Auckland International Airport Limited (AIA)

[Balance]

Regency is going to Big Daddy "Commerce Commission' crying foul after losing out.

AIA operates a shopping mall essentially within its jurisdiction and can have one or ten operators in any retail segment - just like a shopping mall is not obligated to have two supermarkets. As long as there is competition from other duty free operators that travelers can buy from and prices at the airport is competitive with that in other locations (eg. city), where's the problem?

[Toddy]

Regency is going to Big Daddy "Commerce Commission' crying foul after losing out.

AIA operates a shopping mall essentially within its jurisdiction and can have one or ten operators in any retail segment - just like a shopping mall is not obligated to have two supermarkets. As long as there is competition from other duty free operators that travelers can buy from and prices at the airport is competitive with that in other locations (eg. city), where's the problem?

Exactly, I don't get the Comcom at all. Who cares about the price of duty free shopping. Its hardly a material or essential expenditure that will hurt the small guy on the street.

[CJ]

Regency is going to Big Daddy "Commerce Commission' crying foul after losing out.

Is it? It seems a bit late in the piece to be complaining (it has been know for ages).

[CJ]

As AIA get a % of turnover, it shouldn't matter to them whether there is one or even five duty free shops as they will take their cut from each.

Lets over simplify it. Everyone who goes though buy there 3 bottles of duty free. With 2 shops you have to reduce your price. No competition you sell at full (duty free) price - no more 3 for 2 or 2 for $20 (or whate ever deals they give). More profits for DFS and more profits for AIA.

[ratkin]

Whats the latest on the canadian bid?

[Zaphod]

Whats the latest on the canadian bid?

We're all waiting for the Government's next move.

[ratkin]

Would these odds sound right?

no 1.50
yes 3.00

[dsurf]

Hard call dictated by election year vote grabbing. I see the equation as :


Votes gained by nationalistic jingo no decision from we must own infrastrucure when national would sell it off policy LESS votes lost by no answer from annoyed (mostly national?) AIA holders

If the above equation is a positive number then NO it will be since there is a net gain of votes for labour

If the above equation is a negative number then YES will be the answer

I suspect labour are trying to find a way they can say no. National security maybe?

Discl: will vote national because I am sick of looking at helen plaque

[COLIN]

Unfortunately its going to be a resounding NO. Labour just can't afford to alienate any more of their shrinking number of supporters. And as far as Helen, Cullen and their minor party supporters are concerned (that includes all of the minors except ACT) who cares about a few Tory capitalist share investors!

[Toddy]

Unfortunately its going to be a resounding NO. Labour just can't afford to alienate any more of their shrinking number of supporters. And as far as Helen, Cullen and their minor party supporters are concerned (that includes all of the minors except ACT) who cares about a few Tory capitalist share investors!

But labour have fronted up to pay towards the Blue Chip liquidation costs.

Or is that different, as Blue Chip investors are 'Tory Capitalist wannabees'

I don't think that labour can afford not to let an overseas investor take a MINORITY interest in an asset owned by individual shareholders.