(Data Envelopment Analysis) An analysis of Airport Efficiency for Air cargo Hub in the Northeast Asian Region using DEA(Data Envelopment Analysis) 2004 7-1 -
(Data Envelopment Analysis) An analysis of Airport Efficiency for Air cargo Hub in the Northeast Asian Region using DEA(Data Envelopment Analysis) 2004 7-2 -
2004 7-3 -
< > 1 1p 1 1p 2 2p 2...4p 1...4p 1. 4p 2...5p 3... 8p 4. 15p 2.18p 1....18p 2. 23p 43p 1. (Hub & Spoke System).43p 2...45p - 4 -
3....46p 3 (Data Envelopment Analysis).49p 1 (Efficiency)...49p 2 (Data Envelopment Analysis)...51p 3..55p 4 60p 1 60p 2 64p 1. CCR.64p 2. BCC 68p 3.70p 5.73p <> < > 2000 ~ 2002 Data - 5 -
[ 2-1] 5p [ 2-2] GDP 6p [ 2-3] 7p [ 2-4] 01-05 8p [ 2-5] 9p [ 2-6] 9p [ 2-7] SKY TEAM CARGO 11p [ 2-8] WOW alliance 13p [ 2-9] 17p [ 2-10] 18p [ 2-11] 21p [ 2-12] 25p [ 2-13] 28p [ 2-14] 30p [ 2-15] 33p [ 2-16] 35p [ 2-17] 37p [ 2-18] 39p [ 2-19] Hub and Spoke 44p [ 2-20] 44p - 6 -
[ 3-1] Farrell 49p [ 4-1] 62p [ 4-2] 63p [ 4-3] KIX 66p [ 4-4] KIX 67p [ 4-5] KIX 69p [ 4-6] KIX 70p [ 4-7] 71p - 7 -
[ 2-1] Sky Team Cargo 12p [ 2-2] WOW-alliance 14p [ 2-3] GDP16p [ 2-4] 16p [ 2-5] 19p [ 2-6] 19p [ 2-7] 20p [ 2-8] 20p [ 2-9] 23p [ 2-10] 29p [ 2-11] 33p [ 2-12] 35p [ 2-13] 37p [ 2-14] 39p [ 2-15] 42p [ 3-1] 58p [ 4-1] 30 61p [ 4-2] DEA DMU63p [ 4-3] DEA 64p [ 4-4] CCR 65p [ 4-5] BCC 68p - 8 -
[ 4-6] DEA70p [ 4-7] 72p - 9 -
: : :,. SCM,. 3,,,.. - 10 -
. DEA. 2004 30 7.,.,,. 2003 11 BCC, 36%. DEA.. Data. :, Hub & Spoke, SCM, - 11 -
1 1 (opportunity cost)...... 2001... Hub.,. - 12 -
2,...,. DEA. (DEA: Data Envelopment Analysis). DEA DMU(Decision Making Unit). (Input) (Output),. DMU(Decision Making Unit), 2002 ACI(Airport Council International) Rank 100 10. Data 7 DMU, 6 1. - 13 -
(International Air Transport Association), (Airport Council International), (International Civil Aviation Organization),. DEA 1 Excel Solver, Excel Solver 2 Banxia Frontier Analyst., 2001. - 14 -
2 1 1. (Fortune) 500 64% 74%. (Temple et. al., 1987),,,... (Prabir, K. Bagchi, 1992; Yip, George S, 1992),,,,,,,,. (Chee-Chuong Sum et. al., 2001). 20~25%(UNCTAD, 1993), (Supply Chain Management) - 15 -
.,,,. (Philip B. Schary, 1995) 2..,. [ 2-1] [ 2-1] : Aviation week & Space Technology, 2001.8.,,. - 16 -
,.. Boeing Annual Report (World wide GDP). 2021 2.9%,. GDP. [ 2-2] (Boeing, 2003a) [ 2-2] GDP : World overview and Forecast, Boeing Annual Report, 2003.,, (Inter national express air cargo). - 17 -
1991 3.7% 2001 11.8%,. (Boeing, 2003b). (Just-In-Time),,. (Boeing 2003a) 20 6.4%.. 2021 29.7% 26.1%,. [ 2-3] (Boeing, 2003b) [ 2-3] : IATA Annual Report 2003. - 18 -
,. [ 2-4] [ 2-4] 01-05 :... 3.. Mercer Management Consulting 30-19 -
5~7%, 2~3%. [2-5] [2-5] : Mercer Analysis (Boeing) 1994 2001 47.5% 27.4%. (Mark & John, 2001) [2-6] [2-6] (1994~2001) : Boeing World Air Cargo Forecast. 2002-2003. - 20 -
,. alliance. Global alliance Sky Team Cargo WOW alliance alliance alliance. 1) Sky Team Cargo Sky Team Cargo Sky Team Cargo,, alliance. Sky Team 4 (TIACA, The Internatioal Air Cargo Association) ' 2000(Air Cargo Forum 2000)' 9 28 ' '.[2-7] Sky Team Cargo 170 100 411 6 810. alliance Lufthansa WOW alliance, (Star), (Oneworld), (Wings) 4 Sky Team Cargo. Sky Team Cargo 4,,, - 21 -
,,. [2-7] SKY TEAM CARGO,,,,,. 99 120 - ( ), 928-13. 96 4 2, 4,. Sky Team Cargo Sky Team Cargo - 22 -
