(−2.17)
Figures in parentheses are t -statistics.
The estimation results of the regression discontinuity design analysis are presented in Table 1 , which includes both the non-parametric and parametric results. According to the pattern shown in Fig. 1 , the quadratic function was used to estimate the model in the parametric methods. The McCrary (2008) test shows that the marginal density of R t is continuous at a 5% significance level, thus we can focus on the identification of discontinuity around the cut-off point in the density function. The regression discontinuity design reveals that the implementation of the travel restrictions ( τ ) causally decreased the flight frequency in the 33 countries by 182 to 190 per day. In the top 5 European destinations, the decline in the number of flights could reach 562 to 656 per day, whereas in the non-top 5 destinations it was 105 to 109 per day. The median of the daily flight frequency in the 33 countries in the same time period for 2019 is 206, indicating that the travel restrictions froze 88% (=182/206) to 92% (=190/206) of the flights to selected European countries. This means that the European aviation industry almost came to a standstill due to the border closure, which indicates the enormous costs that the aviation industry paid to implement the travel restrictions.
The bandwidth is a critical hyperparameter to determine the regression discontinuity design result. The bandwidths selected for the full sample, the top 5 European destinations and non-top 5 destinations are as follows: 37.5, 28 and 35.6, respectively (see Table 1 ). To examine the robustness of the findings, the sensitivity test was conducted, which takes the selected bandwidth as the central point and moves to the left and right by four steps ahead with the step-length of 0.05. The sensitivity of the three models was examined by eight different bandwidths, respectively, and the estimation of the travel restriction's impact did not change at all, indicating a robust estimation result. The placebo test was also carried out by estimating the travel restrictions' impact with the 25% to 75% quantile values of the dates on the left- and right-hand sides of the cut-off points as fake cut-off points. As shown in the right-hand side column in Fig. 1 , only the selected cut-off point date is significant at a 5% significance level, because zero is included in the 95% confidence interval (i.e. the shadow) in the rest of the cases. This means the causal effect presented on Day 6 is not a coincidence, and the implementation of the travel restrictions in Europe did causally decrease the flight frequency to all selected European destinations.
When estimating the spatial Durbin model, the 2019 flight frequency was introduced as the instrumental variable of the 2020 flight frequency in the first stage. The predicted 2020 flight frequency generated by the 2019 data was input into the second stage as independent variables to estimate the elasticities of the COVID-19 spread. The adoption of the instrumental variable can eliminate the endogeneity issue caused by the omission of other determinants of the COVID-19 development in the model. This is because the residual, which may be related to the dependent variable due to the omission of other independent variables, has been left in the first stage and independent variables input into the second stage model purely measure the impact of flight frequencies on COVID-19 development with the exclusion of the impact of other factors. The estimation results of the two stages are presented in Tables 2 and and3 , 3 , respectively.
Estimation results of the first stage.
Lag_1 | Lag_2 | Lag_3 | Lag_4 | Lag_5 | Lag_6 | Lag_7 | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
ln (Flight_19) | 0.221 | 0.216 | 0.221 | 0.221 | 0.212 | 0.222 | 0.223 |
(5.84) | (5.70) | (5.82) | (5.84) | (5.61) | (5.88) | (5.91) | |
ln GDP | 0.553 | 0.562 | 0.560 | 0.562 | 0.528 | 0.564 | 0.567 |
(4.92) | (5.00) | (5.00) | (5.02) | (5.12) | (5.09) | (5.12) | |
Constant | −2.321 | −2.377 | −2.372 | −2.386 | −2.442 | −2.400 | −2.415 |
(−2.12) | (−2.18) | (−2.18) | (−2.20) | (−2.25) | (−2.23) | (−2.25) | |
Wald | 87.65 | 86.81 | 88.94 | 89.80 | 87.35 | 91.63 | 92.84 |
0.362 | 0.356 | 0.360 | 0.356 | 0.349 | 0.359 | 0.359 | |
Lag_8 | Lag_9 | Lag_10 | Lag_11 | Lag_12 | Lag_13 | Lag_14 | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
ln (Flight_19) | 0.222 | 0.218 | 0.220 | 0.229 | 0.235 | 0.254 | −0.002 |
(5.88) | (5.77) | (5.81) | (6.08) | (6.29) | (6.87) | (−16.50) | |
ln GDP | 0.572 | 0.581 | 0.584 | 0.580 | 0.579 | 0.564 | 1.418 |
(5.17) | (5.24) | (5.27) | (5.26) | (5.30) | (5.25) | (5.23) | |
Constant | −2.454 | −2.520 | −2.546 | −2.536 | −2.534 | −2.465 | −8.788 |
(−2.28) | (−2.34) | (−2.37) | (−2.37) | (−2.39) | (−2.37) | (−3.20) | |
Wald | 93.23 | 92.54 | 93.73 | 98.60 | 102.88 | 113.49 | 282.04 |
0.358 | 0.354 | 0.355 | 0.365 | 0.372 | 0.391 | 0.162 |
Figures in parentheses are z -statistics.
Estimation results of spatial Durbin model.
