Branson says Virgin may pull out of NZ routes

[arraitch]

Virgin Airlines founder Sir Richard Branson says it is possible Virgin Blue could pull out of the trans-Tasman route.

Last week the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission (ACCC) issued a draft ruling that an alliance between Virgin Blue and Air New Zealand could reduce competition on the trans-Tasman route.

Branson says Virgin may pull out of NZ routes - ABC News (Australian Broadcasting Corporation)

Public lobbying of the ACCC under the guise of an interview, or merely pointing out the bleeding obvious?

 

[samh004]

Well played. I think it’d serve the ACCC right and the consumers if they pulled out. See the prices slowly rise and then lets have a talk with whats-his-name in the Chairmans Lounge

 

[pauly7]

Another Branson tanty... Boo hoo.

If Pac Bro/DJ quit then someone else will jump in....Tiger....

 

[samh004]

Another Branson tanty... Boo hoo.

If Pac Bro/DJ quit then someone else will jump in....Tiger....

But if they quite, then re-applied for the alliance a year later and restarted services… they’d have sufficiently little market share to be given the green light?

 

[gilby08]

Anyone else getting sick of Branson and his rubbish?

Surely this is all talk anyway, can't see it happening, even if the ACCC keeps their decision (which i believe is a good choice)

 

[markis10]

Anyone else getting sick of Branson and his rubbish?

Surely this is all talk anyway, can't see it happening, even if the ACCC keeps their decision (which i believe is a good choice)

I expect it will happen, DJ needs those aircraft and crew where they can make money from them!

 

[notzac]

Some truly impressive spin there .. then again, SRB is playing to his favourite audience

Would be fun to see what happens if they make good on their threat to withdraw from the Trans Tasman market, though I have my doubts it will actually get to that point.

 

[Mal]

Another Branson tanty... Boo hoo.

Yeah he does chuck a tanty a little too often. Very repetitive. Similar tantys have been rolled out when other anti-competitive bodies are involved. I don't doubt DJ would pull out of the routes based on loads and revenue if it was warranted, but I'm not sure how much say he has in it.

 

[dajop]

If John Borghetti came out and made the same statement would people be as critical of him? Probably not, as CEO it would be a logical statement to make, if they are not making money on the routes and can't find a way of making money on the route then it is entirely reasonable to threaten to pull out. Now is there a role for SRB to play in this, maybe, maybe not, but stunt our no stunt it's not an unreasonable statement to make (as arraitch suggested really just pointing out the bleeding obvious).

And SRB is not the only culprit, happens all the time in the business world, its a part of lobbying - private and public, look at Telstra, look at the mining companies, car companies and so on. If you don't like these sort of "stunts" as they are called, ship out and move to North Korea. Or just don't take any notice.

 

[kamchatsky]

Well played. I actually hoped that ACCC reverse their decision.

 

[SeaWolf]

I think it's fairly obvious that DJ wants this deal with NZ so they can make more profits on those routes. If they can't get the deal and the routes either aren't profitable or the resources would be more profitable elsewhere then they'd be crazy not to pull the plug on those routes. He's just giving the media a nice little sound-bite/quote to an issue that really is bleeding obvious. I'd speculate that the whole point of saying it was just to give voice to the idea so that the press would print it. Love him or loathe him he's not stupid.

As for the Chairman's Lounge fiasco, I really don't think that it would have caused bias, he strikes me as too careful and considered for that sort of thing to have any effect. But the perception of bias here is huge. It seriously undermines confidence in the ACCC as an impartial institution if people making these sort of decisions are accepting very nice perks from competitor companies. It's a fairly obvious conflict of interests. That said, he doesn't have to give up the perk, he could also simply sit out any aviation related decisions instead and leave them to others equally as qualified within the ACCC who do not have such a conflict.

 

[JeniSkunk]

The problems with bias and conflict of interest for the current boss of the ACCC were concerns about him made public when he was appointed. At the time there were concerns he had too tight a tie to big business.
What we seen now is that the basis for these concerns was well grounded.
What the nation needs is an ACCC with the laws to back it so it can properly do its job, and for it to be free of bias and conflict of interest.

Jenifur Charne

 

[samh004]

… and for it to be free of bias and conflict of interest.

Eventually it wouldn’t be, if the organisation is powerful enough to accept or deny things, eventually someone is going to be given something.

The only way it’d work, and it wouldn’t work, is if they had a high turnover of staff, who after making decisions where they didn’t have bias, resigned and then received gifts of bias they didn’t have

 

[notzac]

What the nation needs is an ACCC with the laws to back it so it can properly do its job, and for it to be free of bias and conflict of interest.

Graeme Samuel has proven himself to be very even handed in the past; I don't genuinely believe that his holding a CL card has prompted or affected the preliminary ruling that the ACCC have issued here. That said, the appearance of bias is stunning.