Addressing The Pushback Time Allocation Problem at Heathrow

This article was downloaded by: [155.31.251.
184] On: 28 September 2015, At: 04:06

Publisher: Institute for Operations Research and the Management Sciences (INFORMS)
INFORMS is located in Maryland, USA
Transportation Science
Publication details, including instructions for authors and subscription information:
http://pubsonline.informs.org
Addressing the Pushback Time Allocation Problem at

Heathrow Airport
Jason A. D. Atkin, Geert De Maere, Edmund K. Burke, John S. Greenwood
To cite this article:

Jason A. D. Atkin, Geert De Maere, Edmund K. Burke, John S. Greenwood (2013) Addressing the Pushback Time Allocation
Problem at Heathrow Airport. Transportation Science 47(4):584-602. http://dx.doi.org/10.1287/trsc.1120.0446
Full terms and conditions of use: http://pubsonline.informs.org/page/terms-and-conditions
This article may be used only for the purposes of research, teaching, and/or private study. Commercial use
or systematic downloading (by robots or other automatic processes) is prohibited without explicit Publisher
approval, unless otherwise noted. For more information, contact permissions@informs.org.
The Publisher does not warrant or guarantee the articles accuracy, completeness, merchantability, fitness
for a particular purpose, or non-infringement. Descriptions of, or references to, products or publications, or
inclusion of an advertisement in this article, neither constitutes nor implies a guarantee, endorsement, or
support of claims made of that product, publication, or service.
Copyright 2013, INFORMS
Please scroll down for articleit is on subsequent pages
INFORMS is the largest professional society in the world for professionals in the fields of operations research, management
science, and analytics.
For more information on INFORMS, its publications, membership, or meetings visit http://www.informs.org
Downloaded from informs.org by [155.31.251.184] on 28 September 2015, at 04:06 . For personal use only, all rights reserved.
Vol. 47, No. 4, November 2013, pp. 584602

ISSN 0041-1655 (print) ISSN 1526-5447 (online)
http://dx.doi.org/10.1287/trsc.1120.0446
2013 INFORMS
Addressing the Pushback Time Allocation

Problem at Heathrow Airport
Jason A. D. Atkin, Geert De Maere
Automated Scheduling, Optimisation and Planning Research Group, School of Computer Science,
The University of Nottingham, Nottingham, NG8 1BB, United Kingdom
{jaa@cs.nott.ac.uk, gdm@cs.nott.ac.uk}
Edmund K. Burke
Department of Computing and Mathematics, University of Stirling, Stirling FK9 4LA, Scotland, United Kingdom,
e.k.burke@stir.ac.uk
John S. Greenwood
NATS CTC, Whiteley, Fareham, Hampshire, PO15 7FL, United Kingdom
his paper considers the problem of allocating pushback times to departing aircraft, specifying the time
at which they will be given permission to push back from their allocated stand, start their engines, and
commence their taxi to the runway. The aim of this research is to first predict the delay (defined as the waiting
time at the stand or runway) for each departure, then to use this to calculate a pushback time such that an
appropriate amount of the delay is absorbed at the stand, prior to starting the engines. A two-stage approach
is used, where the feasibility of the second stage (pushback time allocation) has to be considered within the
first stage (takeoff sequencing). The characteristics of this real-world problem and the differences between it
and similar problems are thoroughly discussed, along with a consideration of the important effects of these
differences. Differences include a nonlinear objective function with a nonconvex component; the integration of
two sequence dependent separation problems; separations that can vary over time; and time-slot extensions.
Each of these factors has contributed to the design of the solution algorithm. Results predict significant fuelburn benefits from absorbing some of the delay as stand hold, as well as delay benefits from indirectly aiding
the runway controllers by reducing runway queue sizes. A system for pushback time allocation at London
Heathrow has been developed by NATS (formerly National Air Traffic Services) based upon the algorithm
described in this paper.
Key words: optimisation; stand holding; scheduling; runway scheduling; departure operations; sequence
dependent separations
History: Received: December 2009; revisions received: February 2011, July 2012; accepted: July 2012. Published
online in Articles in Advance December 13, 2012.
1.
Introduction
and the actual takeoff time it will be able to achieve

given the queues for the runways and any takeoff time restrictions. These delays are experienced as
waiting time either at the runway or the stands. The
primary aim of this research is to decrease the amount
of delay at the runway (with the engines running) and
absorb it at the stand (prior to starting the engines) by
allocating a delayed pushback time. This will simultaneously simplify the task for the runway controller,
who has to sequence the takeoffs, by reducing the
congestion at the runway queues, thereby potentially
enabling delay reductions for all concerned.
This paper considers a real problem at airports,
with all of the awkward constraints and objectives
that this can imply. The system that it describes has
been implemented for London Heathrow Airport and
integrated into the systems there. The implementation of TSAT (target start-up approval time) systems
at other airports is already being considered.
London Heathrow is the busiest two-runway airport in the world, with more than 650 departures
and 650 arrivals per day. Despite this, various constraints upon the departure system (detailed in BAA
Heathrow 2007) mean that only one runway is used
for takeoffs at any time of the day. Efficient takeoff sequencing is extremely important (Idris et al.
1999; Atkin et al. 2007), however, the demand for
the runway at busy times can far exceed the possible
throughput, thus delays must accumulate regardless
of the efficiency of the takeoff sequencing, causing
inconvenience for passengers, incurring costs for airlines, and resulting in unnecessarily high fuel burn
and pollutant emissions. In this paper, the term delay
refers to the difference between the takeoff time an
aircraft could achieve if it was alone in the departure
system (and had no allocated takeoff time window),
584
Atkin et al.: Pushback Time Allocation Problem at Heathrow Airport
585
2.
Problem Description
The majority of aircraft at Heathrow are parked at

stands1 around the piers of the five main terminals.
Each terminal has multiple piers and these piers form
cul-de-sacs between them, as illustrated in Figure 1.
Airlines declare a target off-block time (TOBT) for
each aircraft, specifying the time at which it will
be ready to push back from the stand and start its
engines. An aircraft pushing back can block other aircraft from pushing back from nearby stands or from
being able to pass in order to exit the cul-de-sac,
delaying these other aircraft. For example, an aircraft
pushing back from stand X in Figure 1 would usually
block those at stands labelled 1 from leaving the
cul-de-sac, be delayed by the pushback of any aircraft
from the stands labelled 2, and block the pushback
of those at stands labelled 3.
Controllers use these TOBTs to determine potential pushback times for aircraft,2 given the state of
the airport as a whole. After engine start-up, aircraft are directed out of the cul-de-sac and around
the taxiways to a holding area near the end of the
current departure runway, where control is passed to
a runway controller. These holding areas consist of
queues with interchange points, allowing the takeoff
sequence to be modified considerably, as explained in
Atkin et al. (2007).
2.1. Runway Sequencing
Sequence dependent separations apply between aircraft at takeoff, both to allow the wake vortices from
previous takeoffs to safely dissipate (the separations
are greater when a lighter category aircraft follows
1
The locations where aircraft are loaded/unloaded are named

stands. These may be at gates in the terminals or at remote locations accessed by bus.
2
These are actually named TSATs (target start-at times), because of

the conceptual single start-up and pushback operation at Heathrow.
Terminal pier
1
1, 3
2, 3
2, 3
Cul-de-Sac
1
1, 3
Taxiways
The remainder of this paper is structured as follows: The problem that is under consideration is introduced in 2, where the important real-world elements
and problem characteristics are explained. Models
for the takeoff sequencing and pushback time allocation problems are presented in 3, consisting of
two linked subproblems. The solution method that
has been implemented for Heathrow is presented
in 4, where the design decisions are also discussed.
Section 5 presents experimental results, demonstrating the potential benefits of the system, the trade-off
between the solution time and solution quality, and
the effects of the algorithm parameters. Finally, the
paper ends with conclusions that can be drawn about
the potential benefits of a pushback time allocation
system.
Terminal
Transportation Science 47(4), pp. 584602, 2013 INFORMS
Terminal pier
Figure 1
Illustration of a Cul-de-Sac Between the Stands Surrounding

