Dissertacao

Micro-simulation of check-in operations: case study of
Terminal 1 of Lisbon's Airport
Manuel Maria Santos Dias Duarte Félix
Dissertation to obtain the Master of Science Degree in

Civil Engineering
Supervisor: Doctor Vasco Domingos Moreira Lopes Miranda dos Reis
Examination Committee
Presidente: Professor João Torres de Quinhones Levy
Supervisor: Doctor Vasco Domingos Moreira Lopes Miranda dos Reis
Member of the Committee: Professor Maria do Rosário Maurício Ribeiro Macário
October 2015
Micro-simulation of check-in operations: case study of Terminal 1 of Lisbon’s Airport
ACKNOWLEGMENTS
With the conclusion of the present thesis and my studies for the Master’s degree at hand,
I can only think that a single page is not enough to express my gratitude to everyone who helped
me in this adventure.
At first, I would like to express my sincere gratitude to my Supervisor Dr. Vasco Domingos
Moreira Lopes Miranda dos Reis, for all the support given in the course of the present dissertation,
for his insightful comments and encouragement and for the hard question which incented me to
widen my research from various perspectives.
Second, I want to convey my warmest and sincere thanks to Eng. Duarte Amorim da
Cunha and Eng. Liliana Magalhães, without whom this dissertation would not see the daylight,
for their continuous support, motivation, immense knowledge and specially, patience, which they
had a lot to put up with me during the creation of the dissertation.
A person that must not be forgotten is Dr. Ruas Alves, board advisor for ANA Aeroportos
de Portugal, whom with his knowledge gave valuable assets and insights for the creation of the
model and its validation.
I am hugely indebted to my friend Eng. Luis Navarro for his help in the completion of the
simulation model could not have arrived in a better time.
I would like to thank the support team of AnyLogic Company for their precious on time
help in the development of the model.
Last but definitely not least, I could not finish the acknowledgments of my dissertation
without thanking my parents and sisters who were always there for me, supporting me,
encouraging me and cheering me up; to my friends, especially João Pacheco, João Reis & Pedro
Barroca, for all the support, motivation and for helping me wind down when I most needed to; and
a special thanks to my girlfriend Ana Fonseca, for all her patience and for staying by my side
every day during this long journey.
Thank you all!
i
ABSTRACT
ABSTRACT
Being considered a delicate matter for involving millions of human beings every single
day, air transportation had to adopt different security processes and sub-processes with different
standards to assure their safety. For involving a lot of money, time and stress, the best
performance from these processes and sub-processes is expected. However, with the continuous
growth of the demand, this performance can only be achieved with a constant search for
improvements. The study of a scenarios such as an airport terminal, cannot be made in situ and
to that end, a representation is of the reality is the best option.
With the current developments in modern technology the veracity and truthfulness that
could be achieved from the representation of a real case scenarios increased exponentially,
especially with the possibility to include meticulous restrictions and details, being able to obtain
the best possible data information.
The model developed simulates the movement of passengers in the terminal from the
time they enter until they reach the security area, with a special focus on the check-in sub-
process. The model has the capability to identify the main problems behind the check-in sub-
process and produce indicators to prove them. Being applied to Lisbon’s Airport Terminal 1, the
results of the model suggested that an incentive should be made for the passengers to perform
the check-in via self-service check-in methods, outside the terminal building, alongside with an
increased focus for the baggage drop facilities.
KEY-WORDS
 Airport operations
 Check-in
 Lisbon airport
 Queue time reduction
 Simulation
ii
RESUMO
Por ser considerado um assunto delicado por envolver a cada dia milhões de pessoas,
diferentes processos e sub-processos com diferentes padrões de segurança foram incorporados
no transporte aéreo. Ao mesmo tempo, é esperado o melhor desempenho possível destes
processos e sub-processos, por envolverem um grande volume de dinheiro, tempo e stress.
Contudo, devido ao contínuo crescimento do lado da procura neste sector, tal desempenho só
poderá ser atingido caso exista uma constante pesquisa por melhorias. É de notar que o estudo
de cenários para um terminal de aeroporto não pode ser efetuado in situ e para tal, recorre-se
ao uso de representações dessa realidade.
Devido aos atuais desenvolvimentos tecnológicos, a veracidade que se consegue extraír

de uma representação da realidade, tem aumentado exponencialmente, principalmente através
da possibilidade de incorporar detalhes e restrições meticulosas que permitem obter a melhor
informação possível.
O modelo desenvolvido simula o tráfego de passageiros no terminal desde que entram

até ao momento em que passam para a área de controlo de segurança, tendo um enfoque
especial sobre o sub-processo de check-in. Este tem a capacidade de identificar os principais
problemas que se encontram por detrás do sub-processo em causa, produzindo indicadores que
sustentam tal afirmação. Sendo aplicado ao Terminal 1 do aeroporto de Lisboa, os resultados
obtidos sugerem que se deve incentivar os passageiros a efetuar o check-in antes de se
deslocarem ao aeroporto, através de métodos de self-service check-in e que tal incentivo deve
ser acompanhado por uma melhoria nos serviços de baggage drop.
PALAVRAS CHAVE
 Operações aeroportuárias
 Check-in
 Aeroporto de Lisboa
 Redução de tempos de espera
 Simulação
iii
TABLE OF CONTENTS
TABLE OF CONTENTS
ACKNOWLEGMENTS .................................................................................................................... i
ABSTRACT ................................................................................................................................... ii
KEY-WORDS ................................................................................................................................ ii
RESUMO ....................................................................................................................................... iii
PALAVRAS CHAVE ...................................................................................................................... iii
TABLE OF CONTENTS ............................................................................................................... iv
TABLE OF FIGURES ................................................................................................................... vi
TABLE OF Tables ........................................................................................................................ vii
ACRONYMS ................................................................................................................................ viii
Chapter 1 – INTRODUCTION ....................................................................................................... 1
1.1 – Motivation ................................................................................................................ 1
1.2 – Thesis objectives ..................................................................................................... 1
1.3 – Methodological approach ........................................................................................ 2
1.4 – Dissertation Structure .............................................................................................. 2
Chapter 2 – COMPONENTS AND ACTIVITIES OF AN AIRPORT .............................................. 5

2.1 – Components of an Airport ........................................................................................ 5
2.2 – Characterization of Airport’s Typical Activities ........................................................ 8
2.2.1 – Aeronautical Activities ................................................................................... 8
2.2.2 – Non-Aeronautical Activities ........................................................................... 8
2.3 – Terminal ................................................................................................................... 9
2.3.1 Passengers Departure ................................................................................... 10
2.3.2 Passengers Arrival ......................................................................................... 13
2.4 – Users of the Airport ................................................................................................ 15
2.5 – The Check-in: what it is and what it involves, technology used, regulations and
organization ................................................................................................................................. 17
2.5.1 Concept and definitions ................................................................................. 17
2.5.2 Types of check-in ........................................................................................... 18
2.5.3 – Passenger’s steps for each check-in type .................................................. 21
2.6 – Quality of service and perform indicators of the Check-in and Terminal............... 23
Chapter 3 – SIMULATION IN AIRPORTS ................................................................................... 27

3.1 – Methods and models used for the simulation ........................................................ 27
3.1.1 – Simulation ................................................................................................... 27
iv
3.1.2 – Queueing Theory ........................................................................................ 30
3.1.3 – Mathematical and Integer Programming problems .................................... 32
3.1.4 – Survey Analysis .......................................................................................... 33
3.2 Important remarks .................................................................................................... 34
Chapter 4 – CASE STUDY ......................................................................................................... 37

4.1 – Lisbon’s Airport Terminal 1 .................................................................................... 37
4.1.1 – Facilities ...................................................................................................... 37
4.1.2 – Check-in Facilities....................................................................................... 38
4.1.3 – Passengers ................................................................................................. 40
4.2 – Anylogic Interface .................................................................................................. 40
Chapter 5 – METHODOLOGY: DISCRETE-EVENT SIMULATION ........................................... 43

5.1 – Justification of Methodology choices ..................................................................... 43
5.2 –Model Description ................................................................................................... 45
5.2.1 – Objectives ................................................................................................... 45
5.2.2 – Model Structure .......................................................................................... 46
5.2.3 - Agents ......................................................................................................... 57
5.2.4 - Range of view of the Simulation .................................................................. 58
5.2.5 – Verification and Validation of the model ..................................................... 59
5.2.6 - Proposal of an intervention to increase the level of service of the check-in

sub-process ......................................................................................................................... 62
Chapter 6 – CASE STUDY RESULTS AND DISCUSSION ........................................................ 67

6.1 – Base case Scenario .............................................................................................. 67
6.2 –Scenario 1 .............................................................................................................. 68
6.3 –Scenario 2 .............................................................................................................. 68
6.4 –Scenario 3 .............................................................................................................. 69
6.5 – Discussion of the results obtained ........................................................................ 69
Chapter 7 – CONCLUSION ........................................................................................................ 73

