Journal of Air Transport Management 75 (2019) 111–130

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Journal of Air Transport Management

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/jairtraman

Reviewing the DATAS of aviation research data: Diversity, availability, T

tractability, applicability, and sources
Max Z. Lia,∗, Megan S. Ryersonb
a
Department of Aeronautics and Astronautics, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge, MA, USA
b
Department of City and Regional Planning, Department of Electrical and Systems Engineering, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA, USA

ARTICLE INFO ABSTRACT

Keywords: The field of aviation research is entering the era of big data. While data-driven advancements in aviation have
Aviation data clearly brought about applicable models and results with immediate implications, we argue that the influx of
Data availability aviation data should be better characterized and documented to enable more efficient and standardized usage.
Publicly available data To this end, we examine 200 well-cited research articles from sub-disciplines ranging from revenue management
Aviation data sources
to air traffic control published on or after 2010 in order to analyze the diversity, availability, tractability, ap-
plicability, and sources (DATAS) of data utilized in aviation research. We find high levels of data diversity within
aviation research, with 16 data categories ranging from air traffic flow management-type data to data from
distributed sensors in line with the Internet-of-Things (IoT) paradigm. We identified a dominance of proprietary,
non-public data in aviation research, with 68% of the 200 research articles utilizing solely proprietary data in
deriving their results, and a further 8% utilizing a mixture of proprietary and publicly available data. The
pervasiveness of proprietary data has implications on reproducibility and extending research results. We also
highlight the increasing tractability of the data by surveying the computational power required to process the
data sets, and present vignettes of applications and results that stem from these data-driven studies. Finally, we
propose several recommendations regarding standardizing data source nomenclature as well as increasing the
availability of and usage of publicly available data.

1. Introduction and literature survey organization
The field of aviation research is entering the era of big data. An
example of this shift can be seen in aircraft trajectory data; such data
used to be sourced primarily from legacy systems such as secondary
surveillance radar, but now can also be obtained from more recently
introduced Internet-of-Things (IoT)-type sources such as Automatic
Dependent Surveillance-Broadcast (ADS-B) systems. While data-driven
advancements in aviation have clearly brought about applicable models
and results with immediate implications, we argue that the influx of
aviation data should be better characterized and documented to enable
more efficient and standardized usage. We first motivate our survey of
data-driven aviation research literature by reviewing key literatures
that justify our selection of data characteristics to examine as well as
the overarching contributions of this literature review (Section 2). We
then present our survey methodology (Section 3), along with statistical
results and discussions related to the diversity (Section 4.1) and avail-
ability (Section 4.2) of the data sources used in each of the 200 sur-
veyed aviation research articles. We also discuss the tractability,
applicability (Section 4.3), and sources (Section 4.4) of the data found
in the surveyed articles. These results and discussions stemming from
our analysis of the diversity, availability, tractability, applicability, and
sources (DATAS) of aviation data form the basis for our recommenda-
tions related to increasing publicly available data usage and data no-
menclature standardization (Section 5). Finally, we conclude with a
summary of our work in this literature survey (Section 6).
2. Background and motivation
The development and continuing proliferation of aviation is a story
driven by phases of technological innovations, political events, as well
as micro- and macroeconomics. All of these phases and critical events
that the aviation industry has gone through culminates in the mono-
tonically increasing trend of air traffic movements and aviation activity,
particularly in developing nations (IATA, 2017). The natural series of
questions that arise in regards to the immediate future of aviation can
be summarized succinctly as: (1) What is the next phase of development
for aviation? (2) What will be this phases’ effects on and implications

∗
Corresponding author.
E-mail addresses: maxli@mit.edu (M.Z. Li), mryerson@design.upenn.edu (M.S. Ryerson).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jairtraman.2018.12.004
Received 11 September 2018; Received in revised form 28 November 2018; Accepted 16 December 2018
0969-6997/ © 2018 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
M.Z. Li, M.S. Ryerson
for the aviation industry? (3) Are we well-equipped to handle and make
the most out of this next phase in the story of aviation?
In this literature review, we hope to narrate our vision for the an-
swers to the questions posed above by examining a large selection of
recent, data-driven aviation research. We argue that the next phase of
aviation will be data-driven, and that these data-driven advances will be
agnostic to the actual setting and scope within the aviation industry.
From the microscale-level (flight-specific, passenger-specific, etc.) to
the mesoscale- (airport-specific, airline-specific, etc.) and macroscale-
level (US National Airspace, Transatlantic and Transpacific networks,
etc.), advancements in data collection, storage, and distribution cap-
abilities dominate the current conversation in aviation. In short, we
argue that aviation, along with aviation research, is entering an era of
big data. This current phase of development for aviation can be char-
acterized by the usage of data-driven models to analyze, control, opti-
mize, and predict aviation processes.
2.1. Selection of the DATAS characteristics
There is a surge in aviation data such as the one documented in
Wandelt and Sun (2015a) regarding flight data in air traffic manage-
ment. Moreover, this increase in data is not limited to the subfield of air
traffic management, as we will uncover in our literature survey of data-
driven aviation research. While there is a clear pattern of monotonically
increasing aviation data, the question of data availability is less clear. In
a comprehensive study of complexity science as applied to air transport
management, Cook et al. (2015) lists data unavailability due to man-
agerial and technical barriers as a contributor to system uncertainty.
This is echoed by Zou and Hansen (2012), Alligier et al. (2015), and Sun
et al. (2018); the authors of the three studies observed that data un-
availability contributes to difficulty in quantifying aviation metrics
such as delay and hinders development of support systems to perform
functions such as ground-based trajectory prediction and aircraft mass
estimation. This observation of data unavailability and difficulty in data
collection – despite the overall increase in aviation data sources – not
only affects air traffic control research, but also other subfields of
aviation research such as passenger delay modeling (Barnhart et al.,
2014) and airport economics (Fu and Kim, 2016). Furthermore,
Corrigan et al. (2015) and Marais et al. (2013) point out a need for
increasing test data availability for aviation researchers.
We wish to examine the state-of-the-practice not only of data
availability, but also of data diversity, tractability, applicability, as well
as the variety of sources that these aviation data sets originate from.
Our examination of data diversity and sourcing is motivated by
Burmester et al.’s (2018) proposal of several aeronautics-specific big
data characteristics, specifically data variety. Data variety is an im-
portant characteristic to survey as it encapsulates issues arising from
differences in data formatting, structure, and sourcing (Burmester et al.,
2018). Furthermore, Burmester et al. (2018) also emphasize the notions
of data volume and velocity. The former describes the sheer quantity of
data whereas the latter focuses on the time it takes to generate, analyze,
and process the data. In order to understand how tractable aviation
data sets are given their characteristics of volume and velocity, we
chose to examine data tractability as well.
Finally, we draw upon past aviation-related literature surveys to
justify examining the final characteristic of data applicability in avia-
tion research. A major focus in Sternberg et al.’s (2017) literature re-
view of flight delay prediction modeling was on the derived results and
their applicability. We also highlight the applicability of data-driven
aviation research without the constraint of focusing on a specific
aviation research subfield. This separates our literature survey from
those specifically geared towards, for example, flight delay prediction
modeling (Sternberg et al., 2017), aviation safety (Oster et al., 2013), or
airport benchmarking and performance measures (Bezerra and Gomes,
2016).
112
Journal of Air Transport Management 75 (2019) 111–130
2.2. Contribution of work and audience
We were motivated by the goal of updating and adding to the sparse
collection of previous literature reviews that surveyed the state of data-
driven aviation research as a whole. Two such literature reviews by
Kaps and Phillips (2004) and Ginieis et al. (2012) similarly do not stay
within the confines of any specific aviation research subfield, but are
outdated in terms of the publication years of surveyed articles. Kaps and
Phillips (2004) provide an in-depth overview of aviation research
publication venues from 1932 to 2004, and Ginieis et al. (2012) ex-
amined a large collection of aviation research articles from 1997 to
2009. Our methodology for amassing our collection of aviation research
articles, which we discuss in-depth in the next section, considers only
articles published on or after 2010. Thus, this literature survey not only
builds on and updates both Kaps and Phillips (2004) as well as Ginieis
et al. (2012), but also focuses on the impacts of aviation big data on
aviation research.
Lastly, the identification of audiences and stakeholders that may be
interested in a particular literature review is critical (Webster and
Watson, 2002; Pautasso, 2013). Since the overarching goals of our lit-
erature review are to (1) provide an updated survey of the state-of-the-
art in data-driven aviation research and (2) recommend changes to how
aviation data is handled given our survey, there are correspondingly
two primary audience and stakeholder groups whose interests are
served via this literature review. The first group has been identified
comprehensively in Kaps and Phillips’ (2004) survey of aviation re-
search publication venues, namely aviation education communities –
professors, instructors, students, and researchers – looking for a cohe-
sive survey binding together different aviation-related research under
the common theme of data analytics. Furthermore, our aviation data
management recommendations expand our audience group to include
researchers working on aviation data ontologies (Blasch, 2015; Keller,
2016; Insaurralde and Blasch, 2018) as well as information systems (IS)
professionals who handle and manage aviation-related data sets
(Schvaneveldt et al., 2003). On a higher level, our literature review and
ensuing recommendations are relevant for any aviation stakeholders
affected by the influx of data from the air transportation sector; re-
commendations we propose in this work could have profound con-
sequences on how future aviation researchers and stakeholders choose
to source, process, and document the data used in their studies, tech-
nical reports, and white papers.
3. Survey methodology
In this section, we detail the collection of a large and representative
set of data-driven aviation research literature and the classification of
the data used. Our methodology of collecting relevant research articles
as well as classifying them follows systematic mapping paradigms
presented by Petersen et al. (2008) and later updated in Petersen et al.
(2015); graphical depictions of our collection workflow and our clas-
sification mapping scheme can be found in Figs. 1 and 3, respectively.
We also present some preliminary statistics on the collected and clas-
sified data-driven research literature set. Our work in this section sets
the foundations for the DATAS (Diversity, Availability, Tractability,
Applicability, and Sources) analysis in the next section in order to
characterize and document the surge of new data in aviation research.
3.1. Research literature collection methodology
Our workflow for collecting aviation research literatures to be used
for our survey and analysis can be broken down into two distinct por-
tions: (1) assembling the initial list of articles, and (2) inclusion-ex-
clusion criteria and augmenting this initial list with more articles. We
detail the former in Section 3.1.1, and the latter in Section 3.1.2. The
overall workflow can be visualized in Fig. 1; Section 3.1.1 details ap-
proximately the first half of the workflow flowchart, whereas Section
M.Z. Li, M.S. Ryerson
Fig. 1. Schematic representation of the workflow of our aviation research literature collection methodology.
3.1.2 details the remainder of the flowchart.
3.1.1. Initial search via using author names as keywords
The inherent difficulties of using common phraseology such as “air”,
“transport”, and “data-driven” to conduct a literature search for avia-
tion-related research articles – even with the use of Boolean operators –
are noted by Ginieis et al. (2012) in their systematic review of air
transport research. Our research article collection methodology cir-
cumvents this obstacle by using author names as the keywords to
conduct our search, similar to suggestions made by Greenhalgh and
113
Journal of Air Transport Management 75 (2019) 111–130
Peacock (2005) regarding effective search methods for compiling lit-
eratures in preparation for a systematic literature review. We compiled
an initial list of researchers whose names were used as keywords in the
literature search process based off of rosters or conference committee
lists from three principle aviation research venues: (1) The Federal
Aviation Administration (FAA) Air Transportation Centers of Excellence
(FAA, 2018) (2) the European Organization for the Safety of Air Na-
vigation (EUROCONTROL) Research and Single European Sky ATM
Research (SESAR) directive (EUROCONTROL, 2018), and (3) various
aviation-related conference venues such as the 2018 International
M.Z. Li, M.S. Ryerson
Conference on Research in Air Transportation (ICRAT, 2018a,b), the
2017 FAA/Eurocontrol Air Traffic Management Research and Devel-
opment Seminar (ATM Seminar, 2017a,b), and Institute of Electrical
and Electronics Engineers (IEEE)-sponsored conferences. The collection
of research conducted by researchers stemming from these three enti-
ties matches our objective to remain agnostic to specific aviation re-
search subfields – all are interested in research ranging from air traffic
control, safety, human factors, to aviation economics – while staying
within the context of the big data revolution.
In this manner, we implemented a version of the inclusion-exclusion
process detailed in Petersen et al. (2015), albeit targeted towards au-
thors in lieu of papers. In order to balance this authorship inclusion-
exclusion process with the possibility of being too conservative in terms
of literature searches, we utilize a “snowballing” or “reference tracking”
search process (Greenhalgh and Peacock, 2005; Budgen et al., 2008;
Petersen et al., 2015) seeded by the references from our initial pool of
articles.
3.1.2. Article inclusion-exclusion criteria and snowball search
We utilized Elsevier's Scopus in order to acquire our set of data-
driven aviation research literature. Scopus is a searchable online da-
tabase of peer-reviewed literature, drawing from scientific journals,
books, and published conference proceedings (Elsevier, 2018). We
chose to use Scopus given its breadth of coverage – it is “the largest
abstract and citation database of peer-reviewed literature” (Elsevier,
2018) – as well as its intuitive interface, availability of institutional
login access, and searchability by author. The coverage of scientific
articles provided via Scopus has been noted by studies of bibliometric
databases (Harzing and Alakangas, 2016; Mongeon and Paul-Hus,
2016), although the two studies came to different conclusions regarding
using Scopus for cross-disciplinary studies. This caveat, however, is not
relevant for our purposes as we are mainly interested in the field of
aviation research.
We used three inclusion-exclusion filtering processes to decide
whether or not to include a particular article in our final collection;
these filtering decisions are denoted as the blue diamond decision
blocks in Fig. 1. The first inclusion-exclusion decision was made on the
basis of publication year: Using institutional login access, we searched
and collected data-driven aviation research literature published on or
after 2010. We chose the year criteria of 2010 in order to ensure that we
examine the most temporally relevant research articles in the context of
the big data revolution. We then read through the article to determine
whether or not it should be included as a piece of data-driven aviation
research. Finally, we wanted to screen for high-impact journal articles
via “pearl” hunting on the basis of citation counts (Booth, 2008; Cooper
et al., 2018). Since we have already selected for recently-published
articles, combined with the domain knowledge that oftentimes aviation
research utilized by industry, non-academic practitioners are not well-
cited, our citation criterion only required articles to have 1 citations.
Finally, an article that successfully passes is included in the collection,
and we proceed to conduct a snowball search starting from this article's
references. Any articles identified via this snowball search must pass all
three inclusion-exclusion processes as well, closing the feedback loop in
the bottom-half of Fig. 1. As mentioned previously, this allows us to
expand greatly from our initial search via author key names, helping to
widen our selection of data-driven aviation research literatures.
Through the workflow documented above, we collected a set of 200
well-cited research articles. The distribution of publication years can be
found in Fig. 2.
Furthermore, we did not specify the search to target any particular
journal or conference venue. Given that aviation is a mode of trans-
portation, the represented journal and conference venues naturally lean
towards transportation-related publications. We present a breakdown
of the publication journals of our set of 200 aviation research articles in
Table 1. The majority of the research articles are published in aero-
nautics and transportation-specific venues, representing 81.5%, or 163
114
Journal of Air Transport Management 75 (2019) 111–130
articles out of the set of 200. Other journal venues include operations
research, computing, controls, weather and environment, and relia-
bility and safety-related publications. A small percentage of publica-
tions (2%) stem from human factors and city planning-related dis-
ciplines.
3.2. Processing and classifying the data-driven studies
We reviewed each of the 200 data-driven aviation research litera-
ture to classify the data sources used in two ways: (1) how available is
the data in terms of accessibility, and (2) what kinds of data categories
exist in each study. We established three levels of data availability:
proprietary data, mixed-availability, and publicly available data.
Examples of data sources that we classified as proprietary data include
detailed radar trajectory data sets from air navigation service providers,
preprocessed data from aviation data science companies, and airline-
specific data regarding sensitive business information such as fuel
loading practices and airline schedules. Other examples of proprietary
data include specialized data sources that was generated for the pur-
pose of the study, such as survey response data and biometrics data
from human factors research. Publicly available data do not require
specialized privileges or funds to access; examples of publicly available
data sets that we classified include aggregated airline and airport-level
statistics, historical weather reports, and certain socioeconomics and
demographics data. In addition to these two classifications, 16 articles
representing 8% of the total 200 explicitly indicated that a mix of
proprietary and publicly available data sources were used. We classified
these articles as having mixed-availability status.
The second level of classification is with respect to the category of
data utilized in the article. This classification serves to distinguish be-
tween the different aviation subfields within our set of surveyed lit-
erature, and showcases the diversity of new aviation data being gen-
erated and used in recent aviation research. In order the determine the
data categories that each article will be tagged with, we came up with a
semi-structured approach leveraging (1) framework from previous
aviation data management-centric research (Larsen, 2013) and research
themes at various aviation-themed conferences, as well as (2) on a more
ad-hoc basis based on the specific research article in question. In the
more structured part of this approach, we first distilled a number of
possible data categories based on Larsen’s (2013) work on big data and
aviation data analytics as well as the conference tracks and call-for-
papers at the aforementioned aviation-themed research conferences.
These possible data categories are presented in Table 2.
While the list of data category possibilities in Table 2 provided a
good coverage of aviation data types we found in our collection of re-
search articles, we generated some categories dynamically while clas-
sifying each article. For example, research focused on individual air-
craft-level sensor data would be classified under “Individual flight-level
data”, but a more IoT-flavored data category is needed for research
fusing sensor data from a network of aircraft. Table 2 does not explicitly
mention IoT-type data fusion, so we added it as a distinct category. The
semi-structured portion of our approach allows us to relate our data
categories to previous research that identified major aviation data ca-
tegories, whereas the more ad-hoc dynamic category generation allows
us to remain flexible and capture data belonging in categories that may
not have been previously identified.
We reviewed the data sources closely for each of the 200 articles
and established 16 specific data categories. These data categories and
corresponding shortened tags we use throughout the rest of this paper
are given below:
1. Aviation economics, logistics, and operational data (AvData)
2. Fuel and fuel-related data (FuelData)
3. Socioeconomic, demographic, and population data (PopData)
4. Individual flight-level data (IndivFltData)
5. Air traffic control and air traffic flow management (ATFM) data
M.Z. Li, M.S. Ryerson Journal of Air Transport Management 75 (2019) 111–130