, (Equation), (Cohesion), (Variation), (Dimension) 4. [2-1]. [2-1] Sky Team Cargo (Equation) (Variation) (Cohesion) (Dimension) : Korean air Cargo,,,. - 23 -
2) Wow alliance Wow alliance 'WOW (WOW alliance)' 1 3, SAS 3 2000 4 26.[ 2-8] WOW alliance 3 2000 37 147.,,, 103 493. [2-8] WOW alliance. - 24 -
WOW alliance WOW alliance 3 4 1 (joint general cargo service). WOW alliance 'td.pro' 'General Cargo', SAS WOW 3.[ 2-2] [ 2-2] WOW-alliance Lufthansa SAS Singapore Japan Cargo Cargo Airl. Cargo Airl. Cargo HUBS Frankfurt, Cologne CPH, STO, OSL, GOT, Singapore Tokyo EMPLOYEES 5,411 1,180 650 670 DESTINATIONS COUNTRIES 523 Worldwide 103 Worldwide CONTINENTS 5 FLEET 43 Freighters and 767 Passenger Aircrafts REVENUE 2,194 Mio. US$ 210 Mio. US$ 1,140 Mio. US$ 190 Billion Yen FTKO in Billion Freight tons/km 11.28 1.256 8.95 6.353 offered FTKT in Billion Freight tons/km 7.081 0.878 5.594 4.19 transported : http://www.lhcargo.co.kr/company05.htm - 25 -
WOW alliance. 'td.flash', SAS 'SAS Priority', 'Swiftrider'.. 4.,,,.. (Bhatnagar, R. et.al.,1999),. DHL, FedEx UPS.. 28%(2000 ).., - 26 -
... GDP 1970 16.7% 2000 19.6%, 2006~2020 20%. [ 2-3] [ 2-3] GDP 1999 0.4 10.9 7.1 5.4 2000 2.8 9.3 8 5.9 2001 0.4 3.1 7.3-2.2 2002 0.3 6.3 8 3.5 :, http://www.bok.or.kr. %, 1980 20% 2000 34.7% 1990. [ 2-4] [ 2-4] % 1980 1985 1990 2000 15.8 21.0 23.8 34.7 ASEAN 13.2 14.0 12.5 15.3 EU 55.2 50.0 55.2 47.5 NAFTA 33.0 32.6 41.3 29.0 :, - 27 -
. [2-9] [ 2-9] : World air transport statistics, 47 Edition.,. (Ross Robinson., 1998), Hub. Hub Asian Logistics Center Asian Business Center. Asian Logistics Center Transport Hub, Total Logistics - 28 -
Hub, Economics Hub. (Hun soo Lee.et. al., 2002), Hub 2 1.. 8.4%. - 7.5%, - 7.0%. [ 2-10] [ 2-10] : World Overview and Forecast, Boeing Annual Report, 2003. - 29 -
, 2020, 43%. 2001. [ 2-5] [ 2-5] : metric tons / 2001 / / / / / Volume 619 550 1,874 1,993 1,001 Capacity 1,850 780 2,700 1,380 1,400 Evaluation 3 5 1 2 4 : ACI Total Cargo: Loaded+ Unloaded Freight+ Mail in metric tons. [ 2-6] [ 2-6] : metric tons / 2001 / / / / / Current 0.75 0.78 1.70 1.40 1.40 Future plan 5.00 5.00 7.00 1.80 3.00 Final year 2015 2020 2020 2010 2010 Evaluation 2 3 1 5 4 : ACI Total Cargo: Loaded+ Unloaded Freight+ Mail in metric tons - 30 -
2, 94%. 1990, 16%. 2002 4 2 2,180m 747.. 138. 2000 184 2, 1.33. [ 2-7] [ 2-7] : 2000 ` 2010 2020 2000 2010 2020 (A) 1,842.0 1,931.5 2,041.8 864.0 1,580.3 3,062.8 (B) 1,380.0 1,828.0 1,828.0 1,400.0 3,000.0 3,000.0 B-A -462.0-103.0-213.0 536.0 1,418.7-62.8 (A/B) 1.3 1.1 1.1 0.6 0.5 1.0 : Hajime Inamura, Transport Demands, Costs, and Infrastructure Capacity: Case of Japan,Building Regional distribution and Logistics Centers in Northeast Asia: Monthly Transportation. 3,500m 140. 2000 86 4 62%. 5, 747-400 1. 80%.. - 31 -
70%.,.. 8 182 300. 2010. WTO... [ 2-11] [ 2-11] : CAAC, McKinsey analysis. - 32 -
. 20%.. (Staffan Hertzell, 2001) 145 20 78.8%. (, ). (Chunyan Yu., 2001.) 2001 WTO,.. 2010. 75 500. (Hiroshi Ohashi et.al, 2003) 2008 2010 World Expo. (Shanghai, 2003) 46.5% 213 2010 65%, 290. 2008, 2 1 2006, 2. 2005 60-33 -
30 10, 15 2. ᆞᆞ 3 ᆞ. 3, ᆞ 50 40. 2. 1) (Chiang Kai-Shek International Airport) (TPE) (gateway). 1979 TPE 40km, 1,223m 2, 3,660m X 60m, 3,350 X 60m, 2752 X 45m 1 3. 75 2316 m 2 30. [2-8] - 34 -
[2-8] 1979 1223m 2 3,660m X 60m 10 9691 2255 8413 91 2391 3,350 X 60m (1999) (1999) (1999) 2752 X 45m. TPE 1991,., 18,. 8. 1,400 TPE 2,200. TPE 2000. 2 24 6 2 air cargo terminal 1 air cargo terminal TPE Airport office. parameter, - 35 -