BIBLIOGRAPHY.......................................................................................................................... 77
Appendix 1 – Model..................................................................................................................... 81
Appendix 2 – Base case Scenario .............................................................................................. 86
Appendix 3 –Scenario 1 .............................................................................................................. 89
v
TABLE OF FIGURES
TABLE OF FIGURES
Figure 1 – Schematic presentation of an airport ........................................................................... 7
Figure 2 - Turn around process from the aircraft point of view ..................................................... 8
Figure 3 – Configurations of passenger’s buildings and aprons ................................................... 9
Figure 4 - Processes of a passengers’ terminal .......................................................................... 11
Figure 5 - Different types of traditional check-in and baggage drop facilities. (Horonjeff, McKelvey,
Sproule, & Young, 1994) ............................................................................................................. 19
Figure 6 – Main elements of terminal building............................................................................. 39
Figure 7 – AnyLogic working environment .................................................................................. 41
Figure 8 – Model’s Logic part representation .............................................................................. 41
Figure 9 – Model’s storing of variables and parameters representation ..................................... 42
Figure 10 - Model’s graphical part representation ....................................................................... 42
Figure 11 – Model’s Statistical part representation ..................................................................... 42
Figure 12 – System Dynamics representation ............................................................................ 43
Figure 13 – Discrete Event representation .................................................................................. 44
Figure 14 – Agent Based representation ..................................................................................... 44
Figure 15 - Interpretation of the check-in model ......................................................................... 46
Figure 16 – Passenger Generation in the model......................................................................... 46
Figure 17 – Choosing of the entrance ......................................................................................... 47
Figure 18 – Entrance of passengers in the airport ...................................................................... 47
Figure 19 – Steps for passenger to be served by a check-in agent ............................................ 48
Figure 20 – Final part of the model ............................................................................................. 48
Figure 21 – Detailed interpretation of check-in model ................................................................. 49
Figure 22 – Passenger’s total traffic in the airport ....................................................................... 51
Figure 23 - Interpretation of the check-in model ......................................................................... 51
Figure 24 – Passenger arrival intensity intervals ........................................................................ 53
Figure 25 - Check-in Economic Counters model interpretation .................................................. 54
Figure 26 - Check-in Kiosk model interpretation ......................................................................... 54
Figure 27 – Graphical representation of one of the entrance areas. All entrance areas are
represented in sub-chapter 5.2.2 ................................................................................................ 58
Figure 28 – Graphical representation of counters and kiosks ..................................................... 59
Figure 29 – Graphical representation of the exit area ................................................................. 59
Figure 30 - Base Case Scenario Terminal model blueprint ........................................................ 81
vi
TABLE OF Tables
Table 1 – Agreements between countries................................................................................... 13
Table 2 – Passenger’s Characteristics........................................................................................ 16
Table 3 - Level of service framework .......................................................................................... 24
Table 4 – LOS – space to be provided for passengers in different activities .............................. 24
Table 5 - LOS – maximum occupancy rate in holding and waiting areas ................................... 24
Table 6 - Level of service – Processing Facilities ....................................................................... 25
Table 7 - Level of service – Check-in Queue area LOS Standards ............................................ 25
Table 8 - Level of service – Check-in Queue area LOS Standards ............................................ 26
Table 9 – Advantages and Disadvantages between Queueing Theory and Simulation ............. 32
Table 10 – Fixed counters existent in Terminal 1 ....................................................................... 38
Table 11 – Total number of flights and passengers by airline .................................................... 50
Table 12 – Percentage of passengers, entering the airport, for each entrance ......................... 53
Table 13 – Services in a kiosks for by company ......................................................................... 55
Table 14 - Number of baggage drop added, by cluster of companies ........................................ 64
Table 15 – Discussion of different scenarios .............................................................................. 71
Table 16 - Daily Schedule of the 07 August 2015 in Lisbon's Terminal 1 .................................. 85
Table 17 – Queue time for economic check-in counters............................................................. 86
Table 18 – Queue time for business check-in counters .............................................................. 86
Table 19 – Queue time for baggage drop counters .................................................................... 87
Table 20 – Queue time for check-in kiosks ................................................................................. 87
Table 21 – Service utilisation for each service ............................................................................ 88
Table 23- Queue time for business check-in counters ................................................................ 89
Table 25 – Queue time for check-in kiosks ................................................................................. 90
Table 26 – Service utilisation for each service ............................................................................ 91
Table 29 – Service Utilisation over the time each service is opened .......................................... 93
Table 31 – Queue time Baggage Drop counters ........................................................................ 94
Table 32 – Service Utilisation over time each service was opened ............................................ 95
vii
ACRONYMS
ACRONYMS
CUCC – Common Use Check-in Counters
CUCCAP-VC – Common Use Check-in Counter Assignment Problem with variable number of
counters
CUSS – Common-use Self-Service Check-in
DUCC – Dedicated Use Check-in Counters
IATA – International Air Transport Association
IRSS – Intelligent Resource Simulation System
LOS – Level of Service
SLA – Service Level Agreements
ATB – Automated Ticket and Boarding
LCC – low cost carriers
RFID – Radio Frequency Identification Devices
IBS – Immigration and Boarder Service
viii
Chapter 1 – INTRODUCTION
1.1 – Motivation
In a time where globalization is the most spoken word by every human being, the fastest
way to travel to far away destinations – the air transportation – continues to grow each day with
more airplanes being created, more different flights being scheduled and more passengers being
served. This increase of demand expects to be answered from every sector that operates the air
transportation but sometimes, this answer takes a great amount of time to be given, leading to a
decrease of the quality of service provided by core processes of, for example, the airport terminal.
Analysis of real case studies have been made over the years among the air transportation
industry, and especially inside airports, usually having in mind the intent to improve a service that
could not answer the call of the increased demand. However, as good as the results of these
case studies can be, their results are only accurate for the case study in question, only being valid
for other case studies as the means to compare efficiency indicators. Therefore, for one to study
and understand how a certain process, or sub-process, can be improved, a specific study must
be conceived for the real case study.
The problem at issue addresses the check-in, one of the security sub-processes that is
part of the passenger’s voyage through the airport. Being a procedure that the whole flow of
passengers is obliged to traverse, it is evident that these sub-processes involve a lot of money,
time and stress. This stress is considered by a great majority of the passengers to be caused by
loss of time, for they know the clock is ticking to catch their respective flight (SITA, 2012).
Therefore, a study which had in sight the improvement of this sub-process would be of the most
vital importance.
1.2 – Thesis objectives
The main objective is to suggest improvements of the check in operations at the Terminal
1 of the Airport of Lisbon. To this end, the following two targets must be achieved:
 A methodology must be elaborated to evaluate the performance of the concerned

sub-process;
 A case study must be developed to examine the impact provided by some changes
in the sub-process as it is known.
With the previews objectives achieved, it is predicted that an answer will be given for the
following questions:
 Which are the different types of check-in that exist nowadays and that are being
applied in Lisbon’s Airport Terminal 1?
1
Chapter 1 – INTRODUCTION
 Which are the factors that influence the level of service (LOS) of the check-in sub-
process the most?
 Which are the approaches that can be tested in order to improve this level of service?
 What are the changes that should be made to the airport to achieve the proposed
impact?
1.3 – Methodological approach
When the focus is on the improvement of a process or sub-process, the agents that it
affects must be the first to be examined, and when the sub-process at issue involves static
elements of the airport, the design that was conceived and is in operation must be one of the
changeable factors. The following table demonstrates each step of the methodology:
1) Meticulous study of the operations has they are today

Characteristics
Type of Check-in
Time Requirements
Passengers
2) Analysis of airlines market share and daily schedule
3) Creation and analysis of the model and representation of real life activities
4) Creation and analysis of three different test scenarios
5) Comparison of each scenario with the real life scenario
In a facility such as an airport, and in a sub-process, such as the check-in, where

passengers are the vital agent of the equation, a method that considers a high level of detail and
that can recreate real-life situations would be the most suitable. With this in mind simulation, with
a Discrete Event with Agent Based characteristics methodology, was the obvious choice.
1.4 – Dissertation Structure
Eight chapters compose the present dissertation, and their description can be read below:
Chapter 1: The chapter the reader is currently reading that include, apart from the thesis
structure sub-chapter, the motivation, the objectives and the methodological approach.
Chapter 2: A description of the airport, their components, agents and processes is made
in this chapter. The different airport users are identified as well as the different check-in methods.
2
Chapter 3: In this chapter the theories and methodologies, their strong and weak points,
which have been developed and used by other researchers are presented.
Chapter 4: This part of the dissertation presents the blueprint in and whit which the model
will run.
Chapter 5: The methodology for the base case scenario is detailed in the 5th chapter. At
first, the possible methodologies and the simulation program used are detailed, followed by the
agent’s description, range of view and structure of the model. In the end, the three different test
scenarios are detailed.
Chapter 6: The results from the three different scenarios that were examined are
presented analysed, and compared to the outputs of the base case scenario.
Chapter 7: The conclusions, as well as recommendations obtained in the process of the

creation of the present dissertation, are written in the present chapter.
Chapter 8: The last chapter of the dissertation encompasses all the bibliographic
references used for the formulation of the dissertation.
3
4
Chapter 2 – COMPONENTS AND ACTIVITIES OF AN

AIRPORT
In the present chapter, the author will present and explain the components that form an
airport, the activities that are inherent to it, its users, the agents involved and how the quality of
service is analysed. A special focus will be given to two different agents: the passengers and the
check-in.
2.1 – Components of an Airport
To have a finer insight over the following work, certain aspects should primarily be taken
into consideration. From an operational point of view, an airport is the sum of all the
infrastructures, facilities, processes, agents and equipment required to allow airlines to take off,
land, supply, repair and shelter the aircraft; the processes and sub-processes that provide the
means for passengers and freight to pass on from surface to air modes of transport; and the sub-
processes that provide a more pleasant passage through the airport (such as shops, restaurants,
etc.). They play a crucial role within the air transport system, having a strategic importance in the
regions they serve (Graham, 2014); (Norin, 2008). However, to represent an airport today, the
definition is incomplete, due to a set of activities that have been gaining importance over the
years.
With the growth of commerce, the acknowledgment of new business models and the
pursuit for higher revenues, it may be said that the concept behind airports has been changing
with each passing day, with the evolution of airports from simple infrastructure providers to
complex multiservice enterprises, where the retail facilities of an airport gain more importance.
Airports have been adopting a two-sided market concept – an economic platform having two
distinct user groups that provide each other with network benefits. (Parker & Alstyne, 2013) –
profiting from its network economy approach where the larger the number of participants, the
greater the benefit to each side leading to the conclusion that non-aeronautical revenues could
also be managed to subsidize the airport in the attempt of increasing the level of traffic and total
revenue of the airport.
A concept that derived from these changes was the one of airport cities. (J. Appold & D.
Kasarda, 2011). According to Airport Cities Asia Pacific (2014), cities are the core of a new urban
form evolving around many major airports, the aerotropolis. Its model recognizes that an airport
can do more than perform its traditional aeronautical services, evolving new non-aeronautical
commercial facilities, services and revenue streams, with this stream amounting between 40 and
60% of the total revenue of an airport. In accordance with this statement, the website Airportwatch
(2012) declared that investors in airports are being drawn to the profit being made by the real
estate and retail income they generate and that generally get the majority of their retail revenue
after passengers check in and go through security. As for an example, the revenues from real
estate and retail in the Zurich Airport in 2012 where 50.3%, while the Paris Airports reached 39%.
5
Chapter 2 – COMPONENTS AND ACTIVITIES OF AN AIRPORT
Therefore, the income achieved by the non-aeronautical activities as been gaining

increased importance, leading airport managers to give as much attention to them as to its initial
premises. These services are important not only for airport revenue, but as a mean of increasing
passengers satisfaction.
The configuration of an airport is primarily divided into two distinct segments, as it is

