airport systems planning & design / rdn airport passenger buildings: efficiency thru shared use ...

Airport Systems Planning & Design / RdN

AIRPORT PASSENGER BUILDINGS: EFFICIENCY THRU SHARED USE

Dr. Richard de Neufville Professor of Engineering Systems &

Civil and Environmental Engineering M.I.T.

Based on work with Steven Belin, Senior Analyst, S H & E


Shared Space and Facilities in Airport Passenger Buildings

Sharing between Units of Activity => 10 to 60% improvements

…either in cost reduction for overall airport capacity

…or in capacity for fixed building and facilities


Major Improvement over Traditional Approach to Design

Traditional Approach Defines maximum capacity different units

(international, domestic, gates, etc.) Provides facilities to meet these demands Overall, provides more than required

Shared Use Approach Takes advantage of overlap Uses Space and Facilities more intensely Provides Capacity more cost-effectively


Example Contrasting Shared Use and Traditional Approach (1)

Bangkok Phase 1: 30 MAPDesign Traffic:

International: 21 to 25 MAP Domestic: 5 to 9 MAP

Traditional Approach Has Space for: 25 + 9 = 34 MAP

But intended for 30 MAP capacity!


Example Contrasting Shared Use and Traditional Approach (2)

Shared Approach Designs for : 21 + 5 + 4 (shared) = 30 MAP

13% savings in space

or: 24 + 6 + 4 (shared) = 34 MAP 13% increase in capacity over traditional

More value for money either way!


Primary and Secondary Drivers Motivating Use of Shared Space

Drivers Examples

Primary Time Factor

Very Short

(hours)

Swing space: sharing gate

lounges between flightsPeaking

At different

times

Short

(over day)

Swing gates for international/

Domestic flights

Short

(daily)

Additional gates to handle

extra peaks for weather, etcUncertainty

in type of

traffic

Long Run

(years)

Reserve swing gates to cope

with uncertain future growth


Analysis Methods Recommended for each motivating factor

Drivers Analysis References

Primary Time Factor Methods For each Method

Very Short

(hours)

Simulation specific to site or

Available Tables

Paullin (1966) etc.

US FAA (1988), Belin (2000)Peaking

At different

times

Short

(over day)

Analysis of Operations

(Site Specific)

Belin (2000)

Short

(daily)

General Formula or

Stochastic Analysis

de Neufville (1976)

Steuart (1974), etc.Uncertainty

in type of

traffic

Long Run

(years)

Real Option Analysis or

Decision Analysis

de Neufville and Belin (draft)

Belin (2000)


Peak Capacity Sharing -- Short time, needs identical

Basic example: Lounge space for aircraft gates people all have same needs

Other examples: bag claims, car parks, curb space, etc…

Sharing of Lounge Space is Common Practice in US Airports Not in Europe, Japan, Asia


Example Pattern of Occupancy: Shared Lounge for 4 Gates

Boarding Time Flight 1t = 40 minutes




Gate 1

Gate 2

Gate 3

Gate 4

Gate 1

Gate 2

Gate 3

Gate 4

Gate 1

Gate 2

Gate 3

Gate 4

Gate 1

Gate 2

Gate 3

Gate 4

1

2 23

4

44

3

3


Sharing lounges saves Space

SharedShared LoungeIndividual Lounges


Concept of Shared Lounge Space


Shared Departure Lounge: Las Vegas/McCarran

SharedLounge


Shared Departure Lounge: Miami/International

SharedLounge

Shared Lounge


Percent of Lounge Space needed depends on situation (table)


Percent of Lounge Space needed depends on situation (graph)

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12

Number of Flights Sharing Lounge

Min

ute

s b

etw

ee

n D

ep

art

ure

s

< 40

40 - 60

61 - 80

> 80

infeasible


Shared Departure Lounge,Widebody

420 Passenger Aircraft 80% Load Factor

Board 30 Minutes prior to Departure

0.0%

10.0%20.0%

30.0%

40.0%

50.0%60.0%

70.0%

80.0%90.0%

100.0%

1 2 3 4 5 6

Gates Sharing Lounge

Sp

ace

Nee

ded

as

% o

f In

div

idu

al

Lo

un

ges

FAA

90/5

90/10

90/20

120/5

120/10

120/20

Occupancy time (min.) / Interdeparture time (min.)


