Skip to Main Content
Purpose

This research aims to evaluate the relevance of airports to the UK tourism industry, where they are a fundamental factor in the revitalisation of the economies of Great Britain and Northern Ireland.

Design/methodology/approach

The primary indicators chosen for this study are measured using both quantitative and qualitative methods, and the outcomes were projected for the designated time frame (2015–2023).

Findings

Findings of the current study prove that the tourism development of UK cities and the number of foreign tourist arrivals are linked to UK airports and their number of passenger transported by commercial airlines. For instance, London has been the most visited city in the UK from 2015 to 2023, thanks to its six airports, which provide millions of tourists each year. This study also shows how in the year 2023, the number of tourist and passenger arrivals is aligned with the recovery of pre-pandemic levels, and both passenger and tourist arrivals increased by 23% and 21.8%, respectively, in comparison with the year 2022. Consequently, this study also suggests that artificial intelligence (AI) can enhance tourism experiences in UK travel and tourism development, which should be considered in future studies by the scientific community, airport and airline operators, and governments.

Originality/value

This study contributes to a better understanding of the inextricable link between the air transport and tourism industries with AI technology. For instance, new opportunities and business portfolios for airports, airlines, public transport, and tourist attractions should be created through AI algorithms and antecedents of purchases and preferences made by travellers because AI offers ubiquity suggestions, recommendations, and personalised tours in real time to offer the best experience in urban cities and airports.

The UK’s fastest-growing industry since 2010 has been tourism (VisitBritain, 2024a). In 2022, tourism contributed 9% of the UK’s GDP and 9.6% of all jobs in the country (UK Parliament, 2022). The World Travel and Tourism Council (WTTC) projects that between 2023 and 2032, the UK’s travel and tourism sector’s share of GDP will increase at an average annual rate of 3% (WTTC, 2022). However, the coronavirus pandemic had a significant negative impact on the travel and tourism industries in the UK in 2020 (Huang et al., 2024a), and government regulations globally prevented travel for extended periods of time. In 2020, inbound flight arrivals decreased by 90% in the UK compared to 2019 levels, and the hotel occupancy rate fell 39% points from 76% in 2019 to 37% in 2020 (Department for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport, 2021). Scientific studies like this are crucial nowadays since the travel and tourism sectors are among the most susceptible in uncertain times, such as during a pandemic or economic and financial crisis (Cobanoglu and Kocak, 2023).

From a marketing point of view, Florido-Benítez et al. (2025) created the concept of “aerotainment” for a systems-based viewpoint that integrates the strategic function of airports, tourist destinations, and nearby tourist attractions to analyse their combined contribution to the tourism development of urban areas. In other words, “aerotainment” might be the driving force behind the experience economy in cities around airports and tourist destinations, bolstered by artificial intelligence (AI) technology. Sun et al. (2024) note that regional and large airports enhance the resilience of cities’ air accessibility, boosting the interaction of travellers with urban cities. AI refers to a system’s capacity to autonomously apply knowledge it has learnt from external sources to achieve specific goals and tasks through adaptation (Huang et al., 2024b).

New management and marketing strategies are required by UK government-owned airports and organisations to address post-COVID-19 and Brexit-related impacts (Martin et al., 2021; Meierdirk and Fleischer, 2025). Innovative AI techniques and algorithms are used by the UK’s DMOs to forecast daily air passenger arrivals in the UK air market with the Gemini tool as a predictor to design segmented and tailored products and services, with the aim to provide the best experience for tourists (Koçak, 2023) and reduce CO2 emissions for aims for 55% emission cuts by 2030 and net zero by 2050 (Papatheodorou, 2021). From the urban city point of view, AI is being used to enhance governance and marketing strategies, promote fairness, transparency, and inclusivity in decision-making processes, as well as mitigate climate change and empower mobility for residents and tourists (Wolniak and Stecuła, 2024).

The UK is a destination heavily reliant on airlines to transport visitors to the island, and these airline operators help to stimulate tourism demand in European and American regions (Graham, 2023). Airports and airlines play an important role in the islands and their tourism activities. 90% of tourists access the islands on commercial flights that are chartered by tour operators from abroad (Mazzola et al., 2022). Airports and airlines provide accessibility to tourist destinations; in fact, air accessibility is vital to the attractiveness of tourist products and services (Florido-Benítez, 2024). Passengers choosing a route between origin and destination airport pairs (O-D) are influenced by an airport’s connectivity and accessibility, specifically the cost of tickets, flight duration, frequency, and stop wait times (Kölker et al., 2025). For instance, Zou et al. (2025) note that the number of airports and commercial and freight airlines are fundamental pillars in the US and Chinese exports that have a direct impact on the economics of these two countries.

In 2020, the UK received 11.1 million inbound visitors, a decline of 73% in visits and 78% in spending (VisitBritain, 2024b). Notwithstanding, airports have helped boost the rapid development of the tourism industry in the British Isles, Europe, and the US (Albalate and Fageda, 2023). Farhadi et al. (2025) note that approximately 93% of US airports and two-thirds of airports were entirely served by regional airlines in 2018, enhancing notably air connectivity and accessibility in US tourist destinations. It also implies that improving air accessibility may enhance the UK tourism market at this time of economic uncertainty. Therefore, the aim of this study is to evaluate airports in the UK tourism industry, where they are a fundamental factor in the revitalisation of the economies of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. The operation of airports makes an important economic contribution to the cities because there is a strong link between tourism activity, airlines, and airports. To tackle our main objective, the methodology of this research included indicators such as the number of UK airports, the main UK airlines, the number of passenger and tourist arrivals, tourists’ travel motivations, the main tourist issuers, hotel occupancy rate and the top 20 most visited UK cities by tourists from 2015 to 2023 to provide the best results and infer objective conclusions.

An airport attracts passengers to visit the region where it is located. Airports that provide air accessibility to cities are an essential part of the tourist demand supply chain (Sun et al., 2024). The majority of airports in the United Kingdom are regional airports that offer scheduled passenger services. In addition to providing regional, national, and worldwide connectivity, airports in the UK frequently generate substantial job opportunities for the communities in which they are located. Heathrow is the only hub-and-spoke in the UK, followed by 41 regional airports and 11 local airports (House of Commons Library, 2022; Northern Ireland Statistics and Research Agency ‘NISRA’, 2024).

Hub airports located in large cities can hold very large aircraft, and these enable airlines to provide passengers with more flights. Flights are routed through hubs, which are central airports, and spokes are the routes that planes take out of the hub airport. For instance, the hub airports in Changi (SIN), Los Angeles (LAX), and Dubai (DXB) have used chatbots and virtual assistants backed by AI to offer travellers individualised help during their trip. In addition to offering suggestions for airport facilities and services, these virtual assistants can respond to frequently asked queries and provide real-time flight status and gate change updates. AI-powered assistants can improve the traveller experience and lighten the effort for airport employees by automating repetitive operations and delivering timely information. By incorporating AI into company operations, companies can become more aware of the market and proactively develop their marketing strategies (Haverila et al., 2025).

Commercial airlines and ships provide the main accessibility to the islands because they are geographically isolated. This study will analyse 53 airports localised in the UK, including those in Scotland and Northern Ireland. Table 1 shows these 53 airports by number of passenger arrivals from 2015 to 2023, IATA code, location, category, owner, and operators, in order to assess airports in UK cities and their strategic location to attract tourists and ensure longer-term accessibility to the destination. The main UK airport by number of passenger arrivals in the period established (2015–2023) was Heathrow (LHR) airport with 571 million passengers, followed by LGW airport (311), MAN airport (198), STN airport (194), LTN airport (117), and EDI airport (98). The rest of the airports have below 87 million passengers, but they provide excellent air accessibility to UK destinations. Airports’ locations are an added value to improve the number of visitors to cities.

Table 1

53 UK airports analysed in this study

RankIATA codeUK airport nameCityAirport categoryOwner/operatorTotal PAX (2015–2023)% PAX by airport
1LHRHeathrowLondonHubHeatrow Airport Holdings571,849,00028.23%
2LGWGatwickCrawleyRegionalGatwick Airport Limited311,742,00015.39%
3MANManchesterRingwayRegionalManchester Airport Holding Limited (MAG)198,619,0009.80%
4STNStanstedStanted MountfitchetRegionalMAG194,777,0009.61%
5LTNLutonLutonRegionalLuton Rising/London Luton Airport Operations Lte-AENA-AMP Capital117,821,0005.82%
6EDIEdinburghEdinburghRegionalGlobal Infrastructure Partners/Edinburgh Airport Ltd98,037,0004.84%
7BHXBirminghamBickenhillRegionalSeven metropolitan boroughs of West Midlands county, the Ontario Teachers’ Pension Plan, and employees/Birmingham Airport Ltd86,320,0004.26%
8GLAGlasgowPaisleyRegionalAGS Airports/Glasgow Airport Ltd64,332,0003.18%
9BRSBristolLulsgate BottomRegionalOntario Teachers’ Pension Plan62,411,0003.08%
10BFSBelfast InternationalAldegroveRegionalVinci Airports42,810,0002.11%
11NCLNewcastleWoolsingtonRegionalNewcastle Airport Local Authority Holding Company Ltd, AMP Capital/Newcastle International Airport Ltd36,224,0001.79%
12LPLLiverpool John LennonSpekeRegionalPeel Group/Liverpool Airport Ltd34,244,0001.69%
13EMAEast MidlandsCastle DoningtonRegionalMAG32,370,0001.60%
14LCYLondon CityRoyal DocksRegionalConsortium of AIMCo, OMERS, OTPP and the Kuwait Investment Authority/London City Airport Ltd30,943,0001.53%
15LBALeeds BradfordYeadonRegionalAMP Capital/Leeds Bradford Airport Limited27,924,0001.38%
16ABZAberdeenAberdeenRegionalAGS Airports/Aberdeen International Airport Ltd21,743,0001.07%
17BHDBelfast City George BestCounty DownRegional3i Group plc (3i)/Belfast City Airport Ltd18,008,0000.89%
18SOUSouthamptonSouthamptonRegionalAGS Airports/Southampton International Airport Ltd11,510,0000.57%
19VWLCardiff WalesRhooseRegionalWelsh Government
Welsh Government/Cardiff International Airport Ltd
9,236,0000.46%
20DSADnncaster ShefieldFinningleyRegionalPeel Group/Doncaster Shefield Airport Limited7,686,0000.38%
21SENSouthendSouthend-on-SeaRegionalLondon Southend Airport Company Ltd./Esken7,113,0000.35%
22INVInvernessDalcrossRegionalHighlands and Islands Airports Limited (HIAL)6,253,0000.31%
23EXTExeterClyst HonintonRegionalRegional and City Airports (RCA)5,619,0000.28%
24BOHBournemouthHurnRegionalRCA5,603,0000.28%
25PIKPrestwickPrestwickRegionalScottish Government/Prestwick Aviation Holdings Ltd4,435,0000.22%
26NWINorwichHellesdonRegionalRCA/Norwich Airport Limited3,485,0000.17%
27NQYNewquayMawgan in PydarRegionalCornwall Council2,825,0000.14%
28LSISumburghSumburghRegionalHIAL2,088,0000.10%
29LDYCity of Derry EglintonEglintonRegionalDerry City and Strabane Disitric Council/City of Derry Airport Operations Ltd1,629,0000.08%
30HUYHumbersideKirmingtonLocalBristow Group1,333,0000.07%
31MMETeessideDarlingtonRegionalDurham Tees Valley1,195,0000.06%
32KOIKirkwallKirkwallRegionalHIAL1,187,0000.06%
33SCSScatstaMainland Island, ShetlandLocalShetland Islands Council907,0000.04%
34SYYStornowayIsles of LewisRegionalHIAL954,0000.05%
35ISCIsles of Scilly St. MarysIsles of Scilly St. MarysLocalCouncil of Isles of Scilly738,0000.04%
36LEQLands End St. JustSt. Just CornwallRegionalLand’s End Airport Ltd511,0000.03%
37BEBBenbeculaBalivanichRegionalHIAL261,0000.01%
38ILYIslayIslayRegionalHIAL234,0000.01%
39DNDDundeeDundeeRegionalHIAL222,0000.01%
40BLKBlackpoolSt. Annes-on-the-Sea, LancashireRegionalBlackpool Council/Blackpool Airport Operations Ltd160,0000.01%
41WICWick John O′ GroatsWickRegionalHIAL112,0000.01%
42BRRBarraBarraRegionalHIAL111,0000.01%
43TRETireeCrossapolRegionalHIAL93,0000.00%
44CALCampbeltownMachrihanishRegionalMachrihanish Airbase Community Company (MACC)/HIAL59,0000.00%
45GLOGloucestershireChurchdownLocalGloucestershire City and Cheltenham Borough Council/Gloucestershire Airport Limited25,0000.00%
46LWKLerwick TingwallGottRegionalShetland Islands Council28,0000.00%
47BQHBiggin HillBiggin HillLocalRegional Airports Limited22,0000.00%
48CBGCambridgeCambridgeLocalMarshall Aerospace7,0000.00%
49LYXLyddLyddLocalLondon Ashford Airport Ltd3,0000.00%
50OXFOxford KidlingtonKidlingtonLocalOxford Aviation Services Limited/OxfordJet2,0000.00%
51ESHBrightonLancingLocalBrighton City Airport Limited/Cyrrus Holdings Limited00.00%
52MSEManstonManstonLocalRiverOak Strategic Partners Limited00.00%
53PLHPlymouthPlymouthLocalPlymouth City Council/Sutton Harbour Holdings00.00%
Total PAX2,025,820,000100.00%

Source(s): Own elaboration from CAA (2024) 

Although the competition in Europe, the USA, and China between airports and airlines is becoming even more cutthroat, giving greater relevance and interest in scientific studies by researchers, academics, and governments (Wandelt et al., 2024). We must be aware that airports are crucial for promoting commerce and tourism, which in turn helps to boost regional socioeconomic development (See et al., 2023). For instance, in 2020, the South Korean airport Incheon (ICN) adopted marketing techniques aimed at providing new services to airlines that have not operated to Incheon airport in the previous four years with a 100% landing charge discount during the first year.

