DOCSLIB.ORG

FAIRMODE Guidance Document on Modelling Quality Objectives and Benchmarking

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
FAIRMODE Guidance Document on Modelling Quality Objectives and Benchmarking FAIRMODE Guidance Document on Modelling Quality Objectives and Benchmarking Version 3.2 Janssen, S., Thunis, P. With contributions of: Adani, M., Carnevale, C., Cuvelier, C., Durka, P., Georgieva, E., Guerreiro, C., Malherbe, L., Maiheu, B., Meleux, F., Montero, A., Miranda, A., Olesen, H., Pfäfflin, F., Stocker, J., Sousa Santos, G., Stidworthy, A., Stortini, M., Trimpeneers, E., Viaene, P., Vitali, L., Vincent, K., Wesseling, J. EUR 30264 EN This publication is a Technical report by the Joint Research Centre (JRC), the European Commission’s science and knowledge service. It aims to provide evidence-based scientific support to the European policymaking process. The scientific output expressed does not imply a policy position of the European Commission. Neither the European Commission nor any person acting on behalf of the Commission is responsible for the use that might be made of this publication. For information on the methodology and quality underlying the data used in this publication for which the source is neither Eurostat nor other Commission services, users should contact the referenced source. The designations employed and the presentation of material on the maps do not imply the expression of any opinion whatsoever on the part of the European Union concerning the legal status of any country, territory, city or area or of its authorities, or concerning the delimitation of its frontiers or boundaries. Contact information Name: P. Thunis Address: European Commission, Joint Research Center (JRC), via Fermi 2749, 21027 Ispra (VA), Italy Email: [email protected] Tel.: +39 0332 785670 EU Science Hub https://ec.europa.eu/jrc JRC120649 EUR 30264 EN PDF ISBN 978-92-76-19745-4 ISSN 1831-9424 doi:10.2760/30226 Print ISBN 978-92-76-19746-1 ISSN 1018-5593 doi:10.2760/15956 Luxembourg: Publications Office of the European Union, 2020 © European Union, 2020 The reuse policy of the European Commission is implemented by the Commission Decision 2011/833/EU of 12 December 2011 on the reuse of Commission documents (OJ L 330, 14.12.2011, p. 39). Except otherwise noted, the reuse of this document is authorised under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International (CC BY 4.0) licence (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/). This means that reuse is allowed provided appropriate credit is given and any changes are indicated. For any use or reproduction of photos or other material that is not owned by the EU, permission must be sought directly from the copyright holders. All content © European Union, 2020 How to cite this report: Janssen, S., Thunis, P., FAIRMODE Guidance Document on Modelling Quality Objectives and Benchmarking, version 3.2, EUR 30264 EN, Publications Office of the European Union, Luxembourg, 2020, ISBN 978-92-76-19745-4, doi:10.2760/30226, JRC120649 Contents Acknowledgements ................................................................................................ 1 Abstract ............................................................................................................... 2 Version history ...................................................................................................... 3 1 INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................. 4 1.1 Why Modelling Quality Objectives? ................................................................. 4 1.2 What are the purposes of this Document? ....................................................... 4 1.3 Who is the target audience of this Document? ................................................. 4 1.4 What are the main components of this Document? ........................................... 5 2 BENCHMARKING: A WORD OF CAUTION ............................................................... 6 3 DEFINITIONS .................................................................................................... 7 4 MAIN ASSUMPTIONS .......................................................................................... 9 5 MODELLING INDICATORS AND CRITERIA ........................................................... 10 5.1 Statistical indicators ................................................................................... 10 5.2 Modelling quality indicator (MQI) and modelling quality objective (MQO) .......... 11 5.2.1 MQI and MQO for hourly/daily/maximum daily 8-hour mean concentration data 11 5.2.2 MQI and MQO for yearly average model results ..................................... 12 5.2.3 The 90% principle .............................................................................. 12 5.3 Fulfilment of the hourly/daily vs annual MQO ................................................ 13 5.4 Calculation of the associated model uncertainty ............................................. 13 5.5 Comparison to values in the AQD ................................................................. 14 5.6 Modelling performance indicators (MPI) and criteria (MPC) .............................. 14 5.6.1 Temporal MPI and MPC ....................................................................... 15 5.6.2 Spatial MPI and MPC .......................................................................... 16 5.7 Data requirements for application of the MQI and MPI .................................... 16 5.7.1 Measurement data quality ................................................................... 17 5.7.2 Minimum number of stations for application of the MQO ......................... 17 5.7.3 Data assimilation / data fusion ............................................................ 17 5.7.4 Exceptional cases............................................................................... 