AIM University Group

Learning Outcome 1: REFERRED

AC 1.1 – Knowledge of key terminology and theories
Result: REFERRED
Francesca, your submission shows only a very basic awareness of key terminology, and this is not yet at the level required to meet this criterion. In Q1, you mention the Silk Road, cultural exchange, and the need for hotels and inns, which shows some familiarity with the topic, but these terms are not defined or explained with any precision. In Q2, your description of the Grand Tour as a trip that lets you learn about history, past, and culture is too vague — you do not identify it as a practice undertaken by wealthy young European men for educational purposes, you do not provide historical context, and you do not use any of the key terminology associated with it such as luxury travel, elite education, or cultural immersion. In Q3, you mention wide-body aircraft and airline alliances, which are relevant terms, but your explanation is very brief and does not demonstrate a secure understanding of what these mean or how they contributed to tourism growth. In Q4 and Q5, your responses use everyday language rather than academic or industry-specific terminology — for example, describing technology as making booking easier and faster, or listing benefits such as fast booking and easy payments, without using terms like online booking systems, digital platforms, real-time inventory, or traveller behaviour. To meet this criterion on resubmission, you need to identify, define, and correctly apply the key terms and concepts from the unit across all of your responses.

AC 1.2 – Analysis and application of concepts to real-world scenarios
Result: REFERRED
Francesca, your responses across the paper are too brief and do not demonstrate the analysis or application required to meet this criterion. In Q1, you note that the Silk Road contributed to cultural exchange and led to the development of hotels and inns, and that it introduced people from different cultures to each other and their food — these are relevant points, but they are stated rather than explained and the connection to modern tourism is not developed. In Q2, your response is very short and does not explain how the Grand Tour influenced modern luxury travel or educational tourism, which was a direct requirement of the question. In Q3, you correctly mention wide-body aircraft and airline alliances, and note that aviation made travel safer, faster, and more affordable, but there is no analysis of the impact on globalisation, mass tourism, or the structure of the modern industry. In Q4, your two examples of social media recommendations and online payments are relevant and show some awareness, but neither is explained in terms of how it has changed the way people plan or experience travel. In Q5, your lists of benefits and challenges are appropriate in content — fast booking, online feedback, easy payments, security risks, reduced face-to-face interaction, and app or Wi-Fi problems are all valid points — but they are presented as bullet points without any explanation or analysis. In Q6, you correctly note that air travel made tourism more affordable and accessible and that some countries depend on tourism income, but again this is stated rather than analysed. Your Section B essay is very brief and does not form a developed argument. You mention early trade, the Industrial Revolution, modern aviation, and technology in a single paragraph, but there is no explanation of how each development shaped the industry, no examples, and no conclusion. For resubmission, you need to expand every response significantly — explain how and why each development occurred and what its specific impact on tourism and hospitality has been, rather than simply naming it.

AC 1.3 – Class participation and discussion contributions | REFERRED

Learning Outcome 2: REFERRED

AC 2.1 | Referred
Francesca, in Q1 you defined three of the five required terms, but Deregulation and Secondary Airport were not attempted — both are required and must be included in your resubmission. Of the three definitions provided, the Jet Age was too brief and needed more context about the era and its significance to aviation and tourism. Your LCC definition was inaccurate — a low-cost carrier does not offer more services; the defining feature is that services are stripped back and unbundled to keep base fares low. Your Full Service Carrier definition was the strongest, correctly identifying complimentary meals and checked baggage as distinguishing features and linking these directly to Meridian Air.

AC 2.2 | Referred
In Q2(a), you identified two changes brought by the Jet Age — faster travel time and more space for passengers — but neither was developed into a specific explanation of how these changes contributed to Caribbean tourism growth. The link to Meridian Air's founding in 1974 was implied through the Miami and Toronto route reference but needed to be made explicit. In Q2(b), the two LCC core features you identified — faster flight time and more seats — are not accurate. Genuine LCC cost advantages come from lean cost structures, high aircraft utilisation, ancillary revenue models, and no-frills service offerings. Your MA Lite failure point was on the right track in identifying that it could not match LCC fares, but the key reason from the case study — that full-service staff contracts were carried over, making it structurally impossible to compete on price — was not explained.

AC 2.3 | Pass
Your Q3 response was your strongest section. You correctly identified three logistics and operational problems — baggage mishandling, slow cargo operations due to manual paperwork, and the absence of a centralized Flight Operations Center — and for each you named the problem, gave a basic explanation of why it is an operational issue, and described a realistic passenger consequence. In Q4, you chose crew rest not being properly recorded and safety data not being linked to maintenance, both of which are valid safety concerns from the case study. Your consequences were brief but relevant — pilot fatigue leading to error, and mechanical failures going undetected. In Q5(a), you correctly identified the split across three offices as the primary coordination failure and the untrained A-CDM staff as the second, with appropriate corrective actions for both. These sections showed good engagement with the case study.

Learning Outcome 3: Incomplete
No Submission

Learning Outcome 4: Incomplete
No Submission