mauriceb
Posts: 2150
Joined: Tue Aug 10, 2004 2:50 am

Star Alliance To Boycot

Sat Dec 10, 2005 5:28 pm

according to luchtvaartnieuws , Star alliance is planning to boycot AMS, ORY, CDG because of the high fares that are being asked for tax, landing fees , and ground handling. they say they think that some governments still use the aviation industry as a milk cow...


why are they whining? Schiphol isnt that much profitable, but an expensive airport since they are always bussy with building, upgrading and there's a lot of security.




anyway , if they really going to boycot, AMS won't see the next airlines in the future anymore:

US airways
United
Austrian (fly;s quite much at AMS)
BMI ( big user )
Varig
Singapore airlines
SAS (lots of flights a day)
TAP (lots of flights a day)
LH ( After BA and KL , biggest user at AMS)
LOT
Air Canada (only summer flights)

this will mean a lots of slots for other airlines that are waiting to get them (the list is long) but it also means AMS will see lots and lots of income dissapear , same goes for ORY and CDG
 
sk601
Posts: 896
Joined: Sat Jun 11, 2005 11:46 pm

RE: Star Alliance To Boycot

Sat Dec 10, 2005 5:34 pm

Quoting MauriceB (Thread starter):
LH ( After BA and KL , biggest user at AMS)

1. KL
2. HV
3. EZY (?)
4. BA
5. LH
 
mauriceb
Posts: 2150
Joined: Tue Aug 10, 2004 2:50 am

RE: Star Alliance To Boycot

Sat Dec 10, 2005 5:36 pm

Quoting SK601 (Reply 1):
Quoting MauriceB (Thread starter):
LH ( After BA and KL , biggest user at AMS)

1. KL
2. HV
3. EZY (?)
4. BA
5. LH

only normal airlines, without counting the low cost, and charter airlines
 
ACDC8
Posts: 7175
Joined: Thu Mar 10, 2005 6:56 pm

RE: Star Alliance To Boycot

Sat Dec 10, 2005 5:36 pm

Quoting MauriceB (Thread starter):
Star alliance is planning to boycot AMS, ORY, CDG

Interesting that those are all SkyTeam hubs and not Star Alliance. Do some airlines still get special rates at their home aiports?
A Grumpy German Is A Sauerkraut
 
IL76
Posts: 2237
Joined: Mon Jan 05, 2004 5:43 am

RE: Star Alliance To Boycot

Sat Dec 10, 2005 5:40 pm

AFAIK, many of the Star Alliance airlines are financially not very healthy (UA, US, RG, SK, AC). Without AMS and especially Paris, these airlines will definitely feel it. I guess they're only hurting themselves. I'm sure many other airlines will fill the gap if they leave.
Just threats, I don't see it happening. I wonder if AMS, ORY and CDG are even impressed with these threats.

E
 
mauriceb
Posts: 2150
Joined: Tue Aug 10, 2004 2:50 am

RE: Star Alliance To Boycot

Sat Dec 10, 2005 6:27 pm

AFAIK, many of the Star Alliance airlines are financially not very healthy (UA, US, RG, SK, AC). Without AMS and especially Paris, these airlines will definitely feel it. I guess they're only hurting themselves. I'm sure many other airlines will fill the gap if they leave.


indeed, although im not sure if others are able to fill the gab left behind by these airlines... what about the scandinavian routes?

LHR isnt a problem since KL can send bigger Ac's..
 
Beaucaire
Posts: 3888
Joined: Sun Sep 14, 2003 4:48 am

RE: Star Alliance To Boycot

Sat Dec 10, 2005 6:39 pm

I don't see LH implementing a boycott on CDG - there are far too many passengers transported to Paris to neglect that business.
Also France is a major revenue -provider for TAP -I think it's B.S. ....
Please respect animals - don't eat them...
 
User avatar
OzarkD9S
Posts: 4720
Joined: Tue Oct 23, 2001 2:31 am

RE: Star Alliance To Boycot

Sat Dec 10, 2005 8:29 pm

I don't see AC pulling out of the Paris market...ever.
Next up: STL-OAK-RNO-LAS-ICT-STL
 
changyou
Posts: 199
Joined: Fri Nov 28, 2003 10:57 pm

RE: Star Alliance To Boycot

Sat Dec 10, 2005 8:53 pm

Singapore Airlines for sure will never pull out from AMS and CDG. It's lucritive market for them. Guess only the financial struggling airlines are feeling the pinch here.
 
