The UK monopoly regulator on Thursday, November 7, said the award of West Coast rail franchise to FirstGroup PLC-led joint venture could lead to higher fares and less availability of cheaper tickets because train passengers would have no alternatives, or limited options to choose from.
West Coast Rail, a joint venture between UK transport operator FirstGroup and Italian train operator Trenitalia, was awarded the West Coast rail franchise by the UK transport department in August. The contract, which is expected to run until March 2031, is for running passenger trains between London and Scotland from December 8.
Bus and rail service operator FirstGroup holds a 70% stake in the venture, with the remainder owned by Italian-government owned Trenitalia.
The Competition & Markets Authority said it has found competition concerns relating to 21 routes in its phase one probe into the train contract award, 17 between Preston and Scotland and 4 between Oxenholme and Carlisle.
“This is because passengers will only be able to choose from West Coast Rail – operated by a joint venture between FirstGroup and Trenitalia – for 17 routes, or TransPennine Express, operated solely by FirstGroup. On the 4 remaining routes, passengers can only choose from 3 operators in total: West Coast Rail, TransPennine Express and one other operator,” the regulator said.
The CMA said FirstGroup and Trenitalia will have the opportunity to offer remedies to its competition concerns and that it may undertake a further in-depth probe should proposals offered by the companies be insufficient.
Full Content: Financial Times
Want more news? Subscribe to CPI’s free daily newsletter for more headlines and updates on antitrust developments around the world.
Featured News
CVS Health Explores Potential Breakup Amid Investor Pressure: Report
Oct 3, 2024 by
CPI
DirecTV Acquires Dish TV, Creating 20 Million-Subscriber Powerhouse
Oct 3, 2024 by
CPI
South Korea Fines Kakao Mobility $54.8 Million for Anti-Competitive Practices
Oct 3, 2024 by
CPI
Google Offers Settlement in India’s Antitrust Case Regarding Smart TVs
Oct 3, 2024 by
CPI
Attorney Challenges NCAA’s $2.78 Billion Settlement in Landmark Antitrust Cases
Oct 3, 2024 by
nhoch@pymnts.com
Antitrust Mix by CPI
Antitrust Chronicle® – Refusal to Deal
Sep 27, 2024 by
CPI
Antitrust’s Refusal-to-Deal Doctrine: The Emperor Has No Clothes
Sep 27, 2024 by
Erik Hovenkamp
Why All Antitrust Claims are Refusal to Deal Claims and What that Means for Policy
Sep 27, 2024 by
Ramsi Woodcock
The Aspen Misadventure
Sep 27, 2024 by
Roger Blair & Holly P. Stidham
Refusal to Deal in Antitrust Law: Evolving Jurisprudence and Business Justifications in the Align Technology Case
Sep 27, 2024 by
Timothy Hsieh