The Brand & Ross Sitrep

The situation as of today stands as follows:
BBC Action:
Russell Brand: - Resigned from his Radio 2 show! His TV Show on Channel 4 continues (I fleetingly saw him as I switched Channels - So checked the Schedules). As I indicated in my last post, he irritates me and I don't get his 'humour'.

Jonathan Ross: - Suspended for 12 Weeks without Pay (In effect a fine) and on final warning. I don't think this enough, but at least its something.

Legal Situation:
I still believe Brand and Ross actually broke the Law in two areas (see Brand and Ross Suspended by the BBC) and this remains outstanding,

Ofcom:
Still investigating.

Fallout at the BBC
Lesley Douglas: The controller of Radio 2, has resigned over the Jonathan Ross and Russell Brand phone prank scandal.
Although she has done the honourable thing by accepting both responsibility and therefore accountability (something some of our leading Politicians need to learn), I regret that this Scandal has caused the end of her 23 year (and apparently unblemished) career with the BBC.
Mark Thompson: The BBC Director General had a difficult interview with Emily Maitlis on BBC Newsnight (see also BBC Newsnight Wikipedia Entry) but as once he was in the loop (on Holiday when this became a Scandal) took decisive action and therefore will probably be safe in his job for a while.

However during the Interview with Emily Maitlis the subject of a joke about the Queen on Mock The Week was raised. I am a fan of this show, but occasionally it does go beyond edgy into 'out of bounds territory' and I think this joke was an example. The fact it remained in for Broadcast was obviously an editorial decision and whilst I believe it was unacceptable, I and not sure if the majority of viewers would agree it went too far. This is part of the problem that faces all Comedy Shows, who decides the boundary between acceptable and unacceptable. Although the Brand and Ross radio show was so appalling it should have been a 'no brainer' to have deemed it unacceptable, a lot of the after the watershed comedy shows are 'edgy' and therefore the boundary between acceptable/unacceptable often going to be close.

Will I stop watching Mock the Week because of this one Joke?
NO - It was in bad taste, but it was single joke and in my opinion should not have been broadcast. The rest of that show I found very funny and my personal view is the rest of the jokes and banter did not actually cross the boundary. Unlike the Brand/Ross Situation there was no sustained stream of sub-juvenile behaviour.


-

Brand and Ross Suspended by the BBC

I admit that I find Russell Brand extremely irritating and his sense humour totally out of synch with mine, so I neither watch his Television Appearances, or Listen to his Radio Shows.
However a very large number of people think he is brilliant.

As for Jonathan Ross, well.. I think he does Film 2008 as well as any replacement for Barry Norman could. His Friday Night Show is hit and miss, but without Michael Parkinson being around anymore, it is probably the best there is! I don't listen to his Radio Show, so cannot comment.

As for the Broadcast that has caused the pairs suspension, well I did not listen to it, but it is obvious from the transcript that they made several unsolicited, offensive (bordering on the obscene) telephone calls to a private number.
Regardless of other causes of offense during the Programme, they appear to have broken the law under the Telecommunications Act of 1984, the Malicious Communications Act 1988 Section 1 as amended by Section 43 Criminal Justice and Police Act 2001 and the Protection From Harassment Act 1997.

Unfortunately it appears the maximum they could each be fined is a £1000.00, a sum that is 'loose change' to Jonathan Ross and hardly noticable by Russell Brand. However if these Laws have been broken then Messrs Brand and Ross are both directly responsble and accountable. regardless of whether the recordings made were subsequently Broadcast.

The fact they were Broadcast and without the permission of Mr Sachs and his Family makes things even worse (One assumes there are grounds for Civial Action against the pair and the BBC).

From reading the transcript, the attempts at humour for most of the show was sub-juvenile and much of it was offensive to Andrew Sachs and his Granddaughter. One senses the show became an ego trip, each egging each other on.

The responsibilty for actually allowing the show to Air with both the Phone Calls and the related offensive material, also makes the BBC Editorial, Production Team and their Executive Managers culpable on several counts.

However both Brand and Ross have 'power' in the BBC and taking them on about their behaviour and the shows content would require someone with a strong personality an ability to stand their ground in the face of 'bullying', plus knowing their superiors would support them, not side with the 'talent'. I am NOT excusing the Editoral and Executive failures, just that I suspect
that the Production team had neither the experience, or confidence to deal with these massive egos.

