Persistent and transient inefficiencies in the US airline industry

被引:0
作者
Karanki, Fecri [1 ]
Lien, Gudbrand [2 ]
机构
[1] Purdue Univ, Sch Aviat & Transportat Technol, W Lafayette, IN 47907 USA
[2] Inland Norway Univ Appl Sci, Inland Sch Business & Social Sci, Lillehammer, Norway
关键词
LOW-COST CARRIERS; TECHNICAL EFFICIENCY; BUSINESS MODEL; UNITED-STATES; FULL-SERVICE; PRODUCTIVITY; MERGERS; IMPACT; HETEROGENEITY; DETERMINANTS;
D O I
10.1016/j.tranpol.2024.10.018
中图分类号
F [经济];
学科分类号
02 ;
摘要
The competitive advantage of airlines depends on their technical efficiency. Efficiency analysis models now differentiate between persistent and transient inefficiencies. Persistent inefficiencies stem from fundamental flaws in production processes or ongoing managerial shortcomings, requiring long-term strategic interventions. Transient inefficiencies, however, result from irregular setbacks that can be swiftly addressed, causing temporary efficiency dips. Focusing on the decade from 2010 to 2019, we investigated how business models, mergers, and upgauging influence these inefficiencies. Our results reveal that 21.2% of the overall technical inefficiency can be accounted for by persistent inefficiency. Despite the U.S. airline industry improving transient inefficiency during the sample period, prevailing persistent inefficiency hindered any significant rise in overall efficiency. The research shows that full-service airlines (FSA) and low-cost carriers (LCC) often exhibit higher persistent and transient efficiency than ultra-low-cost carriers (ULCC). However, there seem to be no significant differences in transient and persistent inefficiency between FSA and LCC. Additionally, the results suggest that the upgauging and higher ramp-to-ramp hours may lead to higher transient efficiency. Finally, we could not find any influence of mergers and stage length on transient inefficiency.
引用
收藏
页码:254 / 265
页数:12
相关论文
共 57 条
  • [11] FRONTIER ESTIMATION AND FIRM-SPECIFIC INEFFICIENCY MEASURES IN THE PRESENCE OF HETEROSCEDASTICITY
    CAUDILL, SB
    FORD, JM
    GROPPER, DM
    [J]. JOURNAL OF BUSINESS & ECONOMIC STATISTICS, 1995, 13 (01) : 105 - 111
  • [12] MULTILATERAL COMPARISONS OF OUTPUT, INPUT, AND PRODUCTIVITY USING SUPERLATIVE INDEX NUMBERS
    CAVES, DW
    CHRISTENSEN, LR
    DIEWERT, WE
    [J]. ECONOMIC JOURNAL, 1982, 92 (365) : 73 - 86
  • [13] Accounting for environmental influences in stochastic frontier models: With application to international airlines
    Coelli, T
    Perelman, S
    Romano, E
    [J]. JOURNAL OF PRODUCTIVITY ANALYSIS, 1999, 11 (03) : 251 - 273
  • [14] Closed-skew normality in stochastic frontiers with individual effects and long/short-run efficiency
    Colombi, Roberto
    Kumbhakar, Subal C.
    Martini, Gianmaria
    Vittadini, Giorgio
    [J]. JOURNAL OF PRODUCTIVITY ANALYSIS, 2014, 42 (02) : 123 - 136
  • [15] Doganis R., 2010, Flying off Course: Airline Economics and Marketing, V4th
  • [16] DOT-Office of Inspector General, 2012, Aviation Industry Performance: A Review of the Aviation Industry, P2008
  • [17] Dresner M, 1996, J TRANSP ECON POLICY, V30, P309
  • [18] Fan T., 2002, J. Transport. Res. Forum, V41, P77
  • [19] Persistent and transient productive inefficiency: a maximum simulated likelihood approach
    Filippini, Massimo
    Greene, William
    [J]. JOURNAL OF PRODUCTIVITY ANALYSIS, 2016, 45 (02) : 187 - 196
  • [20] Bundling, integration and the delivered price of air travel: are low cost carriers full service competitors?
    Gillen, D
    Morrison, W
    [J]. JOURNAL OF AIR TRANSPORT MANAGEMENT, 2003, 9 (01) : 15 - 23