Loughborough University

Institutional Repository

A methodology for planning

and operations management
of airport passenger
terminals: a capacity/level
of service approach
This item was submitted to Loughborough University's Institutional Repository
by the/an author.
Additional Information:

A Doctoral Thesis. Submitted in partial fulllment of the requirements

for the award of Doctor of Philosophy of Loughborough University.

Metadata Record:
Publisher:

https://dspace.lboro.ac.uk/2134/7403

c S.A. Mumayiz

Please cite the published version.

This item is held in Loughborough Universitys Institutional Repository

(https://dspace.lboro.ac.uk/) and was harvested from the British Librarys
EThOS service (http://www.ethos.bl.uk/). It is made available under the
following Creative Commons Licence conditions.

For the full text of this licence, please go to:

http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/2.5/

A METHODOLOGY
FOR PLANNINGAND OPERATIONS
MANAGEMENT
OF AIRPORTPASSENGER
TERMINALS:
A CAPACITY
/ LEVEL OF SERVICEAPPROACH

BY
B,Sc,. M,Sc.
S. A. MUMAYIZ.

submitted
for

the

in

fulfilment

partial

award

Thesis

Doctoral

Doctor

of

of

University

Loughborough

the

of

requirements

Philosophy
of

the

of

Technology

1985

Research

Supervisor:

Norman

Professor
C. Eng.,

Director

of

Research:

FICE,

Professor
C. Eng.,

Department

S. A.

of

MUMAYIZ,

Transport

1985

MASCE,

Fredrick
MIMechE,

Technology.

J.

Ashford,
MCIT,
D.

FIMA,

B. Sc.,
P. E.,

Hales*
MBCS.

Ph. D.,

P. Eng.

B. Sc.,

Ph. D.,

c>>

To

my

wife

and

our

daughter

Sarra....

..:

Y
y

.. .

(ii)

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

The author
*

Professor

Norman

throughout

the

Bob Caves

for

stage

early

Department

the

word

the

for

his

thanks

to:

guidance

and

encouragement

as acting

supervisor

in

the

research.
of Research.
for
Technology

Director

me to use
allowing
to the
like
to extend
I would
my thanks
help
for
their
department
the
and care
of
Vivien
Moore
Brenda
and
particularly

Transport

of

processor.
the

his

participation

Hales,

administrative
during

express

Ashford

his

of

The

to

research.

Fred

* Professor
*

like

would

staff
research,

Grove.

Center for Transportation

of
Austin,
Research,
University
message
with a special
of Texas,
for his support
which made my visit
of gratitude
and interest,
discussions
for
the
to Austin
and
and
possible
and productive,
the continuing
interaction
my visit.
and after
with him during

* Dr.

B. Frank

I would
to
the
facilitating

like

Director

McCullough,

to

research
the

* All

members of
Michael Walton,

thank

him for

during

my

exchange of
to the administative
and Kitty

as the

stay,

use and modification

CTR, Austin,
especially

and Dr. Hani

thoughts.
Special

Tarpley

acting

staff
Collins.

supervisor
external
providing
and
and for
of ACAP program.

Mahmassani,

Dr.
members,
whom I had useful

faculty

with
from
family
thanks
and
me
my
warm
to Sue
particularly
of the center,

* The people who helped and cooperated

the practical
during
work
the surveys conducted:
of the research,
mainly
Simon
former
Hutcheson,
Terminal
Manager
The
East
Midlands
of
Airport.
Louise
Congdon
of the, iDirectorate
and Planning
of Development
International
Airport.
at Manchester
Planning
International
Birmingham
of
- The Director
at
International
Airport,
Richard
Lambert,
and his assistants
Kevin and Jack.

(iii

for
Mathew
Doyle
Sciences,
Department
Human
LUT,
the
of
of
his assistance
in the preperation
stage of Birmingham Airport
survey's
*

Roy

questionnaires.

Bayless,

Austin

Director,

Municipal

conducting

Ed O'Rourke,

and
for

Airport,

(ACAP-Austin

83)

their

help

Assistant
and

cooperation

Tom

and Jef Harris

of the Computer Center
during
assistance
my work on the computer.

O'Brian,

Aircraft

technical

Center,

supporting

literature.

* The Government

of

and
for,

Iraq

for

in

Study.

* Graham Gerard
their

Director,

Airport

Technology

providing

ALSIM

sponsoring

this

of

LUT for
FAA

Division,
program

research.

and

the

(iv)

SYNOPSIS

A methodology
evaluation

is

herewith

presented

of
operational
facilities
of

to

in

assist
the

of

conditions

the

systematic
dynamic

and

vital

terminals,

enhance
could
which
The
for
airports.
planning
and
management
adopted
practices
relation
between
focusses
of
the
capacity
methodology
on
individual
that
facilities
levels
passengers
service
of
and
processing

in
experience
facilities
those
methodology

them,

airport

important

whereby
are

consists

two

Level

main parts:
The first

of Service
procedure.
(Performance
between
models)
be

possibly
service

measures

be used

to

various

demand

are
the

to
by

synthesize

which

framework

Levels

based

their

upon

time,

and

service

resulting

at

method,

Perception-Response

particular

used

in

service

the
for

case

facilities
this,

service

of

to

their

studies

processing

to
response
demand
different
models

are

conducted,

to

facilities

of

may

and

some

that

In

the

could

are

of

variations
Through

derived,

where

delineate

the
airport

at

conditions

levels.

the

service

assess

service
different

be

by asking

derived

to

second,
could

standards

surveys)

perception

that

to
when subjected
techniques
simulation

service

of

relations

passengers

information.

required

presented.
(through
appropriate

passengers
standards

performance
To accomplish

is

established

relevance
of

levels.

to

and

procedure,

facilities,

individual

particular

the

assess

utilized
way

of

of
aspects
developed
The

the
establishes
(flows)
levels

demand

by

accommodated

analysed.
Capacity

and

examined

of

operational

this

they

are

levels

of

terminal

considered.

KEY WORDS:

Airport

Terminals

Level

Passenger

Airport
of Service
Management - Perception-Response
Facilitation

and Facility

Service

Planning.

Standards

Airport
Surveys
Models - Performance

Capacity

Operation
Models

(v)

DECLARATION
----------------------------

The

work

author
in

full

higher

described
except
or

in

degree.

in

this

OF

ORIGINALITY

thesis

where

acknowledged,

part,

to

this

or

any

has

been

and

has

other

carried
not

been

institution

by

out

the

submitted,
for

(vi )

C0NTENTS

Page
CHAPTER ONE: INTRODUCTION
1.1
1.1.1

.............................................
History
of Transport
..............................

1.1.2

History

1.1.3

History

1.2
1.3
1.4
1.5

Preview

1
3

Aviation

of
and

...............................
Development
of Airports

...............

Scope

General

.......................................
knowledge
Available
Insufficiency
of
................
Terminals
Research
Needs in Airport
.................
Topic
Selection
of Research
.........................

4
6
7
8
10

CHAPTER TWO: REVIEW OF LITERATURE

2.1
2.2

Review

of

Literature

Technical

Literature

......................

Research .:...................
Approach .....................

on Academic
Analysis

2.2.1

Statistical

2.2.2
2.2.3

Approach .......................
Economics-Oriented
Approach .................
Theoretical-Mathematical

2.2.4

The Systems

2.2.5

Multi-Discipline

Approach

..............................
Approach .........................

2.3

Approach

Implemented

2.4

Research

Objectives

2.5

Structure

of

Thesis

in

This

Research

.................................
.................................

...............

12
14
15
15
16
17
18
18
19
20

(vii)

Page
CHAPTER THREE: AIRPORT TERMINALS

3.1

Airports

3.2

Functions

3.3

Planning

and Their
of

Airport

Airport

3.3.2

Facility

3.3.3

Demand/Capacity
Parties

3.5

Activities

22

........................

Terminals

25

......................

27

Aspects
and Design
.........................
Terminal
Design
Concepts..................

3.3.1

3.4

Terminals

Design..
Involved

29
o .........

.......................
Design
Criteria
in

Terminal

Performed

Within

33

...................
Operations-

Terminals.

34
...........

.........

0 ....

36 `
39, /

CHAPTER FOUR: LEVELS OF SERVICE

4.1

Definitions

4.2

Factors

.........................................
Contributing
to Service

4.2.1

Qualitative

4.2.2

Quantitative

4.3

Service

Factors

Temporal

4.3.2

Spatial

4.3.3

Econometric

4.3.4

Statistical

Delay:

4.5

Delay/Space

4.6

Level

48
48

.................................

50

..................................
Measures
..............................
Measures
..............................

A Significant

51
51

Measure of Service

.............

Relations

4.6.1
4.6.2

Linking

4.6.3

Processing

.......
.........................
Terminals.....
Criteria
for Airport
Facilities

...........

:............

Facilities

................................
(Servicing)
Facilities

.............................................

46 "
,
46
47

..............................
Considered
.........................

Measures

of Service
Storing-Holding

Summary

...............................

Measures

4.4

4.7

Standards...........

Factors

Measures

4.3.1

41

52
54
55

55
57

.................

61
65

(viii)

Page
CHAPTER FIVE:
5.1
5.2
5.3
5.4
5.5
5.6

CAPACITY

Definitions

.........................................
Interpretation
in Transportation
of Capacity
What Is Terminal
Capacity?
........................
Balanced
Capacity
...................................
Interpretation
Capacity
of Terminal
.................
Summary
.............................................

CHAPTER SIX:

Objectives

6.2

Critique

6.3

Structure

-6.3.1.1
6.3.1.2
6.3.1.3
6.3.2

Systems

72
76
77
80
80

PROPOSED METHODOLOGY

6.1

6.3.1

66

'
....
of

. .................

....................
Current

Practices

.......................

and Description
...........................
Level of Service
Procedure
........................
Collection
of Information...
.........
......
...
Building
Models .............
Perception-Response
Establishing

Capacity

Level

of

Service

Framework.........

Procedure

................................
6.3.2.1
Definition
of Input Parameters ..................
6.3.2.2
Simulation
Runs
.................................
6.3.2.3
Performance
Models
..............................
6.4
Operations
Assessment:
Capacity/Level
of Service
Relations
..........................................

82
83-"

87
8792
93
95
97
100
106
107
107

CHAPTER SEVEN: COLLECTION OF REQUIRED INFORMATION

7.1

Nature

of
Collecting

Information

...............................
7.2
Information
in Airports
..................
7.. 2.1
Information
Collection
Methods in Airports........
7.2.2
Problems Associated
With Airport
Surveys..........
7.3
Data Base for Methodology
...........................
7.4
Capacity
Procedure
Information
......................
7.4.1
Demand Patterns
Distributions.........
and Arrival

109
110
110
114
116
117
118

(ix)

Page
7.4.2

Processing

7.4.3

Number

7.4.4

Other

7.5

of

(Servicing)
Operational

Miscellaneous

Level

Rate

Channels

7.5.1
7.5.2

Passenger

7.5.3

Alternative
Social

Definition

7.6.2

Planning

7.6.3

Pre-tests

7.6.4

Design

7.7
7.7.1
7.7.2
7.7.3
7.8

....................

125

...................
Information
..............
Perception-Response

126
Models

Categories

Types...........
and Facility
Approaches
to P-R Model Building......

Surveys

7.6.1

125

Information

Procedure
of Service
Discussion
on Passenger

7.6

123

and Distribution......

'.........

..............................
Surveys
and Use of Social
..............
and Design
of Surveys ....................
and Pilots
..............................

of

8.4.3
8.5

Simulation

8.2
8.3
8.3.1
8.3.2
8.3.3
8.3.4
8.4
8.4.1
8.4.2

8.5.1

'

Techniques

Macroscopic

8.5.1.1

ACAP

8.5.1.2

ALSIM

Approach

Adopted

in

138
144
145
.......

The Methodology....

..............................

............................................

...........................................

134

136

Overview

............................................
Types of Models
.....................................
Simulation
Languages
................................
Event-Oriented
Simulation
.........................
Activity-Oriented
Simulation
......................
Process-Oriented
Simulation
.......................
SLAM
..............................................
Airport
Landside
Simulations
........................
Academically-Developed
Simulations
................
Industry-Developed
Simulations
....................
Governmental
Agencies-Developed
Simulations.......

131

135

CHAPTER EIGHT: SIMULATION

8.1

129

135

Questionnaires

..........................
Attitudes
Methods
and Scaling
.......................
Characteristics
of Attitudes
......................
Attitude
Measurement
Principles
and Scaling
Types of Attitude
Scales
..........................
Passenger
Surveys
Conducted
.........................

128

148
149
152
.

cx)

Page
8.5.2

Microscopic

8.5.2.1

ECSL

8.5.2.2

SLAM

8.6
8.6.1
8.6.2
8.6.3
8.6.4
8.7

9.1_

East

9.2

Panel

9.3.1

181

..............................

184

............................................

............................................
Simulation
Using
Facilities
of Terminal
Ticket
Check-In
Facility
..........................
Outbound
Official
Controls
........................
Inward
Immigration
Control
........................
Arrivals
Customs Control
..........................
Statistical
Considerations
in Simulation

CHAPTER NINE:

9.3

Approach

APPLICATIONS

Midlands

of
Manchester

Airport

SLAM........

186
189
191
195
197

............

200

OF METHODOLOGY

Airport

Experts

184

Pilot

Survey
Study

Survey ..................

.............................
............................

P-R Models

........................................
9.3.2
Performance
Models
................................
9.4
Birmingham Airport
Study ............................
9.4.1
Planning
of Survey ................................
9.4.2
Questionnaire
Design
..............................
9.4.3
P-R Models
........................................
9.4.4
Performance
Models
................................
9.5
Summary
.............................................

207
211
215
221
222
241
249
253
255
263
278

CHAPTER TEN: CONCLUSIONS

...................................

280

CHAPTER ELEVEN: RECOMMENDATIONSFOR FURTHER RESEARCH.......

283

(xi)

Page
REFERENCES
.................................................

APPENDIX A: P-R

MODELS

APPENDIX B: QUESTIONNAIRES

APPENDIX C:

SIMULATION

LISTINGS

287

(xii)

FIGURES

Figure
3.1

Airport

Terminal

3.2

Airport

System

4.1

Highway

Capacity

4.2
5.1

Crowding
Schematic

6.2

Concept

6.4
8.1
8.2
8.3
8.4
9.1

9.3

Concepts

Schematic
Processing

....................

............................
Concept of Levels of
Manual's
in Airport
Terminals
................

Diagram

of

32
37"

Hierarchy

for

Highways

Diagram

of Level of
Perception-Response

Diagram

of Capacity
Time Distributions

Service

73

....................

Service

Procedure

.....

................
Procedure
.............

Facility
Facility

Processing
Processing

Events

Departures

Events

for

Arrivals

101

MANCHESTERINTERNATIONAL AIRPORT - Weekly

Pattern
..............................:..............
MANCHESTER INTERNATIONAL

AIRPORT - Daily

...........

9.5

Traffic
218
Traffic

219

9.6
9.7
9.8
9.9

225
for

Check -in ................

at Airline
Model
MANCHESTERINTERNATIONAL AIRPORT - Performance
for Charter
I. T. Check-in
....................
.......
Model
MANCHESTERINTERNATIONAL AIRPORT - Performance
for Schedule/European
Check-in
.. ....................
MANCHESTERINTERNATIONAL AIRPORT - Performance
Model
for Schedule/Long
Haul Check-in
. ....................
MANCHESTERINTERNATIONAL AIRPORT - Flow Through
Outbound Official
Controls
......
....................
Groups

187

217

.............................................
MANCHESTERINTERNATIONAL AIRPORT - International
Passengers
Movement Patterns
........................
Times
MANCHESTERINTERNATIONAL AIRPORT - Service
Passenger

161

198

Pattern

9.4

105

192

.............
MANCHESTERINTERNATIONAL AIRPORT - Annual Traffic

.............................................

91
96

Model

for

43
592.

......................
Concept of Events,
Activity,
and a Process ..........
Simulation..
SLAM Processing
Logic for Discrete-Event

Pattern
9.2

Design

Levels

Fundamental

6.1
6.3

Page

TITLE

227
230
231
232
235

(xiii)

Page

Figure

TITLE

9.10

MANCHESTERINTERNATIONAL AIRPORT - Performance

(Morning Peak)
for Outbound Official
Controls

9.11

MANCHESTER INTERNATIONAL

for
9.12
9.13

Outbound

Official

AIRPORT -

Controls

Model
.......

Performance

(Afternoon

Peak)

Model

.....

BIRMINGHAM INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT - Geographic

Location
............................................
BIRMINGHAM INTERNATIONAL

AIRPORT - Annual

9.15
9.16
9.17
9.18
9.19

Traffic

243

.............................................
BIRMINGHAM INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT - Weekly Traffic
Pattern
.............................................

9.20
9.21

244

BIRMINGHAM INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT - Daily Traffic

(Departures)
Pattern
................................
BIRMINGHAM INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT. - Daily Traffic
(Arrivals)
Pattern
..................................
BIRMINGHAM INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT - Questionnaire
Distribution
Stations
...............................
Model
BIRMINGHAM INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT - Performance
(Morning Peak) .......
for Outbound Official
Controls
Model
BIRMINGHAM INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT - Performance
for

Outbound

Official

Controls

(Afternoon

Peak)

BIRMINGHAM INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT - Performance

for Inward Immigration
Control
......................
BIRMINGHAM INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT - Performance

for

Customs Control

.................................

237
242

Pattern

9.14

236

.....
Model

246
247
252
267
268
273

Model

276

(xiv)

TABLES

Table

Page

TITLE
Canada's

4.1

Transport

4.2

Characteristics

Level

Framework

Measures

of Airport

of

Service

of

Service

45

........

48

Terminals

4.5

............................................
Measures of Landside Facilities
Service
..............
IATA/BAA Airport
Service
Standards
...................
Fruin's
Level of Service
Framework for Pedestrians

9.1

Level

4.3
4.4

9.2
9.3

9.5

58
...

Charter
Framework for Departing
of Service
PassengersEAST MIDLANDS AIRPORT
....................
Participation
in Panel of Experts Survey
.............
Level of Service
Framework for Arrivals
and
Departures-

9.4

49

Hypothetical

Airport

.....................
ChannelDepartures

Level

Framework for
of Service
MANCHESTERINTERNATIONAL AIRPORT

Service

Times for

Airline

Levels

of

Check-in-

9.7

Levels

9.9
9.10

Service

.....................
Flight
for Airline

MANCHESTER INTERNATIONAL

of

Operational

Service

for

AIRPORT

Outbound

214

...........

228
233

Official

MANCHESTERINTERNATIONAL AIRPORT / Morning

Controls9.8

Operational

212

Facilities-

MANCHESTERINTERNATIONAL AIRPORT
9.6

210

223

.....................

Check-in

Flight

62

Peak

239

Peak

240

.................................................
Levels of Operational
for Outbound Official
Service
ControlsMANCHESTERINTERNATIONAL AIRPORT / Afternoon
.................................................
Level of Service
Framework for International
ChannelBIRMINGHAM INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT
Level

of
Channel-

9.11

Daily

9.12

Flight
Survey

Service

Framework

for

International

Departure
............
Arrivals

BIRMINGHAM INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT

............
Response Rates for BHX Passenger Survey
........
Categories
Response Rates of BHX Passenger
...............................................

257
259
261
262

(xv)

Table
9.13

TITLE

Levels
Check-in-

9.14

9.15
9.16
9.17

of

Operational

Page

Service

for

Airline

Flight

BIRMINGHAM INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT

Levels

Service
for
Security
of Operational
BIRMINGHAM INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT / Morning

265

...........
CheckPeak

......

269

Levels

CheckService
for Security
of Operational
BIRMINGHAM INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT / Afternoon
Peak
....
Levels of Operational
Service
for Inward Immigration-

270

BIRMINGHAM INTERNATIONAL

274

Levels

AIRPORT

Service
for
of Operational
BIRMINGHAM INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT

. ....................

Customs Control. ....................

277

CHAPTERONE
I

INTR0DUCT10N

1.1

PREVIEW

Airports,

the

points

of
and

parts

subject

the

air

sensitive

components
transportation

of

of

and environment
transport
network,
form

that

nodes

this

research,

and

constitute

vital

and

national,
Fully
worldwide.

indispensible
international

and

regional,

are focal
important

their

understanding
inevitably
more
require
nature
and
characteristics
would
development.
historical
knowledge
their
and
about
evolution
development,
history
Eventually,
and
studying
airports'
transport
history
and
the
of
essentially
requires
of
a preview
systems

aviation.

1.1.1

HISTORY OF TRANSPORT

Transport,
the

in

importance

the

ease with
Historically,

with

various

centuries,
of the wheel
the

horse

exploiting
many

the
of

of

the

word,

signifies
normally
'accessibility';

and more particularly

to
from
travel
one
place
which one can
in progress
is deeply rooted
transport

was the

and using
forces
of
use

another(l).

of mankind,
the
flourished
that
over
and perished
Invention
in different
distinct
stages.

civilizations
it developed

centuries,

sense

general
'place',

first
it
wind
of

revolution
in transport.
and bouyancy
steam

and

of

transport
This

to

sail
introduction

was
the

taming
after
by
followed
seas.
of

After
internal

2.
0

combustion
of

the

engine

technical

human or

animal

capability

over

transport,

mechanized

freed

man from

power

and vastly

increased

sea.

Influence

revolution,

which

transport
land

and

triggered

and

last

the
the

over

earth's
and a horse can

of

navigating

surface
other

Basically,,

a half

and

of

that

man has

faster
than
at speeds
Twentieth
Century
afforded

surface
run.

from

air

avoiding
forms

century

-through
or, minimizing

to

point

geographical

start

dependence
his

on

movement

transport
mechanical
It has given
people

of

on mankind
and civilizations
was profound.
them to change
new freedoms;
mobility
which
allows
to fashion
them on a world
of activity,
scale,
behave
in a way previously
unknown(2).
completely
during

the

their

been

patterns
think

to
It

was

able

to

and
only
move

sail
could
a ship
man the potential

point
barriers

over
that

earth's
impede

transport(l).

transport

been a strong,
and governing
always
factor
demographic,
aspects
on economic,
and geopolitic
cultural,
Transport
influenced
that
fate
civilizations.
progress
of
or
implied
territorial
locomotion,
a means
which
of
without
specialization

would

had

because

be impossible,

transport,

without

local

the

communities

-available
must
exist
on
solely
.
History
has always shown a close
resources(l).
of civilization
because
the
between transport
development,
relation
and economic
importance
from the
in the economic
of place
springs
sense,
distribution
unequal
of;
developed of how to utilize
the availability
require
regional

differentials

in

resources,
material
or

knowlege
and
population,
These
activities
resources.

production

prices,
Modern role

of

goods

and

services,

some
and
and skills,
wages,
by
is supplemented
of transport

means of transport.
dependence
the
on opportunities
available
location
for
business
or for
and
pleasure
to-those
relative
existing
elsewhere(3).

at
their

a, particular
desirability

3.

1.1.2

HISTORY OF AVIATION

Aviation

is

transport

service(4).

directly

are
since

related

airports

role

of

spatial

are

aeroplanes,

activity
Essentially,
and

airports
linked

strongly
in the
established
by accommodating
Aviation

service
of
the

concerned

and operations.
and incidents,
events

with
and their
that

to

a
supplying
development
of

aviation,
augment the

to
place,
them and facilitating

first

history

is

their
series
during

a continuous
and distance

by time
separated
important
formed
that

of
milestones
or so,
past century
in
history.
history-is
Portrayal
attempted
aviation
of
aviation
informaion
based
the remaining
on
part of this
mainly
subsection,
from Kennedy(s).
extracted
Sir

George Cayley

production,.
that

glider,
1852.

On the

other

to

Wright

the

of

and testing
of the
took off the ground

be exact,
managed to fly

Carolina
for

'father

a distance

side
of
history
the

first

fostered

aeroplane',
first
manual,
Brompton

at
the Atlantic,

design,

the

heavier

than

Vale,

Yorkshire

Kitty

Hawk,

Wilbur
when
was made

mechanically-driven
(overall,
four flights

air
in
North

and Oliver
flying
craft
852
totalling

of 120 feet
First
In
the
feet,
59
total
time
seconds).
a
with
of
airbourne
first
time
for
the
World War,
flew
aeroplanes
missions
military
During
from primitive
landing
'airports'
strips.
of grassy-field
in
the war,
mail serviceand after
also
aeroplanes
were adopted
their

first

to deliver
in

known commercial
in 1918-1919,
planes were used
use;
forces
for the British
mail between Europe and Britain

Germany,

Post Office
airmail
and U. S.
regular
established
M.
between
By 1926,
New York
Washington
C.
D.
routes
and
to privatecontracts
were let
operators
and aeroplane
companies
to fly
U. S.
Mail between California,
Texas,
Michigan,
-Minnesota,
and the

East

Coast.

A new dimension
was introduced
of aviation
Atlantic
in an aeroplane;
in 1919 by Alcock
when-the
was crossed
in 1928,
then
Charles
'Slim'
and; Brow_n,
on May 20-21,
when
(a pioneer
Lindberg.,
'barnstormer'
his
in
'mail
and
aviator')
-,

4.

'Spirit

St.

of

Louis',

made
journey

3600 miles,
cross-Atlantic,
Paris Le Bourget(5).
The Second

solo
and dramatic
New York to
Long Island,

famous

the

from

World

War witnessed
the extensive,
the
use
of
as an
aeroplane
the
the
after
war,
end of

systematic,

and

weapon.
effective
the
substantial
and hardware
expertise,

specialized
Subsequently,
technological

advancements,
operational
to
civil
accumulated
over the war period,
converted
rapidly
were
and
Post-war
and commercial
political,
exploitation.
economic,
and ever growing
commercial
climates
saw the birth
of a strong
in
initiated
that
aviation;
air transport
progress
market,
more

the

introduction

aircraft,

jet

of
huge leaps

and

engine,
in
the

long-range

high-capacity
supporting

technologies

of

and many
meteorology,
communications,
navigation,
aeronautics,
and
that made aviation
reliable,
other fields
efficient,
a safe,
air
Rapid growth of international
a popular
mode of transport.
transport
economic

way

viewpoints,

1.1.3

began

that

in

life,

of

shaping

1950s,

the

affected

and made substantial

the

course

of

the

contemporary
changes in social

history(]).

political

HISTORY AND DEVELOPMENT OF AIRPORTS

Airports,

are

servicing

station

the

and terminal

of

starting
for
aircraft,

and

a 21-mile

in

points
the
control

flights,

the

of
center
known
first
They
aviation
operations'
were
safety
and regulation.
transport
when the commercial
of
use of aeroplanes,
namely air
the
first
In the U. S.,
mail,
goods,
and passengers,
started.
(but
first
short-lived)
service,
airline
rudimentary
scheduled
started

in

1914 over

scheduled
passenger
flights
under
mail
where the passenger
1927,
started

the
in

first
the

air

route
transport

contracts,
shared

permanent
U. S. between

often
the

cockpit

commercial
Boston-Logan

Florida,

while

the

first

on
offered
biplanes,
cockpit
in
(6).
But
bags!
with mail
service
airline
passenger

services
in open

were

and Newark airports,

and

5.

by that

year

cities

across
between

service
European
At

128
for
service
with regular
there was scheduled
by 1920,

were 38 airlines
In Europe,
America.

there

London

and

Amsterdam,

Paris,

major

and other

cities(6).

first,

airports

just

were

fields

farmers'

beach
or
'or
packed cinder,
industry
grew and
level

into
they
soon
were reconditioned
strips,
landing
As the airline
strips.
unpaved dirt
were
of aircrafts
standards
speeds,
payloads,
and technical
increased,
lengths
with
increased,
this
situation
changed; runway
for
hangers
aircraft
lighting;
surfaces,
markings,
and
paved
in
the
terminals
and
and service
maintenance
were constructed;
for
gather
hangers,
form of
sheds, or even tents where passengers
different
for,
flight
boarding,
seperately
either
were erected
building.
terminal
in
or consolidated
airlines,
an all-airline
but

longer
more
range,
with even
by
facilitated
aeroplanes,
and more
reliable,
comfortable
accumulated
expertise
technological
advancements
and operational
this
to.
inferior
technically
over the war period,
were
airports

After

Second

new demand.

World

Inevitably,

and designed,

planned
efficient
increase

in

demand's

quality
fleets.

in

terms

then,

in
growth
innovations

they
to

operations,
in
demand.

increase

Since

bigger,

War,

cope

better
be expanded,
facilitate
and
accommodate

were have to
with,

and provide
increase
This
in

better
in

terms

quantity
technological
of the

even more
traffic,
air
in
aviation

technological
have

followed.

industry

service
demand
traffic

of

for

the

was
flow,

standards

of

advancements
Technical

and

promoted

the

great
two-fold;
and in
aircraft

a steady

advances
air

and

transport

industry,

and
reliable,
and made air travel
more attractive,
for
this
the public.
Yet,
made
convenient
as a consequence,
airports
much bigger,
more expensive
more complex in operation,
to
difficult
to build
or expand,
and more complicated
and
operate,

-with.

millions

and millions

getting

accustomed

to

using

6.

air transport
terminals
to

business

catch
development

staged
looked

1.2

for

or

and leisure,
terminate
their

of

airports

Later

terminals

and

airports'
be

will

the

on,

closely

at.

GENERAL SCOPE

After

reviewing
evolution
in particular,
airports

vitality

the

of

the

of

efficient
normally
for

or

whole

can

However,
fulfil

the

air

were

transport,

air

the
travel

needs
market.
lagging

stage-development
basis
ad-hoc
reflecting

such

number

to

of

which

of

responsible
day-to-day

parties
with

of

questions

difficult.

be increasingly

dictated

by

and
industry

aviation
and the desires

airports
de facto

to

appears

have

been

on

an

and
situation
of catching-up
technical
of aviation
standards
with
demand.
But actually,
the fact that the

financial,

contributes

its

of
growth in air traffic
Hence technological
of airports
standards
Planned-growth
behind
those of aircraft.

be

the

would

a system,

another)
to

prove

compatible
industry
and air traffic
time lapse
between first
great
designs,
requiring
particular

Certain

system.
of

and

and
role,
and development
the
Evidently,
-

of airports
was strictly
technological
advances in the

and

with
all
involved,

great
functions,

livelihood,

existence,

and

influence

the

development

usually

trying

mere

transport,

air

of

realize
its

complex,

undoubtedly

followed

to

can

planning,
and management
include
high
a relatively
involved
(in
one way or

operations,

directly

one

the

of

history

and

airport

on the

performance,

that

through

passing
flights.

to

and practically

planning,
and
this
phenomenon.

are raised
the airport
the public-

characterize
1.
Population
of
during
airports
any time

introducing

scale

concerning
system;
air travelling
considered,

or
concepts
specific
implementing
them,

administrative

elements

the

features

following

public,

which

uses

7.

2.

Level

investment

of

that

organisations

in

and

need

planning,

and good

5.

numbers

sheer

system.
These questions

efficiency,
and local

sensitivity

that

performed,

of

utmost

organization,

of

by associated
and
parties
high
degree of
particularly

system

necessitates

economic and operational

3.
Scale
of employment
system,
4. Specificity

the

travellers,

businesses

dependent

activities

and

transactions

of

efficiency,

consideration

on the

and,

visitors,

and other

users

of the

are:
basic

What
fundamentals
that
are the
principles
and essential
design,
for the planning,
should be established
and-operation
of the various
components of the system?
What
in this
are the most relevant
process?
variables
What
should
process?
What
criteria
-

be the
to

strategic

use in

the

objectives

of

every

stage

of

the

process?

Such questions,
aspects of this

that are raised

and many more others,
on differnt
system,
more
need to obtain
apart from reflecting
information
fertile
the
on the elements
also
provide
of
process,
that
ground for
be initiated
research
of
on the subject
could
terminal
airport
operations
and design.

1.3

INSUFFICIENCY OF AVAILABLE KNOWLEDGE

Furthermore,

literature
technical
specialized
was
it was realized
consulted,
that
knowledge
available
was limited
Prevailing
and insufficient.
facilities
practices
of terminal
design
found
be dependent
to
were
that
on three main sources
basically
reflect
thought
belonging
schools
to
of
national
governmental
organisations
associated
with airports,
and exhibit
their
policies,
judgiment
and the personal
of-their
or experience
These-sources
personnel.
are:
when

more

8.

U.
The
S.
based
are
studies
Practices
Authority

Federal

Aviation

on

practical
experience
by consulting
firms
conducted
developed

within

which

strictly

are

officially
published.
developed
empirical
under

not

assumptions
International
have their
practices
Insufficiency

attached

probably

be

airports

is

joint

responsible
for safety

specific

their

that

knowledge
and design
blamed
on

and lack
of terminal

collaboration

of this

have

there

of

aviation

organisations
institutional

been occasional

situation;

more research
fill
to
staged

studies
knowledge.
available

and

1.4

fact

the

of operation,
and protection
left
the terminal
situation
and the
low-priority
elements
of the system.
placed on the airside
of the airport.
However,

adopt

which
of the

some

an appropriate
facilities,
can
in
that
research
of

by

and initiated

motivated

or governmental
(as part of their

and ICAO(9),

to

seem

certain

with

conditions

application.
such as IATA(8)

own practices
of FAA and BAA.

partially
basically

and

institutions.
or research
by British
Airports
and implemented
intra-organisational
for
use and
These
are
primarily
practices

organisations

of available
for planning

methodology

sectors;
industries,

to

that
publications
frequent
sponsored

Administration's

and

either
air

of two
transport
and
with
duties)

associated

and statutory
This
the
environment.
of
landside
the
as
of
whole
The principal

was

emphasis

demands for

should
the
gap

reconsideration
initiated
be continuously
currently

in

existing

RESEARCHNEEDS IN AIRPORT TERMINALS

Realizing

the

great

knowledge
of
and
design,
and operations

need for
lack
of
of

research

to

alleviate

appropriate
practices
terminals,
airport
certain

insufficiency
in

planning,

efforts

were

9.

made in the
direct
to

to focus on this
and mid seventies
subject,
and
issues
to
researchers
of
particular
emphasize

early

importance.
Research

Committee

of Air
Engineers

Society

Transport

Division

in

American

the

for
discuss
to
of Civil
needs
set
up
was
in
terminal
to
that
research
systems
were relevant
airport
Its
to a conference
society(2).
recommendations
were presented
held in 1971,
Federal
which
represented
and local
government,
It
airlines,
air transportation
and
universities.
consultants,
be
in
have
to
stated: " The growth
transportation
air
will
improved
accommodated by greatly
ground
of existing
utilization
facilities.

A major

have to be made to improve the

will
effectiveness
terminal
of our airport
and operations.
procedures
Unfortunately,
it is far from clear
how we should do this,
and we
have to implement
before
the traffic
still
the better
approaches
is upon us.
An effective
therefore
needed
research
program is
effort

included:
now ". Main recommendations
of this
committee
1.
Hardware technology
and new machines are not going to solve
the problems of airport
terminal
design by themselves.
2.
Problems of airport
design,
terminal
and operation
planning,
have to be extensively
in
improvements
because
rethought,
major
the quality
terminal
to arrive
of airport
service
are more likely
from the

reconfiguration
improvements
in current

the

airport

system,
investment

areas

role
-'Potential
transportation
Improving

modern

strategies
of

of

concern
different

network.
forecasting

'demand.
Peaking
problems,
deterioration
of

current

operation.
using

selecting
to be required.
3. Specific

of

than from marginal

procedures
So, comprehensive
analyses
of
for optimizing
techniques
and
appear

and management procedures,

were;
kinds

techniques

particularly,
during
service

of

airport
of

traffic

insufficiency
peak periods.

systems
and
of

in

the

air
capacity

air

travel
and

10.

Spatial

arrangement
dimensions
the
of

terminal

Quality

of

facilities,
service

different

and

by

provided

airport

facilities.

terminal
Reduction

of

labour

of

labour-intensive

and

reorganizing

activities.

Accessibility
-

to

air

initiative

Another

intensity,

services,

was

motivated

by

the

U. S.

Department

of
to

in 1975
where
a conference
was convened
discuss
Capacity.
the problems
Landside
specifically
of Airport
Some of the conference
findings
were(10):
1.
Primary 'emphasize
be placed
and
research
on 'soft'
should
Transportation,

development
technology
landside
systems-

of

the

airport
have
and hardware
Now,
operations.

design,

operation
the 'hardware'.

landside,

' because

sufficient
for use in airport
been developed
of
landside
are studies
needed
and management, so that optimum use

can be made of
developed
be
2.
Capacity
and level
should
of service
ratings
for airports,
and-quantitative
measures should
and qualitative
be determined
for each landside
component.
3.

Data for
they

analyzing

needed to
landside
and other airport
tools,
analytical
proper

where

airport

1.5

are

need to be developed,
level
describe
of service,
capacity,
These data, combined with
functions.
will
increase
the effectiveness
of`

lansdide

functions

management.

SELECTING A RESEARCH TOPIC

Decision
available

upon particular
on the broad

references
contain
1. De Neufville's
2. Horonjeff's
3. Ashford

three
Airport

Planning
and Wright's

topic
subject

of

research,

of+airports

came after
was surveyed.

main entries:
Systems Planning(3),
and Design of Airports(7),
Airport
Engineering(ll).

and,

literature
List

of

11.

The

first,

experiences,
to
respect
handling

subtitled-

provide

excellent

its
of

critical,
various

reference

observatory,
aspects
of the

on the

at

the

on

the

and

methods
subject

with

and sometimes explanatory

its
Specifically,
system.

and number of
of the system,
and unanswered remarks that he raised,
which may open
investigators
in a specific
to pursue
and researchers
documentation
The other
two,
on
a general
provide

outlook

general

look

critical

questions
doors to
direction.

state

current

problems

the

of

art

in

airports,

professional
experiences,
knowledge on the subject.

research,
technical

with

organisational

compilation

of

practices,

and

knowledge of current
and
planning
was observed that collective
design practices
terminals,
are obscured
of components of airport
behind veils
a
support
of empiricism
and cannot
scientifically
and
theoretically
methodology.
consistent
systematic
design
influence
Consequently,
the
that
variables
physical
It

process
research
terminal
although
design of

identified.
At first,
are not clearly
a provisional
for
topic
airport
was selected:
space requirements
that,
facilities.
However,
it was realized
afterwards
input
to physical
the
space requirement
main
provides
the

building,

terminal

it

does. not

have a major

impact

is
to
is
What
conditions.
required
operational
essentially
on
in
demand
investigate
the critical
between
supply
and
relations
design
because
the operations
terminals,
of airport
physical
the nature
should follow
and be compatible
of operations,
with
not

the

would
aspects

Instead

reverse.

be more direct
of

individual

facilities
This

experience.
methodology
conditions

and effective

evaluating
focussing

facilities,

for

of

capacity/level
in-Chapter
Six).

of working

it
requirements,
space
with
the different
to investigate

operational
on the relation
and level
of

work
the

investigates

conditions
between
service
this

of
the
that

aspect,

terminal

capacity

of

passengers
'a
where

systematic
evaluation
operational
of
based on
facilities
is
terminal
that
airport
( described
is presented
of service
considerations

CHAPTER

TW0

REVIEW0F

LITERATURE

intended

Traditionally

to
step
as
a preliminary
literature
techniques
on current
and
of
planning
terminals
It included
technical
airport
was reviewed.

literature

of

previously

professional

nature
topic.
on this

conducted

2.1

as

research

academic

REVIEW OF TECHNICAL LITERATURE

Included

are

approaches

adopted
for
responsible

practitioners
terminals.
Since

as well

research,
design
of

the

design

of

airport

by professional
and

planning

is

terminals

and
organisations
design
of airport

a process

essentially

to any other
similar
system concerned
various
performing
with
human activities
in a particular
it
has
environment,
or
enclosure
been the task of architects.
Historically,
predominantly
at the
first
development,
stages of airport
architects
were responsible
for
different
allocating
space for
activities
and facilities
inside

an open space of fixed

hangers.
With higher
technical
of air
there

traffic,
was

and subsequent
a

change

of
for

size

and shape,

standards,

e. g.,

accompanying

extensions
of
Instead
approach.

airports'
of fitting

aeroplane
the

growth
terminals,

various
and facilities
better
be
would

components necessary
the required
activities
into an open fixed
the terminal
building
space,
off if compositely
designed
for those
and purposely

components

in

13.

the

most

convenient

sophistication
increases
in

increased

With

way.

coupled

of operational
procedures,
it
became evident
traffic,

that

with
great
terminals

airport
to build,

be so big and complicated,

so expensive
to operate,
that they should be very carefully
costly
designed.

would

An

architectural
design
aspects,

airport

provided
more
facilities,
terminal

planni

report

queung,

airports.
that could

Actually,

British

Airports

The

be traced

in

in

four

British

terminals,

and

and 'design of
on planning
Perrett's
source
paper is the only published
(unofficially)
in literature
which presents
practice

Authority's

is
approachthrough
Federal
and

1969

British

American

available
Circulars

airport

designing

for

concepts

and

important
to

guidance

valuable

specialized

planned

the

summarized

and so

and
operational
where more specific
times,
service
aspects
as
were
such
considered,
based
largely
findings
His
and crowding
were
standards.

on a study
conducted
basically
reflects'the

the

1960(12)

and provided
at those times.

architects
Perrett(13)

in

and

specialization

other

approach.

reports.
broad
provide

two

Specifically,

readily
Advisory

and

publicized
more widely
Administration's
Aviation

of

these

and
recommendations,
outlines,
for airport
advice on planning
useful
and design considerations
facilities.
is based upon what
terminal
Most of FAA's approach
became known as the Parsons Reports.
FAA undertook
to set
efforts
circulars(14,15)

a definite

approach based on the collective

of related
practices
the
and the
parties
state
early
of
art
up to
and during
This
by FAA,
included
seventies.
effort,
sponsored
a team
(Ralph M. Parsons Company), airlines
consisting
of:
consultants
(Air
Transport
Association
11 major American
of America,
with
airlines),
Operators
collaborative

and
airport
operators
Council
International).
work

was

published

(represented
The
in

Airport

by
of

result
two
reports:

this
The

14.

Complex:

Apron-Terminal
Terminal

Buildings(16),
Also,

Manual(17).
mainly
often

address
for
planning

Another

space

existing
source

architectural
of

the

for

angle

providing

problem
Blankenship(19),

FAA's

that

organisations

professional

work

that

are

also

and assistance
International
The

guidance

and
airlines
Organisation's

operators
Aviation

in

participated

international

are

by

is

from

the

tackled

that

who

produced

Reports.

Parsons

There

practices.

information

architectural/environmental
had previously
himself

are

terminal
and
gate
approximate
three
Those
reports
requirements.
terminals,
knowledge
and
on airport

supplemented

substantially

U. S.

to

guidelines

provides
which
(airline-related)

is

that

facilities),

own terminal

their

of

Planning

Terminal

and

report(18)
a separate
needs (which in the

airlines

responsible

enhanced

and

ATAA published

to

oriented

of
The Apron

Evaluation

for

Concepts

Analysis

worldwide.

responsible
to airport
Civil

International
the
and
publications(9,20),
information
Association's(8,21)
Air Transport
and
useful
provide
that
is
believed
it
international
but
the
level,
on
practices
they rely on the previously
sources.
mentioned

2.2

LITERATURE ON ACADEMIC RESEARCH

Apart

from
and

practices
subject

approaches,

was also
terminals

airport
to
physical
categorized

literature

technical

reviewed.
and their

design
according

or
to

that

academic

previous
Of interest
planning

professional

reflects

was,

research

research

considerations
The
analysis.

capacity
the respective

approach

on

conducted
with
citings

adopted.

the
on

respect
were

15.

2.2.1

STATISTICAL

Through

statistical

ANALYSIS APPROACH
analysis

of

information,

facts

certain

and

design
or
regarding
various
aspects
of
physical
be reached.
An example of this
operations
of terminals,
could
is a study-by
information
Field(22),
approach,
where he-analysed
from different
the efficiency
airports,
examining
and performance
to measure
to establish
aspects of each,
and tried
a methodology
However, this
them.
approach-proved
unsuccessful
when an attempt

conclusions

was made in the context

of
European
in the
airports

this

work

to

gather

information

from

hope

space
airports'
of categorizing
The abandoning
to their
type and size.
of
according
requirements
this
blamed on the reluctance
approach
was largely
of airport
to provide
because
information,
authorities
of. its
required
Information
nature,
and substantial
was either
amount sought.
unavailable
or unaccessible
did not` feel
to
obliged

various

then,

-or
information

they
for

ECONOMICS-ORIENTED APPROACH

Gosling(23),
termianls
interesting
application
terminals,
considered
those
all
Isoquants
terminal's

and design of airport

of planning
from a completely
different
a- new and
with
angle,
investigated
the
approach.
and
He, explored
Economics
to the analysis
of Production
of airport
by employing
be
Isoquants,
Production
that
may
tackled

problem

of the production
surface
and represents
just
that
the
mixes of inputs
output.
canproduce
.
(for
for the
were then derived
a particular
case-study)
facilities,
based on the premise that
the
processing

output,

product:

the

as contours

or the
baggage,

passengers,
terminal
facilities
costs,.

airport
authorities
furnish
that
of
sort

reasons.

2.2.2

main

to

product

of

the

facilities

is

processed
design
of

Planning
and/or
vistors.
and
" in light
would then be considered
of this
in relation
to input
factors,
capital
and operating
is
and technology
The main criticism
of operation.

16.

the

vast
diverse

amount

of

information

sources
necessary
dehumanizing
of the planning

required,
its
for.
issues

with

its

nature

collection,
to

respect

and the
the
and
passengers'

considerations.
Doganis

from a purely
British
and Thompson(24)
airports
studied
but their
economic standpoint,
use
work was not of particular
terminal
did not consider
to our problem,
it
because
mainly
issues from an operational
planning
perspective.

2.2.3

THEORETICAL-MATHEMATICAL APPROACH

is
approach
derived
principles

This

of
problem
Particularly,
the

mainly
with
concerned
the
to
from mathematics
sciences,
and related
terminals.
design,
airport
planning,
or analysing
Queueing Theory was thoroughly
examined to provide
background

theoretical

for

During
airports
operations.
this
approach to transportation
researchers
Mathematics,.

theoretical

applying

of
varoius
Management

the

methodologies
the
seventies,

problems
disciplines:

of

analysing

application

of

among
was very popular
Research,
Operations

Planning.
and Transportation
Theory
Queueing
Several
research
programmes considered
adopting
for
for
developing
airport
solving
models
mathematics
problems or
terminals
The following
and their
work was carried
operations.
out

directly

to

relating

Dunlay(25)

and

Park(26)

Sciences,

airport:
derived

tandem-queue

algorithms

for

flows.
They adopted deterministic
users'
airport
queueing models
to evaluate
flows through
terminals,
to estimate
users'
airports'
demands on individual
capacities,
and to determine
components.
O'Leary(27)
for,

-the

investigated
terminals'

airport

relationships
facilities.

the

for

branching
-

use

stochastic
facilities,
processing
of

of

passenger

models
derived
and
those
at

queueing
flows

17.

However,

this

universally

approach

recognized
together

complication

proved
its
that

substantially

with
handicapped

practicability

for

2.2.4

This

the
its
in

adoption

be

to

and

unpromising,

was

and
sophistication
mathematical
involved,
theoretical
assumptions
its
hampered
and
applicability
terminal

airport

design.

THE SYSTEMS APPROACH

deals

the terminal
as a complete
with
studying
to define
attempting
components
various
and examine its
involves
the
factors
it
influencing
Normally,
them.

approach

system,
and the
derivation

of

consideration,

a simulation
model for the airport
ACAP and
the
as in
of
case

terminal
AIR-Q

under
research

programmes.
Gualda(28)

describes

factors
important
considered
stag ,s and
in. developing
ACAP model in 1 he University
of Texas at Austin.
ACAP simulates
term' nals operations,
airport
where individual
from
by
deriv
component
analysis
models
are
regression
?d
the

information

An important
from th "ee Texan airports.
gathered
is
later,
in
detail
discussed
here
comment briefly
raised
gut
that
regression
a previous
analysis
abandoning
was used after
tandem-queue
ACAP was
approach
using
subsequently
models.
in
to alleviate
be discused
limitations,
modified
certain
as will
detail

with

more

information

ACAP later

featuring

in

section

8.5.1.
AIR-Q,

is

a time-based
to
ACAP,

principles
control
according
Laing(29)

data
to

to

simulation
but
employs

define
prespecified

the

state

model

very

statistically
of

in basic
similar
deterministic

times,
system at various
loading
information.
and

network
its
description
provides
the
comprehensive
and
of
model
Originally,
this
utilization.
by Calderbank
model was developed
and Kirke(30)
as AIR-Q in 1972 in the University
of Strathclyde,

18.

was furthur
extended
in 1976 as AIR-Q(Mk
II),
gathered
at Glasgow Airport,

then

2.2.5
It

MULTI-DISCIPLINE

would

airport

aspects
of
"developing
can

patterns,
air travel

by Laing

and Gentles(31)
by information

which
was validated
in 1975(32).
Scotland

APPROACH

to
the
tackle
of
more appropriate
problems
different
from
than
one
angle
using
more
Department
Transport
Technology
a
undertook
of
different
investigate
to
research
programme

appear
terminals

-approaches.
multi-disciplinary

that

and improved

included:
that
terminal
airport
environment,
a more flexible
approach to the design of terminals,
demand levels
different
and
successfully
accommodate
term changes in the demand-for
and can adapt to longer
the

from such
The research
team included
experts
disciplines
Economics,
Mathematics/Statistics,
as;
Architecture/Ergonomics,
Research,
Operations
and Transportation
"(33).

Planning,

The research
terminal
airport

total

did

programme
simulation

not

model,

on developing

work
yet

it

the
that
objective,
of analysing
hence providing
system(34),
and valuable
genuine
back
that
many aspects
of that
system
would
to the
Throughout
systematic
approach
problem.

more

worthy

reports

LUT

of

Airport

Research

referenced,
and information
in this
methodology.

2.3

only

is

contained

a
accomplished
total
airport
information

on

a
and support
thesis,
this
are

frequently

occasionally

used

APPROACH IMPLEMENTED IN THIS RESEARCH

Attention
review

they

Programme

is

drawn

mentioned
distinguished

at
so far
ones

this

stage

does not
relevant

to

the

fact

represent
all
to progress

that
citings
of

literature
found,

research,

but
and

19.

implements.

it

approach

the

as
main subject
topics
are continuously

regarding
supporting

implemented

The

approach
learned
lessons

and

and

professional

citings
and

referenced.
this

conclusions

from

benefiting

research,
drawn

reviewing

after

literature,

on
for

emphasizes
valid

and scientifically
efficiency
of terminal

operational

assessing

many
peripherial

other

as

well

academic-related

a practical

establishing

by

thesis

this

Throughout

methodology

components.

that
adopted
programmes
research
most previous
was noted
developing
themselves
on
the
approach,
exhausted
systems
time
and
of
amount
considerable
and
allocated
models
simulation
Particularly,
the
to
models.
of
validation
studies
resources
data
the
of extensive
those studies
mounting
essentially
require
It

that

collection
elements
developing

to

efforts
of the models.

information

sufficient
provide
the research
Eventually,

a methodology

that

the

implements

on

stopped

systems

short

approach

of
aparatus
simulation
model as the major executive
these
in
In
sophisticated
effect,
other words,
methodology.
they
that
to
developed
work,
tools
show
only
were
effective
the
to
in
framework
them
purpose
to actually
achieve
a
use
uses the

which

2.4

they

were

initially

all
of
and
the
and
not
for

created.

RESEARCHOBJECTIVES

Finalized

objectives
facts:

following

of

this

research

are

sought

in

light

of the

the
that
realized
was
of
problem:
does not bear any real
title
provisional
of space requirements
is really
in the problem,
for
the crux of it
of
significance
facilities,
for various
rather
assessing
operational
efficiency
is
'dummy
than considering
that
static
a
such
variable'
as space
in nature
of
compared to the dynamic operational
characteristics
1.

The

the

system

real

issue

as a whole.

the

It

20.

2.

Establishing
to

utilized

level

calibrate

service

of

and measure

to passengers,
provided
major part of the work.
3. The other major part is devising
of service

capacity
of facilities
4. - The human element

framework

clearly
of the

be
could
by means

that

conditions
operational
is considered
where this
a mechanism

and on realistic
system ought to

as a
define

that could
basis.

be put into
proper
the
be
on
placed
perspective,
where greater
should
emphasize
to setting
their
standards.
contribution
service
of passengers
5.
terminal-related
In
the
absence
of
airport
unified
terminologies,
an effort
concepts,
and approaches,
practices,
help
in the direction
that would eventually
should be attempted
in

developing

a process

of

and

planning

airport

of

management

terminals.

2.5

STRUCTURE OF THESIS

This

thesis

stages

is

in

arranged

and components

of

order

a sequencial

chapter
provides
an introduction
its broadest
perspective,
chapter
while this
important
literature
the relevant
covering

Chapter
their

research

Three
function,

involved
aspects
design,
Chapters
and basic

with

previously

gives

full'

activities
their

operation.

description
performed
Also,

considered,
particularly
and demand/capacity
criteria
and Five,

principles

and capacity,
description
of

of

the

subject

from

methodology.

the

a review of
the subject

presents
of

parts

of airport
in
them,

which

terminals,
parties

and

more specific
design concepts,

planning
facility

adopted.

are concerned
with
the important
issues

respectively,

to

conducted.

are

Four

represents

research.

The first

and similar

that

serve

knowledge

background
of
as

levels
a

of

prelude

service
to the

21.

The remaining

to the methodology
chapters
are directly
related
Chapter
description
Six provides
detailed
of

consideration.
features,
steps,
by its

outlined
Chapter

the

of

proposed

Chapter

discusses

Eight
element

capacity

as

of data acquisition
the
methodology,

the

of

issues
research,

on simulation,
and particularly

and
and

which constitutes
important
in

a
the

procedure.

chapter

methodology
various

methodology

all

two procedures.

elaborates
on the subject
information
in
of
required
its data base.

constituting

In

elements

Seven

collection

vital

and

in

Nine,
is

'case
presented,
aspects

practical

Chapters

Ten

significance
recommendations

studies

and
of

Eleven

adopting
for furthur

to

together

test

the

with

of'methodology

the
and

implementation.

the

-summarise
this
methodology,
research,

of

applicability
findings,
results,

conclusions

respectively.

and

and

provide

the
some

CHAPTERTHREE

AIRP0RTTERMINALS

3.1

AIRPORTS AND THEIR

TERMINALS

An area of land or
the landing
is used or intended
and
to be used for
facilities,
buildings
its
includes
take-off
and
of aircraft,
and
this
to
be
its
However,
if any ".
restricted
not
could
role
the
description.
throughout
Since its
technical
and
evolution
had
its
development,
acquired
the
of
airport
stages
is

An airport
water that

defined

as: "

by Campbell(35)

technically

diverse,

The

roles.

sensitive
it
is not merely a
is
in
environmnent
airport
unique
many ways;
but
a
functional
transportation
rather
system,
element
of a
ingredients
cityof a small
system that
contains
all
major
its domicile
around a
centered
mainly excepting
components - all

multi-purpose,

nuclear

activity;

administrative,
activities

air

factors

social,

administrative
be considered
narrowly
incomplete

that

are
structures
initiated,
are
are

they

institutional,

political

Organizational,

travel.

and operational
the
within
system

by
sustained
transport-oriented;

as

part
of
in which

system
to aviation
system

issues,

,
defined

the
they

managerial,
quite

be
or

exist,

nor even
by transportation

or
or

aviation

commercial-financial,
From
environmental.

suggested
total

and

complex,

motivated,

necessarily

not

may

political,
Wiley(6)

viewpoint,

and

that:

social,
and
to the

" Airports

an

must

and
economic,
not be relegated

wider
issues
".

but

still

23.

Cl

De

Neufville(3)

tackled

incorporating
are part
important

more than

of

a complex
elements

this

from

subject

one view,

where

economic and social

infrastructure
the
of

he argued
system,
of
development.

angle
wider
that airports

and constitute
that
a nation

fulfil
They
and
speed
pattern
of regional
c
broad
in the transport
a
and
perform
a complex role
network,
facilities
different
and
through
services,
spectrum
of
many
the nature
Moreover,
to a wide variety
organisations,
of users.
daily,
but
has
involved
is
activities
stable
not
and mix of
influence

and seasonal

weekly,

peaks

for

of traffic-

kinds

different

The airport
air transport

terminal

plays

but

a unique
Campbell(35)

decisive

role

the
within
fact in
this
is the
" It

ackowledged
system,
and
building:
his definition
terminal
of the passenger
in the terminal
focal
that
of the airport
portion
area,
point
around which all
area,
other than landing
and has a key function
the

defined

Horonjeff(36)

system for
which

is

passengers
Operationally,

the

modes,
termination

the

located

passenger

between

interface
to

proc ess

terminal

passenger
between

and baggage
airport
centres
This,

terminal

kerbside
.
takes
processing
terminals

the

the

passenger
tr0ip,
transport
the

simply
and

the

and

to

aircraft.
"building

or
which

place.

are

large

for

as -the
apron
withij

considered
high
comparatively

with
the recent

as the major
the purpose of
and the
aircraft

system

of an air
and baggage to and from

passenger

defines

facilities

users(37).

or

".

must be planned

ground access and-aircraft,

provide

access

origination
convey the

transport

the

connecting
to

airport

IATA(8)

functions

supporting

other

increases

as high

activity

throughput
in

air

of

passenger

different
to provide
and needs of
various
parties
that
to accommodate and serve this
demand,
requires
in size,
these facilities
in numbers,
and
are larger
greater
diverse
in nature,
significantly
purpose,
and characteristics,

volumes,
facilities

24.

than

they

used to

be.

shippers,
air
host

and consignees
movements, by carriers
of

companies
or
to
airports

supplies

Along

patrons.

with
diverse

these

offering

focal

community
education(6).
undoubtedly

are used by people,

between ground and
as interchange
points
by
the
transportation,
a
and
providing

Particularly,

airports

and
services
agencies
essential
providing
themselves
and
as well
as to carriers
demands and
these intrinsic
accommodating
important
become
has
services,
airports
for

points
Operations

passenger

complex;
flows smoothly,

effectively

managing

business,

associated

with

are

system
high

such

air
of time,

significantly
and in short periods

accommodating
safely,

and

recreation,

of the users,
needs and requirements
in this
involved
operations,
and parties
system's
the well-being
of the system as an
and progress

organisations,
and retaining

the

economic and organisational

is becoming increasingly
increases

entity,
difficult.

is

inevitably

and

complicated

demand for air travel,

the introduction
high-capacity
of
of
complexity
wide-bodied
and
"aircrafts,
from imposing
new
passenger
processing
and servicing
resulting
high
increasingly
terminals
and
practices,
regulations
under
put
for
Consequently,
there
necessity
pressure.
urgent
was an
Substantial

expanding
ones.
facilities

in

and improving
existing
New terminals
had to be
for

sophisticated

the

terminals,
much

convenience

in

passenger
diverse
and

and
larger

and comfort
and baggage handling

building
different

with
of

new
more

users,

and
In

operations,

to all
more
users.
services
extended
terminals
became much more expensive
to build,
economic terms,
both in terms of total
airport
of total
cost,
or as percentage
Apart from contributing
to operating
cost.
costs,
repercussions
lists
in operating
long
are clearly
recognized
of
airports;
provide

requirements
the system,
parties
dilemma
to

for

facilities,

equipment,

and other

essentials

and an army of specialized

personnel
This
needed to run the
system.
situation
the air transport
within
system,
and imposed

planners,

designers,

and operators

of

airports;

of

all

of
the

created
a challenge
To cope with

25.

upgrade the
simultaneously,
and almost
of the airport
provides
expansion
and the subsequent
demand. According
terminal
that would properly
accommodate future
how
is
to De Neufville(3)
The
can we accommodate
challenge
:"
be
We
to
in the most rational
humane
this expansion
want
way?
and
in
in
for
the
choosing
service,
anticipating
rational
requests
kinds
different
facilities
to
the right
of
serve
combination
of

the

current
it
services

situation,

humane
be
We
to
want
using resources
efficiently.
for
demands
in
the
conflicting
understanding
and mediating
to
in
in
transport
as
so
growth
various
services
channelling
air
different
in
the
societal
meeting
environment,
and
preserve
and in

traffic,

".

objectives

FUNCTIONS OF AIRPORT TERMINALS

3.2

Generally,

facilitate
terminals
airport
for many users;
and operations
arriving
travellers
multi-lingual
on international
business
off

their

several

functions
order

and

and
regulations
different
between
functions
Ashford(l1)
performs

could

Provision

acting

follow

be viewed

which
adopted,
and locations.
from

as

continuously

of passengers
the

procedure

a particular

practices
times

for

and

no luggage,

different

the passenger
viewed
three main functions;

1. Processing
2.

with

flights....

specific

passengers,
flights,
commuters

or sending
greeting
visitors
holiday-makers
on
friends,
and
relatives
and
terminals
perform
Analytically,
airport
into
a
that
all
put
are
simultaneously,

passengers
travelling

chartered

of services
transfers,

range

a wide

a
regulatory
then processing

vary
these

significantly
Nonetheless,

standpoints.

terminal

as

the

which

system

baggage.

and their

requirements

to

according

of

reservoir
them into

change

of movement

collecting
batches or vice

type

by

passengers
versa.

26.

3.

Facilitating

trips,

through

terminal
In

a change of
the physical
to

according

mode between
movement

prescribed

access
and surface
inside
the
passengers

air

of

movement patterns.

terminals
the
are
words,
main functions
of passenger
(in reservoirs),
holding
processing,
and facilitating
movements
In addition,
and circulation.
and miscellaneous
other
minor
functions
to
but they
only
contribute
are also
required,
will
" To function
comfort,
convenience,
and safety
of passengers.
other

smoothly
and
be associated
in

these

to

and

support

numerous
"(11).
areas

another
view
one :" The purpose of
is to:

adopted

the previous
(air terminal)

level

premium

travel,

air

with

primary

Horonjeff(7)

the

ensure

of service
facilities

that
are

should

necessary

to
in principles
very similar
handling
the passenger
system

1. Interface

with the passenger's

access,
mode of airport
for starting
2. Process the passenger
and,
or ending an air trip,
"
3. Convey the passenger
to and from the aircraft.
is
Hence the
three
access
system
composed of
parts :
major
interface,
interface.
processing,
and flight
Campbell(35)

functions

the

viewed

to

accommodate and provide

1. Airlines
operations.
for

2. Facilities
3. Offices

for

a
terminals'
1. Direct

primarily
provided
Airline-related
2.
baggage

claim.

as merely

passengers.

of government

functions

purely
operational
functions
as:
passenger

of

terminals

airport

management.

functions

Non-aeronautical

From

convenience

airport

4. Aeronautical
5.

the

space

of
for:

of

agencies.

government

standing,

agencies.
Ashford(37)

classified

(either
services
or noncommercial)
commercial
for the convenience
of the air traveller.
Check-in,
and
passenger
services,
e. g.,

27.

Governmental

3.

i. e.,

activities,

and agricultural
controls.
4.
Non-passenger
related
airport
management, finance,
engineering
....
5. Airline
functions.
Finally,

De Neufville(3)

presented

customs,

immigration,

authority

functions,

the

following

argument
on the
of their
planning
between
connection

of terminals
as viewed within
context
terminal
the
and design: " The airport
provides
the aircraft
for ground transport.
and the vehicles
is difficult
to perform
the different
size
well:
the

of

amounts of
The aircraft
than

space

and ground
on the airside

stationed

on

vehicles.

curb needed for

"How to balance

opposite
terminal

sides of the
design ".

3.3

the

air

and

landside

require

conflicting
is the
same building,

function

much

longer
of

the

requirements
essential

"

terminal.

the

of

and unloading

these

This

of
and length
dissimilar
quite

imply

vehicles

stands
loading

e. g.,

etc.

functions

stay

health,

distance
landside
on the

question

of

PLANNING AND DESIGN ASPECTS

Although

functions
are the
previously
mentioned
of terminals
inputs
the
to the planning
terminal,
principal
any
of
process
design
differ
from
actual
another
will
one case to
greatly
depending
The design
to be handled.
on the nature
of air traffic
the

terminal
philosophy
chosen for a particular
might depend on(ll):
1. Size and nature of traffic
demand.
2. Number of participating
airlines
using the airport.
3. Processing
imposed.
concepts
employed and regulations
4.

Traffic

5.

Physical

6.

Nature

type

and flight-sector

site
and access
of financing.

modes.

categories.

28.

Moreover,

by the different
and concepts
adopted
in terminal
and
are also variable
planning
interests,
of the
and responsibilities

philosophies

parties
participating
dependent
on views,
particular

instance,

For.

party.
by ICAO(9)

terminal

philosophy
plan for the

planning

that: " The most efficient

states
the required
capacity
airport
as a whole is that which provides
for
movements with
aircraft,
passenger,
cargo,,
and vehicle
and the lowest
maximum passenger,
operator,
and staff
convenience
adopted

Flexibility

capital
costs.
and operating
be considered
in conjunction
".
of planning
However,
the

airlines

planning

aspects

philosophy

should
terminal

of

and are

should

are considerably
and objectives
the following
major objectives
suggested
decisions
concerning
and
concentrate
on

airlines'
Hullet(38)

different.

and expansibility
fundamental
to all

(in

facilities

U. S.

the

are

airlines

for planning
their
responsible
own terminals):
1. Phase construction
consistent
with need.
2. Determination
and affordability.
of cost acceptability
3. Maximizing

utilization
functional

4. Selecting
construction

and facility

economic
between
functional

costs
design "may

monumental
degree of luxury

in

5. Evaluation

by
vary
the design.

6. Sound

concept of
base,
planning

forecasts

are.

There
should

are particular
be highlighted

they
process,
design aspects,

sharing.
differentials
design:

design

as
with

particularly

aspects
because

in

the

design

economical
5
depending
1:
as
much
criteria.
certain
how realistic

regarding
of their

vs.
upon

and valid

the

that
planning
in the
importance

terminal

prime
design concepts,
terminal
are:
airport
design criteria.
and demand/capacity

facility

29.

AIRPORT TERMINAL DESIGN CONCEPTS

3.3.1

design

The terminal'

concept
represents
(or
terminal/apron)

landside/airside
airside
distinct
in

terminal.
of the
types of design

concourse
definitive

literature,

where

concepts upon personal

Horonjeff(7)
classified
pier satellite,
Ashford(ll)
central/pier

the

There

each reference
discretion:

concepts
traced

named and classified

finger,

pier
as:
gate arrival,
satellite,
and mobile conveyance.
into:
them
or
open apron

classified
finger,

central/pier

linear,

central/remote
terminals.
and
unit
pier,
finger
is:
or
centralized
satellite,

satellite,
remote apron,
remote
De
Neufville's(3)
classification
linear/gate
satellite,
arrival,
and open apron/transporter.
as:
linear,
Blankenship(19)
terminal
classified
concepts
transporter.
satellite,
IATA(8)

is:

classification
transporter,

linear,

the

and
are no clear
that could be traced

them

remote

the

of
is

configuration
interface,
which

pier,

satellite/central,

pier/central,
terminal.

and unit
is:
simple,

finger,
linear,
satellite,
classification
(inter
and others
and unit terminal.
alia)mobile lounge,
different
Airport
Capacity
Landside
Conference(39)
a
provided
implicitly
for
design
which
version
classifying
concepts,
included
first
second generation
a time factor:
generation,
(including;
finger,
type,
and centralized
unit
centralized

ICAO(9)
-

and third

ring),
type).
An

attempt

concepts
describe

was

(including

generation

made

systematically.
a concept:

by

Braaksma(40,41)
His

method
decentralization

two

indices:
corresponding
index.
Although
this
compactness
of

complete

for
methodology
design,
facility

concept
two defined

parameters

are

and unitized

satellite

uses

to
only

and shape,
decentralization

design

terminal
to

two

parameters
the
through

use

index,

and

be considered
as a
work could
designing
(in
terms
the
terminal
of
the
layout,
however,
design),
and space
not

enough

in

themselves

to

represent

30.

and contain
Nevertheless,
airports,
assist

factors

all

this

researchers

and
this

of
"

..
synthesizing

capable of
a fast
quantitative
developing
terminal

planners

preliminary
design
method

to establish
an effort
for the
terminology
general
is currently
seems missing,

for

and size.

shape

of

pre-plans

design
method
computerized
to develop
terminal
concepts,
in
to assist
airport
planners

".

concepts

In

terminal

new
and to
airports,
of existing
knowledge
to have better
and
by
is considered
Its usefulness

problem.
introduces

It

the

be useful

work could
development

planning

understanding
Braaksma(41):

influencing

a unified
terminal

definitive
design

taxonomy
types,

concept

and

which
that

the

an attempt
presents
author
(which really
defines
interface
combines the shape of the airside
(by including
the concept),
the generation),
and the
a time scale
Regarding
the
concept.
relative
centralization
of
characteristics
time
the generation
it is difficult
to exactly
state
evolution,
depends
it
because
scale
of evolution
of every
generation,
largely

on particular
or otherwise)
at the
First
generation:
-

historic
country
mainly

up to late forties
- Second generation:
mid sixties.
Third
generation:
-

since

So,

this

to

according

conditions
question.
including
the

and early
basically

mid or

the

unified

and apron/transporter,
Which includes
generation:

according

pier,

which all other types evolved.

2. Second generation:
Including:
Linear
units.
-

era

late

satellite,
1. First

Open
apron.
-

pre-war

political,

are generally:
simple terminal

fifties.

are

Satellites.
Piers.
-

But they

in

concepts

classified

(economic,

of

the

fifties

and up to

sixties.

terminology,

terminal

to

into;

generation

design
unitized,

and as follows:
the
terminal
simple

from

31.

3. Third

Including:

generation:

Gate
arrival
units.
Remote
satellites.
Remote
piers.
Remote
apron.
Figure
in one
3.1 schematically
summarizes
concepts
all-design.
diagram,
from which relative
could
centralization-characteristics
be judged by orientation;
is
left
is centralized,
right
while
decentralized.
The importance

design

in terminal
and
planning
concept
design
However, it is seldom the case where
physical
evident.
is implemented
for a particular
a pure terminal
airport.
concept
in
But rather
jointly
such a
used
a hybrid
or mix of concepts
are
the
flexibility
to
to
way
so
as
provide
operational
the

of
is

in coping
demand
airline/operator
and
patterns
variable
with
levels,
Actually,
the matter
and be economically
cost effective.
the right
that best matches a particular
of choosing
air
concept
travel
for
demand
is
specific
and
suitable
pattern,
or
characteristics
of
highly
debateable.
terminal

concepts

passengers,
Moreover,
and the
and design

overall
planning
literature,
no citation
theory,
methodology,
proceed
with
'characteristics

is

could

ambiguous.
be found

Throughout
for

the

or even hypothetical
design
from
process

with

certain

conclusion
of chasing
be
to
a
missing
characteristics,

indeterminant
and sometimes
seems
between
types
the
of
relation
dictating
their
factors
designing
clearly

approach
defining

of

stated
how to
traffic

to the
and levels
patterns
There seems
concept for design.

demand

a terminal
link
between

and operating

technical

physical

conditions.

design,

demand

I VlIlN3:

)30

32.

0
cc

'p
c
Co
N

w
0

CIJN

f`

C
Cib
16-

C
z

..

Q
` w
Y/

V
N

4)

'/:!!.:

E
d

Cl)
N

\". \

CU
OC

W
S.
td
N

o"

H
O

Cl

000
.
0

b,

=
00

N
I-

..
-0*,.
0
'
Aar- 0- '-,
" ""

"rr
rr

w
a
a

17

""

""

0"

CL

E""

W
N

"

0000
0

0010
0
cc

goo

"'r

F-

OdSNbal
/ Noadb

lVb1N3D

c
E
m

33.

