Você está na página 1de 3

NETWORK RESEARCH

Spatial Concentration in Europe


Versus the US
From Gini Analysis to Geopolitical Assessment
Liberalization of air traffic in both the US and Europe has resulted in distinct patterns of spatial concen-
tration of traffic distribution on each of the continents. Statistical indices, such as the Gini coefficient,
make it possible to measure inequalities in this distribution across airports. Applying this comprehensive
measure of traffic to each common market (EU, US) helps to assess today’s results of deregulation and to
plan airline networks and airports for the future. The same approach can be applied to long-distance or
intercontinental flights. The aim of this paper is to account for geopolitically induced differences that
can be stressed when comparing traffic distributions across continents. Our research findings show
important and potentially far-reaching asymmetries between (Western) Europe and the US for most of
the geo-political dimensions. The implications of our analysis for policymaking are outlined in part 3 of
this contribution.

By Dr. Hans Huber

The Perspective through Gini risks of bilateral “Open Skies” agree- We find, in the first table, that consid-
The Gini index, when compared to ments. Interpreting Gini from such a erably fewer US airports serve intra-
more conventional indices of concen- geopolitical point of view, however, state air traffic as compared to EU
tration such as the Herfindahl Index, requires decomposing the index fur- domestic (within the nation state). The
has distinguished itself for being par- ther into finer layers of traffic distri- difference in concentrations for such
ticularly useful when measuring traf- butions that are particularly relevant traffic is not statistically significant
fic distributions inside airline net- to each policy perspective. The most between both geographical areas. This
works. One of its salient features is obvious dimensions that come to empirical finding confirms the lack of
that it reacts quite well to changes in mind are domestic routes (which sensitivity of Gini to the size or dis-
all parts of its population rather than would correspond to intra-state routes tance distributions between territories
only its most important ones. The reg- in the US), routes between the differ- for each geographical area. However,
ularly observed unequal, log-like dis- ent EU member states against traffic when factoring in distance (see ASM),
tribution of airline networks is quite connecting states in the US, and long- sensitivity becomes more important:
well accommodated by Gini. distance or intercontinental on both with a 90 percent confidence interval,
Although one may argue about the continents. These first results already we can conclude that such traffic is
proper units of analysis when using show striking differences. spatially more concentrated under the
the index (some tend to favor passen-
Table 1: Spatial concentration in Europe versus the US for different route-types
gers or number of aircraft movements,
others choose available seat capacity),
the adequacy of Gini for measuring
traffic concentration across airports is
not challenged. In that sense, compar-
ing spatial concentration in Europe
against that of the US may be a worth-
while exercise. The analysis might be
performed more properly when avail-
able-seat-miles (ASM) is used as the
unit of analysis to account for general
differences in distances within both
geographical areas.

Highlighting such geopolitical differ-


ences has far-reaching implications on
a micro, airport planning level, as well
as on planning for multi-modal con-
nectivity alternatives, or, on a macro-
political level, when evaluating the Legend: AS =available seats, ASM = available seat miles, CI = confidence interval

e-zine edition, Issue 38 1


influence of longer intra-state routes Clustering Airline Networks into ber of mid-size carrier networks can
in the US. We find that the number of Strategic Groups be found in the US and Europe (there
airports serving such routes is some The economic agents that determine are 17 of them in either geographical
43 percent higher in the US. On a 95 these traffic distributions are, of area): European ones show more con-
percent confidence interval, we find course, the various airline operators. nections, on average, per airport (4.5
such traffic significantly more con- The networks that they operate differ versus 3.2 in the US), although the
centrated in the US in comparison to from each other – grouping them European ones tend to be less spatial-
Europe. Although distance suggests along network features [1] into strate- ly concentrated at their main airports
little influence on such traffic con- gic groups is an intermediate step that (showing departures in a range of
centration in Europe, again it adds to shows differences in market structure log(2.79 to 2.96) versus a log(3.25) in
spatial concentration in the US. The between Europe and the US. the US). A final distinctive feature for
results for long-distance/interconti- these 17 mid-sized airline networks is
nental routes are also surprising: When examining the second table in that the US groups show almost no
detail, we find a much more fragment- long-distance links as compared to
ed market structure in Europe, with significant intercontinental route serv-
very small networks. At the other ice in the EU.
extreme, the largest US networks are
significantly bigger than the European Decomposition of Route-Type
ones. There are more very large net- traffic Distribution along
Strategic Groups
In the final step of our analysis, we can
now highlight how different strategic
groups in both geographical areas
although the US shows some 38 per- manage traffic for distinct route types,
cent less airports serving long-dis-
tance/ intercontinental routes, con-
centration is significantly higher (90
percent CI) in Europe. Also, we found
with Gini that the distribution of such works in the US: the largest 7 carriers
routes across the different airports is easily outperform the largest 6
the most even of all, given an average European in terms of monthly depar-
value of 0.745 for AS. These findings tures from their busiest hubs. The
imply a strong national approach number of average routes per AP is
within the European ‘Union’. As significantly higher, and these US car- i.e. intra-state/ domestic versus inter-
expected, distance does not stress the riers show significantly steeper slopes state/ intra-European versus intercon-
difference in concentration between (which indicate a higher spatial con- tinental. Our findings (detailed statisti-
both geographical areas due to the centration) in traffic distribution as cal results can be obtained from the
nature of the route. One important well. The case around American author upon request) can be summa-
conclusion is that European airport Airlines shows significantly more rized as follows.
hubs depend much more on long-dis- long-distance links than any EU-
tance/intercontinental routes, whereas based airline. More airlines operating The US geopolitical environment
spatial concentration in the US seems smaller networks in the 7 to 25 AP allowed for the emergence of national
induced internally (domestically), range can be found in Europe, but or even regional hubs that cater to the
and is able to take advantage of, on they show a lower tendency towards operations of mostly large, high densi-
average, longer distances. spatial concentration. The same num- ty networks. They serve larger geo-
graphic distances on average and their
Table 2: Clustering of airline networks into strategic groups
respective market coverage shows lit-
tle overlap with airports that are being
covered by other strategic groups.
Intra-state traffic contributes to higher
spatial concentration, which is proba-
bly enhanced by distance advantages
in a common market. One may argue
that this configuration is likely to be
adopted in Europe as well, given the
longer period for which the US mar-
ket has been de-regulated. On the
other side, the underlying geo-politi-
cal drivers in Europe (for example:
national policies by Member States,
etc.) are not likely to change soon and

