The DOI matches its Crossref record.
Determinants of Airport–Airline Vertical Arrangements: Analytical Results and Empirical Evidence
Abstract
Many airports are making various vertical arrangements with their airline customers. This paper investigates the effects of such industry practices by analysing airport revenue sharing in a bargaining game. Our results suggest that, generally, airport–airline vertical arrangements are more likely to be formed when airlines have greater market power or higher costs, airport charges are higher, or the airport cares more about social welfare. Preliminary empirical tests confirm that public airports are more likely to form vertical arrangements, but other analytical results do not appear to be directly supported. Relevant policy implications and avenues for future research are provided.
Overview
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
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?
It is difficult to control the effects of factors beyond managerial controls, such as geographic locations of hubs, regulations, airport slot control, government assistance, emission control policy, and airport-airline vertical arrangements.
“It is also difficult to control the effects of factors beyond managerial controls, such as geographic locations of an airline's hubs, regulations such as open-skies policy, airport slot control, government assistance including subsidies received during the COVID-19 pandemic, emission control policy, airport-airline vertical arrangements ( Cui et al., 2016; Fu et al., 2011b; Yang et al., 2015 ).”
From Status quo and challenges in air transport management research (2024) · cites this paper as Yang et al., 2015
Citations
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Status quo and challenges in air transport management research
Wandelt, S., Antoniou, C., Birolini, S., Delahaye, D., Dresner, M., Fu, X., Gössling, S., Hong, S.-J., Odoni, A. R., Zanin, M., et al. (2024) · Journal of the Air Transport Research Society · doi:10.1016/j.jatrs.2024.100014 · Cited by 67
“…locations of an airline’s hubs, regulations such as open-skies policy, airport slot control, government assistance including subsidies received during the COVID-19 pandemic, emission control policy, airport-airline vertical arrangements ( Cui et al., 2016; Fu et al., 2011b; Yang et al., 2015 ).”
BackgroundSelf-citation
Metadata
- Authors
- Yang, H., Zhang, A., & Fu, X.
- Affiliations
- University of International Business and Economics (CN)
- University of British Columbia (CA)
- The University of Sydney (AU)
- Venue
- Journal of Transport Economics and Policy
- Publisher
- Liverpool University Press
- Published
- 2015-07-01
- Volume
- 49
- Issue
- 3
- Pages
- 438-453
- ISSN
- 0022-5258 (ISSN-L)
- 1754-5951
- OpenAlex
- W2307388748
- Cited by
- 35
- References
- 0
- Citations by year
- 2025: 2 · 2024: 3 · 2023: 3 · 2022: 2 · 2021: 3 · 2020: 6 · 2019: 4 · 2018: 4 · 2017: 4 · 2016: 2 · 2015: 1
- FWCI
- 10.90
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- Journal of Transport Economics and Policy (publishedVersion)
- Journal of Transport Economics and Policy (submittedVersion)
- 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 › Transportation › Transport and Economic Policies
- Keywords
- bargaining game, market power, airport charges, social welfare (welfare economics), public airports, 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
