DOCSLIB.ORG

Origin Airport Choice in a Multi-Airport Region

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Origin Airport Choice in a Multi-Airport Region See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/249313065 ORIGIN AIRPORT CHOICE IN A MULTI-AIRPORT REGION Article · January 2007 CITATIONS READS 2 128 2 authors: Edoardo Marcucci Valerio Gatta Università Degli Studi Roma Tre Università Degli Studi Roma Tre 81 PUBLICATIONS 1,041 CITATIONS 55 PUBLICATIONS 1,043 CITATIONS SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects: CALL FOR PAPERS for the SPECIAL ISSUE "Modal Shift, Emission Reductions and Behavioral Change: Transport Policies and Innovations to Tackle Climate Change" hosted by RETREC. View project CITYLAB City Logistics in Living Laboratories View project All content following this page was uploaded by Edoardo Marcucci on 04 June 2014. The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file. XXVIII CONFERENZA ITALIANA DI SCIENZE REGIONALI ORIGIN AIRPORT CHOICE IN A MULTI-AIRPORT REGION Edoardo MARCUCCI 1 e Valerio GATTA 2 1 Università Roma Tre, Via G. Chiabrera 199 - 00145 Roma 2 Università di Roma, “La Sapienza”, P.le Aldo Moro 5 - 00185 Roma SUMMARY Airports are the nodes on which air transport networks are based. Airport choice decisions are particularly relevant with an increasing air travel demand world-wide. The analysis of origin airport in multi-airport regions has a well established tradition in transportation and regional economics. The main goals of the paper pertain to the estimation of the relevance of the different attributes in determining origin airport choice including the specific role of attribute cut-offs; the estimation of statistically significant alternative specific variables to be used for policy simulations; the inference of significant socioeconomic segmentations to provide valuable suggestions for demand segmentation purposes. We used stated choice experiments to elicit agents’ preferences, and employed multinomial logit models for estimation. The study concentrates on a multi-airport region in central Italy (Marche and Emilia Romagna) where 4 competing airports are located. The models estimated on the 165 available interviews provided relevant information for all the research goals. 1 1. INTRODUCTION Airports are the fundamental building blocks of air transport networks and, as such, of the entire aviation sector. In the last fifty years air traffic world-wide, has increased tremendously at a much greater rate than any other mode of transport. In the 1975-2002 period (Doganis, 2002) air transport demand has shown growth rates, on average, twice as great as world economic growth. Even if air transport demand is strongly influenced by highly unpredictable variables (terrorist attacks, wars, atmospheric fluctuations, economic recessions) nevertheless its growth is commonly forecasted as high by the major institutions in this sector (IATA, 2006; Boeing, 2006; Airbus, 2006). One possible way to accommodate extant demand increases is by raising available seat- kilometers even if, after a while, this necessarily conflicts with the limited runaway and terminal capacity available. Expansion is on the agenda of many busy airports throughout the world (UK Department for transport, 2003; Regional Airport Planning Committee, 2000). The issue of capacity expansion is complex in general and especially so when considering airports serving multi-airport regions. Bearing in mind morphology and population dispersion in Italy this issue becomes particularly relevant. The analysis of airport choice mechanisms adopted by air travellers is a crucial element both for long term planning strategies, for metropolitan areas served by more than one airport, as well as for airport managers confronting themselves with competing airports when formulating marketing strategies. Airport choice in a multi-airport region can be influenced by the following elements: capacity expansion, parking policies, ground transportation improvements, faster and less expensive ground services, higher connectivity, etc. Airport structure and development is influenced both by market and regulatory forces especially in a multi-airport region where each airport actively compete for origin passengers. No wonder air travel choice analysis has become increasingly popular world-wide over the last years even if in Italy there has been no such a specific attention paid to this issue with few but remarkable exceptions (Lupi, 2006; Postorino, 2001). Early studies adopted basic models dealing with simple choice of departure airport (Skinner, 1976). Subsequently more realistic choice situations have been modeled, including airport, airline (Pels et al., 2001) and, more recently, ground transportation mode choice (Hess and Polak, 2006). More sophisticated models estimated (Hess and Polak, 2005a, b, c) have also shown that passenger behavior varies deterministically for homogeneous though diversified groups (business/leisure) but also stochastically within specific groups. The results obtained for a behavioral model estimation depend not only on the methodology used but also on the aggregation and quality of the data employed. This statement is particularly true for airport choice studies and this is testified by the consistent number of works dealing with the San 2 Francisco Bay Area given the availability of detailed and good quality data from the 1995 Airline Passenger Survey conducted by the Metropolitan Transport Commission (MTC, 1995). The most important aim of this work consists in creating an extensive and high quality original database for Italy with specific relation to a well determined multi-airport region in the centre of Italy (Marche and Emilia Romagna). It is important to diversify and