Go Back  FlyerTalk Forums > Miles&Points > Global Airline Alliances > oneworld
Reload this Page >

EU sent warning to OW carriers over antitrust issues

Community
Wiki Posts
Search

EU sent warning to OW carriers over antitrust issues

Thread Tools
 
Search this Thread
 
Old Oct 3, 2009 | 11:31 pm
  #1  
Original Poster
All eyes on you!
15 Years on Site
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: SIN
Posts: 64
EU sent warning to OW carriers over antitrust issues

Please refer to the link below:

http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp...8dU-VqiouJlnIg

EU gives three airlines anti-trust warning
(AFP) – 1 day ago
BRUSSELS — The EU competition regulator said on Friday that it has warned British Airways, American Airlines and Spain's Iberia over agreements on transatlantic routes which could breach anti-trust rules.
The rival Virgin Atlantic airline immediately welcomed the warning to what it termed a "monster monopoly", but BA said it had expected the move and now looked forward to overcoming the EU's concerns.
The regulator, the European Commission, said that it had sent a "statement of objections" last month to the three companies, which are all members of the oneworld airline alliance.
The action concerns agreements between them "regarding the coordination of the parties' commercial, operational and marketing activities in relation to passenger traffic on transatlantic routes," it said in a statement.
"The commission considers (the accords) may be in breach of European rules on restrictive business practices," it said.
"Pursuant to these agreements, the parties intend to jointly manage schedules, capacity and pricing, as well as share revenues on transatlantic routes between North America and Europe," the statement added.
The three airlines said on August 14 last year that they had signed an agreement to cooperate on flights between North America and Europe to help them to overcome soaring fuel costs.
The venture between American Airlines, BA and Iberia came as British Airways and Spain's national carrier also discussed separate plans for a multi-billion-dollar merger.
The commission also said that a parallel investigation into four members of the Star Alliance, as well as a probe of some participants in the Skyteam group, are also continuing.
British Airways said it had been expecting the move and looked "forward to the opportunity to address and overcome the EU's concerns," noting that oneworld carries less traffic out of Britain than the two other alliances.
"We believe the quickest way to robust competition and more travel choices for consumers is to ensure that all three global airline alliances can compete on an equal footing," it said in a statement.
Virgin Atlantic chief Steve Ridgway welcomed the commission move as "absolutely justified".
He alleged in a statement: "This alliance between BA and AA is a monster monopoly which, if given the go-ahead, will allow these dominant carriers to increase their stranglehold at Heathrow by setting prices and agreeing schedules."
He said: "A tie-up between BA and AA is bad news for competition and bad news for the consumer."
A "statement of objections" is a formal step in antitrust investigations.
Under the procedure, the commission informs the parties in writing of the objections raised against them. They can reply in writing setting out their defence, and can also request an oral hearing to present their case.
Brussels can then take a decision on whether their conduct breaks any rules.
Copyright © 2009 AFP. All rights reserved.
linx823 is offline  
Old Oct 4, 2009 | 3:32 am
  #2  
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: London, UK
Programs: BA Gold(OWE), QF LTG, MR Plat, IHG Spire, Hertz PC
Posts: 8,156
I just hope that the EU regulator comes to their senses and allows this especially when both Star Alliance and Skyteam already enjoy closer operations and both those alliances are bigger than OneWorld.
Traveloguy is offline  
Old Oct 4, 2009 | 4:28 am
  #3  
Moderator: Asiana & Qantas Frequent Flyer
50 Countries Visited
3M
All eyes on you!
15 Years on Site
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: STR/SYD/SMF
Programs: QF LTG / P1 , LH LT SEN / HON, OZ LT Diamond +, Marriott LT PT, HH Diamond,
Posts: 15,149
Originally Posted by Traveloguy
I just hope that the EU regulator comes to their senses and allows this especially when both Star Alliance and Skyteam already enjoy closer operations and both those alliances are bigger than OneWorld.
I wonder why everyone is looking so closely at OW. Maybe it is because AA/BA would have a much more dominating market position between London and some US cities (NYC) than LH/UA from FRA or AF/DL/CO from Paris? But I wonder whether they really have a market share higher than that of other alliances in similar situations.
DownUnderFlyer is offline  
Old Oct 4, 2009 | 5:04 am
  #4  
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: London, UK
Programs: BA Gold(OWE), QF LTG, MR Plat, IHG Spire, Hertz PC
Posts: 8,156
Originally Posted by DownUnderFlyer
I wonder why everyone is looking so closely at OW. Maybe it is because AA/BA would have a much more dominating market position between London and some US cities (NYC) than LH/UA from FRA or AF/DL/CO from Paris? But I wonder whether they really have a market share higher than that of other alliances in similar situations.
I suspect it is more due to the fact that the UK-US market is bigger than Germany-US market etc.
Traveloguy is offline  
Old Oct 4, 2009 | 5:19 am
  #5  
Moderator: Asiana & Qantas Frequent Flyer
50 Countries Visited
3M
All eyes on you!
15 Years on Site
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: STR/SYD/SMF
Programs: QF LTG / P1 , LH LT SEN / HON, OZ LT Diamond +, Marriott LT PT, HH Diamond,
Posts: 15,149
Originally Posted by Traveloguy
I suspect it is more due to the fact that the UK-US market is bigger than Germany-US market etc.
But size of the market shouldn't matter. Market share however should.
DownUnderFlyer is offline  
Old Oct 4, 2009 | 7:28 am
  #6  
In Memoriam
 
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Katoomba (Blue Mountains)
Programs: Mucci
Posts: 8,083
Originally Posted by DownUnderFlyer
But size of the market shouldn't matter. Market share however should.
Indeed - having 90% of a 20million pax market is nowhere near as bad as having 90% share of a 20K pax market, the former leaves plenty of revenue to go around whilst providing enough stimulus for competition, the latter does absolutely zilch for this.

