Search results

“Cargo tariffs are agreed through the IATA machinery, and in theory approved by governments….the IATA Tarff Coordination Conferences still agree cargo tariffs on over 200,000 separate routes. But these tariffs bear little relevance to what is actually charged in the marketplace.” (Doganis, 2002)

“The stipulations ICAO standards contain never supersede the primacy of national regulatory requirements. It is always the local, national regulations which are enforced in, and by, sovereign states, and which must be legally adhered to by air operators making use of applicable airspace and airports……ICAO is therefore not an international aviation regulator, just as INTERPOL is not an international police force. We cannot arbitrarily close or restrict a country's airspace, shut down routes, or condemn airports or airlines for poor safety performance or customer service. Should a country transgress a given international standard adopted through our organization, ICAO's function in such circumstances…….is to help countries conduct any discussions, condemnations, sanctions, etc., they may wish to pursue, consistent with the Chicago Convention and the Articles and Annexes it contains under international law.” (ICAO, 2021)

In spite of being a growing liberalized global industry served by many firms, much of the international air cargo sector operated as an admitted cartel from 1999 through 2006. Partly due to the way the cartel was discovered, it seems very little empirical analysis to date has been done about the case. We use publicly available airline data to examine whether a diligent antitrust authority could have identified cartel/collusive behavior using established empirical methods. Our findings point to a regulatory failure in an industry whose long-standing business practices effectively “slipped through the cracks,” failing to protect the many shippers of air cargo.

This chapter reviews the effects of air transport liberalization, and investigates the roles played by airport-airline vertical arrangements in liberalizing markets. Our investigation concludes that liberalization has led to substantial economic and traffic growth. Such positive outcomes are mainly due to increased competition and efficiency gains in the airline industry, and positive externalities to the overall economy. Liberalization allows airlines to optimize their networks, and thus may introduce substantial demand and financial uncertainty to airports. Vertical arrangements between airlines and airports may offer a wide range of benefits to the parties involved, yet such arrangements could also lead to airline entry barriers which reduce the effects of liberalization. Three approaches have been developed to model the effects of liberalization in complex market conditions, which include the analytical, econometric and computational network methods. These approaches should be selectively utilized in policy studies on liberalization.

In spite of the extensive literature on the regulation of air transport services, until the development of the Quantitative Air Services Agreements Review (QUASAR) methodology no systematic review existed of the degree of liberalization granted through air services agreements. The chapter lays out QUASARs key features, and presents the main results its application has generated. It then elaborates on how the methodology could be further refined and extended to other segments of the air transport industry yet uncovered. Based on QUASAR, the chapter critically evaluates some commonly held beliefs about the liberalization of international passenger transport and then moves on to explore the technical feasibility of creating a liberal multilateral regime for air transport services. QUASAR has demonstrated that, although the air transport sector has experienced some liberalization over the past few years, this has been, overall, rather marginal. The skies are not truly open.

The rapid expansion of low-cost carriers (LCCs) in East and Southeast Asia has brought fierce competition to full-service carriers (FSCs). Competition in the air transport market is at an all-time high, thanks to the ongoing liberalization in air transport in the last several decades. This chapter assesses the efficiency performance of major FSCs in this region. It provides indicative evidence of the close association between FSCs' efficiency, and air transport liberalization and LCCs penetration. Singapore Airlines and Asiana are identified as the star companies in this region for their ability to achieve higher efficiency and, at the same time, report positive growth in productivity.

This chapter examines the unique regulatory environment that trans-border air carriers work within. Using a U.S. perspective the concept of the bilateral air agreement is outlined and discussed. These agreements form the basis for how two countries decide to share their airspaces among their air carriers. The trend has been toward more liberal approaches. To explain this trend the concepts of the Freedoms of the Air and Open Skies are discussed. Other liberalization programs are also discussed; specifically, co-terminalization and cabotage. Finally, the air cargo transfer operations at Ted Stevens Anchorage International Airport are used as an example to highlight a rare example of unilateral liberalization on the part of the United States.

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.

The purpose of this paper is to examine, with a specific reference to the Indian economy, the interface between the World Trade Organization (WTO)/General Agreement on Trade in Services (GATS) disciplines and aviation services; the challenges to the incorporation of air services regimes into the world trade treaty; and the alternative routes for the liberalization of air services markets.

The paper adopts the doctrinal approach to legal research in analyzing literature on the integration of air services into the multi-lateral trading system. The paper takes a critical look at the current state of the aviation industry, the rationales and routes for liberalization, as well as the challenges facing it.

The paper reveals the state of the Indian aviation market and its preparedness for integration into the global market system. The merit of a gradual approach is examined.

The WTO framework offers the traditional route for the liberalization of trade. However, since the inception of air travel, air traffic rights have been traded between countries on a bilateral basis, involving concepts of sovereignty over national airspace. The paper offers some ideas on how the two can be integrated.

The research draws on recent events in the Indian aviation sector. It is of importance, especially to other emerging economies with similar social-economic indicators. It objectively questions the rationales for liberalization or globalization and its merits.

As the wave of liberalization and deregulation have accelerated to relieve rigid controls over airline routes, capacity, and fare setting regimes, Low Cost Carriers (LCCs) have emerged especially in local aviation markets since the 1970s.

This paper has studied the effects of LCC's entry into the domestic aviation market which was pre-occupied by two major carriers, Korean Air (KAL) and Asiana Airlines. Through a simple model describing two situations, prior and post to LCC's entry, we analyzed changes and trends of each airline's output and profit based on the Cournot and two-stage Stackelberg game equilibrium.

In summary, our conclusion consists of five points: (1) Even though JIN Air's entry reduced KAL's respective output and profit, the more JIN Air produces, the higher the joint-profit of KAL and JIN Air is, (2) From the joint-profit aspect, increasing KAL's output to a level than JIN Air's is more profitable on the Gimpo-Jeju route, on the other hand, increasing JIN Air's output higher than KAL's is more profitable on the Jeju-Busan route, (3) Even though JIN Air's entry increase Asiana Airline's output, the more JIN Air produces, the less Asiana Airlines's profit is, (4) Total output in markets as well as total profits of firms will increase under certain conditions, (5) KAL and JIN Air tend to get caught in an unresolved conflict on level of LCC cost.

Recently, China has taken steps to open up its international air transport services at a higher level during its 14th Five-Year Period. As one step, a number of pilot free trade zones (PFTZs) have been launched with different tasks for foreign economic cooperation based on institutional innovation. Some cities in these zones have been chosen to develop airport economy by liberalization of the fifth freedom traffic right (FFTR). Considering the different economic situations between passenger and cargo market following the outbreak of the coronavirus, this chapter focuses on its implication of the FFTR for air cargo and airport economy in these cities. Some air service agreements (ASAs) between China and other countries have contained the arrangements on the FFTR. However, this study argues that such arrangements are too general and need further negotiation and policy support for practical utilization. FFTR liberalization may drive cargo growth and economic development in the cities which have gained such policy support, but it may also bring competitive pressure on Chinese airlines. Furthermore, the FFTR liberalization policies do not guarantee an immediate positive result in fostering airport economy, and much work is needed for better utilization of the FFTR in China.