18 6 REPORTING MODEL PERFORMANCE ................................................................... 20 6.1 Hourly data ............................................................................................... 20 6.1.1 Target Diagram ................................................................................. 20 6.1.2 Summary Report ............................................................................... 21 6.2 Yearly average data ................................................................................... 22 6.2.1 Scatter Diagram ................................................................................ 22 6.2.2 Summary Report ............................................................................... 23 7 OPEN ISSUES .................................................................................................. 25 i 7.1 Performance criteria for high percentile values .............................................. 25 7.2 Application of the procedure to other parameters........................................... 25 8 FORECASTING & EXCEEDANCES INDICATORS ..................................................... 27 8.1 The forecast Modelling Quality Indicator ....................................................... 27 8.2 Threshold exceedance indicators.................................................................. 28 8.3 Diagrams in the DELTA tool ........................................................................ 29 8.3.1 Forecast Target diagram ..................................................................... 29 8.3.2 Forecast Performance Diagram ............................................................ 30 8.3.3 Forecast diagrams using Air Quality Indices .......................................... 32 8.3.4 Diagrams for exceedance indicators ..................................................... 32 8.3.5 Summary report ................................................................................ 34 9 REFERENCES................................................................................................... 37 9.1 Peer reviewed articles ................................................................................ 37 9.2 Reports/ working documents / user manuals ................................................. 37 Annexes ............................................................................................................. 39 ANNEX 1. MEASUREMENT UNCERTAINTY ............................................................ 42 ANNEX 2. OVERVIEW OF EXISTING LITERATURE ................................................. 44 ANNEX 3. RELATED TOOLS ............................................................................... 47 List of abbreviations and definitions ....................................................................... 39 ii Acknowledgements The authors thank the Fairmode community for their contributions as well as for the fruitful discussions that took place around the particular topic of MQO and benchmarking. The authors wish to acknowledge in particular the contributions of: Mario Adani, ENEA, Italy Claudio Carnevale, University Brescia, Italy Cornelis Cuvelier, ex-JRC, Ispra, Italy Pawel Durka, IOS, Poland Emilia Georgieva, National Institute of Meteorology and Hydrology, Bulgaria Cristina Guerreiro, NILU, Norway Laure Malherbe, INERIS, France Bino Maiheu, VITO, Belgium Frederic Meleux, INERIS, France Alexandra Montero, University Aveiro, Portugal Ana Miranda, University Aveiro, Portugal Helge Olesen, Aarhus University, Denmark Florian Pfäfflin, IVU Umwelt GmbH, Germany Jenny Stocker, CERC, UK Gabriela Sousa Santos, NILU, Norway Amy Stidworthy, CERC, UK Michele Stortini, ARPA Emilia Romagna, Italy Elke Trimpeneers, IRCEL, Belgium Peter Viaene, VITO, Belgium Keith Vincent, Ricardo AEA, UK Lina Vitali, ENEA, Italy Joost Wesseling, RIVM
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Liste-Exploitants-Aeronefs.Pdf
    EN EN EN COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES Brussels, XXX C(2009) XXX final COMMISSION REGULATION (EC) No xxx/2009 of on the list of aircraft operators which performed an aviation activity listed in Annex I to Directive 2003/87/EC on or after 1 January 2006 specifying the administering Member State for each aircraft operator (Text with EEA relevance) EN EN COMMISSION REGULATION (EC) No xxx/2009 of on the list of aircraft operators which performed an aviation activity listed in Annex I to Directive 2003/87/EC on or after 1 January 2006 specifying the administering Member State for each aircraft operator (Text with EEA relevance) THE COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES, Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Community, Having regard to Directive 2003/87/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 13 October 2003 establishing a system for greenhouse gas emission allowance trading within the Community and amending Council Directive 96/61/EC1, and in particular Article 18a(3)(a) thereof, Whereas: (1) Directive 2003/87/EC, as amended by Directive 2008/101/EC2, includes aviation activities within the scheme for greenhouse gas emission allowance trading within the Community (hereinafter the "Community scheme"). (2) In order to reduce the administrative burden on aircraft operators, Directive 2003/87/EC provides for one Member State to be responsible for each aircraft operator. Article 18a(1) and (2) of Directive 2003/87/EC contains the provisions governing the assignment of each aircraft operator to its administering Member State. The list of aircraft operators and their administering Member States (hereinafter "the list") should ensure that each operator knows which Member State it will be regulated by and that Member States are clear on which operators they should regulate.
