|EUROPEAN COMMISSION |

Brussels, 20.6.2013

In the published version of this decision, some i n formation has been omitted pursuant to Article 17(2) of Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004 concer n ing non-disclosure of business secrets and other co n fidential information. The omissions are shown thus […]. Where possible the information omitted has been replaced by ranges of figures or a general d e scription. C(2013) 3983 final

PUBLIC VERSION

MERGER PROCEDURE

To the notifying parties:

Dear Sir/Madam,

Subject: Case No COMP/M.6828 – Delta Air Lines/ Virgin Group/ Virgin Atlantic Limited Commission decision pursuant to Article 6(1)(b) of Council Regulation No 139/2004 [1]

(1) On 15 May 2013, the European Commission received a notification of a proposed concentration pursuant to Article 4 of the Merger Regulation by which the undertakings Delta Air Lines, Inc ("Delta", the United States of America) and Virgin Group Holdings Limited ("Virgin Group", the British Virgin Islands) acquire within the meaning of Article 3(1)(b) of the Merger Regulation joint control of the undertaking Virgin Atlantic Limited ("Virgin Atlantic", the United Kingdom) by way of purchase of shares ("the Transaction"). [2]

1. THE PARTIES

(2) Virgin Group is the holding company of a group of companies active in a wide range of products and services worldwide, such as gyms, health care, mobiles and transport. Virgin Group already owns 51 per cent of the shares of Virgin Atlantic Airways Limited ("Virgin").

(3) Virgin flies to 34 destinations worldwide, including locations across North America, the Caribbean, Africa, the Far East and Australia. Some of its most recent additions to its flying network include in particular Cancun. Virgin does not have any integrated joint venture and is not a member of any global airline alliance.

(4) Delta serves more than 160 million customers each year. Delta and the Delta Connection carriers offer service to nearly 357 destinations in 66 countries on six continents. Headquartered in Atlanta, Delta employs 80,000 employees worldwide and operates a mainline fleet of more than 700 aircraft. A founding member of the SkyTeam global alliance, Delta participates in the trans-Atlantic joint venture with Air France-KLM and Alitalia. Including its worldwide alliance partners, Delta offers customers more than 13,000 daily flights, with hubs in Amsterdam, Atlanta, Cincinnati, Detroit, Memphis, Minneapolis-St. Paul, New York-LaGuardia, New York-JFK, Paris-Charles de Gaulle, Salt Lake City, and Tokyo-Narita.

2. CONCENTRATION

(5) By the Transaction, Delta together with Bluebottle Investments (UK) Limited, an indirect subsidiary of the Virgin Group acquire joint control over Virgin Atlantic within the meaning of Article 3(1)b for the purpose of Article 3(2) of the EU Merger Regulation by way of a purchase of shares. Virgin Atlantic is the indirect holding company of Virgin and Virgin Holidays Limited (VHols). Virgin Atlantic is currently for the purposes of Article 3(2) of the EU Merger Regulation jointly controlled by the Virgin Group and Singapore Airlines Limited (Singapore Airlines).

(6) Delta is acquiring the 49% shareholding in Virgin Atlantic which is currently held by Singapore Airlines while the remaining 51% of Virgin Atlantic will continue to be held by the Virgin Group. Virgin and VHols are wholly owned indirect subsidiaries of Virgin Atlantic and therefore under Virgin Atlantic's ultimate control. Delta and Virgin Atlantic also agreed to enter into a metal neutral [3] profit sharing joint venture in relation to services between the UK and the US, Canada and Mexico. For the purpose of the assessment of the Transaction under the EU Merger Regulation, account is taken of both the acquisition of the 49% shareholding in Virgin Atlantic and the creation of the metal-neutral profit sharing joint venture.

(7) In the Commission's Decision in case COMP/M.1855 Singapore Airlines/Virgin Atlantic concerning the situation of control over Virgin, the Commission found that although the Virgin Group controlled a majority of shares in Virgin and nominated the majority of the members on the board, Singapore Airlines had joint control of the Virgin through its veto rights and the arbitration procedure which was provided for the case of disagreement in certain strategic business decisions. The Commission concluded that considering those rights as a whole, Singapore Airlines and the Virgin Group exercised joint control over Virgin.

(8) The Parties claim that Delta will have materially the same rights as Singapore Airlines currently has [4] and that therefore Delta and the Virgin Group will jointly control Virgin Atlantic and hence Virgin. In particular, the Parties explain that Delta will have veto rights over (i) the employment of key personnel and (ii) the appointment of executive directors as well as (iii) the right to force an independent review of the budget and business plan. In the Parties view, this will oblige Delta and the Virgin Group to cooperate in respect of key strategic governance decision for Virgin Atlantic.

(9) Under paragraph 65 of the Commission Consolidated Jurisdictional Notice (the Jurisdictional Notice) [5] , joint control may exist even where there is no equality between the two parent companies in votes or in representation in decision-making bodies. This is the case where minority shareholders have additional rights which allow them to veto decisions which are essential for the strategic commercial behaviour of the joint venture. Such veto rights must be related to strategic decisions on the business policy of the joint venture and must go beyond the veto rights normally accorded to minority shareholders in order to protect their financial interests as investors. Veto rights which confer joint control typically include decisions on issues such as the budget, the business plan, major investments or the appointment of senior management.

(10) Under the shareholders' agreements between Delta and the Virgin Group, Virgin Atlantic cannot undertake various matters without the prior written consent of Delta and the Virgin Group. These rights include for instance the appointment of key personnel which includes the executive directors and persons with ultimate responsibility for amongst others the following divisions: commercial, finance, flight operations and corporate services. If there is no agreement on these issues, the matter in question is suspended and the issue is referred to the CEO's of Delta and the Virgin Group for consideration [6] . It therefore appears that Delta will indeed have a veto right as regards the appointment of senior management.

(11) The decision making process on the approval of the annual budget is as follows. [Information regarding Virgin Atlantic's governance structures]

(12) However, under paragraph 82 of the Jurisdictional Notice, there can be joint control even if only one of the parent companies has a casting vote and "if the mutual interdependence of the parent companies would make the exercise of the casting vote unlikely."

(13) The Commission considers that the commercial context in which the Parties would operate in particular in view of Delta's acquisition of the shareholding in Virgin Atlantic as well as the fact that Delta and Virgin will establish a contractual joint venture for air transport services (metal neutral joint venture), Delta and the Virgin Group will be mutually interdependent. Indeed the joint venture agreement is part of the notified concentration and, as explained in paragraph 37 of the Form CO, the Parties intend to "cooperate across the board on routes in the joint venture, for example, in relation to network planning, sales, marketing, pricing and passenger services (e.g. frequent flyer programmes). The parties will reach consensus decisions in relation to aspects of the joint venture such as network and capacity planning."

(14) Taking into account the joint venture agreement, the Commission concludes that the transaction confers joint control on the Parties over Virgin Atlantic [7] . The Transaction thus constitutes a merger within the meaning of Article 3(1)(b) of the Merger Regulation.

3. UNION DIMENSION

(15) The undertakings concerned Delta, Virgin Group and Virgin Atlantic, have a combined aggregate world-wide turnover of more than EUR 5 000 million. [8] Each of them has a Union-wide turnover in excess of EUR 250 million. [Explanation why the "two-thirds rule" is not met]. The methodology used by the Parties to calculate their turnover is the "point of sale" methodology, although in any event the thresholds would also be met under the "point of origin" or "50/50 split" methods. [9] The notified concentration therefore has a Union dimension within the meaning of Article 1(2) of the Merger Regulation.

4. RELEVANT PRODUCT AND GEOGRAPHIC MARKETS

(16) The activities of Virgin and Delta overlap in air transport of passengers, air transport of cargo, supply of seats to tour operators [10] and maintenance, repair, and overhaul services ("MRO"). [11]

4.1. Air transport of passengers

4.1.1. O&D approach

(17) The Commission has traditionally defined the relevant market for scheduled passenger air transport services on the basis of the "point of origin/point of destination" (O&D) city-pair approach. [12] Such market definition reflects the demand-side perspective whereby customers consider all possible alternatives of travelling from a city of origin to a city of destination which they do not consider substitutable to a different city-pair. As a result, every combination of a point of origin and a point of destination is considered to be a separate market.

(18) The Parties do not object to the O&D approach. They however claim that the market for scheduled passenger air transport services increasingly has a network dimension, particularly on the demand-side for corporate customers, frequent flyer program customers and connecting passengers on transatlantic routes. According to the Parties, on the supply-side, carriers with larger networks can optimize their operations in response to price differentials across different O&D routes. In particular, the Parties submit that a substantial hub presence at London Heathrow is a significant competitive advantage in the context of access to connecting passengers.

(19) The Commission has in the past taken into consideration the network competition between airlines. This is particularly relevant on the supply-side, as network carriers build their network and decide to fly almost exclusively on routes connecting to their hubs. [13] In line with the Commission's notice on market definition and with the case law, the Commission has given pre-eminence to demand-side substitution, whereby it considered that customers still need transportation from one point to another and that competition still takes place on an O&D city-pair basis. [14]

(20) A large majority of respondents to the market investigation have confirmed this approach in the present case, and confirmed that it was relevant for the purpose of analysing the competitive effects on the overlap routes [15] .

(21) While in particular the Parties, some network carriers and some charter airlines tend to believe competition between carriers wield network-based aspects, the O&D approach best reflects the demand-side perspective according to which both the point of origin and the point of destination should include all airports that are substitutable in the eyes of passengers.

(22) In light of the above, the effects of the Transaction will be assessed on the basis of the city-pair O&D approach, while all substitutable airports will be included in the respective points of origin and destination provided that they are perceived as substitutable by travellers. The question of airport substitutability will be examined for those O&D routes in Section 4.1.4.

4.1.2. Premium vs. non premium passengers

(23) The Commission has traditionally found that a distinction may be drawn between time sensitive/premium and non-time sensitive/non-premium passengers.

(24) Premium passengers tend to travel for business purposes, require significant flexibility with their tickets (such as cost-free cancellation and modification of the time of departure, etc.) and tend to pay higher prices for this flexibility. Non-premium customers travel predominantly for leisure purposes or to visit friends and relatives, book long time in advance, do not require flexibility with their booking and are generally more price-sensitive. [16]

(25) The Parties do not object with this distinction. They moreover adopt a distinction between premium and non-premium based on restricted Economy fares falling into the latter category and all other fares falling into the former for the purpose of the market definition and the calculation of the market shares. The Parties claim that this delineation is conservative. If the boundary between premium and non-premium had been set up otherwise, the Parties' markets shares would indeed dilute.

