Abstract
We consider the single-leg airline revenue management problem in continuous time with Poisson arrivals. Earlier work on this problem generally uses the Hamilton–Jacobi–Bellman equation to find an optimal policy whenever the value function is differentiable and is a solution to this equation. In this paper, we employ a different probabilistic approach, which does not rely on the smoothness of the value function. Instead, we use a continuous-time discrete-event dynamic programming operator to construct the value function and study its properties. A by-product of this approach is the analysis of the differentiability of the value function. We show that differentiability may break down for example with discontinuous arrival intensities. Therefore, one should exercise caution in using arguments based on the differentiability of the value function and the Hamilton–Jacobi–Bellman equation in general.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Aydın N, İ Birbil Ş, Frenk JBG, Noyan N (2013) Single-leg airline revenue management with overbooking. Transp Sci 47(4):560–583
Brumelle S, Walczak D (2003) Dynamic airline revenue management with multiple semi-Markov demand. Oper Res 51(1):137–148
Brumelle S, Walczak D (2007) Semi-Markov information model for revenue management and dynamic pricing. OR Spectr 29:61–83
Chatwin RE (1996) Optimal control of continuous-time terminal-value birth-and-death processes and airline overbooking. Nav Res Logist 43:159–168
Chatwin RE (1999) Continuous-time airline overbooking with time dependent fares and refunds. Transp Sci 33:182–191
Dayanik S, Sezer SO (2006) Compound Poisson disorder problem. Math Oper Res 31(4):649–672
Feng Y, Xiao B (2006) A continuous-time seat control model for single-leg flights with no-shows and optimal overbooking upper bound. Eur J Oper Res 174:1298–1316
Feng Y, Lin P, Xiao B (2002) An analysis of airline seat control with cancellations. In: Yao DD, Zhou XY, Zhang H (eds) Stochastic modeling and optimization, with applications in queues, finance, and supply chains. Springer, Berlin
Liang Y (1999) Solution to the continuous time dynamic yield management model. Transp Sci 33(1):117–123
Lippman SA, Stidham S (1977) Individual versus social optimization in exponential congestion systems. Oper Res 25:233–247
Mamer JW (1986) Successive approximations for finite horizon, semi-Markov decision processes with application to asset liquidation. Oper Res 34(4):638–644
Peskir G, Shiryaev AN (2000) Sequential testing problems for Poisson processes. Ann Stat 28:837–859
Peskir G, Shiryaev AN (2002) Solving the Poisson disorder problem. In: Sandmann K, Schönbucher PJ (eds) Advances in finance and stochastics. Springer, New York, pp 295–312
Phillips RL (2005) Pricing and revenue optimization. Stanford University Press, Stanford
Shelhaas H (1980) Markov renewal decision process with finite horizon. OR Spectr 22:33–40
Talluri KT, van Ryzin GJ (2005) The theory and practice of revenue management. Springer, New York
van Slyke R, Young Y (2000) Finite horizon stochastic knapsacks with applications to yield management. Oper Res 48(1):155–172
Acknowledgments
The authors would like to thank the Associate Editor and two anonymous referees for the helpful comments which greatly improved the paper.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Appendix: Auxiliary results and other proofs
Appendix: Auxiliary results and other proofs
Remark 5.1
We have
Proof
Note that (due to monotone convergence theorem) the left hand side above equals
Using the tail sum
successively, we obtain
\(\square \)
Proof of the inequality in
(7) Let \({\mathcal {A}}= (A_i )_{i \in {\mathbb {N}}}\) be an admissible policy for the problem without an overbooking limit. Under the policy \({\mathcal {A}}\), among the first \(N_T \wedge \bar{P}\)-many requests some of them may be rejected. Among those which are accepted, let \(C^{(\bar{P})}_T\) and \(S^{(\bar{P})}_T \) denote respectively the number of cancellations and number of remaining reservations as of the departure time. Note that \( C^{(\bar{P})}_T \le C_T \), \(S^{(\bar{P})}_T \le S_T\) and \( C^{(\bar{P})}_T + S^{(\bar{P})}_T = \sum _{i= 1}^{N_T \wedge \bar{P}} A_i\). Then we can decompose the expected revenue associated with \({\mathcal {A}}\) as
where the last inequality follows from Remark 5.1 above. Since this upper bound holds for any policy \({\mathcal {A}}\) (feasible for the problem with no overbooking) we have
\(\square \)
Proof of Lemma 3.2
-
(i)
It is easy to see that the expressions in (17) and (18) are respectively non-decreasing and strictly increasing in \(s\) for all \(t \in [0, T]\). Moreover, if \(s \mapsto f(\cdot , s) \) is non-increasing, so are \(M_r[f](\cdot ,s)\) and \(M_r[f](t - T_1,S_{T_1-}) = M_r[f](t - T_1,s -C_{T_1-})\). Therefore, \(s \mapsto {\mathcal {L}}[f](\cdot ,s)\) in (15) is strictly decreasing for each \(t \le T\). To prove the result on concavity, we first observe that if \(s \mapsto f(\cdot ,s)\) is concave, then \(s \mapsto M_{\cdot } [f] (\cdot , s ) \) is also concave; see for example Lippman and Stidham (1977, Lemma 2). In Aydin et al. (2013, Lemma B.2) it is shown that if we compose a concave function with a binomially distributed random variable with parameters \(s\) and \(q\) (where \(s\) denotes the number of Bernoulli trials and \(q\) is the constant success probability in each trial), then the expected value of the composition is again concave in \(s\). In (15), conditioned on \(T_1\), the random variable \(S_{T_1-}\) has the binomial distribution with parameters \(s\) and \(e^{-\mu T_1}\) on the event \(\{ T_1 \le t \}\). Therefore, the conditional expectation of \({\mathcal {M}}_{ r(L_1)} [f] (t-T_1 , S_{T_1-})\) conditioned on \(T_1\) is concave in \(s\) on the event \(\{ T_1 \le t \}\) almost surely, and this further implies that the unconditional expectation of \(1_{ \{ T_1 \le t \}} \cdot {\mathcal {M}}_{ r(L_1)} [f] (t-T_1 , S_{T_1-} )\) is again concave in \(s\). Next, note that \(x \mapsto - (x-P)^+\) is a concave function, and conditioned on \(T_1\) the sum \(\sum _{i=1}^{S_t} B_i\) has the binomial distribution with parameters \(s\) and \(e^{-\mu t}p \) on the event \(\{T_1 > t\}\). Then, similarly, we can conclude that the expectation of \(- 1_{ \{ T_1 > t \}} \left( \sum _{i=1}^{S_t} B_i - P\right) ^+ \) is also concave in \(s\). Finally since the expression in (17) is linear in \(s\), it follows that all the terms in (15) are concave in \(s\) and this establishes the concavity.
