See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/343657480

An overview of air delay: A case study of the Brazilian scenario

Article  in  Transportation Research Interdisciplinary Perspectives · August 2020

DOI: 10.1016/j.trip.2020.100189

CITATIONS READS

5 88

2 authors:

Daniel Alberto Pamplona Cláudio Jorge

Aeronautical Institute of Technology, ITA, Brazil Instituto Tecnologico de Aeronautica
19 PUBLICATIONS   33 CITATIONS    55 PUBLICATIONS   100 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Relationship between baggage and flight delays and cancellations View project

FRAMEWORK PROPOSAL FOR RUNWAY ARRIVAL SEQUENCING USING ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Daniel Alberto Pamplona on 14 August 2020.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 Transportation Research Interdisciplinary Perspectives 7 (2020) 100189

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Transportation Research Interdisciplinary Perspectives

journal homepage: https://www.journals.elsevier.com/transportation-research-
interdisciplinary-perspectives

An overview of air delay: A case study of the Brazilian scenario

⁎
Daniel Alberto Pamplona a,b, , Claudio Jorge Pinto Alves b
a
Department of Civil Engineering, University of Calgary, Calgary, Alberta, Canada
b
Department of Air Transportation, Aeronautics Institute of Technology, São José dos Campos, Brazil

A R T I C L E I N F O A B S T R A C T

Article history: Delay is a key point in air transportation activity. As a performance metric, it affects common policy concerns. Delay
Received 26 December 2019 impacts passenger satisfaction and imposes costs. The complexity that sets in for the air traffic manager is how to mit-
Received in revised form 10 May 2020 igate delay, especially in an environment with several stakeholders. The present article applied a problem-structuring
Accepted 30 July 2020
method (PSM), named value-focused thinking (VFT), to structure the problem of the air traffic flow management ar-
Available online xxxx
rival delay. The inflexibility of incorporating a flight operator's specific needs is considered one of the reasons for
Keywords:
the limited success of air traffic flow management (ATFM) programs. PSM allows participants to clarify their di-
Air delay lemmas, converge on a mutually liable problem, or agree to the proposed solutions and compromise on what partially
Air traffic flow solves the issue. The problem is that most papers focus only on the applied solution for air delay mitigation. Before
Problem-structuring method implementing operational research techniques, we investigated the nature and characteristics of air delay. Results
Value-focused thinking showed that there were several stakeholders with distinctive requirements for their business and many of their objec-
tives are interconnected. The use of VFT provided an objective map that can be used as a guide for future solutions.

1. Introduction
Delay is a key point in air transportation activity. It exteriorizes the com-
plex interactions between airlines, airport operators, airport slot coordina-
tors, and air navigation service providers (ANSP) from the planning and
scheduling phase up to the day of operation. As a performance metric, it af-
fects common policy concerns such as air quality, environmental resource
consumption, social equity, land use, urban growth, economic develop-
ment, safety, and security. For the aviation industry, it is a complicated
and multidimensional issue. (Wu and Truong, 2014).
Delay is utilized to represent many diverse conditions. It can either be a
capacity indicator or an on-time performance indicator. When employed to
measure capacity, delay assesses the effects of a flight demand as it operates
on the airfield resource. Airline delay may take place before the flight leaves
the gate. The gate delay could be an air traffic control (ATC) measure. Apron
delays may due runway capacity (departure queue delay), departure hold
due to airspace constraint, arrival airport restricted acceptance rate, or
when gate is not vacant for arrival flight. Airspace delay can be comprised
of varied ATC procedures to accomplish necessary aircraft separation, queu-
ing, airborne hold, and vectoring, speed control (ACRP, 2014).
The academic literature suggests that air delay mitigation interventions
fall into three categories: capacity expansion, demand management, and
operational enhancements (Gillen et al., 2016). Capacity expansion seeks
to increase the size of congested airports by investing in new runways
(Brueckner, 2002) and massive infrastructure improvements (Barnhart
and Smith, 2012). This solution is costly and slow to implement. Demand
management relates to administrative or economic measures intended to
reduce global airport demand or reverse the transitory characteristics of de-
mand. Operational enhancements fall inside the domain of ATC and air traf-
fic flow management (ATFM), presenting global or local gains in
operational efficiency (Gillen et al., 2016).
ATFM is a function of Air Traffic Management (ATM) established with
the objective of contributing to a safe, orderly and expeditious flow of traf-
fic while minimizing delays (ICAO, 2014). Because of capacity problems,
there is a growing need for changes in the air traffic system to accommodate
the increase in demand for air traffic (Hu and Chen, 2005). Congestion in
the terminal area (TMA) composes a considerable part of all flight delays
for arriving aircraft (Sölveling and Clarke, 2014). Arrival runways are stra-
tegic at an airport. During peak periods, this demand is close to, or even
briefly exceeds the peak capacity, specifically at hub airports (Soomer
and Franx, 2008). Unpredictable delays make it hardly impossible to pre-
cisely schedule aircraft in advance. The initial planning must be refined
on line when aircraft are close enough to the airport (Artiouchine et al.,
2008). The complexity at the ATC environment emphasizes the need to de-
velop effective decision support tools that provide useful help to controllers
(Pinol and Beasley, 2006).
The inflexibility of incorporating flight operators' specific needs is con-
sidered one of the reasons for the limited success of ATFM programs
(Bennell et al., 2013). One of the dilemmas that arises for an airspace plan-
ner is what are the main objectives that must be included to mitigate air

⁎ Corresponding author.
E-mail addresses: pamplona@ita.br, pamplonadefesa@gmail.com. (D.A. Pamplona).