.,,... TPE 2000 18,681,462 9.6%. 14 %, 1.208,838 115,693 5.5%. [2-12] [ 2-12] : Airport Benchmarking Report. 2002. TPE. IATA,. - 36 -
2) (Singapore Changi International Airport). (Gateway) (SIN). SIN 20km, 2Km. SIN 1911, 1937 (Kallang airport). 1 1981 7 1. 1990 11 22 2. SIN 1695 8754, 4,000mx60m 3,355mx60m 2 66. 45 6200 69. 3,728 4, 78m. 2(50 5000) 2400, 6 25. 62 54 114. [2-9] - 37 -
[2-9] 1911 1696m 2 4,000m X 60m 18 4619 2517 4344 135 8044 3,355m X 60m (1997) (1997) (1997) SIN 30. SIN 25. SIN 8, 3~4... 15. SIN (Civil Aviation Authority of Singapore: CAAS).. SIN 2001 16, 14 12 (Best Airport in the world). - 38 -
2000 SIN 9.8%, 28. 12% 5%. [2-13] 2006 3 SIN, SIN 60. SIN Star Alliance,. [ 2-13] : Airport Benchmarking Report. 2002 SIN Star Alliance. Star Alliance Virgin Atlantic Airways Air New Zealand SIN, British Airways Qantas Oneworld alliance - 39 -
partner. 5. 3) (Beijing Capital International Airport) 28km (PEK) Boeing 747-400 2, 2000 39 22. PEK 2000, 2. 2000 2 Beijing Capital International Airport Company Beijing Capital International Airport Group Corporation,,,, VIP. 1999 PEK, 1 2001. 33 6 ( 1 164 ) 4.3, 36. [ 2-10] - 40 -
[2-10] 1958 336m 2 3,400m 70 2600 43 3,800m,. 2600, 3600. 3800, 3400 2 24,. PEK 2, 20... 1988, ().,.,. 2 H( ),. 88 8.1%.. - 41 -
[ 2-14] : Airport Benchmarking Report. 2002 4) (Tokyo Narita International Airport) (NRT) 60km. NRT 1966 1977 1 1978 5, 1997. 1998 11.,. NRT 1065. 4,000mx60m 2,500mx60m 2. 15.9, 30m. 215-42 -
112. 27 1100 9,000. 3(47 9700) 2300 31 1300. 87.3m. 1997 12 5873, 2566 7577, 173 8795. 38 51, 98. [2-11] NRT,,.. 1966 (Narita Airport Authority). 2 1999. 2002 3. [2-11] 1978 1065m 2 4,000mx60m, 12 5873 2566 7577 173 8795 2,500mx60m (1997) (1997) (1997) NRT 6.7% 4.9%. NRT. [ 2-15] - 43 -
[ 2-15] : Airport Benchmarking Report. 2002 5) (Bang Kok International Airport) (BKK) 24km. BKK 1914 2 1955 3. 71, 600, 3,700mx60m 3,500mx45m 2 62. 80 95. 12 5000 3000. 3(32 3366) 2500, 4,000. 1 6 5000 48-44 -
. 1997 18 7786, 2512 4843, 77 1064.[ 2-12]. 100 (Dayroom),,,. AAT(Airports Authority of Thailand: )., BKK B747-400 B77-300. 5000m 2. 2004 115$(us) BKK. [2-12] 1914 600m 2 3,700mx60m, 18 7786 2512 4843 771064 3,500mx45m (1997) (1997) (1997) BKK 2000 24 8.5%. 22 7.5% - 45 -
. BKK 80 Hub. [ 2-16] [ 2-16] : Airport Benchmarking Report. 2002 6) (Kansai International Airport) (KIX) 1987 1994 9 4. 24. KIX 510 3000. 3,500mx60m 1, 1 720m. 97 100 55. 1(29 1269) 3300-46 -
1(26 4000). 86.40m. 1997 12 1063, 1975 613, 74 4937. 35 47, 75 [2-13]. 3.75km,.,, () 30. 5. 1984 (Kansai International Airport Co. Ltd.). 1996 1 2 2007. [2-13] 1994 5103000 3,500mx60m 12 1063 1975 613 74 4937 m 2 (1997) (1997) (1997) KIX 2.9%, 15.8%. 4.4%. [2-17] - 47 -
[ 2-17] : Airport Benchmarking Report. 2002 7) (Hong Kong Chek Lap Kok International Airport) (HKG) 1998. HKG 30km, 1,255Ha, 49, 3,800mx60m 2, 54. 88, 21. 3,000. 1(51 5000) 3500, 2(32) 300. - 48 -
HKG 66, 104. 1998 17, 3500, 110. [2-14] 23, (Tuen Mun) 10. ᆞᆞᆞ (franchised buses),. 750m (Automated Passenger Mover).. 1995 12 1 AAHK(Airport Authority Hong Kong:). [2-14] 1998 1248 3,800mx60m 17 3500 110 m 2 3,800mx60m (1998) (1998) (1998) 2000 HKG 10.2% 22. HKG 13.3%, 7% - 49 -
2 89. [ 2-18] [ 2-18] : Airport Benchmarking Report. 2002 HKG 2002 Skytrax Research 2002 Air- Cargo News Cargo Airport. 2000 HKG 22 2. 8) (Incheon International airport) 21 (Hub), 1992 8 4 7 8,000 2001 3 29. - 50 -
