities..." this last from the 2 August '07 "Washington Post" story on the subject.
Given thei I am not sure I would agree that the US authorities "let VA off" but perhaps I'm just not as sophistocated as some in interpreting events.
Aug 2nd, 2007, 08:14 AM
#6
Join Date: Oct 2004
Posts: 4,725
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
You are right Dukey - our "fair news outlet" was spinning a United States Justice Department investigation thing.
Point I was trying to make is VA has got to be sitting there laughing away, not believing their luck.
Hard to believe VA said "We did a bad thing and want to fess up."
Point I was trying to make is VA has got to be sitting there laughing away, not believing their luck.
Hard to believe VA said "We did a bad thing and want to fess up."
Aug 2nd, 2007, 08:18 AM
#7
Join Date: Jan 2003
Posts: 74,699
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
>Hard to believe VA said "We did a bad thing and want to fess up."<
Not at all.
"We will confess to collusion with BA if you give us immunity. If you won't, we won't confess and you won't get BA".
It's usually called "ratting".
Not at all.
"We will confess to collusion with BA if you give us immunity. If you won't, we won't confess and you won't get BA".
It's usually called "ratting".
Aug 2nd, 2007, 08:22 AM
#8
And-how to weaken your competition. it's disgusting that BA takes the fall for this. It's not as if Virgin turned them in right after the collusion agreement was made. Virgin profitted from it for years before "doing the right thing". Makes me sick.
