1

LONG BEACH, CALIFORNIA

2

Matt DavisAssistant Director of PlanningHartsfield-Jackson Atlanta International AirportMatt.Davis@Atlanta-Airport.com

Airside Capacity Evaluation Techniques

LONG BEACH, CALIFORNIA

3

Agenda

• Define the Problem

• What’s the Appropriate Tool?

• What are Your Data Sources?

• Challenge Your Assumptions

• Gain Consensus

4

Define the Problem

• What Is Your Airfield Problem?– What Do Your Stakeholders Think the Problem is?

– Is it in the Airspace?• Other Airport Conflicts?• Obstacles?• Noise Abatement Routes?

– Is it on the Ground• Taxi in/Taxi Out Delay?• Runway Crossings?• Apron Congestion/Gate Availability?

• How Do You Define Your Problem?– Demand versus Capacity, Delay, Or Something Else?

• Air and/or Ground Delay• Gate Utilization• Payload/Range

5

Sample Problems

• San Antonio Airspace– San Antonio International Airport

• Runway 3-21 Vs Randolph Air Force Base 15-33

– Stinson Municipal ILS on Runway 14-32• Kelly Air Force Base – Runway 15-33

• Stinson Municipal Airport – Runway 14-32

• San Antonio International Airport Runway 12-30

• SAT Airspace Image

6

7

Sample Problems

• Ground– Hartsfield-Jackson Atlanta International Airport

• 6th Runway?– Air and/or Ground Delay versus Taxi times

• South Gate Complex?– Gate Utilization/Availability– Air and/or Ground Delay versus Taxi times

• Extension of Runway 9L-27R– Payload/Range

• Extension of Runway 10-28– Air and/or Ground Delay versus Taxi times vs. 6th Runway

ATL 2009 Comprehensive Development Plan

8

Gate Metrics

9

Gate Metrics

10

T9 1 0 1 2T10 2 0 0 2T11 1 1 2 4T12 1 0 2 3

AA Total 5 1 5 11D6 0 1 2 3D8 2 2 0 4D10 0 2 1 3D12 3 3 2 8

CO Total 5 8 5 18D13 1 3 1 5D14 2 3 2 7D15 3 2 3 8D16 3 3 1 7

NW Total 9 11 7 27D21 1 3 2 6D23 3 2 1 6D25 0 0 1 1

US Total 4 5 4 13T13 1 1 2 4T14 2 3 1 6T15 1 2 1 4

UA Total 4 6 4 14YX D7 3 2 2 7

YX Total 3 2 2 7Totals 30 33 27 90

Note 1: Available slots were selected based on a 1.5 gate service time.

Note 2: Moring Peak: 0600-1200, Mid-Day Peak: 1200-1700, Evening Peak: 1700-2000

UA

Gate Space Availability ChartJuly 20, 2006

Total

AA

CO

NW

Morning Peak

Mid-day PeakEvening

PeakAirline Gate

US

2008 ATL Gate Analysis

11

Scenarios Gates Turns Per Day

Avg. Seats Flown Pax 74% Pax 75% Pax 80% Pax 85%

Today Overall 200 7.2 115.0 85,640,300 87,053,000 92,856,500 98,660,086Annual Passengers Per Gate 428,200 435,300 464,300 493,300

Scenario A0-5 Year Aircraft Size Growth Gates 440,000 460,000 480,000 500,000 520,000

187 82,280,000 86,020,000 89,760,000 93,500,000 97,240,000116.6 121.9 127.2 132.5 137.8

Scenario B5-10 Year Aircraft Size Growth 178 78,320,000 81,880,000 85,440,000 89,000,000 92,560,000

116.6 121.9 127.2 132.5 137.8

Notes: Scenario A Assumptions:Delta 737-700s/800s seats grow from 150 seats to 160 seatsDelta MD88s replaced with 737-800s (108' wingspan replaced with 118' wingspan)Delta Connection 50 seat RJs replaced with 70 seat RJsDelta 757s & 767-300s equiped with winglets (10' to 14' increase in wingspan).AirTran regates Concourse C for greater 737 capability W/ loss of 2 gates.Imposed an average 20' wingtip to wingtip separation between aircraft

