You are on page 1of 51

Analysis of Air Transportation Systems

The Aircraft and the System


Dr. Antonio A. Trani
Associate Professor of Civil and Environmental Engineering
Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University

Falls Church, Virginia


June 9-12, 2003

NEXTOR - National Center of Excellence for Aviation Research

Material Presented in this Section

The aircraft and the airport

Aircraft classifications

Aircraft characteristics and their relation to airport


planning

New large capacity aircraft (NLA) impacts

NEXTOR - National Center of Excellence for Aviation Research

Purpose of the Discussion

Introduces the reader to various types of aircraft and their


classifications

Importance of aircraft classifications in airport


engineering design

Discussion on possible impacts of Very Large Capacity


Aircraft (VLCA, NLA, etc.)

Preliminary issues on geometric design (apron standards)


and terminal design

NEXTOR - National Center of Excellence for Aviation Research

Relevance of Aircraft Characteristics

Aircraft classifications are useful in airport engineering


work (including terminal gate sizing, apron and taxiway
planning, etc.)

Most of the airport design standards are intimately


related to aircraft size (i.e., wingspan, aircraft length,
aircraft wheelbase, aircraft seating capacity, etc.)

Airport fleet compositions vary over time and thus is


imperative that we learn how to forecast expected vehicle
sizes over long periods of time

NEXTOR - National Center of Excellence for Aviation Research

Aircraft Classifications
Aircraft are generally classified according to three
important criteria in airport engineering:

Geometric design characteristics (Aerodrome code in


ICAO parlance)

Air Traffic Control operational characteristics (approach


speed criteria)

Wake vortex generation characteristics


Other relevant classifications are related to the type of
operation (short, medium, long-haul; wide, narrow-body,
and commuter, etc.)

NEXTOR - National Center of Excellence for Aviation Research

Geometric Design Classification (ICAO)


ICAO Aerodrome Reference Code Used in Airport Geometric Design.

Design Group

Wingspan (m)

Outer Main
Landing Gear
Width (m)

Example Aircraft

< 15

< 4.5

All single engine aircraft, Some


business jets

15 to < 24

4.5 to < 6

Commuter aircraft, large business jets


(EMB-120, Saab 2000, Saab
340, etc.)

24 to < 36

6 to < 9

Medium-range transports
(B727, B737, MD-80, A320)

36 to < 52

9 to < 14

Heavy transports
(B757, B767, A300)

52 to < 65

9 to < 14

Heavy transport aircraft


(Boeing 747, L-1011, MD-11,
DC-10)

NEXTOR - National Center of Excellence for Aviation Research

Geometric Design Classification (FAA in US)


FAA Aircraft Design Group Classification Used in Airport Geometric Design.

Design Group

Wingspan (ft)

Example Aircraft

< 49

Cessna 152-210, Beechcraft A36

II

49 - 78

Saab 2000, EMB-120, Saab 340, Canadair


RJ-100

III

79 - 117

Boeing 737, MD-80, Airbus A-320

IV

118 - 170

Boeing 757, Boeing 767, Airbus A-300

171 - 213

Boeing 747, Boeing 777, MD-11, Airbus A340

VI

214 - 262

A3XX-200 or VLCA (planned)

NEXTOR - National Center of Excellence for Aviation Research

ATC Operational Classification (US)


Airport Terminal Area Procedures Aircraft Classification (FAA Scheme).

Approach Speed
(knots)a

Group

Example Aircraft

< 91

All single engine aircraft, Beechcraft


Baron 58,

91-120

Business jets and commuter aircraft


(Beech 1900, Saab 2000, Saab 340,
Embraer 120, Canadair RJ, etc.)

121-140

Medium and Short Range Transports


(Boeing 727, B737, MD-80, A320,
F100, B757, etc.)

141-165

Heavy transports
(Boeing 747, L-1011, MD-11, DC-10,
A340, A300)

> 166

BAC Concorde and military aircraft

a. At maximum takeoff gross mass.

NEXTOR - National Center of Excellence for Aviation Research

Wake Vortex Aircraft Classification


Final Approach Aircraft Wake Vortex Classification.

Group

Takeoff Gross
Weight (lb)

Example Aircraft

Small

< 41,000

All single engine aircraft, light twins,


most business jets and commuter aircraft

Large

41,000-255,000

Large turboprop commuters, short and


medium range transport aircraft (MD80, B737, B727, A320, F100, etc.)

