aviation industry literature review

A bibliometric analysis of revenue management in airline industry

• Research Article
• Published: 06 May 2020
• Volume 19 , pages 436–465, ( 2020 )

Cite this article

• Syed Asif Raza 1 ,
• Rafi Ashrafi 2 &
• Ali Akgunduz 3  

749 Accesses

18 Citations

Explore all metrics

Air travel industry is among the most and the oldest beneficiaries of the Operations Research tools. The literature in the field of airline revenue management has been steadily growing over four decades. This paper presents a structured literature review of the peer-reviewed publications in the area of Revenue Management in the airline industry. The structured literature review utilizes contemporary tools from the bibliometric analysis of over 350 articles that are extracted. Using the comprehensive tools from bibliometric analysis, we identify emerging research clusters, topological analysis, key research topics, interrelation and collaboration networks and their patterns. A systematic graphical mapping helps marking research publications evaluation over the period explored along with the direction for future research. A multivariate analysis is also carried out on the co-citation matrix for identification of the factors and clusters in the highly cited publications. The findings of this paper also guide to layout a robust strategic plan for future research studies in the field.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Subscribe and save.

• Get 10 units per month
• Download Article/Chapter or eBook
• 1 Unit = 1 Article or 1 Chapter
• Cancel anytime

Price includes VAT (Russian Federation)

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Rent this article via DeepDyve

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

Reviewing the transport domain: an evolutionary bibliometrics and network analysis.

A network text analysis of published papers in service business, 2007–2017: research trends in the service sector

Journal segmentation and competitive position based on revenue management research publications, explore related subjects.

• Artificial Intelligence

Algers, S., and M. Beser. 2001. Modelling choice of flight and booking class—A study using stated preference and revealed preference data. International Journal of Services, Technology and Management 2 (1–2): 28–45.

Google Scholar  

Alstrup, J., S. Boas, O.B. Madsen, and R.V. Vidal. 1986. Booking policy for flights with two types of passengers. European Journal of Operational Research 27 (3): 274–288.

Anderson, C.K., and X. Xie. 2010. Improving hospitality industry sales: Twenty-five years of revenue management. Cornell Hospitality Quarterly 51 (1): 53–67.

Andersson, S.E. 1998. Passenger choice analysis for seat capacity control: A pilot project in Scandinavian Airlines. International Transactions in Operational Research 5 (6): 471–486.

Aria, M., and C. Cuccurullo. 2017. bibliometrix: An R-tool for comprehensive science mapping analysis. Journal of Informetrics 11 (4): 959–975.

Aziz, H.A., M. Saleh, M.H. Rasmy, and H. El-Shishiny. 2011. Dynamic room pricing model for hotel revenue management systems. Egyptian Informatics Journal 12 (3): 177–183.

Baker, T.K. 1994. New approaches to yield management: comprehensive overbooking/allocation heuristics for the hotel industry. Doctoral dissertation, The Ohio State University.

Ball, R., and D. Tunger. 2006. Science indicators revisited–Science Citation Index versus SCOPUS: A bibliometric comparison of both citation databases. Information Services & Use 26 (4): 293–301.

Barnhart, C., P. Belobaba, and A.R. Odoni. 2003. Applications of operations research in the air transport industry. Transportation Science 37 (4): 368–391.

Barrett, S.D. 2000. Airport competition in the deregulated European aviation market. Journal of Air Transport Management 6 (1): 13–27.

Bastian, M., S. Heymann, and M. Jacomy. 2009. Gephi: an open source software for exploring and manipulating networks. ICWSM 8 (2009): 361–362.

Batagelj, V., and M. Cerinšek. 2013. On bibliographic networks. Scientometrics 96 (3): 845–864.

Belobaba, P.P. 1987. Survey paper—Airline yield management an overview of seat inventory control. Transportation Science 21 (2): 63–73.

Belobaba, P.P. 1989. OR practice—Application of a probabilistic decision model to airline seat inventory control. Operations Research 37 (2): 183–197.

Belobaba, P. 2009. Overview of airline economics, markets and demand. In The global airline industry , ed. P. Belobaba, A.R. Odoni, and C. Barnhart, 47–71. New York: Wiley.

Belobaba, P.P., and L.R. Weatherford. 1996. Comparing decision rules that incorporate customer diversion in perishable asset revenue management situations. Decision Sciences 27 (2): 343–363.

Benveniste, A., M. Métivier, and P. Priouret. 1990. Stochastic Approximations: Adaptive Algorithms and Stochastic Approximations . Springer.

Benveniste, A., M. Métivier, and P. Priouret. 2012. Adaptive algorithms and stochastic approximations , vol. 22. Berlin: Springer.

Bertsekas, D. 1999. Nonlinear programming . Nashua, NH: Athena Scientific.

Bertsekas, D.P., and J.N. Tsitsiklis. 1996. Neuro-dynamic programming , vol. 5. Belmont, MA: Athena Scientific.

Bertsimas, D., and S. De Boer. 2005. Simulation-based booking limits for airline revenue management. Operations Research 53 (1): 90–106.

Bertsimas, D., and I. Popescu. 2003. Revenue management in a dynamic network environment. Transportation Science 37 (3): 257–277.

Bharill, R., and N. Rangaraj. 2008. Revenue management in railway operations: A study of the Rajdhani Express, Indian Railways. Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice 42 (9): 1195–1207.

Billingsley, P. 1968. Convergence of probability measures . New York: Wiley.

Birbil, Şİ., J.B.G. Frenk, J.A. Gromicho, and S. Zhang. 2009. The role of robust optimization in single-leg airline revenue management. Management Science 55 (1): 148–163.

Bitran, G.R., and S.M. Gilbert. 1996. Managing hotel reservations with uncertain arrivals. Operations Research 44 (1): 35–49.

Bitran, G., and R. Caldentey. 2003. An overview of pricing models for revenue management. Manufacturing & Service Operations Management 5 (3): 203–229.

Bitran, G., R. Caldentey, and S. Mondschein. 1998. Coordinating clearance markdown sales of seasonal products in retail chains. Operations Research 46 (5): 609–624.

Bodily, S.E., and L.R. Weatherford. 1995. Perishable-asset revenue management: Generic and multiple-price yield management with diversion. Omega 23 (2): 173–185.

Botimer, T.C., and P.P. Belobaba. 1999. Airline pricing and fare product differentiation: A new theoretical framework. Journal of the Operational Research Society 50 (11): 1085–1097.

Boyaci, T., and S. Ray. 2003. Product differentiation and capacity cost interaction in time and price sensitive markets. Manufacturing & Service Operations Management 5 (1): 18–36.

Boyd, E.A., and I.C. Bilegan. 2003. Revenue management and e-commerce. Management Science 49: 1363–1386.

Boyd, E.A., and R. Kallesen. 2004. Practice papers: The science of revenue management when passengers purchase the lowest available fare. Journal of Revenue and Pricing Management 3 (2): 171–177.

Bradford, S.C. 1934. Sources of information on specific subjects. Engineering 137: 85–86.

Brémaud, P. 1980. Point processes and queues: martingale dynamics , vol. 50. New York: Springer.

Brumelle, S.L., and J.I. McGill. 1993. Airline seat allocation with multiple nested fare classes. Operations Research 41 (1): 127–137.

Brumelle, S.L., J.I. McGill, T.H. Oum, K. Sawaki, and M.W. Tretheway. 1990. Allocation of airline seats between stochastically dependent demands. Transportation Science 24 (3): 183–192.

Budd, J.M. 1988. A bibliometric analysis of higher education literature. Research in Higher Education 28 (2): 180–190.

Burgess, T.F., S.M. Burkinshaw, and A.P. Vijayan. 2006. Adoption of a focal production innovation within a supply network. International Journal of Management and Decision Making 7 (6): 628–642.

Cabral, L. 2011. Dynamic price competition with network effects. The Review of Economic Studies 78 (1): 83–111.

Chandrashekarai, M., K.R. Mulla, and N.S. Harinarayana. 2010. Bibliometric analysis of literature published in Emerald publications on digital Libraries. International Journal of Library Science 1 (J10): 20–29.

Chao, C.C., J.M. Yang, and W.Y. Jen. 2007. Determining technology trends and forecasts of RFID by a historical review and bibliometric analysis from 1991 to 2005. Technovation 27 (5): 268–279.

Charrad, M., N. Ghazzali, V. Boiteau, and A. Niknafs. 2012. NbClust Package: finding the relevant number of clusters in a dataset. Journal of Statistical Software 61 (6): 1–36.

Chatwin, R.E. 1998. Multiperiod airline overbooking with a single fare class. Operations Research 46 (6): 805–819.

Chatwin, R.E. 2000. Optimal dynamic pricing of perishable products with stochastic demand and a finite set of prices. European Journal of Operational Research 125 (1): 149–174.

Chatwin, R. 1992. Optimal airline overbooking. PhD dissertation, Department of Operations Research, Stanford University, Stanford, CA.

Chen, L., and T. Homem-de-Mello. 2010a. Mathematical programming models for revenue management under customer choice. European Journal of Operational Research 203 (2): 294–305.

Chen, L., and T. Homem-de-Mello. 2010b. Re-solving stochastic programming models for airline revenue management. Annals of Operations Research 177 (1): 91–114.

Chew, E.P., C. Lee, and R. Liu. 2009. Joint inventory allocation and pricing decisions for perishable products. International Journal of Production Economics 120 (1): 139–150.

Chiang, W.C., J.C. Chen, and X. Xu. 2007. An overview of research on revenue management: current issues and future research. International Journal of Revenue Management 1 (1): 97–128.

Chiu, W.T., and Y.S. Ho. 2007. Bibliometric analysis of tsunami research. Scientometrics 73 (1): 3–17.

Cobo, M.J., A.G. López-Herrera, E. Herrera-Viedma, and F. Herrera. 2011a. An approach for detecting, quantifying, and visualizing the evolution of a research field: A practical application to the fuzzy sets theory field. Journal of Informetrics 5 (1): 146–166.

Cobo, M.J., A.G. López-Herrera, E. Herrera-Viedma, and F. Herrera. 2011b. Science mapping software tools: Review, analysis, and cooperative study among tools. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology 62 (7): 1382–1402.

Côté, J.P., P. Marcotte, and G. Savard. 2003. A bilevel modelling approach to pricing and fare optimisation in the airline industry. Journal of Revenue and Pricing Management 2 (1): 23–36.

Cross, R.G. 1997. Launching the revenue rocket: how revenue management can work for your business. Cornell Hotel and Restaurant Administration Quarterly 38 (2): 32–43.

Cuccurullo, C., M. Aria, and F. Sarto. 2013. Twenty years of research on performance management in business and public administration domains. In: Academy of management proceedings (Vol. 2013, No. 1), 14270. Briarcliff Manor, NY: Academy of Management.

Cuccurullo, C., M. Aria, and F. Sarto. 2016. Foundations and trends in performance management. A twenty-five years bibliometric analysis in business and public administration domains. Scientometrics 108 (2): 595–611.

Culnan, M.J. 1986. The intellectual development of management information systems, 1972–1982: A co-citation analysis. Management Science 32 (2): 156–172.

Curry, R.E. 1990. Optimal airline seat allocation with fare classes nested by origins and destinations. Transportation Science 24 (3): 193–204.

De Bakker, F.G., P. Groenewegen, and F. Den Hond. 2005. A bibliometric analysis of 30 years of research and theory on corporate social responsibility and corporate social performance. Business & Society 44 (3): 283–317.

de Boer, S.V., R. Freling, and N. Piersma. 2002. Mathematical programming for network revenue management revisited. European Journal of Operational Research 137 (1): 72–92.

Dev, C.S., J.D. Buschman, and J.T. Bowen. 2010. Hospitality marketing: A retrospective analysis (1960-2010) and predictions (2010–2020). Cornell Hospitality Quarterly 51 (4): 459–469.

Dolan, R.J., and A.P. Jeuland. 1981. Experience curves and dynamic demand models: Implications for optimal pricing strategies. Journal of Marketing 45 (1): 52–62.

Elmaghraby, W., and P. Keskinocak. 2003. Dynamic pricing in the presence of inventory considerations: Research overview, current practices, and future directions. Management Science 49 (10): 1287–1309.

Erdelyi, A., and H. Topaloglu. 2010. A dynamic programming decomposition method for making overbooking decisions over an airline network. INFORMS Journal on Computing 22 (3): 443–456.

Fahimnia, B., J. Sarkis, and H. Davarzani. 2015. Green supply chain management: A review and bibliometric analysis. International Journal of Production Economics 162: 101–114.

Feldman, J.M. 1991. To rein in those cross . New York: ATW: Air Transport World.

Feng, Y., and G. Gallego. 1995. Optimal starting times for end-of-season sales and optimal stopping times for promotional fares. Management Science 41 (8): 1371–1391.

Feng, Y., Q. Zhu, and K.H. Lai. 2017. Corporate social responsibility for supply chain management: A literature review and bibliometric analysis. Journal of Cleaner Production 158: 296–307.

Fernandes, C., J.J. Ferreira, M.L. Raposo, C. Estevão, M. Peris-Ortiz, and C. Rueda-Armengot. 2017. The dynamic capabilities perspective of strategic management: A co-citation analysis. Scientometrics 112 (1): 529–555.

Fiig, T., K. Isler, C. Hopperstad, and P. Belobaba. 2010. Optimization of mixed fare structures: Theory and applications. Journal of Revenue and Pricing Management 9 (1–2): 152–170.

Fleming, W.H., and H.M. Soner. 1992. Controlled Markov Processes And Viscosity Solutions . New York: Springer.

Fleming, W.H., and H.M. Soner. 2006. Controlled Markov processes and viscosity solutions , vol. 2. New York: Springer.

Francis, G., I. Humphreys, S. Ison, and M. Aicken. 2006. Where next for low cost airlines? A spatial and temporal comparative study. Journal of Transport Geography 14 (2): 83–94.

