Cross-channel fares & deterrent to tourist trade
Jun 23rd 2003, 5:06 am
#1
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Cross-channel fares & deterrent to tourist trade
On Mon, 23 Jun 2003 17:10:04 GMT, Bill Smith
wrote:
>Rip-off fares deter British from visiting Europe and Europeans from
>visiting Britain.
>"Rip-off"? Not according to the ferry operators' spokesman (BBC "World
>at One" today). But how do four competing companies independently reach
>almost identical fares?
That's what competition does. One compny drops their fares,
others must follow suit to avoid losing business. Yes, it can be
the result of collusion, and that collusion would be illegal in
many places, including the EU, I believe.
************* DAVE HATUNEN ([email protected]) *************
* Tucson Arizona, out where the cacti grow *
* My typos & mispellings are intentional copyright traps *
wrote:
>Rip-off fares deter British from visiting Europe and Europeans from
>visiting Britain.
>"Rip-off"? Not according to the ferry operators' spokesman (BBC "World
>at One" today). But how do four competing companies independently reach
>almost identical fares?
That's what competition does. One compny drops their fares,
others must follow suit to avoid losing business. Yes, it can be
the result of collusion, and that collusion would be illegal in
many places, including the EU, I believe.
************* DAVE HATUNEN ([email protected]) *************
* Tucson Arizona, out where the cacti grow *
* My typos & mispellings are intentional copyright traps *
Jun 23rd 2003, 5:10 am
#2
Guest
Posts: n/a
Cross-channel fares & deterrent to tourist trade
Rip-off fares deter British from visiting Europe and Europeans from
visiting Britain.
"Rip-off"? Not according to the ferry operators' spokesman (BBC "World
at One" today). But how do four competing companies independently reach
almost identical fares?
I can appreciate that in the really off-peak times (a very wet day in
November, as the spokesman suggested)it makes sense to offer big, even
huge, discounts. But why, if I travel HIGH season, should I have to pay
three or four times as much for a 2-trip channel crossing than I would
pay, during the SAME high season, but staying only a weekend or making a
"booze run" of same-day crossings?
If you think cross-channel fares (ferries AND chunnel) are extortionate,
BBC mentioned the website below. It was sneeringly dismissed by the
ferry guy as having "only 1300 members" - over to you on both sides of
the channel:
http://www.channelpirates.com/
visiting Britain.
"Rip-off"? Not according to the ferry operators' spokesman (BBC "World
at One" today). But how do four competing companies independently reach
almost identical fares?
I can appreciate that in the really off-peak times (a very wet day in
November, as the spokesman suggested)it makes sense to offer big, even
huge, discounts. But why, if I travel HIGH season, should I have to pay
three or four times as much for a 2-trip channel crossing than I would
pay, during the SAME high season, but staying only a weekend or making a
"booze run" of same-day crossings?
If you think cross-channel fares (ferries AND chunnel) are extortionate,
BBC mentioned the website below. It was sneeringly dismissed by the
ferry guy as having "only 1300 members" - over to you on both sides of
the channel:
http://www.channelpirates.com/
Jun 24th 2003, 1:01 am
#3
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Cross-channel fares & deterrent to tourist trade
Hatunen wrote:
> On Mon, 23 Jun 2003 17:10:04 GMT, Bill Smith
> wrote:
>
>
>>Rip-off fares deter British from visiting Europe and Europeans from
>>visiting Britain.
>>"Rip-off"? Not according to the ferry operators' spokesman (BBC "World
>>at One" today). But how do four competing companies independently reach
>>almost identical fares?
>
>
> That's what competition does. One compny drops their fares,
> others must follow suit to avoid losing business.
Ah! That's all right, then!
Yes, it can be
> the result of collusion, and that collusion would be illegal in
> many places, including the EU, I believe.
But big business often does things that aren't exactly "legal", as
recent events on your side of the water more than amply demonstrated.
>
>
> ************* DAVE HATUNEN ([email protected]) *************
> * Tucson Arizona, out where the cacti grow *
> * My typos & mispellings are intentional copyright traps *
Your newsgroup posts are *copyright*?
> On Mon, 23 Jun 2003 17:10:04 GMT, Bill Smith
> wrote:
>
>
>>Rip-off fares deter British from visiting Europe and Europeans from
>>visiting Britain.
>>"Rip-off"? Not according to the ferry operators' spokesman (BBC "World
>>at One" today). But how do four competing companies independently reach
>>almost identical fares?
