Ivanova (2017) Air Transport-Tourism Nexus - A Destination Management Perspective

Maya Ivanova
AIR TRANSPORT TOURISM
NEXUS:
A DESTINATION MANAGEMENT
PERSPECTIVE
Maya Ivanova
AIR TRANSPORT TOURISM NEXUS:
A DESTINATION MANAGEMENT PERSPECTIVE
Maya Ivanova (2017). Air transport-tourism nexus: A destination management perspective. Varna: Zangador Page 1 of 210
First published 2017
by Zangador Ltd
Cover design by Milena Babukchieva
This work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-

NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License. To view a copy of
this license, visit https://creativecommons.org/
ISBN: 978-954-92786-4-4
Reference:
Ivanova, Maya (2017). Air transport tourism nexus: A destination management perspective. Varna:
Zangador.
PREFACE
The aim of current research monograph is to provide a deeper view of the complex
relationship between the air transport and tourism industries. The adopted point of
view a destination perspective enables one to go into a more detailed exploration
of the topic and to consider issues that usually remain invisible at the strategic
managers level. The elaborated destination analysis framework and the identification
of common points between aviation and tourism set the groundwork for further
examination of the air transport-tourism nexus. Therefore, the book would be useful
both for students and researchers in the field of tourism, hospitality and destination
management, and for practitioners and destination management representatives who
may find interesting insights and ideas for improvement. The monograph would be
suitable also for managers and representatives from the air transport industry by
providing them with the other point of view that of the local tourist destination to
consider in their strategic growth and negotiation process.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
The author acknowledges many people for their support in writing this research
monograph, namely:
The two reviewers, Professor Maria Stankova (College of Tourism,
Blagoevgrad) and Associate Professor Velina Kazandzhieva (University of
Economics Varna), for their valuable comments and recommendations for the
improvement of the book;
All participants in the empirical research, who were very kind and helpful in
sharing their time for the research;
My husband, partner and colleague in the tourism field, Professor Stanislav
Ivanov from Varna University of Management, Bulgaria, for his continuous
support and love; and
All my family, friends and colleagues from VUM, who always stood by me and
helped with encouragement and care.
AIR TRANSPORT TOURISM NEXUS:
A DESTINATION MANAGEMENT PERSPECTIVE
TABLE OF CONTENTS:
PAGE
List of Tables 7
List of Figures 8
List of Text Boxes 9
List of Abbreviations 10
Introduction 11
Chapter 1 Air transport essentials 14
1.1 General and historical overview 14
1.2 Air transport system models and participants 19
1.2.1 Airlines and Air Alliances 23
1.2.2 Airports, ATM, Safety and Security 38
1.2.3 Aircraft producers/manufacturers 52
1.3 Regulation of the air transport 55
1.4 Sustainable development and concerns of aviation 64
1.5 Technology in the air transport 72
Chapter 2 Destination Management 79
2.1 General overview 79
2.2 Destination Cake Model 84
2.3 Destination management, DMO, destination governance 98
2.4 Destination attributes 106
Chapter 3 Air transport-tourism nexus 116
3.1 Role of transport for the destination 116
3.1.1 Destination accessibility 118
3.1.2 Destination local transport system 123
3.2 Air transport destination relationship and mutual impacts 128
3.2.1 General comparison 129
3.2.2 Analysis of common points by layers 136
3.3 Air transport and destination management planning processes 145
3.3.1 Airlines planning process 146
3.3.2 Destination development planning process 149
Chapter 4 Case study Bulgarian Black Sea coast and the role of air 155
transport in its development
4.1 Destination Cake model analysis of the Bulgarian Black Sea Coast 155
4.2 Methodology 168
4.3 Results and Discussion 174
4.3.1 Secondary data 174
4.3.2 Primary research 177
Concluding remarks 187
Appendices 189
References 196
LIST OF TABLES
NUMBER NAME PAGE
1.1. Historic development of air transport 16
1.2. Top ten airlines by number of passengers carried for 2015 24
1.3. Top ten airlines by traffic 25
1.4. Top ten airline groups according revenues in 2015 26
1.5. Distribution of passenger flows/traffic among the main 26
business models
1.6. Distribution of passenger flows by regions/continents 26
1.7. Top 20 Low-cost and leisure airlines by passenger number 2015 32
1.8. Main facts about the three global airline alliances 37
1.9. Top 10 World Airports by number of passengers, 2015 40
1.10. World airport ranking by total aircraft movements (landing 40
and take-off) 2015
1.11. Academic research on the air transport liberalisation in 64
geographical context
2.1. Dimensions and elements of destinations. 87
2.2. Summary of activities of the DMO, categorised either as 104
External destination marketing (EDM) or Internal destination
development IDD activities
3.1. Papers, dealing with air transport impact on tourist 134
destinations
LIST OF FIGURES
NUMBER NAME PAGE
1.1. System of aviation industry 20
1.2. The aviation system 21
1.3. Air transport industry model 23
1.4. Impacts of aviation on the atmosphere 66
2.1. Destination Cake Model 86
2.2. Destination Management activities 100
2.3. Destination Development and Management Model 102
3.1. System Model of air transport and tourism 137
3.2. Time horizons of flight planning 146
4.1. Flights/movement on Varna airport for the period 1998-2016 161
4.2. Flights/movements on Bourgas airport for the period 1998-2016 162
4.3. Varna vs Bourgas number of movements for the period 1998- 163
2016
4.4. North vs. South Black Sea Coast dynamics in the number of 165
beds for the period 1994-2015
4.5. Passenger flow and tourists in the North Black Sea Coast for 175
the period 1998-2015
4.6. Passenger flow and tourists in the South Black Sea Coast for 176
the period 1998-2015
LIST OF TEXT BOXES
NUMBER NAME PAGE
1.1. SESAR the project of EU 48
1.2. International Civil Aviation Organisation /ICAO 57
1.3. International Air Transport Association /IATA 58
1.4. Institutions and agencies, dealing specifically with 69
environmental issues
2.1. Tourism characteristic services 94
2.2. The 10 Attributes of successful destinations 112
4.1. Varna Airport 158
4.2. Bourgas Airport 159
LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS
ACI Airports Council International
AEA Association of European Airlines
AFRA Aircraft Fleet Recycling Association
ATAG Air Transport Action Group
ATC Air Traffic Control
ATM Air Traffic Management
BBSC Bulgarian Black Sea Coast
BSC Black Sea Coast
BCAA Bulgarian Civil Aviation Administration
CAEP Committee on Aviation Environmental Protection
CANSO Civil Air Navigation System Organisation
CED World Centre of Excellence for Destinations
CRS Computer Reservation System
DMO Destination Management Organisation
EASA European Aviation Safety Agency
ECAC European Civil Aviation Conference
EDM External Destination Marketing
ELFAA European Low-Fare Airline Association
EU European Union
FAA Federal Aviation Agency of the USA
GDS Global Distribution System
IATA International Air Transport Association
ICAO International Civil Aviation Organisation
IDD Internal Destination Development
IPCC Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change
IRTS International Recommendations on Tourism Statistics by UNWTO
LCC Low-cost carrier
MBM Market-based Measures
NSI National Statistical Institute, Bulgaria
OTA Online Travel Agency
RBV Resource-Based View
RPK Revenue per Passenger Kilometre
SESAR Single European Sky ATM Research
SITA Socit Internationale de Tlcommunications Aronautiques
SMED System of Measures for Excellence in Destinations
UNFCCC United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change
UNWTO United Nations World Tourism Organisation
WTTC World Travel and Tourism Council
INTRODUCTION
Transport and tourism have always been inherently connected. Moving from one
point to another has pushed a man to create vehicles and mechanisms, thus enhancing
the human civilisation. For ages, people have been travelling with different motives
and for different purposes, such as nomadic movements, military invasions,
pilgrimages, and finally for business and leisure reasons. A transport system is a vital
part of any economy, providing opportunities for the movement of materials, goods
and people from one place to another. It is often likened to the circulatory system of
the economy. At the same time, the different modes of transport have enabled people
to travel and exchange products and ideas, thus driving the whole progress on. The
evolution of the transport system has been going on in parallel with human economic,
social and cultural development. Air transport, being the youngest sector of
transportation modes, currently appears to be a vital part of modern life. Around 3.5
billion passengers used air transport for their business and tourism trips in 2015: this
number surpassing by 6.4% the number of the previous year (ICAO, 2016b). Over half
of the worlds 1.1 billion tourists (54%) currently arrive to their destinations by air
(UNWTO, 2012). More than 27 000 commercial aircraft, belonging to around 1400
commercial airlines, serve more than 52 000 routes around the world (ATAG, 2016).
Around 10 million passengers per day use air transport services, and a total of 627
million jobs are thus supported (ATAG, 2016). Those impressive numbers make air
transport a major contributor to global economic prosperity, and in particular, to the
global tourism industry.
In recent centuries, the rise of the tourism industry highlights how important it is for
humans to travel. More recently, nobody doubts that the development of tourism is a
necessity. Nowadays there are more than 1.1 billion tourist arrivals per year, and the
expectations are that they will grow by 3.3% a year to reach a total of 1.8 billion arrivals
in 2030 (UNWTO, 2012). Tourism industry contributes about 9.8% to the total world
gross domestic product, and the number of total jobs it creates exceeded 284 million
for the global economy in 2015 (WTTC, 2016).
Almost since its creation, aviation has been indispensable for the tourism industry
(ATAG, 2016). The contribution of air transport to tourism development has been
mentioned in multiple studies and books concerning solely air transport (OConnell
and Williams, 2011; Belobaba, Odoni and Barnhart, 2009; Schmitt and Golnick, 2016;
Doganis, 2006; Wittmer, Bieger and Mueller, 2011; Peoples, 2014) or the tourism
industry (Goeldner and Ritchie, 2007; Page, 2009). Although some of them (e.g. Duval,
2007; Graham, Papatheodorou and Forsyth, 2008; Page, 2009) tackle the link between
the two industries, the perspective is usually general and at the macro level, or they
explore only general impacts. Surprisingly, the relationship between air transport and
tourism at the destination level is often overlooked (Prideaux, 2000; Lew and
McKercher, 2005). Transport and tourism studies previously published lack deeper
analysis of the connections between the components of the two industries in order to
outline more specifically the particular mutual impacts. Despite the numerous
reported cases regarding air transport impact on a particular destination (Sengur and
Hemdil, 2014; Laplace and Latge-Roucolle, 2016; Dobruszkes, Mondou and Ghedira,
2016; Njoya, 2013, etc.), a conceptual framework, encompassing all common elements
of both industries and considering the complex relationships between them is still
missing.
Therefore, in light of the above reasoning, the main purpose of the current monograph
is to elaborate on the relationship between the air transport sector and tourism
industry, providing the perspective from destination management level, i.e. the micro
level. Understanding the air transport-tourism relationship would contribute
important implications for transport and infrastructure development, tourist product
development, destination planning and infrastructure, management of tourist flows
and destination accessibility, and, ultimately, management of the external social,
environmental, economic and cultural effects on tourism at the destination. In this
regard, each industry is analysed separately outlining the important issues and
relations. Finally, the nexus between air transport and tourism industry is deeply
explored and illustrated with a real destination.
The first two chapters explore each of the parties, analysing the components and
stakeholders, always in the context of tourism. Both chapters examine the static picture
of air transport and destination management, whereas the third chapter examines their
mutual impact, namely the relations between each of the stakeholders, the dynamics
of their collaboration, and finally the process of initiating and accomplishing a
partnership between them. The latter is studied in depth with a special focus on the
role and position of each of the parties, with the ultimate goal of identifying their
impact on the development of the tourism industry in a certain region or destination.
In the fourth chapter, a particular destination is researched the Bulgarian Black Sea
coast applying the theoretical framework that was elaborated on in the previous
chapters.
The whole study adopts the supply side perspective for both the air transport system
and destination management. In this way the book would also serve as a useful tool
for managers and DMOs in their elaboration of strategy regarding air transport.
Therefore, the customers demand position is only briefly implied and taken into
consideration.
Chapter 1
AIR TRANSPORT ESSENTIALS
1.1 General and Historical Overview
Air transport provides a worldwide network and has become a global industry more
than 58 million jobs and US$2.4 trillion of the world GDP are directly supported by the
air travel industry (Airbus, n.d.). Many stakeholders are involved part of the air
transport supply chain aircraft manufacturers, airlines, airports (including airport
operators), ground services, air navigation services, but also other institutions and
organisations, including tourism and other affiliated industries.
In this chapter we make a general overview of the air transport industry and explore
the air system and its major players. Analysing each of them would allow us to see the
whole picture of the industry its environment, participants, and main stakeholders,
internal and external issues that the participants are currently confronting and
finally, to identify the aspects that are common with the tourism industry.
The air transport could be analysed through several lenses. First of all, it could be
considered as a separate industry, and a sub-sector of the transportation industry. As
such it could be explored in the contexts of cargo or passenger aviation, military,
agrarian and general aviation. However, this book is focused on exploring
predominantly passenger air transport, which is in direct relation with the tourism
industry; therefore, military, cargo, agrarian and general aviation industries remain
beyond the scope of the study.
Air transport is inherently connected with tourism, providing ground for its
development. Undoubtedly both industries develop in parallel, and any events taking
place in either of them have an impact on the other. The historical evolution of both
sectors reveals this dramatic interdependence. The demand for transport derives from
peoples desire to go somewhere in order to be engaged in spatially constrained
activities (including leisure and business tourism), and conversely, transport
accessibility determines, to a great extent, the demand for a tourism destination
(Graham et al., 2008). Thus, these two sectors of the economy are structurally
interdependent (Papatheodorou and Zenelis, 2013). In this regard, exploring the
historical development of aviation would shed light on the parallel evolution of the
tourism industry and would reveal some of the connections between them, together
with the reasons behind them.
Air transport evolution could be explored from several aspects, depending on the
focus of the study technical, operational, marketing, legal, etc. (See Table 1.1). The
facts and events, however, are so entangled and interdependent that sometimes it is
difficult to estimate which is the primary cause and which is the consequence.
Moreover, most of them happen almost simultaneously or in a very short period of
time. Usually, the development of air transport is traced in reference to:
aircraft characteristics (design, engines, ability for long range distance, speed
and manoeuvrability, aircraft materials),
aircraft safety (especially important to promote passenger transport),
air transport operations, especially Air Traffic Control,
the development of civil transport operation airlines and airports,
regulation and standardisation of the sector, including chronology of legal acts,
conventions, treaties, and establishment of relevant institutions.
If we consider all of them, we will need an entirely new study to address all details
along the evolution. In order to reveal the most important facts of aviation history, and
still adhere to the primary purpose of the book to examine the correlation between air
transport and tourism industry, we chose to compile the essential moments of air
transport evolution and show in parallel how they influenced (directly or indirectly)
the tourism development.
Table 1.1 Historic Development of Air Transport
Impact on tourism
Time period/Date Key fact Impact on air transport
industry
Ancient time, Mainly road and water No air transport at all Sporadic trips, mainly
Middle ages and transport used because of related to pilgrimages,
Industrial very low advance of aristocratic trips for
revolution till the technologies; no any leisure, administrative
end of 19th travel by air and military trips
century (2000 BC
1900)
1903 Wright Brothers fly for Air transport is born Another way of
the first time travelling possibility
for greater number of
people to move
around
1909 Louis Bleriot, France, Diverse new flying Scarce passenger
crossed the English vehicles invented; flights, dedicated to
Channel by air; governments show the richer elite
DELAG (Deutsche interest in the
Luftschiffahrts- development of air
Aktiengesellschaft) was transport
founded the first regular
airline
1913-1919 World War I; Air transport used mainly Almost no tourism
First all-metal aircraft: for military purposes. activities, because of
Junkers F 13; Bulgaria was the first to war time
The first airlines were use an aircraft for military
founded KLM, Qantas, purposes
Avianca, Czech Airlines
1920-1940 Air transport used mainly The first intercontinental Passenger traffic
for mail delivery; and international air increased with the
1927 Charles Lindbergh transport started and safety advancements
performed the first developed
transatlantic flight: New
York Paris
1944 The central convention in Due to its universal Air transport
the field of international character, the Chicago regulation facilitate
air law is the agreement Convention is the international travel.
concerning international fundamental policy for
civil aviation, reached on post-war development of
7 December 1944 international civil
(Chicago Convention) aviation. Following the
agreement, the
International Civil
Aviation Organisation
(ICAO) was established.
1947 The first supersonic flight Intense technical USSRs Aeroflot
1952 takes place with Charles development in the after- became the first airline
Yeager as pilot; wars period for the air in the world to operate
First British jet flight & industry. The supersonic sustained regular jet
first civil jet transport aircraft and ongoing services, with the
aircraft, the COMET inventions stimulate the Tupolev Tu-104, on 15
regular flights. aircraft producers and September 1956.
airlines. The new political Boeing 707, which
scene (the Cold War) established new levels
provide a large field for of comfort, safety, and
the establishment and passenger
development of national expectations, ushered
flag carriers. in the age of mass
commercial air travel,
as it is enjoyed today.
1969-1974 First flight of Boeing 747 The era of the jet engine, Enormous push for the
Jumbo Jet; huge fuselages, bigger development of mass
First Concorde flight; capacity, flourishing tourism. Bigger cabin,
First Airbus A30 flight; airlines/national carriers bigger number of
First low-cost carrier passengers, faster and
(South West Airlines) more comfortable
founded in the US in travel
1970s 1971;
First supersonic aircraft,
such as the Concorde or
the Russian Tupolew TU-
144, were introduced to
the market in the mid-
1970s.
1978 Deregulation of airlines in Increased competition Prices of airfares sank
the USA: among US airlines, by 22% on average
Airline Deregulation Act leading to new entrants, between 1978 and 1993
of 1978 reduced prices and (Morrison and
increased passenger flow Winston 1997). As a
consequence, larger
number of passengers
were able to travel
1982-1986 Continuous airline Major airlines establish The increased number
deregulation around the and reaffirm hub-and- of flights and air
world, impacting more spoke system; connections after
countries. Construction of alliances deregulation also
and cooperation; meant that customers
Expansion of airline had a greater choice of
computer reservation offers to choose from.
systems (CRS); Consumers have
Rise of code-share and benefited distinctively
capacity management; from lower flight
Revenue prices and higher
management/Yield service offerings.
management has be
deployed
1990-2000 European deregulation Enhanced competition Increased air travel
takes place, but at slower within the EU; within the EU,
pace. Low-cost airlines emerge enhanced by Schengen
in Europe. agreement for free
movement of EU
persons.
2001-2003 First autonomous, New technological era Online reservations
unmanned flights take starts for the air transport allow an easier way
place; industry; Computers and for people to arrange
Online sales and electronics become their trips, including
distribution become the indispensable part of the air travel.
norm. aircraft and ATM;
Shift to direct sales
through internet.
11 September Terrorist attack against Crisis in the sector; Tough
Shock for the tourist
2001 the US by 5 airplanes measures for safety and
industry decrease in
security travel
2000- Open-skies agreement Rise of the low-cost
More intensive tourist
and similar acts provide carriers; flows between the EU
wider field for airline Continuous process of
countries, rise of
operations. mergers and acquisitions
individual short trips
among airlinesand unorganised
travel.
Sources: Schmitt and Gollnick (2016); Gross and Klemmer (2014); enlarged and adapted by the author
Another approach is to examine the historical development of the air transport
industry in several stages, outlining the main phases of the technological and political
organisation of the sector (Wittmer and Bieger, 2011a). However, the periods are
chosen according to authors subjective perception of air transports historical cycles
which again depend on the specific aspect referred to. Below are the aviation
evolutionary stages as seen by Wittmer and Bieger (2011a):
Technical development 17831929
Political development 19291944
Development of quality and cost 19451973
Networks, alliances and low-cost operations 19741990
New perspectives customer value 19912010
(Wittmer and Bieger, 2011a)
The overview of the historical development proves the inherent connection of tourism
and aviation, but also calls for a more detailed examination of the operation of the air
transport players in order to identify first the links between them and then the
consequent interaction with the other industries. That is to be done in the following
sections which examine the air transport system.
1.2 Air Transport System
The core service of air transportation is to enable people to travel from one point to
another by using air vehicles. In this process, however, a number of participants and
stakeholders are involved, playing certain roles in the sector. In order to encompass all
of them, in the following pages we explore several models to illustrate the air transport
system, and outline each ones contribution and differences from the others. The final
goal is to reach a comprehensive view of the air transport system, which will serve as
a basis for a deeper analysis of its components.
Among several models (Schmitt and Gollnick, 2016; Pompl, 2007; Wittmer and Bieger,
2011a; Bieger and Wittmer, 2011b), we chose to explore in detail the Pompl (2007) and
the Bieger and Wittmer (2011b) illustrations of the air industry system.
In the model elaborated by W. Pompl (See Figure 1.1), the central focus is the primary
mission of air transport, which is to allow passengers and goods to move by air from
one point to another. That is why the main players here are the airlines, together with
their distribution network, and customers are the ultimate users. The core actually
illustrates the air transport supply chain, presented in a simplified way, with an
emphasis on the close links between the airlines and their distribution channels. As
most of the airline distributors are predominantly travel agencies and tour operators,
thus air transport is indirectly related to the tourism industry.
International
Organisations
National
Aircraft
aviation
Industry
administration
Airlines
Intermediaries
Customers
.....
Private
Financial organisations
Institutions and interest
groups
Infrastructure
and service
providers
Figure 1.1. System of the aviation industry, based on Pompl (2007)
The rest of the aviation industry participants are depicted by the external stakeholders,
each with their particular impact on the core operation. The model implies that aircraft
manufacturers, ATM companies and airports actually take the role of facilitators and exist
only because of the airlines and the need for air transportation service to be provided,
although all of them are directly connected to the process of air transportation. The
airlines have a leading role, leaving more secondary roles for the other participants. In
this way the ground handlers, aircraft manufacturers, national governments and
institutions, air navigation services, etc. are considered external for aviation. Although
their impact is noted as important, they remain outside of the core supply chain
relationship: Airlines-Distributors-Customers. The most important contribution of the
model stems from its focus on the primary function of the air sector while most of the
stakeholders are either centrally or peripherally depicted. One drawback that could be
pointed out is that other air transport players roles are neglected the airport, the air
navigation systems, the aircraft producers from the ultimate transportation product.
Social Demand System Economic

Supply System
systems systems
Aircraft Airlines
producers Leisure Business
Customers Customers
Market
Ground
Airports
services Tour Travel
Operators Services
Industry Regulators
association
s
Regulatory Ecological Technological
systems systems systems
Figure 1.2 The aviation system, based on Bieger and Wittmer (2011b)
The second model, created by Bieger and Wittmer (See Figure 1.2), depicts the air
transport system in a classic supply and demand format. The authors initial idea of
(see Wittmer and Bieger, 2011a) to present the air transport supply chain has been
upgraded to that model we may explore it as the visible and invisible sides of the
industry from the customers perspective. The supply side encompasses all aviation
actors airlines, airports, aircraft manufacturers, ground operators but also
regulators and air alliances, which are organisations not directly involved in
transportation, but who contribute significantly to the smooth operation of the
industry. The demand perspective takes the view of the customers, considering them
not as pure passengers, but differentiated according to their motivation for travel
business or personal. Additionally, travel organisers (tour operators) and
intermediaries (travel agencies) have been included for their intermediary connection
between the air transport industry and the customers. It is the Market which unifies
the Supply and Demand actors and makes the balance between them. Both parties bear
the impact of the external factors, including political, economic, ecological, social and
technological systems. The most prominent contribution of this model is in presenting
the demand perspective, i.e. both the passengers and the major players from the
tourism industry tour operators and travel agents. Thus, the authors imply the direct
connection between air transport and the tourism industry. Another insight of the
model concerns the external environment factors (the so called PESTEL factors
Political, Economic, Socio-cultural, Environmental, and Legal) and their impact on the
air transport operations.
Each of the two models presents a different perspective of the air transport industry
(stakeholder and market view) that could be further developed and enriched.
However, for the purpose of this book we need a simpler model of the air transport
industry, focused only on the main players who will also have a stake in tourism
development (See Figure 1.3). The elaborated model will facilitate the following
analysis of the air transport industry and the later identified interactions with the
tourism industry. The main participants are explicitly distinguished, and these are
Airlines, Airports and Aircraft producers. The other, more secondary players are
affiliated to the relevant major ones: Air alliances to the airlines, Air traffic management
companies to both airlines and airports, because they have mutual interactions, and
Safety and security companies are connected to all of the participants because of their
universal role throughout the whole sector. The macro environment is presented only
by three factors: Ecology/Environmental issues, Regulations and Technology. The Political
and Economic factors are covered by Regulations because of the international nature
of air transport, and the Socio-cultural factors almost entirely overlap with the relevant
tourism industry external impacts, therefore they will be explored in detail in the next
chapter (Chapter 2.)
The proposed model of air transport system provides a predominantly static picture,
where the focus is on the main participants and the environment in which they
operate, and only the connections and relations within the air transport are studied
and analysed. However, the sector is not isolated; on the contrary, it is deeply rooted
within most of the other industrial sectors, including tourism. Therefore, for the
purpose of the current study, the air transport analysis will be made in the context of
the tourism industry, with the main focus on the sector itself.
Figure 1.3 Air transport industry model
1.2.1 Airlines and Air Alliances
Airlines provide the core service for the air transport industry in that they allow
passengers to travel from one point to another. Therefore, airlines role is crucial for
the travel and tourism industries. On a global basis the number of tourists is growing
from 277 million in 1980 to 528 million in 1995 and has exceeded 1 billion in the last
few years (UNWTO, 2012 Aviation Report). More than half of them use air transport
to reach their final destination. In 2015 over 1500 airlines transported 3.5 billion people,
with a fleet of 26,000 aircraft, averaging 104,000 flights a day over a global network of
51,000 routes (IATA, 2016, Annual Report 2016). The volume of operation determines
a significant role of airlines not only for the tourism industry but for any other sectors
using air transport.
As initially stated, in this current book we will explore only those airlines concerning
the tourism industry, i.e. commercial civil aviation (excluding military and non-
commercial flights), accessible-to-public flights (not private corporate or general
aviation), and only passenger aviation (excluding cargo or agrarian). Hence, the focus
of our study will be civil passenger airlines, operating on a commercial basis. Further, those
airlines may be additionally classified according to a number of criteria deriving from
their operations, such as the number of passengers carried (Table 1.2), traffic,
measured in RPK (Revenue per Passenger Kilometre) (Table 1.3), volume of sales
(Table 1.4), worldwide distribution of operation (Table 1.6), or any other metrics and
indicators, all of which demonstrate an aspect of an airline's performance. However,
the performance is the final result and the outcome of airlines operations. In order to
understand airlines principles of operation, a deeper overview is necessary.
Table 1.2 Top ten airlines by number of passenger carried in 2015
Rank Airline Number of passengers (Million)

1 American Airlines 201.2
2 Delta Air lines 179.4
3 Southwest Airlines 144.6
4 United Airlines 140.4
5 Ryanair 106.4
6 China Eastern Airlines 93.8
7 China Southern Airlines 84.0
8 Lufthansa 79.3
9 EasyJet 68.6
10 Air China 58.8
Source: Flightglobal, Flight Airline Business magazine (July-August, 2016)
Analysis of airlines could be implemented from various perspectives: examining
airline economics, estimating supply and demand, reviewing operating costs and
measure, following the process of planning, optimisation and operation of the airline
services, following the sequence of activities involved in the operations, in search of
excellence and higher efficiency (Belobaba, 2009a). Still, the most popular criterion for
airline examination appears to be the business model adopted (Schmitt and Gollnick,
2016; Wittmer and Bieger, 2011a; Papatheodorou and Zenelis, 2013; Gross and
Klemmer, 2014). A similar classification is launched by Page (2009). He groups the
airlines according to the three types of air services provided scheduled service,
chartered flights or scenic flights (See Table 1.5).
Table 1.3 Top ten airlines by traffic RPK (Revenue per Passenger-Kilometer)
2015 2014 Airline Country
Traffic Seat Load Passenger Current
(RPK) capacity factor (Million) fleet
Million (Million) (%)
1 1 American Airlines USA 358.823 432.396 83.0 201.2 1269
2 3 Delta Air Lines USA 337.264 397.034 84.9 179.4 950
3 2 United Airlines USA 335.728 402.342 83.4 140.4 719
4 4 Emirates Airline UAE 255.176 333.726 76.5 51.9 251
5 5 Southwest Airlines USA 189.057 226.067 83.6 144.6 702
6 6 Lufthansa Germany 162.173 202.314 80.2 79.3 338
7 9 China Eastern Airlines China 153.749 188.740 81.5 84.0 505
8 10 China Southern Airlines China 146.291 181.792 80.5 93.8 411
9 7 British Airways UK 142.016 174.274 81.5 43.3 269
10 8 Air France France 141.207 167.969 84.1 49.5 226
In general, each airline may simultaneously offer two or all of the options
(scheduled/regular or non-scheduled flights), but as each service requires conceptually
different resources and management, most airlines prefer to specialise in only one of
the alternatives. The predominant provision of services determines the relevant
business model for each airline: network/traditional airlines, charter airlines and the
new invasions low-cost carriers (LCCs). Each model influences the tourism industry
in a different way, which is to be specifically examined.
Table 1.4 Top ten airline groups according to their revenue in 2015
2015 2014 Group/Airline Country Revenue (Million USD)
1 1 American Airlines USA 40 990
2 2 Delta Airline USA 40 704
3 4 United Continental USA 37 864
4 3 Lufthansa Group Germany 35 351
5 5 Air France-KLM Group France 28 741
6 6 FedEx USA 26 451
7 8 Emirates Group UAE 25 282
8 7 IAG UK 25 207
9 9 Southwest Airlines USA 19 820
10 10 Chine Southern Air China 17 754
Table 1.5 Distribution of passenger flows/traffic among the main business models
Airline Type Traffic (RPK) Load factor Passengers Employees
(million) (%) (million) (share)
Leisure* 219 032 88.9 78 2%
Low-cost 1 127 189 85.1 862 12%
Mainline* 4 862 269 80 2 169 85%
Regional 104 259 82.2 107 1%
TOTAL 6 302 749 81.2 3 215 100%
* In the context of current book terminology Leisure is associated with Charter airlines, and Mainline
is associated with Network/Traditional airlines
Table 1.6 Distribution of passenger flows by regions/continents

Region Traffic (RPK) Load factor Passengers Employees
(million) (%) (million) (share)
Africa 92 818 68.2 34.3 4%
Asia Pacific 1 954 254 79.6 1 035.1 34%
Europe 1 714 827 83.2 867.6 22%
Latin America 273 305 80.0 180.9 8%
Middle East 508 380 77.1 173.3 7%
North America 1 669 165 83.7 923.8 25%
TOTAL 6 302 749 81.2 3 215.0 100%
Network/traditional airlines
Traditional airlines, also known as international passage airlines, major airlines,
network carriers, full-service carriers, traditional or established airlines, flag
or national airlines, or legacy carriers (Gross and Klemmer, 2014) (all terms
hereafter will be used interchangeably), represent the oldest type of air travel services,
based on the evolutionary development of the sector. Historically, the network carriers
find their origins in the political roots of aviation (Papatheodorou and Zenelis, 2013).
In the dawn of aviation regulation, bilateral agreements were highly dependent on
political negotiations, especially after the introduction of regular jet flights. It was a
matter of dominance for national airlines to establish and develop their international
network, and therefore, national governments heavily subsidised them (Schmitt and
Gollnick, 2016; Doganis, 2006). Many airlines were established and regulated by their
national states. That is why todays most prominent representatives of traditional
airlines started as national flag carriers Lufthansa, British Airways, Nippon Airways
(Japan), Czech Airlines, Air France/KLM (France and the Netherlands respectively),
Aeroflot (Russia), etc. Nevertheless, state support was seriously affected with the
introduction of the deregulation processes, which started in the USA in 1978, followed
by Europe and Asia a decade later. After the air market was liberalised, airlines lost
any subsidies and were forced to become more competitive and customer-oriented
(Doganis, 2006). As a result, the network airlines found themselves relying solely on
the market conditions, and thus they created their fundamental pattern of operations
the so-called hub-and-spoke system. In this configuration, a central airport, called
a hub, concentrates short and medium-haul flights coming from regional and
remote airports, named spokes, whose main role is to feed up with passengers to the
hub, thus enabling better capacity management for the long-haul destinations (Schmitt
and Gollnick, 2016). Usually, regional airports generate lower passenger traffic, and
airlines utilise their smaller aircraft for those legs. On the other hand, long-haul
destinations experience higher economies of scale if larger aircraft is used, therefore
the ultimate goal of the airlines is to maximise the number of passengers for such
distant leg (Bitzan and Peoples, 2016). The elaborated network of multiple origin-
destination connections provides higher connectivity and concentration of air traffic at
the hub, enabling an airline to deploy more efficiently its fleet and to be more flexible
in terms of traffic variations and volume. However, in such configuration, some
individual airports may remain dominated by a single airline, and as a consequence,
the network carriers may build strong entrance barriers at such airports and impose
control on the whole air traffic (Bieger and Wittmer, 2011a).
From the passengers perspective, the hub-and-spoke system provides a wide variety
of destinations crossing through the hub. Besides, the network players provide a
number of ancillary services for their clients in terms of differentiated classes (first,
business and economy), various on-board services (like baggage allowance, lounge
access, special privileges for business and first class), frequent flyer programmes for
loyal clients, etc. A typical strategy of traditional carriers is the large application of
price discrimination and revenue management. Actually, yield and revenue systems
were initially created and developed by these airlines (Ivanov, 2014). Nowadays, there
are multiple sophisticated software programmes which allow the airlines to customise
the transportation products according to the customers preferences and readiness to
pay. The ultimate goal is to target the right customer with the right price for the right
product, while preventing those who would be willing to pay more from taking
advantage of a lower price category (Bieger and Wittmer, 2011b). The whole revenue
management system of price discrimination and fencing mechanisms are aiming at
improved capacity management (higher load factor) and optimisation of revenues and
yield, thus enabling airlines to be more flexible on the different legs (Belobaba, 2009c).
Further, the main target groups, business and leisure travellers, have diverse
preferences and buyer behaviours, which are additional prerequisites for
differentiation.
In terms of tourism, network carriers are usually used by individuals, families and
business travellers for city breaks and business trips. Sometimes allotments could be
reserved by tour operators for regular groups when the number of tourists does not
allow renting a whole aircraft. Special corporate agreements between the carrier and
companies also enhance the tourist flows. Recent technology development improved
the distribution channels of traditional airlines. While in the past decades they relied
heavily on travel agents for booking and issuing tickets through the GDS, nowadays
numerous internet channels facilitate the airlines to connect directly to the potential
customers, as well as to diversify their distributor network.
From the destination management perspective, traditional airlines provide improved
visibility to the tourist location and deliver individual tourists (including business
travellers) to the destination throughout the whole year. Therefore, they are desired
destination partners and subject to intense interest for the destination governance
authorities.
Charter airlines
Charter airlines, also known as leisure carriers, tourist carriers or holiday
airlines (Gross and Klemmer, 2014) and non-scheduled traffic (Schmitt and
Gollnick, 2016), are used predominantly for tourism purposes. These airlines are
engaged by tour operators to perform usually a return flight between an origin and a
destination, as part of a package tour created by the tour operators. This is a specific
form of the point-to-point business model, with the significant difference that both
points are determined by a third party the tour operator. Actually, the latter takes
the whole business risk to sell the capacity instead of the airline, which shifts the
responsibility and agency relations in another direction (Lobbenberg, 1995). However,
the strong integration with holiday organisers has become a disadvantage in recent
years because of the processes of disintermediation and the reduced role of tour
operators in the travel industry (Bieger and Wittmer, 2011a).
The success of charter airlines is rooted in their rather simple cost structure and less
complex operations (Bieger and Wittmer, 2011a), resulting from their close
relationship with tour operators, who plan the package trips well in advance. Target
clients are almost entirely leisure travellers, i.e. price-sensitive customers; few cabin
staff are employed, and advance planning of load factor further decreases the costs
(Bitzan and Peoples, 2016). As a disadvantage, charter airlines suffer from seasonality
(Papatheodorou and Zenelis, 2013), which they try to compensate for by operating
long-haul destinations (winter sun) or flights to mountain and ski resorts in the
winter months. Doganis (2006) considers charter airlines as an alternative low-cost
model, especially in Europe, because both types of airlines enjoy certain common
operational and economic features: the aircraft used is larger and more economical,
resulting in economies of scale, hence low cost and low rates, there is a higher
passenger load factor, and they fly at inconvenient times (e.g. through the night).
However, since historically charter airlines preceded the emergence of low-cost
carriers, we consider the former as a separate business model airline. Some charter
airlines establish a charter line, which is a regular line between a particular couple
of points for several weeks or months or for the tourist season. In terms of movements,
this kind of operation could be considered seasonal regular flights, and therefore the
charter model overlaps with scheduled operations. In this regard, the distinction
between types of airlines actually blurs and they are differentiated mainly by the type
of traveller using their services: passengers travelling for leisure usually use charter
airlines, whereas business travellers prefer traditional carriers.
In contrast to network carriers, non-scheduled airlines do not usually sell tickets to the
public, because they are part of package holidays. Still, most tour operators publicize
last minute availabilities of seats for free sale in order to cover the high fixed costs of
the flight. Nowadays, modern technology allows charter airlines to sell their own
capacity through their websites, which additionally blurs the distinction between
charter and low-cost airlines (Schmitt and Gollnick, 2016).
Charter airlines are mostly popular in Europe, where the big tour operators (TUI,
Thomas Cook, etc.) apply vertical integration for full utilisation of their resources
large tourist holdings incorporate charter airlines, tour operators and hotels or hotel
chains, thus ensuring the whole package of tourist services is provided by the same
holding of sister-companies. As mentioned earlier, charter airlines are typical for the
tourism industry, and they have greatly contributed to the intense development of
mass tourism destinations in the 1970s and 1980s, and hence play crucial role for the
destination development.
Low-Cost Carriers (LCC)
The third business model, low-cost travel, is relatively new, but it has revolutionised
the air transport market. LCC are also known as discount, budget, or no-frills
airlines (Gross and Klemmer, 2014). Their main strategy is directed towards cost-
reduction, which in turn reflects the final product features - increased seat density on-
board, usage of remote and smaller airports, using inconvenient hours for the slots
(e.g. during the night, early in the morning, or late in the evening), providing few or
no services onboard, and charging extra for any ancillary services, like food and
beverages, baggage, or seat allocation.
Although the first LCC, Southwest Airlines, started operations in 1971 in the US, the
real invasion of LLCs happened some 30 years later. The development of LCCs is
closely related to the deregulation initiatives (Diaconu, 2012), and this is one of the
reasons for their fast expansion just after such legal acts had been accepted. There were
several consecutive packages of measures in Europe, starting from the late 1980s (1987)
and ending in 1993, making the European Union the second liberalised market after
US (Diaconu, 2012; Bitzan and Peoples, 2016). The greater freedom of traffic rights and
movement towards a single sky have pushed the development of LCCs, providing
possibilities for them to exploit (see Table 1.7.).
Table 1.7 Top 20 Low-cost and leisure airlines by passenger number 2015
2015 2014 Carrier Country Passengers Traffic Load Current
(million) RPK factor fleet
1 1 Southwest USA 144.6 189 057 83.6 % 703
2 2 Ryanair Ireland 106.4 NA 92.9 % 352
3 3 EasyJet UK 68.6 77 619 92.6 % 149
4 4 Gol Brazil 38.9 38 411 77.2 % 133
5 6 JetBlue Airways USA 35.1 67 112 84.7 % 218
6 5 Lion Air Indonesia 32.0 NA NA 114
7 8 IndiGo India 31.4 34 186 83.4 % 107
8 7 Norwegian Norway 25.8 42 284 86.2 % 106
9 10 Vueling Airlines Spain 24.8 24 775 81.3 % 102
10 9 Air Asia Malasia 24.3 30 006 80.2 % 80
11 12 Pegasus Turkey 22.3 21 223 77.4 % 58
12 11 Azul Brazil 20.6 18 636 79.6 % 140
13 13 WestJet Canada 20.3 34 635 80.0 % 117
14 16 Wizz Air Hungary 20.0 NA 88.2 % 67
15 15 Cebu Pacific Air Philippines 18.4 19 872 79.8 % 48
16 17 Apirit Airlines USA 17.9 28 954 84.7 % 84
17 14 Jetstar Australia 17.9 30 503 80.4 % 70
18 18 Eurowings Germany 17.0 NA NA 87
19 20 Thai AirAsia Thailand 14.9 14 872 81.0 % 47
20 21 Frontier Airlines USA 13.3 21 822 86.5 % 57
Source: Flight Global (2016)
The main characteristic of this business model is the use of point-to-point
transportation these are non-stop flights serving passengers flying from point A to
point B, which eliminates the handling of connecting passengers and improves the
productivity (Belobaba, 2009b). A particular strength of the point-to-point model lies
in its lean structure, derived from the less complex operations and intensive aircraft
utilisation (Bieger and Wittmer, 2011a). As a disadvantage, however, LCCs concentrate
on short and medium distance flights only (600-5000km) (Schmitt and Gollnick, 2016)
because maintaining such legs allows efficient and higher utilisation of the planes and
ground passenger services. On the other hand, this gives traditional airlines the chance
to keep their segment of long-haul destinations. Target clients are price-sensitive
customers, so the LCCs provide only one-class service and avoid traditional
distribution channels (travel agencies), thus reducing the cost of paying commission
to them. Instead, tickets can be bought only directly from the airlines website, or by
telephone. Further, LCCs tend to use a single aircraft type or an interchangeable family
of aircraft, which additionally contributes to savings on crew training, spare parts and
maintenance (Belobaba, 2009b).
The use of alternative, often remote airports, instead of large, popular airports is a
double advantage for an LCC. At such decentralised airports, costs are additionally
reduced because of the faster turnaround times, lower airport fees and possibly more
customised services (Papatheodorou and Zelenis, 2013). Also, establishing a regular
flight line to a regional airport opens the destination to a larger market, making it
more visible and accessible (Dziedzic and Warnock-Smith, 2016). In this way, LCCs
directly influence the tourism industry in the respective region a topic, which is
largely discussed within the academia (Dobruszkes, 2013; Graham and Dennis, 2010).
LCCs are becoming more popular among tourists who use them largely for short trips,
especially to cities that are off the beaten track and away from the well-known usual
destinations. The low rates further democratised travel allowing people with lower
incomes to afford air travel. Surprisingly, business travellers have also increased their
interest in LCC in the recent years. Therefore, LCCs are the subject of high interest,
especially for out of the way destinations. LCCs impact on the tourism industry will
be elaborated in details in Chapter 3 and illustrated with specific cases.
* * *
Many authors have focused on studying and confronting the three business models of
the airlines (Bitzan and Peoples, 2016; Morrell, 2005; Pearson Pitfield and Ryley, 2015).
In most cases, they are presented more as competitors, each of them trying to increase
their own share at the expense of the others. The competition is predominantly
performed on geographical and regional bases, and that is why we can easily allocate
the main regions of operation Americas, Europe and Asia. Recently, some LCCs
announced the first regular transatlantic flights, which opens another door for their
further development (Martin, 2014; Maslen, 2017).
The three presented business models produce numerous hybrid sub-models (Diaconu,
2012). This is a consequence of the efforts of each type of airline to improve, adopting
strategies from the others. The traditional airlines are attempting to reduce their costs
by charging additionally for some of the previously included services on-board (e.g.
baggage allowance, food and beverages). They also try to use the same or similar
aircraft and redirect more bookings through their own website (e.g. Lufthansa group).
Other airlines realise the extreme differences in the models and expand their own
daughter LCCs, thus enlarging the scope of their target clients and still keeping the
main brand (e.g. British Airways and Go; Qantas and Jetstar). In this regard, LCCs
could be considered not as competitors, but rather as complementary to the traditional
airlines product, because they target different clients and develop a horizontal
integration approach (Stoyanov, 2014).
On the other hand, the LCCs incorporate some practices that are typical for the
traditional airline (Bitzan and Peoples, 2016), like adding additional classes (e.g.
Premium/Flexible class, Wizzair), using some hubs, using codeshare agreements,
providing allotments to tour operators (e.g. Norwegian air), and charter airlines have
started to sell single seats (Bieger and Wittmer, 2011a). With this increased
convergence, the distinction between traditional, charter and low-cost airlines
eventually will be blurred (Belobaba, 2009b).
Air alliances
Strategic air alliances derive from the age of airline expansion and the elaboration of
their network (Wittmer and Bieger, 2011a). The post-deregulation period (the 1980s)
was marked by numerous mergers, acquisitions and new partnerships, especially
notable in the US market. The airlines struggled to strengthen and expand their
networks and become more competitive by concentrating their dominance. In Europe,
a similar situation happened much later and at a slower pace (e.g., the Air France and
KLM merger in 2003) (Doganis, 2006). Another drive for cooperation came as a
consequence of airlines performance deteriorating in the 1990s, caused by several
economic and oil crises. This was the time when the current global air alliances were
established.
Strategic alliances play an essential role in airline branding, emphasising the alliance
brand, thus transferring positive elements of a stronger brand to another weaker brand
(Wittmer and Bieger, 2011b). However, in contrast to other airline brands, alliance
brands have received relatively limited attention from scholars (Chung and Feng,
2016) who usually address a few issues and explore the nature and internal
characteristics of the alliances (Albers, Koch and Ruff, 2005; Forsyth, Niemeier and
Wolf, 2011), the impact of alliance membership on airline performance and
development (Min and Joo, 2016; Iatrou and Alamdari, 2005; Pitfield, 2007;
Kuzminykh and Zufan, 2014), and the perceptions and reactions of passengers to
corporate and alliance brands (Chung and Feng, 2016; Wang, 2014).
Airline cooperation can be classified into several types (Doganis, 2006):
- Route-specific agreements This type of partnership aims to avoid potential
cannibalisation of certain pairs of cities where two airlines perform flights (Belobaba
2009a). Both carriers serving the same route may decide only one of them to operate it,
i.e. a code-share1 operation.
- Regional alliances Traditional airlines partner with smaller, regional carriers who
perform the short-haul flights, the so-called spokes (from the hub-and-spoke
system). The main purpose of the bigger airline is to reduce cost and to concentrate on
1code share: a commercial agreement between two airlines (operating and marketing carriers) that
allows an airline (marketing carrier) to put its two-letter identification code on the flights of another
airline (operating carrier) as they appear in computer reservations system (US General Service
Administration, 2011)
the more profitable long-haul flights. Therefore, the airline expands its network,
market and geographical coverage.
- Global alliances These are the well-known alliances (One World, Star Alliance group
and SkyTeam) that have a global scope. They encompass all the above-mentioned
benefits for partnership, as the networks of two or more large airlines are linked to
operate in geographically distinct markets, even in different continents (Doganis,
2006).
According to Doganis (2006), there are several major benefits that encourage airlines
to enter the alliances: marketing benefits of large scale and scope; cost synergies and
reductions; and a decrease in the competition. In terms of marketing, local airlines benefit
their brands by joining a global airline alliance, on both the local and foreign markets.
Additionally, the extensive network reaches more markets and covers larger
geographical areas/continents, leading to a dominance in certain regions. Cost synergy
and reduction is gained by combining flights or code-sharing, by including a new
destination for fewer expenses, and by utilising partners resources. Further, in this
way, there is no need for the traditional airline to diversify its fleet in order to cover
both close and distant destinations. More savings are achieved by standardising
product, sharing crew and aircraft and launching mutual Frequent Flyer Programmes.
However, regional alliances might lead to reduced competition and a monopolistic
position (Doganis, 2006). A similar but not so obvious situation appears when the two
partners code-share their flights. In such cases, alliances are strictly monitored by
antitrust institutions to prevent threats to the competition (Doganis, 2006).
Nevertheless, strategic alliances also have their weaknesses. Min and Joo (2016)
question the operating efficiency of alliance airlines, comparing them to airlines not
belonging to any alliance. Furthermore, inclusion in an alliance is not sufficient for
achieving competitive advantage because of the service nature of airline products.
Economies of scale and brand recognition ensure certain comfort, but becoming more
competitive requires further efforts in terms of organisational learning and operational
efficiency (Min and Joo, 2016). This conclusion has been reconfirmed by Casanueva,
Gallego, Castro and Sancho (2014), who published an empirical research of airline
alliances, aiming to estimate partners access to each other and their resources, and the
actual mobilisation and effective utilisation of network assets. Regarding customer
reactions, some empirical research reveals that despite being aware of alliances,
customers perceive an airlines brand as dominant because it is the airline that
provides the service, not the alliance (Chung and Feng, 2016), which diminishes most
of the expected marketing effects. An interesting fact is that low-cost airlines are not
members of airline alliances because they put a strong focus on market dominance
concerning specific routes or specific regions (Bieger and Wittmer, 2011a).
Table 1.8 Main facts about the three global airline alliances
Star Alliance Group* SkyTeam one world**
Number of members 28 20 14 members and 30
affiliates
Number of countries 192 177 159
Number of airports 1330 1062 1010
Number of daily flights 18 450 17 343 13 796
Number of passengers 689.98 million 665.4 million 558.2 million
Fleet size/Aircraft 4631 3054 3571
Main airline members Lufthansa, Austrian KLM, Air France, American Airlines,
Airlines, Scandinavian Aeroflot, Delta, British Airways,
Airlines, Swiss, TAROM, Czech Iberia, Japan Airlines,
United Airlines, LOT- Airlines, Alitalia, Finnair, Cathay
Polish Airlines, Air Aero Mexico, Pacific, Qatar Airways,
China, Turkish Kenya Airways, S7 Airlines, Mexicana,
airlines Saudia Qantas
* The data is valid by September 2015
** The data is valid by October 2016
Source: websites of the three air alliances
The three main airline alliances Star Alliance Group, one world and SkyTeam
now account for almost two-thirds of the total world airline capacity and more than 75
percent of air travel spent between the world's top 100 business cities (Oneworld, n.d.)
(see Table 1.8.). Their importance for both the aviation and tourism industries is
continuously increasing because of their dense network and global coverage. Further,
in the era of continuous aggregation, mergers and acquisitions in aviation, they
provide a reasonable alternative for smaller and regional airlines to stay independent,
and still, utilise the networks of their alliance partners. In terms of destination
management, global air alliances contribute to the accessibility of smaller and remote
destinations, providing more options for reaching them.
1.2.2 Airports, ATM (Air Traffic Management), Safety and Security Issues
Airports are the other component of the air transport system, which are vital for the
systems existence. They are indispensable for airlines (Isaka, 2012), which need
runways for take-off and landing, as well as full service on the ground, including
handling of the aircraft and the passengers. The common goal of airports and airlines
is to provide transportation for people and cargo, operating on a commercial basis, i.e.
generating profits. Airports provide the infrastructure for airlines operation. Airports
do not create their own product, but rather are part of both the airlines and
destinations product. Planning and developing an airport is a crucial step for the
destinations in several aspects (Bieger and Wittmer, 2006). Availability of an airport
allows air access to any destination, hence new tourist flows are going to be expected.
Since airports are location-bound, they utilise a two-fold position on one hand,
airports are an integral part of the air transport system, and on the other hand, they
are located within the tourist destination and are perceived by the tourists as the first
and the last experience of their trips. Therefore, the role of the airports will be
examined from those two perspectives: as a provider of the air transport infrastructure,
and as a part of the tourism infrastructure, providing accessibility to the destination,
and indirectly determining the tourist flows, depending on their capacity.
In general, airports could be classified according to their size and capacity, i.e. by the
number of passengers travelled, or by the number of movements (landings and take-
offs), but also according to their technical features, e.g. by the type of aircraft that could
use the airports runway and facilities. Still, there are numerous other characteristics,
like land area, geometrical layout, equipment used, services offered, the intensity of
facility utilisation and economic performance, that make every single airport unique
worldwide (Odoni, 2009a). Tables 1.9 and 1.10 illustrate several airport rankings,
according to the Airports Council International (ACI), the only global trade
representative of the worlds airports, committed to defending airports positions,
developing standards and recommending practices in the areas of safety, security,
regulation and overall airport operations (ACI, Overview). The most common
classification of airports used by the biggest aviation-connected organisations (ICAO,
FAA, EASA) (Schmitt and Gollnick, 2016) combines geographic coverage with the type
of flying vehicles:
International airports
National airports
Military airports
Heliports
Because of the strict regulations, every airport is assigned a 4-digit unique code (ICAO,
ICAO Meteorology global air navigation plan) and a 3-digit IATA code (IATA, IATA
Codes). The former codes are used mainly by the ATM and air professionals, whereas
the latter are more well-known and are largely used by travel agencies and airlines
daily operations. There are other designator codes used (FAA, USA, Schmitt and
Gollnick, 2016), but they remain relevant only within the particular country or region.
In terms of regulation, again the main role belongs to the International Civil Aviation
Organisation (ICAO), together with ACI and regional bodies like EUROCONTROL for
Europe, for specific standards and recommended practices. The regulatory issues
concern mainly airport operations, ATM, safety and security, environmental issues
like emissions and noise, and each of the topics is large enough to require a different
organisation to deal with it and its effects on airports.
Table 1.9 Top 10 World Airports by number of passengers, 2015
2015 2014 City Airport Total 2015/2014