Fristedt, B.E., and L.F. Gray. 2013. A modern approach to probability theory . Berlin: Springer.

Gallego, G., and R. Phillips. 2004. Revenue management of flexible products. Manufacturing & Service Operations Management 6 (4): 321–337.

Gallego, G., and G. Van Ryzin. 1994. Optimal dynamic pricing of inventories with stochastic demand over finite horizons. Management Science 40 (8): 999–1020.

Gallego, G., L. Li, and R. Ratliff. 2009. Choice-based EMSR methods for single-leg revenue management with demand dependencies. Journal of Revenue and Pricing Management 8 (2–3): 207–240.

Geraghty, M.K., and E. Johnson. 1997. Revenue management saves national car rental. Interfaces 27 (1): 107–127.

Glover, F., R. Glover, J. Lorenzo, and C. McMillan. 1982. The passenger-mix problem in the scheduled airlines. Interfaces 12 (3): 73–80.

Goetz, A.R., and T.M. Vowles. 2009. The good, the bad, and the ugly: 30 years of US airline deregulation. Journal of Transport Geography 17 (4): 251–263.

Graf, M., and A. Kimms. 2011. An option-based revenue management procedure for strategic airline alliances. European Journal of Operational Research 215 (2): 459–469.

Greenacre, M. 2017. Correspondence analysis in practice . Boca Raton: Chapman and Hall/CRC.

Han, D.L., L.C. Tang, and H.C. Huang. 2010. A Markov model for single-leg air cargo revenue management under a bid-price policy. European Journal of Operational Research 200 (3): 800–811.

Hanks, R.D., R.G. Cross, and R.P. Noland. 2002. Discounting in the hotel industry: A new approach. Cornell Hotel and Restaurant Administration Quarterly 43 (4): 94–103.

Hayes, K.J., and L.B. Ross. 1998. Is airline price dispersion the result of careful planning or competitive forces? Review of Industrial Organization 13 (5): 523–541.

Hu, X., R. Caldentey, and G. Vulcano. 2013. Revenue sharing in airline alliances. Management Science 59 (5): 1177–1195.

Jain, A.K. 2010. Data clustering: 50 years beyond K-means. Pattern Recognition Letters 31 (8): 651–666.

Jerath, K., S. Netessine, and S.K. Veeraraghavan. 2010. Revenue management with strategic customers: Last-minute selling and opaque selling. Management Science 56 (3): 430–448.

Kanungo, T., D.M. Mount, N.S. Netanyahu, C.D. Piatko, R. Silverman, and A.Y. Wu. 2002. An efficient k-means clustering algorithm: Analysis and implementation. IEEE Transactions on Pattern Analysis and Machine Intelligence 7: 881–892.

Karatzas, I., and S.E. Shreve. 1988. Brownian motion and stochastic calculus . New York: Springer.

Karlin, S. 1968. Total positivity , vol. 1. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.

Kessler, M. M. 1963. Bibliographic coupling between scientific papers. American documentation 14 (1): 10–25

Kimes, S.E. 1989. Yield management: A tool for capacity-considered service firms. Journal of Operations Management 8 (4): 348–363.

Kimes, S.E. 2003. Revenue management: A retrospective. Cornell Hotel and Restaurant Administration Quarterly 44: 131–138.

Koenigsberg, O., E. Muller, and N.J. Vilcassim. 2008. easyJet ® pricing strategy: Should low-fare airlines offer last-minute deals? QME 6 (3): 279–297.

Koseoglu, M.A. 2016. Growth and structure of authorship and co-authorship network in the strategic management realm: Evidence from the Strategic Management Journal. BRQ Business Research Quarterly 19 (3): 153–170.

Kumar, S., and S. Kumar. 2008. Collaboration in research productivity in oil seed research institutes of India. In: Proceedings of fourth international conference on webometrics, informetrics and scientometrics .

Kunnumkal, S., and H. Topaloglu. 2010. A new dynamic programming decomposition method for the network revenue management problem with customer choice behavior. Production and Operations Management 19 (5): 575–590.

Lee, T.C., and M. Hersh. 1993. A model for dynamic airline seat inventory control with multiple seat bookings. Transportation Science 27 (3): 252–265.

Liang, Y. 1999. Solution to the continuous time dynamic yield management model. Transportation Science 33 (1): 117–123.

Liberman, V., and U. Yechiali. 1978. On the hotel overbooking problem—An inventory system with stochastic cancellations. Management Science 24 (11): 1117–1126.

Lin, K.Y., and S.Y. Sibdari. 2009. Dynamic price competition with discrete customer choices. European Journal of Operational Research 197 (3): 969–980.

Lindenmeier, J., and D.K. Tscheulin. 2008. The effects of inventory control and denied boarding on customer satisfaction: The case of capacity-based airline revenue management. Tourism Management 29 (1): 32–43.

Littlewood, K. 1972. Forecasting and control of passenger bookings. Airline Group International Federation of Operational Research Societies Proceedings 12: 95–117.

Liu, Q., and G. Van Ryzin. 2008. On the choice-based linear programming model for network revenue management. Manufacturing and Service Operations Management 10 (2): 288–310.

Lotka, A.J. 1926. The frequency distribution of scientific productivity. Journal of the Washington Academy of Sciences 16 (12): 317–323.

Maddah, B., L. Moussawi-Haidar, M. El-Taha, and H. Rida. 2010. Dynamic cruise ship revenue management. European Journal of Operational Research 207 (1): 445–455.

Mantin, B., and B. Koo. 2009. Dynamic price dispersion in airline markets. Transportation Research Part E: Logistics and Transportation Review 45 (6): 1020–1029.

Mantin, B., and B. Koo. 2010. Weekend effect in airfare pricing. Journal of Air Transport Management 16 (1): 48–50.

Mason, K.J. 2000. The propensity of business travellers to use low cost airlines. Journal of Transport Geography 8 (2): 107–119.

McGill, J.I., and G.J. Van Ryzin. 1999. Revenue management: Research overview and prospects. Transportation Science 33 (2): 233–256.

Mishra, D., A. Gunasekaran, T. Papadopoulos, and S.J. Childe. 2018. Big Data and supply chain management: A review and bibliometric analysis. Annals of Operations Research 270 (1–2): 313–336.

Myerson, R.B. 1981. Optimal auction design. Mathematics of Operations Research 6 (1): 58–73.

Netessine, S., and R.A. Shumsky. 2005. Revenue management games: Horizontal and vertical competition. Management Science 51 (5): 813–831.

Nunnally, J.C. 1978. Psychometric theory , 2nd ed. New York: McGraw-Hill.

Pak, K., and N. Piersma. 2002. Overview of OR techniques for airline revenue management. Statistica Neerlandica 56 (4): 479–495.

Pao, M.L. 1985. Lotka’s law: A testing procedure. Information Processing and Management 21 (4): 305–320.

Persson, O., R. Danell, and J.W. Schneider. 2009. How to use Bibexcel for various types of bibliometric analysis. Celebrating Scholarly Communication Studies 5: 9–24.

Pfeifer, P.E. 1989. The airline discount fare allocation problem. Decision Sciences 20 (1): 149–157.

Phillips, R.L. 2005. Pricing and revenue optimization . Palo Alto, CA: Stanford University Press.

Pilling, M. 2003. EU investigates ryanair/charleroi deal. Airline Business 19 (1): 18.

Post, D. 2010. Variable opaque products in the airline industry: A tool to fill the gaps and increase revenues. Journal of Revenue and Pricing Management 9 (4): 292–299.

Raza, S.A. 2015. Optimal fare price differentiation with demand leakage in airline industry. International Journal of Revenue Management 8 (2): 99–129.

Raza, S.A., and A. Akgunduz. 2010. The impact of fare pricing cooperation in airline revenue management. International Journal of Operational Research 7 (3): 277–296.

Robinson, L.W. 1995. Optimal and approximate control policies for airline booking with sequential nonmonotonic fare classes. Operations Research 43 (2): 252–263.

Rothstein, M. 1971. An airline overbooking model. Transportation Science 5 (2): 180–192.

Rothstein, M. 1974. Hotel overbooking as a Markovian sequential decision process. Decision Sciences 5 (3): 389–404.

Rothstein, M. 1985. OR Forum—OR and the airline overbooking problem. Operations Research 33 (2): 237–248.

Shen, Z.M., and X. Su. 2007. Customer Behavior in Revenue Management and Auctions. Production and Operations Management 16 (6): 713–728.

Shlifer, E., and Y. Vardi. 1975. An airline overbooking policy. Transportation Science 9 (2): 101–114.

Simpson, R.W. 1989. Using network flow techniques to find shadow prices for market demands and seat inventory control . Cambridge: MIT, Department of Aeronautics and Astronautics, Flight Transportation Laboratory.

Small, H. 1973. Co-citation in the scientific literature: A new measure of the relationship between two documents. Journal of the American Society for information Science 24 (4): 265–269.

Small, H. 1980. Co-citation context analysis and the structure of paradigms. Journal of Documentation 36 (3): 183–196.

Smith, B.C., J.F. Leimkuhler, and R.M. Darrow. 1992. Yield management at American airlines. Interfaces 22 (1): 8–31.

Smith, L. C. (1981). Citation analysis . https://www.ideals.illinois.edu/bitstream/handle/2142/7190/?sequence=1 .

Strauss, A.K., R. Klein, and C. Steinhardt. 2018. A review of choice-based revenue management: Theory and methods. European Journal of Operational Research 271 (2): 375–387.

Subramanian, J., S. Stidham Jr., and C.J. Lautenbacher. 1999. Airline yield management with overbooking, cancellations, and no-shows. Transportation Science 33 (2): 147–167.

Subramanyam, K. 1983. Bibliometric studies of research collaboration: A review. Journal of information Science 6 (1): 33–38.

Talluri, K.T., and G.J. Van Ryzin. 2004a. The theory and practice of revenue management . Berlin: Springer.

Talluri, K., and G. Van Ryzin. 1998. An analysis of bid-price controls for network revenue management. Management Science 44 (11): 1577–1593.

Talluri, K., and G. Van Ryzin. 1999. A randomized linear programming method for computing network bid prices. Transportation Science 33 (2): 207–216.

Talluri, K., and G. Van Ryzin. 2004b. Revenue management under a general discrete choice model of consumer behavior. Management Science 50 (1): 15–33.

Talluri, K.T., and G.J. Van Ryzin. 2005. The theory and practice of revenue management . New York: Springer.

Teichert, T., E. Shehu, and I. von Wartburg. 2008. Customer segmentation revisited: The case of the airline industry. Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice 42 (1): 227–242.

Thompson, B. 2007. Factor analysis. In The encyclopedia of sociology , ed. G. Ritzer. Oxford, UK: Blackwell.

Topaloglu, H. 2009. Using Lagrangian relaxation to compute capacity-dependent bid prices in network revenue management. Operations Research 57 (3): 637–649.

Topaloglu, H. 2012. A duality based approach for network revenue management in airline alliances. Journal of Revenue and Pricing Management 11 (5): 500–517.

Topkis, D.M. 1998. Supermodularity and complementarity . Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.

Van Eck, N.J., and L. Waltman. 2014. Visualizing bibliometric networks. In Measuring scholarly impact , ed. Y. Ding, R. Rousseau, and D. Wolfram, 285–320. Cham: Springer.

van Eck, N., and L. Waltman. 2009. Software survey: VOSviewer, a computer program for bibliometric mapping. Scientometrics 84 (2): 523–538.

Van Ryzin, G., and G. Vulcano. 2008a. Simulation-based optimization of virtual nesting controls for network revenue management. Operations Research 56 (4): 865–880.

van Ryzin, G., and G. Vulcano. 2008b. Computing virtual nesting controls for network revenue management under customer choice behavior. Manufacturing & Service Operations Management 10 (3): 448–467.

Vieira, E.S., and J.A. Gomes. 2009. A comparison of Scopus and Web of Science for a typical university. Scientometrics 81 (2): 587.

Vulcano, G., G. Van Ryzin, and W. Chaar. 2010. Om practice—Choice-based revenue management: An empirical study of estimation and optimization. Manufacturing & Service Operations Management 12 (3): 371–392.

Weatherford, L.R., and S.E. Bodily. 1992. A taxonomy and research overview of perishable-asset revenue management: Yield management, overbooking, and pricing. Operations Research 40 (5): 831–844.

Weatherford, L.R., and R.M. Ratliff. 2010. Review of revenue management methods with dependent demands. Journal of Revenue and Pricing Management 9 (4): 326–340.

Weatherford, L.R., S.E. Bodily, and P.E. Pfeifer. 1993. Modeling the customer arrival process and comparing decision rules in perishable asset revenue management situations. Transportation Science 27 (3): 239–251.

Whang, S. 2008. Markdown competition. In Retail supply chain management , ed. G.A. Zsidisin and B. Ritchie, 293–307. Boston: Springer.

White, H.D., and B.C. Griffith. 1981. Author cocitation: A literature measure of intellectual structure. Journal of the American Society for information Science 32 (3): 163–171.

Williamson, E.L. 1992. Airline network seat inventory control: Methodologies and revenue impacts. Doctoral dissertation, Massachusetts Institute of Technology.

Windle, R.J., and M.E. Dresner. 1995. The short and long run effects of entry on US domestic air routes. Transportation Journal 35: 14–25.

Wollmer, R.D. 1992. An airline seat management model for a single leg route when lower fare classes book first. Operations Research 40 (1): 26–37.

Wright, C.P., H. Groenevelt, and R.A. Shumsky. 2010. Dynamic revenue management in airline alliances. Transportation Science 44 (1): 15–37.

Zhang, D., and W.L. Cooper. 2009. Pricing substitutable flights in airline revenue management. European Journal of Operational Research 197 (3): 848–861.

Zhang, M., P.C. Bell, G.G. Cai, and X. Chen. 2010. Optimal fences and joint price and inventory decisions in distinct markets with demand leakage. European Journal of Operational Research 204 (3): 589–596.

