Passengers Terminal Operation
Passengers Terminal Operation
Passengers Terminal Operation
Institutional Repository
Metadata Record:
Publisher:
https://dspace.lboro.ac.uk/2134/7403
c S.A. Mumayiz
A METHODOLOGY
FOR PLANNINGAND OPERATIONS
MANAGEMENT
OF AIRPORTPASSENGER
TERMINALS:
A CAPACITY
/ LEVEL OF SERVICEAPPROACH
BY
B,Sc,. M,Sc.
S. A. MUMAYIZ.
submitted
for
the
in
fulfilment
partial
award
Thesis
Doctoral
Doctor
of
of
University
Loughborough
the
of
requirements
Philosophy
of
the
of
Technology
1985
Research
Supervisor:
Norman
Professor
C. Eng.,
Director
of
Research:
FICE,
Professor
C. Eng.,
Department
S. A.
of
MUMAYIZ,
Transport
1985
MASCE,
Fredrick
MIMechE,
Technology.
J.
Ashford,
MCIT,
D.
FIMA,
B. Sc.,
P. E.,
Hales*
MBCS.
Ph. D.,
P. Eng.
B. Sc.,
Ph. D.,
c>>
To
my
wife
and
our
daughter
Sarra....
..:
Y
y
.. .
(ii)
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
The author
*
Professor
Norman
throughout
the
Bob Caves
for
stage
early
Department
the
word
the
for
his
thanks
to:
guidance
and
encouragement
as acting
supervisor
in
the
research.
of Research.
for
Technology
Director
me to use
allowing
to the
like
to extend
I would
my thanks
help
for
their
department
the
and care
of
Vivien
Moore
Brenda
and
particularly
Transport
of
processor.
the
his
participation
Hales,
administrative
during
express
Ashford
his
of
The
to
research.
Fred
* Professor
*
like
would
staff
research,
Grove.
* Dr.
B. Frank
I would
to
the
facilitating
like
Director
McCullough,
to
research
the
* All
members of
Michael Walton,
thank
him for
during
my
exchange of
to the administative
and Kitty
as the
stay,
Tarpley
acting
staff
Collins.
supervisor
external
providing
and
and for
of ACAP program.
Mahmassani,
Dr.
members,
whom I had useful
faculty
with
from
family
thanks
and
me
my
warm
to Sue
particularly
of the center,
(iii
for
Mathew
Doyle
Sciences,
Department
Human
LUT,
the
of
of
his assistance
in the preperation
stage of Birmingham Airport
survey's
*
Roy
questionnaires.
Bayless,
Austin
Director,
Municipal
conducting
Ed O'Rourke,
and
for
Airport,
(ACAP-Austin
83)
their
help
Assistant
and
cooperation
Tom
O'Brian,
Aircraft
technical
Center,
supporting
literature.
* The Government
of
and
for,
Iraq
for
in
Study.
* Graham Gerard
their
Director,
Airport
Technology
providing
ALSIM
sponsoring
this
of
LUT for
FAA
Division,
program
research.
and
the
(iv)
SYNOPSIS
A methodology
evaluation
is
herewith
presented
of
operational
facilities
of
to
in
assist
the
of
conditions
the
systematic
dynamic
and
vital
terminals,
enhance
could
which
The
for
airports.
planning
and
management
adopted
practices
relation
between
focusses
of
the
capacity
methodology
on
individual
that
facilities
levels
passengers
service
of
and
processing
in
experience
facilities
those
methodology
them,
airport
important
whereby
are
consists
two
Level
main parts:
The first
of Service
procedure.
(Performance
between
models)
be
possibly
service
measures
be used
to
various
demand
are
the
to
by
synthesize
which
framework
Levels
based
their
upon
time,
and
service
resulting
at
method,
Perception-Response
particular
used
in
service
the
for
case
facilities
this,
service
of
to
their
studies
processing
to
response
demand
different
models
are
conducted,
to
facilities
of
may
and
some
that
In
the
could
are
of
variations
Through
derived,
where
delineate
the
airport
at
conditions
levels.
the
service
assess
service
different
be
by asking
derived
to
second,
could
standards
surveys)
perception
that
to
when subjected
techniques
simulation
service
of
relations
passengers
information.
required
presented.
(through
appropriate
passengers
standards
performance
To accomplish
is
established
relevance
of
levels.
to
and
procedure,
facilities,
individual
particular
the
assess
utilized
way
of
of
aspects
developed
The
the
establishes
(flows)
levels
demand
by
accommodated
analysed.
Capacity
and
examined
of
operational
this
they
are
levels
of
terminal
considered.
KEY WORDS:
Airport
Terminals
Level
Passenger
Airport
of Service
Management - Perception-Response
Facilitation
and Facility
Service
Planning.
Standards
Airport
Surveys
Models - Performance
Capacity
Operation
Models
(v)
DECLARATION
----------------------------
The
work
author
in
full
higher
described
except
or
in
degree.
in
this
OF
ORIGINALITY
thesis
where
acknowledged,
part,
to
this
or
any
has
been
and
has
other
carried
not
been
institution
by
out
the
submitted,
for
(vi )
C0NTENTS
Page
CHAPTER ONE: INTRODUCTION
1.1
1.1.1
.............................................
History
of Transport
..............................
1.1.2
History
1.1.3
History
1.2
1.3
1.4
1.5
Preview
1
3
Aviation
of
and
...............................
Development
of Airports
...............
Scope
General
.......................................
knowledge
Available
Insufficiency
of
................
Terminals
Research
Needs in Airport
.................
Topic
Selection
of Research
.........................
4
6
7
8
10
Review
of
Literature
Technical
Literature
......................
Research .:...................
Approach .....................
on Academic
Analysis
2.2.1
Statistical
2.2.2
2.2.3
Approach .......................
Economics-Oriented
Approach .................
Theoretical-Mathematical
2.2.4
The Systems
2.2.5
Multi-Discipline
Approach
..............................
Approach .........................
2.3
Approach
Implemented
2.4
Research
Objectives
2.5
Structure
of
Thesis
in
This
Research
.................................
.................................
...............
12
14
15
15
16
17
18
18
19
20
(vii)
Page
CHAPTER THREE: AIRPORT TERMINALS
3.1
Airports
3.2
Functions
3.3
Planning
and Their
of
Airport
Airport
3.3.2
Facility
3.3.3
Demand/Capacity
Parties
3.5
Activities
22
........................
Terminals
25
......................
27
Aspects
and Design
.........................
Terminal
Design
Concepts..................
3.3.1
3.4
Terminals
Design..
Involved
29
o .........
.......................
Design
Criteria
in
Terminal
Performed
Within
33
...................
Operations-
Terminals.
34
...........
.........
0 ....
36 `
39, /
Definitions
4.2
Factors
.........................................
Contributing
to Service
4.2.1
Qualitative
4.2.2
Quantitative
4.3
Service
Factors
Temporal
4.3.2
Spatial
4.3.3
Econometric
4.3.4
Statistical
Delay:
4.5
Delay/Space
4.6
Level
48
48
.................................
50
..................................
Measures
..............................
Measures
..............................
A Significant
51
51
Measure of Service
.............
Relations
4.6.1
4.6.2
Linking
4.6.3
Processing
.......
.........................
Terminals.....
Criteria
for Airport
Facilities
...........
:............
Facilities
................................
(Servicing)
Facilities
.............................................
46 "
,
46
47
..............................
Considered
.........................
Measures
of Service
Storing-Holding
Summary
...............................
Measures
4.4
4.7
Standards...........
Factors
Measures
4.3.1
41
52
54
55
55
57
.................
61
65
(viii)
Page
CHAPTER FIVE:
5.1
5.2
5.3
5.4
5.5
5.6
CAPACITY
Definitions
.........................................
Interpretation
in Transportation
of Capacity
What Is Terminal
Capacity?
........................
Balanced
Capacity
...................................
Interpretation
Capacity
of Terminal
.................
Summary
.............................................
CHAPTER SIX:
Objectives
6.2
Critique
6.3
Structure
-6.3.1.1
6.3.1.2
6.3.1.3
6.3.2
Systems
72
76
77
80
80
PROPOSED METHODOLOGY
6.1
6.3.1
66
'
....
of
. .................
....................
Current
Practices
.......................
and Description
...........................
Level of Service
Procedure
........................
Collection
of Information...
.........
......
...
Building
Models .............
Perception-Response
Establishing
Capacity
Level
of
Service
Framework.........
Procedure
................................
6.3.2.1
Definition
of Input Parameters ..................
6.3.2.2
Simulation
Runs
.................................
6.3.2.3
Performance
Models
..............................
6.4
Operations
Assessment:
Capacity/Level
of Service
Relations
..........................................
82
83-"
87
8792
93
95
97
100
106
107
107
Nature
of
Collecting
Information
...............................
7.2
Information
in Airports
..................
7.. 2.1
Information
Collection
Methods in Airports........
7.2.2
Problems Associated
With Airport
Surveys..........
7.3
Data Base for Methodology
...........................
7.4
Capacity
Procedure
Information
......................
7.4.1
Demand Patterns
Distributions.........
and Arrival
109
110
110
114
116
117
118
(ix)
Page
7.4.2
Processing
7.4.3
Number
7.4.4
Other
7.5
of
(Servicing)
Operational
Miscellaneous
Level
Rate
Channels
7.5.1
7.5.2
Passenger
7.5.3
Alternative
Social
Definition
7.6.2
Planning
7.6.3
Pre-tests
7.6.4
Design
7.7
7.7.1
7.7.2
7.7.3
7.8
....................
125
...................
Information
..............
Perception-Response
126
Models
Categories
Types...........
and Facility
Approaches
to P-R Model Building......
Surveys
7.6.1
125
Information
Procedure
of Service
Discussion
on Passenger
7.6
123
and Distribution......
'.........
..............................
Surveys
and Use of Social
..............
and Design
of Surveys ....................
and Pilots
..............................
of
8.4.3
8.5
Simulation
8.2
8.3
8.3.1
8.3.2
8.3.3
8.3.4
8.4
8.4.1
8.4.2
8.5.1
'
Techniques
Macroscopic
8.5.1.1
ACAP
8.5.1.2
ALSIM
Approach
Adopted
in
138
144
145
.......
The Methodology....
..............................
............................................
...........................................
134
136
Overview
............................................
Types of Models
.....................................
Simulation
Languages
................................
Event-Oriented
Simulation
.........................
Activity-Oriented
Simulation
......................
Process-Oriented
Simulation
.......................
SLAM
..............................................
Airport
Landside
Simulations
........................
Academically-Developed
Simulations
................
Industry-Developed
Simulations
....................
Governmental
Agencies-Developed
Simulations.......
131
135
129
135
Questionnaires
..........................
Attitudes
Methods
and Scaling
.......................
Characteristics
of Attitudes
......................
Attitude
Measurement
Principles
and Scaling
Types of Attitude
Scales
..........................
Passenger
Surveys
Conducted
.........................
128
148
149
152
.
cx)
Page
8.5.2
Microscopic
8.5.2.1
ECSL
8.5.2.2
SLAM
8.6
8.6.1
8.6.2
8.6.3
8.6.4
8.7
9.1_
East
9.2
Panel
9.3.1
181
..............................
184
............................................
............................................
Simulation
Using
Facilities
of Terminal
Ticket
Check-In
Facility
..........................
Outbound
Official
Controls
........................
Inward
Immigration
Control
........................
Arrivals
Customs Control
..........................
Statistical
Considerations
in Simulation
CHAPTER NINE:
9.3
Approach
APPLICATIONS
Midlands
of
Manchester
Airport
SLAM........
186
189
191
195
197
............
200
OF METHODOLOGY
Airport
Experts
184
Pilot
Survey
Study
Survey ..................
.............................
............................
P-R Models
........................................
9.3.2
Performance
Models
................................
9.4
Birmingham Airport
Study ............................
9.4.1
Planning
of Survey ................................
9.4.2
Questionnaire
Design
..............................
9.4.3
P-R Models
........................................
9.4.4
Performance
Models
................................
9.5
Summary
.............................................
207
211
215
221
222
241
249
253
255
263
278
280
283
(xi)
Page
REFERENCES
.................................................
APPENDIX A: P-R
MODELS
APPENDIX B: QUESTIONNAIRES
APPENDIX C:
SIMULATION
LISTINGS
287
(xii)
FIGURES
Figure
3.1
Airport
Terminal
3.2
Airport
System
4.1
Highway
Capacity
4.2
5.1
Crowding
Schematic
6.2
Concept
6.4
8.1
8.2
8.3
8.4
9.1
9.3
Concepts
Schematic
Processing
....................
............................
Concept of Levels of
Manual's
in Airport
Terminals
................
Diagram
of
32
37"
Hierarchy
for
Highways
Diagram
of Level of
Perception-Response
Diagram
of Capacity
Time Distributions
Service
73
....................
Service
Procedure
.....
................
Procedure
.............
Facility
Facility
Processing
Processing
Events
Departures
Events
for
Arrivals
101
AIRPORT - Daily
...........
9.5
Traffic
218
Traffic
219
9.6
9.7
9.8
9.9
225
for
187
217
.............................................
MANCHESTERINTERNATIONAL AIRPORT - International
Passengers
Movement Patterns
........................
Times
MANCHESTERINTERNATIONAL AIRPORT - Service
Passenger
161
198
Pattern
9.4
105
192
.............
MANCHESTERINTERNATIONAL AIRPORT - Annual Traffic
.............................................
91
96
Model
for
43
592.
......................
Concept of Events,
Activity,
and a Process ..........
Simulation..
SLAM Processing
Logic for Discrete-Event
Pattern
9.2
Design
Levels
Fundamental
6.1
6.3
Page
TITLE
227
230
231
232
235
(xiii)
Page
Figure
TITLE
9.10
9.11
MANCHESTER INTERNATIONAL
for
9.12
9.13
Outbound
Official
AIRPORT -
Controls
Model
.......
Performance
(Afternoon
Peak)
Model
.....
AIRPORT - Annual
9.15
9.16
9.17
9.18
9.19
Traffic
243
.............................................
BIRMINGHAM INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT - Weekly Traffic
Pattern
.............................................
9.20
9.21
244
Outbound
Official
Controls
(Afternoon
Peak)
for
Customs Control
.................................
237
242
Pattern
9.14
236
.....
Model
246
247
252
267
268
273
Model
276
(xiv)
TABLES
Table
Page
TITLE
Canada's
4.1
Transport
4.2
Characteristics
Level
Framework
Measures
of Airport
of
Service
of
Service
45
........
48
Terminals
4.5
............................................
Measures of Landside Facilities
Service
..............
IATA/BAA Airport
Service
Standards
...................
Fruin's
Level of Service
Framework for Pedestrians
9.1
Level
4.3
4.4
9.2
9.3
9.5
58
...
Charter
Framework for Departing
of Service
PassengersEAST MIDLANDS AIRPORT
....................
Participation
in Panel of Experts Survey
.............
Level of Service
Framework for Arrivals
and
Departures-
9.4
49
Hypothetical
Airport
.....................
ChannelDepartures
Level
Framework for
of Service
MANCHESTERINTERNATIONAL AIRPORT
Service
Times for
Airline
Levels
of
Check-in-
9.7
Levels
9.9
9.10
Service
.....................
Flight
for Airline
MANCHESTER INTERNATIONAL
of
Operational
Service
for
AIRPORT
Outbound
214
...........
228
233
Official
Controls9.8
Operational
212
Facilities-
MANCHESTERINTERNATIONAL AIRPORT
9.6
210
223
.....................
Check-in
Flight
62
Peak
239
Peak
240
.................................................
Levels of Operational
for Outbound Official
Service
ControlsMANCHESTERINTERNATIONAL AIRPORT / Afternoon
.................................................
Level of Service
Framework for International
ChannelBIRMINGHAM INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT
Level
of
Channel-
9.11
Daily
9.12
Flight
Survey
Service
Framework
for
International
Departure
............
Arrivals
257
259
261
262
(xv)
Table
9.13
TITLE
Levels
Check-in-
9.14
9.15
9.16
9.17
of
Operational
Page
Service
for
Airline
Flight
Levels
Service
for
Security
of Operational
BIRMINGHAM INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT / Morning
265
...........
CheckPeak
......
269
Levels
CheckService
for Security
of Operational
BIRMINGHAM INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT / Afternoon
Peak
....
Levels of Operational
Service
for Inward Immigration-
270
BIRMINGHAM INTERNATIONAL
274
Levels
AIRPORT
Service
for
of Operational
BIRMINGHAM INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT
. ....................
277
CHAPTERONE
I
INTR0DUCT10N
1.1
PREVIEW
Airports,
the
points
of
and
parts
subject
the
air
sensitive
components
transportation
of
of
and environment
transport
network,
form
that
nodes
this
research,
and
constitute
vital
and
national,
Fully
worldwide.
indispensible
international
and
regional,
are focal
important
their
understanding
inevitably
more
require
nature
and
characteristics
would
development.
historical
knowledge
their
and
about
evolution
development,
history
Eventually,
and
studying
airports'
transport
history
and
the
of
essentially
requires
of
a preview
systems
aviation.
1.1.1
HISTORY OF TRANSPORT
Transport,
the
in
importance
the
ease with
Historically,
with
various
centuries,
of the wheel
the
horse
exploiting
many
the
of
of
the
word,
signifies
normally
'accessibility';
was the
and using
forces
of
use
another(l).
of mankind,
the
flourished
that
over
and perished
Invention
in different
distinct
stages.
civilizations
it developed
centuries,
sense
general
'place',
first
it
wind
of
revolution
in transport.
and bouyancy
steam
and
of
transport
This
to
sail
introduction
was
the
taming
after
by
followed
seas.
of
After
internal
2.
0
combustion
of
the
engine
technical
human or
animal
capability
over
transport,
mechanized
freed
man from
power
and vastly
increased
sea.
Influence
revolution,
which
transport
land
and
triggered
and
last
the
the
over
earth's
and a horse can
of
navigating
surface
other
Basically,,
a half
and
of
that
man has
faster
than
at speeds
Twentieth
Century
afforded
surface
run.
from
air
avoiding
forms
century
-through
or, minimizing
to
point
geographical
start
dependence
his
on
movement
transport
mechanical
It has given
people
of
on mankind
and civilizations
was profound.
them to change
new freedoms;
mobility
which
allows
to fashion
them on a world
of activity,
scale,
behave
in a way previously
unknown(2).
completely
during
the
their
been
patterns
think
to
It
was
able
to
and
only
move
sail
could
a ship
man the potential
point
barriers
over
that
earth's
impede
transport(l).
transport
been a strong,
and governing
always
factor
demographic,
aspects
on economic,
and geopolitic
cultural,
Transport
influenced
that
fate
civilizations.
progress
of
or
implied
territorial
locomotion,
a means
which
of
without
specialization
would
had
because
be impossible,
transport,
without
local
the
communities
-available
must
exist
on
solely
.
History
has always shown a close
resources(l).
of civilization
because
the
between transport
development,
relation
and economic
importance
from the
in the economic
of place
springs
sense,
distribution
unequal
of;
developed of how to utilize
the availability
require
regional
differentials
in
resources,
material
or
knowlege
and
population,
These
activities
resources.
production
prices,
Modern role
of
goods
and
services,
some
and
and skills,
wages,
by
is supplemented
of transport
means of transport.
dependence
the
on opportunities
available
location
for
business
or for
and
pleasure
to-those
relative
existing
elsewhere(3).
at
their
a, particular
desirability
3.
1.1.2
HISTORY OF AVIATION
Aviation
is
transport
service(4).
directly
are
since
related
airports
role
of
spatial
are
aeroplanes,
activity
Essentially,
and
airports
linked
strongly
in the
established
by accommodating
Aviation
service
of
the
concerned
and operations.
and incidents,
events
with
and their
that
to
a
supplying
development
of
aviation,
augment the
to
place,
them and facilitating
first
history
is
their
series
during
a continuous
and distance
by time
separated
important
formed
that
of
milestones
or so,
past century
in
history.
history-is
Portrayal
attempted
aviation
of
aviation
informaion
based
the remaining
on
part of this
mainly
subsection,
from Kennedy(s).
extracted
Sir
George Cayley
production,.
that
glider,
1852.
On the
other
to
Wright
the
of
and testing
of the
took off the ground
be exact,
managed to fly
Carolina
for
'father
a distance
side
of
history
the
first
fostered
aeroplane',
first
manual,
Brompton
at
the Atlantic,
design,
the
heavier
than
Vale,
Yorkshire
Kitty
Hawk,
Wilbur
when
was made
mechanically-driven
(overall,
four flights
air
in
North
and Oliver
flying
craft
852
totalling
of 120 feet
First
In
the
feet,
59
total
time
seconds).
a
with
of
airbourne
first
time
for
the
World War,
flew
aeroplanes
missions
military
During
from primitive
landing
'airports'
strips.
of grassy-field
in
the war,
mail serviceand after
also
aeroplanes
were adopted
their
first
to deliver
in
known commercial
in 1918-1919,
planes were used
use;
forces
for the British
mail between Europe and Britain
Germany,
Post Office
airmail
and U. S.
regular
established
M.
between
By 1926,
New York
Washington
C.
D.
routes
and
to privatecontracts
were let
operators
and aeroplane
companies
to fly
U. S.
Mail between California,
Texas,
Michigan,
-Minnesota,
and the
East
Coast.
A new dimension
was introduced
of aviation
Atlantic
in an aeroplane;
in 1919 by Alcock
when-the
was crossed
in 1928,
then
Charles
'Slim'
and; Brow_n,
on May 20-21,
when
(a pioneer
Lindberg.,
'barnstormer'
his
in
'mail
and
aviator')
-,
4.
'Spirit
St.
of
Louis',
made
journey
3600 miles,
cross-Atlantic,
Paris Le Bourget(5).
The Second
solo
and dramatic
New York to
Long Island,
famous
the
from
World
War witnessed
the extensive,
the
use
of
as an
aeroplane
the
the
after
war,
end of
systematic,
and
weapon.
effective
the
substantial
and hardware
expertise,
specialized
Subsequently,
technological
advancements,
operational
to
civil
accumulated
over the war period,
converted
rapidly
were
and
Post-war
and commercial
political,
exploitation.
economic,
and ever growing
commercial
climates
saw the birth
of a strong
in
initiated
that
aviation;
air transport
progress
market,
more
the
introduction
aircraft,
jet
of
huge leaps
and
engine,
in
the
long-range
high-capacity
supporting
technologies
of
and many
meteorology,
communications,
navigation,
aeronautics,
and
that made aviation
reliable,
other fields
efficient,
a safe,
air
Rapid growth of international
a popular
mode of transport.
transport
economic
way
viewpoints,
1.1.3
began
that
in
life,
of
shaping
1950s,
the
affected
course
of
the
contemporary
changes in social
history(]).
political
Airports,
are
servicing
station
the
and terminal
of
starting
for
aircraft,
and
a 21-mile
in
points
the
control
flights,
the
of
center
known
first
They
aviation
operations'
were
safety
and regulation.
transport
when the commercial
of
use of aeroplanes,
namely air
the
first
In the U. S.,
mail,
goods,
and passengers,
started.
(but
first
short-lived)
service,
airline
rudimentary
scheduled
started
in
1914 over
scheduled
passenger
flights
under
mail
where the passenger
1927,
started
the
in
first
the
air
route
transport
contracts,
shared
permanent
U. S. between
often
the
cockpit
commercial
Boston-Logan
Florida,
while
the
first
on
offered
biplanes,
cockpit
in
(6).
But
bags!
with mail
service
airline
passenger
services
in open
were
and
5.
by that
year
cities
across
between
service
European
At
128
for
service
with regular
there was scheduled
by 1920,
were 38 airlines
In Europe,
America.
there
London
and
Amsterdam,
Paris,
major
and other
cities(6).
first,
airports
just
were
fields
farmers'
beach
or
'or
packed cinder,
industry
grew and
level
into
they
soon
were reconditioned
strips,
landing
As the airline
strips.
unpaved dirt
were
of aircrafts
standards
speeds,
payloads,
and technical
increased,
lengths
with
increased,
this
situation
changed; runway
for
hangers
aircraft
lighting;
surfaces,
markings,
and
paved
in
the
terminals
and
and service
maintenance
were constructed;
for
gather
hangers,
form of
sheds, or even tents where passengers
different
for,
flight
boarding,
seperately
either
were erected
building.
terminal
in
or consolidated
airlines,
an all-airline
but
longer
more
range,
with even
by
facilitated
aeroplanes,
and more
reliable,
comfortable
accumulated
expertise
technological
advancements
and operational
this
to.
inferior
technically
over the war period,
were
airports
After
Second
new demand.
World
Inevitably,
and designed,
planned
efficient
increase
in
demand's
quality
fleets.
in
terms
then,
in
growth
innovations
they
to
operations,
in
demand.
increase
Since
bigger,
War,
cope
better
be expanded,
facilitate
and
accommodate
were have to
with,
and provide
increase
This
in
better
in
terms
quantity
technological
of the
even more
traffic,
air
in
aviation
technological
have
followed.
industry
service
demand
traffic
of
for
the
was
flow,
standards
of
advancements
Technical
and
promoted
the
great
two-fold;
and in
aircraft
a steady
advances
air
and
transport
industry,
and
reliable,
and made air travel
more attractive,
for
this
the public.
Yet,
made
convenient
as a consequence,
airports
much bigger,
more expensive
more complex in operation,
to
difficult
to build
or expand,
and more complicated
and
operate,
-with.
millions
and millions
getting
accustomed
to
using
6.
air transport
terminals
to
business
catch
development
staged
looked
1.2
for
or
and leisure,
terminate
their
of
airports
Later
terminals
and
airports'
be
will
the
on,
closely
at.
GENERAL SCOPE
After
reviewing
evolution
in particular,
airports
vitality
the
of
the
of
efficient
normally
for
or
whole
can
However,
fulfil
the
air
were
transport,
air
the
travel
needs
market.
lagging
stage-development
basis
ad-hoc
reflecting
such
number
to
of
which
of
responsible
day-to-day
parties
with
of
questions
difficult.
be increasingly
dictated
by
and
industry
aviation
and the desires
airports
de facto
to
appears
have
been
on
an
and
situation
of catching-up
technical
of aviation
standards
with
demand.
But actually,
the fact that the
financial,
contributes
its
of
growth in air traffic
Hence technological
of airports
standards
Planned-growth
behind
those of aircraft.
be
the
would
a system,
another)
to
prove
compatible
industry
and air traffic
time lapse
between first
great
designs,
requiring
particular
Certain
system.
of
and
and
role,
and development
the
Evidently,
-
of airports
was strictly
technological
advances in the
and
with
all
involved,
great
functions,
livelihood,
existence,
and
influence
the
development
usually
trying
mere
transport,
air
of
realize
its
complex,
undoubtedly
followed
to
can
planning,
and management
include
high
a relatively
involved
(in
one way or
operations,
directly
one
the
of
history
and
airport
on the
performance,
that
through
passing
flights.
to
and practically
planning,
and
this
phenomenon.
are raised
the airport
the public-
characterize
1.
Population
of
during
airports
any time
introducing
scale
concerning
system;
air travelling
considered,
or
concepts
specific
implementing
them,
administrative
elements
the
features
following
public,
which
uses
7.
2.
Level
investment
of
that
organisations
in
and
need
planning,
and good
5.
numbers
sheer
system.
These questions
efficiency,
and local
sensitivity
that
performed,
of
utmost
organization,
of
by associated
and
parties
high
degree of
particularly
system
necessitates
the
travellers,
businesses
dependent
activities
and
transactions
of
efficiency,
consideration
on the
and,
visitors,
and other
users
of the
are:
basic
What
fundamentals
that
are the
principles
and essential
design,
for the planning,
should be established
and-operation
of the various
components of the system?
What
in this
are the most relevant
process?
variables
What
should
process?
What
criteria
-
be the
to
strategic
use in
the
objectives
of
every
stage
of
the
process?
Such questions,
aspects of this
1.3
Furthermore,
literature
technical
specialized
was
it was realized
consulted,
that
knowledge
available
was limited
Prevailing
and insufficient.
facilities
practices
of terminal
design
found
be dependent
to
were
that
on three main sources
basically
reflect
thought
belonging
schools
to
of
national
governmental
organisations
associated
with airports,
and exhibit
their
policies,
judgiment
and the personal
of-their
or experience
These-sources
personnel.
are:
when
more
8.
U.
The
S.
based
are
studies
Practices
Authority
Federal
Aviation
on
practical
experience
by consulting
firms
conducted
developed
within
which
strictly
are
officially
published.
developed
empirical
under
not
assumptions
International
have their
practices
Insufficiency
attached
probably
be
airports
is
joint
responsible
for safety
specific
their
that
knowledge
and design
blamed
on
and lack
of terminal
collaboration
of this
have
there
of
aviation
organisations
institutional
been occasional
situation;
more research
fill
to
staged
studies
knowledge.
available
and
1.4
fact
the
of operation,
and protection
left
the terminal
situation
and the
low-priority
elements
of the system.
placed on the airside
of the airport.
However,
adopt
which
of the
some
an appropriate
facilities,
can
in
that
research
of
by
and initiated
motivated
or governmental
(as part of their
and ICAO(9),
to
seem
certain
with
conditions
application.
such as IATA(8)
own practices
of FAA and BAA.
partially
basically
and
institutions.
or research
by British
Airports
and implemented
intra-organisational
for
use and
These
are
primarily
practices
organisations
of available
for planning
methodology
sectors;
industries,
to
that
publications
frequent
sponsored
Administration's
and
either
air
of two
transport
and
with
duties)
associated
and statutory
This
the
environment.
of
landside
the
as
of
whole
The principal
was
emphasis
demands for
should
the
gap
reconsideration
initiated
be continuously
currently
in
existing
Realizing
the
great
knowledge
of
and
design,
and operations
need for
lack
of
of
research
to
alleviate
appropriate
practices
terminals,
airport
certain
insufficiency
in
planning,
efforts
were
9.
made in the
direct
to
to focus on this
and mid seventies
subject,
and
issues
to
researchers
of
particular
emphasize
early
importance.
Research
Committee
of Air
Engineers
Society
Transport
Division
in
American
the
for
discuss
to
of Civil
needs
set
up
was
in
terminal
to
that
research
systems
were relevant
airport
Its
to a conference
society(2).
recommendations
were presented
held in 1971,
Federal
which
represented
and local
government,
It
airlines,
air transportation
and
universities.
consultants,
be
in
have
to
stated: " The growth
transportation
air
will
improved
accommodated by greatly
ground
of existing
utilization
facilities.
A major
included:
now ". Main recommendations
of this
committee
1.
Hardware technology
and new machines are not going to solve
the problems of airport
terminal
design by themselves.
2.
Problems of airport
design,
terminal
and operation
planning,
have to be extensively
in
improvements
because
rethought,
major
the quality
terminal
to arrive
of airport
service
are more likely
from the
reconfiguration
improvements
in current
the
airport
system,
investment
areas
role
-'Potential
transportation
Improving
modern
strategies
of
of
concern
different
network.
forecasting
'demand.
Peaking
problems,
deterioration
of
current
operation.
using
selecting
to be required.
3. Specific
of
techniques
particularly,
during
service
of
airport
of
traffic
insufficiency
peak periods.
systems
and
of
in
the
air
capacity
air
travel
and
10.
Spatial
arrangement
dimensions
the
of
terminal
Quality
of
facilities,
service
different
and
by
provided
airport
facilities.
terminal
Reduction
of
labour
of
labour-intensive
and
reorganizing
activities.
Accessibility
-
to
air
initiative
Another
intensity,
services,
was
motivated
by
the
U. S.
Department
of
to
in 1975
where
a conference
was convened
discuss
Capacity.
the problems
Landside
specifically
of Airport
Some of the conference
findings
were(10):
1.
Primary 'emphasize
be placed
and
research
on 'soft'
should
Transportation,
development
technology
landside
systems-
of
the
airport
have
and hardware
Now,
operations.
design,
operation
the 'hardware'.
landside,
' because
sufficient
for use in airport
been developed
of
landside
are studies
needed
and management, so that optimum use
can be made of
developed
be
2.
Capacity
and level
should
of service
ratings
for airports,
and-quantitative
measures should
and qualitative
be determined
for each landside
component.
3.
Data for
they
analyzing
needed to
landside
and other airport
tools,
analytical
proper
where
airport
1.5
are
need to be developed,
level
describe
of service,
capacity,
These data, combined with
functions.
will
increase
the effectiveness
of`
lansdide
functions
management.
Decision
available
upon particular
on the broad
references
contain
1. De Neufville's
2. Horonjeff's
3. Ashford
three
Airport
Planning
and Wright's
topic
subject
of
research,
of+airports
came after
was surveyed.
main entries:
Systems Planning(3),
and Design of Airports(7),
Airport
Engineering(ll).
and,
literature
List
of
11.
The
first,
experiences,
to
respect
handling
subtitled-
provide
excellent
its
of
critical,
various
reference
observatory,
aspects
of the
on the
at
the
on
the
and
methods
subject
with
and number of
of the system,
and unanswered remarks that he raised,
which may open
investigators
in a specific
to pursue
and researchers
documentation
The other
two,
on
a general
provide
outlook
general
look
critical
questions
doors to
direction.
state
current
problems
the
of
art
in
airports,
professional
experiences,
knowledge on the subject.
research,
technical
with
organisational
compilation
of
practices,
and
knowledge of current
and
planning
was observed that collective
design practices
terminals,
are obscured
of components of airport
behind veils
a
support
of empiricism
and cannot
scientifically
and
theoretically
methodology.
consistent
systematic
design
influence
Consequently,
the
that
variables
physical
It
process
research
terminal
although
design of
identified.
At first,
are not clearly
a provisional
for
topic
airport
was selected:
space requirements
that,
facilities.
However,
it was realized
afterwards
input
to physical
the
space requirement
main
provides
the
building,
terminal
it
does. not
have a major
impact
is
to
is
What
conditions.
required
operational
essentially
on
in
demand
investigate
the critical
between
supply
and
relations
design
because
the operations
terminals,
of airport
physical
the nature
should follow
and be compatible
of operations,
with
not
the
would
aspects
Instead
reverse.
be more direct
of
individual
facilities
This
experience.
methodology
conditions
and effective
evaluating
focussing
facilities,
for
of
capacity/level
in-Chapter
Six).
of working
it
requirements,
space
with
the different
to investigate
operational
on the relation
and level
of
work
the
investigates
conditions
between
service
this
of
the
that
aspect,
terminal
capacity
of
passengers
'a
where
systematic
evaluation
operational
of
based on
facilities
is
terminal
that
airport
( described
is presented
of service
considerations
CHAPTER
TW0
REVIEW0F
LITERATURE
intended
Traditionally
to
step
as
a preliminary
literature
techniques
on current
and
of
planning
terminals
It included
technical
airport
was reviewed.
literature
of
previously
professional
nature
topic.
on this
conducted
2.1
as
research
academic
Included
are
approaches
adopted
for
responsible
practitioners
terminals.
Since
as well
research,
design
of
the
design
of
airport
by professional
and
planning
is
terminals
and
organisations
design
of airport
a process
essentially
to any other
similar
system concerned
various
performing
with
human activities
in a particular
it
has
environment,
or
enclosure
been the task of architects.
Historically,
predominantly
at the
first
development,
stages of airport
architects
were responsible
for
different
allocating
space for
activities
and facilities
inside
traffic,
was
and subsequent
a
change
of
for
size
and shape,
standards,
e. g.,
accompanying
extensions
of
Instead
approach.
airports'
of fitting
aeroplane
the
growth
terminals,
various
and facilities
better
be
would
components necessary
the required
activities
into an open fixed
the terminal
building
space,
off if compositely
designed
for those
and purposely
components
in
13.
the
most
convenient
sophistication
increases
in
increased
With
way.
coupled
of operational
procedures,
it
became evident
traffic,
that
with
great
terminals
airport
to build,
would
An
architectural
design
aspects,
airport
provided
more
facilities,
terminal
planni
report
queung,
airports.
that could
Actually,
British
Airports
The
be traced
in
in
four
British
terminals,
and
and 'design of
on planning
Perrett's
source
paper is the only published
(unofficially)
in literature
which presents
practice
Authority's
is
approachthrough
Federal
and
1969
British
American
available
Circulars
airport
designing
for
concepts
and
important
to
guidance
valuable
specialized
planned
the
summarized
and so
and
operational
where more specific
times,
service
aspects
as
were
such
considered,
based
largely
findings
His
and crowding
were
standards.
on a study
conducted
basically
reflects'the
the
1960(12)
and provided
at those times.
architects
Perrett(13)
in
and
specialization
other
approach.
reports.
broad
provide
two
Specifically,
readily
Advisory
and
publicized
more widely
Administration's
Aviation
of
these
and
recommendations,
outlines,
for airport
advice on planning
useful
and design considerations
facilities.
is based upon what
terminal
Most of FAA's approach
became known as the Parsons Reports.
FAA undertook
to set
efforts
circulars(14,15)
a definite
and
airport
operators
Council
International).
work
was
published
(represented
The
in
Airport
by
of
result
two
reports:
this
The
14.
Complex:
Apron-Terminal
Terminal
Buildings(16),
Also,
Manual(17).
mainly
often
address
for
planning
Another
space
existing
source
architectural
of
the
for
angle
providing
problem
Blankenship(19),
FAA's
that
organisations
professional
work
that
are
also
and assistance
International
The
guidance
and
airlines
Organisation's
operators
Aviation
in
participated
international
are
by
is
from
the
tackled
that
who
produced
Reports.
Parsons
There
practices.
information
architectural/environmental
had previously
himself
are
terminal
and
gate
approximate
three
Those
reports
requirements.
terminals,
knowledge
and
on airport
supplemented
substantially
U. S.
to
guidelines
provides
which
(airline-related)
is
that
facilities),
own terminal
their
of
Planning
Terminal
and
report(18)
a separate
needs (which in the
airlines
responsible
enhanced
and
ATAA published
to
oriented
of
The Apron
Evaluation
for
Concepts
Analysis
worldwide.
responsible
to airport
Civil
International
the
and
publications(9,20),
information
Association's(8,21)
Air Transport
and
useful
provide
that
is
believed
it
international
but
the
level,
on
practices
they rely on the previously
sources.
mentioned
2.2
Apart
from
and
practices
subject
approaches,
was also
terminals
airport
to
physical
categorized
literature
technical
reviewed.
and their
design
according
or
to
that
academic
previous
Of interest
planning
professional
reflects
was,
research
research
considerations
The
analysis.
capacity
the respective
approach
on
conducted
with
citings
adopted.
the
on
respect
were
15.
2.2.1
STATISTICAL
Through
statistical
ANALYSIS APPROACH
analysis
of
information,
facts
certain
and
design
or
regarding
various
aspects
of
physical
be reached.
An example of this
operations
of terminals,
could
is a study-by
information
Field(22),
approach,
where he-analysed
from different
the efficiency
airports,
examining
and performance
to measure
to establish
aspects of each,
and tried
a methodology
However, this
them.
approach-proved
unsuccessful
when an attempt
conclusions
this
work
to
gather
information
from
hope
space
airports'
of categorizing
The abandoning
to their
type and size.
of
according
requirements
this
blamed on the reluctance
approach
was largely
of airport
to provide
because
information,
authorities
of. its
required
Information
nature,
and substantial
was either
amount sought.
unavailable
or unaccessible
did not` feel
to
obliged
various
then,
-or
information
they
for
ECONOMICS-ORIENTED APPROACH
Gosling(23),
termianls
interesting
application
terminals,
considered
those
all
Isoquants
terminal's
problem
of the production
surface
and represents
just
that
the
mixes of inputs
output.
canproduce
.
(for
for the
were then derived
a particular
case-study)
facilities,
based on the premise that
the
processing
output,
product:
the
as contours
or the
baggage,
passengers,
terminal
facilities
costs,.
airport
authorities
furnish
that
of
sort
reasons.
2.2.2
main
to
product
of
the
facilities
is
processed
design
of
Planning
and/or
vistors.
and
" in light
would then be considered
of this
in relation
to input
factors,
capital
and operating
is
and technology
The main criticism
of operation.
16.
the
vast
diverse
amount
of
information
sources
necessary
dehumanizing
of the planning
required,
its
for.
issues
with
its
nature
collection,
to
respect
and the
the
and
passengers'
considerations.
Doganis
from a purely
British
and Thompson(24)
airports
studied
but their
economic standpoint,
use
work was not of particular
terminal
did not consider
to our problem,
it
because
mainly
issues from an operational
planning
perspective.
2.2.3
THEORETICAL-MATHEMATICAL APPROACH
is
approach
derived
principles
This
of
problem
Particularly,
the
mainly
with
concerned
the
to
from mathematics
sciences,
and related
terminals.
design,
airport
planning,
or analysing
Queueing Theory was thoroughly
examined to provide
background
theoretical
for
During
airports
operations.
this
approach to transportation
researchers
Mathematics,.
theoretical
applying
of
varoius
Management
the
methodologies
the
seventies,
problems
disciplines:
of
analysing
application
of
among
was very popular
Research,
Operations
Planning.
and Transportation
Theory
Queueing
Several
research
programmes considered
adopting
for
for
developing
airport
solving
models
mathematics
problems or
terminals
The following
and their
work was carried
operations.
out
directly
to
relating
Dunlay(25)
and
Park(26)
Sciences,
airport:
derived
tandem-queue
algorithms
for
flows.
They adopted deterministic
users'
airport
queueing models
to evaluate
flows through
terminals,
to estimate
users'
airports'
demands on individual
capacities,
and to determine
components.
O'Leary(27)
for,
-the
investigated
terminals'
airport
relationships
facilities.
the
for
branching
-
use
stochastic
facilities,
processing
of
of
passenger
models
derived
and
those
at
queueing
flows
17.
However,
this
universally
approach
recognized
together
complication
proved
its
that
substantially
with
handicapped
practicability
for
2.2.4
This
the
its
in
adoption
be
to
and
unpromising,
was
and
sophistication
mathematical
involved,
theoretical
assumptions
its
hampered
and
applicability
terminal
airport
design.
deals
the terminal
as a complete
with
studying
to define
attempting
components
various
and examine its
involves
the
factors
it
influencing
Normally,
them.
approach
system,
and the
derivation
of
consideration,
a simulation
model for the airport
ACAP and
the
as in
of
case
terminal
AIR-Q
under
research
programmes.
Gualda(28)
describes
factors
important
considered
stag ,s and
in. developing
ACAP model in 1 he University
of Texas at Austin.
ACAP simulates
term' nals operations,
airport
where individual
from
by
deriv
component
analysis
models
are
regression
?d
the
information
An important
from th "ee Texan airports.
gathered
is
later,
in
detail
discussed
here
comment briefly
raised
gut
that
regression
a previous
analysis
abandoning
was used after
tandem-queue
ACAP was
approach
using
subsequently
models.
in
to alleviate
be discused
limitations,
modified
certain
as will
detail
with
more
information
ACAP later
featuring
in
section
8.5.1.
AIR-Q,
is
a time-based
to
ACAP,
principles
control
according
Laing(29)
data
to
to
simulation
but
employs
define
prespecified
the
state
model
very
statistically
of
in basic
similar
deterministic
times,
system at various
loading
information.
and
network
its
description
provides
the
comprehensive
and
of
model
Originally,
this
utilization.
by Calderbank
model was developed
and Kirke(30)
as AIR-Q in 1972 in the University
of Strathclyde,
18.
was furthur
extended
in 1976 as AIR-Q(Mk
II),
gathered
at Glasgow Airport,
then
2.2.5
It
MULTI-DISCIPLINE
would
airport
aspects
of
"developing
can
patterns,
air travel
by Laing
and Gentles(31)
by information
which
was validated
in 1975(32).
Scotland
APPROACH
to
the
tackle
of
more appropriate
problems
different
from
than
one
angle
using
more
Department
Transport
Technology
a
undertook
of
different
investigate
to
research
programme
appear
terminals
-approaches.
multi-disciplinary
that
and improved
included:
that
terminal
airport
environment,
a more flexible
approach to the design of terminals,
demand levels
different
and
successfully
accommodate
term changes in the demand-for
and can adapt to longer
the
from such
The research
team included
experts
disciplines
Economics,
Mathematics/Statistics,
as;
Architecture/Ergonomics,
Research,
Operations
and Transportation
"(33).
Planning,
The research
terminal
airport
total
did
programme
simulation
not
model,
on developing
work
yet
it
the
that
objective,
of analysing
hence providing
system(34),
and valuable
genuine
back
that
many aspects
of that
system
would
to the
Throughout
systematic
approach
problem.
more
worthy
reports
LUT
of
Airport
Research
referenced,
and information
in this
methodology.
2.3
only
is
contained
a
accomplished
total
airport
information
on
a
and support
thesis,
this
are
frequently
occasionally
used
Attention
review
they
Programme
is
drawn
mentioned
distinguished
at
so far
ones
this
stage
does not
relevant
to
the
fact
represent
all
to progress
that
citings
of
literature
found,
research,
but
and
19.
implements.
it
approach
the
as
main subject
topics
are continuously
regarding
supporting
implemented
The
approach
learned
lessons
and
and
professional
citings
and
referenced.
this
conclusions
from
benefiting
research,
drawn
reviewing
after
literature,
on
for
emphasizes
valid
and scientifically
efficiency
of terminal
operational
assessing
many
peripherial
other
as
well
academic-related
a practical
establishing
by
thesis
this
Throughout
methodology
components.
that
adopted
programmes
research
most previous
was noted
developing
themselves
on
the
approach,
exhausted
systems
time
and
of
amount
considerable
and
allocated
models
simulation
Particularly,
the
to
models.
of
validation
studies
resources
data
the
of extensive
those studies
mounting
essentially
require
It
that
collection
elements
developing
to
efforts
of the models.
information
sufficient
provide
the research
Eventually,
a methodology
that
the
implements
on
stopped
systems
short
approach
of
aparatus
simulation
model as the major executive
these
in
In
sophisticated
effect,
other words,
methodology.
they
that
to
developed
work,
tools
show
only
were
effective
the
to
in
framework
them
purpose
to actually
achieve
a
use
uses the
which
2.4
they
were
initially
all
of
and
the
and
not
for
created.
RESEARCHOBJECTIVES
Finalized
objectives
facts:
following
of
this
research
are
sought
in
light
of the
the
that
realized
was
of
problem:
does not bear any real
title
provisional
of space requirements
is really
in the problem,
for
the crux of it
of
significance
facilities,
for various
rather
assessing
operational
efficiency
is
'dummy
than considering
that
static
a
such
variable'
as space
in nature
of
compared to the dynamic operational
characteristics
1.
The
the
system
real
issue
as a whole.
the
It
20.
2.
Establishing
to
utilized
level
calibrate
service
of
and measure
to passengers,
provided
major part of the work.
3. The other major part is devising
of service
capacity
of facilities
4. - The human element
framework
clearly
of the
be
could
by means
that
conditions
operational
is considered
where this
a mechanism
and on realistic
system ought to
as a
define
that could
basis.
be put into
proper
the
be
on
placed
perspective,
where greater
should
emphasize
to setting
their
standards.
contribution
service
of passengers
5.
terminal-related
In
the
absence
of
airport
unified
terminologies,
an effort
concepts,
and approaches,
practices,
help
in the direction
that would eventually
should be attempted
in
developing
a process
of
and
planning
airport
of
management
terminals.
2.5
STRUCTURE OF THESIS
This
thesis
stages
is
in
arranged
and components
of
order
a sequencial
chapter
provides
an introduction
its broadest
perspective,
chapter
while this
important
literature
the relevant
covering
Chapter
their
research
Three
function,
involved
aspects
design,
Chapters
and basic
with
previously
gives
full'
activities
their
operation.
description
performed
Also,
considered,
particularly
and demand/capacity
criteria
and Five,
principles
and capacity,
description
of
of
the
subject
from
methodology.
the
a review of
the subject
presents
of
parts
of airport
in
them,
which
terminals,
parties
and
more specific
design concepts,
planning
facility
adopted.
are concerned
with
the important
issues
respectively,
to
conducted.
are
Four
represents
research.
The first
and similar
that
serve
knowledge
background
of
as
levels
a
of
prelude
service
to the
21.
The remaining
to the methodology
chapters
are directly
related
Chapter
description
Six provides
detailed
of
consideration.
features,
steps,
by its
outlined
Chapter
the
of
proposed
Chapter
discusses
Eight
element
capacity
as
of data acquisition
the
methodology,
the
of
issues
research,
on simulation,
and particularly
and
and
which constitutes
important
in
a
the
procedure.
chapter
methodology
various
methodology
all
two procedures.
elaborates
on the subject
information
in
of
required
its data base.
constituting
In
elements
Seven
collection
vital
and
in
Nine,
is
'case
presented,
aspects
practical
Chapters
Ten
significance
recommendations
studies
and
of
Eleven
adopting
for furthur
to
together
test
the
with
of'methodology
the
and
implementation.
the
-summarise
this
methodology,
research,
of
applicability
findings,
results,
conclusions
respectively.
and
and
provide
the
some
CHAPTERTHREE
AIRP0RTTERMINALS
3.1
TERMINALS
An area of land or
the landing
is used or intended
and
to be used for
facilities,
buildings
its
includes
take-off
and
of aircraft,
and
this
to
be
its
However,
if any ".
restricted
not
could
role
the
description.
throughout
Since its
technical
and
evolution
had
its
development,
acquired
the
of
airport
stages
is
An airport
water that
defined
as: "
by Campbell(35)
technically
diverse,
The
roles.
sensitive
it
is not merely a
is
in
environmnent
airport
unique
many ways;
but
a
functional
transportation
rather
system,
element
of a
ingredients
cityof a small
system that
contains
all
major
its domicile
around a
centered
mainly excepting
components - all
multi-purpose,
nuclear
activity;
administrative,
activities
air
factors
social,
administrative
be considered
narrowly
incomplete
that
are
structures
initiated,
are
are
they
institutional,
political
Organizational,
travel.
and operational
the
within
system
by
sustained
transport-oriented;
as
part
of
in which
system
to aviation
system
issues,
,
defined
the
they
managerial,
quite
be
or
exist,
nor even
by transportation
or
or
aviation
commercial-financial,
From
environmental.
suggested
total
and
complex,
motivated,
necessarily
not
may
political,
Wiley(6)
viewpoint,
and
that:
social,
and
to the
" Airports
an
must
and
economic,
not be relegated
wider
issues
".
but
still
23.
Cl
De
Neufville(3)
tackled
incorporating
are part
important
more than
of
a complex
elements
this
from
subject
one view,
where
he argued
system,
of
development.
angle
wider
that airports
and constitute
that
a nation
fulfil
They
and
speed
pattern
of regional
c
broad
in the transport
a
and
perform
a complex role
network,
facilities
different
and
through
services,
spectrum
of
many
the nature
Moreover,
to a wide variety
organisations,
of users.
daily,
but
has
involved
is
activities
stable
not
and mix of
influence
and seasonal
weekly,
peaks
for
of traffic-
kinds
different
The airport
air transport
terminal
plays
but
a unique
Campbell(35)
decisive
role
the
within
fact in
this
is the
" It
ackowledged
system,
and
building:
his definition
terminal
of the passenger
in the terminal
focal
that
of the airport
portion
area,
point
around which all
area,
other than landing
and has a key function
the
defined
Horonjeff(36)
system for
which
is
passengers
Operationally,
the
modes,
termination
the
located
passenger
between
interface
to
proc ess
terminal
passenger
between
and baggage
airport
centres
This,
terminal
kerbside
.
takes
processing
terminals
the
the
passenger
tr0ip,
transport
the
simply
and
the
and
to
aircraft.
"building
or
which
place.
are
large
for
as -the
apron
withij
considered
high
comparatively
with
the recent
as the major
the purpose of
and the
aircraft
system
of an air
and baggage to and from
passenger
defines
facilities
users(37).
or
".
must be planned
provide
access
origination
convey the
transport
the
connecting
to
airport
IATA(8)
functions
supporting
other
increases
as high
activity
throughput
in
air
of
passenger
different
to provide
and needs of
various
parties
that
to accommodate and serve this
demand,
requires
in size,
these facilities
in numbers,
and
are larger
greater
diverse
in nature,
significantly
purpose,
and characteristics,
volumes,
facilities
24.
than
they
used to
be.
shippers,
air
host
and consignees
movements, by carriers
of
companies
or
to
airports
supplies
Along
patrons.
with
diverse
these
offering
focal
community
education(6).
undoubtedly
Particularly,
airports
and
services
agencies
essential
providing
themselves
and
as well
as to carriers
demands and
these intrinsic
accommodating
important
become
has
services,
airports
for
points
Operations
passenger
complex;
flows smoothly,
effectively
managing
business,
associated
with
are
system
high
such
air
of time,
significantly
and in short periods
accommodating
safely,
and
recreation,
of the users,
needs and requirements
in this
involved
operations,
and parties
system's
the well-being
of the system as an
and progress
organisations,
and retaining
the
entity,
difficult.
is
inevitably
and
complicated
expanding
ones.
facilities
in
and improving
existing
New terminals
had to be
for
sophisticated
the
terminals,
much
convenience
in
passenger
diverse
and
and
larger
and comfort
and baggage handling
building
different
with
of
new
more
users,
and
In
operations,
to all
more
users.
services
extended
terminals
became much more expensive
to build,
economic terms,
both in terms of total
airport
of total
cost,
or as percentage
Apart from contributing
to operating
cost.
costs,
repercussions
lists
in operating
long
are clearly
recognized
of
airports;
provide
requirements
the system,
parties
dilemma
to
for
facilities,
equipment,
and other
essentials
planners,
designers,
and operators
of
airports;
of
all
of
the
created
a challenge
To cope with
25.
upgrade the
simultaneously,
and almost
of the airport
provides
expansion
and the subsequent
demand. According
terminal
that would properly
accommodate future
how
is
to De Neufville(3)
The
can we accommodate
challenge
:"
be
We
to
in the most rational
humane
this expansion
want
way?
and
in
in
for
the
choosing
service,
anticipating
rational
requests
kinds
different
facilities
to
the right
of
serve
combination
of
the
current
it
services
situation,
humane
be
We
to
want
using resources
efficiently.
for
demands
in
the
conflicting
understanding
and mediating
to
in
in
transport
as
so
growth
various
services
channelling
air
different
in
the
societal
meeting
environment,
and
preserve
and in
traffic,
".
objectives
3.2
Generally,
facilitate
terminals
airport
for many users;
and operations
arriving
travellers
multi-lingual
on international
business
off
their
several
functions
order
and
and
regulations
different
between
functions
Ashford(l1)
performs
could
Provision
acting
follow
be viewed
which
adopted,
and locations.
from
as
continuously
of passengers
the
procedure
a particular
practices
times
for
and
no luggage,
different
the passenger
viewed
three main functions;
1. Processing
2.
with
flights....
specific
passengers,
flights,
commuters
or sending
greeting
visitors
holiday-makers
on
friends,
and
relatives
and
terminals
perform
Analytically,
airport
into
a
that
all
put
are
simultaneously,
passengers
travelling
chartered
of services
transfers,
range
a wide
a
regulatory
then processing
vary
these
significantly
Nonetheless,
standpoints.
terminal
as
the
which
system
baggage.
and their
requirements
to
according
of
reservoir
them into
change
of movement
collecting
batches or vice
type
by
passengers
versa.
26.
3.
Facilitating
trips,
through
terminal
In
a change of
the physical
to
according
mode between
movement
prescribed
access
and surface
inside
the
passengers
air
of
movement patterns.
terminals
the
are
words,
main functions
of passenger
(in reservoirs),
holding
processing,
and facilitating
movements
In addition,
and circulation.
and miscellaneous
other
minor
functions
to
but they
only
contribute
are also
required,
will
" To function
comfort,
convenience,
and safety
of passengers.
other
smoothly
and
be associated
in
these
to
and
support
numerous
"(11).
areas
another
view
one :" The purpose of
is to:
adopted
the previous
(air terminal)
level
premium
travel,
air
with
primary
Horonjeff(7)
the
ensure
of service
facilities
that
are
should
necessary
to
in principles
very similar
handling
the passenger
system
1. Interface
functions
the
viewed
to
2. Facilities
3. Offices
for
a
terminals'
1. Direct
primarily
provided
Airline-related
2.
baggage
claim.
as merely
passengers.
of government
functions
purely
operational
functions
as:
passenger
of
terminals
airport
management.
functions
Non-aeronautical
From
convenience
airport
4. Aeronautical
5.
the
space
of
for:
of
agencies.
government
standing,
agencies.
Ashford(37)
classified
(either
services
or noncommercial)
commercial
for the convenience
of the air traveller.
Check-in,
and
passenger
services,
e. g.,
27.
Governmental
3.
i. e.,
activities,
and agricultural
controls.
4.
Non-passenger
related
airport
management, finance,
engineering
....
5. Airline
functions.
Finally,
De Neufville(3)
presented
customs,
immigration,
authority
functions,
the
following
argument
on the
of their
planning
between
connection
of terminals
as viewed within
context
terminal
the
and design: " The airport
provides
the aircraft
for ground transport.
and the vehicles
is difficult
to perform
the different
size
well:
the
of
amounts of
The aircraft
than
space
and ground
on the airside
stationed
on
vehicles.
opposite
terminal
sides of the
design ".
3.3
the
air
and
landside
require
conflicting
is the
same building,
function
much
longer
of
the
requirements
essential
"
terminal.
the
of
and unloading
these
This
of
and length
dissimilar
quite
imply
vehicles
stands
loading
e. g.,
etc.
functions
stay
health,
distance
landside
on the
question
of
Although
functions
are the
previously
mentioned
of terminals
inputs
the
to the planning
terminal,
principal
any
of
process
design
differ
from
actual
another
will
one case to
greatly
depending
The design
to be handled.
on the nature
of air traffic
the
terminal
philosophy
chosen for a particular
might depend on(ll):
1. Size and nature of traffic
demand.
2. Number of participating
airlines
using the airport.
3. Processing
imposed.
concepts
employed and regulations
4.
Traffic
5.
Physical
6.
Nature
type
and flight-sector
site
and access
of financing.
modes.
categories.
28.
Moreover,
by the different
and concepts
adopted
in terminal
and
are also variable
planning
interests,
of the
and responsibilities
philosophies
parties
participating
dependent
on views,
particular
instance,
For.
party.
by ICAO(9)
terminal
philosophy
plan for the
planning
Flexibility
capital
costs.
and operating
be considered
in conjunction
".
of planning
However,
the
airlines
planning
aspects
philosophy
should
terminal
of
and are
should
are considerably
and objectives
the following
major objectives
suggested
decisions
concerning
and
concentrate
on
airlines'
Hullet(38)
different.
and expansibility
fundamental
to all
(in
facilities
U. S.
the
are
airlines
for planning
their
responsible
own terminals):
1. Phase construction
consistent
with need.
2. Determination
and affordability.
of cost acceptability
3. Maximizing
utilization
functional
4. Selecting
construction
and facility
economic
between
functional
costs
design "may
monumental
degree of luxury
in
5. Evaluation
by
vary
the design.
6. Sound
concept of
base,
planning
forecasts
are.
There
should
are particular
be highlighted
they
process,
design aspects,
sharing.
differentials
design:
design
as
with
particularly
aspects
because
in
the
design
economical
5
depending
1:
as
much
criteria.
certain
how realistic
regarding
of their
vs.
upon
and valid
the
that
planning
in the
importance
terminal
prime
design concepts,
terminal
are:
airport
design criteria.
and demand/capacity
facility
29.
3.3.1
design
The terminal'
concept
represents
(or
terminal/apron)
landside/airside
airside
distinct
in
terminal.
of the
types of design
concourse
definitive
literature,
where
the
There
each reference
discretion:
concepts
traced
pier
as:
gate arrival,
satellite,
and mobile conveyance.
into:
them
or
open apron
classified
finger,
central/pier
linear,
central/remote
terminals.
and
unit
pier,
finger
is:
or
centralized
satellite,
satellite,
remote apron,
remote
De
Neufville's(3)
classification
linear/gate
satellite,
arrival,
and open apron/transporter.
as:
linear,
Blankenship(19)
terminal
classified
concepts
transporter.
satellite,
IATA(8)
is:
classification
transporter,
linear,
the
and
are no clear
that could be traced
them
remote
the
of
is
configuration
interface,
which
pier,
satellite/central,
pier/central,
terminal.
and unit
is:
simple,
finger,
linear,
satellite,
classification
(inter
and others
and unit terminal.
alia)mobile lounge,
different
Airport
Capacity
Landside
Conference(39)
a
provided
implicitly
for
design
which
version
classifying
concepts,
included
first
second generation
a time factor:
generation,
(including;
finger,
type,
and centralized
unit
centralized
ICAO(9)
-
and third
ring),
type).
An
attempt
concepts
describe
was
(including
generation
made
systematically.
a concept:
by
Braaksma(40,41)
His
method
decentralization
two
indices:
corresponding
index.
Although
this
compactness
of
complete
for
methodology
design,
facility
concept
two defined
parameters
are
and unitized
satellite
uses
to
only
and shape,
decentralization
design
terminal
to
two
parameters
the
through
use
index,
and
be considered
as a
work could
designing
(in
terms
the
terminal
of
the
layout,
however,
design),
and space
not
enough
in
themselves
to
represent
30.
and contain
Nevertheless,
airports,
assist
factors
all
this
researchers
and
this
of
"
..
synthesizing
capable of
a fast
quantitative
developing
terminal
planners
preliminary
design
method
to establish
an effort
for the
terminology
general
is currently
seems missing,
for
and size.
shape
of
pre-plans
design
method
computerized
to develop
terminal
concepts,
in
to assist
airport
planners
".
concepts
In
terminal
new
and to
airports,
of existing
knowledge
to have better
and
by
is considered
Its usefulness
problem.
introduces
It
the
be useful
work could
development
planning
understanding
Braaksma(41):
influencing
a unified
terminal
definitive
design
taxonomy
types,
concept
and
which
that
the
an attempt
presents
author
(which really
defines
interface
combines the shape of the airside
(by including
the concept),
the generation),
and the
a time scale
Regarding
the
concept.
relative
centralization
of
characteristics
time
the generation
it is difficult
to exactly
state
evolution,
depends
it
because
scale
of evolution
of every
generation,
largely
on particular
or otherwise)
at the
First
generation:
-
historic
country
mainly
up to late forties
- Second generation:
mid sixties.
Third
generation:
-
since
So,
this
to
according
conditions
question.
including
the
and early
basically
mid or
the
unified
and apron/transporter,
Which includes
generation:
according
pier,
era
late
satellite,
1. First
Open
apron.
-
pre-war
political,
are generally:
simple terminal
fifties.
are
Satellites.
Piers.
-
But they
in
concepts
classified
(economic,
of
the
fifties
and up to
sixties.
terminology,
terminal
to
into;
generation
design
unitized,
and as follows:
the
terminal
simple
from
31.
3. Third
Including:
generation:
Gate
arrival
units.
Remote
satellites.
Remote
piers.
Remote
apron.
Figure
in one
3.1 schematically
summarizes
concepts
all-design.
diagram,
from which relative
could
centralization-characteristics
be judged by orientation;
is
left
is centralized,
right
while
decentralized.
The importance
design
in terminal
and
planning
concept
design
However, it is seldom the case where
physical
evident.
is implemented
for a particular
a pure terminal
airport.
concept
in
But rather
jointly
such a
used
a hybrid
or mix of concepts
are
the
flexibility
to
to
way
so
as
provide
operational
the
of
is
in coping
demand
airline/operator
and
patterns
variable
with
levels,
Actually,
the matter
and be economically
cost effective.
the right
that best matches a particular
of choosing
air
concept
travel
for
demand
is
specific
and
suitable
pattern,
or
characteristics
of
highly
debateable.
terminal
concepts
passengers,
Moreover,
and the
and design
overall
planning
literature,
no citation
theory,
methodology,
proceed
with
'characteristics
is
could
ambiguous.
be found
Throughout
for
the
or even hypothetical
design
from
process
with
certain
conclusion
of chasing
be
to
a
missing
characteristics,
indeterminant
and sometimes
seems
between
types
the
of
relation
dictating
their
factors
designing
clearly
approach
defining
of
stated
how to
traffic
to the
and levels
patterns
There seems
concept for design.
demand
a terminal
link
between
and operating
technical
physical
conditions.
design,
demand
I VlIlN3:
)30
32.
0
cc
'p
c
Co
N
w
0
CIJN
f`
C
Cib
16-
C
z
..
Q
` w
Y/
V
N
4)
'/:!!.:
E
d
Cl)
N
\". \
CU
OC
W
S.
td
N
o"
H
O
Cl
000
.
0
b,
=
00
N
I-
..
-0*,.
0
'
Aar- 0- '-,
" ""
"rr
rr
w
a
a
17
""
""
0"
CL
E""
W
N
"
0000
0
0010
0
cc
goo
"'r
F-
OdSNbal
/ Noadb
lVb1N3D
c
E
m
33.
FACILITY
3.3.2
After
the
choosing
transferred
the
DESIGN
a higher
to
components
of
the
undoubtedly,
design
level
task
of
building
the
for
concept
of
the
the
terminal,
detail,
and
the
physical
facilities,
its
planning
design
which
is
of
is
architect.
dates
back to
One of the earliest
references
on this
subject
knowledge
1960(12),
provided
valuable
and put forward
which
for
for
designing
the
architects
efficiently
recommendations
building
and
services
components,
various
and its
and listed
facilities
architectural
any
to be provided.
advisable
design
of the terminal
was carried
building,
functional
but
several
thought
other
relevance
facilties
1.
operational
costs
are
efficiency,
kept reasonably
of maximum operational
layout
2.
Physical
always
be
and its
low,
adopted
Design
as that
of
were of
terminal
points
subsequent
be
should
construction
commensurate
to
maximum
ensure
should be such that
with the attainment
efficiency.
of
considered
and
out
the
are:
passengers
in
relation
buildings
to
by
Basically,
layout
their
and
aprons
effect
should
on the
and facilities.
service
to the location
of other
maximum efficiency.
buildings
should
permit
and aprons
handling
flexible
for
in
operations,
changes
and
allow
loads.
in traffic
techniques,
and seasonal
and other variations
Progressive
4.
traffic
to meet increasing
expansion
requirements
disproportionate
be considered,
without
should
additional
costs
of
be
interfering
possible
without
buildings
of existing
operations
and aprons.
5. Flow of passengers,
baggage, cargo,
and mail should
direct,
pattern,
standard
clearly
and
marked,
and
expansion
obstructions.
should
with
the
be along a
from
free
34.
Facility
design
practices
technical
became
manuals(16,17),
things:
detailed
discussed
in
and is
facility
reference
with
certain
facility
more
specialized
publications.
