Comparative analysis of The Airline Deregulation Act of 1978 and Single European Sky (SES) initiative

Introduction 3

1. State regulation of civil aviation 4

2. Central principles of the 1978 Airlines Deregulation Act 8

3. Fundamental principles of the Single European Sky (SES) initiative 9

Conclusions 10

References 11

Introduction

Civil aviation is one of two major categories of flying, representing all non-military aviation, both private and commercial[1]. International Civil Aviation Organisation (ICAO) classifies civil aviation activities as commercial (scheduled and non-scheduled) air transport services and general aviation (non-commercial business aviation, instructional flying, pleasure flying, aerial work, and other flying)[2].

Civil aviation refers to a group of industries whose enterprises are most controlled. Moreover, neither in literature nor in practice, the need for external influence on the state of the civil aviation market is questioned; disputes are only about the extent and methods of state regulation. The state’s interference in the activities of airlines is necessary due to the influence of several groups of factors, namely:

  • macroeconomic (determined by the importance of transport for the reproduction process);
  • microeconomic (related to the peculiarities of air transport products, the nature of competition, etc.);
  • social and political factors.

Transport and, in particular, civil aviation is infrastructure sectors, the state of which largely determines the productive development of the entire economy. Any transport system is extremely complex, so at the macro level, there is an acute problem of coordination of work and the coordinated development of all types of transport. At the same time, transport products have a number of specific features that leave their mark on technological processes, the nature of consumption, the structure of the market, and, consequently, state regulation.

Air transport companies offer on the market transport products created in the process of transporting passengers and goods, as well as services related to the transport process and necessary for its implementation[3]. Its beneficial effect can be consumed only during the production process; this effect does not exist as a consumer thing that is different from the process, which, only after it has been produced, functions as a commodity, is converted as a commodity[4].

Among the reasons that cause the need for state regulation of the civil aviation, should be highlighted[5]:

  • ensuring flight safety, which implies the introduction of standards and rules that are mandatory for participants in the aviation market to ensure the proper condition of aircraft, as well as their appropriate operation;
  • product quality control of aviation enterprises;
  • a reasonable limitation of the costs that society incurs in connection with the activities of air transport.

The Airline Deregulation Act is a United States federal law signed into law on October 24, 1978. The main purpose of the act was to remove government control over fares, routes and market entry (of new airlines) from commercial aviation[6]. The 1978 Airline Deregulation Act partially shifted control over air travel from the political to the market sphere[7].

Single European Sky (SES) is an initiative of the European Commission, which seeks to reform the air traffic control system through a series of events held at various levels[8].

These documents are critical milestones in the regulation of civil aviation processes. Therefore, the aim of this work is their detailed study and comparative analysis. The following tasks are solving to achieve this goal:

  • study the history of civil aviation regulation;
  • analyze The Airline Deregulation Act of 1978;
  • Explore the Single European Sky (SES) initiative.

 

1. State regulation of civil aviation

The 1944 Convention on International Civil Aviation (Chicago Convention) and its technical annexes laid the legal basis for safety in the field of world civil aviation[9]. The principles laid down in the Chicago Convention formed the basis for bilateral agreements that began with the 1946 Bermuda Agreement on transatlantic flights between the United Kingdom and the United States (formally Agreement between the government of the United Kingdom and the government of the United States relating to Air Services between their respective Territories)[10].

However, the time has shown that bilateral agreements negatively affect the competitiveness of airlines, destroying incentives to improve performance through guaranteed volumes of traffic and the same prices[11].

During the formation of the civil aviation industry, economic and political support of the state was required, therefore historically, there are more examples of paternalistic models in the world. However, in recent years, more and more countries are abandoning paternalism in the industry in favor of a liberal model[12].

In the paternalistic model, the national carrier (or the majority airlines) is state-controlled and has preferences compared to other airlines in the country. Benefits are state subsidies (to cover losses, renewal of the aircraft fleet, etc.) and monopolies (or duopolies with a foreign carrier) on a significant share of routes (usually on the most profitable international lines)[13]. As a rule, the national carrier controls more than 60-70% of the market, and private airlines operate a small volume of traffic[14]. The paternalistic model is represented in Singapore (Singapore Airlines), Thailand (Thai Airways), UAE (Emirates), and several other states. The transport industry is an important strategic priority for these countries and provides a significant share of GDP. The volume of government investment here makes up a central part of the state budget[15].

