Journal of Air Transport Management 92 (2021) 102013

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Journal of Air Transport Management

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

Operational efficiency analysis of Beijing multi-airport terminal airspace

Liying Ruan, Alessandro Gardi, Roberto Sabatini *
RMIT University – School of Engineering, Melbourne, VIC 3001, Australia

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

Keywords: Multi-airport systems are growing in number and size globally, despite being afflicted by known inefficiencies
Air traffic management due to the interferences between the flows of neighbouring airports. A macroscopic empirical approach is pro­
Airport capacity posed in this paper to estimate the capacity penalties and demonstrated by a numerical case study for Beijing,
Capacity modelling
which is projected to become one of the busiest metroplexes in Asia. The Pareto envelopes of the theoretical and
Demand-capacity balance
Metroplex
observed peak hour capacities are statistically analysed to quantify the penalties in a comparable metroplex and
Multi-airport systems are subsequently modulated by a sigmoid correlation function. The analysis predicts the practical capacity of
Pareto analysis Daxing, the penalty incurred by the pre-existing Capital airport and by the total multi-airport system. Various
Terminal area findings are drawn and discussed, highlighting the needs for further research.

1. Introduction communication-based and highly tactical Air Traffic Control (ATC)

Air transport demand is growing in direct relation with the current
global development rate (Bonnefoy, 2008). As a result, ever more often,
metropolitan areas are served by two or more commercial airports in
proximity to each other. In relation to the various commonly encoun­
tered operational issues (JPDO, 2011), multi-airport systems served by
the same terminal airspace control facility have been denominated
metroplexes in the United States (US). The terminal airspace control fa­
cility is tasked to manage arrival and departure flows, which are
frequently intersecting and are characterised by multiple changes of
altitude and direction, increasing the traffic complexity (Delahaye and
Puechmorel, 2010). These arrival and departure traffic flows need to be
either geographically separated (by subdividing entry and exit points
and corridors across the different airports) or functionally shared with
the adoption of time slotting on the shared entry and exit corridors
(Sidiropoulos et al., 2017). In both cases, additional operational in­
terdependencies are introduced with respect to the case of a single major
airport not sharing terminal airspace (Li and Ryerson, 2017). These
additional interdependencies restrict the usable maximum arrival and
departure throughputs and introduce potential delays, so that the
theoretical capacity of each airport is not fully available for exploitation
(Idris, 2010). Moreover, highly coupled operations are associated with
more frequent traffic interactions, hence increasing the traffic
complexity, which negatively affects airspace capacity and operational
efficiency, particularly in the current largely manual, voice
paradigm (Kistan et al., 2017). With the emergence of secondary air­
ports in the US and globally, the coupling of terminal operations has
been increasing significantly, triggering many issues such as airport
congestions and extreme traffic complexities (Bonnefoy, 2005). As
metroplexes become more and more common and their traffic grows,
effective measures are required to relieve traffic complexity, which is
hazardous and a major cause of inefficiencies (DeLaurentis et al., 2011),
even in envisioned more automated ATC paradigms (Belle, 2012). Due
to a relatively limited body of research on metroplex modelling and an
inadequate planning for the growth of traffic, metroplex terminal air­
spaces are increasingly affected by flight delays and congestion, ulti­
mately resulting in important economic impacts (Clarke et al., 2011).
Capacity improvements by airport infrastructure investments are to be
carefully evaluated considering the actual exploitable capacity gains,
but currently the lack of simplified reduced-order models and of
representative datasets forces airport planners to undertake lengthy and
costly modelling and simulation studies, hindering the initial planning
stage. Most studies in this domain focussed on specific major metro­
plexes around the world, but no study ultimately produced models of
sufficient global applicability to efficiently evaluate the capacity pen­
alties of future metroplexes without undertaking extensive dedicated
modelling and simulation studies. It is therefore essential to develop
metroplex capacity estimation strategies which do not rely on full-scale
modelling and simulation analyses. This article aims to empirically
quantify the actual capacity of the Beijing TMA at the time the new

* Corresponding author. School of Engineering, RMIT University, Melbourne, Australia.

