The identification of the distribution of air passengers
among airports is an important task of the airport planner.
It would be useful to understand how trip makers choose among
competing airports.
The ultimate purpose of this study is to research into ,
passengers' choice of airport so that the airport system can
be planned on a more reliable basis. The choice of airport
of passengers originating from central England in 1975 is
explained by constructing multinomial disaggregate behavioural
models of logit form. The data used for model calibration,
were collected during two Civil Aviation Authority surveys.
This work makes contribution to:
-The definition of the major determinants of airport choice,
-The responsiveness of passengers, choice to changes in
these determinants,
- The policy implications for the regional airports
- The transferability of the model in time and space.
The method of analysis has been selected after outlining
the potential advantages and shortcomings of logit and
probit models and after a test on the validity of the Independence
from Irrelevant Alternatives (I.I.A.) property has
been carried out. The results show that the multinomial logit model
used for the airport choice is good in terms of its explanatory
ability and successful in predicting the choices actually
made. Travel time to the airport, frequency of flights and
air fare are found to be decisive factors for a passenger to
select a given airport but are not of equal importance.
By influencing-these factors, it appears that there exists
room for the transport planner to shift traffic from one airport
to another to have an economically and/or environmentally
efficient airport system.
In their original form, the models have been tested
and found not to be transferable to the London area in 1978.
However, after a Bayesian updating procedure was applied, the
business and inclusive tours models were transferable. The
leisure model was not statistically transferable but had a
good predictive ability while the domestic model was not
transferable.
Finally, subsequent directions ·for further research
are outlined.
[1]
D. McFadden.
Conditional logit analysis of qualitative choice behavior
,
1972
.
[2]
David A. Hensher,et al.
Applied discrete-choice modelling
,
1980
.
[3]
Marcel G. Dagenais,et al.
The dogit model
,
1979
.
[4]
D. Wise,et al.
A CONDITIONAL PROBIT MODEL FOR QUALITATIVE CHOICE: DISCRETE DECISIONS RECOGNIZING INTERDEPENDENCE AND HETEROGENEOUS PREFERENCES'
,
1978
.
[5]
R de Neufville,et al.
AIRPORT SYSTEMS PLANNING
,
1976
.
[6]
F. Nold,et al.
The Determinants of Transport Mode Choice in Dutch Cities.
,
1973
.
[7]
D. Hensher,et al.
Intra metropolitan transferability of mode choice models
,
1980
.
[8]
R de Neufville,et al.
Access, Fares, Frequency: Effects on Airport Traffic
,
1979
.