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.trip.2020.100189
2590-1982/© 2020 The Author(s). Published by Elsevier Ltd. This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/
4.0/).
D.A. Pamplona, C.J.P. Alves /
congestion and consequent delay. Specially, in an environment that has
from the public, private, military, and civil sectors with competing and di-
verse interests. Problem Structuring Method (PSM) is a class of soft opera-
tional research (OR) technique that helps to better understand this type of
situation and allows participants to clarify their dilemmas, converge on a
mutually liable problem, or agree to the proposed solutions and compro-
mise on what partially solves the issue (Mingers and Rosenhead, 2004).
This paper is part of a study to mitigate arrival delay through the imple-
mentation of ATFM operational enhancements techniques in the TMA area,
particularly at the arrival phase of a flight at the main Brazilian airports.
The present article aims to structure the airborne delay problem and,
more specifically, the ATFM at the arrival phase through the value-
focused thinking (VFT) approach proposed by Keeney (1992). Before
implementing operational enhancements techniques, we wanted to investi-
gate more the several stakeholders side on this problem to help build more
reasonable objective functions for the existing ATFM models.
Colorni and Tsoukiàs (2018) remind us that how the set of alternatives
on which a decision support method/algorithm applies is constructed is a
problem that is often neglected and/or underestimated in decision analysis.
The main contribution of this paper is given by applying a soft OR method
to the ATFM problem to enhance the understanding of a complex situation
at the ATC environment. We aim to develop stronger options with stake-
holder engagement to diminish the air delay. To the best of our knowledge,
this is the first study that focus on the use of a soft OR method to this type
of situation.
The reminder of this paper is organized as follows: Section 3 presents
the literature review. Section 4 explores the VFT method. Section 5 struc-
tures the air delay problem using the VFT approach. Finally, the conclusions
are presented.
2. Literature review
A problem becomes complex because it has different perspectives,
values, and preferences of those responsible for the decision, as well as
those impacted by its resolution (Marttunen et al., 2017). Problem-
structuring methods (PSMs) are a set of approaches or methods for under-
standing and structuring a problematic situation rather than directly ad-
dressing it. Using PSMs is a complementary concept in operational
research, extending PSMs' fundamental analytical approach to problematic
domains, which traditional operational research (OR) had failed to solve or
did not attempt to solve (Rosenhead, 2006). PSMs are characterized by
(a) multiple actors, (b) multiple perspectives, (c) immeasurable and/or con-
flicting interests, (d) significant intangibles, and (e) uncertainties at key
points in the problem (Mingers and Rosenhead, 2004).
PSMs give more emphasis on value perceptions and participation when
the model is under development. At a certain level, PSMs contradict most
traditional decision science methods that employ sophisticated mathemat-
ical models, quantitative inputs and provide more precise answers (Keisler
et al., 2014). Most academic articles in decision analysis and operational re-
search, when presenting the problem definition, they start with a claim
about a set of established options. Both researchers and professionals recog-
nize that in the real world this set is never given. It is formed during the de-
cision aiding process and most of the occasions defined several times during
that same process. This issue is practically ignored in the specialized litera-
ture. With the noticeable exception of Keeney (1992) who presented the
principle that decision making should start examining values and not alter-
natives (Colorni and Tsoukiàs, 2018).
VFT was proposed by Keeney (1992) and structures problems based on
values, which are the principles used for assessment. Values are essential
and must be the driving force in the decision-making process. In addition,
they are employed to classify the current and potential consequences of ac-
tions and omissions, the proposed alternatives, and the decisions (Keeney,
1992). Value is seen as a multi-dimensional concept and subjective in es-
sence (Ang et al., 2016; Vuorinen and Martinsuo, 2019). There is a demand
to integrate diverse stakeholders' perspectives to better address each stake-
holders' needs in this problem (Martinsuo and Killen, 2014; Vuorinen and
2
Transportation Research Interdisciplinary Perspectives 7 (2020) 100189
Martinsuo, 2019). During the decision-making process, individuals, instead
of thinking about values, think about the choice of alternatives, but alterna-
tives are meant to achieve fundamental values (Keeney, 1992). Generally,
the decision-maker first lists on the alternatives and then focuses on the ob-
jectives or criteria to evaluate the alternatives. This erroneous approach to
solving a problem is called alternative-focused thinking (AFT), and it is a
limited method for making decisions because it is a reactive rather than pro-
active process (Keeney, 1996).
VFT is a valuable method for problems with multi-objectives and differ-
ent parts decision analysis. By structuring the objectives, it could be useful
for producing better understanding of a decision context (Abuabara et al.,
2018). The International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO, 2014, p.70) es-
tablishes that: “the most efficient utilization of available airspace and air-
port capacity can be achieved only if all relevant elements of the ATM
system have been considered during the planning stage”. VFT is a technique
capable of bring all stakeholders into the solution environment.
VFT was applied to structure situations in several fields: environmental
impacts analysis (Gregory et al., 2001; Hassan, 2004), risk assessment in an
organization (Merrick and Grabowski, 2014; Merrick et al., 2005), water
sources conflicts (Urtiga and Morais, 2015), energy industry (Simon et al.,
2014), Armed Forces (Peharda and Hunjak, 2008), technological context
(Sheng et al., 2010), supply chain management (Tong et al., 2015), agri-
business (Abuabara et al., 2019), and in the aviation industry (Abuabara
et al., 2018). To the present knowledge of the authors, it is the first time
that the present method is used for structuring a problem involving air traf-
fic flow management.
3. Materials and methods
Fig. 1 highlights the proposed approach.
All the answers were based on official documentation and literature re-
search. We used the following VFT steps proposed by Keeney (1992) to
structure the problem of the ATFM arrival delay: (1) contextualization. It
aims to identify the interrelated conditions of the ATFM arrival delay prob-
lem. This step is divided in two parts. First, we explored the several defini-
tions of air delay and later we investigated the arrival delay behavior at the