Fig. 2. Distribution of publication years for the 200 aviation research articles we reviewed.

(ATFMData) 16. Human factors-related data (HumData)

6. Data pertaining to other transportation modes (MultiModeData)
7. Aviation geography and geometry data (AvGeoData)
8. Airport/airline-specific data (AprtAirlineData)
9. Weather-related meteorological data (WxData)
10. Aviation safety data (SafetyData)
11. Data from surveys related to aviation (SurveyData)
12. Data from IoT, sensors, and specialized embedded systems
(IoTEMBSData)
13. Aviation freight and cargo data (CargoData)
14. Environmental emissions and impact data (EnvData)
15. Aircraft manufacturer and maintenance data (ACMMData)
4. Examining the DATAS of aviation data
In the previous section we have detailed the collection, review, and
classification process of the 200 aviation research articles with a data-
driven focus that we use in this study. We now compute and visualize
statistics regarding the diversity of data and availability of data in this
section. The numerical results stemming from our analysis of data di-
versity and availability will form the basis for discussions and re-
commendations highlighting a need for more publicly available data
and better data transferability. Furthermore, we also comment on select

Fig. 3. The four classification processes utilized in order to facilitate our DATAS analysis.

115
M.Z. Li, M.S. Ryerson Journal of Air Transport Management 75 (2019) 111–130

Table 1
Represented publication journals of the 200 aviation research articles we reviewed.
Journal category Number of articles Individual journal venue(s)

Individual journal
Individual journal
Individual journal
Individual journal
Individual journal
Individual journal
Transportation- related journals
Aeronautics- related journals
Operations Research- related journals
Computing & Controls- related journals
Weather & environment- related journals
Reliability & safety- related journals
Miscellaneous & other journal venues
27 articles 13.5% of total - Transportation Research Part C: Emerging Technologies
24 articles 12% of total - Transportation Research Part E: Logistics and Transportation Review
15 articles 7.5% of total - Transportation Research Record
14 articles 7% of total - Journal of Air Transport Management
14 articles 7% of total - Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice
14 articles 7% of total - Transportation Science
36 articles 18% of total - IEEE Transactions on Intelligent Transportation Systems
- Journal of Advanced Transportation
- Journal of Transport Economics and Policy
- Journal of Transport Geography
- Journal of Transportation Engineering
- Transport Policy
- Transportation Planning and Technology
- Transportation Research Part B: Methodological
- Transportation Research Part D: Transport and Environment
19 articles 9.5% of total - Aerospace Science and Technology
- Chinese Journal of Aeronautics
- Journal of Aerospace Information Systems
- Journal of Aircraft - AIAA Aviation Technology, Integration, and Operations (ATIO) Conference
- Digital Avionics Systems Conference
12 articles 6% of total - Computational Optimization and Applications
- Computers & Operations Research
- INFORMS Journal on Computing
- Journal of Global Optimization
- Journal of the Operational Research Society
- Operations Research
- Production and Operations Management
10 articles 5% of total - Journal of Computing in Civil Engineering
- Journal of Guidance, Control, and Dynamics
7 articles 3.5% of total - Atmospheric Environment
- Environmental Modeling & Software
- Environmental Research Letters
- Environmental Science and Technology
- Meteorology and Measurement Systems
- Weather and Forecasting
4 articles 2% of total - Reliability Engineering and System Safety
- Risk Analysis - Safety Science
4 articles 2% of total - International Conference on Foundations of Augmented Cognition
- Journal of the American Planning Association
- Scientific Reports

reviewed articles that provide insights into the tractability (e.g. com-
putational burden) of processing aviation data sets as well as applica-
tions stemming from aviation data science. We conclude the analysis of
the DATAS of aviation data by compiling a table of data types and
sources; the results of this tabulation highlight a need for data source
nomenclature standardization, which will be another primary re-
commendation we propose in the succeeding section.
4.1. (DATAS) Diversity
We chose to explore the quality of data diversity in our 200 re-
viewed aviation research articles in two ways: (1) measuring the dis-
tribution of articles that fall into each of the 16 data categories, and (2)
measuring the distribution of data categories per article. The former
provides a sense of data diversity in the field of aviation research as a
whole, whereas the latter details the amount of data diversity contained
within each article. Some studies focus on one specific data set – for
example, a comprehensive analysis of human factors-related biometrics
data in order to ascertain air traffic control workload – whereas others
compile large panel data sets that span variables from fuel and weather
to socioeconomic factors and delay statistics. The human factors ex-
ample would be tagged only with one data category (HumData) whereas
the second example involving the panel data would be tagged with
multiple data categories. Figs. 4 and 5 give the distribution of articles
that fall into each of the 16 data categories, and data categories per
article, respectively.
In terms of data diversity, we see that all 16 data categories are
represented in our collection of 200 data-driven aviation research ar-
ticles, with certain categories being more prevalent than others. The top
three data categories are air traffic control and air traffic flow man-
agement data (ATFMData), individual flight-level data (IndivFltData),
and aviation economics, logistics, and operational data (AvData). We
also see high levels of data diversity on an article-specific level – 76% of
the articles (152 articles out of 200) were classified as using aviation
data sourced from two or more data categories, with 45 articles out of
the 152 articles (22.5% of the original 200 articles) using four or more
data categories. This indicates not only a proliferation of aviation data,
but also a multidisciplinary approach to compiling and utilizing the
data.
In the next subsection we present statistics related to the classified
availability and accessibility of the data sources from the 200 reviewed
research articles. We provide an in-depth discussion of the data di-
versity findings in the next section, along with our findings on data
availability.
4.2. (DATAS) Availability
Recall from our processing and classification methodology that we
designated data sets requiring special authorization to collect, residing
behind paywalls, or with anonymized sources as proprietary data.
Other freely-accessible data sources are labeled as publicly available
data. A small minority of articles were classified as mixed-availability
data if the authors explicitly stated that both publicly available and
proprietary data were used. In Fig. 6, we give the breakdown of data

116
M.Z. Li, M.S. Ryerson
Table 2
Framework within which the 16 data categories examined were generated off
of.
Source Possible data categories of interest
Larsen (2013) - Reference and static data (geospatial, airline,
airport info)
- Current weather - Forecast weather
- Flight schedules
- Airport and gate status
- Radar feeds
- Satellite- and transponder-based data
- Economic data
Aviation-themed conferences - Network and strategic flow optimization
- Trajectory prediction and trajectory and queue
management
- Integrated airport/airside operations
- Economics, finance, and policy
- ATM performance measurement and
management
- Safety, resilience, and security
- Weather in ATM
- Environment and energy efficiency
- Human factors
- Airline operations and quality of service
- Airport design, management, and operations
- Air transportation governance, economics, and
policy
- Air transportation system performance
measurement and management
- Decision support systems and human-machine
collaboration
- Environmental and energy efficiency, climate
change and impact
- Information management
- Network management, flow optimization
- Safety, security, and human performance
availability with and without conditioning on the publication venue.
Certain publication venues were grouped together by similarity; these
groupings can be found in Table 1 with the amendment that Trans-
portation Research Part B (Methodological) and Transportation Research
Part D (Transport and Environment) are grouped with “TR A-E” in Fig. 6
instead of with general transportation-related journals (“Transp”).
Fig. 4. Data categories represented by the 200 reviewed aviation research articles, in accordance with our classification methodology.
117
Journal of Air Transport Management 75 (2019) 111–130
We also provide data availability statistics after conditioning on the
16 data categories. These are provided in Figs. 7 and 8. Since some data
categories (e.g. ATFMData) were much more prevalent than others (e.g.
SafetyData), the 16 data categories have been split in half based on the
number of articles contained per category – this was done for ease of
comparison and readability. The differences in scale of the vertical axis
(“Number of Articles”) should be noted between Figs. 7 and 8 due to us
splitting up the data categories.
In terms of data availability, we identified a dominance of pro-
prietary, non-public data in aviation research, with 68% of the 200
research articles utilizing solely proprietary data in deriving their re-
sults, and a further 8% utilizing a mixture of proprietary and publicly
available data. The dominance of proprietary data was more pro-
nounced in aerospace-, and transportation research-specific journals,
with articles utilizing proprietary data representing 73%–86.7% of the
articles surveyed from these journal venues. When data availability is
examined on a per-data category level and more prevalent data cate-
gories are considered (Fig. 7), we see two levels of data availability: (1)
more proprietary data dominance (ATFMData, IndivFltData, FuelData,
WxData, AvGeoData) and (2) more equal representation between pro-
prietary data and publicly available data (AvData, AprtAirlineData,
PopData).
4.3. (DATAS) Tractability and applicability
An important technical question that must be answered by aviation
researchers and, more broadly, any researchers working with large
amounts of data is the question of data tractability. More specifically,
how computationally intensive is it to not only process the data set, but
also to run the data-driven model (an optimization routine, a simula-
tion, etc.). In this subsection, we present a sampling of aviation research
literature drawn from the set of 200 articles; articles within this sample
provide well-documented tractability indicators (i.e. runtime, compu-
tation hardware used). We also summarize the main results and ap-
plicability of each data-driven research study to highlight the innova-
tions enabled by aviation data.
Pita et al. (2013) present a mixed integer linear program (MILP)
that incorporates aircraft and passenger delays in proposing flight
schedules and fleet assignments; the MILP is applied to the network of a
M.Z. Li, M.S. Ryerson Journal of Air Transport Management 75 (2019) 111–130

Fig. 5. Distribution of data categories amongst all 200 reviewed aviation research articles.

European carrier with 31 airports and 100 daily flights, with results
showing that the carrier can improve profits by adopting this MILP
optimization model in their decision-making. Pita et al. (2013) speci-
fied that a quad core processor with 4 GB RAM was used in running the
MILP optimization routine with the carrier network data. Barnhart et al.
(2012) also tackle the issue of airline flight scheduling by proposing an
optimization model that seeks to minimize deviations from a First-
Come-First-Serve original schedule, with additional computational
performance enhancements through the use of an exponential penalty
method. The results presented by Barnhart et al. (2012) when this
model is applied to historical scenario data show potential savings of
$25 to $50 million per year. Barnhart et al. (2012) noted that a PC
workstation with dual Xeon 3220 quad core processors and 16 GB RAM
running Ubuntu v8.04 was used in the study.

Fig. 6. Breakdown of proprietary, mixed-availability, and publicly available data by publication venue represented by the 200 reviewed aviation research articles.

118
M.Z. Li, M.S. Ryerson Journal of Air Transport Management 75 (2019) 111–130

Fig. 7. Breakdown of proprietary, mixed-availability, and publicly available data by the 8 most prevalent data categories.

Fig. 8. Breakdown of proprietary, mixed-availability, and publicly available data by the 8 least prevalent data categories.

