Lower Cost Arrivals for Airlines: Optimal Policies for Managing Runway Operations under Optimized Profile Descent

Optimized profile descent (OPD) is an operating procedure being used by airlines to improve fuel and environmental efficiency during arrival operations at airports. In this study, we develop a stochastic dynamic programming framework to manage the sequencing and separation of flights during OPD operations. We find that simple calculation based measures can be used as optimal decision rules, and that the expected annual savings can be around $29 million if such implementations are adapted by major airports in the United States. Of these savings, $24 million are direct savings for airlines due to reduced fuel usage, corresponding to a potential savings of 10%–15% in fuel consumption over current practice. We also find that most of these savings will be due to the optimal spacing of OPD flights, as opposed to the optimal sequencing policies which contribute only 14% to the total savings. Hence, optimal spacing of OPD flights is much more important than optimal sequencing of these flights. We also conclude that there is not much difference between the environmental costs of fuel-optimal and sustainably-optimal spacing policies. Hence, an airline-centric approach in improving OPD operations is likely to be not in conflict with objectives that might be prioritized by other stakeholders.

[1]  Liling Ren Modeling and managing separation for noise abatement arrival procedures , 2007 .

[2]  K. Krishnamurthy,et al.  An analysis of merging and spacing operations with continuous descent approaches , 2005, 24th Digital Avionics Systems Conference.

[3]  Tom G. Reynolds,et al.  Human Factors Implications of Continuous Descent Approach Procedures for Noise Abatement , 2005 .

[4]  John-Paul Clarke,et al.  Flight Trials of CDA with Time-Based Metering at Atlanta International Airport , 2007 .

[5]  L. V. Wassenhove,et al.  Sustainable Operations Management , 2005 .

[6]  John-Paul Clarke,et al.  Cueing System for Near-Term Implementation of Aircraft Noise Abatement Approach Procedures , 2007 .

[7]  Adib Kanafani,et al.  Air, high-speed rail, or highway: A cost comparison in the California corridor , 1999 .

[8]  Douglas P. DuBois,et al.  “Fuel Flow Method2” for Estimating Aircraft Emissions , 2006 .

[9]  Christopher S. Tang,et al.  Research advances in environmentally and socially sustainable operations , 2012, Eur. J. Oper. Res..

[10]  H. A. Abbass,et al.  A dynamic continuous descent approach methodology for low noise and emission , 2010, 29th Digital Avionics Systems Conference.

[11]  John-Paul Clarke,et al.  Scheduling of runway operations for reduced environmental impact , 2011 .

[12]  Yael Grushka-Cockayne,et al.  An Integrated Decision-Making Approach for Improving European Air Traffic Management , 2008, Manag. Sci..

[13]  Jürgen Wenzel,et al.  Pilot workload during approaches: comparison of simulated standard and noise-abatement profiles. , 2009, Aviation, space, and environmental medicine.

[14]  Jeff Formosa Optimized Profile Descent (OPD) Site Evaluations and Benefits Analysis , 2009 .

[15]  Richard Coppenbarger,et al.  Field Evaluation of the Tailored Arrivals Concept for Datalink-Enabled Continuous Descent Approach , 2007 .

[16]  Gaurav Nagle,et al.  Optimized Profile Descent Arrivals at Los Angeles International Airport , 2013 .

[17]  Andreas Schäfer,et al.  Historical and future trends in aircraft performance, cost, and emissions , 2001 .