A decomposition approach to determining fleet size and structure with network flow effects and demand uncertainty
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Summary This paper presents a new methodology to determine fleet size and structure for those airlines operating on hub‐and‐spoke networks. The methodology highlights the impact of stochastic traffic network flow effects on fleet planning process and is employed to construct an enhanced revenue model by incorporating the expected revenue optimization model into fleet planning process. The objective of the model is to find a feasible allocation of aircraft fleet types to route legs using minimum fleet purchasing cost, thus ensuring that the expected fleet profit is maximized subject to several critical resource constraints. By using a linear approximation to the total network revenue function, the fleet planning model with enhanced revenue modeling is decomposed into the nonlinear aspects of expected revenue optimization and the linear aspects of determining fleet size and structure by optimal allocation of aircraft fleet types to route legs. To illustrate this methodology and its economic benefits, an example consisting of 6 chosen aircraft fleet types, 12 route legs, and 57 path‐specific origin‐destination markets is presented and compared with the results found using revenue prorated fleet planning formulation. The results show that the fleet size and structure of the methodology proposed in this paper gain 211.4% improvement in fleet profit over the use of the revenue prorated fleet planning approach. In addition, comparison with the deterministic model reveals that the fleet size and structure of this proposed methodology are more adaptable to the fluctuations of passenger demands. 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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".