(26) A large majority of respondents to the market investigation confirmed this approach, acknowledging that the distinction between premium and non-premium passengers was relevant for the assessment of the Transaction. [17]

(27) Some respondents amongst the Parties' competitors nonetheless indicated that the distinction between premium and non-premium passengers has become blurred, and that there is a chain of substitution between these two broad categories rather than a clear-cut distinction. [18]

(28) However, for the assessment of the Transaction, the conclusion on whether premium and non-premium passengers belong to the same market can be left open as no competition concerns arise under any alternative market definition.

4.1.3. Non-stop (direct) vs. one-stop (indirect) flights [19]

(29) The Commission has in its practice considered that with respect to long-haul routes (more than 6 hours flight duration), one-stop flights constitute a competitive alternative to non-stop services under certain conditions (for example if they are marketed as connecting flights on the O&D pair in the computer reservation system). [20]

(30) The Parties claim that one-stop services can in certain circumstances present a competitive alternative to non-stop services. According to the Parties, this competitive constraint would be greater the shorter the additional duration is relative to that of non-stop services.

(31) A large majority of respondents to the market investigation confirmed that one-stop services could constitute competitive alternatives to non-stop services as identified above. A majority of the respondents also confirmed that one-stop services with a greater difference in duration constituted a smaller competitive constraint to non-stop services than one-stop services with a shorter difference in duration. [21] Nevertheless, a majority of the corporate customers stated that they would not buy one-stop tickets for their employees, emphasizing the fact that the distinction is more relevant as far as premium passengers are concerned. [22]

(32) However, for the assessment of the Transaction, the conclusion on whether or not non-stop/direct and one-stop/indirect flights belong to the same market can be left open as no competition concerns arise under any alternative market definition.

4.1.4. Airport substitutability

(33) The Commission has found that flights from and to airports which have sufficiently overlapping catchment areas can be considered as substitutes in the eyes of passengers. Such airport substitution has often been found where several airports are located in the same city. In order to correctly capture the competitive constraint that flights from and to two different airports exert on each other, a detailed analysis taking into consideration the specific characteristics of the case at hand is necessary. [23]

(34) In the present case, such airport substitutability is particularly relevant for London and New York, as well as for Orlando, Washington, Chicago, and Miami.

4.1.4.1. London airports

(35) London has six airports, namely London Heathrow, London Gatwick, London City, Stansted, Luton and Southend [24] .

(36) Table 1 summarises the following: (i) the distance from the London airports to London city centre (in km and time):

Table 1: London airports

Airports |Heathrow (LHR) Gatwick (LGW) London City (LCY) |

Distance and travel times to London city centre |LHR – 28 km LGW – 46 km LCY – 14 km Car: LHR – 65 mins; LGW – 85 mins; LCY – 20 mins. Bus: LHR – 65 mins; LGW – 90 mins. Rail: LHR – 55 mins; LGW – 60 mins; LCY – 22 mins. |

Source: Form CO (paragraph 226 – Table 5)

(37) Previous Commission decisions determined that a certain degree of substitutability exists between the London airports, at least for non-premium passengers. [25] Also, the Commission found in the past that at least the airports of London Heathrow, London Gatwick, and London City were considered substitutable for both premium and non-premium passengers flying from London to Madrid and to Barcelona [26] and that the airports of London Heathrow and London Gatwick were considered substitutable for both premium and non-premium passengers flying between London and Athens. [27]

(38) In the recent IAG/Bmi case [28] , the Commission assessed each of the relevant routes on the narrowest possible market, namely a market comprising flights to and from London Heathrow only. In line with the approach adopted in the decision relating to COMP/M.5747-Iberia/British Airways, the effects of the concentration were examined on a wider “London(three)” market comprising flights to and from London Heathrow, London Gatwick and London City and also on a wider “London(five)” market comprising flights to and from London Heathrow, London Gatwick, London City, Luton, and Stansted.

(39) The Parties contend that no competition concern will arise as a result of the Transaction, regardless of the precise London airport market definition. However, the Parties consider that there is support for the following possible London airport market definitions: (i) London Heathrow only market [29] , (ii) London Heathrow and London City market for premium passengers [30] , and (iii) a "London (three)" market encompassing London Heathrow, London Gatwick and London City [31] .

(40) The results of the market investigation are blurred, both for premium and non-premium passengers.

(41) Indeed, a large majority of respondents to the market investigation considers that a significant proportion of premium passengers would not switch to another London airport, should the prices of fares on the Transatlantic routes to and from London Heathrow would increase by 5-10%. However, the Parties' main competitors on the Transatlantic routes to and from London disagree and deem that premium passengers would switch under some circumstances [32] .

(42) As concerns the non-premium passengers, market participants' opinions are rather mixed. A majority of competitors [33] , including American Airlines, US Airways and United, considers that in case of price increase by 5-10% of the Transatlantic flights to and from London Heathrow, a significant proportion of non-premium passengers would switch to either London Gatwick and/or London City. A contrario, a large majority of corporate customers contends that non-premium passengers would continue to fly from London Heathrow, in spite of such price increase [34] . As concerns the travel agencies, a majority of respondents considers that passengers would switch from London Heathrow. However, there is no clear trend as to whether passengers would switch to either London Gatwick and/or London City or to any other London airport. As explained by Thomas Cook: "Our non-premium paxs are very price sensitive and we do see them swapping to airports to get themselves a cheaper deal" [35] .

(43) Therefore, the effects of the Transaction for the relevant routes to and from London will be examined on a market comprising flights to and from Heathrow only, and on a wider market comprising flights to and from Heathrow, Gatwick and London City.

4.1.4.2. New York airports

(44) New York has three airports, namely John F. Kennedy International Airport ("JFK"), Newark Liberty International Airport ("Newark") and La Guardia [36] . JFK is located 31 kilometres i.e. 30 minutes by car, 52 minutes by bus and 75 minutes by rail away from the New York City centre. Newark is located 21 kilometres i.e. 22 minutes by car and 24 minutes by rail away from the New York City centre.

(45) The Parties consider that transatlantic services between JFK or Newark and London should be considered to be part of the same market [37] . They submitted a quantitative study to support this finding [38] . In that study, the Parties compared Virgin's London Heathrow-JFK and London Heathrow-Newark fares and conducted both stationary and correlation analyses. According to the Parties, those analyses follow the method applied by the Commission itself in previous air transport cases. [Outcome of Virgin Atlantic's fare analysis]. Besides, the Parties referred to previous decisions where the Commission found that transatlantic services between London and JFK or Newark were part of the same market [39] .

(46) The market investigation has not yielded unequivocal results as to the extent to which London-JFK and London-Newark services are regarded as substitutable by passengers [40] , notably within the premium category [41] . In particular, many corporate travelers (who often fall within the premium category) may be inclined to choose between JFK and Newark on the basis of the location of their final place of destination or place of origin in the New York area rather than on the basis of developments in fares for services between London and each of those airports.

(47) In any event, since the Transaction does not raise serious doubts as to its compatibility with the internal market with respect to the London-New York route under any possible market definition, the question of whether London-JFK and London-Newark services belong to the same market can be left open.

4.1.4.3. Orlando airports

(48) Orlando has two airports: (i) Orlando International (20 kilometres/24 minutes [42] away from the city center) and (ii) Sanford International (37 kilometres/27 minutes [43] away from the city center). Both Delta and Virgin operate from London and Manchester to Orlando International, while Sanford International is mainly used by charter carriers.

(49) The Parties submit that both airports are substitutable as (i) Orlando is a holiday destination, where non-premium passengers make up the vast majority of the passenger numbers [44] ; (ii) Sanford International airport is 37 kilometres miles away from Orlando city centre, and Orlando International airport is around 20 kilometres away from Orlando city centre; and (iii) such non-premium leisure passengers are unlikely to be concerned about whether the airport is 20 or 37 kilometres from the Orlando city centre (or relevant tourist destination at which they are staying, e.g. Disney World).

(50) On the London-Orlando route, a majority of competitors considers that should the fares on the London-Orlando International route increase, premium customers would not switch to Sanford International. As explained by Aer Lingus: "While we consider these airports to be substitutable, Premium passengers are not so price sensitive. Consequently, such a price increase would not result in switching from their preferred airport" [45] . As regards non-premium passengers, a majority of competitors and of travel agencies deems that non-premium passengers would switch to Sanford International in such situation. For instance, Brussel Airlines' response reads as follows: "Non-Premium passengers are looking at the price (in first instance)" [46] .

(51) On the Manchester-Orlando route, a large majority of competitors, corporate customers and travel agencies as well as the manager of the Manchester airport contend that premium passengers would not switch to Sanford International, should fares on Manchester-Orlando International increase by 5-10% [47] . As stated by Carlson Wagon lit: "Generally, Sanford International Airport is only serviced by charter companies, offering only non-flexible, economy service. Business travellers appreciate the flexibility of Orlando International, the distance to Orlando and its facilities, and a 5-10% price increase will likely not be sufficient to make them switch to a carrier serving Sanford International" [48] . Conversely, the same market players consider that non-premium passengers would switch from Orlando International to Sanford International, should the fares on the Manchester-Orlando International route increase by 5-10%.

(52) As a consequence, for the purpose of the present case, the two Orlando airports appear to be substitutable for non-premium passengers only.

4.1.4.4. Washington airports

(53) Washington DC has two airports, namely Dulles International Airport (42 kilometres/30 minutes [49] away from the city centre) and Ronald Reagan Washington National Airport (7 kilometres/12 minutes [50] from the city centre). [51] According to the Parties no competition concerns will arise from the Transaction regardless the precise Washington DC airport market definition.

(54) The market investigation revealed mixed results on the substitutability of the two airports for premium and non-premium passengers. Subsequently, no firm conclusions can be drawn on the substitutability of the two airports of Washington DC.

(55) For the assessment of the Transaction, the conclusion on the substitutability of the two Washington DC airports can be left open as no competition concerns arise under any alternative market definition.

4.1.4.5. Chicago airports

(56) Chicago has two airports, namely O'Hare International Airport (29 kilometres/24 minutes [52] away from the city centre) and Midway International Airport (17 kilometres/18 minutes [53] away from the city centre). According to the Parties no competition concerns will arise from the Transaction regardless the precise Chicago airport market definition.

(57) The market investigation revealed mixed results on the substitutability of the two airports for premium and non-premium passengers. Subsequently, no conclusions can be drawn on the substitutability of the two airports of Chicago.

(58) For the assessment of the Transaction, the conclusion on the substitutability of the two Chicago airports can be left open as no competition concerns arise under any alternative market definition.

4.1.4.6. Miami airports

(59) Miami has two airports, namely Miami International (7 kilometres/11 minutes [54] away from the city centre) and Fort Lauderdale International (39 km kilometres/30 minutes [55] away from the city centre). According to the Parties no competition concerns will arise from the Transaction regardless the precise Miami airport market definition.