Terminal Piers
a heavier category aircraft) and to ensure that safe

en route separations are attained (the separations are
greater when the following aircraft follows the same
or a similar departure route as the preceding aircraft, and may be increased further if the following
aircraft has a faster speed category or decreased if
the following aircraft has a slower speed category).
The minimum required separation between any two
aircraft can be determined from their weight categories, departure routes, and speed groups, and is
always at least one minute. Eight departure routes,
four speed groups and up to four weight classes usually need to be considered. Full separation rules for
Heathrow can be found in Atkin (2008).
The underlying takeoff sequencing problem has
many similarities to the asymmetric cumulative travelling salesman problem (Bianco, Mingozzi, and
Ricciardelli 1993) and to machine scheduling problems with sequence dependent setup or processing
times (Bianco, DellOlmo, and Giordani 1999; Pinedo
2008, 4.4). However, the separations are not only
asymmetric but they also do not obey the triangle
inequality, so consideration of adjacent departures (or
only the previous city/job in the similar problems) is
not sufficient.
2.2. Flow Control Measures: CTOTs and MDIs
European airspace is often more congested than the
airport infrastructure at many European airports, and
flow control measures are often applied at the airport
runways to control the airspace congestion.
2.2.1. CTOTs. The main long-term control measure is the calculated takeoff time (or calculated
time of takeoff), commonly named CTOT. These
are 15 minute takeoff windows that are applied
by the EUROCONTROL Central Flow Management
Unit3 (CFMU) to aircraft that will pass through busy
airspace sectors. CTOTs apply to around 30%40%
of Heathrow departures. Aircraft that cannot meet
3
Homepage: http://www.cfmu.eurocontrol.int/cfmu/public/subsite
_homepage/homepage.html.
586
windows need to request a new CTOT, and may
necessitate a considerable additional delay (potentially an hour or more at busy times), so this should
be avoided. Extensions to these windows can sometimes be obtained4 in order to reduce the number of
CTOT renegotiations that are necessary. The aim in
sequencing is, therefore, to hit CTOTs if possible and
extensions if not.
2.2.2. MDIs. Increased minimum departure intervals (MDIs) are a shorter term flow control measure,
applied to control the workload of the local en route
controllers by applying increased minimum separations (of up to 10 minutes or more in some cases)
between takeoffs along specific departure routes, to
reduce the number of flights that the en route controllers will have to deal with. Some are planned in
advance (a three minute MDI applies for much of
the day on the Dover route) and others are applied
tactically, as required, potentially requiring late resequencing of aircraft. MDIs often increase the delay for
aircraft on the affected departure routes.
2.3. Takeoff Sequencing
There is a dedicated runway controller position in the
control tower for each of the runways at Heathrow.
The departure runway controller is responsible for
attaining a high-quality takeoff sequence given the
aircraft that are available at the holding area (or
that will be available soon). Given the separation
rules and the takeoff time slots, the runway controller
will attempt to maintain a high runway throughput,
by finding sequences that maintain low separations,
while ensuring that CTOT time slots are attained
(where possible) and maintaining a degree of fairness
between the waiting aircraft. The three main objectives (reducing total delay, equity of delay, and reducing the number of CTOT extensions or renegotiations
needed) are in conflict, as discussed in Atkin, Burke,
and Greenwood (2010), where the tradeoff between
them was investigated.
2.4. Pushback Time Allocation
The complexity of the sequencing operation means
that it is usually performed once aircraft have reached
the holding areas at the runway, rather than when
they are on the taxiways or at the stands. Consequently, aircraft are currently released from the
stands as soon as practical to ensure the maximal
pool of aircraft at the holding area from which the
4
At the time when the data used in this paper was collected, controllers were able to tactically apply five-minute extensions, with up
to four five-minute CTOT-window extensions being permitted per
hour and no more than 20 in a single day, without having to contact
the CFMU in each instance. Five-minute extensions are assumed
throughout this paper, although current operations (in 2010) allow
airlines to request 10-minute extensions.
runway controller can select the next aircraft. However, the characteristics of the takeoff sequencing
problem mean that delay can vary greatly between
aircraft, particularly because of CTOTs and inequity
of demand across departure routes. The aim of the
system described in this paper is to change the current behaviour, without adversely affecting the runway throughput, by predicting what a good runway
controller would do, predicting the delays for aircraft,
and allocating pushback times to absorb more of these
delays prior to engine start-up.
A collaborative decision making5 (CDM) system
has been implemented at London Heathrow (EUROCONTROL Experimental Centre 2005), enabling and
encouraging airlines, ground handling agents, airport operators, and air traffic controllers to share
information so that all are able to make betterinformed decisions. For the first time, this has provided the necessary information from airlines about
when aircraft will be ready to push back (TOBT) soon
enough to be used in takeoff time prediction while
aircraft are still at the stands.
If the runways were running in mixed mode (for
arrivals and departures on the same runway), the
sequencing problem would be easier. When alternating departures and arrivals, there is necessarily a
two or more minute gap between departures. Because
required separations are often two minutes or less
(in the absence of MDIs), it is much easier to find takeoff sequences that attain these two-minute separations
(i.e., optimal throughput) on each runway than it is to
find sequences that attain as many one-minute separations as possible on a single runway. Takeoff time
prediction can then often become a case of allocating
aircraft to generic takeoff slots according to any earliest takeoff time and CTOT. This is the basis of the
pushback time allocation methods that are used at airports such as Munich (Munich Airport CDM Group
2007). Of course, even though the takeoff sequencing task for the departures may be easier, the overall
task of the runway controller is not, because there are
additional coordination issues between arrivals and
departures.
Jung et al. (2011) use a similar approach for
TSAT allocation, first predicting a takeoff sequence
using a dynamic programming approach, then using
this to allocate TSATs, by deducting the taxi times
allowing some slack, although no pushback time
interdependencies are considered. Their sequencing
algorithm utilises the precedence constraints from the
runway queues (significantly restricted in comparison
to Heathrow) and a simplified objective function is
used: maximising runway throughput.
5
European airport collaborative decision making website: http://

www.euro-cdm.org/.
587
Departure metering may be a sensible alternative

approach for many airports, and has been used successfully in the United States (Brinton et al. 2011). The
aim is to allocate pushback times to reduce congestion on the airport surface and at the runways, under
the assumption that the selection of aircraft at the
runway is not so important, although Brinton et al.
(2011) suggested that separate allocation groups may
be needed to handle MDIs and that flight-specific
virtual queue concepts may provide somewhat larger
benefits 0 0 0 0 However, there is a potential for an
adverse reduction in runway throughput at European
airports unless such metering considers the takeoff
sequence,6 because the characteristics of the aircraft at
the holding area (weight classes, speed groups, departure routes, and any takeoff windows) can greatly
affect the throughput.
2.5. Taxi Times and Cul-de-Sac Contention
Earliest takeoff times are required in order to predict
takeoff times, so taxi time predictions are very important when predicting sequences at the stands. The
usual concept of a taxi time refers to the total duration from pushback to takeoff and can vary greatly
depending on the runway queue length and the congestion on the airport surface (Idris et al. 2002). This
total taxi time can differ greatly between aircraft,
because it is dependent upon the takeoff sequence
that is adopted, as well as upon the taxiing speed.
At Heathrow, the taxi time can be divided into three
subcomponents: delays near the stands, travel time
around the taxiways, and queues at the runways.
The solution method in this paper explicitly models both the delays by the stands (cul-de-sac delays)
and the runway delays (from takeoff sequencing), and
requests from the CDM system the taxi duration from
cul-de-sac to holding area.
Figure 2 provides a stylised layout of London
Heathrow, showing the relative positions of the terminals, runways, runway holding areas where aircraft
are resequenced for takeoff (labelled R.H.A., which
have differing sizes and structures, see Atkin 2008),
and the taxiways (the unlabelled lines around the terminals). Note that the diagram has been greatly simplified by omitting the many entrances to the holding
areas from the taxiways, the many runway crossing
points, and the entrances to the cul-de-sacs from the
taxiways. Furthermore, it is possible to taxi straight
through terminal 5, reaching the stands from either
the north or south side.
Once aircraft have left the cul-de-sacs, the structure of Heathrow means that the travel times on the
taxiways are relatively predictable. Because takeoffs
6
See for example, http://www.eurocontrol.int/eec/public/standard

_page/EEC_News_2008_2_DM.html, accessed July 27, 2012.
Northern runway
09L
R.H.A.
27R
R.H.A.
Terminal
5
Terminals
1, 2 and 3
R.H.A.
R.H.A.
09R
R.H.A.
Southern runway
27L
R.H.A.
Terminal 4
Figure 2
Stylised Diagram of the Layout of London Heathrow

Showing the Positions of the Terminals, Runways, Holding
Areas, and Primary Taxiways
and landings take place in the same direction but

on different runways, aircraft enter and leave the
runways (respectively) at opposite sides of the airport. The vast majority of the traffic will, therefore,
flow in the same direction (heading either north and
east, south and east, or south and west depending
on the runways that are in use). In addition, the
majority of the taxiways are paired, providing two
parallel routes for most traffic, reducing the number
of delays by slower traffic, providing potential waiting positions out of the main flow, and preventing
large delays from the occasional traffic in the other
direction or from arrivals waiting to enter cul-de-sacs.
This component of the taxi time is, therefore, relatively predictable7 and is handled by the introduction
of slack into the schedule and by ensuring that the
system finds solutions quickly enough that it can be
reexecuted as the situation changes. Indeed, current
research such as Ravizza et al. (2012) is considering
taxi time prediction and has found that taxi times
at Zurich and Arlanda are remarkably predictable
once sufficient factors have been taken into account
(Chen et al. 2011), and similar results were found for
Heathrow.
Taxi times may be less predictable, or the runway
sequence less important, at some airports (for instance
where mixed mode is being used or multiple runways
are available), justifying a more detailed consideration of the ground movement when takeoff sequencing. For example, Deau, Gotteland, and Durand (2009)
considered the combined problem for Roissy Charles
de Gaulle airport, despite the ground movement problem being both challenging and interesting in its own
right (Atkin, Burke, and Ravizza 2010).
7
The one exception is for aircraft that travel between the northern runway and terminal 4, where a runway crossing is required.
A significantly increased slack should be allowed for these aircraft,
but is only needed when 27R is being used for departures.
588
2.6. Characteristics of the Problem

The important characteristics of this problem and the
differences from previously considered problems are
consider in this section.
2.6.1. Cul-de-Sac Delays Matter. As will be discussed in 5.5, the cul-de-sac delays can affect the
ability to achieve a predicted takeoff sequence and,
thus, cannot be ignored.
2.6.2. Separation Rules Must Consider More
Than Wake Vortices. Downstream constraints (route
separations and CTOTs) at Heathrow increase the
delays far more than the wake vortex separations
(Atkin et al. 2009), however most previous airport
sequencing research considered only wake vortex
separations. Because there are only between three
and six weight categories, previous methods have
grouped aircraft by weight class to reduce the complexity of the problem (Psaraftis 1980). Including
departure routes and speeds increases the number of
groups considerably (combinations of weight, route,
and speed), compromising the effectiveness of these
grouping methods.
2.6.3. Route Separation Structures Are Unhelpful. Wake vortex separations have a useful structure
to the separation matrix so that (ignoring time windows and equity) it is always better to sequence aircraft by weight class, from lighter to heavier aircraft.
Departure route separations are not so usefully structured. Table 1 shows simplified separations for three
routes (taken from the 27L separation table in Atkin
2008 and ignoring the effects of speed groups), where
the row and column specify the routes of the leading
and trailing aircraft, respectively, and the value in the
table body gives the required minimum separation in
seconds.
Good schedules need to alternate departure routes
(e.g., routes 11 21 11 3) and (unlike wake vortex separations) must consider more than the immediately
previous aircraft (e.g., routes 31 11 3).
2.6.4. Total Delay and Equity Are in Conflict.
There is an obvious conflict in Table 1 between total
delay and equity of delay for departure separations,
because the optimal throughput of one aircraft per
minute requires four-minute or greater separations on
route 3 (e.g., repeating routes 31 11 21 1). The threeminute separations on route 3 apply to reduce the
Table 1
Simplified Example Departure Separations

