Qatar Airways to acquire 25% of Virgin Australia

[justinbrett]

Both are unaffected which have been confirmed. I'm sure they regret the wording used in orginal application.

"There are no changes to arrangements with Virgin Atlantic (VS) or South African Airways (SA)". End of page 5 and page 6.

A question mark has now been thrown over Air Canada though, but I expect is safe. Virgin Australia’s Big Play: Qatar partnership, long-haul return, and IPO path

Are they though? As I said it contradicts within the application (no codeshare or loyalty with another airline in Europe/Africa), and the last word on this (Email on Friday) says VA doesn’t seek authorisation for the proposed exclusivity arrangements

Clear as mud.

 

[Bagpuss]

Are they though? As I said it contradicts within the application (no codeshare or loyalty with another airline in Europe/Africa), and the last word on this (Email on Friday) says VA doesn’t seek authorisation for the proposed exclusivity arrangements

Clear as mud.

Yes it's clear as mud as they are responding / clarifying to the ACCC based on the submissions and the ACCC's initial review prior to making a decision.

For the email a penny dropped that they don't need ACCC approval for some of the arrangements. (I had to re-read that email multiple times.)

Timeline :

November/December 2024 Applicant responds to issues raised in the public consultation process.

 

[justinbrett]

Yes it's clear as mud as they are responding / clarifying to the ACCC based on the submissions and the ACCC's initial review prior to making a decision.

Timeline :

November/December 2024 Applicant responds to issues raised in the public consultation process.

View attachment 415512

As I’ve already said, the submission on the 13th specifically refers to the exclusive Europe/Africa arrangement (despite the table you posted that says the opposite)

On the 15th, after being asked a further question about this by ACCC (again highlighting ACCC are just as confused as us), the email said VA doesn’t seek authorisation for the proposed exclusivity arrangements.

So if they’re proposed then they are real, either VA is dumping them or they’ve worked out they don’t need approval for them. That much is unclear.

 

[Bagpuss]

Either VA is dumping them or they’ve worked out they don’t need approval for them. That much is unclear.

If they were dumped or worked out they don't need them it doesn't really matter. They've highlighted the actual changes and that's all that matters.
I suspect the exclusive clauses were dumped. If Qatar owns 25% they would veto any new partnerships anyway.
Dumping VS and SA wouldn't make any sense as they are very niche.

End of the day I would expect Qatar and Virgin really want this to go ahead and those exclusive clauses probably didn't have any consumer merit.

Ultimately, the clauses spooked a lot of parties. The email references a phone call too, so they may have been told they wouldn't approve exclusive arrangements or caused a delay on granting approval.

 

[justinbrett]

If they were dumped or worked out they don't need them it doesn't really matter. They've highlighted the actual changes and that's all that matters.
I suspect the exclusive clauses were dumped. If Qatar owns 25% they would veto any new partnerships anyway.
Dumping VS and SA wouldn't make any sense as they are very niche.

End of the day I would expect Qatar and Virgin really want this to go ahead and those exclusive clauses probably didn't have any consumer merit.

Ultimately, the clauses spooked a lot of parties. The email references a phone call too, so they may have been told they wouldn't approve exclusive arrangements or caused a delay on granting approval.

If they dumped them it happened after the 13th submission, which really calls their whole response into question.

ACCC won’t like this one bit. I wouldn’t be surprised if interim authorisation is withheld and VA/QR asked to resubmit. Pressuring ACCC for an answer when they’re all over the place like this isn’t going to end well.

 

[Bagpuss]

If they dumped them it happened after the 13th submission, which really calls their whole response into question.

ACCC won’t like this one bit. I wouldn’t be surprised if interim authorisation is withheld and VA/QR asked to resubmit. Pressuring ACCC for an answer when they’re all over the place like this isn’t going to end well.

Why would they need to resubmit?

ACCC would approve and put in place the condition's anyway. Sometimes airlines ask for 10 year authorizations and the ACCC approve for 5.

Being able to respond to submissions is part of the process and also allows for changes.

 

[elanshin]

If they were dumped or worked out they don't need them it doesn't really matter. They've highlighted the actual changes and that's all that matters.
I suspect the exclusive clauses were dumped. If Qatar owns 25% they would veto any new partnerships anyway.
Dumping VS and SA wouldn't make any sense as they are very niche.

End of the day I would expect Qatar and Virgin really want this to go ahead and those exclusive clauses probably didn't have any consumer merit.

Ultimately, the clauses spooked a lot of parties. The email references a phone call too, so they may have been told they wouldn't approve exclusive arrangements or caused a delay on granting approval.

The problem i can forsee is that they let the cat out of the bag.

Even if they go through on a 25% without the exclusivity clause. Everyone saw their intentions and initial submissions. It's not as if this is a one way street. For all we know right now SIA could be looking at (or might not care ar all) altering their deal with VA when it's up for renewal.

Basically VA and QR has played their hand and they didn't manage to slide some of the jokers through unnoticed.

How everyone will respond going forward, we'll have to see.