Shared Departure Lounge,Narrowbody

160 Passenger Aircraft 80% Load Factor

Board 20 Minutes prior to Departure

0.0%10.0%

20.0%30.0%40.0%50.0%

60.0%70.0%80.0%

90.0%100.0%

1 2 3 4 5 6

Gates Sharing Lounge

Sp

ac

e N

ee

de

d a

s %

of

Ind

ivid

ua

l L

ou

ng

es

FAA

60/5

60/10

60/20

90/5

90/10

90/20

Occupancy time (min.) / Interdeparture time (min.)


Peak Capacity Sharing -- Longer Time, Needs Different

Basic examples: Gates for Aircraft, Processing of

International and Domestic Passengers

Investment to enable flexibility (airbridges, sterile corridors, etc)

Examples applications: Las Vegas, Wellington, Boston... Kuala Lumpur, Mombasa, New Bangkok...


International or Domestic Only


Both International and Domestic


International / Domestic Swing Gates:Las Vegas/McCarran

Concourse

Gate T2-1

Gate T2-2

Gate T2-3

To FIS


International / Domestic Swing Gates:Wellington, New Zealand


Swing Baggage Claim:Wellington, New Zealand


Uncertainty Space -- Insurance for Current Needs

Uncertainty in Operations (Schedule delays, maintenance…)

Spare Capacity => InsuranceSimple Formula for Design Gates:

Design Gates = Maximum scheduled (G) + Allowance for Delay (G1/2)

Sharing => Smaller Buffer (as %) (G1/2)/G = 1/(G1/2) units together raise G


Concept of Shared “Insurance Space”


Expanded Concept of Shared Space: Time Overlaps + Insurance


Uncertainty Space -- Insurance for Future Needs

Uncertainty in Future Traffic Mix Normal Variability -- from historical record Extraordinary Variability -- Major Shift (airport

becomes international gateway, hub…)

Insurance = Flexible Future Capacity Adapt Capacity to Future Traffic Mix


Structure of Decision Analysis to select optimal shared capacity

4

3

2

1

0

5

5

6

5

5

5

6

6

6

7

7

7

8

8

9

21

21

21

21

21

22

2223

22

22

23

23

24

24

25

Actual Mix (Probability)

25 A, 5 B (.04)

23 A, 7 B (.38)

24 A, 6 B (.27)

22 A, 8 B (.27)

21 A, 9 B (.04)

Shortfall Cost

Shortfall is computed bycomparing the available

gate types with the actual mix of traffic, w ith the

consideration that swing gates can serve either

A or B.

Cost is the sum of the number of swing gates times the cost per swing gate and the gate short-fall times the construction cost per gate.

Expected Valueof Decision =

Si (Probabilityi * Costi)

Design Decision based on Minimum

Expected Value of Costs


Flexible Space Easily Adapts to Changes in Future Demand


Percent Swing Gates Needed -- Normal Variability

Standard Deviation of Past Traffic Mix

Rel

ativ

e C

ost

of

Sw

ing

Gat

es

(Sw

ing

Co

st/G

ate

Co

st)

5 - 10 %

10 - 15 %

20+ %

0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 0.00

0.10

0.20

0.30

0.40

0 - 5 %Swing Gates

15 - 20 %


Percent Swing Gates ( + 20% cost) -- Extraordinary Variability

50%

40%

30%

20%

10%

0%

0.00 0.10 0.20 0.30 0.40 0.50

Probability

Ab

solu

te S

hif

t in

Mix

0 - 10 %

10 - 20 %

20 - 30 %

30 - 40 %

40 - 50 %


Percent Swing Gates ( + 5% cost) -- Extraordinary Variability

50%

40%

30%

20%

10%

0%0.00 0.10 0.20 0.30 0.40 0.50

Probability

Ab

solu

te S

hif

t in

Mix

0 - 10 %

10 - 20 %

20 - 30 %

30 - 40 %

40 - 50 %


Practical Conclusions

For Design Routine Use of Shared Lounges 20 to 30% shared gates, etc...

For Analysis Spreadsheets do excellent job Existing results can be used Formulas also available

airport systems planning & design / rdn airport passenger buildings: efficiency thru shared use ...

Documents