Leisure Travel in Europe and Airline Business Models: A

Study of Regional Airports in Britain

Dr Andreas Papatheodorou, University of the Aegean
Mr Zheng Lei, University of Surrey

2005/2
Abstract
Tourism and air transport are explicitly linked especially in the context of leisure traffic.
This paper aims at highlighting this relation by focusing on the impact of the three main
airline business models (traditional scheduled, charter and low cost) on regional airports
using Britain as a case study. The panel data econometric results show that despite the
current perception, low cost carriers are not the only ones to contribute significantly to
airport aeronautical and non-aeronautical revenue.

This observation has important

policy implications and calls for transparency in airport subsidies as argued in the
conclusion.

Keywords: tourism, regional airports, airline business models, panel data analysis

Leisure Travel in Europe and Airline Business Models: A Study of Regional Airports in Britain

1. Introduction
Tourism is a global phenomenon of major economic importance.

It comprises the

activities of persons travelling to and staying in places outside their usual environment
for not more than one consecutive year for leisure, business and other purposes (WTO,
1994: 5). The latter include activities such as visiting friends and relatives (VFR), health
treatment and pilgrimage. The World Tourism Organization estimates that international
tourism arrivals reached 760 million in 2004, an increase of about 10% compared to
2003 (WTO, 2005). This is a very encouraging sign given the stagnation that prevailed
over the previous years due to the 9/11 terrorist attacks, the war in Iraq and SARS.
International tourism receipts were about 460 billion in 2003 (WTO, 2004) and are
expected to exhibit significant growth in the following years especially as China is
gradually becoming a dominant player in terms of both inbound and outbound tourism.
The Asian tsunami disaster is likely to have a negative impact in the short-run but the
longer-term still looks very promising especially when domestic tourism is also taken
into consideration.

Air travel is intrinsically related to tourism mainly in terms of international flows but also
for domestic movements in larger countries.

The tourism ratio (which shows the

percentage of demand attributed to tourism over total industrial supply) of air

transportation can exceed 90% (Smith, 1998). Even if we consider only leisure and VFR
traffic, many destinations in the Mediterranean and the Caribbean region are still highly
dependent on air transport. Leisure travellers have been traditionally regarded as timerich, highly price sensitive people with preferences exhibiting a strong seasonal pattern
peaking during holidays and festive periods of the year. Trips may last for one or two
weeks usually with the family and involve both short and long-haul destinations with inflight service considered more important on the latter. The gradual emergence of the
short-break trend, however, has created new peaks during weekends and is essentially
associated with people who are better-off but time-constrained.

Singles and people

Dr Andreas Papatheodorou, University of the Aegean and Mr Zheng Lei, University of Surrey.

Leisure Travel in Europe and Airline Business Models: A Study of Regional Airports in Britain

belonging to the DINK (Double Income No Kids) family category are the typical
representatives in this case. VFR tourists have similar attitudes to leisure travellers but
are more likely to make last minute travel arrangements with limited flexibility,
especially in urgency (e.g. attendance of a funeral). Expatriate communities established
as a result of previous (South to North in the 1950s and 60s) and current (East to West)
immigration waves in Europe have enhanced VFR traffic; foreign students provide a
further boost to such travelling.

Charter carriers were the primary air service provider of leisure travel in Europe until the
early 1990s. The seasonal and/or occasional character of such flights matched well the
pattern of leisure travellers.

These airlines acted as the original low cost ones by

emphasising cost reduction: dense seat configuration and high passenger load factors
allowed economies of density and low unit costs; irregular and sometimes inconvenient
schedules plus the choice of somewhat secondary airports reduced airport fees; basic inflight servicing cut operation expenses; and the explicit linkage with the travel
distribution system in the context of an integrated tourist package led to very low
publicity and distribution outlays. As a result of these low costs, charter carriers were
able to offer low prices and satisfy the conscious leisure travellers. On the other hand,
VFR traffic was a more active user of traditional scheduled carriers, as these fly
throughout the year directly to major cities, where immigrants and students are likely to
be based. Still, the relatively high cost of such air services discouraged frequent VFR
travelling; in this context, charter carriers could offer a seasonal alternative.

The completion of the European air transport liberalisation in 1997 and the creation of a
Single

Aviation

Market

(Papatheodorou, 2002).

had

major

implications

for

leisure

and

VFR

travel

The abolition of any legal distinction between scheduled and

charter carriers and the gradual emergence of low cost carriers (LCC) as a third, robust
player in the market were among the most important developments.