    [Show full text]
  • European Air Law Association 23Rd Annual Conference Palazzo Spada Piazza Capo Di Ferro 13, Rome
    European Air Law Association 23rd Annual Conference Palazzo Spada Piazza Capo di Ferro 13, Rome “Airline bankruptcy, focus on passenger rights” Laura Pierallini Studio Legale Pierallini e Associati, Rome LUISS University of Rome, Rome Rome, 4th November 2011 Airline bankruptcy, focus on passenger rights Laura Pierallini Air transport and insolvencies of air carriers: an introduction According to a Study carried out in 2011 by Steer Davies Gleave for the European Commission (entitled Impact assessment of passenger protection in the event of airline insolvency), between 2000 and 2010 there were 96 insolvencies of European airlines operating scheduled services. Of these insolvencies, some were of small airlines, but some were of larger scheduled airlines and caused significant issues for passengers (Air Madrid, SkyEurope and Sterling). Airline bankruptcy, focus on passenger rights Laura Pierallini The Italian market This trend has significantly affected the Italian market, where over the last eight years, a number of domestic air carriers have experienced insolvencies: ¾Minerva Airlines ¾Gandalf Airlines ¾Alpi Eagles ¾Volare Airlines ¾Air Europe ¾Alitalia ¾Myair ¾Livingston An overall, since 2003 the Italian air transport market has witnessed one insolvency per year. Airline bankruptcy, focus on passenger rights Laura Pierallini The Italian Air Transport sector and the Italian bankruptcy legal framework. ¾A remedy like Chapter 11 in force in the US legal system does not exist in Italy, where since 1979 special bankruptcy procedures (Amministrazione Straordinaria) have been introduced to face the insolvency of large enterprises (Law. No. 95/1979, s.c. Prodi Law, Legislative Decree No. 270/1999, s.c. Prodi-bis, Law Decree No. 347/2003 enacted into Law No.