Two-stage estimation | One stage estimation | ||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|
X | W.X | X | W.X | ||
0.648 (58.40) | 0.524 (37.30) | ||||
Before travel restriction | ln (Lag_1) | −0.780 (−1.07) | −1.213 (−0.51) | −0.043 (−0.85) | −0.237 (−2.31) |
ln (Lag_2) | −0.509 (−0.66) | 0.823 (0.28) | −0.006 (−0.11) | −0.047 (−0.38) | |
ln (Lag_3) | 0.835 (1.10) | −1.956 (−0.67) | −0.012 (−0.21) | 0.019 (0.15) | |
ln (Lag_4) | 0.936 (1.26) | −1.488 (−0.51) | −0.047 (−0.80) | 0.069 (0.54) | |
ln (Lag_5) | −1.352 (−1.75) | −2.37 (−0.77) | −0.015 (−0.26) | −0.186 (−1.44) | |
ln (Lag_6) | −1.705 (−2.36) | 6.237 (2.30) | 0.018 (0.31) | 0.029 (0.22) | |
ln (Lag_7) | 0.517 (0.97) | −3.690 (−2.17) | −0.094 (−1.63) | −0.029 (−0.24) | |
ln (Lag_8) | 0.396 (0.54) | 2.197 (0.91) | 0.092 (1.60) | 0.14 (1.020) | |
ln (Lag_9) | −0.315 (−0.42) | −2.073 (−0.71) | −0.010 (−0.16) | −0.115 (−0.91) | |
ln (Lag_10) | −0.692 (−0.93) | −0.521 (−0.18) | −0.008 (−0.13) | 0.122 (0.94) | |
ln (Lag_11) | −0.549 (−0.77) | −1.928 (−0.69) | −0.045 (−0.75) | −0.024 (−0.18) | |
ln (Lag_12) | 1.300 (1.91) | −0.581 (−0.21) | 0.006 (0.10) | 0.204 (1.50) | |
ln (Lag_13) | 1.902 (3.17) | −7.983 (−3.47) | −0.031 (−0.53) | 0.051 (0.37) | |
ln (Lag_14) | −0.386 (−4.69) | 0.023 (0.20) | −0.005 (−0.09) | 0.31 (2.73) | |
After travel restriction | ln (Lag_1) | 1.090 (1.11) | 2.526 (0.26) | −1.603 (−3.46) | 1.007 (1.49) |
ln (Lag_2) | 0.543 (0.54) | 3.332 (0.32) | −1.273 (−2.81) | 0.631 (0.96) | |
ln (Lag_3) | −1.262 (−1.27) | 2.715 (0.27) | −0.311 (−0.68) | −0.806 (−1.20) | |
ln (Lag_4) | 0.195 (0.19) | 8.079 (0.80) | −0.931 (−2.03) | −0.966 (−1.47) | |
ln (Lag_5) | 2.740 (2.66) | 16.837 (1.69) | −0.598 (−1.31) | −1.006 (−1.49) | |
ln (Lag_6) | 3.504 (3.53) | 16.680 (1.93) | −0.803 (−1.76) | −0.575 (−0.85) | |
ln (Lag_7) | −0.653 (−0.93) | −2.899 (−1.44) | −0.422 (−0.91) | −0.427 (−0.62) | |
ln (Lag_8) | −1.030 (−1.00) | −4.109 (−0.43) | 1.282 (2.85) | −0.852 (−1.28) | |
ln (Lag_9) | −0.195 (−0.19) | −7.001 (−0.69) | 1.004 (2.23) | −0.495 (−0.75) | |
ln (Lag_10) | 1.290 (1.26) | −5.111 (−0.52) | 0.306 (0.68) | 0.775 (1.16) | |
ln (Lag_11) | −1.061 (−1.05) | −10.588 (−1.10) | 0.751 (1.66) | 1.147 (1.77) | |
ln (Lag_12) | −2.103 (−2.18) | −17.763 (−1.99) | 0.420 (0.93) | 1.089 (1.65) | |
ln (Lag_13) | −3.709 (−4.27) | −15.942 (−2.16) | 0.525 (1.16) | 0.943 (1.42) | |
ln (Lag_14) | −0.128 (−1.35) | 0.044 (0.28) | 0.656 (1.40) | 0.315 (0.46) | |
ln GDP | 1.298 (2.04) | 10.153 (2.89) | 1.181 (2.24) | 0.314 (0.09) | |
Constant | −42.733 (−1.23) | −15.366 (−0.43) | |||
0.234 | 0.356 | ||||
Log-likelihood | −5574.08 | −5503.04 | |||
AIC | 11,272.16 | 11,241.39 | |||
BIC | 11,661.89 | 11,668.84 |
In the panel data analysis, to capture the impact of GDP across destinations, random effect models instead of fixed effect models are used: from one-step lagged (Lag_1) to 14-steps lagged (Lag_14) in the first stage. The estimation results of the first 13 steps are consistent with the coefficient of the 2019 flight ranges from 0.212 to 0.254 and GDP from 0.528 to 0.584. This means that the flight frequency of a destination in 2020 is positively related to the flight numbers on the same day in 2019 and the GDP of the destination. In contrast, the 2019 flight in the 14-steps lag has a negatively marginal effect on the 2020 flight. Although the impact is marginal, the Wald X 2 test (282.04) is significant at the 0.1% level, indicating the overall significance of the 14-steps lagged model. Thus, the predicted 2020 flight frequency can still be used in the second stage.
The estimation results of the second stage are presented in Table 3 . In this study, the top seven countries of origin are considered as neighbours of the focal destination in the spatial model. The analysis of the Sabre Market Intelligence Data Tapes data indicates that the top seven origin countries were all in Europe given the high travel demand between European countries. We also tested the top three and top five but, according to the Akaike information criterion and Bayesian information criterion, the top seven model showed the best model fit. Due to the limitations of space, the results of the models with the top three and the five neighbours are omitted. The Sargen's X 2 is zero, suggesting no overidentification issue in the model and thus, the model specification is correct ( Sargen, 1958 ). The spillover effect of the dependent variable ( ρ ) is 0.648, indicating that a 1% increase in the confirmed cases of COVID-19 in neighbouring countries would lead to an increase in the confirmed cases by 0.648% in the focal country. Although most coefficients of the flight frequency are not significant, by aggregating all the significant elasticities, the overall elasticity of the flight frequency when the travel restriction is present is 0.431, suggesting that a 1% decrease in the flight frequency to a destination can help to reduce the number of confirmed COVID-19 cases by 0.431%.
COVID-19 confirmed cases because it is predicted by the 2019 flight frequency and the pandemic did not exist in 2019. However, the overall elasticity and Table 3 indicate a significant relationship between the 2019 predicted data and the 2020 COVID-19 spread. The only possible reason for this would be that the 2020 flight frequency could have caused the change to the COVID-19 spread because it is correlated with the 2019 frequency as shown in the first stage results ( Table 2 ). The two-stage spatial Durbin model reveals that the decline in flight frequency can causally limit the spread of COVID-19. The last two columns in Table 3 present the estimation results of the one-stage approach. Although the R 2 is larger than the two-stage approach and the Akaike information criterion and Bayesian information criterion suggest a preferable model fit, the overall elasticity under the one-stage model is −1.52. This means that the decrease in flight frequency could lead to an increase in the number of COVID-19 confirmed cases, which is counter intuitive and may be caused by the endogeneity in the model. Thus, this further supports the use of the two-stage approach to estimate the spatial Durbin model and eliminate the endogeneity issue.
In the spatial Durbin model, marginal effects are estimated to reveal the spatial feedback loop effects which identify the average effect of the flight frequency on the pandemic spread from a destination to other neighbouring destinations ( Kim, Williams, Park, & Chen, 2020 LeSage & Pace, 2009 ). The average total effects of the 31 destinations across lag periods are presented in Fig. 2 where the shadow represents the 5% significance intervals. The overall elasticity of the total effect is 0.908, indicating that on average, a 1% decrease in flight frequency can lead to a 0.908% decrease in the confirmed COVID-19 cases.
Total effects of the spatial Durbin model.
The counterfactual analysis can be carried out based on the estimated total effect. As shown in Fig. 3 , if selected European countries have not restricted travel, then the peak of the daily confirmed cases would have surged up to 62,211 by 1 April 2020, which is 70% more than the actual number of cases recorded on the same date. As a result, the total confirmed cases would have expanded to 2.28 million in selected European countries by the end of May, which is 62% greater than the actual statistics. Compared with the same period in 2019, 795,088 flights were cancelled in selected European countries. The incidence rate of COVID-19 in selected countries was 11.7% by the end of May 2020 ( ECDC, 2020 ), which implies that the aviation industry was able to directly save 101,309 (=[2.28 million − 1.41 million] ∗ 11.7%) lives as a result of 795,088 cancelled flights and significant travel restrictions. If the multiplier effect of the virus spread is considered, the total confirmed cases and lives saved by the aviation sector would further increase.
Counterfactual analysis of the COVID-19 spread in selected European countries.
