Final Report Summary - FRARS-2 (Future Regional Aircraft Requirements Survey - Part 2)
Executive Summary:
The aviation industry is under pressure from national and international institutions, from NGOs and also from the public, to reduce its environmental impacts while at the same time keeping the same levels of service in terms of safety and efficiency. In particular, the Advisory Council for Aeronautics Research in Europe (ACARE) has established ambitious environmental objectives for 2020 for the aviation industry as a whole, including the reduction of the noise perceived on the ground by 50% that require radical changes in aircraft construction, technologies and operational practices if they are to be met.
The public-private Clean Sky Joint Technology Initiative (JTI) was launched in order to accelerate the development and market-introduction of new "green" breakthrough technologies for the aviation industry, thereby enhancing the environmental performance of the aviation industry towards fulfilment of the ACARE objectives.
The CleanSky venture is divided into 6 ITD’s which cover a full spectrum of aviation topics. The FRARS-2 project falls within the “Green Regional Aircraft” ITD whose objective is:
"… deliver low-weight aircraft using smart strutures, as well as low external noise configurations and the
integration of technology developed in other ITDs, such as engines, energy management and new system
architectures."
The objective of the FRARS-2 project wasis to conduct a qualitative and quantitative survey of airlines’ high-level requirements for future regional aircraft, with specific focus on North American and African airlines. The survey is the continuation of a previous data collection campaign focused on Europe and conducted under the first Clean Sky Call for Proposals.
The overall objective of the FRARS2 project wa to establish trends in both future requirements and their relative importance when regional airlines considered the kind of aircraft
The key steps of the FRARS-2 project were:
- Survey regional airlines from North America and Africaouside of the EU on their high-level requirements in terms of future regional aircraft.
- Apply innovative multi-criteria techniques to derive concrete conclusions given the mix of qualitative and quantitative technology options.
The project was completed using a combination of conventional questionnaires, and the multi-criteria decision making tool “Analytical Hierarchy Process; a statistical method that looks to replicate the way our minds establish importance by making pairwise comparisons and choosing the relative level of importance of each. This method allows statistical analysis of data that is both quantitative and qualitative within the same framework – an essential tool when considering factors that share no common unit and whose importance can be highly subjective.
The project commenced February 2011 under the name “Updated regional traffic scenario to upgrade requirements for Future Regional Aircraft” (JTI-CS-2011-1-GRA-05-006) and was completed in January of 2013.
Project Context and Objectives:
One of the most high profile objectives for Clean Sky JTI is the ability to evaluate the environmental impact of new techniques and operations in order to provide decision makers with a full picture (compatible with ACARE objectives). However, it is equally important that such research is tied in with an understanding of the business needs, financial challenges, and environmental obligations that aircraft operators will be confronted with in the coming decades. These are the bottom line ‘user requirements’ that turn experimental technologies into sales, and finally operational flights.
The FRARS2 project was intended to collect information from regional airlines outside of the EU and to establish links and trends in the relative importance of a chosen set of core requirements (aspects of sustainability, operability and of passenger capacity/comfort trade off). The core requirement categories, and their sub-categories are:
• Economic Factors
o Operating costs
o Ownership costs and residual value
o Repair, retooling, and training costs
• Environmental Factors
o Aircraft end-of-life recycling
o Airframe and engine noise
o Greenhouse gas emissions
o Local air quality
• Performance Factors
o Airport operating conditions and runway lengths
o Aircraft weights
o Engine type, power, and time to climb
o Range
o Turn around times
• Comfort Factors
o Interior cabin noise
o Passenger entry and exit
o Seating capacity and cabin configuration
With these requirements, the project created a two part survey to try and gauge the views of airlines with regard to the future aircraft they will be operating. The first part of the survey contained predominantly open ended questions, designed to focus on the collection of responses on qualitative responses, while the second part of the study was comprised of questions that performed pairwise comparisons in line with the Analytical Hierarchy Process (AHP) method of establishing relative importance. The survey development and the collection and preparation of survey results correspond to Work Package 2 and Work Package 3 respectively.
More than 200 airlines were initially approached for a response. However, it quickly became evident that a distance approach would not attract sufficient number of respondents without incentive. The geographic scope of airlines contacted was also extended to include a higher number of Asian airlines so that the potential number of respondents could be increased.
