Doleque, I'm a bit amused at your naivety, plenty of companies get together even though they are competitors otherwise. Rio Tinto and BHP-Billiton attempted that (got beaten by forces greater than themselves) but do you think they would have even tried going down that path if it wasn't worthwhile? (Incidentally, BHP-Billiton is the product of a merger in itself.) Several examples of banks merging (Commonwealth Bank and Colonial, for one) tell a similar story as does something like the merger between biofuels company Farmacule and AquaCarotene - the list goes on-and-on. That OA and HL are apparently joining forces in a not unusual manner in the real commercial world could well be of mutual benefit to both.
Otherwise, what is unusual in the fact that OZ took over from OA when they lost the contract on legitimate grounds, or that OA took over when OZ suffered a similar fate? Somebody had to take over, that's just the cut and thrust of business in the real world. I understand that the Norfolk contracts are awarded by the Norfolk Administration/Norfolk Air so they could have gone to anyone who'd put in a valid and attractive tender. The fact that the tender opportunities came up because of the termination of the then existing contracts is another fact of life in business. Maybe there's some intrigue, as you indicate, in the way things happened but such stories would abound in every industry worldwide.
"AND now it has come full circle and all are just lovvey fwiends. How cute.
"
Nothing cute about it at all, just business.
====================================================
"Note though, supporters of OA (via this forum) kinda got consumed by it all and bagged OJ/HeavyLift et all to the nth degree."
Maybe, but those views doubtfully represent those of the respective managements. What's the relevance?