Strategic Resilience in Aviation: A Multi-Dimensional Analysis of Etihad Airways’ Business Model Transformation and Competitive Positioning

Martin Munyao Muinde

Email: ephantusmartin@gmail.com

Abstract

This article presents a comprehensive analysis of Etihad Airways, examining the carrier’s strategic evolution within the highly competitive global aviation industry. Drawing upon theoretical frameworks from strategic management, international business, and competitive dynamics, this research evaluates Etihad’s business model transformation, operational capabilities, and market positioning strategies. Particular attention is given to the airline’s distinctive “equity alliance” approach, its subsequent strategic reorientation, and its adaptation to exogenous shocks including geopolitical tensions, pandemic disruptions, and evolving sustainability imperatives. Through triangulation of financial performance metrics, operational indicators, and strategic positioning analysis, this research illuminates the complex interplay between organizational resources, dynamic capabilities, and environmental contingencies in shaping Etihad’s competitive trajectory. The findings contribute to scholarly discourse on business model innovation, strategic resilience, and competitive dynamics in the global airline industry, while offering implications for aviation management practice and policy development.

Keywords: Etihad Airways, strategic management, business model innovation, competitive positioning, aviation industry, strategic alliances, organizational resilience, Gulf carriers, sustainable aviation, post-pandemic recovery

Introduction

The global aviation industry represents a complex, dynamic ecosystem characterized by intense competition, stringent regulatory frameworks, technological evolution, and susceptibility to exogenous shocks (Doganis, 2019). Within this challenging landscape, Etihad Airways—the flag carrier of the United Arab Emirates (UAE)—has emerged as a significant player whose strategic trajectory offers rich insights into the dynamics of competitive positioning, business model innovation, and organizational adaptation (O’Connell, 2015).

Established in 2003 by royal decree, Etihad Airways entered the market considerably later than many established international carriers and regional competitors such as Emirates and Qatar Airways (Dresner et al., 2015). This late-mover status presented both challenges and opportunities, necessitating innovative approaches to market penetration and competitive differentiation. Over its relatively brief history, Etihad has pursued a distinctive strategic path marked by aggressive expansion, unconventional alliance strategies, and subsequent substantial recalibration of its business model (Daft & Albers, 2015).

The scholarly significance of analyzing Etihad Airways extends beyond the specific case to broader theoretical discourse on competitive dynamics and strategic management. As Verbeke and Geisler Asmussen (2016) note, the strategic behaviors of Gulf carriers like Etihad represent “natural experiments” that challenge conventional assumptions about sustainable competitive advantage in the aviation sector. The carrier’s evolution illuminates critical questions regarding the viability of different business models, the effectiveness of various partnership approaches, and the capacity for organizational resilience in volatile environments.

This article adopts a multi-theoretical lens, integrating perspectives from strategic management (Porter, 2008), dynamic capabilities (Teece, 2018), business model innovation (Zott & Amit, 2017), and institutional theory (Scott, 2014) to analyze Etihad’s strategic positioning and organizational evolution. Through triangulation of financial data, operational metrics, and strategic initiatives, this research examines how Etihad has navigated competitive pressures, leveraged distinctive resources, and adapted to environmental contingencies throughout its developmental trajectory.

The analysis is structured chronologically, examining first Etihad’s initial growth phase (2003-2011), followed by its equity alliance strategy (2011-2017), and concluding with its strategic reorientation and response to the COVID-19 pandemic (2017-present). Within each phase, attention is given to key strategic decisions, their theoretical underpinnings, empirical outcomes, and implications for competitive positioning. The article concludes by synthesizing insights and identifying implications for theory development, management practice, and future research.

Theoretical Framework

Strategic Positioning in Global Aviation

The theoretical foundation for analyzing Etihad Airways’ competitive positioning draws primarily from Porter’s (1996, 2008) framework of strategic positioning, which emphasizes the importance of establishing a distinctive value proposition through trade-offs, fit among activities, and continuity of direction. Within the aviation context, strategic positioning typically involves choices along several dimensions: geographic scope (global vs. regional focus), service positioning (premium vs. low-cost), network configuration (hub-and-spoke vs. point-to-point), and alliance participation (Doganis, 2019; Wensveen & Leick, 2009).