Additionally, the airlines will need to continue operating more than seven flights a week for more than 39 weeks. In the case of Hong Kong (HKG), the airport implemented a 75% landing charge discount that was provided to airlines that offered flights to new destinations, as operational strategies (Chang et al., 2020), attracting millions of tourists to the city of Hong Kong annually. Therefore, the competitiveness of tourist destinations is dependent on long-term government strategy, efficient planning, and competent management to create new income to enhance residents’ quality of life (Lee, 2015). Arici and Köseoglu (2025) suggest that to improve destination competitiveness, national and regional government bodies need to implement marketing strategies according to their infrastructure, logistics, and transportation to attract international tourists.

According to the Official Aviation Guide of the Airways (OAG), LHR airport was the most connected airport in the world in the years 2019 and 2023 and the 4th biggest airport in the world in terms of total scheduled capacity. British Airways remains the dominant airline at Heathrow airport, operating 50% of all flights (OAG, 2023). In addition, LHR airport was the busiest in Europe and welcomed 81 million passengers in 2019 (Heathrow Media Centre, 2019). Medina-Muñoz et al. (2018) note that a frequency of flights policy would enhance the results by attracting more passengers to airports for business.

In terms of seasonal effect, UK airports are very sensitive to winter (Poo et al., 2021), and this weakness contributes to reducing the hotel occupancy rate at UK hotel establishments. Gil-Alana et al. (2020) note that the UK authorities should focus on non-seasonal periods (December to February) that are not growing, and this has a negative effect on the hotel industry. For example, airports, DMOs, and stakeholders need to develop marketing strategies and tourism promotion campaigns in the winter season to stimulate tourism demand and improve the planning of the tourism supply of transport (Florido-Benítez and del Alcázar, 2025; Halpern and Graham, 2021). When airports lost air connectivity through commercial airlines, cities lost tourists and income in the tourism sector.

Hence, AI and the internet of things (IoT) might be a great opportunity for airport and airline operators and urban cities to be more efficient because it reduces the intangible nature of their products and services, and consumers can experience and see their tourist packages selected according to their needs and preferences. For instance, airport and airline operators can provide ubiquitous information about cancelled flights and other problems, and passengers can take other alternatives depending on their needs and priorities. Ubiquity of information and data within an AI context is critical to ensure that the technology serves the best interests of users and mediates the relationship between companies and consumers (Dwivedi et al., 2024; Longweni and Mdaka, 2024).

To illustrate UK airports’ locations, Panel A of Figure 1 displays the map of the top 21 UK airports that receive more than 1 million passenger arrivals annually (2015–2023), and Panel B of Figure 1 presents the rest of the UK airports analysed in this study that hold fewer than 1 million passenger arrivals per year. Ranked among the UK’s top 21 airports in terms of passenger volumes are LHR, LGW, STN, LTN, LCY, and SEN airports. These six airports are localised in the city of London, and this city became the most connected city by air in the world in 2019, but in 2020 it dropped to number eight in IATA’s rankings because, after the COVID-19 pandemic (AviationWeek, 2020), Shanghai (PVG) airport is now the top-ranked city for connectivity.

Figure 1
A figure shows political two maps of the United Kingdom showing the number of passenger arrivals at the airports.The map at the top is titled “Map A, Top 21 U K airports by number of passenger arrivals (more than 1 million passengers per year).” It marks 21 airports across the U K using small yellow airplane icons, each connected by an arrow to a labeled box positioned on either the left or right side of the map. On the left side, the following are displayed from top to bottom: Under “Belfast,” two airports are listed: “10th rank B F S airport” and “17th rank B H D airport.” “Leeds” is labeled “15th rank L B A airport,” while “Liverpool” is marked “12th rank L P L airport.” The city of “Bristol” is associated with “9th rank B R S airport.” “Cardiff Wales” shows “19th rank V W L airport,” and “Southampton” is indicated “18th rank S O U airport.” On the right, the following are displayed from top to bottom: In the north, “Aberdeen” is labeled “16th rank A B Z airport,” and “Edinburgh” is marked “6th rank E D I airport.” “Glasgow” carries the label “8th rank G L A airport,” and “Newcastle” is tagged “11th rank N C L airport.” “Manchester” is marked “3rd rank M A N airport,” while “Doncaster Sheffield” bears the label “20nd rank D S A airport.” “East Midlands” is shown as “13th rank E M A airport,” and “Birmingham” as “7th rank B H X airport.” “Southend” appears with “21st rank S E N airport.” For the capital, “London,” five airports are listed: “1st rank L H R airport,” “2nd rank L G W airport,” “4th rank S T N airport,” “5th rank L T N airport,” and “14th rank L C Y airport.” The map at the bottom is titled “Map B, United Kingdom airports with fewer than one million passenger arrivals per year.” The airports are marked with green airplane icons. These airports are listed with their respective passenger volumes next to the icons. The labels in the map, from top to bottom, are listed below as follows: In Scotland the following are displayed: “34th rank S Y Y airport,” “33rd rank S C S airport,” “46th rank L W K airport,” “32nd rank K O I airport,” “28th rank L S I airport,” “41st rank W I C airport,” “37th rank B E B airport,” “22nd rank I N V airport,” “42nd rank B R R airport,” “43rd rank T R E airport,” “39th rank D N D airport,” “38th rank I L Y airport,” “44th rank C A L airport,” and “25th rank P I K airport.” In Northern Ireland, the following in displayed: “29th rank L D Y airport.” In England, the following are displayed: “31st rank M M E airport,” “40th rank B L K airport,” “30th rank H U Y airport,” “26th rank N W I airport,” “48th rank C B G airport,” “50th rank O F K airport,” “45th rank G L O airport,” “47th rank B Q H airport,” “52nd rank M S E airport,” “49th rank L Y X airport,” “24th rank B O H airport,” “51st rank E S H airport,” “23rd rank E X T airport,” “53rd rank P L H airport,” “27th rank N Q Y airport,” “35th rank I S C airport,” and “36th rank L E Q airport.”

UK airports ranking by number passenger arrivals from 2015 to 2023. Source: Own elaboration from CAA (2024) 

Figure 1
A figure shows political two maps of the United Kingdom showing the number of passenger arrivals at the airports.The map at the top is titled “Map A, Top 21 U K airports by number of passenger arrivals (more than 1 million passengers per year).” It marks 21 airports across the U K using small yellow airplane icons, each connected by an arrow to a labeled box positioned on either the left or right side of the map. On the left side, the following are displayed from top to bottom: Under “Belfast,” two airports are listed: “10th rank B F S airport” and “17th rank B H D airport.” “Leeds” is labeled “15th rank L B A airport,” while “Liverpool” is marked “12th rank L P L airport.” The city of “Bristol” is associated with “9th rank B R S airport.” “Cardiff Wales” shows “19th rank V W L airport,” and “Southampton” is indicated “18th rank S O U airport.” On the right, the following are displayed from top to bottom: In the north, “Aberdeen” is labeled “16th rank A B Z airport,” and “Edinburgh” is marked “6th rank E D I airport.” “Glasgow” carries the label “8th rank G L A airport,” and “Newcastle” is tagged “11th rank N C L airport.” “Manchester” is marked “3rd rank M A N airport,” while “Doncaster Sheffield” bears the label “20nd rank D S A airport.” “East Midlands” is shown as “13th rank E M A airport,” and “Birmingham” as “7th rank B H X airport.” “Southend” appears with “21st rank S E N airport.” For the capital, “London,” five airports are listed: “1st rank L H R airport,” “2nd rank L G W airport,” “4th rank S T N airport,” “5th rank L T N airport,” and “14th rank L C Y airport.” The map at the bottom is titled “Map B, United Kingdom airports with fewer than one million passenger arrivals per year.” The airports are marked with green airplane icons. These airports are listed with their respective passenger volumes next to the icons. The labels in the map, from top to bottom, are listed below as follows: In Scotland the following are displayed: “34th rank S Y Y airport,” “33rd rank S C S airport,” “46th rank L W K airport,” “32nd rank K O I airport,” “28th rank L S I airport,” “41st rank W I C airport,” “37th rank B E B airport,” “22nd rank I N V airport,” “42nd rank B R R airport,” “43rd rank T R E airport,” “39th rank D N D airport,” “38th rank I L Y airport,” “44th rank C A L airport,” and “25th rank P I K airport.” In Northern Ireland, the following in displayed: “29th rank L D Y airport.” In England, the following are displayed: “31st rank M M E airport,” “40th rank B L K airport,” “30th rank H U Y airport,” “26th rank N W I airport,” “48th rank C B G airport,” “50th rank O F K airport,” “45th rank G L O airport,” “47th rank B Q H airport,” “52nd rank M S E airport,” “49th rank L Y X airport,” “24th rank B O H airport,” “51st rank E S H airport,” “23rd rank E X T airport,” “53rd rank P L H airport,” “27th rank N Q Y airport,” “35th rank I S C airport,” and “36th rank L E Q airport.”

UK airports ranking by number passenger arrivals from 2015 to 2023. Source: Own elaboration from CAA (2024) 

Close modal

This information suggests that the air travel demand of airports and cities needs to be considered when planning the tourism supply of air routes, because commercial airlines travel to different destinations with average flights per day or week. Florido-Benítez (2021) notes that in airport locations, the demand and supply of airline companies are considered in the city’s tourism development and the airport’s infrastructure. For instance, machine learning and AI applications are improving airport operations because they employ iterative methods to optimise aircraft schedules and routes by analysing historical flight data, weather forecasts, and air traffic trends. Airport and airline operators can find possibilities to limit delays, save fuel consumption, and maximise airspace usage with the help of this pertinent data and information. Airlines and air traffic controllers can increase the overall effectiveness of air travel, which will benefit both passengers and the environment, by making better-informed judgements (Airport Review, 2024).

Tourism activity and air transport are intricately linked through the air accessibility offered by commercial airlines. Accessibility is how people reach other destinations or places through the transport network. This paper will only analyse the most important UK airlines by the number of passengers carried; it does not include commercial airlines from other countries such as Ryanair, KLM, Air France, and Lufthansa airlines, amongst many others. The main difficulties facing the demand for tourism in the UK are its peripherality and air accessibility (Morrison and Maxim, 2021). For instance, Wizz Air UK airline is a British LCC that entered operation in 2017 to retain full UK market access post-Brexit and acquire departure and landing slots from defunct Monarch Airlines, which ceased operations on October 2, 2017.

Figure 2 shows how EasyJet LCC is the top English airline of choice for foreign tourists and residents to travel in and out of the UK This LCC carried 412 million passengers in the period analysed (2015–2023) and was the second European operator by daily flights (1,477 operations) in 2023 (EUROCONTROL, 2024). In 2019, EasyJet was the most dominant commercial airline in the UK (OAG, 2023). British legacy carrier ranks second by number of passengers carried, with 305 million passengers, followed by Jet2.com with 87 million, TUI Airways with 82 million, Flybe with 44 million (ceased operations in 2023), Virgin Atlantic with 37 million, BA Cityflyer with 17 million, and Wizz Air UK with 14 million passengers.

Figure 2
A vertical bar graph shows the number of passengers for different airlines from 2015 to 2023.The vertical axis is labeled “Millions passengers” and ranges from 0 to 90,000,000 in increments of 10,000,000 units. The horizontal axis is labeled with airline names from top to bottom: “EasyJet Airline,” “British Airways,” “JET 2 dot COM,” “T U I Airways,” “Flybe,” “Virgin Atlantic Airways,” “B A CityFlyer,” and “Wizz Air United Kingdom.” The bars represent the number of passengers for each airline in the years “2015” to “2023.” The highest and lowest values for each airline from “2015” to “2023” are as follows: EasyJet Airline: Highest: 79,000,000 passengers in 2018; Lowest: 9,000,000 passengers in 2021. British Airways: Highest: 12,000,000 passengers in 2021; Lowest: Under 9,000,000 passengers in 2021. JET 2 dot COM: Highest: Over 17,000,000 passengers in 2023; Lowest: Around 5,000,000 passengers in 2005. T U I Airways: Highest: Over 12,000,000 passengers in 2019; Lowest: Under 5,000,000 passengers in 2020. Flybe: Highest: Under 9,000,000 passengers in 2016 and 2017; Lowest: Under 1,000,000 passengers in 2022. Virgin Atlantic Airways: Highest: Over 5,000,000 passengers in 2015; Lowest: Under 1,000,000 passengers in 2020. B A CityFlyer: Highest: Around 4,000,000 passengers in 2018 and 2019; Lowest: Fewer than 1,000,000 passengers in 2020. Wizz Air United Kingdom: Highest: Around 5,000,000 passengers in 2023; Lowest: Slightly over 1,000,000 passengers in 2018. Note: All numerical data values are approximated.

The main UK airlines that provided a greater number of passengers. Note. (1) Flybe ceased operations and entered administration on 28 January 2023. Flybe does not show data in 2020 because the Thyme Opco company bought Flybe and relaunch the airline, subject to CAA’s regulatory approvals. (2) Wizz Air UK is a British LCC and subsidiary of the Hungarian Wizz Air. This airline entered operation in 2017 to retain full UK market access post-Brexit. (3) Thomas Cook and Monarch airline operators ceased operations in 2017, and both companies were not included in this study. (4) September 19, 2017, Thomson Airways officially changed its legal name to TUI Airways. (5) Not included commercial airlines from European and Irish countries. Source: Own elaboration from CAA (2024) 

Figure 2
A vertical bar graph shows the number of passengers for different airlines from 2015 to 2023.The vertical axis is labeled “Millions passengers” and ranges from 0 to 90,000,000 in increments of 10,000,000 units. The horizontal axis is labeled with airline names from top to bottom: “EasyJet Airline,” “British Airways,” “JET 2 dot COM,” “T U I Airways,” “Flybe,” “Virgin Atlantic Airways,” “B A CityFlyer,” and “Wizz Air United Kingdom.” The bars represent the number of passengers for each airline in the years “2015” to “2023.” The highest and lowest values for each airline from “2015” to “2023” are as follows: EasyJet Airline: Highest: 79,000,000 passengers in 2018; Lowest: 9,000,000 passengers in 2021. British Airways: Highest: 12,000,000 passengers in 2021; Lowest: Under 9,000,000 passengers in 2021. JET 2 dot COM: Highest: Over 17,000,000 passengers in 2023; Lowest: Around 5,000,000 passengers in 2005. T U I Airways: Highest: Over 12,000,000 passengers in 2019; Lowest: Under 5,000,000 passengers in 2020. Flybe: Highest: Under 9,000,000 passengers in 2016 and 2017; Lowest: Under 1,000,000 passengers in 2022. Virgin Atlantic Airways: Highest: Over 5,000,000 passengers in 2015; Lowest: Under 1,000,000 passengers in 2020. B A CityFlyer: Highest: Around 4,000,000 passengers in 2018 and 2019; Lowest: Fewer than 1,000,000 passengers in 2020. Wizz Air United Kingdom: Highest: Around 5,000,000 passengers in 2023; Lowest: Slightly over 1,000,000 passengers in 2018. Note: All numerical data values are approximated.

