PROPÓSITO

PROCESSES ON AIRPORT TAXICAB PLANNING ISSUES

The survey questionnaire also examined the influence that selected groups have in decision- making processes involving airport taxicab planning initiatives. This section summarizes the influence that taxicab operators, independent taxicab operators, and outside transport regulatory agencies have on US airport decision-making processes in taxicab planning issues.

In assessing the influence of various groups in issues involving airport taxicab operations, a Likert scale of 1 to 5 was used, with 1 representing the least decision-making influence and 5 representing the most decision-making influence. The respondent airports on average identified

that an airport’s senior management team has the most influence on decisions regarding operational aspects of airport taxicab planning matters, with a mean score of 4.5098, followed by the airport’s governing board, with a slightly lower mean score of 4.1633. As to the three actors responsible for the provision of airport taxicab services, the outside taxicab regulatory agency received a mean score of 3.4600, followed by the taxicab operators with a mean score of 3.1961. The independent contractor drivers who provide the customer services to airport taxicab patrons were rated by these respondent airports as having the least influence of all of the seven groups listed in Table 6-21, with a sub-midpoint mean score of 2.7647.

Table 6-21: Influence on US Airport Decisions Regarding Operational or Procedural Issues Pertaining to Airport Taxicab Planning Matters

(Scale: 1 = Least Likely to 5 = Most Likely) General Public Airport Board Airlines Airport Senior Management Taxicab Operators Taxicab Drivers Transport Regulatory Agencies N Valid 51 49 51 51 51 51 50 Missing 0 2 0 0 0 0 1 Mean 3.4706 4.1633 2.9608 4.5098 3.1961 2.7647 3.4600 Standard deviation 1.10187 1.00720 .93725 .70349 .72165 1.14172 1.34331 Sum 177.00 204.00 151.00 230.00 163.00 141.00 173.00

Histograms generated from the airport responses to the influence of these various groups regarding operational issues (Figures 6-17 through 6-22) support the data summarized in Table 6-21.

Figure 6-16: Histogram of General Public Influence in Operational Changes Impacting Airport Taxicab Services

Figure 6-17: Histogram of Airport Board Influence in Operational Changes Impacting Airport Taxicab Services

Figure 6-19: Histogram of Senior Airport Management Influence in Operational Changes Impacting Airport Taxicab Services

Figure 6-20: Histogram of Taxicab Operator Influence in Operational Changes Impacting Airport Taxicab Services

Figure 6-21: Histogram of Taxicab Driver Influence in Operational Changes Impacting Airport Taxicab Services

Figure 6-22: Histogram of Transport Regulatory Agency Influence in Operational Changes Impacting Airport Taxicab Services

As to the influence of the parties regarding airport taxicab economic issues (e.g., taxicab rates and charges), a Likert scale of 1 to 5 was used, with a score of 1 representing having the least influence, and a score of 5 representing having the most influence. On average, the airport’s senior management group was, again, seen by the respondents as having the most influence with a mean score 4.333, while the airport’s governing board receiving a score of 4.0833. In terms of the three actors responsible for airport taxicab services, the outside transport regulatory agencies received the highest mean score of 3.2400 in terms of their influence involving economic issues. The taxicab operators and independent contractor taxicab drivers received sub-midpoint scores of 2.9608 and 2.4706 respectively from the respondent US airports with respect to their influence in decisions involving economic-related taxicab planning matters (see Table 6-22). Again, the independent contractor drivers received the lowest of all other groups herein with regards to their influence on US airport taxicab planning initiatives.

Table 6-22: Influence on US Airport Decisions Regarding Economic Changes Pertaining to Airport Taxicab Planning Issues

(Scale: 1 = Least Likely to 5 = Most Likely) General Public Airport Board Airlines Airport Senior Management Taxicab Operators Taxicab Drivers Transport Regulatory Agencies N Valid 51 48 51 51 51 51 50 Missing 0 3 0 0 0 0 1 Mean 3.2157 4.0833 2.8431 4.3333 2.9608 2.4706 3.2400 Standard deviation 1.28552 1.02798 1.02708 .73937 1.01903 1.15504 1.34862 Sum 164.00 196.00 145.00 221.00 151.00 126.00 162.00

The histograms generated in SPSS for the airport responses to the question regarding actor influence in economic changes related to airport taxicab planning issues (Figures 6-23 through 6- 29) emerged as validating the data contained in Table 6-22.