FACILITY

3.3.2
After

the

choosing

transferred
the

DESIGN

a higher

to

components

of
the

undoubtedly,

design

level

task

of

building

the

for

concept

of

the

the

terminal,

detail,
and

the

physical
facilities,

its

planning
design
which

is
of
is

architect.

dates
back to
One of the earliest
references
on this
subject
knowledge
1960(12),
provided
valuable
and put forward
which
for
for
designing
the
architects
efficiently
recommendations
building
and
services
components,
various
and its
and listed
facilities
architectural
any

to be provided.
advisable
design
of the terminal
was carried
building,
functional
but
several

thought

other

and were eventually

design practices,
they
building
Main
of
purpose

relevance
facilties
1.

operational
costs

are

efficiency,
kept reasonably

of maximum operational
layout
2.
Physical
always

be

and its
low,

adopted

Design

as that

of

were of
terminal

points

subsequent

be

should
construction

commensurate

to

maximum
ensure
should be such that
with the attainment

efficiency.
of

considered

and

out

the

are:

passengers
in
relation

buildings
to

him with effective

passenger,
providing
At the same time attention
must be paid
necessary
accommodations
so as to ensure
3.

by

Basically,

layout

their

and

aprons
effect

should
on the

and facilities.
service
to the location
of other
maximum efficiency.

buildings

should
permit
and aprons
handling
flexible
for
in
operations,
changes
and
allow
loads.
in traffic
techniques,
and seasonal
and other variations
Progressive
4.
traffic
to meet increasing
expansion
requirements
disproportionate
be considered,
without
should
additional
costs
of

be

interfering
possible
without
buildings
of existing
operations
and aprons.
5. Flow of passengers,
baggage, cargo,
and mail should
direct,
pattern,
standard
clearly
and
marked,
and

expansion

obstructions.

should

with

the

be along a
from
free

34.

Facility

design

practices
technical

became

manuals(16,17),
things:
detailed

discussed

in

and is
facility

reference

with

certain

facility

more

specialized

publications.
2.1,
section
design

for

and
FAA's

detailed
Parsons

amongst other

covered

and
operational
demand conditions,
and charts
are derived
and monographs that
for
approximating
space requirements
and
sizes'
and facilities
Blankenship(19)
the Parsons manuals,
arrangements.
supplemented
a valued
planning

of

detailed

for

terminals.

airport

functional

for
adjacency
matrix
juxtapositioning.
ICAO(9)
published

various

design and
architectural
introduced
the
IATA(8)
facilities
recommended
based

on

the

manuals
by their
previously
mentioned
sources and backed-up
own practices
knowledge and recommendations
that provided
for their
members.
It

be

mentioned
discussion

3.3.3

on this

directly

refer

to

the

avoid

elaboration
unnecessary
which is beyond our scope.

issue,

previously
and lengthy

DEMAND/CAPACITY DESIGN CRITERIA

One of the
terminals,
and

to

advisable
to
sources,

might

target

first
should
goals

in the
steps
be 'to decide
for

of airport
of planning
process
to be adopted
upon the criteria
is expressed
Normally,
this
as

design.

the
demands,
capacity
standards
of the system to handle exerted
date at which capacity
demand
is expected
the
to be reached,
and
level,
in terms of percentage
to
of nominal
capacity,
expected
date.
Usually,
these criteria
are
use the system at any future
by;
defined
An
observable
and monitorable
logically
a reasonable
selection
-A

specific

magnitude

represent
a certain
designing
In
new
incorporate
forecasts
present

demand to

of

that

to
measure adopted
influencing
of factors

activity

measure
level.

airports,

the

of

activity

some predetermined

chosen

by the

criteria
would
levels,
projecting
future
date.

represent
design.
planner

to

normally
past

'and

35.

literature,

most common design criterion

used is
flow.
Peaks are times when the system experiences
the peak hourly
levels
these
the highest
Hence most logically,
of utilization.
design
for
design.
All
would be chosen as the period
current
In technical

criteria
describing

adopt

the

some

of

aspect

Methods

'hour'.
peak
by Ashford(37)
as:

the

of

peaking are summarized

1.
Standard
Busy Rate (SBR),
adopted by the British
previously
Authority,
hour of passengers
Airports
which is the 30th highest
flow,
by only 29 hours of
is surpassed
or the rate of flow that
flows annually.
A modification
at higher
operations
of SBR is the
Busy Hour Rate (BHR),
the hourly
above which 5% of the
rate
is handled.
traffic
at the airport
2.

Typical

FAA(42)
the
3.

Peak

as the

Hour

peaking

annual passenger
Hour
Peak Profile

(TPHP),

Passenger

measure.
flow.
(PPH),

It

or the

hourly

average

is

the

by Transport

purposes.
5. Other

peaking

overload

standards

Canada(43)

measures
or

of

ratio

average daily
for
an 'average

calculated
volume
the peak calender
month is determined.
(PPHP),
Peak Hour Passenger
4.
Planning
adopted

adopted

and used

is
for

the

by

the

U. S.

peak hour

to

peak in which a
for
day'
peak
measure
and design

peaking

planning

that

rank

of
other percentages
select
simply
are not mentioned
of busy hour that

above.
So,
the

the

design

interpretation

adopted for a particular

case would be
(the
design
date,
future
of a peak 'hour'
a
at
design
levels
are
standard,
all
activity
where

criterion

measured

as the
in
terms

practices,

mainly

day)(8),

approaches,
be seen in
In

of
percentage
derived
from

employ this
Section
6.2.

concept

that
standard.
of
British
the
and

as the

design

criterion,

Current
American
as will

the development
addition,
must
programme of any new airport
have enough flexibility
to adjust
to the functional
and financial
So, it
that will
its
implementation(44).
exigencies
occur during

36.

would seem important

and sometimes necessary
for air passenger
handling
and dynamic design

flexible

develop

to

facilities

keep

to

these

In this
the Air Transport
exigencies.
respect',
has
the
American
Society
Engineers
Civil
of
of a
interesting
to study this
undertaken
research(45)
aspect and to
illustrate
influence
the
impact
factors
on
of
various
facilities.
It stated: " This study
characteristics
of individual
pace with
Division

is

hoped

be useful
to
of forecasting,

to

complexities
and operating
in identifying
development

those

air

passenger
which future

of
for

dealing

professionals

with the
designing,

programming,
planning,
handling
facilities,
as a reference
in the
be considered.
events
should
facility.

It

provide
also
to assess a
guidelines
airport
operators
carriers
and air
future
terminal
to accommodate probable
specific
plan's
ability
developments
that
and avoid constructing
may become
a facility
".
obsolete
almost simultaneously
with becoming operational

3.4

will

PARTIES INVOLVED IN TERMINAL OPERATIONS

The

numerous
to
contribute
To achieve
needs

particular

parties
normally
the complexity
of

successful

and

objectives
The

satisfactorily.

planning,
of
three

in

involved
the

and
these

system

airport
and its

operations
sensitivity.
the

operations,

efficient

be

should

parties

met
the

are(46):
parties
principal
the airline,
and
and those who accompany him (users),
passenger
So, for the planning
airport
operator.
and operations
of airports
be successful
they must take into
and efficient,
account the
interaction
between
those
three
system
components
or
major
their
Quoting from Ashford(37):
and consider
actors,
objectives.
" For the system to operate
each of the actors
must reach
well,

to

some form

equilibrium
with the other
in
result
will
suboptimal
conditions
Ashford(37))
is a simplified
hierarchial
interactions
between the
primary
three
of

".

Figure

system
main

to

Failure

two.

3.2

diagram

parties-

do so
(from
of

the

airport,

PAGE
MISSING
IN
ORIGINAL

38.

and the

airlines,
" operational
capacity.

scale,

The objectives
coincide,
described

of

that

user,

the
produce
demand, airport

passenger

the

three

do not necessarily
parties
dissimilar.
Horonjeff(36)

principal
be
to

likely
and are
implications
the

of
parameters
capacity,
and flight
prime

the
and reflections
of
parties'
objectives
on planning
and design of airports:
1. Users' objectives
concentrate
of airport
on the responsiveness
to
to the needs of passengers
and operations
planning
relative
*facilitation
comfort
convenience,
and personal
of
requirements,
through
and
effective
passenger
and access
concise
orientation
directional
comprehensive
of maximum
graphics,
and the provision
efficiency
operational
and service
standards.
2.
Airline's
objectives,
are
mainly
existing
accommodating
and future
aircraft
facilitating

efficiency,
operational
flow
and
of baggage

passengers,
and
through
provision

ensuring

profitability
facilities.
and effective
Operator's
3.
Airport
safe,

expedited,
that
would
other
Also,

objectives
that
are

facilities

of

provision

sources,
while
the
operator

is

airline's

management

certain

of

economic,
concentrate
efficient

maximum
efficient
of

all,

efficient
on the
for the

and baggage
of passengers
from concessionnaires
and

costs.
and operating
maintenance
to fulfil
the
community's
proxy
issues,
legal,
environmental,
and cultural
integration

degree

airport;

philosophies.

most

with:

minimizing
by
acts

and
airport
influenced

significantly
in the particular

and
important

functionally

maximum revenues

including
objectives,
and the coordination
and
transport
total
system.
There

direct

basically
flow

and convenient

generate

the

associated
fleets
with

of

of

overlap

the

airport

that

exists

with

the

between
is

operator's
objectives,
which
by the philosophy
of management adopted
airport

dominant,

or

airline

dominant

39.

involved,
or system actors
main parties,
that are also associated
with daily
minor parties
but their
service,
operation,
presence only add to convenience,
but are not considered
and specialization
of airport
activities
(e. g., concessionnaires).
for the system operations
essential
In addition
to
there are-other

the

PERFORMEDWITHIN TERMINALS

ACTIVITIES

3.5

three

that

It

earlier
was established
terminals
are
airport
importance,
operational

quite

functions

the
divers

and
However,

and purpose.
into
four broad operational
categorized
generally
1.
Processing,
where passengers
and baggage
the

processes,
between air

operational
flow
their

of

purpose

and access

modes,

within

performed
in
vary

nature,

they

be

could

activities:
certain
undergo
is to facilitate

which
impose

safety

measures,
to comply

certain
regulatory
necessary
procedures
perform
this work
It will
be shown throughout
with laws and regulations.
the
facilities
important
the
that
they
most
are
operationally
dictate
dynamic
the
overall
and
nature
of
would
which
performance
and

of the
efficieny
2.
Holding-storing,
for

held

varying

capability
3.
Circulation

parts

various
Operationally,
inside
4.

where
amounts

of

characteristics
to hold definite

operational

between

system.

facilitate
holding,

processing,
the terminal.

Auxiliary

and, satisfaction

comfort,
the operational
auxiliary
but not

efficiency
(e. g.,
components

operationally

vital

of

that

provide
the
of

contribute

various
of the

users,
airport.

are
concessions)
to the airport.

users

servicing

auxiliary
only
but

to

by its

terminal.

airport
of

are
Its

between

connection

circulation
and

that

activities,

activities.
defined

nature
show a static
number of items at any time.

by means of links
facilities
and
they

and baggage

visitors,
passengers,
furthur
time awaiting

moving
centers

convenience,

are not
However,

economically

vital
certain
crucial

to

40.

More specialized

information

the first
three
types
regarding
of
be presented
in the following
activities
will
chapters,
while a
special
emphasize is placed on discussing
the characteristics
of
the first
type (processors)
throughout
this
work.

CHAPTERF0UR

LEVELS0FSERVICE

Service

in calibrating
the performance
standards
are essential
of
in transportation
operation
as a
systems,
and when expressed
framework,
'levels'
their
of the
could
as a yardstick
serve
Throughout
important
this
system's
performance.
aspects
chapter,,
of

standards

service

arrive

discussed

and
to

appropriate
criterion
proposed herewith.

an

at

methodology

4.1

are

in order
examined,
be adopted
within

to
the

DEFINITIONS

The first

known definition

for

level

in transportation
of service
Highway
Board in its
Research

by U. S.
Highway
was introduced
Capacity
Manual first
in 1950(47),
then completely
published
in
1965(48).
The term was used by traffic
to
revised
engineers
describe
the
and determine
of highways
capacity
and streets.
Since then,
traffic
level
have
of
engineers
and planners
used
service
following
Wohl

in

conjunction

quotation,
Martin(49):
and

experiences
represents
that
time.
particular

with
is the
"
the

The
total

level

of

difficulty

We may define
of travel
price

experienced
as the,
Highway Capacity
Manual
of The level
of service

capacity.

The

level
actual
of
The definition

service
of the

and complementing
definition
of level

the
".

by
of service
service
a traveller
at
of making the trip

:
was more comprehensive
and realistic
is a term which,
interpreted,
broadly
denotes
any one of an infinite
combinations
number of differing
lane
of operating
that
or
conditions
may occur
on a given

42.

When it

roadway.

is

traffic
various
measure of the effect
speed
and travel

accommodating

is

a qualitative
include;
which

of service
factors,

freedom

interruptions,

volumes,

level

of a number of
traffic
time,

driving
and
comfort
maneouvre,
safety,
and operating
convenience,
costs ". The structure
of the Highway
level
is a six-level
Capacity
Manual's
framework
one
of service
in descending
from 'A' to
arranged
order
of quality
of service
The description

'F'.

to

of

ratio,
(in
terms

volume/capacity
convenience

each level

is

based on;

service

evaluation
and some qualitative
freedom
to choose
of individual

volumes,
of driver
desired

to overtake
the ability
speeds,
and pass other
is
4.1
freedom
Figure
the
lanes).
to
a
and
change
vehicles,
to
diagram
relation
of levels
and their
of service
conceptual
by the Highway Capacity
conditions
as depicted
operations/demand

vehicle

operating

in

However,

Manual.

the

third

of

the

edition
in mid-1985(50),

Highway

Capacity

be
a significant
scheduled
published
has
been
level
for
important
of service
change
criteria
made;
and
highway
by
to
defined
be
the
quality
related
as
of
service
will
(as
in
the
based
defined
than
traffic
rather
on
volumes
user,
to

Manual

of

procedures

the
the

Nevertheless,
service

second

previously
framework,

and related
methodology,
transport

proposed
different

edition

simply
systems;

of

the

mentioned

manual).
definitions

of

Interest
terminals
and airport
units,
with people.
be focussed
inside
behaviour
then
on the
of
people
terminals,
not on highways,
and to work with pedestrians
service

One of
Fruin,
previously
approach

not
,

with

first

to

the
who

should
airport
levels

vehicles'.
work

recognized

mentioned
to
required

of
the

in
be
used
readily
could not
because we are talking
about two
highways
as their
vehicles
with

basic

of

level

levels
on pedestrians'
basic
differences
the

systems,
and underlined
design
facilities.
pedestrian

of service
the
between
the

was
two

appropriate
Quoting from

43.

Fruin(51):
application

"

Design
of

of

traffic

facilities

pedestrian
engineering

principles

involves
combined

the

with

Kwett

twta

t"

AWOt

IvI

N_

lo

"

or u. Kt c
taa

N stne

tct

fr

ar w+a

WAS

0-

aia
"a
VOIYN(/Wr1GITY

Figure

4.1

Highway
of

RATIO

Capacity

Manual's

Concept

of

Levels

Service.

of human convenience
considerations
and the design
environment.
Different
logically
the
of
environments
application
require
".
different
design standards
qualitative
as well as quantitative
definition
(in
Fruin's
in
terminals
general)
of service
standards
"
Service
design
the
was(52):
standards
are
quantitative
the size of the functional
assumptions
made to determine
elements
These standards
of the interface.
environmental
are an important
because
determine
they
the
consideration
efficiency,
also

".
facility
life,
convenience,
useful
and quality
of
of service

44.

De Neufville(53)
of

in

service

combinations

gave
airport
of flow

and congestion
level
choice
of

The

service'.
facility

represent

space,

pedestrians
Following

shift

of

are

to

referred

different
'level

as

of

for
a particular
of
service
high
between
the
of
cost
compromise
to
inconvenience
the
of
amount
and

extra
".

providing

viewpoint
highway design,

relatively
" As in
terminals:

level

for

basic

this

burden

airside

to

however,

the

from

the

airport
on
had on all
landside,
it
impact
and
sectors
and the consequent
by
the
involved
in
'conference
organized
organisations
a
airports,
the
discuss
1975
in
to
Research Board,
held
Transportation
was
distinct
Although
landside
no
capacity
airport
problems.
of
did

conclusions
conference
right

great
have
In

course.

service
landside,

this

quality
This subjective
(but
including

conference,

between

moving

not necessarily
the landside,

the

access
dependent
limited

time,

concessionnaires

Other

on
to):

numerous

of

aircraft.
of factors

a series
time necessary

definitions

for

and detailed
Canada(55),

level

of

will

service,

as the

previous
one,
where level
of service
the
assessment
of
conditions
of

any

of

intermingled,

which evidently,
and minimize- its usefulness.

or
characteristics

level

to

and
officers,
security
,
fare and airport
services,
frequency
of air travel,

constituents,

subjective
Transport
measure

its

reveals

utilization,

the

mode and

the

airport
of the

impression

airport
other
personnel,
cost of air
type of passenger
and purpose of trip,
". This definition
and expectation
of service
complex

of
the

in

of
predictability
or
reliability
landside
to
environment,
reaction
overall
by
treatment
to
and convenience,
reaction

personnel,

clearly

attention

through

subjective

the
is

then,

definition

the

passengers
is a
service

of

comfort

airline

merit

impression'

through

processing

were reached
of directing

For

transfer

of

physical

the

"

was(54):
level

proceed

importance

subsystem

or

level

'of

service
`

and
its

not

as

subjective,
limit

seriously

which
include:

terminal

are

was defined

as: " A

operating
and
a
facility
at

45.

level
particular
of demand or user volume.
demand at each airport
is dynamic
and varies
factors
flight
as schedule,
sector,
and aircraft
these dynamic
of service
measure must reflect
therefore,
service,
can be considered
as a
assessment
service
to
similar

of

Table

of the ability
of supply
framework
of Transport
the Highway Capacity
Manual's,
This

4.1

Transport

Excellent

Level

aspects.

its

all

factors

shown in

is

Level

level

Service

of

flow;

no delays;

level

of c omfort..

High

level

service;
direct

of

of

of

are
4.1.

Table

Framework.

of

condition

Good level

of
condition
of service;
flow;
throughput;
prov ides acceptable
in balance.
subsystems

Adequate
unstable
conditions

level

of

service;
for

acceptable

stable
related

of

condition

delays

flow;

ed

; -re'

19--1

6,5\

stable

of

ac
hal

free

excellent

routes;

condition

service;

provides
in
subsystems

to such
according
load,
the level

DESCRIPT10N

flow;
C

but

framework

Canada's

LEVEL OF SERVICE
A

traffic

the

or
range of values
The level
to meet demand ".
Canada is
one
a six-level

and subjective.

qualitative

Since

for

passengers;

short

periods

of

time.
E

Unaceptable
unstable

level
flow;

limiting
represents
System breakdown;
delays.

of

service;

subsystems
capacity
unacceptable

not
of

of
condition
in balance;
the

system.

congestion

ansi

46.

identically

(and

to

Canada.
'the

level

defined

IATA(56)

The

only

combined

of

service

seemingly

qualitative

from)

IATA

continuously

assessment

of

framework

related

derived

that

addition

and

the

that

relative

almost
Transport

of

emphasized

was

comfort

and

convenience'.

ACAP(57,28)

research
Level of

"

project

the

provided

brief

following

a measure of how a component,

The specified
and system performs.
maximum tolerable
subsystem,
limit
on the level
of service
of service
measures are the level
".
Assessment
is carried
of service
out by monitoring
criteria
violations
level
to the
through
checking
of
service
criteria

definition:

So,

or not.
two-level

4.2
After

have exceeded
in essence,

they

whether

service

is

the

specified
ACAP's level

limit
tolerable
maximum
is
framework
a
of service

one.

FACTORS CONTRIBUTING TO SERVICE STANDARDS

previous

standards,
'in order

discussion

a detailed
to be able

The
components.
terminals
airport

on

anatomy

definitions

different

service

of

this

expression
seems necessary
its
to short-list
most basic
and important
factors
in
to service
contributing
standards
types:
two general
are of
and
qualitative
of

quantitative.
,

4.2.1

QUALITATIVE FACTORS

These
are
quantify,
individualistic

basically
and

descriptive,

subjective,

highly

to
susceptible
behaviour.
They include:

Environmentalis
such
environment,
cleanliness,

as exposure
sense

of

personal

to weather,
safety...

etc.

difficult

to

influence

and

terminal

internal

47.

2.

safety,

Aesthetics-

covering

lighting

arrangement,

seating

and infants...

factors-

security

and

These

are

factors

Temporal

purpose

visitors,

personality and

and

personal

time,

that

delay

time

in

walking
covering
dimensions
and
level

facilities,

Econometric
trip,

of

changes...
etc.
factorssuch as:

of

flights

per

pricing
etc.
including
route,

of

service,
factors

ticket

frequency
number

of

of
airlines

of

fare

cost,

airline

structure,

size

location

relative

airline

time

total

(crowdedness),

density

pedestrian
functional
areas,

policies...
factors-

service,
to start

distance/area-related

distance,

concessions

pricing/charging
Statistical
4.

for

waiting
time prior
delay.

a facility,
reporting
departures
flight
and arrivals
factorsSpatial
they
2.
are

airport.

etc.

to enumeration
and
can lend themselves
because
tangible
they
and easily
analysis
are
They are:
in the terminal
environment.
include
factors
that
factorsthey are time-related

statistical
identifiable

frequency

legibility)...

of passengers
and
of trip,
convenience,

QUANTITATIVE FACTORS

access

catering

of
complexity
amenities,
information
imposed,
system

measures

4.2.2

3.

systems
for
the

signing,

as

type

Personal:

processing
spent in

comfort,

conditions,

provisions,

such

consistency,

origin/destination
behaviour...
etc.

1.

overall

airport
terminal

etc.

Systems-related

procedures,
(understandability,

to

reaction
airport

identification,

disabled

5.

service,

by

treatment

etc.

privacy...

facilities

to

reaction

towards

attitudes

environment,

4.

of

expectation

personnel,

3.

including

Psychological-

of

and airport
air

travel,
using

the

48.

Table

4.2,

from

extracted

those

factors

There

is

for

reasonable
formulating
a level
of
factors.
The
those
degree

of the airport
Maddison(54).

highly
of

quantifiability
landside
facilities,

as possible,
capacity

related

and of

one to
of level
as

recognized

by

4.3,

factors

service

suggested

Brinke

and

factors,

one

quantification
factors
qualitative

and

reviewing
to
conform
many

Table

another.
of

to

those

value

and

signifcance

and
in

analysis.

SERVICE MEASURESCONSIDERED

4.3
After

the
factors
reviewing
in airport
terminals,
standards

in

from

variable

factors

these

of

by carefully
the
ones that
can
independent
of
as

enumeration,
measures

susceptibility

However,

segregate

can

summarizes

airport

no

quantification
shows the

and Jones(58),

facilities.
users
and terminal
(or
and logical
even possible)
way of
include
framework
that
service
all
could

all

is

Heathington

that

may

to

contribute

a short-list

to

could
factors.

service
be finalized

The service
the most significant
select
(or
be
how
any quantifiable
of
measure could
a system
expression
to the
to provide
performs
any part thereof)
any form of service
Service
the
user.
airport
measures that may be considered
within
for
level
framework
environment
airport
of service
establishing
temporal,
would include:
spatial,
econometric,
and statistical
order

measures.
TEMPORAL MEASURES

4.3.1

These include:
1. Processing
to
the

time,

be serviced
airport

relatively
represents
facility.

which
(processed)

terminal.

It

insensitive
supply

side

is

the

time

that

take

a passenger
facility
at
processing
is
that
variable

would

at a particular
is a facility-specific
to
demand
variations,
of

the

processing

because
activity

at

it
that

li

s
i!

7i

7see<e<iiE

i .JI

{
<iss
:ss:

ei
zz

`ir
eE
eflE4t
Yii-. c

t' E'"-_
iw i-.

9
a
asvE2

`.

i7`r
:

ksr
$tw =i

i lia
1sp

tr S '

Sgei
w.

kili-

EZ1

kw

ij.

iei

'
S

ldr.

n!

z t

?6=:

Y
E'
- r.
e a t" l i i c 6
e-
iw!
rf

IEi?
:' al-;

aYr"

flip;

uSi

sl

Yi

CiSF
3c-

SS

`.

10t.

..

ak
oU

vw"i
t
z` {C- $i t:

t
16
y" Z'

r5
y
ie

,zz

6" S :

32

h-r,

pli

p6 t

6tE
uu u

k.
.

=
Yi

`Ci-#
eI
Ei
:
E" '_
Y
pT.
" `

t
E`
E-ie

k:
1
nA
zA+
.

68Ek:
uu uWi

aIIi<Ea.
u<

..
.i
71'

w Ou z:

= i{

ibr

wy
S_!
ii

ii

'a.,

I22ii2

-t"11

: .

It

"

<6y<

r_
ii.
WE

LL_:

p-Iskipps
6yY4A
yy

III*:

r<

uu

uw

1
i_

LL.

y3

"i

"ksE
't EkE

47i=

v ei
fp_
Et
e
6k

i_
k !.

48.

. j. 9 u . Eu
z+e
.

<

uc

i'

pte<iqi

fi

qqPY
i:
"D
=r
i le

i"
i-

.4

'ei

oz
k

i7
is

7i4;
<

"..

iii
:zc

6sEe

i
i
i1i
r"
-}g
1ti

uc+i

z:

4{"

tEs

i
:sszzss:

tii

. z:

-9

aaLIaII

aA

0y

15

N
r-

ro
C

Zye
r

r
S11y
/8tC

IOy

S(i}W

12

<
Z

<

<
Z

wFir

S-

a;

""
<6i<

CES

"i

riicL

-1I
Yy
f44.

E
oy
Yy6

Z'i

.
Z--ir

e"

ii
zi

Yi

6bd<YI

y;

p. E

= SS
i

ZOG

4VjY

4<

iah

fly

IS

i.

e<
zz

ti

Ard

f
Z

Lrt

r2

r:

=s

ti

2.

<

&

40

. 1

Y:

"r

4
mi

w<

N
Qi
L

"a

fai. .

:
t
Eti11
AL)
I9":
rF
uc. J< o =. J< u

<
i

i
z

Iii
=fi

2.74

rE'! E=

'ir

<

-I

63<,

IN:

tll

s i3

Zr

"ir!

<

S-

wF
Y

<

.ii
rYTccr

faiEZ

jW

<

<
L

C<

yy
j

i
a
a

U)
ro
Q7

1"

E
i

4!
U

t
I

L
C)
V)

0V

VO
U)
U
", +,
N

i_'
i"ii.

: iiE

Y 'i
bat

f
tN

!"

""y"

saiS"
"t.

iSS3=il.

"
scLL
6,11
N _L3aE

: ""

inS

Fi.

uY

nu_

i:

i
Y zog

YB

=
at
S< i

"

y".

"Es
F-it
isic8;
i

1E$iii

.Y

bIdgn
.i3

pr 1i it

rsi

"

"
<

rw

ifI
s "L `i
E"
IS r:

bt5
i
YG a

f'

:: -;
2.

sii

ww

"

"-

tv

i, i; Fr; .
as Y
is
E
""
'--

_"
=a

Y it

s"

ry

Yy=t3
f"Y$.ri t

I -i

a
4)
U
i
I-

"
hh '1

SrY
ii'

e
a

e<s<<

sa
lf. Y
YI11:
<
U Y$

i6

LLLL

1ei

$p"

i<

iS3

b
2i"

"
, !;. r!

.<e

LjZ

6U

"4=`i

}ti

r""
y
aiI

I"
'

_'

t"p

i_11121,
"+
e;
WE
"H: k
E"
sy fY
b
Y
UY;
ni
Zia

z6

eE

5i-i.

6Y

'Y"
Y"'p=f

ie

=i<U

U67<

2L

6i

sE:

i1e
YU

ie-o

iU

tEt

ro

Y<6`

ca

""Fw

"

ird

{Y"

Pe1<1<

"=i

! ---r
i:

9+
;

sSS

i+
ifi

i'Ei
yz

i6"aib
111

-<

f'
a1'

ili

au

I'a

eE41.
iii11tH!

. -""ii
w"

yj

iw

y''i

LLiz

r'

Il

ffl!

=Y

yYLY
tf

Yy:

ib!

d'Gy

ir

1'.

"
t

+i i!

"3Y

E"di
IFORik=

'A

to

$3

8"
E'iC

IIa,

i
z!
is
E

"[

Y 3Su<

is
i<
Yu

6i

e
zi

uc

'F
w ""
'8S

i =pY

ie

: yYsi

<o

z'<

xi r-i

Zp

"
Y<

uu

":

iah
3E

T"

9=":

u" d3

fli

1CV

"

wlli!

Fp

i` r=

. 1hi

16

E{E

3<

zsz
uo<
It

S
z-YtE
-
. -i E. st!
.

1!

="

; -i
N: Y

1I'thD

;i rt
i

Y. u

`<ti3JLI
u

=s
r_
: -i

uuu

'
=I

'=
Yi

"e

7U<"

Yi4

fst.
it
LLL

-e

'<= _`"
"" ucse
i '
`ii
=bd

p1;

huIi

t "p{
. '>"iyjC

nV

4i

1I

C
r

1I

Ii

1'i

F
se"

IN

ad

uY

-D--""
YvYE

f
Yo

fS<

zii

_I-

"

YS

tb
ii
u iu

""

Y< "i

ri
'

EF

yE

; rd6i
23<

: r'
"".
iz s

."
: _

fi=t
i-'
E-

E ait
uu u

r"i

6iUU

bS

i
UY

JI

d'

dii

i=is

ti"_-

21

ill

"i=

=aii:
t3e

g;

11

El

LLL

' isi6

i7

3t
T.
rF

-i

'

.o
b
I-

49.

Table
Service

Measures

4.3

of

Landside

Facilities

Level of Service
I and ide Facility
Access Inclines

Terminal
Pasha`

Ticket

(roads, transit)

curbside
faciliues

(garage, remote lot)

counter and check-in

to Quantify

Easy to Quantify

Difficult

Travel time
Delay
Transit frequency
Cost to passenger

Adequacy of signing
Level of congestion

Availability
Delay

Level of congestion
Cartside check-in

of space

Availability
of space
Distance to check-in and
baggage claim

maule bus service to and from

remote lots

processing

Complexity of procedure
Courtesy of airline personnel
Overall environment

time

Processing time

Actual procedure (search, X-ray)

Yatero:tional clearance (customs.

Processing time

Comple>tityof procedure

Bold rooms

Seat availability

Security

immigration)

Loc*tlon
Coerteq

in relation to concessions
of security officers

Courtesy of clearance
Overall environment

officers

Overall environment
Location in relation

to concessions

Level d congestion
Bagage

Waiting

claim

Circulation elements (corridors,

side+alksI

moving

time for bags

Walling distances
Width of corridors
Height of ceiling

Travel time

Hardware Involved
Level of congestion
Availability of skyesps
Availability of concessions
Availability of seating
Overall environment
Hardware used

q5gid
Public address systems

Frequency of service
(hardware)
Cost to passenger

Level of congestion

Waiting areas

Availability

Seating arrangement

Passenger services (restrooms,

Availability

Service provided

telephones)

Cost to passenger

Comfort of seating

Level of congestion

Cleaaltness
Concessions

lnformataon

(newsstands.

services

restaurants)

(sgaingI

Availability

Service provided

Cost to passenger

Courtesy of operator
Overall environment
Level of congestion

Availability

Service provided
Clarity. legibility.

placement

50.

2. Delay,

which

could

by passengers
awaiting
facility,
due to the

be considered
their
turn
incapability

demanding

passengers

as the time unwillingly

spent
to be serviced
at a processing
of the server to cope with all

service

outcome of the difficiency

of
in that
of demand for service
it
is a suitable
In this
sense,
facilities,
at processing
service
properties
process,
governed
3. Total

in

interpreting

to

measure
because

the

of

is

It

simultaneously.
to satisfy
supply
facility
at that

direct

the

requirements
time.
particular

of
express
quality
its basic theoretic
the

aspects
of
the performance
and in monitoring
of the facility
by the underlying
in demand for service.
variations
time spent,
is
delay
for
a composite
expression
operational

as
and

times at processing
facilities.
processing
is the time recommended by the operators
for
Reporting
time,
4.
to report
for a particular
and it indirectly
process,
passengers
be
the amount of time passengers
to spend
defines
expected
would
in

the

does

airport
not have

regardless
any real
because

are considered,
by passengers
spent
commence.
Flight
5.

of

arrival

times.
or processing
once individual

delay

significance
it
in

and

and reliability
punctuality
be
to
used mainly
could

for

waiting

assess

certain

delay,

departure
of

airline
airlines

time

activities
to
expected

time

overall

represents

This

activity

is

service,

measure

and as such

operations

be
to
of
it

performance

and service.
4.3.2

SPATIAL MEASURES

They include:
1.

Walking

distance,

for
of service
human physical

linking

which could
facilities,

capabilities.

be used as an effective
particularly

measure
to
compared
when

51

2.

(crowdedness),

density

Occupation

interaction,

outcome of supply-demand
of service
used in level
(the

measure

occupants),

like

framework

used being
queue
(pedestrian
and links

delay,

which could
all facilities:

for
length.

),

storing

it

is

a direct

be effectively
processing
(density
of

density).

ECONOMETRICMEASURES

4.3.3

Including:
1.

Airline

fare,

ticket

could

be used

as a measure of airline
it would not be
however,

and in airline
route selection,
for
in
use
capacity
studies.
suitable
is a measure of airport
Fare of airport
2.
access
access trip,
and in the selection
of access modes.
service
Pricing
3.
and concessionnaires,
policies
of airports,
airlines,
in
their
into
take
is a factor
consideration
passengers
might

service,

decision

of selecting
to choose

alternative
a measure

airport

of

STATISTICAL

4.3.4

have
they
more than
airports,
when
from, and as such it could be considered

one
as

service.
MEASURES

Including:
I. -Frequency
flight
airlines

of

flights,
schedules,

in
flights
the
of
route
number
per
or
is considered
as a measure of airline
in route capacity
included
studies.

is
and
particularly
service,
2: - Number of airlines
airport,
using
the
signifying
relative
service,
amongst
the

its

services

competitors,
and defining
it can provide.

is

a measure of
importance
that
of
passengers

airport

airport
for
preference

52.

'

4.4

DELAY: A SIGNIFICANT

MEASURE OF SERVICE

its
of delay
reflects
(servicing)
the processing
operation.
are the inevitable
queues and delays

The importance

dynamic

in

characteristics

When congestion
occurs,
because all
consequence,
(preparations
in the queue feel
individuals
think
and
of service
i. e., the flight)
to consume the transport
as
product,
necessary
for.
important
and
sometimes
worth
waiting
essential
commodity
an
in a situation
So,
servicing
where the demand for a particular
instant
is greater
than the capability
facility
of
at a certain
(process)
facility
to serve
that
a
more than one item during
delays
(servicing
duration
time),
time
or
processing
specified
From a mathematical
be a natural
phenomenon.
demand
form
the
or arrival
a
queue
would
only when
viewpoint,
is
than
the
during
the
time
supply
specified
greater
period
rate
later
fall
if
the
would
rate
and even
arrival
rate,
or processing
but
lower than the processing
the
still
exist
queue would
rate,
dissipate
Generally,
congestion
eventually
gradually.
will
and queues

Information

would

could

be obtained

from

the

analysis,

of

supply-demand
Particularly,

studies.
queueing problems,
and capacity
relations,
be directly
lengths
times
delay
and queue
could
derived,
using
or even synthesized
mathematically
From a theoretic
techniques.
considering
standpoint,

observed,
simulation
delay as a

delineate
and
congestion
service
conditions
would
demand
balance
between
of the servicing
and
supply
monitor
by appropriately
the
interpreting
the
outcomes
of
operation
by
the passengers.
as
experienced
process

measure

The

of
the

importance

interrelated,
attributes,
Delay
1.

of
and

delay

is

manifested

complex
nature
by the following:

reflected
is
a time-dependent

variable

of

by

the

congestion
of great
high time

dynamic,
and

its

mathematical
dependency of

influenced
by the relatively
complexity,
the supply-demand
nature
relations
combined
with the stochastic
Queueing
operation,
as could be concluded
of the servicing
when
is referenced.
Theory literature

53.

2.

Delay

the econometrics
could be linked
with
knowing that the supply-demand
issues

operation,
in economics.
in

terms

standards

of

On the

supply

additional
capable

of
in

of the serving
have deep roots

the

side,

of more service
provision
technological
number of servers
or higher
incur
faster
service,
certain
would

terms
expenses
additional
fully
to provide
the
utilized

of

When they

resources.

counterbalancing
losses will
arise.

are
(at

not
low

revenues
financial
demand levels),
On the demand side,
(at
by individuals
long delays
high
demand
service
requiring
be related
levels),
to the real
could
of time for each
value
if this
individual,
to delayand to the reaction
could ever be
into economic terms.
So,
translated
server utilization
weighing
and

cost

against
balancing

sensitive
time dependency
exposed to
Delay
3.

delay
nature

and

time
the

of

economics

each other.
indirectly
could

of

could
and it is

passengers

operation,
of the. servicing

show the
here where

operation

get

for
space required
with
in terms of area required
to acommodate a certain
processing,
imposed
lenght.
to
Since
they
both
related
are
positively
queue
between
be
demand,
then certain
queue
established
relation
could
be

linked

demand. levels.
and delay times at respective
For the problem
the 'effects
4.
of assessing
and evaluating
delay
differently,
could be viewed and interpreted
congestion,
individuals.
At
is
different
by different
conditions,
lengths

of
at
the

interpretation,
this
and response to delay that dictates
reaction
hence as such,
it seems more psychological
and personal,
rather
In essence,
delay has two dimensions:
than systematic.
systematic
in terms of time actually
in terms of
and subjective
measured,
how much of a nuisance
individual
passengers.

and

annoyance

it

is

being

considered

by

54.

4.5

DELAY / SPACE RELATIONS

in

As mentioned

point

3 above,

since

and queueing are both

levels
operational
where

delay

concurrent
outcomes
of congestion
at
high,
demand is relatively
then they
are mutually
positively
(to
each other)
on
as well as to level
of demand exerted
related
This will
imply that for a particular
demand level,
the facility.
by two values:
could be described
average delay time
congestion
length.
The significance
queue
space to delay is
and
of linking
described
demand, the space required
as follows:
with fluctuating
changes

but

the

for

provisions
(by
lower

space

space

provided

is

fixed.

Theoretically,

demand level
that is
certain
level.
than
percentage)
maximum possible
in the form of a
storing
space normally

should

satisfy

a certain
is the
Space here,
line,
that
in the queue
would be needed for passengers
waiting
for service
to commence. It has dynamic nature because it
waiting
to demand level
changes
according
and congestion.
continuously
Servicing

space

counter,

or

occupied
a

by

the

machine)
and
does not
a time,

at
passenger(s)
is static
because it
calculated
according

(whether
server
one individual

a person
on a
(or
of)
group

have any particular

significance
and constant
over time,
and is usually
derived
from ergonomics.
to some standards

space from supply-demand

could be accomplished
relations
both queue length
by relating
to demand level
and queue time
imposed. So, for all demand levels
there are corresponding
values
for queue lengths
that
from a certain
would result
average delay
Deriving

to

passengers.
formed awaiting
corresponding

For

instance,

service,
length
of

in

where a queue is
the average queueing time is (X) and the
the queue is (Y),
for this
then waiting
a situation

for
service
a period
of time (X) requires
a space to
linearly
Space is expressed
accommodate (Y) individuals.
either
(number in queue per
density
as number in queue, or as occupation

particular

unit

area).

55.

Needless

to

that

say

straightforward

they

as
involved

complexities
time dependency

with

and

the

these

relations

might

seem,

certain

variations

are not
as
because--of

operational
demand over

of

simple
the

and
many

aspects,
namely,
time,
stochastic

difficulty
the
of
practical
However,
and segregation
manipulation
of delay.
with
proper
this
be utilized
in formalizing
assumptions,
argument
could
them thereafter.
standards
service
and implementing
nature

of

LEVEL OF SERVICE

4.6

discussion

Following
standards
distinguish

The

the

service

kinds

major

level
section,
be reviewed.
suit

and
standards
on service
the framework
of service
be
it
to
necessary
would

and
service

comprising
that would

standards.

of

facilities

of

of'service
In this

and

terminal
an airport
facilities.
In
linking

for

criteria
respect,

the

three

categories

and environments
be successfully
could
framework.
So, these

are:
this
would
for

service
criteria
in literature,
were traced
for
the proposed
adopted

similar

situations

comparable
of

FOR AIRPORT TERMINALS

storing-holding,

processing,

which
level

CRITERIA

terminals,
airport
between
the various
types
of facilities
and their
corresponding
characteristics

terminal,

influence

and

previously
raised
to formalize
order

in

and
for

measures,

the

process,

two categories

briefly

only be
will
throughout
this

viewed,
while most effort
and attention
be directed
level
towards
devising
work will
of service
criteria
for processing
facilities,
in Chapter Six.
be presented
as will

4.6.1

STORING-HOLDING FACILITIES

Storing-holding
where passengers
amounts of time

facilities
in

function

particular
furthur
awaiting

primarily
as
and users in general
service.

Service

staging

areas

spend varying
of
standards

55.

Needless

to

straightforward

these
they

as
involved

complexities
time dependency
nature

that

say

the

of

seem,

might

with

and

relations

certain

variations

process,

operational
demand over

of

and segregation
of
this
be utilized
assumptions,
argument
could
them thereafter.
standards
service
and implementing

manipulation

LEVEL OF SERVICE

4.6

discussion

Following
standards
distinguish
the

influence
The

the

service

kinds

major

processing,
level
section,
be reviewed.
which
level

of

facilities

of

of
and

and
service

proper
with
formalizing

and
standards
on service
the framework
of service
be necessary
to
it
would
comprising
that would

of'service
In this

terminal
an airport
facilities.
In
linking

for

criteria

the

three

categories

and environments
be successfully
could
framework.
So, these

are:
this
would
for

service
criteria
in literature,
were traced
for
the proposed
adopted

similar

respect,

situations

suit

practical

standards.

storing-holding,

comparable

in

terminals,
airport
between
types of facilities
the various
characteristics
and their
corresponding

terminal,

of

FOR AIRPORT TERMINALS

raised
previously
to formalize
order

in

and
for

measures,

CRITERIA

many

namely,
aspects,
time,
stochastic

difficulty
the
delay.
However,

and

and

as simple
are not
the
because
of

two categories

will

only

be

briefly

throughout
this
viewed,
and attention
while
most effort
be directed
level
towards devising
work will
of service
criteria
for processing
facilities,
be presented
in Chapter Six.
as will

4.6.1

STORING-HOLDING FACILITIES

Storing-holding

facilities

where passengers

in

amounts

awaiting

of

time

function

particular
furthur

primarily
as
and users in general
service.

Service

staging

areas

spend varying
of
standards

56.

those used by architects

to design
are basically
the
functional
various
activities
within
space for
performed
In principle,
those standards
are norms
environment.
particular
(human factor
from ergonomics
the
derived
to fulfil
engineering)
facilities

these

of

requirements

individuals

naturally

activities

function

to

and comfortably.
directly
attached

designated
and perform
those functions
Basically,
dimensions
to specific
of

are
and activities
in motion
describe
the human body, and the space these dimensions
in
different
Particularly,
stationary
positions.
or
dealing
Anthropometry,
with the
which is the branch of science
to human subjects
of scientific
physical
measurements
application
for

development

the

this

of engineering
McCormick
and

purpose.
information
on this
for
body dimensions

Another

concept
which

ellipse',
levels

of

pedestrians.
dimensions
projection
18 inches
shoulder
occupancy

used
was

service
Fruin
of
to

the

subject
different

standards,
Sanders(59)
provide

(Chapter
percentile

for

used
based

design

this
by

11),

sepecifically
(Table
ranges

purpose
in
Fruin(15)

is

the

his

work

used for

is

excellent
important
11.1).
'human
to

body

develop

for
area
occupancy
on calculating
devised
this
shape and
concept to standardize
its
horizontal
he
human body,
considered
where

dimensions
of
an ellipse
approximate
with effective
for the body depth (minor axis),
and 24 inches for the
(major
different
He then
breadth
axis).
calculated
levels

based

on

different

arrangements
the following

defined
and
called
level
1. Touch Zone, with an occupancy
of (3)
below which frequent
unavoidable
contacts
to occur.
pedestrians
are likely
'body

buffer

zones',

of what
levels:

he

sq. ft.
per person,
between individual

2. No-Touch Zone, with (18) inch body radius,

and occupancy level
it would be increasingly
of (7) sq. ft.
per person,
more likely
be able to avoid contacts.
that individual
pedestrians
will
(full
body
(21)
3. Personal
Comfort Zone,
inch
body
with
radius
depth

level

(10)

sq.
and occupancy
of
ft.
through
is
per
person,
comfort
personal
maintained
limited
lateral
between pedestrians.
allowing
circulation
separating

standees),

57.

4. Circulation

Zone,
(13)

an area

of

minimum

pedestrian

(24)

with

inch

ft.

sq.

body radius

per
for

area

to

corresponding

the
represent
disturbing
without

person,

would

circulation

others.
Some organisations
of

airports,

currently

Ergonomics

and

involved

to
adequate
joint
whose

use

that

are

accommodate
standards

BAA

users

in

of

terms

areas

of

facility.

that

and BAA(61),
based
standards

4.4,
shown in Table
use
by BAA,
conducted
and unofficially
A passenger
1969,
where

in

the

departure

lounges

reasonably

IATA

are

terminals

interviewed

in

expressed

on work previously
by Perrett(13).
in a paper
four

design,
planning,
and operations
derived
from Anthropometry
standards

with

survey

was

2500

and
lounge

published

passengers
to

asked

at

conducted
state

were
their

to crowding
the
preception
and rate
environment
on a five
level
from
'not
scale
to 'exceptionally
ranging
at all
crowded'
The result
overcrowded'.
4.2,
of this
survey,
as shown in Figure
in
helped
defining
service
standards
of
storing-holding
in

facilities
various
to

levels.

crowding

passengers

is

passengers

available,

4.6.2
These

will

the

However,

different

of each
percentage
lounge
accommodating
or'

through

airports

form

also

passengers

that

are

have

two

form

the

(e. g.,
may

of

of

seating
be

that

standing

or

are

standing),

and
a departure

So,

variable.

with
levels

different

to
passengers
'storing'
provided

perception

all

comfortably

no

seating

of

seated,
provisions

service.

LINKING FACILITIES
facilities

provide

and storing
processing
be
areas strictly
might
concourses,
facilities

and

connection
in the
centres

provided

for

between
terminal

movement,

the
building.

such

various
They

as corridors,

stairwyas,
or
constitute
other
of
parts
in such a way so as parts
planned
of them facilitate
like
movement and circulation,
lounges,
or
pathways in departure
in
the
termianl
walkways
those
hall.
By definition,
main

58.

b
0
'0
7d
pw
1

O7

1"

Yy
1
Aa3

fl

JA

YaYr.

"p

OY

rY

ovg

Yq

Yyl

Sr 89i 3rh

"8C

a9
,

31

Sag

V+

"N

e
A,

eire
3d

00

vN

ai
19r
'"N
lot

"O

ij

3w

.t

ag

eaal;

OYO

y9
,
Tiw

Lex
9
wl
Y.

? dB6do

81I
p

Yy
YY9
p

NI

9i
RQ9

p
Y

ap

Mr
IY

iV
s10;

Ij

11

t9Y
!9

Yp13

-E
3rse!

3d

9^

Yy

X- z:

3-0-

93

Al

>,,,
,
RK

8:

Yo

~i
9u

ro
+,

a
V

NNN"

NNN9

MQ
o*

ti

IQ P:

so

in

r=
0

y .as
40
0Yw0V9

YZ
a

M1;

yy

S.0
4-

. -

yiN

Yu
;

p,

88

il

+. )
i
O
a
I-

Yro

}
3.2!,

G
mM

rw

le8
eaFr:

ru
i

.0a.

kLLlL

VY

1.

1I
.9`y

"

rd .
wr

E
5C)
F-

mY

YpW

yq

ti Go

;n
Iro
c

j`YyV"NN

PrgSr

0 .Y. xa

"

0O

"'

$awy

?1

_P '3 ..

.d8.

Y4M

ql

NN

.03

li
Y0

Y-.
roAjry
`1

et

Ol

Is

0.9

3+

MA

00, T-

'

Y7YwaY
I,

IJ

YOE

1.
r

Yp

5NwiarF

:YN

aY
Y7

ii

7<6
p0"
p
;G
Im

-y

0.

01

5a
V)

00-

<o,

Yp

at
"'b

Yn1

r99Z:
rr<7
"a

0"

1t

e01
0i0Qyw"0

pr

"rJ

aYp

1LL

7(/

N.
.

y-vJ

ZY
-0A

"0.

"

p0

"
t.

0YM

. rYrr7 yy

1Y

..
9Ian

ntiAla
M9
r

7AR1,

0.

Ow

V11,,
. o

?n

A.

e
%&

..

"
Pi

p^
A

-:

"'rp"

ARY8i

OpA

Ar

, `

O 7q

riI

^J
3P.

V i".

.JNON

. r

N79N

wy

0. py
'0

A.

N0

tir

;
...

OY

J!

00

1 b..

6_
as,

"s

30I

aq"
G

"

I}iiFr

"

ww

I3

^2
Gd

40-1.

Id

YJ

Yr

rN

"Ox

Yi

Sa

rx

MM
M
p.

a'paa9
11
r;
o?
ed_d

pY

tYA
r"

I$

YY29

; ^Z:

pa

0'

; s
hrr

B9`
1i

7
iK

+O

ioBB

.r

7~
.2!

"yp0Yrr"0.
agr

13
1d.:
.:

e..

r9

r'

w
30.3A

ay

A:

.9

'

xn:
sir

o
7r

QU

wwNN

qa

U12

Iy
l
M

q9

..

""".rZ

Qp

J1
e

Y1"
"P

y^um

.a
ro

taI
rn

ri

0
6

11

""0
%

7B'

"0Yj'jY
l'-09.5

^y4Y

0N

'

60

p0'w

NN

Y?

rA

EN

grrl

V.
1

p
"

"

B'B

.iw.:

.prY

co

i-

nnAgr

Or

bV1p+

(raY

{Y!

Y0

gk

1zla

BdId1

/Y

YYr0ApMNYpA

"11

Ol
`r

`OIM

3=

iw1
3.
YAB

e
`

Y8
y

P`

:;

Y7

Edlr

1i'

M17a1`tiY

iA=

wn,

'

r`

nr

""

PPB

0e"Y

B1Nr

OdMM
r9..

LIO

rq

o
+

r"+r
33

Ir

wBdL.:

'e

Z.

y
""

y77

0. "

"pr
_

IM

vv"

ry

_aP.

L-4,
yvo
&
is
.

p46

gI

i
,

2:

3E2

"

QU
lp.

y"

tl i,

.; a..

daDr

AZ

+Y

+"

..a

60.

facilities

accommodate
the terminal

in

people
self-serve

activity

mechanical
building,

means)

activities
building.

associated
with
Functionally,

and as such,
operational
speed and type of movement, density
and moving distance.
Previous

have

studies

concluded
traffic

pedestrian
by environmental,

aspects,
influenced

Fruin(51,52,60),
Zupan(64),
have
all
to varying

and
tackled
depths

using

standards
of

pedestrians

that,

apart

of

the

are

influenced
whilst

from

termianl
by

moving,

operational

may

characteristics

different
to

done

mainly
terminals

seems most eligible

in terminals,
standards
passenger

and the
specifically),
devised
are more consistent
from

parts

be
also
factors.

social,
and psychological
Navin and Wheeler(62),
Pushkarev and
Older(63),
a recent
and Ushpiz(20),
study by Polus Schofer
traffic
standards,
pedestrian
service
and their

work

in

(self-move

where people
move
between
different

movements of
linking
is a
or by aid of

fact

However,

approaches.

Fruin's

for
service
setting
adopted
because this
work was originally
(although
terminals
airport
not
be

that

level

of'

service

criteria

and complete.

Fruin(52):

" A passenger
terminal
may be categorized.
has
that
a building
system
as
an external
or
community
interface
The
and internal
environment.
environment,
or passenger
that
factors
include
the external,
comprise
community environment
Quoting

its

land-use,

It also includes
access system,
and aesthetics.
health,
impacts.
tranquility,
socio-economic,
and ecological
Factors
the internal
its
include
affecting
environment
passenger
design,
traffic
service
standards,
characteristics,
visual
design,

patron

maintainability".
suit

an

systems)
specific
included
volumes,

airport

. comfort,
service,
convenience,
Fruin's
description
can very well stand for
terminal's.
Hence,
the two environments

and
and
(or

being
the
analogous,
terminal
a
where
airport
(yet more complex)
Factors
terminals.
of passenger
in Fruin's
design
framework
are: average area occupancy,
and speed conditions,
where he justified
considering

are
kind

61.

by(60):

factors

these

"

should

be

level

of

service
standards
pedestrian
to
based on the freedom to select
locomotion
the ability
speed,
bypass slow moving pedestrians,
ease of cross
and the relative
traffic
flow
and
reverse
movements
at
pedestrian
various
Rather than capacity,
design judgement requires
concentrations.
the evaluation
or levels
of the degree of the human convenience,
by design
the classic
created
within
assumptions
of service,
of economics,
space,
and time ".
framework
for
pedestrians,
shown in
in a fashion
one,
arranged
similar

restraints
service
six-level
Highway

Capacity

Fruin's
Table
to

is

4.5,
that

of

a
the

Manual.

in
described
a recent
addition
subject,
was
determination
by
the
Habicht
Braaksma(66),
of
on
and
paper
Widths
in
environments.
of corridors
widths
related
effective
based
for
different
levels,
on reductions
estimated
service
were
to

A useful

adopted
determining

of

widths

on actual
and types

of
in

this

for
corridors,
This approach

walls.
the procedures
practical

made on capacity
factors
various

at
that

of

capacity
of
the most ideal
would

facilities

Processing

terminal,

the

airport

the

system.

operational

form

the

kinds

of obstacles
is reminiscent
of the concept
Manual for
Highway Capacity
a highway

operating
influence
adversely

PROCESSING (SERVICING)

4.6.3

the

different

based

on reductions
due to
conditions,
those

conditions.

FACILITIES

most

important

and vital
parts
to the complexity

of

of
and greatly
contribute
Their function
is to perform
and
certain
regulatory
by
that
the
related
activities,
are
required

handling
for the passenger/baggage,
and necessary
organisations,
facilitate
to
the smooth and safe transfer
system
of passengers
Each
baggage
between
their
transport
and
air and service
modes.
facility

has its

exact function
facility,
that

to
own distinct
characteristics
with respect
and the nature
of process,
patterns
arrival
times
distribution,
passengers'
processing

its
to
and

62.

Table
Fruin's

Level

LEVEL OF SERVICE
CFRVTrc

Service

Framework

for

Pedestrians

WALKWAYSSTAIRWAYS

MEASURE

(1)
A

120 and more

(2)

35 and more
715

(3)

Freely

IFreely

(1)
(2)

25 - 35
710

(3)

Normally

(1)
(2)

15 - 25
10 - 15

(3)

Individually

(1)

10 - 15
15 - 20

(2)

(3)

of

4.5

(3)

5-

(2)

(3)

selected

110 - 15
I710
restricted

selectediSlightly
17-

10

110 - 13
andiNormal

speeds

reduced

speeds

reduced

14-7

20 - 25
Speeds restricted
speed

shuffling
(1)

(Freely

selected

10

forward

selected

115 - 20
(5-7

Speeds restricted
reduced

(1)

12)

selected

113 - 17
andlNormal
only byl
I

5 and less
14 and less
(( Not
))
for
design
recommended
Extremely
IComplete
breakdown
restricted,
forward

speed

only

byl

shuffling
(1)-

Average

(2)-

Design

(3)-

Walking

in sq ft/person.
occupancy
volume in pedestrian/minute/ft
area

and stair

speed

condition.

width.

63.

operational
has been
for

reasons.

characteristics

and
with
to

passengers
difficulties
organisations

has

procedures
(yet
relatively
on

simplification
by

initiated

facilities

these
is

facility
of

nature

(or

slow)
international
where

ICAO(68),

states

in

there

Nevertheless,

and
to

approach
facilitation)

in

unique

operation

when

processing.
still

of

programme
level.

This
to

set

are
by

and

was
programme
try
to improve
transactions,

and

imposed

undergoing

standardization

regulations,
or

those
of
Moreover,

objectives
are

committees

procedures,
by

contracting

the

IATA(67),

simplify

recommended

dissimilar

interests,
their

and

continuous

for

standards
every

It

organisations.

implies
the
that
others,
of
which
reaction
their
is
These
operational
conditions
variable.
by the
are also
amongst
caused
absence
of consensus
involved
(sometimes
in operation,
and the different

organisations
operational

responsible

service

policies,

conflicting)

and

set

the

Basically,

various

compared

by

set

procedures
difficult
to

the

of

authorities

ICAO worldwide..

are

service

suggested

standards

concerned
and organisations
airport
with
IATA and BAA(61) formed a joint
group to
to try to set internationally
recognized

operations.
discuss
this

by agencies
Recently,
matter,

and
Table

standards.
facilities
processing

service

for
service';
standards
by
IATA and BAA.
BAA uses service
adopted
standards
currently
delay or queueing time,
based on the two congestion
and
measures:
Those standards
space.
were empirically
set by BAA,
queueing
4.4

the

shows

based on previous
research
conducted
on BAA's methodology
no information
in any detail,
published
officially
described

in

time

interpreted

for

are

Perrett's

in

their

terminals.

However,

has

been made available

or
except some basic principles
Service
for queueing
standards

paper(13).
as the recommended

maximum

queueing)
facility.

time

IATA
a particular
processing
are very close to BAA's except for:
standards
IATA used a second standard
1.
for
queueing
at peak operating
times expressed
time for 80%
as the recommended maximum queueing
of the passengers,
in addition
to the normal operating
condition
all

passengers

at

64.

as

expressed

maximum que ueing time for

time
the maximum queueing

a recommended
BAA used only

passengers.

passengers.
For circulation,
2.

BAA adds 25% to

lounges,
and 20% for gates,
for processing
facilities
are

departure
standards
In

that,

of

spite

set
involved

airport

with

operations

service

organisations
handling.
These

within

experience

compiled

were

standards

personal

that

standards
a
or following
procedure
implemented,
were
presently

some established
Service
standards

method.
to
according

and
concourses
their
crowding

identical.

no indication

to

according

were set
systematic

is

there

space for
however,

and passenger

over

95% of the
for
95% of

of

years

reflecting

practice

accumulated
were largely

personal
based

procedures

be
would
and
without
set
arbitrarily
to viewpoints
of passengers.
and interests

consideration
In

to
attempt
terminals

an

airport
operating

in

small-scale
in
Airport

Austin,

experience
on trial

explore

service

with
and

error.

or
whether
be obtained

could

particular
inquiry
personal

airport,
in
the

Texas,

handled

which
1983 through
A brief
eight
airlines.
.
managers of those airlines,
station
for
to service
standards
conception
from

not service
directly

names of persons
investigation
this

be

completely

in
standards
from
airlines

the

a
author
conducted
Mueller
Municipal
Robert
2.7

million

in

passengers
was handed to

questionnaire
them to
asking

operational
judgement,
and
experience
induced by the effects
of market competitveness,
by the anonymity
and maintained
was ensured

could

proper

their

state

at the airport
passengers
based on their
standpoint
personal
To avoid bias
not on airlines
policy.

purely

participating
the lack of

and
these

and operation,
Consequently,

confidentiality
of

replies,
where
The outcome of

and airlines

were

were not required.

showed that
replies
of
so different
and inconsistent,

consensus

concluded
on opinions

between
it

that
of

the

participants
would
not be

parties

involved

station
in

and revealed
It
this
survey.

appropriate
with

managers

operations

to

rely
only,

65.

for passeng(
The proper
select
standards
service
and more
s.
logical
in the
way would be to include
passE gers themselves
to
their
to
and ask them
process
state
service
perception
in defining
so that they would participate
offered,
of
standards
their
own service.
to

for
facilities,
standards
processing
link
in
a complete
and systematically
missing
framework
for
terminals.
service
airport
of
Service

has to

procedure

achievable,

practically

in

order

and applicable

to

the

level
established
Therefore,
a

arrive

at realistic,

standards.

service

SUMMARY

4.7
In

be established

be

seem to

this

chapter,
service
in
transportation
systems
particular,
that
factors

of

and airport
terminologies

general,
and their

were previewed,

levels

and

standards

service
terminals

for

defined.

The

in

in
to
may possibly
service
operational
contribute
terminals
and similar
or environmentals
were
airport
systems
influence
that
discussed,
to
those
so
most
as
consider
'operational
conditions
and service
standards.
Also,
studied.
facilities,

service
standards
It
was noticed

comparable

service

that

lacked

could

as

suitable

airport
for
that

service

standards

operators

and carriers.

from

considered
for
standards
be the

only

and

other
as

similar

appropriate

airport
parts

were
linking

of

and
and

terminals.
the

terminal

operational

standards,
service
necessitating
deriving
method for
service
realistic
facilities.
Preferably,
these should be

a systematic
establishing
standards
for processing
based on passengers'
perception
arbitrary

holding-storing

be

seemed to

facilities

terminals'

borrowed

standards

environments

adequate to adopt
facilities
Processing

for

set

according

to

operational
service,
rather
judgement
to the arbitrary

on
of

CHAPTERFIVE

CAPACITY

5.1

DEFINITIONS

Defining
been

measuring

and

intersections,

street

fertile
a
was
Research

viewpoints.
Board

U. S.

Manual(47)

and
and

was

of

experience

capacity

traffic

operations

system.

The

indicate

three

1.

Basic

at

for

seperate

Capacity
based'on
research

and
the

and
capacity

special

Highway

to

points

vehicular
the

physical

roadway

pass *a given

point

and traffic

many

traffic

on

Capacity

Highway

Manual

summarized

American

practical

studies
design

conducted.
features,

characteristics
other
itself
was defined

on the

the

of
so

to

as

function:

performance

conditions,

the

of

committee

which

cars

that

can

under

the

most

can possibly

The maximum number of vehicles

that
can
on a lane or roadway during
under
one hour,
and traffic
conditions.

prevailing
roadway
Practical
3.,
capacityso great
to
the
roadway

of

results

The maximum number of-passenger

on a lane or roadway during
one hour

capacity-

prevailing

by

times,

aspects,

be attained..
2. -Possible

restrictions

those

related

expression

and

transportation,

capacity-

pass a point
ideal
nearly

density-being

the

agencies

was

in

compiling

1950,

In
edited

of

related

Highway

of

involving

streets.

art

highways

of

be tackled

task

experience

edition
the

of

state

the

published,

The first

HRB.

Capacity

always

for
of
and 'a subject
research
many years
the Highway
After
the Second World War,

undertook

of research
highways

years

for

has

transportation,

subject.
first
to

the

ground

conflicting

the

capacity

controversy-prone

in

The

the traffic
without
hazard,
delay,
or
unreasonable

volume

chosen

as to cause
drivers'
freedom

and traffic

conditions.

to

maneouvre,

under

67.

Capacity

Highway

Although
during

technological

and
concepts
'material.
obsolete

was

is

of
had a reasonable
expectation
in one
lane or a roadway
period,
Comprehensive
influencing

procedures

for

systems

(or

roadway
was
of

thereby

for

service
of

service.
determining
capacity,

engineers,
continued

planners
1965

since

to

service

as

incorporated
and

traffic

civil

research

techniques

existing

for

reference

engineers,

Moreover,

level
Manual

Capacity

main

at

systems

volumes,

the

and

rural

methodology

those

Highway

the

aspects

of

methodology

worldwide.
improve

relevant

of

part

This

by

conditions".

a complete

any

used

a given

section

a variety

establishing

capacity

capacity

all

which
of a
time

a given
during

for

provided

vehicles

traffic

and

of

definition'

'the
of

number

passing
over
direction
two)

of

and

became

maximum

its
Since
publication,
of service.
(second
had been considered
edition)
road

in

definition

The

published.

of

capacity/level

levels

the

with

improvements

subsequent

capacity

the

prevailing
description

urban road systems,

determining
the
for
various

was

Possible

Capacity

under

and

Manual(48)

changed.
"

capacity:

in

So,

knowledge

provided
valuable
became evident
that,

in many ways.
deficient
was actually
derived
to
and
old
were
replace
1965, a totally
of the
revised
edition

findings,

New

capacity

it

standards,

Capacity

later

research

extensive

continuous

Highway

it

era,

post-war

Manual

and

has

explore

third
Consequently,
a
as
with
yet
untackled
problems.
-new
in
is
being
drafted,
is
for
and
scheduled
publication
edition
inclusions
in
the third
Changes
edition
and
new
mid-1985(50).
areas

are:
1.

New subjects
bicycles,
which

as;
use as the
such

public
capacity

well as vehicle-capacity.
2. Instead
of using hourly
volumes
the
hour,
the new manual
within
15-minutes
of flow.
3.

Criteria

for

to

transit,

pedestrians,

criterion

person-capacity

describe

focuses

average

primarily

and
as

conditions
on the peak

level

to quality
of
of service
are related
by the highway user,
than-on
criteria
rather

as defined
service
based on traffic
volumes.
4. More emphasize has been placed

on queueing

delay.
and

68.

5.

Procedures

but they
are more complex,
behaviour
and traffic
characteristics.
6. More emphasis on computer
implementation
But

before

proceeding

on

furthIr,

any

current

reflect

it

in

the

is

important

to

driver

procedures.
at this
the terms;

from using
cut short
any confusion
arising
demand,
because their
interchangeably,
and capacity
volume,
dissimilar
in major respects(49):
are
meanings
The
the quantity
term
to
measurement
of
referring
-Volume:
time.
movement per unit
The
term
incidence
describes
the
of
which
quantitatively
-Demand:
travel
under given conditions.
The
that
volume-carrying
a particular
capability
-Capacity:
stage

facility

can accommodate

For

defined
Manheim(69)
general,
of any component as :" The maximum number of items
time that
the component".
through
can be processed

transportation

capacity
unit

of

the

at

limit.

in

systems

parts
of
inclusion

the
of

airside

literature,

technical

promising
comparable
and roads.

unified
to that

its

in

by the

still

In
studies.
the landside

airport
capacity
The conference
capacity(7,11).
by the Transportation
organized

distinguished

capacities.
definition

capacity
ignore

airport

even

airside
Capacity(70),

set

is

references

and

Landside
on Airport
Research Board in 1975,
and, landside

only

most

completely,
capacity
interchangeably
with

airside

in

system

per
In

for
terminology
no unified
literature,
technical
and even
the representation
of
regarding
A clear
studies.
example
capacity

however,
there
systems,
that could be found in
capacity,
some inconsistencies
were exposed
airport

various
is the

the

use

for

However,
for
Highway

the
it

airport
Capacity

first
did

time

between

not furnish
any
landside
capacity
Manual for streets

69.

In

it

is

there
seems that
in this
field
researchers
and experts
landside
for
Searching
capacities.
conclusion,

amongst
consensus
terminology
on a unified
the
technical
through
no

literature,

that are
a variety
of definitions
and terminologies
different
herewith:
found,
all so descriptively
as
presented
was
1. In the conference
Landside
Capacity
two definitions
on Airport
but both of them failed
to provide
up,
a useful
were brought
landside

for

definition

capacity;

is
the
Capacity
physical
provision
time at a specified
level
at a given
defined
as
ultimate
or
maximum
lowest

associated
and level

with

the

of

service

considered
for
defined

together.
a given

is

required
of 'service.

service

demand

Capacity

service.

of passenger
interrelated
are
and
levels
Several
different
capacity

a given

is
When capacity
it
is
generally

capacity,

level

maximum

for

always

should

can

service

of

be
be

rate(58).

to provide
a
capability
of a facility
This service
Therefore,
capacity
can be flow or storage.
service.
in terms of items processed
per
can be measured either
as flow
in terms of items stored(54).
or as storage
unit time,
- Capacity

the

ACAP research
landside
airport

physical

Program:

2.

pattern

given

or

subsystems,

any

capacity
that
can
.

defined
and Gualda(28)
of demand of a
as : 11 The maximum level
be imposed
system,
an airport
on
McCullough(57)

in

a given

level

of

components
specified

interval

time

of

without
for
the

criterion
direct
It
is
system,
subsystems,
a
or components.
airport
level
function
of:
subsystems,
and
of service
of the system,
is to be
the period
capacity
of time
over which
components,

violating

determined,
aircrafts,
3.

and the
and ground

Transport

airport
building,
terminal

system

pattern
vehicles

Canada(55)
into

three

of demand of passengers,
for the airport".
a terminology

adopts
major

and the
airside.
buildings
includes

service

subsystems;
The capacity

three

specific

that

divides

groundside,
definition
types

of

baggage,

the

terminal
for

capacity:

the

70.

Static
-

is

capacity

usually

expressed

facility
total

useable

storage

potential

as

the

number

at

any

one

hold

can

the

space

of

occupants

of

It

moment.

available

and

is

level

the

an area

or

facility

which

the

area

a function
of

of
to

service

or
the
be

provided.

Dynamic

pedestrians
time
actual

is
capacity
(occupants)

of
rate
or flow
maximum processing
The
through
time.
a subsystem
per unit
selected
as the measurement index depends on the
the

unit
the operation.

nature of
is
Maximum
throughput
the
practical
capacity
overall
capacity
demand within
the space and
of a subsystem to accommodate traffic
is
it
level
thus
time standards
a
of a particular
service,
of
dynamic
of all
capacities
and static
measure of the combined
facilities.
4.

IATA,

the

International

Air

Association,

Transport

adopts a
Canada but has a
that is similar
terminology
to that of Transport
in
breakdown of airport
different
stated
as
capacities,
systems'
Terminal
Reference
Manual(8):
IATA's Airport
in
in
Runway
terms
a
system
rate
capacity
movement
aircraft
of
given period.
Apron
system
available.
Terminal
per hour.
In another
variable
the level

accordance
service.

terms

terms
of

number

of

of

and baggage

passenger

throughput

defined
was

IATA

into

subdivided

static,
The first

capacities.
Transport
Canada:
capacity
that
can
with

stands

aircraft

publication(56),
capacity
measure. of throughput
or system capability
being provided".
The definition
of service

as those of
Sustained
unit

in

capacity

was furthur
declared
and

time,

in

capacity

is

the

be

achieved

safety

dynamic,
two were

maximum traffic

requirements

over

a
and

:"A

related
of

sustained,
identically
flow

as

for

sustained
acceptable

to

capacity
maximum,
defined

the

chosen
in
period,
levels
of

71.

is
Maximum
capacity
for the chosen
achieved
longer

period,
levels
acceptable

in

the
time

unit

accordance

flow

traffic

maximum

only,

but

not

and

requirements

safety

with

can be
for a
sustained
which

of

service.
is
in
Declared
limiting
the
capacity
and
capacity
capacities
to
facilities
and resources,
numeric terms on individual
notified
bodies
flight
be used
in
to
the
the
appropriate
preparing
schedules.
IATA

Other
capacity

publications(71,72)
formulae,
calculation
however,
peak hour,
for
this
research.

equivalent
irrelevant

5.

In

Aviation

its

Airport

Planning

Organisation-

ICAO,

introduced
facility
these

such
evaluation

expressions

Manual(9),
recognized

the
the

as:

expressions

and
to be

equations,
were found

Civil

International
importance

of

the

" In
capacity
as a major component
planning:
of master
the aim should
be to ensure
that
satisfies
capacity
planning,
demand within
practical
capability
economic limits
and to provide
for increased
capacity
growth".
as demand increases
with traffic

terminal

Although

ICAO did

landside

capacity,

the

for
definition
airport
not provide
explicit
an
ICAO's
the following
views
reveals
quotation
building
" Capacity
or its
of a passenger

subject:
is
in terms of achievable
movement
usually
expressed
segments,
in
for a given area.
some cases,
or,
of actual
population
rates
different
the
Although
criteria
are in use for movements rates,
basic concept employed is one of the number of movements per unit

on

depends
time
appropriate
of
upon
unit
it
In some cases,
application.
may be desirable'
particular
so as to satisfy
peak demand,
an estimated
plan capacity
be more realistic
a figure
somewhat below this
normally
will

time,

where

the

the
to
but
due

involved
What is important
is to
costs
and space required.
so
match the capacities
of different
segments in the processing,
inadequate
in one operation
that
does not restrict
the
capacity
flow ".
overall

to

72.

