BritishAirways(BA)EconomicIssues英航案经济学问题.pptVIP

* * * * * British Airways (BA): Economic Issues英航案：经济学问题 China Antimonopoly forum, Shanghai, 9 November, 2012 中国反垄断论坛.上海. 2012.11.9 Derek Ridyard, Partner, RBB Economics LLP, London derek.ridyard@ The BA case: form v effects-based approaches英航案：形式分析和效果分析 Form (or rules) based approach 形式（法律）分析 Effects (economic) approach效果（经济）分析 Does BA account for 40% of the airline ticketing business of UK travel agents? BA在英国旅行公司出售飞机票市场上的份额超过40%了吗？ Does BA face effective rivalry/competition from other airlines, both in and outside UK? BA面临着英国境内外航空公司的有效竞争吗？ Have BA travel agent rebates succeeded in defending BA share above what it would otherwise have been? BA的折扣制度是否让它竞争中过的了非常规的成功？ Have BA rebates foreclosed effective rivalry from other airlines within and outside the UK?BA折扣行为是否排除了来自英国境内外航空公司的有效竞争？ Do BA rebates result in price differences that cannot be explained by cost differences – i.e. price discrimination? BA的折扣是否不能通过成本差异进行解释，也即是否是歧视？ Is the differentiation in BA ticket prices caused by the rebates explicable in terms of legitimate commercial objectives by BA? 折扣所造成的机票价格的差异背后是否存在合法的商业目的？ The importance of a clear theory of harm竞争损害理论的重要性 Competition law intervention can change the way a market works, and fundamentally affect economic incentives 竞争法的干预可以改变市场运作方式，并且能根本性影响经济动机。 Bork’s “Antitrust paradox” – competition laws assume that competitive markets provide efficient outcomes, but then use government intervention to adjust those outcomes, and penalise winners 博克的“反垄断悖论”—竞争法假设竞争性市场提供了有效率的产出，但是又通过政府干预调整这些产出并惩罚获胜者。 Complainants have clear incentives to use competition laws to protect them from competition – can’t assume their interests align with those of consumers 原告们有着明确的动机：用竞争法使他们在竞争中得到保护—但是不能假设他们的利益和消费者利益具有直接的联系。 Of course, valid competition law interventions do exist, but they need to be clearly based on – and justified by – a valid theory of competitive harm 当然，有效的竞争法干预的确存在，但是它需要清晰地建立在正当的竞争性损害理论之上并为之调整。 Roll-back rebates – foreclosure theory of harm反向折扣—