Australia, New Zealand & the Pacific Airline and RPT Rumours & News in Australia, enZed and the Pacific

Tiger decision day- April 24.

Old 17th Apr 2013, 09:45
  #1 (permalink)  
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: Asia
Posts: 853
Tiger decision day- April 24.

Finally some closure for alot of people out there.

Lets hope Mr Koay Peng Yen does now shut it down if its knocked back. But unfortunately it will be the case as they have no chance of building scale in the current climate without a major partner. They seem to be more interested in Thailand and Indonesia.

Good luck to all there.

ACCC resets the clock on Virgin-Tiger deal


Australia’s competition authority the ACCC has restarted the countdown on the Virgin Australia-Tiger Australia deal, setting 24 April as decision day.
It is also dealing with calls by Emirates and Qantas for what could be summarised as fairness and consistency in relation to approvals for multi airline marketing deals on the Australia-New Zealand market.
Each application carries profound implications for the state of airline competition in Australia and the role of the ACCC in situations where airlines willingly set out to flood the market with excess capacity and wage unsustainable fare wars.
At its most basic the Tiger issue is about whether or not Virgin Australia is permitted to have a second low cost brand in the market similar to Qantas having the low cost Jetstar brand which it devised in 2002-2003 and put into operation in 2004 to counter the expansion of what was then branded as Virgin Blue.
In reality the issue is more complex, and has been called into doubt by the ACCC over competitive questions which have caused it to call for additional submissions from Virgin Australia, which it received on 11 April.
Virgin Australia is seeking to buy a 60% stake in Tiger Australia’s business and run it as an entirely separate brand with no marketing linkage to its full service product, which differs from the Qantas-Jetstar arrangement in one material element in that the latter is co-marketed with the Qantas product offering.
Tiger Australia’s Singaporean owner, Tiger Airways Holdings, has made it clear that the losses experienced by its Australian franchise are unsustainable.
It may close Tiger Australia if Virgin Australia is unable to finalise the purchase through lack of regulatory approval, and the ACCC has acknowledged that this possibility is of considerable importance to its deliberations, causing it to pause the previous target date of 18 March for a decision on the Virgin Australia application.
The core issue in the trans Tasman applications and submissions being heard by the ACCC is whether or not it should compel airlines to continue to offer excessive capacity where the airlines start a fare war which however damaging to the parties, results in substantial and longer term low fare benefits to the Australia-New Zealand market.
Or in short, should the ACCC prevent airlines from finishing something they started?
When the ACCC approved the Qantas-Emirates business partnership which took effect on 31 March it excised from the approval the proposed ‘coordination’ of fares and capacity on the trans Tasman routes by both carriers. It required them instead to maintain their current service levels, which are widely known in the airline game to be variously ruinous or very marginal.
Since then the dominant trans Tasman combination, between Air New Zealand and Virgin Australia, which has the approval of competition authorities on both sides of the Tasman, has sought permission to ‘vary’ its capacity obligations between Australia and New Zealand, which has now been objected to by Emirates and Qantas on the basis that the ACCC’s ruling on this issue should be consistent for all the interested parties.
In simple English, that is the same as the four key competitors on the Tasman all calling ‘enough’ and pleading for permission to act in concert within their partnerships to end the bleeding by cutting the number of flights they offer, which in turn would force fares to rise to what the airlines regard as ‘sustainable’ levels.
Which also, in simple English, means rigging the market, which is precisely the type of anti-competitive activity the ACCC is charged with preventing.
This sets up the ACCC to have to choose between forcing carriers to continue losing money (as they claim) or allowing them to conspire to screw the market.
It is an incredibly testing dilemma for the competition regulator, because if the airlines were to be allowed to slash capacity and raise fares they may inadvertently collapse demand for air travel between Australia and New Zealand, which is currently running at unprecedented levels and generating substantial economic benefits on both sides of the Tasman by stimulating tourism and its dependent jobs.
wheels_down is offline  
Old 18th Apr 2013, 00:27
  #2 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Sydney Australia
Posts: 2,148
Must be a stressful time for Tiger OZ employees.

Personally I had a bad feeling when JB backed away from the comittment to expand TT to the level required for it t become viable. A comittment that will cost VA many millions of dollars!

International competition may be an issue for the ACCC, but it all becomes academic if the airline is unable to secure the resources required for it to become profitable. Perhaps an ACCC facilitated exit strategy?