E-mail addresses: alessandro.gardi@rmit.edu.au, roberto.sabatini@rmit.edu.au (R. Sabatini).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jairtraman.2020.102013
Received 21 May 2019; Received in revised form 6 October 2020; Accepted 28 December 2020
Available online 16 February 2021
0969-6997/© 2021 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
L. Ruan et al.
Daxing international airport achieves operational capability, without
resorting to full-scale modelling and simulation activities. Empirical
models already available in the literature and which demonstrated
adequate accuracy are adopted to estimate theoretical capacities and
traffic interdependencies. To capture local specificities and to extrapo­
late some essential parameters for the analysis, the study exploits the
similarity and local specificities of another large multi-airport TMA
system in mainland China, Shanghai, which also consists of two major
international airports in proximity of each other. An empirical analysis
of Pareto capacity envelopes is carried out to estimate arrival and de­
parture capacity penalties through observation at aggregate and disag­
gregate level of the two airports. Through a correlation analysis, the
empirical relationships are then applied to the Beijing multi-airport
system. A direct comparison of the Beijing multi-airport system capac­
ity with and without metroplex penalties allows to quantify the impact
in absolute terms.
The article is structured as follows: the rest of this section reviews the
most important and recent works relevant to this study and introduces
the essential concepts. Section 2 presents the theoretical capacity
models, whereas Section 3 introduces the empirical analysis methodol­
ogy used to extrapolate the actual capacities. Section 4 applies the
models introduced in sections 2 and 3 to Beijing and presents the results
of the analysis. Conclusions and recommendations are then provided in
Section 5.
1.1. Multi-airport systems
When a single airport can no longer meet the air transport demand of
its catchment area either due to urban planning or physical limitations,
the construction of additional airports in its proximity is frequently
pursued to distribute the unmet demand. While these additional airports
are in a competitive relationship with the original airport, the resulting
decongestion, enhanced ground/air connectivity, easier accessibility
and some important synergies emerge, and this catalyses additional
demand. This phenomenon is peculiar of multi-airport systems, which
historically consisted in a set of two or more airports serving commercial
traffic in the same metropolitan region (De Neufville et al., 2013),
though this definition was later extended to include also
non-metropolitan areas where multiple airports share the demand
Fig. 1. Geographic distribution of multi-airport systems around the world (Bonnefoy et al., 2010).
2
Journal of Air Transport Management 92 (2021) 102013
(Postorino and Praticò, 2012). A worldwide perspective on the evolution
of multi-airport systems was given in (Bonnefoy et al., 2010), which
analysed the factors that drive the development of multi-airport systems
by performing systemic case studies of 59 multi-airport systems around
the world. Fig. 1 shows the geographical distribution of multi-airport
systems around the world. Since 2000, research started to address the
operational efficiency of major airports in the U.S., notably including
multi-airport systems (Sarkis, 2000). However, initial studies mainly
covered overall multi-airport system characteristics without specific
focus on Air Traffic Management (ATM). In this respect, a number of
studies also targeted non-strictly operational dimensions of
multi-airport systems (Postorino and Praticò, 2012; Fasone et al., 2012).
More recently, Martin and Voltes-Dorta explored the problems of ca­
pacity expansions in five European multi-airport systems from a finan­
cial perspective and identified some important inefficiencies associated
with multi-airport systems, resulting in suboptimal economies of scale
(Martín and Voltes-Dorta, 2011).
With the growth of multi-airport systems around the world, re­
searchers started focussing on operational TMA traffic management
specificities. The modelling and quantification of terminal airspace ca­
pacity restrictions is one of the most complex problems especially in
multi-airport systems, which have become the bottleneck of the air
transport network as these multiple airports cannot express their
maximum theoretical capacity and do not have the full flexibility to cope
up with unforeseen circumstances. Notably, the New York metroplex
suffered heavy delays and congestion during the summer of 2007 (Wang
et al., 2008). Donaldson et al. found the New York airspace suffered high
congestion levels because of coupled operations between airports in
close proximity (Donaldson, 2010; Donaldson and Hansman, 2010). Ren
et al. analysed four different metroplexes in the USA and identified a set
of issues and constrains of metroplex operations that led to airspace
capacity restrictions (Ren et al., 2009). Beyond these studies targeting
existing metroplexes, some researchers also focused on future
multi-airport systems. Notably, Li and Ryerson proposed a data-driven
approach to model terminal airspace designs and possible conflicts in
the future Beijing multi-airport system (Li and Ryerson, 2017).
L. Ruan et al. Journal of Air Transport Management 92 (2021) 102013

1.2. Metroplex operational issues and interdependencies Table 1

Major metroplex issues identified by Clarke et al. Adapted from (Clarke et al.,
Clarke et al. analysed metroplex operational specificities as part of a 2011).
large study focussing on four major metroplexes in the U.S. (Clarke et al., # Issue Description Scope Frequency Severity
2011). Twelve major issues were identified (Table 1). These issues were 1 Departures Departures from at High High High
ranked according to their overall impact (frequency × severity) on met­ merging over least two airports
roplex operational efficiency. The greatest impacts identified are asso­ common fix are procedurally
ciated to departures merging over common fixes and to major merged over at
least one common
volume-based Traffic Flow Management (TFM) restrictions. The opera­
departure fix
tional issues identified in the analysis were mainly associated with 2 Major volume- Overdemand in High High High
spatial and temporal restrictions due to metroplex interdependencies. based TFM specific fixes or
The causes of these recurrent issues were traced to six specific opera­ restrictions sectors causes
tional interdependencies categorised by analysing site-specific airspace significant traffic
flow restrictions
designs and traffic data. The limited flexibility in coordination between 3 Configuration Restrictions on one High High Var
airports, a lack of accurate flight trajectory prediction and the significant conflicts airport’s arrival/
temporal uncertainties in ground operations cause the greatest in­ departure flow are
efficiencies in metroplex operations. In particular, the sharing of limited introduced when a
particular
airspace resources forces to separate traffic flows spatially by adopting
configuration is
time-slotting. As time uncertainties are typically higher for departures adopted in another
due to ground operations, interdependencies pose the greatest penalty airport
for departures. 4 Surface inter- Inadequate surface High High Var
In this paper, the focus is on physical characteristics of the multi- airport transportation
connectivity between airports
airport system and on operational factors. Physical characteristics
causes delays and
which govern theoretical capacities include runway dimensions, the inefficiencies in the
distance and relative orientation of runways as well as the presence of use of these
high terrain. Operational aspects considered include runway configu­ airports
5 Inefficient/high Any change in a High Var High
rations and arrival/departure flow routing, also considering SUA. Con­
workload major airport’s
cerning operational interdependencies, Atkins introduced qualitative configuration configuration
definitions based on observations, identifying the dependencies between changes requires significant
multiple airports that drive capacity penalties (Atkins, 2008). DeLaur­ workload due to
entis formulated a number of metroplex dependency metrics using both the coordination of
many entities and/
constructive analysis (looking at physical resources) and observa­
or airspace sector
tional/interpretative analysis (looking at operational data to determine reconfigurations
the impact of dependencies and their interactions) (DeLaurentis and 6 Inefficient Conservative High High Medium
Ayyalasomayajula, 2010). Table 2 presents the physical/constructive inter-airport restrictions need to
departure be introduced
metroplex dependency metrics identified by DeLaurentis, with adapted
sequencing when sequencing
or derived empirical relationships to define the total metroplex de­ departures from
pendency metric. multiple airports
In DeLaurentis models, li , Θi and Mi are respectively the length, 7 Flow The arrival/ High High Medium
orientation and number of movements of the considered runway i, RR is constraints departure flow
from a secondary
the reference runway, and di,j is the distance between runways i and j.
airport is
The FAA and some other studies pointed out that the distance be­ substantially
tween multiple airports is an important parameter to quantify metroplex constrained by the
dependencies. In this respect, Clarke adopted a Gaussian sigmoid func­ flows of a major
airport
tion to model the interdependency as a factor of the distance between
8 Inefficient The “flushing” of a High Medium Medium
the two proximate airports (Clarke et al., 2011). The distance scale in “flushing” major airport’s
Clarke’s model was selected based on the conventional outer boundary spike arrival/
of Class B airspace, which is 35 NM from the main airport. Based on this departure traffic
value, airports more than 70 NM apart are considered substantially in­ severely constrains
another airport’s
dependent from each other in Clarke’s model. Fig. 2 illustrates such flows
empirical function as well as the location of Shanghai’s and Beijing’s 9 SUA-caused A Special Use Medium High Var
airport systems on such curve. These two systems are discussed in flow Airspace (SUA)
further detail in the rest of the article. dependencies constricts the
TMA’s flows into
narrow corridors
1.3. Operational efficiency enhancement strategies – the role of NextGen hence inducing
and SESAR inter-airport flow
dependencies
Given that metroplex operational constraints and inefficiencies have 10 Terrain-caused Terrain constricts Low High High
flow the TMA’s flows
been relatively complex and longlasting problems in the air trans­ dependencies into narrow
portation network, several aviation modernisation initiatives have been corridors hence
focussing on strategies to improve the operational efficiency of metro­ inducing inter-
plexes. Internationally, research in this domain has been spearheaded by airport flow
dependencies
the Next Generation Air Transportation System (NextGen) program in
11 Severe Specific instrument Low Low High
the U.S., and by the Single European Sky ATM Research (SESAR) in instrument procedures are
Europe (Kistan et al., 2017). These programs are coordinating the (continued on next page)
transition of ATM to a 4-Dimensional Trajectory-Based Operations (4D