Joost
Posts: 1841
Joined: Wed Apr 20, 2005 8:27 pm

RE: Star Alliance To Boycot

Sat Dec 10, 2005 9:41 pm

The airlines will probably hurt themselves more than they will hurt Schiphol or Aeroports de Paris. What will SAS do, say to their customers who want to fly from OSL/ARN/CPH to AMS that they have to pick KLM or (from next spring) Stirling as they don't like the airport operator? Will SQ say to the Dutch who want to fly to Australia that they will have to call Malaysian?

Next to that, I do not see StarAlliance acting as one organisation. They may be threatening airport operators to act like on party, but in my opinion, when the situation is there, all member airlines will make their seperate decisions that fits their business model best: that is, continuing serving AMS, CDG and ORY and pay the price. StarAlliance can ask their members to paint a plane, not to cease lucrative markets.
 
MEA-707
Posts: 3661
Joined: Mon Nov 15, 1999 4:51 am

RE: Star Alliance To Boycot

Sat Dec 10, 2005 9:49 pm

Taxes at Star hubs like FRA, VIE, CPH and LHR (BD) are also rediculously high, whenever I have a connecting flight via one of these, some 150 euro are easily added to the ticket price.
nobody has ever died from hard work, but why take the risk?
 
aircanada014
Posts: 1224
Joined: Sun Oct 09, 2005 2:24 pm

RE: Star Alliance To Boycot

Sun Dec 11, 2005 12:00 am

AC is in financial healthy.. load factors up , profits up.. AC won't pull the plug on CDG
 
anxebla
Posts: 1696
Joined: Tue Dec 23, 2003 8:31 am

RE: Star Alliance To Boycot

Tue Dec 13, 2005 10:48 am

Quoting IL76 (Reply 4):
AFAIK, many of the Star Alliance airlines are financially not very healthy (UA, US, RG, SK, AC). Without AMS and especially Paris, these airlines will definitely feel it. I guess they're only hurting themselves

I can NOT be more agree with you. I think this news is stupid in itself. If it is true --which I don't think so-- it's would be a good news to SkyT and OW

Quoting Joost (Reply 9):
StarAlliance can ask their members to paint a plane, not to cease lucrative markets.

Of course, you're right as well. The partnership is not made to damage to their partners
AIRBUS 320 The world's most advanced single-aisle aircraft
 
RyGuy
Posts: 173
Joined: Sun Dec 11, 2005 3:10 am

RE: Star Alliance To Boycot

Tue Dec 13, 2005 11:00 am

And then the next Boycotted Airport will be YYZ for the reason of their huge landing fee hike in early 2006...
I think the GTAA (Greater Toronto Airport Authority) is making a huge mistake by raising their fees so high...
YYZ is canada's busiest and biggest airport..... and soon to be the worlds most expensive airport to land in... hmmmm???

-RyGuy

[Edited 2005-12-13 03:02:43]
From somewhere out there...
 
roseflyer
Posts: 9606
Joined: Fri Feb 13, 2004 9:34 am

RE: Star Alliance To Boycot

Tue Dec 13, 2005 11:22 am

Quoting MauriceB (Thread starter):
according to luchtvaartnieuws , Star alliance is planning to boycot AMS, ORY, CDG because of the high fares that are being asked for tax, landing fees , and ground handling. they say they think that some governments still use the aviation industry as a milk cow...

I have never heard of that news source. How credible is this as it seems a little vague with no detailed descrition or link? Without a link to a real source, it is possible that someone just made it up on a slow newsday or that it is seriously being considered and a decision could be imminent. This type of thing would be a huge move that would anger a lot of passengers.

Sorry to be skeptical, but this would be a drastic move and I think we should double check it before jumping to conclusions.
If you have never designed an airplane part before, let the real designers do the work!
 
D L X
Posts: 11637
Joined: Thu May 27, 1999 3:30 am

RE: Star Alliance To Boycot

Tue Dec 13, 2005 11:24 am

I'm pretty certain that such a boycott would be illegal. I know it would be here in the US under our antitrust laws, and EU antitrust laws are functionally similar.

Is this source normally reliable?
 
PanAm747
Posts: 4713
Joined: Mon Mar 01, 2004 4:46 am

RE: Star Alliance To Boycot

Tue Dec 13, 2005 11:26 am

Simply ludicrous. The airlines will simply pass on the extra fees to their passengers.

And what airline is going to say, "No thank you, Schipol, our passengers don't want to pay the extra $5"?
Pan Am:The World's Most Experienced Airline - P(oor) S(ailor's) A(irline): San Diego's Hometown Airline-Catch Our Smile!
 
roseflyer
Posts: 9606
Joined: Fri Feb 13, 2004 9:34 am

RE: Star Alliance To Boycot

Tue Dec 13, 2005 11:30 am

Quoting D L X (Reply 15):
I'm pretty certain that such a boycott would be illegal. I know it would be here in the US under our antitrust laws, and EU antitrust laws are functionally similar.

