Steve Hart: Aussies get it right over airline merger

COMMENT

"Not in the public interest". It couldn't have been clearer when the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission (ACCC) announced its decision on the proposed Qantas and Air New Zealand merger.

Chairman of the commission, Graeme Samuel, said the alliance would be "highly anti-competitive" and the benefits "small".

The two airlines want to work more closely with each other and agree on fares, flight schedules and routes. Qantas also wants to buy 22.5 per cent of our national carrier for $550 million.

In a way Air NZ shot itself in the foot by on the one hand saying it needed the merger for its "long-term viability", while on the other launching the penny-pinching Tasman Express service. By doing this the airline proved that competition does indeed do some good as Qantas and other airlines responded by lowering fares on their full service transtasman flights.

However, one line from the commission's announcement is telling. It says both airlines "have indicated publicly that neither is realistically in danger of failure even in the medium term".

Samuel said: "The two airlines are both profitable and competing strongly ... Consumers are benefiting from that competition ... "

And that is what it is all about. We need every bit of competition we can get to achieve better prices and better services for New Zealanders. A monopoly (or duopoly) is not an answer in this day and age.

I believe they've got it right across the Ditch. But we will have to wait until the end of the month for a decision from our Commerce Commission. But does their decision matter now? You can't clap with one hand.

So far Air New Zealand has spent $11 million trying to get the merger approved and says it will appeal the decision. That could take three months to two years and cost $2 million. I say enough is enough.

* There can't be anyone in New Zealand who doesn't know about the rules at our international airports. But still, people turn up to board flights carrying items that have been prohibited for two years.

Knives, blades, scissors - sharp objects that could be used to injure or threaten someone - are routinely confiscated by airport security staff.

But why is this happening? Why are people still arriving at airports carrying these objects?

Thousands of items collectively worth thousands of dollars have been taken from their owners, some people become distraught and angry. I can understand how they feel, but cannot understand why they are carrying these things at all after all the publicity.

It's simple - if in doubt, pack it in your luggage - do not try to board a plane with any sharp object in your carry-on luggage or in your pockets.

Some people have even tried to sneak such items onboard. It creates problems for airport staff, passengers and the individuals who sometimes lose treasured possessions.

Some people have suggested that passengers carry a prepaid envelope so confiscated items can be posted home. But if you think you need an envelope then you are probably carrying something you shouldn't.

And if you buy sharp objects abroad, pack them in your checked luggage for the return journey or post them home.

But could airport staff do more to help? Maybe there's a case for airports to offer a forwarding-on service for which a charge would apply. But who wants to be held up in a queue while someone fills out a form and gets a receipt for their contraband?

Times have changed. Travellers have to be sensible, to think ahead and plan.

All it took was a few people with sharp objects to cause the mayhem in the United States in 2001. We must abide by and support these rules for everyone's safety.