Airport–airline interaction: the impact of low-cost carriers on two European airports

This paper uses case studies to look at the impact of low-cost airlines on two European airports. Low-cost airlines continue to exert an influence in air transport markets and small airports face pressures to compete for their business. The low-cost model motivates airlines to negotiate contracts that significantly reduce aeronautical revenues, leaving airports to compensate by seeking commercial revenues from the increase in passengers. This has consequences for the airports, their passengers and the relationship between the airport and its existing operators. It is found that it is important for airport management to see both passengers and airlines as customers and to understand the resultant revenue streams, before negotiating preferential contracts with low-cost carriers.     

Reinterpreting the role of primary and secondary airports in low-cost carrier expansion in Europe

This paper discusses the long-term effects of low-cost carrier (LCC) presence at European airports and identifies the airports that have benefited the most from LCC consolidation since 2001. The research uses ‘LCC Market Share’, in terms of seats, to measure the relative importance of LCCs within each airport; and introduces ‘EU LCA Rank’ as a normalised metric of the capacity share of every airport in the European low-cost segment. It evaluates the trends between 2001 and 2019 in all airports in Europe using OAG supply information (seats by carrier). Results show two different phases of LCC rise in Europe, 2001 to 2008 and 2009 to 2019, marked by the effects of the financial crisis of the Great Recession. The analysis highlights the role that LCCs have played in boosting the growth of both primary and secondary airports. Indeed, despite the fact that LCCs have put many smaller airports on the European map, during the second phase of the period of analysis growth has been more significant for major airports and for a few airports that were keen to support the earliest development of LCCs. In that sense, this paper contributes to a better understanding of the historical and contemporary dynamics in European LCCs choice of airports and, in particular, the long-term effects that this disruptive business model have had for airports. This is increasingly important in the context of a potential recovery path from the effects of the response to the Covid-19 pandemic. This paper also attempts to settle academic discussions that attach LCC development to secondary/regional airports disregarding the wide range of strategies used by airlines and airports.     

Perspectives on the Development of Low-cost Airlines in South-east Asia

Low-cost airlines are seen by some as one of the best things that have happened within contemporary travel. The clever business idea of offering significantly lower prices by taking out all the extras in a short-haul flight, along with innovative cost-cutting measures, was successful in the USA as early as 1973 when South-west Airlines flew her first low-cost flight. This paper asks whether this scenario has potential in Southeast Asia. According to many analysts, the environment in South-east Asia is simply not suitable for budget carriers. Governments are still very protective of their flag-carriers, there is a lack of cheap, secondary airports, South-east Asians are not wealthy enough to fly, and other cost-cutting measures like Internet distribution cannot easily be replicated. This paper argues that the opposite is true. There might not be 'open-skies' in South-east Asia, but the governments appear willing to nurture low-cost airlines to coexist with their flag-carriers. The number of airports that could serve as gateways for these airlines is more numerous than expected. The South-east Asian population is getting wealthy enough to fly and there also exists a significant market if the low-cost carriers can take advantage of it.     

Low-cost airlines and airport competition

An important question from the viewpoint of competition analysis in the air transport industry is the extent to which low-cost airlines operating from a secondary airport compete with full-service airlines serving a main airport in a multiple airport region. In this paper we address the issue of the competition between full-service and low-cost airlines serving adjacent airports in the Greater London using econometric estimation of demand structure (own- and cross-price elasticities). Our analysis follows the methodology in (Pels, E., Nijkamp, P., Rietveld, P., 2000. Airport and airline competition for passengers departing from a large metropolitan area. Journal of Urban Economics, 48 (1), 29–45, Pels, E., Nijkamp, P., Rietveld, P., 2003. Access to and competition between airports: a case study for the San Francisco Bay area. Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, 37 (1), 71–83). It is based on the nested logit model which we use to capture three key dimensions of passenger choice: air fare, surface-access costs and frequency. We obtained estimates of the own- and cross-price elasticities, which was the focus of our interest. On the basis of our understanding of the industry dynamics we find these estimates, especially of the cross-price elasticities, to be on the low side.     

Pricing strategies of low-cost airlines: The Ryanair case study

We analyse the pricing policy adopted by Ryanair, the main low-cost carrier in Europe. Based on a year's fare data for all of Ryanair's European flights, using a family of hyperbolic price functions, the optimal pricing curve for each route is estimated. The analysis shows a positive correlation between the average fare for each route and its length, the frequency of flights operating on that route, and the percentage of fully booked flights. As the share of seats offered by the carrier at the departure and destination airports increases, fares tend to decrease. The correlation of dynamic pricing to route length and the frequency of flights is negative. Conversely, as competition increases discounts on advance fares rise.     

