1 / 25

Market/Airline/Class (MAC) Revenue Management AGIFORS RM 2003

Market/Airline/Class (MAC) Revenue Management AGIFORS RM 2003. Hopperstad June 03. RM modeling assumptions a short (public) history. 80’s – leg/fare class demand independence  4 to 6% revenue gains over no RM 90’s – path (passenger itinerary)/class demand independence

kera
Télécharger la présentation

Market/Airline/Class (MAC) Revenue Management AGIFORS RM 2003

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript


  1. Market/Airline/Class (MAC) Revenue ManagementAGIFORS RM 2003 Hopperstad June 03

  2. RM modeling assumptionsa short (public) history • 80’s – leg/fare class demand independence  4 to 6% revenue gains over no RM • 90’s – path (passenger itinerary)/class demand independence  1 to 2% revenue gains over leg/class RM • Current – excursions into path demand independence < ½% revenue gain over path/class RM

  3. RM modeling assumptions • Yet, everyone here knows that flights are picked on a market basis • trading-off airlines, paths, fares and fare class restrictions • Thus, an ultimate RM system must be market-based • However, full-up market-based RM is a giant step • it is proposed here that a small next step is to assume independent market/airline/class demand

  4. Subjects • Background: PODS • Functional form • Some results • Potential real-world application • Lines of inquiry

  5. Background: PODSpassenger origin/destination simulator • PODS is a full-scale simulation in the sense that: • passengers by type (business/leisure) generated by their • max willing-to-pay (WTP) • favorite/unfavorite airlines & the disutility attributed to unfavorite airlines • decision window & the disutility assigned to paths outside their window • disutility assigned to stops/connects • disutility assigned to fare class restrictions • passengers assigned to best (minimum fare + disutilities) available path with a fare meeting their max WTP threshold • RM demand forecasts based on historical bookings

  6. Background: PODS • Leg/class baseline: Expected Marginal Seat Revenue (EMSRb) • Three path/class RM systems available in the current version of PODS • Network bidprice (NetBP) • Prorated bidprice (ProBP) • Displacement adjusted virtual nesting (DAVN)

  7. Background: PODS • EMSRb processes (virtual) classes on leg in fare class order • solves for the forecast demand and average fare for the aggregate of all higher classes • obtains a protection level of the aggregate against the class • sets the booking limit for the class (and all lower classes) as the remaining capacity – protection level

  8. Background: PODS • NetBP solves for leg bidprices (shadow price) using a network flow LP equivalent • path/class is marked as available if the fare is greater than the sum of the bidprices of the associated legs

  9. Background: PODS • ProBP solves for leg bidprices by iterative proration • prorate path/class fare by ratio of bidprices of associated legs • for each leg order the prorated fares and solve a leg bidprice using standard (EMSRb) methodology and re-prorate • path/class is marked as available if the fare is greater than the sum of the bidprices of the associated legs

  10. Background: PODS • DAVN uses the bidprices from NetBP as displacement costs and then for each leg • reduces path/class fare by the displacement from other leg(s) • creates (demand equalized) virtual classes • uses standard (EMSRb) leg/class optimizer to set availability

  11. Architecture • Embed NetBP/ProBP/DAVN in a MAC shell rather than develop a new optimizer (for now) • Use current PODS forecasters and detruncators • pickup and regression forecasting • pickup, booking curve and projection detruncation • aggregate path/class observations into MAC observations • a MAC is marked as closed only if all paths closed • Assumption: all spill is contained within a MAC until all paths (of index airline) are closed for the class

  12. allocate MAC forecasts to associated path/classes solve for leg bidprices re-allocate spill from newly closed path/classes to open path/classes close path/classes with fares less than sum of bidprices for the associated legs* any new path/classes closed? yes no quit *Rule: no path/class can be re-opened Optimizers • Bidprice engine (NetBP, ProBP)

  13. allocate original MAC forecasts to associated path/classes and create virtual classes using final MAC bidprices solve for leg/virtual class availability recalculate leg/virtual class demand close path/classes that have been assigned to closed virtual classes on associated legs re-allocate spill from newly closed path/classes to open path/classes yes any new path/classes closed? no quit Optimizers • Path/class availability solver (DAVN)

  14. Additional technology • First-choice preference estimation for paths of a MAC • constructed from historical bookings for open paths • iterative procedure to account for partial observations (not all paths open for a class) • Assumption: second-choice, third-choice,…… preference can be calculated as normalized (removing closed paths) first-choice preference

  15. Additional technology • Estimation of spill-in rate from, spill-out rate to competitor(s) • Key idea: equilibrium • if the historical fraction of weighted paths open for time frame for the index airline (hfropa) and the competitor(s) (hfropc) is observed • and if the the current fraction of weighted paths open is observed for both the index airline and the competitor(s) (fropa, fropc) • then when fropc is less than hfropc, spill-in must occur • and when fropc is greater than hfropc, spill-out must occur • Fraction of competitor paths open inferred from local path/class availability (AVS messages)

  16. Additional technology • Competitor demand estimation • based on observed historical market share(which is also a function of equilibrium) • uses booking curves to adjust for limited (input) time horizon • Spill-in/spill-out defined by adjusted competitor demand and maximum spill-in rate across classes • Assumed that once MAC demand modified for spill to/from competitor, all spill is contained within a MAC

  17. HUBAL 1 20 CITIES 20 CITIES HUBAL 2 Some results • PODS network D • 2 airlines • 3 banks each • 252 legs • 482 markets • 2892 paths • 4 fare classes • Demand • demand factor = 1.0 • 50/50 business/leisure

  18. Results 1 • Airline 1 uses one of the path/class systems • without a MAC shell • with a MAC shell • Airline 2 uses the PODS standard leg/class system (EMSRb) • Results quoted as % revenue gains compared to both airlines using EMSRb

  19. Results 1 +MAC +MAC +MAC revenue gain NetBP ProBP DAVN

  20. Results 2 • Airlines 1 and 2 follow a sequence of RM improvements using DAVN • start with both using EMSRb • move 1: airline 1 adopts DAVN • move 2: airline 2 adopts DAVN • move 3: airline 1 adopts DAVN + MAC • move 4: airline 2 adopts DAVN + MAC • Results quoted as % revenue gains compared to both airlines using EMSRb

  21. Results 2 revenue gain AL1 DAVN AL2 DAVN AL1 MAC AL2 MAC

  22. Results 3 • Components of MAC revenue gain • optimizer (NetBP, ProBP, DAVN) by itself • MAC without spill-in/spill-out • MAC spill-in/spill-out • Results quoted as % revenue gains compared airline 1 using EMSRb

  23. revenue gain NetBP ProBP DAVN Results 3 Note: Mac spill gain dominated by spill-in compared to spill-out

  24. Potential real-world application of MAC • Can’t say how difficult • But can propose it will provide for a new level of technical integration of RM and the rest of the airline • use of external path preference models to determine first-choice preference, conditional second, third,…. preference and account for the effect of schedule changes • use of external marketing data, econometric models, etc. to define at least components of market demand

  25. Lines of inquiry • New optimizer that integrates the MAC arguments • rather than embedding in a shell • Model vertical/diagonal buy-up • requires the new optimizer • Market-based RM • pessimistic unless competitor RM itself is modeled

More Related