Maximise your Avios, air miles and hotel points

Competition and Markets Authority accepts deal to close BA/AA transatlantic investigation

Links on Head for Points may support the site by paying a commission.  See here for all partner links.

The long-running UK anti-trust investigation into the transatlantic joint business between American Airlines, Aer Lingus, British Airways, Finnair and Iberia has finally drawn to a close, with the Competition and Markets Authority (CMA) agreeing to accept binding commitments from the airlines.

This brings an end to a process that began in 2018 and had the potential to force BA and its partners to make significant changes to how they work together across the Atlantic.

What was the CMA investigating?

The case centres on the transatlantic joint venture between British Airways, American Airlines, Iberia, Finnair and Aer Lingus. The joint venture allows them to operate as a single business for flights between Europe and the US.

Consider it government-approved collusion, with the involved parties permitted to co-operate once they have the approval of the relevant regulatory bodies.

In practice, this means they can:

  • Coordinate flight schedules and capacity
  • Share pricing and revenue
  • Offer joint marketing and sales
  • Share costs and profits on key routes

Put simply, the five airlines put all the money from transatlantic ticket sales into a pot and share it out under a pre-agreed formula. It makes zero difference to BA if you fly BA, American or Finnair on these routes – BA gets the same cut of your money regardless due to what is known as ‘metal neutrality’.

Joint ventures are the closest form of co-operation in the aviation industry, bar outright acquisition or merger. They are relatively common: Air France, Delta, KLM and Virgin Atlantic operate their own JV across the Atlantic whilst BA, Iberia and Qatar Airways have a joint venture to a whopping 60 countries via Doha.

Both BA and Virgin Atlantic also operate JVs with China Southern and China Eastern respectively. British Airways, Finnair, Iberia and Japan Airlines have a joint venture covering Japan.

In this case, the Atlantic Joint Business Agreement, as it is officially called, was originally approved by the European Commission in 2010, with the CMA taking over as the responsible regulator following Brexit. It initially launched between AA, BA and Iberia, with Finnair joining in 2013 and Aer Lingus in 2021.

In order for it to be approved, the airlines committed to making landing slots available at Heathrow or Gatwick to competitors who wanted to launch London-Dallas, London-Boston, London-Miami, London-Chicago or London-New York. These concessions were binding for ten years.

In 2018, with the initial ten-year approval period coming to an end, the CMA launched an investigation into the Atlantic Joint business in order to “review afresh the competitive impact of the agreement in anticipation of the expiry of the commitments.”

Covid naturally got in the way and the CMA decided to extend the 2010 measures, allowing both the Atlantic Joint Business and the airlines operating flights on the slot remedies to continue. A re-tendering process in late 2023 awarded a number of slots to Virgin Atlantic and Delta, including a new pair of slots on the London – Boston route:

  • London – Boston was awarded to Virgin Atlantic
  • London – Boston continued with Delta Air Lines
  • London – Dallas (via Atlanta) continued with Delta Air Lines
  • London – Miami continued with Virgin Atlantic

In early 2025, the CMA published the joint venture’s proposed remedies for consultation with five airlines responding that the proposals did not go far enough in alleviating competition concerns.

After a bit of back and forth, the Atlantic Joint Business suggested further legally binding commitments and in July the CMA published its intention to accept the proposals.

On 6th August, the CMA formally accepted the binding commitments and announced it was closing the investigation “with no decision being made as to whether the Competition Act 1998 has been infringed.”

What has changed to the Atlantic Joint Business?

After years of back and forth, the CMA has now agreed to accept binding commitments from the airlines to address competition concerns. These include:

  • Giving airline competitors daily slot pairs at London airports for three routes, including to Boston, Miami and Chicago
  • An additional London – Boston slot pair if the overall number of flights operated by competitor airlines on this route (without the above slot remedy) drops below two per day
  • The Atlantic Joint Business airlines flying a minimum number of local passengers (those that start and end their journeys) between London and Dallas each year, which the CMA says will “protect against a reduction in services on the route and help to constrain prices”
  • Support competing airlines on the Boston, Chicago and Miami routes through other measures including connecting passengers on preferential terms

A tender process for slots for the next summer season (from late March to late October 2026) will take place this Autumn, although based on the existing interim measures I think we can expect Virgin Atlantic and Delta to operate most if not all of these.