2.1,
section
design
for
and
FAA's
detailed
Parsons
amongst other
covered
and
operational
demand conditions,
and charts
are derived
and monographs that
for
approximating
space requirements
and
sizes'
and facilities
Blankenship(19)
the Parsons manuals,
arrangements.
supplemented
a valued
planning
of
detailed
for
terminals.
airport
functional
for
adjacency
matrix
juxtapositioning.
ICAO(9)
published
various
design and
architectural
introduced
the
IATA(8)
facilities
recommended
based
on
the
manuals
by their
previously
mentioned
sources and backed-up
own practices
knowledge and recommendations
that provided
for their
members.
It
be
mentioned
discussion
3.3.3
on this
directly
refer
to
the
avoid
elaboration
unnecessary
which is beyond our scope.
issue,
previously
and lengthy
One of the
terminals,
and
to
advisable
to
sources,
might
target
first
should
goals
in the
steps
be 'to decide
for
of airport
of planning
process
to be adopted
upon the criteria
is expressed
Normally,
this
as
design.
the
demands,
capacity
standards
of the system to handle exerted
date at which capacity
demand
is expected
the
to be reached,
and
level,
in terms of percentage
to
of nominal
capacity,
expected
date.
Usually,
these criteria
are
use the system at any future
by;
defined
An
observable
and monitorable
logically
a reasonable
selection
-A
specific
magnitude
represent
a certain
designing
In
new
incorporate
forecasts
present
demand to
of
that
to
measure adopted
influencing
of factors
activity
measure
level.
airports,
the
of
activity
some predetermined
chosen
by the
criteria
would
levels,
projecting
future
date.
represent
design.
planner
to
normally
past
'and
35.
literature,
criteria
describing
adopt
the
some
of
aspect
Methods
'hour'.
peak
by Ashford(37)
as:
the
of
Typical
FAA(42)
the
3.
Peak
as the
Hour
peaking
annual passenger
Hour
Peak Profile
(TPHP),
Passenger
measure.
flow.
(PPH),
It
or the
hourly
average
is
the
by Transport
purposes.
5. Other
peaking
overload
standards
Canada(43)
measures
or
of
ratio
average daily
for
an 'average
calculated
volume
the peak calender
month is determined.
(PPHP),
Peak Hour Passenger
4.
Planning
adopted
adopted
and used
is
for
the
by
the
U. S.
peak hour
to
peak in which a
for
day'
peak
measure
and design
peaking
planning
that
rank
of
other percentages
select
simply
are not mentioned
of busy hour that
above.
So,
the
the
design
interpretation
criterion
measured
as the
in
terms
practices,
mainly
day)(8),
approaches,
be seen in
In
of
percentage
derived
from
employ this
Section
6.2.
concept
that
standard.
of
British
the
and
as the
design
criterion,
Current
American
as will
the development
addition,
must
programme of any new airport
have enough flexibility
to adjust
to the functional
and financial
So, it
that will
its
implementation(44).
exigencies
occur during
36.
flexible
develop
to
facilities
keep
to
these
In this
the Air Transport
exigencies.
respect',
has
the
American
Society
Engineers
Civil
of
of a
interesting
to study this
undertaken
research(45)
aspect and to
illustrate
influence
the
impact
factors
on
of
various
facilities.
It stated: " This study
characteristics
of individual
pace with
Division
is
hoped
be useful
to
of forecasting,
to
complexities
and operating
in identifying
development
those
air
passenger
which future
of
for
dealing
professionals
with the
designing,
programming,
planning,
handling
facilities,
as a reference
in the
be considered.
events
should
facility.
It
provide
also
to assess a
guidelines
airport
operators
carriers
and air
future
terminal
to accommodate probable
specific
plan's
ability
developments
that
and avoid constructing
may become
a facility
".
obsolete
almost simultaneously
with becoming operational
3.4
will
The
numerous
to
contribute
To achieve
needs
particular
parties
normally
the complexity
of
successful
and
objectives
The
satisfactorily.
planning,
of
three
in
involved
the
and
these
system
airport
and its
operations
sensitivity.
the
operations,
efficient
be
should
parties
met
the
are(46):
parties
principal
the airline,
and
and those who accompany him (users),
passenger
So, for the planning
airport
operator.
and operations
of airports
be successful
they must take into
and efficient,
account the
interaction
between
those
three
system
components
or
major
their
Quoting from Ashford(37):
and consider
actors,
objectives.
" For the system to operate
each of the actors
must reach
well,
to
some form
equilibrium
with the other
in
result
will
suboptimal
conditions
Ashford(37))
is a simplified
hierarchial
interactions
between the
primary
three
of
".
Figure
system
main
to
Failure
two.
3.2
diagram
parties-
do so
(from
of
the
airport,
PAGE
MISSING
IN
ORIGINAL
38.
and the
airlines,
" operational
capacity.
scale,
The objectives
coincide,
described
of
that
user,
the
produce
demand, airport
passenger
the
three
do not necessarily
parties
dissimilar.
Horonjeff(36)
principal
be
to
likely
and are
implications
the
of
parameters
capacity,
and flight
prime
the
and reflections
of
parties'
objectives
on planning
and design of airports:
1. Users' objectives
concentrate
of airport
on the responsiveness
to
to the needs of passengers
and operations
planning
relative
*facilitation
comfort
convenience,
and personal
of
requirements,
through
and
effective
passenger
and access
concise
orientation
directional
comprehensive
of maximum
graphics,
and the provision
efficiency
operational
and service
standards.
2.
Airline's
objectives,
are
mainly
existing
accommodating
and future
aircraft
facilitating
efficiency,
operational
flow
and
of baggage
passengers,
and
through
provision
ensuring
profitability
facilities.
and effective
Operator's
3.
Airport
safe,
expedited,
that
would
other
Also,
objectives
that
are
facilities
of
provision
sources,
while
the
operator
is
airline's
management
certain
of
economic,
concentrate
efficient
maximum
efficient
of
all,
efficient
on the
for the
and baggage
of passengers
from concessionnaires
and
costs.
and operating
maintenance
to fulfil
the
community's
proxy
issues,
legal,
environmental,
and cultural
integration
degree
airport;
philosophies.
most
with:
minimizing
by
acts
and
airport
influenced
significantly
in the particular
and
important
functionally
maximum revenues
including
objectives,
and the coordination
and
transport
total
system.
There
direct
basically
flow
and convenient
generate
the
associated
fleets
with
of
of
overlap
the
airport
that
exists
with
the
between
is
operator's
objectives,
which
by the philosophy
of management adopted
airport
dominant,
or
airline
dominant
39.
involved,
or system actors
main parties,
that are also associated
with daily
minor parties
but their
service,
operation,
presence only add to convenience,
but are not considered
and specialization
of airport
activities
(e. g., concessionnaires).
for the system operations
essential
In addition
to
there are-other
the
PERFORMEDWITHIN TERMINALS
ACTIVITIES
3.5
three
that
It
earlier
was established
terminals
are
airport
importance,
operational
quite
functions
the
divers
and
However,
and purpose.
into
four broad operational
categorized
generally
1.
Processing,
where passengers
and baggage
the
processes,
between air
operational
flow
their
of
purpose
and access
modes,
within
performed
in
vary
nature,
they
be
could
activities:
certain
undergo
is to facilitate
which
impose
safety
measures,
to comply
certain
regulatory
necessary
procedures
perform
this work
It will
be shown throughout
with laws and regulations.
the
facilities
important
the
that
they
most
are
operationally
dictate
dynamic
the
overall
and
nature
of
would
which
performance
and
of the
efficieny
2.
Holding-storing,
for
held
varying
capability
3.
Circulation
parts
various
Operationally,
inside
4.
where
amounts
of
characteristics
to hold definite
operational
between
system.
facilitate
holding,
processing,
the terminal.
Auxiliary
and, satisfaction
comfort,
the operational
auxiliary
but not
efficiency
(e. g.,
components
operationally
vital
of
that
provide
the
of
contribute
various
of the
users,
airport.
are
concessions)
to the airport.
users
servicing
auxiliary
only
but
to
by its
terminal.
airport
of
are
Its
between
connection
circulation
and
that
activities,
activities.
defined
nature
show a static
number of items at any time.
by means of links
facilities
and
they
and baggage
visitors,
passengers,
furthur
time awaiting
moving
centers
convenience,
are not
However,
economically
vital
certain
crucial
to
40.
More specialized
information
the first
three
types
regarding
of
be presented
in the following
activities
will
chapters,
while a
special
emphasize is placed on discussing
the characteristics
of
the first
type (processors)
throughout
this
work.
CHAPTERF0UR
LEVELS0FSERVICE
Service
in calibrating
the performance
standards
are essential
of
in transportation
operation
as a
systems,
and when expressed
framework,
'levels'
their
of the
could
as a yardstick
serve
Throughout
important
this
system's
performance.
aspects
chapter,,
of
standards
service
arrive
discussed
and
to
appropriate
criterion
proposed herewith.
an
at
methodology
4.1
are
in order
examined,
be adopted
within
to
the
DEFINITIONS
The first
known definition
for
level
in transportation
of service
Highway
Board in its
Research
by U. S.
Highway
was introduced
Capacity
Manual first
in 1950(47),
then completely
published
in
1965(48).
The term was used by traffic
to
revised
engineers
describe
the
and determine
of highways
capacity
and streets.
Since then,
traffic
level
have
of
engineers
and planners
used
service
following
Wohl
in
conjunction
quotation,
Martin(49):
and
experiences
represents
that
time.
particular
with
is the
"
the
The
total
level
of
difficulty
We may define
of travel
price
experienced
as the,
Highway Capacity
Manual
of The level
of service
capacity.
The
level
actual
of
The definition
service
of the
and complementing
definition
of level
the
".
by
of service
service
a traveller
at
of making the trip
:
was more comprehensive
and realistic
is a term which,
interpreted,
broadly
denotes
any one of an infinite
combinations
number of differing
lane
of operating
that
or
conditions
may occur
on a given
42.
When it
roadway.
is
traffic
various
measure of the effect
speed
and travel
accommodating
is
a qualitative
include;
which
of service
factors,
freedom
interruptions,
volumes,
level
of a number of
traffic
time,
driving
and
comfort
maneouvre,
safety,
and operating
convenience,
costs ". The structure
of the Highway
level
is a six-level
Capacity
Manual's
framework
one
of service
in descending
from 'A' to
arranged
order
of quality
of service
The description
'F'.
to
of
ratio,
(in
terms
volume/capacity
convenience
each level
is
based on;
service
evaluation
and some qualitative
freedom
to choose
of individual
volumes,
of driver
desired
to overtake
the ability
speeds,
and pass other
is
4.1
freedom
Figure
the
lanes).
to
a
and
change
vehicles,
to
diagram
relation
of levels
and their
of service
conceptual
by the Highway Capacity
conditions
as depicted
operations/demand
vehicle
operating
in
However,
Manual.
the
third
of
the
edition
in mid-1985(50),
Highway
Capacity
be
a significant
scheduled
published
has
been
level
for
important
of service
change
criteria
made;
and
highway
by
to
defined
be
the
quality
related
as
of
service
will
(as
in
the
based
defined
than
traffic
rather
on
volumes
user,
to
Manual
of
procedures
the
the
Nevertheless,
service
second
previously
framework,
and related
methodology,
transport
proposed
different
edition
simply
systems;
of
the
mentioned
manual).
definitions
of
Interest
terminals
and airport
units,
with people.
be focussed
inside
behaviour
then
on the
of
people
terminals,
not on highways,
and to work with pedestrians
service
One of
Fruin,
previously
approach
not
,
with
first
to
the
who
should
airport
levels
vehicles'.
work
recognized
mentioned
to
required
of
the
in
be
used
readily
could not
because we are talking
about two
highways
as their
vehicles
with
basic
of
level
levels
on pedestrians'
basic
differences
the
systems,
and underlined
design
facilities.
pedestrian
of service
the
between
the
was
two
appropriate
Quoting from
43.
Fruin(51):
application
"
Design
of
of
traffic
facilities
pedestrian
engineering
principles
involves
combined
the
with
Kwett
twta
t"
AWOt
IvI
N_
lo
"
or u. Kt c
taa
N stne
tct
fr
ar w+a
WAS
0-
aia
"a
VOIYN(/Wr1GITY
Figure
4.1
Highway
of
RATIO
Capacity
Manual's
Concept
of
Levels
Service.
of human convenience
considerations
and the design
environment.
Different
logically
the
of
environments
application
require
".
different
design standards
qualitative
as well as quantitative
definition
(in
Fruin's
in
terminals
general)
of service
standards
"
Service
design
the
was(52):
standards
are
quantitative
the size of the functional
assumptions
made to determine
elements
These standards
of the interface.
environmental
are an important
because
determine
they
the
consideration
efficiency,
also
".
facility
life,
convenience,
useful
and quality
of
of service
44.
De Neufville(53)
of
in
service
combinations
gave
airport
of flow
and congestion
level
choice
of
The
service'.
facility
represent
space,
pedestrians
Following
shift
of
are
to
referred
different
'level
as
of
for
a particular
of
service
high
between
the
of
cost
compromise
to
inconvenience
the
of
amount
and
extra
".
providing
viewpoint
highway design,
relatively
" As in
terminals:
level
for
basic
this
burden
airside
to
however,
the
from
the
airport
on
had on all
landside,
it
impact
and
sectors
and the consequent
by
the
involved
in
'conference
organized
organisations
a
airports,
the
discuss
1975
in
to
Research Board,
held
Transportation
was
distinct
Although
landside
no
capacity
airport
problems.
of
did
conclusions
conference
right
great
have
In
course.
service
landside,
this
quality
This subjective
(but
including
conference,
between
moving
not necessarily
the landside,
the
access
dependent
limited
time,
concessionnaires
Other
on
to):
numerous
of
aircraft.
of factors
a series
time necessary
definitions
for
and detailed
Canada(55),
level
of
will
service,
as the
previous
one,
where level
of service
the
assessment
of
conditions
of
any
of
intermingled,
which evidently,
and minimize- its usefulness.
or
characteristics
level
to
and
officers,
security
,
fare and airport
services,
frequency
of air travel,
constituents,
subjective
Transport
measure
its
reveals
utilization,
the
mode and
the
airport
of the
impression
airport
other
personnel,
cost of air
type of passenger
and purpose of trip,
". This definition
and expectation
of service
complex
of
the
in
of
predictability
or
reliability
landside
to
environment,
reaction
overall
by
treatment
to
and convenience,
reaction
personnel,
clearly
attention
through
subjective
the
is
then,
definition
the
passengers
is a
service
of
comfort
airline
merit
impression'
through
processing
were reached
of directing
For
transfer
of
physical
the
"
was(54):
level
proceed
importance
subsystem
or
level
'of
service
`
and
its
not
as
subjective,
limit
seriously
which
include:
terminal
are
was defined
as: " A
operating
and
a
facility
at
45.
level
particular
of demand or user volume.
demand at each airport
is dynamic
and varies
factors
flight
as schedule,
sector,
and aircraft
these dynamic
of service
measure must reflect
therefore,
service,
can be considered
as a
assessment
service
to
similar
of
Table
of the ability
of supply
framework
of Transport
the Highway Capacity
Manual's,
This
4.1
Transport
Excellent
Level
aspects.
its
all
factors
shown in
is
Level
level
Service
of
flow;
no delays;
level
of c omfort..
High
level
service;
direct
of
of
of
are
4.1.
Table
Framework.
of
condition
Good level
of
condition
of service;
flow;
throughput;
prov ides acceptable
in balance.
subsystems
Adequate
unstable
conditions
level
of
service;
for
acceptable
stable
related
of
condition
delays
flow;
ed
; -re'
19--1
6,5\
stable
of
ac
hal
free
excellent
routes;
condition
service;
provides
in
subsystems
to such
according
load,
the level
DESCRIPT10N
flow;
C
but
framework
Canada's
LEVEL OF SERVICE
A
traffic
the
or
range of values
The level
to meet demand ".
Canada is
one
a six-level
and subjective.
qualitative
Since
for
passengers;
short
periods
of
time.
E
Unaceptable
unstable
level
flow;
limiting
represents
System breakdown;
delays.
of
service;
subsystems
capacity
unacceptable
not
of
of
condition
in balance;
the
system.
congestion
ansi
46.
identically
(and
to
Canada.
'the
level
defined
IATA(56)
The
only
combined
of
service
seemingly
qualitative
from)
IATA
continuously
assessment
of
framework
related
derived
that
addition
and
the
that
relative
almost
Transport
of
emphasized
was
comfort
and
convenience'.
ACAP(57,28)
research
Level of
"
project
the
provided
brief
following
definition:
So,
or not.
two-level
4.2
After
have exceeded
in essence,
they
whether
service
is
the
specified
ACAP's level
limit
tolerable
maximum
is
framework
a
of service
one.
standards,
'in order
discussion
a detailed
to be able
The
components.
terminals
airport
on
anatomy
definitions
different
service
of
this
expression
seems necessary
its
to short-list
most basic
and important
factors
in
to service
contributing
standards
types:
two general
are of
and
qualitative
of
quantitative.
,
4.2.1
QUALITATIVE FACTORS
These
are
quantify,
individualistic
basically
and
descriptive,
subjective,
highly
to
susceptible
behaviour.
They include:
Environmentalis
such
environment,
cleanliness,
as exposure
sense
of
personal
to weather,
safety...
etc.
difficult
to
influence
and
terminal
internal
47.
2.
safety,
Aesthetics-
covering
lighting
arrangement,
seating
and infants...
factors-
security
and
These
are
factors
Temporal
purpose
visitors,
personality and
and
personal
time,
that
delay
time
in
walking
covering
dimensions
and
level
facilities,
Econometric
trip,
of
changes...
etc.
factorssuch as:
of
flights
per
pricing
etc.
including
route,
of
service,
factors
ticket
frequency
number
of
of
airlines
of
fare
cost,
airline
structure,
size
location
relative
airline
time
total
(crowdedness),
density
pedestrian
functional
areas,
policies...
factors-
service,
to start
distance/area-related
distance,
concessions
pricing/charging
Statistical
4.
for
waiting
time prior
delay.
a facility,
reporting
departures
flight
and arrivals
factorsSpatial
they
2.
are
airport.
etc.
to enumeration
and
can lend themselves
because
tangible
they
and easily
analysis
are
They are:
in the terminal
environment.
include
factors
that
factorsthey are time-related
statistical
identifiable
frequency
legibility)...
of passengers
and
of trip,
convenience,
QUANTITATIVE FACTORS
access
catering
of
complexity
amenities,
information
imposed,
system
measures
4.2.2
3.
systems
for
the
signing,
as
type
Personal:
processing
spent in
comfort,
conditions,
provisions,
such
consistency,
origin/destination
behaviour...
etc.
1.
overall
airport
terminal
etc.
Systems-related
procedures,
(understandability,
to
reaction
airport
identification,
disabled
5.
service,
by
treatment
etc.
privacy...
facilities
to
reaction
towards
attitudes
environment,
4.
of
expectation
personnel,
3.
including
Psychological-
of
and airport
air
travel,
using
the
48.
Table
4.2,
from
extracted
those
factors
There
is
for
reasonable
formulating
a level
of
factors.
The
those
degree
of the airport
Maddison(54).
highly
of
quantifiability
landside
facilities,
as possible,
capacity
related
and of
one to
of level
as
recognized
by
4.3,
factors
service
suggested
Brinke
and
factors,
one
quantification
factors
qualitative
and
reviewing
to
conform
many
Table
another.
of
to
those
value
and
signifcance
and
in
analysis.
SERVICE MEASURESCONSIDERED
4.3
After
the
factors
reviewing
in airport
terminals,
standards
in
from
variable
factors
these
of
by carefully
the
ones that
can
independent
of
as
enumeration,
measures
susceptibility
However,
segregate
can
summarizes
airport
no
quantification
shows the
and Jones(58),
facilities.
users
and terminal
(or
and logical
even possible)
way of
include
framework
that
service
all
could
all
is
Heathington
that
may
to
contribute
a short-list
to
could
factors.
service
be finalized
The service
the most significant
select
(or
be
how
any quantifiable
of
measure could
a system
expression
to the
to provide
performs
any part thereof)
any form of service
Service
the
user.
airport
measures that may be considered
within
for
level
framework
environment
airport
of service
establishing
temporal,
would include:
spatial,
econometric,
and statistical
order
measures.
TEMPORAL MEASURES
4.3.1
These include:
1. Processing
to
the
time,
be serviced
airport
relatively
represents
facility.
which
(processed)
terminal.
It
insensitive
supply
side
is
the
time
that
take
a passenger
facility
at
processing
is
that
variable
would
at a particular
is a facility-specific
to
demand
variations,
of
the
processing
because
activity
at
it
that
li
s
i!
7i
7see<e<iiE
i .JI
{
<iss
:ss:
ei
zz
`ir
eE
eflE4t
Yii-. c
t' E'"-_
iw i-.
9
a
asvE2
`.
i7`r
:
ksr
$tw =i
i lia
1sp
tr S '
Sgei
w.
kili-
EZ1
kw
ij.
iei
'
S
ldr.
n!
z t
?6=:
Y
E'
- r.
e a t" l i i c 6
e-
iw!
rf
IEi?
:' al-;
aYr"
flip;
uSi
sl
Yi
CiSF
3c-
SS
`.
10t.
..
ak
oU
vw"i
t
z` {C- $i t:
t
16
y" Z'
r5
y
ie
,zz
6" S :
32
h-r,
pli
p6 t
6tE
uu u
k.
.
=
Yi
`Ci-#
eI
Ei
:
E" '_
Y
pT.
" `
t
E`
E-ie
k:
1
nA
zA+
.
68Ek:
uu uWi
aIIi<Ea.
u<
..
.i
71'
w Ou z:
= i{
ibr
wy
S_!
ii
ii
'a.,
I22ii2
-t"11
: .
It
"
<6y<
r_
ii.
WE
LL_:
p-Iskipps
6yY4A
yy
III*:
r<
uu
uw
1
i_
LL.
y3
"i
"ksE
't EkE
47i=
v ei
fp_
Et
e
6k
i_
k !.
48.
. j. 9 u . Eu
z+e
.
<
uc
i'
pte<iqi
fi
qqPY
i:
"D
=r
i le
i"
i-
.4
'ei
oz
k
i7
is
7i4;
<
"..
iii
:zc
6sEe
i
i
i1i
r"
-}g
1ti
uc+i
z:
4{"
tEs
i
:sszzss:
tii
. z:
-9
aaLIaII
aA
0y
15
N
r-
ro
C
Zye
r
r
S11y
/8tC
IOy
S(i}W
12
<
Z
<
<
Z
wFir
S-
a;
""
<6i<
CES
"i
riicL
-1I
Yy
f44.
E
oy
Yy6
Z'i
.
Z--ir
e"
ii
zi
Yi
6bd<YI
y;
p. E
= SS
i
ZOG
4VjY
4<
iah
fly
IS
i.
e<
zz
ti
Ard
f
Z
Lrt
r2
r:
=s
ti
2.
<
&
40
. 1
Y:
"r
4
mi
w<
N
Qi
L
"a
fai. .
:
t
Eti11
AL)
I9":
rF
uc. J< o =. J< u
<
i
i
z
Iii
=fi
2.74
rE'! E=
'ir
<
-I
63<,
IN:
tll
s i3
Zr
"ir!
<
S-
wF
Y
<
.ii
rYTccr
faiEZ
jW
<
<
L
C<
yy
j
i
a
a
U)
ro
Q7
1"
E
i
4!
U
t
I
L
C)
V)
0V
VO
U)
U
", +,
N
i_'
i"ii.
: iiE
Y 'i
bat
f
tN
!"
""y"
saiS"
"t.
iSS3=il.
"
scLL
6,11
N _L3aE
: ""
inS
Fi.
uY
nu_
i:
i
Y zog
YB
=
at
S< i
"
y".
"Es
F-it
isic8;
i
1E$iii
.Y
bIdgn
.i3
pr 1i it
rsi
"
"
<
rw
ifI
s "L `i
E"
IS r:
bt5
i
YG a
f'
:: -;
2.
sii
ww
"
"-
tv
i, i; Fr; .
as Y
is
E
""
'--
_"
=a
Y it
s"
ry
Yy=t3
f"Y$.ri t
I -i
a
4)
U
i
I-
"
hh '1
SrY
ii'
e
a
e<s<<
sa
lf. Y
YI11:
<
U Y$
i6
LLLL
1ei
$p"
i<
iS3
b
2i"
"
, !;. r!
.<e
LjZ
6U
"4=`i
}ti
r""
y
aiI
I"
'
_'
t"p
i_11121,
"+
e;
WE
"H: k
E"
sy fY
b
Y
UY;
ni
Zia
z6
eE
5i-i.
6Y
'Y"
Y"'p=f
ie
=i<U
U67<
2L
6i
sE:
i1e
YU
ie-o
iU
tEt
ro
Y<6`
ca
""Fw
"
ird
{Y"
Pe1<1<
"=i
! ---r
i:
9+
;
sSS
i+
ifi
i'Ei
yz
i6"aib
111
-<
f'
a1'
ili
au
I'a
eE41.
iii11tH!
. -""ii
w"
yj
iw
y''i
LLiz
r'
Il
ffl!
=Y
yYLY
tf
Yy:
ib!
d'Gy
ir
1'.
"
t
+i i!
"3Y
E"di
IFORik=
'A
to
$3
8"
E'iC
IIa,
i
z!
is
E
"[
Y 3Su<
is
i<
Yu
6i
e
zi
uc
'F
w ""
'8S
i =pY
ie
: yYsi
<o
z'<
xi r-i
Zp
"
Y<
uu
":
iah
3E
T"
9=":
u" d3
fli
1CV
"
wlli!
Fp
i` r=
. 1hi
16
E{E
3<
zsz
uo<
It
S
z-YtE
-
. -i E. st!
.
1!
="
; -i
N: Y
1I'thD
;i rt
i
Y. u
`<ti3JLI
u
=s
r_
: -i
uuu
'
=I
'=
Yi
"e
7U<"
Yi4
fst.
it
LLL
-e
'<= _`"
"" ucse
i '
`ii
=bd
p1;
huIi
t "p{
. '>"iyjC
nV
4i
1I
C
r
1I
Ii
1'i
F
se"
IN
ad
uY
-D--""
YvYE
f
Yo
fS<
zii
_I-
"
YS
tb
ii
u iu
""
Y< "i
ri
'
EF
yE
; rd6i
23<
: r'
"".
iz s
."
: _
fi=t
i-'
E-
E ait
uu u
r"i
6iUU
bS
i
UY
JI
d'
dii
i=is
ti"_-
21
ill
"i=
=aii:
t3e
g;
11
El
LLL
' isi6
i7
3t
T.
rF
-i
'
.o
b
I-
49.
Table
Service
Measures
4.3
of
Landside
Facilities
Level of Service
I and ide Facility
Access Inclines
Terminal
Pasha`
Ticket
(roads, transit)
curbside
faciliues
to Quantify
Easy to Quantify
Difficult
Travel time
Delay
Transit frequency
Cost to passenger
Adequacy of signing
Level of congestion
Availability
Delay
Level of congestion
Cartside check-in
of space
Availability
of space
Distance to check-in and
baggage claim
processing
Complexity of procedure
Courtesy of airline personnel
Overall environment
time
Processing time
Processing time
Comple>tityof procedure
Bold rooms
Seat availability
Security
immigration)
Loc*tlon
Coerteq
in relation to concessions
of security officers
Courtesy of clearance
Overall environment
officers
Overall environment
Location in relation
to concessions
Level d congestion
Bagage
Waiting
claim
moving
Walling distances
Width of corridors
Height of ceiling
Travel time
Hardware Involved
Level of congestion
Availability of skyesps
Availability of concessions
Availability of seating
Overall environment
Hardware used
q5gid
Public address systems
Frequency of service
(hardware)
Cost to passenger
Level of congestion
Waiting areas
Availability
Seating arrangement
Availability
Service provided
telephones)
Cost to passenger
Comfort of seating
Level of congestion
Cleaaltness
Concessions
lnformataon
(newsstands.
services
restaurants)
(sgaingI
Availability
Service provided
Cost to passenger
Courtesy of operator
Overall environment
Level of congestion
Availability
Service provided
Clarity. legibility.
placement
50.
2. Delay,
which
could
by passengers
awaiting
facility,
due to the
be considered
their
turn
incapability
demanding
passengers
service
in
interpreting
to
measure
because
the
of
is
It
simultaneously.
to satisfy
supply
facility
at that
direct
the
requirements
time.
particular
of
express
quality
its basic theoretic
the
aspects
of
the performance
and in monitoring
of the facility
by the underlying
in demand for service.
variations
time spent,
is
delay
for
a composite
expression
operational
as
and
times at processing
facilities.
processing
is the time recommended by the operators
for
Reporting
time,
4.
to report
for a particular
and it indirectly
process,
passengers
be
the amount of time passengers
to spend
defines
expected
would
in
the
does
airport
not have
regardless
any real
because
are considered,
by passengers
spent
commence.
Flight
5.
of
arrival
times.
or processing
once individual
delay
significance
it
in
and
and reliability
punctuality
be
to
used mainly
could
for
waiting
assess
certain
delay,
departure
of
airline
airlines
time
activities
to
expected
time
overall
represents
This
activity
is
service,
measure
and as such
operations
be
to
of
it
performance
and service.
4.3.2
SPATIAL MEASURES
They include:
1.
Walking
distance,
for
of service
human physical
linking
which could
facilities,
capabilities.
be used as an effective
particularly
measure
to
compared
when
51
2.
(crowdedness),
density
Occupation
interaction,
outcome of supply-demand
of service
used in level
(the
measure
occupants),
like
framework
used being
queue
(pedestrian
and links
delay,
which could
all facilities:
for
length.
),
storing
it
is
a direct
be effectively
processing
(density
of
density).
ECONOMETRICMEASURES
4.3.3
Including:
1.
Airline
fare,
ticket
could
be used
as a measure of airline
it would not be
however,
and in airline
route selection,
for
in
use
capacity
studies.
suitable
is a measure of airport
Fare of airport
2.
access
access trip,
and in the selection
of access modes.
service
Pricing
3.
and concessionnaires,
policies
of airports,
airlines,
in
their
into
take
is a factor
consideration
passengers
might
service,
decision
of selecting
to choose
alternative
a measure
airport
of
STATISTICAL
4.3.4
have
they
more than
airports,
when
from, and as such it could be considered
one
as
service.
MEASURES
Including:
I. -Frequency
flight
airlines
of
flights,
schedules,
in
flights
the
of
route
number
per
or
is considered
as a measure of airline
in route capacity
included
studies.
is
and
particularly
service,
2: - Number of airlines
airport,
using
the
signifying
relative
service,
amongst
the
its
services
competitors,
and defining
it can provide.
is
a measure of
importance
that
of
passengers
airport
airport
for
preference
52.
'
4.4
DELAY: A SIGNIFICANT
MEASURE OF SERVICE
its
of delay
reflects
(servicing)
the processing
operation.
are the inevitable
queues and delays
The importance
dynamic
in
characteristics
When congestion
occurs,
because all
consequence,
(preparations
in the queue feel
individuals
think
and
of service
i. e., the flight)
to consume the transport
as
product,
necessary
for.
important
and
sometimes
worth
waiting
essential
commodity
an
in a situation
So,
servicing
where the demand for a particular
instant
is greater
than the capability
facility
of
at a certain
(process)
facility
to serve
that
a
more than one item during
delays
(servicing
duration
time),
time
or
processing
specified
From a mathematical
be a natural
phenomenon.
demand
form
the
or arrival
a
queue
would
only when
viewpoint,
is
than
the
during
the
time
supply
specified
greater
period
rate
later
fall
if
the
would
rate
and even
arrival
rate,
or processing
but
lower than the processing
the
still
exist
queue would
rate,
dissipate
Generally,
congestion
eventually
gradually.
will
and queues
Information
would
could
be obtained
from
the
analysis,
of
supply-demand
Particularly,
studies.
queueing problems,
and capacity
relations,
be directly
lengths
times
delay
and queue
could
derived,
using
or even synthesized
mathematically
From a theoretic
techniques.
considering
standpoint,
observed,
simulation
delay as a
delineate
and
congestion
service
conditions
would
demand
balance
between
of the servicing
and
supply
monitor
by appropriately
the
interpreting
the
outcomes
of
operation
by
the passengers.
as
experienced
process
measure
The
of
the
importance
interrelated,
attributes,
Delay
1.
of
and
delay
is
manifested
complex
nature
by the following:
reflected
is
a time-dependent
variable
of
by
the
congestion
of great
high time
dynamic,
and
its
mathematical
dependency of
influenced
by the relatively
complexity,
the supply-demand
nature
relations
combined
with the stochastic
Queueing
operation,
as could be concluded
of the servicing
when
is referenced.
Theory literature
53.
2.
Delay
the econometrics
could be linked
with
knowing that the supply-demand
issues
operation,
in economics.
in
terms
standards
of
On the
supply
additional
capable
of
in
of the serving
have deep roots
the
side,
of more service
provision
technological
number of servers
or higher
incur
faster
service,
certain
would
terms
expenses
additional
fully
to provide
the
utilized
of
When they
resources.
counterbalancing
losses will
arise.
are
(at
not
low
revenues
financial
demand levels),
On the demand side,
(at
by individuals
long delays
high
demand
service
requiring
be related
levels),
to the real
could
of time for each
value
if this
individual,
to delayand to the reaction
could ever be
into economic terms.
So,
translated
server utilization
weighing
and
cost
against
balancing
sensitive
time dependency
exposed to
Delay
3.
delay
nature
and
time
the
of
economics
each other.
indirectly
could
of
could
and it is
passengers
operation,
of the. servicing
show the
here where
operation
get
for
space required
with
in terms of area required
to acommodate a certain
processing,
imposed
lenght.
to
Since
they
both
related
are
positively
queue
between
be
demand,
then certain
queue
established
relation
could
be
linked
demand. levels.
and delay times at respective
For the problem
the 'effects
4.
of assessing
and evaluating
delay
differently,
could be viewed and interpreted
congestion,
individuals.
At
is
different
by different
conditions,
lengths
of
at
the
interpretation,
this
and response to delay that dictates
reaction
hence as such,
it seems more psychological
and personal,
rather
In essence,
delay has two dimensions:
than systematic.
systematic
in terms of time actually
in terms of
and subjective
measured,
how much of a nuisance
individual
passengers.
and
annoyance
it
is
being
considered
by
54.
4.5
As mentioned
point
3 above,
since
delay
concurrent
outcomes
of congestion
at
high,
demand is relatively
then they
are mutually
positively
(to
each other)
on
as well as to level
of demand exerted
related
This will
imply that for a particular
demand level,
the facility.
by two values:
could be described
average delay time
congestion
length.
The significance
queue
space to delay is
and
of linking
described
demand, the space required
as follows:
with fluctuating
changes
but
the
for
provisions
(by
lower
space
space
provided
is
fixed.
Theoretically,
demand level
that is
certain
level.
than
percentage)
maximum possible
in the form of a
storing
space normally
should
satisfy
a certain
is the
Space here,
line,
that
in the queue
would be needed for passengers
waiting
for service
to commence. It has dynamic nature because it
waiting
to demand level
changes
according
and congestion.
continuously
Servicing
space
counter,
or
occupied
a
by
the
machine)
and
does not
a time,
at
passenger(s)
is static
because it
calculated
according
(whether
server
one individual
a person
on a
(or
of)
group
to
passengers.
formed awaiting
corresponding
For
instance,
service,
length
of
in
where a queue is
the average queueing time is (X) and the
the queue is (Y),
for this
then waiting
a situation
for
service
a period
of time (X) requires
a space to
linearly
Space is expressed
accommodate (Y) individuals.
either
(number in queue per
density
as number in queue, or as occupation
particular
unit
area).
55.
Needless
to
that
say
straightforward
they
as
involved
complexities
time dependency
with
and
the
these
relations
might
seem,
certain
variations
are not
as
because--of
operational
demand over
of
simple
the
and
many
aspects,
namely,
time,
stochastic
difficulty
the
of
practical
However,
and segregation
manipulation
of delay.
with
proper
this
be utilized
in formalizing
assumptions,
argument
could
them thereafter.
standards
service
and implementing
nature
of
LEVEL OF SERVICE
4.6
discussion
Following
standards
distinguish
The
the
service
kinds
major
level
section,
be reviewed.
suit
and
standards
on service
the framework
of service
be
it
to
necessary
would
and
service
comprising
that would
standards.
of
facilities
of
of'service
In this
and
terminal
an airport
facilities.
In
linking
for
criteria
respect,
the
three
categories
and environments
be successfully
could
framework.
So, these
are:
this
would
for
service
criteria
in literature,
were traced
for
the proposed
adopted
similar
situations
comparable
of
storing-holding,
processing,
which
level
CRITERIA
terminals,
airport
between
the various
types
of facilities
and their
corresponding
characteristics
terminal,
influence
and
previously
raised
to formalize
order
in
and
for
measures,
the
process,
two categories
briefly
only be
will
throughout
this
viewed,
while most effort
and attention
be directed
level
towards
devising
work will
of service
criteria
for processing
facilities,
in Chapter Six.
be presented
as will
4.6.1
STORING-HOLDING FACILITIES
Storing-holding
where passengers
amounts of time
facilities
in
function
particular
furthur
awaiting
primarily
as
and users in general
service.
Service
staging
areas
spend varying
of
standards
55.
Needless
to
straightforward
these
they
as
involved
complexities
time dependency
nature
that
say
the
of
seem,
might
with
and
relations
certain
variations
process,
operational
demand over
of
and segregation
of
this
be utilized
assumptions,
argument
could
them thereafter.
standards
service
and implementing
manipulation
LEVEL OF SERVICE
4.6
discussion
Following
standards
distinguish
the
influence
The
the
service
kinds
major
processing,
level
section,
be reviewed.
which
level
of
facilities
of
of
and
and
service
proper
with
formalizing
and
standards
on service
the framework
of service
be necessary
to
it
would
comprising
that would
of'service
In this
terminal
an airport
facilities.
In
linking
for
criteria
the
three
categories
and environments
be successfully
could
framework.
So, these
are:
this
would
for
service
criteria
in literature,
were traced
for
the proposed
adopted
similar
respect,
situations
suit
practical
standards.
storing-holding,
comparable
in
terminals,
airport
between
types of facilities
the various
characteristics
and their
corresponding
terminal,
of
raised
previously
to formalize
order
in
and
for
measures,
CRITERIA
many
namely,
aspects,
time,
stochastic
difficulty
the
delay.
However,
and
and
as simple
are not
the
because
of
two categories
will
only
be
briefly
throughout
this
viewed,
and attention
while
most effort
be directed
level
towards devising
work will
of service
criteria
for processing
facilities,
be presented
in Chapter Six.
as will
4.6.1
STORING-HOLDING FACILITIES
Storing-holding
facilities
where passengers
in
amounts
awaiting
of
time
function
particular
furthur
primarily
as
and users in general
service.
Service
staging
areas
spend varying
of
standards
56.
these
of
requirements
individuals
naturally
activities
function
to
and comfortably.
directly
attached
designated
and perform
those functions
Basically,
dimensions
to specific
of
are
and activities
in motion
describe
the human body, and the space these dimensions
in
different
Particularly,
stationary
positions.
or
dealing
Anthropometry,
with the
which is the branch of science
to human subjects
of scientific
physical
measurements
application
for
development
the
this
of engineering
McCormick
and
purpose.
information
on this
for
body dimensions
Another
concept
which
ellipse',
levels
of
pedestrians.
dimensions
projection
18 inches
shoulder
occupancy
used
was
service
Fruin
of
to
the
subject
different
standards,
Sanders(59)
provide
(Chapter
percentile
for
used
based
design
this
by
11),
sepecifically
(Table
ranges
purpose
in
Fruin(15)
is
the
his
work
used for
is
excellent
important
11.1).
'human
to
body
develop
for
area
occupancy
on calculating
devised
this
shape and
concept to standardize
its
horizontal
he
human body,
considered
where
dimensions
of
an ellipse
approximate
with effective
for the body depth (minor axis),
and 24 inches for the
(major
different
He then
breadth
axis).
calculated
levels
based
on
different
arrangements
the following
defined
and
called
level
1. Touch Zone, with an occupancy
of (3)
below which frequent
unavoidable
contacts
to occur.
pedestrians
are likely
'body
buffer
zones',
of what
levels:
he
sq. ft.
per person,
between individual
level
(10)
sq.
and occupancy
of
ft.
through
is
per
person,
comfort
personal
maintained
limited
lateral
between pedestrians.
allowing
circulation
separating
standees),
57.
4. Circulation
Zone,
(13)
an area
of
minimum
pedestrian
(24)
with
inch
ft.
sq.
body radius
per
for
area
to
corresponding
the
represent
disturbing
without
person,
would
circulation
others.
Some organisations
of
airports,
currently
Ergonomics
and
involved
to
adequate
joint
whose
use
that
are
accommodate
standards
BAA
users
in
of
terms
areas
of
facility.
that
and BAA(61),
based
standards
4.4,
shown in Table
use
by BAA,
conducted
and unofficially
A passenger
1969,
where
in
the
departure
lounges
reasonably
IATA
are
terminals
interviewed
in
expressed
on work previously
by Perrett(13).
in a paper
four
design,
planning,
and operations
derived
from Anthropometry
standards
with
survey
was
2500
and
lounge
published
passengers
to
asked
at
conducted
state
were
their
to crowding
the
preception
and rate
environment
on a five
level
from
'not
scale
to 'exceptionally
ranging
at all
crowded'
The result
overcrowded'.
4.2,
of this
survey,
as shown in Figure
in
helped
defining
service
standards
of
storing-holding
in
facilities
various
to
levels.
crowding
passengers
is
passengers
available,
4.6.2
These
will
the
However,
different
of each
percentage
lounge
accommodating
or'
through
airports
form
also
passengers
that
are
have
two
form
the
(e. g.,
may
of
of
seating
be
that
standing
or
are
standing),
and
a departure
So,
variable.
with
levels
different
to
passengers
'storing'
provided
perception
all
comfortably
no
seating
of
seated,
provisions
service.
LINKING FACILITIES
facilities
provide
and storing
processing
be
areas strictly
might
concourses,
facilities
and
connection
in the
centres
provided
for
between
terminal
movement,
the
building.
such
various
They
as corridors,
stairwyas,
or
constitute
other
of
parts
in such a way so as parts
planned
of them facilitate
like
movement and circulation,
lounges,
or
pathways in departure
in
the
termianl
walkways
those
hall.
By definition,
main
58.
b
0
'0
7d
pw
1
O7
1"
Yy
1
Aa3
fl
JA
YaYr.
"p
OY
rY
ovg
Yq
Yyl
Sr 89i 3rh
"8C
a9
,
31
Sag
V+
"N
e
A,
eire
3d
00
vN
ai
19r
'"N
lot
"O
ij
3w
.t
ag
eaal;
OYO
y9
,
Tiw
Lex
9
wl
Y.
? dB6do
81I
p
Yy
YY9
p
NI
9i
RQ9
p
Y
ap
Mr
IY
iV
s10;
Ij
11
t9Y
!9
Yp13
-E
3rse!
3d
9^
Yy
X- z:
3-0-
93
Al
>,,,
,
RK
8:
Yo
~i
9u
ro
+,
a
V
NNN"
NNN9
MQ
o*
ti
IQ P:
so
in
r=
0
y .as
40
0Yw0V9
YZ
a
M1;
yy
S.0
4-
. -
yiN
Yu
;
p,
88
il
+. )
i
O
a
I-
Yro
}
3.2!,
G
mM
rw
le8
eaFr:
ru
i
.0a.
kLLlL
VY
1.
1I
.9`y
"
rd .
wr
E
5C)
F-
mY
YpW
yq
ti Go
;n
Iro
c
j`YyV"NN
PrgSr
0 .Y. xa
"
0O
"'
$awy
?1
_P '3 ..
.d8.
Y4M
ql
NN
.03
li
Y0
Y-.
roAjry
`1
et
Ol
Is
0.9
3+
MA
00, T-
'
Y7YwaY
I,
IJ
YOE
1.
r
Yp
5NwiarF
:YN
aY
Y7
ii
7<6
p0"
p
;G
Im
-y
0.
01
5a
V)
00-
<o,
Yp
at
"'b
Yn1
r99Z:
rr<7
"a
0"
1t
e01
0i0Qyw"0
pr
"rJ
aYp
1LL
7(/
N.
.
y-vJ
ZY
-0A
"0.
"
p0
"
t.
0YM
. rYrr7 yy
1Y
..
9Ian
ntiAla
M9
r
7AR1,
0.
Ow
V11,,
. o
?n
A.
e
%&
..
"
Pi
p^
A
-:
"'rp"
ARY8i
OpA
Ar
, `
O 7q
riI
^J
3P.
V i".
.JNON
. r
N79N
wy
0. py
'0
A.
N0
tir
;
...
OY
J!
00
1 b..
6_
as,
"s
30I
aq"
G
"
I}iiFr
"
ww
I3
^2
Gd
40-1.
Id
YJ
Yr
rN
"Ox
Yi
Sa
rx
MM
M
p.
a'paa9
11
r;
o?
ed_d
pY
tYA
r"
I$
YY29
; ^Z:
pa
0'
; s
hrr
B9`
1i
7
iK
+O
ioBB
.r
7~
.2!
"yp0Yrr"0.
agr
13
1d.:
.:
e..
r9
r'
w
30.3A
ay
A:
.9
'
xn:
sir
o
7r
QU
wwNN
qa
U12
Iy
l
M
q9
..
""".rZ
Qp
J1
e
Y1"
"P
y^um
.a
ro
taI
rn
ri
0
6
11
""0
%
7B'
"0Yj'jY
l'-09.5
^y4Y
0N
'
60
p0'w
NN
Y?
rA
EN
grrl
V.
1
p
"
"
B'B
.iw.:
.prY
co
i-
nnAgr
Or
bV1p+
(raY
{Y!
Y0
gk
1zla
BdId1
/Y
YYr0ApMNYpA
"11
Ol
`r
`OIM
3=
iw1
3.
YAB
e
`
Y8
y
P`
:;
Y7
Edlr
1i'
M17a1`tiY
iA=
wn,
'
r`
nr
""
PPB
0e"Y
B1Nr
OdMM
r9..
LIO
rq
o
+
r"+r
33
Ir
wBdL.:
'e
Z.
y
""
y77
0. "
"pr
_
IM
vv"
ry
_aP.
L-4,
yvo
&
is
.
p46
gI
i
,
2:
3E2
"
QU
lp.
y"
tl i,
.; a..
daDr
AZ
+Y
+"
..a
60.
facilities
accommodate
the terminal
in
people
self-serve
activity
mechanical
building,
means)
activities
building.
associated
with
Functionally,
and as such,
operational
speed and type of movement, density
and moving distance.
Previous
have
studies
concluded
traffic
pedestrian
by environmental,
aspects,
influenced
Fruin(51,52,60),
Zupan(64),
have
all
to varying
and
tackled
depths
using
standards
of
pedestrians
that,
apart
of
the
are
influenced
whilst
from
termianl
by
moving,
operational
may
characteristics
different
to
done
mainly
terminals
and the
specifically),
devised
are more consistent
from
parts
be
also
factors.
social,
and psychological
Navin and Wheeler(62),
Pushkarev and
Older(63),
a recent
and Ushpiz(20),
study by Polus Schofer
traffic
standards,
pedestrian
service
and their
work
in
(self-move
where people
move
between
different
movements of
linking
is a
or by aid of
fact
However,
approaches.
Fruin's
for
service
setting
adopted
because this
work was originally
(although
terminals
airport
not
be
that
level
of'
service
criteria
and complete.
Fruin(52):
" A passenger
terminal
may be categorized.
has
that
a building
system
as
an external
or
community
interface
The
and internal
environment.
environment,
or passenger
that
factors
include
the external,
comprise
community environment
Quoting
its
land-use,
It also includes
access system,
and aesthetics.
health,
impacts.
tranquility,
socio-economic,
and ecological
Factors
the internal
its
include
affecting
environment
passenger
design,
traffic
service
standards,
characteristics,
visual
design,
patron
maintainability".
suit
an
systems)
specific
included
volumes,
airport
. comfort,
service,
convenience,
Fruin's
description
can very well stand for
terminal's.
Hence,
the two environments
and
and
(or
being
the
analogous,
terminal
a
where
airport
(yet more complex)
Factors
terminals.
of passenger
in Fruin's
design
framework
are: average area occupancy,
and speed conditions,
where he justified
considering
are
kind
61.
by(60):
factors
these
"
should
be
level
of
service
standards
pedestrian
to
based on the freedom to select
locomotion
the ability
speed,
bypass slow moving pedestrians,
ease of cross
and the relative
traffic
flow
and
reverse
movements
at
pedestrian
various
Rather than capacity,
design judgement requires
concentrations.
the evaluation
or levels
of the degree of the human convenience,
by design
the classic
created
within
assumptions
of service,
of economics,
space,
and time ".
framework
for
pedestrians,
shown in
in a fashion
one,
arranged
similar
restraints
service
six-level
Highway
Capacity
Fruin's
Table
to
is
4.5,
that
of
a
the
Manual.
in
described
a recent
addition
subject,
was
determination
by
the
Habicht
Braaksma(66),
of
on
and
paper
Widths
in
environments.
of corridors
widths
related
effective
based
for
different
levels,
on reductions
estimated
service
were
to
A useful
adopted
determining
of
widths
on actual
and types
of
in
this
for
corridors,
This approach
walls.
the procedures
practical
made on capacity
factors
various
at
that
of
capacity
of
the most ideal
would
facilities
Processing
terminal,
the
airport
the
system.
operational
form
the
kinds
of obstacles
is reminiscent
of the concept
Manual for
Highway Capacity
a highway
operating
influence
adversely
PROCESSING (SERVICING)
4.6.3
the
different
based
on reductions
due to
conditions,
those
conditions.
FACILITIES
most
important
and vital
parts
to the complexity
of
of
and greatly
contribute
Their function
is to perform
and
certain
regulatory
by
that
the
related
activities,
are
required
handling
for the passenger/baggage,
and necessary
organisations,
facilitate
to
the smooth and safe transfer
system
of passengers
Each
baggage
between
their
transport
and
air and service
modes.
facility
has its
exact function
facility,
that
to
own distinct
characteristics
with respect
and the nature
of process,
patterns
arrival
times
distribution,
passengers'
processing
its
to
and
62.
Table
Fruin's
Level
LEVEL OF SERVICE
CFRVTrc
Service
Framework
for
Pedestrians
WALKWAYSSTAIRWAYS
MEASURE
(1)
A
(2)
35 and more
715
(3)
Freely
IFreely
(1)
(2)
25 - 35
710
(3)
Normally
(1)
(2)
15 - 25
10 - 15
(3)
Individually
(1)
10 - 15
15 - 20
(2)
(3)
of
4.5
(3)
5-
(2)
(3)
selected
110 - 15
I710
restricted
selectediSlightly
17-
10
110 - 13
andiNormal
speeds
reduced
speeds
reduced
14-7
20 - 25
Speeds restricted
speed
shuffling
(1)
(Freely
selected
10
forward
selected
115 - 20
(5-7
Speeds restricted
reduced
(1)
12)
selected
113 - 17
andlNormal
only byl
I
5 and less
14 and less
(( Not
))
for
design
recommended
Extremely
IComplete
breakdown
restricted,
forward
speed
only
byl
shuffling
(1)-
Average
(2)-
Design
(3)-
Walking
in sq ft/person.
occupancy
volume in pedestrian/minute/ft
area
and stair
speed
condition.
width.
63.
operational
has been
for
reasons.
characteristics
and
with
to
passengers
difficulties
organisations
has
procedures
(yet
relatively
on
simplification
by
initiated
facilities
these
is
facility
of
nature
(or
slow)
international
where
ICAO(68),
states
in
there
Nevertheless,
and
to
approach
facilitation)
in
unique
operation
when
processing.
still
of
programme
level.
This
to
set
are
by
and
was
programme
try
to improve
transactions,
and
imposed
undergoing
standardization
regulations,
or
those
of
Moreover,
objectives
are
committees
procedures,
by
contracting
the
IATA(67),
simplify
recommended
dissimilar
interests,
their
and
continuous
for
standards
every
It
organisations.
implies
the
that
others,
of
which
reaction
their
is
These
operational
conditions
variable.
by the
are also
amongst
caused
absence
of consensus
involved
(sometimes
in operation,
and the different
organisations
operational
responsible
service
policies,
conflicting)
and
set
the
Basically,
various
compared
by
set
procedures
difficult
to
the
of
authorities
ICAO worldwide..
are
service
suggested
standards
concerned
and organisations
airport
with
IATA and BAA(61) formed a joint
group to
to try to set internationally
recognized
operations.
discuss
this
by agencies
Recently,
matter,
and
Table
standards.
facilities
processing
service
for
service';
standards
by
IATA and BAA.
BAA uses service
adopted
standards
currently
delay or queueing time,
based on the two congestion
and
measures:
Those standards
space.
were empirically
set by BAA,
queueing
4.4
the
shows
based on previous
research
conducted
on BAA's methodology
no information
in any detail,
published
officially
described
in
time
interpreted
for
are
Perrett's
in
their
terminals.
However,
has
paper(13).
as the recommended
maximum
queueing)
facility.
time
IATA
a particular
processing
are very close to BAA's except for:
standards
IATA used a second standard
1.
for
queueing
at peak operating
times expressed
time for 80%
as the recommended maximum queueing
of the passengers,
in addition
to the normal operating
condition
all
passengers
at
64.
as
expressed
a recommended
BAA used only
passengers.
passengers.
For circulation,
2.
departure
standards
In
that,
of
spite
set
involved
airport
with
operations
service
organisations
handling.
These
within
experience
compiled
were
standards
personal
that
standards
a
or following
procedure
implemented,
were
presently
some established
Service
standards
method.
to
according
and
concourses
their
crowding
identical.
no indication
to
according
were set
systematic
is
there
space for
however,
and passenger
over
95% of the
for
95% of
of
years
reflecting
practice
accumulated
were largely
personal
based
procedures
be
would
and
without
set
arbitrarily
to viewpoints
of passengers.
and interests
consideration
In
to
attempt
terminals
an
airport
operating
in
small-scale
in
Airport
Austin,
experience
on trial
explore
service
with
and
error.
or
whether
be obtained
could
particular
inquiry
personal
airport,
in
the
Texas,
handled
which
1983 through
A brief
eight
airlines.
.
managers of those airlines,
station
for
to service
standards
conception
from
not service
directly
names of persons
investigation
this
be
completely
in
standards
from
airlines
the
a
author
conducted
Mueller
Municipal
Robert
2.7
million
in
passengers
was handed to
questionnaire
them to
asking
operational
judgement,
and
experience
induced by the effects
of market competitveness,
by the anonymity
and maintained
was ensured
could
proper
their
state
at the airport
passengers
based on their
standpoint
personal
To avoid bias
not on airlines
policy.
purely
participating
the lack of
and
these
and operation,
Consequently,
confidentiality
of
replies,
where
The outcome of
and airlines
were
consensus
concluded
on opinions
between
it
that
of
the
participants
would
not be
parties
involved
station
in
and revealed
It
this
survey.
appropriate
with
managers
operations
to
rely
only,
65.
for passeng(
The proper
select
standards
service
and more
s.
logical
in the
way would be to include
passE gers themselves
to
their
to
and ask them
process
state
service
perception
in defining
so that they would participate
offered,
of
standards
their
own service.
to
for
facilities,
standards
processing
link
in
a complete
and systematically
missing
framework
for
terminals.
service
airport
of
Service
has to
procedure
achievable,
practically
in
order
and applicable
to
the
level
established
Therefore,
a
arrive
at realistic,
standards.
service
SUMMARY
4.7
In
be established
be
seem to
this
chapter,
service
in
transportation
systems
particular,
that
factors
of
and airport
terminologies
general,
and their
were previewed,
levels
and
standards
service
terminals
for
defined.
The
in
in
to
may possibly
service
operational
contribute
terminals
and similar
or environmentals
were
airport
systems
influence
that
discussed,
to
those
so
most
as
consider
'operational
conditions
and service
standards.
Also,
studied.
facilities,
service
standards
It
was noticed
comparable
service
that
lacked
could
as
suitable
airport
for
that
service
standards
operators
and carriers.
from
considered
for
standards
be the
only
and
other
as
similar
appropriate
airport
parts
were
linking
of
and
and
terminals.
the
terminal
operational
standards,
service
necessitating
deriving
method for
service
realistic
facilities.
Preferably,
these should be
a systematic
establishing
standards
for processing
based on passengers'
perception
arbitrary
holding-storing
be
seemed to
facilities
terminals'
borrowed
standards
environments
adequate to adopt
facilities
Processing
for
set
according
to
operational
service,
rather
judgement
to the arbitrary
on
of
CHAPTERFIVE
CAPACITY
5.1
DEFINITIONS
Defining
been
measuring
and
intersections,
street
fertile
a
was
Research
viewpoints.
Board
U. S.
Manual(47)
and
and
was
of
experience
capacity
traffic
operations
system.
The
indicate
three
1.
Basic
at
for
seperate
Capacity
based'on
research
and
the
and
capacity
special
Highway
to
points
vehicular
the
physical
roadway
pass *a given
point
and traffic
many
traffic
on
Capacity
Highway
Manual
summarized
American
practical
studies
design
conducted.
features,
characteristics
other
itself
was defined
on the
the
of
so
to
as
function:
performance
conditions,
the
of
committee
which
cars
that
can
under
the
most
can possibly
prevailing
roadway
Practical
3.,
capacityso great
to
the
roadway
of
results
capacity-
prevailing
by
times,
aspects,
be attained..
2. -Possible
restrictions
those
related
expression
and
transportation,
capacity-
pass a point
ideal
nearly
density-being
the
agencies
was
in
compiling
1950,
In
edited
of
related
Highway
of
involving
streets.
art
highways
of
be tackled
task
experience
edition
the
of
state
the
published,
The first
HRB.
Capacity
always
for
of
and 'a subject
research
many years
the Highway
After
the Second World War,
undertook
of research
highways
years
for
has
transportation,
subject.
first
to
the
ground
conflicting
the
capacity
controversy-prone
in
The
the traffic
without
hazard,
delay,
or
unreasonable
volume
chosen
as to cause
drivers'
freedom
and traffic
conditions.
to
maneouvre,
under
67.
Capacity
Highway
Although
during
technological
and
concepts
'material.
obsolete
was
is
of
had a reasonable
expectation
in one
lane or a roadway
period,
Comprehensive
influencing
procedures
for
systems
(or
roadway
was
of
thereby
for
service
of
service.
determining
capacity,
engineers,
continued
planners
1965
since
to
service
as
incorporated
and
traffic
civil
research
techniques
existing
for
reference
engineers,
Moreover,
level
Manual
Capacity
main
at
systems
volumes,
the
and
rural
methodology
those
Highway
the
aspects
of
methodology
worldwide.
improve
relevant
of
part
This
by
conditions".
a complete
any
used
a given
section
a variety
establishing
capacity
capacity
all
which
of a
time
a given
during
for
provided
vehicles
traffic
and
of
definition'
'the
of
number
passing
over
direction
two)
of
and
became
maximum
its
Since
publication,
of service.
(second
had been considered
edition)
road
in
definition
The
published.
of
capacity/level
levels
the
with
improvements
subsequent
capacity
the
prevailing
description
was
Possible
Capacity
under
and
Manual(48)
changed.
"
capacity:
in
So,
knowledge
provided
valuable
became evident
that,
in many ways.
deficient
was actually
derived
to
and
old
were
replace
1965, a totally
of the
revised
edition
findings,
New
capacity
it
standards,
Capacity
later
research
extensive
continuous
Highway
it
era,
post-war
Manual
and
has
explore
third
Consequently,
a
as
with
yet
untackled
problems.
-new
in
is
being
drafted,
is
for
and
scheduled
publication
edition
inclusions
in
the third
Changes
edition
and
new
mid-1985(50).
areas
are:
1.
New subjects
bicycles,
which
as;
use as the
such
public
capacity
well as vehicle-capacity.
2. Instead
of using hourly
volumes
the
hour,
the new manual
within
15-minutes
of flow.
3.
Criteria
for
to
transit,
pedestrians,
criterion
person-capacity
describe
focuses
average
primarily
and
as
conditions
on the peak
level
to quality
of
of service
are related
by the highway user,
than-on
criteria
rather
as defined
service
based on traffic
volumes.
4. More emphasize has been placed
on queueing
delay.
and
68.
5.
Procedures
but they
are more complex,
behaviour
and traffic
characteristics.
6. More emphasis on computer
implementation
But
before
proceeding
on
furthIr,
any
current
reflect
it
in
the
is
important
to
driver
procedures.
at this
the terms;
from using
cut short
any confusion
arising
demand,
because their
interchangeably,
and capacity
volume,
dissimilar
in major respects(49):
are
meanings
The
the quantity
term
to
measurement
of
referring
-Volume:
time.
movement per unit
The
term
incidence
describes
the
of
which
quantitatively
-Demand:
travel
under given conditions.
The
that
volume-carrying
a particular
capability
-Capacity:
stage
facility
can accommodate
For
defined
Manheim(69)
general,
of any component as :" The maximum number of items
time that
the component".
through
can be processed
transportation
capacity
unit
of
the
at
limit.
in
systems
parts
of
inclusion
the
of
airside
literature,
technical
promising
comparable
and roads.
unified
to that
its
in
by the
still
In
studies.
the landside
airport
capacity
The conference
capacity(7,11).
by the Transportation
organized
distinguished
capacities.
definition
capacity
ignore
airport
even
airside
Capacity(70),
set
is
references
and
Landside
on Airport
Research Board in 1975,
and, landside
only
most
completely,
capacity
interchangeably
with
airside
in
system
per
In
for
terminology
no unified
literature,
technical
and even
the representation
of
regarding
A clear
studies.
example
capacity
however,
there
systems,
that could be found in
capacity,
some inconsistencies
were exposed
airport
various
is the
the
use
for
However,
for
Highway
the
it
airport
Capacity
first
did
time
between
not furnish
any
landside
capacity
Manual for streets
69.
In
it
is
there
seems that
in this
field
researchers
and experts
landside
for
Searching
capacities.
conclusion,
amongst
consensus
terminology
on a unified
the
technical
through
no
literature,
that are
a variety
of definitions
and terminologies
different
herewith:
found,
all so descriptively
as
presented
was
1. In the conference
Landside
Capacity
two definitions
on Airport
but both of them failed
to provide
up,
a useful
were brought
landside
for
definition
capacity;
is
the
Capacity
physical
provision
time at a specified
level
at a given
defined
as
ultimate
or
maximum
lowest
associated
and level
with
the
of
service
considered
for
defined
together.
a given
is
required
of 'service.
service
demand
Capacity
service.
of passenger
interrelated
are
and
levels
Several
different
capacity
a given
is
When capacity
it
is
generally
capacity,
level
maximum
for
always
should
can
service
of
be
be
rate(58).
to provide
a
capability
of a facility
This service
Therefore,
capacity
can be flow or storage.
service.
in terms of items processed
per
can be measured either
as flow
in terms of items stored(54).
or as storage
unit time,
- Capacity
the
ACAP research
landside
airport
physical
Program:
2.
pattern
given
or
subsystems,
any
capacity
that
can
.
defined
and Gualda(28)
of demand of a
as : 11 The maximum level
be imposed
system,
an airport
on
McCullough(57)
in
a given
level
of
components
specified
interval
time
of
without
for
the
criterion
direct
It
is
system,
subsystems,
a
or components.
airport
level
function
of:
subsystems,
and
of service
of the system,
is to be
the period
capacity
of time
over which
components,
violating
determined,
aircrafts,
3.
and the
and ground
Transport
airport
building,
terminal
system
pattern
vehicles
Canada(55)
into
three
of demand of passengers,
for the airport".
a terminology
adopts
major
and the
airside.
buildings
includes
service
subsystems;
The capacity
three
specific
that
divides
groundside,
definition
types
of
baggage,
the
terminal
for
capacity:
the
70.
Static
-
is
capacity
usually
expressed
facility
total
useable
storage
potential
as
the
number
at
any
one
hold
can
the
space
of
occupants
of
It
moment.
available
and
is
level
the
an area
or
facility
which
the
area
a function
of
of
to
service
or
the
be
provided.
Dynamic
pedestrians
time
actual
is
capacity
(occupants)
of
rate
or flow
maximum processing
The
through
time.
a subsystem
per unit
selected
as the measurement index depends on the
the
unit
the operation.
nature of
is
Maximum
throughput
the
practical
capacity
overall
capacity
demand within
the space and
of a subsystem to accommodate traffic
is
it
level
thus
time standards
a
of a particular
service,
of
dynamic
of all
capacities
and static
measure of the combined
facilities.
4.
IATA,
the
International
Air
Association,
Transport
adopts a
Canada but has a
that is similar
terminology
to that of Transport
in
breakdown of airport
different
stated
as
capacities,
systems'
Terminal
Reference
Manual(8):
IATA's Airport
in
in
Runway
terms
a
system
rate
capacity
movement
aircraft
of
given period.
Apron
system
available.
Terminal
per hour.
In another
variable
the level
accordance
service.
terms
terms
of
number
of
of
and baggage
passenger
throughput
defined
was
IATA
into
subdivided
static,
The first
capacities.
Transport
Canada:
capacity
that
can
with
stands
aircraft
publication(56),
capacity
measure. of throughput
or system capability
being provided".
The definition
of service
as those of
Sustained
unit
in
capacity
was furthur
declared
and
time,
in
capacity
is
the
be
achieved
safety
dynamic,
two were
maximum traffic
requirements
over
a
and
:"A
related
of
sustained,
identically
flow
as
for
sustained
acceptable
to
capacity
maximum,
defined
the
chosen
in
period,
levels
of
71.
is
Maximum
capacity
for the chosen
achieved
longer
period,
levels
acceptable
in
the
time
unit
accordance
flow
traffic
maximum
only,
but
not
and
requirements
safety
with
can be
for a
sustained
which
of
service.
is
in
Declared
limiting
the
capacity
and
capacity
capacities
to
facilities
and resources,
numeric terms on individual
notified
bodies
flight
be used
in
to
the
the
appropriate
preparing
schedules.
IATA
Other
capacity
publications(71,72)
formulae,
calculation
however,
peak hour,
for
this
research.
equivalent
irrelevant
5.