3
L. Ruan et al. Journal of Air Transport Management 92 (2021) 102013

Table 1 (continued ) multi-airport system, which resulted in tangible benefits in the Shanghai
# Issue Description Scope Frequency Severity multi-airport system (Wang et al., 2009). Dell’Olmo and Lulli proposed a
dynamic programming approach to study airport capacity allocation
procedure severely
interferences constrained due to
problem (Dell’Olmo and Lull, 2003). Diana used hierarchical linear
the existence of a models to analyse the performance of metroplexes and his analysis
proximate airport highlighted the important role played by airborne delays and surface
12 Insufficient General metroplex Low Low High operations efficiency on block delays (Diana, 2014).
airport capacity capacity is
Various optimal routing methods were also proposed. In this field,
insufficient to
serve spikes in our research group demonstrated the feasibility of computing optimal 4-
traffic demand dimensional trajectories in the TMA in real time considering multiple
objectives and constraints (Gardi et al., 2019). Wei et al. briefly dis­
cussed the potential benefits offered by the flexible flight concept,
Table 2 noting that it enables many optimization strategies to increase metro­
Physical/constructive metroplex dependency metrics. Empirical equations plex efficiency and reduce the delay (Wei et al., 2013). Among these
adapted or derived from the original definitions in (DeLaurentis and Ayyalaso­ optimization strategies, the metroplex routing algorithms were dis­
mayajula, 2010). cussed in more detail. An optimization approach was proposed by Zhou
Metric Definition
et al. to redesign Standard Terminal Arrival Routes (STAR) and Standard
Instrument Departures (SID) routes also considering their 3-dimensional
Runway length dependency (DL,i ) 0.7
DL,i = 0.3 +
1 + e12(li /lRR − 0.82) envelopes (Zhou et al., 2017). Sidiropoulos et al. developed a framework
Runway orientation dependency (DO,i ) DO,i = sin(Θi − ΘRR ) for the classification and prioritization of arrival and departure routes in
Runway proximity dependency (DP,i )
DP,i =
di,RR
∀j
metroplex which consists of clustering, Analytic Hierarchy Processing
max(di,j ) (AHP) and a priority-based selection algorithm to identify the optimal
Runway Dependency Metric (RDMi ) RDMi = DL,i ⋅DO,i ⋅DP,i
∑ terminal waypoints (fixes), based on which they proposed a framework
Total Airport RDM (RDMA ) Mi ⋅RDMi
RDMA = for optimizing operations by designing dynamic arrival and departure
∑MTOT,A
Total Metroplex RDM (RDMM ) Mi ⋅RDMi routes in multi-airport TMAs (Sidiropoulos et al., 2015, 2018). To sup­
RDMM =
MTOT,M
port the optimization algorithm, they also proposed a method for robust
identification of air traffic flow patterns using an approach called Dis­
tributionally Robust Optimization (DRO) to address demand uncertainty
(Sidiropoulos et al., 2017). The effects of the Point Merge System (PMS)
were studied by Sahin et al. with particular emphasis on flight efficiency,
fuel consumption and CO2 emissions (Sahin et al., 2018).
In summary, a full implementation of Performance-Based Operations
(PBO) concepts as PBN, 4D-TBO and others mentioned above are ex­
pected to greatly improve the capacity and efficiency of metroplex TMAs
as they will support a substantially improved traffic synchronization,
thus relieving the constraints and penalties associated to tactical and
largely manual ATC deconfliction in the TMA sequencing and spacing
duties. Yet, they will not completely remove all the inefficiencies and
capacity penalties in metroplex TMAs because certain in­
terdependencies and interferences between arrival and departure paths
of multiple airports, flown by very diverse aircraft, will remain.

1.4. Beijing multi-airport system

Fig. 2. Interdependency factor as a function of the distance between two
proximate airports (Clarke et al., 2011).
TBO) paradigm, in which higher levels of automation and information
sharing will support a more strategic management of traffic and
decreased congestion and disruptions. An evaluation of the potential
benefits offered by some NextGen concepts was carried out by Ren et al.
(Ren and Clarke, 2008). Zelinski and Lai compared different design so­
lutions for dynamic airspace as well as the benefits they brought
(Zelinski and Lai, 2011). As part of their study on the metroplex oper­
ational efficiency, Clarke et al. also assessed the benefits of some Next­
Gen concepts (Clarke et al., 2011, 2012). More in detail, Ahmadbeygi
assessed the benefits of introducing Performance-Based Navigation
(PBN) to rationalise traffic flows in the New York metroplex and looked
at whether they would enhance TFM initiatives but noted that the mixed
equipage existing until the full fleet is equipped will neglect a significant
portion of the benefits and make coordination complex, so that other
Collaborative Decision Making (CDM) enhancements may result more
beneficial.
Key works on demand/capacity optimization can also provide useful
insights on metroplex operational capacity modelling. Wang et al. pro­
posed a mathematical algorithm to schedule the departure routes in a
The Daxing International Airport (DAX) is the new major airport
serving Beijing, which commenced operations in September 2019. It is
located approximately 30 nautical miles south of Beijing Capital Inter­
national Airport (PEK) and it is designed to accommodate 72 million
passengers, 2 million tons of cargo throughput, and 620,000 aircraft
movements by 2025. In the long term, its capacity is planned to reach
100 million passengers per year. The total investment for its construc­
tion is about 80 billion yuan (about 12 billion US dollars). Daxing airport
is meant to serve both domestic and international flights similarly to
PEK. The new airport is intended to share the traffic with Beijing capital
international airport, the capacity of which is already largely saturated.
Upon DAX’s opening, Beijing becomes the second city in mainland
China with two major civil airports.
Similarly to Shanghai, which is another notable multi-airport system
serving a major city in mainland China, the Beijing multi-airport system
is designed to handle a large amount of domestic and international
flights in its two major airports, which are both hub to at least one major
domestic airline, member of a major alliance. In peak hours, the
Shanghai system suffers from high traffic densities and congestion,
causing flight delays and frequent interferences. Although every met­
roplex is unique and no one is identical to another, the Shanghai multi-
airport system can be assumed as a relatively good reference for