6. The British

Airports

The volume of
level
service
within
as

5.2

:"

INTERPRETATION

Authority(73)
traffic

defined

can be sustained
".
period

that

a stated

OF CAPACITY

in

capacity
at

general
a defined

IN TRANSPORTATION SYSTEMS

a transportation
as the
system can be considered
The volume or number of items using the system
supply.
system's
times usually
according
changes quite
considerably,
at different
As the number of items per
to the demand imposed on the system.
(in
(volume)
level
time
the
whatever
varies,
service
of
unit

The capacity

of

used)

expression
traveller,

by the

provided

also change.
turn out to
and density
to use as a basis for

would

Volume

by the
thus experienced
system,
Quoting from Wohl and Martin(49):
be the

convenient
pair
most
...
flow
discussing
traffic
and
of variables
it
is
theoretical
".
In
this
for formulating
respect,
approaches
to consider
of the physical
some of the characteristics
useful
driver,
highway system ( whose basic elements
and
vehicle,
are;
highway),

and the

manner in
out basic

the

as a whole operates,
be
that
to set
then try
should
conditions
operating
density
Using
to
by
theory.
as
required
any
explanatory
satisfied
level
defining
conditions
would
of service,
operating
express
which

require;
density
0,
0.
Volume
when
=
=
increase
Volume
to
would
up
declining
density
before
starts
Volume

density).
.
Therefore
describe

=0,

shows a typical
In

(capacity),

a maximum value
reaches its maximum.

density

reaches

diagram'

could

when

a 'fundamental
the behaviour

system

of

maximum

be drawn

to

value

and
(jam

schematically
5.1(a),
Figure

operating
conditions.
fundamental
diagram(49).
volume-density

for
level
general,
physical
a particular
supply
or specific
layout,
does
as the demand level
so
or service
volume changes,
the resulting
token,
level
Similarly
by
the
same
of service.
and
'fundamental
important
another
diagram'
be
the
could
established;

73.

C
free speed
V.
v

4E,
fll-7

mum volume V.

Space mean speed

I

DB

-Jam

Dj

DA

density Di

Density

(a)
Os
V,

Meon

free

speed

Ue
8"
N

[;

Z,

Maximum volume V,,,

1""

- V

VA VT
Volume

(b)

Figure
''"

5.1

Fundamental
and (b)

Diagram

Speed-Volume.

for

Highways;

(a)

volume-Density,

74.

between

relationship
as the level

speed and volume,

where speed is considered
identifying
i. e.,
factor(48),
service
service

of

measure. Again,
operating
conditions
would require;
When
the
volume =0,
space mean speed = 0.
increases,
As
decrease
speed
corresponding
volume
will
a maximum value.
reaching
Volume
0,
is
approaches
when
space
speed
maximum.
mean
'fundamental

This

presented

schematically
An

diagram',

important

introduced

in

attribute

the

operating
on here,

and

emphasized
phenomenon that

is

relationship(49)

speed-volume
Figure
5.1(b).
of

after

should

conditions

be

a
congestion;
the performance
its
and
congestion

namely,
influences

significant
strongly
Manheim(69)
diagnosed
systems.
of transport
factors.
"
Congestion
two
the
of
arises
out
of
conjunction
roots:
The second
is that every process has a finite
The first
capacity.

is
has
there
every process
stochastic
characteristics;
some degree of randomness in both the demand placed on a process
So,
".
demands
those
the
the
to
of
ability
service
process
and
is

that

is

a phenomenon associated
demand are brought
together

congestion
and

supply

activity),
heavy
match
Since

congestion
research

necessitiates

solve

problems

engineering.
on this
subject,

planning(74),
urban
78).
theory(76,77),
However,
terminals

a situation
and delay will

are provided
mostly
been
has
conducted

approach to
and traffic
references

is

and when there

demands, queues

congestion

the

in

where

supply

of
models
Extensive

Theory.

implementing

Queueing

and transportation
few
a
of
mention

Theory's
planning,

urban

To

text

books

in

traffic

of

Queueing

the

Theory

numerous

systems(49),
and

research(75),

can not
occur.

consequently
and delays,

queues
by Queueing

operations

implementation

where
processing,
with
( servicing
to interact

in

queueing

airport
Although

capacity
analysis
successful.
was not very
to
Queueing Theory approach had been successfully
solve
utilized
for
the
done
from
the
many problems
on
airside,
as evident
work
Company
Federal
U. S.
Aviation
Administration
by Douglas Aircraft

75.

et

it

al(79),

it

occasions,
implemented

after

successful

Manchester

ticket

counters

that

after

in

Theory

three

the

of the
distributions

because

actual
by the

assumed
hence
lost,

the

analysis

description

detailed
queueing

theory,

queueing

and

to

theory

comparing
in particular),
terminals

systems
and
the following

with
cases,
those

to

tractibility

on

terminals,

had

those

a more
of

application
Powell(82).

to

refer

(airport'

systems

airport
facts

was

For

a dead-end.

reach

theory

comply

comply

and

discussion

thorough

processing

not
all

at

programme,

queueing
facilities

mathematical

then

transportation

highway

Now,

follow

not

the

would

In

theory.

gieueing
did

et

taken

and

arrivals

terminal
modelling
airport
approach
processing
because
did
distributions
to be abandoned,
those
assumptions

Ashford

and

to

basic

made

observations

ACAP research

the

observing
Texan
airports,

concluded

observations

with

in

many
be
not

could

O'Leary(27)

.
fact

In

Lee(78)

operations.
distributions
from

analysing

out
pointed
distributions

landside.

the

landside

this
also
confirmed
Airport.
Gualda(28),

al(80,81)

on

Queueing

that

proved

modelling

Heathrows'

at

that

not

was

in

fact

this

was

are relevant:
for terminals,

simply
relations
are inapplicable
is irrelevant
in terminals
because speed (per se) of passengers
insignificant
to
the
and
performance
operational
and
of air terminals.
characteristics
1.

2.

Speed-volume

Volume-density

terminals,
this
in
3.

yet

The

of

volumes
interpret

and

terminal,
'fundamental

not

operation

at

airport

corresponding

the

performance

against
diagram'

could be furnished,
When
demand
volume
-

that

relation

implemented

are dissimilar.
to the system

as significant

influencial

most

analysis

the
is

selection
highways.

be

relations
could
limiting
conditions

terminals

recognized
to that
similar
through
considering
0,
congestion
=

is

as

operation

could
which
facilities
processing

some

air
Moreover,

be adopted
for
should
is that between demand

congestion,
of

in

service

at

the

standards.
highway
system,

of the
the following
non-existent.

directly

conditions:

76.

increases,
demand
When
volume
its
two
attributes;
where
theoretically
until
exponentially

builds
up gradually,
congestion
increase
delay,
density,
and
levels.

infinite

approaching
diagram,
in the methodology
Such a fundamental
depicted
presented
in this
thesis
and designated
would
model',
as the 'performance
interpret
the performance
processing
of terminals'
systematically
(i.
in terms of variation
in congestion
facilities
e.,
measures
and density)

delay
As

in

the

case

highways,

of

of

performance

single

(volumes).

demand levels

i. e.,
to
and utilized
the
describing

relations,

congestion
be adopted
could

and volume-density,
' interpretation
useful

volume-delay
provide

at

different

of

facility

by

capacity

demand

varying

against

levels

and patterns.

5.3
It

WHAT IS TERMINAL CAPACITY?

has

terminal

been "previuosly
building

is

in

mentioned
composed

of

three

Three,

Chapter
basic

types

the

that
facilities;

of

links,
'the
of
storing-holding
capacities
and
areas,
processors,
fundamentally
different.
Processors'
are
are
capacities
which
for
in
items
time,
terms
while
of
per unit
processed
expressed
items
in
terms
they
of
areas
expressed
are
storing-holding
(i.
Links'
facility
the
time.
at
any
at
stored)
e.,
present
in terms of the number of items that can
expressed
(per
time).
through
pass
a given
section
unit
simultaneously
is generally
in terms of passengers
Terminal
capacity
expressed

capacities

passing

are

through

the

terminal

per

unit

it

time;

is

not

the

for the three

types of capacities
separately,
nor is
expression
it the summation of all of them. It is this
fact
that contributes
interpreting
to the complexity
the
of
capacity
of the whole
in terms
The
terminal
of the
capacities
of its -components.
airport
forming

terminal
a

is

composed

of

linked

facilities

uniquely
structured
system.
the
experiences
greatest
congestion
at
(therefore
operation
to the set
violations

The
any
service`

together
that

facility
instant

during

standards

are

77.

encountered),
would
that
facilities
all
degrees

be the
are

importance,

of

link

'weakest

in

to
essential
that
particular

the

Provided

chain'.

varying

with
that

operation
facility

violates

to causing
service
standards
system
would be the most susceptible
is the
breakdown.
It
defines
facility
that
capacity
of this
being
the closest
terminal
to the overall
capacity,
system's
capacity.
However,

systematic

determination

of

its
the
of
capacities
components
because;
difficult,
mainly
-

The effect

of

stochastic

the

terminal

and

facilities,

operations
facilities.

of all other
operations
demand,
Fluctuations
the
of
and
its
instability
of
characteristics
facilities.
individual

at

one facility,

variability
on the

from

capacity
is

very
on the.

and

relative

performance

of

(kind,
terminal
the
Unique
of
structuring
sequence)
size,
and
designated
to perform
the
terminal's
facilities
collectively
baggage
between
their
function
of transfer
and
of passengers
transport
and surface
modes.
factors
have the
these
All
would
and influence
of
making the effect
air

that

much more unpredictable.

5.4

BALANCED CAPACITY

It

was suggested

in

operationally

efficient
between

previous

inevitable
one

research(83),
to have some

of
consequence
on the others

facility

that
kind

of
delay)

the

it

would
balance

be more
struck

(e. g.,
measures of performance
of the system's
(i.
the
facilities).
To demonstarate
units
control
e.,
processing
importance
be
relative
of facilities,
measures could
performance
imposed,
For a particular
demand level
pro-rated
accordingly.
each facility
differently
to its specific
would perform
according
capabilities
capacity).
where

all

in

accommodating
various
Could there
be a situation
facilities
separate
constituting

demand
of

levels

'balanced
the

airport

(i. e.,
capacity',
terminal

78.

perform
terminal

harmony?.

in

capacities,

capacity
it is

capacities

of

Due to

in

systematically
even more difficult
terminal

all

in

difficulties

the

terms
to

avoid
extreme
cases
of
congestion
facilities
demand levels.
at different
is checked and compared
every facility

components'

condition
where
balanced,
to
reasonably

or
underutilization
When the performance

of
of

standards
users and the

service

against
the desires

to

its

of

obtain'a

are

capacities

interpreting

compromise between
of
imposed on or dictated
by the operator,
economic considerations
there will
always be instances
or underutilization
of congestion
by
(p),
is
intensity
traffic
the ratio
of
as governed
which
(u)).
(h)),,
(processing
demand (arrival
to the supply
rate
rate
set

reasonably

Balanced

capacity

maintained

continuously

imply

conditions
could

underutilization
This
will

at
such a
be contained

level

that

and

congestion

allowable

within
the

is

intensity(p)

traffic

that

margins.
(almost

undoubtedly
alteration
necessitate
instantaneously)
to match the oncoming
of facility
capabilities
(i. e.,
However,
demand.
has a specified
every facility
capacity
bound
be
for
that
can
possibly
upper
number
an
of passengers
by that

facility

processed
not be exceeded.

The only

which could
volume
more than this
itself
through
change capacity
In
of the facility.
channels

(i. e.,
capacity),
would be to
increasing
number of operational
there will
be a redistribution
doing so,
all

facilities.

other

converge

to

processing
reasonably
Unfortunately,
implies,

Eventually,

an equilibrium
facilities
of
balanced.
the

because

interval),

a given time
way to process

at

situation,
the
chain

of traffic
iterative

this

where
are

the

is not as clear
situation
balanced
capacity
could
not

due to:
achieved,
The increase
1.
in capacity
or decrease
(capacity)
overall
processing
rate
of

process

capacities

mutually

in

intensity

will
of the

matched

and

as this
arguement
be systematically
The

is

a step-function.
a facility
could

not

be

but the
conveniently
altered,
channels
number of operational
be changed.
the
could
Consequently,
the overall
of
capacity
facility
be altered
by a factor
will
to the processing
equivalent

79.

rate

of

single
that

suggested

facilities

process

hand,
Paullin(84)
other
follows
a
continuous
for one particular
altered

the

congestion
normally
function.
When capacity
is
it
incur
automatically
will

curvilinear
facility,
other

On

channel.

at
imply

will

or near balanced
one of two facts;

at all,
or
converge
there
are unrealistically
facilities.

it

imbalanced

In effect,

conditions.
the

either

will
converge
large
number

process

not

will

where
situations
for different
channels
at

only
of

at
this

situations

is the
by definition,
facility,
a processing
unexceedable
at any time..
volume that
ultimate
could be handled
facility
Changing the capacity
would be possible,
of a processing
In
is altered.
when the number of operational
only
channels
2.

The capacity

of

facilities

in the physical
space of the
contained
building,
space
of that
parts
where they occupy fixed
idle.
As a consequence,
monitoring
operational
or
is infeasible
from
to match imposed demand continuously,

addition,
terminal
whether
capacity

are

viewpoint.
a practical
implementing
Mn
queueing
facilities,
the
processing
from

arising
(attainment

the
of

distributions)

fact

that

theory

in

analyzing

analyst

is

confronted

major

steady-state
hold in
rarely

assumptions

operations
by difficulties
of

and
conditions,
terminals,
airport

queueing

of

theory

suitability
and is not

of
the

in such an environment.
means of operational
analysis
the
The stochastic
4.
of
pursuit
nature
of demand prevents
demand were
balanced
If
for
problems.
capacity
optimization
deterministic
in
the problem would
stable
and
nature,
virtually
be reduced
the components'
to one of optimizing
and
capacities
them together
against
a given demand.
matching
best

In

summary,

facilities,
systematically,
stochastic
relatively

the

balanced

could
mainly
and dynamic
deterministic

terminal
for
condition
capacity
be
implemented
or
not
conveniently
because of the incompatibility
between the
characteristics
and static

nature

of
of

demand,
the

supply.

and

the

80.

5.5

INTERPRETATION OF TERMINAL CAPACITY

Overall

terminal

achievable
capability
basic function
over

a stated

HOLDING-STORING

facility,

of time,

period
research,

while
its

to

applicable

CAPACITY:

expressed
at

considered
system in

as

the

net
its

performing

to

conformimg

corresponding
facilities
are

capacity

of

storing

capability
the facility

as follows:

interpreted

hold

of

service
criteria
Throughout
this

specified
facilities.
1.

be
could
the terminal

capacity

as

the

any one moment,

at

The

number of occupants
the specified
service

area
effective
be considered
should

or

can
Only

standards.

in
space
available
useable
are calculated.
when densities

the

of

facility

that

linking
the
of
capability
achievable
in
to accommodate pedestrian
flows passing
facility
a given point
It
level
under a specified
criteria.
of service
a unit of time,
in terms of pedestrians
is usually
expressed
per
width
per unit
unit time.
2.

3.

LINK

CAPACITY:

The

CAPACITY:
-PROCESSING

The most probable

in accommodating

capability
demand
processing

achievable

facility
and
of a particular
imposed on it
interval
in a given
levels
and patterns
level
to
specified
criteria.
service
of
conforming
in
terms of numbers of passengers
processed
expressed
time

at

5.6

SUMMARY

Intended

a certain

primarily
provides

chapter
broad general

level

of

of

time,
It

per

is
unit

service.

as introduction

to

subsequent

chapters,

this
in

a preview
aspects
of capacity
of relevant
terms,
terminal
to the airport
particularly
related
in
It starts
basic
definitions
as
with
of capacity

environment.
highways and traffic
flow theory,
it then presents
a summary of
all definitions
to airport
terminals
related
and cited
as traced
in technical
the
literature,
interpretation
of
the
and states
different
forms
Discussion
of capacity.
and concepts
raised

81.

introduced

in

this

chapter,

will

on capacity/level
of service
development
and implementation
is

presented

in

the

next

back

up and supplement

considerations,
of the proposed

chapter.

which

arguments
lead to the

methododlogy

that

CHAPTERSIX

PR0P0SEDMETH0D0L0GY

The methodology

evaluating
proposed as a means of
systematically
is
facilities,
the
terminal
performance
assessing
of
airport
and
discussed
the
Acknowledging
in
this
and
chapter.
presented
imposed
associated
restraints
on and difficulties
substantial

with

conducting
opertaion,

airport
structure
minimize
confronted

experienced
problems
beneficial
information

research
this

gathering
is
methodology

and moderately
easy
information
collection
at

airports
throughout

greatly

in

intended
The

effort.

streamlining
Simple
requirements.

the

to

devised

to

in

normally

problems

information,

this
stages
of
the methodology,

by

to

related
be simple

and is

implement,

to

acquiring

all

influenced

effects

information

and

were

clearly
These

research.
but also had their

method

towards

minimal

and
practical
measures
interfere
that
techniques
airport
were adopted,
with
minimally
the need to approach
and reduce
parties
responsible
operations
for information.

6.1

OBJECTIVES

The main objective

implement,
to
easy
efficient
measures,
operational
terminals.

procedures

of

the

methodology,

reasonably

is

realistic,

to establish
and

practical,

systematically

through
capable
of providing,
quantitative
interpretation
a clear
of
assessment
and
proper
the
conditions
of
centres
airport
processing
at
This approach
defining
necessitates
some fundamental

83.

principles

that

service

could
for
standards

simple,

effective,

Subsequently,
the

setting

facilities,

up of

appropriate
based on
preferrably

measures.

of

service
standards
could be used to evaluate
the terminals'
This may
facilities.
processing

by
accomplished
framework,
service
between

In this

context,

airport

managers,

components'

terminal

and realistic

be

organisations,

the

derived

performance

distinguish

facilitate

establishing
which
different

this

would
levels

methodology

operators,

and would
capacities

level
a properly
graded
be practically
utilized
of

could

planners,
provide
with

operational
be a useful

performance.
instrument
to

and other

a mechanism
some

of
to

airport-related
capable
of linking

well-recognized

service

standards.
Accumulated

information

compiled

for

different

airports

will

enhance planning
and would
and design of facilities,
lead
to more adequate
of space allocation
standards
subsequently
in new airports,
as well
assessment
and efficient
as better
in existing
management of operation
ones.
undoubtedly

CRITIQUE OF CURRENT PRACTICES

6.2

degree
is
there
that
established
of
a high
earlier
in the methodologies
of the planning
subjectivity
and practices
Essentially,
terminals.
there
of airport
and design
are no
design
loosely
formalized
but rather
knit,
procedures,
mostly
'selective
design
collection
empirical,
of approaches,
concepts,
It

was

knowledge,

used by airport-related
The basic elements that should be
and consultants.
organisations
in the design
terminals,
considered
process
of airport
mainly:
measure of design,
and criteria
chosen for design,
are not fully
in current
justified
The design measure most commonly
practices.
criteria,

and

accumulated

flow,
design
for
used is the peak hourly
and the criterion
based on this
In spite
importance
measure.
of the great
daily
in
seasonal
and
traffic
variations
patterns
of

is
of
on

84.

operational
demand that

it

of the system,
included
in

performance
is usually

is

peak hourly
and for
analysis

only

the

capacity
hour) might

it (peak
although
purposes,
not necessarily
Current
the worst
represent
situation.
of airport
practices
facilities
design adopt the relation
terminal
between peak hourly
flows
This criterion
and annual flows
as the design
criterion:
includes
Peak Hour Passenger (TPHP)such expressions
as: Typical
planning

used by the
Rate
Busy

U. S.
Federal
Standard
Aviation
Administration(14),
(SBR)formerly
Airports
by
British
the
used
(PPHP)- used by
Authority(16),
Peak Hour Passenger
or Planning
defined
Canada(17).
Transport
These expressions
are empirically
They are derived
developed.
and appear to have been arbitrarily
according
in
limit
between

to

the

statistical
of using a confidence
consideration
reflects
that
the decision
planning,
of compromising
by
in accommodating
flows
efficiency
and
economy
annual

a design hour that

choosing
be
to
to
equivalent
meant
in
highway
capacity
used
approaches

to

of

analysis

or

aircraft(16,17),
Research Board

facility

for

to

provide
(as

volumes
the number

per

requirements

planning*purposes(13,43).
in 1950(47)
this
approach

suggested
highways
in the U. S.,
and
urban
rural
that
justify
design
criterion
would
funds

current
implement
this

and capacity
analysis
fixed
hour
design
a
as
peak
to determine
number of passengers

estimating

airport(14),

All

practices.

design

airport

selecting
a
of the annual

criterion;
(percentile)

This approach was

not the highest.
Volume concept
the 30th-Hour
widely
is

extra

a percentage
of hours in

capacity
of

annual

where

it

necessary
needed: " If

daily

ratio
size

equivalent
The Highway

for

designing

was used

as the

of
expenditures
hourly
traffic
is

traffic)

related

to

traffic
volumes exceeding
one year with
hourly
the slope of the curve changes rapidly,
volumes,
specified
is
(knee
that
at this
of
and it
point
of the curve)
ratio
benefits
to expenditures
is near the maximum ".
This criterion
again in the 1965-edition
was reinstated
of the Highway Capacity
Manual(48):
volume)

as the

"The

selection
hourly-'volume

of an appropriate
to be served is,

value
thus,

(design

hour

a compromise

85.

between

service

annual

certain
include:

provided
associated

shortcomings

However,

".

and cost

this

with

there

are
which

approach,

is
The
facility,
future
prediction
of
volumes or usage of a
treated
as being independent
of design capacity.
is
It
the
that
the
arbitrarily
most
assumed
gives
method
design
that
a
economical
cut-off
provide
would
point
of
level
beneficial
economic
of
service,
any proper
without
this
to justify
of the actual
analysis
assumption.
situation
Neglect
the
future
the
traffic
of
effect
shift
of
on
volumes
due to
the
'knee
the
the
and relocation
of
of
curve',
phenomenon known as the 'learning
effect'.
Consequently,

all

have

effects.

averaging
"Oversimplistic,
invariable

levels.

These

and
expressions

They

destroying

is

performance
features
of

they

whole on average ",

different
towards
consideration

nature
demand

of

and
operations
the
performance

on
of

effects
order

of

are:

and are
demand

any

chronological
demand,
from the
design
criterion.

of

flexibility,

of

the

exclude

the

daily-hourly

structural
De Neufville(53),

void

are

stochastic
influence
of

facilities.

the

insensitive

the

representing
time-variant

lack

approaches
As put by

accommodating

highly

selection

current

of
the
of
by

time-variation
demand,

especially
and the
operations

of
analysis
Their
assessment
of operational
important
dynamic
the
stripped
of

virtually

randamessof denand because one of the major measures

,
direct
is
the
of performance,
namely congestion,
result
of
facilities(85).
randomness in the operation
of service
De Neufville(53)
the difficiencies
recognized
of this
approach:
"...

First,

it

is

to focus on averages;
it is the local
erroneous
limit
the performance
Second,
extremes that
will
of a facility.
the loads on any particular
facility
need to be taken over its
critical
the time
in
period,
the transient
over which
surges
traffic
build
If we fail
up congestion.
to do this,
we will
underestimate
what is really
this

gap.

the

degree

of

congestion

that

will

".

So,

occur
fill
needed is an alternative
that
approach
would
Due consideration
influence
towards
should be directed

86.

of stochasticity
incorporating
the
and implementing
This
important
procedure

demand on
and time
variation
of
dynamics
of congestion
and queueing
design
a more realistic
and effective
is

consideration

of this
methodology.
for the design criterion

in

fulfilled
The

demand

operation,
phenomena,
criterion.

the

pattern

capacity
and level

daily,
selected
represents
seasonal,
and
hourly
from specimens of chronologically
demand
patterns
oriented
that is extracted
from actual
information
traffic
patterns
at the
airport.
The

literature

technical

lacks

any
comprehensive
implemented,
except

service
those
of
(Table
4.4),

that
standards
are
actually
IATA/BAA(61)
that
in Chapter
Four
were presented
to be used by IATA based on British
Airport
which are intended
Authority's
in passenger
handling.
Examining
acquired
expreience
those standards
would show that:
Their
1.
by a
concepts
are arbitrarily
set;
supported
not
definitive
based
to
concept
or
an
established
according
their
(levels)
derived,
procedure,
values
are empirically
and
they

do not

involve

passengers'

about service.
Contain
2.
only two levels
levels
divided,
are unevenly

(dichotomous
and they
by facilities.

spread of service
provided
At varying
demand levels
3.
the

situation),
of 95% of

significance

(which
of

and

perception

their

viewpoints

structure),

do not
is

the

yet
the

represent

those
whole

actual

real-world
in-terms
standards
justified.
These

expressing
all
passengers
could not be practically
standards
were probably
meant to be made compatible
Hour Rate,
the provision
which involves
of service

with
for

the
at

Busy
least

95% of annual passengers.

The proposed methodology
has the merit
of considering
passengers'
perception
and their
to operational
response
service
provided,
for the setting
of levels
to facilitate
of service
the grading
of
performance
These
levels
in
of
operation.
a
contained
are
framework,
well-structured
based
on realistic
and effective
measures

that
service
could describe
operational
derived
and systematically
by a predefined
procedure.
of

performance,

87.

STRUCTUREAND DESCRIPTION

6.3

this

Structurally,
of

is

methodology

two main sections,

so arranged

as procedures:

presented

be composed

as to
level

of

service,

and capacity.

6.3.1

LEVEL OF SERVICE PROCEDURE

Service

standards,

public

and

specifies

by definition,

the views of the

should reflect
Keeny(86)
interests
and desires.
in
light
the
be
of
set
should

their
promote
that
standards

In our case,
they
available
alternatives
and the public
values.
topublic
of the travelling
should be set according
perception
inside
the
operational
met
conditions,
and environmental
of
(or
in
light
the
prevailing
service
of
airports,
-operational
be
But do actual
could
really
made available).
standards
which
Or are
interests
their
passengers'
views?
represent
and reflect
desires

their

assessing

operations

standards

The three
main parties
(air
travelling
users
operators.

It

is

the

minor
more other
keep the airport
providing

air
public),
unique interaction

running

that

profit,

airports
and

all

while

convenient,
baggage between

enjoyable
for the
the

of

process

of

are;

airport
them (and

activities,
and
airport
its
designated
course of
transfer
air
and safe
of

-drives
and moving in

are not
For example,

comfortable
and
look mainly
carriers
net

carriers,
between

of

and
surface
three
parties

these

transport
air
is. essential
interests
their

however,
system,
in fact,
identical,
necessarily

yet
of

operations

with

and their
passengers
The
active
modes.
presence
of
for the survival
of the airport
and objectives
be conflicting.

the
considered
terminals?
airport

at

involved

parties)

efficient,

in

being

and preferences

they

air passengers
want to have-a
time
in the terminal,
spent
in
the
economics
of
operation

operator

is

concerned

with

could
brief
air
terms

regulating

88.

this
of

transfer

safely,

best

possible

the

lawfully,

(usually

-and efficiently

exploitation

of

in

investment

capital

terms
of

the

airport).
It

be true that interests

important
are equally

might

parties

and objectives
in the overall

of

the

context

three
of

major
airport

However,

are
users'
considerations
in the frame,
included
well-defined
usually
or necessarily
has always been claimed
it
otherwise,
although
and declared
they
form the open sided part
that
of the traingle.
seems
operations.

systems

carriers

are not efficient

soon be out of the

will
Therefore,

economic
(including

operators

market
is
operation
governmental

economically,
operate
reciever's
and in the
their
main objective.
have on one
agencies)

likely,

must
involves

Certain

decisions

operate
taxpayers

(no matter

regulations
and run the

establishment

what),
(which,

and
it
If
they

to

law and safety

the

enforce
the other

enough

not

hands.
Airport
hand to
and on
most

or regionally)
decisions
Hence their
are
and
efficiently.
policies
managerial
It
economically
motivated
usually
with some political'i'nfluence.
tj
if he or
is the user-who has to yield
to this
complex situation,
by
benefit
the
to
from
provided
=enjoy
services
want
and
she
i.
e., air travel.
system,

are

and air transport

airport
These
the
system.
characterize

made with
inevitably

would,

planning
decisions

to

related

nationally

money either

respect

to

the

objectives,
and priorities
nature,
the criteria
planning
and the
of the
process,
of evaluation,
influenced
definition
These decisions
of problems.
are strongly
by
issues,
philosophically-oriented
which
socio-political
the

differences
between
significant
national
existing
These issues
include:
practices
worldwide.
concept of the role of
interests,
government,
concepts
of public
public
what constitutes
benefits,
Generally,
purpose of commercial
enterprise,...
etc.

explains

there
two

are
main

first,
objectives

two

views

economic
is
there
and

to

these

systems:
a unitary

priorities

issues

that

socialist
view,
that
can

or

basically
capitalist.

reflect
For

the
the

has collective
society
from those
be quite
distinct
that

89.

its

of
lead

and certainly

members,
to

centralized
setting,

policy

should

take

power and authority

and decision
making that
For the
purposes.

national
political
interest
individualistic
that public
view,
the sum of the desires
of the individuals
from De Neufville(3)
This quotation
society.
" A country's
goals ought to

discussion:
national
a key to
kind

understanding
evaluation
belongs

of

will

This

precedence.
in terms
of
should fulfil

planning,
declared

there

second,
is nothing
that

will

is

an

more than
a

constitutes

would summarize this

interestthe
of what
public
concept
of
is
be and how they should be establisheddecision,
in
the
what
who participates
lie.
It
will
power
and where
occur,

the
two
public
of
notions
opposing
of
generally
the
In
".
individualistic
case,
the unitary,
interest;
either
or
be
whether
represented,
views
and
opinions
should
public's
the
through
by individuals,
indirectly
or
planner
directly
or
behalf
the
(who
is
public
of
decision
on
acting
maker
supposedly
desires
their
and interests).
and is promoting
This

to

bring

will

us

operation
that
service

airport
claim

one

decisions
how
discussion
concerning
of
a
(airport
The
the
users).
public
would effect
based
for
travelling
are
public
air
standards
to

of service
views of the quality
and their
been heard of but no proof of this
they expect to meet, has often
that
has
Keeny(86)
usually,
out
points
ever materialized.
myth
the
decisions
that
for
effect
the
making
responsible
people
have
their
but
do
the
own
values,
rather
not use
public
public
fact
different.
This
that
seems
are significantly
set of values
upon their

to

hold

preferences

for

airport

terminals,

since

their

standards

service

were

/ operators
to
carriers
not
according
set
values
for the air travelling
Obtaining
standards
service
public
users'.
in
to be used in assessing
performance
of operation
as undertaken
this
an
work,
should not be confused
choice
within
with airport

basically

air

transport

criteria,
economic
that,
stress

or

issues.

network

that

are

as

actually

considerations.
in the context

derived
based

of

according

to

traffic,
on certain
It
is
particularly
this
work, these are

some

service

planning,
to
important
two unrelated

90.

dimension

Another

employment

of

the

available

of
that

and

means

consideration,

is

the

methods
adequate
travelling
the air

to

set

in-

problem

public's
would really
reflect
It is essential
to adopt some device that
and desires.
interpret
delineate
service
can reasonably
and quantitatively
in airport
In this
terminals.
a
of passengers
section,
standards
forlevel
is
devised
the
of
of
service
purpose
procedure
distinct
levels
delineating
that could be
of operational
service,
standards
interests

used to

set

service

for

standards

In implementing

terminals.

this

service
conditions
could be evaluated
procedure,
at a facility
in terms of some measure of service,
based upon
and assessed
to
desires
themselves
of the passengers
and their
perception
facility
level.
demand
to
at
a
subjected
a
certain
service
It

was

in

concluded

Chapter

Four

that,

of

all

potential

factors
that
possibly
might
and
quantitative
influence
to
airport
of
or
standards
service
delay
awaiting
seemed the most suitable,
service
interpret
implementation
to
for
and practically,

qualitative
contribute
terminals,
theoretically

to

service.

is

It

operational
and reaction
is the major. attribute
because
it
of
suitable,
(with
that
conditions.
crowding)
operational
affects
congestion
factor
in
because it is the foremost
It is practically
suitable,
perception

passengers
theoretically

the

of

minds
Perception

could

and

reaction

be conveniently

surveys,
(preferrably
service)
As shown

that

passengers

passengers

passengers
through
obtained
to
are
asked

the

service
procedure
information,
perception-response
framework
service

distinct

diagram

the

the

steps

proper

state
levels
of

of

Figure
of:

construction

models,
by defining

attitudes.

service

provided
In these

surveys.
their

perception

satisfaction

with

conditions.

operational

schematic
follows

their

towards

of

in
expressed
towards different
in

influence

and finally
the service

6.1,

collection
the
of
setting
regions.

the
of
the

level

of

required
passenger
level
of

91.

AIRPORT
TERMINAL
PASSENGERSURVEY

PASSENGERPERCEPTION TO SERVICE IN PARTICULAR FACILITY:

ONSE AS: GOOD/ TOLERABLE / BAD
WITH PASSENGER

FREQUENCYDISTRIBUTION

OF PASSENGERS' RESPONSES

G0B
L
0E
RA

0A

DLD
E
RELATING

PASSENGERSRESPONSETO SERVICE MEASURE

G00D
TOLERABLE
IB

II
PASSENGERSRESPONSECRITERION: I
PERCENTILE / AVERAGE/ MAJORITY I

LS

OF

SERVICE:

GOOD
TOLERABLE
T2....
BAD
Figure

6.1

Schematic

Diagram of Level

of Service

Procedure.

92.

6.3.1.1

COLLECTION OF INFORMATION

Information

is

required

collected
for
the

separately
The information

conducted
arrivals.

to
evaluation
passenger
delay
times,
and certain

by means
two

sought
service

of

channels:
include:

surveys
passenger
departures
and
information,
delay

in
resulting
information.

conditions

passenger-specific

different

The amount of time passengers

get delayed
facilities
at the time
or spend in the processing
of the terminal
is required
in order
to check the replies
of the
of the survey
that
the
against
conditions
overall
operating
passengers
during
the survey period.
prevailed
Information:

1.

Delay

2.

Passenger

of

the

Perception

survey,

which

is

It

and Response:
would facilitate

the

the

construction

In the case of
models.
perception-response
is
information
this
most
sensitive
of
part
because;
in
The
way
their
state

'which

passengers

perception

could

and reaction

and with reasonable

accuracy.
individual
The
the
ability
of
between three
or more different

passenger

and to tie each level

with
Influence
the
of
past
passenger's
the satisfaction
when expressing
airports
inconsistent
Probabilities
of
or shifted
of

chapter.
Each reply

will

causes

and

reasons

surveys,

passenger

mainly

sought,

directed
be conveniently
to service
conscientiously
to

of
states
a boundary limit

a variety

objective
of the

prime

clearly

distinguish

satisfaction
(a number).

experience
level.

to

levels,

with

answers resulting
be seen in the
as will

other
from
next

the passenger's
a set representing
to delay
and response
perception
or time
spent at a facility,
in
terms
three
distinct
levels
expressed
of
of
satisfaction
different
towards
from very short
to
service
conditions
ranging
facility.
very long times at that
particular
3.
Passenger-Specific
Information:
to
Includes
factors
related
demand

that

differentiate

constitute

would
between

identify
various

the

individual

flight/passenger

passenger
categories,

and
such

93.

category,
purpose of trip,
as flight
long haul),
and other
nationality,
important.
surveyor
might find

BUILDING

6.3.1.2

After

(P-R)

of
information

MODELS

it would
has been gathered
and processed,
The
the
models.
construct
perception-response
the
Model
is
defined
graphical
as

to
now be possible
Perception-Response
presentation

minor

PERCEPTION-RESPONSE

information

all

range

(medium or
the
that

flight

the
of
collective
towards
full
the

of

attitudes

category

of

service,
of
operational
in
terms of the perception
population
of the passenger
expressed
(representing
different
the
to
amounts
measure
of
service
to
the
levels
different
their
response
and
of
operation),
levels
distinct
into
of
service
conditions
classified
respective

passengers

range

the
In this
percentage
service.
work,
time
to
spent
of
replying
amount
a
certain
whether
passengers
by
them
facility
delay)
at
a particular
was perceived
just
Good/acceptable,
tolerable,
unacceptable,
or bad/totally
with

satisfaction

related
diagram

to
for

significance
P-R
The

amount of
this
model
of

the

time
is

spent
shown in

P-R models

in

(or

delay).

Figure

6.2.

The
But

of
(or
as:
is

conceptual
what is the

this

methodology?
be
that
could

is
practically
model
a mechanism
for
implemented
to derive
'airports'
standards
and set service
facilities,
based
and reactions
opinions
on passengers
processing
Mathematically,
towards operational
service
at those facilities.
role-playing
model, but functionally,
in
it
devise
to grade operational
serves
as a scaling
service
is unique
It
terms of the service
time.
amongst the
measureknown scaling
is
7.7.3.
It
in Section
a
methods
presented
conglomerate
of Likert
scales,
and Thurstonian
attitude
measuring

it

represents

a form

of

the

three
demonstrate
its
curves
operating
chiracteristics(bad)
S
Thurstonian,
the
normal (tolerable)
and
resembling
and an
(good)
inverted-S
Likert.
Implementing
P-R models
resembling

where

could

achieve

the

following

goals:

94.

1.

Assessment

of

conditions
facility.

probable

particular
Convenient
2.

its

for

service

of

spread

whole

service

and disaggregation

superposition

at

P-R models
and types

as

attainable

possibly

of

to

all

covering

the categories
of
of passengers/flights,
be
Several
can
categories
of
passengers/flights
facility
P-R
form
P-R
to
of
a
model
one
model, or a single
merged
into
P-R models for these categories
be
using
split
several
can
that facility.
(incrementing)
the graduation
Manipulating
3.
of the service
desired.
help
in
determining
the
accuracy
measure will
related
facilities.

4.

determination

Easy

the

of

percentile

passenger

in

Perception

variable.

for

standards

to

service

any

of

this

technique,

one should

bear

in

facts:
of

to

passengers
is

This

response

population.

implementing

Nevertheless,
following
the
mind
1.

the

of

group

particularly
of

airports,

is relative
as
as well
service
important
service
when setting
during
different
times
or at
had
demand
changed.
and/or
by
the
to
request
of passengers

aspects of operation
which certain
2. Since it is based on responses
(surveyor)
to
to
their
service,
perception
state
observer
be
biased
by:
poor communication,
could
easily
replies
wording
of
part

of

questionnaires,

passengers,
etc.
degree

passengers,...
A certain
3.

confusion

unrealistic
of

or

implicit

these
poor

and misinterpretation
inconsistent
views held
is

hypothecism

in

involved

on
by
the

fact
by
that
P-R models,
the
manifested
demand
is experiencing
the service
the passenger
a
particular
of
level
to
that
only,
and then
extending
personal
estimating
hypothetical
for
demand levels,
which he or she has
perception

basic

not
4-.

principles

actually
Although

perception
influence
included
passengers

of

the

experienced.
P-R models
and

response

of

are
to

carriers/operators
P-R
the
within
actually

based

service
is

on

passengers
indirectly;
but

,
implicitly

personal
the

recognized

Operational
model.
service
block
(being
building
the
experience

and
that
and

95.

levels)
is
to
demand
to
assumed
response
reference
other
to
intend
be the kind of service
to or can provide
those parties
Decisions
the travelling
public.
of those parties,
and policies
from their
to operations
that are related
originate
and service,
by
of
resources
available,
enforced
own perception
regulations
law or operational
dictated
by the technicalities
of
procedures
imposed
the operation,
on or
and the
various
considerations
to their

by the

induced

level

service

of

the

travel-market.

air

by establishing
procedure
now culminates
for
framework
terms of a level
of service
(Ti
facilities
in question.
Time values
and T2)
is
deduced.
This
levels
be
the
service
can now

of

service
in
standards

processing
delineating

by

achieved

of
opinion
delay)
(or
dominant

of

perception

service

the

three
the

curves
(or
three

and bad. The

of time spent

durations
is

facilities

of the passenger
is examined for
is
where there

of

to
and response
good, tolerable,

of service:
different
towards

passengers
in
particular

attitude

behaviour

the

observing

passengers
representing
if
desired)
states
more

a state

nature

ESTABLISHING A LEVEL OF SERVICE FRAMEWORK

6.3.1.3
The

specific

and
monitored,
(in percentage)

population
increments
all

of

time.

the
for

When a
of the

in perception
shift
from one state
then that point
to another,
of passengers
majority
describe
in time where the shift
took place,
actually
a
would
in
from one level
by the
to another
service
as perceived
change
is any
Majority
of passengers.
population
of passenger
majority
situation

exists

that shows that

percentage
is dominant over the other
in Figure 6.2, by examining
three

curves.

This

area is
the three

one level
of satisfaction
two.
This description

is

with service
demonstrated

unshaded (blank)
area between
bounded by the 100% line
from the

the

the
top

(good/tolerable/bad)
from the
and segments of
curves
bottom.
The point
(Time),
on the service
where a
measure scale
from one curve to another
is observed,
the shift
shift
represents
from
the
of the perception
and response
of
majority
of passengers
to another.
one level

96.

v
0
N
O
0.
N

0
.,...

4)

U
i
CL

40
+j
a.

a)
U
C

0
U

N
'O

w
L

U-

97.

is homogenous,
when the passenger
population
surveyed
degree
is
them in
a high
of
amongst
consensus
their
opinion
about the state
changes in
of service,
50 percentile,
the
service
usually
occur
around
the views
in population.
of the
average
passenger

Normally,
and there
formulating
levels

of

reflecting
However,

in

occasions
of non-homogeniety
lack of consensus on service

surveyed,
knowledge

and

population.
in
shifts

In special
circumstances,
between extreme
opinions

population
or lack of

of

passenger
amongst them,

confusion
at a particular
on nature
of service
facility,
changes in the levels
of service
would not be close to
here implies
50 %. Non-homogeniety
that the P-R model is actually
composed of more than one model,
which could be broken down to a
homogenous
(e. g.,
in
flights)
the
survey
number of
groups
there
states

be

could
of

service

some large
in
resulting

(as will
be
tolerable
absence of a middle
of service
state
in
Birmingham
the case. of
traffic
seen in
schedule-European
having
Airport
framework
Nine),
study in Chapter
a
with
ending
levels
two
of service:
only
good and bad.
the

CAPACITY PROCEDURE

6.3.2

The capacity

of

a facility

service
specified
standard)
function
the performance
of
levels.
To avoid
confusion
understand
preferable
planning.

fully

the

go back
Transportation
to

taken
users

consumed

could
from the
that
over

nature
to the

(relative

determined

to

a
from

derived
relationships
demand
facility
at different
terminology,

these
of
basics
of

and

to

relationships,
transportation

try

to

it

is

systems
is viewed by Manheim(69)
as a process in
transportation
consumed to produce
services

which resources
are
in a particular
environment.
by a performance
function
resources
transportation

be

(R),

Thus transportation
which
level

relates
of

is
the

service

(T)depending
option
on the
about design and operation
of the system,
of the system (V), i. e.:
P. F. _ iE(R, S, V, T)

characterized
magnitude
offered

specific
and the

of
(S),

decision
volume

of

98.

The

function

performance
dimensional
space

describes

a
M.

in

surface
On the

the

(R, S, V) for a given

other
(S),
function
service
(R),
function
and the resource
(separately)
functions
(T), and the environment
of (V),
(E), i. e.;
the system exists

hand,

four
the

are both
in which

S=

jd'S(V, T, E), and R= ZR(V, T, E)

The environment
here includes
the physical,
institutional
This interrelationship
environments.
is

a fundamental

aspect
of the
(E),

of

economic,
of

and the
(R) and (S)

transportation

systems
performance.
The actual
shapes
depend significantly
relationships
will
in which a particular
on the environment
system is being
operated,
as well as on the characteristics
of the system itself.
Meanwhile,

the

the

classical
function

performance
of the system
users
transportation
planning

from
supply function,
could be'derived
to relate
the capacity
or the volume of
(V) to some function
In urban
of price.

the supply
and road traffic
engineering,
function
has been referred
to as 'the
function,
user cost-volume
describe
to
the
level
capacity,
of
service,
and
price
these
characteristics
transportation
of
However,
systems.
Morlock(10)
pointed
the designation
out that,
apparently,
of the
function
the usual

user
cost-volume
inconsistent
with
economic
describes
the
in

theory.
the

quantity
the market.

In

economic
between

relationship
of that commodity
It

is

function
the supply
to as user-cost-volume,
The capacity
between the

as
a
definition

procedure,

of

supply
of
theory,

that

a supply
the
supply

function

price
of a commodity,
and
be produced or supplied
will
for this
particular
reason,

such transportation
systems
or travel
cost functions.
therefore,

is
often
function
in

the

which

probable

function

are

referred

the relationship
establishes
service
volume of a facility,
and some expression
that
describe
would
reasonably
the
by that
service
provided
facility
for
the
users,
at the corresponding
volume
service
(demand).
The expression
for
the
be
service
could
standards
interpreted
in terms of average
time per user, maximum number of
for service
users waiting
the density
at any time,
of users per

99.

area,

unit
the

supply
Processing

of

conditions

the

and size

the

of

facilities,

existing

on supply
argument raised
holding-storing
to
apply
not
based
functions
on
supply
(whose
facilities
linking
or

literature

are

Going

back

means

by

real-world
have
techniques

computerized
the
of

problems
the use
use

operation
using

simulations

as

types

adopted

relationships

of
from

of

simple

various
to obtain
is

become

So,
to

The
processes.
information
synthesized
a

frequently

of

common
utilized

The following

: "Whenever

simulation(88)

conditions.
and developed

operational
been devised
kinds

has

research,
and
in many disciplines.

expressions
the
cases
models
are too

of

situations

real-world

operations

those

fluids

the appropriate
functions,
supply
and performance
be established
are,
these
could
which
relationships
is usually
It
techniques.
and often
very costly,
to
information
such
to
construct
gather
required

relations

approach

of
two

and adequate.

from

simulate

For
and

theory

the

to

simulation
infeasible

on

sufficient

from

Fruin).

standards

and

surface

the

crowding
standards),
permissible
be
derived
function
could
supply
accomplished

the
define
and
facilities
serve
in
the
overall

components
process between

In addition,
modes.
functions
does
performance
and
(which
have
fixed
facilities

by

operating
they
that

extent

other

while

airport,

passenger
air transport

formerly

the

environment,

system's

methodology,
are derived.

only
the
to

to

system,

and auxiliary
staging
and baggage transferrence

as

mainly

expression.
facilities
processing
important
are
most

airport
the

characterize

actually
function

In this

suitable

or any other
function
of
facilities

in

practice
for
various
justifies

quotation
one

applicable,

prefers

to

algebraic
closed-form
model
yielding
in
However,
many
systems inputs
outputs.
and
analytic
condition
assumed by solvable

analytic

relating

simplified
do not hold in

the

real-world,
and more realistic
hence simulation..
The standard

complex to solveis direct;

to answer
simulation
behaviour
a description
of the

a specific
of

question
system

as

models
use of

or to obtain
its
some of

100.

parameters

are

As shown in
of: defining

Figure

Use of simulation
to develop
and test
to use of
mathematical
models is conceptually
analogous
other
"
by
develop
theory.
to
physical
scientists
new
experiments

establishing

changed.

6.3,

the

input

the

relations.

DEFINITION

6.3.2.1

the

parameters,

OF INPUT

Operational
and
that

parameters
the
characterize

particular
distributions,
of

channels,

procedure
executing

follows

simulation

the

steps
and

runs,

PARAMETERS

define
process,
with a certain
function
of
of the performance
include
Those input
arrival
parameters
(servicing)
time distributions,
number

associated
behaviour

process.
processing
in

capacity

to

addition

less

other

parameters:

significant

Distributions:

1. Arrival

(rate

is
facility,
to
and distribution)
a
of passengers
input
It
describes
the
to any servicing
the major
process.
In
demand for
facility.
imposed
that
particular
service
at
literature,
theory
has been considered
it
as the most
queueing
is
It
basic
important
of the
a
queueing
model.
elements
of

Arrival

represented
(finite
source

by

the
or
and

probabilistic

arrival

in

any
(arrival)

case

state
of
infinitesmal
rate

(X

from

calling
in
a
servicing
process
fashion.
the
Mathematically,

entities
into
a

the

given

from a servicing
and departure
system
Markovian
Birth-and-Death
Process(91),

to

the

of

of

time-varying

probabilistic
a special
which the

arrival
infinite)

system
interval.
which

changes
It
is

the

by at most
changes
average

is
in

one (up or down)

a birth
up with
births

of
rate
k),
(arrivals)
(k) entities,
when the system contains
and changes
down with
(departure)
(,
is
a death
the
average
rate
which
*uk),
(departures)
deaths
rate
at which
number of
occur
when the
in
is W.
The distribution
entities
system
of interarrival
times (times
between successive
is
equally
arrivals
of entities)

101.

DEMAND LEVELS

PROCESSING DISTRIBUTION

PATTERNS

ARRIVAL DISTRIBUTION

DISCRETE - EVENT

SERVICE

AND

SIMULATION

MEASURES

PERFORMANCE MODELS

CAPACITY

Figure

6.3

Schematic

Diagram

of

Capacity

Procedure

102.

in

important
the

most

the

of
distributions,

used
arrival
is
Poisson,

widely
systems

queueing
discrete

designation

mathematical

is

which

total

One of
in
especially
the
with
associated
the

process.

an
plays
important
many
models for
queueing
Larson and Odoni(75)
situations(85).
even go to the
real-life
More
'arrivals'.
'poisson'
to
of
using
extent
as a synonym
in
is
found
description
distribution
detailed
Poisson
the
of
between
An important
Gerlough and Barnes(90).
exists
relationship
Exponential
In
the
distributions.
Poisson
and the
effect,
If
distribution
from Poisson(85).
Exponential
could be derived
the

modelling
in
role

Poisson

of
the

random

random
development
of

(discrete)

the number of
represents
Exponential
the
variable
random
between
two successive
the
time
interarrival
time is Exponential
with
(t)
is
interval
during
time
arrivals

variable
time,

per
unit
arrivals
(continuous)
will
represent
i. e., whereas the
arrivals,
mean =
Poisson

the

number
V.
'=
mean

with

distinctive
will

outcome

of

Forgetfullness
in

distribution

warrant

to

arrivals

one
is

other
The

describing

the

outcome is
Markovian

the

of

outcomes-

suitability
incident,
arrival

For
of

the

Poisson

to the airport's
arrivals
processing
been verified
and recommended by previous

2. Service

queueing

of one and only

( At)
interval

occurrence

of

facilities.
processing
the implementation

particularly,

Service

occurrences
Property(91).

probability
time
small
the

two

of

Poisson
and

the

and simplicity
and
manipulation
of mathematical
coupled with the realistic
phenomenon of randomness of
(stochasticity
all
and the Forgetfullness
property),
implementation
the
distribution
in modelling
this
of

arrivals

already

a
and that

has the

distribution

ease

comparative
handling,

modelling

the

during

occur
to (,At),

proportional
independent

of
The Exponential
that

properties,

and

arrivals,

(Process)

time

facilities,

has

research(92).

Time Distributions

distribution

is

that

could

model,
from
passengers

airport
environs
distribution
for

the

servicing

the

important
of a
other
element
define
departure
of
the
actual
in
facilityhence its
capacity

103.

handling
processing

expression
(and departure

or servicing

pattern
of
distribution
of

The

passengers.
occurrence
of, service

occurrence

of

consists
from the

the

of

system),
times
or

of individual
service
times.
Through determining

various

the

rate

of
the
and
frequency
frequency

times
throughout
of
service.
this
operation,
the
major.
servicing
process.
could
..
characterize
capacity
of the
servicing
unit
of, a processing
facility.
In simulation,
times are randomly
from
service
selected
frequency
distribution
a particularwith.: a given
statistical
(usually
the
parameter
Apart
from
this
mean).
statistical
the

distributions
shape- of frequency
is of special
in simulation.
Since it is derived, from the population
time values
from which the frequency
distribution
was
it
is the means of re-establishing
constructed,
the
distribution
it, known to the simulation
and. making

parameter,
importance
of service
initially
particular
technique.

The decision

distribution
depends

values
input
to

on

constructed:
If
I:
the

type, of frequency
which
particular
be used in, the simulation,
should
process
actually
the
from
distribution
the
sample. size
which
was
of

s
is

implying
lack
the
small,
of
knowledge
(service
on the
times)-,
then
random variable
the
distribution
(rectangular),
be uniform
would probably
the
where
.
that
probability
time
drawn would,. fall
service,
values
randomly
between maximum and minimum values
is equally
likely.
A step
furthur
would be the triangular
distribution,
where there
a
_is
the mode within,
around
cluster
the
range, between
minima
and
(Figure
6.4a).
maxima,
If the sample size is large enough to represent
II:
times
service
observed

over

or shape of
4
logic:
there

sample

size

very

interval.
a certain
the distribution

of

probability
time (for

then

the

behaviour

the following
comply with
be an-ultimate
lower limit
(associated
should

would always
human capabilities
with natural
of
times
that
service
could
possibly
operations.
times are

operation,

servers),
be attained

bounds short
which
in the real-world

On the

other hand,
high values
extremely
service
of
.
probable
yet infrequent,
because there
is always a low
it would take the server
that
longer
a considerably
one reason

or

another)

to

handle

and serve

a particular

104.

the
Hence,
passenger than it would take with other
passengers.
is
distribution
bound (maximum service
time)
a
upper
of the
little
However,
if
the
stretched.
are
reasonably
servers
the passengers
with
efficient,
are predominently
well-experienced
operations
airport
is more or less
towards
tendency
in
distributions

and procedures,
then
regular,
normality.

operation
and the processing
distribution
the
show a
will
The
adopted
commonly
most

Gamma family;
the
similar
systems
are
Erlangian,
because they are
Exponential,
used
and Chi-squared,
in
bounded at one end,
to describe
random variables
specifically
theory
Exponential
The
Negative
applications(93).
queueing
is a Gamma distribution
distribution
with a shape factor
= 1, and
model for the time of a single
outcome to take place if
The
occur independently
rate(93).
average
events
at a constant
distribution
this
of
with a mean
assumes large
variability;
use
(au)
(JJ2),
largest
it
has
the
and
variance
variances
of
of
one of
it

is

the

it

associated

with

prevailing

operating
irregular

of

all
conditions,

distribution

Since

types(91).

have

characteristically,

this
patterns,
service
considerably
and variable
is
terminals'
for
distribution
airport
particularly
suitable
is
facilities.
distribution
Generally,
Exponential
the
processing
in
its
for
theory
used
queueing
mathematical
applications
widely
is a special
Erlangian,
and tractibility.
case of
simplicity
(the shape factor
It is the
is an integer).
Gamma distribution
independent
Exponential
distributed
of
and identically
random
sum
An interesting
is
of Gamma distributions,
variables(94).
property
increases,
the distribution
shape factor
In practice,
normality(93).
previous
research(95)
times
terminals
observed
at
airport
service

that

as the

approaches
showed
fitted

that
both

distributions
(as
Figure
and Erlangian
shown in
This is expected
6.4b).
So, it
the above discussion.
and confirms
be
that
the
Negative
Exponential
concluded
could
shifted
distribution
be adopted
for
should
conditions
where servicing
Exponential

are
conditions
somewhat
varying,
and
should be used for more regular
servicing

Erlangian
conditions.

distribution

105.
F
R
E
Q
U
E
N
C
Y

Triangular
Rectangular

1I

MIN.
(a)

MODE

..,

--1

Time

Service

Time-

Negative
Exponential
( oc =2)
Erlangi
Actual Observation

/
,"i

jj,, ,,.
%;

(b)

Observed

..

and Exponential,

/ Erlangian.

MAN
(c)

Figure

Service

MAX.

and Triangular.

Rectangular

Shifted
F
R
E
Q
U
E
N
C
Y

(Uniform)

6.4.

Service

Normal.

Processing

Times

Distributions.

Time

106.

Using

III:

times

service

generating
represent

real-word

3.

Number

of

If

service

(Figure

distribution,

normal

that

are

6.4c)

would

result

in

and

would

not

unrealistic

situations.

Channels

time

the

reflects

unit,
a processing
in parallel
arranged

then

of

supply

the

number of operational
channels
the overall
indicate
supply
of the facility,
and
defines
that
the capacity
and characterizes
parameter

it

would
is this

the

size

of

a facility.

6.3.2.2

SIMULATION RUNS

A proper

simulation

simulation
Those runs

technique

runs

sufficient

should
by that

cover

is
to

all

adopted

establish

service
facility.

to
the

execute

a number

of

model.
performance
be
that may possibly

volumes
Depending

particular

on the specific
particular
the technique
output
of
required,
and the information
include
on the following:
would typically
statistics
(delay
time
at the
or total
spent)
per passenger
facility,
in terms of the mean,
maximum,
expressed

minimum,

standard

processed
features
of
these
1.

runs
Time

occurrence.
2. Queue length,
in (1) above.
3.

Percentage

deviation,

expressed
utilization

and
in

of

the

calulated.
5. Other
modeler's
capabilities

more specific
request,
of the

information
depending
simulation

same statistical

servers,
deviation.

maximum, minimum, and standard

(sample
4. Number of observations

distribution

frequency

size)
of
on

package.

parameters

expressed
from
interest,
available

of

which

as the

mean,

statistics

produced
facilities

as

are

upon the
and

107.

Aspects

to methods

related

facilities
of modelling
and
processing
in Chapter
in detail
are described
runs
Eight presents
and
and discusses
properties

simulation
conducting
Seven,
while Chapter
capabilities

of

different

techniques.

simulation

PERFORMANCEMODELS

6.3.2.3

data generated
it
by means of simulation,
synthesized
be
to construct
the performance
possible
now
models,
which
would
the following
describe
relationships:
(in
Average time
time
1.
terms
spent)
per
of delay
or total
levels.
demand
in
different
the
facility
particular
at
passenger
From the

3.

Maximum queue length

waiting
or maximum number of passengers
levels.
demand
different
at that facility
service
at
If required,
the average percentage
at
utilization
of server

the

facility,

2.
for

to

related

Samples

showing performance
be found in Chapter Nine.

model

After

the

would

two procedures
now be possible

of
to

this

facilities

processing

could

service
standards
of
by
the boundary
marking
achieved

framework

previously
model

performance

conditions

operating

assessed

prevailing
By dividing
resulting
or bad,

and

obtained
derived
by the
at

values
of the level
from
P-R models,
the
capacity
procedure.
demand levels
in

different
in

evaluated

have been presented,

between capacity
a relation
in consideration.
This is

methodology

establish
facilities

and

are

for

OPERATIONS ASSESSMENT: CAPACITY / LEVEL OF SERVICE RELATIONS

6.4

it

demand levels.

different

light

of

the

of

service
onto the

Effectively,
that

operational

facility
service

themselves.
as perceived
and graded by the passengers
the performance
model into
where
segments or regions
is considered
tolerable,
operational
service
as good,

boundary

values

marked on the performance

for
the
corresponding

(in

terms

model
levels

demand levels)

of
to designate
of

service.

the

could

also be
of that

capacity
By so doing,

108.

method

capacities

of
to

related
The

associated
the
after
arranged

as to

aspect

at

could

description,

and

discussions

with
it,
with
reader

assessment

is

obtained,
where
linked
be directly
and

standards.

service

presentation,

methodology,

each

of

operational
facilities
processing

systematic

aspects
various
in different
topics
on

incorporate
will

cover
a time.

find
capacity

application

that
and

the
level

remaining
of

service

and

the
of
features
So,

subjects.

chapters
procedures

are

so
for

CHAPTER

SEVEN

COLLECTION

7.1

OF

REQUIRED

INFORMATION

NATURE OF INFORMATION

Collection

of
fall

methodology

information
into

two

two procedures:
methodology's
Pieces of information
sought
Their
method of collection.

main

implementing

for

required

the

to
corresponding
level
of service.

classes,

and
in nature,

capacity
are diverse

and vary in
depend to a large
characteristics
their
importance
influence
their
on
relative
on the
and
extent
diversity
the
This
terminal
of
arises
as
a
system.
performance
terminal
the
from
uniqueness
airport
of the
and sensitivity
involved
in
where
are
responsible,
many
parties
environment,
different
ways, for performing
of the system's
activities
various
All
be
those
synchronized
activities
and
should
operation.
performed

objectives

(albeit

or
of

and comfort,
thousands
of
Generally,

to;

harmony,

mutual

goals
time
predetermined

objectives
a

in

and

processing,

fulfilling
one
certain
each
dissimilar
in
or even contradicting)
to successfully
the
space,
achieve
serving,

supervising,

regulating,
people

accommodating,
this
going through

information
traffic

-Pedestrian
inside
various

sought
flow

facilities

in

ensuring

safety

catering,
system

airports

characteristics
of the terminal.

and controlling
round the clock.

are

primarily

of

passengers

related
moving

iii.
>>
t .;

110.

that

Aspects
-..
particular

the

specify

characteristics

airport,
such as:
of demand,
arrival

composition
demand (seasonal,
operational
-,S
such as:

passengers'

patterns,
daily,
weekly,

monthly,

demand

of

at

characteristics
temporal
patterns

and
of

hourly).

facilities
under consideration,
(in terms of number of units
size

characteristics
layout,
physical

of

facility),
sequence
of
a
and
arrangement
relative
comprising
;
in the system,
detailed
facilities
and
regulatory
procedures
:,
imposed
in each one,
adopted,
practices
working
measures
other
-.
data.
operational
and, other supporting
help
in
that
Information
service
offered,
could
categorizing
-"
in
for
particular
establishing
service
standards
aid
and
facilities.

terminal

different

to
the
collect
and
methods
means
-dictate
information,
the
factors
that
certain
and
aforementioned
be
These
the
of
considered.
proper
should
method
selection
include:
the purpose for which the survey is needed, the
factors

There

are
:,

required
disaggregation,

level

operational
the information

7.2
7,2.1:

conditions

at

collection

the,

of

extent

or

situation

and

particular

airport,

effort,

aggregation
associated

parties

and the

resources.

with

available.

COLLECTING INFORMATION IN AIRPORTS

COLLECTION
IN
AIRPORTS
METHODS
INFORMATION
-,

Information
means

detail,
of
time-dependency,

of

inside

collected
airport

surveys;
passenger
their-objectives,

to
according
vary:
The
purpose of
scale.
and-.
diverse
be
as
could
out,;
airport
='u
.
._
:

surveys

airports

are

of

the

is

often

surveying
content,

carried
out by
techniques
that

techniques

adopted,

airport
surveys,
as Braaksma(96)
points
but in-general,
techniques,
as their
following

types:

i
1

,(1i
III

1.

Direct

readings
includes

incorporating

observation,

head

help
either
manually
or with
data-logging(95),
tape-recorded

counts
a device.

of

where

and
It

time
also

continuous

is kept by recording
into
a tape recorder,
record
or specially
designed field
portable
and programmable
calculator.
techniques
to
2.,. ".,Photographic
are
sometimes
used
observe
locations
direct
for
at
certain
unsuitable
operation
where

complete
and subsequently,

observations,

recorded,
films
at will
with
include
recording
photography.
3.-; 'Tagging,
the
throughout

of

involves

could

the

tracing

by means of
Time is entered

terminal

active

information

In this
timing

participation.
this
technique.

are

be readily
of information.

no potential
waste
by cinecamera,
video

carries.
passenger
journey.
intra-terminal
'agent'
in
an
actingas
minimal

sets
data

camera,

continuously
from
extracted
Techniques
or

time-lapse

of
passengers
movements
tag which the
an identifiable
on it at every stage of the

is actually
sense, the passenger
but with
his or her own movement,
Many surveys
were successfully

Survey(81)
Airport
In Manchester
using
conducted
it
in
in
'the
Germany(97),
Card
System',
called
was
and
and
where.
Canada(96) where the method was named 'time-stamping'.
follows
the movements
4, - Tailing,
where the
surveyor
of a
through
during
the
the
terminal
airport
period
of
passenger
Detailed
however,
information
be
it
can
gathered,
observation.
could,

to

prove

in
adopted
was
5.. -'",Interviews;

be quiet
This technique
expensive
and obtrusive.
the Heathrow Passenger and Baggage Survey(98).
the surveyor
interview
would undertake
a personal
ask

passengers,

with
the specially
to determine
population,
collected

the

then

questions,

prepared
questionnaire.
the specific
characteristics

the
record
This technique
of

answers on
is adopted

demand and terminal

when the type of information

sought could not be
by any of the preceding
techniques.
Being
a fully
its
is
high(99).
survey,
relative
cost
rather

controlled
Consequently,

or

the

number

of

interviewing

stations
levels
when activity

conducted
and the survey
minimal,
sample size is small(100).
and the desired

should

be

are

low

112.

6.

Collected

distributed

questionnaires,
by the surveyor

which
to

are

self-administered,

passengers,

are

and

when completed
This technique
is most suitable
returned.
when the respondents
have
little
time,
to
in
the
spare
answering
questions
of
Collection
interviewer.
be
of completed
would
questionnaires
inside
just
the terminal
to leaving,
at some point
either,
prior
technique,
the respondent
or with the mail-back
mail
would later
the

completed

the surveyor
interviewing,
that

and

on the

largely
the

success

good-will

such

concise,
simple,
Statistical
7.
certain
documents,

rate
surveys

of

the

be noticeably
would
is highly
-dependent

low.

In
the

on

general,
use

of

and readily

understandable
questionnaire(100).
In many occasions,
records
and documented data:
in
files
information
valuable
of
already
exists
worksheets,

agencies
for
mainly
and

unpublished,
would be required
instance,

and statistical

associated
their
own
then

For

returns

response
of

Since the control

surveyor.
of
in this
is lower than in
technique
depend
of completed
questionnaires
it would be expected
the respondent,

to
questionnaire
on the respondent

all

operations

administrative
to access
permission
to

extract
information

purposes.
this
source
information

whatever

If

they

are

of information
found useful.

to air transport
movements
related
from ATC tower logs.
Similarly,
much useful
be obtained
from records
of airlines
and files

could be extracted
information
could
handling
airport
and

airport

agencies,

government

authorities,
Undoubtedly,

airport

with

organisations
data
collecting

of

records

agencies,

and

and

civil

aviation

even concessionnaires.
to be a valuable
source

airport

records
could prove
information.
With
coordinated
organization,
efficient
of
handling,
(if
by
accompanied
statistical
practicable)
compilation,
storage,
systems,
a
computerized
and handling
substantial
directly
forgotten.
However,
"...

airport
extracted
This could
in

spite
Peculiarities

unappropriate

for

of

data

operations
from
files

base

that

can

are

be made available,

usually

shelved

and

be managed and maintained

cost-effectively.
its
De Neufville(3)
usefullness,
warns that:

acceptable
planning

to
and

airport
design

organisations
purposes,

that
require

are
most

113.

interpretation

careful
national

have

organisations

information.

such

data

of
The

America(103),
100 U. S.
furnish

annual
'Air

International

Air

Association

Transport

Transport

purpose,
future

forecasting

and

IATA(8)

Association-

to

Another"

Aviation

publishes

annual

Usually,
methods.

airport
surveys
The appropriate

each.

method

proper
include:

factors

should
information

of

associated
conducting

2." Approval
and cooperation
parts
of the airport
under
be conducted.
survey is'to
3. Cost
the
4.

range

estimated,

survey.
Considerations
conditions,

caused-to
5. `Local

passengers

any-of

its

survey

method

parts),

the

obtrusiveness,
by the survey.

and operational
-which

or another.

organisation,

of the
decided

conditions
at
favour
either

and feasibility
implementing
when
the

and goal

of

available

or

interference
or
the

also

aforementioned

other

They

collecting

the

for

those

which

allocated

the
for

normal
with
inconveniences
airport

particular

or prohibit

of
the

survey.

responsible
parties
for
jurisdiction,

and resources
regarding

operating

of all
their

of

members.

in

collection
survey

techniques

after
careful
A
parties.
and involved
tests
trial
and
several

appropriateness
be considered

Scope and objectives

1.
of the
particular
type of information.

encourages

ICAO(106),

contracting

use a combination
is
combination,

discussions
and
with all
study
is arrived
conclusion
at after
pilot
to explore
the
surveys
Certain

its

the

acquisition
forms
statistical

Organisationfor

statistics

top

data

and
practices
international

enhance

demand.

Civil

International

of

Internationally,

publications.

their
to upgrade
authorities
world
wide,
by recommending
the use of special
techniques,
that

of
Civil

Administration(101),

airport
for

importance

the

information
for
the
publish
compiled
Civil
Aviation
Authority(104),
the U. K.,

In

similar

"-. Many

traffic

airport

realized

Aviation
and

annually
airports.

already

Federal

Board(102),

Aeronautics

to

related

the

use of

(or
one

114.

the
of survey,
of detail
(which,
desired
in turn,

6. Level
-,
accuracy

study as a whole,
and degree of
hence
is linked
to sample size,

cost).
z

t..

Passenger

In., Heathrow
information
tailing

Baggage

and

collection
chosen
interviews,
technique,

direct

and data

the

methods of
observations,
from files
and

'static'
extraction

reports.

unpublished

Manchester

LUT's

were:

Survey(98),

the

Airport

Survey

in

conducted
the main
direct

following

1974(95)

in
techniques
random
suevey:
(Card
technique
System)-, tagging
observations,
interviewing,
and time-lapse
cinecamera
photography.
implemented

In.. the

survey
to

Administration

to
questionnaires
direct
observation

the

operations

Federal

Aviation

data for
and validation
included:
self-administered

interviews

airlines,

of

U. S.

the

collect
calibration
the techniques
used

ALSIM model(99),

terminal

by

commissioned

with

at - various

passengers,
in
facilities

the
and
the

proper.

tz,.

ASSOCIATED
WITH
SURVEYS
AIRPORT
"PROBLEMS

7.2.2

Numerous
surveys,

problems
exist,

difficulties

and
which

process.
collectionbe
organisational,
could,

with
airport
information
the

associated
affect

could -adversely
The sources
and
operational,

causes
or of

of

these

problems

survey-administrative

nature.
1.

Organisational:

;.
organisations

involved
and coordinating
task.
Getting

negotiating
essential
conduct
arranging

Due

the

survey
for the

should
approval

to
in

the
the
with

the

large

number

of

operations
all

approval
be the first

of

and
parties
the
airport,

of
them is a difficult

of
step,

and collaboration

airport
to
of

authority
be followed
other

partries.

but
to
by

115.

authority
arise
might
where the airport
in the
to include
of the airport
all
parts
(probably
decide
later
in the last
moment) to

However,

a situation
approve first

would
survey,

but

to

restrict

the

survey

be

could

only
blow

a serious

to

of

certain
parts
to the survey,

the

could

which

months of preparations,
waste valuable
curtail
This situation
the study as a whole.
jeopardize
International
this
during
work in the Birmingham
be
later
in
Nine.
Chapter
as
will
mentioned
and
In other
help in

the

occasions,

airport
information,

providing
type of information

This

airport.

evidently
and

resources,

was experienced
Survey,
Airport

to

would seem reluctant

think
because they

authority
either

that

for
be
security,
revealed
not
such
information
have
do
they
such
or
economic
not
reasons,
political,
that
to provide
ready,
feel
do not
they
or simply
obliged
this
to
Again,
the
information
case
was also
surveyor.
2.2.1.
in
Section
in
briefly
this
work
as
mentioned
experienced
Airlines
survey.
Airport

might
As was
Survey,

also

have

should

of the
on some aspects
International
Birmingham

reservations
in

actualy
encountered
the airlines
using

the

agree

might

airport

to

information
from
their
concerning
own work-sheets
some
provide
but only on
flights,
throughputs
daily
and load factors
on their
from publishing
that
the surveyor
the condition
refrain
should
load
throughput
disaggregate
and
airline
containing
any material
factor
airlines'
between

figures.
public

The obvious
reasons
image,
and influence

for
of

this

is

attitude,

market

the

competitiveness

airlines.