Gulf carriers, including Etihad, have challenged traditional strategic groupings by pursuing what O’Connell (2015, p. 186) terms “hybrid strategies that combine elements of both full-service and low-cost models, while leveraging geographical advantages and state support.” This hybrid approach necessitates theoretical extensions to Porter’s original framework, incorporating insights from business model innovation literature (Amit & Zott, 2012) and theories of competitive imitation and differentiation (Deephouse, 1999).

Dynamic Capabilities and Organizational Adaptation

To understand Etihad’s evolution and adaptive responses to environmental changes, this analysis employs the dynamic capabilities framework articulated by Teece et al. (1997) and elaborated by Teece (2018). Dynamic capabilities represent “the firm’s ability to integrate, build, and reconfigure internal and external competences to address rapidly changing environments” (Teece et al., 1997, p. 516). For airlines operating in turbulent environments, critical dynamic capabilities include route network development, fleet management flexibility, organizational learning, and alliance management (Sund et al., 2021).

The aviation industry presents a particularly appropriate context for examining dynamic capabilities due to its frequent exposure to exogenous shocks, technological disruptions, and regulatory changes (Lawton et al., 2018). Etihad’s responses to such challenges—including the global financial crisis, regional geopolitical tensions, and the COVID-19 pandemic—provide empirical instances through which to examine theoretical propositions regarding organizational adaptation and strategic resilience.

Institutional Context and Legitimacy

The institutional environment significantly shapes airline strategies and competitive dynamics (Scott, 2014). As a state-owned enterprise operating within the unique institutional context of the UAE, Etihad’s strategic choices are influenced by national development objectives, regulatory frameworks, and legitimacy considerations beyond pure market performance (Hertog, 2017). Institutional theory provides valuable perspectives for understanding how Etihad navigates competing institutional logics—balancing commercial objectives with national strategic interests, and Western business practices with regional cultural values (Budhwar et al., 2018).

Moreover, institutional perspectives illuminate how Etihad has sought legitimacy through various strategies, including conformity to international standards (such as IATA operational safety audits), differentiation through service quality (reflected in Skytrax ratings), and strategic isomorphism through alliance participation (DiMaggio & Powell, 1983; Suchman, 1995). These legitimacy-seeking behaviors represent important complements to market positioning strategies in understanding Etihad’s overall competitive approach.

Initial Growth Phase (2003-2011): Foundations and Expansion

Strategic Intent and Resource Deployment

Etihad Airways’ establishment in 2003 was embedded within broader strategic objectives of the Abu Dhabi government, including economic diversification beyond petroleum, infrastructure development, and international prestige enhancement (Hvidt, 2013). Unlike the organic growth trajectories of many established carriers, Etihad entered the market with substantial financial resources, enabling an accelerated expansion strategy (Dresner et al., 2015). This approach aligns with Hamel and Prahalad’s (1989) concept of strategic intent, whereby organizations pursue ambitious objectives that exceed their initial resource base.

During this initial phase, Etihad pursued rapid fleet expansion, growing from 5 aircraft in 2004 to 57 by 2011 (Etihad Airways Annual Report, 2011). This expansion was accompanied by aggressive route development, with the network growing from 16 destinations in 2004 to 82 by 2011. The theoretical significance of this expansion lies in what Penrose (1959) termed the “theory of the growth of the firm,” wherein organizational growth is constrained by managerial capabilities rather than market opportunities. Etihad’s ability to manage such rapid scaling without significant operational disruptions suggests effective development of organizational capabilities (Helfat & Peteraf, 2003).

Competitive Positioning and Differentiation Strategy

Etihad’s initial competitive positioning reflected a deliberate attempt to differentiate from both established European carriers and regional competitors such as Emirates (Grimme, 2011). This differentiation occurred along multiple dimensions:

1. Service quality: Etihad invested heavily in premium cabin products and service training, positioning itself as a luxury hospitality brand rather than merely a transportation provider (O’Connell, 2015). This approach aligns with theoretical perspectives on experience-based differentiation (Pine & Gilmore, 1998) and service-dominant logic (Vargo & Lusch, 2004).