(60) The market investigation revealed mixed results on the substitutability of the two airports for premium and non-premium passengers. Subsequently, no conclusions can be drawn on the substitutability of the two airports of Miami.

(61) For the assessment of the Transaction, the conclusion on the substitutability of the two Miami airports can be left open as no competition concerns arise under any alternative market definition.

4.1.5. Inclusion of charter services

(62) Charter flights, as opposed to scheduled flights, are usually defined as air transport services that take place outside normal schedules, normally through a hiring arrangement with a particular customer (in particular a tour operator). Charter companies often fly to destinations where no scheduled airline is active and usually operate on a seasonal basis with a relatively low frequency of flights, in response to the requirements of tour operators (for example, once a week on Saturday, only during the summer or only during the ski season).

(63) Indeed, charter companies did not traditionally sell tickets directly to passengers. They sold seats on their aircraft to tour operators which included the flight in a holiday package. As such, the flight (air transport) is part of a package holiday, the price of which includes flights, accommodation and other services. However, charter companies now sell to some extent so-called "dry seats" directly to passengers (that is to say seats only without other services), in addition to sales of seats to tour operators for inclusion in package holidays.

(64) The Commission has previously held that most of the services offered by charter companies (package holiday sales, seat sales to tour operators) are not in the same market as scheduled point-to-point air transport services [56] . As concerns the sale of "dry seats", the Commission recently left open whether they are part of the same relevant market noticeably for long-haul flights [57] .

(65) The Parties consider that they face a meaningful competition from charter airlines on five routes: (i) London-Orlando, (ii) Manchester-Orlando, (iii) London-Las Vegas, (iv) Manchester-Las Vegas and (v) London-Cancun.

(66) Indeed, the Parties submit that leisure destinations, such as Orlando, Las Vegas and Cancun, where the overwhelming majority of passengers even on scheduled airlines are non-premium passengers travelling for leisure purposes, are the kind of destinations where the scheduled airlines have regard to competition from charter airlines.

(67) Respondents to the market investigation confirm the Commission's precedents. As concerns the package holiday sales and seat sales to tour operators, the majority of the respondents consider that they are not substitutable with scheduled passenger air transport services in the eyes of customers on the overlap routes.

(68) As a consequence, for the assessment of the Transaction, the Commission concludes that most of the services offered by charter companies (package holiday sales, seat sales to tour operators) are not in the same market as scheduled air transport services.

(69) As concerns the competitive constraint exerted by charter carriers selling dry seats, on the five routes referred to by the Parties, a large majority of respondents to the market investigation do not see the charter airlines as credible alternatives to scheduled airlines for premium services.

(70) However, for non-premium services, a majority of travel agencies deem that, facing such fare increase, some of their customers would switch to buying dry seats from charter carriers.

(71) Therefore, the relevance of dry seats offered by charter carriers to non-premium passengers will be considered by the Commission in the competitive assessment in the route- by-route analysis where relevant (Section 6.1).

4.2. Air transport of cargo

4.2.1. Relevant product market

(72) In line with previous Commission decisions, the Parties submit that the O&D approach to the market definition is inappropriate for the air transport of cargo, given that cargo is generally less time sensitive than passengers and is usually transported by trans-modal means of transport "behind" and "beyond" the points of origin and destination. [58] Therefore, the relevant market should be defined more broadly.

(73) A majority of the respondents to the market investigation confirmed that a wider market for air transport of cargo exists as, unlike passengers, cargo can be transported with a higher number of stopovers and therefore any one-stop route is a substitute for any non-stop route. [59] Besides, while some market players argued that that a separate market could be identified including only non-stop flights used to transport specific goods, such as livestock, perishable products, lifesaving drugs, etc., a large majority of respondents indicated that such a distinction would not be material. [60]

(74) Furthermore, the Parties submit that, as supported by previous Commission decisions [61] , there is a single market for air transport of cargo and it is not appropriate to sub-divide that market by type of air cargo carrier or by the nature of the goods transported.

(75) The evidence collected through the market investigation indicates that there is no reason to further sub-divide the market according to the type of provider. Even though some market players argued that integrators [62] would have a specific market segment as they focus on the express small packages market, a large majority of respondents considered that all four types of air cargo carriers, namely (i) cargo airlines with dedicated freighter airplanes; (ii) carriers with only belly space cargo capacity on passenger flights; (iii) combination airlines (that is to say airlines with both dedicated freighter airplanes and belly space cargo capacity); and (iv) integrators, compete with each other for the same business in so far as they offer air transport of cargo services. [63]

(76) In previous decisions, the Commission considered a market for air transport of cargo including all kinds of transported goods. [64] The market investigation in the present case largely supports such approach. Whilst some respondents indicated that dangerous goods require special handling for safety and security reasons, the large majority of competitors indicated that they transport all kinds of goods in the same aircraft. [65] Likewise, the majority of respondents to the market investigation (competitors and customers) confirmed that the market for air transport of cargo should not be further sub-divided according to the nature of the transported items, mainly because different kinds of cargo can be transported in the same aircraft. Some respondents also pointed to the use of standardized forms of packaging and to the fact that no different handling is required for loading and unloading the cargo. [66]

(77) Finally, in line with previous Commission decisions, the Parties submit that the markets for air transport of cargo are inherently unidirectional, due to differences in demand at each end of the route, and must therefore be assessed on a unidirectional basis. [67] The majority of respondents to the market investigation confirmed this approach, mainly because of differences in terms of demand, products being shipped, rate structure, customer base and deployed capacity. [68]

(78) Therefore, the competitive assessment will be based on a broader market for air transport of cargo encompassing all types of air cargo carriers and including all kinds of transported goods on a unidirectional basis.

4.2.2. Relevant geographic market

(79) In line with previous Commission decisions, the Parties submit that for intercontinental routes, catchment areas at each end of the route broadly correspond to continents for those continents where local infrastructure is adequate to allow for onward connections (for instance by road, train, or inland waterways, etc.), such as Europe and North America. However, in respect of continents where local infrastructure is less developed, the catchment area corresponds to the country of destination. [69]

(80) The evidence collected through market investigation confirms that in areas where transport infrastructure allows for smooth onward connections the catchment area for air transport of cargo can be broader than a country and can correspond to continents. [70] This is particularly the case for Europe (encompassing the EEA area) [71] and North America (encompassing the United States and Canada) [72] . However, with regard to Mexico, a large majority of respondents to the market investigation indicated that transport infrastructure in this country is less developed and thus insufficient to consider Mexico as part of a wider area. [73] Consequently, air transport of cargo from Europe to Mexico (and vice versa) must then be assessed on a continent (Europe) to country basis (and vice versa).

(81) Therefore, for the assessment of the Transaction, the relevant cargo markets are the ones for air transport of overall cargo on a continent-to-continent (Europe - North America and vice versa) and continent-to-country basis (Europe – Mexico and vice versa) as the case may be.

5. CONCEPTUAL FRAMEWORK FOR THE ASSESSMENT OF THE PRESENT TRANSACTION

(82) Prior to assessing the impact of the Transaction on the relevant markets, the conceptual framework for the assessment of the Transaction must be determined. In this respect, the Transaction raises one main conceptual issue: the treatment of Delta's alliance and JV partners for the purposes of both the determination of affected markets and the competitive assessment of the Transaction.

5.1. Alliances and profit-sharing joint ventures – passenger air transport services

(83) Delta is a founding member of the Skyteam alliance and participates in a profit-sharing transatlantic joint venture with Air France/KLM and Alitalia (the "Air France/KLM/Alitalia joint venture"). [74]

(84) In accordance with previous cases [75] , the assessment of the Transaction will be carried out on the routes operated directly by Delta as well as by Delta's partners in the Air France/KLM/Alitalia joint venture to the extent that they fall within the scope of the JV agreement.

(85) [Information regarding the scope of Delta's joint venture with Air France/KLM/Alitalia]

(86) [Scope of the JV arrangements between Delta and Virgin Atlantic]

(87) Similarly, there are two other revenue-sharing joint ventures covering air passenger services on transatlantic routes, namely the oneworld Alliance Transatlantic Joint Business of IAG (British Airways and Iberia) and American Airlines and the Star Alliance A++ Joint Venture of United, Lufthansa and Air Canada. Their market positions will be analysed as being a single one on all relevant routes.

5.2. Alliances and profit-sharing joint ventures – air transport of cargo

(88) Delta provides air transport of cargo services in the context of the Air France/KLM/Alitalia joint venture and is a member of the SkyTeam Cargo alliance, which provides for less integrated cooperation between SkyTeam members in transporting cargo across the SkyTeam global network. [76]

(89) For the purpose of the present case, the assessment will be carried out on the cargo routes operated directly by Delta as well as by Delta's joint venture partners (Air France/KLM/Alitalia) to the extent that they fall within the scope of the joint venture revenue-sharing arrangements.

6. COMPETITIVE ASSESSMENT

6.1. Air transport of passengers

(90) The Transaction gives rise to horizontal overlaps on (i) two non-stop/non-stop routes: London-New York and London-Boston, and (ii) ten non-stop/one-stop overlap routes: London-Washington, London-Chicago, London-Los Angeles, London-San Francisco, London-Cancun, London-Miami, London-Orlando, London-Las Vegas, Manchester-Orlando and Manchester-Las Vegas. [77] These routes will be analysed in turn below.

6.1.1. Methodology for calculating market shares

(91) The Commission regularly [78] endorses the use of Marketing Information Data Tapes (MIDT) data as the best available proxy to estimate market shares. The Parties therefore submitted data on market size and market share on the basis of MIDT data for each relevant O&D route.

(92) MIDT data capture the booking of airline tickets made through Global Distribution System (GDS); however MIDT data does not contain the bookings made directly via the airline web-sites and charter sales.

(93) The Commission proceeded to a market reconstruction, asking the Parties and their competitors to provide actual passenger numbers on each relevant O&D route. This data encompasses the bookings through GDS as well as the bookings made directly via the airline web-sites [79] .

(94) The market shares as calculated on the basis of the market reconstruction are within similar ranges as the market shares calculated using MIDT data.

(95) The Commission uses data calculated through the market reconstruction for the purpose of conducting the competitive assessment of the Transaction [80] .

(96) For the assessment of the Transaction, all one-stop flights are taken into acount without applying a cut-off at a certain maximal duration of the connection time. The Commission takes the view that the competitive analysis can include all booked one-stop tickets because the low popularity of very long one-stop flights will be reflected in the booking data in that they will only account for a very small part of the relevant market.