Trailing route
Preceding route
1
2
3
120
60
60
60
120
120
60
120
180
flow on the route because it is so busy, and delays

already accumulate on this route. Increasing the gaps
to four minutes soon makes the delays for these
aircraft unacceptable. Equity of delay is extremely
important in this problem, but large delays are still
often unavoidable on route 3.
2.6.5. Large Position Shifts Are Often Necessary.
Alternative simplification approaches have utilised a
maximum position shift approach (Dear and Sherif
1989, 1991; Balakrishnan and Chandran 2010) and
recommended permitting only low maximum position shifts. Unfortunately, CTOTs and inequity of load
across departure routes means that large position
shifts are unavoidable for the departure sequencing
problem, as discussed in Atkin, Burke, and Greenwood (2010). Furthermore, it was shown in Atkin
et al. (2006) that consideration of more aircraft often
results in a better takeoff sequence (within a 20-minute
window).
2.6.6. Time Windows Are Soft. Hard time windows around landing times have been used in the
past to control inequity, from which partial landing
sequences can be inferred to greatly simplify the problem (Beasley et al. 2000). In addition, these are usually
defined as offsets from an ideal time, so that the order
matches the objective function (Beasley et al. 2000).
Conversely, in the departure problem, the CTOT end
times are only soft constraints, with extensions being
possible, so they cannot be used to directly prune the
search tree. Furthermore, CTOTs are not usually in the
same order as earliest takeoff times, so it is not always
ideal for aircraft to take off in time-slot order. This
means that partial sequences of aircraft are more sensitive to movement in time because they may be good
only as long as it is possible for all aircraft to fit within
their windows. This problem is even more apparent
if time-dependent separations are considered.
2.6.7. Earlier Takeoff Times Are Important. Because partial subsequence costs can vary greatly if
the times are advanced or delayed, it is important to
anchor them in time if an accurate cost is required.
Takeoff times for earlier aircraft are necessary in order
to predict takeoff times for later aircraft, so search
methods that utilise partial sequences have to start at
the first takeoff.
2.7. Scope of This Paper
This paper considers the basic operations at Heathrow
and presents a model for the pushback time allocation
problem as well as a solution method for solving
it. A comparison of the takeoff sequencing element
against a previously designed metaheuristic approach
for sequencing at the holding areas and the real controller performance was provided in Atkin, Burke,
and Greenwood (2009), showing comparable results
between the two systems even with the consideration
589
of the cul-de-sac delays in this case, so it is not

repeated here. Similarly, the tuning of the objective
function toward controller preferences was addressed
in Atkin, Burke, and Greenwood (2010), and is also
not addressed here. In contrast, this paper considers the characteristics of the problem in more detail,
discusses the algorithm design motivations, and provides an assessment of the effects of the various
algorithm parameters, such as the window size, the
number of passes, the minimum and ideal runway
hold values, and the optional use of a presequencing
algorithm.
2.7.1. Steady State Operating Behaviour is
Assessed. For simplicity of explanation and reasons
of space, this paper considers the steady state operations and does not evaluate the effects of the daily
perturbations that have to be handled in practice.
Many perturbations (e.g., bad weather conditions,
runway changeover, temporary mixed mode operations, runway closures, departure route or airport closures, and the application of MDIs) can easily be
handled within the takeoff time prediction stage by
delaying the takeoff time according to the conditions
in effect at the time. Being able to handle such events
was an important algorithm design decision, however this paper concentrates upon the core algorithm,
because an analysis of how well each of these is handled would be very lengthy.
2.7.2. The Static Problem is Considered. This
paper considers the static problem and assumes that
all information is known in advance and is unchanging, so that an analysis can be made of the algorithm
without requiring a consideration of what information was available when. Beyond the scope of this
paper, we note that experiments considering the
dynamic situation have shown that this solver can
handle it as a series of static problems, with three
notable differences, as follows:
1. Once a pushback time has been issued there is
a commitment that the aircraft will be permitted to
push back by that time, thus the concept of a fixed
pushback time and latest pushback time has to exist in
the dynamic problem, even when the associated takeoff time is still flexible. (This requires only a minor
change to the algorithm described here and does not
invalidate any of the discussion or results in this
paper.)
2. There may need to be a preference for previous
decisions to be readopted rather than changed, requiring slight modifications to the objective function in
order to penalise changes.
3. In the dynamic problem, it is necessary to handle situational changes (e.g., MDIs or runway closures) after aircraft have left their stands, in which
case the pushback has been fixed (and passed) but
the takeoff time predictions are still flexible. The presence of these released aircraft may affect the controller
behaviour and this may need to be reflected in the
objective function that is used to predict the takeoff sequence. Note that, although the pushback times
for these released aircraft cannot be delayed, the new
predicted takeoff times will (when appropriate) result
in aircraft that are still at the stands being held for
longer, to absorb the additional delays.
None of these three additions change the core algorithm that is expressed here, merely modifying it
slightly, so they have been omitted from this paper in
the interests of clarity and brevity.
3.
Problem Model
The pushback time allocation problem is divided

into two subproblems: determining a good takeoff
sequence and allocating stand holds that allow the
sequence to be achieved but absorb more of the delay
at the stand. This section starts by introducing the
input data and decision variables for the problem. The
various constraints are then introduced and, finally,
the objectives for the two stages of the problem are
given, along with an explanation for why a two-stage
problem decomposition is appropriate.
3.1. Input Values
A significant amount of input data is both available
and utilised for this problem. This is represented in
the mathematical model by the constants as shown in
Table 2.
3.2. Cul-de-Sac Times and Separations
The concept of a cul-de-sac time is introduced here
as the time at which an aircraft will set off from the
cul-de-sac and head for the taxiways, having pushed
back from its stand and started its engines. Cul-de-sac
separations are easier to describe with cul-de-sac
times than pushback times but pushback times can be
determined from cul-de-sac times (see Equation (1),
explained later).
The MSij separations are designed to estimate the
times for which aircraft will normally be blocked in
the cul-de-sacs and are used to enforce separations
between cul-de-sac times:
If i and j are not in contention (e.g., they are in
different cul-de-sacs) then MSij = MSji = 0.
If pushback is not delayed (or can take place
simultaneously), but j is blocked from leaving until
i moves, then MSij will be small, giving the blocked
time.
If j cannot even commence pushback until i has
moved, then MSij > pdj and MSij pdj will be the
delay after i starts to leave before j can commence
pushback.
In fact, controllers can sometimes change the pushback behaviour to reduce certain delays (for example,
590
Table 2
Table 3
Definitions of Constants
Value
Meaning
eptj
The earliest pushback time for aircraft j. This is usually equal to

the TOBT that the airline issued. In the dynamic case this
could be modified to limit changes to declared pushback
times.
The predicted pushback and engine start duration for aircraft j.
This will usually depend on the aircraft size and number of
engines but could also potentially depend upon the airline
(e.g., for differing operating procedures). For the experiments
in this paper, pdj was assumed to depend only on the type of
aircraft j.
The minimum cul-de-sac separation between aircraft i and
aircraft j; the (sequence- dependent) minimum time that
must elapse after aircraft i has started to leave the cul-de-sac
(following the completion of the pushback and engine start
operation) before aircraft j can also start to leave the
cul-de-sac.
The earliest time at which aircraft j can take off and meet its
allocated CTOT time slot. If j has no CTOT then ecj = .
The latest time at which aircraft j can take off and meet its
allocated CTOT time. Because time slots are 15 minutes and
all times are stored internally in seconds, lcj = ecj + 900.
Aircraft can take off later than this by using time-slot
extensions. If j has no CTOT then lcj = .
The earliest takeoff time for aircraft j, for the purpose of
measuring the delay for j and for determining a
first-come-first-served takeoff sequence. This ignores any
CTOT window or runway queue and assumes no runway hold.
The position of aircraft j in the first-come-first-served takeoff
sequence implied by the earliest takeoff times (etj ) for each
aircraft.
The minimum runway hold for aircraft j. This is the minimum
duration that the solver should assume that the aircraft will
need after arriving at the runway queue before it can take off.
The ideal runway hold for aircraft j, such that any delay beyond
this value should be absorbed as stand hold.
pdj
MSij
ecj
lcj
etj
asj
MRHj
IRHj
Function
by requesting a longer pushback, further into the

cul-de-sac, to get out of the way of another pushback)
but that behaviour is not assumed here.
3.3. Input Functions
There are also a number of functions that can be called
when desired, to request important input values that
depend on the current airport situation or time of day.
These are defined in Table 3.
T D4j5
RS4i1 j5
ptj = ctj pdj 1
(1)
ctj eptj + pdj 1
(2)
ctj cti + MSij
i1 j
s.t. csj > csi 1
(3)
Meaning
The predicted taxi duration from the cul-de-sac to the holding
area for aircraft j. This value will be provided by the CDM
platform, which could utilise either the start time or end
time of the taxi operation in order to improve predictions. In
the experiments in this paper, taxi durations are assumed to
be constant for each aircraft, depending on the aircraft type,
allocated stand, and destination runway, but this is not
assumed by the algorithm.
The required runway separation (in seconds) between leading
aircraft i and trailing aircraft j. This can be a function of
time (allowing separations to depend on the time of day) or
a constant that depends on the pair of aircraft involved and
the runway.
ttj ctj + T D4j5 + MRHj 1
(4)
ttj ecj 1
(5)
ttj tti + RS4i1 j5 i1 j
s.t. tsi < tsj 1
(6)
ctj ttj T D4j5 MRHj 1
(7)
etj = eptj + pdj + T D4j50
(8)
3.5.1. Determining Pushback Times. Because

there is no advantage from pushing back early
and blocking the cul-de-sac, and there are obvious
disadvantages from doing so, it can be assumed that
aircraft j will only pushback when it will be able to
start its engines and leave the cul-de-sac immediately.
This means that a solution system can deal with
cul-de-sac times rather than pushback times, and
determine the resulting pushback times afterward
using Equation (1).
Table 4
Variable
ptj
cti , ctj
csi , csj
3.4. Decision Variables

Table 4 lists the various decision variables that are
used.
3.5. Constraints
The various constraints upon the decision variables
for each aircraft j, or pair of aircraft i and j, are shown
in the following, then discussed in more detail:
Definitions of Input Functions
tti , ttj
tsi , tsj
ict j
Definitions of Decision Variables