The most 'sensitive'

are the governmental
Their
apprehension
conducting
transactions

in the airport
organisations
(i.
immigration,
agencies
e.,
in
to
participate
surveys

observations,
performed

stems
between

from
them

the
and

towards

surveys

and customs).
or

approve

to

sensitivity

of

passengers,

and

116.

the

of
confidentiality
information
Hence,
is

operations
1 -1

often

control

measures

associated

with

practiaclly

by them.

adopted

agencies'

governmental

unobtainable.

be accounted
for at all
The role
of the Unions should
stages of
In Heathrow Passenger and Baggage survey of 1972(98),
the survey.
in
timetable
had to
due to
delays
be altered,
the survey
with

negotiations

airport

Possible

Operational:

2.

the

employees
interference

in
operating
conditions
normal
the flow
impeding
of pasengers,
hesitation
of airport
authority
surveys.
in the

is

nature,

obtrusive

they

are

the

survey
with
the
to
extent
airport
for
the prime
reason

the
of
the

to conduct
approval
to participating
might object
its
towards
feel
apprehensive

to

the passengers
because they might

survey

of

the

Moreover,

unions.

grant

of

press

time

which

they

can

if
they participate
waste
and answer questions,
afford
they are simply
that
feel
or ready to participate,
not prepared
find
difficult
the
long
they
too
too
or
questionnaire
or
to

not
they
to

answer.
from
arise
might
problems
finance,
the
availability
manpower,
or
of
during
the
might exert
unanticipated
restraints

Survey-administrative:

3.

on

restrictions

which
equipment,
survey period.

Some

it

7.3
The

; DATA BASE FOR METHODOLOGY

data

base
is

methodology,
information.

These information

between

different

therefore

be

for
essential
divided
between
airports.
collected

the

implementation

capacity,
and level
may be airport-specific,

Seperate
specifically

sets

of information
for
each

of
of

this
service

varying
should
airport.

117.

in

Alternatively,
feasible,

using

certain

occasions,
information

available

be
could
for use at

generalization
from one airport

another.

T. 4 CAPACITY PROCEDUREINFORMATION
Predominently,
information

of the
characteristics
demand-related,
either
first

is

kind,

airport

at

usually
times,

presented

to

to, `enhance

as

better
a

miscellaneous
facilities,

of

components.
information.

information

characterize
in
interpreted

of
categories
in consideration.

distributions

is

It

The

associated
with
demand on
the
terms

arrival
the
using

of

passengers
The second,

is

and waiting
processing
distributions
of
of channels,
and probabilistic
is
information
Other
equally
miscellaneous

number
lengths.

personnel,

is

It

of the various
facilities
the

distributions

its

system or any of
or facility-specific

constituted
that
patterns

of
portrayal
facilities.
servicing

requires
model
the
operational

performance
description
of

mainly

the

queue
desirable

the

establishing
to
the
related

understand

realistic
information
specific

of

characteristics,

operational

and
Such

of
operation.
representation
includes
arrangement
of
relative
behaviour
and
airport
of
passengers

and

other

all

information

minor

regulatory

measures

necessary

to

and operational

procedures.
Logically,
of

processing

facilities

could
of the

construct

performance
by means of

be

gathered
models
but most
time
this
direct-observations,
could
not be
To start
feasible.
with,
construction
of performance
models
inclusion
(yet
different
the
demand
levels
of
with
require
demand
times,
similar
patterns),
and queue
reasonably
waiting
lengths,
throughout
at predetermined
at
equal intervals
operation
levels.
Some demand levels
(especially
those-demand
the highest),
in
have
been
in
the airport,
experienced
yet or met
could not
fact.

they

may never

be

met.

Moreover,

due

to

the

stochastic

118.

the

of

nature
exactly

when to

certain

through

information
is

by

outputof
by a certain
output

the

simulation,
could

the

output

input,

of
most

could
1. It
of
2:

only

simulation

and what

data

one

will
be dictated

with
prove to
is

later

current
be very

in

by the

convenient

Enormous
levels

varying

amounts
of
of detail

reasonable
required
Simulation
input
from

the

This

is
in

features
function.

generating

Eight,

the

desired

determine

the

level

the
initial

accuracy
of

simulation

of
output
input.

detail
would

the

technology,

computer

of

but the whole

and patterns,
level
and detail.
of accuracy

any

would
get in

number

collect

models

may differ
distortion.

non-representational

Chapter

much more cost-effective

including
collection,

of

of

description-

systems

random
levels

to

simulated

of

certainly

Finally,

not
be

be discussed

As will

of the
demand

to

possible

operations.

that

known

level

performance

degree

or

and quality

model,

activity

of

oversimplification

not

systems

converts
interest,

into

parameters,
real
system's
caused

the

that

demand

A
observations.
be
to
synthesize

to

seem

be possibly

not

construct

simulating

devise

transfer

then

often

direct

of

could

a particular
is

to

means

would

alternative

it

short,

required

by

facilities

and observe

In

information

it

operations,

expect

pattern.

the

In

systems

use of simulation
because:
and advantageous
than any other equivalent
means

surveys.

information
various
operational
with
and degrees
can be readily
of accuracy

generated.

that would be impossible

3. -Information
to obtain accurately
(e.
future
happenings) could easily
g.,
or indeterminate
site
their
operational
gathered by simulating
conditions.

7.4.1

DEMANDPATTERNS AND ARRIVAL DISTRIBUTIONS

Demand patterns
categorize"
patterns

on
be

could

airports
greatly

act

as

"fingerprints"

and characterize
influence
capacity

that

their
/

identify

operations.
level
of

and
These
service

119.

facilities,
considerations
at airports'
servicing
mainly because
it_, is the time
(ultimately
variation
of demand on facilities
distributions)
arrival
rates
and
that
dictates
virtually
Quoting
from De Neufville(3):
of capacity.
attainment
"
The
...
indeed,
of a service
performance
system is,
to the
sensitive
imposed,
of loads
its
patterns
especially
when they
approach
capacity
not its

".

Consequently,

the

variations

in

patterns

of

demand,

absolute
magnitude
time
measured over some prespecified
be
in assessing
should
considered
span,
performance
of servicing
because
facilities,
facilities
having
different
airports
with
traffic
different
levels
patterns
may create
of
congestion,
eventhough they handle the same averaged demand on a busy day.
Demand pattern
be:
variations
could
seasonalvarying
monthly
daily
years,
traffic
round;, the
weeklywhere
patterns
are
different,
from one hour to another
noticeably
or hourlyvarying
in,, any given day.
Causal factors
behind
those
variations
and
in demand are extremely
fluctuations
diverse,
complex to analyse,
this

and-certainly,
patterns

of

pattern

anticipated
allocation
timetoble(107).

of

travel
air,
heuristics(107),
travel

In.: the, context

the

scope

of this
work.
by the airlines

Demand

flights
extent
by two underlying
factors:
the
affected
timetable
flights
to
of
meet
a certain
demand,
of passenger
and the assignement
or
a great

fulfilling
and/or
crew
the schedules
is, in turn,

aircraft
Selecting

yar, ious. socioeconomic,

technical
considerations
lysis
ana.
associated
of, -;,

and, air
.

beyond

to
governed
which is itself

are

schedule,
development

is

environmental,
political,
imposed on all parties

a
given
dictated
by

operational,
and
involved.
Methods

airlines
scheduling
used to predict
demand
dynamic
are:
programming(108,109),
and disaggregated
demand
modelling
of air travel
with

choice(110).
this

it is necessary
methodology,
to obtain
traffic
flows.
weekly,
and hourly
seasonal,
From these flows,
demand
for
time-varying
service
the
facilities
at
is defined,
consideration
and a particular
demand pattern
of

the
the
in
is

120.

for
selected
The time-varying
use in the analysis.
demand is
interpreted
as the arrival
rate and distribution
of passengers
at
the facility,
which are the major input to the simulation
models.
demand patterns
Generally,
from statistics
are normally
obtained
by
compiled
airport
authorities
for
and/or
airlines
administrative
and operational
Often,
in
purposes.
especially
busy
large
airports,
information
is
compilation
of
such
computerized

systematically

usually

on continuous

basis(lll).

this
Throughout
the distribution
methodology,
of arrival
rate
(servicing)
facilities
processing
used for
and in constructing
is the Poisson
models,
distribution.
performance
To simplify
the arrival
is modelled
by using interarrival
simulation,
times
instead

arrival
rate.
can be interpreted

It

programmes
distributions

of

of

arrivals
SLAM computer
arrival
distributions
Creations-

with

was established
as Exponential
modelling

in

the

next

sonsidered)

to

operations

Poisson
In

times.
of

facilities,

Exponential
are
represented
as
interarrival
(Time
times
Between

given
TBC) as the parameter.
from the demand pattern

extracted
be seen later
It: will
languages
simulation

that

earlier
interarrival

Values

of
level)

(and
chapter,

TBC are directly

in consideration.

how SLAM (of

all

the

provides
a uniquely
efficient
the arrival
distribution.
By

model realistically
to Appendix
C,
referring
for
the
where
computer
programmes
facilities
of the processing
it is noticed
modelling
are listed,
that
of the model programme
is
part
a FORTRAN-written
user
(FUNCTION USERF) that
function
actually
to the
models arrivals
in 20-minute
facility
time intervals.
Arrival
to a
of passengers
in any 20-minute
facility
interval
throughout
operation
period
is
directly
from the pattern
considered,
extracted
of demand
presented
into
as flows
of passengers
the facility
over time.
Time Between Creations
be the time period
(in this
would then
divided
by the mean arrival
case=. 20 minutes)
during
that
rate
interval.
Arrivals
particular
by
defined
could then be totally
its two basic parameters:
interarrival
time (TBC),
and arrival

mechanism

distribution

(EXPONential).

Except

for

the

fact

that

mean

121.

interarrival

times

depending

on
in

are
demand

assumed
level

during

constant

the

time

interval

is
pattern,
stochasticity
the
random
the
maintained
process
generation
of
distributed
interarrival
exponentially
times.
Arrival
of
passengers
(creation
is accomplished
by randomly
of entities)
TBC values from an exponentially
distributed
selecting
generating
function
in the interval
with
mean number of arrivals
=
Determination

of

the

and
by

duration

between
a compromise
that could
minutes or an hour),
losing
hence
sought
most of its
(ten,
five,
intervals
or even
excessive
computer usage with an
chosen

unit
selecting

as

that-is
this

not actually'required.
interval
is important

interval

of

result
value,

in

higher

was logically
(30
intervals

grossly

data

averaging
lower
and selecting

one minute),
unnecessary
Theoretically,

time'

which would incur

high level
of detail
the

determination

in the context
and- critical
of
because it specifies
assessment of operational
the
performance,
nit'of
time scale
during
which the fluctuation
of demand is
It
be unequal
different
for
facilities
may even
measured.
of,

depending

on the characteristics
and nature of operation
of each.
The importance
interval
of determination
of this
was recognized
by, De': Neufville(53)
it
where he defined
as 'the
critical
period
transient
in traffic
build
surges
over'which
He
up congestion'.
suggested
for different
some ranges for that period
even
terminal
depending
facilities
For
on the
precise
nature
of traffic.

it is
concourses,
and piers
corridors,
is
in the order of 30-45
areas"it
claim
it
be as 'high
could
counters
as an
realized-'the
the`""addition

significance
of a time

to''service

standards.
including

of that
duration
IATA(56)
'sustained

critical
factor

5-10

for

minutes,

baggage

minutes,
while for ticket
hour.
Braaksma(55)
also
period,

and suggested
interval
this

resembling
Braaksma's
adopted

view

and

in
period'
capacity/demand
the expression
and created
management,
'sustained
but
capacity',
it''was never practically
implemented.
Use of a sustained
period
cited
in
by Turner(112),
a BAA paper
was; also
was
where it
implemented
to express
the pattern
in
of arrival
to check-in,

recommended
.

122.

for
a
sustained
that
the scope of
of
certain
period
does not necessitate
high level
this, exercise
of
a particularly
facilities,
detail,
and, the similarity
of operation
of processing
20 minutes
to monitor
seems a reasonably
any
adequate
period
fluctuation
in demand during
tangible
operation.
terms

of

By definition,

arrival
passenger
in mind both
Bearing

the
models describe
different
demand
over

of a
variations
levels
covering
Thus in essence,
they

performance

service

certain

total

of
time.

percentage

measure

levels.
activity
normal
interactions.
Due to
supply/demand
could portray
influence
the
and
of
stochasticity,
operation
as extreme

as well

perfectly

real-world
levels
of

activity
in

inevitable,

and
So,

tolerence.

They

theoretical.

data,

synthesized
initially
was'.
conditions,
for
only

the

predict
demand patterns

represent

could:

possibly

exact

value

is

not
Nevertheless,

remain

continuously'Simulation.

more

therefore,

are,

demand levels.

projected

demand

projected

the

levels

It
are

sense that
the datum level,

should

purely
they
are

by the

of

particularly
deviations

or

monitored
is
Index'

less

similar,

and

the

adopted

for

which

of
real-world
patterns
is selected
This
factor

conditions
operational
be anticipated
that
could
facility.
Apart from that,

that
or
its

in
the
relevance
in simulated
demands could be
basis,
they
and error
until
Since the performance
model of

and rectified
on trial
monitored
as acceptable.
could be-considered
is based on the assumption
a facility
levels-

Those

randomness!.

of synthesizing
demand levels

all
be handled

to

of
a certain
margin
in the
inherent
of stochasticity
in the pattern
of the simulated

in
are artificial
derived
by multiplying

purpose

would

obtaining
different

with

from
traffic
extracted
by a 'Projection
Factor'.

the

procedure.

of
that

the

of

nature

demand over
it is tantamount

to

accepted

element
deviations

here

emphasized

able

simulated
be
should

ensure
from that

will
process
demand levels
be

be

to

asking

virtually
inconsistencies

of
patterns
to impossible-

consistent
is close

the

great

demand patterns
at all
be
these
should
patterns
The
assumption
checked.
that

this

purpose

to

check

that

123.

degree
the
and control
assumption
of
between simulated
and projected
patterns.
Index (SI) is:
the Simulation

in
similarity
patterns
In any simulation
run,

X1 - xi
1
SI =1N
Where:
X. = Projected
xi = Simulated
Number of

N=

interval,

in time
arrivals
time intervals.

interval,

of

desired,

For

usage.
acceptable

SI

depends

level

Six,

Chapter

distribution

by, the

servers
Alternatively,
the
Due

the

to

;-similar
limitations
.:,

in

fact
all
on

-chapter,
performance
.,

service

required

and computer
an

on

(service)

processing

rate

and

that:
distribution

suitable
facilities

-The
processing
distribution.
,.
For
a particular
interpreted
as the

accuracy

tolerence

acceptable

RATE AND DISTRIBUTION

discussion

concluded

most

of

on the

and

to minimize
computer
utilization,
Index (SI) of 0.90 seems reasonable.

practicality,
Simulation

PROCESSING (SERVICING)

7.4.2
In,

time

a value for
governed by the

Selection

in

arrivals

is

the

to
shifted

be

used
Negative

for

airport
Exponential

facility,
the service
processing
(average)
mean
number of passengers
during
interval
that
a time
at
mean service
that
most

time

per

service

models are
between

, -interchangeably
information
of service

rates
used for
from different
gathered
and

airports.
is referred

Throughout
to

serviced
facility.

is used.
passenger
data
are comparatively
the
and because
of

airports
considered,
data
collection
mentioned
times

is

rate

whenever

in

earlier
constructing
sources
this
used.

work,

the
the

and used
source

124.

batch
exists:
of processing
incorporates
the
time-limited

two kinds

Generally,
Batch
facility

processing
by each flight,

and continuous.
the
of
use

in groups
are processed
flights.
Examples of
particular
and baggage claim,
where each facility
to the
times
at prespecified
relative

where
to their

passengers

according
or batches
kind are the check-in
this
is 'opened'
and 'closed'
for
flight
timing
the processing
;
on
of
passengers
only
specific
"
facilities
flight.
Service
times for check-in
are
that particular
by the handling
to flight
according,
agencies
sector
:categorized
in
include:
Categorization
airports
charter
considered.
operating
;
haul
tours,
Inclusive
schedule-European,
and schedule-long
due to
However,
the
flights.
and unsystematic
complexity
lack
facility,
baggage
performance
the
and
claim
associated
with
unavailability
itself,
or

of
other
or

relations,
facilities

could

Thte other

kind,

between
classifies

information

needed

organisational

within
reasons

the handling
agency
(security,
industrial
baggage

commercial
confidentiality),
in the capacity
not be included
continuous

processing,
their
to
according

passengers
them
to
the
according
facility
in consideration.

particular
facilities
such

is,

and passport

control

"

claim

procedure.

does

not

differentiate
but

flights,
features

specific
Arrival

of

passengers
distribution

to

the
of
continuous,
demand
by
dictated
flow
is
the
of
collective
and
aggregated
which
'fli.
Examples
includes
kind
the security
this
check
of
ghts.
all
control'and
part"icular

customs
facility,

therefore,

rather
the
of

for

the

clearance
the

departure
for

channel,

the

arrival

and immigration
Within'a
channel.

between
its
of
passengers
is important
demand on each.
to specify
the estimated
divisions
between EEC and non-EEC passengers
Example's of this
are the split
immigration,
betwen Red and-Green
in
for
and split
channels
.
information
Collecting
is
Customs.
these
on
all
equally
aspects
,
for
facility
important,
and values
are
each
airport
and
each
.
in
Chapter
Nine.
Direct
observation
and photographic
presented
techniques
service

are
times,

the

suitable

IF permitted.

split

methods

of

collecting

information

on

125.

NUMBEROF OPERATIONAL CHANNELS

7.4.3

The number of
the simulation
facility

available
process,

during
channels
operation
because it defines
the

is

important

to

of

the

capacity

as a whole.
SLAM simulation
technique
facilities.
of terminal

Adopting
modelling

facilitated
In

the

more realistic
is
the facility

case

than
to
more
one
channel
of
unidentical
servers
composed
than
type
SLAM
implements
the
more
one
of
entity,
process
branching
between
those
probabilistic
of
entities
conditional
is composed of several
In case the facility
different
channels.
SLAM would adopt the SELECT statement,
(identical)
servers,
where
(passengers)
into
the
the oncoming arriving
it branches
entities
of

if
them
servers,
occasionally
queueing
-available
Details
busy.
on these two aspects
of SLAM will
the

be presented

are
in

channels

is

servers

chapter.

next

Information

the
regarding
operational
number of
in
through
the inspection
of the facility

obtained
by : enquiring

with

agencies

about the
splits
of
the help and assistance

and
question,
from
the related

passengers
of

authorities.

airport

OTHER MISCELLANEOUS INFORMATION

7.4.4
In

the

order

to

obtain

reasonably
accurate
data
be
additional
may
required,
simulations,
facilities:
Particular
I
arrangement
of
;
to each other
facilities
relative
varies
between
and
countries
as well,
another,
with

and
they

representative
include:

The

arrangement

from

one

airport

no specific
is
facility

Consequently,
the
or layout
adopted.
it
functions
in the context
as
stands
and
exactly
of
For instance,
at the particular
airport.
operations
Midlands Airport,
one passport
control
counter
preceeds

design

of
to

standard
modelled
terminal
in

East

a single

126.

check unit,
In Manchester

security
reverse.

while
Airport,

in

Birmingham

on the
by three

Airport
hand,

other

it
there

is

the

are four

followed
check units
control
counters.
passport
security
behaviour
2:.. Specific
airport
of
passengers
and/or
personnel:
be carefully
that
There are some aspects
and
should
observed
in modelling.
in
A good example of this
be
included
seen
could
Customs
the
be-presented
clearance
activity
as will
modelling
later.
imposed at each
3. -Regulatory
measures and operational
procedures
important
times
facility
are
very
service
and could
spell
facility.
However,
these
distributions
and
at that
measures
between
be
different
are
standardized
not
and
may
procedures
So,

airports.

from

should be
facilities
similar

they

separately
the'-security
check is
be
discussed
to
going
discipline:
4. -.,,,Service
imply,
some kind
of
demanding
passengers
passengers

ranks,
discipline

for

7.5

a clear
in the

next chapter.
Since the various

interaction

used

transactions
service
the
and all
server
in which the server

between
the

service,
service

most widely
(first-in-first-out),
the queue is specified

and considered
carefully
observed
in other
Modelling
airports.
is
this
which
situation,
example of

is
in

manner
important.

queueing

where the order

by their
arrival

The typical
processes

is

service
the FIFO

or rank of passengers
time to the facility.

in

LEVEL OF SERVICE PROCEDUREINFORMATION

information

for the capacity

required
procedure,
information
is
mostly
associated
with personal
service=
towards
reaction
quality
of
and individual
service

Unlike

level

of
judgement
offered.

to an observer
through
reflected
personal
travelling
to service
of the
reactions
views'-sand
air
public
So,
the observer
should
offered.
select
service
appropriate
be
by
that
isolation
for
would
suitable
most
measures
to analysis.
collection,
and lend themselves
observations,

Service

conditions

are

127.

The objective
of the level
frame
for
service
a
erect

of

standards
to
reaction

opinions
and
of the authentic
first
decide
to

passengers
practicality
two-fold;

isolation,

to

susceptible

is to
procedure
that
reasonably

service

system.
upon

service
within
Effectively,

try

to

reflect

context
the task

of
is

is
that
service
measure
to facilitate
collection

and secondly,
with it so as to

associated
enable the structuring
of,,-information
by means of
level
the
of
mechanism
which
of: some practical
framework
be
could
successfully
established.
service
As" seen

in

Chapter

Four,

service

for
standards
be quantified,

similar

systems
directly

measures that
could
either
used service
(by-. simple
technique),
measurement or by applying
or
a scaling
through
highway
In
indirectly
subjective
capacity
grading.
it
both
that
was
seen
service
adopted
were
measures
analysis,
(e.
freedom
interruptions,
traffic
to
g.,
maneouvre,
qualitative
driving
(e. g.,
records).

to drivers),
and convenience
and quantitative
travel
in terms of accidents
time,
speed,
and safetySimilarly,
in a more comparable
service
environment,

comfort,

measures used
to
seen
were
relative
relative
ability
measures
Chapter
that

in

the

operational

include

qualitative

freedom

to

ease
of
to bypass
(flow

measures
individual

selecting

flow

cross-and-reverse
slow

volumes

Four

could
is
airports

of

concluded

moving

adequately

the

be

pedestrian
(conditions

systems
of flow

walking

speeds,
and the

movements,

pedestrians),

and pedestrian
that

of

analysis

area

most
for

and

quantitative

occupancy).

promising

service
measure
facilities
in

used
processing
congestion
with its two attributes:
-delay and queues.
for collection.
These-measures
are quantifiable
and suitable
Thus far,
sections.

the

first

part
to
are dedicated

of

the

resolving

task

is
the

resolved.
second.

The remaining

128.

7.5.1

DISCUSSION ON PASSENGER PERCEPTION-RESPONSE MODELS

the

Devising
of-. service

proper
mechanism to be utilized
framework,
was seen in Chapter
Perception-Response
of passenger

construction
are implemented

because

their

of

level
establish
the
to involve

to
Six

Models.

P-R models
a full
providing

capability
of
the passenger
population

towards
reaction
of
by
to
their
stating
views
on
and
perception
response
service,
how
individually
they
of
would
assess service
conditions
requests
facility.
in
Those
terms of a
service
conditions,
a
processing
,
at
(e.
different
time),
and
service
measure
g.,
representing
service

description

of

the

(no
delay),
from
to
times
very
range
very
short
activity
is
Here assessment
long>times
and delays.
conditions
of service
describing
level
to
three
according
out
a
system,
grading
carried
bad
tolerable,
and
service
conditions.
good,
levels,

as
of P-R models,
and superpositioning
properties
By this
Six,
is a valuable
asset to the model.
be
detailed
level
framework
achieved
a
could
of service
means,
different
disaggregated
for
types
(with
of
service
standards)
The aggregation
Chapter
in
seen.

facilities

as well

Another

advantageous

service

standards

pasenger
BAA/IATA

population

perception

as for

various

feature
be
could
desired;

for
standards,
of the average

of

categories

passengers.
is

of P-R models,
for
interpreted

the

fact

that

of
for the 95th percentile
as used in
50th
the
the
representing
percentile

passenger,

or

any

any other

percentile

percentile.

the appropriate
the information
selecting
method to collect
build
P-R
the
be
decided
to
by
the
models
could
upon
required
investigating
the
after
all
aspects
of
particular
planner

Also,

situation.
to approach
or,, to

Basically,
the

obtain

the

has two available

planner
alternatives:
themselves
for the information
sought,

passengers
the
required

associated
closelythe passengers.

with

airport

information
operations

from
and

who
experts
by
proxy
act

are
for

129.

In:

P-R

collecting

should

consideration

information,
model
be directed
towards

and
utmost
care
designing
the passenger
Interpretation
of

the
particularly
questionnaires.
those
to
to
their
service
conditions,
perception
passengers
should
and their
response to survey questionnaires,
conditions,
investigated
be thoroughly
and carefully
studied
well in advance.
in order to try to eliminate
the
That seems absolutely
necessary
survey,

likelihood

of

distortions

possible
that the

to make sure
passenger
actually
to
What
it
meant
mean.
should
was
as
the underlying
effects
of the factors
those ,.inconsistencies
of
passengers
influence
of

the

of

which

will

attitudes
The

P-Rmodel

device

is

that

to

mainly'
In

contribute

are
to
the

surveys,

social

are

surveys
subject
of
social
be reviewed
in the next section.
in

on here

especially

broad

its

basic

utilized

to
in

expressed

conditions-

that

and
results,
the question

of
replies
only
one type,
by those
affected
may be seriously
have a good grasp of the implications
of the
influences
individuals'
and
views
on

passenger
surveys
to questionnaires

socio-psychological
the
responses,

the

understands
be emphasized

repliesfactors.

socio-psychological

respondents
In order
factors.

in

and shifts

terms

a form of
different

is

only
between

concept,
distinguish

of a service
(passengers).

and

measure
Effectively,

expected

scaling

service
(time),
as

by
P-R
the
a
of
group
people
perceived
be
in
to
classified-as
could
scale,
similar
many
ways
a
model
describing
help
in
by social
developed
to
those
scientists
individuals
distinguish
different
between
to
of
and
attitudes
responses

towards

various

by
a social
covered,,

7.5.2:

phenomena or

any aspect

TYPES

lesser

extent

and

categories,

normally

characteristics

vary
of

of

life

survey.

PASSENGERCATEGORIES AND FACILITY

Passenger
would

social

from
the

to

one airport
air transport

to

facility

types,
on the

depending
another,
planning
system in general,

130.

and

considerations

the

socio-economic
influence
and the

particular,
traffic,

design

specific
and

prevailing
In
question.

collected
passenger
typical

in

patterns

Manchester

P-R

such environment.
and Birmingham
were

Airport

Midlands

models

passenger
follows:

constructed
categories
and facility

A=' Passenger

on

the

air

attributes
of
demand levels
this

data

work,

and
were
hence

survey.

pilot

the
types

(according

categories

in

airport

airports
environment,
types
considered
are those
The international
of
airports
taken as case studies,
and East

for

was selected

were

demographic

of

in
of the airport
from within
U. K.
regional
categories
and facility

the

of

to

in

those

flight

for

level

disaggregated

and as

airports,

included

sector)

are:
(Inclusive
large
Charter
Tours),
1.
a
constitutes
which
proportion
(around 65%).
traffic
of total
to
2. Scheduled service,
according
subdivived
which is furthur
15% to
between
Schedule-European
flight
range into:
ranging'
20%

of

international

traffic,
forming

,-'(intercontinental)
; traffic.
3. = Common Travel

Area,

and

5% of

approximately
traffic

from

Ireland

15% of total
constituting
about
in Birmingham
"included
Airport
only
survey,
.
baggage
the" use of
claim
and customs
-international
traffic.
Islands,

Domestic

w4.
inland

B- Facility

airports,
types,

international
Channel

and the
traffic.
because

with

the

includes
from
traffic
which
in this
study.
was not included
into the two channels:
are divided

traffic,

Haul

Schedule-Long

It
it

was

shared
arriving

other

UK

immigration
for
EEC
contain
and
control
-Arrivals,
baggage
pasengers,
claim,
non-EEC
and H. M. Customs and Excise
Green
Red
and
with
channels.
-control
1.

which

131.

2.;

Departures,

which

to

according

the
haul),

schedule-long
In

facilities

processing
only- for

descriptive

is

subdivided

security

check,

facilities,

P-R

and passport.
models

for

controls.
the

combined
in a channel
but
were also constructed,
in the
These were not included
reasons.

procedure.

capacity

7.5.3

those

to

addition

(which

check-in

category
of passengers
and their
specific
i. e.,
I. T.,
and
schedule-European,
charter

pattern,

arrival

contain

ALTERNATIVE APPROACHESTO P-R MODEL BUILDING

the

Generally,
required

to

build

alternative
methods
the P-R models are:

to

collect

information

1. APPROACHING PASSENGERS
Turning-

to

the

travelling

populationor passengers
is
the
for,..
system
presumably
and convenience
-whose
information,
P-R
to
the
model
collect
necessary
operating,
included
that
the
implies*
and
viewpoints
are
of
passengers
in
the.
directly
standards.
considered
service
setting
of
air
interest

Consequently,

those

that-P-R..

based

public

the
accumulate
standards
should
reflect
It
individual
to
and
response
passengers.
service
of
perception
be
have
that
isLL important
or
attributes
of
certain
passengers
(as
individuals),
the
that
planner
reassure
would
such3quality
models

- realistic,
basic
the
passengerss

consistent,

be, investigating

are:
level

from them would be

extracted
for
The main requirements
and reliable.
the planner
units
of population,
should

on information

Reasonable
time-estimating
of
personal
: where an individual
can judge,
with reasonable
time without
to
unnecessary
reference
-lapse'of
In
developed
technically
, device.
societies,

capabilities,
tolerence,

the

a time-measuring
is
this
not

132.

because in our culture

a
major
problem,
cnsidered
all
. .
individuals
tied
to time,
are strongly
and
of life
.
to improve their
trained
estimation
of time-lapse

to them is to
service
provided
factors
Important
air travel.
fare
ticket
and
of
air

the

that
passengers
with the nature of
include:
consider

of

; 'Awareness
be compatible
they
should

imposed
of, service,
(presumably
procedures
set

quality

corresponding

operational
Fand
interest
of the public),
and other
demand-related
travel
considerations.
let

to

aspects
become

safety,
for the

regulatory
benefitland

or air
airport-specific
Passengers. should. not be

interpret

from an unrealistic
service
and personally
angle,
and if they are not well informed
and properly
motivated
in
instructed
the
this
aboutsurvey
aspect
particular
,
inconsistencies
certain
arise.
might
questionnaire,
;,,.
,
for
that
set
assumption
are
general
standards
service
-The
of airport
normal situations
operations.
This
.

approach was chosen as the,

information
for building
required
presented

-in

Chapter

appropriate
P-R models

means ofcollecting
for the case studies

Nine.

2. APPROACHING EXPERTS
to

An7alternative
the

air
indirectly

travelling
from

collecting
public,
individuals

experienced
well.
that
conditions
individuals
particularly
individuals
>view_about
An example
airports,
;
the experts'

directly
from
P-R model information
is
information
that
to
collect
that
of individuals
are
or groups

in

passenger
find
passengers

are

well-acquainted
passenger, handling.
are

capable
from
service

of
the

suitable.

airport
operations,
with
Based on their
knowledge,
those

giving

-a

reasonably
representative
of the average passenger.

viewpoint
in
of this
approach
setting
is the BAA and IATA standards,
views

on service,

service
and. the
Such experienced

processing

not

on the

service
which

standards
founded
were

passengers'.

in
on

133.

is infeasible
to
In'circumstances where it
directly
from
to
service
and' perception
be pursued by forming
a panel representing

obtian
them,
all

transport
activities,
or airport
air
with
different
from airport
may include
experts
handling
tour
airport
agencies,
airlines,
and civil

agencies,
to

asked
measures

aviation

(e. g.,

parties

opertaions.
operators,
This panel

authorities.

associated
This panel
departments,

authority

to
service
according
time passengers
spend in

assess

views
passengers'
this
approach can

governmental
then be
will
service

prespecified
facilities),

using

a
be

Replies
those
system.
of
experts
could
well-defined
that
In
to
the
those
equivalent
case
of
passengers.
considered
be
inconsistent
they
that
to
appear
or
would
relatively
replies
discussion
then
the
did not properly
reflect
situation,
real
to iron
between the panel's
out any
experts
might be encouraged
grading

inconsistencies
would

be very

would

prove

through

feedback

to
similar
to be very

the

from

Delphi

lengthy

and

the

This
this

time

is
number
of
participants
especially
is
difficult
to specify,
of: participants
being
large
reasonable,
enough to
seems
over

However,

technique.

if

dominance

discussions.

those

consuming
practice,
large.
The ideal
number
but

20-25

reduce

participants
of

probabilities

panel.
for

different
environment
and
a completely
Kleine(113)
used
a survey of experts'
was
when
conducted
context,
discrete
languages.
The
of
simulation
purpose
of this
views
different
to
the
was
assess
of
and
use
popularity
survey
languages,
and try to scale this
assessment
according
simulation
familiarity
four
to
measures:
and experience,
preference,

A similar

procedure

evaluation

of ease-of-use,
languages
were

simulation
solicited
languages.
utilization
This study

by

direct

Replies

request

and evaluation
of capability.
included,
and 103 responses
from

expert

statistically
systems for
each

were

scaling
demonstrated

the

approach

users

analysed.

Nine
were

of
simulation
Popularity
and

measure were
to practically

established.
achieve

the

134.

of

ranking
measures

languages
nine simulation
considered
included
by
as percieved
and evaluated
the

for

four

the

their

expert

users.
This

is

approach

particularly
travel
of air

for

suitable

environments

where

In such
not well-defined.
demographic
social,
economic,
would
and
variables
environments,
in
be
those
to
the
the
similar
of
environment
studies
of
case
not
This
for
be particularly
approach
this
would
work.
suitable
for
Third
the
the
service
standards
airports
of
establishing
to
World,,
where replies
of individual
are not likely
passengers
aspects

certain

be useful

to the

planner.
implementation

the

To demonstrate

are

of

this

a small-scale
approach,
in LUT,
where`25"experts

experts
survey
was conducted
14
European
Eastern
Middle
airport
airports
and
one
representing
to
first,
how
they
assess service
reply,
on
would
were'requested
in
the processing
then
facilities
airports,
at their
conditions
hypothetical
fora
try to estimate'
service
airport
of
conditions
of

panel

facilities
throughput
annual
are similar
whose
given
processing
a
discussion
Detailed
to those of their
airports.
survey
on this
is in Chapter Nine.
P -R models,
together
with the resulting

7.6

-SOCIAL

SURVEYS

The objective
basic'

of

this
of

principles

relevant
passenger

survey

all--, corners

of

social

that

aspects
this

for

to

some advisory

would
main-

in

references

Handbook
1

of

provide

surveys

and

basis.
consult

research

launching
-consulted
Survey

to

enable

subject,

review
help

would

on a sound

literature
provide

is

section

in

guidelines

the
It

review

of

the

state

some

of

the

of

the

to

design

efficient
is

all

a broad

intended

not

references,

this'particular
and

a successful
Moser

Research(115),

but

or

explanatory

explore
a

provide
but

only

comments

that

topic,

passenger

are,

to

survey.

and

Kalton(114)

the

following

The

two

and

the

references

135.

helpful:
Gardner(116),
Oppenheim(117),
Simon(118),
also
were
Yong(120),
Babbie(121),
Hyman(122),
Nachmias(119),
and
in

Smith(123)

the

planning
of social
surveys,
and Belson(124),
Berelson
and Steiner(125),
as well as Oppenheim(117)
on the topic
design
and attitudes.
questionnaire
of

7.6.1

DEFFINITION

Social
surveys
the demographic

AND USE OF SOCIAL SURVEYS

were

defined

by Moser

characteristics,

as: " surveys

social

concerned

environment,

with

activities,
".
Surveys

and attitudes
of some group of people
or the opinions
to the two important
in general,
are essential
stages of modern
formulation
that
testing
of
a hypothesis,
and
research:
However, they are not substitutes
for ingeniuity
hypothesis.
and
The purpose
'the
to involve
thought.
of surveys
was seen(114)
descriptive
of
and
explanatory
provision
later
Gardner(116)
added 'predictive
and evaluative
be used in
Such surveys
to-these
purposes.
could
ways covering

various

transportation

fields

planning,

census,

market

research,

7.6.2

PLANNING AND DESIGN OF SURVEYS

Important

and public

issues

relevant

opinion

to

the

information'
a variety

of

regional

and

including

and topics,
population

information'.

social

research,

polls.

passenger

surveys

should

be

in
that
advance to ensure
well
efficient
examined
planning
will
the success
lead:
these surveys.
Su__rve deli-. gn-.
d_____
of
-i-s.-deci_de.
-to
.
li
the
d..
in
aht
of-what...... i_. s__.
ulon...,
ca1_ly- feasi b1 e..
_pr_act_i
__an.
desjj ah1-e:
Since allocated
theoretically
resources
would,
most
be the_ major
influencial
likely,
individual
the
variable
on
_
due consideration
design of the survey,
be given to the
should
following
utilization
I.
-Purpose

factors,
of
of

funds:
survey.

so

as

to

achieve

maximum

advantageous

136.

2.,.. Accuracy

in

required

results.

3., Cost per sample.

4. Time considerations.
5., Mode of questionnaire
administration.
6.; Labour involvement
and requirements
from whom information
is
7.: Y,Population
Implementation
the following
1.
2.

of

training.

personnel

sought.
normally

would

necessitates

phases(120):

Preliminary.
Exploratory.

3.. Selection

of

objectives

4. -Final
overall
plan.
5. Pre-tests
and pilot
6.. Main survey.
7.

surveys

passenger

for

and survey

methods.

surveys.

Data processing

and analysis.
but
implementation,
in the methodology
This, sequence was observed
focussed
In
the
last
the
three
remaining
was
on
points.
emphasis
this
discussion
of
and main surveys
chapter
on pilot
sections
be
raised.
will

7.6.3, -. PRE-TESTS AND PILOTS

Pilot

tests

survey,

and pre-tests,
instruments.
Their

extremely

even

an

important

for

experienced

in

step
is

function
primary
in questionnaires,

and errors

problems
difficult,

potential

are

social

developing
to

uncover
because it
is
scientists

to

questionnaire
no
or
with
confusing
ambiguous
Moser(114)
indicated
is
"
that:
It
exceedingly
questions(115).
difficult
to plan a survey without
a good deal of knowledge
of
,
the population
it is to cover,
its. subject
the way people
matter,
to questions,
react
and,
though it
will
paradoxically
sounds,

write,

they

even the

answers

pilots,

are used to

questionnaires,

are

likely

the
obtain
and have a 'feel'

be given ". So,

knowledge
necessary
to

of

what

is

to

pre-tests
to design

be anticipated

and
the
in

137.

be
They
treated
should
always
as indispensible
survey.
main
important
However,
stages
of
any
survey.
one should not
and
parts
because as
be carried
away with
of surveys,
excessive
piloting
by
Oppenheim(117):
"
Almost
aspect
of a survey
every
out
pointed
inquiry
a
of pilot
work,
so obviously,
can be made the subject
is where experience
has to be drawn somewhere ",
line
and that

the

in
have
influence
their
sense
pilot
organizing
would
and common
in
Usually,
step
out as exploratory
pre-tests
are carried
work.
lengthy
involve:
they
of
stages
piloting,
could
where
early
interviews,
key
'silent'
talks
observations,
with
unstructured
informants,
or the accumulation
around the
of essays written
inquiry(117).
the
the
to
Pilots
of
guidance
can
provide
subject
on:
surveyor
Adequacy
1.
the

sample.
Variability

of

sample

frame

from

it

which

is

proposed

to be surveyed.
population
Non-response
3.
so as effective
rate to be expected,
be
increase
taken
to
or alternatively
response,
could
the sample size.
data
Suitability
and
4.
collection
of
of
method
2.

its

relative

rate.
The most valuable
5.

function

ease of
of questionnaires,
layout,
clarity
their
of
(type
themselves
questions
clarity
to

cost,

costs

accuracy,

definitions,
of

questions,
of

any

required
20-50 cases
ques ionnaire

number of
is usually
before

the

survey,

of

mode

response
adequacy

efficiency

and monitoring

in

measures
increase

of
and adequacy
their
simplicity
that
terms
may

of main
and duration
that could be made.

economies
chance of possible
Testing
7.
organizational
efficiency,
.
field
of
work.
aspects
Regardin

and likely

is to test
of pilots
handling
them in field,

absence
and
the respondent).

uncomprehensible
6. Indicating
probable

about
in
a

select

within

administration,

wording,

to

-and

of
the
in
be

any

practical

test of
general,
a pilot
flaws
to discover
sufficient
major
damage the
they
main survey(115).

samples,

138.
t

Therefore,

'exploratory
the
carrying
some of
steps'
above, it was decided that
mentioned
a pilot
should be conducted
in the East Midlands
to explore
the different
airport
aspects of
kind
this
from passengers,
of information
obtaining
and to test
after

the

suitability
Survey,
Experts

of

was
to
experts

approaching

Another

Panel
pilot,
to examine the
conducted
alternative
information.
the required
obtain

questionnaires.

of
of

this

is concluded
by these remarks on pilots
subsection
from
Moser(114):
"
Pilot
in
surveys
nearly
always
result
quoted
improvements
important
to
the
questionnaires
and a general
in the efficiency
increase
Moreover,
the pilot
of the inquiry.
is
the researcher's
last
the possibility
safeguard
against
survey

Finally,

that

the

main survey

may be inefficient

7.6.4

DESIGN OF QUESTIONNAIRES

Design

of

is
questionnaires
for
designing
steps

Logical
the

type

of

questions
outlining
more
are
troublesome

question

or opinion
the principles

more

of

an

art

than

science(114).
defining
with

begin
questionnaires
i.
be
e.,
asked,
should

that
(more widely
of

".

called

attitude)

factual

questions,
and
Attitude
Questions

question
wording.
d-amental
sensitive
a-ASi-_genpr-a1ly_,
,
-andfu!.
factual
than
and complicated
questions,

mor_emainly

because:
Uncertainty
the
in
is
whether
respondent,
any
meaningful
sense,
the answer.
aware of what is asked about and 'knows'
issue
is
opinion
person's
on
virtually
any
many-sided,
and
-A
is no one correct
there
probably
answer to the survey question,
the

the
largely
depend on the
answer
respondent
gives,
will
--but
in his or her mind.
aspect of the issue that is uppermost
The
intensity
the
assessing
problem
of
of opinions
and personal
be faced,
because
attitudes
must inevitably
on any given
subject,
some people feel
just
strongly,
others
moderately,
while

some are

indifferent.

139.

I.

= Answers

to

opinion

are

questions

most

emphasize,
sequence,
wording,
factual
to
questions.
-those
Nevertheless,
of

guidelines

and many other

Moser(114)

gave

particular

relevance

structuring
overall
Avoid asking
1.

of

changes in
factors,
than
to

sensitive

some

advisory
rules
to
successful

questionnaires,

are

which

and

general
and
wording
summarized in:

general

specific
and unsufficiently
questions,
is
issue
answer
an
on
a
specific
actually
required.
where
language and avoid technical
in
Use simple
terms and jargons
2.
language
for
the
in
the
of
a
general
public,
and
choosing
surveys
investigated
the
being
population
studied
problems
and
question,
be
kept
in
always
mind.
should
is
Ensure clarity
3.
and always remember that
a simple
question
is
long
than
understood
and
more
readily
one,
a
complex
more
sensitive

to wording problems.
double-barrelled
ones,
are to

Ambiguous
be avoided

questions,
at

all

particularly
because
costs,

encourage
vague answers.
vague questions
Clearly
to the respondent
4.
explain
and make it crystal
clear
because
is
her
to
him
actually
answer,
required
of
or
what
totally
based
are
and
understanding
upon respondents'
replies
of
comprehension
by the question.
5. , ordering
of
individual
puting
because
is
one

their

question
questions

asked,

not

needs to
together

questions
order may influence

on what
be
to

response

was actually

carefully
form the
rates,

meant

planned

when

questionnaire,
especially
when
basically
are

in
that
concerned
opinions
In this
the questionnaire
or marginal.
regard,
should
unstable
begin
with
straight-forward
and interesting
questions
preferably
have no difficulty
in answering,
will
not
which the respondents
primarily

topics.
or sensitive
on complicated
6.. Avoid leading
questions,
which
lead
the
in
respondent
wording,

answer.

by its
the

content,
direction

structure,
of

certain

or

140.

7.

Personalized

should

questions

always

be carefully

considered,
people do not

on subjects
which
and void embarassing
questions
like
to reveal
publically.
in
involve
Since
the
8.
most factual
respondent
questions
information,
associated
questions
with
recalling
memory should
because the degree of accuracy with
studied,
always be carefully
is
information
determinent
is
basic
of quality
recalled
a
which
of

his

or her

Belson(124)
investigate

response.
conducted

an

respondents
tested,
and

questions

involved

Loading
defining

misunderstanding
insight
to provide

The following

in

such misunderstandings.
the design of
regarding

principles
his recommendations
as warning
AVOID:

designed
to
study
to 29 types
of survey
into
the process
and

exploratory

to

statements
up the
terms.

the

survey

are

questions,

put

differing

or

surveyor:

questionnaire

with

lot

of

long
to
Offering
a
question.
alternatives
answers
as
possible
if
different
that
Use
misheard
partly
of
words
something
mean
(in
(in
interviews)
self-administered
or
misunderstood
questionnaires).
the
different
Giving
task
to
respondent
a
perform.
for
task
that
Giving
effort.
respondents
a
a
memory
major
calls
both
be
that
Offering
to
could
alternative
answers
a
question
true.
BEWAREOF:
The

tendency
to
answer
strong
of
respondents
;their
behaviour
in terms of what they usually
from what they in fact
do.
-

Use

of

qualifying

question.
tendency
-'The

of

have heard

or read

clause,
to

respondents
enough

especially

to

start

start

answering
formulating

at

about
questions
do- as distinct
'the

end

as soon
a reply.

of

as they

141.

The

tendency

strong

very

concepts,

especially

personally

appropriate

a narrow

'vague
way,

to

respondents
in
ones,
and a tendency

broad

down

narrow

some
selective
and
in others
to broaden

concept.

tendency

The

of

of

to

respondents

their

apply

special

own

to

a question.
qualifications
influence
The
the
the
strong
of
often
content
question's
upon
interpretation
terms in that question.
of specific
distortion
the
The
the
terms
of
meaning
of
a
wide
range
of
of
(e. g., you, regularly,
used in survey questions
sort frequently
).
usually,...
proportion,
The abovementioned
and recommendations
guidelines
were taken into
the
two
in
the
of
pilots
questionnaires
preparing
consideration
(East Midlands
Airport,
surveys),
and the
and Panel of Experts
passenger
-main
The

decision
to

administration

The
questionnaires.
following
advantages:
1.
:

Generally

reasonable
Wider
2.
scattered
Avoid
3.,
;

cheaper

response
spread

Birmingham

of

important

next

survey
:

survey

Airport.

International

make would be,

interviews,
implement:
to

self-administered
than

or

there

provided
to

especially

mode of
mail-back
have the

questionnaires

interviewing,

rate.
in
applicability,

which

rare

is

a
and

population.
personal

contacts

of

interviewing,

with

its

relative

manpower required,
cost,
administrative
and
problems,
errors.
.
4. Allow more inter-personal
consultations,
and provide
more time
for
the
hence
considering
answers,
more
accurate
results
expected.
5. Require less time for preparations'
and undertaking.
On the
certain
,

hand,
other
limitations,

self-administered
they include:

questionnaires

do

have

142.

1. -

depend

Greatly

on characteristics
be considered
should

and

surveyed,

and

of

quality

only
to

when

population
are'
the

questions

simple
and straight-forward
understand'
sufficiently
with
instructins
help of printed
and definitions.
inflexible,
because answers have to be accepted
2., Comparatively
for
beyond
final,
with
no
opportunity
probing
a given answer,
as
ambiguities
encountered.
or, clarify
3. ' Inappropriate
when spontaneous
answers are required.
Independency
by the fact
4.
of questions
are destroyed
before
can
read
all
questions
'filling
respondents
questionnaire.
5. ' No guarantee

that

the

is

questionnaire

person.
information
Supplementing
6.
questionnaire
is usually
information
not feasible.
7. -' The significance
the outcome of the

of

response

rate,

by

filled
with

and its

that
the

the

right

observational
influence

great

on

survey.

it would be very difficult

to
that
was realized
In the East Midlands
inside
the terminal.
passengers

In this

it

work,

interview

in the
it was first
pilot
passengers
planned to interview
lounge,
but s,,oon after
the survey commenced it became
departure
it
be
that
to
the passenger
would
and
more
convenient
evident
to
the
to the self-administered
to
surveyor
switch
practical

Airport

In

the

mode.
International
used, '
Airport

because

Airport,
and also
To-ensure

pilot,
due
for

response

to

its

a
rate

survey

conducted

self-administered
from lessons
learned

potential

was not

in

Birmingham

questionnaires
from the East

allowed
to
obstruction

were
Midland

inside

Birmingham

normal

opertaion,

reasons.

success
of the main passenger
survey,
be particularly
investigated,
should
rate
and
buting
to it should be carefully
Although
studied.
difficult
task
to predict
specifically
what thedifferent
in
would be for particular
conditions
and

efficiency

response
factors
contri.

passenger

apart
interviewing

security

the-

it-`seemed

main
Airport,

and

143.

: situations.
the
surveyor
limited)

Nevertheless,
may

previous

have

on some of

the

some
factors

surveys
(although

social

control

contributing

to

that

suggested

comparatively
and influencing

response rates:
It
is of great
Sponsorship:
1.
to outcomes of the
relevance
to attempt
to secure the sponsorship
of the survey under
survey,
in some favourable
the au__s_aicesof a body connected
way with the
under study.
population
Actually,
Population
there is little
2.
suitability:
one can do
and nature of survey population,
properties
about the particular
how
to
consider
suitable
a self-administered
questionnaire
-.except
It has been found that
those in
the less educated,
is for it.
lower
or feel
occupational
categories,
and those uninterested
.
have higher
than
the
bothered
about
subject
of the
survey,
average rates of non-response.
Subject
3.
matter
and length
of
inclusion
of
awkward questions,
details

unnecessary
-response
A
A.

in

survey:
and

Unfamiliar
considerable
could

questionnaires,

subjects,
length
and

result

in

low

rates.

(or
letter
the
covering
accompanying
questionnaire
integrally
the
it)
to
take
of
place
with
printed
preferably
is favourable
interview
and could prove
opening or introduction,
helpful
increasing
in
the
to be substantially
response
rate.
it
to
Aimed at establishing
attempts
rapport
respondents,
with
have
the
survey.
against
may
overcome
is
being
by
the
It should make quiet
survey
clear
and
whom
why
The
surveyor
must also decide what tone to adopt in
undertaken.
letterbe
the
covering
should
one
persuade,
or
plead
any

prejiduce

respondents

or excessively

-authoritarian,
in the light

of particualr
perha se the best approach
survey is being undertaken,
'.important.
.

step

to

increase

be made
but

a stamped-addressed
questionnaires,
would be

sense

should

of the situation,
in simple terms why the
and why and by whom it is considered

circumstances
is to explain

5.. Enclosing
the

A decision

polite.

or

business-reply

a natural

response

rates.

envelopes

with

and a common
courtesy
The first
way might

144.

lead

higher

to

probably
'real
value'

of

questionnaire,

stamps
the
yet

than
response
that
add to
is

second

the
the
more

due to
second,
'importance'
of
for
convenient

the
the
the

surveyor.
Assurance

6.
lead

anonymity

of
increased

to

and

confidentiality

definitely

would

response.

for completed
as an incentive
increase
be
to
could
also
response.
adopted
questionnaire
including
Quality
8.
general
of
questionnaire
production,
design,
type-face,
even
printing
quality
and graphic
appearnce,
(using
different
gives
colours
and
colour
stationary
of
quality
'prestige
impression
to the survey),
could
of
and importance'
an
7.

Prize

increased

to

contribute
Most

response.

recommendations
feasible,
they were
Birmingham

of

survey
the
resulting
Statistical

in

discussed

were seriously
in
implemented

Airport.

response

As will

rates

were

and
considered,
the main passenger

be seen in
better
than

considerations
concerning
more detail
at the end of this

Chapter

Nine,

anticipated.
rates

response

are

chapter.

ATTITUDES AND SCALING METHODS

Behavioural
patterns
lead us
of

or gifts

these

of

whenever

7.7

Payments

concept:

this

in
the
study
paramount
however,
investigating
surveys,
that
are not particularly
close
are

of

avenues
behavioural
work-

to

aspects
in

social

to

To try

psychology.
in these
areas,

to
only

avoid

sciences,
unnecessary

elementary

and

sociometry,
indulgence
basic

response
them would
the
and

in

scope
social

researching
of these

principles
those related
topics,
to attitudes
specifically
scaling
and their
Definitions
would be dealt
with and reviewed.
methods,
and the
broad
from:
the
of
revision
subject
were
extracted
Belson(124),
Oppenheim(117).
and
and Berelson
and Steiner(125),

145.

For the

Sills(128).

on attitude
Survey
of

Handbook

Kalton(114),

and
Dunn-Rankin(127),

discussion

scaling
methods,
Research(115),

Moser
and

were consulted.

behavioural

The

considerations
of
surveys
are very
passenger
in establishing
Expressions
the concept of P-R models.
defining
discussion
that
are:
used in this
require

important
frequently

response,
and attitudes.
perception,
is a complex process by which people select,
Perception
organize,
into
interpret
sensory
stimulation
a meaningful
and coherent
and
of the world(128).
picture
that defines
Response is the output
a unit
of behaviour(125).
is
of
An
organization
enduring
a
relatively
attitude
beliefs

interrelated

and

evaluate,
situation(128).

and react

act

around

common

focus,

that

describe,

to
or
an object
advance
action
with
respect
to
Or, it is a state
and a tendency
of readiness,
in a certain
certain
with
manner when confronted

stimuli(117).

7.7.1

CHARACTERISTICS OF ATTITUDES

The

of
response
'output',
behavioural

people

to

certain

define

stimuli

their

their
attitudes
would describe
the
towards
those
In
surveys,
stimuli(132).
passenger
reactions
towards
to
their
of
people
asked
attitudes
questions
and
response
dictate
their
In our situation,
P-R
the subject
matter
replies.
where their

surveys
require
whose
opinion
questions
are
mostly
models
(attitude)
These type of questions
questions.
particularly
are
due to:
sensitive,
the
Uncertainty
is
in
whether
respondent,
any
sense,
meaningful
the answer.
aware of what is asked about and 'knows'
issue
is
and
opinion
on
virtually
person's
any
many-sided,
-A
is
there
no one correct
probably
answer to the survey question,
but

the

aspect

answer the respondent

gives,
will
in
of the issue that is uppermost

largely
the

mind.

depend on the

146.

Difficulty
reasonable
Influence
-

of

the

assessing

estimation
of
of different

intensity

the

of

measure

and giving

used.

of

aspects

opinions,

design

questionnaire

on

opinions.
an attitude
organization,
and beliefs
which,
within
have
to
three components;
and
conceived
affective,
cognitive,
are
The cognitive
behavioural(114).
a person's
component represents
held with varying
degrees of certitude,
knowledge,
about what is

Basically,

true

false,
(or

or

or

bad,

emotional)
is
the belief

affective
conditions,
intensity,

good

questioned
tendency)

component,
of

capable
the
around

centering
taking
a positive

objects
the object,

desirable

belief

or the
(as
in

an

predisposition
it
is
suitably
when
by the
is dictated

activated,

Other

characteristics
discussion
are:

of

where

under

arousing
of

object

the
where
threshold,
varying
content

undesirable.

The
suitable

of varying
the other

affect
belief,

to
respect
or negative
position
with
is seriously
itself
validity
when its
(action
behavioural
The
argument).

component,
of

or

of

belief,

and the
the belief.

attitudes

being

must lead to
kind of action

that

are

response

some action
it leads to

relevant

to

this

but dorment most of the time,

1. Attitudes
are always present
and
in speech or other behaviour
they become expressed
only when the
is
the
In social
of
attitude
attitudes
surveys,
perceived.
object
by people
be observed
could
and recorded
when
as percieved
individuals

are confonted

2. They are

abstractions,

with survey questionnaires.

but real enough to individuals

who hold

them.
3.

They are variable,

where

the

degree

of

differentiation

continuum
end of an attitude
may be very different
the other end.
They are acquired
by absorbing,
4.
and modified
the attitudes
of other people.

at one

from

or

that

reacting

at
to,

147.

both in the sense

They are highly
emotional,
Interrelations
illogical.
such as these follow

5.

logic

the

Psycho-logic;

Same attitudes
different
people,
6.

Some of

and response

are:

findings

following

by

behaviour
Human
behaviour
Human
-

that

are

in

humans

behaviour

of

Berelson

irrational

no

logic

and emotions.
in different
themselves

some may have no such

while

aspects

Development

1.

may express

important

the

perception

feelings

of

of

to

is

except
by

ways
at all.

attitudes

related

or

the

topic

of

by

the

manifested

Steiner(125):

and

is

variable
and relatively
unpredictable.
is dependent
and less regulated
upon learning
behavioural
disposition.
by instinct
innate
or other
by
is
human
behaviour
is
Since
accumulated
and
adaptive,
it is therefore
learning,
communicated.
(or
Regarding
2.
which
of percieving
perception,
probability
stimulus
Nature
-

get
of

depends

selected)

involved.

stimuli

learning,

Previous
experience,
or
because,
expectations,
to attend
more likely
than

anticipate

on:

those

the
as it affects
being equal,
things

other
to
aspects
do not,
familiar

they

the

of

and they

observer's
people

environment
likely
more
are

are
they
to

things
they are
anticipate
with.
(i.
in
desires,
Motives
the
time
at
play
e.,
wishes,
needs,
), because not only do people look for things
interests,...
they
but stronger
the tendency
the needs, the greater
need or want,
irrelevant
to ignore
elements.
3. Response
4.
for

is

not

under

conscious

The greater
ambiguity
interpretation.
In

observer
object(s),

typically
because

shape,...
colour,
tremendously.

or awareness.
the more room and need
of the stimulus,
interpreting
the
ambiguous
stimuli,

assumes
familiar

etc.,
Also,

alternatives

is

expectations

regarding

not

control

involvement

the

objects
though their

sensory

what

with

determinent

only
is

likely

in

the

most

likely

size,
percieved
fluctuate
projections

retain

familiarity
the

of
their

of
the

various
'likelihood',
specific

possible
but
situation

148.

As the ambiguity
increases
and/or
are also involved.
of stimulus
importance
increases,
of motivation
as the strength
or subjective
interpretation
direction'relevant'
people's
will
move in the
they
5.

tend

will

to

as they

see things

Interpretation

of

are

quantities

see them.

or need to

want

by expectations

affected

and

motives.

6.

of magnitude
are made within
by the total
range of relevant

stimuli.

develop

with

established
7.

People

an

in

present

the

relevant

hold

People

'adaptation
based

magnitudes,

stimulus

8.

a frame

Judgement

level'

on

range

of

opinions,

of an objective
of people
themselves
they
compare

in

are developed,
would then

situation,

different

with-

harmony

and
the

when

with
they

evaluation
depend on whom
different

groups

the more likely

an issue,
issue,
and the more
on that
his beliefs,
the harder it is

in

is

in
involved
emotionally
(through
by
that
arguement
or propoganda
-to change
impossibility.
to the point
intellegence)
of virtual

Since

given
has been

that

values

attitudes,
and beliefs
and identifications,

evaluation.
The more interested
9.
people are
they are to hold consistent
position

7.7.2

to

respect

series.

their
group
memberships
(opinions,
attitudes,
and beliefs)

a person

reference

of

an appeal

to

ATTITUDE MEASUREMENTAND SCALING PRINCIPLES

the

is
survey
passenger
which P-R models are

means of
be augmented

with

an

by
surveys,
one kind of attitude
discussion
built,
should
previous

overview

of

attitude

measurements

and

scaling.
Measurement,
according

to

is

the

certain

assignement
rules(115),

of

numbers

or the

of entities
which are not numbers(126).
for the assignement
of numbers or words
in
to
of
objects
property
order

to

observed

correlation
Scaling,
is
(or

phenomena

with numbers
the procedure
to
a
symbols)

other
impart
some

of

the

149.

of

characteristics
Attitude
Sills(129)

stated

eliciting

acts
give

attitudes

of

involve

the

evaluative
this
work,

is

judgement

on

assigning
tolerable,

or

service

bad

by

or

of the
furthur

the

assignement
by asking

accomplished
the issue
of

in
measure)
judgement
this

the

Much

of

placement
and its

framework

attitudes

agreement

opinion.
is mediated

rise,

out

Customarily,

judgement-

of

service

question(128).
judgement.
through
by

are

measured
disagreement
with
behaviour
to which
of

judgement

object

in

acts

issue

or

to

a category

".

to
passengers
(in
terms
standards
the

terminal
to

in

proprty

carried

normally
"

that:

statements

standard
that

is

measurement

the

of

numbers

processing
three
of

one

In

this
their

give
of

an

time

facilities,

as
and

good,

categories:

service.

TYPES OF ATTITUDE SCALES

7.7.3
Attitude

scales,

are

the

techniques

function

major

of

which,

is

groups
with
of broad
in
them
to
a
continuum
on
a particular
attitude,
placing
regard
terms.
in
in
to
absolute
one
another,
not
and
relative
relation
Known types of attitude
scales are:
SCALES:
RATING
Sometimes
the
1.
social-distance
called

to

divide

people

where

scales(117),

they

on the

position
used in

actual

into

roughly

try

to

number

get

attitude

a measure

continuum.

of the respondent's
It is an old method

modern social
surveys.
seldom
THURSTONIAN SCALE: Referred
to also
2.
was

by

developed

comparisons,
is
the
which
'judges'

Thurstonian

L. L. Thurstone
intervals,

successive

most widely
'scaled'
are
and the judges

properties,
of the positioning

scaling

it
scale,
as differential
in
three
stagespaired
intervals
and equal appearing

of

used(126).
with

generally

to

of

various

to make objective
considered
on the attitude

are

items

respect

Judgement

asked

assumes

approximately

individuals
physical
evaluation
continuum.
normalized

150.

pattern

of

operating

characteristics,

along an underlying
continuum
favourable(115).
to extremely

running

when attitudes
from extremely

are

placed

unfavourable

LIKERT SCALE: Or the scale of summated ratings,

was developed
by Rensis Likert.
Respondents
are asked to choose between several
indicating
response categories,
various
strengths
of agreement or
disagreement.
The
the
categories
are
assigned
scores
and
is measured by his or her total
attitude
respondent
score,
which
is the sum of scores of categories
he or she endorsed
for
each
3.

Likert

item.
dimension

scale
assumes
is monotonically

that

the

operating
inverted-S-shaped

continuous
to
related

charctersistic
depending
curve

of the attitudes(115).
unfavourability
towards attitude
oriented
measurement
GUTTMANSCALE: A cumulative
4.
scale
sometimes referred
of a high degree
by

constructed
content)

being

universe

is

analysis'
deal with

to
of
first

scaled,

has

underlying
attitude
the continuum,
where
S-shaped
or
an

favourability
or
on
This type of scale is more
than other methods(126).
by Louis

developed

Guttman,

as scalogram
analysis,
where the attainment
It is
is a major concern.
uni dimensionality
(universe
defining
the total
attitude
of
and a 'sample'
to be included

selected
is then carried

on,

where

this
of items representing
'Scalogram
in this
scale.
two opertaions
are needed to

from the fact

that
errors
and complications
arising
of items is unknown in practical
ordering
situations:
items
Analysis
to
items
those
to
of
responses
according
reorder
the scale types.
response patterns
constituting
Measure
to
to a perfect
extent
which the scale
approximates
(where
by means of coefficient
scale
errors
are minimized),
of
'Errors'

reproducibility.
predictions
the scale
In

spite
following
of

items

of

an individual's

scores.
of the
sophistication
disadvantages(114):
scaling,

less

here,
mentioned
item response
of

this

analytical
realistically

the
false
are
on the basis
of

method,
complexity,
treated

it

has

the

no guarantee
being
as

151.

unidimensional
model is strictly

if

is

6.

the

two

of

Sometimes

particular

which

are

called

series

where
a

of

subject
by
described

Statistical-mathematical

intercorrelating

on

would
items

enable
have in

the

all

identification

bi-polar

scale,

graphical

rating

graduated
that
adjectives
with

of

Where does

the

the

items
of

techniques

analysis
with

one

or

which
that

another,
'factors'

one
more

common.

UNFOLDING THEORY:

University

to

on

ends

SCALES:

FACTORIAL

based

It

SCALE:

opposittes.

polar

7.

its
underlying
wide,
laborious
nature where

is

and its

scale,

completed

are

scales,
are

rating

summated

scales

range

becomes a necessity.

SEMANTIC DIFFERENTIAL
a

set

deterministic,

computerization
5.

items

the

Michigan

method

scaling
recent
by Coombs(130).

P-R model fit

amongst these
P-R models
to classify
seems difficult
But
scaling
an individual
method.

developed

categories
as distinctly
from

of

in

scales?
related

description

of

methods
of known scaling
is a
P-R model technique
Thurstonian
methods,
scaling

and operating
properties
it
above,
would
stated

characteristics
be thought
that

the
Likert
of
and
conglomerate
judgement
their
to
because:
and
are
asked
state
"respondents
(in
different
items
this
conditions),
of
case service
evaluation
between
also
response
are
asked to
choose
several
and they
(in
bad).
this
three;
tolerable,
and
case
only
good,
categories
become, more evident
this
Moreover,
when the
conclusion
would
shape

of

operating
opposite
inverted-S
cited

in

population

the

is

P-R model

characteristic,
(favourable
shaped
literature

and

curves)
that

and time)

closely
studied.
it is composed of
unfavourable,
Likert
scales.

In

terms

a Thurstonian

resembling
No comparable

used any similar

scale
as in P-R model technique.

of

scaling

and two
S and
the
method

representation

was
(%

152.

PASSENGERSURVEYS CONDUCTED

7.8
In

P-R models
work,
were built
(two pilots,
in four
surveys

this

collected
they are:
1. East Midlands

Airport

Experts

2.

Panel

s.
4.

Mancnester
Birmingham

of

based

upon information
and two case studies),

survey.

pilot

survey.

international
International

(except
surveys
by
the author
conducted

Airport
Airport

survey.
(main)

Manchester

These

survey.

Airport's)

were

applications.

as methodology

and
planned
Discussion

in

this
chapter
on surveys
and attitude
scales,
was taken
raised
in the planning
into
consideration
and included
of these surveys
in
design
the
More details
of questionnaires.
on particular
and
for each survey are found in respective
sections
considerations
of

Chapter

Finally,
needed

Nine.

certain
statistical
aspects
of passenger
investigation
discussed.
Typically,
are
form a major and vital
part of any survey,

analyses
the
objective
required
vary in

of

survey,
Statistical

outcomes.
detail
and degree

analysis

of

that

statistical
depending
and

approach,

analysis

surveys

nature

on
of

considerably
In this
sophistication.

of

surveys

mathematical
little
emphasize was put on the mathematical-statistical
work,
because
initially
the urgent
to
task,
mainly
aspects,
was,
for
kind
this
an appropriate
establish
procedure
of surveys,
interpret,

and manipulate

facilitating
of

setting

a practicable

of

the
service

achieve the objective

of
in the overall
standards,
context
to

results

methodology.

factor
investigated
most important
statistical
was sample
One of the first
that confronts
size.
the designer
questions
of a
is how big the sample should
it appears
be.
Although
new survey
to be a simple
it is one of the most
straight-forward
question,

The

difficult

to

answer

accurately.

An

accurate

answer

would

be

15-3.

information
to the survey
and
when substantial
related
possible
is provided.
its
Adequacy of the sample size would
population
Not only total
then depend on details
sample
of the analysis.
but breakdown
it
size,
of the categories
contains
are also
A general
is that
be large
the sample should
rule
required.
there
in each category
of
are 100 or more units
enough so that
the major breakdowns,
and 20-50 in the minor breakdowns(115).
From a theoretic

Moser(114)
that: " If the cost
standpoint,
stated
limitations
do not enter
into
the picture,
practical
and other
is no basic
difficulty
in determining
the desired
there
sample
The concept
of the standard
error
of-. the-mean could-be- used
size.
.
to estimate
sample size ". However, in our case this
would not be
because,
helpful
first,
'cost
and
other
practical
very
do enter

into

the concept
and second,
picture,
to
applicable
error
of the mean is not particularly
of standard
information.
Other
P-R model
practical
and more
possible
for sample size determination
are:
approaches
Empirical
by seeking what sample size was used by
approach,
/ 1.
limitations'

with similar
others
Formal
approach,
o2.
information

with

the

problems.
by emphasizing

costs

of

the

practices
of sample size
Research(115),
Handbook of Survey

value

of

increased

data.

gathering

Current

balance

in
contained
Due to
reviewed.

determination

the

were

the

imposed

on airport
of
surveying,
and the uniqueness
of information
sample size of 200 units
sought,
a target
(channels)
in the major categories
was aimed at, with an absolute
in
20
of
minor categories.
minimum

restraints
the sets

For

self-administered
dictated
and
governed
questionnaires,
predict,
surveys
surveys.
with

which

questionnaires,
by the response
happens

to

sample

size

strongly
to the
rate of passengers
difficult
be extremely
to

in the literature
and no reference
was cited
that
any range of values for airport
suggested
lengthy
So,
discussions
after
with experts

social

surveys

and

airport

is

operations,

of

social

passenger
associated

response

rates

154.

between

10% and

decision

target

was well

each
lower

the

sample

experienced
upper third
size

for

size
in

the

region
within

at

aim

third

would

still

main

survey

the

sometimes
target

of

distributing

of the
region
be achieved.
of

light

the

so that

channel,

and

In

suggested.

to

made

was

questionnaires
was in
rate

25% were

Birmingham
beyond,

and fully

if

the

Airport,
thus

the

attained.

range a
1400
around

actual

suggested
Actual

this

response
range,

response
were
actual

the
rates
in the
sample

CHAPTEREIGHT

SIMULAT10N

In

this

to

utilized

model

of
discussed.

and

reviewed

aspects

involved,

terminologies

related
data

the

synthesize

performance

8.1

those

chapter,

the

Prior

derive

to

required

to

techniques

simulation

the

facilities,

terminal

airport

is

to

that,

an

are
of

overview

appropriate.

OVERVIEW

Simulation

referred
instrument,

technical

in

to

the

context

this

of

is

a
to

as

work,
introduction

recent
a
relatively
becoming
tool
is
increasingly
a
popular
research,
and
scientific
is not
in general
in operational
However,
research.
modelling
In fact,
it has been associated
at all.
with
scientific
recent
its
in physical
since
evolution,
science,
especially
research

where models
principles.
consiaerea
subject

of

were
In

conceived
the real-system,
world,

operations

as iueaiizea
inquiry
which
idea

real

developed

usually

or

awaiting
due
high

a model is
identifying

research(131,132,85),
repre

entation

may b

executii
to the

costs

based on theoretical

already
i.

