BA Fined 58.5 Million Pounds in Protracted Price-Fixing Case
Apr 19, 2012, 7:43 am
#16
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: London, or 1A or 64K
Programs: MUCCI :D, BA Lifetime Gold, JJC (1980 the Leo Budd years) Hilton Gold
Posts: 559
In terms of coordinating fare structures, this is fine (and not the issue here) provided it is done within the terms of the law, ie that the parties do not discuss future behaviour. Agreements along there terms would lead to clear consumer benefit as the passengers would be able to fly any airline with that ticket - it is similar to bus tickets, where different bus companies honour a competitor's ticket.
It is ludicrous to suggest that any kind of discussions should ever have been reported by Virgin - someone (namely Beardy) with a gripe obviously thought he could get away with something because someone from the, at the time, incumbent governing party told him he could.....
Apr 19, 2012, 8:11 am
#17
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: Scots girl in London
Programs: BAEC Silver
Posts: 257
Well it is all well and good stating that the wrong doing is to have discussed future behaviour, but the behaviour I describe is in fact within the law, since if it was not, then no-one could buy airfares in advance, you would have to get on the plane and then haggle.
It is ludicrous to suggest that any kind of discussions should ever have been reported by Virgin - someone (namely Beardy) with a gripe obviously thought he could get away with something because someone from the, at the time, incumbent governing party told him he could.....
It is ludicrous to suggest that any kind of discussions should ever have been reported by Virgin - someone (namely Beardy) with a gripe obviously thought he could get away with something because someone from the, at the time, incumbent governing party told him he could.....
Again you seem to misunderstand. There is a world of difference between discussing and agreeing ALL levels of fuel surcharge across ALL flights, routes, fares, class etc and ONE that applies to a very limited number of fares - and that is permissible as a result of a route agreement that will have been cleared by competition authorities prior to implementation.
And you are entirely wrong about someone at Virgin having a gripe - don't be so cynical. I am a competition lawyer who worked for the law firm that uncovered the illegal behaviour, and it was uncovered completely by chance (as we were reviewing something utterly unrelated). Our advice was to blow the whistle - it was in our client's best interests to do so as a result of the leniency policy.
So you tell me what you would do if you were being faced with a fine of 10% of your global turnover? Blow the whistle to get 100% leniency or do nothing and risk your competitor blowing the whistle and them getting 100% leniency? It's really not rocket science.
Apr 19, 2012, 8:47 am
#19
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: London
Programs: BA
Posts: 2,368
This isn't caselaw at all, it's European policy, and the vast majority of jurisdictions have a form of "immunity". Leniency is not guaranteed though and the OFT (and other regulators) can remove it if the companies do not comply with the investigation's procedures etc. Also, it requires an admission of guilt, which means that those affected can bring damages actions.
The decision on immunity has nothing to do with that I know.
Apr 19, 2012, 8:57 am
#20
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: London
Programs: BA
Posts: 2,368
This is a pragmatic principle, reflecting the difficulty of obtaining evidence of anti-competitive collusion. You have a choice: stay high and mighty on principle and allow vast numbers of anti-competitive practices to flourish and be undetected or you can bring some to light and therefore bring them to an end at the cost of letting some perpetrators unpunished.
If what is more important to you is to eradicate as much as possible anti-competitive practices, and this surely has to be the main aim of competition law, then the "cost" of letting some illicit behaviour unpunished has got to be worth it.
If, on the other hand, what matters most to you is moral principle regardless of its consequences on society, if you are willing to accept more breaches of competition law to the detriment of consumers for the sake of moral principle, then it would follow that you are likely to regard such a system as flawed.
If what is more important to you is to eradicate as much as possible anti-competitive practices, and this surely has to be the main aim of competition law, then the "cost" of letting some illicit behaviour unpunished has got to be worth it.
If, on the other hand, what matters most to you is moral principle regardless of its consequences on society, if you are willing to accept more breaches of competition law to the detriment of consumers for the sake of moral principle, then it would follow that you are likely to regard such a system as flawed.
Apr 19, 2012, 9:05 am
#21
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Feb 2000
Location: London, UK and Southern France
Posts: 18,364
Fair point but I guess the logic must be the greater the incentive, the greater likelihood of cooperation.
Apr 19, 2012, 9:09 am
#22
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: Scots girl in London
Programs: BAEC Silver
Posts: 257
The thing is, by blowing the whistle, you agree to give the OFT all the evidence it requires to investigate and make an infringement decision. You help the OFT make the case and you agree to cooperate fully with the investigation against your competitors. By helping the OFT, you give it details of a cartel of which it might otherwise not have become aware and you provide it with substantial evidence and statements that it might not otherwise have obtained.
If you don't cooperate, immunity will be wholly or partially removed, so it incentivises companies to whistleblow and then cooperate.
Apr 19, 2012, 1:45 pm
#24
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: London
Programs: Mucci. Nothing else matters.
Posts: 38,644
If you want to see which executives might, in the past, have been vulnerable in one way or another, that's a matter of public record - some of it repeated in today's news articles.
Apr 20, 2012, 11:00 am
#26
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: LON SIN HKG
Programs: AA, SPG, Hh, Amex MR, Marriott, ICH, VA, CC, LH
Posts: 433
Apr 20, 2012, 12:34 pm
#29
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: London
Programs: Mucci. Nothing else matters.
Posts: 38,644
The answer to all of those is clearly no, because the underlying events (and their dramatic consequences for BA and certain individuals) are all ancient history - as I have been saying.
I, for one, have long ago banked my class action settlement cheque.
Apr 26, 2012, 5:45 am
#30
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: LON SIN HKG
Programs: AA, SPG, Hh, Amex MR, Marriott, ICH, VA, CC, LH
Posts: 433
However, it's therefore unsurprising how many people seem to be wondering whether the specific event now being reported will lead to any future changes in the way BA does business, on people's future perceptions of BA, or on whether any individuals will in the future be prosecuted or otherwise punished for what they have done.
The answer to all of those is clearly no, because the underlying events (and their dramatic consequences for BA and certain individuals) are all ancient history - as I have been saying.
I, for one, have long ago banked my class action settlement cheque.
The answer to all of those is clearly no, because the underlying events (and their dramatic consequences for BA and certain individuals) are all ancient history - as I have been saying.
I, for one, have long ago banked my class action settlement cheque.
This remains a sorry tale of dishonourable conduct in airline history.
I am not sure having a fine halved, albeit a commercial positive, is anything worth celebrating here.