Why? If an airline doesn't want to serve an airport, then it doesn't have to. What anti trust law requires airlines to serve an airport and not boycott it because it is too expensive?
If you have never designed an airplane part before, let the real designers do the work!
 
runway23
Posts: 1914
Joined: Sat Jan 15, 2005 2:12 am

RE: Star Alliance To Boycot

Tue Dec 13, 2005 11:47 am

There's simply no way those airlines would pull out of those markets. They are simply too large and important and giving ground to competition would be quite foolish. Bear in mind that their current dissatisfaction is likely to be short-term and looking at a long-term perspective giving up valuable slots at those airports would likely prove more costly than extra fees.

My guess is that their boycott will simply be against adding extra services/flights/destinations.
 
Simpilicity
Posts: 881
Joined: Mon Oct 31, 2005 4:21 pm

RE: Star Alliance To Boycot

Tue Dec 13, 2005 11:54 am

SYD has just been reined it.

DJ has been bitching about their charges now for years.

See story below ... from


http://www.travelbiz.com.au/articles/e7/0c0399e7.asp


Airline victory as airport pricing controls returned to government

The Australian Competition Tribunal has upheld a Virgin Blue appeal to have the federal government retake control of pricing by domestic airports.


After a one-year wait, the Federal Court-administered tribunal vindicated Virgin Blue's claims that - in particular - Sydney Airport had abused the government's deregulation of airport pricing three years ago.

The tribunal’s decision stated that it was satisfied Sydney Airport had misused its monopoly power in the past and that unless government control was reintroduced, competition would continue to be affected.

The ruling means pricing negotiations between the airport and airlines were now required to be approved by an arbitrator such as the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission.

The tribunal also said the airport’s move to base landing charges on an aircraft's take-off weight, as opposed to the number of passengers, had adversely affected low-cost carriers such as Virgin Blue as against full-service airlines such as Qantas.

It said the evidence was that Sydney Airport chose a passenger-based charge because Qantas preferred it.

Virgin Blue ceo Brett Godfrey has been campaigning against the airport for three years.

He claimed it had raised its fees 97 per cent prior to its 2001 privatisation and a further 52 per cent since.

Godfrey claimed the airline had “asked for nothing more than to have fair and equitable commercial pricing negotiations with airports, with the safety net of being able to refer the matter to an independent arbitrator, should it be necessary”.

“When monopoly suppliers dramatically increase the operating costs of companies, eventually those costs must be passed on to the consumer and we have pursued this outcome for over three years always believing that ever increasing fees at some airports set a worrying precedent as to just what is acceptable behaviour by monopolists,” Godfrey said.

The decision comes as Star Alliance airlines were reported to be discussing the possibility of boycotting airports in countries that the carriers believe are imposing unreasonable airport and air traffic control fees.

Robert Milton, president and ceo of Air Canada parent ACE Aviation Holdings, who is also IATA chairman said there were a lot of airports on the hit-list around the world.

Destinations that have drawn the anger of IATA and its member airlines are Paris, Venezuela and, above all, Toronto – but Milton concedes that a boycott of Toronto is not feasible.




12 December 2005
 
D L X
Posts: 11637
Joined: Thu May 27, 1999 3:30 am

RE: Star Alliance To Boycot

Tue Dec 13, 2005 11:59 am

Quoting RoseFlyer (Reply 17):
Why? If an airline doesn't want to serve an airport, then it doesn't have to. What anti trust law requires airlines to serve an airport and not boycott it because it is too expensive?

An airline can decide for itself to enter or leave a market, that's alright. The antitrust problem is making an agreement with other airlines not to serve a market. That is an illegal restraint on trade that is forbidden by the Sherman and Clayton Acts here in the US.
 
Lufthansa
Posts: 2303
Joined: Thu May 20, 1999 6:04 am

RE: Star Alliance To Boycot

Tue Dec 13, 2005 2:18 pm

Quoting D L X (Reply 20):
That is an illegal restraint on trade that is forbidden by the Sherman and Clayton Acts here in the US.

Yes but you're forgetting something. All of the star alliance airlines are flying in from different destinations, and from different jurisdictions. I don't think it would be considered an illegal restraint on trade because those airlines are removing their capacity from the market, rather than restricting entry or total market capacity. In effect, they would be leaving those markets for the time in question. There is nothing to prevent other companies increasing their capacity in many instances. For instance, Air France would be free to switch A332 flights to 744 flights in many instances. Lufthansa may pull out of Paris but increase services to other french airports. And if Singapore Airlines ceases flying to CDG, how are you going to prosecute them? Any such action would need to be brought forward in the juristiction where the airport in question lies, simply because of the collusion eliment. In the current environment, all Star alliance carriers would be justified in claiming that the alliance is trying to reduce unprofitable flying, and cutting destinations with high expenses/low yield. The fact that ALL airlines haven't boycotted this airport would may any such action problematic, also given that the airports in question are very strong skyteam hubs. I think AF would be overjoyed at the prospect!

