Content uploaded by Sandra Jankovic
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Sandra Jankovic on Jul 04, 2019
Content may be subject to copyright.
Journal of Tourism, Heritage & Services Marketing, Vol. 5, No. 1, pp. 3-8, 2019 3
Copyright © 200
© 2019 Authors. Published by Alexander T.E.I. of Thessaloniki
ISSN: 2529-1947. UDC: 658.8+338.48+339.1+640(05)
http://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.2640935
Published online: 15 April 2019
Some rights reserved.
Except otherwise noted, this work is licensed under
https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0
The Competitive pricing in marina
business: Exploring relative price
position and price fluctuation
Dubravka Vlasic
University of Rijeka, Faculty of Tourism and Hospitality Management, Croatia
Katarina Poldrugovac
University of Rijeka, Faculty of Tourism and Hospitality Management, Croatia
Sandra Jankovic
University of Rijeka, Faculty of Tourism and Hospitality Management, Croatia
Abstract: Competitive pricing is considered to be a very important part of revenue
management, a management instrument that enables selling right products and services to
the customers at the prices that will produce highest revenues. Marina business is supposed
to be a business whose products or services are perishable (similar to hotels, airlines,
campsites, hostels etc.) and tracking prices of competitors is very important part of managing
its business. The purpose of this paper is to address the problem of relative price position
and relative price fluctuation performance in marina business and seeks to complement
existing research in the domain of strategic price positioning. The research results reveal
that marinas who set their prices higher than their competition achieve lower level of berth
occupancy and at the same time succeed higher RevPAB. Marinas with lower prices than
their competitors achieve higher level of berth occupancy and lower RevPAB.
Keywords: marina performance, revenue management, revenue per available berth
(RevPAB), competitive pricing, price position of berth, price fluctuation of berth, berth
occupancy
JEL Classification: D4, G1
Biographical note: Dubravka Vlasic received her PhD in Economics (2012), M.Sc. (2005)
and B.S. (2000) from the Faculty of tourism and hospitality management, University of
Rijeka. Currently she an associate professor in accounting and auditing courses. Her interest
of research is: financial accounting, environmental management accounting, environmental
auditing and internal auditing in hospitality industry. Katarina Poldrugovac received her PhD
in Economics from Ljubljana University of Economics (2015). Currently she is the assistant
professor at the department of accounting. Her interest of research is: managerial accounting,
sustainability accounting and revenue management in hospitality industry. Sandra Janković
received her PhD in Economics from the Vienna University of Economics and Business
(2001), M.Sc. (1997) and B.S (1993) from the Faculty of Tourism and Hospitality
Management, University of Rijeka. Currently she is the assistant dean for International
Studies, co-editor in chief of the journal Tourism and Hospitality Management and leader of
the project Benchmarking in the hospitality industry.
1 INTRODUCTION
Marinas are commercially the most important ports of
nautical tourism, and together with charter and cruise
industries, within the last 30 years, have continuously been
showing high growing rates. It has been estimated that in
Europe there are 4,500 marinas with 1,75 million berths
(European Boating Industry, 2016) while Marina industry of
association states that in Australia there are 347 marinas, that
have 32000 employees and create reveneues of 1.4 billion
AU$ per year (Marina industries associations, 2018).
Marinas can be classified according to (Luković 2012:405):
1. the level of equipment – standard, luxury,
recreational
2. types of construction – American, Atlantic or
Mediterranean type
4 Dubravka Vlasic, Katarina Poldrugovac, Sandra Jankovic
3. position of maritime zone – open, semi-enclosed or
enclosed
4. marina ownership – private, municipal or public
5. location – sea, lake, river or canal.
Since marinas are a part of almost every national economy,
they influence the destination itself as well as general
development of a country.
Successful marina business requires quick adaptation to
changing market conditions and technological innovations.
Developing and accepting new and creative ways of decision
making is necessary in order to achieve greater business
results and stay ahead of the competition (Korol and Fotiadis,
2016). Reacting to the changes in competitors’ pricing is no
longer acceptable solution and it should be replaced with
leading and acting in order to challenge the elasticity of
pricing. Managers should implement consistent pricing
strategies in their businesses in order to improve the quality
of their decisions and this will lead to higher RevPAB
(Revenue Per Available Berth) relative to their competitive
set.