main airports in Brazil; (2) stakeholders' identification, where we identify
any group or individual who can affected or is affected by the airborne ar-
rival delay; (3) values' identification; (4) elaboration of the wish list to be
answered qualitatively and without the need to rank the importance of
the objectives for problem-solving; (5) ranking the objectives by impor-
tance. Objectives are divided into fundamental objectives and means objec-
tives. The fundamental objectives are the final value to be reached by the
decision-maker in a specific decision-making context. The means objectives
allow reaching the fundamental objectives; and (6) construction of a net-
work of objectives that establishes the relationship between the fundamen-
tal and means objectives.
3.1. Data description and data cleaning approach
The data used for the Brazilian contextualization of the arrival air delay
is based on the Active Scheduled Flight Report (VRA) provided by the
Brazilian National Civil Aviation Agency (ANAC). The VRA report is an on-
line database and contains flight level data on carriers, airport-pairs, flight
numbers, scheduled and actual departures, landing times, and the justifica-
tion code reported for each delayed and cancelled flight. All the informa-
tion used in the VRA is provided by the airlines and aggregated by ANAC
(Bendinelli et al., 2016). In the present study, we applied big data tech-
niques to explore the arrival delay behavior in Brazil.
Although the Brazilian regulator releases annually a system perfor-
mance yearbook, ANAC uses metrics based on delays greater than 30 and
60 min adopting a different standard than those used by FAA in the USA
and EUROCONTROL in Europe. Therefore, although we used the raw data-
base available from ANAC, we had to perform all calculations for compari-
son purpose.
D.A. Pamplona, C.J.P. Alves /
Fig. 1. Structure of the VFT model applied to the ATFM arrival delay problem.
Initially, the dataset comprised 10,478,919 flights from January 2009
to December 2017. The dataset encompasses cancelled, extra and realized
flights. 1,627,965 cancelled and extra flights were dropped. Since the
focus of the research is the delay level in the arrival phase for Brazilian air-
ports, 929,642 flights were dropped that had a destination outside Brazil.
Data entry is a human task and mistakes can occur. Consequently, it was
necessary to verify possible non-standard results that would constitute out-
liers for central tendency (average) analysis. The results showed the pres-
ence of outliers. For outlier extraction, we implemented a threshold of ±
360 min of delay and dropped 27,337 flights.
At this stage, the dataset includes 212 destination airports that operated
regular commercial flights. At the airport level, when analyzing the partic-
ipation of each airport and the percentage of arrivals, seven airports re-
ceived 51.98% of the total arrivals [São Paulo/Guarulhos (SBGR), São
Paulo/Congonhas (SBSP), Brasília (SBBR), Rio de Janeiro/Galeão (SBGL),
Campinas (SBKP), Belo Horizonte/Confins (SBCF), and Rio de Janeiro/San-
tos Dumont (SBRJ)]. Fifteen airports comprised 75% of total system arrivals
[the previous seven and Salvador (SBSV), Curitiba (SBCT), Porto Alegre
(SBPA), Recife (SBRF), Fortaleza (SBFZ), Manaus (SBEG), Belém (SBBE),
and Florianópolis (SBFL)]. Since the research focuses on high demand air-
ports, we chose to only investigate this group of airports and 1,945,897
flights were dropped. Consequently, the final dataset for analysis consists
of 5,948,078 flights. Fig. 2 shows the data cleaning approach executed at
the VRA dataset.
For the present study, we followed the methodology proposed in
Morisset and Odoni (2011), where for all statistics analysis, all negative
values of delay were included. For example, a flight arriving 5 min ahead
of schedule is considered for −5 min of delay.
4. Results
4.1. Contextualization
The contextualization is divided in two parts. First, we review the
existing delay characterizations. Although the airline commercial schedule
is the standard used to determine delay metrics, there are a wide variety of
definitions linked to the several stakeholders involved. Since each airport
has its own demand dynamic, we applied big data techniques to explore
the arrival delay behavior in Brazil.
3
Transportation Research Interdisciplinary Perspectives 7 (2020) 100189
4.1.1. Delay characterization
Analysis and characterization of delay is one of the most important re-
search topics in air transport management (Belkoura et al., 2016). Analyz-
ing aircraft delay is a complex task, both when using historical data for
past analysis or forecast demand for predicting future occurrence. The air
transportation community relates its occurrence to the efficiency of the sys-
tem (Wu, 2016). Delay impacts passenger satisfaction and imposes costs.
Passengers choose an airline not only based on price, but on other key prod-
uct features such as schedule, comfort, convenience, and reputation (Zou
and Hansen, 2012).
There is a large difference between punctuality and delay. Punctuality is
an accepted key performance indicator. It is the volume of flights delayed
by over 15 min compared to the published airline schedule. Since aircraft
can arrive earlier than projected, punctuality permits a 30 (+15 or − 15)
minute window around the expected time. A flight is considered on-time
or not on-time. For a flight to be considered delayed, it must arrive before
or after the scheduled time, and the delay is measured in minutes. For ex-
ample, if a flight arrives 15 min after the scheduled arrival time, it is still
considered “on-time” for punctuality computation and statistics, but it is
15 min late in terms of delay. Delays may be negative when a flight departs
or arrivals early. Negative delays are often not an issue and take place when
the schedule is running close to plan. Depending on the length of time of
negative delay, it may cause minor issues for airport operations. Unex-
pected departures can disrupt the sequencing of departing flights and
early arrivals can influence gate allocation (Wu, 2016).
The problem that arises is that there is no industry-wide standard defi-
nition or measure of delay. Every organization involved tailors the explana-
tion to satisfy its purpose. (Zou and Hansen, 2012). Delay is employed or
described differently by the different stakeholders engaged in airport policy
studies, airline operational on-time performance evaluations, and the pub-
lic (ACRP, 2014). Since delay characterization is based on several acro-
nyms, we provide a list in Table 1 to better assist the reader.
4.1.1.1. Airline commercial schedule. The most common metric is the airline
commercial schedule. The schedule starts with an airline determining an
ideal departure time (IDT). IDT considers preferred passenger travel times
plus internal airline constraints (crew schedule and fleet plans). The airline
then chooses the most appropriate aircraft type from its fleet for the flight.
D.A. Pamplona, C.J.P. Alves / Transportation Research Interdisciplinary Perspectives 7 (2020) 100189

