Sponsor Message:
Civil Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Air NZ Faces Law Suit From US Resident  
User currently offline777ER From New Zealand, joined Dec 2003, 12334 posts, RR: 18
Posted (6 years 3 months 2 weeks 1 day 8 hours ago) and read 5505 times:
AIRLINERS.NET CREW
FORUM MODERATOR

Class action on Air NZ books


Californian traveller William Adams could prove a multimillion-dollar thorn in Air New Zealand's side.


He is named as lead plaintiff in a class action lawsuit against the carrier filed in the United States in November, alleging he received "pecuniary injury'' as a result of anti-trust violations by Air NZ on Pacific flights to Los Angeles and San Francisco.

A hearing date is yet to be set in the California courts for the claim asserting "global conspiracy among certain airlines to fix, raise, maintain, and/or stabilise prices for long-haul passenger trans-Pacific flights to and from the US''.

http://www.stuff.co.nz/4682244a13.html

I hope this stupid law suit gets throwen out

49 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlineCloudyapple From Hong Kong, joined Jul 2005, 2454 posts, RR: 10
Reply 1, posted (6 years 3 months 2 weeks 1 day 2 hours ago) and read 5242 times:

It's not ANZ's problem if US carriers don't fly from LAX/SFO to New Zealand! What anti trust is he talking about?


A310/A319/20/21/A332/3/A343/6/A388/B732/5/7/8/B742/S/4/B752/B763/B772/3/W/E145/J41/MD11/83/90
User currently offlineCubsrule From United States of America, joined May 2004, 23296 posts, RR: 20
Reply 2, posted (6 years 3 months 2 weeks 18 hours ago) and read 4990 times:



Quoting Cloudyapple (Reply 1):
What anti trust is he talking about?

They're accusing the airlines of a (illegal) conspiracy to fix prices.



I can't decide whether I miss the tulip or the bowling shoe more
User currently offlineAirNZ From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 3, posted (6 years 3 months 2 weeks 17 hours ago) and read 4938 times:



Quoting Cubsrule (Reply 2):
They're accusing the airlines of a (illegal) conspiracy to fix prices.

Unless I'm missing something, how can a conspiracy to fix prices be construed if no US carrier flies to Auckland.....thus a conspiracy with whom?


User currently offlineCubsrule From United States of America, joined May 2004, 23296 posts, RR: 20
Reply 4, posted (6 years 3 months 2 weeks 17 hours ago) and read 4933 times:



Quoting AirNZ (Reply 3):
Unless I'm missing something, how can a conspiracy to fix prices be construed if no US carrier flies to Auckland.....thus a conspiracy with whom?

The conspiracy is on TPAC flights in general, not specifically to Auckland. I'm not aware of any requirement in American antitrust law that everyone be offering exactly the same service.



I can't decide whether I miss the tulip or the bowling shoe more
User currently offlineDLPMMM From United States of America, joined Apr 2005, 3602 posts, RR: 10
Reply 5, posted (6 years 3 months 2 weeks 17 hours ago) and read 4901 times:



Quoting AirNZ (Reply 3):
Unless I'm missing something, how can a conspiracy to fix prices be construed if no US carrier flies to Auckland.....thus a conspiracy with whom?

If you would read the rest of the article, yu would see:


"The claim also asserts fuel surcharges and fees charged to passengers by airlines were purportedly to compensate the airlines for increased fuel costs.

Eleven other airlines are named in the writ for acting collusively to fix prices and fuel surcharges on passenger tickets between 2004 and August 2007.

Different plaintiffs are named for different airlines."

In other words, it is along the same lines that the EU and US Governments recently fined a number of Air companies. Price Fixing.


User currently offlineSunriseValley From Canada, joined Jul 2004, 5216 posts, RR: 5
Reply 6, posted (6 years 3 months 2 weeks 15 hours ago) and read 4806 times:

Has the class action suit been certified or has it just been filed by the "ambulance chasers" and awaits certification by the court.

User currently offlineCubsrule From United States of America, joined May 2004, 23296 posts, RR: 20
Reply 7, posted (6 years 3 months 2 weeks 15 hours ago) and read 4771 times:



Quoting SunriseValley (Reply 6):
ambulance chasers

I'm not sure why an attorney filing a suit for what, if proven, is almost certainly a violation of U.S. law constitutes an "ambulance chaser."