Models

ipossibility
assoi fated with

models

or reality,
in existence,
are

laws

utilized
of

are

or

some

or

of

instead

manipulating

such actions.

and

of
the

In this

usually
an abstraction
of the assumed real
the pertin
system,
it relationships
of the system in
the form of an objective
A model is
and a set of constraints.
be muct
than
the
constructed
so as to
simpler
real-sysAtem.
One
complex models would be diffict
t to implement
and control.
sense,

156.

be

still

must

phenomena

Finding

the

relationships
because
although
a small

number
the

Nevertheless,
would

model,

the

The importance

theorizing
in

degree

of

correct
modelling,

good

may be required

accuracy,
perfect
for
usually
account
most of it.
from
information
a
of
obtained
the

on

with

validity

the

of

model

in

real-system.

itself

by
manifested
research,
" Since
and Arnoff(131):

becomes

is

identical

with

in

construction
impossible

8.2

variables

system

of models to scientific
from Churchman,
Ackoff,

quotation

scientific

of

depend

assumed

of

real

reliability

of

predict

the

and

essence

number

variables

eventually

representing

this

of

the

or

a high

variables

is

the

of

explain

with

real-system

large

a very

to

model

right

them

a phenomenon

predict

only

the

with

between

the

use

associated

accuracy.

to

to

able

model
be as

it follows
that science
some aspects,
would
the absence of models as it would be in the absence

theory

TYPES OF MODELS

Generally,
symbolic

models are
(abstract),

simulation
models,
Simulations
are
representations
description,

classified
heuristic,
is

of

models
the
of
input

as:

iconic

(physical),

and simulation
importance
particular
that

utilize

real-system,
into
parameters,

analogue,
models. Of these
to this
work.

mathematical-logical
to
convert
systems

that
of interest
describe
Taha(85)
some features
would
of the system.
regards
behaviour
as imitations
simulation
of the
real-system
of the
They seek to duplicate
under investigation
over a period
of time.
behaviour
by studying
this
the interactions
among its components.
Shannon(133)
model of
for
the
system,
imposed

or

envisaged

simulation

as the

output

process

of

designing

with this model

experiments
purpose
the behaviour
of either
understanding
of the
limits
(within
or
the
evaluating
various
strategies.
by a criterion
of
for the operation
or set of criteria)
a real-system

and conducting

157.

Pritsker(91)

the

system.
laboratory

the
as
models
when developed,

simulation

considered

on which
systems,
version
of
With
be
these experiments,
simulation
can
performed.
experiments
be
for
design,
and
the
analysis,
procedural
can
used
models
be
Inferences
the
could
of
real-system.
assessment of performance
the need to;
drawn about real-systems
without
(if
build
them
they
systems),
are
only
proposed
actually
(if
that
or
them
they
disturb
costly
are
systems
operating
are
or,
with),
unsafe, to experiment
(if
them
destroy
the
object
of
limit
of capabilitycapacity).

is

an experiment

to

determine

technique
Low(134)
treats
as
a
simulation
planning,
airport
described
for
data
historic
for developing
situation
a
artificial
Characteristics
by the model builder.
can be quite
of simulations
in
depending
features
their
approach
and specific
on
variable
In

the

modelling
be:
Static
-

vs.

Analytic
-

particular

basic

Their

situation.

could

properties

dynamic,

vs.

numeric,

Deterministic
vs. stochastic,
Discrete
vs. continuous,
or,
Interactive
vs. closed.
Functionally,
1.

Analytic

expressions

simulation
queueing
derived

input
to
measures
statistical
(time-based)
Accounting
2.
deterministic
and invariable
describe
the
these
(e. g.,

in

nature,
rules

state

of

models
usually
FORTRAN).

broad

types:
models could
that use mathematical-probabilistic
models;
from
Queueing
Theory,
standard
relating
be of

and service
models:

they

operate

analogous
the system
use

to
at

general-

four

parameters.
Being
macroscopic
to

according
book-keeping

any time.
purpose

and

predetermined

to
practices,
When computerized,

computer

languages

158.

(event-based)

Time-oriented

3.

time-dependent,

and
system

real-world

situation,

real-world
components,

Role-playing

have

fast-time

by

either

equations
describe

use

which
the

simulated
its
between
to

techniques

distributions

similar

the

of

to

those

system.

models,
where human
in
the
they
would
P-R models devised

They are real-time

to
as
permitted
react
being simulated.
situation

models:

are
(life)

participants

that

microscopic,

States

relations
Carlo-based

Monte

adopting

data

simulated
generate
of the real-world

4.

expressing

by

or

to

representations

mathematical-logical

are

nature.

at
reproduced
dynamic
of

solutions

continuous

in

stochastic

are

They

models:

real-world
in this
methodology,

be considered

could

these

as one of

models.

SIMULATION LANGUAGES

8.3

giant

leaps

advances

in

The

recent
impressive

hardware

and compatible

by

taken
machine

with
to
respect

bot-h with
new doors for

capabilities

software,
it
feasible

technologies,

computer
opened

scientific
for

which
made
as affordable
as well
research
to employ computerized
efficiently
simulations
researchers
for the analysis
conveniently
of systems.
Early

computerized

simulation
models
(e. g.,
languages
programming
general-purpose
However,
due to
PL/I,
the
and ALGOL).
simulation
simplifying
development
especially
In

developing

conceptual
Essentially,
system

as a more
the
routine
of
during

efficient
task

functional

programming

specialized
computer
the late
1950s(135).

a simulation
framework
to
this

of

would

model,
describe
contain

relationships

are

use

soon

need
lead to

modeller

the

system
view'

perceived

has to
to

of
for
the

languages,

simulation

the
a 'world

in
coded
were
FORTRAN, BASIC,

widespread
the
tool,

research

and

be

select

modelled.
which the

within
and described(91).

159.

is employing
computer language,
a general-purpose
modeller
is
description
for
the
then the perspective
systems
organizing
if
the modeller
Alternatively,
the modeller's
responsibility.
language,
then the 'world
view'
chooses to employ a simulation
If

the

will

be implicit

normally
high-order

Since
construct

examine
languages,

and

discuss
with

characteristics
to

are explored
in the methodology.

it

models,
properties
description

of

In this
of each.
decide
on selecting

are

seem

and
languages

simulation
one

an appropriate

simulation

features

technical

section,

to
to

necessary

known

presently
the

used

extensively

then

would

of

language.

simulation

languages

simulation

simulation

the

within

be used

to

different
two
languages
founded
simulation
upon
are
this
discrete,
In
the
'world
of
context
views':
and continuous.
is
the
discrete-event
considered,
orientation
methodology,
.
to the system
because the continuous
view is inapplicable
world
(the
In
the
terminal).
airport
consideration
airport
under
by describing
the system can be modelled
terminal
environment,

Basically,

These changes
in time.
that occur discretely
changes of state
between
(event
those
isolated
in
times),
time
and
at
points
occur
On the other
times the state
of the system
constant.
remains
involves
hand,
the characterization
continuous
of the
modelling

the

behaviour

of
is

system

continuously
a set
real
the

by a set of equations.
The state
of the
by
dependent
which
change
represented
variables
The state
for
is defined
by the equations
over time.
a system

state
variables
system. Since no set
of

whose
of
the

dynamic

equations

behaviour

simulates

to define
could be derived
terminal
the
and describe
behaviour
of the system is

of
characteristics
airport
the
nature of the systems operation,
by adopting
better
the discrete-event
understood

simulation.

entities.

the boundaries
within
are
of a discrete
system
be many types
There
could
each
of -entities

various

characteristics

Objects

called

the

attributes,

that

are

called
having

common to

160.

of

groups

entities

Groupings

activities.
inserting

of

into

an entity

the

performance

of

potential
the

assigned

to

state
the

in

engage
are

entities
implies

a file

in
other
entities
is to reproduce
model
learning
hence
about
with

defining

they

although

different
files,

called

has

it

that

types

of

because

some relation

The aim of a discrete

simulation
in which
the
activities
engage,
entities
behaviour
the
and
and
understanding
file.

the

the

of

attributes

system.
(in
system
the

of

is

This
terms

of

entities),

by

accomplished
numeric

values

constructing

and

that

from one state

The
to another.
move the
system
In
times.
of a discrete
state
system
can change
only
at event
between
those
times,
In this
the state
remains
constant.
way, a
dynamic
the
the
system
can be
complete
of
state
of
portrayal
activities

by

achieved
using

advancing

a 'next

Discrete

simulation

and an
defined

could

depending

on their

process-oriented.
to the
related

known are ECSL,

widely
SIMULA, and SLAM.
a

requirements
McCredie(136)

simulation
of
listed

of

the

to

event

three

general

and process-oriented.
earlier,

next,

specific

built-in
them as:

An event
is
process

may encompass
the relation

features,

simulation
activity-oriented,
simulation
described.

be
categories
will
GASP, GPSS, Q-GERT, SIMPL/I,

language

types:

and a process.

as:
event-oriented,
In
this
subsection,

three

one

while
sequence of events that
describes
8.1 graphically

an activity,

be categorized

Generally

be

could

as a time-ordered
Figure
activities.
an event,

from

mechanism.

activity-oriented,
were described

activity

several
between
Hence,

timing

event'

event-oriented,

time

simulated

should
capabilities

possess

languages
and
languages
The

most
SIMSCRIPT,

certain
minimum
facilities.
and

161.

PROCESS

EVENT

EVENT

EVENT

ACTIVITY

TIME
ARRIVAL

Figure

8.1

1. Flexible
2.

methods
for
Techniques

independent

variable

Concept

of

START OF

END OF

SERVICE

SERVICE

of

events,

describing

state

scheduling
events
' or upon
time,

activity,

and a process.

an event.
changes during
to the
to occur
relative
a

of

satisfaction

set

of

logical

relations
of state
variables.
Extended
data
3.
and trees,
such as lists
structures
for easily
these structures.
capabilities
manipulating
4.
Since many discrete
processes,
are stochastic
models
language

must

have

built-in

capabilities

variables
and random functions.
5.
Methods for gathering
statistics,
in the system.
6.

for

generating

and controlling

and
the
random

experiments

General

capabilities.
arithmetic
7.
Interfacing
capabilities
segments of
with other
FORTRAN library
system,
such
as
and
standard
packages.
8. Extensive

debugging

features.

the

computer

statistical

162.

8.3.1

EVENT-ORIENTED SIMULATION

Here,

a system

the

of

Therefore,

associated

the

with

languages

Simulation

the

each

the

system

is

event

in

in

can

that

change

the

state

this

each

with
associated
by executing
simulated
a

time-ordered
are

category

at

occur

logic

the

included

changes

that

events

developing

then

system,
type.

event
logic

by defining

modelled

by determining

times,

event

is

the

sequence.
SIMSCRIPT,

and

GASP.
SIMSCRIPT
in

was developed

1962(139).

also

It

in

exists

by Markowitz(137,138)

is

a FORTRAN-based
different
dialects
or

at

RAND Corporation
but

language,

simulation

it

versions;

II,
SIMSCRIPT
was
which
version,
new
non-FORTRAN
a
completely
by RAND in 1968(140).
released
is
II
11.5,
SIMSCRIPT
SIMSCRIPT
process-oriented
a
with
capabilities(141).
One
the
of

features

appealing

SIMSCRIPT

of

is

its

English-Language-like

are named not

statements,
where attributes
This syntax-free-form
of
as clauses.
numbered and are interpreted
in
thus programmes written
SIMSCRIPT enhances model description,
language
to read and
this
easier
simulation
are comparatively
ttructurally,
be
to
comprehend,
and tend
self-documenting.
SIMSCRIPT

programme
a main
consist
of
(PREAMBLE), and event subprogrammes.
The main programme is mainly
initial
occurrance
scheduling
of
variables,
used for initializing
Event subprogrammes are used
the simulation.
events,
and starting
for defining
the logic
each event in
associated
processing
with
the

programmes

normally

model.

The

General

Activity

introduced

by Kiviat(142)

by

and

Kiviat

GASP,

Simulation
in

1963.

Pritsker(143).

was extended
and enhanced
or dialects
of GASP include;

GASP,

ProgramIn

1968,

GASP IV,

GASP II

the

was first
was developed

of
version
current
Other versions
by Pritsker(144).

163.

GASP-PL/I,
PL/I-based
GASP
IV,
a
of
version
language(145).
FORTRAN as the programming
IV/E,
GASP
data
are

an interactive
displayed
At

simulation.
reinterpreted
V,
is
GASP
-

on

the

or

user's

terminal

request,

simulation

GASP IV,

where

where simulation
(screen)
during
be

can

variables

of

furthur

are

include

to

expanded

simulation

continuous

integration,

differential

features(147).
and other
equations,
in GASP IV,
framework
a conceptual
and supporting
for
the
the
are
provided
where
writing
programmes,
codes in FORTRAN the following:

partial
Structurally,
routines
modeller

1. A short Main Program.

Subroutine
2.
EVENT(I),
for

relationships

User-coded

results.
Other
5.
routines

define

to

processing

each event type.

3. User-coded
subroutine
4.

graphics

replaces

changed(146).

an extension

capabilities

GASP IV,

of

version

PL/I

where

the
in

changes

INTLC,

OUTPUT, for

subroutine

the

system.
documentation
of

the

include

subprogrammes
which
for file
manipulation,

procedures

event

to

corresponding

state

initialize

to

mathematical-logical

output

and supporting
and statistical

scheduling,

collection.

8.3.2
In

ACTIVITY-ORIENTED
this

in

prescribing
which
the

are

the
that

conditions

for

the

appropriate

and

if

the

start

of

activities

either
the

conditions
As

end.
or

conditions

for,

it
each

is
is
time

not

events
for
is

time
an activity

starting
taken.

and

specified

simulated

are

the

engage,
(but

from

ending

describing

system

activity

activity

at

the

each

or

prescribed

for
action
is
accounted

activity
set

initiated
to

scanned,

in

cause

by

modelled

entities

itself)

activity

is

system

automatically

are

entire

which

conditions

advanced,

each

the

approach,

activities

SIMULATION

then

satisfied,
To ensure

necessary
advance.

to

scan
For

that
the
this

164.

reason,
activity-oriented
inefficient
when

particular
relatively

simulation
to
compared

to

may prove
discrete
other

be

simulations.
in

Falling

this

category
Control

Originally,

the

developed

by John

1960(148).
for

Later,

where

the

without

8.3.3

modeller

can

FORTRAN version

easily

being

necessarily

simulation
LanguagePetroleum

language.
CSL,

was
Company in

CSL was developed

CSL- ECSL. Clementson(149)
Extended
enhanced
Service,
CAPS- Computer
Aided
Programming

as the
introduced

and

ECSL

the

Simulation
and
for
Esso
of IBM(UK)

a basic

Honeywell

ECSL

In

Buxton

is

ECSL

use

familiar

with

of

the
construct
FORTRAN programming.
to

model

PROCESS-ORIENTED SIMULATION

by including
sequence of
system is modelled
in a defined
The logic
events occuring
associated
with
pattern.
these events
statements.
can be generalized
and used as single
flow
be employed
These statements
to
of
can then
model the
this

entities
(which

the

case,

through
are

process).

the

automatically
In
this

activity-oriented
is
event logic
corresponding

defining

the

approaches
are here combined,
and the fact that
implicit
the
and is automatically
within
contained
its
to
relative
statements
contributes
greatly

This
simplicity.
Q-GERT, SIMPL/I,
GPSS,

by

sequence of events
each
executed
as entities
move through
both
features
from
event
and
sense,

system

category
of simulation
and SIMULA.

languages

includes:

GPSS,

the

language,
by
most widely
was developed
used simulation
Geoffrey
Gordon of IBM in 1961-2,
as the General Purpose Systems
Simulator(150,151),
704-709
IBM
implemented
on
where it
was
followed
Other
language
improved
computers.
this
versions
of
later;
GPSS 11(152,153)
in 1964, followed
shortly
was introduced
by GPSS 111(154).
and the

package

in

1967,

introduced(155,156)
GPSS/360 was later
System.
Simulation
General
Purpose
was renamed as

165.

The latest

diagram,

The
system.
into
equivalent

the
of
diagram

by

execution

the

Each

network.

macro-instruction
There are more
by

is

transactions,

network

and

blocks,

before

features

and

language

to

the

controlled

being

destroyed

times,

arithmetic,

'

and

non-uniform
Schriber(160),

and
all

of

it

also

aspects

has

point
Many

and

of

GPSS;

block

various

of
block.

The

and easy

a simple

shortcomings:

certain

longer

for

computer
and

including
demonstrate
syntax,

structure,
on

real
from

sampling

textbooks,

elaborate

the

through

capabilities

its

or

special

and Probst(135),

Kahan,

the

of

entities,

and

power

procedures

of

be suggestive

make it

floating

Bobillier,

techniques,

programming

GPSS,

difficult

distributions.

discuss

of

or

represented

operation
(TERMINATE)

on entities.

the

by

computer

lack

use

form

subroutine

transactions

by

is

use.
limited

the

and
GPSS

in

to

temporary

those

of

characteristics

excecution

and

by

movement

to

of

creation

However,

comparitively

interconnected

intended

accomplished

blocks

of

is

block

the

interpretation
for
statements
by writing
a programme

which
The

structure

translate

is actually
a small
which
in GPSS, performs
function
a given
blocks,
than forty
each is pictorially

operation.

(GENERATE),

then

would

logical

the

GPSS

a block

into

block,

figure,

a stylized

block's

modeller
block

defining

the

in

a model
blocks

standard

GPSS processor,
logically
of blocks

consisting

coding

of

flowchart

maps the

which

a set

is

version

Basically,

package.

by combining

constructed

Another

GPSS V(157,158).

a FORTRAN-based

GPSS F(150),
is

is

version

its

various

applications.

SIMULA, a simulation
language
based on ALGOL 60, was developed
in
the Norwegian
Computing
Center by Dahl and Nygaard( 161 162 ).
It
in 1965,
in Europe.
was first
released
and gained
popularity
SIMULA 67,
information

is

a newer generalized
version(163).
on SIMULA, and its
applications,
refer

For
to

detailed

Hill(164).

166.

SIMPL/I

introduced

was

system
by

Graphical

network
models

pictorial
the

network

to
system
model defined

representation

of

modeler

Q-GERT network
and

use

processing
Q-GERT involved

on

applications

is

network

that

activity
a

pictorial
flow
entities

model

statement

the

displaying

of
For

to

refer

Recent

Program.

capability

terminals.

for

more

details

on

Pritsker(166).

SLAM

Simulation

features,

that

far.

It

adopted

continuous,
discrete-process).

more

For
for

than

one

modelling
discrete-event,
SLAM,

containing
language.

were categorized
in the particular

for

are combined to provide

in three
different
operate
modes.
(blocks)

package

previously

In

is

a
by

developed
recently
package
in certain
and
characteristics
unique
languages
from other
distinct
mentioned

makes it
is
a hybrid

characteristics
of
languages mentioned

SLAM,

Modelling-

Alternative

simulation
SLAM is

Pritsker(91).

approach

for

Language

FORTRAN-based

so

an

by Q-GERT Analysis

Q-GERT,

of

was

be modeled,
where
The
branches.
by its
and
nodes
be transcribed
then
system
would

on graphics

models

equivalent

an

and

development

8.3.4

into

the

Q-GERT,

activity-on-branch

an

represents

delay.

or

are
and by

lists,

and

employs

a branch

the

of

interpretation

the

It

which

components

behaviour

Technique,

Review

and

time

processing

representation
the
through
by

in

on the

procedures.

Pritsker(166).

philosophy

based
the

their

entities,

and

is

where

of

processes,

Evaluation

by

developed

PL/I,

Language-

structures,

It

1972(165).

characteristics

SIMPL/I

variables,

Queue

the

and

represented
PL/I

IBM in

Programming

general-purpose
of

by

advantageous
The

according
language

discrete-activity,
the

a unified

alternate
modelling

simulation

modelling
framework.

to

the

(i. e.,
or

approaches
SLAM can

and continuous
event,
network,
the network
symbols
SLAM provides
network
mode,
translated
building
that
easily
graphical
models
are
modes:

167.

into

input

SLAM is

respect,
Q-GERT's
the

for

statements

two

of

modes,

building
is

very

support

models.

similar

to

simulation
situations

which

modes

can

and continuous

1.

discrete

modes

in

Entities

take

can

the

in

between

place

numerous

continuous
for
structure
this

approach

but

modes,

the

within

same

interaction

specific

the

three

the

discrete,

network,

SLAM(91):

network

can initiate

model

the

of

occurrance

events.
flow

2. Events

the

3.

network

can alter
in the
Entities

of

in

entities

model

variables.
6.
State
initiate

reaching

variables

the

network
instantaneous

can cause
(in continuous

values of the state

variables
State
4.
variables
reaching
prescribed
in the network model.
initiate
entities
5.
Events can cause instantaneous
changes
to

the

values
values

threshold

prescribed

changes

simulation).

threshold
to

model.

of

values

can
state
can

events.

Considering

the

adequate
description,

conceptual

which
power and flexibility
technical
features
later.

programming
applications,

to

ability

network-event-continuous
SLAM can
orientation,

detail

For

language.

GASP IV

can

only

and

networks.

specifies
organizational
For the discrete-event
mode,

SLAM operate
in three
different
be
also
simultaneously
combined
be six
In all,
there
model.
could

Not

of

and

such

this

approach,

SLAM contains
and continuous,
both
discrete-event
and

event

that
subprogrammes
development,
model

block-statement

representation

graphical

In

processing.

computer

GPSS's

to

similar

philosophy

other

direct

models

with
for

provide

available

the

for

mechanism
undoubtedly

construct
interaction

will
to

combined
between
each
a

modeller

articulating
greatly
the

enhance

the

to

Pritsker

modelling

More specific
modeller.
in
discussed
SLAM
are
of

and practical
aspects
For more information
on SLAM structure,
techniques,
varying
and a wide
and
refer

more than
the
system

and Pegden(91).

syntax,
of
range

168.

8.4

AIRPORT LANDSIDE SIMULATIONS

landside-related

Airport
seventies.

They

passenger

delays

objective

prime

then
in

Typical

benefiting

extending

their

enhancing

its

convenience,
detailed
activities

from

knowledge

used

in

their
on

and

because
in

it
a

to

promising
the
with

method of analysis,
time-varying
nature
in the system.

and

terminals,
traffic
this

phenomenon

eventual
airport

which
Their

then.

and

outcomes

terminals,

and

management.

airports(168)

research

to describe
able
potentially
fashion.
Organizations
manageable
is

credited
because
of

simulation
it could

demand

and

the

as

most

efficiently
cope
the stochasticity

in
simulation
categories
mentioned
functional
simulation
could be of different
classes
the purpose
the characteristics
of simulation,
of
degree of simulation
sophistication,
and the level
anticipated.
terminals,

early

congestion

operations

those

related

from

airport
in air

the

were
programmes
Researchers
analytic
and simulations.
modelling,
landside(167)
for
the use of simulation
encouraged

experimentation,
of the airport

Apart

in

design,

planning,

methods

inherent

unprecedented

growth
investigating
on

centered

scientifically,
conclusions

by

encountered
substantial

in

programmes-boomed

triggered

were

the

accompanied

research

the

Section

8.2,
to

according
models,

In

to classify
an attempt
simulations
Gentry
four'
identified
and Doyle(169)

the

of precision
for
airport
levels

simulations:
LEVEL I:
Simplest
basic
level.
and
most
Time-variation
and stochasticity
are not taken into
Only
fixed
peak demand patterns
at
each part
landside
are considered.

account.
of

airport

LEVEL II:
-

Time-variation
considered,

in
but

not

the

average

stochasticity.

demand "rate

are

explicitly

of

169.

in
demand rate at a particular
component
its maximum service
queueing
will
rate,
Hence, it would not predict
any delays

Only
the
when
average
a given time exceeds
and delays be incurred.
if

the

rate,

demand rate
average
Queueing Theory
unlike

is

just

below

the

maximum service

applications.

LEVEL III:

(time-variation),
Probabilistic
demand
aspects
of
(stochasticity)
rate
are explicitly
considered.
-

is

It

based

basic
1.

on

steady-state

queueing

and service

analysis,

its

with

two

assumptions:

For

given

remain

time

time

equilibrium
LEVEL IV:

average

with
described.

random

but

constant,

probabilistically

2. Each

the

periods,

is
period
(steady-state)

demand

and

fluctuations,

long

enough
so
can be attained.

service

rates

which

that

are

statistical

level
Highest
theoretical
of
sophistication.
Demand
arrivals
and service
and
rates
are both probabilistic
time-varying
or can be explicit
functions
of time.
May
be
to
impractical
landside
prove
in
to
current
use
because
its
high
degree
modelling
of
of
mathematical
complexity.
Basically,
developed
existing
industry

landside
(terminal)
airport
models were
simulation
by academic
institutions
to
extend
as a vehicle
knowledge
in
transport
field,
this
air
or by the
and governmental
airports.
in
utilized

and operating
actually
airport

terminals.

the

for
agencies
responsible
For the latter,
simulation
process

of

planning

administering
models were
of
and design

170.

institutions

Academic

In

research.

University

of

US,

elaborate

extensive

Texas

and

of

air

airport-related
transport-related

Massachussettes
California

at

Institute
Berkeley,

of
and

The

Austin.

at

to

transportation-related
when a
problems,
Since then,
in 1967(170).
was convened

air

workshop
has
research

was directed

conducting

airport
in

conducted
University

MIT drew attention

transportation

in

pioneered

the

were
The

programmes
Technology,

which

SIMULATIONS

ACADEMICALLY-DEVELOPED

8.4.1

been

towards

there,
conducted
the theoretical

aspects

of

part

a major
of

airport

namely, the applicability

queueing models
of analytical
systems,
One of the outcomes of
facilities
in airports.
for the processing
this
research
was an analytic
simulation
model of the terminal
by Pararas(171),
developed
models,
queueing
employing
analytic
in

written
In the

GPSS simulation

University

of

language.

California

Horonjeff(172)

produced
deterministic

models

at
for

Berkeley,
individual

earlier
terminal

by

research
facilities

Horonjeff's
Under
models.
queueing
for
the
following
facilities
the
analysed
were
supervision,
baggage
lounges(173),
departure
of
analytical
modelling:
purpose
and security
claim facilities(174,175),
movement in piers(176),
(terminal)
landside
Although
facilities(177).
airport
no complete
using

simulation

model
work

abovementioned

research

subsequent

developed

was
on
that

individual
produced

Berkeley,
at
facilities
was
airport

landside

but

the

useful

to

simulation

models.
Research

on this

at Austin,
1978(28,57)
simulation,
tool
when
particular

in The University
was conducted
of Texas
in
developed
terminal
and airport
simulation
was
This
this
a part
as
of
research
programme.
(ACAP),
Airport
CAPacity
is a useful
and convenient

used
capacity

subject

in

simulating
analysis.

terminal

"operations,

and

in

171

In

UK,

the

research

Scotland,

where

AIR-Q

developed

was

later

extended

was conducted

complete
by

AIR-Q

University

is

model

simulation
in

Kirke(30)

and

Strathclyde,

of

terminal

airport

Calderbank

by Laing(31).

in

in

similar

many

1972,

and
to

aspects

ACAP.
University

Loughborough
multi-disciplinary
included
a
Airport(95).
in

research
survey
Reports

many

aspects

behaviour

of

for

in

of
of

this

this

research

in

terminals,

airport

in

behaviour
programme

were

especially

methodology,

and

processing

terminal

no complete

conducted
which

Manchester
useful
quite
in decsribing
times

service

was

simulation

LUT.

in
research
in universities
conducted
Denmark(181).

In

passenger

However,

Similar

8.4.2

Technology

programme

passenger

distributions(178).
developed

of

terminal
airport
in Australia(179),

also
was
simulations
Canada(180),
and in

INDUSTRY-DEVELOPED SIMULATIONS

order

to

place

and realistic
had to
task
achieving
purposely
terminals,

planning

assumptions,
devise
some

and design

of

organisations
tools
systematic

new terminals
responsible
which

could

on sound
for
this
aid

in

Many of the known airport

simulations
were
goals.
developed
to
the
of
new
enhance
process
planning
or to improve
of existing
management of operations

their

ones.
firm
(TAMS),
Tippetts-Abbetts-McCarthy-Stratton
consulting
developed
the
a simulation
of
model for
and design
planning
in Venezuela(182).
Maiqueta Airport
GPSS-based
It is a LEVEL III,
landside
airport
model using time-oriented
queueing models.

The

173.

One of these FAA-sponsored

research
programmes is the FAA Airport
Design
by H. H.
Aerospace
Model,
Landside
which was developed
in 1978.
It
is a LEVEL III
Co. (169)
which uses
simulation,
to represent
analytic
queueing
models
individual
within
components of the landside.
kind,
three major assumptions
model of this

activities
To have a
have to be

computerized
performed
workable
enforced:
1. Flows,
2. The

demands,

and services
demand distribution
at

are

in

condition.

steady-state

can be represented

each service

as

Poisson.
3. The

arrival

dynamics

of

at

each

independent

is

service

of

the

of

any preceding
service.
of this
research
programme,
has been compiled
elements

As part
landside
Six

rate

these

LaGuardia,

airport
a data base for all
US hub airports.
large
for
Miami,
Denver, - Detroit,

(Boston-Logan,

airports
and San

the

Francisco)

level

of
at
were modelled
basic
hubs,
data.
While for 19 other
based
detail,
level
lesser
on
of
at a

by on-site
availed
data were compiled
airport
FAA(187) and CAB(102) statistics.
detail

Recently,
simulation,

FAA released
the Airport

version
original
fron
Transportation

what seems to be the

Landside
Simulation

by
was
obtained
Bechtel
Corporation,

authorities
and
implementation.
wide-scale
be presented
and use will
airport

In
the

Canada,
Calgary

the

US

The

disseminate

to
operators
Description

Canadian

Model(188),

uses time-oriented

Model-

and
Transportation

in
FAA's
and modified
enhanced
Cambridge,
Mass.
The FAA plans to

queueing

use
of

FAA landside

'final'

it,
ALSIM's

ALSIM.

Department

Its
of

was subsequently
Systems Center,
ALSIM,
and

encourage
promote

its

characteristics

later.
Air

Transport

which

is

models.

Administration

a GPSS-based

developed

simulation

that

174.

UK,

In the
its

for

SIMULATION

8.5

The task

of

and
as

outlined

TECHNIQUE ADOPTED IN METHODOLOGY

and

technique,

performance

the

to

It

be

model

Scrutiny

the

of

theoretically
with little

situation,

simulated
with the
It

while
It
4.

consumes
its output
can

proposed

the

close

simulation
is

technique

the
conceptualize
conflict
of logical

to

possiblility

a reasonable

to

use.

of

amount

information,

real-world

remains

uncompromised.
flexibility
necessary

provide
demand pattern,

time-variant

facilities

processing

suitable

real-world
system.
would be relatively
convenient

It

of

establishing

that:

ensure

would

for

required

warrants
procedure,
the data synthesizer,
or

capacity
inspection
of

employed.

important

data

necessary

the
in

examination

3.

the

developed
has recently
has
However, no publication

Authority

simulation.
BAA model.

synthesizing

constructing

1.

Airport

landside

own airport

been released

2.

British

the

in

the
simulating
features
of the

important

and other

system.
Four
to

techniques,

covering

simulation

this

Trial

research.

terminal
languages
dedicated

simulations
(ECSL,
and
to

Close

techniques

realistic
ready

of;

were

SLAM).
the

features

interpretation

of
of

input

two

attempted:

airport

two

simulation

Considerable

time

and

effort

data

appropriate
this
of

the

following

the

and

with
for

conducted

of

each

ALSIM),

and

inspection

specific

availability

runs

of

actually

were
(ACAP

selecting

technique.

and

sample

techniques

simulation

light

examined

were

approaches
and microscopic
in
implementation
for
considered

macroscopic

real
information.

each

and

the
in

the

extent

of

procedure

technique,

system,

synthesizing
between

comparisons
selection

was

probability

of

175.

MACROSCOPICAPPROACH

8.5.1
Logically,

terminal

simulations

implementation,

for

for

suitable
the
to

because
job.

this

simulation
that

parameters

they

which

deal

with

between

its

all

governing

every

components,
process

the

terminal
for

In

this

is

sense,

macroscopic,
interactions
where

microscopic,
system

between

specified

logic

the
with

its

ACAP

ACAP was considered

attractive.

and

within

Originally,

system.
on both levels;
and describing

whole

and

variables

the

system

all

more

are

purposely
interaction
the

thereby

the

they

developed

and
within

oriented

particularly

airport.

performed
as

all
terminals,

and

attractive

defined.

contributors

8.5.1.1

system

are

be considered

to

more

include

the

simulating

the

defining

are

they
they

specifically
(and

activities

modelling
facilities)

seemed

airport

characterize

were

simulations

Since

of
because

system-specific,

they

first

the

were

seriuosly

characteristics,

and operational

simplicity

for

because

implementation,

particularly,

its

of

its

structural

relative

was appealing.

ACAP constitutes
of:
initializes
MAIN
defines
Program,
The
and
which
included,
and parameters
and controls
and

Structurally,

movements.
FLOWIN
Subprogram;
logic
for interaction

the

variables
for
accounts
all

The mechanism that

the essential
provides
between components,
flow
and organizing

from

one component to another.

Modular
that provide
component subroutines
performed
at each component.
Other
supporting
ancillary
subroutines.
-

logic

for

activities

176.

Operationally,
would

a middle-sized
computer
be sufficient
to run ACAP,
with

with

a FORTRAN compiler

substantial
no requisite
that
skills,
provided
and
operational
information
in the right
are entered
order and
input
deck(189).
ACAP
In addition
to simplicity,

programming
airport-specific
format as the

book-keeping
(accounting)
excellent
well
capabilities,
documentation,
and thorough
organized
output
and special
emphasis
level
hence recognizing
the
on the user defined
of
service,
important
capacity/level
considerations.
of service
provides

However,

1.

ACAP had certain

disadvantages:

Deterministic

function

of

nature:
is
to
which
each facility

performed

at

queues,

employ

regression
taken from

Modular

analysis
of service
data base accumulated

basic

subroutines,

activities
times and
to estimate
waiting
by
derived
that
were
models
distributions
times
and arrival

provide
in order

deterministic

component
logic
to

from

surveys

simulate

conducted

in

three

Texan airports(28).
Limited
2.
applicability:

ACAP could only be

As a consequence,
in
to those where and when surveys
situations
very similar
used
Operational
conditions
surveys,
upon
were conducted.
of those
be
based,
could
not
which the regression-derived
were
models
in
those
they
even
previously
replicated
airports
where
prevailed.
3. Comparatively

developed
to simulate
ACAP was first
small size:
Municipal
Austin
Airport's
in 1976(190),
terminal
when it was a
handling
airport
small
annually
around
passengers
one million
(3) airlines.
Thus it
through
be used to simulate
only
could
terminals
airport
of that
size.
4. Input data required:
Because it
the
input
simulation,
required
geometry,
number of

flight

schedule

passengers

is

airport
a complete
include:
data would
(including
information
flight

on flights,

their

passenger/visitor

and passenger/bag
ratios),
and all possible
the terminal,
which
undoubtedly
requires
effort.

paths

terminal
airport
timings,
ratio,

in
of movement

"considerable

on-site

177.

Due to

the

abovementioned

author

to

use

ACAP

in

different

improve
-

and

million
airlines
terminal

ACAP.

Number

of

So,
gates

was
their

retaining
increase
compatible
while

the
was

modified

increased

was

1983

was

in

bigger

from

characteristics
(10)
passengers,

serving
It
plan.

it

in

Airport

service

annual

(8)

by
used
(extented)

in

made by the
May 1983 was

an attempt

Austin

simulate
Airport

demand

(2.3)

1976;

to

Austin

unsuccessful.

shortcomings,

in

maximum

to

a maximum

of

nodes

of

and

extended
(4)

utilization,

numbers

of

segregately
different
and

airport,

segregated

that

gates

necessary
as follows:

from

and

size

and

to

(10),

and

with
of

paths

movement.

important
The
most
of ACAP,
nature
from
the
models

changed the
modification,
which drastically
regression-derived
was the deletion
of all
They were
modular
component
subroutines.
Monte Carlo-based
provide
stochastic
models that

by
replaced
for simulating
logic
and
activities
at each facility,
performed
This particular
times and lengths
queueing
predict
accordingly.
improvement,
LEVEL II
This

ACAP's

changed
LEVEL III.

to

modification

achieved

simulation

two important

classification

goals:

First,

from

attaining

general
promoting
and secondly,
ACAP could
be used to simulate
any
utilization.
in
1983,
Airport
terminal
Austin'
to
that
of size
comparable
of
ACAP was not
Nevertheless,
of other characteristics.
regardless
because in the circumstances
of this
used in this
methodology,
input
data
the
substantial
and
research,
was still
required
of operation,
The modified

stochasticity

unmanageable

to

8.5.1.2

ALSIM

Compared

to

capability
description

collect

ACAP,

ALSIM

is

the
dimension,
with
of a gigantic
is
large
following
The
a
of simulating
very
airports;
features
of the nature
and general
of ALSIM extracted

178.

its

from

literature(168,191).

published
which

simulation
of

movement
landside,

quantifies

people

region

is

ALSIM

parameters

describing

the airport
through
and vehicles
between
the aircraft
and airport

a computerized
flow
due to the
landside.

The

boundaries,

can

be viewed
as a combination
of service
or processing
ALSIM represents
In this
landside
sense,
essential
facilities
the
and simulates
arrival,
queueing,
simultaneuosly
occurring
at
each location.
processes
by

accomplished
airport

groups,
routed
facilities.

representing

through

ALSIM is

programme

and

vehicles

modules

processing
and

and deplaning
by transactions

enplaning

visitors,

facilities.

landside

resembling

service
is
This

passenger
that

are

processing

FORTRAN supporting
GPSS V with
an extensive
thus utilizing
the advantages
of both languages.
subprogramme,
GPSS V programmes creates
transactions
to represent
passengers
through
the
directed
and accompanying
visitors,
are
which
programme

in

written

blocks

to

describe

the

simulated

in
processors
through
passengers

landside

the routing
resembling
of
is used to provide
The FORTRAN subprogramme
processors.
actual
in matrix
to
during
searches
efficiency
programme execution,
and for flexibility
numbers to GPSS transactions,
assign facility
in input
used such as
and output
operations
with large data files
a manner

airport
Language

closely

configuration,

and

flight

schedules.

IBM

Assembly
linkages

to

programme
provide
between
FORTRAN Subprogramme,
and the
in-core
switches,
and to
reading
and writing,
set logic
perform
in the
for
transactions
and assign
obtain
parameter
values
FORTRAN Subprogramme.
subroutines
are
used
GPSS Main Program
the

Structurally,

the

components of ALSIM are:

Programme definition
1.
specifications,
containg
size
matrix
time distributions,
functions,
service
routing
and GPSS variables
definitions.
2.

Deplaning

functions

to

logic,
passenger
which creates
deplaning
passengers
and visitors

and assigns
transactions.

routing

179.

Enplaning

3.

originating

representing
Facility
4.

modules

Control

5.

modules.
Timer
6.

section

Facility

1.

start
run

simulation

process.

Including
or

the

location

size

of

applicable
Passenger
2.

Each transaction
characteristics:
(parameters),
attributes
will
which
Those
characteristics.
passenger

passenger
include
group

size,

number

group,
landside,

of

arrival

distribution
of

It
schedules:
for
generating

mechanism
of

number
flight,

ground transport
bags distribution,

and selection

passengers,
Flight
3.

check-in

represents
the model
or

/
departure
arrival
(domestic/international/commuter),

identification
4.

modal

of

each

facility,
is

and

assigned
determine

its
the

characteristics

per
visitors
through
selection

choice,

route
to flight

prior

departing,

arriving,

processors.
to facility

ALSIM include:

number of servers
available
times distribution.
service

designated

visitors.

transactions
the

and stop

characteristics:

processor,

transactions

creates

and accompanying
landside
essential

representing
for
dispatching

to

required

which

passengers

to

section

data

Input

logic,

passenger

for

enplaning

type.
counter
the demand and provides
by specifying
transactions
transfer
time,
and

on each
passengers
flight
type
the
of

baggage

claim

facility

number.

Including
coordination
of
number,
geometry:
point
type.
facility
type at point,
number within
and facility

Airport

point,

Evidently,
gathering
costly

such
efforts,
part

of

input

data
substantial
necessitate
are the most time consuming and
Size and cost
of such an effort

requirements

which usually
implementation.

information
depend on how much of the necessary
eventually
will
degree
is already
on-hand through
on
and
earlier
airport
surveys,
large-scale
desired.
Overall,
typical
of detail
and accuracy
a
data collection
excercise
at a major airport,
aimed at gathering
50,000
ALSIM,
to operate
all data necessary
as
may cost as much
US Dollars
in 1978 prices(191).

180.

Model

includes

output

for

flow,

facilities

all

are

statistics

numbers

averages
and time
series

specified

time

Computer

storage
of

of

time

and waiting
facilities,

number

individually

maintained

period,
and

facilities

are

or
of
also

time

of

by

distributions,

single

queue

length
of

usage

average
aggregated

outflow

each

over

made available.

requirements

simulation

dependent

are

the

simulated,

example,

for

programme
served,

passengers

facility

Output

minutes.

the

total

simulated,
scale
and an input
and visitors
by
how many passenger
groups
are simulated
For

and occupancy

five

every

accumulated

A summary

facility.

information,

queueing

run

upon

the

number of passengers
factor
specifies
which
one

for

GPSS transaction.
100-gate

airport

20,000
involving
hours,
period
extending
over three
(7)
165
flights,
of
on
minutes
approximately
require
passengers
(CPU) time
on
of storage
processor
unit
and 556 K bytes
central
(1),
for
but
370/158.
That
is
IBM
input
factor
for
of
scale
an
an
factor
scale
would increase
requirements
an input
of (2),
storage

during

to

800

a busy

K,

Calibration
itself

and CPU time

to

(15)

and validation
of
by
Wilbur
conducted

minutes.

ALSIM required
a seperate
& Associates(99),
Smith

in
surveys
were conducted
comprehensive
in the US: Miami International,
airports
LaGuardia
obviously
employed
different
However,
ALSIM's

1978

study

by

where
large
hub

at three
Denver-Stapleton,

and

These

so extensiveand
surveys
were
400 field
had around
they
that
expensive,
staff
data for two days at each airport
to collect
using 32
kinds of survey forms and sampling
techniques.
airports.

ALSIM
input

was not

selected

for

use

in

this

methodology.
a level
of detail

requirements
are substantial
with
that
the collection
that
necessitates
with
of data compatible
level.
This would imply conducting
surveys of the size mentioned
in the
The cost
and manpower needed for
above.
such surveys
Moreover,
research
work was unthinkable.
of this
circumstances
(waiting
for the
information
times
congestion
and queue lengths)

181.

different

runs

that

the performance
to construct
are required
justify
demand levels
could
not
anticipated,
It
that
sophistication.
cost,
and
of
size,

model for various

the use of a tool
cracking
would be like

the

level,

microscopic

component
basics
of
governs
importance

the
its

are

examined

the

process,

and

performance

of

the

to

and

distinguished

features.

Typically,

airport

queueing
For the

processes,

detailed

facilities

of

in

terminal
where

analysis
of
features,
which

of

characteristics

individual

an

identify
to
analysed,
performance
that
delineate
the logic
to clearly
be
It
of
prime
would
activities.

the

examine

characteristics

their

hammer!.

a sledge

with

MICROSCOPIC APPROACH

8.5.2
For

a nut

aspects

consideration,

operational
its
define
to
and

facilities

processing

of

are

are
and congestion
Fishman(192)
systems,

waiting

queueing
include:

cases
intrinsic.

of

diagnosed

1. Demand:
Arrival
pattern.
for
Required
service
Willingness
to
wait.
Resource
requirements.
-

demand.

Server
preference.
Priority,
as a special
-

attribute

of

demand.

2. Resources:
Number
of servers.
Service
time
characteristics.
Selection
rule
Skill
level.
-

for

service

Service
interruptions,
failure.
or server
Waiting
space available.
-

(queue

caused

discipline).

by preemption

of

new demand,

182.

3. Performance:

Percentage
-

of demand waiting.

Waiting
time
charactersitics
(server)
Resource
utilization.
In

the task
microscopic
approach,
would then be
individual
simulating
components,
subsequently,
information
the
from
and
costly
collection
effort
the

adopting
to
reduced
reducing
inconvenient

demand.

of

airport

surveys
necessary
information,
in

input,

for

that

to

of

terms
of data gathering
much more manageable
Consequently,
is
to
information
and cost.
effort
restricted
demand patterns,
time
arrival
service
number
of
servers,
distributions,
Now, would this
and queue discipline.
approach be
for

performance

information
to establish
synthesizing
required
model? Would it be realistic
or justifiable?

Congestion

and

components

should
different

adequate

noteably

delay

information

have

no
from

individually

from
to

reason
equivalent

be

simulated

inconsistent

information

component
simulated
of
as a part
particular
that arrival
system,
provided
of the complete
the same service
that component (with
exactly

the

with
for

or
that

the

context
overall
demand patterns
to

for
characteristics
that the arrival
On the condition
the two cases),
are identical.
(
for
demand pattern
actually
which
a particular
component
dictates
are kept
congestion
and delay if service
characteristics
be closely
demand
to the
actual
could
constant)
approximated
then such approach would be reasonably
for
suitable
anticipated,
predicting

congestion

simulated

components.

This

approach

attempts

to

is

and

delay

information

because,
reasonably
realistic,
detach an individual
component from

for

individually

conceptually,
the

system,

it
but

factors
that
its
influence
retaining
still
all
operation
whilst
the component remains within
the system.
One can imagine pointing
(camera)
device
individual
an observation
on that
component alone
its
to
and recording
all
movements
and other
related
aspects

183.

is analogous
This
to the concept
of
operational
performance.
free-body-diagram
to
used by structural
and mechanical
engineers
interpret
forces
or
acting
element
structural
on a particular
in
the
the
to
component,
system.
attempt
analyse
whole
Justification

of

this

approach

from

stems

need to comprehend
of
of the components

the

behaviour

the

and operational
performance
the system without
the inevitable
of
necessity
information
and obtrusive
collection
exercises.
To

an

choose
individually,

technique

appropriate
Shannon(133)
to

considerations

the

to

following

the
between

choosing

of

components

simulate

recommended

process

costly

conducting

several

techniques:

simulation

in terms of:
required
Ease of learning
the language.

1. Training
-

Ease
of conceptualizing
simulation
problems.
2. Coding considerations,
such as:
Ease
of coding random sampling
and numerical
Degree
to
is
which
coding
self-documenting.
3.

Portability

computers.
4. Degree

of

and availability
flexibility

of

to which

concepts.
modelling
5. Processing
considerations,

the

6.

of

Debugging

capabilities

7. Run-times
times.

core

language

language

on other
supports

and new
different

including:

Built-in
statistical
gathering
List
processing
capabilities.
Ability
Ease
of
Ease
of
-

the

integration.

capabilities.

allocation.

producing

standard

producing

user-tailored
reports.
and technical
reliability.

consideration

report.

covering

compilation

and

execution

184.

For

availability
languages)
were

reasons,

considered,
implementation

adequacy
SLAM.

of

8.5.2.1

ECSL

ECSL package
trial
runs
processing

in

of

representing

SLAM is

a recently

higher

modelling

articulation

developed
power

the

airport

realistic
features
the
I.
to

terminal

pattern

of its
and incapability
because

pattern.

package,

that

offers
the
promotes

and
Specifically,

the

in
useful
are
extremely
facilities,
combined
where
SLAM were
of
capabilities

event
simulation
facilities.
to model all terminal
utilized
processing
facilitated
SLAM as the
technique
simulation
more
Important
facilities.
the
terminal
modelling
of
SLAM that

of

is

largely

parameters,
a time-varying

SLAM,

proved

to

methodology
were:
Unlike
ECSL, SLAM was flexible
facilities
in a time-variant

This

its
examining
closely
It proved
was discarded.

description.

network-discrete
efficiently
Adopting

to

simulation
flexibility,

and

of
systems
features
of

combined-mode
simulating

input

demand in

arrival

SLAM

it

of the runs,
implementation,

with
was inspected
terminal
simulate

Center,

suitability
however,
after

were ECSL, and

they

research,

LUT Computer

interpreting

8.5.2.2

were

its

from output
properties
for
to be inadequate
inflexibility

in

in

available
to
test
facilities,

and
this

(simulation
packages
for
inspected
thoroughly

two

only

be of

pattern
the

r,

simulates

the

significance

for

ng the demand arrival

throughout
operation.

in`representi

by including
accomplished
(for
20-minute
intervals)
time

which conveniently
to the facility.

particular

fluctuations
in

time-varying

in

(ARYL),

subroutine
arrival

demand

of

demand

185.

Stochasticity

2.

accomplished
instance,
For

in

the

simulating
SLAM's
exploiting

by

calling

processing
in
capabilities

is
activity
this
respect.
in

SCHDL(1, EXPON(0.20,3))

subroutine

in
EXPON(0.20,3)
ACTIVITY/1,
mode,
or statement
both
1:
mode,
processing
activity
network
would simulate
number
(passenger)
time whose value is randomly
an entity
with a service
from
distribution
Exponential
mean
a Negative
with
generated
(1/J.
time
the
0.20 minutes,
1) is
random number
service
using

discrete

event

(string)
function
generating
Conditional
3.
probabilistic
between unidentical
servers
(ACT).
by using the function
Conditional

4.

between

statistics
by using the
all

throughout
6.

7.

simulation,
SLAM output

of
8.
In

(STAT),

(COLCT),
of

oncoming

attributes
by using

is

entities
by

rules,

some priority

(transient

state)

SLAM parameters
(MONTR,TRACE).

or other
the function

provided,

the

modeller
and (TIMST).

the
with
desires,

throughout

statistics
by using

the
aspects
of the system through
).
),
).
XX(.
ATRIB(.
SS(.
and
as:
(TNEXT).
(TNOW),
and
provisions,
such as

various

coming section,
facilities
processing
described.

of

entities

percentages,

predefined

intervals
summary reports
at selected
(MONTR,SUMRY).
bu using the function

such SLAM variables

SLAM time-keeping
the

oncoming

(MONTR,CLEAR).

function

events

report
information

Description

to

of

which include:
during
the 'warm-up'

simulation,

Producing

operational
functions

branching

servers
according
(SELECT).

using the function

5. Monitoring
capabilities,

to

according

probabilistic

identical

Clearing
period,
Tracing
-

number 3.
branching

SLAM utilization
under

consideration

to

and
the
use

terminal
simulate
is
thoroughly

186.

SIMULATION

8.6

first

The

OF TERMINAL

FACILITIES

USING SLAM

in

model,
constructing
a facility's
simulation
key events.
the real
would be to express
system in terms of its
In a simple servicing
the system's
could be
operation
situation,
by considering
two events:
simulated
Passenger
immediately,
1.
or
arrivaleither
starting
service
step

join

alternatively,
leaves,
in

departure-

Passenger

2.

then,

queue,

This

is

or

the

processing
facilities,
simulation

a queue and wait.

when

basic

and

ends

for
either
service
starts
the facility
becomes idle.

another

the

passenger

passenger
waiting

logic

or
servicing
associated
with
in general,
individual
processing
and for
passenger
Typically,
details
that change.
only complementary
then
from
execution
condition,
starts
an initial
outline

in

chronological
proceeds
of either
and durations
updated

service

and statistics

SLAM 'next-event'

of

order
type of

according
event.

amended at
logic

is

discrete-event

times
scheduling
Continuously,
are
records
the

to

each event.

framework
which
within
structural
depicted
in
logic,
The
as
simulated.
the

models are
begins
8.2,
by entering
Figure
the MAIN Program,
where all
MAIN,
there
defined
dimensioned.
In
are
and
programme
variables
is acall
to SLAM processor,
are read
statements
where SLAM input
is
define
the
the
Next,
to
system
simulation
parameters.
(

if
INTLC is
not
subroutine
included
by
SLAM processor
will
automatically
initialize
the system as empty and idle).
Execution
of simulation
begins by removing the first
where
event from the event calender,
they are sequentially
based on low values of event times.
ordered
initialized

by

INTLC

calling
the
user,

SLAM

then

the
subroutine
call
user-written
set to the event code,
which in turn calls
the appropriate
is then
TNOW (current
time)
event
subroutine.
is made
A test
advanced to the event time for the next event.
if
the user-written
to
is
after
check
event subroutine
executed,
processor
EVENT(I)where

simulation

run

will
I is

is

complete.

If

the

run

is

not

complete,

then

the

187.

MAI

PROGRAM

SLAM

READ

PROCESSOR

SLAM

CONTROL STATEMsNTS

INITIALIZE
MODEL

CALL
INTLC

CHECK NEXT EVENT ON

CALENDFR, AND SET:
TN0W-

EVENT

I-

EVENT

to

stop

TIME

CODE

CALL
0UTPUT

YES

run?

SLAX
PRINT
REPORT
SUtM114ARY
REMOVE NEXT EVENT
CALENDER

FRON,

More

runs?

CALL
EVENT (I)
0
EVENT 1....

Figure

8.2

-4F

EE: NT n

SLAM Processing

Logic

c:

for

STOP
.

Discrete-Event

Simulation

188.

new first

continues,
documentation
Observations
following
1.
on

is

event

otherwise,
is printed.

the

execution

event calender
is terminated

and processing
and the output

collection,

by
the
done
are

gathering
and statistics
SLAM input
statements:

STAT statement,
discrete

from

from

removed

which

observations
the

within

user

or

request

FORTRAN

user-coded

COLCT,

subprogramme

upon

the

within

based
on variables
instructions
through

statistics

collects

by

programmes
model

network

by

calling
the COLCT

statement.

2.

TIMST statement,

corresponding

variables,

on time-persistent
XX(. )
the dimensioned

statistics
collects
for
to statistics

which

over a period
of time.
variables
In addition
3.
to STAT and TIMST statements,
(queues),
and regular
activities
or service
in
SLAM Summary Report,
the
generated
generated

information

SLAM also
following:
1.

on

provides

observations

good

monitoring

MONTR,SUMRY statement,

produced.
documentation

Its

parameters

which

causes

on files

statistics
are

automatically

capabilities

SLAM Summary Report

are, starting
by the
as desired

and

Its

parameters
are starting
by the user,
and attributes

in
3.

the

be
of

on all
perform
of trace

be included

trace

report.
MONTR,CLEAR statement,

statistics
(statistical
starting

entities

times
to

to

times

ending

and ending
of

the

through

user.
of results
MONTR,TRACE statement,
2.
report
a trace
which provides
(with
that
their
times
attributes)
of events
entities
activities.
as desired

all

contains
which
statistics.
and their

during

the

of all
causes the clearance
which
'warm-up'
until
steady-state
period
is
Its
are
parameters
attained.

initial

equilibrium)
and ending times

of

clearing

statistics.

189.

facilities

Terminal

ticket

are:

outbound

passport

control

because

of

their

customs

with

the

baggage

widely
handling,
it

is

use

and

check
in

one model
in
the
and

facility,

claim

associated

conditions

working

unstandardized

to

representative
in
the
parameters

obtain

input

as

flights),

of

included

baggage

the

difficult

to

types

methodology

another
one
immigration
control,

operational
varying
largely
due to

information

operational

were

is

Excluded

control.

Thus,

procedures.

convenience

the

(security

controls

to
close
proximity
facilities),
inward

of

of

for

which

juxtapositioning
arrivals
because

official

in

simulation
(for
all

facilities

check-in

departures

for

considered

information
vary
could
process,
particularly
simulation
when this
flights
different
between
at
airports,
airlines,
and even between
largely
depends
This
information
the same airport.
on the baggage
handling
other

agency's
factors.

this

In

the

assess

efficiency,
such

performance

circumstances,
of

It

methodology.

and many
work procedures,
to
it would be irrelevant

policy,
facility

the

would

within
require

probably

the
a

structure
separate

of
study

itself.

TICKET CHECK-IN FACILITY

8.6.1
This

is

an

airline-operated
to a handling

facility,

directly,

either

or

is

It

manned with one

usually
tickets
seats
are checked,
on a counter,
server
where passengers
labelled
before
it
baggage
and
and
assigned,
accepted,
weighed,
is conveyed
to the baggage
area,
or is
and sorting
staging

subcontracted

directly

transported

Operationally,

the

(flights),
prespecified
times,
and
serviced.
processing

to

the

facility

where
each
times that are

only
However,
is

agency.

aircraft.
processes
is
counter

passengers

directly
on

common check-in
continuous
asid is

passengers

opened
to
related

in

at
closed
departure

and
flight

flight

that

particular
facilities,
where

not

performed

batches

are

passenger
to
according

190.

flights,

Arrival
are sometimes
used.
in terms
to
of time prior

expressed

the

characterize

type

or
schedule,
first-come-first-served

commuter).
basis,

and

usually
departure
time,

scheduled

(i. e.,
charter,
is
Service

flight

of

distributions,

service

haul

long/medium

on
offered
distributions
times

are assumed to be shifted

exponential,
negative
with mean value
depending
on kind of service
and activities
encountered.
logic

Processing
1.
of

Passengers
that

for
arrive

particular

value of which
the distribution
(subintervals).

ticket
to
flight.

vary
is

in

typical
a demand pattern
the
times are Poisson,
but
arrival
pattern,
actual

Interarrival

to
according
kept constant

is:

facilities

check-in
the facility
the

time

20-minute

within

is free,
for
the first
then service
a server
the passenger
will
commences immediately,
otherwise,
2.

If

queue.
As for
3.

the

then
queue,
for
the first
is

that

facility,
Events

the

of

the

associated

is

are

made idle,
in queue for

of

service,

distribution

is adopted,
simulation
using
the following
out by coding

carried
and SLAM input
statements:
1. Program MAIN.
and

2.

Subroutine

INTLC,

3.

Subroutine

EVENT(I),

during
4.
5.
6.

to

initialize
to

provoke

the

in

Figure

SLAM's

with
leaves

passenger

starts
again.
this
process are depicted

in

starts
time)

service
(service

otherwise,
a duration

the

passenger
wait in the
waiting

no passengers

an exponential
times.
service

average

with

there

from

chosen

completion
and the cycle

Discrete-event

is

server

passenger

randomly

mean value
After
4.

if

server,

periods

event

the
8.3a.

mode,

FORTRAN subroutines

system.

appropriate

event

simulation.
Subroutine
ARVL, to simulate
the arrival
event.
Subroutine
ENDSV, to simulate
event.
end-of-service
SLAM input
to specify;
statements

when called

191.

Number
files
(queues)
in the
of
present
Maximum
number of attributes
per entity.
Maximum
number of entities
concurrently
any one time.
Gathering

system.

information

observational

and

statistics.
Start
times
and
end
of simulation.
Monitoring
requirements.
Listing
of a sample of check-in
simulation

8.6.2

OUTBOUNDOFFICIAL

These

facilities

security
or

possession

checking/stamping

check units
directly,
for

reasons

usually
have
they
are

Simplicity
operations

and
safety,
transport
of
for
outward

or through
including

while

control
illegal

model

is

in

shown

ready

where

and

authority's

operating
responsibility,

specialized
both facilities
direct

perform
provide

passengers
and

the

passport
Passport
related
security
either
The main

agencies.
security
in one model are that
to one another,
succession
operational
using

one

they
and

characteristics.
model to simulate

passengers
are
after
checking-in,
processed
baggage, getting
boarding
their
and when
passes,
to proceed to the departure
lounge.
Frequently,

check

passengers

against
items,

passengers.
by
the
operated

manning

similar
favour
and convenience
in both facilities.

feel

units(s),
of which is to
that
passengers,

and

check

enplaning
and

airport

relatively

their

scanning

manned

in

situated

handing-in

which

are

agency,
are the

Operationally,

security

on departing

controls

counters

governmental

of
security
the function

counter(s),

regulatory

certain
flight

the

of

collection

CONTROLS

constitute

check

passport

they

at

system

C-l.

Appendix

check

in

present

frame through
comprises
of a magnometer
bag
X-ray
to
pass,
and conveyorized
items.
luggage
is inspected
for
prohibited

unit
have

hand

192.

PAX 2
u
a
PAX

1'I

cri

_'
.;S-

bI
I

4j II
'v

JPROCESSING I

cl
41!

col
.r.
l

u
,I

c,

V)

IL
a,

141
'o

4J

Ir_

c!

QI

PROCESSING

NI

4-

SIMULATED

TIME
(a)

Ticket

Check-in

Facility

Events.

PAX

0
O

bl

NI

Securi
ty
iJ

oo

I
> I
f
al
1,
. "

uI
LI
C-I

41

Ic
ILO

Passport

Search

I
N
Iw
I
IW

`r'I
I
O
il
I

,e

Check

ICt$
d
I,,
_
I
IW

I
O
I
bl
I
N
Simu1 atecL

SIMULATED

Time
(b)

Figure

8.3

Official

Facility

Controls

Processing

I c-

TIME
Events.

Events

For

Departures.

193.

search compartments
may also be used but only for special
A passport
check is made on all
occasions.
cases and in certain
departing
to check status
where
passports
passengers
of their
is
Service
is
the
out.
processing
carried
on
required
passport
basis,
in
both
facilities
first-come-first-served
on a
offered

Manual

have
to
exponential
assumed
is
facility
Unlike
this
a
check-in,
is
the
type,
passengers
of
arrival
where
continuous-processing
demand
flight-specific.
The
pattern
and
not
arrival
continuous,
departure
be
deduced
by
from
the
channel
means
should
various
times

service
and
distribution.

throughputs,

are

also

facility,
are

Processing
1.

logic

Passengers

from

that

within
2. If

these

arrive

of
times,
to

according

for
the

interarrival

"

the

passengers
enter
as departed.
considered

the

20-minute

peak
periods.
'sterile
of
area'

and

airport,

deduced

demand pattern,

a predetermined
departure
total

actual

the

is:

two facilities

in

the

this

Beyond

during

preferably

Poisson
with
channel,
operation
values of which vary throughout
kept
but
constant
are
arrival
pattern,

subintervals.
is empty,
unit

is

commenced
security
a security
the passenger
immediately,
for first
otherwise,
coming passenger
the queue and wait.
has to join
for
in
If there are no passengers
the
3.
security
queue
waiting
first
the
is
laid
idle,
then
the
unit
otherwise,
search,
passenger
conditions
implemented

in

queue
is
in

is

performed
the
two

then

searched.
as
airports

search

Security
follows

search
(which
is

considered

in

this

in

normal

the

order
study):
of the

asked by a security
at the entrance
officer
being
the
facility
boarding
to show their
After
cleared
passes.
the Mangnometer frame
would then have to walk through
passengers
for self-checking.
Before that their
cabin luggage is put on the
Passengers

conveyorized

are

X-Ray

device
for
scanning
luggage
are cleared,

passenger
and his
Being that
complicated,
from
composite
activity

After

baggage-check.
he leaves

the

the

facility.

is considered
as one
security
search
to
inside
the moment the passenger
steps

194.

the

point

of

leaving

the

facility.

Accordingly,

as one time in terms

to clear
the security

considered
passengers

of what was actually

regardless
times
are
randomly
selected
distribution
with a mean value

how long

of

times

service
it
took

are

individual

to departure,
entry
between.
Security
search
Exponential
Negative
a
from

check
done in
from

time.
of the average service
After
the security
4.
the passenger
search has been completed,
to
the
is free,
then the
If a server
passport
proceeds
controls.
the passenger
check commences immediately,
passport
otherwise,
have
to
join
least
the
number of
will
containing
queue
(in
the
than
check
case
passengers
of
one
more
passport
and wait.
counters),
If
there
5.
are no
then
check,
passport

passengers
the server

waiting
is laid

the passport
would start
server
checking
(service
in the
queue for
a duration
from an Exponential
distribution
selected
the average service
time.
6.

After

facility
again.
Events
Figure

completion
heading to

associated
8.3b.

of
the

with

service,
departure

outbound

in

for

the

the

queue
Otherwise,

idle.

the

passenger
of the first
is randomly
that
time)
with

a mean value

of

leave
the
would
passenger
lounge,
starts
and the cycle
the

official

are

controls

depicted

in

is conveniently
combined
network-discrete
event mode,
in simulating
facility.
by
this
This is accomplished
adopted
(FUNCTION USERF) that
FORTRAN user-function
coding an event-mode
SLAM's

the arrival
would simulate
of
20-minute
basis.
subinterval
interarrival

times

to
according
demand patterns

(Times

of

the

passengers
This is done
Between

predetermined
arrival
Conditional
and levels.

the right
control
assigning
demand pattern
with rerspect
is shown in
sample listing
segment

to

model

contains

interrarrival
to

first

facility

by assigning
TBC)
Creationdistribution

on
Poisson

specified
reflecting

IF statements
are used to
by the
time specified
(TNOW).
A
time
simulated

current
Appendix
C-2.
statements

the

for:

SLAM's

network

mode

195.

1. Creating

(according

entities

2. Assigning

attributes

3.

Branching

entities

4.

Assigning

service

5. Queueing
servers.
7. Graphical
Monitoring

9.

Controlling

Listings

are

is

facility

entering

the

citizens

to

(distributions).

statistics

execution.
outbound

of

simulation
C-3.

network-event
shown in Appendix

concerned

different
passport
the
For

the status
of passengers
checking
foreign
the
of
admission
controls

with

country
and
the
country,

from
returning
nationals
in
separate
processed
are
hold.
Generally,
they

as
foreign

countries.

channels
they

first
the

category,

passport
it
may

stamping
include

and checking
issuance
of

visiting

permits.

Governmental

responsible

Operationally,

for

the

according

manning

to

type

passport
into
separated

conveniently
holders,
passport

are

service
While for

passport.

of
passports
marking
Normally,
passengers

as

well

channels;
national
(which,
holders
in turn,

examining

are

and

INWARD IMMIGRATION CONTROL

8.6.3
This

of

files,

entities,

on all

results.

combined

controls

official

files.

statistics

simulation

of

entities.

into

required

of

FUNCTION USERF).

and servers.
channels
times to activities.

represtation

8.

of

to

passengers

Collecting

6.

to

to TBC values

could
is
the

status
visas,
agencies

and

be furthur
second,

subdivided).

of

and validity
and granting
(immigration
of

foriegn

restricted
in addition

usually

and operation

of

to
to

passports,
appropriate

authorities)
facility.
this

facility
this
after
arrive
at
deboarding
the aircraft,
into channels
according
where they split
type
to
Beyond this
facility,
are
of
passport.
passengers
is
Service
having
the country.
officially
considered
as
entered
a
for
on
both
continuously
offered
channels
passengers

196.

first-come-first-served

basis.

distribution.

Exponential

values of which
the
arrival

vary

Service

Interarrival
to

according

the

from

times

are

drawn

times

are

Poisson,

fluctuation

but

demand,

of

an
the

kept
20-minute
constant
within
are
from
be
demand pattern
extracted
could
desired
during
throughputs
of
channel
periods

rates
Arrival

subintervals.
arrival
actual
operation.
logic

Processing
1.

Passengers

for

is:

facility

the

designated

in the
to the facility
immediately
by assigning
and are categorized
that would identify
to the arriving
passengers
This is done as follows;
type of passport.
from

arrive

distribution

a uniform

between

0 and

pattern,

value
an attribute
to
them according
a random
1 would

selection
define
the

to the percentage
value according
of each of the total
(
is
75%
demand
if
in
the
national
e.
g.,
actual
split
passengers
that
then selected
are
random values
passports,
and 25% foreign
(2)
0.25
be
less
than
value
of
would
an attribute
assigned

attribute

(foreign

passports),
would be assigned

0.25

words,
other
Monte-Carlo

method

other
(1),
of

random

values

passports

national
to

than

greater
).

passengers

In
by

are assigned
to
proportion.
according
a prespecified
to the
arriving
passenger
would be directed
values

channel.

For

2.

each

all

a value

attribute

Consequently,
designated

while

each

immediately

channel,
for
starts

if
the

the

is

server

free,

then

service

first

otherwise,
passenger,
arriving
If there are many
the passenger
would have to wait in the queue.
in a channel,
the passenger
servers
would choose the server with
least
number of passengers
queueing.
3.

If

is

laid

there
idle,

are

no passengers
first
otherwise,

(service
a duration
Exponential
distribution

for

particular

average

time)

waiting

in

passenger
is
that

a queue, then the server

in the queue is serviced
chosen from an
randomly

with
a mean value
time.
service

corresponding

to

the

197.

4.

After

completion
of
and the cycle

facility,

passenger.
Events associated
is

Simulation
modes

capabilities,

of

category
distinguish

corresponding
immigration

in

Figure

that
except
(ATRIB)
are

passengers
between
their

network-event
combined
to that
of the outbound
identify
the
that
attributes
types,

passports
Listing

channels.
simulation

to

assigned

is

to

passengers,
direct

and

a sample
shown in

of

model

all

the

of

to

them

inward
C-4.

Appendix

ARRIVALS CUSTOMSCONTROL

The function

of

this

facility

is

of items
by law. In

importation

to

control
taxation
or

to

customs and excise

prohibition
it also includes
control.
some occasions,
currency
facility
is the responsibility
of
of this
operation
subject

excise

8.4a.

SLAM's
using
in principles

similar

control

leaves
the
passenger
for
the
arriving
next

depicted

are

process

out

controls,

official

8.6.4

carried

again

starts

this

with

the

service,

Manning

and

customs

and

authorities.

Operationally,
hall,
claim

passengers
they
after

are

after

processed

with
reunited
(including
operation,
many countries
organize
the Dual-Channel
system,
where the facility
parts;

Red Channel,

for

are

passengers

however,

they

and spot-checking).

are

the

the
is

subject

To

U. K. ) implement
into

divided
to

to

two

declare

inspection,

to
who have nothing
interest
to
the

actually

baggage

baggage.

their

who have something

for taxation
or

to the customs authorities

and report
for passengers
and the Green Channel,
(theoretically,
they
are
not
of
authority,
inspection

leaving

declare
customs

occasional

198.

(1)

PAX 1

PAX 1

PAX 2

"' I

IEEC
ro

Io
-61

',tu

V)

Check

s-

NI

a ( as

tu'

>

c
0

Pas

SIMULATED

Q1

rI

L.
LE r

OQS

<IE

dIE

TIME

PAX 2v

QP55.
N(I

Npy,
Fp

ILI

I''
L
+

cygNN SS,
019

L,

Non-EEC

Passports; )

Check

SIMULATED
TIME

(a)

PAX 1

Inward

Events.

Processing

Immigration

PAX 2
IE
+0

Out of

IuE

System \(O

SIMULATED TIME)

+' Io
e
>
-cc

LI
L

Gam``
I customs

Fo

y9
titiF

01

IN

Check

S-

-c
I

IW
W

SIMULATED
TIME

(b)

Figure

8.4

Customs

Facility

Control

Processing

processing

Events

Events.

for

Arrivals.

199.

logic

customs is as follows:
demand
facility
in
1.
Passengers
to
the
arrive
a predetermined
interarrival
implied
Poisson
by
FUNCTION
USERF,
as
with
pattern

Servicing

the

times,
demand

but

for

values
arrival

subintervals.
Immediately
2.
passenger
decision
demand

of

to fluctuations
of
according
vary
20-minute
are kept
constant
within

which

rates

after

arrival,
through

would
go
is
based on- he
that
were observed

described

is

made of whether the

This
Green channels.

a decision
the Red or

in

actual
percentage
passengers
As
to have used either
channel.
is
this
assigning
out through
carried

previously,
values to

of

method according
passengers
using Monte-Carlo
Green Channel passengers
are considered
proportion.
left
the system,
in the, simulation
and no statistics
as having
(unless
through
for
it
to
takes
time
them
the
go
are collected
For
in the simulation).
is included
time)
the Channel (walking
is free,
then
if
Red Channel
passengers,
official
a customs
has
to
immediately,
the
passenger
commences
otherwise,
service

attribute
the specified

in

wait
3.

queue.
there

in

Red
the
queue
are no passengers
waiting
idle.
laid
is
(customs
then
the
Channel,
official)
server
first
for
the
the server
passenger
Otherwise,
will
start
service
is
(service
that
duration
time)
in the queue for
randomly
a
from an Exponential
distribution
of
a mean value
with
selected
the
4.

If

in

average service
After
completion
and the

facility,
Events

associated

Simulation
capabilities
immigration
considered
performed
facility,
Green

is

time
of

cycle
with

either

clearance.

passenger

starts
once again.
this
process are depicted

would
in

leave

Figure

the

8.4b.

the

mode
combined network-event
identical
to that
of
a way almost
for
Green Channel is
the fact
that
except
facility
a linking
where the only activity
using

as,
is
and time
consumed
time is
or that walking

Channel

customs

the

service,

carried
out
SLAM in
of

control,

for

observed

passengers

are

that

of

considered

virtually

walking

through

as negligible
the
of
out

the
hence

system.

200.