Heavy

> 255,000

Boeing 757a, Boeing 747, Douglas


DC-10, MD-11, Airbus A-300, Airbus
A-340, Lockheed L-1011

a. For purposes of terminal airspace separation procedures, the Boeing 757 is now classified by FAA
in a category by itself. However, when considering the Boeing 757 separation criteria (close to the
Heavy category) and considering the percent of Boeing 757 in the U.S. fleet, the use of three
categories does provide very similar results for most airport capacity analyes.

NEXTOR - National Center of Excellence for Aviation Research

IATA Aircraft Classification


IATA Aircraft Size Classification Scheme.

Category

Number of Seats

Example Aircraft

< 50

Embraer 120, Saab 340

50-124

Fokker 100, Boeing 717

125-179

Boeing B727-200, Airbus A321

180-249

Boeing 767-200, Airbus A300-600

250-349

Airbus A340-300, Boeing 777-200

350-499

Boeing 747-400

> 500

Boeing 747-400 high density seating

Used in the forecast of aircraft movements at an airport


based on the IATA forecast methodology.

NEXTOR - National Center of Excellence for Aviation Research

10

Aircraft Classification According to their Intended


Use
A more general aircraft classification based on the aircraft
use

General aviation aircraft (GA)

Corporate aircraft (CA)

Commuter aircraft (COM)

Transport aircraft (TA)


Short-range
Medium-range
Long-range

NEXTOR - National Center of Excellence for Aviation Research

11

General Aviation (GA)


Typically these aircraft can have one (single engine) or
two engines (twin engine). Their maximum gross weight
usually is always below 14,000 lb.
Single-Engine GA

Twin-Engine GA

Cessna 172 (Skyhawk)


Beechcraft 58TC (Baron)

Beechcraft A36 (Bonanza)

Cessna 421C (Golden Eagle)

NEXTOR - National Center of Excellence for Aviation Research

12

Corporate Aircraft (CA)


Typically these aircraft can have one or two turboprop
driven or jet engines (sometimes three). Maximum gross
mass is up to 40,910 kg (90,000 lb)
Raytheon-Beechcraft
King Air B300

Cessna Citation II

Gulfstream G-V

NEXTOR - National Center of Excellence for Aviation Research

13

Commuter Aircraft (COM)


Usually twin engine aircraft with a few exceptions such as
the DeHavilland DHC-7 which has four engines. Their
maximum gross mass is below 31,818 kg (70,000 lb)
Fairchild Swearinger Metro 23

Bombardier DHC-8

Saab 340B

Embraer 145

NEXTOR - National Center of Excellence for Aviation Research

14

Short-Range Transports (SR-TA)


Certified under FAR/JAR 25. Their maximum gross mass
usually is below 68,182 kg (150,000 lb).
Fokker F100

Airbus A-320

Boeing 737-300

McDonnellDouglas MD 82

NEXTOR - National Center of Excellence for Aviation Research

15

Medium-Range Transports (MR-TA)


These are transport aircraft employed to fly routes of less
than 3,000 nm (typical).Their maximum gross mass
usually is usually below 159,090 kg (350,000 lb)
Boeing B727-200

Boeing 757-200

Airbus A300-600R

NEXTOR - National Center of Excellence for Aviation Research

16

Long-Range Transports (LR-TA)


These are transport aircraft employed to fly routes of less
than 3,000 nm (typical).Their maximum gross mass
usually is above 159,090 kg (350,000 lb)
Airbus A340-200

Boeing 777-200

Boeing 747-400

NEXTOR - National Center of Excellence for Aviation Research

17

Future Aircraft Issues


The fleet composition at many airports is changing
rapidly and airport terminals will have to adapt

Surge of commuter aircraft use for point-to-point


services

Possible introduction of Very Large Capacity Aircraft


(VLCA)

NEXTOR - National Center of Excellence for Aviation Research

18

VLCA Aircraft Discussion

Large capacity aircraft requirements

Discussion of future high-capacity airport requirements

Airside infrastructure impacts

Airside capacity impacts

Landside impacts

Pavement design considerations

Noise considerations

Systems approach

NEXTOR - National Center of Excellence for Aviation Research

19

VLCA Design Trade-off Methodology


Aircraft designed purely on aerodynamic principles
would be costly to the airport operator yet have low
DOC
Aircraft heavily constrained by current airport design
standards might not be very efficient to operate
Adaptations of aircraft to fit airports can be costly
Some impact on aerodynamic performance
Weight considerations (i.e., landing gear design)

A balance should be achieved

NEXTOR - National Center of Excellence for Aviation Research

20

VLCA Impact Framework (I)


Aircraft Design Module
Mission Profile Definition
Range, Speed, Payload
Takeoff Roll, Gate Comp.