The main UK airlines that provided a greater number of passengers. Note. (1) Flybe ceased operations and entered administration on 28 January 2023. Flybe does not show data in 2020 because the Thyme Opco company bought Flybe and relaunch the airline, subject to CAA’s regulatory approvals. (2) Wizz Air UK is a British LCC and subsidiary of the Hungarian Wizz Air. This airline entered operation in 2017 to retain full UK market access post-Brexit. (3) Thomas Cook and Monarch airline operators ceased operations in 2017, and both companies were not included in this study. (4) September 19, 2017, Thomson Airways officially changed its legal name to TUI Airways. (5) Not included commercial airlines from European and Irish countries. Source: Own elaboration from CAA (2024) 

Close modal

These eight UK airlines carried one billion passengers in the period analysed, a nice figure for the UK’s air transport and tourism sectors, which boosts the economy of this territory. On the contrary, we can see in Figure 2 the COVID-19 negative effects on commercial airlines in 2020. The coronavirus has caused the most severe economic recession in the aviation industry in a way never seen before (Florido-Benítez, 2021). Subsequently, it would be interesting for both airport and airline operators to implement AI and digital twin (DT) technologies to cut down operating costs, improve aircraft performance (Xiong and Wang, 2022), and develop contingency plans against future economic crises and cyberattacks.

Before, tourists visited their favourite destinations and their attractions because they had a preconceived story or a dream that they had previously seen in movies, TV publicity, or even a book that they had read. Notwithstanding, tourism and travel companies are immersed in the digital age and its new technologies that provide tourists with new virtual tools (e.g. chatbots, robots, ChatGPT, the metaverse, AI, and DT, amongst many others) and information to enhance their tourist experiences in tourism cities and attractions in terms of time, information, flights, and personalised tour itineraries (Gursoy and Cai, 2024). Florido-Benítez et al. (2025) define the new tourist of the 21st century as those people who demand detailed information through digital channels and platforms supported by AI (e.g. GPT-4, Vacay, Wonderplan, Layla, Iplan.ai, and Trip Planner AI) about origin-destination airports, commercial airlines’ connectivity and frequencies to the tourist destination chosen, prices’ for public transport, museums and theme parks, close accommodations to the main iconic attractions, city centres, and restaurants, and a tailored tourism supply by DMOs, OTAs, and hotels that cover their main needs and preferences.

Inevitably, the marketing and branding of most urban cities are linked to airports and new technologies because they are highly dependent on tourism demand and the interaction of travellers with DMOs, OTAs, and AI platforms to buy and enjoy their holidays (Coca-Stefaniak, 2019). Generative AI, for example, greatly enhances traveller segmentation and personalisation of goods and services, enabling businesses and urban cities to provide customised content instantly. The idea of hyper-segmentation is therefore heavily centred on the customer (considered as a segment of one) and his or her needs, preferences, personal motivations, and reasons for making a purchase. It also pushes businesses to create customised goods and services with a high degree of individual scalability and performance, known as hyper-personalisation, which has never been seen in the travel and tourism sectors before (Florido-Benítez, 2024).

In order to measure the primary indicators chosen and project the outcomes within the designated period (2015–2023), this study employs both quantitative and qualitative methods. Initially, our data set covered 53 UK airports from 2015 to 2023. To analyse the airport’s location, category, and capacity in passenger arrival terms in the UK cities, the data are identified in Table 1. To understand tourism flows, destination indicators inside a country or city must be identified (Raun et al., 2020), and the number of passenger arrivals (Yao et al., 2023), number of tourist arrivals and visits (Goswami et al., 2024), travel motivations (Villacé-Molinero et al., 2023), the main tourist issuing (Florido-Benítez, 2021), and hotel occupancy rate (Gani, 2022) help to measure tourism demand (Yabanci, 2024). All of these indicators are analysed in Figures 3–6 to achieve the best possible results and conclusions from this methodology. Among the empirical studies (primary data) that have constructed the study’s indicators, we included expert researchers and academics such as Jiménez et al. (2023) and Adrienne et al. (2020) to validate our indicators.

Figure 3
Two bar graphs comparing United Kingdom airport passenger numbers across different airports over several years.The graph at the top is labeled “Top 21 U K airports by number of passenger arrivals and number of tourist arrivals at U K.” The vertical axis is labeled “Millions passenger arrivals” and ranges from 0 to 90,000,000 in increments of 10,000,000 units. The horizontal axis is labeled with years “2015” to “2023” in the increment of 1 year. Each year has 21 bars representing the airports. A legend at the bottom indicates that the bars are labeled as follows and are represented with different colors: “L H R,” “L G W,” “M A N,” “S T N,” “L T N,” “E D I,” “B H X,” “G L A,” “B R S,” “B F S,” “N C L,” “L P L,” “E M A,” “L C Y,” “L B A,” “A B Z,” “B H D,” “S O U,” “V W L,” “D S A,” and “S E N.” A dotted line represents “million foreign tourist arrivals.” It begins at 38,000,000 passengers in 2015 and slightly rises and moves toward right, reaching 40,000,000 passengers in 2017. It moves almost linearly till 2019, then dips sharply to 10,000,000 in 2020 and falls down even more in 2021. It then rises gradually and ends at 2023 with 39,000,000 passengers. The highest and lowest passenger arrival values recorded for any airport in each year from “2015” to “2023” are as follows: In “2015,” the highest bar is “L H R” with “over 75,000,000 passengers.” The lowest bar is “S E N” with “under 1,000,000 passengers.” In “2016,” the highest is “L H R” with “over 76,000,000 passengers.” The lowest is “S E N” with “under 1,000,000 passengers.” In “2017,” the highest is “L H R” with “over 78,000,000 passengers.” The lowest is “S E N” with “just above 1,000,000 passengers.” In “2018,” the highest is “L H R” with “over 80,000,000 passengers.” The lowest is “S E N” with “about 1,000,000 passengers.” In “2019,” the highest is “L H R” with “close to 82,000,000 passengers.” The lowest is “S E N” with “about 2,000,000 passengers.” In “2020,” the highest is “L H R” with “around 23,000,000 passengers.” The lowest are “D S A” and “S E N” with “under 1,000,000 passengers.” The bar “V W L” is not shown in the year “2020.” In “2021,” the highest is “L H R” with “just over 19,000,000 passengers.” The lowest is “D S A” with “under 1,000,000 passengers.” The bar “V W L” is not shown in the year “2021.” In “2022,” the highest is “L H R” with “over 53,000,000 passengers.” The lowest is “S E N” with “fewer than 1,000,000 passengers.” In “2023,” the highest is “L H R” with “just under 79,000,000 passengers.” The lowest is “S O U” with “fewer than 1,000,000 passengers.” The bars “D S A” and “S E N” are missing in this “2023” year. The graph at the bottom is labeled “U K airports with fewer than one million passenger arrivals per year.” The vertical axis is labeled “Millions passenger arrivals” and ranges from 0 to 1,000,000 in increments of 100,000 units. The horizontal axis is labeled with airport names in short forms. The labels from left to right are as follows: “I N V,” “E X T,” “B O H,” “P I K,” “N W I,” “N Q Y,” “L S I,” “L D Y,” “H U Y,” “M M E,” “K O I,” “S C S,” “S Y Y,” “I S C,” “L E Q,” “B E B,” “I L Y,” “D N D,” “B L K,” “W I C,” “B R R,” “T R E,” “C A L,” “G L O,” “L W K,” “B Q H,” “C B G,” “L Y X,” “O X F,” “E S H,” “M S E,” and “P L H.” Each airport has nine bars representing the years “2015” through “2023.” The highest and lowest passenger arrival values recorded for each airport label between “2015” and “2023” are listed below: In “I N V” airport, the highest bar is in the year “2019” with “940,000 passengers.” The lowest bar is in “2020” with “240,000 passengers.” In “E X T” airport, the highest bar is in “2019” with “above 1,000,000 passengers.” The lowest bar is in “2021” with “just above 120,000 passengers.” In “B O H” airport, the highest bar is in “2023” with “above 950,000 passengers.” The lowest bar is in “2020” with “around 180,000 passengers.” In “P I K” airport, the highest bar is in “2017” with “above 700,000 passengers.” The lowest bar is in “2021” with “under 95,000 passengers.” In “N W I” airport, the highest bar is in “2018” with “around 540,000 passengers.” The lowest bar is in “2020” with “just above 120,000 passengers.” In “N Q Y” airport, the highest bar is in “2017” and “2019” with “around 450,000 passengers.” The lowest bar is in “2020” with “around 50,000 passengers.” In “L S I” airport, the highest bar is in “2015” with “over 370,000 passengers.” The lowest bar is in “2020” with “under 120,000 passengers.” In “L D Y” airport, the highest bar is in “2016” with “over 290,000 passengers.” The lowest bar is in “2021” with “under 75,000 passengers.” In “H U Y” airport, the highest bar is in “2015” with “above 223,000 passengers.” The lowest bar is in “2020” with “under 50,000 passengers.” In “M M E” airport, the highest bar is in “2023” with “above 245,000 passengers.” The lowest bar is in “2020” with “just above 50,000 passengers.” In “K O I” airport, the highest bar is in “2018” with “around 160,000 passengers.” The lowest bar is in “2020” with “under 50,000 passengers.” In “S C S” airport, the highest bar is in “2015” with “just above 250,000 passengers.” The lowest bar is in “2021” with “nearly 50,000 passengers.” The bars from “2021” to “2023” are not shown. In “S Y Y” airport, the highest bar is in “2017” and “2018” with “just under 130,000 passengers.” The lowest bar is in “2020” with “under 40,000 passengers.” In “I S C” airport, the highest bar is in “2015” and “2016” with “around 90,000 passengers.” The lowest bar is in “2020” with “nearly 50,000 passengers.” In “L E Q” airport, the highest bar is in “2016” with “just under 75,000 passengers.” The lowest bar is in “2020” with “nearly 25,000 passengers.” In “B E B” airport, the highest bar is in “2018” and “2019” with “above 25,000 passengers.” The lowest bar is in “2020” with “under 5,000 passengers.” In “I L Y” airport, the highest bar is in “2019” with “around 20,000 passengers.” The lowest bar is in “2020” with “nearly 5,000 passengers.” In “D N D” airport, the highest bar is in “2018” with “just under 20,000 passengers.” The lowest bar is in “2021” with “nearly 5,000 passengers.” In “B L K” airport, the highest bar is in “2016” with “around 10,000 passengers.” The lowest bar is in “2022” with “under 5,000 passengers.” The bar for “2021” is not shown. In “W I C” airport, the highest bar is in “2015” with “just under 10,000 passengers.” The lowest bar is in “2020” with “nearly 3,000 passengers.” The bar for “2021” is not shown. In “B R R” airport, the highest bar is in “2018” and “2019” with “around 5,000 passengers.” The lowest bar is in “2020” with “nearly 2,000 passengers.” In “T R E” airport, the highest bar is from “2016” to “2019” with “around 5,000 passengers.” The lowest bar is in “2020” with “nearly 2,000 passengers.” In “C A L” airport, the highest bar is in “2017” with “just under 5,000 passengers.” The lowest bar is in “2020” with “nearly 2,000 passengers.” In “G L O” airport, bars are shown only in “2015” and “2016” below 7,000, and in “2017” below 5,000. All other years are not shown. In “L W K” airport, all bars are below 5,000. In “B Q H” airport, the highest bar is in “2023” with “under 5,000 passengers.” All other values are equal. In “C B G” airport, only two bars are shown, in “2015” and “2016” under 5,000. In “L Y X” airport, only three bars are shown, in “2015,” “2016,” and “2017” under 5,000 passengers. In “O X F” airport, only two bars are shown, in “2020” and “2021” under 5,000 passengers. In “E S H,” “M S E,” and “P L H” airports: no bars are shown. Note: All numerical data values are approximated.

