机场容量与管理不善外文翻译（可编辑）

机场容量与管理不善外文翻译（可编辑） 机场容量与管理不善外文翻译 外文翻译 原文 Airport capacity vs. demand: Mismatch or mismanagement? Material Source:Baidu encyclopedia Author: Michael A. Madas, Konstantinos G. ZografosAbstract Since well-publicized congestion and delay problems encountered by European and US airports entered the political arena, there is an unprecedented pressure experienced by policy makers upon investigating and adopting strategies for managing demand and allocating scarce airport capacity. During the last few years, there is an ongoing policy debate within the European Community to undertake further work for a drastically revised regulatory framework aiming to deal with the scarcity of airport capacity through the effcient all ocation of airport slots. One ofthe primary policy concerns lies onthe compatibility of alternative slot allocation strategies in different airport settings. The objective of this paper is three fold: i to develop and apply a methodological framework for the multi-criteria evaluation and selection of the most compatible slot allocation strategy with respect to policy criteria and priorities in various airport settings, ii to examine the applicability of policy compatibility results in various airport settings and their potential acceptability from different industry stakeholders, and iii to provide policy recommendations for European airport policy making and planning. Introduction Recent air transport forecasts speak for an increase in international air cargo traffic in Europe by anaverage of 3.6% per year between 2002 and 2020 with some analysts anticipating double traffic increase figures by 2020 ACI Europe, 2004. The rapid traffic growth has resulted in severe congestion and delay problems,which, in turn, have self constrained air transport growth and become a major transport policy issue on both sides of the Atlantic. The congestion and delay problems are expected to further deteriorate when considering that over half of Europe’s 50 largest airports have already reached or are close to reaching their saturation points in terms of declared ground capacity with only few planned major developments expansions DotEcon Ltd., 2001. Similar findings NERA, 2004 indicate that European airports suffering from excess demand throughout peak times of the day will experience an average increase of traffic movements of 20% visavis an average capacity increase of only 5% by 2007. Despite the substantial literature and research initiatives/proposals on airport demand management,attempts to bring forward such measures were very few and fragmented Madas and Zografos, 2006. As a result, the identified gap between demand and supply still persists and becomes even more acute due to the fact that the already scarce airport capacity is not efficiently managed and allocated as attested by the ‘‘late hand backs’’, ‘‘no shows’’, and ‘‘slot babysitting’’ figures observed in most of the busiest European airports ACI Europe, 2004. These imply a hard misuse of the allocated slots mainly due to late return or even no use at all of slots that cannot be reallocated and, therefore, jeopardise the ability of the airport operator tomanage scarce capacity efficiently and make the besti.e., imum use of available airport infrastructure.The ever tighter mismatch between airport capacity and demand has already triggered policy discussions that bring into the forefront two challenging policy questions: i which are the driving forces and reasons behind them is management of capacity,andiihow