Passengers

through

going

in

the

Green Channel

hesitate

in

their

walk
Although

anticipation
of being
is a complex situation
this
that

assumption

would

where

situation,

stopped by customs officials.

to model,
one can make a simplifying
the operational
not effect
aspects
of the
time
is
certain
to the
period
assigned
Since
target
walk.
percentage
of Green

slow-down
passengers'
Channel passengers
is unobtainable,
stopped by customs officialsit can be assumed for simplicity
initially
that those passengers
the Red Channel.
The percentage
went through
of passengers
going
Red Channel
the
(whether
through
being
voluntarily
or after
stopped)
Listing
Appendix
It

from

made available

of
simulation
C-5.

model

the
of

airport
customs

be

that
the
noted
walking
are included
only in modelling
facilities
it
all
modelling
other

should
boundaries
in

is

practical

purposes

passenger
control

times

survey.
is

shown

within

customs control,
is
considered

in

facility
while
for

all

as negligible.

information
Amount of
in a standard
SLAM output
generated
report
is quite
depending
substantial,
simulation
on the particular
and
the requisites
and desires
of the user;
a typical
run would-be
at
least
20-40 pages.
However,
fraction
only
a small
of that
generated

information

models.
performance
information
required

8.7

STATISTICAL
is

gathered,

usually
In this

laboratory,
since

the

are collapsed

basically

from

can

an

one summary sheet.

experiment,

when, the
sense,

observations
and it should

user

into

CONSIDERATIONS IN SIMULATION

Simulation

conditions.
different

in constructing
would be normally
required
So simulation
outputs
are summarized and all

system

observations

where
is

tested
from

from
collected
always be treated
his experiment
self-design

observations
are
under different

are not
in a
an experiment
Moreover,
as such.
to obtain
specific
simulations

201.

output

data

thought

be necessary

to

answer pertinent
questions
to experience
more control

related
on the

describe

to

system and
he would then be able
In
of the experiment.

it,

to

'the

running

is similar
to
simulation
output
directly
from the actual
analysis
statistical
obtained
from simulations
observations
system. Therefore,
gathered
must be
independent
distributed,
statistically
so as to
and identically
have appropriate
inference
statistical
made about the operational
of the system(85).
performance
statistical

addition,

analysis
of data

So,

statistically,
in
relation
examined
1.

Inherent

of

analysis
of-the
to the following

aspects:

variability

associated
with
the activities
the model
and processes
it
it
is
designed
that
performs
what
here
interest
the
are:
sensitivity
in

be

output-should

simulation
simulation,

understanding

and verifying
simulates,
Issues
to perform.
of
to
output
of simulation

input

and
and -model parameters,
and the accuracyinherent
the
to
the
of
output
precision
with
-respect
nature
of the system.
probabilistic
Inferences
2.
about the performance
of the real system from the
its
the
simulation,
and
of
especially
simulation
of
validity
use

changes-

usefulness.

' This

statistical
in
Thus,

computations

statistical

obtained

outputs

of -the

from

the

variability
in

simulation
information

system

exactly
directly
from

and

viewed

and
the
the

is

stochasticity

stochasticity,

real

represents-only
efficiency

they

in'
as
collecting
manner
that
system. The fact
a single

a single
of

in

treated

same

run

record.

as if

and computations
and
system,
to those performed
similar
on data

time
represents
one sample
or
is no more bothersome
process,
thanthe

simulation

variables.
including

performance
information,
are

related

performing

real

analysis
made are
from the real
system.

Nevertheless,

stochastic
historic

describing

simulation,
all
generated
tables
and distribution
plots

were possible
statistical

involves

generation

time
of

series
fact

series(91).
'randomness

a
of
that an
As for
is

an

202.

issue

important

in

(i. e.,
block

devices

simulation,

where

random

streams

Basically,

because

numbers,

they

actually
different
tests

are

generation
as the basic

are used
features
of simulation.
known as pseudo-random

or sequences)
to reflect
the stochastic
better
random numbers are

building

number

deterministic

completely

they pass
Literature
on
of randomness.
although
is quite
this
subject
and it
can not be included
substantial
but generally
there
here,
are two basic methods of random number
Midsquare
Congruential
methods
method,
and the
generation;
(multiplicative,

mixed,

Before

and additive).
be thoroughly

their

random
that

use,

tested
and verified
is actually
independent,
statistically
testing
Literature
tests.
and
on
can
pass
randomness
random,
is
to Shannon(133).
extensive,
and one can refer
randomness
Hull and Dobell(193).
Fishman(192),
and a more detailed
source,
have been used to inspect
tests
Analytical
and empirical
and

should
number sequences
the resulting
sequence is

investigate
of

number
Serial,

be almost
could
where there
The most common tests
are:
Spectral,
Sums-of-digits,
Runs,

randomness,
tests(133).
Gap,

Autocorrelation,

Distance,

Order

Statistics,

unlimited
Frequency,
Poker,

and Latticed

tests.

are ten different

which
random number sequences,
its
different
tests
to
have
efficient
undergone
ensure
it
found
in
SLAM,
was
and
simulations
on
running
performance(91),
that using any one of the ten will
results.
similar
yield
In SLAM,

there

In experimentation,

it

is

the

main objective

of

statisticians

to

errors
when gathering
observations
associated
In
discrete
experiment.
an
sampling
errors
simulation,
are
with
in
the
when observations
are
condition
gathered
of
reduced
(steady-state).
Reaching
equilibrium
steady-state
statistical
depends on the initial
condition
of the system which
affects
sampling

minimize

length
input
rates
reach

of

simulation

run

needed

to

reach

steady-state,

and the

parameters,
where relative
values
of arrival
and service
directly
the amount of simulation
time
affect
needed to
before
However,
bypassing
transient-state
steady-state.

reaching

steady-state

may be

costly

and

impractical.

Although

203.

be reduced by gathering
observations
under
Taha(85)
indicated
it can also be
that
steady-state
conditions,
by taking
the average of these observations,
reduced even furthur
deviation
since the standard
of the average of (n) observations
sampling

is

1/

error

could

the
of
standard
Preferably,
the

deviation

observations.
objective
following
the
should
consider
error
the cost
Controlling
by
of simulation
limit,
runs to a reasonable
simulation
techniques
designed
specially
sampling
(variance
reduction
errors
methods).
techniques

of

sampling

minimizing

courses

of
the

reducing
or
to

individual

the

of

action:
length
of
improved

utilizing
reduce
Variance

statistical
reduction

are;
by using

Antithetic,
is
itself

(which

a random number and its complement

in two identical
a random number),
runs.
Common
for
random
number
streams
repeated
runs.
information
Prior
employing
analytically-deduced
results.
Pritsker
estimating
important

and
the
role

Pegden(91)
variance
in the

describe
the

of

various

sample

reliability

of

mean,

for

procedures
which

could
output.

simulation

play an
These

too
are
statistically
and mathematically
complicated
in this
they are:
advanced to be included
study,
Replication,
1.
employing
seperate
runs using different
random
number streams.
Subintervals,
2.
divided
into
where a single
run is
equal
(batches),
hence effects
subintervals
of transient
conditions

methods

would be eliminated-with
Regenerative
3.
cycles,
starts

when a specific
is made to that

return
Parametric
4.

running

Covariance/spectral

is
autocovariance
techniques.
analysis

into
a run is divided
of the system is reached,
the cycle ends.

where
state
state,

modelling,
from a simulation
is built
(simulated)
data values.
5.

time.
cycles

that

and when a

the output
where a model to describe
by fitting
to the observed
equation(s)

estimation,
deduced from the

where
sample

estimates

output

using

of

the

spectral

204.

From

discussion,

this

output

simulation

study,

analysis:
1.
Since
2.

techniques,

averages
simulation

all
The

of

fact

statistics

output,

that

conditions

non-attainement

of

averages,
is normally

3.

because
low

the

the

the

considered
fluctuation
of

interpreted

to

will

method

demand,

variable

issue

that

bias

those

transient-state

observations.

of

number

is actually
state,
in Section
8.6.

as

at

observations

total

made in
probably
fact
that
the

greatly

not

interest

of

reduced.

were
by

countered

of

number

subinterval

of transient

effects
facilities

is

are

are

observations

steady-state

compared

Indirectly,

the

going

errors

and
to

respect
with
for this
particular
into
such elaborate

observations

of

sampling

some of

transient-state

not

of

analysis

statistical

especially
However,

and covariance
estimation.
facts
justify
the following

variance

that

appears
certain
involve
sophisticated

could

analysis

mathematical

from

it

causing

the

of

elimination

of
used in the simulation
This is done to simulate

where
interarrival

the

specifically

important

arrival
during
times

demand

is

20-minute

subintervals.
A remaining

is

and needs

some

' a very sensitive

be a subject
debate
could
and raging
endless
of
Validation
is the
that
a
-arguement.
of establishing
process
between the simulation
desired
accuracy
or correspondence
exists
consideration,
that
issue

the

is

validity

of

simulation,

the approach to
simulation,
is
" We
than statistical.
validation
more philosophical
model
by which
is
that
the
believe
process
a model
constructed,
and implemented,
are inseparable
of one's theory
of
validated,
inquiry
".
This
following
and the
scientific
quotations
are

model

and the

Shannon's(133)
created

for

evaluated
means to
inferences

real

In

system(133).

views

on

this

issue.

"A

a specific
purpose,
and its
in terms of that
only
purpose.
develop
level
an
acceptable
drawn

and applicable

to

from

the

the

real

performance
world

of

system;

model

should

or
adequacy
To evaluate

only

be

validity

a model
that
confidence
of
the model are correct
concept

of

validation

205.

be

should

notions
increases,
level

".

that

and not one of either-or

one of degree
(i.
degree
the
e., validity)
of confidence
as
development
to a
also increase
costs (and value)
will
it would become inconvenient
to use.
and unattractive

considered
However,

This

dilemma,

into

the

between
the

will

process.
the model
be to

include

consequently
" What is

a measure of cost-benefit
correspondence
value
of true
How isomorphic
need
system?

the
life

and the real

be considered

If

the

consistently
in
bourne
that
out
results
or
reproduces
are.
problems
predicts
how
important
is it
that
the model be a true
and
practice,
Can a model be grossly
isomorphic
reflection
of the real system?
".
The answers to these questions
homomorphic and still
valid?
he
but
by
Shannon
define
approach,
might
a validation
raised
literature
dealing
"
Despite
that:
argues
extensive
admittedly
model

validation

with

adopt

validation?

the

problem

of

model

validating

simulation
is an
but it

as ever,
and elusive
So, what approach
avoid or push lightly
aside ".
in
implement
technique
to
simulation
and
what
it
Realizing
its
might seem
nature,
philosophical

models remains
issue we cannot
to

procedures,
as difficult

valid?

appropriate

to

researchers

deal

deal
with

with

the

scientific

problem
inquiry

in
in

the
its

same manner
broad general

pragmatic,
or empiric,
subjective
or objective,
rational
incorporates
that
Usually,
them
a multistage
all.
viewpoint
a
or
that
approach.
process
arises
adopts a utilitarian
verification
The stages are;
based
internal
the
the
Validation
upon
a
of
model
structure
of
knowledge,
theory,
which
past research,
and existing
priori
sense;

entails

looking

at each
building

of the
blocks

modeled to
simple
processes
are the best possible.
internal
hypothesis
in
the
used

ensure that their

Empirical
testing
the
of
of the model.
structure
Verify
the
to
the
behaviour
the
model's
ability
of
real
predict
in doing
It entails
system,
and its
world
usefulness
so.
input-output
by
transformations
the model
comparing
generated
highly
by the real
is
with those generated
and
world system,
to gaining
critical
user acceptance.
r

206.

'The three
derivation,

Throughout

this

approach.

The
of

process
so

were

to

of

evaluated

served
predict

required

simple

between

made

an assurance
predict

a very

the

real

the
that

followed
validation
investigated
first
and basic

behaviour
simulation

of

and

one,

this
(the

therefore,

Comparisons
tested.
and then
input-output
transformations
(which

observed
These
and common sense).

world

by experience

as a means

model
there

process.

is

structure

understand),

and those
or

the

simulation

is

servicing

continuously

comparisons
to
ability
to

research,
internal

difficult

generated,
in surveys,

give

throughout

philosophies

pragmatic

not

an interactive
manner throughout
and implementation,
where usually,
interplay
empiricist,
among rationalist,

a continuing

exists

in

stages occur
development,

the
of
is

are

either
of

verification
the

real

realistic

world.
and

the

model's

and
system,
be used
could

information.

;t

4-

4`

yF

ir

.-

s'r

,r

CHAPTERNINE

APPLICAT10NS0FMETH0D0L0GY

This

involves

chapter

practical

applications

including

methodology,

supporting
necessary
issues,
and findings.
East
applications:
Manchester

survey,

the

presentation
of
information,
discussions

of

practical

this

aspects,

on related
relevant
Contained
in this
chapter
are the following
Midlands
Panel
pilot
survey,
of Experts
Airport
Airport
case
study,
and Birmingham

study.

9.1

EAST MIDLANDS AIRPORT PILOT SURVEY

This

survey

situated
1983.

in
was conducted
about ten miles north

The

East

Midlands

East
of

Midlands

Airport,

Loughborough,

during

which is
September

is

that
airport
a small
regional
increase
in traffic
75 %
in recent years;
substantial
experienced
for
the
1978-83,
increase
1981-83
years
and 32 % between
It was specifically
for
alone(194).
chosen for the pilot
mainly
)The
its proximity
to LUT.
objective
survey
was to
of this
pilot
the
the
test
the
suitability
of
questionnaire,
reaction
of
it,
to
and to check the appropriateness
passengers
of the service
measures
intervals
information

used,

the

layout

of

questions

(especially

the
of
service
measure),
other
and
that needed to be examined beforehand.

graduation
supporting

of

208.

initial

After

the
negotiations
with
airport
management,
to enter airside
was granted
permission
and interview
passengers.
The plan was to approach passengers
lounge for
in the departure
leaving
departures
and after
customs for arrivals,
and conduct
interviews
However, only
with randomly selected
personal
samples.

departures

was found that it would be

difficult
for
the
to conduct
and
very
surveyor
interviews
they had left
with passengers
after
customs.
personal
they were anxious
The only thing
to do then was to meet friends
luggage
their
and get with
and relatives
out of the airport
terminal.
was actually

The passenger

It

considered.
inconvenient

traffic

the

of

East

Midlands

It

charter-tourist.
in the
category
for
chosen
was
during
weekends.
different

flights

departure

lounge.

to
therefore
was decided
A weekend day (Saturday,
pilot.
the survey,
because peaks at
Passengers

sample

size

65 %

about'

include

only this
September 17th)

the

occur
from
at
random
in the
waiting

selected
were
interviewed
while

and were
The target

is

Airport

airport

was set

as 20 to

25

samples.
The

used

questionnaire

segments:
PART I-

(shown

letter
a covering
information,
sample
The

information.

in
(

Appendix

introductory
and

introductory

PART

included

B-1)

explanatory
II-

service

three
note),
measure

contained
a
description
importance
the
of
and
nature,
of
objectives,
general
the grading
system to be used,
survey,
and an example of how to
PART
II.
information
PART I included
answering
about
specific
go
interviewed:
on passengers
age, sex, nationality,
preference
and
frequency
which

was

of

air

travel,
to

mainly

explanatory

and flight
facilitate

assessment

of

these

information,

categorization
PART II
attribute.

to some selective
according
with P-R model information,
namely,
to service
for
passengers
conditions
their
,

note

conditions.

the

purpose

of
population
basically
deals

judgement
personal
facilities,
different
the

of

of
and

209.

The

because
measure
chosen
awaiting
service,
was delay
delay
is the major
Hence
of congestion.
attribute
be used
it
is
directly
because
as the
yardstick

service

theoretically,
this

could

level

the

to

related
it
seemed

that

thus

not

could

emotive

what

ask
total

the

swift

change
beginning

Average

judge)

easily

to

but
the

useage of a processing
had difficulty
in
passengers

expression

passengers
to
then,

facility.

of

delay,

is
and it
it
actually

passengers
time they

very

to

interviewing

for
time
high taking

the

the

of
its

the

was quickly

took

survey

necessity

(and
is

an

of most
decided

minds

to,
perception
not
facility.
Fortunately,

each

altering
a major
part
of interviewing,
after

It

--.

their

in

in

clear

refers.

state
in
spent

comprehending
because
delay

probably

not

However,

delay,
this

place

at

was realized.

samples was 5.1 minutes.

account the characteristics

25

into
was relatively
the circumstances
of operation,
associated
with
conduct
interviews
the
to
required
number of.
and
his

with the target

frame allowed.

sample size
The parts

most

contributing

to

desired

of the
interviewing

the

surveys,
airport
the main survey
time
the definitie

and within

questionnaire
time were

found
the

to

be

introductory

For the first

and PART I.
most passengers
part,
Much more
the introductory
explanatory
note.
could not
the
time than expected was taken to answer all sorts of questions
(presumably)
itself.
the
asked
on
note
explanatory
passengers
This was evidently
the counter-productivity
awkward and indicated
As for
the second part,
part.
seemed
of this
many questions
explanatory

note
follow

irrelevant

to

therefore

the

purpose and objectives

to the
redundant
analysis.

of

the

survey,

and were

The facilities

covered

in

these

facilities,

departure
as well as for the overall
A. 1, A. 2, A. 3, and A. 4 show these models,
by
models,
service
standards
as percieved

this

pilot
check-in,
passport.
were:
to state
and security
control,
check. Passengers were interviewed
to service
in those facilities.
their
From information
perception
for each
P-R models were built
of PART II of the questionnaire,
of

processing,
respectively.

three

and Figures
From the

210.

the passengers
could
6.2.1.3,
in Section

be derived.

Employing

the

concept

explained
be set as

framework
a level
of service
could
in Table 9.1. The levels
in terms
framework
of this
are expressed
levels
the, good/tolerable
separating
of the time values
service
(T1), and the tolerable/bad
(T2).
levels
service

Table
Level

of

Service

Framework

9.1
for

Departing

Charter

Passengers

EAST MIDLANDS AIRPORT

Time Spent

in

Facility
P-R

FACILITY
TYPE

(Minutes
Model

rounded

to

nearest

half-minute)

Ti

T2

Good/Tolerable

Tolerable/Bad

Figure

No.

Check-In

Figure

A. 1

10.5

Passports

Figure

A. 2

7.0

11.5.

Security

Figure

A. 3

6.5

9.0

Figure

A. 4

25.0

42.0.

16.5

Overall
Departure

I-

Processing

Finally,

the

outcomes of this
pilot
were:
1.
Delay was not suitable
for use as the service
measure,
because it
is an emotive
that would be difficult
expression
to interpret
into figures.
most passengers
and transform
some of

mainly
for

211.

for

detailed
to

introductory

The

2.

have it

3.

purpose,

as concise

Many questions

redundant
to

useful

4.

its

of

and

time

the

surveyor.

Interviewing

difficult

to

PART I were

actually

and did

wasting,

They

unnecessary.

not

contain

mode of

administering
for arrivals.
especially

were
information

any

the

survey seemed
For departures,

the surveyor
with passengers
on the airside
This implied
that
welcomed by airport
authorities.
be
by
should
self-administred
replaced

always
interviewing

of

9.2

PANEL OF EXPERTS SURVEY

This

survey

appropriateness
It
was
surveys.

distributing

the

of

'experts',

so

participants.
airline-related
tour
operators,
In all,
panel.
European
airports

information

shown in

Appendix

operations
with airport
in a LUT departmental

as the total
Participants

sought

and testing

exploring

to
alternative
approach
during
October-December

an

questionnaire

personnel.

for

primarily

conducted

closely
associated
experts
handling,
who participated
Also,
October.
additional
by distributing
airports,

of

contacts.

was administered

the

type

when the

particularly
questionnaires,
does not necessitates
personal

representing

long
and
note
was too
be much more appropriate

explanatory
and it would

as possible.

as the
implement,

involvement

active
is not

and

replies

were

sought

number
were
Experts

and other
parties
included
the
panel
Middle
and
one

airport
authorities,
as shown in Table 9.2.

B-2 to

would

airport

and passenger
short course in
from

reach

European
to

seperately

questionnaires

passenger
1983,
by

at

other
least
20

airport-related
or
either
from governmental
agencies,
in the
were not represented
25

participants
Eastern
airport,

and 20 % representing

from
80
airlines,

14
%

212.

Table
in

Participation

AIRPORT-

Panel

Dublin
Midlands

Edinburgh
Rome

FiumicinoGatwickHeathrow-

London

Experts

Expert

Airline

27

11
-2

-1

-1
11

London

Survey

-1

-1

Lisbon

-2

Munich

-1

-1

-1

Zagreb

-1

Zurich

-1

TOTAL

20

Khalid-

Riyadh

Milan

Linate-

SchipholVantaa-

Amsterdam
Helsinki

The questionnaire
An introductory
1.

itself

improved

of
version
Service
PART I:

provide
PART II.

a 'reference

was composed of three

explanatory
that of the

note,
which
East Midlands

TOTAL

13

King

2.

of

Expert

Airport

Birmingham
East

9.2

25

segments:
is

more concise

and

pilot.

assessment for the participant's

datum'
and prepare
participants

to
airport
to answer

213.

3. PART II:

Service

throughput

annual

of

actually
it would

participants

That

million
different

own

conditions.
from this

to

get

the resulting
is based on the

airport
So,
to

only

with an
Since

airport

passengers.
in different
airports

is,

reply

his

with

two

around

represented
not be possible

countries,
using these airports.
because each
trivial
experience

a hypothetical

for

assessment

and

consistent
P-R models
expert's
its
with

results
would

be

personal
specific
P-R model

a consistent
kind of panel,
airport
was
a hypothetical
Participants
to consider.
all the participants
would
they are associated
then take the airports
with as a 'reference
then try to assess service
for the hypothetical
datum',
condition
opertaional
information
for
assumed

accordingly.

airport

included

Facilities

both

facilities
for

built

in

for

Figures

A. 11,

processing
and A. 12 are

inward

immigration,

arrival

processing

framework

for

A. 7, and A. 8 are P-R models

for
hypothetical
airport

this

security
facilities,

check,

P-R models
baggage claim,

on

be set.

control,
Figures

passport

respectively.
for arrivals
customs

and all
A. 9, A. 10,

for
at the airport
(Red. Channel),
and all

respectively.

those
It

the
processing
all
P-R models were then
hypothetical
two

A. 6,

facilities,

based
could

are
survey
and departures.

A. 5,

at

ticketing/check-in,

Furthermore,

this

arrivals
facilities

those

million-airport.
departures
for
departure

get

is

P-R models,
derived
from

level

experts'

of service
judgement
and

for
operational
and
service
conditions
a
As presented
in Table 9.3,
framework
this
airport.
(T1
in terms
is expressed
time
of delay
values
and T2) that
define
the three regions
of service:
and bad.
good, tolerable,

perception
hypothetical

of

The. main outcomes

survey were:

and conclusions

drawn from

the

panel

of

experts

214.

Table

9.3

Framework for Arrivals

and Departures
of Service
(2.0 Million
Annual Passengers)
Airport
Hypothetical

Level

in

Delay

(Minutes

Facility

FACILITY

P-R

TYPE

rounded

to

nearest

Ti

Model

half-minute)
T2
Tolerable/Bad

Figure

No.

Check-In

Figure

A. 5

6.5

11.0

Passports

Figure

A. 6

4.0

7.0

Security

Figure

A. 7

3.5

6.5

Figure

A. 8

17.0

26.0

Immigration

Figure

A. 9

7.0

11.0

Baggage Claim
Customs (Red)

Figure

A. 10

12.0

19.0

Figure

A. 11

6.0

11.0

Figure

A. 12

18.0

31.0

Good/Tolerable

DEPARTURES

All

Processing

Facilities
ARRIVALS

All

Processing

Facilities

1.

Although

delay

is

term

delay

the

considerable
service
was unclear

that
was put on explaining
that the
clear
used, it became quite
This fact
in the minds of experts.

emphasis

measure
even

deletion
delay
justified
the
that
the
of
concrete
evidence
gave
in
it
by
time
the,
total
a
spent
service
measure and replacing
as
for
facility,
P-R model information
all
collection,
subsequent
in
the main passenger
survey.
particularly

215.

Noticeable

2.

9.3

Table

conducted

were
only

due

Hence

it

results.
its

(with

to

the

fact

the

resulting
fact
the

important

Two

construction.
First,
variations.

consideration.
and homogenous

the

demonstrate

to

model

airport

in

variation
largely

that

service

standards

of

survey

was

this

that

alternative

to

aspects
contributed
a hypothetical
airport

would not
Secondly,

be expected

distinct

characteristics,

each

to

yield

participant

view

that

especially

this

points

approach

mentioned
is

when representation
are

participants
of

the

airports

associated

operational
'reference
the

with

conditions.
4. Information

quite

above should

service
of his

the
affect
feasible,

not

similar

operational

where
or group

airport,

a particular

in

consistent
took his own

applicable
and perfectly
in the panel is homogenous,
with

these
was

and unique
service
procedures,
conditions)
as
implied
datum',
that
which
each
participant
assessed
in terms
of the hypothetical
conditions
airport
of those

own.
3. Nevertheless,

P-R

to

approach

and service

procedures

PART I of the questionnaire:

service
assessment
because each reply
in analysis,
of own-airports,
was not included
In this
this
a particular
represented
airport.
sense,
part was
it was needed to
that
redundant,
virtually
except for the fact
'adaptation
level'
for the participants
an
establish
and prepare
PART II,
by considering
datum' for
them to complete
a 'reference
of

them to use.

9.3

MANCHESTERAIRPORT STUDY

Manchester

International

in
airport
independent

U. K.

It'serves

the metropolitan
Yorkshire
and
passengers

(after

airport
the north

in

(MIA),

Airport
Heathrow

(not

under

is

the

third

and Gatwick)
and
the British
Airports

the

largest
biggest

Authority).

conurbations
especially
of England,
South
Manchester,
Merseyside,
regions
of Greater
West Yorkshire.
5
MIA handled
million
around

1983,

western

with

an increase

of

49 % on 1978(194).

Plans

216.

under way to
are currently
by 1990(195,196),
annually
airport
MIA of

British

within-the
U. K.
total
7.9

1978 to

% in

capacity
following
the

9 million
passengers
importance
of the
rising
to

airport
where the
network,
has steadily
increased
from

traffic
1981,

bring

and to 8.3

% in

share of
6.5 % in

1983(104,194).

is typical
of a British
at the airport
airport
with
and 35 % schedule
around 65 % charter
regional
The
68/32 in 1981(104)
traffic
splitand 65/35 in 1983(194).
foreign
is
of
passengerscomparatively
residence
percentage
7%
in 1981,
including
EEC passengers.
low(195)non-British
9.1-9.3
is peaky
Traffic
MIA's traffic
Figures
portray
patterns;
being
August
the
to annual
in relation
throughput(195),
with

Characteristics

busiest

of

terminal
14 % of
annual
carrying
year
while February
carried
only 4 %. This could be seen
9.1,
traffic
at MIA as monthly
which
shows annual
for
terminal
departures,
arrivals,
and total

month

passengers,
in Figure
throughputs
passengers.
follows(195):

traffic

of

the

Relation

between

ARRIVALS

and

DEPARTURES

SBR

values

are

Peak

SBR

Peak

1980

1634

1226

1706

1294

2655

1963

1981

1668

1176

1408

1408

2527

2023

9.2

Figure

9.3

shows the busiest

1981,
from
of
which
period
Sunday
with
at weekends,
day,
peak
departures,

shows the

daily

Peak

SBR

as

TOTAL

YEAR

Figure

SBR

Peak

during
the peak
traffic
pattern
week
it could be seen that the peak occurs
day of the week.
being
the busiest
traffic
on the
pattern
of passenger

hourly
for
throughputs
arrivals,
presented
as
terminal
Two distinct
and total
passengers.
peaks are
(from
7 to 10 a. m. ),
a
morning
noticed:
peak
and an afternoon
(from
).
1
5
to
There is a less important
peak
p. m.
peak
evening
(from 8 to 10 p. m. ).

217.

a^ v

to
a
v

"r
.4.4-

cf)

-0

I--

/'

a
If

0
N
E-o
=o_
w

D
Q

O
CL
Cl-I
64
J

O
F-

C.'
W
I-

0c l

0-4
W
H
N
W

WZ

a
Qc

co

W
U.

G)
L

"r
LLQo0
o0
00
00
Cl

0
to

00000
00000
00000
00000

00000
kn

.rnr

S830N3SSVd 1VNIV4831

-aj

218.

II

M
V

i
d1

ax

4)
t0
a

li

"

L
F-

x
,A'"
..

..

2
1--

'`

N
6
W

Zc

G!
a

O
G.
CK
119
J

ZA
N

zwo
U)
zM1

.o

, _

N
W
D

F-

W
F-

-' `

wzzw

'

N
Z
0

"

W
H
N
W
U

z >74

1
1"
1
O
O
O
O
M1

Q1

n
n
U:
N

T
O
Op00
tri
N

Q
0f0
N

S830N3SSYd 1VNIW831

O
Y1

v
L
im
"r

LL

219.

N
V

C
W

ty

Sa)
+-'

ax

eo
a.

U,
N
U)

U
"r
FN-

JA
i

i
r
0
N

rc

x04co
Z

oc\l

0-0

r
w
0
92W

C6
tn
_Q

cl

woo

L0

W
I-

00,

o=

w
w
H-

wzx

wwa
In

40
e
J!

i
C)

0
vvQo0
'^
NN

in

00

Sa3ON3SSVdIVNIW2I31

"r

LL-

220.

In the

attempt

to

obtain

a suitable
MIA airport

for

environment

the

applying

methodology,
authority
was approached.
proposed
to have access to information
Subsequently,
approval
was granted
a
in Summer 1983 by Directorate
of Planning
survey conducted
of
departing
MIA to
of
explore
attitudes
of
and Development
to
to
to
try
the
terminal,
service
conditions
at
and
passengers
standards
at the
airport's
to
was immediately
exploited
(in
application
of the methodology

service

assess

opportunity
practical
for
a

real-world

condition.

questionnaire
self-administered
handed by survey assistants
to
the
building.
terminal
entering

This
first

the

conduct
its
two

procedures)
The survey
'
consisted
a
of
(shown in Appendix B-3),
that was
when
randomly selected
passengers
to
Passengers were then requested

and later
Information

questionnaire
answer- the
lounge or gates.
departure

facilities.

it
return
from this

in

while

survey
facilities

the

was used
of the

P-R models
for
the processing
construct
(i.
departure
channel
e., airlines
check-in,
and outbound official
1
So,
information
2
the
of
and
only
of
parts
controls).
were actually
used for that purpose.
questionnaire

to

have
the
examining
criticism
closely
certain
questionnaire,
it
its
in
the
of
which
some
on
aspects,
way
particularly
arisen
and structured:
was designed
is
delay
discussed
Again,
1.
and as previously
an
elsewhere,
to use as the service
unsuitable
measure.
emotive expression
is not technically
Statement
2.
of wait (delay)
at each facility

After

appropriate,
boxes was
somewhat
models
values.

because
not

crude

amount of wait'marked

well-graded,
P-R models.

might
not be
Specifically,

questionnaire
facilitate
the

the

so

(Appendix

which
Service
accurate,
certain
had
B-3)

would
levels

at the
eventually

top

of
lead

the
to

from such
extracted
for
upper range
especially
MIAA
on
clarifications
to

be

made

in

order

proper construction
of P-R models;
is
(0-1)
NEGLIGIBLE,
the
0.5
region
minute,
with median =
(1-5)
is
THAN
5,
3.0
the
region
median
=
minutes,
with
--LESS
10,
TO
has
7.5
a
median
=
-5

to

221.

THAN
MORE
10,
is
(10-15)
the
region
minutes,
with median = 12.5
as
100
%
(0)
found
delay
passengers
good service
conditions,
found and graded (0) delay
and 0% passengers
as bad service
conditions.
%
100
found
passengers
and graded delay of more than 15 minutes
(with median of 20) as bad service,
while 0% of the passengers
surveyed found that delay as good or tolerable.
It was apparent
3.
from the way the questionnaire
was worded,
the prime
that
purpose
to compare
of this
survey
was mainly
(any airport
at MIA with
service
other
airports
regardless
of
demand
of
and irrespective
nature
of operational
characteristics
of that particular
airport).
it might not seem so obvious,
4. Although
the underlying
tendency
in designing
this
in terms of
its
questionnaire,
wording
and
layout,
lead responding
general
to concentrate
passengers
on
lower ranges of the P-R models with
thus leaving
short delays,
upper ranges with
improper
graduation

delays

and layout
inconsistencies
in

in

some
framework.

9.3.1

longer

P-R

This fact
open.
of the delay scale,
level
establishing
-

combined
would
of

with
result

service

MODELS

The

features
the questionnaire
aforementioned
had certain
of
implications
on accuracy
P-R
and overall
quality
of the resulting
Nevertheless,
framework
for
models.
the
a level
of service
facilities
processing
of the departure
channel
at they airport
be conveniently
based
could
established,
on these
models.
Facilities
official
haul,

included
controls,

were airline
both broken

flight

check-in,

and outbound

down into:

schedule-long
charter,
A. 13-18).
Figure
A. 19 shows

(Figures
and schedule-European
P-R model for total
departing
passengers
outbound
going through
A point
official
controls.
here is that
the
worth mentioning
for
sample size
did comply with
limits
various
categories
set
in Section
7.8.
earlier

222.

framework
that would be
summarizes the level
of service
from the P-R models,
in terms of lower' (T1) and
derived
stated
(T2)
limits
(i. e.,
on delay for the middle
upper
service
region
limit
Ti represents
level,
on delay for
good/tolerable
service
limit
T2 represents`
for
tolerable/bad
on delay
while
service
level),
half-minute.
all rounded to the nearest
Table

9.4

level

Generally,

of

framework

service

shown in
behavioural

and reflects
anticipated
reasonable,
of these categories.
of the passengers
in outbound
passengers
schedule-European
upper

range

of

service

In

9.4

seems

characteristics
in the case

of
(the

official
controls
(T2)),
where
generally,

business
trips,
passengers,
mostly
on
-being
of long delays than other passengers.

schedule-European
much less tolerant

9.3.2

standards

Except

Table

are

PERFORMANCEMODELS

order

to

consideration,

build

performance
description
of

based

presented,
International

the

Airport

on

information
Authority

facilities
models for
is
facilities
those
reports,

Manchester

from

extracted
or

under
first

through

personal

observations.
FLIGHT CHECK-IN

1. AIRLINE',
According

to

a MIAA report(197),
the airlines
during

to
available
two handling
agents;
Airwaysthe
British
to
service
provided
Schedule-European
-

Service

Air-

40 check-in
desks
divided
between
1982,
equally
handling
the local
agent,
and
there

were

handling
national
agent. The handling
the following
categories
of flights:
(medium haul).

Transatlantic
intercontinental
(schedule-long
and
charters
(Inclusive
European
Tours).
Common
Travel
Area.
Domestic.
-

haul).

agents

223.

Table
Level

Framework

Service

of

9.4
for

Channel

Departure

MANCHESTERINTERNATIONAL AIRPORT
Delay

in

Facility

FACILITY

P-R

TYPE
A.

(Minutes

rounded

Model

to

nearest

T1

half-minute)
T2

Figure

No.

Figure

A. 13

3.0

14.0

Figure

A. 14

2.5

13.0

Good/Tolerable

Tolerable/Bad

CHARTER I. T.:

Check-in
Outbound)
Official!

controls
B. SCHEDULE-LONG HAUL:
Check-in

..

Figure

A. 15

2.5

13.5

Figure

A. 16

2.0

8.0

Figure

A. 17

2.0

9.0

Figure

A. 18

1.5

8.5

2.0

13.0

Outbound)
OfficialIControlsi
C. SCHEDULE-EUROPEAN:
Check-in
Outbound
OfficiallControls
D. TOTAL DEPARTING PASSENGERS:
Outbound)
Official)-.
Controls

Figure

A. 19

224.

However,
flight

Those

international

only

sectors
could
input
parameters,

fundamental

was included

traffic
e readily

in

this

study.
by the two

characterized

distribution,

arrival

and service

distribution.

times

distribution:

Arrival

For

flight

the
category,
facilities
airport.

particular

distribution
to
arrival
of
passengers
(especially
for departures,
facility
check-in
which is the first
terminal
which 'passengers
the
in
to
-is"'
of
prime
report)
Arrival
distribution
importance.
the
could
effectively
-portray
has a
It
behaviour
flights.
of passengers
on differtent
also
influence
(including
distinct
on operational,
characteristics
because
demand
it actually
the time-varying
capacity),
reflects
facilities.

terminal

on
distributions

of

categories

Figure

international
of
flights
considered,

9.4

shows
for
passengers

to

the

arrival
the
three

behaviour
and their
lounge,
the departure

with

arrival
and
at check-in,
at
for
(gates).
the pier
As- described
arrival
earlier,
distributions
interpreted
the simulation
are effectively
within
(times,
by
defining
between
interarrival
times
values
of
process
respect
leaving

interval..
for
that would
20-minute
time
of
entities)
each
creation
in
the
for
distribution
particular
consideration
arrival
resemble
the check-in
facility
is open and operational.
the whole period
Service
are

times:

difficult

In
to

practical
determine,

handling

categories,

service
check-in
when different

situations,

agents

especially
(and
corresponding

facilities,

and group sizes are included.

procedures),
there
are certain
constriants
stemming from restrictions
in terminals.
Furthermore,
collection
on information
information
According
for

shows considerable
to MIAA(195),
service

check-in,
1981 `were

for

the

three

variations
times per
flight

between
passenger

categories

as

times
flight

operational
Initially,
placed

available
those
times.
(in

seconds)
in
recorded

225.
BEHAVIOUROF INTERNATIONAL I. T. PAX

100
90
80
70

x 60

50

4e
30
20
10
"3HRS

-2HRS

"IHR

STD

SHORTHAULPAX
SCHEDULED
BEHAVIOUR
OF INTERNATIONAL

100
90

so
20
x 60
50
40
30
20

to
-3HRS

-2HRS

"IHR

STD

BEHAVIOUROF INTERNATIONAL LONGHAUL PAX

100

-
a-fl
10 XK

ARRIVE AT AIRPOPT
ENTERDEP.LOUNGE
LEAVE TO PIER

80

70
60

50
40
30

20

10
HRS

Figure

9.4

"2HRS

-IHR

STD

MANCHESTERINTERNATIONAL AIRPORT- International

Passengers

Movements

Patterns.

226.

Flight

handling

National

category
Schedule-European
haul

Schedule-long
I. T.

Charter

YEAR

handling
82

62

67

54

60

in

handling

National

Local

77

MIAA report(197),
another
the charter
I. T. sector

However,
times for

agent

gave the following

1982 and 1983;
agent

Local

56

37

1983

41

27

time

service

values
because

per

passenger

service

handling

1982

Moreover,

agent

in

group

agent

vary
in the

to group size,
only one person
normally
according
facility
for
the
transactions
would
who
at
perform
required
group
in groups
Service
times per passenger
all members of the group.
sizes
and definitely
are bound to be different,
of different
Figure

non-linear.
handling
local

this

demonstrates
and the
in
passengers
sizes

Although

agent
fact

for the
which is based on information
Table
9.5,
from
MIA
at
extracted
between group
by comparing
the variation

corresponding
a group,

service

times

per

group,

as well

as

separately.

with
simulations
could have been achieved
if frequency
distributions
of group sizes
results,
the
to check-in
nevertheless,
was made available,
times that would be used in simulations
of service

more accurate

more realistic
for=arrivals
final

9.5,

values

This was accomplished

9.5.
as averages from Figure
for
the average
the
time
service
per passenger
Average group sizes were: 1.63
average group size in each sector.
for
2.18 for
I. T.,
for
schedule-European,
charter
and 2.30

were. obtained
by determining

schedule-long
So,
pieces
logical

service
of

haul(197).
times

actually
information
that

assumptions

used in

could
and as follows:

simulations
were based on all
be made available
some
with

227.
+-)

U)

O
iO

E
IE

-Cl)
C

Scl)
Qm

GJ
N
J)

y 7I ~ I
V

FI

0-

tl

Y
9t

I
1I
I

3"M

411

S0

dX
GX

N
a
z

I
0

OM

a)
c

W
".

VI

cn za .-!
N
:
)
12.4
dx ii
O ou
ZZ

nt

C7

5a
N

E4

WW~

or

O
GL
ix

loo

-Il

$s22s22

It

s2A

'": / dnou9 " a39N3SSVd

d 3ML 33M]S 39vsuv
'

"r-

aax
H

wwx

O
F-

U
QJ
.C
U

CI f! ) U

In

W
F0-4

Q1
"r.

lL
W
H
V)
W
2
U
Q

i
r, z lI
1 %s

ytl

,,

c9

.I

."

rn

kl

U,
N

=1
aX

a)
L
rn

F+ i
r

"r
LL
DO=Ot
eee
ZYe

02
e2

+f /e no

jid

00
e7

02
e

yRl

rA%43S

OO
o

"

CJ
"r.
I"r
Q

228.

I. T. service
distributed
exponentially

CHARTER

times
with

per

passenger
a mean that ranges

are
negative
between 0.60 to

0.73

minute per passenger.

SCHEDULE/EUROPEAN- service
times
per
passenger
are
negative
distributed
exponentially
with a mean that ranges between 0.66 to
0.83 minute per passenger.
SCHEDULE/LONG HAUL- service
times
per passenger
are negative
distributed
0.73
a mean of
exponentially
with
per
minute
passenger.

Table
Service

Times

for

Airlines

9.5
Flight

Facilities

Check-In

MANCHESTERINTERNATIONAL AIRPORT

Mean Service

Times for

HANDLING AGENTI
11
GROUP SIZE

Groups

of

National
2345

(seconds)

Passengers

6(

Local
1234561

FLIGHT TYPE

III
Domestic(&CTA)I 83
Sch. -European 191
Sch. -long haul 1150
1105
Charter I. T.

After

specifying
(i.
e.,
process

are better

the

main input
distributions,

arrival
which in the

serversruns are made for

because
check-in,

of

131 175 257 373 - 159

97 130 160 342 -I
126 175 240 373 - 175
86 97 140 184 -I
169 187 251 275 3501 99 101 105 131 161 1971
113 146 183 269 3551 78 79 99 122 147 1571

parameters
service
is
check-in

to

the
times,

simulation
and number

case of
simulation
one),
demand levels.
flight
For airline
varying
it is a batch-oriented
demand levels
facility,
in terms of number of passengers
expressed
on flights.

229.

(delay).
is
Maximum queue
The main service
time
measure
waiting
is also included
length
service
which
measure,
as an auxilliary
to architects
and
could prove to be very useful,
particularly
designers,
to the physical
facility
because it is more relevant
design

of

the

facility,

since

it

requirementsspace
need
to
accommodate
counters
maximum
space

without

affecting

operational

in

assist

would
be
to

provided

number

of

determining
in

front

of

passengers

waiting

standards.

for
9.6-9.8
in
Figures
The resulting
performance
models are shown
from
flight
These
the three
constructed
are
categories.
models
for
the
data
from
whole
runs
synthesized
generated
simulation
the
demand
demand
levels-for
of
pattern
of,
range
specific
particular

sector.

this
methodology
of
significance
and,
usefulness
".
by the concluding
service
step of applying
could be demonstrated
derived
by means of P-R models
onto the
previously
standards
{
airline{
facilities
that
For
flight
models.
check-in
performance
Finally,

are

the

by

operated

the

local

the

resulting
summarizes
demand levels
different

'handling
levels

agent
of

as delineated

at

Table

MIA,

operational
by service

service

9.6
for

that
standards
Figures
the airport.
of
in light
of operating

perceived-by
are actually
passengers
at
Table 9.6 seems reasonable
and realistic
in
the airport.
that
actually
existed
conditions
and prevailed
for
the three
be
Thus,
conditions
good
opertaing
could
gradedas
(in
1983) for these
Since
flight
levels
demand
categories.
actual
sectors

were

to
close
long
haul

those
flights

indicated,

with

the

probable

use wide-body
which
normally
flights.
length
those
Maximum
on
values
seem
aircrafts
queue
keeping-in
do not necessarily
reasonable,
mind that values stated
to passengers
but rather
refer
actually
passengers
queueing,
in queue.
close by with only group leaders
waiting
waiting
exception

of

230.

U)
g

cn
=
w

L
O
9-

E o
w

>

0-4
cn

Z
0-4

N)
N
O

a)
U

1.4

b
E

eo
0

\`

e '

CQ

U
""

VI
_

sw

"5

I
a)
-o
0

o)

O
'4L

c)

,s
fO'

w
7

O
+

QSQOrf
KLON31

rWO

N
N

L)

Lj

L)
W

p
'"

O
r-
F-

Li

eic
w

L)

x
C7

>
Z

LLJ

C/)

V ;
O
O

F
F

f
N
j"

N
w
2
U

r
w

I)

^"

ko

CO
O'

C
C

Si

s I

e I

I sI
I

rn
g

0)
i

"r

LJ_
i:

1:

22

, nw / 3n MUM

Mra3nv

c
i
Y
c,
C)
t
U

231.

CL

0
L
w

a)

a)
U

V)

PL-4
C)

L
'

W
I 1

"

MS

tom)
cq

W
a'

O
O

r-.
a
e

OO

"a.

O
O

%
%

04

O I O'

O.

V1

`"

""

w
OOO

5i.11-

oO

U
C
ep
E
O
w
L
G)

I_.
c
j.

a)

pQ

4-

OO

1
4
mq

KLON31

NOW
^`M

Tii 1

O
O

SL.ITV

Ln

E--4
W
I
A

H>

z
i!
)
w

I IN
.
H I I %I A
--

w
I--

11

-r

w
w
H
N

"r

(r)

1"
1
0

2
V

w
t

cif

:p4-4

'41

..

rn

0Of

C, JI 1

"

e
i

L: : : : : : : :: :
0

++/ 714u DrwVM 3V

3AV

i te

Y
U

Q1

LL.

232.

0
J
GJ

QJ

&"r

t-)
N

e
w
a

L
O
4-

_
a

W
x

Fj
h0

A
w
A
.

C)

O
O

a
U

Q
Z

O
Q

CD

X
W

fo
E
s. '
O.
'4L
CJ

e
Qiw
z.

o
"

o.

ee
w

ew

NLON313n3t1D Xvn

W
U
E-0

`''

O
H

W
H

w
N

V)

0-1
w
1-N
w

S
U

N
Z

Z
.

O
1A''

00

rn
a)
i

Q)
"r

LL
nww

wei

cQ

+1!
W / YI. L 9M1nM 39ra3AV

c
"r
Y
U
CJ
-C
V

233.

Table
Levels

Operational

of

9.6
for

Service

Airline

Flight

Check-in

MANCHESTERINTERNATIONAL AIRPORT
I CHARTER

LEVEL OF

SERVICE

SERVICE
G

MEASURE

Demand Level*
Delay (min. )

Max Passengers

0"

Waiting

SCHE

DULE

I. T.

LONG HAUL

EUROPEAN

130#

150

70#

3.0

2.5

10

260#

2.0
10

10

TOLERABLE
B

Demand level*

Delay

Max Passengers)

(min. )

14.0

Waiting
*-

In Passengers

#- Average

value

performance

corresponding

2. OUTBOUNDOFFICIAL

to

capacity
passengers
units

were

9 million
handling
upgraded

the

two service

time

curves

plans
by 1990,

facilities

to

bring

the

airport's

simulations

times
were;

for

the

in early
and transformed
an hourly
capacity
ranging
X-ray
conveyorized
and

outbound

annual

several
changes on
necessitated
Security
of the airport.
check
1982 from
from

a manual
1400 to 2000

Magnometer

with an estimated
capacity
nominal
the number of passport
to 2400 passengers
per hour. Also,
(however,
4
to
3 were
was
raised
only
counters
then).
operational
Service

in

model.

system with
to
a
passengers
4
of
units
comprising
search

30

42

CONTROLS

MIAA(195),

to

According

9.0

13.5

60

on Flights.
of demand for

140#

260

official

controls

as

system
of 1800
control
normally

used

in

234.

SECURITY CHECK- processing

times
(0.10-0.13)
minute
per passenger,
times

mean processing

system,

chosen.
PASSPORTSCONTROL- for

this

of

between
each unit
ranged
being a newly introduced
so,
0.13 minutes
was
per passenger
for

facility,

governmental

because
obtain,
with confidentiality.
such information
to

difficult
with

airport

a mean service

checks,

was more
treat
normally

agencies
However, after

discussions

and discrete

by limited
supplemented
time of (0.12)
minute

personnel,

times

processing

per

spot

passenger

was

chosen.
Facilities

the

of

batch-oriented
:
passengers.
facilities

outbound

check-in,
In
this

are
sense,
follow

essentially

departure

channel.

patterns

(and

Since

the
unlike
controls,
.,
flow
to continuous
of
distribution
to
these

official
subjected

arrival
the fluctuations

departure

of

throughputs

demand on the
MIA had showed

at
(Figure
looking
two peaks
9.3),
two-peak
pattern
at those
a
a
for
and
each,
constructing'.
would
model
separately
performance
s.
help in examining
the-performance
under different
of facilities
But considering
whole-day
conditions-'more
accurately.
operational
significantly,

results
either
peak

In

situation.
of

simulations
+":

respective

flow
is

period

performance
because
the
Figure
9.9,

through
divided

not change
would
in
is, consistant

models)
process
which

outbound official
into
20-minute

is

based

MIA

on

each
controls(196),
intervals,
and the
It
the simulations.

''times
in
are then included
corresponding
here that
be noted
the, security
check
since
precedes
should
T.,
is
the
distribution
control,
assigned
arrival
only to
passport
is
Arrival
check.
of passengers
control
security
at passport
initiated
by the simulation
: assigned
automatically
model as the
distribution
from security,
`departure
and as such it is implicit
within
Figures

the

9.10

and afternoon
nature

process.

of

and 9.11

show the

peaks respectively.
facility,
this
the

performance
Because
demand

models

for

the

morning

of the continuous-flow
in the
level
model

is

235.

O
L
4-3
C
O

b
V
(I4O

C
O
.a
N

0
O
L

E--4
g4 C

I--

L)

M'1

L.
fir{) CO
V

HI

Fix
O
a

CO

hol0)
w

0. -0

C)

in
J

44
0

w CO)

O
r-

LL
W
F.r-

W
IN
W

wU)

zx
d
L
Q1
OO

OOOOOOO

OOO
C4

co

OOO
4n

S830N3SSVd IVNIP1831

C4

Li-

236.

r"
"r
U
. rto4CD

0
2

.0

%bN
,

1.9

ti

O
L.
0
9-

4!
"0
0

0-4

Q
0-4

C)
U

1=-

La

CL

; 7+
W
E-+ O L \

I'1 Ic

V,
U

0-4

pq W

o
4L
G)
d

YL

cr.

P i ,
21
31
r-

F--

a,
Sk 1 i

92

"
ww

O
d

C
M
E
S-

"

V
z

Z
O

.Y
(0

F-

G.

C1

e
20

W
1ZL,
-+

W
c

v74

"r
C
0

Cy

Z
W

N
Fcr

LAJ

cr
n

W
FN

CL
V) N

W0
ZL
L)
ZC

to

4..)
0

O
I01

a
L
LL.

y!M+/ 7u -OWVVA77YCAV

'

MANCHESTER INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT - AFTERNOON PEAK

PERFORMANCE MODEL for OUTBOUND OFFICIAL CONTROLS
SECURITYCHECK:4 UNITS - SERVICETIMES/ EXPONENTIAL0.13
PASSPORTSCONTROL:3 SERVERS- SERVICETIMES/ EXPONENTIAL0.12

Legend

""

MAX G-L IN SECURITY

MAX

-L IM PASSPORTS

iN

7N

Of

IN

"

"
N"

VOWM / PAXper HOUR

DEMANDLEVEL- AVERAGED

Figure

9.11

is

MANCHESTER INTERNATIONAL

Controls

(Afternoon

Peak).

IN

'1N

6041

" N7

110
6

"0 "N

1
,9
fl "i.,1 1111

GOIAHDLEVEL- AVERAGED
tloup i/

AIRPORT-

Performance

110"q

PAXpK HOUR

Model

for

I N

MI

Outbound

Official
N

238.

volume (in
Equally,

as an average

expressed
in
period
expressed

consideration.
in
terms

of

specific

shape

pattern,

passengers
per
demand level

hour)

over

the

also be
could
introducing
by

hour
demand,
peak
facilitate
demand
the
that
of
conversion
would
ratio
peak/average
in
to
demand
the
peak
consideration,
volume
over
period
average
is
demand pattern
demand volume.
Since
the
hour
controlled
(SI)
to
Index
by
Simulation
the
the
a
retain
throughout
procedure
and

this

indirectly

will
or

kept

to

the

retain

a narrow
within
showed that peak/average
between
ranged
runs
simulation
for
(2.03-2.11)
afternoon-peak
while
with
an average
of 2.07,
1.88.
(1.85-1.93)
it
between
of
average
an
ranged
with
runs
volume

as constant
ratio
Simulation
output

peak/average
margin of variation.
for
the
morning-peak
ratio

of the service
standards
information
in
contained

Application
yields
levels

the
of

measures

operational
indicated,
that

passengers,

delay

of
values
Table 9.4).
in

Keeping
official
around
airport
those

mind

service
in light

that

by

specified
information
contained

consistent

that

observations
realized,
tolerence.

in

delineated

and 9.8

times

through

flow

the
the

of passengers
international
pier

departing
peak

hour

passenger

should

conditions
airport
be
could
arise,

be regarded

the

are
then,

the

and
fact

to
This

realistic.

bound to

estimations
This
verified.

statistically
and any inconsistencies

in

MIA represents
throughputs
at the

authority.
airport
in Tables
9.7 and 9.8 is
for
operational
obtained

are

outbound

seems comparable
Generally,

values

the

some inconsistencies
basically
were

terms

model
The
.
of the

by
perceived
standards
from P-R models (i. e.,
in
those
contained
are

at
situation
with
actual
prevailing
indicate
that
operational
service

and also
However,
'Good'.
service

values

Tables

service
derived

of

were previously
in Tables
9.7

and to
controls
70 % of the total
(for
all
piers),

suggests

are

performance
9.7 and 9.8.

graded
because

actual
be
should

not

with

some

239.

9.7

Table
Levels

of

Operational

for

Service

MANCHESTER INTERNATIONAL

Outbound

Official

AIRPORT /

Morning

LEVEL OF

SERVICE

ICHARTERI SCHEDULEI

SERVICE

MEASURE

I. T.

Controls
Peak

TOTAL

IEUROPEANILONG HAULIPASSENGERS

Demand Level:
G

800

750

770

770

1656

1553

1594

1594

2.5

1.5

2.0

2.0

Volume*

-Average
-Peak Hour

0
)

Delay(min.
0
Max.
D

Passengers:

I..
15

10

13

13

65

45

50

50

1020

940

920

1020

2111

1946

1904

2111

13.0

8.5

8.0

13.0

-Security

-Passports
TOLERABLE
Demand Level:
Volume*

-Average
Hour
-Peak

Delay(min.

Max.

Passengers:
90

50

45

90

150

120

110

150

-Security
-Passports
*-

In Passengers

per

hour

for

the

peak period.

240.

9.8

Table
Levels

of

Operational

for

Service

MANCHESTER INTERNATIONAL

Outbound

AI RPORT /

Afternoon

ICHARTERI SCHED

LEVEL OF

SERVICE

SERVICE

MEASURE

I. T.

Official

ULEI

Controls
Peak

TOTAL

IEUROPEANILONG HAULIPASSENGERS

Demand Level:
G

Volume*

-Average
hour
-Peak

850

800

820

820

1598

1504

1542

1542

2.5

1.5

2.0

2.0

0
)

Delay(min.

0
D

Max. Passengers:

-Security

10

70

50

60

60

11080

980

1000

1080

12030

1842

1880

2030

113.0

8.5

8.0

13.0

-Passports
TOLERABLE

Demand Level:
Volume*

*-

-Average
hour
-Peak

Delay(min.

Max. Passengers:

-Security

58

40

45

58

-Pasports

220

170

180

220

In Passengers

per

hour

for

the

peak period.

241.

BIRMINGHAM AIRPORT STUDY

9.4

Birmingham

International

outskirts

of

to

connections
9.12.
Figure
with

its

the

formal

Britain's

Midlands

Central

of

counties

BirminghamWest

the

serves

(BHX),

Airport

Metropolitan

is

located

on the

largest
second
Region
and

eastern
and

city,

neighbouring

Wales,
excellent
and northern
with
land transport
as seen in
network
it is a 45-year
airport
old pre-war

England

the

national
Historically,

building
old terminal
still
standing
as an architectural
In contrast,
design of that era.
the
of airport
monument typical
(including
facilities,
terminal
and
complex
access,
parking
new
facilities)
1984,
into
4th
April
while
was
on
put
operation
other
Royal

inauguration

took

place

on May 30th.
handled

CAA statistics(194),
Birmingham Airport
in 1983,
in 1978 and 1.56 million
passengers
to

According

1.31

increase
an
million
U. K.
in passenger
traffic
of 19.5 %. The share of BHX of total
traffic
stands at 2.6 %. Since the opening of the new facilities,
with

reorganization,
These
upgraded.

complete
administrative
have
been
services
substantially
operational
initiate
improvements
to
were anticipated
Airport's
Birmingham
increase
share of U. K.
accompanied

be
Britain's
BHX
will
when
traffic
at the airport
are
British
airports,
regional
traffic.

schedule
percentage
Again,
British
Specifically,
the

international

regional
the

airport
last
two

week are the

and as Figure
weekend-days:

these

of

of

other
of
that

percentage
indicated

1981

and

1983

56/44

traffic.,

pattern

year,

many ways to
with
a higher

CAA

traffic

annual

Characteristics

in

statistics(194)
split
was in

and
growth
(especially

traffic

Freeport).

similar
but

traffic

charter/schedule
of

first

traffic

BHX (Figure

at

mid-summer
weeks of July

9.14

9.13),

shows typical
behaviour.
peaking
is

peak period
days of
busiest

the
reveals,
Saturday
and Sunday.

show some resemblance

patterns
9.15 shows peak hourly
pattern

to
of

that

the

BHX daily

of Manchester's.
its
departures,
with

of
the

traffic
Figure
two-peak

242.

Figure

9.12

Birmingham

International

Airport-

Geographic

Location.

243.

L
G)

+J
cc
Cl-

ax

cz

115

.49I.-

to

CD mCri
l*

CP

%4

w
0

CD

.
d

Zo

I -tx
W

70
oc

ZE

CD
M

51

1'

"'

CD
OOGOOCOOOOO
OOOOOOOOOOO
NO^
N
ry

:0

IM

OO

Sa3ON3SSVd IYN1 M83.1

1O

IM

C)
I"1

LJ_

244.

sI

M
t

y
v

tf

L
41
4-3
4-3

at
J

aX

>

..

U
"r44-

L
F-

r
G!

. wx

cj

dCo

a.

Co

<

7m w

ZA

c-

<
W

I--

zwa

zw

r
,
r-+

E
r-r
m

zw

q:t

07

aw

a)
L

LU..

00000000
000000000

o_

o0
co

000,
LO

In

o00o

S830N3SSVd IVNIW831

0 in
wl

245.

Figure

behaviour.
less

a
with
(however,

9.16

is

the

representative

for

for arrivals,
peak hourly
pattern
behaviour
that
peaks
shows two
is

pattern
arrivals
peaking
purposes,
between the two
because the trough
as single-peaked,
considered
is
it
had
most probably
peaks
comparatively
narrow,
and
appearing
6-7
from
for
indicated
day
So,
BHX
the
are
peaks
only).
occurred
for
(afternoon
(morning
1-5
from
peak)
peak)
and
p. m.
a. m.
analysis

and from

departures,

1-7

p. m. for

to the administrative
Prior
development
programme at the

arrivals.
following

reorganization

of

availability
and financial

airport,

the recent
information

was,
aspects
operational,
limited
The-absence
of an active
very
and
scarce.
unfortunately,
handling
body
for
of
and
collection
responsible
and efficient
data,
contributed
greatly
operational,
and
statistical
planning,

on

various

to

that

planning,

situation,

other

undertake

sources

of

on BHX.

information
In

for

looking

and necessitated

of
an -opportunity
implementation
of

pursuit

to
the

total

and
BHX

methodology,
initiated
were
was contacted
and negotiations
in
in
study
to have their
a
conducting
approval
and cooperation
Eventually,
was
agreement
the new terminal
of the
airport.
departures
for
to
at
and
a
run
passenger
survey
arrivals
reached
The Airport
during
the peak period
the airport
of summer 1984.
furnish
to grant
the
to
Authority
airport
and
approved
access

comprehensive
Authority
Airport

whatever

information

Preperations
as

the

got

major

application.
to

underway

to

the
part
of
Subsequently,
and

experience,

that

needed

lessons

proposed

could

be made available.

carry
on with
demonstration

BHX Passenger

literature

related

learned

from

in

of

previous

the

Survey,

methodology
topics,
past

excercises

were

eliminate
and potential
risks
of possible
setbacks
that
the passenger
survey.
might
adversely
affect
Department
Planning
Several
meetings
were held with the airport's
important
issues concerning
to discuss
such
the passenger
survey,
reviewed
difficulties

246.

IM
C)
L
G.
41

a)
b
M
N

V
"r
4-4-

1"'M
V)

L
H

L!

r"r
co
O

O
Ic

co

oz

F-

of
W
F-

CD
-r
w
co

I,

LA

01
G1
S-

Z
c

O
in

cOOOc
cOco

S83ON3SSVd IVNIN831

O
"r
L.

t
N

0
N

L0
O
o=

oA
zE
tri

ZU

o00000
000000

tI
c
v1

`t

MN

S2830N3SSVdIVNIW831

248.

of the survey,
positioning
of stations
delivery
liason
other
with
points,
used as questionnaires
found
to
the
and
agencies
airport
in
appropriate
organisations
inform or contact,
to general
of
and other issues
related
context
as timing

and scheduling

From these

questionnaires.
Timing of
1.

the

survey

the following
meetings
was realized:
to be during
the last two
was finalized
with the industrial
summer holidays,

July,
of
coinciding
weeks
is
traffic
its
tourist
to
expected
reach
peak.
where
information
Operational
to passenger
throughputs
2.
and
related
during
traffic
hourly
survey
period
were to be made available
directly,
from handling
agents
and airlines
and not from the
to
agreed
and handling
agents
information
daily
from
their
and
such
records
provide
be
but
is
information
to
the
that
this
on
condition
work-sheets,
traffic
to
throughputs
and
used
generate
passenger
collectively
Planning

Department.

Airlines

and should not be disaggregated

in
traffic
airport
or give
each
of
their
which might affect
performance,

market competitiveness.
became evident
It
3.
information
operational
because of the
information
such
Also,

such

different
later

public

it

that

commercial
and industrial-related
to the competing
handling
agents

information

situations,
difficult

is
that

to

so
it

to

feasible
in

share
their

of
or influence

image

was not
baggage
handling

on

the

so as to reveal
indication
any

data,

get

the

useful
airport,

of
sensitivity
at the airport.

diverse

and variable
be impractical
to

would
for
the

between
collect,

of constructing
analyse
purpose
and
the performance
model for the baggage claim facility.
location
It was realized
that
the only
4.
possible
where the
the arriving
can effectively
approach
passengers
was at
surveyor
Pier just
to queueing
the terminal
end of the International
prior
immigration.
inward
Since
being
for
there,
was
positioned
to the
vital
absolutely
to grant
Authority
agreed
he
could effectively
where

success
survey,
of the
the surveyor
to
access
approach

passengers.

the
the

Airport
airside,

249.

5.

Response

rates

of

the

to

up

with

reasonable

come
determine

passenger

number of

to try
survey were discussed
be used to
that
range
would
Based
need to be distributed.

questionnaires
Airport
Authority
and knowledge
of
on experience
personnel,
between
10 % and 25 % were thought
values
to be reasonably
in
light
behaviour
of
of
characteristics
and
realistic,
in

the circumstances
of the survey.
passengers
design,
6. Questionnaire
preperation,
and production
would be the
of the surveyor,
and all
and that
questionnaires
responsibility
material
have
heading of BHX and LUT.
In
the joint
would
survey
`
by
be
the
questionnaires
would
self-administered
addition,
passengers,
departing)
Planning

but
by the
of

distributed

and
the

and

(both

passengers

arriving

and

himself.

surveyor

passenger

questionnaires,
of
outcomes

to

design
survey,
and
production
interpretation
the .'theoretical
t of

survey

were

examining

carefully

of
the

thoroughly

considered;

of each,
aspects
and principles
topic,
literature
consulting
available
on this
and
discussing
taking
experts
of
and
and
advice
occasionally
in this
specialists
Instructions,
area.
rules,
recommendations,
tips
on effective
of such
and running
planning
and practical
including
design,
taken
efficient
all
were
questionnaire
surveys,
its
Realizing
in the process.
into
and adopted
consideration

studying
frequently

major

to

importance
and contribution
survey,
both theoretically
n

these

all

aspects

the

efficiency

and practically,

were

purposely

and success of the

discussion
collective

elaborated

on

in

Chapter

Seven.
}'

9.4.1

PLANNING OF THE SURVEY

Basically,

BHX Passenger

self-administered
inside
passengers
necessary

Survey

questionnaires
the terminal.

information

required

incorporated
to

arriving

the

distribution
and

of

departing

The main objective

was to collect
to- construct
P-R models for the

250.
t'

facilities

of the
(passenger/flight)

processing
major traffic
disaggregated

operational

Considering
outcomes
the inappropriateness

two

categories,

service

of

actual

waiting
a passenger
is
a service
spent
interpret.
and
view
the

level

harmful

previous
studies,
of delay,
service
be total
time spent

V Departures:
passengers

facility

procedure,
or to the capacity

effects

of

Departure
on

so as to arrive
for those facilities.

at

especially

regarding
adopted by the

measure
in each facility.

is

Total

an

and would

not

bear

any unwanted

procedure.

was as follows:
questionnaires
were to be

the

survey

pre-selected
of its category,

representative
or wieght on airport

the

is
that
expression
by
time plus any delay encountered
processing
for service.
Compared to delay,
time
total
is less
to
measure that
emotive
and easier
in
it is more conveniently
Also,
manipulated

implementation

Field

standards

service

of

down to

of

decided
to
was
survey
in a processing
time
spent
composed

broken

channels,

traffic).

(flights

flights

delivered

thought

to

to
be

impact
have
those
that
special
or
In order to control
response rate,

delivered
to passengers
were
as group
who acted
questionnaires
leaders,
not to every passenger__in each group,
and_partJcularly
_...
(or
the
handicapped,
to
children,
aged_ and
or passengers
not
di
show
Delivery
t_or...
si
ve.
nteres.
ooperati
wfi
seemedunc.
groups
,,
delivery
was done at 'departure-questionnaires
of questionnaires
Departure
positioned
at the entrance
of 'International
station',
Lounge D' just
station
this
of
1.

Convenience

(F_igure
9.17a).
security
check
because:
was favoured
trying
to the
to
provided
surveyor

prior

to

Selection

establish

briefing
passengers
with
whilst
verbally
each
rapport
is
the
survey
all-about,
and what thay are supposed
what
location
Mid-way
between
2.
check-in
and outbound
that
which
ensures
controls,
encounters
passengers'
-facilities
answering

F
T.

would be still
the questionnaire.

fresh

in

their

minds

when they

group of
to do.
official
in both
attempt

251.

(a)

(b)

Figure

9.17

Departures.

Arrivals.

BIRMINGHAM
Distribution

INTERNATIONAL
Stations.

AIRPORT-

Questionnaire

252.

location

Its.

3.

departure

to

so close

pre-inspection,
gave the
impression
to passengers
that
the surveyor
has an official
task
to perform that should be. responded to seriously.
.
After
the
receiving
briefly
informed
questionnaire.
and being
about the nature of the survey,
passengers
would then go through
check and passport
before
security
control,
to the
proceeding
lounge,
departure
where they stay for
time awaiting
their
some
.
departure
flight
The departure
anouncement.
questionnaire
was to
be answered while
in the lounge for
passengers.
were waiting
a
of time that was more than sufficient
for them to read the
period
it,
understand
questionnaire,
When
and then enter their
replies.
left
the departure
they finally
lounge to the. gates,,
passengers
...,
the questionniares
in a well-marked
deposited
box situated_. at-the
the
departure
lounge,
of
instructed
by
exit
the
as
introductory
To monitor.
questionnaire's
note.
response
rates,
box was to be emptied and questionnaires
this
collected
on daily
basis..
It

Arrivals:
from

that

was planned
International
Pier

the

be

arriving
passengers
(airside)
to inward
prior

coming down
immigration

handed

(containing
the
sealed
envelopes
questionnaire
arrivals
with a FREEPOST return-addressed
envelope)
instructions.
message displayed
with a printed
of brief
yet clear
These instructions
the
would: direct
attention
of
passengers
information
towards particular
sought by the questionnaire,
and
would

processing,

to

inform

them to

appropriate,
enough time

the,

because
to

spare

observe
terminal.

questionnaire
Once they clear

either

alone

car,

as

or with

soon

questionnaire
the, required

while
customs,

that

informing

do

passengers

all

want

and relatives,
When they
can.

information.

aspects
of
be most
to

understanding,
for service
waiting

friends

as - they
later,
they

and briefly

and monitor
specific
This
was found

of the fact
for
reading,

the

answering
terminal.

advance

to

in

while

operation

try

probably
would
By instructing
them what

to
get
try
not

they

leave

not

have

and
inside

then

the

a taxi,
fill
to

the

terminal
or rent a
in
the

be able to recall
the
in
passengers
are

expected

to

be

253.

asked

they

about,

be

could

to
able
the whole

such

record

information

enclosed.
reading
questionnaire
(home
destination
final
their
or office),.
after
reaching
have no problem
in entering
their
they
on the
replies
would
before
dropping
it
in
be
to
the
to
mail,
posted
questionnaire,
free of charge.
the surveyor

without
Later,

necessarily

the
survey,
of the
longer
he
by
that
can
no
airport
authority
surveyor
the
Permission
to
the
the
airside.
of
airside
access
enter
been
had
tighter
because of newly-implemented
withdrawn,
airport
However,

before

very
soon
was briefed

commencement

immediate
this
Fortunately,
with
effect.
security
by
distributing
the arrivals
overcame
was
questionnaire
problem
(Figure
directly
H.
M.
Customs
9.17b)
Excise
the
of
exit
and
at
had
(landside)
the
before
leaving
they
the
customs
and
after
This
only
a
alteration
necessitated
chance to meet greeters.
(deletion
instructions.
'will')
the
change
of
on
printed
minor
measures

9.4.2
In

the

raised
of the

QUESTIONNAIRE DESIGN'

previuosly
arrivals

main parts:
Concise
1.
function
words

of
the

cooperation
questionnaire.
authoritive
Department

designing

of

process

in

Section

and departures
introductory

purpose

of

and participation,
To
give

the

The structure
consisted
of three

questionnaires

and
letter

a covering

discussion

survey
questionnaires,
7.6.4 was considered.

has
that
the
note
explanatory
describing
in few
for the survey,
for
survey,
passengers
asking
and what

the

the covering
status,
Technology.
of Transport

to

do with

questionnaires
letter
was
The

tone

the

completed

official
signed
of this

by

and
LUT's

covering

between pleading,
compromise
was a logical
authoritarian
imperative
It
language,
that
all
and excess
politeness.
was
in
information
be
and
material,
contained
should
questionnaire
letter

254.

only

because

one paper,

lengthy

and multi-papered
questionnaires
by
taking
them seriously
of

chances
probably
reduce
hence
the response rate.
reducing
passengers,
PART I,
to be as brief
2.
as
and short
which was designed
had
functions.
The
first,
two
main
was to provide
possible,
information
facilitate
that
according
would
categorization
sample

would

to flight

The second,

was to check and

by
simulating
generated
in each facility,
as compared to those
that
as the actual
conditions
operational

type.
and passenger
information
synthesized
sector

verify

conditions

operational

by
respondents
recorded
during
survey period.
existed
questionnaire,
important
II,
the
the
PART
3.
which
most
part of
It
information
P-R
to
starts
models.
necessary
construct
contains
in
bold
big
letters
to carefully
to passengers
a
message
with
instructions
These
before
to
the
answer.
attempting
read
include

instructions
that

conditions
their
answers,
in
assessing
with
form

of

description

circumstances
to consider
required
of

be
respondents
would
and the grading
system they
those

a spectrum

consideration,
level
the
with

and

Questions

conditions.

or

range of
empty boxes

time
to

spent
be filled

and
in

use and comply

in the
are arranged
in
in each facility

should

by

the

respondent

in light
of general
estimated
during
that
existed
service
and
conditions
actually
operational
The last
trip.
that particular
part should give
of this
question
time
indication
to
overall
of
respondent's
outlook
general
some
to
however,
it
in
terminal
contribute
processing,
not
would
spent
facilities.
of
operation
at
particular
assessment
Wording

of

of

satisfaction

questionnaires
ensure better

was very

carefully

studied,

and chosen

understanding
of
and efficient
completion
so as to
them, as well as building
communications
and establishing
rapport
j
This was hoped to increase
the
of
passenger,
possibilities
with
response
practical
adopted
Appendix

the
secure
success
survey.
of
to increase
measures and techniques
response
form and layout
in the final
of questionnaires
and

B-4),

would

they

are:

Several
rates were
(shown in

vs"'

255.

heading
BHX and LUT title
and
to give
the added
material
survey
1.

and authority.
sponsorship
Different
2.
paper colour
handling
easier
purposes:
sorting,

survey to passengers.
Questionnaires
3.
graphic
sizes
and types
character
4.

displayed

were
influence

on

on

all

passengers

of

questionnaires
was used for two
better
with
recognition
of
each
by the surveyor
during
distribution
questionnaires
and
and the added effect
of 'importance
and prestige'
of the

channel's

three

logo

of

design
to

incorporated

properly

parts of questionnaire.
For departures,
questionnaires

and
(blue)

use

of

arrange

nicely
were

different
the

handed-out

to

(pink)
arrivals,
were
questionnaires
passengers
in a sealed
along with a FREEPOST mail-back
envelope,
enclosed
instructions.
bearing
instructions,
These
with
printed
envelope
heading
title
the joint
and. logo of BHX and LUT,
were carefully
(Business
be
to
FREEPOST
as
so
concise,
and
very
clear.
worded
back
to
Reply)
return-addressed
envelopes
mail
arrivals
folded,

but

was

questionnaires,
for
the
rates

for

used

as

a measure

of

increasing

response

arrival

channel,
and mail
reply
where passengers
back
Samples
free
the
of
of
charge.
questionnaires
instructions,
business
the
envelope-printed
and
questionnaires,
in
Appendix B-4.
are
shown
envelopes
reply

9.4.3

P-R

Information

MODELS
from

compiled

BHX Passenger

Survey

was processed

and

by
or
manually
either
statistical
means of a computer
analysed,
(MINITAB
General
Statistics
Package
The next
was used).
package
P-R
for
facilities
to
construct
models
was
processing
of
step
arrivals

and departures

For departures,
outbound
considered

channels.