Thus, the paternalistic model cannot be called a market one, since it lacks competition and competitiveness. It is a policy of protectionism and state regulation of all aspects of the activity, which does not allow market mechanisms to work. After all, here we are talking about legislatively fixing the market share for the national airline; limiting the frequency of flights, carrying capacities, commercial rights for other carriers; licensing of flights over the air; differentiation of airport and air navigation charges for national and foreign airlines; high insurance coverage requirements for foreign carriers; fixed distribution of flight frequencies between airlines and administrative setting of tariff levels, etc.

The liberal model arose after the Second World War, when the economies of some countries (for example, the USA) began to develop intensively – the idea of moving away from the administrative management of civil aviation and spreading market relations to it appeared[16]. It was necessary to create appropriate political and economic conditions to decrease state influence. Because of lengthy discussions in 1978, the Airline Deregulation Act was passed in the United States. When developing it, the government took into account, first, that due to the sharp increase in operating costs, many US national airlines began to incur significant losses. However, according to the then-applicable rules, they had no right to stop flights even on unprofitable lines for them. The government faced a choice: subsidize profitless airlines or allow their ruin. Furthermore, it decided to decrease state regulation of the air transport business, hoping that free competition would revive the industry and save the state budget from unnecessary expenses[17].

The idea of deregulation turned out to be attractive, and the example of the USA was followed first by Canada[18], and then by European countries[19], Japan[20]. In 1996, the United States General Accounting Office (GAO) performed an analysis of the results of the deregulation of the US aviation market[21].

The main conclusion made by GAO auditors may be presented as follows: the result of deregulation was increased competition between airlines, which generally led to an increase in the quality of services (including a decrease in the cost of transportation, an expansion of the range of services offered to passengers, as well as an increase in the number of flights, frequencies on individual routes, and the emergence of a large number of connections, reducing their time)[22].

The liberalization of air transport and the advent of low-cost airlines have led to an increase in the number of flights and destinations offered to air passengers[23]. A steady increase in air traffic in the 1990s revealed a mismatch between the domestic market and the traditional organization of the European network of national air traffic control systems[24]. This network is characterized by significant fragmentation, which reflects the historical evolution of air traffic control. It caused an increase in congestion and delays, as well as a decrease in production and economic efficiency. The inefficient use of airspace and the projected doubling of air traffic are real constraints to economic growth and the international competitiveness of the European air transport system[25]. The need to reduce the disintegration of the European air transport system and increase its effectiveness were the reason for putting forward in 2000 the initiative to create a Single European Sky[26].

Thus, the prerequisites for the emergence of the Law on Airlines deregulation in 1978 were the need to reduce state regulation of processes within civil aviation to increase its market efficiency, and the Single European Sky (SES) initiative was the need of integration of national transport systems.

2. Central principles of the 1978 Airlines Deregulation Act and its consequences

The boom in aircraft manufacturing in the 1950s led to a sharp increase in the number of aircraft located simultaneously in the national airspace[27]. The US air traffic control system that had developed by that time turned out to be outdated and did not correspond to the increased intensity of flights of civil aircraft. It contributed to the emergence of a series of air crashes. The US government was forced to take measures aimed at streamlining the activities of aviation since the problem of ensuring flight safety became one of the paramount[28].

During the development of civil aircraft manufacturing in the United States, administrative activities in the field of civil aviation were improved. The Civil Aeronautics Board (CAB), created in 1938, aimed to contribute to the development of the air transport industry[29]. It regulated such areas as creating new airlines, distributing airline routes between airlines, setting prices, and marginal profits for air transport services, determining the types of aircraft operated by airlines. It contributed to the expansion of domestic and international trade, the growth of airline revenues, and the development of the entire air transport industry[30]. However, over time, the negative aspects of the over-regulation of affairs in the industry began to appear. Sixteen initially registered airlines had the highest advantages while creating a new airline was almost impossible. Moreover, because of the mergers, the number of airlines decreased from 16 to 11[31]. This decrease did not contribute to maintaining competition between air carriers and improving the quality of their services. For this reason, until 1978, not a single new airline was created[32].