Fig. 2. Flowchart of the data cleaning approach.

Table 1
Using the aircraft's characteristics and assuming it is optimal, ideal arrival
List of acronyms used in this Section.
time (IAT) is computed. Airlines increase scheduled flight times by deter-
Acronym Full phrase
mining a schedule buffer (SB). After that, airlines set a departure and arrival
AIBT Actual in-block time schedule for a determined flight and the subsequent delay can be broken
AOBT Actual off-block time
into departure delay and arrival delay. Departure delay is the difference be-
EOBT Estimated off-block time
ETOT Estimated take-off time
tween the scheduled off-block time (SOBT) and the actual off-block time
FDS Flight delay against schedule (AOBT). SOBT is the time that an aircraft is scheduled to depart from its
IAT Ideal arrival time parking position. AOBT is the actual time the aircraft leaves its parking po-
IDT Ideal departure time sition. This delay may be due to the airport infrastructure and the airline's
SB Schedule buffer
operation. It is recoverable because a flight can be delayed in departure
SIBT Scheduled in-block time
SOBT Scheduled off-block time and can make up lost time during a flight (taxi in, airborne, taxi out) and ar-
rive with no delay, as shown in Fig. 3 (Ball et al., 2010).

Fig. 3. Standard delay definition.

4
D.A. Pamplona, C.J.P. Alves /
Arrival delay is the difference between the scheduled in-block time
(SIBT) and the actual in-block time (AIBT). SIBT is the time that an aircraft
is scheduled to arrive at its first parking position, and AIBT is the actual date
and time when the parking brakes have been engaged in the parking posi-
tion. Arrival delay is the delay most reviewed and it takes place when the
arrival is later than expected (FDS – flight delay against schedule). While
SB is noted in advance for a flight, FDS is not. FDS fluctuates unpredictably
from time to time and flight to flight (Ball et al., 2010). FDS is considered an
inferior method for projecting delay for air traffic flow management be-
cause it does not identify the stages of flight in which delays occur (gate,
taxi-out, airborne, and taxi-in) (Mueller and Chatterji, 2002).
4.1.1.2. Optimal flight time. Optimal flight time embodies the flight that per-
forms all flight phases at the optimal speed with no obstacle. Using optimal
flight time is not a practicable measure because only a small number of
flights could achieve optimal conditions. In fact, it is more a theoretical
measure used for simulation and planning purpose. Reality indicates that
most elements in the network are subject to stochastic influence. Airports
are subjected to weather that influence runway capacities and some ground
operations. For airlines, ground operations are subject to uncertainties such
as ground service delay, scarcity of ground personnel, and connecting crew
delays. For airspace, unpredictability comes from air traffic control capacity
in individual sectors and congested terminal areas. Another factor is that an
airline network is a “time-varying network,” in which the “physical” links
between nodes (airports) are established by flights in a timetable and
there are only a precise number of flights at a specific time of the day
(Wu, 2016).
The optimal flight time is a key quantity. Airlines will generally extend
scheduled flight times over optimal flight time to account for delays resulting
from flight constraints imposed to organize traffic, congestion, and a variety
of diverse factors. SB allows airlines to incorporate some delays and making
the schedule more robust to flight time fluctuations. SB and arrival delay
both represent excess travel times that would not exist in an operationally
perfect air transportation system. The difference between them is that SB is
predisposed for a particular flight, arrival delay varies randomly from day
to day and flight to flight (Hansen and Zou, 2013).
4.1.1.3. Filed flight plan. A pilot estimates the time that it will start taxiing for
departure [estimated off-block time (EOBT)], the time when the aircraft
will become airborne, and s/he may add any delay buffer time at the hold-
ing point prior to take-off, and projects the take-off time [estimated take-off
time (ETOT)]. To avoid delays and en route problems, aircraft are required
by law to have a flight endurance to their destination airport and an alter-
native airport. Commonly, the performance of the air system has been mea-
sured in terms of schedule and not flight planning alterations. The length of
flights varies because of weather, wind, and airspace congestion conditions;
consequently, the most delicate task is to measure delay when the aircraft is
airborne. The flight path an aircraft takes is often prepared a few days be-
fore departure. The airline revises the path on the day of departure and de-
termines fuel consumption, weather forecast, and expected take-off weight
(Wu, 2016).
What the excess planned flight time uniquely captures is how distinct
impedances, such as adverse weather and high traffic volume, may contrib-
ute to supplementary fuel burn above what the flight plan predicts. Excess
planned flight time and airborne delay together are the quantity of time a
flight is delayed relative to its optimal flight time, with the former meaning
planned excess time and that latter representing unanticipated delay
(Ryerson et al., 2014).
Delays that take place during the airborne phase are largely because of
requested deviations by air traffic controllers (Murça and Müller, 2015). In
addition, en route weather and congested ATC sectors can trigger delays.
Airplane excess in the terminal maneuvering area (TMA) may cause an ar-
riving aircraft to join a landing queue in an airborne holding pattern while
awaiting landing space. En route activities are beyond an airline's control. A
few aircraft might be able to ask for a reshuffle of takeoff or landing spaces
at an airport under specific circumstances, such as severe weather or if they
5
Transportation Research Interdisciplinary Perspectives 7 (2020) 100189
are the prevailing (hub) carriers at the airport. This condition occurs only
when airlines need to cancel, delay, or prioritize some flights. Airlines
have limited control over the system constraints, including airport and air-
space capacities. The complexity between the arranged aircraft plans and
stochastic interruptions may cause flight delays (Wu, 2016). Fig. 4 shows
the metrics discussed above.
4.1.1.4. ATC delay. For ATC, institutionalized delay calculation metrics
across ANSP have not been established because of the dilemmas to establish
what constitutes a delay and because of the complexity of deciding which
side (ANSP, airport authorities, and airspace user) has control over how de-
lays are imposed or mitigated. For ATFM, all delays should be considered
for each phase of flight (International Civil Aviation Organization, 2014).
4.1.1.5. Academic metrics of delay. Academically, other delay metrics were
proposed. Mayer and Sinai (2003) introduced a metric called nominal
travel time. This travel time is the moment computed relative to travel du-
rations that is consistent in the absence of undue delay in the system. The
authors established minimum travel time as the shortest observed total
travel time on an applied nonstop route in a determined month. The objec-
tive was to isolate the airline scheduling influence. Nominal travel time is
considered a practical benchmark for what travel time would be if airports
were uncongested and weather was equally favorable.
Schumer and Maloney (2008) proposed four delay metrics. Measure A
was relative to the airline's scheduled arrival times, and it was the lowest
projection of total delay. Measure B compared flight times to the 5th per-
centile of all observed total travel times for a segment in each month. The
main objective was to make the projection more robust to assessment
error and excluded comparisons to flights that had extraordinarily good
conditions. Measures C and D included delays for each stage of flight in
which delay occurred but involved different measures of delay during the
airborne segment. Measure C estimated airborne delay based on applied in-
formation on the flight plan and the published schedule. The nominal air-
borne time in Measure C was the minimum of two estimates of airborne
time: (1) the estimated airborne minutes in the flight plan and (2) the
scheduled block (gate to gate) time minus the nominal taxi times. Measure
D used a rougher measure of nominal air time, computing airborne delay
relative to the 5th percentile of the observed airborne time for the segment
for the month. For all measures of delay, all negative values where zeroed.
For Ball et al. (2010), the metric employed was delay against schedule
in its average positive arrival form. This metric was the difference between
a flight's actual and scheduled gate arrival times, in the truncated form,
where delays of early flights were counted as zero. For quantifying the
schedule buffer, two metrics were used. The unimpeded flight time was cal-
culated as the 10th and 20th percentiles of the observed block time for a
given flight segment or airline, and it was calculated as the 25th percentile
for all flights. Thus, for each flight, the schedule buffer was defined by the
authors as the difference between a flight's scheduled block time and the
unimpeded flight time.
Table 2 summarizes all the delay metrics previously discussed.
4.1.1.6. Passenger's perspective. Among the numerous definitions of delay
previously discussed, no definition addresses the problem of delay from
the perspective of the passenger. All previous metrics begin and end in
the airport environment, except the passenger's perspective, which can
begin before reaching the airfield, as displayed in Fig. 5.
Delay from a passenger's place of origin to the airport (1) and from the
airfield to the destination (8) arises when a person moves from the start to
the end of their journey, which may be their home, place of work, or an-
other place. The main reasons for the delay in this stage are the inadequacy
of public transport, excessive traffic, and complications on entry roads,
among other factors. Here, public agencies are the main responsible.
Delay from the moment of arrival at the airport to boarding (2) and luggage
unloading to leaving the airfield (7) may arise because of the lack of avail-
able parking, a suitable place for stopping vehicles for boarding and
disembarking, a poor quantity of check-in counters and baggage belts,
D.A. Pamplona, C.J.P. Alves / Transportation Research Interdisciplinary Perspectives 7 (2020) 100189

Fig. 4. Other metrics that cause delay

Table 2
Delay metric and definitions.
Metric Definition Perspective Observation

Airline Commercial Schedule
Optimal flight time
Filed flight plan
Nominal travel time
Measure A
Measure B
Measure C
Measure D
Delay against schedule
Passenger's perspective
Air Traffic Flow Management
Deviation from the airline scheduled time Airlines Most common metric
Deviation from all optimized flight phases Theoretical Mainly used in simulation
Deviation from the estimated flight phase durations made by the pilot Airlines/ATC
Deviation from the shortest observed total travel time on a given nonstop Academically Negative values were zeroed
route in a determined month (minimum travel time)
Deviation from an airline's scheduled arrival times Academically Negative values where zeroed
Deviation to the 5th percentile of all observed total travel times for a given Academically Negative values where zeroed
segment in each month
Deviation from the flight plan and published schedule Academically Negative values where zeroed
Deviation from the 5th percentile of the observed airborne time for the Academically Negative values where zeroed
segment for the given month
Difference between actual and scheduled gate arrival times in the Academically Negative values where zeroed
truncated form (early flights are counted as zero)
Deviation from the estimated course predicted by the passenger Passenger Several stakeholders involved;
beyond airport boundaries
Deviation from the estimated flight phases ATC No standardized metric; difficulties
in defining delay and accountability

deficient infrastructure for handling, loading and unloading the aircraft,
and other diverse reasons. The responsible parties are the airport adminis-
trator and airline, and the responsibility ranges depending on the airport
business model.
This is one of the idiosyncrasy of the aerial modal. With rare exceptions,
airports are not the main purpose of a trip. They are a derived demand prod-
uct. All users utilize airplanes for tourism or business purposes and not as an
ultimate objective. In many cases, a passenger might think that the flight is
behind schedule, but it is on time because of the schedule buffer used by the
airlines. For delay statistics, a flight is considered terminated when the
parking brakes have been engaged in the parking position.
4.1.1.7. Impacts of flight delay. Delay impacts the passenger satisfaction and
imposes costs.
In the early 1980s, the Scandinavian airline SAS asked its passengers
what were the most decisive circumstances for them in electing a flight
when executing their reservations. Over 75% of those surveyed said that
departure/arrival times were extremely important and 75% also claimed
that non-stop direct services were significant. Only 3% believed the aircraft
type as a crucial element in their decision (Doganis, 2013). In a survey of
10,000 business air travelers conducted in 2008 by the International Air
Transport Association (IATA), revealed that for short-haul flight punctual-
ity is the 4th most remarkable attribute, behind frequently flyer/mileage
program, most convenient departure/arrival time, and non-stop flight.
The lowest fare offered was the 7th most influential factor. In contrast,
for long-haul passengers, punctuality was the 10th most significant, were
frequently flyer/mileage program and seat comfort the two most vital as-
pects (International Air Transport Association, 2008). Another study from
IATA with 7300 global passengers, showed that the top three causes that
impact airline brand perception are: on-time performance (75%), aircraft
quality and interior (66%), and customer interaction (54%) (International
Air Transport Association, 2015).
Delay is responsible for direct costs and severely affect airline profitabil-
ity, including the costs to airlines, passengers, lost demand and the indirect

