Living by the "Golden Rule": Multimarket Contact in the U. S. Airline Industry
Abstract
This paper examines empirically the effects of multimarket contact on pricing in the U. S. airline industry. The analysis of the time-series and cross-sectional variability of airline fares in the 1000 largest domestic city-pair routes reveals the presence of statistically significant and quantitatively important multimarket effects—fares are higher in city-pair markets served by carriers with extensive interroute contacts. These findings are consistent with the claims of industry experts that airlines live by the “golden rule”; i.e., that they refrain from initiating aggressive pricing actions in a given route for fear of what their competitors might do in other jointly contested routes. During his testimony, Mr. Steven B. Elkins (Senior Director of marketing systems development for Northwest Airlines) cited an example in which Northwest lowered fares on night flights that were flying with empty seats in a number of routes from Minneapolis and Upper Midwest cities to various West Coast cities. He said that Continental Airlines swiftly responded by cutting prices in important Northwest markets … Mr. Elkins's memo advises Northwest pricing analysts: “We Will Live by the Golden Rule!” In his testimony, he explained that, “the Golden Rule in that context was that I did not want my pricing analyst initiating actions in another carrier's market like Chicago for fear of what that other carrier might do to retaliate” [Wall Street Journal, October 9,1990, p. B1].
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
There is a positive and highly statistically significant effect of multi-market contact on ticket prices.
“Table 4, specification (7) shows that there is a positive and highly statistically significant effect of multi-market contact on ticket prices, measured as average route contact as in in Evans and Kessides (1994); see Ciliberto and Williams (2014) for a structural version.”
From Anticompetitive Effects of Common Ownership (2018) · cites this paper as Evans and Kessides (1994)
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Anticompetitive Effects of Common Ownership
AZAR, J., SCHMALZ, M. C., & TECU, I. (2018) · The Journal of Finance · doi:10.1111/jofi.12698 · Cited by 980 · see citing works
“As a further untabulated robustness test, we find that the effect of MHHI delta is almost unchanged when we use the Evans and Kessides (1994) variables to measure multimarket contact, and also when we control for nonstop competition in adjacent markets that connect the same city pairs, similar to Brueckner, Lee, and S…”
Method
- Authors
- Evans, W. N., & Kessides, I. N.
- Affiliations
- University of Maryland, College Park (US)
- World Bank (US)
- ORCID
- Evans, W. N.
- Venue
- The Quarterly Journal of Economics
- Publisher
- Oxford University Press (OUP)
- Published
- 1994-05-01
- Volume
- 109
- Issue
- 2
- Pages
- 341-366
- ISSN
- 0033-5533 (ISSN-L)
- 1531-4650
- OpenAlex
- W2087809731
- Cited by
- 425
- References
- 0
- Citations by year
- 2026: 12 · 2025: 14 · 2024: 11 · 2023: 20 · 2022: 11 · 2021: 15 · 2020: 9 · 2019: 16 · 2018: 16 · 2017: 13 · 2016: 14 · 2015: 18 · 2014: 20 · 2013: 16 · 2012: 18
- FWCI
- 17.63
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- The Quarterly Journal of Economics (publishedVersion)
- RePEc: Research Papers in Economics (submittedVersion)
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Economics, Econometrics and Finance › General Economics, Econometrics and Finance › Aviation Industry Analysis and Trends
- Social Sciences › Economics, Econometrics and Finance › Economics and Econometrics › Merger and Competition Analysis
- Social Sciences › Business, Management and Accounting › Strategy and Management › Transport and Economic Policies
- Keywords
- multimarket contact, airline pricing, airfares, price leadership, airline industry
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review