validate results in various institutional and regulatory contexts as well as in diverse geographical areas characterised by differentiated demand peculiarities. The present study makes use of stated preference (SP) data, implements a classical segmentation approach and introduces the concept of cut-offs recently suggested by Swait (2001) to take in due consideration the distinction between compensatory and non-compensatory decisions. The results obtained suggest that cut-offs issues are relevant in this research field as, for other aspects, also suggested by Ba şar and Bhat (2004) when proposing a probabilistic choice set multinomial logit (PCMNL) to analyze the choice (consideration) set formation of travellers. Similarly to other studies we concentrate on departing passengers given that data concerning arriving passengers are not available and connecting passengers issues are not relevant to the context studied. The paper is organized as follows. Section 2 provides a synthetic literature review illustrating where the research frontier lies and explaining how and where the present work innovates. The third section briefly describes the methodology used. Dataset illustration and econometric results are presented in section 4. Policy simulations are treated in section 5 and 6 describes future research plans. Section 7 concludes. 2. LITERATURE REVIEW This section provides a short review of the extant research on air travel choice modeling. Among the first studies on airport choice one should recall the work of Skinner (1976) studying via a multinomial logit (MNL) model the Baltimore-Washington DC area airport choice and providing statistically relevant evidence of the role played by flight frequency and ground accessibility. Other studies inquiring airport choice mechanisms in multi-airport systems serving metropolitan areas include also Kanafani and Yuan (1977), Augustinus and Demakopolous (1978), Harvey (1987) who used both access time and frequency in a non- linear fashion in order to capture the diminishing marginal utility (disutility) of frequency (access time); Ashford and Bencheman (1987) instead used travel time to the airport, fare and frequency of service as explanatory variables; Ndoh et al. (1990) showed that a nested multinomial logit is statistically preferred to a MNL; Thompson and Caves (1993) found that for leisure travelers, access time to the airport, airfare and maximum number of seats available were statistically significant in explaining airport choice; Windle and Dresner (1995) used various ground access modes and parking as explanatory variables to explain 3 airport selection; Monteiro and Hansen (1996), Bondzio (1996), Pels et al. (2000) adopt a nested logit (NL) demand function to develop a competition model with airlines using both fares and frequencies as competitive instruments and airports using just airport taxes. Pels et al. (2001), Pels et al. (2003), Ba şar and Bhat (2004), Hess and Polak (2006, 2005a, c) concentrate the analysis of passenger airport choice departing from a multi-airport region using all the data collected for the San Francisco Bay Area implementing mixed logit (ML), NL, PCMNL, generally accounting for the additional choices along either the airline or the access-mode dimension. Hess and Polak (2005b) instead study the combined choice of airport, airline and access mode for the Greater London area adopting a Cross-Nested Logit (CNL) model. Recent and comprehensive reviews focusing on airport and airline choice dimensions can be found in Ba şar and Bhat (2004) and in Hess and Polak (2006). The present work innovates with reference to the following aspects: 1) it creates a new and detailed database concerning airport choice in a multi-airport region in Italy that for institutional, regulatory and market characteristics proves quite different
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Liste-Exploitants-Aeronefs.Pdf
    EN EN EN COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES Brussels, XXX C(2009) XXX final COMMISSION REGULATION (EC) No xxx/2009 of on the list of aircraft operators which performed an aviation activity listed in Annex I to Directive 2003/87/EC on or after 1 January 2006 specifying the administering Member State for each aircraft operator (Text with EEA relevance) EN EN COMMISSION REGULATION (EC) No xxx/2009 of on the list of aircraft operators which performed an aviation activity listed in Annex I to Directive 2003/87/EC on or after 1 January 2006 specifying the administering Member State for each aircraft operator (Text with EEA relevance) THE COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES, Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Community, Having regard to Directive 2003/87/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 13 October 2003 establishing a system for greenhouse gas emission allowance trading within the Community and amending Council Directive 96/61/EC1, and in particular Article 18a(3)(a) thereof, Whereas: (1) Directive 2003/87/EC, as amended by Directive 2008/101/EC2, includes aviation activities within the scheme for greenhouse gas emission allowance trading within the Community (hereinafter the "Community scheme"). (2) In order to reduce the administrative burden on aircraft operators, Directive 2003/87/EC provides for one Member State to be responsible for each aircraft operator. Article 18a(1) and (2) of Directive 2003/87/EC contains the provisions governing the assignment of each aircraft operator to its administering Member State. The list of aircraft operators and their administering Member States (hereinafter "the list") should ensure that each operator knows which Member State it will be regulated by and that Member States are clear on which operators they should regulate.
