# Spectral density estimation of European airlines load factors for Europe-Middle East and Europe-Far East flights

- 1.4k Downloads
- 3 Citations

## Abstract

### Purpose

In the airline industry the term load factor is defined as the percentage of seats filled by revenue passengers. The load factor is a metric that measures the airline’s capacity and demand management. This paper aimed to identify serial and periodic autocorrelation on the load factors of the Europe-Mid East and Europe-Far East airline flights. Identifying the autocorrelation structure is helpful to develop the best fitted forecasting model of the load factors.

### Methods

The paper applies spectral density estimation to investigate the structure of serial and periodic autocorrelation on the load factors. Then the paper applied multivariate trend model to develop a forecasting model of the load factors of the regional flights. The multivariate trend model is fitted using the Prais–Winsten recursive autoregression methodology.

### Results

The primary analysis of the study identified that the airlines have better a demand than capacity management system for both the Europe-Mid East and Europe-Far East flights. The spectral density estimates showed that the load factors have both periodic and serial correlations for both regional flights. Therefore, in order to control the periodic autocorrelation, we introduce transcendental time functions as predictors of the load factor in the multivariate trend model. Finally, we build realistic and robust forecasting model of the load factors of the Europe-Mid East and Europe-Far East flights.

### Conclusions

The econometric estimation results confirm that the load factors of the Europe-Mid East and Europe-Far East flights are both seasonal and differ between flights. The analysis implies that the load factor is still far from stable and stabilizing policies by airlines has so far not been successful. The AEA may therefore continuously focus on the stabilization and the improvement of the load in the industry.

## Keywords

Airlines Load factor Spectral density estimation Multivariate trend analysis## 1 Introduction

The yield, revenue per unit of output sold, is a highly significant metric in the airline industry. By definition, it is only the mathematical outcome of two even more fundamental metrics: output sold and revenue earned. For more than five decades the yields across the industry as a whole has been in decline. These price declines explain a significant portion of the traffic growth throughout the period [33]. Broadly speaking, the yields will soften when (1) traffic growth is flat or insufficient to absorb output growth, (2) intense competition lower prices, and yields will harden when (2a) load factors are already high and output is growing slower than traffic, (2b) traffic growth is outstripping growth in output and (3) lower competition keeps prices unchanged. The fact that traffic, load factor, and revenue all will be affected by these type of adjustments, illustrates how intimately connected the variables are—all within the context of available output [37, 38].

This paper’s main variable of interest is the airline industry load factor. The load factor measures the percentage of an airline’s output that has been sold to paying passengers. Hence, the load factor is a measure of the extent to which supply and demand are balanced at prevailing prices. The achieved load factors for the industry as a whole conceal marked variations between different type of airliners, with regional carriers at the lower end of the spectrum and charter airlines generally achieving higher load factors than scheduled carriers [8]. The average load factors for individual airline enterprises masks variations between different markets and cabins. Economy cabins achieving higher load factors because customers tend to book further in advance and expect lower levels of seat accessibility than for premium cabins. The average load factors in the airline industry also conceal pronounced daily, weekly and, in particular, seasonal variations.

There are at least six load factors drivers in the airline industry. The *first* driver is the industry’s output decisions relative to demand growth. The output growth must be brought into alignment with demand growth. The *second* driver is pricing. Fare reductions generally stimulate demand. Load factors are affected depending upon capacity decisions. The *third* driver is the traffic mix. Historically, the higher the proportion of business travellers carried by an airline, the lower the average seat factor. That is, the random element in demand for business travels (highly volatile demand) suggests a lower average load factor in business and first class cabins [31]. The *fourth* driver is refund policies. A carrier taking non-refundable payment at the time of reservation is likely to have relatively few no-shows and a relatively higher seat factor than carriers selling a high portion of fully flexible tickets. The *fifth* driver is commercial success. A success of product design, promotions, marketing communications, distributions, and service delivery will influence load factors. The *sixth* driver is revenue management. The effectiveness of revenue management systems (RMS) will influence load factors. The RMS capabilities, specifically the refinement of demand forecasting tools, will contribute significantly [30]. Depending on market conditions in the airline industry, there exist a trade-off between load and yield. Unless demand is particularly strong and output growth is under firm control, it is likely that rising yields will be associated with downward pressure on load factors. In contrast, a falling yield tends to be associated with higher load factors. The trade-off suggests that airline carriers will generally want to arrive at a capacity, which targets a load factor balances between the costs of turning passengers away and the costs of meeting all peak demand and oversupplying the market (“double-edged sword”). In general, therefore, from an operational perspective it is easier to manage an airline when load factors are at 64 % than when they are at 84 % [9]. The size of the load factor is therefore a measure of success in the airline industry. However, the success factor is challenged by the fact that demand is volatile and fluctuates in units of single seat-departures in different origin and destination markets. In contrast, the capacity can only be delivered in units of available aircrafts for the particular flight-leg. That is, routes designed to serve the origin and destination markets are broadly fixed in the short run. Furthermore, the necessity to maintain both high flight completion rates, the integrity of network connections, and aircraft/crew assignments, may make it almost impossible for a scheduled passenger carrier to cancel a significant number of its lightly loaded flights [4].

