Effects of Airlines Alliances and Mergers on Fair Competition and Monopoly Prevention
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
Load more
Recommended publications
-
The Competitive Position of Hub Airports in the Transatlantic Market
Journal of Air Transportation Vol. 11, No. 1 -2006 THE COMPETITIVE POSITION OF HUB AIRPORTS IN THE TRANSATLANTIC MARKET Guillaume Burghouwt SEO Economic Research Jan Veldhuis SEO Economic Research Amsterdam, The Netherlands ABSTRACT This article puts forward the argument that the measurement of connectivity in hub- and-spoke networks has to take into account the quality and quantity of both direct and indirect connections. The NETSCAN model, which has been applied in this study, quantifies indirect connectivity and scales it into a theoretical direct connection. NETSCAN allows researchers, airports, airlines, alliances and airport regions to analyse their competitive position in an integrated way. Using NETSCAN, the authors analysed the developments on the market between northwest Europe and the United States (US) between May 2003 and May 2005. One of the most striking developments has certainly been the impact of the Air France-KLM merger and the effects of the integration of KLM and Northwest into the SkyTeam alliance on the connectivity of Amsterdam Schiphol. Direct as well as indirect connectivity (via European and North American hubs) from Amsterdam to the US increased substantially. The main reason for this increase is the integration of the former Wings and SkyTeam networks via the respective hub airports. Moreover, the extended SkyTeam alliance raised frequencies between Amsterdam and the SkyTeam hubs (Atlanta, Houston, for example), opened new routes (Cincinnati) and boosted the network between Amsterdam and France. As a result of the new routes and frequencies, Amsterdam took over Heathrow’s position as the third best-connected northwest European airport to the US. _____________________________________________________________ Guillaume Burghouwt completed his PhD-research ‘Airline network development in Europe and its implications for airport planning’ in 2005. -
The Contribution of Global Alliances to Airlines' Environmental Performance
sustainability Article The Contribution of Global Alliances to Airlines’ Environmental Performance Belén Payán-Sánchez , Miguel Pérez-Valls * and José Antonio Plaza-Úbeda Economics and Business Department, University of Almería, Ctra. Sacramento s/n, La Cañada de San Urbano, 04120 Almería, Spain * Correspondence: [email protected] Received: 27 June 2019; Accepted: 22 August 2019; Published: 24 August 2019 Abstract: Global alliances have traditionally been related to improvements in the economic and operational performances of companies, particularly in the airline industry. However, we still do not know the effect of the participation in this kind of multilateral agreement on the environmental performance of airlines. The main aim of this work is to analyze whether the alliance membership of airlines has an effect upon their environmental performance, and if so, whether or not the characteristics of the global alliance, as well as the business model of the airline, may influence this relation to a greater or lesser extent. The results of regression and Analysis of Variance (ANOVA) in a sample of 252 airlines (58 included in one of the three global alliances: Star Alliance, Oneworld, and SkyTeam) show a strong and inverse relationship between environmental performance and belonging to an alliance. The paper also shows empirical evidence of the influence of the business model of the airline on environmental performance. These results suggest important implications for managers facing challenges regarding sustainability. Keywords: global alliances; sustainability; environmental performance; airlines; aviation 1. Introduction The aviation sector is the fastest-growing source of greenhouse gas emissions worldwide [1]. Many authors and corporations, such as the International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO) and the International Air Transport Association (IATA), agree that environmental sustainability may be achieved through external pressure with the imposition and accomplishment of different policies, regulations, taxations and other fiscal instruments [2–6]. -
Skyteam Global Airline Alliance