The COVID-19 pandemic has had a devastating impact on the global air transport and tourism industries as governments around the world have imposed a plethora of restrictions that have included travel bans, lockdowns, stay-at-home directives as well as quarantine rules in order to prevent the rapid spread of the disease. These policies have had a catalytic negative impact as they have caused global air travel to severely recede to unprecedented levels, with, for example, traffic falling by around 70% by May 2020 from the previous 12 months as people were reluctant and unable to travel due to different travel restrictions measures in various countries.
This paper has examined the causal impact of the travel restrictions on the flight frequency in selected European countries by using a quasi-experimental regression discontinuity design method, and further its consequential impact on the spread of COVID-19 using a two-stage SDM. The findings have shown that there was a significant reduction in the flight frequency to all selected European countries six days after they implemented travel restrictions. Such a reduction in flights by 1% helped reduce the number of confirmed COVID-19 cases by 0.431%, according to the two-stage spatial Durbin model estimation. In addition, counterfactual analysis has inferred that when considering the spillover effects of flight frequency on the pandemic spread from one destination to its neighbour, and vice versa, a 1% decrease in flight frequency reduced the number of confirmed cases by 0.908%. This further implies that if there had not been any travel restrictions in selected European countries, then on 1 April 2020, the number of confirmed cases would have been higher by 62,211 cases. From the start of the first lockdown in March to the end of May 2020, the aviation industry in selected European countries cancelled 795,000 flights, which resulted in avoiding another six million people becoming infected and saved 101,309 lives. The number of people actually infected with the virus in Europe was around 2.1 million by May 2020 according to ECDC, and this would have been a lot higher if the number of flights had not been curtailed so rapidly.
This study demonstrates significant theoretical contributions by, first, estimating the causal relationship between travel restrictions and flight frequency, and, further, its consequential impact on COVID-19 across European countries. Previous studies have shown the importance of flight and travel restrictions in reducing the inter-regional spread of infectious diseases ( Brownstein, Wolfe, & Mandl, 2006 ; Hufnagel, Brockmann, & Geisel, 2004 ; Tuncer & Le, 2014 ), and there have also been counter arguments regarding the effectiveness of travel restrictions in controlling the spread ( Chinazzi et al., 2020 Cooper, Pitman, Edmunds, & Gay, 2006 Ferguson et al., 2006 ). Yet, the diversity in the study context (e.g. type of disease, national context, domestic v. international travel) has resulted in different conclusions being drawn. This study significantly contributes to the crisis management theory in the tourism literature, confirming the causal impact of travel restrictions on the fall in flight frequency and its consequential impact on reducing the number of COVID-19 cases in the context of Europe. To the best of the researchers' knowledge, this is one of the few tourism studies that look at the impact of COVID-19 on the aviation industry, particularly on flight frequency and its impact on the spread of the virus.
Second, from the methodological perspective, there is a limited application of quasi-experimental methods, which can estimate counterfactual effects, in the tourism literature. This study has used regression discontinuity design to estimate the impact of travel restrictions on flight frequency and further, a two-stage spatial modelling using an instrumental variable to examine the consequential impact on the number of infected cases in order to understand the implications of travel restrictions on the number of lives saved by restricting international flights. There is also limited application of spatial models in the context of the aviation industry, and the current study has employed a two-stage spatial Durbin model to examine the causal impact of the flight frequency on the number of infected cases by introducing the instrumental variable into the model (before and after the travel restrictions were put in place) in order to empirically illustrate the contribution of aviation related travel restrictions to control the spread of COVID-19.
Based on the findings, the implications for the aviation industry can be perceived as a double-edged sword in that on one side, such restrictions on people's movements across national borders can effectively control the spread of the pandemic and save lives ( Luo, Imai, & Dorigatti, 2020 ; Vaidya, Herten-Crabb, Spenser, Moon, & Lillywhite, 2020 ), yet, on the other side, drastic yet inevitable flight cancellations have damaged the industry. However, empirical evidence shows that the aviation industry has effectively reduced the spread of COVID-19 by severely curtailing its flights and commercial operations, which has potentially saved lives. Thus, the findings of this study can be used to assess the lockdown policy effectiveness from the aviation perspective and serve as empirical support to help governments develop future pandemic control policies.
In addition, when governments impose such stringent restrictions that ultimately lead to an unprecedented shut-down of the airline industry, then the argument for government financial support increases. The overall financial cost of this pandemic has been catastrophic for the global airline industry as their losses are expected to be over four times those sustained after the global financial crisis of 2009, implying that their aggregated profits since the birth of aviation will be eliminated, leaving a zero net gain when factoring in the last one hundred years of operations. Governments worldwide are scrambling to shore up their finances by pumping billions of dollars into their national carrier in return for equity, while also giving tax-free loans, deferred taxes and loan guarantees. The carnage resulting from the pandemic is evident and as Czerny, Fu, Lei, and Oum (2021) ) established, 19 airlines filed for bankruptcy during the period between March and early July 2020 with varying fleet sizes ranging from just six aircraft to as many as 315 aircraft. The industry remains in a perilous state of flux. Both the industry and policymakers should strategically plan how to better support the resilience of the industry in times of crisis when travel restrictions are implemented but also to manage the costs of such implementation of the control measures and the competitiveness of airlines post-pandemic ( Kim, Liu, & Williams, 2021 ).
The limitations of this research are acknowledged. Considering the evolution of COVID-19, to date, there has already been a second wave in many European countries and different levels and types of government support have been provided for the aviation and tourism industry, which were not considered when conducting the research. Future research can consider different waves of the pandemic and government support and further examine the impact of different levels of restrictions by country and time, which could not be considered in the current study due to data unavailability. This study has only focussed on Europe and Europe inbound and intra-Europe flights, but it is acknowledged that other forms of mobility such as daily and domestic mobility facilitate the spread of the virus and have an impact on the tourism industry. Future research could explore different forms of mobility and their implications for the tourism industry in different regions. From the methodological perspective, fuzzy regression discontinuity design can be used in future research to identify the causal effect when the assignment of the treatment is also determined by other unobservable factors. In addition, a more comprehensive analysis in future studies that consider both the positive (e.g. saving lives) and negative (e.g. financial costs) effects of travel restrictions could generate a more complete picture of the net impact of travel restrictions on the aviation industry, which would be more informative for policy evaluation and industrial strategy development.
The authors declare that they have no known competing financial interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence the work reported in this paper.
Handling editor: Andreas Papatheodorou
☆ All the authors are from School of Hospitality and Tourism Management at University of Surrey. Dr. Anyu Liu is specialized in applied economics in tourism and hospitality and tourism demand and modelling forecasting. Dr. Yoo Ri Kim's research interests include business performance, productivity, innovation, the application of big data in hospitality and tourism studies. Dr. John Frankie O'Connell, is an Air Transport Management specialist who undertakes research predominately in airline strategy and market dynamics.
Chapter: chapter 2 - literature review.
Below is the uncorrected machine-read text of this chapter, intended to provide our own search engines and external engines with highly rich, chapter-representative searchable text of each book. Because it is UNCORRECTED material, please consider the following text as a useful but insufficient proxy for the authoritative book pages.