These commitments will remain in place for at least six years, and possibly longer if the CMA determines that competition has not sufficiently improved.

What does this mean for you?

Not much, given that the new remedies are largely a continuation of the existing, 2010-era conditions.

American Airlines, Aer Lingus, British Airways, Finnair and Iberia will be able to continue operating as a single airline, with all revenue and profits pooled and divided under a secret formula.

The five airlines do not care which of them you fly between Europe and the US, only that you fly one of them rather than any of their competing airlines.

On transatlantic flights you only have the illusion of choice, with three major joint ventures in operation considerably curtailing competition between airlines. These are:

  • The Atlantic Joint Business (American Airlines, Aer Lingus, British Airways, Finnair and Iberia)
  • The Atlantic Plus joint venture (Air Canada, Austrian Airlines, Brussels Airlines, Eurowings, Lufthansa, SWISS and United Airlines)
  • The Air France, Delta, KLM and Virgin Atlantic joint venture

If you want to get even further into the weeds you can see the CMA’s publication of the investigation here.

Comments (51)

  • TimM says:

    It still appears like collusion and anti-competitive. These airlines would not be allowed to merge so why let them operate routes effectively as one airline? It is another failure of the CMA.

    • Rhys says:

      Are you sure they wouldn’t be allowed to merge? In the case of the Atlantic Joint Business, three of the five airlines are already the same company (IAG). Not sure it’s a foregone conclusion that they wouldn’t be able to merge with Finnair…AA I suspect foreign airline ownership rules would get in the way!

      • TimM says:

        Rhys, I think they are testing the competition rules to the limit, if not beyond it. Thankfully for them, the UK government has far more serious issues to concern them at the moment.

        If wars, strikes and public finances get normalised, I would expect the CMA to be either strengthened or replaced with something with sharper teeth.

        • Duck Ling says:

          I do not think that the BA/IB etc etc JV is unique in the world today.

          Joint Ventures and mergers/consolidations are everywhere.

          It is funny, I was just talking with a friend last night about all the charter operators that were about in the late 90’s. Britannia, Flying Colours, Sabre, Futura, Monarch, JMC, Airtours, First Choice, Air 2000, Scandic, Excalibur and more.

          Same in the US with the large scheduled airlines. Once we had AA, United, Delta, TWA, Northwest, US Airways all really large airlines now only the first three exist due to consolidation.

        • Rhys says:

          Allowing three transatlantic joint ventures is no different to allowing three mobile network operators in the UK. The CMA clearly views three competitors as sufficient.

          • HampshireHog says:

            Mmm why not only three supermarkets? Collusion and anti competitive practices are either illegal or frowned on in other sectors. We live in a capitalist economy where private sector businesses are supposed to be fit through competition. Privatisation of such as the water industry where no effective competition exists is proof enough of the fleecing of customers when competition is absent in the private sector. Mobile phone companies are poor comparators to the airline JV’s due to the obvious high fixed cost investment in infrastructure.

          • Magic Mike says:

            There’s a body of research that suggests three mobile operators is insufficient for effective competition. (Didn’t stop the CMA approving the Vodafone -Three merger though)

          • Rhys says:

            I’m not arguing with that, simple pointing out that the CMA clearly believes that having three operators is sufficient in other sectors, so I don’t see why it would see air transport differently!

          • Lady London says:

            Took them a very, very long while to approve the Vodafone / Three merger though, and hey had previously blocked 1 merger with O2 and I think another proposed merger, on those occasions stating 4 networks were necessary for competition to be maintained.

            And yet they accepted Vodafone to take over Three. I have no inside knowledge but I suspect Hutchison (Asian owners of Three) said we want out of the UK regardless of how and the fact that it was Vodafone buying made the difference.

