Search results

Global sourcing, just‐in‐time inventory control and the growth of the global marketplace have made intermodal transport an increasingly important aspect of distribution and logistics. Discusses intermodal system modelling from the perspective of intermodalism as an integrated transport service rather than as a technology. Reviews current modelling paradigms and implementations and proposes an innovative approach based on the abstract concept of logistical events and treating intermodalism as a sequence of linked events. Addresses some of the technical issues involved in embedding the proposed framework in a traditional network model.

This chapter provides a critical discussion of air to rail mode substitution. Environmental impacts, intermodal competition and integration are considered, examining advantages and disadvantages as well as opportunities and constraints.

Both operation and life-cycle analysis perspectives show that high-speed rail (HSR) is much ‘greener’ than air transport (per seat-km or per passenger-km) provided that the former achieves high load factors and the latter lower load factors and that freed runway capacity is not reused. HSR travel time is its main competitive advantage against air transport, and a 600-km flight is arguably the current limit for robust intermodal effects.

The potential for air–HSR integration at the airport relies on various service, business and technical constraints. Even when it is successful, its environmental benefit appears to be marginal, if not negative, if airport capacity is reused for longer flights. In the current context, such integration appears more like a business opportunity for airlines, airports and train operators rather than a sustainable option. Yet the environmental benefit of integration may be larger within potential integrated transport policies.

This chapter reviews three main issues in the interactions between air transport and high-speed rail (HSR) in China, namely the interaction between low-cost carriers (LCCs) and HSR, HSR speed effect on airlines, and airline–HSR integration. Studies on these three aspects of airline–HSR interactions have yet been well reviewed, and our chapter aims to fill in this gap. In this chapter, we comprehensively survey literature on the topics, especially studies on Chinese markets that have recently witnessed major HSR developments (and have planned further large-scale HSR expansion in the coming years). Our review shows that, first, compared to full-service carriers, LCCs face fiercer competition from HSR. However, the expansion of HSR network in China can be better coordinated with LCC development. Second, HSR speed exerts two countervailing effects on airline demand and price (the “travel-time” effect and “safety” effect, respectively). Specifically, an HSR speed reduction can have a positive effect on airlines due to longer HSR travel time, but a negative effect on airlines due to improved perception on HSR safety. Third, airline–HSR integration can be implemented through cooperation between airlines and HSR operators and through co-location of airports and HSR stations and can have important implications for intermodal transport and social welfare.

This paper aims to study the historical origins of margin squeeze cases in the USA and Europe.

The author compares and contrasts major margin squeeze investigations in the USA and the European Union (EU) in terms of the role of efficiency and fairness and shows their roots in the socialist calculation debate of the 1940s.

It was found that the USA and EU diverge in their approaches towards margin squeeze claims. While the USA case law focuses more on efficiency, the European Commission makes decisions based more on fairness and “protection of rivals”. This shows that political and ideological preferences influence legal decision-making.

The paper is limited to major cases in telecommunications. It leaves aside cases in other areas. Thus, the author cautions that the generalization of the findings of the paper to all margin squeeze cases, or competition policy in general, may be difficult.

While there is extensive literature on margin squeeze cases in the USA and EU, there is little work on the historical and ideological connections. The paper contributes to the literature by drawing attention to political influences over technical decisions.

Container liner shipping companies started expanding their business by investing in container port terminals in the late 1990s. This market entry results in an extensive presence of vertically integrated liners and terminals. This study aims to explore the competition effects of this vertical integration trend based on a regional (European) analysis. In particular, it extracts lessons from the European Commission (EC) cases on the competition effects of vertical integration. The critical analysis of the cases examined at the institutional level intends to reach conclusions on whether liner–terminal vertical integration harmed or advanced competition in the relevant markets and/or the extent that there is a need to revise the current policy practices.

This study critically assesses the EC’s decisional practices in port container terminal vertical mergers in the last 25 years (1997–2021). Based on a literature review comparing maritime and competition economists' perspectives, it reviews the types of mergers examined, the methodology followed for relevant market definition and calculation of market shares and the estimated competition effects. The Hamburg–Le Havre area is the port range used as a case study for comparing the decisional practice with actual market developments. These container ports serve the greatest consuming market of final and intermediate goods in Europe and are gateways to Central and Eastern Europe.

