August 22, 2011

Mr. Todd Homan

Director, Office of Aviation Analysis

Department of Transportation

1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE

Washington, DC 20590

Re: AA/QF Joint Business Agreement, DOT-OST-2011-0111

Dear Mr. Homan:

Attached is a copy of the Australian Competition & Consumer 

Commission (ACCC) draft determination issued August 22, 2011 regarding 

the American/Qantas Joint Business Agreement and the parties’ 

Applications for Authorisation. As you are aware, previously, on June 

9, 2011, the ACCC granted interim authorization. The draft 

determination proposes authorization of the Joint Business Agreement 

in the ACCC final determination, finding numerous pro-competitive 

benefits and no public detriment given the lack of competition between 

the parties. 

Respectfully submitted,

JAMES K. KALEIGH

Antitrust Attorney

American Airlines

P.O. Box 619616, MD 5675

DFW Airport, TX 75261

james.kaleigh@aa.com

(817) 967-3478

cc: Peter Irvine

Grady Stone

Docket Branch Service List

DRAFT DETERMINATION ii A91265 & A91266 

Summary 

The ACCC proposes to grant authorisation for a Joint Business Agreement between Qantas and 

American Airlines for five years. 

On 12 May 2011, Qantas and American Airlines lodged applications for authorisation of a Joint 

Business Agreement (JBA). Under the JBA, the airlines will coordinate operations on services 

between Australia/New Zealand and the United States (the trans-Pacific routes), and on their 

respective services which support the trans-Pacific routes. 

The applicants propose to coordinate all business operations, including flying operations, pricing 

and revenue management, scheduling, cargo, passenger sales and marketing, airport services and 

frequent flyer programs. 

The ACCC considers that the JBA is likely to result in new and improved products and services, 

(including improved schedules and connectivity, a greater choice of connection and stop-over 

options, and the possibility of new and improved routes) and enhanced value added services 

(including reciprocal lounge access, equivalent frequent flyer privileges and improved check-in 

procedures). The ACCC also considers that the JBA will provide the applicants with an 

incentive to offer new fare products, which may result in lower fares on many trans-Pacific 

routes. 

Qantas and American Airlines do not directly compete on any routes, and the information 

currently available suggests that they are unlikely to directly compete in the future. In light 

of this, the ACCC considers that the JBA is unlikely to result in any public detriment. 

Therefore, the ACCC proposes to grant authorisation to the applicants for the JBA for five 

years. 

On 9 June 2011, the ACCC granted interim authorisation, allowing the parties to 

commence the JBA while it considers the substantive applications for authorisation. 

The ACCC will now seek further submissions from the applicants and interested parties in 

relation to this draft determination, prior to making a final decision. The applicant and interested 

parties may also request a conference be held to make oral submissions on the draft 

determination. 
DRAFT DETERMINATION iii A91265 & A91266 

Contents

1. THE APPLICATIONS FOR AUTHORISATION ........................................................... 1

Interim authorisation .............................................................................................................. 2 

2. BACKGROUND TO THE APPLICATION ..................................................................... 3

THE APPLICANTS ......................................................................................................................... 3 

Qantas..................................................................................................................................... 3 

American Airlines .................................................................................................................. 3 

THE JBA ..................................................................................................................................... 4 

THE AVIATION INDUSTRY ............................................................................................................ 6 

3. SUBMISSIONS RECEIVED BY THE ACCC.................................................................. 8

4. ACCC EVALUATION ...................................................................................................... 10

THE MARKET............................................................................................................................. 10 

THE COUNTERFACTUAL............................................................................................................. 13 

PUBLIC BENEFIT ........................................................................................................................ 14 

New and improved products and services............................................................................ 15 

New fare products and lower fares....................................................................................... 16 

Increased tourism ................................................................................................................. 20 

Streamlined corporate travel procurement ........................................................................... 21 

A stronger frequent flyer proposition................................................................................... 21 

ACCC conclusion on public benefits................................................................................... 22 

PUBLIC DETRIMENT................................................................................................................... 22 

International air passenger transport services ...................................................................... 23 

International air freight transport services ........................................................................... 23 

The sale of air transport services.......................................................................................... 24 

Australian domestic air passenger transport services........................................................... 24 

ACCC conclusion on public detriments............................................................................... 24 

BALANCE OF PUBLIC BENEFIT AND DETRIMENT......................................................................... 24 

LENGTH OF AUTHORISATION ..................................................................................................... 25 

VARIATIONS TO THE PROPOSED CONDUCT................................................................................. 25 

5. DRAFT DETERMINATION............................................................................................ 26

THE APPLICATION...................................................................................................................... 26 

THE NET PUBLIC BENEFIT TEST.................................................................................................. 26 

CONDUCT FOR WHICH THE ACCC PROPOSES TO GRANT AUTHORISATION ................................. 27 

INTERIM AUTHORISATION.......................................................................................................... 27 

FURTHER SUBMISSIONS ............................................................................................................. 27 

ATTACHMENT A — THE AUTHORISATION PROCESS................................................................... 28 

ATTACHMENT B — CHRONOLOGY OF ACCC ASSESSMENT FOR APPLICATIONS A91265 &

A91266..................................................................................................................................... 29 

ATTACHMENT C — THE TESTS FOR AUTHORISATION AND OTHER RELEVANT PROVISIONS OF THE 

ACT........................................................................................................................................... 30 
DRAFT DETERMINATION iv A91265 & A91266 

List of abbreviations 

ACCC Australian Competition and Consumer Commission

The Act The Competition and Consumer Act 2010 

The applicants Qantas Airways Limited & American Airlines Inc. 

Codeshare 

 

 

The applicants’ 

Codeshare 

Agreement 

Code sharing refers to arrangements involving the assignment 

of one airline’s designator code to a flight operated by another 

airline. 

The applicants currently sell tickets on each others’ services 

under a free-sale Codeshare Agreement dated 23 September 

2004. 

Free sale A type of code share where the marketing carrier effectively 

only pays for the seats it sells 

Interline agreement Interlining involves the carriage of passengers and/or freight 

between two points using more than one airline under an 

arrangement which typically involves baggage check through 

and the honouring of tickets between airlines 

Load factor Load factors measure the percentage of seats filled on an 

aircraft on any given route. This is derived from dividing the 

number of passengers travelled by the number of seats 

available 

Sector A sector is a non-stop flight leg between two points 

(excluding technical stops where no passengers or cargo are 

picked up or dropped off) 

The Tribunal The Australian Competition Tribunal 
DRAFT DETERMINATION 1 A91265 & A91266 

1. The applications for authorisation 

1.1. On 12 May 2011, Qantas Airways Limited (Qantas) & American Airlines Inc. 

(American Airlines) (together, the applicants) lodged applications for authorisation 

A91265 & A91266 with the ACCC. 

1.2. Authorisation is a transparent process where the ACCC may grant immunity from legal 

action for conduct that might otherwise breach the Competition and Consumer Act 

2010 (the Act). The ACCC may ‘authorise’ businesses to engage in anti-competitive 

conduct where it is satisfied that the public benefit from the conduct outweighs any 

public detriment. The ACCC conducts a public consultation process when it receives 

an application for authorisation, inviting interested parties to lodge submissions 

outlining whether they support the application or not. Further information about the 

authorisation process is contained in Attachment A. A chronology of the significant 

dates in the ACCC’s consideration of these applications is contained in Attachment B. 

1.3. Application A91265 was made under subsections 88(1) and 88(1A) of the Act to: 

 make and give effect to a contract, arrangement or understanding, a provision of 

which is or may be an exclusionary provision within the meaning of section 45 of 

the Act 

 make and give effect to a provision of a contact, arrangement or understanding, a 

provision of which is, or may be, a cartel provision and which is also, or may also 

be, an exclusionary provision within the meaning of section 45 of that Act. 

1.4. Application A91266 was made under subsections 88(1) and 88(1A) of the Act to: 

 make and give effect to a contract or arrangement, or arrive at an understanding, a 

provision of which would have the purpose, or would have or might have the 

effect, of substantially lessening competition within the meaning of section 45 of 

the Act 

 make and give effect to a contract or arrangement, or arrive at an understanding a 

provision of which would be, or might be, a cartel provision (other than a provision 

which would also be, or might also be, an exclusionary provision within the 

meaning of section 45 of that Act). 

1.5. In particular, Qantas and American Airlines have sought authorisation to make and give 

effect to a Joint Business Agreement (JBA). Under the JBA, they would coordinate 

operations on international air passenger transport services between Australia/New 

Zealand and the United States (the trans-Pacific routes), and on extensive Qantas and 

American Airlines services which support the trans-Pacific routes. The applicants have 

sought authorisation for five years. 