The main objective of this paper is to build econometric models that can capture the variations of load factors for Europe-Middle East and Europe-Far East airline flights. The paper’s target population is airlines that are members of the Association of European Airlines (AEA). We use multivariate time series econometric model to analyse the temporal evaluation of load factor. The best well-fitted econometric model may improve the accuracy of forecasting the load factor of these specific flights. However, in order to build the best fitted model for the load factor we are encountered to several challenges. First, we need to evaluate characteristics of available seat kilometre and revenue passenger kilometre on the load factor. Second, we need to have solid knowledge about the autocorrelation structure of the load factor. Classically, we think that the intensity of autocorrelation of time series data diminishes with more distant lags.

However, in reality, the true autocorrelation structure of the load factor has the periodic autocorrelation (i.e., load factor it is highly seasonal). Consequently, we have to identify the structure of both serial and periodic autocorrelations on the load factor. Third, once we identify the autocorrelation structure of the load factor, then we will deal with mechanisms to control it during model fit.

In this study, we advance the classical multivariate trend analyses to control the periodic autocorrelation by expressing the time effect of the load factor as a dynamic (can be linear or nonlinear) function of the parameters [29]. Furthermore, in order to control for the serial autocorrelation we apply Prais–Winsten recursive autoregression estimation [34]. Finding the best suitable mathematical relationships of the dynamic time effect of the load factor and controlling serial correlation is therefore the most important task of this study. The best fitted econometric model may bring superior forecasting tools and techniques, and new information to the AEA.

## 2 Literature review

The airline industry plays an essential role in the establishment of today’s global economy. According to Doganis [15] the airline industry gives the impression of being both cyclical and strappingly subjective to external dynamics. The international airline industry is complex, dynamic, subject to rapid change, innovation, and marginally profitable. By considering procedures determining tariff levels in an origin‐destination market, airline pricing refers to various service facilities and capacities for a set of airline products.

Revenue management is the process of determining the number of seats available at each tariff level. The revenue management of the airline is therefore a function of its tariff strategy and associated load factors. According to Kellner [27] the success of the airline is determined by its ability to make unit revenues (i.e., the product of yield and load factor) higher than its unit costs. Therefore, in addition to minimize the unit cost, the important task of the airline manager is to simultaneously maximize the product of yield and load factor [21].

Yield management is the assortment of schemes, strategies and tactics the airline enterprises use to systematically manage demand for their services and products [25]. The fundamental units for yield management are load factors, pricing and cost of the airlines [26]. Passenger load factor (or only load factor) is a measure of the degree of airline passenger carrying capacity. The load factor is a quantity of the extent to which supply and demand are balanced at prevailing prices [18]. In short, load factor is defined as the ratio of the revenue passenger kilometre to available seat kilometre in the given origin destination flight [14, 4].

The load factor is a measure of the performance and efficiency of an airline. The airline’s load factor directly reflects their competency and performance. The high load factor with appropriate pricing is a condition for the efficient operation of an airline enterprise [40]. Thus, it is enlightening for the performance of the airline to highlight factors that affect the load factors [22].

Generally, operational factors play a significant role in affecting the load factor and therefore capacity. Specifically, operational factors such as distance covered by journey, tourists, codeshare agreement (is an aviation business arrangement where two or more airlines share the same flight) and market concentration HHI index (a commonly accepted measure of market concentration) are among the most important factors that have positive and significant effect on the load factor [32]. Moreover, the GINI index (a measure the degree of price dispersion, or price inequality in the airline of the same flight) is discovered as the main factor that negatively affects the load factor. Other important factors are airport features, performance limitation, flight conditions, seasonality of demand, time of traveller schedule, frequency of flights and dynamic route networks [32, 24].

