Contract Form and Technology Adoption in a Network Industry
Bibliographic record
Abstract
All major U.S. carriers subcontract portions of their networks to regional partners who may either be owned or governed with contracts. Beginning in the late 1990s, there is a change in the nature of contracts in this industry, with fixed price contracts replacing revenue sharing contracts as the predominant contractual form. Moreover, this change is correlated with the diffusion of a new aircraft technology, the regional jet (RJ). To explain this correlation, we investigate whether technological features of the RJ led majors to subcontract new types of flights to their regionals and whether these new flights had characteristics that favored the new contractual form. In particular, we argue that, in addition to the standard insurance/incentives tradeoff, there may be a second advantage to fixed price contracts in this setting as they eliminate the haggling over route selection that can arise under revenue sharing. Combining detailed data on RJ adoption with a novel dataset on contractual form, we show that the emergence of the new technology did result in regionals being used in new ways- for example, serving long, thin spokes and supplementing or replacing the major’s own flights. We then investigate whether these new uses are consistent with a change in the optimal contract and find that they are. Specifically, relative to turboprops, RJs were more likely to serve to serve flights whose characteristics suggested that the standalone revenue of the flight might provide limited incentives for a regional to operate that flight.
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.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".