SQ fined $133 mil for Illegal Price Collusion. Well Done.

[rodent2005]

SGD133 million, wow, did Temasek lose more or SIA lose more?

Singaporeans lose most, but nothing like GST increase, Carbon Tax, healthcare costs increase, utility charges increase, public transport fare increase, property tax increase and other increases cannot fix.

 

[Rogue Trader]

You people are imbeciles. If there is a cartel of who's who's who in the airline industry, you better be very very worried if SQ is not invited to that cartel. I rather SQ pay the fine than be excluded from that cartel.

i wouldn't go so far to wish for a 133M fine, but i agree with you on being included in the big boys club. At this level of business, it's all about politics.

 

[cass888]

i wouldn't go so far to wish for a 133M fine, but i agree with you on being included in the big boys club. At this level of business, it's all about politics.

Hope they gang up and appeal.

 

[0939]

I thought ours was a perfect Govt. You remembered those Malysian Express Bus Companies, they will fined by our Govt for increased in prices.

 

[Kuailan]

HA! who cares! They are ripping the angmos off anyway

SIA has been screwing SG all the time, ticket sold to SG higher to
subsidise loss in other place like Australia, Ozzie land peasant has been purchasing cheap SIA ticket!!

Don't u know??

 

[bryanlim1972]

Actually I see nothing wrong with what they are doing in the pure capitalist context. Unfortunately the bleeding heart liberals have created this stupid anti-trust anti-business law.

And really seriously, if SIA were not on that list I really WOULD worry because we were excluded from that cartel.

the "stupid anti trust laws" you denigrate seek to protect the rights consumers. any JC econs student can write you an essay on why oligopolies are inefficient and undesirable.

and your caveat of "in the capitalist context" is just a back door for you to stick your pussy ass in when someone calls you on your misplaced 2 cent opinion.

you obviously have cast your lot with the big businesses. typical PAP mongrel ensconced in your ivory tower.

the PAP helps the bottom 5% and makes a whole song and dance about it. they have lost touch with the other 75% middle class.

 

[Royalblood]

Really?, today they rip angmo off, tomorrow, it will be you. Reminds me of those restaurants that charge angmos one price and locals another price.

Ripping the angmo off is one thing. Ripping us off is another.

If the GLCs all collude and rip off us do u expect the EU competition agency to fight on our behalf? No need to come tell me shit like if they were not punished in the EU, this will only encourage the GLCs to be more anti-competitive in our territory becoz these are 2 entirely different market and regulated by different governments.

Let's just enjoy the show while we can.

 

[Royalblood]

SIA has been screwing SG all the time, ticket sold to SG higher to
subsidise loss in other place like Australia, Ozzie land peasant has been purchasing cheap SIA ticket!!

Don't u know??

Yes i know! And i choose to fly with other airlines! Maybe u should tooo!

 

[Royalblood]

They came first for the Communists,
and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a Communist.

Then they came for the trade unionists,
and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a trade unionist.

Then they came for the Jews,
and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a Jew.

Then they came for me
and by that time no one was left to speak up.

Ok, get the EU watch dog to speak up for you when the anti-competitive behaviour takes place in our market.

Let's see if they are willing to or if they have the ability to

 

[Royalblood]

Its not a cartel when even the members fight over the same laws and standards that anyone doing business with EU have to.

EU is a cartel. It is formed to enable easier trade and immigration flow at the expense of non-members (aka non-europeans).

A lot of big european companies are anti-competitve. The agricutural and aviation industry receive huge subsidies from the government and high trade barrier in non-member goods of similar nature to protect domestic industry.
Does that sound competitive to you?

 

[cass888]

the "stupid anti trust laws" you denigrate seek to protect the rights consumers. any JC econs student can write you an essay on why oligopolies are inefficient and undesirable.

and your caveat of "in the capitalist context" is just a back door for you to stick your pussy ass in when someone calls you on your misplaced 2 cent opinion.

you obviously have cast your lot with the big businesses. typical PAP mongrel ensconced in your ivory tower.

the PAP helps the bottom 5% and makes a whole song and dance about it. they have lost touch with the other 75% middle class.

Very easy to pull out your Lipsey & Steiner and make all these simplistic remarks. The reality is that anti-trust laws have destryoed many a decent corporation, SO, Bell and recently, nearly Microsoft.

Desirable or undesirable is just a matter of interpretation. By trying to be "pro-consumer" you are basically behaving like a communist/leftist. Instead of the reality of an upward sloping supply curve, you are trying to achieve the flat demand curve which frankly does nothing for the corporation's shareholders.

 

[Cruxx]

The world needs more master moralists like cass888.

 

[Cruxx]

Ok, get the EU watch dog to speak up for you when the anti-competitive behaviour takes place in our market.

Let's see if they are willing to or if they have the ability to

I'm not saying we should help the ang mo so that they may reciprocate. I'm merely appealing to the notion that tyrants do not discriminate. You turn a blind eye to tyranny, soon it will be your turn.

 

[cass888]

The world needs more master moralists like cass888.

What you mean is amoralist. The only way to approach a problem objectively.