Thus, the economic side of the development of the US air industry in the period 1960-1970 was characterized by the fact that previously established government restrictions on pricing and the creation of new airlines led to insufficient competition, increasing transportation costs and unsatisfactory financial performance of air carriers. Organized many years ago and almost ceased to develop airlines became unable to meet the growing demands of customers, and the creation of new airlines was almost impossible because new members were not allowed in the club of selected airlines. On the other hand, in these years, technological possibilities for commissioning more high-speed, cost-effective, and comfortable civil air crafts appeared. The year 1968 was marked by the debut of the revolutionary Boeing 747 aircraft – the first wide-body aircraft, which was twice the size of any other plane manufactured by Boeing[33].

On November 9, 1977, President Carter signed the Air Cargo Deregulation Act, which allows airlines to operate on any domestic route and set reasonable market prices for transportation. This law has led to an increase in the number of carriers of small cargoes and also provided passenger airlines with more freedom in choosing routes[34].

On October 24, 1978, US President Carter signed the Airline Deregulation Act. The central purpose of it was to eliminate state control over tariffs, routes, and access to the market of commercial aviation enterprises. The Federal Aviation Administration has been appointed to be responsible for establishing security measures and performance and flight safety standards. The main provisions of the Deregulation Act 1978 are as follows. Simplified formalities in issuing licenses to airlines for the operation. Moreover, they were given the right to independently change the frequency of flights on lines. Airlines have the right to change their tariffs (to reduce the tariff by no more than 50% and increase to 5%), if the airline carries out more than 70% of transportation on this line. When issuing licenses for operating the airline, the opportunity for several airlines to operate on the same route was provided[35].

The results of the deregulation of the US air transport industry, which have an impact on its activities to date, include the following[36]:

  • the appearance on the air travel market of more than 30 newly created airlines, such as People Express, Jet America and Southwest Airlines; 
  • the departure of large airlines from airports located in sparsely populated parts of the country and close to small cities, which had an impact on local economies and led to the creation of little regional airlines;
  • consolidation and concentration of the industry, as a result of which many of the newly created airlines were absorbed by larger competitors or turned into their branches, supplying passengers to large airports used by the parent companies;
  • creation of customer attraction and retention schemes, such as a frequent flyer reward system;
  • offering customers new types of services, such as selling specific seats in passenger lounges and providing meals, including a special menu;
  • the creation of route hub and spoke systems, which made it possible to sharply increase the number of pairs of airports served by the same airline.

After the deregulation period in the industry ended, financial problems came first, be it local, regional or large national airlines. Several airlines went through bankruptcy proceedings (Braniff, Eastern, Pan Am, Frontier)[37]. Several airlines merged: Jet American and PSA formed Alaska Airlines, and Republic became part of Northwest Airlines. Large airlines have affiliates such as American Eagle and United Express. Some of the newly established airlines have achieved success using new methods of managing air transport processes. These include, for example, the very successful Southwest, whose innovative leaders decided to use only one type of aircraft (Boeing 737), operated on a well-thought-out route structure with minimal operating costs, and consequently attracting many passengers with low airfare[38]. Within the existing airline structures, low-budget units began to be created to reduce operating costs. Airline management has become a complex, high-tech business requiring special knowledge and skills.

3. Fundamental principles of the Single European Sky (SES) initiative

Single European Sky (SES) is an initiative of the European Commission aimed at changing the architecture of the airspace over Europe. The idea of ​​the project appeared back in the 1960s. For its development, an appropriate organization was created – EUROCONTROL. The main objective of the project is the integration of decentralized airspace over Europe into nine functional units following traffic flows, and not with national borders.

Since the mid-twentieth century, the movement of aircraft over Europe has been organized according to the national principle. It means that the boundaries of the air zones coincided with the borders of states. Each state had the exclusive right to control the airspace over its territory and establish its own rules (for example, to close part of the airspace). Airlines had to reckon with this. Therefore, air routes were not rationally (on average, each route was 49 km longer than the optimum).

