Question

Getting It Right: The Success of Continental Airlines

Continental Airlines was doing something that seemed like a horrible mistake. All other airlines at the time were following a simple rule: They would only offer a flight if, on average, 65 percent of the seats could be filled with passengers, since only then could the flight break even. Continental, however, was flying jets at just 50 percent of capacity and was actually expanding flights on many routes. When word of Continental’s policy leaked out, its stockholders were angry, and managers at competing airlines smiled knowingly, waiting for Continental to fail. Yet Continental’s profits – already higher than the industry average – continued to grow. What was going on?

            There was, indeed, a serious mistake being made – but by the other airlines, not Continental. This mistake should by now be familiar to you [students of managerial economics]: using average cost instead of marginal cost to make decisions. The “65 percent capacity” rule used throughout the industry was derived more or less as follows: The total costs of the airline for the year (TC), was divided by the numbers of flights during the year (Q) to obtain the average cost of a flight (TC/Q=ATC). For the typical flight, this came to about $4,000. Since a jet had to be 65 percent full in order to earn ticket sales of $4,000, the industry regarded any flight that repeatedly took off with less than 65 percent as a money loser and canceled it.

            As usual, there are two problems with using ATC in this way. First, an airline’s average cost per flight includes many costs that are fixed and are therefore irrelevant to the decision to add or subtract a flight. These include the cost of running the reservations system, paying interest on the firm’s debt, and fixed fees for landing rights at airports – none of which would change if the firm added or subtracted a flight. Also, average cost ordinarily changes as output changes, so it is wrong to assume it is constant in decisions about changing output.

            Continental’s management, led by its vice-president of operations, had decided to try the marginal approach to profit. Whenever a new flight was being considered, every department within the company was asked to determine the additional cost they would have to bear. Of course, the only additional costs were for additional variable inputs, such as additional flight attendants, ground crew personnel, in-flight meals, and jet fuel. These additional costs came to only about $2,000 per flight. Thus, the marginal cost of an additional flight – $2,000 – was significantly less than the marginal revenue of a flight filled to 65 percent of capacity – $4,000. The marginal approach to profits tell us that when MR>MC, output should be increased, which is just what Continental was doing. Indeed, Continental correctly drew the conclusion that the marginal revenue of a flight filled at even 50 percent of capacity – $3,000 – was still greater than its marginal cost, and so offering the flight would increase profit. This is why Continental was expanding routes when it could fill only 50 percent of its seats.

            In the early 1960’s, Continental was able to outperform its competitors by using a secret – the marginal approach to profits. Today, of course, the secret is out, and all airlines use the marginal approach when deciding which flights to offer.

After reviewing chapter 8, I am sure you will come to appreciate the significance of the marginal analysis for optimal decisions first introduced in Chapter 1. In Chapter 8, the approach boils down to what we generally call the optimal output decision rule that states: To maximize profit or minimize losses in the short run, a firm should produce at the level where marginal revenue (MR) is equal to marginal cost (MC).  Although this principle was long established by economists, the business community, however, was initially slow to understand and use it in their decision making processes. Those who understood the method and applied it earlier than their competitors were able to generate substantial profits while their competitors struggled to survive. Please find attached a summary of an article that demonstrates these events and along the way demonstrates how useful and powerful the method is.

After reviewing the summary, please post your thoughts and reactions. In particular, anything that you found particularly surprising or interesting and some other mistakes managers make, in light of what you have learned in this module. no graph needed.

Answer 1

It is true that marginal principle is one of the most important principle in economics that is used to identify the level of output that can maximize the profit for the company. Here, it is important for the managers to clearly assess the nature of the market in which they are operating. For example, if it is a perfect competition, then Price is equal to MR and it is equal to Marginal cost. But, in monopolistic competition as in the given case, is monopolistic competition, MR should be equal to the marginal cost to achieve the profit maximizing output. Here, the continental airlines can exert some control upon the price if the airlines can provide exclusive services to the flyers. It will make put higher prices, get more number of customers and generate higher profit. Hence, the proper use of economic principles, help the managers to take the right decisions regarding what to produce and how much to produce as well as the pricing strategy.
Further, the managers have the scope to commit mistakes also. It is related to the consideration of overhead cost. One part of the overhead cost is fixed and another part is variable. Hence, the pricing decisions should consider it. After a particular level of the output, the fixed cost will change. It will affect the overall price of the product. So, true cost can only be estimated when its nature is properly recognized. Afterwards, it should be added in the pricing.
The second problem is associated with the lack of attention upon the economy of scope. If a firm produces one type of product. Then, all the overhead cost is applied to that product, forcing the company to keep high price. Rather, if a company produces different goods as a part of economy of scope, then overhead cost is distributed among these different products and cost of production for each product comes down. It creates a pricing advantage in the market. For example, Coke or Pepsi produces different types of soft drinks or beverages in one bottling plant to achieve the economy of scope.