UK airports by number of passenger arrivals per year and number of tourist arrivals at UK (2015–2023). Source: Own elaboration from CAA (2024) and VisitBritain (2024b) 

Figure 3
Two bar graphs comparing United Kingdom airport passenger numbers across different airports over several years.The graph at the top is labeled “Top 21 U K airports by number of passenger arrivals and number of tourist arrivals at U K.” The vertical axis is labeled “Millions passenger arrivals” and ranges from 0 to 90,000,000 in increments of 10,000,000 units. The horizontal axis is labeled with years “2015” to “2023” in the increment of 1 year. Each year has 21 bars representing the airports. A legend at the bottom indicates that the bars are labeled as follows and are represented with different colors: “L H R,” “L G W,” “M A N,” “S T N,” “L T N,” “E D I,” “B H X,” “G L A,” “B R S,” “B F S,” “N C L,” “L P L,” “E M A,” “L C Y,” “L B A,” “A B Z,” “B H D,” “S O U,” “V W L,” “D S A,” and “S E N.” A dotted line represents “million foreign tourist arrivals.” It begins at 38,000,000 passengers in 2015 and slightly rises and moves toward right, reaching 40,000,000 passengers in 2017. It moves almost linearly till 2019, then dips sharply to 10,000,000 in 2020 and falls down even more in 2021. It then rises gradually and ends at 2023 with 39,000,000 passengers. The highest and lowest passenger arrival values recorded for any airport in each year from “2015” to “2023” are as follows: In “2015,” the highest bar is “L H R” with “over 75,000,000 passengers.” The lowest bar is “S E N” with “under 1,000,000 passengers.” In “2016,” the highest is “L H R” with “over 76,000,000 passengers.” The lowest is “S E N” with “under 1,000,000 passengers.” In “2017,” the highest is “L H R” with “over 78,000,000 passengers.” The lowest is “S E N” with “just above 1,000,000 passengers.” In “2018,” the highest is “L H R” with “over 80,000,000 passengers.” The lowest is “S E N” with “about 1,000,000 passengers.” In “2019,” the highest is “L H R” with “close to 82,000,000 passengers.” The lowest is “S E N” with “about 2,000,000 passengers.” In “2020,” the highest is “L H R” with “around 23,000,000 passengers.” The lowest are “D S A” and “S E N” with “under 1,000,000 passengers.” The bar “V W L” is not shown in the year “2020.” In “2021,” the highest is “L H R” with “just over 19,000,000 passengers.” The lowest is “D S A” with “under 1,000,000 passengers.” The bar “V W L” is not shown in the year “2021.” In “2022,” the highest is “L H R” with “over 53,000,000 passengers.” The lowest is “S E N” with “fewer than 1,000,000 passengers.” In “2023,” the highest is “L H R” with “just under 79,000,000 passengers.” The lowest is “S O U” with “fewer than 1,000,000 passengers.” The bars “D S A” and “S E N” are missing in this “2023” year. The graph at the bottom is labeled “U K airports with fewer than one million passenger arrivals per year.” The vertical axis is labeled “Millions passenger arrivals” and ranges from 0 to 1,000,000 in increments of 100,000 units. The horizontal axis is labeled with airport names in short forms. The labels from left to right are as follows: “I N V,” “E X T,” “B O H,” “P I K,” “N W I,” “N Q Y,” “L S I,” “L D Y,” “H U Y,” “M M E,” “K O I,” “S C S,” “S Y Y,” “I S C,” “L E Q,” “B E B,” “I L Y,” “D N D,” “B L K,” “W I C,” “B R R,” “T R E,” “C A L,” “G L O,” “L W K,” “B Q H,” “C B G,” “L Y X,” “O X F,” “E S H,” “M S E,” and “P L H.” Each airport has nine bars representing the years “2015” through “2023.” The highest and lowest passenger arrival values recorded for each airport label between “2015” and “2023” are listed below: In “I N V” airport, the highest bar is in the year “2019” with “940,000 passengers.” The lowest bar is in “2020” with “240,000 passengers.” In “E X T” airport, the highest bar is in “2019” with “above 1,000,000 passengers.” The lowest bar is in “2021” with “just above 120,000 passengers.” In “B O H” airport, the highest bar is in “2023” with “above 950,000 passengers.” The lowest bar is in “2020” with “around 180,000 passengers.” In “P I K” airport, the highest bar is in “2017” with “above 700,000 passengers.” The lowest bar is in “2021” with “under 95,000 passengers.” In “N W I” airport, the highest bar is in “2018” with “around 540,000 passengers.” The lowest bar is in “2020” with “just above 120,000 passengers.” In “N Q Y” airport, the highest bar is in “2017” and “2019” with “around 450,000 passengers.” The lowest bar is in “2020” with “around 50,000 passengers.” In “L S I” airport, the highest bar is in “2015” with “over 370,000 passengers.” The lowest bar is in “2020” with “under 120,000 passengers.” In “L D Y” airport, the highest bar is in “2016” with “over 290,000 passengers.” The lowest bar is in “2021” with “under 75,000 passengers.” In “H U Y” airport, the highest bar is in “2015” with “above 223,000 passengers.” The lowest bar is in “2020” with “under 50,000 passengers.” In “M M E” airport, the highest bar is in “2023” with “above 245,000 passengers.” The lowest bar is in “2020” with “just above 50,000 passengers.” In “K O I” airport, the highest bar is in “2018” with “around 160,000 passengers.” The lowest bar is in “2020” with “under 50,000 passengers.” In “S C S” airport, the highest bar is in “2015” with “just above 250,000 passengers.” The lowest bar is in “2021” with “nearly 50,000 passengers.” The bars from “2021” to “2023” are not shown. In “S Y Y” airport, the highest bar is in “2017” and “2018” with “just under 130,000 passengers.” The lowest bar is in “2020” with “under 40,000 passengers.” In “I S C” airport, the highest bar is in “2015” and “2016” with “around 90,000 passengers.” The lowest bar is in “2020” with “nearly 50,000 passengers.” In “L E Q” airport, the highest bar is in “2016” with “just under 75,000 passengers.” The lowest bar is in “2020” with “nearly 25,000 passengers.” In “B E B” airport, the highest bar is in “2018” and “2019” with “above 25,000 passengers.” The lowest bar is in “2020” with “under 5,000 passengers.” In “I L Y” airport, the highest bar is in “2019” with “around 20,000 passengers.” The lowest bar is in “2020” with “nearly 5,000 passengers.” In “D N D” airport, the highest bar is in “2018” with “just under 20,000 passengers.” The lowest bar is in “2021” with “nearly 5,000 passengers.” In “B L K” airport, the highest bar is in “2016” with “around 10,000 passengers.” The lowest bar is in “2022” with “under 5,000 passengers.” The bar for “2021” is not shown. In “W I C” airport, the highest bar is in “2015” with “just under 10,000 passengers.” The lowest bar is in “2020” with “nearly 3,000 passengers.” The bar for “2021” is not shown. In “B R R” airport, the highest bar is in “2018” and “2019” with “around 5,000 passengers.” The lowest bar is in “2020” with “nearly 2,000 passengers.” In “T R E” airport, the highest bar is from “2016” to “2019” with “around 5,000 passengers.” The lowest bar is in “2020” with “nearly 2,000 passengers.” In “C A L” airport, the highest bar is in “2017” with “just under 5,000 passengers.” The lowest bar is in “2020” with “nearly 2,000 passengers.” In “G L O” airport, bars are shown only in “2015” and “2016” below 7,000, and in “2017” below 5,000. All other years are not shown. In “L W K” airport, all bars are below 5,000. In “B Q H” airport, the highest bar is in “2023” with “under 5,000 passengers.” All other values are equal. In “C B G” airport, only two bars are shown, in “2015” and “2016” under 5,000. In “L Y X” airport, only three bars are shown, in “2015,” “2016,” and “2017” under 5,000 passengers. In “O X F” airport, only two bars are shown, in “2020” and “2021” under 5,000 passengers. In “E S H,” “M S E,” and “P L H” airports: no bars are shown. Note: All numerical data values are approximated.

UK airports by number of passenger arrivals per year and number of tourist arrivals at UK (2015–2023). Source: Own elaboration from CAA (2024) and VisitBritain (2024b) 

Close modal
Figure 4
Two pie charts depicting the percentage distribution of tourists' journey purpose and main tourist markets.The pie chart on the left is labeled “A, Tourists’ journey purposes.” The data from the chart, in a clockwise sense from the top, are as follows: Holiday: 42 percent. Visits to Friends and Relatives: 34 percent. Business: 17 percent. Other: 6 percent. Study: 1 percent. The pie chart on the right is labeled “B, The main tourist markets by volume of visits.” The data from the chart, in a clockwise sense from the top, are as follows: U S: 13 percent. France: 8 percent. Germany: 8 percent. Irish Republic: 8 percent. Spain: 6 percent. Netherlands: 5 percent. Italy: 5 percent. Poland: 4 percent. Australia: 3 percent. Canada: 3 percent. Rest of countries: 37 percent.

Tourists’ journey purpose, and the main tourist markets by volume of visits in 2023. Source: Own elaboration from VisitBritain (2024b, c) 

Figure 4
Two pie charts depicting the percentage distribution of tourists' journey purpose and main tourist markets.The pie chart on the left is labeled “A, Tourists’ journey purposes.” The data from the chart, in a clockwise sense from the top, are as follows: Holiday: 42 percent. Visits to Friends and Relatives: 34 percent. Business: 17 percent. Other: 6 percent. Study: 1 percent. The pie chart on the right is labeled “B, The main tourist markets by volume of visits.” The data from the chart, in a clockwise sense from the top, are as follows: U S: 13 percent. France: 8 percent. Germany: 8 percent. Irish Republic: 8 percent. Spain: 6 percent. Netherlands: 5 percent. Italy: 5 percent. Poland: 4 percent. Australia: 3 percent. Canada: 3 percent. Rest of countries: 37 percent.

Tourists’ journey purpose, and the main tourist markets by volume of visits in 2023. Source: Own elaboration from VisitBritain (2024b, c) 

Close modal
Figure 5
A line graph comparing occupancy rates across United Kingdom countries from 2015 to 2023.The vertical axis is labeled “percent Occupancy rate” and ranges from 0 percent to 90 percent in increments of 10 percent. The horizontal axis is marked with years from 2015 to 2023 in increments of 1 year. A legend at the bottom of the graph specifies that the graph contains five distinct lines, each representing one of the following: “England,” “Scotland,” “Wales,” “Northern Ireland,” and the “United Kingdom.” The “United Kingdom” curve is drawn in solid dark blue and begins at 70 percent in 2015, steadily rises through 2019 at 80 percent, then dips sharply in 2020 to about 40 percent. After that, it climbs upward again, reaching above 60 percent by 2022, ending at 78 percent in 2023. The “England” curve, shown in a slightly lighter shade of blue, moves closely with the “United Kingdom” line throughout. It starts slightly below 70 percent in 2015, rises gradually to about 78 percent in 2019, then falls steeply in 2020 to nearly 40 percent before recovering toward 75 percent by 2023. The “Scotland” curve, shown in orange, begins at around 65 percent in 2015, maintains a steady rise through 2019 at 71 percent, then rises steadily and ends at 68 percent by 2023. The “Wales” curve, shown in grey, begins at about 60 percent in 2015, moves toward the right in a straight line till 2019, drops sharply in 2020 to around 35 percent, then recovers gradually, and ends at 75 percent in 2023. The “Northern Ireland” curve, drawn in yellow, starts around 57 percent in 2015, increases gradually to about 62 percent in 2017, then falls drastically in 2020 to 20 percent. It then rises gradually and ends at 65 percent by 2023. Note: All numerical data values are approximated.

UK hotel occupancy rate in percentage (2015–2023). Source: Own elaboration from VisitBritain (2024b, c), and NISRA (2024) 

Figure 5
A line graph comparing occupancy rates across United Kingdom countries from 2015 to 2023.The vertical axis is labeled “percent Occupancy rate” and ranges from 0 percent to 90 percent in increments of 10 percent. The horizontal axis is marked with years from 2015 to 2023 in increments of 1 year. A legend at the bottom of the graph specifies that the graph contains five distinct lines, each representing one of the following: “England,” “Scotland,” “Wales,” “Northern Ireland,” and the “United Kingdom.” The “United Kingdom” curve is drawn in solid dark blue and begins at 70 percent in 2015, steadily rises through 2019 at 80 percent, then dips sharply in 2020 to about 40 percent. After that, it climbs upward again, reaching above 60 percent by 2022, ending at 78 percent in 2023. The “England” curve, shown in a slightly lighter shade of blue, moves closely with the “United Kingdom” line throughout. It starts slightly below 70 percent in 2015, rises gradually to about 78 percent in 2019, then falls steeply in 2020 to nearly 40 percent before recovering toward 75 percent by 2023. The “Scotland” curve, shown in orange, begins at around 65 percent in 2015, maintains a steady rise through 2019 at 71 percent, then rises steadily and ends at 68 percent by 2023. The “Wales” curve, shown in grey, begins at about 60 percent in 2015, moves toward the right in a straight line till 2019, drops sharply in 2020 to around 35 percent, then recovers gradually, and ends at 75 percent in 2023. The “Northern Ireland” curve, drawn in yellow, starts around 57 percent in 2015, increases gradually to about 62 percent in 2017, then falls drastically in 2020 to 20 percent. It then rises gradually and ends at 65 percent by 2023. Note: All numerical data values are approximated.

UK hotel occupancy rate in percentage (2015–2023). Source: Own elaboration from VisitBritain (2024b, c), and NISRA (2024) 

Close modal
Figure 6
A vertical bar graph shows the numbers of tourists in major United Kingdom cities.The vertical axis is labeled “Millions tourists” and ranges from 0 to 160,000,000 in increments of 20,000,000 units. The horizontal axis is labeled with city names from left to right are as follows: “London,” “Edinburgh,” “Manchester,” “Birmingham,” “Liverpool,” “Glasgow,” “Bristol,” “Oxford,” “Cambridge,” “Brighton,” “Bath,” “Cardiff,” “Leeds,” “Inverness,” “York,” “Newcastle,” “Nottingham,” “Aberdeen,” “Reading,” and “Leicester.” There are 20 bars in the graph. The data from the bars is as follows: London: 142,000,000. Edinburgh: 15,000,000. Manchester: 11,000,000. Birmingham: 9,000,000. Liverpool: 8,000,000. Glasgow: 7,000,000. Bristol: 6,500,000. Oxford: 6,000,000. Cambridge: 5,800,000. Brighton: 5,700,000. Bath: 5,500,000. Cardiff: 5,300,000. Leeds: 5,200,000. Inverness: 5,200,000. York: 5,100,000. Newcastle: 5,100,000. Nottingham: 5,000,000. Aberdeen: 4,000,000. Reading: 4,000,000. Leicester: 3,000,000. Note: All numerical data values are approximated.