    [Show full text]
  • European Air Law Association 23Rd Annual Conference Palazzo Spada Piazza Capo Di Ferro 13, Rome
    European Air Law Association 23rd Annual Conference Palazzo Spada Piazza Capo di Ferro 13, Rome “Airline bankruptcy, focus on passenger rights” Laura Pierallini Studio Legale Pierallini e Associati, Rome LUISS University of Rome, Rome Rome, 4th November 2011 Airline bankruptcy, focus on passenger rights Laura Pierallini Air transport and insolvencies of air carriers: an introduction According to a Study carried out in 2011 by Steer Davies Gleave for the European Commission (entitled Impact assessment of passenger protection in the event of airline insolvency), between 2000 and 2010 there were 96 insolvencies of European airlines operating scheduled services. Of these insolvencies, some were of small airlines, but some were of larger scheduled airlines and caused significant issues for passengers (Air Madrid, SkyEurope and Sterling). Airline bankruptcy, focus on passenger rights Laura Pierallini The Italian market This trend has significantly affected the Italian market, where over the last eight years, a number of domestic air carriers have experienced insolvencies: ¾Minerva Airlines ¾Gandalf Airlines ¾Alpi Eagles ¾Volare Airlines ¾Air Europe ¾Alitalia ¾Myair ¾Livingston An overall, since 2003 the Italian air transport market has witnessed one insolvency per year. Airline bankruptcy, focus on passenger rights Laura Pierallini The Italian Air Transport sector and the Italian bankruptcy legal framework. ¾A remedy like Chapter 11 in force in the US legal system does not exist in Italy, where since 1979 special bankruptcy procedures (Amministrazione Straordinaria) have been introduced to face the insolvency of large enterprises (Law. No. 95/1979, s.c. Prodi Law, Legislative Decree No. 270/1999, s.c. Prodi-bis, Law Decree No. 347/2003 enacted into Law No.
    [Show full text]
  • Compagnie Aeree Italiane
    Compagnie aeree Italiane - Dati di traffico - Flotta - Collegamenti diretti - Indici di bilancio 117 118 Tav. VET 1 Compagnie aeree italiane di linea e charter - traffico 2006 COMPAGNIE Passeggeri trasportati (n.) % Riempimento Ore volate (n.) Voli (n.) Var. Var. Var. (base operativa) 2005 2006 2005 2006 Diff. 2005 2006 2005 2006 % % % attività own risk 44.283 43.452 - 1,9 57 592 2.322 2.433 4,8 1.559 1.594 2,2 Air Dolomiti (1) (Verona) voli operati con 1.248.314 1.421.539 13,9 60 633 45.922 45.757 - 0,4 35.007 33.215 - 5,1 Lufthansa Air Italy 139.105 206.217 48,2 80 800 3.333 5.358 60,8 832 1.385 66,5 (Milano Malpensa) Air One Air One Cityliner 5.264.846 5.662.595 7,6 58 580 77.361 86.189 11,4 63.817 71.161 11,5 Air One Executive (Roma Fiumicino) Air Vallèe 27.353 41.072 50,2 83 54- 29 1.540 2.024 31,4 1.422 2.486 74,8 (Aosta) Alitalia voli di linea 24.196.262 24.453.123 1,1 65 661 551.337 533.389 - 3,3 275.430 263.924 - 4,2 Alitalia Express (Roma Fiumicino) voli charter 122.169 150.652 23,3 79 75- 4 2.052 2.420 17,9 892 1.241 39,1 Alpi Eagles 1.115.079 969.430 - 13,1 58 580 24.806 27.234 9,8 16.891 18.499 9,5 (Venezia) Blue Panorama Airlines Blue Express 1.020.644 1.199.340 17,5 77 803 31.330 32.934 5,1 7.230 11.289 56,1 (Roma Fiumicino) Clubair S.p.A.
