Scale-Free Networks and Commercial Air Carrier Transportation in the United States

Network science, or the art of describing system structure, may be useful for the analysis and control of large, complex systems. For example, networks exhibiting scale-free structure have been found to be particularly well suited to deal with environmental uncertainty and large demand growth. The National Airspace System may be, at least in part, a scalable network. In fact, the hub-and-spoke structure of the commercial segment of the NAS is an often-cited example of an existing scale-free network After reviewing the nature and attributes of scale-free networks, this assertion is put to the test: is commercial air carrier transportation in the United States well explained by this model? If so, are the positive attributes of these networks, e.g. those of efficiency, flexibility and robustness, fully realized, or could we effect substantial improvement? This paper first outlines attributes of various network types, then looks more closely at the common carrier air transportation network from perspectives of the traveler, the airlines, and Air Traffic Control (ATC). Network models are applied within each paradigm, including discussion of implied strengths and weaknesses of each model. Finally, known limitations of scalable networks are discussed. With an eye towards NAS operations, utilizing the strengths and avoiding the weaknesses of scale-free networks are addressed.

[1]  Robert C. Fraser,et al.  Civil aviation development: a policy and operations analysis , 1972 .

[2]  B. Roberts,et al.  THE CHANGING FACE OF TRANSPORTATION , 1988 .

[3]  D. W. Daniel,et al.  Hard problems in a soft world , 1990 .

[4]  Jan K. Brueckner,et al.  FARE DETERMINATION IN AIRLINE HUB-AND-SPOKE NETWORKS , 1990 .

[5]  Gang Yu,et al.  AIRLINE NETWORK DESIGN AND HUB LOCATION PROBLEMS , 1996 .

[6]  Amedeo R. Odoni,et al.  Existing and Required Modeling Capabilities for Evaluating ATM Systems and Concepts , 1997 .

[7]  H. Van Dyke Parunak,et al.  Agent-Based Modeling vs. Equation-Based Modeling: A Case Study and Users' Guide , 1998, MABS.

[8]  Cynthia Barnhart,et al.  Itinerary-Based Airline Fleet Assignment , 2002, Transp. Sci..

[9]  Duncan J. Watts,et al.  Collective dynamics of ‘small-world’ networks , 1998, Nature.

[10]  D S Callaway,et al.  Network robustness and fragility: percolation on random graphs. , 2000, Physical review letters.

[11]  Craig Wanke,et al.  Modeling the NAS : A Grand Challenge for the Simulation Community , 2000 .

[12]  Nicholas R. Jennings,et al.  On agent-based software engineering , 2000, Artif. Intell..

[13]  Clinton J. Andrews,et al.  Restoring legitimacy to the systems approach , 2000, IEEE Technol. Soc. Mag..

[14]  S. Strogatz Exploring complex networks , 2001, Nature.

[15]  Albert-László Barabási,et al.  Statistical mechanics of complex networks , 2001, ArXiv.

[16]  Craig Wanke,et al.  Decision support for advanced aviation concepts , 2002, Proceedings of the Winter Simulation Conference.

[17]  Scott Moss,et al.  Policy analysis from first principles , 2002, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America.

[18]  Eric Bonabeau,et al.  Agent-based modeling: Methods and techniques for simulating human systems , 2002, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America.

[19]  Peter Sheridan Dodds,et al.  Information exchange and the robustness of organizational networks , 2003, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America.

[20]  A. P. Kutakh,et al.  A Simulation Modeling System for Estimation of the Efficiency of New Technologies and Organization of Railroad Transportation , 2003 .

[21]  Roger Guimerà,et al.  Structure and Efficiency of the World-Wide Airport Network , 2003 .

[22]  Albert-László Barabási,et al.  The Architecture of Biological Networks , 2006 .