"Tony Polson" <docnews2011@> wrote in message
news:p6ga74tfvmqskjej2qrmr9uvh92uakdd26@...
> "Paul Scott" <notvalidpmscott@> wrote:
>
>>Tony Polson wrote:
>>> Kester.Eddy@ wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Jul 8, 11:50 pm, Tony Polson <docnews2...@> wrote:
>>> However, taken as a whole, the rules would more accurately be
>>> described as "A Licence for the Grossly Incompetent Virgin Trains to
>>> Print Money Without Any Fear of Competition".
>>
>>To be fair though - the DfT letter appears to suggest that _any_ future
>>WCML
>>franchisee would have the benefit of MoC, not just VT... But they are
>>clearly dropping a heavy hint to ORR - I wonder if the present ORR
>>hierarchy
>>will prove as malleable?
>
>
> DfT Rail simply *have* to ask for it to be extended beyond the current
> franchise. Otherwise ORR would terminate it at the earliest
> practicable opportunity, putting DfT Rail squarely in the firing line
> for precisely the lucrative lawsuit from Virgin Trains that all this
> double dealing is meant to avoid.
>
> Once the extension of Moderation of Competition is in place, DfT are
> off the hook. Then it can easily be dropped from the next franchise.
>
> I don't like any of this, but it clearly has to be done for the sake
> of expediency. One Virgin Trains have left the scene in 2012, sanity
> can be allowed to prevail once again.
If MoC is to be in place for the West Coast franchisee, then the same should
happen in reverse to prevent West Coast from competing with open access
operators. I'm thinking of WSMR, where Virgin are planning to compete on the
Wrexham flow, yet WSMR are restricted as to where they can serv in the West
Midlands. Virgin's plan sounds rather like an abuse of a monopoly position -
perhaps the Competition Commission might have a view?