Meaning
The pushback time for aircraft j. This is the ultimate output of
the system.
The cul-de-sac time for aircraft i and j, respectively. Given the
definition for the cul-de-sac time, ctj ptj + pdj for all
aircraft j.
The unique position number of aircraft i and j (respectively)
in the cul-de-sac sequence. This determines the order in
which aircraft leave the cul-de-sacs and enter the taxiways;
4csi > csj 5 = 4cti ctj 5. Sequence dependent
separations apply at the cul-de-sacs, so the sequence is
necessary in order to determine the required cul-de-sac
separations.
The predicted takeoff times for aircraft i and j, respectively.
The unique position number of aircraft i and j (respectively)
in the takeoff sequence; 4tsi > tsj 5 = 4tti ttj 5. The
sequence is necessary to determine the required
separations at takeoff.
The ideal cul-de-sac time for aircraft i. Given a predicted
takeoff time, the ideal cul-de-sac time can be determined to
allocate an appropriate amount of the predicted delay as
stand hold.
591
3.5.2. Cul-de-sac Time Constraints. In this model, the allocated cul-de-sac time must obey the following two constraints:
1. Cul-de-sac times cannot be earlier than the earliest pushback time permits (Inequality 2).
2. All minimum cul-de-sac separations must be
attained from aircraft that have previously left the culde-sac (Inequality 3).
3.5.3. Takeoff Time Prediction. Takeoff time prediction takes advantage of the fact that aircraft will
take off as soon as they can, given the three constraints upon their takeoff times, as follows:
1. Aircraft must be able to physically reach the runway (Inequality 4). An aircraft must have sufficient
time after setting off from the cul-de-sac (ctj ) to taxi
to the runway (T D4j5), traverse the holding area, and
line up for takeoff (expressed by a minimum runway hold value MRHj , which may include some slack
time). Note that stands are often closer to one runway
than another, so taxi times and earliest takeoff times
may need to be recalculated if aircraft are allocated to
different runways. This is not a problem for the solution system described in this paper, which allocates
takeoff times to aircraft one at a time in takeoff order.
2. Aircraft can take off no earlier than the start of
the CTOT time-slot (Inequality 5).
3. Minimum runway separations must be maintained between the current takeoff and all previous
takeoffs (Inequality 6). These may be time dependent,
in which case constraints 4 and 5 have to be considered before RS4i1 j5.
3.5.4. Second Stage Cul-de-Sac Time Constraints.
Once takeoff times are known, the aim is to find
a set of achievable cul-de-sac times for the aircraft
such that the cost of deviations from ideal times,
as measured by some objective function, are minimised. The earliest cul-de-sac time can be determined
from Inequality 2, as in the takeoff sequencing stage.
The latest cul-de-sac time that could achieve the predicted takeoff time can be determined using Inequality 7 (which is merely a reformulation of Inequality 4),
where T D4j5 specifies here the predicted taxi duration
if aircraft j arrived at the runway at time ttj MRH j .
Together the earliest and latest cul-de-sac times specify a time window for each aircraft. Although all timings are maintained to one-second accuracy, allocated
pushback times must be on minute boundaries, thus
so should cul-de-sac times (because pushback durations are also specified in minutes). There are, therefore, usually very few possibilities for each cul-de-sac
time within its time window.
3.5.5. The Earliest Takeoff Time. An earliest
takeoff time, etj , is needed to measure the delay. For
these experiments, it was calculated using Equation
(8), by assuming that aircraft j has no cul-de-sac delay
or runway queue. Where a runway change may be

involved, the differing taxi times have to be considered, for example by taking the time for the runway
with minimum taxi time, however this is beyond the
scope of this paper, as discussed in 2.7.
3.6. Takeoff Sequencing Objective Function
The objective function for the takeoff sequencing stage
was designed around controller preferences and was
adapted with the benefit of controller feedback about
the value or weaknesses of various resulting takeoff
sequences. The objective function for takeoff sequencing can be expressed by Formula 9, where values W1
to W3 are constant weights that determine the relative
priorities of the three components, relating (respectively) to the objectives of meeting takeoff time-slots,
controlling delay and controlling positional inequity
across aircraft:
N
X
4W1 C4ttj 1 lcj 5 + W2 4ttj etj 5 + W3 4tsj asj 52 51 (9)
j=1
C4ttj 1 lcj 5
0
= 1 4ttj lcj 5 + 2
3 4ttj lcj 5 + 4
if ttj lcj 4i51

if lcj < ttj lcj + 300 4ii51
if ttj > lcj + 300 4iii50
(10)
The first term (C4ttj 1 lcj 5) is a function to determine the cost of takeoff time-slot compliance and can
be expressed by Equation (10). The values 1 to 4
are constant weights that are used to determine the
relative importance of using CTOT extensions and
missing extensions. Terms (i)(iii) apply, respectively,
to aircraft that are predicted to take off within their
time slot, within an extension, or that even miss an
extension. Values of 1 = 1, 2 = 101000, 3 = 10,
and 4 = 110001000 were used for the experiments
described in this paper: 2 is much larger than 1
to prefer schedules where fewer CTOT extensions are
used, and 4 is much larger than 2 to prefer schedules that use multiple extensions over those where
aircraft miss extensions.
The second term in Formula 9 denotes a cost for
the delay, as measured by the deviation between
the predicted and earliest takeoff times, raised to a
power of (1), a constant that determines the balance between minimising total delay and minimising
equity of delay across aircraft.
The third term in Formula 9 measures the positional inequity in the sequencing, applying a penalty
equal to the sum of the squares of the positional
deviations between the takeoff sequence and the firstcome-first-served sequence.
An evaluation of the effects of the weights was presented in Atkin, Burke, and Greenwood (2010), where
they were observed to provide significant tuning
592
flexibility, even when applied only within the rolling

window. The delay, time-slot compliance, and equity
objectives were seen to be in conflict in the best
sequences and a nonlinear cost for delay was seen to
be useful in order to promote equity of delay. The values = 105, W1 = 100, W2 = 10, and W3 = 5 were used
for the experiments in this paper.
3.7. TSAT Allocation Objective Function
Ideal cul-de-sac times (ictj for aircraft j) can be determined for aircraft such that any hold above a certain
threshold (denoted by IRHj , the ideal runway hold
for j) is absorbed at the stand rather than the runway, using Equation (11). The objective of the pushback time allocation algorithm is to find an allocation
of cul-de-sac times ctj for each aircraft j, such that
Inequalities 2, 3, and 7 are satisfied, and deviations
from ideal times (as measured by Formula 12), are
low. Formula 12, has been designed to apply a nonlinear penalty to deviations, preferring a larger number
of smaller deviations rather than fewer larger ones
and preferring aircraft to push back earlier (increasing
the holding area delay) rather than later (reducing the
slack available for absorbing taxi delays):
ictj = max4eptj +pdj 1ttj IRHj tdj 51
N
X
(11)

1004max401ctj ictj 55101 +4max401ictj ctj 55101 0
j=1
(12)
The IRHj values may be constants or may depend
on the takeoff time (allowing for increased pool sizes
at the runway at certain times of day). They may also
depend on the aircraft types, for example, allowing
more slack for heavier aircraft.
3.8.
Consideration of the Two-Stage

Decomposition
The pushback time allocation problem is solved in
two separate stages, resulting in two simpler subproblems to solve. If there were to be some benefit from
solving the problem in a single stage then the result of
cul-de-sac time allocation would have to have a positive influence on the takeoff sequencing stage in some
way. However, without a known takeoff time, the aim
for the cul-de-sac sequencing stage is not obvious.
One possibility would be to prefer sequences that
would increase the fuel-burn benefits of the system by
maximising the stand hold times. In this case, given
two sequences with identical total delays ( IRH j )
and an objective of absorbing delay over a threshold
value (IRH j ) at the stand, the schedule where one aircraft had the lowest delay (as low as possible below
IRH j ) would be preferred, resulting in schedules
that are both less robust to delays and less equitable
in terms of the division of the delay between aircraft.

Obviously, this is a highly undesirable property.
A second possibility could be to bias against schedules that have aircraft with total delay lower than the
IRHj values (to increase schedule robustness toward
delays) and/or against those that have aircraft with
cul-de-sac delays because of contention, because these
are more likely to be unable to achieve ideal runway
holds. Although appearing useful, this would introduce undesirable biases into the takeoff sequencing
stage, and would bias against pushing back aircraft on
similar stands at similar times. This would potentially
penalise larger airlines or those with larger aircraft,
which require longer pushback durations and consequent cul-de-sac delays. At the very least, the presence and effects of any introduced biases would have
to be fully understood and justified from a regulatory
point of view. Although not practical at the moment
(there is a requirement to avoid biases between airlines), this would be an interesting area for future
research.
3.9. Modelling Assumptions
A number of assumptions were made for this model
and they are listed as follows:
1. Normal pushback behaviour is assumed (rather
than permitting long pushbacks, as previously discussed), to determine the required cul-de-sac separation values.
2. The use of cul-de-sacs by arrivals is ignored,
because arrival times for landing aircraft will not currently be known early enough to consider these when
determining pushback times. Under current operations, such conflicts are often resolved by the arrivals
waiting outside of the cul-de-sac until the departures
have left and the stands become available.
3. These results assume that aircraft can be held on
the stands indefinitely, but this may not always be
possible, even though the majority of stand holds are
relatively low. Stand contention can be handled by
applying a latest pushback time to aircraft, however,
the objective function for takeoff sequencing must
then ensure that stand contention does not prioritise
these aircraft.
4.
Solution Method
Inequality 4 shows that cul-de-sac sequencing must

be considered within the takeoff sequencing process in order to ensure that predicted takeoff times
are achievable. The solution method presented here
decomposes the problem into two separate stages.
In the first stage, a takeoff time and a feasible (but
not usually optimal) cul-de-sac time is determined for
each aircraft. The cul-de-sac times are then optimised
in the second stage, given the takeoff times for the
first stage.

