Comparative analysis of the two aviation research papers

COVER SHEET
Course Code : 2 5 2 7 N S C
Course Name : Aviation Research Methods
Due Date :
Assessment Item
Number
: Written Assignment 2: Critical Analysis
Campus and Enrolment :
Course Lecturer :
Course Convener :
Word Count : 1564
Student Number:
Student Name:

Grading
5 4 3 2 1 Assigned
grade
Total
available Weighting %
CRITERIA
1  5 /5 x 50 50
2  5 /5 x 20 20
3  5 /5 x 20 20
4  5 /5 x 10 10
TOTAL 100

Comparative analysis of the two aviation research papers
The below paper is the critical analysis of research methods used in two papers, first is
Airport route development: A survey of current practice by Halpern & Graham (2015) and
second is Air route suspension: The role of stakeholder engagement and aviation and non-
aviation factors by Lohmann & Vianna (2016). Although, both the studies are focused on
evaluating operations of airport industry but adopted different research methods for the purpose
of collecting information and drawing valid findings. Here, the purpose of below essay is to
compare and contrast research methods adopted in these studies and their contribution in existing
literature on the subject under consideration. Moreover, key limitations of these studies are
evaluated to determine potential research area for further scholars. At last the conclusion will
summarize main strengths and weaknesses of the methods adopted by the researchers.
According to Halpern & Graham (2015), airlines put their marketing efforts in route
development process for the purpose of air services and in some cases tourism flows
development. But in the airport sector, the route development concept has received less attention
of researchers. The authors attempted to fill the gap by determining the influence of marketing
efforts of airlines on its route development. For the purpose, Halpern & Graham (2015) adopted
primary data collection methodology based on online survey comprising close-ended questions,
to obtain information from airport staffs at global level. The Questback Ask and Act survey tool
was used to conduct online survey. The survey questionnaire comprise of 26 closed questions
categorized into three main sections. The first section dealt with the objectives of route
development; the second section has questions related with the route development process; and
the third section intended to measure the importance of route development. The survey was
aimed to collect quantitative data on the preferences of passengers about aircraft, schedules and
fares. Researchers used Flighglobal Pro as a sampling frame for selecting a sample from the
overall population of the airports worldwide. The tool is convenient source of the information
about the aviation industry. Total 934 airports were targeted to carry out the survey and out of
which responses received from 124 airports only.
For the purpose of data analysis, inferential statistical tools were utilized, including
Pearson’s Chi-square, an Analysis of Variance (ANOVA) and t-test to draw results in