Apron capacity at hub airports—the impact of wave‐system structure
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Summary At hub airports, dominant airlines/alliance coordinate their flights in time with the aim of increasing the number (and quality) of connections, thus producing a wave‐system in traffic schedules. This paper addresses the impact of concentrating aircraft into waves on airport apron capacity. Existing models for apron capacity estimation are based on the number of stands, stand occupancy time, and demand structure, differing between representative groups of aircraft served at an airport. Criteria for aircraft grouping are aircraft type and/or airline and/or type of service (domestic, international, etc.). Modified deterministic analytical models proposed in this paper also take into account the wave‐system parameters, as well as runway capacity. They include the impact of these parameters on the number of flights in wave, stand occupancy time, and consequently apron capacity. Numerical examples illustrate the difference between apron capacity for an origin–destination airport and a hub airport, under the same conditions; utilization of the theoretical apron capacity at a hub airport, given the wave‐system structure; and utilization of the apron capacity at a hub airport when point‐to‐point traffic is allowed to use idle stands. Furthermore, the influence of different assignment strategies for aircraft stands in the case of hub airports is also discussed. Copyright © 2016 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".