visible in Figure 1: the airside and the landside. The airside is the part of the airport dedicated for
aircraft activities such as take-offs and landings and loading and unloading.
The airside contains all the areas available to the aircrafts and is composed essentially
by (Norin, 2008):
 Runways: area designated for the landing and take-off of aircrafts.
 Taxiways: circulation areas connecting the runways to other airside facilities. Having
a decisive influence on the capacity of the runway system, they should allow aircrafts
to move safely and fluently.
 Apron: component that affords the interchanges between landside and airside
facilities. They can be classified as cargo building aprons, passenger building
aprons, general aviation aprons, service and hangar aprons or long-term parking
aprons and remote aprons.
 Support Facilities: able to provide all the assistance needed from the aircrafts to
perform their task.
 All the infrastructures needed for the passengers to cross from the surface to inside
the airplane.
The landside combines all the areas available for departure, arrival and transit
passengers to arrive and reach their goal destination. Meaning that for departure passengers, it
includes all the infrastructures they have to use and pass through to reach their gate; for transit
passengers, the means for them to connect to their next flight; and for arrival passengers, all the
areas they use to collect their baggage and get out of the airport. The access between these two
areas is strongly controlled through different means of surveillance.
As for the landside, its boundaries are usually defined by the terminal building itself.
Having a macro vision, it is mainly constituted by the passenger and freight terminals, access
modes, parking and supporting facilities. However, in the manner that the current study is focused
on the landside, and especially on the passenger’s terminal building, it is essential to be
acquainted with all its components. As it has been described by Kazda & Caves (2007), and it
can be seen in Figure 1, the airport passenger terminals, embodies the following entities:
 Landside kerb, used by vehicles to drop off and pick up passengers.

 Ticketing lobby.
 Check-in Concourse, incorporating not only check-in counters but also self-service
check-in kiosk as well as baggage drop facilities.
6
 Check-in counters, apart from being allocated in the check-in concourse, it can also
be found in train stations, car parks, downtown or at gate lounges.
 Out-going baggage handling system, usually found under the floor of the departure
level.
 Outbound passport control.
 Security screening of passengers, requiring, at least, walk-through detective
devices, baggage x-ray inspection and manual search space.
 Corridors.
 Departure lounge, where passengers will wait and queue to enter their flight.
 Business lounges, for the commercially important passengers.
 Retail, currently a growing activity.
 Catering areas
 Gate rooms and executive lounges
 Inbound government control, housing immigration and naturalisation services
 Airline offices
 Baggage claim hall
 Arrival Hall
Figure 1 – Schematic presentation of an airport
Adaptation of image from: FAA Advisory Circular, Planning and Desgn of Airport Terminal Facilities at
Nonhub Locations, Vitale (1980)
7
2.2 – Characterization of Airport’s Typical Activities
2.2.1 – Aeronautical Activities
The aircraft is probably the most important element of the air transport system and one
of the main inputs for the processes in the airport. Its main process is the turn-around, which is
the name given to the collection of all the sub-processes an aircraft has to pass through while it
is in on the ground. Those sub-processes are the following (Norin, 2008):
Wingmarks and
Touch Down Index Chocks On Ventilation on
Fueling
Taxi In Ground Power Unit Anti-collision light off
Cleaning and
Touch I Cho Wingma
Catering
Down ndex cks On rks and F
T
Sequencing De-iceGround
(if necessary) Anti-collision
Chocks Off
Ventilation on ueling
Technical checks
axi In Power Unit light off and GPU off
Take-off Taxi Out Push back Anti-collision light on Cleani
Fuelin
Sequ De-ice (if Ch ng and
g Wingma
Figure 2 - Turn around process from the aircraft point of view
F
encing necessary) ocks Off Catering
Pus rks Anti- and ueling Techni
S T
Ventilation cal checks and
equencin
2.2.2 – Non-Aeronautical axiActivities
Out h back collision light on
on
Fuelin GPU off
g
g A non-aeronautical activity is one that is not directly related to the airport’s primary core F
functionalities. As for a simpler explanation, we can distinguish an aeronautical from a non- ueling
Wingma
aeronautical activity by asking ourselves “could a passenger board a flight without doing this
rks and
activity?” These activities have been gaining increased importance due to the income they
Anti- Ventilation on
provide.
collision light
off As for a further explanation, these activities started with the duty free retail shops.
However, with the increased scope of services, the needs and wants of passengers progressively
changes. Down
Nowadays, passengers expect a wide range of services, from hotel business services,
fashion shops and various catering possibilities, to super markets, cinemas, casinos and fitness
centres. Some airports have even installed play areas for children. These retail activities are
located in different parts of the airport. Some are located outside, – like hotels – and other inside
the terminal building, before and after the security check. Normally, the most lucrative activities
in the airport are the ones located after the security check, since passengers usually rush to pass
the check-in process and security when they arrive in the terminal building. (Kazda & E. Caves,
2007).
Apart from the retail services, there are other non-aeronautical activities, such as the
Automated People Movers (APM) of the landside. APMs are used to move people from one point
to another, and the landside APMs usually connect different terminals and car parking, airport
access facilities, bus terminals and rail stations. (de Neufvile & Odoni, 2013).
8
2.3 – Terminal
According to Kazda & Caves (2007), the terminal’s main function is to grant a convenient
facility for the mode transfer, frontier activities as well as for the operations required by the airlines.
Its layout provides the terminal connection to the landside surface transport system, usually
making the passengers pass through all the retail stores; clear information through the series of
processes; government control and security screens; baggage handling system for both local and
transfer luggage.
According to de Neufville and Odoni (2013), the configuration of the terminal building
mainly depends on the traffic it has, being this traffic divided into three segments 1. Depending on
the configuration, certain elements of traffic will have advantage over the other. There are four
basic configuration:
 Linear: Individual stands are located along the terminal building, promoting a
simple access from the terminal building to the aeroplanes.
 Midfield, either linear or X-shape: the stands are located away from the terminal.
The transport of the passengers to the terminal is provided through busses or
mobile lounges.
 Satellite: each satellite building is connected to the main terminal through
corridors or underground passageways.
 Finger piers: gate concourses are added to the terminal building.
Figure 3 – Configurations of passenger’s buildings and aprons
Image from: Airport Systems – Panning, Design and Management, de Neufville R. & Odoni A. (2013)
Over the years the Terminal building has been in a constant development and
improvement according to its demands. Three major factors where in the root of these
improvements: advancing aircraft technology, huge growth in passenger traffic and the effort to
improve quality of service. As was stated in the previous section, nowadays, airports are multi-
1 Overall level of traffic, seasonality of traffic and the percentage of traffic that transfers
between aircrafts.
9
functional facilities designed to provide a wide selection of services beyond their initial functions
(Ashford, Mumayiz, & Wright, 2011).
According to the same author, to guarantee security and a fast and fluent movement of
passengers, a physical separation of the departing and arriving passengers is of the most
importance, being this separation made by moveable or fixed objects on one or several levels
and dependent of the volume of the airport, configuration of the airport, security regulations, etc.
The most common separations are the vertical ones, which can be of one, one and a half, two or
three levels. Normally, a small airport uses a single level concept while a large airport is obliged
to adopt a multi-level approach for example, when security regulations require a complete
separations of arriving and departing passengers, a two or three level separation is required,
according to the space available in the airport.
Through the passengers’ progress over the terminal, they are faced with different
processes they have to go by to reach the airplane. A process is by definition “a series of actions
or steps taken in order to achieve a particular end” (Oxford University Press, 2004). According
the University of Illinois, a process is “an action that transforms given inputs into outputs under
certain constraints or restrictions and with the aid of some mechanisms”. As for Macário et. al.
(2012) (p. 42), “a process consists of a sequence of interdependent and linked procedures or
steps which, at every stage, consume one or more resources (employee time, energy, machines,
money) to convert inputs (data, material, parts) into outputs”.
Inside a process, various sub-processes can be identified, and these sub-processes can
be divided into activities. Activities are the basic unit of a process, as it can be confirmed by its
definition, “a situation in which something is happening to achieve a particular aim” (Oxford
University Press, 2004).
Several processes can be identified in the airport terminal, such as Passengers Arrival,
Boarding, Baggage Handling, Passengers Arrival, etc. and each of them, as it was mentioned
earlier, consumes certain inputs. The processes and sub-processes will be described in the next
page, in accordance with Kazda & Caves (2007) and de Neufville and Odoni (2013).
2.3.1 Passengers Departure
Passengers’ departure is the process of getting into a flight so to reach an intermediate

or final destination. It is composed of five sub-processes: Check-in, Security Control, Passport
Control, Gate Control and Boarding. Firstly, passengers go through the general concourse to the
check-in area, therefore they pass through the security check and, if needed, passport control, to
reach the departure lounge and lastly to their flights gate. There are some activities that can be
done in the middle of these sub-process, as for example, accessing the retail services that exist
in the airport. This activity is usually found after the check-in, security control or passport control.
(Magalhães, 2014)
10
a) Passenger arrival at the airport
N Made
Passenger arrival at thethe
airport
check-
O in prior arrival?
b) Check-in Baggage?
Made the Y
N check-in ES
prior
Baggage?
O Y
Baggage Drop-off
arrival?
Ba
Diagram ES
1
– Processes of aN Y ggage?
Passenger have time before security check?
OBa
passengers’ Baggage ES
N
ggage?
terminalCheck-in Y
Drop-off Y
O
ES Retail and otherES
services
Passenger have time before security check?
N
O c) Security Control
N
Retail and other
Y
O
services
Passenger have ES
time before flight?
Security check
Retail
Passenger have time before and other services
flight?
Schengen Flight?
N Y
O Control Retail ES
and other
d) Passport
Schengen Flight?
services
Passenger have time

before flight? N Y
IBS Y N
O ES
ES O
Passenger have
Retail and other services time before
flight?
e) Gate
Y control
N
ES O
Retail and f)
other Boarding
servicesGate Figure 4 - Processes of a passengers’ terminal
Gate
11
a) Passenger Arrival at the airport
Passengers can arrive to the airport through various means. The modes of arrival to the
airport are highly reliant on the airport’s size, the region it serves, its geographical position and
national investment, ranging from road traffic – personal car, taxi or buses – to railroad
connections, mainly subway or short-distance trains, and more rarely long-distance and high-
speed trains. The curbside area and layout definition is important for a well-functioning terminal
entrance. Short-term parking areas are one of several possibilities created to improve curbside
performance. (Ashford, Mumayiz, & Wright, 2011)
b) Check-in
It is a sub-process whose purpose is to identify the passenger, attribute a seat in the