4
L. Ruan et al. Journal of Air Transport Management 92 (2021) 102013

metroplex interactions that are expected to affect Beijing. Table 3

Nomenclature of the terms used in the calculations.
2. Models for theoretical capacity i, j Weight category of leading and trailing aircraft
vi , Approach velocity of leading (i) and trailing (j) aircraft respectively
This section describes the models and methodologies used to esti­ vj
mate the theoretical capacities of airports based on empirical runway si,j Minimum spacing accounting for both longitudinal and lateral separation
queuing models and introducing the concept of Pareto capacity enve­ requirements (in NM)
r Length of the approach path
lopes. Empirical capacity reductions models for multiple airports are
oi Runway occupancy time of the leading aircraft
instead presented in the following Section 3. The definitions of capacity
Ti,j Minimum time interval
are different depending on the modelling assumption or assessment
approach adopted. Hockaday and Kanafani proposed two different Pi,j Probability of the event ‘a type i aircraft is followed by a type j aircraft’

concepts: practical capacity and ultimate capacity (Hockaday and Kana­

fani, 1974). Ultimate capacity is the theoretical maximum number of
regulatory separation criteria between countries, ICAO-recommended
service operations that can be provided by an airport within the given
ones can be used. Between arriving aircraft, the minimum spacing is
time period. The practical capacity is the actually observed maximum
defined by the wake turbulence separation criteria, which depends on
number of aircraft operations within the unit time period and it is always
the relative weight categories of both aircraft, and by the radar sepa­
lower than the ultimate capacity because of many factors like delay and
ration minima, which as per ICAO can be reduced to 2.5 NM in presence
congestion. The difference between practical and ultimate capacity is
of an approach-grade radar. This minimum spacing requirement is the
important even when not in presence of multiple neighbouring airports,
larger of these two values and must be fulfilled over the length of final
therefore before undertaking any meaningful analysis of metroplex ca­
approach.
pacity penalties, this relationship needs to be quantified upfront and its
The minimum time interval between two successive arriving aircraft
effects removed when attempting to determine the net metroplex ca­
depend on the velocities of leading and trailing aircraft as shown in Eq.
pacity penalties. Terminal area capacity is affected by airport distribu­
(1). However, the time interval must not be reduced below the minimum
tion, arrival and departure routings/procedures, aircraft type
runway occupancy time oi to allow enough time for clearing the runway
distribution, runway opening configurations and airspace constraints.
before the next trailing aircraft. Assumed separation requirements (si,j )
Airport capacity is defined by runway configurations, taxiways, parking
are shown in Table 4.
spaces, arrival and departure routes, aircraft performance, traffic flows
[ ]
and operational air traffic control procedures etc. (Ramanujam and ⎧ r + si,j r
⎪ max − , o when vi > vj
Balakrishnan, 2009). ⎪
⎨ vj vi
i

Blumstein firstly developed an analytical model to estimate a single Ti,jIFR = [ ] (1)

⎪
runway capacity which is still widely used and from which a number of ⎩ max si,j , oi
⎪
when vi ≤ vj
vj
subsequent models were derived (Blumstein, 1959). De Neufville et al.
synthesised a more accurate model which accounts for simulation re­ Once the probability Pi,j and time Ti,j are determined, the expected
sults, simplified modelling of aircraft behaviour and expected separation value of Ti,j (E[ti,j ]) can be calculated using:
time between successive aircraft operations to estimate airfield capacity [ ] ∑∑ ( )
(De Neufville et al., 2013). They also proposed a simplified method to E ti,j = pi,j ⋅ Ti,j + b (2)
estimate the capacity envelope through linear interpolation under mixed
i j

operations. Gilbo, on the other hand, developed a statistical methods by
using arrival and departure counts within 15 min to estimate the prac­
tical capacity envelope of a single airport (Gilbo, 1993).
For the purpose of this study, as Beijing’s new Daxing international
airport does not have unique specificities, a commonly adopted queuing
model is sufficiently accurate to predict theoretical capacity. The
queuing model to calculate the arrival and departure capacity was firstly
developed by Blumstein and was extended by De Neufville et al. (De
Neufville et al., 2013). The model was used under the ideal conditions of
VFR, dispersed departure headings and non-interfering runways.
2.1. Arrival capacity
The runway capacity model is based on the minimum lateral and
longitudinal separation requirements between successive arrivals. For
major airports, these are respectively defined according to radar sepa­
ration standards and wake turbulence separation standards. Fig. 3 il­
lustrates the arrival spacing metrics used in the analysis and a full
nomenclature is provided in Table 3. While some differences exist in the
where a buffer b (typically of 10 s) is added to ensure that small varia­
tions in relative velocity do not lead to violation of separation re­
quirements. Successively, the arrival capacity of the runway is simply
the inverse of the expected value, as in:
1
μ = [ ] ∀ i, j (3)
E ti,j
2.2. Departure capacity
For departing aircraft, the separation is defined as a minimum time
interval between successive take-offs. This time must meet the minimum
requirement that the preceding aircraft is clear of the runway and that
subsequent departures maintain at least 2.5 NM lateral separation when
airborne, i.e., the approach-grade radar separation recommended by
ICAO. A value of 70 s is typically adopted for departures trailing a lighter
aircraft to account for lower velocity during the climb. The assumed
departure separation table is shown in Table 5. This inter-departure time
is used in the same way as the inter-arrival time to calculate the expected

Table 4
Assumed spacing between successive arrivals as a function of the wake turbu­
lence category. Values in nautical miles (NM).
Trailing

Leading A380 H L

A380 8 6 6
H 12 8 6
L 13 10 6
Fig. 3. Arrival spacing definitions.