>
>
> That's what competition does. One compny drops their fares,
> others must follow suit to avoid losing business.
Ah! That's all right, then!
Yes, it can be
> the result of collusion, and that collusion would be illegal in
> many places, including the EU, I believe.
But big business often does things that aren't exactly "legal", as
recent events on your side of the water more than amply demonstrated.
>
>
> ************* DAVE HATUNEN ([email protected]) *************
> * Tucson Arizona, out where the cacti grow *
> * My typos & mispellings are intentional copyright traps *
Your newsgroup posts are *copyright*?
Jun 24th 2003, 4:05 am
#4
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Cross-channel fares & deterrent to tourist trade
Bill Smith wrote:
>> ************* DAVE HATUNEN ([email protected]) *************
>> * Tucson Arizona, out where the cacti grow *
>> * My typos & mispellings are intentional copyright traps *
> Your newsgroup posts are *copyright*?
Everyone's are, at least under US law.
miguel
--
Hit The Road! Photos and tales from around the world: http://travel.u.nu
Latest photos: Maldives, Dubai and Vietnam
>> ************* DAVE HATUNEN ([email protected]) *************
>> * Tucson Arizona, out where the cacti grow *
>> * My typos & mispellings are intentional copyright traps *
> Your newsgroup posts are *copyright*?
Everyone's are, at least under US law.
miguel
--
Hit The Road! Photos and tales from around the world: http://travel.u.nu
Latest photos: Maldives, Dubai and Vietnam
Jun 24th 2003, 5:14 am
#5
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Cross-channel fares & deterrent to tourist trade
On Tue, 24 Jun 2003 13:01:06 GMT, Bill Smith
wrote:
>Hatunen wrote:
>> On Mon, 23 Jun 2003 17:10:04 GMT, Bill Smith
>> wrote:
>>
>>
>>>Rip-off fares deter British from visiting Europe and Europeans from
>>>visiting Britain.
>>>"Rip-off"? Not according to the ferry operators' spokesman (BBC "World
>>>at One" today). But how do four competing companies independently reach
>>>almost identical fares?
>>
>>
>> That's what competition does. One compny drops their fares,
>> others must follow suit to avoid losing business.
>Ah! That's all right, then!
> Yes, it can be
>> the result of collusion, and that collusion would be illegal in
>> many places, including the EU, I believe.
>But big business often does things that aren't exactly "legal", as
>recent events on your side of the water more than amply demonstrated.
If you think that big business doesn't do similarly illegal
things on your side of the pond, you haven't been following the
news much.
>> ************* DAVE HATUNEN ([email protected]) *************
>> * Tucson Arizona, out where the cacti grow *
>> * My typos & mispellings are intentional copyright traps *
>Your newsgroup posts are *copyright*?
Certainly in the USA, and I believe under interntional copyright
law, all our postings are copyright.
But that rather misses the point of my sig...
************* DAVE HATUNEN ([email protected]) *************
* Tucson Arizona, out where the cacti grow *
* My typos & mispellings are intentional copyright traps *
wrote:
>Hatunen wrote:
>> On Mon, 23 Jun 2003 17:10:04 GMT, Bill Smith
>> wrote:
>>
>>
>>>Rip-off fares deter British from visiting Europe and Europeans from
>>>visiting Britain.
>>>"Rip-off"? Not according to the ferry operators' spokesman (BBC "World
>>>at One" today). But how do four competing companies independently reach
>>>almost identical fares?
>>
>>
>> That's what competition does. One compny drops their fares,
>> others must follow suit to avoid losing business.
>Ah! That's all right, then!
> Yes, it can be
>> the result of collusion, and that collusion would be illegal in
>> many places, including the EU, I believe.
>But big business often does things that aren't exactly "legal", as
>recent events on your side of the water more than amply demonstrated.
If you think that big business doesn't do similarly illegal
things on your side of the pond, you haven't been following the
news much.
>> ************* DAVE HATUNEN ([email protected]) *************
>> * Tucson Arizona, out where the cacti grow *
>> * My typos & mispellings are intentional copyright traps *
>Your newsgroup posts are *copyright*?
Certainly in the USA, and I believe under interntional copyright
law, all our postings are copyright.
But that rather misses the point of my sig...
************* DAVE HATUNEN ([email protected]) *************
* Tucson Arizona, out where the cacti grow *
* My typos & mispellings are intentional copyright traps *
