A collaborative slot allocation model for the sea-rail

multimodal transport service providers based on

revenue management
Yasanur Kayikci (yasanur.kayikci@gmail.com)
Montanuniversitt Leoben, Industrial Logistics

Abstract
This paper concerns the operational integration of liner shipping and railway freight
service providers and proposes a collaborative slot allocation model for the sea-rail
multimodal transport with the revenue management. The methodology is based on a
linear programming model, which maximizes the freight contribution and provides an
optimal slot allocation data according to different fare classes. The model obtains also
the multimodal transport service providers with this solid background to support their
strategic and operational decisions.
Keywords: Multimodal transport, Revenue management, Slot allocation

Introduction
Since the deregulation of the aviation industry in the late 1970s there have been
numerous advances in the field of revenue management (RM). Although this field is
now well-established in the airline (Belobaba, 1987; Smith et al., 1992; Vinod, 1995)
and hotel industries, academic researchers have neglected to investigate the
opportunities and challenges in other industries such as in multimodal transport industry
(McGill and van Ryzin, 1999). The multimodal transport (also known as combined
transport, intermodal transport or co-modality) becomes a major revenue contributor to
increase the income and it may offer similar opportunities to those found in the airline
industry, but this industry has seen relatively little attention to RM problems. Transport
service providers in this industry have difficulty making a reasonable profit from the
multimodal transport operations and even they may run a deficit. Multimodal transport
concept unites multiple modes of transport to facilitate an efficient, effective and
sustainable transport network. It performs at least with two different means of transport
among sea, rail, road, inland waterway and air in transport chain. The association of
transport modes for multimodal transport takes place across different combinations such
as: road-rail, river-road, sea-road, sea-rail, and so on. Nevertheless, multimodal
transport suffers from some constraints. Multimodal transport can be generally
competitive at transported distances above 300 km (longer than one day of trucking)
(Lowe, 2005; Tavasszy and van Meijeren, 2011). The industry is marked by a wide
variety of bilateral relationships and contract negotiations. These lead to a high degree
of non transparency in the market. This industry is a capital-intensive industry which
requires high investments in vessels, containers, wagons, port/terminal equipment and
infrastructure; therefore it is characterized with high fixed costs and economies of scale.
1

Additionally, multimodal transport service providers (MTPs) may often operate with
unutilized capacity due to the circumstances like market fluctuations, trade imbalances
or demand changes. In this respect, an efficient capacity management and slot allocation
in multimodal freight transport are of critical importance in ensuring that MTPs operate
collaboratively. In the competitive freight market, MTPs may employ RM in order to
maximize profits by using slot allocation and pricing.
In this research, a collaborative slot allocation model is applied by using linear
programming in order to maximize freight utilization. This model is developed for the
sea-rail multimodal freight transport where two MTPs establish transport collaboration.
MTPs use RoRo vessels and RoLa trains for sea-rail connections and they carry semitrailers. The model is illustrated with a case study of a liner shipping provider and a
railway freight provider which operate together. The result of this study gives the
applicability of proposed model in practice.
Research Focus
The nature of the transport modes is inherently competitive and has tended to produce a
transport system that is segmented and un-integrated. Each transport mode, particularly
that operate them, has sought to exploit its own advantages in terms of cost, service,
reliability and safety (Reis et al., 2013). But the lack of modal interconnectivity and
non-collaborative behavior among modes might cause transport inefficiencies like
insufficient freight revenue realization. Multimodal transport represents a major effort
to integrate separate transport systems. In this respect, creating the collaborative
synergies among the number of MTPs from the different modes of transport and
development collaborative business models is extremely important in order to drive
those inefficiencies out of supply chain and to operate the freight flow more efficiently,
effectively, and sustainably (Kayikci and Zsifkovits, 2012). Sea-rail multimodal
transport is still in the early stages; it hasnt reached the required transport volume yet in
comparison with other types of multimodal transport (Rodrigue, 2013). But due to
recent policy changes and significant investments in infrastructure and other measures,
the current condition of sea-rail multimodal transport may have a large room for
attaining noticeable improvement in coming future (Reis et al., 2013). On the one hand,
the development of the sea-rail multimodal transport relies on the construction of
networked comprehensive cargo hub system. These cargo hubs provide the multimodal
transport with the services of transport mode transfer. They usually have stockyard for
stacking transport units, as well as dispatching and configuration of freight trains,
vessels or vehicles. Meanwhile, they have good highway connections, railway facilities,
seaport and well-tuned information systems, which are essential for the freight transport
services and helpful for tracking, managing and controlling the freight flow (Lowe,
2005). On the other hand, the capacity management including route planning and
vessel/train scheduling is likely to be a crucial success factor for the sustainability of
sea-rail multimodal transport. Inadequate capacity utilization may cause dramatic losses
for MTPs. Therefore a high level of collaboration and seamless integration among
MTPs is significant. The capacity of freight trains as well as vessels is being utilized
generally at a rate of over 70% per trip. In this respect, RM strategies and technologies
may help MTPs to increase capacity utilization rate (load factor) and margins of their
services by applying slot allocation and pricing.
Revenue management (RM) can be defined as an integrated management of price
and inventory to maximize the profitability of a company (Kasilingam, 1998).
Multimodal transport chain has the advantage that shippers (customers) only buy that
part of a transport service (space) needed to meet their individual requirements.
2