    [Show full text]
  • Compagnie Aeree Italiane
    Compagnie aeree Italiane - Dati di traffico - Flotta - Collegamenti diretti - Indici di bilancio 117 118 Tav. VET 1 Compagnie aeree italiane di linea e charter - traffico 2006 COMPAGNIE Passeggeri trasportati (n.) % Riempimento Ore volate (n.) Voli (n.) Var. Var. Var. (base operativa) 2005 2006 2005 2006 Diff. 2005 2006 2005 2006 % % % attività own risk 44.283 43.452 - 1,9 57 592 2.322 2.433 4,8 1.559 1.594 2,2 Air Dolomiti (1) (Verona) voli operati con 1.248.314 1.421.539 13,9 60 633 45.922 45.757 - 0,4 35.007 33.215 - 5,1 Lufthansa Air Italy 139.105 206.217 48,2 80 800 3.333 5.358 60,8 832 1.385 66,5 (Milano Malpensa) Air One Air One Cityliner 5.264.846 5.662.595 7,6 58 580 77.361 86.189 11,4 63.817 71.161 11,5 Air One Executive (Roma Fiumicino) Air Vallèe 27.353 41.072 50,2 83 54- 29 1.540 2.024 31,4 1.422 2.486 74,8 (Aosta) Alitalia voli di linea 24.196.262 24.453.123 1,1 65 661 551.337 533.389 - 3,3 275.430 263.924 - 4,2 Alitalia Express (Roma Fiumicino) voli charter 122.169 150.652 23,3 79 75- 4 2.052 2.420 17,9 892 1.241 39,1 Alpi Eagles 1.115.079 969.430 - 13,1 58 580 24.806 27.234 9,8 16.891 18.499 9,5 (Venezia) Blue Panorama Airlines Blue Express 1.020.644 1.199.340 17,5 77 803 31.330 32.934 5,1 7.230 11.289 56,1 (Roma Fiumicino) Clubair S.p.A.
    [Show full text]
  • Airport Exchange Networklk Planni Ng C Onf Erence
    ACO/CI EUROPE / anna.aero Airport Exchange Networklk Planni ng C onf erence Introduction Barcelona - 24 November 2009 Ralph Anker Editor anna.aero [email protected] 1 1 Introductory overview • Demand trends in Europe • Winter 2009 indicators • Economic factors • Trends in European route development • Mixed fortunes for Europe’s airports • Conclusions 2 2 Traffic trends – AEA airlines 3 3 Traffic trends – AEA airlines 4 4 Traffic trends – AEA airlines 5 5 Traffic trends – AEA airlines • In 2009 (Jan-Sep) AEA airlines reported: – ASKs fell by 4.3% – RPKs fell by 5.5% – Passenger numbers fell by 7.2% – Average load factor fell by 1.0 percentage points to 75. 8% • Quote from Secretary General (17 Nov 09): “The foundations for a sustainable European air transport sector are crumbling. Portions of our industry are close to collapse. Some network airlines are ceasing to exist as independent entities. Others are exiting markets that they will not rere--enter.enter. Secondary markets are losing service. Tens of thousands of people employed by or sustained by the airlines are losing their jobs.” 6 6 LCCs are not AEA members • Apart from AEA airlines Europe is blessed with some major nonnon--AEAAEA airlines – LCCs such as bmibaby, easyJet, germanwings, Norwegian, Ryanair, Vueling, Wizz Air – Assorted charter/hybrid carriers such as Aer Lingus, airberlin, Pegasus, Transavia. com, TUIfly.com – Regional carriers such as airBaltic,,y, Flybe, Meridiana and WiderWiderøøee 7 7 8 8 9 9 10 10 11 11 Airline failures • Europe has (so far) lost only a handful
    [Show full text]
  • Check-In Am Bahnhof Und Fly Rail Baggage
    1/8 Check-in am Bahnhof via Zürich und Genève Check-in à la gare via Zürich et Genève Check-in alla stazione via Zürich e Genève Check-in at the railstation via Zürich and Genève Version: 26. Januar 2011 Legend HA = Handlingagent SP = Swissport, DN = Dnata Switzerland AG, AS = Airline Assistance Switzerland AG, EH = Own Handling R = Reason T = Technical, S = Security, O = Other reason WT = Weight Tolerance Y = Economy-Class, C = Business-Class, F = First-Class * = Agent Informations Infoportal/Airlines Check-in ok Restrictions Airline, Code Check-in Einschränkungen/Restrictions WT HA R Y = 2 Adria Airways JP ok SP C = 3 Aegean Airlines A3 ok 2 SP Aer Lingus EI no SP O Aeroflot Russian Airlines SU no SP S Aerolineas Argentinas AR ok 2 SP African Safari Airways ASA ok 2 DN Afriqiyah Airways 8U no DN O Air Algérie* AH ok No boardingpass 0 SP Air Baltic BT no SP T Not for USA, Canada, Pristina, Russia, Air Berlin* AB ok Cyprus; 0 DN not possible for groups 11+ Air Cairo MSC ok 2 SP AC 6821 / 6822 / 6826 / 6829 / 6832 / Air Canada AC no SP T =ok Air Dolomiti EN ok 2 SP Air Europa AEA / UX ok 2 DN Not from Zürich; not for USA, Canada, AF ok* 2 SP T Air France* Mexico; no boardingpass Air India AI ok 2 SP Air Italy I9 ok 2 DN Air Mali XG no SP O Air Malta KM ok 3 SP Y = 7 Air Mauritius MK ok Not from Zurich SP C = 10 Air Mediteranée BIE ok 2 DN Air New Zealand NZ ok 2 SP Air One AP ok 2 SP Air Seychelles HM ok Not from Zurich 3 SP Air Transat TS ok 2 SP Alitalia AZ no SP/DN T American Airlines AA no SP T ANA All Nippon Airways NH ok 2 SP Armavia