4.1. Overview of the Solution Method

Stage 1. The first stage can be summarised by
Algorithm 1 and will result in a predicted takeoff
sequence, with predicted takeoff times and feasible
cul-de-sac times for all aircraft. See details in 4.2.
Algorithm 1 (Stage 1. Takeoff sequence prediction)
1. Heuristically generate an initial takeoff sequence
(4.2.1)
2. Apply a rolling window through the current
takeoff sequence (4.2.2):
3. for each window position do
4. Optimise the sequence of aircraft within the
window using a branch-and-bound algorithm
(4.2.3). Aircraft are added to a subsequence
one at a time, in a depth-first manner
5. for each aircraft added to the subsequence do
6.
Determine a takeoff time and a feasible
cul-de-sac time for the aircraft (4.2.4)
7.
Calculate a lower bound for the cost of
remaining aircraft (4.2.5)
8.
Prune any subsequence that is provably
suboptimal, record any complete sequence
that improves upon the best found so
far, or add the next aircraft to an
incomplete subsequence
9. end for
10. end for.
Each element is detailed in a separate section, as
indicated. Step 6 involves the most complex task
because it is not always simple to find a feasible
cul-de-sac time. In some cases it will involve solving a
simplified version of the cul-de-sac sequencing problem, using the decomposition described in 4.3.
Stage 2. The second stage involves finding a
cul-de-sac time for each aircraft (from which a pushback time can be determined) such that cul-de-sac
separations are maintained and the total cost of deviation between the allocated and ideal cul-de-sac times
(determined from the takeoff times, Equation (11)), as
measured by Formula 12, is minimised.
This stage is much simpler than the first and has
the following steps:
1. Decompose the problem according to cul-de-sac
contention (4.3), using the takeoff times from the first
stage.
2. Determine optimal cul-de-sac times for each aircraft in the contention group (4.4) using a pruned
depth-first search.
4.2. Takeoff Sequence Prediction
The takeoff sequencing stage has the following
components.
4.2.1. Heuristic Presequencing. An initial takeoff
sequence is generated using either a first-come-firstserved sequence (ordering aircraft in increasing value
593
of etj ) or a heuristic prioritisation method to allow
for movement to achieve CTOTs, ordering aircraft in
increasing value of hj , where hj = ecj if ecj > etj +
300 (i.e., the CTOT requires a delay), hj = lcj if lcj <
etj + 300 (the CTOT requires prioritisation), and hj =
etj + 300 otherwise. The effect of the initial sequence
is considered in 5.
4.2.2. Rolling Window. The takeoff sequencing
stage applies a rolling window through the takeoff sequence, optimising the sequence of the aircraft
within the window (see 4.2.3). The sequence of aircraft prior to the window is assumed to be fixed
and any aircraft after the current window position
are ignored. The first aircraft in the current window
is then fixed, the takeoff time and feasible cul-de-sac
time is recorded, and the window is moved one aircraft later in the sequence, until all aircraft have been
sequenced. At all times, takeoff times and feasible culde-sac times will be known for all aircraft prior to the
current window position.
To allow large positional advancements to be attained when necessary (see 2.6), multiple passes
of the rolling window are applied, restarting from
the beginning of the sequence each time. The effects
of the window size and number of passes of the
window upon the performance of the algorithm are
shown in 5.
4.2.3. Optimally Sequencing Within the Window. The aircraft within the window are optimally
sequenced using a branch-and-bound algorithm. The
initial partial sequence consists of all aircraft prior to
the current window position. Takeoff times and feasible cul-de-sac times are known for all of these aircraft, from previous window positions. The aircraft
within the window are added to this sequence one
at a time (in a depth-first search) and the best full
sequence (up to the end of the current window) found
so far is maintained throughout. As an aircraft is
added, a takeoff time is predicted for it (see 4.2.4),
along with a feasible cul-de-sac time that will allow
this takeoff time to be achieved and that is consistent with the feasible cul-de-sac times for all previous
aircraft. The takeoff time can then be used to determine the amount by which the partial sequence cost
is increased through the addition of that aircraft (from
Equation (9)). A lower bound is also calculated for
the cost of the unsequenced aircraft in the window
(see 4.2.5), and is used to prune any partial sequence
that cannot improve upon the best full solution found
so far.
It is assumed within the takeoff sequencing algorithm that a later takeoff will not be permitted to
delay the takeoff time of an earlier takeoff, because
the resulting schedules would otherwise be extremely
sensitive to any delays for either aircraft. Given this
assumption, the takeoff time for an aircraft can be
594
fixed at the value that is determined when the aircraft is added to the sequence. However, the feasible
cul-de-sac time to attain the takeoff time may be modified when later aircraft are added. Because cul-de-sac
times are not always binding upon the takeoff times,
the aim is to find a feasible cul-de-sac time as quickly
and simply as possible, and only to improve it when
necessary, i.e., we aim to take cul-de-sac delays into
account, but to avoid having to explicitly consider the
cul-de-sac sequence where possible.
The solution method has been designed to take
advantage of partial sequences to avoid repeated
recalculations of sequence costs. It also ensures that
earlier takeoff times are known prior to sequence
evaluation, so that separations that change over time
can be handled (2.6.7). Finally, it relies upon and
utilises the fact that the objective functions can be
decomposed into per-aircraft components and that
partial subsequence costs can be representative of full
sequence costs.
4.2.4.
Takeoff and Cul-de-Sac Time Prediction.
Algorithm 2 (The calculation of ttj and ctj when j is

added to a partial takeoff sequence)
1. Identify lower bound (lbtj ) for ttj , using
Equation (13)
2. Determine the set Sj of earlier takeoffs that are
in cul-de-sac contention with j, (Equation (14))
3. Determine a provisional cul-de-sac time, pct1j ,
for j by assuming csj > csi i Sj
(Equation (15))
4. Calculate an upper bound (ubtj ) for the earliest
takeoff time that will meet the cul-de-sac
sequencing constraints by assuming that pct1j
is adopted as the cul-de-sac time (Equation (16))
5. if ubtj = lbtj (i.e., lbtj can be achieved by leaving
the cul-de-sac last) then
6. adopt ctj = pct1j and ttj = lbtj and end the
algorithm
7. end if
8. Determine the set S2j Sj of aircraft that must
leave the cul-de-sac before j to avoid delaying
their takeoff time, as defined by Equation (17).
if S2j = then go to step 13
9. Let pct2j be the earliest cul-de-sac time to leave
after every aircraft i S2j (Equation (18))
10. if 4pct2j + tdj + MRHj 5 = ubtj then
11. adopt ctj = pct2j and ttj = pct2j + tdj + MRHj
and end the algorithm
12. end if
13. Solve the cul-de-sac sequencing problem to find
minimal ttj and a feasible ctj
14. Adopt the resulting cul-de-sac and takeoff times
for j and end the algorithm.
Algorithm 2 defines the algorithm that is used to calculate the cul-de-sac and takeoff times. The following
equations define the sets and decision variables it

uses.

lbtj = max eptj + pdj + T D4j5 + MRHj 1 ecj 1

max 4tti + RS4i1 j55 1 (13)
i81000N 92 tsi <tsj

Sj = i 81 0 0 0 N 9\8j9 4tsi < tsj 5

and 4MSij + MSji 5 > 0 1

pct1j = max eptj + pdj 1 max4cti + MSij 5 1
(14)

ubtj = max lbtj 1 pct1j + T D4j5 + MRHj 1

S2j = i Sj tti < ectj + MSji + tdi + MRHi 1
(16)
iSj
pct2j = max4ecti + MSij 50

iS2j
(15)
(17)
(18)
Algorithm 2 is invoked whenever an aircraft j is

added to the partial takeoff sequence, to determine a
takeoff time (ttj ) as well as a feasible cul-de-sac time
(ctj ) that will allow it to achieve that takeoff time. The
aim is to find an achievable takeoff time without having to solve the full cul-de-sac sequencing problem,
if possible. Three attempts are made to find a takeoff time and feasible cul-de-sac time, increasing the
complexity each time.
Attempt 1: As long as accumulated delays are high
enough then the cul-de-sac sequencing is irrelevant
for this j, because any cul-de-sac delays will be
absorbed within the normal delay awaiting takeoff.
Attempt 1 (steps 27) involves determining whether
the new aircraft, j, can just leave the cul-de-sac after
all earlier takeoffs with which it has a positive culde-sac separation requirement (set Sj ) have done so.
If this is possible then the takeoff time is adopted and
the earliest cul-de-sac time that maintains cul-de-sac
separations from the aircraft in Sj is adopted as the
feasible cul-de-sac time.
Attempt 2: In low delay situations, cul-de-sac contention is often between just a pair of aircraft. The
second attempt (steps 812) involves a consideration
of each aircraft i Sj , to see whether j could leave the
cul-de-sac before i or not. If j leaving the cul-de-sac
prior to i would prevent i from achieving its takeoff
time, then j must leave after i and the lower bound for
the takeoff time of j may be tightened (i.e., the takeoff
time for j may be delayed because of the cul-de-sac
contention with i). If this new takeoff time is achievable by leaving the cul-de-sac after all aircraft in Sj
then the takeoff time and cul-de-sac time are adopted
as with Attempt 1.
Attempt 3: If the lower bounds cannot be achieved
then cul-de-sac resequencing is required to find the
earliest takeoff time for j (step 13). All earlier takeoffs
that are in cul-de-sac contention with j (as defined
595
in 4.3) are identified and are added to a cul-de-sac

sequence one at a time in a pruned depth-first search.
Each aircraft has an earliest (Inequality 2) and latest
(Inequality 7) cul-de-sac time, defining a time window for its potential cul-de-sac times. As each aircraft
is added to the cul-de-sac sequence, it is allocated
the earliest cul-de-sac time that it can achieve given
the separations from aircraft earlier in the sequence
(Inequality 3) and its own cul-de-sac window. As aircraft are added, the earliest times for the remaining
aircraft are updated according to the minimum separations from the current aircraft, and subsequences
are pruned if any aircraft are left without valid culde-sac times. The search can end as soon as a full
sequence is found that minimises ttj . This includes
any sequence that achieves a cul-de-sac time equal to
pct2j (Equation (18)) or a takeoff time equal to lbtj
(Equation (13)).
4.2.5. Lower Bounds. If aircraft remain to be
added to the current window, then a lower bound L
is determined for the cost of the remaining aircraft.
The objective function (Equation (9)) has three components and a lower bound is determined for each component independently then summed to give a lower
bound for the overall cost.
The first-come-first-served sequence is utilised
for both the equity and delay objectives, determining
takeoff times by considering the earliest takeoff time
for each aircraft and assume one-minute separations
between aircraft. (Note that the delay component of
the objective function is convex and real separations
are at least one minute.)
The nonconvexity of the CTOT cost has to be
considered here. The earliest takeoff time of each
of the remaining aircraft is considered in isolation,
assuming it takes off next in the sequence. All costs
for missed CTOTs or missed extensions are summed
and added to the lower bound.
4.3. Decomposition Into Contention Groups
Let ecti and ectj denote the start of the cul-de-sac time
windows for aircraft i and j, respectively (see Inequality 2), and let lcti and lctj denote the end of the cul-desac time windows (from Inequality 7). Two aircraft,
i and j, are said to be in contention in the cul-de-sac
if they have a strictly positive minimum cul-de-sac
separation requirement (i.e., MSij + MSji > 0) and their
cul-de-sac time windows are close enough that their
cul-de-sac times can conflict, i.e., 4lcti + MSij > ectj )
and 4lctj + MSji > ecti 5.
Cul-de-sac contention is important because cul-desac sequencing (step 13 of Algorithm 2) only has
to consider aircraft that are in contention with each
other. It is also used to decompose the second stage
problem (4.4) into mutually independent subproblems consisting of only those aircraft that are in contention with at least one other aircraft in the set.
4.4.
Stage 2: Pushback Time Allocation for

