|Quoting ikramerica (Reply 1):|
The EU is just figuring this out now, after approving it? Some of us questioned how granting monopoly pricing powers on many routes was advisable.
|Quoting mutu (Reply 6):|
Remember BA/AA had to remedy competition concerns on a couple of routes...likely to be nothing more than that
|Quoting ikramerica (Reply 8):|
How do AF/DL remedy AMS/CDG-ATL? CDG-MSP? CDG-DTW? There's no competition at all now, but who else would want to fly those? Nobody. Only way to remedy it is to revoke JV on those routes.
|Quoting SuperCaravelle (Reply 9):|
I don't think that's the issue. I'm no expert, but there will always be many individual routes served by only one carrier.
|Quoting enilria (Reply 11):|
Some of those routes have both AF and DL metal. I think they could be saying that DL and AF should be competing if they are the only carriers in the route.
|Quoting ikramerica (Reply 7):|
There's no competition at all now, but who else would want to fly those? Nobody. Only way to remedy it is to revoke JV on those routes.
|Quoting usdcaguy (Reply 15):|
Clearly, the AF/KL/DL/AZ JV SUPPORTS the flying of more routes than it hinders it terms of competition. Although the above flights I listed end up increasing the overall transatlantic market share of DL/AF/KL/AZ, travelers would likely see far fewer flights offered in the absence of a JV due to the carriers' attempts to reduce capacity and increase yield to cover the cost of fuel. These actions would ultimately harm consumers by giving them fewer flight options. This makes me think that this review is more about market share between the carriers/JVs than it is about protecting consumers.