In search of business model configurations that work: Lessons from the hybridization of Air Berlin and JetBlue

This paper examines the rise of a distinct alternative to the traditional business model dichotomy between low-cost and full-service carriers (i.e. the hybrid business model) and questions its viability as an alternative for growth and profitability. Using a comparative assessment of business model innovation practices of two well-reputed carriers, Air Berlin and JetBlue, the paper highlights the importance of taking into account several components of a business model when deciding to experiment with it as these choices have important implications for an airline's performance. Our results suggest that, following the transition from a no-frills to a hybrid business model, a misalignment between the value proposition and the other elements of the business model will hinder an airline's ability to achieve a sustainable competitive advantage.     

Innovation: The winning formula to regain profitability in aviation?

Most airlines have overcome the immediate effects of the recent global aviation crisis partly because of economic upturn and partly because of massive restructuring. Legacy network carriers had to take on the challenge of low-cost carriers, and regain competitiveness in short- and mid-haul business through considerable cost cutting and more flexible pricing models and are now profitable. On the other hand, many airlines do not make a reasonable profit, and the majority of carriers do not earn their capital cost. Airlines claim that they are still squeezed between their neighbors in the aviation value chain that leverage local monopolies (such as airports) or oligopolies (such as aircraft equipment manufacturers). Many legacy carriers, however, have not properly prepared for an era of deregulated and changing markets. They have not yet taken appropriate steps to escape from there positions between the few successful premium carriers and low-cost carriers. This middle position has little differentiation potential, an unsatisfactory growth perspective, and poor profitability prospects. Further, despite ongoing liberalization, the regulatory framework still does not enforce far-reaching consolidation, leaving the industry in a fragmented status with massive overcapacities. Consequently, the industry needs to further leverage external deregulation as well as internal restructuring to establish more efficient and competitive business models. Aside from basic cost cutting, innovation may become the decisive driver of progress, comprising advanced business models, customer segmentation, and technologies (Franke, M., 2006. Innovation: the winning formula to regain profitability in aviation? Speech at the Hamburg Aviation Conference, Hamburg).     

Low-cost carriers versus full service carriers in ASEAN: The impact of liberalization policy on competition

This study analyses the ASEAN Single Aviation Market (ASAM) policy to be introduced by the end of 2015. We conduct a scenario study to estimate the impact of low-cost carrier (LCC) network expansion under liberalized air transport policies in the ASEAN region. Establishing joint ventures is a possible way for foreign carriers to expand the network in this region, even after starting ASAM. This is unique as joint ventures are not only subsidiaries of the full-service carriers, as is the case in the United States and Europe. We also apply a quantitative air transport market model to estimate the policy impact of the entry of new LCCs on routes from three ASEAN hub airports to Manila airport, which covers the impact on the whole network. The model produces several significant results, including that the entry of one LCC on one route may affect the fare, frequency, and profitability of related competitive routes for the entire network.     

Hello major airports,goodbye regional airports? Recent changes in European and US low-cost airline airport choice

Low-cost carriers (LCCs) are assumed to adopt a certain business model in which an important element is the concentration of services at secondary and regional airports. Yet, evidence suggests that increasingly LCCs also establish themselves in what can be considered the major airports. This raises the question of whether LCCs are changing their business model and adopting practices associated with the traditional, incumbent airlines, and if so what might cause such change. Based on categorization of airports and using OAG flight data the US and European markets are investigated. Focusing on several LCCs, with more attention given to Southwest and Ryanair, their profile of operation with respect to the type of airports used is analysed for a period of between 15 and 25 years and up to 2015. The results clearly indicate that LCCs are increasing their operations from major airports, while generally continuing their growth and expansion strategy. The main implication of which is the increase in direct competition between LCCs and traditional airlines while the impacts of this change on the smaller airports are not clear yet and need to be investigated further.     