12 This chapter provides a brief overview of the key historical changes in the aviation industry, with a focus on the evolution of the airline business in the United States since the Deregulation Act of 1978. The goal is to present high-level information regarding the airlinesâ customary planning objectives and strategic considerations involved in the management of aircraft fleets and the development of new routes at a network level. Using a complex variety of factors, airlines plan their development on a system-wide basis and usually on a shorter horizon than airports plan for their own development. This timing inconsistency is generally a source of uncertainty in the assessment of future airport activity and can potentially result in risks to airport investments. For this reason, it is important to determine the causes of airline upgauging (or downgauging) to better understand the impacts on airports and identify the best solutions and practices to develop flexible plans and strategies at the airport level. While this chapter looks primarily at the airlinesâ perspectives, chapters 3 through 5 will present the airportsâ and state agenciesâ opinions on the subject matter collected through the survey and follow-up interviews. Airline Mergers and Market Consolidation In 1978, the Deregulation Act allowed airlines to choose their own fares and routes. These changes radically modified the industry landscape as well as the passenger experience. It increased the competition between airlines, creating more choices for air travelers and lower fares. The 2016 McGill University paper referenced in Chapter 1 gives an overview of the aviation market conditions over the course of the 30-year period following the Deregulation Act: [M]arket conditions and competition laws promote high frequency with small aircraft and, therefore, on many long-established routes . . . , airlines have down-gauged their aircraft by roughly 30% so that 3 flights in 2012 carried roughly the same number of passengers as two flights did in 1992. Competition is such that it is not uncommon to see competitorâs jets follow each other across the skies (Fitzgerald 2016). However, after 20 years of traffic growth and an exponential increase in the number of airlines with access to the market, the aviation sector was severely affected by the events of September 11, 2001 (9/11). For the past decade, the industry has been experiencing a major cycle of airline mergers and market consolidations, with many other airlines entering bank- ruptcy and eventually having to cease operations. The effects of this market consolidation have rapidly translated into two major trends that have had direct impacts on airport facility and operations planning: (1) the development of airline hubs and (2) the growth of low-cost carriers. C H A P T E R 2 Literature Review
Literature Review 13 The four most notable deals of airline mergers from the past 8 years are as follows (see also Figure 2): ⢠Delta Air Linesâ acquisition of Northwest Airlines closed in December 2009. This merger resulted in forming the worldâs largest airline at that time. ⢠United Airlinesâ acquisition of Continental Airlines closed in October 2010 and United replaced Delta Air Lines as the worldâs largest airline. ⢠Southwest Airlinesâ acquisition of AirTran closed in May 2011. ⢠American Airlinesâ acquisition of US Airways closed in December 2013 and American replaced United Airlines as the worldâs largest airline. The successful completion of this market consolidation has resulted in a domestic airline landscape of only 10 large air carriers, down from the 18 carriers in operation a decade ago. Airline strategist Tom Bacon summarizes the current structure of the U.S. airline industry in a recent article (Bacon 2017): ⢠Four carriers with over 80% of domestic capacity: â Three large, hub-oriented, global legacy carriers (American, United, Delta) â One large, point-to-point oriented âlow costâ carrier (Southwest) ⢠Six much smaller carriers, each with less than 5% of the market â Three smaller, primarily hub-oriented carriers (Alaska/Virgin, JetBlue, Hawaiian) â Three much smaller point-to-point travel merchandisers, heavily reliant on ancillary fees, so-called âultra low cost carriersâ or âULCCsâ (Spirit, Frontier, Allegiant) This period of consolidation was also accompanied by a period of âcapacity disciplineâ for the airlines. Various studies analyzed that particular period of the aviation industry when airlines had carefully managed their seat capacity increase between 2011 and 2015, even though the economy began improving. Bachwich (2017) explains that strategy, saying the airlines Figure 2. Recent U.S. airline mergers (Source: www.usfunds.com).
14 How Airports Plan for Changing Aircraft Capacity: The Effects of Upgauging âcarefully control their capacity growth and instead focus more intently on increasing profit- ability.â According to the same study, âsystem passenger yields at NLCs (network legacy carriers) increased from 12.90 cents per mile in 2010 to 14.59 cents per mile in 2015âa 13.2% increaseâ (Bachwich 2017). In addition to airlinesâ network planning considerations and market share strategies, ACRP Report 18 (Martin 2009) notes the key role played by the change of passengersâ behavior and expectations in the development of airline hubs and the low-cost-carrier model. ⢠Leisure passengers leak to smaller airports with LCC service: âleisure travelers who typically value fare savings over total travel timeâwill drive relatively long distances to reach an airport served by Southwest, AirTran, Frontier Airlines, or other LCCsâ (Martin 2009). ⢠On the other end, âBusiness passengers leak to larger airports because of: â More nonstop destinations, â Frequencies, â Choice of arrival and departure times, â Ease of access by highways, and â Faresâ(Martin 2009). Looking back, from the 1978 deregulation onward, at the different market cycles that resulted in significant and multiple changes for the airline industryâs landscape, one of the main questions that the airport sector must answer to better plan for the future is, What happens next? According to Bacon (2017), the next consolidation phase could lead into two major groups: the national multi-hub carrier and the ultra-low-cost carriers (ULCCs), resulting from further merger opportunities primarily driven by potential shocks (e.g., fuel price variation), reactionary moves, and geographic logic (see Figure 3). Network Planning and Strategic Alliances A large variety of complex and detailed strategies can be implemented by airlines to increase their market share, sustain their competitive advantages, and ensure profitability of strategic elements in their network. These different system planning and management techniques are generally categorized in two main families: hub-and-spoke and point-to-point. ACRP Report 18 (Martin 2009) gives an overview of these two families in terms of airline objectives and passenger perception. In theory, hub-and-spoke systems emerged as the most Figure 3. U.S. airline industry consolidation (Source: Bacon 2017).
Literature Review 15 efficient means for connecting passengers between two different locations. Passengers often do not care for connecting over hubs, but hubs do allow airlines to aggregate traffic in ways that make serving many smaller communities possible. On the other end, only a certain number of markets will be able to support nonstop service. Point-to-point nonstop flights require substantial demand in the local market to justify such service. Other factors, such as flight frequency, times, and total travel time play a key role in the way airlines build their network, based on an assessment of customersâ preferences and expectations. These factors will have a direct effect on a particular airportâs attractiveness for airlines and air travelers (business and leisure): Business travelers generally prefer to travel early in the morning and in the late afternoon to maxi- mize time at their destination. Leisure passengers may travel at any time of day. If sufficient passenger demand exists, a typical minimum flight complement in a city pair is three flights per dayâmorning, noon and evening. In many leisure markets, one flight per day may be sufficient to match the market demand (Martin 2009). In addition to building efficient and profitable networks of routes and airports, airlines have expanded the use of bilateral and global agreements with each other to keep being competitive and attract more passengers. Through alliances and joint ventures, airline partners share common economic incentives to promote the success of the alliance over their individual corporate interests. By pooling resources to improve the overall service offering, and by sharing gains and losses, the partners are able to harmonize the global network and become indifferent as to which of them collects the revenue and operates the aircraft on a given itinerary. They are then able to focus on gaining the customerâs business by providing the best available fare and routing between two cities (Fitzgerald 2016). Since the first airline joint venture in 1997 between Northwest Airlines and KLM Royal Dutch Airlines, a multitude of bilateral agreements have been successfully initiated. In addition, three major global airline alliances are currently shaping the aviation landscape: Sky Team, Star Alliance, and One World (see Figure 4). Number of member airlines 35 30 25 20 15 10 5 2000 2002 2004 2006 2008 2010 2012 2014 Figure 4. Historical development of airline alliances (Source: www.oag.com).