Figure 6-23: Histogram of General Public Influence in Economic Changes Impacting Airport Taxicab Services

Figure 6-24: Histogram of Airport Governing Board in Economic Changes Impacting Airport Taxicab Services

Figure 6-25: Histogram of Airlines in Economic Changes Impacting Airport Taxicab Services

Figure 6-26: Histogram of Airport Senior Management in Economic Changes Impacting Airport Taxicab Services

Figure 6-27: Histogram of Taxicab Operators in Economic Changes Impacting Airport Taxicab Services

Figure 6-28: Histogram of Taxicab Drivers in Economic Changes Impacting Airport Taxicab Services

Figure 6-29: Histogram of Transport Regulatory Agencies in Economic Changes Impacting Airport Taxicab Services

Lastly, the US hub airports were asked in the survey questionnaire to rate the general influence of selected external or off-airport parties in airport taxicab planning initiatives, including the actors responsible for supplying airport taxicab services. For this analysis, the general public was included as a listed influencer, as virtually all US airports with commercial airline service are owned and operated by a governmental entity (Reimer and Putnam 2008). The airlines was listed as an influencer as they have veto power over both US airport capital and operating budgets, in return for guaranteeing the bonds and other financial instruments used by US airports to finance capital infrastructure development (Nichol 2007). A Likert scale was again used to measure the influence levels of individual selected external actors using a 1 to 5 scale, with a score of 1 representing having the least influence in any decision-making process, and a score of 5 representing having the most influence. On average, the general public was rated by airport respondents as the outside external entity having the highest influence on US airport decisions involving airport taxicab planning matters, with a mean score of 3.5098, with the taxicab operators scoring closely behind with a mean score of 3.4902. The off-airport transport regulatory agencies received a mean score of 3.3600 from the airport respondents, while the independent contractor taxicab drivers received a mean score of 3.0784. The airlines were considered by the airport respondents as having the least influence of any of the selected external parties on decisions involving airport taxicab planning issues, with a sub-midpoint mean score of 2.9804 (see Table 6-23).

Table 6-23: General Influence of Selected Outside Entities on US Airport Decisions Regarding Airport Taxicab Planning Issues

(Scale: 1 = Least Likely to 5 = Most Likely) General Public Airlines Taxicab Operators Taxicab Drivers Transport Regulatory Agencies N Valid 51 51 51 51 50 Missing 0 0 0 0 1 Mean 3.5098 2.9804 3.4902 3.0784 3.3600 Standard deviation 1.08393 .96933 .85726 1.11073 1.15635 Sum 179.00 152.00 178.00 157.00 168.00

Histograms generated from SPSS were used to validate the data in Table 6-23 concerning airport ratings of the general influence of selected outside actors on decisions involving airport taxicab planning activities. Based on these histograms (Figures 6-30 through 6-34), no anomalies were found that would question the validity of the data in Table 6-23.

Figure 6-30: Histogram of General Public Level of General Influence in Airport Decision-Making Processes Regarding Airport Taxicab Planning Initiatives

Figure 6-31: Histogram of Airline Level of General Influence in Airport Decision-Making Processes Regarding Airport Taxicab Planning Initiatives

Figure 6-32: Histogram of Taxicab Operator Level of General Influence in Airport Decision-Making Processes Regarding Airport Taxicab Planning Initiatives

Figure 6-33: Histogram of Taxicab Driver Level of General Influence in Airport Decision-Making Processes Regarding Airport Taxicab Planning Initiatives

Figure 6-34: Histogram of Transport Regulatory Agency Level of General Influence in Airport Decision- Making Processes Regarding Airport Taxicab Planning Initiatives

Based upon the results noted in Tables 6-21 and 6-22, the airport respondents identified that the most influential actor in taxicab planning issues involving operational and economic issues was the airport’s senior management team, with scores of 4.5098 and 4.3333 respectively. These scores were slightly higher than the scores of 4.1633 and 4.0833 respectively given to the airport’s governing board, who are legally delegated with the authority to undertake actions and policies on behalf of the airport. This could possibly signify either that the members of these airport governing boards entrust the development and eventual implementation of airport taxicab planning initiatives to the professionals serving on the airport’s senior management staff, or that these boards may be pre-occupied with other airport-related concerns that are considered more significant. This finding is worthy of further investigation, but it will not be covered in this research.

Of the three actors who are directly responsible for the provision of airport taxicab services, the respondent US airports in Tables 6-21 and 6-22 appear to indicate that the outside transport regulatory agencies that license and regulate local taxicab services is the actor having the most influence on airport taxicab planning decisions involving operational and economic issues, with mean scores of 3.4600 and 3.2400 respectively. These airport respondents also noted that the taxicab operators have an influence as to the decision-making processes involving operational and economic issues in airport taxicab planning matters, with mean scores of 3.1961 and 2.9608 in that order. The airport respondents in Tables 6-21 and 6-22 apparently consistently rated the independent contractor taxicab drivers who provide transportation services to airport patrons as having the least influence of the other actors in airport taxicab planning decisions involving operational and economic issues, receiving mean scores of 2.7647 and 2.4706 correspondingly.

When airport governing boards and airport senior management results are removed from the analysis, as summarized in Table 6-23, the general public received the highest mean score of 3.5098 from the US airport respondents for their general influence on decisions involving airport taxicab planning initiatives. Taxicab operators received a higher mean score of

3.4902 compared to the score of 3.3600 given to the outside transport regulatory agencies regarding their influence on airport taxicab planning decisions. Although the independent contractor drivers received a lower score of 3.0784 from the airport respondents in Table 6-23, the airlines were ranked as having the least influence on airport taxicab planning decisions with a mean score of 2.9804. As to why the airlines, with their veto power over individual US airport capital and operating budgets, are perceived as having the least influence in US airport taxicab planning decisions involving both operational and economic- related issues, this finding from the collected data is worthy of future investigation, but it will not be probed any further in this research.