VLCA Physical Dimensions


Aircraft Wingspan
Aircraft Length

Airport Geometric Design


Runway and Taxiway Geometric
Modeling
Gate Compatibility Modeling
New Geometric Design Criteria

Takeoff Weight Requirement

Aircraft Separation Analysis


Aircraft Wake Vortex Model
Aircraft Separation Standards

Airside Capacity Analysis


Runway , Taxiway and Gate
Capacity Analysis
New Capacity Figures of Merit

Airport Landside Capacity


Passenger Demand Flows

Terminal Design Modeling


Landside Simulations
New Terminal Design Guidelines

Landing Gear Configurations


Landing Gear Configuration
Strut Configurations
Wheel Track, Wheel Length

Pavement Design Analysis


Flexible and Rigid Pavements
Identify Areas of Further
Research

NEXTOR - National Center of Excellence for Aviation Research

21

VLCA Impact Methodology (II)


Airport Landside Capacity
Terminal Design Modeling
Landside Sim ulations

Passenger Demand Flows

New Terminal Design Guidelines

Landing Gear Configurations


Landing Gear Configuration
Strut Configurations
Wheel Track, Wheel Length

Thrust and EPNL/SEL


Landing Gear Configuration
Landing Analysis
Takeoff Analysis

Pavement Design Analysis


Flexible and Rigid Pavements
Identify Areas of Further
Research

VLCA Noise Model


Noise Modeling of VLCA
Operations (Ldn contours)
Comparison with Current Limits

VLCA Economic Impact


Trade-off Model
User Cost Impacts
Community Impacts

NEXTOR - National Center of Excellence for Aviation Research

22

VLCA Specifications (Typical)


Parameter

Boeing 747-500X

VLCA (A380)

Range (km)

13,000

13,000

Runway Length (m)

3,000

3,000

Payload (kN)

800

1,200

Passengers

500

630-650

Max.TOW (kN)

4,200

5,400

Wingspan (m)

75

80-85

Length (m)

74-76

76-85

NEXTOR - National Center of Excellence for Aviation Research

23

VLCA Schematic

VLCA aircraft will have wingspans around 15-25%


larger than current transports
Payload = 650 passengers
Design Range = 13,000 km.

Four 315 kN Turbofan Engines


MTOW = 5,400 kN
2
S = 700 m
AR = 9.5

o o
12
9-11
.5 m.
7881.57
81-87
m

NEXTOR - National Center of Excellence for Aviation Research

24

VLCA Schematic (II)

Structural weight penalties of folding wings are likely to


be unacceptable to most airlines

The empennage height could be a problem for existing


hangars at some airport facilities

VLCA

Boein g 7 47-400

24 .87 m

14 o
75.67 m

NEXTOR - National Center of Excellence for Aviation Research

25

Airbus A380 - First in a Family of VLCA

Source: Airbus
NEXTOR - National Center of Excellence for Aviation Research

26

Development of Subsonic Transport Wings


The graphic below offers some idea on the development
of transport wings over three decades
Long Range Aircraft Data
11.0
A330/340

Wing Aspect Ratio

10.0

VLCA Aircraft

9.0

A310-300

B767-200
L1011-500

8.0

B767-300

DC-8-63
DC-8-50
B707-320

7.0

B707-121

B777-A

B747-400
IL-86

A300-B4
DC-10-30
DC-10-10 L1011-200 B747-300
B747-100
B747-200

6.0
1940.0

1960.0

1980.0

2000.0

2020.0

Year in Revenue Service

NEXTOR - National Center of Excellence for Aviation Research

27

VLCA Design Trade-off Studies

Aircraft Maximum Takeoff Weight (kN)