airplane, give access to additional services (if the passenger needs wheel chair, for example) and
dispatch the luggage they are not allowed to or do not want to carry to the aircraft. This sub-
process will be detailed in a further section.
c) Security Control
As stated by Kazda and Caves (2007), the first time the concerns about security where
discussed internationally, were in the Tokyo 1963 agreement. Over the years, new agreements
were created until in 1974, the International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO) created the
standards for security issues with the Annex 17. Since then improvements were made when
necessary. The creation of the Annex impelled countries to create a National Aviation Security
Programme that gave the host country the responsibility for the airside-landside barrier, ramp
security, effective communication, armed reactive force, control of area overlooking the airport,
control of sterile area, control and use of identifications and central screen of passengers and
baggages.
In accordance with the same author, it is essential to provide a security service to the
passengers, as a feeling of safety is one of the basic needs that must be satisfied, guaranteeing
a required security standard while trying to achieve a compromise between the level of
safeguarding security, the time required for security inspection and its cost. There are some
different types of security control, however, the traditional type is composed by the passenger
and hand-baggage screening with the help of x-ray machines, and the control of the passengers’
by making them pass through a metal detector scan. Nevertheless, if there is any suspicion, an
employee can personally scan a passenger. With the improvements and breakthroughs in new
technologies, the security paradigm is likely to change in the future.
Many different passenger scanning and identification methods are already being tested
throughout the world, such as biometric documentation, behavioural analysis and advanced
passenger scanning tunnels as, for instance, the Smart Security project, performed by IATA and
ACI. Every single passenger is obliged to pass through the security control.
12
d) Passport Control
The border controls differ with the characteristics of the passenger and the destination of the
flight. In accordance with Kazda and Caves (2007), depending on the type of border between the
origin and destination country, the actions to take place are different and they are described as
follow:
Third Countries (Non- European Union Non- European Union

Schengen) Schengen Schengen
The movement of goods The movement of goods Both goods and

European
and the movement of is free but the movement people are treated as
Union
people is inspected of people is inspected domestic movements
Table 1 – Agreements between countries
Likewise other processes, with the electronic era, the passport control is suffering
changes. The introduction of chips in passports and barcodes increasingly reduces the time
needed to enter data on passengers.
e) Gate Control
The final phase of the passengers’ journey through a terminal is the gate control. This is
the last stage between the airport and the airplane, where passengers wait for the opening of
their respective gate so they can proceed through the passport and boarding card control
(Kalakou, 2012).
f) Boarding
Finally, the boarding of passengers and their hand luggage to the aircraft is done through
mechanical devices that are processed in the airside, like passengers’ boarding bridges or
movable stairs, or even busses.
A flowchart of the passenger’s departure process is presented on the page 11.
2.3.2 Passengers Arrival
Passengers’ arrival is the process of landing and leaving the airport, and is composed of
three different sub-processes: Disembarking, Baggage Claim and Passport Control.
a) Disembarking
This sub-process is the final stage of a passengers’ journey. After the arrival and parking
of the airplane in the appropriate apron space or ramp, passengers are allowed to disembark from
it and, through the means of boarding bridges or busses, reach the terminal building.
Subsequently, depending on the characteristics of the passenger and the origin country of the
flight, passengers must pass through passport control where they are delivered an identification
13
card, containing their biometrics description. If necessary, a health control follows the passport
control. Afterwards, according to each passenger journey type – destination or transfer
passengers – they proceed to the baggage claim hall, and after, in some airports, through
costumes control, to reach the curbside to leave the airport or they move through the terminal to
reach the transfer flight’s gate (Macário, Reis, Viegas, & Magalhães, 2012).
b) Baggage Claim
It needs to be close to both the airside road system and landside access points, to ensure a faster
and easier transfer of baggage and to avoid long walking distances with them. The length along
the conveyor belt is of the most importance to have a successfully operational baggage claim
area, for passengers to be able to identify and pick up their baggages. IATA has a standard for
this length, being a minimum of 40 meters for a narrow-body aircraft and 70 meters for a wide-
body aircraft and the space between adjacent baggage claim devices must be a minimum of 9
meters. However, the planning has to take into account the transfer passengers for the greater
their amount, the lesser the space needed for this process.
c) Passport Control
Similar to the passport control on the boarding section.
2.3.3 Baggage Handling and Sorting
The Baggage handling and sorting system starts in the “out-going baggage handling system”.
Usually located under the departure level floor, it is fed by the conveyors from the check-in area.
It is a system that consists of belts, sorting devices to read the bar codes on the baggages, a
screening system, and normally a feed for transfer baggages. The sorting of baggages can be
made by humans or it can be automated. Finally, baggages are loaded into carts that transport
them to the respective aircraft. (Magalhães, 2014)
When automated baggage sorting is used, the baggage can pass through an automated 5 stage
security control. On the first stage, every baggage passes through automatic X-ray units. The
ones that pass, go directly to their respective carts, the other that do not, go through a second
stage of tighter security, and so on. Normally, all baggages pass before stage 5. The luggage that
reaches this stage is considered suspect. (Kazda & E. Caves, 2007)
According to the same author, the Baggage Handling is a process that the airline industries want
to improve in the near future, for it to be able to keep up with the shortening of the turnaround
time between individual flights. It increases the load factor, and due to the human factor,
mishandling of baggages occurs, and sometimes, like in transfer baggages, the percentage of
mishandled baggages is high. The Radio Frequency Identification Devices (RFID) are a potential
technology to overcome the bar code, reducing the percentage of mishandled baggages.
14
 Luggage Transfer to aircraft
It is the sub-process where the baggages, after their security check and sorting, are
transferred from the terminal building to the aircraft. (Kazda & E. Caves, 2007)
 Luggage Processing
After the landing of the aircraft, the luggage is unloaded from the airplane into a belt so
that the passengers can claim their baggage. (Magalhães, 2014)
2.4 – Users of the Airport
To make it possible for the airport to operate, it exists a set of different users, with different
functionalities. Their categorization was chosen according to Kalakou (2012), and these users will
be described below:
 Passengers
 Employees
 Visitors
 Police and Security Guards
 Ground Handling Agents
 Airport Logistics Agents
Passengers
Passengers are the key agents of the airport, as well as being one of the main costumers.
They will be the main focus and also the main variable of the present study.
Since airports are a bridge between different countries, different types of passengers can
easily be found. These passengers can differ in their characteristics, which will influence their
passage through the terminal (Esteban, 2008). Their characteristics are presented in Table 2 on
the next page
Passengers with special needs or disabilities are a type of passenger that deserves
increased focus. Since the EU Council in June 2006, new regulations were created to protect
disabled passengers, making airports responsible for assisting these passengers through the
processes of the terminal - from their arrival, to the aircraft entry - and air carriers responsible for
providing assistance during the flight. With the developments of technology, new types of actions
and equipment to help blind, visually impaired, deaf, hard of hearing and all required carers have
been taken into account. (Kazda & E. Caves, 2007)
15
Origin: Passengers trip starts in the airport in question

Role of the Transfer passengers: these passengers use the airport as a transfer point
airport between two different voyages. They require a reliable, fast and specially,
easy to find connections between the two flights. (Kazda & E. Caves, 2007)
Domestic flights: origin and destination of the trip inside the same country.
Origin and International Schengen flights: once inside the Schengen area, passengers
destination of do not need special governmental control to travel.
the flight International Non-Schengen flights: need special governmental control for
its destination is in a country not affected by the Schengen agreement.
Business: usually frequent flyers who require fast check-in and shorter
walking distances to the plane (Kazda & E. Caves, 2007)
Trip purpose Leisure: the effect of passengers early arrival to the airport and increased
volumes of checked baggage have a great effect on airport operations
through the requirement of increased space (Report 10, 2008)
Economic: the lowest travel class of seating, least comfortable and usually
with few or no benefits (Cambridge Dictionaries, 2015)
Business: passengers who can afford to have special treatment, not only
Flight Class
inside the airport, but also with privileged seats in the airplane
First Class: only for certain passengers how want to experience the most
luxurious way of flying (Cambridge Dictionaries, 2015)
With baggage to check-in: Depending on the flight type and class,
With our passengers can have none, one our two baggage’s to check-in. This
without cabin process is usually made in the check-in area
luggage Without baggage to check-in: These passengers need only to do the check-
in and can pass directly to the security control
Regular
Charter: a flight that is not part of an airline’s regular schedule, chartered

Flight Type
for a specific journey (Oxford University Press, 2004)
Low-cost: Flights with cheaper tariffs compromising with lower services
Single passenger
Group of passengers
Passenger type
Passengers with special needs, such as under-aged and over-aged
passenger, passenger with reduced mobility, etc.
Table 2 – Passenger’s Characteristics