1992~2000 8 1, 17 2,700 170. 1995, 1.7km.,,,,. 270, 120, 28, 6,400. 24, 170 t. [ 2-17] 33 60. 22 100m, 200m., 6,200,. 2 2020 2 4, 875, 1, 700, 53 (). Top class. 7 CAT-B.. (IATA) (40~50), 4~6. Insight Media Ltd Airport Service Excellence Award 2(2002, 2003) - 51 -
.. [2-12] 2001 5 6202 km 2 3,750mx60m 3,800mx60m 100.4m 2700 170. 2000, 40%(15), 25%(24 ). 30%(29), 14%(23t). 9 11 8.3%(15). 2 200, 400, 65.. - 52 -
3 1. (Hub & Spoke System) Hub. (Hub) (Spoke). Hub Hub & Spoke System. Hub & Spoke System FedEx,, UPS, Norfolk, Southern, Yellow Freight. (Sue Abdinnour-Helm, 2001; Wong Kok Siew, 2002) (line type), (grid type) (Hub & Spoke) 3. (Hanlon, P., 1996).,. [ 2-19],. - 53 -
[ 2-19] Hub and Spoke : Association of European Airlines yearbook. 2003 (hinterland) (hourglass). [ 2-20] [ 2-20] Hinterland hub ( ) :, - 54 -
.,,,. ( Doganis, R.S. 1989) 2.,.,,.,,,.,.. code share.. ( 2001) - 55 -
3.., (multistop),,.,. (Hiroshi Ohashi et. al, 2003),.,. (Sue Abdinnour-Helm, 2001) (T/S Cargo),. 1, 1,000.. (Hiroshi Ohashi, 2003),. - 56 -
.,. Hub & Spoke,.,.,. IATA 78%. (Ellen Christiaanse, 2003)..,.,.., - 57 -
...,,. - 58 -
3 (Data Envelopment Analysis) 1 (Efficiency) (Efficiency) (Input) (Output). Farrell(1957) (X-inefficiency).. [ 3-1] Farrell X 2 A X 2D X 2C Q 1 Q P B Á K=P 1 X 1 +P 2 X 2 X 1q X 1p X 1 [ 3-1] Farrell. AA X1 X2 (Isoquant curve) - 59 -
Y=f(X1, X2) 1 (Production Frontier). AA, AA. P, Q P, P (X1p, X2p) = (X1q, X2p) t. OP OQ P Q t OQ/OP. P OQ/OP Farrell OQ/OP.. (Parameter technique) (Stochastic approach) (Econometric approach). (Ratio analysis), (Productivity in dex approach), (Regression analysis). (Ratio analysis).,,. - 60 -
(Productivity index approach),,,.,,. (Regression analysis). (Non-parameter technique) ( Non-stochastic approach) (Liner programming approach). (Data Envelopment Analysis). (Data Envelopment Analysis) ( Data Envelopment Analysis)- DEA-. DEA (DMU: Decision Making Unit). (, 2003) - 61 -
DEA. DEA,, (), (), (), ().(, 2002) Charnes, Cooper & Rhodes DEA (multiple inputs) (multiple outputs). DEA. DEA (DMU). DEA (Liner Programming Technique).. (Efficiency)= (Output) / (Input).. (Efficiency)=Weighed Sum of Outputs / Weighted Sum of Inputs - 62 -
. J J = u1 y1 j + u2 y2 j / 1 1 j 2 2 j + L v x + v x + L u = r y r rj = j r v i = i x ij = j i. Charnes, Coope r & Rhodes(1978) DMU ( 1) CCR. ( 2). MAX h 0 = t r= 1 m r= 1 u r y v i x ij rj0 0 subject to : t r= 1 m r= 1 ur y rj 0 v x i ij0 =, j = 1,..., n, u, v ε, rand i... ( 1) r i - 63 -
subject to : MAX h0 = u r y rj 0 m i= 1 t r= 1 v i x ij u r y rj = 0 1 t r= 1 m i= 1 v i x ij 0, j = 1,..., n, u ε, r = 1,..., t,...( 2) v ε, i = 1,..., m, CCR DMU.,. Banker, Charnes & Cooper(1984) BCC. BCC CCR u 0. MAX h = u r y rj 0 subject to : = m i= 1 t r= 1 i x ij t u 0 0 r= 1 v 0 1 u r y rj v ε, i m i= 1 v i x ij u ε, r = 1,..., t, = 1,..., m, 0, j = 1,..., n, u = urs( free) 0 Variable.. ( 3) DEA, CCR, BCC. - 64 -
,... 1) Gillen and Lall(1997) Gillen and Lall(1997) 1989 1993, 30 21.. 2 6 -,,,,,., 2 4,,,. 2) Joseph Sarkis(2000) Joseph Sarkis(2000) 44., - 65 -
,,,,,. DEA,. 3) Adler and Berechman(2001) Adler and Berechman(2001),,.,,,,. 4) Marin and Roman Marin and Ro man.,,, 3. 5) Peles(2001) Peles(2001) Gill and Lall(1 997)., - 66 -