Both Haouari et al. (2013) and Zeghal et al. (2011) present work
related to the problem of aircraft routing. Haouari et al. (2013) propose
a novel polynomial-sized representation for the aircraft routing pro-
blem which has computational advantages, whereas Zeghal et al.
(2011) propose a flexible aircraft fleet and routing model. Both works
were validated with real flight data provided on a proprietary basis by
two different airlines. Haouari et al. (2013) demonstrated improve-
ments in computational burden with the new representation, using a
64-bit Windows 7 machine with two Intel Xeon quad core processors at
2.13 GHz and 4 GB RAM as the experimental platform. The fleet and
routing solutions proposed by Zeghal et al. (2011) were evaluated to be
more optimal than the solutions generated by the airline; the compu-
tational power of a Pentium IV 3.2 GHz processor with 1.5 GB RAM was
used in this study.
Finally, the last two selected surveyed literatures also provide
detailed results of the runtimes of their models. Wei and Vaze (2018)
examined crew-propagated delays in air transportation, and proposed
an optimization model validated via data from four large airline net-
works. The computational platform was an 8 thread, quad core Intel i7-
X5600 CPU with 8 GB RAM running Windows 7 Professional, achieving
runtimes on the magnitude of minutes (< 0.1 h) for smaller-sized net-
works (102 flights), and runtimes on the magnitude of hours (2–10 h,
dependent on algorithm choice) for larger-sized networks (3300
flights). Augmentations to the current status quo of airspace planning
and the Collaborative Decision Making (CDM) paradigm was explored
in Sherali et al. (2011); these augmentations included allowances for
slot exchanges, connections between continued flights, and different
ways of defining delay equity. The solution proposed by Sherali et al.
(2011) was validated with ATFM data generated via proprietary means
provided by an air navigation service provider. The solution time was

119
M.Z. Li, M.S. Ryerson
less than 1 min for a range of flights (125–1000 flights), carried out on a
Dell Precision T7400 with Intel Xeon E5410 2.33 GHz processor and
3.25 GB RAM.
4.4. (DATAS) Sources
In this subsection, we demonstrate the diversity of data sources as
exemplified by Table A1. For each data-drive research article in our set
of 200 articles, we reviewed the methodology, modeling process, and
application to determine the utilized data. Furthermore, to the best of
our abilities through reading and reviewing each article, we notated the
sources of the utilized data. These data sources span academia, in-
dustry, and governmental entities, and are tabulated in the right
column of Table A1. We note the varying levels of specificity in terms of
nomenclature – this will be a central point that we hone in on as a
possible recommendation that can help increase data usage efficiency
in aviation research.
5. Discussion and recommendations
After our DATAS analysis of the aviation data utilized in each of the
200 reviewed research articles, we propose two primary re-
commendations related to publicly available data and standardizing
data source nomenclature. These recommendations have the potential
to streamline the incoming flux of aviation data, and allow researchers
to easily and more efficiently access and utilize this growing mass of
data.
5.1. Increase publicly available data usage and accessibility
It is clear from our analysis of the availability aspect of the DATAS
paradigm that the majority of data sets utilized in aviation research is
proprietary. Thus, other researchers may not be able to replicate and
extend the results of a study that utilizes only proprietary data due to
data acquisition issues. Furthermore, many studies within our set of 200
research articles validate and test their models and methodologies only
on these proprietary data sets – no further validation and testing were
carried out on publicly available data sets. While there may be logistical
constraints regarding constructing an identical set of validation and
testing data using publicly available data, we recommend that aviation
researchers working with proprietary data consider a “double valida-
tion” approach using publicly available data as well. This provides two
main advantages: (1) the model and methodology can be considered to
be more robust, as it works for both proprietary and publicly available
data sets, and (2) future researchers can at least replicate and extend
the study from the publicly available portion.
We acknowledge that it is often a matter of business confidentiality
or safety that proprietary data cannot be released by entities such as air
navigation service providers and airlines. Thus, extending re-
commendations to increase the amount of publicly available data from
an industrial and governmental perspective may be difficult. However,
this precludes one avenue that could increase its output of publicly
available aviation research data: academia. We recommend that au-
thors consider explicitly stating in their manuscript a willingness to
share and distribute publicly available data either utilized or compiled
in their study. We highlight an example of such a statement from Wei
and Vaze (2018); in the Conclusion and Future Research section, Wei
and Vaze (2018) state explicitly that “we have made this entire model
calibration code as well as the resulting calibrated crew-pairing solu-
tions publicly available for future research”. Such a clear and explicit
statement within the published manuscript may encourage more re-
searchers to reach out and extend the usefulness of publicly available
data by utilizing it in their own research.
120
Journal of Air Transport Management 75 (2019) 111–130
5.2. Standardizing data source nomenclature
Referring back to Table A1, we note that different aviation research
teams will often refer to the same data source using variations of the data
source's name or title. Sometimes the nomenclature for the same ac-
cessed data source is more generalized (e.g. U.S. Department of Trans-
portation Bureau of Transportation Statistics), and other times the no-
menclature is very specific (e.g. U.S. Department of Transportation
Bureau of Transportation Statistics, Form 41, Schedule B-43). The
varying degrees of nomenclature usage may cause confusion in later
attempts to replicate and extend a particular piece of aviation research,
leading to unnecessary efforts in re-organizing data sources and figuring
out where exactly a data set came from. Furthermore, since this appears
to be a systemic issue, these unnecessary efforts are being carried out in a
decentralized and ad-hoc manner; each new research project may en-
counter its own difficulties with regards to data source nomenclature.
Hence, we recommend that a collaborative, single-shot effort be made in
establishing a standard for aviation data source nomenclature, rather
than the collection of disparate nomenclatures on display in Table A1.
While this standardization may need to be renewed periodically to ac-
count for external changes in data source nomenclature (e.g. the up-
coming System Wide Information Management system from the FAA will
alter how many aviation researchers source and cite their data), we be-
lieve that a standardized set of aviation data source nomenclature will be
immensely helpful for the maturation process of ongoing aviation re-
search projects in this new data-driven era.
6. Conclusion: Surveying and strengthening the DATAS of aviation
data
In this work, we have conducted a state-of-the-practice literature
survey to explore, document, and analyze the diversity, availability,
tractability, and applicability of aviation data, as well as the data
sources that these data sets come from (DATAS). In doing so, we have
assembled and reviewed what is to our knowledge the largest collection
of data-driven aviation research literature, and classified them based on
the availability of utilized data (publicly available, proprietary, or
mixed-availability) as well as utilized data categories (ranging from air
traffic flow management-type data to human factors-related data).
We endeavored to produce a concept-centric literature survey
(Webster and Watson, 2002) focusing on examining the five central
concepts embodied by the DATAS of aviation data. A graphical sum-
marization of our concept-centric literature survey can be found in
Fig. 9. We found a high diversity of data categories in the field as a
whole and a high diversity of data categories on a study-by-study basis.
In terms of data availability and sourcing, we found that the majority of
our 200 surveyed research articles utilized proprietary data. Further-
more, data source nomenclatures were not standardized and varied in
specificity across all 200 research articles. These data availability and
data source nomenclature findings formed the foundations of our re-
commendations after conducting this literature survey. Our re-
commendations can be summarized as (1) encourage “double valida-
tion” using publicly available data, (2) advertise and distribute utilized
or generated publicly available data in a proactive manner, and (3)
establish and adopt a standardized set of data source nomenclatures.
From the perspective of tractability and applicability, the outlook
for aviation research in this new data-driven and big data era looks
bright. Data sets and models can be run without supercomputing cap-
abilities, and many important and applicable results have been pub-
lished stemming from data-driven aviation research. We believe that
our recommendations will help in allowing the aspects of data avail-
ability and data sourcing to catch up to data tractability, data applic-
ability, and data diversity. Aviation researchers will not only have the
tools to approach aviation data sets, but they will also have a quicker
and easier journey in assembling the data set they need in the first place
through better standardization and better data availability.
M.Z. Li, M.S. Ryerson Journal of Air Transport Management 75 (2019) 111–130

Fig. 9. Concept diagram noting the unit of analysis and takeaways from each of the five DATAS concepts examined in this literature survey.

Appendix A. Tables of data sources and references

Table A1
Data sources for each data category; no data source nomenclature standardization has been applied in the tabulation process for the 200 reviewed research articles.

Data category Data type and source

Reference

AvData Flight crew cost per block Bureau of Transportation Statistics (BTS) Form 41
Maintenance cost per block hour BTS Form 41
Data on cost of delays (U.S.) (Bratu & Barnhart, 2006)
Data on cost of delays (Europe) (Cook et al., 2004); Performance Review Commission (EUROCONTROL)
Passenger connection data (Barnhart et al., 2014)
Ground-delay and air-holding costs data (Cook et al., 2004)
Overhead costs for pilots, crew, and catering BTS Air Carrier Financial Report
U.S. carrier cost factor data BTS P5.2 Database
Passenger demand, fare, Herfindahl-Hirschman Index BTS Airline Origin and Destination (O&D) DB1B Survey
(HHI)
Rotation number (flight legs consecutively flown by Airline-provided
single aircraft)
Quarterly cost data U.S. DoT Form 41
Aggregated traffic data EUROCONTROL PRISME
Domestic departure proportion BTS T-100
Annual operations and financial summaries FAA Form 5100-127
Fare pricing information QL2 Software; Airline Reporting Corporation
Passenger allocation data International Air Transport Association (IATA) PaxIS
Passenger valuation of time for schedule delay (Adler et al., 2005)
O&D traffic survey data US DoT BTS
FuelData Fuel consumption data over fixed distances European Environmental Agency
Fuel consumption data PIANO/PIANO-X; Base of Aircraft Data (BADA)-based fuel consumption models
Statistical Contingency Fuel data Airline-provided
Jet fuel prices U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA); BTS Form 41 P-12(a); Air Transport Association (ATA)a;
Fixed-based Operator fuel prices Aviation Research Group
Oil price scenario data EIA Annual Energy Outlook
External Aircraft Ground Propulsion System (AGPS) FAA Technical Reports
fuel consumption
(continued on next page)

121
M.Z. Li, M.S. Ryerson Journal of Air Transport Management 75 (2019) 111–130

Table A1 (continued)

Data category Data type and source

Reference

PopData Global population density data National censuses

Disease statistics
Population and density data
Population and income per capita information for each
Metropolitan Statistical Area (MSA)
Producer price index
Data on local gross domestic product (GDP) at MSA
where airport is located in
Regional economic forecasts and projections of socio-
economic and demographic factors data
Growth rate scenario data
Age-specific baseline mortality data
IndivFltData Individual aircraft speed and altitude data at oceanic
waypoints
Aircraft type and category data
Individual aircraft performance data
Individual aircraft weight data
ATFMData Airport capacity envelope data
Radar track data
Total flight hours controlled by individual air naviga-
tion service provider (ANSP)
Cause of delay label data
Airport slot control and High Density Rule data
Out, Off, On, In (OOOI) times
Ground Delay Program (GDP) data
Airline route data
Air traffic demand data
General Traffic Management Initiatives (TMIs) data
Delay information
MultiModeData European rail timetables and schedules
Rail travel times
AvGeoData Geographical position data
Airport coordinate data
Temporal distance data for airport pairs
Runway dimensions
Taxiway and terminal geometries
Driving times and distances to airport
Entry/exit locations for terminal airspaces
Airspace and sector geometries
AprtAirlineData Airline slot requests
Domestic segment data between airports
Low-cost carrier (LCC) service
Airline operational information
Arrival and departure airport information
Data on airline fleet
Total takeoff and landing at specific airport
HHI at airport
Worldwide airport passenger traffic data
WxData Weather forecasting and prediction
Current and historical weather data
Atmospheric data of air temperature and relative
humidity
Wind and temperature data
For burn-off prediction data
Global tropopause height data
Visibility, ceiling, wind data
Lightning strikes data
Weather boundary conditions
SafetyData Data related to fatal accidents
Equipment outage data
Fatal runway collision risk data
General aviation safety data
SurveyData Passenger and customer survey data
Air traffic control and flight crew survey data
World Health Organization (WHO)
Eurostat
U.S. Bureau of Economic Analysis (BEA)
U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS)
BEA
Woods & Poole socioeconomic and demographic database
Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) Integrated Global Systems Model
Centers for Disease Control (CDC) WONDER database
Shanwick OAC-provided
Performance Data Analysis and Reporting System (PDARS); Airline-provided; Aviation System
Performance Metrics (ASPM); Airline Service Quality Performance (ASPQ) Index; Official Airline Guide
(OAG)
BADA; Airbus Performance Engineer's Program (PEP)
Aircraft manufacturer-provided; Airline-provided
(Simaiakis, 2013)
Shanwick OAC-provided; Paris Air Traffic Control Center- provided; Trajectory Predictor (Boeing
Research and Technology Europe); PDARS; EUROCAT radar systems
EUROCONTROL
IATA
FAA
ASPM
FAA Flight Schedule Analyzer (FSA) database
Airline Network News and Analysis
FAA Aircraft Situation Display to Industry (ASDI)
FAA National Traffic Management Log (NTML)
ASPM; ASQP; FAA OPSNET; Airline On-Time Performance (AOTP) database
Rail service providers
RENFE; SNCF; DB Bahn; National Rail; British Rail
Geometry Engine GEOS
OpenFlight
OpenStreetMap
National Flight Data Center (NFDC) database; Aviation Environmental Design Tool (AEDT) database
FAA Airport Diagrams (APD)
Google Map
Derived from aircraft trajectory
FAA
Airline-provided
Form 41 T-100
Airport publications and news articles
PDARS
ASPM
Form 41 Schedule B-43
FAA Air Traffic Activity Systems (ATADS)
Computed via OAG and BTS On-Time Performance data
FAA; International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO)
Collaborative Convective Weather Product (CCFP); Next Generation Radar (NEXRAD); NCWF-6
Probability Forecast Data; Rapid Update Cycle (RUC) from NOAA; Global Forecast System (GFS); Weather
Research and Forecast (WRF) model
Weather.org
NCEP/DOE AMIP-II Reanalysis (System Research Lab, NOAA)
Meteo France
National Weather Service (NWS); MIT Lincoln Lab
NASA AIRS Level-3
U.S. NWS Terminal Aerodrome Forecast (TAF); Meteorological Terminal Aviation Routine Weather
Report (METAR)
National Lightning Detection Network (NLDN)
Global GEOS-Chem simulations
Flight Safety Foundations Aviation Safety Network
Remote Monitoring and Logging System (RMLS) data
FAA projections
FAA Aviation Safety Information Analysis and Sharing; NLR Air Safety Database
Logan Airport Air Passenger Ground-Access Survey
Air traffic controller and pilot surveys of configuration safety levels; Acceptability of surface metering
surveys; NASA Task Load Index
(continued on next page)

122
M.Z. Li, M.S. Ryerson Journal of Air Transport Management 75 (2019) 111–130

Table A1 (continued)

Data category Data type and source

Reference

IoTEMBSData Flight-specific data Secondary surveillance radar (Mode-C);

Flight Data Recorder (FDR)/Digital Flight Data Recorder (DFDR);
Automatic Dependent Surveillance-Broadcast (ADS-B);
Quick Access Recorder (QAR) data
Environmental measurement data MOZAIC (Measure of ozone and water vapor by in-service Airbus aircraft)
CargoData Freight tonnage and volume data FAA ATADS
EnvData Engine emissions data ICAO Engine Emissions Database
Environmental impact data Environmental Impact Statements (EIS) at airports
Aircraft emissions data Boeing Emission Method 2 (BEM2)
Noise pollution data Aviation Environmental Portfolio Management Tool (APMT)-Impacts Noise Module; (Wadud, 2009)
Anthropologic and biogenic emissions Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) National Emissions Inventory database
Dispersion parameter data National Climatic Database Center Integrated Global Radiosonde archive
Auxiliary Power Unit (APU) emissions data ACRP Report 64
Air quality data Community Multiscale Air Quality (CMAQ)
Aviation Landing and Take-Off (LTO) emissions data AEDT
ACMMData Historical delivery data Aircraft manufacturer-provided
Manufacturer backlog data Aircraft manufacturer-provided
Maintenance and data from aircraft maintenance Maintenance Management System (MMS) database maintained by FAA
companies (MROs)
HumData Controller-pilot voice communication transcription MITRE; FAA Technical Center
data
Raw fNIR (functional near-infrared spectroscopy) data Study-specific
Speech intelligibility data Study-specific
Situational awareness data Situational Awareness Rating Techniques (SART)
a
ATA is now known as Airlines for America.

Table A2
Data-driven aviation research articles sorted into the 16 data categories.