Setting optimal price for ones’ product or service is not an
easy task, and in order to maximize their business results,
managers need to introduce in their business revenue
management. Revenue management is a management tool
whose main objective is to increase sales revenues by
manipulating prices of products or services (HOSPA, 2013).
Revenue management is particularly useful in industries
whose fixed costs are high in comparison to variable costs as
hotels, airlines, car rentals, cinemas, stadiums, conventions,
cruise liners etc. The hospitality industry recognised the
benefits of adopting RM in order to maximize their business
results and several research was conducted in order to explore
the degree to which strategic price positioning and price
fluctuations affect relative revenue per available room (Enz
and Canina, 2005, Enz, Canina and Lomanno, 2009, Noone,
Canina and Enz, 2013, Enz, Canina and van der Rest, 2015).
Marina business characteristics have similarities with hotel
business regarding perishability of their product (selling
berth vs. room) and high fixed costs of a business. The
methodology for research conducted on hotels was adjusted
for marinas in order to explore the effects of price positioning
in marina business. In this research we seek to extend the
literature by examining how relative price position and
relative price fluctuation has an impact on performance in
marina business.
2 THEORETICAL FRAMEFORK
Despite a well-developed practical and scientific approach in
the field of pricing, managers in many industries still rely on
the rules of thumb, including cost-based pricing. Recent
research shows that they also react to competitor’s pricing
performance (Enz, Canina, van der Rest, 2015). Setting
prices should not be merely a tactical matter, even though
there’s no doubt that competitors are an important factor to
consider in pricing. Absolutely, price setting should be a part
of companies’ overall strategy, and pricing should expose the
position in providing customer value at a given cost, as well
as enable actions and reactions of market players. Pricing is
considered to be a strategic capability that is integral to a
company’s overall strategy, indicated by revenue
management analysis and economic conditions (Enz, Canina,
van der Rest, p.6). Revenue managers need to know how to
contribute to firm performance via pricing to drive higher
revenue and optimise GOP. The pricing strategy could be one
of price stability or one of changing price category relative to
competitors (Noone, 2012). More importantly, it’s crucial for
strategic pricing in marina business to define whether raising
or lowering prices relative to their competition contributes
additionally to RevPAB growth.
Authors Enz and Canina with several colleagues, in their
research about hotel pricing concluded that consistent pricing
strategy is essential and that pricing strategy should not rely
on neoclassical theories of perfect competition (Enz, Canina,
van der Rest, p.7). Their research investigates whether a clear
strategic path to avoid tactical price fluctuations to steal
market share in the short run by price positioning below
competitors actually pays off (Enz, Canina, van der Rest,
p.7). They found that hotels that consistently maintained an
ADR somewhat higher than that of their competitive set also
enjoyed a relatively higher RevPAR.
Studies also indicate that revenues are more strongly
influenced by ADR than by occupancy.
Research results also suggest that hotels should not follow an
overall strategy of price reduction, since it results in RevPAR
losses. Offering average prices higher than those of
competitor is the best way to get desired returns (Enz, Canina,
and Noone, 2012).
Singh at al. explore the influence of changes in ADR on
financial result measured by GOPAR and NOIPAR. They
prove that changes in ADR have a significantly stronger
correlation with changes in GOPPAR and NOIPAR
compared with changes in occupancy. These results indicate
that ADR appears to be the key driver of RevPAR and
bottom-line profitability since 1 percent change in ADR
yields a 1.9 percent change in NOI, and an estimated 1.6
percent change in GOP (Singh, Dev and Mandelbaum, 2014).
Although it is commonly known that tactical pricing decision
must bring into line with strategic price positioning and
contribute to the fulfilment of strategic goals, the literature
provides little guidance in the domain of strategic price
positioning. Noon, Canina and Enz have been identified two
key dimensions of strategic pricing: relative price position
and relative price fluctuation (Noone, Canina, & Enz,
2013:4). While relative price position represents a measure
of the mean ADR attained by a given hotel relative to the
competitive set and can be higher or lower, or on par with the
competition, relative price fluctuation is a measure of relative
variability in ADR over time and represents the degree of
variation in price relative to the competition over time.