I don't see it happening for economic reasons, but i see, given the nature of Star, any legal challenge being too problematic to obtain a successful prosecution. In the real world, board directors make tacid agreements all the time, and there is really only so much that can be done. Look no further than OPEC and oil producing nations if you want proof. And there is absolutely nothing any US or EU antitrust legislation can do about it.
 
D L X
Posts: 11637
Joined: Thu May 27, 1999 3:30 am

RE: Star Alliance To Boycot

Tue Dec 13, 2005 2:48 pm

Quoting Lufthansa (Reply 21):
I don't think it would be considered an illegal restraint on trade because those airlines are removing their capacity from the market, rather than restricting entry or total market capacity.

Actually, a boycott such as this would most definitely be restricting entry and decreasing the total market.

Again, it's not that the airlines decided not to fly the routes. That is their perogative. The illegal act (in the US) is forming an agreement amongst each other, a Horizontal Agreement because technically they're competitors, where none of the members of the group is allowed to participate in a particular area of commerce. In this case, that area would be these three airports. That without a doubt is an illegal restraint on trade. Here's why:

What if UA, LH, QF, and AC all decided they had had enough of AMS, but US still likes flying there. If Star boycotted as a unit, US would not be allowed to fly there by Star. That's an illegal restraint on trade.
Another example: let's say that all of the above have had enough of AMS, but 2 months later, US wants to fly it again. The mere fact that they'd have to ask the other airlines' permission to break the boycott is an illegal restraint on trade. In the US, that not only would be against the law, but the people that signed that illegal agreement could go to jail! The Sherman Act is a criminal statute.

BTW, my final for antitrust is on wednesday, or I probably wouldn't know this stuff.  Smile
 
A330323X
Posts: 2666
Joined: Thu Oct 09, 2003 4:06 pm

RE: Star Alliance To Boycot

Tue Dec 13, 2005 2:59 pm

Quoting D L X (Reply 22):
Again, it's not that the airlines decided not to fly the routes. That is their perogative. The illegal act (in the US) is forming an agreement amongst each other, a Horizontal Agreement because technically they're competitors, where none of the members of the group is allowed to participate in a particular area of commerce. In this case, that area would be these three airports. That without a doubt is an illegal restraint on trade. Here's why:

What if UA, LH, QF, and AC all decided they had had enough of AMS, but US still likes flying there. If Star boycotted as a unit, US would not be allowed to fly there by Star. That's an illegal restraint on trade.
Another example: let's say that all of the above have had enough of AMS, but 2 months later, US wants to fly it again. The mere fact that they'd have to ask the other airlines' permission to break the boycott is an illegal restraint on trade. In the US, that not only would be against the law, but the people that signed that illegal agreement could go to jail! The Sherman Act is a criminal statute.

While I certainly don't think they'll go through with the boycott, and they couldn't do it with *all* of Star, I'd note that a good portion of Star (UA/LH/SK/OS) has antitrust immunity, and those four carriers certainly could coordinate their service plans.
I'm the expert on here on two things, neither of which I care about much anymore.
 
klyk1980
Posts: 145
Joined: Sat Jan 17, 2004 9:58 am

RE: Star Alliance To Boycot

Tue Dec 13, 2005 3:14 pm

What an impossible threat.

I don't think any airlines will give up CDG even the airport itself is truly disguesting. I can see a big smile from Air France and British Airways if Air Canada give up its YYZ-CDG and also the twice daily YUL-CDG.

AMS is....well....less important for Star Alliance but I don't think airlines such as TG and SQ wants to lost a big piece of profits from AMS
 
Lufthansa
Posts: 2303
Joined: Thu May 20, 1999 6:04 am

RE: Star Alliance To Boycot

Tue Dec 13, 2005 4:04 pm

Quoting D L X (Reply 22):
BTW, my final for antitrust is on wednesday, or I probably wouldn't know this stuff.

BTW i graduated from law years ago.....  Smile
And my degree is recognised in Britian, as far as finance and business is concerned, the most important european jurisdiction,, which of course extends to EU law in some instances, which is exactly what we're talking about. (*sorry*)

Quoting D L X (Reply 22):
What if UA, LH, QF, and AC all decided they had had enough of AMS, but US still likes flying there. If Star boycotted as a unit, US would not be allowed to fly there by Star. That's an illegal restraint on trade.

