Long-Distance Airport Substitution and Air Market Leakage: Empirical Investigations in the U.S. Midwest
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Following airline mergers and network reorganizations aimed at reducing operational costs, consolidated air services at large hub airports have encouraged air travelers to forego use of their smaller local airports to access large hub airports offering superior air services farther away. This study investigates airport leakage in areas of Wisconsin and Michigan served by small airports, where air travelers may leak to neighboring large hubs. Using a proximity-based service area definition, three airports experiencing leakage are identified, and a hierarchical logit airport choice model is applied that accounts for air service characteristics and access distance for travelers coming from these airports’ service areas. Results show that a similar mean number of flight legs at both the local and substitute (large hub) airports will encourage leakage at Dane County Regional and Gerald R. Ford International airports, indicating that adding direct flights alone will not be sufficient to combat leakage. Comparable access distances to local and substitute airports have opposite effects on the local markets of Gerald R. Ford International and Milwaukee Mitchell International airports—promoting leakage at the former but discouraging it at the latter. Furthermore, proportional increases in airfares at local airports lead to uneven losses of markets in investigated service areas. Overall, the study provides empirical evidence of long-distance airport leakage in parts of the U.S. Midwest, and how its implications can be used by small airports seeking to further understand and respond to travelers’ airport choices within their local markets.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".