Bottlenecks at the Departure Concourse of Airports for the 2014 World Cup Soccer
In recent years, structural changes such as commercialization, privatization, and globalization, together with increased competition between airports, have encouraged airports and aviation authorities to place more emphasis on quality (Graham, 2008). In this context, establishing measures to evaluate operational performance of airports is one of the major problems facing airlines and airport operators today (Correia, 2009). Special consideration must be given to airport level of service evaluations in Brazil. The country will be hosting two important international events: FIFA soccer world cup – 2014 and the Summer Olympic games in 2016. Since several international tourists will be traveling to and within Brazil, the airports must be prepared for these additional passengers. One of the main bottlenecks of Brazilian airports is the emplaning hall, as will be presented in thsi article.
by: Giovanna Miceli Ronzani and Anderson Ribeiro Correia
Passenger Terminal Building According to IATA - International Air Transport Association (1995), the airport passenger terminal is the central element for airline users. It consists of a series of processes and is associated with queuing areas, corridors and waiting areas, which may also have complementary activities. The terminal area is the major interface between the airfield and the rest of the airport. It includes the facilities for passenger and baggage processing, cargo handling, airport maintenance, operations and administration activities. The passenger terminal system has three major functional areas. These functional areas and the activities that occur within them are as follows (Horonjeff and McKelvey, 1994): ñ The access interface – where the passenger transfers from the access mode of travel to the passenger processing functional area. Circulation, parking, and curbside loading and unloading of passengers are the activities that take place within this functional area. ñ Processing – where the passenger is processed in preparation for starting, ending, or continuation of an Figure 1: Departure concourse (IATA, 1995). air transportation trip. The primary activities in this functional area are ticketing, baggage check-in, baggage claim, seat assignment, federal inspection, services and security. ñ The flight interface – where the passenger transfers from the processing functional area to the aircraft. The activities that occur here include assembly, conveyance to and from the aircraft, and aircraft loading and unloading.
e-zine edition 51
This work intends to evaluate the level of service associated with space available at the emplaning hall (also mentioned as departure concourse), as illustrated in Figure 1.
Level of Service and Capacity Horonjeff and McKelvey (1994) state that the demand of passengers and the airport operations interact to determine the level of service and capacity of an airport. Andreatta et al (2001) Table 2 presents the LOS measures in terms of space standards. stated that the Level of Service (LOS) represents the quality and conditions of service of one or more facilities experienced The waiting areas include the area of circulation, the public by passengers. The area for seating and Table 1: Level of Service standards (IATA, 1995). LOS to be achieved the area reserved for Legend Characteristics in a passenger terqueues in front of minal is important check-in counters. It A Excellent level of service; condition of free flow; excellent level of comfort because it is directly is recommended that High level of service; condition of stable flow; very few delays; high level related to economic these areas be free of B of comfort issues, as well as to obstacles in order to Good level of service; condition of stable flow; acceptable delays; good C the airport “image”. facilitate passenger level of comfort Moreover, maintainorientation. Adequate level of service; condition of unstable flow; unacceptable D ing a particular level delays; inadequate level of comfort Inadequate level of service; condition of unstable flow; unacceptable of service at an airAccording to EdE delays; inadequate level of comfort port can help attract wards (1998), the Unacceptable level of service; condition of cross flows, system breakdown new businesses and size of the departure F and unacceptable delays; unacceptable level of comfort customers (Andreata lounge depends on et al, 2007). Martel the number of pasand Seneviratne (1991) sengers who will use this Table 2: Level of Service standards in numerical terms (IATA, 1995). say that many factors affacility, as well as the avLOS Standards (Sq. Meter/ Occupant) fect the quality of service, erage waiting time. LonA B C D E F besides time and space. ger waiting times result in They stated that informagreater crowding levels. Check-in Queue Area 1.8 1.6 1.4 1.2 1.0 tion, orientation, conveWait/Circulate 2.7 2.3 1.9 1.5 1.0 System nience, distances and level The focus of this paper is Hold Room 1.4 1.2 1.0 0.8 0.6 Breakdown changes are representative to analyze the enplanning Bag Claim Area 2.0 1.8 1.6 1.4 1.2 examples that characterize halls at passenger termiGIS 1.4 1.2 1.0 0.8 0.6 the LOS. Ndoh and Ashnals, especially because ford (1993) considered this is one of the critical the following attributes components at Brazilian Table 3: Annual passenger movements (2008) in their research: access airports. IATA LOS stanTotal(Passengers Airport to information, comfort dards presented at Table unit)* and economy. According 2 will be employed for GRU – São Paulo/Guarulhos International Airport 20,400,304 to Park (1999), most airanalyses. CGH – São Paulo/Congonhas Airport 13,672,301 ports usually have their GIG – Rio de Janeiro/Galeão International Airport 10,754,689 standards of service based Proposed Medthodology BSB – Brasília International Airport 10,443,393 on check-in waiting time, This research will evaluservice processing time ate LOS of emplaning SSA - Salvador International Airport 6,042,307 and space required per halls of airports, which CFN - Tancredo Neves/Confins International Airport 5,189,528 passenger. According to cities will host FIFA POA - Salgado Filho International Airport 4,931,464 Caves and Pickard (2001), world cup games in 2014 REC - Recife/Guararapes-Gilberto Freyre International 4,679,457 all users of an airport need (Table 3). Airport a proper environment in CWB - Afonso Pena International Airport 4,281,354 terms of security. As BalAssessing the capacities SDU– Rio de Janeiro/ Santos - Dumont Airport 3,628,766 lis et al (2002), the miniof terminal building eleFOR - Pinto Martins International Airport 3,465,791 mization of delay, flexments is highly complex. MAO - Eduardo Gomes-Manaus International Airport 2,021,668 ibility in the building and However, IATA (1995) the separation of deparpresents practical formuVIX - Vitória Airport 1,988,447 ture and arrival, combined las, which will be used NAT - Augusto Severo International Airport 1,643,369 with adequate availabilin this work. Regarding GYN - Goiânia Airport 1,554,000 ity of commercial areas, the departure concourse, VCP - Viracopos/Campinas International Airport 1,083,878 can provide a good level the necessary area can be of service. Dada (1997) evaluated as follows: PLU – Pampulha/ Belo Horizonte Airport 561,189 and Ronzani and Correia (2007) evaluated the * Passengers – departure and arrival (plus connection, not military). Source: LOS in a terminal related INFRAERO. to passenger wayfinding.