Annual Report 2005 2005 Aeroflot made rapid progress towards membership of the SkyTeam global airline alliance Aeroflot became the first Russian airline to pass the IATA (IOSA) operational safety audit Aeroflot annual report 2005 Contents KEY FIGURES > 3 CEO’S ADDRESS TO SHAREHOLDERS> 4 MAIN EVENTS IN 2005 > 6 IMPLEMENTING COMPANY STRATEGY: RESULTS IN 2005 AND PRIORITY TASKS FOR 2006 Strengthening market positions > 10 Creating conditions for long-term growth > 10 Guaranteeing a competitive product > 11 Raising operating efficiency > 11 Developing the personnel management system > 11 Tasks for 2006 > 11 AIR TRAFFIC MARKET Global air traffic market > 14 The passenger traffic market in Russia > 14 Russian airlines: main events in 2005 > 15 Market position of Aeroflot Group > 15 CORPORATE GOVERNANCE Governing bodies > 18 Financial and business control > 23 Information disclosure > 25 BUSINESS IN 2005 Safety > 28 Passenger traffic > 30 Cargo traffic > 35 Cooperation with other air companies > 38 Joining the SkyTeam alliance > 38 Construction of the new terminal complex, Sheremetyevo-3 > 40 Business of Aeroflot subsidiaries > 41 Aircraft fleet > 43 IT development > 44 Quality management > 45 RISK MANAGEMENT Sector risks > 48 Financial risks > 49 Insurance programs > 49 Flight safety risk management > 49 PERSONNEL AND SOCIAL RESPONSIBILITY Personnel > 52 Charity activities > 54 Environment > 55 SHAREHOLDERS AND INVESTORS Share capital > 58 Securities > 59 Dividend history > 61 Important events since December 31, 2005 > 61 FINANCIAL REPORT Statement -
Shooting Down Civilian Aircraft: Is There an International Law Brian E
Journal of Air Law and Commerce Volume 72 | Issue 3 Article 10 2007 Shooting down Civilian Aircraft: Is There an International Law Brian E. Foont Follow this and additional works at: https://scholar.smu.edu/jalc Recommended Citation Brian E. Foont, Shooting down Civilian Aircraft: sI There an International Law, 72 J. Air L. & Com. 695 (2007) https://scholar.smu.edu/jalc/vol72/iss3/10 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Law Journals at SMU Scholar. It has been accepted for inclusion in Journal of Air Law and Commerce by an authorized administrator of SMU Scholar. For more information, please visit http://digitalrepository.smu.edu. SHOOTING DOWN CIVILIAN AIRCRAFT: IS THERE AN INTERNATIONAL LAW? BRIAN E. FOONT* TABLE OF CONTENTS PRO LO G U E .............................................. 696 INTRODUCTION ......................................... 697 I. BACKGROUND .................................... 698 A. PRESIDENT TITO'S LETTER ...................... 700 II. SOURCES OF INTERNATIONAL LAW ............ 701 III. POST-WORLD WAR II INCIDENTS ............... 704 A. SOVIET UNION-SHOOT DOWN OF FRENCH COMMERCIAL AIRLINER .......................... 704 B. CHINA-SHOOT DowN OF CATHAY PACIFIC FLIGHT ......................................... 705 C. BULGARIA-SHOOT DowN OF ISRAELI EL AL PASSENGER JET .................................. 705 D. ISRAEL-SHOOT DowN OF LIBYAN AIRLINES PASSENGER JET .................................. 706 E. SOVIET UNION-SHOOT DowN OF KOREAN AIRLINES PASSENGER JET (FLIGHT 902) .......... 707 F. SOVIET UNION-SHOOT DowN OF KOREAN AIRLINES PASSENGER JET (FLIGHT 007) AND ARTICLE 3 BIS TO THE CHICAGO CONVENTION .. 707 G. UNITED STATES-SHOOT DOWN OF IRANIAN AIRLINES PASSENGER JET (FLIGHT 655) .......... 711 * The Law Offices of Brian E. Foont, PLLC; LL.M., Georgetown University Law Center; J.D., American University Washington College of Law; B.A., University of Rochester. -
Runway to Recovery
Runway to Recovery The United States Framework for Airlines and Airports to Mitigate the Public Health Risks of Coronavirus Guidance Jointly Issued by the U.S. Departments of Transportation, Homeland Security, and Health and Human Services Version 1.1 | December 2020 CONTENTS – 03 Overview 07 Principles 09 Air Transportation Stakeholder Roles and Responsibilities 11 A Risk-Based Approach for COVID-19 Outbreak Mitigation Planning 14 Public Health Risk Mitigation in the Passenger Air Transportation System 49 Future Areas of Research and Evaluation for Public Health Risk Mitigations 51 Implementation Challenges Specific to International Travel 53 Appendix A: Key Partners and Decision-Makers OVERVIEW A safe, secure, efficient, and resilient air transportation system is essential to our Nation’s physical, economic, and social health. The Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) public health emergency has demonstrated that protecting public health in the air transportation system is just as critical as aviation safety and security to the confidence