passengers’ choice between competing airports radosav jovanovic faculty of transport and traffic...
TRANSCRIPT
PASSENGERS’ CHOICE BETWEEN COMPETING AIRPORTS
Radosav Jovanovic
Faculty of Transport and Traffic Engineering, University of Belgrade
Introduction
Liberalization of airline regulation – changes to management and planning of airports
Increased competition Low cost carriers EU expansion Necessity of explicit analysis of airport
choice determinants
On the paper
A model to predict the distribution of business passengers in a MAS
Case study: E-75 HCAS Data used: 2001, 2002, 2003 FTTE air
passengers surveys at Belgrade a/p, 2001 FTTE survey of Serbia originating passengers departing from Budapest a/p
Background
US MASs, London airport system Different functional forms and explanatory
variables Usually: MNL, nested logit model Relevant variables: air fare, flight
frequency, airport accessibility (ground access characteristics)
Proposed Airport Demand Allocation Model
Exponential formula to calculate the effects of choice attributes (FF, ATD, AF) on airport attractiveness
Stage 1 – Indifference equation to relate FRk to ATD variable
Stage 2 – To establish a pattern of airport attractiveness alteration in the region observed
Case Study:
E – 75 HCAS
Stage 1 Specification
100 % flight frequency (FF) ~ 15 % of fare 1 h difference in travel time (ATD) ~ 20-40 % of fare Linear AF to ATD relationship
The compensating frequency ratio
FRk = a*eb*ATD
Equal-attractiveness point (EAP): ATD = p*lnFR – q [hours]
Stage 1 Application Example
Trip to Munich Belgrade versus Budapest airport 2 vs 7 daily-direct flights (FR=7/2) 80 kmph average highway speed 30 minutes border stopping
=> ATD = 94 min, EAP in Backa Topola (157 km north of Belgrade)
Stage 2 Specification
Input variables: Daily-direct FFsATD“S”-curve α parameter-how airport’s
frequency share affects its market share
Five-sequences procedure to calculate the market share attracted
1. FRk = 1.1025*e0.7392*ATD
2. FFD(k) = FRk * FFC
3. LRFD = FFD / FFD(k)
4. RFD = LRFD / (LRFD + LRFC)
5. PSD = (RFD)α / [(RFD)α + (1 - RFD)α]
Stage 2 Application ExampleAirport Choice of Business Travelers, Munich Trip
0
20
40
60
80
100E
qu
alT
ime
po
int
Su
bo
tica
Bac
ka
To
po
la
Ku
la
No
vi
Sad
Ind
jija
PS
[%]
via BUD
via BEG
Different Scenarios Considered
Nine destinations (MUN, FRA, LON, PAR, AMS, MIL, ZUR, VIE, MOS)
Base case (BC) – current levels of airline services
SC1 – BEG FF+1 SC2 – BEG FF+1, BUD FF+1 SC3 – NIS vs BEG distribution (ZUR trip)
Base Case Belgrade Airport Market Shares
0
20
40
60
80
100
-2 -1 0 1 2 3 4
ATD [h]
PS [%]
MUN
FRA
ZUR
AMS
MIL
VIE
MOS
Belgrade Market Growth, SC1
0
5
10
15
20
25
-2 -1 0 1 2 3 4
ATD [h]
PS [%]
MUN
FRA
ZUR
AMS
MIL
VIE
MOS
Belgrade Market Growth, SC2
0
5
10
15
20
-2 -1 0 1 2 3 4
ATD [h]
PS [%]
MUN
FRA
ZUR
AMS
MIL
VIE
MOS
SC3 Nis Airport Market Share
0
20
40
60
80
100
-3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3
ATD [h]
PS [%]
Limitations – Possible Improvements
Absence of authentic preference structure of a Serbian air traveler
Credible calibration of the "S"-curve α parameter (origin and/or destination zone specific)
Getting quantitative perceptive scales from qualitative survey data
Conclusions
Sensitivity analysis (predicting FF and ATD changes effects-redistribution)
“What to offer” at or “where to locate” a new airport
To match the aircraft capacity to demand attracted