ARTICLE IN PRESS

Journal of Air Transport Management 9 (2003) 309–323

The spatial configuration of airline networks in Europe

Guillaume Burghouwta, Jacco Hakfoortb,*, Jan Ritsema van Eckc
a
Faculty of Geographical Sciences, Utrecht University, The Netherlands
b
Ministry of Economic Affairs, The Hague, The Netherlands
c
Netherlands Institute for Spatial Research, The Hague, The Netherlands

Abstract

The deregulation of US domestic passenger aviation in 1978 resulted in the reconfiguration of airline networks into radial route
systems, spatially concentrated around a small number of central airports or ‘hubs’. This paper investigates whether a similar spatial
concentration trend can be observed in the European aviation network after deregulation at the airline network level. Using the
network concentration index, it is demonstrated that European ‘flag carriers’ already showed a very high traffic concentration rate at
the beginning of deregulation. Between 1990 and 1999, the distribution of European traffic of these carriers remained remarkably
stable according to the network concentration index. A spatial concentration trend of European traffic on a small number of hubs
can only be observed for some regional airlines.
r 2003 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Keywords: Airlines; Airports; Aviation networks; Concentration index

1. Introduction networks (indirect connecting opportunities at hubs).

The deregulation of US aviation in 1978 resulted in
the reconfiguration of airline route networks. Flights
were concentrated on a small number of central airports
or ‘hubs’ through which a carrier operates a number of
daily ‘waves’ of flights. A hub-and-spoke network
requires a concentration of traffic in both space and
time (Reynolds-Feighan, 2001). Subsequently, an airline
network configuration can be described along two basic
dimensions: the spatial and temporal distribution of
traffic in the network.
Between 1987 and 1997, the European aviation
market has gradually been deregulated. Yet, with
respect to the spatial and temporal dimension of airline
networks, there is still no comprehensive picture how
European airline networks have changed after dereg-
ulation.
This paper investigates how the spatial dimension of
European airline networks has changed between 1990
and 1999. By spatial dimension we mean the geogra-
phical structure of airline networks. Future research
should deal with the temporal dimension of airline
*Corresponding author.
E-mail address: j.r.hakfoort@minez.nl (J. Hakfoort).
We use data for all national, regional, low-cost and
extra-EU carriers operating at least one intra-EU service
a week. We consider intra-European scheduled services.
The network concentration (NC) index, derived from
the Gini-index, is used to measure traffic distributions in
the network.
2. Background
The European aviation market has gradually been
deregulated by means of three ‘packages’ of deregula-
tion measures in 1987, 1989 and 1992. (Button et al.,
1998; Hakfoort, 1999). As a result of deregulation, the
balance of power in the European air transport regime
has shifted from the governments towards the European
airlines.
After the deregulation of the passenger aviation
market in the US in 1978, airlines took advantage of
the possibilities of the liberalised market and reorga-
nised their networks. A number of ‘trunkline’-carriers
reorganised their networks from ‘point-to point’ into
‘hub-and-spoke’ networks (Viscusi et al., 1998). This
reorganisation took place between 1978 and 1985,
according to Reynolds-Feighan (2001). Flights between

0969-6997/$ - see front matter r 2003 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/S0969-6997(03)00039-5
 ARTICLE IN PRESS
310 G. Burghouwt et al. / Journal of Air Transport Management 9 (2003) 309–323
medium airports were increasingly replaced by indirect
flights via central airports or ‘hubs’ (see, for example,
Viscusi et al., 1998). These hub-and-spoke networks
allow airlines to benefit from certain cost and demand
advantages, extensively described elsewhere (e.g.,
Brueckner and Spiller, 1994; Pels, 2001).
Overall, spatial concentration and temporal concen-
tration are the two main features of the hub-and-
spoke network. The hubbing carrier concentrates its
network around one or a small number of transfer hubs
through which the airline operates synchronized, daily
waves of flights (Graham, 1995; Reynolds-Feighan,
2000).
On the other hand, some new or recently started US
airlines continued operating ‘point-to-point’ networks
on a low-cost, no-frill, low-price basis. Low-cost carriers
do not need the cost advantages of hub-and-spoke
networks because they have low marginal costs per
passenger. This is mainly the result of operating high
density routes with high utilisation rates, high density
seating, electronic ticketing, standardisation of aircraft
types and maintenance, low levels of on-board service,
use of under-utilised secondary airports and flexible
labour contracts (Dempsey and Gesell, 1997; Williams,
2001).
However, the resulting network configuration of both
full-service and low-cost carriers will not only depend on
the cost structure of the airline. Other factors include the
size of the origin–destination market, historical back-
ground of the carrier and its network, number of
stations in the network, intercontinental versus con-
tinental orientation, fleet composition, strategic airline
management, hub capacity and the average stage length.
In contrast to the large amount of empirical studies
regarding the changes in airline network structures in
the deregulated US air transport market, the number of
empirical studies with respect to changing airline
network configurations in Europe is still somewhat
limited. More knowledge of airline network behaviour
in a deregulated European aviation regime is important
because of a number of reasons.
First of all, the structure of airline networks and the
distribution of traffic over these networks affect airport
planning and development. Effects include issues in
relation to peaking problems, uncertainty in airport
traffic forecasting, runway construction plans, terminal
lay-outs, regional economic effects, noise effects and
accessibility (Caves and Gosling, 1999).
Secondly, it can be expected that the effects of
deregulation on the European airline network config-
urations will be different from the US aviation network
because of the differences in the geographical, economic
and political structure of both markets (see Bootsma,
1997).
This paper tries to reduce an apparent gap in the
literature. The limited number of existing empirical
studies on European network configurations take the
airport as the object of analysis instead of the
airline (e.g., Graham, 1997; Reynolds-Feighan, 1995;
De Wit et al., 1999; Veldhuis and Kroes, 2002).
However, in deregulated markets changes in airport
connectivity are primarily the consequence of changes in
airline network behaviour. Therefore, we use the airline
perspective for the analysis of the spatial dimension of
European airline network configurations during the
period 1990–1999.
Moreover, we introduce the NC-index in order to
measure changes in airline network configurations. The
NC-index is a modified Gini-index. The Gini-methodo-
logy was introduced in air transport analysis by
Reynolds-Feighan (1998, 2001) for the measurement of
spatial or market concentration in airline networks.
3. Methodology
According to Reynolds-Feighan, the hub-and-spoke
network requires a concentration of air traffic in both
space and time. Hence, the network configuration is
defined as the level of spatial and temporal concentra-
tion of traffic flows in a given network.
The focus here is on the spatial concentration of the
airline network. To measure the level of spatial
concentration of a network, different concentration
measures can be used, such as the coefficient of variance,
the Herfindahl-index, Theil’s entropy measure, the
C4-firm concentration ratio or the Gini-index. Reynolds-
Feighan suggests the Gini-index as the most appropriate
concentration measure for airline or airport networks.
Allison (1978) and Sen (1976) examined the properties
of income inequality measures and proposed a series
of criteria that indices should possess. The C4-index
only reacts to changes in the traffic distribution in an
airport population when the four largest airports are
involved. The Herfindahl-index is only sensitive for
changes in the extremes of the population. The
coefficient of variance on the other hand, reacts well
to changes in the population but is extremely sensitive to
the underlying distribution. The Gini-index was the
only index to satisfy all of the criteria. The Gini-index is
not sensitive to the distribution of the population and
reacts quite well to changes in all parts of a given
population.
Regarding spatial concentration, the Gini-index can
be defined as
1 XX
G¼ jyi  yj j ð1Þ
2n2 y% i j
where y is the air traffic at airport i or j; defined as the
total number of supplied seats per week; n is the number
of airports in the airline network.