Data category References

AvData (Bilotkach et al., 2015), (Boli et al., 2017), (Bettini et al., 2018),
(Castelli et al., 2011), (Cadarso et al., 2017), (Chang et al., 2016a,b),
(Castelli et al., 2013), (Chang et al., 2016a,b), (Allroggen et al., 2015),
(Barnett et al., 2015), (Abda et al., 2012), (Barnhart et al., 2014),
(Barnett, 2010), (Fu and Kim, 2016), (Ferguson et al., 2013),
(Ding and Rakas, 2015), (Evans et al., 2016), (Dray et al., 2014),
(Davendralingam and Crossley, 2014), (Cosmas et al., 2010),
(Cook et al., 2015), (Cook et al., 2016),
(Clewlow et al., 2014), (Haouari et al., 2013),
(Hotle et al., 2015), (Jiang and Barnhart, 2013), (Hsiao and Hansen, 2011),
(Jacquillat and Odoni, 2015a,b), (Haouari et al., 2011),
(Pyrgiotis and Odoni, 2016), (Pellegrini et al., 2017), (Pita et al., 2013),
(Morrison et al., 2012), (Lonzius and Lange, 2017),
(Mane and Crossley, 2012), (Lijesen and Behrens, 2017),
(Li et al., 2013), (Jorge et al., 2015), (Sibdari et al., 2018),
(Sgouridis et al., 2011), (Sherry, 2015), (Scotti and Volta, 2017),
(Ryerson and Kim, 2013), (Ryerson, 2016a,b), (Ryerson and Kim, 2018),
(Ryerson and Hansen, 2010), (Ryerson et al., 2015),
(Ryerson and Hansen, 2013), (Ryerson, 2016a,b), (Zou et al., 2015),
(Zou et al., 2014), (Zou and Hansen, 2014), (Yan et al., 2018),
(Yan et al., 2016), (Sun et al., 2017), (Xiong and Hansen, 2013),
(Wolfe et al., 2016), (Wandelt and Sun, 2015b), (Vaze and Barnhart, 2012),
(Swaroop et al., 2012a,b), (Suh and Ryerson, 2017a), (Suh and Ryerson, 2017b)
FuelData (Boli et al., 2017), (Chen et al., 2012), (Chang et al., 2016a,b),
(Alam et al., 2011), (Alligier et al., 2013), (Fu and Kim, 2016),
(Dray et al., 2014), (Delgado and Prats, 2012), (Delgado and Prats, 2013),
(Delgado and Prats, 2014), (Delgado et al., 2013), (Dalmau and Prats, 2015),
(Clewlow et al., 2014), (Jin et al., 2013), (Hsiao and Hansen, 2011),
(Guo et al., 2014), (Pham et al., 2010), (Nikoleris et al., 2011),
(Nikoleris et al., 2016), (Ng et al., 2014), (Morrison et al., 2012),
(Mane and Crossley, 2012), (Li and Trani, 2014),
(Khadilkar and Balakrishnan, 2012), (Simaiakis and Balakrishnan, 2010),
(Sibdari et al., 2018), (Sgouridis et al., 2011), (Sheng et al., 2015),
(Ryerson and Hansen, 2010), (Ryerson and Churchill, 2013),
(Ryerson et al., 2015), (Ryerson et al., 2014), (Zou et al., 2014),
(Zou and Hansen, 2014), (Vela et al., 2010), (Sun et al., 2018),
(Suh and Ryerson, 2017a,b), (Sridhar et al., 2011)
PopData (Bettini et al., 2018), (Cadarso et al., 2017), (Chang et al., 2016a,b),
(Barrett et al., 2010), (Allroggen et al., 2015), (Ashok et al., 2013),
(Fu and Kim, 2016), (Dray et al., 2014),
(continued on next page)

123
M.Z. Li, M.S. Ryerson Journal of Air Transport Management 75 (2019) 111–130

Table A2 (continued)

Data category References

(Davendralingam and Crossley, 2014), (Clewlow et al., 2014),

(Hotle et al., 2015), (He et al., 2014), (Hsiao and Hansen, 2011),
(Hao and Hansen, 2014), (Pita et al., 2013), (Li and Trani, 2014),
(Lijesen and Behrens, 2017), (Sibdari et al., 2018), (Sgouridis et al., 2011),
(Santos and Antunes, 2015), (Scotti and Volta, 2017),
(Ryerson and Hansen, 2013), (Zou et al., 2015),
(Zou and Hansen, 2014), (Wei et al., 2014a,b), (Wolfe et al., 2016),
(Wolfe et al., 2014), (Suh and Ryerson, 2017a)
IndivFltData (Boli et al., 2017), (Alligier et al., 2015), (Alderighi and Gaggero, 2018),
(Barnhart et al., 2014), (Barnhart et al., 2012), (Gariel et al., 2011),
(Ghoniem et al., 2014), (Fleurquin et al., 2013),
(Fearing and Barnhart, 2011), (Dalmau and Prats, 2015),
(Chung et al., 2017), (Chen and Solak, 2015), (Haouari et al., 2013),
(Grabbe et al., 2014), (Jiang and Barnhart, 2013), (Hao and Hansen, 2014),
(Jacquillat and Odoni, 2015a,b), (Guo et al., 2014), (Haouari et al., 2011),
(Rebollo and Balakrishnan, 2014), (Rakas et al., 2018),
(Pellegrini et al., 2017), (Okwir et al., 2017), (Pita et al., 2013),
(Nikoleris et al., 2011), (Ng et al., 2014), (Nayak and Zhang, 2011),
(Lonzius and Lange, 2017), (Marla et al., 2017), (Mane and Crossley, 2012),
(Li et al., 2016), (Kim and Hansen, 2010), (Kim et al., 2015),
(Khadilkar and Balakrishnan, 2012), (Kafle and Zou, 2016),
(Jorge et al., 2015), (Simaiakis and Balakrishnan, 2010),
(Rodrguez-Sanz et al., 2018), (Sherali et al., 2010), (Sheng et al., 2015),
(Sherali et al., 2013), (Ryerson and Hansen, 2010), (Ryerson et al., 2015),
(Rodionova et al., 2014), (Ryerson and Hansen, 2013), (Ryerson et al., 2014),
(Ryerson, 2016a,b), (Ren et al., 2018), (Zou et al., 2014),
(Zou and Hansen, 2012), (Yan et al., 2018), (Woodburn and Ryerson, 2013),
(Zhang and Wang, 2017), (Wei and Vaze, 2018), (Zeghal et al., 2011),
(Xiong and Hansen, 2013), (Vela et al., 2010), (Sun et al., 2017a,b,c),
(Vazquez et al., 2017), (Vaze and Barnhart, 2012),
(Tetzloff and Crossley, 2014), (Sun et al., 2018), (Slveling et al., 2011), (Solveling et al., 2011),
Simaiakis et al. (2014)
ATFMData (Bilotkach et al., 2015), (Cao and Sun, 2012), (Boli et al., 2017),
(Chen et al., 2012), (Cao and Sun, 2011), (Burgain et al., 2012),
(Chang et al., 2016a,b), (Castelli et al., 2013), (Allroggen et al., 2015),
(Alligier et al., 2015), (Balakrishnan and Chandran, 2010),
(Barnhart et al., 2014), (Alligier et al., 2013), (Ball et al., 2010),
(Balakrishna et al., 2010), (Barnhart et al., 2012), (Gariel et al., 2011),
(Ghoniem et al., 2014), (Ferguson et al., 2013), (Fleurquin et al., 2013),
(Fearing and Barnhart, 2011), (Ding and Rakas, 2015), (Evans et al., 2016),
(Dray et al., 2014), (Dougui et al., 2013), (Ding et al., 2018),
(Delgado and Prats, 2012), (Delgado and Prats, 2013),
(Delgado and Prats, 2014), (Chen et al., 2017), (Delgado et al., 2013),
(Chen and Sridhar, 2010), (Cook et al., 2016), (Chung et al., 2017),
(Churchill et al., 2010), (Haouari et al., 2013), (Grabbe et al., 2014),
(Jin et al., 2013), (He et al., 2014), (Hsiao and Hansen, 2011),
(Hao and Hansen, 2014), (Jacquillat and Odoni, 2015a,b), (Guo et al., 2014),
(Jacquillat and Odoni, 2015a,b), (Ivanov et al., 2017), (Haouari et al., 2011),
(Rebollo and Balakrishnan, 2014), (Rakas et al., 2018), (Nosedal et al., 2015),
(Pellegrini et al., 2017), (Nikoleris and Hansen, 2012), (Okwir et al., 2017),
(Pham et al., 2010), (Peterson et al., 2013), (Pita et al., 2013),
(Palacios and Hansman, 2013), (Nosedal et al., 2014), (Nikoleris et al., 2011),
(Marzuoli et al., 2014), (Montlaur and Delgado, 2017), (Ng et al., 2014),
(Nayak and Zhang, 2011), (Mukherjee et al., 2012), (Lovell et al., 2013),
(Marla et al., 2017), (Li and Ryerson, 2017), (Liu et al., 2014),
(Li et al., 2018), (Li et al., 2013), (Kim and Hansen, 2010), (Kim, 2016),
(Kim and Hansen, 2013), (Kim et al., 2015), (Kafle and Zou, 2016),
(Jovanovi et al., 2014), (Simaiakis and Balakrishnan, 2010),
(Rodrguez-Sanz et al., 2018), (Sidiropoulos et al., 2017), (Sheth et al., 2013),
(Sherali et al., 2011), (Sidiropoulos et al., 2018), (Sherali et al., 2010),
(Sheng et al., 2015), (Sherry, 2015), (Santos and Antunes, 2015),
(Salaun et al., 2012), (Ryerson and Kim, 2018), (Ruiz et al., 2014),
(Ryerson and Churchill, 2013), (Reynolds, 2014), (Ryerson et al., 2015),
(Rodionova et al., 2014), (Ryerson et al., 2014), (Ryerson, 2016a,b),
(Ren et al., 2018), (Zografos et al., 2018), (Zou et al., 2015),
(Zou et al., 2014), (Zou and Hansen, 2012), (Zou and Hansen, 2014),
(Yan et al., 2018), (Woodburn and Ryerson, 2013), (Zhang and Wang, 2017),
(Yan et al., 2016), (Zografos et al., 2012), (Zhang and Nayak, 2010),
(Zeghal et al., 2011), (Xiao et al., 2018), (Xiong and Hansen, 2013),
(Wei et al., 2014a,b), (Wandelt and Sun, 2015a), (Wei et al., 2013),
(Vela et al., 2010), (Tastambekov et al., 2014), (Sun et al., 2017a,b,c),
(Vaze and Barnhart, 2012), (Sun and Wandelt, 2014), (Swaroop et al., 2012a,b),
(Tetzloff and Crossley, 2014), (Sun et al., 2018), (Sun et al., 2011),
(Sun et al., 2010), (Sun et al., 2015), (Suh and Ryerson, 2017a,b)
(continued on next page)

124
M.Z. Li, M.S. Ryerson Journal of Air Transport Management 75 (2019) 111–130

Table A2 (continued)

Data category References

(Slveling et al., 2011), (Solveling et al., 2011), (Song et al., 2018), (Simaiakis et al., 2014),
Simaiakis and Balakrishnan (2014)
MultiModeData (Cadarso et al., 2017), (Allroggen et al., 2015), (Clewlow et al., 2014),
Lijesen and Behrens (2017)
AvGeoData (Bonnefoy et al., 2010), (Chen et al., 2012), (Cao and Sun, 2011),
(Allroggen et al., 2015), (Balakrishnan and Chandran, 2010),
(Fu and Kim, 2016), (Fleurquin et al., 2013), (Dray et al., 2014),
(Delgado and Prats, 2012), (Chen et al., 2017), (Cook et al., 2015),
(Marzuoli et al., 2014), (Manataki and Zografos, 2010),
(Mane and Crossley, 2012), (Li and Trani, 2014), (Jorge et al., 2015),
(Rodrguez-Sanz et al., 2018), (Sidiropoulos et al., 2017), (Sheng et al., 2015),
(Ryerson and Kim, 2018), (Ryerson and Hansen, 2010), (Ren et al., 2018),
(Zou and Hansen, 2014), (Sun et al., 2017a,b,c), (Xiao et al., 2018),
(Wei et al., 2014a,b), (Xiong and Hansen, 2013), (Wolfe et al., 2014),
(Wandelt and Sun, 2015b), (Tastambekov et al., 2014), (Sun et al., 2017a,b,c),
(Sun et al., 2011), (Sun et al., 2010), (Song et al., 2018),
Sridhar et al. (2011)
AprtAirlineData (Bettini et al., 2018), (Bonnefoy et al., 2010), (Cadarso et al., 2017),
(Chang et al., 2016a,b), (Barnhart et al., 2012), (Garrow et al., 2012),
(Ghoniem et al., 2014), (Fu and Kim, 2016), (Du et al., 2016),
(Fleurquin et al., 2013), (Delgado and Prats, 2014),
(Davendralingam and Crossley, 2014), (Chung et al., 2017),
(Chen and Solak, 2015), (Clewlow et al., 2014),
(Jiang and Barnhart, 2013), (Hsiao and Hansen, 2011),
(Hao and Hansen, 2014), (Guo et al., 2014), (Haouari et al., 2011),
(Rebollo and Balakrishnan, 2014), (Rakas et al., 2018),
(Pyrgiotis and Odoni, 2016), (Nikoleris and Hansen, 2012),
(Lonzius and Lange, 2017), (Marla et al., 2017), (Li and Trani, 2014),
(Kotegawa et al., 2010), (Rodrguez-Sanz et al., 2018),
(Sherali et al., 2010), (Sheng et al., 2015), (Sherali et al., 2013),
(Sherry, 2015), (Scotti and Volta, 2017), (Ryerson and Kim, 2013),
(Ryerson, 2016a,b), (Ryerson and Hansen, 2010),
(Ryerson and Woodburn, 2014), (Ryerson and Hansen, 2013),
(Ryerson et al., 2014), (Ryerson, 2016a,b), (Ren et al., 2018),
(Zografos et al., 2018), (Zou et al., 2015), (Zou et al., 2014),
(Zou and Hansen, 2012), (Zhang and Wang, 2017), (Yan et al., 2016),
(Zografos et al., 2012), (Wei and Vaze, 2018), (Zeghal et al., 2011),
(Xiong and Hansen, 2013), (Wei et al., 2014a,b), (Vaze and Barnhart, 2012),
(Swaroop et al., 2012a,b), (Suh and Ryerson, 2017a), (Song et al., 2018)
WxData (Chen et al., 2012), (Alligier et al., 2015), (Ashok et al., 2013),
(Alderighi and Gaggero, 2018), (Alligier et al., 2013), (Ding and Rakas, 2015),
(Delgado and Prats, 2013), (Chen and Sridhar, 2010), (Cook et al., 2016),
(Chung et al., 2017), (Grabbe et al., 2014), (Gungor and Al-Qadi, 2018),
(Jin et al., 2013), (Rakas et al., 2018), (Marzuoli et al., 2014),
(Ng et al., 2014), (Nayak and Zhang, 2011), (Mukherjee et al., 2012),
(Kim, 2016), (Kim and Hansen, 2013), (Kim et al., 2015),
(Simaiakis and Balakrishnan, 2010), (Rodrguez-Sanz et al., 2018),
(Shortle et al., 2010), (Sheth et al., 2013), (Sheng et al., 2015),
(Ryerson et al., 2015), (Ryerson et al., 2014), (Ren et al., 2018),
(Woodburn and Ryerson, 2013), (Zhang and Wang, 2017),
(Zhang and Nayak, 2010), (Sun et al., 2018), (Sun et al., 2010),
(Song et al., 2018), (Sridhar et al., 2011), (Soler et al., 2014)
SafetyData (Barnett et al., 2015), (Barnett, 2010), (Rakas et al., 2018),
(Stroeve et al., 2016), (Song et al., 2018)
SurveyData (Barnett et al., 2015), (Hong et al., 2016), (Liu et al., 2014),
(Lin and Vlachos, 2018), (Jorge et al., 2015), (Verma et al., 2017),
(Stroeve et al., 2011)
IoTEMBSData (Alligier et al., 2015), (Gungor and Al-Qadi, 2018), (Pham et al., 2010),
(Nikoleris et al., 2011), (Li et al., 2016), (Li et al., 2015),
(Khadilkar and Balakrishnan, 2014), (Khadilkar and Balakrishnan, 2012),
(Shortle et al., 2010), (Reynolds, 2014), (Zhang and Wang, 2017),
(Sun et al., 2017a,b,c), (Simaiakis et al., 2014),
Simaiakis and Balakrishnan (2014)
CargoData (Bonnefoy et al., 2010), (Chang et al., 2016a,b), (Suh and Ryerson, 2017a)
EnvData (Barrett et al., 2013), (Chen et al., 2012), (Barrett et al., 2010),
(Alam et al., 2011), (Ashok et al., 2013), (Ferguson et al., 2013),
(Ding and Rakas, 2015), (Dray et al., 2014), (He et al., 2014),
(Guo et al., 2014), (Pham et al., 2010), (Nikoleris et al., 2011),
(Khadilkar and Balakrishnan, 2012), (Simaiakis and Balakrishnan, 2010),
(Ryerson and Woodburn, 2014), (Ryerson, 2016a,b), (Wolfe et al., 2014),
Sun et al. (2018)
ACMMData (Ding and Rakas, 2015), (Haouari et al., 2013), (Qin et al., 2018),
(Morrison et al., 2012), (Sgouridis et al., 2011)
HumData (Ayaz et al., 2011), (Deshmukh et al., 2010), (Verma et al., 2017),
Skaltsas et al. (2013)