Ofcom, which is responsible for Broadcast and Communications standards are going to have a field day with this. I hope that when their investigation reaches a conclusion, if they decide a fine is appropriate, then it should be severe. From what I've read, a fine equivalent to six months of their salary from the BBC would probably be a salutary lesson for messrs Brand and Ross. As for the fine on the BBC well I suspect it will be very large.

Will this end Brand's and Ross' careers?
As regards Russell Brand personally I wouldn't care if this was the case.
As for Jonanthan Ross, I suspect his career will be seriously dented and it will take a while for viewers to warm to him again. Whether this will end his hopes of eventually becoming an 'elder statesman' of chat shows, probably not, but it will take a lot longer to achieve it.

As to should they be sacked from the BBC?
Personally my opnion is YES. But in reality and the way the media 'protect their own and their investment in talent ' then Russell Brand possibly and, Jonathan Ross probably not.
Even if both were sacked, then they would be back on TV and Radio within the year, because that is how Broadcast Media works in the UK.

However if I was Jonathan Ross' agent, I wouldn't be accepting any invites to guest host Have I Got News For You for a couple of years at least.

UPDATE 28 Oct 2008 1819 GMT:
Russell Brand has resigned from his Radio 2 programme

UPDATE 31 Oct 2008 1418 GMT:
The Brand & Ross Sitrep (On this Blog)

Bournemouth Aviation Museum Reopens

The 24th October saw the official reopening of Bournemouth Aviation Museum at its new site at Adventure Wonderland next to Bournemouth Airport. The reopening was carried out by the Mayor of Chrischurch and celebrated by a flypast from locally based Percival Pembroke BNPH.

The Museum is open daily from 1000 to 1600 (except certain winter public holidays) - See the web site: Bournemouth Aviation Museum

I am really pleased that the Museum has, due massive efforts by the Trustees, Sponsors and the Volunteer Supporters, managed to get back up and running. However the circumstances of its closure on the 17th December 2007 at its original site on Bournemouth Airport, even now are a cause of some angst (See: my post of 08th June 2008 entitled Bournemouth Aviation Museum Closure).

But that is in the past and the Museum has great plans for the future, which I hope they can bring to fruition.

Gurkha Justice Campaign

A Message from Joanna Lumley re:

The Gurkha Justice Campaign

Gurkhas are fighting for Justice. They want the same terms and conditions as their UK and Commonwealth counterparts.

Britain has had no greater friends than the Gurkhas. They have served all across the world in the defence of our Country for nearly 200 years.

Over 45,000 died in the two World Wars as part of the British Army.
They are still fighting in the British Army today.

You may have seen in the media that the Gurkhas have been fighting in Parliament and the Courts. Step by step, things are getting better - but there is a long way to go.

On Tuesday 30th September, the High Court ruled their treatment had been unlawful in terms of the right to live in the UK if they retired before 1997.

Following that fantastic High Court decision, the Government has to change the law on how it treats Gurkhas. We demand the full, fundamental change in the law that will allow all retired Gurkhas the right to live here.

By signing up below you will be expressing your support for all Gurkhas and we will be able to contact you in the future as we mount the largest ever campaign to get them the Justice that they deserve.

Join me in the campaign: together, we can finally right this wrong.

So having read Joanna's Message, please add your Name to the Petition here: The Gurkha Justice Campaign Petition

See Related Post: Gurkha Courage - Justice for the Gurkha's

The last flying Vulcan Needs Help - Please Sign the Petition (British Citizens Only - Sorry)

Those of you who have seen the Avro Vulcan flying will know that it is an awesome sight. Now there is only one flying example, XH558 and this is endanger of being grounded forever.

The Vulcan is a living symbol of the Cold War Era when along with the Victor and initally the Valiant formed the Aircraft Types equipping the RAF Medium Bomber Force and the four minute warning, meant something other than alerting you to your next appointment, or to check the dinner in the oven.

However even in those dangerous times the Vulcan Squadrons could indulge in at a least a wry smile,
Like the successful Attack on New York which so frightened the Pentagon:
Extract from a Guardian Article :
n 1961, four nuclear bombers entered United States airspace, flying high above the maximum altitude of the defending American fighters. Three jammed the ground-based and airborne radars directed at them. The fourth arrived unchallenged and unforeseen, over New York City.

