NZ to end QF codeshares

[justinbrett]

I think there is a problem with terminology here.

Every code-share is the subject of an agreement.
There are three kinds of code-share agreement: parallel, connecting, and unilateral.

An example of a parallel operation is Qantas and LATAM operating SYD-SCL.
Each operates flights on the route and each sells seats on the other's flights with their own code.

An example of a connecting code-share is Qantas and AIrFrance from Australia to Paris via Singapore.
QF operates flights from AU ports to SIN. AF does not.
AF operates flights SIN-CDG, QF does not.
But each airline can sell flights for the entire route, using their own codes on the sector operated by the other airline.

An example of the third is the arrangement between QF & EK.
QF operates no flights PER-DXB or DXB-CDG, for example.
But you can book a ticket PER-DXB-CDG on flights operated by EK using the QF code.

But in this example, the term "unilateral" is a reference to the mode of operation of the flights.
Unlike in the first two examples, QF does not operate any of the flights in the third example.
In that sense, the operation of the flights is "unilateral".
Only EK operates the flights.

However QF cannot just sell seats on any other airline's flights with a QF code without their permission.
Even a "unilateral code-share" must be the subject of a code-share agreement.
Which may also be subject to regulatory approval.

So if NZ has withdrawn from its code-share agreement with QF, QF cannot simply decide to continue selling tickets on NZ flights with a QF flight number, as if nothing had happened. That cannot be a unilateral decision.

It’s a commonly used term in the industry. I think you’re making too much of it.

It just means that only one airline is using its codes on the others flight, and not the reciprocal. It doesn’t mean they’re doing it without authorisation.

 

[esseeeayeenn]

Sorry but most lawyers think words are important.

 

[justinbrett]

Sorry but most lawyers think words are important.

You’ve got this wrong.

https://www.accc.gov.au/media-release/accc-authorisation-for-virgin-australia-to-sell-and-market-air-new-zealand%E2%80%99s-trans-tasman-services

“The ACCC has granted authorisation to allow unilateral code sharing arrangements between Virgin Australia and Air New Zealand that will boost travellers’ fare choices on trans-Tasman routes.”

 

[esseeeayeenn]

You’ve got this wrong.

https://www.accc.gov.au/media-release/accc-authorisation-for-virgin-australia-to-sell-and-market-air-new-zealand%E2%80%99s-trans-tasman-services

“The ACCC has granted authorisation to allow unilateral code sharing arrangements between Virgin Australia and Air New Zealand that will boost travellers’ fare choices on trans-Tasman routes.”

I am sorry to continue but no, I have not.
This is exactly the type of arrangement which falls within the third category of agreement which I was talking about.
It is not unilateral in the sense that VA can do it without NZ's consent.

From the article you quoted:

Virgin Australia can now place its airline code on trans-Tasman routes operated by Air New Zealand, which are sold in Australia and originate in Australia (VA coded trans-Tasman services). The codeshare rights are provided on the condition that Air New Zealand specifies the fares which Virgin Australia may market and resupply those itineraries.
"We are satisfied that the sharing of resources by these airlines will provide consumers with more ticketing and price options on trans-Tasman routes,” ACCC Deputy Chair Mick Keogh said.
“Virgin Australia and Air New Zealand will also be able to jointly offer discounts and a range of marketing options to businesses, and eligible Virgin Australia customers will have access to Velocity Frequent Flyer program benefits and international lounge access.”
The code sharing arrangements do not apply to routes where Virgin Australia is currently, or decides to start, operating its own services in competition with Air New Zealand.
“We consider that these conditions significantly limit the potential for the code sharing arrangements to lead to anti-competitive behaviour,” Mr Keogh said.

Further, it is clear from the ACCC public register site that this was a joint application by both VA & NZ:

On 17 November 2023, Virgin Australia Airlines Pty Ltd on behalf of itself and its related bodies corporate, Virgin Australia International Airlines Pty Ltd and its related bodies corporate (collectively, Virgin Australia) and Air New Zealand Limited (Air New Zealand) (together, the Applicants) lodged an application for authorisation to authorisation in respect of a unilateral trans-Tasman code share arrangement for a period of 5 years.

And again lower down:

Applicant(s) ​

• VIRGIN AUSTRALIA AIRLINES PTY LTD
• VIRGIN AUSTRALIA INTERNATIONAL AIRLINES PTY LTD
• AIR NEW ZEALAND LIMITED

So this is not unilateral in the sense that one party is doing it without an agreement with the other party.
It is am agreement for a code-share which falls within the "unilateral" category in the sense to which I referred:

• VA is placing its code on NZ services;
• NZ is not placing its code on any VA services;
• VA is only marketing the relevant flights: it is not operating any of the relevant flights; and
• NZ is operating all of the relevant flights.

So in the context of the OP to which I replied, if NZ has decided to end its code-share agreement with QF, it is not open to QF to unilaterally decide to continue to market NZ flights with a QF code number, or otherwise continue as if the code-share agreement were still in place.

Context is key.