1 / 17

Passengers‘ Airport Choice

Aachen, 13. June 2007. Passengers‘ Airport Choice. Marc Ch. Gelhausen. Some facts:. 19 international airports (2 Hubs) 5 regional airports. 67 % choose nearest airport. No. of airports serving a SPR: Minimum 3 airports Maximum 14 airports On average 8 airports.

lluvia
Download Presentation

Passengers‘ Airport Choice

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Aachen, 13. June 2007 Passengers‘ Airport Choice Marc Ch. Gelhausen

  2. Some facts: • 19 international airports (2 Hubs) • 5 regional airports • 67 % choose nearest airport • No. of airports serving a SPR: • Minimum 3 airports • Maximum 14 airports • On average 8 airports Airport system in Germany –Airport choice

  3. Good Rail Access Airport system in Germany – access mode choice • Average distribution: • Private car driver 18 % • Car passenger 34 % • Rental car driver 4 % • Taxi passenger 19 % • Bus passenger 9 % • Regional transit passenger 11 % • Train passenger 5 %

  4. Airport choice Access time, access cost, ... Access mode choice Combination of both choice dimensions ! Problem ! Too many alternatives for model estimation Why model combined airport and access mode choice?

  5. „Key Aspects“ Nested logit-model Abstraction from specific alternatives Airport and access mode choice model Generally applicable model

  6. Forecasting philosophy Traveler: „Which alternative is the best for me?“ Access cost, access time, flight plan, ... Evaluation of alternatives by means of utility Lack of observability, measurement errors, … Forecaster: „ Which alternative is most likely the best for him?“ Choice probabilities Summing up over homogenous populations Market segment specific market shares of all alternatives

  7. Discrete choice models Utility function Distribution of error term U = V(x) +  Analyzing airport and access mode choice Airport and access mode choice Point of view: air traveler Airport and access mode characteristics i.e. U(FRA/Car) = a*(Access time) + b*(Access cost) + ... + 

  8. Limited number of different generic airport/access mode combinations Values in % 3 airport categories 7 access mode categories Absolute values Cluster analysis according to flight services „Airport categories as different product types“ Hub, medium and low-cost airports Group-specific correlation structure among alternatives Cluster groups and airport categories

  9. Model Estimation Model Application Grouping of Alternatives Selection of Airports and Access Modes Definition of Data Subsets and a Reduced Set of Alternatives Model Application Merging of Data Subsets into a new Estimation Data Set Estimation of Group-Specific Model Parameters Assignment of Airports and Access Modes to Groups Specific Application Case Model estimation and application

  10. Estimation results

  11. Scale cents minutes minutes minutes minutes Passengers‘ preferences • In general, business travelers are more time-sensitive (exception EUR H) • Business travelers prefer a shorter access time more • Private travelers, however, prefer a direct flight connection more • Low-cost plays a major role in European air travel

  12. Airport choice in the Cologne region – status quo • Three main airports: • CGN is the main airport for domestic air travel • DUS is the main airport for European air travel • FRA is the main airport for intercontinental air travel

  13. Airport choice in the Cologne region – FRA without intercity highspeed access • FRA decreases by about 5 points in intercontinental travel • DUS increases by about 1 point and CGN about 2.5 points in intercontinental travel • Small increase of car and K&R at FRA • Only very small effects on domestic and European travel

  14. Airport choice in the Cologne region – re-positioning of DUS in intercontinental air travel • DUS is the main airport for European and intercontinental air travel now • CGN is main airport for domestic air travel • FRA decreases heavily by about 18 points

  15. More applications • Impact of Berlin-Brandenburg International Airport on airport choice in Eastern Germany and Eastern Europe • Impact of Transrapid access to Munich Airport on airport and access mode choice in Germany • Airport choice in the German/Dutch border region

  16. Main conclusions • Decision relevant attributes can be roughly divided into access mode and airport specific attributes • Attributes interact in a complex way • Strong tendency to choose the nearest airport, especially in the business segment • However, some air travelers are willing to travel far to get a direct flight at a cheap price, especially private air passengers traveling to European or intercontinental destinations • Low-cost flights play a major role in European air travel • Size of the catchment area of an airport is not fixed; it depends both on the supply of direct flights and attractive access modes to the airport

  17. Contact: Marc Ch. Gelhausen DLR - German Aerospace Center Air Transport and Airport Research Linder Höhe 51147 Köln/Germany Marc.Gelhausen@dlr.de Thank you very much...

More Related