Within a short

period of time, LCC became leaders in cost reduction: they provided a basic quality
Dr Andreas Papatheodorou, University of the Aegean and Mr Zheng Lei, University of Surrey.

Leisure Travel in Europe and Airline Business Models: A Study of Regional Airports in Britain

service in a single class cabin of dense configuration; they flew to secondary airports
and outsourced many activities to lower staff; and they instigated disintermediation by
favouring the direct contact between the airline and the customer over the Internet.
LCC also innovated by offering one-way tickets priced according to efficient yield
management techniques based on simplicity and very restricted conditions.

By the late 1990s, the differences in the airline business models have become clear:
traditional scheduled carriers focused on service delivery offering a network-based
product, which could serve well the business passenger and the affluent leisure and VFR
clientele; LCC provided point-to-point flights of basic quality but priced so low that
attracted many leisure and VFR travellers; whereas, charter carriers were sitting
somewhere in-between with a rather uncertain future.

This product differentiation

framework, however, did not last for long as the dynamics of competition gave rise to
osmotic phenomena: currently, it is becoming increasingly difficult to distinguish
between the three types of carriers. For example, many European traditional scheduled
airlines such as British Airways, Lufthansa, SAS, Iberia and Aer Lingus engaged in a
drastic cost-cutting exercise aiming to replicate many of the features of the LCC model
at least in short-haul flights.

On the other hand, some LCC started upgrading their

services; easyJet, for example, serves also primary airports (e.g. Paris Orly) and offers
flexible tickets, while Jet Blue in the USA provides leather seats and a live satellite
television programme. Charter carriers decided to radicalise their product according to
the LCC prototype albeit in occasionally longer-haul destinations.

In some cases,

charter carriers setup their own LCC affiliates as shown by the examples of My Travel
Airways and My Travel Lite in Britain and Hapag Lloyd and Hapag Lloyd Express in
Germany.

As a result of this osmotic process and the acquisition of a new air travel

culture based on knowledge and bargaining, a clear-cut customer segmentation is also

difficult: illustratively, the results of the latest Barclaycard Business Travel Survey reveal
that 70% of business travellers used LCC with satisfaction rates over 95% (Davies,
2005). Conversely, a recent report by the British Air Transport Users Council stressed
Dr Andreas Papatheodorou, University of the Aegean and Mr Zheng Lei, University of Surrey.

Leisure Travel in Europe and Airline Business Models: A Study of Regional Airports in Britain

the importance of considering the time of booking a flight as well as the hidden
monetary and time transfer costs associated with secondary airports: interestingly,
traditional scheduled carriers can occasionally offer a better-value-for-money than their
low-cost counterparts (AUC, 2003).
Still, the various airline business models retain some differences regarding network
structure and airport choice.

In particular, the traditional scheduled airlines aim at

adding value to the passenger by offering an extensive network based on own hub-andspoke services and interlining agreements; its appeal is enhanced by airline participation
in one of the three major strategic alliances (Oneworld, Star Alliance and Sky Team) and
the existence of sophisticated frequent flyer programmes.

To deliver these network

services, traditional carriers use primary airports with all necessary facilities. Regional
airports play only a minor role in their business model as the majority of related services
act as feeders to major hubs. On the other hand, low cost carriers focus exclusively on
basic point-to-point flights.

This does not mean that LCC abstain completely from

connecting traffic: the latter amounts to 30% of Southwests market, while in London
Stansted Airport 14% of passengers engaged in do-it-yourself connections in 2003
(Mosner, 2005).

However, LCC are not prepared to offer these extra services

themselves to avoid complication and an increase in their cost base.

They choose

primarily secondary regional airports (Orly is one of the few exceptions) and benefit
substantially from low airport charges and station costs. For example, Frankfurt Hahn
costs Ryanair 4.25 per departing passenger and there is no landing fee; in contrast a
B737 operator at Frankfurt Main pays 13 per departing passenger and a landing fee of
about 1.75 (Button et al., 2002).

In other words, the sustainable competitive

advantage of LCC is mainly derived from the adoption of point-to-point services

operating from regional airports (Lei et al., 2004). Charter carriers have always offered
point-to-point services and they increasingly fly also from secondary airports.

These different airport choices have important implications for the airline-airport
relationship. Traditionally, this has been characterised as love-and-hate; despite their
Dr Andreas Papatheodorou, University of the Aegean and Mr Zheng Lei, University of Surrey.