Employees
One of the most important agents of the airport. There are two types of employees that
can be identified: the ones that are in the frontline, which purpose is to serve directly the
16
passengers, such as airline operators, check-in operators, security operators, etc; and the ones
that are on the background, making it possible for the airport to work, such as ground handling,
airport management, etc.
Visitors
These users are visitors who stay in the terminal area before the security check. Their
purpose is either to escort the passengers before they pass the security check, or are attracted
by the shopping services (on the landside) and entertainment centres’ of the airport.
Police and Security Guards
They are of the outmost importance to guarantee that the airport activities are processed
safely and to provide a rapid and efficient reaction to emergencies.
Ground handling agents
Employees that work for the ground handling companies, who handle passenger’s
luggage from their check-in to the aircraft, and from the aircraft back to the passengers.
Airport Logistics agents
Employees that work on the planning and control of all resources and information that
create a value for the customers utilizing the airport.
2.5 – The Check-in: what it is and what it involves, technology

used, regulations and organization
2.5.1 Concept and definitions
Being one of the main sub-processes, and a procedure that the whole flow of passengers
is obliged to traverse, it is visible that a considerable amount of money, time and stress is involved.
In fact, according to SITA (2012), forty-four per cent of passengers are in accordance with the
opinion that the main cause of stress was loss of time and consequently the fear of missing the
flight. Also, check-in is the third most stressful part of the airport journey accommodating twelve
per cent of passengers with view. There are even authors that consider the check-in process as
the most important function performed at the airport passenger terminal (Park & Ahn, 2003).
Therefore, improving a service as crucial as the check-in is of vital importance for a fitter
performance of the whole of the airport.
For a better understanding of the entirety of the check-in process, it must first be
enlightened what its purpose is and the different methods it can serve the target public. The
definition of Check-in, by the Oxford Advanced Learners Dictionary (2004) is the process of
arriving and registering in a certain place (for example, in an airport). As it was explained earlier,
this service exists to deal with the needs of registering the passenger to its flight, accommodating
17
the passengers in the cabin, by attributing a seat to each passenger and processing the luggage
they are not allowed to carry into the aircraft. This sub-process makes possible for the airline to
control the number of passengers it will have in a certain flight, and to monitor he passengers in
their journey throughout the airport. (Esteban, 2008)
Due to the security policies, which forbid many different types of articles in the airplane,
and the number and volume of the baggage carried by each passenger, the check-in and the
security process, alongside with a handling service, must work together. (Esteban, 2008)
As for the check-in, it is a service that can be provided by the airport itself, the company
related to the flight or by a third party (handler). (de Neufvile & Odoni, 2013)
2.5.2 Types of check-in
To satisfy the costumers, different procedures have been created to perform the check-
in, which can be organized in two main categories, the Traditional Check-in – is the conventional
option, where passengers are served on check-in counters; and the Self-Service Check-in – with
which the costumers can execute the check-in via different technological means (Appelt, Lin, &
Hall, 2007); (Esteban, 2008).
Traditional Check-in
The first step of this process is for the passengers to present their passports at the check-
in desks, allowing their identity and booking status to be confirmed. Following, the luggage that
the passenger wishes to dispatch is weighted and tagged, so it can be identified in the out-going
baggage handling system. If the baggage exceeds the maximum weight and/or size, a fee is
applied. Depending on the type of flight and passengers’ flight category, between zero and two
baggages can be dispatched. Afterwards, the boarding cards are presented to the passengers so
they can process their journey through the airport (de Neufvile & Odoni, 2013).
According with Kazda and Caves (2007), when referring to Traditional Check-in, it can be
categorized in two different types:
 Common Use Check-in Counters (CUCC), where airlines can allocate their flights
into any check-in counter. It has the advantage of providing an equal load to each
counter.
 Dedicated Use Check-in Counters (DUCC), where each desk is dedicated to an

airline for a specific flight.
This procedure, because it does not need to access the central booking system, often
gives a shorter handling time per passenger. This second system is particularly used by low cost
carriers and charter flights.
A different approach to the traditional method was implemented by JetBlue in their

Terminal 5 in JFK airport. Apart from offering kiosk and baggage drop services, they also provide
18
curbside check-in with baggage drop, allowing passengers to bypass the service counter by
dropping the checked luggage outside the terminal building, for a fee of 2 dollars per baggage.
(JetBlue, 2015)
Being a method that requires personnel and a great area of the terminal, it is visible that
is an expensive one, however, citing G. Bruno and A. Genovese (2010), “Traditional check-in
desks will certainly remain for several reasons, such as security, logistical baggage aspects and
traveller preference for personal treatment and ease of use, especially on international flights”.
Also, and according to Horonjeff et. Al (1994), there are three types of traditional check-in and
baggage drop facilities:
 Linear type – most frequently used ticket counter configuration that can give flexibility
in staffing, especially during non-peak hours
 Pass-through type – that can reduce cross circulation at check-in areas
 Island type – with a “U” shape and mostly found in large-scale airports, they can
provide interchange ability between multipurpose and specialized functions.
Figure 5 - Different types of traditional check-in and baggage drop facilities. (Horonjeff,
McKelvey, Sproule, & Young, 1994)
Self-service Check-in
On the Self-Service Check-in, and with the advances of technology, many distinct
mechanisms have been created, like the Self-Service Check-in kiosks, mobile phones and the
internet check-in, the Agent Xpress, and home print and permanent bag tags.
a) Self-service Check-in Kiosks
Firstly, and in accordance with Hsu, Chao & Shih (2012) and Graham (2014), came self-
service check-in kiosks, best known as Common-use Self-Service Check-in (CUSS), with the
intent of lowering the costs, increasing the productivity, reducing costumers waiting time and to
give a better use to the scarce space of the airport. The earliest CUSS kiosks were installed at
Vancouver and Narita airports in 2002.
According to Kazda and Caves (2007) and to de Neufville and Odini (2013), the usage of
self-service kiosks, dedicated or of common use, jointly with fast baggage drop facilities has been
growing to be a common option. This process is also known as the Automated Ticket and
19
Boarding (ATB). It has already been evidenced that this new process can speed up the check-in
process, but to have a reduction in staffing levels, the e-ticketing must reach a 25% of usage of
an airlines passengers. Nonetheless, the electronic processing of passengers and baggages
reduces queues and the area needed for check-in passengers.
Even the implementation of baggage drop facilities in the airport brings many advantages,
as it saves time to passenger and cuts costs to the airlines and airports for its process being faster
than the one in the check-in counters, needing less staff. (Service, 2011)
Nowadays, to speed up the check-in process, new technologies to accelerate the

processing of baggage are being tested. According to the web site of the company ARINC (Bag
Drop kiosk, 2014), with their new web-based application “ExpressDrop”, they were able to develop
two new types of common use kiosks – One Stop Kiosk, where passengers have their boarding
passes scanned, after having made their check-in at the kiosk or online, to obtain a baggage tag,
weight and measure their baggage and send it to the baggage handling system; and the Two
Stop Kiosk, where passengers, through the same process as in the One Stop kiosk, receive their
baggage tags, but need to proceed to a drop point to process the baggage. These new
technologies are being tested in different airports throughout the world. For example, and in
accordance with Future Traveling Experience web site (Future Travel Experience, Twenty self-
service bag drops go live at Paris CDG, 2015), in Frances’ Charles de Gaulle airport, twenty self-
service bag drops are operational in terminals T2E and T2F with the hopes to process 1.5 million
bags in their first year.
b) Mobile phones and Internet Check-in
Later came the remote methods, encompassing mobile phones and the internet, costing
even less for the airlines for not having the need to install CUSS nor printing boarding passes.
Nonetheless, and according to Hsu, Chao & Shih (2012), the biggest problem with self-service
check-in is the baggage check-in so, if these passengers have luggage to dispatch, a counter is
required to do so. In some airports, these counters are shared with the traditional check-in
passengers. One great advantage of the CUSS, that is already visible in many airport areas
around the globe, is their ability of being located outside the terminal, usually in train stations, car
parks, hotels, downtown or at gate lounges.
However, the usage of CUSS is a transient hypothesis, as the electronic processing of

passenger tends to increase among the methods that can process the passenger outside the
airport, such as via internet or mobile phone applications, reducing, as it was stated in the last
paragraph, the need for CUSS and the costs for airlines augmenting the available space in the
airport terminal.
c) Agent Xpress
One new approach that have been taken into account in Kalibo airport in Philippines is
called the “Agent Xpress”, where an employee roams through the airport with a tablet to check-in
passengers and print their boarding cards, helping to diminish queue size without the need to
20
invest on kiosks nor having to end with the traditional face-to-face costumer service (Future Travel
Experience, Asia’s airports and airlines embrace self-service, roaming agents and mobile
technology to improve the passenger experience on the ground, 2014).
d) Home print and permanent bag tags
Other technologies with the aim to improve the bag process that are being tested are the
home print and permanent bag tags. The first one, apart from some technical problems where the
tags are not recognized by the customs codex, has been gaining passengers’ approval with
between 15 to 17% of passengers printing their own bag tags. The second one, being considered
the best option for passengers who have connections between flights or are frequent fliers, would
eliminate the need to print bag tags every single flight. However, it is still in an early stage of
development, since these permanent bag tags can only be issued to one single airline (Future
Travel Experience, The future of self-service bag drop – traditional, home-printed or permanent
bag tags?, 2013).
Since 2012, advances in the self-service check-in have been made with the option of
printing the boarding pass before going to the airport accounting for a reduction in the number of
counters and airline agents required, and later with the possibility of having the boarding pass on
personal mobile phones. With the development of these new technologies, researchers suggest
that in a near future airports will need less space for check-in activities (de Neufvile & Odoni,
2013).
2.5.3 – Passenger’s steps for each check-in type
Studying passenger’s perspective is important when planning airports’ processes and

layout, and some types of passengers, more than others, need special modification. Therefore,
passenger’s perspective of the Check-in sub-process is of the outmost importance to the current
dissertation.
The check-in sub-process begins with the passenger’s arrival at the airport, or even
before that, according to the check-in mode they will use. The passenger can either chose to do
the check-in in the airport – Curbside, Counter or Kiosk (CUSS, One Stop or Two Stop) - or before
arriving to it – Kiosk (CUSS located in the hotel or outside the airport) or Online/Mobile (Appelt,
Lin, & Hall, 2007):
a) Curbside
Located at the entrance of the airport, this check-in mode is especially used by
passengers who arrive by car and want to get relieved from their luggage before entering the
terminal. Passengers enter the queue and wait for a ticket agent, who check’s them in and
processes their luggage. (Appelt, Lin, & Hall, 2007)
b) Counter (Kazda & E. Caves, 2007)
Counters can usually differ in their concept, class and queue behaviour.
21
According to their concept, they can be individual flight check-in or serve as common
check-in. In the first concept, one or several counters are reserved for a particular flight where the
passenger can be handled. As for the second concept, passenger can check-in for their flights at
any counter, promoting an equal load on all check-in counters. Normally, this common check-in
concept is used by the flights of a same airline.
According to their class, economy class passengers have economy class counters and
business class passengers have their own business class counters.
And finally, according to the queue behaviour, there can either be an individual queue for
each counter or a common queue for several counters – used with the common check-in concept.
If passengers want to check-in at a counter, they will have to enter their respective queue
and wait to be served at a counter, where they will be checked-in and their luggage will be
processed.
c) Baggage Drop Point
A baggage drop point is similar to a check-in counter where the employee processes only
the baggage. To use this service, and assuming that the passenger has already made the check-
in via a kiosk, online or mobile, he/she must first proceed to the queue and wait to have their ID
checked and tag applied to the baggage. If the passenger has already a baggage tag attached –
via a Two Stop Kiosk or a permanent bag tag – the agent must only check the tag and accept the
baggage. (Service, 2011)
d) Kiosk
As it was stated in an earlier section, there a several different types of kiosks – CUSS,
One Stop and Two Stop. For every type of kiosk, passengers need to enter the queue (if there is
one) and wait for their turn to use the service.
CUSS kiosks can be located in the airport or outside - in hotels adjacent to the airport,
car parks or even mode transfer terminals. They are used by passenger to perform their check-
in and receive their boarding card. If the passengers have luggage that is not allowed in the cabin,
they will have to process it in the airport, either in a counter or in a Baggage Drop point. (Graham,
2014)
One Stop kiosk gives a passenger the opportunity to check-in to their flight, and scan their
boarding pass to process their luggage, by measuring and weighting, to ensure they do not
exceed the airline’s requirements, and integrating it into the baggage handling system. (Bag Drop
kiosk, 2014)
In a Two Stop kiosk, a passenger can check-in and scan the boarding pass to obtain,
after weighting and measuring, a self-attach bag tag. As it is not incorporated with a baggage
drop facility, like the One Stop Kiosk, passengers will need to proceed to a baggage drop point to
leave their luggage. (Bag Drop kiosk, 2014)
22
e) Online/Mobile
In the case that the check-in is made online or through the means of a mobile application,
and there is no luggage to process, the passenger can proceed to the security check-point.
Otherwise, a baggage drop facility must be used to process the luggage. (Appelt, Lin, & Hall,
2007)
As of a last remark, it was proven that common check-in in comparison to dedicated