G. Burghouwt et al. / Journal of Air Transport Management 9 (2003) 309–323
1
0.9
Network concentration level
0.8
0.7
0.6
0.5
0.4
0.3
0.2
0.1
0
0 20
If it is assumed that the total incoming air traffic at
each airport to be approximately equal to the total
outgoing air traffic at the same airport, no airport will
command more than half the total air traffic. Therefore,
the Gini-index cannot reach its theoretical maximum
value of 1. The maximum Gini score increases with the
number of airports in an airline network (n) and can be
computed as follows:
2 routes in a single or multiple hub-radial network.
Gmax ¼1
n This is generally the consequence of route-specific
This maximum Gini-index can be observed in a single
hub-network where traffic flows are concentrated on one
hub-spoke route. Theoretically, this makes sense since a
single hub system is most efficient from the airline
viewpoint (Dennis, 2001; O’Kelly, 1998) and the
concentration of traffic on one route allows for further
advantages of scale.
In this study we will correct for the size of the airline
network (number of airports) when measuring NC. We
define the level of NC as
G
NC ¼
Gmax
where G is the observed Gini-index in a network and
Gmax the maximum Gini-index given the number of
airports in the network. In contrast to the use of the
standard Gini-index, our NC-index makes it possible to
compare the spatial structure of airline networks
independent from network size.
NC varies between 0 and 1. A NC of 1 corresponds to
a single hub-network where traffic flows are concen-
trated on one hub-spoke route. Visual inspection of
network configurations indicates that NC values of dual
or triple hub networks generally range between 0.7 and
0.8. This makes sense, since integrated dual or triple
hub-networks require concentration of traffic on the
routes between the hubs. A single hub-network with
traffic divided equally over all hub-spoke routes
has an NC of 0.5. Any network where all airports
ARTICLE IN PRESS
311
Small radial Large radial
Small linear Large linear
40 60 80 100 120 140 160
Number of airports
Fig. 1. Spatial network configuration types.
command equal shares of the total traffic will result in
an NC of 0. This includes a multitude of possible
configurations, from fully connected networks at one
extreme, to collections of isolated routes at the other
extreme.
An increase in NC indicates a more unequal spread of
traffic over the network. This may be caused by
* A more unequal distribution of seat capacity over the
ð2Þ
differences in the growth of passenger demand.
* The removal of routes between smaller airports in the
network. The airline concentrates its network on one
or a few primary airports. This can be the consequence
of hub-and-spoke strategy in order to maximise
connecting opportunities. It can also be the conse-
quence of the outsourcing of ‘hub-bypass’ routes to
subsidiaries of the airline or regional alliance partners.
* The transformation of an airline network from a
single hub to a multiple hub network.
ð3Þ In order to characterise the (changing) spatial net-
work configuration of a carrier, we distinguish between
two dimensions of the airline network. On the one hand
the scope of the network using n; the number of airports.
On the other hand we use the level of network
concentration (NC), independent from n; expressed as
NC (3). The level of NC labels a carrier as a radial or
linear carrier, with regard to the spatial organisation of
its network. Combining n and NC, four ideal network
configurations can be distinguished (Fig. 1): (1) the
small radial network, (2) the large radial network, (3)
the small linear network and (4) the large linear
network.
To structure the discussion, four ideal dynamics in
network configurations are distinguished:
* Concentrated network builders: airlines with both an
increase in network size and NC-index.
 ARTICLE IN PRESS
312 G. Burghouwt et al. / Journal of Air Transport Management 9 (2003) 309–323
* Deconcentrated network rationalisers: Airlines with
both a decline in network size and NC-index.
* Concentrated network rationalisers: Airlines with
an increasing spatial concentration of traffic but a
shrinking network.
* Deconcentrated network builders: Airlines with a
growing network but a decline in NC.
With the static and dynamic typology of airline
networks, insight can be given into the spatial network
strategies of airlines in Europe. We will use the static
(Fig. 1) and dynamic typologies to describe airline
network configurations in Europe for different airline
types.
4. Data and selection of carriers
The data set used consists of OAG/ABC data for the
years 1990–1999. The OAG/ABC data set contains
variables based on published information on scheduled
flights. Variables include departure airport, destination
airport, flight frequency, aircraft type and seat capacity.
The data are based on a representative week in July of
each year. We refer to Burghouwt and Hakfoort (2001)
for a description of the data.
In order to analyse the changing network configura-
tions of different types of European carriers as discussed
in Section 1, the European airlines were categorised into
four groups
* National airlines: Carriers (formerly) designated as
the flag carrier of a member state of the Common
European Aviation Area (e.g. KLM, Air France).
* Low-cost, no-frills airlines: All European-based car-
riers operating on a low-cost scheduled or mixed
(low-cost scheduled/charter) basis (e.g. Ryanair,
easyJet). See for a detailed description: Williams
(2001).
* Regional airlines: All other airlines registered in the
EU. Our database included 124 regional carriers in
1999 (e.g. Braathens, British Midland). Ten regional
airlines were selected to illustrate network develop-
ments. These airlines were taken from the top twenty
of largest regional carriers in terms of intra-EU seat
capacity in 1999.
* Extra-EU airlines: All airlines with intra-EU services
but registered in a non-EU country (e.g. TWA,
Cathay Pacific).
5. Analysis of airline network configurations: a first look
In order to evaluate the spatial dimension of
European airline network configurations, the NC scores
and Gini indices of all carriers operating on intra-EU
routes were computed. Fig. 2 shows the frequency
40
30
Number of carriers
20
10
Std. Dev = 0.19
Mean = 0.52
0 N = 162.00
0.00 0.13 0.25 0.38 0.50 0.63 0.75 0.88
0.06 0.19 0.31 0.44 0.56 0.69 0.81 0.94
Network concentration for intra-EU traffic
40
30
Number of carriers
20
10
Std. Dev = 0.16
Mean = 0.61
0 N = 122.00
0.00 0.13 0.25 0.38 0.50 0.63 0.75 0.88
0.06 0.19 0.31 0.44 0.56 0.69 0.81 0.94
Network concentration for intra-EU traffic
Source: OAG/ABC data
Fig. 2. Frequency distribution of NC values in 1990 (above) and 1999
(below).
distribution of NC both in 1990 and 1999. It can be
concluded that between 1990 and 1999 more and more
airlines adopted radial networks with high NC levels.
Both mean and median moved towards a higher NC
rate. Linear networks with low NC values were less
frequent in 1999 compared to 1990.
Fig. 3 shows the evolution of NC between 1990
and 1999 according to carrier type. The national carrier
network configurations have overall higher NC-
indices than other airline types. This is a plausible
outcome. It reflects the national carriers orientation
towards their national hubs. Because of the asymmetric
deregulation of the European aviation market, carriers
are still bounded to their country of registration for
their intercontinental services. These intercontinental
‘chains’ have resulted in a stable NC between 1990
and 1999.
 ARTICLE IN PRESS
G. Burghouwt et al. / Journal of Air Transport Management 9 (2003) 309–323 313