In
Aviation
its
Airport
Planning
Organisation-
ICAO,
introduced
facility
these
such
evaluation
expressions
Manual(9),
recognized
the
the
as:
expressions
and
to be
equations,
were found
Civil
International
importance
of
the
" In
capacity
as a major component
planning:
of master
the aim should
be to ensure
that
satisfies
capacity
planning,
demand within
practical
capability
economic limits
and to provide
for increased
capacity
growth".
as demand increases
with traffic
terminal
Although
ICAO did
landside
capacity,
the
for
definition
airport
not provide
explicit
an
ICAO's
the following
views
reveals
quotation
building
" Capacity
or its
of a passenger
subject:
is
in terms of achievable
movement
usually
expressed
segments,
in
for a given area.
some cases,
or,
of actual
population
rates
different
the
Although
criteria
are in use for movements rates,
basic concept employed is one of the number of movements per unit
on
depends
time
appropriate
of
upon
unit
it
In some cases,
application.
may be desirable'
particular
so as to satisfy
peak demand,
an estimated
plan capacity
be more realistic
a figure
somewhat below this
normally
will
time,
where
the
the
to
but
due
involved
What is important
is to
costs
and space required.
so
match the capacities
of different
segments in the processing,
inadequate
in one operation
that
does not restrict
the
capacity
flow ".
overall
to
72.
6. The British
Airports
The volume of
level
service
within
as
5.2
:"
INTERPRETATION
Authority(73)
traffic
defined
can be sustained
".
period
that
a stated
OF CAPACITY
in
capacity
at
general
a defined
IN TRANSPORTATION SYSTEMS
a transportation
as the
system can be considered
The volume or number of items using the system
supply.
system's
times usually
according
changes quite
considerably,
at different
As the number of items per
to the demand imposed on the system.
(in
(volume)
level
time
the
whatever
varies,
service
of
unit
The capacity
of
used)
expression
traveller,
by the
provided
also change.
turn out to
and density
to use as a basis for
would
Volume
by the
thus experienced
system,
Quoting from Wohl and Martin(49):
be the
convenient
pair
most
...
flow
discussing
traffic
and
of variables
it
is
theoretical
".
In
this
for formulating
respect,
approaches
to consider
of the physical
some of the characteristics
useful
driver,
highway system ( whose basic elements
and
vehicle,
are;
highway),
and the
manner in
out basic
the
as a whole operates,
be
that
to set
then try
should
conditions
operating
density
Using
to
by
theory.
as
required
any
explanatory
satisfied
level
defining
conditions
would
of service,
operating
express
which
require;
density
0,
0.
Volume
when
=
=
increase
Volume
to
would
up
declining
density
before
starts
Volume
density).
.
Therefore
describe
=0,
shows a typical
In
(capacity),
a maximum value
reaches its maximum.
density
reaches
diagram'
could
when
a 'fundamental
the behaviour
system
of
maximum
be drawn
to
value
and
(jam
schematically
5.1(a),
Figure
operating
conditions.
fundamental
diagram(49).
volume-density
for
level
general,
physical
a particular
supply
or specific
layout,
does
as the demand level
so
or service
volume changes,
the resulting
token,
level
Similarly
by
the
same
of service.
and
'fundamental
important
another
diagram'
be
the
could
established;
73.
C
free speed
V.
v
4E,
fll-7
mum volume V.
DB
-Jam
Dj
DA
density Di
Density
(a)
Os
V,
Meon
free
speed
Ue
8"
N
[;
Z,
1""
- V
VA VT
Volume
(b)
Figure
''"
5.1
Fundamental
and (b)
Diagram
Speed-Volume.
for
Highways;
(a)
volume-Density,
74.
between
relationship
as the level
of
measure. Again,
operating
conditions
would require;
When
the
volume =0,
space mean speed = 0.
increases,
As
decrease
speed
corresponding
volume
will
a maximum value.
reaching
Volume
0,
is
approaches
when
space
speed
maximum.
mean
'fundamental
This
presented
schematically
An
diagram',
important
introduced
in
attribute
the
operating
on here,
and
emphasized
phenomenon that
is
relationship(49)
speed-volume
Figure
5.1(b).
of
after
should
conditions
be
a
congestion;
the performance
its
and
congestion
namely,
influences
significant
strongly
Manheim(69)
diagnosed
systems.
of transport
factors.
"
Congestion
two
the
of
arises
out
of
conjunction
roots:
The second
is that every process has a finite
The first
capacity.
is
has
there
every process
stochastic
characteristics;
some degree of randomness in both the demand placed on a process
So,
".
demands
those
the
the
to
of
ability
service
process
and
is
that
is
a phenomenon associated
demand are brought
together
congestion
and
supply
activity),
heavy
match
Since
congestion
research
necessitiates
solve
problems
engineering.
on this
subject,
planning(74),
urban
78).
theory(76,77),
However,
terminals
a situation
and delay will
are provided
mostly
been
has
conducted
approach to
and traffic
references
is
congestion
the
in
where
supply
of
models
Extensive
Theory.
implementing
Queueing
and transportation
few
a
of
mention
Theory's
planning,
urban
To
text
books
in
traffic
of
Queueing
the
Theory
numerous
systems(49),
and
research(75),
can not
occur.
consequently
and delays,
queues
by Queueing
operations
implementation
where
processing,
with
( servicing
to interact
in
queueing
airport
Although
capacity
analysis
successful.
was not very
to
Queueing Theory approach had been successfully
solve
utilized
for
the
done
from
the
many problems
on
airside,
as evident
work
Company
Federal
U. S.
Aviation
Administration
by Douglas Aircraft
75.
et
it
al(79),
it
occasions,
implemented
after
successful
Manchester
ticket
counters
that
after
in
Theory
three
the
of the
distributions
because
actual
by the
assumed
hence
lost,
the
analysis
description
detailed
queueing
theory,
queueing
and
to
theory
comparing
in particular),
terminals
systems
and
the following
with
cases,
those
to
tractibility
on
terminals,
had
those
a more
of
application
Powell(82).
to
refer
(airport'
systems
airport
facts
was
For
a dead-end.
reach
theory
comply
comply
and
discussion
thorough
processing
not
all
at
programme,
queueing
facilities
mathematical
then
transportation
highway
Now,
follow
not
the
would
In
theory.
gieueing
did
et
taken
and
arrivals
terminal
modelling
airport
approach
processing
because
did
distributions
to be abandoned,
those
assumptions
Ashford
and
to
basic
made
observations
ACAP research
the
observing
Texan
airports,
concluded
observations
with
in
many
be
not
could
O'Leary(27)
.
fact
In
Lee(78)
operations.
distributions
from
analysing
out
pointed
distributions
landside.
the
landside
this
also
confirmed
Airport.
Gualda(28),
al(80,81)
on
Queueing
that
proved
modelling
Heathrows'
at
that
not
was
in
fact
this
was
are relevant:
for terminals,
simply
relations
are inapplicable
is irrelevant
in terminals
because speed (per se) of passengers
insignificant
to
the
and
performance
operational
and
of air terminals.
characteristics
1.
2.
Speed-volume
Volume-density
terminals,
this
in
3.
yet
The
of
volumes
interpret
and
terminal,
'fundamental
not
operation
at
airport
corresponding
the
performance
against
diagram'
could be furnished,
When
demand
volume
-
that
relation
implemented
are dissimilar.
to the system
as significant
influencial
most
analysis
the
is
selection
highways.
be
relations
could
limiting
conditions
terminals
recognized
to that
similar
through
considering
0,
congestion
=
is
as
operation
could
which
facilities
processing
some
air
Moreover,
be adopted
for
should
is that between demand
congestion,
of
in
service
at
the
standards.
highway
system,
of the
the following
non-existent.
directly
conditions:
76.
increases,
demand
When
volume
its
two
attributes;
where
theoretically
until
exponentially
builds
up gradually,
congestion
increase
delay,
density,
and
levels.
infinite
approaching
diagram,
in the methodology
Such a fundamental
depicted
presented
in this
thesis
and designated
would
model',
as the 'performance
interpret
the performance
processing
of terminals'
systematically
(i.
in terms of variation
in congestion
facilities
e.,
measures
and density)
delay
As
in
the
case
highways,
of
of
performance
single
(volumes).
demand levels
i. e.,
to
and utilized
the
describing
relations,
congestion
be adopted
could
and volume-density,
' interpretation
useful
volume-delay
provide
at
different
of
facility
by
capacity
demand
varying
against
levels
and patterns.
5.3
It
terminal
been "previuosly
building
is
in
mentioned
composed
of
three
Three,
Chapter
basic
types
the
that
facilities;
of
links,
'the
of
storing-holding
capacities
and
areas,
processors,
fundamentally
different.
Processors'
are
are
capacities
which
for
in
items
time,
terms
while
of
per unit
processed
expressed
items
in
terms
they
of
areas
expressed
are
storing-holding
(i.
Links'
facility
the
time.
at
any
at
stored)
e.,
present
in terms of the number of items that can
expressed
(per
time).
through
pass
a given
section
unit
simultaneously
is generally
in terms of passengers
Terminal
capacity
expressed
capacities
passing
are
through
the
terminal
per
unit
it
time;
is
not
the
terminal
a
is
composed
of
linked
facilities
uniquely
structured
system.
the
experiences
greatest
congestion
at
(therefore
operation
to the set
violations
The
any
service`
together
that
facility
instant
during
standards
are
77.
encountered),
would
that
facilities
all
degrees
be the
are
importance,
of
link
'weakest
in
to
essential
that
particular
the
Provided
chain'.
varying
with
that
operation
facility
violates
to causing
service
standards
system
would be the most susceptible
is the
breakdown.
It
defines
facility
that
capacity
of this
being
the closest
terminal
to the overall
capacity,
system's
capacity.
However,
systematic
determination
of
its
the
of
capacities
components
because;
difficult,
mainly
-
The effect
of
stochastic
the
terminal
and
facilities,
operations
facilities.
of all other
operations
demand,
Fluctuations
the
of
and
its
instability
of
characteristics
facilities.
individual
at
one facility,
variability
on the
from
capacity
is
very
on the.
and
relative
performance
of
(kind,
terminal
the
Unique
of
structuring
sequence)
size,
and
designated
to perform
the
terminal's
facilities
collectively
baggage
between
their
function
of transfer
and
of passengers
transport
and surface
modes.
factors
have the
these
All
would
and influence
of
making the effect
air
that
5.4
BALANCED CAPACITY
It
was suggested
in
operationally
efficient
between
previous
inevitable
one
research(83),
to have some
of
consequence
on the others
facility
that
kind
of
delay)
the
it
would
balance
be more
struck
(e. g.,
measures of performance
of the system's
(i.
the
facilities).
To demonstarate
units
control
e.,
processing
importance
be
relative
of facilities,
measures could
performance
imposed,
For a particular
demand level
pro-rated
accordingly.
each facility
differently
to its specific
would perform
according
capabilities
capacity).
where
all
in
accommodating
various
Could there
be a situation
facilities
separate
constituting
demand
of
levels
'balanced
the
airport
(i. e.,
capacity',
terminal
78.
perform
terminal
harmony?.
in
capacities,
capacity
it is
capacities
of
Due to
in
systematically
even more difficult
terminal
all
in
difficulties
the
terms
to
avoid
extreme
cases
of
congestion
facilities
demand levels.
at different
is checked and compared
every facility
components'
condition
where
balanced,
to
reasonably
or
underutilization
When the performance
of
of
standards
users and the
service
against
the desires
to
its
of
obtain'a
are
capacities
interpreting
compromise between
of
imposed on or dictated
by the operator,
economic considerations
there will
always be instances
or underutilization
of congestion
by
(p),
is
intensity
traffic
the ratio
of
as governed
which
(u)).
(h)),,
(processing
demand (arrival
to the supply
rate
rate
set
reasonably
Balanced
capacity
maintained
continuously
imply
conditions
could
underutilization
This
will
at
such a
be contained
level
that
and
congestion
allowable
within
the
is
intensity(p)
traffic
that
margins.
(almost
undoubtedly
alteration
necessitate
instantaneously)
to match the oncoming
of facility
capabilities
(i. e.,
However,
demand.
has a specified
every facility
capacity
bound
be
for
that
can
possibly
upper
number
an
of passengers
by that
facility
processed
not be exceeded.
The only
which could
volume
more than this
itself
through
change capacity
In
of the facility.
channels
(i. e.,
capacity),
would be to
increasing
number of operational
there will
be a redistribution
doing so,
all
facilities.
other
converge
to
processing
reasonably
Unfortunately,
implies,
Eventually,
an equilibrium
facilities
of
balanced.
the
because
interval),
a given time
way to process
at
situation,
the
chain
of traffic
iterative
this
where
are
the
is not as clear
situation
balanced
capacity
could
not
due to:
achieved,
The increase
1.
in capacity
or decrease
(capacity)
overall
processing
rate
of
process
capacities
mutually
in
intensity
will
of the
matched
and
as this
arguement
be systematically
The
is
a step-function.
a facility
could
not
be
but the
conveniently
altered,
channels
number of operational
be changed.
the
could
Consequently,
the overall
of
capacity
facility
be altered
by a factor
will
to the processing
equivalent
79.
rate
of
single
that
suggested
facilities
process
hand,
Paullin(84)
other
follows
a
continuous
for one particular
altered
the
congestion
normally
function.
When capacity
is
it
incur
automatically
will
curvilinear
facility,
other
On
channel.
at
imply
will
or near balanced
one of two facts;
at all,
or
converge
there
are unrealistically
facilities.
it
imbalanced
In effect,
conditions.
the
either
will
converge
large
number
process
not
will
where
situations
for different
channels
at
only
of
at
this
situations
is the
by definition,
facility,
a processing
unexceedable
at any time..
volume that
ultimate
could be handled
facility
Changing the capacity
would be possible,
of a processing
In
is altered.
when the number of operational
only
channels
2.
The capacity
of
facilities
in the physical
space of the
contained
building,
space
of that
parts
where they occupy fixed
idle.
As a consequence,
monitoring
operational
or
is infeasible
from
to match imposed demand continuously,
addition,
terminal
whether
capacity
are
viewpoint.
a practical
implementing
Mn
queueing
facilities,
the
processing
from
arising
(attainment
the
of
distributions)
fact
that
theory
in
analyzing
analyst
is
confronted
major
steady-state
hold in
rarely
assumptions
operations
by difficulties
of
and
conditions,
terminals,
airport
queueing
of
theory
suitability
and is not
of
the
in such an environment.
means of operational
analysis
the
The stochastic
4.
of
pursuit
nature
of demand prevents
demand were
balanced
If
for
problems.
capacity
optimization
deterministic
in
the problem would
stable
and
nature,
virtually
be reduced
the components'
to one of optimizing
and
capacities
them together
against
a given demand.
matching
best
In
summary,
facilities,
systematically,
stochastic
relatively
the
balanced
could
mainly
and dynamic
deterministic
terminal
for
condition
capacity
be
implemented
or
not
conveniently
because of the incompatibility
between the
characteristics
and static
nature
of
of
demand,
the
supply.
and
the
80.
5.5
Overall
terminal
achievable
capability
basic function
over
a stated
HOLDING-STORING
facility,
of time,
period
research,
while
its
to
applicable
CAPACITY:
expressed
at
considered
system in
as
the
net
its
performing
to
conformimg
corresponding
facilities
are
capacity
of
storing
capability
the facility
as follows:
interpreted
hold
of
service
criteria
Throughout
this
specified
facilities.
1.
be
could
the terminal
capacity
as
the
at
The
number of occupants
the specified
service
area
effective
be considered
should
or
can
Only
standards.
in
space
available
useable
are calculated.
when densities
the
of
facility
that
linking
the
of
capability
achievable
in
to accommodate pedestrian
flows passing
facility
a given point
It
level
under a specified
criteria.
of service
a unit of time,
in terms of pedestrians
is usually
expressed
per
width
per unit
unit time.
2.
3.
LINK
CAPACITY:
The
CAPACITY:
-PROCESSING
capability
demand
processing
achievable
facility
and
of a particular
imposed on it
interval
in a given
levels
and patterns
level
to
specified
criteria.
service
of
conforming
in
terms of numbers of passengers
processed
expressed
time
at
5.6
SUMMARY
Intended
a certain
primarily
provides
chapter
broad general
level
of
of
time,
It
per
is
unit
service.
as introduction
to
subsequent
chapters,
this
in
a preview
aspects
of capacity
of relevant
terms,
terminal
to the airport
particularly
related
in
It starts
basic
definitions
as
with
of capacity
environment.
highways and traffic
flow theory,
it then presents
a summary of
all definitions
to airport
terminals
related
and cited
as traced
in technical
the
literature,
interpretation
of
the
and states
different
forms
Discussion
of capacity.
and concepts
raised
81.
introduced
in
this
chapter,
will
on capacity/level
of service
development
and implementation
is
presented
in
the
next
back
up and supplement
considerations,
of the proposed
chapter.
which
arguments
lead to the
methododlogy
that
CHAPTERSIX
PR0P0SEDMETH0D0L0GY
The methodology
evaluating
proposed as a means of
systematically
is
facilities,
the
terminal
performance
assessing
of
airport
and
discussed
the
Acknowledging
in
this
and
chapter.
presented
imposed
associated
restraints
on and difficulties
substantial
with
conducting
opertaion,
airport
structure
minimize
confronted
experienced
problems
beneficial
information
research
this
gathering
is
methodology
and moderately
easy
information
collection
at
airports
throughout
greatly
in
intended
The
effort.
streamlining
Simple
requirements.
the
to
devised
to
in
normally
problems
information,
this
stages
of
the methodology,
by
to
related
be simple
and is
implement,
to
acquiring
all
influenced
effects
information
and
were
clearly
These
research.
but also had their
method
towards
minimal
and
practical
measures
interfere
that
techniques
airport
were adopted,
with
minimally
the need to approach
and reduce
parties
responsible
operations
for information.
6.1
OBJECTIVES
procedures
of
the
methodology,
reasonably
is
realistic,
to establish
and
practical,
systematically
through
capable
of providing,
quantitative
interpretation
a clear
of
assessment
and
proper
the
conditions
of
centres
airport
processing
at
This approach
defining
necessitates
some fundamental
83.
principles
that
service
could
for
standards
simple,
effective,
Subsequently,
the
setting
facilities,
up of
appropriate
based on
preferrably
measures.
of
service
standards
could be used to evaluate
the terminals'
This may
facilities.
processing
by
accomplished
framework,
service
between
In this
context,
airport
managers,
components'
terminal
and realistic
be
organisations,
the
derived
performance
distinguish
facilitate
establishing
which
different
this
would
levels
methodology
operators,
and would
capacities
level
a properly
graded
be practically
utilized
of
could
planners,
provide
with
operational
be a useful
performance.
instrument
to
and other
a mechanism
some
of
to
airport-related
capable
of linking
well-recognized
service
standards.
Accumulated
information
compiled
for
different
airports
will
enhance planning
and would
and design of facilities,
lead
to more adequate
of space allocation
standards
subsequently
in new airports,
as well
assessment
and efficient
as better
in existing
management of operation
ones.
undoubtedly
6.2
degree
is
there
that
established
of
a high
earlier
in the methodologies
of the planning
subjectivity
and practices
Essentially,
terminals.
there
of airport
and design
are no
design
loosely
formalized
but rather
knit,
procedures,
mostly
'selective
design
collection
empirical,
of approaches,
concepts,
It
was
knowledge,
used by airport-related
The basic elements that should be
and consultants.
organisations
in the design
terminals,
considered
process
of airport
mainly:
measure of design,
and criteria
chosen for design,
are not fully
in current
justified
The design measure most commonly
practices.
criteria,
and
accumulated
flow,
design
for
used is the peak hourly
and the criterion
based on this
In spite
importance
measure.
of the great
daily
in
seasonal
and
traffic
variations
patterns
of
is
of
on
84.
operational
demand that
it
of the system,
included
in
performance
is usually
is
peak hourly
and for
analysis
only
the
capacity
hour) might
it (peak
although
purposes,
not necessarily
Current
the worst
represent
situation.
of airport
practices
facilities
design adopt the relation
terminal
between peak hourly
flows
This criterion
and annual flows
as the design
criterion:
includes
Peak Hour Passenger (TPHP)such expressions
as: Typical
planning
used by the
Rate
Busy
U. S.
Federal
Standard
Aviation
Administration(14),
(SBR)formerly
Airports
by
British
the
used
(PPHP)- used by
Authority(16),
Peak Hour Passenger
or Planning
defined
Canada(17).
Transport
These expressions
are empirically
They are derived
developed.
and appear to have been arbitrarily
according
in
limit
between
to
the
statistical
of using a confidence
consideration
reflects
that
the decision
planning,
of compromising
by
in accommodating
flows
efficiency
and
economy
annual
to
of
analysis
or
aircraft(16,17),
Research Board
facility
for
to
provide
(as
volumes
the number
per
requirements
planning*purposes(13,43).
in 1950(47)
this
approach
suggested
highways
in the U. S.,
and
urban
rural
that
justify
design
criterion
would
funds
current
implement
this
and capacity
analysis
fixed
hour
design
a
as
peak
to determine
number of passengers
estimating
airport(14),
All
practices.
design
airport
selecting
a
of the annual
criterion;
(percentile)
extra
a percentage
of hours in
capacity
of
annual
where
it
necessary
needed: " If
daily
ratio
size
equivalent
The Highway
for
designing
was used
as the
of
expenditures
hourly
traffic
is
traffic)
related
to
traffic
volumes exceeding
one year with
hourly
the slope of the curve changes rapidly,
volumes,
specified
is
(knee
that
at this
of
and it
point
of the curve)
ratio
benefits
to expenditures
is near the maximum ".
This criterion
again in the 1965-edition
was reinstated
of the Highway Capacity
Manual(48):
volume)
as the
"The
selection
hourly-'volume
of an appropriate
to be served is,
value
thus,
(design
hour
a compromise
85.
between
service
annual
certain
include:
provided
associated
shortcomings
However,
".
and cost
this
with
there
are
which
approach,
is
The
facility,
future
prediction
of
volumes or usage of a
treated
as being independent
of design capacity.
is
It
the
that
the
arbitrarily
most
assumed
gives
method
design
that
a
economical
cut-off
provide
would
point
of
level
beneficial
economic
of
service,
any proper
without
this
to justify
of the actual
analysis
assumption.
situation
Neglect
the
future
the
traffic
of
effect
shift
of
on
volumes
due to
the
'knee
the
the
and relocation
of
of
curve',
phenomenon known as the 'learning
effect'.
Consequently,
all
have
effects.
averaging
"Oversimplistic,
invariable
levels.
These
and
expressions
They
destroying
is
performance
features
of
they
nature
demand
of
and
operations
the
performance
on
of
effects
order
of
are:
and are
demand
any
chronological
demand,
from the
design
criterion.
of
flexibility,
of
the
exclude
the
daily-hourly
structural
De Neufville(53),
void
are
stochastic
influence
of
facilities.
the
insensitive
the
representing
time-variant
lack
approaches
As put by
accommodating
highly
selection
current
of
the
of
by
time-variation
demand,
especially
and the
operations
of
analysis
Their
assessment
of operational
important
dynamic
the
stripped
of
virtually
First,
it
is
to focus on averages;
it is the local
erroneous
limit
the performance
Second,
extremes that
will
of a facility.
the loads on any particular
facility
need to be taken over its
critical
the time
in
period,
the transient
over which
surges
traffic
build
If we fail
up congestion.
to do this,
we will
underestimate
what is really
this
gap.
the
degree
of
congestion
that
will
".
So,
occur
fill
needed is an alternative
that
approach
would
Due consideration
influence
towards
should be directed
86.
of stochasticity
incorporating
the
and implementing
This
important
procedure
demand on
and time
variation
of
dynamics
of congestion
and queueing
design
a more realistic
and effective
is
consideration
of this
methodology.
for the design criterion
in
fulfilled
The
demand
operation,
phenomena,
criterion.
the
pattern
capacity
and level
daily,
selected
represents
seasonal,
and
hourly
from specimens of chronologically
demand
patterns
oriented
that is extracted
from actual
information
traffic
patterns
at the
airport.
The
literature
technical
lacks
any
comprehensive
implemented,
except
service
those
of
(Table
4.4),
that
standards
are
actually
IATA/BAA(61)
that
in Chapter
Four
were presented
to be used by IATA based on British
Airport
which are intended
Authority's
in passenger
handling.
Examining
acquired
expreience
those standards
would show that:
Their
1.
by a
concepts
are arbitrarily
set;
supported
not
definitive
based
to
concept
or
an
established
according
their
(levels)
derived,
procedure,
values
are empirically
and
they
do not
involve
passengers'
about service.
Contain
2.
only two levels
levels
divided,
are unevenly
(dichotomous
and they
by facilities.
spread of service
provided
At varying
demand levels
3.
the
situation),
of 95% of
significance
(which
of
and
perception
their
viewpoints
structure),
do not
is
the
yet
the
represent
those
whole
actual
real-world
in-terms
standards
justified.
These
expressing
all
passengers
could not be practically
standards
were probably
meant to be made compatible
Hour Rate,
the provision
which involves
of service
with
for
the
at
Busy
least
that
service
could describe
operational
derived
and systematically
by a predefined
procedure.
of
performance,
87.
STRUCTUREAND DESCRIPTION
6.3
this
Structurally,
of
is
methodology
so arranged
as procedures:
presented
be composed
as to
level
of
service,
and capacity.
6.3.1
Service
standards,
public
and
specifies
by definition,
their
promote
that
standards
In our case,
they
available
alternatives
and the public
values.
topublic
of the travelling
should be set according
perception
inside
the
operational
met
conditions,
and environmental
of
(or
in
light
the
prevailing
service
of
airports,
-operational
be
But do actual
could
really
made available).
standards
which
Or are
interests
their
passengers'
views?
represent
and reflect
desires
their
assessing
operations
standards
The three
main parties
(air
travelling
users
operators.
It
is
the
minor
more other
keep the airport
providing
air
public),
unique interaction
running
that
profit,
airports
and
all
while
convenient,
baggage between
enjoyable
for the
the
of
process
of
are;
airport
them (and
activities,
and
airport
its
designated
course of
transfer
air
and safe
of
-drives
and moving in
are not
For example,
comfortable
and
look mainly
carriers
net
carriers,
between
of
and
surface
three
parties
these
transport
air
is. essential
interests
their
however,
system,
in fact,
identical,
necessarily
yet
of
operations
with
and their
passengers
The
active
modes.
presence
of
for the survival
of the airport
and objectives
be conflicting.
the
considered
terminals?
airport
at
involved
parties)
efficient,
in
being
and preferences
they
air passengers
want to have-a
time
in the terminal,
spent
in
the
economics
of
operation
operator
is
concerned
with
could
brief
air
terms
regulating
88.
this
of
transfer
safely,
best
possible
the
lawfully,
(usually
-and efficiently
exploitation
of
in
investment
capital
terms
of
the
airport).
It
might
parties
and objectives
in the overall
of
the
context
three
of
major
airport
However,
are
users'
considerations
in the frame,
included
well-defined
usually
or necessarily
has always been claimed
it
otherwise,
although
and declared
they
form the open sided part
that
of the traingle.
seems
operations.
systems
carriers
will
Therefore,
economic
(including
operators
market
is
operation
governmental
economically,
operate
reciever's
and in the
their
main objective.
have on one
agencies)
likely,
must
involves
Certain
decisions
operate
taxpayers
(no matter
regulations
and run the
establishment
what),
(which,
and
it
If
they
to
the
enforce
the other
enough
not
hands.
Airport
hand to
and on
most
or regionally)
decisions
Hence their
are
and
efficiently.
policies
managerial
It
economically
motivated
usually
with some political'i'nfluence.
tj
if he or
is the user-who has to yield
to this
complex situation,
by
benefit
the
to
from
provided
=enjoy
services
want
and
she
i.
e., air travel.
system,
are
made with
inevitably
would,
planning
decisions
to
related
nationally
money either
respect
to
the
objectives,
and priorities
nature,
the criteria
planning
and the
of the
process,
of evaluation,
influenced
definition
These decisions
of problems.
are strongly
by
issues,
philosophically-oriented
which
socio-political
the
differences
between
significant
national
existing
These issues
include:
practices
worldwide.
concept of the role of
interests,
government,
concepts
of public
public
what constitutes
benefits,
Generally,
purpose of commercial
enterprise,...
etc.
explains
there
two
are
main
first,
objectives
two
views
economic
is
there
and
to
these
systems:
a unitary
priorities
issues
that
socialist
view,
that
can
or
basically
capitalist.
reflect
For
the
the
has collective
society
from those
be quite
distinct
that
89.
its
of
lead
and certainly
members,
to
centralized
setting,
policy
should
take
national
political
interest
individualistic
that public
view,
the sum of the desires
of the individuals
from De Neufville(3)
This quotation
society.
" A country's
goals ought to
discussion:
national
a key to
kind
understanding
evaluation
belongs
of
will
This
precedence.
in terms
of
should fulfil
planning,
declared
there
second,
is nothing
that
will
is
an
more than
a
constitutes
the
two
public
of
notions
opposing
of
generally
the
In
".
individualistic
case,
the unitary,
interest;
either
or
be
whether
represented,
views
and
opinions
should
public's
the
through
by individuals,
indirectly
or
planner
directly
or
behalf
the
(who
is
public
of
decision
on
acting
maker
supposedly
desires
their
and interests).
and is promoting
This
to
bring
will
us
operation
that
service
airport
claim
one
decisions
how
discussion
concerning
of
a
(airport
The
the
users).
public
would effect
based
for
travelling
are
public
air
standards
to
of service
views of the quality
and their
been heard of but no proof of this
they expect to meet, has often
that
has
Keeny(86)
usually,
out
points
ever materialized.
myth
the
decisions
that
for
effect
the
making
responsible
people
have
their
but
do
the
own
values,
rather
not use
public
public
fact
different.
This
that
seems
are significantly
set of values
upon their
to
hold
preferences
for
airport
terminals,
since
their
standards
service
were
/ operators
to
carriers
not
according
set
values
for the air travelling
Obtaining
standards
service
public
users'.
in
to be used in assessing
performance
of operation
as undertaken
this
an
work,
should not be confused
choice
within
with airport
basically
air
transport
criteria,
economic
that,
stress
or
issues.
network
that
are
as
actually
considerations.
in the context
derived
based
of
according
to
traffic,
on certain
It
is
particularly
this
work, these are
some
service
planning,
to
important
two unrelated
90.
dimension
Another
employment
of
the
available
of
that
and
means
consideration,
is
the
methods
adequate
travelling
the air
to
set
in-
problem
public's
would really
reflect
It is essential
to adopt some device that
and desires.
interpret
delineate
service
can reasonably
and quantitatively
in airport
In this
terminals.
a
of passengers
section,
standards
forlevel
is
devised
the
of
of
service
purpose
procedure
distinct
levels
delineating
that could be
of operational
service,
standards
interests
used to
set
service
for
standards
In implementing
terminals.
this
service
conditions
could be evaluated
procedure,
at a facility
in terms of some measure of service,
based upon
and assessed
to
desires
themselves
of the passengers
and their
perception
facility
level.
demand
to
at
a
subjected
a
certain
service
It
was
in
concluded
Chapter
Four
that,
of
all
potential
factors
that
possibly
might
and
quantitative
influence
to
airport
of
or
standards
service
delay
awaiting
seemed the most suitable,
service
interpret
implementation
to
for
and practically,
qualitative
contribute
terminals,
theoretically
to
service.
is
It
operational
and reaction
is the major. attribute
because
it
of
suitable,
(with
that
conditions.
crowding)
operational
affects
congestion
factor
in
because it is the foremost
It is practically
suitable,
perception
passengers
theoretically
the
of
minds
Perception
could
and
reaction
be conveniently
surveys,
(preferrably
service)
As shown
that
passengers
passengers
passengers
through
obtained
to
are
asked
the
service
procedure
information,
perception-response
framework
service
distinct
diagram
the
the
steps
proper
state
levels
of
of
Figure
of:
construction
models,
by defining
attitudes.
service
provided
In these
surveys.
their
perception
satisfaction
with
conditions.
operational
schematic
follows
their
towards
of
in
expressed
towards different
in
influence
and finally
the service
6.1,
collection
the
of
setting
regions.
the
of
the
level
of
required
passenger
level
of
91.
AIRPORT
TERMINAL
PASSENGERSURVEY
FREQUENCYDISTRIBUTION
OF PASSENGERS' RESPONSES
G0B
L
0E
RA
0A
DLD
E
RELATING
G00D
TOLERABLE
IB
II
PASSENGERSRESPONSECRITERION: I
PERCENTILE / AVERAGE/ MAJORITY I
LS
OF
SERVICE:
GOOD
TOLERABLE
T2....
BAD
Figure
6.1
Schematic
Diagram of Level
of Service
Procedure.
92.
6.3.1.1
COLLECTION OF INFORMATION
Information
is
required
collected
for
the
separately
The information
conducted
arrivals.
to
evaluation
passenger
delay
times,
and certain
by means
two
sought
service
of
channels:
include:
surveys
passenger
departures
and
information,
delay
in
resulting
information.
conditions
passenger-specific
different
1.
Delay
2.
Passenger
of
the
Perception
survey,
which
is
It
and Response:
would facilitate
the
the
construction
In the case of
models.
perception-response
is
information
this
most
sensitive
of
part
because;
in
The
way
their
state
'which
passengers
perception
could
and reaction
passenger
chapter.
Each reply
will
causes
and
reasons
surveys,
passenger
mainly
sought,
directed
be conveniently
to service
conscientiously
to
of
states
a boundary limit
a variety
objective
of the
prime
clearly
distinguish
satisfaction
(a number).
experience
level.
to
levels,
with
answers resulting
be seen in the
as will
other
from
next
the passenger's
a set representing
to delay
and response
perception
or time
spent at a facility,
in
terms
three
distinct
levels
expressed
of
of
satisfaction
different
towards
from very short
to
service
conditions
ranging
facility.
very long times at that
particular
3.
Passenger-Specific
Information:
to
Includes
factors
related
demand
that
differentiate
constitute
would
between
identify
various
the
individual
flight/passenger
passenger
categories,
and
such
93.
category,
purpose of trip,
as flight
long haul),
and other
nationality,
important.
surveyor
might find
BUILDING
6.3.1.2
After
(P-R)
of
information
MODELS
it would
has been gathered
and processed,
The
the
models.
construct
perception-response
the
Model
is
defined
graphical
as
to
now be possible
Perception-Response
presentation
minor
PERCEPTION-RESPONSE
information
all
range
(medium or
the
that
flight
the
of
collective
towards
full
the
of
attitudes
category
of
service,
of
operational
in
terms of the perception
population
of the passenger
expressed
(representing
different
the
to
amounts
measure
of
service
to
the
levels
different
their
response
and
of
operation),
levels
distinct
into
of
service
conditions
classified
respective
passengers
range
the
In this
percentage
service.
work,
time
to
spent
of
replying
amount
a
certain
whether
passengers
by
them
facility
delay)
at
a particular
was perceived
just
Good/acceptable,
tolerable,
unacceptable,
or bad/totally
with
satisfaction
related
diagram
to
for
significance
P-R
The
amount of
this
model
of
the
time
is
spent
shown in
P-R models
in
(or
delay).
Figure
6.2.
The
But
of
(or
as:
is
conceptual
what is the
this
methodology?
be
that
could
is
practically
model
a mechanism
for
implemented
to derive
'airports'
standards
and set service
facilities,
based
and reactions
opinions
on passengers
processing
Mathematically,
towards operational
service
at those facilities.
role-playing
model, but functionally,
in
it
devise
to grade operational
serves
as a scaling
service
is unique
It
terms of the service
time.
amongst the
measureknown scaling
is
7.7.3.
It
in Section
a
methods
presented
conglomerate
of Likert
scales,
and Thurstonian
attitude
measuring
it
represents
a form
of
the
three
demonstrate
its
curves
operating
chiracteristics(bad)
S
Thurstonian,
the
normal (tolerable)
and
resembling
and an
(good)
inverted-S
Likert.
Implementing
P-R models
resembling
where
could
achieve
the
following
goals:
94.
1.
Assessment
of
conditions
facility.
probable
particular
Convenient
2.
its
for
service
of
spread
whole
service
and disaggregation
superposition
at
P-R models
and types
as
attainable
possibly
of
to
all
covering
the categories
of
of passengers/flights,
be
Several
can
categories
of
passengers/flights
facility
P-R
form
P-R
to
of
a
model
one
model, or a single
merged
into
P-R models for these categories
be
using
split
several
can
that facility.
(incrementing)
the graduation
Manipulating
3.
of the service
desired.
help
in
determining
the
accuracy
measure will
related
facilities.
4.
determination
Easy
the
of
percentile
passenger
in
Perception
variable.
for
standards
to
service
any
of
this
technique,
one should
bear
in
facts:
of
to
passengers
is
This
response
population.
implementing
Nevertheless,
following
the
mind
1.
the
of
group
particularly
of
airports,
is relative
as
as well
service
important
service
when setting
during
different
times
or at
had
demand
changed.
and/or
by
the
to
request
of passengers
aspects of operation
which certain
2. Since it is based on responses
(surveyor)
to
to
their
service,
perception
state
observer
be
biased
by:
poor communication,
could
easily
replies
wording
of
part
of
questionnaires,
passengers,
etc.
degree
passengers,...
A certain
3.
confusion
unrealistic
of
or
implicit
these
poor
and misinterpretation
inconsistent
views held
is
hypothecism
in
involved
on
by
the
fact
by
that
P-R models,
the
manifested
demand
is experiencing
the service
the passenger
a
particular
of
level
to
that
only,
and then
extending
personal
estimating
hypothetical
for
demand levels,
which he or she has
perception
basic
not
4-.
principles
actually
Although
perception
influence
included
passengers
of
the
experienced.
P-R models
and
response
of
are
to
carriers/operators
P-R
the
within
actually
based
service
is
on
passengers
indirectly;
but
,
implicitly
personal
the
recognized
Operational
model.
service
block
(being
building
the
experience
and
that
and
95.
levels)
is
to
demand
to
assumed
response
reference
other
to
intend
be the kind of service
to or can provide
those parties
Decisions
the travelling
public.
of those parties,
and policies
from their
to operations
that are related
originate
and service,
by
of
resources
available,
enforced
own perception
regulations
law or operational
dictated
by the technicalities
of
procedures
imposed
the operation,
on or
and the
various
considerations
to their
by the
induced
level
service
of
the
travel-market.
air
by establishing
procedure
now culminates
for
framework
terms of a level
of service
(Ti
facilities
in question.
Time values
and T2)
is
deduced.
This
levels
be
the
service
can now
of
service
in
standards
processing
delineating
by
achieved
of
opinion
delay)
(or
dominant
of
perception
service
the
three
the
curves
(or
three
durations
is
facilities
of the passenger
is examined for
is
where there
of
to
and response
good, tolerable,
of service:
different
towards
passengers
in
particular
attitude
behaviour
the
observing
passengers
representing
if
desired)
states
more
a state
nature
6.3.1.3
The
specific
and
monitored,
(in percentage)
population
increments
all
of
time.
the
for
When a
of the
in perception
shift
from one state
then that point
to another,
of passengers
majority
describe
in time where the shift
took place,
actually
a
would
in
from one level
by the
to another
service
as perceived
change
is any
Majority
of passengers.
population
of passenger
majority
situation
exists
curves.
This
area is
the three
one level
of satisfaction
two.
This description
is
with service
demonstrated
unshaded (blank)
area between
bounded by the 100% line
from the
the
the
top
(good/tolerable/bad)
from the
and segments of
curves
bottom.
The point
(Time),
on the service
where a
measure scale
from one curve to another
is observed,
the shift
shift
represents
from
the
of the perception
and response
of
majority
of passengers
to another.
one level
96.
v
0
N
O
0.
N
0
.,...
4)
U
i
CL
40
+j
a.
a)
U
C
0
U
N
'O
w
L
U-
97.
is homogenous,
when the passenger
population
surveyed
degree
is
them in
a high
of
amongst
consensus
their
opinion
about the state
changes in
of service,
50 percentile,
the
service
usually
occur
around
the views
in population.
of the
average
passenger
Normally,
and there
formulating
levels
of
reflecting
However,
in
occasions
of non-homogeniety
lack of consensus on service
surveyed,
knowledge
and
population.
in
shifts
In special
circumstances,
between extreme
opinions
population
or lack of
of
passenger
amongst them,
confusion
at a particular
on nature
of service
facility,
changes in the levels
of service
would not be close to
here implies
50 %. Non-homogeniety
that the P-R model is actually
composed of more than one model,
which could be broken down to a
homogenous
(e. g.,
in
flights)
the
survey
number of
groups
there
states
be
could
of
service
some large
in
resulting
(as will
be
tolerable
absence of a middle
of service
state
in
Birmingham
the case. of
traffic
seen in
schedule-European
having
Airport
framework
Nine),
study in Chapter
a
with
ending
levels
two
of service:
only
good and bad.
the
CAPACITY PROCEDURE
6.3.2
The capacity
of
a facility
service
specified
standard)
function
the performance
of
levels.
To avoid
confusion
understand
preferable
planning.
fully
the
go back
Transportation
to
taken
users
consumed
could
from the
that
over
nature
to the
(relative
determined
to
a
from
derived
relationships
demand
facility
at different
terminology,
these
of
basics
of
and
to
relationships,
transportation
try
to
it
is
systems
is viewed by Manheim(69)
as a process in
transportation
consumed to produce
services
which resources
are
in a particular
environment.
by a performance
function
resources
transportation
be
(R),
Thus transportation
which
level
relates
of
is
the
service
(T)depending
option
on the
about design and operation
of the system,
of the system (V), i. e.:
P. F. _ iE(R, S, V, T)
characterized
magnitude
offered
specific
and the
of
(S),
decision
volume
of
98.
The
function
performance
dimensional
space
describes
a
M.
in
surface
On the
the
hand,
four
the
are both
in which
S=
a fundamental
aspect
of the
(E),
of
economic,
of
and the
(R) and (S)
transportation
systems
performance.
The actual
shapes
depend significantly
relationships
will
in which a particular
on the environment
system is being
operated,
as well as on the characteristics
of the system itself.
Meanwhile,
the
the
classical
function
performance
of the system
users
transportation
planning
from
supply function,
could be'derived
to relate
the capacity
or the volume of
(V) to some function
In urban
of price.
the supply
and road traffic
engineering,
function
has been referred
to as 'the
function,
user cost-volume
describe
to
the
level
capacity,
of
service,
and
price
these
characteristics
transportation
of
However,
systems.
Morlock(10)
pointed
the designation
out that,
apparently,
of the
function
the usual
user
cost-volume
inconsistent
with
economic
describes
the
in
theory.
the
quantity
the market.
In
economic
between
relationship
of that commodity
It
is
function
the supply
to as user-cost-volume,
The capacity
between the
as
a
definition
procedure,
of
supply
of
theory,
that
a supply
the
supply
function
price
of a commodity,
and
be produced or supplied
will
for this
particular
reason,
such transportation
systems
or travel
cost functions.
therefore,
is
often
function
in
the
which
probable
function
are
referred
the relationship
establishes
service
volume of a facility,
and some expression
that
describe
would
reasonably
the
by that
service
provided
facility
for
the
users,
at the corresponding
volume
service
(demand).
The expression
for
the
be
service
could
standards
interpreted
in terms of average
time per user, maximum number of
for service
users waiting
the density
at any time,
of users per
99.
area,
unit
the
supply
Processing
of
conditions
the
and size
the
of
facilities,
existing
on supply
argument raised
holding-storing
to
apply
not
based
functions
on
supply
(whose
facilities
linking
or
literature
are
Going
back
means
by
real-world
have
techniques
computerized
the
of
problems
the use
use
operation
using
simulations
as
types
adopted
relationships
of
from
of
simple
various
to obtain
is
become
So,
to
The
processes.
information
synthesized
a
frequently
of
common
utilized
The following
: "Whenever
simulation(88)
conditions.
and developed
operational
been devised
kinds
has
research,
and
in many disciplines.
expressions
the
cases
models
are too
of
situations
real-world
operations
those
fluids
the appropriate
functions,
supply
and performance
be established
are,
these
could
which
relationships
is usually
It
techniques.
and often
very costly,
to
information
such
to
construct
gather
required
relations
approach
of
two
and adequate.
from
simulate
For
and
theory
the
to
simulation
infeasible
on
sufficient
from
Fruin).
standards
and
surface
the
crowding
standards),
permissible
be
derived
function
could
supply
accomplished
the
define
and
facilities
serve
in
the
overall
components
process between
In addition,
modes.
functions
does
performance
and
(which
have
fixed
facilities
by
operating
they
that
extent
other
while
airport,
passenger
air transport
formerly
the
environment,
system's
methodology,
are derived.
only
the
to
to
system,
and auxiliary
staging
and baggage transferrence
as
mainly
expression.
facilities
processing
important
are
most
airport
the
characterize
actually
function
In this
suitable
or any other
function
of
facilities
in
practice
for
various
justifies
quotation
one
applicable,
prefers
to
algebraic
closed-form
model
yielding
in
However,
many
systems inputs
outputs.
and
analytic
condition
assumed by solvable
analytic
relating
simplified
do not hold in
the
real-world,
and more realistic
hence simulation..
The standard
a specific
of
question
system
as
models
use of
or to obtain
its
some of
100.
parameters
are
As shown in
of: defining
Figure
Use of simulation
to develop
and test
to use of
mathematical
models is conceptually
analogous
other
"
by
develop
theory.
to
physical
scientists
new
experiments
establishing
changed.
6.3,
the
input
the
relations.
DEFINITION
6.3.2.1
the
parameters,
OF INPUT
Operational
and
that
parameters
the
characterize
particular
distributions,
of
channels,
procedure
executing
follows
simulation
the
steps
and
runs,
PARAMETERS
define
process,
with a certain
function
of
of the performance
include
Those input
arrival
parameters
(servicing)
time distributions,
number
associated
behaviour
process.
processing
in
capacity
to
addition
less
other
parameters:
significant
Distributions:
1. Arrival
(rate
is
facility,
to
and distribution)
a
of passengers
input
It
describes
the
to any servicing
the major
process.
In
demand for
facility.
imposed
that
particular
service
at
literature,
theory
has been considered
it
as the most
queueing
is
It
basic
important
of the
a
queueing
model.
elements
of
Arrival
represented
(finite
source
by
the
or
and
probabilistic
arrival
in
any
(arrival)
case
state
of
infinitesmal
rate
(X
from
calling
in
a
servicing
process
fashion.
the
Mathematically,
entities
into
a
the
given
from a servicing
and departure
system
Markovian
Birth-and-Death
Process(91),
to
the
of
of
time-varying
probabilistic
a special
which the
arrival
infinite)
system
interval.
which
changes
It
is
the
by at most
changes
average
is
in
of
rate
k),
(arrivals)
(k) entities,
when the system contains
and changes
down with
(departure)
(,
is
a death
the
average
rate
which
*uk),
(departures)
deaths
rate
at which
number of
occur
when the
in
is W.
The distribution
entities
system
of interarrival
times (times
between successive
is
equally
arrivals
of entities)
101.
DEMAND LEVELS
PROCESSING DISTRIBUTION
PATTERNS
ARRIVAL DISTRIBUTION
DISCRETE - EVENT
SERVICE
AND
SIMULATION
MEASURES
PERFORMANCE MODELS
CAPACITY
Figure
6.3
Schematic
Diagram
of
Capacity
Procedure
102.
in
important
the
most
the
of
distributions,
used
arrival
is
Poisson,
widely
systems
queueing
discrete
designation
mathematical
is
which
total
One of
in
especially
the
with
associated
the
process.
an
plays
important
many
models for
queueing
Larson and Odoni(75)
situations(85).
even go to the
real-life
More
'arrivals'.
'poisson'
to
of
using
extent
as a synonym
in
is
found
description
distribution
detailed
Poisson
the
of
between
An important
Gerlough and Barnes(90).
exists
relationship
Exponential
In
the
distributions.
Poisson
and the
effect,
If
distribution
from Poisson(85).
Exponential
could be derived
the
modelling
in
role
Poisson
of
the
random
random
development
of
(discrete)
the number of
represents
Exponential
the
variable
random
between
two successive
the
time
interarrival
time is Exponential
with
(t)
is
interval
during
time
arrivals
variable
time,
per
unit
arrivals
(continuous)
will
represent
i. e., whereas the
arrivals,
mean =
Poisson
the
number
V.
'=
mean
with
distinctive
will
outcome
of
Forgetfullness
in
distribution
warrant
to
arrivals
one
is
other
The
describing
the
outcome is
Markovian
the
of
outcomes-
suitability
incident,
arrival
For
of
the
Poisson
to the airport's
arrivals
processing
been verified
and recommended by previous
2. Service
queueing
occurrence
of
facilities.
processing
the implementation
particularly,
Service
occurrences
Property(91).
probability
time
small
the
two
of
Poisson
and
the
and simplicity
and
manipulation
of mathematical
coupled with the realistic
phenomenon of randomness of
(stochasticity
all
and the Forgetfullness
property),
implementation
the
distribution
in modelling
this
of
arrivals
already
a
and that
has the
distribution
ease
comparative
handling,
modelling
the
during
occur
to (,At),
proportional
independent
of
The Exponential
that
properties,
and
arrivals,
(Process)
time
facilities,
has
research(92).
Time Distributions
distribution
is
that
could
model,
from
passengers
airport
environs
distribution
for
the
servicing
the
important
of a
other
element
define
departure
of
the
actual
in
facilityhence its
capacity
103.
handling
processing
expression
(and departure
or servicing
pattern
of
distribution
of
The
passengers.
occurrence
of, service
occurrence
of
consists
from the
the
of
system),
times
or
of individual
service
times.
Through determining
various
the
rate
of
the
and
frequency
frequency
times
throughout
of
service.
this
operation,
the
major.
servicing
process.
could
..
characterize
capacity
of the
servicing
unit
of, a processing
facility.
In simulation,
times are randomly
from
service
selected
frequency
distribution
a particularwith.: a given
statistical
(usually
the
parameter
Apart
from
this
mean).
statistical
the
distributions
shape- of frequency
is of special
in simulation.
Since it is derived, from the population
time values
from which the frequency
distribution
was
it
is the means of re-establishing
constructed,
the
distribution
it, known to the simulation
and. making
parameter,
importance
of service
initially
particular
technique.
The decision
distribution
depends
values
input
to
on
constructed:
If
I:
the
type, of frequency
which
particular
be used in, the simulation,
should
process
actually
the
from
distribution
the
sample. size
which
was
of
s
is
implying
lack
the
small,
of
knowledge
(service
on the
times)-,
then
random variable
the
distribution
(rectangular),
be uniform
would probably
the
where
.
that
probability
time
drawn would,. fall
service,
values
randomly
between maximum and minimum values
is equally
likely.
A step
furthur
would be the triangular
distribution,
where there
a
_is
the mode within,
around
cluster
the
range, between
minima
and
(Figure
6.4a).
maxima,
If the sample size is large enough to represent
II:
times
service
observed
over
or shape of
4
logic:
there
sample
size
very
interval.
a certain
the distribution
of
probability
time (for
then
the
behaviour
the following
comply with
be an-ultimate
lower limit
(associated
should
would always
human capabilities
with natural
of
times
that
service
could
possibly
operations.
times are
operation,
servers),
be attained
bounds short
which
in the real-world
On the
other hand,
high values
extremely
service
of
.
probable
yet infrequent,
because there
is always a low
it would take the server
that
longer
a considerably
one reason
or
another)
to
handle
and serve
a particular
104.
the
Hence,
passenger than it would take with other
passengers.
is
distribution
bound (maximum service
time)
a
upper
of the
little
However,
if
the
stretched.
are
reasonably
servers
the passengers
with
efficient,
are predominently
well-experienced
operations
airport
is more or less
towards
tendency
in
distributions
and procedures,
then
regular,
normality.
operation
and the processing
distribution
the
show a
will
The
adopted
commonly
most
Gamma family;
the
similar
systems
are
Erlangian,
because they are
Exponential,
used
and Chi-squared,
in
bounded at one end,
to describe
random variables
specifically
theory
Exponential
The
Negative
applications(93).
queueing
is a Gamma distribution
distribution
with a shape factor
= 1, and
model for the time of a single
outcome to take place if
The
occur independently
rate(93).
average
events
at a constant
distribution
this
of
with a mean
assumes large
variability;
use
(au)
(JJ2),
largest
it
has
the
and
variance
variances
of
of
one of
it
is
the
it
associated
with
prevailing
operating
irregular
of
all
conditions,
distribution
Since
types(91).
have
characteristically,
this
patterns,
service
considerably
and variable
is
terminals'
for
distribution
airport
particularly
suitable
is
facilities.
distribution
Generally,
Exponential
the
processing
in
its
for
theory
used
queueing
mathematical
applications
widely
is a special
Erlangian,
and tractibility.
case of
simplicity
(the shape factor
It is the
is an integer).
Gamma distribution
independent
Exponential
distributed
of
and identically
random
sum
An interesting
is
of Gamma distributions,
variables(94).
property
increases,
the distribution
shape factor
In practice,
normality(93).
previous
research(95)
times
terminals
observed
at
airport
service
that
as the
approaches
showed
fitted
that
both
distributions
(as
Figure
and Erlangian
shown in
This is expected
6.4b).
So, it
the above discussion.
and confirms
be
that
the
Negative
Exponential
concluded
could
shifted
distribution
be adopted
for
should
conditions
where servicing
Exponential
are
conditions
somewhat
varying,
and
should be used for more regular
servicing
Erlangian
conditions.
distribution
105.
F
R
E
Q
U
E
N
C
Y
Triangular
Rectangular
1I
MIN.
(a)
MODE
..,
--1
Time
Service
Time-
Negative
Exponential
( oc =2)
Erlangi
Actual Observation
/
,"i
jj,, ,,.
%;
(b)
Observed
..
and Exponential,
/ Erlangian.
MAN
(c)
Figure
Service
MAX.
and Triangular.
Rectangular
Shifted
F
R
E
Q
U
E
N
C
Y
(Uniform)
6.4.
Service
Normal.
Processing
Times
Distributions.
Time
106.
Using
III:
times
service
generating
represent
real-word
3.
Number
of
If
service
(Figure
distribution,
normal
that
are
6.4c)
would
result
in
and
would
not
unrealistic
situations.
Channels
time
the
reflects
unit,
a processing
in parallel
arranged
then
of
supply
the
number of operational
channels
the overall
indicate
supply
of the facility,
and
defines
that
the capacity
and characterizes
parameter
it
would
is this
the
size
of
a facility.
6.3.2.2
SIMULATION RUNS
A proper
simulation
simulation
Those runs
technique
runs
sufficient
should
by that
cover
is
to
all
adopted
establish
service
facility.
to
the
execute
a number
of
model.
performance
be
that may possibly
volumes
Depending
particular
on the specific
particular
the technique
output
of
required,
and the information
include
on the following:
would typically
statistics
(delay
time
at the
or total
spent)
per passenger
facility,
in terms of the mean,
maximum,
expressed
minimum,
standard
processed
features
of
these
1.
runs
Time
occurrence.
2. Queue length,
in (1) above.
3.
Percentage
deviation,
expressed
utilization
and
in
of
the
calulated.
5. Other
modeler's
capabilities
more specific
request,
of the
information
depending
simulation
same statistical
servers,
deviation.
distribution
frequency
size)
of
on
package.
parameters
expressed
from
interest,
available
of
which
as the
mean,
statistics
produced
facilities
as
are
upon the
and
107.
Aspects
to methods
related
facilities
of modelling
and
processing
in Chapter
in detail
are described
runs
Eight presents
and
and discusses
properties
simulation
conducting
Seven,
while Chapter
capabilities
of
different
techniques.
simulation
PERFORMANCEMODELS
6.3.2.3
data generated
it
by means of simulation,
synthesized
be
to construct
the performance
possible
now
models,
which
would
the following
describe
relationships:
(in
Average time
time
1.
terms
spent)
per
of delay
or total
levels.
demand
in
different
the
facility
particular
at
passenger
From the
3.
the
facility,
2.
for
to
related
Samples
showing performance
be found in Chapter Nine.
model
After
the
would
two procedures
now be possible
of
to
this
facilities
processing
could
service
standards
of
by
the boundary
marking
achieved
framework
previously
model
performance
conditions
operating
assessed
prevailing
By dividing
resulting
or bad,
and
obtained
derived
by the
at
values
of the level
from
P-R models,
the
capacity
procedure.
demand levels
in
different
in
evaluated
methodology
establish
facilities
and
are
for
6.4
it
demand levels.
different
light
of
the
of
service
onto the
Effectively,
that
operational
facility
service
themselves.
as perceived
and graded by the passengers
the performance
model into
where
segments or regions
is considered
tolerable,
operational
service
as good,
boundary
values
(in
terms
model
levels
demand levels)
of
to designate
of
service.
the
could
also be
of that
capacity
By so doing,
108.
method
capacities
of
to
related
The
associated
the
after
arranged
as to
aspect
at
could
description,
and
discussions
with
it,
with
reader
assessment
is
obtained,
where
linked
be directly
and
standards.
service
presentation,
methodology,
each
of
operational
facilities
processing
systematic
aspects
various
in different
topics
on
incorporate
will
cover
a time.
find
capacity
application
that
and
the
level
remaining
of
service
and
the
of
features
So,
subjects.
chapters
procedures
are
so
for
CHAPTER
SEVEN
COLLECTION
7.1
OF
REQUIRED
INFORMATION
NATURE OF INFORMATION
Collection
of
fall
methodology
information
into
two
two procedures:
methodology's
Pieces of information
sought
Their
method of collection.
main
implementing
for
required
the
to
corresponding
level
of service.
classes,
and
in nature,
capacity
are diverse
and vary in
depend to a large
characteristics
their
importance
influence
their
on
relative
on the
and
extent
diversity
the
This
terminal
of
arises
as
a
system.
performance
terminal
the
from
uniqueness
airport
of the
and sensitivity
involved
in
where
are
responsible,
many
parties
environment,
different
ways, for performing
of the system's
activities
various
All
be
those
synchronized
activities
and
should
operation.
performed
objectives
(albeit
or
of
and comfort,
thousands
of
Generally,
to;
harmony,
mutual
goals
time
predetermined
objectives
a
in
and
processing,
fulfilling
one
certain
each
dissimilar
in
or even contradicting)
to successfully
the
space,
achieve
serving,
supervising,
regulating,
people
accommodating,
this
going through
information
traffic
-Pedestrian
inside
various
sought
flow
facilities
in
ensuring
safety
catering,
system
airports
characteristics
of the terminal.
and controlling
round the clock.
are
primarily
of
passengers
related
moving
iii.
>>
t .;
110.
that
Aspects
-..
particular
the
specify
characteristics
airport,
such as:
of demand,
arrival
composition
demand (seasonal,
operational
-,S
such as:
passengers'
patterns,
daily,
weekly,
monthly,
demand
of
at
characteristics
temporal
patterns
and
of
hourly).
facilities
under consideration,
(in terms of number of units
size
characteristics
layout,
physical
of
facility),
sequence
of
a
and
arrangement
relative
comprising
;
in the system,
detailed
facilities
and
regulatory
procedures
:,
imposed
in each one,
adopted,
practices
working
measures
other
-.
data.
operational
and, other supporting
help
in
that
Information
service
offered,
could
categorizing
-"
in
for
particular
establishing
service
standards
aid
and
facilities.
terminal
different
to
the
collect
and
methods
means
-dictate
information,
the
factors
that
certain
and
aforementioned
be
These
the
of
considered.
proper
should
method
selection
include:
the purpose for which the survey is needed, the
factors
There
are
:,
required
disaggregation,
level
operational
the information
7.2
7,2.1:
conditions
at
collection
the,
of
extent
or
situation
and
particular
airport,
effort,
aggregation
associated
parties
and the
resources.
with
available.
Information
means
detail,
of
time-dependency,
of
inside
collected
airport
surveys;
passenger
their-objectives,
to
according
vary:
The
purpose of
scale.
and-.
diverse
be
as
could
out,;
airport
='u
.
._
:
surveys
airports
are
of
the
is
often
surveying
content,
carried
out by
techniques
that
techniques
adopted,
airport
surveys,
as Braaksma(96)
points
but in-general,
techniques,
as their
following
types:
i
1
,(1i
III
1.
Direct
readings
includes
incorporating
observation,
head
help
either
manually
or with
data-logging(95),
tape-recorded
counts
a device.
of
where
and
It
time
also
continuous
is kept by recording
into
a tape recorder,
record
or specially
designed field
portable
and programmable
calculator.
techniques
to
2.,. ".,Photographic
are
sometimes
used
observe
locations
direct
for
at
certain
unsuitable
operation
where
complete
and subsequently,
observations,
recorded,
films
at will
with
include
recording
photography.
3.-; 'Tagging,
the
throughout
of
involves
could
the
tracing
by means of
Time is entered
terminal
active
information
In this
timing
participation.
this
technique.
are
be readily
of information.
no potential
waste
by cinecamera,
video
carries.
passenger
journey.
intra-terminal
'agent'
in
an
actingas
minimal
sets
data
camera,
continuously
from
extracted
Techniques
or
time-lapse
of
passengers
movements
tag which the
an identifiable
on it at every stage of the
is actually
sense, the passenger
but with
his or her own movement,
Many surveys
were successfully
Survey(81)
Airport
In Manchester
using
conducted
it
in
in
'the
Germany(97),
Card
System',
called
was
and
and
where.
Canada(96) where the method was named 'time-stamping'.
follows
the movements
4, - Tailing,
where the
surveyor
of a
through
during
the
the
terminal
airport
period
of
passenger
Detailed
however,
information
be
it
can
gathered,
observation.
could,
to
prove
in
adopted
was
5.. -'",Interviews;
be quiet
This technique
expensive
and obtrusive.
the Heathrow Passenger and Baggage Survey(98).
the surveyor
interview
would undertake
a personal
ask
passengers,
with
the specially
to determine
population,
collected
the
then
questions,
prepared
questionnaire.
the specific
characteristics
the
record
This technique
of
answers on
is adopted
controlled
Consequently,
or
the
number
of
interviewing
stations
levels
when activity
conducted
and the survey
minimal,
sample size is small(100).
and the desired
should
be
are
low
112.
6.
Collected
distributed
questionnaires,
by the surveyor
which
to
are
self-administered,
passengers,
are
and
when completed
This technique
is most suitable
returned.
when the respondents
have
little
time,
to
in
the
spare
answering
questions
of
Collection
interviewer.
be
of completed
would
questionnaires
inside
just
the terminal
to leaving,
at some point
either,
prior
technique,
the respondent
or with the mail-back
mail
would later
the
completed
the surveyor
interviewing,
that
and
on the
largely
the
success
good-will
such
concise,
simple,
Statistical
7.
certain
documents,
rate
surveys
of
the
be noticeably
would
is highly
-dependent
low.
In
the
on
general,
use
of
and readily
understandable
questionnaire(100).
In many occasions,
records
and documented data:
in
files
information
valuable
of
already
exists
worksheets,
agencies
for
mainly
and
unpublished,
would be required
instance,
and statistical
associated
their
own
then
For
returns
response
of
to
questionnaire
on the respondent
all
operations
administrative
to access
permission
to
extract
information
purposes.
this
source
information
whatever
If
they
are
of information
found useful.
to air transport
movements
related
from ATC tower logs.
Similarly,
much useful
be obtained
from records
of airlines
and files
could be extracted
information
could
handling
airport
and
airport
agencies,
government
authorities,
Undoubtedly,
airport
with
organisations
data
collecting
of
records
agencies,
and
and
civil
aviation
even concessionnaires.
to be a valuable
source
airport
records
could prove
information.
With
coordinated
organization,
efficient
of
handling,
(if
by
accompanied
statistical
practicable)
compilation,
storage,
systems,
a
computerized
and handling
substantial
directly
forgotten.
However,
"...
airport
extracted
This could
in
spite
Peculiarities
unappropriate
for
of
data
operations
from
files
base
that
can
are
be made available,
usually
shelved
and
acceptable
planning
to
and
airport
design
organisations
purposes,
that
require
are
most
113.
interpretation
careful
national
have
organisations
information.
such
data
of
The
America(103),
100 U. S.
furnish
annual
'Air
International
Air
Association
Transport
Transport
purpose,
future
forecasting
and
IATA(8)
Association-
to
Another"
Aviation
publishes
annual
Usually,
methods.
airport
surveys
The appropriate
each.
method
proper
include:
factors
should
information
of
associated
conducting
2." Approval
and cooperation
parts
of the airport
under
be conducted.
survey is'to
3. Cost
the
4.
range
estimated,
survey.
Considerations
conditions,
caused-to
5. `Local
passengers
any-of
its
survey
method
parts),
the
obtrusiveness,
by the survey.
and operational
-which
or another.
organisation,
of the
decided
conditions
at
favour
either
and feasibility
implementing
when
the
and goal
of
available
or
interference
or
the
also
aforementioned
other
They
collecting
the
for
those
which
allocated
the
for
normal
with
inconveniences
airport
particular
or prohibit
of
the
survey.
responsible
parties
for
jurisdiction,
and resources
regarding
operating
of all
their
of
members.
in
collection
survey
techniques
after
careful
A
parties.
and involved
tests
trial
and
several
appropriateness
be considered
encourages
ICAO(106),
contracting
use a combination
is
combination,
discussions
and
with all
study
is arrived
conclusion
at after
pilot
to explore
the
surveys
Certain
its
the
acquisition
forms
statistical
Organisationfor
statistics
top
data
and
practices
international
enhance
demand.
Civil
International
of
Internationally,
publications.
their
to upgrade
authorities
world
wide,
by recommending
the use of special
techniques,
that
of
Civil
Administration(101),
airport
for
importance
the
information
for
the
publish
compiled
Civil
Aviation
Authority(104),
the U. K.,
In
similar
"-. Many
traffic
airport
realized
Aviation
and
annually
airports.
already
Federal
Board(102),
Aeronautics
to
related
the
use of
(or
one
114.
the
of survey,
of detail
(which,
desired
in turn,
6. Level
-,
accuracy
study as a whole,
and degree of
hence
is linked
to sample size,
cost).
z
t..
Passenger
In., Heathrow
information
tailing
Baggage
and
collection
chosen
interviews,
technique,
direct
and data
the
methods of
observations,
from files
and
'static'
extraction
reports.
unpublished
Manchester
LUT's
were:
Survey(98),
the
Airport
Survey
in
conducted
the main
direct
following
1974(95)
in
techniques
random
suevey:
(Card
technique
System)-, tagging
observations,
interviewing,
and time-lapse
cinecamera
photography.
implemented
In.. the
survey
to
Administration
to
questionnaires
direct
observation
the
operations
Federal
Aviation
data for
and validation
included:
self-administered
interviews
airlines,
of
U. S.
the
collect
calibration
the techniques
used
ALSIM model(99),
terminal
by
commissioned
with
at - various
passengers,
in
facilities
the
and
the
proper.
tz,.
