PODS Update Large Network O-D Control Results

Slides:



Advertisements
Similar presentations
1 The Impact of Buy-Down on Sell Up, Unconstraining, and Spiral-Down Edward Kambour, Senior Scientist E. Andrew Boyd, SVP and Senior Scientist Joseph Tama,
Advertisements

OPSM 405 Service Management
Airlines Industry Yield Management Ken Homa. Airlines Industry Challenging Environment Complex, interconnected network Thousands of dynamic prices 90%
Price Concepts with Duane Weaver
Modeling Sell-up in PODS enhancements to existing sell-up algorithms, etc. Hopperstad March 00.
Presented to AGIFORS YM Study Group Bangkok, Thailand May 2001 Larry Weatherford University of Wyoming Dispersed Fares within a Fare Class: How Can We.
AGIFORS--RM Study Group New York City, March 2000 Lawrence R. Weatherford, PhD University of Wyoming Unconstraining Methods.
SYST 660 Airline Operating Costs and Airline Productivity
Anthony Sulistio 1, Kyong Hoon Kim 2, and Rajkumar Buyya 1 Managing Cancellations and No-shows of Reservations with Overbooking to Increase Resource Revenue.
© copyright Amadeus GTD S.A. / all rights reserved / unauthorized use and disclosure strictly forbidden New Generation Inventory Jean-Michel Sauvage.
Integration of Pricing and Revenue Management for a Future without Booking Classes AGIFORS Reservation and Yield Management Study Group Annual Meeting,
o & d Forecasting for O & D Control
The Hub-and-Spoke Routing for Airlines Costs and Competitiveness
Hub and Spoke vs. Point to Point Evan Demick February 28, 2013.
Revenue Management Tutorial
Improving Forecast Accuracy by Unconstraining Censored Demand Data Rick Zeni AGIFORS Reservations and Yield Management Study Group May, 2001.
Multi-Channel Revenue Management Shankar Mishra & Vish Viswanathan AGIFORS RYM Study Group Berlin, April 2002.
McGraw-Hill/Irwin © 2003 The McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc., All Rights Reserved. Chapter 10 The Role of Costs in Pricing Decisions.
LMI Airline Responses to NAS Capacity Constraints Peter Kostiuk Logistics Management Institute National Airspace System Resource.
Impact of capacity constraints on airport choice of air travellers Dr. Marc Ch. Gelhausen Paris,
Airline Fleet Routing and Flight Scheduling under Market Competitions
Optimization in Airline Planning and Marketing Institute for Mathematics and Its Applications November 2002 Barry C. Smith.
Introducing Information into RM to Model Market Behavior INFORMS 6th RM and Pricing Conference, Columbia University, NY Darius Walczak June 5, 2006.
Impact and Model of Low-Cost Carriers
Airline Revenue Management
What is Yield Management?  Experienced overbooking by an airline?  American saved $1.4 billion from 1989 to 1992 (50% more than its net profit)  Management.
Forecasting, a cause of yield decline?
1 Maximizing Revenue with a Leg Revenue Management System E. Andrew Boyd Vice President, Research and Design PROS Revenue Management.
Airline Schedule Optimization (Fleet Assignment II) Saba Neyshabouri.
Airline Schedule Planning: Accomplishments and Opportunities Airline Schedule Planning: Accomplishments and Opportunities C. Barnhart and A. Cohn, 2004.
Luis Cadarso(1), Vikrant Vaze(2), Cynthia Barnhart(3), Ángel Marín(1)
The Role of Business Aviation in the European Economy Philip Thomas Oxford Economics 13 March 2013.
Route Planning and Evaluation
ANALYSIS FRAMEWORK FOR OPERATIONAL EFFECTS OF DIFFERENT CONGESTION MANAGEMENT MEASURES AT CLUSTERED AIRPORTS Loan T. Le Research Sponsors: NASA ARC, FAA.
Content : 1. Introduction 2. Traffic forecasting and traffic allocation ◦ 2.1. Traffic forecasting ◦ 2.2. Traffic allocation 3. Fleeting problems ◦ 3.1.
1 O&D Forecasting Issues, Challenges, and Forecasting Results John D. Salch PROS Revenue Management, Inc.