I can't decide whether I miss the tulip or the bowling shoe more
User currently offlineZkpilot From New Zealand, joined Mar 2006, 4865 posts, RR: 10
Reply 8, posted (6 years 3 months 2 weeks 9 hours ago) and read 4633 times:

I believe the term used for these type of lawsuits with their ambulance chasing type lawyers is "frivilous"...


56 types. 38 countries. 24 airlines.
User currently offlineCubsrule From United States of America, joined May 2004, 23296 posts, RR: 20
Reply 9, posted (6 years 3 months 1 week 6 days 19 hours ago) and read 4455 times:



Quoting Zkpilot (Reply 8):
I believe the term used for these type of lawsuits with their ambulance chasing type lawyers is "frivilous"...

But if there is price fixing going on (and at this point, we seemingly don't have a good way to figure out whether or not there is), I don't understand how/why the suit is frivilous.



I can't decide whether I miss the tulip or the bowling shoe more
User currently offlineViscount724 From Switzerland, joined Oct 2006, 25983 posts, RR: 22
Reply 10, posted (6 years 3 months 1 week 6 days 17 hours ago) and read 4379 times:

If UA is one of the carriers covered by the lawsuit, NZ and UA have had U.S. antitrust immunity since 1999.

User currently offline777ER From New Zealand, joined Dec 2003, 12334 posts, RR: 18
Reply 11, posted (6 years 3 months 1 week 6 days 12 hours ago) and read 4232 times:
AIRLINERS.NET CREW
FORUM MODERATOR

If this man isn't happy, then whats stopping him from buying a UA, AA or QF ticket, as I've found that QF is cheaper from AKL like especially around X-mas

User currently offlineDLPMMM From United States of America, joined Apr 2005, 3602 posts, RR: 10
Reply 12, posted (6 years 3 months 1 week 6 days 11 hours ago) and read 4216 times:



Quoting 777ER (Reply 12):
If this man isn't happy, then whats stopping him from buying a UA, AA or QF ticket, as I've found that QF is cheaper from AKL like especially around X-mas

All of them are named as co-consirators as well as others in the lawsuit. Several of them have already settled out of court for tens of millions of dollars each. I don't think that they would have settled for those kinds of sums if there was nothing to it.


User currently offlineRobsawatsky From Canada, joined Dec 2003, 597 posts, RR: 0
Reply 13, posted (6 years 3 months 1 week 6 days 9 hours ago) and read 4100 times:



Quoting Cubsrule (Reply 9):
But if there is price fixing going on (and at this point, we seemingly don't have a good way to figure out whether or not there is), I don't understand how/why the suit is frivilous.

I agree. Price fixing is hardly a frivolous matter.

Quoting Viscount724 (Reply 11):
If UA is one of the carriers covered by the lawsuit, NZ and UA have had U.S. antitrust immunity since 1999.

That is not a blanket antitrust immunity - it was for specific purposes.


User currently offlineIkramerica From United States of America, joined May 2005, 21580 posts, RR: 59
Reply 14, posted (6 years 3 months 1 week 6 days 9 hours ago) and read 4071 times:



Quoting 777ER (Reply 12):
If this man isn't happy, then whats stopping him from buying a UA, AA or QF ticket, as I've found that QF is cheaper from AKL like especially around X-mas

Because NZ+UA offer the only SFO-New Zealand non-stop service, as a team, and fix their prices. UA sells seats on NZ aircraft.

I suppose that one can fly AA+QF via LAX, but the claim is that the prices were fixed, so if both carriers, QF and NZ, are colluding (the claim) there is no point in choosing the competitor. Either way you pay the same non-market price…  Wink



Of all the things to worry about... the Wookie has no pants.
User currently offlineZkpilot From New Zealand, joined Mar 2006, 4865 posts, RR: 10
Reply 15, posted (6 years 3 months 1 week 6 days 7 hours ago) and read 4001 times:



Quoting DLPMMM (Reply 13):
All of them are named as co-consirators as well as others in the lawsuit. Several of them have already settled out of court for tens of millions of dollars each. I don't think that they would have settled for those kinds of sums if there was nothing to it.