ASSOCIATED
WITH
SURVEYS
AIRPORT
"PROBLEMS
7.2.2
Numerous
surveys,
problems
exist,
difficulties
and
which
process.
collectionbe
organisational,
could,
with
airport
information
the
associated
affect
could -adversely
The sources
and
operational,
causes
or of
of
these
problems
survey-administrative
nature.
1.
Organisational:
;.
organisations
involved
and coordinating
task.
Getting
negotiating
essential
conduct
arranging
Due
the
survey
for the
should
approval
to
in
the
the
with
the
large
number
of
operations
all
approval
be the first
of
and
parties
the
airport,
of
them is a difficult
of
step,
and collaboration
airport
to
of
authority
be followed
other
partries.
but
to
by
115.
authority
arise
might
where the airport
in the
to include
of the airport
all
parts
(probably
decide
later
in the last
moment) to
However,
a situation
approve first
would
survey,
but
to
restrict
the
survey
be
could
only
blow
a serious
to
of
certain
parts
to the survey,
the
could
which
months of preparations,
waste valuable
curtail
This situation
the study as a whole.
jeopardize
International
this
during
work in the Birmingham
be
later
in
Nine.
Chapter
as
will
mentioned
and
In other
help in
the
occasions,
airport
information,
providing
type of information
This
airport.
evidently
and
resources,
was experienced
Survey,
Airport
to
authority
either
that
for
be
security,
revealed
not
such
information
have
do
they
such
or
economic
not
reasons,
political,
that
to provide
ready,
feel
do not
they
or simply
obliged
this
to
Again,
the
information
case
was also
surveyor.
2.2.1.
in
Section
in
briefly
this
work
as
mentioned
experienced
Airlines
survey.
Airport
might
As was
Survey,
also
have
should
of the
on some aspects
International
Birmingham
reservations
in
actualy
encountered
the airlines
using
the
agree
might
airport
to
information
from
their
concerning
own work-sheets
some
provide
but only on
flights,
throughputs
daily
and load factors
on their
from publishing
that
the surveyor
the condition
refrain
should
load
throughput
disaggregate
and
airline
containing
any material
factor
airlines'
between
figures.
public
The obvious
reasons
image,
and influence
for
of
this
is
attitude,
market
the
competitiveness
airlines.
in the airport
organisations
(i.
immigration,
agencies
e.,
in
to
participate
surveys
observations,
performed
stems
between
from
them
the
and
towards
surveys
and customs).
or
approve
to
sensitivity
of
passengers,
and
116.
the
of
confidentiality
information
Hence,
is
operations
1 -1
often
control
measures
associated
with
practiaclly
by them.
adopted
agencies'
governmental
unobtainable.
be accounted
for at all
The role
of the Unions should
stages of
In Heathrow Passenger and Baggage survey of 1972(98),
the survey.
in
timetable
had to
due to
delays
be altered,
the survey
with
negotiations
airport
Possible
Operational:
2.
the
employees
interference
in
operating
conditions
normal
the flow
impeding
of pasengers,
hesitation
of airport
authority
surveys.
in the
is
nature,
obtrusive
they
are
the
survey
with
the
to
extent
airport
for
the prime
reason
the
of
the
to conduct
approval
to participating
might object
its
towards
feel
apprehensive
to
the passengers
because they might
survey
of
the
Moreover,
unions.
grant
of
press
time
which
they
can
if
they participate
waste
and answer questions,
afford
they are simply
that
feel
or ready to participate,
not prepared
find
difficult
the
long
they
too
too
or
questionnaire
or
to
not
they
to
answer.
from
arise
might
problems
finance,
the
availability
manpower,
or
of
during
the
might exert
unanticipated
restraints
Survey-administrative:
3.
on
restrictions
which
equipment,
survey period.
Some
it
7.3
The
base
is
methodology,
information.
These information
between
different
therefore
be
for
essential
divided
between
airports.
collected
the
implementation
capacity,
and level
may be airport-specific,
Seperate
specifically
sets
of information
for
each
of
of
this
service
varying
should
airport.
117.
in
Alternatively,
feasible,
using
certain
occasions,
information
available
be
could
for use at
generalization
from one airport
another.
T. 4 CAPACITY PROCEDUREINFORMATION
Predominently,
information
of the
characteristics
demand-related,
either
first
is
kind,
airport
at
usually
times,
presented
to
to, `enhance
as
better
a
miscellaneous
facilities,
of
components.
information.
information
characterize
in
interpreted
of
categories
in consideration.
distributions
is
It
The
associated
with
demand on
the
terms
arrival
the
using
of
passengers
The second,
is
and waiting
processing
distributions
of
of channels,
and probabilistic
is
information
Other
equally
miscellaneous
number
lengths.
personnel,
is
It
of the various
facilities
the
distributions
its
system or any of
or facility-specific
constituted
that
patterns
of
portrayal
facilities.
servicing
requires
model
the
operational
performance
description
of
mainly
the
queue
desirable
the
establishing
to
the
related
understand
realistic
information
specific
of
characteristics,
operational
and
Such
of
operation.
representation
includes
arrangement
of
relative
behaviour
and
airport
of
passengers
and
other
all
information
minor
regulatory
measures
necessary
to
and operational
procedures.
Logically,
of
processing
facilities
could
of the
construct
performance
by means of
be
gathered
models
but most
time
this
direct-observations,
could
not be
To start
feasible.
with,
construction
of performance
models
inclusion
(yet
different
the
demand
levels
of
with
require
demand
times,
similar
patterns),
and queue
reasonably
waiting
lengths,
throughout
at predetermined
at
equal intervals
operation
levels.
Some demand levels
(especially
those-demand
the highest),
in
have
been
in
the airport,
experienced
yet or met
could not
fact.
they
may never
be
met.
Moreover,
due
to
the
stochastic
118.
the
of
nature
exactly
when to
certain
through
information
is
by
outputof
by a certain
output
the
simulation,
could
the
output
input,
of
most
could
1. It
of
2:
only
simulation
and what
data
one
will
be dictated
with
prove to
is
later
current
be very
in
by the
convenient
Enormous
levels
varying
amounts
of
of detail
reasonable
required
Simulation
input
from
the
This
is
in
features
function.
generating
Eight,
the
desired
determine
the
level
the
initial
accuracy
of
simulation
of
output
input.
detail
would
the
technology,
computer
of
any
would
get in
number
collect
models
may differ
distortion.
non-representational
Chapter
of
of
description-
systems
random
levels
to
simulated
of
certainly
Finally,
not
be
be discussed
As will
of the
demand
to
possible
operations.
that
known
level
performance
degree
or
and quality
model,
activity
of
oversimplification
not
systems
converts
interest,
into
parameters,
real
system's
caused
the
that
demand
A
observations.
be
to
synthesize
to
seem
be possibly
not
construct
simulating
devise
transfer
then
often
direct
of
could
a particular
is
to
means
would
alternative
it
short,
required
by
facilities
and observe
In
information
it
operations,
expect
pattern.
the
In
systems
use of simulation
because:
and advantageous
than any other equivalent
means
surveys.
information
various
operational
with
and degrees
can be readily
of accuracy
generated.
7.4.1
Demand patterns
categorize"
patterns
on
be
could
airports
greatly
act
as
"fingerprints"
and characterize
influence
capacity
that
their
/
identify
operations.
level
of
and
These
service
119.
facilities,
considerations
at airports'
servicing
mainly because
it_, is the time
(ultimately
variation
of demand on facilities
distributions)
arrival
rates
and
that
dictates
virtually
Quoting
from De Neufville(3):
of capacity.
attainment
"
The
...
indeed,
of a service
performance
system is,
to the
sensitive
imposed,
of loads
its
patterns
especially
when they
approach
capacity
not its
".
Consequently,
the
variations
in
patterns
of
demand,
absolute
magnitude
time
measured over some prespecified
be
in assessing
should
considered
span,
performance
of servicing
because
facilities,
facilities
having
different
airports
with
traffic
different
levels
patterns
may create
of
congestion,
eventhough they handle the same averaged demand on a busy day.
Demand pattern
be:
variations
could
seasonalvarying
monthly
daily
years,
traffic
round;, the
weeklywhere
patterns
are
different,
from one hour to another
noticeably
or hourlyvarying
in,, any given day.
Causal factors
behind
those
variations
and
in demand are extremely
fluctuations
diverse,
complex to analyse,
this
and-certainly,
patterns
of
pattern
anticipated
allocation
timetoble(107).
of
travel
air,
heuristics(107),
travel
the
scope
of this
work.
by the airlines
Demand
flights
extent
by two underlying
factors:
the
affected
timetable
flights
to
of
meet
a certain
demand,
of passenger
and the assignement
or
a great
fulfilling
and/or
crew
the schedules
is, in turn,
aircraft
Selecting
and, air
.
beyond
to
governed
which is itself
are
schedule,
development
is
environmental,
political,
imposed on all parties
a
given
dictated
by
operational,
and
involved.
Methods
airlines
scheduling
used to predict
demand
dynamic
are:
programming(108,109),
and disaggregated
demand
modelling
of air travel
with
choice(110).
this
it is necessary
methodology,
to obtain
traffic
flows.
weekly,
and hourly
seasonal,
From these flows,
demand
for
time-varying
service
the
facilities
at
is defined,
consideration
and a particular
demand pattern
of
the
the
in
is
120.
for
selected
The time-varying
use in the analysis.
demand is
interpreted
as the arrival
rate and distribution
of passengers
at
the facility,
which are the major input to the simulation
models.
demand patterns
Generally,
from statistics
are normally
obtained
by
compiled
airport
authorities
for
and/or
airlines
administrative
and operational
Often,
in
purposes.
especially
busy
large
airports,
information
is
compilation
of
such
computerized
systematically
usually
on continuous
basis(lll).
this
Throughout
the distribution
methodology,
of arrival
rate
(servicing)
facilities
processing
used for
and in constructing
is the Poisson
models,
distribution.
performance
To simplify
the arrival
is modelled
by using interarrival
simulation,
times
instead
arrival
rate.
can be interpreted
It
programmes
distributions
of
of
arrivals
SLAM computer
arrival
distributions
Creations-
with
was established
as Exponential
modelling
in
the
next
sonsidered)
to
operations
Poisson
In
times.
of
facilities,
Exponential
are
represented
as
interarrival
(Time
times
Between
given
TBC) as the parameter.
from the demand pattern
extracted
be seen later
It: will
languages
simulation
that
earlier
interarrival
Values
of
level)
(and
chapter,
all
the
provides
a uniquely
efficient
the arrival
distribution.
By
model realistically
to Appendix
C,
referring
for
the
where
computer
programmes
facilities
of the processing
it is noticed
modelling
are listed,
that
of the model programme
is
part
a FORTRAN-written
user
(FUNCTION USERF) that
function
actually
to the
models arrivals
in 20-minute
facility
time intervals.
Arrival
to a
of passengers
in any 20-minute
facility
interval
throughout
operation
period
is
directly
from the pattern
considered,
extracted
of demand
presented
into
as flows
of passengers
the facility
over time.
Time Between Creations
be the time period
(in this
would then
divided
by the mean arrival
case=. 20 minutes)
during
that
rate
interval.
Arrivals
particular
by
defined
could then be totally
its two basic parameters:
interarrival
time (TBC),
and arrival
mechanism
distribution
(EXPONential).
Except
for
the
fact
that
mean
121.
interarrival
times
depending
on
in
are
demand
assumed
level
during
constant
the
time
interval
is
pattern,
stochasticity
the
random
the
maintained
process
generation
of
distributed
interarrival
exponentially
times.
Arrival
of
passengers
(creation
is accomplished
by randomly
of entities)
TBC values from an exponentially
distributed
selecting
generating
function
in the interval
with
mean number of arrivals
=
Determination
of
the
and
by
duration
between
a compromise
that could
minutes or an hour),
losing
hence
sought
most of its
(ten,
five,
intervals
or even
excessive
computer usage with an
chosen
unit
selecting
as
that-is
this
not actually'required.
interval
is important
interval
of
result
value,
in
higher
was logically
(30
intervals
grossly
data
averaging
lower
and selecting
one minute),
unnecessary
Theoretically,
time'
determination
in the context
and- critical
of
because it specifies
assessment of operational
the
performance,
nit'of
time scale
during
which the fluctuation
of demand is
It
be unequal
different
for
facilities
may even
measured.
of,
depending
on the characteristics
and nature of operation
of each.
The importance
interval
of determination
of this
was recognized
by, De': Neufville(53)
it
where he defined
as 'the
critical
period
transient
in traffic
build
surges
over'which
He
up congestion'.
suggested
for different
some ranges for that period
even
terminal
depending
facilities
For
on the
precise
nature
of traffic.
it is
concourses,
and piers
corridors,
is
in the order of 30-45
areas"it
claim
it
be as 'high
could
counters
as an
realized-'the
the`""addition
significance
of a time
to''service
standards.
including
of that
duration
IATA(56)
'sustained
critical
factor
5-10
for
minutes,
baggage
minutes,
while for ticket
hour.
Braaksma(55)
also
period,
and suggested
interval
this
resembling
Braaksma's
adopted
view
and
in
period'
capacity/demand
the expression
and created
management,
'sustained
but
capacity',
it''was never practically
implemented.
Use of a sustained
period
cited
in
by Turner(112),
a BAA paper
was; also
was
where it
implemented
to express
the pattern
in
of arrival
to check-in,
recommended
.
122.
for
a
sustained
that
the scope of
of
certain
period
does not necessitate
high level
this, exercise
of
a particularly
facilities,
detail,
and, the similarity
of operation
of processing
20 minutes
to monitor
seems a reasonably
any
adequate
period
fluctuation
in demand during
tangible
operation.
terms
of
By definition,
arrival
passenger
in mind both
Bearing
the
models describe
different
demand
over
of a
variations
levels
covering
Thus in essence,
they
performance
service
certain
total
of
time.
percentage
measure
levels.
activity
normal
interactions.
Due to
supply/demand
could portray
influence
the
and
of
stochasticity,
operation
as extreme
as well
perfectly
real-world
levels
of
activity
in
inevitable,
and
So,
tolerence.
They
theoretical.
data,
synthesized
initially
was'.
conditions,
for
only
the
predict
demand patterns
represent
could:
possibly
exact
value
is
not
Nevertheless,
remain
continuously'Simulation.
more
therefore,
are,
demand levels.
projected
demand
projected
the
levels
It
are
sense that
the datum level,
should
purely
they
are
by the
of
particularly
deviations
or
monitored
is
Index'
less
similar,
and
the
adopted
for
which
of
real-world
patterns
is selected
This
factor
conditions
operational
be anticipated
that
could
facility.
Apart from that,
that
or
its
in
the
relevance
in simulated
demands could be
basis,
they
and error
until
Since the performance
model of
and rectified
on trial
monitored
as acceptable.
could be-considered
is based on the assumption
a facility
levels-
Those
randomness!.
of synthesizing
demand levels
all
be handled
to
of
a certain
margin
in the
inherent
of stochasticity
in the pattern
of the simulated
in
are artificial
derived
by multiplying
purpose
would
obtaining
different
with
from
traffic
extracted
by a 'Projection
Factor'.
the
procedure.
of
that
the
of
nature
demand over
it is tantamount
to
accepted
element
deviations
here
emphasized
able
simulated
be
should
ensure
from that
will
process
demand levels
be
be
to
asking
virtually
inconsistencies
of
patterns
to impossible-
consistent
is close
the
great
demand patterns
at all
be
these
should
patterns
The
assumption
checked.
that
this
purpose
to
check
that
123.
degree
the
and control
assumption
of
between simulated
and projected
patterns.
Index (SI) is:
the Simulation
in
similarity
patterns
In any simulation
run,
X1 - xi
1
SI =1N
Where:
X. = Projected
xi = Simulated
Number of
N=
interval,
in time
arrivals
time intervals.
interval,
of
desired,
For
usage.
acceptable
SI
depends
level
Six,
Chapter
distribution
by, the
servers
Alternatively,
the
Due
the
to
;-similar
limitations
.:,
in
fact
all
on
-chapter,
performance
.,
service
required
and computer
an
on
(service)
processing
rate
and
that:
distribution
suitable
facilities
-The
processing
distribution.
,.
For
a particular
interpreted
as the
accuracy
tolerence
acceptable
discussion
concluded
most
of
on the
and
to minimize
computer
utilization,
Index (SI) of 0.90 seems reasonable.
practicality,
Simulation
PROCESSING (SERVICING)
7.4.2
In,
time
a value for
governed by the
Selection
in
arrivals
is
the
to
shifted
be
used
Negative
for
airport
Exponential
facility,
the service
processing
(average)
mean
number of passengers
during
interval
that
a time
at
mean service
that
most
time
per
service
models are
between
, -interchangeably
information
of service
rates
used for
from different
gathered
and
airports.
is referred
Throughout
to
serviced
facility.
is used.
passenger
data
are comparatively
the
and because
of
airports
considered,
data
collection
mentioned
times
is
rate
whenever
in
earlier
constructing
sources
this
used.
work,
the
the
and used
source
124.
batch
exists:
of processing
incorporates
the
time-limited
two kinds
Generally,
Batch
facility
processing
by each flight,
and continuous.
the
of
use
in groups
are processed
flights.
Examples of
particular
and baggage claim,
where each facility
to the
times
at prespecified
relative
where
to their
passengers
according
or batches
kind are the check-in
this
is 'opened'
and 'closed'
for
flight
timing
the processing
;
on
of
passengers
only
specific
"
facilities
flight.
Service
times for check-in
are
that particular
by the handling
to flight
according,
agencies
sector
:categorized
in
include:
Categorization
airports
charter
considered.
operating
;
haul
tours,
Inclusive
schedule-European,
and schedule-long
due to
However,
the
flights.
and unsystematic
complexity
lack
facility,
baggage
performance
the
and
claim
associated
with
unavailability
itself,
or
of
other
or
relations,
facilities
could
Thte other
kind,
between
classifies
information
needed
organisational
within
reasons
the handling
agency
(security,
industrial
baggage
commercial
confidentiality),
in the capacity
not be included
continuous
processing,
their
to
according
passengers
them
to
the
according
facility
in consideration.
particular
facilities
such
is,
and passport
control
"
claim
procedure.
does
not
differentiate
but
flights,
features
specific
Arrival
of
passengers
distribution
to
the
of
continuous,
demand
by
dictated
flow
is
the
of
collective
and
aggregated
which
'fli.
Examples
includes
kind
the security
this
check
of
ghts.
all
control'and
part"icular
customs
facility,
therefore,
rather
the
of
for
the
clearance
the
departure
for
channel,
the
arrival
and immigration
Within'a
channel.
between
its
of
passengers
is important
demand on each.
to specify
the estimated
divisions
between EEC and non-EEC passengers
Example's of this
are the split
immigration,
betwen Red and-Green
in
for
and split
channels
.
information
Collecting
is
Customs.
these
on
all
equally
aspects
,
for
facility
important,
and values
are
each
airport
and
each
.
in
Chapter
Nine.
Direct
observation
and photographic
presented
techniques
service
are
times,
the
suitable
IF permitted.
split
methods
of
collecting
information
on
125.
7.4.3
The number of
the simulation
facility
available
process,
during
channels
operation
because it defines
the
is
important
to
of
the
capacity
as a whole.
SLAM simulation
technique
facilities.
of terminal
Adopting
modelling
facilitated
In
the
more realistic
is
the facility
case
than
to
more
one
channel
of
unidentical
servers
composed
than
type
SLAM
implements
the
more
one
of
entity,
process
branching
between
those
probabilistic
of
entities
conditional
is composed of several
In case the facility
different
channels.
SLAM would adopt the SELECT statement,
(identical)
servers,
where
(passengers)
into
the
the oncoming arriving
it branches
entities
of
if
them
servers,
occasionally
queueing
-available
Details
busy.
on these two aspects
of SLAM will
the
be presented
are
in
channels
is
servers
chapter.
next
Information
the
regarding
operational
number of
in
through
the inspection
of the facility
obtained
by : enquiring
with
agencies
about the
splits
of
the help and assistance
and
question,
from
the related
passengers
of
authorities.
airport
7.4.4
In
the
order
to
obtain
reasonably
accurate
data
be
additional
may
required,
simulations,
facilities:
Particular
I
arrangement
of
;
to each other
facilities
relative
varies
between
and
countries
as well,
another,
with
and
they
representative
include:
The
arrangement
from
one
airport
no specific
is
facility
Consequently,
the
or layout
adopted.
it
functions
in the context
as
stands
and
exactly
of
For instance,
at the particular
airport.
operations
Midlands Airport,
one passport
control
counter
preceeds
design
of
to
standard
modelled
terminal
in
East
a single
126.
check unit,
In Manchester
security
reverse.
while
Airport,
in
Birmingham
on the
by three
Airport
hand,
other
it
there
is
the
are four
followed
check units
control
counters.
passport
security
behaviour
2:.. Specific
airport
of
passengers
and/or
personnel:
be carefully
that
There are some aspects
and
should
observed
in modelling.
in
A good example of this
be
included
seen
could
Customs
the
be-presented
clearance
activity
as will
modelling
later.
imposed at each
3. -Regulatory
measures and operational
procedures
important
times
facility
are
very
service
and could
spell
facility.
However,
these
distributions
and
at that
measures
between
be
different
are
standardized
not
and
may
procedures
So,
airports.
from
should be
facilities
similar
they
separately
the'-security
check is
be
discussed
to
going
discipline:
4. -.,,,Service
imply,
some kind
of
demanding
passengers
passengers
ranks,
discipline
for
7.5
a clear
in the
next chapter.
Since the various
interaction
used
transactions
service
the
and all
server
in which the server
between
the
service,
service
most widely
(first-in-first-out),
the queue is specified
and considered
carefully
observed
in other
Modelling
airports.
is
this
which
situation,
example of
is
in
manner
important.
queueing
The typical
processes
is
service
the FIFO
or rank of passengers
time to the facility.
in
Unlike
level
of
judgement
offered.
to an observer
through
reflected
personal
travelling
to service
of the
reactions
views'-sand
air
public
So,
the observer
should
offered.
select
service
appropriate
be
by
that
isolation
for
would
suitable
most
measures
to analysis.
collection,
and lend themselves
observations,
Service
conditions
are
127.
The objective
of the level
frame
for
service
a
erect
of
standards
to
reaction
opinions
and
of the authentic
first
decide
to
passengers
practicality
two-fold;
isolation,
to
susceptible
is to
procedure
that
reasonably
service
system.
upon
service
within
Effectively,
try
to
reflect
context
the task
of
is
is
that
service
measure
to facilitate
collection
and secondly,
with it so as to
associated
enable the structuring
of,,-information
by means of
level
the
of
mechanism
which
of: some practical
framework
be
could
successfully
established.
service
As" seen
in
Chapter
Four,
service
for
standards
be quantified,
similar
systems
directly
measures that
could
either
used service
(by-. simple
technique),
measurement or by applying
or
a scaling
through
highway
In
indirectly
subjective
capacity
grading.
it
both
that
was
seen
service
adopted
were
measures
analysis,
(e.
freedom
interruptions,
traffic
to
g.,
maneouvre,
qualitative
driving
(e. g.,
records).
to drivers),
and convenience
and quantitative
travel
in terms of accidents
time,
speed,
and safetySimilarly,
in a more comparable
service
environment,
comfort,
measures used
to
seen
were
relative
relative
ability
measures
Chapter
that
in
the
operational
include
qualitative
freedom
to
ease
of
to bypass
(flow
measures
individual
selecting
flow
cross-and-reverse
slow
volumes
Four
could
is
airports
of
concluded
moving
adequately
the
be
pedestrian
(conditions
systems
of flow
walking
speeds,
and the
movements,
pedestrians),
and pedestrian
that
of
analysis
area
most
for
and
quantitative
occupancy).
promising
service
measure
facilities
in
used
processing
congestion
with its two attributes:
-delay and queues.
for collection.
These-measures
are quantifiable
and suitable
Thus far,
sections.
the
first
part
to
are dedicated
of
the
resolving
task
is
the
resolved.
second.
The remaining
128.
7.5.1
Devising
of-. service
proper
mechanism to be utilized
framework,
was seen in Chapter
Perception-Response
of passenger
construction
are implemented
because
their
of
level
establish
the
to involve
to
Six
Models.
P-R models
a full
providing
capability
of
the passenger
population
towards
reaction
of
by
to
their
stating
views
on
and
perception
response
service,
how
individually
they
of
would
assess service
conditions
requests
facility.
in
Those
terms of a
service
conditions,
a
processing
,
at
(e.
different
time),
and
service
measure
g.,
representing
service
description
of
the
(no
delay),
from
to
times
very
range
very
short
activity
is
Here assessment
long>times
and delays.
conditions
of service
describing
level
to
three
according
out
a
system,
grading
carried
bad
tolerable,
and
service
conditions.
good,
levels,
as
of P-R models,
and superpositioning
properties
By this
Six,
is a valuable
asset to the model.
be
detailed
level
framework
achieved
a
could
of service
means,
different
disaggregated
for
types
(with
of
service
standards)
The aggregation
Chapter
in
seen.
facilities
as well
Another
advantageous
service
standards
pasenger
BAA/IATA
population
perception
as for
various
feature
be
could
desired;
for
standards,
of the average
of
categories
passengers.
is
of P-R models,
for
interpreted
the
fact
that
of
for the 95th percentile
as used in
50th
the
the
representing
percentile
passenger,
or
any
any other
percentile
percentile.
the appropriate
the information
selecting
method to collect
build
P-R
the
be
decided
to
by
the
models
could
upon
required
investigating
the
after
all
aspects
of
particular
planner
Also,
situation.
to approach
or,, to
Basically,
the
obtain
the
passengers
the
required
associated
closelythe passengers.
with
airport
information
operations
from
and
who
experts
by
proxy
act
are
for
129.
In:
P-R
collecting
should
consideration
information,
model
be directed
towards
and
utmost
care
designing
the passenger
Interpretation
of
the
particularly
questionnaires.
those
to
to
their
service
conditions,
perception
passengers
should
and their
response to survey questionnaires,
conditions,
investigated
be thoroughly
and carefully
studied
well in advance.
in order to try to eliminate
the
That seems absolutely
necessary
survey,
likelihood
of
distortions
possible
that the
to make sure
passenger
actually
to
What
it
meant
mean.
should
was
as
the underlying
effects
of the factors
those ,.inconsistencies
of
passengers
influence
of
the
of
which
will
attitudes
The
P-Rmodel
device
is
that
to
mainly'
In
contribute
are
to
the
surveys,
social
are
surveys
subject
of
social
be reviewed
in the next section.
in
on here
especially
broad
its
basic
utilized
to
in
expressed
conditions-
that
and
results,
the question
of
replies
only
one type,
by those
affected
may be seriously
have a good grasp of the implications
of the
influences
individuals'
and
views
on
passenger
surveys
to questionnaires
socio-psychological
the
responses,
the
understands
be emphasized
repliesfactors.
socio-psychological
respondents
In order
factors.
in
and shifts
terms
a form of
different
is
only
between
concept,
distinguish
of a service
(passengers).
and
measure
Effectively,
expected
scaling
service
(time),
as
by
P-R
the
a
of
group
people
perceived
be
in
to
classified-as
could
scale,
similar
many
ways
a
model
describing
help
in
by social
developed
to
those
scientists
individuals
distinguish
different
between
to
of
and
attitudes
responses
towards
various
by
a social
covered,,
7.5.2:
phenomena or
any aspect
TYPES
lesser
extent
and
categories,
normally
characteristics
vary
of
of
life
survey.
Passenger
would
social
from
the
to
one airport
air transport
to
facility
types,
on the
depending
another,
planning
system in general,
130.
and
considerations
the
socio-economic
influence
and the
particular,
traffic,
design
specific
and
prevailing
In
question.
collected
passenger
typical
in
patterns
Manchester
P-R
such environment.
and Birmingham
were
Airport
Midlands
models
passenger
follows:
constructed
categories
and facility
A=' Passenger
on
the
air
attributes
of
demand levels
this
data
work,
and
were
hence
survey.
pilot
the
types
(according
categories
in
airport
airports
environment,
types
considered
are those
The international
of
airports
taken as case studies,
and East
for
was selected
were
demographic
of
in
of the airport
from within
U. K.
regional
categories
and facility
the
of
to
in
those
flight
for
level
disaggregated
and as
airports,
included
sector)
are:
(Inclusive
large
Charter
Tours),
1.
a
constitutes
which
proportion
(around 65%).
traffic
of total
to
2. Scheduled service,
according
subdivived
which is furthur
15% to
between
Schedule-European
flight
range into:
ranging'
20%
of
international
traffic,
forming
,-'(intercontinental)
; traffic.
3. = Common Travel
Area,
and
5% of
approximately
traffic
from
Ireland
15% of total
constituting
about
in Birmingham
"included
Airport
only
survey,
.
baggage
the" use of
claim
and customs
-international
traffic.
Islands,
Domestic
w4.
inland
B- Facility
airports,
types,
international
Channel
and the
traffic.
because
with
the
includes
from
traffic
which
in this
study.
was not included
into the two channels:
are divided
traffic,
Haul
Schedule-Long
It
it
was
shared
arriving
other
UK
immigration
for
EEC
contain
and
control
-Arrivals,
baggage
pasengers,
claim,
non-EEC
and H. M. Customs and Excise
Green
Red
and
with
channels.
-control
1.
which
131.
2.;
Departures,
which
to
according
the
haul),
schedule-long
In
facilities
processing
only- for
descriptive
is
subdivided
security
check,
facilities,
P-R
and passport.
models
for
controls.
the
combined
in a channel
but
were also constructed,
in the
These were not included
reasons.
procedure.
capacity
7.5.3
those
to
addition
(which
check-in
category
of passengers
and their
specific
i. e.,
I. T.,
and
schedule-European,
charter
pattern,
arrival
contain
Generally,
required
to
build
alternative
methods
the P-R models are:
to
collect
information
1. APPROACHING PASSENGERS
Turning-
to
the
travelling
populationor passengers
is
the
for,..
system
presumably
and convenience
-whose
information,
P-R
to
the
model
collect
necessary
operating,
included
that
the
implies*
and
viewpoints
are
of
passengers
in
the.
directly
standards.
considered
service
setting
of
air
interest
Consequently,
those
that-P-R..
based
public
the
accumulate
standards
should
reflect
It
individual
to
and
response
passengers.
service
of
perception
be
have
that
isLL important
or
attributes
of
certain
passengers
(as
individuals),
the
that
planner
reassure
would
such3quality
models
- realistic,
basic
the
passengerss
consistent,
be, investigating
are:
level
on information
Reasonable
time-estimating
of
personal
: where an individual
can judge,
with reasonable
time without
to
unnecessary
reference
-lapse'of
In
developed
technically
, device.
societies,
capabilities,
tolerence,
the
a time-measuring
is
this
not
132.
to them is to
service
provided
factors
Important
air travel.
fare
ticket
and
of
air
the
that
passengers
with the nature of
include:
consider
of
; 'Awareness
be compatible
they
should
imposed
of, service,
(presumably
procedures
set
quality
corresponding
operational
Fand
interest
of the public),
and other
demand-related
travel
considerations.
let
to
aspects
become
safety,
for the
regulatory
benefitland
or air
airport-specific
Passengers. should. not be
interpret
from an unrealistic
service
and personally
angle,
and if they are not well informed
and properly
motivated
in
instructed
the
this
aboutsurvey
aspect
particular
,
inconsistencies
certain
arise.
might
questionnaire,
;,,.
,
for
that
set
assumption
are
general
standards
service
-The
of airport
normal situations
operations.
This
.
-in
Chapter
appropriate
P-R models
means ofcollecting
for the case studies
Nine.
2. APPROACHING EXPERTS
to
An7alternative
the
air
indirectly
travelling
from
collecting
public,
individuals
experienced
well.
that
conditions
individuals
particularly
individuals
>view_about
An example
airports,
;
the experts'
directly
from
P-R model information
is
information
that
to
collect
that
of individuals
are
or groups
in
passenger
find
passengers
are
well-acquainted
passenger, handling.
are
capable
from
service
of
the
suitable.
airport
operations,
with
Based on their
knowledge,
those
giving
-a
reasonably
representative
of the average passenger.
viewpoint
in
of this
approach
setting
is the BAA and IATA standards,
views
on service,
service
and. the
Such experienced
processing
not
on the
service
which
standards
founded
were
passengers'.
in
on
133.
is infeasible
to
In'circumstances where it
directly
from
to
service
and' perception
be pursued by forming
a panel representing
obtian
them,
all
transport
activities,
or airport
air
with
different
from airport
may include
experts
handling
tour
airport
agencies,
airlines,
and civil
agencies,
to
asked
measures
aviation
(e. g.,
parties
opertaions.
operators,
This panel
authorities.
associated
This panel
departments,
authority
to
service
according
time passengers
spend in
assess
views
passengers'
this
approach can
governmental
then be
will
service
prespecified
facilities),
using
a
be
Replies
those
system.
of
experts
could
well-defined
that
In
to
the
those
equivalent
case
of
passengers.
considered
be
inconsistent
they
that
to
appear
or
would
relatively
replies
discussion
then
the
did not properly
reflect
situation,
real
to iron
between the panel's
out any
experts
might be encouraged
grading
inconsistencies
would
be very
would
prove
through
feedback
to
similar
to be very
the
from
Delphi
lengthy
and
the
This
this
time
is
number
of
participants
especially
is
difficult
to specify,
of: participants
being
large
reasonable,
enough to
seems
over
However,
technique.
if
dominance
discussions.
those
consuming
practice,
large.
The ideal
number
but
20-25
reduce
participants
of
probabilities
panel.
for
different
environment
and
a completely
Kleine(113)
used
a survey of experts'
was
when
conducted
context,
discrete
languages.
The
of
simulation
purpose
of this
views
different
to
the
was
assess
of
and
use
popularity
survey
languages,
and try to scale this
assessment
according
simulation
familiarity
four
to
measures:
and experience,
preference,
A similar
procedure
evaluation
of ease-of-use,
languages
were
simulation
solicited
languages.
utilization
This study
by
direct
Replies
request
and evaluation
of capability.
included,
and 103 responses
from
expert
statistically
systems for
each
were
scaling
demonstrated
the
approach
users
analysed.
Nine
were
of
simulation
Popularity
and
measure were
to practically
established.
achieve
the
134.
of
ranking
measures
languages
nine simulation
considered
included
by
as percieved
and evaluated
the
for
four
the
their
expert
users.
This
is
approach
particularly
travel
of air
for
suitable
environments
where
In such
not well-defined.
demographic
social,
economic,
would
and
variables
environments,
in
be
those
to
the
the
similar
of
environment
studies
of
case
not
This
for
be particularly
approach
this
would
work.
suitable
for
Third
the
the
service
standards
airports
of
establishing
to
World,,
where replies
of individual
are not likely
passengers
aspects
certain
be useful
to the
planner.
implementation
the
To demonstrate
are
of
this
a small-scale
approach,
in LUT,
where`25"experts
experts
survey
was conducted
14
European
Eastern
Middle
airport
airports
and
one
representing
to
first,
how
they
assess service
reply,
on
would
were'requested
in
the processing
then
facilities
airports,
at their
conditions
hypothetical
fora
try to estimate'
service
airport
of
conditions
of
panel
facilities
throughput
annual
are similar
whose
given
processing
a
discussion
Detailed
to those of their
airports.
survey
on this
is in Chapter Nine.
P -R models,
together
with the resulting
7.6
-SOCIAL
SURVEYS
The objective
basic'
of
this
of
principles
relevant
passenger
survey
all--, corners
of
social
that
aspects
this
for
to
some advisory
would
main-
in
references
Handbook
1
of
provide
surveys
and
basis.
consult
research
launching
-consulted
Survey
to
enable
subject,
review
help
would
on a sound
literature
provide
is
section
in
guidelines
the
It
review
of
the
state
some
of
the
of
the
to
design
efficient
is
all
a broad
intended
not
references,
this'particular
and
a successful
Moser
Research(115),
but
or
explanatory
explore
a
provide
but
only
comments
that
topic,
passenger
are,
to
survey.
and
Kalton(114)
the
following
The
two
and
the
references
135.
helpful:
Gardner(116),
Oppenheim(117),
Simon(118),
also
were
Yong(120),
Babbie(121),
Hyman(122),
Nachmias(119),
and
in
Smith(123)
the
planning
of social
surveys,
and Belson(124),
Berelson
and Steiner(125),
as well as Oppenheim(117)
on the topic
design
and attitudes.
questionnaire
of
7.6.1
DEFFINITION
Social
surveys
the demographic
were
defined
by Moser
characteristics,
social
concerned
environment,
with
activities,
".
Surveys
and attitudes
of some group of people
or the opinions
to the two important
in general,
are essential
stages of modern
formulation
that
testing
of
a hypothesis,
and
research:
However, they are not substitutes
for ingeniuity
hypothesis.
and
The purpose
'the
to involve
thought.
of surveys
was seen(114)
descriptive
of
and
explanatory
provision
later
Gardner(116)
added 'predictive
and evaluative
be used in
Such surveys
to-these
purposes.
could
ways covering
various
transportation
fields
planning,
census,
market
research,
7.6.2
Important
and public
issues
relevant
opinion
to
the
information'
a variety
of
regional
and
including
and topics,
population
information'.
social
research,
polls.
passenger
surveys
should
be
in
that
advance to ensure
well
efficient
examined
planning
will
the success
lead:
these surveys.
Su__rve deli-. gn-.
d_____
of
-i-s.-deci_de.
-to
.
li
the
d..
in
aht
of-what...... i_. s__.
ulon...,
ca1_ly- feasi b1 e..
_pr_act_i
__an.
desjj ah1-e:
Since allocated
theoretically
resources
would,
most
be the_ major
influencial
likely,
individual
the
variable
on
_
due consideration
design of the survey,
be given to the
should
following
utilization
I.
-Purpose
factors,
of
of
funds:
survey.
so
as
to
achieve
maximum
advantageous
136.
2.,.. Accuracy
in
required
results.
of
training.
personnel
sought.
normally
would
necessitates
phases(120):
Preliminary.
Exploratory.
3.. Selection
of
objectives
4. -Final
overall
plan.
5. Pre-tests
and pilot
6.. Main survey.
7.
surveys
passenger
for
and survey
methods.
surveys.
Data processing
and analysis.
but
implementation,
in the methodology
This, sequence was observed
focussed
In
the
last
the
three
remaining
was
on
points.
emphasis
this
discussion
of
and main surveys
chapter
on pilot
sections
be
raised.
will
tests
survey,
and pre-tests,
instruments.
Their
extremely
even
an
important
for
experienced
in
step
is
function
primary
in questionnaires,
and errors
problems
difficult,
potential
are
social
developing
to
uncover
because it
is
scientists
to
questionnaire
no
or
with
confusing
ambiguous
Moser(114)
indicated
is
"
that:
It
exceedingly
questions(115).
difficult
to plan a survey without
a good deal of knowledge
of
,
the population
it is to cover,
its. subject
the way people
matter,
to questions,
react
and,
though it
will
paradoxically
sounds,
write,
they
even the
answers
pilots,
are used to
questionnaires,
are
likely
the
obtain
and have a 'feel'
of
what
is
to
pre-tests
to design
be anticipated
and
the
in
137.
be
They
treated
should
always
as indispensible
survey.
main
important
However,
stages
of
any
survey.
one should not
and
parts
because as
be carried
away with
of surveys,
excessive
piloting
by
Oppenheim(117):
"
Almost
aspect
of a survey
every
out
pointed
inquiry
a
of pilot
work,
so obviously,
can be made the subject
is where experience
has to be drawn somewhere ",
line
and that
the
in
have
influence
their
sense
pilot
organizing
would
and common
in
Usually,
step
out as exploratory
pre-tests
are carried
work.
lengthy
involve:
they
of
stages
piloting,
could
where
early
interviews,
key
'silent'
talks
observations,
with
unstructured
informants,
or the accumulation
around the
of essays written
inquiry(117).
the
the
to
Pilots
of
guidance
can
provide
subject
on:
surveyor
Adequacy
1.
the
sample.
Variability
of
sample
frame
from
it
which
is
proposed
to be surveyed.
population
Non-response
3.
so as effective
rate to be expected,
be
increase
taken
to
or alternatively
response,
could
the sample size.
data
Suitability
and
4.
collection
of
of
method
2.
its
relative
rate.
The most valuable
5.
function
ease of
of questionnaires,
layout,
clarity
their
of
(type
themselves
questions
clarity
to
cost,
costs
accuracy,
definitions,
of
questions,
of
any
required
20-50 cases
ques ionnaire
number of
is usually
before
the
survey,
of
mode
response
adequacy
efficiency
and monitoring
in
measures
increase
of
and adequacy
their
simplicity
that
terms
may
of main
and duration
that could be made.
economies
chance of possible
Testing
7.
organizational
efficiency,
.
field
of
work.
aspects
Regardin
and likely
is to test
of pilots
handling
them in field,
absence
and
the respondent).
uncomprehensible
6. Indicating
probable
about
in
a
select
within
administration,
wording,
to
-and
of
the
in
be
any
practical
test of
general,
a pilot
flaws
to discover
sufficient
major
damage the
they
main survey(115).
samples,
138.
t
Therefore,
'exploratory
the
carrying
some of
steps'
above, it was decided that
mentioned
a pilot
should be conducted
in the East Midlands
to explore
the different
airport
aspects of
kind
this
from passengers,
of information
obtaining
and to test
after
the
suitability
Survey,
Experts
of
was
to
experts
approaching
Another
Panel
pilot,
to examine the
conducted
alternative
information.
the required
obtain
questionnaires.
of
of
this
is concluded
by these remarks on pilots
subsection
from
Moser(114):
"
Pilot
in
surveys
nearly
always
result
quoted
improvements
important
to
the
questionnaires
and a general
in the efficiency
increase
Moreover,
the pilot
of the inquiry.
is
the researcher's
last
the possibility
safeguard
against
survey
Finally,
that
the
main survey
may be inefficient
7.6.4
DESIGN OF QUESTIONNAIRES
Design
of
is
questionnaires
for
designing
steps
Logical
the
type
of
questions
outlining
more
are
troublesome
question
or opinion
the principles
more
of
an
art
than
science(114).
defining
with
begin
questionnaires
i.
be
e.,
asked,
should
that
(more widely
of
".
called
attitude)
factual
questions,
and
Attitude
Questions
question
wording.
d-amental
sensitive
a-ASi-_genpr-a1ly_,
,
-andfu!.
factual
than
and complicated
questions,
mor_emainly
because:
Uncertainty
the
in
is
whether
respondent,
any
meaningful
sense,
the answer.
aware of what is asked about and 'knows'
issue
is
opinion
person's
on
virtually
any
many-sided,
and
-A
is no one correct
there
probably
answer to the survey question,
the
the
largely
depend on the
answer
respondent
gives,
will
--but
in his or her mind.
aspect of the issue that is uppermost
The
intensity
the
assessing
problem
of
of opinions
and personal
be faced,
because
attitudes
must inevitably
on any given
subject,
some people feel
just
strongly,
others
moderately,
while
some are
indifferent.
139.
I.
= Answers
to
opinion
are
questions
most
emphasize,
sequence,
wording,
factual
to
questions.
-those
Nevertheless,
of
guidelines
Moser(114)
gave
particular
relevance
structuring
overall
Avoid asking
1.
of
changes in
factors,
than
to
sensitive
some
advisory
rules
to
successful
questionnaires,
are
which
and
general
and
wording
summarized in:
general
specific
and unsufficiently
questions,
is
issue
answer
an
on
a
specific
actually
required.
where
language and avoid technical
in
Use simple
terms and jargons
2.
language
for
the
in
the
of
a
general
public,
and
choosing
surveys
investigated
the
being
population
studied
problems
and
question,
be
kept
in
always
mind.
should
is
Ensure clarity
3.
and always remember that
a simple
question
is
long
than
understood
and
more
readily
one,
a
complex
more
sensitive
to wording problems.
double-barrelled
ones,
are to
Ambiguous
be avoided
questions,
at
all
particularly
because
costs,
encourage
vague answers.
vague questions
Clearly
to the respondent
4.
explain
and make it crystal
clear
because
is
her
to
him
actually
answer,
required
of
or
what
totally
based
are
and
understanding
upon respondents'
replies
of
comprehension
by the question.
5. , ordering
of
individual
puting
because
is
one
their
question
questions
asked,
not
needs to
together
questions
order may influence
on what
be
to
response
was actually
carefully
form the
rates,
meant
planned
when
questionnaire,
especially
when
basically
are
in
that
concerned
opinions
In this
the questionnaire
or marginal.
regard,
should
unstable
begin
with
straight-forward
and interesting
questions
preferably
have no difficulty
in answering,
will
not
which the respondents
primarily
topics.
or sensitive
on complicated
6.. Avoid leading
questions,
which
lead
the
in
respondent
wording,
answer.
by its
the
content,
direction
structure,
of
certain
or
140.
7.
Personalized
should
questions
always
be carefully
considered,
people do not
on subjects
which
and void embarassing
questions
like
to reveal
publically.
in
involve
Since
the
8.
most factual
respondent
questions
information,
associated
questions
with
recalling
memory should
because the degree of accuracy with
studied,
always be carefully
is
information
determinent
is
basic
of quality
recalled
a
which
of
his
or her
Belson(124)
investigate
response.
conducted
an
respondents
tested,
and
questions
involved
Loading
defining
misunderstanding
insight
to provide
The following
in
such misunderstandings.
the design of
regarding
principles
his recommendations
as warning
AVOID:
designed
to
study
to 29 types
of survey
into
the process
and
exploratory
to
statements
up the
terms.
the
survey
are
questions,
put
differing
or
surveyor:
questionnaire
with
lot
of
long
to
Offering
a
question.
alternatives
answers
as
possible
if
different
that
Use
misheard
partly
of
words
something
mean
(in
(in
interviews)
self-administered
or
misunderstood
questionnaires).
the
different
Giving
task
to
respondent
a
perform.
for
task
that
Giving
effort.
respondents
a
a
memory
major
calls
both
be
that
Offering
to
could
alternative
answers
a
question
true.
BEWAREOF:
The
tendency
to
answer
strong
of
respondents
;their
behaviour
in terms of what they usually
from what they in fact
do.
-
Use
of
qualifying
question.
tendency
-'The
of
have heard
or read
clause,
to
respondents
enough
especially
to
start
start
answering
formulating
at
about
questions
do- as distinct
'the
end
as soon
a reply.
of
as they
141.
The
tendency
strong
very
concepts,
especially
personally
appropriate
a narrow
'vague
way,
to
respondents
in
ones,
and a tendency
broad
down
narrow
some
selective
and
in others
to broaden
concept.
tendency
The
of
of
to
respondents
their
apply
special
own
to
a question.
qualifications
influence
The
the
the
strong
of
often
content
question's
upon
interpretation
terms in that question.
of specific
distortion
the
The
the
terms
of
meaning
of
a
wide
range
of
of
(e. g., you, regularly,
used in survey questions
sort frequently
).
usually,...
proportion,
The abovementioned
and recommendations
guidelines
were taken into
the
two
in
the
of
pilots
questionnaires
preparing
consideration
(East Midlands
Airport,
surveys),
and the
and Panel of Experts
passenger
-main
The
decision
to
administration
The
questionnaires.
following
advantages:
1.
:
Generally
reasonable
Wider
2.
scattered
Avoid
3.,
;
cheaper
response
spread
Birmingham
of
important
next
survey
:
survey
Airport.
International
self-administered
than
or
there
provided
to
especially
mode of
mail-back
have the
questionnaires
interviewing,
rate.
in
applicability,
which
rare
is
a
and
population.
personal
contacts
of
interviewing,
with
its
relative
manpower required,
cost,
administrative
and
problems,
errors.
.
4. Allow more inter-personal
consultations,
and provide
more time
for
the
hence
considering
answers,
more
accurate
results
expected.
5. Require less time for preparations'
and undertaking.
On the
certain
,
hand,
other
limitations,
self-administered
they include:
questionnaires
do
have
142.
1. -
depend
Greatly
on characteristics
be considered
should
and
surveyed,
and
of
quality
only
to
when
population
are'
the
questions
simple
and straight-forward
understand'
sufficiently
with
instructins
help of printed
and definitions.
inflexible,
because answers have to be accepted
2., Comparatively
for
beyond
final,
with
no
opportunity
probing
a given answer,
as
ambiguities
encountered.
or, clarify
3. ' Inappropriate
when spontaneous
answers are required.
Independency
by the fact
4.
of questions
are destroyed
before
can
read
all
questions
'filling
respondents
questionnaire.
5. ' No guarantee
that
the
is
questionnaire
person.
information
Supplementing
6.
questionnaire
is usually
information
not feasible.
7. -' The significance
the outcome of the
of
response
rate,
by
filled
with
and its
that
the
the
right
observational
influence
great
on
survey.
In this
it
work,
interview
in the
it was first
pilot
passengers
planned to interview
lounge,
but s,,oon after
the survey commenced it became
departure
it
be
that
to
the passenger
would
and
more
convenient
evident
to
the
to the self-administered
to
surveyor
switch
practical
Airport
In
the
mode.
International
used, '
Airport
because
Airport,
and also
To-ensure
pilot,
due
for
response
to
its
a
rate
survey
conducted
self-administered
from lessons
learned
potential
was not
in
Birmingham
questionnaires
from the East
allowed
to
obstruction
were
Midland
inside
Birmingham
normal
opertaion,
reasons.
success
of the main passenger
survey,
be particularly
investigated,
should
rate
and
buting
to it should be carefully
Although
studied.
difficult
task
to predict
specifically
what thedifferent
in
would be for particular
conditions
and
efficiency
response
factors
contri.
passenger
apart
interviewing
security
the-
it-`seemed
main
Airport,
and
143.
: situations.
the
surveyor
limited)
Nevertheless,
may
previous
have
on some of
the
some
factors
surveys
(although
social
control
contributing
to
that
suggested
comparatively
and influencing
response rates:
It
is of great
Sponsorship:
1.
to outcomes of the
relevance
to attempt
to secure the sponsorship
of the survey under
survey,
in some favourable
the au__s_aicesof a body connected
way with the
under study.
population
Actually,
Population
there is little
2.
suitability:
one can do
and nature of survey population,
properties
about the particular
how
to
consider
suitable
a self-administered
questionnaire
-.except
It has been found that
those in
the less educated,
is for it.
lower
or feel
occupational
categories,
and those uninterested
.
have higher
than
the
bothered
about
subject
of the
survey,
average rates of non-response.
Subject
3.
matter
and length
of
inclusion
of
awkward questions,
details
unnecessary
-response
A
A.
in
survey:
and
Unfamiliar
considerable
could
questionnaires,
subjects,
length
and
result
in
low
rates.
(or
letter
the
covering
accompanying
questionnaire
integrally
the
it)
to
take
of
place
with
printed
preferably
is favourable
interview
and could prove
opening or introduction,
helpful
increasing
in
the
to be substantially
response
rate.
it
to
Aimed at establishing
attempts
rapport
respondents,
with
have
the
survey.
against
may
overcome
is
being
by
the
It should make quiet
survey
clear
and
whom
why
The
surveyor
must also decide what tone to adopt in
undertaken.
letterbe
the
covering
should
one
persuade,
or
plead
any
prejiduce
respondents
or excessively
-authoritarian,
in the light
of particualr
perha se the best approach
survey is being undertaken,
'.important.
.
step
to
increase
be made
but
a stamped-addressed
questionnaires,
would be
sense
should
of the situation,
in simple terms why the
and why and by whom it is considered
circumstances
is to explain
5.. Enclosing
the
A decision
polite.
or
business-reply
a natural
response
rates.
envelopes
with
and a common
courtesy
The first
way might
144.
lead
higher
to
probably
'real
value'
of
questionnaire,
stamps
the
yet
than
response
that
add to
is
second
the
the
more
due to
second,
'importance'
of
for
convenient
the
the
the
surveyor.
Assurance
6.
lead
anonymity
of
increased
to
and
confidentiality
definitely
would
response.
for completed
as an incentive
increase
be
to
could
also
response.
adopted
questionnaire
including
Quality
8.
general
of
questionnaire
production,
design,
type-face,
even
printing
quality
and graphic
appearnce,
(using
different
gives
colours
and
colour
stationary
of
quality
'prestige
impression
to the survey),
could
of
and importance'
an
7.
Prize
increased
to
contribute
Most
response.
recommendations
feasible,
they were
Birmingham
of
survey
the
resulting
Statistical
in
discussed
were seriously
in
implemented
Airport.
response
As will
rates
were
and
considered,
the main passenger
be seen in
better
than
considerations
concerning
more detail
at the end of this
Chapter
Nine,
anticipated.
rates
response
are
chapter.
Behavioural
patterns
lead us
of
or gifts
these
of
whenever
7.7
Payments
concept:
this
in
the
study
paramount
however,
investigating
surveys,
that
are not particularly
close
are
of
avenues
behavioural
work-
to
aspects
in
social
to
To try
psychology.
in these
areas,
to
only
avoid
sciences,
unnecessary
elementary
and
sociometry,
indulgence
basic
response
them would
the
and
in
scope
social
researching
of these
principles
those related
topics,
to attitudes
specifically
scaling
and their
Definitions
would be dealt
with and reviewed.
methods,
and the
broad
from:
the
of
revision
subject
were
extracted
Belson(124),
Oppenheim(117).
and
and Berelson
and Steiner(125),
145.
For the
Sills(128).
on attitude
Survey
of
Handbook
Kalton(114),
and
Dunn-Rankin(127),
discussion
scaling
methods,
Research(115),
Moser
and
were consulted.
behavioural
The
considerations
of
surveys
are very
passenger
in establishing
Expressions
the concept of P-R models.
defining
discussion
that
are:
used in this
require
important
frequently
response,
and attitudes.
perception,
is a complex process by which people select,
Perception
organize,
into
interpret
sensory
stimulation
a meaningful
and coherent
and
of the world(128).
picture
that defines
Response is the output
a unit
of behaviour(125).
is
of
An
organization
enduring
a
relatively
attitude
beliefs
interrelated
and
evaluate,
situation(128).
and react
act
around
common
focus,
that
describe,
to
or
an object
advance
action
with
respect
to
Or, it is a state
and a tendency
of readiness,
in a certain
certain
with
manner when confronted
stimuli(117).
7.7.1
CHARACTERISTICS OF ATTITUDES
The
of
response
'output',
behavioural
people
to
certain
define
stimuli
their
their
attitudes
would describe
the
towards
those
In
surveys,
stimuli(132).
passenger
reactions
towards
to
their
of
people
asked
attitudes
questions
and
response
dictate
their
In our situation,
P-R
the subject
matter
replies.
where their
surveys
require
whose
opinion
questions
are
mostly
models
(attitude)
These type of questions
questions.
particularly
are
due to:
sensitive,
the
Uncertainty
is
in
whether
respondent,
any
sense,
meaningful
the answer.
aware of what is asked about and 'knows'
issue
is
and
opinion
on
virtually
person's
any
many-sided,
-A
is
there
no one correct
probably
answer to the survey question,
but
the
aspect
largely
the
mind.
depend on the
146.
Difficulty
reasonable
Influence
-
of
the
assessing
estimation
of
of different
intensity
the
of
measure
and giving
used.
of
aspects
opinions,
design
questionnaire
on
opinions.
an attitude
organization,
and beliefs
which,
within
have
to
three components;
and
conceived
affective,
cognitive,
are
The cognitive
behavioural(114).
a person's
component represents
held with varying
degrees of certitude,
knowledge,
about what is
Basically,
true
false,
(or
or
or
bad,
emotional)
is
the belief
affective
conditions,
intensity,
good
questioned
tendency)
component,
of
capable
the
around
centering
taking
a positive
objects
the object,
desirable
belief
or the
(as
in
an
predisposition
it
is
suitably
when
by the
is dictated
activated,
Other
characteristics
discussion
are:
of
where
under
arousing
of
object
the
where
threshold,
varying
content
undesirable.
The
suitable
of varying
the other
affect
belief,
to
respect
or negative
position
with
is seriously
itself
validity
when its
(action
behavioural
The
argument).
component,
of
or
of
belief,
and the
the belief.
attitudes
being
must lead to
kind of action
that
are
response
some action
it leads to
relevant
to
this
are confonted
2. They are
abstractions,
who hold
them.
3.
where
the
degree
of
differentiation
continuum
end of an attitude
may be very different
the other end.
They are acquired
by absorbing,
4.
and modified
the attitudes
of other people.
at one
from
or
that
reacting
at
to,
147.
5.
logic
the
Psycho-logic;
Same attitudes
different
people,
6.
Some of
and response
are:
findings
following
by
behaviour
Human
behaviour
Human
-
that
are
in
humans
behaviour
of
Berelson
irrational
no
logic
and emotions.
in different
themselves
while
aspects
Development
1.
may express
important
the
perception
feelings
of
of
to
is
except
by
ways
at all.
attitudes
related
or
the
topic
of
by
the
manifested
Steiner(125):
and
is
variable
and relatively
unpredictable.
is dependent
and less regulated
upon learning
behavioural
disposition.
by instinct
innate
or other
by
is
human
behaviour
is
Since
accumulated
and
adaptive,
it is therefore
learning,
communicated.
(or
Regarding
2.
which
of percieving
perception,
probability
stimulus
Nature
-
get
of
depends
selected)
involved.
stimuli
learning,
Previous
experience,
or
because,
expectations,
to attend
more likely
than
anticipate
on:
those
the
as it affects
being equal,
things
other
to
aspects
do not,
familiar
they
the
of
and they
observer's
people
environment
likely
more
are
are
they
to
things
they are
anticipate
with.
(i.
in
desires,
Motives
the
time
at
play
e.,
wishes,
needs,
), because not only do people look for things
interests,...
they
but stronger
the tendency
the needs, the greater
need or want,
irrelevant
to ignore
elements.
3. Response
4.
for
is
not
under
conscious
The greater
ambiguity
interpretation.
In
observer
object(s),
typically
because
shape,...
colour,
tremendously.
or awareness.
the more room and need
of the stimulus,
interpreting
the
ambiguous
stimuli,
assumes
familiar
etc.,
Also,
alternatives
is
expectations
regarding
not
control
involvement
the
objects
though their
sensory
what
with
determinent
only
is
likely
in
the
most
likely
size,
percieved
fluctuate
projections
retain
familiarity
the
of
their
of
the
various
'likelihood',
specific
possible
but
situation
148.
As the ambiguity
increases
and/or
are also involved.
of stimulus
importance
increases,
of motivation
as the strength
or subjective
interpretation
direction'relevant'
people's
will
move in the
they
5.
tend
will
to
as they
see things
Interpretation
of
are
quantities
see them.
or need to
want
by expectations
affected
and
motives.
6.
of magnitude
are made within
by the total
range of relevant
stimuli.
develop
with
established
7.
People
an
in
present
the
relevant
hold
People
'adaptation
based
magnitudes,
stimulus
8.
a frame
Judgement
level'
on
range
of
opinions,
of an objective
of people
themselves
they
compare
in
are developed,
would then
situation,
different
with-
harmony
and
the
when
with
they
evaluation
depend on whom
different
groups
in
is
in
involved
emotionally
(through
by
that
arguement
or propoganda
-to change
impossibility.
to the point
intellegence)
of virtual
Since
given
has been
that
values
attitudes,
and beliefs
and identifications,
evaluation.
The more interested
9.
people are
they are to hold consistent
position
7.7.2
to
respect
series.
their
group
memberships
(opinions,
attitudes,
and beliefs)
a person
reference
of
an appeal
to
is
survey
passenger
which P-R models are
means of
be augmented
with
an
by
surveys,
one kind of attitude
discussion
built,
should
previous
overview
of
attitude
measurements
and
scaling.
Measurement,
according
to
is
the
certain
assignement
rules(115),
of
numbers
or the
of entities
which are not numbers(126).
for the assignement
of numbers or words
in
to
of
objects
property
order
to
observed
correlation
Scaling,
is
(or
phenomena
with numbers
the procedure
to
a
symbols)
other
impart
some
of
the
149.
of
characteristics
Attitude
Sills(129)
stated
eliciting
acts
give
attitudes
of
involve
the
evaluative
this
work,
is
judgement
on
assigning
tolerable,
or
service
bad
by
or
of the
furthur
the
assignement
by asking
accomplished
the issue
of
in
measure)
judgement
this
the
Much
of
placement
and its
framework
attitudes
agreement
opinion.
is mediated
rise,
out
Customarily,
judgement-
of
service
question(128).
judgement.
through
by
are
measured
disagreement
with
behaviour
to which
of
judgement
object
in
acts
issue
or
to
a category
".
to
passengers
(in
terms
standards
the
terminal
to
in
proprty
carried
normally
"
that:
statements
standard
that
is
measurement
the
of
numbers
processing
three
of
one
In
this
their
give
of
an
time
facilities,
as
and
good,
categories:
service.
7.7.3
Attitude
scales,
are
the
techniques
function
major
of
which,
is
groups
with
of broad
in
them
to
a
continuum
on
a particular
attitude,
placing
regard
terms.
in
in
to
absolute
one
another,
not
and
relative
relation
Known types of attitude
scales are:
SCALES:
RATING
Sometimes
the
1.
social-distance
called
to
divide
people
where
scales(117),
they
on the
position
used in
actual
into
roughly
try
to
number
get
attitude
a measure
continuum.
of the respondent's
It is an old method
modern social
surveys.
seldom
THURSTONIAN SCALE: Referred
to also
2.
was
by
developed
comparisons,
is
the
which
'judges'
Thurstonian
L. L. Thurstone
intervals,
successive
most widely
'scaled'
are
and the judges
properties,
of the positioning
scaling
it
scale,
as differential
in
three
stagespaired
intervals
and equal appearing
of
used(126).
with
generally
to
of
various
to make objective
considered
on the attitude
are
items
respect
Judgement
asked
assumes
approximately
individuals
physical
evaluation
continuum.
normalized
150.
pattern
of
operating
characteristics,
along an underlying
continuum
favourable(115).
to extremely
running
when attitudes
from extremely
are
placed
unfavourable
Likert
item.
dimension
scale
assumes
is monotonically
that
the
operating
inverted-S-shaped
continuous
to
related
charctersistic
depending
curve
of the attitudes(115).
unfavourability
towards attitude
oriented
measurement
GUTTMANSCALE: A cumulative
4.
scale
sometimes referred
of a high degree
by
constructed
content)
being
universe
is
analysis'
deal with
to
of
first
scaled,
has
underlying
attitude
the continuum,
where
S-shaped
or
an
favourability
or
on
This type of scale is more
than other methods(126).
by Louis
developed
Guttman,
as scalogram
analysis,
where the attainment
It is
is a major concern.
uni dimensionality
(universe
defining
the total
attitude
of
and a 'sample'
to be included
selected
is then carried
on,
where
this
of items representing
'Scalogram
in this
scale.
two opertaions
are needed to
reproducibility.
predictions
the scale
In
spite
following
of
items
of
an individual's
scores.
of the
sophistication
disadvantages(114):
scaling,
less
here,
mentioned
item response
of
this
analytical
realistically
the
false
are
on the basis
of
method,
complexity,
treated
it
has
the
no guarantee
being
as
151.
unidimensional
model is strictly
if
is
6.
the
two
of
Sometimes
particular
which
are
called
series
where
a
of
subject
by
described
Statistical-mathematical
intercorrelating
on
would
items
enable
have in
the
all
identification
bi-polar
scale,
graphical
rating
graduated
that
adjectives
with
of
Where does
the
the
items
of
techniques
analysis
with
one
or
which
that
another,
'factors'
one
more
common.
UNFOLDING THEORY:
University
to
on
ends
SCALES:
FACTORIAL
based
It
SCALE:
opposittes.
polar
7.
its
underlying
wide,
laborious
nature where
is
and its
scale,
completed
are
scales,
are
rating
summated
scales
range
becomes a necessity.
SEMANTIC DIFFERENTIAL
a
set
deterministic,
computerization
5.
items
the
Michigan
method
scaling
recent
by Coombs(130).
developed
categories
as distinctly
from
of
in
scales?
related
description
of
methods
of known scaling
is a
P-R model technique
Thurstonian
methods,
scaling
and operating
properties
it
above,
would
stated
characteristics
be thought
that
the
Likert
of
and
conglomerate
judgement
their
to
because:
and
are
asked
state
"respondents
(in
different
items
this
conditions),
of
case service
evaluation
between
also
response
are
asked to
choose
several
and they
(in
bad).
this
three;
tolerable,
and
case
only
good,
categories
become, more evident
this
Moreover,
when the
conclusion
would
shape
of
operating
opposite
inverted-S
cited
in
population
the
is
P-R model
characteristic,
(favourable
shaped
literature
and
curves)
that
and time)
closely
studied.
it is composed of
unfavourable,
Likert
scales.
In
terms
a Thurstonian
resembling
No comparable
of
scaling
and two
S and
the
method
representation
was
(%
152.
PASSENGERSURVEYS CONDUCTED
7.8
In
P-R models
work,
were built
(two pilots,
in four
surveys
this
collected
they are:
1. East Midlands
Airport
Experts
2.
Panel
s.
4.
Mancnester
Birmingham
of
based
upon information
and two case studies),
survey.
pilot
survey.
international
International
(except
surveys
by
the author
conducted
Airport
Airport
survey.
(main)
Manchester
These
survey.
Airport's)
were
applications.
as methodology
and
planned
Discussion
in
this
chapter
on surveys
and attitude
scales,
was taken
raised
in the planning
into
consideration
and included
of these surveys
in
design
the
More details
of questionnaires.
on particular
and
for each survey are found in respective
sections
considerations
of
Chapter
Finally,
needed
Nine.
certain
statistical
aspects
of passenger
investigation
discussed.
Typically,
are
form a major and vital
part of any survey,
analyses
the
objective
required
vary in
of
survey,
Statistical
outcomes.
detail
and degree
analysis
of
that
statistical
depending
and
approach,
analysis
surveys
nature
on
of
considerably
In this
sophistication.
of
surveys
mathematical
little
emphasize was put on the mathematical-statistical
work,
because
initially
the urgent
to
task,
mainly
aspects,
was,
for
kind
this
an appropriate
establish
procedure
of surveys,
interpret,
and manipulate
facilitating
of
setting
a practicable
of
the
service
results
methodology.
factor
investigated
most important
statistical
was sample
One of the first
that confronts
size.
the designer
questions
of a
is how big the sample should
it appears
be.
Although
new survey
to be a simple
it is one of the most
straight-forward
question,
The
difficult
to
answer
accurately.
An
accurate
answer
would
be
15-3.
information
to the survey
and
when substantial
related
possible
is provided.
its
Adequacy of the sample size would
population
Not only total
then depend on details
sample
of the analysis.
but breakdown
it
size,
of the categories
contains
are also
A general
is that
be large
the sample should
rule
required.
there
in each category
of
are 100 or more units
enough so that
the major breakdowns,
and 20-50 in the minor breakdowns(115).
