Re: Ooh Tiger, you did it again and are grounded - fly below LSALT (lowest safe altit
I wonder if Tiger or SIA executives reads this thread?!
Well Dk4 And Edison, I am sure their Lawyers will advise and include all possibilities.
The court case extension does not get casablanca off the hook, especially if 'imminent' was used a lot.
We already know the LSALT issue came from a provider of incorrect Nav data - so that will not be happening again. Did QF and VA know this - and if so, why would you tip off a competitor?
Yes, the cases are different but when I caught the words similar 'not their intent to destroy Tiger' I think blind Freddy knows better/ sees recklessness and 2/3 of negligence - that the regulators owe a duty of care to Tiger is a contestable point. Also look to our Free Trade Agreement with both Singapore and USA
to see nothing inconsistent in there.
Of course Tiger bends to the regulator(s) when there is a firm hand on their privates. You will hear a few weak 'nos and donts, and once out from clammy clutches, the allegation of pack rape comes later.
http://www.fedcourt.gov.au/litigants/class_actions/Defence_1.pdf
and
Pan Debacle. Although settled with no admission of guilt,
a long running case, where as people leave the employ of the defendant over the years, the strength of rebuttal sinks over time, while the damages compound over time.
My prediction is
1) Court case to seize documents and emails, and look out if they find 'this may break them' concerns
2) Tiger restarts flying - and in < 1year one brand name change to crystallize 'destruction of brand' claim.
3) Weak attempt to sell caboodle to Virgin - and rejected.
4) With TD at helm, sub license Holdings to Ryan Air or similar
5) Another name change back to Tiger, after some sort of private settlement with no admissions
6) SIA finally and magically gets SYD-LAX rights and some other wanted routes - a coincidence.
7) CasaBlanca, with a fixed budget and an efficiency dividend to deliver - discover like ACCC, ligation costs, so there will be a wave of redundancies to pay AG's for expensive legal opinions.
Strategically this is one scenario. There is one election and a probable change. Tiger will have the deep pockets for a protracted, technical legal battle and appeals. Compensation is usually tax free, and with a loss to carry over, the end carrier will never have to worry about paying tax for donkeys (should they be in a position to make anything).