Reasons given during this period for non-participation included insufficient time, not having a single point of contact with sufficient knowledge to complete the questionnaires without having to involve a larger team (which tied back into availability), concerns about the market sensitivity of disclosure of company strategies beyond those that the CleanSky NDA could resolve, and a general absence of a fixed long term strategy given the current economic climate.
Subsequently, a more targeted campaign was actioned that involved a period of identifying airlines that were more likely to participate, visiting these candidate airlines in person and subsequently following up/supporting airlines in completing the necessary questionnaires.
FRARS-2 project delivered responses from 13 regional airlines, 11 of whom opted to complete the open ended part of the questionnaires.
In post processing the responses collected, the project used an innovative multi-criteria decision-making (MCDM) methodology and tailored data processing tools in order to translate the opinions expressed by the airlines' executives into statistically justifiable technology options for the Clean Sky GRA ITD, which is the outcome of Work Package 4. The original prototype of MCDM methodology was initiated by AERONET project and co-developed with DLR. For the FRARS-2 project, more robust and simpler version was prepared to be used in CleanSky. This adapted version of the MCDM/AHP tool is used in the project directly by the participants and analysis report is provided.
The outcome of the project under umbrella of FRARS-2 which can be used in Cleansky, is consolidated version of AHP tool (much easier and quicker to use than the questionnaire for further surveys) and filled questionnaires and AHPs where the qualitative and quantitative data to be used
Synergy with other EU/CSJU projects (e.g. CARING, BASE, AERONET III) were also used. SustainAvia used their experience with airline surveys, use of database of contacts in the airline industry of other Cleanksy projects “CARING, BASE”.
Similarly ENVISA drew heavily from their experiences in the AERONET III initiative (Initial AHP method and concept was developed in European Commission funded AERONET project):
• The AHP methodology employed is the natural extension of the pairwise comparison method employed in the initial FRARS project
• The method has been previously used other aviation research projects (AERONET), specifically for its ability to allow consideration of qualitative and quantitative data under the same framework.
• AHP is used extensively outside of aviation as well because of its abilities to contribute statistically justifiable:
o Choice
o Ranking
o Prioritization
o Resource Allocation
o Benchmarking
• In situations where there is no common unit for factors (qualitative and quantitative data).
The general organisation of the project team is composed of ENVISA (responsible for the coordination of the project WP1 and MCDM/AHP part: WP4) and SustainAvia (responsible for preparation and conducting the surveys WP2 and WP3)
Project Results:
The number of respondents for FRARS 2 is similar to FRARS1, 13 airlines responded to the AHP (4 of them were partially filled in and one airline completed 2) and 12 airlines responded to the Questionnaires (1 was partially filled in) compared to 12 for FRARS1.
More responses would have helped further in identifying trends, as FRARS 2 covers non-European regional airlines, which represents a much wider range of airlines. FRARS 2 differs from FRARS 1 because its sample is much more diversified, the sample is distinct by diverse destinations and operating conditions, number of passengers carried and containing airlines from emerging countries – implying different business models and its staff will have different skills as compared to airlines from developed countries.
Nevertheless, based on the AHP analysis the main outcome is that cost and performance were almost equally important criteria for the airlines. Costs represent on average 38%, performance 31% and comfort and environmental efficiencies 15%. These results are comparable to the results from FRARS 1, for which performance is the most important criteria with 36%, followed by costs 31%, and comfort and environmental efficiency which represents on average 17%. The order of preference for costs and performance is reversed compared to FRARS 2, but the gap between both criteria is similar to FRARS 2 (5% for FRARS 1 and 7% for FRARS 2).
For FRARS 2, if the outliers are removed (specific responses to airlines or inexplicable based on the available data), the patterns differs as costs represent 48%, performance 28%, comfort 12% and environmental efficiency 6%.
Regarding the sub-criteria, the results that could be generalized are the following:
• Costs - Operating cost is the most important factor for passenger airlines and aircraft ownership for cargo airlines.
• Performance - Regarding performance sub-criteria, the results are spread because they are specific to each airline. Nevertheless aircraft weight although ranked in different orders has been assigned a relatively similar score from all airlines and can be considered as an important criteria for all airlines.
• Comfort - Seating capacity is important for low-cost airlines for which the score reached 7%, for other airlines, the score assigned to it was low (from 1 to 2%).
Cabin configuration is mainly important for low-cost and cargo airlines, for which it represents on average 10%. For the rest of the airlines, the pattern is similar and a score from 2-5% was assigned to it. Passenger entry to aircraft is not considered important by asked airlines when choosing a new aircraft for purchase.