The top 20 most visited UK cities by tourists from 2015 to 2023. Source: Own elaboration from VisitBritain (2024b, c) 

Figure 6
A vertical bar graph shows the numbers of tourists in major United Kingdom cities.The vertical axis is labeled “Millions tourists” and ranges from 0 to 160,000,000 in increments of 20,000,000 units. The horizontal axis is labeled with city names from left to right are as follows: “London,” “Edinburgh,” “Manchester,” “Birmingham,” “Liverpool,” “Glasgow,” “Bristol,” “Oxford,” “Cambridge,” “Brighton,” “Bath,” “Cardiff,” “Leeds,” “Inverness,” “York,” “Newcastle,” “Nottingham,” “Aberdeen,” “Reading,” and “Leicester.” There are 20 bars in the graph. The data from the bars is as follows: London: 142,000,000. Edinburgh: 15,000,000. Manchester: 11,000,000. Birmingham: 9,000,000. Liverpool: 8,000,000. Glasgow: 7,000,000. Bristol: 6,500,000. Oxford: 6,000,000. Cambridge: 5,800,000. Brighton: 5,700,000. Bath: 5,500,000. Cardiff: 5,300,000. Leeds: 5,200,000. Inverness: 5,200,000. York: 5,100,000. Newcastle: 5,100,000. Nottingham: 5,000,000. Aberdeen: 4,000,000. Reading: 4,000,000. Leicester: 3,000,000. Note: All numerical data values are approximated.

The top 20 most visited UK cities by tourists from 2015 to 2023. Source: Own elaboration from VisitBritain (2024b, c) 

Close modal

In addition, the UK’s airports were shown on a map (see Figure 1) to make it easier for readers to find airport locations. All this data were collected from the Civil Aviation Authority, known as CAA (2024). Next, we included the main UK airlines that provided a greater number of passengers (see Figure 2) because air transport is an essential factor in the UK tourism industry. Zhang and Gong (2024) note that air transport is a prerequisite to developing tourism demand and a determinant of increasing tourist arrivals. Hussein et al. (2023) claim that LCCs play an essential role in increasing tourism demand. On the other hand, we considered the 2015–2023 period in this study to examine Brexit and COVID-19 effects on air transport and tourism demand in the UK Brexit tends to create ambiguity among foreign visitors, and they continue to visit the UK destination (Dutta et al., 2021).

To close this section, the main indicators of tourism demand (secondary data) were taken from organisations such as CAA (2024), VisitBritain (2024a, b, c), NISRA (2024), IATA (2024), EUROCONTROL (2024), UK Parliament (2022), OAG (2023), ONS (2022), WTTC (2022), and the Department for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport (2021), amongst many others. The collection of all this data from sources and organisations reveals the efforts made by the authors in this research project. Primary and secondary data are collected and analysed for a specific research objective and problem at hand using procedures that fit the research problem best (Tracy, 2024).

In 2019, 79% of inbound visitors reached the UK by air (VisitBritain, 2024a, b). Tourism in the island destinations is associated with the number of tourist arrivals and their expenditure. Panels A and B of Figure 3 show UK airports by the number of passenger arrivals per year from 2015 to 2023. Panel A of Figure 3 combines the top 21 UK airports by number of passenger and tourist arrivals in the UK, where Heathrow is the flag airport of the UK in terms of passenger arrivals within the period established, followed by LGW, MAN, STN, LTN, and EDI airports. The greatest concentration of passenger arrivals is localised in London because this city has six airports (LHR, LGW, STN, LTN, LCY, and SEN).

Although airport and airline operators compete directly on direct routes and indirectly at their separate hubs through transfer choices. Regarding the rest of the UK airports, all of them have a strategic geolocation that provides excellent air accessibility to the UK destination, in particular regional and local airports with fewer than one million passenger arrivals per year, which is shown in Panel B of Figure 3. Due to operational and marketing strategies, some UK regional airports, including Manchester and Edinburgh, were opposed to providing incentives for LCCs. However, in recent years, these airports have demonstrated a greater willingness to provide incentives for new routes and traffic growth (Halpern et al., 2016). For instance, in 2003, the Visit Japan campaign was designed and promoted by the Japanese Ministry of Land, Infrastructure, Transportation, and Tourism to increase visitors by upgrading airport capacity and facilities, providing multiple tourism gateways for foreign tourists to explore more of Hokkaido, and enhancing access to rural areas (Nakayama, 2024).

However, it is important to emphasise how the evolution of the number of passenger arrivals is aligned with the number of tourist arrivals in the UK in the period analysed. We can observe that from 2016 (the Brexit referendum) to 2019, the number of passenger arrivals increased by 10.6% at 53 UK airports and 4.4% of tourist arrivals, respectively. Therefore, this data reveals that the Brexit referendum has not had a negative impact on the number of passenger and tourist arrivals in the UK Possibly, this is because tourists perceive Brexit as a political crisis, and it has not had all the negative results expected in the tourism and travel sectors (Coles, 2021).

In this context, the number of passenger arrivals was down by 8.1% with respect to the year 2019. For this reason, it is so important to design tailored and segmented marketing campaigns through digital channels and AI platforms to boost the number of passengers to airports and commercial airlines and increase the number of tourists in UK cities. For instance, the DMO of Scotland started a marketing campaign in 2024 called “Your ticket goes further than you think”. The campaign highlights how easily accessible cultural landmarks, historic cities, wild beaches, and rugged outdoor adventures are by ScotRail. Additionally, it presents rail travel as an economical and sustainable means to enhance environmental sustainability.

Moreover, the coronavirus pandemic provoked a drastic drop in the number of passenger and tourist arrivals at 53 airports and UK destinations in the years 2020 and 2021 (see Panels A and B of Figure 3), with disastrous consequences for the tourism and travel industries in the UK and the rest of the world. Travel and tourism have been vectors for the spread of the coronavirus pathogen (Price et al., 2022), and UK airports, airlines, and cities were almost completely inactive due to the imposition of domestic and international travel bans by the UK government (Florido-Benítez, 2022). Although in the year 2023, the number of tourist and passenger arrivals is aligned with the recovery of pre-pandemic levels, both passenger and tourist arrivals increased by 23 and 21.8%, respectively, in comparison with the year 2023.

Consequently, AI platforms can provide new opportunities for airports, airlines, public transport, and tourist attractions through AI algorithms and travellers’ antecedent purchases and preferences, can offering ubiquity suggestions, recommendations, and personalised tours in real time to offer the best experience in urban cities and airports. Although Christensen et al. (2024) revealed that many consumers chose error-filled AI tourism itineraries due to AI platforms generating false information, it is called “AI hallucination”. Indeed, Onder and McCabe (2025) emphasise the necessity of rigorous validation and critical oversight of AI technology to guarantee the validity and integrity of tourist research.

These results suggest that the number of foreign tourist arrivals in the UK is linked to UK airports and their number of passenger arrivals, which the UK and the rest of the airlines carried to this destination. Based on these findings, this research recommends designing joint tourist packages by DMOs, OTAs, AI platforms, and airline and airport operators that motivate potential tourists to travel and visit different cities and tourist attractions across the UK, particularly through digital channels and social media. This initiative will help improve the UK’s tourism supply and put in perspective the value of regional airports and UK cities that are not so well known, like London, Edinburgh, and Manchester. For instance, Bakır et al. (2024) argue that airlines should invest in marketing strategies through digital platforms that promote positive passenger experiences on social media, AI platforms and their official websites and apps to stimulate passenger demand and repurchase intentions (Florido-Benítez, 2024).

Actually, connecting urban and rural areas is one of the main features of intelligent tourism destinations aided by AI technology, increasing and diversifying tourism flows in regions and countries in a more effective and sustainable way (Coca-Stefaniak, 2021). British Airways put up two titled “Look Up” digital billboards in the heart of London in 2013. In addition to real-time flight information, such as the flight number, destination, and origin of that specific aircraft, these billboards used cutting-edge technology to track planes as they passed overhead. When a British Airways flight passed by, the billboard would show a video of a child pointing at the aircraft. In addition to showcasing the airline’s locations, this encouraged viewers to research them and to book a flight.

DMOs and OTAs need to know what motivates consumers to purchase their holidays and flights through online booking platforms, especially in AI platforms. There is a gain in reaching a better understanding of the motivations and demands of tourists visiting the UK to stimulate tourism demand and improve tourism supply (Aleksijevits, 2019). Panel A of Figure 4 illustrates how tourists visited primarily the UK for holiday reasons, with 42% in 2023, followed by visits to friends and relatives (VFR) with 34%, business with 17%, other with 6%, and for study reasons with 1%. However, according to the Office for National Statistics of the UK (ONS), this trend reverted after the pandemic crisis, when the most common reason for travel was to see VFR, reaching 54% and holidays by 18.7%, respectively, in 2021 (ONS, 2022). Morrison and Coca-Stefaniak (2020) emphasise the relevance of VFR and business tourism activities at tourist destinations in the post-COVID era.

Furthermore, the main issuing markets of foreign tourists to the UK were the US, at 13% in 2023, followed by France (8%), Germany (8%), the Irish Republic (8%), Spain (6%), the Netherlands (5%), and Italy (5%), which are shown in Panel B of Figure 4. 79% of foreign tourists visited the UK destination by air (VisitBritain, 2024a, b), and UK airports were the point of entry and exit for these international tourists. In fact, the flight route between John F. Kennedy (JFK) and Heathrow (LHR) airports occupied rank 10 in the top ten busiest international routes in the world, with 4 million seats in 2024 (OAG, 2024). Dresner and Zou (2024) argue that the Bermuda agreement in 1946 between the US and the UK allowed commercial airlines to stop in the partner country but continue onto a third country, so-called “fifth freedom routes”, enhancing notably air accessibility and connectivity in the transoceanic flights for both countries.

The hotel occupancy rate is also a relevant indicator to measure the impact of tourist arrivals on UK hotel establishments. For instance, Lee and How (2023) suggest that the number of tourist arrivals in Singapore has a direct impact on the occupancy rate and improves the economy of the island. Figure 5 presents the hotel occupancy rate per year by region. England obtains the best occupancy rate in the period analysed, with a total average of 66%, followed by Wales at 60%, Scotland at 57%, and Northern Ireland at 52%. The total average of the UK destinations provides a hotel occupancy rate of 66%.

We can observe in Figure 5 how the hotel occupancy levels have fluctuated from 2015 to 2024, especially during the pandemic crisis due to UK government restrictions and the imposition of domestic and international travel bans around the world. Spanaki et al. (2021) argue that the negative publicity regarding the UK’s pandemic management and the imposition of travel restrictions provoked the 73 and 79% fall recorded in visits and spending from overseas, respectively, as well as a dramatic reduction in the number of passenger arrivals at UK airports. Conversely, VisitBritain (2024d) reported that there were 38.7 million inbound visits and £32.5 billion in spending, which are 95 and 114% of the 2019 figures, respectively. According to Gajić et al. (2024), hotels can increase their operational efficiency by combining AI and IoT technologies. This is because doing so enables them to optimise their operations, reduce costs, perform predictive analytics, improve decision-making, and increase guest satisfaction through personalised services.

Regarding the most visited UK cities from 2015 to 2023, Figure 6 shows how London has been the most visited city in the UK during the eight-year period analysed, with over 143.5 million visitors. Two factors were primarily responsible for this outcome: first, London has six airports, which provide millions of tourists each year. And second, London is home to iconic landmarks like Big Ben and Westminster Abbey, as well as amazing museums like the British Museum and the Natural History Museum. According to Euromonitor International (2022), London was the most visited city in Europe in 2019, mainly due to the air accessibility provided by its six airports. However, the city of London is massified by millions of tourists annually, named “overtourism”, and it is a serious problem for residents and the local government.

In many well-known cities worldwide, overtourism has grown to be a serious issue, having a detrimental effect on the environment, local communities, and the standard of the visitor experience. In order to effectively manage the physical environment and social interactions between visitors and locals, Farkic and Coca-Stefaniak (2024) suggest that policymakers and tourism authorities should establish tourism projects that incorporate pedestrian activities. Kouroupi and Metaxas (2024) expose that the utilisation of the metaverse with DT technologies could be an excellent solution to the issue of overtourism if coupled with the development and execution of a well-thought-out destination strategy aimed at promoting sustainable tourism.

Second place is occupied by Edinburgh with 14.6 million visitors, followed by Manchester with 10.3 million, Birmingham with 7.5 million, Liverpool with 5.5 million, and Glasgow with 5.2 million. The rest of the top 20 UK cities are below the 5 million visitors in the period established, but these remain a vital factor for UK cities’ tourism activities. These results suggest that UK airports underpin the tourism industry in the cities of the UK, and they will continue to play an important role in tourism in UK destinations. For instance, the British cities of Belfast, Birmingham, Cardiff, Doncaster, Glasgow, and Manchester, with strong industrial images, are promoting their new brand image through digital channels focused on a variety of cultural, tourism, environmental, economic, physical, and accessibility activities to stimulate tourism demand. According to Jang et al. (2023), generative AI models may be able to capture the collective image of cities, distinguishing them from the interests of customers. Tourists look for chances to recreate their memories through photos and videos they took while travelling during the post-tour phase, and these can help them revisit the city again (Chaturvedi et al., 2023). Cities are commodities to be produced and consumed (Morrison and Buhalis, 2024), so the geography and marketing of places need to be focused on tourists’ needs to improve the sustainability of the tourism industry in cities (Morrison and Coca-Stefaniak, 2024).

The goal of this study was to evaluate airports in the UK tourism industry. Findings reveal that the Brexit referendum has not had a negative impact on the number of passenger and tourist arrivals in the UK Possibly, this is because tourists perceive Brexit as a political crisis. Nevertheless, the pandemic crisis provoked a drastic drop in the number of passenger and tourist arrivals at 53 airports and UK destinations in the years 2020 and 2021, with disastrous consequences for the tourism and travel industries in the UK and the rest of the world. Although, in the year 2023, the number of tourist and passenger arrivals are aligned in recovering to pre-pandemic levels, and both passenger and tourist arrivals increased by 23 and 21.8%, respectively, in comparison with the year 2022.