Pricing Simulation Proven solutions for open skies
AGIFORS Res and YM Study Group Conference, NYC, Operations Research: Optimization, Heuristics, Simulation, and Forecasting Judy Pastor Continental.
H oppersta d C onsultin g Market/Airline/Class (MAC) Revenue Management RM2003 Hopperstad May 03.
1 Sensitivity Studies of Network Optimization with Displacement Adjusted Virtual Nesting using PODS. Thomas Fiig, Revenue Management Development, Scandinavian.
MIT ICAT ICATMIT M I T I n t e r n a t i o n a l C e n t e r f o r A i r T r a n s p o r t a t i o n Virtual Hubs: A Case Study Michelle Karow
Introduction to Network Planning Concepts and Practice Course Outline Dynaston Inc.
From O&D Bid Price Control to Package Bid Price Control
H OPPERSTA D C ONSULTIN G Market/Airline/Class (MAC) Revenue Management AGIFORS RM 2003 Hopperstad June 03.
Constrained Forecast Evaluation (CFE) Ronald P. Menich AGIFORS Res & YM 2-5 June 2003 HNL.
Federal Aviation Administration ATO Future Schedule Generation Performance Analysis and Strategy January 27, 2010.
New York 2000 Jacques Cherrier PNR database at AC Implementation overview and its usefulness for Network Management.
O&D Demand Forecasting: Dealing with Real-World Complexities Greg Campbell and Loren Williams.
How a small airline copes with Change as a way of life 2001 Agifors Reservation and Yield Management Conference Thomas Kingsbury Blackcreek, Ltd.
O-D Control Abuse by Distribution Systems: PODS Simulation Results Dr. Peter P. Belobaba International Center for Air Transportation Massachusetts Institute.
RM Coordination and Bid Price Sharing in Airline Alliances: PODS Simulation Results Peter Belobaba Jeremy Darot Massachusetts Institute of Technology AGIFORS.
1 Copyright © 2002 by PROS Revenue Management  Fare class rationalization is the process of aligning fares within fare classes so that leg/class revenue.
1 Arjan Westerhof 04 June 2016 Implementing an O&D System at KLM March 23, 2000 Arjan Westerhof Agifors yield management study group.
Timothy L. Jacobs, Elizabeth Hunt and Matt Korol Operations Research and Decision Support American Airlines May 2001 Scheduling and Revenue Management.
June 26, 2009 REGIONAL AIRPORT SYSTEM PLAN ANALYSIS Study Update Prepared for: Regional Airport Planning Committee Prepared for: Regional Airport Planning.
Route and Network Planning
Improving Revenue by System Integration and Cooperative Optimization Reservations & Yield Management Study Group Annual Meeting Berlin April 2002.
Work Hard. Fly Right. SM Work Hard. Fly Right. SM A NETWORK ORGANIZATION AGIFORS Conference Honolulu, HI June 3 – 5, 2003 Mandeep Grewal MANAGING DIRECTOR.
Lufthansa Update on LH´s Path of O&D Control AGIFORS, New York, March 2000 Werner Tauss.
Lufthansa Looking for Feedback Performance Measurement in Revenue Management Stefan Pölt Lufthansa German Airlines AGIFORS Reservations & Yield Management.
Valuation Ratios in the Airline Industry Hari Stirbet Tammy Cheung Shelly Khindri Parmjit Marway.
Greater Binghamton Airport March 2016 BGM. Sixel Consulting Group March 2016.
Towards Robust Revenue Management: Capacity Control Using Limited Demand Information Michael Ball, Huina Gao, Yingjie Lan & Itir Karaesmen Robert H Smith.
Introducing Information into RM to Model Market Behavior INFORMS 6th RM and Pricing Conference, Columbia University, NY Darius Walczak June 5, 2006.
A Modeling Framework for Flight Schedule Planning
Tell me when you want to stay,
1.206J/16.77J/ESD.215J Airline Schedule Planning
1.206J/16.77J/ESD.215J Airline Schedule Planning
Competitive Analysis: American Airlines
ATC 2019 Beijing How to Unite Revenue, Personalization and Happy Customers in Harmony Gert Hartmans Data driven pricing of ancillary seating As ancillary.
Presentation transcript:

PODS Update Large Network O-D Control Results Peter Belobaba and Seonah Lee Massachusetts Institute of Technology AGIFORS RM STUDY GROUP MEETING New York City March 22-24, 2000

Outline Description of New Large PODS Network Standardization of RM and O-D Method Parameters DAVN parameters – re-optimization, virtual bucket definition Re-optimizing rate for bid price methods (HBP and PROBP) Results: O-D Revenue Gain Comparisons Impacts of Average Load Factors and Distributions Overview of Additional PODS Studies Use of Path-Based (ODF) Forecasts in Leg/Bucket RM Introduction of Cancellation and No-Show Behaviors Recovery of RM Methods from Sudden Demand Shocks

Characteristics of Large Network 40 spoke cities with 2 hubs, one for each airline 20 spoke cities on each side, located by geographical coordinates of actual US cities Distance -- 125 to 1514 miles to the hub from spoke cities Unidirectional -- West to east flow of traffic Inter-hub services -- one for each direction, for each bank, for each airline 3 banks starting at 10:30, 14:00, 17:30 for each airline hub 252 flight legs, 482 O-D markets, 4 fare types per market

Geographical Layout H1(41) H2(42) 1 2 21 3 4 5 25 6 23 24 27 26 7 31 28 30 8 29 32 33 22 9 11 34 35 38 10 12 14 15 13 16 H2(42) 36 17 18 37 19 39 20 40

Standardization of O-D RM Methods “Generic” RM method parameters defined 3 years ago for smaller PODS networks (6-10 cities): 4 fare classes for Base Case EMSRb Control 6 virtual buckets per leg for GVN, HBP and DAVN Network-wide virtual range definitions Varying re-optimization rates for bid price methods For new 40-city network, we updated RM methods: “Standard” definitions to better reflect actual and feasible implementations of each method

Standardized RM Method Parameters FCYM -- Fare Class Yield Management 4 fare classes grouped by yields and fare restrictions Leg/class demand data and forecasting EMSRb limits -- Re-optimize at 16 checkpoints GVN -- Greedy Virtual Nesting ODFs mapped to 8 virtual buckets based on total itinerary fare values Network-wide virtual ranges for all legs Leg/bucket demand data and forecasting

Standardized RM Method Parameters HBP -- Heuristic Bid Price Like GVN, ODFs mapped to 8 virtual buckets based on total itinerary fare values Same network-wide virtual ranges for all legs Leg/bucket demand data and forecasting EMSRb booking limit control for local (one-leg) itineraries -- re-optimized 16 times before departure “Bid price” control for connecting requests based on current EMSR values of last seat on each leg: Re-optimized daily over 63-day PODS booking period

Standardized RM Method Parameters DAVN -- Displacement Adjusted Virtual Nesting ODFs mapped to 8 virtual buckets based on displacement adjusted “network” revenue values: Network Value = ODF Fare - Displacement Cost Leg Displacement Costs estimated by shadow prices of deterministic network LP optimization Network re-optimized at each checkpoint (16 times) Leg-specific virtual bucket range definitions ODF demand forecasting (rolled up to leg/bucket) EMSRb control of leg/buckets -- 16 checkpoints

Standardized RM Method Parameters PROBP--Probabilistic Network Bid Price Nested probabilistic network convergence algorithm developed at MIT (Bratu, 1998) Involves “prorating” total ODF value to legs traversed: Requires ODF data demand forecasts Estimates “critical EMSR operator” for each leg by accounting for complete nesting of ODF availabilities Critical EMSR values used as additive bid prices for local and connecting path requests Re-optimized daily over 63-day PODS booking period

Summary of New RM Parameters Base Case Fare Class YM effectively unchanged Enhancements to virtual bucket methods: Number of virtual buckets increased to 8 More frequent network displacement optimization and leg-specific virtual re-bucketing for DAVN Represents “advanced” implementations of DAVN More realistic bid price re-optimization frequency: Airline consensus that daily bid price updates are feasible in larger networks Theoretically more frequent updates might be misleading

Demand and Load Factors Simulated Under FCYM Base Case, simulated demand factors led to network ALFs from 70% to 87% Load factor distributions compared well with system data provided by 2 airlines Local traffic represents 37 to 40% of total load by flight leg, on average: Varies by demand factor and RM methods used Differences in load factors by connecting bank at each hub: Highest for mid-day bank, lowest early in morning

ALFs by Hub Connecting Bank 3 banks per day offered at each airline’s hub: Range of ALFs and revenue gains for each RM method Most realistic traffic characterization in PODS to date

Revenue Gains over FCYM (Competitor uses FCYM)

Comparison of O-D Revenue Gains Relative performance in line with smaller network: Small gains for GVN, negative at higher demands HBP revenue improvements over “greediness” of GVN DAVN and PROBP perform best, gains of 1% or more But, overall % gains of O-D methods are lower: New network not designed to be “O-D friendly” Each demand factor includes a range of ALFs by bank, with lower % gains for lower demand banks More path choices without airline preferences or re-planning disutilities result in greater passenger shifts among paths