6
D.A. Pamplona, C.J.P. Alves /
Fig. 5. Delay according to a passenger's perspective.
impact of delay on the economy of a country (Ball et al., 2010). It incurs
both on the day of operations (tactical cost) and at the planning stage (stra-
tegic cost). One aircraft causes the first, known as primary delay, and cause
a domino effect on the whole network, seen as secondary or reactionary
delay (Cook et al., 2012). It can even impact the airport's choice by an air-
line where low-cost airlines tend the use of secondary, less-congested air-
ports, allowing the airlines to set more flights since there is a fewer delay
in the schedule (Vasigh and Fleming, 2016).
Operational costs are the extra money paid by the airlines for the crew,
fuel, and maintenance for each delayed flight. Passengers cost enhanced de-
layed travelers, their employers and others declined productivity, business
opportunities, and leisure activities. Passenger component is based on the
time wasted due to schedule buffer, delayed flights, flight cancelations,
and missed connections. Lost demand yields are the estimate of the welfare
loss incurred by passengers who avoid air travel as the result of delays.
Delay against schedule and schedule buffer are both manifestations of lim-
itations in the NAS that prevent airlines from adhering to schedules built on
unimpeded flight times although the former is more observable than the
latter. SB directly increases pilot and airline costs. Airline fleet and crew
schedules are based on the scheduled times. Airline creates its fleet plans
based on the scheduled flight arrival and departure time. Increasing SB
leads to changes in schedules, poorer aircraft utilization, and larger fleets
(Ball et al., 2010). For these reasons that airport congestion mitigation
has attracted the attention of researchers in the field in recent decades
(Jovanović et al., 2014).
4.1.2. Arrival delay and the Brazilian context
This section presents how the arrival delay in the main Brazilian airport
compares to the USA and Europe air system. Since our work focus on the
ATFM arrival delay, the filed flight plan delay is the best metric for this
study. Unfortunately, such data is not available in Brazil. The only available
data is the Brazilian VRA, and all our analyses were based on the airline
commercial schedule metric. For understanding the air delay and the
Brazilian context, such condition did not impact our research.
Table 3 shows the sum of total delays for the top 15 airports in Brazil.
During the analyzed period, the total annual average of delays was
4,309,409 min. 2011 was considered the worst year in terms of delay.
One possible explanation is that from 2002 to 2012, domestic passenger
transportation had its demand tripled. The growth of the economy, the
7
Transportation Research Interdisciplinary Perspectives 7 (2020) 100189
Table 3
Total delay in minutes per year for the top 15 airports in
Brazil.
Year Total delay (minutes)
2009 4,613,705
2010 6,556,891
2011 7,013,156
2012 5,517,942
2013 3,834,221
2014 3,496,415
2015 2,592,188
2016 2,211,863
2017 2,948,302
increase in the distribution of income, and the deregulation of the airline
sector are the main contributing factors for the expansion of air transporta-
tion in Brazil (Bendinelli et al., 2016). From 2014, the country presented a
scenario of economic recession, with the demand showing pre-2010 levels,
with the beginning of the resumption of demand in the year 2017.
The average delay is a central tendency index that is highly affected by a
flight that had no delay (almost 80% in the Brazilian system). Therefore, we
investigated the average arrival delay per delayed flights. The average arrival
delay per delayed flight computes all flights that were delayed by 15 or more
minutes, as shown in Fig. 6. The top 15 airports had an average delay per de-
layed arrival of 44.07 min, which is high compared to Europe [29.9 min per
flight in 2017 and 29.1 min in 2016 (EUROCONTROL, 2018)].
To better understand how the hourly average arrival delay compares to
the USA and Europe, we merged our study data with the data in a figure
published in Morisset and Odoni (2011), as shown in Fig. 7.
Morisset and Odoni (2011) analyzed the operations at the 34 busiest air-
ports in the United States and at the 34 busiest airports in Europe with the
use of extensive data from 2007 and 2008. The average delay comparison
focuses on the main time window for airport operations, the period be-
tween 07 a.m. and 10 p.m. (local time for each airport). Their study
highlighted two different patterns in the evolution of average delays over
a day in the United States and in Europe. For USA, delays increase steadily
through the course of the day until they reach their maximum level at about
9:00 p.m., declining subsequently during the late night and early morning
D.A. Pamplona, C.J.P. Alves /
Fig. 6. Average arrival delay and average delay per delayed arrival (2009–2017).
hours. For Europe, in contrast, average delay relative to schedule remains
constant during the greater part of the day. For the authors, the reason for
this difference is that slot-control policies in Europe are instrumental in
preventing the formation of queues as the day progresses. For the top 15 air-
ports in Brazil (green line) that are responsible for 75% of all movements,
the delays levels stay constant during the day, between 5 and 10 min on
delay average from 9 a.m. to 7 p.m. presenting a pattern like the move-
ments in Europe (blue line). After 7 p.m. there is an increase on delay aver-
age due an intensification in the system's demand. After absorbing all the
unprocessed landings, delays as in USA, declines during the late night and
early morning hours.
At the airport level regarding the average arrival delay, Fig. 8 compares
Guarulhos and Congonhas, the top two busiest airports in Brazil.
At the airport level for Guarulhos and Congonhas, the standard devia-
tion can reach almost five times more than the expected value. This result
indicates high day-to-day variability. These delays indicate an increase in,
and sometimes unsustainable level, of demand.
Airlines play a key role in reducing air delays, and capacity influences
the level of delay. We used the Active Scheduled Flight Report (VRA)
from ANAC to investigate the numbers of actual flights and compared
Fig. 7. Comparison of hourly average arrival delay in the USA and Europe (in 2007) and Brazil (2009–2017).
Source: Adapted from Morisset and Odoni (2011).
8
Transportation Research Interdisciplinary Perspectives 7 (2020) 100189
them with an 80% of maximum capacity (yellow line) and the maximum
capacity (red line), as shown in Fig. 9 below.
From the data, SBGR experiences two high peak demand level that im-
pact the system and show a certain amount of time until system normaliza-
tion. The delays that originate during these periods are longer in duration.
For example, the peak demand time in the morning occurs at 7:00 a.m., but
the delay period lasts until 2 p.m. A possibly explanation is that during
some periods, SBGR may be overscheduled, needing a long period to absorb
previously unprocessed demand and current demand. Since SBGR is the
main airport in Brazil and the main airlines adopting the hub-and-spoke
model with several connecting flights, delays tend to propagate, creating
a network of delays that can affect the whole system.
4.2. Stakeholder's identification
Selecting and connecting the relevant stakeholders is one of the main
processes for enhancing the quality of a system (Hujainah et al., 2018). Con-
temporary business increasingly emphasizes that the decision-process envi-