By 2002, 49 disparate control centers operated flights over Europe (for comparison, there is only one such center in the United States). At the same time, countries used different security systems in the field of air travel (there were 39 options in 2002), equipment, and software[39].

As soon as the number of flights began to grow dynamically, this system showed its inefficiency. There were flight delays (in the early 2000s, every fifth plane was 20 minutes late on average), reduced flight safety (for example, in 2002, an airliner and a cargo plane collided over Lake Constance) and increased environmental pollution (all due to more than 42 km)[40]. In addition, of course, all this affected the cost of flights and support for the service system.

The SES project volunteered to solve all the main problems: optimize route schemes, reduce aircraft delays, modernize air navigation equipment, and at the same time, reduce the cost of flights and maintenance.

In 2004 – 2006, the EU member states, as well as Morocco, Norway, Iceland, Liechtenstein, and Switzerland signed the Agreement on the Establishment of a Unified Aviation Area in Europe (ECAA) and tried to put the idea into practice – they began to upgrade the technical flight management system (as part of the project SESAR) and combine into function blocks (FAD)[41].

In 2007, the European Commission summed up the first results of the project, and it turned out that, firstly, things are going very slowly, and secondly, SES does not bring the expected effect: the cost of flights does not decrease, and their efficiency does not grow[42]. The unification of the sky was hindered by objective technical and organizational difficulties; however, a subjective factor played an important role – the unwillingness of states to part with the monopoly on airspace.

Therefore, the European Commission revised the SES project.

It should be remembered that the implementation of the initiative means:

  • transition to the general rules for ensuring flight safety (air traffic control) and aviation security;
  • guarantee of the rights of passengers;
  • mutual liberalization of aviation services markets;
  • expanding economic opportunities for aviation operators on both sides;
  • creation of adequate conditions for ensuring scientific and technological cooperation in the aviation industry;
  • mutual access to the air transportation markets and freedom of their organization, with equal conditions of competition;
  • harmonization of environmental regulations.

Thus, the SES initiative is a way to liberalize airspace over several countries.

Conclusions

Thus, the study allowed us to achieve our goals and solve all the problems posed.

When writing the work, the author made the following conclusions:

1. The Airline Deregulation Act is a United States federal law signed into law on October 24, 1978. In general, after deregulation, the number of air passengers has doubled by 1991 compared to 1978, and by 2008 – tripled. This is largely because the average ticket price in 1994 was 9% lower than in 1979, and taking into account inflation, fares fell by an average of one third, and by half in busy destinations. Also, low-cost airlines, such as Southwest Airlines, have become more common in the US air transportation market. This increased the occupancy rate of aircraft, but led to the need to develop the infrastructure of large airports so that they can cope with increased passenger traffic.

2. Single European Sky (SES) is an initiative of the European Commission, which seeks to reform the air traffic control system. A key component of the SES concept is the creation of a common certification system for air navigation service providers.

3. Thus, the observed documents are part of the airspace liberalization process; the goal of both is to increase the efficiency of the industry. However, if the Deregulation Act was aimed at creating the conditions of a free market and competition, the Free Skies initiative is aimed at increasing the efficiency of the industry through the introduction of uniformly high standards of activity.