Zhao, W., and Y.S. Zheng. 2000. Optimal dynamic pricing for perishable assets with nonhomogeneous demand. Management Science 46 (3): 375–388.

Zhao, W., and Y.S. Zheng. 2001. A dynamic model for airline seat allocation with passenger diversion and no-shows. Transportation Science 35 (1): 80–98.

Download references

No financial disclosure for this study.

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

Department of Operations Management and Business Statistics, Sultan Qaboos University, Muscat, Oman

Syed Asif Raza

Department of Information Systems, Sultan Qaboos University, Muscat, Oman

Rafi Ashrafi

Department of Mechanical and Industrial Engineering, Concordia University, Montreal, Canada

Ali Akgunduz

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Syed Asif Raza .

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest.

No conflict of interests to be disclosed.

Additional information

Publisher's note.

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Raza, S.A., Ashrafi, R. & Akgunduz, A. A bibliometric analysis of revenue management in airline industry. J Revenue Pricing Manag 19 , 436–465 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1057/s41272-020-00247-1

Download citation

Received : 08 July 2019

Accepted : 08 March 2020

Published : 06 May 2020

Issue Date : December 2020

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1057/s41272-020-00247-1

Share this article

Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content:

Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article.

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

• Revenue management
• Airline industry
• Bibliometrics
• Network analysis
• Co-citation
• Multivariate analysis
• Factor analysis
• Find a journal
• Publish with us
• Track your research

An official website of the United States government

The .gov means it’s official. Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

The site is secure. The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

• Publications
• Account settings

Preview improvements coming to the PMC website in October 2024. Learn More or Try it out now .

• Advanced Search
• Journal List
• Elsevier - PMC COVID-19 Collection

COVID-19 and the aviation industry: The interrelationship between the spread of the COVID-19 pandemic and the frequency of flights on the EU market ☆

This study aims to investigate the contribution of aviation related travel restrictions to control the spread of COVID-19 in Europe by using quasi-experiment approaches including the regression discontinuity design and a two-stage spatial Durbin model with an instrumental variable. The study provides concrete evidence that the severe curtailing of flights had a spontaneous impact in controlling the spread of COVID-19. The counterfactual analysis encapsulated the spillover effects deduced that a 1% decrease in flight frequency can decrease the number of confirmed cases by 0.908%. The study also reveals that during the lockdown, the aviation industry cancelled over 795,000 flights, which resulted in averting an additional six million people being from being infected and saving 101,309 lives.

Introduction

An airborne disease called Coronavirus (COVID-19) has to date been the biggest game-changer in terms of sheer devastation for both the aviation and tourism industries. In the hundred years prior to this, the airline industry experienced a sustained and unprecedented growth, even in the face of previous global catastrophes, such as the 9/11 terrorist attacks in 2001 and the global financial crisis of 2008. The air travel market took 50 years to reach the milestone of one billion passengers in 1987 and then experienced exponential growth within less than two decades, surpassing two billion by 2005, three billion by 2013, and reaching the milestone of 4.5 billion passengers by 2019 ( O'Connell, 2019 ). The combination of low airfares and a growing prosperous middle-class population has largely changed the dynamics of international travel, as evidenced by the fact that the market share of air travel surged to 58% by 2019, 14% more than the number 20 years ago ( UNTWO, 2020 ).

However, the aviation world then abruptly changed in early 2020 due to the outbreak and subsequent rapid spread of COVID-19 that impacted the world within a few months. Since it was first identified in Wuhan, China at the end of 2019, the pandemic spread to 218 countries globally in a few months ( Lai, Shih, Ko, Tang, & Hsueh, 2020 ). By April 2020, more than one million people around the globe had been infected. Seven months later, in late November, the confirmed cases had rapidly soared to over 53 million individuals, with over 1.38 million deaths (Johns Hopkins University, 2020). Besides the travel bans set up by countries globally, people's reluctance to travel during a global pandemic has had a consequent damaging impact on the aviation and tourism sectors. Tourists are more likely to postpone or cancel their travel plans in order to minimise the risk of becoming infected ( Reisinger & Mavondo, 2005 ), and this is an outlook that is now embedded in the psyche of today's tourists is the compulsion to avoid disease-affected destinations and this all influences tourism outcomes ( Jonas, Mansfeld, Paz, & Potasman, 2011 ; Lepp & Gibson, 2003 ; Page, 2009 ; Zhang, Hou, & Li, 2020 ).

Although the damaging impact of the pandemic on the air travel industry has drawn attention from scholars (e.g. Gallego & Font, 2020 ; Gössling, Scott, & Hall, 2020 ; Graham, Kremarik, & Kruse, 2020 ; Hall, Scott, & Gossling, 2020 ; Iacus, Natale, Santamaria, Spyratos, & Vespe, 2020 ; Suau-Sanchez, Voltes-Dorta, & Cuguero-Escofet, 2020 ), an empirically derived study offering an understanding of the impact of travel restrictions on flight frequency has not been undertaken. Using a quasi-experimental impact evaluation method, this paper aims to investigate the impact of travel restrictions (i.e. national lockdowns) on flight frequency and their consequential yet counterfactual effect on the spread of COVID-19 using two-stage spatial modelling in the context of Europe (hereafter, Europe stands for 27 EU countries plus Iceland, Norway, Switzerland and the UK).

The originality of this study can be established in two ways. Firstly, this is one of the few tourism studies to address the impact of COVID-19 on the aviation industry, particularly on flight frequency and its impact on the spread of the infection, which enriches the crisis management theories in the tourism literature. Secondly, from the methodological perspective, the application of quasi-experimental methods such as regression discontinuity design, which can be used to estimate the counterfactual effect, is limited in the tourism literature. Yet, this study uses the regression discontinuity design to estimate the impact of travel restrictions on flight frequency. It also provides further spatial modelling with an instrumental variable to examine the consequential impact on the number of infected cases in order to understand the implications of travel restrictions – specifically the restrictions placed on international flights – for the number of lives saved by restricting international flights.

The remainder of the paper is organised as follows. The Literature review section reviews the relevant literature on travel restrictions and the implications of COVID-19 for the aviation and tourism industry. Methodology and data section presents the methodology and data used for this study. The Findings and discussions section presents and analyses the empirical findings, supported by relevant discussion and literature, while the Conclusions section concludes the paper.

Literature review

The impact of covid-19 on the aviation/tourism industry.

Scholars have revealed that air transport facilitates the spread of pandemics throughout the world ( Tatem, Rogers, & Hay, 2006 Wilder-Smith, Paton, & Goh, 2003 ). Moreover, some researchers have discovered that airline travel could influence the spread of viruses such as the following: influenza ( Grais, Ellis, & Glass, 2003 ), Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome (SARS) ( McLean, May, Pattison, & Weiss, 2005 ), Ebola ( Bogoch et al., 2015 ), Zika ( Bogoch et al., 2016 ), and Dengue ( Tian et al., 2017 ). Oztig and Askin (2020) reported that SARS spread to 37 countries (8000 cases) while the Middle East respiratory syndrome spread to 27 countries (2494 cases) and the transmission was partially exacerbated by people taking flights. As Wilder-Smith (2006) reported, the avian flu (H5N1) outbreak spread to around 60 countries and caused 191 deaths but resulted in a reduction of about 12 million tourist arrivals in the Asia Pacific region.

Wen, Gu, and Kavanaugh (2005) ) revealed that SARS had an adverse effect on tourists' willingness to travel due to the health risk associated with the travel activities. Kuo, Chen, Tseng, Ju, and Huang (2008) ) confirmed Wen, Gu, and Kavanaugh's (2005) finding by observing a significant shrinkage in the number of visitor arrivals to countries affected by SARS. Rosselló, Santana-Gallego, and Awan (2017) ) quantified the impact of different pandemics on visitor arrivals using the econometric method. They revealed that the outbreak of the pandemic significantly pushed down the visitor numbers. For example, the spread of malaria reduced the number of visitor arrivals by 47%. Blake, Sinclair, and Sugiyarto (2003) ) showed that the foot and mouth disease reduced the tourism receipts in the UK. It is apparent that the aviation and tourism sectors are highly vulnerable to infectious disease outbreaks due to their face-to-face and contact-intensive nature and the high mobilities of people and goods within and between national borders.

However, the COVID-19 pandemic has surpassed all the previous pandemics as it has extended to more than 200 countries and the aviation industry has contributed to the spread of the pandemic ( Sun, Wandelt, & Zhang, 2020 ). The COVID-19 pandemic has produced an unprecedented commercial catastrophe for the world's airline industry. Global traffic levels fell by 21% in March 2020, compared to the same month a year earlier, followed by an abrupt escalation leading to a further contraction as global traffic levels further declined to reach 66% by April. The downward trajectory continued to alarming levels by further decreasing to 69% by May as the destructive shockwaves proliferated throughout the world, with the knowledge that this contagious transmittable virus can be fatal within a short timeframe of a person becoming infected. The ‘fear factor’ was continuously gathering momentum in society. UNTWO (2020) estimated that international tourist arrivals would decline by 70% in 2020, which represented a 700 million and US$730 billion loss in visitor numbers and tourism receipts in the inbound tourism market, respectively. The loss caused by COVID-19 in 2020 was eight times more than that of the Global Financial Crisis of 2008/09 ( UNTWO, 2020 ).

From an aviation viewpoint, the situation is mirrored, as airline passenger revenues were estimated to drop by 69% in 2020, which is equivalent to a US$421 billion loss, compared to the pre-pandemic year of 2019, while aggregated losses were expected to be around US$118 billion, which is over four times more than the losses that the industry experienced after the global financial crisis of 2009 ( IATA, 2020b ). COVID-19 has become the severest threat to the airline industry in history ( Amankwah-Amoah, 2020 ) and the impact may last until no earlier than 2024 ( IATA, 2020a ). Gudmundsson, Cattaneo, and Redondi (2020) ) predicted a similar recovery path with mid-2022 as the optimal scenario and 2026 as the most pessimistic scenario, respectively. From a global tourism and hospitality industry viewpoint, this view has resonated with some researchers who have gone as far as to state that the pandemic may even entirely ruin the international tourism market ( Thams, Zech, Rempel, & Ayia-Koi, 2020 ).

The impact of travel restrictions on the tourism/aviation industry

The tourism and aviation industries are highly vulnerable to infectious disease outbreaks. When COVID-19 started to spread between people and between national and international spaces, countries and authorities started to restrict travel and close their borders during the outbreak to minimise the spread of the disease and limit both the importation and exportation of the disease via tourists ( Luo, Imai, & Dorigatti, 2020 ; Vaidya, Herten-Crabb, Spenser, Moon, & Lillywhite, 2020 ). In recent decades, air travel has become increasingly more affordable and the consumer has an ample selection of airlines to choose from, equipped with an array of different value-adding flight products. However, the transmission of the disease can only be curtailed by restricting travel and mobility, which has prompted governments to rapidly enact legislation.

According to the UNTWO (2020) , 90 destinations had completely or partially suspended inbound tourism and another 44 destinations had closed their borders to selected countries of origin. Governments around the globe have imposed these travel bans, lockdowns, stay-at-home directives and shutdowns in order to control the spread of the virus ( Luo, Imai, & Dorigatti, 2020 ). Sun, Wandelt, and Zhang (2020) noted that this has been conducted in a highly uncoordinated and almost chaotic manner. Taylor (2020) and Salari, Milne, Delcea, Kattan, and Cotfa (2020) ) argued that the various inconsistent travel restrictions reduced the number of visitors who intended to fly by air during the COVID-19 pandemic.

The UNTWO (2020) stated that it was the first time that international travel had been restricted in such a way with so many destinations imposing travel restrictions. Many potential passengers that were aiming to travel were either discouraged from doing so or informed that they would only be allowed entry if they adhered to a specific quarantine that could last for up to two weeks at their own expense. Consequently, this had enormous knock-on ramifications; as Adrienne, Budd, and Ison (2020) ) reported, by mid-April 2020, the air travel market had shrunk by 64%, as 17,000 aircraft had been consigned to their hangars. Airlines had to minimise their flight operations and cut their costs due to the travel restrictions.

With the uneven implementation of the vaccination programme across the world, the only available tools became narrowed down to measures such as control and containment that include social distancing, quarantining and travel restrictions (i.e. lockdown) to minimise the spread of an infectious disease such as COVID-19 ( Kim & Liu, 2021 Lau et al., 2020 Petersen et al., 2020 ). Past studies have empirically proven that travel restrictions and control measures have been effective in minimising the spread of infectious diseases. Hufnagel, Brockmann, and Geisel (2004) argued that isolating large cities was an effective control measure of the SARS epidemic. Brownstein, Wolfe, and Mandl (2006) ) examined the spread of influenza within the USA and highlighted the importance of flight restrictions as there was a significantly delayed timeframe before influenza peaked in 2001–2002, which was directly attributable to operating a reduced flight schedule, whereas, in France, the opposite took place as there were no flight restrictions imposed, which consequently accelerated the spread of influenza. Yet, based on a two-city dispersal model of avian influenza spread via air travel, Tuncer and Le (2014) argued that the effectiveness of control measures (e.g. isolation and quarantining) heavily depends on the air travel rate, i.e. the proportion of air passengers based on the population of the departure city. Thus, travel restrictions are key to reducing pandemic prevalence.

However, there are also counter arguments that travel restrictions are ineffective in controlling the spread of infectious diseases. Cooper, Pitman, Edmunds, and Gay (2006) ) found that travel restrictions did not significantly delay the international spread of the influenza pandemic due to the initial large number of infected people and the fast growth rate of the confirmed cases. Similarly, Ferguson et al. (2006) ) found that they can only slow down the spread for less than 2–3 weeks. Chinazzi et al. (2020) used a population transmission model to investigate the relationship between travel restrictions and the spread of COVID-19. They found that the Wuhan lockdown was not as effective as the global travel restrictions which delayed the spread of the virus to other countries until mid-February 2020. Additionally, it is acknowledged that the virus can spread at a domestic level through regular daily mobility, such as traveling to work or school, visiting hospitals and conducting social activities ( Borkowski, Jażdżewska-Gutta, & Szmelter-Jarosz, 2021 ; Zhang et al., 2021 ). However, this lies outside the scope of the current study, which focusses on the cross-border flight transmission of the virus, and thus mobility at the daily and domestic level is not explored in the analysis.

