The Dilemma of Slot Concentration at Network Hubs

A number of the worlds’ major airports have a high proportion of their capacity utilised by a single airline, or alliance of airlines. At major US airports, for example, it is common for the leading carrier to account for threequarters or more of the flights; at European airports the proportions are generally smaller but often exceed 50 per cent (see Annex 1). This has lead to concerns that such high levels of capacity utilisation (‘slot concentration’) will impact adversely on competition and prices and, in turn, has inclined policy makers and regulatory bodies towards pro-active competition measures. In the US, for example, the General Accounting Office (GAO, 1996) judged that the buy-sell market in slots established at certain US airports in 1985, had failed because it was argued to have done little to reduce slot concentration and introduce competition into the market. It went on to recommend that slots should be re-distributed. In Europe, the current slot allocation regulation (Regulation 95/93, Article 10) requires that at slot co-ordinated airports preference be given to new entrant carriers in the allocation of unused, returned or new slots (that together constitute the slot pool); there is also a reluctance on the part of the European Commission to accept unrestricted slot trading because of the fear that it will reinforce dominant positions; and approval of proposed alliances between carriers has often been accompanied by conditions requiring slot divestiture.

[1]  Tae Hoon Oum,et al.  INTER-FIRM RIVALRY AND FIRM-SPECIFIC PRICE ELASTICITIES IN DEREGULATED AIRLINE MARKETS. , 1993 .

[2]  MARKET FAILURE OR MARKET EFFICIENCY?: EVIDENCE ON AIRPORT SLOT USAGE. , 1996 .

[3]  Jan K. Brueckner,et al.  Internalization of Airport Congestion: A Network Analysis , 2002, SSRN Electronic Journal.

[4]  P. Seabright,et al.  Competition, Privatisation and Productive Efficiency: Evidence From the Airline Industry , 2001 .

[5]  C. Waddams The Benefits from Competition: Some Illustrative UK Cases , 2004 .

[6]  David Thompson,et al.  Privatising London's airports , 1985 .

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

[8]  Jan K. Brueckner,et al.  Scheduling Decisions in an Airline Network: A Hub-and-Spoke System's Effect on Flight Frequency, Fares and Welfare , 1999 .

[9]  Jan K. Brueckner,et al.  Airport Congestion When Carriers Have Market Power , 2002 .

[10]  S. Borenstein Hubs and High Fares: Dominance and Market Power in the U.S. Airline Industry , 1989 .

[11]  Sergio R. Jara-Díaz,et al.  Calculation of Economies of Spatial Scope from Transport Cost Functions with Aggregate Output with an Application to the Airline Industry , 2005 .

[12]  E. Pels Airport economics and policy: efficiency, competition, and interaction with airlines , 2000 .

[13]  Tae Hoon Oum,et al.  Airline Economics: Foundations for Strategy and Policy , 1992 .

[14]  E. Coyle Public Regulation: New Perspectives on Institutions and Policies , 1988 .

[15]  Joseph I. Daniel,et al.  Congestion Pricing and Capacity of Large Hub Airports: A Bottleneck Model with Stochastic Queues , 1995 .

[16]  Jan K. Brueckner,et al.  A MODEL OF SCHEDULING IN AIRLINE NETWORKS: HOW A HUB-AND-SPOKE SYSTEM AFFECTS FLIGHT FREQUENCY, FARES AND WELFARE , 2001 .

[17]  Airline Consolidation and Consumer Welfare , 1995 .

[18]  Cristián E. Cortés,et al.  Number of Points Served and Economies of Spatial Scope in Transport Cost Functions , 2001 .

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

[20]  A. Kahn The competitive consequences of hub dominance: A case study , 1993 .