1.6. Qantas will operate trans-Pacific services and connecting services in Australia and to 

New Zealand on behalf of the proposed JBA. American Airlines will operate 

connecting services in the United States, Canada and Mexico, and provide sales support 

for the trans-Pacific routes. 
DRAFT DETERMINATION 2 A91265 & A91266 

Interim authorisation

1.7. On 9 June 2011, the ACCC granted interim authorisation to allow the parties to 

commence the proposed JBA while the ACCC considers the substantive authorisation. 

Interim authorisation will remain in place until the ACCC’s final determination comes 

into effect or until the ACCC decides to revoke interim authorisation. 
DRAFT DETERMINATION 3 A91265 & A91266 

2. Background to the application 

The applicants 

Qantas1

2.1. Qantas was incorporated in Queensland in 1920 and is Australia's largest domestic and 

international airline. The Qantas Group employs approximately 32,500 people and 

offers services across a network covering 182 destinations in 44 countries - 59 in 

Australia and 123 in other countries (including those covered by code share partners). 

2.2. As at 1 September 2010, Qantas operated a fleet of 252 aircraft. Qantas also operates 

airline related businesses which include airport support services, catering, freight 

operations, loyalty programs, defence support services and engineering. 

2.3. Qantas operates flights using the following brands:

 Qantas: a full-service airline offering domestic and international services 

 Jetstar: a low fare airline offering domestic and international services 

 QantasLink: a full-service regional domestic airline. 

2.4. Qantas also has interests in Jetstar Asia and Valuair (both Singapore-based airlines, of 

which Qantas owns 49%), Jetstar Pacific (a Vietnam-based airline of which Qantas 

owns 27%) and Air Pacific (a Fiji based airline of which Qantas owns 46%). 

2.5. Domestically, Qantas (including QantasLink and Jetstar) operates over 5,600 flights 

each week. These flights serve 59 city and regional destinations in all states and 

mainland territories. Internationally, Qantas (including Jetstar) operates more than 970 

flights each week, of which approximately 630 are Qantas flights and 340 are Jetstar 

flights. 

2.6. For the financial year ended 30 June 2010, Qantas reported revenue of A$13.8 billion 

and a profit before tax of A$178 million. 

American Airlines2

2.7. American Airlines, the principal subsidiary of AMR Corporation, was founded in 1934. 

As at 31 December 2010, American Airlines provided services to approximately 160 

destinations throughout North America, the Caribbean, Latin America, Europe and 

Asia. The majority of American Airlines flights operate to or from five major United 

States cities: Dallas/Fort Worth, Chicago O’Hare, Miami, New York City and Los 

Angeles. 

 

1

 The majority of information under this sub-heading is sourced from: 

- Qantas and American Airlines, Submission in support of applications for authorisation, 11 May 2011 

- Qantas, Annual report 2010 2

 The majority of information under this sub-heading is sourced from: 

- Qantas and American Airlines, Submission in support of applications for authorisation, 11 May 2011 

- AMR Corporation, Annual report 2010.
DRAFT DETERMINATION 4 A91265 & A91266 

2.8. AMR Eagle Holding Corporation is a wholly owned subsidiary of AMR Corporation 

and owns two airlines, American Eagle Airline, Inc. and Executive Airlines, Inc, 

collectively known as American Eagle. Established in 1984, American Eagle is 

American Airlines’ regional affiliate. As at 31 December 2010, American Eagle 

operated approximately 1,500 daily departures serving over 175 destinations in North 

America, Mexico and the Caribbean. 

2.9. American Airlines also operates airline related businesses: 

 AAdvantage: a travel awards/frequent flyer program 

 AA Vacations: a holiday business offering flights, accommodation, ground 

transportation and activities 

 American Airlines Cargo: providing cargo capacity to major cities in the United 

States, Europe, Canada, Mexico, the Caribbean, Latin America and Asia using the 

cargo holds of its passenger fleet. 

2.10. For the 2010 financial year (to December), American Airlines reported revenue of 

US$22.2 billion and a loss before tax of US$506 million. 

The applicants’ other alliances 

2.11. Both Qantas and American Airlines are part of the oneworld marketing alliance, which 

links the networks of its member airlines to facilitate global passenger travel, and also 

links the members’ frequent flyer programs and access to lounge facilities. Other 

members include British Airways, Cathay Pacific, Finnair, LAN Airlines, Iberia, Japan 

Airlines (JAL), Malev Hungarian Airlines, Mexicana, Royal Jordanian and S7 Airlines. 

2.12. Qantas and British Airways have a Joint Services Agreement, most recently authorised 

by the ACCC on 31 March 2010. American Airlines has been granted antitrust 

immunity by the United States Department of Transportation (US DOT) for an 

integrated alliance with British Airways, Iberia, Finnair and Royal Jordanian, and by 

the European Union’s Directorate General Competition for a joint business agreement 

with British Airways and Iberia in respect of their European Union to North America 

operations. Additionally, an integrated alliance between American Airlines and Japan 

Airlines covering their trans-Pacific services between North America and Asia has 

recently been approved by the US DOT and the relevant Japanese regulatory 

authorities. 

The JBA 

2.13. The applicants currently sell tickets on each others’ services under a free sale 

Codeshare Agreement dated 23 September 2004. Since American Airlines ceased 

operations on the trans-Pacific routes in 1992, it has placed its code on a number of 

services within Qantas’ trans-Pacific and domestic Australian and New Zealand 
DRAFT DETERMINATION 5 A91265 & A91266 

network. Qantas places its code on American Airlines domestic services within the 

United States, and also on services between the United States and Canada/Mexico.3

2.14. The JBA will supersede the existing Codeshare Agreement. The JBA involves the 

coordination of operations on certain designated routes (the JB Services), including: 

 trans-Pacific routes; 

- Brisbane – Los Angeles and Dallas/Fort Worth 

- Sydney – Los Angeles, New York (JFK), Dallas/Fort Worth and Honolulu 

- Melbourne – Los Angeles 

- Auckland – Los Angeles 

 and ‘behind and beyond’ codeshare routes4. 

2.15. Qantas will operate trans-Pacific services and connecting services in Australia and on 

the trans-Tasman on behalf of the JBA. American Airlines will operate connecting 

services in the United States, Canada and Mexico and provide sales support for the 

Trans-Pacific Routes. 

2.16. Qantas and American Airlines (and their related bodies corporate) may coordinate the 

following under the JBA: 

 flying operations 

 codesharing 

 interlining 

 pricing and revenue management 

 scheduling (including frequencies and connection requirements) 

 cargo 

 passenger sales and marketing 

 holiday/vacation products and packages 

 frequent flyer programs 

 distribution 

 customer rebates, incentives and discounts 

 

3

 Qantas and American Airlines, Submission in support of applications for authorisation, 11 May 2011. 4

 For a complete list of existing routes see: Qantas and American Airlines, Submission in support of applications for 

authorisation, 11 May 2011, Appendix E - The JB Services. 
DRAFT DETERMINATION 6 A91265 & A91266 

 agency arrangements (including coordinating agency commissions, rebates, 

incentives and discounts) 

 ground handling 

 airport services 

 co-branded joint offices 

 corporate dealing and 

 joint procurement. 

2.17. For example, the applicants propose to: 

 establish a Joint Management Committee to conduct the JBA and govern the 

activities of the applicants on the JB Services 

 develop new fare products and promotions and conduct integrated marketing 

campaigns drawing on the marketing presence of both carriers in their respective 

home markets and 

 establish joint management and planning of ground products and services, 

including; coordinating the use of airport facilities by expanding reciprocal airport 

lounge access, developing joint lounges at certain airports and streamlining checkin facilities. 

The aviation industry 

International aviation regulation 

2.18. The international airline industry is highly regulated. The 1944 Convention on 

International Civil Aviation established the principle that each country has exclusive 

sovereignty over its airspace. This principle continues to guide the regulatory 

framework today. 

2.19. International air transport cannot occur unless it is specifically authorised pursuant to a 

government to government bilateral air services agreement (ASA). 

2.20. An ASA specifies the terms and conditions of airline activity between two countries. 

An ASA may indicate the destinations that can be served in a particular country, the 

permitted frequencies per week and any rights to operate via or beyond to third 

countries. Typically, the rights granted under an ASA can only be exercised by 

designated carriers of the countries that are parties to them. 

2.21. An Open Skies Agreement is one form of ASA between two countries. In essence, it is 

an agreement which provides minimal (or no) restrictions on the ability of the airlines 

of two countries to operate services between countries. 
DRAFT DETERMINATION 7 A91265 & A91266 

Australia/United States Open Skies Agreement 

2.22. On 14 February 2008, Australia and the United States concluded the Open Skies 

Agreement (OSA), allowing all Australian and American owned carriers to provide 

unlimited direct services between the two countries. Air New Zealand can provide 

unlimited direct services by combining rights established under the United States/New 

Zealand and Australia/New Zealand open skies arrangements. 

