The strategic capability of Asian network airlines to compete with low-cost carriers

Abstract

a b s t r a c tNever before have network airlines been so exposed and vulnerable to low-cost carriers (LCCs). While LCCs had 26.3% of all world seats in 2013, Southeast Asia had 57.7% and South Asia 58.4% e and these figures will only increase. There are many consequences of LCCs on network airlines, including inadequately meeting the expectations of customers, so increasing dissatisfaction, and not offering sufficient value-for-money. Clearly, it is fundamentally important for Asian network airlines to respond appropriately to LCCs. This paper looks at the strategic capability of 22 of the top Asian network airlines in competing with LCCs, which is achieved by analysing questionnaire data from these airlines in terms of 37 competitive responses across six distinct response categories. It is crucial to note that this paper only concerns their capability in competing with LCCs, and it does not consider their overall strength. This paper also investigates how strategic capability varies by Asian sub-region and by airline performance, with performance examined in two respects: by perceived performance and actual performance. The results show that strategic capability varies widely, with Vietnam Airlines possessing the strongest strategic capability to compete with LCCs and SilkAir the weakest. Of others that compete heavily with LCCs, Malaysia Airlines and Garuda Indonesia have strong capabilities, while Philippine Airlines does not. However, all three need to more forcefully respond to LCCs. As a whole, network airlines within Southeast Asia have the greatest strategic capability, and Northeast Asia the weakest. There is a reasonably strong correlation between strategic capability and both actual and perceived performance, which suggests that those airlines with strong strategic capabilities should achieve strong overall performance.

A quantitative means of comparing competitive advantage among airlines with heterogeneous business models: Analysis of U.S. airlines

“…However, challenges may exist for future applications of this model, particularly in different markets where homogenised reporting is not available. Qualitative methods, particularly those employed by Pearson, O'Connell, Pitfield and Ryley (2015) and , can, therefore, be more effective where financial data is not available. Furthermore, the variables contained within the model are in no way exhaustive.…”

The Relationships between Corporate Credibility, Service Convenience, and Consumers’ Use Intentions: Toward Ticketing Apps for Low-Cost Carriers

“…In recent years, research on the LCC industry has focused on competitive strategy analysis with traditional airlines [14][15][16][17] and route planning, which is different from traditional airlines [18,19], market research for customer characteristics [20], etc., and there has been less discussion on the operation and customer service of self-service technology. Moreover, few studies have used technology readiness as a segment variable to explore the market segmentation of self-service technology users.…”

Using analytic network process to measure the determinants of low cost carriers purchase intentions: A comparison of potential and current customers

“…Some scholars have examined the role of price e convenience attributers (such as low ticket price and convenient booking channel) significantly affect customer intentions to travel via LCCs (Mikulic and Prebezac, 2011;O'Connell and Williams, 2005;Pearsona et al, 2015). Many studies have found evidence that external social support (e.g., positive word of mouth, mass media reports) (Kim and Lee, 2011;O'Connell and Williams, 2005;Saha and Theingi, 2009) and airline image (Chang and Hung, 2013;Yang et al, 2012) are important predictors of intentions to purchase LCCs.…”