Public Consultation on Revised Guidance Note for Passenger Airline Alliance Agreements

On 25 February 2026, the Competition and Consumer Commission of Singapore (“CCS“) announced that it is seeking feedback on its updated Passenger Airline Guidance Note for alliance agreements between airlines (“PAGN 2026“). The revised PAGN 2026 will supersede the existing Passenger Airline Guidance Note published in 2018. The consultation period ended on 11 March 2026.

The updated PAGN 2026 provides guidance to assist airlines in their considerations of when notification is advisable, how CCS will assess competitive effects and efficiencies, and – building on past CCS’s experience – the types of commitments by airlines under an Airline Alliance arrangement which could be assessed as non-compliant with the Competition Act 2004 (“CA“). The PAGN 2026 also further refines the existing streamlined assessment process first introduced in the 2018 guidance note. The proposed revisions are intended to facilitate more efficient and predictable reviews while supporting a competitive aviation sector, aligned with Singapore’s broader economic objectives.

Key aspects of the proposed PAGN 2026 are briefly considered below.

When Airline Alliances Should Notify CCS

Airlines must assess whether an existing or proposed alliance risks infringing the section 34 prohibition under the CA and may apply to CCS for an assessment as to whether their alliances or intended alliances are likely to infringe the CA.

To assist this assessment, CCS highlights several screening factors relevant to the decision whether to notify, including:

1. Route overlaps: Alliances are more likely to attract scrutiny where the partners overlap on origin–destination city pairs.
2. Market shares: Generally, alliances may not have an appreciable adverse effect on competition where the partners’ aggregate share does not exceed 20% on any affected route, provided the agreement generates operational efficiencies.
3. Passenger volumes: Where volumes on overlapping routes are insignificant, the competitive impact may be limited and notification may be unnecessary.
4. Code-share and interline agreements: Typically do not require notification unless they involve coordination on prices, schedules or capacity.

Re-purposed Streamlined Process and Proposed Three-Step Approach

Under the existing 2018 guidance note, a streamlined review process was available upon application by the airlines, subject to CCS’s assessment of whether the streamlined process was appropriate in a given case.

Under the proposed PAGN 2026, CCS is considering the adoption of a re-purposed streamlined process for the assessment of all passenger airline alliance agreements, removing the requirement for a special application and dispensing with the former eligibility criteria. The Phase 1 review of 30 working days and Phase 2 review of 120 working days will continue to apply. In the absence of commitment discussions, CCS envisages that both Phase 1 and Phase 2 will take a maximum of 150 working days.

In addition, CCS proposes the introduction of a structured Three-Step Approach with specific milestones for commitment discussions within the streamlined process:

1. Step One (by Day 30 of Phase 1): CCS will identify and communicate any competition concerns to the airlines involved. Airlines may begin engaging CCS on potential commitments to address the competition concerns at this stage, or earlier where appropriate.

2. Step Two (by Day 40 of Phase 2, Day 70 overall): Airlines should submit their commitments proposal for market testing purposes. CCS may engage further with the airlines following market feedback and request refinements to the commitments.

3. Step Three (by Day 90 of Phase 2, Day 120 overall): Airlines must submit the final set of their commitments proposal which sufficiently address CCS’s competition concerns.

CCS will then decide whether to accept the commitments or to issue an unfavourable decision. CCS may also terminate the review of the commitments and proceed to issue an unfavourable decision if the milestones under the second or third steps are not met by the airlines. 

CCS’s Approach to Assessing Commitments

If airlines anticipate that the passenger airline alliance agreement is likely to give rise to competition concerns and are unlikely to satisfy the Net Economic Benefit (“NEB“) exclusion, the airlines may submit commitments to CCS at any juncture during the review process.

CCS assesses all proposed commitments on a case-by-case basis depending on the specific competition concerns identified. The PAGN 2026 outlines key considerations that airlines should factor when formulating their commitments for CCS’s assessment, as summarised below. 

1. Capacity commitments: CCS considers capacity commitments to be one of the most pragmatic solutions to address competition concerns arising from an airline alliance, as they generally disincentivise airlines from raising prices. In instances where the committed capacity level pertains only to the airlines’ Full Service Airlines and not Low Cost Carriers’ (“LCCs“), CCS has suggested that the airlines involved can provide its respective LCCs’ figures in the monitoring trustee reports as part of their commitment obligations to assist CCS in monitoring.

2. Capacity growth factor: CCS generally accepts airline capacity commitments that are appropriate and sufficient to address competition concerns based on sustained demand on the relevant routes, without requiring significantly higher initial capacity commitments. However, to maintain the relevance of commitments as a market grows, CCS considers a mechanism to increase seat capacity by a reasonable amount to be essential. In previous cases, CCS has accepted commitments that include growth trigger events, where the airlines would be required to increase their capacity commitments when specific conditions are conjunctively met.

3. Non-fulfilment period: CCS recognises that the dynamic nature of the airline industry necessitates flexibility in meeting capacity commitments. Where the airlines are temporarily unable to fulfil their weekly capacity obligations, CCS deems it reasonable for a non-fulfilment allowance to be incorporated where appropriate. CCS has in past cases typically granted no more than three weeks out of 52 weeks in a given year during which the airlines may fall short without it amounting to a breach.

4. Other forms of commitments: Generally, CCS does not accept fare commitments as an alternative to capacity commitments, as fare commitments would unduly restrict the airlines’ ability and incentive to compete on prices and are subject to several disadvantages regarding specification risks, distortion risks and monitoring costs. Separately, the divestment of slots from the airlines to its competitors or potential competitors is not a viable option in Singapore’s context, as airlines do not own the slots allocated to them.

Relevant Markets and Net Economic Benefits

Finally, the PAGN 2026 will also cover CCS’s approach to defining relevant market(s) and evaluating NEB for airline alliance agreements. This includes the following:

1. The assessment of claimed benefits arising from a passenger airline alliance agreement.
2. The recommended approach for substantiating claimed benefits under the NEB framework. Airlines claiming NEB must substantiate objective, causal, and significant efficiencies that outweigh anti-competitive effect.

Whilst it is not certain how soon the revised PAGN 2026 will come into effect following the close of the public consultation, it is important for industry players to familiarise themselves with the likely changes and take steps in advance of the PAGN 2026 coming into effect. Amongst others, airlines with existing passenger alliance agreements should review their arrangements in light of the proposed changes. The re-purposed streamlined process may affect how future renewals or variations are handled. Airlines contemplating new alliances or renegotiating existing ones should also familiarise themselves with the milestones under the three-step approach and begin formulating potential commitments well before filing a notification. With established Competition and Aviation practices, Rajah & Tann is well placed to advise airlines on compliance strategy, notification decisions and the development of robust commitments.

Click on the following links for more information (available on the CCS website at www.ccs.gov.sg):

• CCS Media Release titled “CCS Seeks Feedback on Revised Guidance Note for Passenger Airline Alliance Agreements”
• CCS Consults on the Revised Passenger Airline Guidance Note
• PAGN 2026 Public Consultation Paper