Seems as though, on at least one occasion, VS raised their fuel surcharges without consulting BA.
The article doesn't state whether the charges brought against the BA execs were entirely false, it simply states that the prosecution made something of a hash of things.
If it does turn out that the allegations were wrong, there might be a few red faces at VS - a reversal of the dirty tricks campaigns of the 90's? Especially as CX have now alleged that VS colluded with them on pricing....
Bongodog1964 From United Kingdom, joined Oct 2006, 3902 posts, RR: 3
Reply 1, posted (5 years 1 week 6 days 22 hours ago) and read 2726 times:
What happens now about the huge fines that BA have already paid to both the UK and US Governments ?, plus the compensation paid by VS and BA to the supposedly affected passengers.
The UK media have reported little if anything on this since the opening days of the trial, as the General election has taken centre stage. Reports though of the first days were interesting though, including details of the BA - VS cricket match at SRB's Country house. Very convivial for two companies supposedly at each others throats.
timboflier215 From United Kingdom, joined May 2005, 1345 posts, RR: 1
Reply 2, posted (5 years 1 week 6 days 21 hours ago) and read 2582 times:
Quoting Bongodog1964 (Reply 1): What happens now about the huge fines that BA have already paid to both the UK and US Governments ?
I'm not sure, but as the trial was of current and former BA execs, rather than the company as a whole, I would imagine that it merely means that this simply affects these individuals. Indeed, the fact that BA did not put up more of a fight vis a vis the fined tends to make me believe that there was something going on...
"During legal arguments on Friday, the court was told that a year's worth of emails were discovered last week which went to the heart of the prosecution's case.
"In particular, an email dated 21 March 2005 emerged which suggested that Virgin decided to increase its fuel surcharge to £6 instead of £5 before speaking to anyone from BA."
If this is correct the time line looks like this:
1. VS decides to increase its fuel urcharge
2. VS talks to BA or BA talks to VS about fuel surchage increases
3. VS reports the conversations to the Office of Fair TRrading (OFT) ans seeks immunity from prosecution
The judge was content to let the trial continue saying that evidence from VS executives would determine the actual situation. However the OFT withdrew its evidence so the prosecution collapsed.
There is no suggestion that conversations between VS and BA on fuel surcharges did not take place. Therefore I assume that any fines paid by the airlines and refunds made to their customers should stand.
EDICHC From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 4, posted (5 years 1 week 6 days 18 hours ago) and read 2079 times:
Quoting vv701 (Reply 3): The judge was content to let the trial continue saying that evidence from VS executives would determine the actual situation. However the OFT withdrew its evidence so the prosecution collapsed.
Hmm it makes me wonder what the motives were behind the OFT's decision.