2. Hub development: While leveraging Abu Dhabi’s geographic position for connecting traffic between Europe, Asia, and Australia, Etihad differentiated its hub strategy from Emirates’ high-volume approach by emphasizing quality over quantity (Murel & O’Connell, 2011). This strategy reflects theoretical insights on the importance of fitting organizational activities to strategic positioning (Porter, 1996).

3. Cultural branding: Etihad deliberately incorporated elements of Arabian heritage and hospitality into its brand identity, creating what Balmer (2010) terms “corporate heritage identity”—a distinctive positioning resource that competitors cannot easily replicate.

The empirical outcomes of these positioning efforts included rapid market share growth in targeted segments, improved yield metrics, and recognition through industry awards (Etihad Airways Annual Report, 2010). However, consistent with theoretical expectations regarding the challenges of multipoint competition (Chen, 1996), Etihad faced intense competitive responses from both European legacy carriers and regional competitors, constraining profitability despite revenue growth.

Equity Alliance Strategy (2011-2017): Network Expansion Through Partnerships

Theoretical Underpinnings of Etihad’s Alliance Approach

In 2011, Etihad Airways initiated a distinctive partnership strategy that diverged significantly from conventional airline alliance models exemplified by Star Alliance, OneWorld, and SkyTeam (Daft & Albers, 2015). Rather than joining an existing global alliance, Etihad pursued what Lazzarini (2007) terms a “constellation strategy,” developing its own network of partnerships through minority equity investments in airlines including Air Berlin, Air Seychelles, Virgin Australia, Aer Lingus, Air Serbia, Jet Airways, and Alitalia (Dunn, 2016).

This approach represents a theoretical innovation in alliance strategy, combining elements of financial portfolio investment, strategic alliance management, and network orchestration (Dhanaraj & Parkhe, 2006). From a transaction cost economics perspective (Williamson, 1985), Etihad’s equity investments represented an intermediate governance mode between market transactions (standard interline agreements) and hierarchical control (full acquisition), potentially reducing coordination costs and opportunism risks in partner relationships.

Implementation Challenges and Outcomes

The implementation of Etihad’s equity alliance strategy revealed several challenges consistent with theoretical predictions from alliance literature. These included:

1. Partner selection issues: Several investment targets (notably Air Berlin and Alitalia) were financially distressed carriers with structural problems that proved resistant to turnaround efforts (Daft & Albers, 2015). This outcome aligns with resource dependence theory’s caution regarding the risks of alliance formation under duress (Pfeffer & Salancik, 1978).

2. Governance complexities: Managing multiple minority investments across diverse institutional contexts created significant governance challenges, including regulatory constraints, labor relations issues, and cultural integration difficulties (Rothaermel & Boeker, 2008). These challenges were particularly evident in Etihad’s European investments, where regulatory authorities scrutinized control arrangements (Tretheway & Andriulaitis, 2016).

3. Coordination costs: The heterogeneity of partner airlines’ systems, processes, and organizational cultures generated substantial coordination costs that offset some network synergy benefits (Gulati & Singh, 1998). Despite attempts to harmonize operations through the “Etihad Airways Partners” initiative, full integration remained elusive.

The financial outcomes of the equity alliance strategy were mixed. While the partner airlines contributed feed traffic to Etihad’s Abu Dhabi hub and expanded its effective network, several investments required ongoing financial support and eventually resulted in substantial write-downs (Etihad Airways Annual Report, 2016). By 2016, Etihad’s financial performance had deteriorated significantly, with the carrier reporting a loss of $1.87 billion, predominantly due to impairment charges on aircraft and equity investments (Etihad Airways Annual Report, 2016).

Strategic Reorientation (2017-Present): Transformation and Adaptation

Business Model Recalibration

Following leadership changes in 2017, Etihad initiated a comprehensive strategic review resulting in significant business model recalibration (Dunn, 2017). This reorientation included:

1. Divestment from underperforming equity partners, including Air Berlin (which entered liquidation in 2017) and Alitalia (which entered extraordinary administration the same year).