5
L. Ruan et al.
Table 5
Assumed departure interval as a function of the wake turbulence category.
Values in seconds (s).
Trailing
Leading A380 H L
A380 120 120
H 120 120
L 60 60
time between departures using and overall capacity using Eq. (2).
2.3. Pareto capacity envelopes
A trade-off exists between arrival and departure capacities, which
are considered separately in many operational aspects and depend on
different factors. The Pareto capacity envelope is the convex curve
generated in the arrival-departure capacity graph by linking the
maximum capacities in arrival-only, departure-only and all intermediate
configurations. It is very commonly employed to support not only the
strategic planning of an airport’s flight schedule but also the active
management of actual demand. Fig. 4 shows the Pareto envelope for the
capacity of a single runway. Points A and E represent the arrival-only
and departure-only cases respectively. The line A-B-C-D-E is the Pareto
envelope, representing the maximum arrival/departure capacities of the
runway. The dotted line A-C-E represents the capacity envelope under
the impacts of some additional constraints, for instance aircraft type
mix, wake turbulence category and other factors. The segments A-B and
D-E demonstrate that a certain amount of arrival capacity can be added
without compromising the maximum departure capacity and vice-versa.
This occurs because wake turbulence separation criteria can be over­
come in such conditions. Further increases in departure (or arrival) ca­
pacity are only possible by sacrificing arrival (or departure) capacity and
this is represented by point C, which is the point at which departure
capacity is equal to arrival capacity.
3. Empirical capacity analysis
In principle, Pareto envelopes represent the theoretical (ultimate)
capacity as defined considering a nominal mix of aircraft types, ideal
weather and operational conditions. Hence, they do not consider many
factors including the actual aircraft mix, weather impacts and
Fig. 4. Typical Pareto envelope for single runway capacity.
Journal of Air Transport Management 92 (2021) 102013
operational disruptions. When demand nears the maximum capacity,
service delays are normally incurred following the so-called delay-ca­
pacity or delay-saturation relation. Such delay is the considered the
main cause of suboptimal capacity exploitation, that is, the difference
between the effective and the theoretical capacities, without considering
metroplex penalties.
120
Ramanujam and Balakrishnan proposed a statistical approach based
120
70 on quantile regression to study the trade-offs between the arrival and
departure capacity of the multi-airport system using capacity envelopes
(Ramanujam and Balakrishnan, 2009). For terminal airspace, Janić and
Tošić proposed a model to analyse the factors that influence the capacity
in the terminal area and compute such capacity for planning and oper­
ational purpose (Janic and Tosic, 1982). A good understanding of
arrival-departure capacity trade-offs in multi-airport system is impor­
tant to study how to use airport capacity efficiently. Based on previous
research, a new estimation method based on quantile regression with
frequency constraint was proposed by Yang et al. to quantify the
coupling effect within multi-airport system (Yang et al., 2015). These
techniques are instrumental to study the capacity envelope specificities
of multi-airport systems, as in the case of this article.
Historical peak arrival and departure throughputs can be analysed to
estimate the practical capacity envelope. This method was proposed by
Gilbo and has become one of main methods to assess airports’ practical
capacities (Gilbo, 1993). In particular, by analysing the historical arrival
and departure throughputs and considering interdependency relation­
ships between departure and arrival flows, the full Pareto envelope of
the practical capacity can be reconstructed. However, this
empirical-statistical approach is applicable only to busy airports for
which sufficient historical data for operations close to saturation are
available. Applying this method to a non-saturated airport would yield a
curve which does not represent the maximum practical capacity, but
rather the maximum exploited capacity.
Outliers not representing historical peak service throughputs should
be excluded from this empirical-statistical analysis and the operational
data should be distributed according to the frequency. Frequency refers
to statistical occurrence of that particular combination of arrival and
departure throughputs. Selecting points with frequency of at least 3 is
suggested to extrapolate the practical Pareto capacity envelope (Gilbo,
1993). Zhao proved that the historical peak service assessment method
with frequency filtering threshold (3–4 operations) is more suitable to
busy airports in the peak summer months (Zhao et al., 2015).
The Pareto capacity envelope can be used to analyse the capacity
penalties of the multi-airport systems under metroplex in­
terdependencies by considering the historical peak operations of indi­
vidual airports considered separately (Yang et al., 2015). For our
analysis, we focus on the Shanghai multi-airport system, which consists
of Shanghai Pudong airport (ZSPD) and Shanghai Hongqiao airport
(ZSSS). The distance between these two airports is 43 km and they share
the same departure/arrival fixes, common path segments and the same
volume of airspace which are some of the key metroplex in­
terdependencies. Shanghai Pudong international airport has three
widely-spaced parallel runways and the standard configuration involved
independent arrivals and departures. Shanghai Hongqiao airport has
two narrowly-spaced parallel runways, which still allow for independent
arrival and departure operations. The operational data including the
counts of arrival and departure throughputs from July 2014 to
December 2014 per 15-minute interval were selected to measure the
peak hour service capabilities of two airports under coupling operations
in Shanghai. These historical peak data were divided into four groups
based on frequency including 1–2 operations, 3–4 operations, 5–10
operations and over 11 operations. The capacity curves are shown in the
figures and the balance point on the curve is considered as reference
data. Figs. 5 and 6 show the capacity envelopes of Shanghai Pudong
international airport and Shanghai Hongqiao airport respectively. The
orange curve represents theoretical capacity while the black curve
represents practical capacity. The balanced arrival/departure line is also
6
L. Ruan et al. Journal of Air Transport Management 92 (2021) 102013

In our analysis, we focus on the historical balanced capacities. For a

single airport, it can be observed that the practical throughput rarely
achieves the theoretical capacity even when an optimal trade-off of ar­
rivals and departures is considered.

