Warning: define(): Argument #3 ($case_insensitive) is ignored since declaration of case-insensitive constants is no longer supported in /home/u742613510/domains/strategy-at-risk.com/public_html/wp-content/plugins/wpmathpub/wpmathpub.php on line 65
Airports – Strategy @ Risk

Strategy @ Risk

Series: Airports

Airport Simulation

This entry is part 1 of 4 in the series Airports

The basic building block in airport simulation is the passenger (Pax) forecast. This is the basis for subsequent estimation of aircraft movements (ATM), investment in terminal buildings and airside installations, all traffic charges, tax free sales etc. In short it is the basic determinant of the airport’s economics.

The forecast model is usually based on a logarithmic relation between Pax, GDP and airfare price movement. ((Manual on Air Traffic Forecasting. ICAO, 2006)), ((Howard, George P. et al. Airport Economic Planning. Cambridge: MIT Press, 1974.))

There has been a large number of studies over time and across the world on Air Travel Demand Elasticities, a good survey is given in a Canadian study ((Gillen, David W.,William G. Morrison, Christopher Stewart . “Air Travel Demand Elasticities: Concepts, Issues and Measurement.” 24 Feb 2009 http://www.fin.gc.ca/consultresp/Airtravel/airtravStdy_-eng.asp)).

In a recent project for an European airport – aimed at establishing an EBITDA model capable of simulating risk in its economic operations – we embedded the Pax forecast models in the EBITDA model. Since the seasonal variations in traffic are very pronounced and since the cycles are reverse for domestic and international traffic a good forecast model should attempt to forecast the seasonal variations for the different groups of travellers.

In the following graph we have done just that, by adding seasonal factors to the forecast model based on the relation between Pax and change in GDP and air fare cost. We have however accepted the fact that neither is the model specification complete, nor is the seasonal factors fixed and constant. We therefore apply Monte Carlo simulation using estimation and forecast errors as the stochastic parts. In the figure the green lines indicate the 95% limit, the blue the mean value and the red the 5% limit. Thus with 90% probability will the number of monthly Pax fall within these limits.

From the graph we can clearly se the effects of estimation and forecast “errors” and the fact that it is international travel that increases most as GDP increases (summer effect).

As an increase in GDP at this point of time is not exactly imminent we supply the following graph, displaying effects of different scenarios in growth in GDP and air fare cost.

References

24/02/2009
Concession Revenue Modelling and Forecasting
This entry is part 2 of 4 in the series Airports

Concessions are an important source of revenue for all airports. An airport simulation model should therefore be able to give a good forecast of revenue from different types of concessions -given a small set of assumptions about local future price levels and income development for its international Pax. Since we already have a good forecast model for the expected number of international Pax (and its variation) we will attempt to forecast the airports revenue pr Pax from one type of concession and use both forecasts to estimate the airports revenue from that concession.

The theory behind is simple; the concessionaires sales is a function of product price and the customers (Pax) income level. Some other airport specific variables also enter the equation however they will not be discussed here. As a proxy for change in Pax income we will use the individual countries change in GDP. The price movement is represented by the corresponding movements of a price index.

We assume that changes in the trend for the airports revenue is a function of the changes in the general income level and that the seasonal variance is caused by the seasonal changes in the passenger mix (business/leisure travel).

It is of course impossible to forecast the exact level of revenue, but that is as we shall see where Monte Carlo simulation proves its worth.

The fist step is a time series analysis of the observed revenue pr Pax, decomposing the series in trend and seasonal factors:

The time series fit turns out to be very good explaining more than 90 % of the series variation. At this point however our only interest is the trend movements and its relation to change in prices, income and a few other airport specific variables. We will however here only look at income – the most important of the variable.

Step two, is a time series analysis of income (weighted average of GDP development in countries with majority of Pax) separating trend and seasonal factors. This trend is what we are looking for; we want to use it to explain the trend movements in the revenue.