For a start, QF is not a member of Star, That would be oneworld, and nor do they fly to AMS. Secondly, it would require US proving that star restricted it flying there. Now, if US has the option of leaving star, and continuing to fly there, then there is a good arguement that star has not prevented US from entering this market, but rather, has conditions associated with its membership. Conditions which US airways choses to follow rather than is bound. Also remember, no CEO in their right mind would ever actually sign such an agreement, these things are decided over long boozey lunches or games of golf. Remember, they're on the same team here.... they're working together, not against each other.

Quoting D L X (Reply 22):
a Horizontal Agreement because technically they're competitors, where none of the members of the group is allowed to participate in a particular area of commerce

This would also need to be established and proven, and once again, outside your beloved US jurisdiction. How does SK's ARN-AMS flight compete with SQ's CDG-SIN flight? It simply doesn't. What they are is strategic partners. There is EU anti-trust precident for this, the very fact the EU permits the LH/SK/OS relationship alone is a very strong arguement, and as mentioned earlier, they've already got immunity from anti-competition legisltation in their home countries.

DLX, you're seeing this in very narrow terms of US law, and typically as a law student. You need to step back and consider it from the broader prespective of international law, complete with all its short commings and the inability to actually implement many pieces of legislation across national borders. For instance, Singapore generally does not recognise many parts of international law, and thus, will not be bound by any precedents/judgements by such bodies. It's own bodies are the highest in the land. So how can one prosecute star then? As star alliance isn't a company itself, (or have any assets/direct control over assets) one would need to prosecute all members in jurisdictions they're all bound by, which would be virtually impossible. How, for instance, would I successfully prosecute Air New Zealand in relation to CDG or AMS not being served by SQ, LH, SK and UA? Would the high court of New Zealand possibly consider Air NZ guilty of anti-competitive behaviour by, what are effectively just its frequent flyer partners, refusing to fly into CDG, or AMS? And further more, who would actually bring such a case before the new zealand high court? Aeroports de paris perhaps? To use your example, US airways certainly won't. It would just be wasting huge amounts of money and making itself 'an unwelcome' member of the alliance. If US airways really had a big problem with doing things 'the alliance way' then it would spend its money leaving the alliance.

Quoting D L X (Reply 22):
The mere fact that they'd have to ask the other airlines' permission to break the boycott is an illegal restraint on trade

This has to be proven. The same could be said of meeting service standards. (for example, the long running arguement that Aer Lingus should be kicked out of oneworld because of low service standards) And does US really have to ask star's permission? Can star actually STOP US flying? (and thus restrict trade...remember it would require US actually not being able to fly there, rather than not being bummy chummy with Lufthansa and Singapore to be actually restricting trade) Of course not, but it can result in US being asked to leave the star alliance. The legal question then would be, is US required to pay the penalty (golden handcuffs) for leaving...and once again, to whom and in what jurisdiction. There is every chance US could simply give notice to the others in each respective country that they wish to terminate the agreements and pay out respective frequent flyer debts, and get away with it. This would be more to do with revenue sharing agreements.

You're right in principle, laws are in place that basically state that any kind of collusion is basically illegal, the reality is far far more complex. Your talking about a lose organisation who's members fly to well over 70 countries, who range from dictatorships, to communist, to theocracies like Iran, to democratic states. Individual members are bound by laws in all of those places every day. So you tell me mr DLX...how you would, in reality, be able to stop these carriers if they all simply decided at once to stop CDG? (strangely enough after a CEO dinner for star alliance carriers in the thai beach resort of phuket)
Particularly if they planned it so they had a 'pullout' timetable and space the exit carrier by carrier over several weeks?
 
D L X
Posts: 11637
Joined: Thu May 27, 1999 3:30 am

RE: Star Alliance To Boycot

Tue Dec 13, 2005 7:52 pm

Quoting Lufthansa (Reply 25):
BTW i graduated from law years ago.....

Not bad for someone who's only 25. (You should update your profile.)
Anyways, I wasn't trying to hold myself as higher than anyone else. I was trying to say that this is pretty esoteric, nerdy stuff, and the only reason I know any of this is that I'm currently studying for a final exam in the topic.

Quoting Lufthansa (Reply 25):
For a start, QF is not a member of Star

Gah.... brain fart. If the agreement were with QF, it would be a major antitrust problem. Substitute a Star partner (NZ), and it may still be a problem, but not as obvious.

Quoting Lufthansa (Reply 25):
Also remember, no CEO in their right mind would ever actually sign such an agreement, these things are decided over long boozey lunches or games of golf.

For one, there needn't be a signed article, but if there were, under US discovery rules, you could certainly get it, and a court will make sure the airlines coughed it up. Even under England's more traditional rules, you can go get it if you have a pretty good idea that it exists. I don't know all of international law, but I know the rule in England and Switzerland are like this.