2. Network rationalization focusing on profitability rather than geographic coverage, with suspension of unprofitable routes and frequency reductions on others (Dursun et al., 2014; Schlumberger & Weisskopf, 2014).

3. Fleet optimization, including cancellation or deferral of aircraft orders and accelerated retirement of less efficient aircraft types (Shah, 2018).

4. Cost structure transformation through organization redesign, process reengineering, and workforce rationalization (Etihad Airways Annual Report, 2018).

These changes represent what Zott and Amit (2017) term “business model reconfiguration”—a deliberate redesign of the firm’s activity system in response to performance feedback and environmental changes. From a theoretical perspective, this reorientation exemplifies the “sensing” and “seizing” capabilities described in dynamic capabilities literature (Teece, 2018), with Etihad demonstrating adaptive capacity in response to negative performance feedback.

Pandemic Response and Sustainable Aviation Focus

The COVID-19 pandemic presented unprecedented challenges to the global aviation industry, with international passenger traffic declining by 74% in 2020 (IATA, 2021). Etihad’s response to this exogenous shock demonstrated both operational resilience and strategic adaptation:

1. Fleet consolidation accelerated, with permanent retirement of Airbus A380 and Boeing 777-300ER aircraft, transitioning toward a simplified fleet centered on the more efficient Boeing 787 Dreamliner (Wolfsteller, 2021).

2. Business model pivoting included temporary conversion of passenger aircraft for cargo operations and development of innovative products such as “wellness certification” to address passenger health concerns (Bouw, 2020).

3. Digital transformation initiatives accelerated, including touchless check-in processes, health passport integration, and enhanced data analytics capabilities (Etihad Airways, 2021).

Concurrent with pandemic response, Etihad has intensified focus on sustainability initiatives, positioning itself as an industry leader in environmental performance. The carrier’s “Greenliner” program utilizes a Boeing 787 aircraft as a sustainability testbed for operational efficiency improvements and sustainable aviation fuel trials (Etihad Airways, 2020). This initiative represents what Hart (1995) terms a “natural-resource-based view of the firm,” wherein environmental performance becomes a source of competitive advantage rather than merely a compliance obligation.

Discussion and Theoretical Implications

Multi-Level Analysis of Etihad’s Strategic Evolution

Etihad Airways’ strategic evolution illustrates the complex interplay between firm-level strategic choices, industry-level competitive dynamics, and macro-environmental forces. At the firm level, Etihad’s trajectory demonstrates both the potential and pitfalls of aggressive growth strategies, equity-based alliance networks, and subsequent strategic reorientation. The carrier’s experience supports theoretical propositions regarding the importance of dynamic capabilities (Teece, 2018) and organizational ambidexterity (O’Reilly & Tushman, 2013) in volatile environments, as Etihad has alternated between explorative expansion and exploitative efficiency improvement throughout its development.

At the industry level, Etihad’s strategic choices have both influenced and been shaped by competitive dynamics among global carriers. The carrier’s equity alliance approach temporarily altered industry structure by creating a distinctive strategic group positioned between traditional alliances and unaligned carriers (Goedeking, 2018). However, the subsequent retrenchment from this strategy suggests limits to its sustainability, supporting Porter’s (1996) contention that strategic positioning requires trade-offs that limit the pursuit of multiple value propositions simultaneously.

At the macro-environmental level, Etihad’s evolution reflects adaptation to changing institutional contexts, including intensified regulatory scrutiny in Europe, geopolitical tensions in the Gulf region, and global sustainability imperatives. This multi-level analysis supports theoretical perspectives that emphasize the co-evolution of firms and their environments (Lewin & Volberda, 1999) and the importance of institutional legitimacy alongside market performance (Deephouse & Suchman, 2008).