,.,, Check-in-desk,,. 6) Elton Fernandes(2002) Elton Fernandes(2002) 35.,, Check-in-counter, Curb,,,. 7), (2002) (2002),, 3 2.,. 8) Bazargan and Vasigh(2003) Bazargan and Vasigh(2003),,.,,, - 67 -
,,,,. [ 3-1] DEA DMU Input Variable Output Variable BCC Gillen & Lall (1997) Joseph Sarks (2000) Alder & Berechman 30 21 6 2 CCR () 21 4 2 () BCC / CCR 80 44 4 5 BCC, 5 1, 26 (2001) BCC / CCR - 68 -
Marin & Roman (2001) Peles (2001) Elton Fernandes (2002) (2002) Bazargan & Vasigh (2003) 3 37 3 34 5 4 35 6 45 4 Check in-desk BCC( ) Check-in-counter Curb BCC( ) 1 1 BCC 1 BCC / CCR 16 2 3 CCR 6 () () - 69 -
4 1 DEA (DMU),...,.. DMU 2003 Worldwide Airport Traffic Report(ACI) 30 9 (HKG, NRT, SIN, TPE, PUG, BKK, KIX, PEK, CAN) (ICN) 1. [ 4-1], 7 (HKG, NRT, SIN, TPE, PUG, KIX, ICN) DMU. - 70 -
[ 4-1] 30 World Lanking Airport Cargo(tons) Change % JAN 2004 AUG 2003 OCT 2002 3 HONG KONG, CN (HKG) 264 000 5 2 504 584 19. 3 2 100 276-7.4 5 TOKYO, JP (NRT) 204 265-3.2 2 001 822 19.1 1 680 937-13 6 SEOUL, KR (ICN) 177 777 10.8 1 705 880 43.2 1 196 843 NA 9 SINGAPORE, SG (SIN) 152 407 2.1 1 660 404 8.5 1 529 930-10.3 13 TAIPEI, TW (TPE) 137 990 1 1 380 748 16 1 189 874-1.6 17 SHANGHAI, CN (PUG) 115 953 75.2 634 966 80.1 NA NA 19 BANGKOK, TH (BKK) 86 453 2.3 956 790 13.7 841 150-3.1 22 OSAK A, JP (KIX) 78 475-8.3 805 430-7.5 871 161-12.9 24 BEIJING, CN (PEK) 74 544 27.1 669 347 13.2 591 195 6.1 25 TOKYO, JP (HND) 66 968 8.2 707 301-2.5 725 124-5.8 30 GUANGZHOU, CN (CAN) 53 698 2.4 592 559 11.5 NA NA : (HND) : Airport Council International(2004), http://www.airports.org DEA. 1....,. - 71 -
,,,,,,,,,,,. DEA,.. [ 4-1] 5 8 6 6 10,, 8, 10, 6, 6, 5.[ 4-1],,,.[ 4-2] - 72 -
[ 4-2] 3. (input),,,, 5. 6, (output). [ 4-2],[ 4-3] [ 4-2] DEA DMU DMU 1 (PEK) 2001~2003 2 (PUG) 2001~2003-73 -
3 (KIX) 2001~2003 4 (NRT) 2001~2003 5 (SIN) 2001~2003 6 (ICN) 2001~2003 7 (TPE) 2003 [ 4-3] DEA Input Data Output Data V1 U1 V2 V3 V4 V5 V6 1. CCR [ 4-4] CCR. (=1). [ 4-4] CCR CCR HONG KONG, CN (HKG) 2001 1 (Effi) - 2002 1 (Effi) - 2003 1 (Effi) - - 74 -
TOK YO, JP (NRT) 2001 1 (Effi) - 2002 1 (Effi) - 2003 1 (Effi) - SEO UL, KR (ICN) 2001 1 (Effi) - 2002 1 (Effi) - 2003 1 (Effi) - SINGAPORE, SG (SIN) 2001 1 (Effi) - 2002 1 (Effi) - 2003 1 (Effi) - TAIPEI, TW (TPE) 2001 na na 2002 na na 2003 1 (Effi) - SHANGHAI, CN (PVG) 2001 0.83 (INEffi) NRT 2002 0.84 (INEffi) NRT 2003 0.81 (INEffi) NRT OSAKA, JP (KIX) 2001 0.93 (INEffi) HKG,NRT 2002 0.60 (INEffi) HKG, NRT 2003 0.60 (INEffi) HKG, NRT : 1) Effi DMU, INEffi DMU CCR 7 2001 5 2002 5 2003 6. (<1.0). CCR DMU. DMU. - 75 -
2002,,,,..[ 4-3] [ 4-3] KIX, DEA., DEA,, DMU.. DMU DMU, DMU. - 76 -
2002. DMU. (80%), (75%), (79%), (82%), (80%), (80%).. [ 4-4] [ 4-4] KIX 2. BCC [ 4-5] CCR (Variable returns to scale) BCC. - 77 -
[ 4-5] BCC BCC HONG KONG, CN (HKG) 2001 1 (Effi) constant - 2002 1 (Effi) constant - 2003 1 (Effi) constant - TOKYO, JP (NRT) 2001 1 (Effi) constant - 2002 1 (Effi) constant - 2003 1 (Effi) constant - SEOUL, KR (ICN) 2001 0.62 (INEffi) increasing HKG, NRT 2002 1 (Effi) constant - 2003 0.73 (INEffi) increasing HKG, NRT SINGAPORE, SG (SIN) 2001 1 (Effi) constant - 2002 1 (Effi) constant - 2003 1 (Effi) constant - TAIPEI, TW (TPE) 2001 na - na 2002 na - na 2003 1 (Effi) constant - SHANGHAI, CN (PVG) 2001 1 (Effi) constant - 2002 1 (Effi) constant - 2003 1 (Effi) constant - OSAKA, JP (KIX) 2001 1 (Effi) constant - 2002 0.94 (INEffi) increasing ICN, PVG 2003 0.67 (INEffi) increasing NRT, TPE : 1) Effi DMU, INEffi DMU BCC 7 2001 5 2002 5 2003 5. [ 4-5] - 78 -