P-R models

official

controls

sepertaely),

were constructed
(security
check
and

overall

for

airline

check-in,

and passport
control
departure
processing

256.

disaggregated

facilities,

departures

international
for

models

flight

that
categories
Figures
A. 20-A. 23

channel.
flights,
I. T.

charter
haul

schedule-long

for

flights,

P-R

show
A. 24-A. 27

Figures

flights,

the

used

Figures

for
for

A. 28-A. 31

and Figures

A. 32-A. 34 are P-R models

international
flights.
passengers
on all
level
is derived
framework
that
of service
(Ti) and upper (T2)
in terms of lower
from these models,
stated
(as the service
for
time
the
limits
on total
spent
measure)
(tolerable)
the
to
service
region,
nearest
rounded
middle
schedule-European
departing
total
for
Table 9.9 summarizes

half-minute.
9.9

for
flights,
shows that
schedule-European
had
(tolerable)
diminished
a
middle
region.
standards
treated
that
schedule-European
passengers
with
in service
in
longer
tolerance
any lowering
resulting

Table

facilities,

at various

felt
actually
was
and
fact
This
probably
trips,

business

Other

passengers
departure

traffic,
in

the
leave

would

low

comparatively

(as

category

indicated

on

standards

set

For

arrivals,
immigration,

facilities
international
schedule-long
passengers.

that
last

the

virtually
fill
to

earlier
P-R
baggage

combined,

models,
in Section

models

were

were
7.8.

survey.
on

are

on

mostly

schedule-European
enter

usually

the

the

This

questionnaire.
was responsible
departures
for

9.12).

Sample

sizes,
in
line

generally,

constructed

claim,
customs,
and all
disaggregated
for flight

arrivals
channel,
haul,
schedule-European,
Traffic
from
Ireland

of

to
convenient
opportunity
no time in the departure

passengers,
for
rates
Table

spent

passengers

category

passengers

less

much
time

was realistic,

conduct

concerning

them

response
in
noted

P-R

of this

possible

enough
of business

sufficient
typical
behaviour,
flight

of

is

lounge

the

behaviour

the

reflects

passengers
facts
observed

lounge

which

This

since

businesss.

them,

other passengers.
by the surveyor
during

than

service
This means

namely,
and
and the

in

sets

for
this
as
with

inward

of

arrival

processing
of the
categories

charter
Common Travel
Channel

I. T.,
Area

Islands

257.

Table
Level

of Service

Framework

for

9.9
International

Departure

Channel

BIRMINGHAM INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT

Time Spent

in

(Minutes

Facility
P-R

FACILITY

rounded to
T1T2

Model

Good/Tolerable

nearest

half-minute)
Tolerable/Bad

Figure

No.

Check-in

Figure

A. 20

11.0

21.0

Security

Figure

A. 21

6.0

10.5

Passports

Figure

A. 22

6.0

10.5

Figure

A. 23

22.0

34.0

B. SCHEDULE-LONGHAUL:
Figure
Check-in

A. 24

15.0

25.0

Security

Figure

A. 25

9.0

12.5

Passports

Figure

A. 26

7.5

10.5

Figure

A. 27

23.0

37.0

TYPE
A.

CHARTER I. T.:

Overall

Departure

I-

Processing

Overall

Departure

I-

Processingi
C. SCHEDULE-EUROPEAN:
Check-in

Figure

A. 28

7.5

14.0

Security

Figure

A. 29

6.0

6.5

Passports

Figure

A. 30

6.0

6.0

Figure

A. 31

21.5

21.5

6.5

10.5

Overall,

Departure

I-

Processing
D. TOTAL DEPARTING PASSENGERS:
Figure
A. 32
Security
Passports
Overall

Departure

I-

Processing

Figure

A. 33

6.5

10.5

Figure

A. 34

23.0

34.0

258.

(designated

by H. M.
Common Travel
Area)
as the
was treated
like
international
traffic,
Customs and Excise
and was
other
As such, it shared
to customs regulations
and taxation.
subjected
(for
the
the
of
only)
with
use
same channel
arrivals
immigration.
traffic,
For this
international
except for inward
fact,
started,
survey,
decision,

had already
the
realized
after
survey
in the passenger
CTA traffic
to include
because of the belated
However,
only.

was only
which
it was decided
but for arrivals
sample

size

for

Common Travel

the

Area

traffic

was
for

below
limit
the
set
and
of the standards
relatively
Service
for
CTA
should
size.
standards.
established
sample
tolerance
be
Figures
than others.
therefore
regarded
with more
Figures
flights,
I. T.
A. 35-A. 38 show P-R models for
charter
haul flights,
A. 43-A. 46 for
Figures
A. 39-A. 42 for schedule-long
small

flights,

schedule-European
Area traffic,

and

models
9.10,

seems

characteristics
categories

diminished

total
A. 50-A. 53 are P-R models for
.,
level
Table
9.10
of service
summarizes
from P-R
standards
of which were derived

mentioned.

realistic,
and typical
included.

schedule-European
Apart
behaviour.

Common Travel

Figures

passengers.
arriving
the service
framework,
previously

A. 47-A. 49 for

Figures

Service
reasonable,
behaviour

However,
flights

from

the

as was previously
for baggage claim

and
of
a

margin
for
noticed

stated

consistent

passengers

of

standards

service

showed
narrow

standards

noticeably
of tolerent
departures),

in

Table

the
with
the flight
for

the

different
region

(not

service
lower

had
significantly
and
customs
standards
(T2)
Again,
fact
is greatly
to
(Ti)
this
values.
contributed
and
business
the predominently
passengers
who in
on these flights,
hence do not need
This fact
was
or customs.
during
the
by
the
and
observed
verified
on
site
surveyor
actually
Sample size as indicated
of survey.
are
on P-R models,
conduct
in
line
in
the
and
comformity
set,
standards
generally
with
for
CTA
for
traffic
reasons mentioned
earlier.
except

instances,
carry
only cabin
most
facility,
to use the baggage claim

hand-baggage,

259.

Table
Level

Framework for International

Arrivals
of Service
BIRMINGHAM INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT

Time Spent in
FACILITY

(Minutes

Facility
P-R

TYPE
A.

9.10

Model

rounded to
T1T2

nearest

Channel

half-minute)

Figure

No.

Immigration

Figure

A. 35

6.5

15.0

Baggage Claim

Figure

A. 36

13.0

23.5

Customs

Figure

A. 37

6.5

13.0

Figure

A. 38

24.0

40.0

Good/Tolerable

Tolerable/Bad

CHARTER I. T.:

Overall
Arrival

(-

Processing
B. SCHEDULE-LONG HAUL:
Immingration

Figure

A. 39

7.0

16.0

Baggage Claim

Figure

A. 40

16.5

25.0

Customs

Figure

A. 41

6.0

12.0

Figure

A. 42

23.5

44.0

Overall
Arrival

Processing
C. SCHEDULE-EUROPEAN:

Immigration

Figure

A. 43

6.0

12.0

Baggage Claim

Figure

A. 44

10.0

17.5

Customs

Figure

A. 45

5.0

7.0

Figure

A. 46

20.0

28.0

Overall

Arrival

Processing

260.

Time Spent

in

(Minutes

Facility

FACILITY

P-R

TYPE

nearest

Good/Tolerable

No.

D. COMMONTRAVEL AREA TRAFFIC:

Figure
A. 47
Baggage Claim
Customs

)-

rounded to
T 1T

Model

Figure

(cont.

9.10

Table

half-minute)
2

Tolerable/Bad

12.5

21.0

Figure

A. 48

6.5

15.0

Figure

A. 49

20.0

34.0

6.5

14.5

Overall
Arrival

I-

Processing

E. TOTAL ARRIVING PASSENGERS:

Figure
A. 50
Immigration
Baggage Claim

Figure

A.. 51

12.5

22.5

Customs

Figure

A. 52

6.5

11.5

'Figure

A. 53

23.0

37.0

Overall

Arrival

I-

Processing

The degree

of

monitoring

and

survey

success

analysing

questionnaires.
those initially

with
Department.

of

the

survey

passenger

could

be known by

to the
passengers
be compared
should
BHX Planning
with
meetings
be
would
rates
response

of
response
rates
Actual
rates
response

predicted

during

It

was anticipated
10 % and
between

that

this
on
particular
and
somewhere
be
delivered
the
to
of
number
questionnaires
was set
assumption
questionnaires
would conform to the minimum sample
so as returned
in
7.8.
Returned
Section
set
earlier
standards
size
delivery
date
the
to
classified
were
of
according
questionnaires
(and
flight
by
the
the
passenger
entered
with
verified
as
schedules)

and flight

category.

25

%,

Tables

9.11

and 9.12

show that

261.

actual
response
rates
were
within
departures,
and 25.1 % for arrivals.
rates
Table
flight

basis
on daily
9.12
furnishes

for

the
Table

duration

the

details

of

of

target9.11

monitors

survey

response

29.2

% for
response

period,

rates

while
to
according

category.

Table
Daily

DAY/ ID
MONTH IDeliver

Response

EPART
Retrieved

Rates

of

URES

9.11
BHX Passenger

IA

%RetrievedIDeliver

Survey

RRIVA

LS

Retrieved

%Retrieved

20/7

100

18

18.0

110

30

27.3

21/7

105

20

19.0

114

41

35.9

22/7

100

16

16.9

112

37

23/7

100

18

18.0

109

33,

30.2

24/7

99

26

26.3

108

25

23.1

25/7

100

36

36.0

108

24

22.2

26/7

102

39.

38.2

103

29

28.1

27/7

99

25

25.3

102

25

24.5

28/7

105

42

40.0

100

20

20.0

29/7

98

27

27.6

100

19

19.0

30/7

100

39

39.0

101

17

16.8

31/1

100

37

37.0

77

18

23.3

1/8

93

37

39.8

100

20

20.0

-33.0

262.

Table
Flight

Categories

Response

9.12

Rates

of

BHX Passenger

Survey

ICHARTERI SCHEDULEICTA
IINCOMPLETEITOTAL
I I. T. ALONG HAULIEUROPEANITRAFFIC I REPLIES I
A. DEPARTURES:
# Retrieved

307

30

% Delivered

23.6

2.3

2.7

% Retrieved

80.8

7.9

9.2

35

380

-8
-

0.6

29.6

2.1

100.0

B. ARRIVALS:
# Retrieved

148

% Delivered

11.0

2.7

6.5

0.9

4.0

25.1

% Retrieved

43.9

10.7

25.7

3.8

15.9

100.0

36

it

initially
was thought
information
that
obtained
stage,
the time spent in each facility
Finally,

themselves

be useful
that
conditions

could

with actual
it became evident

later

utilized

efficiently

for

seemed to
generally
trends
as anticipated
as obtained

values

13

87

to

design
at the questionnaire
from PART I of questionnaires
on
by the passengers
as estimated
verify

prevailed

that

estimated

that

purpose,

the

conditions
operational
during
the survey.
However,
time

values
in
although

could

means of

simulation,
Since

not

principal,

reflect
relative
with
conformity
beforehand.
The level
of accuracy
by

338

54

be
it

existing
of these

and as estimated

by

were not compatible.

passengers
on
passengers'
replies
in terms of numbers (time values),
PART I are expressed
it can be
by
the
Also,
the
affected
easily
passengers'
opinions.
time-estimating
capability
of each individual
plays an important
role

in

resultant
previously

formalizing

the

replies
of individual
and the
passengers,
As presented
average values for groups of passengers.
in Chapter Seven,
influence
factors
socio-psychologic

263.

opinions,

passengers'
their
replies

and

in

facilities.

to

and contribute
their
stating

estimates
that
there

implies

This

variations

in

encountered
times
spent

of
is

in

some degree

of
between the actual
of time
and values
values
of time,
variation
by the passengers.
Variance
that
and recorded
were perceived
because previous
between the two values can be expected,
research
had shown that
the perception
by Clark(198)
of urban travellers
various

to

time

travel
of

is

likely

travel
time,
'Stevens
Law':

values
based on
(Perceived

function
of actual
non-linear
by this
that is
and as described
relation
be

to

Value) = a. (Actual
(a)
(b)
and
are coefficients
where
of the environment.
characteristic
Nevertheless,

when

Clark's

study
in facilities,

9.4.4

of

our

be

stressed
information
obtain

of
and
values of time spent
estimated
for
the
be
found
to
negligible
was
coefficients

of
to the

of

information

for simulation
required
for the case of BHX,
the

degree

data

availability
Brief
circumstances.
will

modelled
the simulation.

was so
majority
Manchester

of
should be regarded

of

be presented

with

input

of

means

models for arrivals

it should
However,
input

basic

that

scarce
and difficult
data
of those input
Airport
with

of airport-related
description

along

by

generated

construct
performance
facilities
in BHX.
processing
here,
due to
fact
that
the

assumed or
were either
This situation
instead.
current

(b)

(a)

study.

operational.
was used to

simulation
departures
and

light

some particular

PERFORMANCEMODELS

Synthesized

to

values

to

related

the

were applied
the difference

purposes

practical

Value)b,

of

were

consideration
information
each

parameters

used
in
in

facility
used

in

264.

1. AIRLINES

FLIGHT CHECK-IN:

that
at
airlines
and handling
agencies
was mentioned
earlier
information
BHX agreed to provide
on the
and traffic
operational
it would not be used in any way that would reveal
that
condition
by this
Abiding
information
their
concerning
performance.
being
flight
that
meant
a
airline
check-in,
condition
It

and flight-related

batch-oriented
or

their

performance

built.

models

properties

with

characteristics
at
agencies

of operations
of the
Birmingham
and Manchester

to

These

exist.

great

similarities

similarities

models previously
facilities,
with
is
It
suitable.

not be included
hand,
On the other
common
in
traffic
and
nature
of
handling
local
and national

facility,

constructed
P-R models

could

airports,

-had

made comparisons
for
MIA airline
established

for

been observed

of performance
flight
check-in
BHX,
somewhat

MIA
measure used for
it
delay,
BHX
P-R
models
models
was
was
performance
but since processing
time spent,
times (which 'together
total
with
(less
low
time spent)
than
delay form total
all
are
comparatively
delay
times,
this
two-digit
as compared against
one minute),
to conduct,
seem to be reasonably
would
practical
comparison
higher

provided
minus

true

tolerence

that

the

service
for
while

margins

are

adopted

(e. g.,

or

one minute).

shows the levels

service
of operational
for
I. T.,
charter
schedule-long
check-in
flights.
The results
schedule-European
of Table 9.13

Table

plus

9.13

for
haul,

airline

and
seem logical
flights,
I. T.
The
except for charter
which seem under-estimated.
(demand
load
factor
level)
Inclusive
for
Tour flights
standard
(110-130)
between
Figures
for the other
ranges
passengers(197).
do comply
two categories
that
with
actual
situation
prevailed
during

survey

period

at

BHX.

265.

9.13

Table
Levels

of

Operational

Service

for

Flight

Airline

Check-In

BIRMINGHAM INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT

I CHARTER

SERVICE

LEVEL OF

SERVICE

MEASUREE

I. T.

0-

I 205
Demand Level*
Time Spent (min. )( 11.0

0-

Max Passengers

G-

Waiting

SCHED.

ULE

LONG-HAUL EUROPEAN
120

265

7.5

-15.0

32

48

20

260

310

160

TOLERABLE
B-

Demand Level*

A-

Time Spent

D-

Max-Passengers

(min. )l
I

Waiting

*-

In passengers

14.0

25.5

21.0

40

72

60

on flights.

2. OUTBOUNDOFFICIAL. CONTROLS
In BHX,
security
scanner
MIA's,
counter.

one
as follows:
X-ray baggage
consisting
check unit
of a conveyorized
frame,
to
and Magnometer
personal
searching
similar
directly
followed
by a one-server
control
passport
outbound

Although

official

both

controls

facilities

are

are

arranged

included

in

one simulation

data
for
operational
were
model,
generated
each separately.
Processing
times were considered
to those of MIA; 0.12
as similar
for
passport
minute per passenger
control,
and 0.15 minute per
higher than MIA's
check, which is slightly
passenger for security

266.

because

figure

the

(unit

facility

of the early
shakedown period
official
models for the outbound

and operating

months

of

staff)

operation.
were built

was in the
Performance

for the two

controls
in
levels'were
Demand
and
expressed
morning
afternoon.
peaks'but
terms of average volume (pax/hr),
equivalent
peak hour demand
be easily
derived
by applying
the peak/average
conversion
could
1.82
from
Simulation
that
this
ranged
output
showed
ratio
ratio.
to 2.00 with an average of 1.90 for the morning peak,
and from
the afternoon
1.50 to 1.59 with
peak.
an average
of 1.56 for
both
including
Performance
models for outbound official
controls,
security
peak,
feature

and passport,
9.19
and Figure

of these
models
Since
the
arrivals
curve.
from security
by departures
time

for

is

security

9.18 for the morning

shown in Figure
An interesting
the afternoon
peak.
behaviour
is the
control
of passport
dictated
is totally
to passport
control

are
for

and because mean processing

to that of passport
relative

check,
higher

slightly

to spend considerable
passengers
would not be expected
So,
time
control.
of
or
awaiting
at
passport
queue
service
-amount
in
for
the maximum value
time
control,
passport
average
spent
control,

obtained
while

from

the

performance

0.5

minutes,

waiting
maximum number of passengers
These observations
were found
was around 15.
(rather
discretely)
and were actually
monitored

corresponding
reached there

value

of

ever
to be realistic
during
the
by the surveyor
levels
of operational
service
and

was

model,

around

peaks,
governs the

afternoon

completely
levels
of
delineated.

operational

survey.
for the

respectively.
behaviour
of
service

for

and 9.15 show

check for morning

Tables

9.14

security
Since

the

the

security

check

control
process,
passport
be
latter
the
need
not

267.

rt
.r.
v
.I44-

tw
1

CD
S

jo
S

N
Ln

1--

O
-,
U

I?
zO

~3

Li

,_

o
1 i
I

l"

rn
as

>
W
W
V

>

Cy a.
0:

I i
l i

Op

ew

OO

HLDN313n3nb WM

C)
G.

O
a

0-4

Lj

0:

O
0-4
I--

W
.
O

z
o

ck:

"
p
i
p 0
N

W
1-r--0

0Li

a
Y
b
c1
d
Q1
C
"r
C
L
O

x
N

>'

Liz!
WI

FI
FRF F

e
ww

11W 111d3aS 3MLL

O
L
C
O
L)

. -r

CC)

C=I="
=I =
V
I
4P

V3

ul
W
N

flu

K
p.
<

I
l
I
I,

9-

P4

G
e0

E
S.
-

40-4
Z

Li
V

a)

ti
o
e
i 3
'

.1
f=

j J
JI
Cy -J:

C) Z
: )
w

a)
v
0

=J

So
4--

4
0-3
4!
.
z

zz z Q

4
1!

a J

n)

C,

we

li

268..

0as
. r.
U

4w
O
.
O

O
"

N
Ln

o
J

Q
A

F+"i

t1

eo

a
Z1

E
s.

Zia
l a

4-

1x
21

4'

z
C
-

S-4

O
4-4

e
e

1
1

iS
_s

aa

0
a

3n3no xvI

cl:
LLJ

V)

t
i-

J
Li

>
a:

F-

"
"

"

L) 0

W
H

-a

4*4

II

-I-

ix
IS-r
m

C
0
U

rn
I
e
O

WI <I
W
<
4011 d1

= IJ J
I
ei
Jr r- P
-

lI

in

-r

N
r0
L

i
I

rn
a,

li

"e

1 13

0)

11
.1

20

4"""

we

"! "' 11NUS

3v%

CJ

-4

O ki

'

10

C
0
0
C

'

cz

a
HLD1

F-

w
N
z
D
Lz7
H

P4

<i
i
aJr zl z

-"

C)
U

W
Z
0

CL
I

a)
M

O Q
_

z
t

LL..

269.

Table

9.14

Levels

for Security
Service
of Operational
BIRMINGHAM INTERNATIONAL. AIRPORT / Morning

LEVEL OF

SERVICE

ICHARTER

SERVICE

MEASURE

Check
Peak,
TOTAL

ULE

SCHED

LONG-HAUL EUROPEAN PASSENGERS

I. T.

Demand Level

I
I

235

250

235

238

Volume*
-Average
Hour
-Peak

447

475

447

450

Time Spent

6.0

9.0

6.0

6.5

Max Passengers

(min. )
I

85

125

85

90

254

260

238

254

483

494

452

485

(min. ) 1 10.5

12.5

6.5

10.5

TOLERABLE

Demand Level
Volume*

-Average
Hour
-Peak

A
Time Spent

D
Max Passengers
In passengers

The

results

realistic,
passengers,
BHX during

per

hour

for

Tables
shown in
and the conclusion
level
operational
the

survey

morning and afternoon

during the survey,
security

150

check

could
peaks.
that the

was

162

95

150

seem
is that

reasonably
for
total

peak period.

9.14

and

they
of

convey
for
service

be considered
They confirm
queue of

excessively

9.15

security
check at
the
during
as 'bad'
the observations
made

waiting
passengers
long
extending

for
to

the
and

270.

the

through

sometimes

and cafeteria,
demonstrates

area of the terminal's

main bar
long-haul
flights.
This aspect

seating
for

particularly

of the methodology
when used for the
design
facilities,
by identifying
crowding
physical
For that particular
expected queue lengths.
areas and predicting
in
front
International
the
space
of
entrance
of the
case,
the

usefulness
of terminal

9.15

Table
Levels

for Security
Service
of Operational
BIRMINGHAM INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT / Afternoon

LEVEL OF

SERVICE

SERVICE

MEASURE

ICHARTER SCHED

Check

ULE

Peak

TOTAL

LONG-HAUL EUROPEANPASSENGERS

"J

I. T.

290

308

290

292

452

480

452

456

6.0

9.0

6.0

6.5

107

150

107

110

315

322

292

315

491

502

456

491

12.5

6.5

10.5

Demand Level
-Average

Volume*

Hour
-Peak

Time Spent

Max Passengers

(min. ) I

TOLERABLE
Demand Level
B

Volume*

-Average
Hour
-Peak

Time Spent

(min. ) 110.5

D
I

Max Passengers
*-

In passengers

per

hour

170
for

190

peak period.

110

170

271.

Departure

Lounge

D,

where
for
the

was not sufficient

be queueing for service

at

the

security

expected

check
of

number

peak periods,

which

is

unit
people

situated,
that
could

was around

120-150

passengers.

3.

INWARD IMMIGRATION
immigration

Inward

in

control
(4

EEC passport
control
(2 counters),
immigration
in the arrival
channel

BHX,

is

composed of

counters),
and it is the

Due to

that

and
first

fact

two sections:

non-EEC

passports
facility

processing
information
concerning

mean processing
agencies
was virtually
unobtainable,
governmental
derived
in
time values for both sections
were
simulations,
used
based on collective
by logical
assumptions
and personal
opinions
by information
that
judgement
of airport
personnel,
supported
from other sources.
times were
Mean processing
could be collected
decided to be: (0.50)
and
minute per passenger for EEC passports,
(2.00)

Performance
for non-EEC passports.
passenger
based
were
whose percentage
on total
models
passengers,
itself.
from
the
survey
were obtained
consistuents
passenger
in
Figures
Those percentages,
P-R
shown
as indicated
models
on
A. 35,

minutes
derived

A. 39,

per

A. 43,

and A. 50, are:

EEC

I.
T.
Charter
Schedule-European
Haul
Schedule-Long
Total
passengers
Arrival
arrivals
in
the

distribution
peak

shown in

to

Non-EEC

100.0

0.0

74.0

26.0

93.3

6.7

94.0

6.0

the

Figure

facility
9.16.

follows
Demand levels

the

pattern

of

are expressed
).
(pax/hr.
performance
model
as
volume
average
Peak/average
demand levels
that
be used to convert
ratio
could
from average
volume to equivalent
peak hour ranged from 1.45 to
1.57 with
the
9.20 Is
Shown in Figure
an average
of 1.51.
for
total
BHX
immigration
performance
model of inward
at
control

272.

passengers

based

on

an
the

EEC/non-EEC

split

94/6

of

%.

In

the

is
in the facility
time spent
model,
average
in
as the average
spent by total
passengers
expressed
of times
is
both sections,
the
waiting
while
maximum number of passengers
for each section
From Table 9.16, it could
separately.
presented
during
be concluded
that service
at inward immigration
conditions
performance

hand,
that
But on the other
provided
was 'Good'.
survey period
times assumed were realistic
the mean processing
enough, it seems
in order
to
that
number of EEC counters
need to be increased
in each section
and the split
of counters
match imposed demand,
be compatible

4.

with

and characteristics

nature

of

traffic.

BAGGAGE CLAIM

hence
in
no
not
simulation,
-included
because of. the realization
for it,
model was derived
performance
during
at
earlier,
meetings
where it
mentioned
was recognized
in current
infeasible
BHX, that it was practically
circumstances
information
to successfully
to obtain
simulate
and gather
proper
facility.
the performance
Constructing
at this
model
operations
This

for

facility

this

was

facility

the

all
of
collaboration
involving
a separate
parties,
and much more dedication
associated
directed
towards
the
effort
and realistic
accurate
research
into
taking
of operations
at the facility
consideration
analysis
factors,
and influence
all controlling
of parties
contributions,
involved.

would

Moreover,

if

require

favourable

purposely-designed
well-planned
Nevertheless,
should be staged.
for baggage claim were included
A. 36,

A. 40,

A. 44,

A. 47,

and A. 51.

results
information
in

this

and built,

are to

be achieved,

collection
methodology,
as shown

programme
P-R models
in

Figures

273.

c
0

"r

1im
. r.
E

v
s.
rts
3
c

0
tl7
z

U
O

14
04

i4

"i

'w

50
9-

r0)
b
0

Q Z
Z

CL

CL

0-4

V)
W

1 WI
I W
vl-Z
I
W 0Z
W(2
WI Z,

m
~
Li

i
y

0
4CJ
G.

1$c
1
g

i
Mim

U
C
Cli
E
5-

,,,

. I .I
l
J
i '
C:

>

w N
N i

10,
a

'

1
PI I

FO

OO
L

^J

LAJ

IuoQi3FEMO
X"

jr

z
-

C: )

')

V)

Lj

O
r-
I--

LJ

W
H
I--

1-4
W
V

F-,

CL CL

xCD
z
. -4

r0
L

c
0
U

V)

g
V

dr

W
Li
I

I -T
I

0;
O
eo
O

0
O

MQw
iww
-www

0
N

w2

UU+/ IMUS3wu3

3AV

e
0

Cl)
L
Q1
LL.

274.

9.16

Table
Levels

of

Operational

Service

for

Inward

Immigration

BIRMINGHAM INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT

LEVEL OF

SERVICE

ICHARTER

SERVICE

MEASURE

TOTAL

DULE

LONG-HAUL EUROPEANPASSENGERS

Demand Level

I. T.

SCHE

Volume*

400

405

395

400

604

612

596

604

6.5

7.0

6.0

6.5

-Average
Hour
-Peak

Time Spent

Max Passengers

EEC
Non-EEC
-

38

40

35

38

I
..

438

445

425

435

661

672

642

657

15.0

16.0

12.0

14.5

(min. )I

TOLERABLE

Demand Level
B

Volume*

-Average
Hour
-Peak
Time Spent

*-

(min. )I

Max Passenger

EEC
Non-EEC
-

65

70

52

60

In passenger

per

hour

for

peak period.

275.

5. CUSTOMSCONTROL.
is

This

the

last

facility

processing

in

the

arrival

BHX for

channel
at
Red Channel

terminating
The number of
passengers.
(with
counters
customs officials)
the number of
was four,
while
Green Channel (units)
being the corridor
was considered
as one,
baggage to the exit
passengers
should walk with their
of customs
hall
from the baggage claim area. To facilitate
the simulation
of
operating
be made.
determined
its

end

abreast.
information

facility,
conditions
had to
at this
certain
assumptions
The number of
(units)
the
Green
Channel
of
was
based on the fact
that
the width
of the corridor
at
(exit)
baggage
two
can hardly
trollies
accommodate
As far
times
as processing
are concerned,
again any
times (in Red Channel)
regarding
processing
could not

be made available.
So, although
it is highly
variable
and really
difficult
to predict,
time in the Red Channel was
mean processing
assumed to be (3.00)
The decision
minutes
per passenger.
on the
time
for
assumption
the Green Channel was
of mean processing
carried

on more realistically
passengers
should
walk is

and systematically.
25-30 feet,
and the

based on Fruin's
of passengers
(IATA standards(8)
for terminals
(self-service,
i. e., walking)
processing
Green
Channel
the
between
ranges
speed
ft/min

{
F"t

average
findings(51)
is

walking
200-250

is

75 m/min).
Therefore
time needed for clearing
(0.10-0.12)
minutes
per
Figure
9.21,
shown in
was

Performance

passenger.

The distance

-model,
for
based- on average
constructed
time
in the
customs
spent
(total)
facility
by all
passengers,
and maximum number of waiting
in Red and Green Channels
passengers
Since
the
seperately.
percentage
to obtain

split
from

passenger
levels
are

of

official
survey itself

convert

expressed
these
levels

ratio,

which

was used.

Red/Green

ranged

passengers

sources,
was used-

was virtually

percentages
96 % Green,

impossible

from the
obtained
and 4% Red. Demand

as average volume (pax/hr),

and in order to
to equivalent
the peak/average
peak hour,
from 1.46 to 1.51 with an average
of 1.49,

276.

0
I.
4J
c
0
L)
N

0
f

N,
X

U
O

_
o

J
Z
W

O
X
`

-
Z

Uj

Rs

L
O
4-

I-

a)

a
W

zC
X

Li
N

a)
u

t
1

2 1

.a

Wt
9
t'

Lit
a: '
GI GI

L
0

S
1

; '
l
CY)ili

il

1
t

i
d

c
.w

a
L'i

5 m P:
E-4 P-4 - Li
0-4

5:
W

Z
F-1

C0

s02

w
HL *a1

3rom

40

O
a

r"

ck:
V)

J
Q

V)
W

VI

Z
~

"

w
U

mo

W
H
r-

"

ar

cl-I

c
O

0-4
co

"<

rN

O
0

II
--

/S

3viu

3! )r3Ar

G)
L
0)
"r
lL

277.

Table
Levels

Service

Operational

of

9.17
for

Control

Customs

BIRMINGHAM INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT

LEVEL OF

SERVICE

ICHARTER SCHED

SERVICE

MEASURE

C. T. TOTAL

LONG-HAUL EUROPEANAREA

PAX

Demand Level

I. T.

ULE

Volume*

-Average
Hour
-Peak

445

450

440

455

455

678

671

656

678

678

6.5

6.0

5.0

6.5

6.5

160

150

130

160

160

505

495

460

515

485

752'

738

685

767

723

12.0

7.0

15.0

11.5

0
Time Spent

(min. )I

Max Passengers
D

GREEN
RED
-

TOLERABLE
B

Demand Level
Volume*

-Average
Hour
-Peak

A
Time Spent
D

*-

't

(min. )I

13.0

Max Passengers

GREEN
-

300

275

178

320

240

RED
-

In passengers

per

hour

for

peak period.

278.

From Table

9.17,

it

at BHX
could be seen that
service
condition
during
in general,
the
control
customs
was,
survey
period
.
'Good'.
However, the performance
that there was a
model indicated
mismatch between number of units
of the Red and Green channels,
inappropriateness
from
the
of Green Channel in dealing
resulting
imposed
Channel
demand.
Green
Since
the
with
processing
passengers
basically

is

actually
a self-serve
whose outcome is
activity
(i.
influenced
by the capacity
its
the
e.,
corridor
of
increasing
be
the number of Green Channel units
could
width),
by increasing
the width
and
simply
accomplished
of the corridor
from
Channel
Pile-up
Green
customs.
of
exit
and queueing
passengers

was actually

by the

monitored

surveyor,

congestion
for
9.17),

was repeatedly
observed
of
at exit
two main reasons:
1.
Internal,
inadequacy
namely the
of corridor
leaving
accommodate the large number of passengers
2. External,

caused
which

passengers,

to stop
passengers
In many instances,

by the

occasionally
and wait for
way was cleared

Police.
of Airport
This particular
situation
can be for
methodology
through
of

exposing

congestion

9.5
This

pressure

of visitors
blocked

those
only

in

front
after

where acute
(Figure
customs
to

exit

and

customs.

greeting
the
exit

arriving
forcing

to

the way.
clear
direct
intervention

how
the
of
useful
another
example
facilities
design
of terminal
physical
locations
bottlenecks
potent'ial
and predicting
is

points.

SUMMARY
chapter

methodology
discussed
information
assumptions

of
of procedures
applications
to real-world
Aspects of applications
are
conditions.
in
detail
knowledge
and
and in
conjunction
with
includes
This
elaborated
on in previous
chapters.
made,
of
sources
comparisons
of information
used,
presents

practical

outcomes with observed

and actual
interpretation
of implementation,

situations,
of

results

different
and findings,

aspects
and

279.

drawn.
Being
conclusions
it
basically
demonstrates
methodology,
its
explores
applicability
methodology,

lly-oriented
practic.
features
of the
various

management tool,
between planners

it

finally,

and manifests
and architects,

the

role

and airport

as

can

play

managers.

"t

and
as a bridge

planning

CHAPTERTEN

C0NCLUS10NS

Outcomes

this
of
findings

scientific
also

are

related
availability

research,
field
of

airport

this

research,
that
reached,

dealing
Moreover,
as well
1/.

Methodology

proposed

means
facilities

of

and the

operational

aspects

applying
manageable
There

this

and reasonable
are

inside
and

airports.
in
research
management

serious
This

techniques,

and

of
and performance
both for the purposes

operations
terminals,

In light

of

information

real-word

restrictions

obstacle

and enhancing
and

with

gathering

and a stumbling

current

'widening,

for
to

be

implementation.

associated

a major

required
was found

conditions

straight-forward

difficulties

improving

practitioners

a realistic

provide

can

field,

with

is

to

of
with
acquisition
associated
lack of knowledge concerning
certain

in

methodology

researchers

include:

management.

general
in this

conclusions

environment.
hopefully
enhance

would
knowledge

assessing
in airport

and operations
difficulties
substantial

and
future

terminal's

airport
developed

herewith

planning

and
information

to

of

immediate

but
academic exercises,
issues
of
of the wider
in the
practices
and applied
Throughout
and operations.

realized
to
assistance

some

to

restricted

practices
and provide
useful
These conclusions
as to academics.

processing

2/.

planning
facts
were

techniques

practical

applicable
of

knowledge,

of
terminals

certain
could be of
the 'realities'

with

current

research
are
not
typical
of similar
to important
aspects

planning
scope

of

data
block

practices
available

281.

knowledge
which

in

were

research,

actually
are

is

There

and

practice
efficiently

an

with

.
terminals

are

the

solved,

are
problems
for
'internal'

absence
of
in
airport

system

use

of
this

,
by the

procedures
flexibly
and

used

devised

lacking.

There

and

systematic

terminals,

that

could

for

terminals

of

comprehensive
planning,
different

at

design,

be
and

environments.

for
airport
service
standards
is a need to establish
publically
standards
service
airport
approved

and professionally
based on sound principles

recognized
that
are

of

and objectives

motives

suitable

this,

throughout

operations.

evident

Systematically

4/.

Those difficulties,

in many occasions
by the sensitivity

caused

be highly

management.

operations

operations.

economic and political

if these
However,

associated

parties

airport

experienced

would

methodology

of

primarily

and conflicting
involved.
parties

3/.

field

the

and follow

clear

definitive

procedures.
5/.

Most

airport
studying
programmes
associated
with
had concentrated
tools
terminal
operations
establishing
on
mainly
(i.
for
describing
and
analyzing
simulation
e.,
operations
time
and have
on
spent
models),
and resources
exhaustive
research

those models.
and validating
perfecting
the objective
techniques
of devising
management using those tools.

They eventually
improving
for

neglected
operations

6/.

The

service
of

factor
that
most
relevant
levels
in terminals
is delay,

congestion

obtaining
factor,

in

servicing.

perception

time
overall
implemented.
conveniently

of

However,

users
spent An

to
a

could

define

which is the
due to the
this

operational
major outcome
difficulty
of

predominently
facility
processing

emotive
was more

282.

7/.
to

Consequently,
the

level

framework,

service

of

is

which

essential

of
assessment
and operations
planning
terminals,
could be practically
erected
and conveniently
implementation
In this
the successful
way,
of P-R models.
process

of

for

standards

different

and for

conditions,

facilities,

processing

at

airport
through
service
various

can be set.

any environment,

for use not only

The concept
of P-R models has good prospects
but
in
time
the
this
with
as
work,
service
selected
measure
with
that could
any other service
measure, or combination
of measures,
be
be adopted to describe
different
and
could
conditions
service
its
by
formulate
towards
to
various
people
an
attitude
perceived

8/.

values.
Processing

9/.

is

distribution,
understanding
processing

in

time,

terms

of

a vital

and
facilities,

and essential
operations
analysing
because it
is the

rate
processing
piece of information
airport
main factor
of

and
in

terminal
and basic
hence the

dictate
and
capacity
would eventually
fail
facilities.
Nevertheless,
practices
of
current
performance
importance;
this
to recognize
are set for defining
no guidelines
distributions,
threshold
no
rate
values
service
and processing
into
facilities
is
carried
classification
out
of, processing
knowledge
distinct
on
sufficient
categories,
or even provide
(servicing)
activity.
of the processing
characteristics
that

element

10/.
the

Capacity
use

relations

of
of

particular
based on the

with

appropriate

simulation
are described

an appropriately

models

more closely

operations
set level

be
could
technique,
in

through
could be defined
describe
that
supply-demand
operational
with definitive
demand

particular

and assessing

conjuncion
Performance

monitored

model'
facility

the

parameters
Defining
capacity,

operations

facilities

of processing
'performance

detail

and efficiently.

by

derived
whereby
with

pattern
prevailing.
in
be
must
performed
framework.
of service
implementing
various

-important

aspects
variables

an
of
are

CHAPTERELEVEN

RECOMMENDATIONS

1/.

is

It

believed
in

or proven
information

this

FOR

(yet
work

RESEARCH

investigated
be appropriately
on
of limitations
and-restrictions
to
perception
prevailing
passenger

could
because

not

that

collection)

FURTHER

dictate
the service
service,
which effectively
vary
standards,
This means that service
from
levels
extracted
with demand levels.
P-R models hold
for-the
demand level
only
when and where the
took

survey

passenger,

because

place,
different

it..

is

that

thought

differently.
levels
In
activity
fact,
IATA adopts
two-tier
recognition
of this
partial
service
for normal and peak conditions.
This argument suggests
standards
that
service
standards
vary with change in demand levels,
with
levels,
the
taking
service
a slightly
pattern
curvilinear
respond

passenegers

to

however,
demand levels.
In this
with higher
work,
was assumed that
prevailing
and response
passenger
perception
for different
demand levels.
service
was constant
increasing

2/.

In this

directly

work,
used to

different

facilities

included

in

passenger
accurate.
implemented
traveler's
values
values

of
(see

the

values
as

time
P-R

construct

recorded

main, passenger

estimation
Psychological
in

of

study

to
perception
time are likely
Section

9.4.3).

by

by

the

passengers
was
However, it was found

also
that

very
spent
was not
that was previously
of perception
Clark(198)
to try.
to model urban

travel
to

to

by
are
passengers
as perceived
in
Actual
time
spent
models.

survey.

of time
theory

it

actually

time,

that
suggested
be non-linear
functions

Nevertheless,

applying

perceived
of

values

actual
of the

284.

arrived

parameters
negligible
(time).

in

at

effects
So,
further

on

that

to our case study

study
showed
the
adopted
of
service
measure
into the relationship
of perceived

values

research

values
environment
of service
measures in the airport
be
is required
fully.
to understand
This
the situation
will
more
standards
to deriving
and on
most helpful
service
more accurately
to

actual

basis.

a more realistic
3/.

Throughout

this

work, certain
times,
processing
lack of
or for

facilities'
simplification,
processing

times

processing

time
for

observed
facilities

were

obtained

primarily
necessary
by using

per

according
passenger
flight
particular
sector.

the

handle

to

assumed

were

were made regarding

for
the
sake
of
Check-in
information.

assumptions

the
to

average

weighted

average
All other

size

group

processing

on a one-in-group

passengers

basis,

times
where
processing
per
passenger
assumed
were
if
However, it would seem more realistic
and accurate
processed.
group
basis
times were assigned
during
on a
processing
operation
frequency
to prespecified
than on
distribution,
according
rather
an individual
(and its
size
(in

processing

basis.

passenger

and undoubtedly

the

Evidently,

effect

It

substantial
within

airports,

attitude,
a real

airport
effects
vital

indicated

difficulties

responsible
least
give
not

frequently

was

were

parties
their
which
threat

of

in

obtaining

mainly

this

seems universal,
to efforts
of

system

parties
has on
at

all

is

work,

operational
to the

contributed
to provide
and authorities
to its
consent
collection

All
operations.
behaviour
this
transport

group

distribution)
frequency
corresponding
on overall
terms of processing
is quite
times)
significant
influences
the behaviour
model
of the performance

Research
is
to provide
thus
and capacity.
required
knowledge and understanding
issue.
important
on this
4/.

of

a better

that

the

information

of
reluctance
information,
or at
This
by others.

a considerable

obstacle

if

with
associated
the adverse
should now recognize
this
future
the present
of
and

general

levels:

research

regionally,

nationally,

and

285.

internationally.
as the
parties
the
airport

excuse,

systemThere

socio-politically.

research
and
It
be
should

organise
airports.

responsibility
the
under

benefit

to

effort

coordinated

collection

in
the

preferably

specialized
government-related
in
be
the
this
arrangement
would
and the

travelling

air

associated

parties

with

systematically
involved,
parties

the

and
to

programmes

implemented

airports

related

information

supervision
of
When introduced,
of

commercially,

operationally,
be
should

between

shared

organisations.
interest
general
of

by those
invariably
presented
argument
is the unique and sensitive
of
situation

The

with

the

public,

and

system.

In this

work, P-R models were built

with time as the service
But
this
for
defining
the
requirements,
purpose
of
space
measure.
(time)
However,
this
directly.
would not be applicable
measure
be
has
demonstrated
that
obtained
can
space
work
standards
indirectly
through
as
performance
use time as well
models that
5/.

(expressed

space

in

terms

Nevertheless,
measures.
be
interpreted
less
might

of

maximum queue

of
perception
by them in
accurately
would develop space service
although

that
a research
adopt
on P-R models that
space as
this
complement
work,
and could
issue.
particular

time,

6/.

Using

the

level

than

time

to

other
kinds

of

include:
parameters
and

length)

service
walking
(airline

concessions

etc.
...

of
build
of

people

service
to space

comparison
standards

with
based

the

would
service
measure,
throw
on this
more light

service
with
service
measures
procedure
different
P-R models that would express
These
terminals.
may
airport
measures

distance,
ticket
and

as the

fares,

services

density,

occupation
access
prices),

trip

fares,

frequency

economic
tax,
airport
of

flights,

286.

7/.

Since

because
conducted
in detail.

of

this

work
insufficiency

baggage

excluded
of

largely

facility

claim

be
should
research
facility
baggage claim

information,

on analysing
operations
of the
This
methodology
can be applied

to

that

achieve

purpose.
8/.

This

and
understand
"Super-peaking"
conditions
utilization
sustained

is

methodology

uncover

where
periods

previously

phenomenon.
the
system
from

resulting
of

if

suitable

time,

adopted

research
features

unknown
Super-peaks

is

subjected
high
extremely

but

in

only

for

short

are
to

levels

acute
of

durations.

to

better
of

operational
levels
demand

the

of
for

REFERENCES

1.

K. R. Sealy;

ASCE Research

Engineers,

Practice

Society

American

1973,

November,

Systems

",

Planning

of
863-871.

pp.

Macmillan

1976.

" Airport

in

No. 4,

" Airports

London,

K. R. Sealy;

Journal,

99,

vol.

R. De Neufville;
Press,

4.

Hutchinson,

Division;
of the Air Transport
",
Planning
Airport
Terminal

Engineering

Transportation

3.

",

Transport

Air

Committee

Needs for

" Research
Civil

of

1968.

London,
2.

" The Geography

Geography

",

and Planning:
Oxford University

Theory

Strategy

Press,

and
Oxford,

1976.
5.

Kennedy; " A Book of

1983.
Oxford,

6.

J. R. Wiley;

L.

R. Horonjeff;
edition,

8.

Transport

Administration

" Planning

McGraw-Hill,

International
Reference

Journeys

",

Fountain/Collins,

",

ENO Foundation,

1981.

Westport,
7.

" Airport

Air

Air
Manual

and Design of
New York, 1975.

Transport.
",

Association;

sixth
edition,
Association,
Montreal,

Airports

" Airport

International
1976.

",

second

Terminal
Air

287.

9.

Civil

International
Manual-

Part

I:

International
10.

Master

Civil

" Conference

Research

Academy of
N. Ashford,
edition,
12.

" Jet

13.

of
435-450.

",

for

Circular

Airport

second

No. 3, March,

No. AC 150/5360-7,
Washington,

Terminal

Facilities

Circular

Aviation
Analysis
",

Washington,

Department
5,1976.

and Design
",
Non-Hub Locations

D. C.,

Department
April

",

of

" Planning

Administration;
Concepts

1971,

and design
Development
Building

October

D. C.,

at
No. AC 150/5360-9,

of

December,

" Planning

Terminal

Airport

Buildings

",

Design
127,

vol.

London,

Administration;

Complex:

3-5.

Planning
of AirportsVol. 50,
7372, Proceedings,

Aviation

Federal

pp.

National

Engineering

Building

Record,

Administration;

Transportation,
16.

Terminal

Federal
Advisory

159,

Board

Engineers,

Aviation

Transportation,
15.

Paper

Civil

Considerations
Advisory

Capacity-

" The Capacity

Institute

Federal

1977.

Landside

Airport

Architectural

Considerations

14.

edition,
Montreal,

167-174.

J. D. Perrett;

pp.

Organisation,

Passenger

",

pp.

first

",

and P. H. Wright; " Airport

John Wiley,
New York, 1984.

Airports:

Planning

special
report
D. C., 1975,
Washington,

Sciences,

Principles
1960,

Aviation
",

" Airport

Organisation;

Planning

Findings

Transportation

11.

Aviation

of

of

4,1980.

" The Apron-Terminal

for

Evaluation

for FAA by Ralph

prepared
No. FAA-RD-73-82,
Department
of
--report
Washington,
D. C., September,
1973.

of Terminal
M. Parsons Company,
Transportation,

288.

17.

Federal

Aviation
Planning

Manual

Parsons

Company,

report
Washington,

Transportation,
18.

for
prepared
No. FAA-RD-75-191,
",

Building

Air

Transport

D. C.,

Association

and Passenger
by Airport
Design/Services
Association

Transport

Department

Committee,

of

Aircraft

" Airline

Space Requirements

America,

of

1975.

July,

America;

of
Terminal

Gates

and Terminal
FAA by Ralph M.

" The Apron

Administration;

report
Washigton,

",

prepared
No. 4, Air
D. C.,

July,

1977.
19.

E. G. Blankenship;

Ecological

Integration,
London,
20.

Urban

Architectural,

" The Airport:

Problems

",

Pall

Mall

Press,

1974.
Civil

International

Aviation

" Airport

Organisation;

Part
Environmental
II:
Landuse
and
Aviation
Civil
Control
", first
International
edition,
Montreal,
Organisation,
1977.
Manual

Planning

21.

Air

International

Capacity

Terminal
Association,

Analysis

Montreal,

" IATA Airport

Association;
",

Air

International

January,

Transport

1982.

By Which
of the Methodology
Airport
Efficiency
Might Be Measured ",
and Performance
London,
London,
1979.
M. Sc. thesis,
Polytechnic
Central
of
" An Examination

22.

D. Field;

23.

G. D. Gosling;
Airport

" An-Economic

Passenger

California,
24.

Transport

R. S. Doganis,

Berkely,

Terminals

Framework
",

for

the

Ph. D. thesis,

Planning

of

University

1979.

and G. F. Thompson; " The Economics of British

Airports
", Deptartment
Polytechnic
Engineering,
of Civil
London, London, 1973.
of Central

of

289.

25.

W. J.

Dunlay

Airport

for
and C. H. Park; " Tandem-Queue Algorithm
Engineers,
Flows ", American, Society
of Civil

Jr.,

Users

Transportation
1978,
26.

27.

Engineering

C. H. Park; " A Tandem-Queue

Airport

Capacity

Austin,

1977.

M. O'Leary;

30.

Modelling
University

Evaluation

" Computer
the

Building

of
Types

",

Glasgow,

1982.

G. Calderbank,
Simulation

Architectural
of

Overall

Evaluating

University

Texas,

of

",

of Airports
of Technology,

M. Sc.

Strathclyde,

Level

Texas,

of
Aided

Criteria

Of Service

",

1978.

Austin,

Design

Architectural

for

Building

Terminal

Airport

the

Under

University

By Computer

the

for

1975.

N. F. Gualda; " Modelling

L. W. Laing;

Algorithm

Ph. D. thesis,

Loughborough

Ph. D. thesis,
29.

",

" Stochastic

Loughborough,

Capacity

No. 2, March,

104,

vol.

131-149.

pp.

thesis,

28.

Journal

Simulation

Flow of People Through

of
variety
_A
Ph. D. thesis,
University
of Strathclyde,

and A. Kirke;
of an Airport

A Program

" AIR-Q:
Terminal

Aids
and Building
Glasgow,
1972.

Complex

Computer

Package for
", (ABACUS)University

Unit,

A Comprehensive
and J. G. Gentles; " AIR-Q Mk II:
Simulation
Package ", paper No. 47, (ABACUS)- Architectural
Aids Computer Unit,
University
and Building
of Strathclyde,
Glasgow, January,
1976.

31.

L. W. Laing,

32.

L. W. Laing,
Glasgow

and J. G. Gentles;
AirportScotland
",

Architectural
of

Strathclyde,

" Air-Q

Validation
No. R26,

paper
Aids Computer

and Building
Glasgow,
November,

1975.

Study:
(ABACUS)-

Unit,

University

290.

33.

Ashford;

" Airport

Transport

J.

Final

",

Report

G. E. Campbell;
Claitor's

36.

Publishing,

",

N. Ashford,

of Technology,

University

",

Management and Operations

Baton Rouge, 1977.

H. P. M. Stanton,
",

Operations
38.

May, 1975.

and Design of
and F. X. McKelvey; " Planning
1983.
York,
New
third
McGraw-Hill,
edition,

R. Horonjeff,
Airports

37.

" Airport

of
Loughborough

Total
and N. Ashford; " Airport
Technology
Department of Transport

P. McGinity,

No. TT 7513, Loughborough

report
August,
1975.
Loughborough,
35.

Department

No. TT7506,
report
Loughborough,
Technology,

of

Boothby,

System:

",

Technology

University
34.

Design

Terminal

and N.

M. O'Leary,

P. McGinity,

N. Hawkins,

D. Bennetts,,

John Wiley,
" Airlines

O. W. Hullet;

and C. A. Moore; " Airport

New York, 1984.

Provide

Resources

Technical

for

Complex ", Architectural

of the Apron-Terminal
Record, Vol. 141, No. 11, November, 1974, pp. 133-144.

Design

39.

P. H. Beinhaker;
Capacity

",

Research

Board

Sciences,
40.

Airport

Decentralization
No. 6,
41.

for

Landside

special
Washington,

J. P. Braaksma,
Journal,

" Primer

Analysis
Capacity-

Journal,

Airport

Transportation

November,

Society
1976,

Civil

of
pp. 699-714.

American
1975,

Society
pp.

of Civil
321-335.

Engineering

Engineers,

" Methods
and J. Shortreed;
Terminal
Concepts
", Transportation

No. 2, May,

Design-

and W. Ramsay; " Air Terminal

and Shape ", Transportation

American

Landside

Academy of
159, National'
report
D. C., 1975, pp. 17-35.

J. P. Braaksma,
Airport

of

for

Engineers,

Vol.

106,

Designing
Engineering
Vol.

101,

291

42.

43.

Federal

Aviation

Administration;

Airport

Facility

Requirement

Transportation

Hubs Through

Transportation,

Washington,

S. G. Hamzawi; " Airport

Report

Transport

",

pp.

Division;

Design

Planning-

No. 3, August,

48.

for

Record,

Vol.

Technical
Planning

Policy

Transportation

Ottawa,

Program

",

1983.

July,

Terminal

Airport

No. 11,

141,

Transport

Society

1976,

pp.

",

Future
Engineering

Transportation

102,

Vol.

Engineers,

of Civil
461-474.

Boothby,

Bureau

of
Department

August,

Public
of

Research

Research

Board

M. Wohl,
Engineers

1974.

Roads; " Highway

Commerce,

Highway
Sciences,

49.

Model

of a Dynamic
and N. Ashford; " Construction
System ", Department
Technology
Airport
report
of Transport
No. TT 7408, Loughborough
University
of Technology,
J.

Loughborough,
47.

Analysis

145-146.

Impacts

American

Journal,

46.

1969.

Facilities
on Terminal
of the Air
" Air Passenger Handling
Facilities:

Committee

Of

Department

January,

Canada,

Architectural

1974,

November,
45.

D. C.,

A. W. Thompson; " A Management

Development

for

Airport
second edition,
Department,
Canadian Air

TE 3935E,

and Programming
Administration44.

1980 ",

Traffic

Demand and
Medium Air

" Aviation
Forecasts

D. C.,

Washington,

Board; " Highway

special
Washington,

Capacity

Capacity

87,
report
D. C., 1965.

and B. V. Martin; " Traffic

McGraw-Hill,
and Planners,

National

System

Manual

",

U. S.

",

Highway

1950.
Manual

Academy of

Analysis

New York,

for

1967.

292.

50.

R. P. Roess; " Highway

Capacity

Manual

Revisited

Engineering

American

Society

of Civil

Journal,
1984,

November,
51.

J. J.

Fruin;

52.

J. J.

" Environmental

Fruin;
",

pp.

Civil

of

R. De Neufville,
American

No. 1, January,

1972,

February,

1,

No.

98,

Terminal
American

Journal,

Engineering
Vol.

Passenger

1-15.

Society

1982,

Engineering

Engineers,

Civil

of
87-102.

pp.

Pedestrian
108,

Vol.

and Measurement
and D. Maddison; " Identification
Elements
Level
Capacity
Landside
Service
of
and
of
of
of
Transportation
", Airport
CapacityLandside
the Airport
Academy of
Research Board special
159, National
report

M. Brink,

Sciences,

Washington,

Transport

Canada; " A discussion

Definition
Capacity

D. C.,

1975,

for
and Methodology
", Air Services
Branch,

Transportation
" Guidelines

Administration,
for

International
Association
57.

in

" Design of
and M. Grillot;
Terminals
", Transportation

Airport

Journal,

56.

record 355,
D. C., 1973, pp.

Factors

Engineers,

of Service
National

89-101.

Space in

55.

Board

Washington,

Transportation

A Level

Pedestrians:

Research

Sciences,

Society

054.

for

Academy of

Design

53.

Highway

Engineers,

69-71.

pp.

" Designing

",

Concept

Civil

",

Air

Airport
Transport

Coordination

pp.

92-112.

Paper on Level of Service

Airport
Calculating
Tp 2027,

April,

Ottawa,

Capacity/Demand
Association/
Council,

of
Transportation
of

Sciences,

1979.

Management
Airport

Tool
and F. R. Roberts; " Decision
Capacity
Buildings
Terminal
of Airport
Research Board record 732, National
Washington,

D. C.,

1981.

Trap WG, November,

B. F. McCullough,
Analysis

Air

Canadian

1979,

pp.

41-54.

for
",
Academy

293.

C5
of Level
and D. H. Jones; " Identification
",
Elements
Landside
of Service
and Capacity
of Airport
Airport
Landside
Research Board
CapacityTransportation
K. W. Heathington,

159, National
special
report
Washington,
D. C., 1975, pp.
59.

60.

and Design

",

J. J.

" Pedestrian

Association

of Urban
1971.

New York,

61.

Airports

British

Sciences,

in Engineering
and M. Sanders; " Human Factors
fifth
New York, 1982.
McGraw-Hill,
edition,

E. McCormick,

Fruin;

Academy of
72-92.

Planning
Designers

Authority;

",
and Design
and Environmental

Metropolitan
Planners,

on the BAA/IATA Study

", BAA
Assessment
Capacity

" Report

Group on Methodology
for Airport
P82/187,
British
Airports
report

Authority,

London,

April,

1982.
62.

F. P. O. Navin,

Flow
and R. J. Wheeler; " Pedestrian
", Traffic
Engineering,
June, 1969.

Characteristics
63.

S. J.

Older;

Centers
pp.
64.

",

Shoping
1968,

160-163.

B. Pushkarev,
A Report
Cambridge,

65.

" Movement of Pedestrians

on Footways in
Traffic
Engineering
August,
and Control,

A. Polus,

of

and J. M. Zupan; " Urban Space for Pedestriansthe Regional

", MIT Press,
Plan Association

Mass.,
J.

1975.

Schofer,

of
American

Service

",

Flow and
and A. Ushpiz; " Pedestrian
Transportation
Journal,
Engineering

Society

of

Civil

January,

1983,

Level

pp.

46-56.

Engineers,

Vol.

109,

No.

1,

294.

66.

A. T. Habicht,
Pedestrian

67.

Width
and J. P. Braaksma; " Effective
Corridors
Transportation
Engineering

American

Society

January,

1984,

Civil

of

Engineers,

No. 1,

80-93.

pp.

Association;

International

Air

Facilitation-

Freedom of Movement in Air

Air Transport
Association,

International

110,

Vol.

of
Journal,

Transport

" Guide

to

Transport

",

Montreal,

July,

1981.
68.

International

Civil

Annex 9 to

M. L.

on International
International
Civil

70.

Mass.,

71.

Board; "" Airport

Transportation

Research

Board

Air

Association,

Transport
73.

British
edition,
1981.

74.

Air

Terminal

British

B. G. Hutchinson;
Planning

",

",

Capacity

Analysis

",

Montreal,

Airports

Authority,

Scripta/McGraw-Hill,

of

Transport

" IATA Abbreviated

International

January,

" Glossary

" Principles

National

1982.

Association;

Authority;

Air

International

January,

Transport

Association,
Airports

159,

" IATA Airport

Association;

Analysis

Montreal,

International
Airport

Transport

Capacity",

Landside

report
special
Washington,
D. C., 1975.

Sciences,

Capacity

Terminal

72.

1980.

Research

International

Organisation,

Aviation

Transportation
Academy of

".

Aviation

Systems
of Transportation
Concepts ", MIT Press,

Volume One: Basic

Cambridge,

Civil

1980.

Manheim; " Fundamentals

Analysis-

" Facilitation-

Organisation;

Convention

eighth
edition,
July,
Montreal,
69.

Aviation

Air

1982.

of Terms ", third

London, November,

Urban Transport
Washington,

Systems
D. C.,

1974.

295.

R. Larson,

76.

L.

Kleinrock;

New York,

Wiley,
77.

G. F. Newell;
and Hall,

78.

Systems-.. Volume

" Queueing

",

Research

and A. Odoni; " Urban Operations

1981.
Prentice-Hall,
New Jersey,

75.

I:

",

Theory

John

1975.

" Applications

London,

of

Theory

Queueing

Chapman

",

1971.

A. M. Lee; " Applied

Queueing

Theory

",

New York,

Macmillan,

1966.

79.

Douglas

Aircraft
Airlines

American
Airside

Capacity

Administration
Transportation,
80.

Company,
Inc.;

Peat

for

" Techniques

and Delay ", Federal

FAA-RD-74-184,
report
Washington,

D. C.,

& Co.,

Mitchell

Marwick

Determining

and
Airport

Aviation
U. S. Department

June,

of

1976.

" Stochastic
and P. McGinity;
Modelling
of Passengers
and Baggage Flows Through an
May,
Terminal
", Traffic
Airport
Engineering
and Control,
M. O'Leary,

N. Ashford,

1976.
81.

N. Ashford,
McGinity;
Terminals
National
pp.

82.

N. Hawkins,

M. O'Leary,

" Passenger

Behaviour

"Stochastic

Delays

and P.
Airport

D. Bennetts,

and Design of
588,
", Transportation
Research Board record
Academy of Sciences,
D. C., 1976,
Washington,

18-27.

W. Powell;

Ph. D. thesis,
Cambridge,

Massachussetts
Mass.,

1981.

in

Transportation

Institute

of

Terminals

Technology,

296.

83.

D. Bennetts,
Ashford;

" The Design

Airport

Terminals
TT7407,

84.

R.

Paullin;

86.

Airport

",

Research
Sciences,

Board

Macmillan,

and Operations
1983,
No. 2, April,

Sciences
-13,
87.

88.

E. Morlok;

" Types

Their

Applications

1980,

pp.

of the
Research
pp.

National

",

An Introduction

third

1981.

Evaluating

Journal

The International

report
D. C., 1975.

Research-

in

159,

special

New York,

R. L. Keeny; " Issues

Factors

Capacity-

Landside

Washington,

N. A. Taha; " Operations

edition,
,

Technology,

of

and Off-Airport

Airside

of

Capacity

of

University

1974.

" Influence

Transportation

85.

",

August,

on Landside
Academy

of the Passenger Processing

Technology,
Department
of Transport

Loughborough

report
Loughborough,

and N.
System for

M. O'Leary,

P. McGinity,

N. Hawkins,

Standards
Institute
Society

",

Interfaces-

of Management
Vol.
of America,

12-22.

of Transportation
", Transportation

Supply

Functions

Research,

Vol.

and
14-B,

9-27.

E. Ignall,

P. Kolesar,

and Validate
Research,
Operations

Develop

and W. Walker; " Using Simulation

Analytic
Models: Some Case Studies
Vol.

26,

March-April,

1978,

to

pp.

237-253.
89.

L.

Kleinrock;

Applications
90.

D. L. Gerlough,
Distributions

91.

A. A. Pritsker,
and SLAM ",

" Queueing
",

Systems-

John Wiley,

Volume II:

New York,

Computer

1976.

and F. C. Barnes; " Poisson and Other

in Traffic
Westport,
", ENO Foundation,
to
and C. D. Pegden; " Introduction
John Wiley-Halstead
Press, New York,

1971.

Simulation
1979.

297.

92.

D. Bennetts,,
Ashford;

N. Hawkins,

" Stochastic

Department
Loughborough

of Airport
TT 7509,
Technology,
report
Loughborough,
of Technology,

Modelling

Transport

of

and N.
",
Processing

M. O'Leary,

P. McGinity,

University

July,

1975
93.

G. J.

Methods
and S. S. Shapiro; " Statistical
", John Wiley,
New York, 1976.

Hahn,

Engineering
94.

N: A. J.

Hastings,
",

Distributions

95.

D. Bennetts,
",

Processing
TT 7502,

and J. B. Peacock; " Statistical

Butterworths,
1975.
London,

N. Hawkins,

" Survey

Ashford;

Analysis

of

Loughborough
April,

97.

P. Baron,
Systems
1974,

Airport

Board

A New Way To Survey

Terminals

588, National
record
D. C., 1976, pp. 27-35.

Washington,

report

1975.

in

Traffic

Research

Terminal

Technology,
of Transport
University
of Technology,

96. ' J. P. Braaksma; " Time-Stamping:

Pedestrian

Airport

and N.
Passenger

M. O'Leary,

P. McGinity,

Department

Loughborough,

in

",

Transportation

Academy of'Sciences,

A
and D. Henning; " The Passenger TerminalAnalysis
Approach ",
February,
Forum,
Airport

pp.

69-82.

" Heathrow

Passenger

98.

and Baggage Survey- Volume 1: Main

by
Report ", prepared
for Department
Trade
Industry
of
and
Metra Consulting
Group, London, February,
1973.

99..

P. B. Mandle,
Calibration
Dynamic

F.

and Validation
Simulation
Model

Administration
No. FAA-EM-80-2,
D. C.,

LaMagna,

April,

" Collection
and E. M. Whitlock;
Landside
Data for an Airport

of

for Federal
Aviation
prepared
by Wilbur
Inc.,
Smith and Associates
report
Department
Washington,
of Transportation,

1980.

",

298.

100.

101.

National

Technical

Information

224049,

Springfield,

July,

Federal

Aviation

Air Carrier
(annual)",

Passenger

Federal

Transport

D. C.,

Aviation

Civil

(annual),
105.

Association

Airports

British

Airport

1975.

America;

" Air

of
Air Transport

Authority;

Authority,

Authority;

" Patterns

Authority

Airports-

Forecasting

P82/186,

Airports

British

of

1982.

Planning'DepartmentRef.

Facts

Transport

Association

" CAA Monthly

Civil-Aviation

British

of
1976.

February,

D. C.,

Washington,

"(annual),,
and Figures
America,
Washington,
D. C.,
104.

Department

Aeronautics
and Civil
Department
"(annual),
Statistics

Activity

of Transportation,
Air

of Scheduled
Top 100 U. S. Airports

Administration,

Board; " Airport

103.

No.

Publication

" Profiles

Traffic-

Washington,

Aviation

Manual",

1973.

No. FAA-AVP-76-4,

report

Survey

Travel

Service,

Administration;

Transportation,
102.

" Airport

Associates;

Barton-Aschman

1981 11

Statistics-

London,

1982.

January,

at the
of Traffic
1981 "(annual),

Section,
and Statistics
London, April,
Authority,

1982.
106.

International

Civil

Aviation

Organisation;

" Civil

Aviation

Statistics

Yearbook
1979: ICAO Statistical
of the World(annual),
fifth
International
Document 9180/5,
edition,
Aviation
Civil
Organisation,
1980.
Montreal,
107.

M. Hersh; " Airline

Transportation
pp.

277-285.

Scheduling:

Planning

A Heuristic

and Technology,

Approach
Vol.

2,1974,.

",

299.

108.

W. Hayman, and L. Gordon; " Commercial

Technique
", Transportation
Research,
March,

109.

1968,

pp.

R. E. Larson;
Scheduling

2,

Vol.

No. 2,

23-29.

" A Dynamic
",

Scheduling

Airline

Programming

Proceedings

of

Approach

AGIFORS Symposium,

fifth

the

Airline

to

1965.
110.

A.

Kanafani;

" Transportation

McGraw-Hill,

Airport

111.

London,

D. Turner;

to

H. Kleine;
Simulation

" Terminal

Planning

116.

P. Rossi,
Survey

G. Gardner;

European

1977.

",

J.

Wright,

Discrete

of

1971,

August,

Research
" Social

Surveys

Press,

for

Social

A. N. Oppenheim; " Questionnaire

Design

J. L.

",

Heinemann.

Simon; " Basic

of
House,

in

Empirical
New York,

Social

" Handbook
and A. Anderson (editors);
", Academic Press, New York, 1983.

Keynes,

Art

Views

of Users'
Simulation,

Milton

Measurement
118.

paper 4.2
Association
Airport
",

Criteria

and G. Kalton; " Survey Methods

", Heinemann,
London, 1971.

Open University
117.

Western

Languages

C. A. Moser,

of

by British

brochure

",

" A Second Survey

Investigation
115.

World

89-93.

pp.
114.

the

1984.

to the 31st
presented
Conference,
New York,
113.

1983.

Consultants

Airways,
112.

New York,

",

Demand Analysis

Research
Investigation
1978.

London,

Planners

",

The

1978.

and Attitude
1966.

Methods

in

Social

11 second
,

Science-

edition,

The

Random

300.

119.

120.

and D. Nachmias; " Research Methods in

Sciences
", second edition,
Arnold,
London,

C. Nachmias,

the

Social

1982.

P. Young; " Scientific

fourth

121.

E. R. Babbie;
Publishing

122.

" Survey
Co.,

124.

H. W. Smith;

Wandsworth

",

1973.

",

" The Strategies

Imagination

Prentice-Hall,

New Jersey,

W. A. Belson;
",

World,

of

Survey

An
" Human Behaviourand G. A. Steiner;
Scientific
Brace &
", Harcourt
Findings

of
New York,

1964.

(editor);

G. A. Maranell
Behavioural

and Understanding
Aldershot,
1981.

Gower,

The

Researchof Social
", second edition,
1981.

" The Design

B. Berelson,

Cases,

Principles,
and AnalysisThe Free Press,
New York, 1965.

Methodological

Inventory

126.

Methods

H. Hyman; " Survey'Design

Questions

125.

Research

California,

and Procedures
123.

and Research
1966.
New Jersey,

Prentice-Hall,

edition,

",

Surveys

Social

" Scaling-

Scientists

",

Aldine

for

A Sourcebook
Co.,

Publishing

Chicago,

1974.
127.

P. Dunn-Rankin;
Associates

128.

129.

" Scaling

Publishing

B. S. Phillips;

New York,

D. L.

(editor);

Social
1968.

Sills

Co.,

" Social

Macmillan,

Sciences

",

Methods

",

Lawrence

New Jersey,

Research-

Erlbaum

&

1983.

Strategy

and Tactics

",

1971.
" International
Macmillan

Encycloepedia

and The Free

Press,

of the
New York,

301.

130.

C. H. Coombs; " A Theory

Engineering

Research

University
131.

C. W. Churchman,
" Introduction

R. L. Ackoff,

R. Shannon; " Systems

1974,

of

The Art

Simulation:

of

and the

Operations

Science",

Vol.

100,

No. 4,

November,

and A. R. Probst; " Simulation

1976.
New Jersey,
Prentice-Hall,

B. C. Kahan,

J. W. McCredie;

pp.

",

" The Structure

Proceedings

Conference

Discrete

of
Denver,

in

Event

Simulation

of
the 1970 Summer Computer
Colorado,

June,

1970,

88-97.