Is that the same suit? Previously and just recently there has been a separate lawsuit regarding pricefixing of airfreight.

Quoting Cubsrule (Reply 9):


Quoting Zkpilot (Reply 8):
I believe the term used for these type of lawsuits with their ambulance chasing type lawyers is "frivilous"...

But if there is price fixing going on (and at this point, we seemingly don't have a good way to figure out whether or not there is), I don't understand how/why the suit is frivilous.

If there is price fixing going on then isn't it up to the government regulators (ie ACCC, Commerce Commision, and whatever the US equivilent is of those?). That is if there even is price-fixing... it seems that the plaintiff wants the rest of the worlds airlines to be run like USA airlines are run (ie lowering the standards of service and have a loss-making operation...with the exception of Southwest of course). I think these airlines should get some highpower lawyers and a) get the lawsuits thrown out as frivilous, and b) countersue for costs and defamation.



56 types. 38 countries. 24 airlines.
User currently offline777ER From New Zealand, joined Dec 2003, 12334 posts, RR: 18
Reply 16, posted (6 years 3 months 1 week 6 days 6 hours ago) and read 3935 times:
AIRLINERS.NET CREW
FORUM MODERATOR



Quoting Zkpilot (Reply 16):
Previously and just recently there has been a separate lawsuit regarding pricefixing of airfreight

Wasn't that by the NZ Commerce Commision, or am I thinking of a different one?


User currently offlineCitrusCritter From United States of America, joined May 2007, 1131 posts, RR: 3
Reply 17, posted (6 years 3 months 1 week 5 days 23 hours ago) and read 3796 times:



Quoting Zkpilot (Reply 8):
I believe the term used for these type of lawsuits with their ambulance chasing type lawyers is "frivilous"...



Quoting SunriseValley (Reply 6):
Has the class action suit been certified or has it just been filed by the "ambulance chasers" and awaits certification by the court.

"Ambulance chasers" are personal injury attorneys who file personal injury cases against those who were allegedly negligent and caused an injury. Most of these suits lack common sense but are legally legitimate through common law tort. Ambulance chasers really come out when they file truly frivolous suits because it is cheaper for the defendant to settle than fight in court.

Anti-trust attorneys are not "ambulance chasers." This is not an illegitimate suit whose purpose is to quickly settle over a minor injury caused by questionable negligence. If the facts alleged in this complaint can be proved, it is a highly legitimate case and nowhere near "ambulance chasing."


User currently offlineLincoln From United States of America, joined Nov 2004, 3887 posts, RR: 8
Reply 18, posted (6 years 3 months 1 week 5 days 23 hours ago) and read 3768 times:



Quoting Zkpilot (Reply 16):
If there is price fixing going on then isn't it up to the government regulators (ie ACCC, Commerce Commision, and whatever the US equivilent is of those?).

Under US Law, The Department of Justice (DoJ) and the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) have the right and responsibility to enforce antitrust lwas, however there is a private right of action and consumers may bring their own suits as remedy for anticompetitive behavior.

In fact, IIRC, federal law provides for an award of treble damages (I.e. awarded $3 for every $1 of actual damages] to encourage private enforcement of AT laws.

Lincoln
[not a lawyer]



CO Is My Airline of Choice || Baggage Claim is an airline's last chance to disappoint a customer || Next flts in profile
User currently offlineCubsrule From United States of America, joined May 2004, 23296 posts, RR: 20
Reply 19, posted (6 years 3 months 1 week 5 days 17 hours ago) and read 3664 times:



Quoting Lincoln (Reply 19):
In fact, IIRC, federal law provides for an award of treble damages (I.e. awarded $3 for every $1 of actual damages] to encourage private enforcement of AT laws.

 checkmark  I don't see how a suit brought by the government is more legitimate when the applicable law provides a private right of action-- the defendant's actions are equally wrong regardless of who brings the action. The current U.S. administration is fairly pro-business, making them less likely to bring antitrust actions.



I can't decide whether I miss the tulip or the bowling shoe more
User currently offlineViscount724 From Switzerland, joined Oct 2006, 25983 posts, RR: 22
Reply 20, posted (6 years 3 months 1 week 5 days 17 hours ago) and read 3639 times:



Quoting Robsawatsky (Reply 14):
Quoting Viscount724 (Reply 11):
If UA is one of the carriers covered by the lawsuit, NZ and UA have had U.S. antitrust immunity since 1999.

