Airlines wanting to cooperatively set prices for their international air travel service must apply to the relevant authorities for antitrust immunity (ATI). Whether consumers, on net, benefit from a grant of ATI to partner airlines has caused much public debate. This paper investigates the impact of granting ATI to oneworld alliance members on their price, markup, and various measures of cost. The evidence suggests that implementation of the oneworld alliance without ATI did not have a statistically significant impact on the markup of products offered by the members, and there is no evidence that the subsequent grant of ATI to various members resulted in higher markups on their products. We find evidence suggesting that the grant of ATI facilitated a decrease in partner carriers’ marginal and fixed costs. Furthermore, member carriers’ price did not increase (decreased) in markets where their services do (do not) overlap, implying that consumers, on net, benefit from the grant of ATI in terms of price changes.

Doctor of Philosophy / Department of Economics / Philip G. Gayle / This dissertation constitutes two essays in the field of industrial organization. Specifically, the research focuses on empirically assessing the market effects of airline alliances. The first essay examines how codesharing, a form of strategic alliances, by airlines affects market entry decisions of potential competitors. Researchers have written extensively on the impact that strategic alliances between airlines have on airfare, but little is known of the market entry deterrent impact of strategic alliances. Using a structural econometric model, this essay examines the market entry deterrent impact of codesharing between incumbent carriers in U.S. domestic air travel markets. We find that a specific type of codesharing between market incumbents has a market entry deterrent effect to Southwest Airlines, but not other potential entrants. Furthermore, we quantify the extent to which market incumbents’ codesharing influences market entry cost of potential entrants. The second essay examines the effects of granting Antitrust Immunity (ATI) to a group of airlines. Airline alliance partners often want to extend cooperation to revenue sharing, which effectively implies joint pricing of their products (explicit price collusion). To explicitly collude on price, airlines must apply to the relevant government authorities for ATI (U.S. Department of Justice and Department of Transportation in the case of air travel markets that have a U.S. airport as an endpoint), which effectively means an exemption from prosecution under the relevant antitrust laws. Whether consumers, on net, benefit from a grant of ATI to partner airlines has caused much public debate. This essay specifically investigates the impact of granting ATI to oneworld alliance members on their price, markup, and various measures of cost. The evidence suggests that the grant of ATI facilitated a decrease in partner carriers’ marginal cost, and increased (decreased) their markup in markets where their service do (do not) overlap. Furthermore, member carriers’ price did not change (decreased) in markets where their services do (do not) overlap, implying that consumers, on net, benefit in terms of price changes.

Leniency Programmes have been introduced as a complementary measure in the enforcement of competition law in detecting cartels, on the basis that hard to find evidence will be provided by undertakings coming forward to confess, in exchange for immunity or reduction in fines. The advantages of leniency are deemed to be twofold, since evidence is thereby expected to be given voluntarily, and in turn it would save up the limited resources available to enforcement authorities, by reducing lengthy investigations in search of evidence. Therefore, the widely accepted view by regulators, economists, and lawyers alike is that leniency is by far the most effective method of detecting and deterring anticompetitive activities by undertakings. An 'undertaking' covers any entity engaged in an economic activity that offers goods or services in a given market. In the UK, Chapter I of the Competition Act 1998 governs prohibitions that fall within the category of cartels of which price-fixing, market or customer sharing, agreements to restrict production or supply, and bid-rigging are the most serious 'hard-core cartels'. This study evaluates the efficacy of the Leniency Programme in the enforcement of competition law applied in respect of cartel infringements based on cases decided by the UK's principal enforcement authority. Chapter I cases decided and published over a twelve-year period, since the Competition Act 1998 came into force, have been analysed in order to evaluate whether the leniency programme has been an incentive for colluders to apply for leniency. The results indicate that very few leniency applications were submitted voluntarily before an investigation was begun by the enforcement authority. Moreover, the detection rate of Chapter I cases on average has been very low over the twelve-year period, less than 2 cases per year, excluding settlements. The research also shows that contrary to the accepted view that evidence relating to cartels is difficult to find, cartels studied in this thesis have left a trail of both electronic, and other evidence that the authorities were able to seize. Further, the leniency applicants were not always reliable witnesses, and despite leniency, the enforcement authorities had to conduct lengthy investigations, negating the cost saving assertion and taking resources away from ex officio interventions by the authorities. The conclusion drawn from this study is that rather than enhancing detection and deterrence of anticompetitive behaviour by undertakings, the leniency programme overlaps, and in effect, undermines the public enforcement of competition law in the UK.