Design of Ground Delay Programs to Consider the Stakeholder's Perspective
Abstract
A ground delay program (GDP) is an initiative used by FAA to manage the arrival demand rate at a capacity-constrained airport. A key challenge regarding GDPs is to identify the stakeholders, those groups whose interests should be considered during the design process. A review of the existing literature shows that many conflicting definitions and methods for identifying GDP stakeholders exist. A new definition is proposed to resolve this conflict, which not only applies to GDPs but is also grounded in stakeholder theory. Subsequently, the key stakeholders are identified and classified by importance. The results show that FAA should give passengers and the federal government greater consideration. The conclusions offer suggestions for how FAA might address this disparity in the design of GDPs in practice.
Get full access to this article
View all access and purchase options for this article.
References
1. Ball M., Hoffman R., Odoni A., and Rifkin R. A Stochastic Integer Program with Dual Network Structure and Its Application to the Ground-Holding Problem. Operations Research, Vol. 51, No. 1, 2003, pp. 167–171.
2. Richetta O., and Odoni A. Dynamic Solution to the Ground Holding Problem in Air Traffic Control. Transportation Research: Part A, Policy and Practice, Vol. 28, No. 3, 1994, pp. 167–185.
3. Mukherjee A., and Hansen M. A Dynamic Stochastic Model for the Single Airport Ground Holding Problem. Transportation Science, Vol. 41, No. 4, 2007, pp. 444–456.
4. Hanowsky M. A Model to Design a Stochastic and Dynamic Ground Delay Program Subject to Non-Linear Cost Functions. PhD dissertation. Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge, Mass., 2008.
5. Vranas P., Bertsimas D., and Odoni A. The Multi-Airport Ground-Holding Problem in Air Traffic Control. Operations Research, Vol. 42, No. 2, 1994, pp. 249–262.
6. Bertsimas D., and Stock-Patterson S. The Air Traffic Flow Management Problem with Enroute Capacities. Operations Research, Vol. 46, No. 3, 1998, pp. 406–422.
7. Vossen T., and Ball M. Optimization and Mediated Bartering Models for Ground Delay Programs. Naval Research Logistics, Vol. 53, No. 1, 2005, pp. 75–90.
8. Federal Highway Administration, U.S. Department of Transportation. Collaborative Decision Making. http://cdm.fly.faa.gov/whatscdm.html. Accessed September 11, 2008.
9. Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary. www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/stakeholder. Accessed September 11, 2008.
10. Andrews J., Burke E., and Thomas J. Redesigning the National Airspace System for Sustainability. Summer Task Force on Air Transportation, Princeton University, Princeton, N.J., 2004.
11. Ball M., Barnhart C., Nemhauser G., and Odoni A. Air Transportation: Irregular Operations and Control. Operations Research Handbook on Transportation (Laporte G., and Barnhart C., eds.). North-Holland, Amsterdam, Netherlands, 2007, pp. 1–67.
12. Haraldsdottir A., Alcabin M., Burgemeister A., Lindsey C., Makins N., Schwab R., Shakarian A., Shontz W., Singleton M., Van Tulder P., and Warren A. Air Traffic Management Concept Baseline Definition. Boeing Commercial Airplane Group, 1997. www.boeing.com/commercial/caft/reference/documents/coe_report.pdf. Accessed May 11, 2009.
13. Burke J. Implementing and Evaluating Alternative Airspace Rationing Methods. MS thesis. University of Maryland, College Park, 2002.
14. Hogan B., and Wojcik L. Traffic Flow Management Modeling and Operational Complexity. Proc. of the 2004 Winter Simulation Conference, Washington, D.C., 2004.
15. Johnson N., Canton R., and Battiste V. Distributed Air/Ground Traffic Management, En-Route Free Maneuvering, Rules of the Road: Requirements and Implementation for a Simulation of En-route Self-Separation. Presented at 2005 International Symposium on Aviation Psychology, Dayton, Ohio, 2005.
16. Knorr D., Post J., Biros J., and Blucher M. The Operational Assessment of Free Flight Phase 1 ATM Capabilities. Presented at the 3rd USA/Europe Air Traffic Management R&D Seminar, Naples, Italy, 2000.
17. Manley B., and Sherry L. The Impact of Ground Delay Program (GDP) Rationing Rules on Passenger and Airline Equity. Presented at the International Conference on Research in Air Transportation, Fairfax, Va., 2008.
