Virgin on Ch 10 news

[benjam]

Headline reported trouble on horizon but I missed the content. had something to do with AirNZ. Any one see it?

[27/09]

Probably this:

WELLINGTON (Dow Jones)--National carrier Air New Zealand Ltd. (AIR.NZ) Wednesday said it intends to oppose applications filed by Delta Air Lines Inc. (DAL) and Australia's Virgin Blue Holdings (VBA.AU) for regulatory approval of a proposed alliance.

Earlier this month, Virgin Blue and Delta announced plans to form a joint venture that will expand each carrier's reach between the U.S. and Australia and across the South Pacific.

According to the companies, the alliance would allow both of them to compete more effectively in those markets as they work together on product planning, codesharing and extending frequent flyer program benefits.

Air New Zealand, however, said the proposed tie-up is anti-competitive.

"These airlines have already both separately entered these markets, trumpeting the lower fares they will bring. Almost immediately however they are complaining about the ability of their competitors to force them out of the market if they are not allowed to collude on prices and capacity," Air New Zealand General Counsel John Blair said in a statement.

Blair also called on the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission to be consistent.

In January, the ACCC said it wouldn't authorize a proposed cooperation agreement between Air New Zealand Ltd. (AIR.NZ) and Air Canada (AC.A.T.), arguing that it would reduce competition.

"The ACCC's analysis in that instance, if consistently applied to the Virgin-Delta proposal, indicates that this new application is unlikely to succeed," said Blair.

"We would certainly hope there will be consistency applied."

By Rebecca Howard, Dow Jones Newswires; 64-4-471-5990; [email protected]



From here ; Article - WSJ.com (http://online.wsj.com/article/BT-CO-20090722-700204.html)

[benjam]

Well done, old chap!
Thanks

[Mr. Hat]

Air NZ, they're like a bad smell they just won't go away.

[Yarra]

Be a bit rich if AC join the anti competitive chorus

[Managers Perspective]

Survival of the fittest -and apparently they were the fittest .......

Having flown many trans Tasman flights on this carrier I would be hesitant to use the term "fittest" in any reference to them.

Most of the cabin crew on board are certainly carrying ballast compared to other carriers.

On a recent flight one bent over to pick up a napkin, I thought for a minute there was going to be a drug bust as there was at least 10 to 12 kilo's of crack evident.

M.P.

[Falling Leaf]

Why all the animosity towards another country's national airline?

Shouldn't the kiwi's be the only ones who should feel aggrieved, with Jet Connect, now J* and of course PB competing on all the domestic routes. How many NZ companies are flogging around Australia's domestic routes competing with VB and the QF group?

If this is still a leftover of the Ansett debacle, I have heard compelling arguments from both sides.

[lowerlobe]

Of course Managers Perspective is the epitome of the male physique and has women swooning over him at all times.....:yuk:

A word of advice MP.....Don't look in a mirror.......

[MrWooby]

I recently had the pleasure of flying Air NZ across the tasman and internal flts, basically it was only a few hundred extra to go confirmed Air NZ rather than risk QF staff travel.

I was extremely impressed with the service. Plenty of leg room in economy class B744, very attentive cabin crew, my partner joked about getting a nice glass of business class pinot noir, the cabin crew member smuggled one down to her (and he wasn't aware wew were staff). Internal flights on Dash 8 were about the same as Qlink. Return flight economy on A320 was also great, especially the IFE, having in seat IFE in economy class puts Qantas aircraft (767/737) to shame, and it actually works well compared to QF rockwell collins system.

[walaper]

Am i missing something in their argument -They oppose a venture between two companies from two different countries on a direct route they do not service.

[Mr. Hat]

Walapaper - exactly.

Both ANZ and Tiger are complaining about it because its possibly a move that will help VB survive in the long run and that disrupts their own plans.

Nothing to do with flying to the US at all.

[The Green Goblin]

How many NZ companies are flogging around Australia's domestic routes competing with VB and the QF group?

They tried that and look what happened, left the whole place one giant ugly mess.