16 How Airports Plan for Changing Aircraft Capacity: The Effects of Upgauging ACRP Report 98: Understanding Airline and Passenger Choice in Multi-Airport Regions (Parrella 2013) provides additional details and explanations on airlinesâ evaluation of the underlying size and nature of air travel demand. Such evaluation will address the following: ⢠Size of the overall market ⢠Nature of the market (business versus leisure, propensity to travel, disposable income, etc.) ⢠City-pair market sizes (past and current) ⢠Market demand, traffic trends, and causality (growth, stagnation, decline) ⢠Specialized business demand drivers (corporate headquarters, production facilities, etc.) ⢠Inbound leisure demand (resort destinations, seasonal traffic, special events, etc.) ⢠Ethnic and cultural market affinities (diaspora, family visitation travel, etc.) These primary characteristics of air travel markets will be quantified, evaluated, forecast, and applied to potential air service scenarios as part of airline route planning efforts grounded in the airlineâs business model considerations. While airports will be able to examine and understand some of these factors, they generally have difficulties capturing comprehensively all the data and underlying economic drivers that will be used by airlines. For this reason, as part of the survey and individual interviews discussed later in this report, the project team tried to briefly extract socioeconomic data at the local level, to provide the reader with additional perspective on the responses given in the survey. Fleet Management and Aircraft Upgauging Various factors enter into considerations when managing a fleet of aircraft, in both domestic and international markets. While the intent of the report is not to research in detail the processes and tools involved in fleet management, this section provides a high-level summary of the key parameters considered in the selection of aircraft types and sizes: Market Characteristics ACRP Research Report 163: Guidebook for Preparing and Using Airport Design Day Flight Schedules (Kennon et al. 2016) explains the following: Generally, short-haul markets are served with small aircraft at high frequency, and long-haul markets are served with large aircraft at low frequency. Competitive markets (those served by more than one airline) tend to be served by smaller aircraft with greater frequency than noncompetitive markets of similar size and segment distance. Business markets tend to be served with smaller aircraft at greater frequency than leisure markets because business travelers select flights largely on the basis of schedule. Operating a greater number of smaller aircraft costs the airlines more on a seat-mile basis, but they are able to recoup those costs because of the premium fares paid by time-sensitive business travelers. Pilot Shortage and Perspectives According to the FY 2017â2037 FAA aerospace forecast, âthe regional airlines in the United States are facing pilot shortages and tighter regulations regarding pilot training. Their labor costs are increasing as they raise wages to combat the pilot shortage while their capital costs have increased in the short-term as they continue to replace their 50 seat regional jets with more fuel efficient 70 seat jetsâ (FAA 2017, 11). Regional airlines have experienced some of these challenges following the new pilot quali- fications standards that the FAA made effective in 2013. The new standard, commonly called the â1,500-hour rule,â has increased the qualification requirements for first officers who fly
Literature Review 17 for U.S. passenger and cargo airlines. According to the FAA (2017), âthe rule requires first officersâalso known as co-pilotsâto hold an Airline Transport Pilot (ATP) certificate, requiring 1,500 hours total time as a pilot. Previously, first officers were required to have only a commercial pilot certificate, which requires 250 hours of flight time.â The 2017â2037 FAA forecast shows that the number of active GA pilots (excluding ATPs) is expected to decrease about 7,500 (down 0.1% yearly); the ATP category is forecast to increase by 15,500 (up 0.5% annually). The numbers are provided in Figure 5, which shows the projec- tions by type of certificate for the period 2006â2037. On the other end, the FY 2017â2037 FAA forecast predicts that the number of aircraft in the U.S. commercial fleet would increase from 7,039 in 2016 to 8,270 in 2037, an average growth rate of 0.8% a year. Later in this chapter, the âAircraft Market Outlook and Fleet Forecastâ section will present additional fleet growth details by aircraft type, especially for mainline traffic and narrow-body aircraft versus regional. The general discrepancy observed between commercial traffic growth predictions and the relatively low increase of active pilots is seen by some industry stakeholders as a potential âpilot shortage.â Pilot availability in the country and policies regarding training requirements can also play a role in some instances when airlines develop their fleet management strategy. On this topic, ACRP Report 98 (Parrella 2013) notes, âAlthough capacity decisions are driven primarily by commercial opportunity, existing staffing levels can heavily influence network and planning decisionsâparticularly at established full- service carriers.â Fuel Efficiency Fitzgerald (2016) indicates that âfuel prices that rose dramatically between 1998 and 2005â have been also a major factor in the airlinesâ decision to look at larger aircraft for their short-haul domestic markets with lower cost per passenger than the 50-seat regional jets. In May 2012, Delta announced a major upgauging initiative. It would acquire 88 100-seat Boeing B717s and Figure 5. Active pilots by type of certificate (Source: FAA 2017).
18 How Airports Plan for Changing Aircraft Capacity: The Effects of Upgauging require its commuter partners to dispose of 281 50-seat regional jets, cap the 70-seat regional jet fleet at 102, and increase by 70 the size of the 76-seat two-class regional jet fleet to 325. To meet airlinesâ expectations on aircraft fuel efficiency, manufacturers have been striving to innovate engine performance and airplane aerodynamics. The consequent research and development effort put toward the achievement of this goal has progressively shaped the ânew generationâ aircraft characterized by its longer wings (extended by winglets) and its much wider engines. For instance, Boeing announced a 20% fuel cost savings when it introduced the B787 Dreamliner in 2011. Due to the higher fuel efficiency of this new generation of aircraft, its introduction has played a key role in the opening of the long-haul international market to LCCs, such as Norwegian Air Shuttle. In 2018 Norwegian was operating 20 B787s and had 22 more on order. In addition to the availability of these new generation aircraft, secondary airports have recently been able to attract new international LCCs by offering economic incentives to open long-haul routes. A New York Times article (Negroni 2017) notes the combination of factors, such as new generation aircraft fuel efficiency and financial incentives, that allow secondary airports to have access to these new markets. Negroni (2017) gives the example of Bradley International Airport in Connecticut: âBradley Airport has budgeted about $3.6 million for a three-year marketing effort, while the State of Connecticut has given Aer Lingus revenue guarantees of up to $4.5 million a year for two years while it establishes its route.â These key economic factors will be discussed in the next chapters of the report, as part of the national airport survey and the individual interviews with some of these secondary airports. Aging Fleet and Aircraft Replacement According to Airbus (2017) and as shown in Figure 6, aging aircraft are a particular issue for the North American market, since, on average, the North American airlines fleet is much older than in the rest of the world: ⢠North American average fleet age (in 2015): â 12 years for single-aisle â 15 years for twin-aisle ⢠World average: â 9 years for single-aisle â 10 years for twin-aisle ⢠50% of the North American fleet is aged 13 and above. In the United States, among the three âMajors,â Delta has the oldest fleet mix with an average age of 16.8 years, followed by United. Of the three, American Airlines has the youngest fleet with an average age of 10.1 years. For the two largest LCCs, Southwest and JetBlue, their respective fleet has an average age of 10.5 and 9.3 years, respectively (see Figure 7). Each airline is going to implement a unique strategy to maintain and renew its aircraft fleet, based on its business model, operational needs, and financial situation. A 2015 CAPA article analyzes the different techniques used by U.S. airlines and groups them into two main approaches: ⢠Hybrid model (Southwest, United, and Delta): These airlines opt to take new deliveries while accessing the used markets when favorable opportunities arise. They mix new and used aircraft. ⢠Low fleet age model (Alaska, JetBlue, and American): These airlines are opting to stick to their orderbooks and take delivery of new-build aircraft rather than switch to a hybrid model of adding new and used jets (CAPA 2015).