Generally in multimodal industry it has aim to sell the right service to the right shipper
at the right price for the right duration. The determination of right entails achieving
both the most revenue possible for MTPs and also delivering the greatest commercial
utility or maximum value to the shippers (Cross, 1995). Here the slot allocation
according to different fare / shipper classes is very important. A few studies have
already treated slot allocation with the concept of RM adopted in industries such as
airline (Curry, 1990), hotel (Koide and Ishii, 2005), railway (Campbell, 1996;
Ciancimino et al. 1999) or shipping industry (Ha, 1994; Ting and Tzeng, 2004; Lee et
al., 2007), but there are still not any collaborative slot allocation solution exist in searail multimodal transport industry. Figure 1 depicts the collaborative slot allocation for
sea-rail RM systems. The sea-rail multimodal transport chain is constituted with multinode origin and destination (O-D) connectivity, where a number of liner shipping
provider(s) (seaway freight) and railway freight provider(s) collaborate together and
provide a weekly service for every calling node. The service travels along some route,
where route is made up of at least one leg, where a leg is define as two adjacent nodes
(railway terminal and seaport) (Armstrong and Meissner, 2010). System offers a
seamless reservation; whenever shipper makes a reservation; collaborative system
allocates a space simultaneously on vessels deck as well as trains wagon. The goal of
RM is to find the optimal maximum of freight travelling along each leg in order to
maximize the overall revenue. Each MTP in multimodal transport chain determines its
available slot capacity, which is distributed to trip(s) according to shipper classes. Here
the problem arises in terms of management of the slot capacities and how the available
slot capacity of vessel and train is allocated for every O-D node pair according to each
shipper type such that the capacity of every vessel and train is utilized and the total
revenue is maximized. The RM faces also with the trade-offs in decision-making which
are analyzed under different scenarios like lower capacity utilization vs. higher
revenue or higher capacity utilization vs. lower revenue, reservation cancel vs.
capacity enlargements and so on. These scenarios may lead the MTPs to take strategic
and operational decisions for their collaborative activities.

Figure 1- Collaborative slot allocation for sea-rail revenue management system

There are three shipper classes, which address the demand and pricing strategy (Liu
and Yang, 2012). (1) contractual (regular) shipper is characterized with a fixedcommitment contract and negotiated market price; a certain slot allotment is reserved in
vessel and train, where the orders of major shippers and forwarders have priority to be
fulfilled. (2) ad-hoc shipper buys the slot with the spot market price; this fare is offered
until one-two weeks before the departure date of vessel or train. (3) urgent shipper
3

