Gol and Azul defend their codeshare agreement ahead of Cade's ruling on potential antitrust violations.
Companies claim partnership does not harm competition; study points to a 13% reduction in flight offerings.
247 - Gol and Azul submitted new statements to the Administrative Council for Economic Defense (Cade) this Monday (1st), in defense of the codeshare agreement signed in 2024. The information was published by Valor EconômicoThe trial for the case is scheduled for this Wednesday (3).
The protests are in response to a study by the Institute for Research and Studies of Society and Consumption (IPS Consumo), submitted to Cade on August 26. The institute requests that the agreement be analyzed as a merger, pointing to a 13% drop in flight offerings on the 40 routes where the two companies directly competed, between the third quarter of 2024 and the same period in 2025.
Companies' arguments
Gol stated that the codeshare agreement "does not have the objective, nor the capacity, to alter the incentives for companies to compete with each other." Azul, in turn, classified the IPS study as "untimely and opportunistic" and said that it contains "incorrect and unfounded information." The company also criticized the methodology, alleging that the survey does not differentiate between seasonal and regular routes.
The trial at Cade
The CADE tribunal will decide whether the agreement should be treated as an association contract subject to mandatory notification. Possible outcomes range from imposing fines on the companies to waiving any penalty.
The agreement between Gol and Azul was announced in May 2024. In 2025, the companies announced their intention to merge, although this was still in the pre-notification phase with CADE (Brazil's antitrust authority).
Impact on the aviation sector
According to IPS, Azul reduced 142 routes in the second quarter of 2025 compared to the same period in 2024, reaching a total of 652. Gol ended the quarter with 330 routes, nine fewer than the previous year. The study assesses that Azul's atypical reduction compromises connectivity and may affect the consumer.