In the tourism literature, many scholars have shed light on the impact of COVID-19 on the tourism industry ( Qiu, Park, Li, & Song, 2020 ; Yang, Zhang, & Chen, 2020 ) and predicted the recovery path ( Liu, Vici, Ramos, Giannoni, & Blake, 2021 ; Qiu et al., 2021 ), but the aviation industry has not been subjected to such close scrutiny. Yet, travel restrictions have been set up globally to control the spread of COVID-19, and the negative catalytic implications for the aviation and tourism industries are far-reaching. Since the contribution of aviation related travel restrictions to control the spread of COVID-19 has not been investigated by tourism scholars, this current study aims to address the area.

Methodology and data

Regression discontinuity design.

In this research, to examine the impact of travel restriction on the number of flights to selected European countries, a regression discontinuity design model is adopted:

where Flight it is the daily inbound flight frequency to country i on date t . The selected European countries in this study closed their borders to non-EU countries from 23 March 2020 onwards. Thus, Travel Restriction is a dummy variable which is valued as one if the country has closed the border on date t , otherwise zero, and τ measures the average treatment effect in the regression discontinuity design. GDP i is the Gross Domestic Product (GDP) of the destination country i which is a control variable and presents the accessibility of airports in the destination, because well-developed infrastructure can expand the capacity of the airports and infrastructure investment is a key component of GDP. Although Zhang, Zhang, Zhu, and Wang (2017) ) and Eric, Semeyutin, and Hubbard (2020) ) comprehensively discussed the determinants and measurements of airport accessibility and connectivity, since GDP is a cross-sectional variable in the panel model, other cross-sectional measurements for accessibility will be omitted due to the multicollinearity. Thus, only GDP is included in the model as a control variable.

In this research, R t refers to the timeline and c stands for a specific time when the travel restriction comes into force. The causal effect of the travel restriction can be identified if we can observe the flight frequency of destination i on date t when the travel restriction is present and the same destination on the same date but with no travel restriction. Unfortunately, the two scenarios cannot be observed simulators. The general idea of regression discontinuity design is to use the observable outcome at the time only beyond c by a tiny margin to estimate the outcome on the other side of c ( Lee & Lemieux, 2010 ). Since the margin limits to zero, the unobservable situation can be approximated on a local level around c . In the approximation process, it is assumed that all other factors on the two sides are identical except for the treatment variable (i.e. the presence or absence of the travel restriction). Thus, the difference in the flight frequency can only be caused by the presence of the travel restriction and the causal effect can be identified. F () is the function form of R t , ln is the nature-log algorithm and ε it is the residual term.

The estimation of the local approximation can be achieved by parametric and nonparametric regressions, respectively ( Lee & Lemieux, 2010 ). The parametric approach includes linear local regression and local polynomial regression, which is a more general model form ( Lee & Lemieux, 2010 ). A more detailed introduction to regression discontinuity design can be found in Deng, Hu, and Ma (2019) ), which is the only published study to use regression discontinuity design in the tourism and hospitality literature at the time of writing.

Two-stage spatial Durbin model

A two-stage spatial Durbin model is further adapted to investigate the causal relationship between flight frequency and COVID-19 spread in selected European countries. The control of COVID-19 is a complex worldwide challenge which has not been solved yet. To eliminate the endogeneity issue caused by the omission of key determinants of the COVID-19 spread in the model, the 2019 flight frequency to the same destination on the same date is introduced as an instrumental variable to the 2020 flight frequency. As 2020 was a leap year, the data of 29 February was removed to match the 2019 data. The spatial Durbin model adopted in this study is specified as:

where W it is the weight matrix measured by the passenger flows between countries. Compared with the matrix composed of the nearest neighbours, the passenger flows can present the different weights among neighbours and even the divergence between inbound and outbound flows from a country to another one. ρ measures the spillover effect of Covid-19 spreading from neighbouring countries to the focal country. α 1 j and W it  ∙  α 2 j stand for the impacts of the flight frequency on Covid-19 and the spillover effect of flight frequency in neighbouring countries on Covid-19 in the focal country before the travel restrictions started, respectively; whereas β 1 j and W it  ∙  β 2 j stand for the same effects when the travel restriction is present, respectively. The European Centre for Disease Prevention and Control (ECDC) suggests that the incubation period of Covid-19 is up to 14 days ( ECDC, 2020 ) and thus 14 lags are included in the model to draw a full picture of the impact of the flight frequency on the spread of Covid-19. GDP is introduced as a control variable to capture the heterogeneity across countries.

The airline analysis is demand and supply orientated, evaluating the traffic from every continent to selected European countries from January 2019 to May 2020, while taking into account the changing dynamics associated with the COVID-19 pandemic. The supply data (i.e. flight frequency) was collected using the Official Airline Guide data, which records 96% of passenger itineraries and schedules of around 1000 airlines and more than 4000 airports. The dataset updates 57 million records of the flight status on a yearly basis and supports disaggregated analysis at the daily flight level. The Official Airline Guide data has been used in various academic papers (e.g. Akyildirim et al., 2020 Devriendt, Burghouwt, Derudder, De Wit, & Witlox, 2009 O'Connell & Connolly, 2016 Reynolds-Feighan, 2010 Zuidberg, 2019 ). This database does not include charter flights nor air cargo flights. The authors collected the daily supply data reported by origin-destination pairs from January 2019 to May 2020. We also measured the flight movements from a sample of observations (seven days) against a flight tracker database to determine the accuracy of Official Airline Guide data, and we found that the data from Official Airline Guide was very accurate with almost identical correlations.

The demand data (i.e. passenger numbers) was collected using the Sabre AirVision Market Intelligence Data Tapes subscription database. The database collects data on weekly passenger demand, fares and airline revenues, but includes only indirect bookings such as those made with online travel agents and global travel retailers through a Global Distribution System. The provided data uses an algorithm that takes direct bookings into account to estimate the total demand, fares and revenues. The Sabre Market Intelligence Data Tapes database has also been extensively used in many academic papers (e.g. Derudder, Devriendt, & Witlox, 2010 ; Sismanidou, Tarradellas, Bel, & Fageda, 2013 ; Soyk, Ringbeck, & Spinler, 2018 Suau-Sanchez, Voltes-Dorta, & Rodríguez-Déniz, 2016 ). The authors collected the demand data reported by origin-destination pairs from January 2019 to May 2020. However, there were limitations associated with the Sabre Market Intelligence Data Tapes data as there is a time lag of three months before the data gets populated into the database, limiting the authors' ability to capture data only up to May 2020. In addition to the airline data, the total confirmed cases in selected European countries were collected from the European Centre for Disease Prevention and Control and the GDP data from the International Monetary Fund.

Findings and discussions

Results of regression discontinuity design analysis.

The key assumption of regression discontinuity design is that the distribution of the dependent variable must be discontinuous around the cut-off point ( Lee & Lemieux, 2010 ). A graphical method is used to identify the discontinuity of the flight frequency post lockdown, as suggested by Deng, Hu, and Ma (2019) . In addition to the investigation of the flights to all selected European countries, the countries have been split into two groups which are the top 5 flight destinations and the rest (non-top 5) destinations in selected countries. The top 5 flight destinations in selected countries from January to May 2020 include the UK, Germany, Spain, Italy and France. The regression discontinuity design analysis was also conducted in the two groups to examine the robustness of the findings.

The distributions of all the selected markets, the top-5 European destinations and non-top 5 destinations are presented in Panels A–C, respectively, in Fig. 1 . The left-hand side column lists the flight frequency distributions. Negative numbers on the horizontal axis stand for the number of days before the travel restrictions started (i.e. Day 0) whereas positive numbers indicate the number of days after the commencement of travel restrictions. The blue dots are the mean of bins, which are determined by the mimicking variance evenly-spaced method using spacings estimators ( Calonico, Cattaneo, Farrell, & Titiunik, 2017 ). The number of bins and the bandwidth used in each model are listed in Table 1 . Fig. 1 indicates that the discontinuity did not present on Day 0 because all the flights were scheduled in advance. Thus, the cut-off point emerged on the sixth day after the travel restrictions were implemented. A remarkable drop can be found in each panel around Day 6. Thus, it can be revealed that the effect of the travel restrictions on the flight frequency became evident from the sixth day after the restrictions were implemented on 23 March 2020.

Flight frequency distribution (left) and placebo test (right).

Results of regression discontinuity design analysis.

Figures in parentheses are t -statistics.

The estimation results of the regression discontinuity design analysis are presented in Table 1 , which includes both the non-parametric and parametric results. According to the pattern shown in Fig. 1 , the quadratic function was used to estimate the model in the parametric methods. The McCrary (2008) test shows that the marginal density of R t is continuous at a 5% significance level, thus we can focus on the identification of discontinuity around the cut-off point in the density function. The regression discontinuity design reveals that the implementation of the travel restrictions ( τ ) causally decreased the flight frequency in the 33 countries by 182 to 190 per day. In the top 5 European destinations, the decline in the number of flights could reach 562 to 656 per day, whereas in the non-top 5 destinations it was 105 to 109 per day. The median of the daily flight frequency in the 33 countries in the same time period for 2019 is 206, indicating that the travel restrictions froze 88% (=182/206) to 92% (=190/206) of the flights to selected European countries. This means that the European aviation industry almost came to a standstill due to the border closure, which indicates the enormous costs that the aviation industry paid to implement the travel restrictions.

The bandwidth is a critical hyperparameter to determine the regression discontinuity design result. The bandwidths selected for the full sample, the top 5 European destinations and non-top 5 destinations are as follows: 37.5, 28 and 35.6, respectively (see Table 1 ). To examine the robustness of the findings, the sensitivity test was conducted, which takes the selected bandwidth as the central point and moves to the left and right by four steps ahead with the step-length of 0.05. The sensitivity of the three models was examined by eight different bandwidths, respectively, and the estimation of the travel restriction's impact did not change at all, indicating a robust estimation result. The placebo test was also carried out by estimating the travel restrictions' impact with the 25% to 75% quantile values of the dates on the left- and right-hand sides of the cut-off points as fake cut-off points. As shown in the right-hand side column in Fig. 1 , only the selected cut-off point date is significant at a 5% significance level, because zero is included in the 95% confidence interval (i.e. the shadow) in the rest of the cases. This means the causal effect presented on Day 6 is not a coincidence, and the implementation of the travel restrictions in Europe did causally decrease the flight frequency to all selected European destinations.

Results of the two-stage spatial Durbin model

When estimating the spatial Durbin model, the 2019 flight frequency was introduced as the instrumental variable of the 2020 flight frequency in the first stage. The predicted 2020 flight frequency generated by the 2019 data was input into the second stage as independent variables to estimate the elasticities of the COVID-19 spread. The adoption of the instrumental variable can eliminate the endogeneity issue caused by the omission of other determinants of the COVID-19 development in the model. This is because the residual, which may be related to the dependent variable due to the omission of other independent variables, has been left in the first stage and independent variables input into the second stage model purely measure the impact of flight frequencies on COVID-19 development with the exclusion of the impact of other factors. The estimation results of the two stages are presented in Tables 2 and ​ and3 , 3 , respectively.

Estimation results of the first stage.

Figures in parentheses are z -statistics.

Estimation results of spatial Durbin model.

In the panel data analysis, to capture the impact of GDP across destinations, random effect models instead of fixed effect models are used: from one-step lagged (Lag_1) to 14-steps lagged (Lag_14) in the first stage. The estimation results of the first 13 steps are consistent with the coefficient of the 2019 flight ranges from 0.212 to 0.254 and GDP from 0.528 to 0.584. This means that the flight frequency of a destination in 2020 is positively related to the flight numbers on the same day in 2019 and the GDP of the destination. In contrast, the 2019 flight in the 14-steps lag has a negatively marginal effect on the 2020 flight. Although the impact is marginal, the Wald X 2 test (282.04) is significant at the 0.1% level, indicating the overall significance of the 14-steps lagged model. Thus, the predicted 2020 flight frequency can still be used in the second stage.

The estimation results of the second stage are presented in Table 3 . In this study, the top seven countries of origin are considered as neighbours of the focal destination in the spatial model. The analysis of the Sabre Market Intelligence Data Tapes data indicates that the top seven origin countries were all in Europe given the high travel demand between European countries. We also tested the top three and top five but, according to the Akaike information criterion and Bayesian information criterion, the top seven model showed the best model fit. Due to the limitations of space, the results of the models with the top three and the five neighbours are omitted. The Sargen's X 2 is zero, suggesting no overidentification issue in the model and thus, the model specification is correct ( Sargen, 1958 ). The spillover effect of the dependent variable ( ρ ) is 0.648, indicating that a 1% increase in the confirmed cases of COVID-19 in neighbouring countries would lead to an increase in the confirmed cases by 0.648% in the focal country. Although most coefficients of the flight frequency are not significant, by aggregating all the significant elasticities, the overall elasticity of the flight frequency when the travel restriction is present is 0.431, suggesting that a 1% decrease in the flight frequency to a destination can help to reduce the number of confirmed COVID-19 cases by 0.431%.