• Environmental efficiency - The cargo airline has assigned a high score to GHG emissions (11%), the rest of the airlines that answered the entire AHP pairwise comparison have assigned low-scores to environmental criteria. The airlines that have assigned an overall high score to environment didn't fill the entire AHP questionnaire.
In the future, to collect further responses, the following recommendations are suggested:
• Target the department - Fleet planning is a joint responsibility with many departments involved and in many cases is lead by the Network Planning Department since that department often identifies the need to aircraft. However, it is not always the case and it can be a possible source of inconsistent results as the questionnaire was sent in majority to the Network Planning Department. Prior enquiring should be realized to identify the department in charge of the acquisition of aircrafts. The questionnaires and AHP comparison table should be sent to this particular department.
• Optimize the questionnaire - More information could be obtained if the ‘users’ of the FRARS2 data, the NC (‘New Configurations) domain (within the scope of the GRA ITD), were actively involved during the development of the survey questions and participated in the interviews with the airlines, even if they would have been involved remotely by teleconference and email. Similarly, minimizing the length of the questionnaire would have increased the number of responses which could have helped explaining the AHP results. In future more specific questions should be identified and asked in the shortest possible way.
The questionnaires are useful to understand the future strategy of an airline when choosing a regional aircraft (business and technical strategy), but its analysis is independent from the AHP analysis. In the future it would be interesting to establish a questionnaire that is complementary to the AHP comparison.
• Provide a financial incentive - More responses could be obtained if there was a financial incentive for people contacted at the airline companies.
Potential Impact:
Although it is a main concern in Europe, public awareness of impacts of the growing air transport sector on environment has risen also in other continents.
The FRARS-2 project was a follow up from the European study, and it first provided an awareness of the Cleansky project in the other continents (most of the participants were not aware of the Cleansky initiative). Thus, it showed for the selection of the future regional aircraft requirements, the environmental factors were considered in addition to others (like cost and performance)
In addition, as the project developed a simple version of AHP (MCDM) prototype.
Rather than prescribing a "correct" decision, the AHP helps decision makers find one that best suits their goal and their understanding of the problem. It provides a comprehensive and rational framework for structuring a decision problem, for representing and quantifying its elements, for relating those elements to overall goals, and for evaluating alternative solutions.
This methodology was used in the FRARS2 project. The purpose was try and establish the relative importance of various criteria that are considered important features of decision making for the selection of which technologies and design best suit future regional aircraft (2020+).
This prototype can be easily used by Cleansky or any decision makers, or public who would like to make rational decisions on environmental, societal and economical aspects.
The raw data collected for surveys and AHP are available for Cleansky, and thus can be enhanced if more data become available.
By analysing the AHP results, the project shows that in the selected region, decision for future aircraft acquisition is not always considered by environmental factors. Thus, it could be important to develop more environmental awareness in the aviation sector in these regions. In addition one recommendation can be made to increase internal coordination between, marketing, performance, environment, cost etc.. departments.
Another recommendation of the project, due to difficulties of collecting more data, for survey projects to be successful, it is recommended to create well balanced, either with shorter versions for participants being able to respond in less than 1 hour, and to try to keep it simple (with minimal confidential information request). Another important approach that can increase the number of respondents is to add a small incentive to such surveys.
In summary, the project provided that
• Detailed and short version of survey to collect the data for the future
• Detailed and compact version of AHP method
• Filled questionnaires (long and short versions)
• Report on questionnaires
• Filled AHP data
• Report on AHP analysis
Societal implication:
In the FRARS-2 project, team included women scientific and engineers. The project Coordinator and AHP analyst were both highly qualified women experts.
The involvement of FRARS-2 team with airlines were quite sensitive nature, as the survey materials included some confidential information of participating airlines. In the AHP analysis, the names of the airlines were taken out in order to keep the confidentiality.
During the project, scientific/technical knowledge on AHP/MCDM and know‐how was transferred to participants and Topic Manager. This tool/prototype could give an excellent opportunity to make sustainable decision making in their future projects/acquisitions and internal decisions. As they will be able to compare and decide by taking into consideration of environment, social and economic factors.
Although the deliverables related the raw data of the participants were classified as CONFIDENTIAL (with disclosure to CSJU only and for consideration of environment), other deliverables are free to use (AHP prototype and analysis report).