demand management measures and capacity allocation schemes could be jointly deployed to bridge the gap between airport demand and capacity? The ultimate objective of this paper is to develop and apply a methodological framework for the assessment and selection of the most compatible slot allocation strategy for each different type of airport on the basis of multiple policy criteria and priorities i.e., policy compatibility analysis. In addition, the policy compatibility analysis results will be examined and discussed in terms of their applicability in various airport settings and their acceptance from the various industry stakeholders so that some policy recommendations and a road map for policy implementation can be proposed. It is important to note here, however, that the paper does not directly deal with the long-term sustainability requirement for any joint capacity demand management solution. As a matter of fact, the selection of a slot allocation strategy cannot be seen independently of parallel efforts in building new or expanding the existing capacity in the long run. There should be an industry con-sensus that the slot allocation strategy as a demand-side effort should complement rather than replace supply-side efforts towards building new capacity. The remainder of this paper consists of seven major thematic sections. section 2 provides some empirical evidence and policy background information on slot allocation. Section 3 presents the methodological framework that was developed in order to perform the policy compatibility assessment. Section 4 briefly discusses the identified airport slot allocation strategies. Section 5 presents the results of the airport typology development process and briefly discusses the characteristics of the resulted airport clusters. Section 6 elaborates on the policy compatibility assessment framework and Section 7 presents the results and the final synthesis of the policy compatibility analysis, while Section 8 provides some policy conclusions and research recommendations. Finally, the paper is complemented by a glossary of relevant terms and nomenclature, as well as the list of references. Background Access to airports is typically managed if any through a landing fee that is proportional to the imum take-off weight MTOW of the aircraft ir respectively of the actual infrastructure utilization and traffic/congestion levels. It is noteworthy that, based on international comparisons, aeronautical charges related to air-port/ground operations amount to about 7% of airlines’ costs withen route charges adding some 5%Nilsson,2003. Currently, at most airports, aircraft are charged a small, relatively to the total operating costs of the airlines, fee that is uniform throughout the day. This fee is based on the weight of the aircraft and it amounts to $5 per passenger on average at some highly congested airports.This obviously can not effectively manipulate traffic and subsequently alleviate the resulted congestion and delay problems.As a result,the latest experiences of some of the busiest airports and the exceptionally high delay figures suggest that ‘‘weight based fees have rather turned into wait based landing fees’’ Morrison, 2001. Methodological framework The policy compatibility analysis aims to formulate an evaluation framework that will provide guidance for the selection of the most compatible with respect to specific policy criteria slot allocation strategy for the various types of airports. In order to perform the policy compatibility analysis, three basic methodological steps should be followed Fig. 1: i identification of the alternative slot allocation strategies and options。 