2.23. Under the OSA, the carriage of traffic over domestic sectors is reserved for national 

carriers. The agreement only allows the beyond carriage of genuine international traffic 

between international gateways (for example, Qantas’ own trans-Pacific passengers 

between Los Angeles and New York).5 This means international airlines depend on 

commercial arrangements with domestic carriers in order to offer behind or beyond 

international gateway markets. 

 

5

 Air Transport Agreement between the Government of the United States and the Government of Australia, 1944, 

Annex I, section 1. 
DRAFT DETERMINATION 8 A91265 & A91266 

3. Submissions received by the ACCC 

3.1. The ACCC tests the claims made by the applicant in support of an application for 

authorisation through an open and transparent public consultation process. To this end 

the ACCC aims to consult extensively with interested parties that may be affected by 

the proposed conduct to provide them with the opportunity to comment on the 

application. 

3.2. Broadly, Qantas and American Airlines submit that they can achieve the following 

public benefits by working together under the JBA: 

 improved product and services including new routes, additional frequencies, 

improved schedules, enhanced connectivity and better ground product and services 

 new fare products and lower fares to more destinations through a revision of fare 

zones, the introduction of a ‘Walkabout Pass’ and provision for preferential 

availability ensuring more availability for discounted fares across a broader travel 

period 

 increased tourism though increased passenger traffic and a focus on strategic joint 

promotion 

 streamlined corporate travel procurement and 

 a stronger frequent flyer proposition. 

3.3. The ACCC sought submissions from approximately 90 interested parties potentially 

affected by the application, including competitors, airports, travel agents, government 

departments, regulators and tourism and industry groups. The ACCC received 

submissions from Sydney Airport, Brisbane Airport and Virgin Australia. 

3.4. Sydney Airport considers the proposed JBA will result in a number of public benefits, 

which will be seen across the broader economy and the Australian tourism industry 

from an improvement in their travel experience. Sydney Airport considers airline 

passengers will benefit from an improvement in their travel experience, particularly 

outbound international passengers as they will be able to purchase online journeys 

across international and United States networks offered by American Airlines. 

3.5. Brisbane Airport supports the application, noting the potential public benefits, 

including improved tourism from the United States, and also noting that there is no 

lessening of competition on the trans-Pacific route. 

3.6. Virgin Australia opposed the granting of interim authorisation to the JBA, but did not 

directly comment on whether final authorisation should be granted. Virgin Australia 

queried whether the commercial imperatives on which the application for interim 

authorisation was based were still applicable; whether Qantas would still continue to 

offer the Dallas/Fort Worth services even if it did not obtain interim authorisation for 

the alliance; and how the applicants would unwind the alliance if final authorisation 

were not granted. 
DRAFT DETERMINATION 9 A91265 & A91266 

3.7. The applicants only responded directly to Virgin Australia’s submission. The applicants 

submitted that the commercial imperatives for seeking interim authorisation were 

applicable as the critical launch period for a new service extends into subsequent 

months; the expansion to daily Dallas/Fort Worth services would be unlikely without 

the JSA; and unwinding the alliance will present little difficulty given American 

Airlines does not operate on the trans-Pacific. 

3.8. The views of the applicants and interested parties are outlined in the ACCC’s 

evaluation of the JBA in Chapter 4 of this determination. Copies of public submissions 

may be obtained from the ACCC’s website (www.accc.gov.au/AuthorisationsRegister) 

and by following the links to this matter. 
DRAFT DETERMINATION 10 A91265 & A91266 

4. ACCC evaluation 

4.1. The ACCC’s evaluation of the JBA is in accordance with tests found in: 

 section 90(8) of the Act which states that the ACCC shall not authorise a proposed 

exclusionary provision of a contract, arrangement or understanding, unless it is 

satisfied in all the circumstances that the proposed provision would result or be 

likely to result in such a benefit to the public that the proposed contract, 

arrangement or understanding should be authorised. 

 sections 90(6) and 90(7) of the Act which state that the ACCC shall not authorise a 

provision of a proposed contract, arrangement or understanding, other than an 

exclusionary provision, unless it is satisfied in all the circumstances that: 

- the provision of the proposed contract, arrangement or understanding in the 

case of section 90(6) would result, or be likely to result, or in the case of 

section 90(7) has resulted or is likely to result, in a benefit to the public and 

- that benefit, in the case of section 90(6) would outweigh the detriment to the 

public constituted by any lessening of competition that would result, or be 

likely to result, if the proposed contract or arrangement was made and the 

provision was given effect to, or in the case of section 90(7) has resulted or is 

likely to result from giving effect to the provision. 

 sections 90(5A) and 90(5B) of the Act which state that the ACCC shall not 

authorise a provision of a proposed contract, arrangement or understanding that is 

or may be a cartel provision, unless it is satisfied in all the circumstances that: 

- the provision, in the case of section 90(5A) would result, or be likely to result, 

or in the case of section 90(5B) has resulted or is likely to result, in a benefit to 

the public and 

- that benefit, in the case of section 90(5A) would outweigh the detriment to the 

public constituted by any lessening of competition that would result, or be 

likely to result, if the proposed contract or arrangement were made or given 

effect to, or in the case of section 90(5B) outweighs or would outweigh the 

detriment to the public constituted by any lessening of competition that has 

resulted or is likely to result from giving effect to the provision. 

4.2. For more information about the tests for authorisation and relevant provisions of the 

Act, please see Attachment C. 

The market 

4.3. The first step in assessing the effect of the conduct for which authorisation is sought is 

to consider the relevant markets affected by that conduct. 

4.4. Previously, the ACCC has considered the impact of aviation alliance agreements on 

competition in the following markets: 
DRAFT DETERMINATION 11 A91265 & A91266 

 international air passenger transport services, with regard to particular geographic 

and product segments 

 international air freight transport services 

 the sale of air passenger transport services and 

 Australian domestic air passenger transport services. 

4.5. The applicants note that the ACCC draws the data for the analysis of these markets 

from the Australian Bureau of Statistics (ABS). The applicants consider that this data 

distorts the market definition because it is collected on the basis of ‘purpose of travel’ 

rather than actual class travelled, and it would arguably be more accurate to 

characterise the market in terms of a premium segment and an economy segment 

reflecting cabin of travel rather than purpose of travel. Nevertheless, for the purposes of 

this matter, the applicants have provided information based on the markets previously 

identified by the ACCC. 

International air passenger transport services 

4.6. As set out above, the JBA provides for coordinated commercial arrangements between 

Qantas and American Airlines in respect of air passenger services on the trans-Pacific 

routes and all ‘behind and beyond’ routes; including Qantas’ international services 

between Australia and New Zealand, and American Airlines domestic United States 

network and international services between the United States and Canada and Mexico. 

4.7. The applicants currently do not operate any overlapping direct services6. Given the 

current international aviation regulatory environment, and absent any stated intention of 

American Airlines to enter the trans-Pacific market, the ACCC considers that the 

applicants are unlikely to offer any competing services in the future. 

Product dimension 

4.8. The ACCC has previously identified separate product markets for leisure and business 

passenger services on long haul routes, including in its 2009 determination in relation 

to the alliance between Virgin Blue and Delta Air Lines on trans-Pacific routes.7 

4.9. This approach is based on the view that there are limitations in demand and supply side 

substitutability which make it appropriate to distinguish between more price sensitive 

 

6

 The ACCC recognises that Qantas and American Airlines could be said to be operating competing services for 

those passengers who may choose to travel indirectly between an Australian gateway city and Dallas/Fort Worth or 

New York City. Specifically, a passenger travelling from Sydney – Dallas/Fort Worth could fly directly with 

Qantas, or indirectly with Qantas on the Sydney – Los Angeles segment and with American Airlines on the Los 

Angeles – Dallas/Fort Worth segment. Similarly, a passenger travelling from Sydney – New York City has the 

option to fly on Qantas services for the entire journey, or fly the Sydney – Los Angeles segment with Qantas and 

the Los Angeles – New York City segment with American Airlines. 7

 ACCC, Determination for applications A91195 & A91196 lodged by Qantas & British Airways (2010); 

ACCC, Determination for applications A91227 & A91228 lodged by Virgin Blue & Air New Zealand (2010); 

ACCC, Determination for applications A91151-2 & A91172-3 lodged by Virgin Blue & Delta Air Lines (2009); 

ACCC, Determination for applications A91097 & A91098 lodged by Air New Zealand and Air Canada (2009). 
DRAFT DETERMINATION 12 A91265 & A91266 

(leisure) passengers and more time sensitive (business) passengers, in particular on 

long-haul routes. 