References

  1. Alasuutari, P., Rautajoki, H., Auvinen, P., & Rautalin, M. (2018). Shattering the Single European Sky: Argument from authorities in dealing with the SES initiative. European Journal Of Cultural And Political Sociology6(1), 68-94. https://doi.org/10.1080/23254823.2018.1449661
  2. Bednarek, J. (2014). Longing for the ‘golden age’ of air travel? Be careful what you wish for. The Conversation. Retrieved 4 July 2020, from https://theconversation.com/longing-for-the-golden-age-of-air-travel-be-careful-what-you-wish-for-34177.
  3. Bednarek, J. (2018). 50 years of the Boeing 747: How the ‘queen of the skies’ reigned over air travel. The Conversation. Retrieved 4 July 2020, from https://theconversation.com/50-years-of-the-boeing-747-how-the-queen-of-the-skies-reigned-over-air-travel-99814.
  4. Cannon, J., & Richey, F. (2012). Practical applications in business aviation management. Government Institutes.
  5. Clegg, S., Carter, C., Kornberger, M., & Schweitzer, J. (2011). Strategy: Theory and Practice. SAGE.
  6. Cooper, J. (1946). The Bermuda Plan: World Pattern for Air Transport. Foreign Affairs. Retrieved 4 July 2020, from https://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/united-states/1946-10-01/bermuda-plan-world-pattern-air-transport.
  7. Dempsey, P. (1979). The Rise and Fall of the Civil Aeronautics Board – Opening Wide the Floodgates of Entry. Transportation Law Journal11(1). Retrieved 4 July 2020, from.
  8. Dobie, G. (2014). Global Aviation Safety Study. Allianz.com. Retrieved 4 July 2020, from https://www.allianz.com/content/dam/onemarketing/azcom/Allianz_com/migration/media/press/document/other/AGCS-Global-Aviation-Safety-Study-2014.pdf.
  9. First Report on the Implementation of Single Sky Legislation – SKYbrary Aviation Safety. Skybrary.aero. (2017). Retrieved 4 July 2020, from https://www.skybrary.aero/index.php/First_Report_on_the_Implementation_of_Single_Sky_Legislation.
  10. GAO. (1996). AReport to the Chairman, Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation, U.S. Senate [Ebook]. Retrieved 4 July 2020, from https://www.gao.gov/archive/1996/rc96079.pdf.
  11. Goetz, A., & Vowles, T. (2009). The good, the bad, and the ugly: 30 years of US airline deregulation. Journal Of Transport Geography17(4), 251-263. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jtrangeo.2009.02.012
  12. Gudmundsson, S. (2015). European Air Transport Regulation: Achievements and Future Challenges. SSRN Electronic Journal. https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.2621815
  13. Jung, J. (2016). The Impact of Domestic U.S. Deregulation on International Aviation Policy. Journal Of Distribution And Logistics3(2), 21-34. https://doi.org/10.22321/jdl2016030202
  14. Kundu, A., Price, M., & Riordan, D. (2019). Conceptual aircraft design. John Wiley & Sons.
  15. Mason, K., & Morrison, W. (2013). Liberalization of air transport in Europe and the evolution of ‘low-cost’ airlines. ResearchGate. Retrieved 4 July 2020, from https://www.researchgate.net/publication/289047205_Liberalization_of_air_transport_in_Europe_and_the_evolution_of_%27low-cost%27_airlines.
  16. Mattos, B., & Guerreiro Fregnani, J. (2015). Effects of the Airline Deregulation Act on Aeronautical Industry. International Journal Of Advance Innovations, Thoughts & Ideas03(02). https://doi.org/10.4172/2277-1891.1000161
  17. McGowan, F., Seabright, P., Breyer, S., & Encaoua, D. (1989). Deregulating European Airlines. Economic Policy4(9), 283. https://doi.org/10.2307/1344472
  18. Moeller, S. (2010). Characteristics of services – a new approach uncovers their value. Journal Of Services Marketing24(5), 359-368. https://doi.org/10.1108/08876041011060468
  19. Parkhimovich, A. (2018). Some aspects of aviation service market. Civil Aviation High TECHNOLOGIES21(6), 113-123. https://doi.org/10.26467/2079-0619-2018-21-6-113-123
  20. Poole, R. (2013). Organization and Innovation in Air Traffic Control. Reason.org. Retrieved 4 July 2020, from https://reason.org/wp-content/uploads/files/air_traffic_control_organization_innovation.pdf.
  21. Reschenthaler, G., & Stanbury, W. (1983). Deregulating Canada’s Airlines: Grounded by False Assumptions. Canadian Public Policy / Analyse De Politiques9(2), 210. https://doi.org/10.2307/3550998
  22. Review of the classification and definitions used for civil aviation activities. International Civil Aviation Organization. (2009). Retrieved 3 July 2020, from https://www.icao.int/Meetings/STA10/Documents/Sta10_Wp007_en.pdf.
  23. Rodrigue, D., & Notteboom, D. (2020). The Geography of Transport Systems (5th ed.). Routledge.
  24. Sandell, D. (1979). Deregulation – Has it Finally Arrived – The Airline Deregulation Act of 1978. Journal Of Air Law And Commerce44(4). Retrieved 4 July 2020, from.
  25. Savić, I., & Kapetanović, A. (2011). I. Savić, A. Kapetanović, Reaching for the European Sky. Retrieved 4 July 2020, from.
  26. Sepp, P., & Aiello, T. (2018). Airline Deregulation At 40. National Taxpayers Union. Retrieved 4 July 2020, from https://www.ntu.org/publications/detail/airline-deregulation-at-40.
  27. Single European Sky. European Commission. (2020). Retrieved 3 July 2020, from https://ec.europa.eu/transport/modes/air/ses_en.
  28. Single European Sky. European Commission. (2020). Retrieved 4 July 2020, from https://ec.europa.eu/transport/modes/air/ses_en.
  29. Smith, F., & Cox, B. Airline Deregulation. Econlib. Retrieved 3 July 2020, from https://www.econlib.org/library/Enc/AirlineDeregulation.html.
  30. Sun, J. (2017). Airline Deregulation and Its Impacts on Air Travel Demand and Airline Competition: Evidence from Korea. Review Of Industrial Organization51(3), 343-380. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11151-017-9565-0
  31. The History of ICAO and the Chicago Convention. Icao.int. (2020). Retrieved 3 July 2020, from https://www.icao.int/about-icao/History/Pages/default.aspx.
  32. Thian, C. (2015). CIVIL AND MILITARY AIRWORTHINESS CHALLENGES IN ASIA. Aviation19(2), 78-82. https://doi.org/10.3846/16487788.2015.1057993
  33. U.S. Govt. Print. Off. (1972). Economic condition of the air transportation industry.
  34. Yadav, D., & Nikraz, H. (2014). IMPLICATIONS OF EVOLVING CIVIL AVIATION SAFETY REGULATIONS ON THE SAFETY OUTCOMES OF AIR TRANSPORT INDUSTRY AND AIRPORTS. Aviation18(2), 94-103. https://doi.org/10.3846/16487788.2014.926641
  35. Yamaguchi, K., Ueda, T., Ohashi, T., Takuma, F., Tsuchiya, K., & Hidaka, T. (2020). Economic impact analysis of deregulation and airport capacity expansion in jap-anese domestic aviation market. Retrieved 4 July 2020, from https://www.mlit.go.jp/pri/shiryou/pdf/ronbun.pdf.
  1. Kundu, A., Price, M., & Riordan, D. (2019). Conceptual aircraft design. John Wiley & Sons.