    [Show full text]
  • Working Documents 1983 -1984
    European Communities EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT Working Documents 1983 -1984 16 March 1984 . -DOCUMENT 1-1551/83 Report drawn up on behalf of the Comm;ttee on Transport on the safety of air transport in Europe Rapporteur: Mr C. RIPA 01 MEANA PE 86.425/fin. Or. Fr. ~ • I Enttli~h Edition The European Parliament, - at its sitting of 16 June 1982, referred the motion for a resolution tabled by Mr DE PASQUALE and others pursuant to Rule 47 of the Rules of Procedure (Doe. 1-364/82> to the Committee on Transport as the committee responsible and to the Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Consumer Protection for its opinion; -at its sitting of 11 April 1983, referred the motion for a resolution tabled by Mr MOORHOUSE and others pursuant to Rule 47 of the Rules of Procedure <Doe. 1-21/83) to the Committee on Transport as the committee responsible; - at its sitting of 10 October 1983, referred the motion for a resolution tabled by Mr SEEFELD and others pursuant to Rule 47 of the Rules of Procedure <Doe. 1-734/83) to the Committee on Transport as the committee responsible and to the Political Affairs Committee for its opinion; - at its sitting of 27 October 1983, referred the motion for a resolution tabled by Mr ANTONIOZZI pursuant to Rule 47 of the Rules of Procedure (Doe. 1-674/83> to the Committee on Transport as the committee responsible and to the Political Affairs Committee for its opinion; -.at its sitting of 16 November 1983, referred the motion for a resolution tabled by Mr EPHREMIDIS and others pursuant to Rule 47 of the Rules of Procedure <Doe.
    [Show full text]
  • Airport Exchange Networklk Planni Ng C Onf Erence
    ACO/CI EUROPE / anna.aero Airport Exchange Networklk Planni ng C onf erence Introduction Barcelona - 24 November 2009 Ralph Anker Editor anna.aero [email protected] 1 1 Introductory overview • Demand trends in Europe • Winter 2009 indicators • Economic factors • Trends in European route development • Mixed fortunes for Europe’s airports • Conclusions 2 2 Traffic trends – AEA airlines 3 3 Traffic trends – AEA airlines 4 4 Traffic trends – AEA airlines 5 5 Traffic trends – AEA airlines • In 2009 (Jan-Sep) AEA airlines reported: – ASKs fell by 4.3% – RPKs fell by 5.5% – Passenger numbers fell by 7.2% – Average load factor fell by 1.0 percentage points to 75. 8% • Quote from Secretary General (17 Nov 09): “The foundations for a sustainable European air transport sector are crumbling. Portions of our industry are close to collapse. Some network airlines are ceasing to exist as independent entities. Others are exiting markets that they will not rere--enter.enter. Secondary markets are losing service. Tens of thousands of people employed by or sustained by the airlines are losing their jobs.” 6 6 LCCs are not AEA members • Apart from AEA airlines Europe is blessed with some major nonnon--AEAAEA airlines – LCCs such as bmibaby, easyJet, germanwings, Norwegian, Ryanair, Vueling, Wizz Air – Assorted charter/hybrid carriers such as Aer Lingus, airberlin, Pegasus, Transavia. com, TUIfly.com – Regional carriers such as airBaltic,,y, Flybe, Meridiana and WiderWiderøøee 7 7 8 8 9 9 10 10 11 11 Airline failures • Europe has (so far) lost only a handful
    [Show full text]
  • Check-In Am Bahnhof Und Fly Rail Baggage
    1/8 Check-in am Bahnhof via Zürich und Genève Check-in à la gare via Zürich et Genève Check-in alla stazione via Zürich e Genève Check-in at the railstation via Zürich and Genève Version: 26. Januar 2011 Legend HA = Handlingagent SP = Swissport, DN = Dnata Switzerland AG, AS = Airline Assistance Switzerland AG, EH = Own Handling R = Reason T = Technical, S = Security, O = Other reason WT = Weight Tolerance Y = Economy-Class, C = Business-Class, F = First-Class * = Agent Informations Infoportal/Airlines Check-in ok Restrictions Airline, Code Check-in Einschränkungen/Restrictions WT HA R Y = 2 Adria Airways JP ok SP C = 3 Aegean Airlines A3 ok 2 SP Aer Lingus EI no SP O Aeroflot Russian Airlines SU no SP S Aerolineas Argentinas AR ok 2 SP African Safari Airways ASA ok 2 DN Afriqiyah Airways 8U no DN O Air