(Noone, Canina, & Enz, 2013).
There is no doubt that competitor prices should be considered
in managing revenue and maximizing profitability. For this
purpose, competitive set reports can be used. They allow
revenue manager to track their own performance against that
of their comp set(s). It usually consists of main revenue
management KPIs and compares the subject’s indicators to
the compset’s aggregates. It is employed to assess the
effectiveness of short-term decisions as well as effectiveness
of long-term decisions and polices. These comparative
reports are also used extensively by regional and corporate
units to assess property-level performance, and by owners
and investment companies to evaluate the performance of a
contracted management company, the usefulness of a brand
THE COMPETITIVE PRICING IN MARINA BUSINESS 5
affiliation and the performance of the industry (Webb,
Schwartz, 2016).
In order to keep up-to-date with ever changing environment
in which marinas operate, the following KPIs are
recommended in compset reports for marinas, to assess their
own performance and keep track to their competitors:
(Jankovic & Vlasic, 2018)
• total occupancy rate (total number of occupied
berths divided by total number of available berths),
• occupancy rate for wet berths (number of occupied
wet berths by contract and in transit divided by total
number of available wet berths)
• occupancy rate for dry berths (number of occupied
dry berths by contract and in transit divided by total
number of available dry berths).
• occupancy rate by contract (number of occupied wet
and dry berths by contract divided by total number of
available berths),
• occupancy rate by contract for wet berths (number
of occupied wet berths by contract divided by total
number of available wet berths)
• occupancy rate by contract for dry berths (number
of occupied dry berths divided by total number of
available dry berths),
• marina revenue per occupied berth - Ave rage Berth
Rate – ABR (revenue from renting dry and wet berths
divided by total number of occupied berths),
• total marina revenue per occupied berth (revenues
from renting berths, revenues from marina services,
revenues from renting spaces, sub-concessions, permits
and licenses and other marina revenues divided by total
number of occupied berths)
• marina revenue per available berth – RevPAB
(marina revenue from renting dry and wet berths by
contracts and in transit divided by total number of
available berths),
• total marina revenue per available berth – TRevPAB
(revenues from renting berths, revenues from marina
services, revenues from renting spaces, sub-concessions,
permits and licenses and other marina revenues divided
by total number of available berths),
In order to measure the mentioned KPIs, a uniform
methodology of measuring marina revenues and costs should
be clearly defined. Although Uniform System of Accounts
for Marinas and Boatyards (USAMB) was published by
International Marina Institute in 1996 to improve financial
reporting for marina business, nowadays, this standard does
not enable the framework for performance measurement in
marinas. More comprehensive measurement of revenues,
costs and capacity, traced by profit and cost centres is
required. To enable marina benchmarking, minimum
business data for its measurement on monthly basis is
provided below (Jankovic & Vlasic, 2018):
• revenues from renting dry and wet berths by
contracts and in transit,
• revenues from marina services,
• revenues from renting spaces, sub-concessions,
permits and licenses, and
• other marina revenues,
• the number of available wet berths and dry berths
(on monthly basis)
• the number of occupied wet berths and dry berths by
contracts and in transit (boat per day)
Marina business can be considered as lodging business (berth
is the lodging for the guests’ boat/yacht) and the competitors
are most commonly defined by size, location, proximity and
published price, with location and price used as dimensions
of similarity since it is strongly believed that location and
price have significant impact on a business success (Kim &
Canina, 2011). The marina business can create its
competitive sets using several parameters: size, region, type
of marina, marina categorization, marina occupancy rate and
marina revenues.
Renting berths or berth revenues is considered to be the main
profit centre of marina business, which is similar to a hotel
business, where renting rooms (or lodging) is the main profit
centre. Marina berth rates can be calculated for transit (daily,
weekly) or by contract (seasonal or annual basis). They are
normally calculated by length of the boat (per ft) and
basically a boat slip is like a hotel room with the exception
that marinas accommodate guest’s boat and hotels
accommodate guests in a time period. Marina business
requires high investment in property plant and equipment and
therefore have high fixed costs so high berth occupancy is
necessary for financial success.