low-cost regional type of carrier

national extra-EU extra-EU regional national low-cost
0.9 1.0
0.8

Network concentration for intra-EU traffic

0.7
Network concentration

0.8
0.6

0.5

0.4 0.6
0.3

0.2

0.1 0.4

0.0
1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999
Source: OAG/ABC data 0.2

Fig. 3. Evolution of NC levels for different airline types, 1990–1999.

0.0
0 20 40 60 80 100 120

Extra-EU airlines have the lowest NC scores. This is number of intra-EU airports
largely caused by the nature of air services of these Source: OAG/ABC data
carriers within Europe: when they operate intra-EU
Fig. 4. Number of airports and NC levels for different airline types in
services, their network is linear, based on fifth freedom
1999.
rights (Weber and Dinwoodie, 2000).

6. National airlines Table 1

Number of airlines, average network concentration level per airline,
average Gini scores per airline, average number of airports per airline
National airline networks can be characterized as and average share (%) in total intra-EU seat capacity per airline,
medium or large radial networks (Fig. 4). Differences national airlines, 1990–1999
between the national carriers in terms of concentra-
Number of Network Gini No. Capacity
tion indices for intra-EU traffic are small. They airlines concentration index Airports %
varied between 0.63 (Austrian) and 0.8 (Aer Lingus) in
1990 16 0.744 0.705 44.8 3.1
1999.
1991 16 0.739 0.702 46.4 3.2
The NC levels of national European carriers have 1992 16 0.730 0.694 46.4 3.4
been quite stable between 1990 and 1999 (Table 1). Ten 1993 16 0.730 0.695 46.6 3.5
out of sixteen nationals faced an increase in the number 1994 16 0.729 0.693 45.9 3.5
of destinations. 1995 16 0.728 0.693 47.1 3.5
From a dynamic point of view, four types of 1996 16 0.728 0.694 48.8 4.2
1997 16 0.730 0.695 49.1 4.4
national carrier network strategies can be distinguished 1998 16 0.726 0.691 51.6 5.1
(Figs. 5–8): 1999 16 0.729 0.695 53.4 5.5

1. Concentrated network builders: Carriers such as Source: OAG/ABC; own calculations.

British Airways, Finnair and SAS have not only
enlarged the scope of their network but also focused
this growth on their major hubs and/or a limited
number of intra-EU destinations. In the case of SAS,
the carrier focused its network growth both in terms
of intra-EU capacity and number of routes on its
primary airports Copenhagen, Stockholm and Oslo.
The three primary airports in the SAS network
experienced above average growth levels. The result
was a higher NC-index.
2. Deconcentrated network builders: These carriers dis-
tributed seat capacity more equally over a larger
number of airports. The KLM network demonstrates
a clear and growing radial network structure focused
on Amsterdam Schiphol. Nevertheless, the carrier
faced a small decrease in NC values. This is largely
caused by the more equal capacity distribution of
flow sizes over the routes originating in Amsterdam
in 1999 compared to 1990.
3. Concentrated network rationalisers: Some flag carriers
limited the number of intra-EU destinations
 ARTICLE IN PRESS
314 G. Burghouwt et al. / Journal of Air Transport Management 9 (2003) 309–323

1990 1999
0.9

Network concentration for intra-EU traffic

0.8
0.7
0.6
0.5
0.4
0.3
0.2
0.1
0.0

SAS
KLM
Aerlingus

TAP Air Potugal

British Airways
Air France

Sabena
Austrian
Lufthansa
Alitalia

Icelandair

Luxair
Iberia
Finnair

Olympic Airways

Swissair
Fig. 5. NC indices for national airlines, 1990 and 1999. Source: OAG/ABC data

1990 1999
120
Number of airports served

100
80

60

40

20

0
Olympic Airways
Iberia
British Airways

SAS
Austrian
Aerlingus

TAP Air Potugal

KLM
Air France

Icelandair

Sabena
Lufthansa
Luxair

Swissair
Alitalia
Finnair

Fig. 6. Number of EU airports served, national airlines, 1990 and 1999. Source: OAG/ABC data

between 1990 and 1999 but faced an increase in the .

out of Zurich. The network moved from a dual to
NC-index. TAP Air Portugal, for example, concen- a single hub-structure resulting in a decrease in the
trated the growth of seat capacity on Lisbon and NC-index (Appendix B).
Oporto during the period of analysis. At the same
time, the airline rationalised its network by cutting
the number of direct destinations from Lisbon, 7. Regional carriers
Oporto and Faro.
4. Deconcentrated network rationalisers: A small group Regional carriers have much smaller networks and
of nationals not only faced a decline in network size lower concentration rates (NC) than the national
but also deconcentrated the capacity of its network. carriers (Fig. 4, Table 2). In 1999 they accounted for
Swissair, for example, outsourced a large number of about 26 percent of total intra-EU capacity. The group
its intra-EU Geneva destinations to its regional of regional carriers is diverse: the group ranges from
daughter Crossair but maintained most of its services single city-pair carriers to regional carriers operating at
 ARTICLE IN PRESS
G. Burghouwt et al. / Journal of Air Transport Management 9 (2003) 309–323 315

a pan-European level. The Swiss airline Crossair for Regional carrier network configurations have been
example served more intra-EU destinations in 1999 than less stable than those of the national carriers between
most of the flag carriers (Figs. 4 and 8). 1990 and 1999, both with respect to the network size as
In 1999, most of the regional carriers had less to the level of concentration (Table 2). While changes of
concentrated networks than the nationals. But also with NC of national carriers did not exceed 0.1 points
respect to NC, a large variation in seat capacity between 1990 and 1999, NC levels of a number of
distributions can be observed (Figs. 4 and 9): the regional carriers have changed dramatically (Fig. 10).
regional network configurations range from typical Table 4 and Fig. 10 show the different network
linear networks (Wideroe’s, Suckling Airways), radial strategies of a number of regional carriers.
networks combined with a large amount of point-to- Most of the regional airlines concentrated their
point routes (Skyways, Regional Airlines) to concen- network in some extent around one or two central hub
trated radial networks (Crossair, Air Liberte! , airports. This can be an independent, mini-hub expan-
Braathens). Yet, the radial network dominated the sion strategy in the case of the French carrier Regional
scene in 1999. Only Wideroe’s, Suckling Airways and Airlines at Clermont-Ferrand (Appendix B). However,
Oltostfriesische Lufttransport had considerable linear the carrier had a relatively low NC score because of the
networks in 1999. large amount of point-to-point routes it still operated in

0.08
Table 2
Change in network concentration, 1990-1999

0.06 Number of airlines, average network concentration level per airline,

TP AY BA average Gini scores per airline, average number of airports per airline
0.04
SK
and average share (%) in total intra-EU seat capacity per airline,
regional airlines, 1990–1999
0.02
FI
IB Number of Network Gini No. Capacity
0.00 OA
EI LG airlines concentration index Airports %
-0.02 AF AZ
SN 1990 124 0.560 0.299 8.3 0.2
-0.04
1991 110 0.576 0.284 8.4 0.2
1992 120 0.581 0.296 8.5 0.2
LH
-0.06 OS KL 1993 116 0.578 0.298 8.5 0.3
1994 121 0.582 0.306 8.4 0.3
-0.08 1995 120 0.569 0.305 8.7 0.3
SR
-0.10 1996 116 0.558 0.322 9.4 0.3
-20 -10 0 10 20 30 40 1997 112 0.589 0.322 9.7 0.3
Change in number of airports, 1990-1999 1998 116 0.563 0.307 9.3 0.3
1999 124 0.614 0.321 9.3 0.3
Fig. 7. Change in network size and NC for national carriers,
1990–1999 (see Appendix A for airline codes). Source: OAG/ABC data Source: OAG/ABC; own calculations.

1990 1999
Network concentration for intra-EU traffic

0.8
0.7
0.6
0.5
0.4
0.3
0.2
0.1
0
AP
D

ES
S
TE
E

AL

S
N

G
F.

AI

AY

SK
N
LA

R
R

IN
A.

LI
SS
BE

M
O

EL
ID

IR
S.

KL
TT

R
LI

O
M

ES
A
S

AI
R
LI

R
R
H

EN

AL
C

EU

YV
AI
IS

AN
N
TH

AI
IT

FL
IO

LE
BR

AA

EG

S
O

E'
BR

R
R

O
TY

ER
ID
W

Fig. 8. NC indices for selected regional carriers, 1990 and 1999. Source: OAG/ABC data
 ARTICLE IN PRESS
316 G. Burghouwt et al. / Journal of Air Transport Management 9 (2003) 309–323

1990 1999
70

Number of airports
60
50
40
30
20
10
0

AP
D

ES
S
TE
E

AL

S
N

G
F.

AI

AY

SK
N
LA

R
R

IN
A.

LI
SS
BE

M
O

EL
ID

R
S.

KL
TT

R
AI
LI

O
M

ES
S

AI
R
LI

R
R
H

EN

AL
C

EU

YV
AI
IS

AN
N
TH

AI
IT

FL
IO

LE
BR

AA

EG

S
O

E'
BR

R
R

O
TY

ER
ID
W
Fig. 9. Number of airports for selected regional carriers, 1990 and 1999. Source: OAG/ABC data

Table 3
Network strategies of regional airlines

Concentration Deconcentration

Network growth Concentrated network builders: British Midland, Deconcentrated network builders: Suckling Airways,
Braathens S.A.F.E., Deutsche BA, Aurigny Air Services, Maersk Air, Sata Air Acores, Tyrolean Airways
Hahn Air, Air Libert!e, Augsburg Airways, Jersey
European Airways, Skyways, Air Botnia, Crossair,
Eurowings, Olt Ostfriesische Lufttransport, KLM UK,
Regional Airlines, Wideroe’s, Aero Lloyd, Monarch
Airlines, Muk Air
Network decline Concentrated network rationalizers: Air Littoral, Manx Deconcentrated network rationalizers: Air Sicilia
Airlines

Source: OAG/ABC; own calculations.

0.4
YQ

0.3
change in NC, 1990-1999

UK IJ VM
0.2 JY KF EW
DI
JZ
FU IQ BU
0.1 ZB BD LX
WF YP
JE ZR OL
BM
-0.0 VO
SP DM
IG
-0.1

-0.2 CB

-0.3
-20 -10 0 10 20 30 40

change in number of airports, 1990-1999

Fig. 10. Change in network size and NC for regional carriers having scheduled service both in 1990 and 1999, 1990–1999 (see Appendix A for airline
codes). Source: OAG/ABC data
 ARTICLE IN PRESS
G. Burghouwt et al. / Journal of Air Transport Management 9 (2003) 309–323 317

1999. It can also be the consequence of alliances between From Fig. 10 it can be concluded that the only carrier
national and regional carriers, in which the regional with a significant, regional, linear strategy is Suckling
carriers play a hub-feeding role (Graham, 1997). For Airways. In 1990 the carrier operated a Cambridge–
example, Eurowings and Air UK centered their network Manchester and Cambridge–Amsterdam route. In 1999
on KLM’s hub Amsterdam Schiphol between 1990 and the airline had services to 11 destinations but did not
1999. operate out of a central airport in the UK.
Even the Norwegian carrier Wideroe’s-probably the
best example of (PSO subsidized) linear carrier in
Europe-focused part of its network around Oslo during 8. Low-cost carriers
the period of analysis (Appendix B).
Regional linear strategies among regional carriers are The entrance of low-cost carriers to the European
rare in Europe. It underlines the conclusion of various aviation market was one of the most profound effects of
authors that spatial concentration of traffic at a limited deregulation. In the US, a number of low-cost carriers,
number of airports has cost advantages, even without such as Southwest, operate linear networks with low
the transfer of passengers from one flight to another. levels of NC.
These cost advantages include the spread of fixed costs In Europe, the low-cost carrier networks seem to be as
over more passengers as well as easy crew rotation and concentrated as the networks of national carriers (Table
aircraft maintenance. 4, Figs. 3, 11 and 13). All the low-cost carriers operated
out of central airports. Ryanair, for example, used
Dublin and Stansted as its central airports in 1999. The
Table 4 only exception is Virgin Express (former Eurobelgian).
Number of airlines, average network concentration level per airline, Besides its Brussels-network, Virgin Express also oper-
average Gini scores, average number of airports per airline and ated services between Madrid–Barcelona–Rome and
average share (%) in total intra-EU seat capacity per airline, low-cost
Shannon–Stansted in 1999.
airlines, 1990–1999
The difference in the network configurations between
Number of Network Gini No. Capacity low-cost and national carriers can mainly be found in
airlines concentration index Airports % network size (Fig. 12). This is because low-cost carriers
1990 2 0.654 0.280 8.0 0.2 have been operating air services only for a short period.
1991 2 0.742 0.389 6.5 0.2 Therefore, it makes little sense to categorise the carriers
1992 3 0.763 0.566 8.5 0.3 according to their network strategies.
1993 3 0.657 0.498 9.3 0.2
1994 5 0.660 0.524 15.2 0.3
However, the described networks of the low-cost
1995 6 0.611 0.484 13.7 0.6 carriers are about to change. The low-cost carriers
1996 8 0.667 0.518 13.5 0.6 experienced fast growth after 1999. Low-cost carriers
1997 9 0.630 0.543 19.9 1.0 did not suffer as much from the crisis in the air transport
1998 9 0.647 0.561 21.3 1.1 industry after September 11th because of the low fare
1999 9 0.617 0.551 24.1 1.3
levels and the fact that low-cost carriers transport
Source: OAG/ABC; own calculations. relatively few passengers from the American continent