of the flying public. Government, aviation, and public health leaders have been working together—and must continue to do so—to meaningfully reduce the public health risk and restore passenger, aviation workforce (including aircrew), and public confidence in air travel. The U.S. Government continues to assess the evolving situation and the effectiveness of actions and recommendations implemented to date. This updated guidance reflects this continual assessment and updated information. Although there are some updates and adjustments throughout, the key additions and changes in this document include new information on: » Passenger and Aviation Workforce Education » Contact Tracing » Mask Use, specifically the need to accommodate those who cannot wear masks » Passenger Testing This document provides the U.S. -
Airline Alliances
AIRLINE ALLIANCES by Paul Stephen Dempsey Director, Institute of Air & Space Law McGill University Copyright © 2011 by Paul Stephen Dempsey Open Skies • 1992 - the United States concluded the first second generation “open skies” agreement with the Netherlands. It allowed KLM and any other Dutch carrier to fly to any point in the United States, and allowed U.S. carriers to fly to any point in the Netherlands, a country about the size of West Virginia. The U.S. was ideologically wedded to open markets, so the imbalance in traffic rights was of no concern. Moreover, opening up the Netherlands would allow KLM to drain traffic from surrounding airline networks, which would eventually encourage the surrounding airlines to ask their governments to sign “open skies” bilateral with the United States. • 1993 - the U.S. conferred antitrust immunity on the Wings Alliance between Northwest Airlines and KLM. The encirclement policy began to corrode resistance to liberalization as the sixth freedom traffic drain began to grow; soon Lufthansa, then Air France, were asking their governments to sign liberal bilaterals. • 1996 - Germany fell, followed by the Czech Republic, Italy, Portugal, the Slovak Republic, Malta, Poland. • 2001- the United States had concluded bilateral open skies agreements with 52 nations and concluded its first multilateral open skies agreement with Brunei, Chile, New Zealand and Singapore. • 2002 – France fell. • 2007 - The U.S. and E.U. concluded a multilateral “open skies” traffic agreement that liberalized everything but foreign ownership and cabotage. • 2011 – cumulatively, the U.S. had signed “open skies” bilaterals with more than100 States. Multilateral and Bilateral Air Transport Agreements • Section 5 of the Transit Agreement, and Section 6 of the Transport Agreement, provide: “Each contracting State reserves the right to withhold or revoke a certificate or permit to an air transport enterprise of another State in any case where it is not satisfied that substantial ownership and effective control are vested in nationals of a contracting State . -
Strategic Airline Alliances: Advantages for Major Airlines Being Aligned
STRATEGIC AIRLINE ALLIANCES: ADVANTAGES FOR MAJOR AIRLINES BEING ALIGNED Jorge J. Villar Department of Aerospace Engineering, Universidad Politécnica de Madrid, Spain Javier Tafur Department of Industrial Engineering, Business Administration and Statistics, Universidad Politécnica de Madrid, Spain Guozhu Jia School of Economics and Management, Beijing University of Aeronautics and Astronautics (Beihang University), China Fernando Zobel 3, 3º C 16002 Cuenca Spain Telephone: (0086)13691243311, (0034)659928918 E-mail: [email protected] Abstract Some factors including the deregulation in the U.S and the liberalization in Europe of the airline industry are essential to understanding why the number of partnership agreements between airlines has increased during the last 25 years. These events, coupled with the continuous economic downturn and the 9/11 catastrophe seem to be the perfect framework for the tendency to develop airline strategic alliances. However, it has been observed that this trend was not followed during the period 2005- 2008. The purpose of this paper is to analyze if a benefit was experienced by the major airlines who became a member of the current 3 big alliances compared to the major airlines that decided not to become a member or were not admitted into the alliances during 2005-2008. The methodology of this report includes an analysis of several airlines’ performance figures. These performance figures include the revenue passenger kilometers (RPKs), the passenger load factor (PLF) and also the market share (MS). The figures will be compared between the aligned airlines and others which have similar business models. The value of this paper is to reveal whether being aligned provides advantages to major airlines under a bearish airline market in a globalized environment. -
