Kingfisher Airlines has opened a new office in Sydney as part of its efforts to step up its presence in the Australian market.
The Indian carrier, which only started flying internationally 18 months ago, flies to Singapore, Bangkok and Hong Kong.
Pricing & Distribution Manager Ian Turpin told e-Travel Blackboard the new office would offer a raft of fares to Australian agents and travellers and assist in selling connecting fares on carriers which Kingfisher has agreements with.
He added that the soon-to-be-oneworld-member carrier was "keen" to expand its network into Australia, but had no plans as of yet.
Source: Etravelblackboard
Wednesday, June 16, 2010
Thursday, June 10, 2010
Kingfisher moves SC against CCI probe into tie-up with Jet Airways
Kingfisher Airlines has moved the Supreme Court seeking quashing of an order by the Competition Commission of India (CCI) directing a probe into its strategic alliance with Jet Airways. In August last year, the CCI had restarted the investigations to examine the alliance to rationalise the fares of the two leading private airlines. The commission is investigating if the deal created a monopoly in the aviation sector.
Kingfisher is challenging the authority of CCI to reopen the case that was closed by former anti-trust regulator Monopolies and Restrictive Trade Practices Commission (MRTPC) on September 4 last year or even to investigate the same.
If the case of cartelisation is made out, CCI can impose a heavy fine amounting to three times the profit or 10% of the individual turnover of the firms for the period of cartelisation.
The Kingfisher appeal is against a Bombay High Court judgment of March 31 that dismissed the airlines' plea against the inquiry. The airline headed by Vijay Mallya has contended that the Competition Act was amended after the alliance was formed and as such, the new rules can not have a retrospective effect. The impugned August 4, 2009 notices under the Act which “purported to commence investigation in respect of the proposed alliance were ex-facie illegal and without jurisdiction since the provisions under which the inquiry was sought to be conducted viz., Sections 3, 4, 19, 42 and 43 of the Act came into force only on May 20, 2009 and ex-facie these sections are prospective and not retrospective, and can apply only to agreements entered into after May 20, 2009, ” the petition stated.
“What is prohibited by Section 3 is the entering into of the agreement and not the continuation of preexisting agreements,” it added. While the high court had dismissed Kingfisher's plea on March 31, the authorities on April 15 had asked the airline and Mallya to subject themselves to the “ex-facie illegal proceedings.”
Seeking stay of all the proceedings, the airline said that it apprehended the authorities would initiate coercive steps including imposition of penalty and the same would cause “grave and serious harm, loss and prejudice which cannot be compensated in terms of monies.”
Source: Financial Express
Kingfisher is challenging the authority of CCI to reopen the case that was closed by former anti-trust regulator Monopolies and Restrictive Trade Practices Commission (MRTPC) on September 4 last year or even to investigate the same.
If the case of cartelisation is made out, CCI can impose a heavy fine amounting to three times the profit or 10% of the individual turnover of the firms for the period of cartelisation.
The Kingfisher appeal is against a Bombay High Court judgment of March 31 that dismissed the airlines' plea against the inquiry. The airline headed by Vijay Mallya has contended that the Competition Act was amended after the alliance was formed and as such, the new rules can not have a retrospective effect. The impugned August 4, 2009 notices under the Act which “purported to commence investigation in respect of the proposed alliance were ex-facie illegal and without jurisdiction since the provisions under which the inquiry was sought to be conducted viz., Sections 3, 4, 19, 42 and 43 of the Act came into force only on May 20, 2009 and ex-facie these sections are prospective and not retrospective, and can apply only to agreements entered into after May 20, 2009, ” the petition stated.
“What is prohibited by Section 3 is the entering into of the agreement and not the continuation of preexisting agreements,” it added. While the high court had dismissed Kingfisher's plea on March 31, the authorities on April 15 had asked the airline and Mallya to subject themselves to the “ex-facie illegal proceedings.”
Seeking stay of all the proceedings, the airline said that it apprehended the authorities would initiate coercive steps including imposition of penalty and the same would cause “grave and serious harm, loss and prejudice which cannot be compensated in terms of monies.”
Source: Financial Express
Friday, June 4, 2010
Two tragedies, but a world of difference in compensation
In a week, we have seen two major tragedies — the Air India Express flight crash in Mangalore last Saturday and the Maoist attack on Gyaneshwari Express in West Bengal on Friday. While one might assume that the loss of life should hold the same importance, whether a train or an air accident, the compensations announced tell a different story.
The government announced a compensation package of Rs 5 lakh each to families of the victims of the Maoist attack on the Gyaneshwari Express. The same government has awarded Rs 10 lakh each to the families of those who died in Saturday's air crash. This is an interim package, and the total relief amount can go up to Rs 72 lakh, according to the provisions of the Carriage by Air (Amendment) Act.
The injured in the air crash will get Rs 2 lakh, whereas the injured in the train attack will get Rs 1 lakh. Historically too, train accident victims are handed out lesser ex gratia. Consider the three train accidents that took place in Uttar Pradesh on January 2 earlier this year in which 10 people were killed and 45 injured.
The compensation in this case was Rs 5 lakh for the dead, Rs 1 lakh for the critically injured and Rs 10,000 for those with minor injuries.
The real issue is insurance. In India, railway passengers are not insured by Indian Railways and various bodies of the government take responsibility in case of an accident. "As for flight passengers, the onus of safety lies on carriers, so they go for large insurance," says Tarun Singh, MD-CEO of Finexure Financial Services, a management company catering to retail and HNI clients.
Source: Times of India
The government announced a compensation package of Rs 5 lakh each to families of the victims of the Maoist attack on the Gyaneshwari Express. The same government has awarded Rs 10 lakh each to the families of those who died in Saturday's air crash. This is an interim package, and the total relief amount can go up to Rs 72 lakh, according to the provisions of the Carriage by Air (Amendment) Act.
The injured in the air crash will get Rs 2 lakh, whereas the injured in the train attack will get Rs 1 lakh. Historically too, train accident victims are handed out lesser ex gratia. Consider the three train accidents that took place in Uttar Pradesh on January 2 earlier this year in which 10 people were killed and 45 injured.
The compensation in this case was Rs 5 lakh for the dead, Rs 1 lakh for the critically injured and Rs 10,000 for those with minor injuries.
The real issue is insurance. In India, railway passengers are not insured by Indian Railways and various bodies of the government take responsibility in case of an accident. "As for flight passengers, the onus of safety lies on carriers, so they go for large insurance," says Tarun Singh, MD-CEO of Finexure Financial Services, a management company catering to retail and HNI clients.
Source: Times of India
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