The aircraft was an Avro Vulcan bomber, capable of carrying a 21,000lb nuclear payload. It looked like a scary version of Concorde. The New York stunt was part of an Anglo-American military exercise which proved the plane's ability to deliver nuclear bombs wherever they might be needed, whoever the enemy. The RAF called it "the tin triangle".
End Extract
Come to think of it the RAF Vulcan Crews did play some serious tricks on the USAF as in Red Flag 1977 or 1978 where they used the Girlfriends and Wife's Picnic (with lots of Cars) at a specific geographical location as an offset aiming point to get them on target (tsk, tsk). Getting even snottier on one departure by doing a spectacular full bore ultra short take-off at max weight (thus wrong footing all the TV and Still Cameras), whilst an RAF Type was telling the press with feigned surprise 'that was how they always did it'!

Even when not armed and dangerous, the Vulcan was used to 'show the flag' across the world from Australia, through the Far East . USA and Canada. A single Vulcan doing even a simple display, was as exciting as the Red Arrows.

In 1982 when the timetable for phasing out was set, the Vulcan went to war for the only time in its long career when single Aircraft, each supported by Victor Tankers flew the Black Buck Raids over the Falklands.

Whilst The Government supports the Battle of Britain Memorial Flight through the RAF , the entire Vulcan project has so far only been supported by private donations and volunteers. Whilst we are in a global financial crisis, Government support to keep XH558, is flying is not even going to show on Government Spending statistics.

So please sign the 10 Downing Street Petition: to keep Vulcan.XH558

Honouring the past and inspiring the future.

Links:

• The Vulcan Operating Company and Vulcan to the Sky Trust Site

• THE Vulcan Site to visit is: Vulcans in Camera

Vulcan Videos:
There are a lot of recent video's of XH558 since its return to flight, but the following are often overlooked:

• Anti-Radiation Flash White (The Death Ride Era): The Avro Vulcan - If this had been for real, the surviving Aircraft and their Crews would have had no Airfields to return to!
• Vulcan and Blue Steel (With Test Launch and Vickers Valiant shots)
• What might have been: Vulcan Skybolt Testing
• The Year after operational retirement Avro Vulcan airshow display Commentator/Interviewer the late Raymond Baxter
• AVRO VULCAN XH558 DISPLAY SCAMPTON '91
• Flying the Vulcan

Russia and China End Border Dispute

An event not widely reported has been the formal end of all territorial disputes between China and Russia, so I thought I would cover it here!

During the Cold War period in the Soviet era, Russia felt threatened not only by the Western Alliance, but also by its former ideological partner China. Whilst there were several close calls, other than very occasional and plausibly deniable special forces clashes in the 'proxy wars' Russian Ground Forces and NATO Alliance Ground Forces never met in combat.

The same could not be said of China, where a historical and often bitter Border Dispute dating back to the late 1920's, which after the ideological rift in the 1960's resulted in both sides stationing Armies along the disputed border. Hardly reported in the Western press, these occasionally resulted in armed clashes, in some cases involving major formations and desperate fighting.

Since the end of the Soviet Union things have changed both in Russia and China, so gradually each disputed part of the 4,300 Kilometer (2,672 Mile) Border has been resolved by diplomatic negotiation, starting with the Eastern Border in 1991, Western Border 1994 and a supplementary to the Eastern Border Agreement in 2004.

It is this 2004 Supplement to the 1991 agreement which has paved the way for resolving the last remaining disputed territory the island of Heixiazi Island (Bolshoy Ussuriysky Island) and associated islets and Yinlong Island (Tarabarov Island) both situated at the confluence of the Amur and Ussuir Rivers. This dispute has been the most difficult to resolve due to the Islands and Islets being so close to the major Russian City of Khabarovsk.

Whilst the 2004 Supplement set down in principle how this would be resolved, with Russia returning Yinlog and half Heixiazi, this did not sit well with the citizens of Khabarovsk and in May this year as the proposals were being brought to the Russian Parliament, there was a major demonstration by Cossacks in the City., However high local feeling, the Russian Parliament ratified the proposals in June. This led to the formal signing of the treaty in Beijing on the 21st July 2008. This in turn led to critical comment in the Chinese non-government controlled media about some of the already agreed borders, most notably that Outer Manchuria (Priamurye) is Russian Sovereign Terrority.


Signing a piece of paper and actually changing the situation on the Ground are two very different things. The handover of Territory, Manning of the new Border Posts and the new Border Markers ceremonially being unveiled on the 14 October.

China in particular is trumpeting this agreement and its implementation as an example of how Border Disputes can be resolved peaceably. But actually this is a primary example of two countries interests outweighing their territorial disagreement. China needs Russian raw Materials, Oil, Gas and Nuclear Power. Also their interests coincide on a number of World issues notably Iran and North Korea.