Quoting Lufthansa (Reply 25):
This would also need to be established and proven, and once again, outside your beloved US jurisdiction.

Careful there, I said from the start that this would be true if the EU antitrust laws mirrored US laws.

Quoting Lufthansa (Reply 25):
How does SK's ARN-AMS flight compete with SQ's CDG-SIN flight? It simply doesn't.

This wouldn't be the issue. It would be SK's ARN-CDG flight and SQ's CDG-SIN flight, and it's effect on CDG. There need not be a direct competitor for the law of boycott to come into play.

Quoting Lufthansa (Reply 25):
DLX, you're seeing this in very narrow terms of US law, and typically as a law student.

Why the patronizing tone?

Quoting Lufthansa (Reply 25):
As star alliance isn't a company itself, (or have any assets/direct control over assets) one would need to prosecute all members in jurisdictions they're all bound by, which would be virtually impossible.



Quoting Lufthansa (Reply 25):
How, for instance, would I successfully prosecute Air New Zealand in relation to CDG or AMS not being served by SQ, LH, SK and UA?

Not true at all. A government solicitor could nail any particular airline in the cartel that it wanted to, and leave the others alone. As for jurisdictional hooks, I haven't learned anything specific to antitrust jurisdiction, but in terms of general jurisdiction, any of the airlines that proposed boycotting CDG, for instance, could be sued in France. OR, and this is something to look out for, any of the airlines that fly to the US could be sued in the US under our antitrust laws. Think about it: most Star airlines fly to the US, and under US jurisdictional laws, that probably would be enough. You could at least nail all the ones that flew to a particular state, like New York (JFK), Virginia, (IAD), California (LAX and SFO) and Illinois (ORD). Under the US law, any individual affected (like me) could sue for treble damages, or the US Dept. of Justice could sue. The complaint? Any of the above could sue NZ for restraining US from flying to CDG and AMS, or simply sue NZ for limiting the American flier's options to those places.

Quoting Lufthansa (Reply 25):
Would the high court of New Zealand possibly consider Air NZ guilty of anti-competitive behaviour by, what are effectively just its frequent flyer partners, refusing to fly into CDG, or AMS?

No need to go all the way to New Zealand for this.

Quoting Lufthansa (Reply 25):
There is every chance US could simply give notice to the others in each respective country that they wish to terminate the agreements and pay out respective frequent flyer debts, and get away with it.

That would be the restraint on trade.

Quoting Lufthansa (Reply 25):
So you tell me mr DLX...how you would, in reality, be able to stop these carriers if they all simply decided at once to stop CDG? (strangely enough after a CEO dinner for star alliance carriers in the thai beach resort of phuket)

They will have a real problem arguing that there is no agreement when there is a newspaper article predating the pull-out saying they're talking about doing this. Again, no signed paper is necessary.


At least in the US.  Wink
 
LO231
Posts: 2227
Joined: Tue Sep 28, 2004 5:55 pm

RE: Star Alliance To Boycot

Tue Dec 13, 2005 8:27 pm

Quoting MEA-707 (Reply 10):
Taxes at Star hubs like FRA, VIE, CPH and LHR (BD) are also rediculously high, whenever I have a connecting flight via one of these, some 150 euro are easily added to the ticket price.

I agree, BRU-VIE-BOM return: 214 EUR in taxes...

FRA is around the same...

Regards,
LO231
Got both LO 788 frames already, next LO E95 and 734 BRU-WAW-BRU
 
Lufthansa
Posts: 2303
Joined: Thu May 20, 1999 6:04 am

RE: Star Alliance To Boycot

Tue Dec 13, 2005 9:34 pm

Quoting Lufthansa (Reply 25):
A government solicitor could nail any particular airline in the cartel that it wanted to, and leave the others alone. As for jurisdictional hooks, I haven't learned anything specific to antitrust jurisdiction, but in terms of general jurisdiction, any of the airlines that proposed boycotting CDG, for instance, could be sued in France. OR, and this is something to look out for, any of the airlines that fly to the US could be sued in the US under our antitrust laws. Think about it: most Star airlines fly to the US, and under US jurisdictional laws, that probably would be enough

But is a french government prosecuter, where they have that lovely little thing called code law really going to launch a challenge in the USA? I doubt it. And I can't for the life of me see why a US goverment prosecutor would launch an action against all star alliance memebers who fly to france.... one, politically it would be considered a waste of resources, 2, it would appear to be interfering with french domestic policy (not good politics, only causes trouble for US with little upside). (and i think honestly, plenty of people in the US government would be sitting back having a good laugh and saying 'stick to to those damn froggies) Yes, in theory, there is scope for it to be done, but in reality? They're going to get away with it.

