Branson the whinging entrepreneur

I have before said that Sir Richard Branson or "Beardie" as Jeremy Clarkson likes to call him, is far more about style than substance. One need only see his latest bleatings to show how little of a true entrepreneur he really is.

British Airways, American Airlines and Iberia (and to a lesser extent Finnair and Royal Jordanian) are all seeking immunity from competition authorities in the EU and USA to allow them to codeshare and more closely integrate their networks. Hardly surprising with high jetfuel prices, intense competition between and within Europe and North America, and as all three are in the OneWorld alliance.

Skyteam alliance airlines Air France/KLM (which has by far the plurality of slots at both Paris Charles de Gaule and Amsterdam Schiphol airports) already have this with partner airlines Northwest and Delta, as do Star Alliance airlines Lufthansa and United. Lufthansa has dominance in airport slots at both Frankfurt and Munich.

Beardie is upset because BA has 42% of slots at Heathrow, and American around 6%. He said "If this monster monopoly is approved it will be third time unlucky for consumers. It will still be bad for passengers, bad for competition, and bad for the UK and US aviation industries."

Let's see what this "monopoly" looks like:

London to New York you can fly on BA, AA, Virgin Atlantic, Delta, Continental, Air India, Kuwait Airways.
London to LA you can fly on BA, AA, Virgin Atlantic, United, Air France, Air NZ.
London to Chicago you can fly on BA, AA, United, Virgin Atlantic, Air India.

Of course you can fly indirectly on these routes through Europe, Canada and other US destinations on umpteen airlines, a lot cheaper than the direct routes typically.

There is also no legal restriction on any US or European airline entering any TransAtlantic routes (although landing slots at Heathrow are at a premium, Delta, Continental and Northwest got some earlier this year without enormous effort). Monopoly? Hardly!

Let's compare that to trains between London and Manchester - how many operators run that? Oh yes, one - Virgin Trains, and it gets hundreds of millions of pounds in subsidies from British taxpayers to do this. Of course there is competition by air and road Beardie would say, of course he would - he isn't involved in monopolies now is he?

So why does BA have so many slots? Well Heathrow is BA's hub, like Frankfurt is Lufthansa's and CDG is Air France, and Schiphol is KLM's. You don't operate an airline that flies within the UK or around Europe at all, so it's no bloody wonder you have less. There are, of course, several European airlines over the years that have gone bust you could have bought and revived, but I don't see you doing that - not going to buy out and rename Alitalia, Virgin Italia?

You might see what Chairman (and majority owner) of BMI - Sir Michael Bishop - another competitor of yours (and BAs), with the 2nd highest number of slots - has said instead "I think things have changed after open skies and they are not setting any precedents. What BA is asking for is what both the other major alliances already have." according to the Daily Telegraph.

So Beardie - compete, make your own arrangements (you already have a codeshare deal with Continental, but I'm sure it's not as lucrative now Continental has agreed to join Star Alliance) and don't pretend that somehow AA gives BA anything more except closer integration to the US domestic market. Why don't you fly from Frankfurt, Schiphol or CDG? Why don't you seek to closely integrate with BMI? Why is Singapore Airlines finding it hard to sell its 49% stake in your floundering airline?

A real entrepreneur responds with a competitive challenge by outsmarting and outdoing the competition - stop running to Nanny State to protect your business and work it out - an airline dedicated to nothing but long haul flights from the UK, with only a smidgeon of partners feeding it, is not a sustainable business. It's not the fault of BA that it's figured out where the future is and you haven't. What are you scared of? Most British business class travellers wouldn't touch American Airlines for obvious reasons and if fares "go up" you benefit if there is less capacity on the route? Or is this maverick "I'm all for competition" all style over substance?

Is that why you're spending money lobbying Barack Obama and John McCain to protect your impotent business?

Why phase out national superannuation?

Read this Op-Ed from the Ayn Rand Institute published on SOLO - replace Social Security in the US context with National Superannuation in the New Zealand context.

Add in the fact that those who die before they reach retirement age get nothing, nor do their spouses or children or anyone else in their will, from the years of compulsory contribution by taxes. The state has thieved those taxes to pay for someone else or something else. This particularly affects Maori, who have lower life expectancy.

National superannuation is an enormous fraud, and it is about time that it was slowly phased out to let people choose how to save for their retirement. The most painless way would be to cease increasing national superannuation in nominal terms, and recycle the savings through tax cuts.

However I advocate a far more aggressive approach. One option is that people of certain ages are told they will receive a range from 90-10% of current national superannuation on retirement, nominally. In return, all people of those ages get a tax cut to allow them to save, invest or whatever. On retirement the state pays out the proportion that was promised and no more. A simpler approach would be to grant people a lump sum to buy a contributory pension or any investment, with provision for those too close to retirement to invest (given they spent most of their lives paying tax for others to have national superannuation).

Is it not telling that the fraud of national superannuation isn't even on the agenda in New Zealand? What other retirement fund could get away with the shockingly poor returns of national superannuation?

Breasts offensive?

It will be a fine day in New Zealand when city councillors find their own enthusiastic willingness to makes other people pay for projects that people wouldn’t choose to pay out of their own pocket more offensive than women showing their breasts in public.

Trying to prosecute women exposing a part of their body which should not be seen as offensive (they feed children and please many men, and some women) is simply fascist. It is curious that the feminist left (in the form of the bizarre councillor Cathy Casey) and the conservative right both think womens' breasts are so appalling that it should be a crime to show them - like the Taliban and Iranian mullahs think of breasts.

The NZ Herald reports: Ms Casey is also threatening to lie across Queen St with friends to stop the parade.

I don't want to see this parade, but Ms. Casey? Get a real job - who gives a rat's arse if you are offended by breasts, how can you possibly bathe everyday seeing such offensive parts of your body? Leave peaceful people alone.

Family First National director Bob McCoskrie not to be outdone says it is "sexualised nudity in a public street that is offensive to many people and completely inappropriate for young people and children to view"

What this means is that it risks turning him on. Bob, your organisation is offensive to many people too, should we ban it? Breasts seem to be ok to feed babies from, but you don't want to explain to young people that there are part of women's bodies and what their purpose is?

Of course, it's the best publicity Steve Crow could ask for, it makes it far more interesting to people than it would be otherwise. After all if bare breasts were not an issue in New Zealand culture, then it wouldn't have the potency that it currently does. My suggestion to those who find it offensive is simple - don't go.

NewZeal/Trevor Loudon is back

and NewZeal has had a major facelift.

Welcome back Trevor, your intensive research into modern day leftwing "luminaries" will be enlightening as the election comes closer, but I am also fascinated about Barack Obama's socialist past.

I don't always agree with Trevor, for example on China, but he is a committed opponent to the vile bankrupt philosophy of Marxism and can run rings around anyone looking at some of the apologists for murderers who now reside in the Greens and I suspect the Maori Party as well. I look forward to him updating such posts, and perhaps reviewing the party lists for such lowlifes.

Where is it safer in London?

Go to the London Metropolitan Police website crime map and check it out, well for burglary, robbery and vehicle crime anyway. I've only lived in "average" suburbs, hmmm. However it is a bit messy, and is hardly a good guide in itself about where to live.