While giving its long-pending clearance, Singapore's fair trade watchdog has ruled that the alliance "by its nature" has potential to adversely impact competition in the country, but "on the balance" the efficiencies from the deal outweighs the anti-competitive effect.
Over a year after the deal being announced in April 2013, the Singapore regulator announced in June this year that it has launched a public scrutiny of Jet-Etihad alliance to probe any possible violation of competition laws in the country.
The deal finally got consummated late last year after clearance by various Indian regulators including fair trade watchdog CCI (Competition Commission of India) and capital markets regulator Sebi.
However, the deal came under scanner of the Competition Commission of Singapore (CCS), as the alliance "relates to the provision of international air passenger transport services (and associated support services), with a specific focus on the Singapore origin and destination city pairs".
Incidentally, the CCS approval comes at a time when Jet Airways has reported a quarterly net profit on stand-alone basis for the first time since 2012, helped by a one-time income from sale of its loyalty programme to Etihad.
On consolidated basis also, Jet has managed to narrow its losses by about 96 per cent to Rs 43 crore in the quarter ended September 30, as against a whopping net loss of Rs 999 crore in the year-ago period.
CCS said that it examined the alliance in view of the markets for provision of international scheduled air passenger services and air freight services on the affected Singapore origin and destination city pairs.
"After reviewing submissions provided by the Parties and various stakeholders, CCS finds that the Proposed Commercial Alliance will, by its nature, have the object of preventing, restricting or distorting competition within Singapore.
"However, given that the Proposed Commercial Alliance has minimal adverse impact on competition in the Relevant Markets, CCS is satisfied that, on the balance, the efficiencies accrued from the Proposed Commercial Alliance outweighs the anti-competitive effect of the Proposed Commercial Alliance and therefore the Proposed Commercial Alliance is excluded from section 34 of the Act," it said in its 28-page order.
You’ve reached your limit of {{free_limit}} free articles this month.
Subscribe now for unlimited access.
Already subscribed? Log in
Subscribe to read the full story →
Smart Quarterly
₹900
3 Months
₹300/Month
Smart Essential
₹2,700
1 Year
₹225/Month
Super Saver
₹3,900
2 Years
₹162/Month
Renews automatically, cancel anytime
Here’s what’s included in our digital subscription plans
Exclusive premium stories online
Over 30 premium stories daily, handpicked by our editors


Complimentary Access to The New York Times
News, Games, Cooking, Audio, Wirecutter & The Athletic
Business Standard Epaper
Digital replica of our daily newspaper — with options to read, save, and share


Curated Newsletters
Insights on markets, finance, politics, tech, and more delivered to your inbox
Market Analysis & Investment Insights
In-depth market analysis & insights with access to The Smart Investor


Archives
Repository of articles and publications dating back to 1997
Ad-free Reading
Uninterrupted reading experience with no advertisements


Seamless Access Across All Devices
Access Business Standard across devices — mobile, tablet, or PC, via web or app