From a theoretic
Moser(114)
that: " If the cost
standpoint,
stated
limitations
do not enter
into
the picture,
practical
and other
is no basic
difficulty
in determining
the desired
there
sample
The concept
of the standard
error
of-. the-mean could-be- used
size.
.
to estimate
sample size ". However, in our case this
would not be
because,
helpful
first,
'cost
and
other
practical
very
do enter
into
the concept
and second,
picture,
to
applicable
error
of the mean is not particularly
of standard
information.
Other
P-R model
practical
and more
possible
for sample size determination
are:
approaches
Empirical
by seeking what sample size was used by
approach,
/ 1.
limitations'
with similar
others
Formal
approach,
o2.
information
with
the
problems.
by emphasizing
costs
of
the
practices
of sample size
Research(115),
Handbook of Survey
value
of
increased
data.
gathering
Current
balance
in
contained
Due to
reviewed.
determination
the
were
the
imposed
on airport
of
surveying,
and the uniqueness
of information
sample size of 200 units
sought,
a target
(channels)
in the major categories
was aimed at, with an absolute
in
20
of
minor categories.
minimum
restraints
the sets
For
self-administered
dictated
and
governed
questionnaires,
predict,
surveys
surveys.
with
which
questionnaires,
by the response
happens
to
sample
size
strongly
to the
rate of passengers
difficult
be extremely
to
in the literature
and no reference
was cited
that
any range of values for airport
suggested
lengthy
So,
discussions
after
with experts
social
surveys
and
airport
is
operations,
of
social
passenger
associated
response
rates
154.
between
10% and
decision
target
was well
each
lower
the
sample
experienced
upper third
size
for
size
in
the
region
within
at
aim
third
would
still
main
survey
the
sometimes
target
of
distributing
of the
region
be achieved.
of
light
the
so that
channel,
and
In
suggested.
to
made
was
questionnaires
was in
rate
25% were
Birmingham
beyond,
and fully
if
the
Airport,
thus
the
attained.
range a
1400
around
actual
suggested
Actual
this
response
range,
response
were
actual
the
rates
in the
sample
CHAPTEREIGHT
SIMULAT10N
In
this
to
utilized
model
of
discussed.
and
reviewed
aspects
involved,
terminologies
related
data
the
synthesize
performance
8.1
those
chapter,
the
Prior
derive
to
required
to
techniques
simulation
the
facilities,
terminal
airport
is
to
that,
an
are
of
overview
appropriate.
OVERVIEW
Simulation
referred
instrument,
technical
in
to
the
context
this
of
is
a
to
as
work,
introduction
recent
a
relatively
becoming
tool
is
increasingly
a
popular
research,
and
scientific
is not
in general
in operational
However,
research.
modelling
In fact,
it has been associated
at all.
with
scientific
recent
its
in physical
since
evolution,
science,
especially
research
where models
principles.
consiaerea
subject
of
were
In
conceived
the real-system,
world,
operations
as iueaiizea
inquiry
which
idea
real
developed
usually
or
awaiting
due
high
a model is
identifying
research(131,132,85),
repre
entation
may b
executii
to the
costs
based on theoretical
already
i.
Models
ipossibility
assoi fated with
models
or reality,
in existence,
are
laws
utilized
of
are
or
some
or
of
instead
manipulating
such actions.
and
of
the
In this
usually
an abstraction
of the assumed real
the pertin
system,
it relationships
of the system in
the form of an objective
A model is
and a set of constraints.
be muct
than
the
constructed
so as to
simpler
real-sysAtem.
One
complex models would be diffict
t to implement
and control.
sense,
156.
be
still
must
phenomena
Finding
the
relationships
because
although
a small
number
the
Nevertheless,
would
model,
the
The importance
theorizing
in
degree
of
correct
modelling,
good
may be required
accuracy,
perfect
for
usually
account
most of it.
from
information
a
of
obtained
the
on
with
validity
the
of
model
in
real-system.
itself
by
manifested
research,
" Since
and Arnoff(131):
becomes
is
identical
with
in
construction
impossible
8.2
variables
system
of models to scientific
from Churchman,
Ackoff,
quotation
scientific
of
depend
assumed
of
real
reliability
of
predict
the
and
essence
number
variables
eventually
representing
this
of
the
or
a high
variables
is
the
of
explain
with
real-system
large
a very
to
model
right
them
a phenomenon
predict
only
the
with
between
the
use
associated
accuracy.
to
to
able
model
be as
it follows
that science
some aspects,
would
the absence of models as it would be in the absence
theory
TYPES OF MODELS
Generally,
symbolic
models are
(abstract),
simulation
models,
Simulations
are
representations
description,
classified
heuristic,
is
of
models
the
of
input
as:
iconic
(physical),
and simulation
importance
particular
that
utilize
real-system,
into
parameters,
analogue,
models. Of these
to this
work.
mathematical-logical
to
convert
systems
that
of interest
describe
Taha(85)
some features
would
of the system.
regards
behaviour
as imitations
simulation
of the
real-system
of the
They seek to duplicate
under investigation
over a period
of time.
behaviour
by studying
this
the interactions
among its components.
Shannon(133)
model of
for
the
system,
imposed
or
envisaged
simulation
as the
output
process
of
designing
and conducting
157.
Pritsker(91)
the
system.
laboratory
the
as
models
when developed,
simulation
considered
on which
systems,
version
of
With
be
these experiments,
simulation
can
performed.
experiments
be
for
design,
and
the
analysis,
procedural
can
used
models
be
Inferences
the
could
of
real-system.
assessment of performance
the need to;
drawn about real-systems
without
(if
build
them
they
systems),
are
only
proposed
actually
(if
that
or
them
they
disturb
costly
are
systems
operating
are
or,
with),
unsafe, to experiment
(if
them
destroy
the
object
of
limit
of capabilitycapacity).
is
an experiment
to
determine
technique
Low(134)
treats
as
a
simulation
planning,
airport
described
for
data
historic
for developing
situation
a
artificial
Characteristics
by the model builder.
can be quite
of simulations
in
depending
features
their
approach
and specific
on
variable
In
the
modelling
be:
Static
-
vs.
Analytic
-
particular
basic
Their
situation.
could
properties
dynamic,
vs.
numeric,
Deterministic
vs. stochastic,
Discrete
vs. continuous,
or,
Interactive
vs. closed.
Functionally,
1.
Analytic
expressions
simulation
queueing
derived
input
to
measures
statistical
(time-based)
Accounting
2.
deterministic
and invariable
describe
the
these
(e. g.,
in
nature,
rules
state
of
models
usually
FORTRAN).
broad
types:
models could
that use mathematical-probabilistic
models;
from
Queueing
Theory,
standard
relating
be of
and service
models:
they
operate
analogous
the system
use
to
at
general-
four
parameters.
Being
macroscopic
to
according
book-keeping
any time.
purpose
and
predetermined
to
practices,
When computerized,
computer
languages
158.
(event-based)
Time-oriented
3.
time-dependent,
and
system
real-world
situation,
real-world
components,
Role-playing
have
fast-time
by
either
equations
describe
use
which
the
simulated
its
between
to
techniques
distributions
similar
the
of
to
those
system.
models,
where human
in
the
they
would
P-R models devised
models:
are
(life)
participants
that
microscopic,
States
relations
Carlo-based
Monte
adopting
data
simulated
generate
of the real-world
4.
expressing
by
or
to
representations
mathematical-logical
are
nature.
at
reproduced
dynamic
of
solutions
continuous
in
stochastic
are
They
models:
real-world
in this
methodology,
be considered
could
these
as one of
models.
SIMULATION LANGUAGES
8.3
giant
leaps
advances
in
The
recent
impressive
hardware
and compatible
by
taken
machine
with
to
respect
bot-h with
new doors for
capabilities
software,
it
feasible
technologies,
computer
opened
scientific
for
which
made
as affordable
as well
research
to employ computerized
efficiently
simulations
researchers
for the analysis
conveniently
of systems.
Early
computerized
simulation
models
(e. g.,
languages
programming
general-purpose
However,
due to
PL/I,
the
and ALGOL).
simulation
simplifying
development
especially
In
developing
conceptual
Essentially,
system
as a more
the
routine
of
during
efficient
task
functional
programming
specialized
computer
the late
1950s(135).
a simulation
framework
to
this
of
would
model,
describe
contain
relationships
are
use
soon
need
lead to
modeller
the
system
view'
perceived
has to
to
of
for
the
languages,
simulation
the
a 'world
in
coded
were
FORTRAN, BASIC,
widespread
the
tool,
research
and
be
select
modelled.
which the
within
and described(91).
159.
is employing
computer language,
a general-purpose
modeller
is
description
for
the
then the perspective
systems
organizing
if
the modeller
Alternatively,
the modeller's
responsibility.
language,
then the 'world
view'
chooses to employ a simulation
If
the
will
be implicit
normally
high-order
Since
construct
examine
languages,
and
discuss
with
characteristics
to
are explored
in the methodology.
it
models,
properties
description
of
In this
of each.
decide
on selecting
are
seem
and
languages
simulation
one
an appropriate
simulation
features
technical
section,
to
to
necessary
known
presently
the
used
extensively
then
would
of
language.
simulation
languages
simulation
simulation
the
within
be used
to
different
two
languages
founded
simulation
upon
are
this
discrete,
In
the
'world
of
context
views':
and continuous.
is
the
discrete-event
considered,
orientation
methodology,
.
to the system
because the continuous
view is inapplicable
world
(the
In
the
terminal).
airport
consideration
airport
under
by describing
the system can be modelled
terminal
environment,
Basically,
These changes
in time.
that occur discretely
changes of state
between
(event
those
isolated
in
times),
time
and
at
points
occur
On the other
times the state
of the system
constant.
remains
involves
hand,
the characterization
continuous
of the
modelling
the
behaviour
of
is
system
continuously
a set
real
the
by a set of equations.
The state
of the
by
dependent
which
change
represented
variables
The state
for
is defined
by the equations
over time.
a system
state
variables
system. Since no set
of
whose
of
the
dynamic
equations
behaviour
simulates
to define
could be derived
terminal
the
and describe
behaviour
of the system is
of
characteristics
airport
the
nature of the systems operation,
by adopting
better
the discrete-event
understood
simulation.
entities.
the boundaries
within
are
of a discrete
system
be many types
There
could
each
of -entities
various
characteristics
Objects
called
the
attributes,
that
are
called
having
common to
160.
of
groups
entities
Groupings
activities.
inserting
of
into
an entity
the
performance
of
potential
the
assigned
to
state
the
in
engage
are
entities
implies
a file
in
other
entities
is to reproduce
model
learning
hence
about
with
defining
they
although
different
files,
called
has
it
that
types
of
because
some relation
the
the
of
attributes
system.
(in
system
the
of
is
This
terms
of
entities),
by
accomplished
numeric
values
constructing
and
that
by
achieved
using
advancing
a 'next
Discrete
simulation
and an
defined
could
depending
on their
process-oriented.
to the
related
requirements
McCredie(136)
simulation
of
listed
of
the
to
event
three
general
and process-oriented.
earlier,
next,
specific
built-in
them as:
An event
is
process
may encompass
the relation
features,
simulation
activity-oriented,
simulation
described.
be
categories
will
GASP, GPSS, Q-GERT, SIMPL/I,
language
types:
and a process.
as:
event-oriented,
In
this
subsection,
three
one
while
sequence of events that
describes
8.1 graphically
an activity,
be categorized
Generally
be
could
as a time-ordered
Figure
activities.
an event,
from
mechanism.
activity-oriented,
were described
activity
several
between
Hence,
timing
event'
event-oriented,
time
simulated
should
capabilities
possess
languages
and
languages
The
most
SIMSCRIPT,
certain
minimum
facilities.
and
161.
PROCESS
EVENT
EVENT
EVENT
ACTIVITY
TIME
ARRIVAL
Figure
8.1
1. Flexible
2.
methods
for
Techniques
independent
variable
Concept
of
START OF
END OF
SERVICE
SERVICE
of
events,
describing
state
scheduling
events
' or upon
time,
activity,
and a process.
an event.
changes during
to the
to occur
relative
a
of
satisfaction
set
of
logical
relations
of state
variables.
Extended
data
3.
and trees,
such as lists
structures
for easily
these structures.
capabilities
manipulating
4.
Since many discrete
processes,
are stochastic
models
language
must
have
built-in
capabilities
variables
and random functions.
5.
Methods for gathering
statistics,
in the system.
6.
for
generating
and controlling
and
the
random
experiments
General
capabilities.
arithmetic
7.
Interfacing
capabilities
segments of
with other
FORTRAN library
system,
such
as
and
standard
packages.
8. Extensive
debugging
features.
the
computer
statistical
162.
8.3.1
EVENT-ORIENTED SIMULATION
Here,
a system
the
of
Therefore,
associated
the
with
languages
Simulation
the
each
the
system
is
event
in
in
can
that
change
the
state
this
each
with
associated
by executing
simulated
a
time-ordered
are
category
at
occur
logic
the
included
changes
that
events
developing
then
system,
type.
event
logic
by defining
modelled
by determining
times,
event
is
the
sequence.
SIMSCRIPT,
and
GASP.
SIMSCRIPT
in
was developed
1962(139).
also
It
in
exists
by Markowitz(137,138)
is
a FORTRAN-based
different
dialects
or
at
RAND Corporation
but
language,
simulation
it
versions;
II,
SIMSCRIPT
was
which
version,
new
non-FORTRAN
a
completely
by RAND in 1968(140).
released
is
II
11.5,
SIMSCRIPT
SIMSCRIPT
process-oriented
a
with
capabilities(141).
One
the
of
features
appealing
SIMSCRIPT
of
is
its
English-Language-like
programme
a main
consist
of
(PREAMBLE), and event subprogrammes.
The main programme is mainly
initial
occurrance
scheduling
of
variables,
used for initializing
Event subprogrammes are used
the simulation.
events,
and starting
for defining
the logic
each event in
associated
processing
with
the
programmes
normally
model.
The
General
Activity
introduced
by Kiviat(142)
by
and
Kiviat
GASP,
Simulation
in
1963.
Pritsker(143).
was extended
and enhanced
or dialects
of GASP include;
GASP,
ProgramIn
1968,
GASP IV,
GASP II
the
was first
was developed
of
version
current
Other versions
by Pritsker(144).
163.
GASP-PL/I,
PL/I-based
GASP
IV,
a
of
version
language(145).
FORTRAN as the programming
IV/E,
GASP
data
are
an interactive
displayed
At
simulation.
reinterpreted
V,
is
GASP
-
on
the
or
user's
terminal
request,
simulation
GASP IV,
where
where simulation
(screen)
during
be
can
variables
of
furthur
are
include
to
expanded
simulation
continuous
integration,
differential
features(147).
and other
equations,
in GASP IV,
framework
a conceptual
and supporting
for
the
the
are
provided
where
writing
programmes,
codes in FORTRAN the following:
partial
Structurally,
routines
modeller
relationships
User-coded
results.
Other
5.
routines
define
to
processing
graphics
replaces
changed(146).
an extension
capabilities
GASP IV,
of
version
PL/I
where
the
in
changes
INTLC,
OUTPUT, for
subroutine
the
system.
documentation
of
the
include
subprogrammes
which
for file
manipulation,
procedures
event
to
corresponding
state
initialize
to
mathematical-logical
output
and supporting
and statistical
scheduling,
collection.
8.3.2
In
ACTIVITY-ORIENTED
this
in
prescribing
which
the
are
the
that
conditions
for
the
appropriate
and
if
the
start
of
activities
either
the
conditions
As
end.
or
conditions
for,
it
each
is
is
time
not
events
for
is
time
an activity
starting
taken.
and
specified
simulated
are
the
engage,
(but
from
ending
describing
system
activity
activity
at
the
each
or
prescribed
for
action
is
accounted
activity
set
initiated
to
scanned,
in
cause
by
modelled
entities
itself)
activity
is
system
automatically
are
entire
which
conditions
advanced,
each
the
approach,
activities
SIMULATION
then
satisfied,
To ensure
necessary
advance.
to
scan
For
that
the
this
164.
reason,
activity-oriented
inefficient
when
particular
relatively
simulation
to
compared
to
may prove
discrete
other
be
simulations.
in
Falling
this
category
Control
Originally,
the
developed
by John
1960(148).
for
Later,
where
the
without
8.3.3
modeller
can
FORTRAN version
easily
being
necessarily
simulation
LanguagePetroleum
language.
CSL,
was
Company in
as the
introduced
and
ECSL
the
Simulation
and
for
Esso
of IBM(UK)
a basic
Honeywell
ECSL
In
Buxton
is
ECSL
use
familiar
with
of
the
construct
FORTRAN programming.
to
model
PROCESS-ORIENTED SIMULATION
by including
sequence of
system is modelled
in a defined
The logic
events occuring
associated
with
pattern.
these events
statements.
can be generalized
and used as single
flow
be employed
These statements
to
of
can then
model the
this
entities
(which
the
case,
through
are
process).
the
automatically
In
this
activity-oriented
is
event logic
corresponding
defining
the
approaches
are here combined,
and the fact that
implicit
the
and is automatically
within
contained
its
to
relative
statements
contributes
greatly
This
simplicity.
Q-GERT, SIMPL/I,
GPSS,
by
sequence of events
each
executed
as entities
move through
both
features
from
event
and
sense,
system
category
of simulation
and SIMULA.
languages
includes:
GPSS,
the
language,
by
most widely
was developed
used simulation
Geoffrey
Gordon of IBM in 1961-2,
as the General Purpose Systems
Simulator(150,151),
704-709
IBM
implemented
on
where it
was
followed
Other
language
improved
computers.
this
versions
of
later;
GPSS 11(152,153)
in 1964, followed
shortly
was introduced
by GPSS 111(154).
and the
package
in
1967,
introduced(155,156)
GPSS/360 was later
System.
Simulation
General
Purpose
was renamed as
165.
The latest
diagram,
The
system.
into
equivalent
the
of
diagram
by
execution
the
Each
network.
macro-instruction
There are more
by
is
transactions,
network
and
blocks,
before
features
and
language
to
the
controlled
being
destroyed
times,
arithmetic,
'
and
non-uniform
Schriber(160),
and
all
of
it
also
aspects
has
point
Many
and
of
GPSS;
block
various
of
block.
The
and easy
a simple
shortcomings:
certain
longer
for
computer
and
including
demonstrate
syntax,
structure,
on
real
from
sampling
textbooks,
elaborate
the
through
capabilities
its
or
special
and Probst(135),
Kahan,
the
of
entities,
and
power
procedures
of
be suggestive
make it
floating
Bobillier,
techniques,
programming
GPSS,
difficult
distributions.
discuss
of
or
represented
operation
(TERMINATE)
on entities.
the
by
computer
lack
use
form
subroutine
transactions
by
is
use.
limited
the
and
GPSS
in
to
temporary
those
of
characteristics
excecution
and
by
movement
to
of
creation
However,
comparitively
interconnected
intended
accomplished
blocks
of
is
block
the
interpretation
for
statements
by writing
a programme
which
The
structure
translate
is actually
a small
which
in GPSS, performs
function
a given
blocks,
than forty
each is pictorially
operation.
(GENERATE),
then
would
logical
the
GPSS
a block
into
block,
figure,
a stylized
block's
modeller
block
defining
the
in
a model
blocks
standard
GPSS processor,
logically
of blocks
consisting
coding
of
flowchart
maps the
which
a set
is
version
Basically,
package.
by combining
constructed
Another
GPSS V(157,158).
a FORTRAN-based
GPSS F(150),
is
is
version
its
various
applications.
SIMULA, a simulation
language
based on ALGOL 60, was developed
in
the Norwegian
Computing
Center by Dahl and Nygaard( 161 162 ).
It
in 1965,
in Europe.
was first
released
and gained
popularity
SIMULA 67,
information
is
a newer generalized
version(163).
on SIMULA, and its
applications,
refer
For
to
detailed
Hill(164).
166.
SIMPL/I
introduced
was
system
by
Graphical
network
models
pictorial
the
network
to
system
model defined
representation
of
modeler
Q-GERT network
and
use
processing
Q-GERT involved
on
applications
is
network
that
activity
a
pictorial
flow
entities
model
statement
the
displaying
of
For
to
refer
Recent
Program.
capability
terminals.
for
more
details
on
Pritsker(166).
SLAM
Simulation
features,
that
far.
It
adopted
continuous,
discrete-process).
more
For
for
than
one
modelling
discrete-event,
SLAM,
containing
language.
were categorized
in the particular
for
package
previously
In
is
a
by
developed
recently
package
in certain
and
characteristics
unique
languages
from other
distinct
mentioned
makes it
is
a hybrid
characteristics
of
languages mentioned
SLAM,
Modelling-
Alternative
simulation
SLAM is
Pritsker(91).
approach
for
Language
FORTRAN-based
so
an
by Q-GERT Analysis
Q-GERT,
of
was
be modeled,
where
The
branches.
by its
and
nodes
be transcribed
then
system
would
on graphics
models
equivalent
an
and
development
8.3.4
into
the
Q-GERT,
activity-on-branch
an
represents
delay.
or
are
and by
lists,
and
employs
a branch
the
of
interpretation
the
It
which
components
behaviour
Technique,
Review
and
time
processing
representation
the
through
by
in
on the
procedures.
Pritsker(166).
philosophy
based
the
their
entities,
and
is
where
of
processes,
Evaluation
by
developed
PL/I,
Language-
structures,
It
1972(165).
characteristics
SIMPL/I
variables,
Queue
the
and
represented
PL/I
IBM in
Programming
general-purpose
of
by
advantageous
The
according
language
discrete-activity,
the
a unified
alternate
modelling
simulation
modelling
framework.
to
the
(i. e.,
or
approaches
SLAM can
and continuous
event,
network,
the network
symbols
SLAM provides
network
mode,
translated
building
that
easily
graphical
models
are
modes:
167.
into
input
SLAM is
respect,
Q-GERT's
the
for
statements
two
of
modes,
building
is
very
support
models.
similar
to
simulation
situations
which
modes
can
and continuous
1.
discrete
modes
in
Entities
take
can
the
in
between
place
numerous
continuous
for
structure
this
approach
but
modes,
the
within
same
interaction
specific
the
three
the
discrete,
network,
SLAM(91):
network
can initiate
model
the
of
occurrance
events.
flow
2. Events
the
3.
network
can alter
in the
Entities
of
in
entities
model
variables.
6.
State
initiate
reaching
variables
the
network
instantaneous
can cause
(in continuous
the
values
values
threshold
prescribed
changes
simulation).
threshold
to
model.
of
values
can
state
can
events.
Considering
the
adequate
description,
conceptual
which
power and flexibility
technical
features
later.
programming
applications,
to
ability
network-event-continuous
SLAM can
orientation,
detail
For
language.
GASP IV
can
only
and
networks.
specifies
organizational
For the discrete-event
mode,
SLAM operate
in three
different
be
also
simultaneously
combined
be six
In all,
there
model.
could
Not
of
and
such
this
approach,
SLAM contains
and continuous,
both
discrete-event
and
event
that
subprogrammes
development,
model
block-statement
representation
graphical
In
processing.
computer
GPSS's
to
similar
philosophy
other
direct
models
with
for
provide
available
the
for
mechanism
undoubtedly
construct
interaction
will
to
combined
between
each
a
modeller
articulating
greatly
the
enhance
the
to
Pritsker
modelling
More specific
modeller.
in
discussed
SLAM
are
of
and practical
aspects
For more information
on SLAM structure,
techniques,
varying
and a wide
and
refer
more than
the
system
and Pegden(91).
syntax,
of
range
168.
8.4
Airport
seventies.
They
passenger
delays
objective
prime
then
in
Typical
benefiting
extending
their
enhancing
its
convenience,
detailed
activities
from
knowledge
used
in
their
on
and
because
in
it
a
to
promising
the
with
method of analysis,
time-varying
nature
in the system.
and
terminals,
traffic
this
phenomenon
eventual
airport
which
Their
then.
and
outcomes
terminals,
and
management.
airports(168)
research
to describe
able
potentially
fashion.
Organizations
manageable
is
credited
because
of
simulation
it could
demand
and
the
as
most
efficiently
cope
the stochasticity
in
simulation
categories
mentioned
functional
simulation
could be of different
classes
the purpose
the characteristics
of simulation,
of
degree of simulation
sophistication,
and the level
anticipated.
terminals,
early
congestion
operations
those
related
from
airport
in air
the
were
programmes
Researchers
analytic
and simulations.
modelling,
landside(167)
for
the use of simulation
encouraged
experimentation,
of the airport
Apart
in
design,
planning,
methods
inherent
unprecedented
growth
investigating
on
centered
scientifically,
conclusions
by
encountered
substantial
in
programmes-boomed
triggered
were
the
accompanied
research
the
Section
8.2,
to
according
models,
In
to classify
an attempt
simulations
Gentry
four'
identified
and Doyle(169)
the
of precision
for
airport
levels
simulations:
LEVEL I:
Simplest
basic
level.
and
most
Time-variation
and stochasticity
are not taken into
Only
fixed
peak demand patterns
at
each part
landside
are considered.
account.
of
airport
LEVEL II:
-
Time-variation
considered,
in
but
not
the
average
stochasticity.
demand "rate
are
explicitly
of
169.
in
demand rate at a particular
component
its maximum service
queueing
will
rate,
Hence, it would not predict
any delays
Only
the
when
average
a given time exceeds
and delays be incurred.
if
the
rate,
demand rate
average
Queueing Theory
unlike
is
just
below
the
maximum service
applications.
LEVEL III:
(time-variation),
Probabilistic
demand
aspects
of
(stochasticity)
rate
are explicitly
considered.
-
is
It
based
basic
1.
on
steady-state
queueing
and service
analysis,
its
with
two
assumptions:
For
given
remain
time
time
equilibrium
LEVEL IV:
average
with
described.
random
but
constant,
probabilistically
2. Each
the
periods,
is
period
(steady-state)
demand
and
fluctuations,
long
enough
so
can be attained.
service
rates
which
that
are
statistical
level
Highest
theoretical
of
sophistication.
Demand
arrivals
and service
and
rates
are both probabilistic
time-varying
or can be explicit
functions
of time.
May
be
to
impractical
landside
prove
in
to
current
use
because
its
high
degree
modelling
of
of
mathematical
complexity.
Basically,
developed
existing
industry
landside
(terminal)
airport
models were
simulation
by academic
institutions
to
extend
as a vehicle
knowledge
in
transport
field,
this
air
or by the
and governmental
airports.
in
utilized
and operating
actually
airport
terminals.
the
for
agencies
responsible
For the latter,
simulation
process
of
planning
administering
models were
of
and design
170.
institutions
Academic
In
research.
University
of
US,
elaborate
extensive
Texas
and
of
air
airport-related
transport-related
Massachussettes
California
at
Institute
Berkeley,
of
and
The
Austin.
at
to
transportation-related
when a
problems,
Since then,
in 1967(170).
was convened
air
workshop
has
research
was directed
conducting
airport
in
conducted
University
in
pioneered
the
were
The
programmes
Technology,
which
SIMULATIONS
ACADEMICALLY-DEVELOPED
8.4.1
been
towards
there,
conducted
the theoretical
aspects
of
part
a major
of
airport
written
In the
GPSS simulation
University
of
language.
California
Horonjeff(172)
produced
deterministic
models
at
for
Berkeley,
individual
earlier
terminal
by
research
facilities
Horonjeff's
Under
models.
queueing
for
the
following
facilities
the
analysed
were
supervision,
baggage
lounges(173),
departure
of
analytical
modelling:
purpose
and security
claim facilities(174,175),
movement in piers(176),
(terminal)
landside
Although
facilities(177).
airport
no complete
using
simulation
model
work
abovementioned
research
subsequent
developed
was
on
that
individual
produced
Berkeley,
at
facilities
was
airport
landside
but
the
useful
to
simulation
models.
Research
on this
at Austin,
1978(28,57)
simulation,
tool
when
particular
in The University
was conducted
of Texas
in
developed
terminal
and airport
simulation
was
This
this
a part
as
of
research
programme.
(ACAP),
Airport
CAPacity
is a useful
and convenient
used
capacity
subject
in
simulating
analysis.
terminal
"operations,
and
in
171
In
UK,
the
research
Scotland,
where
AIR-Q
developed
was
later
extended
was conducted
complete
by
AIR-Q
University
is
model
simulation
in
Kirke(30)
and
Strathclyde,
of
terminal
airport
Calderbank
by Laing(31).
in
in
similar
many
1972,
and
to
aspects
ACAP.
University
Loughborough
multi-disciplinary
included
a
Airport(95).
in
research
survey
Reports
many
aspects
behaviour
of
for
in
of
of
this
this
research
in
terminals,
airport
in
behaviour
programme
were
especially
methodology,
and
processing
terminal
no complete
conducted
which
Manchester
useful
quite
in decsribing
times
service
was
simulation
LUT.
in
research
in universities
conducted
Denmark(181).
In
passenger
However,
Similar
8.4.2
Technology
programme
passenger
distributions(178).
developed
of
terminal
airport
in Australia(179),
also
was
simulations
Canada(180),
and in
INDUSTRY-DEVELOPED SIMULATIONS
order
to
place
and realistic
had to
task
achieving
purposely
terminals,
planning
assumptions,
devise
some
and design
of
organisations
tools
systematic
new terminals
responsible
which
could
on sound
for
this
aid
in
their
ones.
firm
(TAMS),
Tippetts-Abbetts-McCarthy-Stratton
consulting
developed
the
a simulation
of
model for
and design
planning
in Venezuela(182).
Maiqueta Airport
GPSS-based
It is a LEVEL III,
landside
airport
model using time-oriented
queueing models.
The
173.
activities
To have a
have to be
computerized
performed
workable
enforced:
1. Flows,
2. The
demands,
and services
demand distribution
at
are
in
condition.
steady-state
can be represented
each service
as
Poisson.
3. The
arrival
dynamics
of
at
each
independent
is
service
of
the
of
any preceding
service.
of this
research
programme,
has been compiled
elements
As part
landside
Six
rate
these
LaGuardia,
airport
a data base for all
US hub airports.
large
for
Miami,
Denver, - Detroit,
(Boston-Logan,
airports
and San
the
Francisco)
level
of
at
were modelled
basic
hubs,
data.
While for 19 other
based
detail,
level
lesser
on
of
at a
by on-site
availed
data were compiled
airport
FAA(187) and CAB(102) statistics.
detail
Recently,
simulation,
FAA released
the Airport
version
original
fron
Transportation
by
was
obtained
Bechtel
Corporation,
authorities
and
implementation.
wide-scale
be presented
and use will
airport
In
the
Canada,
Calgary
the
US
The
disseminate
to
operators
Description
Canadian
Model(188),
uses time-oriented
Model-
and
Transportation
in
FAA's
and modified
enhanced
Cambridge,
Mass.
The FAA plans to
queueing
use
of
FAA landside
'final'
it,
ALSIM's
ALSIM.
Department
Its
of
was subsequently
Systems Center,
ALSIM,
and
encourage
promote
its
characteristics
later.
Air
Transport
which
is
models.
Administration
a GPSS-based
developed
simulation
that
174.
UK,
In the
its
for
SIMULATION
8.5
The task
of
and
as
outlined
and
technique,
performance
the
to
It
be
model
Scrutiny
the
of
theoretically
with little
situation,
simulated
with the
It
while
It
4.
consumes
its output
can
proposed
the
close
simulation
is
technique
the
conceptualize
conflict
of logical
to
possiblility
a reasonable
to
use.
of
amount
information,
real-world
remains
uncompromised.
flexibility
necessary
provide
demand pattern,
time-variant
facilities
processing
suitable
real-world
system.
would be relatively
convenient
It
of
establishing
that:
ensure
would
for
required
warrants
procedure,
the data synthesizer,
or
capacity
inspection
of
employed.
important
data
necessary
the
in
examination
3.
the
developed
has recently
has
However, no publication
Authority
simulation.
BAA model.
synthesizing
constructing
1.
Airport
landside
own airport
been released
2.
British
the
in
the
simulating
features
of the
important
and other
system.
Four
to
techniques,
covering
simulation
this
Trial
research.
terminal
languages
dedicated
simulations
(ECSL,
and
to
Close
techniques
realistic
ready
of;
were
SLAM).
the
features
interpretation
of
of
input
two
attempted:
airport
two
simulation
Considerable
time
and
effort
data
appropriate
this
of
the
following
the
and
with
for
conducted
of
each
ALSIM),
and
inspection
specific
availability
runs
of
actually
were
(ACAP
selecting
technique.
and
sample
techniques
simulation
light
examined
were
approaches
and microscopic
in
implementation
for
considered
macroscopic
real
information.
each
and
the
in
the
extent
of
procedure
technique,
system,
synthesizing
between
comparisons
selection
was
probability
of
175.
MACROSCOPICAPPROACH
8.5.1
Logically,
terminal
simulations
implementation,
for
for
suitable
the
to
because
job.
this
simulation
that
parameters
they
which
deal
with
between
its
all
governing
every
components,
process
the
terminal
for
In
this
is
sense,
macroscopic,
interactions
where
microscopic,
system
between
specified
logic
the
with
its
ACAP
and
within
Originally,
system.
on both levels;
and describing
whole
and
variables
the
system
all
more
are
purposely
interaction
the
thereby
the
they
developed
and
within
oriented
particularly
airport.
performed
as
all
terminals,
and
attractive
defined.
contributors
8.5.1.1
system
are
be considered
to
more
include
the
simulating
the
defining
are
they
they
specifically
(and
activities
modelling
facilities)
seemed
airport
characterize
were
simulations
Since
of
because
system-specific,
they
first
the
were
seriuosly
characteristics,
and operational
simplicity
for
because
implementation,
particularly,
its
of
its
structural
relative
was appealing.
ACAP constitutes
of:
initializes
MAIN
defines
Program,
The
and
which
included,
and parameters
and controls
and
Structurally,
movements.
FLOWIN
Subprogram;
logic
for interaction
the
variables
for
accounts
all
from
logic
for
activities
176.
Operationally,
would
a middle-sized
computer
be sufficient
to run ACAP,
with
with
a FORTRAN compiler
substantial
no requisite
that
skills,
provided
and
operational
information
in the right
are entered
order and
input
deck(189).
ACAP
In addition
to simplicity,
programming
airport-specific
format as the
book-keeping
(accounting)
excellent
well
capabilities,
documentation,
and thorough
organized
output
and special
emphasis
level
hence recognizing
the
on the user defined
of
service,
important
capacity/level
considerations.
of service
provides
However,
1.
disadvantages:
Deterministic
function
of
nature:
is
to
which
each facility
performed
at
queues,
employ
regression
taken from
Modular
analysis
of service
data base accumulated
basic
subroutines,
activities
times and
to estimate
waiting
by
derived
that
were
models
distributions
times
and arrival
provide
in order
deterministic
component
logic
to
from
surveys
simulate
conducted
in
three
Texan airports(28).
Limited
2.
applicability:
developed
to simulate
ACAP was first
small size:
Municipal
Austin
Airport's
in 1976(190),
terminal
when it was a
handling
airport
small
annually
around
passengers
one million
(3) airlines.
Thus it
through
be used to simulate
only
could
terminals
airport
of that
size.
4. Input data required:
Because it
the
input
simulation,
required
geometry,
number of
flight
schedule
passengers
is
airport
a complete
include:
data would
(including
information
flight
on flights,
their
passenger/visitor
and passenger/bag
ratios),
and all possible
the terminal,
which
undoubtedly
requires
effort.
paths
terminal
airport
timings,
ratio,
in
of movement
"considerable
on-site
177.
Due to
the
abovementioned
author
to
use
ACAP
in
different
improve
-
and
million
airlines
terminal
ACAP.
Number
of
So,
gates
was
their
retaining
increase
compatible
while
the
was
modified
increased
was
1983
was
in
bigger
from
characteristics
(10)
passengers,
serving
It
plan.
it
in
Airport
service
annual
(8)
by
used
(extented)
in
made by the
May 1983 was
an attempt
Austin
simulate
Airport
demand
(2.3)
1976;
to
Austin
unsuccessful.
shortcomings,
in
maximum
to
a maximum
of
nodes
of
and
extended
(4)
utilization,
numbers
of
segregately
different
and
airport,
segregated
that
gates
necessary
as follows:
from
and
size
and
to
(10),
and
with
of
paths
movement.
important
The
most
of ACAP,
nature
from
the
models
changed the
modification,
which drastically
regression-derived
was the deletion
of all
They were
modular
component
subroutines.
Monte Carlo-based
provide
stochastic
models that
by
replaced
for simulating
logic
and
activities
at each facility,
performed
This particular
times and lengths
queueing
predict
accordingly.
improvement,
LEVEL II
This
ACAP's
changed
LEVEL III.
to
modification
achieved
simulation
two important
classification
goals:
First,
from
attaining
general
promoting
and secondly,
ACAP could
be used to simulate
any
utilization.
in
1983,
Airport
terminal
Austin'
to
that
of size
comparable
of
ACAP was not
Nevertheless,
of other characteristics.
regardless
because in the circumstances
of this
used in this
methodology,
input
data
the
substantial
and
research,
was still
required
of operation,
The modified
stochasticity
unmanageable
to
8.5.1.2
ALSIM
Compared
to
capability
description
collect
ACAP,
ALSIM
is
the
dimension,
with
of a gigantic
is
large
following
The
a
of simulating
very
airports;
features
of the nature
and general
of ALSIM extracted
178.
its
from
literature(168,191).
published
which
simulation
of
movement
landside,
quantifies
people
region
is
ALSIM
parameters
describing
the airport
through
and vehicles
between
the aircraft
and airport
a computerized
flow
due to the
landside.
The
boundaries,
can
be viewed
as a combination
of service
or processing
ALSIM represents
In this
landside
sense,
essential
facilities
the
and simulates
arrival,
queueing,
simultaneuosly
occurring
at
each location.
processes
by
accomplished
airport
groups,
routed
facilities.
representing
through
ALSIM is
programme
and
vehicles
modules
processing
and
and deplaning
by transactions
enplaning
visitors,
facilities.
landside
resembling
service
is
This
passenger
that
are
processing
FORTRAN supporting
GPSS V with
an extensive
thus utilizing
the advantages
of both languages.
subprogramme,
GPSS V programmes creates
transactions
to represent
passengers
through
the
directed
and accompanying
visitors,
are
which
programme
in
written
blocks
to
describe
the
simulated
in
processors
through
passengers
landside
the routing
resembling
of
is used to provide
The FORTRAN subprogramme
processors.
actual
in matrix
to
during
searches
efficiency
programme execution,
and for flexibility
numbers to GPSS transactions,
assign facility
in input
used such as
and output
operations
with large data files
a manner
airport
Language
closely
configuration,
and
flight
schedules.
IBM
Assembly
linkages
to
programme
provide
between
FORTRAN Subprogramme,
and the
in-core
switches,
and to
reading
and writing,
set logic
perform
in the
for
transactions
and assign
obtain
parameter
values
FORTRAN Subprogramme.
subroutines
are
used
GPSS Main Program
the
Structurally,
the
Deplaning
functions
to
logic,
passenger
which creates
deplaning
passengers
and visitors
and assigns
transactions.
routing
179.
Enplaning
3.
originating
representing
Facility
4.
modules
Control
5.
modules.
Timer
6.
section
Facility
1.
start
run
simulation
process.
Including
or
the
location
size
of
applicable
Passenger
2.
Each transaction
characteristics:
(parameters),
attributes
will
which
Those
characteristics.
passenger
passenger
include
group
size,
number
group,
landside,
of
arrival
distribution
of
It
schedules:
for
generating
mechanism
of
number
flight,
ground transport
bags distribution,
and selection
passengers,
Flight
3.
check-in
represents
the model
or
/
departure
arrival
(domestic/international/commuter),
identification
4.
modal
of
each
facility,
is
and
assigned
determine
its
the
characteristics
per
visitors
through
selection
choice,
route
to flight
prior
departing,
arriving,
processors.
to facility
ALSIM include:
number of servers
available
times distribution.
service
designated
visitors.
transactions
the
and stop
characteristics:
processor,
transactions
creates
and accompanying
landside
essential
representing
for
dispatching
to
required
which
passengers
to
section
data
Input
logic,
passenger
for
enplaning
type.
counter
the demand and provides
by specifying
transactions
transfer
time,
and
on each
passengers
flight
type
the
of
baggage
claim
facility
number.
Including
coordination
of
number,
geometry:
point
type.
facility
type at point,
number within
and facility
Airport
point,
Evidently,
gathering
costly
such
efforts,
part
of
input
data
substantial
necessitate
are the most time consuming and
Size and cost
of such an effort
requirements
which usually
implementation.
information
depend on how much of the necessary
eventually
will
degree
is already
on-hand through
on
and
earlier
airport
surveys,
large-scale
desired.
Overall,
typical
of detail
and accuracy
a
data collection
excercise
at a major airport,
aimed at gathering
50,000
ALSIM,
to operate
all data necessary
as
may cost as much
US Dollars
in 1978 prices(191).
180.
Model
includes
output
for
flow,
facilities
all
are
statistics
numbers
averages
and time
series
specified
time
Computer
storage
of
of
time
and waiting
facilities,
number
individually
maintained
period,
and
facilities
are
or
of
also
time
of
by
distributions,
single
queue
length
of
usage
average
aggregated
outflow
each
over
made available.
requirements
simulation
dependent
are
the
simulated,
example,
for
programme
served,
passengers
facility
Output
minutes.
the
total
simulated,
scale
and an input
and visitors
by
how many passenger
groups
are simulated
For
and occupancy
five
every
accumulated
A summary
facility.
information,
queueing
run
upon
the
number of passengers
factor
specifies
which
one
for
GPSS transaction.
100-gate
airport
20,000
involving
hours,
period
extending
over three
(7)
165
flights,
of
on
minutes
approximately
require
passengers
(CPU) time
on
of storage
processor
unit
and 556 K bytes
central
(1),
for
but
370/158.
That
is
IBM
input
factor
for
of
scale
an
an
factor
scale
would increase
requirements
an input
of (2),
storage
during
to
800
a busy
K,
Calibration
itself
to
(15)
and validation
of
by
Wilbur
conducted
minutes.
ALSIM required
a seperate
& Associates(99),
Smith
in
surveys
were conducted
comprehensive
in the US: Miami International,
airports
LaGuardia
obviously
employed
different
However,
ALSIM's
1978
study
by
where
large
hub
at three
Denver-Stapleton,
and
These
so extensiveand
surveys
were
400 field
had around
they
that
expensive,
staff
data for two days at each airport
to collect
using 32
kinds of survey forms and sampling
techniques.
airports.
ALSIM
input
was not
selected
for
use
in
this
methodology.
a level
of detail
requirements
are substantial
with
that
the collection
that
necessitates
with
of data compatible
level.
This would imply conducting
surveys of the size mentioned
in the
The cost
and manpower needed for
above.
such surveys
Moreover,
research
work was unthinkable.
of this
circumstances
(waiting
for the
information
times
congestion
and queue lengths)
181.
different
runs
that
the performance
to construct
are required
justify
demand levels
could
not
anticipated,
It
that
sophistication.
cost,
and
of
size,
the
level,
microscopic
component
basics
of
governs
importance
the
its
are
examined
the
process,
and
performance
of
the
to
and
distinguished
features.
Typically,
airport
queueing
For the
processes,
detailed
facilities
of
in
terminal
where
analysis
of
features,
which
of
characteristics
individual
an
identify
to
analysed,
performance
that
delineate
the logic
to clearly
be
It
of
prime
would
activities.
the
examine
characteristics
their
hammer!.
a sledge
with
MICROSCOPIC APPROACH
8.5.2
For
a nut
aspects
consideration,
operational
its
define
to
and
facilities
processing
of
are
are
and congestion
Fishman(192)
systems,
waiting
queueing
include:
cases
intrinsic.
of
diagnosed
1. Demand:
Arrival
pattern.
for
Required
service
Willingness
to
wait.
Resource
requirements.
-
demand.
Server
preference.
Priority,
as a special
-
attribute
of
demand.
2. Resources:
Number
of servers.
Service
time
characteristics.
Selection
rule
Skill
level.
-
for
service
Service
interruptions,
failure.
or server
Waiting
space available.
-
(queue
caused
discipline).
by preemption
of
new demand,
182.
3. Performance:
Percentage
-
of demand waiting.
Waiting
time
charactersitics
(server)
Resource
utilization.
In
the task
microscopic
approach,
would then be
individual
simulating
components,
subsequently,
information
the
from
and
costly
collection
effort
the
adopting
to
reduced
reducing
inconvenient
demand.
of
airport
surveys
necessary
information,
in
input,
for
that
to
of
terms
of data gathering
much more manageable
Consequently,
is
to
information
and cost.
effort
restricted
demand patterns,
time
arrival
service
number
of
servers,
distributions,
Now, would this
and queue discipline.
approach be
for
performance
information
to establish
synthesizing
required
model? Would it be realistic
or justifiable?
Congestion
and
components
should
different
adequate
noteably
delay
information
have
no
from
individually
from
to
reason
equivalent
be
simulated
inconsistent
information
component
simulated
of
as a part
particular
that arrival
system,
provided
of the complete
the same service
that component (with
exactly
the
with
for
or
that
the
context
overall
demand patterns
to
for
characteristics
that the arrival
On the condition
the two cases),
are identical.
(
for
demand pattern
actually
which
a particular
component
dictates
are kept
congestion
and delay if service
characteristics
be closely
demand
to the
actual
could
constant)
approximated
then such approach would be reasonably
for
suitable
anticipated,
predicting
congestion
simulated
components.
This
approach
attempts
to
is
and
delay
information
because,
reasonably
realistic,
detach an individual
component from
for
individually
conceptually,
the
system,
it
but
factors
that
its
influence
retaining
still
all
operation
whilst
the component remains within
the system.
One can imagine pointing
(camera)
device
individual
an observation
on that
component alone
its
to
and recording
all
movements
and other
related
aspects
183.
is analogous
This
to the concept
of
operational
performance.
free-body-diagram
to
used by structural
and mechanical
engineers
interpret
forces
or
acting
element
structural
on a particular
in
the
the
to
component,
system.
attempt
analyse
whole
Justification
of
this
approach
from
stems
need to comprehend
of
of the components
the
behaviour
the
and operational
performance
the system without
the inevitable
of
necessity
information
and obtrusive
collection
exercises.
To
an
choose
individually,
technique
appropriate
Shannon(133)
to
considerations
the
to
following
the
between
choosing
of
components
simulate
recommended
process
costly
conducting
several
techniques:
simulation
in terms of:
required
Ease of learning
the language.
1. Training
-
Ease
of conceptualizing
simulation
problems.
2. Coding considerations,
such as:
Ease
of coding random sampling
and numerical
Degree
to
is
which
coding
self-documenting.
3.
Portability
computers.
4. Degree
of
and availability
flexibility
of
to which
concepts.
modelling
5. Processing
considerations,
the
6.
of
Debugging
capabilities
7. Run-times
times.
core
language
language
on other
supports
and new
different
including:
Built-in
statistical
gathering
List
processing
capabilities.
Ability
Ease
of
Ease
of
-
the
integration.
capabilities.
allocation.
producing
standard
producing
user-tailored
reports.
and technical
reliability.
consideration
report.
covering
compilation
and
execution
184.
For
availability
languages)
were
reasons,
considered,
implementation
adequacy
SLAM.
of
8.5.2.1
ECSL
ECSL package
trial
runs
processing
in
of
representing
SLAM is
a recently
higher
modelling
articulation
developed
power
the
airport
realistic
features
the
I.
to
terminal
pattern
of its
and incapability
because
pattern.
package,
that
offers
the
promotes
and
Specifically,
the
in
useful
are
extremely
facilities,
combined
where
SLAM were
of
capabilities
event
simulation
facilities.
to model all terminal
utilized
processing
facilitated
SLAM as the
technique
simulation
more
Important
facilities.
the
terminal
modelling
of
SLAM that
of
is
largely
parameters,
a time-varying
SLAM,
proved
to
methodology
were:
Unlike
ECSL, SLAM was flexible
facilities
in a time-variant
This
its
examining
closely
It proved
was discarded.
description.
network-discrete
efficiently
Adopting
to
simulation
flexibility,
and
of
systems
features
of
combined-mode
simulating
input
demand in
arrival
SLAM
it
of the runs,
implementation,
with
was inspected
terminal
simulate
Center,
suitability
however,
after
they
research,
LUT Computer
interpreting
8.5.2.2
were
its
from output
properties
for
to be inadequate
inflexibility
in
in
available
to
test
facilities,
and
this
(simulation
packages
for
inspected
thoroughly
two
only
be of
pattern
the
r,
simulates
the
significance
for
in`representi
by including
accomplished
(for
20-minute
intervals)
time
which conveniently
to the facility.
particular
fluctuations
in
time-varying
in
(ARYL),
subroutine
arrival
demand
of
demand
185.
Stochasticity
2.
accomplished
instance,
For
in
the
simulating
SLAM's
exploiting
by
calling
processing
in
capabilities
is
activity
this
respect.
in
SCHDL(1, EXPON(0.20,3))
subroutine
in
EXPON(0.20,3)
ACTIVITY/1,
mode,
or statement
both
1:
mode,
processing
activity
network
would simulate
number
(passenger)
time whose value is randomly
an entity
with a service
from
distribution
Exponential
mean
a Negative
with
generated
(1/J.
time
the
0.20 minutes,
1) is
random number
service
using
discrete
event
(string)
function
generating
Conditional
3.
probabilistic
between unidentical
servers
(ACT).
by using the function
Conditional
4.
between
statistics
by using the
all
throughout
6.
7.
simulation,
SLAM output
of
8.
In
(STAT),
(COLCT),
of
oncoming
attributes
by using
is
entities
by
rules,
some priority
(transient
state)
SLAM parameters
(MONTR,TRACE).
or other
the function
provided,
the
modeller
and (TIMST).
the
with
desires,
throughout
statistics
by using
the
aspects
of the system through
).
),
).
XX(.
ATRIB(.
SS(.
and
as:
(TNEXT).
(TNOW),
and
provisions,
such as
various
coming section,
facilities
processing
described.
of
entities
percentages,
predefined
intervals
summary reports
at selected
(MONTR,SUMRY).
bu using the function
oncoming
(MONTR,CLEAR).
function
events
report
information
Description
to
of
which include:
during
the 'warm-up'
simulation,
Producing
operational
functions
branching
servers
according
(SELECT).
to
according
probabilistic
identical
Clearing
period,
Tracing
-
number 3.
branching
SLAM utilization
under
consideration
to
and
the
use
terminal
simulate
is
thoroughly
186.
SIMULATION
8.6
first
The
OF TERMINAL
FACILITIES
USING SLAM
in
model,
constructing
a facility's
simulation
key events.
the real
would be to express
system in terms of its
In a simple servicing
the system's
could be
operation
situation,
by considering
two events:
simulated
Passenger
immediately,
1.
or
arrivaleither
starting
service
step
join
alternatively,
leaves,
in
departure-
Passenger
2.
then,
queue,
This
is
or
the
processing
facilities,
simulation
basic
and
ends
for
either
service
starts
the facility
becomes idle.
another
the
passenger
passenger
waiting
logic
or
servicing
associated
with
in general,
individual
processing
and for
passenger
Typically,
details
that change.
only complementary
then
from
execution
condition,
starts
an initial
outline
in
chronological
proceeds
of either
and durations
updated
service
and statistics
SLAM 'next-event'
of
order
type of
according
event.
amended at
logic
is
discrete-event
times
scheduling
Continuously,
are
records
the
to
each event.
framework
which
within
structural
depicted
in
logic,
The
as
simulated.
the
models are
begins
8.2,
by entering
Figure
the MAIN Program,
where all
MAIN,
there
defined
dimensioned.
In
are
and
programme
variables
is acall
to SLAM processor,
are read
statements
where SLAM input
is
define
the
the
Next,
to
system
simulation
parameters.
(
if
INTLC is
not
subroutine
included
by
SLAM processor
will
automatically
initialize
the system as empty and idle).
Execution
of simulation
begins by removing the first
where
event from the event calender,
they are sequentially
based on low values of event times.
ordered
initialized
by
INTLC
calling
the
user,
SLAM
then
the
subroutine
call
user-written
set to the event code,
which in turn calls
the appropriate
is then
TNOW (current
time)
event
subroutine.
is made
A test
advanced to the event time for the next event.
if
the user-written
to
is
after
check
event subroutine
executed,
processor
EVENT(I)where
simulation
run
will
I is
is
complete.
If
the
run
is
not
complete,
then
the
187.
MAI
PROGRAM
SLAM
READ
PROCESSOR
SLAM
CONTROL STATEMsNTS
INITIALIZE
MODEL
CALL
INTLC
EVENT
I-
EVENT
to
stop
TIME
CODE
CALL
0UTPUT
YES
run?
SLAX
PRINT
REPORT
SUtM114ARY
REMOVE NEXT EVENT
CALENDER
FRON,
More
runs?
CALL
EVENT (I)
0
EVENT 1....
Figure
8.2
-4F
EE: NT n
SLAM Processing
Logic
c:
for
STOP
.
Discrete-Event
Simulation
188.
new first
continues,
documentation
Observations
following
1.
on
is
event
otherwise,
is printed.
the
execution
event calender
is terminated
and processing
and the output
collection,
by
the
done
are
gathering
and statistics
SLAM input
statements:
STAT statement,
discrete
from
from
removed
which
observations
the
within
user
or
request
FORTRAN
user-coded
COLCT,
subprogramme
upon
the
within
based
on variables
instructions
through
statistics
collects
by
programmes
model
network
by
calling
the COLCT
statement.
2.
TIMST statement,
corresponding
variables,
on time-persistent
XX(. )
the dimensioned
statistics
collects
for
to statistics
which
over a period
of time.
variables
In addition
3.
to STAT and TIMST statements,
(queues),
and regular
activities
or service
in
SLAM Summary Report,
the
generated
generated
information
SLAM also
following:
1.
on
provides
observations
good
monitoring
MONTR,SUMRY statement,
produced.
documentation
Its
parameters
which
causes
on files
statistics
are
automatically
capabilities
are, starting
by the
as desired
and
Its
parameters
are starting
by the user,
and attributes
in
3.
the
be
of
on all
perform
of trace
be included
trace
report.
MONTR,CLEAR statement,
statistics
(statistical
starting
entities
times
to
to
times
ending
and ending
of
the
through
user.
of results
MONTR,TRACE statement,
2.
report
a trace
which provides
(with
that
their
times
attributes)
of events
entities
activities.
as desired
all
contains
which
statistics.
and their
during
the
of all
causes the clearance
which
'warm-up'
until
steady-state
period
is
Its
are
parameters
attained.
initial
equilibrium)
and ending times
of
clearing
statistics.
189.
facilities
Terminal
ticket
are:
outbound
passport
control
because
of
their
customs
with
the
baggage
widely
handling,
it
is
use
and
check
in
one model
in
the
and
facility,
claim
associated
conditions
working
unstandardized
to
representative
in
the
parameters
obtain
input
as
flights),
of
included
baggage
the
difficult
to
types
methodology
another
one
immigration
control,
operational
varying
largely
due to
information
operational
were
is
Excluded
control.
Thus,
procedures.
convenience
the
(security
controls
to
close
proximity
facilities),
inward
of
of
for
which
juxtapositioning
arrivals
because
official
in
simulation
(for
all
facilities
check-in
departures
for
considered
information
vary
could
process,
particularly
simulation
when this
flights
different
between
at
airports,
airlines,
and even between
largely
depends
This
information
the same airport.
on the baggage
handling
other
agency's
factors.
this
In
the
assess
efficiency,
such
performance
circumstances,
of
It
methodology.
and many
work procedures,
to
it would be irrelevant
policy,
facility
the
would
within
require
probably
the
a
structure
separate
of
study
itself.
8.6.1
This
is
an
airline-operated
to a handling
facility,
directly,
either
or
is
It
subcontracted
directly
transported
Operationally,
the
(flights),
prespecified
times,
and
serviced.
processing
to
the
facility
where
each
times that are
only
However,
is
agency.
aircraft.
processes
is
counter
passengers
directly
on
common check-in
continuous
asid is
passengers
opened
to
related
in
at
closed
departure
and
flight
flight
that
particular
facilities,
where
not
performed
batches
are
passenger
to
according
190.
flights,
Arrival
are sometimes
used.
in terms
to
of time prior
expressed
the
characterize
type
or
schedule,
first-come-first-served
commuter).
basis,
and
usually
departure
time,
scheduled
(i. e.,
charter,
is
Service
flight
of
distributions,
service
haul
long/medium
on
offered
distributions
times
Processing
1.
of
Passengers
that
for
arrive
particular
value of which
the distribution
(subintervals).
ticket
to
flight.
vary
is
in
typical
a demand pattern
the
times are Poisson,
but
arrival
pattern,
actual
Interarrival
to
according
kept constant
is:
facilities
check-in
the facility
the
time
20-minute
within
is free,
for
the first
then service
a server
the passenger
will
commences immediately,
otherwise,
2.
If
queue.
As for
3.
the
then
queue,
for
the first
is
that
facility,
Events
the
of
the
associated
is
are
made idle,
in queue for
of
service,
distribution
is adopted,
simulation
using
the following
out by coding
carried
and SLAM input
statements:
1. Program MAIN.
and
2.
Subroutine
INTLC,
3.
Subroutine
EVENT(I),
during
4.
5.
6.
to
initialize
to
provoke
the
in
Figure
SLAM's
with
leaves
passenger
starts
again.
this
process are depicted
in
starts
time)
service
(service
otherwise,
a duration
the
passenger
wait in the
waiting
no passengers
an exponential
times.
service
average
with
there
from
chosen
completion
and the cycle
Discrete-event
is
server
passenger
randomly
mean value
After
4.
if
server,
periods
event
the
8.3a.
mode,
FORTRAN subroutines
system.
appropriate
event
simulation.
Subroutine
ARVL, to simulate
the arrival
event.
Subroutine
ENDSV, to simulate
event.
end-of-service
SLAM input
to specify;
statements
when called
191.
Number
files
(queues)
in the
of
present
Maximum
number of attributes
per entity.
Maximum
number of entities
concurrently
any one time.
Gathering
system.
information
observational
and
statistics.
Start
times
and
end
of simulation.
Monitoring
requirements.
Listing
of a sample of check-in
simulation
8.6.2
OUTBOUNDOFFICIAL
These
facilities
security
or
possession
checking/stamping
check units
directly,
for
reasons
usually
have
they
are
Simplicity
operations
and
safety,
transport
of
for
outward
or through
including
while
control
illegal
model
is
in
shown
ready
where
and
authority's
operating
responsibility,
specialized
both facilities
direct
perform
provide
passengers
and
the
passport
Passport
related
security
either
The main
agencies.
security
in one model are that
to one another,
succession
operational
using
one
they
and
characteristics.
model to simulate
passengers
are
after
checking-in,
processed
baggage, getting
boarding
their
and when
passes,
to proceed to the departure
lounge.
Frequently,
check
passengers
against
items,
passengers.
by
the
operated
manning
similar
favour
and convenience
in both facilities.
feel
units(s),
of which is to
that
passengers,
and
check
enplaning
and
airport
relatively
their
scanning
manned
in
situated
handing-in
which
are
agency,
are the
Operationally,
security
on departing
controls
counters
governmental
of
security
the function
counter(s),
regulatory
certain
flight
the
of
collection
CONTROLS
constitute
check
passport
they
at
system
C-l.
Appendix
check
in
present
frame through
comprises
of a magnometer
bag
X-ray
to
pass,
and conveyorized
items.
luggage
is inspected
for
prohibited
unit
have
hand
192.
PAX 2
u
a
PAX
1'I
cri
_'
.;S-
bI
I
4j II
'v
JPROCESSING I
cl
41!
col
.r.
l
u
,I
c,
V)
IL
a,
141
'o
4J
Ir_
c!
QI
PROCESSING
NI
4-
SIMULATED
TIME
(a)
Ticket
Check-in
Facility
Events.
PAX
0
O
bl
NI
Securi
ty
iJ
oo
I
> I
f
al
1,
. "
uI
LI
C-I
41
Ic
ILO
Passport
Search
I
N
Iw
I
IW
`r'I
I
O
il
I
,e
Check
ICt$
d
I,,
_
I
IW
I
O
I
bl
I
N
Simu1 atecL
SIMULATED
Time
(b)
Figure
8.3
Official
Facility
Controls
Processing
I c-
TIME
Events.
Events
For
Departures.
193.
search compartments
may also be used but only for special
A passport
check is made on all
occasions.
cases and in certain
departing
to check status
where
passports
passengers
of their
is
Service
is
the
out.
processing
carried
on
required
passport
basis,
in
both
facilities
first-come-first-served
on a
offered
Manual
have
to
exponential
assumed
is
facility
Unlike
this
a
check-in,
is
the
type,
passengers
of
arrival
where
continuous-processing
demand
flight-specific.
The
pattern
and
not
arrival
continuous,
departure
be
deduced
by
from
the
channel
means
should
various
times
service
and
distribution.
throughputs,
are
also
facility,
are
Processing
1.
logic
Passengers
from
that
within
2. If
these
arrive
of
times,
to
according
for
the
interarrival
"
the
passengers
enter
as departed.
considered
the
20-minute
peak
periods.
'sterile
of
area'
and
airport,
deduced
demand pattern,
a predetermined
departure
total
actual
the
is:
two facilities
in
the
this
Beyond
during
preferably
Poisson
with
channel,
operation
values of which vary throughout
kept
but
constant
are
arrival
pattern,
subintervals.
is empty,
unit
is
commenced
security
a security
the passenger
immediately,
for first
otherwise,
coming passenger
the queue and wait.
has to join
for
in
If there are no passengers
the
3.
security
queue
waiting
first
the
is
laid
idle,
then
the
unit
otherwise,
search,
passenger
conditions
implemented
in
queue
is
in
is
performed
the
two
then
searched.
as
airports
search
Security
follows
search
(which
is
considered
in
this
in
normal
the
order
study):
of the
asked by a security
at the entrance
officer
being
the
facility
boarding
to show their
After
cleared
passes.
the Mangnometer frame
would then have to walk through
passengers
for self-checking.
Before that their
cabin luggage is put on the
Passengers
conveyorized
are
X-Ray
device
for
scanning
luggage
are cleared,
passenger
and his
Being that
complicated,
from
composite
activity
After
baggage-check.
he leaves
the
the
facility.
is considered
as one
security
search
to
inside
the moment the passenger
steps
194.
the
point
of
leaving
the
facility.
Accordingly,
considered
passengers
how long
of
times
service
it
took
are
individual
to departure,
entry
between.
Security
search
Exponential
Negative
a
from
check
done in
from
time.
of the average service
After
the security
4.
the passenger
search has been completed,
to
the
is free,
then the
If a server
passport
proceeds
controls.
the passenger
check commences immediately,
passport
otherwise,
have
to
join
least
the
number of
will
containing
queue
(in
the
than
check
case
passengers
of
one
more
passport
and wait.
counters),
If
there
5.
are no
then
check,
passport
passengers
the server
waiting
is laid
the passport
would start
server
checking
(service
in the
queue for
a duration
from an Exponential
distribution
selected
the average service
time.
6.
After
facility
again.
Events
Figure
completion
heading to
associated
8.3b.
of
the
with
service,
departure
outbound
in
for
the
the
queue
Otherwise,
idle.
the
passenger
of the first
is randomly
that
time)
with
a mean value
of
leave
the
would
passenger
lounge,
starts
and the cycle
the
official
are
controls
depicted
in
is conveniently
combined
network-discrete
event mode,
in simulating
facility.
by
this
This is accomplished
adopted
(FUNCTION USERF) that
FORTRAN user-function
coding an event-mode
SLAM's
the arrival
would simulate
of
20-minute
basis.
subinterval
interarrival
times
to
according
demand patterns
(Times
of
the
passengers
This is done
Between
predetermined
arrival
Conditional
and levels.
the right
control
assigning
demand pattern
with rerspect
is shown in
sample listing
segment
to
model
contains
interrarrival
to
first
facility
by assigning
TBC)
Creationdistribution
on
Poisson
specified
reflecting
IF statements
are used to
by the
time specified
(TNOW).
A
time
simulated
current
Appendix
C-2.
statements
the
for:
SLAM's
network
mode
195.
1. Creating
(according
entities
2. Assigning
attributes
3.
Branching
entities
4.
Assigning
service
5. Queueing
servers.
7. Graphical
Monitoring
9.
Controlling
Listings
are
is
facility
entering
the
citizens
to
(distributions).
statistics
execution.
outbound
of
simulation
C-3.
network-event
shown in Appendix
concerned
different
passport
the
For
the status
of passengers
checking
foreign
the
of
admission
controls
with
country
and
the
country,
from
returning
nationals
in
separate
processed
are
hold.
Generally,
they
as
foreign
countries.
channels
they
first
the
category,
passport
it
may
stamping
include
and checking
issuance
of
visiting
permits.
Governmental
responsible
Operationally,
for
the
according
manning
to
type
passport
into
separated
conveniently
holders,
passport
are
service
While for
passport.
of
passports
marking
Normally,
passengers
as
well
channels;
national
(which,
holders
in turn,
examining
are
and
8.6.3
This
of
files,
entities,
on all
results.
combined
controls
official
files.
statistics
simulation
of
entities.
into
required
of
FUNCTION USERF).
and servers.
channels
times to activities.
represtation
8.
of
to
passengers
Collecting
6.
to
to TBC values
could
is
the
status
visas,
agencies
and
be furthur
second,
subdivided).
of
and validity
and granting
(immigration
of
foriegn
restricted
in addition
usually
and operation
of
to
to
passports,
appropriate
authorities)
facility.
this
facility
this
after
arrive
at
deboarding
the aircraft,
into channels
according
where they split
type
to
Beyond this
facility,
are
of
passport.
passengers
is
Service
having
the country.
officially
considered
as
entered
a
for
on
both
continuously
offered
channels
passengers
196.
first-come-first-served
basis.
distribution.
Exponential
values of which
the
arrival
vary
Service
Interarrival
to
according
the
from
times
are
drawn
times
are
Poisson,
fluctuation
but
demand,
of
an
the
kept
20-minute
constant
within
are
from
be
demand pattern
extracted
could
desired
during
throughputs
of
channel
periods
rates
Arrival
subintervals.
arrival
actual
operation.
logic
Processing
1.