Therefore as an example, this agreement has little relevance to most other territorial disputes, where joint interests are outweighed by sovereignty.

For thos who may be interested Wikipedia has a list of Territorial Disputes Worldwide

Heathrow Expansion Debate at the RGS

On the 7th October, there was a debate at the Royal Geographical Society on Heathrow expansion. From the ABTN Report this was an interesting evening (too say the least). The 'great and good' from both sides argued the Case for and against expansion and I am sorry I missed it!

Liberal Democrat Shadow Chancellor Vince Cable (a politician I normally respect) spoke out against Heathrow’s third runway:
“The business case is weak and overstated, and politically, in any case, it is not going to happen.”
Well I am sorry sir, Heathrow is too important to the country for Politics (see High Speed Trains and Heathrows Third Runway) and the Business Case is unfortunately overwhelming.

Staying with those who oppose the expansion

Sir Peter Hall, Professor of planning at University College London: Denounced Heathrow as a “war time mistake” with a design flaw since 1949. Sir Peter briefly presented a plan for a new airport in the Thames Estuary, complete with high-speed rail links and motorways.
Well Sir Peter, 20/20 hindsight is a wonderful thing, especially when it is remembered that limitations of Heathrow were recognised quite early on and there have been many opportunities to alleviate, if not rectify the problem. Starting with a more aggressive expansion of Gatwick in its early years, or actually building one of the projects for a brand new London Airport proposed during the 1970's/1980's. Some of these mirror the Thames Estuary Airport you propose.

Moving to those in favour:

Lord Soley, a former Labour MP and campaign director of the Future Heathrow coalition, made his political prediction.
"The Tories will have an enquiry,” he said. “They’ll decide that they can’t cover Stansted in concrete because there are too many Tory seats there, and that a new airport in the Thames Estuary would cost £36bn.”

Lord Soley also highlighted the need for Heathrow to integrate road, rail and air travel in order for both the airport and the UK to remain competitive.

Hmm. I wouldn't bet against that prediction, the sad thing is that whilst a third runway at Heathrow has become a necessity, a new Airport for London to replace Heathrow (eventually) should form part of a long term (20 year) Transport Infrastructure Plan. I would however dispute the cost of £36bn as even if started today any new Airport would cost at least 50bn to do properly. My views on the need to fully integrate at least rail and air travel is covered in:
High Speed Trains and Heathrows Third Runway

Tom Kelly, BAA’s corporate and public affairs director, also spoke in favour of Heathrow’s expansion.
“A new world order is emerging,” he said. “In a new world order global connections is what it’s all about.”Mr Kelly described the advantage Paris and Amsterdam have over Heathrow, each with at least one more runway.

He added: “It does mean that year on year Heathrow loses its position.”

Well that sums it up from a competitive viewpoint!

According to Colin Stanbridge, chief executive of the London Chamber of Commerce:
94% of businesses said Heathrow was vital.“We know that business is in favour of the expansion of Heathrow,” he said. “They are going to improve the connections that will allow business to flourish, and if business flourishes then society will too.”

That deals with the Business viewpoint. So what's Missing. ah the environmental issues. So over to: Mark Lynas, author of three books on climate change, who put forward the
environmental argument against, after stating that:

“there is nothing evil about aviation.”
Quoting the UK’s commitment to reducing carbon emissions 80% by 2050,
Mr Lynas claimed that by then “three quarters of all our emissions will come from aviation if we carry on this way.”
Mr Lynas said the only option left is demand management,
This was seen by both Mr Stanbridge and Lord Soley as a risk to job security in the West London area.

Lord Soley also took on the emission arguement by covering the progress made by Aircraft such as the A380 in reducing carbon footprint.

The bottom line is not altered by this debate. Due to Political ineptitude by governments since the mid-1960's Heathrow is the primary Air Gateway for the UK. To remain Competitive and therefore to help the national economy it needs a third runway. What should be put in train now is a 20 year Integrated Transport Plan for Air, Road and Rail, including a New Airport to replace Heathrow.

From the Political track record this appears unlikely, but even Politicians sometimes have to face reality.

Oh No Lord Peter Mandleson is back!

New Labour's very own Prince of Darkness has returned from his exile in Brussels and been welcomed back into the court, sorry cabinet of Gordon Brown (is this a case of keeping your friends close and your enemies closer?).

Not only that, but to get him into the inner circle. he has been elevated to the peerage in the process (HRH the Queen gets a lot of rotten jobs these days)!