Correia and Wirasinghe (2006) examined the airport level of service considering the following criteria for analysis: walking distance, space available and processing time. According to the ADRM - Airport Development Reference Manual (IATA, 1995), there are six levels of service for airport passenger terminals (Table 1).
y 3a(1 o) b ) 2 60
Where: s= space require per person (m2); y = average occupancy time per passenger/visitor (minutes); a =peak hour number of passengers; o = number of visitor per passenger; b = number of transfer passengers.
ing to Infraero (federal company that manages the 67 major airports in Brazil) data (INFRAERO, 2009), it is the busiest airport in Brazil. It has two passenger terminals under pier configuration. At each terminal side, there is an emplaning hall. For instance, Figure 2 (on the next page) illustrates this area for Terminal II.
According to our calculations, the utilization of the departing hall is around 145%, providing an average of 0.80 m2 per perAssuming that transfer passengers do not use emplaning halls, son in this area. According to IATA (1995), this means LOS the equation is simplified as follows: “F” or unacceptable. It is important to mention that the airport administration has been decreasing this area recently in order A 0.75a(1 o) to provide other uses, as circulation and check-in counters. That might be one of the reasons for the very low LOS providThe Federal Aviation Administraed. In this concern, we will provide tion - FAA uses typical peak hour Table 4: Typical peak hour passengers. next some alternatives to improve passengers (TPHP) where values TPHP as a percentage of the LOS at the emplaning hall. Range (Passenger/Year) Annual Flows: are related to annual throughputs Our proposal is to occupy an idle Conversion Factor (%) (FAA,1976 apud Wang and Pitarea at the emplaning level, defield, XXXX), as shown in Table 0.035 signed for terminal aesthetics (Fig30 million and over 4. In order to obtain passenger hour ure 3). By adding this area into the 29,999,999 – 20,000,000 0.040 movements from annual volumes emplaning hall, this area will re19,999,999 – 10,000,000 0.045 at Brazilian airports, we will emceive an extra area of 570 m2 per 9,999,999 – 1,000,000 0.050 ploy these conversion factors. terminal, which totals 1,140 m2 999,999 – 500,000 0.080 This adding would represent 2.20 We will assume visitor numbers, as m2 per person at the hall, incre499,999 – 100,000 0.130 portrayed in Table 5. The assumpment the LOS from “F” to “B” catunder 100,000 0.200 tions are divided by size and charegory. On the other hand, accordacteristics of each airport. ing to Bandeira (2007), check-in, departure lounge and security Data Analysis Table 5: Assumptions: mumber of visitor per passenger. inspection are more important Table 6 presents the results of for passengers than emplaning Visitor per Passenger Airport the calculations, according to halls. Under this argument, the (unit) the methodology previously administration could evaluate GRU, GIG, BSB, SSA, CFN, CWB, POA, presented and associated as1.5 using this area for other purposREC, VCP, FOR, MAO, VIX, NAT, GYN sumptions. es, including a combination of PLU 1.0 various uses. However, evaluaAccording to Table 6, four airCGH, SDU 0.5 tion of these alternatives is not ports demand special attention: under the scope of this paper. GRU, MAO, VIX and PLU, since there is less area than Conclusions Table 6: Departure concourse - necessary vs. existing area. necessary. Special considerThis paper has presented that Airport (IATA Code) Existing Area (m2) Necessary Area (m2) ation must also be given to the emplaning halls of major GRU (São Paulo/Guarulhos GRU 1,600 2,314 airports in Brazil are a critical International Airport), since it element, according to IATA CGH 2,780 789 is the main gateway for interstandards. This bottleneck GIG 4,119 3,964 national passengers in Brazil. could cause user dissatisfacBSB 1,457 673 The airport operator should tion and disturb several airport undertake actions in order to SSA 2,555 871 operations. One of the critiimprove level of service for cal airports is São Paulo/GuaCFN 1,000 744 passengers. New civil aviation rulhos Airport, since it is the POA 1,220 665 regulations for future private main international gateway in REC 2,280 653 operators in Brazil state that Brazil. In addition to that, São LOS criteria should be folCWB 1,340 394 Paulo will host the FIFA Soclowed and audited by aviation cer World Cup in 2014. We SDU 1,775 1,402 authorities. The next section have provided an alternative FOR 1,390 536 will present a case study for to overcome the unacceptable MAO 144 316 this airport. LOS provided at the emplaning VIX 103 263 hall, which could increment the Case Study LOS from “F” to “B” category. NAT 750 447 São Paulo/Guarulhos InternaFinally, this alternative could GYN 285 259 tional Airport is located at the be compared to other alternaVCP 1,150 250 São Paulo metropolitan area, tives, as providing check-in, at Guarulhos city. AccordPLU 105 113 security inspection or depar-
Figure 2: Existing departure concourse_GRU (TPS II).