That is not a blanket antitrust immunity - it was for specific purposes.

I think it covered all their services between the U.S. and New Zealand, in conjunction with that market becoming an Open Skies market.


User currently offlineSydscott From Australia, joined Oct 2003, 3188 posts, RR: 21
Reply 21, posted (6 years 3 months 1 week 5 days 15 hours ago) and read 3590 times:



Quoting DLPMMM (Reply 13):
All of them are named as co-consirators as well as others in the lawsuit. Several of them have already settled out of court for tens of millions of dollars each. I don't think that they would have settled for those kinds of sums if there was nothing to it.

I hope all of these airlines add these people to their blacklist so that they refuse to enter into a contract of carriage with them in future.

It'll be interesting to see what, if any, evidence is bought forward by the Plaintifs especially since most of the evidence to support such claims would be found beyond the jurisdiction of US Courts.

Quoting 777ER (Reply 17):
Wasn't that by the NZ Commerce Commision, or am I thinking of a different one?

The Commerce Commission along with our ACCC have either investigated or instigated lawsuits against the airlines with regards to freight.


User currently offline777ER From New Zealand, joined Dec 2003, 12334 posts, RR: 18
Reply 22, posted (6 years 3 months 1 week 5 days 13 hours ago) and read 3532 times:
AIRLINERS.NET CREW
FORUM MODERATOR



Quoting Sydscott (Reply 22):
Quoting 777ER (Reply 17):
Wasn't that by the NZ Commerce Commision, or am I thinking of a different one?

The Commerce Commission along with our ACCC have either investigated or instigated lawsuits against the airlines with regards to freight.

So I was thinking of the correct one


User currently offlineCubsrule From United States of America, joined May 2004, 23296 posts, RR: 20
Reply 23, posted (6 years 3 months 1 week 5 days 13 hours ago) and read 3515 times:



Quoting Sydscott (Reply 22):
It'll be interesting to see what, if any, evidence is bought forward by the Plaintifs especially since most of the evidence to support such claims would be found beyond the jurisdiction of US Courts.

What do you mean by evidence being "beyond the jurisdiction of US courts?"



I can't decide whether I miss the tulip or the bowling shoe more
User currently offlineKoruman From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 24, posted (6 years 3 months 1 week 5 days 12 hours ago) and read 3510 times:

Air Tahiti Nui could be the fly in the ointment here. Their codeshare arrangement with NZ may be seen as an attempt to buy off a competitor which charges less for its First Class product than Air NZ does for its Business Premier one.

At the end of the day, fares per kilometer or per hour of crew time on Air NZ's Trans-Pacific services are probably indefensibly high in Premium Economy and Business Premier.

Qantas charges just over $4000 in Business Class for its own 8,200 km SYD-HNL flight, yet Air NZ somehow charges three times as much for its AKL-LAX flight which only flies 10,500 km. (I've just paid $4500 including all taxes and surcharges).

Yes, it's a better product. Yes there are crew rest issues. But a fare three times as high?


