به سوی وسیله ای برای مقایسه مداوم مدل های کسب و کار خطوط هوایی با برنامه ای برای بخش خطوط هوایی کم هزینه
|کد مقاله||سال انتشار||تعداد صفحات مقاله انگلیسی||ترجمه فارسی|
|7549||2008||10 صفحه PDF||سفارش دهید|
نسخه انگلیسی مقاله همین الان قابل دانلود است.
هزینه ترجمه مقاله بر اساس تعداد کلمات مقاله انگلیسی محاسبه می شود.
این مقاله تقریباً شامل 6680 کلمه می باشد.
هزینه ترجمه مقاله توسط مترجمان با تجربه، طبق جدول زیر محاسبه می شود:
Publisher : Elsevier - Science Direct (الزویر - ساینس دایرکت)
Journal : Research in Transportation Economics, Volume 24, Issue 1, 2008, Pages 75–84
Meaningful definitions of and distinctions between airline business models are not easily formulated, particularly when one considers the extremely dynamic nature of the industry. The paper outlines a product and organizational architecture (POA) approach to classifying and relating key elements of airline business models. Using indices to create benchmark metrics, the POA model is then used to examine and compare six European airlines. The analysis shows that there are important differences in the business models of airlines that are all commonly referred to as ‘low cost carriers’. The paper demonstrates how differences in the business models adopted by the different airlines contribute to their relative profitability.
Much has been written about the low cost airline business model and what elements in the business model distinguish it from traditional full service airlines. Williams and Mason (2004) reviewed the group of strategies that together enable low cost carriers to exercise cost advantages over full service airlines (p.8) (see also Francis, Alessandro, & Humphreys, 2003). The review highlighted significant differences between low cost carriers in their business models. For some carriers it is not clear if they should be called “low cost carrier”, “regional carrier”, or some other term. When comparing airline performance it is useful to compare one airline with others of a similar business approach and contrast it with other airline pursuing alternative models. However, the fundamental problem is that is a lack of a consistent and standardised approach to analysing airline business models. This paper seeks to go some way towards rectifying this methodological gap.
نتیجه گیری انگلیسی
Meaningful definitions of and distinctions between airline business models are not easily formulated, particularly when one considers the extremely dynamic nature of the industry. In order to provide a more coherent and consistent understanding of airline competition and strategy, we have applied a product and organizational architecture (POA) approach to classifying and relating key elements of airline business models. The application of the POA model to six European airlines has shown that there are important differences in the business models of airlines who are all commonly referred to as ‘low cost carriers’. Our paper demonstrates how differences in the business models adopted by the different airlines contribute to their profitability. More specifically, among the sample airlines examined, our analysis suggests that the positioning of some airlines to offer increased comfort and convenience in a bid to achieve higher yields is marginally successful but is not as profitable as the pure low cost approach practiced by Ryanair. There may well be a first mover advantage enjoyed by Ryanair and easyJet. Certainly size and market power are shown to contribute to the POA strategy of both airlines. Yet, we can see that even between these two airlines, Ryanair stands alone as the lowest-cost carrier, providing some indication that strategically, when one airline establishes a lowest-cost position in its product and organizational architecture, competitors are forced to choose a different POA strategy. Casual support for this is provided by recent marketing efforts by easyJet, aimed at driving up the proportion of traffic that is business related. The direct objective of targeting this market is to drive up yield, but there is also strategic value adjusting their POA strategy thereby avoiding head-to-head direct competition with their lowest-cost competitor. The analysis presented here can be extended in two ways. First by continuing to collect data covering a larger number of years, we can investigate how the POA of airlines in the sample have evolved over time. Secondly, the POA model can usefully be applied to analyse other airline models (subject to availability of data) – full service carriers, premium only cabin carriers, long-haul low cost carriers – and between carriers in similar sectors in different regions – low cost airlines in North America, Europe and Asia.