  2. Review of the classification and definitions used for civil aviation activities. International Civil Aviation Organization. (2009). Retrieved 3 July 2020, from https://www.icao.int/Meetings/STA10/Documents/Sta10_Wp007_en.pdf.

  3. Rodrigue, D., & Notteboom, D. (2020). The Geography of Transport Systems (5th ed.). Routledge.

  4. Moeller, S. (2010). Characteristics of services – a new approach uncovers their value. Journal Of Services Marketing24(5), 359-368. https://doi.org/10.1108/08876041011060468

  5. Yadav, D., & Nikraz, H. (2014). IMPLICATIONS OF EVOLVING CIVIL AVIATION SAFETY REGULATIONS ON THE SAFETY OUTCOMES OF AIR TRANSPORT INDUSTRY AND AIRPORTS. Aviation18(2), 94-103. https://doi.org/10.3846/16487788.2014.926641

  6. Cannon, J., & Richey, F. (2012). Practical applications in business aviation management. Government Institutes.

  7. Smith, F., & Cox, B. Airline Deregulation. Econlib. Retrieved 3 July 2020, from https://www.econlib.org/library/Enc/AirlineDeregulation.html.

  8. Single European Sky. European Commission. (2020). Retrieved 3 July 2020, from https://ec.europa.eu/transport/modes/air/ses_en.

  9. The History of ICAO and the Chicago Convention. Icao.int. (2020). Retrieved 3 July 2020, from https://www.icao.int/about-icao/History/Pages/default.aspx.

  10. Cooper, J. (1946). The Bermuda Plan: World Pattern for Air Transport. Foreign Affairs. Retrieved 4 July 2020, from https://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/united-states/1946-10-01/bermuda-plan-world-pattern-air-transport.