[ 4-5] KIX CCR BCC. [ 4-6] [ 4-6] KIX (Actual Data) BCC (Target Data), 2002-79 -
DMU. 2002 (PVG) (ICN). 3 CCR BCC CCR. BCC 2001 2003. [ 4-6] [ 4-6] CCR BCC Change of Scale 2001 1 (Effi) - 0.62 (INEffi) increasing HKG, NRT 2002 1 (Effi) - 1 (Effi) constant - 2003 1 (Effi) - 0.73 (INEffi) increasing HKG, NRT - 80 -
2001 3. 2003,.. [ 4-7] [ 4-7].. - 81 -
BCC, 11%, 24%, 6%. [ 4-7] [ 4-7] Input / Output Actual Target Potential Improvement Connectivity 102 91.1 10.69% Capacity(Cargo) 270 270 0% Apron(Cargo) 24 18.3 23.75% Warehouse 205,000 191,700 6.49% Total cargo 1,678,407 2,278,318 35.74%. 2003 36% 227..,. - 82 -
5 DEA....,.,,.,,. - 83 -
DEA CCR BCC 2001 2003..,,.,., Hardware Software.,.,. DEA 1 DMU. DEA.. - 84 -
IATA ACI,.. Data. - 85 -
1., (20 02),,, 10, 2 p.18. 2. (2001),,, p18. 3. (2003.12),,, p.55. 4., (1998), 2 2, 1998.12, p. 148. 1. Airport Council International, Worldwide Airport Traffics Report 1999. 2., Worldwide Airport Traffics Report 2000. 3., Worldwide Airport Traffics Report 2001. 4. AEA, Association of European Airlines year book 2001. 5. Airport Benchmarking Report: Global standard for airport Excellence, Air Transport Research Society, 2002. 6. Adler and Berechman, Measuring Airport Quality from the Airline s Viewpoint: an pp. 171-181 7. Aviation week & Space Technology, 2001 Application of Data Envelopment Analysis, Transport Policy 8, 2001, - 86 -
8. Bazaran and Vasigh, Size versus efficicncy: a case syudy of US commercial airports, Journal of Air transport Management, 2003 9. Boeing Annual Report, Executive summary and Significant Industry Trends, p3. 10., World overview and Forecast, pp.7~8. 11. Bhatnagar, R., Sohal, A.S. and Millen, R., Third-Party logistics services: a Singapore perspective, International Journal of Physical Distribution & Logistics Management, Vol. 29 No.9, 1999, pp. 569~587. 12. Chee-Chuong Sum and Chew-Been Tao and Kwan-Ke Ng, Stratiegic logistics management in Singapore, International Journal of Operations & Production Management, Vol21 No.9, 2001, p.1239. 13. Chunyan Yu, Transport Demands, Costs, and Infrastructure Capacity : Case of China, Building Regional distribution and Logistics Centers in Northeast Asia : Monthly Transportation, KOTI, 2003,pp.8~11. 14. Doganis, R.S. and Dennis, Lessons in hubbing, Airline Business, 1989, pp.42-45. 15. Ellen Christia anse and Jan Damsgaard, A Tale Two Airports: A Comparison of Electronic Infrastructures in Air Cargo Industry in the Netherlands and Hong Kong SAR, 2003, p.513. 16. Farell,M. J., The Measurement of Productive Efficiency, Journal of the Royal Statistical Society, 1957,pp.253~290. 17. Ferandes and Pacheco, Efficient use of airport capacity, Transportation Research Part A 36, 2002, pp.225-238 18. Gillen and Lall, Developing Measures Of Airport Productivity and Performance: An Application of Data Envelopment Analysis, Transportation Research-E 33, 1997, pp261-273. 19. H. Leibenstein, allocative Efficiency verse X-efficiency, American Economic Review 56 (3), 1981, p.392. 20. Hajime Inamura, Transport Demands, Costs, and Infrastructure Capacity: Case of Japan, Building Regional distribution and Logistics Centers in Northeast Asia: Monthly Transportation, KOTI, 2003, p17. 21. Hanlon, P., Global Airlines: Competition in a transnational industry, Butterworth- Heinemann Ltd, 1996, pp. 70~73. 22. Hiroshi Ohashi, An analysis of the freight Hubs in Northeast Asia : Focus on Air Freight Transshipment Route Choice Analysis, Building Regional distribution and Logistics Centers in Northeast Asia : Monthly Transportation, KOTI, 2003, pp.43~44. - 87 -