ronment needs to shift toward collaboration of multiple actors. The
stakeholder approach deals with the challenge of how contrasting
D.A. Pamplona, C.J.P. Alves /
Fig. 8. Hourly average arrival delay Guarulhos, and Congonhas airports.
Fig. 9. Maximum actual demand, airport capacity, and average delay at SBGR in 2017.
stakeholders should be handled and considered in a firm's decision-making
(Lehtinen et al., 2019). Stakeholder engagement has been recognized as a
possible non-market and non-regulatory mechanism that could comple-
ment both market instruments and regulations in the aviation sector. Un-
derstanding stakeholders' priorities and allocating the correct resources is
vital in the decision-making process.
According to Freeman (2010), a stakeholder is any group or individual
who can affect or is affected by the achievement of the organization's objec-
tive. Persons, groups, neighborhoods, organizations, institutions, societies
qualify as actual or potential stakeholders. The stakeholder concept seeks
to understand the organization in its ecosystem, and has been an influential
heuristic method, meant to increase management's vision of its roles and
obligations beyond the profit maximization function (Mitchell et al., 1997).
The stakeholders' identification and prioritization allows the utilization
of the best engagement and management strategies for managing relation-
ships (Stephenson et al., 2018). More contemporary approach highlights
the need to not just manage the stakeholders but to the broad engagement
of stakeholders in the search for satisfactory answers in a complex product
system (Meynhardt et al., 2016). Understand the stakeholders' priorities
and allocate the correct resources is vital in the decision-making process.
The organizations' ultimate success strongly depends on the organization's
ability to manage the internal and external forces. Value is created when
the interactions are relational rather than transactional (Derakhshan
et al., 2019).
For this work, we adopted the stakeholders recommended by the
International Civil Aviation Organization (2014): government, national
9
Transportation Research Interdisciplinary Perspectives 7 (2020) 100189
air traffic authority, airline companies, airport administrators, passengers,
general and executive aviation, military aviation, aircraft manufacturers,
and research centers.
4.3. Values' identification
Air safety and optimization of the available resources are the values that
guide the problem resolution.
4.4. Elaboration of the wish list
Identifying the objectives can be a difficult task for the decision maker,
but using VFT can help in the creative process because the decision context
is usually characterized by the existence of multiple objectives with differ-
ent characteristics, and VFT is ideal in this scenario. The wish list technique
helps stakeholders to express their objectives in a qualitative list of objec-
tives without ranking their priority (Keeney, 1996).
As proposed by Keeney (1996) to elaborate the wish list, we employed
the following questions: “What do you want?” and “What would you like to
want?” The answers were collected and focused on each stakeholder in-
volved in the problem, as shown in Fig. 10.
With the use of the wish list, it is possible to identify the objectives of
each stakeholder regarding the explored topic. This is a dynamic process
and different problems and contexts will emerge different wish lists.
D.A. Pamplona, C.J.P. Alves /
Fig. 10. Wish list results using VFT.
4.5. Identifying and ranking the objectives
Objectives ratify the aims to be achieved in the decision-making con-
text, and they are divided into fundamental objectives and means objec-
tives. In VFT, there is a distinction between fundamental and means
objectives. These objectives are context dependent and are not absolute
concepts. Fundamental objectives concern the ends that decisionmakers
value in a specific decision context. Means objectives are methods to
achieve ends (Keeney, 1996).
A concept focused on values starts by engaging with stakeholders to es-
tablish a limited set of objectives that are essential to them when assessing a
management alternative. These purposes can be represented in terms of a
hierarchy that illustrates the relations among the different objectives. A
complementary technique is to clarify the relationship between end objec-
tives and means objectives. These value judgements can be used as the pre-
mise for generating more attractive alternatives that stand a stronger
chance of attaining large support, because they have the capability to fore-
see and focus on the apprehensions of the prominent parties implicated in
the dispute (Gregory et al., 2001).
The stakeholders spotted the following objectives: increase operational
safety, decrease the delay level, increase aircraft flow, increase air capacity,
decrease the costs related to air delay, and propose tools to reduce the air
delay. The objectives were hierarchized for the arrival delay problem
using the questions proposed by Keeney (1996). To reach the fundamental
objectives from the means objectives, the following question was asked:
“Why is this important?”. In the opposite direction, from the mean to the
fundamental objective the following query was proposed: “How can this
be achieved?”. Table 4 shows the ranked objectives.
Because it is a complex problem, many of the objectives are intercon-
nected. How the objectives are achieved influences in getting several
other means and fundamental objectives (Keeney, 1996). When
implementing operational ATFM enhancements techniques the maximiza-
tion of the air safety levels, the air capacity and the air traffic flow manage-
ment and the minimization of the costs are the fundamental objectives to be
achieve.
10
Transportation Research Interdisciplinary Perspectives 7 (2020) 100189
An organization's ultimate success is strongly dependent on its ability to
manage internal and external forces. Value is created when the interactions
are relational rather than transactional (Derakhshan et al., 2019). Because
this is a complex problem, many of the objectives are interconnected. To
better understand their interconnectivity, we organized the objectives
into networks as proposed by Keeney (1996) and shown in Fig. 11.
The objectives network is considered one of the strengths of the VFT
method. The objectives network can be interpreted as an objectives map
that will be used as a guide for more productive process (Keeney, 1992).
The VFT method is not restricted by the identification of objectives but
also the development of an objectives map. The objectives map is a signifi-
cant tool that will distinguish means from fundamental objectives and is
assessed via cause-and-effect relationships (Franco et al., 2016).
Our research showed that there were several stakeholders with distinc-
tive requirements for their business. The wish list results indicated that
Table 4
Ranked objectives representation.
1. Maximize air safety levels
1.1 Minimize the impacts of the Air Traffic Management for an accident
1.2 Minimize the number of aircraft loss of separation events
1.3 Minimize the number of risky events
1.4 Minimize the number of incidents and accidents occurrences due to air traffic
procedures failures
2. Maximize air capacity
2.1 Maximize air capacity in the arrival procedures
2.2 Maximize fairness
3. Minimize costs
3.1 Minimize total airborne time
3.2 Maximize aircraft sequencing
3.2.1 Minimize the number of executed holding procedures
4. Maximize air traffic flow management