Kind of ironic though isn't it, lodging an appeal against VB, a company they indirectly helped to grow and expand through their own incompetence :cool:

[VBPCGUY]

Tiger are going in to bat for SQ, ANZ well they are just peaved because of their failed tie up with AC last year, whay would the ACCC approve a tie up between two forigen airlines to benefit from Australian shores??? Kidding themselves much???

[goodspeed]

The ACCC has denied many airline tie ups in recent times including Qantas and Air NZ, and recently Air Canada and Air NZ.

From the NZ Herald:
"If the deal is approved, it would be galling for Air New Zealand given the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission's rejection of a similar co-operation agreement it proposed with Air Canada on flights between Auckland and Sydney to Vancouver."

And the entire article is New route 'collusion': Air NZ - Business - NZ Herald News (http://www.nzherald.co.nz/business/news/article.cfm?c_id=3&objectid=10586083)

I'm still trying to digest the ACCC's ability to rule on two airlines from NZ and Canada.:confused:

[walaper]

I think it relates to the "on carriage " that is to say with Air Canada picking up pax in NZ and continuing to oz .

[ebt]

I think it's clear here that they're looking for leverage to cry 'unfair' at the ACCC for holding up the AC codeshare. Really, that decision was a silly one and at the end of the day would probably have made little difference to the marketplace for Australian travellers.

[dirty deeds]

VBPCGUY,

You have hit the nail on the head buddy. It has nothing to do with anti-competitive issues, it all trying to accelerate the demise of the VB group. Tigers only real business plan is to run a loss till VB go bust, and this deal with Delta only delays this business plan, which means that Tiger slips closer to the edge as Singapore slowly starts to crack the S%^Ts with the whole plan and says, enough is enough, good try, but there is no more cash and your on your own, sink or swim. The new show on TV really helps the cause too, not. I know you get what you pay for, but is that an excuse for a bad service? I don't want to see any airline fail, I have friends at Tiger/Jstar/Vb etc etc. I could not care less who wins the ego race, because this is all about greed, I just hope that the pay goes in for everyone when its meant to, and thats that!

Those in the Ivory Towers can play "mine is bigger than yours", all they like. Who cares!

[Howard Hughes]

Singapore will eventually buy Virgin, it's the only logical outcome...:ooh:

[Mr. Hat]

From The Australian



Qantas aloof as Air NZ joins Delta V opponents
Steve Creedy, Aviation writer | July 23, 2009
Article from: The Australian

VIRGIN Blue now faces a two-pronged attack on its plan to join forces with Delta Air Lines across the Pacific but Qantas will not formally oppose the move.

Air New Zealand yesterday joined Tiger Airways in opposing the joint venture, saying any benefits to consumers from a tie-up between the two airlines could be achieved by more conventional means.

The Kiwi carrier also pointed to an Australian Competition & Consumer Commission decision last year that denied Air New Zealand permission to work with Air Canada.

"The ACCC's analysis in that instance, if consistently applied to the Virgin-Delta proposal, indicates that this new application is unlikely to succeed," Air NZ general counsel John Blair said yesterday. "We would certainly hope there will be consistency applied."

But Virgin Blue last night called for each of the cases to be reviewed on their merits.

"We've submitted our applications and we believe the ACCC will review each case on its merits and we don't intend to pre-empt their review," it said.

It is understood Qantas, which has a similar agreement with British Airways on the kangaroo route, does not plan to lodge an objection because it believes the legal grounds for such a move in the US are tenuous. It also believes a broader objection would be hard to sustain given the competition and capacity currently on the route.

The fourth player on non-stop flights between Australia and the US mainland, United Airlines, said this week it was still considering its position.

Air NZ's Mr Bair said Virgin and Delta had separately entered the market trumpeting the lower fares they would bring.

However, almost immediately they complained about the ability of competitors to force them out of the market if they were not allowed to collude on price and capacity.

"While we can understand the benefits to the two airlines, most of the benefits they outline for the consumer can be achieved through more usual arrangements such as code sharing," he said.

Tiger, which is backed by Singapore Airlines, last week objected to what it argued was the anti-competitive nature of the tie-up.

Singapore has a long-standing interest in the route, although it has been less enthusiastic since Delta and V Australia started service.