provides typically last-minute freight service and is willing to pay a higher fare. The
reservation horizon is until two-to-three days before the departure. The fares close to the
departure date might become higher or lower in order to utilize the capacity with the
trend of fares depends on the sudden demand changes. In addition, every O-D node pair
has different freight rates. Fares can differ in terms of not only the shipper classes but
also the import or export purpose of travel (the direction of O-D node pair). Currently in
sea-rail multimodal transport, the fares for empty and loaded freight units are rated the
same; only the size and shape of freight unit can be categorized with different fare
classes. The sea-rail multimodal transport uses different transport units (i.e. semitrailers, maritime containers) for the shipment. Although each service contract for
contractual shipper may carry a different rate for the same capacity, the difference in
rate between two different contractual shippers is relatively small when compared to the
difference between any contractual and ad-hoc shipper. Therefore, the rate of ad-hoc, as
well as urgent, shippers can cause a greater impact on revenue of the shipment (Lee et
al., 2007). Determination of allotments for different shippers requires careful
consideration of a lot of important factors (Kasilingam, 1998). It must be made sure that
space is available on the vessel as well as train to accommodate the allotment request.
After confirming space availability an evaluation must be made about the profitability
of the allotment. This evaluation will be based on the expected profitability of this
request versus the expected profitability from other requests (spot market sale demand).
Contractual shippers might request more allotments because the ad-hoc and urgent
shippers generate higher revenue. It is optimal to accept as many such shippers as
possible, hence it is better to set a certain slot allotment for contractual shippers. The
essential factor in determining the slot allocation is cargo demand which is not
deterministic, but its trend is reflected in past records and so can be estimated also for
the current trip (Ting and Tzeng, 2004). Different slot allocation scenarios are applied
into the sea-rail revenue management system in order to obtain an optimal slot
allocation data, whereby an advanced booking and final slot reservations can be made
by using this data.
Collaborative slot allocation model
The collaborative slot allocation problem is how MTPs allocate the available total slot
capacity for vessel space as well as train space according to shipper types from every
origin node (loading) to destination node (discharging) pair efficiently, effectively and
sustainably in order to maximize the total freight utilization from the whole trip. The
model deals with the collaborative slot allocation problem trip by trip. Here this model
is used to decide whether a transport unit from each shipper type should be accepted or
rejected. If a contractual one is accepted, the model determines also whether it should be
postponed to the next shipment. The model based on linear programming is determined
as follows:
Assumptions:
Liner shipping and railway companies are agreed on the service route planning and
vessel shipping and train carriage scheduling.
All transhipments are loaded freights.
All loaded freights are shipped only by using semi-trailers.
The weight of the semi-trailer cannot exceed the required loaded tonnage.
For simplicity, assume initially that all shippers on each O-D node pair will consign
their freight, that is, there are no cancellations and no-shows.
The average freight rate of each O-D node pair for each shipper class is estimated.
4

There is no additional cargo demand (semi-trailer) available for loading from the cargohub
to vessel and train.
Indices and parameters:
= the index of loading node (origin node) of the freight flow,
1, 2, , .
= the index of discharging node (destination node) of the freight flow,
1, 2, , .
= the index of shipper types (
1 for contractual shipper,
2 ad-hoc shipper,
3 urgent shipper),
= the index of train trip,
1, 2, , . Each trip is constrained by the maximum
serviceable capacity
= the total slot capacity of directed leg in sea-rail multimodal transport line; .
= the slot capacity of vessel
= the slot capacity of train
= the available slot capacity of th trip in train.
= the freight contribution of each -type of shippers semi-trailer truck shipped
)
from loading node to discharging node (equal to
= the freight revenue of each -type of shippers semi-trailer truck shipped from
loading node to discharging node .
= the freight variable cost of each -type of shippers semi-trailer truck shipped
from loading node to discharging node .
= the maximum slot allotment of contractual shippers.
= the minimum slot number of freight demand for -type of shipper from loading
node to discharging node .
= the maximum slot number of freight demand for -type of shipper from loading
node to discharging node .
Decision variables:
= slot allocating numbers of each -type of shippers semi-trailer truck shipped from
loading node to discharging node .
1 if trip is part of routing

0 otherwise
Objective function:
The objective function of the model is to maximize the total freight contribution (freight
revenue minus variable cost) from the shipment. This is represented in equation (1).

Constraints:
(a) Vessel constraints
There are two restrictions: one represented in equation (2), the allocated slot for the
loaded freights cannot exceed the vessel operational capacity. The second represented in
equation (3), is that the total slots for contractual shipper in a vessel cannot exceed the
maximum slot allotment of contractual shippers.

 2
3

(b) Train constraints:

The slot allocation for the loaded freights cannot exceed the total train operational
capacity, which is obtained from equation (4). The other constraint is represented in
equation (5): the total slots for contractual shipper in train cannot exceed the maximum
slot allotment of contractual shippers.

, 4

(c) Total slot capacity constrain for the sea-rail multimodal freight transport:
The total slot capacity for the sea-rail multimodal freight transport cannot exceed the
total vessel operational capacity and train operational capacity. This is represented in
equation (6).