Algérie* AH ok No boardingpass 0 SP Air Baltic BT no SP T Not for USA, Canada, Pristina, Russia, Air Berlin* AB ok Cyprus; 0 DN not possible for groups 11+ Air Cairo MSC ok 2 SP AC 6821 / 6822 / 6826 / 6829 / 6832 / Air Canada AC no SP T =ok Air Dolomiti EN ok 2 SP Air Europa AEA / UX ok 2 DN Not from Zürich; not for USA, Canada, AF ok* 2 SP T Air France* Mexico; no boardingpass Air India AI ok 2 SP Air Italy I9 ok 2 DN Air Mali XG no SP O Air Malta KM ok 3 SP Y = 7 Air Mauritius MK ok Not from Zurich SP C = 10 Air Mediteranée BIE ok 2 DN Air New Zealand NZ ok 2 SP Air One AP ok 2 SP Air Seychelles HM ok Not from Zurich 3 SP Air Transat TS ok 2 SP Alitalia AZ no SP/DN T American Airlines AA no SP T ANA All Nippon Airways NH ok 2 SP Armavia
    [Show full text]
  • Antonio Di Francesco AIR TRANSPORT PUBLIC
    Antonio Di Francesco MSc in Air Transport Management 2007-2008, Cranfield University, UK AIR TRANSPORT PUBLIC SERVICE OBLIGATIONS IN EUROPE: AN ANALYSIS OF THE SARDINIAN CASE Università degli Studi di Bergamo, Facoltà di Ingegneria Lunch Seminar 27 May 2009 PRESENTATION OUTLINE - OBJECTIVES TODAY WE WILL SEE… • What is meant by Air Transport Public Service Obligations (PSOs) • How the European PSOs legislation is implemented on several routes between SdiiSardinia an d ma ildItlinland Italy • What is the impact of PSOs on these routes? analilysis o f : ¾ travel demand / flight supply ¾ aircraft load factors ¾ fares / flights accessibility • The role of the Sardinian PSOs routes for the island’ s air transport connectivity OBJECTIVES… • What is likely to happen in case of a PSOs lifting? • Are Sardinian PSOs worth being maintained / implemented? Presentation based on the Author’s MSc Thesis in Air Transport Management at Cranfield University, UK (soon accessible on-line, see references) THE REGULATORY FRAMEWORK • Air Transpppyg,ort within the EU / EEA is disciplined by the EEC Regulation 1008/2008, (which replaced the Council Regulations C2407/92, C2408/92, C2409/92) • Air Transport Public Service Obligations Regulations (“PSOs”) are also disciplined by this Regulation • Air Transport in Europe is liberalised • EU / EEA airlines … • have free access to any route within the EU/EEA (Ryanair flies Rome-Bergamo!) • can decide the fares • have to comply with common rules concerning safety, training, finance etc. • are not allowed to receive
    [Show full text]
  • Tenth Session of the Statistics Division
    STA/10-WP/6 International Civil Aviation Organization 2/10/09 WORKING PAPER TENTH SESSION OF THE STATISTICS DIVISION Montréal, 23 to 27 November 2009 Agenda Item 1: Civil aviation statistics — ICAO classification and definition REVIEW OF DEFINITIONS OF DOMESTIC AND CABOTAGE AIR SERVICES (Presented by the Secretariat) SUMMARY Currently, ICAO uses two different definitions to identify the traffic of domestic flight sectors of international flights; one used by the Statistics Programme, based on the nature of a flight stage, and the other, used for the economic studies on air transport, based on the origin and final destination of a flight (with one or more flight stages). Both definitions have their shortcomings and may affect traffic forecasts produced by ICAO for domestic operations. A similar situation arises with the current inclusion of cabotage services under international operations. After reviewing these issues, the Fourteenth Meeting of the Statistics Panel (STAP/14) agreed to recommend that no changes be made to the current definitions and instructions. Action by the division is in paragraph 5. 1. INTRODUCTION 1.1 In its activities in the field of air transport economics and statistics, ICAO is currently using two different definitions to identify the domestic services of an air carrier. The first one used by the Statistics Programme has been reaffirmed and clarified during Ninth Meeting of the Statistics Division (STA/9) and it is the one currently shown in the Air Transport Reporting Forms. The second one is being used by the Secretariat in the studies on international airline operating economics which have been carried out since 1976 and in pursuance of Assembly Resolution A36-15, Appendix G (reproduced in Appendix A).