List of Websites:
ENVISA: http://www.env-isa.com
SustainAvia : http://www.sustainavia.com
The aviation industry is under pressure from national and international institutions, from NGOs and also from the public, to reduce its environmental impacts while at the same time keeping the same levels of service in terms of safety and efficiency. In particular, the Advisory Council for Aeronautics Research in Europe (ACARE) has established ambitious environmental objectives for 2020 for the aviation industry as a whole, including the reduction of the noise perceived on the ground by 50% that require radical changes in aircraft construction, technologies and operational practices if they are to be met.
The public-private Clean Sky Joint Technology Initiative (JTI) was launched in order to accelerate the development and market-introduction of new "green" breakthrough technologies for the aviation industry, thereby enhancing the environmental performance of the aviation industry towards fulfilment of the ACARE objectives.
The CleanSky venture is divided into 6 ITD’s which cover a full spectrum of aviation topics. The FRARS-2 project falls within the “Green Regional Aircraft” ITD whose objective is:
"… deliver low-weight aircraft using smart strutures, as well as low external noise configurations and the
integration of technology developed in other ITDs, such as engines, energy management and new system
architectures."
The objective of the FRARS-2 project wasis to conduct a qualitative and quantitative survey of airlines’ high-level requirements for future regional aircraft, with specific focus on North American and African airlines. The survey is the continuation of a previous data collection campaign focused on Europe and conducted under the first Clean Sky Call for Proposals.
The overall objective of the FRARS2 project wa to establish trends in both future requirements and their relative importance when regional airlines considered the kind of aircraft
The key steps of the FRARS-2 project were:
- Survey regional airlines from North America and Africaouside of the EU on their high-level requirements in terms of future regional aircraft.
- Apply innovative multi-criteria techniques to derive concrete conclusions given the mix of qualitative and quantitative technology options.
The project was completed using a combination of conventional questionnaires, and the multi-criteria decision making tool “Analytical Hierarchy Process; a statistical method that looks to replicate the way our minds establish importance by making pairwise comparisons and choosing the relative level of importance of each. This method allows statistical analysis of data that is both quantitative and qualitative within the same framework – an essential tool when considering factors that share no common unit and whose importance can be highly subjective.
The project commenced February 2011 under the name “Updated regional traffic scenario to upgrade requirements for Future Regional Aircraft” (JTI-CS-2011-1-GRA-05-006) and was completed in January of 2013.
Project Context and Objectives:
One of the most high profile objectives for Clean Sky JTI is the ability to evaluate the environmental impact of new techniques and operations in order to provide decision makers with a full picture (compatible with ACARE objectives). However, it is equally important that such research is tied in with an understanding of the business needs, financial challenges, and environmental obligations that aircraft operators will be confronted with in the coming decades. These are the bottom line ‘user requirements’ that turn experimental technologies into sales, and finally operational flights.
The FRARS2 project was intended to collect information from regional airlines outside of the EU and to establish links and trends in the relative importance of a chosen set of core requirements (aspects of sustainability, operability and of passenger capacity/comfort trade off). The core requirement categories, and their sub-categories are:
• Economic Factors
o Operating costs
o Ownership costs and residual value
o Repair, retooling, and training costs
• Environmental Factors
o Aircraft end-of-life recycling
o Airframe and engine noise
o Greenhouse gas emissions
o Local air quality
• Performance Factors
o Airport operating conditions and runway lengths
o Aircraft weights
o Engine type, power, and time to climb
o Range
o Turn around times
• Comfort Factors
o Interior cabin noise
o Passenger entry and exit
o Seating capacity and cabin configuration
With these requirements, the project created a two part survey to try and gauge the views of airlines with regard to the future aircraft they will be operating. The first part of the survey contained predominantly open ended questions, designed to focus on the collection of responses on qualitative responses, while the second part of the study was comprised of questions that performed pairwise comparisons in line with the Analytical Hierarchy Process (AHP) method of establishing relative importance. The survey development and the collection and preparation of survey results correspond to Work Package 2 and Work Package 3 respectively.
More than 200 airlines were initially approached for a response. However, it quickly became evident that a distance approach would not attract sufficient number of respondents without incentive. The geographic scope of airlines contacted was also extended to include a higher number of Asian airlines so that the potential number of respondents could be increased.
Reasons given during this period for non-participation included insufficient time, not having a single point of contact with sufficient knowledge to complete the questionnaires without having to involve a larger team (which tied back into availability), concerns about the market sensitivity of disclosure of company strategies beyond those that the CleanSky NDA could resolve, and a general absence of a fixed long term strategy given the current economic climate.