Scenario B Assumptions:Delta 767-300s (214 seats) & 767-400s (285 seats) replaced with 787-8s (250 seats) & 787-9s (290 seats)

Today W/ MHJIT 210 7.0 124.7 85,640,300 91,486,300 97,585,300 103,684,486

Scenario A 197 86,680,000 90,620,000 94,560,000 98,500,000 102,440,000122.8 128.4 134.0 139.6 145.2

Scenario B 188 82,720,000 86,480,000 90,240,000 94,000,000 97,760,000117.2 122.5 127.9 133.2 138.5

Annual Pax Per Gate

2008 ATL Gate Analysis

12

Aircraft Frontage Gates 445,000 470,000 495,000 520,000 545,000

Avg. Seats Flown 445,000 470,000 495,000 520,000 545,000

Concourse T 15 6,675,000 7,050,000 7,425,000 7,800,000 8,175,000 147.6 5.4 5.7 6.0 6.3 6.6Concourse A 30 13,350,000 14,100,000 14,850,000 15,600,000 16,350,000 160.2 5.0 5.2 5.5 5.8 6.1Concourse B 35 15,575,000 16,450,000 17,325,000 18,200,000 19,075,000 145.8 5.4 5.7 6.1 6.4 6.7Concourse C 48 21,360,000 22,560,000 23,760,000 24,960,000 26,160,000 83.6 9.5 10.0 10.6 11.1 11.6Concourse D 44 19,580,000 20,680,000 21,780,000 22,880,000 23,980,000 80.5 9.9 10.4 11.0 11.5 12.1Concourse E 28 12,460,000 13,160,000 13,860,000 14,560,000 15,260,000 169.5 4.7 4.9 5.2 5.5 5.7

200 89,000,000 94,000,000 99,000,000 104,000,000 109,000,000 115.0 6.9 7.3 7.7 8.1 8.5

Concourse F - Int'l 10 4,450,000 4,700,000 4,950,000 5,200,000 5,450,000 201.9 3.9 4.2 4.4 4.6 4.8Concourse G - Dom 10 4,450,000 4,700,000 4,950,000 5,200,000 5,450,000 110.1 7.2 7.6 8.0 8.4 8.8

Total W/ F&G 220 97,900,000 103,400,000 108,900,000 114,400,000 119,900,000 125.2 6.3 6.7 7.1 7.4 7.8

Annual Pax Per Gate Turns Per Gate Based on 80% Load Factor

Gate MetricsAirfield Capacity vs Gates

13

FLL

IAD

SAN

SFO3

DFWDFW1DFW2

LAX

EWR1

LGA

SFO

BOS

FLL2

IAD2

SAN2

BOS2

LAX2

EWR2

LGA2

SFO2

FLL3

IAD3

SAN3

LAX3

EWR3

LGA3

LAS

LAS2LAS3

MIA2

SEASEA2SEA3

ATLATL2ATL3

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

160

180

200

0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 200 220 240 260 280

Hourly Runway Capacity Ranges (IFR - MVFR -VFR)

Nu

mb

er

of

Ga

tes

1.0 Gate per Capacity Unit

0.6 Gate per Capacity Unit

1.9 Gates per Capacity Unit

Source: Jacobs Consultancy, February 2008

Gate MetricsAirfield Capacity vs Gates

14

FLL

IAD

SAN

DFW

EWR

LAX

LGA

SFO

BOSLASSEA

ATL

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

160

180

200

0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 200 220 240 260 280

Hourly Runway Capacity (VFR)

Nu

mb

er

of

Ga

tes

1.0 Gate per Capacity Unit

0.6 Gate per Capacity Unit

1.2 Gates per Capacity Unit

ATL0.76 Gate per Capacity Unit

Source: Jacobs Consultancy, February 2008

FAA ASV Delay Curve

15

16

What’s the Appropriate Tool?

• Traditional Airfield Capacity Tools– AC 150/5060-5a Airport Capacity Handbook (ACRP currently

studying an update to this 1985 document).– FAA Airfield Delay Model (Another 1980’s cheap solution)– Airfield Simulation Models (Very Complex & Very Expensive)

• SIMMOD, TAAM, Airport Machine and FAA Technical Center RDSIM. This is not an exhaustive list.

