V-Flyer

To say he is lucky to still be in his job after knowing there was illegal activity in the airline is an understatement.

Link to Telegraph online.

quote:
Steve Ridgway expressed deep regrets after he was named in court in connection with four current and former executives from British Airways, who yesterday pleaded not guilty to colluding with Virgin to fix the price of fuel surcharges on passenger flights. The alleged offence occurred between July 1 2004 and April 20 2006.

'I apologise unreservedly for my involvement in this case,' said Mr Ridgway, who earned 700,000 last year. 'I have fully co-operated with the competition authorities since their enquiries began in 2006.'






Edit by mod to shorten link...... Nick

Good find Leo and I concur with your views - I would expect to see him 'resign' prompty now this information has been avowed.

Regards,

Hackneyguy

I doubt it, remember he is not your normal CEO

If he was going to resign, I would have thought he would have done it when the 'dirty tricks' were exposed. [n]

Part of me thinks he should go, but then.... Is there a single large industry, be it supermarkets, house builders, pubs, car manufacturers, petrol retailers, hotels, train companies - to name but a few, that doesn't operate some sort of price fixing cartel?

It seems BS's sin was getting caught, and VS only got away with it, because they grassed up BA for doing exactly what they were doing themselves - or am I missing something?

Nick

quote:Originally posted by Nottingham Nick


It seems BS's sin was getting caught, and VS only got away with it, because they grassed up BA for doing exactly what they were doing themselves - or am I missing something?

Nick


(read that as 'VS's crime..')

No Nick, if you blab (but it probbaly has some fancy legal title) then you get immunity from prosecution but not any immunity from having to pay any compensation

As the article states

'While Virgin escaped any fines, it was forced to make a 32.5m provision for potential class-action compensation claims.'

This sort of thing is quite popular in the States and happens in all sorts of anti-trust cases.

I wonder what the reaction would have been if was the other way round - BA blabbing on VS.

VS would pay the fine and SR would still have a job.

Strikes me it's not an easy thing to prove (price fixing that is).

Competing companies 'collude' all the time by watching each other's prices. Ostensibly this is in the interests of consumers - but I guess even if Tesco could sell beans cheaper it wouldn't do so unless driven by a competitors lower prices.

Ah well, keeps the lawyers in work...........

quote:Originally posted by Scrooge
VS would pay the fine and SR would still have a job.


Scrooge, you and I must know some similar things [:w].

It does make it difficult for SRB to sping his typical yarn about how great VS are ... and easier for WeeWW to point at how BA did remove some senior execs but the folk at VS kept theirs in the top jobs!

Maybe he could start forfeiting wages like Willie Walsh is.... everyone needs to play their part.

LRoM made a funny !

Please, sorry, but that isn't going to happen.

The only people that make serious money at any Virgin companies are SRB and the friends of SRB, even then it's the people close to him that make the money and he will protect.

BTW, I am not saying this is a bad thing, loyalty flows both ways.

The words double standards come to mind. Thinking of VS in the media as of late, the last two big scandals have been the BA price fixing allegations & the Facebook 13. Let's look at how Virgin handled each;

Facebook 13
Did they swindle passengers out of money? No
Did they commit a criminal offence? No
Were the police interested? No
Did it make worldwide news for several years? No
Apologised.
Sentence: Dishonourable discharge, i.e. the sack

Steve Ridgway
Was he aware that a crime was being commited? Yes
Were the police interested? Yes
Did his knowledge help swindle passengers out of money? Yes
Did it make worldwide news for several years and bring the company into disrepute? Yes
Apologised.
Sentence: Keeps job and will doubtless get a bonus for steering VS through hard financial times (unless he does quit)

Something is not quite right here!

James

quote:Originally posted by Kraken
The words double standards come to mind. Thinking of VS in the media as of late, the last two big scandals have been the BA price fixing allegations & the Facebook 13. Let's look at how Virgin handled each;

Facebook 13
Did they swindle passengers out of money? No
Did they commit a criminal offence? No
Were the police interested? No
Did it make worldwide news for several years? No
Apologised.
Sentence: Dishonourable discharge, i.e. the sack

James


Don't mention the 13, you'll wake the monster.

quote:Don't mention the 13, you'll wake the monster.I'm not intending (or wanting to) create any trouble about the FB13. All I was doing is highlighting the differing way in which Virgin have dealt with 'errors of judgement' by staff at differing levels.

James

Don't worry. It was a reference to someone who decided to try and make a name for themselves off the back of the incident.

All they did was totally ailenate themselves on here, FB and FT.

quote:Originally posted by Darren Wheeler

All they did was totally ailenate themselves on here, FB and FT.


Well I made friends with them [:D]

Yes there is a difference in the way the two cases were handled, please reference my posts in this thread for an explanation of why they were handled differently.

More details emerging, including SRB knowing about it.

At some point, Moore told Virgin's president Sir Richard Branson "that he had some sort of contact at BA"

Guardian Link

locutus wrote:More details emerging, including SRB knowing about it.

At some point, Moore told Virgin's president Sir Richard Branson "that he had some sort of contact at BA"

Guardian Link

I can't see that extract in the link you provided?

The article appears to have been modified on Tuesday morning, removing that bit. ?| Well, it did have the bit I quoted!

At the end of the day the top brass will always cover their own backsides, it is the nature of all big business, right or wrong nothing changes regardless of what people think.

SR and the rest of the VS execs who were involved in this should really be considering their positions in an ideal world but that world doesnt exist and it is one rule for one and another for everyone else.

The original Guardian article appears to still be available here.

It includes further SRB involvement when LH increased surcharges.

It's being reported that the trial has just collapsed.

No more details at the moment.

BBC link here

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/10104556.stm