    [Show full text]
  • Annual Report 2007 63Rd Annual General Meeting Vancouver, June 2007
    INTERNATIONAL AIR TRANSPORT ASSOCIATION ANNUAL ANNUAL REPORT REPORT 07 20 07 Contents IAtA Board of Governors 03 Director General’s Message 04 01 the state of the Industry 06 02 simplifying the Business 12 03 safety 18 04 security 24 05 Regulatory & Public Policy 30 06 environment 34 07 Cost-efficiency 40 08 Industry Financial 44 & shared services 09 Aviation solutions 50 10 IAtA Membership 52 11 IAtA Worldwide 54 Giovanni Bisignani Director General & CEO International Air transport Association Annual Report 2007 63rd Annual General Meeting Vancouver, June 2007 Promoting sustainable forest management. This paper is certified by FSC (Forest Stewardship Council) and PEFC (Programme for the endorsement of Forest Certification schemes). IATA has become more relevant to its members; and is a strong and respected voice on behalf of our industry. But while airline fortunes may have improved, many challenges remain. Chew Choon Seng IATA Board of Governors Report, 2006 03 IATA Board of Governorsas at 1 May 2007 Khalid Abdullah Almolhem Temel Kotil Fernando Pinto SAUDI ARABIAN AIRLINES TURKISH AIRLINES TAP PORTUGAL Gerard Arpey Liu Shaoyong Toshiyuki Shinmachi AMERICAN AIRLINES CHINA SOUTHERN AIRLINES JAPAN AIRLINES David Bronczek Samer A. Majali Jean-Cyril Spinetta FEDEX EXPRESS ROYAL JORDANIAN AIR FRANCE Philip Chen Wolfgang Mayrhuber Douglas Steenland CATHAY PACIFIC LUFTHANSA NORTHWEST AIRLINES Chew Choon Seng – Chairman Robert Milton Vasudevan Thulasidas SINGAPORE AIRLINES AIR CANADA AIR INDIA Yang Ho Cho Atef Abdel Hamid Mostafa Glenn F. Tilton KOREAN AIR EGYPTAIR UNITED AIRLINES Fernando Conte Titus Naikuni Leo M. van Wijk IBERIA KENYA AIRWAYS KLM ROYAL DUTCH AIRLINES Enrique Cueto Valery M.
    [Show full text]
  • IATA Centre, Route De L’Aéroport 33 P.O
    International Air Transport Association IATA Centre, Route de l’Aéroport 33 P.O. Box 416 CH-1215 Geneva 15 Airport, Switzerland INTERNATIONAL AIR TRANSPORT ASSOCIATION COMMENTS ON DG-COMPETITION CONSULTATION PAPER CONCERNING COMMISSION REGULATION 1617/93 NON-CONFIDENTIAL VERSION 6 September 2004 IATA COMMENTS ON 6 SEPTEMBER 2004 INTERLINE CONSULTATION PAPER NON-CONFIDENTIAL VERSION INTRODUCTION The International Air Transportation Association (“IATA”) submits these comments in response to the Consultation Paper concerning “revision and possible prorogation of Commission Regulation 1617/93” issued by DG Competition on 30 June 2004 (the “Consultation Paper”). The Consultation Paper sets out preliminary DG Competition views regarding the scope for a revised block exemption regulation defining the application of Article 81 EC Treaty to cooperation between airlines in the context of the IATA multilateral interline system. The Consultation Paper proposes that tariff consultation among airlines for routes between points in the EU, currently permitted under Regulation 1617/93, should be prohibited. The Consultation proposes that consultation between airlines on cargo rates for carriage from the EU to points outside the EU should likewise be prohibited. IATA recognizes the need for a revised regulation in light of changes in the Commission’s jurisdiction over air transport. IATA strongly disputes, however, both the conclusions set out in the Consultation Paper and the underlying legal and economic analysis. IATA submits that the revised regulation
