A Comparison of Departure Time of Day Formulations

Posted: 29 Jan 2016

See all articles by Virginie Lurkin

Virginie Lurkin

University of Liège - HEC Management School

Laurie A. Garrow

Georgia Institute of Technology

Matthew John Higgins

University of Utah - Department of Entrepreneurship & Strategy; National Bureau of Economic Research (NBER); Max Planck Institute for Innovation and Competition

Jeffrey P. Newman

Georgia Institute of Technology

M. Schyns

University of Liège - HEC Management School

Date Written: January 27, 2016

Abstract

Airline passengers’ itinerary choices are influenced by many factors including carriers, prices, the number of connections, and departure times. This paper compares three different methods that have been used to model departure time of day preferences. The first is a discrete formulation that uses indicator variables to represent the hour of departure. The next two methods are based on a continuous formulation that uses a series of sine and cosine functions. One assumes departure time preferences over a 24-hour cycle and the other uses shorter cycle lengths that account for fewer departures during certain hours of the day. We compare models using itineraries in the Continental U.S. that are separated by two time zones. Although the discrete formulation fits the data better, the two continuous time of day formulations are preferred as they provide more intuitive predictions and require fewer parameters. Results between the two continuous time of day formulations are similar but differ in how strongly they weight itineraries that depart very early or very late in the day. Based on empirical results, we recommend testing both 24-hour and less than 24-hour cycle lengths for a particular dataset.

Keywords: Departure time preferences, itinerary choice, airline

JEL Classification: C25, C52

Suggested Citation

Lurkin, Virginie and Garrow, Laurie A. and Higgins, Matthew John and Newman, Jeffrey P. and Schyns, Michael, A Comparison of Departure Time of Day Formulations (January 27, 2016). Available at SSRN: https://ssrn.com/abstract=2723668

Virginie Lurkin

University of Liège - HEC Management School ( email )

Boulevard du Rectorat 7 (B31)
LIEGE, Liege 4000
Belgium

Laurie A. Garrow (Contact Author)

Georgia Institute of Technology ( email )

Atlanta, GA 30332
United States
404-385-6634 (Phone)

HOME PAGE: http://garrowlab.ce.gatech.edu

Matthew John Higgins

University of Utah - Department of Entrepreneurship & Strategy ( email )

1655 East Campus Center Dr.
Salt Lake City, UT 84112
United States

National Bureau of Economic Research (NBER) ( email )

1050 Massachusetts Avenue
Cambridge, MA 02138
United States

Max Planck Institute for Innovation and Competition ( email )

Marstallplatz 1
Munich, Bayern 80539
Germany

Jeffrey P. Newman

Georgia Institute of Technology ( email )

Atlanta, GA 30332
United States

Michael Schyns

University of Liège - HEC Management School ( email )

Boulevard du Rectorat 7 (B31)
LIEGE, Liege 4000
Belgium

HOME PAGE: http://www.sig.hec.ulg.ac.be

Do you have negative results from your research you’d like to share?

Paper statistics

Abstract Views
313
PlumX Metrics