H. M. Markowitz;

" SIMSCRIPT ",

(editors:
J.
and Technology
Marcel Dekker,
Chicago,
and A. Kent),

F. P. Wyman; " Simulation

SIMSCRIPT ",
H. M. Markowitz,
Simulation
Jersey,

New York,

Belzer,
1970.

A Guide

to

Using

1970.

and H. W. Carr; " SIMSCRIPT- A

New
Language ", Prentice-Hall,

B. Hausner,

Programming
1963.

Modeling:

John Wiley,

of Computer
A. G. Holzman,

Encycloepedia

Sciences

139.

New

1975.

Engineers,

GPSS and GPSS V ",

Simulation

138.

Wiley,

985-996.

pp.

Languages

137.

Civil

P. A. Bobillier,
With

136.

John

D. E. Low; " Use of Simulation

in Airport
Planning
and
American
Journal,
Design ", Transportation
Engineering
Society

135.

",

Research

New Jersey,

Prentice-Hall,
134.

E. L. Arnoff;

and

and M. W. Sasieni; " Fundamentals

John Wiley,
New York, 1968.

",

Research
133.

Ackoff,

Operations

to

1952.

1960.

York,

132.

R. L.

No. 34,

Ann Arbor,

Press,

Michigan

of

",

Scaling

of Psychological
Bulletin
Institute,

302.

140.

P. J.

R. Villanueva,

Kiviat,

SIMSCRIPT II
Jersey,
141.

Programming

1969.

E. C. Russel;

" Simulating

SIMSCRIPT 11.5
142.

P. J.

Kiviat;

Project
States
143.

Steel

Corporation,

New York,

1963.
GASP II:

With

"Simulation

Language

United

Laboratory,.

Monroeville,

",

Prentice-Hall,

" The GASP IV Simulation

Language

With

and R. Young; "Simulation

New York, 1975.

Sabuda,

F. H. Grant,

User's

",

Manual

",

" The GASP

and A. A. B. Pritsker;
Inc.,
West
Pritsker
and Associates

1978.

F. E. Cellier,

" GASP V: A Universal

and A. E. Blitz;
Package ", Proceedings
of the 8th AICA

on Simulation
of
1976, pp. 391-402.

August,

J. N. Buxton,
Language

",

Language:

User's

1982.

Systems,

and J. G. Laski; " Control

Computer Journal,
Vol. 5,

A. T. Clementson;

John

GASP-PL/I"

Lafayette,

March,

New

1974.

Conference

149.

Research

Kiviat;

Program",

Simulation

A. A. B. Pritsker,

Simulation

148.

Activity

1969.

A. A. B. Pritsker;

J.

in

and Resources
1974.
Arlington,

Processes

Inc.,

Applied

and P. J.
A FORTRAN-Based Simulation

IV/E:

147.

C. A. C. I.

"GASP: A General

John Wiley,
146.

With

A. A. B. Pritsker,

Wiley,
145.

",

90.17-019(2),

Jersey,
144.

" The
and H. M. Markowitz;
New
Language ", Prentice-Hall,

" Extended
Manual

",

Control

Delft,

Netherlands,

and Simulation
1962,

pp.

194-199.

and Simulation
CLE. COM Ltd.,
Birmingham,

303.

150.

Systems
151.

Journal,

IBM; "General
Ref.

7090-CS-05X,

Systems

IBM

18-33.

pp.

Library

Program

Simulator:

",

Company,

Machines

Business

International

",

Simulator

No. 1,1962,

1,

Vol.

Purpose

Systems

Purpose

G. Gordon; " A General

New York.
152.

and G. Gordon; " A General Purpose Digital

Part I:
and Examples of its Application-

R. Efron,
Simulator
Description
Vol.

153.

3,

IBM; "General
Pub.

IBM Systems

",
of the Simulator
No. 1,1964,
pp. 22-34.
Purpose

H20-0163,

II:

Simulator

Systems

International

Journal,

Machines

Business

Manual",

User's

Company,

New York.
154.

General

Purpose

No. 3,1965,
155.

An Expanded
" GPSS III:
and T. H. Schneider;
Vol. 4,
Simulator
", IBM Systems Journal,

H. Herscovitch,

R. L.

pp.

174-183.

Gould; " GPSS/360:

Simulator

",

An Improved

IBM Systems

Journal,

Purpose

Simulation

General
Vol.

8,

Purpose
No. 1,1969,

pp.

16-27.
156.

IBM; " General

manual ", Pub. GH2O-0326,

Company, New York.
157.

G. Gordon; " The Application

Simulations

158.

IBM; "General
Pub.

",

SH2O-0851,

New York.

International

of

Prentice-Hall,

Purpose

Simulation

International

: User's
Business
Machines

System/360

GPSS V to
New Jersey,
System/V:
Business

Discrete

Systems

1975.
User's

Machines

Manual
Company,

",

304.

159.

B. Schmidt;

160.

T. Schriber;
York,
O. J.

Dahl,

162.

O. J.

Dahl,

Using

GPSS ",

1980.

New York,

John Wiley,

New

and K. Nygaard; " SIMULA: An ALGOL-Based

Simulation
Language ", Communications
of the Association
for Computing Machinary,
1966.
Vol. 9, September,
and K. Nygaard;
Programming and Description
Introduction
Computing

164.

" Simulation

John Wiley,

1974.

161.

163.

" GPSS - FORTRAN ",

O. J.

of
Manual

and User's
Center,
Oslo,

Dahl,

for

" SIMULA: A language

Discrete

Event

fifth

",

SystemsNorwegian

edition,

1967.

and K. Nygaard; " SIMULA 67 Common

Publication
No. S-2, Norwegian Computing

B. Myhrhaung,

Base Language

",

Center,

1968.

Oslo,

P. R. Hills;

" An Introduction

Publication

No. 5-55,

to

Norwegian

Simulation

Using

Computing

Center,

SIMULA ",
Oslo,

1973.
165.

IBM; " SIMPL/I:

General

International

GH19-5035,

Information
Business

Manual
Machines

",

Pub.

Company,

New York.
166.

A. A. B. Pritsker;
Networks

",

Halstead

West Lafayette,
167.

" Modeling

Using Q-GERT
and Analysis
Press-Pritsker
Inc.,
and Associates

1977.

McCabe, and T. Carberry;

" Simulation
Methods for
Facilities
Airport
", Airport
CapacityLandside
Transportation
Research Board special
159, National
report
Academy of Sciences,
Washington,
D. C., 1975, pp. 112-123.
L.

305.

168.

" Airport
McCabe, and M. Gorestein;
Description
Model (ALSIM)- Volume II:
L.

Simulation

Landside

Guide ",
and User's
Systems Center,
Transportation

No. FAA-EM-80-8-II,
report
Federal
Aviation
Administration,

Mass.,

Cambridge,

June,

1982.
169.

and K. M. Doyle; " The FAA's Airport

Analytical
Approach to Delay Analysis

Landside

D. Gentry,
Model:
Aviation

Administration

Department

Federal

No. FAA-AVP-78-2,

report

Transportation,

of

",

D. C.,

Washington,

January,

1978.

170.

B. A. Schriever,

(chairmen);

and W.W. Seifert

1975 and Beyond:

Transportation

J. D. Pararas;

" Analytical

Terminal

Aircraft

June 1967 ",

172.

" Analysis

Terminal

No. 5,1969,
173.

R. L.

pp.

Paullin;

Graduate

Report,

of

Buildings

M. Sc.

the

MIT Press,

Design

of

thesis,

Technology,

Cambridge,

Mass.,

Passenger
",

Aircraft

and Baggage Flows in

Journal,
Vol. 6,

446-451.

" Passenger

Engineering,
174,

of

for

Report

1977.

R. Horonjeff;
Airport

",

Institute

Massachussettes
January,

Models

Buildings

Approach-

A Systems

Workshop,
of the Transportation
Cambridge,
Mass., 1968.
171.

" Air

Flows

Institute

University

of

at Departure

Lounges

and Traffic
of Transportation
Berkely,
1966.
California,

W. A. Barbo; " The Use of Queueing Models in the Design

Baggage Claim Areas at Airports
", Graduate Report,
Institute
University

of
of

Transportation
California,

",

Engineering,
and Traffic
1967.
Berkely,

of

306.

175.

S. L. M. Hockaday; " Inbound

Baggage at San Francisco

International
Causes of
Airport:
An Analysis
the
of
Delay ", Graduate Report,
Institute
and
of Transportation
Berkely,
Traffic
Engineering,
University
of California,
1968.

176.

E. E. Smith,
Model

and J. T. Murphy; " Pier

Graduate Report,
Institute

",

Traffic

Engineering,

University

Simulation

Finger

and
of Transportation
Berkely,
California,

of

1968.
177.

178.

J.

Roman, and G. C. Jackson; " Analysis

of
Processing
", Graduate Report,
Institute
Engineering,
and Traffic
Berkely,
1974.

University

D. Bennetts,

P. McGinity,

Ashford;

N. Hawkins,

" Stochastic

Department
Loughborough

University

Security

Transportation

of

of-California,

and N.
",
Processing

M. O'Leary,

Modelling

Transport

of

Airport

of Airport
Technology,
No. TT 7509,
report
July,
Loughborough,
of Technology,

1975.
179.

C. Y. Cheng,
Service
Vol.

180.

and P. Gilmour;
Levels for Aircraft

10,

No. 4,1980,

Terminals

Terminal

University
T. Rallis;
Airports

of

" Terminal
",

Technical

",

Passenger

Airport

Method

Design

Space Planning

Waterloo,

Simulated

Forum,

106-107.

pp.

J. P. Braaksma; " Computerized

Airport

181.

" Computer

Ontario,

Transportation
University

Preliminary

Ph. D. thesis,

",

Waterloo,

for

1973.

Engineeringof

Denmark,

Part

Copenhagen,

1963.
182.

Maiqueta
Airport

International
Activity

and Associates,

",
1972

Airport:

Simulation

Study

Tippetts-Abbetts-McCarthy-Stratton
(unpublished).

I:

of

307.

183.

B. L.

Metals;

Bechtel
184.

J. J.

R. Nanda,

Battelle

Browne,

Memorial

Description:

Airport

J.

Defines

Alternatives

Airport

Forum,

D. E. Gentry,
",

States

Within

Project
Air

the

190.

10,

No. 1,1980,

of
Aviation

Analysis

pp.

21-24.

of

No.
report
Washington,

Transportation,

Movements

Passenger

Building

",

Canadian

Transport

Texas,

Air

Canada,

and B. F. McCullough;
for Airport
Terminal

Council

for

Advanced

Austin,

" A User's
Building

Ottawa,

Manual

August,

Studies,

1978.

and B. F. McCullough; " An Analysis

Terminal
Buildings
", Research Report

for
Austin,

Advanced
August,

Transportation
1978.

for

Capacity

Transportation

T. R. Chmores,
Council

1974.

(unpublished).

of Texas,

Passenger

",

Methods

September,

Administration,

Administration-

",

University

for

Terminal

ACAP Model

Analysis

Program

Columbus,

Team; " Simulated

E. V. Chambers,
the

12,

1977.

1973,

April,

Vol.

and P. Mathiasen; " Simulation

Expansions
Copenhagen Terminal

Hviid,

Department

Transportation

189.

Passenger

and N. K. Taneja; " Report on

in the United
Large Hub Airports

Federal

May,

Calgary

",

J. D. Howell,

FAA-AVP-77-26,

188.

Demand/Capacity

Vol.

Capacity

Airport

" Computer

Laboratories,

E. Bastiansen,

D. C.,

Model

Simulation

and R. Lui; " Simulating

", Industrial
Engineering,

Institute;

Battelle-Columbus

187.

Computer

at Airports
1972, pp. 12-19.

March,

186.

Airport

1974 (unpublished).

June,

Inc.,

Arrivals

185.

" Bechtel

Studies,

of
58,

University

of

308.

191.

L. McCabe,

" Airport

Landside

Model

Planning

Guide

and M. Gorstein;
(ALSIM)Volume I:

192.

G. S. Fishman; " Principles

John Wiley,

193.

194.

T. E.

Civil

Aviation
of
Civil

from

Letter

Manchester

of

J. E. Clark;
Time ",

",

Annual

and Cargo- 1983

London, May, 1984.

in

Reserach

Capacity

Traffic

and Planning,
referenced

Airside

Areas-

Paper WP/83/02,

",

Requirements

Research

for

Domestic

Paper WP/83/03,

Manchester
and Planning,
1983.
Manchester,
Authority,

Development
Airport

" Modeling

Transportation

Academy of

Generators

Number

Manchester
and Planning,
1983.
Authority,
Manchester,

Congdon; " Check-in

International

Simulation

Event

1982.

Holding
",

1982.

Development
Airport

and International
Directorate
of

198.

-,

5th,

Departures

International
P. L.

July,

June,

of Development
Airport
Authority,

Congdon; ", Passengers

Directorate

197.

Directorate

No.
report
Federal

230-254.

pp.

Authority,

International

International

Discrete

Passengers,

Aviation

the

Center,

" U. K. Airports:

Movements,

dated

PLC/D/l/06,
P. L.

Authority;

",

Mass.,

" Random

and A. R. Dobell;
4,1962,
SIAM Review,
Vol.

CAP 490,

196.

New York,

of
1978.

Hull,

Statements

195.

Cambridge,

Administration,

Aviation

Systems

Transportation

FAA-EM-80-8-I,

Simulation

Sciences,

Travelers'

Perceptions

Research

Board

Record

Washington,

D. C.,

1982,

of Travel
890, National
pp.

7-11.

APPENDIXA

P-R

1.

MODELS

EAST MIDLANDS AIRPORT Pilot.

2. Panel

of

Experts.

3.

MANCHESTERINTERNATIONAL AIRPORT.

4.

BIRMINGHAM INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT.

'

wo

D)O

'J

o ml

dX

u)
L)
O
Co

G1
. r.

U)
O

a
4-3
S-

fO

I
0

Quo

50
w

t
G_

It

;v

kfl

I
a)

0
x

C)9

oU
It W
U
C
}

Cl)

a
I---

cc

on -j
W

zaZ

AD

0
N

UNNW

O
J
C]

Z
ONO
Wo.
0

wa

_.

..

0000
o

Co

to

0
N

L
O
Q1

SN39N3SSVd

W
I

O )o

J4

im

Om

c
0
U
0
r.

ww

S-

o
M.
U,

tO

E
0
A4-

oJ O
In CX
I. Z
0

H W--4Q)
PZ E-4 4

P.

I-

I'
1
1
l

cx
O
0..
N
tn

oQM

I
O
C
d

cl:

.O
CfH

ZaZ
tn

J
W

AD

N
6-4

I-

V)

wa

f r_

00000
O

Co

''-

t0

Sb39N3SSVd %

CL)
L
im
. rLi-

J
Im

C0

cc

'

8JC

O)o

x
N

"

Y
(-3
O

NI

O
L)

iJ
.L

v
'
W

off

U
CJ
N

4
.
0-4

get LO

''N

Pn

C!

I0
4r-

a)
v
0
in
- C%d
C

o(n
N

U)p

4-4

I -0
Cl.
cz

LLJ
N
G
Q
J
G

O
OO
O

to

OOOO
&D

S830N3SSVd
4

c)

"r

W
co

C:
0J
J

cr.
J

l-

CI

0
O+

ww

St

0
nC

St
St
OQiLo

St

CQ

,
II
p.,

W
F=
J

St
St
oa
iO

Z
U,
U,
Li

ou O
cr
a
J
J

Q
`

4.00)
oa C

P40

J
Li

00
N
. _, _

E-+

10

_<,-, .

wa
vovOO

co

to

'

Sa3ON3SSVdZ
-I

wo

rno

m l
a x
0
s.D
U
V
4,

al

0
in

C
L)

I
LL

0.0LO
A
w

I
O

II
rn

E
z
Y
oU
MW

Ct

S4

J
W

-S.

00
N

wz

GJ
'O
O
E

I
U

U)
0-4
04

O
1

0 C54-4

"4

x
W
*4

4O

ww

oQ

10

Ooo.

N
4,
L
d

Go

C
b

U,

0fN

Oo

S839N3SSVd 4

d
L

LL

'

wO

9
4

0
n

U)

gl

U
d

L
N

U)
U)

4J
L
U
d
N

O
N

cnE

iO
W

}
d
gx
O
W
V)
C

A-+
gz,
O HS

O-

N
W

C)
w

O0
Nb
**4b

L
O
C3.
x
W

*416

aA

, Wft

1--o-

.:;
OOeop

go

1.
0Qo0

Ii

I..
W

-.Oj

*%%

U,
d

-w

.........

co

to

S83SN3SSdd G

= o
0

d
L
Da
U..

W
J
m

Cp

'

Jcr

Q1

0
t0

P4
O
5-

O
V

0
in

U)
U)

N
4)

lqq

E
0
le

0
crf-Z
0
U
&

E-4P CZ

0
CL
(n

E-4
woa
E-4
4-o

O
C3.
In
N
RS
O.
SO

rG)
v
0
C
a

CL

C_

ago

54)

NQ

W
a

z4z

W
40

aw
0

..
''
"
. . --

vovo00
0

"'

b
a
F-

0
90

'0

la

S830N3SSVd %

Ia

a
L

r4

LL.

Jm
W1
JD

wo
J

CJ

. r.
r--LL.

X
cn
C

0
o,
N

d
V
CD

0
S-

0
CIO

zw

S-

U)
Cl)

0
E

4J
Sea
a
d

Z2
II
,.
E--4cn

N
to W
FJ
C.)

S.
'

S.'
S.

'noZ

544

r(D
0

E/I
t/)

'4

54.

So
4-

'

woa
o;.

r--

OV
O
m
a
J
J

. 5.

OQ
=
4,.'

zz

J
W

00
N

awO

N
S(1)
CL
x
W
N-O
I--

.-'
I

G1
C
b
d

Co

w-

0
O
H

Sd39N3SSdd %

0
-rLL

W
J

--0
WO

Oa
CD

-' ax
O
rn

F+

0
)
4

O
o2

i
E
E
a-.

Ww

L
rt

Z)
Fei

E--4 ce

0
d

wU

a
z

pr,,,
O

J
0

O
C

W E'" c
O Q+
w

5O
w

4z

i-3
S.
C)
d
x
W
4O
I

a)
eC

a
rn

O
O

OOOOO
Co

d
L
%D

if

Sd3SN3SSVd G

f4

cm
. ILL.

CK

'

0Jp
0m

dx

00

33

V)

C..)
O

Lj

0)
to

E
PZRi

co
co
So
IQl
-C
0
C
d

O
N
4J
S(1)

4.4

424)
z
w
CD

*k%

'-

:.
"

o
N
%

CL
x
w
kO

0
r

OOOO
O

QO

t0

Sb39N3SSVd %

OO
N

U.

'

o
Q
(

W
J
m'

X
0

0
to

a
ep
U

0
in

0
+-

CQ
0
.,

"-d
'O
0

0
inDV)
U

w
1

En

wH
p

aw*

i
O

C
'S

J
W

S
'S

C5

om

S
I

3
O
CL
x
W
4-0

aA

I-GJ

Ri
GL

--

00ooo

I.

-o
0

ao

S830N3SSVd 4

C)
L
cm
",Li-

W
J

N
d
"r"
41
"r
r"r
U
t
0.

M
C

o
C)

) O m l
4

X
0
v+

"r
N
N

U)

U
0
I-

D
CIO

">
"r
D

>

PC\2
LO

r
I-

II

t! )
W

i
O

I
O

a,
woa

CO

Z_
N
N
W
U
O
cr
a
J
J

%lob

oa C

N
4,
L
a.
W

zaz

J
Li

"

op
N

kO

a
t0
0.

P-4

O
0oCOO
OW

O
fN

S830N3SSYd %

GJ
s"
Q
.r
LJ.

c
Y
V
N
t
U

1W
J
00

Cp

cr
Jp
m

I-

X
J

Sn
IV

It
C-)
S.0
"1-

F-y
c

L)
E"4 w
al

U
-o
0

in
en

ox

IN-CD
0
on

I -O
a.
cz
0-4

,n
N
J

U
W
oV
NC

zurr 4-4

0
4-04

J
W
in 0

Zoa
wZ
C

O
-r
I-

- I

ix
W
F-t/Y
W
S
V
Q

10

L
z
vva0
O

co

i'
_.

z
ch
r"-

i'
t0

.r

O
N

D1
"r

S830N3SSVd Z

Li-

W
J

co
O)O

W`
JD

o ml
4

X
0
M

in
N

V)
z
E-0W

C
E

aaM

o0 Cr
I-

z0

<a
Cr

*Mks

U
J
*Mwo

%oft

N
i
N
0)
C
a)
N
N
to

La-

Cl)
4-4

0
0

'.
,%
%

oD

wo

O
C
Z
D
0
m

Q.

I-

c
I-C)

W
C

I-

in

za

r
I"
rI

000000
0

Co

40

S 30N3SSVd

.',
f

C-)
v

a
i

N1

La

W
-j

JQ

OD
un
IV

94
WZ7
p4 W

0
IV

in
pn

oa

<
p4
=I
MOMI

0
M

z
ow

,NinZ

;el Z) cz

aU
NC

z U)
cxw

.
.

'

in

"

21w

rc
x

_a

voOOO
0

o
o0

fN

C)
='

vs

S830N3SSVd %

U.

N
I
O
L.
4J
O
U

Dm

c0W
ao
O)o
J

"1
U
"
9(4Q

mI

dx

-o

.a
4j
O
So
4-

r
VL

rG)
'
0

a
c

II

'
a
C)

Fp'
Oy
C_
w
-+
ox
J
QN
Z
O

0
o
ZU U Z

o0
c

0
4- 4

P4

W
,

CY
W
F-'
V)

C
O

o000
co

%to

%a

vN

S830N3SSVd

0
J
C)
r-

Wa

Ri
L1.

FZC
-+

r-

P-4

S(1)
a
C
C)
Nf

R7
Z

Z
OC
W

L)
ZU
Q

7-4

"

0)
5rn
.r.
Li-

a)

V)

Y
U
a,
s
t)
W

J
1

W1
JC
0M

c
r
J

C
(0
a)
CL
0
So
W

N
I

U)

0
M

GJ
u
L
0
4-

U)

.a
v
0
x

U.
N'

P4
oz

C
a
0
N

0-4 LO

fa

'S.

U
Ln
W

S.,.

U)

U
5%

Wx

C
55

J
W

zc

'4,

Fac
W
F-

oa

4%

cc
W

N
W

Uw
4

10

WAz

C.)
Z

x
I

J`
I

O
vvOOOO
O

Co

to

fN

Sd3'-N3SSVd G

'"r
L&..

O
I-

4. )

O
U

W
J

CO

r-

JG
0
Q

C7

ml

440

X
0
M

O
4)
O

S_
0

ui
N

a
"Q
O

0z

CQ
LO

0
C4N.,
N
-j
0

(n
-J

Z&)

=
;.4
4-04

..

ftft

ftft

-Nft

L.
0
C

ftAlft
4%ft

zc

Z
0
U

ftft

oQ
J
w
0

1/'

WA

in

O
O.

CY-

-O

J
d
ZN
O
-+
IdC
Z
Wd
FzL
wO

vvp00
0

Co

0
90

S830N3SSVd %

R3
G.

t
O
O

W
W
N7
W
2
vr
zU
dN

Co

.-#

Cm
C
C)
v

L..

(L)
10
OJ

vi
r"o
.i
4)
c
0
c,

W
Qm

CWi
Q) o

DJ

N coy

r:r.
t,
.r.
44-

.c1

J4X

O
.a

4J

0
! 1

O
4-

ul

I --

E--40

a)

0
CK:
1
Cl-

mN

j1.,

U
z

e4
-g!

/a

'-`

0
n.

-i

(A
L
G)
Q.,

_O
t4 E--4

0
I

4-+
e-4
W
0

fm

a)
N
N
b
G.
C)

0
0-4

U)

xa

W
w
N
w

<4

r-

000oCo
co

SN39N3SSbd G

r-fts
0
F-

00

. r.
i-3
S.
co
.
GJ
G

v
U-

J'
m

Y
U

t
.,
C.)

ml

fLai
4,
L

ww1

cn

In

oCf)

a CO
a

L
O
4-

ce

E4C\2
11

CL.

W
0-4

41%.

7:

f
O

cn
W

4-4

40.4
Z

N2

.'00)

. -4

00

f
92
0-4

-0
1

Co

C)
N

roo
OO
O

I. -

a0

OOO
1O

O
.rN

S830N3SSVd Z

a
L

. r.
Li

W
J

'

'

CL) O
0
0)

-j

I. -

0
It

Ew
U)

W)

ilt

" C9

zw (n

o "
M

It
It

I-

0
W

U)
zL,

o 'N

44

zW

4-4

a.

Ed o
za0
wz

H--

/000
z

_r

--

in

as
Co

to

le

S830N3SSVd %

N
b

1.

00000
0

L
a
C.,
c
Q)
N

rn
.r.
U-

mI

.II

ml

ax
0

cf) Z
T

OCI

Z
0

co

E-4
C
Z

E^
r,

"`

JO'
F---1

LLJ
a.
iii
Li

ff

""
.0

fy

0-4

a
OO

co

O0O
t0

S830N3SSVd %

O
N

i.

N
O
V
O
L

W
J

co

Q)

'J

0
o

'

JC
Q-

a
L

4J
i.
CL
CJ

U)
P4

i.
O
4-

O
z

I-d

% Cl)
C) U)

Q+

L<
z
N

Zw

zL, C

0
[r

C.
0

N
ZZ 4

`"

C
1
d

O
O.

0
J

O
I-Q

W
I-

N
N
b
a

z
L
4)
L.

Z1

_---

M
N

as
O

OOOO
co

O
lit

S830N3SSVd

N
Q1
. r.
Lt..

C
1
Y
V
Q!
.C
U

-0,

wo

O)o

J19
4

W
<

as
c
0

as
0
to

Cl)
U)
Cl)

OZ

sU

1
1
1
1
1
1

>

O
0
A

ei
v
0
Z
C
0"
v

LO
co
ii

c.

4
O
c.

U
W

o'

zQCn

02

Z
W
0..

f/

zCf)

W
Nib

.0

".,
0

I --

F-

d1b

xtD

0
0

ZA

x
m

qtt
N

G2
0

o00
Co

0
%0

lit

S830N3SSVd G

00
N

L
Q1
. IL1.

a)
r-10
C)

v
N
J

C-)

cf)

4J

L
O
U
O
N

Q w

S..
O
(4-

tn
N

r0
C
E

1.

O
N

aZ

F-

Oil
2
U
>H-

z
C""
zQ cf)
w

U
W
N
C

Z
W
a.
.. in
W

zU

`1

aw
J
d
.

O
d

Q1

c)
N
Cl)
co
C-

rx

''r

zo
ZA

z
Co

U,
N

2VN

to

S830N3SSVd

aa

a
cm
Li

c
0

Z7
a,
N

JC
W
0 ml

)
J

O
5-

U)

i
O

N
N
12-

O
IV

U)

L.

L.

rin
E

0
z
C

LO
oJ
"n O
lx
Z
0
U
in
NN

Oil

Ow
Z
E-4

F-

cz

lx

cl

Z"
o
-r
Fdd
Z

O_
OV)
ti Q
CL

Fz

'e

ZZ

O..
Cl,
W

/V

01-

=
cm
zz
I-

to
N

0-4

40
a

vvOOO
O

a0

'.O

'

4J
L
C,

Sb3ON3SSVd G

Q1
C

GJ
N

i<I-

xo
C'

000

ZO
ZA

W
IZN

N
L

U-

tu

C
-J

0i
.r.
N

C)
U

W
7m

Q)

S.

m
a c
J4x

L
to

cf)

GJ

I0
4-

a
-o
0

C
W

hfl

F-

Oil

a.
ce

ZQ

0
N
i

Z;
-z
Op,,

i+

"4

fW

fU
ff

cn

a
N

N
b
.

CL

o4

Wx
hU
040
Z C/)

I-

CL
N

x
rn
0
d1

-r

w
U
N

m
NN

4J

000000
o

co

t0

IV

S830N3SSVd %

Q1
Li-

JD

U)
0
0

U)
c

^^

f)

0
U,

oZ

CQ

C
0"
Z

zwow

YU
W

02
MV
C

w4-,
w
E"'

IZ
Li
CL

t
i

o
o

Z z
4

Sol

Zo

0-0

-co
N

Q1

N0

fD

Q1

S830N3SS*Vd %

d
r-v
a)
r
U
tN
v

'U

'
-ad

JO

v
a

CT)0

%Y
"r
L

ut
IV

c)
N

Gw

s.
O
4-

rai
O
Z

In
n

oz

a
1

CQ

jl

zwo
a
ow

iN

U
W
C

o
N

Z
Li
CL

o
Z U)
;.

0
a
a

Li

z"

CD -HL
Q
Z

ac
W
I--N
Z

%ft.

1.4

ft.-*

ft**

lp

)
0

CD

s.

00

.N

S830N3SSVd %

eC
C)

iO
a

o0

of
O.

tn

74

G)

Zo
as i

G)
Q1

0
C,
. r-

Lj-

r
U
W

C,

a)

O
L4-)
C
0
U

Lij

ch C) C)
J

Im

H
43

U)

L
O
C3.

un

CL

0
It

4I--

G)
'O
O

um
pc

oZ

x
E

zwo
ow
~a

i
i
i
i

oJ
Mp

'n
N

'--4

0
0

O"
NQ

N
Q.

Z co

z0

O
CL

ZAco
E--4

CL'

FZ
W

C5

CL
N
W

40-1

2
o f-

FCC
Z
C'
WC
F--

N
L
C)
Q1

O-

ZC
C.0
Z

C)
N

(
C1

X0

b-4
Cp

in
O

O
o0

O
f'
D7

S830N3SSVd %

LO
W

.Nr.

a)
U

W
J
co

-r

0
S
a

cr0

C)
J4X

GJ
L

ml

L
CL
d
tm

U)
V

I0
4-

Cl)

D
0

U)

a
-v
0
C

N
W
o

CQ

0 J

Z
tn
(I,
oW
t0 0
0
cl:
0
J
J

iI'

C)
U)
Z
w

C
0. -

ZU

0-4
9,4
o

z
Li
CL
V)
Li

F=
0
N

0: 2

o
dN
Q)
_l
<
ZN
o

dC
Z
Wd
FZL
-O

0
O00000
0

Co

to

lqr

S830N3SSVd %

R3
C1
O

a)

Z
--4

'
G)

ct
-+
m

a
P-4

C)
N

W
1

rcM

cu

LL.

L
U
N

W
J
p

cr-

O
C7

J
0

U
v

J
Q

x
U

O
40

L
O

0
in
0

oa

Of,

CD

cl:

0
C3-

I
D
V

oW
nN
C
Z
W
CL
V)

wCD

xA

CD
F--

I--

x
CD

"

0
0-4

"

'
.

..-. --.

'

co
N

"
N

0
"OOO
a0

t0

4J
i
Q1

S830N3SSVd %

Li.

rb
+1
0
fW

13

'J'

<

(D 0J
CF) 0
0m
C7

J4X

to

C/)

kn

ZC

f
ALL'

co

II

z
0

Z y
o

CL

(f)

Cd
`f

V)
Li

f
W

CO

a)
00
O

OOO
co

to

S830N3SSVd %

C
Q1
. r.
LA..

W
m
a'

O
Q)

J4

JC
1
faD

w
1

Z
Q

U,

W
o

CA
E"

CL

Q
o

H
v,
. r.

>

4J
SAS
CL
J
G

CL

+-'
0
1--

nza

0
O

r
qc:
ch
iii
0000
Co

-r
t0

Sd39N3SSVd
LL.

Lai

'II
o

Q
c

J4X

U)
0N
U)
E"''WO

-0

1
0-4

-0

W
4
E4
-!!
1.4
ZW.

IV0

C) E-4

P4

Z:

o C]

H
L

rn
N
V1
b
Cl.

E-4
0
4-4
z
- -7 C

a.
cn

L
GJ
41
L

Ip

as

OOOOOO
O

a0

oN

Se13JN3SSVd %

C)
. r.
L-

F-

4)

W
J
co

C.)
CI

-c
ml
rt7
It

C)
rn

0
Co

rn
m

0
w-

CZ
ra.)
0

0
40

0Q

C
E

c
n.

Ln
J
U

CL

W
('

Zc
CD-

O
'It

E. <5

('

it

zou

w
wZ

oZ

W
CL

"-r

N
L
41

o~
N

do

10

8-4
co

I.
o
M

4
O

vv0
co

to

S830N3SSVd %

0
N

,o
0

C.)
i
D1
. PL.

a
N
N
b

77

Cc

G
Qj

-. i

JD
O
=

0
to

b+

z
z

0
N

i
i

CC

1
1
1

CEjf

1
ogz
0-4

O
I-

1
--loll

rn O

ZUG
FZ
Li

CL

E 40
ZW.

Li
M

cn
.
~'
GQ
Ct
---0

,,

a+-

*0

om

0000

to

"
O

Sd39N3SSVd

rv

0)
Lai

-Q

N
N
GJ
V
O
S
O.

I
W

y
J4X

ml

rto

I--r-

wo
SO
k-

F-j

GJ
O

d
1

O
a

Q"

CWaxoW

40
L)
CL

E--!
!4
zog

w00
4; 4

JN
QL
Z
O'
. -r
F-

CJ
C
G)
N

ZN
Wa
Z"

zwz
W

-r

1--

1-

C.7
Z
r-+

S.
G)
+
L

t0
t

co

0Q0

co

10

fN

i_
0)

S830N3SSVd G
I

LL.

W
JO

a,
ml
J

. rE
E

0
to

L
tp

iz
S0
k-

0
a
0
C
E

OO

cr
n.

oZ
"0
Q
cr
C,

ow
E-I

o cl

O
a
ix

z
c

Ww
E-4 CD

FW

1
.

41-ft

U)

O
F-

r-

OC
W

F--

Li

G1
i-CJ

0/0000,

0
I

w
r-4

Co
1

,-'

- -

rn
M
Q

0vo
o

co

to

Cl
.r

S830N3SSYd %
I

0
00
tr

al

0.
V)

t9

1-4

N
N
to
d

ZAW

U,

0)
L
Q1

LL.

V
N

r-W

a)

73
cwO

U
N

WI
m l
4

co
rt-)

U)

a)
a,

0
to

c,
a,

F+-W
0
In

C/1
rn
W.

O
4

CJ
O
E

'S

St
I

St

Q
J
U
Li

St
St

ow

St

00

Z A Cd

O
G.
Cl-I
r-r

m
c

E-+U

I -Z
W
n-

4.

O
F-ck:
W
F-

CU
N
CL

I-

10
ZOOO*

f
-r

P-4

N
i
O
C1
C

Li

**
.

as

I-,
Cla

v000
to

0
`f

SN30N3SS'Vd G

.r.
LL.

i---

C)
O
J

 W
J
m

-
C
o
(

'

<'
m'

L
X

in
r

rnz

wc o
xc

0
It

U)w
ch

un
M

z
ZZ
(2 z
Z L)
wxw

U)

'no
N

U,

U
Q

%Nib

CL
V)
W

F-

r.

014 4; 4

xwcco
z .

0
0

/#/

\
+

/"
.

acz

"-

zW
f

"

.
o0O
00

a
t0

S830N3SS'VdG

0
N

1
C

J4X

cc

c
O
N

cn
c
CO

E--4
01
co

44Oil

.aZ
z C) a'

a
o ..

v
61-

41

ZAG

OW

.,
A
0.9

0
4 -4
1-4

7
z.
Z
A
O

V)
Li

-=
- .............

--

GA 1..
IIN

OOOOO
co

to

'r

S830N3SSVd G

W
C
0
J

(3)o 0
ml
J
4

0
to

Z
0
N

&.

C
E

z
Pw

oZ
"O
Cr

op

cr.
3

ZA
$Wx

z
c
oW
Na
V)

II

W
*ARM
oft%

F1

ftaw

oI

ZO
9
0:

cd

cn
wo

.1 0

P-M0U

+
Co

ILJ

to

00

Sd3JN3SSVd %

e4

-a

i
v
ra)
s
U

N
v

E
. r.
i0
r-

J4

0i

0
.o

Q1
Q1
C13
I0
k-

0
n

xz
o

rM]
0
C
E

w`0
Co

o%4""

J
U
W

1
I.

CD
~a

0
o.
cz
J

ZAG

wW
w

zcn 0

FZ
W
aV)
W

0
i--

a
N
4J
Q1

w
I--

N
N
CL

/r

c7

a
G.

xw
CAA
ZO

_
/

'

"

R:r

914

0
Qpp00
0

0
i

00

10

VN

a)
L
Q1

Sd3ON3SSVd%

LL

1
4l
r--
CJ
.C
U
N
v

-Q
c
(1)

-'
I co

O)

m
I
Q

J
Gj

I
O
I-

0
C-)

E
O

0
io

V1
L)

w4
wL)

i
O
40
N

I
a)
0

0
O.

< CD
Sao
ww
wz

F-

0
I

O
g
N
p

ZH
W

FZ
Li

a-

r1

Ir

zw

O"
FQi
Z
cz:
WG
I-'-4

N
CJ
M
G)
N
N

I-

2C
Cm

xwo

r-q

fr

wL
W

woo

Ln
et

S^

a
Qo0000
0

0
z

a0

to

n7
GJ
a.
0

.rN

a)
0)
L.

S830N3SSVd

cr
W

J
c

I
V
O
L
LL

OJC

0
CF)
Q1
J4X

I-

I
m

r>
s.
rri
O
w

cn
U)

E,,,,

c_
0

011
<

Li

v
_0

4
Zw

ww

Fce

CL

ne
Q

OW

J
O

wx

ZU) 0
z
fI

OVi

ff

W
f

ICU
Q1
C
C)
N
N
CO
C.

F-

Li

4'1

n.

C
tu
cu
CL
0
L
m

G1
I-

C.7
U

GC

C)

6-4
N

to

f-i

"
j""f"

OCOOOO
O

00

to

IN

S 30N3SSVd %

s.

J
I

CQ

'

JC

0 o<

Q,

V1
tC

ui

P4

co
II

Li
00CA
a

E--4

z
Z

O,

co
Cl)

U,
s.
cu

C4-4
O

00
oe-0

/
h-

0
j

CL
N

F-+

N
N

LL

GJ
L

Vw Q
4

b
L
F-

000

aOO

a0

N
to

S830N3SSVd 4

Lt.

C
0
E
O
U

J
II

CD

caW
O

mI

J4X

C/)

IV

kn
M

wll
0-4

cn

:x

C)

Zog

NV)
0

ZfC
ZO625

%%

4-4

NLi

wo

LLJ

CL
03
S-

xa,
w
Q.

F--

Co

eodloo,
^OOOOOO
WO

co

N
to

"N

S830N3SSVd G

cn

W
J

CD O

C3: o

J4

L.j

X
0
N

cf)

0
0

Cl)

C
E

1%-,

(n
W

co

o
00

>

z&)

0
L
G1
Q1

Z
V)

al

ro
CL

0
a-

b
a)

o .c
IZ
W
CL
V)
Li

zL) Z

c!
tCs
FO
E

_"-_

rn
ct

Ai
0

vo000
0

00

to

qqr

S830N3SSVd %

C]

'O
J4

ml

0
to

CD

zw
ww

0
ui
C
E

oZ
"O
cr1

an

zw

w9-in
z

GJ
cn

F-oW

C)
N
N

aIn

-CO

Li

CD
.r.

Ur

10

.0

42

0
0

00

to

le

S830N3SSVd Z

L
rn
U.

rro
0
I-

m
-Q "m
wo

n
J4X

E
"1
b
rv

ml

v
C,
rts
C,
rn
o
m

0
o+

>ocn

ww
2
p4

S.
0
4-

Co

rC)
v
0

cn

wC

ZCo

n.

%0

II

<
Z

aa

Fcr
O

U
0

-om

O
. -4
F-

0
N
C)
Q1

E--4
4.4

W
h--

CJ
N
N

i
2

Im

cr.
. -4
m

rC
r'`

Ln
O

OOOOOO
O

o0

'p

.rN

Sd39N3SSVd G

Q1
. r.
LA-

rb
+-)
O
E-

W
-D

I--O

JG

m00
4x

Co

c
0
N

z
>w=

E
0

L
O
4-

Z)ZZ

chcn =I

A
0
C

P.4r
K.
-4ii

eE

?a

N
O
cn

<
I

0
F+y

Zw
CD

0
(A

41

z(2U

N>

el n co

**.W

CDN

CD

I--

i
-r
co
N
Lt)

OpNO

Sd3JN3SSVd G

C
4)

Os
. r.
L.

. r.
L

C o
0
C)

cl:
JG

Im
x
s

rn w

as

C
E
o

F--

ZCo

z=cn

L)

C7
z
N
ep W
CO
U
O

CD

LL

CD
4-4
0

0-1
C

z00

I -z
W

"

Oa'N
Li

Mwo

" '

rr

F-

0
N

St

n
v
0

co

00
to

.,r

S830N3SSVd %

0c
N

APPENDIXB

QUESTIONNAIRES

1. EAST MIDLANDS AIRPORT Pilot

2.

Panel

of

Experts

(3 pages).

(3 pages).

3. MANCHESTERINTERNATIONAL AIRPORT (1 page).

4.

BIRMINGHAM INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT (3 pages).

%LI

LOUGHBOROUGH UNIVERSITY
AND

OF

ItlnIU

SURVEY OF

Sir/Madam;

Your

assistance
future

to

your
in

and design

opinion

your

highly

are

and cooperation

planning

contribute

AIRPORT

DELAYS AND SERVICE STANDARDS IN

Dear

for

TECHNOLOGY

of

appreciated,
terminals,

airport

All

and satisfaction.

comfort

the

to

and reaction

time

AIRPORT T

you

be valuable

and would
which

you have

anticipate

INALS

will
to

eventually

do is

to

inside

spending

state
terminals

DELAY.

Going through
some time

airport

(as in check-ins

servioe

the time

DELAY, is

in delay.

by air,

when traveling

terminals,

you unwillingly
), or a call

immigration...

you inevitably
for

spend waiting
(as for

spend
).

boarding...

(but
being serviced
time spent actually
Delay does not include;
or processed
being
friends,
family
NOT waiting
for
moving
for it)
with
and
or
waiting
duty
like
between various
in
time
terminal,
the
oonoessions
spent
or
parts of
free

shop,

Please,

consider
parts

according

to your

part

grades

of the

you put

The grading

judgement

for

under
every

period

system has three

1. DESIRABLE, where delay

2.

TOLERABLE, where delay

is

by giving

an assessment
to delay

and perception
Replies

consideration.
of delay

delays

as regarding

questionnaire
terminal,

airport

personal

of terminal

etc.

""o

this

answering

in-various

the

bars,

restaurants,

be
in
would

question.

short

and oorfortable

is moderate
is

but

significantly

().
mark

................

acceptable..

).
markWe

.., .........

uncomfortable

and

......................................
(currency
BANK
to delay in AIRPORT
perception

Delay in minutes: VI
auch for

your

in

the form of

untolerable

Thank you very

DELAY

levels:

3. UNACCEPTABLE,where delay
TRAMPLE: What is your

for

encountered

in the particular

stated

encountered

ELI
consideration

and cooperation.

71
UQ

Qark(X

).

exchange)?

LOUGHBOROUGHUNIVERSITY
AND
EAST MIDLANDS

OF

TXCHNOLO0T

LIRP08T
,

DAT$t --TIIEt
LOCATIONt
INTERVIB"rm:

PART I

SAMPLE INFORKATION

0-1
2.

SRI:

3.

BRITISH

20 -2--

NATIONAL:

over

60

4. PRIFEMCE FOR AIR TRAVEL:

like
you
-Do
LIK

by air?

traveling

CRY IN

11
LIKB A LITTLE
DISLIKES

ii

happy
feel
you
and
going
oomfortable
-Do
1 VERY JIUCH
110DERATE A LITTLE

through

airport

NOT AT ALL

5. FREQUENCYOF AIR TRAVEL:

times
many
-How

dotravel

by air

every

year?

6. ORIGIN / DESTINLTION OF THIS TRIPt

DON.
ZSTIC
7.

INT razATIONAL

PURPOSE OF THIS TRIPS

BUSINESS

LFjSURE

8. FLIGHT:
Your
flight
number;
Flight
olass;
SCMERJ D

CHLSTIE

0? 8ER

INDIFFENT
terainale?
INDIFFBUT

LOUGHBOROUGHUNIVERSITY
AND
EAST MIDLANDS

PART II

/l.

TECHNOLOGY

OF

AIRPORT

DELAY INFORMATION

Based on personal
judgement,
grade your
( similar
to example shown on page 1)s

to delay

peroeption

for

the following

TICKETTING I CHECK-IN:
Delay

in miautes:

10

12

60

20

Grade:
2.

SECURITY CHECK:
Delay

in minutes:

10

1268

f
3.

PASSPORT CONTROL (departures)

Delay in minutest

IIF

Grades

4. nM

20

10 ` 12

F-5
1
1
20

-F-I E:1F-I1:10 L2

10

f-2-0-1f2j

64

1771-1F-7-7
F-7F---1

Crades

F7

CUSTOMS(RED C&&NNEL):
Delay in minutes$

10

OVERALL DELAY IN TERMINAL FOR AN AnIVING

Delay estimate

in

minutes:

10

20

OVERALL DELAY IN TRRXINAL ! OR A. DEPARTING FLIGHT:

Delay

Grade:

estimate

in minutes:

10

F-IM El

MOTS

I'

Grades

60

20

22

ED 00

Grade:

/8.

60

BAGGAGECLAIXs
Delay in minutes:

7.

60

El El LI F F-IELI F-7F-]

(trade:

6.

TIox:

Delay in minutes:

5.

10

20

EDF-1F F-1
-7

7F

Grades

F9

60

E
-9

tl5]L2OjF3OjI4O5Ojt6O1tJ5ft!

LOUGHBOROUGHUNIVERSITY
DEPARTI4ENT OF

OF

TECHNOLOGY

TRANSPORT TECHNOLOGY

PASSENGERS PERCEPTION TO DELAY STUDY

( PANEL OF EXPERTS

Please

consider

judgement

as

passenger

servicing.

different

delay

being

an

time

not

include;

family
from

The

(processed:

you

to

or
give

perception

and

facilities

considered,

from

the

The

passengers

grading

is

GOOD service;
toy

TOLE1ABLE
to
x:

the

you.

the

to

indicate

delay

stated
for

service,

periods,

to

in

experienced

with

is

the

the

required

passengers'

processing
conditions,

operational
your

is

does

and

What

at
of

here,

spent

grade)

on
while

Delay,

amenities.

levels

varying
as

encounter

deliberately

(as

involving

judgement

your

terminal.

and

own

operations

awaiting

time

your

on

possibly

airport

assessment

to

as

airport

concessions

airport.

follows:

delay

is

stated

satisfactory

and

comfortably

passengers.
delay

passe npers,

that

uncomfortable

Thank

time,

ser vice;

BAD service;

justify

passengers

viewpoint

system

short

by

in

and

of

may

the

your

response

is

inside

processing

friends,

field

passengers

spent

actual

is

the

objective

based

questionnaire

that

periods

unwillingly

and

in

expert

serviced

the

this

answering

delay
and

compl aints.

stated
intolerable

is

stated
it

would
is

moderate
justify

not

significantly
to

the

but

acceptable

stillcomplaints.

long,

passengers

and
that

it

would

I:
PART
Qaa==o
*

Airport

Annual

A-

you

are

passenger

associated

with:

throughput

of

........................
airport

in

1982:

.................

DEPARTURES:

TICXETTING / CHECK-IN:
Delay

in

FYI

minutes:

Delay

CHECK:

in

minutes:

1
`
'

in minutest

Grad s
0"r t.LL D: LLY it;

T i. 'INAI

in minutes:

estimate

12

1.20

25

0i

[__j !=U'C
8

LJ

PASSPORT CONTROL (dhpartur

..

Delay

26,?

Grade:

Delay

10

_Jl!

Grade:

SFCM17f
..

la

~'
,

j,

30

U,

L.
_J
9)s
.

20

10

FOP A DPP2LiTINJ FLICHT:

j 713,11i_ E5,
a0.:
ED

0 '' 60

'

Grade :U7

ARRIVALS:

I
-

TGRATION:

Delyy

in

minutes:

10

12

H151

I25

i0i

60 'Q

Oracle:
BAGGAGE

Delay in minutes:

D [Ti]
?.
_.

Grade:
VVSI

JY*,

Delay
Grade:

(I

J
4::

in minutes:

1-"-- 20

NEL

rESL

""j

r!,

)i

rr 1:

10

E95E9

2S

E0

45 i 60

;II,

Y
1J
L!
OV
IN
T
3LLL
M:
S.
FOR
RIVING
4_,
FLIG'Ts
AN
E.
i7
Aft-lP,N' estimate
in r: in;; tes:
1 1r
20

I'
LLJL_lLJ__!

1(61
_L

B-

PART II:
==

====

Now consider
to

your

2.0

A-

the

of

another

(PART I)
y

airport

million

case

but

airport

with

an

in

similar
annual

characteristics

throughput

of

aroun3

0(

'

20

passengers.

DEPARTURES:
/ CIMCE
TICLETTING
."
-IN:
Delay in minutes:
1

j 1J

12

r 20

!21

-1
6-0

Grade:

SECURITY C . ,1:
_.
Delay in minutes:
Grade:

r,
1r

11

PASSPORT CONTROL J3epart-u=es

Delay

in

LI

)t

1"

minutes:

tj6OB

10

12

12

(r ade s'

j.

50

'' OV LU L DELLY IN M
Delay

estimate

INRL PDR A DEFABTINC FLIGHT:

F7101 I0
in minutes:
30

]V1

ED

LI

Grade s

B-

i' EO-i

r...

ARRIVALS:

Delay

in minutes:

Qrado:

iI

i I,
EuiL-i

BAGGAGE
CLAD
"r
Delay in minutes:

10

12
III

12

-2--]F-30

20
IF

E:
l
17
r

2i

Grade:

(RED CFA` L
CUST.
)MS
:
..
1
Delay in minutes:
Grade:

ti

10

12
I

20
7

17 1

2
Ll

r-I

- OVEPALL D3LLY IN TERMINJkLMR AN ARRIVING FLIGHT:

Delay estimate
(tirade:

E
in mim teas

l 15 12?
Ii

"

6C

7D'

I
'a,

i.

atlwVl

TZlw/.

/f.

Yl

i'Y'iY

MiJ

F1.

'KNTL..

MANCHESTER
INTERNATIONAL
AIRPORT

NO
FORM

Authority
In order to help the Airport
Airport,
I should be grateful-if
the
at
The form may be returned
questions.
in the box in
you the form or placed

facilities
to improve
continue
you could answer the following
to the survey assistant
who gave
Lounge or gate.
the Departure

DIRECTOR OF DEVELOPMfEN'T
AND PLANNING.
1.

CHECK-IN

Was your
How did
compare
Airports
2.

OFFICIAL

wait
this
with

H6w did
compare
Airports

LESS THAN 5-10

5 wins
wins

MUCH LESS
VERY GOOD

ACCEPTABLE UNACCEPTABLE
GOOD
POOR

MORE THAN
10 wins

at check-in
waiting
other

time

CONTROLS

Were you held

How long

NEGLIGIBLE

up in

a queue

at

in total
this
with

SECURITY

CONTROL

NEGLIGIBLE

waiting
other

time

PASSPORT

LESS THAN 5-10

5 mans
wins
_.

----1-

MORETHAN
10 mins

MUCH LESS ACCEPTABLE- UNACCEPTABLE

POOR
GOOD
VERY GOOD

AIRPORT FACILITIES
Please indicate
following
the
your level of satisfaction
with
facilities
if you used them.
POOR ADEQUATE GOOD VERY GOOD
CATERING (including

Bars

DUTY FREE SHOP

OTHER SHOPS
BANK
TOILETS
SEATING AREAS
INFORMATION
How many people
Please give
here :

in your

any further

party

do your

answers apply

to

you
have about the Airport
comments

THANK YOU.

jliL

Bermingham
Airport
International
LOUGHBOROUGH UNIVERSITY OF TECHNOLOGY

PASSENGERSURVEY

hear

Passenger;

We

are

at

this

in

different

undertaking

airport,

how

and
parts

standards

service

evaluate

they

time

the

to

respond

passengers

the

of

to

survey

passenger

spend

building.

terminal

1
hope

We

for

your

be

should

1After

if

grateful

questionnaire,

which

completing

just

box
gate,

will

please

the

thank

not

take

for

you

answer

the

you

long

the

place

departure

on

two
to

parts

your

survey,
of

and

this

complete.
inside

way

to

the

the

marked

departure

cooperation.
Department
Loughborough

PART

this

questionnaire

lounge

your

in

participating

could

you

it,

outside

and

in

cooperation

Transport

of

University

Technology
of

Technology

I:

DATE:
FLIGHT

TO:

No.:

------------------

-----------------

Please
trip,

in

the

1.

AIRLINE

2.

SECURITY

time

the

state

(in

of

parts

CHECK-IN:
CHECK:
--------------

3.

PASSPORTS

CONTROL:

the

minutes)
terminal

you

actually

building

spent
indicated

during
below:

this

"

PLEASE

READ

CAREFULLY

Now, assume

that

circumstances

your

flight,

each

part

If

you

were
be

would

what

the

level

perceive

tolerable,

and

- BAD (POOR)

[
1.

2.

3.

4.

AIRLINE

CHECK-

Time

spent

Level

of

for

SECURITY

each

spent

Level

of

PASSPORTS

within

the

level

in

shown

the

of

satisfaction

as

A,

boxes

below,

you

would

satisfaction

or

according

JC

time

spent,

which

you

would

long

would

justify

not

time
any
long

significantly

still

perceived

complaints.

time

spent,

intolerable

and

but

spent,

to

which

the

extent

you

would

that

it

BOXES

IN :

in

minutes:

F170 15

1357

20

25

30'

20

30

30

60

satisfaction
time

CHECK:

Time
for

time

of

complaints.

ALL

FILL

PLEASE

on

moderately

uncomfortable

justify

would

amounts

satisfactory.

service;
as

perceive

time

short

definitely

OL. FRABLLE service;

as

of

of

comfortably

as

to

proceeding

system:

grading

service;

-GMT)

REPLY

case

your

following

amount

judgement

each

indicate

Please,

the

spend
your

in

experience

to

to

whilst

different

spend

TO

building.

terminal

the

of

to

ATTEMPTING

different

were

had

you

and

BEFORE

each

in

minutes:

135

7 10

12

satisfaction
time

CONTROL:

Time

spent

Ltel
ot

of
each
TIME

.L

RA .L

Time

spent

in

minutes:

135

05

20

satisfaction
time
IN

in

1.2&3

minutes:

ABOVE:

10

1
N0

20

25

05

60

90

20
[1

Lforl

each

stimefaction

Birmingham
Airport
Internatbnal
LOUGHBOROUGH UNIVERSITY OF TECHNOLOGY

PASSENGERSURVEY

Passenger;

Dear
We

are

at

this

in

different

We

hope

undertaking

airport,
parts
for
be

should

if

grateful
which

will

finish,

you

J FREEPOST

in

you

please

envelope

provided,

standards

time

this

two

they

spend

you

Department

your
Transport

of

University

Loughborough

this

of

back,

for

and

complete.

questionnaire

thank

survey,

parts

to

long

you

this

and

the

in
the

answer

take

mail

to

participating

could
not

service

building.

terminal

cooperation

evaluate

respond

passengers

the

of

your

questionnaire,

After

how

and

to

survey

passenger

using

the

cooperation.
Technology
of

Technology

I:

RT

DATE:

FLIGHT
-------------

No.:

FROM:

-------------

----------------

NATIONALITY:

Please
trip,
1.

the

state
in

the

time

BAGGAGE

3.

CUSTOMS:
-

GREEN
RED

the

of

parts

PASSPORTS/IMMIGRATION:

2.

(in

minutes)
terminal

you

actually

building

__________________

CHANNEL

CHANNEL

one

as

applicable)

(nothing

declared):

(something

declared):

indicated

during

this

below:

"

CLAIM:

(answer

spent

____________

PLEASE

READ

CAREFULLY

BEFORE

that

circumstances

were

Now, assume
your

flight,

each

part

If

and

in

experience

indicate

Please,

following

the

to

Wn

A-r.

service;

service;
_F.

- BAD (POOR)
perceive
would

[
1,

2.

3.

complaints.

spent

Level
for

of
each

Time

Lf

rrI

4.

satisfaction

below,

you

would

as

satisfaction

or

according

time

spent,

which

you

would

long

time

justify

any

long

still

perceived

complaints.

time

intolerable

and

but

spent,

spent,
to

which

the

extent

you

would

that

it

CONTROL:

(7

minutes:

025050
ll,

in

minutes:

satisfaction

F7Q

1r700
{L
i

05

STC'iMS:

Time

TIME

vel
for

spent
of
each

GREEN

or

channels

F]

spent

OVERALL.

Time

RED

either

of
each

-L

of

boxes

the

satisfaction
tire

spent

Level
for

in

shown

CLAIM:

RED

in

e1
or
eof
ach

Tick

BOXES

IMMIGRATION

Time

BAGGAGE

level

significantly

justify

the

not

would

uncomfortable

PASSPORTS

on

short

as

ALL

within

satisfactory.

service;

FILL

PLEASE

time

moderately

and

time

of

system:

definitely

tolerable,

as

of

comfortably

as

TOLERARL.

amount

of

grading

perceive
-

level

your

amounts

case

each

fror

proceeding

whilst

different

spend

judgement

your

different

REPLY

building.

the

spend

be

would

what

to

were

you

to

terminal

the

of

had

you

TO

ATTEMPTING

as

in

entered

PART

I) :

GREEN

in

minutes:

135700

satisfaction
time

IN

in

1.2

&3

minutes:

satisfaction
time

X25

30

JU

{I-I

ABOVE:

la

2n5

ln5
LJ

UJ

30,4'

002
Ll

;J

L-1

L
A#=
intanadoM

Birrdrx

.W
OF
TECHNOLOGY
UMVERSITY
LOUGHBOROUGH

Survey

Passenger
PLEASE DO
BUT
In

KEEP IN

NOW

OPEN

NOT

MIND
be

this

will
you
survey,
facility
in
each
spent

you

about

asked
the
of

airport

the

time

terminal.

Q
try

Please,
in;

spend

to

the

record

PASSPORTS
BAGGAGE

amount

of

time

you

JEEM

IMMIGRATION,

CLAIM,

CUSTOMS,

then,

enter

later.

those

Thank

times

you.

Do not affix Postage Stamps

it posted in
Gt Bntam. Charnel Islands, N Ireland
or the Isle of Mar

Businessreply service
no LE 3753

Lucen'

Department of Transport Technology

University of Technology
LOUGHBOROUGH
Leicestershire
LE11 OBR

in

the

enclosed

questionnaire

APPENDIXC

SIMULATION

1. Check-in

LISTINGS

Facility

(2 pages).

2. FUNCTION USERF (1 page).

3.

Outbound

Official

Controls

at MANCHESTER

and BIRMINGHAM (1 page).

4. Inward
5. Customs

Immigration
Control

Control
(1 page).

(1 page).

C. 1

Check-in

Facility

PROGRAMMAIN(INPUT, OUTPUT,TAPE5=INPUI', TAPE6=OUTPUT,TAPE7)

DIMENSION NSET(14000)
0O..
". 10N QSET(14000 )
COMMON/S001111/
ATRI f, (100) DD(100) DDL (100) DINOW,II, I 'A, MSTOP,
,
,
,
INCL.NR, NCRDR,NPRNT,NNRUN,NNSET,NTAPE, SS(100), SSL(100), TNEXT, TNOW,
2XX(100)
OOMMON/UCOM1/NPAX
EQUIVALENCE (NSET(1), QSET(1))
NNSET = 14000
NCRDR =5
NPRNT =6
NTAPE =7
CALL SLAM
S70P
END

SUBROUTINE I NTh.C
CC)KM0N/SCOM1/ATRIB(100), DD(100), DDL(100), DrN0J, II, I 'A, MSTOP,
1NC NR, NC R, NPRNT,NNRUN,NNSET,NTAPE, SS(100), SSL(100), TNEXT,
2TNOW,}0{ (100 )
COMMON/UOOM;
/NPAX
)O(2) = 0.
CALL SCHDL(1,0., ATRIB)
RENRN
END
:''s ,a

SUBROUTINE EVENT( I)
00 ID (1,2), I
CALL ARVL
RETURN
2 CALL ND V

RETURN
END

SUBROUTINEENDSV
COMMON/SCOM1/ ATRI B (100) , DD (100) DDL (100) DTIJOU,II, MFA, MSTOP,
,
,
1N LNR NRDR , NPRNT,NNRUN, NNSET, NTAPE , SS (100) SSL (100) ZNEXT, TNOW,
,
,
,
2)IX(100)

OIL'?
3N /1! 11/ NPAX
14* ***COLLECT STATISTICS ON DEPARTINGPASSENGrRS
TINQ = TNOW-*AMISH)
CALL CUOLCT(TINQ,
1)
NO. OF WAITING PAX.
IF(NNQ(1)
GT. 0) 00 TO 10
;+***IF
NO PAX WAITING, SET AGM TO IDLE, A' RETURN
)O(2)=0.
RETURN
) ****AGENT IS FREE SO SERVEFIRST PAX IN QUEUE
,
10 CALL RMJVE(1
ATRIB )
,1,
CALL SC-L(2, EX ON(0.73,2), ATRIB)
RE'It)RN
END

SUBROUTINE ARVL
00.*' M /SCJ: '.1: ' A: RIB(100), DD(100), DDL(100), DTNOW,11, fTc"A,I',, UF,
1NaNR, N DR, NIMT, NNRU::,,ZNSET,NTAPE, SS(100), SSI. (100), TNEXT, TNOW,
2)X(100)
=L**10N /UCOM1/ NPAX
C*****CAUSE NEXT ARRIVAL, MARK ARRIVAL TIME, AND INCREMENT NPAX
IF(TNOW LE. 20) CO TO 1
IM NOW CF. 20 AND. TNOW I. E. 40) C) TO 2
.
IF(TNOW CT. 40 AND. TNOW LE. 60) CO TO 3
IM NOW CT. 60 AND. TNOW LE. 80) CO TO 4
IF(TNOW CT. 80 AND. TNOW LE. 100) CO TO 5
IF(TN0W CT. 100 AND. TN0W LE. 120) CO TO 6
IF (TNOW CT. 120 AND. TNOW LE. 140) 00 TO 7
IF('INOW CT. 140 AND. 7NOW LE. 160) CO TO 8
IF (INOW M.
160 AND. TN0W LE. 180) 00 TLS 9
IF (TNOW X r. 180 AND. TNOW . LE. 200) CO TO 10
.
IF(TN0W GT. 200 AND. TNOW LSE. 220) G0 TO 11
IF(TNOW CT. 220) CO TO 12
1 XX(1) = 1.29
G0 TO 100
2 XX(1) = 3.40
CO TO 100
3(1)=2.22
CO TO 100
4 XX (1) = 1.22
CO TO 100
5 XX(1) = 0.90
GO TO 100
6 XX(1) = 0.90
CO TO 100
7 )0(1)
= 0.86
03 TO 100
8 )OC(1) = 1.25
CO TO 100
9}0{(1)
=2.22
CO TO 100
10 XX(1) = 6.67
00 'ILS 100
11 XX (1) = 80.00
Go 7-0 100
80.00
(1)
XX
=
12
(1
EXPON(XX(1
SC
),
CALL
1
),
ATRIB)
-O.
100
,
ATRIB(1) = 7NOU
NPAX = NPAX +1
AGENT 15 F.1-Mil...
C*****IF

lC*****-lTZN
IF (XX (2) ME. 0. ) 00 TO 200
MAKEBUSY (SERVE), AND SCHEDULEEND OF SERVICE
)0(2) = 1.
CALL SCIDL(2, EXPON(0.73,2), ATRIB)
RENR.N
C*****OI} RWISE PLACE PAX IN QUEUE
200 CALL FILEMM, ATRIB)
RETURN
END

(N, SAM,C -I TEk C}EQCIN,25/11/83,1;

, LIY.:TS,
1 , 2,1000;
r
ZTAT,
1, TIME IN QUEUE;
TIP'3T, )D{(2), AMT
UTILIZATION;
INIT, 0,300;
!tNTR, TTA(: E, 0,250,1 ;

'

C. 2

FUNCTION USERF

FUNCTION LJSERF(I)
COMMON/SCOM1/ ATRI B (100) DD (100) DLL (100) D'TNOU,II, MFA, MSTDP,
,
,
,
1NCLNR,NCRLIR,NPRNT,NNRUN,NNSET,NTAPE, SS(100), SSL(10Q), TNEXT, TNOU,
2)0 (100)
I=1
NEXT ARRIVAL...
C*****(ECK
IF (TNOU LE. 20) 00 TO 10
.
IF (ThOV CT. 20 AND. I1 ON LE. 40) CO ZO 20

IF (71
NCO
U Cr. 40
.
IF (AVOW CT. 60
.
IF(TNOU GT.
IF(TNOU GT.
.
INTNOW CT.
IF(TNOU CT.
IF (TNOU CT.
INTNOW GT.
IF (TNOU Xr.
IF (TNOW -ar.
INTNOW Cf.
.
IF (7NOU GT.
.
IF(TNOU GT.
.
IF(TNOW GT.
.

10 XX(1)
CO TO
20 )0((1)
GO TO
30 XX(1)
00 O
40 )X(l)
00 TO
50 )0{ (1)
C)D TO
60 XX(1)
GO TO
70 XX(1)
GO M
80 X}{ (1)
C) TO
90 XX(1)
GO TO
100 )0 (1)
00 TO

AND. 'INOW LE. 60) 00 ID 30

AND. THOU LE. 80) CO Tb 40

80 AND. INOU LE.

100 AND. mOW LE.
120 AND. TNOU . LE.
140 AND. ZNOW LE.
160 AND. TNOY LE.
180 AND. TNOU LE.
200 AND. TIJOU . LE.
.
220 AND. ZNOU . LE.
.
240 AND. TM)W LE.
LE.
260 AND. 7mw
LE.
280 AND. 7mw
300) 01) O 160

100)
120)
140)
160)
180)
200)
220)
240)
260)
280)
300)

0) M 50
(3O TO 60
OO TO 70
CO TO 80
CX) O 90
00 ID 100
C)0 TU 110
OD Tn 120
0) T0 130
G0 ZU 140
00 TO 150

= 0.34
200
= 0.21
200
= 0.24
200
= 0.14
200
= 0.078
200
2 0.057
200
= 0.056
200
= 0.048
200
= 0.060
200
= 0.090
200

110 )0 1) = 0.145
CO TO 200
120 XX(1) = 0.24

co TO200

130 }0{ (1) = 0.150

00 TO 200
140 X}{(1) = 0.180
GO TO 200
150 )0{ (1) = 0.48
C

00 T0 200
160 )0 (1) = 0.90

C* *** *CENERATENEXT ARRIVAL, AND MARKARRIVAL TIME.

200 USERF = EXPON(XX(1), 1)
RETURN
END

C. 3

I-

Outbound

Official

MANCHESTERINTERNATIONAL AIRPORT

CEN,sAM, OFFICIAL CONTROLS,1/5/84,1;

JLIMITS,
7,2,2000;
VE'IVORK;
CREATE,USERF(1);
ASSIGN, AIRIB(1): ThO J;
ASSIGN, 30{(2)=)0{(2)+1 ;
COLCT, )OC(2) PAX ARRIVING;
,
SELS SELECT, SNQ,,, SECI, SEC2, SEC3, SEC4;
SEC1 QUEUE(1) ;
ACT/2, EXPON(0.13 2)
,
SELF;
SEC2 QUEUE(2);
ACT/2, EXPON(0.13,2)
SELF;
SECS QUEUE(3) ;
ACT/2, E}UON(0.13,2)
SELF;
SEQ4 QUEUE(4);
ACT/2, EXPON(0.13 2)
SEEP;
,
ISELP SELECT, SNQ,,, PASI, PAS2, PAS3;
PAS1 QUEUE(5);
ACT/3, EXPON(0.12,3),,
EXIT;
PAS2 QUEUE(6);
ACT/3, EXPON(0.12 3)
,
EXIT;
PAS3 QUEUE(? );
ACT/3, EXPON(O. 12,3),, EXIT;

WT

OOLCT, I NT (1) TI P'E IN QDNfl OLS, 20/0/0.5;

,
TERM;

INIT, 0,320;
MC)Nl, SUt'RY, 0,20;
FIN;

II-..

A.
IRPDR.
T
BIRMINGJAM_INTERNATIONAL

aEN, SAM,BHX DEPARTOONIROLS,1/8/84,1;

jLIMITS, 2,2,2000;
NElWRK;
CREATE,USERF(1);
ASSIGN,ATRIB(1)=TNOW;
ASSIGN,)4{(2)=)IX(2)+1 ;
OOLCT,XX(2), PAX ARRIVING;
! SECT QUEUE(l)ACT/2, EXPON(0.15,2),, PASP;
PASP COLGT,INT(1 ), TILE IN SECURITY,20/0/0.75;
ASSIQJ, ATRIB(2)=7NOW;
QUEUE(2);
EXIT;
ACT/3, EXPON(0.12,3),,
EXIT a)LCT, INT(2), TIME IN PASSPORT,20/0/0.5;
TERM;
ENDNETWRK;
INIT, 0,250;
MONTR,SUMRY,0,20;
FIN;

Controls

C. 4
. N, SAM,Bi( I"MIC2ATION, 1 /8/84,1
LIMITS, 6,2,1803;

Inward

RF (1 );
EN MR CREATE, . 'SZ-.
ASSICN, A: IB(1)=TNOW;
ASSIQV, )0{(2)=XX(2)+1 ;
COLCT,)0{ (2) PAX ARRIVING;
,
ACT,, 0.95, EEC;
ACT, 0.05, NEEC;
SELEC: S1:Q. EEC1 EEC2, EEC3, EEC4;
EEC
,
,,
,
QUEUE(I );
t:;=c
AC:'/2, Eh'mN(0.50,2),,
EXIT;
QUEUE(2);
EEt2
A:'T/2, EXPCN(0.50,2 ), EXIT;
,
QUELE(3);
EEO
ACT/2, E> CN(0.50,2),,
EXIT;
EEC.: QUEUE(4) ;
ACT/2, E) N(0.50,2),,
EXIT;
C SELEC:
N0N1, N0N2 ;
N*E.
Cti? QUEUE(5) ;
AC71/3,E`TON(2.00,3EXIT;
QUEUE(6) ;
JCN2
,
ACT/3, E.-:CN (2.00 3)
EXIT;
,
,
r; {: ':

CCLCT, I'3Tt 1 )' CZIM

IN! T, 0,380;
!. (,`*.iR, SUI Y, 0,20;
Ct

TIME, 20/0/1

Immigration

Control

C. 5

Customs

GEN, SAM,MY CUSTCMS,10/8/84 ,1;

LIMI: 'S, 5,2,1800;
NE: tiJORK;
RF (1) ;
CREA?E USL"
,
ENTER
ASS1M, A: 'RIB(1 ): NOW
ASSICN, XX(2)=)O<(2)+1 ;
COLCT,XX(2), PAX ARRIVING;
ACT, 0.96, CREN;
ACI,, 0.04, RED;
SELECT, SNQ,,, CUS1, CUS2, CUS3, CUS4;
RED
CUS1 QUEUE(1));
EXIT;
AC: /2, E.XPON(3.0,2),
C'JS2 Q'EUE(2);
AC?'/ 2, EXPON(3.0,2)
EXIT;
C'J53 QUEUE(3);
ACT/2, EXPON(3.0,2)
EXIT;
LIEUE(+: );
CUS4
ACT/2, EXFON(3.0,2)
EXIT;
+ MEN QUEUE(5);
ACT/3, E. ON (0.11 3)
EXIT;
,
,,
COLC:, INT(1 ), TIME IN CUSTOMS,20/0/1;
EXIT
T' 11;
END: E': ',.+2RK

INIT, 0', 360;

*0,20;
FIN;

Control