The joint ventures are airline and geographic area specific and not alliance specific.
Hence, for example, the Anti-Trust Immunity between BA
for flights between Japan and the EU will exclude oneworlkd partners CX
(who operate Japan-Hong Kong-EU) and AA
(who operate Japan-USA-EU).
Similarly the ATI granted to AA
covers flights by these airlines, but not any other oneworld partners, between the EEA (EU, Switzerland and Norway) and North America (the USA, Canada and Mexico). Hence it does not include AB
who, of course, are now a oneworld member and operate directly between Germany and both the USA and Canada. Indeed it has been reported since the investment of EY
that they would be seeking ATI (even though EY
is not a oneworld member). However I cannot recall any mention of the geographic area for which they were planning to seek such immunity. I assume would be between Germany, the EU or the EEA and Abu Dhabi, the United Arab Emirates or the Gulf Cooperation Council Area.
As far as the detailed arrangements of the JV
's are concerned this would be down to the individual airlines to decide between themselves but within the constraints of the immunity granted to them by the competition authorities. The only thing I can add here are the comments made by then BA
CEO, Willie Walsh, at a British Airways investors' meeting in London in May 2010.
Walsh pointed out that the BA
-QF Joint Services Agreement had been in force since 1995. It covers BA
operations between Australia and Europe, Australia and Asia and Asia and Europe. It provides for both revenues and costs on these routes to be shared. Walsh said that the BA
experience of operating this BA
-QF JSA was relevant to the then recently granted but not then implemented North Atlantic ATI. He said that this experience would ensure that North Atlantic ATI would be quickly and efficiently implemented. This suggests that the BA
/QF JSA and AA
/AY/.BA/IB/RJ North Atlantic ATI are operationally very similar if not (other than from a geographic perspective) identical.