(d) Freight demand constraint:

The allocated slots to each O-D leg must be set between the interval of the lower and
upper bound of freight demand which is represented in equation (7). This helps to keep
the capacity utilization at certain rate.
, and 7
Case study and analysis
It is assumed that a railway freight provider and a liner shipping provider have a longterm contractual agreement and act as MTPs in order to operate in a sea-rail multimodal
transport chain with multi-node O-D connectivity. They collaborate on the lateral plane;
in other words, this transport collaboration is combining vertical and horizontal
collaboration. They share available capacities for the joint operations. The transport
chain is arranged in several railway legs and sea shipping voyages as shown in Figure 2.
denotes the th seaport, is the th railway inland terminal and demonstrates the
cargo hub for sea-rail multimodal transport where both loading and discharging
operations of vessels and trains are carried out. A combination of one railway node and
one sea shipping node refers an O-D pair of sea-rail multimodal freight flow. Railway
freight provider operates RoLa (rolling road) services to/from the ports/terminals, which
are specially designed wagons to carry wheeled cargo by rail. Liner shipping provider
has a fleet of RoRo (roll-on/roll-off) vessels, which are specially types of ships designed
to carry wheeled cargo. Their transport units can be trucks, semi-trailer trucks, trailers,
6

automobiles, railroad cars, project cargo, and maritime containers on MAFIs or

cassettes.

Figure 2 - The sea-rail multimodal transport chain

The railway freight provider operates round-trip daily RoLa train service with six/leg
from cargo hub to two railway inland terminals (
. The train capacity ( ) is
32 semi-trailers/trip. The liner shipping provider operates round-voyage daily RoRo
vessel service with one/line from seaport to cargo hub (
). The vessel capacity
( ) is 240 semi-trailers/voyage. Operationally, capacity depends on the density of
booked shipments and their shapes as well as the dead weight restriction. Also, the
transport unit mix in relation to movable decks, internal ramps, lane heights etc., can be
a limiting factor as to how much cargo in a vessel or train wagon can accommodated.
We assume that every semi-trailer is loaded under the maximum load tonnage. The
maximum slot capacity of this sea-rail multimodal transport chain is 192 semi-trailers
(in consignments) which is exactly equal with the total capacity of train. 240-192= 48
semi-trailers, which are the capacity difference between vessel and train, are not the part
of sea-rail multimodal transport. Maximum allotment
of contractual shippers is
kept around 30%. These shippers have a long term contractual agreement with both
MTPs to secure the reservation priority.
Node Pair
O-D

Table 1- Initial reservation plan according to price and demand

Contractual shipper
Ad-hoc shipper
Urgent shipper
Price
Demand
Price
Demand
Price
Demand
1215
32
1350
43
1418
12
1125
7
1250
11
1313
8
1341
24
1490
35
1565
13
1251
18
1390
10
1460
8
1305
38
1450
52
1523
16
1215
5
1350
7
1418
10
1431
20
1590
25
1670
8
1341
2
1490
14
1565
5

The transport unit price of semi-trailer is Euro.

Node Pair
O-D








Revenue
Total

Table 2 - Scenario 1 contractual shipper reservations executed

Contractual shipper
Ad-hoc shipper
Urgent shipper
Price
Slot
Price
Slot
Price
Slot
1215
32
1350
1418
12
30
1125
7
1250
1313
8
7
1341
24
1490
1565
13
26
1251
18
1390
1460
8
7
1305
38
1450
1523
16
25
1215
5
1350
1418
10
2
1431
20
1590
25
1670
8
1341
2
1490
14
1565
5
188.424
224.130
119.238
531.792,00

Utilization of vessel capacity: 92%, 71%; train trip capacity: 100%, 100%, 100%, and 77%. Contractual shipper allotment is 40,3%.

Node Pair
O-D








Revenue
Total

Table 3 - Scenario 2 contractual shipper allotment kept at 30%.

Contractual shipper
Ad-hoc shipper
Urgent shipper
Price
Slot
Price
Slot
Price
Slot
1215
1350
1418
12
28
32
1125
1250
1313
8
6
10
1341
1490
1565
13
20
32
1251
1390
10
1460
8
13
1305
1450
1523
16
15
45
1215
1350
1418
10
5
5
1431
20
1590
25
1670
8
1341
2
1490
14
1565
5
152.235
264.040
119.238
535.513,00

Utilization of vessel capacity: 92%, 71%; train trip capacity: 100%, 100%, 100%, and 77%. Contractual shipper allotment is 30%.

