IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/ulb/ulbeco/2013-298542.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Assessing the magnitude of detours faced by cargo flights: An empirical analysis

Author

Listed:
  • Frédéric Dobruszkes
  • Didier Peeters

Abstract

It has largely been assumed by both scholars and experts that planes fly the shortest route. However, due to natural, technical, geopolitical and social reasons, virtually no flight follow the shortest route. This paper assesses the lengthening of distance flown by cargo flights. The analysis is based on a comparison between shortest-route distances and actual distances flown by commercial cargo flights all over the world. The former is computed from the latitude and longitude of origin and destination airports. The latter is calculated in a Geographical Information System based on a one-week set of flights traces bought from FlightRadar. We have considered 12,287 flights operated by 49 cargo airlines. It is found the average detour is of +6.3% and shortest flights are proportionally more affected than longer flights, notwithstanding more uncertainties related to the actual distance of part of the longest flights due to poor coverage over the oceans and some inner lands. Detours have several implications: they often mean higher costs and more environmental adverse impacts; they challenge the assessment of flights’ horizontal efficiency if detours are inevitable; and they raise the robustness of numerous methods developed by scholars (including fuel and emission assessment, and interaction models).

Suggested Citation

  • Frédéric Dobruszkes & Didier Peeters, 2019. "Assessing the magnitude of detours faced by cargo flights: An empirical analysis," ULB Institutional Repository 2013/298542, ULB -- Universite Libre de Bruxelles.
  • Handle: RePEc:ulb:ulbeco:2013/298542
    Note: Conference paper presented at: 11th ICLT Conference(14-15 November 2019: Hanoi, Vietnam)
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    To our knowledge, this item is not available for download. To find whether it is available, there are three options:
    1. Check below whether another version of this item is available online.
    2. Check on the provider's web page whether it is in fact available.
    3. Perform a search for a similarly titled item that would be available.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:ulb:ulbeco:2013/298542. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Benoit Pauwels (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/ecsulbe.html .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.