The airlines have been given permission to take a coordinated approach to a range of issues, including pricing, revenue management, schedules, capacity and routes flown.

“The ACCC considers that the joint venture is likely to assist Virgin and Delta to compete more effectively against the incumbents on the routes – Qantas and United Airlines,” said ACCC chairman Graeme Samuel.

He added that the partnership is likely to “give rise to route connectivity benefits for consumers, enhanced route coverage and schedules, and more sustainable competition on the routes”. Another benefit the ACCC saw was access to lower fares on each other’s domestic networks.

The joint venture must still attain antitrust immunity from the US Department of Transportation.

The airlines seek immunity from court action that may be considered anti-competitive, as the joint venture will involve coordination on issues including pricing, revenue management, schedules, capacity and routes flown.

The ACCC’s chairman Graeme Samuel said authorisation would be granted once they could ascertain that public
benefit outweighed any public detriment, particularly with regard to the existing players on the trans-Pacific route.

“The ACCC considers that the joint venture is likely to assist Virgin Blue and Delta to compete more effectively against the incumbents on the routes, Qantas and United Airlines,” he said.

“The entry of Virgin Blue and Delta on the trans-Pacific routes has created strong competition on price and service in the market for passenger transport. The ACCC expects that this would continue to be the case under the new arrangements to the benefit of consumers.’

The draft determination is available on the ACCC website, with submissions welcome until November 17.

In a statement, the ACCC alleged that between 2001 and 2006, Thai Airways entered into arrangements or understandings with other international air cargo carriers in specific countries that had the purpose or effect of fixing the price of fuel surcharges and security surcharges that were applied to air cargo carried by Thai Airways and other airlines.

The arrangements occurred in Hong Kong, Indonesia, Singapore, and Thailand, according to the ACCC.

The ACCC has already penalised a number of air cargo providers for price-fixing offences, including Qantas and British Airways, as well as Société Air France, Koninklijke Luchtvaart Maatschappij NV, Martinair Holland NV and Cargolux International Airlines SA.

It has also instituted proceedings against Singapore Airlines, Cathay Pacific, Emirates and PT Garuda Indonesia.

The new arrangements have been designed to unlock constraints at grain ports, and promote the development of a wheat export marketing industry that is efficient, competitive and advances the needs of wheat growers in a transparent manner.

In a release, the ACCC stated the arrangements would include:

• Robust prohibitions against each port operator anti-competitively discriminating in favour of its own wheat trading business or hindering access to its port terminal services;
• Clear and transparent port loading protocols in managing demand for the port terminal service, for example in making decisions about the allocation of shipping slots;
• Obligations on the port operators to negotiate in good faith with eligible wheat exporters around price and non-price offers of access to port terminal services;
• If negotiation fails, the ability of wheat exporters to seek mediation or binding arbitration on price and non-price terms of access to port terminal services;
• For wheat exporters who wish to take a standard offer, a set of clear and certain minimum non-price terms and conditions of access to port terminal services, and an obligation on each port operator to publish its standard
• prices for port terminal services at least one month prior to commencement of each new wheat exporting season; and
• Obligations on each port operator to publish certain port terminal information to provide greater transparency over its operations.

For more information, see the ACCC’s Wheat Export site.

The Australian Competition and Consumer Commission (ACCC) said it had revoked the vessel management system which allowed miners to operate under a berth rationing programme and effectively gave coal producers the power to allocate port capacity among themselves.

The ACCC gave the Port Waratah Coal Services (PWCS), the New South Wales Government and the Newcastle Coal Infrastructure Group (NCIG) until August 31 to agree on a longer- term proposal to the the ship queue problem.

The ACCC said as only two of the parties met the deadline the interim approval would be revoked immediately.

According to the miners, the end of the system could potentially lead to an increase in vessel waiting times in the coming months as well as higher demurrage costs.

The New South Wales Government will discuss with the companies tomorrow to introduce short-term measures to help manage coal exports following the withdrawal of the ACCC’s authorisation.

IP Australia has logged complaints from trade mark owners who have received unsolicited correspondence requesting payment for publication of the trade mark owner’s trade mark details in a register.

IP Australia has stated that the company is not in any way associated with their organisation and has no official or government authority.

“The letters are often designed to trick the account payer into paying for unnecessary services such as domain name registrations, listings on online databases and ads in various publications,” said ACCC deputy chair Michael Schaper. “The end result is the business owner paying for a new listing on a website or in a directory, often of little value.”

IP Australia has advised trade mark owners to check whether the service provider is legitimate and to find out what protection, promotion or value the service will provide before handing over any money.

The ACCC recommends business owners follow these five steps to make sure they get what they pay for:

1. Don’t assume that any ‘renewal’ notice is from your original supplier. You may receive many such offers from operators competing for your business or they could be scammers. Check all the details.
2. Ensure that only authorised employees are responsible for payments and they should have ready access to important dates and suppliers. Update them on any scam or unsolicited service that may be targeting businesses.
3. If the service is something that you would like, shop around to see what deals are available and who are the most reliable suppliers.
4. If you receive letters of demand you may need to get legal advice to understand your rights.
5. Alert your industry association or local business adviser about any offers that you think may be untoward or misleading. They may be able to warn others in your network.

For more information relating to the risks of unsolicited IP services, please visit the IP Australia website.

The ACCC suspects that between 2002 and 2006, “Emirates entered into arrangements or understandings with other international air cargo carriers that had the purpose and effect of fixing the price of certain fuel surcharges, security surcharges and rates that were applied to air cargo carried by Emirates and other airlines.”

Routes to countries including Singapore, Indonesia, Hong Kong, United Arab Emirates and India may have been affected.

The ACCC charge against Emirates follows high profile cases against Qantas and British Airways, as well as financial penalties totalling $41 million against Air France, KLM, Martinair and Cargolux.

Court proceedings against Emirates will start next month. Cases against Singapore Airlines and Cathay Pacific are still being heard.