Contributions to Business Model Innovation Theory

Etihad’s case contributes to theoretical discourse on business model innovation in several ways. First, it demonstrates that business models represent provisional solutions rather than permanent configurations, requiring ongoing adjustment in response to performance feedback and environmental changes (Foss & Saebi, 2017). Second, it illustrates the challenges of managing multiple business models simultaneously, as Etihad attempted to integrate diverse partner carriers with heterogeneous operating models (Markides & Charitou, 2004). Third, it highlights the role of leadership cognition in business model innovation, as successive leadership teams interpreted similar environmental conditions differently, leading to contrasting strategic choices (Martins et al., 2015).

Managerial and Policy Implications

Implications for Airline Management Practice

Etihad’s strategic journey offers several implications for airline management practice:

1. Alliance strategy considerations: The challenges encountered in Etihad’s equity alliance approach highlight the importance of thorough partner due diligence, clear governance structures, and realistic synergy expectations in alliance formation (Kale & Singh, 2009).

2. Growth management: Etihad’s experience underscores the risks of growth rates that outpace organizational learning, supporting Penrose’s (1959) emphasis on managerial capability as a constraint on sustainable firm growth.

3. Resilience planning: The carrier’s response to the COVID-19 pandemic exemplifies the value of operational flexibility, financial buffers, and business model adaptability in managing exogenous shocks (Gittell et al., 2006).

Policy Implications

For aviation policymakers, Etihad’s case illuminates several important considerations:

1. Ownership and control regulations: The controversies surrounding Etihad’s European investments highlight tensions between traditional nationality-based ownership rules and increasingly transnational airline operations (Button, 2009).

2. Competitive dynamics: Etihad’s trajectory demonstrates both the competitive benefits of new entrants (service innovation, price pressure) and potential market distortions when carriers operate with different economic models and state relationships (Dresner et al., 2015).

3. Sustainability framework: Etihad’s recent environmental initiatives underscore the importance of policy frameworks that incentivize innovation in sustainable aviation technologies and operational practices (Schäfer et al., 2016).

Conclusion

This analysis of Etihad Airways demonstrates the complex interplay between strategic positioning, organizational capabilities, and environmental contingencies in shaping competitive outcomes in the global airline industry. The carrier’s evolution from aggressive expansion through equity alliances to strategic reorientation and sustainability focus reflects the dynamic nature of strategic management in volatile environments.

Theoretically, Etihad’s case highlights the continued relevance of fundamental strategic management principles regarding positioning, trade-offs, and fit (Porter, 1996), while also demonstrating the importance of dynamic capabilities (Teece, 2018) and business model innovation (Zott & Amit, 2017) in responding to environmental change. Practically, the carrier’s experience offers valuable lessons regarding alliance management, growth governance, and resilience planning that extend beyond the aviation sector to other industries characterized by high capital intensity, network effects, and regulatory complexity.

As Etihad continues its transformation journey in a post-pandemic environment, further research opportunities exist to examine how the carrier balances efficiency imperatives with differentiation objectives, navigates geopolitical complexities affecting its operating environment, and implements its sustainability commitments. Such research would contribute to evolving theoretical discourse on organizational resilience, business model adaptation, and sustainable competitive advantage in dynamic global industries.

References

Amit, R., & Zott, C. (2012). Creating value through business model innovation. MIT Sloan Management Review, 53(3), 41-49.

Balmer, J. M. T. (2010). Explicating corporate heritage, corporate heritage brands and organisational heritage. Journal of Brand Management, 18(3), 274-289.

Bouw, B. (2020). Airlines pivot to cargo during pandemic. IATA Journal, 24(6), 34-36.

Budhwar, P., Pereira, V., Mellahi, K., & Singh, S. K. (2018). The state of HRM in the Middle East: Challenges and future research agenda. Asia Pacific Journal of Management, 36(4), 905-933.

Button, K. (2009). The impact of US-EU “Open Skies” agreement on airline market structures and airline networks. Journal of Air Transport Management, 15(2), 59-71.

Chen, M. J. (1996). Competitor analysis and interfirm rivalry: Toward a theoretical integration. Academy of Management Review, 21(1), 100-134.

Daft, J., & Albers, S. (2015). An empirical analysis of airline business model convergence. Journal of Air Transport Management, 46, 3-11.