  11. Sandell, D. (1979). Deregulation – Has it Finally Arrived – The Airline Deregulation Act of 1978. Journal Of Air Law And Commerce44(4).

  12. Матвеева Анастасия Вячеславовна (2014). Характеристика моделей функционирования рынка пассажирских авиаперевозок. Управленец, (6 (52)), 34-39.

  13. Parkhimovich, A. (2018). Some aspects of aviation service market. Civil Aviation High TechECHNOLOGIES21(6), 113-123. https://doi.org/10.26467/2079-0619-2018-21-6-113-123

  14. Матвеева Анастасия Вячеславовна (2014). Характеристика моделей функционирования рынка пассажирских авиаперевозок. Управленец, (6 (52)), 34-39

  15. Thian, C. (2015). CIVIL AND MILITARY AIRWORTHINESS CHALLENGES IN ASIA. Aviation19(2), 78-82. https://doi.org/10.3846/16487788.2015.1057993

  16. Sun, J. (2017). Airline Deregulation and Its Impacts on Air Travel Demand and Airline Competition: Evidence from Korea. Review Of Industrial Organization51(3), 343-380. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11151-017-9565-0

  17. Mattos, B., & Guerreiro Fregnani, J. (2015). Effects of the Airline Deregulation Act on Aeronautical Industry. International Journal Of Advance Innovations, Thoughts & Ideas03(02). https://doi.org/10.4172/2277-1891.1000161

  18. Reschenthaler, G., & Stanbury, W. (1983). Deregulating Canada’s Airlines: Grounded by False Assumptions. Canadian Public Policy / Analyse De Politiques9(2), 210. https://doi.org/10.2307/3550998

  19. McGowan, F., Seabright, P., Breyer, S., & Encaoua, D. (1989). Deregulating European Airlines. Economic Policy4(9), 283. https://doi.org/10.2307/1344472

  20. Yamaguchi, K., Ueda, T., Ohashi, T., Takuma, F., Tsuchiya, K., & Hidaka, T. (2020). Economic impact analysis of deregulation and airport capacity expansion in jap-anese domestic aviation market. Retrieved 4 July 2020, from https://www.mlit.go.jp/pri/shiryou/pdf/ronbun.pdf.

  21. GAO. (1996). AReport to the Chairman, Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation, U.S. Senate [Ebook]. Retrieved 4 July 2020, from https://www.gao.gov/archive/1996/rc96079.pdf.

  22. Ibid.

  23. Mason, K., & Morrison, W. (2013). Liberalization of air transport in Europe and the evolution of ‘low-cost’ airlines. ResearchGate. Retrieved 4 July 2020, from https://www.researchgate.net/publication/289047205_Liberalization_of_air_transport_in_Europe_and_the_evolution_of_%27low-cost%27_airlines.

  24. Poole, R. (2013). Organization and Innovation in Air Traffic Control. Reason.org. Retrieved 4 July 2020, from https://reason.org/wp-content/uploads/files/air_traffic_control_organization_innovation.pdf.

  25. Gudmundsson, S. (2015). European Air Transport Regulation: Achievements and Future Challenges. SSRN Electronic Journal. https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.2621815

  26. Alasuutari, P., Rautajoki, H., Auvinen, P., & Rautalin, M. (2018). Shattering the Single European Sky: Argument from authorities in dealing with the SES initiative. European Journal Of Cultural And Political Sociology6(1), 68-94. https://doi.org/10.1080/23254823.2018.1449661

  27. Bednarek, J. (2014). Longing for the ‘golden age’ of air travel? Be careful what you wish for. The Conversation. Retrieved 4 July 2020, from https://theconversation.com/longing-for-the-golden-age-of-air-travel-be-careful-what-you-wish-for-34177.

  28. Dobie, G. (2014). Global Aviation Safety Study. Allianz.com. Retrieved 4 July 2020, from https://www.allianz.com/content/dam/onemarketing/azcom/Allianz_com/migration/media/press/document/other/AGCS-Global-Aviation-Safety-Study-2014.pdf.