Aircraft in a Contention Group
Algorithm 3 (Stage 2 algorithm, executed when an
aircraft j is added)
1. Tighten the window for j as it is added to the
sequence, adjusting ectj so that ectj ecti +
MSij for all aircraft i already in the sequence
2. Windows for the aircraft that have not yet
been added are also tightened in the same
manner, because any remaining aircraft must
come after aircraft j in the cul-de-sac
sequence, i.e., ectk ectj + MSjk for all
aircraft k that have not yet been added
3. Adjust the end time of the
window for j so that lctj lctk MSjk for all
aircraft k that have not yet been added
4. Adjust the end times of the windows of all
aircraft i already in the sequence so that
lcti lctj MSij for all aircraft i already in the
sequence
5. if any window ceases to exist (i.e., ectl > lctl ) for
any aircraft l then prune the partial sequence
6. Determine a lower bound for the sequence cost
of each aircraft i (from Equation (12)), as
max41004max401 ecti icti 55101 1
4max401 icti lcti 55101 5
7. if the sum of the lower bound costs for all
aircraft (those in the sequence and those not
yet added) exceeds the cost of the best
sequence found so far then prune the partial
sequence
8. if all aircraft have been added then
9.
Place all aircraft as early as possible within
their time windows
10.
for each aircraft, from the last in the sequence
to the first do
11.
Increase the cul-de-sac time in one-minute
increments while doing so reduces the
value of the objective function. Including
any cost for any pushing of later aircraft
(to maintain the separations), which can
only raise the cost
12.
end for
13.
Determine the sequence cost from the
resulting cul-de-sac times. Maintain the cost
and details of the best sequence found
14. end if.
A search is executed in this stage to find optimal
cul-de-sac times for the aircraft based on the predicted
takeoff times from the first stage. The aircraft from
the current contention group are added into a takeoff
sequence one at a time in a depth-first search. Algorithm 3 is executed as each aircraft is added, to prune
suboptimal sequences or to optimise the times once a
complete sequence has been generated.
596
An initial earliest (ectj , from Inequality 2) and latest

(lctj , from Inequality 7) cul-de-sac time is determined
for each aircraft j. These times are then modified
throughout the execution of the search, potentially
narrowing the time windows. As more and more aircraft are added, the windows for each aircraft may
get progressively tighter and are used for pruning the
search.
The developed implementation calculates and
maintains slack values for each pair of aircraft at
step 9, comparing the current and minimum separations between them so that delays (and cost changes)
can be enforced on later aircraft when earlier aircraft
are delayed.
Despite the nonlinear nature of the objective function and the sequence dependent separations, the
problem decomposition results in subproblems that
are usually very small (see 5.6) and can be solved
very quickly. Finding optimal cul-de-sac times for
a known sequence (steps 912) is also extremely
fast because the objective function is convex, the
cul-de-sac time windows will usually be small, culde-sac times must lie on minute boundaries, and the
objective function (Formula 12) can be decomposed
to consider the contributions of individual aircraft.
5.
Results
Experiments were conducted to determine the

following:
1. The effectiveness of the developed algorithm
in terms of its ability to find high-quality takeoff
sequences within a reasonable execution time for realistically sized problems.
2. The potential benefits of stand holding at
Heathrow.
3. Whether the minimum and ideal runway hold
values have the expected effects.
4. Whether the cul-de-sac delays have to be considered within takeoff sequencing.
Experiments were performed using 36 data sets
containing real recorded takeoff data covering six
half-day periods and consisting of 55 sequential takeoffs each. All aircraft in each data set took off from
the same runway, either 27R or 27L, and standard
separation rules (as described in Atkin 2008) were
assumed to be in operation. The takeoff times of
the first five aircraft in each data set were fixed for
these experiments, providing the short-term history
required for comparability, leaving 50 aircraft (over
an hour of takeoffs) free for sequencing. The supplied data included standard taxi times (for stand
group/destination runway pairs) and cul-de-sac contention information as well as pushback times and
takeoff times. It was assumed that there had been
no stand hold, so the recorded pushback time was
assumed to be the earliest pushback time possible.
Although there is no intention to provide predicted

takeoff times to controllers, the output of the takeoff sequencing element will be used in this paper to
determine the effectiveness of the sequencing algorithm. The delays and CTOT compliances that were
obtained from the various experiments can then be
compared against each other and against those for the
real takeoff times.
5.1.
Manual and First-Come-First-Served

Sequences
Table 5 shows the total number of CTOT time-slots
that were missed across all 36 test data sets and the
average delay for aircraft, in seconds, for the real
and first-come-first-served sequences. The first row of
Table 5 shows the real controller performance and the
second row shows the predicted performance from
applying the takeoff time prediction method (utilising
Inequalities 4, 6, and 5 and assuming no cul-de-sac
delays) to the real controller sequence and assessing
the predicted takeoff times. The third row is exactly
the same as the second except that the delay for the
start of CTOT (Inequality 5) is not enforced.
The details for some CTOT renegotiations were
obviously missing from the supplied data, so a number of aircraft actually took off earlier than their
recorded CTOT would have allowed. Comparison
of the second and third rows makes this apparent, and
the third row provides a closer approximation of what
the controllers actually achieved. Nevertheless, rather
than attempting to guess the reallocated CTOTs, the
original CTOTs have been kept in the data, to present
the solution system with the original problem to see
how well it can do even without any CTOT advancements. Obviously, this will enforce a delay upon these
aircraft while they await the CTOT start time, but the
system will be observed to perform well regardless of
this handicap.
The predicted times have far greater delays than the
real times, but the discrepancy is lower when the start
of CTOT is ignored. The reasons for these high predicted delays are discussed in Atkin et al. (2007) and
Table 5
CTOT Compliance and Delay (s) for Manual and

First-Come-First-Served Sequences
Type of sequence
Real times for manual sequence
Predicted times, manual sequence,
CTOT start enforced
Predicted times, manual sequence,
CTOT start relaxed
First-come-first-served,
CTOT start enforced
First-come-first-served,
CTOT start relaxed
Total number
of CTOTs missed
Mean delay per

aircraft (s)
66
89
50502
79809
87
78708
205
1123204
134
1100504
597
are due to controllers being able to safely reduce certain separations at their discretion. Predicted takeoff
times tend to be later than may actually be achieved
and the discrepancies can accumulate. A live system
for the dynamic problem has to handle this by providing feedback to realign predictions with reality or
by assuming a reduction in some or all separations to
prevent the misalignment of predictions. This realignment is beyond the scope of this paper, which will
consequently underestimate benefits from the system
implementation than risk overestimating them.
The fourth row of Table 5 shows the results of taking the first-come-first-served takeoff sequence and
applying the takeoff time prediction system. The fifth
row shows the results when the earliest CTOT time
constraint is ignored. These results show that the firstcome-first-served sequence is extremely poor, and
hence a comparison of algorithm performance against
a first-come-first-served sequence would not be particularly enlightening.
5.2.
The Effects of the Window Size and

Number of Passes
Experiments were performed using a minimum runway hold of one minute, an ideal hold of 10 minutes,
and a maximum hold of 30 minutes. Table 6 shows
the results of applying the rolling window approach
with various window sizes, numbers of passes, and
presequencing algorithms (Basic shows the results
without presequencing). The better results are shown
graphically in Figure 3. The points for the basic
algorithm and the type 3 presequencing algorithm
470
469
468
467
466
465
464
463
462
461
460
459
458
457
456
455
454
453
452
Key:
451
Basic algorithm
450
449
Type 1 presequence
448
Type 2 presequence
447
Type 3 presequence
446
445
444
Size: 1 1 1 1 2 2 2 2 3 3 3 3 4 4 4 4 5 5 5 5 6 6 6 6 7 7 7 7 8 8 8 8
Passes: 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4
Mean holding area delay (seconds)
Window size and number of passes

Figure 3
Graph of Mean Delay per Aircraft with Varying Window

Sizes and Number of Passes
(discussed later) have been linked with lines to illustrate the relationship between the points for each window size.
These results show that the solution system still
starts to find solutions that improve upon the
controller-produced schedules as soon as six aircraft
at a time are taken into consideration, or earlier if
multiple passes of the window are permitted or presequencing is implemented, despite the pessimistic
takeoff time prediction system. Because a runway
controller is unlikely, at present, to be able to utilise
the amount of information that an automated system
can, this result is less surprising than it may seem.
Type 1 presequencing involved heuristically presequencing the aircraft in order to move aircraft
with CTOTs closer to their likely takeoff positions, as
explained in 4.2.1. Comparison of the results for the
basic algorithm and the type 1 presequencing shows
that the presequencing was very useful for improving the delay and CTOT compliance until the window
size and number of passes were large enough to easily
accommodate the moves required to meet the CTOTs.
5.3. Execution Time
Each experiment was executed three times for each
data set, using a single-threaded version of the algorithm running on a desktop PC with a 2.4 GHz CPU.8
The mean and maximum runtimes of the algorithm
across the various data sets are shown in Table 7
and key mean results are illustrated in Figure 4. This
deterministic algorithm gives the same delay and
CTOT results, with extremely similar execution times,
when reapplied to the same data set, but the execution times can vary greatly between the data sets.
Both the mean and maximum runtimes for the basic
algorithm increased rapidly as the window size was
increased, but subsequent passes of the rolling window can be observed to usually be much faster than
the initial pass, implying that there is an advantage to
be gained from having a better initial takeoff sequence
on the subsequent passes. One potential improvement
could be to change the order of consideration of aircraft. Unfortunately, it is not obvious which aircraft to
choose to add first, because CTOTs, delay, and equity
objectives conflict (see Atkin, Burke, and Greenwood
2010), partial sequences are very time dependent and
the results in Figure 3 show distinct benefits from considering more aircraft for each position when seeking a good takeoff sequence, so a greedy, myopic
approach is unlikely to be successful.
8
We note that the algorithm is CPU bound and that the memory
requirements are extremely low. A faster CPU has been observed
to give lower runtimes, but these were achievable with relatively
inexpensive equipment. We also note that the branch-and-bound
element could be parallelised for multicore computers, if desired.
598
Table 6
Mean CTOT Compliance and Delay (s) for Varying Window Size and Passes
Total CTOTs missed
Window
size
1
2
2
2
2
3
3
3
3
4
4
4
4
5
5
5
5
6
6
6
6
7
7
7
7
8
8
8
8
Mean delay per aircraft (s)
Presequencing
Presequencing
Window
passes
Basic
Basic
1
1
2
3
4
1
2
3
4
1
2
3
4
1
2
3
4
1
2
3
4
1
2
3
4
1
2
3
4
205
97
63
53
52
56
30
22
21
33
20
17
15
27
15
13
13
21
13
13
13
19
13
13
13
17
13
13
13
151
77
60
55
54
45
26
21
20
28
17
14
14
22
13
13
13
20
13
13
13
15
13
13
13
15
13
13
13
16
19
19
19
19
15
15
15
15
14
14
14
14
13
13
13
13
13
13
13
13
13
13
13
13
13
13
13
13
13
18
18
18
18
13
13
13
13
13
13
13
13
13
13
13
13
13
13
13
13
13
13
13
13
13
13
13
13
1123204
80009
68707
66206
65602
61500
54404
52509
51806
54203
49709
48302
47803
50902
47306
46502
46207
48104
45903
45109
45102
46703
44908
44608
44600
45707
44508
44409
44405
1103509
72903
65009
63403
63004
58504
53309
51506
51000
52808
49100
48105
47703
49401
46505
45707
45701
47507
45803
45009
45007
46109
44807
44700
44608
45507
44600
44501
44407
47306
49500
49606
49606
49606
47905
47804
47708
47708
46807
46509
46505
46505
46502
46207
46202
46201
45807
45300
45208
45300
45404
45206
44908
44803
45108
44807
44708
44604
46505
49000
49101
49100
49107
47206
47200
47200
47200
46504
46305
46302
46302
45707
45701
45408
45509
45505
45103
45102
45104
45006
44907
44704
44704
44805
44603
44507
44507
The algorithm was instead provided with a better initial sequence by applying a two-pass fiveaircraft version of the sequencing algorithm as a
presequencing stage. Type 2 and 3 presequencing
involves the application of this algorithm to the firstcome-first-served sequence and the heuristically produced (type 1 presequencing) sequence, respectively.
The effects can be observed by comparing type 1 presequencing with type 3 presequencing and the basic
results with type 2 presequencing. This presequencing
considerably reduced the execution time for window
sizes over 5, and the reductions were greater for the
larger window sizes. For smaller window sizes it also
improved the CTOT compliance and delay, although
the delay was slightly increased for some number of
passes with window sizes 7 and 8.
Comparison of the results for one-pass of a two or
three aircraft window with type 2 or 3 presequencing against the results for the two-pass five-aircraft
algorithm with no or type 1 presequencing (respectively) shows that the two or three aircraft rolling
window actually takes a better initial sequence and
makes it worse in these cases rather than improving
it. This illustrates that locally good solutions often do
not create globally good solutions and provides further evidence that a greedy myopic branch selection
approach is unlikely to perform well.
Given these results, a three-pass seven-aircraft
rolling window algorithm was adopted for the
remaining experiments, with presequencing type 3.
This had a worst-case runtime of just over one minute
and a mean runtime of only 13.8 seconds. Moreover,
the larger windows did not perform much better and
the dynamic nature of the full problem (see 2.7) is
likely to restrict the accuracy of information, reducing
the benefits from larger windows.
5.4.
The Effect of the Minimum and Ideal