Step three, is then a regression of the revenue trend on the income trend as shown in the graph below. The revenue trend was estimated assuming a quadratic relation over time and we can see that the fit is good. In fact 98 % of the variance in the revenue trend can be explained by the change in income (+) trend:

Now the model will be as follows – step four:
1. We will collect the central banks GDP forecasts (base line scenario) and use this to forecast the most likely change in income trend
2. More and more central banks are now producing fan charts giving the possible event space (with probabilities) for their forecasts. We will use this to establish a probability distribution for our income proxy
Below is given an example of a fan chart taken from the Bank of England’s inflation report November 2009. (Bank of England, 2009) ((The fan chart depicts the probability of various outcomes for GDP growth. It has been conditioned on the assumption that the stock of purchased assets financed by the issuance of central bank reserves reaches £200 billion and remains there throughout the forecast period. To the left of the first vertical dashed line, the distribution reflects the likelihood of revisions to the data over the past; to the right, it reflects uncertainty over the evolution of GDP growth in the future. If economic circumstances identical to today’s were to prevail on 100 occasions, the MPC’s best collective judgement is that the mature estimate of GDP growth would lie within the darkest central band on only 10 of those occasions. The fan chart is constructed so that outturns are also expected to lie within each pair of the lighter green areas on 10 occasions. In any particular quarter of the forecast period, GDP is therefore expected to lie somewhere within the fan on 90 out of 100 occasions. The bands widen as the time horizon is extended, indicating the increasing uncertainty about outcomes. See the box on page 39 of the November 2007 Inflation Report for a fuller description of the fan chart and what it represents. The second dashed line is drawn at the two-year point of the projection.))

3. We will then use the relation between historic revenue and income trend to forecast the revenue trend
4. Adding the seasonal variation using the estimated seasonal factors – give us a forecast of the periodic revenue.

For our historic data the result is shown in the graph below:

The calculated revenue series have a very high correlation with the observed revenue series (R=0.95) explaining approximately 90% of the series variation.

Step five, now we can forecast the revenue from concession pr Pax figures for the next periods (month, quarters or years), using Monte Carlo simulation:
1. From the income proxy distribution we draw a possible change in yearly income and calculates the new trend
2. Using the estimated relation between historic revenue and income trend we forecast the most likely revenue trend and calculate the 95% confidence interval. We then use this to establish a probability distribution for the period’s trend level and draws a value. This value is adjusted with the period’s seasonal factor and becomes our forecasted value for the airports revenue from the concession – for this period.
Running thru this a thousand times we get a distribution as given below:

In the airport EBITDA model this only a small but important part for forecasting future airport revenue. As the models data are updated (monthly) all the time series analysis and regressions are redone dynamically to capture changes in trends and seasonal factors.

The level of monthly revenue from the concession is obviously more complex than can be described with a small set of variable and assumptions. Our model has with high probability specification errors and we may or may not have violated some of the statistical methods assumptions (the model produces output to monitor this). But we feel that we are far better of than having put all our money on a single figure as a forecast. At least we know something about the forecasts uncertainty.

References

Bank of England. (2009, November). Inflation Report November 2009 . Retrieved from http://www.bankofengland.co.uk/publications/inflationreport/ir09nov5.ppt
11/11/2009
The Uncertainty in Forecasting Airport Pax

This entry is part 3 of 4 in the series Airports

When planning airport operations, investments both air- and land side or only making next years budget you need to make some forecasts of what traffic you can expect. Now, there are many ways of doing that most of them ending up with a single figure for the monthly or weekly traffic. However we do know that the probability for that figure to be correct is near zero, thus we end up with plans based on assumptions that most likely newer will happen.

This is why we use Monte Carlo simulation to get a grasp of the uncertainty in our forecast and how this uncertainty develops as we go into the future. The following graph (from real life) shows how the passenger distribution changes as we go from year 2010 (blue) to 2017 (red). The distribution moves outwards showing an expected increase in Pax at the same time it spreads out on the x-axis (Pax) giving a good picture of the increased uncertainty we face.