    [Show full text]
  • Overview of Recent Trends in the Airline Industry
    MITMIT Overview of Recent Trends in ICATICAT the Airline Industry Prof. R. John Hansman MIT Department of Aeronautics and Astronautics Traffic Source: Sage Analysis courtesy Prof Ian Waitz [email protected] 617-253-2271 MITMIT World Population Distribution ICATICAT and Air Transportation Activity North America Europe 37% Pax 27% Pax 26% Cargo 28% Cargo ~40 Airlines ~80 Airlines Asia/ ~4100 Airports ~2400 Airports Pacific 26% Pax 36% Cargo Latin America/ ~60 Airlines Middle East Caribbean Africa ~1800 Airports 4% Pax 5% Pax 2% Pax 5% Cargo 3% Cargo 2% Cargo ~12 Airlines ~40 Airlines ~20 Airlines ~230 Airports ~580 Airports ~300 Airports Population Source:http://www.ciesin.org/datasets/gpw/globldem.doc.html Air Transport Source: ICAO, R. Schild/Airbus Passenger and freight traffic represent RPK and FTK share in 2002 MITMIT Conceptual Model ICATICAT Direct / Indirect / Induced employment effects Economy Economic Enabling Effect (Access to people / markets / ideas / capital) Pricing & Schedule Demand Supply NAS Travel/Freight Need Capability Airlines Financial Equity/ Revenue/Profitability Debt Markets Air Transportation System Vehicle Capability MITMIT Correlation Between US GDP and ICATICAT Scheduled Passenger Traffic 30% Sch. RPMs 25% GDP Deregulation 20% Recessions (%) 15% 10% Growth 5% Annual 0% -5% -10% 1965 1968 1971 1974 1977 1980 1983 1986 1989 1992 1995 1998 2001 Source: US BEA and BTS data; Recession data from National Bureau of Economic Research MITMIT Air Cargo and GDP ICATICAT (Mainland China) Relationship between carried air cargo
    [Show full text]
  • Phpkvq4lc.Pdf
    SECONDO BANDO PER LE INCENTIVAZIONI A FAVORE DEL COMMERCIO ELETTRONICO ELENCO DELLE IMPRESE AMMESSE ALLE AGEVOLAZIONI N. POS.N. PROG. DENOMINAZIONE F. GIUR. 7000007 201 /EC PENSAMONDO VIAGGI SNC DI COCCIA PIETRO E SNC 7000008 202 /EC TECOM DI PIFFER S & C SAS SAS 7000009 203 /EC JAPAN ELECTRONICS TECHNOLOGY SERVICE SRL 7008898 204 /EC B.A. DIECI SRL 7008900 204 /EC B.A. FRANCAVILLA SRL 7008907 204 /EC B.A. SEI SRL 7008910 204 /EC C.A.D.A. SRL 7008911 204 /EC CHIETI DISTRIBUZIONE SRL 7008914 204 /EC CONAD ALBA SRL 7008917 204 /EC CONAD FRANCAVILLA SRL 7008919 204 /EC CONAD GIULIANOVA SRL 7008920 204 /EC CONAD MAGLIANO SRL 7008922 204 /EC CONAD SAN BEMEDETTO SRL 7008925 204 /EC CONAD TURATI SRL 7008926 204 /EC CORFINIUM SRL 7008929 204 /EC D.E.M.A. SRL 7008930 204 /EC FOGGIA DISTRIBUZIONE SRL 7008933 204 /EC G.M.S. SRL 7008934 204 /EC IPER ADRIATICO SRL 7008937 204 /EC MIMOSA SRL 7008941 204 /EC MONTESILVANO DISTRIBUZIONE SRL 7008942 204 /EC PICENOGEST SRL 7008949 204 /EC PICENO SERVICES SRL 7008952 204 /EC TOP 1 SRL 7008955 204 /EC TOP G SRL 7000017 205 /EC SICC SPA SPA 7000019 206 /EC NEW WAY SNC DI ANTONELLA DI PERSIO & C SNC 7000021 207 /EC METALPLEX SPA SPA 7000023 208 /EC CALCESTRUZZI SANTA NINFA SRL 7000027 209 /EC ACENTRO TURISMO SPA 7000083 210 /EC IDROPI SPA 7007389 211 /EC SACIL-HLB-OF DI CORMANO SRL 7007430 211 /EC EDILSTAT SAS DI SARTORI EMANUELA MARIA SAS 7007437 211 /EC SARTORI SERGIO GIUSEPPE DI 7007454 211 /EC STUDIO ASSET DI CERNINI M &GHINDELLI M SNC 7007461 211 /EC P.S.P.
    [Show full text]