Runway Hold
Despite the predictability of taxi durations at
Heathrow (see 2.5), there will always be some level
of uncertainty and this is handled by introducing
slack into the system using ideal and minimum runway hold duration parameters.
Experiments were performed with differing ideal
and minimum runway hold values. In each case the
maximum runway hold was set to be 30 minutes. The
results are shown graphically in Figure 5. Points have
599
Table 7
Mean and Maximum Execution Time for Varying Window Size and Number of Passes Over 36 Data Sets
Mean runtime (s)
1
2
2
2
2
3
3
3
3
4
4
4
4
5
5
5
5
6
6
6
6
7
7
7
7
8
8
8
8
Presequencing
Basic
Basic
1
1
2
3
4
1
2
3
4
1
2
3
4
1
2
3
4
1
2
3
4
1
2
3
4
1
2
3
4
002
001
002
002
003
002
003
004
006
004
008
101
104
102
200
207
305
305
507
706
903
1104
1702
2202
2608
4300
5803
7009
8303
001
001
002
002
002
002
003
004
006
004
007
100
104
101
109
206
303
302
505
703
900
1000
1504
2002
2409
3407
5000
6207
7502
109
201
201
201
202
201
202
204
205
203
206
209
301
207
304
401
408
400
508
706
904
705
1206
1704
2200
1707
3101
4400
5608
108
200
200
200
201
200
201
203
204
202
205
208
300
206
303
400
407
308
506
704
901
700
1108
1603
2007
1703
3002
4206
5409
107
008
006
006
007
004
006
007
009
008
104
201
207
206
409
608
805
908
1608
2303
2904
3706
6300
9001
11603
20701
30405
33302
40801
008
005
005
200
006
006
005
202
009
008
104
208
207
205
403
603
709
907
1708
2400
3001
3903
6604
9307
11907
19606
30001
34407
42102
407
501
502
502
502
502
503
505
507
505
509
605
609
607
805
1002
1200
1102
1701
2303
2903
3109
5708
8304
10905
9101
15401
22804
30102
400
403
403
404
404
404
405
407
409
408
502
507
602
603
800
906
1105
1002
1508
2101
2605
2703
4705
6803
8808
10101
15902
23305
30603
40
35
30
25
20
15
10
5
0
Size: 1 1 1 1 2 2 2 2 3 3 3 3 4 4 4 4 5 5 5 5 6 6 6 6 7 7 7 7 8 8 8 8
Passes: 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4
Window size and number of passes

Figure 4
Presequencing
Window
passes
45
Mean runtime per data set (seconds)
Window
size
Maximum runtime (s)
Graph of Mean Algorithm Runtime per Data Set for Varying

Window Sizes and Number of Passes
been plotted for five different values of the minimum

runway hold (from one to five minutes). The results
for each value of the minimum runway hold parameter have been connected, to illustrate the relationship
between them. The horizontal lines in Figure 5 show
the mean total hold time (runway + stand hold) for
the aircraft for each value of the minimum runway
hold, illustrating that it is independent of the ideal
runway hold value. For any given minimum runway
hold, the vertical distance between the point for the
ideal runway hold value and the horizontal line for
the appropriate total runway hold illustrates the mean
stand hold that was obtained.
These results show that both the total hold and the
mean runway hold increase as the minimum runway
hold is increased (because schedules that require a
lower delay in the holding area are no longer achievable) and that the stand hold decreases as the ideal
runway hold is increased, even though the total hold
is unaffected.
As the minimum runway hold is increased, the
likelihood of a controller being able to achieve the
planned takeoff sequence (allowing for deviations
between actual and predicted taxi times) is increased,
600
600
Total hold with five minute minimum runway hold
570
540
510
450
Mean holding area delay (seconds)
480
Total hold with four minute minimum runway hold

Total hold with three minute minimum runway hold
Total hold with two minute minimum runway hold
Total hold with one minute minimum runway hold
420
390
360
330
300
270
240
210
180
Key:
150
Five minute minimum runway hold
120
Four minute minimum runway hold

Three minute minimum runway hold
90
Two minute minimum runway hold

60
One minute minimum runway hold
30
0
60
120
180
240
300
360
420
480
540
600
660
720
780
840
900
Ideal holding area delay (seconds)

Figure 5
Graph of Holding Area Delay by Ideal and Maximum Runway Hold
but the value of the planned takeoff sequences is

decreased and the controller is more likely to be
able to find a better sequence, utilising lower runway
holds than MHRj would allow.
Increasing the ideal runway hold increases the
average number of aircraft queued in the holding
area, thus, rather than increasing the likelihood that
the predicted take-off sequence will be achievable, it
increases the chance that the controller would have
aircraft available from which to create an alternative,
but potentially as good, takeoff sequence. An unnecessarily large ideal runway hold would reduce the
amount of the delay that is absorbed at the stand and
would risk unnecessarily congesting the holding area.
Major potential fuel-burn benefits can be observed
from Figure 5. Because aircraft actually need less
than a minute in the holding area, the one or two
minute minimum holding area delay results are probably the most realistic. With a (probably excessive)
two minute minimum runway hold, these results
indicate a potential reduction in mean holding area
delay (and idle engine running time) of more than
50% (from 505.4 seconds to 249.1 seconds), even with
these pessimistic takeoff times. Even with an ideal
runway hold of 10 minutes, the mean runway hold
time was predicted to be reduced by more than 27%
(to 366.4 seconds), resulting in a considerable reduction in fuel burn.

5.5. The Effects of Cul-de-Sac Contention
Algorithm 2 aims to reduce the number of times that
cul-de-sac sequencing has to be considered, and was
found to be extremely effective. On average, across all
data sets, the effects of cul-de-sac delays on the takeoff
time had to be considered only around 150,000 times
per data set. Approximately two-thirds of the time
considering two-aircraft contention was sufficient to
prevent the need for cul-de-sac resequencing. Of the
remaining cases, the takeoff time was only delayed
in an average of 30 cases per data set beyond the
delays that were already calculated for two-aircraft
contention. In all other cases, the aircraft could be
resequenced to avoid the contention.
However, when experiments were performed without taking cul-de-sac contention into consideration
within the takeoff sequencing stage, the majority of
cases presented infeasible problems to the pushback
time algorithm. Further experimentation revealed that
some infeasible second stage problems were still generated even when two-aircraft contention was taken
into account (i.e., three or more aircraft in mutual
contention were causing the delays). Thus, cul-de-sac
601
delays cannot be ignored within the takeoff sequencing stage.

5.6. The Second Stage
The second stage algorithm took much less than one
second (almost always less than 150 milliseconds) to
allocate pushback times to all aircraft in the data set
for all problems where a window size of 2 or more
was used. The largest problem size that had to be
considered was eight aircraft, except with a window
size of 1, when the first-come-first-served sequencing was so poor that the second stage problems were
much harder to solve and took up to 1.7 seconds in
some cases without presequencing, and 0.7 seconds
with heuristic (type 1) presequencing. Thus, the second stage problems were solved extremely quickly
compared with the takeoff sequencing element of the
problem.
6.
Conclusions
This paper considered the problem of allocating pushback times to aircraft at Heathrow Airport. The problem involves first predicting the delays that aircraft
are likely to have by finding an achievable takeoff
sequence that controllers will value, then allocating
appropriate stand holds to aircraft in order to absorb
delay at the stands while not preventing aircraft from
achieving these takeoff times. The problem and its
characteristics were explained extensively, and explanations were given both for why the problem differs
from many similar existing problems and the difficulties that many solution methods have with it.
A solution algorithm was described. The performance of this algorithm has previously been compared against an earlier system in Atkin, Burke, and
Greenwood (2009) and the tuning of the objective
function toward controller preferences was considered in Atkin, Burke, and Greenwood (2010), however this is the first paper to provide full details of
the algorithm, to explain the design decisions, and to
consider the ways in which the algorithm parameters
affect the performance.
This paper considers the static pushback time allocation problem. The necessary enhancements for the
dynamic problem were outlined in 2.7 and are relatively minor but have interesting and complex effects
that have been left for future explanation and discussion. Following evaluation of the algorithm outputs
by controllers, this system has been implemented for
London Heathrow. The current tuning phase involves
the validation of the various assumptions discussed
in 3.9 as well as the handling of any lack of predictability in taxi times, pushback times, ready times
(TOBTs), and the reduced separations that controllers
can use at their discretion.
This system considers two separate sequencing
problems, ensuring in the first that a feasible solution
is possible for the second. The takeoff sequencing

