US DOT blocking QF/AA JV - QF/AA resubmit

[Pleb Status]

QF/AA will have to drop at least one flight otherwise it proves they were 'lying' about requiring the anti competitive JV to make the flights sustainable.

 

[flightobserver]

QF/AA will have to drop at least one flight otherwise it proves they were 'lying' about requiring the anti competitive JV to make the flights sustainable.

Cynic in me thinks the reduction in MEL – LAX flying to 7x weekly (10x seasonal) will be depicted as an example of unsustainable conditions. I’ve noticed that this change hasn’t been publicly announced yet, nor the associated upgauge of QF 29/30 to daily 744.

 

[serfty]

I assumed that had been publicly announced - certainly referenced here on Oct 20: http://www.australianfrequentflyer....r-program/qf-cancels-qf95-96-makes-78931.html

 

[kevrosmith]

I assume that the AA flight will revert back to QF next year. Interesting what may happen with SYD-SFO (move to the 789 prehaps).

If AA get to keep the SYD-LAX flight, that will be a big win for them and a big loss for QF (provided the flights make money that is).

From a customer point of view, I think we will only be better off by the JV being knocked back.

AA didn't negotiate with QF about coming back to SYD. AA told QF they were coming back. It was as much a surprise for QF as it was for everyone else.

 

[flightobserver]

I assumed that had been publicly announced - certainly referenced here on Oct 20: http://www.australianfrequentflyer....r-program/qf-cancels-qf95-96-makes-78931.html

I found out through various forums too, but it certainly hasn’t been put up on the Qantas News Room nor Qantas Industry Sales websites. When QF 17/18 was curtailed to upgauge QF 29/30 to 744 3x weekly, it was announced through these official channels as well.

 

[Himeno]

AA didn't negotiate with QF about coming back to SYD. AA told QF they were coming back. It was as much a surprise for QF as it was for everyone else.

How do you figure? The QF17/18 drop, AA72/73 start and QF73/74 restart were all announced at the same time in a joint press conference.

 

[Melburnian1]

In a more practical sense, what will denial of the alliance mean? Withdrawal of a service / some services? Less seats available? Loss of profitability potential?

Do you mean 'fewer seats'? It is plural.

It may mean cheaper fares for many travellers. The more airlines on a route that are unable to 'collude' or 'establish a joint venture', the better as far as the travelling public goes.

 

[anat0l]

Do you mean 'fewer seats' - it is plural.

I keep falling for that... as well as "at least" etc. etc.

It may mean cheaper fares for many travellers. The more airlines on a route that are unable to 'collude' or 'establish a joint venture', the better as far as the travelling public goes.

So why doesn't the US DOT revoke every single similar alliance on the same market in order to promote more independent players on the market?

 

[MEL_Traveller]

So why doesn't the US DOT revoke every single similar alliance on the same market in order to promote more independent players on the market?

Melburnian presumably means the more 'large' airlines that are unable to work together the better for the public. There may be cases where you need an alliance to maintain any competition at all.

 

[anat0l]

Melburnian presumably means the more 'large' airlines that are unable to work together the better for the public. There may be cases where you need an alliance to maintain any competition at all.

The Trans-Atlantic market would suggest that both of your principles of competition are either flawed or there is serious corruption on the part of legislators or lobbyists who seek to impose capitalist extremes to the detriment of the hapless customer.

In any case, all of the players on the direct (and even indirect) Trans-Pacific market are large enough, one could argue that alliances or antitrust immunities amongst any of them is - by your standards - absolutely unnecessary and detrimental to competition. Unless you are saying that competition for competition's sake is not always beneficial for the customer (oh, shock horror...)?

 

[MEL_Traveller]

In any case, all of the players on the direct (and even indirect) Trans-Pacific market are large enough, one could argue that alliances or antitrust immunities amongst any of them is - by your standards - absolutely unnecessary and detrimental to competition. Unless you are saying that competition for competition's sake is not always beneficial for the customer (oh, shock horror...)?

You've lost me. I'm saying there can be times when anti-trust, mergers, alliances (etc) could benefit passengers by allowing more carriers to stay in a market and hence keep competition active.

 

[gpr49697]

I'm struggling with the decision. With delta, united and virgin as the other direct players for example out of Sydney to LA I'm not sure I really see the real risk to competition - not to mention a number of non direct options. I use oneworld almost exclusively so I think there will almost certainly be some downside in this not proceeding.

 

[DC3]

Article (27/2/18): Qantas may axe Dallas route if joint business with American is not approved.

"The two airlines re-filed their application for a joint business with the DoT yesterday, after it blocked their previous application in 2016".

https://www.businesstraveller.com/business-travel/2018/02/27/qantas-may-axe-dallas-route-joint-business-american-not-approved/

 

[Quickstatus]

Article (27/2/18): Qantas may axe Dallas route if joint business with American is not approved.

"The two airlines re-filed their application for a joint business with the DoT yesterday, after it blocked their previous application in 2016".

https://www.businesstraveller.com/business-travel/2018/02/27/qantas-may-axe-dallas-route-joint-business-american-not-approved/

The vast majority of QF7 have onward connections to St Elsewhere via AA codeshares. Without the codeshares QF7 will be less viable.
QF7/8 on the A380 needs about 100 less passengers?? than a full flight to make the distance - especially the 8.
It's only popular not for the destination

 

[MEL_Traveller]

But code shares can continue to exist can't they?

 

[Quickstatus]

But code shares can continue to exist can't they?

Sure but since the JV was suspended the number of codeshares has dropped. QF/AA no longer condeshare transpacific plus some others I think.

 

[dajop]

Didn't it all get more difficult (in terms of JV, codeshares etc) from the point AA started flying their own metal across the Pacific to SYD? Before then it seemed to smooth sailing on the collaboration.

 

[Quickstatus]

QF/AA trying to say without JV, AA would not have done transpacific. But AA really only took over a QF sector so that it could go back to SFO

 

[MEL_Traveller]

QF/AA trying to say without JV, AA would not have done transpacific. But AA really only took over a QF sector so that it could go back to SFO

And no guarantee the airlines will ever deliver or maintain these new flights and ‘consumer benefits’ anyway. We’ve seen it with dubai, with EK pulling out of trans-tasman.

i’m not sure how lounge access and frequent flyer benefits outweigh potential disbenefits through reduced competition?

 

[serfty]

We’ve seen it with dubai, with EK pulling out of trans-tasman.

Even with this, between EK and QF they must have a minimum number Trans-Tasman of seats to sell - hence the 330's.