## 3 The data and methodology

### 3.1 The data

The dataset is obtained from the *Association of European Airlines (AEA)* and is downloaded from http://www.aea.be/research/traffic/index.html. The data is collected for the period 1991 to 2013 and contains information about Available Seat-Kilometres (* ASK*), Revenue Passenger-Kilometres (

*) and Load factor (*

**RPK***).*

**LF**Moreover, Europe-Far East (* EF*) is defined as any scheduled flights between Europe and points east of the Middle East region, including Trans-Polar and Trans-Siberian flights. Europe-Middle East (

*) is defined as any scheduled Terminating flights between Europe and Bahrain, Iran, Iraq, Israel, Jordan, Kuwait, Lebanon, Oman, Saudi Arabia, Syria, United Arab Emirates, Yemen and the Democratic Republic of Yemen (Available at www.aea.be).*

**EM**### 3.2 Methodology

#### 3.2.1 One way analysis of variance (ANOVA)

*μ*the grand mean of

*y*

_{ ij },

*α*

_{ i }the

*i*

_{ th }level effect on

*y*

_{ ij }and

*ε*

_{ ij }∼

*iidN*(0,

*σ*

^{2}). The bootstrapping estimation method is applied to estimate the model parameters. Usually the method of estimation of the model parameters is either using ordinal least square (OLS) or generalized least square (GLS) estimators according to the parameters are fixed or random, respectively [17, 11]. Nevertheless, modern econometric methods used bootstrapping to acquire thorough information about the estimated parameters. In this particular case we apply the Bias-Estimation Bootstrap technique. The estimation method gives information about bias of the estimates due to resampling in addition to the estimates of OLS or GLS [13].

#### 3.2.2 Signal processing

*μ*

_{ t }

^{∗}is the mean of the series at time

*t*,

*a*

_{ k },

*b*

_{ k }(Fourier transformation coefficients of

*cosine*and

*sine*waves) are independent zero mean normal random variables,

*v*

_{ k }are distinct frequencies.

#### 3.2.3 Ljung–Box test

*H*

_{ 0 }: serial correlation equals zero up to order h versus

*H*

_{ 1 }: at least one of the serial correlations up to lag h is nonzero. The test statistic of Ljung–Box is given as:

*n*is the sample size, \( {\widehat{\rho}}_l \) is the sample autocorrelation at lag

*l*, and

*h*is the number of lags being tested. The null hypothesis is rejected for α level of significance if

*Q*>

*χ*

_{ l − α,h }

^{2}.

#### 3.2.4 Multivariate trend analysis

*v*

_{ it }~

*iiDN*(0,

*σ*

_{ iv }

^{2}) where:

*f*

_{ i }(

*t*;

*β*

_{ i }) is any real valued function of time “

*t*” and a vector of parameters \( {\beta}_i=\left({\beta}_{i0},{\beta}_{i1},{\beta}_{i2},\dots, {\beta}_{i{k}_i}\right) \), \( U\left({\varepsilon}_{it-1},{\varepsilon}_{it-2},\dots {\varepsilon}_{it-h};{\rho}_{i1},{\rho}_{i2},\dots, {\rho}_{i{h}_i}\right) \) is a linear function of

*ε*

_{ it − ij },

*ρ*

_{ ij }and

*j*= 1, 2, 3, ….

*h*

_{ i },

*ε*

_{ it }and

*v*

_{ it }are random error terms.

To find suitable estimation method of the model parameters, it is necessary to have acquaintance about the mathematical structure of *f* _{ i }(*t*; *β* _{ i }). In this case we have two major categories of *f* _{ i }(*t*; *β* _{ i }), linear and nonlinear models [41]. If the model is linear then we simply apply the ordinary least square (OLS) estimation method to estimate the model parameters [39, 20].

#### 3.2.5 Steps of controlling serial autocorrelation

- Step 2:
Determine the structure of autocorrelation. At this step we use the Ljung–Box test of autocorrelation.

