Richard Branson slams regulators for allowing too many alliances

[markis10]

VIRGIN Australia founder Richard Branson has declared his remaining 12.5 per cent stake in the Australian carrier is not for sale as he attacked regulators for allowing giant airlines alliances which would push up prices.
The British entrepreneur told reporters in Dubai that good governments should not have allowed big airlines to join forces.
“Good governments would never have allowed this to happen and now, you have less than a handful of big carriers around the world and prices will go up as a result,” Gulf News reported Branson as saying.
However, the airline chief claimed it was a different case for Virgin — which is in partnerships with Singapore Airlines, Delta Air Lines, Etihad and Air New Zealand — because it needed the alliances to compete against Qantas.

Cookies must be enabled. | The Australian

 

[TomVexille]

While I'd like to agree with him, and I'd like airfares to be cheaper, they are close to to being as cheap as ever.

 

[samh004]

So he's saying it's bad, while at the same time saying it's good because he doesn't like Qantas?

I'd almost have thought he might be interested in investing in Qantas now that they're not so closely aligned with his nemesis, BA

 

[JohnK]

Airfares are cheaper some of the time not because of alliances but more to do with LCCs.

Personally I don't think domestic airfares are that cheap outside of sale periods.

 

[amaroo]

Do as I say, not as I Do

 

[SeatBackForward]

So Branson will be knocking back any Star Alliance offers I take it?

 

[markis10]

So Branson will be knocking back any Star Alliance offers I take it?

With respect to whom - VS or VA?

 

[BAM1748]

Nothing at all stopping him from offering cheap fares regardless of what others do.

Matt

 

[SeatBackForward]

With respect to whom - VS or VA?

Well in this case, its about VA, as he is a substantial shareholder in them - he should stand by his principles and recommend that VA knock back any offer, if it is made.

 

[markis10]

Well in this case, its about VA, as he is a substantial shareholder in them - he should stand by his principles and recommend that VA knock back any offer, if it is made.

I am not sure 10% is substantial anymore (in the context of SQ and NZ having 47%), he has more of VS and of course we know if it was going to join it would have done as promised in the few months after Oct 12 when he said it was about to, now with Delta taking SQs share I doubt Star is on the roadmap.

 

[ric_melb]

If you read the actual articles they indeed shows some contradictions between Branson's words and actions.
He says the BA-AA alliance forced Virgin to seek out Delta. Ummm didn't SIA want to sell its Virgin stake?
And that Virgin's alliance with 4 airlines is different to Qantas and Emirates. Umm didn't Virgin start getting allies first?
And Creedy say Branson's VA stake is not for sale but Sandilands says it is. We all know its for sale, at Branson's price!
I guess i shouldn't be surprised.

 

[markis10]

If you read the actual articles they indeed shows some contradictions between Branson's words and actions.
He says the BA-AA alliance forced Virgin to seek out Delta. Ummm didn't SIA want to sell its Virgin stake?
And that Virgin's alliance with 4 airlines is different to Qantas and Emirates. Umm didn't Virgin start getting allies first?
And Creedy say Branson's VA stake is not for sale but Sandilands says it is. We all know its for sale, at Branson's price!
I guess i shouldn't be surprised.

Did RB have veto rights in respect to who SQ could sell to, much like NZ did over the news stake in Ansett?

 

[Fruitcake]

And that Virgin's alliance with 4 airlines is different to Qantas and Emirates. Umm didn't Virgin start getting allies first?

The QF/BA joint services agreement (1995?) predated the VS/SQ deal by several years.

I'm not aware of any substantial revenue sharing or equity investment alliances by VS prior to 1995 (of course QF/EK is only revenue sharing, with no equity involvement).

 

[moa999]

And one might also argue that it was VA's deal with EY and SQ,
and EY's snap-up of equity stakes

that caused EK to approach QF....


and QF was receptive given it had been unable to previously strike deals with SQ, MH and CX.

 

[markis10]

And one might also argue that it was VA's deal with EY and SQ,
and EY's snap-up of equity stakes

that caused EK to approach QF....


and QF was receptive given it had been unable to previously strike deals with SQ, MH and CX.

I though QF approached EK??

 

[markis10]

I though QF approached EK??

I stand corrected:

As recently as April, no such saviour was in sight. Qantas knew it needed a strong alliance partner to help pull its international operations back into the black, but early flirting with Singapore Airlines and Cathay Pacific had come to nought.
Joyce was at a social function in Sydney in April when a businessman approached him to let him know that Clark was curious to learn whether Qantas might be interested in a partnership with Emirates.
The Qantas chief executive yesterday refused to admit he was surprised, but the informal approach was, at the very least, unexpected given that Emirates had always been a go-it-alone airline that shunned close partnerships.
"Of course we were interested," Joyce says. "We knew they were a great airline and we knew the world was changing.

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/bus...-to-save-qantas/story-e6frg95x-1226467714292#

 

[ric_melb]

Hi Fruitcake I guess I was referring more to Virgin's alliances with Air New Zealand, Etihad, Singapore, and Delta. Indeed though QF/BA had an alliance way back, but by more recently things had moved on.

 

[markis10]

Hi Fruitcake I guess I was referring more to Virgin's alliances with Air New Zealand, Etihad, Singapore, and Delta. Indeed though QF/BA had an alliance way back, but by more recently things had moved on.

Your post makes some good points though, while he may not have the traits of QRs boss when it comes to say do, RB has been known to have the odd change of mind!

 

[RooFlyer]

I am not sure 10% is substantial anymore (in the context of SQ and NZ having 47%), he has more of VS and of course we know if it was going to join it would have done as promised in the few months after Oct 12 when he said it was about to, now with Delta taking SQs share I doubt Star is on the roadmap.

Arguably very 'substantial' (I would say 'strategic' rather than substantial) - his 10% is the 'decider' if any internal VA proposal is debated between SQ and NZ

 

[markis10]

Arguably very 'substantial' (I would say 'strategic' rather than substantial) - his 10% is the 'decider' if any internal VA proposal is debated between SQ and NZ

What about the EY holding, even if they step aside, the retail market still has a 20% holding no doubt largely consistent of institutions that are easily swayed.