3 METHODOLOGY AND SAMPLE
Based on the idea that good revenue management exists when
rates and occupancies show positive correlation this research
examines the relationship between pricing strategy and
marinas position in RevPAB and berth occupancy in relation
to their competitive sets. The methodology for this research
was taken over from the research conducted by Enz, Canina
and Van der Rest (2015) for hotels. Variables that were used
are average berth rate (ABR), berth occupancy and revenue
per available berth (RevPAB) percentage differences. The
percentage differences were calculated for each indicator by
dividing each individual marina indicator to the average
indicator of its competitive set. Relative price position for
each marina in the sample was computed as the average of
monthly ABR percentage difference from the competitive set
over 36 months and relative price fluctuation for each marina
in the sample was computed as the standard deviation of the
monthly ABR percentage difference from the competitive set
over the 36 months period. The methodology applied in this
research excluded marinas who were unable to achieve a
percentage difference in RevPAB with one standard
deviation of zero from their competitors considering them
non-competitive.
The sample consisted of 32 Croatian marinas whose data
were collected through the project Croatian Benchmarking
for the period of 36 months – for years 2015, 2016 and 2017.
The number of observations made was 848. As the sample
contained four seasonal marinas, it has to be kept in mind that
they have operated only during the summer months (April till
October) and therefore have no data during off-seasonal
months. Also, there are marinas whose prices were not
considered because their value of ABR, RevPAB and berth
occupancy were too low or too high in comparison to other
marinas due to errors made in providing data. The reason for
that stands in their information system limitations that do not
provide separation of revenues from cash received for the
time period that the transaction occurred in. For example:
6 Dubravka Vlasic, Katarina Poldrugovac, Sandra Jankovic
Annual contracts for berths are usually signed and the invoice
for the entire year delivered in April. The invoice is then paid
in the same or next month (April or May), and the system
records this transaction in that month disregarding the fact
that according to the accounting principle the (annual)
revenue should be divided and recorded for each month
separately. The above mentioned values were excluded from
the final calculations in order to avoid misinterpretation in the
conclusions for this research.
In choosing competitive sets, it is essential to emphasize the
fact that Croatia is substantially a small market for nautical
tourism and that the differences in prices are connected to the
heterogeneity of locations and brand reputation and quality
of services which is not connected to the classification of
marinas. There is a problem of the classification of marinas
not only in Croatia but also at the international level because
there is no uniform classification of marinas prescribed
internationally. Marinas in Croatia carry different
classifications containing letters (A, B, C), roman numbers
(I., II., III. Etc.) or anchors (1 – 5) and therefore it was not
used for the separation of the results as it was used in the
research for hotels. Because of the small sample of marinas,
there was no separation of the individual and chain ones or
the size of marinas regarding number of berths.
In order to uniform the existing criteria for evaluation of
marinas, for calculating the berth occupancy, only the
occupancy of sea (wet) berths was considered for this
research. It is because not all marinas in the sample contain
sea and dry (land) berths, and there is a great difference when
calculating berth occupancy for total berths or just sea berths
– the dry berth occupancy is lower than the occupancy of sea
berth and the total berth occupancy is lower in those marinas
with dry berths. In some marinas the berth occupancy
exceeds 100%, due to the fact that marinas some berths sell
twice, once through the annual contract and second time,
when during the high season the yacht/boat leaves the marina
for cruising, sell the same berth as the transient one. The
marinas have chosen their competitive sets on the basis of the
closest ABR in the sample, regardless its location or size.
4 RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
Figure 1. Occupancy and RevPAB differences
Regarding the information on marina business for descriptive
statistics, the sample showed relatively wide disparities for
average in occupancy ranging from 8,10 to 149,27 with mean
78,09 of value. The range for ABR is 22,06 to 461,22 with
mean value of 106,78. The sample also showed great
disparities for average in RevPAB that range from 15,28 to
326,47 with mean value of 79,06.
Ten different pricing categories ranging from 0 to 30% were
used for Marinas. Five of the pricing categories were set for
the marinas with higher price position in comparison to their
competitors and five categories for the marinas that achieved
price position lower than their competitors (Figure 1).