- Step 3:
If we do not reject our null-hypothesis we take the model fit is free from the problem of autocorrelation. Otherwise, we apply the Prais–Winsten estimation recursive estimation to remove serial correlation [44, 19, 42, 12, 1, 34]. The estimated variance covariance matrix is given as:

- Step 4:
Transform the original trend equation as [2]:

*y*

_{ it }] denotes the vector of stacked output variables [

*y*

_{ it }] for

*t*= 1, 2, 3, …,

*T*, [

*ε*

_{ it }] is similarly constructed from the error terms and [

*f*

_{ i }(

*t*;

*β*

_{ i })] denotes the stacked Regressors vector.

- Step 5:
Re-estimate model parameters using the data transformed according to Eq. 12.

- Step 6:
Repeat from Step 1 to Step 5 unless the Ljung–Box test of autocorrelation confirms that there is no serial correlation on the random error terms.

## 4 Results and discussions

### 4.1 Assessment of the regional characteristics of load factors

To construct the best fit of multivariate trend model it is indispensable to follow up the relationship between the flight load factors (LF) for the Europe-Middle East (EM) and the Europe-Far East (EF) with RPK and ASK.

Estimates of RPK (in million) and ASK (in million) of the EM and EF flights

Flights | Estimates of Revenue Passenger Kilometre (RPK in million) | Estimates of Available Seat Kilometre (ASK in million) | ||||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|

Statistic | Estimates | Bias | Std. Error | 95 % Confidence Interval | Statistic | Estimates | Bias | Std. Error | 95 % Confidence Interval | |||

Lower | Upper | Lower | Upper | |||||||||

EM-Flights | Mean | 1696.92 | 1.863 | 42.52 | 1617.65 | 1784.05 | Mean | 2450.76 | 1.53 | 56.82 | 2333.1 | 2566.78 |

Std. Deviation | 729.94 | −2.44 | 24.39 | 680.11 | 774.73 | Std. Deviation | 936.96 | −3.0 | 30.01 | 869.19 | 991.55 | |

Std. Error Mean | 43.94 | Std. Error Mean | 56.40 | |||||||||

EF-Flights | Mean | 9671.81 | −1.77 | 185.7 | 9317.00 | 10,023.0 | Mean | 12,375.32 | 10.46 | 193.21 | 12,005.0 | 12,754.61 |

Std. Deviation | 3059.35 | −6.34 | 95.64 | 2853.89 | 3229.34 | Std. Deviation | 3292.10 | −5.48 | 99.73 | 3089.31 | 3486.857 | |

Std. Error Mean | 184.15 | Std. Error Mean | 198.16 | |||||||||

Estimation Method | Bootstrap results are based on 1000 bootstrap samples |

Comparison of ASK, RPK and load factor of EM and EF flights

Variables | Comparison of flights | Mean Difference | Std. Error Difference | t-cal | Sig. (2-tailed) | 95 % Confidence Interval of mean difference | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|

Lower | Upper | ||||||

ASK (in million) | EFVs. EM | 9924.55721 | 212.85460 | 46.625 | 0.001 | 9519.21193 | 10,340.48847 |

RPK (in million) | EFVs. EM | 7974.88996 | 186.52502 | 42.755 | 0.001 | 7628.94166 | 8335.74600 |

LF (in percent) | EFVs. EM | −9.09385 | 0.51125 | 17.787 | 0.001 | 10.09983 | 8.11099 |

Estimation Method | Bootstrap results are based on 1000 bootstrap samples |

Prais-Winsten recursive parameter estimation of a linear regression of RPK (in million) in response to ASK (in million)

Predictor | Estimators | Std. Error | t-cal | Sig. | R Square | Model Std. Error |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|

ASK | 0.776 | 0.013 | 58.912 | 0.0000 | ||

Constant | −205.356 | 34.683 | −5.921 | 0.0000 | 0.927 | 115.788 |

Prais-Winsten recursive parameter estimation of a linear regression of RPK (in million) in response to ASK (in million)

Predictor | Estimators | Std. Erro | t-cal | Sig. | R Square | Model Std. Error |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|

ASK | 0.914 | 0.015 | 59.147 | 0.0000 | ||

Constant | −1648.14 | 198.94 | −8.284 | 0.0000 | 0.928 | 378.461 |

Prais-Winsten recursive parameter estimation of a linear regression of Load Factor (in percentage) in response to RPK (in million)