COVID-19 confirmed cases because it is predicted by the 2019 flight frequency and the pandemic did not exist in 2019. However, the overall elasticity and Table 3 indicate a significant relationship between the 2019 predicted data and the 2020 COVID-19 spread. The only possible reason for this would be that the 2020 flight frequency could have caused the change to the COVID-19 spread because it is correlated with the 2019 frequency as shown in the first stage results ( Table 2 ). The two-stage spatial Durbin model reveals that the decline in flight frequency can causally limit the spread of COVID-19. The last two columns in Table 3 present the estimation results of the one-stage approach. Although the R 2 is larger than the two-stage approach and the Akaike information criterion and Bayesian information criterion suggest a preferable model fit, the overall elasticity under the one-stage model is −1.52. This means that the decrease in flight frequency could lead to an increase in the number of COVID-19 confirmed cases, which is counter intuitive and may be caused by the endogeneity in the model. Thus, this further supports the use of the two-stage approach to estimate the spatial Durbin model and eliminate the endogeneity issue.

Counterfactual analysis

In the spatial Durbin model, marginal effects are estimated to reveal the spatial feedback loop effects which identify the average effect of the flight frequency on the pandemic spread from a destination to other neighbouring destinations ( Kim, Williams, Park, & Chen, 2020 LeSage & Pace, 2009 ). The average total effects of the 31 destinations across lag periods are presented in Fig. 2 where the shadow represents the 5% significance intervals. The overall elasticity of the total effect is 0.908, indicating that on average, a 1% decrease in flight frequency can lead to a 0.908% decrease in the confirmed COVID-19 cases.

Total effects of the spatial Durbin model.

The counterfactual analysis can be carried out based on the estimated total effect. As shown in Fig. 3 , if selected European countries have not restricted travel, then the peak of the daily confirmed cases would have surged up to 62,211 by 1 April 2020, which is 70% more than the actual number of cases recorded on the same date. As a result, the total confirmed cases would have expanded to 2.28 million in selected European countries by the end of May, which is 62% greater than the actual statistics. Compared with the same period in 2019, 795,088 flights were cancelled in selected European countries. The incidence rate of COVID-19 in selected countries was 11.7% by the end of May 2020 ( ECDC, 2020 ), which implies that the aviation industry was able to directly save 101,309 (=[2.28 million − 1.41 million] ∗ 11.7%) lives as a result of 795,088 cancelled flights and significant travel restrictions. If the multiplier effect of the virus spread is considered, the total confirmed cases and lives saved by the aviation sector would further increase.

Counterfactual analysis of the COVID-19 spread in selected European countries.

Conclusions

The COVID-19 pandemic has had a devastating impact on the global air transport and tourism industries as governments around the world have imposed a plethora of restrictions that have included travel bans, lockdowns, stay-at-home directives as well as quarantine rules in order to prevent the rapid spread of the disease. These policies have had a catalytic negative impact as they have caused global air travel to severely recede to unprecedented levels, with, for example, traffic falling by around 70% by May 2020 from the previous 12 months as people were reluctant and unable to travel due to different travel restrictions measures in various countries.

This paper has examined the causal impact of the travel restrictions on the flight frequency in selected European countries by using a quasi-experimental regression discontinuity design method, and further its consequential impact on the spread of COVID-19 using a two-stage SDM. The findings have shown that there was a significant reduction in the flight frequency to all selected European countries six days after they implemented travel restrictions. Such a reduction in flights by 1% helped reduce the number of confirmed COVID-19 cases by 0.431%, according to the two-stage spatial Durbin model estimation. In addition, counterfactual analysis has inferred that when considering the spillover effects of flight frequency on the pandemic spread from one destination to its neighbour, and vice versa, a 1% decrease in flight frequency reduced the number of confirmed cases by 0.908%. This further implies that if there had not been any travel restrictions in selected European countries, then on 1 April 2020, the number of confirmed cases would have been higher by 62,211 cases. From the start of the first lockdown in March to the end of May 2020, the aviation industry in selected European countries cancelled 795,000 flights, which resulted in avoiding another six million people becoming infected and saved 101,309 lives. The number of people actually infected with the virus in Europe was around 2.1 million by May 2020 according to ECDC, and this would have been a lot higher if the number of flights had not been curtailed so rapidly.

This study demonstrates significant theoretical contributions by, first, estimating the causal relationship between travel restrictions and flight frequency, and, further, its consequential impact on COVID-19 across European countries. Previous studies have shown the importance of flight and travel restrictions in reducing the inter-regional spread of infectious diseases ( Brownstein, Wolfe, & Mandl, 2006 ; Hufnagel, Brockmann, & Geisel, 2004 ; Tuncer & Le, 2014 ), and there have also been counter arguments regarding the effectiveness of travel restrictions in controlling the spread ( Chinazzi et al., 2020 Cooper, Pitman, Edmunds, & Gay, 2006 Ferguson et al., 2006 ). Yet, the diversity in the study context (e.g. type of disease, national context, domestic v. international travel) has resulted in different conclusions being drawn. This study significantly contributes to the crisis management theory in the tourism literature, confirming the causal impact of travel restrictions on the fall in flight frequency and its consequential impact on reducing the number of COVID-19 cases in the context of Europe. To the best of the researchers' knowledge, this is one of the few tourism studies that look at the impact of COVID-19 on the aviation industry, particularly on flight frequency and its impact on the spread of the virus.

Second, from the methodological perspective, there is a limited application of quasi-experimental methods, which can estimate counterfactual effects, in the tourism literature. This study has used regression discontinuity design to estimate the impact of travel restrictions on flight frequency and further, a two-stage spatial modelling using an instrumental variable to examine the consequential impact on the number of infected cases in order to understand the implications of travel restrictions on the number of lives saved by restricting international flights. There is also limited application of spatial models in the context of the aviation industry, and the current study has employed a two-stage spatial Durbin model to examine the causal impact of the flight frequency on the number of infected cases by introducing the instrumental variable into the model (before and after the travel restrictions were put in place) in order to empirically illustrate the contribution of aviation related travel restrictions to control the spread of COVID-19.

Based on the findings, the implications for the aviation industry can be perceived as a double-edged sword in that on one side, such restrictions on people's movements across national borders can effectively control the spread of the pandemic and save lives ( Luo, Imai, & Dorigatti, 2020 ; Vaidya, Herten-Crabb, Spenser, Moon, & Lillywhite, 2020 ), yet, on the other side, drastic yet inevitable flight cancellations have damaged the industry. However, empirical evidence shows that the aviation industry has effectively reduced the spread of COVID-19 by severely curtailing its flights and commercial operations, which has potentially saved lives. Thus, the findings of this study can be used to assess the lockdown policy effectiveness from the aviation perspective and serve as empirical support to help governments develop future pandemic control policies.

In addition, when governments impose such stringent restrictions that ultimately lead to an unprecedented shut-down of the airline industry, then the argument for government financial support increases. The overall financial cost of this pandemic has been catastrophic for the global airline industry as their losses are expected to be over four times those sustained after the global financial crisis of 2009, implying that their aggregated profits since the birth of aviation will be eliminated, leaving a zero net gain when factoring in the last one hundred years of operations. Governments worldwide are scrambling to shore up their finances by pumping billions of dollars into their national carrier in return for equity, while also giving tax-free loans, deferred taxes and loan guarantees. The carnage resulting from the pandemic is evident and as Czerny, Fu, Lei, and Oum (2021) ) established, 19 airlines filed for bankruptcy during the period between March and early July 2020 with varying fleet sizes ranging from just six aircraft to as many as 315 aircraft. The industry remains in a perilous state of flux. Both the industry and policymakers should strategically plan how to better support the resilience of the industry in times of crisis when travel restrictions are implemented but also to manage the costs of such implementation of the control measures and the competitiveness of airlines post-pandemic ( Kim, Liu, & Williams, 2021 ).

The limitations of this research are acknowledged. Considering the evolution of COVID-19, to date, there has already been a second wave in many European countries and different levels and types of government support have been provided for the aviation and tourism industry, which were not considered when conducting the research. Future research can consider different waves of the pandemic and government support and further examine the impact of different levels of restrictions by country and time, which could not be considered in the current study due to data unavailability. This study has only focussed on Europe and Europe inbound and intra-Europe flights, but it is acknowledged that other forms of mobility such as daily and domestic mobility facilitate the spread of the virus and have an impact on the tourism industry. Future research could explore different forms of mobility and their implications for the tourism industry in different regions. From the methodological perspective, fuzzy regression discontinuity design can be used in future research to identify the causal effect when the assignment of the treatment is also determined by other unobservable factors. In addition, a more comprehensive analysis in future studies that consider both the positive (e.g. saving lives) and negative (e.g. financial costs) effects of travel restrictions could generate a more complete picture of the net impact of travel restrictions on the aviation industry, which would be more informative for policy evaluation and industrial strategy development.

Declaration of competing interest

The authors declare that they have no known competing financial interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence the work reported in this paper.

Handling editor: Andreas Papatheodorou

☆ All the authors are from School of Hospitality and Tourism Management at University of Surrey. Dr. Anyu Liu is specialized in applied economics in tourism and hospitality and tourism demand and modelling forecasting. Dr. Yoo Ri Kim's research interests include business performance, productivity, innovation, the application of big data in hospitality and tourism studies. Dr. John Frankie O'Connell, is an Air Transport Management specialist who undertakes research predominately in airline strategy and market dynamics.