The joint venture, humorously dubbed Delta-V by one observer, would allow Delta and V Australia to pool revenue, collaborate on route and product planning and place passengers on each other's planes. Virgin has argued it would make the two minor players stronger competitors against the incumbent airlines and help ensure their future on the route

[Howard Hughes]

I say again...
Singapore will eventually buy Virgin,
They have given up lusting after the Pacific routes in the short term, but once the dust settles and the routes become more stable, they will return. It is the only way the will ever get access to the 'Holy Grail'!;)

[Sand dune Sam]

Nice to see the Kiwis doing what they do best...whinging..

[walaper]

I think it is quite fanciful that you should think VB is being " hammered " by Tiger.

[Flying Ninja]

Yep, SQ have enormous issues. Like, maybe where to spend the $1Bill+ profit in a year when all the other 'big ones" did their pants.
They are probably only thinking about how to turn that $1Bill into $2Bill .

[The Green Goblin]

They are probably only thinking about how to turn that $1Bill into $2Bill .

They certainly won't be investing in aviation if thats the case :ok:

[ANstar]

Yep, SQ have enormous issues. Like, maybe where to spend the $1Bill+ profit in a year when all the other 'big ones" did their pants.


BA & QF also made huge profits last year.....

THis year is going to be much tougher for QF/BA and of course SQ's profits... I doubt SQ will make anything near $1B given they have had something like 25% of their traffic drop off

[Flying Ninja]

Boy, looks like the thread just took a sharp left turn into "what's the status of SQ"!
I only made an uneducated suggestion that SQ are probably not interested in Australian based airlines that are in various forms of trouble but, are looking after their own still profitable business.
I don't follow SQ's fortunes and don't have any real facts but, I believe (from friends) that last year (to Dec 08) it was a 1.2 Billion, the year before was 2+ and they are half way through the current year.I think that they are now and always have been in profit.Those enormous problems, I would like to have!
Of course, I would sell up,take the money and get out of aviation!
Back to VB?

[ANstar]

Those enormous problems, I would like to have!



Perhaps not anymore....

http://info.sgx.com/webcoranncatth.nsf/VwAttachments/Att_1C5194255C8F4739482576030033A61E/$file/NewsRelease1QFY0910.pdf?openelement


S$307 MILLION LOSS IN FIRST QUARTER
GROUP FINANCIAL PERFORMANCE

First Quarter 2009-10
The combination of the global economic downturn, the outbreak of
Influenza A (H1N1) and fuel hedging resulted in a loss of $307 million for the first
quarter ended June 2009. This is the first quarterly loss since the SARS crisis in 2003.
Group revenue fell 30% from April – June 2008, down by $1,260
million, as carriage and both passenger and cargo yields declined, the former
reflecting increased competition and promotional fare activities.
Group expenditure at $3,191 million was $598 million (-15.8%) lower
than the same quarter in the preceding financial year. The drop in the price of jet
fuel provided relief of $1,140 million, partially offset by fuel hedging losses of $287
million (compared to hedging gains of $349 million last year).
The Group recorded an operating loss of $319 million for the first
quarter, against an operating profit of $343 million last year.

[VBPCGUY]

People are kidding themselves if every airline around the world isnt doing it tough right now, People point the finger at VB all the time, bloody amazes me, QF have had $900 million wiped off in a 12 month period:eek:

[ozangel]

it's all about proportion VBPC - Qantas loses $900m and still flies. VB loses barely half that and times up! VB is (long term) more of a risk than qf, for both shareholders and employees. Hope for the best, but have an exit strategy (as a number of crew have). September 5th 2001 was just another day at work for most Ansetters.

[On Guard]

Realtive though VB has lost a lot more in market cap than QF. Comparing it in dollars is not really relevant.

[ANstar]

The losses on the ASX for both carriers seem to be following the same chart...


DOWN!


:\
http://hfgapps.hubb.com/asxtools/imageChart.axd?s=vba&pi=Stock&ct=3&tf=M2&ovs=qan&si=Stock&tima1=0&tima2=0&bi=2&bima=0&comt=code&ds=vba&dovs=qan&val=1&stmp=20090731201928181

[hoss]

ozangel, the 5th of september may have been 'just another day' but the 14th of september was 'very ordinary'.

;)