No Honour at Qantas
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: With Ratty and Mole
Posts: 421
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
No Honour at Qantas
Air NZ accuses Qantas of defamatory conduct
This included a 50 per cent discount for the Australian carrier's co-operation.
"The penalty hearing is set for April 11, 2011, at which time Qantas will plead guilty to participating in the cartel with other international airlines, including Air New Zealand," the Qantas announcement said.
An incensed Air NZ accused the commerce commission and Qantas of making "defamatory and misleading" statements.
It accused the commission of inferring that all airlines in all jurisdictions were guilty and awaiting trial but said none of them had resulted in a finding of illegal conduct by Air New Zealand.
Start of sidebar.
It was also surprised at the Qantas claim that its "own illegal conduct" had included communication with Air NZ.
"Qantas has acknowledged in a number of offshore jurisdictions that it participated in widespread criminal behaviour, whereas neither Air New Zealand nor any Air New Zealand employees have been found guilty of such behaviour," it said.
"Qantas has previously attempted to deflect attention from its own illegal conduct by making similar claims of Air New Zealand involvement to another investigator but this was given no weight. Qantas appears to be pursuing a strategy of trying to implicate other airlines in cartel investigations in the hope of securing more lenient treatment of its own conduct."
The New Zealand fine is the latest in a string of penalties that have resolved liability by Qantas in the US, Australia, Canada, South Korea and Europe.
The Kiwi commission also reached settlements with Qantas partner British Airways and Cargolux but did not release details. It is expected to proceed with action against nine other airlines, including Air New Zealand, but has dropped a case against United Airlines.
-
- Air New Zealand has come out swinging after Qantas said it was helping the New Zealand Commerce Commission prosecute it for alleged freight price-fixing.
This included a 50 per cent discount for the Australian carrier's co-operation.
"The penalty hearing is set for April 11, 2011, at which time Qantas will plead guilty to participating in the cartel with other international airlines, including Air New Zealand," the Qantas announcement said.
An incensed Air NZ accused the commerce commission and Qantas of making "defamatory and misleading" statements.
It accused the commission of inferring that all airlines in all jurisdictions were guilty and awaiting trial but said none of them had resulted in a finding of illegal conduct by Air New Zealand.
Start of sidebar.
It was also surprised at the Qantas claim that its "own illegal conduct" had included communication with Air NZ.
"Qantas has acknowledged in a number of offshore jurisdictions that it participated in widespread criminal behaviour, whereas neither Air New Zealand nor any Air New Zealand employees have been found guilty of such behaviour," it said.
"Qantas has previously attempted to deflect attention from its own illegal conduct by making similar claims of Air New Zealand involvement to another investigator but this was given no weight. Qantas appears to be pursuing a strategy of trying to implicate other airlines in cartel investigations in the hope of securing more lenient treatment of its own conduct."
The New Zealand fine is the latest in a string of penalties that have resolved liability by Qantas in the US, Australia, Canada, South Korea and Europe.
The Kiwi commission also reached settlements with Qantas partner British Airways and Cargolux but did not release details. It is expected to proceed with action against nine other airlines, including Air New Zealand, but has dropped a case against United Airlines.
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: AU
Age: 55
Posts: 15
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Can't see what this has to do with Qantas' honour, not at all.
For an inference such as they allege this to be defamatory, it needs to be a lot clearer and specific than that...
For an inference such as they allege this to be defamatory, it needs to be a lot clearer and specific than that...
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: australia
Posts: 216
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
As history would dictate, which manager took the fall for this one to avoid any impact on Executive ranks?
When will the Executive be held accountable for these acts which have occurred in a number of jurisdictions?
Then again, another fight doesn't really matter when there are so many individual fronts.
Surprised they turned up to do the deal or managed to avoid weddings, funerals or whatever to fit it into their busy schedules.
If it weren't for the employees, I sort of wish this lot would bugger off to Singapore, Afghanistan or wherever they want to go and leave us to support a decent company. The employees deserve better.
When will the Executive be held accountable for these acts which have occurred in a number of jurisdictions?
Then again, another fight doesn't really matter when there are so many individual fronts.
Surprised they turned up to do the deal or managed to avoid weddings, funerals or whatever to fit it into their busy schedules.
If it weren't for the employees, I sort of wish this lot would bugger off to Singapore, Afghanistan or wherever they want to go and leave us to support a decent company. The employees deserve better.
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Australia
Age: 62
Posts: 252
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Sounds like there is an awful lot of No "your honor" continuing frOm Qantas. What a digusting bunch of scum are running this icon. Sad we can't take their citizen ship off them and send them off to Libya.
I just read the blurbs, the only member of the board that actually appears to have done any work is the General. The rest just looks like they have flitted from board to board. I think if you rock the boat at one place, you won't stay on a lot of Boards very long.
Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: Perth
Posts: 8
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Government authorities have always been open to a plea bargain in return for a reduced 'penalty'.
At the end of the day if they don't have to go to the expense of chasing an organisation through the courts they will gladly offer or accept a plea bargain.The added benefit is that the 'deal' may include spilling the beans on their partners.
There is "no honour among thieves" as someone in the US will attest to after he was used as a sacrificial lamb.
At the end of the day if they don't have to go to the expense of chasing an organisation through the courts they will gladly offer or accept a plea bargain.The added benefit is that the 'deal' may include spilling the beans on their partners.
There is "no honour among thieves" as someone in the US will attest to after he was used as a sacrificial lamb.
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: rangaville
Posts: 2,280
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
So Qantas under Dixon engages in criminal conduct and the board or Dixon isn't held to account? Did they say they had no knowledge of this? My understanding in most legal matters is that ignorance is no defence?
It was argued by QF that one man was organising the cartel and those above him had no idea about what was going on. I think the judge in the US thought otherwise however they could not go after the other people of interest as they were not US citizens. Hopefully someone somewhere will grown a spine and a conscious and spill the beans as to what was really going on.