6.1.2. Congestion at relevant airports

6.1.2.1. UK airports

(a) London Heathrow

(97) Heathrow is a fully coordinated airport under the EU Slot Regulation (Level 3) [81] , meaning that each business and general aviation movement requires the prior allocation of a slot. At Heathrow there are constraints on airline access to slots across the whole operating day on every day of the week across all months of the year. It is therefore not currently possible for an airline to rely on the slot pool at Heathrow to launch or extend services and each season there is either very limited availability or no availability at all, as explained by the London Heathrow slot coordinator, ACL [82] .

(98) According to the Parties [83] , 56.6 % of all Heathrow slots are currently held by BA, American Airlines, and Iberia, compared to 3.3% by Virgin [84] (and only 0.3% for Delta (with 7% for all of the members of the SkyTeam alliance). The next largest slot holders at Heathrow are Lufthansa with 5.6%, and Aer Lingus with 3.3%.

(b) London Gatwick

(99) Like Heathrow, Gatwick is designated as a fully coordinated airport under the EU Slot Regulation (Level 3). Demand currently exceeds capacity throughout most or all of the day at Gatwick [85] . According to ACL, the slot coordinator at Gatwick: "Gatwick’s capacity limitations are runway movement and terminal passenger throughput constraints. Runway capacity is the dominant constraint on airline access to slots. Access to slots is limited by available capacity for much of the operating day, particularly in the morning period and during summer seasons. London Gatwick is also governed by environmental limits on the number of night movements and night noise points permitted between 2300 – 0600 local time. Significant entry or growth in the key morning and evening peak times of day is likely to be limited by slot availability, although a secondary market for slots exists and slots at other times (eg, afternoon/late evening) can be available from the pool" [86] .

(100) Virgin held 2% of the slots at Gatwick during the Winter 2012 IATA season [87] .

(c) Manchester airport

(101) Manchester is a level 3 coordinated airport. Manchester Airport is however broadly not capacity or slot constrained, but is subject to a limited supply at the peaks.

6.1.2.2. North-American airports

(a) New York airports

(102) In the New York urban area, both JFK and Newark are subject to slot control. The Parties indicated that for both airports, while availability of slots was limited in the late afternoon and evening (from 1:00 pm to 9:59 pm), slots were generally available in the morning and early afternoon (from 6:00 am to 1:00 pm) [88] .

(103) The United States' Federal Aviation Administration ("the FAA"), which acts as a slot coordinator for these two airports, indicated that they both had slot constraints from 6:00 am to 10:59 pm daily and that the peak hours were generally from 7:00 am to 9:29 am and from 1:00 pm to 9:29 pm. The FAA also indicated that there had been several instances during each of the last four IATA seasons where it was unable to satisfy slot requests at each of those airports. In addition, the FAA does not expect capacity to change at those airports in the next three to five years [89] .

(104) These elements point to a fairly high level of congestion at both airports during most of the day, resulting in high barriers to entry and expansion on routes from or to these airports, unless for carriers which already hold a substantial portfolio of slots at one of them. Indeed, the more slots a carrier holds at a given congested airport, the easier it is for that carrier to find a set of slots the use of which it can modify (in terms of routes), so as to be in a position to add frequencies on certain routes.

(b) Other North American airports

(105) The information submitted by the Parties and collected during the market investigation shows that no significant congestion would exist at other relevant US airports and at Cancun airport.

6.1.3. Non-stop-non-stop long-haul overlaps: London-New York and London-Boston

(106) The Transaction gives rise to non-stop-non-stop overlaps on two routes, namely London-New York and London-Boston.

6.1.3.1. General arguments put forward by the Parties

(107) The Parties put forward a number of arguments applying to both routes, as to why they believe that the Transaction does not raise competition concerns [90] .

(108) They first argue that their transatlantic services are predominantly complementary and that this complementarity would allow them to build a more significant UK / US network, in particular thanks to their respective domestic networks in the United States and the United Kingdom. The Parties consider that such a stronger network could help them act as a more effective competitive constraint on the Transatlantic Joint Business of British Airways and American Airlines ("BA / AA"), […]. In this respect, the Parties stress the importance of connecting traffic to sustain operations on transatlantic O&D routes. Indeed, by offering more connecting opportunities, a carrier can attract further connecting passengers and increase its load factors on the trunk routes. This, in turn, strengthens its performance on the route and enables it to compete more aggressively on price for O&D passengers.

(109) The Parties also referred to London Heathrow, stressing its importance for UK / US transatlantic routes, its very high level of congestion and the large share of slots held at that airport by British Airways. […].

(110) Furthermore, the Parties stress that the ability to attract premium passengers is critical to an airline's ability to compete effectively on transatlantic routes and argue that the Transaction would reinforce this ability by providing them with a more extensive network and the opportunity to offer more frequencies.

(111) [The Parties' views on relevant factors to compete effectively and closeness of competition]

(112) [The Parties' views on relevant factors to compete effectively and closeness of competition] [91]

(113) [The Parties' views on the American Airlines/US Airways merger]

6.1.3.2. Closeness of competition between the Parties – general considerations

(114) The Parties have provided data on the share of passengers originating in Europe and North America among their respective passengers on the London-New York and London-Boston routes, distinguishing between premium and non-premium passengers [92] . [The Parties' views on closeness of competition] [93] .

(115) [The Parties' views on closeness of competition] [94] [95] [96]

(116) [The Parties views on closeness of competition] [97]

(117) These various elements, whether taken individually or together, do not lead to firm conclusions as regards closeness of competition between the Parties. However, they constitute useful initial indications, hinting in general at a limited degree of substitutability between Delta and Virgin on the London-New York and London-Boston routes. These indications will be complemented below by the outcome of the market investigation on a route-by-route basis.

6.1.3.3. London-New York

(118) According to the Parties, the London-New York route is the most-travelled international long-haul service in the world. In the Winter 2011 IATA season, a total of [500,000-1 million] passengers (among whom [300,000-400,000] premium passengers) travelled on that route on a point-to-point basis. In the Summer 2012 IATA season, [1.5 million - 2 million] passengers (among whom [500,000 - 1 million] premium passengers) travelled on that route. For each of these seasons and within each category of passengers (premium and non-premium), [90-100]% of these passengers travelled non-stop [98] .

(119) Delta offers both non-stop and one-stop services on the London-New York route while Virgin only offers non-stop services. Since the Parties' activities do not overlap in the one-stop segment and since one-stop passengers account for a very minor proportion of all passengers for all the relevant combinations of airports and both for premium and non-premium passengers, the inclusion of one-stop services in the analysis would not lead to alter the conclusions of the competitive assessment for the London-New York route.

(120) In the Winter 2012 and in the Summer 2013 IATA seasons, Delta offered three daily non-stop services between London Heathrow and JFK. Over the same period, Virgin offered four daily non-stop services between London Heathrow and JFK and two daily non-stop services between London Heathrow and Newark.

(121) Over the same period, BA / AA offered a total of 11-12 daily non-stop services between London Heathrow and JFK (depending on the season). Moreover, they offered three daily non-stop services between London Heathrow and Newark. In addition, British Airways offered a Business class only service between JFK and London City with 1-2 daily frequencies (depending on the season). This service is non-stop in the US – UK direction and one-stop in the opposite direction. Since none of the Parties offers non-stop services between London City and New York, disregarding British Airways' services between London City and New York is a conservative approach, which will be followed in the the remainder of this analysis.

(122) In the Winter 2012 and Summer 2013 IATA Seasons, United offered five daily non-stop services between London Heathrow and Newark.

(123) Finally, Kuwait Airways offered three non-stop weekly frequencies between London Heathrow and JFK over the same period.

(124) In view of these characteristics, and since the market definition has been left open with respect to the substitutability of JFK and Newark, it is appropriate to assess the effects of the Transaction on the following possible markets for non-stop services on the London-New York route: London Heathrow-JFK and London Heathrow –New York (including JFK and Newark). Moreover, for each of these possible markets, sub-segmentations must be considered with respect to the type of passengers (premium and non-premium).

(125) The market position of the Parties and their competitors on these markets is as follows:

Table 2: Market shares on London-New York (non-stop services only)

London Heathrow- JFK |

Carrier |Winter 2011 |Summer 2012 |

|Premium |Non-premium |All passengers |premium |Non-premium |All passengers |

Delta |[5-10]% |[20-30]% |[10-20]% |[5-10]% |[10-20]% |[10-20]% |

Virgin |[20-30]% |[30-40]% |[30-40]% |[20-30]% |[30-40]% |[30-40]% |

Delta + Virgin |[30-40]% |[50-60]% |[40-50]% |[30-40]% |[50-60]% |[40-50]% |

BA / AA |[60-70]% |[40-50]% |[50-60]% |[60-70]% |[40-50]% |[50-60]% |

Kuwait Airways |[0-5]% |[0-5]% |[0-5]% |[0-5]% |[0-5]% |[0-5]% |

London Heathrow- New York (JKF + Newark) |

Carrier |Winter 2011 |Summer 2012 |

|Premium |Non premium |All passengers |premium |Non-premium |All passengers |

Delta |[0-5]% |[10-20]% |[10-20]% |[5-10]% |[10-20]% |[10-20]% |

Virgin |[20-30]% |[30-40]% |[30-40]% |[20-30]% |[30-40]% |[30-40]% |

Delta + Virgin |[30-40]% |[50-60]% |[40-50]% |[30-40]% |[50-60]% |[40-50]% |

BA / AA |[50-60]% |[30-40]% |[40-50]% |[50-60]% |[30-40]% |[40-50]% |

United |[5-10]% |[10-20]% |[10-20]% |[5-10]% |[10-20]% |[10-20]% |

Kuwait Airways |[0-5]% |[0-5]% |[0-5]% |[0-5]% |[0-5]% |[0-5]% |

Source: Market reconstruction

(a) Parties' arguments

(126) In addition to the general arguments summarised in Section 6.1.3.1 above, the Parties adduced route-specific justifications as to why the proposed Transaction does not raise competition concerns. [Delta's plans regarding the London-New York route] [99] .

(127) Besides, the Parties argue that post-Transaction, the combined entity will be clearly constrained by BA / AA and United. The Parties underline in particular the high market shares of BA / AA, notably in the premium segment, and their significant advantage in terms of number of frequencies, capacity and ability to increase both capacity and frequencies due to British Airways' substantial slot portfolio at London Heathrow. The Parties also claim that United and Kuwait Airways' non-stop services as well as the various one-stop services offered on the route would constrain the combined entity.