• Adrienne N., Budd L., Ison S. Grounded aircraft: An airfield operations perspective of the challenges of resuming flights post COVID. Journal of Air Transport Management. 2020; 89 doi: 10.1016/j.jairtraman.2020.101921. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Akyildirim E., Corbet S., Efthymiou M., Guiomard C., O’Connell J.F., Sensoy A. The financial market effects of international aviation disasters. International Review of Financial Analysis. 2020; 69 doi: 10.1016/j.irfa.2020.101468. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Amankwah-Amoah J. Stepping up and stepping out of COVID-19: New challenges for environmental sustainability policies in the global airline industry. Journal of Cleaner Production. 2020; 271 doi: 10.1016/j.jclepro.2020.123000. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Blake A., Sinclair M.T., Sugiyarto G. Quantifying the impact of foot and mouth disease on tourism and the UK economy. Tourism Economics. 2003; 9 (4):449–465. [ Google Scholar ]
• Bogoch I., Brady O., Kraemer M., German M., Creatore M., Kulkarni M., Brownstein J., Mekaru S., Hay S., Groot E., Watts A. Anticipating the international spread of Zika virus from Brazil. Lancet. 2016; 387 :335–336. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Bogoch I., Creatore M.I., Cetron M.S., Brownstein J.S., Pesik N., Miniota J. Assessement of the potential for international dissemination of Ebola virus via commercial air travel during the 2014 West African outbreak. Lancet. 2015; 385 (9962):29–35. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Borkowski P., Jażdżewska-Gutta M., Szmelter-Jarosz A. Lockdowned: Everyday mobility changes in response to COVID-19. Journal of Transport Geography. 2021; 90 doi: 10.1016/j.jtrangeo.2020.102906. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Brownstein J.S., Wolfe C.J., Mandl K.D. Empirical evidence for the effect of airline travel on inter-regional influenza spread in the United States. PLoS Medicine. 2006; 3 (10):401. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Calonico S., Cattaneo M.D., Farrell M.H., Titiunik R. rdrobust: Software for regression-discontinuity designs. The Stata Journal. 2017; 17 (2):372–404. [ Google Scholar ]
• Chinazzi M., Davis J.T., Ajelli M., Gioannini C., Litvinova M., Merler S.…Sun K. The effect of travel restrictions on the spread of the 2019 novel coronavirus (COVID-19) outbreak. Science. 2020; 368 (6489):395–400. doi: 10.1126/science.aba9757. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Cooper B.S., Pitman R.J., Edmunds W.J., Gay N.J. Delaying the international spread of pandemic influenza. PLoS Medicine. 2006; 3 (6):212. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Czerny A.I., Fu X., Lei Z., Oum T.H. Post pandemic aviation market recovery: Experience and lessons from China. Journal of Air Transport Management. 2021; 90 :101971. [ Google Scholar ]
• Deng T., Hu Y., Ma M. Regional policy and tourism: A quasi-natural experiment. Annals of Tourism Research. 2019; 74 :1–16. [ Google Scholar ]
• Derudder B., Devriendt L., Witlox F. A spatial analysis of multiple airport cities. Transport Geography. 2010; 18 (3):345–353. [ Google Scholar ]
• Devriendt L., Burghouwt G., Derudder B., De Wit J., Witlox F. Calculating load factors for the transatlantic airline market using supply and demand data — A note on the identification of gaps in the available airline statistics. Journal of Air Transport Management. 2009; 15 (9):337–343. [ Google Scholar ]
• Eric T.N., Semeyutin A., Hubbard N. Effects of enhanced air connectivity on the Kenyan tourism industry and their likely welfare implications. Tourism Management. 2020; 78 [ Google Scholar ]
• European Centre for Disease Prevention and Control (2020). Maps in support of the council recommendation on a coordinated approach to the restriction of free movement in response to the COVID-19 pandemic in the EU/EEA and the UK. Available at https://www . ecdc.europa.eu /en/covid-19/situation-updates/weekly-maps-coordinated-restriction-free-movement.
• Ferguson N.M., Cummings D.A., Fraser C., Cajka J.C., Cooley P.C., Burke D.S. Strategies for mitigating an influenza pandemic. Nature. 2006; 442 (7101):448–452. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Gallego I., Font X. Changes in air passenger demand as a result of the COVID-19 crisis: Using Big Data to inform tourism policy. Journal of Sustainable Tourism. 2020:1–20. doi: 10.1080/09669582.2020.1773476. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Gössling S., Scott D., Hall C.M. Pandemics, tourism, and global change: A rapid assessment of COVID-19. Journal of Sustainable Tourism. 2020:1–20. doi: 10.1080/09669582.2020.1758708. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Graham A., Kremarik F., Kruse W. Attitudes of ageing passengers to air travel since the coronavirus pandemic. Journal of Air Transport Management. 2020; 87 doi: 10.1016/j.jairtraman.2020.101865. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Grais R.F., Ellis J.H., Glass G.E. Assessing the impact of airline travel on the geographic spread of pandemic influenza. European Journal of Epidemiology. 2003; 18 :1065–1072. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Gudmundsson S.V., Cattaneo M., Redondi R. 2020. Forecasting recovery time in air transport markets in the presence of large economic shocks: COVID-19. Available at: SSRN 3623040. [ Google Scholar ]
• Hall C.M., Scott D., Gossling S. Pandemics, transformations, and tourism: Be careful what you wish for. Tourism Geographies. 2020 doi: 10.1080/14616688.2020.1759. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Hufnagel L., Brockmann D., Geisel T. Forecast and control of epidemics in a globalized world. PNAS. 2004; 101 (42):15124–15129. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Iacus S.M., Natale F., Santamaria C., Spyratos S., Vespe M. Estimating and projecting air passenger traffic during the COVID-19 coronavirus outbreak and its socio-economic impact. Safety Science. 2020; 129 doi: 10.1016/j.ssci.2020.104791. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• IATA Recovery delayed as international travel remains locked down, 28th July. 2020. https://www.iata.org/en/pressroom/pr/2020-07-28-02/ Available at.
• IATA Deep losses continue into 2021, 24th November. 2020. https://www.iata.org/en/pressroom/pr/2020-11-24-01/ Available at.
• Jonas A., Mansfeld Y., Paz S., Potasman I. Determinants of health risk perception among low-risk-taking tourists traveling to developing countries. Journal of Travel Research. 2011; 50 (1):87–99. [ Google Scholar ]
• Kim Y.R., Liu A. Social distancing, trust and post-COVID-19 recovery. Tourism Management. 2021:1–9. 104416. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Kim Y.R., Liu A., Williams A.M. Competitiveness in the visitor economy: A systematic literature review. Tourism Economics. 2021 [ Google Scholar ]
• Kim Y.R., Williams A.M., Park S., Chen J.L. Spatial spillovers of agglomeration economies and productivity in the tourism industry: The case of the UK. Tourism Management. 2020; 82 [ Google Scholar ]
• Kuo H.I., Chen C.C., Tseng W.C., Ju L.F., Huang B.W. Assessing impacts of SARS and Avian Flu on international tourism demand to Asia. Tourism Management. 2008; 29 (5):917–928. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Lai C.-C., Shih T.-P., Ko W.-C., Tang H.-J., Hsueh P.-R. Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) and coronavirus disease-2019 (COVID-19): The epidemic and the challenges. International Journal of Antimicrobial Agents. 2020; 55 (3) doi: 10.1016/j.ijantimicag.2020.105924. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Lau H., Khosrawipour V., Kocbach P., Mikolajczyk A., Schubert J., Bania J., Khosrawipour T. The positive impact of lockdown in Wuhan on containing the COVID-19 outbreak in China. Journal of Travel Medicine. 2020; 27 (3) [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Lee D.E., Lemieux T. Regression discontinuity designs in economics. Journal of Economic Literature. 2010; 48 (2):281–355. [ Google Scholar ]
• Lepp A., Gibson H. Tourist roles, perceived risk and international tourism. Annals of Tourism Research. 2003; 30 (3):606–624. [ Google Scholar ]
• LeSage J.P., Pace R.K. Chapman and Hall/CRC; 2009. Introduction to spatial econometrics. [ Google Scholar ]
• Liu A., Vici L., Ramos V., Giannoni S., Blake A. Visitor arrivals forecasts amid COVID-19: A perspective from the Europe team. Annals of Tourism Research. 2021; 88 [ Google Scholar ]
• Luo X.S., Imai N., Dorigatti I. Quantifying the risk of Zika virus spread in Asia during the 2015-16 epidemic in Latin America and the Caribbean: A modeling study. Travel Medicine and Infectious Disease. 2020; 33 doi: 10.1016/j.tmaid.2020.101562. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• McCrary J. Manipulation of the running variable in the regression discontinuity design: A density test. Journal of Econometrics. 2008; 142 (2):698–714. [ Google Scholar ]
• McLean A., May R., Pattison J., Weiss R. OUP Oxford Publishing; 2005. SARS: A case study in emerging infections. [ Google Scholar ]
• O’Connell J.F. In: Air transport: A tourism perspective. Graham A., Dobruszkes F., editors. Elsevier; 2019. The role of different airline business models. [ Google Scholar ]
• O’Connell J.F., Connolly D. The strategic evolution of Aer Lingus from a full-service airline to a low-cost carrier and finally positioning itself into a value hybrid airline. Tourism Economics. 2016; 23 (6):1296–1320. [ Google Scholar ]
• Oztig L.I., Askin O.E. Human mobility and coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19): A negative binomial regression analysis. Public Health. 2020; 185 :364–367. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Page S.J. Current issue in tourism: The evolution of travel medicine research: A new research agenda for tourism? Tourism Management. 2009; 30 (2):149–157. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Petersen E., Wasserman S., Lee S.S., Unyeong G.O., Holmes A.H., Al Abri S.…Tambyah P. COVID-19—We urgently need to start developing an exit strategy. International Journal of Infectious Diseases. 2020:233–239. doi: 10.1016/j.ijid.2020.04.035. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Qiu R.T., Park J., Li S., Song H. Social costs of tourism during the COVID-19 pandemic. Annals of Tourism Research. 2020; 84 [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Qiu R.T., Wu D.C., Dropsy V., Petit S., Pratt S., Ohe Y. Visitor arrivals forecasts amid COVID-19: A perspective from the Asia and Pacific team. Annals of Tourism Research. 2021; 88 [ Google Scholar ]
• Reisinger Y., Mavondo F. Travel anxiety and intentions to travel internationally: Implications of travel risk perception. Journal of Travel Research. 2005; 43 (3):212–225. [ Google Scholar ]
• Reynolds-Feighan A. Characterisation of airline networks: A North American and European comparison. Journal of Air Transport Management. 2010; 16 (3):109–120. [ Google Scholar ]
• Rosselló J., Santana-Gallego M., Awan W. Infectious disease risk and international tourism demand. Health Policy and Planning. 2017; 32 (4):538–548. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Salari M., Milne J., Delcea C., Kattan L., Cotfa L.A. Social distancing in airplane seat assignments. Journal of Air Transport Management. 2020; 89 [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Sargen J. The estimation of economic relationships using instrumental variables. Econometrica. 1958; 26 :393–415. [ Google Scholar ]
• Sismanidou A., Tarradellas J., Bel G., Fageda X. Estimating potential long-haul air passenger traffic in national networks containing two or more dominant cities. Journal of Transport Geography. 2013; 26 :108–116. [ Google Scholar ]
• Soyk C., Ringbeck J., Spinler S. Revenue characteristics of long-haul low cost carriers (LCCs) and differences to full-service network carriers (FSNCs) Transportation Research Part E. 2018; 112 :47–65. [ Google Scholar ]
• Suau-Sanchez P., Voltes-Dorta A., Cuguero-Escofet N. An early assessment of the impact of COVID-19 on air transport: Just another crisis or the end of aviation as we know it? Journal of Transport Geography. 2020; 86 doi: 10.1016/j.jtrangeo.2020.102749. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Suau-Sanchez P., Voltes-Dorta A., Rodríguez-Déniz H. The role of London airports in providing connectivity for the UK: Regional dependence on foreign hubs. Journal of Transport Geography. 2016; 50 :94–104. [ Google Scholar ]
• Sun X., Wandelt S., Zhang A. How dis COVID-19 impact air transportation? A first peek through the lens of complex networks. Journal of Air Transport Management. 2020; 89 [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Tatem A.J., Rogers D.J., Hay S.I. Global transport networks and infectious disease spread. Advances in Parasitology. 2006; 62 :293–343. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Taylor S. Air transport 2035: Four possible post-COVID-19 scenarios for aviation [WWW document]. APEX | airline passenger experience . 2020. https://apex.aero/2020/05/04/air-transport-2035-webinar-results
• Thams A., Zech N., Rempel D., Ayia-Koi A. An initial assessment of economic impacts and operational challenges for the tourism and hospitality industry due to COVID-19 (No. 2/2020) IUBH Discussion Papers-Tourismus and Hospitality. 2020; 17 :7366. [ Google Scholar ]
• Tian H., Sun Z., Faria N.R., Yang J., Cazelles B., Huang S., Xu B., Yang Q., Pybus O.G., Xu B. Increasing airline travel may facilitate co-circulation of multiple dengue virus serotypes in Asia. Tropical Disease. 2017; 11 :1–15. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Tuncer N., Le T. Effect of air travel on the spread of an avian influenza pandemic to the United States. International Journal of Critical Infrastructure Protection. 2014; 7 (1):27–47. doi: 10.1016/j.ijcip.2014.02.001. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• UNTWO Impact assessment of the COVID-19 outbreak on international tourism. 2020. https://www.unwto.org/impact-assessment-of-the-covid-19-outbreak-on-international-tourism Available at. (Accessed: 16 November 2020)
• Vaidya R., Herten-Crabb A., Spenser J., Moon S., Lillywhite L. Travel restrictions and infectious disease outbreaks. Journal of Travel Medicine. 2020; 27 (3):1–10. doi: 10.1093/jtm/taaa050. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Wen Z., Gu H., Kavanaugh R. The impacts of SARS on the consumer behaviour of Chinese domestic tourists. Current Issues in Tourism. 2005; 8 (1):22–38. [ Google Scholar ]
• Wilder-Smith A. The severe acute respiratory syndrome: Impact on travel and tourism. Travel Medicine and Infectious Disease. 2006; 4 :53–60. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Wilder-Smith A., Paton N.I., Goh K.T. Low risk of transmission of severe acute respiratory syndrome on airplanes: The Singapore experience. Tropical Medicine and International Health. 2003; 8 (11):1035–1037. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Yang Y., Zhang H., Chen X. Coronavirus pandemic and tourism: Dynamic stochastic general equilibrium modeling of infectious disease outbreak. Annals of Tourism Research. 2020; 83 doi: 10.1016/j.annals.2020.102913. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Zhang K.E., Hou Y., Li G. Threat of infectious disease during an outbreak: Influence on tourists' emotional responses to disadvantaged price inequality. Annals of Tourism Research. 2020; 84 doi: 10.1016/j.annals.2020.102993. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Zhang N., Jia W., Wang P., Dung C.H., Zhao P., Leung K.…Li Y. Changes in local travel behaviour before and during the COVID-19 pandemic in Hong Kong. Cities. 2021; 112 doi: 10.1016/j.cities.2021.103139. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Zhang Y., Zhang A., Zhu Z., Wang K. Connectivity at Chinese airports: The evolution and drivers. Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice. 2017; 103 :490–508. [ Google Scholar ]
• Zuidberg J. Network geographies and financial performances in low-cost carrier versus network carrier competition: The case of Norwegian versus SAS. Journal of Transport Geography. 2019; 79 [ Google Scholar ]

A SYSTEMATIC LITERATURE REVIEW ON AIR TRANSPORT AND TOURISM: ANALYSIS FROM 54 JOURNALS DURING THE PERIOD 2000-2014

• February 2016
• Conference: CAUTHE 2016
• At: Sydney, Australia

• Griffith University
• This person is not on ResearchGate, or hasn't claimed this research yet.

• University of the Sunshine Coast

Abstract and Figures

Discover the world's research

• 25+ million members
• 160+ million publication pages
• 2.3+ billion citations

• J AIR TRANSP MANAG

• Ed Phillips

• J Hospit Tourism Res

• Wayne Goddard
• Stuart Melville

• TOURISM MANAGE

• Ian Wellard

• Recruit researchers
• Join for free
• Login Email Tip: Most researchers use their institutional email address as their ResearchGate login Password Forgot password? Keep me logged in Log in or Continue with Google Welcome back! Please log in. Email · Hint Tip: Most researchers use their institutional email address as their ResearchGate login Password Forgot password? Keep me logged in Log in or Continue with Google No account? Sign up

How Airports Plan for Changing Aircraft Capacity: The Effects of Upgauging (2019)

Chapter: chapter 2 - literature review.

Below is the uncorrected machine-read text of this chapter, intended to provide our own search engines and external engines with highly rich, chapter-representative searchable text of each book. Because it is UNCORRECTED material, please consider the following text as a useful but insufficient proxy for the authoritative book pages.