Literature Review 19 Note: CIS = Commonwealth of Independent States. Figure 6. Global fleets in service age (Source: Airbus 2017). Note: AA = American Airlines. Figure 7. U.S. airlines average fleet age comparison (Source: http://www.airfleets.net).
20 How Airports Plan for Changing Aircraft Capacity: The Effects of Upgauging Figure 8 shows a comparison of U.S. domestic airlinesâ fleet age by aircraft type and size. It presents an overall picture of the current aircraft use and how airlines are currently imple- menting their fleet management and replacement strategy. The next section of this chapter will present the aircraft market outlook and fleet forecast, based on the current strategies used by U.S. domestic and international airlines. Aircraft Market Outlook and Fleet Forecast On the basis of the many factors that drive changes in passenger behavior, aircraft character- istics, and airlines strategies, the FAA, the two main aircraft manufacturers (Boeing and Airbus), and other industry organizations develop and publish on a regular basis their forecast and global market outlook aimed at predicting the future of the airline and airport industry. These documents are usually a good source of information to better understand the current and future trends of aircraft equipment and technology expected to be used in the airline and airport industry. According to the FY 2017â2037 FAA Forecast, âthe number of aircraft in the U.S. commercial fleet is expected to increase from 7,039 in 2016 to 8,270 in 2037, an average annual growth rate of 0.8%. Increased demand for air travel and growth in air cargo are expected to fuel increases in both the passenger and cargo fleetsâ (FAA 2017, 28). Figure 9 shows the forecast by U.S. carrier fleet, per aircraft category: mainline NB (narrow- body aircraft), mainline WB (wide-body aircraft), cargo jets, and regionals. The FAA forecast provides a detailed overview of the aircraft market outlook and fleet forecast for the U.S. airlines industry. The FAA (2017, 28) makes the following observations: ⢠Between 2016 and 2037 the number of jets in the U.S. mainline carrier fleet is forecast to grow from 4,073 to 5,199, an average of 54 aircraft a year as carriers continue to re-move older, less fuel-efficient narrow body aircraft. ⢠The narrow body fleet (including E-series aircraft at American and JetBlue) is projected to grow 37 aircraft a year as carriers replace the 757 fleet and current technology 737 and A320 family aircraft with the next generation MAX and Neo families. ⢠The wide-body fleet grows by an average of 17 aircraft a year as carriers add 777-8/9, 787âs, A350âs to the fleet while retiring 767-300 and 777-200 aircraft. In total the U.S. passenger carrier wide-body fleet increases by 67 percent over the forecast period. ⢠The regional carrier fleet is forecast to decline from 2,156 aircraft in 2016 to 2,027 in 2037 as the fleet shrinks by 14 percent (309 aircraft) between 2016 and 2025. Carriers remove 50 seat regional jets and retire older small turboprop and piston aircraft, while adding 70â90 seat jets, especially the E-2 family after 2020. ⢠The cargo carrier large jet aircraft fleet is forecast to increase from 810 aircraft in 2016 to 1,044 aircraft in 2037 driven by the growth in freight RTMs. The narrow-body cargo jet fleet is projected to increase by less than 1 aircraft a year as 757âs and 737âs are converted from passenger use to cargo service. The wide body cargo fleet is forecast to increase 11 aircraft a year as new 747-800, 777-200, and new and converted 767-300 aircraft are added to the fleet, replacing older MD-11, A300/310, and 767-200 freighters. The forecast and market outlook information from the FAA and from other industry orga- nizations will be discussed as part of the airports survey and individual case examples chapters. In particular, the goal of this synthesis was to obtain insight from airport managers and operators on how they manage and plan for the future changes of airlinesâ fleet and operations predicted by the FAA and other agencies.
Note: AA = American Airlines. Figure 8. U.S. airlines fleet age comparison by aircraft type (Source: http://www.airfleets.net, DY Consultants analysis).
22 How Airports Plan for Changing Aircraft Capacity: The Effects of Upgauging Impacts of Airline Consolidation and Upgauging on Airports After noting the effects of airline consolidation and aircraft upgauging on airports, recent studies show that airline business model changes have affected aviation communities and stakeholders in different ways. In particular, Bachwich (2017) looked at the trends and key impacts of those changes during the period 2006â2015. The causes and effects that were analyzed include the factors summarized in the previous sections, such as cost convergence between traditional LCCs and NLCs, multiple rounds of consolidation, airlines network and fleet strategies, and a recent period of âcapacity discipline.â One key finding from the study was that âseat capacity has grown at large hub airports from 2006â2015, whereas smaller airports have all seen declines in service levels to varying degrees.â In particular, the study shows âhow secondary airports in major metro areas have been affected by changing LCC strategies, and how the smallest airports have experienced significant declines in NLC service, yet some gains in ULCC serviceâ (Bachwich 2017). Figure 10 gives an overview of the seat capacity trends observed at different airport size categories: large-hub, medium-hub, small-hub, and non-hub airports. At large-hub airports, after a drop during the period 2006â2012, annual seat departures recovered in 2015 (591 million) to a level greater than in 2006 (550 million). At medium hubs, annual seat departures had followed a similar trend, experiencing a recovery period since 2012. However, their 2015 level has not gotten back to prior 2006 numbers. Bachwich (2017) shows that both small airports and non-hub airports are still in a period of reduction of seat capacity. Annual seat departures at small and non-hub airports decreased 18.6% and 13.4%, respectively, from 2006 to 2015. Unlike larger airport categories, these markets have not seen a reversal in the declining trend since 2006. Note: NB = narrow-body aircraft; WB = wide-body aircraft. Figure 9. U.S. carrier fleet forecast (Source: FAA 2017).