Passengers
for
is:
facility
the
designated
in the
to the facility
immediately
by assigning
and are categorized
that would identify
to the arriving
passengers
This is done as follows;
type of passport.
from
arrive
distribution
a uniform
between
0 and
pattern,
value
an attribute
to
them according
a random
1 would
selection
define
the
to the percentage
value according
of each of the total
(
is
75%
demand
if
in
the
national
e.
g.,
actual
split
passengers
that
then selected
are
random values
passports,
and 25% foreign
(2)
0.25
be
less
than
value
of
would
an attribute
assigned
attribute
(foreign
passports),
would be assigned
0.25
words,
other
Monte-Carlo
method
other
(1),
of
random
values
passports
national
to
than
greater
).
passengers
In
by
are assigned
to
proportion.
according
a prespecified
to the
arriving
passenger
would be directed
values
channel.
For
2.
each
all
a value
attribute
Consequently,
designated
while
each
immediately
channel,
for
starts
if
the
the
is
server
free,
then
service
first
otherwise,
passenger,
arriving
If there are many
the passenger
would have to wait in the queue.
in a channel,
the passenger
servers
would choose the server with
least
number of passengers
queueing.
3.
If
is
laid
there
idle,
are
no passengers
first
otherwise,
(service
a duration
Exponential
distribution
for
particular
average
time)
waiting
in
passenger
is
that
with
a mean value
time.
service
corresponding
to
the
197.
4.
After
completion
of
and the cycle
facility,
passenger.
Events associated
is
Simulation
modes
capabilities,
of
category
distinguish
corresponding
immigration
in
Figure
that
except
(ATRIB)
are
passengers
between
their
network-event
combined
to that
of the outbound
identify
the
that
attributes
types,
passports
Listing
channels.
simulation
to
assigned
is
to
passengers,
direct
and
a sample
shown in
of
model
all
the
of
to
them
inward
C-4.
Appendix
ARRIVALS CUSTOMSCONTROL
The function
of
this
facility
is
of items
by law. In
importation
to
control
taxation
or
to
excise
8.4a.
SLAM's
using
in principles
similar
control
leaves
the
passenger
for
the
arriving
next
depicted
are
process
out
controls,
official
8.6.4
carried
again
starts
this
with
the
service,
Manning
and
customs
and
authorities.
Operationally,
hall,
claim
passengers
they
after
are
after
processed
with
reunited
(including
operation,
many countries
organize
the Dual-Channel
system,
where the facility
parts;
Red Channel,
for
are
passengers
however,
they
and spot-checking).
are
the
the
is
subject
To
U. K. ) implement
into
divided
to
to
two
declare
inspection,
to
who have nothing
interest
to
the
actually
baggage
baggage.
their
leaving
declare
customs
occasional
198.
(1)
PAX 1
PAX 1
PAX 2
"' I
IEEC
ro
Io
-61
',tu
V)
Check
s-
NI
a ( as
tu'
>
c
0
Pas
SIMULATED
Q1
rI
L.
LE r
OQS
<IE
dIE
TIME
PAX 2v
QP55.
N(I
Npy,
Fp
ILI
I''
L
+
cygNN SS,
019
L,
Non-EEC
Passports; )
Check
SIMULATED
TIME
(a)
PAX 1
Inward
Events.
Processing
Immigration
PAX 2
IE
+0
Out of
IuE
System \(O
SIMULATED TIME)
+' Io
e
>
-cc
LI
L
Gam``
I customs
Fo
y9
titiF
01
IN
Check
S-
-c
I
IW
W
SIMULATED
TIME
(b)
Figure
8.4
Customs
Facility
Control
Processing
processing
Events
Events.
for
Arrivals.
199.
logic
customs is as follows:
demand
facility
in
1.
Passengers
to
the
arrive
a predetermined
interarrival
implied
Poisson
by
FUNCTION
USERF,
as
with
pattern
Servicing
the
times,
demand
but
for
values
arrival
subintervals.
Immediately
2.
passenger
decision
demand
of
to fluctuations
of
according
vary
20-minute
are kept
constant
within
which
rates
after
arrival,
through
would
go
is
based on- he
that
were observed
described
is
a decision
the Red or
in
actual
percentage
passengers
As
to have used either
channel.
is
this
assigning
out through
carried
previously,
values to
of
method according
passengers
using Monte-Carlo
Green Channel passengers
are considered
proportion.
left
the system,
in the, simulation
and no statistics
as having
(unless
through
for
it
to
takes
time
them
the
go
are collected
For
in the simulation).
is included
time)
the Channel (walking
is free,
then
if
Red Channel
passengers,
official
a customs
has
to
immediately,
the
passenger
commences
otherwise,
service
attribute
the specified
in
wait
3.
queue.
there
in
Red
the
queue
are no passengers
waiting
idle.
laid
is
(customs
then
the
Channel,
official)
server
first
for
the
the server
passenger
Otherwise,
will
start
service
is
(service
that
duration
time)
in the queue for
randomly
a
from an Exponential
distribution
of
a mean value
with
selected
the
4.
If
in
average service
After
completion
and the
facility,
Events
associated
Simulation
capabilities
immigration
considered
performed
facility,
Green
is
time
of
cycle
with
either
clearance.
passenger
starts
once again.
this
process are depicted
would
in
leave
Figure
the
8.4b.
the
mode
combined network-event
identical
to that
of
a way almost
for
Green Channel is
the fact
that
except
facility
a linking
where the only activity
using
as,
is
and time
consumed
time is
or that walking
Channel
customs
the
service,
carried
out
SLAM in
of
control,
for
observed
passengers
are
that
of
considered
virtually
walking
through
as negligible
the
of
out
the
hence
system.
200.
Passengers
through
going
in
the
Green Channel
hesitate
in
their
walk
Although
anticipation
of being
is a complex situation
this
that
assumption
would
where
situation,
slow-down
passengers'
Channel passengers
is unobtainable,
stopped by customs officialsit can be assumed for simplicity
initially
that those passengers
the Red Channel.
The percentage
went through
of passengers
going
Red Channel
the
(whether
through
being
voluntarily
or after
stopped)
Listing
Appendix
It
from
made available
of
simulation
C-5.
model
the
of
airport
customs
be
that
the
noted
walking
are included
only in modelling
facilities
it
all
modelling
other
should
boundaries
in
is
practical
purposes
passenger
control
times
survey.
is
shown
within
customs control,
is
considered
in
facility
while
for
all
as negligible.
information
Amount of
in a standard
SLAM output
generated
report
is quite
depending
substantial,
simulation
on the particular
and
the requisites
and desires
of the user;
a typical
run would-be
at
least
20-40 pages.
However,
fraction
only
a small
of that
generated
information
models.
performance
information
required
8.7
STATISTICAL
is
gathered,
usually
In this
laboratory,
since
the
are collapsed
basically
from
can
an
experiment,
when, the
sense,
observations
and it should
user
into
CONSIDERATIONS IN SIMULATION
Simulation
conditions.
different
in constructing
would be normally
required
So simulation
outputs
are summarized and all
system
observations
where
is
tested
from
from
collected
always be treated
his experiment
self-design
observations
are
under different
are not
in a
an experiment
Moreover,
as such.
to obtain
specific
simulations
201.
output
data
thought
be necessary
to
answer pertinent
questions
to experience
more control
related
on the
describe
to
system and
he would then be able
In
of the experiment.
it,
to
'the
running
is similar
to
simulation
output
directly
from the actual
analysis
statistical
obtained
from simulations
observations
system. Therefore,
gathered
must be
independent
distributed,
statistically
so as to
and identically
have appropriate
inference
statistical
made about the operational
of the system(85).
performance
statistical
addition,
analysis
of data
So,
statistically,
in
relation
examined
1.
Inherent
of
analysis
of-the
to the following
aspects:
variability
associated
with
the activities
the model
and processes
it
it
is
designed
that
performs
what
here
interest
the
are:
sensitivity
in
be
output-should
simulation
simulation,
understanding
and verifying
simulates,
Issues
to perform.
of
to
output
of simulation
input
and
and -model parameters,
and the accuracyinherent
the
to
the
of
output
precision
with
-respect
nature
of the system.
probabilistic
Inferences
2.
about the performance
of the real system from the
its
the
simulation,
and
of
especially
simulation
of
validity
use
changes-
usefulness.
' This
statistical
in
Thus,
computations
statistical
obtained
outputs
of -the
from
the
variability
in
simulation
information
system
exactly
directly
from
and
viewed
and
the
the
is
stochasticity
stochasticity,
real
represents-only
efficiency
they
in'
as
collecting
manner
that
system. The fact
a single
a single
of
in
treated
same
run
record.
as if
and computations
and
system,
to those performed
similar
on data
time
represents
one sample
or
is no more bothersome
process,
thanthe
simulation
variables.
including
performance
information,
are
related
performing
real
analysis
made are
from the real
system.
Nevertheless,
stochastic
historic
describing
simulation,
all
generated
tables
and distribution
plots
were possible
statistical
involves
generation
time
of
series
fact
series(91).
'randomness
a
of
that an
As for
is
an
202.
issue
important
in
(i. e.,
block
devices
simulation,
where
random
streams
Basically,
because
numbers,
they
actually
different
tests
are
generation
as the basic
are used
features
of simulation.
known as pseudo-random
or sequences)
to reflect
the stochastic
better
random numbers are
building
number
deterministic
completely
they pass
Literature
on
of randomness.
although
is quite
this
subject
and it
can not be included
substantial
but generally
there
here,
are two basic methods of random number
Midsquare
Congruential
methods
method,
and the
generation;
(multiplicative,
mixed,
Before
and additive).
be thoroughly
their
random
that
use,
tested
and verified
is actually
independent,
statistically
testing
Literature
tests.
and
on
can
pass
randomness
random,
is
to Shannon(133).
extensive,
and one can refer
randomness
Hull and Dobell(193).
Fishman(192),
and a more detailed
source,
have been used to inspect
tests
Analytical
and empirical
and
should
number sequences
the resulting
sequence is
investigate
of
number
Serial,
be almost
could
where there
The most common tests
are:
Spectral,
Sums-of-digits,
Runs,
randomness,
tests(133).
Gap,
Autocorrelation,
Distance,
Order
Statistics,
unlimited
Frequency,
Poker,
and Latticed
tests.
there
In experimentation,
it
is
the
main objective
of
statisticians
to
errors
when gathering
observations
associated
In
discrete
experiment.
an
sampling
errors
simulation,
are
with
in
the
when observations
are
condition
gathered
of
reduced
(steady-state).
Reaching
equilibrium
steady-state
statistical
depends on the initial
condition
of the system which
affects
sampling
minimize
length
input
rates
reach
of
simulation
run
needed
to
reach
steady-state,
and the
parameters,
where relative
values
of arrival
and service
directly
the amount of simulation
time
affect
needed to
before
However,
bypassing
transient-state
steady-state.
reaching
steady-state
may be
costly
and
impractical.
Although
203.
be reduced by gathering
observations
under
Taha(85)
indicated
it can also be
that
steady-state
conditions,
by taking
the average of these observations,
reduced even furthur
deviation
since the standard
of the average of (n) observations
sampling
is
1/
error
could
the
of
standard
Preferably,
the
deviation
observations.
objective
following
the
should
consider
error
the cost
Controlling
by
of simulation
limit,
runs to a reasonable
simulation
techniques
designed
specially
sampling
(variance
reduction
errors
methods).
techniques
of
sampling
minimizing
courses
of
the
reducing
or
to
individual
the
of
action:
length
of
improved
utilizing
reduce
Variance
statistical
reduction
are;
by using
Antithetic,
is
itself
(which
and
the
role
Pegden(91)
variance
in the
describe
the
of
various
sample
reliability
of
mean,
for
procedures
which
could
output.
simulation
play an
These
too
are
statistically
and mathematically
complicated
in this
they are:
advanced to be included
study,
Replication,
1.
employing
seperate
runs using different
random
number streams.
Subintervals,
2.
divided
into
where a single
run is
equal
(batches),
hence effects
subintervals
of transient
conditions
methods
would be eliminated-with
Regenerative
3.
cycles,
starts
when a specific
is made to that
return
Parametric
4.
running
Covariance/spectral
is
autocovariance
techniques.
analysis
into
a run is divided
of the system is reached,
the cycle ends.
where
state
state,
modelling,
from a simulation
is built
(simulated)
data values.
5.
time.
cycles
that
and when a
the output
where a model to describe
by fitting
to the observed
equation(s)
estimation,
deduced from the
where
sample
estimates
output
using
of
the
spectral
204.
From
discussion,
this
output
simulation
study,
analysis:
1.
Since
2.
techniques,
averages
simulation
all
The
of
fact
statistics
output,
that
conditions
non-attainement
of
averages,
is normally
3.
because
low
the
the
the
considered
fluctuation
of
interpreted
to
will
method
demand,
variable
issue
that
bias
those
transient-state
observations.
of
number
is actually
state,
in Section
8.6.
as
at
observations
total
made in
probably
fact
that
the
greatly
not
interest
of
reduced.
were
by
countered
of
number
subinterval
of transient
effects
facilities
is
are
are
observations
steady-state
compared
Indirectly,
the
going
errors
and
to
respect
with
for this
particular
into
such elaborate
observations
of
sampling
some of
transient-state
not
of
analysis
statistical
especially
However,
and covariance
estimation.
facts
justify
the following
variance
that
appears
certain
involve
sophisticated
could
analysis
mathematical
from
it
causing
the
of
elimination
of
used in the simulation
This is done to simulate
where
interarrival
the
specifically
important
arrival
during
times
demand
is
20-minute
subintervals.
A remaining
is
and needs
some
the
is
validity
of
simulation,
the approach to
simulation,
is
" We
than statistical.
validation
more philosophical
model
by which
is
that
the
believe
process
a model
constructed,
and implemented,
are inseparable
of one's theory
of
validated,
inquiry
".
This
following
and the
scientific
quotations
are
model
and the
Shannon's(133)
created
for
evaluated
means to
inferences
real
In
system(133).
views
on
this
issue.
"A
a specific
purpose,
and its
in terms of that
only
purpose.
develop
level
an
acceptable
drawn
and applicable
to
from
the
the
real
performance
world
of
system;
model
should
or
adequacy
To evaluate
only
be
validity
a model
that
confidence
of
the model are correct
concept
of
validation
205.
be
should
notions
increases,
level
".
that
considered
However,
This
dilemma,
into
the
between
the
will
process.
the model
be to
include
consequently
" What is
a measure of cost-benefit
correspondence
value
of true
How isomorphic
need
system?
the
life
If
the
consistently
in
bourne
that
out
results
or
reproduces
are.
problems
predicts
how
important
is it
that
the model be a true
and
practice,
Can a model be grossly
isomorphic
reflection
of the real system?
".
The answers to these questions
homomorphic and still
valid?
he
but
by
Shannon
define
approach,
might
a validation
raised
literature
dealing
"
Despite
that:
argues
extensive
admittedly
model
validation
with
adopt
validation?
the
problem
of
model
validating
simulation
is an
but it
as ever,
and elusive
So, what approach
avoid or push lightly
aside ".
in
implement
technique
to
simulation
and
what
it
Realizing
its
might seem
nature,
philosophical
models remains
issue we cannot
to
procedures,
as difficult
valid?
appropriate
to
researchers
deal
deal
with
with
the
scientific
problem
inquiry
in
in
the
its
same manner
broad general
pragmatic,
or empiric,
subjective
or objective,
rational
incorporates
that
Usually,
them
a multistage
all.
viewpoint
a
or
that
approach.
process
arises
adopts a utilitarian
verification
The stages are;
based
internal
the
the
Validation
upon
a
of
model
structure
of
knowledge,
theory,
which
past research,
and existing
priori
sense;
entails
looking
at each
building
of the
blocks
modeled to
simple
processes
are the best possible.
internal
hypothesis
in
the
used
206.
'The three
derivation,
Throughout
this
approach.
The
of
process
so
were
to
of
evaluated
served
predict
required
simple
between
made
an assurance
predict
a very
the
real
the
that
followed
validation
investigated
first
and basic
behaviour
simulation
of
and
one,
this
(the
therefore,
Comparisons
tested.
and then
input-output
transformations
(which
observed
These
and common sense).
world
by experience
as a means
model
there
process.
is
structure
understand),
and those
or
the
simulation
is
servicing
continuously
comparisons
to
ability
to
research,
internal
difficult
generated,
in surveys,
give
throughout
philosophies
pragmatic
not
an interactive
manner throughout
and implementation,
where usually,
interplay
empiricist,
among rationalist,
a continuing
exists
in
stages occur
development,
the
of
is
are
either
of
verification
the
real
realistic
world.
and
the
model's
and
system,
be used
could
information.
;t
4-
4`
yF
ir
.-
s'r
,r
CHAPTERNINE
APPLICAT10NS0FMETH0D0L0GY
This
involves
chapter
practical
applications
including
methodology,
supporting
necessary
issues,
and findings.
East
applications:
Manchester
survey,
the
presentation
of
information,
discussions
of
practical
this
aspects,
on related
relevant
Contained
in this
chapter
are the following
Midlands
Panel
pilot
survey,
of Experts
Airport
Airport
case
study,
and Birmingham
study.
9.1
This
survey
situated
1983.
in
was conducted
about ten miles north
The
East
Midlands
East
of
Midlands
Airport,
Loughborough,
during
which is
September
is
that
airport
a small
regional
increase
in traffic
75 %
in recent years;
substantial
experienced
for
the
1978-83,
increase
1981-83
years
and 32 % between
It was specifically
for
alone(194).
chosen for the pilot
mainly
)The
its proximity
to LUT.
objective
survey
was to
of this
pilot
the
the
test
the
suitability
of
questionnaire,
reaction
of
it,
to
and to check the appropriateness
passengers
of the service
measures
intervals
information
used,
the
layout
of
questions
(especially
the
of
service
measure),
other
and
that needed to be examined beforehand.
graduation
supporting
of
208.
initial
After
the
negotiations
with
airport
management,
to enter airside
was granted
permission
and interview
passengers.
The plan was to approach passengers
lounge for
in the departure
leaving
departures
and after
customs for arrivals,
and conduct
interviews
However, only
with randomly selected
personal
samples.
departures
The passenger
It
considered.
inconvenient
traffic
the
of
East
Midlands
It
charter-tourist.
in the
category
for
chosen
was
during
weekends.
different
flights
departure
lounge.
to
therefore
was decided
A weekend day (Saturday,
pilot.
the survey,
because peaks at
Passengers
sample
size
65 %
about'
include
only this
September 17th)
the
occur
from
at
random
in the
waiting
selected
were
interviewed
while
and were
The target
is
Airport
airport
was set
as 20 to
25
samples.
The
used
questionnaire
segments:
PART I-
(shown
letter
a covering
information,
sample
The
information.
in
(
Appendix
introductory
and
introductory
PART
included
B-1)
explanatory
II-
service
three
note),
measure
contained
a
description
importance
the
of
and
nature,
of
objectives,
general
the grading
system to be used,
survey,
and an example of how to
PART
II.
information
PART I included
answering
about
specific
go
interviewed:
on passengers
age, sex, nationality,
preference
and
frequency
which
was
of
air
travel,
to
mainly
explanatory
and flight
facilitate
assessment
of
these
information,
categorization
PART II
attribute.
to some selective
according
with P-R model information,
namely,
to service
for
passengers
conditions
their
,
note
conditions.
the
purpose
of
population
basically
deals
judgement
personal
facilities,
different
the
of
of
and
209.
The
because
measure
chosen
awaiting
service,
was delay
delay
is the major
Hence
of congestion.
attribute
be used
it
is
directly
because
as the
yardstick
service
theoretically,
this
could
level
the
to
related
it
seemed
that
thus
not
could
emotive
what
ask
total
the
swift
change
beginning
Average
judge)
easily
to
but
the
useage of a processing
had difficulty
in
passengers
expression
passengers
to
then,
facility.
of
delay,
is
and it
it
actually
passengers
time they
very
to
interviewing
for
time
high taking
the
the
of
its
the
was quickly
took
survey
necessity
(and
is
an
of most
decided
minds
to,
perception
not
facility.
Fortunately,
each
altering
a major
part
of interviewing,
after
It
--.
their
in
in
clear
refers.
state
in
spent
comprehending
because
delay
probably
not
However,
delay,
this
place
at
was realized.
25
into
was relatively
the circumstances
of operation,
associated
with
conduct
interviews
the
to
required
number of.
and
his
sample size
The parts
most
contributing
to
desired
of the
interviewing
the
surveys,
airport
the main survey
time
the definitie
and within
questionnaire
time were
found
the
to
be
introductory
note
follow
irrelevant
to
therefore
the
of
the
survey,
and were
The facilities
covered
in
these
facilities,
departure
as well as for the overall
A. 1, A. 2, A. 3, and A. 4 show these models,
by
models,
service
standards
as percieved
this
pilot
check-in,
passport.
were:
to state
and security
control,
check. Passengers were interviewed
to service
in those facilities.
their
From information
perception
for each
P-R models were built
of PART II of the questionnaire,
of
processing,
respectively.
three
and Figures
From the
210.
the passengers
could
6.2.1.3,
in Section
be derived.
Employing
the
concept
explained
be set as
framework
a level
of service
could
in Table 9.1. The levels
in terms
framework
of this
are expressed
levels
the, good/tolerable
separating
of the time values
service
(T1), and the tolerable/bad
(T2).
levels
service
Table
Level
of
Service
Framework
9.1
for
Departing
Charter
Passengers
Time Spent
in
Facility
P-R
FACILITY
TYPE
(Minutes
Model
rounded
to
nearest
half-minute)
Ti
T2
Good/Tolerable
Tolerable/Bad
Figure
No.
Check-In
Figure
A. 1
10.5
Passports
Figure
A. 2
7.0
11.5.
Security
Figure
A. 3
6.5
9.0
Figure
A. 4
25.0
42.0.
16.5
Overall
Departure
I-
Processing
Finally,
the
outcomes of this
pilot
were:
1.
Delay was not suitable
for use as the service
measure,
because it
is an emotive
that would be difficult
expression
to interpret
into figures.
most passengers
and transform
some of
mainly
for
211.
for
detailed
to
introductory
The
2.
have it
3.
purpose,
as concise
Many questions
redundant
to
useful
4.
its
of
and
time
the
surveyor.
Interviewing
difficult
to
PART I were
actually
and did
wasting,
They
unnecessary.
not
contain
mode of
administering
for arrivals.
especially
were
information
any
the
survey seemed
For departures,
the surveyor
with passengers
on the airside
This implied
that
welcomed by airport
authorities.
be
by
should
self-administred
replaced
always
interviewing
of
9.2
This
survey
appropriateness
It
was
surveys.
distributing
the
of
'experts',
so
participants.
airline-related
tour
operators,
In all,
panel.
European
airports
information
shown in
Appendix
operations
with airport
in a LUT departmental
as the total
Participants
sought
and testing
exploring
to
alternative
approach
during
October-December
an
questionnaire
personnel.
for
primarily
conducted
closely
associated
experts
handling,
who participated
Also,
October.
additional
by distributing
airports,
of
contacts.
was administered
the
type
when the
particularly
questionnaires,
does not necessitates
personal
representing
long
and
note
was too
be much more appropriate
explanatory
and it would
as possible.
as the
implement,
involvement
active
is not
and
replies
were
sought
number
were
Experts
and other
parties
included
the
panel
Middle
and
one
airport
authorities,
as shown in Table 9.2.
B-2 to
would
airport
and passenger
short course in
from
reach
European
to
seperately
questionnaires
passenger
1983,
by
at
other
least
20
airport-related
or
either
from governmental
agencies,
in the
were not represented
25
participants
Eastern
airport,
and 20 % representing
from
80
airlines,
14
%
212.
Table
in
Participation
AIRPORT-
Panel
Dublin
Midlands
Edinburgh
Rome
FiumicinoGatwickHeathrow-
London
Experts
Expert
Airline
27
11
-2
-1
-1
11
London
Survey
-1
-1
Lisbon
-2
Munich
-1
-1
-1
Zagreb
-1
Zurich
-1
TOTAL
20
Khalid-
Riyadh
Milan
Linate-
SchipholVantaa-
Amsterdam
Helsinki
The questionnaire
An introductory
1.
itself
improved
of
version
Service
PART I:
provide
PART II.
a 'reference
explanatory
that of the
note,
which
East Midlands
TOTAL
13
King
2.
of
Expert
Airport
Birmingham
East
9.2
25
segments:
is
more concise
and
pilot.
to
airport
to answer
213.
3. PART II:
Service
throughput
annual
of
actually
it would
participants
That
million
different
own
conditions.
from this
to
get
the resulting
is based on the
airport
So,
to
only
with an
Since
airport
passengers.
in different
airports
is,
reply
his
with
two
around
represented
not be possible
countries,
using these airports.
because each
trivial
experience
a hypothetical
for
assessment
and
consistent
P-R models
expert's
its
with
results
would
be
personal
specific
P-R model
a consistent
kind of panel,
airport
was
a hypothetical
Participants
to consider.
all the participants
would
they are associated
then take the airports
with as a 'reference
then try to assess service
for the hypothetical
datum',
condition
opertaional
information
for
assumed
accordingly.
airport
included
Facilities
both
facilities
for
built
in
for
Figures
A. 11,
processing
and A. 12 are
inward
immigration,
arrival
processing
framework
for
this
security
facilities,
check,
P-R models
baggage claim,
on
be set.
control,
Figures
passport
respectively.
for arrivals
customs
and all
A. 9, A. 10,
for
at the airport
(Red. Channel),
and all
respectively.
those
It
the
processing
all
P-R models were then
hypothetical
two
A. 6,
facilities,
based
could
are
survey
and departures.
A. 5,
at
ticketing/check-in,
Furthermore,
this
arrivals
facilities
those
million-airport.
departures
for
departure
get
is
P-R models,
derived
from
level
experts'
of service
judgement
and
for
operational
and
service
conditions
a
As presented
in Table 9.3,
framework
this
airport.
(T1
in terms
is expressed
time
of delay
values
and T2) that
define
the three regions
of service:
and bad.
good, tolerable,
perception
hypothetical
of
survey were:
and conclusions
drawn from
the
panel
of
experts
214.
Table
9.3
Level
in
Delay
(Minutes
Facility
FACILITY
P-R
TYPE
rounded
to
nearest
Ti
Model
half-minute)
T2
Tolerable/Bad
Figure
No.
Check-In
Figure
A. 5
6.5
11.0
Passports
Figure
A. 6
4.0
7.0
Security
Figure
A. 7
3.5
6.5
Figure
A. 8
17.0
26.0
Immigration
Figure
A. 9
7.0
11.0
Baggage Claim
Customs (Red)
Figure
A. 10
12.0
19.0
Figure
A. 11
6.0
11.0
Figure
A. 12
18.0
31.0
Good/Tolerable
DEPARTURES
All
Processing
Facilities
ARRIVALS
All
Processing
Facilities
1.
Although
delay
is
term
delay
the
considerable
service
was unclear
that
was put on explaining
that the
clear
used, it became quite
This fact
in the minds of experts.
emphasis
measure
even
deletion
delay
justified
the
that
the
of
concrete
evidence
gave
in
it
by
time
the,
total
a
spent
service
measure and replacing
as
for
facility,
P-R model information
all
collection,
subsequent
in
the main passenger
survey.
particularly
215.
Noticeable
2.
9.3
Table
conducted
were
only
due
Hence
it
results.
its
(with
to
the
fact
the
resulting
fact
the
important
Two
construction.
First,
variations.
consideration.
and homogenous
the
demonstrate
to
model
airport
in
variation
largely
that
service
standards
of
survey
was
this
that
alternative
to
aspects
contributed
a hypothetical
airport
would not
Secondly,
be expected
distinct
characteristics,
each
to
yield
participant
view
that
especially
this
points
approach
mentioned
is
when representation
are
participants
of
the
airports
associated
operational
'reference
the
with
conditions.
4. Information
quite
above should
service
of his
the
affect
feasible,
not
similar
operational
where
or group
airport,
a particular
in
consistent
took his own
applicable
and perfectly
in the panel is homogenous,
with
these
was
and unique
service
procedures,
conditions)
as
implied
datum',
that
which
each
participant
assessed
in terms
of the hypothetical
conditions
airport
of those
own.
3. Nevertheless,
P-R
to
approach
and service
procedures
them to use.
9.3
MANCHESTERAIRPORT STUDY
Manchester
International
in
airport
independent
U. K.
It'serves
the metropolitan
Yorkshire
and
passengers
(after
airport
the north
in
(MIA),
Airport
Heathrow
(not
under
is
the
third
and Gatwick)
and
the British
Airports
the
largest
biggest
Authority).
conurbations
especially
of England,
South
Manchester,
Merseyside,
regions
of Greater
West Yorkshire.
5
MIA handled
million
around
1983,
western
with
an increase
of
49 % on 1978(194).
Plans
216.
under way to
are currently
by 1990(195,196),
annually
airport
MIA of
British
within-the
U. K.
total
7.9
1978 to
% in
capacity
following
the
9 million
passengers
importance
of the
rising
to
airport
where the
network,
has steadily
increased
from
traffic
1981,
bring
and to 8.3
% in
share of
6.5 % in
1983(104,194).
is typical
of a British
at the airport
airport
with
and 35 % schedule
around 65 % charter
regional
The
68/32 in 1981(104)
traffic
splitand 65/35 in 1983(194).
foreign
is
of
passengerscomparatively
residence
percentage
7%
in 1981,
including
EEC passengers.
low(195)non-British
9.1-9.3
is peaky
Traffic
MIA's traffic
Figures
portray
patterns;
being
August
the
to annual
in relation
throughput(195),
with
Characteristics
busiest
of
terminal
14 % of
annual
carrying
year
while February
carried
only 4 %. This could be seen
9.1,
traffic
at MIA as monthly
which
shows annual
for
terminal
departures,
arrivals,
and total
month
passengers,
in Figure
throughputs
passengers.
follows(195):
traffic
of
the
Relation
between
ARRIVALS
and
DEPARTURES
SBR
values
are
Peak
SBR
Peak
1980
1634
1226
1706
1294
2655
1963
1981
1668
1176
1408
1408
2527
2023
9.2
Figure
9.3
shows the
daily
Peak
SBR
as
TOTAL
YEAR
Figure
SBR
Peak
during
the peak
traffic
pattern
week
it could be seen that the peak occurs
day of the week.
being
the busiest
traffic
on the
pattern
of passenger
hourly
for
throughputs
arrivals,
presented
as
terminal
Two distinct
and total
passengers.
peaks are
(from
7 to 10 a. m. ),
a
morning
noticed:
peak
and an afternoon
(from
).
1
5
to
There is a less important
peak
p. m.
peak
evening
(from 8 to 10 p. m. ).
217.
a^ v
to
a
v
"r
.4.4-
cf)
-0
I--
/'
a
If
0
N
E-o
=o_
w
D
Q
O
CL
Cl-I
64
J
O
F-
C.'
W
I-
0c l
0-4
W
H
N
W
WZ
a
Qc
co
W
U.
G)
L
"r
LLQo0
o0
00
00
Cl
0
to
00000
00000
00000
00000
00000
kn
.rnr
S830N3SSVd 1VNIV4831
-aj
218.
II
M
V
i
d1
ax
4)
t0
a
li
"
L
F-
x
,A'"
..
..
2
1--
'`
N
6
W
Zc
G!
a
O
G.
CK
119
J
ZA
N
zwo
U)
zM1
.o
, _
N
W
D
F-
W
F-
-' `
wzzw
'
N
Z
0
"
W
H
N
W
U
z >74
1
1"
1
O
O
O
O
M1
Q1
n
n
U:
N
T
O
Op00
tri
N
Q
0f0
N
S830N3SSYd 1VNIW831
O
Y1
v
L
im
"r
LL
219.
N
V
C
W
ty
Sa)
+-'
ax
eo
a.
U,
N
U)
U
"r
FN-
JA
i
i
r
0
N
rc
x04co
Z
oc\l
0-0
r
w
0
92W
C6
tn
_Q
cl
woo
L0
W
I-
00,
o=
w
w
H-
wzx
wwa
In
40
e
J!
i
C)
0
vvQo0
'^
NN
in
00
Sa3ON3SSVdIVNIW2I31
"r
LL-
220.
In the
attempt
to
obtain
a suitable
MIA airport
for
environment
the
applying
methodology,
authority
was approached.
proposed
to have access to information
Subsequently,
approval
was granted
a
in Summer 1983 by Directorate
of Planning
survey conducted
of
departing
MIA to
of
explore
attitudes
of
and Development
to
to
to
try
the
terminal,
service
conditions
at
and
passengers
standards
at the
airport's
to
was immediately
exploited
(in
application
of the methodology
service
assess
opportunity
practical
for
a
real-world
condition.
questionnaire
self-administered
handed by survey assistants
to
the
building.
terminal
entering
This
first
the
conduct
its
two
procedures)
The survey
'
consisted
a
of
(shown in Appendix B-3),
that was
when
randomly selected
passengers
to
Passengers were then requested
and later
Information
questionnaire
answer- the
lounge or gates.
departure
facilities.
it
return
from this
in
while
survey
facilities
the
was used
of the
P-R models
for
the processing
construct
(i.
departure
channel
e., airlines
check-in,
and outbound official
1
So,
information
2
the
of
and
only
of
parts
controls).
were actually
used for that purpose.
questionnaire
to
have
the
examining
criticism
closely
certain
questionnaire,
it
its
in
the
of
which
some
on
aspects,
way
particularly
arisen
and structured:
was designed
is
delay
discussed
Again,
1.
and as previously
an
elsewhere,
to use as the service
unsuitable
measure.
emotive expression
is not technically
Statement
2.
of wait (delay)
at each facility
After
appropriate,
boxes was
somewhat
models
values.
because
not
crude
amount of wait'marked
well-graded,
P-R models.
might
not be
Specifically,
questionnaire
facilitate
the
the
so
(Appendix
which
Service
accurate,
certain
had
B-3)
would
levels
at the
eventually
top
of
lead
the
to
from such
extracted
for
upper range
especially
MIAA
on
clarifications
to
be
made
in
order
proper construction
of P-R models;
is
(0-1)
NEGLIGIBLE,
the
0.5
region
minute,
with median =
(1-5)
is
THAN
5,
3.0
the
region
median
=
minutes,
with
--LESS
10,
TO
has
7.5
a
median
=
-5
to
221.
THAN
MORE
10,
is
(10-15)
the
region
minutes,
with median = 12.5
as
100
%
(0)
found
delay
passengers
good service
conditions,
found and graded (0) delay
and 0% passengers
as bad service
conditions.
%
100
found
passengers
and graded delay of more than 15 minutes
(with median of 20) as bad service,
while 0% of the passengers
surveyed found that delay as good or tolerable.
It was apparent
3.
from the way the questionnaire
was worded,
the prime
that
purpose
to compare
of this
survey
was mainly
(any airport
at MIA with
service
other
airports
regardless
of
demand
of
and irrespective
nature
of operational
characteristics
of that particular
airport).
it might not seem so obvious,
4. Although
the underlying
tendency
in designing
this
in terms of
its
questionnaire,
wording
and
layout,
lead responding
general
to concentrate
passengers
on
lower ranges of the P-R models with
thus leaving
short delays,
upper ranges with
improper
graduation
delays
and layout
inconsistencies
in
in
some
framework.
9.3.1
longer
P-R
This fact
open.
of the delay scale,
level
establishing
-
combined
would
of
with
result
service
MODELS
The
features
the questionnaire
aforementioned
had certain
of
implications
on accuracy
P-R
and overall
quality
of the resulting
Nevertheless,
framework
for
models.
the
a level
of service
facilities
processing
of the departure
channel
at they airport
be conveniently
based
could
established,
on these
models.
Facilities
official
haul,
included
controls,
were airline
both broken
flight
check-in,
and outbound
down into:
schedule-long
charter,
A. 13-18).
Figure
A. 19 shows
(Figures
and schedule-European
P-R model for total
departing
passengers
outbound
going through
A point
official
controls.
here is that
the
worth mentioning
for
sample size
did comply with
limits
various
categories
set
in Section
7.8.
earlier
222.
framework
that would be
summarizes the level
of service
from the P-R models,
in terms of lower' (T1) and
derived
stated
(T2)
limits
(i. e.,
on delay for the middle
upper
service
region
limit
Ti represents
level,
on delay for
good/tolerable
service
limit
T2 represents`
for
tolerable/bad
on delay
while
service
level),
half-minute.
all rounded to the nearest
Table
9.4
level
Generally,
of
framework
service
shown in
behavioural
and reflects
anticipated
reasonable,
of these categories.
of the passengers
in outbound
passengers
schedule-European
upper
range
of
service
In
9.4
seems
characteristics
in the case
of
(the
official
controls
(T2)),
where
generally,
business
trips,
passengers,
mostly
on
-being
of long delays than other passengers.
schedule-European
much less tolerant
9.3.2
standards
Except
Table
are
PERFORMANCEMODELS
order
to
consideration,
build
performance
description
of
based
presented,
International
the
Airport
on
information
Authority
facilities
models for
is
facilities
those
reports,
Manchester
from
extracted
or
under
first
through
personal
observations.
FLIGHT CHECK-IN
1. AIRLINE',
According
to
a MIAA report(197),
the airlines
during
to
available
two handling
agents;
Airwaysthe
British
to
service
provided
Schedule-European
-
Service
Air-
40 check-in
desks
divided
between
1982,
equally
handling
the local
agent,
and
there
were
handling
national
agent. The handling
the following
categories
of flights:
(medium haul).
Transatlantic
intercontinental
(schedule-long
and
charters
(Inclusive
European
Tours).
Common
Travel
Area.
Domestic.
-
haul).
agents
223.
Table
Level
Framework
Service
of
9.4
for
Channel
Departure
MANCHESTERINTERNATIONAL AIRPORT
Delay
in
Facility
FACILITY
P-R
TYPE
A.
(Minutes
rounded
Model
to
nearest
T1
half-minute)
T2
Figure
No.
Figure
A. 13
3.0
14.0
Figure
A. 14
2.5
13.0
Good/Tolerable
Tolerable/Bad
CHARTER I. T.:
Check-in
Outbound)
Official!
controls
B. SCHEDULE-LONG HAUL:
Check-in
..
Figure
A. 15
2.5
13.5
Figure
A. 16
2.0
8.0
Figure
A. 17
2.0
9.0
Figure
A. 18
1.5
8.5
2.0
13.0
Outbound)
OfficialIControlsi
C. SCHEDULE-EUROPEAN:
Check-in
Outbound
OfficiallControls
D. TOTAL DEPARTING PASSENGERS:
Outbound)
Official)-.
Controls
Figure
A. 19
224.
However,
flight
Those
international
only
sectors
could
input
parameters,
fundamental
was included
traffic
e readily
in
this
study.
by the two
characterized
distribution,
arrival
and service
distribution.
times
distribution:
Arrival
For
flight
the
category,
facilities
airport.
particular
distribution
to
arrival
of
passengers
(especially
for departures,
facility
check-in
which is the first
terminal
which 'passengers
the
in
to
-is"'
of
prime
report)
Arrival
distribution
importance.
the
could
effectively
-portray
has a
It
behaviour
flights.
of passengers
on differtent
also
influence
(including
distinct
on operational,
characteristics
because
demand
it actually
the time-varying
capacity),
reflects
facilities.
terminal
on
distributions
of
categories
Figure
international
of
flights
considered,
9.4
shows
for
passengers
to
the
arrival
the
three
behaviour
and their
lounge,
the departure
with
arrival
and
at check-in,
at
for
(gates).
the pier
As- described
arrival
earlier,
distributions
interpreted
the simulation
are effectively
within
(times,
by
defining
between
interarrival
times
values
of
process
respect
leaving
interval..
for
that would
20-minute
time
of
entities)
each
creation
in
the
for
distribution
particular
consideration
arrival
resemble
the check-in
facility
is open and operational.
the whole period
Service
are
times:
difficult
In
to
practical
determine,
handling
categories,
service
check-in
when different
situations,
agents
especially
(and
corresponding
facilities,
shows considerable
to MIAA(195),
service
check-in,
1981 `were
for
the
three
variations
times per
flight
between
passenger
categories
as
times
flight
operational
Initially,
placed
available
those
times.
(in
seconds)
in
recorded
225.
BEHAVIOUROF INTERNATIONAL I. T. PAX
100
90
80
70
x 60
50
4e
30
20
10
"3HRS
-2HRS
"IHR
STD
SHORTHAULPAX
SCHEDULED
BEHAVIOUR
OF INTERNATIONAL
100
90
so
20
x 60
50
40
30
20
to
-3HRS
-2HRS
"IHR
STD
-
a-fl
10 XK
ARRIVE AT AIRPOPT
ENTERDEP.LOUNGE
LEAVE TO PIER
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
HRS
Figure
9.4
"2HRS
-IHR
STD
Movements
Patterns.
226.
Flight
handling
National
category
Schedule-European
haul
Schedule-long
I. T.
Charter
YEAR
handling
82
62
67
54
60
in
handling
National
Local
77
MIAA report(197),
another
the charter
I. T. sector
However,
times for
agent
Local
56
37
1983
41
27
time
service
values
because
per
passenger
service
handling
1982
Moreover,
agent
in
group
agent
vary
in the
to group size,
only one person
normally
according
facility
for
the
transactions
would
who
at
perform
required
group
in groups
Service
times per passenger
all members of the group.
sizes
and definitely
are bound to be different,
of different
Figure
non-linear.
handling
local
this
demonstrates
and the
in
passengers
sizes
Although
agent
fact
for the
which is based on information
Table
9.5,
from
MIA
at
extracted
between group
by comparing
the variation
corresponding
a group,
service
times
per
group,
as well
as
separately.
with
simulations
could have been achieved
if frequency
distributions
of group sizes
results,
the
to check-in
nevertheless,
was made available,
times that would be used in simulations
of service
more accurate
more realistic
for=arrivals
final
9.5,
values
were. obtained
by determining
schedule-long
So,
pieces
logical
service
of
haul(197).
times
actually
information
that
assumptions
used in
could
and as follows:
simulations
were based on all
be made available
some
with
227.
+-)
U)
O
iO
E
IE
-Cl)
C
Scl)
Qm
GJ
N
J)
y 7I ~ I
V
FI
0-
tl
Y
9t
I
1I
I
3"M
411
S0
dX
GX
N
a
z
I
0
OM
a)
c
W
".
VI
cn za .-!
N
:
)
12.4
dx ii
O ou
ZZ
nt
C7
5a
N
E4
WW~
or
O
GL
ix
loo
-Il
$s22s22
It
s2A
"r-
aax
H
wwx
O
F-
U
QJ
.C
U
CI f! ) U
In
W
F0-4
Q1
"r.
lL
W
H
V)
W
2
U
Q
i
r, z lI
1 %s
ytl
,,
c9
.I
."
rn
kl
U,
N
=1
aX
a)
L
rn
F+ i
r
"r
LL
DO=Ot
eee
ZYe
02
e2
+f /e no
jid
00
e7
02
e
yRl
rA%43S
OO
o
"
CJ
"r.
I"r
Q
228.
I. T. service
distributed
exponentially
CHARTER
times
with
per
passenger
a mean that ranges
are
negative
between 0.60 to
0.73
Table
Service
Times
for
Airlines
9.5
Flight
Facilities
Check-In
MANCHESTERINTERNATIONAL AIRPORT
Mean Service
Times for
HANDLING AGENTI
11
GROUP SIZE
Groups
of
National
2345
(seconds)
Passengers
6(
Local
1234561
FLIGHT TYPE
III
Domestic(&CTA)I 83
Sch. -European 191
Sch. -long haul 1150
1105
Charter I. T.
After
specifying
(i.
e.,
process
are better
the
main input
distributions,
arrival
which in the
of
parameters
service
is
check-in
to
the
times,
simulation
and number
case of
simulation
one),
demand levels.
flight
For airline
varying
it is a batch-oriented
demand levels
facility,
in terms of number of passengers
expressed
on flights.
229.
(delay).
is
Maximum queue
The main service
time
measure
waiting
is also included
length
service
which
measure,
as an auxilliary
to architects
and
could prove to be very useful,
particularly
designers,
to the physical
facility
because it is more relevant
design
of
the
facility,
since
it
requirementsspace
need
to
accommodate
counters
maximum
space
without
affecting
operational
in
assist
would
be
to
provided
number
of
determining
in
front
of
passengers
waiting
standards.
for
9.6-9.8
in
Figures
The resulting
performance
models are shown
from
flight
These
the three
constructed
are
categories.
models
for
the
data
from
whole
runs
synthesized
generated
simulation
the
demand
demand
levels-for
of
pattern
of,
range
specific
particular
sector.
this
methodology
of
significance
and,
usefulness
".
by the concluding
service
step of applying
could be demonstrated
derived
by means of P-R models
onto the
previously
standards
{
airline{
facilities
that
For
flight
models.
check-in
performance
Finally,
are
the
by
operated
the
local
the
resulting
summarizes
demand levels
different
'handling
levels
agent
of
as delineated
at
Table
MIA,
operational
by service
service
9.6
for
that
standards
Figures
the airport.
of
in light
of operating
perceived-by
are actually
passengers
at
Table 9.6 seems reasonable
and realistic
in
the airport.
that
actually
existed
conditions
and prevailed
for
the three
be
Thus,
conditions
good
opertaing
could
gradedas
(in
1983) for these
Since
flight
levels
demand
categories.
actual
sectors
were
to
close
long
haul
those
flights
indicated,
with
the
probable
use wide-body
which
normally
flights.
length
those
Maximum
on
values
seem
aircrafts
queue
keeping-in
do not necessarily
reasonable,
mind that values stated
to passengers
but rather
refer
actually
passengers
queueing,
in queue.
close by with only group leaders
waiting
waiting
exception
of
230.
U)
g
cn
=
w
L
O
9-
E o
w
>
0-4
cn
Z
0-4
N)
N
O
a)
U
1.4
b
E
eo
0
\`
e '
CQ
U
""
VI
_
sw
"5
I
a)
-o
0
o)
O
'4L
c)
,s
fO'
w
7
O
+
QSQOrf
KLON31
rWO
N
N
L)
Lj
L)
W
p
'"
O
r-
F-
Li
eic
w
L)
x
C7
>
Z
LLJ
C/)
V ;
O
O
F
F
f
N
j"
N
w
2
U
r
w
I)
^"
ko
CO
O'
C
C
Si
s I
e I
I sI
I
rn
g
0)
i
"r
LJ_
i:
1:
22
, nw / 3n MUM
Mra3nv
c
i
Y
c,
C)
t
U
231.
CL
0
L
w
a)
a)
U
V)
PL-4
C)
L
'
W
I 1
"
MS
tom)
cq
W
a'
O
O
r-.
a
e
OO
"a.
O
O
%
%
04
O I O'
O.
V1
`"
""
w
OOO
5i.11-
oO
U
C
ep
E
O
w
L
G)
I_.
c
j.
a)
pQ
4-
OO
1
4
mq
KLON31
NOW
^`M
Tii 1
O
O
SL.ITV
Ln
E--4
W
I
A
H>
z
i!
)
w
I IN
.
H I I %I A
--
w
I--
11
-r
w
w
H
N
"r
(r)
1"
1
0
2
V
w
t
cif
:p4-4
'41
..
rn
0Of
C, JI 1
"
e
i
L: : : : : : : :: :
0
3AV
i te
Y
U
Q1
LL.
232.
0
J
GJ
QJ
&"r
t-)
N
e
w
a
L
O
4-
_
a
W
x
Fj
h0
A
w
A
.
C)
O
O
a
U
Q
Z
O
Q
CD
X
W
fo
E
s. '
O.
'4L
CJ
e
Qiw
z.
o
"
o.
ee
w
ew
NLON313n3t1D Xvn
W
U
E-0
`''
O
H
W
H
w
N
V)
0-1
w
1-N
w
S
U
N
Z
Z
.
O
1A''
00
rn
a)
i
Q)
"r
LL
nww
wei
cQ
+1!
W / YI. L 9M1nM 39ra3AV
c
"r
Y
U
CJ
-C
V
233.
Table
Levels
Operational
of
9.6
for
Service
Airline
Flight
Check-in
MANCHESTERINTERNATIONAL AIRPORT
I CHARTER
LEVEL OF
SERVICE
SERVICE
G
MEASURE
Demand Level*
Delay (min. )
Max Passengers
0"
Waiting
SCHE
DULE
I. T.
LONG HAUL
EUROPEAN
130#
150
70#
3.0
2.5
10
260#
2.0
10
10
TOLERABLE
B
Demand level*
Delay
Max Passengers)
(min. )
14.0
Waiting
*-
In Passengers
#- Average
value
performance
corresponding
2. OUTBOUNDOFFICIAL
to
capacity
passengers
units
were
9 million
handling
upgraded
the
two service
time
curves
plans
by 1990,
facilities
to
bring
the
airport's
simulations
times
were;
for
the
in early
and transformed
an hourly
capacity
ranging
X-ray
conveyorized
and
outbound
annual
several
changes on
necessitated
Security
of the airport.
check
1982 from
from
a manual
1400 to 2000
Magnometer
with an estimated
capacity
nominal
the number of passport
to 2400 passengers
per hour. Also,
(however,
4
to
3 were
was
raised
only
counters
then).
operational
Service
in
model.
system with
to
a
passengers
4
of
units
comprising
search
30
42
CONTROLS
MIAA(195),
to
According
9.0
13.5
60
on Flights.
of demand for
140#
260
official
controls
as
system
of 1800
control
normally
used
in
234.
mean processing
system,
chosen.
PASSPORTSCONTROL- for
this
of
between
each unit
ranged
being a newly introduced
so,
0.13 minutes
was
per passenger
for
facility,
governmental
because
obtain,
with confidentiality.
such information
to
difficult
with
airport
a mean service
checks,
was more
treat
normally
agencies
However, after
discussions
and discrete
by limited
supplemented
time of (0.12)
minute
personnel,
times
processing
per
spot
passenger
was
chosen.
Facilities
the
of
batch-oriented
:
passengers.
facilities
outbound
check-in,
In
this
are
sense,
follow
essentially
departure
channel.
patterns
(and
Since
the
unlike
controls,
.,
flow
to continuous
of
distribution
to
these
official
subjected
arrival
the fluctuations
departure
of
throughputs
demand on the
MIA had showed
at
(Figure
looking
two peaks
9.3),
two-peak
pattern
at those
a
a
for
and
each,
constructing'.
would
model
separately
performance
s.
help in examining
the-performance
under different
of facilities
But considering
whole-day
conditions-'more
accurately.
operational
significantly,
results
either
peak
In
situation.
of
simulations
+":
respective
flow
is
period
performance
because
the
Figure
9.9,
through
divided
not change
would
in
is, consistant
models)
process
which
outbound official
into
20-minute
is
based
MIA
on
each
controls(196),
intervals,
and the
It
the simulations.
''times
in
are then included
corresponding
here that
be noted
the, security
check
since
precedes
should
T.,
is
the
distribution
control,
assigned
arrival
only to
passport
is
Arrival
check.
of passengers
control
security
at passport
initiated
by the simulation
: assigned
automatically
model as the
distribution
from security,
`departure
and as such it is implicit
within
Figures
the
9.10
and afternoon
nature
process.
of
and 9.11
show the
peaks respectively.
facility,
this
the
performance
Because
demand
models
for
the
morning
of the continuous-flow
in the
level
model
is
235.
O
L
4-3
C
O
b
V
(I4O
C
O
.a
N
0
O
L
E--4
g4 C
I--
L)
M'1
L.
fir{) CO
V
HI
Fix
O
a
CO
hol0)
w
0. -0
C)
in
J
44
0
w CO)
O
r-
LL
W
F.r-
W
IN
W
wU)
zx
d
L
Q1
OO
OOOOOOO
OOO
C4
co
OOO
4n
S830N3SSVd IVNIP1831
C4
Li-
236.
r"
"r
U
. rto4CD
0
2
.0
%bN
,
1.9
ti
O
L.
0
9-
4!
"0
0
0-4
Q
0-4
C)
U
1=-
La
CL
; 7+
W
E-+ O L \
I'1 Ic
V,
U
0-4
pq W
o
4L
G)
d
YL
cr.
P i ,
21
31
r-
F--
a,
Sk 1 i
92
"
ww
O
d
C
M
E
S-
"
V
z
Z
O
.Y
(0
F-
G.
C1
e
20
W
1ZL,
-+
W
c
v74
"r
C
0
Cy
Z
W
N
Fcr
LAJ
cr
n
W
FN
CL
V) N
W0
ZL
L)
ZC
to
4..)
0
O
I01
a
L
LL.
y!M+/ 7u -OWVVA77YCAV
'
Legend
""
-L IM PASSPORTS
iN
7N
Of
IN
"
"
N"
Figure
9.11
is
MANCHESTER INTERNATIONAL
Controls
(Afternoon
Peak).
IN
'1N
6041
" N7
110
6
"0 "N
1
,9
fl "i.,1 1111
GOIAHDLEVEL- AVERAGED
tloup i/
AIRPORT-
Performance
110"q
PAXpK HOUR
Model
for
I N
MI
Outbound
Official
N
238.
volume (in
Equally,
as an average
expressed
in
period
expressed
consideration.
in
terms
of
specific
shape
pattern,
passengers
per
demand level
hour)
over
the
also be
could
introducing
by
hour
demand,
peak
facilitate
demand
the
that
of
conversion
would
ratio
peak/average
in
to
demand
the
peak
consideration,
volume
over
period
average
is
demand pattern
demand volume.
Since
the
hour
controlled
(SI)
to
Index
by
Simulation
the
the
a
retain
throughout
procedure
and
this
indirectly
will
or
kept
to
the
retain
a narrow
within
showed that peak/average
between
ranged
runs
simulation
for
(2.03-2.11)
afternoon-peak
while
with
an average
of 2.07,
1.88.
(1.85-1.93)
it
between
of
average
an
ranged
with
runs
volume
as constant
ratio
Simulation
output
peak/average
margin of variation.
for
the
morning-peak
ratio
of the service
standards
information
in
contained
Application
yields
levels
the
of
measures
operational
indicated,
that
passengers,
delay
of
values
Table 9.4).
in
Keeping
official
around
airport
those
mind
service
in light
that
by
specified
information
contained
consistent
that
observations
realized,
tolerence.
in
delineated
and 9.8
times
through
flow
the
the
of passengers
international
pier
departing
peak
hour
passenger
should
conditions
airport
be
could
arise,
be regarded
the
are
then,
the
and
fact
to
This
realistic.
bound to
estimations
This
verified.
statistically
and any inconsistencies
in
MIA represents
throughputs
at the
authority.
airport
in Tables
9.7 and 9.8 is
for
operational
obtained
are
outbound
seems comparable
Generally,
values
the
some inconsistencies
basically
were
terms
model
The
.
of the
by
perceived
standards
from P-R models (i. e.,
in
those
contained
are
at
situation
with
actual
prevailing
indicate
that
operational
service
and also
However,
'Good'.
service
values
Tables
service
derived
of
were previously
in Tables
9.7
and to
controls
70 % of the total
(for
all
piers),
suggests
are
performance
9.7 and 9.8.
graded
because
actual
be
should
not
with
some
239.
9.7
Table
Levels
of
Operational
for
Service
MANCHESTER INTERNATIONAL
Outbound
Official
AIRPORT /
Morning
LEVEL OF
SERVICE
ICHARTERI SCHEDULEI
SERVICE
MEASURE
I. T.
Controls
Peak
TOTAL
IEUROPEANILONG HAULIPASSENGERS
Demand Level:
G
800
750
770
770
1656
1553
1594
1594
2.5
1.5
2.0
2.0
Volume*
-Average
-Peak Hour
0
)
Delay(min.
0
Max.
D
Passengers:
I..
15
10
13
13
65
45
50
50
1020
940
920
1020
2111
1946
1904
2111
13.0
8.5
8.0
13.0
-Security
-Passports
TOLERABLE
Demand Level:
Volume*
-Average
Hour
-Peak
Delay(min.
Max.
Passengers:
90
50
45
90
150
120
110
150
-Security
-Passports
*-
In Passengers
per
hour
for
the
peak period.
240.
9.8
Table
Levels
of
Operational
for
Service
MANCHESTER INTERNATIONAL
Outbound
AI RPORT /
Afternoon
ICHARTERI SCHED
LEVEL OF
SERVICE
SERVICE
MEASURE
I. T.
Official
ULEI
Controls
Peak
TOTAL
IEUROPEANILONG HAULIPASSENGERS
Demand Level:
G
Volume*
-Average
hour
-Peak
850
800
820
820
1598
1504
1542
1542
2.5
1.5
2.0
2.0
0
)
Delay(min.
0
D
Max. Passengers:
-Security
10
70
50
60
60
11080
980
1000
1080
12030
1842
1880
2030
113.0
8.5
8.0
13.0
-Passports
TOLERABLE
Demand Level:
Volume*
*-
-Average
hour
-Peak
Delay(min.
Max. Passengers:
-Security
58
40
45
58
-Pasports
220
170
180
220
In Passengers
per
hour
for
the
peak period.
241.
9.4
Birmingham
International
outskirts
of
to
connections
9.12.
Figure
with
its
the
formal
Britain's
Midlands
Central
of
counties
BirminghamWest
the
serves
(BHX),
Airport
Metropolitan
is
located
on the
largest
second
Region
and
eastern
and
city,
neighbouring
Wales,
excellent
and northern
with
land transport
as seen in
network
it is a 45-year
airport
old pre-war
England
the
national
Historically,
building
old terminal
still
standing
as an architectural
In contrast,
design of that era.
the
of airport
monument typical
(including
facilities,
terminal
and
complex
access,
parking
new
facilities)
1984,
into
4th
April
while
was
on
put
operation
other
Royal
inauguration
took
place
on May 30th.
handled
CAA statistics(194),
Birmingham Airport
in 1983,
in 1978 and 1.56 million
passengers
to
According
1.31
increase
an
million
U. K.
in passenger
traffic
of 19.5 %. The share of BHX of total
traffic
stands at 2.6 %. Since the opening of the new facilities,
with
reorganization,
These
upgraded.
complete
administrative
have
been
services
substantially
operational
initiate
improvements
to
were anticipated
Airport's
Birmingham
increase
share of U. K.
accompanied
be
Britain's
BHX
will
when
traffic
at the airport
are
British
airports,
regional
traffic.
schedule
percentage
Again,
British
Specifically,
the
international
regional
the
airport
last
two
and as Figure
weekend-days:
these
of
of
other
of
that
percentage
indicated
1981
and
1983
56/44
traffic.,
pattern
year,
many ways to
with
a higher
CAA
traffic
annual
Characteristics
in
statistics(194)
split
was in
and
growth
(especially
traffic
Freeport).
similar
but
traffic
charter/schedule
of
first
traffic
BHX (Figure
at
mid-summer
weeks of July
9.14
9.13),
shows typical
behaviour.
peaking
is
peak period
days of
busiest
the
reveals,
Saturday
and Sunday.
to
of
that
the
BHX daily
of Manchester's.
its
departures,
with
of
the
traffic
Figure
two-peak
242.
Figure
9.12
Birmingham
International
Airport-
Geographic
Location.
243.
L
G)
+J
cc
Cl-
ax
cz
115
.49I.-
to
CD mCri
l*
CP
%4
w
0
CD
.
d
Zo
I -tx
W
70
oc
ZE
CD
M
51
1'
"'
CD
OOGOOCOOOOO
OOOOOOOOOOO
NO^
N
ry
:0
IM
OO
1O
IM
C)
I"1
LJ_
244.
sI
M
t
y
v
tf
L
41
4-3
4-3
at
J
aX
>
..
U
"r44-
L
F-
r
G!
. wx
cj
dCo
a.
Co
<
7m w
ZA
c-
<
W
I--
zwa
zw
r
,
r-+
E
r-r
m
zw
q:t
07
aw
a)
L
LU..
00000000
000000000
o_
o0
co
000,
LO
In
o00o
S830N3SSVd IVNIW831
0 in
wl
245.
Figure
behaviour.
less
a
with
(however,
9.16
is
the
representative
for
for arrivals,
peak hourly
pattern
behaviour
that
peaks
shows two
is
pattern
arrivals
peaking
purposes,
between the two
because the trough
as single-peaked,
considered
is
it
had
most probably
peaks
comparatively
narrow,
and
appearing
6-7
from
for
indicated
day
So,
BHX
the
are
peaks
only).
occurred
for
(afternoon
(morning
1-5
from
peak)
peak)
and
p. m.
a. m.
analysis
and from
departures,
1-7
p. m. for
to the administrative
Prior
development
programme at the
arrivals.
following
reorganization
of
availability
and financial
airport,
the recent
information
was,
aspects
operational,
limited
The-absence
of an active
very
and
scarce.
unfortunately,
handling
body
for
of
and
collection
responsible
and efficient
data,
contributed
greatly
operational,
and
statistical
planning,
on
various
to
that
planning,
situation,
other
undertake
sources
of
on BHX.
information
In
for
looking
and necessitated
of
an -opportunity
implementation
of
pursuit
to
the
total
and
BHX
methodology,
initiated
were
was contacted
and negotiations
in
in
study
to have their
a
conducting
approval
and cooperation
Eventually,
was
agreement
the new terminal
of the
airport.
departures
for
to
at
and
a
run
passenger
survey
arrivals
reached
The Airport
during
the peak period
the airport
of summer 1984.
furnish
to grant
the
to
Authority
airport
and
approved
access
comprehensive
Authority
Airport
whatever
information
Preperations
as
the
got
major
application.
to
underway
to
the
part
of
Subsequently,
and
experience,
that
needed
lessons
proposed
could
be made available.
carry
on with
demonstration
BHX Passenger
literature
related
learned
from
in
of
previous
the
Survey,
methodology
topics,
past
excercises
were
eliminate
and potential
risks
of possible
setbacks
that
the passenger
survey.
might
adversely
affect
Department
Planning
Several
meetings
were held with the airport's
important
issues concerning
to discuss
such
the passenger
survey,
reviewed
difficulties
246.
IM
C)
L
G.
41
a)
b
M
N
V
"r
4-4-
1"'M
V)
L
H
L!
r"r
co
O
O
Ic
co
oz
F-
of
W
F-
CD
-r
w
co
I,
LA
01
G1
S-
Z
c
O
in
cOOOc
cOco
S83ON3SSVd IVNIN831
O
"r
L.
t
N
0
N
L0
O
o=
oA
zE
tri
ZU
o00000
000000
tI
c
v1
`t
MN
S2830N3SSVdIVNIW831
248.
of the survey,
positioning
of stations
delivery
liason
other
with
points,
used as questionnaires
found
to
the
and
agencies
airport
in
appropriate
organisations
inform or contact,
to general
of
and other issues
related
context
as timing
and scheduling
From these
questionnaires.
Timing of
1.
the
survey
the following
meetings
was realized:
to be during
the last two
was finalized
with the industrial
summer holidays,
July,
of
coinciding
weeks
is
traffic
its
tourist
to
expected
reach
peak.
where
information
Operational
to passenger
throughputs
2.
and
related
during
traffic
hourly
survey
period
were to be made available
directly,
from handling
agents
and airlines
and not from the
to
agreed
and handling
agents
information
daily
from
their
and
such
records
provide
be
but
is
information
to
the
that
this
on
condition
work-sheets,
traffic
to
throughputs
and
used
generate
passenger
collectively
Planning
Department.
Airlines
market competitiveness.
became evident
It
3.
information
operational
because of the
information
such
Also,
such
different
later
public
it
that
commercial
and industrial-related
to the competing
handling
agents
information
situations,
difficult
is
that
to
so
it
to
feasible
in
share
their
of
or influence
image
was not
baggage
handling
on
the
so as to reveal
indication
any
data,
get
the
useful
airport,
of
sensitivity
at the airport.
diverse
and variable
be impractical
to
would
for
the
between
collect,
of constructing
analyse
purpose
and
the performance
model for the baggage claim facility.
location
It was realized
that
the only
4.
possible
where the
the arriving
can effectively
approach
passengers
was at
surveyor
Pier just
to queueing
the terminal
end of the International
prior
immigration.
inward
Since
being
for
there,
was
positioned
to the
vital
absolutely
to grant
Authority
agreed
he
could effectively
where
success
survey,
of the
the surveyor
to
access
approach
passengers.
the
the
Airport
airside,
249.
5.
Response
rates
of
the
to
up
with
reasonable
come
determine
passenger
number of
to try
survey were discussed
be used to
that
range
would
Based
need to be distributed.
questionnaires
Airport
Authority
and knowledge
of
on experience
personnel,
between
10 % and 25 % were thought
values
to be reasonably
in
light
behaviour
of
of
characteristics
and
realistic,
in
the circumstances
of the survey.
passengers
design,
6. Questionnaire
preperation,
and production
would be the
of the surveyor,
and all
and that
questionnaires
responsibility
material
have
heading of BHX and LUT.
In
the joint
would
survey
`
by
be
the
questionnaires
would
self-administered
addition,
passengers,
departing)
Planning
but
by the
of
distributed
and
the
and
(both
passengers
arriving
and
himself.
surveyor
passenger
questionnaires,
of
outcomes
to
design
survey,
and
production
interpretation
the .'theoretical
t of
survey
were
examining
carefully
of
the
thoroughly
considered;
of each,
aspects
and principles
topic,
literature
consulting
available
on this
and
discussing
taking
experts
of
and
and
advice
occasionally
in this
specialists
Instructions,
area.
rules,
recommendations,
tips
on effective
of such
and running
planning
and practical
including
design,
taken
efficient
all
were
questionnaire
surveys,
its
Realizing
in the process.
into
and adopted
consideration
studying
frequently
major
to
importance
and contribution
survey,
both theoretically
n
these
all
aspects
the
efficiency
and practically,
were
purposely
elaborated
on
in
Chapter
Seven.
}'
9.4.1
Basically,
BHX Passenger
self-administered
inside
passengers
necessary
Survey
questionnaires
the terminal.
information
required
incorporated
to
arriving
the
distribution
and
of
departing
250.
t'
facilities
of the
(passenger/flight)
processing
major traffic
disaggregated
operational
Considering
outcomes
the inappropriateness
two
categories,
service
of
actual
waiting
a passenger
is
a service
spent
interpret.
and
view
the
level
harmful
previous
studies,
of delay,
service
be total
time spent
V Departures:
passengers
facility
procedure,
or to the capacity
effects
of
Departure
on
so as to arrive
for those facilities.
at
especially
regarding
adopted by the
measure
in each facility.
is
Total
an
and would
not
bear
any unwanted
procedure.
was as follows:
questionnaires
were to be
the
survey
pre-selected
of its category,
representative
or wieght on airport
the
is
that
expression
by
time plus any delay encountered
processing
for service.
Compared to delay,
time
total
is less
to
measure that
emotive
and easier
in
it is more conveniently
Also,
manipulated
implementation
Field
standards
service
of
down to
of
decided
to
was
survey
in a processing
time
spent
composed
broken
channels,
traffic).
(flights
flights
delivered
thought
to
to
be
impact
have
those
that
special
or
In order to control
response rate,
delivered
to passengers
were
as group
who acted
questionnaires
leaders,
not to every passenger__in each group,
and_partJcularly
_...