4.10. The ACCC understands that leisure travellers are relatively more price sensitive and 

relatively less concerned about factors such as travel time, flexibility, connectivity, 

convenience and comfort when compared to business passengers. Notwithstanding the 

applicants’ submissions, the ACCC considers that, particularly on long haul routes, 

these sensitivities generally apply regardless of which cabin a business or leisure 

passenger chooses to travel in. 

4.11. The ACCC considers that in the market for international air passenger transport 

services, adopting a narrow or broad product market is not likely to alter the assessment 

in this case, since the applicants do not currently offer any competing services. 

Geographic dimension 

4.12. The ACCC has previously considered both a city-pairs/point-to-point approach and a 

regional approach in defining the geographic scope of the market for international air 

passenger transport services.8 

4.13. The ACCC notes that adopting a point-to-point or regional market is not likely to alter 

the assessment in this case, since the applicants currently do not operate any 

overlapping direct services. 

4.14. In light of this, the ACCC considers that the services to be provided under the JBA give 

some guidance on the relevant geographic market. The ACCC considers that this 

indicates the relevant geographic market is the provision of international air transport 

services for passengers travelling between Australia and the United States, and on 

extensive ‘behind and beyond’ services across both their networks to the extent they 

support the trans-Pacific services. 

International air freight transport services 

4.15. No information has been provided which suggests that the ACCC should depart from 

the view adopted in previous analysis that different types of freight represent different 

freight segments rather than different markets. The availability of indirect route options 

suggests that the geographic dimension is unlikely to be narrower than a regional 

market. 

 

4.16. The ACCC considers that for the purposes of assessing the impact of the JBA with 

regard to the provision of air freight transport services, it is appropriate to consider a 

market for air freight transport services on a regional basis, that is, between Australia 

and the United States. 

 

8

ACCC, Determination for applications A91195 & A91196 lodged by Qantas and British Airways (2010); 

ACCC, Determination for applications A91227 & A91228 lodged by Virgin Blue & Air New Zealand (2010); 

ACCC, Determination for applications A91151-2 & A91172-3 lodged by Virgin Blue & Delta Air Lines (2009). 
DRAFT DETERMINATION 13 A91265 & A91266 

The sale of air passenger transport services 

4.17. In previous determinations in respect of aviation alliances, the ACCC has recognised a 

separate market for the sale of air passenger transport services, which includes tickets 

sold directly by airlines to travellers as well as those sold through indirect channels 

such as travel agents. 

4.18. Similarly to the market for international air freight transport, no information has been 

provided which suggests that the ACCC should depart from this view. 

Australian domestic air passenger transport services 

4.19. The ACCC has previously recognised that an international aviation alliance could 

affect competition in the market for domestic air passenger transport services by 

directing domestic on-carriage or feeder traffic to a particular carrier, at the expense of 

the competitive position of other domestic carriers. 

4.20. The ACCC notes that the JBA could have such an effect, by directing American 

Airlines’ United States originating passengers on to Qantas’ trans-Pacific services and 

then to onward domestic connections with Qantas. 

4.21. The ACCC has not received any information which suggests that it should depart from 

a consideration of the impact of the JBA on domestic air passenger transport services. 

Therefore, the ACCC considers it relevant to consider the impact of the JBA on the 

market for domestic air transport services for passengers travelling within Australia 

Conclusion on relevant areas of competition 

 

4.22. For the purpose of assessing this application, on the basis of the issues outlined above 

the ACCC considers the relevant areas of competition for the purpose of assessing the 

impact of the JBA are: 

 international air passenger transport services between Australia and the United 

States, between Australia and Canada or Mexico via the United States, and between 

the United States and New Zealand via Australia 

 international air freight transport services between Australia and the United States 

 the sale of air passenger transport services and 

 domestic air passenger transport services in Australia. 

The counterfactual

4.23. The ACCC applies the ‘future with-and-without test’ established by the Tribunal to 

identify and weigh the public benefit and public detriment generated by conduct for 

which authorisation has been sought.9

 

9 Australian Performing Rights Association (1999) ATPR 41-701 at 42,936. See also for example: Australian 

Association of Pathology Practices Incorporated (2004) ATPR 41-985 at 48,556; Re Media Council of 

Australia (No.2) (1987) ATPR 40-774 at 48,419. 
DRAFT DETERMINATION 14 A91265 & A91266 

4.24. Under this test, the ACCC compares the public benefit and anti-competitive detriment 

generated by arrangements in the future if the authorisation is granted with those 

generated if the authorisation is not granted. This requires the ACCC to predict how 

the relevant markets will react if authorisation is not granted. This prediction is 

referred to as the ‘counterfactual’. 

4.25. The applicants submit that without authorisation they would: 

 continue to act independently in marketing and sales while offering an inferior 

network, schedule and capacity and frequent flyer offering and a less efficient 

procurement process compared to what they would be able to offer as a joint 

business. 

 be unable to realise the benefits and efficiencies of integration and would be 

disadvantaged compared to the Virgin/Delta alliance (recently granted anti-trust 

immunity in the United States) and the United/Air New Zealand alliance (both are 

members of the Star Alliance). 

4.26. In their submission in support of interim authorisation, the applicants stated that 

without the ability to cooperate, the current frequency of the new Dallas/Fort Worth 

services may not be sustainable, and expansion to daily services would be unlikely.10

4.27. The ACCC did not receive any other submissions on the likely counterfactual. 

4.28. The ACCC considers that without authorisation: 

 The parties would continue to operate non-overlapping direct services under their 

existing free sale Codeshare Agreement 

 American Airlines would continue to place its code on a number of services within 

Qantas’ trans-Pacific, Australian and New Zealand network, and Qantas would 

continue to place its code on American Airlines’ domestic services within the 

United States, and also on services between the United States and Canada/Mexico. 

 Qantas will continue to operate some services between Sydney and Dallas/Fort 

Worth with fewer frequencies than anticipated under the Alliance. 

Public benefit 

4.29. Public benefit is not defined in the Act. However, the Tribunal has stated that the term 

should be given its widest possible meaning. In particular, it includes: 

...anything of value to the community generally, any contribution to the aims pursued by society 

including as one of its principle elements ... the achievement of the economic goals of efficiency 

and progress.11

 

10 Qantas and American Airlines, Submission in support of application for interim authorisation, 2 June 2011. 11 Re 7-Eleven Stores (1994) ATPR 41-357 at 42,677. See also Queensland Co-operative Milling Association Ltd

(1976) ATPR 40-012 at 17,242. 
DRAFT DETERMINATION 15 A91265 & A91266 

4.30. The applicants submits that the JBA, will deliver public benefits, including: 

 new and improved products and services 

 new fare products and lower fares 

 increased tourism 

 streamlined corporate travel procurement and 

 a stronger frequent flyer proposition. 

4.31. The ACCC’s assessment of the likely public benefits of the JBA follows. 

New and improved products and services 

4.32. The applicants submit that the JBA will enable the addition of new routes, increased 

frequencies, improved schedules, enhanced connectivity and better ground products 

and services. 

4.33. Dallas/Fort Worth is the major hub of American Airlines, where it operates (with 

American Eagle) approximately 750 flights to 186 destinations worldwide. The 

applicants note that Qantas’ new Sydney – Dallas/Fort Worth services are supported by 

28 codeshare destinations from Dallas/Fort Worth to a wide range of major cities across 

the United States, Canada and Mexico. 

4.34. The applicants consider that the JBA provides a joint platform for the applicants to 

ensure the viability of the new Dallas/Fort Worth services and increase these services to 

a daily frequency as soon as possible. 

4.35. The applicants submit that the JBA will also provide them with an incentive and 

opportunity to explore the expansion of their codeshare network and launch new transPacific routes and connections. They note that under their existing codeshare 

relationship, the addition of new codeshare destinations is limited by the perception that 

administrative costs may outweigh any benefit of increased traffic. The applicants 

consider that the detailed sharing of market information under the JBA will lead to 

improved demand forecasting, prompt identification of market opportunities and 

enhanced ability to cater for growth through the addition of routes and frequencies. 

4.36. By way of example, the applicants note that initial response to the Dallas/Fort Worth 

service indicates Vancouver, Calgary and Toronto are high demand ‘beyond’ 

destinations. At the moment these destinations involve relatively long connection 

times. The applicants submit that the JBA would provide the opportunity to reduce 

transit times by the better coordination of schedules. 

4.37. Finally, the applicants submit that an integrated management and planning structure 

allowed under the JBA will enable a coordinated strategy to improve ground products 

and service for passengers through the expansion of reciprocal lounge access and 

improved check-in processes. 