check-in, extension of check-in period prior to the flight, and the overflow of economy class
passengers to business class counters reduced the average queueing time (Joustra & Dijk, 2001),
(Hsu, Chao, & Shih, 2012).
2.6 – Quality of service and perform indicators of the

Check-in and Terminal
To ensure that the terminal operates properly, official aviation organizations, such as
IATA and ACI, developed guidelines for the planning and maintenance of the capacity of different
processes and components of the terminal building.
The most recognized standards, proposed by IATA, are measured by the indicator “Level
of Service” (LOS), and they provide various standards to guarantee the good functioning of the
terminal. This standard concerns the quality of the activities of various services’ defining their
qualitative and quantitative assessments (Kazda & E. Caves, 2007). For a certain Level of
Service, the passengers flow per unit of time expresses the capacity a certain facility can
withstand. For its definition, the airport facilities are divided into three different types – holding,
processing and transit facilities – in which the LOS is measured differently for each one. For
holding facilities, LOS is expressed as available area and seating; for processing areas, LOS is
expressed as waiting time and processing rate per passenger; and for transit facilities, LOS is
expressed in the availability of movement-assisted devices and cross-sectional areas. IATA
recommends, as a minimum design standard, a LOS of C for the airport facilities (Ashford,
Mumayiz, & Wright, 2011).
23
Table 3 - Level of service framework
Source: Ashford, N., Mumayiz, S., & Wright, P. (2011). Airport Engineering - Planning, Design and
Development of 21st-century airports
As for an example, from a planning point of view, the space availability for passengers in
the busy hour standards can range from 2.7 m2 to 0.6 m2, depending on the activity being
analysed and extending from a LOS of A to F, being A the most desirable and F the most
undesirable. These specifications can be analysed in the following table.
Table 4 – LOS – space to be provided for passengers in different activities
For these holding and waiting areas, the occupancy rate has its own LOS standard, and
they are defined as follows.
Table 5 - LOS – maximum occupancy rate in holding and waiting areas
As it is visible, the Level of Service an airport can provide in holding areas is achieved
through a balance between the quality of service to provide and the economic efficiency wanted,
as for to raise the Level of Service, more space is needed, costing more money.
Another important factor to take into account in the space standards is the dwell time, as
it can alter the amount of space required in each area. The idea behind this concept is that people
24
use space over a specific time, and according to the portion of time they occupy that area they
use up a certain amount of time-area units. Therefore, an area should be dimensioned for the
amount of passengers it needs to serve in a certain time span. Consequently, the lower the dwell
time, the fewer the space required.
For processing facilities, as each one is naturally different from the others, each will have
different LOS standards. As it was stated before, LOS criteria is these cases is expressed through
the waiting time and therefore, defined by the maximum queue time in the facility, as it is
presented below.
Table 6 - Level of service – Processing Facilities
For the Check-in facility, to maintain a good LOS standard, the design of space needed
for queuing and waiting should be taken into account. Therefore, the Check-in queue area
standards are stated.
Table 7 - Level of service – Check-in Queue area LOS Standards
For transit and circulation facilities, the LOS standards are related to the average space
available per person, as it is exposed below.
25
Table 8 - Level of service – Check-in Queue area LOS Standards
For the airport departing process as a whole, IATA created standards for the maximum
walking distance between different parts of the airport, to assure that the passengers’ flow is as
direct, short and logical as possible. Those distances are:
 20 meters from the curbside to the check-in counters
 300 meters from the farthest car-parking to the check-in counters
 330 meters from the check-in counters to the farthest gate
 50 meters from the gate to the airplane
It is not easy to accompany the changes suffered through the years in the different
facilities, preserving the Levels of Service. As stated by Kazda and Caves (2007), an important
method to maintain the quality of service is to perform Service Level Agreements (SLA) amongst
airlines, airport and government services, being monitored by questionnaires, surveys and
complaints system.
26
Chapter 3 – SIMULATION IN AIRPORTS

When for example, the case study that is in focus encompasses a great and complex
operation that involves a great amount of people, making changes in real life to study different
scenarios is nearly impossible. To that end, different methods were developed to study these
cases.
In the present chapter, the different methods that can be used will be presented.
3.1 – Methods and models used for the simulation
To be able to improve the check-in service, many different types of studies have been
conducted using different methods:
a) Simulation: Chun & Way (1999) where the first researchers, among the ones
presented in the literature review that used simulation for their studies. Joustra & Dijk
(2001), Dijk & Sluis (2006), Applet, Lin & Hall (2007), Estaban (2008), Bevilacque &
Ciarapica (2010) and Kalakou (2012) where the other researchers who used
simulation as the basis of their studies.
b) Queueing Theory: used mainly to compare its results with the ones acquired in
simulation, Joustra & Dijk (2001) and Dijk & Sluis (2006) used this method in their
investigations.
c) Mathematical Models, and Integer Programming: a type of study different from

simulation and queueing theory used by the following researchers: (Yan, Tang, &
Chen, A model and a solution algorithm for airport common use check-in counter
assignments, 2004), (Yan, Chang, & Tang, Minimizing inconsistencies in airport
common-use checking counter assignments with a variable number of counters,
2005), (Bruno & Genovese, 2010), (Marković, Drobnjak, & Schonfeld, 2012), (Hsu,
Chao, & Shih, 2012).
d) Survey Analysis: a type of study that has considerable work in situ, Park & Ahn
(2003) and Chang & Yang (2008) where the ones who used this method, among the
cases studied.
Due to its complexity and accuracy to represent the real world, Discrete Event with Agent
Based characteristics Simulation was the chosen methodology.
3.1.1 – Simulation
According to the Oxford Advanced Learner’s Dictionary (2004) (pp. 1200), simulation is
“a situation in which a particular set of conditions is created artificially in order to study or
27
experience something that could exist in reality” and it is different than modelling. “Whereas
models are mathematical, logical, or some other structured representation of reality, simulations
are the specific application of models to arrive at some outcome” (Institute for Simulation and
Training, 2014) (http://www.ist.ucf.edu/background.htm). With so many complex and stochastic2
processes in a continuous state of change and so many objects involved, it is clear that simulation
is a major research tool (Dijk & Sluis, 2006).
Through the study of the operations of the building in study, simulation can be useful to
refine the design in a cost-effective way. Checking the processes and services passengers pass
through, assessing the LOS of each segment of the building and estimating processing time of
the services and employees, desks and tools needed, are some of the tasks that can be
accomplished through simulation (de Neufvile & Odoni, 2013).
In 1999, Chun & Way created and Intelligent Resource Simulation System (IRSS) – a
knowledge-based simulation system that uses rules and heuristics to encode knowledge on how
simulation parameters vary with different types of flight – to predict on a daily basis how many
check-in counters should be allocated to each departure flight while proceeding passengers with
sufficient quality of service. The simulation program was generated from basic flight information,
for instance, the airlines, destination, departure time and total number of passengers. This wasn’t
an easy task, considering that the check-in counter allocation problem is different from other
allocation problems as it is not known in advance the amount of resources required. They claim
to have a more efficient system, reducing 40% of resources used, due to its capacity considering
more factors than a human can such as, for example, different service rates for different
destinations, airlines, or handling agents; different passenger arrival rates for different times of
the day or days of the week; and different requirements for different service levels.
In 2001, Joustra & Dijk took a step forward and used simulation, with an agent based
methodology, to compare the performance of check-in systems under different operational rules.
As it was stated earlier, the authors explain that queueing theory does not give appropriate results
but it is useful to predict queueing times in check-in counters when common check-in is used,
being this argument supported by the fact that the collective arrival pattern shows fewer
fluctuations, leading to a pseudo steady situation. As for other results, the authors compared
common versus dedicated check-in, reaching the result that a considerable reduction in average
queuing times occurs using common check-in; dynamic vs stochastic opening and closing of
counters, arriving at the conclusion that dynamic opening is essential for improving the personnel
planning of check-in counters and offers the possibility to evaluate the effectiveness of the
operational planning of check-in counters; studied the possibility of the extension of check-in
period prior to a flight, with the consequence that when opening the check-in counters an hour
earlier, the average queuing time could drop significantly; the overflow for economy class
“a random probability distribution or pattern that may be analysed statistically but may
2
not be predicted precisely” (Oxford University Press, 2014)