    [Show full text]
  • Antonio Di Francesco AIR TRANSPORT PUBLIC
    Antonio Di Francesco MSc in Air Transport Management 2007-2008, Cranfield University, UK AIR TRANSPORT PUBLIC SERVICE OBLIGATIONS IN EUROPE: AN ANALYSIS OF THE SARDINIAN CASE Università degli Studi di Bergamo, Facoltà di Ingegneria Lunch Seminar 27 May 2009 PRESENTATION OUTLINE - OBJECTIVES TODAY WE WILL SEE… • What is meant by Air Transport Public Service Obligations (PSOs) • How the European PSOs legislation is implemented on several routes between SdiiSardinia an d ma ildItlinland Italy • What is the impact of PSOs on these routes? analilysis o f : ¾ travel demand / flight supply ¾ aircraft load factors ¾ fares / flights accessibility • The role of the Sardinian PSOs routes for the island’ s air transport connectivity OBJECTIVES… • What is likely to happen in case of a PSOs lifting? • Are Sardinian PSOs worth being maintained / implemented? Presentation based on the Author’s MSc Thesis in Air Transport Management at Cranfield University, UK (soon accessible on-line, see references) THE REGULATORY FRAMEWORK • Air Transpppyg,ort within the EU / EEA is disciplined by the EEC Regulation 1008/2008, (which replaced the Council Regulations C2407/92, C2408/92, C2409/92) • Air Transport Public Service Obligations Regulations (“PSOs”) are also disciplined by this Regulation • Air Transport in Europe is liberalised • EU / EEA airlines … • have free access to any route within the EU/EEA (Ryanair flies Rome-Bergamo!) • can decide the fares • have to comply with common rules concerning safety, training, finance etc. • are not allowed to receive
    [Show full text]
  • Tenth Session of the Statistics Division
    STA/10-WP/6 International Civil Aviation Organization 2/10/09 WORKING PAPER TENTH SESSION OF THE STATISTICS DIVISION Montréal, 23 to 27 November 2009 Agenda Item 1: Civil aviation statistics — ICAO classification and definition REVIEW OF DEFINITIONS OF DOMESTIC AND CABOTAGE AIR SERVICES (Presented by the Secretariat) SUMMARY Currently, ICAO uses two different definitions to identify the traffic of domestic flight sectors of international flights; one used by the Statistics Programme, based on the nature of a flight stage, and the other, used for the economic studies on air transport, based on the origin and final destination of a flight (with one or more flight stages). Both definitions have their shortcomings and may affect traffic forecasts produced by ICAO for domestic operations. A similar situation arises with the current inclusion of cabotage services under international operations. After reviewing these issues, the Fourteenth Meeting of the Statistics Panel (STAP/14) agreed to recommend that no changes be made to the current definitions and instructions. Action by the division is in paragraph 5. 1. INTRODUCTION 1.1 In its activities in the field of air transport economics and statistics, ICAO is currently using two different definitions to identify the domestic services of an air carrier. The first one used by the Statistics Programme has been reaffirmed and clarified during Ninth Meeting of the Statistics Division (STA/9) and it is the one currently shown in the Air Transport Reporting Forms. The second one is being used by the Secretariat in the studies on international airline operating economics which have been carried out since 1976 and in pursuance of Assembly Resolution A36-15, Appendix G (reproduced in Appendix A).