Literature Review 23 Note: NLC = network legacy carrier; LCC = low-cost carrier; ULCC = ultra-low-cost carrier. Figure 10. Capacity trend by airport category (Source: Bachwich 2017). Note: NLC = network legacy carrier. Figure 11. NLC changes in flights and seats, 2006 versus 2015 (Source: Bachwich 2017). The difference of impacts on different airport markets can also be observed with flight frequency. Bachwich (2017) also analyzed the changes in number of flights operated by NLCs at the four airport categories for the same period (2006â2015), as shown in Figure 11. Figure 11 and Bachwich (2017) show that âfrom 2006 to 2015, non-hubs lost 37.3% of their NLC flights yet only 22.6% of their seat capacity, indicating an increase in gauge, suggesting many 50-to-76 seat aircraft replacements.â Similarly, small hubs lost 34.5% of their NLC flights, while losing 24.9% of seat capacity. Medium hubs lost the most frequency (with a 42.7% reduction in NLC flights from 2006 to 2015), while large hubs experienced the lowest loss for both flights and seat capacity for the same period. Eventually, these disproportionate impacts of reduction of seat capacity and flight frequency between large/medium hubs and small/non-hub airports lead to a reduction in connectivity
24 How Airports Plan for Changing Aircraft Capacity: The Effects of Upgauging for the smaller communities. While the LCCs and ULCCs mostly provide point-to-point connections, gradual reductions of NLC air service at smaller airports directly limit the number of destinations accessible for these communities. As shown in Figure 12, the large majority of connectivity comes from NLC air service at these airports. Since the airline upgauging trend can have many different impacts on airports, depending on their size, geographic location, mission, and customersâ behavior patterns (e.g., leisure versus business travelers), the goal of this study was also to obtain and collect feedback from a large variety of airport stakeholders. These valuable insights were collected through online surveys and individual interviews and are summarized in the next chapters of this report. The intent is to develop a database of concrete case examples and to document practical examples of impacts to support the observations made earlier in the report. Note: NLC = network legacy carrier. Figure 12. Percentage of total connectivity lost without NLCs by airport category, 2015 (Source: Bachwich 2017).
"Upgauging” is an airline industry technique enabling air carriers to increase capacity by adding seats to existing jets and replacing smaller planes with larger ones. While these practices are generally the result of airline network and system-wide strategies, their impacts are often experienced at the local level by the airport community.
Airport Cooperative Research Program (ACRP) Synthesis 97: How Airports Plan for Changing Aircraft Capacity: The Effects of Upgauging explores a broad concept of airline upgauging taking into account the principal drivers and techniques of upgauging, from both airline and airport perspectives.
This study is based on information acquired through a literature review, survey results from 18 airports participating in the study that experienced major variations in passenger enplanements over the previous 5 to 10 years, and interviews with representatives of five airports and four state transportation agencies.
The following appendices to the report are available online:
Appendix A : Survey Questionnaire
Appendix B : Responses from Survey Respondents
Appendix C : Follow-up Airport Interview Guides
Appendix D : State DOT/Bureau of Aeronautics Offices Interview Guide
Appendix E : Phoenix-Mesa Gateway Airport Authority—Air Service Incentive Program (Sample)
READ FREE ONLINE
You're looking at OpenBook, NAP.edu's online reading room since 1999. Based on feedback from you, our users, we've made some improvements that make it easier than ever to read thousands of publications on our website.
Do you want to take a quick tour of the OpenBook's features?
Show this book's table of contents , where you can jump to any chapter by name.
...or use these buttons to go back to the previous chapter or skip to the next one.
Jump up to the previous page or down to the next one. Also, you can type in a page number and press Enter to go directly to that page in the book.
To search the entire text of this book, type in your search term here and press Enter .
Share a link to this book page on your preferred social network or via email.
View our suggested citation for this chapter.
Ready to take your reading offline? Click here to buy this book in print or download it as a free PDF, if available.
Do you enjoy reading reports from the Academies online for free ? Sign up for email notifications and we'll let you know about new publications in your areas of interest when they're released.
Discover the world's research
You are accessing a machine-readable page. In order to be human-readable, please install an RSS reader.
All articles published by MDPI are made immediately available worldwide under an open access license. No special permission is required to reuse all or part of the article published by MDPI, including figures and tables. For articles published under an open access Creative Common CC BY license, any part of the article may be reused without permission provided that the original article is clearly cited. For more information, please refer to https://www.mdpi.com/openaccess .
Feature papers represent the most advanced research with significant potential for high impact in the field. A Feature Paper should be a substantial original Article that involves several techniques or approaches, provides an outlook for future research directions and describes possible research applications.
Feature papers are submitted upon individual invitation or recommendation by the scientific editors and must receive positive feedback from the reviewers.
Editor’s Choice articles are based on recommendations by the scientific editors of MDPI journals from around the world. Editors select a small number of articles recently published in the journal that they believe will be particularly interesting to readers, or important in the respective research area. The aim is to provide a snapshot of some of the most exciting work published in the various research areas of the journal.
Original Submission Date Received: .
Find support for a specific problem in the support section of our website.
Please let us know what you think of our products and services.
Visit our dedicated information section to learn more about MDPI.
Sustainability in the airports ecosystem: a literature review.
2. materials and methods, methodology, 3. literature analysis: themes and trends, 4. discussion: theoretical perspectives, 4.1. airports, 4.2. sustainability and sustainable development, 4.3. airline industry, 4.4. construction, 4.5. building comfort and airport materials, 4.6. energy management, 4.7. air quality and water management, 4.8. business, 5. conclusions, author contributions, institutional review board statement, informed consent statement, data availability statement, acknowledgments, conflicts of interest.