Leisure Travel in Europe and Airline Business Models: A Study of Regional Airports in Britain

common future and the complementarity of their operations, airlines have often accused
airports of abusing their market power, while the latter justified any charge increase on
the need to improve and expand a risky and sunk piece of infrastructure. The Ryanair
experience has revealed that secondary airports are prepared not only to charge less but
even to offer subsidies to attract traffic in the context of wider regional economic
development (Papatheodorou, 2003; Starkie, 2002). Demand for air transport services
is essentially derived from tourism activities.

When all potential destinations are

considered, tourism choice is discrete, i.e. go to place X and not to Y; lower airport
charges and direct airline services signify a substantial improvement in accessibility if
the destination is finally chosen, profits from consumption of local hospitality and other
tourism services may more than compensate any losses at the airport level.

Similar

results hold when an airport acts as an origin rather than a destination gateway.
Enhanced tourism consumption in this case is substituted by new employment
opportunities at the airport and the wider local economy and the subsequent generation
of additional expenditure and income through a multiplier-accelerator process.

As expected, this subsidisation strategy raised adverse reaction from the part of various
airlines such as Air France, which accused Ryanair of benefiting from unfair competition.
The issue has reached the European Commission which, in its recent verdict on Charleroi
Airport, espoused partly the rationale behind cross-subsidisation stressing, however, the
need for transparency and fair trade: an airport should not offer secret concessions to
specific airlines but adopt a tender-like procedure open to all carriers.

The private

investor principle should also be met; in other words, the longer-term financial
sustainability and profitability of an airport as a stand-alone investment should be
guaranteed (European Commission, 2004). In this context, it is essential for an airport
to know what type of airlines and passengers are likely to be more beneficial. This is
admittedly a very difficult exercise as the benefits or losses of the airport as such should
be compared with the impact on the business turnover of the wider local tourism
activities.

Nonetheless, exploring differences in consumption patterns according to a

Dr Andreas Papatheodorou, University of the Aegean and Mr Zheng Lei, University of Surrey.

Leisure Travel in Europe and Airline Business Models: A Study of Regional Airports in Britain

market segmentation based solely on the choice of airline may be somewhat bizarre;
what matters primarily is demographic and vacation habit criteria (Holloway, 2004).
Moreover, the private investor principle necessitates focusing on the airport side by
providing a break-down in terms of aeronautical and non-aeronautical revenue.

The

empirical part of this paper undertakes such an econometric exercise aiming at proving
useful to airport planners, regional economists and tourism destination policymakers.

2. Empirical Study
The study focuses on the British experience essentially due to data availability and the
need to focus on airports served by all three airline business models for comparison
reasons. Twenty-one regional airports are considered over an eight-year period ranging
from 1995-96 to 2003-04. The airports exhibit considerable differences in size: London
Gatwick, which is the largest in the sample, recorded 32.1 million passengers in 2000-01
while Blackpool, which is the smallest, handled only 46,820 passengers in 2002-03. For
this reason, the data set is further subdivided into two groups - large and small airports
using three million passengers per year as the cutting benchmark.

Ten large-size

airports are included in the sample namely Belfast, Birmingham, Bristol, Edinburgh,
Glasgow, London Gatwick, London Luton, London Stansted, Manchester and Newcastle
(in alphabetic order).

The remaining eleven are classified as small-size airports,

namely, Aberdeen, Blackpool, Bournemouth, Cardiff, East Midlands, Exeter, Humberside,

Leeds & Bradford, Liverpool, Southampton and Teesside.

Airport revenue data are

collected from the Annual Airport Statistics published by the Centre for the Studies of
Regulated Industries and deflated using the British Consumer Price Index (CPI). Airline
flight and passenger data are obtained from the UK Civil Aviation Authority. All three
airline business models are considered; data are adjusted to the British financial year,
ranging from 1st of April to 31st of March. Table 1 shows relevant descriptive statistics.

Dr Andreas Papatheodorou, University of the Aegean and Mr Zheng Lei, University of Surrey.

Leisure Travel in Europe and Airline Business Models: A Study of Regional Airports in Britain

Table 1 Descriptive Statistics

Variables

All Airports (N=21)

Mean

Mean

St. Dev.

1,074,830

931,398

5,034

3,227

2,152,222 1,566,028 2,919,122

215,582

519,606

Charter pax

1,697,978 2,776,110 3,110,572 3,497,314

413,802

421,964

Full-service pax

2,264,954 3,841,623 4,266,412 4,811,512

445,446

513,425

Total pax

St. Dev.

