Qantas opposes DJ/VA/EY alliance

[notzac]

In a move that should surprise no one, Qantas have taken issue with the Virgin Blue Group trying to get in bed with Etihad:

Qantas opposes Virgin's latest alliance bid | The Australian

"Qantas considers passengers will suffer considerable harm and inconvenience if tickets are booked on a new service during the interim period but final authorisation is ultimately denied," it said. "This is particularly unnecessary where a high degree of competition already exists on the Australia to UK-Europe route.

I don't buy Qantas' reasoning myself, but it's probably a delaying tactic more than anything else. They're really not having a good week of it at Virgin..!

 

[Keith009]

Farcical reasoning indeed.

 

[samh004]

I think it serves QF right, if what has been said of how they dealt with Etihad is true. They deserve to lose a big route that could be a cash cow for DJ, as they certainly didn’t play very fair in the first place.

 

[DJ737]

QF could have had a Middle East carrier deal stitched up yonks ago, but decided on a couple of half hearted codeshare schemes that didn't work out. and they are now having a grizzle to the ACCC. :-|

 

[JeniSkunk]

After reading this, I also have to wonder if Qantas wasn't heavilly whinging to the ACCC over the NZ matter.

Jenifur Charne

 

[samh004]

After reading this, I also have to wonder if Qantas wasn't heavilly whinging to the ACCC over the NZ matter.

Jenifur Charne

Apparently it was only TT that lodged a complaint, if I recall one of the posts from that thread.

 

[kamchatsky]

I think it serves QF right, if what has been said of how they dealt with Etihad is true. They deserve to lose a big route that could be a cash cow for DJ, as they certainly didn’t play very fair in the first place.

What have they done to EY? Weren't they just did some simple code shares with them at the first place?

 

[samh004]

What have they done to EY? Weren't they just did some simple code shares with them at the first place?

It was mentioned in another thread… and I’m sorry I can’t find it right now as I’m preparing for bed, but Etihad wanted to do more, and QF wasn’t interested, they just thought about themselves, so Etihad weren’t happy. They got what they deserved.

 

[anat0l]

Have to agree with the majority here - just seems like QF is clutching at straws to delay the process. At best, they are advocating the only fair thing to do, which is go through the normal process at a standard pace rather than a quick decision, but the reasoning to insist on that is very weak.

From what I understand, all that's gonna happen is that there will be another kind of JSA, i.e. DJ/VA/EY vs. the long-standing QF/BA on Kangaroo.

FWIW, I know that VA was trying to branch out / expand, but was there any strategy to improve SYD-HKG-LHR alongside VS ever considered?

 

[andyj]

The ACCC have now given interim approval to the alliance, so VA will be selling tickets 1 October.

John B finally gets some good news from regulators!!!

 

[docjames]

The ACCC have now given interim approval to the alliance, so VA will be selling tickets 1 October.

John B finally gets some good news from regulators!!!

As well they should. It would be insane to allow the QF tie up with BA on the Kangaroo route and not allow this one.

Similalrly, the DJ/NZ alliance should be allowed trans-tasman to allow competition for QF/JQ (plus the multitude of other carriers doing SYD/BNE/MEL-AKL/CHC), but that's another argument.

 

[kamchatsky]

As well they should. It would be insane to allow the QF tie up with BA on the Kangaroo route and not allow this one.

Similalrly, the DJ/NZ alliance should be allowed trans-tasman to allow competition for QF/JQ (plus the multitude of other carriers doing SYD/BNE/MEL-AKL/CHC), but that's another argument.

Good news for DJ also. Hope they will also get the alliance with NZ and Delta.

 

[anat0l]

The ACCC have now given interim approval to the alliance, so VA will be selling tickets 1 October.

John B finally gets some good news from regulators!!!

I've said it once and I'll say it again: About Bl**dy Time!

Why do they have to call it an 'interim' approval anyway? Sure they have to go through due process I guess, but if it (unlikely) turns out later that there are negative ramifications that lead to the approval being revoked, what do you do about all the 'interim' "benefits" garnered by the approval in the mean time?

Illogical....

 

[medhead]

Why do they have to call it an 'interim' approval anyway? Sure they have to go through due process I guess, but if it (unlikely) turns out later that there are negative ramifications that lead to the approval being revoked, what do you do about all the 'interim' "benefits" garnered by the approval in the mean time?

Illogical....

It is an interim approval to help business by giving some certainty. Obviously some government approvals can require significant time to consider before final approval is granted. In the meantime the business is left in limbo. Do they spend money developing plans further or start infrastructure works while not knowing if approval will be granted? Basically an interim approval is a way for the authority to say it looks ok in principle but we still need to consider the details.

It also gives the company time to provide extra information if interim approval is not granted. This also saves money as if a final approval was not granted that would be the end of the story. Possibly meaning that a big chunk of money was wasted preparing the approval application because of a minor detail that the company might have been willing to change.

 

[UP4014]

Hopefully if they can make a fist of it good pricing will flow on from other carriers.

Matt