In name only.
When VA Int has separate management and publishes separate financials I'll believe that statement.
The network changes as various shareholders have moved in and out of VAH has been fairly informative.
I think people get carried away by this. VA went to AUH in a similar way to QF going to Dubai - to tap into the broader network of one of the ME3. It also coincided with spare capacity in the 77W fleet. When it was clear it wasn't working, the route ended. It was only, what, 3 times a week?
The Perth-AUH announcement was bungled but was scratched - not something you'd expect if EY really was pulling the strings. It was just a dumb route and use of 330s.
If shareholding did dictate destinations, you'd have thought VA would be into Singapore long before Hong Kong.
Why would SQ want that? Both SQ and TR can fly into Australia as many times as they like, SQ has nothing to gain with VA also competing in SIN.
SQ has different motives, what it wants from VA is it’s FF base and it’s domestic network in Australia in order for those pax to feed into SQ - making their own planes fuller. It’s a win win situation for both parties as VA’s long haul international network is quite sparse.
All shareholders have different strategic motives for acquiring a stake in VA. SQ is about the FF base and domestic network whilst Hainan is more about accessing Hong Kong and China due to bilateral contraints.
I don't necessarily disagree. It's all kind of an implied conspiracy and the original proposition I'm responding to was that VA flies to the international destinations according to its shareholder airlines' sinister machinations.
Reasons for a SIN flight? I dunno, maybe aircraft availability/fleet utilisation. Brand building. Service consistency. Blah blah etc. Again you assume this is SQ's decision to make. They're all airlines before they're shareholders and they'll do what they think is strategically best. If it doesn't work, they'll pull out... see: AUH. And no one airline has majority control, so it's even less convincing. I'm not even sure if Boards control individual route decisions.
Clearly VA saw value in Hong Kong and a large part of that is probably its strategic link with HX, as an airline rather than a shareholder, giving great lounge access and onward connections to China and a local pax base. Possibly even a stepping stone to mainland China, though I doubt that's coming about. Mutually beneficial in the meantime.
They clearly don't see that in Singapore. But SQ is a shareholder! Or any of the other HNA hubs. But HNA is a shareholder! AUH was tried, akin to Qantas at DXB, but they withdrew. But EY is a shareholder! The shareholder conspiracy fails.