Large Airports (N=10) Small Airports (N=11)

Mean

St. Dev.

4,821,583 6,879,189 8,943,011 8,137,319

Non Aeronautical
Revenue (in 000
pounds)
LCC pax

25,355
858,651

43,827

47,707

55,510

Aeronautical Revenue
(in 000 pounds)
LCC flights

26,478

32,227

46,766

36,878

8,035

5,976

8,096

18,892

14,572

25,414

2,210

4,962

Charter flights

15,073

14,674

20,421

15,535

10,211

11,989

Full-service flights

36,458

42,270

62,027

48,617

13,214

11,616

Aeronautical charges (AR) in Britain are levied according to aircraft size and passenger
numbers. As it has been difficult to obtain aircraft size data, air transport movements,
i.e. number of flights is used as a proxy for aircraft size.

Non-aeronautical revenue

(NAR) is related to the number of passengers. Although meeters, greeters and airport
personnel can also affect the magnitude of NAR, the primary drive is passengers (Gillen
and Hinsch, 2001). Two empirical models are estimated in log-linear form to find out
the rate of growth with respect to flight and passenger numbers. Passengers are highly
correlated with flights and thus dropped from the AR model.

On the other hand, the

number of passengers carried by LCC, charter and full service carriers are used as
explanatory variables in the NAR model.
log ARit= i + 1 Lccflightit +2 Charterflightit +3 Fullserviceflightit + it (Model 1)
log NARit= i + 1 Lccpaxit +2 Charterpaxit +3 Fullservicepaxit + uit (Model 2)
where the subscripts i and t indicate the airport and time period (year) respectively;
and are coefficients that vary across airports but are constant over time; the and
are coefficients which are constant across airports and time; , u are the error terms,
Dr Andreas Papatheodorou, University of the Aegean and Mr Zheng Lei, University of Surrey.

Leisure Travel in Europe and Airline Business Models: A Study of Regional Airports in Britain

which are identical and independently distributed for all i and t; AR and NAR are
aeronautical and non-aeronautical revenue in airport i in year t; Lccflight, Charterflight
and Fullserviceflight show the total number of flights of the low-cost, charter and full
service

airlines

respectively

in

airport

and

year

t;

Lccpax,

Charterpax

and

Fullservicepax are the total number of terminal passengers carried by the above three
types of airlines respectively in airport i and year t. All and are expected to have
positive signs.

Models 1 and 2 have been estimated using panel data techniques to account for
differences across airports and time. In principle, estimation can be done in three ways
depending on whether the individual cross-section effects are considered to be constant,
fixed (parametric shifts of the regression function) or random.

Following Greene

(2003), Breusch and Pagan Lagrange multiplier (LM) and Hausman tests were applied to
choose the appropriate model formulation.

The LM test is used first to compare the

random effects specification against the simple linear model.

Acceptance of the null

hypothesis means that the classical regression model with a single constant term is
appropriate, i.e. the model can be estimated by Pooled Ordinary Least Squares (POLS).
Conversely, rejection of the null hypothesis is in favour of the random effects
specification. The Hausman test has been subsequently used to determine the choice
between fixed and random effects model.

Under the null hypothesis of the Hausman

test, both models are consistent but the random effects specification is more efficient;
acceptance of the alternative hypothesis suggests that the fixed effects model is more
appropriate. Moreover, a F test was performed to examine whether there are airportspecific effects across the different groups of airports (large and small). The F statistic
for testing the joint significance of the airport-specific effects was F(20, 165)=170.08 for
Model 1; this suggests strong evidence of airport-specific effects in the data.
results were derived from Model 2.

Similar

On these grounds, both fixed and random effect

models were estimated.

Dr Andreas Papatheodorou, University of the Aegean and Mr Zheng Lei, University of Surrey.

Leisure Travel in Europe and Airline Business Models: A Study of Regional Airports in Britain

10

Table 2 reports the results of Model 1; all variables are measured in thousands. The
significant LM test statistic suggests that a common slope for the different panel groups
in the pooled regression cannot be assumed: a simple OLS regression of a
straightforward pooling of all observations without considering heterogeneity would
report biased results. The insignificance of the Hausman test statistic at the 5% level
suggests that the random effects model is more efficient both for the whole sample and
two airport subgroups.

