Alliances as an Integrating Market Instrument: A Case Study of Airline Alliances
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This paper offers a novel way of looking at airline alliances by integrating the concept into the study of regional arrangements like common markets or free trade areas. Not unlike a country wishing to join an established common market, an airline seeking admission to an airline alliance seeks to enhance access to the market. Currently there are three major airline alliances: Star Alliance, Sky Team and One World. Given that access enhances potential for returns, the paper models and empirically tests the choice of an air carrier as to whether or not to join an alliance, and if it were to join which alliance. Using the US Department of Transportation Origin and Destination Survey for 2003 and 2008, a latent choice model is estimated. From the Logit estimates the predicted alliance membership rose from 0.39 to 0.62 signifying the attractiveness of this formation. Given that there exists more than one alliance to choose from, using the portfolio principles we ranked the alliances in terms of returns and volatility of return. The results suggest that many international carriers seem to have fared extremely well whereas US carriers did not.
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) | 0.001 | 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".