Skip to content
Licensed Unlicensed Requires Authentication Published by De Gruyter June 9, 2015

On the Extent to which the Presence of Intermediate-stop(s) Air Travel Products Influences the Pricing of Nonstop Air Travel Products

  • Philip G. Gayle EMAIL logo and Chi-Yin Wu

Abstract

Analysts of air travel markets, which include antitrust authorities, are interested in understanding the extent to which the presence of intermediate stop(s) products influences the pricing of nonstop products. This paper uses a structural econometric model to investigate the potential pricing interdependence between these two product types in domestic air travel markets. Counterfactual experiments using the estimated model suggest that in many (but far from a majority) markets the current prices of nonstop products are at least 5% lower than they would otherwise be owing to the presence of intermediate-stop(s) products.

JEL Classification codes:: L13; L40; L93

Corresponding author: Philip G. Gayle, Department of Economics, Kansas State University, 320 Waters Hall, Manhattan, KS 66506, Phone: +(785) 532-4581; Fax: +(785) 532-6919; e-mail:

Acknowledgments

We thank the editor, Julian Wright, two anonymous referees, Philippe Belley, Leilei Shen, Dong Li, Tian Xia, Kate Ho, and Yang-Ming Chang for very helpful comments and suggestions. Any remaining errors are our own.

Appendix

Appendix A: A Linear Demand Example Illustrating the Multi-product Firm Effect

The following example is used to illustrate the multi-product firm effect assuming linear demand and constant marginal cost.

Assume an airline is a multi-product monopolist who offers differentiated products 1 and 2 in an origin-destination market, where product 1 is a nonstop product while product 2 is an intermediate-stop(s) product. The products’ linear demand equations are:

q1=1+βp2p1;q2=1+βp1p2

where 0<β<1. For simplicity, assume each product has the same constant marginal cost, c. The variable profit for the airline is:

π=(p1c)[1+βp2p1]+(p2c)[1+βp1p2]

The corresponding first-order conditions are:

c(1β)2p1+2βp2+1=0;

c(1β)2p2+βp1+1=0.

Thus, the equilibrium prices for products 1 and 2 are:

p1=p2=12(1β)+c2

Now suppose we counterfactually eliminate the intermediate-stop(s) product, which is product 2. In other words, the airline becomes a single-product monopolist who only offers nonstop product 1 in the market. The product’s linear demand equation is:

q1=1p1.

With the assumption of constant marginal cost, c, the variable profit is:

π=(p1c)[1p1]

The corresponding first-order condition is:

c2p1+1=0

Thus, the monopoly price is:

p1M=12+c2

Comparing the price of product 1 before and after the counterfactual exercise, we can see that p1M<p1, which indicates that the price of product 1 decreases if product 2 is removed. Therefore, this example illustrates that, ceteris paribus, there exists a downward pressure on price for the remaining products of a multi-product firm when one of the firm’s substitute products is removed from the market.

Appendix B: Additional Tables

Table B1

Single-equation Estimation of Nested Logit Demand Equations with and without Instruments.

VariableWith InstrumentsWithout Instruments
CoefficientStd. Dev.CoefficientStd. Dev.
Price−12.640*(1.206)0.358*(0.135)
Interstop−1.539*(0.052)−1.059*(0.032)
Inconvenience−0.921*(0.088)−0.950*(0.060)
HUB_Origin1.101*(0.071)0.864*(0.032)
Tour0.611*(0.048)−0.592*(0.036)
Slot_control−0.392*(0.056)1.131*(0.043)
σ0.039(0.025)0.428*(0.008)
Constant−6.564*(0.220)−8.434*(0.115)
R20.4662
N11,42511,425

*Represents statistical significance at the 0.05 level. Standard errors are in parentheses. Ticketing carrier dummy variables are included in the demand model for estimation even though the associated coefficient estimates are not reported in the table.

