Confidence in Airline Performance in Difficult Market Conditions: An Analysis of JetBlue's Financial Market Results
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This paper examines the stock market s reaction to JetBlue s Initial Public Offering (1PO) and subsequent price movements of the stock. In particular, w e examine whether the euphoria surrounding JetBlue s IPO carried over to other firms in the sector by testing whether the shares of JetBlue s competitors showed a significant price reaction to JetBlue s IPO. JetBlue's IPO took place just a few months following September 11, 2001. These events resulted in dramatic changes in the airline industry and had significant implications on the economic gains of airlines. We examine JetBlue s accounting and stock performance and compare it to the relative performance of Southwest Airlines (SWA), a representative of the loa-cost carrier group. In addition, we compare both JetBlue's and SWA's financial condition and the relative performance of their stock to two mainline U S. carriers, Continental and Northwest. representatives of the conventional-cost carrier group. We analyze whether there are any performance differences among the low-cost carriers and between low-cost carriers and conventional-cost carriers. In particular, we examine whether low-cost carriers were able to sustain the economic impacts of 9/11 better than the conventional-cost carriers.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.016 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 0.001 |
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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".