Flights | Predictor | Estimators | Std. Error | t-cal | Sig. | R Square | Model Std. Error |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|

EM | RPK | 0.02 | 0.001 | 24.852 | 0.0000 | ||

Constant | 34.459 | 4.072 | 8.462 | 0.0000 | 0.693 | 2.751 | |

EF | RPK | 0.003 | 0.000 | 14.059 | 0.0000 | ||

Constant | 52.739 | 1.912 | 27.589 | 0.0000 | 0.642 | 2.621 |

Prais-Winsten recursive parameter estimation of a linear regression of Load Factor (in percentage) in response to ASK (in million)

Flights | Predictor | Estimators | Std. Error | t-cal | Sig. | R Square | Model Std. Error |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|

EM | ASK | 0.004 | 0.001 | 7.366 | 0.0000 | ||

Constant | 57.396 | 1.542 | 37.222 | 0.0000 | 0.166 | 4.254 | |

EF | ASK | 0.001 | 0.000 | 8.443 | 0.0000 | ||

Constant | 62.166 | 1.83 | 33.978 | 0.0000 | 0.207 | 3.224 |

### 4.2 Assessment of the structure of autocorrelation of load factors (LF)

The correct autocorrelation structure for time series analysis is challenging. However, one powerful method for identification is the spectral density analysis. The spectral density is a non-parametric analysis able to give graphical information about how the autocorrelation function behaves in Fourier space.

The structure of autocorrelation of load factor of EM and EF flights of airlines under the AEA

The estimation of the periodogram and spectral density for the LF for the EM flights suggests that there exists strong periodic autocorrelation. The periodic autocorrelations are observed after jumping a specific number of months. The yearly repetitive plot of LF of the EM flights over months indicates that there are periodic dependencies. That is the monthly configured patterns for the EM flight’s load factor shows some regularity. The smallest LF is observed in May growing until August every year. Once it reaches its peak in August, it starts to decline until November. From November to April the next year the load factor show a stable growth. The cycle stops when the load factor suddenly drops from April to May to find its minimum. The plots for the periodogram and the spectral density suggest that the LF distribution of the EM flight has serial correlation up to a certain number of lags in months. The Ljung-Box test detect that the LF is serially correlated with the order of 15 months and dissipated after 16th month.

The periodogram and the spectral density of the load factor for the EF flights indicate strong periodic autocorrelation. The periodic autocorrelations are observed after a specific number of months. The yearly repetitive plot over months suggests that there are strong periodic dependencies. As for the EM flights, the monthly-configured patterns of LF of the EF flights show some regularity. As for the EM flights the smallest LF is observed in May growing until August. After reaching its peak in August it starts to decline until December. From December to January the following year the load factor show a growth. The cycle stops when the load factor drops from January to May to find its minimum. The plots of the periodogram and the spectral density suggest that the LF distribution of the EF flight has serial correlation for several months. The Ljung-Box test statistic detects that the LF is serially correlated with the order of 13 months and dissipated after 14th month.

### 4.3 Fitting load factors using a multivariate trend model

The analyses above recognise that both the RPK and ASK for the EF flights are higher than for the EM flights. Similarly, the average LF for the EF flights is higher than for the EM flights. Moreover, above we also found that the LF has different echelons (magnitudes) of linear correlation with RPK for the EM and EF flights. Besides, the analyses prevails that the linear correlation of LF with ASK is weak for both flights. Therefore, using these variables (both RPK and ASK) as common exogenous cohorts for the prediction of the load factor is inappropriate. Therefore, we can explicitly fit the trend model of the EM flight and the EF flight. We are only left with time as a predictor of LF for both flights. Thus, rather than other models, for example panel data regression model, we apply multivariate trend models.

*t*) for the fitted model suggests that the LF is improving (growing) with time for both flights. However, the significance of the natural logarithm of time (

*ln (t)*) in the model for the EF flights suggests that the LF performances improvements of the airlines are better for the EF flights than for the EM flights.