Code passengers* change (in %)
1 1 Atlanta GA, USA ATL 101 491 106 5.5 %
2 2 Beijing, China PEK 89 938 628 4.4 %
3 6 Dubai, United Arab Emirates DXB 78 014 841 10.7 %
4 7 Chicago, IL, USA ORD 76 949 504 9.8 %
5 4 Tokyo, Japan HND 75 573 106 3.8 %
6 3 London, United Kingdom LHR 74 989 795 2.2 %
7 5 Los Angeles, CA, USA LAX 74 937 004 6.0 %
8 10 Hong Kong, China HKG 68 766 986 8.2 %
9 8 Charles de Gaulle, Paris, France CDG 65 766 986 3.1 %
10 9 Dallas/Fort Worth, TX, USA DFW 65 512 163 2.6 %
*Total passengers: arriving and departing passengers; direct passengers counted once
Source: ACI (2016a)
Table 1.10 World airport ranking by total aircraft movements (landing and take-off), 2015
2015 2014 City Airport Total 2015/2014
Code movements change (in %)
1 2 Atlanta, GA, USA ATL 882 497 1.6
2 1 Chicago, IL, USA ORD 875 136 -0.8
3 4 Dallas Fort Worth, TX, USA DFW 681 247 0.2
4 3 Los Angeles, CA, USA LAX 655 564 3.0
5 5 Beijing, China PEK 590 169 1.4
6 7 Charlotte, NC, USA CLT 543 944 -0.2
7 6 Denver, CO, USA DEN 541 213 -4.3
8 8 Las Vegas, NV, USA LAS 530 330 1.5
9 9 Houston, TX, USA IAN 502 844 -1.2
10 11 Charles de Gaulle, Paris, France CDG 475 810 0.9
Source: ACI (2016a)
Airports are complex entities, which deserve multifaceted analysis. We will examine
them from the technical, economic, social and environmental points of view in order
to make a deep analysis and specify their important role for the tourism industry. From
the technical perspective, as an air transport infrastructure the airport has two distinctive
functional parts: airside and landside (Odoni, 2009a; Schmitt and Gollnick, 2016).
The airside is connected with the core function of the airports to serve the aircraft,
transporting passengers and/or cargo to/from the airport. Therefore, on the airside are
included runways (for landing and take-off), taxiways (a system of alleys, which
allows the aircraft to access the apron and the terminal gates), aprons (the area for
parking the aircraft during their downtime) (Schmitt and Gollnick, 2016), aircraft
maintenance areas, and air traffic control facilities and equipment, as well as the land
that surrounds all of these. The airside typically constitute 8095% of the land area of
an airport. The geometric configuration depends on the number and location of the
runways, relief and peculiarities of the area. Runways are usually the determinants of
the airports characteristics and capacity, and their construction follows strict
regulatory standards (Odoni, 2009a). Other factors influencing the dimensions and
capacity of a runway also include the weight of the aircraft, weather/climate conditions
(wind and temperature), airport elevation and presence of any physical obstacles
nearby, etc. (Odoni, 2009a). In addition, airports may have different geometric
configuration of the runways (parallel or intersected) which also would impact their
capacity and operations.
The landside of an airport encompasses the complex of passenger buildings, cargo
terminals and other supporting buildings (e.g., airport administration, utility plants,
catering facilities, hangars, etc.), ground access facilities (access roads, automobile
parking areas, other transport stations.), and any additional non-aviation facilities
(e.g., hotels, office buildings, shopping areas, event venues, etc.) that may be located
within an airports boundaries (Odoni, 2009a). The most imposing part of the landside
is the passenger terminal building, where the passengers are prepared for their flight
and are welcomed from arriving flights. Many administrative and official state
institutions are located in international terminals, because the airport is considered a
cross-border point, hence all the formalities of travelling abroad (like passport control,
customs, security checks) should be duly implemented. The architecture and design of
the terminals often depend on the internal organisation of the activities and
procedures. For example, there is a tendency to separate passenger arrival flow and
departing flow (Schmitt and Gollnick, 2016), and there should also be a transit area for
those passengers who will not enter the country, especially if a visa is necessary, but
will travel on to their final destination. Within the landside, every airport is equipped
with a fire brigade and medical care centre, which are mandatory, according to the
international standards of ICAO.
Airports usually serve as a crossroads of multiple means of transport railway,
underground, highway access, even water transport. The intermodality of
passenger transport is considered an ultimate goal for the passengers comfort and
satisfaction. Schmitt and Gollnick (2016: 227) defined intermodality as a seamless
transfer/connection from one transportation mode to another mode with a minimum
of time delay and a maximum of comfort for passenger and/or payload. Apart from
providing nearby transport stations, the intermodality concept involves coordination
between the different means of transport, as well as between freight and passenger
operations (in the airport case luggage handling). The next step will require an
"integrated approach" with a common information and distribution system across the
airline and other transport systems (ATAG, Intermodality).
On both the airsides and landsides of airports relevant activities are performed, which
are connected to the functions of each part. On the airside airlines are provided with
aircraft handling services during its stay at the airport, i.e. the so-called turn-around
process (Schmitt and Gollnick, 2016) or ramp-handling (Odoni, 2009a). The process
encompasses the time the aircraft lands until its next take-off. The airplane is led over
the taxiway to the apron area where after passengers disembark, the turn-around
procedure starts cleaning the cabin, refuelling, providing maintenance, if needed,
loading cargo, etc. All those services can be provided by the airport team/operator, by
the airlines themselves, or by a third party provider (e.g. ground handling companies)
(Schmitt and Gollnick, 2016). The airlines are strongly interested in minimising the
duration of the turn-around procedures (Schmitt and Gollnick, 2016), which provides
an opportunity for competition among the companies providing the ground handling
services. These services are the main source of revenue for airports, what is called
aeronautical revenue. Revenue comes in the form of different types of charges,
applied to airlines for the package of services provided fees for slots, navigation,
ground handling (ramp handling, traffic/passenger handling), noise and other taxes.
Traffic handling activities at the airport apply to processing the passengers, including
check-in procedures, baggage handling, gate control and boarding. The party offering
these services may be one of the three above-mentioned (airlines, airport operator, or
a third party/handling agency). Apart from the process of preparing to fly, the
passengers are offered numerous other services and entertainment, located in the
terminal buildings. These are shopping areas, F&B outlets, airlines lounges, bank
offices and travel agencies, car rental agencies, even cinemas, hotels and event venues.
In the recent years, airports revenue from such non-aeronautical services have
significantly increased (ACI, 2016b). Non-aeronautical revenue spans a range of
possibilities, e.g. renting retail shops, charging parking fees, renting airport land and
space in the buildings and advertising space. Lately, there is a dramatic trend for non-
aeronautical revenue to exceed aeronautical revenue (Fasone, Kofler and Scuderi,
2016).
Airport capacity is mainly determined by the capacity of its facilities, the quality and
length of the runways, which allow bigger aircraft to land and take-off, as well as the
volume and good management of the air traffic (Odoni, 2009a). The more aircraft is
handled at a time, the bigger the capacity of the airports. Two approaches are outlined
to cope with improving airport capacity building another runway, or improving
ATM by inventing systems for more sophisticated operations and avoiding
congestions, thus enhancing the efforts for sustainable development (Gonnord and
Lawson, 2000). Capacity constraints are largely discussed by academicians, mainly
with the purpose of finding the optimal models for improved ATM (Wilken, Berster
and Gelhausen, 2011; Xiao, Fu and Zhang, 2016) and slot management (Madas and
Zografos, 2008; Gillen, Jacquillat and Odoni, 2016). In terms of the tourism industry,
capacity matters for the volume of tourist flows, but it is also a priority for the DMO
and local authorities when the ultimate goal is stimulation of tourism demand
(Gonnord and Lawson, 2000).
From the economic perspective, airports are of strategic importance for the regions,
where they are located, due to the direct, indirect, induced and catalytic effects of air
transport and tourism. Airports provide visibility of and accessibility for the
destination, thus enabling increased passenger flows. Many European countries invest
in airports in order to attract airlines to come or to intensify their traffic. Further,
because of the intermodality, airports have become logistic hubs for companies
maintaining large distribution networks. In a similar vein, international companies
choose their target points/countries for expansion, depending on the availability of
good transport connections and reliable business infrastructure in and nearby the
airports.
The social perspective of airports is revealed by the growing popularity of airports as
public areas, where people go not only with the primary purpose of travelling, but as
a place for entertainment. This trend is enhanced by the fact that many seminars,
conferences, events, etc. are held at venues located adjacent to or within the airports:
leisure, recreation and fitness facilities are constructed, together with F&B outlets, even
health and child services, thus converting the airports to regular social places
(Kasarda, 2006). These non-aeronautical sources not only contribute to diversifying
airport revenue, but also appear as a factor in attracting airlines to retain or find a hub
(Kasarda, 2006).
From the destination management perspective, airports become an extension of the core
destination, offering shopping, trading, business and employment, all of them
enhancing passengers or tourists experience. As a result, airports are undergoing a
metamorphosis, becoming converted to commercial metropolitan business districts
(Kasarda, 2006). Many firms from diverse industries (logistics, IT, commercial services,
etc.) also position their offices in the area around airports, in search of better
connectivity and improved costs. The same companies become an additional source of
demand for the airport, as well as for the rest of the companies located around it
(Kasarda, 2006). Currently, the whole region around such big airports, encompassing
all the businesses and plants gravitating to the airports, forms a huge district, called
aerotropolis (Kasarda, 2006). Typical examples of aerotropolis are Schiphol,
Amsterdam and Incheon, Seoul, with numerous new airports embracing the idea of
Airport-City concept in their future strategic development (Kasarda, 2006).
Study of air transport infrastructure cannot be comprehensive without Air Traffic
Management (ATM, Air traffic control (ATC), Air navigation services (ANS) 2 and
Safety and Security service. Some authors consider them as separate entities of the air
transport system (Schmitt and Gollnick, 2016); however, as they are physically
positioned within the airport and are an integral component of the ground
infrastructure, we allocate them as sub-divisions of the airport structure. Therefore,
ATM and Safety and Security issues are elaborated below.
Air Traffic Control (ATC) or Air Traffic Management (ATM)
ATC plays an essential role in the operations of every airline (Hansman and Odoni,
2009). ATC is in charge for the taxi-out, take-off, landing and taxi-in procedures of
every single flight to and from an airport. The ultimate goal of ATC is to ensure the
safe and efficient flow of air traffic.
2Air Traffic Control (ATC), Air Traffic Management (ATM) and Air Navigation Services (ANS) are also
used interchangeably.
Communication, navigation and surveillance systems are the fundamental
components of ATC, which ensure its efficient operation (Schmitt and Gollnick, 2016).
The air traffic controller observes the air traffic situation through a surveillance system.
The controller issues commands (clearances) to aircraft through a communication
system (most ATC communications take place currently on voice radio channels in the
very high-frequency (VHF) band reserved for aviation use), and the aircraft fly the
cleared route using a navigation system. The latter has two distinctive parts: en route
navigation, and on approach to a particular airport. The integration between them
requires coordination among the ground authorities not only within a country, but on
regional and global bases. Therefore, many of the national navigation systems are
state-owned and often politically bound. Other important technical elements of ATC
include flight and weather information systems, which provide pilots and controllers with
up-to-date weather conditions information (Hansman and Odoni, 2009). The whole
system operates under the comprehensive and strict Standard of Operation
procedures and rules, set by the ICAO and recognised worldwide (ICAO, 1984).
Another specific feature of ATC is that it is currently almost an entirely human-centred
process, in which flight crew and ground controllers communicate on navigation
issues (Hansman and Odoni, 2009). Given the latest technological advancements, some
of the activities would eventually become fully or partially robotised (ICAO, 2011).
In the past, after the Chicago Convention and in the following conferences, the
adopted air traffic system allowed each country to provide air traffic control over its
own territory. However, the situation now has changed. The demand has significantly
increased, hence the air traffic. At key points the local overload creates delays,
resulting in airport congestion, which is also caused by capacity constraints and
inefficient ATC management (Hansman and Odoni, 2009). Certain mathematical
models have been utilised in order to calibrate the operations (Gurtner, Cook, Graham
and Cristobal, 2016). Moreover, inefficient ATC is directly connected with additional
fuel usage and environmental pollution by both emissions and noise. Recently, aircraft
technology has been revolutionized, with brand new equipment enabling precisely-
defined paths without relying on ground-based radio-navigation signals e.g. the
Required Navigation Performance, which is a satellite-based system (ATAG, 2013).
Consequently, the current communication and navigation systems seem outdated and
ineffective (Urfer and Weinert, 2011).
Finally, the political environment and air regulations further imply the growing need
for a totally new paradigm of air traffic management. Any aircraft crossing a national
boundary currently causes certain workload for the ATC. A fragmented airspace is
an inefficient airspace (ATAG, 2013). Creating a single, unified legal and standards
framework, which would have to be recognised by every country on Earth, would
enable the separate ground stations to work in a global environment, thus having a
full vision and strategy on a global scale.
In their report on the topic, ATAG (2013) propose two major ways to be considered, in
order to enhance the efficiency of the ATM system. These are:
1. Change the technology and install new operational structures that will impact
the interaction between the flight crew and the ground service providers.
2. Shift the current state-run governance of the air navigation infrastructure
towards a liberalised, commercially oriented service provider (ATAG, 2013). In order
to improve the above stated operational ineffectiveness of ATC, many organisations
(like ICAO, EUROCONTROL the ATM body of the EU - http://www.eurocontrol.int,
CANSO - Civil Air Navigation System Organisation - https://www.canso.org/about-
canso) and institutions appeal for a profound new approach in order to provide safer,
more efficient and environmentally responsive performance. There are some attempts
(such as SESAR in Europe, see Text box 1.1, and NextGen in the USA) to create such a
unified system, but most of the countries still lack interest in such initiatives (ATAG,
2013).
Text Box 1.1 SESAR the project of the EU
The background of the SESAR Programme

The SESAR (Single European Sky ATM Research) Programme has been launched as an integrated
part of the Single European Sky initiative (SES). This programme represents the technological pillar
of the SES and aims at developing a modernised and high-performance air traffic management
infrastructure which will enable the safe, cost-efficient and environmentally friendly development
of air transport.
Source: European Commission (2010)
SESARs vision builds on the notion of trajectory-based operations and relies on the provision of air
navigation services (ANS) in support of the execution of the business or mission trajectory
meaning that aircraft can fly their preferred trajectories without being constrained by airspace
configurations. This vision is enabled by a progressive increase of the level of automation support,
the implementation of virtualisation technologies as well as the use of standardised and
interoperable systems. The system infrastructure will gradually evolve with digitalisation
technology, allowing air navigation service providers (ANSPs), irrespective of national borders, to
plug in their operations where needed, supported by a range of information services. Airports will
be fully integrated into the ATM network level, which will facilitate and optimise airspace user
operations.
Source: SESAR, Objectives
Overall, air traffic management plays a vital role in the air transport system in multiple
aspects. Still, the global efficiency evaluation stipulates improvement of current ATM
because of increased traffic, capacity constraints and pressing environmental concerns.
The new reality demands a more innovative and complex approach, encompassing
more than a single country terrain. Therefore, ATM advances affect the interests of
many more stakeholders than those obviously connected with aviation: governments,
international institutions, environmental organisations, local communities and,
ultimately, normal people, looking for safe and efficient travel.
Safety and security
Undoubtedly, safety and security are of key importance in aviation and have received
significant attention on academic, business and social levels. To begin with, safety
as a term applies to the technical and operational reliability of aircraft (Schmitt and
Gollnick, 2016), enabling safe journeys without incidents. Another definition of
aviation safety addresses the airworthiness, i.e. a standard of proper design of the
aircraft in combination with qualified operations and maintenance (Schmitt and
Gollnick, 2016). This means that the focus of aviation safety is directed to ensure that
the process of transportation is entirely free of any faults that might endanger the lives
of people on-board the plane and on the ground. Therefore, safety precautions are
predominantly connected with technical and engineering standards, in combination
with certain operations and procedures that are human-centred.
It is surprising, however, that despite the common understanding of aviation safety,
there are hardly precise ratios which may measure and quantify it (Barnett, 2009).
Included within the scope of the indicators are diverse metrics, like the number of fatal
accidents, the number of hull losses (concerning primarily the damages of the aircraft),
the number of people killed or carried (further specified by people on-board and
people on the ground) (Barnett, 2009), but none of them are capable to precisely
estimate the safety level for a particular carrier, country or aircraft brand. Therefore,
probability methods which consider more than a few variables are most often used,
and such estimation is largely based on statistics and archive data. Different
approaches are applied to evaluate safety from the customers perspective; for
example, among the most popular is the evaluation and management of risk (Insua,
Alfaro, Gomez, Hernandez-Coronado and Bernal, 2016). Examined through several
aspects (financial, functional, physical, psychological, social, etc.), the concept of risk
management has become standardised and both academicians and regulators have
found a large application for it (Boksberger, 2011).
In order to meet requirements for aviation safety, a number of institutions and
organisations have elaborated rules, standards, and procedures at global, national and
local levels. As technology has become more advanced, those safety regulations are
still evolving and they are continuously amended. Headed by ICAO, setting the safety
regulatory framework, the FAA (Federal Aviation Agency, USA) and the European
Aviation Safety Agency (EASA) elaborate further mandatory standards in their
regions (Fox, 2014). In general, the regulations cover safety precautions on the ground
(including the runway, ground communications and airport areas) and in-flight
operations (concerning mainly procedures followed and decisions made by the flight
crew). A special focus is made on the human-dependent situations during the flight.
The flight crew pass regular training in simulations of critical situations only when
their ability to make proper decisions and adequate reactions are excelled (Boksberger,
2011).
Aviation safety has a crucial influence on both air transport and tourism industries.
The tremendous efforts of all stakeholders involved prove their sincere support for
and desire to contribute to this field. Nowadays, new challenges emerge, like
cybersecurity weaknesses and threats (EASA, 2016), which deserve additional
attention and totally innovative approach to overcome them.
Aviation security, in contrast to safety, is much more dedicated to protecting air
transportation against any kind of criminal and terroristic impact (Schmitt and
Gollnick, 2016). In other words, the focus is not on the technical aspects of aircrafts,
but rather on procedures and operations during the pre-boarding process, while on-
board and within the airport. The main areas of security concerns include:
controlling access to secure air operations areas,
screening passengers and carry-on luggage,
screening checked baggage and cargo,
aircraft protection.
For each of them there is a detailed procedure sequence using detection systems for
identifying and preventing potential threats to security.
The topic has been largely discussed in recent decades, especially culminating after the
terrorist attacks of 11 September 2001 (Fox, 2014). Then, the security issues provoked
an impressive reflection worldwide, making governments and institutions mobilise
and unify their efforts towards the single goal of prevention of similar attacks. After
this tragedy happened, the aviation security measures have passed through
tremendous detailed examination and implemented enormous improvement (the
introduction of packages of measures during pre-boarding, e.g. full-body scanning,
and restrictions on taking liquids, aerosols and gels on-board).
The main problems of aviation security, apart from enhancing the efforts to prevent
terrorism in aviation, affect passengers personal space and human rights. There are
still voices claiming that the strict procedures during the pre-boarding process cause
stress, unease and discomfort (Skorupski and Uchronski, 2016). Also, some
estimations of the expenses on behalf of air transport security question the overall cost-
efficiency of the system (Gillen and Morrison, 2015). The thorough security checks
require significant funds, usually coming from state institutions, hence from the
citizens, which raises the dilemma whether all people need to pay for the services
provided only to a certain number of citizens who travel by air. The solution is not
unequivocal; Wong and Brooks (2015) appeal for a more flexible approach from the
regulators, requiring better harmonisation and coordination in coping with security,
whereas Gillen and Morrison (2015) advocate for the launch of a risk-based security
system, in which only the potentially risky groups are examined in detail. The idea is
supported by IATA and ACI (IATA, 2013), and further developed with the inclusion
of smart technologies like biometrics, and deeper airline involvement in the security
issues.
* * *
Looking through the lens of tourism, airports have their significant place. First of all,
airport experience constitutes an important part of the travellers overall trip.
Following the latest trend of converting the airports into social spaces, tourists
perceptions of the destination would be additionally enriched. On the other hand, as
part of the infrastructure, the airport is always bound with the regional or national
policies, especially when considering the ATM, Safety and security concerns. The
tourist industry faces the same issues, and in many cases both sectors air transport
and tourism actually go hand-in-hand to solve them. And last but not least, being
business entities, airports strive to achieve certain strategic and operational
development, and in that process they rely heavily on the parallel growth of the
tourism industry. However, the details of the particular relationship of airports and
local destinations are deeply explored in Chapter 3.
1.2.3 Aircraft Producers
The next component of the air transport system are the aircraft
manufacturers/producers. Aircraft, when used as a generic term, means any heavier-
than-air flying machine (ICAO, 2004), but for the purpose of the current study, by
aircraft we will address airplanes only, as they are the most important for the
tourism industry and relevant to the purpose of the study.
Aircraft manufacturers, together with airlines, form the core of aviation services. In
academic literature aircraft is explored mainly regarding its technological attributes
and features. As the technical analysis is beyond the scope of the current study, it will
not be examined in detail, but we will focus on aircraft manufacturers impact on the
air transport system and on the tourism industry.
The studies dealing with aircraft links to tourism and air transport might be grouped
into several main topic areas. Airplanes and environmental issues in which the level of
aircraft carbon emissions is discussed (Edwards, Dixon-Hardy and Wadud, 2016;
Vieira and Bravo, 2016) and is an intensely disputed topic especially for tourism
(Pereira, Ribeiro and Filimonau, 2017; Cokorilo, 2016; Christensen, 2016). Another area
encompasses aircraft fuel consumption, the level of noise pollution (Grampella, Martini,
Scotti and Zambon, 2016) and creating substitutes for the kerosene/fossil fuels (Schmidt,
Paul, Cole and Ploetner, 2016). A relatively new topic that provokes high interest
regarding aircraft is the launching of new technological advancements, for example,
unmanned planes (Yu and Zhang, 2015), innovative technologies (Axisa and DeFelice,
2016), and sophisticated systems for sustainable operations (Graham, Hall and
Morales, 2014).
Aircraft manufacturing as a sub-industry of air transport requires high capital
investment and continuous improvement in research and development (Wittmer and
Bieger, 2011a). Moreover, a long planning horizon, at least five to six years, is necessary
for both the airlines (customers) and the producers, leading to higher business risk for
the both parties. Therefore, similar to national carriers, aircraft producers often rely on
financial support from their home countries (Doganis, 2006). Another solution for
coping with the high business risk is to share it among the other stakeholders, such as
engine manufacturers, system suppliers, supply chain, etc. In this regard the World
Trade Organisation is entitled to strictly monitor for any unfair subsidies, which
would imply adverse competition (Schmitt and Gollnick, 2016).
Following the historical development of civil aviation, the end of WWII marked a
period of intense development. The growth in the civil commercial aircraft market
went in parallel with the expansion of the tourism industry. It is difficult to say which
of the industries was the primary driver, because their development is so entangled
that we cannot distinguish the individual contribution of either of the industries. With
the maturity of mass tourism and the deregulation in the 1970s, came the need for
bigger and more efficient aircraft and the introduction of jet planes. Later on, with
the invasion of low-cost carriers (LCCs), mid-sized aircraft (120-150 passengers)
received more attention for being more efficient and suitable for the point-to-point
system. Supersonic aircraft also started a new age in the evolution of aviation, offering
much faster travel for passengers. Although their development slowed down, when
the Concorde exited the scene (2003), new achievements in this direction are to be
expected.
Currently, the two biggest aircraft producers, acting in a duopoly, are Boeing from the
USA and Airbus SAS Europe. They dominate the market of wide-body aircraft and
strongly influence the market of smaller planes (Wittmer and Bieger, 2011a). Their
market share is almost the same (50:50), so the competition between them is alive,
though not fierce. Still, there are new players entering the industry which are expected
to become stronger in the next decades, especially in the niche of aircraft for 100-120
passengers. These are Bombardier, Canada; Embraer, Brazil; Sukhoi, Russia; AVIC,
China, etc. Both Boeing and Airbus are also engaged in spacecraft and defence aircraft.
Many of the specifics of the aircraft industry derive from their technological cycle and
engineering features. Aircraft types are quite diverse, and for the sake of simplicity
they may be classified according to the following criteria:
By general type of usage there are passenger, cargo, or combined aircraft.
By size and salon design there are wide-body and narrow-body aircraft (with 2
or 1 aisle in the passenger salon, respectively).
By range of reach short-haul (up to 2500 miles), mid-range (up to 5500 miles)
and long-haul range aircraft (more than 5500 miles), representing the distance
an airplane can fly without stopping.
By number of seats up to 19 seats is an Air Taxi; up to 100 seats commuter and
corporate aircraft; from 100 to 800+ seats an airliner, or jetliner.
By speed subsonic, supersonic and hypersonic.
The demand for each model or type of aircraft depends on several factors and the
business model of the airline. For example, hub-and-spoke airlines need different
planes in term of size; the smaller operate on the regional level, whereas bigger planes
with higher range are used for long-haul destinations. Regional airlines usually need
narrow-body aircraft for smaller numbers of passengers, and international airlines
operate larger aircraft to meet higher demand and for transatlantic or transpacific
routes. In order to meet the markets requirements, aircraft producers have created
aircraft families, which consist of aircraft differing in size and range, but using the
same fuselage cross-section and engines. Currently, Airbus offers five aircraft families
A320, A330, A340, A350 XWB and A380 (Airbus, 2016). An additional advantage of
aircraft families is that they use similar equipment, system components, and common
physical parts, facilitating the maintenance of the fleet and training of the crew
(Schmitt and Gollnick, 2016).
Aircraft producers have a combined impact on both the tourism and the air transport
industries.
The aircraft capacity determines the number of available seats, hence the
number of travelling passengers (e.g. aircrafts may be wide body or narrow
body) and the tourist flows;
The speed of an aircraft, and consequently, the relevant time to reach a
destination (determined by the engineering technology, e.g. supersonic planes)
may influence tourists choice of a destination;
The level of efficiency and productivity index for the airlines directly derives
from aircraft technical features. In this way aircraft types indirectly influence
the pricing and revenue management, inter-airline agreements (code-share,
pooling) and route planning of the airlines.
In conclusion, aircraft producers, being part of the air transport system, have their
stake in the development of both travel and tourism. Although not directly identified,
this impact affects both sectors, thus making the evolution of aircraft a necessary
companion of the tourism growth.
1.3 Regulation of Air Transport
Air transport is by default an international industry due to the nature of flights, which
often fly transborder. Consequently, the smooth development of the industry requires
internationally recognised rules, mutually agreed by all countries and participants
involved. The need for transnational negotiations and contracts implies the strong
connection between aviation and political structures. In addition, being a complex
system, global aviation needs a system of synchronised standards in order to function
optimally (IATA, 2016). In this regard, the regulatory and legal framework appears as
a primary layer of the air transport environment.
Historically, the regulation of air transport closely follows the sectors development.
That is why many of the regulations were created due to the evolutionary necessity to
set some stable legal basis for the industrys further growth. Several attempts were
made at the dawn of air transport (Paris Convention, 1910; Madrid Convention, 1926;
Havana Convention, 1928) to provide a common ground for international aviation
(ICAO, 2004). In 1929 the Warsaw Convention was held to harmonize the rules of
liability. Two major issues discussed there, which were additionally examined in the
following conferences, were: the need for a standardised and common look of the
transportation documents and the liability of air transport providers (Schmitt and
Gollnick, 2016).
The most serious and successful initiative was the Chicago Convention (1944) when
the Freedoms of the Air were established and the first internationally recognized legal
framework of civil aviation was founded. The concept of Freedoms of the Air covers
multiple situations regarding the rights that an airline may have regarding its own
state and/or other states. The five initial freedoms were later expanded to the current
nine (Appendix 1). At the Chicago Convention, the participating states created current
universal set of rules regarding bilateral and multilateral agreements as instruments
for regulating transportation services by air (Odoni, 2009b). Another major
contribution of the Chicago Convention was the recommendation for a permanent
international organization which should ensure worldwide recognised rules for air
transport operations procedures, control facilities, safety and security equipment, and
the International Civil Aviation Organisation (ICAO) was the result (Odoni, 2009b).
The ICAO adopts standards and policies to ensure safety and efficiency in the civil
aviation sector. As such, ICAO appears as a public intergovernmental body of air
transport regulation (see Text Box 1.2 for the detailed functions of ICAO). The
recommended standards and practices, elaborated by ICAO on their annual general
assembly meetings, become mandatory when a particular state verifies them. The
Chicago Convention established the technical and legal framework for the operation
of international air services, while the economic regulations were left to be further
developed through bilateral interstate agreements and inter-airline agreements
(Doganis, 2006).
Text Box 1.2 International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO)
The International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO) is a UN specialized agency, established by