These results suggest that the tourism development of UK cities and the number of foreign tourist arrivals are linked to UK airports and their number of passenger arrivals transported by commercial airlines. Airports are the gateways to cities because they provide air accessibility to residents and tourists. For instance, London has been the most visited city in the UK from 2015 to 2023, thanks to its six airports, which provide millions of tourists each year. UK airports offer global accessibility to attract foreign tourists to their UK destinations. Nowadays, customers are interested in searching for online tour destinations, flights, popular cities, and iconic attractions, and the combination of AI with DT, augmented reality (AR), virtual reality (VR), and the metaverse offers previsualisation of images, videos, and information to be played through AI platforms, with the aim of offering customers a virtual visit to the destination and personalised prices and experiences.

From the perspective of marketing, UK airport and airline operators, DMOs, and OTAs should be able to take advantage of AI technology to offer segmented and personalised products and services for tourists that help them be motivated to visit different cities in the UK according to the nearest airports and accommodations, use the most sustainable means of transport to reduce CO2 emissions, and explore new tourist attractions and gastronomy that are never promoted on social media and digital channels. Marketing and promotion strategies and campaigns through AI platforms empower the interaction of consumers with airport and airline operators and tourist destinations because they actively participate in the co-creation of their holidays, flights, and pre-on-post experiences according to their preferences and motivations. For instance, consumers can initiate a conversation with AI platforms such as Vacay, Laila, or Skyscanner chatbots by entering their destination if the chatbot is enabled on Facebook, WhatsApp, or the official website. If a traveller is uncertain about where to go or take a specific flight, she can write “anywhere or time of flight”, and the bot will offer her recommendations in real time, along with the cost of each destination, airline, and other mode of transportation to reach the most proximate airport. Accordingly, there are ways in which travellers and UK travel and tourist businesses can use AI to make the trip more effective and seamless while preserving a better degree of customer happiness and cutting expenses associated with marketing and operational tasks.

The first contribution of this paper emerges to encourage future travellers taking commercial airlines to visit the isles anywhere in the world to improve their local economies and tourism development. Proof of this is that there were 282,775 flights leaving UK airports in the third quarter of 2024, marking a significant milestone for the UK aviation industry. This surpasses pre-pandemic records in 2019 and amounts to more than 51.24 million seats (Travel Radar, 2024); in fact, the demand for interinsular air passenger traffic has exponentially increased in the last years (Luis, 2004). Airlines have expanded seat density and added larger aircraft to their fleet in order to accommodate the growing demand from passengers and carry more people. For instance, in order to satisfy consumer demand and provide affordable travel throughout Europe, Ryanair purchased 300 Boeing 737 MAX 10s, while British Airways expanded its fleet by six Boeing 787-10s in 2023.

The second contribution comes from how the top 20 most visited UK cities are being favoured in terms of the number of tourists thanks to the number of passengers arriving at UK airports in the period examined (2015–2023), particularly the city of London. Obviously, our results reveal that the UK is highly dependent on the air transport industry, and its tourism development is linked permanently to airports and commercial airlines. This result can seem that it is not a novelty for researchers and experts in the travel and tourism sectors; however, the UK will need to encourage air connectivity and accessibility to continue being an attractive destination to attract millions of European tourists and the rest of international travellers annually after Brexit and promote UK cities on AI platforms and digital channels to be a top-level tourist destination. Indeed, as the tourism industry has grown in importance, so too has the demand for air travel (Raihan et al., 2024). Analysing the economic impact of aviation aids governments and airport and tourism operators in re-establishing fiscal and monetary policies after the COVID-19 pandemic financial crisis sapped their vigour.

Finally, the third contribution of this manuscript illustrates how AI technology takes different forms and channels to assist consumers before, during, and post their trips, as well as creating new business opportunities for airport and airline operators and DMOs to enhance the tourism experience in terms of segmentation and personalisation supply. We must harness the synergies of OTAs and AI-driven new technologies that have the potential to produce innovative travel services in the future, and denying this evidence will limit new business lines and tourism experiences in the travel and tourism industries. For instance, the importance of intermediaries in the travel tourism industry is crucial for the believability of publicity and advertising and attracting travellers to urban and tourism cities. Indeed, da Silva et al. (2018) note that OTAs’ and tour operators’ promotion campaigns and marketing communications help to differentiate Portuguese and Brazilian tourism destinations in potential travellers’ vacation decision-making processes.

This study has practical implications that should be considered by researchers, airport and airline operators, DMOs, and OTAs to enhance tourism supply and experience in the UK and other isles around the world. Initially, based on our results, we recommend UK airport and airline operators position their products and services supply on AI platforms and OTAs and align with urban cities’ tourism supply where they are localised because consumers will have the opportunity to book flights, accommodations, and tickets to tourist attractions according to the proximity of airports and to be more efficient with their holiday time. Vlassi et al. (2024) note that destination marketing has a positive impact on the funnel process prospective travellers go through when choosing a destination if digital tools are paired with strategic marketing planning that works and is focused on environmental sustainability and resilience.

In addition, DMOs and airport and airline operators should reach joint agreement with AI platforms (e.g. GPT-4, Layla, Iplan.ai, and Trip Planner AI) because they can continuously upgrade information and product and service offers to cover users’ needs and preferences (Arachchi and Samarasinghe, 2024). Keeping customers informed about new products and services on digital platforms facilitates the creation of new marketing strategies to increase companies’ revenues (Lovemore et al., 2023). Moreover, this study recommends that the UK airport and airline operators boost their brand image on digital and AI platforms and social media to position their locations so future travellers can identify which airport and airline are the best options to visit a specific UK destination or tourist attraction. Companies’ brand images are highly linked with consumers’ emotional experiences (Akın and Gürbüz, 2024).

However, increasing the number of tourists and revenue isn’t everything that will improve the economies of English cities. London, Edinburgh, Liverpool, and Manchester already have problems with overtourism, so DMOs must develop master marketing plans to avoid problems with residents and prevent public services from collapsing. The measures adopted by local governments to solve overtourism and touristification problems must be more restrictive to minimise the tourism impact on the cities (i.e. Barcelona, Palma de Mallorca, Tenerife, London, and Paris) and residents (Żemła, 2024; Calle-Vaquero et al., 2021). A study carried out by Phillis et al. (2017) exposes that urban and tourism city sustainability is a function of two main inputs, ecology (e.g. the state of air, land, and water) and well-being (e.g. the state of the economy, education, health, and environment of cities). Thus, DMOs, airlines and airport operators, and local governments require developing jointly sustainable measures to leave a more sustainable and zero-emissions world for future generations.

AI is recently playing an important role in marketing strategies for tourism and travel activities because tourists require ubiquitous information when they are on holidays and require a better immersive experience in airports and urban cities that satisfies their needs and motivations. This research highlights the need for designing tourist packages by DMOs and OTAs through AI and the metaverse that minimise the environmental impacts of the whole itinerary of tourists and promote UK cities’ culture and historic patrimony. For example, to emphasise those airports and airlines that have lesser pollution, promote what companies with means of public transport use electric or hybrid vehicles, or even what accommodations are more committed to minimising their impact on climate change, increase the efficiency of resources, and develop sustainable services that help to reduce carbon footprints through responsible consumption of natural resources, such as NH Group, Meliá Hotels, and Marriott International Inc.

To finish this subsection, airports and airlines should implement ChatGPT in their operational processes to inform passengers about delays of flights, changes of embarkation gates, and communicate discounts and offers of products and services while passengers are waiting for their flights. These initiatives can help enhance passengers’ satisfaction and reduce their anxiety inside the airport’s terminal. Aligning the AI tool with passengers’ expectations can forge a better, more positive, and enduring relationship with airport operators. Airports and airlines will work together to provide AI services to passengers, as this disruptive tool is a great opportunity to offer services’ quality for passengers (Ku, 2024).

For example, Ali et al. (2023) claim that the technology usage of tourists with disabilities considerably enhances their tourism experiences on their holidays, and companies have the great opportunity to develop new products and services focused on this group (Florido-Benítez and del Alcázar Martínez, 2024). Nevertheless, travel and tourism businesses must ensure privacy and data protection. This comprises the data that was first supplied by the user as well as the data that is produced about them as a result of their interactions with big data and technologies used by businesses (Koshiyama et al., 2024). Finally, to prevent fraud and cyberattacks, standards controlling data access should be established by DMOs, OTAs, airlines, and airport operators. These protocols should specify who can access data and under what conditions (Florido-Benítez, 2025).

This study provides several limitations that open avenues for further research. First, this study only focused on evaluating the relevance of airports in the UK tourism industry. However, future studies should analyse the impact of airports and commercial airlines in the tourism industry of Australia, Madagascar, the Balearic Islands, the Canary Islands, Japan, Iceland, and Sumatra, among many others, to compare results and different points of view according to their geography and tourism development. For instance, the majority of the flights leaving from the airports in the Republic of Ireland are operated by Aer Lingus and Ryanair, and both airlines significantly improve air connectivity and accessibility to Ireland’s cities (Gaggero and Piga, 2010). Second, another limitation in this paper was that in the period analysed (2015–2023), the results show that most UK airports and airlines have had significant difficulties in the years 2020 and 2021 as a result of the COVID-19 pandemic. It is recommended that subsequent studies should develop and analyse forecasts of future economic and pandemic crises supported by AI and DT technologies that directly and indirectly affect the UK travel and tourism sectors to undertake contingency plans and minimise operational and socio-economic loss.

Third, this study’s exclusive focus on UK commercial airlines and how they improve air accessibility to UK towns and tourist destinations was another limitation. Future studies should therefore look at and contrast the significance of other international commercial airlines with native airlines in the UK and how they affect air accessibility and connectivity throughout the British Isles’ cities in terms of competence, connectivity, accessibility, prices, and contamination levels. Air transport directly influences the tourism demand of island destinations and residents’ quality of life. And fourth and last, this paper shows how AI is being used in travel and tourism activities, recognising that AI technology is still in its incubation phase. Although in response to growing concerns about rising CO2 emissions in the travel and tourism sectors in 2024 (The University of Queensland, 2024; Løseth et al., 2025) and reaching net-zero greenhouse gas emissions in 2050 (known as the European Green Deal), future research should develop and analyse how the combination of AI with DT and machine learning technologies can considerably reduce CO2 emissions or even achieve zero emissions in aircraft and tourism activities to leave a healthier world for future generations.

A photograph shows Lázaro Florido-Benítez standing in front of a building. The sunlight creates a glare around him.
Lázaro Florido-Benítez holds a PhD in tourism and marketing from the University of Malaga, Spain, and a master’s in management of airports–aeronautics from the European Business School. He is a lecturer and researcher in business organisation and marketing department. Lázaro is a reviewer for a number of international academic journals, such as Tourism Management Perspectives, Tourism Review, Journal of Air Transport Management, and Sustainability, amongst many others. His main research interests include tourism, digital marketing, airport marketing, and air transport connectivity. In the area of tourism, he has investigated the promotion of tourist destinations, how airports and destinations promote marketing strategies through digital marketing, mobile marketing, the impact of mobile marketing at airports, and the impact of airports and airlines on the tourist destination, amongst many others. He has published in many peer-reviewed journals on topics such as tourism, airports, marketing, and cybersecurity.

https://www.scopus.com/authid/detail.uri?authorId=57192942823

https://scholar.google.es/citations?user=hc0GPC0AAAAJ&hl=es

https://www.webofscience.com/wos/author/record/ACZ-5900-2022

https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Lazaro-Florido-Benitez

https://www.linkedin.com/in/lázaro-florido-benìtez/

The author would like to thank anonymous reviewers and editors for providing valuable suggestions and comments.