18. Ball C., Fellman L., Taber N., Wanke C., and Yee M. A Concept of Use for an Initial Integrated Impact Assessment Capability. MITRE Corporation, 2001. www.mitre.org/work/tech_papers/tech_papers_01/taber_concept/index.html. Accessed May 11, 2009.
19. Osuri V. Successes of Collaborative Decision Making at the Traffic Flow Management Program Office and the Advantages of Adopting Toolkits. MS thesis. Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge, Mass., 2006.
20. Wojcik L. Three Principles of Decision-Making Interactions in Traffic Flow Management Operations. Presented at the 4th USA/Europe Air Traffic Management R&D Seminar, Santa Fe, N. Mex., 2001.
21. Balakrishna P., Ganesan R., and Sherry L. Airport Taxi-Out Prediction Using Approximate Dynamic Programming: Intelligence-Based Paradigm. In Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board, No. 2052, Transportation Research Board of the National Academies, Washington, D.C., 2008, pp. 54–61.
22. Eads G. C., Kiefer M., and Mehndiratta S. R. Short-Term Delay Mitigation Strategies for San Francisco International Airport. In Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board, No. 1744. TRB, National Research Council, Washington, D.C., 2001, pp. 44–51.
23. Hoffman R., and Davidson G. Equitable Allocation of Limited Resources. The MITRE Corporation, Fairfax, Va., 2007.
24. Manley B. Minimizing the Pain in Air Transportation: Analysis of Performance and Equity in Ground Delay Programs. PhD dissertation. George Mason University, Fairfax, Va., 2008.
25. Marais K., and Weigel A. L. Encouraging and Ensuring Successful Technology Transition in Civil Aviation. ESD white paper 2006-07, 2006. http://esd.mit.edu/wps/esd-wp-2006-07.pdf. Accessed April 23, 2009.
26. Zografos K. G., and Giannouli I. M. Evaluating Cost-Effectiveness of an Air Traffic Management System for Europe: Development and Application of Methodological Framework. In Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board, No. 1744. TRB, National Research Council, Washington, D.C., 2001, pp. 52–64.
27. Leal De Matos P., and Ormerod P. The Application of Operational Research to European Air Traffic Flow Management—Understanding the Context. European Journal of Operational Research, Vol. 123, 2000, pp. 125–144.
28. Freeman R. E. Strategic Management: A Stakeholder Approach. Pitman, Boston, Mass., 1984.
29. Phillips R. Stakeholder Theory and a Principle of Fairness. Business Ethics Quarterly, Vol. 7, No. 1, 1997, pp. 51–66.
30. Mitchell R., Agle B., and Wood D. Toward a Theory of Stakeholder Salience: Defining the Principle of Who and What Really Counts. Academy of Management Review, Vol. 22, No. 4, 1997, pp. 853–886.
31. Agle B., Mitchell R., and Sonnenfeld J. Who Matters to CEOs? An Investigation of Stakeholder Attributes and Salience, Corporate Performance, and CEO Values. Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 42, No. 5, 1999, pp. 507–525.
32. Enhanced Traffic Management System (ETMS) Functional Description. Volpe National Transportation Systems Center, U.S. Department of Transportation, Cambridge, Mass., 2004.
33. Hanowsky M. Efficiency vs. Equity in Dynamic Air Traffic Flow Management. Presented at the INFORMS Conference, Seattle, Wash., 2007.
Cite article
Cite article
Cite article
OR
Download to reference manager
If you have citation software installed, you can download article citation data to the citation manager of your choice
Information, rights and permissions
Information
Published In
Article first published online: January 1, 2009
Issue published: January 2009
Authors
Metrics and citations
Metrics
Journals metrics
This article was published in Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board.
VIEW ALL JOURNAL METRICSArticle usage*
Total views and downloads: 13
*Article usage tracking started in December 2016
Altmetric
See the impact this article is making through the number of times it’s been read, and the Altmetric Score.
Learn more about the Altmetric Scores
Articles citing this one
Receive email alerts when this article is cited
Web of Science: 0
Crossref: 3
- Air Traffic Management during Rare Events Such as a Pandemic: Paris Ch...
- A decision making framework for incorporating fairness in allocating s...
- Designing the Ultimate Tech-Hub
Figures and tables
Figures & Media
Tables
View Options
Get access
Access options
If you have access to journal content via a personal subscription, university, library, employer or society, select from the options below:
loading institutional access options
Alternatively, view purchase options below:
Purchase 24 hour online access to view and download content.
Access journal content via a DeepDyve subscription or find out more about this option.