Step 1, i.e., what should be evaluated, ii development of a typology of airports i.e., airport cluster analysis Step 2, i.e., where/in which airport context the identified strategies should be evaluated, and iii assessment of the policy compatibility of the identified strategies in the elicited airport clusters. Step 3,i.e., how the identified strategies should be evaluated for each airport clusterIn the initial step i.e., Step 1, the slot allocation strategies were identified. However, different types of airports exhibit different congestion patterns and traffic characteristics, have different objectives and constraints,and therefore, require different congestion or demand management approaches for the allocation of slots NERA, 2004. In effect, an airport classification scheme i.e., airport cluster analysis was required in order to cope with the peculiarities and characteristics of different airports i.e., Step 2. This step enables to investigate whether the compatibility of alternative slot allocation strategies varies with the identified airport clusters. Slot allocation strategiesBased on the state of the art and state of practice review of slot allocation instruments presented in the literature DotEcon Ltd., 2001; Federal Aviation Administration FAA, 2001; TUB, 2001; Zografos and Madas, 2003; NERA, 2004; Madas and Zografos, 2006, a number of distinct airport slot allocation strategies have been identified: i status quo with recycling and centralized trading of the pool Enhanced Status Quo ?Strat.1, ii grandfather rights with recycling, auctioning of the pool, and secondary trading Gradual ?Strat.2, iii grandfather rights with full trading of all slots Controlled Trading ? Strat.3, iv pure, congestion based pricing strategy Congestion Pricing ? Strat.4, and v removal of grandfather rights accompanied by decentralized auctions and secondary trading Big Bang with auctions and secondary trading ? Strat.5.Table 1 sketches the identified airport slot allocation strategies along with their key features, rules, and components. Amore elaborated description ofthe strategies and their functional principles and rules can be found in Madas and Zografos, 2006 5.Airport typology/clusters Having defined the slot allocation strategies, an airport typology should be developed in order to identify the various airport environments/settings i.e., airport clusters within which the strategies will be evaluated.As a matter of fact, different airport environments/settings may exhibit different congestion patterns, delay figures, and traffic characteristics, while they most probably have different objectives and constraints and should comply with different policy priorities. This, in turn, means that they may require different congestion or demand management approaches for the allocation of slots NERA, 2004. As a result, it should be exam-ined whether different or a common slot allocation regime should be established and applied to the airport network. To that end, an airport classification scheme i.e., airport cluster analysis was developed in order to cope with the peculiarities and characteristics of different airports, and thereafter investigate whether the compatibility of alternative slot allocation strategies varies with the identified airport clusters. 