4.1 Minimize the environmental impact
4.2 Minimize fuel consumption for airlines
4.3 Minimize fuel consumption for general aviation
4.4 Minimize fuel consumption for military aviation
4.5 Maximize aircraft flow at an airport
D.A. Pamplona, C.J.P. Alves /
Fig. 11. Objectives network.
several objectives were shared, and other values were a complement or a
continuation of previous objectives. All stakeholders wished to operate in
a safety environment. Therefore, maximizing air safety levels is the primary
objective of any solution to be implemented. To achieve this fundamental
objective, risky events and the number of procedural failures should be
minimized. Achieving these objectives will minimize the number of loss
of separation between aircraft for in the next level minimize the contribu-
tion of ATM to an accident.
The second most important objective is to maximize air capacity. Max-
imizing airport capacity expansion is one of the most important tasks that
ATM services face today (Skorupski and Florowski, 2016). A cost-efficient
way to increase the capacity of an existing runway system is to improve
its take-off and landing schedules (Lieder and Stolletz, 2016). For congested
runway operations, rearranging and optimizing the sequence of runway op-
erations instead of utilizing a priority rule, such as first-come, first-served
(FCFS), leads to either reducing the number of aircraft in holding patterns
or to an increase in capacity, increasing the number of landings per hour
11
Transportation Research Interdisciplinary Perspectives 7 (2020) 100189
(Lieder et al., 2015). FCFS is the universal, conventional sequencing proce-
dure, where aircraft land in the order of arrival at the runway. This rule is
popular because of its simplicity and easy application for ATCs. Another
convenience of FCFS is that it is fair to all airlines since no preferences
are executed. However, with the recent expansion in air traffic, concern
has been placed on fuel consumption and airport capacity, and these factors
must be considered when establishing arrival sequences (Andreeva-Mori
et al., 2013).
The other fundamental objectives, minimize costs and maximize air
traffic flow management, are related to maximizing air capacity. ATFM is
a process that balances air transport network user demands against system
capabilities. ATFM programs are established with the objective of contrib-
uting to a safe, orderly, and expeditious flow of traffic while minimizing de-
lays. Delays that occur during flight operations, when the aircraft is
airborne, can be caused by ATC requesting flight deviations due to meteo-
rological conditions and/or congested ATC sectors. Congestion in the termi-
nal maneuvering area, when the aircraft approaches for landing at the
D.A. Pamplona, C.J.P. Alves /
destination airport, may cause an aircraft to join a landing queue and per-
form speed reductions and/or airborne holding patterns to maintain safety
separations and await a landing slot (Wu, 2016).
New solutions to decrease air delay in the arrival phase must consider
all these objectives as a guide to achieve a more collaborative environment.
5. Conclusion
This paper proposes the use of the value-focused thinking (VFT) ap-
proach to structure the airborne delay problem and, more specifically, the
ATFM at the arrival phase. The goal is to investigate more the several stake-
holders side on this problem to help build more reasonable objective func-
tions for the existing ATFM models.
Our research showed that there were several stakeholders with distinc-
tive requirements for their business. The results indicated that several ob-
jectives were shared, and other values were a complement or a
continuation of previous objectives.
Although to a degree our results are to be expected, our findings illus-
trate what stakeholders expect when ATFM solutions are provided. This is
the strength of the VFT method, to provide an objectives map that will be
used as a guide for more productive future ATFM solutions.
Acknowledgments
This research was not funded by specific grants from funding agencies
in the public, commercial, or not-for-profit sectors. The author would like
to thank the referees for their valuable comments, which helped to improve
the manuscript. All authors have contributed to the work described, read,
and approved the contents for publication in this journal.
Declaration of competing interest
All authors have no conflict of interest with the funding entity nor any
organization mentioned in this article in the past three years that may have
influenced the conduct of this research and the findings.
References
Abuabara, L., Paucar-Caceres, A., Neyra Belderrain, M.C., Burrowes-Cromwell, T., 2018. A
systemic framework based on Soft OR approaches to support teamwork strategy: an avi-
ation manufacturer Brazilian company case. J. Oper. Res. Soc. 69, 220–234.
Abuabara, L., Paucar-Caceres, A., Burrowes-Cromwell, T., 2019. Consumers’ values and be-
haviour in the Brazilian coffee-in-capsules market: promoting circular economy. Int.
J. Prod. Res. 57, 7269–7288.
ACRP, 2014. Defining and Measuring Aircraft Delay and Airport Capacity Thresholds.
Andreeva-Mori, A., Suzuki, S., Itoh, E., 2013. Rule derivation for arrival aircraft sequencing.
Aerosp. Sci. Technol. 30, 200–209.
Ang, K., Sankaran, S., Killen, C., 2016. Value for whom, by whom: investigating value con-
structs in nonprofit project portfolios. Project Management Research and Practice. 3,
p. 5038. https://doi.org/10.5130/pmrp.v3i0.5038.
Artiouchine, K., Baptiste, P., Dürr, C., 2008. Runway sequencing with holding patterns. Eur.
J. Oper. Res. 189, 1254–1266.
Ball, M., Barnhart, C., Dresner, M., Hansen, M., Neels, K., Odoni, A., Peterson, E., Sherry, L.,
Trani, A., Zou, B., 2010. Total Delay Impact Study: A Comprehensive Assessment of the
Costs and Impacts of Flight Delay in the United States.
Barnhart, C., Smith, B., 2012. Quantitative Problem Solving Methods in the Airline Industry.
Springer.
Belkoura, S., Peña, J.M., Zanin, M., 2016. Generation and recovery of airborne delays in air
transport. Transportation Research Part C: Emerging Technologies 69, 436–450.
Bendinelli, W.E., Bettini, H.F.A.J., Oliveira, A.V.M., 2016. Airline delays, congestion internal-
ization and non-price spillover effects of low cost carrier entry. Transp. Res. A Policy
Pract. 85, 39–52.
Bennell, J.A., Mesgarpour, M., Potts, C.N., 2013. Airport runway scheduling. Ann. Oper. Res.
204, 249–270.
Brueckner, J.K., 2002. Internalization of airport congestion. J. Air Transp. Manag. 8, 141–147.
Colorni, A., Tsoukiàs, A., 2018. What is a decision problem? Designing alternatives. Prefer-
ence Disaggregation in Multiple Criteria Decision Analysis. Springer, pp. 1–15.
Cook, A., Tanner, G., Lawes, A., 2012. The hidden cost of airline unpunctuality. Journal of
Transport Economics and Policy 46, 157–173.
Derakhshan, R., Turner, R., Mancini, M., 2019. Project governance and stakeholders: a litera-
ture review. Int. J. Proj. Manag. 37, 98–116.
Doganis, R., 2013. Flying Off Course: The Economics of International Airlines. Routledge.
12
Transportation Research Interdisciplinary Perspectives 7 (2020) 100189
EUROCONTROL, 2018. CODA digest 2017. All Causes Delay and Cancellations to Air Trans-
port in Europe - 2017.
Franco, L.A., Rouwette, E.A., Korzilius, H., 2016. Different paths to consensus? The impact of
need for closure on model-supported group conflict management. Eur. J. Oper. Res. 249,
878–889.
Freeman, R.E., 2010. Strategic Management: A Stakeholder Approach. Cambridge University
Press.
Gillen, D., Jacquillat, A., Odoni, A.R., 2016. Airport demand management: the operations re-
