MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1537275755 · doi:10.1108/10569210910967860

Strategic alliances as a competitive strategy

2009· article· en· W1537275755 on OpenAlex
James Rajasekar, Paul A. Fouts

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of Commerce and Management · 2009
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEconomics, Econometrics and Finance
TopicAviation Industry Analysis and Trends
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAllianceBusinessInterliningRevenueLoad factorCivil aviationDimension (graph theory)AviationCode (set theory)MarketingData sourceIndustrial organizationAdvertisingDatabaseComputer scienceFinanceEngineeringPolitical science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Purpose The purpose of this paper is to examine how domestic airlines benefit when they have code sharing arrangements with international carriers. Design/methodology/approach The data for this research study have been collected primarily from three sources. The first database, the digest of statistics no. 400 is from International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO) based in Montreal, Canada. The second source of data comes from the Airline Business database. The third source of data for this research study is from Official Airline Guide (OAG). Ten years of data from 1994 to 2004 are collected from the databases of ICAO, Airline Business and also from individual airlines. Data such as the revenue passenger miles (RPMs) and load factor are obtained from the ICAO database and data such as alliance pattern are culled from the Airline Business database. Findings This research study reveals that code sharing agreements between a domestic and international airline will benefit the former by way of increased RPMs, passenger load factor (PLF), and market share. However, the coefficients of the hypothesized variables suggest that the initial gains achieved by the domestic airlines by way of increased RPMs start to erode in the long run. Thus, a domestic airline must form a code sharing agreement with an international airline at the earliest, so as to get the initial increase in RPMs. The effect of code sharing on the market share of domestic airlines is explicit and consistent throughout this research study. The second dimension in the code sharing is the multiple alliances between domestic and international airlines. Multiple alliances refer to an airline having more than one code sharing agreement with international carriers. The third factor in this sequence of hypotheses is equity investment by international carriers in domestic airlines. The relationship between equity investment and its influence on the performance of the targeted firm is always an interesting topic explored by both the academic researchers and practitioners. However, in this study, the regression results do not support the hypothesis. That means that mere equity investment by international carriers in domestic airlines may not result in increased RPMs, load factor and the market share for domestic airlines. The interesting finding in this particular section is the influence of the large size of the alliance partners on all the three dependent variables; RPMs, PLF, and the market share. Therefore, we can conclude that if both the airlines are large enough and they form code sharing agreements, then this may result in increased RPMs, PLFs, and market share for the domestic airlines. Similarly, the study supports the premise that if the partners are unequal, then the domestic airlines may not be able to increase the RPMs, load factor, and the market share. Originality/value This paper reveals that code sharing arrangements reached earlier in the competition is better as the benefits tend to reduce after a certain period of time.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.873
Threshold uncertainty score0.627

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.053
GPT teacher head0.291
Teacher spread0.238 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it