There are three fare tariffs: the average freight rate of each O-D node pair for ad-hoc
shipper is given; the rate for contractual shipper and the urgent shipper is calculated
according to rate of ad-hoc shipper. Contractual rate is generated from 90% of ad-hoc
rate whereas urgent rate is 105%. Table 1 shows the initial reservation plan according to

221 units and for
price and demand. The demands of RoRo vessel are for
202 units. RoLa train demands are for
) 113; for
108;
128 and
) 74 units. In this initial plan, RoRo vessels can obtain 92%
and 84%
capacity utilization rate, whereas RoLa trains rate are
118% (
, 125%
, 133% (
) and 77% (
. However, the RoLa
trains have constraints with 3 trips daily, that means that some of shipper demand
should be postponed to next day(s). The proposed model will find out which shippers
demand should be accepted or rejected by considering revenue maximization.
Generating different allocations scenario help to design an optimal slot allocation. The
optimization software LINGO 14.0 is used to solve the model. Each O-D node pair
shows the seamless sea-rail connectivity and associated cargo demand. It is assumed
that there is no additional cargo demand available for loading at the cargo-hub
to
railway and seaway. The simulation program allows generating different slot allocation
scenarios. Table 2 demonstrates scenario 1, where all reservations of contractual
shippers are executed and capacity constraints for vessels and trains are met. 29 ad-hoc
8

shipper reservations (17 for

and 12 for
) are postponed to the next
day and 32 ad-hoc reservations for ( are cancelled because of the capacity
restriction. Under this circumstance, total revenue is calculated as 531.792. Table 3
shows the scenario 2. Here the contractual shipper allotment is kept around 30% so that
the capacity cut is pursued not only in the reservation units of ad-hoc shippers, but also
in contractual shippers. 14 reservations of contractual and 15 of ad-hoc shippers are
postponed to next day, whereas 23 reservations of contractual and 9 of ad-hoc shippers
are cancelled. Total revenue is calculated as 535.513. Scenario 3 in Table 4 represents
the slot allocation by cutting contractual shipper reservation. 29 unit reservations of
contractual shipper are postponed and 32 are cancelled. Total revenue is higher than
other scenario results with 537.710. This scenario increases the total revenue
considerably, because the MTPs can make higher profit from ad-hoc and urgent
shippers. Therefore, the obtained result in this case seems to be better in order to
maximize the revenue as 1% increases in profitability.
In this model, MTPs decide together on what shippers reservation can be executed/
postponed or cancelled by analyzing different slot allocation scenarios. For the accepted
shipper reservation, a slot (semi-trailers space) is arranged both on RoRo vessel and
RoLa train simultaneously. This represents the differentiated service based on different
guaranteed trip for each service class.
Table 4 - Scenario 3 capacity adjustment by reducing contractual shipper reservation
Node Pair
Contractual shipper
Ad-hoc shipper
Urgent shipper
O-D
Price
Slot
Price
Slot
Price
Slot
1215
1350
43
1418
12
18

1125
1250
11
1313
8
4

1341
1490
35
1565
13
20

1251
1390
10
1460
8
10

1305
1450
52
1523
16
11

1215
1350
7
1418
10
0

1431
20
1590
25
1670
8

1341
2
1490
14
1565
5

Revenue
135.162
283.310
119.238
Total
537.710,00
Utilization of vessel capacity: 92%, 71%; train trip capacity: 100%, 100%, 100%, and 77%. Contractual shipper allotment is 23,4%.

Conclusion
Sea-rail multimodal transport offers the technical and economic advantages of long
distance, high safety and speed, large transport capacity and low tariffs. Therefore, it is
expected that large investments in this kind of multimodal transport will be made in the
near future. The success of sea-rail multimodal transport relies of a set of driving forces
linked with technology, infrastructure and excellent revenue management. MTPs
employ RM in order to maximize profits by using slot allocation and pricing. In this
paper, a collaborative slot allocation model is proposed for sea-rail multimodal
transport. This model provides MTPs revenue maximization for their joint operations.
According to shipper demands and capacity constraints, MTPs can make a decision
what shipper demands should be approved, postponed or canceled. In addition, this
model enables a seamless reservation system for the shippers; accepted slots are
reserved both in vessels and trains. The model is developed in a manner that aims to
ease understanding and utilization, but it could be extended by applying different
9