Nick Robinson the BBC Political Editor, who's views I normally respect sees Mandleson as a real asset to the Brown Government
Quote:
'Mandelson brings huge strategic and presentational experience'.
Unquote
Hmm. I see Baron Mandleson as:

• A Self-serving Careerist Politician.
• Someone who has turned 'plotting and back stabbing' into a career plan and indeed art form (his 'bitchy remarks' made within the hearing of Journalists, form a small but telling insight into his pyche).
  
• A revolving Door Minister who after his first resignation should have disappeared from Public Life and after his second Resignation should have been consigned to the dustbin of History. Instead he was exiled to Brussels as Trade Commissioner.
  
• Having said that, as Trade Commisioner in Brussels, I suspect this post suited his Machiavellian nature for Plotting and Playing one off against the other. Also not a bad paying job in the bargain.

Under New Labour standards in public life have become something of a sick joke, but at least I thought Peter Mandleson's time on the Domestic Political stage had to be over. He was no longer an MP, surely there was no way back. Oh no - the instant peerage.

So once again the new age Machiavelli stalks the corridors of power, worse still he is once again a Minister of the Crown. One hopes that he will finds at least some time to do the job as starts his new plots and counts his continuing salary from Brussels and new Cabinet paycheque - but I doubt it.

See Peter Mandleson - Wikipedia Entry for more details on his Life and Career to date

High Speed Trains and Heathrows Third Runway

One of the few definite Transport Policy Stats to come out of the recent Conservative Party Conference was that if elected to Government at the next general election they would scrap plans for a Third Runway at Heathrow and instead build High Speed Rail links to Manchester and Leeds.

• Heathrow is one of the busiest International Aiports, and the primary International Port of Entry into the UK. Whilst Domestic Flights are important, a large number of passengers use these flights as onward connection on arriving from overseas.
• Even if links to Manchester and Leeds were built, not all connecting passengers would use this facility if a Flight was on offer. This means that if these Links were available today, possible reductions in Heathrow Traffic would be minimal in terms of Flights and at most a couple of percentage points in Passenger throughput. Because of the demand for Heathrow Slots, any slack would be immediately taken up and demand would still exceed supply by a wide margin.
• So providing High Speed Rail Links as a substitute for a third Heahtrow Runway is probably the most stupid tranport policy statement in last decade.

Because of incredibly inept Government Transport Policy (both Labour and Conservative) since the 1970's a Third Runway at Heathrow is now a National necessity, however unpalatable this maybe politically.
A second Runway at Stansted is unfortunately also going to be needed and at some point a second Runway at Gatwick, again these are going to cause difficulties for whatever Party is in power. But as previous Governments from both Parties avoided the hard decisions, these failures to act were bound to eventually come 'home to roost'.

From the above, it might be assumed I am against High Speed Rail Connections. I am certainly not.
As far as I am concerned there should be High Speed (Japanese Bullet Train Speeds) Rail Backbones linking all major population centres from the West Country to at least as far north as Aberdeen, with High Speed Cross links between East and West. Returning for the moment to Airports, the London Cluster of Heathrow, Gatwick and Stansted should have high-speed, high technology Rail Links (for example MAGLEV) linking them and the same type of links between Edinburgh, Glasgow and Prestwick.

.
But surely this ia all a 'pipe dream'! No it should be a 20 Year plan, something British Governments it appears are incpable of carrying through. Also this entire situation could have been avoided.
If Airport Planning has been inept for the last 40 Years, Government Policy on Railways can only be described as totally incompetent for the last 50 Years.

The Beeching Report of 1963 provided an accurate and dismal description of the British Rail Network.
Approximately 50% of Routes didn't cover operating Costs and out of all the Stations on the Network approximately 50%, produced 95% of the revenue from ticket sales!

This led to the Beeching Plan of 1965 and this was basically divided in to two parts:

• The closure of the totally uneconomic parts of the Network. This part of the plan was seized upon by the Politiciians as it saved a lot of money. Which was NOT what Beeching intended.
• The upgrade of 3000 Miles of track and investment in Rolling Stock, Stations and other infrstructure, using the money saved from closures. This was NOT what the politiicians wanted to hear and whilst some major projects covered by the plan were implemented, much of it was quietly shelved.

The failure to implement all the recommendations of Part 2 of the Beeching Plan set the tone for Governments handling of Railway infrastructure projects ever since.
This follows a simple pattern: Commision a Grand Plan, accept the recommendations and then start, or even complete, one, or at most two of the Major Projects and quietly shelve the rest.