(Numbers plucked out of thin air to make a point).

Dave
thadocta is offline  
Old Oct 4, 2009 | 2:45 pm
  #7  
fomerly CoachBoy
10 Countries Visited
20 Countries Visited
30 Countries Visited
15 Years on Site
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Programs: United Premier 1K, British Airways Gold
Posts: 423
I think eventually ATI will be granted, it will come at the expense of JFK-LHR frequencies. AA and BA, under the old bilateral, were part of a regulatory quadropoly, which they are benefitting from to this day, due to the scarcity of LHR slot pairs. VS doesnt have much of a leg to stand on because they were part of the same quadropoly. In my mind the only really valid objection to the tie up would come from DL and Skyteam, who were frozen out of the bilateral, and are really the only ones in a position to take advantage of a 'forced sale' of JFK-LHR flights. VS simply doesn' have the A/C uplift, UA gave up JFK-LHR a long time ago. There is no other US based airline with a sizable presence at JFK (leaving aside B6, who don't do international service currently), and given BMI's current state, and lack of sufficient long haul A/C, I can't see them enterring the market either.

MIA and DFW are ridiculous arguments as they represent hub-to-hub traffic for both AA and BA.
TravelBuddha is offline  
Old Oct 4, 2009 | 6:02 pm
  #8  
Moderator, OneWorld
40 Countries Visited
2M
All eyes on you!
20 Years on Site
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: SEA
Programs: RAA RIP; AA ExEXP
Posts: 12,525
A couple of weeks ago on a flight I sat next to a person who's deeply involved in the ATI negotiations - can't say for who, but trust me, deep into it. NOT a regulator BTW.

Their internal assessment is that ATI will probably be granted (they were guessing in the first or second quarters of CY 2010) provided AA and (mainly) BA agree to give up some LHR slots. It's all about the LHR slots, according to this person.
Gardyloo is offline  
Old Oct 5, 2009 | 5:36 am
  #9  
Moderator: Asiana & Qantas Frequent Flyer
50 Countries Visited
3M
All eyes on you!
15 Years on Site
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: STR/SYD/SMF
Programs: QF LTG / P1 , LH LT SEN / HON, OZ LT Diamond +, Marriott LT PT, HH Diamond,
Posts: 15,149
Originally Posted by thadocta
Indeed - having 90% of a 20million pax market is nowhere near as bad as having 90% share of a 20K pax market, the former leaves plenty of revenue to go around whilst providing enough stimulus for competition, the latter does absolutely zilch for this.

(Numbers plucked out of thin air to make a point).

Dave
But this would be the exact opposite of what Traveloguy was saying.
DownUnderFlyer is offline  
Old Oct 5, 2009 | 7:30 am
  #10  
In Memoriam
 
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Katoomba (Blue Mountains)
Programs: Mucci
Posts: 8,083
Originally Posted by DownUnderFlyer
But this would be the exact opposite of what Traveloguy was saying.
But I was agreeing with you - in a much bigger market, having a bigger market share doesn't really matter, since the remainder of the market will provide enough competition to keep the market honest.

In my example, 90% market share in a 20million market still leaves 1.8million for the others, enough to keep the market honest.

90% in a 20K market only leaves 1K for the competition, nowhere near enough to keep the market honest.

Getting back to this situation, I don't think it matters that LON-NYC is vastly bigger than anything out of FRA or CDG as far as competition issues go.

What I think matters (and I have read studies on this, can't find them at the moment, I am on somebody elses computer) is that it is the SIZE of the residual market (in passenger terms, not in % terms) which affects how competition issues will be addressed.

I hope this makes sense, I have been at my sisters 40th birthday party tonight, so not exactly sure I am making sense at the moment (if you get my drift).

Dave
thadocta is offline  
Old Oct 5, 2009 | 5:19 pm
  #11  
Suspended
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: HKG, VCE, CAN
Programs: CX MPO
Posts: 585
Originally Posted by thadocta

In my example, 90% market share in a 20million market still leaves 1.8million for the others, enough to keep the market honest.

90% in a 20K market only leaves 1K for the competition, nowhere near enough to keep the market honest.

Getting back to this situation, I don't think it matters that LON-NYC is vastly bigger than anything out of FRA or CDG as far as competition issues go.

What I think matters (and I have read studies on this, can't find them at the moment, I am on somebody elses computer) is that it is the SIZE of the residual market (in passenger terms, not in % terms) which affects how competition issues will be addressed.

Dave
the destiny of every antitrust issue for OW has always been tied to competition at LHR, and this time won't be different. It is possible to have an honest appraisal on the current competition situation for CDG and FRA vis-a-vis to LHR or getting pointed to an indipendent study on the topic? From my point of view as a user, I would say for instance that fares to and from FRA from Italy are pretty steep, because there's an incumbent that has tight control over routes, virtually no competition on those and a big presence on nearly all useable airports nearby besides its hub. And also one of the main competitors at LHR has just been absorbed, routes and all by the same incumbent, that almost immediately changes many of its routes to feeders to its own hub...
In my opinion, both LH and AF have outsmarted BA in playing EU Antitrust, i do not remember a single decision against these two. I think it depends to the huge representation the governments of Germany and France in all matters pertaining EU. I read somewhere that ms. Kroes is near the end of her period as antitrust chief and a French national is slated to replace her, if confirmed is better for BA to quickly close the issue, otherwise there may be no way for further attempts.
CXBA is offline  


Contact Us - Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service -

This site is owned, operated, and maintained by MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. Copyright © 2026 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Designated trademarks are the property of their respective owners.