 

[justinbrett]

Why would they need to resubmit?

ACCC would approve and put in place the condition's anyway. Sometimes airlines ask for 10 year authorizations and the ACCC approve for 5.

Being able to respond to submissions is part of the process and also allows for changes.
Also note the question asked from the ACCC.

View attachment 415518

Yes but they’ve (seemingly) changed their mind AFTER the submission.

That’s my point. They can’t even get that right.

 

[Bagpuss]

Yes but they’ve (seemingly) changed their mind AFTER the submission.

That’s my point. They can’t even get that right.

Need to read the question from the ACCC multiple times. The initial application actual never had the exclusive arrangements within the proposed conduct anyway.

Think they over-shared in the application. (The exclusive arrangements are more a hand-shake deal between Qatar and Virgin.)



Answer:

 

[justinbrett]

Need to read the question multiple times. The initial application actual never had the exclusive arrangements within the proposed conduct anyway.

View attachment 415522

Answer:

View attachment 415523

So is QR going to be the exclusive airline in Europe / Africa or not?

 

[odysseus]

If they were dumped or worked out they don't need them it doesn't really matter. They've highlighted the actual changes and that's all that matters.

Except they haven't.

Often and ideally in such submissions, they would call it out; say "as a result of xx, our application no longer excludes/no longer removes loyalty redemption and earning on airlines in Europe; whatever so we have clarified/removed this.'

Instead they try to bluster past and blame it on the readers "misunderstanding" what they had stated. And then editing parts, but seemingly leaving other references intact.

Really, this is a failure by their lawyers, but also their own legal counsel.

 

[Bagpuss]

So is QR going to be the exclusive airline in Europe / Africa or not?

No.

 

[Bagpuss]

Really, this is a failure by their lawyers, but also their own legal counsel.

Correct. (As I also mentioned previously.)

 

[justinbrett]

No. QR is head quartered in the Middle East.

Thanks for stating the obvious.

The clause was no partnership with another airline headquartered in Europe or Africa.

Is that the case or not?

 

[Bagpuss]

Thanks for staying the obvious.

The clause was no partnership with another airline headquartered in Europe or Africa.

Is that the case or not?

The request for exclusive partnership's with another airline headquartered in Europe or Africa wasn't actually requested (as not in the proposed conduct).

Again read the ACCC's question, what I highlighted. The ACCC are saying you've stated all this but haven't asked for it, do you want it included as part of the determination? ... The response was a super quick no.

If the answer was yes, then maybe the ACCC may have rejected the application as key component was missing. Though there's definitely been some back peddling.

 

[elanshin]

The request for exclusive partnership's with another airline headquartered in Europe or Africa wasn't actually requested (as not in the proposed conduct).

Again read the ACCC's question, what I highlighted. The ACCC are saying you've stated all this but haven't asked for it, do you want it included as part of the determination? ... The response was a super quick no.

So it becomes a question, why was it in there in the first place? We probably won't know the answer to that and can only speculate but regardless this has definitely put in a dampener on their application from all parties interested, be it the public, ACCC, VA's existing partners etc.

 

[justinbrett]

The request for exclusive partnership's with another airline headquartered in Europe or Africa wasn't actually requested (as not in the proposed conduct).

Again read the ACCC's question, what I highlighted. The ACCC are saying you've stated all this but haven't asked for it, do you want it included as part of the determination? ... The response was a super quick no.

If the answer was yes, then maybe the ACCC may have rejected the application as key component was missing. Though there's definitely been some back peddling.

So it is the case? I’m confused.

I don’t care about which section of the application or submission contained the exclusivity - it has been put in official documents and they’re still putting out mixed messages about it.

 

[Bagpuss]

So it is the case? I’m confused.

I don’t care about which section of the application or submission contained the exclusivity - it has been put in official documents and they’re still putting out mixed messages about it.

First confirmation was :

Etihad gone
SAA and VS staying as is
SIA no codeshare to EMEA but can redeem Velocity points to EMA.

Second confirmation was :

No head-quartered exclusivity.

 

[justinbrett]

First confirmation was :

Etihad gone
SAA and VS staying as is
SIA no codeshare to EMEA but can redeem Velocity points to EMA.

Second confirmation was :

No head-quartered exclusivity.

I assume the first “confirmation” was the submission on the 13th? That still has the clause (3.1).

The follow up just says they’re not seeking authorisation for it.

Clear as mud.

 

[Bagpuss]

I assume the first “confirmation” was the submission on the 13th? That still has the clause (3.1).

The follow up just says they’re not seeking authorisation for it.

Clear as mud.

Yes the 13th.

I'm actually reading the submission on the 13th and I think they are then stating they want the exclusive partnership on the application. Though were specific they were keeping the existing relationships ex Etihad (page 4).



(Already posted the table of "changes")

14th ACCC queried.

Then on the 15th via email (after a telephone call), they removed the exclusive partnership from the application. (The exclusive partners were part of an exception.)

Note that mud isn't clear. You can't see through mud.