Subsequently, a more targeted campaign was actioned that involved a period of identifying airlines that were more likely to participate, visiting these candidate airlines in person and subsequently following up/supporting airlines in completing the necessary questionnaires.
FRARS-2 project delivered responses from 13 regional airlines, 11 of whom opted to complete the open ended part of the questionnaires.
In post processing the responses collected, the project used an innovative multi-criteria decision-making (MCDM) methodology and tailored data processing tools in order to translate the opinions expressed by the airlines' executives into statistically justifiable technology options for the Clean Sky GRA ITD, which is the outcome of Work Package 4. The original prototype of MCDM methodology was initiated by AERONET project and co-developed with DLR. For the FRARS-2 project, more robust and simpler version was prepared to be used in CleanSky. This adapted version of the MCDM/AHP tool is used in the project directly by the participants and analysis report is provided.
The outcome of the project under umbrella of FRARS-2 which can be used in Cleansky, is consolidated version of AHP tool (much easier and quicker to use than the questionnaire for further surveys) and filled questionnaires and AHPs where the qualitative and quantitative data to be used
Synergy with other EU/CSJU projects (e.g. CARING, BASE, AERONET III) were also used. SustainAvia used their experience with airline surveys, use of database of contacts in the airline industry of other Cleanksy projects “CARING, BASE”.
Similarly ENVISA drew heavily from their experiences in the AERONET III initiative (Initial AHP method and concept was developed in European Commission funded AERONET project):
• The AHP methodology employed is the natural extension of the pairwise comparison method employed in the initial FRARS project
• The method has been previously used other aviation research projects (AERONET), specifically for its ability to allow consideration of qualitative and quantitative data under the same framework.
• AHP is used extensively outside of aviation as well because of its abilities to contribute statistically justifiable:
o Choice
o Ranking
o Prioritization
o Resource Allocation
o Benchmarking
• In situations where there is no common unit for factors (qualitative and quantitative data).
The general organisation of the project team is composed of ENVISA (responsible for the coordination of the project WP1 and MCDM/AHP part: WP4) and SustainAvia (responsible for preparation and conducting the surveys WP2 and WP3)
Project Results:
The number of respondents for FRARS 2 is similar to FRARS1, 13 airlines responded to the AHP (4 of them were partially filled in and one airline completed 2) and 12 airlines responded to the Questionnaires (1 was partially filled in) compared to 12 for FRARS1.
More responses would have helped further in identifying trends, as FRARS 2 covers non-European regional airlines, which represents a much wider range of airlines. FRARS 2 differs from FRARS 1 because its sample is much more diversified, the sample is distinct by diverse destinations and operating conditions, number of passengers carried and containing airlines from emerging countries – implying different business models and its staff will have different skills as compared to airlines from developed countries.
Nevertheless, based on the AHP analysis the main outcome is that cost and performance were almost equally important criteria for the airlines. Costs represent on average 38%, performance 31% and comfort and environmental efficiencies 15%. These results are comparable to the results from FRARS 1, for which performance is the most important criteria with 36%, followed by costs 31%, and comfort and environmental efficiency which represents on average 17%. The order of preference for costs and performance is reversed compared to FRARS 2, but the gap between both criteria is similar to FRARS 2 (5% for FRARS 1 and 7% for FRARS 2).
For FRARS 2, if the outliers are removed (specific responses to airlines or inexplicable based on the available data), the patterns differs as costs represent 48%, performance 28%, comfort 12% and environmental efficiency 6%.
Regarding the sub-criteria, the results that could be generalized are the following:
• Costs - Operating cost is the most important factor for passenger airlines and aircraft ownership for cargo airlines.
• Performance - Regarding performance sub-criteria, the results are spread because they are specific to each airline. Nevertheless aircraft weight although ranked in different orders has been assigned a relatively similar score from all airlines and can be considered as an important criteria for all airlines.
• Comfort - Seating capacity is important for low-cost airlines for which the score reached 7%, for other airlines, the score assigned to it was low (from 1 to 2%).
Cabin configuration is mainly important for low-cost and cargo airlines, for which it represents on average 10%. For the rest of the airlines, the pattern is similar and a score from 2-5% was assigned to it. Passenger entry to aircraft is not considered important by asked airlines when choosing a new aircraft for purchase.