Revenue Gains by Connecting Bank (Network ALF=83%, Competitor uses FCYM)

Competitive Impacts of O-D Methods (Network ALF=83%, Competitor uses FCYM)

Competitive Impacts of O-D Methods O-D control can have substantial revenue impacts on competitor: Continued use of FCYM against O-D methods results in revenue losses for Airline B Interesting is GVN result, where Airline B’s revenue loss is greater than Airline A’s gain Still not a zero-sum game, as revenue gains of Airline A exceed revenue losses of Airline B Other simulation results show both airlines can benefit from using more sophisticated O-D control

Lessons from Larger Network Demand characteristics affect O-D benefits: No explicit effort to design “bottleneck” legs that favor GVN More realistic distribution of load factors across legs Different load factors for connecting banks by time of day Misleading to focus comparisons on peak connecting banks Characterization of O-D methods also critical: More sophisticated DAVN parameters, more realistic PROBP re-optimization frequency Robustness of DAVN even with periodic re-optimization O-D control has important competitive impacts

Large Network in PODS: Next Steps Alternative demand and network characteristics: Proportion of local vs. connecting O-D demand Load factor distributions Business vs. leisure traffic mix Impacts of passenger choice disutility parameters: Increase re-planning costs for changing preferred times Modify airline preference factors from 50/50 Introduce path quality options (non-stops) and disutilities Less structured and more “realistic” O-D fares: Not necessarily tied to O-D market distances

Overview of Other PODS Studies Path-Based (ODF) Forecasting in Leg-Based RM Introduction of Cancellation and No-Show Rates Impacts of Sudden Demand Shocks Competitive Studies Planned and Under Way

Path-Based Forecasting in Leg RM Preliminary results show potential gains from use of path-based (ODF) forecasts in leg-based RM: ODF database to keep historical booking data Tested simple moving average “pick-up” forecasts with “booking curve” unconstraining ODF forecasts “rolled up” to leg/class or leg/bucket ODF forecasts not necessarily more “accurate”: Error relative to mean forecast is large due to small numbers But ability to unconstrain demand by ODF path appears to contribute in large part to revenue gains

Example: Path Forecasts for Leg RM (Previous Large Network ALF=75%)

Cancellation and No-show Rates Over past several months, we have incorporated cancellation and no-show processes into PODS: “Memory-less” daily cancellation probability Gaussian distributions of no-show rates at departure Probabilistic overbooking model to determine AUs Neither process has a large impact on revenue gains of O-D methods: Relative performance of methods stays the same at similar load factors; O-D methods do slightly better at lower ALFs Now testing gross vs. net booking forecast models

Impacts of Sudden Demand Shock Simulated “overnight” demand shifts of +/- 20%: Extreme test of robustness of each RM method to changes in actual demand vs. forecast Compared percentage revenue gains of each method vs. FCYM before and after demand shock After 20% sudden demand decrease: GVN benefited, showing immediate revenue increase DAVN and PROP suffered, due to over-forecasts by ODF HBP maintained relative revenue gains Relative performance stabilized after 12-14 samples

Competitive Studies with PODS Introduction of third “new entrant” airline in one or more spoke-hub local markets: What are impacts on hub carrier that uses leg vs. O-D RM? What are “rational” vs. “predatory” responses by hub carrier in terms of prices, capacity and RM controls? System-wide reduction of aircraft capacity (6%?) by one hub airline to increase legroom: Revenue and load impacts with leg-based vs. O-D RM? What increase in airline preference is needed to make up for revenue losses?

Summary: PODS RM Research After four years of development, PODS network is now approaching “realistic” characterization. Change in recent emphasis of PODS simulations: Away from O-D method “competitions” Towards understanding major impacts on RM performance Ability to simulate larger networks opens up even greater potential for PODS research: Airline alliances and other competitive strategies Impacts of pricing and schedule changes on RM methods Inclusion of scheduling and fleet assignment models

PODS Revenue Management Research at MIT MIT PODS Consortium of 6 international airlines Major accomplishments in past year: Expansion of PODS network -- 40 cities, 2 airlines, multiple banks per day Establishment of “implementable” O-D methods Focus on sell-up models and interaction with forecasts Impacts on RM method performance of forecasting, demand shocks, fare structures, cancellations New competitive studies involving RM Alliance RM Strategies Impacts of New Entrant Airlines