    [Show full text]
  • Elenco Codici IATA Delle Compagnie Aeree
    Elenco codici IATA delle compagnie aeree. OGNI COMPAGNIA AEREA HA UN CODICE IATA Un elenco dei codici ATA delle compagnie aeree è uno strumento fondamentale, per chi lavora in agenzia viaggi e nel settore del turismo in generale. Il codice IATA delle compagnie aeree, costituito da due lettere, indica un determinato vettore aereo. Ad esempio, è utilizzato nelle prime due lettere del codice di un volo: – AZ 502, AZ indica la compagnia aerea Alitalia. – FR 4844, FR indica la compagnia aerea Ryanair -AF 567, AF, indica la compagnia aerea Air France Il codice IATA delle compagnie aeree è utilizzato per scopi commerciali, nell’ambito di una prenotazione, orari (ad esempio nel tabellone partenza e arrivi in aeroporto) , biglietti , tariffe , lettere di trasporto aereo e bagagli Di seguito, per una visione di insieme, una lista in ordine alfabetico dei codici di molte compagnie aeree di tutto il mondo. Per una ricerca più rapida e precisa, potete cliccare il tasto Ctrl ed f contemporaneamente. Se non doveste trovare un codice IATA di una compagnia aerea in questa lista, ecco la pagina del sito dell’organizzazione Di seguito le sigle iata degli aeroporti di tutto il mondo ELENCO CODICI IATA COMPAGNIE AEREE: 0A – Amber Air (Lituania) 0B – Blue Air (Romania) 0J – Jetclub (Svizzera) 1A – Amadeus Global Travel Distribution (Spagna) 1B – Abacus International (Singapore) 1C – Electronic Data Systems (Svizzera) 1D – Radixx Solutions International (USA) 1E – Travelsky Technology (Cina) 1F – INFINI Travel Information (Giappone) G – Galileo International
    [Show full text]
  • MOTION RECORD of the MOVING PARTY (Urgent Motion for an Interlocutory Injunction/Stay Pending Appeal)
    Court File No.: A-242-16 FEDERAL COURT OF APPEAL BETWEEN: DR. GÁBOR LUKÁCS Appellant – and – CANADIAN TRANSPORTATION AGENCY and NEWLEAF TRAVEL COMPANY INC. Respondents MOTION RECORD OF THE MOVING PARTY (Urgent Motion for an Interlocutory Injunction/Stay Pending Appeal) DR. GÁBOR LUKÁCS Halifax, NS [email protected] Appellant TO: CANADIAN TRANSPORTATION AGENCY 15 Eddy Street Gatineau, Quebec J8X 4B3 Allan Matte Tel: (819) 994 2226 Fax: (819) 953 9269 Email: [email protected] Solicitor for the Respondent, Canadian Transportation Agency AND TO: D’ARCY & DEACON LLP 1 Lombard Place, Suite 2200 Winnipeg, MB R3B 0X7 Brian J. Meronek, Q.C. Tel: (204) 942-2271 Fax: (204) 943-4242 Email: [email protected] Ian S. McIvor Tel: (403) 541-5290 Email: [email protected] Solicitors for the Respondent, Newleaf Travel Company Inc. TABLE OF CONTENTS 1 Notice of Motion 1 2 Undertaking for Damages 11 3 Affidavit of Dr. Gábor Lukács, affirmed on July 21, 2016 12 A Order of the Federal Court of Appeal granting Leave to Appeal, dated June 9, 2016 23 B Reasons for Order of the Federal Court of Appeal, dated June 9, 2016 26 C Federal corporation information of NewLeaf Travel Company Inc. [NewLeaf], retrieved on July 18, 2016 33 D Corporate profile report of 1919183 Ontario Ltd. [NewLeaf Airways] 38 E Legacy Partners Wealth Strategies Inc., “Newleaf Airways - Initiating Coverage,” January 14, 2015 43 F Federal corporation information of NewLeaf, retrieved on January 13, 2016 74 G Domain registration for newleafcorp.ca, retrieved on July 9, 2016 77 H Affidavit of Ms.