(www.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/stochastic)
28
passengers to business class counters, offering economy class passengers the possibility to
check in at an available business class counter will have considerable impact on the average
queuing time of economy class passengers; and the circumstance of bank lining - the usage of a
single queue for multiple counters is called – whose effect on the queuing time strongly depends
to what extent passengers distribute evenly over the counters.
Appelt, Lin & Hall, in 2007, explained the data collection process, the simulation model
and scenario analysis to study the delays of the check-in process in the Buffalo Niagara
International Airport. It explains the steps each check-in mode studied follows in the simulation
model (express kiosk, kiosk, online, counter and curbside). As for an example, the flow of the
check-in counters are the following: “Passengers using the counter must seize the counter,
release the first place spot in the queue, delay the time it takes to leave the queue and decide if
they are checking bags. For this process, the researchers did not distinguish between the exact
time the passenger started checking bags. However, they did note if they were checking bags
and the quantity of bags. Therefore, the service times for a passenger at the counter that does
not have any bags to check differs from the service time at the counter of a passenger that does”
(Appelt, Lin, & Hall, 2007). After the different scenario analysis, they reached the conclusion that
the scenario that reached the lowest waiting time and the lowest average time in the system was
the option of removing the counters as a check-in point, using them for weighting bags and
printing bag tags.
As for the subject of a master dissertation at the Lisbon Airport, and using simulation,
Esteban (2008), estimated and evaluated the check-in process with the objective of estimating
the throughput times through the terminal building and the time required for the passengers to be
served in a certain number of check-in desks. Through the means of a survey to obtain the opinion
of the passengers, the author realised that the queue configuration, space for the queues and the
number of check-in counter should be improved. As for the simulation, it allowed Esteban to
experiment different scenarios, such as the extension of the check in period prior to the flight and
overflow of economy class passengers to business class check-in counters. As for the results, he
reached the same conclusions as Joustra & Dijk (2001), that if the check-in period prior to the
flight was extended by 15 to 20 minutes, the average queueing time and size would drop
significantly, and that the airport would show a greater improvement in terms of queueing times
and queue size if the economy class passengers could be served in business class check-in
desks.
Alike Chun & Mak’s (1999) project, Bevilacqua & Ciarapica (2010) used simulation and
queue theory to determine how many check-in counters and what management strategy should
be assigned to each departure flight while providing passengers with sufficient quality of service.
The authors used this combination of simulation with queue theory since standard queueing
results are too restricted for a sufficient realistic modelling and computation of the queueing
features at check-in desks but however, they can provide a first approach to the result one can
expect and are able to present general insights, useful to convince managers. The addition of the
simulation gives the investigators the opportunity to account with the different behaviour from
29
each passenger, staffing schedules and changes in passengers’ volume. The authors were able
to prove that a considerable reduction in average queuing times occurs using common check-in
and that queuing theory has proven to be very valuable for verification and validation of the
simulation model.
In the year of 2012, S. Kalakou evaluated, through a simulation model, the performance
of passenger-related processes at the Lisbon Airport Terminal 1, with the intent of improving the
airport’s Level of Service (LOS). The researcher conducted a survey with the intent of gathering
information about passengers to further introduce in the simulation model, with an agent based
methodology. The methodology of the evaluation was based on two key principles, a person-
centered, attending to passengers’ characteristics, their needs and requirements, and a
technology-centered to draw the rules and capabilities of the simulation model. As a result of the
study, it was noted that the check-in waiting time should be decreased. The introduction of multi-
airline check-in machines was tested, reaching the conclusion that they can have a positive or a
negative influence, either if the airlines still have the capacity in both the traditional and drop-off
counters or if they are busy airlines who serve multiple flights at the same time, accordingly.
In 2006, Dijk & Sluis, took a step forward and promoted the potential of a combined
stochastic and deterministic approach by conjoining the queue theory/simulation approach with
an integer programming (IP) method with the objective of reducing waiting time in check-in
queues, staffing hours and number of desks. As it was explained in the earlier section, for the
optimization of the number of desks for an individual flight, a pure stochastic approach (simulation)
would at best lead to a feasible planning and would not meet the objective of minimizing the
overall desk capacity, and a pure deterministic approach (queueing theory) would ignore
stochastic aspects and real-world concerns (costumers’ satisfaction, for example). Through the
means of simulation, the authors were able to determine the minimal number of desks in order to
meet a service level for each separate flight. With the integer programming method, the total
number of desk hours under the realistic constraint that desks for one and the same flight should
be adjacent was determined.
3.1.2 – Queueing Theory
According to the Cambridge Dictionary Online (2015)

(http://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/business-english/queuing-theory), queueing theory is
“the study of how people or things wait in line or wait to be served and how to deal with them in
order to provide the best service”. Stating Robert B. Cooper (1981), queueing theory is a
mathematical analysis of systems subject to demands whose occurrence and lengths can, in
general, be specified only probabilistically, with its focus on waiting lines. Although this theory
was first developed for the purpose of telephone traffic engineering, it is also widely applied in
engineering, operations research and computer science to analyse service processes and
production, having no concern for service and arrival times.
30
As stated by the same author, queueing theory models work as the follows:
a) The costumer/passenger demands a service or a particular type of equipment (a

server);
b) If this server is unoccupied, the costumer will seize it for some length of time,
releasing it afterwards for a new incoming costumer to use it;
c) If the server is occupied, the costumer takes the action of waiting or going away.
This model is usually defined by its input processes, its service mechanism and queue
discipline:
The input processes defines the way customers enter the system and the distribution of
time between each customer’s arrivals.
The service mechanism defines the number of servers and the time needed for a server
to serve a customer.
The queue discipline defines the disposition of the customers that are waiting to be
served. The most used queue types are FIFO (First In First Out), LIFO (Last In First Out), SIRO
(Served In Random Order), Priority Queueing (normally a number of queues with various
priorities). (Sklenar, 2014)
As for the Output, it is represented by the way customers leave the system during a given
interval of time. (Sklenar, 2014)
As detailed by Dijk & Sluis (2006), queue theory can provide a first order of magnitude,
an indication of results that one may expect and general insights that can be helpful, for example,
that simply calculating the workload is not sufficient. Also, the authors explain that queueing
results can still be most supportive for technical verification of a simulation program and therefore,
a combined methodology of queueing theory and simulation can lead to more accurate results as
the major advantages of both methods can be combined and the major disadvantages cancelled.
Whereas it has a wide range of applicability and that some researchers have applied this
theory and developed models based on its principles, some authors affirm that it is too restricted
to predict and calculate queueing times at check-in counters as it can only represent a steady
state situation, implying that the arrival rates of passengers are constant during long periods of
time. (Joustra & Dijk, 2001).
The advantages and disadvantages between simulation and queueing theory can be
observed in the following table. (Dijk & Sluis, 2006)
31
Advantages Disadvantages
100% exact Restricted for real-world modelling
Queueing Give insights and verifications Simplified uncertainty-assumptions
Theory Simple components Steady-state analysis
Most data used is generic
Allows real-world complexity Provides only numbers
We don't know the degree of

Allows real-world uncertainties
Simulation confidence
Allow transient situations Too much complexity
Detailed data required
Table 9 – Advantages and Disadvantages between Queueing Theory and Simulation

3.1.3 –
Mathematical and Integer Programming problems
Integer Programming, or Integer Linear Programming (ILP) problem derives from a Linear
Programming problem, which is an optimization problem were in the decision variables, a series
of linear expressions precise the objective and the constraints of the solution. While a linear
program as its linear variables, constrains, and objective functions, integer programming adds
additional constraints, adding the requirements that some of the variables take on integer values
– it is a special case of mathematical programming/optimization (Burke & Kendall, 2005). The
usage of mathematical models is stated by some authors to be more accurate than simulation
since it avoids inherent inconsistencies.
Yan, Tang & Chen (2004), concentrated on minimizing the total passenger walking
distance with an integer programming model to assign common use check-in counters and
through the development of a heuristic method, to solve the model, reaching a reduction of 4.02%
of the total walking distance in a week. According to them, the airport authorities have to consider
many factors when assigning flights to CUCCs, such as the number of service lines per counter,
the flight schedule, the passengers walking distance, the number and usage of CUCCs, the
assignment rules of the airport authorities and the airlines check-in procedures. One year later,
Yan, Tang & Chang (2004), produced a binary integer programming model that minimizes total
inconsistencies in common use check-in counter assignments with a variable number of counters
– such as adjustment of service lines between two consecutive times. They developed a heuristic
32
method to solve the model and the Common Use Check-in Counter Assignment Problem with
variable number of counters (CUCCAP-VC) that proved to be effective and efficient.
In the year of 2005, Yan, Chang & Tang developed a model, formulated as a zero-one
integer program, to minimize the total inconsistencies in CUCC assignment, being the value of
the inconsistencies between two consecutive total check-in times in a flight projected as the
number of newly opened, or closed, service lines. To solve the problem in the real world, the
authors created a heuristic method, separating the main problem into two smaller and simpler
problems reaching the conclusion that it was not only effective, but also efficient in real world
operations.
In 2010, Bruno & Genovese created new mathematical models to optimize the number of
check-in counters to be opened for departing flights, in such a way to balance the operative costs
of the service and the passenger waiting time at the terminal. Apart from the problems of
minimizing the costs and the assignment of each flight to specific desks for each time interval,
there is still the problem of the definition in the personnel assignment for each desk. According to
the authors, the models are suitable to solve real case studies
Likewise Bruno & Genovese, Drobnajk, Markovic & Schonfeld (2012) developed a model
for the optimization of the number of check-in counters and their opening and closing times,
optimizing the check-in process from the airline's point of view. For this purpose, they used a non-
stationary Markov chain which, according to the authors, is much more accurate than simulation
analysis because it avoids the variance inherit to it, with an integer fourth order Rugen-Kutta
algorithm. It is stated that no other author attempts to analyse the check-in process using non-
stationary queues, using the simplifying assumption that the arrival and service rates are
stationary.
Conclusively, Hsu, Chao & Shih (2012) performed a dynamic allocation of check-in
facilities – which can both reduce waiting times and increase service counter utilisation rates -
and dynamic assignment of passengers at air terminals to achieve the objectives of minimizing
total the waiting time and the better utilisation of facilities. As stated in the paper, the dynamic
allocation is more efficient than the fixed allocation considering that it can achieve shorter waiting
times. With the passing of the year, self-service check-in still remains with its main functions of
reducing waiting times for passengers and operational costs for airlines with the key achievement
stated that its acceptance has been increasing over the year.
3.1.4 – Survey Analysis
This last method is based on the passengers’ perception over the provided services
through the means of questionnaires and surveys and analysing the gathered data. This
methodology takes the human behaviour into account.
On the year 2003, Park & Ahn, through the means of a survey, developed an assignment
model for check-in counter operations, based on passengers’ airport arrival patterns. They
33
studied that some of the major factors that are causing congestions and delays at airport
passenger terminals are the inadequate terminal capacity and the inefficient utilisation of facilities
alike the check-in counters. According to their survey, the total number of check-in counters and
space required depends on six factor, such as the rate of passenger arrival at the check-in
counters, the airline schedules and procedures, the type of traffic, the check-in counter
configuration and operation system, the level of service standard and the sender to passenger
ratio. Therefore, with this model, Park and Ahn could provide not only a practical system for the
efficient operations of time-to-time check-in counter assignments but also valuable means to
provide longer-term alternative solutions to the problem of passenger terminal congestion and
delays.
Changing the object of research, Chang & Yang (2008), through the means of a
questionnaire, aimed to explore the importance and performance of services provided by kiosks,
identifying managerial strategies to increase kiosk attractiveness in order to be a viable option for
passengers through the means of a questionnaire. According to IATA (International Air Transport
Association) (2006) it is known that kiosks act as a time saver for passengers, a cost saver for
airlines and a space saver for airports, making airlines ambitious to promote their utilisation. A
conclusion was achieved, that although previous studies have indicated that the widespread
application of technology-based services have benefited consumers, they still do not possess
entirely positive attitudes toward them. Knowing that potential kiosk users expects to have a highly
controllable environment during its usage, an approach to mitigate flyers (especially frequent
flyers) to kiosks is made by providing extra benefits or seat-selecting privileges.
3.2 Important remarks
There are still some important remarks that must be exhibited, therefore, the purpose for
this last analysis is to present the features that are in need of further research.
Author’s purposes
It is visible through the analysis of the literature, that the purpose of each author was to
find an improvement of the check-in sub-process, and to that end, they focused on two main
targets: minimizing passengers waiting time in check-in queues and the minimization of airline
costs, both being achieved through the optimization of the number of check-in counters used and
assigned and the staffing hours needed.
The minimization of the waiting time in check-in queue is one of the key factors both for
the maximization of the check-in sub-process and the customer satisfaction (Appelt, Lin, & Hall,
2007), (Hsu, Chao, & Shih, 2012).
How is each method being used?
In simulation, in particular, in a discrete-event simulation, the variables can change in