search and economics perspectives and potential synergies. Transp. Res. A Policy Pract.
94, 495–513.
Gregory, R., Arvai, J., McDaniels, T., 2001. Value-focused thinking for environmental risk
consultations. Environmental Risks: Perception, Evaluation and Management. Emerald
Group Publishing Limited, pp. 249–273.
Hansen, M., Zou, B., 2013. Airport operational performance and its impact on airline cost.
Modelling and Managing Airport Performance. Wiley Online Library, pp. 119–143.
Hassan, O.A., 2004. Application of value—focused thinking on the environmental selection of
wall structures. J. Environ. Manag. 70, 181–187.
Hu, X.-B., Chen, W.-H., 2005. Genetic algorithm based on receding horizon control for arrival
sequencing and scheduling. Eng. Appl. Artif. Intell. 18, 633–642.
Hujainah, F., Bakar, R.B.A., Al-haimi, B., Abdulgabber, M.A., 2018. Stakeholder quantification
and prioritisation research: a systematic literature review. Inf. Softw. Technol. 102,
85–99.
International Air Transport Association, 2008. Corporate Air Travel Survey (CATS) 2008.
International Air Transport Association, 2015. 2015 IATA Global Passenger Survey.
International Civil Aviation Organization, 2014. Doc 9971 - Manual on Collaborative Air Traf-
fic Flow Management.
International Civil Aviation Organization, ICAO, 2014. Doc 9971 Manual on Collaborative Air
Traffic Flow Management.
Jovanović, R., Tošić, V., Čangalović, M., Stanojević, M., 2014. Anticipatory modulation of air
navigation charges to balance the use of airspace network capacities. Transp. Res. A Pol-
icy Pract. 61, 84–99.
Keeney, R.L., 1992. Value-Focused Thinking: A Path to Creative Decisionmaking. Harvard
University, Cambridge, MA.
Keeney, R.L., 1996. Value-focused thinking: identifying decision opportunities and creating
alternatives. Eur. J. Oper. Res. 92, 537–549.
Keisler, J., Turcotte, D.A., Drew, R., Johnson, M.P., 2014. Value-focused thinking for
community-based organizations: objectives and acceptance in local development. EURO
Journal on Decision Processes 2, 221–256.
Lehtinen, J., Aaltonen, K., Rajala, R., 2019. Stakeholder management in complex product sys-
tems: practices and rationales for engagement and disengagement. Ind. Mark. Manag. 79,
58–70.
Lieder, A., Stolletz, R., 2016. Scheduling aircraft take-offs and landings on interdependent and
heterogeneous runways. Transportation Research Part E: Logistics and Transportation Re-
view 88, 167–188.
Lieder, A., Briskorn, D., Stolletz, R., 2015. A dynamic programming approach for the aircraft
landing problem with aircraft classes. Eur. J. Oper. Res. 243, 61–69.
Martinsuo, M., Killen, C.P., 2014. Value management in project portfolios: identifying and
assessing strategic value. Proj. Manag. J. 45, 56–70.
Marttunen, M., Lienert, J., Belton, V., 2017. Structuring problems for Multi-Criteria Decision
Analysis in practice: a literature review of method combinations. Eur. J. Oper. Res. 263,
1–17.
Mayer, C., Sinai, T., 2003. Network effects, congestion externalities, and air traffic delays: or
why not all delays are evil. Am. Econ. Rev. 93, 1194–1215.
Merrick, J.R., Grabowski, M., 2014. Decision performance and safety performance: a value-fo-
cused thinking study in the oil industry. Decis. Anal. 11, 105–116.
Merrick, J.R., Grabowski, M., Ayyalasomayajula, P., Harrald, J.R., 2005. Understanding orga-
nizational safety using value-focused thinking. Risk Analysis: An International Journal
25, 1029–1041.
Meynhardt, T., Chandler, J.D., Strathoff, P., 2016. Systemic principles of value co-creation:
synergetics of value and service ecosystems. J. Bus. Res. 69, 2981–2989.
Mingers, J., Rosenhead, J., 2004. Problem structuring methods in action. Eur. J. Oper. Res.
152, 530–554.
Mitchell, R.K., Agle, B.R., Wood, D.J., 1997. Toward a theory of stakeholder identification and
salience: defining the principle of who and what really counts. Acad. Manag. Rev. 22,
853–886.
Morisset, T., Odoni, A., 2011. Capacity, delay, and schedule reliability at major airports in
Europe and the United States. Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transpor-
tation Research Board 85–93.
Mueller, E., Chatterji, G., 2002. Analysis of aircraft arrival and departure delay characteristics.
Proceedings of AIAA's Aircraft Technology, Integration, and Operations (ATIO) 2002
Technical Forum, p. 5866.
Murça, M.C.R., Müller, C., 2015. Control-based optimization approach for aircraft scheduling
in a terminal area with alternative arrival routes. Transportation Research Part E: Logis-
tics and Transportation Review 73, 96–113.
Peharda, I., Hunjak, T., 2008. Selecting an automatic rifle using the valuefocused thinking ap-
proach. Military Operations Research 19–26.
Pinol, H., Beasley, J.E., 2006. Scatter search and bionomic algorithms for the aircraft landing
problem. Eur. J. Oper. Res. 171, 439–462.
Rosenhead, J., 2006. Past, present and future of problem structuring methods. J. Oper. Res.
Soc. 57, 759–765.
Ryerson, M.S., Hansen, M., Bonn, J., 2014. Time to burn: flight delay, terminal efficiency, and
fuel consumption in the National Airspace System. Transp. Res. A Policy Pract. 69,
286–298.
Schumer, C., Maloney, C.B., 2008. Your Flight Has Been Delayed Again: Flight Delays Cost
Passengers, Airlines, and the US Economy Billions. The US Senate Joint Economic
Committee.
D.A. Pamplona, C.J.P. Alves /
Sheng, H., Siau, K., Nah, F.F.-H., 2010. Understanding the values of mobile technology in ed-
ucation: a value-focused thinking approach. ACM SIGMIS Database: the DATABASE for
Advances in Information Systems 41, 25–44.
Simon, J., Regnier, E., Whitney, L., 2014. A value-focused approach to energy transformation
in the United States Department of Defense. Decis. Anal. 11, 117–132.
Skorupski, J., Florowski, A., 2016. Method for evaluating the landing aircraft sequence
under disturbed conditions with the use of Petri nets. The Aeronautical Journal
120, 819–844.
Sölveling, G., Clarke, J.-P., 2014. Scheduling of airport runway operations using stochastic
branch and bound methods. Transportation Research Part C: Emerging Technologies
45, 119–137.
Soomer, M.J., Franx, G.J., 2008. Scheduling aircraft landings using airlines’ preferences. Eur.
J. Oper. Res. 190, 277–291.
Stephenson, C., Lohmann, G., Spasojevic, B., 2018. Stakeholder engagement in the develop-
ment of international air services: a case study on Adelaide Airport. J. Air Transp.
Manag. 71, 45–54.
13
View publication stats
Transportation Research Interdisciplinary Perspectives 7 (2020) 100189
Tong, J., Nachtmann, H., Pohl, E.A., 2015. Value-focused assessment of cargo value decreas-
ing rates. Eng. Manag. J. 27, 73–84.
Urtiga, M.M., Morais, D.C., 2015. Pre-negotiation framework to promote cooperative negoti-
ations in water resource conflicts through value creation approach. EURO Journal on De-
cision Processes 3, 339–356.
Vasigh, B., Fleming, K., 2016. Introduction to Air Transport Economics: From Theory to Appli-
cations. Routledge.
Vuorinen, L., Martinsuo, M., 2019. Value-oriented stakeholder influence on infrastructure
projects. Int. J. Proj. Manag. 37, 750–766.
Wu, C.-L., 2016. Airline Operations and Delay Management: Insights from Airline Economics,
Networks and Strategic Schedule Planning. Routledge.
Wu, C.-L., Truong, T., 2014. Improving the IATA delay data coding system for enhanced data
analytics. J. Air Transp. Manag. 40, 78–85.
Zou, B., Hansen, M., 2012. Impact of operational performance on air carrier cost structure: ev-
idence from US airlines. Transportation Research Part E: Logistics and Transportation Re-
view 48, 1032–1048.