3.1. Multi-airport TMA capacity analysis

The capacity envelopes of the Shanghai multi-airport system as

determined by Yang are shown in Fig. 7, where the orange curve rep­
resents the envelope of maximum predicted capacities which shows the
best achievable airspace capacity if each airport were operating under
ideal traffic conditions, that is, without any capacity penalties due to
weather, metroplex or other factors. The black curve describes the
practical service capability of the Shanghai system.
From the multi-airport system perspective, when arrival capacity
achieves its maximum value of 21 operations per quarter hour, the
observed departure throughput is 11 operations per quarter hour, which
is only 52% of the maximum departure capacity. It is obvious that the
Shanghai multi-airport system has coupling constraints because of de­
Fig. 5. Capacity envelopes and historical peak operations of Shanghai Pudong
International Airport (Yang et al., 2015).
pendencies such as airport proximity, arrival/departure fixes and seg­
ments, airspace constraints and so on. The theoretical and actual
balanced capacities for the Shanghai multi-airport system are summar­
ised in the following table. Using the data in Table 6, an overall esti­
mated capacity penalty for the Shanghai multi-airport system is
calculated as 12% of the theoretical balanced capacity.

4. Beijing capacity analysis

This section analyses the runway layout in Beijing Capital Interna­

tional Airport and Beijing’s new Daxing international airport to deter­
mine their respective theoretical capacities following the models
presented in Section 2.
Beijing Capital International Airport (BCIA) currently has three
parallel runways for the north and south flow conditions, the length of
the western runway is 3200 m, while the middle runway and eastern
runways are 3800 m long, and the spacing between these runways is
1960 m and 1525 m respectively. The western and eastern runways are
used for mixed arrival/departure operations, while the middle runway is
mainly used for take-offs, as shown in Fig. 8.
In its opening configuration (Fig. 9), the new Beijing Daxing inter­
national airport has three parallel north-south runways and a single east-
west runway. Except for the easternmost north-south runway,
measuring 3400 m, the length of all other runways is 3800 m. The dis­
Fig. 6. Capacity envelopes and historical peak operations in Shanghai Hon­
tance between 35L/17R and 35R/17L is 760m, while the distance
gqiao Airport (Yang et al., 2015).

represented, highlighting the points where the number of arrivals and

departures coincide. The figure highlights that the actual capacity en­
velope calculated following Gilbo’s method is substantially affected by
metroplex interactions, particularly at sustained arrival rates, as only 32
hourly departure operations are allowed, which is approximately 72% of
the corresponding theoretical capacity and 53% of the theoretical
maximum departure capacity (60 ops/hr). It also shows that the
maximum actual capacity of ZSPD is about 88 ops/hr while the
maximum theoretical capacity is about 100 ops/hr. On the other hand,
the actual and theoretical balanced capacities of ZSPD are respectively
84 ops/hr and 96 ops/hr.
Fig. 5, also highlights important differences between theoretical and
actual capacities, with an actual departure throughput at sustained
arrival rates which is approximately 75% of the corresponding theo­
retical capacity and 50% of the maximum theoretical departure capac­
ity. The diagram also highlights that the maximum actual capacity of
ZSSS is about 48 ops/hr while the theoretical capacity is about 60 ops/
hr. On the other hand, the actual and theoretical balanced capacities are
Fig. 7. Theoretical and practical capacities of the Shanghai multi-airport sys­
48 ops/hr and 54 ops/hr.
tem (Yang et al., 2015).

7
L. Ruan et al. Journal of Air Transport Management 92 (2021) 102013

Table 6 between 35R/17L and 01L/19R is 2380m. Runways 35L/17R and 01L/
Actual and theoretical capacities of Shanghai airports. 19R are meant for landings while runways 35R/17L and 011L/29R are
Actual balanced capacity (ops/ Theoretical balanced capacity meant for taking off, as shown in Fig. 9.
hr) (ops/hr) The theoretical capacities of BCIA and Daxing are respectively 105
ZSPD 84 96 and 126.2 ops/hr. These values have been calculated using the estima­
ZSSS 48 54 tion model presented in section 2.1. On the other hand, according to the
Metroplex 132 150 2017 Civil Aviation Transport Efficiency Report, the actual capacity of
BCIA is reported as 88 ops/hr. The practical capacity of Daxing cannot
yet be quantified statistically as the historical data for peak hour
movement is still insufficient to apply Gilbo’s methodology. However,
assuming scalability, a practical capacity value for Daxing airport upon
opening can be estimated at approximately 105.7 ops/hr. This is a
conservative estimate and it shall be noted that this value does not affect
the relative magnitude of the metroplex penalties that are the subject of
this study.

4.1. Operational efficiency estimation

Based on the model presented in section 1.2 and as previously shown

Fig. 8. Current runway configuration of BCIA.
in Fig. 2, the empirical interdependency factors for Shanghai and Beijing
are respectively 0.83 and 0.48. As discussed in section 3.1, the results of
Yang’s empirical-historical analysis of Shanghai multi-airport system’s
Pareto envelopes showed that the capacity of multi-airport system is
12% lower than the total capacity of individual airports. Through the
correlation analysis of Shanghai system and the new Beijing system and
considering the different distance-based interdependency factors, the
metroplex-related capacity penalty of Beijing terminal airspace can be
estimated as 7%. Table 7 summarises the estimated capacities of Beijing’
two airports with and without metroplex dependencies. The opening of
Daxing’s airport is expected to effectively raise Beijing’s system capacity
from 88 to 180.1 ops/hr. While this is a very considerable capacity in­
crease for the metropolitan region, the net increase of 92 ops/hr is 13%
lower than the practical capacity offered by Daxing alone. This per­
centage is substantially independent from the exact value assumed for
the practical capacity of Daxing.

Fig. 9. Assumed runway configuration of Beijing Daxing International Airport.