ture lounges areas, which are also operating with low level of services. However, their LOS are not as low as the LOS of the emplaning hall at the mentioned airport. About the Authors
Giovanna Miceli Ronzani Borille is a PhD Student of Air Transportation and Airports at the Aeronautics Institute of Technology, São José dos Campos, Brazil. Anderson Ribeiro Correia is a professor and researcher of Air Transportation and Airports at the Aeronautics Institute of Technology, São José dos Campos, Brazil.
Andreatta, G.; Brunetta, L.; Righi, L and Jacur, G.R. (2001). Simulation vs. analytical models for the evaluation of an airport landside. 4th International Eurosim Congress. Andreatta, G.; Brunetta, L.; Righi, L (2007). Evaluating terminal management performances using SLAM: The case of Athens International Airport. Computers and Operations Research 34, Elsevier. Ballis, A.; Stathopoulos, E. and Sfakianaki, E. (2002). Sizing of processing and holding air terminal facilities for charter passengers using simulations tools. International Journal of Transport Management 1, pp 101-113. Bandeira, M.; Correia, A. R. and Wirasinghe, S. C. (2007). Degree of Importance of Airport Passenger Terminal Components and Their Attributes. Airlines Magazine, Issue 37. Caves, R. E. and Pickard, C. D. (2001). The Satisfaction of Human Needs in Airport Passenger Terminals. Proceedings of the Institution of Civil Engineers, Transport 147, February Issue I, pp. 9-15. Correia, A. R. (2009). Evaluation of Level of Service at Airport Passenger Terminals. Köln: LAP Lambert, 1st. Ed. Correia, A.R. and Wirasinghe, S. C. (2006). Development of Level of Service standards for airport facilities: Application to São Paulo International Airport. Journal of Air Transport Management.
sures of Orientation in Airport Terminals. Doctoral Thesis, Department of Civil Engineering, University of Calgary, Canada. Edwards, B (1998). The Modern Terminal: New approaches to airport architecture. E & FN Spon. Federal Aviation Administration - FAA (1976). Planning and Design Considerations for Terminal Building Development, Advisory Circular AC 150/5360-7, Washington. Graham, A. (2008). Managing Airports: An International Perspective. Oxford: Elsevier, 3rd. Ed. Horonjeff, R. and McKelvey, F.X. (1994). Planning and Design of Airports. 4th Edition. McGraw. INFRAERO_ Brazilian Airports (2009). Airport Traffic. Available at: www.infraero.gov.br (Access: June 2009). International Air Transportation Association – IATA (1995). Airport Development Reference Manual. 8th Edition. Martel, N. and Seneviratne, P. N. (1991). Variables influencing performance of Air Terminal Buildings. Transportation Planning and Technology, v. 16, p. 3-28. Ndoh, N. N. and Ashford, N. (1993). Evaluation of Airport Access
Level of Service. Transportation Research Record 1423, TRB, National Research Council, Washington D.C., pp 34-39. Park, Y. (1999). A methodology for establishing operational standards of airport passenger terminals. Journal of Air Transport Management, pp 73-80. Ronzani, G. M. and Correia, A. R. (2007). Evaluating Orientation Level of Service at Passenger Terminals at Major Brazilian Airports. Journal of the Brazilian Air Transportation Research Society, v. 3, p. 19-34. Wang, P. and Pitfield, D.(1999) The derivation and analysis of the passenger peak hour: an empirical application to Brazil. Journal of Air Transport Management, Volume 5, Issue 3, Pages 135-141.
Figure 3: Actual departure concourse versus alternative.
MeaAlternative - Occupation of the Area for Emplaning Hall
Actual – Existing Idle Area
e-zine edition 51 AJ