e-zine edition, Issue 38 2


Figure 1: A part of the route network of Continental. Courtesy of Continental Airlines
European legacy carriers, who are clearly highlights a specific position- Reference:
becoming profitable again, have ing of these EU airports that allocate Huber, H., Comparing spatial concentra-
already been shown to be closely cor- their scarcest resource (i.e. slot capac- tion and assessing relative market struc-
related to the spatial patterns observed ity) in a very different way from their ture in air traffic, World Conference in
before. It is suggested that low-cost biggest US counterparts. This finding Transport Research, University of
California at Berkeley (June 2007) – the
carriers (LCCs) in the US have been further leads to the current discussion
full article is currently reviewed by aca-
highly instrumental in reshaping the (and actual emergence) of dual hub demic journals.
major airlines’ route networks. As for structures of major airlines in Europe. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gini_coeffi-
Europe, most LCCs are still little- A more specific study may elaborate cient.
developed in comparison, and many on the detailed relevancy of ICA
of them are (still) operating from dependency and the robustness of About the Author:
major airports, where economic rents operations when faced with shocks on Dr. Hans Huber is Visiting Faculty at SJM,
are safe, but where little potential such dual hubs. Indian Institute of Technology - Bombay.
remains to turn these airports into His teaching and research activities relate
intra-European, low-cost based hubs. Further empirical studies may exam- mostly to the fields of strategic manage-
Also, the less densely travelled routes ine the effects of asymmetrical traffic ment and air traffic. He holds a PhD from
HEC, University of Geneva and an MBA
in Europe are currently served by distributions for airport planning in
from UC Berkeley.
highly fragmented medium and small terms of catchment areas for the dif-
airline networks, which exhibit con- ferent types of routes. The European
Footnote:
siderable overlap in terms of airports context appears to offer, at first 1Size, i.e. the number of airports that are
served. In other words, lack of compe- glance, more opportunities for com- being served within the airline’s European
tition at the big airports between plementary intra-European multi- network: APcount
major airlines, along with high rivalry modal connectivity. However,
by numerous small players at medium deploying such alternative technolo- The average number of routes that an air-
and small airports hinders the emer- gy, i.e. high-speed trains, on longer line serves from each airport: We constrain
gence of US-like structures. distances to free capacity for the this variable to airports and routes inside
the geopolitically distinct home markets
domestic, shorter distance, flight con-
(i.e. the EU and the US): AvLink
Much fewer airports serve trans- nections are a path that could easily
European routes in Europe, relative to be contested. Common sense would, Traffic distribution among airports
the US, but relatively many serve a priori, suggest the opposite. The inside the airline network can be approxi-
long-distance and intercontinental domestic feeder system into intercon- mated by a log-linear relationship of
(ICA) routes. However, the EU shows tinental routes in Europe raises the monthly departures by decreasing airport
a disproportionate concentration of same questions with regards to the rank order. Two variables allow defining
this traffic distribution: the most heavily
intercontinental routes at very few air- adequate catchment area, and
travelled airport inside the airline network
ports compared to the US. This sug- whether the feeder capacity would (log-value of monthly departures of carrier)
gests that spatial concentration in the not be better provided by another present a y-intercept: MaxDep; whereas
EU is largely induced by interconti- mode of transport, rather than by car- the log-linear plot of its rank-ordered distri-
nental routes. A very high dependency riers with a dominant market share at bution provides the slope variable: lnslop
on intercontinental routes of Europe’s the same hubs. This certainly opens
biggest airports may imply increased up new avenues for fresh research The number of intercontinental links of
an airline at its best connected airport is
international (geopolitical) vulnera- into the integration of European air
important for two reasons: a) it exemplifies
bility, compared to the US situation. traffic that, by many accounts, risks the feeder-hub logic of many airline net-
Of course, such vulnerability would missing out on the fundamental works, and b) it may be an element of mar-
also depend on the specificity for ICA opportunities that are presented by a ket power that transcends the geopolitical
demand, etc. Our research, however, single market. scope within a liberalized and/ or unified
market in the EU and the US: IntScop

e-zine edition, Issue 38 AJ 3

Você também pode gostar