12 This chapter provides a brief overview of the key historical changes in the aviation industry, with a focus on the evolution of the airline business in the United States since the Deregulation Act of 1978. The goal is to present high-level information regarding the airlines’ customary planning objectives and strategic considerations involved in the management of aircraft fleets and the development of new routes at a network level. Using a complex variety of factors, airlines plan their development on a system-wide basis and usually on a shorter horizon than airports plan for their own development. This timing inconsistency is generally a source of uncertainty in the assessment of future airport activity and can potentially result in risks to airport investments. For this reason, it is important to determine the causes of airline upgauging (or downgauging) to better understand the impacts on airports and identify the best solutions and practices to develop flexible plans and strategies at the airport level. While this chapter looks primarily at the airlines’ perspectives, chapters 3 through 5 will present the airports’ and state agencies’ opinions on the subject matter collected through the survey and follow-up interviews. Airline Mergers and Market Consolidation In 1978, the Deregulation Act allowed airlines to choose their own fares and routes. These changes radically modified the industry landscape as well as the passenger experience. It increased the competition between airlines, creating more choices for air travelers and lower fares. The 2016 McGill University paper referenced in Chapter 1 gives an overview of the aviation market conditions over the course of the 30-year period following the Deregulation Act: [M]arket conditions and competition laws promote high frequency with small aircraft and, therefore, on many long-established routes . . . , airlines have down-gauged their aircraft by roughly 30% so that 3 flights in 2012 carried roughly the same number of passengers as two flights did in 1992. Competition is such that it is not uncommon to see competitor’s jets follow each other across the skies (Fitzgerald 2016). However, after 20 years of traffic growth and an exponential increase in the number of airlines with access to the market, the aviation sector was severely affected by the events of September 11, 2001 (9/11). For the past decade, the industry has been experiencing a major cycle of airline mergers and market consolidations, with many other airlines entering bank- ruptcy and eventually having to cease operations. The effects of this market consolidation have rapidly translated into two major trends that have had direct impacts on airport facility and operations planning: (1) the development of airline hubs and (2) the growth of low-cost carriers. C H A P T E R 2 Literature Review

Literature Review 13 The four most notable deals of airline mergers from the past 8 years are as follows (see also Figure 2): • Delta Air Lines’ acquisition of Northwest Airlines closed in December 2009. This merger resulted in forming the world’s largest airline at that time. • United Airlines’ acquisition of Continental Airlines closed in October 2010 and United replaced Delta Air Lines as the world’s largest airline. • Southwest Airlines’ acquisition of AirTran closed in May 2011. • American Airlines’ acquisition of US Airways closed in December 2013 and American replaced United Airlines as the world’s largest airline. The successful completion of this market consolidation has resulted in a domestic airline landscape of only 10 large air carriers, down from the 18 carriers in operation a decade ago. Airline strategist Tom Bacon summarizes the current structure of the U.S. airline industry in a recent article (Bacon 2017): • Four carriers with over 80% of domestic capacity: – Three large, hub-oriented, global legacy carriers (American, United, Delta) – One large, point-to-point oriented “low cost” carrier (Southwest) • Six much smaller carriers, each with less than 5% of the market – Three smaller, primarily hub-oriented carriers (Alaska/Virgin, JetBlue, Hawaiian) – Three much smaller point-to-point travel merchandisers, heavily reliant on ancillary fees, so-called “ultra low cost carriers” or “ULCCs” (Spirit, Frontier, Allegiant) This period of consolidation was also accompanied by a period of “capacity discipline” for the airlines. Various studies analyzed that particular period of the aviation industry when airlines had carefully managed their seat capacity increase between 2011 and 2015, even though the economy began improving. Bachwich (2017) explains that strategy, saying the airlines Figure 2. Recent U.S. airline mergers (Source: www.usfunds.com).

14 How Airports Plan for Changing Aircraft Capacity: The Effects of Upgauging “carefully control their capacity growth and instead focus more intently on increasing profit- ability.” According to the same study, “system passenger yields at NLCs (network legacy carriers) increased from 12.90 cents per mile in 2010 to 14.59 cents per mile in 2015—a 13.2% increase” (Bachwich 2017). In addition to airlines’ network planning considerations and market share strategies, ACRP Report 18 (Martin 2009) notes the key role played by the change of passengers’ behavior and expectations in the development of airline hubs and the low-cost-carrier model. • Leisure passengers leak to smaller airports with LCC service: “leisure travelers who typically value fare savings over total travel time—will drive relatively long distances to reach an airport served by Southwest, AirTran, Frontier Airlines, or other LCCs” (Martin 2009). • On the other end, “Business passengers leak to larger airports because of: – More nonstop destinations, – Frequencies, – Choice of arrival and departure times, – Ease of access by highways, and – Fares”(Martin 2009). Looking back, from the 1978 deregulation onward, at the different market cycles that resulted in significant and multiple changes for the airline industry’s landscape, one of the main questions that the airport sector must answer to better plan for the future is, What happens next? According to Bacon (2017), the next consolidation phase could lead into two major groups: the national multi-hub carrier and the ultra-low-cost carriers (ULCCs), resulting from further merger opportunities primarily driven by potential shocks (e.g., fuel price variation), reactionary moves, and geographic logic (see Figure 3). Network Planning and Strategic Alliances A large variety of complex and detailed strategies can be implemented by airlines to increase their market share, sustain their competitive advantages, and ensure profitability of strategic elements in their network. These different system planning and management techniques are generally categorized in two main families: hub-and-spoke and point-to-point. ACRP Report 18 (Martin 2009) gives an overview of these two families in terms of airline objectives and passenger perception. In theory, hub-and-spoke systems emerged as the most Figure 3. U.S. airline industry consolidation (Source: Bacon 2017).

Literature Review 15 efficient means for connecting passengers between two different locations. Passengers often do not care for connecting over hubs, but hubs do allow airlines to aggregate traffic in ways that make serving many smaller communities possible. On the other end, only a certain number of markets will be able to support nonstop service. Point-to-point nonstop flights require substantial demand in the local market to justify such service. Other factors, such as flight frequency, times, and total travel time play a key role in the way airlines build their network, based on an assessment of customers’ preferences and expectations. These factors will have a direct effect on a particular airport’s attractiveness for airlines and air travelers (business and leisure): Business travelers generally prefer to travel early in the morning and in the late afternoon to maxi- mize time at their destination. Leisure passengers may travel at any time of day. If sufficient passenger demand exists, a typical minimum flight complement in a city pair is three flights per day—morning, noon and evening. In many leisure markets, one flight per day may be sufficient to match the market demand (Martin 2009). In addition to building efficient and profitable networks of routes and airports, airlines have expanded the use of bilateral and global agreements with each other to keep being competitive and attract more passengers. Through alliances and joint ventures, airline partners share common economic incentives to promote the success of the alliance over their individual corporate interests. By pooling resources to improve the overall service offering, and by sharing gains and losses, the partners are able to harmonize the global network and become indifferent as to which of them collects the revenue and operates the aircraft on a given itinerary. They are then able to focus on gaining the customer’s business by providing the best available fare and routing between two cities (Fitzgerald 2016). Since the first airline joint venture in 1997 between Northwest Airlines and KLM Royal Dutch Airlines, a multitude of bilateral agreements have been successfully initiated. In addition, three major global airline alliances are currently shaping the aviation landscape: Sky Team, Star Alliance, and One World (see Figure 4). Number of member airlines 35 30 25 20 15 10 5 2000 2002 2004 2006 2008 2010 2012 2014 Figure 4. Historical development of airline alliances (Source: www.oag.com).

16 How Airports Plan for Changing Aircraft Capacity: The Effects of Upgauging ACRP Report 98: Understanding Airline and Passenger Choice in Multi-Airport Regions (Parrella 2013) provides additional details and explanations on airlines’ evaluation of the underlying size and nature of air travel demand. Such evaluation will address the following: • Size of the overall market • Nature of the market (business versus leisure, propensity to travel, disposable income, etc.) • City-pair market sizes (past and current) • Market demand, traffic trends, and causality (growth, stagnation, decline) • Specialized business demand drivers (corporate headquarters, production facilities, etc.) • Inbound leisure demand (resort destinations, seasonal traffic, special events, etc.) • Ethnic and cultural market affinities (diaspora, family visitation travel, etc.) These primary characteristics of air travel markets will be quantified, evaluated, forecast, and applied to potential air service scenarios as part of airline route planning efforts grounded in the airline’s business model considerations. While airports will be able to examine and understand some of these factors, they generally have difficulties capturing comprehensively all the data and underlying economic drivers that will be used by airlines. For this reason, as part of the survey and individual interviews discussed later in this report, the project team tried to briefly extract socioeconomic data at the local level, to provide the reader with additional perspective on the responses given in the survey. Fleet Management and Aircraft Upgauging Various factors enter into considerations when managing a fleet of aircraft, in both domestic and international markets. While the intent of the report is not to research in detail the processes and tools involved in fleet management, this section provides a high-level summary of the key parameters considered in the selection of aircraft types and sizes: Market Characteristics ACRP Research Report 163: Guidebook for Preparing and Using Airport Design Day Flight Schedules (Kennon et al. 2016) explains the following: Generally, short-haul markets are served with small aircraft at high frequency, and long-haul markets are served with large aircraft at low frequency. Competitive markets (those served by more than one airline) tend to be served by smaller aircraft with greater frequency than noncompetitive markets of similar size and segment distance. Business markets tend to be served with smaller aircraft at greater frequency than leisure markets because business travelers select flights largely on the basis of schedule. Operating a greater number of smaller aircraft costs the airlines more on a seat-mile basis, but they are able to recoup those costs because of the premium fares paid by time-sensitive business travelers. Pilot Shortage and Perspectives According to the FY 2017–2037 FAA aerospace forecast, “the regional airlines in the United States are facing pilot shortages and tighter regulations regarding pilot training. Their labor costs are increasing as they raise wages to combat the pilot shortage while their capital costs have increased in the short-term as they continue to replace their 50 seat regional jets with more fuel efficient 70 seat jets” (FAA 2017, 11). Regional airlines have experienced some of these challenges following the new pilot quali- fications standards that the FAA made effective in 2013. The new standard, commonly called the “1,500-hour rule,” has increased the qualification requirements for first officers who fly

Literature Review 17 for U.S. passenger and cargo airlines. According to the FAA (2017), “the rule requires first officers—also known as co-pilots—to hold an Airline Transport Pilot (ATP) certificate, requiring 1,500 hours total time as a pilot. Previously, first officers were required to have only a commercial pilot certificate, which requires 250 hours of flight time.” The 2017–2037 FAA forecast shows that the number of active GA pilots (excluding ATPs) is expected to decrease about 7,500 (down 0.1% yearly); the ATP category is forecast to increase by 15,500 (up 0.5% annually). The numbers are provided in Figure 5, which shows the projec- tions by type of certificate for the period 2006–2037. On the other end, the FY 2017–2037 FAA forecast predicts that the number of aircraft in the U.S. commercial fleet would increase from 7,039 in 2016 to 8,270 in 2037, an average growth rate of 0.8% a year. Later in this chapter, the “Aircraft Market Outlook and Fleet Forecast” section will present additional fleet growth details by aircraft type, especially for mainline traffic and narrow-body aircraft versus regional. The general discrepancy observed between commercial traffic growth predictions and the relatively low increase of active pilots is seen by some industry stakeholders as a potential “pilot shortage.” Pilot availability in the country and policies regarding training requirements can also play a role in some instances when airlines develop their fleet management strategy. On this topic, ACRP Report 98 (Parrella 2013) notes, “Although capacity decisions are driven primarily by commercial opportunity, existing staffing levels can heavily influence network and planning decisions—particularly at established full- service carriers.” Fuel Efficiency Fitzgerald (2016) indicates that “fuel prices that rose dramatically between 1998 and 2005” have been also a major factor in the airlines’ decision to look at larger aircraft for their short-haul domestic markets with lower cost per passenger than the 50-seat regional jets. In May 2012, Delta announced a major upgauging initiative. It would acquire 88 100-seat Boeing B717s and Figure 5. Active pilots by type of certificate (Source: FAA 2017).

18 How Airports Plan for Changing Aircraft Capacity: The Effects of Upgauging require its commuter partners to dispose of 281 50-seat regional jets, cap the 70-seat regional jet fleet at 102, and increase by 70 the size of the 76-seat two-class regional jet fleet to 325. To meet airlines’ expectations on aircraft fuel efficiency, manufacturers have been striving to innovate engine performance and airplane aerodynamics. The consequent research and development effort put toward the achievement of this goal has progressively shaped the “new generation” aircraft characterized by its longer wings (extended by winglets) and its much wider engines. For instance, Boeing announced a 20% fuel cost savings when it introduced the B787 Dreamliner in 2011. Due to the higher fuel efficiency of this new generation of aircraft, its introduction has played a key role in the opening of the long-haul international market to LCCs, such as Norwegian Air Shuttle. In 2018 Norwegian was operating 20 B787s and had 22 more on order. In addition to the availability of these new generation aircraft, secondary airports have recently been able to attract new international LCCs by offering economic incentives to open long-haul routes. A New York Times article (Negroni 2017) notes the combination of factors, such as new generation aircraft fuel efficiency and financial incentives, that allow secondary airports to have access to these new markets. Negroni (2017) gives the example of Bradley International Airport in Connecticut: “Bradley Airport has budgeted about $3.6 million for a three-year marketing effort, while the State of Connecticut has given Aer Lingus revenue guarantees of up to $4.5 million a year for two years while it establishes its route.” These key economic factors will be discussed in the next chapters of the report, as part of the national airport survey and the individual interviews with some of these secondary airports. Aging Fleet and Aircraft Replacement According to Airbus (2017) and as shown in Figure 6, aging aircraft are a particular issue for the North American market, since, on average, the North American airlines fleet is much older than in the rest of the world: • North American average fleet age (in 2015): – 12 years for single-aisle – 15 years for twin-aisle • World average: – 9 years for single-aisle – 10 years for twin-aisle • 50% of the North American fleet is aged 13 and above. In the United States, among the three “Majors,” Delta has the oldest fleet mix with an average age of 16.8 years, followed by United. Of the three, American Airlines has the youngest fleet with an average age of 10.1 years. For the two largest LCCs, Southwest and JetBlue, their respective fleet has an average age of 10.5 and 9.3 years, respectively (see Figure 7). Each airline is going to implement a unique strategy to maintain and renew its aircraft fleet, based on its business model, operational needs, and financial situation. A 2015 CAPA article analyzes the different techniques used by U.S. airlines and groups them into two main approaches: • Hybrid model (Southwest, United, and Delta): These airlines opt to take new deliveries while accessing the used markets when favorable opportunities arise. They mix new and used aircraft. • Low fleet age model (Alaska, JetBlue, and American): These airlines are opting to stick to their orderbooks and take delivery of new-build aircraft rather than switch to a hybrid model of adding new and used jets (CAPA 2015).

Literature Review 19 Note: CIS = Commonwealth of Independent States. Figure 6. Global fleets in service age (Source: Airbus 2017). Note: AA = American Airlines. Figure 7. U.S. airlines average fleet age comparison (Source: http://www.airfleets.net).