The Impacts of Globalisation on International Air Transport Activity
Global Forum on Transport and Environment in a Globalising World 10-12 November 2008, Guadalajara, Mexico The Impacts of Globalisation on International Air Transport A ctivity Past trends and future perspectives Ken Button, School of George Mason University, USA NOTE FROM THE SECRETARIAT This paper was prepared by Prof. Ken Button of School of George Mason University, USA, as a contribution to the OECD/ITF Global Forum on Transport and Environment in a Globalising World that will be held 10-12 November 2008 in Guadalajara, Mexico. The paper discusses the impacts of increased globalisation on international air traffic activity – past trends and future perspectives. 2 TABLE OF CONTENTS NOTE FROM THE SECRETARIAT ............................................................................................................. 2 THE IMPACT OF GLOBALIZATION ON INTERNATIONAL AIR TRANSPORT ACTIVITY - PAST TRENDS AND FUTURE PERSPECTIVE .................................................................................................... 5 1. Introduction .......................................................................................................................................... 5 2. Globalization and internationalization .................................................................................................. 5 3. The Basic Features of International Air Transportation ....................................................................... 6 3.1 Historical perspective ................................................................................................................. -
The Economic Impact of Civil Aviation on the U.S. Economy
The Economic Impact of Civil Aviation on the U.S. Economy State Supplement November 2020 Contents Introduction “Civil aviation provides the means of transporting millions Introduction...............................................................3 of passengers and tons of freight to all corners of the State Economic Impact .....................................................9 globe each and every day. Consumers rely on this physical Economic Impact by Expenditure Category ..................................... 18 connectivity to improve their quality of life and businesses Airline Operations....................................................... 18 depend on it to facilitate transactions, both of which are key Airport Operations ...................................................... 18 to increasing a nation’s economic productivity and prosperity.” General Aviation ........................................................ 19 — The Economic Impact of Civil Aviation on the U.S. Economy, January 2020 Aircraft, Aircraft Engines and Parts Manufacturing ............................. 19 This report supplements Federal Aviation The National Report incorporated the 2014- Avionics Manufacturing .................................................. 20 Administration’s (FAA) publication The Economic 2016 years’ data from the U.S. Department Impact of Civil Aviation on the U.S. Economy, of Commerce (DOC), Department of Research and Development (R&D).......................................... 20 released in January 2020. The Economic Impact Transportation -
International Civil Aviation Organization Airports Council International
Airports Council International International Civil Aviation Organization Annual Airport Traffic Statistics CITY: AIRPORT: Code: Please indicate reporting period by specifying month/year. Calendar Year or 12 Months Ending : current year previous year I. Aircraft Movements (a) Passenger and Combi (combination) Aircraft (b) All-Cargo Aircraft (c) Total Air Transport Movements (a + b) (c.i) International scheduled (c.ii) International non-scheduled (c.iii) Domestic scheduled (c.iv) Domestic non-scheduled (d) Other Aircraft Movements (d.i) Air taxi and commercial business flights (d.ii) All other aircraft movements Total Aircraft Movements (c + d) II. Commercial Passengers (a) International Passengers (enplaned + deplaned) (a.i) International scheduled (a.ii) International non-scheduled (b) Domestic Passengers (enplaned + deplaned) (b.i) Domestic scheduled (b.ii) Domestic non-scheduled (c) Total Terminal Passengers (a + b) (c.i) Transfer passengers (d) Direct Transit Passengers Total Passengers (c + d) III. Cargo (Freight & Mail*) in Metric Tonnes (1 metric tonne = 1000 kgs or 2205 lbs or 1.1 U.S. tons) (a) International Freight (loaded + unloaded) (a.i) international loaded freight (a.ii) international unloaded freight (b) Domestic Freight (loaded + unloaded) (c) Total Freight (loaded + unloaded) (a + b) (d) Total Mail (loaded + unloaded) (e) Total Cargo (c + d) (e.i) Passenger and Combi (combination) Aircraft (e.ii) All-Cargo Aircraft (f) Transit freight (not included in Total Cargo) (g) Trucked freight (loaded + unloaded - not included in Total Cargo) Event(s) affecting traffic for the period reported: Prepared by: FAX/Phone/E-mail: Reporting Instructions: 1 Complete one separate form for EACH airport being reported. If you need more copies of the form, please make copies of the original form. -
Manual on the Prevention of Runway Incursions
Doc 9870 AN/463 Manual on the Prevention of Runway Incursions Approved by the Secretary General and published under his authority First Edition — 2007 International Civil Aviation Organization Published in separate English, French, Russian and Spanish editions by the International Civil Aviation Organization. All correspondence, except orders and subscriptions, should be addressed to the Secretary General. Orders should be sent to one of the following addresses, together with the appropriate remittance (by bank draft, cheque or money order) in U.S. dollars or the currency of the country in which the order is placed. Credit card orders (American Express, MasterCard and Visa) are accepted at ICAO Headquarters. International Civil Aviation Organization. Attention: Document Sales Unit, 999 University Street, Montréal, Quebec, Canada H3C 5H7 Telephone: +1 514-954-8022; Facsimile: +1 514-954-6769; Sitatex: YULCAYA; E-mail: [email protected]; World Wide Web: http://www.icao.int Cameroon. KnowHow, 1, Rue de la Chambre de Commerce-Bonanjo, B.P. 4676, Douala / Telephone: +237 343 98 42; Facsimile: +237 343 89 25; E-mail: [email protected] China. Glory Master International Limited, Room 434B, Hongshen Trade Centre, 428 Dong Fang Road, Pudong, Shanghai 200120 Telephone: +86 137 0177 4638; Facsimile: +86 21 5888 1629; E-mail: [email protected] Egypt. ICAO Regional Director, Middle East Office, Egyptian Civil Aviation Complex, Cairo Airport Road, Heliopolis, Cairo 11776 Telephone: +20 2 267 4840; Facsimile: +20 2 267 4843; Sitatex: CAICAYA; E-mail: [email protected] Germany. UNO-Verlag GmbH, August-Bebel-Allee 6, 53175 Bonn / Telephone: +49 0 228-94 90 2-0; Facsimile: +49 0 228-94 90 2-22; E-mail: [email protected]; World Wide Web: http://www.uno-verlag.de India. -
Law Enforcement, the Rogue Civil Airliner and Proportionality of Effects: an Analysis of International Human Rights Law
Law Enforcement, the Rogue Civil Airliner and Proportionality of Effects: An Analysis of International Human Rights Law A thesis submitted to McGill University in partial fulfillment of the requirements of the degree of LL.M. Robin F. Holman Institute of Air and Space Law McGill University Faculty of Law Montreal, Quebec August 2010 © Robin F. Holman, 2010 Table of Contents Abstract v Acknowledgements vi Prologue 1 I. Introduction 5 A. The Emergence of the Rogue Civil Aircraft Threat 5 B. Legal Responses to the Rogue Civil Aircraft Threat 8 C. Defining the Rogue Civil Airliner Problem 10 D. Outline of Argument 12 E. A Factual Model 15 II. The Rogue Civil Airliner and International Human Rights Law 21 Governing State Use of Force in the Law Enforcement Context A. International Human Rights Law, Human Dignity and the 21 Right to Life i. Introduction to International Human Rights Law 21 ii. Human Dignity 24 iii. The Right to Life 26 B. Constitutional Human Rights Jurisprudence Addressing the 30 Rogue Civil Airliner Problem i. Proportionality Theory of Constitutional Human Rights 31 ii. The German Aviation Security Act Case 33 iii. The Polish Aviation Act Case 41 iv. A Critique of the Jurisprudence 43 a. Intended v. Foreseeable Consequences 44 i b. Ends v. ―Mere Means‖ 47 c. State Acts v. State Omissions 48 d. Irreconcilable Duties Derived From Irreconcilable Claims 50 e. Summary 53 C. IHRL Norms Governing State Uses of Force and the Rogue 55 Civil Airliner Problem in the Law Enforcement Context i. Ensuring State Deprivations of Life are Not Arbitrary 56 a.