Since deregulation, the major US airlines are exhibiting prominent oligopolistic characteristics.  An oligopoly exists when high barriers to entry result in a few interdependent companies controlling the majority of a market. In the airline industry this includes high set up costs, legal requirements, existing brand loyalty and extensive economies of scale. The five major airlines in the US market collectively comprise of 69.5% market share, and a 70% portion of the entire industry revenues.

This is advantageous for the producers in a market, because cartel behaviour eliminates the uncertainty of price rivalry. The airlines are likely to have entered a strategic arrangement called collusion, through formal agreement, to charge a certain fare that ensures higher profit margin collectively, that is more mutually beneficial than entering price war to gain competitive edge. Along with controlling the price competition, they may control non price competition too, for example, by jointly disagreeing upon elaborate and expensive marketing campaigns.

Consumers will have to comply, as high concentration reduces consumer choice and given the lack of competition, oligopolists are free to engage in the manipulation of consumer decision making. Also, an oligopolistic industry is generally allocatively and productively inefficient, resulting in potential welfare loss. Customers pay, and conversely firms receive, a relatively higher price than the original market price, due to price fixing. This creates a imbalance in the consumer and producer surplus, as the consumer surplus decreases, and the producer surplus increases.

To prevent this scenario, the CAB carefully restrained and regulated the market for domestic air travel. Air travel lacks close substitutes in other transportation industries giving it high inelasticity and its consumers susceptibility, with its prime feature being convenience. Therefore, it had to be managed like a “public utility”. To protect this factor, the CAB had to step in to ensure affordability (‘fares’), accessibility (‘routes’) and availability (‘schedule’).

However, excessive checks and balances made introducing any changes a tedious legal procedure, discouraging research and development. Possibly resulting from this, the Airline Deregulation Act came into the picture. Reducing interference of civil authorities allows airlines to behave competitively, allowing demand and supply to adjust and settle at an equilibrium price in the long term, which would strike the balance between feasibility and profitability.

Instead, airlines began to consolidate, which refers to the amalgamation of smaller companies into larger companies. These larger companies benefited from extensive economies of scale, and their lower average costs allowed them to slash their price to a level that would drive the smaller firms into bankruptcy. Consumers will suffer, because at an hour of urgency, if the need for air travel arises, they have no choice but to accept being exploited. An advantage could be price stability, and increased funding towards research and development, but if this comes at the cost of exploitation to society, it is counterintuitive.

Article –

http://www.investopedia.com/ask/answers/011215/airline-industry-oligopoly-state.aspI

http://www.readthehook.com/72271/higher-plane-minor-sought-jet-during-landmark-default

Welcome to UBC Blogs. This is your first post. Edit or delete it, then start blogging!

In the 13th century, Aristotle, Greek philosopher and scientist, termed the businessmen who engaged in activities which did not contribute fruitfully to the wellbeing of society as “parasites.” Since then till now, movies such as The Wolf Of Wallstreet embody what Michael Lewis, author and financial journalist, refers to as the central sociocultural assumption of modern finance, “that a trader is a savage, and a great trader, a great savage.”

This movie is based on the notorious and nefarious Jordon Belfort, portraying his debauchery, deception and decadence. No attempt is made to defend such conduct as the requirement of a well-functioning financial sector – this movie doesn’t say he is wrong. Instead it asks – what does it say about us if he’s right?

The money fueled machine of corporate and crony capitalism understands greed and grit as its foundation – but it doesn’t take the perception of a socialist to deem this as morally incoherent. This blog will be unpacking the Triple Bottom Line theory, with respect to three major ethical violations from the unknown trenches of the corporate world that are recently coloring our news. The phrase “the triple bottom line” was first coined in 1994 by John Elkington, the founder of a British consultancy called SustainAbility. The triple bottom line (TBL), as seen in the image below, consists of three Ps: profit, people and planet.

Economic sustainability, dealing with ‘profit’, was violated in the case of Wells Fargo, when they prioritized surviving the credit crisis over thriving, by trying to cross-sell lucrative products to its existing consumer base which employees replied to by creating fraudulent customer accounts. As a result, Wells could lose as much as $212 billion in deposits and $8 billion in revenue over the next year and a half.

Social sustainability, regarding ‘people’, was denigrated in the case of Mylan, a drug company that decided to increase the cost of its EpiPen which was a life saving drug for the children that suffer from food allergies in America. They set a $500 price tag on their monopoly – an act of cruelty for desperate families. After media attention and a congressional grilling, its stock is now trading at its lowest of 30 years.

Environmental sustainability, about ‘planet’, was ignored entirely by Coca-Cola. The soft drinks giant has become emblematic of big business’s contribution to the waste problem thanks in part to a high profile campaign by Greenpeace, which claims the company generates more than a hundred billion plastic bottles a year.

Together, these three tenants of sustainability – economic, social, and environmental – guide businesses towards fitting into the conception of the corporation as a participating citizen in the community and not as a money making machine.