Therefore, only the results of the random effects models are

reported here (the others are available from the authors upon request). A Chow test is
performed to see whether the coefficients of the large airports group are equal to those
of the small ones. The significant F(4,181)=51.4 means that the coefficients of the two
groups are different and justifies the classification of the airports into two separate
groups.

All explanatory variables are highly significant across the three samples and have
expected signs.

Given the log-linear form, the coefficients may be interpreted as the

percentage impact of an incremental thousand flights on aeronautical revenue.

For

example, an extra thousand LCC flights result in a 1.25% AR growth in the all airports
group.

For the whole sample, charter flights have the largest impact on airport

aeronautical revenue, followed by low-cost and full service. This may be explained by
the use of different types of aircraft. Charter carriers often use larger aircraft while full
service carriers operate turbo-props or regional jets; as for low-cost carriers, B737 or
A320 is the standard aircraft type. Similar results hold for large airports. On the other
hand, LCC flights emerge as the largest contributor in the small airports group with an
impact of 3.79% per additional thousand flights.

This finding is very interesting and

suggests that the small regional airports in Britain should become more oriented towards
low-cost traffic to increase their aeronautical revenue.

Dr Andreas Papatheodorou, University of the Aegean and Mr Zheng Lei, University of Surrey.

Leisure Travel in Europe and Airline Business Models: A Study of Regional Airports in Britain

11

Table 2: Impact on Regional Airports Aeronautical Revenue

Dependent variable: log
AR

All Airports

Large Airports

Small Airports

Constant

8.8232
(47.41)***
0.0125
(12.73)***
0.0144
(2.39)**
0.0109
(7.31)***
189

9.5020
(66.67)***
0.0108
(13.56)***
0.0135
(2.34)**
0.0090
(7.47)***
90

7.8499
(32.11)***
0.0379
(8.20)***
0.0280
(3.37)***
0.0343
(4.12)***
99

0.68

0.80

0.50

F(20,165)=170.08

F(9,77)=46.31

F(10, 85)=123.02

655.68

185.41

309.97

6.84

5.01

1.64

LCC Flights 1
Charter Flights 2
Full Service Flights 3
No. of observations
R2
F test of group effects
LM Test
Hausman Test

Notes: Figures in parentheses are t values.

One, two and three stars indicate
significance at the 10%, 5% and 1% levels respectively.
Based on the same econometric procedure, table 3 reports the results of Model 2
concerning the impact on the airports non-aeronautical revenue; all variables are again
measured in thousands and similar interpretation holds for the coefficients. The LM and
Hausman test statistics indicate that the fixed effect specification is appropriate for the
whole sample and the large airports group, while the random effect model is more
suitable for the small airports group. Table 3 shows only the benchmark parameter ;
the constant terms for individual airports and all the alternative model specifications are
available upon request. All coefficients have the expected signs. The results show that
the LCC passengers contribution is highly significant at 1% level across all three
samples, albeit smaller for the large airports group than for the small one, where an
incremental thousand passengers generate an increase of 0.0554% in non-aeronautical
revenue. The contribution of charter and full service passengers is insignificant for the
whole sample and the large airport group but highly significant in the small one. In fact,
their contribution is higher compared to LCC travellers! The results are not surprising as

Dr Andreas Papatheodorou, University of the Aegean and Mr Zheng Lei, University of Surrey.

Leisure Travel in Europe and Airline Business Models: A Study of Regional Airports in Britain

12

charter passengers usually travel for leisure purposes and have more desire to purchase
goods and/or services at airports. Moreover, they usually stay longer at airports, thus,
providing more commercial revenue opportunities for airports.

Similarly, full service

passengers may belong to higher-expenditure groups than their low-cost counterparts;

alternatively, they may travel on business and wish to make some last-minute purchases
(for personal use or gifts) from the airport.
Table 3: Impact on Regional Airports Non-Aeronautical Revenue
Dependent variable: log
NAR

All Airports

Large Airports

Small Airports

Constant

9.0060
(100.05)***
8.44E-05
(6.77)***
8.46E-05
(1.91)*

10.0092
(89.50)***
6.17E-05
(7.27)***
2.16E-05
(0.71)

7.6269
(56.41)***
5.54E-04
(11.34)***
7.65E-04
(5.17)***

1.53E-05
(0.47)

2.14E-05
(0.98)

6.26E-04
(4.71)***

LCC Passengers 1
Charter Passengers 2
Full

Service

Passengers

3
No. of observations

189

90

99

R2

0.76

0.69

0.67

F(20,165)=50.53

F(9,77)=33.93

F(10, 85)=28.69

412.84

96.10

182.17

13.85

26.62

4.67

F test of group effects

LM Test
Hausman Test

Notes: Figures in parentheses are t values.