• Environmental efficiency - The cargo airline has assigned a high score to GHG emissions (11%), the rest of the airlines that answered the entire AHP pairwise comparison have assigned low-scores to environmental criteria. The airlines that have assigned an overall high score to environment didn't fill the entire AHP questionnaire.
In the future, to collect further responses, the following recommendations are suggested:
• Target the department - Fleet planning is a joint responsibility with many departments involved and in many cases is lead by the Network Planning Department since that department often identifies the need to aircraft. However, it is not always the case and it can be a possible source of inconsistent results as the questionnaire was sent in majority to the Network Planning Department. Prior enquiring should be realized to identify the department in charge of the acquisition of aircrafts. The questionnaires and AHP comparison table should be sent to this particular department.
• Optimize the questionnaire - More information could be obtained if the ‘users’ of the FRARS2 data, the NC (‘New Configurations) domain (within the scope of the GRA ITD), were actively involved during the development of the survey questions and participated in the interviews with the airlines, even if they would have been involved remotely by teleconference and email. Similarly, minimizing the length of the questionnaire would have increased the number of responses which could have helped explaining the AHP results. In future more specific questions should be identified and asked in the shortest possible way.
The questionnaires are useful to understand the future strategy of an airline when choosing a regional aircraft (business and technical strategy), but its analysis is independent from the AHP analysis. In the future it would be interesting to establish a questionnaire that is complementary to the AHP comparison.
• Provide a financial incentive - More responses could be obtained if there was a financial incentive for people contacted at the airline companies.
Potential Impact:
Although it is a main concern in Europe, public awareness of impacts of the growing air transport sector on environment has risen also in other continents.
The FRARS-2 project was a follow up from the European study, and it first provided an awareness of the Cleansky project in the other continents (most of the participants were not aware of the Cleansky initiative). Thus, it showed for the selection of the future regional aircraft requirements, the environmental factors were considered in addition to others (like cost and performance)
In addition, as the project developed a simple version of AHP (MCDM) prototype.
Rather than prescribing a "correct" decision, the AHP helps decision makers find one that best suits their goal and their understanding of the problem. It provides a comprehensive and rational framework for structuring a decision problem, for representing and quantifying its elements, for relating those elements to overall goals, and for evaluating alternative solutions.
This methodology was used in the FRARS2 project. The purpose was try and establish the relative importance of various criteria that are considered important features of decision making for the selection of which technologies and design best suit future regional aircraft (2020+).
This prototype can be easily used by Cleansky or any decision makers, or public who would like to make rational decisions on environmental, societal and economical aspects.
The raw data collected for surveys and AHP are available for Cleansky, and thus can be enhanced if more data become available.
By analysing the AHP results, the project shows that in the selected region, decision for future aircraft acquisition is not always considered by environmental factors. Thus, it could be important to develop more environmental awareness in the aviation sector in these regions. In addition one recommendation can be made to increase internal coordination between, marketing, performance, environment, cost etc.. departments.
Another recommendation of the project, due to difficulties of collecting more data, for survey projects to be successful, it is recommended to create well balanced, either with shorter versions for participants being able to respond in less than 1 hour, and to try to keep it simple (with minimal confidential information request). Another important approach that can increase the number of respondents is to add a small incentive to such surveys.
In summary, the project provided that
• Detailed and short version of survey to collect the data for the future
• Detailed and compact version of AHP method
• Filled questionnaires (long and short versions)
• Report on questionnaires
• Filled AHP data
• Report on AHP analysis
Societal implication:
In the FRARS-2 project, team included women scientific and engineers. The project Coordinator and AHP analyst were both highly qualified women experts.
The involvement of FRARS-2 team with airlines were quite sensitive nature, as the survey materials included some confidential information of participating airlines. In the AHP analysis, the names of the airlines were taken out in order to keep the confidentiality.
During the project, scientific/technical knowledge on AHP/MCDM and know‐how was transferred to participants and Topic Manager. This tool/prototype could give an excellent opportunity to make sustainable decision making in their future projects/acquisitions and internal decisions. As they will be able to compare and decide by taking into consideration of environment, social and economic factors.
Although the deliverables related the raw data of the participants were classified as CONFIDENTIAL (with disclosure to CSJU only and for consideration of environment), other deliverables are free to use (AHP prototype and analysis report).
List of Websites:
ENVISA: http://www.env-isa.com
SustainAvia : http://www.sustainavia.com