 
DRAFT DETERMINATION 16 A91265 & A91266 

4.38. The ACCC recognises that when airlines providing complementary services act 

independently, the effect that each airline has on the demand for the other airline’s 

services is not taken into account by either party in planning network products and 

services. The consequence of this ‘externality’12 can include less convenient or more 

time consuming connections and/or lower levels of provision of ground services such 

as airport lounges and check-in services. 

4.39. For instance, air travel from Adelaide to Chicago requires a domestic segment in 

Australia (Adelaide – Melbourne), an international segment (say, Melbourne – Los 

Angeles) and a domestic segment in the Unites States (Los Angeles – Chicago). The 

carriers operating these segments provide complementary services. A change in 

scheduling of a carrier operating one segment, say Melbourne – Los Angeles, can affect 

the demand for travel on the connecting domestic segments. However, as independent 

airlines, Qantas will not take into consideration any change in demand for American 

Airlines’ services in making decisions about products and services on its segments. 

Similarly, American Airlines will not take into account the effect of changes to 

products and services on its Los Angeles – Chicago segment on the demand for Qantas’ 

Adelaide – Melbourne and Melbourne – Los Angeles segments. 

4.40. The ACCC accepts that cooperation agreements can provide a means to address this 

externality or inefficiency by enabling airlines to share the benefits of an increase in 

demand across complementary segments. Typically, these cooperation agreements 

involve the ability to jointly set schedules and fares, and often some revenue sharing 

mechanism between the airlines. 

4.41. The ACCC considers that the applicants are likely to have the incentive under the JBA 

to optimise their joint network offering. To the extent that the JBA facilitates this 

network optimisation, the ACCC considers that it is likely to result in public benefit by 

providing consumers with improved schedules and connectivity, a greater choice of 

connection and stop-over options, and the possibility of new and improved routes. 

4.42. Additionally, the ACCC considers that the JBA is likely to provide the applicants with 

strong incentives to offer ground services to each others’ customers on an equal basis. 

The ACCC accepts that this is likely to result in public benefit by providing consumers 

with expanded reciprocal lounge access (which will be of benefit to business 

passengers in particular) and improved check-in processes. 

New fare products and lower fares 

4.43. The applicants submit that the JBA will enable the development of new fare products 

and lower fares for passengers travelling from Australia to the United States, such as a 

simplified zoned pricing structure and the creation of a ‘Walkabout’ multi-sector pass. 

The applicants submit that these initiatives will create tangible benefits to consumers, 

including: 

 additional discounts to the majority of the top 20 United States destinations 

 

12 An externality is an economic term referring to a cost or benefit that affects a third party (a party who did not 

agree to the action causing the cost or benefit) and is not reflected in market prices. In the presence of an 

externality, market prices do not reflect the full costs or benefits of producing or consuming a product or service. 

This results in an economic inefficiency or market failure. 
DRAFT DETERMINATION 17 A91265 & A91266 

 

 offering new tactical destinations and 

 a preferential availability agreement with American Airlines. 

4.44. The applicants currently offer fares in the United Stated according to a geographic zone 

structure. Under the applicants’ proposed simplification of zoned pricing, the current 

six zones will be reduced to three, as set out in figures 4.1 and 4.2 below. 

Figure 4.1: Current six zone structure13

 

13 Qantas and American Airlines, Submission in support of applications for authorisation, 11 May 2011, p. 28. 
DRAFT DETERMINATION 18 A91265 & A91266 

Figure 4.2: Proposed three zone structure14

4.45. The applicants submit that the new three zone pricing structure will: 

 be simpler to manage and communicate to consumers and trade 

 result in fare reductions for 64% of United States destinations 

 allow a broader offering of discounted tactical fares to an increased number of 

destinations and 

 allow expanded stop-over options between gateway cities in the United States and 

end destinations. 

 

4.46. In their submission, the applicants illustrate the difference in fares under the six and 

three zone fare structure and set out the resulting fare reductions to 20 ‘popular’ United 

States destinations (see figures 4.3 and 4.4 below). 

 

14 Qantas and American Airlines, Submission in support of applications for authorisation, 11 May 2011, p. 28. 
DRAFT DETERMINATION 19 A91265 & A91266 

Figure 4.3: Comparison of the six and three zone fare structure15

Figure 4.4: Fare reductions by city16

 

15 Qantas and American Airlines, Submission in support of applications for authorisation, 11 May 2011, p. 29. 16 Qantas and American Airlines, Submission in support of applications for authorisation, 11 May 2011, p. 29. 
DRAFT DETERMINATION 20 A91265 & A91266 

4.47. The applicants consider that the joint approach to planning and pricing facilitated by 

the JBA would involve common use and access to fares, and enable them to optimise 

the number of discounted seats available through the booking life of a flight as well as 

the strategic release of discounted inventory to drive volume on poor performing 

routes. 

4.48. The applicants submit that the JBA will allow them to introduce a ‘Walkabout Pass’ for 

passengers travelling to the United States from Australia and New Zealand. Using the 

Walkabout Pass, a passenger can fly multiple sectors on the same ticket as opposed to 

purchasing sector fares. Currently, passengers travelling to the United States can use a 

oneworld ‘Visit North America Pass’, but the applicants submit that this product is not 

stop-over friendly and involves ‘add-ons’ to the Los Angeles tariff. 

4.49. The applicants consider that the proposed Walkabout Pass would enable more effective 

marketing of beyond gateway multi-sector itineraries, under which fares would be 

based on mileage and tiered accordingly. They submit that these tiered fare levels 

would result in lower lead-in fares. Qantas proposes to offer American Airlines access 

to a domestic Australia pass to boost American Airline’s ex-United States offering. 

4.50. The applicants also consider that the JBA would enable them to develop and promote 

fare products for multi-stop itineraries across a range of destinations in a way not 

facilitated by the current oneworld multi-sector products, such as United States – 

Australia via Asia or United States – Asia via Europe. 

4.51. The ACCC considers that the JBA creates potential for lower connecting fares between 

the parties and new fare products as a result of: 

 better coordination of available capacity on their respective domestic sectors to 

realise higher load factors and 

 removal or reduction of ‘double marginalisation’, which is a situation that occurs 

where suppliers of vertically related or complementary products independently 

charge a price which includes a mark-up over their costs to maximise their 

individual profits and do not take account of the impact of these prices on demand 

for the other airline’s services. The net result is higher prices on connecting routes 

than if the two firms were to coordinate their pricing, for example, through a 

cooperation agreement or alliance such as the JBA. 

4.52. The ACCC considers that the JBA is likely to result in public benefit by facilitating 

new fare products and lower fares. 

Increased tourism 

4.53. The applicants submit that by drawing on the expertise of Qantas and American 

Airlines in their respective home countries, and the provision of better information to 

agents, the JBA will be able to achieve more efficiently and effectively the promotion 

of travel to Australia. 

4.54. Drawing on Qantas’ Australian expertise and infrastructure, the applicants submit that 

the JBA would allow American Airlines’ AAVacations to develop a comprehensive 

range of Australian and Asia Pacific land, air and integrated products and actively 
DRAFT DETERMINATION 21 A91265 & A91266 

market this to residents of the United States and its own customer base. To achieve this, 

it is proposed that AAVacations would partner with Tour East Australia, a majority 

owned subsidiary of Qantas. The applicants submit: 

Cooperation between Qantas and AAVacations will drive improved access to lower priced land 

inventory in Australia as a result of the increased purchasing scale. This would enable both 

Qantas and AAVacations to pass these savings on to consumers. In the case of AAVacations, it is 

estimated that these arrangements would enable it to offer integrated holiday packages at a 5 to 

15% discount to the cost of purchasing flights and land components separately.17

4.55. AAVacations estimates that, based on its experience of conversion rates in other 

markets and the specific characteristics of Australia as a destination, the launch of 

Australian vacations packages could initially generate up to 360 additional visitors to 

Australia and New Zealand per month. 

4.56. The ACCC has noted previously that there are a wide range of factors which influence 

tourism demand, including general purchasing power in source countries, the relative 

cost of other destinations, the total cost of visiting Australia (land as well as air 

component) and the perceived quality of Australia as a destination.18 

4.57. In this case, the ACCC considers that the JBA may stimulate tourism both by 

enhancing the applicants’ joint network offering and by integrating the sales and 

distribution network of AAVacations and Qantas’ Tour East Australia. The ACCC 

notes the applicants’ estimates of holiday package cost savings and increased visitor 

numbers, and considers that stimulation of tourism may be a source of some public 

benefit under the JBA. 

Streamlined corporate travel procurement 

4.58. The applicants submit that together, they can develop a joint strategy to better service 

their corporate customers by drawing on their respective experience and perspective. 

They consider the JBA will enable them to develop joint fare products for large 

corporate as well as small-to-medium enterprises, and provide incentives to leverage 

their home point-of-sale strengths to promote and distribute these products. 