Click here to enlarge figure
Fase | Step | Description |
---|---|---|
Exploration | Step 1 | Formulating the research problem |
Step 2 | Searching for appropriate literature | |
Step 3 | Critical appraisal of the selected studies | |
Step 4 | Data synthesis from individual sources | |
Interpretation | Step 5 | Reporting findings and recommendations |
Communication | Step 6 | Presentation of the LRSB report |
Title | Best Quartile * | Fields * | Impact Factor (5-Year) |
---|---|---|---|
Journal of Environmental Management | Q1 | Environmental Science | 8.549 |
Transportation Research Record | Q2 | Engineering | 2.005 |
Technology and Innovation Management | - | - | |
Transportation Science & Technology | Q4 | 1.799 | |
Environmental Research Letters | Q1 | Environmental Science | 8.414 |
Sustainability | Q2 | Environmental Science | 4.089 |
Business Strategy And The Environment | Q1 | Business, Management and Accounting | 11.604 |
Journal of Air Transport Management | Q1 | Social Sciences | 4.799 |
Journal of Cleaner Production | Q1 | Business, Management and Accountin | 11.016 |
International Journal of Information Management | Q1 | Business, Management and Accounting | 16.56 |
Journal of Transport Geography | Q1 | Social Sciences (transportation) | 6.524 |
Promet-traffic & transportation | Q4 | - | 1.053 |
International journal of integrated engineering | Q3 | Engineering | - |
Energy | Q1 | Energy | 8.234 |
Logforum | Q2 | Business, Management and Accounting | - |
Journal of Optimization Theory and Applications | Q2 | Decision Sciences | 2.111 |
Megaron | Q3 | - | - |
International Journal of Sustainable Aviation | Q4 | - | - |
Sensors | Q2 | Engineering | 4.05 |
Resources Conservation and Recycling | Q1 | Environmental Science | 13.543 |
Total Quality Management & Business Excellence | Q1 | Business, Management and Accounting | 4.056 |
Turismo-Estudos e Praticas | Q4 | - | - |
Journal of Intelligent & Robotic Systems | Q3 | - | 3.071 |
Jurnal Teknologi-Sciences & Engineering | Q3 | Engineering | - |
Journal of Advanced Transportation | Q2 | Business, Management and Accounting | 2.502 |
Aeronautical Journal | Q2 | Engineering | 1.229 |
Zeitschrift Fur Semiotik | Q4 | Social Sciences | - |
Pamukkale University Journal of Engineering Sciences-Pamukkale Universitesi Muhendislik Bilimleri Dergisi | Q4 | - | - |
Journal of Environmental Protection and Ecology | Q3 | Environmental Science | - |
Frontiers in Psychology | Q2 | Psychology | 4.426 |
Transport Policy | Q1 | Social Sciences | 6.228 |
Journal of Arid Environments | Q2 | Earth and Planetary Sciences | 2.837 |
Computers & Industrial Engineering | Q1 | Engineering | 6.876 |
Ocean & Coastal Management | Q1 | Environmental Science | 4.101 |
Ecosphere | Q1 | Environmental Science | 4.057 |
Biological Conservation | Q1 | Environmental Science | 7.396 |
Aircraft Engineering and Aerospace Technology | Q3 | Engineering | 1.293 |
Transportation Research Part A-Policy and Practice | Q1 | Social Sciences | 7.462 |
Journal of Geophysical Research-Solid Earth | Q1 | Earth and Planetary Sciences | 5.006 |
Problemy Ekorozwoju | Q4 | Energy | 0.956 |
Area | Methods |
---|---|
Airports | |
Sustainability and Sustainable Development | |
Airline industry | |
Construction | |
Building Comfort and Airport Materials | |
Energy Management | |
Air quality and water management | |
Business |
The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content. |
Raimundo, R.J.; Baltazar, M.E.; Cruz, S.P. Sustainability in the Airports Ecosystem: A Literature Review. Sustainability 2023 , 15 , 12325. https://doi.org/10.3390/su151612325
Raimundo RJ, Baltazar ME, Cruz SP. Sustainability in the Airports Ecosystem: A Literature Review. Sustainability . 2023; 15(16):12325. https://doi.org/10.3390/su151612325
Raimundo, Ricardo Jorge, Maria Emilia Baltazar, and Sandra P. Cruz. 2023. "Sustainability in the Airports Ecosystem: A Literature Review" Sustainability 15, no. 16: 12325. https://doi.org/10.3390/su151612325
Article access statistics, further information, mdpi initiatives, follow mdpi.
Subscribe to receive issue release notifications and newsletters from MDPI journals
IMAGES
COMMENTS
Read chapter Chapter 2 - Literature Review of Airline Industry Trends: TRB's Airport Cooperative Research Program (ACRP) Report 142: Effects of Airline In...
The paper is a systematic quantitative literature review on climate change and aviation, which aims to explicate significant issues affecting aviation in a changing climate and to identify the aviation industry responses on climate change and adaptation.
To comprehend the present status of the literature on this topic, relevant publications are reviewed. Following the COVID-19 pandemic, the coverage of literature analysing airline responses to crises in academia has increased, with new literature emerging at a fast pace.
293 The main aims of this literature review are to identify major issues and trends in the touris m and air transport literature and to presen t a fram ework for classification and analysis, as well
In view of this, in this study, we review and synthesise the literature that focuses on the value of firms in this sector and discuss conceptually and empirically the determinants influencing ...
The following two sections present a literature review on innovations in the context of aviation and the conduction of the SLR, followed by the results and discussion, demonstrating how these studies and the aviation sector are fostering innovations to create value.
This study identifies relevant innovations and discusses value creation in the aviation industry between 2000 and 2019. Aviation experts with experience in innovation were selected and invited to complete a survey identifying the leading innovations in the industry. This study contributes to recent aviation history by offering a list of ...
This paper provides a systematic literature review (SLR) regarding risk management technological advances, including methods combined with proactive, interactive, and predictive measures that are currently being used to mitigate risks in the aviation sector.
The Aviation Industry During Crisis and the Journey to Sustainable Recovery: Literature Review. In: El Khoury, R., Nasrallah, N. (eds) Emerging Trends and Innovation in Business and Finance.
Highlights • First systematic review of scholarly research on airline sustainability reporting. • Airline sustainability reporting is still an underexamined area in scholarly research. • Content analysis and exploratory studies dominate the current research landscape. • There exist much inconsistency and ambiguity in reporting practices. • Studies could examine underexplored areas of ...
The systematic review conducted by Pereira et al. (2021) appears to be the only study to map out the value-creating business activities in the aviation industry.
The literature review identified 538 peer-reviewed sources (i.e., journal articles, book chapters, conference proceedings, technical reports, and theses/dissertations) retrieved from Google Scholar searches using keywords such as safety culture, safety climate, safety performance, aviation, and safety.
Based on the fundamental links between air transport and economic growth, some typical imperfections and inefficiencies in aviation markets are discussed and promising avenues for future research are proposed. KEYWORDS: Air transport economic growth reciprocal causality market imperfections literature review
Four industry observers discuss their predictions with Harvard Business Review. Eighteen months into the Covid-19 pandemic, U.S. aviation has finally started to rebound — but the industry that ...
The Literature review section reviews the relevant literature on travel restrictions and the implications of COVID-19 for the aviation and tourism industry. Methodology and data section presents the methodology and data used for this study.
This paper offers an in-depth review of existing literature as well as a summary of the research directions scholars can take to further improve safety in the aviation industry.
This research approaches a review of the relevant literature by examining research findings and studies consistent with the global aviation industry. The researcher focused on the factors affecting airline passenger loyalty.
IATA's Industry Afairs Committee (IAC), a group of 20 airline heads of government afairs, commissioned this study with the aim of anticipating the key risks and opportunities global commercial aviation will face between now and 2035. The Committee had three specific goals in mind when commissioning this study:
Read chapter Chapter 2 - Literature Review: "Upgauging" is an airline industry technique enabling air carriers to increase capacity by adding seats to e...
He has long been a spokesman on many aviation issues and an outspoken critic of the deregulation of the airline industry. Although the Transportation Law Journal publishes research related to all modes of transportation, it specializes in aviation, reflecting Dempsey's extensive interest and background in the field.
industry or in academia speci cally focusing on innova tion and aviation, who did select the most general titles for categories and as signed the literature under these cat-
The global challenges of sustainability are transforming the economy of the 21st Century. Economic, social, and environmental sustainability impacts regulators and businesses, particularly in the aviation industry, and facilitates access to productive services and market linkages. Airport stakeholders are increasingly pressuring companies to consider their socioeconomic impacts and manage them ...