Table B2

Counterfactual Experiment 2A – An Experiment that Assumes the Counterfactual Elimination of Intermediate-stop(s) Products Causes Marginal Cost of Nonstop Products to Uniformly Increase by 2.5%.

Table B2 Counterfactual Experiment 2A – An Experiment that Assumes the Counterfactual Elimination of Intermediate-stop(s) Products Causes Marginal Cost of Nonstop Products to Uniformly Increase by 2.5%.
Table B3

Counterfactual Experiment 2B – An Experiment that Assumes the Counterfactual Elimination of Intermediate-stop(s) Products Causes Marginal Cost of Nonstop Products to Uniformly Decrease by 2.5%.

Table B3 Counterfactual Experiment 2B – An Experiment that Assumes the Counterfactual Elimination of Intermediate-stop(s) Products Causes Marginal Cost of Nonstop Products to Uniformly Decrease by 2.5%.

References

Aguirregabiria, Victor and Chun-Yu Ho (2012) “A Dynamic Oligopoly Game of the US Airline Industry: Estimation and Policy Experiments,” Journal of Econometrics, 168(1):156–173.10.1016/j.jeconom.2011.09.013Search in Google Scholar

Bhadra, Dipasis (2003) “Demand for Air Travel in the United States: Bottom-up Econometric Estimation and Implications for Forecasts by Origin and Destination Pairs,” Journal of Air Transportation, 8(2):19–56.Search in Google Scholar

Berry, Steven (1990) “Airport Presence as Product Differentiation,” American Economic Review, 80(2):394–399.Search in Google Scholar

Berry, Steven (1992) “Estimation of a Model of Entry in the Airline Industry,” Econometrica, 60(4):889–918.10.2307/2951571Search in Google Scholar

Berry, Steven and Panle Jia (2010) “Tracing the Woes: An Empirical Analysis of the Airline Industry,” American Economic Journal: Microeconomics, 2(3):1–43.Search in Google Scholar

Berry, Steven, Michael Carnall and Pablo T. Spiller (2006) “Airline Hubs: Costs, Markups and the Implications of Customer Heterogeneity.” In: (Lee Darin, ed.) Advances in Airline Economics: Competition Policy and Antitrust, Vol. 1. Amsterdam: Elsevier, pp. 183–214.Search in Google Scholar

Borenstein, Severin (1989) “Hubs and High Fares: Dominance and Market Power in the U.S. Airline Industry,” RAND Journal of Economics, 20(3):344–365.10.2307/2555575Search in Google Scholar

Borenstein, Severin (1991) “The Dominant-Firm Advantage in Multiproduct Industries: Evidence from the U.S. Airlines,” Quarterly Journal of Economics, 106(4):1237–1266.10.2307/2937963Search in Google Scholar

Borenstein, Severin and Nancy L. Rose (2007) “How Airline Markets Work…Or Do They? Regulatory Reform in the Airline Industry,” National Bureau of Economic Research Working Paper 13452.10.3386/w13452Search in Google Scholar

Brander, James A. and Anming Zhang (1990) “Market Conduct in the Airline Industry: An Empirical Investigation,” RAND Journal of Economics, 21(4):567–583.10.2307/2555469Search in Google Scholar

Brown, David R. (2010) “Three Essays in Industrial Organization: Alliances, Mergers, and Pricing in Commercial Aviation.” Ph.D. Dissertation, Kansas State University.Search in Google Scholar

Brueckner, Jan K. (2002) “Airport Congestion When Carriers Have Market Power,” American Economic Review, 92(5):1357–1375.10.1257/000282802762024548Search in Google Scholar

Brueckner, Jan K. and Pablo T. Spiller (1994) “Economies of Traffic Density in the Deregulated Airline Industry,” Journal of Law and Economics, 37(2):379–415.10.1086/467318Search in Google Scholar

Brueckner, Jan K., Darin Lee and Ethan Singer (2013) “Airline Competition and Domestic U.S. Airfares: A Comprehensive Reappraisal,” Economics of Transportation, 2(1):1–17.10.1016/j.ecotra.2012.06.001Search in Google Scholar