(b) Commission's assessment

(i) London Heathrow - JKF (non-stop services)

(128) BA / AA is likely to retain a very strong position in the premium segment post-merger, with a market share currently higher than 60%. Moreover, BA / AA has a significant frequency advantage with 11 daily frequencies in the Summer 2013 IATA season, as opposed to seven for the combined entity. Premium passengers usually attach value to high frequency services. In addition, in light of the general elements mentioned in Section 6.1.3.2 and the outcome of the market investigation, the Parties are rather distant competitors and BA / AA are closer to each of them than the other Party. Indeed, a large majority of both travel agents and corporate customers took the view that BA / AA was clearly a closer competitor to each Party than the other Party with respect to premium passengers [100] . Respondents notably referred to reasons relating to frequency and schedules, brand and frequent flyer programmes. Most competitors took a similar view. This suggests that should the combined entity raise prices, a large proportion of customers is likely to switch to BA / AA, which is the closest competitor to each of the Parties.

(129) [Outcome of quantitative analysis]

(130) In view of the above and of the other available evidence, the proposed Transaction does not raise serious doubts as to its compatibility with the internal market on the market for air transport services for premium passengers on the London Heathrow-JFK airport pair.

(131) On the non-premium segment, the Parties have higher combined market shares than on the premium segment. However, BA / AA's will remain a strong competitor, with market shares above 40%. Moreover, as regards closeness of competition between the Parties on the non-premium segment, the same findings emerge from the market investigation as on the premium segment: BA / AA is clearly a closer competitor to each Party than the other Party [101] , which is also borne out by the elements mentioned in Section 6.1.3.2. In particular, it should be noted that whilst Delta's brand appears to be strong in the United States and less so in Europe and Virgin faces the opposite situation, BA / AA benefits from the existence of strong brands both in the United States and Europe. This is a further element suggesting that BA / AA is a closer competitor to Virgin than Delta for passengers booking or originating in Europe and a closer competitor to Delta than Virgin for passengers booking or originating in the United States. It is also noted that there are potential one-stop alternatives on the route. It is also noted that there are potential one-stop alternatives on the route: 15 daily one-stop services between London Heathrow and JFK are offered by various carriers.

(132) In addition, as already pointed out with respect to premium passengers, BA / AA have a significant frequency advantage over the combined entity. Even though such advantage is not as crucial as for premium passengers, it is nevertheless an important aspect also in the eyes of non-premium passengers which further contributes to positioning BA / AA as a closer competitor to each Party than the other Party.

(133) Furthermore, while slot constraints at both London Heathrow and JFK constitute in general high barriers to entry on the London Heathrow – JFK route, this does not apply to British Airways and American Airlines. Indeed, within the IAG group, British Airways and Iberia hold together more than 50% of all slots at London Heathrow and American Airlines holds around 14% of all slots at JFK. British Airways and American Airlines have indicated that slots would be available at both airports to expand operations on the route and that, in addition, they would be able and willing to increase capacity on the route if demand were to increase [102] . The ability of BA / AA to increase frequencies and capacity in case of a price rise is a further factor allowing BA / AA to exert significant constraint on the combined entity post-merger on the non-premium segment.

(134) In view of the above and of the other available evidence, the Transaction does not raise serious doubts as to its compatibility with the internal market on the market for air transport services for non-premium passengers on the London Heathrow-JFK airport pair.

(135) Moreover, since the Transaction does not raise serious doubts as to its compatibility with the internal market on the premium segment and on the non-premium segment, it does not raise serious doubts with respect to the "all-passenger" London Heathrow – JFK market.

(ii) London Heathrow – New York (JKF and Newark) (non-stop services)

(136) BA / AA is likely to retain a very strong position in the premium segment post-merger, with a market share higher than 50%. Moreover, as on the London Heathrow – JFK market, BA / AA has a significant frequency advantage, with 14 daily frequencies in the Summer 2013 IATA Season, as opposed to 9 for the combined entity. Moreover, the findings reached concerning the London Heathrow – JFK premium market as regards closeness of competition between Parties also apply to the London Heathrow – New York premium market. In addition, on that market, the Parties face competition from United, even though its market share on the premium segment is limited.

(137) Therefore, the Transaction does not raise serious doubts as to its compatibility with the internal market on the London Heathrow-New York market for premium passengers.

(138) On the non-premium segment, the Parties' combined market shares are higher than 50%. However, BA / AA and, to a lesser extent, United will remain strong competitors, with market shares respectively above 30% and 10%.

(139) Moreover, the findings reached concerning the London Heathrow – JFK non-premium market as regards closeness of competition between the Parties, and BA / AA's ability to increase frequencies and capacity if prices were to go up post-merger also apply to the London Heathrow – New York non-premium market. It is also noted that there are potential one-stop alternatives on the route; in particular BA / AA offered three daily one-stop services between London Heathrow and Newark.

(140) In view of the above and of the other available evidence, the Commission considers that the the proposed Transaction does not raise serious doubts as to its compatibility with the internal market on the London Heathrow – New York market for non-premium passengers.

(141) Moreover, since the Transaction does not raise serious doubts as to its compatibility with the internal market on the premium segment and on the non-premium segment, the Commission considers that it also does not raise serious doubts with respect to the London Heathrow-New York "all-passengers" market.

(c) Conclusion

(142) In light of the above and of the other available evidence, the Commission considers that the Transaction does not raise serious doubts as to its compatibility with the internal market with respect to the London-New York route on any possible relevant market.

6.1.3.4. London-Boston

(143) In the Winter 2011 IATA season, a total of [100,000-200,000] passengers (among whom [50,000-100,000] premium passengers) travelled on that route on a point-to-point basis. In the Summer 2012 IATA season, [400,000-500,000] passengers (among whom [100,000-200,000] premium passengers) travelled on that route. For each of these seasons and within each category of passengers (premium and non-premium), [90-100]% of these passengers travelled non-stop.

(144) Delta offers both non-stop and one-stop services on the London-Boston route while Virgin only offers non-stop services. Since the Parties' activities do not overlap in the one-stop segment and since, in addition, one-stop passengers account for a limited proportion of all passengers and Delta accounts for a limited proportion of one-stop passengers, for all the relevant combinations of airports and both for premium and non-premium passengers, the inclusion of one-stop services in the analysis would not lead to alter the conclusions of the competitive assessment for the London-Boston route.

(145) Delta launched non-stop services on the London Heathrow-Boston route as of the Summer 2011 IATA Season with two daily frequencies, using two daily slot pairs at London Heathrow obtained on the basis of the slot commitment in the BA/AA/IB Antitrust case [103] . As of the Winter 2011 IATA Season, Delta reduced its service to one daily frequency, which it maintained throughout subsequent seasons [104] .

(146) In the Winter 2012 and in the Summer 2013 IATA seasons, Virgin also offered one daily service between London Heathrow and Boston.

(147) Over the same period, BA / AA, offered four daily non-stop services between London Heathrow and Boston.

(148) The market position of the Parties and BA / AA on this markets is as follows:

Table 3: Market shares on London-Boston (non-stop services only)

London Heathrow- Boston |

Carrier |Winter 2011 |Summer 2012 |

|Premium |Non-premium |All passengers |premium |Non-premium |All passengers |

Delta |[0-5]% |[10-20]% |[10-20]% |[5-10]% |[10-20]% |[10-20]% |

Virgin |[20-30]% |[20-30]% |[20-30]% |[20-30]% |[20-30]% |[20-30]% |

Delta + Virgin |[20-30]% |[40-50]% |[30-40]% |[20-30]% |[40-50]% |[30-40]% |

BA / AA |[70-80]% |[50-60]% |[60-70]% |[70-80]% |[50-60]% |[60-70]% |

Source: Market reconstruction

(a) Parties' arguments

(149) In addition to the general arguments summarised in Section 6.1.3.1 above, the Parties adduced route-specific justifications as to why the proposed Transaction does not raise competition concerns. [Delta's plans regarding the London-Boston route] [105] .

(150) Moreover, according to the Parties, although the Transaction would reduce the number of providers of non-stop services from three to two, this would not lead to an anti-competitive outcome […]. The Parties refer to the strength of BA / AA in terms of feed traffic, capacity, frequency [106] and ability to increase both capacity and frequencies due to British Airways' substantial slot portfolio at London Heathrow. The Parties also refer to BA / AA's high market shares on the point-to-point market, notably on the premium segment. They claim that the Transaction would allow them to increase their penetration of premium passengers through a better network and increased frequencies. They take the view that this would result in more effective competition because BA / AA would face a stronger rival.

(151) [Outcome of Virgin Atlantic's load factor and fare analysis] [107]

(152) Besides, the Parties stress the role of one-stop services, which would exert a significant competitive constraint on their non-stop services. They note that one-stop fares are usually the cheapest available fares through booking websites, especially during peak travel periods.

(153) In addition, they emphasize the "availability" of one daily slot pair at London Heathrow for entry on the London-Boston route under the slot commitment in the antitrust BA/AA/IB case [108] . Indeed, since Delta handed back one of the two daily slot pairs it had obtained for its London-Boston operations in March 2011, another carrier could, provided that it satisfies relevant eligibility conditions, apply for one daily slot pair to launch operations on that same route. According to the Parties, this would result in one of the usual barriers to entry on transatlantic routes from London – that is, the scarcity of slots at London Heathrow – being absent on that particular route. The Parties further underline that each of them only operates with one daily frequency, so that the competitive constraint lost as a result of the Transaction could be restored with one daily frequency (and therefore one daily slot pair).

(b) Commission's assessment

(154) BA / AA is likely to retain a very strong position in the premium segment post-merger, with a market share currently higher than 70%. Moreover, BA / AA enjoys a significant frequency advantage with four daily frequencies in the Summer 2013 IATA season, as opposed to two for the combined entity. As already indicated, premium passengers usually attach value to high frequency services. In addition, in light of the general elements mentioned in Section 6.1.3.2 and the outcome of the market investigation, the Parties are not particularly close competitors and BA / AA is clearly closer to each of them than the other Party. Indeed, a large majority of both travel agents and corporate customers took the view that BA / AA was a closer competitor to each Party than the other Party with respect to premium passengers [109] . Respondents notably referred to reasons relating to capacity, frequency, schedules and service. Most competitors took a similar view. This suggests that should the combined entity raise prices, a large proportion of customers is likely to switch to BA / AA, which is the closest competitor to each of the Parties.

(155) [Outcome of quantitative analysis]

(156) In view of the above and of the other available evidence, the Commission considers that the the proposed Transaction does not raise serious doubts as to its compatibility with the internal market on the market for air transport services for premium passengers on the London Heathrow-Boston route.