Future VLCA would weight 5,400 kN for a 13,000 km


design range mission
7000

VLCA Wing Aspect Ratio

6500

AR = 9.0
AR = 9.5

6000

AR =10.0

5500
5000

5,400 KN

4500
B747-400

4000

MTOW

3500
5000
(9,260)

5500

6000

(10,186)

(11,112)

6500

7000

7500

(12,038) (12,965) (13,890)

8000
(14,816)

Design Range (Nautical Miles and Kilometers)


NEXTOR - National Center of Excellence for Aviation Research

28

VLCA Design Trade-off Studies (II)


It is possible that aircraft designers in the near future will
exceed the FAA design group VI limits
90

VLCA Wing Aspect Ratio


AR =9.0

VLCA Aircraft Wingspan (Meters)

85

AR = 9.5
AR =10.0

81.5
FAA Design

80

Group VI Limit

75

70

65
5000

5500

6000

(9,260)

(10,186)

(11,112)

6500

7000

7500

(12,038) (12,965) (13,890)

8000
(14,816)

Design Range (Nautical Miles and Kilometers)

NEXTOR - National Center of Excellence for Aviation Research

29

VLCA Impacts on Airside Infrastructure

Increase taxiway dimensional standards for design group


VI to avoid possible foreign object damage to VLCA
engines (increase taxiway and shoulder widths to 35 m
and 15 m, respectively)

31 m

61 m

VLCA on DG VI Runway

VLCA on DG VI Taxiway

NEXTOR - National Center of Excellence for Aviation Research

30

Runway-Taxiway Separation Criteria

Increase the minimum runway to taxiway separation


criteria to 228 m (750 ft.). This should increase the use of
high-speed exits

183 m
230 m

NEXTOR - National Center of Excellence for Aviation Research

31

HS Runway Exits for VLCA

Larger transition radii (due to large aircraft yaw inertia)

Linear taper turnoff width from 61 m to 40 m (metric


stations 250 to 650)

Latera l Distan ce (m)

100

HS Exit
35 m/s design speed

75

Boeing 727-200

50

Boeing 747-200
VLCA Aircraft

25

0
0

100

200

300

400

500

Downrange Distance (m)


NEXTOR - National Center of Excellence for Aviation Research

32

VLCA Taxiway Fillet Radius Requirements

Minimum Fillet Radius (m)

The fillet radius design standards for design group VI


should suffice for VLCA aircraft
31.00

VLCA Design Region


30.00

Undercarriage Width (m.)


Uw = 13.5
Uw = 15.0
Uw = 16.5

29.00
28.00
27.00

FAA Design Group VI

26.00
25.00
27.00

28.00

29.00

30.00

31.00

32.00

33.00

34.00

Distance
Undercarriage
to Cockpit
(m.)
Distance
from from
MainMain
Undercarriage
to Cockpit
(m)

NEXTOR - National Center of Excellence for Aviation Research

33

Taxiway Length of Fillet Requirements

VLCA length of fillet requirements will probably be


satisfied using current geometric design criteria
80.00

FAA Design Group VI

Fillet Length (m)

70.00

Undercarriage Width (m.)

60.00

Uw = 13.5
Uw = 15.0

50.00

Uw = 16.5

40.00
30.00

VLCA Design Region

20.00
27.00

28.00

29.00

30.00

31.00

32.00

33.00

34.00

Distance
Undercarriage
to Cockpit
Distance
from from
MainMain
Undercarriage
to Cockpit
(m)(m.)

NEXTOR - National Center of Excellence for Aviation Research

34

Impacts to Aircraft Separation


Critical to estimate safe aircraft separation criteria
Induced rolling acceleration principle ( p quotient)
Tangential speed matching method
Derived formulation (using p quotient principle)
K4

ij = Max L 1 + L 2 W i , K 1 + K W i + K 3 { W j }
2

is the separation distance between aircraft i and j in km


K K , K , and K are regression constants found to be
6.1000, 0.00378, -0.24593 and 0.44145, respectively
L and L are 4.7000 and 0.00172 and have been derived
using empirical roll control flight simulation data
ij

NEXTOR - National Center of Excellence for Aviation Research

35

Aircraft Separation Analysis


Recommended in-trail separation criteria for
approaching aircraft using the P quotient criteria
24.0

Aircraft Separation (km.)