Deephouse, D. L. (1999). To be different, or to be the same? It’s a question (and theory) of strategic balance. Strategic Management Journal, 20(2), 147-166.

Deephouse, D. L., & Suchman, M. (2008). Legitimacy in organizational institutionalism. In R. Greenwood, C. Oliver, R. Suddaby, & K. Sahlin (Eds.), The SAGE handbook of organizational institutionalism (pp. 49-77). Sage.

Dhanaraj, C., & Parkhe, A. (2006). Orchestrating innovation networks. Academy of Management Review, 31(3), 659-669.

DiMaggio, P. J., & Powell, W. W. (1983). The iron cage revisited: Institutional isomorphism and collective rationality in organizational fields. American Sociological Review, 48(2), 147-160.

Doganis, R. (2019). Flying off course: Airline economics and marketing (5th ed.). Routledge.

Dresner, M., Eroglu, C., Hofer, C., Mendez, F., & Tan, K. (2015). The impact of Gulf carrier competition on U.S. airlines. Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, 79, 31-41.

Dunn, G. (2016). Etihad’s equity alliance: Life beyond Air Berlin? Flight Global, 23 November.

Dunn, G. (2017). Analysis: New Etihad chief faces big challenges. Flight Global, 2 October.

Dursun, M. E., O’Connell, J. F., Lei, Z., & Warnock-Smith, D. (2014). The transformation of a legacy carrier – A case study of Turkish Airlines. Journal of Air Transport Management, 40, 106-118.

Etihad Airways. (2010). Annual Report 2010. Etihad Airways.

Etihad Airways. (2011). Annual Report 2011. Etihad Airways.

Etihad Airways. (2016). Annual Report 2016. Etihad Airways.

Etihad Airways. (2018). Annual Report 2018. Etihad Airways.

Etihad Airways. (2020). Etihad Greenliner Program. Corporate Publication.

Etihad Airways. (2021). Digital transformation strategy. Corporate Publication.

Foss, N. J., & Saebi, T. (2017). Fifteen years of research on business model innovation: How far have we come, and where should we go? Journal of Management, 43(1), 200-227.

Gittell, J. H., Cameron, K., Lim, S., & Rivas, V. (2006). Relationships, layoffs, and organizational resilience: Airline industry responses to September 11. Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, 42(3), 300-329.

Goedeking, P. (2018). Networks in aviation: Strategies and structures. Routledge.

Grimme, W. (2011). The growth of Arabian airlines from a German perspective – A study of the impacts of new air services to Asia. Journal of Air Transport Management, 17(6), 333-338.

Gulati, R., & Singh, H. (1998). The architecture of cooperation: Managing coordination costs and appropriation concerns in strategic alliances. Administrative Science Quarterly, 43(4), 781-814.

Hamel, G., & Prahalad, C. K. (1989). Strategic intent. Harvard Business Review, 67(3), 63-76.

Hart, S. L. (1995). A natural-resource-based view of the firm. Academy of Management Review, 20(4), 986-1014.

Helfat, C. E., & Peteraf, M. A. (2003). The dynamic resource-based view: Capability lifecycles. Strategic Management Journal, 24(10), 997-1010.

Hertog, S. (2017). A quest for significance: Gulf oil monarchies’ international ‘soft power’ strategies and their local urban dimensions. LSE Kuwait Programme Paper Series, 42.

Hvidt, M. (2013). Economic diversification in GCC countries: Past record and future trends. Kuwait Programme on Development, Governance and Globalisation in the Gulf States, 27.

IATA. (2021). Annual Review 2021. International Air Transport Association.

Kale, P., & Singh, H. (2009). Managing strategic alliances: What do we know now, and where do we go from here? Academy of Management Perspectives, 23(3), 45-62.

Lawton, T. C., Rajwani, T., & O’Kane, C. (2018). Strategic reorientation and business turnaround: The case of global legacy airlines. Journal of Strategy and Management, 4(3), 215-237.

Lazzarini, S. G. (2007). The impact of membership in competing alliance constellations: Evidence on the operational performance of global airlines. Strategic Management Journal, 28(4), 345-367.

