Search results

Air carriers and aircraft manufacturers are investing in technologies and strategies to reduce fuel consumption and associated emissions. This chapter reviews related issues to assess airline fuel efficiency and offers various empirical evidences from our recent work that focuses on the U.S. domestic passenger air transportation system. We begin with a general presentation of four methods (ratio-based, deterministic frontier, stochastic frontier, and data envelopment analysis) and three perspectives for assessing airline fuel efficiencies, the latter covering consideration of only mainline carrier operations, mainline–subsidiary relations, and airline routing circuity. Airline fuel efficiency results in the short run, in particular the correlations of the results from using different methods and considering different perspectives, are discussed. For the long-term efficiency, we present the development of a stochastic frontier model to investigate individual airline fuel efficiency and system overall evolution between 1990 and 2012. Insight about the association of fuel efficiency with market entry, exit, and airline mergers is also obtained.

This chapter provides a survey of alternative methodologies for measuring and comparing productivity and efficiency of airlines, and reviews representative empirical studies. The survey shows the apparent shift from index procedures and traditional OLS estimation of production and cost functions to stochastic frontier methods and Data Envelopment Analysis (DEA) methods over the past three decades. Most of the airline productivity and efficiency studies over the last decade adopt some variant of DEA methods. Researchers in the 1980s and 1990s were mostly interested in the effects of deregulation and liberalization on airline productivity and efficiency as well as the effects of ownership and governance structure. Since the 2000s, however, studies tend to focus on how business models and management strategies affect the performance of airlines. Environmental efficiency now becomes an important area of airline productivity and efficiency studies, focusing on CO₂ emission as a negative or undesirable output. Despite the fact that quality of service is an important aspect of airline business, limited attempts have been made to incorporate quality of service in productivity and efficiency analysis.

This chapter considers the productivity of 77 airlines between 1980 and 2013. We do so by estimating a stochastic frontier and decomposing the total factor productivity growth into efficiency, technical and scale efficiency change. Our results show that, on average, airlines increased productivity over the period but that, while efficiency and technical change improved, scale efficiency results indicate that the average airline moved away from the most productive scale size. This was especially so in the two decades after 1980. Comparisons between geographical areas, business models, networks and alliances are also made.

This chapter examines the impact of recent airline consolidations in the United States on the technical efficiencies of the airlines involved. Data envelopment analysis (DEA) is used to assess the efficiencies, and the consolidations examined are those that occurred among major network carriers between 2005 and 2013. The airline production process is conceptualized as the transformation of labor, fuel, and fleet-wide seating capacity into available seat-miles, or, under an alternative model specification, into user value, as measured by the airline’s operating revenue. Efficiency is conceptualized in terms of minimizing the airline’s usage of the three inputs, given its output level. The analysis seeks to determine whether the airlines that consolidated were more efficient, post-consolidation, than they were prior to consolidation, compared to airlines that did not enter into consolidations. Although there are limitations owing to the small number of airlines in the dataset, the chapter finds no evidence that the consolidations enhanced the efficiencies of the airlines involved, relative to the efficiencies of the airlines that did not enter into consolidations.

This paper aims to develop and test a new way of modeling airline operations and apply it to measure and compare the efficiency of international airlines, with a special focus on deregulation effects. The paper elaborates on the choice of variables, following the early work of Schefczyk (1993) and Scheraga (2004). The value chain of the airlines determines the variables included in three different models. Using data envelopment analysis, the efficiency scores show that North American airlines are more efficient in producing services offered to customers. Few differences are found between regions in allocating service output to match demand. One plausible explanation for this difference is that airlines operate within competitive environments. In a highly competitive market, management decisions focus on productive actions and cost reduction. In a less competitive environment, there is a higher degree of adjustments of the services produced. Using the Malmquist productivity index, measurements reveal that there is a catch-up effect for the European and Asian/South American airlines service production during the studied time period, which was from 1990 to 2003.

In recent years, the airline industry has been growing and transforming rapidly in the Asia-Pacific area. This study analyzes and benchmarks the comparative operational efficiencies of the major Asian air carriers. Data envelopment analysis model and disaggregate output efficiency measures are used to evaluate the operational efficiencies of 31 Asian airlines from 2015 to 2019. The findings suggest that nonflag carriers, low-cost carriers, and high-income regions' carriers have significantly higher levels of efficiency than flag carriers, full-service carriers, and low-income regions' carriers in overall, revenue, and passenger traffic efficiencies. The efficiencies between alliance carriers and nonalliance carriers along with those of ASEAN and non-ASEAN carriers are not significantly different.

European air transport policy, emerged through the confluence of case law and legislation, in four broad areas: liberalization, safety and security, greening, and the external policy. Following the implementation of the single market for air transport, policy shifted to liberalizing and regulating associated services and in recent years to greening, the external aviation policy, and safety and security. Inclusion of air transport in the Environmental Trading Scheme of the European Union exemplifies the European Commission’s proactive stand on bringing the industry in line with emission reduction trajectories of other industries. However, the bid to include flights to third countries in the trading scheme pushed the EU into a controversial position, causing the Commission to halt implementation and to give ICAO time to seek a global multilateral agreement. The chapter also discusses how the nationality clauses in air services agreements breached the Treaty of Rome, and a court ruling to that effect enabled the EC to extend EU liberalization policies beyond the European Union, resulting in the Common Aviation Area with EU fringe countries and the Open Aviation Area with the USA. Another important area of progress was aviation safety, where the EU region is unsurpassed in the world, yet the Commission has pushed the boundary even further, by establishing the European Safety Agency to oversee the European Aviation Safety Management System. Another important area of regulatory development was aviation security, a major focus after the woeful events in 2001, but increasingly under industry scrutiny on costs and effectiveness. The chapter concludes by arguing that in the coming decade, the EU will strive to strengthen its position as a global countervailing power, symbolized in air transport by a leadership position in environmental policy and international market liberalization, exemplified in the EU’s external aviation policy.

Mergers and acquisitions in the transportation sector are typically explained as attempts to capture economies of scale and scope through shared infrastructure and related cost-saving measures. In the airline industry, the past 15 years have seen an increasing number of international mergers and acquisitions that would have been blocked under prior regulatory regimes. This activity suggests that there are indeed gains from increasing airline size.

Such gains may be largely financial in nature. One benefit to a merged airline could be greater market power over particular routes and hubs after merger, as well as improved contract structure and bargaining power in operations, although greater de-regulation and more competition internationally makes these arguments less compelling. In many cases, gains may be unique to specific airlines or operational situations. Thus, the issue addressed in this chapter is whether, in general, increasing the size or scope of airline operations enables them to function more efficiently and whether this effect is sustained across all sizes of airline. More pointedly, the chapter examines whether there exist measurable efficiency gains that can help explain the variety of mergers and acquisitions in the industry.

The global financial meltdown of late 2008 threatened the survival of many banks, insurance companies, automakers, and other institutions, further contributing to the economic slowdown already underway in the United States and abroad. The ensuing recession has negatively impacted on the airline industry in the United States with losses running into billions. In this chapter, we illustrate the use of data envelopment analysis (DEA), an operations research technique, to analyze the operating efficiency of the US airline industry by benchmarking a set of ratios that assess the operating efficiency of a firm against its peers. DEA clearly brings out the airline(s) that is (are) operating more efficiently in comparison to other airlines in the industry, and points out the areas that poorly performing airlines need to improve.