6. Policy compatibility assessment framework The objective of the policy compatibility analysis is the identification of the most compatible slot allocation strategy for each airport cluster on the basis of multiple policy criteria and indicators, as well as their priorities assigned in each airport setting/cluster. According to the particular problem characteristics discussed in a previous section, the multi-criteria evaluation problem at hand has been dealt with the use of the Analytical Hierarchy Process AHP Saaty, 1990. AHP has some notable advantages as a multi-criteria assessment method and fulfils the following methodological properties that are absolutely in alignment with the characteristics and methodological requirements of the evaluation problem under consideration Zografos et al., 1997; Zografos and Giannouli, 2001 Policy compatibility assessment results Having selected the assessment technique, a targeted panel of experts and key stakeholders has been selected and surveyed with the use of a detailed survey instrument. Given the policy magnitude and research interest of the slot allocation problem, special emphasis has been placed in obtaining the perspectives and judgments of academic experts and researchers, as well as the relevant aviation policy makers in Europe. On the other hand, considering the involvement and interaction of several interest groups, the viewpoints of major industry players and stake holding groups in the allocation of airport slots, namely the airports and airlines, were also pursued. The selection of specific individual experts has been made with view to the following:isubstantial expertise in existing slot allocation procedures,iifamiliarity with the aviation industry developments in general and demand capacity mismatch in particular, and iii representation of various industry roles and viewpoints through the expert groups discussed below with respect to slot allocation 8. Policy conclusions and research recommendations This paper has examined the compatibility of alternative slot allocation strategies for the various airport settings based on their profile characteristics and the embedded decision making and policy priorities expressed in the form of importance weights on policy criteria and indicators. The policy criteria and indicators are not necessarily of the same priority/importance in the different airport settings. This justified the need for developing an airport typology i.e., airport clusters by assessing then the policy compatibility of the identified slot allocation strategies in the different airport clusters. Therefore, the starting working assumption ?subject to confirmation or rejection ? was that the policy compatibility of a strategy varies with the airport clusters. Based on the results of the compatibility analysis, it can be safely concluded that the weights assigned to policy indicators in each different airport cluster do not result in a substantially differing compatibility of the various strategies in the different airport clusters. This finding is further supported by the empirical evidence brought by several policy makers contemplating that the implementation of a common i.e.,airport wide strategy seems to be more realistic; albeit with certain flexibility and room for local adaptations.In particular, it has been stressed that a common slot allocation regime should be established and accompanied by rules and guidelines aiming to adapt this regime in the particular airport context. 译文 机场容量与管理不善资料来源:百度百科作者:Michael A. Madas, Konstantinos G. Zografos 摘要: 因为机场遇到的拥挤和延迟的问题,在一段前所未有的压力所经历的政 策后,欧美机场开始进入舞台。