Table 1: Percentage difference in average berth rated (ABR)
The research results conducted on marinas show that when
marinas positioned their prices below the prices of their
competitors, they have achieved better berth occupancy of
marina and their RevPAB was slightly lower. With the
marinas that positioned their prices substantially lower (15-
30%) the occupancy was much higher (13,5) with RevPAB
being only slightly lower (-2,55).
For those marinas that positioned their prices above then their
competition, the research results show that their berth
occupancy experienced lower values, with their RevPAB
being slightly higher, so for much higher prices (15-30%), the
occupancy was much lower (-15,40) and RevPAB only
slightly higher (1,43).
In order to reveal the effect of price position, price fluctuation
and occupancy performance of marina on its RevPAB,
regression analysis is performed (Table 2):
Table 2: Regression analysis results
Note: *** significance at 0,001 level respectively. Standard error is given in parenthesis.
Dependent variable: Revenue performance
Variables selection method: Enter
Table 2 shows the results of regression analysis used to test
the effects of relative price position and fluctuation on
RevPAB performance in marinas. RevPAB was entered as
dependent variable, while relative price position and relative
price fluctuation were entered as the independent variables.
15-
30%
lower
10-
14%
lower
6-9%
lower
3-5%
lower
0-2%
lower
0-2%
higher
3-5%
higher
6-9%
higher
10-
14%
higher
15-
30%
higher
OCCUPANCY
13,50
7,98
6,42
1,71
0,50
-3,64
-4,31
-8,31
-11,60
-15,40
RevPAB
-2,55
-1,83
-0,43
-1,42
0,02
-0,77
0,17
0,78
0,35
1,43
Dependent variable
RevPAB performance
Constant
-1.039 (0.234)
Price position
0.773***(0.019)
Occupancy performance
0.815***(0.019)
Price fluctuation
0.165***(0.008)
Observations
848
R2
0.334
R2 (adj)
0.332
F
141.005***
THE COMPETITIVE PRICING IN MARINA BUSINESS 7
The model is statistically significant (F = 141.005; p < 0.001)
with 33,7% of variation in RevPAB accounted for the model
(R squared = 0.332). The effect of price position, price
fluctuation and berth occupancy performance shows that
there is a significant relationship between dependent and
independent variable. Berth occupancy performance has
higher influence (β=0.815) on RevPAB performance than
price position (β=0.773), but still price position was highly
significant in explaining RevPAB performance. The price
fluctuation has also been significant in explaining RevPAB
performance (β=0.165) but less than the price position and
occupancy performance.
Our research results show that marinas who set their prices
below their competitors achieve higher berth occupancy but
still achieve lower RevPAB, and marinas that set their prices
above their competitors manage to achieve lower level of
occupancy but at the same time those marinas achieve higher
RevPAB. These results emphasize the importance of setting
strategic price positions based on presenting different marina
products and marina services. Marina managers should
consider more strategic and consistent price positioning,
particularly if their marinas offer unique, recognized, high
quality services and valued products (Fotiadis and
Vassiliadis, 2017). Although price fluctuation shows lower
significance on influencing RevPAB, it should be noted that
price variability is connected to customer risk and
perceptions of brand and that lowering prices can be seen as
lowering quality of services in marinas and should be
avoided. Because of the small sample, the individual marinas
were not separated from the chain affiliated ones.
Therefore, we suggest to upgrade this project on surrounding
countries (eg. Mediterranean) or at international level. In this
case different approach should be introduced – starting from
prices that should be collected in equal (not different)
currencies, different types of marinas regarding areas,
locations, sea/river, inland/coastal, wet/dry etc). We suggest
that the criteria for defining marina categorisation should be
set at national as well as international level and we suggest
that gold anchor categorisation could be used. We also
suggest to repeat the research for longer period of time (5 or
10 years), because three years is considered to be small
amount of time. We also suggest that in order to get better
basis for the comparison nationally and internationally length
and width of the boat or yacht should be taken into
consideration. For length of the boat meter/day value should
be introduced, and for the boat width equivalent numbers
should be used. Until now, only the managerial accounting
information were collected and financial indicators
calculated. In order to further develop and improve project
benchmarking marinas there is a need for additional
information on costs /expenses and sustainability to be
introduced and costs and sustainability indicators calculated.