States in 1944 to manage the administration and governance of the Convention on International Civil
Aviation (Chicago Convention). ICAO works to provide a regulatory base in support of a safe,
efficient, secure, economically sustainable and environmentally responsible civil aviation sector.
Various technical committees are installed and are responsible for the elaboration of new
regulations, technical requirements and procedures in the form of standards. These
recommendations normally called Standards and Recommended Practices (SARP) are becoming
obliging when the individual state has transferred them to national law. ICAO also coordinates
assistance and capacity building for States in support of numerous aviation development objectives;
produces global plans to coordinate multilateral strategic progress for safety and air navigation;
monitors and reports on numerous air transport sector performance metrics; and audits States civil
aviation oversight capabilities in the areas of safety and security.
Source: ICAO.int
Many other conventions followed during the years (Hague Protocol, Montreal
Convention, Geneva Convention, Tokyo Convention, etc.), each of them adding to the
basic air regulations. For further information, please refer to ICAO (2004), IATA.org,
UNWTO.org
Another important body of civil aviation is the International Air Transport Association
(IATA), which represents the airlines of the world. Today more than 83% of all
international airlines are members of IATA. The efforts of IATA are directed towards
supporting aviations economic interests. IATA makes considerable contributions for
setting tariff procedures and air fare construction, a vital input to the development of
Conditions of Carriage, the legal contract between the airline and the passenger. The
coherent pattern of air fares enabled airlines to accept each others tickets on multi-
sector journeys (IATA, Early days) (see Text Box 1.3 for detailed functions of IATA).
Comparing ICAO and IATA, the former has more legislative and political
character/power, whereas the latter is dedicated to balance the interests of the
professionals within the sector.
Text Box 1.3 International Air Transport Association (IATA)
International Air Transport Association (IATA) is the worldwide non-governmental organization

of scheduled airlines established in 1945 to promote safe, regular and economical air transport, to
provide means for collaboration among air transport enterprises, and to cooperate with ICAO, other
international organizations and regional airline associations. Today IATA has over 270 member
airlines. IATA strongly contributed to the standardisation of documentation and procedures,
coherent pattern of fare construction and rates, as well as multilateral interline agreements,
concerning recognition and acceptance of reciprocal documentation and waybills among the airlines.
IATA is dedicated to be the force for value creation and innovation driving a safe, secure and
profitable air transport industry that sustainably connects and enriches our world. They help airlines
to operate safely, securely, efficiently, and economically under clearly defined rules.
The main industry areas, where IATA provides its expertise include: Aircraft and airline operations
(engineering and maintenance, flight operations, fuel services, infrastructure, etc.); Airport and
ground services development; Passenger service (airline distribution standards, baggage services,
interline tariffs, New Distribution Capability, passenger experience and facilitation, etc.);
Environment care; Safety and Security; Finance and IT development.
Source: IATA.org
There are other similar organisations, such as the Association of European Airlines
(AEA), Airports Council International (ACI), European Low Fares Airline Association
(ELFAA), Civil Air Navigation System Organisation (CANSO), etc. They offer a forum
on which members can exchange information. These institutions lobby other
stakeholders in the entire aviation industry for their members interests (Wittmer and
Vespermann, 2011).
The air regulation is executed on three levels: the national or governmental level, which
is the lowest one and at which laws and regulations are set that are particular for that
country; the bilateral level between two states and/or a supra-national representative
of a number of countries; and, the multilateral level at which regulations are undertaken
jointly by three or more states within the framework of an international organisation,
or multilateral treaty (ICAO, 2004)3.
The highest level of regulating agreements is the multilateral regulation. It is
implemented by at least three or more states within the framework of an international
organization, and it may appear in the form of a multilateral treaty (ICAO, 2004). The
main focus of multilateral agreements is on providing a general framework of air law
regulations, which serve as a basis for further bilateral and regional agreements.
However, in the age of increasing regionalism and globalization, multilateral
regulation currently steps forward to a higher level, i.e. further and new air rules are
to be expected (ICAO, 2004). Emblematic examples of multilateral agreements include
the Chicago Convention, Warsaw Convention, European bodies for air regulation, etc.
Also, ICAO itself is an active entity, which continues to provide air legislation in a
worldwide context. Multilateral agreements can be signed between different parties,
including not only states and airlines but also other companies, organisations and
institutions which have a stake regarding the air transportation.
The next, lower level of air transport regulation is represented by the bilateral
agreements. Bilateral air service agreements are effectively trade agreements between
governments, not between airlines (Doganis, 2006). Under bilateral agreements there
are specified rights of a designated airline to fly on a particular route to, through or
within another country that is a party in the agreement. In other words, different
Freedoms of the Air are applied. Additionally, the agreements include clauses
regarding the operation of air services, i.e. number of flights, capacity, airport charges,
taxation, etc. (Doganis, 2006). As bilateral agreements are based on treaties between
3 Explanation of the three levels follows the framework provided by ICAO (2004).
countries/states, it is inevitable that the air transport is highly affected by the political
and diplomatic situation, and geo-political factors and relations.
Bilateral agreements followed directly from the Chicago Convention and still
constitute a major share of air transport regulation worldwide. Until the deregulation
processes, many of the bilateral agreements were mostly restrictive (Doganis, 2006),
but with liberalisation becoming widespread, more liberal bilateral agreements are
concluded without restrictions on market access, capacity and pricing. A special
consequence of that development is that LCCs are expanding around the world,
outside from their home countries. The evolution of bilateral agreements meets its
highest point in the contemporary open skies agreement which allows almost
unlimited access to city pairs, capacity, and further flexibility in terms of air fares. The
transition to open skies agreements actually marks the movement toward increased
liberalisation (Odoni, 2009b).
The national regulation of air transport is the third and lowest level of regulation
undertaken by a state within its territory (ICAO, 2004). Each country government
elects a relevant agency to perform and control the air traffic in its country (e.g. Federal
Aviation Agency (FAA) in the USA, Civil Aviation Administration (CAA,
www.caa.bg) in Bulgaria. The main responsibilities of the national authorities are
threefold (ICAO, 2004): to legislate (make laws, policy, and rules concerning national
aviation), to license (to grant or extend permission to various companies conducting
air transport services), and to give ad hoc authorisation to deal with current granting,
conditioning, denying or withholding permission for particular flights, or similar
issues of aviation (ICAO, 2004). The national civil aviation authorities have to comply
with the ICAO regulations (Mueller, 2011), but they also may negotiate bilateral
agreements between their state and another entity. In principle, multilateral
conventions overrule national air regulations, therefore, the national authorities have
few possibilities to influence the air law itself (Mueller, 2011). Usually the national
aviation authority is subordinate to the government, but national aviation regulation
may affect other parties apart from air transport entities, such as non-aviation
governmental institutions, like customs, immigration, taxation, and environmental
control, or other non-governmental entities, like tourism and trade groups, airports,
local communities and consumers (ICAO, 2004). Some of them may want to have a
stake in setting air transport regulations in the country because they are also directly
or indirectly affected by it. It is a matter of national policy for each country whether
and to what extent a particular state will consider the voice of third party institutions
regarding aviation laws.
A revolutionary event in the air transport history was the act of deregulation,4 i.e. the
process of omitting the regulatory constraints concerning free trade and competition.
The process started first in the USA, and then went to the rest of the world, changing
the industry dramatically. The US governments Airline Deregulation Act of 1978 was
a landmark in the history of aviation. It entitled US airline complete freedom to
determine their own policy on frequency of flights, number of seats allocated to their
markets, as well as the right to enter or quit any US domestic market (Odoni, 2009b).
Further, deregulation provided the environment for improved operations efficiency
and greater competition, which later led to multiple benefits for both passengers and
the aviation system in terms of the number of routes, prices, service standards, as well
as additional economic benefits like jobs generation and growth in the GDP (US
Department of State, Open Skies agreements; InterVISTAS-ga2 Consulting, 2006).
In Europe, deregulation was significantly slower because of the entangled, multiple
national interests (Pels, 2008). It was implemented in three stages: in 1988, 1990 and
1993. Afterwards the air transport system within the EU was considered as fully
4 Both terms liberalisation and deregulation are used interchangeably
liberalised. Nowadays there are several institutions responsible for the legal
framework of aviation in the EU European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA) and the
European Civil Aviation Conference (ECAC), which is an independent regional
organisation initiated by ICAO. It is specific for the EU deregulation processes that,
along with liberalisation, a harmonisation of the various markets has been taking place
simultaneously, especially with the new member-states entering the Union. The
process of harmonisation of national legislation is still continuing, headed and
supported by ECAC. An important initiative of the European Commission is the Single
European Sky a legislation package regarding air traffic capacity and safety, where
EUROCONTROL (an EU inter-governmental organisation) has taken the role of
Network Manager of air traffic management in the EU.
From 2008, the US and the EU have enforced the Open Skies Agreement, which
concerns the liberalisation of transatlantic air traffic (Gross and Klemmer, 2014).
According to this treaty, airlines from both parties can fly almost unlimited into any
point of the other party, thus providing expanded international passenger and cargo
flights, enhancing productivity and economic growth for both sides.
Nowadays, the air transport deregulation encompasses even more countries. Its effects
upon particular countries or regions is largely discussed in the academic literature.
Table 1.11 provides a sample of studies, exploring air transport liberalisation in
different states and regions.
Still, the liberalisation of air transport is not without its flaws. Goetz and Vowles (2009)
point out several concerns. The wave of mergers and acquisitions that occurred after
deregulation resulted in almost full dominance of single carriers in certain markets,
thus creating monopolies for these destinations; fares to some smaller airports
increased and the quality of service reduced; even big carriers were reported for
unethical pricing to prevent new entrants/competitors. Along a similar line are the
conclusions of Schipper, Nijkamp and Rietveld (2007) regarding the liberalisation of
the Amsterdam-Maastricht market.
The regulatory framework of aviation is not restricted only to institutions and legal
regulations. The legal environment of air transport depends also on the local economic
and political conditions, i.e. government policy, excessive bureaucracy,
overregulation, corruption, dishonesty in dealing with public contracts, lack of
transparency, etc. (Itani, OConnell and Mason, 2014). Air transport definitely
supports tourism and the movement of people, but it could be vulnerable to political
instabilities and geopolitical crises, where crucial power shifts to political players. A
fresh example comes from Turkey and the current tough political conditions there, or
the numerous terrorist attacks in Western Europe, preventing people from travelling.
In terms of benefits for tourism, Shakoori and Mirtalebi Aghdam (2014) confirm the
positive effect of air transport liberalisation mainly regarding the increased number of
inbound tourists and amount of expenditure. They conclude that the more liberal air
policy is, the bigger probability to convert this destination into an international hub,
and in their study they focused on Dubai, UAE. On the other side, Dobruszkes et al.
(2016) claim that the relationship between tourism and liberalised markets is quite
challenging from the methodological point of view. They advocate for more empirical
evidence, implemented in a methodologically precise manner, in order to support the
largely accepted idea of aviation-tourism positive correlation.
The impact of aviation regulation on tourism industry is huge, and it is most evident
after deregulation and its effects on tourism in different destinations and regions.
Because of the transborder movement of tourists, air transport agreements have to
adhere to each countrys state and visa regulations but also to international air
agreements. Therefore, air transport national, bilateral and multilateral agreements are
closely entangled with the tourism legislation.
Table 1.11 Academic research on the air transport liberalisation in geographical context
Study State/region Reported effects
Wang, Bonilla and China Increased competition and consolidation of the big
Banister (2016) three companies Air China, China Southern and China
Eastern. Intensified traffic doubled number of routes
and flights.
Sun (2015) Korea Deregulation allowed the entry of LCCs, which increased
the competition and reduced product differentiation
across the types of routes.
Goetz and Vowles US overview Several concerns emerge regarding the US deregulation
(2009) of the overdominance of single airlines at certain hubs; rise of
deregulation new entrants; a wave of mergers and acquisitions; LCCs
for 30 years invasion; tripled number of passengers.
Abate (2016) Africa Many African countries still resist liberalisation.
deregulation Increased departure frequency in liberalised routes
Substantial gains in service quality
No proof of reduced fares
Shakoori and Mirtalebi Iran, Turkey Increased number of inbound tourists
Aghdam (2014) and UAE Increased tourist expenditure
Dobruszkes, Mondou Tunisia and Rapid growth of operated regular routes
and Ghedira (2015) Morocco Decreased number of charter flights, hence of package
holidays and tourists
Growing number of passengers, but declining number of
overnights
Barret (1997) Ireland and Reduction of fares by 50% and doubling number of
UK passengers
Betancor and Campos The first The changes in prices are more gradual than expected.
(2000) decade of Only the fare catalogues are enlarged and enriched.
European air
deregulation
Hooper (1998) Australia Stronger competition, higher proportion of passengers
and India travelling on some sort of discount, air fares reduced
mostly on longer routes for Australia
Many new entrants, but difficulties in capacity
management, modest increase in air traffic for India
Source: authors own selection
1.4 Sustainable Development and Concerns of Aviation
Sustainable development and environmental awareness have become a prime priority
in recent decades on a very large scale (UNWTO, Sustainable development.
Knowledge Platform). The United Nations General Assembly declared 2017 as the
International Year of Sustainable Tourism for Development, recalling the potential of
tourism to advance the universal 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development and the
17 Sustainable Development Goals (UNWTO, 2016a). A large campaign has been
initiated, encompassing major intergovernmental, professional and international
organisations and institutions and calling for them to join and advance their activities
and achievements regarding sustainable growth (UNWTO, International year of
sustainable tourism for development). Tourism industry appears at the centre of the
interest in this activity, and air transport, being an essential part of the worldwide
travel industry, is also focused on for improvement.
According to the last report from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change
(IPCC), aviation is responsible for 2% of global warming if all anthropogenic emissions
are taken into consideration (IPCC, 1999). Although the newest technologies have
significantly lower CO2 emissions, because of the continuous increase in travel
demand and consequently the increase in the number of flights, air pollution escalates
(ICAO, Aircraft Engine Emissions).
Figure 1.4 illustrates the processes in the atmosphere that are complex chemical and
physical reactions caused by the emissions of the more of 100 000 flights per day
worldwide. Many reports, publications and articles are dedicated to doing in-depth
research of the particular aspects and damage aviation has on climate (IPCC, 1999;
Marais and Waitz, 2009), with the ultimate goal of coping with the problems in the
long run. In this section we shall concentrate on briefly outlining the main
environmental issues that concern the air transport industry followed by an
exploration of the proposed solutions and measures taken.
There are several areas of concern regarding civil aviation. The most commonly
featured are air pollution, caused by emissions of greenhouse gases like CO2, NOx, etc.;
noise levels; and various ground activities that cause negative environmental and social
impacts.
Figure 1.4 Impacts of aviation on the atmosphere
Source: IPCC (1999)
Air pollution occurs in the upper levels of the atmosphere, where the emissions have a
different impact depending on the altitude and on the climate conditions. The main
cause of emissions are the aircraft engines using fossil fuels, which burn out and
release CO2, NOx and water vapour. As a result, the first two gases might modify the
chemical balance, thus warming the atmosphere, whereas water vapour forms
condensation trails (or contrails), which further contribute to warming the Earths
surface.
Each of the main participants in air transport contributes to the environmental
negatives, hence there are different measures, initiated from each of them. From the
aircraft manufacturers perspective, the achievement of sustainable goals is connected
with technical improvements such as reducing fuel consumption, using alternative
fuels, reducing emissions and noise, as well as making the aircraft as a whole more
efficient. The development of an aircraft requires a life cycle of at least 25-30 years,
including technological engineering, commercial acceptance and certification, and
then viable operation (IPCC, 1999). This fact implies that certain characteristics to make
the airplane fuel efficient and lessen its environmental impact should be engineered
and calibrated well in advance in order to meet the contemporary regulations and to
address the contemporary issues. For example, Airbus is committed to the European
Unions Flightpath 2050 targets, which calls for significant reduction in emissions by
setting up a number of innovations (e.g ProSky intelligent technology for surface
management systems), partnerships (ITAKA, SESAR the technological pillar of the
Single European Sky agreement) and initiatives (i4D system for conciliating traffic
density), thus proving its inclination to align with the globally set goals for
sustainability (Airbus, Eco-efficiency).
Another emerging issue is the recycling of the technical equipment after the end of the
aircraft life cycle. It is estimated, that 12 000 aircraft will be retired in the next two
decades (AFRA, Industry News). Taking the aircraft apart and recycling the materials
is considered the last phase of the its life cycle and is also part of the sustainability
projects. Currently 80-85% of an aircraft is recycled and the final goal is to reach 90%
in the next years (LeBlanc, 2016).
Airlines are engaged to operate their fleet more economically, to ensure proper
handling of waste and water, while still meeting the numerous legal conditions and
requirements and generating customer satisfaction and economic profitability.
Essential contribution could be the optimisation of capacity and routes.
The airports concerns are connected with land use, energy, heating and air
conditioning efficiency, as well as use of chemical substances for aircraft maintenance
and ground handling. Improving air traffic management by optimising flightpaths can
contribute to a greater reduction in fuel consumption, hence a neutral climate impact.
Additionally, the increased traffic of airplanes, especially near busy airports, triggers
congestion, which further spreads the negative effects of pollution and noise (Vichi et
al., 2016). Noise from landing and take-off is a great issue for airports and areas around
them; it has impact on both the environment and peoples health and comfort (Lawton
and Fujiwara, 2016). Despite the numerous regulatory policies for noise-abatement, it
is still a concern for communities located near airports (Wolfe et al., 2016). As the US
law stipulates noise as part of the transaction costs for land use, this has significantly
impacted price of land nearby airports, or spots around them, leading to potential
losses for owners and other stakeholders. One of the solutions may be active land-
management and zoning in airport planning, implemented along with stricter noise
certification for both new and older aircraft at a higher regulatory level (Wolfe et al.,
2016).
The realised threat of global climate change has urged many of the global institutions,
business and academia to search for adequate options to solve the problems (See Text
Box 1.4 for the main organisations and institutions).
Many regulatory measures are launched, such as environmental levies or emission
trading schemes (Wittmer and Vespermann, 2011), eco-licenses for engines (IPCC,
1999). Europe created the largest international emissions trading scheme, the
European Union Emissions Trading Scheme (EU-ETS), under Directive 101/2008/EC to
prevent additional CO2 emissions through selling allowances, thus increasing the
direct costs of airlines, which will eventually force them to decrease or optimise the
Text Box 1.4 Institutions and agencies created to deal specifically with environmental issues
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), affiliated to the UN, which prepares special
reports on man-made climate impact (http://www.ipcc.ch)
United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) continuing from the Paris
Agreement and Kyoto Protocol as a main legal ground (http://unfccc.int)
Committee on Aviation Environmental Protection (CAEP) is a technical committee of the ICAO

Council, established in 1983. CAEP assists the Council in formulating new policies and adopting
new Standards and Recommended Practices (SARPs) related to aircraft noise and emissions, and
more generally to aviation environmental impact (http://www.icao.int/ENVIRONMENTAL-
PROTECTION/Pages/CAEP.aspx).
number of flights in the long-run (Fukui and Miyoshi, 2017). However, this policy
caused great controversy and diplomatic resilience (Li, Wang and Cui, 2016), which
substantially decreased it effectiveness. Similarly, some of the other regulatory
measures also appeared to be too complicated and produced counter-intuitive results
(Vaishnav et al., 2016). As a final result, nowadays the continuously rising prices of
carbon will at one point make the airlines decide between the two options: buying
allowances from carbon market or investing in green technologies (Meleo, Nava
and Pozzi, 2016). At the ICAOs 38th Assembly in 2013, the member states agreed to
develop a package of measures to meet the growing concerns regarding aviations
environmental footprint, aligned with the UN Sustainable Development Goals,
namely three particular goals.5 The Committee on Aviation Environmental Protection
(CAEP) was created as the only technical committee of ICAO with the primary
purpose to study and develop proposals to minimise aviations effects on the
environment. The three stated goals of the aviation sectors climate action are as follows:
A short-term ambition for 1.5% average annual fuel efficiency improvement
until 2020;
5The information from here on is largely based on the ATAGs reports: Aviation Climate Solutions
(2015b) and Aviation Sectors Climate Action Framework (2015a)
A mid-term goal aiming at stabilised aviation CO2 emissions through carbon-
neutral growth;
A long-term goal to reduce aviations net CO2 emissions to 50% of what they
were in 2005 by 2050 (ATAG, 2015a).
In this joint effort, all collaborators across air transport work together airlines,
airports, ATM organisations, aircraft manufacturers and other partners. ICAO as a
leading party elaborated a basket of mitigation measures to alleviate the harm that
aviation caused the environment (ICAO, 2016a). The particular activities are grouped
into four main pillars, each of them contributing to the achievement of above stated
goals.
Technology and sustainable alternative fuels
With every new generation, the aircraft is improved in terms of both fuel consumption
(up to 1520% less than the previous generation) and subsequently less CO2 emissions.
The ICAO and the industry are working on the development of a certification system
for engines and aircraft in order to ensure less CO2 emissions (ICAO, 2016a). Other
technological improvements concern aerodynamics, use of innovative composite
materials for the fuselages, modelling the wings into a different shape etc. A massive
replacement of old aircraft has been initiated in the US, resulting in an 8% drop in
emissions between 2000 and 2014, while traffic increased by 20% (ATAG, 2015b). Over
2000 commercial flights by more than 20 airlines have taken place using alternative
aviation fuel. However, its cost is still high enough to prevent small airlines from
affording and adopting it (ATAG, 2011).
Operations
Airplanes also should be more efficient while operating. This means an improvement
of organisational procedures on-board, but also a re-evaluation of the Air Traffic
Management infrastructure. ICAOs recommendations include harmonisation
between regional and international air traffic control, improved navigation
technology, more flexible routes, and optimised flight paths. The multilateral
agreements (like Single European Sky) can help for significantly optimising routes
within it, together with satellite-based technologies.
Infrastructure
Improving efficiency at the airports capacity enhancements, development of air
traffic management systems, meteorological service enhanced efficiency, satellite-
based and ground-based coordinated surveillance, etc. may significantly contribute
to reducing emissions by avoiding congestion and reducing the noise of the airport
area. Additionally, the design of airports, use of environmentally-friendly materials
for cleaning, maintenance, saving energy and other on-ground activities are also
important for the ultimate performance.
Market-based measures (MBM)
ICAO plans impressive collaborative actions to achieve an aggregate global benefit by
involving as many stakeholders as possible. The implementation will go through the
development of a global MBM scheme, i.e., monitoring, reporting and verification,
emissions unit criteria and registries (ICAO, 2016a), as well as organise seminars series
and workshops for all stakeholders across the member states, which will attract more
attention and geographical representation. To avoid every country and region in the
world taking their own measures, a single global environment will be implemented
under the auspices of ICAO to design the framework (ATAG, 2015a). This system
should be cost-efficient, with maximum integrity between components, and still
minimise any competition distortion. There is a general agreement, that a global effort
is necessary. A supportive environment is needed from the policymakers, smart
management, in order to streamline the air traffic systems.
Globally, the aviation sector is expanding, as well as the tourism industry. Since both
sectors are inherently connected, their common future relies on their common interest.
The tourism sector is both a vector and a victim of climate change and we are fully
committed to contribute to reach the objectives set by the Paris Agreement, said
UNWTO Secretary-General, Taleb Rifai (UNWTO, 2016c), thus pointing out that the
sustainable future is the only option for survival and development.
1.5 Technology in Air Transport
Air transport has always been a flag in the field of innovation and its real application
(Belobaba, Swelbar and Barnhart, 2009). The sector itself is considered be the most
technologically advanced since its foundation and during its historical evolution.
Computerisation has penetrated all aspects of aviation making it currently impossible
to operate without technology. From the very beginning of the air transport supply
chain aircraft production and equipment to the last element in the chain customer
sales, distribution and on-board services technologies not only facilitate the process,
but are intended to perform more complicated and intelligent tasks, aiming at the
continuous improvement and efficiency of the sector. Technology application and use
of intelligent systems inevitably affect the rest of the partners of the air transport
industry including the ones connected with tourism and destination management.
Besides, technology plays a significant role in the future development of aviation,
influencing both operation cycles and efficiency. Therefore, a deeper overview of the
different technologies adopted in the air transport industry is presented with a special
emphasis on their correlation with the tourism sector.
In general, technology in air transport has four-fold aspects:
Aircraft technology concerning the mechanical, automatic and electronic
equipment of the aircraft
Navigation satellite-based and other technologies used in the air navigation
services, including the innovations made for global coverage
Airport technology all facilities dealing with ground operations for both airline
handling and traffic/passenger management, including automated services
Airline operation systems, distribution and market-based technologies mainly
concerning airlines regarding their internal systems, distribution channels (GDS,
CRS), internet-based direct sales, NDC of IATA, mobile applications, etc.
Aircraft technology
Aircraft design has been continuously improving during the whole history of aviation,
so nowadays it can boast about its innovative aerodynamic performance, structural
design and the new materials used. Further, the ongoing trend to reduce carbon
emissions and lower fuel consumption additionally presses engineers to improve the
mechanics of the aircraft. Still, according to Schmitt and Gollnick (2016), a radical
change in the flying technology is not expected, at least not in the coming 20 to 30
years. Rather, the innovations would mostly affect efficiency and slight product
updates.
Another expected innovation to come are electric engines and those operating with
bio-fuel (ATAG, 2011). Electric engines are already tested for other transport vehicles,
but still need proficiency for their usage in the air transport because of the weight of
batteries. A proposed alternative is solar energy, however, there are still challenges to
be solved regarding energy storage and cost-effectiveness (Abbe and Smith, 2016).
Much more technological excellence is seen in the cabin. Electronics and avionics today
represent about 30% of the aircraft value (Schmitt and Gollnick, 2016). They should be
fully compatible with the air navigation systems so that unified information is
available both for the crew and the ground navigation. This shows the efforts made by
global institutions (e.g. European Union European Commission, 2011) to harmonise
and unify standards in both engineering and software technologies.
In addition, the aircraft cabin incorporates an increasing amount of new electronic
services for passengers like entertainment systems and cabin management systems
(Schmitt and Gollnick, 2016). The overall digitalisation and the myriad of devices
further diversify on-board services, but they also need an adequate support system,
which should be integrated in the aircraft when it is manufactured.
The latest developments in aviation have introduced unmanned aircraft systems,
which have provoked considerable attention in both civil and military services (e.g.
drones, being in the micro category). Still, they have a number of challenges to meet
(e.g. sensing technologies, decision-making and the incorporation of artificial
intelligence, but also external issues regarding regulation and legal basis, as well as air
traffic management involvement) before being launched for regular use in passenger
transport (Yu and Zhang, 2015).
ATM technology
The main goal of air navigation services is to provide safe and efficient traffic around
the airport area and throughout the whole sky space. The ATM services are by nature
based on technology, therefore the innovative advances like geographic positioning
satellite systems (GPS) and computer navigation have substantially contributed to the
their improved operation. With the prospects of ever increasing demand for air travel,
global air transport institutions have serious concerns regarding the future for traffic
management and addressing capacity demands. ICAO called for implementing global
interoperability and upgrading the aviation systems to become better coordinated,
harmonized and still remain sustainable (ICAO, 2011). Provision of a unified radio
spectrum for all ATM communication around the world is considered a step in this
direction (ICAO, 2016b Air navigation report). Along the same line, the EU is
working to launch the SESAR programme (see Text box 1.1) which will further allow
not only tracing and controlling the traffic, but planning, tracking and managing 4D
aircraft trajectories (Schmitt and Gollnick, 2016). Nonetheless, all the connected issues
require much more political activity than engineering activity. Similar issues concern
the weather forecast and meteorology system, which is part of the ATM and airport
facilities. The new sophisticated technologies for modelling atmosphere processes may
prove their efficiency in the long-term for more precise weather forecasting.
Airport technologies
Technologies at the airport can again be explored from the same two perspectives as
the airports two target clients: the airlines and passengers points of view. Ground
handling and maintenance of airlines call for sophisticated facilities and equipment at
the airside part combined with a good internal organisation system for more efficient
service. Again a significant amount of standardisation would be beneficial for both the
airport and the operating airlines. The strictly imposed ICAO regulation on airport
construction (ICAO, 2004.) partially addresses this issue, but many of the older airports
have not been planned according to those standards and need to be adapted and
renovated accordingly. Regarding the organisation of the handling operations, the
new technologies may construct vision techniques, remote sensors and diverse devices
for security checks, as well as optimisation of the operations based on business-
intelligent systems.
Regarding passenger service (check-in procedures, customs, border crossing, luggage
handling and all the miscellaneous non-aviation services provided), airports and
airlines actually have contradictory interests. While the airlines require to process
passengers fast and efficiently to minimise their time before departure, airports rely
on non-aviation revenue, hence they prefer to keep passengers as much as possible on
the airport territory (Schmitt and Gollnick, 2016). Being a common element between
air transport and a tourist destination, the airport should leverage interests of both
airlines and tourists. Therefore, most of the technology used by airports serve to
improve the efficient processing of passengers. For example, service automation has
been largely introduced in the airport procedures; online check-in has already become
a norm, with mobile applications added to further facilitate the process; self-check-in
kiosks are also well known; and now technology continues to provide the full cycle of
passenger procedures with the new baggage robot Leo, which takes the luggage
directly from the passengers as they come to the airport, thus enabling them to proceed
faster to the gate (SITA, Leo, SITAs baggage robot). According to the SITA report
(2017), in the next five years, more than 24% of the airports worldwide will use
artificial intelligence to optimize their performance with integrated solutions and
improved efficiency, as well as with enhanced customer services. Usage of advanced
technology may have tremendous impact on developing economies where air
transport plays a key role in economic transformation (Itani, OConnell, and Mason,
2014). Further, with the enrichment of non-aviation services, airports are starting to
invest in technologies that will help people use them (e.g. mobile applications for
orientation, apps for purchasing airport services, notifications about delays and
disruptions, and baggage tracking). Besides, technologys contribution to better safety
and security at airports is also significant. For example, ThruVis, a passive people-
screening camera (Peters, 2016) performs facial recognition and invisible detection,
which preserves passengers privacy, or the use of biometric technology for security.
Airline operation systems, marketing and distribution
Airlines are pioneers in the computerisation of business operations (Harteveldt, 2012).
Actually, the entire operation process of the airlines is currently computerised. Starting
from aircraft planning and allocating routes for the particular aircraft, airlines have
developed their IT architecture or protocol (Doganis, 2006) which allows all of the
various operations to be integrated to a real-time information system. Thus, decision-
making is supported and the different departments can exchange data and messages.
This is the so called internal Central Reservation System (CRS). The CRSs have evolved
along with computer development (in 1962, the first CRS SABRE, the Semi-Automated
Business Research Environment, was founded). Eventually, with the connection to
external partners like travel agencies or alliances, the biggest CRSs reached global
coverage and encompassed many other suppliers apart from airlines, such as hotel
chains, rent-a-car companies, etc., to become known as Global Distribution Systems
(GDS). By the 1970s and 1980s the GDSs were extremely innovative because they were
the first to allow reservations in real time. This was the main distribution channel of
the airlines for over two decades. As per internal operation, the airline CRSs have
developed plenty of fares, rules and pricing standards in order to match more
passenger segments by applying price discrimination and selling ancillary services on-
board. On this basis and the enormous data provided by the CRSs, revenue
management emerged and developed, further enhanced by relevant software (Ivanov,
2014). However, by the end of 1990s, with the worldwide spread of internet, GDSs
remained a little behind, giving way to the rise of online booking and self-made
reservations. The two key tools that are dramatically transforming contemporary
airline distribution are internet booking and electronic ticketing (Doganis, 2006). The
former permits instant confirmation and the latter allows virtual documentation and
no need for hard copy. On the other hand, many of the intermediaries became virtual
(Online Travel Agencies, OTA), again stimulating self-service and greater flexibility.
Internet-based distribution has greatly influenced the tourism industry as well. Apart
from airline tickets, customers are able to buy all other services provided by the tourist
companies without any personal interaction. Customers no longer need the assistance
of an intermediary to book a flight or even to create their own customized package
trip, the so-called dynamic packaging (Kazandzhieva, 2014). Moreover, airlines are
also able to sell reservations through their own websites, thus skipping the
intermediary costs and establishing a direct connection with the customer. In this way
airlines have greater control over both their inventories and revenue.
In the age of social media, the suppliers and airlines in particular are engaged in
providing maximum personalized products, so all the personal details are getting
incorporated in the commercial platforms, thus forming Big Data. The process will
continue and enlarge in the future, when, again thanks to technology, airlines will
elaborate much more sophisticated tools for targeting their potential customers, and
will provide them specifically adapted products (Harteveldt, 2012).
* * *
The air transport industry has evolved as a vital sector of the economy, especially for
countries with mature economies as well as remote regions and islands that rely
mainly on aviation as a means of transportation. Despite being a comparatively young
industry, air transport has a strong regulatory basis and strictly outlined players along
its supply chain. Air operation and its overall impact has been recognized in many
other sectors, and especially it is often connected with travel and tourism. For some
destinations air transport is merged with the tourism sector. In this regard, aviation
stakeholders are perceived as part of the tourism industry and hence, they have a stake
in its development. After the detailed exploration of air transport we proceed with an
analogical analysis of tourism in its local appearance as a tourist destination in order
to set the background for the comparison of both industries.
Chapter 2
DESTINATION MANAGEMENT
2.1 General Overview and Fundamentals
The tourist destination as a unit of research has attracted considerable attention for
being at the centre of the tourism industry. There are various definitions and terms
trying to encompass the complex nature of the destination as a territorial entity, social
network, partnership and tourist experience. Additionally, there are numerous terms
for a tourist destination, such as tourist place (Baerenholdt et al., 2004), tourism
area (Butler, 1980), and tourist attraction system (Leiper, 1990; Viken, 2016), tourist
district (Sainaghi, 2006), local tourist destination/LTD (Manente, 2008), which
further trigger different nuances in the analysis of the tourist destination and finally
result in a blended heterogeneous amalgam of definitions, functions, attributes and
participants. In order to thoroughly span the multifaceted nature of the tourist
destination, one needs an integrated approach and several perspectives (Saraniemi
and Kylaenen, 2011), as well as a precise clarification of the main terminology.
The tourism industry is regarded as an open system (Ritchie and Crouch, 2003),
consisting of numerous diverse components, and the tourist destination may be
reviewed as a mini-model of the tourism system that includes most of the systems
components, but is limited to its geographical territory. One of the oldest
understandings of the tourist destination is connected with its spatial attributes, i.e.
the location and geographical scope. This simplest definition can be found in any
dictionary: a place to which one is journeying, a place worthy of travel or an
extended visit (Merriam-Webster Dictionary). Location is a compulsory element in
most of the definitions, and Bornhorst, Ritchie and Sheehan (2010) define the
destination as a geographical region, political jurisdiction, or a major attraction,
which seeks to provide visitors with a range of satisfying to memorable visitation
experiences, and the UNWTO has elaborated on their official definition as follows:
A tourism destination is a physical space with or without administrative and/or

analytical boundaries in which a visitor can spend an overnight. It is the cluster
(co-location) of products and services, and of activities and experiences along the
tourism value chain and a basic unit of analysis of tourism. A destination
incorporates various stakeholders and can network to form larger destinations. It is
also intangible with its image and identity which may influence its market
competitiveness.
Source: UNWTO (2016b)
The UNWTO definition distinguishes three components forming the tourist
destination. The first is the physical location, i.e. the geographical side; then there is the
amount of tourism characteristic services and activities, comprising the tourist product;
and the final component is the stakeholders, as well as the intangible attributes of image
and identity. This complex understanding of a destination implies deeper levels of
analysis of the destination; for example, stakeholders and their relationships, together
with the marketing attributes (image and identity) indicate a socially constructed
entity (Viken, 2016), whereas the provision of services and activities is more connected
with the industrial and supply-side approach.
Actually, the scholars have directed their studies in several dimensions, which
currently are adopted as norm; these are the Industrial vs Social approach and
Demand vs Supply side perspectives. A more in-depth overview of the literature
may further lead to other groupings and approaches e.g. economic, geographically
oriented, marketing management-oriented, customer-oriented and socioculturally
oriented (Saraniemi and Kylaenen, 2011).
The industrial approach examines the destination as a successful combination of
resources, competitive conditions and sufficient demand (Hjalager, 2000) under the
rule of regulative institutions. Hence, the primary purpose of the destination as an
entity is generating economic profits and enabling sustainable long-term development
by properly utilising the available resources. However, this approach neglects an
important side of the tourism industry, which is the obvious interactions that occur in
the process of operation, and how these interactions may significantly influence both
the process of production (because of the simultaneous production and consumption
of the tourist product) and the final satisfaction of the clients (being co-creators of the
services themselves). Therefore, as an alternative perspective appears the social
approach.
The authors, embracing the social approach, consider issues like governing, community,
social needs, concerns, and relationships (Viken, 2016). The main claim of this view is
that destinations exist thanks to the entangled interests and relationships among their
numerous stakeholders. Since the tourist product is delivered by more than one actor,
the interactions and some degree of collaboration among the actors is inevitable.
(Haugland et al., 2011). The destination may be seen as a network of interests or
stakeholders, including their interactions (Viken, 2016). A major issue of the social
perspective is referred to as the entangled interests of the stakeholders, which is
often controversial and without defined regulation and/or management (Bramwell
and Sharman, 1999).
The supply and demand dichotomy of destination exploration relates to the economic and
marketing foundations. The supply side of the tourist destination stems from the
bundle of companies providing the mixture of goods and services that are offered at
the destination, which together comprise the tourist product, but often are directly
associated with the understanding of a destination as well (Viken, 2016). The demand-
side perspective, advocated by a number of scholars (Buhalis, 2000; Leiper, 1990),
considers destination as an amalgam of products and services, creating a certain
experience for the consumers which is enhanced by their subjective perceptions
(Buhalis, 2000). Subjective perceptions of the customers depend on their personal
characteristics and background (Buhalis, 2000), but it also may partially be
manipulated by the instruments of destination marketing. In this regard, the
consumers perception of a holistic experience contributes to the image and identity of
the destination.
Because of the multiple aspects of the destination, a few authors support a more
integrated, multilevel approach (Haugland et al, 2011; Bornhorst et al, 2010; Sainaghi,
2006; Heath, 2003) which should be adopted for all components of destination
management, i.e. destination actors, including destination management organisation
(DMO); destination as a system; and managerial functions performed within the
destination. However, each deals with a certain facet of the destination, like
destination success (Bornhorst et al., 2010) or destination competitiveness (Ritchie and
Crouch, 2003), which shifts the main focus of their efforts away from the destination
by itself as a construct.
With regard to the above discussion and in order to deal with precise terminology, a
very clear distinction between the constructs destination, destination
management and DMO should be elaborated. Because of their close relationship
and a common origin, in many cases their inherent features are mixed up, leading to
the three terms being blurred.
From the organisational theory point of view, the destination appears as an object of
impact (Merilainen and Lemmetyinen, 2011), with a compound nature, consisting of
numerous and diverse components, and all of them interacting within the destination
itself. For the governance and development of the destination, usually an entity is
assigned, which in most cases is viewed by the researchers as the Destination
Management Organisation (DMO).6. However, the number of classic DMOs purposely
created and operating with the single goal of managing the destination is quite small.
Moreover, the destination in a larger sense may encompass a whole country, regions,
areas, but also any small island, city or county may claim to be a separate destination.
Thus, the total number of destinations in the world is practically enormous, and
hardly any of them have designated a special DMO to serve for their development.
Therefore, DMOs might be considered mostly a special case of the governing authority
of a destination. In most cases the functions of a DMO are performed usually by local
authorities/governments, professional tourism associations, some corporate
companies, or more generally, the DMO functions are distributed among several of
the above-mentioned players. Our reasoning goes entirely in line with the UNWTO
understanding of DMO:
A Destination Management/Marketing Organization (DMO) is the leading

organisational entity which may encompass the various authorities, stakeholders
and professionals and facilitates tourism sector partnerships towards a collective
destination vision. The governance structures of DMOs vary from a single public
authority to a public/private partnership model with the key role of initiating,
coordinating and managing certain activities such as implementation of tourism
policies, strategic planning, product development, promotion and marketing and
convention bureau activities.
The functions of the DMOs may vary from national to regional and local levels
depending on the current and potential needs as well as on the decentralisation level
of public administration. Not every tourist destination has a DMO.
Source: UNWTO (2016b)
The main functions of the DMO are managerial activities which aim at the successful
performance of a destination. The crucial task of enhancing stakeholder collaboration
6DMOs are also named convention and visitors bureaus (CVBs) or tourism boards, but in this book we
will stick to the most popular name in the academic literature and in the business DMO.
and balancing their diverse and sometimes even controversial interests is assigned to
the DMO (Voggler and Pechlaner, 2014). Actually, the DMO functions represent the
destination management definition, i.e. the sequence of primary and support
activities to manage and support the integration of different resources, activities and
stakeholders through suitable policies and actions, (Manente, 2008). Considering the
destinations as strategic networks, destination management may be formulated also
as inter-organizational actions of enabling relationships towards shared goals, at the
same time balancing the actors concerns and interests (Merilinen and
Lemmetyinen, 2011).
After clarification of the terminology, the next section continues with an analysis of the
destination construct and our attempt to acknowledge and explore its multiple
components by creating a destination model.
2.2 Destination Cake Model
Difficulties in elaborating a full model of the holistic vision of a destination can be
compared only with the efforts to illustrate in a basic chart the heterogeneity and
multifaceted nature of tourism as a phenomenon. While the tourism system is
somewhat more abstract, being a worldwide industry, and yet it has entangled
tangible and intangible components, the destination has one definite tangible element
which fixes it to a certain place, and hence makes the external environment more
obtainable and possible to be explored deeply. This is the physical location, or the
geographical territory, which makes the destination a real reflection of the tourism
system, but with particular physical, economic and social dimensions.
Why is a thorough depiction of a destination necessary? The reasons could be multiple.
On one hand, in order to analyse the destination in depth, we should identify and
study all its components, their interactions and possible impacts they have on each
other. Such deeper examination would delve into the complex nature of the
destination, and consequently it would reveal areas for improvement and destination
development. On the other hand, considering the primary topic of this book the
relationship between air transport and tourism, we need to analyse the role the
transport system, particularly aviation, plays in the tourist destination. The transport
system is an integral part of the tourist destination and definitely influences tourism
industry development. However until now, this impact has been only detected
(Spasojevic, Lohmann, and Scott, 2017) and lacks a systematic approach which would
eventually reveal any hidden interactions and processes between the two systems and
their components and stakeholders. Therefore, a richer illustration of the destination
would facilitate the following comparison of the two entities of air transport and
tourism.
There is surely a risk of falling into a trap of an oversimplistic or overcomplex
interpretation of the destination construct. Both of them are undesirable extremes
because oversimplicity may neglect certain aspects, though looking visually attractive,
whereas an overcomplex model may incur unnecessary details which are a matter of
subjective/concrete situations/cases (Lew and McKercher, 2006).
The proposed Cake model of a destination steps on the basis, presented by Bonetti,
Petrillo and Simoni (2006). Their purpose is similar to enable more effective analysis
of a tourism destination by decomposing its components and processes by layers.
Bonetti et al. (2006) focus on the different configurations that may be found in each
layer. The process taking place among the layers provides the dynamic view of the
destination, with a special accent on tourism development. However, their work
provides the groundwork which might be further enriched.
Figure 2.1 Destination Cake Model
The Destination Cake model (see Figure 2.1) aims to encompass not only the tangible
elements of a destination, but also the intangible ones, and to appropriately depict
them so that the whole destination can be viewed at a glance. A simple 2D illustration
is not capable of summarising both components and the relations between them, and
maybe this is one reason for the lack of a holistic graphical interpretation of the
destination construct. There are several appeals for a multi-level approach towards the
destination (Haugland et al., 2011; Bonetti et al., 2006; Heath, 2003; Pearce, 2014), but
still, most of them explore a certain issue related to the tourism destination, hence the
elaborated models tend to emphasise the particular aspects concerning this issue
(competitiveness Ritchie and Crouch, 2003, success Volgger and Pechlaner, 2014,
stakeholder relations Bornhorst et al, 2010, etc.). In his thorough study of the
conceptual framework of a destination, Pearce (2014) proves the lack of a conceptual
and theoretical foundation for destinations despite the numerous attempts that appear
as fragmented, incomplete and too general. But even his attempt needs further
illustration and clarification (see Table 2.1).
Table 2.1 Dimensions and elements of destinations

Dimensions and elements of destinations
Geographic dimension Space Spatial concentration and colocation

Spatial extent
Spatial scales
Subsystems
External linkages
Dual or multiple identities
Place Contextual factors
Cultural characteristics
Social embeddedness
Geographical embeddedness
Tourism resources
Mode of production Structure Interdependence, complementarity, diagonal production
Behaviour Cooperative
- Complementarity, trust, economies of scales
Competitive
- Firm level, destination level
Actors
Dynamic dimension Structural
evolution
Driving Cultural, economic, adaptation, innovation
factors
Source: based on Pearce (2014)
Later, the model will be used for a thematic analysis of air transport as a vital
component of the destination, with a specific focus on its role and its impact on the
other components and on the destination as a whole. Next, the separate layers of the
Destination Cake model will be presented, whereas section 2.3 goes into detail of
destination management and destination governance, and section 2.4 finishes the Cake
model presentation by exploring and outlining destination attributes.
The first layer of the model provides the foundation of both the model and the
destination in an abstract view. Here the geographical limits and the spatial
determination of a destination (i.e., its territory) are considered. Also on this layer are
tourist resources of the destination the ultimate condition of a place to attract people
and transform itself into a tourist destination. And last but not least are embedded the
prerequisites of an area to start providing services for outer visitors. These three
elements territory, resources and infrastructure form the basis on which a
destination could be constructed. In the following paragraphs we shall examine each
one in more detail, outlining the main issues and discussions around them.
Territory. Tourism is a place-based endeavour in that all the activities and interactions
that happen are always related to a specific space. Unlike other service industries, the
uniqueness of a certain place constitutes a part of the whole tourism product and
consumers experiences. In light of the industrial approach to destinations, the
industrial cluster or district has particular geographic boundaries where the resources
are located and the production processes take place (Hjalager, 2000). On the other
hand, spatial structures of the tourism system are usually linked with origin and
transit areas (Leiper, 1990), which also affect tourism, but only the final point of a
tourist journey is considered in the destination study. Nevertheless, the physical
boundaries translate an abstract vision of tourism into a particular place. Although
those boundaries are not always firm, the UNWTO definition implies there could be a
lack of administrative and/or analytical limits (UNWTO, 2016b). Still, the destination
territory is the strongest element representing its tangible components. Whatever the
services that are offered at the location, or the suppliers that provide these services, the
geographical aspect of a destination is the first and ultimate element that generates the
sense in consumers of travelling, or touring or being outside of their usual place
of residence (UNWTO, 2016b). The destination territory determines its scope, and
when its boundaries coincide with the national or administrative limits of a states
jurisdiction, it is easier and more effective for the destination to set out its strategy,
policy, governance (Bornhorst et al, 2010). Such is the case with cities, counties,
municipalities, islands or countries. However, for destinations that span across several
countries (Mediterranean beach, Riviera), or regions with flexible borders (the
Dobrudzha region, located in both Bulgaria and Romania; the Tyrol region, located in
Italy and Austria), the boundaries go beyond the pure geographical characteristics.
The territory is also the component that has direct interdependence on transportation
and air transport in particular. However, as the air transport is predominantly used
for longer distances, its impact can be seen mostly regarding the accessibility of a
destination, rather than the tourist movements within its territory.
Resources. The second pillar in the foundation layer of the destination model are the
resources. Here we can apply a narrow and broader approach to analyse them. In a
narrow sense, the destination resources embody the selection of natural or man-made
attractions which appeal to potential visitors with their uniqueness, scarcity or value.
Undoubtedly, tourist attractions form the core of the tourism industry as the primary
purpose for travel and the reason to visit (Ritchie and Crouch, 2003). Therefore, the
simple logic states that the more numerous and interesting the tourist resources, the
bigger the potential for a place to develop as a tourist destination. If applied to a
destination already existing, the number and quality of the tourist resources would
predetermine the opportunities for enriching the tourist product, and therefore attract
tourists from various segments and during different periods throughout the year.
Tourist resources are a key part of tourist destinations, and as such are illustrated in a
central position in destination management models (Marinov, 2006; Dwyer and Kim,
2003). Tourist resources further are crucial in building destination competitiveness
(Ritchie and Crouch, 2003; Marinov, 2006; Dwyer and Kim, 2003), in developing the
tourist product (Benur and Bramwell, 2015), as well as in the discourse on sustainable
management and development (Grzinic and Saftic, 2012). However, tourist resources,
even valuable and unique, need proper treatment and management in order to become
attractions and start receiving certain tourist flows (Manente, 2008). The topics of
deployment and utilisation of tourist resources constitute a huge part of tourism
studies (Haugland et al, 2011), and are often tightly connected to sustainable
development (Bonetti et al, 2006; Rafailova, 2006). Relying mostly on different cases
from around the world, the studies concentrate on the way the (im)proper
management of tourist resources may affect a tourist destination in a positive or
negative way (Vodenska, 2001; Rafailova, 2006).
The broader view of destination resources has its origin in strategic management with
the notion that tourist destination management is similar to the management of a
corporation, namely in the Resource-Based View (RBV) of the firm (Barney, 1991;
Barney and Arikan, 2001). The main idea of RBV is that the availability of different
types of resources (financial, human, tangible, intangible) in a firm contribute to its
competitiveness if the resources are rare, inimitable and/or valuable (Barney, 1991).
The initial concept was later applied in other contexts apart from organisational
behaviour, such as hotel chain modelling, and proved its viability and validity,
(Ivanova and Ivanov, 2015). Regarding tourist destinations, RBV again may find its
place (Rodriguez-Diaz and Espino-Rodriguez, 2008). Apart from the specific tourist
resources that are either physical, tangible types, or intangible kinds, such as festivals,
folklore, culture, etc., other types of resources are the people (human resources) who
live and work in the destination territory, and who possess knowledge, competencies,
skills and capabilities (thus embodying intangible resources); financial or capital
resources that are formed from the available assets of the governing institutions; and
finally, destination image and identity, considered among the strongest intangible
resources. A special focus of RBV is dedicated to the more dynamic aspects of the
resources, i.e. capabilities, competencies and relations that integrate and configure the
static assets in order to deliver the most customer value (Haugland et al., 2011). It is
a matter of the organisational and innovative abilities of the local stakeholders to
transform the resources into profit generating assets (Bonetti et al., 2006). Thus, the
resources pillar of the first layer of the Destination Cake model constitute the
foundation, but their role is enhanced only by the proactive support of the other
destination stakeholders.
General Infrastructure. The built environment or general infrastructure is essential for
the development of any area. In this term, we include all underground and surface
construction, such as water and electricity supply, sewage and drainage systems,
roads, communications and other facilities. Additionally, welfare structures like
transport stations (bus, railway), airports, sea ports, general services as retails
healthcare institutions, administrative structures, shopping and park areas, banks and
other financial institutions, etc. also condition the development of a district into a
tourist destination, even though they are not directly connected with the tourism
industry, but they enhance the overall customer experience at the destination. In
general, the infrastructure contributes to the tourists sense of safety and security and
makes them feel comfortable away from home, provided the basic necessities of life
are at their disposal. Regarding purpose-built destinations, like theme parks and
resorts, the general infrastructure should be planned in advance and incorporated into
the tourist facilities. A part of the General infrastructure are also the transportation
facilities, i.e. stations and ports. In the context of our primary purpose (air transport-
tourism nexus), the airport, and more specifically its general infrastructure, is seen as
part of the destination. While road transport infrastructure enables tourists to travel
within the destination, airport infrastructure ensures a comfortable experience for
tourists at arrivals and departure (Khadaroo and Seetah, 2007). Destination
accessibility is also enabled by the transport infrastructure, and it will be explored in
detail in section 3.1.1.
Local community. Usually, local people are classified as one of the destination
stakeholders because of their direct concern with the tourism development. Any plans
and arrangements should be negotiated with the host population (Perez and Nadal,
2005) to receive their support, because any tourism development could affect their
normal life either positively or negatively. Further, the local community is entitled to
use and enjoy the available resources as part of their human rights and place of
residence. Consequently, a reasonable long-term plan to utilise tourist resources
should be implemented to ensure the locals are able to use the resources as well. There
are numerous papers and reports discussing the issue of sustainable use and
development of the destinations (Perez and Nadal, 2005). From another point of view,
host citizens help to serve the social construct of the destination (Pearce, 2014). The
inevitable interactions between host people and tourists boost the whole experience of
the latter, thus contributing to their overall satisfaction and image of the destination.
We place the local community in the foundation layer, because they are an integral
part of the territory, as they live there, and their culture, traditions, language and
folklore form the authenticity and uniqueness of the destination. The importance of
the host population for the destination is three-fold: first, as a source of human capital
for the tourist suppliers; second, as the ultimate cultural background of the
destination; and third, as providers of the social aspect of the tourist product for the
consumers.
In summary, the first layer of the Destination Cake model represents the foundation,
without which further tourism development is not possible. In fact, these are living
conditions for any populated area that provides basic comfort for the host community.
Similar to the famous Maslow Pyramid of human needs, the next layers of the Cake
model are impossible to exist without the previous ones.
The second layer of the model depicts suppliers of the tourist services. There are several
terms used to name the same: tourism actors, tourism operators, service
providers, or tourism suppliers, but all of them address those companies or persons
who provide tourism characteristic services (see Text box 2.1).
Namely, these are:
Hotels and any other accommodation establishments;
Food and Beverage outlets of any type;
Travel intermediaries, dealing with the particular destination;
Transportation companies bus companies, railway companies, ship and cruise
companies;
Airlines;
Any companies, offering tours, guide services or any other additional services
within the destination (e.g. sports and cultural activities, or activities that are
typical for the particular destination);
Tourist animation companies;
Institutions or companies handling the local sights, attractions, museums, etc.
All of them form the essential core of the tourism industry, and hence create the major
tourist product of the destination.
According to the UNWTO terminology, without tourism characteristic services in a
certain territory, the tourism industry practically does not exist (UNWTO, 2008).
Providers of tourism characteristic services would offer them only if there is demand
for them. Therefore, companies providing accommodation, or animation, for example,
can be found only in tourist destinations.
Because of the numerous and diverse suppliers of tourist services, the whole industry
is often seen as fragmented (Haugland et al., 2011). Moreover, those suppliers do not
always act in coordination and in one direction. The need for cooperation rather than
competition is largely discussed (Bramwell and Sharman, 1999; Jamal and Getz, 1995),
as well as the need to establish formal and informal networks among the suppliers for
the sake of the destinations competitiveness and success. Additionally, the interests
of the tourist suppliers may often contradict with the goals of the host population, or
the intentions of the governing institutions, or other tourist stakeholders. Managing
all stakeholders diverse interests appears to be a challenge for most of the destinations
(Bornhorst et al., 2010).
Text box 2.1 Tourism characteristic services and activities

