STARTUPS: Founding airlines during COVID-19 - A hopeless endeavor or an ample opportunity for a better aviation system?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The devastating impact of COVID-19 on aviation is unprecedented and undoubted in the recent sci-entific literature, with many studies having dissected different facets of COVID-19-induced changes to the industry. A few studies have stepped further and highlighted that the COVID-19 pandemic could have positive long-term impacts on aviation. Given that traditional air carriers are known to be reluctant for performing high-risk experiments outside their business-as-usual, parts of hope for a better aviation future rests on novel players entering the industry. The pandemic - against common perception and odds - might have created a rare opportunity for airline startups to enter the market. In this study, we first dissect the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on aviation and how it possibly created a breeding ground for new airlines. We propose a framework of eight facets, STARTUPS, covering flight Suspensions, Talents, Aircraft, Recovery, Travel demand, Uniquity, Policy making, and Strategy. Moreover, we analyze the business model and markets of 46 airline startups, established or becoming active during the pandemic. Our study is concluded with a dis-cussion on the risk factors for airline startups during the COVID-19 pandemic and induced policy challenges. Our analysis, we believe, is complementary to existing studies on COVID-19, leveraging a novel perspective on the pandemic and the aviation industry.
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 | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.010 | 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".