The assessment identifies a need for expanding the investigation as a precondition for reaching conclusions on both the anti- and pro-competitive effects. First, only a limited number of transactions have been notified to the EC. Second, the empirical research identified a gap in this process, as there were no decisions (phase I) on vertical mergers between 2008 and 2016. Third, the exante assessment has not applied a phase II in-depth analysis to any case due to the absence of competition concerns. Finally, due to the absence of complaints, there is a lack of any ex post assessment of the effects of vertical integration.

This assessment is important for understanding the current and emerging features of intra-port and inter-port competition and the potential effects that the continuation and expansion of liner companies' vertical integration strategies will have along maritime supply chains. It also contributes to the broader discussion on liner companies' strategies, such as the research and policy-making efforts around the globe to understand the impact of both vertical and horizontal integration.

These discussions are critical for a diversity of businesses that use liner shipping services or provide facilities and services to container shipping lines or ports. They are important for the interests of customers and consumers as they could inform any needed re-visiting of competition policy to protect from the dominance of any market developments that would lead to conditions limiting competition. Expanding analysis on the competition effects of non-notified mergers would help a better understanding of market changes.

Enhancing competition and limiting monopolies is valuable from a consumer's perspective. This is more so in the case of maritime trade that serves the needs of societies. The study contributes by generating a better understanding of how decision-makers have worked towards that direction and what realignments are worthy.

There are no previous comprehensive reviews and analyses of the ways that policy-makers at the regional level have addressed the competition effects of vertical integration strategies of liner shipping companies when enhancing competition is valuable from a consumer perspective. Comparing maritime economists and competition, the study, via its literature review, also offers a comparison of maritime and competition perspectives on these competition effects, allowing positioning of how effective decisional-making practices have been.

This study aims to analyze how the mobile virtual network operator (MVNO) market in Korea will evolve, the opportunities and/or threats of network operators and how the MVNO market will be forged in the future.

This study provides competitive analysis, market evaluation and current regulatory assessment of the Korean MVNO marketplace.

While there are many positive prospects of MVNO in Korea, a series of complicated techno‐economic issues arise.

The current development of MVNO sheds light on the growing challenges of the dynamics of industry, regulation and technology.

While MVNOs continue to flourish in some markets, their diffusion in other regions is often very limited and continues to drastically decrease.

The results suggest a sustainable ecosystem of MVNO and propose an appropriate policy to promote MVNO diffusion.

This chapter examines the airline performance effect arising from collaboration between airlines and high speed railway (HSR). The analysis presents scenario simulations using a bi-level model, which takes into account the effect of competition among airlines and HSR. Using real data, we examine the Japanese domestic market and the Japan-based international market: the markets consist of Tokyo Metropolitan Area, Osaka Metropolitan Area, Seoul/Korea, Frankfurt/Germany, Paris/France, London/United Kingdom, and Los Angeles/United States. Analysis of the domestic market assumes airlines and HSR compete against each other, and analysis of the international market assumes airlines only compete with each other. Initially, we conduct performance analysis using a simulation that mimics the current relationship between airlines and HSR. Then we present three scenarios for different combinations of collaboration between airline and HSR based on airline alliances. The results from this exercise are then used to examine the impact of the collaboration on the profits of airlines and HSR, passenger’s utility, and the network design of airlines. Last, we show the potential benefit to airlines – profitability, market share, and demand growth – from the airline-HSR collaboration. Our model shows that in Japan: (1) Airlines can improve their profitability in international operations by the collaboration with HSR when airlines set their hubs so they can connect to HSR; (2) The airline which has a lower unit operating cost than rivals and sets its hubs to connect to HSR can improve its joint profit with HSR through collaboration; (3) Airlines that don’t operate domestic flights and don’t set their hubs to connect to HSR encourage increased fare competition by coordinating with HSR, but their profit decreases. Whether these results are generalizable to other regions should be the subject of future study.