4.59. The ACCC considers these public benefits have mostly been considered by the ACCC 

in the three sections above: the ACCC recognises that the JBA will provide incentives 

for the applicants to develop a range of new products and services and offer lower 

fares. Therefore, this benefit claim will not be further considered here. 

A stronger frequent flyer proposition 

4.60. The applicants submit that the JBA provides incentives for them to consider mutual 

automatic status recognition for members of both frequent flyer programs, AAdvantage 

and Qantas Frequent Flyer. This means that frequent flyer members of either program 

will have increased opportunities to earn and/or redeem frequent flyer points and take 

advantage of other membership benefits when travelling on the other airline, such as 

 

17 Qantas and American Airlines, Submission in support of applications for authorisation, 11 May 2011, p. 32. 18 ACCC Determination for applications A91097 and A91098 lodged by Air New Zealand Limited and Air Canada, 

January 2009, page 23. 
DRAFT DETERMINATION 22 A91265 & A91266 

cabin upgrade offers and onboard loyalty status recognition. The applicants submit that 

this will benefit customers and make the airlines' loyalty programs more competitive. 

4.61. Qantas and American Airlines also consider that the JBA provides incentives to better 

leverage their respective strengths of both AAdvantage and Qantas Frequent Flyer 

membership bases to conduct joint marketing programs, generating more traffic for the 

joint network. They submit that this benefit would not be possible absent the JBA. 

4.62. The ACCC acknowledges that the JBA will enable the applicants to initiate reciprocal 

status recognition and point accrual, which will enhance the attractiveness of both 

airlines’ loyalty programs. Generally speaking, the ACCC considers that the public 

benefits from reciprocal access to loyalty programs are likely to accrue to passengers 

who prefer to fly with one of the alliance members, are members of an alliance loyalty 

program and who value the ability to earn or use frequent flyer points. 

ACCC conclusion on public benefits 

4.63. The ACCC considers that the JBA is likely to result in public benefits in the form of: 

 new and improved products and services (including improved schedules and 

connectivity, a greater choice of connection and stop-over options, and the 

possibility of new and improved routes) and enhanced value added services 

(including reciprocal lounge access, equivalent frequent flyer privileges and 

improved check-in procedures). 

 new fare products and lower fares 

 an enhanced frequent flyer proposition and 

 potentially, the stimulation of Australian tourism. 

Public detriment 

4.64. Public detriment is also not defined in the Act but the Tribunal has given the concept a 

wide ambit, including: 

...any impairment to the community generally, any harm or damage to the aims pursued by the 

society including as one of its principal elements the achievement of the goal of economic 

efficiency.19

4.65. Qantas and American Airlines submit that the proposed JBA will not result in any anticompetitive detriment, as they have complementary rather than overlapping networks. 

4.66. The ACCC’s assessment of whether the JBA would be likely to result in any public 

detriment is set out below. 

 

19 Re 7-Eleven Stores (1994) ATPR 41-357 at 42,683. 
DRAFT DETERMINATION 23 A91265 & A91266 

International air passenger transport services 

4.67. The applicants submit that American Airlines passengers represent only 2.8% of the 

1,860,935 passengers carried between Australia and the United States in the financial 

year ending June 2010. They consider that this small share reflects the reality that 

American Airlines does not operate its own services on the trans-Pacific route, has 

limited sales presence and recognition in Australia, and does not actively market 

Australia as a destination. 

4.68. The applicants do not consider the JBA will give them the ability or incentive to 

increase prices or offer diminished service as they are constrained by the other carriers 

operating on the trans-Pacific and the threat of entry (or re-entry) afforded by the Open 

Skies Agreement. 

4.69. The applicants submit that the recent entry and rapid expansion of Virgin Australia and 

Delta demonstrates the ease with which carriers can establish a presence on the transPacific routes. The applicants also note that over the last two years the trans-Pacific 

routes have been characterised by constant sale20 activity in all cabins with a view to 

maintaining load factor in light of the increased capacity on the routes and heightened 

price sensitivity of business and leisure travellers. 

4.70. The ACCC notes that the applicants face direct competition from United Airlines, the 

Virgin Australia/Delta alliance, and to a lesser extent Air New Zealand, which operates 

services between Australia and the United States via New Zealand. In addition, the 

ACCC considers that indirect carriers21 may pose some, albeit limited, competitive 

constraint on the applicants. 

4.71. The applicants note that the Qantas Group’s market share has declined over the last 

couple of years in the markets for both leisure and business passengers between 

Australia and the United States. They note that this decline can be attributed to the 

entry of Virgin Australia and Delta in 2009.22

4.72. Despite Qantas’ recent decline in market share, the ACCC notes that it remains the 

largest player on the trans-Pacific route, with a 43% share of passengers (48% 

including Jetstar) in the year ended June 2010.23 However, given American Airlines 

does not operate services on this route, the ACCC does not consider that the JBA will 

have any anti-competitive effect on these market dynamics. 

International air freight transport services 

4.73. The applicants note that Qantas and American Airlines have an interline agreement in 

respect of the carriage of freight on the trans-Pacific routes. The ACCC understands 

that the applicants do not offer any competing direct freight services. Based on the 

 

20 The ACCC takes this to mean frequent discounting of fares 21 Access to mainland United States from Australia is also available through indirect services over Asia using 

airlines such as Singapore Airlines and Cathay Pacific. The ACCC notes, however, that the market shares held by 

such carriers are relatively small in comparison to the direct carriers. 22 For more detailed information, see Qantas and American Airlines, Submission in support of applications for 

authorisation, 11 May 2011, pp. 23 - 24 and Appendices G - I. 23 Qantas and American Airlines, Submission in support of applications for authorisation, 11 May 2011, Appendix 

G 
DRAFT DETERMINATION 24 A91265 & A91266 

information available, the ACCC does not consider the JBA raises any significant 

competition concerns in the international air freight transport services market. 

4.74. The ACCC notes that there are a number of other competitors in the market for air 

freight transport services between Australia and the United States, including major 

players such as Virgin Australia/Delta, United, FedEx, and United Parcel Services. 

The sale of air transport services 

4.75. The ACCC considers that the JBA is unlikely to adversely affect the market for the sale 

of air transport services given the wide range of mechanisms for ticket purchases 

available to consumers. The ACCC notes that while the JBA allows the applicants to 

jointly market their services, there is strong competition in the sale of air transport 

services from travel agencies (online and in shop fronts) as well as increasingly from 

the internet through global portals such as Zuji, Expedia and Webjet. 

Australian domestic air passenger transport services 

4.76. As noted above, an international alliance has the potential to lessen competition in the 

market for domestic air passenger transport services where the alliance directs domestic 

on-carriage or feeder traffic to a particular carrier (in this case, Qantas in Australia) at 

the expense of the competitive position of other domestic carriers. 

4.77. The ACCC notes that under the applicants’ current Codeshare Agreement, American 

Airlines passengers flying beyond or behind the Australian gateway cities (Brisbane, 

Sydney, Melbourne) are placed on Qantas domestic connections in any event. The 

ACCC also notes that passengers can opt to purchase the domestic leg of their journey 

separately. 

4.78. Therefore, the ACCC does not consider that the JBA is likely to have any significant 

anti-competitive effects in the Australian domestic air passenger transport services 

market. 

ACCC conclusion on public detriments 

4.79. The ACCC considers that the JBA is unlikely to result in any anti-competitive 

detriment, given the applicants do not currently directly compete, nor are they likely to 

directly compete in any of the relevant markets. 

Balance of public benefit and detriment 

4.80. In general, the ACCC may only grant authorisation if it is satisfied that, in all the 

circumstances, the JBA is likely to result in a public benefit, and that public benefit will 

outweigh any likely public detriment. 

4.81. In the context of applying the net public benefit test in section 90(8)24 of the Act, the 

Tribunal commented that: 

 

24 The test at 90(8) of the Act is in essence that conduct is likely to result in such a benefit to the public that it 

should be allowed to take place. 
DRAFT DETERMINATION 25 A91265 & A91266 

... something more than a negligible benefit is required before the power to grant authorisation can be 

exercised.25

4.82. For the reasons outlined in this chapter the ACCC considers the public benefits likely 

to result from the JBA are new and improved products and services, new fare products 

and lower fares, stimulation of tourism and an enhanced frequent flyer proposition. The 

ACCC does not consider that the JBA is likely to result any public detriment. 

4.83. Accordingly, the ACCC considers the public benefit that is likely to result from the 

conduct is likely to outweigh the public detriment. The ACCC is therefore satisfied that 

the tests are met. 

