1. Potential anticompetitive effects of airline alliances under antitrust immunity include market foreclosure that denies competitors access to inputs or consumers, increased potential for collusion within alliances and between major alliances, expansion of hub-and-spoke networks that hinders entry of new non-stop services, and multiple listings on distribution channels that pushes down potential competitors.
2. Airline alliances involve high financial and reputational costs if they fail, ranging from $40-250 million. Alliances require disruption from integration activities and may prematurely terminate if the desired mutual benefits are not achieved or a gap arises between expectations and outcomes. Recognizing issues early and re-evaluating positions can reduce misunderstand
1. Potential anticompetitive effects of airline alliances under antitrust immunity include market foreclosure that denies competitors access to inputs or consumers, increased potential for collusion within alliances and between major alliances, expansion of hub-and-spoke networks that hinders entry of new non-stop services, and multiple listings on distribution channels that pushes down potential competitors.
2. Airline alliances involve high financial and reputational costs if they fail, ranging from $40-250 million. Alliances require disruption from integration activities and may prematurely terminate if the desired mutual benefits are not achieved or a gap arises between expectations and outcomes. Recognizing issues early and re-evaluating positions can reduce misunderstand
1. Potential anticompetitive effects of airline alliances under antitrust immunity include market foreclosure that denies competitors access to inputs or consumers, increased potential for collusion within alliances and between major alliances, expansion of hub-and-spoke networks that hinders entry of new non-stop services, and multiple listings on distribution channels that pushes down potential competitors.
2. Airline alliances involve high financial and reputational costs if they fail, ranging from $40-250 million. Alliances require disruption from integration activities and may prematurely terminate if the desired mutual benefits are not achieved or a gap arises between expectations and outcomes. Recognizing issues early and re-evaluating positions can reduce misunderstand
Market foreclosure consists in the denial of access to competitors of inputs or consumers needed to compete in the market from the dominance position of the airlines enjoying antitrust immunity from regulators 2. Potential for collusion Under antitrust immunity between allied airlines, collusion is allowed de facto within the alliance but, additionally, the extent of market contact between firms, increases with their growth in scope. The potential negative effects of a potential triopoly of Oneworld, SkyTeam, and Star Alliance. 3. Network development Expansion of the effects of the hub and-spoke network structure, in which more markets are served by connecting flights, expanding the network coverage compared to a point-to-point network, but also dissuading future non-stop services between those markets. Partner alliances join their hub-and-spoke networks and this hinders entry of the member airlines with new non- stop services between the markets in the network. 4. Multiple listing on distribution channels Same code sharing route appears in the online travel agencies and computer reservation systems (CRS). In CRS the effect is to push down potential competitors from the first screen, from where most of the travel agency reservations are made. Alliance Failures Alliances come at a high financial cost as well as risk to reputation from failure. Alliance breaking/switching has costed Airlines in range of $40 M - $250M. Alliances involve disruption with such activities as relocation and general harmonization and integration of information technology and general systems. Although firms enter agreements for the long-term, the desired mutual benefits may not always follow and can lead to premature termination. Successful alliances are highly evolutionary and go through a sequence of interactive cycles of learning, reevaluation and readjustment A gap between expectation and intermediate outcomes is a major reason for failure. Given this, it is important that parties to an alliance recognize it early in the collaboration and try to re- evaluate each other’s position. This lessens the likelihood of misunderstanding among partners, which ultimately contributes to high instability and failure rates.