(157) On the non-premium segment, the Parties have higher combined market shares than on the premium segment. However, BA / AA will remain a very strong competitor, with market shares above 50%. Moreover, as regards closeness of competition between the Parties on the non-premium segment, the same findings emerge from the market investigation as on the premium segment: BA / AA is clearly a closer competitor to each Party than the other Party [110] , which is also borne out by the elements mentioned in Section 6.1.3.2. In particular, it should be noted that whilst Delta's brand appears to be strong in the United States and less so in Europe and Virgin faces the opposite situation, BA / AA benefits from the existence of strong brands both in the United States and Europe. This is a further element suggesting that BA / AA is a closer competitor to Virgin than Delta for passengers booking or originating in Europe and a closer competitor to Delta than Virgin for passengers booking or originating in the United States. [Information about Delta's price benchmarking]. [111] These are further factors pointing to BA / AA being a closer competitor to each Party than to the other Party. It is also noted that there are potential one-stop alternatives on the route: 4 daily one-stop services between London and Boston are offered by various carriers.

(158) In addition, as already pointed out with respect to premium passengers, BA / AA has a significant frequency advantage over the combined entity. Even though such advantage is not as crucial as for premium passengers, it is nevertheless an important aspect also in the eyes of non-premium passengers, which further contributes to positioning BA / AA as a closer competitor to each Party than the other Party.

(159) The Commission also assessed the empirical evidence provided by the Parties on the London-Boston route, [Outcome of quantitative analysis]. Moreover, as the quantitative analysis for this route took into account Delta’s past entry with an additional frequency added on the market, the predicted effects post-Transaction would be even more limited as the qualitative assessment has shown that the Parties would be very likely to continue to operate the same number of frequencies on the route post-Transaction (1 by Delta and 1 by Virgin). [112] In any event, the Commission considers that the quantitative assessment of potential price effects should be viewed in the context of the qualitative assessment.

(160) Furthermore, while slot constraints at London Heathrow constitute in general a high barrier to entry on the London Heathrow – Boston route [113] , this does not apply to British Airways and American Airlines. Indeed, within the IAG group, British Airways and Iberia hold together more than 50% of all slots at London Heathrow. British Airways and American Airlines have indicated that slots would be available at both airports to expand operations on the London-Boston route and that in addition, they would be able and willing to increase capacity on the route if demand were to increase [114] . The ability of BA / AA to increase frequencies and capacity in case of a price rise is a further factor allowing BA / AA to exert constraint on the combined entity post-merger on the non-premium segment.

(161) As regards the "availability" of one daily slot pair under the slot commitment in the antitrust BA/AA/IB case for a potential new entrant, on which the Parties put significant emphasis, it is first noted that if a carrier applied for a slot to enter into the London-Boston route, its application would be assessed against the criteria laid down in the BA / AA / IB commitment. Moreover, even though the mere fact that a slot would be available for entry into the London-Boston route would reduce the overall level of the barriers to entry on that route, it is recalled that "for entry to be considered a sufficient competitive constraint on the merging parties, it must be shown to be likely, timely and sufficient to deter or defeat any potential anti-competitive effects of the merger" [115] . However, in this case, there is no indication that a carrier might be willing to apply for a slot to start operations on the London-Boston route, even if the Parties were to increase prices post-Transaction.

(162) Nevertheless, in view of all the above and of the other available evidence, the Commission considers that the Transaction does not raise serious doubts as to its compatibility with the internal market with respect to the market for air transport services for non-premium passengers on the London Heathrow-Boston airport pair.

(163) Moreover, since the Transaction does not raise serious doubts as to its compatibility with the internal market on the premium segment and on the non-premium segment, the Commission considers that it does not raise serious doubts with respect to the all-passenger London Heathrow – Boston market.

(c) Conclusion

(164) In light of the above and of the other available evidence, the Commission considers that the Transaction does not raise serious doubts as to its compatibility with the internal market with respect to the London– Boston route under any possible market definition.

6.1.4. Non-stop/one-stop overlap routes

(165) The Transaction gives rise to horizontal overlap on ten long-haul routes on which Virgin offers a non-stop service while Delta only offers a one-stop service. These routes are: London-Washington, London-Chicago, London-Los Angeles, London-San Francisco, London-Cancun, London-Miami, London-Las Vegas, London-Orlando, Manchester-Las Vegas, and Manchester-Orlando.

(166) The Commission will first assess the closeness of competition between Virgin's non-stop services and Delta's one-stop services, before assessing the effects of the Transaction on these routes.

(167) For the reasons explained below the overlap between Virgin's non-stops services and Delta's one-stop services will not give rise to competition concerns. If non-stop and one-stop flights were to be considered as two separate markets there would be no overlap between Virgin and Delta. Subsequently, it is not necessary to reach a definitive conclusion on whether non-stop and one-stop passenger air transport services are part of the same market as it would not change the conclusion of the competitive assessment, as already indicated in Section 4.1.3 above.

6.1.4.1. Closeness of competition between Virgin's non-stop services and Delta's one-stop services

(168) The concept of "closeness of competition" may play an important role in better understanding the competitive constraint exerted by different competitors on each other in differentiated markets such as airline markets [116] . It is therefore relevant to assess whether Virgin's non-stop services and Delta's one-stop services would be considered as close substitutes on the ten non-stop/one-stop overlap routes.

(169) [Parties' views on one-stop services]

(170) [Parties' views on one-stop services]

(171) The Parties however argue that Virgin and Delta are not each other's closest competitors on the ten non-stop/one-stop overlap routes, given that Delta only offers a one-stop service and Virgin offers a non-stop service while there are other competitors which offer non-stop services on all but two of the ten non-stop/one-stop overlap routes [117] .

(172) The majority of respondents to the Commission's market investigation stated that they would be ready to consider buying one-stop tickets instead of non-stop tickets on the ten non-stop/one-stop overlap routes [118] . However, corporate customers consider that one-stop flights are not an alternative to non-stop flights save under specific circumstances such as if there is no alternative, if the costs are (significantly) lower and the one-stop does not significantly increase the total travel duration.

(173) When asked which criteria would make them choose a non-stop flight over a one-stop flight, respondents to the Commission's market investigation [119] identified most frequently the price difference followed closely by the schedules of the respective flights. Conversely, competitors, corporate customers and travel agents identified most frequently travel duration as a criterion for passengers when it comes to choosing a non-stop flight over a one-stop flight [120] .

(174) On the ten non-stop/one-stop overlap routes, the difference in the fastest travel time on non-stop flights and the fastest-travel time on one-stop routes is in general more than two hours and thirty minutes [121] .

(175) The majority of respondents to the market investigation (competitors, travel agents, corporate customers) indicated that they do not consider Virgin and Delta as each other's closest competitor on the ten non-stop/one-stop overlap routes. In the majority of cases, BA / AA Airlines or United are identified as Virgin's or Delta's closest competitor. Indeed on eight overlap routes BA / AA offers non-stop flights compared to Delta which offers one-stop flights. Even on the two routes on which Virgin is the only non-stop operator and Delta is offering a one-stop service, respondents identified other one-stop carriers as closer to Delta than Virgin.

(176) In addition, the share of passengers that actually chose one-stop services during the Winter 2011 and Summer 2012 IATA seasons on these ten non-stop/one-stop overlap routes remains rather limited. If no distinction by passenger type is made, more than two thirds of all passengers chose non-stop services over one-stop services on these routes, with the exception of the Manchester-Las Vegas route on which the share was [40-50]%.

(177) In the light of the above, the Commission considers that Delta and Virgin are not each other's closest competitors, and are not close competitors on the ten non-stop/one-stop overlap routes.

6.1.4.2. Description of the routes

(a) London-Washington

(178) In the Winter 2012 and Summer 2012 IATA seasons a total of [500,000 - 1 million] passengers travelled between London and Washington DC, of which [90-100]% travelled between London Heathrow and Dulles International Airport.

(179) In total [90-100]% of the passengers on this route travelled using non-stop services. In addition, [60-70]% of the passengers travelling on this route during the Winter and Summer 2012 IATA seasons were non-premium passengers

(180) Virgin offers for the Summer 2013 IATA season a daily non-stop service between London Heathrow and Dulles International Airport while Delta only offers one-stop services from London Heathrow via its hubs in the United States to Ronald Reagan Washington National Airport. [122] In addition, Delta's Skyteam partners Air France and KLM offer one-stop services between London Heathrow/London City to Dulles International Airport.

(181) Non-stop services on the London-Washington route during the Summer 2013 IATA season are also provided by British Airways, with two daily flights and six weekly flights, and United Airlines with 3 daily flights from London Heathrow to Dulles International Airport. Both carriers also provide one-stop services between London and Washington DC as well as other carriers.

(182) Table 4 below displays the market shares of the Parties and their competitors for premium, non-premium and for all-passengers on the London-Washington route. On the basis of the market reconstruction, the cases whereby the airports at London and Washington are considered separate markets will result in market shares of a similar magnitude or in no overlap between Virgin and Delta. The Transaction on this route is therefore assessed on the city-pair market.

Table 4: Market shares on London-Washington

|Winter 2011/2012 |Summer 2012 |

|Premium |Non Premium |Total |Premium |Non Premium |Total |

Virgin (non-stop) |[10-20]% |[20-30]% |[20-30]% |[20-30]% |[30-40]% |[20-30]% |

Delta (one-stop) |[0-5]% |[0-5]% |[0-5]% |[0-5]% |[0-5]% |[0-5]% |

Delta + Virgin |[20-30]% |[20-30]% |[20-30]% |[20-30]% |[30-40]% |[30-40]% |

BA / AA (non-stop) |[40-50]% |[20-30]% |[30-40]% |[50-60]% |[20-30]% |[30-40]% |

BA / AA (one-stop) |[0-5]% |[0-5]% |[0-5]% |[0-5]% |[0-5]% |[0-5]% |

United (non-stop) |[20-30]% |[40-50]% |[30-40]% |[20-30]% |[30-40]% |[30-40]% |

United (one-stop) |[0-5]% |[0-5]% |[0-5]% |[0-5]% |[0-5]% |[0-5]% |

Others (one-stop) |[0-5]% |[0-5]% |[0-5]% |[0-5]% |[0-5]% |[0-5]% |

Source: Market reconstruction

(b) London-Chicago

(183) In the Winter 2012 and Summer 2012 IATA seasons a total of [400 000 - 500 000] passengers travelled between London and Chicago, of which [90-100]% passengers travelled between London Heathrow and O'Hare International Airport.

(184) In total [90-100]% of the passengers on this route travelled using non-stop services. In addition, [60-70]% of the passengers travelling on this route during the Winter and Summer 2012 IATA were non-premium passengers.

(185) Virgin only offers a service between London Heathrow and Chicago O'Hare International Airport during the Summer IATA season. The frequency of this service for the 2013 Summer IATA season varies between three flights per week to a daily service. Delta only offers one-stop services from and to London Heathrow via its hubs in the United States mainly connecting to Midway International Airport. In addition, Air France and KLM offer one-stop services between London Heathrow/London City to O'Hare International Airport.