Hope I'm wrong.
KRUSTY 34 is offline  
Old 18th Apr 2013, 01:49
  #3 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: Singapore
Posts: 332
I hope they shut it down and redeploy the aircraft back to Singapore.
flying.monkeyz is offline  
Old 18th Apr 2013, 02:44
  #4 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: OZwest
Posts: 31
Why's that flying monkeyz? So you can get a quick command?

Try using a bit of sensitivity, put yourself in the shoes of the 300 or more
Pilots/FA's office staff who would be affected by such a move.....
XRlent320 is offline  
Old 18th Apr 2013, 03:42
  #5 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Sydney Australia
Posts: 2,148
Name says it all doesn't it.
KRUSTY 34 is offline  
Old 18th Apr 2013, 05:34
  #6 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: brisbane
Posts: 169
I think it will be OK.
Tiger provides competition and it would be a bad move by the ACCC if they did not allow the Virgin takeover.
tourismman is offline  
Old 18th Apr 2013, 07:30
  #7 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 1999
Location: OZ
Posts: 248
My spies tell me it is already a done deal
Roller Merlin is offline  
Old 18th Apr 2013, 12:47
  #8 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Oz
Posts: 487
Which way?
DUXNUTZ is offline  
Old 18th Apr 2013, 14:42
  #9 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Down under land
Posts: 303
Correct me if I'm wrong, but did QF not buy Impulse in 2001 thereby removing a competitor in the market? Precisely the same scenario as the VA/TT situation that the ACCC is baulking at
Watchdog is offline  
Old 18th Apr 2013, 22:04
  #10 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Australia
Posts: 455
Watchdog, the difference would be that when Qantas acquired Impulse, Ansett was still flying and Virgin was growing. Hence there were still 3 independent domestic airlines compeating after the loss of Impulse from the picture.
If Virgin essentially acquires Tiger then we return to a airline duopoly situation.
Beer Baron is offline  
Old 19th Apr 2013, 03:38
  #11 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Down under land
Posts: 303
Yes BB true, so 3 is OK but 2 is not. And the regionals don't count. Might be a good opportunity for more airlines to start up. Clearly there is a market for more than 2 major carriers eh? Historically all new players have prospered and made mega-bucks....oh, hang on?

Could be worse, we could have a monopoly like CASA who charge $75 to process a medical and $25 to print/post a copy of a FC licence!
Watchdog is offline  
Old 19th Apr 2013, 23:56
  #12 (permalink)  
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: Asia
Posts: 853
Interesting that Tiger are now using Virgin's gates at Sydney.
wheels_down is offline  
Old 20th Apr 2013, 00:19
  #13 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: In a pipe in the upstairs water closet
Posts: 230
Thought they always did?

Fuel-Off
Fuel-Off is offline  
Old 20th Apr 2013, 01:40
  #14 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Posts: 369
They have always used the Virgin gates, it's in the lease agreement VAA have with SCAL.
GAFA is offline  
Old 20th Apr 2013, 02:22
  #15 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: YMML
Age: 28
Posts: 165
I would say on the word of a good informantthat there are some great things about to happen.

XFA
ASY68 is offline  
Old 21st Apr 2013, 10:58
  #16 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Dubai
Posts: 38
Great thing?

Do you mean great things for TT??

Hope so for the 300 or so jobs at stake....
EK_Bus Driver is offline  
Old 21st Apr 2013, 22:53
  #17 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Sydney
Age: 42
Posts: 71
Tiger decision day- April 24.

Hopefully good news for the people at Tiger. Must have been hard having this hang over them for the past few months.

Fingers crossed and good luck.
TexanPilot is offline  
Old 22nd Apr 2013, 23:57
  #18 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: BrisVegas
Posts: 134
Joint venture just confirmed

Joint venture just confirmed
somewhereat1l is offline  
Old 23rd Apr 2013, 00:35
  #19 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: YMML
Age: 28
Posts: 165
ACCC to not oppose Virgin Australia?s proposed acquisition of 60% of Tiger Australia | ACCC
ASY68 is offline  
Old 23rd Apr 2013, 00:39
  #20 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Europe
Posts: 255
TT

GREAT NEWS !!!!!!
74world is offline  

Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us - Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service - Do Not Sell My Personal Information

Copyright © 2018 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.