23. Hiroshi Ohashi, Tae Hoon Oum, Tae Seung Kim & Chunyan Yu, Relative Importance of Handling Times VS. Airport Charges, 2003, p.3. 24. Hun soo Lee, Han Mo Yang, Strategies for global logistics and economic hub : In cheon International Airport, Journal of Air Transport Management, 2002, p113~115. 25. ICAO, The world of civil aviation 2002~2005, 2003 26. IATA, World Air Transport Statistics 43 th Edition, 1999 27., World Air Transport Statistics 44 th Edition, 2000 th 28., World Air Transport Statistics 45 Edition, 2001 29., World Air Transport Statistics 46 th Edition, 2002 30., World Air Transport Statistics 47 th Edition, 2003 31., Airport Capacity demand profiles 2003Edition. 32. Joseph Sarkis, An analysis of the operational efficiency of major airports in the United States, Journal of Operations Management 18, 2000, pp. 335-351 33. Mark Kadar & John Larew, Securing the Future of Air cargo: Mercer on Travel and Transport, MERCER Management consulting,2003, p3. 34. Martin and Roman, An application of DEA to measure the efficiency of Spanish Airports prior to Privatization, Journal of Air Transport Management 7, 2001, pp. 149-157 35. Pels, Nijkamp, and Rietveld, Relative efficiency of European airports, Transport Policy 8, 2001, pp. 183-192 36. Philip B. Schary & Tage Skjǿtt-Larsen, Managing the Global Supply Chain, Munksgaard International Publishers Ltd, Copenhagen,1995, pp.95~98. 37. Prabir, K. Bagchi,International Logistics Information Systems, International Journal of Physcial Distribution & Logistics Management, Vol. 22(9),1992, p.13. 38. Ross Robinson, Asian hub/feeder nets : the dynamics of restructuring, Maritime policy & Management, Vol 25, No 1,1998, pp.23~25. 39. Staffan Hertzell, China s Evolving Logistics Landscape, McKinsey & Company,2001, p.5. 40. Sue Abdinnour-Helm, Using simulated annealing to solve the p-hub median Problem, International Journal of Physical Distribution & Logistics Managements, Vol.31 No. 3, 2001, p. 203. 41. Temple, Barder and Sloane Inc., International Logistics-Meeting the Challenges of Global Distribution Channels, Lexingtion, April,1987, p. 141. 42. The Monthly Essential China, Airports, Shanghai: A Strong Competitor in North Asia s Hub Race, Airlines & Tourism, 2003,p21. - 88 -
43. UNCTAD, Institutional and technological changes in transport/logistics field, United Nations Conference on Trade and Development, UNCTAD, 1999, P6. 44. Wong Kok Siew, Developing Singapore into a Global Integrated Logistics Hub, Report of the Working Group on Logistics, ERC Working Group on Logistics,2002, pp.1~2. 45. Yip, George S, Total Global Strategy, Prentice Hall, 1992, p.31. - 89 -
< > Global SCM LAB Homepage : http://dragon.inha.ac.kr/~scm E-mail :wasabi76@empal.com - 90 -
- 91 -
- 92 -