(186) Non-stop services on the London-Chicago route during the Summer 2013 IATA season are also provided by British Airways/American Airlines, with in total six daily flights, and United Airlines, with three daily flights, between London Heathrow and O'Hare International Airport. These carriers also provide one-stop services between London and Chicago as well as other carriers.

(187) Table 5 below displays the market shares of the Parties and their competitors for premium, non-premium and for all-passengers on the London-Chicago route. On the basis of the market reconstruction, the cases whereby the airports at London and Chicago are considered separate markets will result in market shares of a similar magnitude or in no overlap between Virgin and Delta. The Transaction on this route is therefore assessed on the city-pair market.

Table 5: Market shares on London-Chicago

|Winter 2011/2012 |Summer 2012 |

|Premium |Non Premium |Total |Premium |Non Premium |Total |

Virgin (non-stop) |[0-5]% |[0-5]% |[0-5]% |[10-20]% |[20-30]% |[20-30]% |

Delta (one-stop) |[0-5]% |[0-5]% |[0-5]% |[0-5]% |[0-5]% |[0-5]% |

Delta + Virgin |[0-5]% |[0-5]% |[0-5]% |[10-20]% |[20-30]% |[20-30]% |

BA / AA (non-stop) |[60-70]% |[50-60]% |[50-60]% |[60-70]% |[40-50]% |[40-50]% |

BA / AA (one-stop) |[0-5]% |[0-5]% |[0-5]% |[0-5]% |[0-5]% |[0-5]% |

United (non-stop) |[20-30]% |[40-50]% |[30-40]% |[10-20]% |[20-30]% |[20-30]% |

United (one-stop) |[0-5]% |[0-5]% |[0-5]% |[0-5]% |[0-5]% |[0-5]% |

Others (one-stop) |[0-5]% |[0-5]% |[0-5]% |[0-5]% |[0-5]% |[0-5]% |

Source: Market reconstruction

(c) London-Los Angeles

(188) In the Winter 2011 and Summer 2012 IATA seasons a total of [500 000- 1 million] passengers travelled by air between London and Los Angeles, of which [90-100]% travelled between London Heathrow and Los Angeles.

(189) In total [90-100]% of the passengers on this route travelled using non-stop services. In addition, [60-70]% of the passengers travelling on this route during the Winter and Summer 2012 IATA were non-premium passengers.

(190) Virgin offers two daily non-stop services between London Heathrow and Los Angeles. Delta only offers one-stop services between London Heathrow and Los Angeles (LAS) via its hubs in the United States. In addition, Air France and KLM offer one-stop services between London Heathrow/London City and Los Angeles.

(191) Non-stop services on the London-Los Angeles route during the Summer 2013 IATA season are also provided by British Airways/American Airlines with in total three daily flights, United Airlines with one daily flight and Air New Zealand with one daily flight between London Heathrow and Los Angeles. Emirates provides a daily non-stop service between London Gatwick and Los Angeles. British Airways/American Airlines and United Airlines also provide one-stop services between London and Los Angeles as well as other carriers.

(192) Table 6 below displays the market shares of the Parties and their competitors for premium, non-premium and for all-passengers on the London-Los Angeles route. On the basis of the market reconstruction, the cases whereby the airports at London are considered separate markets will result in market shares of a similar magnitude or in no overlap between Virgin and Delta. The Transaction on this route is therefore assessed on the city-pair market.

Table 6: Market shares on London-Los Angeles

|Winter 2011/2012 |Summer 2012 |

|Premium |Non Premium |Total |Premium |Non Premium |Total |

Virgin (non-stop) |[20-30]% |[30-40]% |[30-40]% |[20-30]% |[30-40]% |[20-30]% |

Delta (one-stop) |[0-5]% |[0-5]% |[0-5]% |[0-5]% |[0-5]% |[0-5]% |

Delta + Virgin |[20-30]% |[30-40]% |[30-40]% |[20-30]% |[30-40]% |[30-40]% |

BA / AA (non-stop) |[40-50]% |[20-30]% |[30-40]% |[50-60]% |[20-30]% |[30-40]% |

BA / AA (one-stop) |[0-5]% |[0-5]% |[0-5]% |[0-5]% |[0-5]% |[0-5]% |

United (non-stop) |[10-20]% |[10-20]% |[10-20]% |[5-10]% |[10-20]% |[10-20]% |

United (one-stop) |[0-5]% |[0-5]% |[0-5]% |[0-5]% |[0-5]% |[0-5]% |

Air New Zealand (non-stop) |[10-20]% |[10-20]% |[10-20]% |[5-10]% |[10-20]% |[10-20]% |

Others (one-stop) |[0-5]% |[0-5]% |[0-5]% |[0-5]% |[0-5]% |[0-5]% |

Source: Market reconstruction

(d) London-San Francisco

(193) In the Winter 2011 and Summer 2012 IATA seasons a total of [500 000 – 1 million] passengers travelled by air between London and San Francisco, of which [90-100]% travelled between London Heathrow and San Francisco.

(194) In total [90-100]% of the passengers on this route travelled using non-stop services In addition, [60-70]% of the passengers travelling on this route during the Winter and Summer 2012 IATA were non-premium passengers.

(195) Virgin offers one daily non-stop service between London Heathrow and San Francisco. Delta only offers only one-stop services between London Heathrow and San Francisco via its hubs in the United States. In addition, Air France and KLM offer one-stop services between London Heathrow/London City and San Francisco.

(196) Non-stop services on the London-San Francisco route during the Summer 2013 IATA season are also provided by British Airways with two daily flights and United Airlines with one daily flight and five weekly flights [123] between London Heathrow and San Francisco. These carriers also provide one-stop services between London and San Francisco as well as other carriers.

(197) Table 7 below displays the market shares of the Parties and their competitors for premium, non-premium and for all-passengers on the London-San Francisco route. On the basis of the market reconstruction, the cases whereby the airports at London are considered separate markets will result in market shares of a similar magnitude or in no overlap between Virgin and Delta. The Transaction on this route is therefore assessed on the city-pair market.

Table 7: Market shares on London-San Francisco

|Winter 2011/2012 |Summer 2012 |

|Premium |Non Premium |Total |Premium |Non Premium |Total |

Virgin (non-stop) |[30-40]% |[30-40]% |[30-40]% |[30-40]% |[30-40]% |[30-40]% |

Delta (one-stop) |[0-5]% |[0-5]% |[0-5]% |[0-5]% |[0-5]% |[0-5]% |

Virgin + Delta |[30-40]% |[30-40]% |[30-40]% |[30-40]% |[30-40]% |[30-40]% |

BA / AA (non-stop) |[40-50]% |[20-30]% |[30-40]% |[30-40]% |[20-30]% |[20-30]% |

BA / AA (one-stop) |[0-5]% |[0-5]% |[0-5]% |[0-5]% |[0-5]% |[0-5]% |

United (non-stop) | [10-20]% |[20-30]% |[20-30]% |[20-30]% |[30-40]% |[20-30]% |

United (one-stop) |[0-5]% |[0-5]% |[0-5]% |[0-5]% |[0-5]% |[0-5]% |

Others (one-stop) |[0-5]% |[0-5]% |[0-5]% |[0-5]% |[0-5]% |[0-5]% |

Source: Market reconstruction

(e) London-Cancun

(198) In the Winter 2011 and Summer 2012 IATA seasons a total of [100,000-200 000] passengers travelled by air between London and Cancun [124] , of which [80-90]% travelled between London Gatwick and Cancun.

(199) In total [80-90]% of the passengers on this route travelled using non-stop services. In addition, [80-90]% of the passengers travelling on this route during the Winter and Summer 2012 IATA were non-premium passengers.

(200) Virgin offers 3 weekly non-stop services between London Gatwick and Cancun. Delta only offers one-stop services between London Heathrow and Cancun its hubs in the United States. In addition, Air France offers one-stop services between London Heathrow and Cancun

(201) Non-stop services on the London-Cancun route during the Summer 2013 IATA season are also provided by British Airways with three weekly services between London Gatwick and Cancun. British Airways also provides one-stop services between London and Cancun as well as other carriers.

(202) Table 8 below displays the market shares of the Parties and their competitors for premium, non-premium and for all-passengers on the London-Los Cancun route. On the basis of the market reconstruction, the cases whereby the airports at London are considered separate markets will result in market shares of a similar magnitude or in no overlap between Virgin and Delta. The Transaction on this route is therefore assessed on the city-pair market.

Table 8: Market shares on London-Cancun

|Winter 2011/2012 |Summer 2012 |

|Premium |Non Premium |Total |Premium |Non Premium |Total |

Virgin (non-stop) |[0-5]% |[0-5]% |[0-5]% |[40-50]% |[40-50]% |[40-50]% |

Delta (one-stop) |[0-5]% |[0-5]% |[0-5]% |[0-5]% |[0-5]% |[0-5]% |

Delta + Virgin |[0-5]% |[0-5]% |[0-5]% |[40-50]% |[40-50]% |[40-50]% |

BA / AA (non-stop) |[80-90]% |[60-70]% |[70-80]% |[50-60]% |[40-50]% |[40-50]% |

BA / AA (one-stop) |[5-10]% |[10-20]% |[10-20]% |[0-5]% |[5-10]% |[5-10]% |

United (one-stop) |[0-5]% |[10-20]% |[5-10]% |[0-5]% |[0-5]% |[0-5]% |

Others (one-stop) |[0-5]% |[0-5]% |[0-5]% |[0-5]% |[0-5]% |[0-5]% |

Source: Market reconstruction

(f) London-Miami

(203) In the Winter 2012 and Summer 2012 IATA seasons a total of [500 000 - 1 million] passengers travelled by air between London and Miami, of which [90-100]% passengers travelled between London Heathrow and Miami International Airport.

(204) In total [90-100]% of the passengers on this route travelled on this route using non-stop services. In addition, [60-70]% of the passengers travelling on this route during the Winter and Summer 2012 IATA were non-premium passengers

(205) Virgin offers a daily service between London Heathrow and Miami International Airport during the Summer 2013 IATA season. As of April 2012 Delta stopped its non-stop service between London and Miami and Delta currently only offers one-stop services from and to London Heathrow via its hubs in the United States mainly connecting to Fort Lauderdale-Hollywood International Airport. In addition, Air France offers a one-stop service between London Heathrow and Miami International Airport..

(206) Non-stop services on the London-Miami route during the Summer 2013 IATA season are also provided by British Airways/American Airlines with in total three daily flights between London Heathrow and Miami International Airport. These carriers also provide one-stop services between London and Miami as well as other carriers.