(or
the
handicapped,
to
children,
aged_ and
or passengers
not
di
show
Delivery
t_or...
si
ve.
nteres.
ooperati
wfi
seemedunc.
groups
,,
delivery
was done at 'departure-questionnaires
of questionnaires
Departure
positioned
at the entrance
of 'International
station',
Lounge D' just
station
this
of
1.
Convenience
(F_igure
9.17a).
security
check
because:
was favoured
trying
to the
to
provided
surveyor
prior
to
Selection
establish
briefing
passengers
with
whilst
verbally
each
rapport
is
the
survey
all-about,
and what thay are supposed
what
location
Mid-way
between
2.
check-in
and outbound
that
which
ensures
controls,
encounters
passengers'
-facilities
answering
F
T.
would be still
the questionnaire.
fresh
in
their
minds
when they
group of
to do.
official
in both
attempt
251.
(a)
(b)
Figure
9.17
Departures.
Arrivals.
BIRMINGHAM
Distribution
INTERNATIONAL
Stations.
AIRPORT-
Questionnaire
252.
location
Its.
3.
departure
to
so close
pre-inspection,
gave the
impression
to passengers
that
the surveyor
has an official
task
to perform that should be. responded to seriously.
.
After
the
receiving
briefly
informed
questionnaire.
and being
about the nature of the survey,
passengers
would then go through
check and passport
before
security
control,
to the
proceeding
lounge,
departure
where they stay for
time awaiting
their
some
.
departure
flight
The departure
anouncement.
questionnaire
was to
be answered while
in the lounge for
passengers.
were waiting
a
of time that was more than sufficient
for them to read the
period
it,
understand
questionnaire,
When
and then enter their
replies.
left
the departure
they finally
lounge to the. gates,,
passengers
...,
the questionniares
in a well-marked
deposited
box situated_. at-the
the
departure
lounge,
of
instructed
by
exit
the
as
introductory
To monitor.
questionnaire's
note.
response
rates,
box was to be emptied and questionnaires
this
collected
on daily
basis..
It
Arrivals:
from
that
was planned
International
Pier
the
be
arriving
passengers
(airside)
to inward
prior
coming down
immigration
handed
(containing
the
sealed
envelopes
questionnaire
arrivals
with a FREEPOST return-addressed
envelope)
instructions.
message displayed
with a printed
of brief
yet clear
These instructions
the
would: direct
attention
of
passengers
information
towards particular
sought by the questionnaire,
and
would
processing,
to
inform
them to
appropriate,
enough time
the,
because
to
spare
observe
terminal.
questionnaire
Once they clear
either
alone
car,
as
or with
soon
questionnaire
the, required
while
customs,
that
informing
do
passengers
all
want
and relatives,
When they
can.
information.
aspects
of
be most
to
understanding,
for service
waiting
friends
as - they
later,
they
and briefly
and monitor
specific
This
was found
of the fact
for
reading,
the
answering
terminal.
advance
to
in
while
operation
try
probably
would
By instructing
them what
to
get
try
not
they
leave
not
have
and
inside
then
the
a taxi,
fill
to
the
terminal
or rent a
in
the
be able to recall
the
in
passengers
are
expected
to
be
253.
asked
they
about,
be
could
to
able
the whole
such
record
information
enclosed.
reading
questionnaire
(home
destination
final
their
or office),.
after
reaching
have no problem
in entering
their
they
on the
replies
would
before
dropping
it
in
be
to
the
to
mail,
posted
questionnaire,
free of charge.
the surveyor
without
Later,
necessarily
the
survey,
of the
longer
he
by
that
can
no
airport
authority
surveyor
the
Permission
to
the
the
airside.
of
airside
access
enter
been
had
tighter
because of newly-implemented
withdrawn,
airport
However,
before
very
soon
was briefed
commencement
immediate
this
Fortunately,
with
effect.
security
by
distributing
the arrivals
overcame
was
questionnaire
problem
(Figure
directly
H.
M.
Customs
9.17b)
Excise
the
of
exit
and
at
had
(landside)
the
before
leaving
they
the
customs
and
after
This
only
a
alteration
necessitated
chance to meet greeters.
(deletion
instructions.
'will')
the
change
of
on
printed
minor
measures
9.4.2
In
the
raised
of the
QUESTIONNAIRE DESIGN'
previuosly
arrivals
main parts:
Concise
1.
function
words
of
the
cooperation
questionnaire.
authoritive
Department
designing
of
process
in
Section
and departures
introductory
purpose
of
and participation,
To
give
the
The structure
consisted
of three
questionnaires
and
letter
a covering
discussion
survey
questionnaires,
7.6.4 was considered.
has
that
the
note
explanatory
describing
in few
for the survey,
for
survey,
passengers
asking
and what
the
the covering
status,
Technology.
of Transport
to
do with
questionnaires
letter
was
The
tone
the
completed
official
signed
of this
by
and
LUT's
covering
between pleading,
compromise
was a logical
authoritarian
imperative
It
language,
that
all
and excess
politeness.
was
in
information
be
and
material,
contained
should
questionnaire
letter
254.
only
because
one paper,
lengthy
and multi-papered
questionnaires
by
taking
them seriously
of
chances
probably
reduce
hence
the response rate.
reducing
passengers,
PART I,
to be as brief
2.
as
and short
which was designed
had
functions.
The
first,
two
main
was to provide
possible,
information
facilitate
that
according
would
categorization
sample
would
to flight
The second,
type.
and passenger
information
synthesized
sector
verify
conditions
operational
by
respondents
recorded
during
survey period.
existed
questionnaire,
important
II,
the
the
PART
3.
which
most
part of
It
information
P-R
to
starts
models.
necessary
construct
contains
in
bold
big
letters
to carefully
to passengers
a
message
with
instructions
These
before
to
the
answer.
attempting
read
include
instructions
that
conditions
their
answers,
in
assessing
with
form
of
description
circumstances
to consider
required
of
be
respondents
would
and the grading
system they
those
a spectrum
consideration,
level
the
with
and
Questions
conditions.
or
range of
empty boxes
time
to
spent
be filled
and
in
should
by
the
respondent
in light
of general
estimated
during
that
existed
service
and
conditions
actually
operational
The last
trip.
that particular
part should give
of this
question
time
indication
to
overall
of
respondent's
outlook
general
some
to
however,
it
in
terminal
contribute
processing,
not
would
spent
facilities.
of
operation
at
particular
assessment
Wording
of
of
satisfaction
questionnaires
ensure better
was very
carefully
studied,
and chosen
understanding
of
and efficient
completion
so as to
them, as well as building
communications
and establishing
rapport
j
This was hoped to increase
the
of
passenger,
possibilities
with
response
practical
adopted
Appendix
the
secure
success
survey.
of
to increase
measures and techniques
response
form and layout
in the final
of questionnaires
and
B-4),
would
they
are:
Several
rates were
(shown in
vs"'
255.
heading
BHX and LUT title
and
to give
the added
material
survey
1.
and authority.
sponsorship
Different
2.
paper colour
handling
easier
purposes:
sorting,
survey to passengers.
Questionnaires
3.
graphic
sizes
and types
character
4.
displayed
were
influence
on
on
all
passengers
of
questionnaires
was used for two
better
with
recognition
of
each
by the surveyor
during
distribution
questionnaires
and
and the added effect
of 'importance
and prestige'
of the
channel's
three
logo
of
design
to
incorporated
properly
parts of questionnaire.
For departures,
questionnaires
and
(blue)
use
of
arrange
nicely
were
different
the
handed-out
to
(pink)
arrivals,
were
questionnaires
passengers
in a sealed
along with a FREEPOST mail-back
envelope,
enclosed
instructions.
bearing
instructions,
These
with
printed
envelope
heading
title
the joint
and. logo of BHX and LUT,
were carefully
(Business
be
to
FREEPOST
as
so
concise,
and
very
clear.
worded
back
to
Reply)
return-addressed
envelopes
mail
arrivals
folded,
but
was
questionnaires,
for
the
rates
for
used
as
a measure
of
increasing
response
arrival
channel,
and mail
reply
where passengers
back
Samples
free
the
of
of
charge.
questionnaires
instructions,
business
the
envelope-printed
and
questionnaires,
in
Appendix B-4.
are
shown
envelopes
reply
9.4.3
P-R
Information
MODELS
from
compiled
BHX Passenger
Survey
was processed
and
by
or
manually
either
statistical
means of a computer
analysed,
(MINITAB
General
Statistics
Package
The next
was used).
package
P-R
for
facilities
to
construct
models
was
processing
of
step
arrivals
and departures
For departures,
outbound
considered
channels.
P-R models
official
controls
sepertaely),
were constructed
(security
check
and
overall
for
airline
check-in,
and passport
control
departure
processing
256.
disaggregated
facilities,
departures
international
for
models
flight
that
categories
Figures
A. 20-A. 23
channel.
flights,
I. T.
charter
haul
schedule-long
for
flights,
P-R
show
A. 24-A. 27
Figures
flights,
the
used
Figures
for
for
A. 28-A. 31
and Figures
half-minute.
9.9
for
flights,
shows that
schedule-European
had
(tolerable)
diminished
a
middle
region.
standards
treated
that
schedule-European
passengers
with
in service
in
longer
tolerance
any lowering
resulting
Table
facilities,
at various
felt
actually
was
and
fact
This
probably
trips,
business
Other
passengers
departure
traffic,
in
the
leave
would
low
comparatively
(as
category
indicated
on
standards
set
For
arrivals,
immigration,
facilities
international
schedule-long
passengers.
that
last
the
virtually
fill
to
earlier
P-R
baggage
combined,
models,
in Section
models
were
were
7.8.
survey.
on
are
on
mostly
schedule-European
enter
usually
the
the
This
questionnaire.
was responsible
departures
for
9.12).
Sample
sizes,
in
line
generally,
constructed
claim,
customs,
and all
disaggregated
for flight
arrivals
channel,
haul,
schedule-European,
Traffic
from
Ireland
of
to
convenient
opportunity
no time in the departure
passengers,
for
rates
Table
spent
passengers
category
passengers
less
much
time
was realistic,
conduct
concerning
them
response
in
noted
P-R
of this
possible
enough
of business
sufficient
typical
behaviour,
flight
of
is
lounge
the
behaviour
the
reflects
passengers
facts
observed
lounge
which
This
since
businesss.
them,
other passengers.
by the surveyor
during
than
service
This means
namely,
and
and the
in
sets
for
this
as
with
inward
of
arrival
processing
of the
categories
charter
Common Travel
Channel
I. T.,
Area
Islands
257.
Table
Level
of Service
Framework
for
9.9
International
Departure
Channel
Time Spent
in
(Minutes
Facility
P-R
FACILITY
rounded to
T1T2
Model
Good/Tolerable
nearest
half-minute)
Tolerable/Bad
Figure
No.
Check-in
Figure
A. 20
11.0
21.0
Security
Figure
A. 21
6.0
10.5
Passports
Figure
A. 22
6.0
10.5
Figure
A. 23
22.0
34.0
B. SCHEDULE-LONGHAUL:
Figure
Check-in
A. 24
15.0
25.0
Security
Figure
A. 25
9.0
12.5
Passports
Figure
A. 26
7.5
10.5
Figure
A. 27
23.0
37.0
TYPE
A.
CHARTER I. T.:
Overall
Departure
I-
Processing
Overall
Departure
I-
Processingi
C. SCHEDULE-EUROPEAN:
Check-in
Figure
A. 28
7.5
14.0
Security
Figure
A. 29
6.0
6.5
Passports
Figure
A. 30
6.0
6.0
Figure
A. 31
21.5
21.5
6.5
10.5
Overall,
Departure
I-
Processing
D. TOTAL DEPARTING PASSENGERS:
Figure
A. 32
Security
Passports
Overall
Departure
I-
Processing
Figure
A. 33
6.5
10.5
Figure
A. 34
23.0
34.0
258.
(designated
by H. M.
Common Travel
Area)
as the
was treated
like
international
traffic,
Customs and Excise
and was
other
As such, it shared
to customs regulations
and taxation.
subjected
(for
the
the
of
only)
with
use
same channel
arrivals
immigration.
traffic,
For this
international
except for inward
fact,
started,
survey,
decision,
had already
the
realized
after
survey
in the passenger
CTA traffic
to include
because of the belated
However,
only.
was only
which
it was decided
but for arrivals
sample
size
for
Common Travel
the
Area
traffic
was
for
below
limit
the
set
and
of the standards
relatively
Service
for
CTA
should
size.
standards.
established
sample
tolerance
be
Figures
than others.
therefore
regarded
with more
Figures
flights,
I. T.
A. 35-A. 38 show P-R models for
charter
haul flights,
A. 43-A. 46 for
Figures
A. 39-A. 42 for schedule-long
small
flights,
schedule-European
Area traffic,
and
models
9.10,
seems
characteristics
categories
diminished
total
A. 50-A. 53 are P-R models for
.,
level
Table
9.10
of service
summarizes
from P-R
standards
of which were derived
mentioned.
realistic,
and typical
included.
schedule-European
Apart
behaviour.
Common Travel
Figures
passengers.
arriving
the service
framework,
previously
A. 47-A. 49 for
Figures
Service
reasonable,
behaviour
However,
flights
from
the
as was previously
for baggage claim
and
of
a
margin
for
noticed
stated
consistent
passengers
of
standards
service
showed
narrow
standards
noticeably
of tolerent
departures),
in
Table
the
with
the flight
for
the
different
region
(not
service
lower
had
significantly
and
customs
standards
(T2)
Again,
fact
is greatly
to
(Ti)
this
values.
contributed
and
business
the predominently
passengers
who in
on these flights,
hence do not need
This fact
was
or customs.
during
the
by
the
and
observed
verified
on
site
surveyor
actually
Sample size as indicated
of survey.
are
on P-R models,
conduct
in
line
in
the
and
comformity
set,
standards
generally
with
for
CTA
for
traffic
reasons mentioned
earlier.
except
instances,
carry
only cabin
most
facility,
to use the baggage claim
hand-baggage,
259.
Table
Level
Time Spent in
FACILITY
(Minutes
Facility
P-R
TYPE
A.
9.10
Model
rounded to
T1T2
nearest
Channel
half-minute)
Figure
No.
Immigration
Figure
A. 35
6.5
15.0
Baggage Claim
Figure
A. 36
13.0
23.5
Customs
Figure
A. 37
6.5
13.0
Figure
A. 38
24.0
40.0
Good/Tolerable
Tolerable/Bad
CHARTER I. T.:
Overall
Arrival
(-
Processing
B. SCHEDULE-LONG HAUL:
Immingration
Figure
A. 39
7.0
16.0
Baggage Claim
Figure
A. 40
16.5
25.0
Customs
Figure
A. 41
6.0
12.0
Figure
A. 42
23.5
44.0
Overall
Arrival
Processing
C. SCHEDULE-EUROPEAN:
Immigration
Figure
A. 43
6.0
12.0
Baggage Claim
Figure
A. 44
10.0
17.5
Customs
Figure
A. 45
5.0
7.0
Figure
A. 46
20.0
28.0
Overall
Arrival
Processing
260.
Time Spent
in
(Minutes
Facility
FACILITY
P-R
TYPE
nearest
Good/Tolerable
No.
)-
rounded to
T 1T
Model
Figure
(cont.
9.10
Table
half-minute)
2
Tolerable/Bad
12.5
21.0
Figure
A. 48
6.5
15.0
Figure
A. 49
20.0
34.0
6.5
14.5
Overall
Arrival
I-
Processing
Figure
A.. 51
12.5
22.5
Customs
Figure
A. 52
6.5
11.5
'Figure
A. 53
23.0
37.0
Overall
Arrival
I-
Processing
The degree
of
monitoring
and
survey
success
analysing
questionnaires.
those initially
with
Department.
of
the
survey
passenger
could
be known by
to the
passengers
be compared
should
BHX Planning
with
meetings
be
would
rates
response
of
response
rates
Actual
rates
response
predicted
during
It
was anticipated
10 % and
between
that
this
on
particular
and
somewhere
be
delivered
the
to
of
number
questionnaires
was set
assumption
questionnaires
would conform to the minimum sample
so as returned
in
7.8.
Returned
Section
set
earlier
standards
size
delivery
date
the
to
classified
were
of
according
questionnaires
(and
flight
by
the
the
passenger
entered
with
verified
as
schedules)
and flight
category.
25
%,
Tables
9.11
and 9.12
show that
261.
actual
response
rates
were
within
departures,
and 25.1 % for arrivals.
rates
Table
flight
basis
on daily
9.12
furnishes
for
the
Table
duration
the
details
of
of
target9.11
monitors
survey
response
29.2
% for
response
period,
rates
while
to
according
category.
Table
Daily
DAY/ ID
MONTH IDeliver
Response
EPART
Retrieved
Rates
of
URES
9.11
BHX Passenger
IA
%RetrievedIDeliver
Survey
RRIVA
LS
Retrieved
%Retrieved
20/7
100
18
18.0
110
30
27.3
21/7
105
20
19.0
114
41
35.9
22/7
100
16
16.9
112
37
23/7
100
18
18.0
109
33,
30.2
24/7
99
26
26.3
108
25
23.1
25/7
100
36
36.0
108
24
22.2
26/7
102
39.
38.2
103
29
28.1
27/7
99
25
25.3
102
25
24.5
28/7
105
42
40.0
100
20
20.0
29/7
98
27
27.6
100
19
19.0
30/7
100
39
39.0
101
17
16.8
31/1
100
37
37.0
77
18
23.3
1/8
93
37
39.8
100
20
20.0
-33.0
262.
Table
Flight
Categories
Response
9.12
Rates
of
BHX Passenger
Survey
ICHARTERI SCHEDULEICTA
IINCOMPLETEITOTAL
I I. T. ALONG HAULIEUROPEANITRAFFIC I REPLIES I
A. DEPARTURES:
# Retrieved
307
30
% Delivered
23.6
2.3
2.7
% Retrieved
80.8
7.9
9.2
35
380
-8
-
0.6
29.6
2.1
100.0
B. ARRIVALS:
# Retrieved
148
% Delivered
11.0
2.7
6.5
0.9
4.0
25.1
% Retrieved
43.9
10.7
25.7
3.8
15.9
100.0
36
it
initially
was thought
information
that
obtained
stage,
the time spent in each facility
Finally,
themselves
be useful
that
conditions
could
with actual
it became evident
later
utilized
efficiently
for
seemed to
generally
trends
as anticipated
as obtained
values
13
87
to
design
at the questionnaire
from PART I of questionnaires
on
by the passengers
as estimated
verify
prevailed
that
estimated
that
purpose,
the
conditions
operational
during
the survey.
However,
time
values
in
although
could
means of
simulation,
Since
not
principal,
reflect
relative
with
conformity
beforehand.
The level
of accuracy
by
338
54
be
it
existing
of these
and as estimated
by
in
resultant
previously
formalizing
the
replies
of individual
and the
passengers,
As presented
average values for groups of passengers.
in Chapter Seven,
influence
factors
socio-psychologic
263.
opinions,
passengers'
their
replies
and
in
facilities.
to
and contribute
their
stating
estimates
that
there
implies
This
variations
in
encountered
times
spent
of
is
in
some degree
of
between the actual
of time
and values
values
of time,
variation
by the passengers.
Variance
that
and recorded
were perceived
because previous
between the two values can be expected,
research
had shown that
the perception
by Clark(198)
of urban travellers
various
to
time
travel
of
is
likely
travel
time,
'Stevens
Law':
values
based on
(Perceived
function
of actual
non-linear
by this
that is
and as described
relation
be
to
Value) = a. (Actual
(a)
(b)
and
are coefficients
where
of the environment.
characteristic
Nevertheless,
when
Clark's
study
in facilities,
9.4.4
of
our
be
stressed
information
obtain
of
and
values of time spent
estimated
for
the
be
found
to
negligible
was
coefficients
of
to the
of
information
for simulation
required
for the case of BHX,
the
degree
data
availability
Brief
circumstances.
will
modelled
the simulation.
was so
majority
Manchester
of
should be regarded
of
be presented
with
input
of
means
basic
that
scarce
and difficult
data
of those input
Airport
with
of airport-related
description
along
by
generated
construct
performance
facilities
in BHX.
processing
here,
due to
fact
that
the
assumed or
were either
This situation
instead.
current
(b)
(a)
study.
operational.
was used to
simulation
departures
and
light
some particular
PERFORMANCEMODELS
Synthesized
to
values
to
related
the
were applied
the difference
purposes
practical
Value)b,
of
were
consideration
information
each
parameters
used
in
in
facility
used
in
264.
1. AIRLINES
FLIGHT CHECK-IN:
that
at
airlines
and handling
agencies
was mentioned
earlier
information
BHX agreed to provide
on the
and traffic
operational
it would not be used in any way that would reveal
that
condition
by this
Abiding
information
their
concerning
performance.
being
flight
that
meant
a
airline
check-in,
condition
It
and flight-related
batch-oriented
or
their
performance
built.
models
properties
with
characteristics
at
agencies
of operations
of the
Birmingham
and Manchester
to
These
exist.
great
similarities
similarities
models previously
facilities,
with
is
It
suitable.
not be included
hand,
On the other
common
in
traffic
and
nature
of
handling
local
and national
facility,
constructed
P-R models
could
airports,
-had
made comparisons
for
MIA airline
established
for
been observed
of performance
flight
check-in
BHX,
somewhat
MIA
measure used for
it
delay,
BHX
P-R
models
models
was
was
performance
but since processing
time spent,
times (which 'together
total
with
(less
low
time spent)
than
delay form total
all
are
comparatively
delay
times,
this
two-digit
as compared against
one minute),
to conduct,
seem to be reasonably
would
practical
comparison
higher
provided
minus
true
tolerence
that
the
service
for
while
margins
are
adopted
(e. g.,
or
one minute).
Table
plus
9.13
for
haul,
airline
and
seem logical
flights,
I. T.
The
except for charter
which seem under-estimated.
(demand
load
factor
level)
Inclusive
for
Tour flights
standard
(110-130)
between
Figures
for the other
ranges
passengers(197).
do comply
two categories
that
with
actual
situation
prevailed
during
survey
period
at
BHX.
265.
9.13
Table
Levels
of
Operational
Service
for
Flight
Airline
Check-In
I CHARTER
SERVICE
LEVEL OF
SERVICE
MEASUREE
I. T.
0-
I 205
Demand Level*
Time Spent (min. )( 11.0
0-
Max Passengers
G-
Waiting
SCHED.
ULE
LONG-HAUL EUROPEAN
120
265
7.5
-15.0
32
48
20
260
310
160
TOLERABLE
B-
Demand Level*
A-
Time Spent
D-
Max-Passengers
(min. )l
I
Waiting
*-
In passengers
14.0
25.5
21.0
40
72
60
on flights.
2. OUTBOUNDOFFICIAL. CONTROLS
In BHX,
security
scanner
MIA's,
counter.
one
as follows:
X-ray baggage
consisting
check unit
of a conveyorized
frame,
to
and Magnometer
personal
searching
similar
directly
followed
by a one-server
control
passport
outbound
Although
official
both
controls
facilities
are
are
arranged
included
in
one simulation
data
for
operational
were
model,
generated
each separately.
Processing
times were considered
to those of MIA; 0.12
as similar
for
passport
minute per passenger
control,
and 0.15 minute per
higher than MIA's
check, which is slightly
passenger for security
266.
because
figure
the
(unit
facility
of the early
shakedown period
official
models for the outbound
and operating
months
of
staff)
operation.
were built
was in the
Performance
and passport,
9.19
and Figure
of these
models
Since
the
arrivals
curve.
from security
by departures
time
for
is
security
are
for
check,
higher
slightly
to spend considerable
passengers
would not be expected
So,
time
control.
of
or
awaiting
at
passport
queue
service
-amount
in
for
the maximum value
time
control,
passport
average
spent
control,
obtained
while
from
the
performance
0.5
minutes,
waiting
maximum number of passengers
These observations
were found
was around 15.
(rather
discretely)
and were actually
monitored
corresponding
reached there
value
of
ever
to be realistic
during
the
by the surveyor
levels
of operational
service
and
was
model,
around
peaks,
governs the
afternoon
completely
levels
of
delineated.
operational
survey.
for the
respectively.
behaviour
of
service
for
Tables
9.14
security
Since
the
the
security
check
control
process,
passport
be
latter
the
need
not
267.
rt
.r.
v
.I44-
tw
1
CD
S
jo
S
N
Ln
1--
O
-,
U
I?
zO
~3
Li
,_
o
1 i
I
l"
rn
as
>
W
W
V
>
Cy a.
0:
I i
l i
Op
ew
OO
HLDN313n3nb WM
C)
G.
O
a
0-4
Lj
0:
O
0-4
I--
W
.
O
z
o
ck:
"
p
i
p 0
N
W
1-r--0
0Li
a
Y
b
c1
d
Q1
C
"r
C
L
O
x
N
>'
Liz!
WI
FI
FRF F
e
ww
O
L
C
O
L)
. -r
CC)
C=I="
=I =
V
I
4P
V3
ul
W
N
flu
K
p.
<
I
l
I
I,
9-
P4
G
e0
E
S.
-
40-4
Z
Li
V
a)
ti
o
e
i 3
'
.1
f=
j J
JI
Cy -J:
C) Z
: )
w
a)
v
0
=J
So
4--
4
0-3
4!
.
z
zz z Q
4
1!
a J
n)
C,
we
li
268..
0as
. r.
U
4w
O
.
O
O
"
N
Ln
o
J
Q
A
F+"i
t1
eo
a
Z1
E
s.
Zia
l a
4-
1x
21
4'
z
C
-
S-4
O
4-4
e
e
1
1
iS
_s
aa
0
a
3n3no xvI
cl:
LLJ
V)
t
i-
J
Li
>
a:
F-
"
"
"
L) 0
W
H
-a
4*4
II
-I-
ix
IS-r
m
C
0
U
rn
I
e
O
WI <I
W
<
4011 d1
= IJ J
I
ei
Jr r- P
-
lI
in
-r
N
r0
L
i
I
rn
a,
li
"e
1 13
0)
11
.1
20
4"""
we
3v%
CJ
-4
O ki
'
10
C
0
0
C
'
cz
a
HLD1
F-
w
N
z
D
Lz7
H
P4
<i
i
aJr zl z
-"
C)
U
W
Z
0
CL
I
a)
M
O Q
_
z
t
LL..
269.
Table
9.14
Levels
for Security
Service
of Operational
BIRMINGHAM INTERNATIONAL. AIRPORT / Morning
LEVEL OF
SERVICE
ICHARTER
SERVICE
MEASURE
Check
Peak,
TOTAL
ULE
SCHED
I. T.
Demand Level
I
I
235
250
235
238
Volume*
-Average
Hour
-Peak
447
475
447
450
Time Spent
6.0
9.0
6.0
6.5
Max Passengers
(min. )
I
85
125
85
90
254
260
238
254
483
494
452
485
(min. ) 1 10.5
12.5
6.5
10.5
TOLERABLE
Demand Level
Volume*
-Average
Hour
-Peak
A
Time Spent
D
Max Passengers
In passengers
The
results
realistic,
passengers,
BHX during
per
hour
for
Tables
shown in
and the conclusion
level
operational
the
survey
150
check
could
peaks.
that the
was
162
95
150
seem
is that
reasonably
for
total
peak period.
9.14
and
they
of
convey
for
service
be considered
They confirm
queue of
excessively
9.15
security
check at
the
during
as 'bad'
the observations
made
waiting
passengers
long
extending
for
to
the
and
270.
the
through
sometimes
and cafeteria,
demonstrates
seating
for
particularly
of the methodology
when used for the
design
facilities,
by identifying
crowding
physical
For that particular
expected queue lengths.
areas and predicting
in
front
International
the
space
of
entrance
of the
case,
the
usefulness
of terminal
9.15
Table
Levels
for Security
Service
of Operational
BIRMINGHAM INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT / Afternoon
LEVEL OF
SERVICE
SERVICE
MEASURE
ICHARTER SCHED
Check
ULE
Peak
TOTAL
LONG-HAUL EUROPEANPASSENGERS
"J
I. T.
290
308
290
292
452
480
452
456
6.0
9.0
6.0
6.5
107
150
107
110
315
322
292
315
491
502
456
491
12.5
6.5
10.5
Demand Level
-Average
Volume*
Hour
-Peak
Time Spent
Max Passengers
(min. ) I
TOLERABLE
Demand Level
B
Volume*
-Average
Hour
-Peak
Time Spent
(min. ) 110.5
D
I
Max Passengers
*-
In passengers
per
hour
170
for
190
peak period.
110
170
271.
Departure
Lounge
D,
where
for
the
at
the
security
expected
check
of
number
peak periods,
which
is
unit
people
situated,
that
could
was around
120-150
passengers.
3.
INWARD IMMIGRATION
immigration
Inward
in
control
(4
EEC passport
control
(2 counters),
immigration
in the arrival
channel
BHX,
is
composed of
counters),
and it is the
Due to
that
and
first
fact
two sections:
non-EEC
passports
facility
processing
information
concerning
mean processing
agencies
was virtually
unobtainable,
governmental
derived
in
time values for both sections
were
simulations,
used
based on collective
by logical
assumptions
and personal
opinions
by information
that
judgement
of airport
personnel,
supported
from other sources.
times were
Mean processing
could be collected
decided to be: (0.50)
and
minute per passenger for EEC passports,
(2.00)
Performance
for non-EEC passports.
passenger
based
were
whose percentage
on total
models
passengers,
itself.
from
the
survey
were obtained
consistuents
passenger
in
Figures
Those percentages,
P-R
shown
as indicated
models
on
A. 35,
minutes
derived
A. 39,
per
A. 43,
I.
T.
Charter
Schedule-European
Haul
Schedule-Long
Total
passengers
Arrival
arrivals
in
the
distribution
peak
shown in
to
Non-EEC
100.0
0.0
74.0
26.0
93.3
6.7
94.0
6.0
the
Figure
facility
9.16.
follows
Demand levels
the
pattern
of
are expressed
).
(pax/hr.
performance
model
as
volume
average
Peak/average
demand levels
that
be used to convert
ratio
could
from average
volume to equivalent
peak hour ranged from 1.45 to
1.57 with
the
9.20 Is
Shown in Figure
an average
of 1.51.
for
total
BHX
immigration
performance
model of inward
at
control
272.
passengers
based
on
an
the
EEC/non-EEC
split
94/6
of
%.
In
the
is
in the facility
time spent
model,
average
in
as the average
spent by total
passengers
expressed
of times
is
both sections,
the
waiting
while
maximum number of passengers
for each section
From Table 9.16, it could
separately.
presented
during
be concluded
that service
at inward immigration
conditions
performance
hand,
that
But on the other
provided
was 'Good'.
survey period
times assumed were realistic
the mean processing
enough, it seems
in order
to
that
number of EEC counters
need to be increased
in each section
and the split
of counters
match imposed demand,
be compatible
4.
with
and characteristics
nature
of
traffic.
BAGGAGE CLAIM
hence
in
no
not
simulation,
-included
because of. the realization
for it,
model was derived
performance
during
at
earlier,
meetings
where it
mentioned
was recognized
in current
infeasible
BHX, that it was practically
circumstances
information
to successfully
to obtain
simulate
and gather
proper
facility.
the performance
Constructing
at this
model
operations
This
for
facility
this
was
facility
the
all
of
collaboration
involving
a separate
parties,
and much more dedication
associated
directed
towards
the
effort
and realistic
accurate
research
into
taking
of operations
at the facility
consideration
analysis
factors,
and influence
all controlling
of parties
contributions,
involved.
would
Moreover,
if
require
favourable
purposely-designed
well-planned
Nevertheless,
should be staged.
for baggage claim were included
A. 36,
A. 40,
A. 44,
A. 47,
and A. 51.
results
information
in
this
and built,
are to
be achieved,
collection
methodology,
as shown
programme
P-R models
in
Figures
273.
c
0
"r
1im
. r.
E
v
s.
rts
3
c
0
tl7
z
U
O
14
04
i4
"i
'w
50
9-
r0)
b
0
Q Z
Z
CL
CL
0-4
V)
W
1 WI
I W
vl-Z
I
W 0Z
W(2
WI Z,
m
~
Li
i
y
0
4CJ
G.
1$c
1
g
i
Mim
U
C
Cli
E
5-
,,,
. I .I
l
J
i '
C:
>
w N
N i
10,
a
'
1
PI I
FO
OO
L
^J
LAJ
IuoQi3FEMO
X"
jr
z
-
C: )
')
V)
Lj
O
r-
I--
LJ
W
H
I--
1-4
W
V
F-,
CL CL
xCD
z
. -4
r0
L
c
0
U
V)
g
V
dr
W
Li
I
I -T
I
0;
O
eo
O
0
O
MQw
iww
-www
0
N
w2
UU+/ IMUS3wu3
3AV
e
0
Cl)
L
Q1
LL.
274.
9.16
Table
Levels
of
Operational
Service
for
Inward
Immigration
SERVICE
ICHARTER
SERVICE
MEASURE
TOTAL
DULE
LONG-HAUL EUROPEANPASSENGERS
Demand Level
I. T.
SCHE
Volume*
400
405
395
400
604
612
596
604
6.5
7.0
6.0
6.5
-Average
Hour
-Peak
Time Spent
Max Passengers
EEC
Non-EEC
-
38
40
35
38
I
..
438
445
425
435
661
672
642
657
15.0
16.0
12.0
14.5
(min. )I
TOLERABLE
Demand Level
B
Volume*
-Average
Hour
-Peak
Time Spent
*-
(min. )I
Max Passenger
EEC
Non-EEC
-
65
70
52
60
In passenger
per
hour
for
peak period.
275.
5. CUSTOMSCONTROL.
is
This
the
last
facility
processing
in
the
arrival
BHX for
channel
at
Red Channel
terminating
The number of
passengers.
(with
counters
customs officials)
the number of
was four,
while
Green Channel (units)
being the corridor
was considered
as one,
baggage to the exit
passengers
should walk with their
of customs
hall
from the baggage claim area. To facilitate
the simulation
of
operating
be made.
determined
its
end
abreast.
information
facility,
conditions
had to
at this
certain
assumptions
The number of
(units)
the
Green
Channel
of
was
based on the fact
that
the width
of the corridor
at
(exit)
baggage
two
can hardly
trollies
accommodate
As far
times
as processing
are concerned,
again any
times (in Red Channel)
regarding
processing
could not
be made available.
So, although
it is highly
variable
and really
difficult
to predict,
time in the Red Channel was
mean processing
assumed to be (3.00)
The decision
minutes
per passenger.
on the
time
for
assumption
the Green Channel was
of mean processing
carried
on more realistically
passengers
should
walk is
and systematically.
25-30 feet,
and the
based on Fruin's
of passengers
(IATA standards(8)
for terminals
(self-service,
i. e., walking)
processing
Green
Channel
the
between
ranges
speed
ft/min
{
F"t
average
findings(51)
is
walking
200-250
is
75 m/min).
Therefore
time needed for clearing
(0.10-0.12)
minutes
per
Figure
9.21,
shown in
was
Performance
passenger.
The distance
-model,
for
based- on average
constructed
time
in the
customs
spent
(total)
facility
by all
passengers,
and maximum number of waiting
in Red and Green Channels
passengers
Since
the
seperately.
percentage
to obtain
split
from
passenger
levels
are
of
official
survey itself
convert
expressed
these
levels
ratio,
which
was used.
Red/Green
ranged
passengers
sources,
was used-
was virtually
percentages
96 % Green,
impossible
from the
obtained
and 4% Red. Demand
276.
0
I.
4J
c
0
L)
N
0
f
N,
X
U
O
_
o
J
Z
W
O
X
`
-
Z
Uj
Rs
L
O
4-
I-
a)
a
W
zC
X
Li
N
a)
u
t
1
2 1
.a
Wt
9
t'
Lit
a: '
GI GI
L
0
S
1
; '
l
CY)ili
il
1
t
i
d
c
.w
a
L'i
5 m P:
E-4 P-4 - Li
0-4
5:
W
Z
F-1
C0
s02
w
HL *a1
3rom
40
O
a
r"
ck:
V)
J
Q
V)
W
VI
Z
~
"
w
U
mo
W
H
r-
"
ar
cl-I
c
O
0-4
co
"<
rN
O
0
II
--
/S
3viu
3! )r3Ar
G)
L
0)
"r
lL
277.
Table
Levels
Service
Operational
of
9.17
for
Control
Customs
SERVICE
ICHARTER SCHED
SERVICE
MEASURE
C. T. TOTAL
LONG-HAUL EUROPEANAREA
PAX
Demand Level
I. T.
ULE
Volume*
-Average
Hour
-Peak
445
450
440
455
455
678
671
656
678
678
6.5
6.0
5.0
6.5
6.5
160
150
130
160
160
505
495
460
515
485
752'
738
685
767
723
12.0
7.0
15.0
11.5
0
Time Spent
(min. )I
Max Passengers
D
GREEN
RED
-
TOLERABLE
B
Demand Level
Volume*
-Average
Hour
-Peak
A
Time Spent
D
*-
't
(min. )I
13.0
Max Passengers
GREEN
-
300
275
178
320
240
RED
-
In passengers
per
hour
for
peak period.
278.
From Table
9.17,
it
at BHX
could be seen that
service
condition
during
in general,
the
control
customs
was,
survey
period
.
'Good'.
However, the performance
that there was a
model indicated
mismatch between number of units
of the Red and Green channels,
inappropriateness
from
the
of Green Channel in dealing
resulting
imposed
Channel
demand.
Green
Since
the
with
processing
passengers
basically
is
actually
a self-serve
whose outcome is
activity
(i.
influenced
by the capacity
its
the
e.,
corridor
of
increasing
be
the number of Green Channel units
could
width),
by increasing
the width
and
simply
accomplished
of the corridor
from
Channel
Pile-up
Green
customs.
of
exit
and queueing
passengers
was actually
by the
monitored
surveyor,
congestion
for
9.17),
was repeatedly
observed
of
at exit
two main reasons:
1.
Internal,
inadequacy
namely the
of corridor
leaving
accommodate the large number of passengers
2. External,
caused
which
passengers,
to stop
passengers
In many instances,
by the
occasionally
and wait for
way was cleared
Police.
of Airport
This particular
situation
can be for
methodology
through
of
exposing
congestion
9.5
This
pressure
of visitors
blocked
those
only
in
front
after
where acute
(Figure
customs
to
exit
and
customs.
greeting
the
exit
arriving
forcing
to
the way.
clear
direct
intervention
how
the
of
useful
another
example
facilities
design
of terminal
physical
locations
bottlenecks
potent'ial
and predicting
is
points.
SUMMARY
chapter
methodology
discussed
information
assumptions
of
of procedures
applications
to real-world
Aspects of applications
are
conditions.
in
detail
knowledge
and
and in
conjunction
with
includes
This
elaborated
on in previous
chapters.
made,
of
sources
comparisons
of information
used,
presents
practical
situations,
of
results
different
and findings,
aspects
and
279.
drawn.
Being
conclusions
it
basically
demonstrates
methodology,
its
explores
applicability
methodology,
lly-oriented
practic.
features
of the
various
management tool,
between planners
it
finally,
and manifests
and architects,
the
role
and airport
as
can
play
managers.
"t
and
as a bridge
planning
CHAPTERTEN
C0NCLUS10NS
Outcomes
this
of
findings
scientific
also
are
related
availability
research,
field
of
airport
this
research,
that
reached,
dealing
Moreover,
as well
1/.
Methodology
proposed
means
facilities
of
and the
operational
aspects
applying
manageable
There
this
and reasonable
are
inside
and
airports.
in
research
management
serious
This
techniques,
and
of
and performance
both for the purposes
operations
terminals,
In light
of
information
real-word
restrictions
obstacle
and enhancing
and
with
gathering
and a stumbling
current
'widening,
for
to
be
implementation.
associated
a major
required
was found
conditions
straight-forward
difficulties
improving
practitioners
a realistic
provide
can
field,
with
is
to
of
with
acquisition
associated
lack of knowledge concerning
certain
in
methodology
researchers
include:
management.
general
in this
conclusions
environment.
hopefully
enhance
would
knowledge
assessing
in airport
and operations
difficulties
substantial
and
future
terminal's
airport
developed
herewith
planning
and
information
to
of
immediate
but
academic exercises,
issues
of
of the wider
in the
practices
and applied
Throughout
and operations.
realized
to
assistance
some
to
restricted
practices
and provide
useful
These conclusions
as to academics.
processing
2/.
planning
facts
were
techniques
practical
applicable
of
knowledge,
of
terminals
certain
could be of
the 'realities'
with
current
research
are
not
typical
of similar
to important
aspects
planning
scope
of
data
block
practices
available
281.
knowledge
which
in
were
research,
actually
are
is
There
and
practice
efficiently
an
with
.
terminals
are
the
solved,
are
problems
for
'internal'
absence
of
in
airport
system
use
of
this
,
by the
procedures
flexibly
and
used
devised
lacking.
There
and
systematic
terminals,
that
could
for
terminals
of
comprehensive
planning,
different
at
design,
be
and
environments.
for
airport
service
standards
is a need to establish
publically
standards
service
airport
approved
and professionally
based on sound principles
recognized
that
are
of
and objectives
motives
suitable
this,
throughout
operations.
evident
Systematically
4/.
Those difficulties,
in many occasions
by the sensitivity
caused
be highly
management.
operations
operations.
associated
parties
airport
experienced
would
methodology
of
primarily
and conflicting
involved.
parties
3/.
field
the
and follow
clear
definitive
procedures.
5/.
Most
airport
studying
programmes
associated
with
had concentrated
tools
terminal
operations
establishing
on
mainly
(i.
for
describing
and
analyzing
simulation
e.,
operations
time
and have
on
spent
models),
and resources
exhaustive
research
those models.
and validating
perfecting
the objective
techniques
of devising
management using those tools.
They eventually
improving
for
neglected
operations
6/.
The
service
of
factor
that
most
relevant
levels
in terminals
is delay,
congestion
obtaining
factor,
in
servicing.
perception
time
overall
implemented.
conveniently
of
However,
users
spent An
to
a
could
define
which is the
due to the
this
operational
major outcome
difficulty
of
predominently
facility
processing
emotive
was more
282.
7/.
to
Consequently,
the
level
framework,
service
of
is
which
essential
of
assessment
and operations
planning
terminals,
could be practically
erected
and conveniently
implementation
In this
the successful
way,
of P-R models.
process
of
for
standards
different
and for
conditions,
facilities,
processing
at
airport
through
service
various
can be set.
any environment,
8/.
values.
Processing
9/.
is
distribution,
understanding
processing
in
time,
terms
of
a vital
and
facilities,
and essential
operations
analysing
because it
is the
rate
processing
piece of information
airport
main factor
of
and
in
terminal
and basic
hence the
dictate
and
capacity
would eventually
fail
facilities.
Nevertheless,
practices
of
current
performance
importance;
this
to recognize
are set for defining
no guidelines
distributions,
threshold
no
rate
values
service
and processing
into
facilities
is
carried
classification
out
of, processing
knowledge
distinct
on
sufficient
categories,
or even provide
(servicing)
activity.
of the processing
characteristics
that
element
10/.
the
Capacity
use
relations
of
of
particular
based on the
with
appropriate
simulation
are described
an appropriately
models
more closely
operations
set level
be
could
technique,
in
through
could be defined
describe
that
supply-demand
operational
with definitive
demand
particular
and assessing
conjuncion
Performance
monitored
model'
facility
the
parameters
Defining
capacity,
operations
facilities
of processing
'performance
detail
and efficiently.
by
derived
whereby
with
pattern
prevailing.
in
be
must
performed
framework.
of service
implementing
various
-important
aspects
variables
an
of
are
CHAPTERELEVEN
RECOMMENDATIONS
1/.
is
It
believed
in
or proven
information
this
FOR
(yet
work
RESEARCH
investigated
be appropriately
on
of limitations
and-restrictions
to
perception
prevailing
passenger
could
because
not
that
collection)
FURTHER
dictate
the service
service,
which effectively
vary
standards,
This means that service
from
levels
extracted
with demand levels.
P-R models hold
for-the
demand level
only
when and where the
took
survey
passenger,
because
place,
different
it..
is
that
thought
differently.
levels
In
activity
fact,
IATA adopts
two-tier
recognition
of this
partial
service
for normal and peak conditions.
This argument suggests
standards
that
service
standards
vary with change in demand levels,
with
levels,
the
taking
service
a slightly
pattern
curvilinear
respond
passenegers
to
however,
demand levels.
In this
with higher
work,
was assumed that
prevailing
and response
passenger
perception
for different
demand levels.
service
was constant
increasing
2/.
In this
directly
work,
used to
different
facilities
included
in
passenger
accurate.
implemented
traveler's
values
values
of
(see
the
values
as
time
P-R
construct
recorded
main, passenger
estimation
Psychological
in
of
study
to
perception
time are likely
Section
9.4.3).
by
by
the
passengers
was
However, it was found
also
that
very
spent
was not
that was previously
of perception
Clark(198)
to try.
to model urban
travel
to
to
by
are
passengers
as perceived
in
Actual
time
spent
models.
survey.
of time
theory
it
actually
time,
that
suggested
be non-linear
functions
Nevertheless,
applying
perceived
of
values
actual
of the
284.
arrived
parameters
negligible
(time).
in
at
effects
So,
further
on
that
values
research
values
environment
of service
measures in the airport
be
is required
fully.
to understand
This
the situation
will
more
standards
to deriving
and on
most helpful
service
more accurately
to
actual
basis.
a more realistic
3/.
Throughout
this
work, certain
times,
processing
lack of
or for
facilities'
simplification,
processing
times
processing
time
for
observed
facilities
were
obtained
primarily
necessary
by using
per
according
passenger
flight
particular
sector.
the
handle
to
assumed
were
assumptions
the
to
average
weighted
average
All other
size
group
processing
on a one-in-group
passengers
basis,
times
where
processing
per
passenger
assumed
were
if
However, it would seem more realistic
and accurate
processed.
group
basis
times were assigned
during
on a
processing
operation
frequency
to prespecified
than on
distribution,
according
rather
an individual
(and its
size
(in
processing
basis.
passenger
and undoubtedly
the
Evidently,
effect
It
substantial
within
airports,
attitude,
a real
airport
effects
vital
indicated
difficulties
responsible
least
give
not
frequently
was
were
parties
their
which
threat
of
in
obtaining
mainly
this
seems universal,
to efforts
of
system
parties
has on
at
all
is
work,
operational
to the
contributed
to provide
and authorities
to its
consent
collection
All
operations.
behaviour
this
transport
group
distribution)
frequency
corresponding
on overall
terms of processing
is quite
times)
significant
influences
the behaviour
model
of the performance
Research
is
to provide
thus
and capacity.
required
knowledge and understanding
issue.
important
on this
4/.
of
a better
that
the
information
of
reluctance
information,
or at
This
by others.
a considerable
obstacle
if
with
associated
the adverse
should now recognize
this
future
the present
of
and
general
levels:
research
regionally,
nationally,
and
285.
internationally.
as the
parties
the
airport
excuse,
systemThere
socio-politically.
research
and
It
be
should
organise
airports.
responsibility
the
under
benefit
to
effort
coordinated
collection
in
the
preferably
specialized
government-related
in
be
the
this
arrangement
would
and the
travelling
air
associated
parties
with
systematically
involved,
parties
the
and
to
programmes
implemented
airports
related
information
supervision
of
When introduced,
of
commercially,
operationally,
be
should
between
shared
organisations.
interest
general
of
by those
invariably
presented
argument
is the unique and sensitive
of
situation
The
with
the
public,
and
system.
In this
(expressed
space
in
terms
Nevertheless,
measures.
be
interpreted
less
might
of
maximum queue
of
perception
by them in
accurately
would develop space service
although
that
a research
adopt
on P-R models that
space as
this
complement
work,
and could
issue.
particular
time,
6/.
Using
the
level
than
time
to
other
kinds
of
include:
parameters
and
length)
service
walking
(airline
concessions
etc.
...
of
build
of
people
service
to space
comparison
standards
with
based
the
would
service
measure,
throw
on this
more light
service
with
service
measures
procedure
different
P-R models that would express
These
terminals.
may
airport
measures
distance,
ticket
and
as the
fares,
services
density,
occupation
access
prices),
trip
fares,
frequency
economic
tax,
airport
of
flights,
286.
7/.
Since
because
conducted
in detail.
of
this
work
insufficiency
baggage
excluded
of
largely
facility
claim
be
should
research
facility
baggage claim
information,
on analysing
operations
of the
This
methodology
can be applied
to
that
achieve
purpose.
8/.
This
and
understand
"Super-peaking"
conditions
utilization
sustained
is
methodology
uncover
where
periods
previously
phenomenon.
the
system
from
resulting
of
if
suitable
time,
adopted
research
features
unknown
Super-peaks
is
subjected
high
extremely
but
in
only
for
short
are
to
levels
acute
of
durations.
to
better
of
operational
levels
demand
the
of
for
REFERENCES
1.
K. R. Sealy;
ASCE Research
Engineers,
Practice
Society
American
1973,
November,
Systems
",
Planning
of
863-871.
pp.
Macmillan
1976.
" Airport
in
No. 4,
" Airports
London,
K. R. Sealy;
Journal,
99,
vol.
R. De Neufville;
Press,
4.
Hutchinson,
Division;
of the Air Transport
",
Planning
Airport
Terminal
Engineering
Transportation
3.
",
Transport
Air
Committee
Needs for
" Research
Civil
of
1968.
London,
2.
Geography
",
and Planning:
Oxford University
Theory
Strategy
Press,
and
Oxford,
1976.
5.
6.
J. R. Wiley;
L.
R. Horonjeff;
edition,
8.
Transport
Administration
" Planning
McGraw-Hill,
International
Reference
Journeys
",
Fountain/Collins,
",
ENO Foundation,
1981.
Westport,
7.
" Airport
Air
Air
Manual
and Design of
New York, 1975.
Transport.
",
Association;
sixth
edition,
Association,
Montreal,
Airports
" Airport
International
1976.
",
second
Terminal
Air
287.
9.
Civil
International
Manual-
Part
I:
International
10.
Master
Civil
" Conference
Research
Academy of
N. Ashford,
edition,
12.
" Jet
13.
of
435-450.
",
for
Circular
Airport
second
No. 3, March,
No. AC 150/5360-7,
Washington,
Terminal
Facilities
Circular
Aviation
Analysis
",
Washington,
Department
5,1976.
and Design
",
Non-Hub Locations
D. C.,
Department
April
",
of
" Planning
Administration;
Concepts
1971,
and design
Development
Building
October
D. C.,
at
No. AC 150/5360-9,
of
December,
" Planning
Terminal
Airport
Buildings
",
Design
127,
vol.
London,
Administration;
Complex:
3-5.
Planning
of AirportsVol. 50,
7372, Proceedings,
Aviation
Federal
pp.
National
Engineering
Building
Record,
Administration;
Transportation,
16.
Terminal
Federal
Advisory
159,
Board
Engineers,
Aviation
Transportation,
15.
Paper
Civil
Considerations
Advisory
Capacity-
Institute
Federal
1977.
Landside
Airport
Architectural
Considerations
14.
edition,
Montreal,
167-174.
J. D. Perrett;
pp.
Organisation,
Passenger
",
pp.
first
",
Airports:
Planning
special
report
D. C., 1975,
Washington,
Sciences,
Principles
1960,
Aviation
",
" Airport
Organisation;
Planning
Findings
Transportation
11.
Aviation
of
of
4,1980.
Evaluation
of Terminal
M. Parsons Company,
Transportation,
288.
17.
Federal
Aviation
Planning
Manual
Parsons
Company,
report
Washington,
Transportation,
18.
for
prepared
No. FAA-RD-75-191,
",
Building
Air
Transport
D. C.,
Association
and Passenger
by Airport
Design/Services
Association
Transport
Department
Committee,
of
Aircraft
" Airline
Space Requirements
America,
of
1975.
July,
America;
of
Terminal
Gates
and Terminal
FAA by Ralph M.
Administration;
report
Washigton,
",
prepared
No. 4, Air
D. C.,
July,
1977.
19.
E. G. Blankenship;
Ecological
Integration,
London,
20.
Urban
Architectural,
",
Pall
Mall
Press,
1974.
Civil
International
Aviation
" Airport
Organisation;
Part
Environmental
II:
Landuse
and
Aviation
Civil
Control
", first
International
edition,
Montreal,
Organisation,
1977.
Manual
Planning
21.
Air
International
Capacity
Terminal
Association,
Analysis
Montreal,
Association;
",
Air
International
January,
Transport
1982.
By Which
of the Methodology
Airport
Efficiency
Might Be Measured ",
and Performance
London,
London,
1979.
M. Sc. thesis,
Polytechnic
Central
of
" An Examination
22.
D. Field;
23.
G. D. Gosling;
Airport
" An-Economic
Passenger
California,
24.
Transport
R. S. Doganis,
Berkely,
Terminals
Framework
",
for
the
Ph. D. thesis,
Planning
of
University
1979.
of
289.
25.
W. J.
Dunlay
Airport
for
and C. H. Park; " Tandem-Queue Algorithm
Engineers,
Flows ", American, Society
of Civil
Jr.,
Users
Transportation
1978,
26.
27.
Engineering
Capacity
Austin,
1977.
M. O'Leary;
30.
Modelling
University
Evaluation
" Computer
the
Building
of
Types
",
Glasgow,
1982.
G. Calderbank,
Simulation
Architectural
of
Overall
Evaluating
University
Texas,
of
",
of Airports
of Technology,
M. Sc.
Strathclyde,
Level
Texas,
of
Aided
Criteria
Of Service
",
1978.
Austin,
Design
Architectural
for
Building
Terminal
Airport
the
Under
University
By Computer
the
for
1975.
L. W. Laing;
Algorithm
Ph. D. thesis,
Loughborough
Ph. D. thesis,
29.
",
" Stochastic
Loughborough,
Capacity
No. 2, March,
104,
vol.
131-149.
pp.
thesis,
28.
Journal
Simulation
and A. Kirke;
of an Airport
A Program
" AIR-Q:
Terminal
Aids
and Building
Glasgow,
1972.
Complex
Computer
Package for
", (ABACUS)University
Unit,
A Comprehensive
and J. G. Gentles; " AIR-Q Mk II:
Simulation
Package ", paper No. 47, (ABACUS)- Architectural
Aids Computer Unit,
University
and Building
of Strathclyde,
Glasgow, January,
1976.
31.
L. W. Laing,
32.
L. W. Laing,
Glasgow
and J. G. Gentles;
AirportScotland
",
Architectural
of
Strathclyde,
" Air-Q
Validation
No. R26,
paper
Aids Computer
and Building
Glasgow,
November,
1975.
Study:
(ABACUS)-
Unit,
University
290.
33.
Ashford;
" Airport
Transport
J.
Final
",
Report
G. E. Campbell;
Claitor's
36.
Publishing,
",
N. Ashford,
of Technology,
University
",
H. P. M. Stanton,
",
Operations
38.
May, 1975.
and Design of
and F. X. McKelvey; " Planning
1983.
York,
New
third
McGraw-Hill,
edition,
R. Horonjeff,
Airports
37.
" Airport
of
Loughborough
Total
and N. Ashford; " Airport
Technology
Department of Transport
P. McGinity,
Department
No. TT7506,
report
Loughborough,
Technology,
of
Boothby,
System:
",
Technology
University
34.
Design
Terminal
and N.
M. O'Leary,
P. McGinity,
N. Hawkins,
D. Bennetts,,
John Wiley,
" Airlines
O. W. Hullet;
Provide
Resources
Technical
for
Design
39.
P. H. Beinhaker;
Capacity
",
Research
Board
Sciences,
40.
Airport
Decentralization
No. 6,
41.
for
Landside
special
Washington,
J. P. Braaksma,
Journal,
" Primer
Analysis
Capacity-
Journal,
Airport
Transportation
November,
Society
1976,
Civil
of
pp. 699-714.
American
1975,
Society
pp.
of Civil
321-335.
Engineering
Engineers,
" Methods
and J. Shortreed;
Terminal
Concepts
", Transportation
No. 2, May,
Design-
American
Landside
Academy of
159, National'
report
D. C., 1975, pp. 17-35.
J. P. Braaksma,
Airport
of
for
Engineers,
Vol.
106,
Designing
Engineering
Vol.
101,
291
42.
43.
Federal
Aviation
Administration;
Airport
Facility
Requirement
Transportation
Hubs Through
Transportation,
Washington,
Transport
",
pp.
Division;
Design
Planning-
No. 3, August,
48.
for
Record,
Vol.
Technical
Planning
Policy
Transportation
Ottawa,
Program
",
1983.
July,
Terminal
Airport
No. 11,
141,
Transport
Society
1976,
pp.
",
Future
Engineering
Transportation
102,
Vol.
Engineers,
of Civil
461-474.
Boothby,
Bureau
of
Department
August,
Public
of
Research
Research
Board
M. Wohl,
Engineers
1974.
Commerce,
Highway
Sciences,
49.
Model
of a Dynamic
and N. Ashford; " Construction
System ", Department
Technology
Airport
report
of Transport
No. TT 7408, Loughborough
University
of Technology,
J.
Loughborough,
47.
Analysis
145-146.
Impacts
American
Journal,
46.
1969.
Facilities
on Terminal
of the Air
" Air Passenger Handling
Facilities:
Committee
Of
Department
January,
Canada,
Architectural
1974,
November,
45.
D. C.,
for
Airport
second edition,
Department,
Canadian Air
TE 3935E,
and Programming
Administration44.
1980 ",
Traffic
Demand and
Medium Air
" Aviation
Forecasts
D. C.,
Washington,
special
Washington,
Capacity
Capacity
87,
report
D. C., 1965.
National
System
Manual
",
U. S.
",
Highway
1950.
Manual
Academy of
Analysis
New York,
for
1967.
292.
50.
Capacity
Manual
Revisited
Engineering
American
Society
of Civil
Journal,
1984,
November,
51.
J. J.
Fruin;
52.
J. J.
" Environmental
Fruin;
",
pp.
Civil
of
R. De Neufville,
American
No. 1, January,
1972,
February,
1,
No.
98,
Terminal
American
Journal,
Engineering
Vol.
Passenger
1-15.
Society
1982,
Engineering
Engineers,
Civil
of
87-102.
pp.
Pedestrian
108,
Vol.
and Measurement
and D. Maddison; " Identification
Elements
Level
Capacity
Landside
Service
of
and
of
of
of
Transportation
", Airport
CapacityLandside
the Airport
Academy of
Research Board special
159, National
report
M. Brink,
Sciences,
Washington,
Transport
Definition
Capacity
D. C.,
1975,
for
and Methodology
", Air Services
Branch,
Transportation
" Guidelines
Administration,
for
International
Association
57.
in
" Design of
and M. Grillot;
Terminals
", Transportation
Airport
Journal,
56.
record 355,
D. C., 1973, pp.
Factors
Engineers,
of Service
National
89-101.
Space in
55.
Board
Washington,
Transportation
A Level
Pedestrians:
Research
Sciences,
Society
054.
for
Academy of
Design
53.
Highway
Engineers,
69-71.
pp.
" Designing
",
Concept
Civil
",
Air
Airport
Transport
Coordination
pp.
92-112.
April,
Ottawa,
Capacity/Demand
Association/
Council,
of
Transportation
of
Sciences,
1979.
Management
Airport
Tool
and F. R. Roberts; " Decision
Capacity
Buildings
Terminal
of Airport
Research Board record 732, National
Washington,
D. C.,
1981.
B. F. McCullough,
Analysis
Air
Canadian
1979,
pp.
41-54.
for
",
Academy
293.
C5
of Level
and D. H. Jones; " Identification
",
Elements
Landside
of Service
and Capacity
of Airport
Airport
Landside
Research Board
CapacityTransportation
K. W. Heathington,
159, National
special
report
Washington,
D. C., 1975, pp.
59.
60.
and Design
",
J. J.
" Pedestrian
Association
of Urban
1971.
New York,
61.
Airports
British
Sciences,
in Engineering
and M. Sanders; " Human Factors
fifth
New York, 1982.
McGraw-Hill,
edition,
E. McCormick,
Fruin;
Academy of
72-92.
Planning
Designers
Authority;
",
and Design
and Environmental
Metropolitan
Planners,
" Report
Group on Methodology
for Airport
P82/187,
British
Airports
report
Authority,
London,
April,
1982.
62.
F. P. O. Navin,
Flow
and R. J. Wheeler; " Pedestrian
", Traffic
Engineering,
June, 1969.
Characteristics
63.
S. J.
Older;
Centers
pp.
64.
",
Shoping
1968,
160-163.
B. Pushkarev,
A Report
Cambridge,
65.
A. Polus,
of
Mass.,
J.
1975.
Schofer,
of
American
Service
",
Flow and
and A. Ushpiz; " Pedestrian
Transportation
Journal,
Engineering
Society
of
Civil
January,
1983,
Level
pp.
46-56.
Engineers,
Vol.
109,
No.
1,
294.
66.
A. T. Habicht,
Pedestrian
67.
Width
and J. P. Braaksma; " Effective
Corridors
Transportation
Engineering
American
Society
January,
1984,
Civil
of
Engineers,
No. 1,
80-93.
pp.
Association;
International
Air
Facilitation-
International
110,
Vol.
of
Journal,
Transport
" Guide
to
Transport
",
Montreal,
July,
1981.
68.
International
Civil
Annex 9 to
M. L.
on International
International
Civil
70.
Mass.,
71.
Transportation
Research
Board
Air
Association,
Transport
73.
British
edition,
1981.
74.
Air
Terminal
British
B. G. Hutchinson;
Planning
",
",
Capacity
Analysis
",
Montreal,
Airports
Authority,
Scripta/McGraw-Hill,
of
Transport
January,
" Glossary
" Principles
National
1982.
Association;
Authority;
Air
International
January,
Transport
Association,
Airports
159,
Association;
Analysis
Montreal,
International
Airport
Transport
Capacity",
Landside
report
special
Washington,
D. C., 1975.
Sciences,
Capacity
Terminal
72.
1980.
Research
International
Organisation,
Aviation
Transportation
Academy of
".
Aviation
Systems
of Transportation
Concepts ", MIT Press,
Cambridge,
Civil
1980.
Analysis-
" Facilitation-
Organisation;
Convention
eighth
edition,
July,
Montreal,
69.
Aviation
Air
1982.
Urban Transport
Washington,
Systems
D. C.,
1974.
295.
R. Larson,
76.
L.
Kleinrock;
New York,
Wiley,
77.
G. F. Newell;
and Hall,
78.
Systems-.. Volume
" Queueing
",
Research
75.
I:
",
Theory
John
1975.
" Applications
London,
of
Theory
Queueing
Chapman
",
1971.
Queueing
Theory
",
New York,
Macmillan,
1966.
79.
Douglas
Aircraft
Airlines
American
Airside
Capacity
Administration
Transportation,
80.
Company,
Inc.;
Peat
for
" Techniques
D. C.,
& Co.,
Mitchell
Marwick
Determining
and
Airport
Aviation
U. S. Department
June,
of
1976.
" Stochastic
and P. McGinity;
Modelling
of Passengers
and Baggage Flows Through an
May,
Terminal
", Traffic
Airport
Engineering
and Control,
M. O'Leary,
N. Ashford,
1976.
81.
N. Ashford,
McGinity;
Terminals
National
pp.
82.
N. Hawkins,
M. O'Leary,
" Passenger
Behaviour
"Stochastic
Delays
and P.
Airport
D. Bennetts,
and Design of
588,
", Transportation
Research Board record
Academy of Sciences,
D. C., 1976,
Washington,
18-27.
W. Powell;
Ph. D. thesis,
Cambridge,
Massachussetts
Mass.,
1981.
in
Transportation
Institute
of
Terminals
Technology,
296.
83.
D. Bennetts,
Ashford;
Airport
Terminals
TT7407,
84.
R.
Paullin;
86.
Airport
",
Research
Sciences,
Board
Macmillan,
and Operations
1983,
No. 2, April,
Sciences
-13,
87.
88.
E. Morlok;
" Types
Their
Applications
1980,
pp.
of the
Research
pp.
National
",
An Introduction
third
1981.
Evaluating
Journal
The International
report
D. C., 1975.
Research-
in
159,
special
New York,
Factors
Capacity-
Landside
Washington,
Technology,
of
and Off-Airport
Airside
of
Capacity
of
University
1974.
" Influence
Transportation
85.
",
August,
on Landside
Academy
Loughborough
report
Loughborough,
and N.
System for
M. O'Leary,
P. McGinity,
N. Hawkins,
Standards
Institute
Society
",
Interfaces-
of Management
Vol.
of America,
12-22.
of Transportation
", Transportation
Supply
Functions
Research,
Vol.
and
14-B,
9-27.
E. Ignall,
P. Kolesar,
and Validate
Research,
Operations
Develop
26,
March-April,
1978,
to
pp.
237-253.
89.
L.
Kleinrock;
Applications
90.
D. L. Gerlough,
Distributions
91.
A. A. Pritsker,
and SLAM ",
" Queueing
",
Systems-
John Wiley,
Volume II:
New York,
Computer
1976.
1971.
Simulation
1979.
297.
92.
D. Bennetts,,
Ashford;
N. Hawkins,
" Stochastic
Department
Loughborough
of Airport
TT 7509,
Technology,
report
Loughborough,
of Technology,
Modelling
Transport
of
and N.
",
Processing
M. O'Leary,
P. McGinity,
University
July,
1975
93.
G. J.
Methods
and S. S. Shapiro; " Statistical
", John Wiley,
New York, 1976.
Hahn,
Engineering
94.
N: A. J.
Hastings,
",
Distributions
95.
D. Bennetts,
",
Processing
TT 7502,
N. Hawkins,
" Survey
Ashford;
Analysis
of
Loughborough
April,
97.
P. Baron,
Systems
1974,
Airport
Board
588, National
record
D. C., 1976, pp. 27-35.
Washington,
report
1975.
in
Traffic
Research
Terminal
Technology,
of Transport
University
of Technology,
Airport
and N.
Passenger
M. O'Leary,
P. McGinity,
Department
Loughborough,
in
",
Transportation
Academy of'Sciences,
A
and D. Henning; " The Passenger TerminalAnalysis
Approach ",
February,
Forum,
Airport
pp.
69-82.
" Heathrow
Passenger
98.
99..
P. B. Mandle,
Calibration
Dynamic
F.
and Validation
Simulation
Model
Administration
No. FAA-EM-80-2,
D. C.,
LaMagna,
April,
" Collection
and E. M. Whitlock;
Landside
Data for an Airport
of
for Federal
Aviation
prepared
by Wilbur
Inc.,
Smith and Associates
report
Department
Washington,
of Transportation,
1980.
