Also: less competition = higher profits = good for shareholders
And: higher prices = higher wages = good for employees
Further: higher prices = less passengers = less flights = less need for new runways, less noise, good for residents
What's not to love?
Unless the correct balance is achieved: higher price = less passengers = less profits = less employees = more unemployment = bad for the economy = bad for society.
Is that what you want to love?
Less competition means that prices can be optimised for maximum profit. They will be higher than with competition. The employees of the surviving company (BA) will enjoy higher wages.
Higher wages? Really?
I've read some absolute nonsense on this thread (and I make no apology for acting as a counterpoint to some of that), but I do not believe BA will increase the wages they pay staff in the event of a VS collapse. Think about it. A VS collapse would see a few thousand pilots and cabin crew suddenly become available, many of which are already type-rated on the same aircraft BA operate (so less time/money needs to be spent on training) and will be desperate to find alternative employment PDQ. BA are smart enough to realise they can just offer their standard T&C's that they used when recruiting pilots/CC beforehand and most will probably take it. In an employer's market, which this would be if not already given the Thomas Cook and Flybe collapses, there's little incentive to increase wages.
This is also assuming of course BA have any vacancies.
There's nothing to stop unions pushing for that and resorting to industrial action like they did with BA Mixed Fleet crew a few years ago (who are definitely on the lower end of the scale for wages and T&C's, especially compared to their colleagues on Worldwide pay/T&C) irrespective of the competition, but that always involves some sort of compromise and isn't a guaranteed route to success.
Frankly, I also don't believe vast majority of BA employees believe they can expect a pay rise either and nor do I think those on the front line in particular are hoping VS go bust.. I look on Twitter, see the feeds of pilots, cabin crew and other staff who work for BA and other airlines and I often read comments such as "we're all one big aviation family etc." whenever somebody is out of a job because their employer went bust.
In the early 1980s BA absolutely did not have an ‘unreasonably high’ influence over Government policy. The situation was far more complicated than that.
The Conservative Government of 1979 onwards believed in a free market economy and positively encouraged competition.
It makes the decision by Mrs Thatcher to let Laker collapse all the more baffling despite previously heralding Laker as a champion for free enterprise. I accept she was a strict free marketer, but then they were in the process of trying to privatise BA at the time...https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/t ... 28497.html
Also, if Wikipedia is right, BA ended up paying Laker a lot more than the £8m settlement...https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laker_Airways
If they go under, those same companies will get business from other airlines. You seriously think other airlines won't fly to lhr and pay the fees?
In the case of MAN certainly, BA has shown they have no love for the airport, where as VS is expanding there.
Because it’s a business not a courting couple.....
True. I don't think anybody is inferring in this thread that BA should replace VS out of MAN and their history is well-documented and often discussed at length on here.
However, jetwet1's point I wholeheartedly agree with. It's not just long-haul as BA also axed MAN-LGW a few years ago which survived the BA Connect sale and the cutting of MAN-JFK. I personally do not believe BA will step into the breach at MAN, not even with a token service to MCO (I'm not going to talk about the logistics of how that would work as it's not the thread for it).
It used to be common to hear younger people cite being like Richard Branson was their ambition, often now it's to be a reality TV star, or You-Tuber. Make of that what you will.
Plus his more recent actions, like suing the NHS. He ain't well liked any more.
I, for one, would much rather be successful along the lines of SRB than a reality TV star, YouTuber, influencers on social media etc. Don't get me started on the social influencers who ask for freebies in return for an Instagram post either!
As for the NHS, wasn't that down to issues they had with the procurement process? It's not the thread for it, but I do think at times the NHS is seen in some quarters as being beyond reproach. Some day it might be possible to have an honest discussion about what could be done to improve the NHS without resorting to bashing politicians or private providers (who, let's fact it, have been involved in the NHS in some form for a very long time), however I don't think that will happen any time soon.
I don't think people's objection to government rescue VS is based on opinion on RB solely. People are asking genuine questions.
I disagree with that. Whilst some people are looking at this objectively, there have been a number of posters on here and many more elsewhere who are making it all about the figurehead, which in this case is SRB.
When I read comments (or should it be tropes) such as "tax dodger" or "Caribbean island" or "billionaire", it's hard to see how there isn't a personal slant towards their objections.