How different the situation across the Channel where the French had a plan and in the main stuck with it regardless of changes of Government.

So whilst I regard the Conservative Policy on the Heathrow Runways as idiotcy, I do support their plan to build High Speed Rail Links to Manchester and Leeds, but this element of the policy should be built on, not treated in isolation and should form part of a National Transport Infrastructure Plan with Political Oversight involving not just the Government of the Day, but keeping the Opposition (including the LiB Dems, who have some talented members) fully in the loop. Transport is too important nationally to be a politicial football. We have wasted at least 40 years, please, don't waste the next 40!

See also an Article Posted on th 14 October:
Heathrow Expansion Debate at the RGS

Alitalia - Is the Opera entering its final act?

Despite deadline after deadline being missed the Italian Government has cajoled, twisted arms and I suspected pleaded with the CAI Investors Group, the Unions and Foreign Airlines.

The result so far is an agreement with CAI Investor Group and the Unions, however it is now apparent that a minority stake of around 20%-25% by either Lufthansa, or Air France-KLM is required to make the rescue viable, at least in the short term.

So what is the Situation at the time of writing:

• A the non-core assets of Ground Handling, Heavy Maintenance, etc will be sold, or liquidated. I see this as the next major battle between the Italian Government and the Unions.
• More than 3.000 Redundancies in the Airline (probably 3,200). With those being made redundant being reployed into State owned industries, or direct Government Employment.
• 1bn Euro Investment by CAI Investor Group to purchase the 49.9% Italian Government Shareholding.
• Air One to be 'folded into' the new Alitalia. At a personal level I am saddened by this as the Staff and Management of Air One have worked so hard a building a safe, efficient and effective Commercial Airline.
• One question that doen't seem to have been answered, is how Alitalia continues to operate? The bankruptcy administrator (appointed by the Italian Government) has several times stated deadlines to start liquidation and has said that the end of September was a final cutoff date (See the related article on the 29th August: Alitalia Files for Bankruptcy Protection)
  

On the surface little has changed since the original CAI Investor Group plan, formulated in late August and presented to the Unions in early September. Which after intensive talks was abandoned.
Whilst there has been a lot of tweaking on the subject of pay cuts and other terms and conditions, the major change has been the decision to bring in Foreign Investment, up to a quarter of the total Shareholding in the restructured Airline.

Back in July I wrote an article Alitalia - How long before the life support is switched off? in which I noted that the change of Government, which forced Air France-KLM to abandon its Alitalia takeover, was a lucky escape for the French-Dutch Airline. So does a minority stake make sense, for either Lufthansa, or Air France-KLM?

Well, I have considerable doubts that the Unions will not start 'flexing their muscles' once the restructured Alitalia starts operating and that the new Airline will once again become commercially unviable (see my Article on the 13th September: Alitalia - Have the Unions Killed the only hope?) But there are on the face of it sound reasons why both Lufthansa and Air France-KLM want to be part of the new Alitalia .

Lufthansa (which it appears is the favoured foreign investor) would bolster its already large presence in the Italian Market, plus the advantages of Timetable Integration, which it itself would provide tangible benefits .

As for Air France-KLM, it has watched with some dismay as Lufthansa has built its presence in the Italian Market and see a need to counterbalance this by using a stake in Alitalia. Having negated the Lufthansa's current advantages, the other gains would primarily Timetable integration, which has commercial/financial advantages. However for political reasons Air France-KLM is seriously disadvantaged as a bidder for a minority stake.

Both Lufthansa and Air France-KLM are both in 'Empire Building Mode' and in some cases are competing for stakes, or takeover of several Airlines. So far Lufthansa seems to have the upper hand in those areas where the interests of both overlap.

Meanwhile, sitting on the sidelines is British Airways, which is heavily involved in its ongoing talks to merge with Iberia. It has stated that it is not in the running to buy a holding in the new Alitalia, but has expressed a strong interest in more traditional commercial tie-in. How this could be achieved if either of its major European Rivals has a large minority stake is difficult to see.

Although it appears this is the start of the final act of this tragi-comic Opera, when Italian Politics is involved who knows!

Other Posts on Alitalia in this blog:
13th January 2009:
Alitalia Reborn - But will it Survive?

13th September 2008:
Alitalia - Have the Unions Killed the only hope?

29th August 2008:
Alitalia Files for Bankruptcy Protection

29th July 2008:
Alitalia - How long before the life support is switched off?