The Model of the Virtual Air Carrier as a Concept for the Revival of Air Transport in the Slovak Republic

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The topic is quite interesting and original.

International references regarding management of virtual air carrier companies should be added as well as other connected references.

Discussion is missing especially pro-and cons argumentation. It could be a part of Conclusion or separate chapter.

New model or improvement of existing one could be presented as a scheme or algorithm because it is hard for the reader to find out what is new.

It should be stressed in Conclusion what is the contribution for the air transport market in the Slovak Republic and what can be applied in EU and internationally.

 

Author Response

Thank you very much for very useful comments of the reviewer. All comments have been accepted:

• we have completely rewritten Introduction and Literature review, where we added references,
• we added the new part 5-Discussion, where are pro- and cons arguments, the advantages and the threats of the model and its implementation,
• and add the useful information and references in part 4,
• the Conclusion we extended and add the contribution of the research for air transport market in Slovak republic and also possibility of implementation in the other states.

Reviewer 2 Report

The manuscript is interesting and relates to virtual airlines. It covers an extremely important issue for improving the business model and air transport system. The article aims to provide a definition and delimitation framework for the concept of virtual airlines. The authors noticed a conceptual gap, which they gave a universal character.

The structure of the article and the selection of sources are justified. The authors used a narrative literature review and a qualitative method. I have reservations about the literature review, which contains too few references (especially white literature - current publications). It should be strengthened.

 

Maybe the authors will find inspiration in:

1. https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/13/9/5076

2.https: //www.mdpi.com/1996-1073/15/3/932

 

Interestingly enough, the table synthetically characterizes the virtual airlines existing in the transport market, which deserves attention.

 

 

It is glaring, however, that there are no sources of confirmation of knowledge in part 4. It is difficult to determine what the conclusion is based on.

 

The authors did not avoid other shortcomings as well.

1. In the introduction, there is no reference to literature (in the context of the discussed research problem). Apart from the literature review - references are also necessary for the introduction.

2. The introduction lacks a short description of the structure of the article (which can be found in individual sections).

3. Figures 1 and 2 were not prepared under the requirements (it is about the composition).

4. Article submitted to the "Applied Sciences" journal on the "Sustainability" template.

 

Direction for improvement: The literature review should be deepened. In addition, in the introduction and results, provide the sources of knowledge in parentheses (or prove your conclusions by referring to white/gray literature), since the authors use qualitative instead of quantitative methods.

Author Response

Thank you very much for very useful comments of the reviewer. All comments have been accepted:

• we have completely rewritten Introduction and Literature review, where we added references,
• we added useful information and the references in the part 4 and created new part 5 Discussion, where are pro- and cons arguments, the advantages and the threats of the model and its implementation,
• the figures 1 and 2 had no added value so we removed them,
• the template of the article was change in according with “Applied Sciences”
• the Conclusion we extended and add the contribution of the research for air transport market in Slovak republic and possibility of implementation in the other states.

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

The manuscript has been revised according to my suggestions where necessary. A strong point, apart from the research itself, is the discussion. The authors approached the corrections very carefully and maturely, which pleasantly surprised me. Congratulations.

Only on line 613, the names of the authors are incorrectly spelled. It should be "Szaruga & Załoga". Please correct.

There are no spaces in some places in the reference list (which must be added):
# 41 - after the author's name initial.
# 54 - between the journal name and the year and volume, i.e. Energies 2022, 15, 932.

Good luck!

Author Response

Thank you very much for the comments of the reviewer. References have been corrected.