Tit-for-tat in SA Airlink-FlyGoAir saga

Airlink maintains that the publications were 'unsubstantiated' and false and were causing it to suffer ongoing reputational damage. Picture: Masi Losi

Airlink maintains that the publications were 'unsubstantiated' and false and were causing it to suffer ongoing reputational damage. Picture: Masi Losi

Published Nov 6, 2015

Share

Durban - SA Airlink has taken a competitor, FlyGoAir, to the Pietermaritzburg High Court demanding it withdraw allegations that it tampered with the latter’s computers and was involved in anti-competitive behaviour and industrial espionage.

It also wants to compel FlyGoAir to publish a retraction of the allegations.

Airlink maintains that the publications were “unsubstantiated” and false and were causing it to suffer ongoing reputational damage.

FlyGoAir, on the other hand, said that police were investigating the allegations and Airlink wanted to pre-empt the outcome through this application.

De Villiers Engelbrecht, Airlink’s chief financial officer, said in an affidavit that both airlines had offices at the Pietermaritzburg Airport and managed commercial flights to and from the airport.

A far smaller operation than Airlink, FlyGoAir started operating from the airport in October, whereas Airlink had flown out of there since 1992.

On September 24, Airlink was told by the airport management that a complaint had been made that two of its passenger handling agents were in the vicinity of FlyGoAir’s operators’ desks. But their conduct was due “merely to personal curiosity”. At no point did they touch any equipment. The desks were in a common-use area where access was not restricted.

On October 23, FlyGoAir posted on its Facebook page that its staff had caught Airlink’s “tampering” with computers at the Pietermaritzburg offices, on camera, and that a case had been opened.

Monopolisation

“The safety of our passengers and staff may be compromised by industrial espionage and anti-competitive behaviour demonstrated by Airlink in trying to maintain monopolisation”, and FlyGoAir “is considering suspending all flights pending investigation”.

A newspaper in Pietermaritzburg ran a story on this. Airlink demanded the post be removed and for FlyGoAir to write to the newspaper saying the allegations were false and were being withdrawn.

FlyGoAir removed the post but did not comply with the other demands, prompting the court action.

The article had appeared on other websites and the allegations had proliferated throughout the social media space.

In reply, Rajesh Sivsanker, the chief financial officer of FlyGoAir, said there were cogent reasons for the accusations.

When his staff entered their workstations, they noticed that an incorrect password had been entered on to one of the computers, indicating someone had tried to get information. The entire business’s intellectual property was stored in the computers.

The airport management was informed and after the footage was viewed, he said, it was observed that two of Airlink’s staff were seen “hovering over” the computers in the vicinity of FlyGoAir’s operators’ desks.

FlyGoAir subsequently found that two tyres on an aircraft had been tampered with and its flights were being delayed for no apparent reason by air traffic control, with preference given to Airlink’s flights.

Sivsanker said the airport manager had written to Airlink advising of the complaint and confirmed he had picked up interference with the computer system.

He said Airlink confirmed in a letter to the airport manager that the incident had been seen in a very serious light and that its two staff members were disciplined and given written warnings.

 

The opposed matter will be argued on Friday.

The Mercury

Related Topics: