International journal of


EISSN: 2313-3724, Print ISSN:2313-626X

Frequency: 12

line decor
line decor

 Volume 5, Issue 8 (August 2018), Pages: 47-57


 Original Research Paper

 Title: Productivity and efficiency modeling amongst ASEAN-5 airline industries

 Author(s): Yap Huey Ling 1, Tan Kokkiang 1, Behrooz Gharleghi 2, *, Benjamin Chan Yin Fah 1


 1Faculty of Business and Management, Asia Pacific University of Technology and Innovation, 57000, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia
 2CENTRUM Católica Graduate Business School, Pontificia Universidad Católica del Perú, Lima, Peru

 Full Text - PDF          XML


This study intends to benchmark the technical efficiency and the productivity change measurement of the five national airlines in ASEAN-5 countries via Data Envelopment Analysis (DEA) and a DEA-based Malmquist Total Factor Productivity (TFP) Index approach. DEA approach uses a balanced panel data extracted from the annual report of Garuda Indonesia, Malaysia Airlines, Philippine Airlines, Singapore Airlines and Thai Airways International, covering the period of 2007 to 2013. The Tobit model is used to investigate the effect of input variables (Available Seat Kilometer (ASK) and Operating Cost) and output variables (Revenue Passenger Kilometer (RPK) and Passenger Revenue) on the efficiency scores computed by DEA. The efficiency scores of ASEAN-5 airlines computed by DEA shows that Malaysian Airlines is the least efficient airline and Philippines Airlines is the airline with the best efficiency. The result of Malmquist TFP approach reveals that there is a 1.2 percent improvement in technical efficiency, 1.2 percent deterioration in technology, 0.7 percent progression in pure technical efficiency, 0.5 percent increase in scale efficiency and a 0.1 percent decline in TFP in the airline industry in ASEAN-5 throughout the entire study period. The Malmquist TFP approach also reports that the change in TFP was mainly due to the deterioration of technology. The empirical results obtained from Tobit analysis suggest that the ASK has a significant negative impact on efficiency score, whereas both RPK and Passenger Revenue are found to have a significant positive effect on efficiency. Operating cost is the only variable that is found to have no significant impact on efficiency score. 

 © 2018 The Authors. Published by IASE.

 This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license (

 Keywords: DEA approach, Tobit analysis, Efficiency

 Article History: Received 28 February 2018, Received in revised form 6 May 2018, Accepted 28 May 2018

 Digital Object Identifier:


 Ling YH, Kokkiang T, Gharleghi B et al. (2018). Productivity and efficiency modeling amongst ASEAN-5 airline industries. International Journal of Advanced and Applied Sciences, 5(8): 47-57

 Permanent Link:


 References (28) 

  1. Assaf AG and Josiassen A (2011). The operational performance of UK airlines: 2002-2007. Journal of Economic Studies, 38(1): 5-16.   [Google Scholar]  
  2. Assaf AG and Josiassen A (2012). European vs. US airlines: Performance comparison in a dynamic market. Tourism Management, 33(2): 317-326.   [Google Scholar] 
  3. Banker RD, Chang H, and Lee SY (2010). Differential impact of Korean banking system reforms on bank productivity. Journal of Banking and Finance, 34(7): 1450-1460.   [Google Scholar] 
  4. Barbot C, Costa Á, and Sochirca E (2008). Airlines performance in the new market context: A comparative productivity and efficiency analysis. Journal of Air Transport Management, 14(5): 270-274.   [Google Scholar] 
  5. Battese GE, Heshmati A, and Hjalmarsson L (2000). Efficiency of labour use in the Swedish banking industry: A stochastic frontier approach. Empirical Economics, 25(4): 623-640.   [Google Scholar] 
  6. Ben AM (2008). Transportation systems analysis: Demand and economics. Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge, UK.   [Google Scholar]     
  7. Button K (2010). Transport economics. Edward Elgar Publishing, Cheltenham, UK.   [Google Scholar]     
  8. Charnes A, Cooper WW, and Rhodes E (1978). Measuring the efficiency of decision making units. European Journal of Operational Research, 2(6): 429-444.   [Google Scholar] 
  9. Chou HW, Lee CY, Chen HK, and Tsai MY (2016). Evaluating airlines with slack‐based measures and meta‐frontiers. Journal of Advanced Transportation, 50(6): 1061-1089.   [Google Scholar] 
  10. Coelli T (1996). A guide to DEAP version 2.1: a data envelopment analysis (computer) program. Centre for Efficiency and Productivity Analysis, University of New England, Australia.   [Google Scholar]     
  11. Das A and Ghosh S (2006). Financial deregulation and efficiency: An empirical analysis of Indian banks during the post reform period. Review of Financial Economics, 15(3): 193-221.   [Google Scholar] 
  12. Duygun M, Prior D, Shaban M, and Tortosa-Ausina E (2016). Disentangling the European airlines efficiency puzzle: A network data envelopment analysis approach. Omega, 60: 2-14.   [Google Scholar] 
  13. Fare R, Grosskopf S, Lindgren B, and Roos P (1992). Productivity changes in Swedish pharamacies 1980–1989: A non-parametric Malmquist approach. Journal of Productivity Analysis, 3(1-2): 85-101.   [Google Scholar] 
  14. Gramani MCN (2012). Efficiency decomposition approach: A cross-country airline analysis. Expert Systems with Applications, 39(5): 5815-5819.   [Google Scholar] 
  15. Greer M (2009). Is it the labor unions' fault? Dissecting the causes of the impaired technical efficiencies of the legacy carriers in the United States. Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, 43(9-10): 779-789.   [Google Scholar] 
  16. Hensher DA and Merkert R (2011). The impact of strategic management and fleet planning on airline efficiency–A random effects Tobit model based on DEA efficiency scores. Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, 45(7): 686-695.   [Google Scholar] 
  17. Heshmati A and Kim J (2016). Survey of studies on airlines and their efficiencies. In: Heshmati A and Kim J (Eds.), Efficiency and Competitiveness of International Airlines: 15-50. Springer, Singapore.   [Google Scholar] 
  18. Hu JL, Li Y, and Tung HJ (2017). Operational efficiency of ASEAN airlines: Based on DEA and bootstrapping approaches. Management Decision, 55(5): 957-986.   [Google Scholar] 
  19. Jara-Díaz SR, Cortés CE, and Morales GA (2013). Explaining changes and trends in the airline industry: Economies of density, multiproduct scale, and spatial scope. Transportation Research Part E: Logistics and Transportation Review, 60: 13-26.   [Google Scholar] 
  20. Kourtit K and Nijkamp P (2013). In search of creative champions in high‐tech spaces: A spatial application of strategic performance management. Journal of Regional Science, 53(5): 749-777.   [Google Scholar] 
  21. Kumbhakar SC and Lovell CAK (2000). Stochastic frontier analysis. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK.   [Google Scholar] 
  22. Merkert R, Pearson J (2015). A non-parametric efficiency measure incorporating perceived airline service levels and profitability. Journal of Transport Economics and Policy (JTEP), 49(2): 261-275.   [Google Scholar]     
  23. Min H and Joo SJ (2016). A comparative performance analysis of airline strategic alliances using data envelopment analysis. Journal of Air Transport Management, 52: 99-110.   [Google Scholar] 
  24. Price CW and Weyman-Jones T (1996). Malmquist indices of productivity change in the UK gas industry before and after privatization. Applied Economics, 28(1): 29-39.   [Google Scholar] 
  25. Spurling DJ (2009). Introduction to transport economics: Demand, cost, pricing, and adoption. Universal-Publishers, Boca Raton, USA.   [Google Scholar]     
  26. Suzuki S, Nijkamp P, and Rietveld P (2011). Regional efficiency improvement by means of data envelopment analysis through Euclidean distance minimization including fixed input factors: An application to tourist regions in Italy. Papers in Regional Science, 90(1): 67-89.   [Google Scholar] 
  27. Vasigh B, Tacker T, and Fleming K (2008). Introduction to air transport economics: From theory to applications. Ashgate Publishing, Farnham, UK.   [Google Scholar]     
  28. Wu PI, Chen CT, Liou JL (2013). The meta-technology cost ratio: An indicator for judging the cost performance of CO2 reduction. Economic Modelling 35: 1-9.   [Google Scholar]