To position itself in the long term, marina needs to gain clear
understanding of its current market position and the direction
it wants to take in the future. As competitors pricing creates
a part of short-term and long-term strategies marina managers
should consider those prices in order to facilitate responsive
positioning and to avoid conflicts. Regarding price
positioning in short and long term marina managers are
suggested to be very careful when setting the prices above
their competitors in marinas in order to prevent lowering their
marinas occupancy by having unsatisfied customers. If they
plan to set higher prices than their competitors, than in order
to keep the customers satisfaction, the prices should be risen
gradually and they should offer higher quality of their
services or include additional bonus services. When setting
higher prices than their competitors for annual contract
berths, the additional services should be included in the price
and higher quality of services should be offered in order to
keep the customers satisfied. Managers should have in mind
that this berth will be sold and revenues gained for the entire
year which will increase their occupancy, but will also enable
selling the same berth in the summer months when the
boat/yacht owner decides to take the boat out of marina for a
few days. Although setting prices for transient berths seem
slightly easier, it is definitely not so. For the seasonal months
it is not difficult to sell the berth because regardless the price
their marina will reach maximum in occupancy. However, in
that period managers should maximize their business results
but they should be careful with pricing policy because if they
set the prices too high, they risk losing their revenues in long
term.
In Europe there are 4500 marinas with 1,75 million berths
(www.europeanboatingindistry.eu). They are very attractive
for boat owners/ yachtsmen, and considering this fact they
should not have problems with raising the prices of their
berths, but they still need to do it very carefully thinking
about long-term effects of this increase. Therefore, future
research on shifting prices should be conducted in order to
follow the actual effects of this change on occupancy and
revenue per available berth. It is also suggested that total
revenue per available berth (TrevPAB) needs to be
considered because it will bring clearer picture on managers’
ability to be successful. TrevPAB apart from the price of
berth includes other marina revenues e.g. from parking,
maintenance of the boat, transfers, lodging if available,
revenues from renting, sub-concessions, permits and
approvals and other marina revenues excluding financial and
extraordinary revenues and shows actual results of managing
marina business. As this is the first research regarding the
price positioning and price fluctuation of marina business it
should be noted that the research in this area should be further
developed. We also suggest for further research that marinas
should be divided by chain affiliated or by size or even by
region, and that for long-term price positioning the period of
observation should be extended to at least 5 to 10 years.
REFERENCES
Canina, L., & Enz, C. A. (2008). Pricing for Revenue
Enhancement in Asian and Pacific Region Hotels: A Study of
Relative Pricing Strategies [Electronic article]. Cornell
Hospitality Report, 8(3): 6-16.
Enz, C. A. (2013). Strategic price positioning for revenue
management: The effects of relative price position and
fluctuation on performance [Electronic version]. Retrieved
[25.05.2018.] from Cornell University, School of Hotel
Administration site:
http://scholarship.sha.cornell.edu/articles/611
Enz, C. A., & Canina, L. (2005). An examination of revenue
management in relation to hotels' pricing strategies. Cornell
Hospitality Report, 5(6): 6-13.
Enz, C. A., Canina, L., & Lomanno, M. (2009). Competitive
Pricing Decisions in Uncertain Times. [Electronic version].
Cornell Hospitality Quarterly, 50(3), 325-341. Retrieved
[May 30, 2018], from Cornell University, School of
8 Dubravka Vlasic, Katarina Poldrugovac, Sandra Jankovic
Hospitality Administration site:
http://scholarship.sha.cornell.edu/articles/201/
Enz, C. A., Canina, L., & Lomanno, M. (2010). Strategic pricing in
European hotels: 2006–2009 [Electronic article]. Cornell
Hospitality Report, 10(5): 6-22.
Enz, C. A., Canina, L., & Noone, B. (2012). Strategic revenue
management and the role of competitive price shifting.
Cornell Hospitality Report, 12(6), 6-11.
Enz, C. A., Canina, L., & van der Rest J.P. (2015). Competitive
hotel pricing in Europe: An exploration of Strategic
Positioning. Cornell Hospitality Report, 15 (2), 6-16.