This can also be seen from the yearly cumulative probability distributions given below. As we move out into the future the distributions are leaning more and more to the right while still being “anchored” on the left to approximately the same place – showing increased uncertainty in the future Pax forecasts. However our confidence in that the airport will reach at least 40M Pax during the next 5 years is bolstered.

If we look at the fan-chart for the Pax forecasts below, the limits of the dark blue region give the lower (25%) and upper (75%) quartiles for the yearly Pax distributions i.e. the region where we expect with 50% probability the actual Pax figures to fall.

The lower und upper limits give the 5% and 95% percentiles for the yearly Pax distributions i.e. we can expect with 90% probability that the actual Pax figures will fall somewhere inside these three regions.

As shown the uncertainty about the future yearly Pax figures is quite high. With this as the backcloth for airport planning it is evident that the stochastic nature of the Pax forecasts has to be taken into account when investment decisions (under uncertainty) are to be made. (ref) Since the airport value will relay heavily on these forecasts it is also evident that this value will be stochastic and that methods from decision making under uncertainty have to be used for possible M&R.

Major Airport Operation Disruptions

Delays – the time lapse which occurs when a planned event does not happen at the planned time – are pretty common at most airports Eurocontrol estimates it on average to approx 13 min on departure for 45% of the flights and approx 12 min for arrivals in 42% of the flights (Guest, 2007). Nevertheless the airport costs of such delays are small; it can even give an increase in revenue (Cook, Tanner, & Anderson, 2004).

We have lately in Europe experienced major disruptions in airport operations thru closing of airspace due to volcanic ash. Closed airspace give a direct effect on airport revenue and a higher effect the closer it is to an airport. Volcanic eruptions in some regions might be considered as Black Swan events to an airport, but there are a large number of volcanoes that might cause closing of airspace for shorter or longer time. The Smithsonian Global Volcanism Program lists more than 540 volcanoes with previous documented eruption.

As there is little data for events like this it is difficult to include the probable effects of closed airspace due to volcanic eruptions in the simulation. However, the data includes effects of the 9/11 terrorist attack and the left tails of the yearly Pax distributions will be influenced by this.

References

Guest, Tim. (2007, September). A Matter of time: air traffic delay in Europe. , EUROCONTROL Trends in Air Traffic I, 2.

Cook, A., Tanner, G., & Anderson, S. (2004). Evaluating the true cost to airlines of one minute of airborne or ground delay: final report. [University of Westminster]. Retrieved from, www.eurocontrol.int/prc/gallery/content/public/Docs/cost_of_delay.pdf

22/04/2010
The risk of planes crashing due to volcanic ash
This entry is part 4 of 4 in the series Airports

When the Icelandic volcano Eyafjallajøkul had a large eruption in 2010 it lead to closed airspace all over Europe, with corresponding big losses for airlines. In addition it led to significant problems for passengers who were stuck at various airports without getting home. In Norway we got a new word: “Ash stuck” ((Askefast)) became a part of Norwegian vocabulary.

The reason the planes were put on ground is that mineral particles in the volcanic ash may lead to damage to the plane’s engines, which in turn may lead to them crashing. This happened in 1982, when a flight from British Airways almost crashed due to volcanic particles in the engines. The risk of the same happening in 2010 was probably not large, but the consequences would have been great should a plane crash.

Using simulation software and a simple model I will show how this risk can be calculated, and hence why the airspace was closed over Europe in 2010 even if the risk was not high. I have not calculated any effects following the closure, since this isn’t a big model nor an in depth analysis. It is merely meant as an example of how different issues can be modeled using Monte Carlo simulation. The variable values are not factual but my own simple estimates. The goal in this article is to show an example of modeling, not to get a precise estimate of actual risk.

To model the risk of dangerous ash in the air there are a few key questions that have to be asked and answered to describe the issue in a quantitative way.