Spillover effects of the development constraints in London Heathrow Airport

In this article we assess the growth impact of London Heathrow’s development constraints on other airports in the UK. To test the relationship we use a two-stage methodology yielding an estimate of a congestion spillover effect. Our data are passenger traffic from 1990 to 2012 containing both intercontinental and European air traffic. For intercontinental air traffic, our results show high congestion spillover effect between Heathrow and Gatwick airports, and significant but lesser effect to Stansted airport. We also find significant congestion spillover effects from Heathrow to the spatially more distant Manchester and Birmingham airports, showing the extensive spatial impact of Heathrow’s development constraints. For European air traffic, controlling for low-cost air carrier growth, only two airports show significant congestion spillover effects: Gatwick and London City Airports. Illustrating that low-cost carriers do not operate from Heathrow, so its limitations cannot affect the predominant low-cost air traffic in other airports. The novel methodology we present in this paper can be applied to congestion research in general to assess regional and modal spills within networks.     

Passengers' airport choice and airports' catchment area analysis in cross-border Upper Adriatic multi-airport region

Although much research has been performed on passengers' origin airport choice, there is little research on airports' catchment area size and even less on airports' catchment areas in cross-border regions. This paper addresses passengers' airport choice and analyzes airports' catchment area size and its homogeneity in the Upper Adriatic region. Using the results of passengers' survey at three regional airports (Ljubljana Jože Pučnik Airport (LJU), Venice Marco Polo Airport (VCE) and Trieste Pietro Savorgnan di Brazza Airport (TRS)) we have estimated the airports' catchment areas and airports market shares therein using multinomial logit (MNL) model structure. To additionally explore the passengers' airport choice behavior considering the different sensitivity across travellers to regional, demographic and airports attributes and account for preference heterogeneity in airport choice a mixed logit model was used. The results indicated that the three airports have relatively small core catchment areas and that the market share rapidly decreases with the increasing access time to airport. Partially, the results reinforced earlier findings showing that access time to airport is the most important determinant in airport choice for all segments (business/leisure and cross-border/domestic), however the sensitivity to access time is more pronounced in business and domestic group. Additionally, the results indicated pronounced loyalty to domestic airports and generally low importance of ticket prices, and show that in market conditions where all airports in the region have a low-cost carrier (LCC) the effect of LCC on airport choice is limited. Finally, the results indicated that the borders might have an influence on airport choice and that overall, in the cross-border regions the passengers’ airport choice process is even more complex than in non cross-border regions.     

The effects of use agreements on airport efficiency

Bilateral contracting is integral to the working relationship between airports and airlines. In the U.S., the three common types of airport use agreements are the residual method, the compensatory method, and the hybrid method. Under a residual agreement, the financial risk of the host airport is borne by the signatory airlines, and in return, the signatory airlines pay reduced user fees. Under a compensatory agreement, however, airports bear their own financial risks in the absence of a signatory airline. A hybrid agreement combines the features of residual and compensatory agreements. For example, under a hybrid agreement, airports usually bear their own financial risks in terminal operations while the signatory airlines take over the financial risks in airfield operations. The aim of this paper is to determine whether these three types of business agreements affect airport operational efficiency. Using 2009 to 2016 yearly data of 59 U.S. hub airports, we find that airports with residual-type agreements tend to have lower operational efficiency. This implies that, although under a residual agreement, the signatory airlines pay favorable airport fees and charges, increased airport inefficiency may undercut any potential benefits of the agreement.     

How do carriers price connecting flights? Evidence from intercontinental flights from Europe

In civil aviation, hub-and-spoke (HS) networks are used by all large carriers. The importance of this system implies that many travelers use connecting flights. Nevertheless, only scarce knowledge is available on price formation of these trips. In this paper, we focus on the fares of connecting intercontinental flights, with one stop and at least one competing direct flight. We develop a simple model of a HS network, with imperfect substitutability between direct and indirect flights and Cournot competition on every route in the network. We test the model empirically, using reported fares for flights from seven European origins, including the five major airports in Europe, to five non-European destinations. We find that the fare of a connecting flight can be expressed as the weighted average of the fare of its direct competitor, the travel times of both flights its costs and the monetary value of the utility attached to the trip. The weight of the direct fare decreases as product diversity increases.     

The impact of low-cost carriers on airport choice in the US: A case study of the Washington–Baltimore region

Previous research has shown that low-cost carriers (LCCs) may stimulate traffic at an airport by offering low fares. Using passenger survey data from the Washington–Baltimore region’s three airports, we find that the benefits of LCCs to airports extend beyond the traffic generated directly by the LCCs through their low fares. In addition, we find that the mere presence of an LCC at an airport can attract passengers, even to competing carriers. These “halo effects” from LCC presence increase the significance to airport managers of attracting LCCs in order to generate passenger demand.     