125
M.Z. Li, M.S. Ryerson
References
Abda, M.B., Belobaba, P.P., Swelbar, W.S., 2012. Impacts of lcc growth on domestic traffic
and fares at largest us airports. J. Air Transport. Manag. 18 (1), 21–25. [Online].
Available: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0969699711000822.
Adler, T., Falzarano, C., Spitz, G., 2005. Modeling service trade-offs in air itinerary
choices. Transport. Res. Rec.: J. Transport. Res. Board 1915 20–26. [Online].
Available. https://doi.org/10.3141/1915-03.
Alam, S., Nguyen, M.H., Abbass, H.A., Lokan, C., Ellejmi, M., Kirby, S., Jul 2011. Multi-
aircraft dynamic continuous descent approach methodology for low-noise and
emission guidance. J. Aircraft 48 (4), 1225–1237. [Online]. Available: https://doi.
org/10.2514/1.C031241.
Alderighi, M., Gaggero, A.A., 2018. Flight cancellations and airline alliances: empirical
evidence from europe. Transport. Res. E Logist. Transport. Rev. 116, 90–101.
[Online]. Available: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/
S1366554517310475.
Alligier, R., Gianazza, D., Durand, N., 2013. Learning the aircraft mass and thrust to
improve the ground-based trajectory prediction of climbing flights. Transport. Res. C
Emerg. Technol. 36, 45–60. [Online]. Available: http://www.sciencedirect.com/
science/article/pii/S0968090X13001708.
Alligier, R., Gianazza, D., Durand, N., Dec 2015. Machine learning and mass estimation
methods for ground-based aircraft climb prediction. IEEE Trans. Intell. Transport.
Syst. 16 (6), 3138–3149.
Allroggen, F., Wittman, M.D., Malina, R., 2015. How air transport connects the world a
new metric of air connectivity and its evolution between 1990 and 2012. Transport.
Res. E Logist. Transport. Rev. 80, 184–201. [Online]. Available: http://www.
sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1366554515001234.
Ashok, A., Lee, I.H., Arunachalam, S., Waitz, I.A., Yim, S.H., Barrett, S.R., 2013.
Development of a response surface model of aviation's air quality impacts in the
United States. Atmos. Environ. 77, 445–452. [Online]. Available: http://www.
sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S135223101300366X.
ATM Seminar, 2017a. Theme information. http://www.atmseminarus.org/upcoming-
seminar/theme-information/ 2017.
ATM Seminar, 2017b. Programme committee. http://www.atmseminarus.org/12th-
seminar/programme-committee/ 2017.
Ayaz, H., Willems, B., Bunce, S., Shewokis, P.A., Izzetoglu, K., Hah, S., Deshmukh, A.,
Onaral, B., 2011. Estimation of cognitive workload during simulated air traffic con-
trol using optical brain imaging sensors. In: Schmorrow, D.D., Fidopiastis, C.M.
(Eds.), In Foundations of Augmented Cognition. Directing the Future of Adaptive
Systems. Springer Berlin Heidelberg, Berlin, Heidelberg, pp. 549–558.
Balakrishna, P., Ganesan, R., Sherry, L., 2010. Accuracy of reinforcement learning algo-
rithms for predicting aircraft taxi-out times: a case-study of tampa bay departures.
Transport. Res. C Emerg. Technol. 18 (6), 950–962. special issue on Transportation
Simulation Advances in Air Transportation Research. [Online]. Available: http://
www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0968090X1000029X.
Balakrishnan, H., Chandran, B.G., 2010. Algorithms for scheduling runway operations
under constrained position shifting. Oper. Res. 58 (6), 1650–1665. [Online].
Available: https://doi.org/10.1287/opre.1100.0869.
Ball, M.O., Hoffman, R., Mukherjee, A., 2010. Ground delay program planning under
uncertainty based on the ration-by-distance principle. Transport. Sci. 44 (1), 1–14.
[Online]. Available: https://doi.org/10.1287/trsc.1090.0289.
Barnett, A., 2010. Cross-national differences in aviation safety records. Transport. Sci. 44
(3), 322–332. [Online]. Available: https://doi.org/10.1287/trsc.1090.0313.
Barnett, A., Ball, M., Donohue, G., Hansen, M., Odoni, A., Trani, A., 2015. Collision
course? the north airfield safety study at los angeles international airport (lax).
Transport. Res. Pol. Pract. 77, 14–34. [Online]. Available: http://www.sciencedirect.
com/science/article/pii/S0965856415000452.
Barnhart, C., Bertsimas, D., Caramanis, C., Fearing, D., 2012. Equitable and efficient
coordination in traffic flow management. Transport. Sci. 46 (2), 262–280. [Online].
Available: https://doi.org/10.1287/trsc.1110.0393.
Barnhart, C., Fearing, D., Vaze, V., 2014. Modeling passenger travel and delays in the
national air transportation system. Oper. Res. 62 (3), 580–601. [Online]. Available:
https://doi.org/10.1287/opre.2014.1268.
Barrett, S.R.H., Britter, R.E., Waitz, I.A., 2010. Global mortality attributable to aircraft
cruise emissions. Environ. Sci. Technol. 44 (19), 7736–7742. pMID: 20809615.
[Online]. Available: https://doi.org/10.1021/es101325r.
Barrett, S.R., Britter, R.E., Waitz, I.A., 2013. Impact of aircraft plume dynamics on airport
local air quality. Atmos. Environ. 74, 247–258. [Online]. Available: http://www.
sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1352231013002458.
Bettini, H.F., Silveira, J.M.F., Oliveira, A.V., 2018. Estimating strategic responses to the
march of a low cost Carrier to primary airports. Transport. Res. E Logist. Transport.
Rev. 109, 190–204. [Online]. Available: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/
article/pii/S1366554517305343.
Bezerra, G.C.L., Gomes, C.F., 2016. Performance measurement in airport settings: a sys-
tematic literature review. Benchmarking Int. J. 23 (4), 1027–1050.
Bilotkach, V., Gitto, S., Jovanovi, R., Mueller, J., Pels, E., 2015. Cost-efficiency bench-
marking of european air navigation service providers. Transport. Res. Pol. Pract. 77,
50–60. [Online]. Available: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/
S0965856415000853.
Blasch, E., 2015. Ontologies for nextgen avionics systems. In: 2015 IEEE/AIAA 34th
Digital Avionics Systems Conference (DASC), Sept 2015, 3B5–1–3B5–13.
Boli, T., Castelli, L., Corolli, L., Rigonat, D., 2017. Reducing atfm delays through strategic
flight planning. Transport. Res. E Logist. Transport. Rev. 98, 42–59. [Online].
Available: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1366554516305427.
Bonnefoy, P.A., de Neufville, R., Hansman, R.J., 2010. Evolution and development of
126
Journal of Air Transport Management 75 (2019) 111–130
multiairport systems: worldwide perspective. J. Transport. Eng. 136 (11),
1021–1029. [Online]. Available: https://ascelibrary.org/doi/abs/10.1061/%
28ASCE%290733-947X%282010%29136%3A11%281021%29.
Booth, A., 2008. Unpacking your literature search toolbox: on search styles and tactics.
Health Inf. Libr. J. 25 (4), 313–317. [Online]. Available: https://onlinelibrary.wiley.
com/doi/abs/10.1111/j.1471-1842.2008.00825.x.
Bratu, S., Barnhart, C., 2006. Flight operations recovery: New approaches considering
passenger recovery. J. Sched. 9 (3), 279–298. [Online]. Available. https://doi.org/
10.1007/s10951-006-6781-0.
Budgen, D., Turner, M., Brereton, P., Kitchenham, B., 2008. Using mapping studies in
software engineering. In: Proceedings of PPIG, vol. 8. pp. 195–204.
Burgain, P., Pinon, O.J., Feron, E., Clarke, J.P., Mavris, D.N., March 2012. Optimizing
pushback decisions to valuate airport surface surveillance information. IEEE Trans.
Intell. Transport. Syst. 13 (1), 180–192.
Burmester, G., Ma, H., Steinmetz, D., Hartmannn, S., 2018. Big Data and Data Analytics in
Aviation. Springer International Publishing, Cham, pp. 55–65.
Cadarso, L., Vaze, V., Barnhart, C., Marin, A., 2017. Integrated airline scheduling: con-
sidering competition effects and the entry of the high speed rail. Transport. Sci. 51
(1), 132–154. [Online]. Available: https://doi.org/10.1287/trsc.2015.0617.
Cao, Y., Sun, D., Dec 2012. A parallel computing framework for large-scale air traffic flow
optimization. IEEE Trans. Intell. Transport. Syst. 13 (4), 1855–1864.
Cao, Y., Sun, D., Sep 2011. Link transmission model for air traffic flow management. J.
Guid. Contr. Dynam. 34 (5), 1342–1351. [Online]. Available: https://doi.org/10.
2514/1.51495.
Castelli, L., Pesenti, R., Ranieri, A., 2011. The design of a market mechanism to allocate
air traffic flow management slots. Transport. Res. C Emerg. Technol. 19 (5), 931–943.
freight Transportation and Logistics (selected papers from ODYSSEUS 2009 - the 4th
International Workshop on Freight Transportation and Logistics). [Online].
Available: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0968090X10001087.
Castelli, L., Labb, M., Violin, A., 2013. A network pricing formulation for the revenue
maximization of european air navigation service providers. Transport. Res. C Emerg.
Technol. 33, 214–226. [Online]. Available: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/
article/pii/S0968090X12000630.
Cook, A., Tanner, G., Anderson, S., 2004. Evaluating the true cost to airlines of one
minute of airborne or ground delay: final report. [Online]. Available. https://
westminsterresearch.westminster.ac.uk/download/
4570bdaeb48dbf90899786264eb0a94bf7788b7f86be278ced76259b17548ca3/
3501115/Cook%2CTanner%2CAnderson_2004_final.pdf.
Chang, Y.-T., Park, H.K., Zou, B., Kafle, N., 2016a. Passenger facility charge vs. airport
improvement program funds: a dynamic network dea analysis for u.s. airport finan-
cing. Transport. Res. E Logist. Transport. Rev. 88, 76–93. [Online]. Available: http://
www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1366554515301678.
Chang, Y.-H., Solak, S., Clarke, J.-P.B., Johnson, E.L., Jan 2016b. Models for single-sector
stochastic air traffic flow management under reduced airspace capacity. J. Oper. Res.
Soc. 67 (1), 54–67. [Online]. Available: https://doi.org/10.1057/jors.2015.53.
Chen, D., Hu, M., Zhang, H., Yin, J., Han, K., 2017. A network based dynamic air traffic
flow model for en route airspace system traffic flow optimization. Transport. Res. E
Logist. Transport. Rev. 106, 1–19. [Online]. Available: http://www.sciencedirect.
com/science/article/pii/S1366554516308079.
Chen, H., Solak, S., 2015. Lower cost arrivals for airlines: optimal policies for managing
runway operations under optimized profile descent. Prod. Oper. Manag. 24 (3),
402–420. [Online]. Available: https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1111/
poms.12244.
Chen, N.Y., Sridhar, B., Nov 2010. Management-action-embedded sector-demand pre-
diction models. J. Guid. Contr. Dynam. 33 (6), 1892–1898. [Online]. Available:
https://doi.org/10.2514/1.46903.
Chen, N.Y., Sridhar, B., Ng, H.K., Sep 2012. Tradeoff between contrail reduction and
emissions in United States national airspace. J. Aircraft 49 (5), 1367–1375. [Online].
Available: https://doi.org/10.2514/1.C031680.
Chung, S.H., Ma, H.L., Chan, H.K., Aug 2017. Cascading delay risk of airline workforce
deployments with crew pairing and schedule optimization. Risk Anal. 37 (8),
1443–1458.
Churchill, A., Lovell, D., Ball, M., 2010. Flight delay propagation impact on strategic air
traffic flow management. Transportation Research Record: Journal of the
Transportation Research Board 2177, 105–113. [Online]. Available: https://doi.org/
10.3141/2177-13.
Clewlow, R.R., Sussman, J.M., Balakrishnan, H., 2014. The impact of high-speed rail and
low-cost carriers on european air passenger traffic. Transport Pol. 33, 136–143.
[Online]. Available: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/
S0967070X14000304.
Cook, A., Blom, H.A., Lillo, F., Mantegna, R.N., Miccich, S., Rivas, D., Vzquez, R., Zanin,
M., 2015. Applying complexity science to air traffic management. J. Air Transport.
Manag. 42, 149–158. [Online]. Available: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/
article/pii/S0969699714001331.
Cook, A., Delgado, L., Tanner, G., Cristbal, S., 2016. Measuring the cost of resilience. J.
Air Transport. Manag. 56, 38–47. long-term and Innovative Research in ATM.
[Online]. Available: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/
S096969971600020X.
Cooper, C., Booth, A., Varley-Campbell, J., Britten, N., Garside, R., Aug 2018. Defining
the process to literature searching in systematic reviews: a literature review of gui-
dance and supporting studies. BMC Med. Res. Methodol. 18 (1), 85.
Corrigan, S., Mårtensson, L., Kay, A., Okwir, S., Ulfvengren, P., McDonald, N., May 2015.
Preparing for airport collaborative decision making (a-cdm) implementation: an
evaluation and recommendations. Cognit. Technol. Work 17 (2), 207–218. [Online].
Available: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10111-014-0295-x.
Cosmas, A., Belobaba, P., Swelbar, W., 2010. The effects of open skies agreements on
M.Z. Li, M.S. Ryerson
transatlantic air service levels. J. Air Transport. Manag. 16 (4), 222–225. [Online].
Available: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S096969970900101X.
Dalmau, R., Prats, X., 2015. Fuel and time savings by flying continuous cruise climbs:
estimating the benefit pools for maximum range operations. Transport. Res.
Transport Environ. 35, 62–71. [Online]. Available: http://www.sciencedirect.com/
science/article/pii/S1361920914001825.
Davendralingam, N., Crossley, W., Sep 2014. Robust approach for concurrent aircraft
design and airline network design. J. Aircraft 51 (6), 1773–1783. [Online]. Available:
https://doi.org/10.2514/1.C032442.
Delgado, L., Prats, X., June 2013. Effect of wind on operating-cost-based cruise speed
reduction for delay absorption. IEEE Trans. Intell. Transport. Syst. 14 (2), 918–927.
Delgado, L., Prats, X., Jan 2012. En route speed reduction concept for absorbing air traffic
flow management delays. J. Aircraft 49 (1), 214–224. [Online]. Available: https://
doi.org/10.2514/1.C031484.
Delgado, L., Prats, X., 2014. Operating cost based cruise speed reduction for ground delay
programs: effect of scope length. Transport. Res. C Emerg. Technol. 48, 437–452.
[Online]. Available: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/
S0968090X1400285X.
Delgado, L., Prats, X., Sridhar, B., 2013. Cruise speed reduction for ground delay pro-
grams: a case study for san francisco international airport arrivals. Transport. Res. C
Emerg. Technol. 36, 83–96. [Online]. Available: http://www.sciencedirect.com/
science/article/pii/S0968090X13001642.
Deshmukh, A., Friedman-Berg, F., Allendoerfer, K., Sep 2010. Ser. Aviation Technology,
Integration, and Operations (ATIO) Conferences. American Institute of Aeronautics
and Astronautics ch. User-Centric Evaluation of Voice over Internet Protocol Codecs
for Use in Air Traffic Control Communications, 0. [Online]. Available: https://doi.
org/10.2514/6.2010-9008.
Ding, W., Rakas, J., 2015. Economic impact of a lightning strikeinduced outage of air
traffic control tower. Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation
Research Board 2501, 76–84. [Online]. Available: https://doi.org/10.3141/
2501-10.