The fits of multivariate trend model of the load factor of EM and EF flights

Parameter Estimates | | Estimates | Std. Error | t-cal | Approx. Significance | Model Std. Error | Forecasting of Load factor of 2014 (in %) | |||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|

Month | Expected | LB | UB | |||||||

Rho (AR1-EM) | 0.47065 | 0.05403 | 8.7109 | 0.00000 | 3.10843 | Jan | 68.48439 | 62.36979 | 74.59898 | |

Time function Coefficients | | 0.04047 | 0.00440 | 9.2040 | 0.00000 | Feb | 70.82609 | 64.7115 | 76.94069 | |

| −0.89069 | 0.23959 | −3.7176 | 0.00025 | Mar | 73.48739 | 67.37279 | 79.60199 | ||

| 1.56918 | 0.30565 | 5.1340 | 0.00000 | Apr | 75.61921 | 69.50461 | 81.7338 | ||

| −2.44483 | 0.41552 | −5.8838 | 0.00000 | May | 71.20958 | 65.09498 | 77.32418 | ||

| 0.66278 | 0.12738 | 5.2032 | 0.00000 | Jun | 73.23854 | 67.12394 | 79.35313 | ||

| 2.19048 | 0.23959 | 9.1428 | 0.00000 | Jul | 78.23464 | 72.12004 | 84.34924 | ||

| −2.05430 | 0.30510 | −6.7332 | 0.00000 | Aug | 82.73358 | 76.61898 | 88.84817 | ||

| −3.04910 | 0.41357 | −7.3726 | 0.00000 | Sep | 76.83852 | 70.72392 | 82.95312 | ||

Constant of EM Flights | 62.35790 | 0.70356 | 88.6320 | 0.00000 | Oct | 72.66656 | 66.55196 | 78.78115 | ||

Nov | 70.39743 | 64.28283 | 76.51203 | |||||||

Dec | 71.76413 | 65.64953 | 77.87873 | |||||||

Rho (AR1-EF) | 0.5381 | 0.0507 | 10.603 | 0.0000 | 2.278 | Jan | 81.15884 | 76.67778 | 85.63989 | |

Time function Coefficients | | 0.0250 | 0.0074 | 3.3849 | 0.0008 | Feb | 84.1656 | 79.68454 | 88.64665 | |

ln( | 2.4256 | 0.5892 | 4.1171 | 0.0001 | Mar | 84.06061 | 79.57955 | 88.54167 | ||

| −0.8707 | 0.1710 | −5.093 | 0.0000 | Apr | 80.45579 | 75.97473 | 84.93685 | ||

| 2.1558 | 0.2242 | 9.6166 | 0.0000 | May | 78.56003 | 74.07897 | 83.04109 | ||

| −2.4322 | 0.3252 | −7.480 | 0.0000 | Jun | 81.36409 | 76.88303 | 85.84515 | ||

| −0.3753 | 0.1709 | −2.196 | 0.0289 | Jul | 85.53465 | 81.05359 | 90.01571 | ||

| −2.1171 | 0.2235 | −9.471 | 0.0000 | Aug | 87.12244 | 82.64139 | 91.6035 | ||

| 0.7073 | 0.2664 | 2.6552 | 0.0084 | Sep | 86.38518 | 81.90413 | 90.86624 | ||

Constant of EF Flights | 62.3631 | 1.9255 | 32.387 | 0.0000 | Oct | 84.91345 | 80.4324 | 89.39451 | ||

where: | Nov | 82.93511 | 78.45405 | 87.41616 | ||||||

Dec | 81.52201 | 77.04095 | 86.00306 |

## 5 Conclusions and recommendations

### 5.1 Conclusions

This study applied advanced econometric analysis on the load factor (LF) of flights of Europe-Middle East (EM) and Europe-Far East (EF) of Association European Airlines (AEA). The econometric analysis provides the following conclusions. The mean RPK for the EM and EF flights are 1696.92 and 9671.81 million, respectively. Likewise, the mean ASK for the EM and EF are 2450.76 and 12,375.32 million, respectively. Therefore, both in airline transportation demand and capacity the EF flights are higher than for the EM flights. However, the average LF of the EM flights is 9.094 % higher than for the EF flights.

The LF for both EM and EF flights are significantly positive correlated with both the RPK and ASK. This generally showed that the airlines have good reaction strategy to their demand. More importantly, we found significant correlation of LF with RPK for the EM and EF flights. However, the significance of correlation of LF with ASK is weak for the EM and EF flights. This confirms that the airlines have better demand than capacity management system for both the EM and the EF flights.