Variable 1. Is the ash dangerous?

We first have to model the risk of the ash being dangerous to plane engines. I do that by using a so called discrete probability. It has a value 0 if the ash is not dangerous and a value 1 if it is. Then the probabilities for each of the alternatives are set. I set them to:
- 99% probability that the as IS NOT dangerous
- 1% probability that the ash IS dangerous
Variable 2. How many planes are in the air?

Secondly we have to estimate how many planes are in the air when the ash becomes a problem. Daily around 30 000 planes are in the air over Europe. We can assume that if planes start crashing or get in big trouble the rest will immediately be grounded. Therefore I only use 2/24 of these planes in the calculation.
- 2 500 planes are in the air when the problem occurs
I use a normal distribution and set the standard deviation for planes in the air in a 2 hour period to 250 planes. I have no views on whether the curve is skewed one way or the other. I assume it may well be, since there probably are different numbers of planes in the air depending on weekday, whether it’s a holiday season and so on, but I’ll leave that estimate to the air authority staff.

Variable 3. How many people are there in each plane?

Thirdly I need an estimate on how many passengers and crew there are in each plane. I assume the following; I disregard the fact that there are a lot of intercontinental flights over the Eyafjallajøkul volcano, likely with more passengers than the average plane over Europe. The curve might be more skewed that what I assume:
- Average number of passengers/crew: 70
- Lowest number of passengers/crew: 60
- Highest number of passengers/crew: 95
The reason I’m using a skewed curve here is that the airline business is constantly under pressure to fill up their planes. In addition the number of passengers will vary by weekday and so on. I think it is reasonable to assume that there are likely more passengers per plane rather than fewer.

Variable 4. How many of the planes which are in the air will crash?

The last variable that needs to be modeled is how many planes will crash should the ash be dangerous. I assume that maybe no planes actually crash, even though the ash gets into their engines. This is the low end of the curve. I have in addition assumed the following:
- Expected number of planes that crash: 0, 01%
- Maximum number of planes that crash: 1, 0%
Now we have what we need to start calculating!

The formula I use to calculate is as follows:

If(“Dangerous ash”=0;0)

If(“Dangerous ash”=1;”Number of planes in the air”x”Number of planes crashing”x”Number of passengers/crew per plane”)

If the ash is not dangerous, variable 1 is equal to 0, no planes crash and nobody dies. If the ash is dangerous the number of dead is a product of the number of planes, number of passengers/crew and the number of planes crashing.

Running this model with a simulation tool gives the following result:

As the graph shows the expected value is low; 3 people, meaning that the probability for a major loss of planes is very low. But the consequences may be devastatingly high. In this model run there is a 1% probability that the ash is dangerous, and a 0, 01% probability that planes actually crash. However the distribution has a long tail, and a bit out in the tail there is a probability that 1 000 people crash into their death. This is a so called shortfall risk or the risk of a black swan if you wish. The probability is low, but the consequences are very big.

This is the reason for the cautionary steps taken by air authorities. Another reason is that the probabilities both for the ash being dangerous and that planes will crash because of it are unknown probabilities. Thirdly, changes in variable values will have a big impact.

If the probability of the ash being dangerous is 10% rather than 1% and the probability of planes crashing is 1% rather than 0,01%, as much as 200 dead (or 3 planes) is expected while the extreme outcome is close to 6 400 dead.

This is a simplified example of the modeling that is likely to be behind the airspace being closed. I don’t know what probabilities are used, but I’m sure this is how they think.

How we assess risk depends on who we are. Some of us have a high risk appetite, some have low. I’m glad I’m not the one to make the decision on whether to close the airspace or not. It is not an easy decision.

My model is of course very simple. There are many factors to take into account, like wind direction and – strength, intensity of eruption and a number of other factors I don’t know about. But as an illustration both of the factors that need to be estimated in this case and as a generic modeling case this is a good example.

Originally published in Norwegian.
23/09/2013