Products Activities
Accommodation services for visitors Accommodation for visitors
Food and beverage serving services Food and beverage serving activities
Railway passenger transport services Railway passenger transport
Road passenger transport services Road passenger transport
Water passenger transport services Water passenger transport
Air passenger transport services Air passenger transport
Transport equipment rental services Transport equipment rental
Travel agencies and other reservation services Travel agencies and other reservation activities
Cultural services Cultural activities
Sports and recreational services Sports and recreational activities
Country-specific tourism characteristic goods Retail trade of country-specific tourism
characteristic goods
Country-specific tourism characteristic services Other country-specific tourism characteristic
services
Source: UNWTO (2008)
Bonetti et al. (2006) examine the tourist supplier layer as a Tourism system, focusing
on the way it is managed and the inter-relational framework. The reason behind such
an approach lies in the presumption that the smooth operation of systems is highly
dependable on the integration of its elements. Therefore, tourist suppliers are
considered a network with all the internal relations among its participants. The two
variables used to characterise those relations are: the degree of interdependence, and
the degree of centralisation (Bonetti et al., 2006). In a similar vein, Jamal and Getz (1995)
suggest a community-based approach to the multiple stakeholders and a process-
oriented strategy to manage the turbulent domains at the local level (Jamal and Getz,
1995).
In the context of the primary topic of the book, we will explore in more detail only the
airlines as tourist services providers. They are a non-typical tourist supplier, because
of the nature of their business, and there are host and foreign airlines, depending on
their country of origin. Host airlines flights originate from the destination of reference
and they operate primarily for outbound tourism. They transport passengers to the
destination in their inbound flights. When these airlines plan their routes, they usually
consider the outbound passenger flow from the destination, and thus they do not
contribute much to the tourism industry at the destination. On the other hand, there
are foreign airlines, originating from abroad, with a hub outside the destination of
reference. Their planning process involves evaluating the destination and
relationships with the destination stakeholders airport operators, local authorities,
and tourism business. The Freedoms of the Air (see Chapter 1, Section 1.4 Regulation
of air transport) actually have omitted the national origin of the airlines as a critical
factor for their operation, but from the destination perspective, only the airlines,
bringing tourists to the destination of reference should be considered as destination
stakeholders. Therefore, for the purpose of this book, when we analyse the airlines and
their role in destination tourism development, we address only the airlines with
inbound flights to the destination.
Similarly, we can consider the tour operators and other intermediaries. Usually, tour
operators organising package trips are located in the customers country of origin.
However, they have established relations in advance with the destination suppliers to
compile their products and services that are used in the packages, but are actually
provided in the destination. Physically and legally, those tour operators do not belong
to the destination of reference, but at the same time, they have a direct impact on its
product, stakeholders and tourist flows. Consequently, from this point of view, those
tour operators should be considered part of the destination suppliers. Following the
same logic, local tour operators who predominantly offer outbound trips and services
should be considered part of the relevant destinations, but not the one in reference.
The third layer of the Destination Cake model refers to the Tourism product, i.e. the
goods and services produced by the tourism suppliers and delivered to the tourists.
The type of goods and services correspond to the relevant suppliers who produce
them. However, a very specific feature of the tourism product is in its heterogeneous
nature and the holistic perception consumers have of it. Buhalis (2000: 98) points out
that destinations are amalgams of tourism products, offering an integrated
experience to consumers. Therefore, he insists on the importance of the
consumers/tourists perception as the main determiner of the destination as a concept
(he names it a perceptual concept). When tourists consume the destination product,
they perceive it as a holistic experience (Pine and Gilmore, 1998), often without
distinguishing the separate services and suppliers (Buhalis, 2000). Additionally, the
destination product includes some elements of the general infrastructure, discussed
earlier, which are not pure tourist services or activities, as well as intangible attributes
such as destination authenticity, atmosphere and social interactions with the local
community or other stakeholders. Therefore, the overall tourist experience is quite
complex and composed of the integrated efforts of the different suppliers. Every single
supplier has its stake in customers satisfaction, but also in their disappointment if
there is any. In this regard, the collaboration and coordination among the suppliers
become a necessity, rather than a recommendation. The joint operations of the
suppliers would result in two benefits improved management and operations of their
business on one side, and enhanced customer satisfaction on the other. From this
perspective, a destination may be perceived as an environment for the tourists
experience. A direct consequence from the above reasoning is the concept of
destination tourism product quality. The complementarity of the items (Andergassen,
Candella and Figini, 2013) constituting the destination product imply that only in their
full presence and adequate performance would the tourist product serve the
destination image. Hence, the suppliers would not only provide their services in
coordination with the rest but would have to also maintain a common level of quality
(Andergassen et al, 2013) which will de facto represent the quality of the whole
destination, and consequently its image.
A deeper examination of the concentration and diversification of the destination
product we find in Benurs and Bramwells (2015) study. In their analysis, the authors
place the tourism product features in the centre, between tourism supply and demand,
and integrated by the mutual interrelations between them (Benur and Bramwell, 2015).
The elements of the product, however, are not simply assembled from the separate
tourist providers services, but form an integrated holistic experience, whose
components are indivisible. Still, in order to achieve consistency of this experience,
there should be coordination among the producers of the different services/elements.
Here we return again to the previously discussed relationships tourism suppliers have
with each other. The real problem, though, remains as stated: How would the multiple
providers with diverse interests be able to cooperate for the interests of the whole
destination, especially when the outcomes of such cooperation often are not evident,
or at least do not bring immediate benefits?
An intriguing paradox is found here; from the consumers perspective, not all costs
and benefits can affect their perception of value because of the unequal importance of
the product elements for each customer (Pandza Bajs, 2011). Does it mean that every
single customer would insist on his or her own interpretation of the destination
product? The answer is not uniform. Destination tourism product is an integrated
experience, co-produced and co-created by the suppliers, host community and tourists
themselves. Thus, the subjective characteristics of the consumers (past experience,
demographic determinants, personal preferences and expectations) impact their
overall perception of the destination product. This is a more psychological view of the
product, which derives from marketing studies (Bendapudi and Leone, 2003). Also, it
naturally leads to the fourth layer of the Destination Cake model Customer value.
Customer value derives from such major marketing constructs as customer
satisfaction, loyalty and perception (Wang, Chen and Prebensen, 2017). It has been
defined as a multidimensional concept, therefore each of the existing definitions
reflects a particular aspect of scholars research. Be it hedonic value (Holbrook and
Hirschman, 1982), financial value (Zeithaml, 1988), emotional value (Duman and
Mattila, 2005), or functional value (Williams and Soutar, 2009), it has been
conceptualised and incorporated in numerous models and various interpretations.
Customer value in the tourism industry has also received considerable attention and
has been the subject of multiple applied-study publications (Flagestad and Hope, 2001;
Dong and Siu, 2013; Wang et al, 2017; Gallarza and Saura, 2006). Its nature is two-fold;
on one side we have the customer's experience and perceptions regarding a
particular product; in our case that is the destination product, and on the other side
value creation is a central issue for the service providers in their struggle to remain
competitive (OCass and Sok, 2015). In terms of destination value creation, Flagestad
and Hope (2001) make a thorough analysis of a winter resort and suggest the goal of
sustained value creation, which is based on Porters primary and support activities
and is adapted for a tourism destination. Therefore, customer value is positioned on
the top of the Destination Cake model, where it is derived from the lower layers to
finally culminate in consumers minds as the ultimate outcome of their interaction with
the particular destination.
2.3 Destination Management, DMO, Destination Governance
With the fourth layer, the Destination Cake model is finished, but not complete7. The
multifaceted nature of the destinations cannot be represented only by the static layers
7Because of its ultimate importance and significant stake in the current book, we adopt a separate
section for Destination management, although it is still a part of the Destination Cake model. The same
applies to the Destination attributes, which are explored in section 2.4
despite the presence of non-static elements like relationships and communication
processes. The icing on the cake, however, is still to be added. The spatial layout of
the destination, the amalgam of its resources, facilities, suppliers and products
emphasise the destination components. The driving force, however, which actually
makes a place become a tourist destination is the set of activities, or the destination
management, that aim at supporting and developing, coordinating and planning,
promoting and branding,. If a destination is considered a system, destination
management is the internal driver to move the system forward. Similar to other aspects
of the destination, there are many papers dealing with destination management, its
nature, application, measurement and so on (Viken and Granas, 2016; Capone, 2016b;
Lazzeretti and Petrillo, 2006; Morrison, 2013). As Heath (2003) notes, it is the
destination management activities cement that ensures continuous and transparent
communication with all stakeholders, managing information and implementing an
effective and practical process of developing and monitoring destination performance
indicators (Heath, 2003).
Destination management plays a key role in the strategic, organisational and operative
development, aiming at the provision and promotion of a consistent and successful
tourist product, and the sustainable long-term development of the destination (See
Figure 2.2). Because destination management is examined as a set of activities, it is
considered as a continuous process, revealing the dynamic side of the tourism
destination system. The prevailing models and studies often concentrate only on the
contents (stakeholders, factors, relationships, etc.) and the driving force among them
remains somewhat neglected (Sainaghi, 2006). As Viken (2016) notes, stakeholders are
clearly identified, but if they are actually heard and followed is a question, leading to
a deeper examination of the DMO functions. Moreover, even some possible actions are
Gaining
competitiveness
in the market
Creating specific
Promoting
products for
sustainable
specific market
development
segments
DESTINATION
MANAGEMENT
Improving Ensuring
residents' quality tourists' quality
of life of visit
Preserving local
resources
Figure 2.2 Destination management activities, based on Manente (2008)
considered or recommended (e.g. reconciling stakeholders relationships, Bornhorst et
al., 2010), and the particular transition from contents to process appeals for a proactive
approach of not only recognising the need for change but initiating particular steps to
start it (Dwyer, Edwards, Mistilis, Roman and Scott, 2009). This goes mostly with the
idea of Sainaghi (2006), who, in contrast to the other scholars, stresses the dynamic
aspect of destination management by proposing a dynamic framework (See Figure
2.3), which should encompass all the primary and support processes taking place in
regard to destination management (Sainaghi, 2006). In a similar vein, Jamal and Getz
(1995) imply that destination management is a system of processes to resolve problems
of the destination rather than an assembled network of stakeholders and their
relations. Finally, Baggio, Scott and Cooper (2010) point out that the major issue is not
the complexity of the destination, but the set of managerial tools and techniques used
to address this complexity. In this regard, the main focus of destination management
analysis on the operational level should be to outline how to address the different issues
and problems (Baggio et al., 2010).
The separate activities comprising destination management can be explored from
different points of view depending on their primary purpose, i.e. activities regarding
stakeholders, consumers, or the creation and development of the tourist product.
Through the lens of the Destination Cake model, destination management activities
may be explored in the context of each of the layers, between the layers and regarding
the destination as a whole. Therefore, destination management permeates throughout
the whole destination cake to integrate the components and enhance the final
outcome.
Whatever the processes are, there should be a body to implement them. This is the role
of the destination management institution, which is the actual executor of the destination
management activities. Most of the authors associate it with the Destination
Management Organisation (DMO).
A significant part of the studies is devoted to the DMO (Destination Management
Organisation) and its pivotal impact on destination development. Topics discussed
comprise: destination governance (Baggio et al., 2010; Beritelli, Bieger and Laesser,
2007), destination and DMO success (Bornhorst et al., 2010; Volgger and Pechlaner,
2014), destination competitiveness (Ritchie and Crouch, 2003; Dwyer and Kim, 2003;
Marinov, 2006), destination marketing (Pike and Page, 2014); DMO and stakeholder
relations (Sheehan and Ritchie, 2005); DMO effectiveness (Bieger, Beritelli and Laesser,
2009) and many others.
Resources (material, intangible, human)
Primary processes
Operative New product Communi

Processes development cation
Resources (material, intangible, human)

Support processes
Internal
Training Research
Marketing
Figure 2.3 Destination Development and Management Model, based on Sainaghi (2006)
Similar to destination management activities, DMOs particular functions are also
subject to numerous conceptualizations and discussions (Presenza, Sheehan and
Ritchie, 2005; Bieger, 1998; Bornhorst et al., 2010; Morrison, 2013; Presenza, 2005). All
of the studies suggest various classifications of DMO functions and responsibilities
from different perspectives and related to different theories.
Most of the other authors unite around the same main functions of DMOs (Jamal and
Getz, 1995; Manente, 2008; Heath, 2001; Bieger et al., 2009):
Strategic planning and development of the destination,
Representing the interests of stakeholders and stimulating the relationships
among them, including the DMO,
Coordinating activities in the creation of the destination holistic tourist product,
Marketing and branding the destination.
A more interesting view is presented by Presenza et al. (2005), in which they state that
the main dimensions of DMO responsibilities refer to Internal Destination
Development and External Destination Marketing (See Table 2.2). They make a deep
analysis of the particular activities to be taken regarding each of the destination
components, e.g. coordinating the stakeholders, communicating with and managing
visitors, promoting sustainable deployment of the resources, ensuring financial
stability and enough funds for the tourism industry, and lastly, being able to react
adequately in a crisis. The contrasting External Destination Marketing activities are
reversely directed to identifying and attracting potential consumers and building the
brand and image of the destination. Presenza et al. (2005) explicitly argue that each
DMO can select its set of activities or the activities to be distributed among several
institutions. If we relate this concept to the Destination Cake model, then the internal
destination development activities interconnect with the different layers, whereas the
external destination marketing activities put the icing on the outside, and contribute
to the enhanced customer value perception.
DMO and destination governance
The concept of destination governance is closely related to DMO competencies and
liabilities. Morrison (2013) stipulates that the governance involves the policies, systems
and processes that unify and administer the different stakeholders. In a similar vein,
Baggio et al. (2010) advocate that the destination governance ensures smooth
interactions among the different stakeholders by determining and implementing the
rules for these interactions (Baggio et al., 2010). Overall, destination governance plays
an essential role for the proper administration of the destination, its stakeholders and
any other elements.
Destination governance is analysed through several approaches. Based on Flagestads
and Hopes (2001) assumptions, destination governance structures as inter-
organizational forms are spread along an axis with two extremes: a corporate model
of destination governance and community-based model.
Table 2.2 Summary of activities of the DMO, categorised either as External destination
marketing (EDM) or Internal destination development IDD activities
External Destination Marketing Activities Internal Destination Development Activities
Web Marketing Visitor Management
Events, Conferences and Festivals Information/Research
Cooperative Programs Coordinating Tourism Stakeholders
Direct Mail Crisis Management
Direct Sales Human Resource Development
Sales Blitzes Finance and Venture Capital
Trade Shows Resource Stewardship
Advertising Quality of the visitor experience
Familiarisation Tours
Publications and Brochures
Source: based on Presenza et al. (2005)
In the corporate model, the destination is perceived as a corporation that can be
managed as a strategic business unit (Bieger, 1998). It is mostly applicable in resorts
(Viken, 2016) because of the unidirectional interests of most stakeholders/owners.
Provided the major resources or businesses in the destination belong to a single
company, or to an oligopolistic cluster, the destination might be managed, according
to strategic corporate practices (Flagestad and Hope, 2001). They refer to some North
American ski resorts as typical representatives of this type of destination governance.
Volgger and Pechlaner (2014), however, claim that the corporate model is ineffective.
According to them, destinations can be managed successfully only if stakeholders
cooperate in a form of self-governance and initiate joint actions (Volgger and
Pechlaner, 2014).
The community-based approach examines destinations as communities consisting of
multiple individuals, although none of them has a dominant market or administrative
position (Haugland et al., 2014). This approach is applied for places which evolved into
destinations without prior planning or strategic intentions (according to Bieger (1998),
most of the European destinations fall into this category). The major problem with the
community-based model is the stakeholders attitude, and more specifically, whether
they realise the need for cooperation and personal contribution to destination
development, because the destinations success would reflect on their own business
success (Bramwell and Sharman, 1999). The power of stakeholders is often unequal
(Bramwell and Sharman, 1999), because usually the destination resources do not
belong to a single company, but are considered as shared assets. Therefore, the DMO
of the community-based model performs mostly marketing activities, or several
business units operate in a decentralised way to perform DMO functions (Flagestad
and Hope, 2001). In order to be efficient, the community-based model of destination
governance should treat the communitys interests as paramount.
Because of the geographical and regional characteristics of the destination, the
participation of the local authorities and political bodies in the destination governance
is inevitable (Beritelli et al., 2007). Moreover, usually the resources are considered to be
national or government-owned assets. That is one of the reasons why local
governments or municipalities often take fully or partially the functions of the DMO.
However, as public authorities might control and set the rules determining
entrepreneurial freedom and regulations of the tourism business (Beritelli et al., 2007),
there is a great chance for conflicts to emerge. The particular relationship of local
government-tourism industry-host community itself entails numerous issues, subject
to negotiation and agreement among the stakeholders. The issues are, to mention a
few, balancing leadership between local government and industry; controlling the use
of resources in a sustainable manner; and, aligning with the centrally imposed
strategies and policies. In such cases power asymmetries and interdependence among
the stakeholders may cause inter-organisational conflicts. In general, public
involvement is considered to defend the rights of the host population and represent
central governments strategy and policies, but on the other hand, destinations relying
on external, or industry funding may choose a different direction of development.
Recently, public-private partnerships, which are a compromise, are becoming the
norm (Morrison, 2013). An independent board of directors is elected by all of the
stakeholders to cope with the inherent conflicts in the governance processes. Pavlovich
(2003) reports that New Zealand is a good example of such destination governance
which is based on the network structure/community-based model.
2.4 Destination Attributes
The compound nature of a destination, the continuous interaction among its
components and the effective and efficient efforts of destination management
institutions result in compiling a portrait of this destination with certain attributes.
Although destinations are unique by nature, they still possess certain characteristics,
which can be found to a different extent in each of the destinations. Those charac-
teristics, or attributes, derive from the internal components interactions, intentionally
directed and enhanced by destination management activities. Destination attributes are
the final element in the Destination Cake model (see Figure 2.1, on the left side).
Following the demand-side perspective, a destination is perceived by the final
customers as a whole entity (Caber, Albayrak and Matzler, 2012). The visitors are
usually not aware of the complex relationships, layers and interactions within the
destination, but are able to evaluate only the final outcome. However, as Buhalis (2000)
points out, each customers perception may differ, according to his personal
characteristics, background and past experience. Hence, the final assessment of a
destination by a customer is a subjective category, which cannot be taken as
irrevocable. In order to increase customer satisfaction and destination image, the DMO
and related governance institutions and authorities should identify those attributes
that are the most important determinants of customer satisfaction (Cader et al., 2012).
On the other hand, in order to elaborate a proper strategy and to achieve its strategic
and operational goals, destination governance needs solid criteria, or a benchmark,
that may serve when generally evaluating a particular destination and comparing it
with its competitors. Surprisingly, in the context of the numerous conceptual papers
that study destinations themselves, destination stakeholders or different aspects of a
destination (e.g. competitiveness or success), there is no uniform approach for
measuring destination performance that has been tested and has proved to be efficient
and reliable. Usually, there is a set of indicators measuring destination performance
on the supply-side, and organised as a system to monitor the effects actions have on
destination competitiveness and the performance of the actors in the destination (De
Carlo, Cugini and Zerbini, 2008). Most of the authors, in suggesting indicators for
evaluation, rely on conceptual models usually related to destination competitiveness
(Ritchie and Crouch, 2003; Dwyer and Kim, 2003; Capone, 2016a; Cader et al., 2012).
By empirically applying the models on particular destinations, they try to figure out
what main factors, or attributes, contribute the most to destination competitiveness
and performance. However, in many of the studies, scholars do not differentiate
factors, attributes, indicators and characteristics, applying all of them to a
destination. Therefore, it is almost impossible to summarise all papers findings and to
elaborate a valid collection of measures that would be universal and easily utilised.
Furthermore, Dwyer and Kim (2003:399) argue that there is no single or unique set of
competitiveness indicators that apply to all destinations at all times. Below is a review
of the most notable research studies on the matter.
The fundamental Competitiveness model of a tourist destination (Ritchie and Crouch,
2003) is used by many of the authors as a basis. They identify a set of 36 attributes that
are divided into five main groups as per the initial model of Ritchie and Crouch (2003)
and Porter (1990). The groups are: Core resource and attractors; Supporting factors and
resources; Destination policy, planning and development; Destination management;
Qualifying and amplifying determinants. Dwyer and Kim (2003) continue with substantial
contributions in which they upgrade the Ritchie and Crouch model and select seven
groups of attributes, illustrated by 161 indicators. After conducting a survey that was
based on the above model among 83 individuals concerned with destination
management, Crouch (2011) identifies the 10 most important attributes of a destination
as follows: Physiography and climate, Mix of activities, Culture and history, Tourism
superstructure, Safety/security, Cost/value, Accessibility, Special events, Awareness/image,
Location. Also from the perspective of competitiveness models, Caber et al. (2012)
outline the most important destination attributes for customers from four different
nations. The results show that the most important attributes are: Safety,
price/performance ratio/value; also Climate and high quality of accommodation from the
Core resources and attractors group; and Accessibility to the area and acceptance of
children in the category Supporting factors and resources.
Francesco Capone (2016b) compiles the main models and concepts of destination
competitiveness to create a holistic interpretation of the competitiveness making it
applicable and with practical value. He enriches the initial Ritchie and Crouch (2003)
and Porter (1990) concepts by taking into account the human factor (personnel), local
tourist organisations and competitors, and the result is a more complex illustration.
Again, the most important destination attributes are the Core resources, in particular
the natural environment (considering that the destination is famous for its natural
beauty, rather than any cultural or heritage resources), gastronomy and typical local
products; seasonality. The quality of public transport and accessibility is considered a
factor that needs to be improved to increase destination competitiveness in general.
Destination marketing is of crucial importance, and the lack of a common strategy is a
destination management problem (Capone, 2016b).
Bornhorst et al. (2010) evaluate the destination through studying and quantifying the
opinions of destination stakeholders who are internal participants creating value for
the customer and who are able to see the internal relationships and processes. The
main determinants of destination success that Bornhost et al. (2010) find are product and
service offerings; location and accessibility; quality of the visitor experience; and community
support.
De Carlo (2008) use another method, Balanced Scorecard (BSC), to evaluate the Turin
Convention Bureau. They adopt a strategic supply-side perspective and report that
financial performance is a necessary element in the destination players evaluation.
Kozak (2002) compares the destination attributes of Mugla, Turkey and Mallorca,
Spain. His results highlight the following most appreciated attributes: Accommodation
services; Facilities and activities; Local transport; Hospitality and customer care; Destination
airport facilities and services; Hygiene, sanitation and cleanliness; Prices; and Language
communication.
Manente (2008) elaborates 90 indicators, grouped into nine sets. She positions her
approach more as a monitoring system, suitable for diagnostic evaluation and
facilitating decision-making rather than as an objective tool for independent
assessment of a destination, and only as the first step of a further planning process.
Also, the indicators may help DMOs to properly determine the tourist area life cycle
phase, which would help in the next strategic analysis and to make plans. Therefore, a
customised compilation of the diagnostic indicators is used for monitoring and
evaluating a certain destination.
Finally, institutions which see the tourism industry as a priority are involved in the
process of destination evaluation. The EU Commission has initiated a European
Tourism Indicator System for sustainable management of destinations. This toolkit is
a system of indicators that destination managers may adapt to evaluate the current
state of the destination and to identify the gaps (European Commission, 2016).
UNWTO, together with the World Centre of Excellence for Destinations (CED,
http://ced.travel), created and implemented another project called the System of
Measures for Excellence in Destinations, or SMED, which is intended to evaluate
destinations and recommend strategic interventions for continuous improvement
(CED, About SMED). However, the criteria for approval of destinations under SMED
remained unavailable to the public (Morrison, 2013). Further, UNWTO maintains a
special programme Destination Management that aims at supporting DMOs and
other destination governance institutions to develop effective and sustainable
management of tourist destinations (UNWTO, Destination Management and Quality
Program). Their most prominent publication on this matter is A practical guide to
tourism destination management (UNWTO, 2007).
Several major concerns are identified which hinder scholars agreement on a uniform
set of indicators regarding destination performance, according to Mendola and Volo
(2017). First, current models propose certain characteristics to be measured, but
actually, those indicators are incomparable (Mendola and Volo, 2017), because
indicators measuring core resources cannot be equal to the marketing indicators or to
indicators of DMOs abilities to manage. Some of the indicators represent quantitative
characteristics, whereas others are based on subjective evaluation (e.g. destination
awareness by customers is a personal assessment, which hardly could be quantified).
Second, depending on the measured constructs, a different aggregation of indicators
is required, and moreover, with different weighting in the final evaluation. For
example, assessing destination competitiveness needs a large and complex set of
indicators, whereas concentrating on destination management effectiveness regarding
sustainable utilisation of tourist resources advocates for a totally different approach,
and hence a different set of indicators.
In the myriad of indicators and attributes, and before outlining the last element of the
Destination Cake model, we need to precisely distinguish between both terms. The
difference between an attribute and an indicator is in their nature. An attribute
embodies a qualitative feature of a destination, whereas an indicator is a particular
measure of an attribute, expressed in quantitative metrics. Hence, indicators are much
more numerous than attributes, because they quantify different characteristics of an
attribute. For instance, Entertainment as an attribute could be presented by a
number of indicators, e.g. type and number of entertainment activities; type and
number of companies providing entertainment services; and features of the
entertainment companies, such as size, financial metrics, and portfolio of services. As
Crouch (2011) points out, in his previous study (Ritchie and Crouch, 2003) he and
Ritchie identified 41 potential indicators only for the Culture and history attribute
(Crouch, 2011). Moreover, most of those indicators serve predominantly for the
professional evaluation of the destination, i.e. the supply-side perspective. The
numeric measures are useful for destination governance and other tourism institutions
engaged in preparing strategies, policies and regulations for the development of a
destination.
In order to fully evaluate a destination, one should approach it systematically and
consider numerous aspects. Following the Destination Cake model, the destination
performance would be a sum of indicators, including the performance of each layer
element, an assessment of the interactions and relations between the layers, and,
finally, the impact of destination management on the entire performance. In this
regard, the overall evaluation of the destination performance should encompass both
qualitative and quantitative features. The whole amalgam of indicators, however,
remains hidden from the customers, and destination guests perceive the tangible and
visible aggregate of all of the destination components. It is precisely customers
ultimate holistic experience and perceptions of a particular destination that we define
as destination attributes. Many of these attribute measures are themselves
qualitative, multidimensional, abstract, or imprecise (Crouch, 2011), as are the
customers themselves. Therefore, the destination attributes are considered as
aggregate measures of customers evaluation of the destination, evolving from the
integral performance of all other destination components and internal interactions.
The qualitative nature of attributes implies that they are inherent characteristics of the
destination and do not overlap with any of the other destination components and
elements. Buhaliss well-known Six As Framework for destination analysis (Buhalis,
2000) was further enlarged by Morrison (2013) as 10 As (see Text box 2.2) to pinpoint
the main attributes used for judging the success of tourist destinations (Morrison,
2013). Still, some of them represent not only a destinations traits but also its inherent
elements (e.g. Activities or services offered on the spot, and Action, meaning the
availability of a long-term tourism plan). The words might be chosen because of the
A, but actually, those attributes reflect the availability of an element, not a feature
but a result of evaluating a destination. Therefore, in the Destination Cake model, we
include only those attributes which may derive from the customer assessment and
overall image of the destination. Despite being subjective and not possible for
generalisation, the customers perception of the destination attributes is the only
criterion of all background and tacit processes that happen within the destination.
Text Box 2.2 The 10 Attributes of successful destinations
Awareness
Attractiveness
Availability
Access
Appearance
Activities
Assurance
Appreciation
Action
Accountability
Source: Based on Morrison (2013)
Taking into consideration the literature review above, and particularly Buhalis (2000)
and Morrisons (2013) emblematic frameworks, we outline the following destination
attributes:
Resource Attractiveness regarding the availability and the appeal of
tourist resources. This refers not only to if there are resources, but also to their proper
utilisation as tourist attractions. Also included here are climate conditions, intangible
cultural and historical heritage, and other resources mentioned separately by the
scholars. We think they all belong to this attribute and should not be classified
separately. Destination attractiveness is usually viewed from a consumer perspective
and according to the common understanding, the more attractive destination will
welcome more tourists (Stankova and Vassenska, 2013).
Entertainment also called Activities by both Buhalis (2000) and
Morrison (2013). Apart from pure activities, we include here also the whole array of
ancillary services, which are provided on-spot at the destination.
Accessibility available transport links to the destination; without it, the
destination becomes inaccessible, no matter how appealing it looks (e.g. some small
islands, or remote countryside regions with no regular transport connections).
Safety and security at the destination (Morrison names it Assurance,
Morrison, 2013). This is especially important in the recent years after multiple cases of
terrorist attacks. As mentioned earlier, the proper general infrastructure and welfare
facilities strongly contribute to the customers sense of safety and security.
Awareness whether the potential customers ever know the particular
destination exists. This attribute derives directly from the marketing efforts of the
destination management authorities.
Availability concerns the process of travel arrangements and making
bookings. The potential customers should be able to book either through an
intermediary (e.g. tour operator package or OTA website) or by directly contacting
tourist service providers at the destination. This attribute implies the availability of
information about the suppliers and their distribution policies.
Image this attribute reveals the overall evaluation in a customers mind
regarding the destination, including not only its tourism characteristics and value but
also any other destination peculiarities regarding political, social or environmental
aspects. From a cognitive point of view, the image of a tourist destination is based on
a set of attributes (Stankova and Vassenska, 2015) which form and influence tourists
expectations.
Cost/Value ratio this attribute represents a customers view regarding
his/her eventual costs and value. It is essential to point out here that under costs are
included not only financial expenses but any other efforts, time and social costs that
the customer should make in order to visit the particular destination (e.g. visa
issuance, vaccinations, health insurances, etc.). On the same line, the value creates
not only economic benefits, but also social profits, image and self-perception for the
customer.
Destination attributes are the last component of the Destination Cake model. They
represent customers perceptions regarding the destination, and therefore could be
addressed as the final goals of the destination management.
Apart from its inherent components, the destination bears the impact of the external
environment, which is why that aspect should not be neglected. Strategic destination
management is continuously considering the changes in external environment in order
to help the destination adapt. Although some of the external processes might be
forecasted (e.g. political and economic conditions, legal framework, customer
behaviour, etc.), strategic destination management needs not only to react but also to
initiate certain actions that might lead to a change in the internal environment.
Moreover, for the numerous destinations around the world, the external environment
differs according to their location and the level of their development. Consequently,
for every case there should be a unique approach that considers the peculiarities of the
particular destination and its environment.
* * *
The multifaceted nature of the destination requires a systematic and holistic approach.
A successful illustration is worth a thousand words, and so a comprehensive model
would facilitate both the understanding of the destination construct and further
analysis and comparison to other systems.
The ultimate purpose of the Destination Cake model is to clearly define the separate
layers contribution to the creation of customer value. The destination management
activities are used to highlight the proactive need for collaboration and a
unidirectional strategic approach, whereas destination attributes illustrate the final
portrait of the destination, resulting from the integrated contribution of components,
stakeholders, product, and destination management activities. This is a neutral
illustration of a destination that might be adapted for further examination of various
points from the suppliers perspective, such as human resource development or
sustainable development.
CHAPTER 3
AIR TRANSPORTTOURISM NEXUS
3.1 The Role of Transport for the Destination
The transport system is a vital component of a states economy because of its capability
to reach and connect to any point of an area. Encompassing various transportation
modes, entangled networks and passenger flows, the transport system has been so
deeply embedded in the tourism industry that nowadays we cannot decide which of
them is the primary driver. Developments in transport have a noteworthy impact on
peoples mobility and tourism demand (Duval, 2007). Additionally, the cost of
travelling has fallen, information is available in abundance and travellers are only a
click away to initiating a trip and becoming tourists. Travelling for leisure has
provided multiple opportunities for a number of places to shift their economic
priorities and become tourist destinations. The ever increasing tourist flows produce
significant benefits for the destinations, but they also produce a number of issues
deriving from this mass of people travelling around. Destination governance
institutions should deal with the proper management of tourist places in order to
avoid troubles for the host population and damaging tourists experiences. Along with
utilising their attractions, destinations have to think of the way people would visit
them, that is, how people will get to and from the destination, as well as within it. As
a result, growth in tourism shares synergies with growth in transport, and vice versa
(Duval, 2007). Before looking more closely at the relationship between air transport
and tourism at the destination level, we will start with the larger scope of the tourism-
transport nexus, i.e. the role and significance of the transport system for the
destination.
Destinations represent the tourism system at a micro level, hence the role of transport
should be explored regarding destination scales. While the relation between transport
and tourism development was initially studied in the context of spatial and
geographical distribution (Kaul, 1985), currently the transport sector and tourism
industry are considered as interconnected systems, and their mutual development is
explored in a more economic and social aspect (Prideaux, 2000).
R. N. Kauls often cited postulates (Kaul, 1985) regarding the role of transport in
tourism development serve as a basis for evaluation of the extent of interdependence
between transport and tourism. Kaul explicitly relates the two industries by pointing
out their mutual facilities, evolution and infrastructure. He also emphasises the need
for a common coordinated and planned integration of both sectors (Kaul, 1985).
Destination transport is undoubtedly considered a part of the tourist product, and
consequently, transport development must keep pace with the growth in tourism
demand (Prideaux, 2000). Since many of the other tourist product elements are related
to some kind of travelling or movement, transport system significantly contributes to
the overall performance of the destination and the holistic experience of the tourists
(Thompson and Schofield, 2007). On the other hand, there is another direct link
between destination and transport, which is when the latter provides access to the
tourist place and is the main determinant of its accessibility attribute (see section 2.4).
The general assumption states that usually transport drives tourism forward, because
of the chronological evolution and functional abilities. However, currently, the
dilemma Transport for tourism development, or tourism for transport
development? (Duval, 2007) questions whether the dominance of transport gives rise
to the rapidly growing tourism industry. From the tourist destination point of view,
transport appears as both a facilitator to convey tourist flows, thus providing
accessibility and visibility to the particular area, and as a part of the local product, allowing
mobility and even social touch to the place. Therefore, the following sections explore
this dual relationship between transport and tourism, considering the transport
system as an externality affecting the destination accessibility (section 3.1.1), and
regarding the transport services, offered within the destination, i.e. the internal
transportation system (section 3.1.2).
3.1.1 Destination Accessibility
At macro level, transport is a component of the tourism product, representing the
connection between origin and tourism destination (Papathedorou and Zenelis, 2013),
following the Leiper concept of the tourism system (Leiper, 1990). In this regard, Hall
(1999) identifies four roles assigned to the transport concerning tourism:
Linking the source market with the host destination
Providing mobility and access within the destination area
Providing mobility and access within an actual tourism attraction
Facilitating travel along a recreational route, which is itself a tourism experience
(Hall, 1999)
The last one suggests moving through several places as a sightseeing tour, or a bus
excursion around several countries. In this case, tourists do not concentrate on a
particular destination, but rather on the act of travelling, and it does not fall within the
scope of our current research. The second and third aspects will be analysed in the
following section 3.1.2, so, for now, our attention will be directed to the first role that
assumes transport as a link between tourist generating regions and tourist destination
regions (Khadaroo and Seenah, 2008). The possibilities to implement that link are often
addressed as accessibility of the destination.
Accessibility has many dimensions, and only the most obvious of them is related to
the physical possibility to reach a location. Because of that complexity and
multifaceted usage of the concept, Van Wee (2016) pinpoints a number of challenges
staying at the forefront of the search for a more precise definition and
operationalisation of accessibility. The narrow understanding of the term is of land-
use and infrastructure policy, transport networks and different modes of transport, all
of which are related to the physical measures of accessibility and the ease of reaching
a certain point. In this geographical context, Geurs and Van Wee (2004) define the
following accessibility components:
Land-use the land-use system, and concerning the amount, quality and
distribution of the destination attractions and facilities, and particularly the
distance between them,
Transportation the available modes of transport and their infrastructure, but
including also the characteristics of the particular mode of transport, like
reliability, comfort, maximum travel speed, and travel costs. The different
transport modes operate in different infrastructures, so the accessibility could
be estimated by each of the separate modes of transport,
Temporal component duration of the trip, but also availability of transport
throughout the day (e.g., peak hours or night time),
Individual component the needs, preferences, characteristics and perceptions of
the customers regarding the level of accessibility (Geurs and Van Wee, 2004).
Considering the above components, Geurs and Van Wee (2004: 128) determine
accessibility as the extent to which land-use and transport systems enable (groups of)
individuals to reach activities or destinations by means of a (combination of) transport
mode(s). The definition is directly focused on the physical dimension of the
accessibility, hence the derived indicators for measuring or comparing accessibility
reflect those tangible components.
In the context of destination management, the elaboration of a precise system for
accessibility measurement would significantly contribute to making it easier to
compare between destinations, as well as to being able to directly identify the weak
points and repairing them in time. However, the multiple factors involved and the
diversity of transport modes point to a complicated task in front of the researchers
(van Wee, 2016). On the same line, Batty (2009) claims for a composite approach in
measuring accessibility. On one hand, the physical distance between points sets the
invariable aspect of accessibility, evaluating how near an individual is to a point.
This is the classic vision of geographic locations on a map, where distance is measured
in kilometres or miles, and therefore accessibility is improved with the increasing
proximity to the destination. On the other hand, the way in which two points are
connected (including the infrastructure, available transport modes and networks) may
shorten the geographical distance in terms of travel time and convenience (Batty,
2009). In terms of tourism it means that a regular train connection to a destination may
make it seem closer and more accessible than a direct flight, provided one accounts
for the additional time needed before and after the flight, as well as additional
transport to and from the airport. Similar to this is the situation of a remote destination
that is located at a closer distance but has a poor road network, or an urban city that is
far from the point of origin but has excellent transport connections. An additional
measure here is connectivity, i.e., the presence/absence of a connection to another point
(thus the destination in reference is considered more of a hub, or transit point).
In a wider aspect, destination accessibility may be viewed in other dimensions that are
not directly correlated to the geographic criteria. Accessibility is also a matter of
political relations or intergovernmental agreements. Travelling to/from a destination
that is geographically determined by national borders requires one to cross borders,
and it is connected with visa issuance, bilateral agreements and other entry
regulations. In this regard, higher accessibility to a destination can be associated with
alleviated requirements for crossing the borders or visa issuance. For example,
Henderson (2009) cites the crucial impact of EU ban on flights to/from Indonesia and
the devastating consequences for the tourism industry. Therefore, access to destination
depends on governments ensuring favourable economic and political conditions,
subsidies to support unprofitable routes or operations, the establishment of policies,
standards and regulations regarding the particular transport service to/from the
destination (Duval, 2007).
Further, a governmental decision is necessary for planning, constructing and main-
taining the transport infrastructure, as the availability of adequate infrastructure is a
prerequisite for the level of accessibility. However, infrastructure development is often
planned and implemented at the central governmental level, and local authorities have
very little influence to change it. Moreover, the regulatory framework may hinder or
facilitate the efforts of the local DMOs to implement their own strategies regarding
transport and infrastructure. Tour operators and travel agents usually seek the most
comfortable logistics for their clients and avoid destinations that might fail to provide
the relevant conditions, or at least are reluctant to offer such destinations (Henderson,
2009). Ritchie and Crouch (2003) even add an economic nuance of accessibility, arguing
that certain price strategies may prevent or encourage target clients to come, hence the
level of affordability may be perceived as part of the accessibility of a destination.
As a destination attribute, accessibility should be evaluated from the customers point
of view, following the reasoning presented in section 2.4. Therefore, accessibility
should be explored as the relative perception of customers in their choice of a
destination. Several scholars have attempted to develop customers evaluation criteria
regarding destination accessibility. For example, Hoppers (2015) destination
accessibility model incorporates the quality of leisure, the cost of the trip, travel
expenses and economic benefit in order to describe how accessible the destination is
to a tourist based on their income, purpose and distance. Toth and David (2010), on
the other hand, argue that good accessibility itself can be of higher importance and a
source of destination competitiveness only if customers have to choose between
destinations with similar attributes (e.g. seaside resorts). Their conclusion supports
Celata (2007) who finds that only after the first selection of the most attractive
destination do customers start to compare the accessibility. In determining major
factors influencing destination selection in terms of accessibility, Prideaux (2000)
outlines the following factors: fare costs, travel time and the distance travelled. But he
also identifies the hidden travelling costs as a factor that may cause customers to
substitute a transport mode with another, or even to shift to another destination. As
the distance to a destination increases, so does the share of transport in the total
holiday cost, and it is therefore perceived with greater importance (Prideaux, 2000).
Redondi, Malighetti and Paleari (2013) elaborate an Accessibility Index for European
municipalities to assess their accessibility regarding small and very small airports.
They conclude that although a certain amount of money would be saved if small
airports are closed, the overall accessibility would worsen and would negatively affect
the economic and social aspects of regions (Redondi et al., 2013).
In summary, customers evaluation of destination accessibility depends on both
available transport connections and distance, but also it depends largely on personal
preferences and specific characteristics of the modes of transport. Travelling by each
of the four modes of transport (air transport, water transport, railway transport and
road transport, including buses and cars) may generate different experiences,
associations, and hence customers assessment.
From the suppliers or the destinations point of view, the level of accessibility may
provide a basis for estimating and planning the capacities, e.g. the maximum potential
number of tourists able to come to the destination at a certain moment, or for a certain
period, given the available transport connections provided.
Destination accessibility has a prominent importance for tourism development. The
variety and convenience of transport connections are estimated to be among the most
important factors in choosing a destination. Additionally, higher accessibility closely
correlates with increased visibility of the destination, thus including an element of
marketing to the complex nature of this attribute. That is especially valid for air
transport where the establishment of a new route directly places the destination on the
airlines route map and includes it in the airline and/or air alliance network.
3.1.2 Destination Local Transport System
Local destination transport system provides mobility and access within the tourist
destination (Hall, 1999). Further, through the local transport system, tourists are able
to travel to and visit the destination attractions (Hall, 1999), which is assessed as a
major appeal for tourists (Crouch, 2011).
A small number of studies have been dedicated to investigating the significance of
transport as a factor in destination development (Khadaroo and Sheetanah, 2008;
Prideaux, 2000). In their panel data research, Khadaroo and Sheetanah (2008) have
found that Europeans and Americas put a significant importance to transport
infrastructure when choosing their destination, and are particularly sensitive to land
and air infrastructure. The findings go in line with the common understanding that
the quality of the local transport has a strong impact on the overall tourist perception
of the destination (Page, 2009).
Taking the demand-side perspective, i.e. the customer view on the local destination
transport, Gronau and Kagermeier (2007) argue that tourists perceptions on the local
transport system depend on various other factors deriving not only from the available
transport infrastructure and facilities. Apart from the physical amenities, the scholars
consider tourist motivation, as well as the marketing efforts at the destination to
communicate the transport conditions. Thus, Gronau and Kagermeier (2007) include
not only the mass tourist segments who use the conventional modes of transport (air,
railway, cars) but also newly emerging niche tourists who are interested in alternative
ways of travelling, like bikes, motorbikes, hiking, etc. The final conclusion of Gronau
and Kagermeier (2007) takes into account the decisive role of the destination
management for the proper evaluation of the target markets and the respective
integration of local tourism transport into the destination tourism product,
continuously providing a relevant marketing message.
In most destinations, one may find at least three of the four modes of transport air
transport, road transport (bus, taxi, and car rental), railway and water transport. Their
distribution and operation, however, is strictly subjective depending on both the
physical characteristics of the destination and the level of development. In a
destination, there is a competition among the different modes of transport, as well as
within each type of transport (Stoyanov, 2015). Nevertheless, the availability of various
modes of transport may also cause cannibalization, especially when they provide
alternative services (e.g. fast-speed trains and flights on the same routes in Europe).
Transport infrastructure at the tourist destination enables more effective and efficient
deployment of transport modes within the area, thus contributing to the holistic tourist
experience in the destination. Different modes of transport need different infrastruc-
ture, hence the investment and expansion are subject to major governmental, financial
and local strategic decisions. Usually, national institutions are responsible for the key
policies regarding transport infrastructure development, as well as interconnection
points, like ports, terminals, logistic parks, maintenance and traffic management.
However, because of bureaucracy and political reasons, such projects might be
delayed, or not launched at all.
Tourists may associate poor transport infrastructure as dangerous for their safety and
avoid such destinations (Henderson, 2008). Transportation by nature means moving
from one point to another, and in this process safety is a central concern, because many
people perceive travelling as risky. Accidents, inadequate infrastructure and political
incidents/terrorist attacks may enhance such perceptions and lead to total outflow to
a certain destination. For the majority of Western tourists, visits to some African and
Asian locations are perceived as risky and tourists intentionally seek more reliable and
safer travel (Khadaroo and Seetanah, 2008). Moreover, tourists usually come from
developed countries and their expectations are to meet at least the same level of quality
as at home (Khadaroo and Seetanah, 2007), or at least the quality of transport supply
within the entire catchment area should be consistent (Gronau and Kagermeier, 2007).
Transport infrastructure induces the creation of new attractions and the improvement
of existing ones only by enhancing access to them (Khadaroo and Seetanah, 2008). The
assumption is analogical to a destinations accessibility; if there is a convenient way to
reach an attraction, then it becomes visible and can be promoted and visited by a larger
number of tourists. Often valuable tourist resources fail to utilise their commercial
potential exactly because of a lack of transport infrastructure which would enable
tourist flows (e.g. Indonesia, Henderson, 2008).
A contemporary issue regarding a destination transport system is the intermodality, or
the combination of various means of transport connected at common points (see also
section 1.2.2). Such nodal points/terminals facilitate passenger transportation and
distribute the passenger flows more evenly in terms of transport modes and capacities.
Planning, construction and running such intermodal points are complex strategic tasks
of destination governance authorities and governmental institutions (Keller, 2001).
The cross-point of the railway station, port and airport provide a unique opportunity
for the traveller to immediately change from one mode of transport to another, without
the need to be transferred between the stations. This is especially important for busy
urban areas, as well as for airports, which by default are located outside the cities.
Intermodality contributes to both the speed of the clients overall transportation and
the more efficient operation of local transport systems, which is a prerequisite for more
sustainable development (Keller, 2001). Nevertheless, in order to fully utilise intermo-
dality benefits, there should be close cooperation and communication among the trans-
port providers, and also coordination with the destination authorities. The newest
technological advances greatly contribute to the integration of intermodality. A good
projection for the near future in this regard is the Smart city concept, where one of the
main features is the unified transportation system (Debnath, Chin, Hague and Yuen,
2014).
The idea of interconnection, synchronisation and proactive, simultaneous application
of different technologies has inspired a number of scientists to elaborate on the
futuristic outlook of urban areas (Xiang, Tussyadiah, and Buhalis, 2015; Caragliu, Del
Bo and Nijkamp, 2011; Gretzel, Sigala, Xiang and Koo, 2015). A Smart city allows
sustainable economic growth and enhanced development of the local community in
an information-determined environment, and with improved efficiency of the city
services (Boes, Buhalis and Inversini, 2015). The Smart city framework serves as a basis
for Smart Tourism Destination, where the tourists and their experiences are in the
particular focus (Buhalis and Amaranggana, 2013). Especially regarding the transport
system to and from and within a tourist area, the smart destination uses real-time
transport information, visualisations of traffic, augmented reality, multi-language
service and constant information about local attractions and events (Egger, 2013). In
this way, in a smart tourism ecosystem, the delivered intelligent touristic services
enhance customers experiences, culminating in the creation of meaningful value for
them (Gretzel, Werthner, Koo, and Lamsfus, 2015). The development of such
environment and provision of services requires strong collaboration among all the
destination stakeholders, including public authorities, stable hardware and software
infrastructure to ensure the fluent transfer of information in every direction, and,
above all, competent and skilled people to implement and maintain the system (Boes
et al., 2015).
When analysing local destination transport, we may explore it also according to its
target consumers. On one hand, there is specialised tourism transport, which is
predominantly used only by incoming tourists (Neshkov and Kazandzhieva, 2013).
Typical tourism transport services include transfers, tours, car rentals and other
transportation services, all of them taking place within the scope of the destination
area. Local tourism transport providers belong to the second layer of the Destination
Cake model (see section 2.2.2), and so they are tourism industry stakeholders. Usually,
they operate exclusively to serve tourists, therefore they are directly interested in
providing high-quality services. However, in some regions, such differentiation
between tourists and locals can serve as a type of segregation or restriction (Hall, 1999).
In this regard transport may be used as a gatekeeper in a cultural context, encouraging
or limiting the interactions between hosts and guests (Hall, 1999). In similar situations,
tourist transport is assigned a social role too and the power to impact on a local level.
The other part of the destination transport system is represented by the provision of
general transportation, i.e. public transportation, which is available for both tourists
and local residents. The public transport system usually serves the host population,
especially in the big urban areas where different modes of transport are used. It is
essential for the locals, because it is part of their environment and helps them in their
daily life, like commuting to work, getting around the city, travelling from point to
point, i.e. pure transportation within the area. In this regard, usually local transport
systems are planned to handle a certain capacity, considering the population and the
urban conditions. However, a large influx of tourists may cause serious problems and
even hinder the locals from using their own facilities. Local tourist transport is cited to
have one of the biggest impacts on local environmental and social aspects (Dickinson
and Dickinson, 2006). Therefore, city planners or destination governance institutions
should consider the possible tourist flows as a factor for the local public transportation
system. It is possible that the existing transport network does not address the needs of
the tourists. In such a case, the DMO should either adapt the existing transport system
to tourists needs (e.g., by including extra vehicles, or creating a tighter schedule) or
design an alternative transport system for tourists purposes. In the latter case, other
transport modes will most probably be integrated, as the final goal is to deliver a good
experience for tourists. It is a major challenge to ensure convenient transport links for
both locals and tourists. Moreover, some of the transport suppliers do not directly
originate from tourist companies and they are not so involved in developing tourism
in the area. In this regard, Albalate and Bel (2010) assign two objectives for city
planners: to maximise the benefits for tourists, ensuring their stay at the destination is
comfortable (i.e. providing an efficient transport system), and to minimise the negative
effects of tourism on the locals (e.g. avoiding traffic congestion).
On the other hand, tourists may contribute to transport suppliers reaching higher load
rate during off-peak times in the morning and in the evening, because tourist visits are
usually concentrated during holiday periods and around weekends when local
residents use less public transport (Albalate and Bel, 2010). This means that transport
providers, together with destination planners, have to manage the supply in order to
avoid affecting locals and tourists negatively.
An efficient destination transport policy should consider the available infrastructure,
the transport network and possibilities for intermodal organisations, and a balance
between capacity and demand, in order to avoid congestions. Nevertheless,
environmental care and sustainable growth add to the challenges faced by destination
transport development.
3.2 Air TransportTourism Relationship and Mutual Impacts
The exponential growth of tourism and air transport in the last century has proved the
inherent connection between them. The two industries have become more complex
and, because of their global nature, the number of governmental bodies and other
institutions involved in their development is increasing. The correlation between air
transport and tourism is an acknowledged situation by most scholars, policy-makers
and those in business. However, although the interdependence of both industries
seems to be evident, a deeper exploration of the particular connections might reveal
other, sometimes unexpected, aspects. In this respect, we shall study the air transport
and tourism industries in more detail by focusing on how they impact each other as it
has been observed or reported. Therefore, we approach the study from the perspective
of a destination, which is the micro level of air transport and tourism operations, where
numerous situations can provide multiple unexpected cases and precedents that are
not encountered on the macro level. Furthermore, the destination perspective provides
more practical implications that could be directly implemented in destination strategy
and policy, thus enhancing the utility of our analysis for the stakeholders on both sides.
The study begins with a general comparison of the impacts of air transport on tourism
development at the destination level, and plots their influence and how they cooperate
or confront each other (section 3.2.1). Different cases are explored, and evidence from
destinations and their interactions with the air transport players is reported. Then we
will go deeper in section 3.2.2, inspecting the particular connections between the
elements of air transport and the destination components, taking as a basis both the
theoretical models of air transport industry (section 1.2) and the Destination Cake
model (section 2.2).
3.2.1 A General Comparison of the Mutual Impacts of Air Transport and Tourism
Destination
The global issues confronting aviation and tourism are largely discussed and
promoted by the UNWTO, ICAO and their affiliated agencies. These issues are safety
and security of the passengers/tourists, (de)regulation of the industries and all
consequent policies and agreements, the need for collaboration, and articulation in a
more accurate manner of the problems facing both sectors, etc. The same issues may
be transformed and acknowledged at lower levels, such as at a national, regional or
local context, or at the destination level. The following analysis looks at the external
macro environmental impacts that are common for both industries, i.e. the political,
legal, economic, environmental and social effects that air transport and tourism have
on each other.
The countrys political situation and its legal regulation of air transport will directly
impact the tourism development of any of its destinations. Availability of bilateral or
multilateral agreements affects the possibilities of flights operating, and a lack of
flights will of course hurt the tourism industry at the destination. One recent example
comes from the USA, in which one President Trumps first executive orders put a
travel ban on citizens from seven countries from entering the US. This ban caused
additional concerns for airlines as they had to also change their crews to conform to
the order (Osborne, 2017). A similar example is reported by Henderson (2009)
regarding the European Unions ban on Indonesian airlines flying to the EU, after
which the passenger flow between the two regions has significantly decreased, thus
affecting the tourism industry. On the contrary, the creation of an open skies
environment in the UAE motivated a number of airlines to include Dubai as a
destination in their portfolio (Lohmann and Duval, 2011).
Further, countries that have numerous and difficult visa requirements and entry
regulations at their borders may prevent passengers from travelling on certain routes
and visiting certain destinations. Therefore, many potential tourists would just travel
elsewhere. The same applies to border procedures at airports, which, if too
complicated, might take much time and annoy passengers. In this regard, UNWTO,
ICAO, IATA and WTTC increase their coordination in order to represent the two
industries with a single voice, thus enhancing their common negotiating power in
addressing strategic issues like liberalisation, security, climate change, taxes, etc.
(UNWTO, 2012).
In the economic context, by facilitating tourism and trade, air transport generates
economic growth, maintains jobs, improves welfare standards, alleviates poverty and
increases revenue (ATAG, 2016). At the destination level, the most visible impacts are
associated with the provision of accessibility, visibility and connectivity. For some island
countries and remote areas, air transport remains the only possible connection for local
residents and visitors (Lohmann and Duval, 2011), especially for those with tourism-
dependent economies (ATAG, 2016). Accessibility may be further evaluated by
connectivity, i.e. the frequency of available flights to and from the destination, plus the
capacity of those flights. This means looking at whether flights will be available only
during the high season serving predominantly tourists, or if airlines operate regularly
throughout the year, thus contributing to the local residents connectivity as well.
Flight capacity, on the other hand, would indirectly influence other suppliers because
of the limited and predetermined tourist flows coming by air. For example, if only a
few airlines operate on a weekly basis to a certain destination that relies mostly on air
transport, then the other tourist service suppliers should plan their offerings according
to the number of tourists expected to arrive, otherwise, there will be an oversupply of
services which will negatively affect their business. Also, airlines provide visibility for
a particular destination when they offer flights to it, thus triggering travellers
interests. One common practice is including destination information in the airlines on-
board magazines (Lohmann and Duval, 2011).
Lastly, in the economic context, air transport is often associated with various taxes and
duties usually levied on airports or airlines for environmental protection, noise levels
or airline maintenance. This might be why some tourists do not want to travel by air.
Although not directly associated with the destination as a final point, airport taxes
constitute a certain share in the transportation cost of the trip, hence they matter,
especially for budget-conscious travellers.
An often discussed topic is the pollution caused by mass tourism development, and
more than 40% of it (UNWTO, 2012) is attributed to the air transport tourists use to
reach their destination. At the local level, the environmental issues are usually
discussed regarding the local community living near airports. Therefore the
representatives of both industries unite their efforts to mitigate the negative impacts.
Regarding the social impacts of air transport, its contribution to tourism development
may be estimated in number of jobs. Globally, over 16 million jobs in tourism are
directly supported by foreign visitors expenditures when they arrive by air, and a
further 13.4 million jobs in industries that supply tourism are indirectly supported by
visitors arriving by air (ATAG, 2016). Additionally, mass tourism and aviation
development led to higher competition and reduced prices, which further enabled
other people to afford air travel. Airlines price discrimination tools set a myriad of
fares to match the financial possibilities of more people. In recent years, LCCs
revolutionised the industry by further democratising air travel in launching no-frills
basic journeys at very low prices. To add to the social impact, in contrast to most
tourism related jobs, aviation requires a highly skilled workforce, and hence, provides
relevant wages for them.
Because of air transport operations, and especially LCCs, some new destinations
appeared recently. In such remote destinations, airline access revives the local area,
providing tourism development and thus economic prosperity and survival for small
businesses (Donzelli, 2010; Sarilgan, 2016; Castillo-Monzano et al., 2011). However,
only opening a route to a destination and providing very low rates is not enough. For
the mutual development of air transport providers and destination suppliers, it is
necessary to further engage and collaborate to increase customer value, which will, in
turn, transform casual visitors to loyal clients and will build the image of the place as
a prominent tourist destination. As Gareth James points out in the UNWTO Global
Aviation Report (2012), Airlines and airports are crucial in opening up new
destinations but this should not be contemplated at the expense of proper strategic
planning, of a strong marketing campaign and without a long-term goal of developing
a sustainable tourism sector.
These influences that air transport has on tourism and on destinations in particular are
explored in the literature as catalytic impacts (Wittmer and Vespermann, 2011).
They are the direct, indirect and induced effects that aviation has in its general
operations, and the tourism industry is cited as the biggest beneficiary of the catalytic
impact. The presence of an air connection encourages people to travel and to also come
to a destination. The passengers need relevant tourism facilities, and so the place starts
to develop as a tourist destination. Tourist service providers then influence related
industries, such as agriculture, fishing, crafts, furniture, etc., thus aggregating the
results into a multiplier effect. Additionally, there are some intangible outcomes, for
example, the tourist destination is associated with a certain image, which may further
attract new businesses or events to take place.
Table 3.1 summarises some of the key findings in the numerous studies of the impact
that air transport players (mainly LCC and airports) have on the tourism industry.
However, most of the studies are focused on a certain region and participants, which
makes it difficult to generalise and infer some common implications. Furthermore,
many of the reported effects are described as impinging on general tourism and the
whole economy of the area, and very rarely is the role of destination management
demonstrated or considered. Aside from that, the reverse impact (how the destination
affects the aviation sector) is almost never explored in details, although some scholars
identify it (Njoya, 2013).
In the interdependence of tourism and aviation, not only is tourism dependent on
aviation, but aviation also bears some influence from tourism. For example, potential
interest or demand in a certain place with some attractions and developed tourism
superstructure may coax an airline to establish a new route and to utilise that demand.
The air transport industry is motivated to be safer and more efficient to ensure tourists
have the best experience (Njoya, 2013). Tourists increased concern in sustainability
may force aviation to improve its technology and operations, etc. In general, the
traditional understanding of the unidirectional influence of air transport on the
tourism industry has limited the research in the area. Furthermore, when evaluating
an impact, usually a particular destination is observed, whereas aviation is considered
an industry, i.e. it cannot be compared with a place. Therefore, it would be more
relevant to study air transport players (e.g. airports, airlines, aircraft producers) and
how they might be affected by tourism development. However, in this case, the
analysis should be implemented at a lower level, exploring the separate elements of
both industries, which is done in the next section.
Table 3.1 Papers dealing with air transport impact on tourist destinations
Authors Country/ Parties Concerned Main points and Findings
Destination
Donzelli (2010) South Italy LCC Regional airports with LCC show
significant growth compared to ones
without LCC; cost-benefit analysis
Duval and New Zealand 5 specific markets Mixed results, implying that regional
Schiff (2014) and the tourist flows and third countries hubs seem enough
from them to NZ. Air to ensure destinations accessibility and
services and number connectivity, hence direct non-stop
of international service is not the only mandatory option
visitors for travellers
Graham and Malta Compares number of The introduction of LCC significantly
Dennis (2010) tourists and number increased arrivals but did not change the
of flights/passengers, motives of passengers towards cultural
Type of traffic of LCC of heritage tourism. LCC seem to
and regular airlines substitute for charters, not to
complement them
Halpern et al. UK LCC and airports The big increases in traffic to and
(2016) revenue of regional airports are starting
to decline, as LCCs start to shift to
bigger urban locations
Kaberry and York Aviation Social benefits of High employment, high number of jobs
Congdon report on LCC LCC impacts on created, increased intra-EU connectivity,
(2007) in Europe airlines, airports increased connections with Central and
Eastern Europe, stimulate tourism,
decrease seasonality, influence lifestyle
choices for VFR, opening of peripheral
regions of EU
Njoya (2013) Ethiopia, Kenya Air transport and Divides literature on both Tourism and
and South destination Aviation into several categories
Africa performance aviation regimes, LCC, charter airlines,
transportation costs, airport structure,
accessibility, etc.
Nunez- Spain Public support An econometric model proposed to
Sanchez (2015) (destination measure the efficiency of public
management agency) subsidies to regional airports
to airlines and
airports
Olipra (2012) Poland, EU Rise of LCC and their Good comparison tables and charts of
impact on airports Poland and EU. The aggressive LCC
and destinations marketing is supported by the regional
airports to attract them to initiate
operation
Pisonero Spain The role of tourism in Index of connectivity is calculated for
(2012) the evolution of each of the Spanish airports
Spanish air
connectivity, 1970-
2008
Regmi (2009) Nepal Relationship between Significant impact of aviation on
tourism and aviation; tourism, as more than 80% of the
Factors influencing tourists to Nepal arrive by air
this relationship
Sarilgan (2016) Turkey LCC impact on Impressive impact of LCC operation in
Turkish tourism Turkey on the tourism industry; some
industry charter airlines shifted to LCCs; LCCs
create more competitive environment;
create their own niche and do not affect
traditional airlines
Smith (2009) Malta LCC and cultural LCC stimulation initiative that leads to
tourism more passengers, but still they are
interested in the traditional 3S tourism
Wu and Japan Charter services and Invasion of LCCs has a small effect on
Hayashi (2014) LCC domestic market, but LCC gained
passenger flow from charters on
international routes.
Decline of tourist arrivals at remote
destinations, previously maintained by
charters
Wu, Hayashi Sino-Japanese Charter flights A geographic overview of charter flight
and Funck tourism distribution between China and Japan.
(2012) Charter flights have significant seasonal
effect, regular flights are unviable
because of lack of traffic; need of strong
regional policy to encourage and
develop air transport
Castillo- Spain hinterland LCC and the attitude New tourist markets opened because of
Monzano, regions of other tourism the direct connections and positive
Lopez- service providers stimulation of all the other tourist
Valpuesta and service providers, with the major
Gonzalez-Laxe exception of travel agencies
(2011)
Sengur and Istanbul, Turkey Air transport impact Significant increase in capacity,
Hemdil (2014) on tourism performance and structural changes in
the tourism industry
Vaz, Silva, Portugal Regional airports and Investment in regional airports prove to
Baltazar and tourism development increase potential of the region and
Marques positively impact the local economy
(2014)
3.2.2 Analysis of Common Points by Layers
When exploring both air transport and tourism, the latter depicted as a particular
destination, we shall compare the two models discussed beforehand (see Figures 1.3
and 2.1, i.e. Air transport industry and the Destination Cake model). At first glance, it
is obvious that air transport is an industry with global coverage, whereas a tourism
destination is strictly bound to a certain location. Therefore, the two frameworks
cannot be simply overlapped. Furthermore, the Destination Cake model is illustrated
as a three-dimensional framework, comprising several layers and their elements. The
elements of the different layers cannot be directly compared between them either,
although they still belong to the whole destination (e.g., the first layer foundations
cannot be directly compared to the second layer participants, which are business
entities, nor with the third layer services, which are products). Probably the
incomparability of the air industry players and the destination elements have
prevented the scholars from making a unified framework to cover them both. The only
available model of the relationship between tourism and aviation belongs to Bieger
and Wittmer (2006) (See Figure 3.1). They try to include, in a 2D scheme, both
destination and air transport elements, but their model fails to address the complexity
of the two sides and to reveal the myriad of links between them. Therefore, we are
going to compare air transport and the tourism destination by acknowledging the
relations between air transport components and the elements on each layer of the
Destination Cake model, and finally we shall allocate the role of destination
management and show how everything reflects customer value and the destination
attributes, i.e. we adopt a destination management perspective.
The foundation layer includes Territory, Tourist resources, General infrastructure and
Local community. As a first point of contact with the air transport industry appears
the airport. The airport needs a specific land-plot on which to be constructed, so it
depends on the peculiarities of Territory landscape, land ownership, proximity to
attractions, tourist facilities, etc.. There are quirky airports, built according to the
specific topographic conditions. For example, Courchevel Altiport, France, located in
the French Alps at 2008 m altitude, with a very short runway (567 m) and with a
gradient of 18.6%, or the Gibraltar International Airport, whose runway intersects the
busiest road, so the vehicles have to wait for the planes to land, before continuing their
trip. The airport terrain and engineering, however, determine the capacity of the
airport, the runway, space for the apron, and hence the number and types of airlines
that can operate, as well as airline schedules and connectivity.
Also, the airport is undoubtedly considered part of the General infrastructure. In order
to provide flights to a certain point, there should be the relevant conditions for it. An
airport must have certain characteristics as a prerequisite for airlines to schedule
flights to a destination. For example, the length and characteristics of the runway is a
factor for usage by different aircraft. Usually shorter runways may be used by only
narrow-body aircraft that respectively are operated by regional and smaller airlines,
whereas wider and longer runways are suitable for large-body aircraft, operated by
big global airlines. In terms of tourism management, the implication is that if a location
wants to develop as a mass tourist destination, attracting a high volume of tourists by
air, the airport should be planned and constructed accordingly.
Regulative environment Political environment