-
(ii)
Under the transformation \(y = T- t+ u\), the integral in (17) can be written as
$$\begin{aligned} \int _0^t e^{-\mu u} F^{(t)} (du) = e^{\, \mu \cdot (T-t)} e^{\Lambda (T-t)} \int _{T-t}^T e^{\mu y} \, F^{(0)} (dy), \end{aligned}$$which is continuous in \(t\). Clearly, the expressions in (18) is also continuous in \(t\) for fixed \(s\). To show the continuity of the last term in (15) we note that
$$\begin{aligned}&{\mathbb {E}}^{(t,s)} \Big [ 1_{ \{ T_1 \le t \}} \cdot {\mathcal {M}}_{ r(L_1)} [f] (t-T_1 , S_{T_1-} ) \Big ]\\&\qquad = E^{(t,s)} \bigg [ 1_{ \{ T_1 \le t \}} \sum _{i = 0}^{s} {s \atopwithdelims ()i} (e^{-\mu T_1})^i (1- e^{-\mu T_1})^{s-i} \; \, M_{r(L_1)}[f](t- T_1, i) \bigg ]\\&\qquad = \sum _{i = 0}^{s} \sum _{j = 1}^{m} {s \atopwithdelims ()i} \int _0^t (e^{-\mu u})^i (1- e^{-\mu u})^{s-i} \; M_{r_j}[f](t- u, i) \frac{\lambda _j^{(t)} (u) }{\lambda ^{(t)} (u)} \, F^{(t)} (du). \end{aligned}$$Using the transformation \(y = T- t+ u\) as above, the last expression can be rewritten as
$$\begin{aligned}&\sum _{i = 0}^{s} \sum _{j = 1}^{m} {s \atopwithdelims ()i} e^{\mu i (T-t)} e^{\Lambda (T-t)} \int _{T-t}^T e^{\mu y i} \big (1- e^{-\mu [y- (T-t)]} \big )^{s-i}\\&\quad M_{r_j}[f](T-y, i) \frac{\lambda _j (y) }{\lambda (y)} F^{(0)} (dy). \end{aligned}$$For fixed \(s,i \) and \(j\), the integral above has the form \(\int _{T-t}^T g_1(t,y) g_2(y) F^{(0)} (dy) \) where \(g_1 (t, y) = (1- e^{-\mu [y- (T-t)]})^{s-i} \) is a uniformly continuous function on \([0,T ] \times [0,T]\), and the remaining term \(g_2(\cdot ) \) bounded on \([0,T]\). As a result, each integral and therefore the double sum above is continuous in \(t\), for fixed \(s\).
-
(iii)
For fixed \((t,s) \in [0,T]\times \{1, \ldots , \bar{P}-1\}\), we can decompose the difference as
$$\begin{aligned} {\mathcal {L}}[f](t, s) - {\mathcal {L}}[f](t, s+1) = I_1(t,s) + I_2 (t,s) + I_3(t,s) \end{aligned}$$
where
It is easy to see that
Also note that \(I_2 (t, s)\) is non-negative and can be rewritten as
in terms of an independent Bernoulli random variable \(Z\) with parameter \(p e^{-\mu t}\). Then we have
As for the last term we observe that
for a conditionally independent Bernoulli random variable \(W\) with parameter \( e^{-\mu T_1}\). This observation further gives
Note that the operator \({\mathcal {M}}\) preserves the upper and lower bounds given in the statement of Lemma 3.2(iii). Therefore, we have
Finally, when we combine the identity in (49) with the upper and lower bounds in (50) and (51), straightforward algebra yields
\(\square \)
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Arslan, A.M., Frenk, J.B.G. & Sezer, S.O. On the single-leg airline revenue management problem in continuous time. Math Meth Oper Res 81, 27–52 (2015). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00186-014-0485-6
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00186-014-0485-6