LiU-ITN-TEK-G--16/042--SE Environmental cost of different unit rates David Ngo Frida Shamoun 2016-06-02 Department of Science and Technology Institutionen för teknik och naturvetenskap Linköping University Linköpings universitet nedewS ,gnipökrroN 47 106-ES 47 ,gnipökrroN nedewS 106 47 gnipökrroN LiU-ITN-TEK-G--16/042--SE Environmental cost of different unit rates Examensarbete utfört i Logistik vid Tekniska högskolan vid Linköpings universitet David Ngo Frida Shamoun Handledare Tobias Andersson Granberg Examinator Valentin Polishchuk Norrköping 2016-06-02 Upphovsrätt Detta dokument hålls tillgängligt på Internet – eller dess framtida ersättare – under en längre tid från publiceringsdatum under förutsättning att inga extra- ordinära omständigheter uppstår. Tillgång till dokumentet innebär tillstånd för var och en att läsa, ladda ner, skriva ut enstaka kopior för enskilt bruk och att använda det oförändrat för ickekommersiell forskning och för undervisning. Överföring av upphovsrätten vid en senare tidpunkt kan inte upphäva detta tillstånd. All annan användning av dokumentet kräver upphovsmannens medgivande. För att garantera äktheten, säkerheten och tillgängligheten finns det lösningar av teknisk och administrativ art. Upphovsmannens ideella rätt innefattar rätt att bli nämnd som upphovsman i den omfattning som god sed kräver vid användning av dokumentet på ovan beskrivna sätt samt skydd mot att dokumentet ändras eller presenteras i sådan form eller i sådant sammanhang som är kränkande för upphovsmannens litterära eller konstnärliga anseende eller egenart. För ytterligare information om Linköping University Electronic Press se förlagets hemsida http://www.ep.liu.se/ Copyright The publishers will keep this document online on the Internet - or its possible replacement - for a considerable time from the date of publication barring exceptional circumstances. The online availability of the document implies a permanent permission for anyone to read, to download, to print out single copies for your own use and to use it unchanged for any non-commercial research and educational purpose. Subsequent transfers of copyright cannot revoke this permission. All other uses of the document are conditional on the consent of the copyright owner. The publisher has taken technical and administrative measures to assure authenticity, security and accessibility. According to intellectual property law the author has the right to be mentioned when his/her work is accessed as described above and to be protected against infringement. For additional information about the Linköping University Electronic Press and its procedures for publication and for assurance of document integrity, please refer to its WWW home page: http://www.ep.liu.se/ © David Ngo, Frida Shamoun Abstract Flight planning is a large part of the air traffic operations that are presently being conducted. Airlines strive to achieve the cheapest and most cost effective routes for their flights, resulting in aircraft sometimes flying longer routes in order to avoid expensive airspaces with high unit rates. The unit rates among different European airspaces can differ significantly, even between neighboring states. This issue has been an ongoing obstacle for the Swedish air navigation provider, LFV, as some airlines tend to fly over the Baltic Sea, through the Baltic countries, instead of the shorter route through Swedish airspace. These protracted routes result in extra kilometers being flown yearly, consequently consuming extra fuel, as well as imply a revenue loss to LFV and Sweden. Data of flight plans from 28th April 2014 to 3rd May 2014 have been collected and analyzed in conjuncture with literature and previous relevant studies. The study was further supplemented with data gathered through interviews with the Swedish Air Traffic Control Center at Stockholm Arlanda Airport, Scandinavian Airlines, Novair, and LFV. The conclusions of this study is that the airspace dodging behavior generate a revenue loss to LFV, totaling approximately € 032 354 million per year. Should these flights fly the shortest route between their origin and destination, which would imply flying through Swedish airspace, the before mentioned sum would mean an increase in LFV’s reported revenue from air traffic control services by 2%. Airspace dodging also results in roughly 380 408 superfluous kilometers being flown and 1 874 486 liters of additional fuel being consumed every year. Acknowledgment Firstly, we would like to thank our supervisor, Tobias Andersson Granberg, and our examiner, Valentin Polishchuk, for their invaluable support during this study, and their continuous encouragement throughout the entire Air Traffic and Logistics program at Linköping University. Secondly, we would also like to express our gratitude towards Billy Josefsson, Patrik Bergviken, and LFV for the opportunity to conduct this study, their support and enthusiasm, as well as their kindness to share their vast web of contacts within the aviation industry. Likewise, much information would have been lost without the kindness of Thomas Jönsson, Johan Dahlström, Henrik Ekstrand, and Peter Sandgren, who shared their knowledge with us. Thirdly, many thanks to Swedavia Customer Service at Stockholm Arlanda Airport for providing workspace and a bunch of encouragement. Lastly, we would like to thank Iman Pereira for his constant encouragement and ability to lift everyone’s spirits in any situation. Also, this study would not have been possible without the expert aid in Excel and data processing from Christoffer Niklasson and Johnny Waldemarsson. Table of contents 1. Introduction ............................................................................................................ 1 1.1. Background ..................................................................................................... 1 1.2. Purpose ............................................................................................................ 2 1.3. Delimitations ................................................................................................... 2 1.4. Report structure .............................................................................................. 2 2. Method Theory ....................................................................................................... 4 2.1. Quantative and qualitative data collection ................................................... 4 2.2. Literature study ............................................................................................... 4 2.3. Interviews ........................................................................................................ 4 2.3.1. Interview Medium and Execution ................................................................ 5 2.3.2. Sample Selection .......................................................................................... 6 2.4. Observation ..................................................................................................... 6 2.5. Break-Even Analysis ........................................................................................ 6 2.6. Method Implementation ................................................................................ 7 2.6.1. The Planning Phase ...................................................................................... 7 2.6.2. The Data Collection Phase ........................................................................... 8 2.6.3. The Analysis Phase ....................................................................................... 9 2.6.4. The Final Phase ............................................................................................ 9 3. Theoretical Frame of Reference ............................................................................ 11 3.1. Airspace Design .............................................................................................. 11 3.1.1. Area Navigation .......................................................................................... 11 3.1.2. Free Route Airspace .................................................................................... 12 3.2. Flight planning ............................................................................................... 13 3.2.1. Fuel Consumption ....................................................................................... 13 3.2.2. Route Charges and Unit Rates ................................................................... 14 3.3. Previous research ........................................................................................... 15 4. Description of the Current State ........................................................................... 17 4.1. LFV Air Navigation Services of Sweden ........................................................ 17 4.2. The Swedish Airspace ................................................................................... 18 4.3. Aviation Industry and Statistics ................................................................... 19 4.4. Interview with FMP Manager Thomas Jönsson ........................................... 19 4.4.1. Factors in Flight Planning .......................................................................... 20 4.4.2. Airspace Dodging ....................................................................................... 20 4.5. Interview with Scandinavian Airlines Pilot Johan Dahlström ..................... 21 4.5.1. Flight planning from a pilot’s perspective..................................................