Commentary: Alternatives to Dan-Air
Your support helps us to tell the story
From reproductive rights to climate change to Big Tech, The Independent is on the ground when the story is developing. Whether it's investigating the financials of Elon Musk's pro-Trump PAC or producing our latest documentary, 'The A Word', which shines a light on the American women fighting for reproductive rights, we know how important it is to parse out the facts from the messaging.
At such a critical moment in US history, we need reporters on the ground. Your donation allows us to keep sending journalists to speak to both sides of the story.
The Independent is trusted by Americans across the entire political spectrum. And unlike many other quality news outlets, we choose not to lock Americans out of our reporting and analysis with paywalls. We believe quality journalism should be available to everyone, paid for by those who can afford it.
Your support makes all the difference.Like a full-laden passenger jet fast approaching the end of the runway, David James and Dan-Air are about to arrive at the moment of truth: will the airline fly or will it belly flop?
Dan-Air's fate depends largely on whether Mr James, chairman of its parent company, Davies and Newman, can preserve his reputation as the company doctor who has never lost a patient and secure a rescue deal with British Airways. That, in turn, depends upon his coming up with a proposal that does not cause the competition authorities here and in Brussels too much angst.
To believe that he can do it requires a large number of assumptions. We are told that the Government, from Messrs Major and MacGregor down, is keen not to see Dan-Air fail.
It would cost 2,500 jobs and deal a savage blow to Gatwick as London's second hub. In any event, what would be so wrong in permitting BA to swallow up little Dan-Air when the relevant market is European and the competition global?
Well, there are several things wrong. First, the Government has never been overly concerned before about jobs when weighing up competition issues.
Second, BAA, the owner of Gatwick, is a privatised monopoly that should not need a leg-up from the state when life turns rough.
Third, the Government's multi-airline policy would be left ragged at the edges if it allowed Dan-Air to disappear inside BA's hangar.
Mr James and BA are playing a canny game in seeking prior assurances that any rescue package would not be opposed by the competition authorities. But there is no reason why they should succeed or, indeed, deserve to do so.
No one wants to see Dan-Air fail. But if it does there are other independent airlines capable of taking up its routes, thus preserving competition and retaining jobs.
Join our commenting forum
Join thought-provoking conversations, follow other Independent readers and see their replies
Comments