< > Data 2001 INPUT OUT PUT Ware House Apron Capacity Connectivity Connectivity Total Cargo Space (Cargo) (Cargo) city country (Square meters) (EA) (Million tons) (EA) (EA) (metric tonnes) HONG KONG, CN (HKG) 210,000 21 300 140 69 2,100,276 TOKYO, JP (NRT) 145,000 12 200 91 68 1, 680, 937 SEOUL, KR (ICN) 205,000 24 270 117 89 1,196,843 SINGAPORE, SG (SIN) 100,000 10 350 139 86 1, 529, 930 SHANGHAI, CN (PVG) 222,000 8 75 84 60 352,541 OSAKA, JP (KIX) 264,000 14 139 64 67 871,161 2002 INPUT OUT PUT Ware House Apron Capacity Service Connectivity Total Cargo Space (Cargo) (Cargo) Airliner country (Square meters) (EA) (Million tons) (EA) (EA) (metric tonnes) HONG KONG, CN (HKG) 210,000 21 300 58 96 2,504,584 TOKYO, JP (NRT) 145,000 12 200 57 68 2,001,822 SEOUL, KR (ICN) 205,000 24 270 41 89 1,705,880 SINGAPORE, SG (SIN) 100,000 10 350 58 86 1,660,404 SHANGHAI, CN (PVG) 222,000 8 75 36 60 634,966 OSAKA, JP (KIX) 264,000 14 139 37 67 805,430-93 -
2003.11 INPUT OUT PUT Ware House Apron Capacity Connectivity Total Cargo Airport Space (Cargo) (Cargo) airport (Square meters) (EA) (Million tons) (EA) (metric tonnes) HONG KONG, CN (HKG) 210,000 21 300 95 2,416,934 TOKYO, JP (NRT) 149, 000 12 200 82 1,954,881 SEOUL, KR (ICN) 205,000 24 270 102 1,678,467 SINGAPORE, SG (SIN) 100,000 10 350 92 1, 488,700 TAIPEI, TW (TPE) 191,200 15 78 44 1,363,286 SHANGHAI, CN (PVG) 222,000 8 185 78 1,068,038 OSAKA, JP (KIX) 264,000 14 139 65 721,432-94 -
- Abstract - An analysis of Airport Efficiency for Air cargo Hub in the Northeast Asian Region using DEA(Data Envelopment Analysis) Name: Jae Kyung. Moon Department: Graduate school of INHA Univers ity Thesis Advisor: Oh Kyoung Kwon Nowadays, the process of business management itself is becoming important together with the efficiency between systematic organizations. In this kind of SCM environment, global companies are transferring their business management systems, and for that matter, along with increasing the strength of company s competitiveness, Logistics management is one of the biggest issues in increasing the efficiency of international logistics field. In the East Asia, the market is growing rapidly based on China and will be one of the major markets in the world in the near future. The leading business is altering from manufacturing to modern high-value production, which requires safety and importance of air cargo transport. For an international company, it is essential to insure infrastructure for global logistics management together with holding key point nations. Many countries in East Asia including Korea are consolidating or renewing their airports in order to follow the recent change in global market. - 95 -
The purpose of this report is to acknowledge the change by using DEA, and to analyze the efficiency in major airports of East Asia Airport Terminals, and to provide solutions in improving In-Chon International Airport. The 7 target airports are among the ones scoring 30 upper air cargo capacities among all airports, capable of collecting data. The varieties where first collected through advanced reports, and under these varieties we have chosen the final variety by questioning specialists. This report is not efficient for Airport Terminals that have smaller merit system, or anything opposite to it. On other hand, this report is efficient in Airport Terminals that have wide or efficient merit system. In-chon International Airport had difficulties in operating Cargo Terminals in the terms of November 2003, analyzed by BCC and showed efficiency in sub staining 36% of the cargos. DEA is an analization method showing relative efficiency. So for the Airports showing inefficiency should bench mark in order to increase the efficiency. - 96 -