(207) Table 9 below displays the market shares of the Parties and their competitors for premium, non-premium and for all-passengers on the London-Miami route. On the basis of the market reconstruction, the cases whereby the airports at London and Miami are considered separate markets will result in market shares of a similar magnitude or in no overlap between Virgin and Delta. The Transaction on this route is therefore assessed on the city-pair market.

Table 9: Market shares on London-Miami

|Winter 2011/2012 |Summer 2012 |

|Premium |Non Premium |Total |Premium |Non Premium |Total |

Virgin (non-stop) |[30-40]% |[30-40]% |[30-40]% |[30-40]% |[40-50]% |[30-40]% |

Delta (one-stop) |[0-5]% |[10-20]% |[10-20]% |[0-5]% |[5-10]% |[5-10]% |

Delta + Virgin |[30-40]% |[50-60]% |[50-60]% |[30-40]% |[40-50]% |[40-50]% |

BA / AA (non-stop) |[50-60]% |[30-40]% |[40-50]% |[60-70]% |[40-50]% |[40-50]% |

BA / AA (one-stop) |[0-5]% |[0-5]% |[0-5]% |[0-5]% |[5-10]% |[0-5]% |

United (one-stop) |[0-5]% |[0-5]% |[0-5]% |[0-5]% |[0-5]% |[0-5]% |

Others (one-stop) |[0-5]% |[0-5]% |[0-5]% |[0-5]% |[0-5]% |[0-5]% |

Source: Market reconstruction

(g) London-Orlando

(208) In the Winter 2011 and Summer 2012 IATA seasons, [500 000 - 1 million] passengers [125] travelled by air between London and Orlando (Orlando International-MCO and Orlando Sanford-SFB). In the Winter 2011 and Summer 2012 IATA seasons, [90 000-100 000] passengers travelled from London Heathrow to Orlando (MCO).

(209) [80-90]% of the passengers on this route travelled via non-stop services. Both in Winter 2011 and in Summer 2012 IATA seasons, [80-90]% of the passengers travelled on non-premium services.

(210) Virgin offers a two daily non-stop service between London Gatwick and Orlando (MCO). It also offers a four weekly one-stop service with a UK origin (London Heathrow to Orlando International) and a two daily one-stop service with a US origin (Orlando International to London Heathrow).

(211) Delta for its part offers only one-stop services between London Heathrow and Orlando (MCO) via Atlanta (ATL), New York (JFK), Detroit (DTW) and Minneapolis (MSP). It offers 16 daily services with a UK origin and 27 daily frequencies with a US origin.

(212) Other operators on this route offer both non-stop and one-stop services. BA / AA offer between one and two daily non-stop services from London Gatwick to Orlando (MCO) and between 27 [126] and 43 [127] daily one-stop services between London Heathrow and Orlando (MCO) via Dallas (DFW), New York (JFK), Los Angeles (LAX), Miami (MIA) and Chicago (ORD). United [128] , US Airways [129] , and Aer Lingus [130] also offer one-stop services from London Heathrow and London Gatwick [131] to Las Vegas (LAS) via various cities in the United States, Canada, Mexico or Ireland, such as New York (EWR), San Francisco (SFO), Toronto (YYZ), Mexico (MEX) and Dublin (DUB).

(213) In addition, the charter companies Thomson Airways, Thomas Cook Airlines and Monarch offer non-stop flights between London and Orlando (SFB).

(214) As regards the UK end of this route, in light of the Parties' and their competitors' operations on the London-Orlando route, the effects of the Transaction will be assessed on a market comprising services from London Heathrow, Gatwick and City [132] . Virgin only recently started operating one-stop services from London Heathrow via Manchester to Orlando and Delta only operates from Heathrow. In any event even if only services from Heathrow were considered, the Parties would face a significant competitive constraint from BA / AA's non-stop and one-stop services to Orlando from Heathrow.

(215) As concerns the Orlando end, as mentioned above in Section 4.1.4.3, Orlando has two airports, namely Orlando International (MCO) and Sanford International (SFB). Both Delta and Virgin fly solely to Orlando International. . The Commission's assessment will focus on the London – Orlando (MCO) route as concerns premium passengers and on the London-Orlando (MCO and SFB) as concerns non-premium passengers.

(216) Table 10 displays the market shares of the Parties and their competitors on all-passengers, premium and non-premium air services markets on the London -Orlando (MCO) route [133] :

Table 10: Market shares on London - Orlando

Winter 2011/2012 |Summer 2012 |

|Premium |Non-Premium |All passengers |Premium |Non-Premium |All passengers |

Virgin (non-stop) Virgin also offers one-stop flights on both routes via Manchester through a code share agreement with BA / AA. However, the number of passengers carried on this route is insignificant. Virgin also offers one-stop flights on both routes via Manchester through a code share agreement with BA / AA. However, the number of passengers carried on this route is insignificant. |[50-60]% |[60-70]% |[60-70]% |[50-60]% |[60-70]% |[60-70]% |

Delta (one-stop) |[0-5]% |[5-10]% |[0-5]% |[0-5]% |[5-10]% |[5-10]% |

Virgin+Delta |[60-70]% |[70-80]% |[70-80]% |[60-70]% |[70-80]% |[60-70]% |

BA / AA (non-stop) |[30-40]% |[10-20]% |[10-20]% |[30-40]% |[10-20]% |[10-20]% |

BA / AA (one-stop) |[0-5]% |[0-5]% |[0-5]% |[0-5]% |[0-5]% |[0-5]% |

United (one-stop) |[0-5]% |[5-10]% |[5-10]% |[0-5]% |[5-10]% |[0-5]% |

US Airways (one-stop) |[0-5]% |[0-5]% |[0-5]% |[0-5]% |[0-5]% |[0-5]% |

Total |100% |100% |100% |100% |100% |100% |

Source: Market reconstruction

(h) London-Las Vegas

(217) In the Winter 2011 and Summer 2012 IATA seasons, between [400 000-500 000] passengers travelled by air between London (Heathrow, Gatwick and City) and Las Vegas (McCarran International Airport - LAS). In the Winter 2011 and Summer 2012 IATA seasons, [100 000-200 000] passengers travelled from London Heathrow to Las Vegas.

(218) [80-90]% of the passengers on this route travelled via non-stop services. Both in Winter 2011 and in Summer 2012 IATA seasons, [80-90]% of the passengers travelled on non-premium services on a London-Las Vegas route.

(219) Virgin offers a daily non-stop service between London Gatwick and Las Vegas (LAS) and a two weekly one-stop service between London Gatwick and London Heathrow and Las Vegas (LAS) via Manchester (MAN).

(220) Delta for its part offers only one-stop services between London Heathrow and Las Vegas (LAS) via Atlanta (ATL), New York (JFK), Detroit (DTW) and Minneapolis (MSP). It offers 11 daily services with a UK origin and 13 daily services with a US origin.

(221) Other operators on this route offer both non-stop and one-stop services. BA / AA offer one daily non-stop services from London Gatwick and London Heathrow to Las Vegas (LAS) and between 100 and 200 weekly one-stop services [135] between London Heathrow and Las Vegas (LAS) via Dallas (DFW), New York (JFK), Los Angeles (LAX), Miami (MIA) and Chicago (ORD). United [136] , US Airways [137] and Aeromexico [138] also offer one-stop services from London Heathrow to Las Vegas (LAS) via various cities in the United States, Canada or Mexico, such as New York (EWR), San Francisco (SFO), Montréal (YUL) and Mexico (MEX).

(222) As regards the UK end of this route, in light of the Parties' and their competitors' operations on the London-Las Vegas route, the effects of the Transaction will be assessed on a market comprising services from London Heathrow, Gatwick and City [139] . Virgin only recently started operating one-stop services from London Heathrow via Manchester to Las Vegas and Delta only operates from Heathrow. In any event even if only services from Heathrow were considered, the Parties would face a significant competitive constraint from BA / AA's non-stop and one-stop services to Las Vegas from Heathrow.

(223) As concerns the Las Vegas end, there is only one airport, namely McCarran International Airport (LAS). As a consequence, the Commission's assessment will focus on the London - Las Vegas (LAS) route.

(224) Table 11 displays the market shares of the Parties and their competitors on all-passengers, premium and non-premium air services markets on the London -Las Vegas (LAS) route:

Table 11: Market shares on London - Las Vegas

|Winter 2011/2012 |Summer 2012 |

|Premium |Non-Premium |All passengers |Premium |Non-Premium |All passengers |

Virgin (non-stop) Virgin also offers one-stop flights on both routes via Manchester through a code share agreement with BA/AA. However, the number of passengers carried on this route is insignificant. Virgin also offers one-stop flights on both routes via Manchester through a code share agreement with BA/AA. However, the number of passengers carried on this route is insignificant. |[50-60]% |[60-70]% |[60-70]% |[50-60]% |[60-70]% |[60-70]% |

Delta (one-stop) |[0-5]% |[5-10]% |[5-10]% |[5-10]% |[5-10]% |[5-10]% |

Virgin+Delta |[50-60]% |[70-80]% |[70-80]% |[60-70]% |[70-80]% |[70-80]% |

BA / AA (non-stop) |[30-40]% |[10-20]% |[20-30]% |[30-40]% |[10-20]% |[10-20]% |

BA / AA (one-stop) |[0-5]% |[0-5]% |[0-5]% |[0-5]% |[0-5]% |[0-5]% |

United (one-stop) |[0-5]% |[0-5]% |[0-5]% |[0-5]% |[5-10]% |[0-5]% |

US Airways (one-stop) |[0-5]% |[0-5]% |[0-5]% |[0-5]% |[0-5]% |[0-5]% |

Total |100% |100% |100% |100% |100% |100% |

Source: Market reconstruction

(i) Manchester-Las Vegas

(225) In the Winter 2011 and Summer 2012 IATA seasons, [100 000-200 000] passengers [141] travelled by air between Manchester and Las Vegas (McCarran International Airport - LAS).

(226) [60-70]% of the passengers on this route travelled via non-stop services. Both in Winter 2011 and in Summer 2012 IATA seasons, [80-90]% of the passengers travelled on non-premium services between Manchester and Las Vegas.

(227) Virgin offers two weekly non-stop services between Manchester and Las Vegas [142] .

(228) Delta for its part offers only one weekly one-stop services between Manchester and Las Vegas (LAS) via Atlanta (ATL).

(229) Other scheduled airlines active on this route only offer one-stop services. BA / AA offer between three and four daily one-stop services from Manchester (MAN) to Las Vegas (LAS) via London Heathrow, London Gatwick, New York (JFK) and Chicago (ORD). United [143] and US Airways [144] also offer one-stop services from Ma