Small (Learjet 23)


Medium (DC9)

20.0

Large (B757)
Heavy (747)

16.0

VLCA

12.0

8.0

4.0
0.0

750.0

1500.0

2250.0

3000.0

3750.0

4500.0

5250.0

Leading Aircraft Weight (kN)


NEXTOR - National Center of Excellence for Aviation Research

36

Wake Vortex Tangential Speed Estimation


Predicted tangential speeds of wake vortex using
Robinson and Larson semi-empirical vortex model
7

Clean aircraft
Speed = 160 knots
Sea Level ISA
14 km behind aircraft

Tangential Speed (m/s)

6
5
4

VLCA (4,400 KN)

3
2
Vortex Cores

1
0
20

Lockheed C5A (2,060 KN)

30

40

50

60

70

80

Lateral Distance from Center of Fuselage (m.)

NEXTOR - National Center of Excellence for Aviation Research

37

Aircraft Separation Analysis (cont.)


In-trail separation criteria for approaching aircraft
using the tangential speed matching method
Miminum In-trail Separation (km)

16
IMC Conditions

Trailing Aircraft
Small

14

MTOW < 267 kN


Medium
267 KN < MTOW < 1,336 kN

12

Heavy
MTOW > 1,336 kN

10

8
3500

4000

4500

5000

5500

6000

6500

Maximum Takeoff Weight (kN)


5500

6000

(10,186)

(11,112)

6500

7000

7500

(12,038) (13,000) (13,890)

8000
(14,816)

VLCA Design Range (Nautical Miles and Kilometers)

NEXTOR - National Center of Excellence for Aviation Research

38

Runway Saturation Capacity Impacts


Small to moderate saturation capacity changes
60
Parallel Runway Configuration
IMC Weather Conditions

Percent VLCA

50

0%

(aircraft/hr)

40

10%
20%

30

Independent Parallel Approaches

20
10
0
0

25
50
75
Departure Saturation Capacity (aircraft/hr)

100

NEXTOR - National Center of Excellence for Aviation Research

39

Airport Terminal Impacts (Landside)


VLCA will certainly impact the way passengers are
processed at the terminal in various areas:
Gate interface (dual-level boarding gates)
Service areas (ticket counters, security counters,
immigration cheking areas, corridors, etc.)
Apron area parking requirements

NEXTOR - National Center of Excellence for Aviation Research

40

Airport Landside Effects


Use of simulation models to estimate landside LOS
5 VLCA A ircraf t (or 7 Boeing 7 47 -4 00 )

Te rm inal

4 9 0 m.

VLCA Deplaning Model

count

Heavy Acft Gate

ReadMe
Heavy Acft Gate
Exit

c
Circulation

Heavy Acft Gate

Immigration

33

Baggage Claim

CUSTOMS
Customs

0
L

? b
select

#
Exit

Heavy Acft Gate

Passengers exiting
from the Terminal

Heavy Acft Gate

Entrance to
Landside
facilities

Transfer
Passengers are
seperated here

Transfer
Passengers Count

Arriving Aircraft Gates

NEXTOR - National Center of Excellence for Aviation Research

41

Sample Landside Simulation Results


Analysis using the Airport Terminal Simulation Model
30 immigration counters
Normal service times (=1.0 and =0.25 minutes)

Total No. Passengers at


Immigration Counters

500
7 Boeing 747-400 at 85% Load

400

5 VLCA at 85% Load

300
200
100
0
0

30

60
90
Time (minutes)

120

NEXTOR - National Center of Excellence for Aviation Research

150

42

Airport Gate Interface Challenges

VLCA aircraft could employ dual-level boarding gates to


provide acceptable enplanement performance

Terminal

VLCA

Boei ng 7 47 - 40 0

Dual-level Boarding Gates

24.87 m

1 4o
75.67 m

VLCA

Terminal

Boei ng 7 47 - 40 0

Dual-level Boarding Gates

24.87 m

1 4o
75.67 m

NEXTOR - National Center of Excellence for Aviation Research

43

Noise Impacts

Sound Exposure Level (dBA)

High by-pass ratio turbofan engines with maximum


takeoff thrust of 315-350 kN will be necessary to power
VLCA aircraft
The engine size will probably be determined by takeoff
run and engine-out climb requirements
125
VLCA Thrust Rating (kN)
44.55
103.20