Gayle, Philip G. and Dave Brown (2014) “Airline Strategic Alliances in Overlapping Markets: Should Policymakers be Concerned?” Economics of Transportation, 3(4):243–256.10.1016/j.ecotra.2015.02.002Search in Google Scholar

Gayle, Philip G. (2007a) “Airline Code-share Alliances and their Competitive Effects,” Journal of Law and Economics, 50(4):781–819.10.1086/519818Search in Google Scholar

Gayle, Philip G. (2007b) “Is Virtual Codesharing A Market Segmenting Mechanism Employed by Airlines?” Economics Letters, 95(1):17–24.10.1016/j.econlet.2006.09.007Search in Google Scholar

Gayle, Philip G. (2008) “An Empirical Analysis of the Competitive Effects of the Delta/Continental/Northwest Codeshare Alliance,” Journal of Law and Economics, 51(4):743–766.10.1086/595865Search in Google Scholar

Gayle, Philip G. (2013) “On the Efficiency of Codeshare Contracts Between Airlines: Is Double Marginalization Eliminated?” American Economic Journal: Microeconomics, 5(4):244–273.10.1257/mic.5.4.244Search in Google Scholar

Gillen, D. W., W. G. Morrison and C. Stewart (2003) “Air Travel Demand Elasticities: Concepts, Issues and Measurement,” Department of Finance, Government of Canada.Search in Google Scholar

Ito, Harumi and Darin Lee (2007). “Domestic Code Sharing, Alliances, and Airfares in the U.S. Airline Industry,” Journal of Law and Economics, 50(2):355–380.10.1086/511318Search in Google Scholar

Mayer, Christopher and Todd Sinai (2003) “Network Effects, Congestion Externalities, and Air Traffic Delays: Or Why Not All Delays Are Evil,” American Economic Review, 93(4):1194–1215.10.1257/000282803769206269Search in Google Scholar

Morrison, Steven A. and Clifford M. Winston (2008) “The Effect of FAA Expenditures on Air Travel Delays,” Journal of Urban Economics, 63(2):669–678.10.1016/j.jue.2007.04.005Search in Google Scholar

Nevo, Aviv (2000) “Mergers with Differentiated Products: The Case of the Ready-to-Eat Cereal Industry,” RAND Journal of Economics, 31(3):395–421.10.2307/2600994Search in Google Scholar

Oum, Tae, David W. Gillen and S. E. Noble (1986) “Demand for Fareclass and Pricing in Airline Markets,” Logistics and Transportation Review, 22:195–222.Search in Google Scholar

Peters, Craig (2006) “Evaluating the Performance of Merger Simulation: Evidence from the U.S. Airline Industry,” Journal of Law and Economics, 49(2):627–649.10.1086/505369Search in Google Scholar

Petrin, Amil (2002) “Quantifying the Benefits of New Products: The Case of the Minivan,” Journal of Political Economy, 110(4):705–729.10.1086/340779Search in Google Scholar

Tirole, Jean (1988) The Theory of Industrial Organization. Cambridge, Massachusetts: The MIT Press, Tenth Printing.Search in Google Scholar

U.S. Department of Justice (2000) “Statement of John M. Nannes, Deputy Assistant Attorney General, Antitrust division, Before the Committee on Transportation & Infrastructure, U.S. House of Representatives, Concerning Antitrust analysis of Airline Mergers.” (June 13, 2000). http://www.justice.gov/atr/public/testimony/4955.htm.Search in Google Scholar

U.S. Department of Justice and Federal Trade Commission (2010) “Horizontal Merger Guidelines.” http://www.justice.gov/atr/public/guidelines/hmg-2010.html.Search in Google Scholar

Published Online: 2015-6-9
Published in Print: 2014-9-1

©2015 by De Gruyter

Downloaded on 23.5.2024 from https://www.degruyter.com/document/doi/10.1515/rne-2015-0023/html
Scroll to top button