COST COMPETITIVENESS OF MAJOR AIRLINES: AN INTERNATIONAL COMPARISON

This paper compares unit cost competitiveness of the world's 22 major airlines over the 1986-93 period. First, a unit cost index for aggregate output is computed via a multilateral index procedure. A translog variable cost function is estimated and used to decompose the unit cost differentials into potential sources: input prices, network and output attributes, and efficiency. The results of the unit cost decomposition are used to construct a cost competitiveness indicator after removing the effects of network and output attributes. Our results for 1993 are: (a) Asian carriers (except Japan Airlines and All Nippon Airways) were generally more cost competitive than the major U.S. carriers, mostly due to their substantially lower input prices; (b) Japan Airlines and All Nippon Airways were over 50% less cost competitive than American Airlines mainly because of their high input prices; (c) major European carriers were 7% (British Airways)-42% (Scandinavian Airlines Systems) less cost competitive than American Airlines, because of higher input prices and lower efficiency; (d) among the U.S. carriers, American Airlines, United Airlines and Delta were similar in cost competitiveness, while Northwest and Continental enjoyed, respectively, 5 and 12% cost competitiveness over American Airlines; (e) exchange rate fluctuation has had considerable effects on the cost competitive position of Japan Airlines and Lufthansa.

[1]  Dale W. Jorgenson,et al.  The Measurement of U.S. Real Capital Input, 1929-1967 , 1969 .

[2]  Tae Hoon Oum,et al.  Competition and Allocative Efficiency: The Case of the U.S. Telephone Industry , 1995 .

[3]  Lars-Hendrik Röller,et al.  Efficiency and productivity growth comparisons of European and U.S. Air carriers: A first look at the data , 1993 .

[4]  Badi H. Baltagi,et al.  Airline Deregulation: The Cost Pieces of the Puzzle , 1995 .

[5]  Paul W. Bauer,et al.  Decomposing TFP growth in the presence of cost inefficiency, nonconstant returns to scale, and technological progress , 1990 .

[6]  Chenjie Yu,et al.  A PRODUCTIVITY COMPARISON OF THE WORLD'S MAJOR AIRLINES. IN: AIR TRANSPORT , 1995 .

[7]  J. Williamson.  The Exchange Rate System , 1983 .

[8]  David Encaoua,et al.  Liberalizing European airlines: Cost and factor productivity evidence , 1991 .

[9]  Robin C. Sickles,et al.  Airline efficiency differences between Europe and the US: Implications for the pace of EC integration and domestic regulation , 1995 .

[10]  L. R. Christensen,et al.  Economies of Density versus Economies of Scale: Why Trunk and Local Service Airline Costs Differ , 1984 .

[11]  Chris Tofallis,et al.  Input efficiency profiling: An application to airlines , 1997, Comput. Oper. Res..

[12]  R. Summers,et al.  The Penn World Table (Mark 5): An Expanded Set of International Comparisons, 1950-1987 , 1991 .

[13]  Tae Hoon Oum,et al.  Airline Cost and Performance: Implications for Public and Industry Policies , 1986 .

[14]  L. R. Christensen,et al.  THE IMPORTANCE OF ECONOMIES OF SCALE, CAPACITY UTILIZATION, AND DENSITY IN EXPLAINING INTERINDUSTRY DIFFERENCES IN PRODUCTIVITY GROWTH , 1988 .

[15]  D. Good,et al.  PRODUCTIVE EFFICIENCY, TECHNOLOGICAL CHANGE AND THE COMPETITIVENESS OF U.S. AIRLINES IN THE PACIFIC RIM , 1991 .

[16]  Sergio Perelman,et al.  Technical Efficiency and Productivity Growth in an Era of Deregulation: the Case of Airlines , 1994 .

[17]  Tae Hoon Oum,et al.  Airline cost structure and policy implications. , 1990 .

[18]  L. R. Christensen,et al.  MULTILATERAL COMPARISONS OF OUTPUT, INPUT, AND PRODUCTIVITY USING SUPERLATIVE INDEX NUMBERS* , 1982 .