Technical environment Social environment
Economic environment Economic environment
of home market Ecological environment
Type of Quantity Destination
aircraft of visitors attractions
Airport
Frequencies Quality of Destination Destination

visitors atmosphere infrastructure
Airline
business
model Network
structure
Structure Destination
of visits Revenue
Model
Price
level
Air transport Destination
Figure 3.1 System Model of air transport and tourism, based on Bieger and Wittmer (2006)
Additionally, airports are important nodal points, compiling several modes of
transport into them. Therefore, they are considered by the destination governance not
only as facilitators of the air transport and tourism industries but as significant logistics
centres for the whole region. Airports have a central role in the region because they
serve as an interaction point with other transport systems (Brilha, 2008). This position
of the airport provides a two-fold perspective. On one hand, the airport is part of the
air transport industry, ensuring essential services for airlines operation runways,
ground handling and aircraft maintenance, space and services for passengers,
navigation services, and a safe and secure environment for all. On the other hand, the
airport enhances destination accessibility, being one of the gates for the incoming
tourist flows. As such, the airport might bear impacts from the destination governance
authorities, and be an important stakeholder.
Also, when people are at an airport, they usually search for more information about
the destination and the services and activities available, that is why tourist suppliers
located their offices in the terminals. These are rental car companies, travel agencies,
tourist information centres, etc. It is a matter of collaboration between the destination
management authorities and the airport operator to ensure tourist information is fully
provided and promoted when tourists take their first steps at a destination. Here is
where the connection lies between the airports and the other foundation component,
namely Tourist resources and attractions. Notwithstanding the passengers primary
purpose of visiting, when arriving at a certain airport, they can easily be lured by the
local attractions provided there is adequate promotion, information and the possibility
to book at the airport terminal. An interesting endeavour in recent years is to include
creative design to give airports a unique identity, thus converting themselves into an
attraction, or having them convey the same image message as the destination (Brilha,
2008). Good examples are the Christchurch Airport in New Zealand, with an Antarctic
Information Centre (Christchurch Airport, NZ), or Vancouver Airport, Canada, which
provides two unique tropical aquariums (Vancouver Airport, Vancouver Aquarium),
and Bergamo Airport, Italy that has a direct tunnel connection between the passenger
terminal and a large shopping mall. Again, the unified efforts of airport and
destination management authorities are necessary to form a common policy.
Following Brilhas (2008) consideration that airports have two target clients airlines
and passengers we may add a third target client is the destinations, represented by
the destination management body or authority.
Finally, the airport has a common point of contact with the local community too. Apart
from the numerous benefits for the destination, tourism and the local economy, an
airport may also affect the host residents but in a negative way. The most often cited
issues are noise and environmental pollution. Although airports are usually located
outside urban areas, the noise and toxic waste still affect local people, as the area
around the airport becomes unsuitable for living or farming, the land price may goes
down and even health problems may occur (Lawton and Fujiwara, 2016). It is,
therefore, essential for the destination governance to properly communicate to the
local residents about all possible effects from airport construction and tourism
development in the region, so they are fully informed and make their arrangements.
Also, an agreement for due compensation can be prepared for those who experience
evident losses from the airport operation.
Some of the connections of the airport with the other destination layers were already
implied. Airport characteristics are closely related to the type and operation of airlines,
which are assigned as tourist service providers from the second layer. If we consider
the airport as a part of the destination infrastructure, then here we can observe the
converse impact of how the destination infrastructure may influence air transport
performance. Together, airport and airlines influence the size and diversity of tourist
flows, which in turn impact the other tourist service providers accommodation
establishments, transportation companies, entertainment and event firms all of
whom are located on the second layer too. The airport itself offers a number of services
to arriving and departing passengers, which constitutes a part of the entire tourist
product, i.e. the third layer. Some of those services, connected to aviation, include
check-in procedures, customs, passport check, air lounges, baggage processing, and
other customer services. The non-aviation services tend to increase in versatility and
number (Fasone et al., 2016), and convert the airports into a mini-attraction itself. From
the tourists perspective, the airport is the first and last part of their visit to the
destination, so it plays a crucial role in visitors first and last perceptions and their
overall satisfaction. In the same vein, the airport contributes to the creation of value
for the tourists.
The unique position of the airport, overlapping both air transport and the tourism
industry, determines its essential role for a destination. Therefore, from the destination
management perspective, planning, constructing and maintaining an airport appears
to be a major issue for the destination authorities, and for further tourism development
(Kazda and Caves, 2010). Furthermore, being one of the gates for the destination,
potential visiotrs associate the airport with accessibility and a certain image. Access
to international airports is a vital component in the development of international
markets as pointed out by Prideaux (2000).
Air traffic navigation and safety and security services are usually affiliated with the
airport as seen in our initial exploration, but they can be performed by the airport
operator, or outsourced to other companies. In this regard, they are considered to be
part of the General infrastructure, which mostly facilitates rather than generates
tourism. The legal entities providing the particular services are often state-owned, and
to a great extent they are in line with the central government provisions and have less
stake in the local destination governance.
The next essential element concerning both industries are the airlines. Airlines are the
most powerful players from the air transport industry that actually perform the core
service, which is transportation from one point to another. In this regard, airlines,
being an external player, would impose a certain amount of influence over the
destination, and also would experience a similar impact from the destination. The
point is to analyse airlines simultaneously as external stakeholders and as contributors
to the destination tourist product: this is the destination management perspective.
Regarding the relations of airlines with components of the first layer of the Destination
Cake model, the obvious closest connection is with the airport, as it is considered part
of the destinations General infrastructure. As discussed earlier, an airports functional
and technical characteristics determine the type of aircraft to be handled, hence what
the airlines fleet should be to start operations to the particular airport. Additionally,
airlines may have specific requirements regarding ATM, safety and security that the
airports should address if they want to attract the airlines, or vice versa. Regarding
border regulations, since international flights actually cross international borders,
airlines may perform some of the required procedures. For example, carriers operating
flights to the USA fulfil some consular roles; it is mandatory for the airlines to provide
their clients personal identity documents, visa numbers and types, as well as an
address in the US where the passenger intends to stay (US Customs and Border
Protection, 2015). In this way airlines act as gate-keepers to the USA as a tourist
destination, facilitating the process of crossing borders and imposing some kind of
control on immigration.
Regarding Tourist attractions, airlines may well promote the destination. When a new
route is opened, airlines usually promote it through their onboard magazines or
include destination attractions in their promotional campaigns (Maci, 2012). Actually,
in this way the airlines are promoting the destination as a whole (see section 3.2.1 as
well). Regarding the last foundations component, in a reverse situation, airlines may
perceive Local residents not as part of the particular destination, but as a source of
passenger flows for the airlines other destinations. Corresponding with the reasoning
in section 2.2.2, airlines may have different objectives when starting a new destination.
They may open a new route to utilise the potential passenger flows both to and from
the new destination. Therefore, an airlines impact on the Local community may be
evaluated from the outbound tourism point of view as well, which is not directly
connected with the destination management perspective.
Considering airlines as tourist companies that provide a consistent share of the holistic
destination product and contribute to the final customer value, they inevitably fall in
the second layer of the Destination Cake model, i.e. as tourist service providers, and
their impact can be estimated on whether they contribute to the entire destination
product and image. Transportation service, together with accommodation, has often
been defined as primary tourist services, also because of their major share in the
whole journeys cost. Despite the trend of reducing air transportation prices in the
recent decades, this is especially valid for the long-haul destinations. That is why
customers expectations for value for money affect to a great extent the quality of
the air transport service, hence the important role of airlines in the final customer
value.
In addition, each of the three airline business models (see section 1.2) may impact the
destination differently depending on the predominant target market served.
Traditional/network airlines maintain regular flights, usually throughout the whole
year. Their typical passengers are usually business travellers, individuals, families and
small groups. Thanks to the hub-and-spoke system, their catchment area is quite large,
contributing to the higher multicultural diversity of the passengers. Moreover, the
inclusion of air alliances allows the traditional airlines to deploy a large network of
destinations, which can source each other with tourist flows. Still, capacity and flight
frequency usually emerge as the actual determinants of the number of tourists brought
by airlines to the destination in reference. Also, air accessibility to a destination is often
associated with the availability of regular airline operations, and therefore, the main
destination management issue regarding a traditional airline is how to attract it to
establish a regular service to their destination. However, the process of opening a new
route comprises a number of strategic considerations for both the airline and the
destination governance. Because of the numerous aspects of this complex planning
process of airlines and destinations, we shall explore it in detail in the next section.
Charter airlines are referred to as the typical tourist service provider. Together with
tour operators, they bring great volumes of tourists to the destination. The biggest
aircraft actually belong to charter airlines (Schmitt and Gollnick, 2016). In contrast to
traditional airlines, charter carriers do not rely on their own brand, but rather
complement the tour operators inclusive tour product. In this regard, charter airlines
have a more indirect effect on the destination, being part of the tour operators offers.
At the same time, charter airlines are associated with mass tourism, great volumes and
standardised packages, which have been the backbone for successful destination
development in the 20th century (Marson, 2011). On the other hand, the number of
tourists brought by charter airlines affects all the other tourist service providers,
forcing them to adapt their facilities for larger groups, to increase their capacity, and
to enhance their service efficiency, in order to provide good quality for more people.
Therefore, the charter airlines eventual effect on the destination depends on the type
and volume of the passenger flow and the formation of the destinations image as one
of mass tourism.
Low-cost carriers (LCCs) impacts on local tourism industries have been largely
discussed vis--vis many geographic and national contexts (see Table 3.1). Because of
their untraditional approach and business flexibility, LCCs provoke different debates
regarding the long-term sustainability of their operations and even some cases in
which they are perceived to threaten competition (Barbot, 2006). The secondary and
tertiary airports used by LCCs caused those remote destinations to develop rapidly. In
this regard, many other destination management authorities tend to perceive LCCs as
a panacea for their tourism industry. Again the issue of attracting such carriers
confronts destination governance; moreover, some of the LCCs (Ryanair, explored by
Olipra, 2012), realising their bargaining power, ask for economic support from such
destinations to cover the risk to the airline in initiating a new route (Dobruszkes et al.,
2016). Several such cases have generated court claims and continuous debates whether
those subsidies damage the competitive environment and negatively affect other
airlines (Hvass, 2014.). After Ryanairs Charleroi case, the European Commission
published its Community guidelines on financing of airports and start-ups aid to
airlines departing from regional airports to set a framework for such hidden subsidies
and to avoid unfair competition (Echevarne, 2008). The latest research, however,
shows that more LCCs move to major airports, thus competing directly with
traditional airlines (Dobruszkes et al., 2017), and the important question remains: How
will the smaller airports react to this trend?
Another issue also appears in front of the newly-developed destinations: Are they
ready for tourists? That is, do they have the appropriate tourist infrastructure, skilled
people and additional activities, in order to keep tourists interest to the destination,
and to make them loyal clients? And finally, should all problems regarding tourism be
solved post-factum? Why do the destination authorities not think about them a priori?
Those are extremely important problems, which are currently waiting to be solved by
the destinations, and which will be further discussed in section 3.3.
In terms of customer type, LCCs are predominantly serving the price-sensitive
segments, since their strategy is directed to maintain the lowest prices possible. In this
way many people with lower income are able to afford air travel, so the LCC clients
are perceived as budget travellers. On the other hand, the same clients disregard the
dominance of traditional tourist providers, such as airlines or tour operators, and
prefer to travel independently, making all travel arrangements themselves (Davison
and Ryley, 2010). Often the new pattern of travelling is attributed to the new
generation, the Millennials (Li, Li and Hudson, 2013). It is claimed that Millennials
have preferences for the rest of the tourist product that differ from the previous
generations of tourists (Li et al, 2013), so if they are targeted as clients, the other tourist
service providers should also adapt their products to the new generations
requirements. This is another issue for destination management authorities and tourist
suppliers to discuss and coordinate better.
To conclude this section, the mutual impacts of the air transport industry and the
tourist destination may be found on every layer of the Destination Cake model.
Because of the two-fold role of the airports and the airlines in tourism being both
suppliers and external stakeholders they are entitled to closely communicate and
collaborate with the other tourist service providers and destination governance
organisations, and therefore the most obvious impacts take place exactly within those
interactions.
3.3 Air Transport and the Destination Management Planning Process
Identifying the mutual impacts of air transport and tourism may substantially assist in
the deep analysis of a destination and the overall evaluation of both parties. However,
the main point from the destination management perspective is to use the analytical
results to form an adequate strategy and to prepare an action plan. Therefore, in the
following sections we are going to go through the planning process stages and outline
some key concerns. Moreover, when we have been analysing the two aforementioned
models (Air transport system and Destination Cake model), we explicitly pointed
out their static nature. The dynamic cement represents the activities, performed by
any of the parties, including the process of their strategic planning and development.
The airports and airlines are the air transport industry players which have close
relations with destinations. Since the airport is also considered a part of the destination
infrastructure, its planning will be a part of the general destination plan. However,
airlines are not location bound, and their choice of route may definitely impact the
development of tourism in a destination, as already discussed in the previous section.
In this regard, in the first place we shall explore the airline planning process and how
new routes are allocated, and then we will place it in the context of destination
planning and development, while also examining the leadership role of both parties
in establishing the relationship.
3.3.1 Airline Planning Process
The airline planning process logically considers the technical and functional aspects of
the airline business. In this regard, airline planning encompasses all aspects of their
operation, i.e. fleet planning, route planning and schedule development (Belobaba, 2009a).
Schmitt and Gollnick (2016) propose a chronological line of all activities (See Figure
3.2.) connected to flight planning, but hardly any airline may implement such a strict
sequence of the planning process. Nonetheless, essentially, the performed activities are
the same for all airlines.
Long-term planning Detailed planning Operational planning Tactical planning

(-10 years) (-1 year) (-6 months) (-7 days to Day of flight)
New market development Aircraft selection Route planning, policy Detailed route planning
Traffic rights Detailed scheduling and marketing Accurate slot selection
Aircraft acquisitions Slot allocation Ticket sales Accurate aircraft allocation
Frequencies Yield control
Based on Schmitt and Gollnick (2016)