European Boating Industry, (2016), EU Affairs Tourism, Nautical
tourism in Europe, retrieved May, 20 2018 from
http://www.europeanboatingindustry.eu/euaffairs/tourism
Fotiadis, A. K., & Vassiliadis, C. (2017). Being customer-centric
through CRM metrics in the B2B market: the case of maritime
shipping. Journal of Business & Industrial Marketing.
doi:10.1108/JBIM-11-2014-0226
Ivanov, S. (2014). Hotel revenue management: From theory to
practice. Varna: Zangador.
Janković S. & Vlašić, D. (2018). Developing a benchmarking
methodology for marina business, Tourism in marine
environment, vol 13, no. 2,
DOI:10.3727/154427318X15276699095970
Kimes, S. E. (2016). The evolution of hotel revenue management.
Journal of Revenue and Pricing Management, 15(3-4): 247-
251.
Kimes, S. E., & Wirtz, J. (2003). Has revenue management
become acceptable? Findings from an international study on
the perceived fairness of rate fences. Journal of Service
Research, 6(2): 125-135.
Korol, T., & Fotiadis, A. (2016). Applying Fuzzy Logic of Expert
Knowledge for Accurate Predictive Algorithms of Customer
Traffic Flows in Theme Parks. International Journal of
Information Technology & Decision Making, 15(06), 1451-
1468. doi:10.1142/S0219622016500425
Luković, T., (2012). Nautical Tourism and Its Function in the
Economic Development of Europe, Visions for Global
Tourism Industry - Creating and Sustaining Competitive
Strategies, Dr. Murat Kasimoglu (Ed.), ISBN: 978-953-51-
0520-6, InTech, Available from:
http://www.intechopen.com/books/visions-for-global-
tourismindustry-creating-and-sustaining-competitive-
strategies/nautical-tourism-in-the-function-of-the-
economicdevelopment-of-europe
Landman, P. (2011). Leadership in Revenue Management.
Retrieved January 15, 2018, from
https://www.xotels.com/images/Revenue-Management-
Manual-Xotels.pdf
Marina industries association (2018), Developing the marina
industries through education, accreditation and research,
retrieved May, 28 2018 from https://www.marinas.net.au/
Noone, B.M., Canina, L., & Enz, C.A:, (2013). Strategic Price
Positioning for Revenue Management: The Effects of
Relative Price Position and Fluctuation on Performance,
Journal of Revenue and Pricing Management, 12(3): 207-220.
Doi:/10.2057/rpm.2012.48
Revenue management HOSPA Practitioner Series (2013)
Hospitality finance, revenue and IT professionals Education
and Training, Hospitality professional Association,
Wentworth John Limited, Bournemouth, from
http://hospa.org/static/cms_page_media/5712/HOSPA%20R
M%20eBook_1.pdf
Singh, A., Dev, C. Mandelbaum, R. (2014). A flow-through
analysis of the US lodging industry during the great recession,
International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality
Management, Vol. 26 Issue: 2, pp.205-224,
https://doi.org/10.1108/IJCHM-12-2012-0260
Webb, T., Schwartz, Z., (2016). Revenue management analysis with
competitive sets: vulnerability and a challenge to strategic co-
opetition among hotels. Tourism Economics vol 23, 1206-
1219. https://doi.org/10.1177/1354816616671473
SUBMITTED: JUNE 2018
REVISION SUBMITTED: NOVEMBER 2018
ACCEPTED: FEBRUARY 2019
REFEREED ANONYMOUSLY
PUBLISHED ONLINE: 15 APRIL 2019
Airline Ratings
•
Airline of the year
• Best first class
• Best business class
• Best premium economy
• Best economy class
• Best low fare carrier -
region
• Best regional airline
• Most improved airline
• Inflight catering award
• Long haul - region
• In flight entertainment
award
• Best cabin crew
• Best domestic service
• Best lounges
• Best ultra low cost
airline
•
Worldwide
• Americas
• Middle
East/Af rica
• Asia/Pacific
• Europe
Canstar Blue
•
Domestic airlines
• Domestic airlines for
small business
•
Australia
Air Help
•
Top airlines worldwide
rankings
•
Worldwide