logistics constraints such as, various transport units including maritime containers,
complete unit and long vehicle and fleet size including set of various wagon types,
vessels types, entire voyage duration, time restriction, and booking period and so on.
RM in the sea-rail multimodal transport is a promising research area with the high
potential for developing new models and procedures to improve revenue and provide
strategic as well as operational decision support to the both liner shipping and railway
freight service providers. Pricing and slot control problems as well as planning service
routes, carriage and shipping schedules might provide opportunities for future.
References
Armstrong, A., Meissner, J. (2010), Railway revenue management: overview and models, Working
Papers, MRG/0019, Department of Management Science, Lancaster University.
Belobaba, P.P. (1987), Air travel demand and airline seat inventory management, Ph.D. thesis, Flight
Transportation Laboratory, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge, MA.
Campbell, K. (1996), Booking and revenue management for rail intermodal services, Ph.D. thesis,
University of Pennsylvania.
Ciancimino, A., Inzerillo, G., Lucidi, S. and Palagi, L. (1999), A mathematical programming approach
for the solution of the railway yield management problem, Transportation Science, Vol. 33, pp. 168
181.
Cross, R.G. (1995), An introduction to revenue management, D. Jenkins, D. (Ed.), Handbook of Airline
Economics, The Aviation Weekly Group of the McGraw-Hill Companies, New York, NY, pp. 443468.
Curry, R. (1990), Optimal seat allocation with fare classes nested by origins and destinations,
Transportation Science, Vol. 24, pp. 183-192.
Ha, D. W. (1994). Capacity management in the container shipping industry: The application of yield
management techniques. Ph.D. Dissertation of the University of Tennessee.
Kasilingam, R.G. (1998), Logistics and Transportation: Design and Planning, Kluwer Academic,
London.
Kayikci, Y. and Zsifkovits, H. (2012) Transport collaboration strategies in Blecker, T., Kersten, W. and
Ringle, C.M. (Eds.), Pioneering Supply Chain Design: A Comprehensive Insight into Emerging
Trends, Technologies and Applications, Josef Eul Verlag, Kln, pp. 3-18.
Koide T. and Ishii, H. (2005), The hotel yield management with two types of room prices, overbooking
and cancellations, International Journal of Production Economics, Vol. 93-94, pp. 417-428.
Lee, L.H., Chew, E.P. and Sim, M.S. (2007), A heuristic to solve a sea cargo revenue management
problem, OR Spectrum, Vol. 29, pp. 123-136.
Liu, D. and Yang, H. L. (2012), Dynamic pricing model of container sea-rail intermodal transport on
single OD line, Journal of Transportation Systems Engineering and Information Technology, Vol.
12, No. 4, pp. 122 - 127.
Lowe, D. (2005), Intermodal Freight Transport, Elsevier, Oxford, United Kingdom.
McGill, J. and van Ryzin, G. (1999), Revenue Management: Research Overview and Prospects,
Transportation Science, Vol. 33, No. 2, pp. 233256.
Reis, V., Meier, J. F., Pace, G. and Palacin, R. (2013), Rail and multi-modal transport, Reserach in
Transportation Economics, Vol. 41, No. 1, pp 17-30.
Rodrigue, J.P. (2013), The Geography of Transport Systems, Routledge, New York.
Smith, B.C., Leimkuhler, J.F. and Darrow, R.M. (1992), Yield management at American airlines,
Interfaces, Vol. 22, pp. 8-31.
Tavasszy, L.A., van Meijeren, J. (2011), Modal shift target for freight transport above 300 km: an
assessment.
Discussion
Paper

17th
ACEA
SAG
Meeting.
Available
on
http://www.acea.be/uploads/publications/SAG_17.pdf (last access on 13.01.2014)
Ting, S.C. and Tzeng, G.H. (2004), An optimal containership slot allocation for liner shipping revenue
management, Maritime Policy and Management, Vol. 31, No. 3, pp. 199 - 211..
Vinod, B. (1995), Origin-and-destination yield management in Jenkins, D. (Ed.), Handbook Of Airline
Economics, The Aviation Weekly Group Of The McGraw-Hill Companies, New York, NY, pp. 459468.

10