4. Conclusions and advancing the state of the art
We conclude with a reflection on some of the distinguishing features of the model and how it is hoped to develop the state of the art. The model is passenger-centric and event-driven. It is passenger-centric in that the core processes are aligned with full passenger itineraries rather than individual flights, thus better reflecting the true functionality of air transport operations. (To the best of our knowledge, no similar passenger itinerary dataset, with comparable geographical scope, exists.) Flight-centric and passenger-centric metrics will be compared and contrasted in the trade-off analyses to explore the effectiveness of the investment mechanisms. Fully monetised metrics will make essential contributions to the quantification of resilience. Of particular interest will be further investigation of the type of results reported in Section 3.7, particularly comparing these RC values with those of other mechanisms and under other types of disturbance: we do not yet know if the values of 7.2% and 6.2% are relatively ‘good’, or not, in terms of performance. It would also be insightful to attempt to benchmark such resilience against comparable transport systems presented in Section 2.1, if appropriate data can be sourced. We emphasise again the need to set such results in the context of the (complementary) impact metrics, relating to arrival, departure and reactionary delay.