• Gate Scheduling Models– Numerous commercial and proprietary software packages are

available.

Airfield Models Are Data Sensitive. The Lack of Quality Data Can Make Your Results Suspect.

Airfield Models Are Data Sensitive. The Lack of Quality Data Can Make Your Results Suspect.

Tool Box

• Handbooks/nomographs – (FAA Airport Capacity and Delay Advisory Circular)

• “Analytical” models– (time-space diagrams, FAA Runway Capacity and Annual Delay

models)

• Runway queuing models– (L&B’s AirSim, Delays)

• Microsimulation models– (SIMMOD, ADSIM/RDSIM, TAAM)

• Real-time simulation methods– (FAA and NASA tower simulators)

17

ATL ASV Calculation

18

Annual Service Volume

(1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6)

Runway Use Configuration P C

Percent of Max

Capacity W P x C x W P x WWest Flow - VMC 56.30% 204.92 100% 1 115.36996 0.563East Flow - IMC 3.70% 162.84 79% 15 90.3762 0.555East Flow - VMC 33.30% 204.92 100% 1 68.23836 0.333West Flow - IMC 6.70% 162.84 79% 15 163.6542 1.005Total 437.63872 2.456Cw = (5) / (6) = 178.19

(7) (8) (9)

Annual Operations

Average Day Peak Month

Peak Hour Peak Month

2005 964741 2793 1962006 962069 2779 2232007 978624 2808 231

Average 968478 2793 217

H - Hourly Ratio - [Avg.(8)] / [Avg.(9)] 12.89086849D - Daily Ratio [Avg.(7)] / [Avg. (8)] 346.7492098

ASV = CwHD 796,498.63

Glossary of Terms and Accronyms

P - Percentage of time runway use configurationC - Hourly capacity of runway-use configurationW - Weight assigned to runway-use configuration to account for fact that different delay levels occur on

various runway-use configurationH - Hourly ratio or ratio of average daily operations in peak month to peak-hour operation in peak monthD - Daily ratio or ratio of annual operations to average daily operations in peak monthASV - Annual Service Volume is a level of annual aircraft operations that may be used as a reference in

preliminary planning.

VTASIM Range of Results

19

VTASIM Range of Results

20

SIMMOD Sample

• Simmod Video clip

21

22

What Are Your Data Sources?

• Analysis is only as good as the data from which it is derived from.– Official Airline Guide (OAG) for Airline Schedule Information

• Does not include Cargo, Charter, Military or General Aviation Operations

– FAA - ASPM, Tower Counts, and ASR-9 records.– RITA BTS

• Only includes those airlines that provide ACARS data to FAA

• No International Flight Information

– Airport Records• Recorded Observations

• Sensis Aerobahn

• Passur

VTASIM Range of Results

23

• AeroBahn clip

24

Challenge Your Assumptions

• How Do the Airlines/ATC Respond to These Events at Your Airport– IMC Conditions: What is the split between VMC and IMC?– CAT II and below: how often are you in low visibility conditions?– Snow/Icing Conditions: Throw their hands up in the air and quit?

• What is the Impact of the Airlines’ Business Plans on Your Analysis?

• What Are the Little Things You Can Do To Make Valuable Improvements?– End Around Taxiways– Strategically Placed High Speed Exits– New Runway Crossing Locations

There Are Several Small Improvements That Can Pay Off In The Long Run.

There Are Several Small Improvements That Can Pay Off In The Long Run.

25

Gain Consensus

• Get Agreement Up Front on The Metrics You Will Use– How Detailed Do The Results Have To Be?

• Delay in the Apron Areas, Runway Crossing, or Departure Queue

• Overall Taxi times. (Delay plus unimpeded taxi time)

– What’s Important and to Whom?• How Important is Safety When You are Preparing a Benefit/Cost

Analysis?

• How Do You Measure Safety if Your Concern is Efficiency?

• What if There is No Differential Savings in the Results, but the Outcome is More Predictable?

• What’s Your Definition of Acceptable Delay?