subproblem was observed to be the hardest element
of the TSAT allocation problem to solve. The solution algorithm attempts to avoid having to solve
the cul-de-sac sequencing problem within the takeoff
sequencing stage, but this is sometimes unavoidable.
The second (pushback time allocation) problem can
be solved extremely quickly once takeoff times are
known, because the problems to solve are small and
very constrained.
The primary conclusion is that the solution method
executes quickly enough to provide real-time decision
support for controllers, even given the larger-thanrealistic problems that were considered here. Multiple passes, heuristic presequencing, and a smaller
window presequencing stage were all observed to
improve the results.
The secondary conclusion is that there are large
potential benefits from applying a pushback time allocation system. Much of the delay for aircraft could
be absorbed at the stands instead of the holding area,
reducing the amount of waiting time with the engines
running by about 50% for reasonable parameter values. Results also showed that even the application
of a stand delay to only those aircraft with a large
expected delay (for example, over 10 minutes) could
reduce the mean hold time at the runway by more
than 27%. This has obvious benefits for fuel burn
and the associated financial and environmental costs.
It should also increase the resequencing flexibility
for the runway controller by preventing such aircraft
from blocking parts of the holding area. The actual
benefits will depend on the minimum and ideal runway hold times and on the slack that is needed to
cope with any uncertainty in the input data, and can
only be found from tuning the system to a specific airport. Even greater benefits are expected from a tuned
system.
Finally, as has been mentioned, the predicted takeoff times are not provided to the Heathrow controllers, however, one requirement of a CDM-enabled
airport is to provide to EUROCONTROL and downstream airports, early predictions of takeoff times for
aircraft, allowing the overall air transportation system to be improved. The takeoff time predictions
from the Heathrow implementation of this algorithm
have been found to be sufficiently accurate to pass
the acceptance tests for provision to EUROCONTROL
and are already being used for this purpose. This can
be considered a very beneficial and important side
effect of this research.
Acknowledgments
The real data for use in these experiments was provided
by NATS, for which the authors are grateful. This work
would not have been possible without the explanations of
602
the real-world problems by NATS controllers and analysts.
This research was funded by the Engineering and Physical
Sciences Research Council and NATS.
References
Atkin JAD (2008) On-line decision support for take-off runway scheduling at London Heathrow Airport. Ph.D. thesis,
University of Nottingham, Nottingham, UK.
Atkin JAD, Burke EK, Greenwood JS (2009) A comparison of two
methods for reducing take-off delay at London Heathrow Airport. Electronic Proc. 4th Multidisciplinary Internat. Scheduling
Conf., (MISTA2009), Dublin, Ireland.
Atkin JAD, Burke EK, Greenwood JS (2010) TSAT allocation at
London Heathrow: The relationship between slot compliance,
throughput and equity. Public Transport 2(3):173198.
Atkin JAD, Burke EK, Ravizza S (2010) The airport ground movement problem: Past and current research and future directions.
Proc. 4th Internat. Conf. Res. Air Transportation (ICRAT 2010),
Budapest.
Atkin JAD, Burke EK, Greenwood JS, Reeson D (2006) The effect
of the planning horizon and the freezing time on take-off
sequencing. Proc. 2nd Internat. Conf. Res. Air Transportation
(ICRAT), Belgrade, Serbia.
Atkin JAD, Burke EK, Greenwood JS, Reeson D (2007) Hybrid
metaheuristics to aid runway scheduling at London Heathrow
Airport. Transportation Sci. 41(1):90106.
Atkin JAD, Burke EK, Greenwood JS, Reeson D (2009) An examination of take-off scheduling constraints at London Heathrow
Airport. Public Transport 1(3):169187.
BAA Heathrow (2007) Flight evaluation report 2007. Accessed
November 17, 2012, http://www.heathrowairport.com/static/
Heathrow_Noise/Downloads/PDF/LHR_FEU_2007pdf.pdf.
Balakrishnan H, Chandran BG (2010) Algorithms for scheduling
runway operations under constrained position shifting. Oper.
Res. 58(6):16501665.
Beasley JE, Krishnamoorthy M, Sharaiha YM, Abramson D (2000)
Scheduling aircraft landingsThe static case. Transportation
Sci. 34(2):180197.
Bianco L, DellOlmo P, Giordani S (1999) Minimizing total completion time subject to release dates and sequence-dependent
processing times. Ann. Oper. Res. 86:393415.
Bianco L, Mingozzi A, Ricciardelli S (1993) The travelling salesman
problem with cumulative costs. Networks 23(2):8191.
Brinton C, Provan C, Lent S, Prevost T, Passmore S (2011) Collaborative departure queue management: An example of airport

collaborative decision making in the United States. Proc. 9th

USA/Europe Air Traffic Management R&D Seminar, Berlin.
Chen J, Ravizza S, Atkin JAD, Stewart P (2011) On the utilisation of fuzzy rule-based systems for taxi time estimations at
airports. 11th Workshop on Algorithmic Approaches for Transportation Model., Optim. Systems (ATMOS 2011), Saarbrcken,
Germany.
Dear RG, Sherif YS (1989) The dynamic scheduling of aircraft in high density terminal areas. Microelectronics Reliability
29(5):743749.
Dear RG, Sherif YS (1991) An algorithm for computer assisted
sequencing and scheduling of terminal area operations. Transportation Res. Part A, Policy Practice 25(23):129139.
Deau R, Gotteland J-B, Durand N (2009) Airport surface management and runways scheduling. Proc. 8th USA/Europe Air Traffic
Management R&D Seminar, Napa, CA.
EUROCONTROL Experimental Centre (2005) London Heathrow
CDM WP1, EEC Note 03/05. Accessed November 17,
2012, http://www.eurocontrol.int/eec/gallery/content/public/
document/eec/report/2005/003_London_Heathrow_CDM
_WP1.pdf.
Idris HR, Clarke J-P, Bhuva R, Kang L (2002) Queuing model for
taxi-out time estimation. Air Traffic Control Quart. (ATCA Publ.)
10(1):122.
Idris HR, Anagnostakis I, Delcaire B, Hansman RJ, Clarke J-P,
Feron E, Odoni AR (1999) Observations of departure processes at Logan Airport to support the development of departure planning tools. Air Traffic Control Quart. (ATCA Publ.)
7(4):229257.
Jung Y, Hoang T, Montoya J, Gupta G, Malik W, Tobias L (2011) Performance evaluation of a surface traffic management tool for
Dallas/Fort Worth International Airport. Proc. 9th USA/Europe
Air Traffic Management R&D Seminar, Berlin.
Munich Airport CDM Group (2007) Airport collaborative decision
making: Flight crew briefing. Accessed November 17, 2012,
http://www.munich-airport.de/media/download/bereiche/cdm/
briefDescFlightEn.pdf.
Pinedo ML (2008) Scheduling, Theory, Algorithms and Systems, 3rd ed.
(Springer, New York).
Psaraftis HN (1980) A dynamic programming approach for
sequencing groups of identical jobs. Oper. Res. 28(6):13471359.
Ravizza S, Atkin JAD, Maathuis MH, Burke EK (2012) A combined statistical approach and ground movement model for
improving taxi time estimations at airports. J. Oper. Res. Soc.,
ePub ahead of print October 3, http://dx.doi.org/10.1057/jors
.2012.123.

Addressing The Pushback Time Allocation Problem at Heathrow

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Addressing The Pushback Time Allocation Problem at Heathrow

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

This article was downloaded by: [155.31.251.

184] On: 28 September 2015, At: 04:06

Addressing the Pushback Time Allocation Problem at

To cite this article:

Vol. 47, No. 4, November 2013, pp. 584602

Addressing the Pushback Time Allocation

and the actual takeoff time it will be able to achieve

Atkin et al.: Pushback Time Allocation Problem at Heathrow Airport

The majority of aircraft at Heathrow are parked at

The locations where aircraft are loaded/unloaded are named

These are actually named TSATs (target start-at times), because of

Transportation Science 47(4), pp. 584602, 2013 INFORMS

Illustration of a Cul-de-Sac Between the Stands Surrounding

a heavier category aircraft) and to ensure that safe

Atkin et al.: Pushback Time Allocation Problem at Heathrow Airport

Transportation Science 47(4), pp. 584602, 2013 INFORMS

European airport collaborative decision making website: http://

Atkin et al.: Pushback Time Allocation Problem at Heathrow Airport

Transportation Science 47(4), pp. 584602, 2013 INFORMS

Departure metering may be a sensible alternative

See for example, http://www.eurocontrol.int/eec/public/standard

Stylised Diagram of the Layout of London Heathrow

and landings take place in the same direction but

Atkin et al.: Pushback Time Allocation Problem at Heathrow Airport

Transportation Science 47(4), pp. 584602, 2013 INFORMS

2.6. Characteristics of the Problem

Simplified Example Departure Separations

flow on the route because it is so busy, and delays

Atkin et al.: Pushback Time Allocation Problem at Heathrow Airport

Transportation Science 47(4), pp. 584602, 2013 INFORMS

of the cul-de-sac delays in this case, so it is not

The pushback time allocation problem is divided

Atkin et al.: Pushback Time Allocation Problem at Heathrow Airport

Transportation Science 47(4), pp. 584602, 2013 INFORMS

The earliest pushback time for aircraft j. This is usually equal to

by requesting a longer pushback, further into the

ptj = ctj pdj 1

ctj eptj + pdj 1

ctj cti + MSij

s.t. csj > csi 1

ttj ctj + T D4j5 + MRHj 1

ttj tti + RS4i1 j5 i1 j

s.t. tsi < tsj 1

ctj ttj T D4j5 MRHj 1

etj = eptj + pdj + T D4j50

3.5.1. Determining Pushback Times. Because

3.4. Decision Variables

Definitions of Input Functions

Definitions of Decision Variables

Atkin et al.: Pushback Time Allocation Problem at Heathrow Airport

Transportation Science 47(4), pp. 584602, 2013 INFORMS

or runway queue. Where a runway change may be

if ttj lcj 4i51

Atkin et al.: Pushback Time Allocation Problem at Heathrow Airport

Transportation Science 47(4), pp. 584602, 2013 INFORMS

flexibility, even when applied only within the rolling

Consideration of the Two-Stage

in terms of the division of the delay between aircraft.

Inequality 4 shows that cul-de-sac sequencing must

Atkin et al.: Pushback Time Allocation Problem at Heathrow Airport

4.1. Overview of the Solution Method

Atkin et al.: Pushback Time Allocation Problem at Heathrow Airport

Transportation Science 47(4), pp. 584602, 2013 INFORMS