New cases to analyse in Domino

AUTHOR: Luis Delgado

We are entering the final phase of Domino and now it is time to focus on the detail!

From broad to deep

In our previous blog entry (“Domino workshop – First results and model validation”), we presented some of the results generated in Domino from the Investigative case studies. The full set of results are now available in the domino website (www.domino-eu.com) from where you can download D5.2 Investigative case studies results!

Considering the feedback gathered on various dissemination and consultation activities, it was clear that we should focus on the analysis of how the new network metrics can be used more operationally. For this reason, we have identified two case studies for the final stage of Domino. We’ll analyse in detail these cases, looking into classical and complex network metrics, but always keeping an eye on the stakeholders’ perspective. The outcome of these scenarios will be presented in D5.3 Final tool and model description and case studies results which will be available by the end of the year.

Case studies

Hub delay management

First, we want to understand how Domino is able to capture the benefits of introducing mechanisms to deal with ATFM delay at hubs. Airport capacity has been identified as one of the largest challenges in term of capacity demand in the future and new mechanism, such as allowing ATFM swaps between airlines or advance 4D Trajectory management (combining waiting for passengers with adjusting speeds), could benefit airlines, passengers and the system as a whole. ATFM regulations will be modelled at key hubs in Europe incorporating the Flight Prioritisation and the 4DTA mechanisms.

Effect of E-AMAN scope on arrival manager

The second case study will focus on understanding the impact of having and advance Flight Arrival Coordination (FAC)  implemented with different planning scopes. It is expected that as the scope increases, the benefits in terms of cost savings will increase. Domino will be able to assess this beyond classical direct metrics.

Keeping the stakeholders perspective

During Domino, we have always tried to identify the stakeholders interest. In these final analysis, we will consider relevant questions that the methodology, platform and metrics could try to answer. For example:

· From the airports perspective
· How does the introduction of a given mechanism affect passenger itineraries connecting at a specific airport ? Does it render more or less probable that such itineraries are disrupted?
· How does it affect passenger itineraries starting at that airport?
· How critical is one airport, with respect to other airports, in propagating delays and costs?
· Which airports are propagating delay and costs towards a given (‘my’) airport? What is the impact of introducing a certain mechanism?

· From the airlines perspective
  · How is the connectivity impacted for one airline, when mechanisms are implemented with respect to otherairlines?
· Which elements in the system are generating costs for flights?
· How do hub-based airlines (e.g. network carriers) perform compared to non-hub-based airlines (e.g. point-to-point carriers), at different airports?

· From the passengers perspective
· What trade-offs exist between different types of passengers (i.e. connecting and non-connecting)?
· How does the likelihood of having a disrupted itinerary vary when mechanisms are introduced, if an itinerary starts/ passes through / ends at a given airport?