经过作者调查之后,本文采用策略管理需求和分配 稀有机场容量的 方法 快递客服问题件处理详细方法山木方法pdf计算方法pdf华与华方法下载八字理论方法下载 。在过去的几年里,有一项在欧共体上工作进行进一步大幅修改的规管架构,它通过有效的位置和所拥有的机场槽旨在解决交易机场容量不足开始进行辩论。一个最最主要政策方面的顾虑是在不同的机场的设置兼容性替代槽分配策略。这篇文章的目的是三个层面:一个方法论发展和应用架构的多指标评价和选择最谐调分配策略对槽优先于政策标准及各种机场设置,二是从不同的行业检查适用性的政策兼容性,导致了各种机场设置及其潜在的可接受性利益。三提供政策建议欧洲机场政策进行制定和 计划 项目进度计划表范例计划下载计划下载计划下载课程教学计划下载 新的政策。 介绍 最近的航空运输预测表明国际航空货运在欧洲以平均每年3.6% 的速度在增长。一些分析师通过增加的数据研究2002到2020年的欧洲机场2003。的触动额结论是快速交通增长造成严重阻塞和延迟问题,也有着约束航空运输增长,它成为了一个主要的交通政策问题。阻塞和延迟问题可能会进一步恶化。据考虑,半数以上的欧洲的50个最大的机场容量已经达到或接近达到饱和度与地基承载力,只有少数几个计划现行发展DotEcon有限公司,2001。类似的发现在2004年表明,其欧洲机场在遭受需求过剩的高峰时期的日子将会经历一个平均增加的交通运动。研究显示,欧洲机场从20%平均容量增加到2007年仅为5%的机场容量。 尽管在机场 方案 气瓶 现场处置方案 .pdf气瓶 现场处置方案 .doc见习基地管理方案.doc关于群访事件的化解方案建筑工地扬尘治理专项方案下载 需求管理上有实质性的研究行动,但是试图提出这些措施和实际做的却很少(Madas和Zografos,2006。作为一个结果,确定供求之间的差距,他们成为由于更为严重问题,他们正在威胁着本已萧条的世界机场容量,其中的“最近的支持”、“没有说明的”、“槽中观察到的要照顾的欧洲机场”。这些意味着滥用分配的槽主要是由于用在了毫无用处的时段。因此,重新分配的能力有关于机场操作的稀缺能力,旨在如何最大限度地发挥有效例子,以及最大利用现有机场基础设施。永远抓紧机场的能力和需求之间的错配,它已经引发了政策 讨论进入最前沿的两个具有挑战性的政策问题:1动力和原因是他们管理的能力。2需求管理对策和容量配置方案可以共同部署到机场需求和能力。 本文的最终目的,是发展和应用框架评估来选取最谐调的选用策略,且在此基础上的多个政策标准和重点即政策兼容性分析来进行槽配置各类机场。此外,该政策兼容性分析结果为进一步检查解释方面,阐述了在各种机场设置,在接受来自不同行业的利益相关者的意见后,致力于有些政策建议及一份蓝图为政策实施的计划。重要的是要注意这里,报纸不受直接处理长期持续容量的任何关节要求管理溶解信息。作为一个事实,槽的选择策略无法看见配置独立于平行,它努力来建造新扩大现有能力的长远发展:应该有一个行业的实施战略共同配置槽的努力必须得到补充,而不是取代供应的?侧力量以建设新的容量。 本 论文 政研论文下载论文大学下载论文大学下载关于长拳的论文浙大论文封面下载 共有7个主要主题的部分。第一节进行概念性的分析。第二节提供了一些经验信息的证据和政策背景下进行的槽分配。第三节介绍了画面中分配方法进行工作的发展,以便执行政策兼容性评估。第四节简要论述了在确定的机场槽分配策略。第5条陈述结果机场的不同类型学发展的观点过程和特点,并作了简要的探讨“什么导致机场集群”。第6部分阐述了这一政策兼容性评估框架。第7条陈述结果和最后的合成性政策兼容性分析。第8条阐述政策性结论和研究的建议。最后,本文辅以术语和命名法的有关条款,以及名单上的参考文献。 背景 进入机场通常要处理任何通过着陆,费用是成正比的最大值。起飞重量最大起飞重量有所提升的飞机外各自的实际基础设施利用和机场拥挤的水平。值得注意的是,在此基础上,对比国际航空涉收费行动达约7%航空公司的成本费用每年需添加5%尼尔森博士 2003年。目前,在大多数机场、飞机被指为一个相对的 全部运营费用航空公司,在整个一天许可费是统一的。此费用是基于飞机的重量和它的数量,平均乘客繁忙的机场这显然不能有效的操作随后缓解交通拥挤和延迟问题。因此,最新的经验一些显示最繁忙的机场和异常高的延迟货运重量统计数据表明,基础收费变成了等基础降落费用莫里森,2001。 方法框架这一政策兼容性分析旨在编制评价框架,将提供指导最谐调的选择相对具体政策标准分配策略槽应用于各种类型的机场。为了进行政策兼容性分析、三种基本的方法学应遵循 步骤 新产品开发流程的步骤课题研究的五个步骤成本核算步骤微型课题研究步骤数控铣床操作步骤 :(1)身份证实的三种槽分配策略和选择。步骤1,即什么应该评估。(2)开发机场的类型学例如,机场聚类分析,第2步,即,在那里机场背景下,确定应怎样评估策略3评价政策兼容性的机场需确定策略集群。 第三步,即如何确定策略应用于评估每个机场聚类。在初始步骤即步骤一,该时段分配策略被分析。然而,不同类型的空港展现出不同的拥挤模式和交通特点外,还具有不同目的和约束条件。因此,需要不同的拥挤或配置需求管理方法来应用。在不同机场的分级方案不同例如,机场聚类分析被要求为了应付货物的特点和品种特性。这一步研究是否可以替代槽的相容性和随即分配策略以识别机场集群。 槽分配策略 基于国家的机场研究和国家的机场实践,回顾了槽配置工具使用过后DotEcon有限公司,2001年。美国联邦航空局FAA,2001;Zografos Madas,2004,Madas和Zografos,2006年8月,了解许多独特的机场槽分配策略已经发现了现状:1集中循环使用交易集群第一步:机场提高的现状,2第二步槽分配的回收利用,拍卖、二次贸易。3完全贸易的权利,第三步控制空间的交易。4第四步纯粹的基础,拥挤定价策略。5第五步清除权利伴由分散的拍卖及二次贸易的拍卖。草图鉴定机场槽连同他们的分配策略主要特点,规则,和部件。着力描 写了最优策略及其功能原则、规则和才能的发现。 机场类型学 在有确定的突破口,一个机场类型学分配策略应开发为了识别各种各样的机场环境和设置。例如,机场结合型的策略将在此进行评估。作为一个事实,不同的机场环境设置可能展现出不同的拥挤模式、延迟数据和交通特征,而他们最可能由不同的目标约束。应该遵守不同的政策的优先顺序。反过来,这意味着他们可能需要不同的需求管理方法分配它的时段。结果,它应该考虑独立机场集群是否使用共用的槽进行分配不同的政策,它应该要建立和应用到机场网络。为此,机场的分级方案例如,机场了聚类分析为了应付特点和品种特性,然后研究是否兼容性替代槽分配策略进行了随即机场的聚类。 政策相容性评估框架 政策的目标识别的兼容性分析是最和谐的槽分配,在各机场集群战略的基础上,标准与指标的政策以及他们的优先次序指定在设置各机场变更。根据特定问题和特点在前一节讨论了多指标评价,当前问题已经解决了使用分析程序AHP陈亭羽、曾国雄1990。运用层次分析法AHP有一些显著的优势作为一个多目标评估方法,以满足以下方法性能是绝对的特点及方法的要求。 政策相容性评估结果 选择目标评价方法,专家和关键的利益相关者选择并进行了详细的综述。给予政策大小和研究槽的利益分配问题,已经被放置在特别强调获得的视角与专家学者和研究人员的判断,以及有关航空政策制定者。另一方面,考虑到参与相互作用的几个利益集团,观点主要的成员和股权分配集团机场槽,即机场和航空公司也被进一步研究。具体的个人的选择已经考虑在:1实质性的专业知识,在现有的槽分配程序。2熟悉航空工业发展能力一般需求,尤其是错配的问题。3表示多 方面的工业角色和观点通过专家小组在下面讨论关于槽的分配。 研究结论和政策建议 本文调查了兼容性替代槽分配策略和各大机场设置的关系,基于机场的知名度特点和嵌入式决策以及政策的优先顺序重要的方式,表达标准和指标权重的政策。这一政策标准不一定是相同的优先级。在不同的机场的设置里,在不同的机场集群这个政策需要为发展机场类型学例如,机场通过评估结合型那些政策影响的兼容性槽分配策略的问题。因此,开始假设经确认或拒绝的那是政策的一项战略兼容性随机场集群。从结果的基础上分析兼容性,可以有把握地得出结论:政策指标在每个不同的机场集群不会导致一个本质上不同,各种各样的策略在不同的机场集群的应用都是差不多的。这一发现为进一步支持政策制定者带来的证据,使他们沉思自己实现共同的策略似乎更现实一些,虽然它具有一定的灵活性和空间适应性。