8
L. Ruan et al.
Table 7
Comparison of airport capacity with metroplex dependencies and without metroplex dependencies.
The value highlighted in red represents the Beijing’s airport system actual total capacity before
Daxing’s opening, whereas the value highlighted in light blue represents the total capacity of Beij­
ing’s airport system after the opening of Daxing.
4.2. Discussion
The classical methodology presented in Section 2 proved to be suf­
ficiently accurate while still simple to calculate the theoretical capacity
of an airport without metroplex dependencies. On the other hand,
reconstructing Pareto capacity envelopes based on airport historical
peak operations following Gilbo’s method proved to be a simple but
sufficiently accurate methodology to assess the airport practical capacity
and most importantly to disaggregate the effect of metroplex-related
penalties. This allowed to determine the net metroplex-related penalty
of 12% in the case of Shanghai.
The metroplex-related capacity penalty of Beijing multi-airport sys­
tem is estimated to be about 7% and the actual capacity of Beijing
Daxing International airport in its planned opening configuration is
estimated to be about 98.3 ops/hr. Consequently, the net capacity in­
crease offered by Daxing’s construction is approximately 92 ops/hr,
hence approximately 87% of the practical capacity estimated for Daxing
alone and 73% of its theoretical capacity. These values highlight some of
the diminishing financial returns on investments associated with con­
structing additional airports to serve the same metropolitan region,
though the significant distance between the two airports in the case of
Beijing has a limited effect.
5. Conclusions and recommendations for future work
Multi-airport systems play an important role in the air transport
network and are growing in number around the world, therefore the
study of metroplex operational constraints is of great significance to
address future capacity issues in the air transport network (McClain,
2013). This article focused on capacity penalties emerging due to the
coexistence of multiple major airports in proximity to each other. Pre­
vious studies were reviewed and various important metroplex coupling
constraints were discussed along with the most relevant root causes. An
empirical method based on peak-hour and theoretical Pareto capacity
envelopes was successively introduced to estimate metroplex capacity
penalties. Conventional capacity estimation models were used to
calculate the theoretical capacity of Beijing airports. Using the
computed theoretical capacities and estimating the metroplex capacity
penalties based on another known empirical model, we determined the
estimated capacity penalties of Beijing’s multi-airport system. One of
9
Journal of Air Transport Management 92 (2021) 102013
key advantages of the proposed method lies in its aggregate/macro­
scopic nature, hence not requiring to model and simulate complex in­
dividual traffic interactions. The findings of this case study are relevant
for planners to estimate the operational efficiency of future multi-airport
systems. The current body of knowledge hints at great margins for im­
provements in metroplex efficiency and in capacity modelling. While
runway and airport capacity estimation models are quite mature and
now also capable to accurately capture the effects of unforeseen cir­
cumstances and disruption, the capacity modelling of multi-airport
systems requires further developments to accurately capture the com­
plex interdependencies without undertaking lengthy and costly
full-scale modelling and simulation studies. The method presented in
this article is an initial step and has some notable limitations. Several
directions for further research are identified. Firstly, the identification
and characterisation of the most suitable factors affecting the actual
operational efficiency of metroplex airspace is essential to build accurate
disaggregate empirical models. On the other hand, the macro­
scopic/aggregate Pareto capacity envelope analysis adopted in this
article should be extended to metroplexes involving more than two
airports. Finally, further work is required to empirically account highly
off-nominal weather and traffic conditions.
Appendix A. Supplementary data
Supplementary data to this article can be found online at https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.jairtraman.2020.102013.
References
Atkins, S., 2008. Observation and measurement of metroplex phenomena. In:
Proceedings of 2008 IEEE/AIAA 27th Digital Avionics Systems Conference, DASC
2008, St. Paul, MN, pp. 3E21–3E215. https://doi.org/10.1109/
DASC.2008.4702816.
Belle, A., 2012. A Methodology for Analysis of Metroplex Air Traffic Flows. PhD, George
Mason University, Fairfax, VA, USA.
Blumstein, A., 1959. The landing capacity of a runway. Oper. Res. 7, 752–763.
Bonnefoy, P.A., 2005. Emergence of Secondary Airports and Dynamics of Regional
Airport Systems in the United States. MSc, Massachusetts Institute of Technology,
Cambridge, MA, USA.
Bonnefoy, P.A., 2008. Scalability of the Air Transportation System and Development of
Multi-Airport Systems: a Worldwide Perspective", PhD, Engineering Systems.
Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge, MA, USA.
L. Ruan et al.
Bonnefoy, P.A., de Neufville, R., Hansman, R.J., 2010. Evolution and development of
multiairport systems: worldwide perspective. J. Transport. Eng. 136, 1021–1029.
https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)0733-947X(2010)136:11(1021).
Clarke, J.-P., Ren, L., Schleicher, D., Crisp, D.L., Gutterud, R., Thompson, T., et al., 2011.
Characterization of and Concepts for Metroplex Operations". NASA Ames CR-2011-
216414, Moffett Field, CA, USA.
Clarke, J.-P., Ren, L., McClain, E., Schleicher, D., Timar, S., Saraf, A., et al., 2012.
Evaluating concepts for operations in metroplex terminal area airspace. J. Aircraft
49, 758–773. https://doi.org/10.2514/1.C031227, 2012/05/01.
De Neufville, R., Odoni, A., Belobaba, P., Reynolds, T., 2013. Airport Systems - Planning,
Design and Management, second ed. McGraw-Hill, New York, USA.
Delahaye, D., Puechmorel, S., 2010. Air traffic complexity based on dynamical systems.
In: Proceedings of 2010 49th IEEE Conference on Decision and Control, CDC 2010,
Atlanta, GA, pp. 2069–2074. https://doi.org/10.1109/CDC.2010.5718004.
DeLaurentis, D.A., Ayyalasomayajula, S., 2010. Analysis of Dependencies and Impacts of
Metroplex Operations. NASA CR–2010-216853, West Lafayette, IA, USA.
