Assessing airports’ bargaining power: Evidence from U.S. airports using a two-tier stochastic frontier analysis

IF 6.3 2区工程技术 Q1 ECONOMICS

Transport Policy Pub Date : 2025-01-28 DOI:10.1016/j.tranpol.2025.01.036

Fecri Karanki , Chunyan Yu

{"title":"Assessing airports’ bargaining power: Evidence from U.S. airports using a two-tier stochastic frontier analysis","authors":"Fecri Karanki , Chunyan Yu","doi":"10.1016/j.tranpol.2025.01.036","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><div>In recent years, there has been a growing expectation for U.S. airports to achieve financial self-sufficiency, prompting increased reliance on lucrative non-aeronautical revenue sources. These revenues depend on the demand for aeronautical services, as they are intricately tied to passenger traffic. Consequently, airports have intensified efforts to boost air traffic, a challenging task given the mobility of footloose airlines. This competitive environment compels airports to adopt strategic measures with competitive pricing emerging as a critical approach in the capital-intensive airport industry. This study examines the dynamic relationships between airlines and airports, focusing on their respective bargaining positions and financial gains they extract. Using a two-tier stochastic frontier (2TSF) analysis on data for 59 U.S. airports during the 2009–2019 period, this study quantifies the gap between optimal and actual aeronautical charges while identifying determinants of bargaining power such as low-cost carrier (LCC) dominance, legacy airline hub status, proximity to competing airports, airline concentration, percentage of local passengers, and rate setting methods. Results indicate that airlines hold stronger bargaining positions with financial gains 8.4% higher than those of airports, which leads to aeronautical charges being set below optimal levels. Medium-sized airports achieve relatively higher gains compared to large airports, and airports within multi-airport systems (MAS) enjoy a greater bargaining advantage. In contrast, rival airports within a 100-mile radius reduce an individual airport's bargaining leverage, highlighting the competitive pressures faced by U.S. airports despite their public ownership. Socio-economic factors, such as tourism and foreign direct investment (FDI), significantly increase airport fees by enhancing the value of their services to airlines.</div></div>","PeriodicalId":48378,"journal":{"name":"Transport Policy","volume":"164 ","pages":"Pages 80-91"},"PeriodicalIF":6.3000,"publicationDate":"2025-01-28","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Transport Policy","FirstCategoryId":"5","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0967070X25000423","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"工程技术","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"ECONOMICS","Score":null,"Total":0}

引用次数: 0

Abstract

In recent years, there has been a growing expectation for U.S. airports to achieve financial self-sufficiency, prompting increased reliance on lucrative non-aeronautical revenue sources. These revenues depend on the demand for aeronautical services, as they are intricately tied to passenger traffic. Consequently, airports have intensified efforts to boost air traffic, a challenging task given the mobility of footloose airlines. This competitive environment compels airports to adopt strategic measures with competitive pricing emerging as a critical approach in the capital-intensive airport industry. This study examines the dynamic relationships between airlines and airports, focusing on their respective bargaining positions and financial gains they extract. Using a two-tier stochastic frontier (2TSF) analysis on data for 59 U.S. airports during the 2009–2019 period, this study quantifies the gap between optimal and actual aeronautical charges while identifying determinants of bargaining power such as low-cost carrier (LCC) dominance, legacy airline hub status, proximity to competing airports, airline concentration, percentage of local passengers, and rate setting methods. Results indicate that airlines hold stronger bargaining positions with financial gains 8.4% higher than those of airports, which leads to aeronautical charges being set below optimal levels. Medium-sized airports achieve relatively higher gains compared to large airports, and airports within multi-airport systems (MAS) enjoy a greater bargaining advantage. In contrast, rival airports within a 100-mile radius reduce an individual airport's bargaining leverage, highlighting the competitive pressures faced by U.S. airports despite their public ownership. Socio-economic factors, such as tourism and foreign direct investment (FDI), significantly increase airport fees by enhancing the value of their services to airlines.

查看原文本刊更多论文

评估机场的议价能力：来自美国机场的证据，使用两层随机前沿分析

近年来，人们对美国机场实现财务自给自足的期望越来越高，这促使机场越来越依赖利润丰厚的非航空收入来源。这些收入取决于对航空服务的需求，因为它们与客运量有着复杂的联系。因此，机场加大了增加空中交通的力度，考虑到航空公司的流动性，这是一项具有挑战性的任务。这种竞争环境迫使机场采取战略措施，竞争性定价正在成为资本密集型机场行业的关键途径。本研究考察了航空公司和机场之间的动态关系，重点关注他们各自的议价地位和他们提取的财务收益。本研究对2009-2019年期间59个美国机场的数据进行了两层随机前沿（2TSF）分析，量化了最优和实际航空收费之间的差距，同时确定了议价能力的决定因素，如低成本航空公司（LCC）的主导地位、传统航空公司枢纽地位、与竞争机场的接近程度、航空公司集中度、本地乘客比例和费率设定方法。结果表明，航空公司的议价地位较强，其财务收益比机场高8.4%，这导致航空收费低于最佳水平。与大型机场相比，中型机场的收益相对较高，多机场系统（MAS）内的机场享有更大的议价优势。相比之下，半径100英里以内的竞争机场降低了单个机场的议价筹码，凸显了美国机场尽管属于国有，但面临的竞争压力。社会经济因素，如旅游业和外国直接投资（FDI），通过提高其对航空公司的服务价值，大大增加了机场费用。

本文章由计算机程序翻译，如有差异，请以英文原文为准。

求助全文

约1分钟内获得全文求助全文

来源期刊

Transport Policy Multiple-

CiteScore

12.10

自引率

10.30%

发文量

282

期刊介绍： Transport Policy is an international journal aimed at bridging the gap between theory and practice in transport. Its subject areas reflect the concerns of policymakers in government, industry, voluntary organisations and the public at large, providing independent, original and rigorous analysis to understand how policy decisions have been taken, monitor their effects, and suggest how they may be improved. The journal treats the transport sector comprehensively, and in the context of other sectors including energy, housing, industry and planning. All modes are covered: land, sea and air; road and rail; public and private; motorised and non-motorised; passenger and freight.