          • ChasP says:

            Its very different Mobile networks require individual infrastructure -inc very unpopular masts. If BA JV was sole user of Heathrow, and Virgin JV had Gatwick then it would be a fair comparison
            What % of UK-USA traffic do these JVs control ?

          • Paul says:

            They clearly don’t look at fares. You can’t get a fag paper between the 3 on fares

  • Alex G says:

    Without knowing how the income is distributed, I find it impossible to understand how JKVs work in practice.

    I’m the case of the Japan JV, flights with JAL are more expensive than flights with BA, so there is competition on price and quality, although why BA should benefit from JAL being more expensive is something of a mystery.

    On TATL, there is competition between the three different JVs, so consumers still have a choice. Personally, I think consumers benefit by being able to mix BA and AA flights (for example) on the same itinerary.

    • Throwawayname says:

      I’m not sure whether there’s publicly available data to support the assertion that one airline in a JV is cheaper than another. The accounting involved must be fiendishly complicated when you start thinking about consolidator fares, corporate contract discounts, inclusion/exclusion/apportionment of connecting segments etc.

    • insider says:

      The JVs are a revenue sharing agreement. It’s been a while since I was there so my memory may be fading, but they work based on a ‘base year’ and the measure is RESK (revenue per equivalent seat). This removes effects of differences in cabin layout etc, and. effectively gives you a revenue per sqm of floorspace.

      The base year (pre-the JV, imagine it was 2010) then says: AA – RESK = 5.1, BA – RESK = 6.2 ….

      Now in 2025, BA’s RESK is 6.3, and AA’s in 5.9. The revenue above the baseline is then shared. In this case, AA has increased more, so the logic is that as this is all due to the JV, this is shared. There will then be a ‘transfer payment’ to BA from AA.

      There are of course lots of flaws with this model, but it’s also very hard to come up with a decent revenue sharing model given the many factors that can influence revenue.

  • Vistaro says:

    This is, in effect, an oligopoly – enabled by slot scarcity at Heathrow and exploited by the JV partners. Everyone in the industry knows it. The passenger foots the bill, the airlines pocket the benefit, and the CMA’s “remedies” tweak the edges without changing the structure.

    • Rich says:

      And that is one of the major unspoken reasons why BA is cool on a third runway.

      • JDB says:

        But BA can’t really grow without a third runway either, albeit such growth would likely be less profitable than currently. BA actually has a bigger issue with expansion than the third runway as almost all the benefits would accrue to other airlines while BA/BA passengers would shoulder most of the cost, so they want to right that.

        They basically make a huge public fuss about any change while being smart enough negotiate more realistically when decisions actually get made.

        • Nico says:

          Totally agreed on 3rd runaway, guess BA can’t publically oppose it, but very negative for them. Also still not sure the new airport fees would be viable in general.

        • G says:

          But that assumes BA are in favour of expansion? Expansion is risky. Why not sit back with a mediocre service on one of the worlds most connected hubs (for now).

          • Nico says:

            BA and Virgin want a different model, where new entrants pay for it, I dont know how realitistic it is.

  • Paul says:

    What does this mean for you?

    Higher fares and lower quality service is what it means.

    • JDB says:

      I don’t think there’s a shred of evidence for those assertions and the professionals who have all the relevant information to analyse the situation disagree with you. Even absent all the detailed data, it’s not difficult to observe the competitive and low absolute levels of transatlantic fares as well as the huge amounts of money airlines are investing in their products.

      • Rich says:

        What might increased runway capacity achieve though? More slots, greater competition, lower fares in premium cabins?

        Imagine 5th freedom flights DOH or DXB – LHR – JFK. Cat and pigeons springs to mind.

        • JDB says:

          Would those airlines really wish to operate those 5F routes though? Apart from the commercial lack of attractiveness for one stop routes, the UK requires all passengers to deplane and pass security at the transit point.

      • Paul says:

        Brunch gate and club suite glacial roll out to name but two pieces of evidence that BA doesn’t need to care. There is no effective competition and no proper oversight.
        In BA heyday, when they lead the world in innovation and service, it was because they feared the yanks, particularly AA.