20 How Airports Plan for Changing Aircraft Capacity: The Effects of Upgauging Figure 8 shows a comparison of U.S. domestic airlines’ fleet age by aircraft type and size. It presents an overall picture of the current aircraft use and how airlines are currently imple- menting their fleet management and replacement strategy. The next section of this chapter will present the aircraft market outlook and fleet forecast, based on the current strategies used by U.S. domestic and international airlines. Aircraft Market Outlook and Fleet Forecast On the basis of the many factors that drive changes in passenger behavior, aircraft character- istics, and airlines strategies, the FAA, the two main aircraft manufacturers (Boeing and Airbus), and other industry organizations develop and publish on a regular basis their forecast and global market outlook aimed at predicting the future of the airline and airport industry. These documents are usually a good source of information to better understand the current and future trends of aircraft equipment and technology expected to be used in the airline and airport industry. According to the FY 2017–2037 FAA Forecast, “the number of aircraft in the U.S. commercial fleet is expected to increase from 7,039 in 2016 to 8,270 in 2037, an average annual growth rate of 0.8%. Increased demand for air travel and growth in air cargo are expected to fuel increases in both the passenger and cargo fleets” (FAA 2017, 28). Figure 9 shows the forecast by U.S. carrier fleet, per aircraft category: mainline NB (narrow- body aircraft), mainline WB (wide-body aircraft), cargo jets, and regionals. The FAA forecast provides a detailed overview of the aircraft market outlook and fleet forecast for the U.S. airlines industry. The FAA (2017, 28) makes the following observations: • Between 2016 and 2037 the number of jets in the U.S. mainline carrier fleet is forecast to grow from 4,073 to 5,199, an average of 54 aircraft a year as carriers continue to re-move older, less fuel-efficient narrow body aircraft. • The narrow body fleet (including E-series aircraft at American and JetBlue) is projected to grow 37 aircraft a year as carriers replace the 757 fleet and current technology 737 and A320 family aircraft with the next generation MAX and Neo families. • The wide-body fleet grows by an average of 17 aircraft a year as carriers add 777-8/9, 787’s, A350’s to the fleet while retiring 767-300 and 777-200 aircraft. In total the U.S. passenger carrier wide-body fleet increases by 67 percent over the forecast period. • The regional carrier fleet is forecast to decline from 2,156 aircraft in 2016 to 2,027 in 2037 as the fleet shrinks by 14 percent (309 aircraft) between 2016 and 2025. Carriers remove 50 seat regional jets and retire older small turboprop and piston aircraft, while adding 70–90 seat jets, especially the E-2 family after 2020. • The cargo carrier large jet aircraft fleet is forecast to increase from 810 aircraft in 2016 to 1,044 aircraft in 2037 driven by the growth in freight RTMs. The narrow-body cargo jet fleet is projected to increase by less than 1 aircraft a year as 757’s and 737’s are converted from passenger use to cargo service. The wide body cargo fleet is forecast to increase 11 aircraft a year as new 747-800, 777-200, and new and converted 767-300 aircraft are added to the fleet, replacing older MD-11, A300/310, and 767-200 freighters. The forecast and market outlook information from the FAA and from other industry orga- nizations will be discussed as part of the airports survey and individual case examples chapters. In particular, the goal of this synthesis was to obtain insight from airport managers and operators on how they manage and plan for the future changes of airlines’ fleet and operations predicted by the FAA and other agencies.

Note: AA = American Airlines. Figure 8. U.S. airlines fleet age comparison by aircraft type (Source: http://www.airfleets.net, DY Consultants analysis).

22 How Airports Plan for Changing Aircraft Capacity: The Effects of Upgauging Impacts of Airline Consolidation and Upgauging on Airports After noting the effects of airline consolidation and aircraft upgauging on airports, recent studies show that airline business model changes have affected aviation communities and stakeholders in different ways. In particular, Bachwich (2017) looked at the trends and key impacts of those changes during the period 2006–2015. The causes and effects that were analyzed include the factors summarized in the previous sections, such as cost convergence between traditional LCCs and NLCs, multiple rounds of consolidation, airlines network and fleet strategies, and a recent period of “capacity discipline.” One key finding from the study was that “seat capacity has grown at large hub airports from 2006–2015, whereas smaller airports have all seen declines in service levels to varying degrees.” In particular, the study shows “how secondary airports in major metro areas have been affected by changing LCC strategies, and how the smallest airports have experienced significant declines in NLC service, yet some gains in ULCC service” (Bachwich 2017). Figure 10 gives an overview of the seat capacity trends observed at different airport size categories: large-hub, medium-hub, small-hub, and non-hub airports. At large-hub airports, after a drop during the period 2006–2012, annual seat departures recovered in 2015 (591 million) to a level greater than in 2006 (550 million). At medium hubs, annual seat departures had followed a similar trend, experiencing a recovery period since 2012. However, their 2015 level has not gotten back to prior 2006 numbers. Bachwich (2017) shows that both small airports and non-hub airports are still in a period of reduction of seat capacity. Annual seat departures at small and non-hub airports decreased 18.6% and 13.4%, respectively, from 2006 to 2015. Unlike larger airport categories, these markets have not seen a reversal in the declining trend since 2006. Note: NB = narrow-body aircraft; WB = wide-body aircraft. Figure 9. U.S. carrier fleet forecast (Source: FAA 2017).

Literature Review 23 Note: NLC = network legacy carrier; LCC = low-cost carrier; ULCC = ultra-low-cost carrier. Figure 10. Capacity trend by airport category (Source: Bachwich 2017). Note: NLC = network legacy carrier. Figure 11. NLC changes in flights and seats, 2006 versus 2015 (Source: Bachwich 2017). The difference of impacts on different airport markets can also be observed with flight frequency. Bachwich (2017) also analyzed the changes in number of flights operated by NLCs at the four airport categories for the same period (2006–2015), as shown in Figure 11. Figure 11 and Bachwich (2017) show that “from 2006 to 2015, non-hubs lost 37.3% of their NLC flights yet only 22.6% of their seat capacity, indicating an increase in gauge, suggesting many 50-to-76 seat aircraft replacements.” Similarly, small hubs lost 34.5% of their NLC flights, while losing 24.9% of seat capacity. Medium hubs lost the most frequency (with a 42.7% reduction in NLC flights from 2006 to 2015), while large hubs experienced the lowest loss for both flights and seat capacity for the same period. Eventually, these disproportionate impacts of reduction of seat capacity and flight frequency between large/medium hubs and small/non-hub airports lead to a reduction in connectivity

24 How Airports Plan for Changing Aircraft Capacity: The Effects of Upgauging for the smaller communities. While the LCCs and ULCCs mostly provide point-to-point connections, gradual reductions of NLC air service at smaller airports directly limit the number of destinations accessible for these communities. As shown in Figure 12, the large majority of connectivity comes from NLC air service at these airports. Since the airline upgauging trend can have many different impacts on airports, depending on their size, geographic location, mission, and customers’ behavior patterns (e.g., leisure versus business travelers), the goal of this study was also to obtain and collect feedback from a large variety of airport stakeholders. These valuable insights were collected through online surveys and individual interviews and are summarized in the next chapters of this report. The intent is to develop a database of concrete case examples and to document practical examples of impacts to support the observations made earlier in the report. Note: NLC = network legacy carrier. Figure 12. Percentage of total connectivity lost without NLCs by airport category, 2015 (Source: Bachwich 2017).

"Upgauging” is an airline industry technique enabling air carriers to increase capacity by adding seats to existing jets and replacing smaller planes with larger ones. While these practices are generally the result of airline network and system-wide strategies, their impacts are often experienced at the local level by the airport community.

Airport Cooperative Research Program (ACRP) Synthesis 97: How Airports Plan for Changing Aircraft Capacity: The Effects of Upgauging explores a broad concept of airline upgauging taking into account the principal drivers and techniques of upgauging, from both airline and airport perspectives.

This study is based on information acquired through a literature review, survey results from 18 airports participating in the study that experienced major variations in passenger enplanements over the previous 5 to 10 years, and interviews with representatives of five airports and four state transportation agencies.

The following appendices to the report are available online:

Appendix A : Survey Questionnaire

Appendix B : Responses from Survey Respondents

Appendix C : Follow-up Airport Interview Guides

Appendix D : State DOT/Bureau of Aeronautics Offices Interview Guide

Appendix E : Phoenix-Mesa Gateway Airport Authority—Air Service Incentive Program (Sample)

READ FREE ONLINE

Welcome to OpenBook!

You're looking at OpenBook, NAP.edu's online reading room since 1999. Based on feedback from you, our users, we've made some improvements that make it easier than ever to read thousands of publications on our website.

Do you want to take a quick tour of the OpenBook's features?

Show this book's table of contents , where you can jump to any chapter by name.

...or use these buttons to go back to the previous chapter or skip to the next one.

Jump up to the previous page or down to the next one. Also, you can type in a page number and press Enter to go directly to that page in the book.

To search the entire text of this book, type in your search term here and press Enter .

Share a link to this book page on your preferred social network or via email.

View our suggested citation for this chapter.

Ready to take your reading offline? Click here to buy this book in print or download it as a free PDF, if available.

Get Email Updates

Do you enjoy reading reports from the Academies online for free ? Sign up for email notifications and we'll let you know about new publications in your areas of interest when they're released.

•  Sign into My Research
•  Create My Research Account
• Company Website
• Our Products
• About Dissertations
• Español (España)
• Support Center

Find your institution

Examples: State University, [email protected]

Other access options

• More options

Select language

• Bahasa Indonesia
• Português (Brasil)
• Português (Portugal)

Welcome to My Research!

You may have access to the free features available through My Research. You can save searches, save documents, create alerts and more. Please log in through your library or institution to check if you have access.

Translate this article into 20 different languages!

If you log in through your library or institution you might have access to this article in multiple languages.

Get access to 20+ different citations styles

Styles include MLA, APA, Chicago and many more. This feature may be available for free if you log in through your library or institution.

Looking for a PDF of this document?

You may have access to it for free by logging in through your library or institution.

Want to save this document?

You may have access to different export options including Google Drive and Microsoft OneDrive and citation management tools like RefWorks and EasyBib. Try logging in through your library or institution to get access to these tools.

• More like this
• Preview Available
• Scholarly Journal

The impact of COVID-19 on the aviation industry: A literature review

No items selected.

Please select one or more items.

Select results items first to use the cite, email, save, and export options

You might have access to the full article...

Try and log in through your institution to see if they have access to the full text.

Content area

The crisis of the COVID-19 pandemic has undeniably affected many aspects of life from conveniences of everyday living to global economic repercussions. Due to the widespread mandated lockdowns early in the pandemic, the economy inevitably suffered greatly as evidenced by the stock market's unpredictability and the 1.8 trillion USD in bailouts to private sectors from the US government. The pandemic imposes a significant strain on several aspects of life as we know it, but the substantial effects on the travel industry, with particular focus on the aviation industry, will be the focus of this paper. This paper discusses various challenges such as the overall effect on the airlines due to the considerable decrease in the revenue of airlines, effect on global cargo transportation, the airworthiness of the aircraft, the profound impact the pilots face concerning the maintenance of their medical certificate and flying currencies, the effects on the pilot's mental health, public health challenges and various considerations for airlines moving forward. Despite these repercussions on the aviation industry due to the mandated shutdowns, the aviation industry had its challenges even before the COVID-19 pandemic. This literature review was conducted via search engines such as Google, Google Scholar, and PubMed with search keywords including "coronavirus, pandemic, aviation industry, lockdown, and airlines".

Keywords: Coronavirus, COVID-19, pandemic, lockdown, economy, aviation industry, airlines, pilots

Introduction

Initial reports documenting the astoundingly breaking news of the novel coronavirus outbreak in Wuhan, China occurred in mid-December 2019 (1-3). Shortly after, the coronavirus spread to the United States by January 20, 2020 (4). The virus quickly spread, thereby reaching many other countries including Australia, Cambodia, Canada, Finland, France, Germany, India, Japan, Malaysia, Nepal, The Philippines, Republic of Korea, Singapore, Sri Lanka, Taiwan, Thailand, United Arab Emirates, United States, and Vietnam by Jan 30, 2020 (5). Furthermore, on January 30, data ratifying the human to human transmission in the United States was confirmed and documented (5). Only a few short months later, there were now 51,857 reported cases in 25 countries globally by February 16, 2020 (5). Due to the global extent of the virus at this point in time, the World Health Organization (WHO) declared the coronavirus outbreak a pandemic on March 27, 2020 (1). The asymptomatic spread of the virus...

You have requested "on-the-fly" machine translation of selected content from our databases. This functionality is provided solely for your convenience and is in no way intended to replace human translation. Show full disclaimer

Neither ProQuest nor its licensors make any representations or warranties with respect to the translations. The translations are automatically generated "AS IS" and "AS AVAILABLE" and are not retained in our systems. PROQUEST AND ITS LICENSORS SPECIFICALLY DISCLAIM ANY AND ALL EXPRESS OR IMPLIED WARRANTIES, INCLUDING WITHOUT LIMITATION, ANY WARRANTIES FOR AVAILABILITY, ACCURACY, TIMELINESS, COMPLETENESS, NON-INFRINGMENT, MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE. Your use of the translations is subject to all use restrictions contained in your Electronic Products License Agreement and by using the translation functionality you agree to forgo any and all claims against ProQuest or its licensors for your use of the translation functionality and any output derived there from. Hide full disclaimer

Suggested sources

• About ProQuest
• Terms of Use
• Privacy Policy
• Cookie Policy

Where Does the Airline Industry Go from Here?

by Eben Harrell

Summary .   

How have airlines fared during the Covid pandemic? Who will be the winners and losers in the industry shakeup? How is the passenger experience different now that flying is back? Four industry observers discuss their predictions with  Harvard Business Review .

Eighteen months into the Covid-19 pandemic, U.S. aviation has finally started to rebound — but the industry that has emerged is different than the industry that was essentially forced into a coma in the first months of the pandemic. A year after their first interview on the state of aviation, Harvard Business Review sat down to discuss the challenges (and opportunities) facing the industry with Jon Ostrower, the editor-in-chief of The Air Current, Courtney Miller, managing director of analysis for The Air Current, and Dan McKone and Alan Lewis, two Boston-based managing directors at L.E.K. Consulting who have experience advising major airlines.

Partner Center