Figure 3.2 Time horizons of flight planning
An airlines fleet includes all airplanes available for operation. The different technical
characteristics of the aircraft influences airlines performance, capacity management
and maintenance activities. As discussed above, the type of aircraft determines the
infrastructure requirements, i.e. airport runway, and, to a certain extent, the
destinations served because of the leg distance and capacity. Acquiring a new aircraft
is considered a strategic decision because of the long-term utilisation and return on
investment (Belobaba, 2009a). Additionally, airlines take into account their strategic
intentions and forecasts regarding passenger flow, number of routes, depreciation,
maintenance costs, etc. which further complicate the decision. Usually, traditional
airlines operate a very heterogeneous fleet because of the diversity of routes covered
(short-range, regional, long-haul, transcontinental, etc.) (Schmitt and Gollnick, 2016).
In contrast, LCCs limit their fleet to a single model aircraft, or an aircraft family, which
is part of their strategy to minimise maintenance costs. The drawback for LCCs
appears in their inflexibility in operating legs of different distances and using different
airports/runways. The capacity is another aspect that is important regarding the
number of passengers and also cost of operation; bigger aircraft bring more economies
of scale, provided that the load-factor is high enough. On the other hand, smaller
aircrafts load-factor would be easier reached, but will not result in sufficient
economies of scale. There are other aircraft features and approaches for the optimal
fleet selection, but because those entail technical considerations, we will not go into
such details.
As fleet planning and route planning are interdependent, it is impossible to state which
of them is the primary, that is, whether the portfolio of aircraft determines the number
and type of routes, or the planned geographical coverage will influence the investment
in certain types of aircraft. It all depends on the particular airlines strategy and its own
approach (Bieger and Wittmer, 2011a). In addition, the fleet structure may determine,
the airline business model, or vice versa, as mentioned above.
In the process of route planning, airlines choose their destinations on the basis of
economic, strategic and technical considerations. The latter were already discussed
with regard to the aircraft types and how they meet airport requirements. As for the
strategic consideration of the different business models of airlines, route selection may
mean enlarging the network for traditional airlines, or achieving geographical
coverage for LCCs. For the former a new route would be an additional spoke feeding
the hub, whereas, for the latter, a new route would add to the airline value of
connectivity. Because of its the long-term strategic goals, an airline may introduce a
route even though it has a negative outcome, knowing that the route is strategically
important for the future (Belobaba, 2009a). In another example, a network airline may
consider an additional leg to bring incremental profitability to its network, despite
the simple revenue contributions in the origin-destination seeming unprofitable. In
this case the lower load factor to and from the new destination is compensated by the
international connecting passengers who start from the destination of reference in
order to fly on the long-haul legs, and they pay much higher prices, and therefore, the
route might be evaluated by the airline as economically viable (Belobaba, 2009a).
The economic aspect of route profitability is based on the potential demand and
revenue forecasts for the period under consideration (Belobaba, 2009a). The most used
measure of route profitability is usually the forecast of potential passenger demand.
Such evaluation is accompanied by a feasibility study and an analysis of the market
share. Here is the crucial link to the destination. The destination attributes
(attractiveness, image, accessibility, etc., see section 2.4.) provide the basis to estimate
the potential tourist flow. On the other hand, negotiations and established relations
with the local destination governance may further persuade an airline to establish a
route. Hence, the feasibility study should also include an analysis of the size and
quality of the local tourism industry, available tourist facilities, current and expected
numbers of tourists, etc. Finally, the airline may negotiate with the destination
management authorities to receive financial support to partially cover the expected
business risk (Dobruszkes et al., 2016), which is a practice that is already well-
established by the LCCs (Olipra, 2012).
Still, the route selection incorporates a number of other diverse factors. First, there
should be available aircraft that is suitable for the range and has capacity, and that
matches the airport facilities. Second, international regulations and bilateral
agreements may prevent or encourage the airline to establish a new route to a certain
country. The presence or absence of competitors is another important factor, as well as
the presence or absence of partners from the same air alliance, whose flights could be
used for code-share. The weight and importance of each of the above factors, however,
remains a strictly subjective matter for every single airline.
The last part of the airline planning process schedule planning concerns more
operational issues. Once the destination is selected, then comes schedule planning
timetable development, slot allocation, fleet assignment and aircraft rotation,
distribution and sales. Those decisions already affect the airlines operation and may
affect the destination in terms of price strategies, marketing campaigns, noise and
environmental concerns regarding slot times, coordination with other modes of
transport for providing better intermodality for the passengers, etc.
3.3.2 Destination Planning Process
In the dynamic contemporary era and with the abundance of diverse events happening
simultaneously, the tourism industry is one of the first to be affected. Therefore, many
destination organisations have amended their traditional operations to embrace
advanced planning to appropriately prepare for unexpected events and to successfully
tackle the challenges (Formica and Kothari, 2008).
Destination planning is implemented at any tourism level national (country level),
sub-national (province, region, state level), local (town, city) and the lowest area level
(district, village, resort) (Neshkov, 2012). In terms of a time horizon, planning may be
determined as long-term, strategic (more than 5 years in advance), or short-term,
operational (up to 5 years). There are many diverse versions of tourism planning in
terms of contents, structure, level and geographical scope (Morrison, 2013). Still, the
new approaches to planning encompass a much wider field than the usual tangible
element, like territory and facilities. The novel tourism systems are founded on an
effective and efficient economy, linked to an interconnected world and, ultimately, to
ensure sustainable economic development (Costa, Panyik and Buhalis, 2013). In this
regard, destination planning and development are currently designed with a more
modern vision that is opened to the entire supply chain and all stakeholders involved.
Many scholars emphasise the importance of coordinated actions of all stakeholders
and the community (Haugland et al., 2011; Jamal and Getz, 1995; Bramwell and
Sharman, 1999, to mention just a few) for the successful implementation of destination
management and planning, in particular. In order for cooperation to be really effective,
one should consider the relevant scope of all affected stakeholders, the extent to which
their interests overlap and the initial agreement among them (Bramwell and Sharman,
1999). However, in reality the diversity of stakeholders may cause problems regarding
leadership and responsibility issues, or financial issues, like who is covering the costs
of a project. In such cases, proper communication between them appears to be of
utmost importance.
Also, the inclusion of public authorities inevitably may introduce additional concerns
regarding control and legal requirements, even provoking conflicts of interests. While
typical tourism service providers seem to be the most significant stakeholders who are
responsible for tourists satisfaction because they have direct contact with guests, and
because they are responsible for the marketing and promotion initiatives, destination
planning should not neglect the other stakeholders and destination components (like
infrastructure), because they also contribute to the holistic tourist product and overall
tourist experience. In this regard, long-term strategy and planning play a critical role
in the success of a destinations performance (Bornhorst et al., 2010). Nonetheless,
destination planning should consider properly using tourist resources and adapt them
for commercial purposes, while preventing them from becoming damaged by
excessive wear or by pollution. In the same vein, the interests of local residents should
be taken into account, in order to ensure sustainable growth not only for the tourism
industry but for the whole local area.
Destination planning and development may be systematically examined according to
several other aspects, following either the layers and components of the Destination
Cake model or the Destination attributes (i.e. what the outcomes should be for the final
clients, and then deconstruct them to advance which actions should be taken). Having
in mind the primary topic of our study air transport we will focus only on it as an
issue covered by the destination planning.
In terms of transport, the main issues facing destination governance are the relevant
infrastructure and nodal points, where intermodality is to be applied, and the
respective rules and standards that govern the licencing of the transport companies,
so they can perform their business activities at the desired level of quality, while still
considering the environmental, social and economic regulations for sustainable
development.
When planning the infrastructure of air transport, i.e. the airport and all the adjacent
areas, there are several things to consider. First of all is the engineering and
construction of the airport terrain and technical facilities which will serve the airlines.
As mentioned several times, a runways features may have a crucial impact on an
airlines decision as to whether to establish a new route to the relevant destination.
Very precise engineering should also be performed for the intermodal connections
near or within the airport that would enable it to perform more effectively.
Selecting the airport operator has proven to be an issue confronted by many countries,
in that they have to decide whether a public or private institution should operate the
airport, or whether they should compromise with a public-private-partnership. This is
a much discussed question with numerous examples (Cruz and Marques, 2011; Gillen,
2011). Additionally, most of the multiple standards and regulations regarding
construction and operation of the airport facilities have become accepted worldwide
and cannot be avoided. An often neglected although important issue is the attitude of
the local community towards building an airport in their district which could be
influenced by concerns over noise pollution and ecological balance, especially
regarding birds and toxic emissions. All those topics should be duly communicated
and debated with the host residents in advance in order to ensure their support. Also,
as the airport principals will be the ones in direct contact with the airlines, the DMOs
should establish close relations with the airport authority regarding their common
approach towards attracting airlines.
Considering that airlines are the main contributors to the destination tourist product,
many DMOs efforts are directed mainly to them, sometimes neglecting to provide the
proper infrastructure for their operation. Attracting airlines has always been defined
as the major goal of destination governance in their attempt to ensure bigger tourist
flows to enrich the destination product, or to prolong the season. Depending on the
strategic destination plans for the target clients and tourism development, the DMOs
and destination governance should direct their efforts towards the relevant airline
business model, e.g. charter airlines are strongly connected with tour operators,
package tours and hence mass tourism; traditional airlines usually operate regular
flights and are attractive to business tourists because of their large network and
inclusion in air alliances. Finally, LCCs are the most flexible among the three and have
proved their positive impact on local tourism industries. In general, all three types of
airlines are welcome, but in recent years, LCCs are considered the most desired
(Echevarne, 2008).
The process of negotiation with the airlines should be strongly supported by the
destinations achievements in terms of tourist flows, revenue, and perceived image, so
that the airlines are able to estimate the potential number of passengers and the
business risk they might undertake. In this regard, the DMOs should trade the
destination image, in order to persuade the airlines to include it in their portfolios. An
emblematic example are the LCCs. Because of their proven success in opening
smaller destinations, they have been sought out by the DMOs who want to encourage
them to introduce a new route to the relevant destinations.
For the airlines, it is important that their future partners acknowledge the business risk
of a new initiative (UNWTO, 2012), although some of LCCs may convert it into a
systematic practice, thus raising questions about fair play (Dobruszkes, 2006). It should
be noted, though, that very few destinations have the bargaining power to negotiate
and to try to incorporate their own rules in the relationships with airlines. Actually,
secondary and tertiary airports have been chosen by LCCs just because they are
unattractive to traditional airlines, and consequentially have lower prices and
flexibility (Olipra, 2012). However, some bigger airports also strive to attract LCCs by
building special low-cost terminals with basic facilities to serve LCCs at competitive
prices (Echevarne, 2008). Several such examples are: Marseilles (MP2 Terminal), Kuala
Lumpur (LCC Terminal), Vienna (1A Terminal), etc. This fact shifts again to the
leadership role of the destination governance to be proactive in the planning process
and specifically in the relationship with the airlines.
Destination planning is only one of the functions assigned to the DMOs, but it is
important, because planning sets the ground for the future development of the tourist
destination. An essential part of destination management and planning is the
collaborative participation of all stakeholders, i.e. local authorities, DMOs, service
provides, host community, etc. Regarding the particular involvement of airlines in
destination development, both the DMO and carriers should take into account
stakeholders interests, customer value creation and all the uncertainties deriving from
the external environment. Besides, airlines have their own concerns connected with
flight planning, so the overlapping points with destination management reveal how
two sectors impact each other.
CHAPTER 4
CASE STUDY: BULGARIAN BLACK SEA COAST
AND THE ROLE OF AIR TRANSPORT IN ITS DEVELOPMENT
4.1 The Destination Cake Model of the Bulgarian Black Sea Coast
The current chapter presents an empirical research of the Bulgarian Black Sea Coast
(BBSC) destination, and its relationship with air transport. In order to comply with the
initial theoretical analysis, we will explore the BBSC destination by applying the
Destination Cake model framework (see Figure 2.1.), and afterwards, the empirical
data will be examined.
We start with the first layer and its components territory, general infrastructure, local
community and tourist resources. Each will be duly examined and analysed.
Territory. Bulgaria is located in the south-eastern part of Europe, on the Balkan
Peninsula. The territory of Bulgaria covers 111 000 km2 and encompasses diverse
natural tourist resources. Its whole Eastern border is the Black Sea coast (BSC),
encompassing about 14,5% of the country territory. The Bulgarian Black Sea coast
spans 378 km, and sandy beaches cover 28% of it. The strategic location of Bulgaria
and BSC in particular places the destination somewhat on the periphery of the main
Western European markets (3-4 hours travel by air), but, at the same time, the
destination could utilise the developing markets of Eastern Europe, the Middle East
and the other Black Sea countries. Yet, geo-political relations remain crucial for
successful growth.
Tourist resources. Bulgaria boasts an impressive amount of diverse tourist resources.
Many of them are located near or on the Black Sea Coast, thus strongly contributing to
tourism industry development and also influencing the direction and type of tourism
development. The most important natural tourist resources for the BSC are the
beaches. The total beach area is around 16 mln m2, and more than half of them are
located in the south BSC area (Krastev, 2014), and the total number of beaches is 78,
which is a good condition for the development of seaside tourism. The approximate
total capacity of the beaches is estimated to be 1 million people per day (Krastev, 2014).
Additionally, the moderate climate conditions with intense sunlight during half of the
year determines a well-defined sea season between May and September, when 75% of
the days are warm and sunny. The average temperature in the summer is about 24 to
26C, although the winters may be cold and windy. Bulgaria is located on the border
between moderate and sub-tropical zones, whereas the BSC area has its own climate
along the strip of between 10 to 60 kms from the coast (Krastev, 2014). The sea
alleviates temperature extremes, making the summer cooler and the winter warmer.
The excellent weather throughout the year has attracted many people, especially from
the UK and Russia, to buy second homes in the numerous apartment complexes. Since
the Black Sea is comparatively isolated, its average salinity is only 18, i.e. it is half of
the worlds average ocean level and it is very appropriate for swimming. Also, the sea
gets warmer in the summer as the water temperature reaches between 23 and 24C,
which is almost the same as the air temperature.
Bulgaria is a leading European country for mineral springs (more than 1500 are found
around the country) (Krastev, 2014). Some of them are located on the BBSC (Balchik,
Varna, Bourgas, Pomorie), thus providing the opportunity for a unique combination
of seaside and spa tourism.
Biodiversity of the country is enormous, and there are several natural reserves located
right on the BBSC, with world significance: Durankulak Lake, part of the Via Pontica;
Baltata Reserve, Kamchia, Ropotamo, and Bourgas Lakes (which also takes part in the
Via Pontica), etc.
Cultural and heritage attractions significantly enrich the tourist product of the BSC.
Two out of Bulgarias nine UNESCO sites, the ancient town of Nessebar and Madara
Rider, are located near or in the vicinity of the coast. Apart from them, there are many
other cultural sites; however, most of them are not properly utilised and are not
adapted for tourist visits. In recent years, numerous cultural and art events have taken
place on the BBSC, thus enhancing the tourism demand, especially in the shoulder
season (Krastev, 2014).
Because of its natural and cultural assets, the BBSC is considered the biggest and most
developed tourism area in the country. The geographical and climate conditions
definitely contribute to the growth of mass sun-sea-sand/3S tourism (Ivanov and
Dimitrova, 2014). Therefore, the most utilised tourist resources are located on or in the
vicinity of the BSC area, and the tourist suppliers (accommodation establishments,
other tourist companies) are also found predominantly on the BSC.
In recent years, other tourism types have been developed in an attempt to prolong the
season or to improve the occupancy of the seasonal accommodation establishments
e.g. golf tourism, wine tourism, spa and wellness tourism, and communist heritage
tourism (Ivanov and Dimitrova, 2014).
General infrastructure
In terms of a transport system, the country is crossed by several international road
corridors No 4, 7, 8, 9, and 10 (Krastev, 2014). Although the northern highway is still
under construction, the southern one connects directly to the capital, allowing the
tourist flows for the weekends and the shoulder season. However, the quality of the
road infrastructure could be evaluated as satisfactory to good (Krastev, 2014), although
it still needs more networking and intermodality.
The Black Sea Coast could be evaluated as well accessible in terms of available
transport modes. There are two international airports: one at Varna and one at
Bourgas; two international commercial seaports in the same cities, which, in recent
years, are continuously adapted to berth cruise ships; and, multiple small ports, used
by locals for fishing and boat tours. In addition, the railway system also performs some
tourist trips, for example, the Venice Simplon Orient Express Attraction train, of which
Varna is one of the stops. However, regular public trains are quite outdated and not
very suitable for tourists.
In regard to air transport, we will explore both Varna and Bourgas airports in detail.
For their general features, see Text boxes 4.1 and 4.2.
Text box 4.1 Varna Airport

ICAO code: LBWN
IATA code: VAR
Area: Total: 223.1 ha
Facilities: one runway with 2,517 m length, Terminal with 25 check-in counters
Airlines and destinations: 63 airlines, 102 destinations, 34 countries
Varna Airport is the third largest airport in Bulgaria and an important destination during the
summer leisure seasons. The airport serves Varna and northeastern Bulgaria. The busiest season for
the airport is from the end of May to the beginning of October.
The airport has two terminals: Terminal 1, built in 1972 (closed), and the new Terminal 2, opened in
August 2013.
Terminal 1 /closed/ has been extended several times over the years. The departures area had 21
check-in counters and six security checkpoints. In December 2011 the construction work on new
Terminal 2 began. T2 has a capacity of 1,800,000 passengers per year and 25 check-in desks. It covers
an area of 18,000 m2. T2 buildings are designed so that their capacity could be further increased as
an extension to the existing architectural part, if necessary.
Varna Airport is situated around 5 miles or 7.5 km to the west of the city. The tourists can reach from
the city centre till the Airport for about 15 or 20 minutes by car, depending on the car traffic.
Source: Varna Airport website
Ever since it was founded, Varna Airport has predominantly served charter/non-
scheduled flights and some very small amount domestic flights (actually only flights
of the national carrier and a domestic airline, Hemus Air). The same applies to Bourgas
Airport. Regular flights have only been happening from 2003 at Varna Airport and
from 2005 at Bourgas Airport. Until now, those flights have shown a steady growth
trend, although not at a fast pace, and some airlines (e.g. Norwegian, Aeroflot) operate
only during the summer season. Figures 4.1 and 4.2 demonstrate the evolution of
Varna and Bourgas airports in terms of movements. 8 The international flights are
further differentiated as scheduled/regular and non-scheduled/charter flights,
whereas domestic flights encompass only those performed entirely within the territory
of Bulgaria (usually Varna/Bourgas Sofia routes).
Text box 4.2 Bourgas Airport

ICAO code: LBBG
IATA code: BOJ
Area: Total: 253.1 ha
Facilities: one runway with 3,200m length; terminal with 31 check-in counters
Airlines and destinations: 75 airlines and 141 destinations, 36 countries
Burgas Airport, (Bulgarian: , Letishte Burgas) and also known as Sarafovo Airport is
an airport in south-east Bulgaria and the second largest airport in the country. The airport is located
near to the north neighbourhood of Burgas, Sarafovo almost 10 kilometres from the city centre.
Between the airport and the city centre is located the Lake Atanasovsko. Burgas Airport has the
fourth runway length on the Balkans (3200m) after Athens Airport, Sofia Airport and Belgrade
Airport.
Currently, there are two Terminals at the airport, mentioned as Terminal Arrivals, and Terminal
Departures. The first of them was built in the 1950s, the second in the early 1990s. In December 2011
began construction work on a new Terminal. The new terminal has a capacity of 2,700,000 passengers
and 31 check-in desks and covers an area of 20,000m2. The new terminal buildings are designed so
that their capacity could be further increased as an extension to the existing architectural part, if
necessary. Construction of the new terminal was completed by the 31 Dec 2016.
Source: Bourgas Airport website
In Varna Airport, a sharp increase of domestic movements is noticed for the period
2011 to 2013. This is marked by the short presence of Wizz Air, which performed the
domestic stretch between Varna and Sofia for a little over a year. Now the same airline
announced that they will return to the country and will even establish a base in Varna
offering a number of new routes, the domestic sector also being one of them (Wizz Air,
2016). While domestic and charter flights numbers remain comparatively the same, the
8Movement is considered every landing or take-off of an aircraft, i.e. the number of both arriving and
departing flights per annum (CAA, 2016)
regular flights show a stable growth trend in both airports. This is part of the strategic
policy of the airport operator to attract new airlines, but also can be interpreted as an
outcome of the rising attractiveness of the destination for the airlines. A fresh example
comes from Turkish Airlines, which started operation at Varna Airport in 2014 with
four flights per week, and only one year later, they almost tripled the flights to 11 per
week, or 22 movements (Moreto.net, 2015). Since Varna is often referred to as the
maritime capital of the country, its importance for business tourism has also been
noted by the airlines as they consider its potential to attract business travellers.
Bourgas Airport, on the other side, has always been associated with the leisure tourism
area. The southern part of the BSC has been much more developed with both tourist
facilities and a number of accommodation establishments. Therefore, the Bourgas
region has been positioned as a mass 3S tourism destination, hence its development is
targeted towards leisure tourists. As illustrated in Figure 4.3, the total number of
flights to and from Bourgas Airport considerably exceed those at Varna Airport, solely
due to the charter flights; whereas, the number of scheduled/regular flights is almost
equal for the last years.
From the destination management point of view, the different images of the northern
and southern parts of the BSC may cause difficulties in building a uniform image of
the whole BBSC destination. On the other hand, the possibilities to diversify the
product may contribute to the revival of the tourist destination, and especially
regarding mass seaside tourism, which is claimed to be not as popular in the last
decades.
Another reason that could be stated for the big difference in the number of flights
between the two airports are the technical features. The runway at Bourgas is larger
and more suitable for more types of aircraft, while in Varna, the runway might be used
predominantly by narrow-body aircraft, which are more typical for regular or regional
operation, rather than for the mass tourism charter flights.
Flights/movements at Varna Airport

1998-2016
14000
12000
10000
8000
6000
4000
2000
0
1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016
International movements VAR scheduled VAR

non-scheduled VAR Domestic movements VAR
Figure 4.1 Flights/movement at Varna Airport for the period 1998-2016
There is another small airport located in Balchik, on the north BSC, 50 kms from Varna.
It is an adapted former military airport, which may serve only small aircraft, mostly
private ones. However, the formal status of the airport is not clear yet, therefore for
now it does not play any significant role for the tourism industry.
Regarding the last element of the first layer of the Destination Cake model, which is
Local community, we consider the host residents of the BBSC destination, their
involvement in tourism development and the possible impact development will have
on their lives. The population of the BSC area is not equally distributed, as the two
urban centres, Varna and Bourgas (third and fourth in size in Bulgaria), attract mostly
young people, whereas middle-aged and the older population stay in the small towns
and villages. In contrast to the rest of the country, this process is not so extreme yet,
and tourism development is cited to even alleviate it. For many residents in the small
towns and villages, hospitality and the provision of miscellaneous tourist services
appear as a main source of income; therefore, peoples attitude toward tourism
development is mostly positive.
Flights/movements at Bourgas Airport

1998-2016
20000
18000
16000
14000
12000
10000
8000
6000
4000
2000
0
1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016
International movements BOJ scheduled BOJ

non-scheduled BOJ Domestic movements BOJ
Figure 4.2 Flights/movements at Bourgas Airport for the period 1998-2016
Additionally, many young people have chosen their career in the hospitality and
tourism industry, and there are several universities located in Varna and Bourgas that
provide such education (Varna University of Management, University of Economics-
Varna, College of Tourism in Varna, College of Tourism in Bourgas) (Krastev, 2014).
Specifically regarding the impact of air transport, there is a problem with the noise
pollution. It is especially evident for Varna Airport, which is located only 8 kms from
the city, and planes need to fly over some of the neighbourhoods, although oddly
enough, people rarely complain (Darik News, 2014). Bourgas Airport has an even
worse problem, as the traffic is considerably higher, although predominantly in the
summer. Still, the airport operator of both airports has implemented a special project
to reduce the noise and the negative effects to the urban areas by shifting the aircrafts
trajectories when landing and taking-off (Manager, 2013).
Varna's vs. Bourgas's number of
international movements
1998-2016
20000
18000
16000
14000
12000
10000
8000
6000
4000
2000
0
1998199920002001200220032004200520062007200820092010201120122013201420152016
International movements VAR International movements BOJ

scheduled VAR scheduled BOJ
non-scheduled VAR non-scheduled BOJ
Figure 4.3 Varna vs Bourgas number of movements for the period 1998-2016
Another impact for the local community, although not directly connected with local
tourism, is the enhanced air connectivity for the residents, leading to an increasing
number of trips abroad. Thus, the air transport influence is two-fold for the local
tourist destination on one hand, and the indirect contribution to the development of
other destinations, thanks to the increased outgoing tourism.
Analysis of the first layer of the BBSC destination indicates that there is a good
foundation for the development of the tourism industry in the region. Air transport is
concentrated only in two major airports, but their balanced locations along the coast
ensures that the maximum travelling time to the farthest point is around one and a
half hours.
The second layer of the Destination Cake model encompasses tourist service suppliers:
accommodation establishments, transportation companies, car rental agencies,
tourism intermediaries, animators and any other suppliers of tourism entertainment.
Tourism development in Bulgaria and especially on the BSC started in the 19th
century, but its actual growth took place after WWII, when the country became part of
the Communist bloc. In the 1950s and 1960s most of the emblematic resorts were built,
and Bulgaria was positioned as a mass seaside destination:9 Albena (founded 1969),
Golden Sands (founded 1956) and Sts. Constantine and Helena (founded 1958), located
on the north coast; and, Sunny Beach (founded 1957), Dyuni (founded 1987) and
Elenite (founded 1985), located on the south coast. Besides, there are many small
towns, which evolved as small tourist places due to their historical and cultural
heritage, as well as the unique atmosphere they provide e.g. Nessebar, Sozopol,
Kiten, Balchik, Byala. After the change in the political regime in the 1990s, the tourism
industry emerged as a growing opportunity for entrepreneurs start-ups, and many
new hotels were constructed on the BSC. In some areas the overbuilding had negative
effects on the natural balance and geomorphology (e.g. landslides occurred). The
rapidly increasing capacity of accommodation facilities consequently led to
overdependence on big mass tourism tour operators, and in turn to price competition
among hotels (Ivanov, Stoilova and Illum, 2015). This explains the dominance of
charter flights for the whole destination. Figure 4.4 depicts the dynamics in number of
beds for the period 1994 to 2015, comparing the north BSC (comprising both Varna and
Dobrich regions) and the south BSC (consisting only of the Bourgas region).
Nevertheless, many of the accommodation establishments have low classifications (1*-
3*) and are small, family-owned and managed, with an average capacity of about 40
beds (NSI, 2016). They constitute more than 88% of all establishments in the country.
9For a more detailed historical overview and analysis of Bulgaria as a destination see Ivanov and
Dimitrova (2014)
On the other hand, of the majority of higher category accommodation establishments
(4*-5*), more than 52% of all 4* and 5* hotels in the country, and 41% of the beds (all
numbers are for the year 2015 - NSI, 2016) are also located on the Black Sea Coast. The
fast construction, however, has caused huge problems for the infrastructure and
capacity of transport facilities. The infrastructure was initially planned in the 1960s
and 1970s, and has not been prepared for such fast development of the superstructure.
This is the main reason for congestion in the peak season and deteriorating quality of
the holistic tourist product. Nevertheless, the number of tourists is steadily growing,
implying that there is still a potential to be utilized. However, now the efforts are
directed mostly to stimulate the shoulder and out of the season periods.
North vs. south Black Sea Coast dynamics in the number of

beds 1994-2015
140000
120000
100000
80000
60000
40000
20000
South BSC North BSC
Figure 4.4 North vs. south Black Sea Coast dynamics in the number of beds for the period
1994-2015
In the context of the analysis of the lower layers, the tourist product of the BBSC
destination, embodying the third layer of the Destination Cake model, logically
embraces the mass 3S tourism concept. However, there are some attempts to develop
niche tourism markets, but for now they remain on a very small scale. Furthermore,
the saturation of one-type of tourist facilities has already prompted suppliers to
reconsider what they offer and diversify their product. The regular flight airlines, and
especially the LCCs, can also contribute to the process because their clients usually
travel individually and do not match the typical mass tourists in either interests or
consumption. In this regard, the BBSC governance has an enormous task ahead to
reposition the destination outside of its mass tourism image, and thus to attract new
kinds of tourists that will revive the tourism development.
The same applies to customer value creation, or the highest layer of the Destination Cake
model. By enriching the tourist offers the ultimate value for the clients would grow
accordingly, and hence customer satisfaction and value. Unfortunately, there are only
a few empirical studies regarding tourists perceptions of the BBSC destination. Johann
and Anastasova (2014) analysed Polish tourists perception of their holiday in Bulgaria
and their results are quite intriguing. While the quantitative survey presents a decent
evaluation of the quality of the tourist product, the qualitative research reveals that the
positive experience is usually connected with tangible elements of the product, i.e
location, rooms, facilities, attraction, and the negative outcome derives from the
intangible elements, i.e. service and communication (Johann and Anastasova, 2014).
The tourists especially emphasised the lack of or insufficient entertainment
possibilities, which would have met expectations if part of a unified standardized mass
tourism product. Similar results are reported by Koleva and Kusheva (2013), although
their study is made only for the quality of the hotel product. Again, the intangible
elements suffer from the tourists perspective and need improvement.
The next component of the Destination Cake model Destination management of the
BBSC concerns the destination governance institutions and their specific activities
regarding tourism development in the area. Although the tourism industry in Bulgaria
is considered important, the national policy is not very consistent but rather depends
on the current political situation and decisions. Nowadays, there is a Ministry of
Tourism which sets the national tourism policy and the main directions for
development. Also the Ministry of Tourism takes the role of promoting the country as
a destination. Most of the operational activities are left to the discretion of the local
authorities/municipalities (their total number is 264). However, there are few specified
departments in the municipalities to deal with the tourism, and often tourism issues
are the responsibility of the transport or economic departments. On the other hand,
the municipalities mayors have several administrative functions regarding tourism
management. For example, they have the responsibilities for licensing or categorising
tourist suppliers, collecting the local tourist tax, and reporting monthly and annual
statistical data to the national authorities. In the last decades there have been several
attempts by the national tourism strategy plans to create tourist regions in the country
which do not merely coincide with the administrative borders, but are outlined
according to the tourism penetration and specialization (Krastev, 2014). Although the
final distribution is still a matter of discussion, the BBSC has always been identified as
a well-defined tourist region because of its traditional specialization and easily
determined boundaries. The destination management activities of the BBSC, however,
have been divided between the two major centres of Varna and Bourgas. As discussed
earlier, tourism development is not equal in both quantitative and qualitative terms,
and therefore, the BBSC tends to be considered as a double-centred destination, North
and South BSC, with respective centres in Varna and Bourgas. On one hand, this
duopoly is necessary to match the specifics of each part, but on the other hand, it may
cause confusion and difficulties in the destination branding.
Finally, the last element of the Destination Cake model analysis are the Destination
attributes, or how customers perceive the holistic destination product and its
characteristics. However, as mentioned earlier, there are only a few empirical studies
on the topic (Johann and Anastasova, 2014; Koleva and Kusheva, 2013), and even they
do not entirely cover customers perceptions of particular destination features.
Therefore, we leave this issue open, as a good direction for future research.
After the overall analysis of the BBSC as a destination, following the Destination Cake
model, we may outline several implications:
Based on the tourist resources, BBSC has evolved as a mass seaside tourism
destination, but the variety of resources allows development of other alternative, or
niche, types of tourism.
The general infrastructure matches the basic requirements, but needs further
improvement in terms of both quality and capacity in order to address the growing
number of tourists and their changing preferences.
The BBSC is accessible mainly by road network and the two international
airports Varna and Bourgas.
There are numerous and well-developed tourist service suppliers who are
capable of offering various tourist products. There are already certain attempts to
diversify the prevailing mass 3S product with new, alternative tourism products.
In the destination management plan, the BBSC may be divided into two
distinctive sub-areas North and South with respective centres at Varna and
Bourgas. The division might be justified also by the geographical coverage of the two
airports.
There is not a single DMO institution which deals with the entire BBSC
destination, but each of the municipalities partially perform destination management
activities.
This initial analysis was based on the static Destination Cake model, and it considered
the main components and layers of the Bulgarian Black Sea Coast. In order to delve
deeper into the air transporttourism relationship in the context of the BBSC, the study
continues with empirical research.
4.2 Methodology
The empirical research includes secondary and primary data analysis. The first part of
the study considers the official information published on the websites of the Bulgarian
Civil Aviation Administration (BCAA) (BCAA, 2017) and the Bulgarian National
Statistical Institute (NSI) (NSI, 2016). The BCAA is a state budget-supported legal
entity within the Bulgarian Ministry of Transport, and it is responsible for Bulgarian
civil aviation and gathers all the statistical data related to it. As the purpose of the
current book concerns international airline companies, we contacted the BCAA with a
request for more detailed information about all carriers operating to and from Varna
and Bourgas airports, but our request was declined on the basis of European
Regulations 1358/2003 and 437/2003 that limit the provision of identifiable information
about suppliers or airlines. Therefore, we took into account only the official data
published in the website of the BCAA.
The secondary data found there concerns mainly the number of flights/movements to
and from Bulgarian airports and the number of arriving passengers. According to the
National Statistics Methodology Manual (BCAA, 2015), the number of movements
comprise both landing and departing flights. As the current study is directed towards
tourism within the BBSC, we took into account only the arrival/landing flights.
Regarding the passenger statistics, which are determined by the same Manual, types
of passengers correspond to the business model of the airline which brought them to
the airport: international scheduled (regular), international non-scheduled (charter)
and domestic passengers, the latter also divided into scheduled and non-scheduled
until 2012. Additionally, passengers are considered embarked, i.e. leaving the
airport, or disembarked, i.e. arriving at the airport. Again in line with our purpose,
we took into account only the disembarked passengers, because only they have the
potential to proceed as tourists, i.e. to use other tourist services offered. All of the
above metrics are provided for each airport in Bulgaria, so for our study we took only
the data regarding Varna and Bourgas airports, and finally totalled them to receive the
numbers applicable for the whole BBSC.
Thus, we prepared a detailed table (see Appendices 2 and 3) including:
International movements for Varna and Bourgas airports, and for the whole
BBSC, divided by scheduled and non-scheduled movements.
Domestic movements for Varna and Bourgas airports, and for the whole BBSC.
Disembarked passengers on international flights for Varna and Bourgas
airports, and for the whole BBSC, divided by scheduled and non-scheduled.
Disembarked passengers on domestic flights for Varna and Bourgas airports,
and for the whole BBSC.
All the above numbers are provided in a dynamic row for the period 1998 to 2016, i.e.
19 years.
From the Bulgarian National Statistics Institute we took the data on tourism
development in the country (NSI, 2016), which was regarding accommodation
establishments according to region. We used them as a basis to assess the number of
tourists, revenues by regions and overnights by regions. Destination BBSC
encompasses three administrative regions: Dobrich and Varna (comprising the
Northern Black Sea Coast), and Bourgas on the Southern part of the Black Sea Coast.
In order to make the data compatible with the air transport statistics, we prepared a
table, depicting the accommodation activities in the three regions of the Black Sea
coast. Since tourists in the Dobrich region actually arrive at Varna Airport, we include
an additional row for the sum of Dobrich and Varna statistics, as the total number of
tourists and revenue affiliated to the northern Black Sea Coast and Varna. Thus, the
table representing tourism activities at the BBSC destination (see Appendix 4) includes
the following elements:
Number of hotels
Number of beds
Number of available overnights
Number of overnights, performed by Bulgarians
Number of overnights, performed by foreigners
Total number of overnights
Number of Bulgarian tourists
Number of foreign tourists
Total number of tourists
All the above numbers are provided per region (Dobrich, Varna, Dobrich + Varna, and
Bourgas) in a dynamic row for the period 1994 to 2015, i.e. 22 years. However, to make
the data compatible with the passenger data, only the overlapping period is analysed,
i.e. 1998 to 2015, or 18 years.
The primary research was conducted over a period of two months. The participants
represent the main stakeholders in the nexus air transporttourism destination, i.e.
airports, airlines and DMOs. Because in Bulgaria, the functions of DMO are partially
or fully performed by local authorities, we contacted the 14 municipalities located
along the Bulgarian Black Sea Coast. From north to the south they are: Shabla,
Kavarna, Balchik, Aksakovo, Varna, Avren, Dolni chiflik, Byala, Nessebar, Pomorie,
Bourgas, Sozopol, Primorsko and Tsarevo. Municipality representatives who are in
charge of tourism development were contacted for structured interviews. Among the
respondents are the biggest municipalities, i.e., Varna (344 775 citizens, 54 114 beds,
280 accommodation establishments), Bourgas (211 033 citizens, 3432 beds, 57
accommodation establishments) and Nessebar (25 729 citizens, 82 849 beds, 326
accommodation establishments). They represent 67% of all beds and 54% 10 of all
accommodation establishments on the BBSC; moreover, the two airports are located in
the territory of Varna and Bourgas municipalities. Varna and Bourgas airports are
managed and operated by a single operator. Therefore, we contacted and interviewed
a representative of the company as valid for both airports.
10 The calculations represent 2014, based on NSI statistical data.
Data collection and sample
All participants were contacted initially by email, with at least two reminders sent.
Afterwards, the interviews were conducted with each respondent from January to
February 2017. Of the 14 BSC municipalities, we interviewed eight representatives,
which is a 57% response rate. Considering that the municipalities of Varna and
Bourgas also agreed to participate, and the participating municipalities represent 89%
of the total number of beds, and 78% 11 of the total number of accommodation
establishments located at the BBSC, the sample might be considered as entirely
representative. As explained earlier, the airport operator is the same company for both
airports Varna and Bourgas, so here we have full representation.
The airlines that land at both airports were difficult to identify and reach. The
researcher contacted both the airport operator and the Bulgarian Civil Aviation
Agency in order to get a full list of airlines operating in the BBSC area. However, due
to Regulations 1358/2003 and 437/2003 regarding identifiable information of carriers,
both of them declined to present such a list. The researcher prepared her own database
of 47 airlines that have been operating to and from Varna or Bourgas by relying on the
available information on various web-based sources. Email addresses were found for
43 of the airlines, and they were contacted and subsequently reminded. We received
five explicit refusals to participate in the survey, whereas no response of any kind was
received from the other 38 airlines. Thus, the study suffers from the lack of the airlines
point of view as they are important stakeholder in the air transporttourism
destination relationship. Therefore, the research remains based only on the
municipalities/DMOs and the airport operator interview information. From the first
contact all participants were provided with the Ethics committee approval form for
the study (issued by the Ethics committee of Varna University of Management)
11 The calculations represent 2014, based on NSI statistical data.
guaranteeing them that the research follows a diligent approach and adheres to the
scientific ethics standards.
Research instrument
The interview questions of each group of participants were made in several blocks:
An overall assessment of tourism and air transport for the relevant group
participants;
An outline of the current issues and recommendations for improvement;
An inquiry into how the relevant respondent communicates/collaborates with
the other stakeholders of the air transporttourism nexus.
Additionally, the airport and airlines were asked for their planning process and
proactive initiatives regarding the establishment of a new route or the entry of a new
airline into the market.
Data analysis
After receiving and codifying the full texts of the interviews, we coded the participants
as follows:
Municipalities representatives were coded with M1, M2.M7, M8, according
to their location from north to south along the Black Sea Coast.
The airport operator was assigned as O1.
Following the principles of qualitative research analysis (Spencer, Ritchie, Lewis and
Dillon, 2003; Hennik, Hutter and Bailey, 2010), the researcher prepared a comparative
table to identify emerging themes and issues, first among the municipalities, and then
in comparison to the relevant questions asked to the airport operator. Afterwards, the
data was interpreted according to the initially stated groups of questions, applying the
method of content analysis and comparison (Ritchie and Spencer, 2002; Hsieh and
Shannon, 2005), i.e. continuously comparing and contrasting the opinions of the
different participants, to establish analytical categories, and using content analysis to
generate categories and explanations.
4.3 Results and Discussion
4.3.1 Secondary Data
The secondary data analysis provides an overview of Bulgarian aviation and its
development in the BBSC area. As explained in the methodology, the following
analysis is based on secondary information provided by the Bulgarian CAA and the
Bulgarian National Statistical Institute (NSI) (See Appendices 2-4.). In line with the
studys purpose to figure out the relationship between air transport and tourism
development, we overlapped and compared the statistical data regarding the number
of passengers that arrived at both airports, and the number of tourists staying in
accommodation in the same regions.
Both Varna and Bourgas regions, and especially the big resorts Sunny Beach, Golden
Sands, Albena, Sts. Constantine and Helena rely heavily on tourists coming on all
inclusive trips with charter tour operators. This means that the majority of the
international passengers arriving are actually counted as tourists for the relevant
regions. Even if some of the arriving passengers are coming to visit friends and
relatives, or are local residents using the transportation, i.e. they are not counted in the
tourism statistics, their number represents only a minimal share in the total amount.
Moreover, there are many non-charter tourists (domestic, auto-tourists, etc.) who are
also accommodated and counted as tourists, which means that by default the reported
number of tourists should be in any case higher than the reported number of
passengers. However, if we look at the diagrams depicting the dynamics of arriving
passengers (counted from the Bulgarian CAA) and the accommodated foreign tourists
(counting from the NSI), we can easily detect a discrepancy between the north and the
south BSC.
Figure 4.5 illustrates the relation between the international passenger flow to Varna
Airport (only disembarked/arriving passengers), categorising passengers who come
on scheduled/regular or non-scheduled/charter flights, and the total number of foreign
tourists reported by the accommodation establishments along the northern part of the
Black Sea Coast (i.e. Varna + Dobrich regions). According to the above
Passenger flow and tourists in the north Black Sea Coast

1998-2015
1000000
800000
600000
400000
200000
0
1998199920002001200220032004200520062007200820092010201120122013201420152016
Varna International Disembarked Passengers

Varna scheduled passengers
Varna non-scheduled passengers
Number of foreign tourists, accommodated in the North BSC
Figure 4.5 Passenger flow and tourists in the north Black Sea Coast for the period 1998-2015
reasoning, the data shows the expected results: the number of foreign tourists
considerably exceeds not only passengers arriving by charter flights, but all
international passengers coming by air. However, the same diagram for Bourgas
Airport and the south BSC (see Figure 4.6) shows different results. There, the number
of accommodated foreign tourists almost coincides with the international charter
passengers, which is considered normal, provided all those people come for
tourism. But the number of international arriving passengers greatly exceeds the
number of foreign tourists. Why is there this difference? The explanation could be
found in the tourist structure of both regions. In the north BSC, a significant share of
foreign tourists come from neighbouring Romania. The driving distance between
Bucharest and Varna is approximately 3 hours, and the Bulgarian BSC has been
established as a favourite seaside destination for the Romanians. Moreover, one of the
landmark sights of the north BSC is the palace in Balchik of the Romanian Queen
Maria, which is highly honoured by the Romanians.
Passenger flow and tourists in the south Black Sea Coast

1998-2015
1600000
1400000
1200000
1000000
800000
600000
400000
200000
0
1998199920002001200220032004200520062007200820092010201120122013201420152016
Bourgas International Disembarked Passengers