Okay no signed paper, and in reality everybody knows what's going on. In fact, this would be very much a political campaign, and in order for it to work, if elements of parisian business put pressure on the government to rein in Aeroports de Paris, (such as hotels suffering from reduced capacity, restaurants etc) there needs to be public knowledge of why.

I just can't see them in reality being succesfully prosecuted. It is highly unlikely that a Star memeber would launch an action (they would have considered this sort of thing well and truely before any such attempt, remember same team here) and by boycotting the place, they've left the juristiction in question. (AA isn't very concerned about the judgement Israel passed down about them now are they?) And at best, they can only go after members who all fly to one juristiction, not the alliance itself. As for an individual...big deal, what are they going to get, norminal damanges? And who would actually launch such an action, other than perhaps a law student (who would thus have no significant amount of money to fight this) hoping to get a landmark case and a job in a better firm? That goes into the same kind of case like "girls nights only" in nightclubs or gyms are technically discrimination, but nobody seriously challenges their existance. You'd also have to prove that it limited their options... I see competing airlines raming up capacity on those routes, and new ones quickly entering.

Then there is the arguement that the star alliance was acting as a buying group? Something else to consider and something that is certainly not illegal. The product offered was too expensive, they chose not to use it. Especially if they redeployed the capacity to other cities in europe. That, and by having anti-trust immunity, the EU already authorises at least the European members to act as a single airline. Much like the QF-BA relationship permits them to act as a single airline on all services between London-asia-australia.

BTW, in countries that use what is basically the british system, the universities specialise earlier. There is no 'minor and major' in most degrees... you go into far greater depth from day 1, hence eliminating the need for grad school. The flip side of this is a far lower participation rate and a far higher drop out rate. So you can get an LLB (bachelor of law) in 4 years. I personally elected to do an LLB and then a BEcon. grand total: Seven years. I started at 17.... so yes, not bad for 25. Thanks.

But really its all a moot point. I can't see them being stupid enough to give up those slots and traffic rights where applicable, which in some cases, could be lost forever.... or let the likes of QF, BA and EK start expanding. The best hope they really have is some kind of french or dutch legislation which the airport could be prosecuted for abusing a monopoly. Airlines around the world have been screaming blue murder about fees and taxes out of hand.... but with very little luck to date. I really see them trying to play politics more than actually considering doing it. You may see something like the landing fee printed on itineries in big red letters.... to try and make people aware of the cost and put pressure on the politicians.
 
flyAUA
Posts: 4287
Joined: Wed May 25, 2005 3:12 am

RE: Star Alliance To Boycot

Tue Dec 13, 2005 9:43 pm

Quoting MauriceB (Reply 2):
only normal airlines, without counting the low cost, and charter airlines

What about Martinair?

[Edited 2005-12-13 13:44:09]
Not drinking, also isn't a solution!
 
747400F
Posts: 464
Joined: Thu Feb 26, 2004 3:36 am

RE: Star Alliance To Boycot

Tue Dec 13, 2005 11:29 pm

Quoting MEA-707 (Reply 10):
Taxes at Star hubs like FRA, VIE, CPH and LHR (BD) are also rediculously high, whenever I have a connecting flight via one of these, some 150 euro are easily added to the ticket price.

Danish tax of 75kr will be halfed by new year and be gone in a years time.


Any way this is not a Star boycot but a proposed IATA boycot.

following is from www.standby.dk a danish travel site. (only in danish)
_________________
IATA overvejer boykot af lufthavne
International Air Transport Associations (IATA) medlemmer overvejer at boykotte lufthavne, de mener tager overpriser.

IATAs bestyrelsesformand Robert Milton siger, at en boykot kan være sidste udvej for flyselskaberne for at få sænket lufthavnsafgifterne. Ifølge Milton er flyselskaberne nødt til at stå sammen.
Robert Milton nævner Torontos lufthavn, Pearson International Airport, og Charles de Gaulle i Paris som nogle af de dyreste, men adskillige lufthavne kan blive ramt af boykot.
Robert Milton lover dog, at der vil blive givet et langt varsel, inden en eventuel boykot træder i kraft.
_________________
Rough translation:
Iata consideres boycot
Members of IATA consider boycotting airports that in their opinien charges too much.

Chairman of IATA Robert Milton says that a boycot will be the last resort for the airlines in order to get airportfees lowered. According to Milton the airlines need to stick together.
Robert Milton mentions Toronto and CDG as some of the most expensive ones, but several airport could be hit by the boycot.
Milton does however promise that a long warning period will be given before the boycot comes into effect.