    • Alex G says:

      What this means for me is that if I want to go to New York for a long weekend in September, I can book with BA and get a return flight from Heathrow to JFK in economy from as little as £300 plus tax, and I have a choice of 12 flights at different times across a 12 hour departure window. Fantastic choice and fantastic value.

      And if add Virgin/Delta into the search, I can see that there is no significant difference in price between the two competing JVs, which suggests that competition is reducing prices to the lowest viable level.

      Do I really want BA and AA flights leaving at the same time to the same destination? No thanks. That would limit my choice.

      • Throwawayname says:

        It also means that, due to two out of the three JVs using LHR as a hub, the only transatlantic flights from BHX are the TUI services to MBJ and CUN which aren’t even seasonal in the traditional summer/winter sense as their schedule is mostly built around UK school holidays!

        But I suspect there’s little/no accounting for that sort of thing – the CMA don’t know what they don’t know and, if they’re anything like the rest of the public sector, won’t have much understanding of the concept of opportunity cost.

        • Throwawayname says:

          (note: According to Wikipedia, TUI might have one or two extra Caribbean destinations running on an even more sporadic basis than the two I mentioned above)

      • John33 says:

        Please tell me where you found that price. What dates? It doesn’t exist.

        • Rob says:

          Magic word is ‘plus tax’ although BA Low Fare Finder shows £368 as the cheapest return on offer in September.

  • JDB says:

    The CMA also confirmed yesterday the allocation of a slot pair to Riyadh Air as part of IAG’s ongoing commitments from the purchase of bmi.

  • Ivan says:

    AA and BA could hardly be accused of constraining capacity on transatlantic routes, which would be anti-competitive.

    BA has added a significant number of routes since the joint business launched: Austin, Cincinnati, Nashville, New Orleans, Pittsburgh, Portland, San Diego.

    Many of these would not be viable without the support of traffic sold by AA.

    • John says:

      Exactly this. From a BA perspective, these ROUTES would vanish almost overnight without the JV with AA.

      With Virgin, I suspect they would vanish entirely if their JV with Delta was removed.

      • Throwawayname says:

        See above comment re BHX. The same applies to a lot of airports all over Europe (I’m not familiar enough with the situation within the US).

        Do people really believe that there would still be no US airline flying from their hub(s) to Birmingham, Lyon, Düsseldorf, Bucharest, or Zagreb (when they even do seasonals to DBV!) if the cartel wasn’t in place? Not even one of the US3 airlines going from one hub to one of those destinations?

      • David says:

        Doesn’t Delta own 49% of VS?

    • Lumma says:

      I thought the likes of Cincinnati and Nashville were highly subsided by those respective cities?

      • BA Flyer IHG Stayer says:

        Subsidised yes but ‘highly’ no.

        They are paid to get the route going but subsidies don’t last forever and require the airlines to deliver a specific number of passengers for them to continue though most are to prime the pump for a couple of years or so.

      • John says:

        BNA had some subsidy when it began but that tapered off. The route stands on its own and progressed from 4x weekly on a 788 to this summer 2x daily on a 777 and BA roadshow documents to investors noted it was one of the most profitable routes per mile in their system.

        The Nashville airport did landing fee abatements (which cost them very little) and that amounted to $3m total from 2018-2024 when it ended. The State of TN provided up to $1.5m in subsidy if the route became unprofitable in the wintertime (to keep it year round, rather than seasonal) but there’s no evidence that was ever used.

  • D1 says:

    Will be glad to see more competition on the Chicago route. Used to regularly see decent J offers before c.2018 and since then is almost always not included in the best transatlantic sales.

    • Lady London says:

      Yea it’s interesting how often connecting via Chicago can be a better price than just to Chicago.

  • PeterK says:

    Good to see the CMA finally recognising the very high fares on the LHR-DFW point to point market and attempting some commitment to grow the market.

Leave a comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Please click here to read our data protection policy before submitting your comment

The UK's biggest frequent flyer website uses cookies, which you can block via your browser settings. Continuing implies your consent to this policy. Our privacy policy is here.