1
Network concentration level

0.9
0.8
0.7
0.6 base year
0.5
1999
0.4
0.3
0.2
0.1
0
VIRGIN EXPRESS

RYANAIR
DEBONAIR AIRWAYS

AIR EUROPA
TRANSAVIA
FLUGDIENST

SPANAIR
FLUGGESSELSCHAF

EASYJET
AIRLINES
CONDOR

HAPAG LLOYD

Source: OAG/ABC data. Base year for low-cost carriers: Debonair: 1996; Virgin: 1995;
Condor: 1993; Ryanair: 1990; Hapag Lloyd: 1997; Transavia: 1991; Spanair: 1994;
easyJet: 1996; Air Europa: 1994
Fig. 11. NC indices for low-cost carriers, base year and 1999.
 ARTICLE IN PRESS
318 G. Burghouwt et al. / Journal of Air Transport Management 9 (2003) 309–323

50

Number of intra-EU airports

45
40
35
30 base year
25
1999
20
15
10
5
0

SPANAIR
VIRGIN EXPRESS

FLUGGESSELSCHAF

TRANSAVIA
DEBONAIR AIRWAYS

RYANAIR

AIR EUROPA
FLUGDIENST

EASYJET
AIRLINES
CONDOR

HAPAG LLOYD
Source: OAG/ABC data. Base year for low-cost carriers: Debonair: 1996; Virgin: 1995;
Condor: 1993; Ryanair: 1990; Hapag Lloyd: 1997; Transavia: 1991; Spanair: 1994;
easyJet: 1996; Air Europa: 1994
Fig. 12. Number of intra-EU airports served by low-cost carriers in base year and 1999.

0.9
Network concentration level

0.8

0.7

0.6

0.5

0.4

0.3
1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999
Year

2G BQ/TV DE FR HF HV JK U2 UX
Source: OAG/ABC data
Fig. 13. Change NC for low-cost carriers 1990–1999 (see Appendix A for airline codes).

compared to the national airlines. New low-cost west in the US with a NC value of 0.47 in 1999.
subsidiaries have entered the market (Buzz, Go). British However, further expansion of Ryanair at the European
low-cost carriers have expanded their services on the continent and the increase in the number of home bases
European continent (Ryanair, easyJet). may eventually result in a lower NC value for the
Ryanair, for example, opened new base airports at network.
Frankfurt Hahn and Brussels Charleroi. In March 2003,
Ryanair served about 65 destinations in contrast to 33 in
1999. Based on the flight schedule available on the 9. Extra-EU airline networks
website of Ryanair, we have computed the NC-index for
Ryanair in 2003. Ryanair had an NC value of 0.7 in For a long time, the use of 5th freedom rights by
March 2003 (against 0.68 in 1999). Hence, the network international airlines was the only possibility to create
of Ryanair still centred on multiple central airports world-embracing network. The 5th freedom is ‘the right
(London Stansted, Dublin, Brussels Charleroi, Frank- of an airline of one country to carry traffic between
furt Hahn, Glasgow Prestwick, Stockholm Skavsta and countries outside of its own country of registry as long
Shannon). Ryanair does not have a criss-cross or linear as the flights originates or terminates in its own country
network such as the network of low-cost carrier South- of registry’ (Button and Taylor, 2000). This traffic right
 ARTICLE IN PRESS
G. Burghouwt et al. / Journal of Air Transport Management 9 (2003) 309–323 319

was defined at the Chicago Conference of 1944 and viable as non-stop routes. Some airlines, such as Delta
could be agreed upon in air service agreements between (the airline acquired the extensive 5th freedom network
states. It enables international airlines to operate routes of Pan Am), TWA and United Airlines set up mini-hub
that would not be economically viable as non-stop operations within Europe based on 5th freedom rights.
destination. These kind of operations resulted in relatively high NC
Overall, the 5th freedom networks of extra-EU values in 1990 compared to 1999.
airlines have a linear character with very low NC values Weber and Dinwoodie (2000) identify a number of
compared to the national and regional airline networks. factors that limited the 5th freedom traffic in Europe
However, a significant decline of NC values together during the period of analysis:
with a decline in capacity share/number of airports
served took place during the period of analysis. This * Global airline alliances: Alliances form a substitute or
development is in line with the study of Weber and even a refinement of 5th freedom traffic: European
Dinwoodie (2000) on 5th freedom traffic operations in partner airlines can offer better connectivity to more
the Single European Aviation market. They state that, destinations. In 1991, for example, the US carrier
in the early 1990s, 5th freedom traffic was the only United Airlines, used London Heathrow as its
opportunity for extra-EU airlines to develop a Eur- European hub, connecting its intercontinental
opean network with destinations that would not be services with smaller Boeing 727s to Brussels,
Amsterdam and Paris Charles de Gaulle. Gradually,
the carrier shifted its European gateway to Frankfurt,
Table 5 anticipating to the alliance-agreement with Lufthansa
Number of airlines, average network concentration level per airline, in 1993. Now, the European partners of the Star-
average Gini scores, average number of airports per airline and alliance (e.g. Lufthansa, SAS) provide the intra-EU
average share (%) in total intra-EU seat capacity per airline, extra-EU
services.
airlines, 1990–1999
* Technological developments: Introduction of the Air-
Number of Network Gini No. Capacity bus A340 and Boeing 777 has enabled airlines to
airlines concentration index Airports %
operate economically thin long-haul routes incapable
1990 72 0.362 0.159 4.8 0.08 of supporting Boeing 747–400 s.
1991 66 0.349 0.136 4.5 0.06 * Product life cycle of international routes: A number of
1992 67 0.301 0.123 4.6 0.06 5th freedom routes has reached maturity and have
1993 68 0.337 0.131 4.5 0.06
1994 37 0.403 0.108 3.6 0.05
sufficient demand to justify non-stop service.
1995 30 0.423 0.118 3.9 0.10
* Competition: Competition of European carriers with
1996 41 0.353 0.079 2.9 0.03 higher corporate strength in the markets served
1997 34 0.435 0.078 2.7 0.02 makes it less attractive to operate 5th freedom routes.
1998 31 0.373 0.064 2.5 0.02 The implementation of the ‘Third Package’ in 1992
1999 34 0.302 0.034 2.2 0.02
resulted in a significant decrease of 5th freedom
Source: OAG/ABC; own calculations. operations of extra-EU carriers (Table 5).

1990 1995 1999

0.9
0.8
Network concentration level

0.7

0.6
0.5
0.4
0.3

0.2
0.1
0
AC CX DL GA KU PA QF SQ TG TW UA
Source OAG/ABC data
Fig. 14. NC values for selected extra-EU airlines (see Appendix A for carrier codes).
 ARTICLE IN PRESS
320 G. Burghouwt et al. / Journal of Air Transport Management 9 (2003) 309–323
These developments resulted in a decline in market
share of extra-EU airlines and lower NC values. A
number of US carriers and Asian carriers gave up most
of their fifth freedom operations (Fig. 14).
10. Conclusion
Both the spatial concentration of seat capacity on a
limited number of hubs and the temporal concentration
of flights around a number of synchronized waves of
flights per day, are essential features of a hub-and-spoke
system. This paper has presented an overview of the
changes in the spatial concentration of airline networks
in Europe during the period 1990–1999. Spatially
concentrated networks possess a radial route structure
whereas deconcentrated networks possess a linear or
criss-cross route structure.
The NC-index, derived from the Gini-index, has been
used to measure the spatial distribution of traffic flows
in airline networks. Combined with the number of
airports served, the NC-index makes it easy to detect
changes in the structure of airline networks. We
have applied the NC to answer the question to what
extent airlines in Europe operate radial or linear
networks and how these networks have developed over
time.
Taken together, the networks of European airlines are
increasingly concentrated. Radial networks have been
developed between 1990 and 1999. Yet, large differences
exist between the various airline types.
The national carrier networks can be characterised as
large radial networks. The ‘flag’ carriers are still
bounded to their national airports because of bilateral
regulation of intercontinental services. This implies the
operation of radial network structures. Moreover, large
networks are complex networks and have many dimen-
sions to absorb new developments (Swan, 2002). There-
fore, changes in the NC level of national carriers have
been quite small. Radical geographical restructuring of
networks of major carriers, as in the US after deregula-
tion, cannot be observed in Europe.
Nevertheless, at a smaller scale, radial strategies can
be observed among regional carriers. Taking advantage
of the liberalised market, some regional airlines restruc-
tured their networks from linear into radial networks.
Others started from a small traffic base at a central
airport and, due to alliances with national carriers,
benefited from traffic feed of large intercontinental
carriers. Some of the regional carriers, such as Crossair,
had even larger European networks than most of the
national airlines.
Large linear networks were an exceptional pheno-
menon in Europe at the end of the nineties. Regional
airlines such as Suckling Airways, the PSO subsidized
Norwegian carrier Wideroe’s and the German Oltfrie-
sische Lufttransport operated some kind of linear
network in 1999. Only Suckling Airways intensified its
linear network structure.
In contrast to the US, European low-cost carriers
focused their service on a limited number of airports
until 1999. Yet, signs of change are already there: very
fast growth, inauguration of new routes, entrance of
British low-cost carriers at the continent and use of
secondary airports might be the first signs of linear/criss-
cross networks of low-cost carriers.
The evolution of the intra-European aviation network
can be characterised by both a spatial deconcentration
trend at the airport level and a spatial concentration
trend at the airline network level. Intra-EU traffic is
spreading over more and more airports (Burghouwt and
Hakfoort, 2001). Although we cannot draw any firm
conclusions about the factors decisive for the network
developments observed based on our data, deregulation
seems to have given regional airlines and airports the
opportunity to play an important role in the European
aviation scene. Economic growth and lower prices
generated sufficient demand for new services, not only
from primary but also from smaller airports. At the
same time, a number of regional carriers concentrated
their networks around one or two central airports
during the period of analysis. National carrier networks
were already focused on key nodes at the beginning of
deregulation.
In the planning process of these central airports,
airport authorities and governments will have to
cope with periods of very fast traffic growth at
hub airports. This may result in increasing noise
pollution in airport regions, peaking problems and
new terminal layout requirements. Airports forming
part of the network of hubbing carriers, will be more
and more dependent of network decisions of these
airlines and their alliances for their future network
position.
Appendix A. Carrier codes
National carriers
AF AIR FRANCE
AY FINNAIR
AZ ALITALIA
BA BRITISH AIRWAYS
EI AER LINGUS
FI ICELANDAIR
IB IBERIA
KL KLM-ROYAL DUTCH AIRLINES
LG LUXAIR
LH LUFTHANSA GERMAN AIRLINES
OA OLYMPIC AIRWAYS
OS AUSTRIAN AIRLINES
SK SAS SCANDINAVIAN AIRLINES
 ARTICLE IN PRESS
G. Burghouwt et al. / Journal of Air Transport Management 9 (2003) 309–323 321