The LF of both EM and EF flights has periodic (season-to-season) correlations. The smallest LF for EM flights is observed in November, December and January then started to grow until July, August and September, and then declining until November. The smallest LF of EF flights is observed in January then it started grow until July, and then declining until December. Furthermore, the LF of both EM and EF flights has serial (month to month) correlations. The LF of EM and EF flights have correlation order of 15 and 13 months, respectively.

Since we have no common exogenous input for the EM and EF flights, we fit multivariate trend model. Using the fitted model we have given forecasted the monthly values for the LF with upper and lower 95 % prediction intervals for 2014.

### 5.2 Recommendations and policy implications

This paper has applied econometric models to analyse the LF of EM and EF flights of airlines of the AEA. Our results have important managerial policy implications and may suggest the following policy recommendations. Fit of the LF using the multivariate time series model is found more robust and realistic. The AEA may therefore use the model for prediction of the LF for the distribution of relevant flights. Hence, it is recommended that the AEA apply the model to regional flights. In the airline industry, in addition to decreasing the airlines cost, the profitability of a given airline is dependent on the joint maximization of yield and LF. In order to push up the LF and the yield simultaneously, and to produce strategic decisions about the profitability of airlines, the AEA may extend the LF analysis to individual airlines. The outcome of such analysis will give rigorous information about the LF. Consequently, the AEA will have quantitative input on how to restructure the yield management, network design, etc. with respect of specific flights over time. The econometric analysis have identified that the demand management of the airlines is better than the capacity management. In this regard, the AEA is recommended to keep up with the existing demand management strategy and improvement is needed on the strategy of capacity management. Finally, as suggested by many international industry studies, the airline industry is seasonal. In this paper, we find that the LF of the EM and EF flights are both seasonal and differ between flights. The result implies that the LF is far from stable and stabilizing policies by airlines has so far not been successful. The AEA may therefore continuously focus on the stabilisation and the improvement of the LF for the industry.

## Notes

### Acknowledgments

First of all we have ultimate thank for God, who gave us space to live and time to think. Secondly, we would like to thank all the members of the Made University College. Finally, we want to thank all the scholars referenced in the paper.

