It is likely that the price fixing could be explained as level two of Kohlberg. While airline customers would expect TY and JK to make some profit(else they would go out of business) that profit would not be "excessive". It is possibly reasonable to expect an airline to charge a fuel surcharge, placing the decision at level 2.1. However, he fact that there was collusion means there was an attempt to raise prices artificially, which would not be expected by customers. Level 2.1 action is therefore not appropriate.
Regarding the decision by JK to disclose that there had been a price fixing agreement, it appears that the directors are attempting to justify the company's initial lack of dsclosure, the argument that disclosure is now "in the public interest" appears to be focused on Kohlberg stage 3.1. In other words, disclosure was expected by society and therefore disclosure was made. This reasoning obviously ignores the initial issue of collusion and lack of disclosure. The disclosure could therefore simply be stated as being at level 2.1; disclosure would be expected by their customers.
Given the rivalry between TY and JK another aspect of disclosure can be considered. Given that either company could have disclosed the price fixing, there could be an element of JK attempting t o gain moral superiority over TY; disclosure could also be explained as JK being "better" morally than TY. In this case JK was therefore attempting again to achieve level 2.2 or even 3.1 by acting in the interests of society. However, disclosure could also have been punished by the imposition of a fine as TY was.
In conclusion, disclosure was probably prompted by the necessity of avoiding a large fine-but with the intention of making JK appear to be more morally superior to TY.
(b) (i) Public interest
There is no overall definition or agreement on the term ' public interest '. However, he public interest is normally seen to refer to the ' common well-being ' or ' general welfare. '
An action is usually thought to be in the public interest where it benefits society in some way. It is unclear though how many members of society must benefit before the action can be declared to be in the public interest. Some people would argue an action has to benefit every single member of society in order to be truly in the public interest. At the other extreme, any action can be in the public interest as long as it benefits some of the population and harms no one.
The extent to which an individual will make a disclosure "in the public interest" depends on their moral stance. In terms of Kohlberg this means that the individual will be at level three and is prepared to "blow the whistle" on unethical conduct.
