full of luv

Really....


DOT plans rejection of Delta-Virgin Blue alliance
US Transportation Dept. tentatively denies Delta-Virgin Blue alliance on Australia flights


Joshua Freed, AP Airlines Writer, On Wednesday September 8, 2010, 4:36 pm EDT
MINNEAPOLIS (AP) -- Plans by Delta Air Lines Inc. and affiliates of Virgin Blue Group to collaborate on flights between the U.S. and Australia suffered a setback on Wednesday, with the U.S. Transportation Department saying it expects to deny their request.

Delta currently flies only between Sydney and Los Angeles. UAL Corp.'s United Airlines and Australian carrier Qantas currently dominate the flight schedule between the two countries.

Delta and Australian budget airline Virgin Blue wanted permission to coordinate fares and schedules, and to share money from the flights. Usually, antitrust laws would block that kind of collaboration, but airlines can get permission in some cases for joint ventures if they can show that consumers will benefit. Australian authorities approved the proposal in December.

However, the Transportation Department said the airlines have not shown that the alliance would provide enough benefits for travelers such as lower fares or increased capacity. Also, the DOT said that Delta and Virgin Blue plan to limit their cooperation to the largest routes between the U.S. and Australia, limiting the benefit for travelers.

The two "have virtually no experience as commercial partners and employ business processes that they admit are not compatible," the DOT order said. "They have only just begun to explore the feasibility of arms-length cooperation, much less the degree of cooperation that requires, or would merit, a grant of antitrust immunity."

The airlines have two weeks to object.

"We strongly believe our proposed alliance with the Virgin Blue Group will be good for consumers," Delta said in a written statement. "We are reviewing the DOT's tentative order and will respond within the comment period."




So to get this straight, the DOT in the US is preventing the JV because they believe it will have no effect since it is minimal????? I thought the DOT was supposed to watch for monopolies or price gouging, now they stop a deal because they believe it would be inconsequential? Talk about big brother government!!!!

skippy

I thnk its a good move. Only dal, blue and ual do those sydney flights.

acl65pilot

I see it as the DOT's way of telling DAL, you are too big, and we do not like getting sued.

My thought is; Keep this up and the lawsuits will keep coming.

Not having the JV will make DAL's SYD flight harder to fill with beyond SYD passengers.

Check Essential

They can still codeshare without anti-trust immunity.

EagleDriver

I think you need to look up your old high school English teacher and get some help in reading comprehension. The DOT is saying the antitrust immunity would not provide enough benefits for travelers. (i.e. The DOT IS trying to protect the public from a monopoly that CAN price gouge.) They never said that the deal would have inconsequential effects or minimal effects for consumers. Please explain where you come to your conclusion.

reddog25

Disagree....I believe Blue flies only int'l. If DL wants more frequency, put those iunused 747-400s on it. 403 pax and cargo!

hair-on-fire

I'll try

1. He came to his conclusion before he even read it.
2. He like very simple answers to complex issues.

Kenny

Curently 4 carriers do direct trans-pac flights; Qantas, UAL, DAL and V Australia.

Personally, I think this would have been a pre-cursor to VAus being shut down as it's been a monumental waste of money.....Started at the wrong time and managed badly.

Other than that, things as they stand right now, won't change much.

buzzpat

And DAL has a grand total of ONE a day. Wow, let's shut down that monopoly! Wheeww.....glad we took care of that DOT.

full of luv

Sooooo antitrust is supposed to be beneficial to the consumer????? It's supposed to be the DOT's job to check for monopolies and collusion in business, not to make sure the customer has gotten the best deal possible.
JV's across the Atlantic do not make a better deal for the consumer, they significantly reduce competition making the alliances effectively compete against eachother but taking the inter alliance competition out of the marketplace.
Here you have the DOT saying that since there is minimal service offered by DAL on this route, it's not worth JV status despite the fact that oneworld and united's alliance have multiple offerings downunder. In fact this ruling just puts up an impediment to allowing the skyteam a bit of a start on competing to Australia.
So in your world the DOT is now big brother always ensuring that the most rock bottom of prices could be achieved??? The immunity DAL was looking for (and approved downunder btw) was in being sued for starting to collude with VB so they had some sort of ability to offer flights other than to just Sydney on DAL ticket stock.
Nobody can say that JV's anywhere are the best thing for the consumer, for them it would be best if every airline ran around with half empty tubes until the next round of BK's.