## References

- 1.Amemiya T (1985) Advanced econometrics. Harvard University Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
- 2.Baltagi BH (2008) Econometric analysis of panel data, 4th edn. John Wiley & Sons, ChichesterzbMATHGoogle Scholar
- 3.Boashash B (2003) Time-frequency signal analysis and processing: a comprehensive reference. Elsevier Science, OxfordGoogle Scholar
- 4.Brueckner JK, Whalen WT (2000) The price effects of international airlinealliances. Journal of Law and Economics 43:503–545CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 5.Chan J, Koop G, Leon-Gonzales R, Strachan R (2012) Time varying dimension models. J Bus Econ Stat Vol 30Google Scholar
- 6.Cochran WG, Cox GM (1992) Experimental designs, 2nd edn. Wiley, New YorkzbMATHGoogle Scholar
- 7.Cook RD, Weisberg S (1982) Residuals and influence in regression, Reprth edn. Chapman and Hall, New YorkzbMATHGoogle Scholar
- 8.Cross RG (1997) Revenue management: hard-core tactics for market domination. Broadway Books, New YorkGoogle Scholar
- 9.Cross R, Higbie J, Cross Z (2010) Milestones in the application of analytical pricing and revenue management. J Rev Pricing Manag 10:8–18Google Scholar
- 10.Davidson J (2000) Econometric theory. Blackwell Publishing, Oxford, UKGoogle Scholar
- 11.Davidson R, Mackinnon JG (1993) Estimation and inference in econometrics. Oxford University Press, OxfordzbMATHGoogle Scholar
- 12.Davies A, Lahiri K (1995) A new framework for testing rationality and measuring aggregate shocks using panel data. Journal of Econometrics 68:205–227CrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
- 13.Davison AC, Hinkley DV (1997) Bootstrap methods and their applications. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
- 14.Distexhe V, Perelman S (1994) Technical efficiency and productivity growth in an era of deregulation: the case of airlines. Revue Suisse d’Economie Politique 130(4):669–689Google Scholar
- 15.Doganis R (2010) Flying off course, airline economics and marketing, 4th edn. Routledge, LonMAn and New YorkGoogle Scholar
- 16.Engelberg S (2008) Digital signal processing: an experimental approach. Springer, ISBN 978-1-84800-118-3Google Scholar
- 17.Fahrmeir L, Kneib T, Lang S (2009) Regression. Model and method, 2nd edn. Springer, HeidelbergzbMATHGoogle Scholar
- 18.Flores-Fillol R, Moner-Colonques R (2007) Strategic formation of airline alliances. Journal of Transport Economics and Policy 41(3):427–449Google Scholar
- 19.Frees E (2004) Longitudinal and panel data: analysis and applications in the social sciences. Cambridge University Press, New YorkCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
- 20.Hamilton JD (1994) Time series analysis. Princeton University PressGoogle Scholar
- 21.ICAO (2013) Airport Economics Manual: Retrieved on 21 April 2014 at: www.icao.int/sustainability/MAcuments/MAc9562_en.pdf
- 22.Kahn AE (1988) Surprises of deregulation. The American Economic Review 78(2):316–322, JSTORMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
- 23.Kammler D (2000) A first course in Fourier analysis. Prentice Hall, Upper Saddle RiverzbMATHGoogle Scholar
- 24.Karagiannis E, Kovacevic M (2000) A method to calculate the jackknife variance estimator for the Gini coefficient. Oxford Bulletin of Economics and Statistics 62:119–122CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 25.Kaul S (2009) Yield management: getting more out of what you already have. Ericsson Business Review, No. 2: 17–19Google Scholar
- 26.Link H (2004) PEP-a yield-management scheme for rail passenger fares in Germany. Japan Railway & Transport Review 38:54Google Scholar
- 27.Kellner L (2000) Building a global airline brand, 2000 Transport Conference. UBS Warburg, LondonGoogle Scholar
- 28.Luc B, Lubrano M, Jean-François R (2000) Bayesian Inference in Dynamic Econometric Models Oxford Scholarship Online: October 2011Google Scholar
- 29.Lütkepohl H (2006) New introduction to multiple time series analysis. Springer, BerlinzbMATHGoogle Scholar
- 30.Marriott JJ, Cross RG (2000) Room at the revenue inn. In: Krass P (ed) Book of management WisMAm: classic writings by legendary managers. Wiley, New York, pp 199–208Google Scholar
- 31.McGill J, Van Ryzin G (1999) Revenue management: research overview and prospects. Transportation Science 33:233–256CrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
- 32.Minho C, Ming Fan, Yong-Pin Z (2007) An Empirical Study of Revenue Management Practices in the Airline Industry, Michael G. Foster School of Business University of WashingtonGoogle Scholar
- 33.Netessine S, Shumsky R (2002). Introduction to the Theory and Practice of Yield Management. INFORMS Trans Educ 3:(1)Google Scholar
- 34.Prais SJ, Winsten CB (1954) Trend estimators and serial correlation. Cowles Commission, ChicagoGoogle Scholar
- 35.Priestley MB (1991) Spectral analysis and time series. Academic, New YorkzbMATHGoogle Scholar
- 36.Stoica P, Moses R (2005) Spectral analysis of signals. Prentice Hall, Upper Saddle River, 07458Google Scholar
- 37.Talluri KT, Van Ryzin GJ (2001) Revenue management under a general discrete choice model of consumer behavior. Manag SciGoogle Scholar
- 38.Talluri KT, Van Ryzin GJ (2004) The theory and practice of revenue management. Kluwer Academic Publishers, Norwell, MassachusettesGoogle Scholar
- 39.Kailath T, Sayed AH, Babak H (2000) Linear Estimation. Prentice-HallGoogle Scholar
- 40.Van Dender K (2007) Determinants of fares and operating revenues at US airports. J Urban Econ 62:317–336CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 41.Vassilis AH (2008) Computational methods in econometrics. The New Palgrave Dictionary of Economics, 2nd EdnGoogle Scholar
- 42.Verbeek M (2004) A guide to modern econometrics, 2nd edn. John Wiley & Sons, ChichesterzbMATHGoogle Scholar
- 43.Weisberg S (1985) Applied linear regression, 2nd edn. Wiley, New YorkzbMATHGoogle Scholar
- 44.Wooldridge JM (2013) Introductory econometrics: a modern approach (5th international ed). Australia: South WesternGoogle Scholar

## Copyright information

**Open Access**This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License which permits any use, distribution and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author(s) and source are credited.