25 Sydscott : Fare pricing decisions are made at Airline Headquarters which, in the case of Air New Zealand, is in Auckland. US Courts do not have the jurisdiction
26 Cubsrule : That has no bearing on where the (alleged) conspiracy occurred, though. NZ can set prices all day long. If they don't collude with anyone else, they
27 Sydscott : You mis-understand me. The conspiracy can only take place where the decisions on pricing actually occur and it is evidence of this kind that the Plai
28 DLPMMM : A conspiracy involves multiple parties by definition. UA is already named as a co-conspirator in a related suit. It is not a stretch to think that pe
29 REALDEAL : the worst type of lawyers - seppo lawyers. Shakespeare said we should start shooting the lawyers. Can we start now ? Might be fun !!!
30 Cubsrule : Thank you; that was exactly my point. Since I've already posed the question to others, I'll pose it to you too. Assuming the allegations are true, wh
31 Sydscott : No only the US subsidiary and US based employee's are subject to US law as is other workers of NZ within US territory. NZ itself, the Head Company, i
32 Cubsrule : That's not at all clear to me. What makes you say that? If the Head Company owns the aircraft that fly to the US, for instance, it's almost certainly
33 DLPMMM : Alright, I won't confuse you with facts, since your mind is already made up. You might want to review the BA/VS suit's merits and settlement before g
34 Sydscott : Question for you, legally can a US Court enforce an order to compel someone who is in New Zealand, outside their jurisdiction, to testify? The answer
35 Cubsrule : Well, no. But with NZ aircraft entering and leaving the States all day long, the court has some tools at its disposal. NZ cannot have 2 seized 744s s
36 DLPMMM : They don't need to. No one is asking for anyone in NZ to testify to anything or to produce any documents. This is not a criminal case. It is a civil
37 Zkpilot : Put it this way... There have been various articles lately about how important aviation and LAX are to the Los Angeles and CA economy. NZ is not just
38 Cubsrule : Let me ask you for a FIFTH time: why is this suit frivilous?
39 Zkpilot : Because he has no basis for this claim except that he wants to jump on the bandwagon in what seems to be a get rich quick manner. It is similar to Pe
40 Cubsrule : Is price fixing not an adequate basis for his claim? US law is pretty clear (refreshingly so, actually) that price fixing is per se illegal. What do
41 DLPMMM : What the heck are you talking about? It is nothing at all like a personal injury suit! The facts will speak for themselves. I dare say that the requi
42 Knid : Methinks so, however the guy is currently a pf in 3 separate suits against airlines alleging antitrust violations. They have then failed to produce a
43 Zkpilot : I have yet to see any evidence that there has been any price-fixing in this instance only heresay.
44 Cubsrule : They've met their burden under US law which, like it or not, only requires pleadings to give fairly general notice of the allegations. Isn't that why
45 413X3 : Well a judge, or judges, have, and they have given it a class action status. They do not believe it is frivolous. You seem to be caught up in the sam
46 Burnsie28 : The only thing that he can get is that this violates international anti-trust laws, Qantas and a few others already got in trouble for price fixing,
47 Cubsrule : Class certification has nothing to do with the merits of the case.
48 Knid : I'm not disputing their right to a claim, but from what I read, the judge has asked for more detail, is it common in the US to ignore what the judge
49 Cubsrule : Unless there's a problem with the pleadings themselves, it would be unusual for attorneys to have to provide more detail particularly quickly (and le
Top Of Page
Forum Index

This topic is archived and can not be replied to any more.

Printer friendly format

Similar topics:More similar topics...
Air NZ And Rolls-Royce Reach US$500m Deal posted Fri Sep 17 2004 14:03:27 by 777ER
Air NZ Gets More Money From The NZ Govt posted Wed Mar 27 2002 13:17:40 by Air Taiwan
Air Canada, WestJet See Few Woes From US Economy posted Wed Mar 19 2008 11:21:25 by LAXintl
Air Asia Buy Online From US? posted Fri Mar 23 2007 23:44:53 by RJNUT
Air Fares To Spanish Countries From The US posted Sat Feb 3 2007 17:03:14 by Tsaord
Official: Air NZ Selling Around The World From LAX posted Thu Apr 27 2006 18:53:52 by CXB744
Air NZ To Start AKL-ADL Direct From March 06 posted Wed Oct 5 2005 03:52:39 by TG992
Air Canada Benefitting From US Visa Requirements posted Sun Feb 6 2005 21:46:30 by Yukimizake
Air Service To Cuba From US: Post Castro posted Mon Oct 20 2003 20:37:19 by Jmc1975
Panel Fell From An Air NZ 747-400 Departing AKL posted Sat Aug 24 2002 08:19:23 by AIRNZsaab340
Official: Air NZ Selling Around The World From LAX posted Thu Apr 27 2006 18:53:52 by CXB744
Air NZ To Start AKL-ADL Direct From March 06 posted Wed Oct 5 2005 03:52:39 by TG992
Air Canada Benefitting From US Visa Requirements posted Sun Feb 6 2005 21:46:30 by Yukimizake
Air Service To Cuba From US: Post Castro posted Mon Oct 20 2003 20:37:19 by Jmc1975
Panel Fell From An Air NZ 747-400 Departing AKL posted Sat Aug 24 2002 08:19:23 by AIRNZsaab340