Length of authorisation

4.84. The Act allows the ACCC to grant authorisation for a limited period of time.26 The 

ACCC generally considers it appropriate to grant authorisation for a limited period of 

time, so as to allow an authorisation to be reviewed in the light of any changed 

circumstances. 

4.85. In this instance, Qantas and American Airlines seek authorisation for five years. The 

applicants submit that this period reflects the negligible detriment associated with the 

proposed JBA, and the significant public benefits that will be achieved. 

4.86. The ACCC did not receive any interested party submissions in relation to the length of 

authorisation sought. 

4.87. As indicated above, the ACCC considers that the JBA is likely to result in a number of 

public benefits, and there is unlikely to be any public detriment. On this basis, the 

ACCC proposes to grant authorisation for the JBA for five years. 

Variations to the proposed conduct 

4.88. The ACCC notes that any amendments to the JBA during the proposed term of this 

authorisation would not be covered by the proposed authorisation. 

 

25 Re Application by Michael Jools, President of the NSW Taxi Drivers Association [2006] ACompT 5 at 

paragraph 22. 26 Section 91(1). 
DRAFT DETERMINATION 26 A91265 & A91266 

5. Draft determination 

The application

5.1. On 12 May 2011, Qantas and American Airlines lodged application for authorisation 

A91265 & A91266 with the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission (the 

ACCC). 

5.2. Application A91265 was made using Form A, Schedule 1, of the Competition and 

Consumer Regulations 2010. The application was made under subsection 88(1A) of

the Act to: 

 make and give effect to a contract, arrangement or understanding, a provision of 

which is or may be an exclusionary provision within the meaning of section 45 of 

the Act. 

 make and give effect to a provision of a contact, arrangement or understanding, a 

provision of which is, or may be, a cartel provision and which is also, or may also 

be, an exclusionary provision within the meaning of section 45 of that Act. 

5.3. Application A91266 was made using Form B, Schedule 1, of the Competition and 

Consumer Regulations 2010. The application was made under subsections 88(1A) and 

88(1) of the Act to: 

 make and give effect to a contract or arrangement, or arrive at an understanding, a 

provision of which would have the purpose, or would have or might have the 

effect, of substantially lessening competition within the meaning of section 45 of 

the Act. 

 make and give effect to a contract or arrangement, or arrive at an understanding a 

provision of which would be, or might be, a cartel provision (other than a provision 

which would also be, or might also be, an exclusionary provision within the 

meaning of section 45 of that Act). 

5.4. In particular, Qantas and American Airlines seek authorisation for a Joint Business 

Agreement (JBA). 

5.5. Section 90A(1) requires that before determining an application for authorisation the 

ACCC shall prepare a draft determination. 

The net public benefit test 

5.6. For the reasons outlined in Chapter 4 of this draft determination, the ACCC considers 

that in all the circumstances the conduct for which authorisation is sought are likely to 

result in a public benefit that would outweigh the detriment to the public constituted by 

any lessening of competition arising from the conduct. 

5.7. The ACCC is satisfied that the conduct for which authorisation is sought are likely to 

result in such a benefit to the public that the conduct should be allowed to take place. 
DRAFT DETERMINATION 27 A91265 & A91266 

5.8. The ACCC therefore proposes to grant authorisation to applications A91265 & 

A91266. 

Conduct for which the ACCC proposes to grant authorisation

5.9. The ACCC proposes to grant authorisation for a Joint Business Agreement between 

Qantas and American Airlines for five years. 

5.10. Further, the proposed authorisation is in respect of the JBA as it stands at the time 

authorisation is granted. Any changes to the JBA during the term of the proposed 

authorisation would not be covered by the proposed authorisation. 

5.11. This draft determination is made on 22 August 2011.

5.12. The attachments to this determination are part of the draft determination. 

Interim authorisation

5.13. At the time of lodging the application, Qantas and American Airlines requested interim 

authorisation to commence the JBA. The ACCC granted interim authorisation on 

9 June 2011. 

5.14. Interim authorisation will remain in place until the date the ACCC’s final determination 

comes into effect or until the ACCC decides to revoke interim authorisation. 

Further submissions

5.15. The ACCC will now seek further submissions from interested parties. In addition, the 

applicant or any interested party may request that the ACCC hold a conference to 

discuss the draft determination, pursuant to section 90A of the Act. 
DRAFT DETERMINATION 28 A91265 & A91266 

Attachment A — the authorisation process 

The Australian Competition and Consumer Commission (the ACCC) is the independent 

Australian Government agency responsible for administering the Competition and Consumer 

Act 2010 (the Act). A key objective of the Act is to prevent anti-competitive conduct, thereby 

encouraging competition and efficiency in business, resulting in a greater choice for consumers 

in price, quality and service. 

The Act, however, allows the ACCC to grant immunity from legal action in certain 

circumstances for conduct that might otherwise raise concerns under the competition provisions 

of the Act. One way in which parties may obtain immunity is to apply to the ACCC for what is 

known as an ‘authorisation’. 

The ACCC may ‘authorise’ businesses to engage in anti-competitive conduct where it is 

satisfied that the public benefit from the conduct outweighs any public detriment. 

The ACCC conducts a public consultation process when it receives an application for 

authorisation. The ACCC invites interested parties to lodge submissions outlining whether they 

support the application or not, and their reasons for this. 

After considering submissions, the ACCC issues a draft determination proposing to either grant 

the application or deny the application. 

Once a draft determination is released, the applicant or any interested party may request that the 

ACCC hold a conference. A conference provides all parties with the opportunity to put oral 

submissions to the ACCC in response to the draft determination. The ACCC will also invite the 

applicant and interested parties to lodge written submissions commenting on the draft. 

The ACCC then reconsiders the application taking into account the comments made at the 

conference (if one is requested) and any further submissions received and issues a final 

determination. Should the public benefit outweigh the public detriment, the ACCC may grant 

authorisation. If not, authorisation may be denied. However, in some cases it may still be 

possible to grant authorisation where conditions can be imposed which sufficiently increase the 

benefit to the public or reduce the public detriment. 
DRAFT DETERMINATION 29 A91265 & A91266 

Attachment B — chronology of ACCC assessment for applications 

A91265 & A91266 

The following table provides a chronology of significant dates in the consideration of the 

applications by Qantas and American Airlines. 

DATE ACTION 

12 May 2011 Application for authorisation lodged with the ACCC, including an 

application for interim authorisation. 

27 May 2011 Closing date for submissions from interested parties in relation to the 

request for interim authorisation. 

8 June 2011 Closing date for submissions from interested parties in relation to the 

substantive application for authorisation. 

9 June 2011 The ACCC granted interim authorisation. 

22 August 2011 Draft determination issued. 
DRAFT DETERMINATION 30 A91265 & A91266 

Attachment C — the tests for authorisation and other relevant 

provisions of the Act 

Competition and Consumer Act 2010 

Section 90—Determination of applications for authorisations

(1) The Commission shall, in respect of an application for an authorization: 

(a) make a determination in writing granting such authorization as it considers appropriate; or 

(b) make a determination in writing dismissing the application. 

(2) The Commission shall take into account any submissions in relation to the application made to it by the 

applicant, by the Commonwealth, by a State or by any other person. 

Note: Alternatively, the Commission may rely on consultations undertaken by the AEMC: see 

section 90B. 

(4) The Commission shall state in writing its reasons for a determination made by it. 

(5) Before making a determination in respect of an application for an authorization the Commission shall 

comply with the requirements of section 90A. 

Note: Alternatively, the Commission may rely on consultations undertaken by the AEMC: see 

section 90B. 

(5A) The Commission must not make a determination granting an authorisation under subsection 88(1A) in

respect of a provision of a proposed contract, arrangement or understanding that would be, or might be, a 

cartel provision, unless the Commission is satisfied in all the circumstances: 

(a) that the provision would result, or be likely to result, in a benefit to the public; and 

(b) that the benefit would outweigh the detriment to the public constituted by any lessening of 

competition that would result, or be likely to result, if: 

(i) the proposed contract or arrangement were made, or the proposed understanding were 

arrived at; and 

 (ii) the provision were given effect to. 

(5B) The Commission must not make a determination granting an authorisation under subsection 88(1A) in

respect of a provision of a contract, arrangement or understanding that is or may be a cartel provision, 

unless the Commission is satisfied in all the circumstances: 

(a) that the provision has resulted, or is likely to result, in a benefit to the public; and 

(b) that the benefit outweighs or would outweigh the detriment to the public constituted by any 

lessening of competition that has resulted, or is likely to result, from giving effect to the 

provision. 