Adrienne
,
N.
,
Budd
,
L.
and
Ison
,
S.
(
2020
), “
Grounded aircraft: an airfield operations perspective of the challenges of resuming flights post COVID
”,
Journal of Air Transport Management
, Vol. 
89
, 01921, doi: .
Akın
,
S.
and
Gürbüz
,
E.
(
2024
), “
The relationship of internet banking users’ emotional brand experiences and consumer-based brand equity
”,
European Journal of Management Studies
, Vol. 
29
No. 
1
, pp. 
85
-
113
, doi: .
Albalate
,
D.
and
Fageda
,
X.
(
2023
), “
Getting closer to your destination: the role of available surface connections on the supply of low-cost carriers in secondary European tourist airports
”,
Research in Transportation Business and Management
, Vol. 
48
, 100899, doi: .
Airport Review
,
I.
(
2024
), “
The power of AI and machine learning for airport operations
”,
available at:
 https://www.internationalairportreview.com/article/222537/the-power-of-ai-and-machine-learning-for-airport-operations/ (
accessed
 6 January 2025).
Aleksijevits
,
K.
(
2019
), “
Consumer motivation and behavior when selecting a wellness holiday destination
”,
International Journal of Spa and Wellness
, Vol. 
2
No. 
2
, pp. 
78
-
97
, doi: .
Ali
,
F.
,
Cain
,
L.
,
Legendre
,
T.S.
and
Wu
,
L.
(
2023
), “
The intersection of technology, accessible tourism and tourists with intellectual disabilities: proposing a novel conceptual framework
”,
Journal of Hospitality and Tourism Research
, Vol. 
47
No. 
4
, pp. 
76
-
90
, doi: .
Arachchi
,
H.A.D.M.
and
Samarasinghe
,
G.D.
(
2024
), “
Impact of embedded AI mobile smart speech recognition on consumer attitudes towards AI and purchase intention across generations X and Y
”,
European Journal of Management Studies
, Vol. 
29
No. 
1
, pp. 
3
-
29
, doi: .
Arici
,
H.E.
and
Köseoglu
,
M.A.
(
2025
), “
What are the most influential drivers of tourism destination competitiveness?
”,
Journal of Destination Marketing and Management
, Vol. 
36
, 100990, doi: .
AviationWeek
(
2020
), “
City-pairs drop by 7,300 as London loses status as world’s best-connected city
”,
available at:
 https://aviationweek.com/air-transport/airports-networks/city-pairs-drop-7300-london-loses-status-worlds-best-connected-city (
accessed
 1 February 2025).
Bakır
,
M.
,
Atalık
,
Ö.
and
Itani
,
N.
(
2024
), “
Service quality and repurchase intentions in the airline industry: a multiple mediation analysis through customer citizenship behaviour
”,
Current Issues in Tourism
, pp. 
1
-
22
, doi: .
CAA
(
2024
), “
Data and analysis. Aviation data, statistics and report
”,
available at:
 https://www.caa.co.uk/data-and-analysis/ (
accessed
 26 February 2025).
Calle-Vaquero
,
M.d. l.
,
García-Hernández
,
M.
and
Mendoza de Miguel
,
S.
(
2021
), “
Urban planning regulations for tourism in the context of overtourism. Applications in historic centres
”,
Sustainability
, Vol. 
13
No. 
1
, p.
70
, doi: .
Chang
,
Y.C.
,
Lee
,
W.H.
and
Hsu
,
C.J.
(
2020
), “
Identifying competitive position for ten Asian aviation hubs
”,
Transport Policy
, Vol. 
87
, pp. 
51
-
66
, doi: .
Chaturvedi
,
R.
,
Verma
,
S.
,
Ali
,
F.
and
Kumar
,
S.
(
2023
), “
Reshaping tourist experience with AI-enabled technologies: a comprehensive review and future research agenda
”,
International Journal of Human-Computer Interaction
, Vol. 
40
No. 
18
, pp. 
5517
-
553 3
, doi: .
Christensen
,
J.
,
Hansen
,
J.M.
and
Wilson
,
P.
(
2024
), “
Understanding the role and impact of Generative Artificial Intelligence (AI) hallucination within consumers’ tourism decision-making processes
”,
Current Issues in Tourism
, Vol. 
28
No. 
4
, pp. 
1
-
16
, doi: .
Cobanoglu
,
C.
and
Kocak
,
E.
(
2023
), “
The asymmetric response of travel demand to twitter-based uncertainty: a global empirical assessment
”,
Journal of Hospitality and Tourism Management
, Vol. 
54
, pp. 
481
-
485
, doi: .
Coca-Stefaniak
,
J.A.
(
2019
), “
Marketing smart tourism cities – a strategic dilemma
”,
International Journal of Tourism Cities
, Vol. 
5
No. 
4
, pp. 
513
-
518
, doi: .
Coca-Stefaniak
,
J.A.
(
2021
), “
Beyond smart tourism cities – towards a new generation of ‘wise’ tourism destinations
”,
Journal of Tourism Futures
, Vol. 
7
No. 
2
, pp. 
251
-
258
, doi: .
Coles
,
T.
(
2021
), “
Tourism, Brexit and the climate crisis: on intersecting crises and their effects
”,
Journal of Sustainable Tourism
, Vol. 
29
No. 
9
, pp. 
1529
-
1546
, doi: .
da Silva
,
M.A.
,
Costa
,
R.A.
and
Moreira
,
A.C.
(
2018
), “
The influence of travel agents and tour operators’ perspectives on a tourism destination. The case of Portuguese intermediaries on Brazil’s image
”,
Journal of Hospitality and Tourism Management
, Vol. 
34
, pp. 
93
-
104
, doi: .
Department for Digital, Culture, Media & Sport
(
2021
), “
The tourism recovery plan
”,
available at:
 https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/60c239a8e90e074397d8c8b0/Tourism_Recovery_Plan__Web_Accessible_.pdf (
accessed
 2 February 2025).
Dresner
,
M.E.
and
Zou
,
L.
(
2024
), “
Do open skies still matter?
”,
Journal of the Air Transport Research Society
, Vol. 
2
, 100019, doi: .
Dutta
,
A.
,
Mishra
,
T.
,
Uddin
,
G.S.
and
Yang
,
Y.
(
2021
), “
Brexit uncertainty and volatility persistence in tourism demand
”,
Current Issues in Tourism
, Vol. 
24
No. 
16
, pp. 
2225
-
2232
, doi: .
Dwivedi
,
Y.K.
,
Hughes
,
L.
,
Bhadeshia
,
H.K.
,
Ananiadou
,
S.
,
Cohn
,
A.G.
,
Cole
,
J.M.
,
Conduit
,
G.
,
Desarkar
,
M.S.
and
Wang
,
X.
(
2024
), “
Artificial intelligence (AI) futures: India-UK collaborations emerging from the 4th Royal Society Yusuf Hamied workshop
”,
International Journal of Information Management
, Vol. 
76
, 102725, doi: .
EUROCONTROL
(
2024
), “
European aviation overview 2023
”,
available at:
 https://www.eurocontrol.int/sites/default/files/2024-01/eurocontrol-european-aviation-overview-20240118-2023-review.pdf (
accessed
 3 February 2025).
Euromonitor International
(
2022
), “
Top 100 city destination 2019 Edition
”,
available at:
 https://go.euromonitor.com/white-paper-travel-2019-100-cities.html (
accessed
 3 February 2025).
Farhadi
,
F.
,
Sibdari
,
S.Y.
and
Pyke
,
D.F.
(
2025
), “
Vertical outsourcing and airfare idiosyncrasies in the US passenger air transport market
”,
Journal of the Air Transport Research Society
, Vol. 
4
, 100057, doi: .
Farkic
,
J.
and
Coca-Stefaniak
,
J.A.
(
2024
), “
Editorial: rethinking tourism in cities – alternative spaces and responsible practices
”,
International Journal of Tourism Cities
, Vol. 
10
No. 
1
, pp. 
1
-
5
, doi: .
Florido-Benítez
,
L.
(
2021
), “
The effects of COVID-19 on Andalusian tourism and aviation sector
”,
Tourism Review
, Vol. 
76
No. 
4
, pp. 
829
-
857
, doi: .
Florido-Benítez
,
L.
(
2022
), “
The impact of tourism promotion in tourist destinations: a bibliometric study
”,
International Journal of Tourism Cities
, Vol. 
8
No. 
4
, pp. 
844
-
882
, doi: .
Florido-Benítez
,
L.
(
2024
), “
Generative artificial intelligence: a proactive and creative tool to achieve hyper-segmentation and hyper-personalization in the tourism industry
”,
International Journal of Tourism Cities
, Vol.
ahead-of-print
No.
ahead-of-print
, doi: .
Florido-Benítez
,
L.
(
2025
), “
The role of cybersecurity as a preventive measure in digital tourism and travel: a systematic literature review
”,
Discover Computing
, Vol. 
28
No. 
1
, p.
28
, doi: .
Florido-Benítez
,
L.
and
del Alcázar Martínez
,
B.
(
2024
), “
How artificial intelligence (AI) is powering new tourism marketing and the future agenda for smart tourist destinations
”,
Electronics
, Vol. 
13
No. 
21
, p.
4151
, doi: .
Florido-Benítez
,
L.
and
del Alcázar Martínez
,
B.
(
2025
), “
The disruptive use of artificial intelligence (AI) will considerably enhance the tourism and air transport industries
”,
Electronics
, Vol. 
14
No. 
1
, p.
16
, doi: .
Florido-Benítez
,
L.
,
Morrison
,
A.M.
and
Coca-Stefaniak
,
J.A.
(
2025
), “
Aerotainment – merging airport and theme park experiences
”,
Annals of Tourism Research
, Vol. 
110
, 103881, doi: .
Gaggero
,
A.A.
and
Piga
,
C.A.
(
2010
), “
Airline competition in the British isles
”,
Transportation Research Part E: Logistics and Transportation Review
, Vol. 
46
No. 
2
, pp. 
270
-
279
, doi: .
Gajić
,
T.
,
Petrović
,
M.D.
,
Pešić
,
A.M.
,
Conić
,
M.
and
Gligorijević
,
N.
(
2024
), “
Innovative approaches in hotel management: integrating artificial intelligence (AI) and the internet of things (IoT) to enhance operational efficiency and sustainability
”,
Sustainability
, Vol. 
16
No. 
17
, p.
7279
, doi: .
Gani
,
A.
(
2022
), “
Using a consumer choice model to explain the effect of the newly developed oxford COVID-19 government stringency measure on hotel occupancy rates
”,
Quality and Quantity
, Vol. 
56
No. 
6
, pp. 
4313
-
4333
, doi: .
Gil-Alana
,
L.A.
,
Ruiz-Alba
,
J.L.
and
Ayestarán
,
R.
(
2020
), “
UK tourism arrivals and departures: seasonality, persistence and time trends
”,
Applied Economics
, Vol. 
52
No. 
46
, pp. 
5077
-
5087
, doi: .
Goswami
,
G.G.
,
Chowdhury
,
M.H.
,
Rahman
,
M.
and
Atique
,
M.A.
(
2024
), “
Australian tourist flow: a gravity model approach
”,
Sustainability
, Vol. 
16
No. 
13
, p.
5740
, doi: .
Graham
,
A.
(
2023
),
Managing Airports: An International Perspective
,
Routledge
,
London
, doi: .
Gursoy
,
D.
and
Cai
,
R.
(
2024
), “
Artificial intelligence: an overview of research trends and future directions
”,
International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management
, Vol. 
37
No. 
1
, pp. 
1
-
17
, doi: .
Halpern
,
N.
and
Graham
,
A.
(
2021
),
Airport Marketing
,
Routledge
,
London
, doi: .
Halpern
,
N.
,
Graham
,
A.
and
Dennis
,
N.
(
2016
), “
Low-cost carriers and the changing fortunes of airports in the UK
”,
Research in Transportation Business and Management
, Vol. 
21
, pp. 
33
-
43
, doi: .
Haverila
,
M.
,
Haverila
,
K.C.
and
McLaughlin
,
C.
(
2025
), “
The impact of perceived knowledge on marketing agility in the context of big data: role of deployment level
”,
European Journal of Management Studies
, Vol. 
30
No. 
1
, pp. 
3
-
29
, doi: .
Heathrow Media Centre
(
2019
), “
Heathrow on-track to top 81 million passengers as the airport pushes for sustainable fuels take off
”,
available at:
 https://mediacentre.heathrow.com/pressrelease/detail/11441 (
accessed
 4 February 2025).
House of Commons Library
(
2022
), “
Regional airports
”,
available at:
 https://researchbriefings.files.parliament.uk/documents/SN00323/SN00323.pdf (
accessed
 5 February 2025).
Huang
,
T.Y.T.
,
Jordan
,
E.J.
,
Boley
,
B.B.
,
Woosnam
,
K.M.
,
Xiao
,
X.
,
Maruyama
,
N.
and
Rojas
,
C.
(
2024a
), “
Rebuilding international tourism after a pandemic: using Hofstede’s cultural dimensions to identify markets with lower pandemic-related travel risks
”,
Journal of Destination Marketing and Management
, Vol. 
31
, 100855, doi: .
Huang
,
A.
,
Ozturk
,
A.B.
,
Zhang
,
T.
,
de la Mora Velasco
,
E.
and
Haney
,
A.
(
2024b
), “
Unpacking AI for hospitality and tourism services: exploring the role of perceived enjoyment on future use intentions
”,
International Journal of Hospitality Management
, Vol. 
119
, 103693, doi: .
Hussein
,
M.S.
,
Arafa
,
H.F.
and
Abouzeid
,
F.Y.
(
2023
), “
The impact of low-cost carriers (LCCS) on Arab tourists’ purchasing decision to travel to Egypt
”,
International Journal of Tourism and Hospitality Management
, Vol. 
6
No. 
1
, pp. 
49
-
78
, doi: .
IATA
(
2024
), “
Airline and airport code search
”,
available at:
 https://www.iata.org/en/publications/directories/code-search/ (
accessed
 5 January 2025).
Jang
,
K.M.
,
Chen
,
J.
,
Kang
,
Y.
,
Kim
,
J.
,
Lee
,
J.
and
Duarte
,
F.
(
2023
), “
Understanding place identity with generative AI
”,
arXiv preprint arXiv:2306.04662
, doi: .
Jiménez
,
J.L.
,
Pérez-Granja
,
U.
and
Valido
,
J.
(
2023
), “
How can residents’ air transport subsidies affect outbound tourism behaviour on islands? Evidence from Spain
”,
Journal of Travel Research
, Vol. 
62
No. 
6
, pp. 
1372
-
1387
, doi: .
Koçak
,
B.B.
(
2023
), “
Comparison of artificial intelligence techniques for the UK air passenger short-term demand forecasting: a destination insight study
”,
Journal of Aviation
, Vol. 
7
No. 
3
, pp. 
415
-
424
, doi: .
Kölker
,
K.
,
Stoebke
,
E.
and
Lütjens
,
K.
(
2025
), “
In the flow of connectivity: a dynamic network exploration of Europe’s air transportation system
”,
Journal of the Air Transport Research Society
, Vol. 
4
, 100055, doi: .
Koshiyama
,
A.
,
Kazim
,
E.
,
Treleaven
,
P.
,
Rai
,
P.
,
Szpruch
,
L.
,
Pavey
,
G.
,
Ahamat
,
G.
,
Leuther
,
F.
,
Goebel
,
R.
,
Knight
,
J.A.
,
Hitrova
,
C.
,
Barnett
,
J.
,
Nachev
,
P.
,
Barber
,
D.
,
Chamorro-Premuzic
,
T.
,
Klemmer
,
K.
,
Gregorovic
,
M.
,
Khan
,
S.
,
Lomas
,
E.
,
Hilliard
,
A.
and
Chatterjee
,
S.
(
2024
), “