[Edited 2005-12-13 15:29:52]
All humans have the right to marry the one they love
 
mauriceb
Posts: 2150
Joined: Tue Aug 10, 2004 2:50 am

RE: Star Alliance To Boycot

Wed Dec 14, 2005 12:14 am

Quoting FlyAUA (Reply 29):
Quoting MauriceB (Reply 2):
only normal airlines, without counting the low cost, and charter airlines

What about Martinair?

martinair doesnt operate that much pax flights a day, the 4 convertable MD-11's are flying only cargo at the moment (together with the 3 full freighters) and also the 2 747's are flying cargo together with the other 2 full cargo.

so that leaves 3 A320's, and 6 767's (recently added) , wich are all doing long runs (A320's mostly do TFS, PLM etc, + they fly from other dutch airports) so think they don't have more than 8/9 pax departures a day...
 
commavia
Posts: 9649
Joined: Mon Apr 25, 2005 2:30 am

RE: Star Alliance To Boycot

Wed Dec 14, 2005 12:25 am

I generally agree with the premise that this move, if true, will hurt the Star airlines more than it hurts the airport authorities in AMS or CDG.

This is kind of like when a FA union, or a mechanics union, says, "we're going to go on strike and show the American people that we're worth more than they're willing to pay for us." Just like in that case, the plan works great -- as long as every union is onboard. If only that airline's union goes on strike, all that happens is that airline loses money, and that airline's unions lose even more jobs and influence. The same is true in this case with this apparent boycott plan -- unless every airline boycots these airports (which is, of course, highly unlikely) the impact is going to be much bigger on the few airlines that do boycott than on the airport itself. All that is going to happen is Star carriers boycott AMS and CDG is that traffic will shift to other airlines, improving their results, and bulstering their fare levels to make up for an increase in charges.

All this being said, however, the point that Star carriers, IATA, etc. are making -- that airport charges in the world are out of control -- is a good point and I'm glad to see them making it.
 
D L X
Posts: 11637
Joined: Thu May 27, 1999 3:30 am

RE: Star Alliance To Boycot

Wed Dec 14, 2005 1:57 am

I'm sure this subconversation is boring all the people that don't care about the legal issues, so I'll keep this brief.

Quoting Lufthansa (Reply 28):
But is a french government prosecuter, where they have that lovely little thing called code law really going to launch a challenge in the USA? I doubt it. And I can't for the life of me see why a US goverment prosecutor would launch an action against all star alliance memebers who fly to france....

Of course a French solicitor isn't going to launch a challenge anywhere but in France. That doesn't mean they won't do it. CDG and ORY of course would be the interests most affected by a walk-out. If it's illegal under French antitrust, you can certainly get them, even after they walk out. It's called hardball - it would really stick it to these airlines if there were a judgment against them in a country they want to serve. It says, "if you walk out, you cannot come back, so make sure this is the step you want to take."

Quoting Lufthansa (Reply 28):
2, it would appear to be interfering with french domestic policy

I have no idea how it interferes with French policy. They wouldn't be suing France, or ORY or CDG. They're suing the airlines (that also aren't French) that made the agreement not to serve France.

Quoting Lufthansa (Reply 28):
It is highly unlikely that a Star memeber would launch an action

Probably true. It's much more likely to come from an individual (or class of individuals), or a government solicitor. I could see a Star member doing it if they had to leave the alliance as a result of this agreement.

Quoting Lufthansa (Reply 28):
by boycotting the place, they've left the juristiction in question.

See above. File the suit before the last employee is released, then a judgment will be sitting there waiting for the airline to return. (I'm not sure, but a judgment in France could likely be enforced in other EU countries, or even the US under the Uniform Money Damages Act.)

Quoting Lufthansa (Reply 28):
at best, they can only go after members who all fly to one juristiction, not the alliance itself

No problem there. Would you want to be the one airline that got singled out? The fact that any single airline could get nailed individually encourages all the airlines to prevent the agreement from forming in the first place.

Quoting Lufthansa (Reply 28):
As for an individual...big deal, what are they going to get, norminal damanges?

LOTS of damages!!! Especially if it were a class. The fewer competitors there are in a market, the higher the prices. The difference in fares is the damage. But in any event, (at least in the US,) you don't have to prove damages. Boycotts are per se illegal - the mere fact that you did it means you're liable. Surprisingly enough, if you and I formed an agreement saying that neither of us would fly to France, that's an antitrust problem, and we'd both be liable, even though we're not even airlines. It's a restraint on trade. (Doesn't have to be a big restraint, although if it's not, it's obviously unlikely there would be a suit.)

Quoting Lufthansa (Reply 28):
That, and by having anti-trust immunity, the EU already authorises at least the European members to act as a single airline.

That's an interesting question, how the immunity would have an effect. However, I strongly doubt that it is unlimited antitrust immunity, and I'd be shocked if it were irrevocable antitrust immunity.