Airport competition - Regional airports losing ground to main airports

Regional airports in Norway are losing market shares to nearby main airports on flights to the national capital, Oslo, and on international travel via Oslo. Travellers are willing to spend several hours extra driving to a larger airport in order to take advantage of lower fares and more convenient airline services. Traffic leakage from regional airports is high when the service from the regional airport is indirect and fare differences are large. Public service obligation tenders (PSO) set maximum fares on the regional legs, but do not cover through travel from regional airports which involve commercial legs. Traffic leakage is particularly evident in the leisure segment. Leakage levels tend to increase as competition is intensified at main airports, but the evidence is rather mixed. Logistic curves of airport market shares have proven to be useful when comparing spatial variations in leakage levels.     

Legacy carriers fight back: Pricing and product differentiation in modern airline marketing

The adoption of the low-cost carrier business model has applied competitive pressure on established network or “legacy” carriers, by offering fares at prices that legacy carriers find it difficult to match and still cover their fixed costs. This paper reports how two medium-sized national airlines-Air New Zealand and Air Canada-have coped with the low-cost threat by, in effect, turning their fixed costs into profit centres. Features such as full regional networks, long-haul connections, frequent flyer programs, membership in global alliances, lounges and business class cabins can be bundled into products which can be marketed and sold profitably to business and even some leisure travellers, and which cannot be easily replicated by low-cost carriers. Although not panaceas, the innovations of Air New Zealand and Air Canada to the competition they face in their domestic and trans-border markets demonstrate the possibility of an effective legacy carrier response to the low-cost carrier business model.     

Entry effect of low-cost carriers on airport-pairs demand model using market concentration approach

The trend of open sky policies and growth of low-cost airlines, the topic of airport-pairs demand is gradually being addressed in the golden aviation circle of Northeast Asia. The variety of flight services among the four major metropolises with dual-airport systems leads to a competition-cooperation relationship existing between various airports and airlines. Therefore, this study investigates the causal relationship between the route-level passenger demand and influential factors using aggregate data collected through website observations. The empirical study focuses on direct flights of airport-pair routes among Taipei, Shanghai, Seoul, and Tokyo. Results of the passenger regression model indicate that frequency, code-share, and morning flights have positive impacts on increasing passenger numbers for airlines. Further, the market concentration degree of Herfindahl-Hirschman Index and entry effect of low-cost carriers are important for the route-level passenger demand. In addition, routes with departures and arrivals in hub airports have a considerable attraction relative to other airport-pair routes. Finally, the proposed passenger model performs well in predicting market share, especially for routes with high demand.     

The impacts of emerging aviation trends on airport infrastructure

The demands on airport infrastructure around the world are both growing and changing. This paper explores what problems these changing demands imply for airports, and how they are coping with them. Growth in demand imposes a problem of allocation of scarce capacity in the short run—how well mechanisms such as the slot system are coping with them is explored. In the long term, increases in capacity are warranted, and how the emerging ownership and regulatory environments for airports will handle these is examined. Changes in patterns of demand will come from new business models, such as low-cost carriers and from new aircraft types, such as the Airbus A380—the implications of these for airports of these are considered. Finally, the issue of airport cost efficiency, and how ownership and regulatory environment impact on it, is examined.     

Do low cost carriers have different corporate governance models?

In this paper, we investigate whether different business models in the same industry (passenger air transportation) lead to different corporate governance models. We found that low-cost carriers organise their boards differently from full service carriers to achieve lower costs and a faster decision-making process that is required by their business model. We also found that low-cost carriers and full service carriers solve their potential agency cost problems differently and that full service carriers have more board monitoring committees, and low-cost carriers have a closer coincidence of interests between shareholders and executive directors.     

Inter-metropolitan airport substitution by consumers in an asymmetrical airfare environment: Harrisburg, Philadelphia and Baltimore

Airfares vary significantly over space, and can even vary substantially between airports in relatively close proximity with one another. With the spread of various Web tools, consumers are armed with more information than ever to assess fare and service differences between competing airlines and competing airports. This leads to the possibility of airport substitution for particular routes. Linear regression models are developed that suggest, despite the 70–90 mile distance, that passenger substitution may be occurring from Harrisburg and Philadelphia to Baltimore based as a result of differential fares, low-fare service, and other factors.