    [Show full text]
  • Air Transport Industry
    ANALYSIS OF THE EU AIR TRANSPORT INDUSTRY Final Report 2004 Contract no: TREN/05/MD/S07.52077 By Cranfield University CONTENTS GLOSSARY...........................................................................................................................................................6 1. AIR TRANSPORT INDUSTRY OVERVIEW ..................................................................................12 2. REGULATORY DEVELOPMENTS .................................................................................................18 3. CAPACITY ...........................................................................................................................................24 4. AIR TRAFFIC ......................................................................................................................................36 5. AIRLINE FINANCIAL PERFORMANCE .......................................................................................54 6. AIRPORTS............................................................................................................................................86 7. AIR TRAFFIC CONTROL ...............................................................................................................104 8. THE ENVIRONMENT......................................................................................................................114 9. CONSUMER ISSUES ........................................................................................................................118 10 AIRLINE ALLIANCES.....................................................................................................................126
    [Show full text]
  • Air Transport: Annual Report 2005
    ANALYSIS OF THE EU AIR TRANSPORT INDUSTRY Final Report 2005 Contract no: TREN/05/MD/S07.52077 by Cranfield University Department of Air Transport Analysis of the EU Air Transport Industry, 2005 1 CONTENTS 1 AIR TRANSPORT INDUSTRY OVERVIEW......................................................................................11 2 REGULATORY DEVELOPMENTS.....................................................................................................19 3 CAPACITY ............................................................................................................................................25 4. AIR TRAFFIC........................................................................................................................................36 5. AIRLINE FINANCIAL PERFORMANCE............................................................................................54 6. AIRPORTS.............................................................................................................................................85 7 AIR TRAFFIC CONTROL ..................................................................................................................102 8. THE ENVIRONMENT ........................................................................................................................110 9 CONSUMER ISSUES..........................................................................................................................117 10 AIRLINE ALLIANCES .......................................................................................................................124
    [Show full text]
  • Economics of the Airline Industry
    Master's Degree programme in INTERNATIONAL MANAGEMENT Second Cycle (D.M. 270/2004) Final Thesis Economics of the Airline Industry The Alitalia bankruptcy: a review Supervisor Ch. Prof. Chiara Saccon Assistant supervisor Ch. Prof. Marco Vedovato Graduand Andrea Rizzetto Matriculation Number 865717 Academic Year 2016 / 2017 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS I would first like to thank my thesis advisor Prof. Chiara Saccon of the Management Department at Ca’ Foscari - University of Venice. She consistently allowed this paper to be my own work, but steered me in the right direction whenever she thought I needed it. I would also like to thank the air transport industry expert Captain Fabio Cassan for the professional and continued support he gave me and for the preface he wrote to sign this dissertation. Finally, last but not least, I would like to thank my family, my girlfriend and my friends, without whose support it would not have been possible this one and a half years master’s degree experience. Acknowledgements Index Preface by Fabio Cassan I Introduction IV CHAPTER ONE — Air Transport industry overview 1 1. A long story short 2 2. A fast-growing industry 4 3. International Institutional and Regulatory Environment 7 3.1. The Chicago Convention 8 3.1.1. The Freedoms of the Air 9 3.2. Airline industry privatisation 10 3.2.1. United States vs. European Union: different perspective same goal 11 3.2.2. The Effects 12 4. Aviation Industry and the World Economy 15 CHAPTER TWO — Airline Economics, Costs and Revenues 18 1. The basic airline profit equation 19 2.
    [Show full text]