Author
Listed:
- Carl E. Enomoto
- Karl R. Geisler
- Sajid A. Noor
Abstract
Purpose - The purpose of this paper is to analyze the extent to which major US airlines respond to one another in quality of service improvements. Design/methodology/approach - Utilizing monthly data, the authors estimate a five-equation vector autoregressive model to determine which airline leads or follows others in quality of service improvements. Findings - This study found that the five major airlines make interrelated decisions when responding to customer complaints concerning flight problems, over-sales, reservations, ticketing, boarding, and customer service. Every airline either responds to or influences the changes in customer complaints faced by at least one other airline, while some airlines do both. However, only one such relationship was found when examining if airlines change the percent of flight delays they have control over in response to changes in flight delays faced by another airline. Practical implications - The number of passenger complaints against an airline can be influenced by the airline, as can the number of carrier-caused flight delays. The industry leaders in responsiveness to consumer complaints are US Airways and United. However, airlines do not, as a group, respond to the carrier-caused delays of their competitors. The prescription to improve airline servicevis-à-visflight delays is simple: tell passengers why flights are delayed. To protect or gain market share, airlines would compete for customers by minimizing flight delays in a similar manor to how they respond to customer complaints. Originality/value - No other paper that the authors are aware of has addressed the issue of identifying leaders and followers in the US airline industry regarding changes in service quality as reflected by changes in passenger complaints and flight delays.
Suggested Citation
Carl E. Enomoto & Karl R. Geisler & Sajid A. Noor, 2017.
"Non-price competition in the US airline industry: a VAR model,"
Journal of Economic Studies, Emerald Group Publishing Limited, vol. 44(6), pages 882-894, November.
Handle:
RePEc:eme:jespps:jes-09-2016-0173
DOI: 10.1108/JES-09-2016-0173
Download full text from publisher
As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.
Corrections
All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:eme:jespps:jes-09-2016-0173. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.
If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.
We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .
If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.
For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Emerald Support (email available below). General contact details of provider: .
Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through
the various RePEc services.