Lewin, A. Y., & Volberda, H. W. (1999). Prolegomena on coevolution: A framework for research on strategy and new organizational forms. Organization Science, 10(5), 519-534.

Markides, C., & Charitou, C. D. (2004). Competing with dual business models: A contingency approach. Academy of Management Executive, 18(3), 22-36.

Martins, L. L., Rindova, V. P., & Greenbaum, B. E. (2015). Unlocking the hidden value of concepts: A cognitive approach to business model innovation. Strategic Entrepreneurship Journal, 9(1), 99-117.

Murel, M., & O’Connell, J. F. (2011). Potential for Abu Dhabi, Doha and Dubai airports to reach their traffic objectives. Research in Transportation Business & Management, 1(1), 36-46.

O’Connell, J. F. (2015). The rise of the Arabian Gulf carriers: An insight into the business model of Emirates Airline. Journal of Air Transport Management, 47, 37-47.

O’Reilly, C. A., & Tushman, M. L. (2013). Organizational ambidexterity: Past, present, and future. Academy of Management Perspectives, 27(4), 324-338.

Penrose, E. T. (1959). The theory of the growth of the firm. Oxford University Press.

Pfeffer, J., & Salancik, G. R. (1978). The external control of organizations: A resource dependence perspective. Harper & Row.

Pine, B. J., & Gilmore, J. H. (1998). Welcome to the experience economy. Harvard Business Review, 76(4), 97-105.

Porter, M. E. (1996). What is strategy? Harvard Business Review, 74(6), 61-78.

Porter, M. E. (2008). The five competitive forces that shape strategy. Harvard Business Review, 86(1), 25-40.

Rothaermel, F. T., & Boeker, W. (2008). Old technology meets new technology: Complementarities, similarities, and alliance formation. Strategic Management Journal, 29(1), 47-77.

Schäfer, A. W., Barrett, S. R., Doyme, K., Dray, L. M., Gnadt, A. R., Self, R., O’Sullivan, A., Synodinos, A. P., & Torija, A. J. (2016). Technological, economic and environmental prospects of all-electric aircraft. Nature Energy, 4(2), 160-166.

Schlumberger, C. E., & Weisskopf, N. (2014). Ready for takeoff? The potential for low-cost carriers in developing countries. World Bank Publications.

Scott, W. R. (2014). Institutions and organizations: Ideas, interests, and identities (4th ed.). Sage.

Shah, S. (2018). Etihad Airways slims down amid turbulence in Gulf aviation. Financial Times, 2 June.

Suchman, M. C. (1995). Managing legitimacy: Strategic and institutional approaches. Academy of Management Review, 20(3), 571-610.

Sund, K. J., Bogers, M., Villarroel, J. A., & Foss, N. (2021). Managing tensions between new and existing business models. MIT Sloan Management Review, 62(4), 72-76.

Teece, D. J. (2018). Business models and dynamic capabilities. Long Range Planning, 51(1), 40-49.

Teece, D. J., Pisano, G., & Shuen, A. (1997). Dynamic capabilities and strategic management. Strategic Management Journal, 18(7), 509-533.

Tretheway, M. W., & Andriulaitis, R. (2016). What do we mean by a level playing field in international aviation? Transport Policy, 43, 96-103.

Vargo, S. L., & Lusch, R. F. (2004). Evolving to a new dominant logic for marketing. Journal of Marketing, 68(1), 1-17.

Verbeke, A., & Geisler Asmussen, C. (2016). Global, local, or regional? The locus of MNE strategies. Journal of Management Studies, 53(6), 1051-1075.

Wensveen, J. G., & Leick, R. (2009). The long-haul low-cost carrier: A unique business model. Journal of Air Transport Management, 15(3), 127-133.

Williamson, O. E. (1985). The economic institutions of capitalism. Free Press.

Wolfsteller, P. (2021). Etihad puts A380 era behind it. Flight Global, 10 May.

Zott, C., & Amit, R. (2017). Business model innovation: How to create value in a digital world. GfK Marketing Intelligence Review, 9(1), 18-23.