East Asian Journal of Business Economics (EAJBE) (동아시아경상학회지)

East Asia Business Economics Association (동아시아경상학회)
권호 표지
DOI QR코드

DOI QR Code

A Study on Competitiveness in the Aircraft Industry

  • Received : 2019.06.12
  • Accepted : 2019.09.17
  • Published : 2019.09.30
Download PDF
⟨ Previous Next ⟩

Abstract

Purpose - This study shows that which country has more competitiveness in aerospace industry. The reason why author choose aerospace industry for research is aerospace industry is one of major business in every country in the world instead of infant industry. Research design and methodology - In order to research this topic, there are 3 tools to analyze competitiveness in aerospace industry. To achieve analysis of competitiveness between USA and England, UN comtrade program which provides huge database including time serial data. Results - All of TSI are over zero (0) which means that from 2000 to 2018, USA aerospace industry is export specialization as USA aerospace industry has comparative advantage against England aerospace industry. All of TSI in USA are approaching to figure +1 as export specialization except 2010. Conclusions - Even though RCA value in 2000 is 6.313, however, when time goes by and they are 8.997 in 2005, 8.007 in 2010 and 8.389 in 2015 respectively and RCA value is slightly going down as figure 7 in 2018. we review above market share analysis data, USA has overpoweringly superior competitive power against British aerospace industry.

Keywords

References

  1. Arminen, I., Koskela, I., & Palukka, H. (2014). Multimodal production of second pair parts in air traffic control training. Journal of Pragmatics, 6(5), 46-62. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2014.01.004
  2. Bazeley, P. (2006). The contribution of computer software to integrating qualitative and quantitative data and analyses. Research in the Schools, 13(1), 64-74.
  3. Balassa B. (1965). Trade liberalization and revealed comparative advantage. Manchester School of Economic and Social Studies, 33(1), 99-123. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9957.1965.tb00050.x
  4. Finlay, W. M. L., Walton, C., & Antaki, C. (2011). Giving feedback to care staff about offering choices to people with intellectual disabilities. In C. Antaki, Applied conversation analysis: Intervention and change in institutional talk, 1(3), 161-183 https://doi.org/10.1057/9780230316874_9
  5. Hindmarsh, J., & Llewellyn, N. (2010). Finding organisation in detail: Methodological orientations. In N. Llewellyn & J. Hindmarsh, Organisation, interaction and practice: Studies in ethnomethodology and conversation analysis, 2(3), 24-46
  6. Hutchins, E., & Klausen, T. (1996). Distributed cognition in an airline cockpit. In Y. Engestrom & D. Middleton, Cognition and communication at work, (3)1, 15-34 https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139174077.002
  7. Kitzinger, C. (2011). Working with childbirth helplines: The contributions and limitations of conversation analysis. In C. Antaki, Applied conversation analysis: Intervention and change in institutional talk, 2(3), 98-118
  8. Koschmann, T. (2013). Conversation analysis and collaborative learning. In C. E. Hmelo-Silver, C. Chinn, C. Chan, & A. O'Donnell, International handbook of collaborative learning, 4(3) 149-167
  9. Koskela, I., Arminen, I., & Palukka, H. (2013). Centres of coordination as a nexus of aviation. In P. Haddington, L. Mondada, & M. Nevile, Interaction and mobility: Language and the body in motion, 15(3), 245-276
  10. Margutti, P. (2010). On designedly incomplete utterances: What counts as learning for teachers and students in primary classroom interaction? Research on Language and Social Interaction, 43(4), 315-345. https://doi.org/10.1080/08351813.2010.497629
  11. Melander, H., & Sahlstrom, F. (2009). Learning to fly-The progressive development of situation awareness. Scandinavian Journal of Educational Research, 53(2), 151-166. https://doi.org/10.1080/00313830902757576
  12. Nevile, M. (2007). Talking without overlap in the airline cockpit: Precision timing at work. Text & Talk - An Interdisciplinary Journal of Language, Discourse & Communication Studies, 27(2), 225-249. https://doi.org/10.1515/TEXT.2007.009
  13. Nevile, M. (2010). Looking for action: Talk and gaze home position in the airline cockpit. Australian Review of Applied Linguistics, 33(1), 1-21. https://doi.org/10.2104/aral1003
  14. Roschelle, J. (1992). Learning by collaborating: Convergent conceptual change. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 2(3), 235-276. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327809jls0203_1
  15. Stokoe, E. (2011). Simulated interaction and communication skills training: The 'Conversation analytic role-play method'. In C. Antaki, Applied conversation analysis: Intervention and change in institutional talk 3(2), 119-139.
  16. Stokoe, E. (2014b). The conversation analytic role-play method (CARM): A method for training communication skills as an alternative to simulated role-play. Research on Language and Social Interaction, 47(3), 255-265. https://doi.org/10.1080/08351813.2014.925663
  17. Tuccio, W. A. (2011). Heuristics to improve human factors performance in aviation. Journal of Aviation/Aerospace Education & Research, 20(3), 39-53.
  18. Tuccio, W. A., & Nevile, M. (2017). Using Conversation Analysis in Data-Driven Aviation Training with Large-Scale Qualitative Datasets. Journal of Aviation/Aerospace Education & Research, 26(1). 25-37
  19. Tuccio, W. A., Esser, D. A., Driscoll, G., McAndrew, I., & Smith, M. O. (2016). Interventionist applied conversation analysis: Collaborative transcription and repair based learning (CTRBL) in aviation. Pragmatics and Society, 7(1), 30-56. https://doi.org/10.1075/ps.7.1.02tuc
  20. Uncomtrade (2017). Annual Statistics Reports. Retrieved November 21, 2016, from http://comtrade.un.org/

Cited by

  1. Transformation of Sectoral Innovation Pattern : Evidence from Korea vol.8, pp.4, 2019, https://doi.org/10.20498/eajbe.2020.8.4.67