100

115.43
174.35
229.31
246.98

75

311.76
315.60

50
100.00

1000.00

10000.00

Slant
Range
(m) (m)
Slant
Distance

NEXTOR - National Center of Excellence for Aviation Research

44

DNL Takeoff Contours


Larger engines coupled with smaller initial climb rate
capability (compared to twin and three-engine aircraft)
could result in expanded noise contours at most airports
L dn = 5 5 Prof iles

MD-1 1 ( GE)

Prof ile
VLCA Profile

Runway

20 00

40 00

6000

8000

10000

Scale in met ers

NEXTOR - National Center of Excellence for Aviation Research

45

Pavement Design Impacts


Multiple triple-in-tandem landing gear configurations
are likely to be used for VLCA applications

Pavement Thickness (cm)

180
160

DC9-50

140

B727-200

120

Landing Gear
Configuration

VLCA

100
B747-400

80
60
40

Quadruple + Triple-in-Tandem
20
1

6 8 10
CBR Value

20

30

40

Subgrade Strength, CBR

NEXTOR - National Center of Excellence for Aviation Research

46

Systems Engineering Model


Administration & Sales Cost

Depreciation Ground Equipment

Aircraft Life Cycle IOC


~

Property and Equipment Cost

Fleet Purchases
Fleet Size

Annual IOC
Servicing Flight OPS

Fleet Additions

Fleet Retirement

Maintenance Cost
Average Utilization
Aircraft Life Cycle DOC

Depreciation Cost

Insurance Cost

Flight Operations Cost

Annual DOC

Crew Expenses

Fuel Oil Costs

Annual Fuel Consumption

Fuel Unit Cost

Average Utilization

NEXTOR - National Center of Excellence for Aviation Research

47

Sample Application of the Model


Desired Range in Km.
and (n.m.)
Aspect Ratio
Cruise Mach Number
VLCA Capacity (pass.)
MTOW kN (lbs)
Wingspan (m.)
Airfield Pavement Section
Improvement
Noise Mitigation
Runway Improvement
Taxiway Improvement
90 Degree Exit Improv.
Runway Blast Pad Area
Improvement
Terminal Apron Area Improvement
Land Acquisition Cost

10,186
(5,500)
9.5
0.85
650
3,830 (860,000)
70

12,965
(7,000)
9.5
0.85
650
5,385 (1,210,000)
82

13,890
(7,500)
9.5
0.85
650
6,100 (1,370,000)
87

5,000,000
19,250,000
13,663,234
276,343

7,872,000
19,250,000
13,663,237
384,694

10,000,000
24,319,277
15,413,237
386,622

1,200,000

1,200,000

1,589,673

77,685

113,207

63,869

229,328

297,101

NEXTOR - National Center of Excellence for Aviation Research

48

Desired Range in Km.


and (n.m.)
Aspect Ratio
Cruise Mach Number
VLCA Capacity (pass.)
MTOW kN (lbs)
Wingspan (m.)
Airfield Geometric Infrastructure Improvement Cost
Terminal Curb Frontage
Improvement Cost
Parking Garage Improvement
Cost
Landside Improvement Cost
International Terminal Infrastructure Improvement Cost
Total Airport Infrastructure
Improvement Cost

10,186
(5,500)
9.5
0.85
650
3,830 (860,000)
70

12,965
(7,000)
9.5
0.85
650
5,385 (1,210,000)
82

13,890
(7,500)
9.5
0.85
650
6,100 (1,370,000)
87

39,017,641

48,299,715

59,736,701

45,900

45,900

45,900

2,653,750

2,653,750

2,653,750

2,699,650

2,699,650

2,699,650

77,523,165

77,523,165

77,523,165

124,240,456

136,394,530

149,959,516

NEXTOR - National Center of Excellence for Aviation Research

49

Summary
An integrated life-cycle approach is needed to
estimate the impacts of VLCA aircraft
High-capacity aircraft operating at high-capacity
airports will require some changes to current
design standards
Some of the design standards for airside
infrastructure should be revised to plan ahead for
strategic VLCA aircraft
The effect of reduced airside capacity will not
yield reduced passenger demand flow rates at
airport terminals

NEXTOR - National Center of Excellence for Aviation Research

50

High capacity airports could benefit from lower


flight frequencies resulting from VLCA operations
if the passenger demand flows are the same

NEXTOR - National Center of Excellence for Aviation Research

51