Ding, W., Zhang, Y., Hansen, M., 2018. Downstream impact of flight rerouting. Transport.
Res. C Emerg. Technol. 88, 176–186. [Online]. Available: http://www.sciencedirect.
com/science/article/pii/S0968090X18300172.
Dougui, N., Delahaye, D., Puechmorel, S., Mongeau, M., Jul 2013. A light-propagation
model for aircraft trajectory planning. J. Global Optim. 56 (3), 873–895. [Online].
Available: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10898-012-9896-1.
Dray, L., Evans, A., Reynolds, T., Schfer, A.W., Vera-Morales, M., Bosbach, W., 2014.
Airline fleet replacement funded by a carbon tax: an integrated assessment. Transport
Pol. 34, 75–84. air Transportation and the Environment. [Online]. Available: http://
www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0967070X14000523.
Du, W.-B., Zhou, X.-L., Lordan, O., Wang, Z., Zhao, C., Zhu, Y.-B., 2016. Analysis of the
Chinese airline network as multi-layer networks. Transport. Res. E Logist. Transport.
Rev. 89, 108–116. [Online]. Available: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/
article/pii/S1366554515300521.
Elsevier, 2018. SCOPUS Website. https://www.scopus.com/home.uri.
EUROCONTROL, 2018. Research and SESAR. https://www.eurocontrol.int/sesar-
research.
Evans, A., Vaze, V., Barnhart, C., 2016. Airline-driven performance-based air traffic
management: game theoretic models and multicriteria evaluation. Transport. Sci. 50
(1), 180–203. [Online]. Available: https://doi.org/10.1287/trsc.2014.0543.
Fearing, D., Barnhart, C., 2011. Evaluating air traffic flow management in a collaborative
decision-making environment. Transport. Res. Rec.: Journal of the Transportation
Research Board 2206, 10–18. [Online]. Available: https://doi.org/10.3141/
2206-02.
Federal Aviation Administration, 2018. FAA air transportation Centers of excellence.
[Online]. Available: https://www.faa.gov/about/office_org/headquarters_offices/
ang/offices/management/coe/.
Ferguson, J., Kara, A.Q., Hoffman, K., Sherry, L., 2013. Estimating domestic us airline cost
of delay based on european model. Transport. Res. C Emerg. Technol. 33, 311–323.
[Online]. Available: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/
S0968090X11001471.
Fleurquin, P., Ramasco, J.J., Eguiluz, V.M., Jan 2013. Systemic delay propagation in the
us airport network. Sci. Rep. 3 1159 EP –. https://doi.org/10.1038/srep01159 ar-
ticle. [Online]. Available:.
Fu, Q., Kim, A.M., 2016. Supply-and-demand models for exploring relationships between
smaller airports and neighboring hub airports in the U.S. J. Air Transport. Manag. 52,
67–79. [Online]. Available: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/
S0969699715300946.
Gariel, M., Srivastava, A.N., Feron, E., Dec 2011. Trajectory clustering and an application
to airspace monitoring. IEEE Trans. Intell. Transport. Syst. 12 (4), 1511–1524.
Garrow, L.A., Hotle, S., Mumbower, S., 2012. Assessment of product debundling trends in
the us airline industry: customer service and public policy implications. Transport.
Res. Pol. Pract. 46 (2), 255–268. [Online]. Available: http://www.sciencedirect.
com/science/article/pii/S096585641100142X.
Ghoniem, A., Sherali, H.D., Baik, H., 2014. Enhanced models for a mixed arrival-de-
parture aircraft sequencing problem. Inf. J. Comput. 26 (3), 514–530. [Online].
Available: https://doi.org/10.1287/ijoc.2013.0581.
Ginieis, M., Snchez-Rebull, M.-V., Campa-Planas, F., 2012. The academic journal litera-
ture on air transport: analysis using systematic literature review methodology. J. Air
Transport. Manag. 19, 31–35. [Online]. Available: http://www.sciencedirect.com/
science/article/pii/S096969971100127X.
Grabbe, S., Sridhar, B., Mukherjee, A., Oct 2014. Clustering days and hours with similar
airport traffic and weather conditions. J. Aero. Inf. Syst. 11 (11), 751–763. [Online].
Available: https://doi.org/10.2514/1.I010212.
Greenhalgh, T., Peacock, R., 2005. Effectiveness and efficiency of search methods in
127
Journal of Air Transport Management 75 (2019) 111–130
systematic reviews of complex evidence: audit of primary sources. BMJ 331 (7524),
1064–1065. [Online]. Available: https://www.bmj.com/content/331/7524/1064.
Gungor, O.E., Al-Qadi, I.L., 2018. Developing machine-learning models to predict airfield
pavement responses. Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation
Research Board 1–12. [Online]. Available: https://doi.org/10.1177/
0361198118780681.
Guo, R., Zhang, Y., Wang, Q., 2014. Comparison of emerging ground propulsion systems
for electrified aircraft taxi operations. Transport. Res. C Emerg. Technol. 44, 98–109.
[Online]. Available: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/
S0968090X14000722.
Hao, L., Hansen, M., 2014. Block time reliability and scheduled block time setting.
Transp. Res. Part B Methodol. 69, 98–111. [Online]. Available: http://www.
sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S019126151400143X.
Haouari, M., Sherali, H.D., Mansour, F.Z., Aissaoui, N., Jun 2011. Exact approaches for
integrated aircraft fleeting androuting at tunisair. Comput. Optim. Appl. 49 (2),
213–239. [Online]. Available: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10589-009-9292-z.
Haouari, M., Shao, S., Sherali, H.D., 2013. A lifted compact formulation for the daily
aircraft maintenance routing problem. Transport. Sci. 47 (4), 508–525. [Online].
Available: https://doi.org/10.1287/trsc.1120.0433.
Harzing, A.-W., Alakangas, S., Feb 2016. Google scholar, scopus and the web of science: a
longitudinal and cross-disciplinary comparison. Scientometrics 106 (2), 787–804.
[Online]. Available: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-015-1798-9.
He, Q., Wollersheim, C., Locke, M., Waitz, I., 2014. Estimation of the global impacts of
aviation-related noise using an income-based approach. Transport Pol. 34, 85–101.
air Transportation and the Environment. [Online]. Available: http://www.
sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0967070X14000511.
Hong, S.-J., Lee, K.-S., Seol, E.-S., Young, S., 2016. Safety perceptions of training pilots
based on training institution and experience. J. Air Transport. Manag. 55, 213–221.
[Online]. Available: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/
S0969699715301046.
Hotle, S.L., Castillo, M., Garrow, L.A., Higgins, M.J., 2015. The impact of advance pur-
chase deadlines on airline consumers search and purchase behaviors. Transport. Res.
Pol. Pract. 82, 1–16. [Online]. Available: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/
article/pii/S0965856415002281.
Hsiao, C.-Y., Hansen, M., 2011. A passenger demand model for air transportation in a
hub-and-spoke network. Transport. Res. E Logist. Transport. Rev. 47 (6), 1112–1125.
[Online]. Available: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/
S1366554511000718.
IATA, 2017. 2036 Forecast Reveals Air Passengers Will Nearly Double to 7.8 Billion.
http://www.iata.org/pressroom/pr/Pages/2017-10-24-01.aspx.
ICRAT, 2018a. Call for Papers: ICRAT 2018. http://www.icrat.org/icrat/8th-
international-conference/call-for-papers/ 2018.
ICRAT, 2018b. 2018 ICRAT Conference Committee. http://www.icrat.org/icrat/8th-
international-conference/committee-members/ 2018.
Insaurralde, C.C., Blasch, E., 2018. Ontologies in Aeronautics. Springer International
Publishing, Cham, pp. 67–85.
Ivanov, N., Netjasov, F., Jovanovi, R., Starita, S., Strauss, A., 2017. Air traffic flow
management slot allocation to minimize propagated delay and improve airport slot
adherence. Transport. Res. Pol. Pract. 95, 183–197. [Online]. Available: http://
www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0965856416300052.
Jacquillat, A., Odoni, A.R., 2015a. Endogenous control of service rates in stochastic and
dynamic queuing models of airport congestion. Transport. Res. E Logist. Transport.
Rev. 73, 133–151. [Online]. Available: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/
article/pii/S1366554514001872.
Jacquillat, A., Odoni, A.R., 2015b. An integrated scheduling and operations approach to
airport congestion mitigation. Oper. Res. 63 (6), 1390–1410. [Online]. Available:
https://doi.org/10.1287/opre.2015.1428.
Jiang, H., Barnhart, C., 2013. Robust airline schedule design in a dynamic scheduling
environment. Comput. Oper. Res. 40 (3), 831–840. transport Scheduling. [Online].
Available: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0305054811001808.
Jin, L., Cao, Y., Sun, D., Feb 2013. Investigation of potential fuel savings due to con-
tinuous-descent approach. J. Aircraft 50 (3), 807–816. [Online]. Available: https://
doi.org/10.2514/1.C032000.
Jorge, D., Barnhart, C., de Almeida Correia, G.H., 2015. Assessing the viability of enabling
a round-trip carsharing system to accept one-way trips: application to logan airport in
boston. Transport. Res. C Emerg. Technol. 56, 359–372. [Online]. Available: http://
www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0968090X15001618.
Jovanovi, R., Toi, V., angalovi, M., Stanojevi, M., 2014. Anticipatory modulation of air
navigation charges to balance the use of airspace network capacities. Transport. Res.
Pol. Pract. 61, 84–99. [Online]. Available: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/
article/pii/S0965856414000068.
Kafle, N., Zou, B., 2016. Modeling flight delay propagation: a new analytical-econometric
approach. Transp. Res. Part B Methodol., vol. 93, 520–542. [Online]. Available:
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0191261515302010.
Kaps, R.W., Phillips, E., 2004. Publishing aviation research: a literature review of scho-
larly journals. Journal of Aviation/Aerospace Education & Research 14 (1).
Keller, R.M., 2016. “Ontologies for aviation data management. In: 2016 IEEE/AIAA 35th
Digital Avionics Systems Conference (DASC), pp. 1–9.
Khadilkar, H., Balakrishnan, H., 2012. Estimation of aircraft taxi fuel burn using flight
data recorder archives. Transport. Res. Transport Environ. 17 (7), 532–537. [Online].
Available: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1361920912000612.
Khadilkar, H., Balakrishnan, H., Mar 2014. Network congestion control of airport surface
operations. J. Guid. Contr. Dynam. 37 (3), 933–940. [Online]. Available: https://doi.
org/10.2514/1.57850.
Kim, A., Hansen, M., 2010. Validation of runway capacity models. Transport. Res. Rec.:
Journal of the Transportation Research Board 2177, 69–77. [Online]. Available:
M.Z. Li, M.S. Ryerson
https://doi.org/10.3141/2177-09.
Kim, A., Hansen, M., 2013. Deconstructing delay: a non-parametric approach to analyzing
delay changes in single server queuing systems. Transp. Res. Part B Methodol. 58,
119–133. [Online]. Available: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/
S0191261513001744.
Kim, A., R, S.A., Liu, Y., 2015. Refinements to a procedure for estimating airfield capacity.
Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board 2501,
18–24. [Online]. Available: https://doi.org/10.3141/2501-03.
Kim, A.M., 2016. The impacts of changing flight demands and throughput performance
on airport delays through the great recession. Transport. Res. Pol. Pract. 86, 19–34.
[Online]. Available: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/
S0965856416000288.
Kotegawa, T., DeLaurentis, D.A., Sengstacken, A., 2010. Development of network re-
structuring models for improved air traffic forecasts. Transport. Res. C Emerg.
Technol. 18 (6), 937–949. special issue on Transportation Simulation Advances in Air
Transportation Research. [Online]. Available: http://www.sciencedirect.com/
science/article/pii/S0968090X10000306.
Larsen, T., April 2013. Cross-platform aviation analytics using big-data methods. In: 2013
Integrated Communications, Navigation and Surveillance Conference (ICNS),
pp. 1–9.
Li, L., Das, S., John Hansman, R., Palacios, R., Srivastava, A.N., Sep 2015. Analysis of
flight data using clustering techniques for detecting abnormal operations. J. Aero. Inf.
Syst. 12 (9), 587–598. [Online]. Available: https://doi.org/10.2514/1.I010329.
Li, L., Hansman, R.J., Palacios, R., Welsch, R., 2016. Anomaly detection via a Gaussian
mixture model for flight operation and safety monitoring. Transport. Res. C Emerg.
Technol. 64, 45–57. [Online]. Available: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/
article/pii/S0968090X16000188.
Li, M.Z., Ryerson, M.S., 2017. A data-driven approach to modeling high-density terminal
areas: a scenario analysis of the new beijing, China airspace. Chin. J. Aeronaut. 30
(2), 538–553. [Online]. Available: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/
pii/S1000936117300213.
Li, M.Z., Suh, D.Y., Ryerson, M.S., 2018. Visualizing aviation impacts: modeling current
and future flight trajectories with publicly available flight data. Transport. Res.
Transport Environ. 63, 769–785. [Online]. Available: http://www.sciencedirect.
com/science/article/pii/S1361920917304510.
Li, T., Trani, A.A., 2014. A model to forecast airport-level general aviation demand. J. Air
Transport. Manag. 40, 192–206. [Online]. Available: http://www.sciencedirect.
com/science/article/pii/S0969699714000957.
Li, T., Baik, H., Trani, A.A., 2013. A method to estimate the historical us air travel de-
mand. J. Adv. Transport. 47 (3), 249–265. [Online]. Available: https://onlinelibrary.
wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1002/atr.1200.
Lijesen, M., Behrens, C., 2017. The spatial scope of airline competition. Transport. Res. E
Logist. Transport. Rev. 99, 1–13. [Online]. Available: http://www.sciencedirect.
com/science/article/pii/S1366554516305099.
Lin, Z., Vlachos, I., 2018. An advanced analytical framework for improving customer
satisfaction: a case of air passengers. Transport. Res. E Logist. Transport. Rev. 114,
185–195. [Online]. Available: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/
S1366554517311742.
Liu, Y., Hansen, M., Gupta, G., Malik, W., Jung, Y., 2014. Predictability impacts of airport
surface automation. Transport. Res. C Emerg. Technol. 44, 128–145. [Online].
Available: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0968090X14000825.
Lonzius, M.C., Lange, A., 2017. Robust scheduling: an empirical study of its impact on air
traffic delays. Transport. Res. E Logist. Transport. Rev. 100, 98–114. [Online].
Available: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1366554516304094.
Lovell, D.J., Vlachou, K., Rabbani, T., Bayen, A., 2013. A diffusion approximation to a
single airport queue. Transport. Res. C Emerg. Technol. 33, 227–237. [Online].
Available: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0968090X12000605.
Manataki, I.E., Zografos, K.G., 2010. Assessing airport terminal performance using a
system dynamics model. J. Air Transport. Manag. 16 (2), 86–93. selected Papers from
the Air Transport Research Society Conference Athens, 2008. [Online]. Available:
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0969699709000866.
Mane, M., Crossley, W.A., Jan 2012. Allocation and design of aircraft for on-demand air
transportation with uncertain operations. J. Aircraft 49 (1), 141–150. [Online].
Available: https://doi.org/10.2514/1.C031452.
Marais, K.B., Reynolds, T.G., Uday, P., Muller, D., Lovegren, J., Dumont, J.-M., Hansman,
R.J., 2013. Evaluation of potential near-term operational changes to mitigate en-
vironmental impacts of aviation. Proc. IME G J. Aero. Eng. 227 (8), 1277–1299.
[Online]. Available: https://doi.org/10.1177/0954410012454095.
Marla, L., Vaaben, B., Barnhart, C., 2017. Integrated disruption management and flight
planning to trade off delays and fuel burn. Transport. Sci. 51 (1), 88–111. [Online].
Available: https://doi.org/10.1287/trsc.2015.0609.
Marzuoli, A., Gariel, M., Vela, A., Feron, E., 2014. Data-based modeling and optimization
of en route traffic. J. Guid. Contr. Dynam. 37 (6), 1930–1945. [Online]. Available:
https://doi.org/10.2514/1.G000010.
Mongeon, P., Paul-Hus, A., Jan 2016. The journal coverage of web of science and scopus:
a comparative analysis. Scientometrics 106 (1), 213–228. [Online]. Available:
https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-015-1765-5.
Montlaur, A., Delgado, L., 2017. Flight and passenger delay assignment optimization
strategies. Transport. Res. C Emerg. Technol. 81, 99–117. [Online]. Available:
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0968090X17301420.
Morrison, D., James, K., Hansman, R.J., Sgouridis, S., Mar 2012. Game theory analysis of
the impact of single-aisle aircraft competition on emissions. J. Aircraft 49 (2),
483–494. [Online]. Available: https://doi.org/10.2514/1.C031407.
Mukherjee, A., Hansen, M., Grabbe, S., 2012. Ground delay program planning under
uncertainty in airport capacity. Transport. Plann. Technol. 35 (6), 611–628. [Online].
Available: https://doi.org/10.1080/03081060.2012.710031.
128
Journal of Air Transport Management 75 (2019) 111–130
Nayak, N., Zhang, Y., 2011. Estimation and comparison of impact of single airport delay
on national airspace system with multivariate simultaneous models. Transportation
Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board 2206, 52–60.
[Online]. Available: https://doi.org/10.3141/2206-07.
Ng, H.K., Sridhar, B., Grabbe, S., Jan 2014. Optimizing aircraft trajectories with multiple
cruise altitudes in the presence of winds. J. Aero. Inf. Syst. 11 (1), 35–47. [Online].
Available: https://doi.org/10.2514/1.I010084.
Nikoleris, T., Hansen, M., 2012. Queueing models for trajectory-based aircraft operations.
Transport. Sci. 46 (4), 501–511. [Online]. Available: https://doi.org/10.1287/trsc.
1120.0411.
Nikoleris, T., Gupta, G., Kistler, M., 2011. Detailed estimation of fuel consumption and
emissions during aircraft taxi operations at dallas/fort worth international airport.
Transport. Res. Transport Environ. 16 (4), 302–308. [Online]. Available: http://
www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1361920911000198.
Nikoleris, T., Chatterji, G.B., Coppenbarger, R.A., Jul 2016. Comparison of fuel con-
sumption of descent trajectories under arrival metering. J. Aircraft 53 (6),
1853–1864. [Online]. Available: https://doi.org/10.2514/1.C033374.
Nosedal, J., Piera, M.A., Ruiz, S., Nosedal, A., 2014. An efficient algorithm for smoothing
airspace congestion by fine-tuning take-off times. Transport. Res. C Emerg. Technol.,
vol. 44, 171–184. [Online]. Available: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/
article/pii/S0968090X14000904.
Nosedal, J., Piera, M.A., Solis, A.O., Ferrer, C., 2015. An optimization model to fit air-
space demand considering a spatio-temporal analysis of airspace capacity. Transport.
Res. C Emerg. Technol. 61, 11–28. [Online]. Available: http://www.sciencedirect.
com/science/article/pii/S0968090X15003605.
Okwir, S., Ulfvengren, P., Angelis, J., Ruiz, F., Guerrero, Y.M.N., 2017. Managing turn-
around performance through collaborative decision making. J. Air Transport. Manag.
58, 183–196. [Online]. Available: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/
pii/S0969699716300680.
Oster, C.V., Strong, J.S., Zorn, C.K., 2013. Analyzing aviation safety: problems, chal-
lenges, opportunities. Res. Transport. Econ. 43 (1), 148–164. the Economics of
Transportation Safety. [Online]. Available: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/
article/pii/S0739885912002053.
Palacios, R., Hansman, R.J., 2013. Filtering enhanced traffic management system (etms)
altitude data. Metrol. Meas. Syst. 20 (3), 453–464. [Online]. Available: https://
content.sciendo.com/view/journals/mms/20/3/article-p453.xml.
Pautasso, M., 2013. Ten simple rules for writing a literature review. 07 PLoS Comput.
Biol. 9 (7), 1–4. [Online]. Available: https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pcbi.1003149.
Pellegrini, P., Boli, T., Castelli, L., Pesenti, R., 2017. Sosta: An effective model for the
simultaneous optimisation of airport slot allocation. Transport. Res. E Logist.
Transport. Rev. 99, 34–53. [Online]. Available: http://www.sciencedirect.com/
science/article/pii/S136655451630494X.
Petersen, K., Feldt, R., Mujtaba, S., Mattsson, M., 2008. Systematic mapping studies in
software engineering. In: Proceedings of the 12th International Conference on
Evaluation and Assessment in Software Engineering, Ser. EASE’08. BCS Learning &
Development Ltd., Swindon, UK, pp. 68–77. [Online]. Available: http://dl.acm.org/
citation.cfm?id=2227115.2227123.
Petersen, K., Vakkalanka, S., Kuzniarz, L., 2015. Guidelines for conducting systematic
mapping studies in software engineering: an update. Inf. Software Technol. 64, 1–18.
[Online]. Available: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/
S0950584915000646.
Peterson, E.B., Neels, K., Barczi, N., Graham, T., 2013. The economic cost of airline flight
delay. J. Transport Econ. Pol. 47 (1), 107–121. [Online]. Available: http://www.
jstor.org/stable/24396355.
Pham, V.V., Tang, J., Alam, S., Lokan, C., Abbass, H.A., 2010. Aviation emission in-
ventory development and analysis. Environ. Model. Software 25 (12), 1738–1753.
[Online]. Available: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/
S1364815210000964.
Pita, J.P., Barnhart, C., Antunes, A.P., 2013. Integrated flight scheduling and fleet as-
signment under airport congestion. Transport. Sci. 47 (4), 477–492. [Online].
Available: https://doi.org/10.1287/trsc.1120.0442.
Pyrgiotis, N., Odoni, A., 2016. On the impact of scheduling limits: a case study at newark
liberty international airport. Transport. Sci. 50 (1), 150–165. [Online]. Available:
https://doi.org/10.1287/trsc.2014.0564.
Qin, Y., Chan, F.T., Chung, S., Qu, T., Niu, B., 2018. Aircraft parking stand allocation
problem with safety consideration for independent hangar maintenance service
providers. Comput. Oper. Res. 91, 225–236. [Online]. Available: http://www.
sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0305054817302599.
Rakas, J., Bauranov, A., Messika, B., 2018. Failures of critical systems at airports: impact
on aircraft operations and safety. Saf. Sci [Online]. Available: http://www.
sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S092575351730601X.
Rebollo, J.J., Balakrishnan, H., 2014. Characterization and prediction of air traffic delays.
Transport. Res. C Emerg. Technol. 44, 231–241. [Online]. Available: http://www.
sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0968090X14001041.
Ren, K., Kim, A.M., Kuhn, K., 2018. “Exploration of the evolution of airport ground delay
programs. Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research
Board 1–11. [Online]. Available: https://doi.org/10.1177/0361198118782272.
Reynolds, T.G., 2014. Air traffic management performance assessment using flight in-
efficiency metrics. Transport Pol. 34, 63–74. air Transportation and the Environment.
[Online]. Available: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/
S0967070X1400050X.
Rodionova, O., Sbihi, M., Delahaye, D., Mongeau, M., Oct 2014. North atlantic aircraft
trajectory optimization. IEEE Trans. Intell. Transport. Syst. 15 (5), 2202–2212.
Rodrguez-Sanz, A., Comendador, F.G., Valds, R.A., Prez-Castn, J.A., 2018.
Characterization and prediction of the airport operational saturation. J. Air
Transport. Manag. 69, 147–172. [Online]. Available: http://www.sciencedirect.
M.Z. Li, M.S. Ryerson
com/science/article/pii/S0969699717303691.
Ruiz, S., Piera, M.A., Nosedal, J., Ranieri, A., 2014. Strategic de-confliction in the pre-
sence of a large number of 4d trajectories using a causal modeling approach.
Transport. Res. C Emerg. Technol. 39, 129–147. [Online]. Available: http://www.
sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0968090X1300260X.
Ryerson, M., Churchill, A., 2013. Aircraft rerouting due to abrupt facility outages.
Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board 2336,
27–35. [Online]. Available: https://doi.org/10.3141/2336-04.
Ryerson, M.S., 2016a. Incentivize it and they will come? how some of the busiest u.s.
airports are building air service with incentive programs. J. Am. Plann. Assoc. 82 (4),
303–315. [Online]. Available: https://doi.org/10.1080/01944363.2016.1215257.
Ryerson, M.S., 2016b. Building Air Service Sustainability: Analytical Approach to
Documenting Air Carrier Incentive Programs in Airport Sustainability Plans.
Transport. Res. Rec.: Journal of the Transportation Research Board 2569, 1–15.
[Online]. Available: https://doi.org/10.3141/2569-01.
Ryerson, M.S., Kim, A.M., 2018. A drive for better air service: how air service imbalances
across neighboring regions integrate air and highway demands. Transport. Res. Pol.
Pract. 114, 237–255. [Online]. Available: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/
article/pii/S0965856417304573.
Ryerson, M.S., Kim, H., 2013. Integrating airline operational practices into passenger
airline hub definition. J. Transport Geogr. 31, 84–93. [Online]. Available: http://
www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0966692313001099.
Ryerson, M.S., Woodburn, A., 2014. Build airport capacity or manage flight demand? how
regional planners can lead american aviation into a new frontier of demand man-
agement. J. Am. Plann. Assoc. 80 (2), 138–152. [Online]. Available: https://doi.org/
10.1080/01944363.2014.961949.
Ryerson, M.S., Hansen, M., Bonn, J., 2014. Time to burn: flight delay, terminal efficiency,
and fuel consumption in the national airspace system. Transport. Res. Pol. Pract. 69,
286–298. [Online]. Available: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/
S0965856414002043.
Ryerson, M.S., Hansen, M., Hao, L., Seelhorst, M., 2015. Landing on empty: estimating the
benefits from reducing fuel uplift in us civil aviation. Environ. Res. Lett. 10 (9),
094002. http://stacks.iop.org/1748-9326/10/i=9/a=094002 [Online]. Available:.
Ryerson, M.S., Hansen, M., 2010. The potential of turboprops for reducing aviation fuel
consumption. Transport. Res. Transport Environ. 15 (6), 305–314. [Online].
Available: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1361920910000349.
Ryerson, M.S., Hansen, M., 2013. Capturing the impact of fuel price on jet aircraft op-
erating costs with leontief technology and econometric models. Transport. Res. C
Emerg. Technol. 33, 282–296. [Online]. Available: http://www.sciencedirect.com/
science/article/pii/S0968090X11000854.
Salaun, E., Gariel, M., Vela, A.E., Feron, E., Mar 2012. Aircraft proximity maps based on
data-driven flow modeling. J. Guid. Contr. Dynam. 35 (2), 563–577. [Online].
Available: https://doi.org/10.2514/1.53859.
Santos, M.G., Antunes, A.P., 2015. Long-term evolution of airport networks: optimization
model and its application to the United States. Transport. Res. E Logist. Transport.
Rev. 73, 17–46. [Online]. Available: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/
pii/S1366554514001896.
Schvaneveldt, R.W., Beringer, D.B., Leard, T.M., 2003. “Evaluating aviation information
systems: the role of information priorities,” Federal Aviation Administration. Tech.
Rep [Online]. Available: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/237777605_
Evaluating_Aviation_Information_Systems_The_Role_of_Information_Priorities.
Scotti, D., Volta, N., 2017. Profitability change in the global airline industry. Transport.
Res. E Logist. Transport. Rev. 102, 1–12. [Online]. Available: http://www.
sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1366554516309097.
Sgouridis, S., Bonnefoy, P.A., Hansman, R.J., 2011. Air transportation in a carbon con-
strained world: long-term dynamics of policies and strategies for mitigating the
carbon footprint of commercial aviation. Transport. Res. Pol. Pract. 45 (10),
1077–1091. a Collection of Papers:Transportation in a World of Climate Change.
[Online]. Available: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/
S0965856410000583.
Sheng, H., Marais, K., Landry, S., 2015. Assessment of stratospheric fuel burn by civil
commercial aviation. Transport. Res. Transport Environ. 34, 1–15. [Online].
Available: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1361920914001497.
Sherali, H.D., Bae, K.-H., Haouari, M., 2010. Integrated airline schedule design and fleet
assignment: polyhedral analysis and benders' decomposition approach. Inf. J.
Comput. 22 (4), 500–513. [Online]. Available: https://doi.org/10.1287/ijoc.1090.
0368.
Sherali, H.D., Hill, J.M., McCrea, M.V., Trani, A.A., 2011. Integrating slot exchange,
safety, capacity, and equity mechanisms within an airspace flow program. Transport.
Sci. 45 (2), 271–284. [Online]. Available: https://doi.org/10.1287/trsc.1100.0356.
Sherali, H.D., Bae, K.-H., Haouari, M., 2013. An integrated approach for airline flight
selection and timing, fleet assignment, and aircraft routing. Transport. Sci. 47 (4),
455–476. [Online]. Available: https://doi.org/10.1287/trsc.2013.0460.
Sherry, L., 2015. A method for quantifying travel productivity for corporate travel
managers. J. Air Transport. Manag. 42, 118–124. [Online]. Available: http://www.
sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0969699714001343.
Sheth, K., Amis, T., Gutierrez-Nolasco, S., Sridhar, B., Mulfinger, D., 2013. Development
of a probabilistic convective weather forecast threshold parameter for flight-routing
decisions. Weather Forecast. 28 (5), 1175–1187. [Online]. Available: https://doi.
org/10.1175/WAF-D-12-00052.1.
Shortle, J., Zhang, Y., Wang, J., 2010. Statistical characteristics of aircraft arrival tracks.
Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board 2177,
98–104. [Online]. Available: https://doi.org/10.3141/2177-12.
Sibdari, S., Mohammadian, I., Pyke, D.F., 2018. On the impact of jet fuel cost on airlines
