Member since 21 Apr 2012
Total posts 2,058
I'm in two minds about writing this, vacillating between dismay at the lack of coverage and curiosity as to why this story is not a priority.
So here goes!
On the subject of the DOT blocking the AA and QF joint venture expansion, the following leading sites have reported and provided commentary:
To date there are no reports from this site.
Given the possible impact to AU based travellers, the following questions arises:
Member since 31 Mar 2014
Total posts 226
My understanding is that a tentative ruling has been made, not a final ruling. DOT has provided a Show Cause Notice, so AA and QF still have the ability to provide further information to sway the final ruling.
Qantas - Qantas Frequent Flyer
Member since 08 Aug 2016
Total posts 112
view from the wing, also wrote about this topic just in a different view.
I understand what you are saying but I find it interesting to preclude the opportunity to discuss the pros and cons of antitrust immunity being revoked before the case is finalised.
What is the disadvantage to this site for facilitating such a discussion?
In whose interest is it for this case not to be aired in a public forum?
Does this not go to the heart of what this site is for?
Member since 24 Oct 2010
Total posts 1,008
TRB: no drama on your post, this is all part of what the community is for
The reason we've not reported this is simply because there's nothing to report right now that would impact our audience. The DoT's call is a tentative one, and it's a call which Qantas and American are of course appealing against. Once a final call has been made we'll be in a position to examine the actual impacts and report accordingly.
This also plays back into the broader theme of Australian Business Traveller's content strategy â the types of stories we run and also what we don't run. We lean towards content that's useful, practical, actionable... doesn't always happen (there's also room for pieces more of interest and 'colour'), but right now the QF/AA/DoT JV is simply a non-starter.
Member since 07 Oct 2012
Total posts 767
Huh?! If Ausbt wants to write something about AA/QF being given 'show cause' that is up to them. I don't recall them writing something about ACCC doing the same thing about the China Eastern/QF deal and then ending up approving it following further lobbying (maybe they did, but I don't recall).
Those are some reasons why we launched the community: to 'facilitate' these discussions without needing an AusBT article to kick things off.
Member since 14 Jun 2013
Total posts 109
Talk about clickbait, I came here expecting to read a thread about an actual elephant sitting in a room somewhere!
Member since 13 Sep 2016
Total posts 30
I don't see any hidden agenda in AusBT's decision not to cover this hiccup in the QF/AA joint venture, as David has clearly stated it's just not really a story right now, or at least not the sort of story which AusBT does. If the joint venture is in the end blocked then I am sure AusBT will do its usual good job of providing a detailed breakdown of what this means to travellers, probably better than you will find on any other website.
Clickbait! Good one! LOL
Member since 25 Feb 2016
Total posts 26
For me I don't really understand what the JV's all about... how it it different from a normal code-share arrangement, what benefits it has for both the airlines and me the traveller and what is the sticking point for the the DOT in approving it. What changes between today and the the JV being approved/denied etc?
Member since 17 Aug 2012
Total posts 1,285
Revenue-sharing, product alignment, etc.
Member since 12 Dec 2012
Total posts 291
The current QF/AA agreement is closer to the QF/JL (JP-AU codeshare via SIN) or old QF/SA agreement. They want to make it more like the old QF/BA or current QF/EK agreements.
Member since 21 Jan 2014
Total posts 271
I agree with TRB, there are many discussions on here regarding what could happen, should happen with a variety of subjects and the impacts of decisions one way or another, the initial decision by the DOT was one I found interest in and followed on general media outlets and I was a bit surprised it wasn't reported on here.
As reported in The Age on 29 Nov 2016. Qantas has decided to pull the plug:
As per the Qantas spokesperson:
"It follows approval from Australian and New Zealand
regulators on the basis that our expanded partnership involved no detriment and
would deliver significant benefits for consumers"
Key questions: How effective are the AU regulators if they approved this deal while the DOT hasn't? What is the AU regulator's focus? Is their focus different from the DOT?
As per the AA spokesperson:
"With that opportunity we would have been able to
compete more effectively and increase consumer benefits in the market as
Code: We can compete on quality and not price.
It is well known that the Trans Pacific sector is one of the last few international sectors making money for Qantas. AA and other US-based airlines know this and want to get in on the action. The application of game theory on the part of AA and QF is commendable. Question is how will AA react to this so that they do not haemorrhage cash and wind down the Trans Pacific strategy without losing too much face?
Hi Guest, join in the discussion on
Elephant in the room [AusBT coverage of Qantas/AA Joint Venture]
Already have an ET account? Log in below.
Signing up with Executive Traveller only takes a second and lets you
interact with our community. It's completely free and we'll never pass your information on to
Didn’t receive an activation email? Resend one to yourself here.
If you’ve forgotten your password, simply enter your email address
below, then click 'Submit'. We’ll send you an email to re-activate your account and enter a new password.
If you have not received the activation email, simply enter your email address below, then click 'Submit'. We’ll send you an email containing the activation link.
Subscribe to our free newsletter and get the latest news, reviews, tips and more sent straight to your inbox