  29. Dempsey, P. (1979). The Rise and Fall of the Civil Aeronautics Board – Opening Wide the Floodgates of Entry. Transportation Law Journal11(1). Retrieved 4 July 2020, from.

  30. ibid

  31. U.S. Govt. Print. Off. (1972). Economic condition of the air transportation industry.

  32. Dempsey, P. (1979). The Rise and Fall of the Civil Aeronautics Board – Opening Wide the Floodgates of Entry. Transportation Law Journal11(1). Retrieved 4 July 2020, from

  33. Bednarek, J. (2018). 50 years of the Boeing 747: How the ‘queen of the skies’ reigned over air travel. The Conversation. Retrieved 4 July 2020, from https://theconversation.com/50-years-of-the-boeing-747-how-the-queen-of-the-skies-reigned-over-air-travel-99814.

  34. Sepp, P., & Aiello, T. (2018). Airline Deregulation At 40. National Taxpayers Union. Retrieved 4 July 2020, from https://www.ntu.org/publications/detail/airline-deregulation-at-40.

  35. Jung, J. (2016). The Impact of Domestic U.S. Deregulation on International Aviation Policy. Journal Of Distribution And Logistics3(2), 21-34. https://doi.org/10.22321/jdl2016030202

  36. ibid

  37. Goetz, A., & Vowles, T. (2009). The good, the bad, and the ugly: 30 years of US airline deregulation. Journal Of Transport Geography17(4), 251-263. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jtrangeo.2009.02.012

  38. Clegg, S., Carter, C., Kornberger, M., & Schweitzer, J. (2011). Strategy: Theory and Practice. SAGE.

  39. Single European Sky. European Commission. (2020). Retrieved 4 July 2020, from https://ec.europa.eu/transport/modes/air/ses_en.

  40. ibid

  41. Savić, I., & Kapetanović, A. (2011). I. Savić, A. Kapetanović, Reaching for the European Sky. Retrieved 4 July 2020, from https://www.academia.edu/12480761/REACHING_FOR_THE_EUROPEAN_SKY

  42. First Report on the Implementation of Single Sky Legislation – SKYbrary Aviation Safety. Skybrary.aero. (2017). Retrieved 4 July 2020, from https://www.skybrary.aero/index.php/First_Report_on_the_Implementation_of_Single_Sky_Legislation.

Citi darbi šajā kategorijā

Viedie materiāli

Ievads Pēdējo desmit gadu laikā tehnoloģijas attīstās arvien straujāk un mērķtiecīgāk, cilvēku vajadzības un pieprasījums produktu/pakalpojumu unikalitātei, produktivitātei un izmantošanai kļūst arvien kompleksāks, daudzdimensionālāks. Tas

Sociāli emocionālā mācīšanās skolās

Pedagogi, vecāki un politikas veidotāji ir vienisprātis, ka izglītībā jākoncentrējas uz būtisku sociālo un emocionālo spēju atbalstīšanu, lai palīdzētu bērniem veiksmīgi orientēties pasaulē. Šis plašais

Saudzezim dabu

Ievads Viens no galvenajiem skolotāja uzdevumiem ir attīstīt izziņas interesi par mācību priekšmetu. Šo interesi var veicināt, izmantojot dažādas klases un ārpusklases aktivitātes. Spēļu uzdevumi

Iegūstiet piekļuvi visiem +5000 izpildītiem mācību darbiem.

Par 9.90 € jūs varat:
– Pārskatīt visas mūsu arhīvā pieejamās lapas.
– Lejuplādēt jebkurus 10 failus.

Piekļuve būs aktīva 24 stundas.

Jūs varat veikt maksājumu ar jebkuru bankas karti.

Majasdarbs.lv

Vai vēlies pasūtīt mācību darbu?

Cookie

Šīs tīmekļa vietnes satura kvalitātes uzlabošanai un pielāgošanai lietotāju vajadzībām tiek lietotas sīkdatnes – tai skaitā arī trešo pušu sīkdatnes. Turpinot lietot šo vietni Jūs piekrītat sīkdatņu lietošanai, kā arī iespējamai saziņai, ja kādā no lapā aizpildāmajām formām norādīsiet savu kontaktinformāciju.