Fan Xiao , Frédéric Dobruszkes , Huihui Mo , Jiaoe Wang
{"title":"重新审视多机场系统的竞争与互补:航线与航班分析","authors":"Fan Xiao , Frédéric Dobruszkes , Huihui Mo , Jiaoe Wang","doi":"10.1016/j.tranpol.2025.02.024","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><div>Studies have contributed to airport competition issues in metropolitan areas; however, most have focused on passengers’ airport choices. Proposing a more systematic framework as well as a measuring method, this study contributes to the understanding of competition and complementarity in multiple airport systems (MASs). In this context, our research revisits MASs from the perspective of air routes and flights. These two approaches were combined. First, a quantitative analysis was conducted to investigate the degree of route overlap between airports belonging to the same MAS, ranging from strong complementarity to strong competition. In the second step, a qualitative analysis focused on the regulatory and policy context in which five MASs (Seoul, Brussels, Shanghai, Miami, and Montreal) were developed. This helps determine how much airports cooperate or compete with each other. Empirical evidence from 37 two-airport MASs worldwide suggests that inter-airport matches occur on less than 20% of routes that offer more than 40% of seats. Qualitative analysis confirmed a range of contexts, from <em>genuine cooperation</em> to <em>forced regulation</em> to <em>de facto complementarity</em> and <em>head-on competition</em>. Our findings broaden the understanding of MAS competition and complementarity profiles worldwide and their reasons.</div></div>","PeriodicalId":48378,"journal":{"name":"Transport Policy","volume":"166 ","pages":"Pages 50-64"},"PeriodicalIF":6.3000,"publicationDate":"2025-02-27","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Revisiting competition and complementarity in multiple airport systems: An analysis of air routes and flights\",\"authors\":\"Fan Xiao , Frédéric Dobruszkes , Huihui Mo , Jiaoe Wang\",\"doi\":\"10.1016/j.tranpol.2025.02.024\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<div><div>Studies have contributed to airport competition issues in metropolitan areas; however, most have focused on passengers’ airport choices. Proposing a more systematic framework as well as a measuring method, this study contributes to the understanding of competition and complementarity in multiple airport systems (MASs). In this context, our research revisits MASs from the perspective of air routes and flights. These two approaches were combined. First, a quantitative analysis was conducted to investigate the degree of route overlap between airports belonging to the same MAS, ranging from strong complementarity to strong competition. In the second step, a qualitative analysis focused on the regulatory and policy context in which five MASs (Seoul, Brussels, Shanghai, Miami, and Montreal) were developed. This helps determine how much airports cooperate or compete with each other. Empirical evidence from 37 two-airport MASs worldwide suggests that inter-airport matches occur on less than 20% of routes that offer more than 40% of seats. Qualitative analysis confirmed a range of contexts, from <em>genuine cooperation</em> to <em>forced regulation</em> to <em>de facto complementarity</em> and <em>head-on competition</em>. Our findings broaden the understanding of MAS competition and complementarity profiles worldwide and their reasons.</div></div>\",\"PeriodicalId\":48378,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Transport Policy\",\"volume\":\"166 \",\"pages\":\"Pages 50-64\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":6.3000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-02-27\",\"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/S0967070X25000897\",\"RegionNum\":2,\"RegionCategory\":\"工程技术\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"ECONOMICS\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Transport Policy","FirstCategoryId":"5","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0967070X25000897","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"工程技术","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"ECONOMICS","Score":null,"Total":0}
Revisiting competition and complementarity in multiple airport systems: An analysis of air routes and flights
Studies have contributed to airport competition issues in metropolitan areas; however, most have focused on passengers’ airport choices. Proposing a more systematic framework as well as a measuring method, this study contributes to the understanding of competition and complementarity in multiple airport systems (MASs). In this context, our research revisits MASs from the perspective of air routes and flights. These two approaches were combined. First, a quantitative analysis was conducted to investigate the degree of route overlap between airports belonging to the same MAS, ranging from strong complementarity to strong competition. In the second step, a qualitative analysis focused on the regulatory and policy context in which five MASs (Seoul, Brussels, Shanghai, Miami, and Montreal) were developed. This helps determine how much airports cooperate or compete with each other. Empirical evidence from 37 two-airport MASs worldwide suggests that inter-airport matches occur on less than 20% of routes that offer more than 40% of seats. Qualitative analysis confirmed a range of contexts, from genuine cooperation to forced regulation to de facto complementarity and head-on competition. Our findings broaden the understanding of MAS competition and complementarity profiles worldwide and their reasons.
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.