Bourgas scheduled passengers
Bourgas non-scheduled passengers
Number of foreign tourists, accommodate in the South BSC
Figure 4.6 Passenger flow and tourists in the south Black Sea Coast for the period 1998-2015
The reverse situation on the south Black Sea Coast, though, has other explanations.
The Bourgas region has become a popular place for foreigners (especially Russians and
British) to purchase second homes and apartments. They usually come to live there in
the summer season, or many of them rent the apartments to their friends or other
people wishing to stay. However, according to Bulgarian legislation, those apartment
complexes are not considered part of the hotel industry and are not included in the
official statistics. In this way, it is actually impossible to estimate the number of people
travelling to the Bourgas region as international passengers, but staying in their own
homes, or in rented apartments.
In the context of destination management, those second home owners also might be
considered as guests to the destination, because, apart from the accommodation, they
consume many other tourist services, e.g. tours, rental cars, and attractions. From the
airlines perspective, on the other hand, the second home owners ensure a stable
passenger flow that could enhance the attractiveness of the destination as a new route.
Thus, the tourism development of a region could appear as a driver for air transport.
4.3.2 Primary Data
The main participants in the primary research were the BBSC municipal
representatives, who partially perform the DMO functions for their own districts as
well as for the whole destination. In other words, we entirely adopted the destination
management perspective and compared it with the perspective of the airports
operator, who represented the air transport.
The first group of questions aimed to comfort the respondents and introduce the main
topic of tourism development. All the municipality representatives reported that
tourism has high importance for their district and reconfirmed that seaside tourism,
i.e. mass tourism, has actual impacts on the local community and economy. Almost all
of them also pointed out the potential possibilities or infant stages of development of
alternative or niche tourism. Specifically, respondents M2 and M6 called on the fact
that in the recent years there was a demand for different types of tourism, most
probably the result of the proactive initiatives of the tourist stakeholders to alleviate
the seasonality, by offering something other than the 3S tourism. The issue is two-fold
the new generation of tourists come with different preferences and need not only
accommodation and food (M8), but from the other side, tourism stakeholders have
realised the fact that they should change the current product themselves in order to
survive and develop. This is a good sign for the changing attitude and readiness of the
involved stakeholders to collaborate together for developing the destination. It is a
matter of the local industry maturing that they realise this necessity, and, even more
so, to take respective actions to implement it. As pointed out in section 2.2
stakeholders cooperation and common, unidirectional activities are crucial for the
destinations image and growth (Bornhorst et al, 2010).
In the same vein, all of the respondents pointed out that there were tourist resources
not yet adapted, utilised and promoted, which may serve as a basis for alternative
tourism appeal. All eight municipal representatives considered cultural heritage as the
main priority, but there were other interesting ideas that also could be successfully
deployed e.g. bird watching (M2, M7), spa and wellness tourism (M3, M4, M5, M6),
sports (including golf M2, M4, M5, M7) and event tourism (M5, M7). An interesting
issue was raised by M6 regarding the use of spa treatments and some medical
procedures:
[T]hese health treatments which are performed in specialised sanatoriums, they

are not considered as part of the tourism industry, hence we cannot treat those
suppliers according to the Tourism Law.
We have to clarify, that currently there is hardly a verified set of criteria to distinguish
a medical institution (e.g. sanatorium) from a regular spa and wellness hotel, let alone
genuine spa procedures with medical effects from general wellness treatments. There
is an ongoing discussion among the tourism professionals, the Ministry of Tourism
and the Ministry of Health in Bulgaria about the state and regulations of such
treatments, with the first legal acts just accepted (Ministry of Tourism, Bulgaria, 2016).
Therefore, the respondent M6 very relevantly considered those problems. From the
destination management point of view, this is an important topic; however, it needs a
central government solution, the absence of which, for now, hinders the development
of the destination.
The next couple of questions was related to the evaluation of the transport system and
the accessibility of the municipalities. Most of the respondents claimed that their
districts have a good transport system and are accessible. Especially the biggest
municipalities (Varna and Bourgas) boast about their intermodality transport systems
combining airports, railway stations, seaports and an extensive road network (M4 and
M7). The positive assessment of accessibility positively correlates with the distance
from those two big cities: the closer the municipalities are located, the higher is their
positive assessment of their own accessibility. Most of the respondents pointed out the
road network as the main contributor to their transport accessibility, but a few of them
recognised the importance of the other transport modes: seaports (M2, M3, M6, M7)
and airports (M2, M8). When asked to recommend ways for improving accessibility,
respondent M2 was the only one to reply about the opening of a new, small and private
airport in a neighbouring municipality. It is curious that the municipality where that
new airport is to be located did not even mention it as a possibility. Nevertheless,
respondents M6 and M8 strongly called for regular and adequate maintenance of
the road network (M6), while M5 directly complained about the lack of measures
regarding widening the main stretch through their territory, which has been always
congested during the peak season. As the stretch is a part of the national road network,
the responsibility lies with the central government, however, the issue remains still
unsolved (M5). Again, we can detect a discrepancy between local and central priorities
and actions.
Another interesting suggestion for improving accessibility came from M7 regarding
developing access to cruise ships. As a matter of fact, the BBSC ports were recently
adapted to berth cruise ships, and this type of tourism has been developing for only 7-
10 years until now. The respondent has obviously appreciated its potential
contribution for both the image and accessibility of the destination.
The interviews proceeded with delving particularly into the air transport development
in the relevant districts, its estimated importance and municipalities attitude to
further develop it. All respondents recognised the essential role of the two airports for
their tourism industries and its overall positive effect on the regions accessibility:
Over 90% of our tourists come by air (M4)
More than 80% of the tourists to Sunny Beach and 60% to the other resorts arrive
by plane (M5)
70% of the tourists in the district come by air (M8)
Still, almost all of them agreed on the current crucial significance of charter airlines:
[C]harter airlines are the most important, because of the mass tourism and
seasonality (M6, M2, M3, M8). Expectedly, the two biggest municipalities gave higher
evaluations to the traditional airlines and LCCs, because of their regular flights
throughout the whole year (M4) and their positive effect on seasonality. Although
most of the municipalities drew attention to the need to increase the number of tourists
in the off-peak season, very few of them correlated this priority with enhancement of
air transport, or at least they were not aware of what exactly should be done. Even M5
argued on the limited possibilities of local authorities to impact an area traditionally
regulated and managed on a central level:
According to the Bulgarian law, air transport is entirely managed on a central

level by the government. Therefore, any initiatives regarding attracting new
airlines should be made by the government, because they make the negotiations.
Moreover, the airport operator is a private company, as well as the other tourism
suppliers, therefore the local authority does not have the legal rights and obligations
to invest in a private interest. The only support we could provide is by limited
funding and organising meetings of the stakeholders involved. (M5)
Obviously, the municipal representatives perceived the hierarchy of power as a gap in
future initiatives, but they also outlined a strict barrier between the tourism suppliers
and the airport operator, who are privately owned companies, and the municipalities,
who act as local public authorities. Such opposition is not new for the Bulgarian
economy, as it originates from the countrys communist past when the single owner
of assets and businesses was the state. Then the responsibility for any economic or
social development was assigned entirely to the state, and local authorities had very
little stake in strategic or infrastructure decisions. It is surprising, though, that almost
28 years after that age, the local administration still considers itself helpless in front of
the central government, rather than utilising all the opportunities to promote their
local interests.
A notable finding, marked by the four largest municipalities (M4, M6, M7, M8), was
the idea for establishing a Regional Fund for the development of air connections,
which would be a collaboration between BBSC municipalities and the airport operator
in their search to attract new airlines to operate to one or both airports. Even M7
confirmed that participation in that fund has been already authorised by their
Municipality Council. Actually, that idea had been discussed for many years, as
pointed out by the airport operator himself (O1). Only in the last year (2016) concrete
actions were performed (Dimitrova, 2016; Bedrosyan, 2017; Dnevnik, 2017). The
primary idea was suggested by the airport operator, and entailed using 20% of the
tourist tax revenues from the relevant municipalities for marketing support and
sharing the risk of the airlines (Milosavlevich, 2017). A reason for the enthusiasm in
the recent months was the good example of the other two Bulgarian airports in Sofia
and Plovdiv, which managed to utilise the partnership to attract LCCs by drawing on
similar funds (Dnevnik, 2017; Milosavlevich, 2017). The airport operator has prepared
a new marketing strategy for promoting the BBSC destination in cooperation with all
tourist stakeholders and municipalities (Milosavlevich, 2017). The airport operator
representative also explained in details their plan and partnerships regarding the
Regional Fund (O1):
Our efforts are directed to develop the traffic out of the peak season. We negotiate
with many airlines, but there is a strong need for mass destination promotion.
Therefore, we collaborate with the BBSC municipalities for establishing Regional
Funds for development of the air connections for the northern and the southern
BSC. Our proposal is to take a share of the tourist tax revenues and to support the
marketing campaign and the airlines wishing to start operation to BBSC. (O1)
Apparently, LCCs worldwide practice of bargaining, discussed earlier, has permeated
the BBSC destination as well. The airport operator was strongly convinced that the
only opportunity to enhance the air connections is exactly through mutual cooperation
and common funding (O1). They outlined it as a separate individual goal of both
airports. This is an excellent example of the dual position of the airport acting as a
player in both the air transport sector and in the tourist destination (see section 3.2.).
However, most of the municipalities (with the notable exception of Varna and
Bourgas, where the two airports are located) shared that they have had only scarce
contacts with the airport authorities, and only regarding some official events or
common meetings. Thus, the call for collaborative actions from the airport operator
remains somewhat one-sided, or at least up until the previous year. Nevertheless, the
lack of joint communication can be explained also by the legal framework, according
to which, the airports and all strategic decisions concerning them are of the ultimate
consideration of the central government.
Strategic development of the destination was reported to be implemented on a local
level, but strictly follows the national tourism strategies and priorities.
Notwithstanding the hierarchy, municipal representatives boasted about their long-
term tourism development plans, pointing out that there was no official DMO, but
certain municipal departments and divisions performed (M4, M5, M6, M7, M8).
However, nobody mentioned an idea for a unified strategy for the whole BBSC
destination.
Currently, BBSC municipalities, together with the local tourist stakeholders and the
national authorities, do not seem ready and mature enough to initiate a larger plan,
encompassing not only the separate districts but the whole region of BBSC. At the
moment such collaboration seems possible only in the two geographic parts of the
BBSC north and south and even the Regional Funds are to be established according
to this locational distinction. Additionally, the authors perceptions after the research
are that the southern municipalities appear to be much more active and engaged with
tourism issues, and are working on figuring out some solution. In contrast, the
northern municipalities provided mostly vague answers and showed little interest in
the study or in the tourism development initiatives. Of course, a disclaimer should be
made that a representative of the municipality is also a person and his/her appearance
and reactions do not fully match the official position of the municipality.
The other important participant in the primary research was the airport operator
(coded as O1). Some of his answers regarding the destination management were
already mentioned above. The rest of the interview covered the airport operators
opinion on air transport issues, and especially the process of selecting, contacting and
negotiating with airlines that may start operations to the airport.
The question about who is the initiator of establishing a partnership with an airline,
and who is the real decision-maker, seems quite tricky, as explained by the operator.
On the one hand, it is the airport authority that seeks and invites appropriate airlines
to consider the airport and the destination for their route portfolio, but on the other
hand, the ultimate decision on whether to start operation actually belongs entirely to
the airline (O1). Therefore, the respondent found the mass destination marketing
efforts as crucial for attracting the attention of the airline at first. Afterwards, the
airport may provide only information to facilitate the final decision:
Airlines are the experts in evaluating the potential of a certain destination to

generate tourist flows and relevant revenuesThe data, provided by the airports,
is only supportive and assists their decision. (O1)
In addition, the airport operator also remarked on the ultimate power of the
government to determine airport taxes and enter into bilateral agreements, which
prevents airports from having bargaining power in their negotiations with the airlines.
Therefore, the airport operator concentrated the efforts on the marketing part.
Finally, the last questions were related to the internal relationship with the airlines,
more specifically according to their business models. However, in this case, the airport
operator explicitly pointed out that [we] actually do not distinguish between the
different models, but rather perceive them as seasonal and operating regular flights
during the year (O1). Considering the specifics of the destination as one of mass
tourism and short seasonal visits, it seems quite reasonable from the airport operators
perspective.
Regarding the strategic development of the two airports and especially the fact that
they are operated by the same company, and are located in the same
region/destination, the airport operator answered as follows:
Strategic planning is performed for each of the airports individually, based on the
long-term forecasts for tourist flows for the next 20 years As a priority, we set
the attracting of new airlines, especially out of the peak season, or throughout the
whole year. Also, we plan increasing of the airport capacity and the recently finished
construction works of the Bourgas Airport are only the first step in this direction.
(O1)
This strategy, however, mostly supports the BBSC division of north and south, rather
than building a common image of the BBSC as a single destination. In order to
elaborate the BBSC as one distinctive destination, it is necessary to establish a wider
network of stakeholders, including not only the local authorities, tourism suppliers,
tourist organisations and the airport operator, but also governmental representatives,
Ministry of Tourism, Ministry of Transport and other related agencies, which are
capable of contributing to the project by coordination and facilitation.
In summary, taking the destination management perspective regarding the relations
between the tourism and air transport sectors for the Bulgarian Black Sea Coast, we
may outline several implications:
The BBSC lacks a single DMO to create and implement a unified strategy for
the whole destination. Instead, there is a steady trend of the BBSC to be
considered and developed as two sub-destinations north and south BSC
which they tend to distinguish by themselves not only on a geographic basis
but also regarding the type of tourism development, type of customers, etc.
There is a gap in the communication between the local authorities and the
central government regarding specific issues related to local tourism mainly
regarding infrastructure and promotion.
Air transport in Bulgaria is legally highly dependent on the central government,
which prevents the local municipalities and the airport operator from
performing certain actions to develop it by themselves. The same applies to
giving air transport permissions and taxation, which are strictly regulated at the
central level, and which considerably reduces the bargaining power of the
airport operator with the airlines.
Both the municipalities and the airport operator have recognised the need to
cooperate in order to attract new airlines to operate to the BBSC. The initiative
for establishing Regional Funds for development of air connections appears to
be the first and right step in this direction.
The smaller municipalities have limited interactions with air transport
representatives and, therefore, do not feel involved with its development.
The destination planning process is implemented by the different
municipalities separately, and there is a lack of coordination among them.
The airport planning process follows the destination development, but it is
concentrated mainly on promotional activities, because the rest of the process
is assigned by the government.
The results and conclusions are quite intriguing and may serve well for the future
collaboration between the local authorities and the air transport representatives, but
also as a starting point for the central government to grant more freedom to the
municipalities for the relevant tourism development of their districts. Still, the research
is only exploratory at this stage and would benefit if enlarged and deepened in the
future. Furthermore, the empirical study results validate to a high extent the
conclusions from the initial destination analysis through the Destination Cake model
(see the end of section 4.1). Thus, the efficiency of the model as an analytical tool is
proved, as well as the validity of the derived implications.
CONCLUDING REMARKS
This current study aimed to reveal and elaborate on the relationship between air
transport and tourism development by adopting the destination management
perspective, and thus to fill in the existing gap in this cross-industries field. After a
deep theoretical exploration of both parties (air transport industry and tourist
destination) in the first two chapters, their mutual impact and relations were
systematically examined and discussed. Afterwards, the derived analytical framework
(Destination Cake model) was applied in the analysis of a particular destination, the
Bulgarian Black Sea Coast, and the further empirical research widened the analysis of
the air transporttourism connections in that destination. For the first time
representatives of the local municipalities and the airport operator shared their
opinions on BBSC tourism management and the interactions with the air transport.
Those are also the main contributions of the book: a deep theoretical analysis of the
issue, the proposal of an efficient analytical tool, and the demonstration of the derived
conclusions and analysis in a particular tourist destination. The outlined implications
may serve well for all participants of the study in their future strategic development,
and the results may be used as a basis for the next level of tourism exploration and
destination management.
The study is not without its limitations. Much of the information regarding the air
transport development on the BBSC remains publicly unavailable, which hinders one
from obtaining a deeper view of the situation and its context. There is no sufficient and
structured data regarding the share of the tourism industry, represented by revenues,
and encompassing all sub-sectors of tourism, i.e. accommodation, tourist transport,
intermediaries, tours and sightseeing, miscellaneous services, guide services,
attraction revenues, etc.. Therefore, the current study is based solely on the
accommodation establishments activities by regions. And last but not least, the study
lacks the position and opinion of an airline that operates to and from the Black Sea
Coast, thus preventing a comprehensive presentation of all involved stakeholders.
Those gaps could be overcome in future research initiatives, and could even be
enriched with additional points of view (e.g. the Ministry of Tourism or the
government in general).
Other researchers could perform similar studies in other destinations also that have
analogous development or offer the same 3S tourist product, in order to compare the
results and eventually to identify and share any interesting solutions or good practices.
Further, the air transport study could be enlarged to include the neighbouring
countries and airports (e.g. Bucharest, Istanbul, Sofia) to see their overall impact on the
whole Balkan Peninsula region.
Finally, this current book would serve as a ground for elaborating further on the
complex and diverse relations between air transport and tourism development at a
destination, and finding more cross-points for discussion and analysis.
APPENDICES
Appendix 1. Freedoms of the Air
First Freedom of the Air - the right or privilege, in respect of scheduled international air services, granted
by one State to another State or States to fly across its territory without landing (also known as a First
Freedom Right).
Second Freedom of the Air - the right or privilege, in respect of scheduled international air services, granted
by one State to another State or States to land in its territory for non-traffic purposes (also known as a
Second Freedom Right).
Third Freedom of The Air - the right or privilege, in respect of scheduled international air services, granted
by one State to another State to put down, in the territory of the first State, traffic coming from the home
State of the carrier (also known as a Third Freedom Right).
Fourth Freedom of The Air - the right or privilege, in respect of scheduled international air services,
granted by one State to another State to take on, in the territory of the first State, traffic destined for the
home State of the carrier (also known as a Fourth Freedom Right).
Fifth Freedom of The Air - the right or privilege, in respect of scheduled international air services, granted
by one State to another State to put down and to take on, in the territory of the first State, traffic coming
from or destined to a third State (also known as a Fifth Freedom Right).
ICAO characterizes all "freedoms" beyond the Fifth as "so-called" because only the first five "freedoms"
have been officially recognized as such by international treaty.
Sixth Freedom of The Air - the right or privilege, in respect of scheduled international air services, of
transporting, via the home State of the carrier, traffic moving between two other States (also known as
a Sixth Freedom Right). The so-called Sixth Freedom of the Air, unlike the first five freedoms, is not
incorporated as such into any widely recognized air service agreements such as the "Five Freedoms
Agreement".
Seventh Freedom of The Air - the right or privilege, in respect of scheduled international air services,
granted by one State to another State, of transporting traffic between the territory of the granting State
and any third State with no requirement to include on such operation any point in the territory of the
recipient State, i.e the service need not connect to or be an extension of any service to/from the home
State of the carrier.
Eighth Freedom of The Air - the right or privilege, in respect of scheduled international air services, of
transporting cabotage traffic between two points in the territory of the granting State on a service which
originates or terminates in the home country of the foreign carrier or (in connection with the so-called
Seventh Freedom of the Air) outside the territory of the granting State (also known as an Eighth
Freedom Right or "consecutive cabotage").
Ninth Freedom of The Air - the right or privilege of transporting cabotage traffic of the granting State on
a service performed entirely within the territory of the granting State (also known as a Ninth Freedom
Right or "stand alone" cabotage).
Source: ICAO (2004, 2017)
Appendix 2. Air passenger transport data for the Bulgarian Black Sea Coast, 1998-2016
1998 1999 2000 2001 2002

Total international scheduled disembarked passengers 25,780 17,087 17,901 11,364 0
International scheduled disembarked passengers VAR 0 0 0 0 0
International scheduled disembarked passengers BOJ 25,780 17,087 17,901 11,364 0
Total international non-scheduled disembarked passengers 420,101 371,899 488,907 728,090 903,129
International non-scheduled disembarked passengers BOJ 181,631 145,101 176,386 284,919 382,473
International non-scheduled disembarked passengers VAR 238,470 226,798 312,521 443,171 520,656
Total International disembarked Passengers 445,881 388,986 506,808 739,454 903,129
Total International disembarked Passengers VAR 238,470 226,798 312,521 443,171 520,656
Total International disembarked Passengers BOJ 207,411 162,188 194,287 296,283 382,473
Total Domestic disembarked passengers 43,920 39,260 39,846 26,001 24,766
Total Domestic disembarked passengers VAR 35,208 31,255 35,296 24,976 23,766
Total Domestic disembarked passengers BOJ 8,712 8,005 4,550 1,025 1,000
TOTAL DISEMBARKED PASSENGERS 489,801 428,246 546,654 765,455 927,895
TOTAL DISEMBARKED PASSENGERS VAR 273,678 258,053 347,817 468,147 544,422
TOTAL DISEMBARKED PASSENGERS BOJ 216,123 170,193 198,837 297,308 383,473
2003 2004 2005 2006 2007

Total international scheduled disembarked passengers 0 14,118 42,310 114,197 232,345
International scheduled disembarked passengers VAR 0 9,020 40,027 66,639 175,318
International scheduled disembarked passengers BOJ 0 5,098 2,283 47,558 57,027
Total international non-scheduled disembarked passengers 1,083,110 1,301,703 1,482,323 1,522,561 1,427,598
Total International disembarked Passengers 1,083,110 1,315,821 1,524,633 1,636,758 1,659,943
Total International disembarked Passengers BOJ 510,961 671,977 776,097 903,210 962,598
Total Domestic disembarked passengers BOJ 922 1,269 932 860 5,770
TOTAL DISEMBARKED PASSENGERS 1,105,112 1,342,896 1,551,188 1,665,276 1,695,418
TOTAL DISEMBARKED PASSENGERS BOJ 511,883 673,246 777,029 904,070 968,368
2008 2009 2010 2011 2012
Total international scheduled disembarked passengers 292,059 248,599 276,687 410,482 441,610
International scheduled disembarked passengers VAR 165,210 139,096 141,448 165,631 151,910
International scheduled disembarked passengers BOJ 126,849 109,503 135,239 244,851 289,700
Total international non-scheduled disembarked passengers 1,311,431 1,108,142 1,174,085 1,184,826 1,244,854
Total International disembarked Passengers 1,603,490 1,356,741 1,450,772 1,595,308 1,686,464
Total International disembarked Passengers BOJ 953,488 834,565 929,835 1,073,349 1,145,408
Total Domestic disembarked passengers BOJ 8,033 6,779 6,803 36,749 33,678
TOTAL DISEMBARKED PASSENGERS 1,671,370 1,441,724 1,534,999 1,691,485 1,784,322
TOTAL DISEMBARKED PASSENGERS BOJ 961,521 841,344 936,638 1,110,098 1,179,086
2013 2014 2015 2016
Total international scheduled disembarked passengers 462,147 526,039 534,430 750,802