SN SABENA KF AIR BOTNIA

SR SWISSAIR SP SATA AIR ACORES
TP TAP AIR PORTUGAL UK KLM UK
VM REGIONAL AIRLINES
Low cost carriers VO TYROLEAN AIRWAYS
2G DEBONAIR AIRWAYS WF WIDEROE’S FLYVESELSKAP
TV VIRGIN EXPRESS YP AERO LLOYD
DE CONDOR FLUGDIENST YQ HELIKOPTERSERVICE EURO AIR
FR RYANAIR ZB MONARCH AIRLINES
HF HAPAG LLOYD FLUGGESSELSCHAF ZR MUK AIR
HV TRANSAVIA AIRLINES
JK SPANAIR Extra-EU carriers
U2 EASYJET AC AIR CANADA
UX AIR EUROPA CX CATHAY PACIFIC AIRWAYS
DL DELTA AIR LINES
Regional carriers GA GARUDA INDONESIA
BD BRITISH MIDLAND KU KUWAIT AIRWAYS
BM AIR SICILIA PA PAN AMERICAN WORLD AIRWAYS
BU BRAATHENS S.A.F.E QF QANTAS AIRWAYS
CB SUCKLING AIRWAYS SQ SINGAPORE AIRLINES
DM MAERSK AIR TG THAI AIRWAYS INTERNATIONAL
EW EUROWINGS TW TRANS WORLD AIRLINES
FU AIR LITTORAL UA UNITED AIRLINES
IG MERIDIANA
IJ AIR LIBERTE!
IQ AUGSBURG AIRWAYS Appendix B
JE MANX AIRLINES
JY JERSEY EUROPEAN AIRWAYS Mini-hub expansion strategy in the case of the French
JZ SKYWAYS carrier Regional Airlines at Clermont-Ferrand:
 ARTICLE IN PRESS
322 G. Burghouwt et al. / Journal of Air Transport Management 9 (2003) 309–323

Development of the network of Swissair between 1990 and 1999.

 ARTICLE IN PRESS
G. Burghouwt et al. / Journal of Air Transport Management 9 (2003) 309–323
References
Allison, P.D., 1978. Measures of inequality. American Sociological
Review 43, 865–880.
Bootsma, P.D., 1997. Airline Flight Schedule Development; Analysis
and Design Tools for European Hinterland Hubs. University of
Twente, Utrecht.
Brueckner, J.K., Spiller, P.T., 1994. Economies of traffic density in the
deregulated airline industry. Journal of Law and Economics 37,
379–415.
Burghouwt, G., Hakfoort, J.R., 2001. The European aviation network,
1990–1998. Journal of Air Transport Management 7, 311–318.
Button, K.J., Taylor, S.Y., 2000. International air transportation and
economic development. Journal of Air Transport Management 6,
209–222.
Button, K.J., Haynes, K., Stough, R., 1998. Flying into the Future.
Air Transport Policy in the European Union. Edward Elgar,
Cheltenham.
Caves, R.E., Gosling, G.D., 1999. Strategic Airport Planning.
Pergamon, Amsterdam.
Dempsey, P.S., Gesell, L.E., 1997. Airline Management. Strategies for
the 21st century. Coast Aire Publications, Chandler.
Dennis, N.P., 2001. Developments of hubbing at European airports.
Air and Space Europe 3, 51–55.
de Wit, J., Uittenbogaart, P., Wei-Yun, T., 1999. Hubbing and
hubbypassing. Network developments in a deregulated European
airport system. ATRG Conference, Hong Kong.
Graham, B., 1995. Geography and Air Transport. Wiley, Chichester.
Graham, B., 1997. Regional airline services in the liberalized European
Union single aviation market. Journal of Air Transport Manage-
ment 3, 227–238.
323
Hakfoort, J.R., 1999. The deregulation of European air transport: a
dream come true? TESG 90, 226–233.
O’Kelly, M.E., 1998. A geographer’s analysis of hub-and-spoke
networks. Journal of Transport Geography 6, 171–186.
Pels, E., 2001. A note on airline alliances. Journal of Air Transport
Management 7, 3–7.
Reynolds-Feighan, A., 1995. European and American approaches to
air transport liberalisation: some implications for small commun-
ties. Transportation Research-A 29, 467–483.
Reynolds-Feighan, A., 1998. The impact of US airline deregulation on
airport traffic patterns. Geographical Analysis 30, 234–253.
Reynolds-Feighan, A., 2000. The US airport hierarchy and implica-
tions for small communities. Urban Studies 37, 557–577.
Reynolds-Feighan, A., 2001. Traffic distribution in low-cost and full-
service carrier networks in the US air transport market. Journal of
Air Transport Management 7, 265–275.
Sen, A., 1976. Poverty: an ordinal approach to measurement.
Econometrica 44, 219–231.
Swan, W.M., 2002. Airline route developments: a review of history.
Journal of Air Transport Management 8, 349–353.
Veldhuis, J., Kroes, E., 2002. Dynamics in Relative Network
Performance of the Main European Hub Airports. European
Transport Conference, Cambridge.
Viscusi, W.K., Vernon, J.M., Harrington, J.E., 1998. Economics of
Regulation and Antithrust. MIT Press, Cambridge.
Weber, M., Dinwoodie, J., 2000. Fifth freedoms and airline alliances.
The role of fifth freedom traffic in an understanding of airline
alliances. Journal of Air Transport Management 6, 51–60.
Williams, G., 2001. Will Europe’s charter carriers be replaced by ‘‘no-
frills’’ scheduled airlines? Journal of Air Transport Management 7,
277–286.