Towards algorithm auditing: managing legal, ethical and technological risks of AI, ML and associated algorithms
”,
Royal Society Open Science
, Vol. 
11
No. 
5
, 230859, doi: .
Kouroupi
,
N.
and
Metaxas
,
T.
(
2024
), “
Can the metaverse and its associated digital tools and technologies provide an opportunity for destinations to address the vulnerability of overtourism?
”,
Tourism and Hospitality
, Vol. 
4
No. 
2
, pp. 
355
-
373
, doi: .
Ku
,
E.C.S.
(
2024
), “
Contactless service: artificial intelligence applications of airports
”,
International Journal of Human-Computer Interaction
, pp. 
1
-
13
, doi: .
Lee
,
S.
(
2015
), “
Research note: quality of government and tourism destination competitiveness
”,
Tourism Economics
, Vol. 
21
No. 
4
, pp. 
881
-
888
, doi: .
Lee
,
C.G.
and
How
,
S.M.
(
2023
), “
The impacts of domestic and global economic policy uncertainties on the hotel room demand: evidence from Singapore
”,
Tourism Economics
, Vol. 
29
No. 
4
, pp. 
1121
-
1129
, doi: .
Longweni
,
M.
and
Mdaka
,
L.E.
(
2024
), “
The multiple mediation role of message-sending skills and the ability to deal with interference in listening and feedback
”,
European Journal of Management Studies
, Vol. 
29
No. 
1
, pp. 
51
-
70
, doi: .
Løseth
,
K.
,
Engeset
,
A.B.
,
Urbaniak-Brekke
,
A.M.
,
Gössling
,
S.
and
Walnum
,
H.J.
(
2025
), “
Carbon mitigation in the Norwegian tourism industry: unfolding complexities in practical efforts and policy measures
”,
Scandinavian Journal of Hospitality and Tourism
, pp. 
1
-
17
, doi: .
Lovemore
,
C.
,
Chavunduka
,
D.
,
Chinofunga
,
S.
,
Marere
,
R.P.
,
Chifamba
,
O.
and
Kaviya
,
M.
(
2023
), “
Promoting perceived service quality and organisational performance through customer retention strategies: the moderating role of ICT
”,
European Journal of Management Studies
, Vol. 
28
No. 
3
, pp. 
193
-
211
, doi: .
Luis
,
J.Á.H.
(
2004
), “
The role of Inter-Island air transport in the Canary Islands
”,
Journal of Transport Geography
, Vol. 
12
No. 
3
, pp. 
235
-
244
, doi: .
Martin
,
R.
,
Gardiner
,
B.
,
Pike
,
A.
,
Sunley
,
P.
and
Tyler
,
P.
(
2021
), “
Economic shocks and the differential resilience of places
”,
Regional Studies Policy Impact Books
, Vol. 
3
No. 
2
, pp. 
73
-
85
, doi: .
Mazzola
,
F.
,
Cirà
,
A.
,
Ruggieri
,
G.
and
Butler
,
R.
(
2022
), “
Air transport and tourism flows to Islands: a panel analysis for southern European countries
”,
International Journal of Tourism Research
, Vol. 
24
No. 
5
, pp. 
639
-
652
, doi: .
Medina-Muñoz
,
D.R.
,
Medina-Muñoz
,
R.D.
and
Suárez-Cabrera
,
M.Á.
(
2018
), “
Determining important attributes for assessing the attractiveness of airlines
”,
Journal of Air Transport Management
, Vol. 
70
, pp. 
45
-
56
, doi: .
Meierdirk
,
C.
and
Fleischer
,
S.
(
2025
), “
The impact of the pandemic on management in public sector organisations
”,
European Journal of Management Studies
, Vol. 
30
No. 
1
, pp. 
95
-
116
, doi: .
Morrison
,
A.M.
and
Buhalis
,
D.
(
2024
),
Routledge Handbook of Trends and Issues in Tourism Sustainability, Planning and Development, Management, and Technology
,
Routledge
,
New York
.
Morrison
,
A.M.
and
Coca-Stefaniak
,
J.A.
(
2020
),
Routledge Handbook of Tourism Cities
,
Routledge
,
London
.
Morrison
,
A.M.
and
Coca-Stefaniak
,
J.A.
(
2024
), “City branding and sustainable urban development”, in
Handbook on Sustainable Urban Tourism
,
Edward Elgar Publishing
, pp. 
348
-
364
.
Morrison
,
A.M.
and
Maxim
,
C.
(
2021
),
World Tourism Cities: A Systematic Approach to Urban Tourism
,
Routledge
,
London
.
Nakayama
,
C.
(
2024
), “
Understanding destination marketing processes through film tourism: local and global networks
”,
Journal of Travel and Tourism Marketing
, Vol. 
41
No. 
9
, pp. 
1177
-
1189
, doi: .
NISRA
(
2024
), “
2023 Northern Ireland annual hotel occupancy survey publication
”,
available at:
 https://www.nisra.gov.uk/publications/ni-annual-tourism-statistics-2023 (
accessed
 52 January 2025).
Onder
,
I.
and
McCabe
,
S.
(
2025
), “
How AI hallucinations threaten research integrity in tourism
”,
Annals of Tourism Research
, Vol. 
111
, 103900, doi: .
ONS
(
2022
), “
Travel trends: 2022
”,
available at:
 https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/leisureandtourism/articles/traveltrends/2022#toc (
accessed
 7 January 2025).
Papatheodorou
,
A.
(
2021
), “
A review of research into air transport and tourism: launching the annals of tourism research curated collection on air transport and tourism
”,
Annals of Tourism Research
, Vol. 
87
, 103151, doi: .
Phillis
,
Y.A.
,
Kouikoglou
,
V.S.
and
Verdugo
,
C.
(
2017
), “
Urban sustainability assessment and ranking of cities
”,
Computers, Environment and Urban Systems
, Vol. 
64
, pp. 
254
-
265
, doi: .
Poo
,
M.C.P.
,
Yang
,
Z.
,
Dimitriu
,
D.
and
Qu
,
Z.
(
2021
), “
An advanced climate resilience indicator framework for airports: a UK case study
”,
Transportation Research Part D: Transport and Environment
, Vol. 
101
, 103099, doi: .
Price
,
S.
,
Wilkinson
,
T.
and
Coles
,
T.
(
2022
), “
Crisis? How small tourism businesses talk about COVID-19 and business change in the UK
”,
Current Issues in Tourism
, Vol. 
25
No. 
7
, pp. 
1088
-
1105
, doi: .
Raihan
,
A.
,
Voumik
,
L.C.
,
Akter
,
S.
,
Ridzuan
,
A.R.
,
Fahlevi
,
M.
,
Aljuaid
,
M.
and
Saniuk
,
S.
(
2024
), “
Taking flight: exploring the relationship between air transport and Malaysian economic growth
”,
Journal of Air Transport Management
, Vol. 
115
, 102540, doi: .
Raun
,
J.
,
Shoval
,
N.
and
Tiru
,
M.
(
2020
), “
Gateways for intra-national tourism flows: measured using two types of tracking technologies
”,
International Journal of Tourism Cities
, Vol. 
6
No. 
2
, pp. 
261
-
278
, doi: .
See
,
K.F.
,
Ülkü
,
T.
,
Forsyth
,
P.
and
Niemeier
,
H.M.
(
2023
), “
Twenty years of airport efficiency and productivity studies: a machine learning bibliometric analysis
”,
Research in Transportation Business and Management
, Vol. 
46
, 100771, doi: .
Spanaki
,
M.Z.
,
Papatheodorou
,
A.
and
Pappas
,
N.
(
2021
), “
Tourism in the post COVID-19 era: evidence from hotels in the Northeast of England
”,
Worldwide Hospitality and Tourism Themes
, Vol. 
13
No. 
3
, pp. 
357
-
368
, doi: .
Sun
,
F.
,
Yin
,
H.
,
Sun
,
X.
,
Wang
,
X.
and
Zhang
,
Y.
(
2024
), “
Resilience analysis of cities’ air accessibility under disruptions
”,
Journal of Air Transport Management
, Vol. 
120
, 102671, doi: .
The University of Queensland
(
2024
), “
Tourism leads the pack in growing carbon emissions
”,
available at:
 https://www.uq.edu.au/news/article/2024/11/tourism-leads-pack-growing-carbon-emissions (
accessed
 22 February 2025).
Tracy
,
S.J.
(
2024
),
Qualitative Research Methods: Collecting Evidence, Crafting Analysis, Communicating Impact
,
John Wiley & Sons
,
Hoboken, NJ
.
Travel Radar
(
2024
), “
Post-pandemic travel surge: UK airports hit highest traffic levels in third quarter of 2024
”,
available at:
 https://travelradar.aero/post-pandemic-travel-surge-uk-airports-hit-highest-traffic-levels-in-third-quarter-of-2024/ (
accessed
 22 February 2025).
UK Parliament
(
2022
), “
Promoting Britain abroad – report summary
”,
available at:
 https://publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm5803/cmselect/cmcumeds/156/summary.html (
accessed
 21 January 2025).
Villacé-Molinero
,
T.
,
Fernández-Muñoz
,
J.J.
,
Muñoz-Mazón
,
A.I.
,
Flecha-Barrio
,
M.D.
and
Fuentes-Moraleda
,
L.
(
2023
), “
Holiday travel intention in a crisis scenario: a comparative analysis of Spain’s main source markets
”,
Tourism Review
, Vol. 
78
No. 
1
, pp. 
18
-
41
, doi: .
VisitBritain
(
2024a
), “
Britain’s visitor economy facts
”,
available at:
 https://www.VisitBritain.org/visitor-economy-facts (
accessed
 1 January 2025).
VisitBritain
(
2024b
), “
Inbound trends by market
”,
available at:
 https://www.VisitBritain.org/inbound-trends-market (
accessed
 1 January 2025).
VisitBritain
(
2024c
), “
Accommodation occupancy: archive
”,
available at:
 https://www.VisitBritain.org/research-insights/england-hotel-occupancy-latest (
accessed
 12 January 2025).
VisitBritain
(
2024d
), “
2024 inbound tourism forecast
”,
available at:
 https://www.visitbritain.org/research-insights/inbound-tourism-forecast#:∼:text=Summary,i.e.%20when%20adjusting%20for%20inflation (
accessed
 11 January 2025).
Vlassi
,
E.
,
Papatheodorou
,
A.
and
Karachalis
,
N.
(
2024
), “
Evaluating the effectiveness of online destination marketing campaigns from a sustainability and resilience viewpoint: the case of ‘this is Athens and partners’ in Greece
”,
Sustainability
, Vol. 
16
No. 
17
, p.
7649
, doi: .
Wandelt
,
S.
,
Sun
,
X.
and
Zhang
,
A.
(
2024
), “
On the extent, trend, and stability of market concentration in the global aviation system since 2010
”,
Journal of Air Transport Management
, Vol. 
119
, 102652, doi: .
Wolniak
,
R.
and
Stecuła
,
K.
(
2024
), “
Artificial intelligence in smart cities — applications, barriers, and future directions: a review
”,
Smart Cities
, Vol. 
7
No. 
3
, pp. 
1346
-
1389
, doi: .
WTTC
(
2022
), “
New report from WTTC reveals UK Travel and Tourism sector is expected to create 700,000 jobs over the next decade
”,
available at:
 https://wttc.org/news-article/new-report-from-wttc-reveals-uk-travel-and-tourism-sector-is-expected-to-create-700000-jobs-over-the-next-decade (
accessed
 27 January 2025).
Xiong
,
M.
and
Wang
,
H.
(
2022
), “
Digital twin applications in aviation industry: a review
”,
The international Journal of Advanced Manufacturing Technology
, Vol. 
121
Nos
9-10
, pp. 
5677
-
5692
, doi: .
Yabanci
,
O.
(
2024
), “
Seasonality of tourism demand in Turkey: a multi-methodical analysis
”,
Current Issues in Tourism
, Vol. 
27
No. 
12
, pp. 
1930
-
1946
, doi: .
Yao
,
H.
,
Huang
,
Y.
and
Liu
,
J.
(
2023
), “
Study on travel behaviour characteristics of air passengers in an airport hinterland
”,
Journal of Air Transport Management
, Vol. 
112
, 102440, doi: .
Zhang
,
L.
and
Gong
,
J.
(
2024
), “
Decoding air passenger flows: identifying the role of network autocorrelation in air travel
”,
Journal of Air Transport Management
, Vol. 
120
, 102658, doi: .
Żemła
,
M.
(
2024
), “
European historic cities and overtourism – conflicts and development paths in the light of systematic literature review
”,
International Journal of Tourism Cities
, Vol. 
10
No. 
1
, pp. 
353
-
372
, doi: .
Zou
,
L.
,
Dresner
,
M.E.
and
Yu
,
C.
(
2025
), “
The impact of the US-China trade war on air and ocean shipments
”,
Transport Policy
, Vol. 
160
, pp. 
89
-
106
, doi: .
Álvarez-Díaz
,
M.
,
González-Gómez
,
M.
and
Otero-Giráldez
,
M.S.
(
2019
), “
Low-cost airlines and international tourism demand. The case of Porto’s airport in the northwest of the Iberian Peninsula
”,
Journal of Air Transport Management
, Vol. 
79
, 101689, doi: .
Pappas
,
N.
(
2019
), “
UK outbound travel and Brexit complexity
”,
Tourism Management
, Vol. 
72
, pp. 
12
-
22
, doi: .
Rasheed
,
A.F.
and
Balakrishnan
,
J.
(
2024
), “
Innovating for retention: strategies for enhancing customer retention in theme parks
”,
World Leisure Journal
, Vol. 
67
No. 
1
, pp. 
1
-
19
, doi: .
Rey
,
B.
,
Myro
,
R.L.
and
Galera
,
A.
(
2011
), “
Effect of low-cost airlines on tourism in Spain. A dynamic panel data model
”,
Journal of Air Transport Management
, Vol. 
17
No. 
3
, pp. 
163
-
167
, doi: .
Published in European Journal of Management Studies. Published by Emerald Publishing Limited. This article is published under the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY 4.0) licence. Anyone may reproduce, distribute, translate and create derivative works of this article (for both commercial and non-commercial purposes), subject to full attribution to the original publication and authors. The full terms of this licence maybe seen at Link to the terms of the CC BY 4.0 licence.

or Create an Account

Close Modal
Close Modal

Gift article access

As a benefit of your subscription, you can share temporary access to restricted articles.

Each link will stop working after 30 days or 10 uses. You may create up to 10 links in a 30 day period.

Please sign in to your personal account to gift article access.

Register

Gift article access

As a benefit of your subscription, you can share temporary access to restricted articles.

Each link will stop working after 30 days or 10 uses. You may create up to 10 links in a 30 day period.

Gift articles remaining: --

Gift article access

Each link will stop working after 30 days or 10 uses. You may create up to 10 links in a 30 day period.

Gift articles remaining: --

Gift article access

As a benefit of your subscription, you can share temporary access to restricted articles.

Each link will stop working after 30 days or 10 uses.

You have reached the limit of 10 links within a 30 day period.