DeLaurentis, D., Landry, S.J., Sun, D., Wieland, F., Tyagi, A., 2011. A Concept for Flexible
Operations and Optimized Traffic into Metroplex Regions. NASA Langley CR-2011-
217302, Hampton, VA, USA.
Dell’Olmo, P., Lull, G., 2003. A dynamic programming approach for the airport capacity
allocation problem. IMA J. Manag. Math. 14, 235–249. https://doi.org/10.1093/
imaman/14.3.235.
Diana, T., 2014. Measuring performance at a large metropolitan area: the case of the DC
(District of Columbia) metroplex. J. Transport. Res. Forum 53, 21–33.
Donaldson, A.D., 2010. Improvement of Terminal Area Capacity in the New York
Airspace. MSc, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge, MA, USA.
Donaldson, A.D., Hansman, R.J., 2010. Capacity improvement potential for the New
York Metroplex system. In: Proceedings of 10th AIAA Aviation Technology,
Integration and Operations Conference 2010, ATIO 2010, Ft. Worth, TX. https://doi.
org/10.2514/6.2010-9285.
Fasone, V., Giuffré, T., Maggiore, P., 2012. Multi-airport system as a way of sustainability
for airport development: evidence from an Italian case study. Procedia Soc. Behav.
Sci. 53.
Gardi, A., Sabatini, R., Kistan, T., 2019. Multiobjective 4D trajectory optimization for
integrated avionics and air traffic management systems. IEEE Trans. Aero. Electron.
Syst. 55, 170–181. https://doi.org/10.1109/taes.2018.2849238.
Gilbo, E.P., 1993. Airport capacity: representation, estimation, optimization. IEEE Trans.
Contr. Syst. Technol. 1, 144–154. https://doi.org/10.1109/87.251882.
Hockaday, S.L.M., Kanafani, A.K., 1974. Developments in airport capacity analysis.
Transport. Res. 8, 171–180. https://doi.org/10.1016/0041-1647(74)90004-5.
Idris, H., 2010. Improving metroplex operations efficiency using speed segregation and
trajectory flexibility. In: Proceedings of 27th International Congress of the
Aeronautical Sciences, Nice, France.
Janic, M., Tosic, V., 1982. Terminal airspace capacity model. Transport. Res. Gen. 16,
253–260. https://doi.org/10.1016/0191-2607(82)90052-8.
JPDO, 2011. Concept of operations for the next generation air transportation system.
Version 3.2. In: Joint Planning and Development Office,Next Generation
AirTransportation System (NextGen), Washington,DC.
Kistan, T., Gardi, A., Sabatini, R., Ramasamy, S., Batuwangala, E., 2017. An evolutionary
outlook of air traffic flow management techniques. Prog. Aero. Sci. 88, 15–42.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paerosci.2016.10.001.
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,
538–553. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cja.2016.12.030.
Martín, J.C., Voltes-Dorta, A., 2011. The dilemma between capacity expansions and
multi-airport systems: empirical evidence from the industry’s cost function.
10
Journal of Air Transport Management 92 (2021) 102013
Transport. Res. E Logist. Transport. Rev. 47, 382–389. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
tre.2010.11.009.
McClain, E., 2013. Metroplex Identification, Evaluation and Optimization", PhD. Georgia
Institute of Technology.
Postorino, M.N., Praticò, F.G., 2012. An application of the Multi-Criteria Decision-
Making analysis to a regional multi-airport system. Res. Transport. Bus. Manag. 4,
44–52. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rtbm.2012.06.015.
Ramanujam, V., Balakrishnan, H., 2009. Estimation of arrival-departure capacity
tradeoffs in multi-airport systems. In: Proceedings of 48th IEEE Conference on
Decision and Control held Jointly with 2009 28th Chinese Control Conference, CDC/
CCC 2009, Shanghai, pp. 2534–2540. https://doi.org/10.1109/CDC.2009.5400462.
Ren, L., Clarke, J.P.B., 2008. Flight-test evaluation of the tool for analysis of separation
and throughput. J. Aircraft 45, 323–332. https://doi.org/10.2514/1.30198.
Ren, L., Clarke, J.P.B., Schleicher, D., Timar, S., Saraf, A., Crisp, D., et al., 2009. Contrast
and comparison of metroplex operations (An Air Traffic Management Study of
Atlanta, Los Angeles, New York, and Miami). In: proceedings of 9th AIAA Aviation
Technology, Integration and Operations (ATIO) Conference, Aircraft Noise and
Emissions Reduction Symposium (ANERS), Hilton Head, SC.
Sahin, O., Usanmaz, O., Turgut, E.T., 2018. An assessment of flight efficiency based on
the point merge system at metroplex airports. Aircraft Eng. Aero. Technol. 90, 1–10.
https://doi.org/10.1108/AEAT-06-2016-0097.
Sarkis, J., 2000. Analysis of the operational efficiency of major airports in the United
States. J. Oper. Manag. 18, 335–351. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0272-6963(99)
00032-7.
Sidiropoulos, S., Majumdar, A., Han, K., Schuster, W., Ochieng, W.Y., 2015. A framework
for the classification and prioritization of arrival and departure routes in multi-
airport systems terminal manoeuvring areas. In: proceedings of 15th AIAA Aviation
Technology, Integration, and Operations Conference, p. 2015.
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. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
trc.2016.12.011.
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. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.trb.2018.02.010.
Wang, L., Donohue, G., Hoffman, K., Sherry, L., Oseguera-Lohr, R., 2008. Analysis of Air
Transportation for the New York Metroplex: Summer 2007 in proceedings.
Wang, Y., Hu, M., Sui, D., Tian, Y., Zhan, J., 2009. Departure scheduling in a multi-
airport system. In: proceedings of 8th USA/Europe Air Traffic Management Research
and Development Seminar, ATM 2009, pp. 107–115.
Wei, P., Kim, T., Han, S.Y., Landry, S., Sun, D., DeLaurentis, D., 2013. Optimal metroplex
routing paradigm for flexible flights. J. Guid. Contr. Dynam. 36, 1221–1224. https://
doi.org/10.2514/1.56793.
Yang, L., Hu, M., Yin, S., 2015. Statistical method of coupled peak service ability
assessment for multi-airport system. Aeronaut. Comput. Tech. 45, 1–4.
Zelinski, S., Lai, C.F., 2011. Comparing methods for dynamic airspace configuration. In:
Proceedings of 30th Digital Avionics Systems Conference - Closing the Generation
Gap: Increasing Capability for Flight Operations among Legacy, Modern and
Uninhabited Aircraft, DASC 2011, Seattle, WA, pp. 3A11–3A113. https://doi.org/
10.1109/DASC.2011.6096043.
Zhao, Z., Yang, L., Hu, M., Liu, G., 2015. Method for evaluating instantaneous sector
capacity, 32. Transactions of Nanjing University of Aeronautics and Astronautics,
pp. 571–578.
Zhou, J., Cafieri, S., Delahaye, D., Sbihi, M., 2017. Optimization-based design of
departure and arrival routes in terminal maneuvering area. J. Guid. Contr. Dynam.
40, 2889–2904. https://doi.org/10.2514/1.G002728.