(6) The Commission shall not make a determination granting an authorization under subsection 88(1), (5) or 

(8) in respect of a provision (not being a provision that is or may be an exclusionary provision) of a

proposed contract, arrangement or understanding, in respect of a proposed covenant, or in respect of 

proposed conduct (other than conduct to which subsection 47(6) or (7) applies), unless it is satisfied in all 

the circumstances that the provision of the proposed contract, arrangement or understanding, the proposed 

covenant, or the proposed conduct, as the case may be, would result, or be likely to result, in a benefit to 

the public and that that benefit would outweigh the detriment to the public constituted by any lessening of 

competition that would result, or be likely to result, if: 

(a) the proposed contract or arrangement were made, or the proposed understanding were arrived at, 

and the provision concerned were given effect to; 

(b) the proposed covenant were given, and were complied with; or 

(c) the proposed conduct were engaged in; 

as the case may be. 
DRAFT DETERMINATION 31 A91265 & A91266 

(7) The Commission shall not make a determination granting an authorization under subsection 88(1) or (5) in 

respect of a provision (not being a provision that is or may be an exclusionary provision) of a contract, 

arrangement or understanding or, in respect of a covenant, unless it is satisfied in all the circumstances that 

the provision of the contract, arrangement or understanding, or the covenant, as the case may be, has 

resulted, or is likely to result, in a benefit to the public and that that benefit outweighs or would outweigh 

the detriment to the public constituted by any lessening of competition that has resulted, or is likely to 

result, from giving effect to the provision or complying with the covenant. 

(8) The Commission shall not: 

(a) make a determination granting: 

(i) an authorization under subsection 88(1) in respect of a provision of a proposed contract, 

arrangement or understanding that is or may be an exclusionary provision; or 

(ii) an authorization under subsection 88(7) or (7A) in respect of proposed conduct; or 

(iii) an authorization under subsection 88(8) in respect of proposed conduct to which 

subsection 47(6) or (7) applies; or 

(iv) an authorisation under subsection 88(8A) for proposed conduct to which section 48 

applies; 

unless it is satisfied in all the circumstances that the proposed provision or the proposed conduct 

would result, or be likely to result, in such a benefit to the public that the proposed contract or 

arrangement should be allowed to be made, the proposed understanding should be allowed to be 

arrived at, or the proposed conduct should be allowed to take place, as the case may be; or 

(b) make a determination granting an authorization under subsection 88(1) in respect of a provision 

of a contract, arrangement or understanding that is or may be an exclusionary provision unless it 

is satisfied in all the circumstances that the provision has resulted, or is likely to result, in such a 

benefit to the public that the contract, arrangement or understanding should be allowed to be 

given effect to. 

(9) The Commission shall not make a determination granting an authorization under subsection 88(9) in

respect of a proposed acquisition of shares in the capital of a body corporate or of assets of a person or in 

respect of the acquisition of a controlling interest in a body corporate within the meaning of section 50A 

unless it is satisfied in all the circumstances that the proposed acquisition would result, or be likely to 

result, in such a benefit to the public that the acquisition should be allowed to take place. 

(9A) In determining what amounts to a benefit to the public for the purposes of subsection (9): 

(a) the Commission must regard the following as benefits to the public (in addition to any other 

benefits to the public that may exist apart from this paragraph): 

(i) a significant increase in the real value of exports; 

(ii) a significant substitution of domestic products for imported goods; and 

(b) without limiting the matters that may be taken into account, the Commission must take into 

account all other relevant matters that relate to the international competitiveness of any Australian 

industry. 

Variation in the language of the tests 

There is some variation in the language in the Act, particularly between the tests in sections 

90(6) and 90(8). 

The Australian Competition Tribunal (the Tribunal) has found that the tests are not precisely the 

same. The Tribunal has stated that the test under section 90(6) is limited to a consideration of 
DRAFT DETERMINATION 32 A91265 & A91266 

those detriments arising from a lessening of competition but the test under section 90(8) is not 

so limited.27

However, the Tribunal has previously stated that regarding the test under section 90(6): 

[the] fact that the only public detriment to be taken into account is lessening of competition does not mean that 

other detriments are not to be weighed in the balance when a judgment is being made. Something relied upon as a 

benefit may have a beneficial, and also a detrimental, effect on society. Such detrimental effect as it has must be 

considered in order to determine the extent of its beneficial effect.28

Consequently, when applying either test, the ACCC can take most, if not all, public detriments 

likely to result from the relevant conduct into account either by looking at the detriment side of 

the equation or when assessing the extent of the benefits. 

Given the similarity in wording between sections 90(6) and 90(7), the ACCC considers the 

approach described above in relation to section 90(6) is also applicable to section 90(7). Further, 

as the wording in sections 90(5A) and 90(5B) is similar, this approach will also be applied in the 

test for conduct that may be a cartel provision. 

Conditions

The Act allows the ACCC to grant authorisation subject to conditions.29

Future and other parties 

Applications to make or give effect to contracts, arrangements or understandings that might 

substantially lessen competition or constitute exclusionary provisions may be expressed to 

extend to: 

• persons who become party to the contract, arrangement or understanding at some time 

in the future30

• persons named in the authorisation as being a party or a proposed party to the contract, 

arrangement or understanding.31

Six- month time limit 

A six-month time limit applies to the ACCC’s consideration of new applications for 

authorisation32. It does not apply to applications for revocation, revocation and substitution, or 

minor variation. The six-month period can be extended by up to a further six months in certain 

circumstances. 

 

27 Australian Association of Pathology Practices Incorporated [2004] ACompT 4; 7 April 2004. This view was 

supported in VFF Chicken Meat Growers’ Boycott Authorisation [2006] AcompT9 at paragraph 67. 28 Re Association of Consulting Engineers, Australia (1981) ATPR 40-2-2 at 42788. See also: Media Council 

case (1978) ATPR 40-058 at 17606; and Application of Southern Cross Beverages Pty. Ltd., Cadbury 

Schweppes Pty Ltd and Amatil Ltd for review (1981) ATPR 40-200 at 42,763, 42766. 

29 Section 91(3). 

30 Section 88(10). 

31 Section 88(6). 

32 Section 90(10A) 
DRAFT DETERMINATION 33 A91265 & A91266 

Minor variation

A person to whom an authorisation has been granted (or a person on their behalf) may apply to 

the ACCC for a minor variation to the authorisation.

33 The Act limits applications for minor 

variation to applications for: 

... a single variation that does not involve a material change in the effect of the authorisation.34

When assessing applications for minor variation, the ACCC must be satisfied that: 

• the proposed variation satisfies the definition of a ‘minor variation’ and 

• if the proposed variation is minor, the ACCC must assess whether it results in any 

reduction to the net benefit of the conduct. 

Revocation; revocation and substitution 

A person to whom an authorisation has been granted may request that the ACCC revoke the 

authorisation.35 The ACCC may also review an authorisation with a view to revoking it in 

certain circumstances.36

The holder of an authorisation may apply to the ACCC to revoke the authorisation and substitute 

a new authorisation in its place.37 The ACCC may also review an authorisation with a view to 

revoking it and substituting a new authorisation in its place in certain circumstances.38

 

33 Subsection 91A(1) 

34 Subsection 87ZD(1). 

35 Subsection 91B(1) 

36 Subsection 91B(3) 

37 Subsection 91C(1) 

38 Subsection 91C(3) 
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I hereby certify that I have this day served the foregoing document by email 

on the following persons:

sascha.vanderbellen@delta.com jhill@dlalaw.com

scott.mcclain@delta.com bill@mietuslaw.com

sametta.c.barnett@delta.com mgoldman@sgbdc.com

kquinn@pillsburywinthrop.com rsilverberg@sgbdc.com

bkeiner@crowell.com dhainbach@ggh-airlaw.com

esahr@eckertseamons.com mcmillin@woa.com

bruce.rabinovitz@wilmerhale.com eskraft@jamhoff.com

thomas.bolling@coair.com dpdean@jamhoff.com

bob.kneisley@wnco.com dkirstein@yklaw.com

robert.land@jetblue.com jyoung@yklaw.com

msinick@ssd.com william.stallings@usdoj.gov

cdonley@ssd.com dwight.moore@ustranscom.mil

gbleopard@fedex.com john.allen@faa.gov

david.heffernan@wilmerhale.com urskr@state.gov

kevin.montgomery@polaraircargo.com recohn@hoganlovells.com

jrichardson@johnlrichardson.com cjsimpson@zsrlaw.com

lhalloway@crowell.com pmurphy@lopmurphy.com

efaberman@wileyrein.com lachter@starpower.net

mroller@rollerbauer.com anita.mosner@hklaw.com

howard.kass@usairways.com jennifer.nowak@hklaw.com

benjamin.slocum@usairways.com gmurphy@crowell.com

dan.weiss@coair.com russell.bailey@alpa.org

rpommer@atlasair.com 

________________________________

JAMES K. KALEIGH

August 22, 2011