capacity choice: evidence from the u.s. domestic markets. Transport. Res. E Logist.
Transport. Rev. 111, 1–17. [Online]. Available: http://www.sciencedirect.com/
129
Journal of Air Transport Management 75 (2019) 111–130
science/article/pii/S1366554516304756.
Sidiropoulos, S., Han, K., Majumdar, A., Ochieng, W.Y., 2017. Robust identification of air
traffic flow patterns in metroplex terminal areas under demand uncertainty.
Transport. Res. C Emerg. Technol. 75, 212–227. [Online]. Available: http://www.
sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0968090X16302650.
Sidiropoulos, S., Majumdar, A., Han, K., 2018. A framework for the optimization of
terminal airspace operations in multi-airport systems. Transp. Res. Part B Methodol.
110, 160–187. [Online]. Available: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/
pii/S0191261517302072.
Simaiakis, I., 2013. Analysis, modeling and control of the airport departure process. PhD
Thesis. [Online]. Available. http://hdl.handle.net/1721.1/79342.
Simaiakis, I., Balakrishnan, H., 2010. Impact of congestion on taxi times, fuel burn, and
emissions at major airports. Transportation Research Record: Journal of the
Transportation Research Board 2184, 22–30. [Online]. Available: https://doi.org/
10.3141/2184-03.
Simaiakis, I., Balakrishnan, H., Apr 2014. Probabilistic modeling of runway inter-
departure times. J. Guid. Contr. Dynam. 37 (6), 2044–2048. [Online]. Available:
https://doi.org/10.2514/1.G000155.
Simaiakis, I., Khadilkar, H., Balakrishnan, H., Reynolds, T.G., Hansman, R.J., 2014.
Demonstration of reduced airport congestion through pushback rate control.
Transport. Res. Pol. Pract. 66, 251–267. [Online]. Available: http://www.
sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0965856414001384.
Skaltsas, G., Rakas, J., Karlaftis, M.G., 2013. An analysis of air traffic controller-pilot
miscommunication in the nextgen environment. J. Air Transport. Manag. 27, 46–51.
[Online]. Available: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/
S0969699712001536.
Slveling, G., Solak, S., Clarke, J.-P.B., Johnson, E.L., 2011. Scheduling of runway op-
erations for reduced environmental impact. Transport. Res. Transport Environ. 16
(2), 110–120. [Online]. Available: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/
pii/S1361920910001446.
Soler, M., Zou, B., Hansen, M., 2014. Flight trajectory design in the presence of contrails:
application of a multiphase mixed-integer optimal control approach. Transport. Res.
C Emerg. Technol. 48, 172–194. [Online]. Available: http://www.sciencedirect.
com/science/article/pii/S0968090X14002253.
Solveling, G., Solak, S., Clarke, J.-P., Johnson, E., Sep 2011. Runway operations opti-
mization in the presence of uncertainties. J. Guid. Contr. Dynam. 34 (5), 1373–1382.
[Online]. Available: https://doi.org/10.2514/1.52481.
Song, I., Cho, I., Tessitore, T., Gurcsik, T., Ceylan, H., 2018. Data-driven prediction of
runway incursions with uncertainty quantification. J. Comput. Civ. Eng. 32 (2),
04018004. https://ascelibrary.org/doi/abs/10.1061/%28ASCE%29CP.1943-5487.
0000733 [Online]. Available:.
Sridhar, B., Ng, H., Chen, N., Sep 2011. Aircraft trajectory optimization and contrails
avoidance in the presence of winds. J. Guid. Contr. Dynam. 34 (5), 1577–1584.
[Online]. Available: https://doi.org/10.2514/1.53378.
Sternberg, A., de Abreu Soares, J., Carvalho, D., Ogasawara, E.S., 2017. A review on flight
delay prediction. CoRR 1–15. https://arxiv.org/abs/1703.06118.
Stroeve, S.H., Sharpanskykh, A., Kirwan, B., 2011. Agent-based organizational modelling
for analysis of safety culture at an air navigation service provider. Reliab. Eng. Syst.
Saf. 96 (5), 515–533. [Online]. Available: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/
article/pii/S0951832010002735.
Stroeve, S.H., Som, P., van Doorn, B.A., Bakker, G.B., 2016. Strengthening air traffic
safety management by moving from outcome-based towards risk-based evaluation of
runway incursions. Reliab. Eng. Syst. Saf. 147, 93–108. [Online]. Available: http://
www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0951832015003300.
Suh, D., Ryerson, M.S., 2017a. “Frameworks for adaptive airport planning and techniques
for a new era of planning. Transportation Research Record: Journal of the
Transportation Research Board 2603, 65–77. [Online]. Available: https://doi.org/
10.3141/2603-07.
Suh, D., Ryerson, M.S., 2017b. A large neighborhood search heuristic to establish an
optimal ad-hoc hubbing strategy in the wake of a large-scale airport outage. J. Air
Transport. Manag. 65, 156–165. [Online]. Available: http://www.sciencedirect.
com/science/article/pii/S0969699717302764.
Sun, D., Clinet, A., Bayen, A., 2011. A dual decomposition method for sector capacity
constrained traffic flow optimization. Transp. Res. Part B Methodol. 45 (6), 880–902.
[Online]. Available: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/
S019126151100035X.
Sun, D., Sridhar, B., Grabbe, S.R., May 2010. Disaggregation method for an aggregate
traffic flow management model. J. Guid. Contr. Dynam. 33 (3), 666–676. [Online].
Available: https://doi.org/10.2514/1.47469.
Sun, J., Ellerbroek, J., Hoekstra, J., 2017c. Flight extraction and phase identification for
large automatic dependent surveillance-broadcast datasets. J. Aero. Inf. Syst. 14 (10),
566–572. [Online]. Available: https://doi.org/10.2514/1.I010520.
Sun, J., Ellerbroek, J., Hoekstra, J.M., 2018. Aircraft initial mass estimation using
bayesian inference method. Transport. Res. C Emerg. Technol. 90, 59–73. [Online].
Available: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0968090X18302626.
Sun, X., Wandelt, S., 2014. Network similarity analysis of air navigation route systems.
Transport. Res. E Logist. Transport. Rev. 70, 416–434. [Online]. Available: http://
www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1366554514001458.
Sun, X., Wandelt, S., Linke, F., 2015. Temporal evolution analysis of the european air
transportation system: air navigation route network and airport network. Transport.
Bus.: Transport Dynamics 3 (2), 153–168. [Online]. Available: https://doi.org/10.
1080/21680566.2014.960504.
Sun, X., Gollnick, V., Wandelt, S., 2017a. Robustness analysis metrics for worldwide
airport network: a comprehensive study. Chin. J. Aeronaut. 30 (2), 500–512.
[Online]. Available: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/
S1000936117300390.
M.Z. Li, M.S. Ryerson
Sun, X., Wandelt, S., Hansen, M., Li, A., 2017b. Multiple airport regions based on inter-
airport temporal distances. Transport. Res. E Logist. Transport. Rev. 101, 84–98.
[Online]. Available: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/
S1366554516308109.
Swaroop, P., Zou, B., Ball, M.O., Hansen, M., 2012a. Do more us airports need slot con-
trols? a welfare based approach to determine slot levels. Transp. Res. Part B
Methodol. 46 (9), 1239–1259. [Online]. Available: http://www.sciencedirect.com/
science/article/pii/S0191261512000380.
Swaroop, P., Zou, B., Ball, M.O., Hansen, M., 2012b. Do more us airports need slot
controls? a welfare based approach to determine slot levels. Transp. Res. Part B
Methodol. 46 (9), 1239–1259. [Online]. Available: http://www.sciencedirect.com/
science/article/pii/S0191261512000380.
Tastambekov, K., Puechmorel, S., Delahaye, D., Rabut, C., 2014. Aircraft trajectory
forecasting using local functional regression in sobolev space. Transport. Res. C
Emerg. Technol. 39, 1–22. [Online]. Available: http://www.sciencedirect.com/
science/article/pii/S0968090X13002416.
Tetzloff, I.J., Crossley, W.A., Jul 2014. Measuring systemwide impacts of new aircraft on
the environment. J. Aircraft 51 (5), 1483–1489. [Online]. Available: https://doi.org/
10.2514/1.C032359.
Vaze, V., Barnhart, C., 2012. Modeling airline frequency competition for airport con-
gestion mitigation. Transport. Sci. 46 (4), 512–535. [Online]. Available: https://doi.
org/10.1287/trsc.1120.0412.
Vazquez, R., Rivas, D., Franco, A., 2017. Stochastic analysis of fuel consumption in air-
craft cruise subject to along-track wind uncertainty. Aero. Sci. Technol. 66, 304–314.
[Online]. Available: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/
S1270963816308951.
Vela, A.E., Solak, S., Clarke, J.P.B., Singhose, W.E., Barnes, E.R., Johnson, E.L., Dec 2010.
Near real-time fuel-optimal en route conflict resolution. IEEE Trans. Intell. Transport.
Syst. 11 (4), 826–837.
Verma, S., Lee, H., Martin, L., Stevens, L., Jung, Y., Dulchinos, V., Chevalley, E., Jobe, K.,
Parke, B., Sept 2017. Evaluation of a tactical surface metering tool for charlotte
douglas international airport via human-in-the-loop simulation. In: 2017 IEEE/AIAA
36th Digital Avionics Systems Conference (DASC), pp. 1–10.
Wadud, Z., 2009. Depreciation of property prices around airports: Meta-regression of
hedonic price studies. Transport. Res. Rec.: J. Transport. Res. Board 2307 [Online].
Available. https://trid-trb-org.libproxy.mit.edu/view/881672.
Wandelt, S., Sun, X., April 2015a. Efficient compression of 4d-trajectory data in air traffic
management. IEEE Trans. Intell. Transport. Syst. 16 (2), 844–853.
Wandelt, S., Sun, X., 2015b. Evolution of the international air transportation country
network from 2002 to 2013. Transport. Res. E Logist. Transport. Rev. 82, 55–78.
[Online]. Available: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/
S1366554515001581.
Webster, J., Watson, R.T., 2002. Analyzing the past to prepare for the future: writing a
literature review. MIS Q. 26 (2), xiii–xxiii. [Online]. Available: http://www.jstor.
org/stable/4132319.
Wei, K., Vaze, V., 2018. Modeling crew itineraries and delays in the national air trans-
portation system. vol. 0, no. 0, p. null Transport. Sci [Online]. Available: https://doi.
org/10.1287/trsc.2018.0834.
Wei, P., Cao, Y., Sun, D., 2013. Total unimodularity and decomposition method for large-
scale air traffic cell transmission model. Transp. Res. Part B Methodol. 53, 1–16.
[Online]. Available: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/
S0191261513000441.
Wei, P., Chen, L., Sun, D., 2014a. Algebraic connectivity maximization of an air trans-
portation network: the flight routes addition/deletion problem. Transport. Res. E
Logist. Transport. Rev. 61, 13–27. [Online]. Available: http://www.sciencedirect.
com/science/article/pii/S1366554513001750.
Wei, P., Spiers, G., Sun, D., 2014b. Algebraic connectivity maximization for air
130
Journal of Air Transport Management 75 (2019) 111–130
transportation networks. IEEE Trans. Intell. Transport. Syst. 15 (2), 685–698.
Wolfe, P.J., Yim, S.H., Lee, G., Ashok, A., Barrett, S.R., Waitz, I.A., 2014. Near-airport
distribution of the environmental costs of aviation. Transport Pol. 34, 102–108. air
Transportation and the Environment. [Online]. Available: http://www.sciencedirect.
com/science/article/pii/S0967070X14000547.
Wolfe, P.J., Malina, R., Barrett, S.R., Waitz, I.A., 2016. Costs and benefits of us aviation
noise land-use policies. Transport. Res. Transport Environ. 44, 147–156. [Online].
Available: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1361920916000195.
Woodburn, A., Ryerson, M., 2013. “Airport capacity enhancement and flight predict-
ability. Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research
Board 2400, 87–97. [Online]. Available: https://doi.org/10.3141/2400-10.
Xiao, M., Cai, K., Abbass, H.A., 2018. Hybridized encoding for evolutionary multi-ob-
jective optimization of air traffic network flow: a case study on China. Transport. Res.
E Logist. Transport. Rev. 115, 35–55. [Online]. Available: http://www.sciencedirect.
com/science/article/pii/S1366554517310049.
Xiong, J., Hansen, M., 2013. Modelling airline flight cancellation decisions. Transport.
Res. E Logist. Transport. Rev. 56, 64–80. [Online]. Available: http://www.
sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1366554513001129.
Yan, C., Vaze, V., Vanderboll, A., Barnhart, C., 2016. Tarmac delay policies: a passenger-
centric analysis. Transport. Res. Pol. Pract. 83, 42–62. [Online]. Available: http://
www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0965856415002682.
Yan, C., Vaze, V., Barnhart, C., 2018. Airline-driven ground delay programs: a benefits
assessment. Transport. Res. C Emerg. Technol. 89, 268–288. [Online]. Available:
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0968090X18302195.
Zeghal, F.M., Haouari, M., Sherali, H.D., Aissaoui, N., Feb 2011. Flexible aircraft fleeting
and routing at tunisair. J. Oper. Res. Soc. 62 (2), 368–380. [Online]. Available:
https://doi.org/10.1057/jors.2010.100.
Zhang, Y., Nayak, N., 2010. Macroscopic tool for measuring delay performance in na-
tional airspace system. Transportation Research Record: Journal of the
Transportation Research Board 2177, 88–97. [Online]. Available: https://doi.org/
10.3141/2177-11.
Zhang, Y., Wang, Q., 2017. Methods for determining unimpeded aircraft taxiing time and
evaluating airport taxiing performance. Chin. J. Aeronaut. 30 (2), 523–537. [Online].
Available: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1000936117300286.
Zografos, K.G., Salouras, Y., Madas, M.A., 2012. Dealing with the efficient allocation of
scarce resources at congested airports. Transport. Res. C Emerg. Technol. 21 (1),
244–256. [Online]. Available: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/
S0968090X11001525.
Zografos, K.G., Androutsopoulos, K.N., Madas, M.A., 2018. Minding the gap: optimizing
airport schedule displacement and acceptability. Transport. Res. Pol. Pract. 114,
203–221. [Online]. Available: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/
S0965856416304670.
Zou, B., Hansen, M., 2012. Impact of operational performance on air Carrier cost struc-
ture: evidence from us airlines. Transport. Res. E Logist. Transport. Rev. 48 (5),
1032–1048. selected papers from the 14th ATRS and the 12th WCTR Conferences,
2010. [Online]. Available: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/
S1366554512000269.
Zou, B., Hansen, M., 2014. Flight delay impact on airfare and flight frequency: a com-
prehensive assessment. Transport. Res. E Logist. Transport. Rev. 69, 54–74. [Online].
Available: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1366554514000933.
Zou, B., Elke, M., Hansen, M., Kafle, N., 2014. Evaluating air Carrier fuel efficiency in the
us airline industry. Transport. Res. Pol. Pract. 59, 306–330. [Online]. Available:
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0965856413002413.
Zou, B., Kafle, N., Chang, Y.-T., Park, K., 2015. Us airport financial reform and its im-
plications for airport efficiency: an exploratory investigation. J. Air Transport.
Manag. 47, 66–78. [Online]. Available: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/
article/pii/S0969699715000575.