",
298.
100.
101.
National
Technical
Information
224049,
Springfield,
July,
Federal
Aviation
Air Carrier
(annual)",
Passenger
Federal
Transport
D. C.,
Aviation
Civil
(annual),
105.
Association
Airports
British
Airport
1975.
America;
" Air
of
Air Transport
Authority;
Authority,
Authority;
" Patterns
Authority
Airports-
Forecasting
P82/186,
Airports
British
of
1982.
Planning'DepartmentRef.
Facts
Transport
Association
Civil-Aviation
British
of
1976.
February,
D. C.,
Washington,
"(annual),,
and Figures
America,
Washington,
D. C.,
104.
Department
Aeronautics
and Civil
Department
"(annual),
Statistics
Activity
of Transportation,
Air
of Scheduled
Top 100 U. S. Airports
Administration,
103.
No.
Publication
" Profiles
Traffic-
Washington,
Aviation
Manual",
1973.
No. FAA-AVP-76-4,
report
Survey
Travel
Service,
Administration;
Transportation,
102.
" Airport
Associates;
Barton-Aschman
1981 11
Statistics-
London,
1982.
January,
at the
of Traffic
1981 "(annual),
Section,
and Statistics
London, April,
Authority,
1982.
106.
International
Civil
Aviation
Organisation;
" Civil
Aviation
Statistics
Yearbook
1979: ICAO Statistical
of the World(annual),
fifth
International
Document 9180/5,
edition,
Aviation
Civil
Organisation,
1980.
Montreal,
107.
277-285.
Scheduling:
Planning
A Heuristic
and Technology,
Approach
Vol.
2,1974,.
",
299.
108.
109.
1968,
pp.
R. E. Larson;
Scheduling
2,
Vol.
No. 2,
23-29.
" A Dynamic
",
Scheduling
Airline
Programming
Proceedings
of
Approach
AGIFORS Symposium,
fifth
the
Airline
to
1965.
110.
A.
Kanafani;
" Transportation
McGraw-Hill,
Airport
111.
London,
D. Turner;
to
H. Kleine;
Simulation
" Terminal
Planning
116.
P. Rossi,
Survey
G. Gardner;
European
1977.
",
J.
Wright,
Discrete
of
1971,
August,
Research
" Social
Surveys
Press,
for
Social
Design
J. L.
",
Heinemann.
of
House,
in
Empirical
New York,
Social
" Handbook
and A. Anderson (editors);
", Academic Press, New York, 1983.
Keynes,
Art
Views
of Users'
Simulation,
Milton
Measurement
118.
paper 4.2
Association
Airport
",
Criteria
Open University
117.
Western
Languages
C. A. Moser,
of
by British
brochure
",
Investigation
115.
World
89-93.
pp.
114.
the
1984.
to the 31st
presented
Conference,
New York,
113.
1983.
Consultants
Airways,
112.
New York,
",
Demand Analysis
Research
Investigation
1978.
London,
Planners
",
The
1978.
and Attitude
1966.
Methods
in
Social
11 second
,
Science-
edition,
The
Random
300.
119.
120.
C. Nachmias,
the
Social
1982.
121.
E. R. Babbie;
Publishing
122.
" Survey
Co.,
124.
H. W. Smith;
Wandsworth
",
1973.
",
Prentice-Hall,
New Jersey,
W. A. Belson;
",
World,
of
Survey
An
" Human Behaviourand G. A. Steiner;
Scientific
Brace &
", Harcourt
Findings
of
New York,
1964.
(editor);
G. A. Maranell
Behavioural
and Understanding
Aldershot,
1981.
Gower,
The
Researchof Social
", second edition,
1981.
B. Berelson,
Cases,
Principles,
and AnalysisThe Free Press,
New York, 1965.
Methodological
Inventory
126.
Methods
Questions
125.
Research
California,
and Procedures
123.
and Research
1966.
New Jersey,
Prentice-Hall,
edition,
",
Surveys
Social
" Scaling-
Scientists
",
Aldine
for
A Sourcebook
Co.,
Publishing
Chicago,
1974.
127.
P. Dunn-Rankin;
Associates
128.
129.
" Scaling
Publishing
B. S. Phillips;
New York,
D. L.
(editor);
Social
1968.
Sills
Co.,
" Social
Macmillan,
Sciences
",
Methods
",
Lawrence
New Jersey,
Research-
Erlbaum
&
1983.
Strategy
and Tactics
",
1971.
" International
Macmillan
Encycloepedia
Press,
of the
New York,
301.
130.
Research
University
131.
C. W. Churchman,
" Introduction
R. L. Ackoff,
1974,
of
The Art
Simulation:
of
and the
Operations
Science",
Vol.
100,
No. 4,
November,
B. C. Kahan,
J. W. McCredie;
pp.
",
Conference
Discrete
of
Denver,
in
Event
Simulation
of
the 1970 Summer Computer
Colorado,
June,
1970,
88-97.
H. M. Markowitz;
(editors:
J.
and Technology
Marcel Dekker,
Chicago,
and A. Kent),
New York,
Belzer,
1970.
A Guide
to
Using
1970.
B. Hausner,
Programming
1963.
Modeling:
John Wiley,
of Computer
A. G. Holzman,
Encycloepedia
Sciences
139.
New
1975.
Engineers,
Simulation
138.
Wiley,
985-996.
pp.
Languages
137.
Civil
P. A. Bobillier,
With
136.
John
135.
",
Research
New Jersey,
Prentice-Hall,
134.
E. L. Arnoff;
and
",
Research
133.
Ackoff,
Operations
to
1952.
1960.
York,
132.
R. L.
No. 34,
Ann Arbor,
Press,
Michigan
of
",
Scaling
of Psychological
Bulletin
Institute,
302.
140.
P. J.
R. Villanueva,
Kiviat,
SIMSCRIPT II
Jersey,
141.
Programming
1969.
E. C. Russel;
" Simulating
SIMSCRIPT 11.5
142.
P. J.
Kiviat;
Project
States
143.
Steel
Corporation,
New York,
1963.
GASP II:
With
"Simulation
Language
United
Laboratory,.
Monroeville,
",
Prentice-Hall,
Language
With
Sabuda,
F. H. Grant,
User's
",
Manual
",
1978.
F. E. Cellier,
on Simulation
of
1976, pp. 391-402.
August,
J. N. Buxton,
Language
",
Language:
User's
1982.
Systems,
A. T. Clementson;
John
GASP-PL/I"
Lafayette,
March,
New
1974.
Conference
149.
Research
Kiviat;
Program",
Simulation
A. A. B. Pritsker,
Simulation
148.
Activity
1969.
A. A. B. Pritsker;
J.
in
and Resources
1974.
Arlington,
Processes
Inc.,
Applied
and P. J.
A FORTRAN-Based Simulation
IV/E:
147.
C. A. C. I.
"GASP: A General
John Wiley,
146.
With
A. A. B. Pritsker,
Wiley,
145.
",
90.17-019(2),
Jersey,
144.
" The
and H. M. Markowitz;
New
Language ", Prentice-Hall,
" Extended
Manual
",
Control
Delft,
Netherlands,
and Simulation
1962,
pp.
194-199.
and Simulation
CLE. COM Ltd.,
Birmingham,
303.
150.
Systems
151.
Journal,
IBM; "General
Ref.
7090-CS-05X,
Systems
IBM
18-33.
pp.
Library
Program
Simulator:
",
Company,
Machines
Business
International
",
Simulator
No. 1,1962,
1,
Vol.
Purpose
Systems
Purpose
New York.
152.
R. Efron,
Simulator
Description
Vol.
153.
3,
IBM; "General
Pub.
IBM Systems
",
of the Simulator
No. 1,1964,
pp. 22-34.
Purpose
H20-0163,
II:
Simulator
Systems
International
Journal,
Machines
Business
Manual",
User's
Company,
New York.
154.
General
Purpose
No. 3,1965,
155.
An Expanded
" GPSS III:
and T. H. Schneider;
Vol. 4,
Simulator
", IBM Systems Journal,
H. Herscovitch,
R. L.
pp.
174-183.
Simulator
",
An Improved
IBM Systems
Journal,
Purpose
Simulation
General
Vol.
8,
Purpose
No. 1,1969,
pp.
16-27.
156.
158.
IBM; "General
Pub.
",
SH2O-0851,
New York.
International
of
Prentice-Hall,
Purpose
Simulation
International
: User's
Business
Machines
System/360
GPSS V to
New Jersey,
System/V:
Business
Discrete
Systems
1975.
User's
Machines
Manual
Company,
",
304.
159.
B. Schmidt;
160.
T. Schriber;
York,
O. J.
Dahl,
162.
O. J.
Dahl,
Using
GPSS ",
1980.
New York,
John Wiley,
New
164.
" Simulation
John Wiley,
1974.
161.
163.
O. J.
of
Manual
and User's
Center,
Oslo,
Dahl,
for
Event
fifth
",
SystemsNorwegian
edition,
1967.
B. Myhrhaung,
Base Language
",
Center,
1968.
Oslo,
P. R. Hills;
" An Introduction
Publication
No. 5-55,
to
Norwegian
Simulation
Using
Computing
Center,
SIMULA ",
Oslo,
1973.
165.
General
International
GH19-5035,
Information
Business
Manual
Machines
",
Pub.
Company,
New York.
166.
A. A. B. Pritsker;
Networks
",
Halstead
West Lafayette,
167.
" Modeling
Using Q-GERT
and Analysis
Press-Pritsker
Inc.,
and Associates
1977.
305.
168.
" Airport
McCabe, and M. Gorestein;
Description
Model (ALSIM)- Volume II:
L.
Simulation
Landside
Guide ",
and User's
Systems Center,
Transportation
No. FAA-EM-80-8-II,
report
Federal
Aviation
Administration,
Mass.,
Cambridge,
June,
1982.
169.
Landside
D. Gentry,
Model:
Aviation
Administration
Department
Federal
No. FAA-AVP-78-2,
report
Transportation,
of
",
D. C.,
Washington,
January,
1978.
170.
B. A. Schriever,
(chairmen);
Transportation
J. D. Pararas;
" Analytical
Terminal
Aircraft
172.
" Analysis
Terminal
No. 5,1969,
173.
R. L.
pp.
Paullin;
Graduate
Report,
of
Buildings
M. Sc.
the
MIT Press,
Design
of
thesis,
Technology,
Cambridge,
Mass.,
Passenger
",
Aircraft
446-451.
" Passenger
Engineering,
174,
of
for
Report
1977.
R. Horonjeff;
Airport
",
Institute
Massachussettes
January,
Models
Buildings
Approach-
A Systems
Workshop,
of the Transportation
Cambridge,
Mass., 1968.
171.
" Air
Flows
Institute
University
of
at Departure
Lounges
and Traffic
of Transportation
Berkely,
1966.
California,
of
of
Transportation
California,
",
Engineering,
and Traffic
1967.
Berkely,
of
306.
175.
176.
E. E. Smith,
Model
",
Traffic
Engineering,
University
Simulation
Finger
and
of Transportation
Berkely,
California,
of
1968.
177.
178.
J.
University
D. Bennetts,
P. McGinity,
Ashford;
N. Hawkins,
" Stochastic
Department
Loughborough
University
Security
Transportation
of
of-California,
and N.
",
Processing
M. O'Leary,
Modelling
Transport
of
Airport
of Airport
Technology,
No. TT 7509,
report
July,
Loughborough,
of Technology,
1975.
179.
C. Y. Cheng,
Service
Vol.
180.
and P. Gilmour;
Levels for Aircraft
10,
No. 4,1980,
Terminals
Terminal
University
T. Rallis;
Airports
of
" Terminal
",
Technical
",
Passenger
Airport
Method
Design
Space Planning
Waterloo,
Simulated
Forum,
106-107.
pp.
181.
" Computer
Ontario,
Transportation
University
Preliminary
Ph. D. thesis,
",
Waterloo,
for
1973.
Engineeringof
Denmark,
Part
Copenhagen,
1963.
182.
Maiqueta
Airport
International
Activity
and Associates,
",
1972
Airport:
Simulation
Study
Tippetts-Abbetts-McCarthy-Stratton
(unpublished).
I:
of
307.
183.
B. L.
Metals;
Bechtel
184.
J. J.
R. Nanda,
Battelle
Browne,
Memorial
Description:
Airport
J.
Defines
Alternatives
Airport
Forum,
D. E. Gentry,
",
States
Within
Project
Air
the
190.
10,
No. 1,1980,
of
Aviation
Analysis
pp.
21-24.
of
No.
report
Washington,
Transportation,
Movements
Passenger
Building
",
Canadian
Transport
Texas,
Air
Canada,
and B. F. McCullough;
for Airport
Terminal
Council
for
Advanced
Austin,
" A User's
Building
Ottawa,
Manual
August,
Studies,
1978.
for
Austin,
Advanced
August,
Transportation
1978.
for
Capacity
Transportation
T. R. Chmores,
Council
1974.
(unpublished).
of Texas,
Passenger
",
Methods
September,
Administration,
Administration-
",
University
for
Terminal
ACAP Model
Analysis
Program
Columbus,
E. V. Chambers,
the
12,
1977.
1973,
April,
Vol.
Hviid,
Department
Transportation
189.
Passenger
Federal
May,
Calgary
",
J. D. Howell,
FAA-AVP-77-26,
188.
Demand/Capacity
Vol.
Capacity
Airport
" Computer
Laboratories,
E. Bastiansen,
D. C.,
Model
Simulation
Institute;
Battelle-Columbus
187.
Computer
at Airports
1972, pp. 12-19.
March,
186.
Airport
1974 (unpublished).
June,
Inc.,
Arrivals
185.
" Bechtel
Studies,
of
58,
University
of
308.
191.
L. McCabe,
" Airport
Landside
Model
Planning
Guide
and M. Gorstein;
(ALSIM)Volume I:
192.
193.
194.
T. E.
Civil
Aviation
of
Civil
from
Letter
Manchester
of
J. E. Clark;
Time ",
",
Annual
in
Reserach
Capacity
Traffic
and Planning,
referenced
Airside
Areas-
Paper WP/83/02,
",
Requirements
Research
for
Domestic
Paper WP/83/03,
Manchester
and Planning,
1983.
Manchester,
Authority,
Development
Airport
" Modeling
Transportation
Academy of
Generators
Number
Manchester
and Planning,
1983.
Authority,
Manchester,
International
Simulation
Event
1982.
Holding
",
1982.
Development
Airport
and International
Directorate
of
198.
-,
5th,
Departures
International
P. L.
July,
June,
of Development
Airport
Authority,
Directorate
197.
Directorate
No.
report
Federal
230-254.
pp.
Authority,
International
International
Discrete
Passengers,
Aviation
the
Center,
" U. K. Airports:
Movements,
dated
PLC/D/l/06,
P. L.
Authority;
",
Mass.,
" Random
and A. R. Dobell;
4,1962,
SIAM Review,
Vol.
CAP 490,
196.
New York,
of
1978.
Hull,
Statements
195.
Cambridge,
Administration,
Aviation
Systems
Transportation
FAA-EM-80-8-I,
Simulation
Sciences,
Travelers'
Perceptions
Research
Board
Record
Washington,
D. C.,
1982,
of Travel
890, National
pp.
7-11.
APPENDIXA
P-R
1.
MODELS
2. Panel
of
Experts.
3.
MANCHESTERINTERNATIONAL AIRPORT.
4.
'
wo
D)O
'J
o ml
dX
u)
L)
O
Co
G1
. r.
U)
O
a
4-3
S-
fO
I
0
Quo
50
w
t
G_
It
;v
kfl
I
a)
0
x
C)9
oU
It W
U
C
}
Cl)
a
I---
cc
on -j
W
zaZ
AD
0
N
UNNW
O
J
C]
Z
ONO
Wo.
0
wa
_.
..
0000
o
Co
to
0
N
L
O
Q1
SN39N3SSVd
W
I
O )o
J4
im
Om
c
0
U
0
r.
ww
S-
o
M.
U,
tO
E
0
A4-
oJ O
In CX
I. Z
0
H W--4Q)
PZ E-4 4
P.
I-
I'
1
1
l
cx
O
0..
N
tn
oQM
I
O
C
d
cl:
.O
CfH
ZaZ
tn
J
W
AD
N
6-4
I-
V)
wa
f r_
00000
O
Co
''-
t0
Sb39N3SSVd %
CL)
L
im
. rLi-
J
Im
C0
cc
'
8JC
O)o
x
N
"
Y
(-3
O
NI
O
L)
iJ
.L
v
'
W
off
U
CJ
N
4
.
0-4
get LO
''N
Pn
C!
I0
4r-
a)
v
0
in
- C%d
C
o(n
N
U)p
4-4
I -0
Cl.
cz
LLJ
N
G
Q
J
G
O
OO
O
to
OOOO
&D
S830N3SSVd
4
c)
"r
W
co
C:
0J
J
cr.
J
l-
CI
0
O+
ww
St
0
nC
St
St
OQiLo
St
CQ
,
II
p.,
W
F=
J
St
St
oa
iO
Z
U,
U,
Li
ou O
cr
a
J
J
Q
`
4.00)
oa C
P40
J
Li
00
N
. _, _
E-+
10
_<,-, .
wa
vovOO
co
to
'
Sa3ON3SSVdZ
-I
wo
rno
m l
a x
0
s.D
U
V
4,
al
0
in
C
L)
I
LL
0.0LO
A
w
I
O
II
rn
E
z
Y
oU
MW
Ct
S4
J
W
-S.
00
N
wz
GJ
'O
O
E
I
U
U)
0-4
04
O
1
0 C54-4
"4
x
W
*4
4O
ww
oQ
10
Ooo.
N
4,
L
d
Go
C
b
U,
0fN
Oo
S839N3SSVd 4
d
L
LL
'
wO
9
4
0
n
U)
gl
U
d
L
N
U)
U)
4J
L
U
d
N
O
N
cnE
iO
W
}
d
gx
O
W
V)
C
A-+
gz,
O HS
O-
N
W
C)
w
O0
Nb
**4b
L
O
C3.
x
W
*416
aA
, Wft
1--o-
.:;
OOeop
go
1.
0Qo0
Ii
I..
W
-.Oj
*%%
U,
d
-w
.........
co
to
S83SN3SSdd G
= o
0
d
L
Da
U..
W
J
m
Cp
'
Jcr
Q1
0
t0
P4
O
5-
O
V
0
in
U)
U)
N
4)
lqq
E
0
le
0
crf-Z
0
U
&
E-4P CZ
0
CL
(n
E-4
woa
E-4
4-o
O
C3.
In
N
RS
O.
SO
rG)
v
0
C
a
CL
C_
ago
54)
NQ
W
a
z4z
W
40
aw
0
..
''
"
. . --
vovo00
0
"'
b
a
F-
0
90
'0
la
S830N3SSVd %
Ia
a
L
r4
LL.
Jm
W1
JD
wo
J
CJ
. r.
r--LL.
X
cn
C
0
o,
N
d
V
CD
0
S-
0
CIO
zw
S-
U)
Cl)
0
E
4J
Sea
a
d
Z2
II
,.
E--4cn
N
to W
FJ
C.)
S.
'
S.'
S.
'noZ
544
r(D
0
E/I
t/)
'4
54.
So
4-
'
woa
o;.
r--
OV
O
m
a
J
J
. 5.
OQ
=
4,.'
zz
J
W
00
N
awO
N
S(1)
CL
x
W
N-O
I--
.-'
I
G1
C
b
d
Co
w-
0
O
H
Sd39N3SSdd %
0
-rLL
W
J
--0
WO
Oa
CD
-' ax
O
rn
F+
0
)
4
O
o2
i
E
E
a-.
Ww
L
rt
Z)
Fei
E--4 ce
0
d
wU
a
z
pr,,,
O
J
0
O
C
W E'" c
O Q+
w
5O
w
4z
i-3
S.
C)
d
x
W
4O
I
a)
eC
a
rn
O
O
OOOOO
Co
d
L
%D
if
Sd3SN3SSVd G
f4
cm
. ILL.
CK
'
0Jp
0m
dx
00
33
V)
C..)
O
Lj
0)
to
E
PZRi
co
co
So
IQl
-C
0
C
d
O
N
4J
S(1)
4.4
424)
z
w
CD
*k%
'-
:.
"
o
N
%
CL
x
w
kO
0
r
OOOO
O
QO
t0
Sb39N3SSVd %
OO
N
U.
'
o
Q
(
W
J
m'
X
0
0
to
a
ep
U
0
in
0
+-
CQ
0
.,
"-d
'O
0
0
inDV)
U
w
1
En
wH
p
aw*
i
O
C
'S
J
W
S
'S
C5
om
S
I
3
O
CL
x
W
4-0
aA
I-GJ
Ri
GL
--
00ooo
I.
-o
0
ao
S830N3SSVd 4
C)
L
cm
",Li-
W
J
N
d
"r"
41
"r
r"r
U
t
0.
M
C
o
C)
) O m l
4
X
0
v+
"r
N
N
U)
U
0
I-
D
CIO
">
"r
D
>
PC\2
LO
r
I-
II
t! )
W
i
O
I
O
a,
woa
CO
Z_
N
N
W
U
O
cr
a
J
J
%lob
oa C
N
4,
L
a.
W
zaz
J
Li
"
op
N
kO
a
t0
0.
P-4
O
0oCOO
OW
O
fN
S830N3SSYd %
GJ
s"
Q
.r
LJ.
c
Y
V
N
t
U
1W
J
00
Cp
cr
Jp
m
I-
X
J
Sn
IV
It
C-)
S.0
"1-
F-y
c
L)
E"4 w
al
U
-o
0
in
en
ox
IN-CD
0
on
I -O
a.
cz
0-4
,n
N
J
U
W
oV
NC
zurr 4-4
0
4-04
J
W
in 0
Zoa
wZ
C
O
-r
I-
- I
ix
W
F-t/Y
W
S
V
Q
10
L
z
vva0
O
co
i'
_.
z
ch
r"-
i'
t0
.r
O
N
D1
"r
S830N3SSVd Z
Li-
W
J
co
O)O
W`
JD
o ml
4
X
0
M
in
N
V)
z
E-0W
C
E
aaM
o0 Cr
I-
z0
<a
Cr
*Mks
U
J
*Mwo
%oft
N
i
N
0)
C
a)
N
N
to
La-
Cl)
4-4
0
0
'.
,%
%
oD
wo
O
C
Z
D
0
m
Q.
I-
c
I-C)
W
C
I-
in
za
r
I"
rI
000000
0
Co
40
S 30N3SSVd
.',
f
C-)
v
a
i
N1
La
W
-j
JQ
OD
un
IV
94
WZ7
p4 W
0
IV
in
pn
oa
<
p4
=I
MOMI
0
M
z
ow
,NinZ
;el Z) cz
aU
NC
z U)
cxw
.
.
'
in
"
21w
rc
x
_a
voOOO
0
o
o0
fN
C)
='
vs
S830N3SSVd %
U.
N
I
O
L.
4J
O
U
Dm
c0W
ao
O)o
J
"1
U
"
9(4Q
mI
dx
-o
.a
4j
O
So
4-
r
VL
rG)
'
0
a
c
II
'
a
C)
Fp'
Oy
C_
w
-+
ox
J
QN
Z
O
0
o
ZU U Z
o0
c
0
4- 4
P4
W
,
CY
W
F-'
V)
C
O
o000
co
%to
%a
vN
S830N3SSVd
0
J
C)
r-
Wa
Ri
L1.
FZC
-+
r-
P-4
S(1)
a
C
C)
Nf
R7
Z
Z
OC
W
L)
ZU
Q
7-4
"
0)
5rn
.r.
Li-
a)
V)
Y
U
a,
s
t)
W
J
1
W1
JC
0M
c
r
J
C
(0
a)
CL
0
So
W
N
I
U)
0
M
GJ
u
L
0
4-
U)
.a
v
0
x
U.
N'
P4
oz
C
a
0
N
0-4 LO
fa
'S.
U
Ln
W
S.,.
U)
U
5%
Wx
C
55
J
W
zc
'4,
Fac
W
F-
oa
4%
cc
W
N
W
Uw
4
10
WAz
C.)
Z
x
I
J`
I
O
vvOOOO
O
Co
to
fN
Sd3'-N3SSVd G
'"r
L&..
O
I-
4. )
O
U
W
J
CO
r-
JG
0
Q
C7
ml
440
X
0
M
O
4)
O
S_
0
ui
N
a
"Q
O
0z
CQ
LO
0
C4N.,
N
-j
0
(n
-J
Z&)
=
;.4
4-04
..
ftft
ftft
-Nft
L.
0
C
ftAlft
4%ft
zc
Z
0
U
ftft
oQ
J
w
0
1/'
WA
in
O
O.
CY-
-O
J
d
ZN
O
-+
IdC
Z
Wd
FzL
wO
vvp00
0
Co
0
90
S830N3SSVd %
R3
G.
t
O
O
W
W
N7
W
2
vr
zU
dN
Co
.-#
Cm
C
C)
v
L..
(L)
10
OJ
vi
r"o
.i
4)
c
0
c,
W
Qm
CWi
Q) o
DJ
N coy
r:r.
t,
.r.
44-
.c1
J4X
O
.a
4J
0
! 1
O
4-
ul
I --
E--40
a)
0
CK:
1
Cl-
mN
j1.,
U
z
e4
-g!
/a
'-`
0
n.
-i
(A
L
G)
Q.,
_O
t4 E--4
0
I
4-+
e-4
W
0
fm
a)
N
N
b
G.
C)
0
0-4
U)
xa
W
w
N
w
<4
r-
000oCo
co
SN39N3SSbd G
r-fts
0
F-
00
. r.
i-3
S.
co
.
GJ
G
v
U-
J'
m
Y
U
t
.,
C.)
ml
fLai
4,
L
ww1
cn
In
oCf)
a CO
a
L
O
4-
ce
E4C\2
11
CL.
W
0-4
41%.
7:
f
O
cn
W
4-4
40.4
Z
N2
.'00)
. -4
00
f
92
0-4
-0
1
Co
C)
N
roo
OO
O
I. -
a0
OOO
1O
O
.rN
S830N3SSVd Z
a
L
. r.
Li
W
J
'
'
CL) O
0
0)
-j
I. -
0
It
Ew
U)
W)
ilt
" C9
zw (n
o "
M
It
It
I-
0
W
U)
zL,
o 'N
44
zW
4-4
a.
Ed o
za0
wz
H--
/000
z
_r
--
in
as
Co
to
le
S830N3SSVd %
N
b
1.
00000
0
L
a
C.,
c
Q)
N
rn
.r.
U-
mI
.II
ml
ax
0
cf) Z
T
OCI
Z
0
co
E-4
C
Z
E^
r,
"`
JO'
F---1
LLJ
a.
iii
Li
ff
""
.0
fy
0-4
a
OO
co
O0O
t0
S830N3SSVd %
O
N
i.
N
O
V
O
L
W
J
co
Q)
'J
0
o
'
JC
Q-
a
L
4J
i.
CL
CJ
U)
P4
i.
O
4-
O
z
I-d
% Cl)
C) U)
Q+
L<
z
N
Zw
zL, C
0
[r
C.
0
N
ZZ 4
`"
C
1
d
O
O.
0
J
O
I-Q
W
I-
N
N
b
a
z
L
4)
L.
Z1
_---
M
N
as
O
OOOO
co
O
lit
S830N3SSVd
N
Q1
. r.
Lt..
C
1
Y
V
Q!
.C
U
-0,
wo
O)o
J19
4
W
<
as
c
0
as
0
to
Cl)
U)
Cl)
OZ
sU
1
1
1
1
1
1
>
O
0
A
ei
v
0
Z
C
0"
v
LO
co
ii
c.
4
O
c.
U
W
o'
zQCn
02
Z
W
0..
f/
zCf)
W
Nib
.0
".,
0
I --
F-
d1b
xtD
0
0
ZA
x
m
qtt
N
G2
0
o00
Co
0
%0
lit
S830N3SSVd G
00
N
L
Q1
. IL1.
a)
r-10
C)
v
N
J
C-)
cf)
4J
L
O
U
O
N
Q w
S..
O
(4-
tn
N
r0
C
E
1.
O
N
aZ
F-
Oil
2
U
>H-
z
C""
zQ cf)
w
U
W
N
C
Z
W
a.
.. in
W
zU
`1
aw
J
d
.
O
d
Q1
c)
N
Cl)
co
C-
rx
''r
zo
ZA
z
Co
U,
N
2VN
to
S830N3SSVd
aa
a
cm
Li
c
0
Z7
a,
N
JC
W
0 ml
)
J
O
5-
U)
i
O
N
N
12-
O
IV
U)
L.
L.
rin
E
0
z
C
LO
oJ
"n O
lx
Z
0
U
in
NN
Oil
Ow
Z
E-4
F-
cz
lx
cl
Z"
o
-r
Fdd
Z
O_
OV)
ti Q
CL
Fz
'e
ZZ
O..
Cl,
W
/V
01-
=
cm
zz
I-
to
N
0-4
40
a
vvOOO
O
a0
'.O
'
4J
L
C,
Sb3ON3SSVd G
Q1
C
GJ
N
i<I-
xo
C'
000
ZO
ZA
W
IZN
N
L
U-
tu
C
-J
0i
.r.
N
C)
U
W
7m
Q)
S.
m
a c
J4x
L
to
cf)
GJ
I0
4-
a
-o
0
C
W
hfl
F-
Oil
a.
ce
ZQ
0
N
i
Z;
-z
Op,,
i+
"4
fW
fU
ff
cn
a
N
N
b
.
CL
o4
Wx
hU
040
Z C/)
I-
CL
N
x
rn
0
d1
-r
w
U
N
m
NN
4J
000000
o
co
t0
IV
S830N3SSVd %
Q1
Li-
JD
U)
0
0
U)
c
^^
f)
0
U,
oZ
CQ
C
0"
Z
zwow
YU
W
02
MV
C
w4-,
w
E"'
IZ
Li
CL
t
i
o
o
Z z
4
Sol
Zo
0-0
-co
N
Q1
N0
fD
Q1
S830N3SS*Vd %
d
r-v
a)
r
U
tN
v
'U
'
-ad
JO
v
a
CT)0
%Y
"r
L
ut
IV
c)
N
Gw
s.
O
4-
rai
O
Z
In
n
oz
a
1
CQ
jl
zwo
a
ow
iN
U
W
C
o
N
Z
Li
CL
o
Z U)
;.
0
a
a
Li
z"
CD -HL
Q
Z
ac
W
I--N
Z
%ft.
1.4
ft.-*
ft**
lp
)
0
CD
s.
00
.N
S830N3SSVd %
eC
C)
iO
a
o0
of
O.
tn
74
G)
Zo
as i
G)
Q1
0
C,
. r-
Lj-
r
U
W
C,
a)
O
L4-)
C
0
U
Lij
ch C) C)
J
Im
H
43
U)
L
O
C3.
un
CL
0
It
4I--
G)
'O
O
um
pc
oZ
x
E
zwo
ow
~a
i
i
i
i
oJ
Mp
'n
N
'--4
0
0
O"
NQ
N
Q.
Z co
z0
O
CL
ZAco
E--4
CL'
FZ
W
C5
CL
N
W
40-1
2
o f-
FCC
Z
C'
WC
F--
N
L
C)
Q1
O-
ZC
C.0
Z
C)
N
(
C1
X0
b-4
Cp
in
O
O
o0
O
f'
D7
S830N3SSVd %
LO
W
.Nr.
a)
U
W
J
co
-r
0
S
a
cr0
C)
J4X
GJ
L
ml
L
CL
d
tm
U)
V
I0
4-
Cl)
D
0
U)
a
-v
0
C
N
W
o
CQ
0 J
Z
tn
(I,
oW
t0 0
0
cl:
0
J
J
iI'
C)
U)
Z
w
C
0. -
ZU
0-4
9,4
o
z
Li
CL
V)
Li
F=
0
N
0: 2
o
dN
Q)
_l
<
ZN
o
dC
Z
Wd
FZL
-O
0
O00000
0
Co
to
lqr
S830N3SSVd %
R3
C1
O
a)
Z
--4
'
G)
ct
-+
m
a
P-4
C)
N
W
1
rcM
cu
LL.
L
U
N
W
J
p
cr-
O
C7
J
0
U
v
J
Q
x
U
O
40
L
O
0
in
0
oa
Of,
CD
cl:
0
C3-
I
D
V
oW
nN
C
Z
W
CL
V)
wCD
xA
CD
F--
I--
x
CD
"
0
0-4
"
'
.
..-. --.
'
co
N
"
N
0
"OOO
a0
t0
4J
i
Q1
S830N3SSVd %
Li.
rb
+1
0
fW
13
'J'
<
(D 0J
CF) 0
0m
C7
J4X
to
C/)
kn
ZC
f
ALL'
co
II
z
0
Z y
o
CL
(f)
Cd
`f
V)
Li
f
W
CO
a)
00
O
OOO
co
to
S830N3SSVd %
C
Q1
. r.
LA..
W
m
a'
O
Q)
J4
JC
1
faD
w
1
Z
Q
U,
W
o
CA
E"
CL
Q
o
H
v,
. r.
>
4J
SAS
CL
J
G
CL
+-'
0
1--
nza
0
O
r
qc:
ch
iii
0000
Co
-r
t0
Sd39N3SSVd
LL.
Lai
'II
o
Q
c
J4X
U)
0N
U)
E"''WO
-0
1
0-4
-0
W
4
E4
-!!
1.4
ZW.
IV0
C) E-4
P4
Z:
o C]
H
L
rn
N
V1
b
Cl.
E-4
0
4-4
z
- -7 C
a.
cn
L
GJ
41
L
Ip
as
OOOOOO
O
a0
oN
Se13JN3SSVd %
C)
. r.
L-
F-
4)
W
J
co
C.)
CI
-c
ml
rt7
It
C)
rn
0
Co
rn
m
0
w-
CZ
ra.)
0
0
40
0Q
C
E
c
n.
Ln
J
U
CL
W
('
Zc
CD-
O
'It
E. <5
('
it
zou
w
wZ
oZ
W
CL
"-r
N
L
41
o~
N
do
10
8-4
co
I.
o
M
4
O
vv0
co
to
S830N3SSVd %
0
N
,o
0
C.)
i
D1
. PL.
a
N
N
b
77
Cc
G
Qj
-. i
JD
O
=
0
to
b+
z
z
0
N
i
i
CC
1
1
1
CEjf
1
ogz
0-4
O
I-
1
--loll
rn O
ZUG
FZ
Li
CL
E 40
ZW.
Li
M
cn
.
~'
GQ
Ct
---0
,,
a+-
*0
om
0000
to
"
O
Sd39N3SSVd
rv
0)
Lai
-Q
N
N
GJ
V
O
S
O.
I
W
y
J4X
ml
rto
I--r-
wo
SO
k-
F-j
GJ
O
d
1
O
a
Q"
CWaxoW
40
L)
CL
E--!
!4
zog
w00
4; 4
JN
QL
Z
O'
. -r
F-
CJ
C
G)
N
ZN
Wa
Z"
zwz
W
-r
1--
1-
C.7
Z
r-+
S.
G)
+
L
t0
t
co
0Q0
co
10
fN
i_
0)
S830N3SSVd G
I
LL.
W
JO
a,
ml
J
. rE
E
0
to
L
tp
iz
S0
k-
0
a
0
C
E
OO
cr
n.
oZ
"0
Q
cr
C,
ow
E-I
o cl
O
a
ix
z
c
Ww
E-4 CD
FW
1
.
41-ft
U)
O
F-
r-
OC
W
F--
Li
G1
i-CJ
0/0000,
0
I
w
r-4
Co
1
,-'
- -
rn
M
Q
0vo
o
co
to
Cl
.r
S830N3SSYd %
I
0
00
tr
al
0.
V)
t9
1-4
N
N
to
d
ZAW
U,
0)
L
Q1
LL.
V
N
r-W
a)
73
cwO
U
N
WI
m l
4
co
rt-)
U)
a)
a,
0
to
c,
a,
F+-W
0
In
C/1
rn
W.
O
4
CJ
O
E
'S
St
I
St
Q
J
U
Li
St
St
ow
St
00
Z A Cd
O
G.
Cl-I
r-r
m
c
E-+U
I -Z
W
n-
4.
O
F-ck:
W
F-
CU
N
CL
I-
10
ZOOO*
f
-r
P-4
N
i
O
C1
C
Li
**
.
as
I-,
Cla
v000
to
0
`f
SN30N3SS'Vd G
.r.
LL.
i---
C)
O
J
W
J
m
-
C
o
(
'
<'
m'
L
X
in
r
rnz
wc o
xc
0
It
U)w
ch
un
M
z
ZZ
(2 z
Z L)
wxw
U)
'no
N
U,
U
Q
%Nib
CL
V)
W
F-
r.
014 4; 4
xwcco
z .
0
0
/#/
\
+
/"
.
acz
"-
zW
f
"
.
o0O
00
a
t0
S830N3SS'VdG
0
N
1
C
J4X
cc
c
O
N
cn
c
CO
E--4
01
co
44Oil
.aZ
z C) a'
a
o ..
v
61-
41
ZAG
OW
.,
A
0.9
0
4 -4
1-4
7
z.
Z
A
O
V)
Li
-=
- .............
--
GA 1..
IIN
OOOOO
co
to
'r
S830N3SSVd G
W
C
0
J
(3)o 0
ml
J
4
0
to
Z
0
N
&.
C
E
z
Pw
oZ
"O
Cr
op
cr.
3
ZA
$Wx
z
c
oW
Na
V)
II
W
*ARM
oft%
F1
ftaw
oI
ZO
9
0:
cd
cn
wo
.1 0
P-M0U
+
Co
ILJ
to
00
Sd3JN3SSVd %
e4
-a
i
v
ra)
s
U
N
v
E
. r.
i0
r-
J4
0i
0
.o
Q1
Q1
C13
I0
k-
0
n
xz
o
rM]
0
C
E
w`0
Co
o%4""
J
U
W
1
I.
CD
~a
0
o.
cz
J
ZAG
wW
w
zcn 0
FZ
W
aV)
W
0
i--
a
N
4J
Q1
w
I--
N
N
CL
/r
c7
a
G.
xw
CAA
ZO
_
/
'
"
R:r
914
0
Qpp00
0
0
i
00
10
VN
a)
L
Q1
Sd3ON3SSVd%
LL
1
4l
r--
CJ
.C
U
N
v
-Q
c
(1)
-'
I co
O)
m
I
Q
J
Gj
I
O
I-
0
C-)
E
O
0
io
V1
L)
w4
wL)
i
O
40
N
I
a)
0
0
O.
< CD
Sao
ww
wz
F-
0
I
O
g
N
p
ZH
W
FZ
Li
a-
r1
Ir
zw
O"
FQi
Z
cz:
WG
I-'-4
N
CJ
M
G)
N
N
I-
2C
Cm
xwo
r-q
fr
wL
W
woo
Ln
et
S^
a
Qo0000
0
0
z
a0
to
n7
GJ
a.
0
.rN
a)
0)
L.
S830N3SSVd
cr
W
J
c
I
V
O
L
LL
OJC
0
CF)
Q1
J4X
I-
I
m
r>
s.
rri
O
w
cn
U)
E,,,,
c_
0
011
<
Li
v
_0
4
Zw
ww
Fce
CL
ne
Q
OW
J
O
wx
ZU) 0
z
fI
OVi
ff
W
f
ICU
Q1
C
C)
N
N
CO
C.
F-
Li
4'1
n.
C
tu
cu
CL
0
L
m
G1
I-
C.7
U
GC
C)
6-4
N
to
f-i
"
j""f"
OCOOOO
O
00
to
IN
S 30N3SSVd %
s.
J
I
CQ
'
JC
0 o<
Q,
V1
tC
ui
P4
co
II
Li
00CA
a
E--4
z
Z
O,
co
Cl)
U,
s.
cu
C4-4
O
00
oe-0
/
h-
0
j
CL
N
F-+
N
N
LL
GJ
L
Vw Q
4
b
L
F-
000
aOO
a0
N
to
S830N3SSVd 4
Lt.
C
0
E
O
U
J
II
CD
caW
O
mI
J4X
C/)
IV
kn
M
wll
0-4
cn
:x
C)
Zog
NV)
0
ZfC
ZO625
%%
4-4
NLi
wo
LLJ
CL
03
S-
xa,
w
Q.
F--
Co
eodloo,
^OOOOOO
WO
co
N
to
"N
S830N3SSVd G
cn
W
J
CD O
C3: o
J4
L.j
X
0
N
cf)
0
0
Cl)
C
E
1%-,
(n
W
co
o
00
>
z&)
0
L
G1
Q1
Z
V)
al
ro
CL
0
a-
b
a)
o .c
IZ
W
CL
V)
Li
zL) Z
c!
tCs
FO
E
_"-_
rn
ct
Ai
0
vo000
0
00
to
qqr
S830N3SSVd %
C]
'O
J4
ml
0
to
CD
zw
ww
0
ui
C
E
oZ
"O
cr1
an
zw
w9-in
z
GJ
cn
F-oW
C)
N
N
aIn
-CO
Li
CD
.r.
Ur
10
.0
42
0
0
00
to
le
S830N3SSVd Z
L
rn
U.
rro
0
I-
m
-Q "m
wo
n
J4X
E
"1
b
rv
ml
v
C,
rts
C,
rn
o
m
0
o+
>ocn
ww
2
p4
S.
0
4-
Co
rC)
v
0
cn
wC
ZCo
n.
%0
II
<
Z
aa
Fcr
O
U
0
-om
O
. -4
F-
0
N
C)
Q1
E--4
4.4
W
h--
CJ
N
N
i
2
Im
cr.
. -4
m
rC
r'`
Ln
O
OOOOOO
O
o0
'p
.rN
Sd39N3SSVd G
Q1
. r.
LA-
rb
+-)
O
E-
W
-D
I--O
JG
m00
4x
Co
c
0
N
z
>w=
E
0
L
O
4-
Z)ZZ
chcn =I
A
0
C
P.4r
K.
-4ii
eE
?a
N
O
cn
<
I
0
F+y
Zw
CD
0
(A
41
z(2U
N>
el n co
**.W
CDN
CD
I--
i
-r
co
N
Lt)
OpNO
Sd3JN3SSVd G
C
4)
Os
. r.
L.
. r.
L
C o
0
C)
cl:
JG
Im
x
s
rn w
as
C
E
o
F--
ZCo
z=cn
L)
C7
z
N
ep W
CO
U
O
CD
LL
CD
4-4
0
0-1
C
z00
I -z
W
"
Oa'N
Li
Mwo
" '
rr
F-
0
N
St
n
v
0
co
00
to
.,r
S830N3SSVd %
0c
N
APPENDIXB
QUESTIONNAIRES
Panel
of
Experts
(3 pages).
(3 pages).
%LI
LOUGHBOROUGH UNIVERSITY
AND
OF
ItlnIU
SURVEY OF
Sir/Madam;
Your
assistance
future
to
your
in
and design
opinion
your
highly
are
and cooperation
planning
contribute
AIRPORT
Dear
for
TECHNOLOGY
of
appreciated,
terminals,
airport
All
and satisfaction.
comfort
the
to
and reaction
time
AIRPORT T
you
be valuable
and would
which
you have
anticipate
INALS
will
to
eventually
do is
to
inside
spending
state
terminals
DELAY.
Going through
some time
airport
(as in check-ins
servioe
the time
DELAY, is
in delay.
by air,
when traveling
terminals,
you unwillingly
), or a call
immigration...
you inevitably
for
spend waiting
(as for
spend
).
boarding...
(but
being serviced
time spent actually
Delay does not include;
or processed
being
friends,
family
NOT waiting
for
moving
for it)
with
and
or
waiting
duty
like
between various
in
time
terminal,
the
oonoessions
spent
or
parts of
free
shop,
Please,
consider
parts
according
to your
part
grades
of the
you put
The grading
judgement
for
under
every
period
is
by giving
an assessment
to delay
and perception
Replies
consideration.
of delay
delays
as regarding
questionnaire
terminal,
airport
personal
of terminal
etc.
""o
this
answering
in-various
the
bars,
restaurants,
be
in
would
question.
short
and oorfortable
is moderate
is
but
significantly
().
mark
................
acceptable..
).
markWe
.., .........
uncomfortable
and
......................................
(currency
BANK
to delay in AIRPORT
perception
Delay in minutes: VI
auch for
your
in
the form of
untolerable
DELAY
levels:
3. UNACCEPTABLE,where delay
TRAMPLE: What is your
for
encountered
in the particular
stated
encountered
ELI
consideration
and cooperation.
71
UQ
Qark(X
).
exchange)?
LOUGHBOROUGHUNIVERSITY
AND
EAST MIDLANDS
OF
TXCHNOLO0T
LIRP08T
,
DAT$t --TIIEt
LOCATIONt
INTERVIB"rm:
PART I
SAMPLE INFORKATION
0-1
2.
SRI:
3.
BRITISH
20 -2--
NATIONAL:
over
60
by air?
traveling
CRY IN
11
LIKB A LITTLE
DISLIKES
ii
happy
feel
you
and
going
oomfortable
-Do
1 VERY JIUCH
110DERATE A LITTLE
through
airport
NOT AT ALL
dotravel
by air
every
year?
INT razATIONAL
BUSINESS
LFjSURE
8. FLIGHT:
Your
flight
number;
Flight
olass;
SCMERJ D
CHLSTIE
0? 8ER
INDIFFENT
terainale?
INDIFFBUT
LOUGHBOROUGHUNIVERSITY
AND
EAST MIDLANDS
PART II
/l.
TECHNOLOGY
OF
AIRPORT
DELAY INFORMATION
Based on personal
judgement,
grade your
( similar
to example shown on page 1)s
to delay
peroeption
for
the following
TICKETTING I CHECK-IN:
Delay
in miautes:
10
12
60
20
Grade:
2.
SECURITY CHECK:
Delay
in minutes:
10
1268
f
3.
Delay in minutest
IIF
Grades
4. nM
20
10 ` 12
F-5
1
1
20
-F-I E:1F-I1:10 L2
10
f-2-0-1f2j
64
1771-1F-7-7
F-7F---1
Crades
F7
CUSTOMS(RED C&&NNEL):
Delay in minutes$
10
in
minutes:
10
20
Grade:
estimate
in minutes:
10
F-IM El
MOTS
I'
Grades
60
20
22
ED 00
Grade:
/8.
60
BAGGAGECLAIXs
Delay in minutes:
7.
60
El El LI F F-IELI F-7F-]
(trade:
6.
TIox:
Delay in minutes:
5.
10
20
EDF-1F F-1
-7
7F
Grades
F9
60
E
-9
tl5]L2OjF3OjI4O5Ojt6O1tJ5ft!
LOUGHBOROUGHUNIVERSITY
DEPARTI4ENT OF
OF
TECHNOLOGY
TRANSPORT TECHNOLOGY
Please
consider
judgement
as
passenger
servicing.
different
delay
being
an
time
not
include;
family
from
The
(processed:
you
to
or
give
perception
and
facilities
considered,
from
the
The
passengers
grading
is
GOOD service;
toy
TOLE1ABLE
to
x:
the
you.
the
to
indicate
delay
stated
for
service,
periods,
to
in
experienced
with
is
the
the
required
passengers'
processing
conditions,
operational
your
is
does
and
What
at
of
here,
spent
grade)
on
while
Delay,
amenities.
levels
varying
as
encounter
deliberately
(as
involving
judgement
your
terminal.
and
own
operations
awaiting
time
your
on
possibly
airport
assessment
to
as
airport
concessions
airport.
follows:
delay
is
stated
satisfactory
and
comfortably
passengers.
delay
passe npers,
that
uncomfortable
Thank
time,
ser vice;
BAD service;
justify
passengers
viewpoint
system
short
by
in
and
of
may
the
your
response
is
inside
processing
friends,
field
passengers
spent
actual
is
the
objective
based
questionnaire
that
periods
unwillingly
and
in
expert
serviced
the
this
answering
delay
and
compl aints.
stated
intolerable
is
stated
it
would
is
moderate
justify
not
significantly
to
the
but
acceptable
stillcomplaints.
long,
passengers
and
that
it
would
I:
PART
Qaa==o
*
Airport
Annual
A-
you
are
passenger
associated
with:
throughput
of
........................
airport
in
1982:
.................
DEPARTURES:
TICXETTING / CHECK-IN:
Delay
in
FYI
minutes:
Delay
CHECK:
in
minutes:
1
`
'
in minutest
Grad s
0"r t.LL D: LLY it;
T i. 'INAI
in minutes:
estimate
12
1.20
25
0i
[__j !=U'C
8
LJ
Delay
26,?
Grade:
Delay
10
_Jl!
Grade:
SFCM17f
..
la
~'
,
j,
30
U,
L.
_J
9)s
.
20
10
0 '' 60
'
Grade :U7
ARRIVALS:
I
-
TGRATION:
Delyy
in
minutes:
10
12
H151
I25
i0i
60 'Q
Oracle:
BAGGAGE
Delay in minutes:
D [Ti]
?.
_.
Grade:
VVSI
JY*,
Delay
Grade:
(I
J
4::
in minutes:
1-"-- 20
NEL
rESL
""j
r!,
)i
rr 1:
10
E95E9
2S
E0
45 i 60
;II,
Y
1J
L!
OV
IN
T
3LLL
M:
S.
FOR
RIVING
4_,
FLIG'Ts
AN
E.
i7
Aft-lP,N' estimate
in r: in;; tes:
1 1r
20
I'
LLJL_lLJ__!
1(61
_L
B-
PART II:
==
====
Now consider
to
your
2.0
A-
the
of
another
(PART I)
y
airport
million
case
but
airport
with
an
in
similar
annual
characteristics
throughput
of
aroun3
0(
'
20
passengers.
DEPARTURES:
/ CIMCE
TICLETTING
."
-IN:
Delay in minutes:
1
j 1J
12
r 20
!21
-1
6-0
Grade:
SECURITY C . ,1:
_.
Delay in minutes:
Grade:
r,
1r
11
in
LI
)t
1"
minutes:
tj6OB
10
12
12
(r ade s'
j.
50
'' OV LU L DELLY IN M
Delay
estimate
]V1
ED
LI
Grade s
B-
i' EO-i
r...
ARRIVALS:
Delay
in minutes:
Qrado:
iI
i I,
EuiL-i
BAGGAGE
CLAD
"r
Delay in minutes:
10
12
III
12
-2--]F-30
20
IF
E:
l
17
r
2i
Grade:
(RED CFA` L
CUST.
)MS
:
..
1
Delay in minutes:
Grade:
ti
10
12
I
20
7
17 1
2
Ll
r-I
Delay estimate
(tirade:
E
in mim teas
l 15 12?
Ii
"
6C
7D'
I
'a,
i.
atlwVl
TZlw/.
/f.
Yl
i'Y'iY
MiJ
F1.
'KNTL..
MANCHESTER
INTERNATIONAL
AIRPORT
NO
FORM
Authority
In order to help the Airport
Airport,
I should be grateful-if
the
at
The form may be returned
questions.
in the box in
you the form or placed
facilities
to improve
continue
you could answer the following
to the survey assistant
who gave
Lounge or gate.
the Departure
DIRECTOR OF DEVELOPMfEN'T
AND PLANNING.
1.
CHECK-IN
Was your
How did
compare
Airports
2.
OFFICIAL
wait
this
with
H6w did
compare
Airports
MUCH LESS
VERY GOOD
ACCEPTABLE UNACCEPTABLE
GOOD
POOR
MORE THAN
10 wins
at check-in
waiting
other
time
CONTROLS
How long
NEGLIGIBLE
up in
a queue
at
in total
this
with
SECURITY
CONTROL
NEGLIGIBLE
waiting
other
time
PASSPORT
----1-
MORETHAN
10 mins
AIRPORT FACILITIES
Please indicate
following
the
your level of satisfaction
with
facilities
if you used them.
POOR ADEQUATE GOOD VERY GOOD
CATERING (including
Bars
OTHER SHOPS
BANK
TOILETS
SEATING AREAS
INFORMATION
How many people
Please give
here :
in your
any further
party
do your
answers apply
to
you
have about the Airport
comments
THANK YOU.
jliL
Bermingham
Airport
International
LOUGHBOROUGH UNIVERSITY OF TECHNOLOGY
PASSENGERSURVEY
hear
Passenger;
We
are
at
this
in
different
undertaking
airport,
how
and
parts
standards
service
evaluate
they
time
the
to
respond
passengers
the
of
to
survey
passenger
spend
building.
terminal
1
hope
We
for
your
be
should
1After
if
grateful
questionnaire,
which
completing
just
box
gate,
will
please
the
thank
not
take
for
you
answer
the
you
long
the
place
departure
on
two
to
parts
your
survey,
of
and
this
complete.
inside
way
to
the
the
marked
departure
cooperation.
Department
Loughborough
PART
this
questionnaire
lounge
your
in
participating
could
you
it,
outside
and
in
cooperation
Transport
of
University
Technology
of
Technology
I:
DATE:
FLIGHT
TO:
No.:
------------------
-----------------
Please
trip,
in
the
1.
AIRLINE
2.
SECURITY
time
the
state
(in
of
parts
CHECK-IN:
CHECK:
--------------
3.
PASSPORTS
CONTROL:
the
minutes)
terminal
you
actually
building
spent
indicated
during
below:
this
"
PLEASE
READ
CAREFULLY
Now, assume
that
circumstances
your
flight,
each
part
If
you
were
be
would
what
the
level
perceive
tolerable,
and
- BAD (POOR)
[
1.
2.
3.
4.
AIRLINE
CHECK-
Time
spent
Level
of
for
SECURITY
each
spent
Level
of
PASSPORTS
within
the
level
in
shown
the
of
satisfaction
as
A,
boxes
below,
you
would
satisfaction
or
according
JC
time
spent,
which
you
would
long
would
justify
not
time
any
long
significantly
still
perceived
complaints.
time
spent,
intolerable
and
but
spent,
to
which
the
extent
you
would
that
it
BOXES
IN :
in
minutes:
F170 15
1357
20
25
30'
20
30
30
60
satisfaction
time
CHECK:
Time
for
time
of
complaints.
ALL
FILL
PLEASE
on
moderately
uncomfortable
justify
would
amounts
satisfactory.
service;
as
perceive
time
short
definitely
of
of
comfortably
as
to
proceeding
system:
grading
service;
-GMT)
REPLY
case
your
following
amount
judgement
each
indicate
Please,
the
spend
your
in
experience
to
to
whilst
different
spend
TO
building.
terminal
the
of
to
ATTEMPTING
different
were
had
you
and
BEFORE
each
in
minutes:
135
7 10
12
satisfaction
time
CONTROL:
Time
spent
Ltel
ot
of
each
TIME
.L
RA .L
Time
spent
in
minutes:
135
05
20
satisfaction
time
IN
in
1.2&3
minutes:
ABOVE:
10
1
N0
20
25
05
60
90
20
[1
Lforl
each
stimefaction
Birmingham
Airport
Internatbnal
LOUGHBOROUGH UNIVERSITY OF TECHNOLOGY
PASSENGERSURVEY
Passenger;
Dear
We
are
at
this
in
different
We
hope
undertaking
airport,
parts
for
be
should
if
grateful
which
will
finish,
you
J FREEPOST
in
you
please
envelope
provided,
standards
time
this
two
they
spend
you
Department
your
Transport
of
University
Loughborough
this
of
back,
for
and
complete.
questionnaire
thank
survey,
parts
to
long
you
this
and
the
in
the
answer
take
to
participating
could
not
service
building.
terminal
cooperation
evaluate
respond
passengers
the
of
your
questionnaire,
After
how
and
to
survey
passenger
using
the
cooperation.
Technology
of
Technology
I:
RT
DATE:
FLIGHT
-------------
No.:
FROM:
-------------
----------------
NATIONALITY:
Please
trip,
1.
the
state
in
the
time
BAGGAGE
3.
CUSTOMS:
-
GREEN
RED
the
of
parts
PASSPORTS/IMMIGRATION:
2.
(in
minutes)
terminal
you
actually
building
__________________
CHANNEL
CHANNEL
one
as
applicable)
(nothing
declared):
(something
declared):
indicated
during
this
below:
"
CLAIM:
(answer
spent
____________
PLEASE
READ
CAREFULLY
BEFORE
that
circumstances
were
Now, assume
your
flight,
each
part
If
and
in
experience
indicate
Please,
following
the
to
Wn
A-r.
service;
service;
_F.
- BAD (POOR)
perceive
would
[
1,
2.
3.
complaints.
spent
Level
for
of
each
Time
Lf
rrI
4.
satisfaction
below,
you
would
as
satisfaction
or
according
time
spent,
which
you
would
long
time
justify
any
long
still
perceived
complaints.
time
intolerable
and
but
spent,
spent,
to
which
the
extent
you
would
that
it
CONTROL:
(7
minutes:
025050
ll,
in
minutes:
satisfaction
F7Q
1r700
{L
i
05
STC'iMS:
Time
TIME
vel
for
spent
of
each
GREEN
or
channels
F]
spent
OVERALL.
Time
RED
either
of
each
-L
of
boxes
the
satisfaction
tire
spent
Level
for
in
shown
CLAIM:
RED
in
e1
or
eof
ach
Tick
BOXES
IMMIGRATION
Time
BAGGAGE
level
significantly
justify
the
not
would
uncomfortable
PASSPORTS
on
short
as
ALL
within
satisfactory.
service;
FILL
PLEASE
time
moderately
and
time
of
system:
definitely
tolerable,
as
of
comfortably
as
TOLERARL.
amount
of
grading
perceive
-
level
your
amounts
case
each
fror
proceeding
whilst
different
spend
judgement
your
different
REPLY
building.
the
spend
be
would
what
to
were
you
to
terminal
the
of
had
you
TO
ATTEMPTING
as
in
entered
PART
I) :
GREEN
in
minutes:
135700
satisfaction
time
IN
in
1.2
&3
minutes:
satisfaction
time
X25
30
JU
{I-I
ABOVE:
la
2n5
ln5
LJ
UJ
30,4'
002
Ll
;J
L-1
L
A#=
intanadoM
Birrdrx
.W
OF
TECHNOLOGY
UMVERSITY
LOUGHBOROUGH
Survey
Passenger
PLEASE DO
BUT
In
KEEP IN
NOW
OPEN
NOT
MIND
be
this
will
you
survey,
facility
in
each
spent
you
about
asked
the
of
airport
the
time
terminal.
Q
try
Please,
in;
spend
to
the
record
PASSPORTS
BAGGAGE
amount
of
time
you
JEEM
IMMIGRATION,
CLAIM,
CUSTOMS,
then,
enter
later.
those
Thank
times
you.
Businessreply service
no LE 3753
Lucen'
in
the
enclosed
questionnaire
APPENDIXC
SIMULATION
1. Check-in
LISTINGS
Facility
(2 pages).
Outbound
Official
Controls
at MANCHESTER
4. Inward
5. Customs
Immigration
Control
Control
(1 page).
(1 page).
C. 1
Check-in
Facility
SUBROUTINE I NTh.C
CC)KM0N/SCOM1/ATRIB(100), DD(100), DDL(100), DrN0J, II, I 'A, MSTOP,
1NC NR, NC R, NPRNT,NNRUN,NNSET,NTAPE, SS(100), SSL(100), TNEXT,
2TNOW,}0{ (100 )
COMMON/UOOM;
/NPAX
)O(2) = 0.
CALL SCHDL(1,0., ATRIB)
RENRN
END
:''s ,a
SUBROUTINE EVENT( I)
00 ID (1,2), I
CALL ARVL
RETURN
2 CALL ND V
RETURN
END
SUBROUTINEENDSV
COMMON/SCOM1/ ATRI B (100) , DD (100) DDL (100) DTIJOU,II, MFA, MSTOP,
,
,
1N LNR NRDR , NPRNT,NNRUN, NNSET, NTAPE , SS (100) SSL (100) ZNEXT, TNOW,
,
,
,
2)IX(100)
OIL'?
3N /1! 11/ NPAX
14* ***COLLECT STATISTICS ON DEPARTINGPASSENGrRS
TINQ = TNOW-*AMISH)
CALL CUOLCT(TINQ,
1)
NO. OF WAITING PAX.
IF(NNQ(1)
GT. 0) 00 TO 10
;+***IF
NO PAX WAITING, SET AGM TO IDLE, A' RETURN
)O(2)=0.
RETURN
) ****AGENT IS FREE SO SERVEFIRST PAX IN QUEUE
,
10 CALL RMJVE(1
ATRIB )
,1,
CALL SC-L(2, EX ON(0.73,2), ATRIB)
RE'It)RN
END
SUBROUTINE ARVL
00.*' M /SCJ: '.1: ' A: RIB(100), DD(100), DDL(100), DTNOW,11, fTc"A,I',, UF,
1NaNR, N DR, NIMT, NNRU::,,ZNSET,NTAPE, SS(100), SSI. (100), TNEXT, TNOW,
2)X(100)
=L**10N /UCOM1/ NPAX
C*****CAUSE NEXT ARRIVAL, MARK ARRIVAL TIME, AND INCREMENT NPAX
IF(TNOW LE. 20) CO TO 1
IM NOW CF. 20 AND. TNOW I. E. 40) C) TO 2
.
IF(TNOW CT. 40 AND. TNOW LE. 60) CO TO 3
IM NOW CT. 60 AND. TNOW LE. 80) CO TO 4
IF(TNOW CT. 80 AND. TNOW LE. 100) CO TO 5
IF(TN0W CT. 100 AND. TN0W LE. 120) CO TO 6
IF (TNOW CT. 120 AND. TNOW LE. 140) 00 TO 7
IF('INOW CT. 140 AND. 7NOW LE. 160) CO TO 8
IF (INOW M.
160 AND. TN0W LE. 180) 00 TLS 9
IF (TNOW X r. 180 AND. TNOW . LE. 200) CO TO 10
.
IF(TN0W GT. 200 AND. TNOW LSE. 220) G0 TO 11
IF(TNOW CT. 220) CO TO 12
1 XX(1) = 1.29
G0 TO 100
2 XX(1) = 3.40
CO TO 100
3(1)=2.22
CO TO 100
4 XX (1) = 1.22
CO TO 100
5 XX(1) = 0.90
GO TO 100
6 XX(1) = 0.90
CO TO 100
7 )0(1)
= 0.86
03 TO 100
8 )OC(1) = 1.25
CO TO 100
9}0{(1)
=2.22
CO TO 100
10 XX(1) = 6.67
00 'ILS 100
11 XX (1) = 80.00
Go 7-0 100
80.00
(1)
XX
=
12
(1
EXPON(XX(1
SC
),
CALL
1
),
ATRIB)
-O.
100
,
ATRIB(1) = 7NOU
NPAX = NPAX +1
AGENT 15 F.1-Mil...
C*****IF
lC*****-lTZN
IF (XX (2) ME. 0. ) 00 TO 200
MAKEBUSY (SERVE), AND SCHEDULEEND OF SERVICE
)0(2) = 1.
CALL SCIDL(2, EXPON(0.73,2), ATRIB)
RENR.N
C*****OI} RWISE PLACE PAX IN QUEUE
200 CALL FILEMM, ATRIB)
RETURN
END
'
C. 2
FUNCTION USERF
FUNCTION LJSERF(I)
COMMON/SCOM1/ ATRI B (100) DD (100) DLL (100) D'TNOU,II, MFA, MSTDP,
,
,
,
1NCLNR,NCRLIR,NPRNT,NNRUN,NNSET,NTAPE, SS(100), SSL(10Q), TNEXT, TNOU,
2)0 (100)
I=1
NEXT ARRIVAL...
C*****(ECK
IF (TNOU LE. 20) 00 TO 10
.
IF (ThOV CT. 20 AND. I1 ON LE. 40) CO ZO 20
IF (71
NCO
U Cr. 40
.
IF (AVOW CT. 60
.
IF(TNOU GT.
IF(TNOU GT.
.
INTNOW CT.
IF(TNOU CT.
IF (TNOU CT.
INTNOW GT.
IF (TNOU Xr.
IF (TNOW -ar.
INTNOW Cf.
.
IF (7NOU GT.
.
IF(TNOU GT.
.
IF(TNOW GT.
.
10 XX(1)
CO TO
20 )0((1)
GO TO
30 XX(1)
00 O
40 )X(l)
00 TO
50 )0{ (1)
C)D TO
60 XX(1)
GO TO
70 XX(1)
GO M
80 X}{ (1)
C) TO
90 XX(1)
GO TO
100 )0 (1)
00 TO
100)
120)
140)
160)
180)
200)
220)
240)
260)
280)
300)
0) M 50
(3O TO 60
OO TO 70
CO TO 80
CX) O 90
00 ID 100
C)0 TU 110
OD Tn 120
0) T0 130
G0 ZU 140
00 TO 150
= 0.34
200
= 0.21
200
= 0.24
200
= 0.14
200
= 0.078
200
2 0.057
200
= 0.056
200
= 0.048
200
= 0.060
200
= 0.090
200
110 )0 1) = 0.145
CO TO 200
120 XX(1) = 0.24
co TO200
00 T0 200
160 )0 (1) = 0.90
C. 3
I-
Outbound
Official
MANCHESTERINTERNATIONAL AIRPORT
WT
INIT, 0,320;
MC)Nl, SUt'RY, 0,20;
FIN;
II-..
A.
IRPDR.
T
BIRMINGJAM_INTERNATIONAL
Controls
C. 4
. N, SAM,Bi( I"MIC2ATION, 1 /8/84,1
LIMITS, 6,2,1803;
Inward
RF (1 );
EN MR CREATE, . 'SZ-.
ASSICN, A: IB(1)=TNOW;
ASSIQV, )0{(2)=XX(2)+1 ;
COLCT,)0{ (2) PAX ARRIVING;
,
ACT,, 0.95, EEC;
ACT, 0.05, NEEC;
SELEC: S1:Q. EEC1 EEC2, EEC3, EEC4;
EEC
,
,,
,
QUEUE(I );
t:;=c
AC:'/2, Eh'mN(0.50,2),,
EXIT;
QUEUE(2);
EEt2
A:'T/2, EXPCN(0.50,2 ), EXIT;
,
QUELE(3);
EEO
ACT/2, E> CN(0.50,2),,
EXIT;
EEC.: QUEUE(4) ;
ACT/2, E) N(0.50,2),,
EXIT;
C SELEC:
N0N1, N0N2 ;
N*E.
Cti? QUEUE(5) ;
AC71/3,E`TON(2.00,3EXIT;
QUEUE(6) ;
JCN2
,
ACT/3, E.-:CN (2.00 3)
EXIT;
,
,
r; {: ':
IN! T, 0,380;
!. (,`*.iR, SUI Y, 0,20;
Ct
TIME, 20/0/1
Immigration
Control
C. 5
Customs
Control