One, two and three stars indicate
significance at the 10%, 5% and 1% levels respectively.
3. Conclusions
The emergence of low-cost carriers as a viable business model has revolutionised the
airline industry since the early 1990s. Leisure and VFR passengers in Europe have now a
wider choice and are able to discover the European regions at lower fares than in the
past. No matter whether a regional airport operates as an origin or destination gateway,
notable improvements in accessibility can play a significant role in economic and/or
tourism development. The results of the empirical study in this paper, however, belie the

Dr Andreas Papatheodorou, University of the Aegean and Mr Zheng Lei, University of Surrey.

Leisure Travel in Europe and Airline Business Models: A Study of Regional Airports in Britain

13

perception that LCC are the only way forward for regional airports. Full service carriers
and charter airlines can also have a significant if not higher contribution to both
aeronautical and non-aeronautical airport revenue.

A replication of the present

econometric exercise using different data sets is required of course to test the robustness
of these conclusions.

A potential validation would provide support for the European

Commission argument by calling for the removal of obscure airport subsidies and the
adoption of a new transparent framework open to all carriers. Despite the existence of
victims, LCC are undoubtedly the major fashion in the contemporary airline industry; by
no means, however, does this mean that the evolved full service and charter carrier
models are necessarily dead!...

Acknowledgements
The authors are grateful to the UK Civil Aviation Authority and Mr Nenad Njegovan for
providing relevant air traffic data. Mr Zheng Lei would also like to thank Dr Edit Szivas
for her valuable guidance and support and Dr Chenggang Wang for his insightful
comments on the econometric analysis.

References

Air Transport Users Council (2003) Booking a Flight? London: Civil Aviation Authority.

Button, K., Haynes, K. and Stough, R. (2002) Towards an Efficient European Air
Transport System: A Study for the Association of European Airlines, Brussels:
Association of European Airlines.

Davies, P. (2005) 70% of Biz Travellers Fly Low Cost.

Travel Mole, 16th May,

www.travelmole.com

European Commission (2004) The Commissions decision on Charleroi airport

promotes the activities of low-cost airlines and regional development.
Brussels: European Commission.

Dr Andreas Papatheodorou, University of the Aegean and Mr Zheng Lei, University of Surrey.

IP/04/157,

Leisure Travel in Europe and Airline Business Models: A Study of Regional Airports in Britain

14

Gillen, D. and Hinsch, H. (2001) Measuring the economic impact of liberalization of

international aviation on Hamburg airport. Journal of Air Transport Management, 7: 2534.

Greene, W. (2003) Econometric Analysis. 5th edition, Harlow: Prentice Hall.

Holloway, J. C. (2004) Marketing for Tourism. 4th edition, Harlow: Prentice Hall.

Lei Z., Papatheodorou, A. and Szivas, E. (2004) The Impact of Low-cost Carriers on
Regional Airports Financial Performance: Evidence from the UK. Presentation given at
the German Aviation Research Society Workshop in Bremen, Germany.

Mosner, A. (2005) The Central/Eastern Europe Aviation Market: A Darwinian View.

Presentation given at CEE Aviation 2005 Conference in Prague, Czech Repubic.

Papatheodorou, A. (2002) Civil Aviation Regimes and Leisure Tourism in Europe.

Journal of Air Transport Management, 8(6): 381-388.

Papatheodorou, A. (2003) Do we Need Airport Regulation? Utilities Journal, 6(10):

35-37.

Smith, S. (1998) Tourism as an Industry - Debate and Concepts. Pp. 31-52 in The
Economic Geography of the Tourism Industry - A Supply Side Analysis, edited by D.
Ioannides and K. G. Debbage. London: Routledge.

Starkie, D. (2002) Airport Regulation and Competition. Journal of Air Transport

Management, 8: 63-72.

World Tourism Organization (1994) Recommendations on Tourism Statistics.

York: United Nations.

World Tourism Organization (2004) Tourism Highlights 2004. Madrid: WTO.

World Tourism Organization (2005) World Tourism Barometer, 3(1), January.

Dr Andreas Papatheodorou, University of the Aegean and Mr Zheng Lei, University of Surrey.

New