International scheduled disembarked passengers VAR 178,312 192,226 236,710 308,035
International scheduled disembarked passengers BOJ 283,835 333,813 297,720 442,767
Total international non-scheduled disembarked passengers 1,330,874 1,327,832 1,245,169 1,432,970
International non-scheduled disembarked passengers BOJ 925,076 898,491 854,964 457,396
International non-scheduled disembarked passengers VAR 405,798 429,341 390,205 975,574
Total International disembarked Passengers 1,793,021 1,853,871 1,779,599 2,183,772
Total International disembarked Passengers VAR 584,110 621,567 626,915 765,431
Total International disembarked Passengers BOJ 1,208,911 1,232,304 1,152,684 1,418,341
Total Domestic disembarked passengers 88,294 81,109 80,082 79,230
Total Domestic disembarked passengers VAR 66,376 64,820 65,160 68,625
Total Domestic disembarked passengers BOJ 21,918 16,289 14,922 10,605
TOTAL DISEMBARKED PASSENGERS 1,881,315 1,934,980 1,859,681 2,263,002
TOTAL DISEMBARKED PASSENGERS VAR 650,486 686,387 692,075 834,056
TOTAL DISEMBARKED PASSENGERS BOJ 1,230,829 1,248,593 1,167,606 1,428,946
Appendix 3. Air movements data for the Black Sea Coast for the period 1998-2016
1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003
Total International movements (VAR+BOJ) 10,290 9,624 9,611 11,999 13,217 16,594
International movements VAR 5,880 5,942 5,932 7,102 7,140 8,743
International movements BOJ 4,410 3,682 3,679 4,897 6,077 7,851
Total scheduled (VAR+BOJ) 404 428 294 122 0 0
scheduled VAR 0 0 0 0 0 0
scheduled BOJ 404 428 294 122 0 0
Total non-scheduled (VAR+BOJ) 9,886 9,196 9,317 11,877 13,217 16,594
non-scheduled VAR 5,880 5,942 5,932 7,102 7,140 8,743
non-scheduled BOJ 4,006 3,254 3,385 4,775 6,077 7,851
Total Domestic movements (VAR+BOJ) 4,722 5,128 5,038 3,177 2,296 1,649
Domestic movements VAR 3,040 3,088 3,493 2,441 1,858 1,364
Domestic movements BOJ 1,682 2,040 1,545 736 438 285
Total movements (VAR+BOJ) 15,012 14,752 14,649 15,176 15,513 18,243
Total movements VAR 8,920 9,030 9,425 9,543 8,998 10,107
Total movements BOJ 6,092 5,722 5,224 5,633 6,515 8,136
2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009
Total International movements (VAR+BOJ) 20,309 23,518 25,695 24,165 23,776 20,213
International movements VAR 9,941 12,001 12,654 11,158 10,604 8,820
International movements BOJ 10,368 11,517 13,041 13,007 13,172 11,393
Total scheduled (VAR+BOJ) 348 975 2,903 4,635 5,911 5,028
scheduled VAR 282 893 2,049 3,623 3,797 3,365
scheduled BOJ 66 82 854 1,012 2,114 1,663
Total non-scheduled (VAR+BOJ) 19,961 22,543 22,792 19,530 17,865 15,185
non-scheduled VAR 9,659 11,108 10,605 7,535 6,807 5,455
non-scheduled BOJ 10,302 11,435 12,187 11,995 11,058 9,730
Total Domestic movements (VAR+BOJ) 1,650 1,940 2,384 2,826 3,379 3,227
Domestic movements VAR 1,326 1,615 2,061 2,227 2,757 2,664
Domestic movements BOJ 324 325 323 599 622 563
Total movements (VAR+BOJ) 21,959 25,458 28,079 26,991 27,155 23,440
Total movements VAR 11,267 13,616 14,715 13,385 13,361 11,484
Total movements BOJ 10,692 11,842 13,364 13,606 13,794 11,956
2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016
Total International movements (VAR+BOJ) 22,517 23,509 23,618 26,528 28,142 26,424 31,022
International movements VAR 9,106 8,358 8,059 9,481 10,176 9,816 12,049
International movements BOJ 13,411 15,151 15,559 17,047 17,966 16,608 18,973
Total scheduled (VAR+BOJ) 5,193 6,811 6,466 6,835 8,168 8,138 11,204
scheduled VAR 3,225 3,225 2,397 2,938 3,423 3,982 5,222
scheduled BOJ 1,968 3,586 4,069 3,897 4,745 4,156 5,982
Total non-scheduled (VAR+BOJ) 17,324 16,698 17,152 19,693 19,974 18,286 19,818
non-scheduled VAR 5,881 5,133 5,662 6,543 6,753 5,834 6,827
non-scheduled BOJ 11,443 11,565 11,490 13,150 13,221 12,452 12,991
Total Domestic movements (VAR+BOJ) 2,772 3,435 9,461 2,923 2,573 2,555 2,456
Domestic movements VAR 2,352 1,744 8,059 1,962 1,825 1,835 1,898
Domestic movements BOJ 420 1,691 1,402 961 748 720 558
Total movements (VAR+BOJ) 25,289 26,944 33,079 29,451 30,715 28,979 33,478
Total movements VAR 11,458 10,102 16,118 11,443 12,001 11,651 13,947
Total movements BOJ 13,831 16,842 16,961 18,008 18,714 17,328 19,531
Appendix 4. Accommodation activities on the Bulgarian Black Sea Coast for the period 1994-
2015
Number
Number Number of of Number of Number Number
of Number available Number of overnights overnights Number of BG of foreign
Regions hotels of beds bednights overnight Bulgarians Foreigners of tourists tourists tourists
Total Black sea
1994 coast 384 82,584 8,754,556 7,066,568 1,757,992 5,308,576 1,070,815 568,517 502,298
North BSC 198 43,450 8,139,434 3,638,208 823,297 2,814,911 568,732 302,344 266,388
South BSC 186 39,134 615,122 3,428,360 934,695 2,493,665 502,083 266,173 235,910
Total Black sea
1995 coast 366 85,558 14,259,487 6,296,699 1,808,794 4,487,905 1,012,860 585,536 427,324
North BSC 188 40,938 8,708,362 3,307,008 926,667 2,380,341 534,807 307,747 227,060
South BSC 178 44,620 5,551,125 2,989,691 882,127 2,107,564 478,053 277,789 200,264
Total Black sea
1996 coast 358 79,826 15,818,666 6,692,351 1,559,179 5,133,172 981,896 509,011 472,885
North BSC 193 41,301 10,168,758 3,680,368 851,327 2,829,041 539,768 280,068 259,700
South BSC 165 38,525 5,649,908 3,011,983 707,852 2,304,131 442,128 228,943 213,185
Total Black sea
1997 coast 332 78,218 15,126,705 6,069,568 1,228,638 4,840,930 857,944 414,837 443,107
North BSC 180 40,545 9,811,018 3,335,458 672,073 2,663,385 477,467 237,054 240,413
South BSC 152 37,673 5,315,687 2,734,110 556,565 2,177,545 380,477 177,783 202,694
Total Black sea
1998 coast 341 76,395 15,093,538 5,790,617 1,359,646 4,430,971 849,527 426,943 422,584
North BSC 190 41,098 9,949,982 3,352,201 721,729 2,630,472 489,855 235,400 254,455
South BSC 151 35,297 5,143,556 2,438,416 637,917 1,800,499 359,672 191,543 168,129
Total Black sea
1999 coast 342 75,418 10,507,833 4,917,512 1,197,016 3,720,496 697,701 344,763 352,938
North BSC 203 42,289 10,100,667 3,101,857 677,772 2,424,085 431,776 202,425 229,351
South BSC 139 33,129 407,166 1,815,655 519,244 1,296,411 265,925 142,338 123,587
Total Black sea
2000 coast 427 84,521 16,694,646 5,693,078 1,334,580 4,358,498 870,208 436,037 434,171
North coast 275 53,226 11,938,280 3,855,567 729,895 3,125,672 587,246 274,716 312,530
South coast 152 31,295 4,756,366 1,837,511 604,685 1,232,826 282,962 161,321 121,641
Total Black sea
2001 coast 341 75,995 17,919,397 6,371,730 1,055,380 5,316,350 832,115 296,025 536,090
North BSC 238 51,288 13,360,059 4,674,396 630,058 4,044,338 605,275 196,396 408,879
South BSC 103 24,707 4,559,338 1,697,334 425,322 1,272,012 226,840 99,629 127,211
Total Black sea
2002 coast 365 88,356 18,266,398 6,932,871 931,051 6,001,820 931,401 289,115 642,286
North BSC 250 59,990 13,627,668 5,189,640 607,471 4,582,169 676,285 194,343 481,942
South BSC 115 28,366 4,638,730 1,743,231 323,580 1,419,651 255,116 94,772 160,344
Total Black sea
2003 coast 467 107,932 21,413,158 8,929,289 991,606 7,937,683 1,220,915 299,227 921,688
North BSC 302 62,270 14,732,534 5,428,553 558,032 4,870,521 788,152 192,494 595,658
South BSC 165 45,662 6,680,624 3,500,736 433,574 3,067,162 432,763 106,733 326,030
Total Black sea
2004 coast 657 136,968 0 10,361,237 1,478,532 8,882,705 1,473,004 393,055 1,079,949
North BSC 445 79,056 5,842,396 942,398 4,899,998 888,914 261,966 626,948
South BSC 212 57,912 4,518,841 536,134 3,982,707 584,090 131,089 453,001
Total Black sea
2005 coast 955 173,575 25,319,585 12,259,362 2,266,715 9,992,647 1,749,912 513,314 1,236,598
North BSC 523 85,694 14,391,234 6,382,970 1,145,625 5,237,345 986,945 310,525 676,420
South BSC 432 87,881 10,928,351 5,876,392 1,121,090 4,755,302 762,967 202,789 560,178
Total Black sea
2006 coast 1,759 182,689 29,207,605 12,333,332 2,206,333 10,126,999 1,848,074 555,200 1,292,874
North BSC 743 88,018 15,699,820 6,279,938 1,105,275 5,174,663 1,024,427 335,048 689,379
South BSC 1,016 94,671 13,507,785 6,053,394 1,101,058 4,952,336 823,647 220,152 603,495
Total Black sea
2007 coast 1,842 191,425 0 12,292,124 2,336,817 9,955,307 1,987,440 607,464 1,379,976
North BSC 712 89,418 6,115,642 1,151,938 4,963,704 1,098,340 347,124 751,216
South BSC 1,130 102,007 6,176,482 1,184,879 4,991,603 889,100 260,340 628,760
Total Black sea
2008 coast 1,576 184,588 30,639,248 12,152,281 2,426,530 9,725,751 2,022,857 659,469 1,363,388
North BSC 703 85,655 15,721,826 5,975,908 1,238,702 4,737,206 1,112,651 385,403 727,248
South BSC 873 98,933 14,917,422 6,176,373 1,187,828 4,988,545 910,206 274,066 636,140
Total Black sea
2009 coast 1,729 188,107 29,480,078 10,044,923 2,360,194 7,684,729 1,819,099 621,769 1,197,330
North BSC 628 81,424 15,045,817 4,802,825 1,117,444 3,685,381 1,007,797 347,579 660,218
South BSC 1,101 106,683 14,434,261 5,242,098 1,242,750 3,999,348 811,302 274,190 537,112
Total Black sea
2010 coast 1,595 182,580 28,443,936 11,088,358 2,377,752 8,710,606 1,869,322 602,299 1,267,023
North BSC 589 80,953 14,719,497 5,063,818 1,112,714 3,951,104 960,814 336,972 623,842
South BSC 1,006 101,627 13,724,439 6,024,540 1,265,038 4,759,502 908,508 265,327 643,181
Total Black sea
2011 coast 1,732 185,764 27,947,969 13,243,446 2,677,753 10,565,693 2,278,588 709,051 1,569,537
North BSC 556 80,464 14,366,992 6,177,972 1,286,471 4,891,501 1,206,986 395,156 811,830
South BSC 1,176 105,300 13,580,977 7,065,474 1,391,282 5,674,192 1,071,602 313,895 757,707
Total Black sea
2012 coast 1,076 204,593 27,243,390 13,897,502 2,624,674 11,272,828 2,432,722 744,384 1,688,338
North BSC 468 86,986 13,734,602 6,517,543 1,285,721 5,231,822 1,258,267 411,910 846,357
South BSC 608 117,607 13,508,788 7,379,959 1,338,953 6,041,006 1,174,455 332,474 841,981
Total Black sea
2013 coast 1,163 203,894 28,530,432 14,804,166 2,771,461 12,032,705 2,581,458 772,685 1,808,773
North BSC 507 92,035 14,029,741 6,794,289 1,310,798 5,483,491 1,313,090 412,765 900,325
South BSC 656 111,859 14,500,691 8,009,877 1,460,663 6,549,214 1,268,368 359,920 908,448
Total Black sea
2014 coast 1,267 211,710 29,718,452 14,335,834 2,800,986 11,534,848 2,483,815 786,856 1,696,959
North BSC 520 90,724 14,365,772 6,283,851 1,244,436 5,039,415 1,186,246 397,306 788,940
South BSC 747 120,986 15,352,680 8,051,983 1,556,550 6,495,433 1,297,569 389,550 908,019
Total Black sea
2015 coast 1,303 218,805 30,070,032 13,773,244 3,044,500 10,728,744 2,582,771 875,499 1,707,272
North BSC 543 94,357 14,592,535 6,166,100 1,315,489 4,850,611 1,250,300 424,299 826,001
South BSC 760 124,448 15,477,497 7,607,144 1,729,011 5,878,133 1,332,471 451,200 881,271
REFERENCES
Abate, M. (2016). Economic effects of air transport market liberalization in Africa. Transportation Research
Part A 92, 326-337.
Abbe, G., and Smith, H. (2016). Technological development trends in Solarpowered Aircraft
Systems. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, 60, 770-783.
Air Transport Action Group /ATAG (2011). Beginners Guide to Aviation Biofuels. URL:
http://www.atag.org/component/downloads/downloads/60.html
Air Transport Action Group /ATAG (2013). Revolutionising Air Traffic Management. Practical steps to
accelerating airspace efficiency in your region. URL: http://www.atag.org/our-
publications/latest.html
Air Transport Action Group/ATAG (2015a). The aviation sections climate action framework. URL:
http://www.atag.org/our-publications/latest.html, Retrieved 06 January 2017.
Air Transport Action Group/ATAG (2015b). Aviation Climate Solutions. URL:
http://www.atag.org/our-publications/latest.html, Retrieved 06 January 2017.
Air Transport Action Group/ATAG (2016). Aviation: Benefits beyond borders. URL:
http://www.atag.org/our-publications/latest.html Retrieved 07 December 2016
Air Transport Action Group/ATAG (n.d.). Intermodality. URL: http://www.atag.org/our-
activities/intermodality.html Retrieved on 10 January 2017
Airbus (2016) Airbus Family Figures. URL:
http://www.airbus.com/fileadmin/media_gallery/files/brochures_publications/aircraft_families/
Airbus-Family-figures-booklet-March2016.pdf Retrieved on 20 January 2017
Airbus (n.d.) Eco-efficiency of the company. URL: http://www.airbus.com/company/eco-efficiency/
Retrieved on 28 December 2016
Aircraft Fleeting Recycling Association/AFRA (n.d.). Industry News. URL:
https://afraassociation.org/news-events/industry-news/ Retrieved 20 January 2017
Airport Council International /ACI (2016a). Airports Council International releases 2015 World Airport
Traffic Report. The busiest become busier; the year of the international hub airport URL:
http://www.aci.aero/News/Releases/Most-Recent/2016/09/09/Airports-Council-International-
releases-2015-World-Airport-Traffic-Report-The-busiest-become-busier-the-year-of-the-
international-hub-airport Retrieved on 10 January 2017
Airport Council International /ACI (2016b). World Report December 2016. URL:
https://issuu.com/aciworld/docs/aciworldreport_december Retrieved 25 January 2017
Airport Council International /ACI (n.d.) Overview - The Community of Airports. URL:
http://www.aci.aero/About-ACI/Overview Retrieved on 25 January 2017
Albalate, D., & Bel, G. (2010). Tourism and urban public transport: Holding demand pressure under
supply constraints. Tourism Management, 31(3), 425-433.
Albers, S., Koch, B. and Ruff, C. (2005). Strategic alliances between airlines and airportstheoretical
assessment and practical evidence. Journal of Air Transport Management, 11(2), 49-58.
Andergassen, R., Candela, G., & Figini, P. (2013). An economic model for tourism destinations: product
sophistication and price coordination. Tourism Management, 37, 86-98.
Axisa, D. and DeFelice, T. (2016). Modern and prospective technologies for weather modification
activities: A look at integrating unmanned aircraft systems. Atmospheric Research, 178-179, 114-
124.
Baerenholdt J O, Haldrup M, Larsen J, Urry J, (2004). Performing Tourist Places. Ashgate, Aldershot,
Hants.
Baggio, R., Scott, N., & Cooper, C. (2010). Improving tourism destination governance: a complexity
science approach. Tourism Review, 65(4), 51-60.
Barbot, C. (2006). Low-cost airlines, secondary airports, and state aid: An economic assessment of the
RyanairCharleroi Airport agreement. Journal of Air Transport Management, 12(4), 197-203.
Barnett, A. (2009). Aviation Safety and Security. In Belobaba, P., Odoni, A. and Barnhart, C. (Eds.). The
Global Airline industry. Chichester: John Wiley and Sons Ltd, pp. 313-342.
Barney, J. (1991). Firm resources and sustained competitive advantage. Journal of Management, 17(1), 99-
120.
Barney, J. B., and Arikan, A. M. (2001). The resource-based view: Origins and implications. Michael A.
Hitt, R. Edward Freeman and Jeefrey S. Harrison (Eds.) The Blackwell Handbook of Strategic
Management. Wiley-Blackwell, pp.124-188.
Barrett, S. (1997). The implications of the Ireland-UK airline deregulation for an EU internal market.
Journal of Air Transport Management, 3(2), 67-73.
Batty, M. (2009). Accessibility: in search of a unified theory. Editorial. Environment and Planning B:
Planning and Design, 36, 191-194.
Bedrosyan, D. (2017). Regular international flights during the whole year from Bourgas airport starting
from 2017. Darik News. URL: http://www.dariknews.bg/print_article.php?article_id=1635751
Retrieved on 11 January 2017
Belobaba, P. (2009a). The Airline Planning Process. In Belobaba, P., Odoni, A. and Barnhart, C. (Eds.).
The Global Airline industry. Chichester: John Wiley and Sons Ltd, pp. 153-182
Belobaba, P. (2009b). Airline operating costs and measures of productivity. In Belobaba, P., Odoni, A.
and Barnhart, C. (Eds.). The Global Airline industry. Chichester: John Wiley and Sons Ltd, pp. 113-
152
Belobaba, P. (2009c). Fundamentals of pricing and revenue management. In Belobaba, P., Odoni, A. and
Barnhart, C. (Eds.). The Global Airline industry. Chichester: John Wiley and Sons Ltd, pp. 73-112.
Belobaba, P., Odoni, A. and Barnhart, C. (2009). The Global Airline industry. Chichester: John Wiley and
Sons Ltd.
Belobaba, P., Swelbar, W. and Barnhart, C. (2009). Information technology in airline operations,
distribution and passenger processing. In Belobaba, P., Odoni, A. and Barnhart, C. (Eds.). The
Global Airline industry. Chichester: John Wiley and Sons Ltd, 441-466.
Bendapudi, N., & Leone, R. P. (2003). Psychological implications of customer participation in co-
production. Journal of marketing, 67(1), 14-28.
Benur, A. M., & Bramwell, B. (2015). Tourism product development and product diversification in
destinations. Tourism Management, 50, 213-224.
Beritelli, P., Bieger, T., & Laesser, C. (2007). Destination governance: Using corporate governance
theories as a foundation for effective destination management. Journal of Travel Research, 46(1), 96-
107.
Betancor, O. and Campos, J. (2000). The first decade of the European air transport deregulation. An
empirical note. Public Works Management and Policy, 5(2), 135-146.
Bieger, T. (1998). Reengineering destination marketing organisations: The case of Switzerland. The
Tourist Review, 53(3), 4-17.
Bieger, T. and Wittmer, A. (2011a). Airline strategy: from network management to business models. In
Wittmer, Bieger and Mueller (Eds) Aviation Systems, Springer Texts in Business and Economics,
Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg, pp. 77-102
Bieger, T. and Wittmer, A. (2011b). From the aviation value chain to the aviation system. In Wittmer,
Bieger and Mueller (Eds) Aviation Systems, Springer Texts in Business and Economics, Springer-
Verlag Berlin Heidelberg, pp. 61-76
Bieger, T., and Wittmer, A. (2006). Air transport and tourismPerspectives and challenges for
destinations, airlines and governments. Journal of Air Transport Management, 12(1), 40-46.
Bieger, T., Beritelli, P., and Laesser, C. (2009). Size matters!-Increasing DMO effectiveness and extending
tourist destination boundaries. Turizam: znanstveno-struni asopis, 57(3), 309-327.
Bitzan, J. and Peoples, J. (2016). A comparative analysis of coast change for low-cost, full-service, and
other carriers in the US airline industry. Research in Transportation Economics, 1-17.
Boes, K., Buhalis, D., and Inversini, A. (2015). Conceptualising smart tourism destination dimensions.
In Information and communication technologies in tourism 2015 (pp. 391-403). Springer International
Publishing.
Boksberger, P. (2011). Passenger behaviour. In Wittmer, Bieger and Mueller (Eds) Aviation Systems,
Springer Texts in Business and Economics, Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg pp. 157-170
Bonetti, E., Petrillo, C. and Simoni, M. (2006). Tourism System Dynamics: A Multi-level Destination
Approach. In Lazzeretti, L. and Petrillo, C. (Eds.) Tourism Local Systems and Networking. Advances
in Tourism Research Series. Amsterdam: Elsevier Ltd. pp 111-133.
Bornhorst, T., Ritchie, J. R. B., and Sheehan, L. (2010). Determinants of tourism success for DMOs and
destinations: an empirical examination of stakeholders perspectives. Tourism Management, 31(5),
572-589.
Bramwell, B., and Sharman, A. (1999). Collaboration in local tourism policymaking. Annals of Tourism
Research, 26(2), 392-415.
Brilha, N.M. (2008). Airport Requirements for Leisure Travellers. In Graham, A., Papatheodorou, A.,
and Forsyth, P. (Eds.) Aviation and tourism: implications for leisure travel. Ashgate Publishing, Ltd.,
pp. 167-176.
Buhalis, D. (2000). Marketing the Competitive Destination of the Future. Tourism Management, 21 (1), 97-
116
Buhalis, D., & Amaranggana, A. (2013). Smart tourism destinations. In Information and communication
technologies in tourism 2014 (pp. 553-564). Springer International Publishing.
Bulgarian Civil Aviation Administration /BCAA (2015). National Statistics Methodology Manual. URL:
http://www.caa.bg/page.php?category=27andcategory=116
Bulgarian Civil Aviation Administration /BCAA (2017). Statistics. URL:
http://www.caa.bg/page.php?category=27
Butler, R. (Ed.). (2006). The tourism area life cycle (Vol. 1). Channel view publications.
Caber, M., Albayrak, T., & Matzler, K. (2012). Classification of the destination attributes in the content
of competitiveness (by revised importance-performance analysis). Journal of Vacation
Marketing, 18(1), 43-56.
Capone, F. (2016a). Tourist Clusters, Destinations and Competitiveness. Theoretical issues ad empirical
evidences. London: Routledge.
Capone, F. (2016b). Destination management and competitiveness: literature review and a destination
competitiveness analysis. In Capone, F. (Ed.) Tourist Clusters, Destinations and Competitiveness.
Theoretical issues ad empirical evidences, London: Routledge. Pp 40-61.
Caragliu, A., Del Bo, C., and Nijkamp, P. (2011). Smart cities in Europe. Journal of urban technology, 18(2),
65-82.
Casanueva, C., Gallego, ., Castro, I. and Sancho, M. (2014). Airline alliances: Mobilizing network
resources. Tourism Management, 44, 88-98.
Castillo-Manzano, J. I., Lpez-Valpuesta, L., & Gonzlez-Laxe, F. (2011). The effects of the LCC boom
on the urban tourism fabric: The viewpoint of tourism managers. Tourism Management, 32(5),
1085-1095.
CED (n.d.). About SMED. URL: http://www.ced.travel/What/aboutsmed.html Retrieved on 10 February
2017
Celata, F. (2007). Geographic marginality, transport accessibility and tourism development. In Celant,
A. (Ed.) Global Tourism and regional competitiveness. Bologna: Patron, pp 37-46.
Christchurch Airport, NZ (n.d.) International Antarctic Centre. URL:
http://www.christchurchairport.co.nz/fr/boutiques-restauration-and-d%C3%A9tente/liste-des-
boutiques/international-antarctic-centre/ Retrieved on 10 February 2017
Christensen, L. (2016). Environmental impact of long distance travel. Transportation Research Procedia,
14, 850-859.
Chung, Y. S., & Feng, C. M. (2016). Brand relationship between global airline alliances and their member
airlines. Journal of Air Transport Management, 55, 222-233.
Cokorilo, O. (2016). Environmental issues for aircraft operations at airports. Transportation Research
Procedia, 14, 3713-3720.
Costa, C., Panyik, E., and Buhalis, D. (Eds.). (2013). Trends in European tourism planning and
organisation (Vol. 60). Channel View Publications.
Crouch, G. I. (2011). Destination competitiveness: An analysis of determinant attributes. Journal of Travel
Research, 50(1), 27-45.
Cruz, C. O., & Marques, R. C. (2011). Contribution to the study of PPP arrangements in airport
development, management and operation. Transport Policy, 18(2), 392-400.
Darik news (2014). Noise coming from flying aircraft is highest in Varna. URL:
https://dariknews.bg/regioni/varna/shumyt-ot-prelitashti-samoleti-vyv-varna-e-naj-golqm-
1296686 Retrieved 27 February 2017
Davison, L., and Ryley, T. (2010). Tourism destination preferences of low-cost airline users in the East
Midlands. Journal of Transport Geography, 18(3), 458-465.
De Carlo, M., Cugini, A., & Zerbini, F. (2008). Assessment of destination performance: a strategy map
approach. Tourism Review, 63(2), 25-37.
Debnath, A. K., Chin, H. C., Haque, M. M., & Yuen, B. (2014). A methodological framework for
benchmarking smart transport cities. Cities, 37, 47-56.
Diaconu, L. (2012). The evolution of the European low-cost airlines' business models. Ryanair study.
Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences, 62, 342-346.
Dickinson, J. E., & Dickinson, J. A. (2006). Local transport and social representations: Challenging the
assumptions for sustainable tourism. Journal of sustainable tourism, 14(2), 192-208.
Dimitrova, I. (2016). Varna airport to be open for LCCs. Monitor. URL: http://www.monitor.bg
/a/view/43996------/ Retrieved on 23
January 2017
Dnevnik (2017). Varna airport proposes creation of a regional fund for development of air connections.
URL:
http://www.dnevnik.bg/morski/2017/01/23/2905033_letishte_varna_predlaga_suzdavane_na_re
gionalen_fond/?print=1 Retrieved 23 January 2017
Dobruszkes, F. (2006). An analysis of European low-cost airlines and their networks. Journal of Transport
Geography, 14(4), 249-264.
Dobruszkes, F. (2013). The geography of European low-cost airline networks: a contemporary
analysis. Journal of Transport Geography, 28, 75-88.
Dobruszkes, F., Givoni, M., and Vowles, T. (2017). Hello major airports, goodbye regional airports?
Recent changes in European and US low-cost airline airport choice. Journal of Air Transport
Management, 59, 50-62.
Dobruszkes, F., Mondou, V. and Ghedira, A. (2016). Assessing the impacts of aviation liberalisation on
tourism: Some methodological considerations derived from the Moroccan and Tunisian cases.
Journal of Transport Geography, 50, 115-127.
Doganis, R. (2006). The Airline business. New York: Routledge.
Dong, P., and Siu, N. Y. M. (2013). Servicescape elements, customer predispositions and service
experience: the case of theme park visitors. Tourism Management, 36, 541-551.
Donzelli, M. (2010). The effect of low-cost air transportation on the local economy: Evidence from
Southern Italy. Journal of Air Transport Management, 16, 121-126.
Duman, T., and Mattila, A. S. (2005). The role of affective factors on perceived cruise vacation value.
Tourism Management, 26(3), 311323
Duval, D. T. (2007). Tourism and transport: Modes, networks and flows (Vol. 1). Channel View Publications.
Duval, D. T., & Schiff, A. (2011). Effect of air services availability on international visitors to New
Zealand. Journal of Air Transport Management, 17(3), 175-180.
Dwyer, L., and Kim, C. (2003). Destination competitiveness: determinants and indicators. Current issues
in tourism, 6(5), 369-414.
Dwyer, L., Edwards, D., Mistilis, N., Roman, C., & Scott, N. (2009). Destination and enterprise
management for a tourism future. Tourism Management, 30(1), 63-74.
Dziedzic, M. and Warnock-Smith, D. (2016). The role of secondary airports for today's low-cost carrier
business models: The European case. Research in Transportation Business and Management,
(forthcoming).
Echevarne, R. (2008). The impact of attracting low cost carriers to airports. In Aviation and Tourism (pp.
177-191). Ashgate Publishing Hampshire.
Edwards, H., Dixon-Hardy, D. and Wadud, Z. (2016). Aircraft cost index and the future of carbon
emissions from air travel. Applied Energy, 164, 563-582.
Egger, R. (2013). The impact of near field communication on tourism. Journal of Hospitality and Tourism
Technology, 4(2), 119-133.
European Aviation Safety Agency /EASA (2016). Annual Safety Report. URL:
http://www.easa.europa.eu/system/files/dfu/209735_EASA_ASR_MAIN_REPORT.pdf)
European Commission (2010). Cooperation Work Programme: Transport. URL:
http://ec.europa.eu/research/participants/data/ref/fp7/89047/g-wp-201002_en.pdf Retrieved on
17 February 2017
European Commission (2011). Flightpath 2050. Europes Vision for Aviation. URL:
http://ec.europa.eu/transport/sites/transport/files/modes/air/doc/flightpath2050.pdf Retrieved 15
February 2017
European Commission (2016). European Tourism Indicators System (ETIS) for sustainable destination
management. URL: http://ec.europa.eu/growth/sectors/tourism/offer/sustainable/indicators_en
Fasone, V., Kofler, L., and Scuderi, R. (2016). Business performance of airports: Non-aviation revenues
and their determinants. Journal of Air Transport Management, 53, 35-45.
Flagestad, A., and Hope, C. A. (2001). Strategic success in winter sports destinations: A sustainable value
creation perspective. Tourism Management, 22, 445461.
Flightglobal (2016). Analysis. The biggest low-cost carriers by traffic and financials. URL:
https://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/analysisthebiggestlccsbytrafficandfinancials425117
Retrieved on 29 December 2016.
Flightglobal, Flight Airline Business magazine (July-August, 2016). Top of the range. World Airline
Ranking. URL: http://edition.pagesuite-professional.co.uk/html5/reader/production/default.
aspx?pubname=andedid=e030c749-44c6-4ab0-af51-84e8f4424689 Retrieved on 05 January 2017
Formica, S. & Kothari, T. H. (2008). Strategic destination planning: Analyzing the future of
tourism. Journal of Travel Research, 46(4), 355-367.
Forsyth, P., Niemeier, H.-M. and Wolf, H. (2011). Airport alliances and mergers Structural change in
the airport industry? Journal of Air Transport Management, 17(1), 49-56.
Fox, S. (2014). Safety and security: The influence of 9/11 to the EU framework for air carriers and aircraft
operators. Research in Transportation Economics, 45, 24-33.
Fukui, H., & Miyoshi, C. (2017). The impact of aviation fuel tax on fuel consumption and carbon
emissions: The case of the US airline industry. Transportation Research Part D: Transport and
Environment, 50, 234-253.
Gallarza, M. G., and Saura, I. G. (2006). Value dimensions, perceived value, satisfaction and loyalty: an
investigation of university students' travel behavior. Tourism Management, 27(3), 437-452.
Geurs, K. T., & Van Wee, B. (2004). Accessibility evaluation of land-use and transport strategies: review
and research directions. Journal of Transport Geography, 12(2), 127-140.
Gillen, D. (2011). The evolution of airport ownership and governance. Journal of Air Transport
Management, 17(1), 3-13.
Gillen, D., & Morrison, W. G. (2015). Aviation security: Costing, pricing, finance and
performance. Journal of Air Transport Management, 48, 1-12.
Gillen, D., Jacquillat, A., & Odoni, A. R. (2016). Airport demand management: The operations research
and economics perspectives and potential synergies. Transportation Research Part A: Policy and
Practice, 94, 495-513.
Goeldner, C. R., and Ritchie, J. B. (2007). Tourism principles, practices, philosophies. John Wiley and Sons.
Goetz, A. and Vowles, T. (2009). The good, the bad, and the ugly: 30 years of US airline deregulation.
Journal of Transport Geography, 17, 251-263.
Gonnord, C., & Lawson, F. (2000). Airports: a precious resource of the aviation network. Air & Space
Europe, 2(5), 33-39.
Graham, A. and Dennis, N. (2010). The impact of low cost airline operations to Malta. Journal of Air
Transport Management, 16, 127-136.
Graham, A., Papatheodorou, A. and Forsyth, P. (2008). Aviation and Tourism: Implications for Leisure
Travel. Oxon: Routledge.
Graham, W.R., Hall, C.A. and Vera Morales, M. (2014). The potential of future aircraft technology for
noise and pollutant emissions reduction. Transport Policy, 34, 36-51.
Grampella, M., Martini, G., Scotti, D. and Zambon, G. (2016). The factors affecting pollution and noise
environment costs of the current aircraft fleet: An econometric analysis. Transportation Research
Part A 92, 310-325.
Gretzel, U., Sigala, M., Xiang, Z., & Koo, C. (2015). Smart tourism: foundations and
developments. Electronic Markets, 25(3), 179-188.
Gretzel, U., Werthner, H., Koo, C., & Lamsfus, C. (2015). Conceptual foundations for understanding
smart tourism ecosystems. Computers in Human Behavior, 50, 558-563.
Gronau, W., and Kagermeier, A. (2007). Key factors for successful leisure and tourism public transport
provision. Journal of Transport Geography, 15(2), 127-135.
Gross, S., & Klemmer, L. (2014). Airplanes. Introduction to Tourism Transport, 11-44.
Grzinic, J., & Saftic, D. (2012). Approach to the development of destination management in Croatian
Tourism. Management-Journal of Contemporary Management Issues, 17(1), 59-74.
Gurtner, G., Cook, A., Graham, A. and Cristbal, S. (2016). Study on the Modelling of Airport Economic
Value. EUROCONTROL URL: http://www.eurocontrol.int/sites/default/files/publication
/files/airport-economic-value-final-report.pdf
Hall, D. R. (1999). Conceptualising tourism transport: inequality and externality issues. Journal of
Transport Geography, 7(3), 181-188.
Halpern, N., Graham, A., & Dennis, N. (2016). Low cost carriers and the changing fortunes of airports
in the UK. Research in Transportation Business & Management, 21, 33-43.
Hansman, R.J. and Odoni, A. (2009). Air Traffic Control. In Belobaba, P., Odoni, A. and Barnhart, C.
(Eds.). The Global Airline industry. Chichester: John Wiley and Sons Ltd, pp. 377-404.
Harteveldt, H. H. (2012). The Future of Airline Distribution: A Look Ahead to 2017: a Special Report
Commussioned by IATA. Atmosphere Research Group LLC. URL:
http://www.iata.org/whatwedo/stb/Documents/future-airline-distribution-report.pdf
Haugland, S. A., Ness, H., Grnseth, B. O., and Aarstad, J. (2011). Development of tourism destinations:
An integrated multilevel perspective. Annals of Tourism Research, 38(1), 268-290.
Heath, E. (2003). Towards a model to enhance destination competitiveness: A Southern African
perspective. CAUTHE 2003: Riding the Wave of Tourism and Hospitality Research, 500.
Henderson, J. (2009). Transport and tourism destination development: An Indonesian
perspective. Tourism and Hospitality Research, 9(3), 199-208.
Hennink, M., Hutter, I. and Bailey, A. (2010). Qualitative research methods. Sage.
Hjalager, A.-M. (2000). Tourism destinations and the concept of industrial districts. Tourism and
Hospitality Research, 3, 199213.
Holbrook, M. B., and Hirschman, E. C. (1982). The experiential aspects of consumption: Consumer
fantasies, feelings, and fun. Journal of Consumer Research, 9(2), 132140.
Hooper, J. (2015). A destination too far? Modelling destination accessibility and distance decay in
tourism. GeoJournal, 80(1), 33-46.
Hooper, P. (1998). Airline competition and deregulation in developed and developing country contexts
Australia and India. Journal of Transport Geography, 6(2), 105-116.
Hsieh, H. F., and Shannon, S. E. (2005). Three approaches to qualitative content analysis. Qualitative
health research, 15(9), 1277-1288.
Hvass, K. A. (2014). To fund or not to fund: A critical look at funding destination marketing
campaigns. Journal of Destination Marketing and Management, 3(3), 173-179.
IATA (2013). ACI and IATA Collaborate to Deliver Smart Security. URL:
http://www.iata.org/pressroom/pr/Pages/2013-12-12-02.aspx Retrieved on 12 January 2017
IATA (2016). Annual Report for 2016. URL: https://www.iata.org/publications/Documents/iata-annual-
review-2016.pdf
IATA (n.d.) Early days. URL: http://www.iata.org/about/Pages/history-early-days.aspx Retrieved on 06
January 2017
IATA (n.d.) IATA Codes. URL: http://www.iata.org/services/Pages/codes.aspx Retrieved on 15
February 2017
Iatrou, K. and Alamdari, F. (2005). The empirical analysis of the impact of alliances on airline operations.
Journal of Air Transport Management, 11(3), 127-134.
ICAO (1984). Air Traffic Services Planning Manual (Doc 9426). URL:
http://www.icao.int/EURNAT/Other%20Meetings%20Seminars%20and%20Workshops/Global
%20ATFM%20Manual%20Coordination%20Team/1st%20Meeting%20at%20ATC%20Global%20
2012%20and%20EUROCONTROL%20CFMU/ICAO%20Doc%209426_cons_en.pdf Retrieved 10
January 2017
ICAO (2004). Doc 9626 Manual on the Regulation of International Air Transport. URL:
http://www.icao.int/Meetings/atconf6/Documents/Doc%209626_en.pdf Retrieved 03 January
2017
ICAO (2011). ICAO and industry join forces to shape the future air navigation system [Press release].
Retrieved from http://www.icao.int/Newsroom/ Pages/icao-and-industry-join-forces-to-shape-
the-future-air-navigation-system.aspx
ICAO (2016a). On board a sustainable future. Environmental report. URL:
http://www.icao.int/environmental-protection/Documents/ICAO%20Environmental%20
Report%202016.pdf Retrieved 30 January 2017
ICAO (2016b) Air Navigation Report, 2016. URL:
http://www.icao.int/airnavigation/Documents/ICAO_AN%202016_final_19July.pdf Retrieved
on 10 January 2017
ICAO (2017) Freedoms of the air. Retrieved on 19th June 2017 from URL:
https://www.icao.int/Pages/freedomsAir.aspx
ICAO (n.d.) Aircraft Engine Emissions. Definition of the problem. URL:
http://www.icao.int/environmental-protection/Pages/aircraft-engine-emissions.aspx, Retrieved
06 January 2017.
ICAO (n.d.) ICAO Meteorology global air navigation plan. URL:
http://cfapp.icao.int/MET/Overview.aspx Retrieved on 15 February 2017
Insua, D. R., Alfaro, C., Gomez, J., Hernandez-Coronado, P., & Bernal, F. (2016). A framework for risk
management decisions in aviation safety at state level. Reliability Engineering & System Safety
(forthcoming).
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change/IPCC (1999). Aviation and the Global Atmosphere. URL:
http://www.ipcc.ch/ipccreports/sres/aviation/index.php?idp=15. Retrieved 06 January 2017
InterVISTAS-ga2 Consulting, Inc. (2006).The Economic Impact of Air Service Liberalization. URL:
http://www.intervistas.com/downloads/Economic_Impact_of_Air_Service_Liberalization_Final
_Report.pdf. Retrieved on 17 February 2017
Isaka, T. (2012). Analysis of airport and airline relationship. ACI Asia-Pacific Young Executive of the Year
Award 2013. URL: http://www.aci-asiapac.aero/services/main/16/upload/service/16/self/
55cc66afd9a7c.pdf Retrieved 18 Nov 2016.
Itani, N., OConnell, J. & Mason, K. (2014). A macro-environment approach to civil aviation strategic
planning. Transport Policy, 33, 125-135.
Ivanov, S. H. (2014). Hotel revenue management: From theory to practice. Varna: Zangador
Ivanov, S., M. Dimitrova (2014) Managing Tourism in Bulgaria: between Mission Impossible and New
Hope. In C. Costa, E. Panyik and D. Buhalis (eds.). European Tourism Planning and Organisation
Systems. Vol.II. National case studies. Channelview Publications, pp. 87-105.
Ivanov, S., Stoilova, E., Illum, S. F. (2015) Conflicts between accommodation establishments and travel
agencies. Tourism and Hospitality Research 15(1), 54-70.
Ivanova, M., & Ivanov, S. (2015). The nature of hotel chains: An integrative framework. International
Journal of Hospitality & Tourism Administration, 16(2), 122-142.
Jamal, T. B., and Getz, D. (1995). Collaboration theory and community tourism planning. Annals of
tourism research, 22(1), 186-204.
Johann, M. and Anastasova, L. (2014). The Perception of tourism product quality and tourist satisfaction:
the case of polish tourists visiting Bulgaria, European Journal of Tourism Research, 8, 99-114
Kaberry, R., and Congdon, R. (2007). Social Benefits of Low Fares Airlines in Europe. European Low Fares
Airlines Association (ELFAA). York Aviation.
Kasarda, J. D. (2006). Airport cities and the aerotropolis. URL: http://www. aerotropolis.
com/files/2006_07_ Airport-Cities.pdf
Kaul, R. N. (1985). Dynamics of tourism: A trilogy (Vol. 111) Transportation and Marketing, New Delhi:
Sterling Publishers.
Kazandzhieva, V. (2014). Dynamic packages nature and possibilities for supply by the travel agencies in
Bulgaria. Proceedings from Round Table Trends in the global tourism development, UNWE-
Sofia, Infrastructure and Communications Journal.
Kazda, A., and Caves, R. E. (Eds.). (2010). Airport design and operation. Emerald Group Publishing
Limited.
Keller, P. (2001). Intermodality of network points: The planners view. In International Workshop
Intermodal Connectivity at European Transport Network Points: Why so Late?
Khadaroo, J., & Seetanah, B. (2007). Transport infrastructure and tourism development. Annals of
Tourism Research, 34(4), 1021-1032.
Khadaroo, J., & Seetanah, B. (2008). The role of transport infrastructure in international tourism
development: A gravity model approach. Tourism Management, 29(5), 831-840.
Koleva, R. and Kusheva, G. (2013). Models for assessing the quality of the hotel product. Dialogue, 108-
123.
Kozak, M. (2002). Destination benchmarking. Annals of tourism research, 29(2), 497-519.
Krastev, V. (2014). Tourism Geography. [in Bulgarian] Varna: Nauka i ikonomika
Kuzminykh, N. and Zufan, P. (2014). Airline Alliances and their Influence on Firm Performance. Procedia
Economics and Finance, 12, 329-333.
Laplace, I. and Latge-Roucolle, C. (2016). Deregulation of the ASEAN air transport market: measure of
impact of airport activities on local economies. Transportation Research Procedia, 14, 3721-3730.
Lawton, R. N., and Fujiwara, D. (2016). Living with aircraft noise: Airport proximity, aviation noise and
subjective wellbeing in England. Transportation Research Part D: Transport and Environment, 42,
104-118.
Lazzeretti, L. and Petrillo, C. (Eds.) (2006). Tourism Local Systems and Networking. Advances in Tourism
Research Series. Amsterdam: Elsevier Ltd.
LeBlanc, R. (2016). Airplane Recycling and Value Extraction. URL:
https://www.thebalance.com/airplane-recycling-and-value-extraction-2877922
Leiper, N. (1990). Tourist attraction systems. Annals of Tourism Research, 17(3), 367-384.
Lew, A., and McKercher, B. (2006). Modeling tourist movements: A local destination analysis. Annals of
tourism research, 33(2), 403-423.
Li, X., Li, X. R., and Hudson, S. (2013). The application of generational theory to tourism consumer
behavior: An American perspective. Tourism Management, 37, 147-164.
Li, Y., Wang, Y. Z., & Cui, Q. (2016). Has airline efficiency affected by the inclusion of aviation into
European Union Emission Trading Scheme? Evidences from 22 airlines during 2008
2012. Energy, 96, 8-22.
Lobbenberg, A. (1995). Strategic responses of charter airlines to Single Market integration. Journal of Air
Transport Management, 2(2), 67-80.
Lohmann, G., and Duval, D. T. (2011). Critical aspects of the tourism-transport relationship. C. Cooper
(Ed.) Contemporary Tourism Reviews. Goodfellow Publishers.
Maci, S. M. (2012). Glocal Features of In-flight Magazines: when Local Becomes Global. An Explorative
Study. Altre Modernit, 196-218.
Madas, M. A., & Zografos, K. G. (2008). Airport capacity vs. demand: Mismatch or
mismanagement?. Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, 42(1), 203-226.
Manager (2013). The of aircraft noise over Bourgas. URL: http://www.manager.bg//--
----- Retrieved 27 February 2017
Manente, M. (2008). Destination management and economic background: defining and monitoring local
tourist destinations. In International Conference on Measuring Tourism Economic Contribution
at Sub-National Levels (pp. 29-31).
Marais,K. and Waitz,I. (2009). Air transport and the environment. In Belobaba, P., Odoni, A. and
Barnhart, C. (Eds.). The Global Airline industry. Chichester: John Wiley and Sons Ltd, pp. 405-440.
Marinov, S. (2006).
(in Bulgarian). Marketing management of tourist destination competitiveness.
Varna: Slavena
Marson, D. (2011). From Mass tourism to Niche tourism. In Robinson, P. Heitmann, S. and Dieke, P.
(Eds.) Research Themes for Tourism. Wallingford, UK: CABI International. pp. 1-15
Martin, G. (Oct 30, 2014). International Low-Cost Airlines Drive Transatlantic Fares Into The Ground.
Forbes. Accessed 30 Dec 2016 - http://www.forbes.com/sites/grantmartin/2014/10/30
/international-low-cost-airline-drive-transatlantic-fares-into-the-ground/#54412a877703
Maslen, R. (2017). Norwegian plans MAXimum disruption to legacy carriers with Transatlantic network
growth. Routes Online News. URL: http://www.routesonline.com/news/29/breaking-
news/271551/norwegian-plans-maximum-disruption-to-legacy-carriers-with-transatlantic-
network-growth/?utm_medium=emailandutm_source=the-hubandutm_campaign=the-hub-
EUandutm_content=the-hub-20170224 Retrieved on 24 February 2017
Meleo, L., Nava, C. R., & Pozzi, C. (2016). Aviation and the costs of the European Emission Trading
Scheme: The case of Italy. Energy Policy, 88, 138-147.
Mendola, D., and Volo, S. (2017). Building composite indicators in tourism studies: Measurements and
applications in tourism destination competitiveness. Tourism Management, 59, 541-553.
Merilinen, K. and Lemmetyinen, A. (2011). Destination network management: a conceptual analysis.
Tourism Review, 66(3), 25 -31
Milosavlevich, D. (2017). Low-cost carriers on Varna and Bourgas airports. Presentation performed on
the Holiday-SPA Expo, February 2017, Sofia.
Min, H. and Joo, S. J. (2016). A comparative performance analysis of airline strategic alliances using data
envelopment analysis. Journal of Air Transport Management, 52, 99-110.
Ministry of Tourism, Bulgaria (2016). First regulation on Bulgarian spa centers coming into force. URL:
http://www.tourism.government.bg/en/kategorii/novini/first-regulation-bulgarian-spa-centers-
coming-force Retrieved on 24 February 2017
Moreto.net (2015). Flights from Varna to Istanbul are tripled in number. URL:
http://www.moreto.net/novini.php?n=279423 Retrieved 27 February 2017
Morrell, P. (2005). Airlines within airlines: An analysis of US network airline responses to Low Cost
Carriers. Journal of Air Transport Management, 11(5), 303-312.
Morrison, A. M. (2013). Marketing and managing tourism destinations. London: Routledge.
Mueller, R. (2011). Authorities and regulations in aviation. In Wittmer, Bieger and Mueller (Eds)
Aviation Systems, Springer Texts in Business and Economics, Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg pp.
215-236
National Statistics Institute /NSI (2016). Tourism statistics. URL:
http://www.nsi.bg/bg/content/1847
Neshkov, M. and Kazandzhieva, V. (2013). (in Bulgarian).
[Travel agencies and tourist transport]. Varna: Nauka i ikonomika.
Neshkov, . (2012). . ,
. (in Bulgarian) Tourism policy. Historical transformation,
contemporary issues and development directions for Bulgaria. Varna: Nauka i ikonomika
Njoya, E.T. (2013). Air transport and destination performance - a case study of three African countries
(Ethiopia, Kenya and South Africa). Paper presented at the Aviation Research Workshop, 14.-15.
February 2013, Muenster/Westfalen. URL: http://mpra.ub.uni-muenchen.de/48017/ Retrieved on
15 September 2016
Nez-Snchez, R. (2015). Regional public support to airlines and airports: An unsolved
puzzle. Transportation Research Part E: Logistics and Transportation Review, 76, 93-107.
OConnell, J. and Williams, G. (2011). Air Transport in the 21 st century: Key strategic developments.
Oxon: Routledge.
O'Cass, A., and Sok, P. (2015). An exploratory study into managing value creation in tourism service
firms: Understanding value creation phases at the intersection of the tourism service firm and
their customers. Tourism Management, 51, 186200.
Odoni, A. (2009a). Airports. In Belobaba, P., Odoni, A. and Barnhart, C. (Eds.). The Global Airline industry.
Chichester: John Wiley and Sons Ltd, pp. 343-376
Odoni, A. (2009b). The International Institutional and Regulatory Environment. In Belobaba, P., Odoni,
A. and Barnhart, C. (Eds.). The Global Airline industry. Chichester: John Wiley and Sons Ltd, pp.
19-46.
Olipra, L. (2012). The impact of low-cost carriers on tourism development in less famous
destinations. Cittaslow 2012.
Oneworld (n.d.). Introduction to oneworld - an alliance of the world's leading airlines working as one.
Why alliances? URL: https://www.oneworld.com/news-information/oneworld-fact-
sheets/introduction-to-oneworld Retrieved on 03 January 2017
Osborne, D. (January, 2017). Emirates airline changes pilots and flight crew on US flights because of
Donald Trump 'Muslim travel ban'. Independent Newspaper, online edition. URL:
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/emirates-airline-donald-trump-travel-
ban-change-pilot-flight-crew-us-dubai-a7554226.html
Page, S.J. (2009). Transport and Tourism: Global perspectives. 3rd edn. Harlow: Prentice Hall
Pandza Bajs, I. (2011). Attributes of tourist destinations as determinants of tourist perceived value.
International Journal of Management Studies, 13(3), 547-554.
Papatheodorou, A. and Zenelis, P. (2013). The importance of the air transport sector for tourism. In
Tisdell, C.A. (Ed.) Handbook of Tourism Economics: Analysis, new applications and case studies. Pp.
207-216.
Pavlovich, K. (2003). The evolution and transformation of a tourism destination network: the Waitomo
Caves, New Zealand. Tourism Management, 24(2), 203-216.
Pearce, D. (2014). Toward an Integrative Conceptual Framework of Destinations. Journal of Travel
Research, 53(2), 141-153.
Pearson, J., Pitfield, D. and Ryley, T. (2015). Intangible resources of competitive advantage: Analysis of
49 Asian airlines across three business models. Journal of Air Transport Management, 47, 179-189.
Pels, E. (2008). Airline network competition: Full-service airlines, low-cost airlines and long-haul
markets. Research in Transportation Economics, 24, 68-74.
Peoples, J. (2014). The Economics of International Airline Transport. Emerald Group Publishing.
Pereira, R.P.T., Ribeiro, G.M. and Filimonau, V. (2017). The carbon footprint appraisal of local visitor
travel in Brazil: A case of the Rio de Janeiro-Sao Paulo itinerary. Journal of Cleaner Production, 141,
256-266.
Prez, E. A., and Nadal, J. R. (2005). Host community perceptions a cluster analysis. Annals of Tourism
Research, 32(4), 925-941.
Peters, G. (2016). Airport security in the digital age. URL: http://www.airport-
technology.com/features/featureairport-security-in-the-digital-age-5711285/ Retrieved on 17
February 2017
Pike, S. and Page, S. (2014). Destination Marketing Organizations and destination marketing: A
narrative review of the literature. Tourism Management, 41, 202-227
Pine, B. J., and Gilmore, J. H. (1998). Welcome to the experience economy. Harvard business review, 76, 97-
105.
Pisonero, R. D. (2012). The role of tourism in the evolution of the Spanish air conectivity (1970-
2008). Cuadernos de Turismo, 29, 137-272.
Pitfield, D.E. (2007). The impact on traffic, market shares and concentration of airline alliances on
selected EuropeanUS routes. Journal of Air Transport Management, 13(4), 192-202.
Pompl, W. (2007). Grundlagen des Luftverkehrs. In W. Pompl Luftverkehr: Eine konomische und politische
Einfhrung.(In German) Berlin: Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg. URL:
http://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/978-3-540-32753-0_2
Porter, M. E. (1990). The competitive advantage of nations. Harvard Business Review, March-April
Presenza, A. (2005). The performance of a tourism destination. Who manages the destination? Who
plays the audit role. In XIV International Leisure and Tourism Symposium ESADE.
Presenza, A., Sheehan, L., and Ritchie, J. R. B. (2005). Towards a model of the roles and activities of
destination management organizations. Journal of Hospitality, Tourism and Leisure Science, 3, 1-16.
Prideaux, B. (2000). The role of the transport system in destination development. Tourism
Management, 21(1), 53-63.
Rafailova, G. (2006). Tourism sustainable development concept: principles and techniques. Proceedings
of the 70-years Anniversary scientific conference of Trade business department of Academy of
Economics D. Tsenov, Svishtov
Redondi, R., Malighetti, P., & Paleari, S. (2013). European connectivity: the role played by small
airports. Journal of Transport Geography, 29, 86-94.
Regmi, U. K. (2009). Relationship between air transport and tourism: a case study of Nepal (Master's
thesis, Hgskolen i Molde).
Ritchie, B. and Crouch, G. (2003). The competitive destination: a sustainable tourism perspective. Oxon, UK:
CABI Publishing
Ritchie, J., and Spencer, L. (2002). Qualitative data analysis for applied policy research. The qualitative
researchers companion, 573(2002), 305-329.
Rodrguez-Daz, M., & Espino-Rodrguez, T.F. (2008). A Model of Strategic Evaluation of a Tourism
Destination Based on Internal and Relational Capabilities. Journal of Travel Research, 46(May), 368-
380.
Sainaghi, R. (2006). From contents to processes: versus a dynamic destination management model
(DDMM). Tourism Management, 27(5), 1053-1063
Saraniemi, S., and Kylanen, M. (2011). Problemizing the concept of tourism destination: an analysis of
different theoretical approaches. Journal of Travel Research, 50(2), 133-143.
Sarilgan, A. E. (2016). Impact of Low Cost Carriers on Turkish Tourism Industry. International Journal of
Academic Research in Business and Social Sciences, 6(4), 176-188.
Schipper, Y., Nijkamp, P and Rietveld, P. (2007). Deregulation and welfare in airline markets: An
analysis of frequency equilibria. European Journal of Operational Research, 178(1), 194-206.
Schmidt, M., Paul, A., Cole, M. and Ploetner, K. O. (2016). Challenges for ground operations arising
from aircraft concepts using alternative energy. Journal of Air Transport Management, 56, 107-117.
Schmitt, D. and Gollnick, V. (2016). Air Transport System. London: Springer.
engr, F. K. and Hemdl, . (2014). International air transport and inbound tourism interaction: the
case of Istanbul. In International Antalya Hospitality Tourism and Travel Research conference
proceedings, Antalya, Turkey, 9-12 December 2014 (pp. 371-390). Akdeniz University, Tourism
Faculty.
SESAR (n.d.). Objectives. URL: http://www.sesarju.eu/discover-sesar/objectives Retrieved on 15
January 2017
Shakoori, A., & Mirtalebi Aghdam, S. M. (2014). A comparative analysis of the impact of liberalization
of air transport on tourism: Iran, Turkey and UAE. Tourismos, 9(2).
Sheehan, L., and Ritchie, J. R. B. (2005). Destination stakeholders: exploring identity and salience. Annals
of Tourism Research, 32(1), 711-734.
SITA (2017). The future is predictable. Air transport industry insights. A 360 degree report. URL:
http://www.sita.aero/resources/type/surveys-reports/the-future-is-predictable Retrieved on 16
February 2017
SITA (n.d.) Leo, SITAs baggage robot. URL: http://www.sita.aero/innovation/sita-lab/leo-sitas-
baggage-robot Retrieved on 17 February 2017
Skorupski, J., & Uchroski, P. (2016). Managing the process of passenger security control at an airport
using the fuzzy inference system. Expert Systems with Applications, 54, 284-293.
Smith, A. (2009). Effects of low cost airlines on efforts to develop cultural heritage
tourism. Anatolia, 20(2), 289-306.
Spasojevic, B., Lohmann, G. and Scott, N. (2017): Air transport and tourism a systematic literature
review (20002014), Current Issues in Tourism, forthcoming
Spencer, L., Ritchie, J., Lewis, J. and Dillon, L. (2003). Quality in Qualitative Evaluation: A framework for
assessing research evidence. Government Chief Social Researchers Office, London: Cabinet Office.
Stankova, M. and Vassenska, I. (2013). Projections of culture and local diversity upon tourism
destination attractiveness. In Santos, J., Serra, F. and Aguas, P. (Eds.) Strategies in tourism
organizations and destinations. TMS Conference series. pp. 221-232.
Stankova, M., and Vasenska, I. (2015). Competitiveness and tourism development-in search of positive
image-representations of Bulgaria as a destination. Ekonomika, 61(3), 43.
Stoyanov, M. (2014). . (in Bulgarian) Low-
cost carrier challenges. Proceedings from the scientific conference Transport in a changing world
challenges and solutions, published by UNWE, 225-234
Stoyanov, M. (2015).
. (in Bulgarian). Characteristics of low-cost carriers and their development in Europe.
Economics 21, 5(1), 55-72.
Sun, J.Y. (2015). Clustered airline flight scheduling: Evidence from airline deregulation. Journal of Air
Thompson, K., & Schofield, P. (2007). An investigation of the relationship between public transport
performance and destination satisfaction. Journal of Transport Geography, 15(2), 136-144.
Tth, G., & Dvid, L. (2010). Tourism and accessibility: An integrated approach. Applied
Geography, 30(4), 666-677.
U.S. Customs and Border Protection (2015). Advance Passenger Information System. For travel industry
personnel. URL: https://www.cbp.gov/sites/default/files/documents/apis_factsheet_3.pdf
Retrieved 10 February 2017
U.S. Department of State (n.d.). Open skies agreements. URL: https://www.state.gov/e/eb/tra/ata
U.S. General Service Administration (2011). Code Share Factsheet. URL: http://www.gsa.gov/portal/
content/103887 Retrieved on January 27, 2012
UNWTO (2007). A practical guide to tourism destination management. URL: http://www.e-
unwto.org/doi/pdf/10.18111/9789284412433
UNWTO (2008). International Recommendations for Tourism Statistics 2008 Compilation Guide. URL:
http://statistics.unwto.org/content/irts2008_cg Retrieved on 10 August 2015
UNWTO (2012). Global report on aviation. URL: unwto.org
UNWTO (2016a). 2017 is the International Year of Sustainable Tourism for Development. URL:
http://media.unwto.org/press-release/2017-01-03/2017-international-year-sustainable-tourism-
development Retrieved on 03 January 2017
UNWTO (2016b). Report of the Committee on Tourism and Competitiveness. Annex I. URL:
http://cf.cdn.unwto.org/sites/all/files/docpdf/generalprogrammeofworkdmgt.pdf
http://cf.cdn.unwto.org/sites/all/files/pdf/ce103_05_implementation_general_programme_of_w
ork_rev2_en_0.pdf
UNWTO (2016c). Tourism committed to fight climate change COP 22. URL:
http://media.unwto.org/press-release/2016-11-14/tourism-committed-fight-climate-change-cop-
22 Retrieved on 10 January 2017
UNWTO (n.d.) Destination Management and Quality program. URL:
http://destination.unwto.org/content/about-us-4 Retrieved on 10 February 2017
UNWTO (n.d.) International year of sustainable tourism for development. URL:
http://www.tourism4development2017.org Retrieved on 10 February 2017
UNWTO (n.d.) Sustainable Development. Knowledge platform. URL:
https://sustainabledevelopment.un.org/post2015/transformingourworld Retrieved on 03 January
2017
Urfer, B. and Weinert, R. (2011). Managing airport infrastructure. In Wittmer, Bieger and Mueller (Eds)
Aviation Systems, Springer Texts in Business and Economics, Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg pp.
103-134.
Vaishnav, P., Petsonk, A., Avila, R. A. G., Morgan, M. G., & Fischbeck, P. S. (2016). Analysis of a
proposed mechanism for carbon-neutral growth in international aviation. Transportation Research
Part D: Transport and Environment, 45, 126-138.
van Wee, B. (2016). Accessible accessibility research challenges. Journal of Transport Geography, 51, 9-16.
Vancouver Airport (n.d.) Vancouver Aquarium URL: http://www.yvr.ca/en/passengers/shop-dine-and-
services/328 Retrieved on 10 February 2017
Vaz, M. M., Silva, J. R., Baltazar, E. S., & Marques, T. D. (2014). Regional Airports, Tourism And
Development: Two Portuguese Case Studies. Tourismos, 9(1), 239-251.
Vichi, F., Frattoni, M., Imperiali, A., Balducci, C., Cecinato, A., Perilli, M. and Romagnoli, P. (2016). Civil
aviation impacts on local air quality: A survey inside two international airports in Central Italy.
Athmosphric Environment, 142, 393-405.
Vieira, D. and Bravo, A. (2016). Life cycle carbon emissions assessment using an eco-demonstrator
aircraft: the case of an ecological wing design. Journal of Cleaner Production, 124, 246-257.
Viken, A. (2016). Destinations Discourses and the Growth Paradigm. In Viken and Granas (Eds.) Tourism
Destination Development: Turns and Tactics, Routledge.
Viken, A. and Granas, B. (2016). Tourism Destination Development: Turns and Tactics. London: Routledge.
Vodenska, M. (2001). Economic, social and environmental impact of tourism. Sofia: Sofia University Press
Volgger, M., and Pechlaner, H. (2014). Requirements for destination management organizations in
destination governance: Understanding DMO success. Tourism Management, 41, 64-75.
Wang, J., Bonilla, D., & Banister, D. (2016). Air deregulation in China and its impact on airline
competition 19942012. Journal of Transport Geography, 50, 12-23.
Wang, S. (2014). Do global airline alliances influence the passenger's purchase decision? Journal of Air
Wang, W., Chen, J. and Prebensen, N. (2017). Market analysis of value-minded tourists: Nature-based
tourism in the Arctic. Journal of Destination Marketing and Management (forthcoming).
Wilken, D., Berster, P., & Gelhausen, M. C. (2011). New empirical evidence on airport capacity
utilisation: Relationships between hourly and annual air traffic volumes. Research in
Transportation Business & Management, 1(1), 118-127.
Williams, P., and Soutar, G. N. (2009). Value, satisfaction and behavioral intentions in an adventure
tourism context. Annals of Tourism Research, 36(3), 413438.
Wittmer, A. and Bieger, T. (2011a). Fundamentals and Structure of Aviation Systems. In Wittmer, Bieger
and Mueller (Eds) Aviation Systems, Springer Texts in Business and Economics, Springer-Verlag
Berlin Heidelberg (pp 5-38)
Wittmer, A. and Bieger, T. (2011b). Marketing in aviation. In Wittmer, Bieger and Mueller (Eds) Aviation
Systems, Springer Texts in Business and Economics, Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg pp. 135-156
Wittmer, A. and Vespermann, J. (2011). In Wittmer, Bieger and Mueller (Eds) Aviation Systems, Springer
Texts in Business and Economics, Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg pp. 39-60
Wittmer, A., Bieger, T. and Mueller, R. (eds.), (2011). Aviation Systems, Springer Texts in Business and
Economics, Berlin: Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg.
Wizz Air (2016). Wizz air announces 27th base in Varna, Bulgaria. URL: https://wizzair.com/en-
gb/information-and-services/about-us/news/shownews/2016/12/14/wizz-air-announces-27th-
base-in-varna-bulgaria#/ Retrieved 26 February 2017
Wolfe, P. J., Malina, R., Barrett, S. R., & Waitz, I. A. (2016). Costs and benefits of US aviation noise land-
use policies. Transportation Research Part D: Transport and Environment, 44, 147-156.
Wong, S., & Brooks, N. (2015). Evolving risk-based security: A review of current issues and emerging
trends impacting security screening in the aviation industry. Journal of Air Transport
Management, 48, 60-64.
World Travel and Tourism Council /WTTC (2016). Travel and Tourism Economic impacts. URL:
https://www.wttc.org/-
/media/files/reports/economic%20impact%20research/regions%202016/world2016.pdf Retrieved
27 February 2017
Wu, C., & Hayashi, Y. (2014). The effect of LCCs operations and scheduled services deregulation on air
charter business in Japan. Journal of Transport Geography, 41, 37-44.
Wu, C., Hayashi, Y., & Funck, C. (2012). The role of charter flights in Sino-Japanese tourism. Journal of
Air Transport Management, 22, 21-27.
Xiang, Z., Tussyadiah, I., and Buhalis, D. (2015). Smart destinations: Foundations, analytics, and
applications. Journal of Destination Marketing & Management, 4(3), 143-144
Xiao, Y., Fu, X., & Zhang, A. (2016). Airport capacity choice under airport-airline vertical
arrangements. Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, 92, 298-309.
Yu, X. and Zhang, Y. (2015). Sense and avoid technologies with applications to unmanned aircraft
systems: Review and prospects. Progress in Aerospace Sciences, 74, 152-166.
Zeithaml, V. A. (1988). Consumer perceptions of price, quality, and value: A means-end model and
synthesis of evidence. Journal of Marketing, 52(3), 222.
Dr. Maya Ivanova is an Associate Professor in Tourism at Varna University of
Management, Bulgaria, and a certified IATA instructor. Her publications have
appeared in journals such as Annals of Tourism Research, Tourism Management
Perspectives, Anatolia, International Journal of Hospitality and Tourism Administration,
Journal of Hospitality Marketing and Management, Tourismos. She serves as Editorial
Assistant for the European Journal of Tourism Research (http://ejtr.vumk.eu). Dr.
Ivanovas research interests include tour operators, airlines and hotel chains. She
has recently co-edited the Routledge Handbook of Hotel Chain Management.
Dr. Ivanova is a CEO of Zangador Ltd. (http://www.zangador.eu) and regularly

consults and organises staff trainings for travel, tourism and hospitality companies.
ISBN: 978-954-92786-4-4

Ivanova (2017) Air Transport-Tourism Nexus - A Destination Management Perspective

Cargado por

Información del documento

Derechos de autor

Formatos disponibles

Compartir este documento

Compartir o incrustar documentos

Opciones para compartir

¿Le pareció útil este documento?

¿Este contenido es inapropiado?

Copyright:

Formatos disponibles

Ivanova (2017) Air Transport-Tourism Nexus - A Destination Management Perspective

Cargado por

Copyright:

Formatos disponibles

Maya Ivanova

AIR TRANSPORT TOURISM

AIR TRANSPORT TOURISM NEXUS:

A DESTINATION MANAGEMENT PERSPECTIVE

Cover design by Milena Babukchieva

This work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-

view a destination perspective enables one to go into a more detailed exploration

management, and for practitioners and destination management representatives who

consider in their strategic growth and negotiation process.

The two reviewers, Professor Maria Stankova (College of Tourism,

Blagoevgrad) and Associate Professor Velina Kazandzhieva (University of

improvement of the book;

sharing their time for the research;

My husband, partner and colleague in the tourism field, Professor Stanislav

Ivanov from Varna University of Management, Bulgaria, for his continuous

support and love; and

helped with encouragement and care.

A DESTINATION MANAGEMENT PERSPECTIVE

and for different purposes, such as nomadic movements, military invasions,

transport a major contributor to global economic prosperity, and in particular, to the

global tourism industry.

for the global economy in 2015 (WTTC, 2016).

level. Understanding the air transport-tourism relationship would contribute

important implications for transport and infrastructure development, tourist product

development, destination planning and infrastructure, management of tourist flows

environmental, economic and cultural effects on tourism at the destination. In this

explored and illustrated with a real destination.

of their collaboration, and finally the process of initiating and accomplishing a

impact on the development of the tourism industry in a certain region or destination.

AIR TRANSPORT ESSENTIALS

1.1 General and Historical Overview

transport supply chain aircraft manufacturers, airlines, airports (including airport

organisations, including tourism and other affiliated industries.

considered as a separate industry, and a sub-sector of the transportation industry. As

such it could be explored in the contexts of cargo or passenger aviation, military,

agrarian and general aviation. However, this book is focused on exploring

beyond the scope of the study.

peoples desire to go somewhere in order to be engaged in spatially constrained

activities (including leisure and business tourism), and conversely, transport

accessibility determines, to a great extent, the demand for a tourism destination

interdependent (Papatheodorou and Zenelis, 2013). In this regard, exploring the

with the reasons behind them.

Moreover, most of them happen almost simultaneously or in a very short period of

time. Usually, the development of air transport is traced in reference to:

and manoeuvrability, aircraft materials),

aircraft safety (especially important to promote passenger transport),

air transport operations, especially Air Traffic Control,

the development of civil transport operation airlines and airports,

regulation and standardisation of the sector, including chronology of legal acts,

conventions, treaties, and establishment of relevant institutions.

the tourism development.

Another approach is to examine the historical development of the air transport

chosen according to authors subjective perception of air transports historical cycles

evolutionary stages as seen by Wittmer and Bieger (2011a):

Technical development 17831929

Political development 19291944

Development of quality and cost 19451973

Networks, alliances and low-cost operations 19741990

New perspectives customer value 19912010

(Wittmer and Bieger, 2011a)

sections which examine the air transport system.

1.2 Air Transport System

a basis for a deeper analysis of its components.

thus air transport is indirectly related to the tourism industry.