specific points in time, being suitable to model systems with medium and high level of detail,
34
focusing on individual objects, in contrast with a continuous-event simulation, where variables

can change in any point in time, used to model systems with low level of detail, focusing on groups
instead of individuals (Sakurada & Miyake, 2006). Thus, the type of simulation that is more
suitable for airport simulation is one with high level of detail, as the discrete-event simulation or
even the agent based simulation (Chun & Way, 1999), (Appelt, Lin, & Hall, 2007), (Esteban,
2008), (Bevilacqua & Ciarapica, 2010), (Kalakou, 2012).
The authors also focused on the improvement of some aspects of the check-in sub-
process, such as the number of counters each flight should have assigned, the LOS, the delays
that occur on the sub-process and other operational rules.
As for queueing theory, authors used this method simultaneously with simulation, mainly
to predict queueing times in check-in counters (Joustra & Dijk, 2001).
With mathematical and integer programming, researchers aimed to optimize the

assignment of common use check-in counters for each flight (Yan, Tang, & Chen, A model and a
solution algorithm for airport common use check-in counter assignments, 2004), (Bruno &
Genovese, 2010).
And finally, through the survey analysis, the authors aimed to other aspects, such as the
importance of the kiosks, so to improve their attractiveness (Chang & Yang, 2008).
In every method, authors are choosing peak hours and random days in a week to gather
the information, and this fact can weaken the method’s results (Appelt, Lin, & Hall, 2007)
What are the main advantages and limitations?
One of the most important data so to have the best feasible model, is the information on
passengers’ characteristics and behaviour. This data can only be analysed through a method that
can consider a high level of detail, such as discrete-event and agent based simulation, being a
great advantage of this method in comparison with the others (Park & Ahn, 2003), (Bevilacqua &
Ciarapica, 2010).
Although it has been stated that mathematical models provide greater precision than
simulation (Marković, Drobnjak, & Schonfeld, 2012), mathematical models can’t consider
passengers’ characteristics and behaviour, being less suitable to represent a real-life study
(Bevilacqua & Ciarapica, 2010).
What is still there to study?
In every study, the simulation environment was always minimized to the check-in bay, or
in maximum, to the airport level of the check-in, never considering the entirety of the airport, which
could improve the simulation results being a factor that could change the arrival pattern to the
check-in area and passengers’ behaviour.
A characteristic that would be important to have in mind in future studies is that the
simulation time period never exceeded the one week time span, and a longer time period would
give more accurate results.
35
Other characteristic usually ignored is the delay of flights, occasional oversized luggage
and other time spending activities (asking information, adjusting luggage weight …).
An additional aspect still there to study is the hypothesis of changing the check-in strategy
in the simulation model (reallocation of airlines in check-in desks, static and dynamically, amount
of importance given to kiosks, rewarding online or kioks check-in users to promote these methods
…).
As a final remark, a dynamic opening and closing of check-in counters can reduce staffing
hours and improve the check-in process, in contrast with static opening and closing (Joustra &
Dijk, 2001), (Yan, Tang & Chen, 2004).
36
Chapter 4 – CASE STUDY

In the following chapter, through the presentation of a small review of the history of the
airport’s terminal 1, and the analysis of its check-in facilities, the case study will be presented.
The analysis of the check-in facilities was essential to recreate the airport’s actual working
methods, leading the path to find a better option for the check-in sub-process. Also, the program
used to create the model and its interface will be briefly explained.
4.1 – Lisbon’s Airport Terminal 1
Situated only 7km from the city centre, Lisbon’s main airport, known as Lisbon Portela
Airport, was established on the 15 October 1942, replacing the previous airport known as Campo
Internacional de Aterragem, based in Alverca. In 1969, and due to the city’s urban expansion, the
search for a new location for the airport begun with 5 different locations in mind – Fonte da Telha,
Montijo, Alcochete, Rio Frio and Porto Alto – all of them located south of the Tejo river. By the
early 80s’, the list was down to 2 places – Rio Frio and Ota. In 1999, Ota was chosen as the place
to implement the new Lisbon airport. However, in 2007, and due to some controversy, the decision
of the relocation of the Lisbon airport to Ota was suspended and it still is, up to date. (Coutinho &
Partidário, s.d.)
Nowadays, the airport takes care of 144.6 thousand movements, 15.3 million passengers
and 90.3 cargo tons per year. (ANA A. d., 2015)
4.1.1 – Facilities
The Terminal 1 is the main building of Lisbon’s Portela Airport. This facility as five main
entrances:
 Departures entrance, specialized as a drop-off point for private and public vehicles,
such as taxis, busses, shuttles;
 Arrivals entrance, which is not used by many people, but is still preferred by some
locals;
 Metro entrance, being one of the most important entrances, it is located in front of
the exit of the Airport metro station;
 Park 1 entrance, used mainly by people who prefer do drive their personal vehicles
and park them at the airport;
 Park 2 entrance, used by people who park their cars in Park 2.
Between the entrance and the security control area, and its three different floors, apart
from being home of the check-in facilities, this terminal offers many different services a passenger
37
can occupy their time with. This is the area where the traveller has its first contact with the airport’s
wide range of services, such as bars, coffee shops, restaurants, a pharmacy, airline counters
clothing, fashion and other types of magazines.
4.1.2 – Check-in Facilities
Currently, the terminal possesses three different check-in facilities:
 Check-in counters;
 Baggage Drop counters;
 Check-in and baggage tag kiosks;
The main elements in the terminal building will be presented on page 41.
In these check-in halls, some companies have their fixed counters, some do not. The
following ones have fixed counters:
Company Economic Counter Business Counter Baggage Drop Counters

Air France & KLM 21 to 26 21 to 26
British Airways and Iberia 52 to 59 52 to 59
Brussels Airlines, Lufthansa
14 to 20 14 to 20
& Swissairlines
TAAG 47 to 51 44 & 45
TAP 1 to 5 60 to 80
SATA 37 to 40 6 41
Table 10 – Fixed counters existent in Terminal 1
While every company as the option of doing the check-in and baggage drop in a check-
in counter, TAP induces its passengers to make the check-in through a kiosk, a mobile device or
online via a computer, having their counters only available for baggage drop.
For the process of the check-in counters, there is a queue that serves multiple counters
for each company and for each type of trip (Economic or Business).
As for the check-in and baggage tag kiosks, they are located in 8 different places in the
terminal, being these places near every entrance, near the main bars and coffee shops and in the
newer check-in hall.
38
Figure 6 – Main elements of terminal building
1 – Older check-in hall, counters 1 to 13 10 – Top of newer check-in hall cluster of kiosks
2 – Newer check-in hall, counters 14 to 36 11 – Middle of newer check-in hall cluster of kiosks
3 – Newer check-in hall, counters 37 to 59 12 – Bottom of newer check-in hall cluster of kiosks
4 – Newer check-in hall, counter 60 to 89 13 – Park 2 entrance cluster of kiosks
5 – Custom authorities hall, counters 90 to 107 14 – Main departures entrance
6 – Main entrance cluster of kiosk 15 – Park 1 entrance
7 – Bar cluster of kiosks 16 – Metro entrance
8 – Metro entrance cluster of kiosks 17 – Arrivals entrance
9 – Stairs cluster of kiosks 18 – Park 2 entrance
39
The check-in kiosks can only be used by passengers from 12 different airlines
 Air Canada  Brussels Airlines  Lufthansa  TAP

 Air France  Iberia  Sata  Turkish Airways
 British Airways  KLM  TAAG  United Airlines
The passengers from these 12 companies can perform their check-in in the kiosk, but
only passengers from TAP and United Airlines can also print their baggage tags in the kiosk.
4.1.3 – Passengers
In Lisbon’s Airport Terminal 1, passengers can enter from one of the five
entrances mentioned earlier. Statistically, the ones that area mostly used are the Metro entrance
and the Park1 entrance.
While waiting for their check-in counter to open, passengers have a set of
different services in this hall they can attend to, such as coffee shops, magazines, among others.
Looking through a check-in point of view, the passengers have three different
ways of performing the check-in: in a check-in counter, in a kiosk or through an internet-based
device. As it was stated in the last sub-chapter, there are only twelve companies that allow
passenger to perform their check-in in the kiosks. All the others, except from TAP, must perform
their check-in online or in a check-in counter. Tap obligates their passengers to perform the heck-
in online or in a kiosk, for their counters are destined only for baggage drop purposes.
After their check-in is performed, passengers normally proceed to the security

control area, to continue their journey through the airport.
4.2 – Anylogic Interface
At the present time, Anylogic is the market leader in modelling and simulation technology
due to its distinctive multimethod modelling capabilities and its flexibility. Anylogic is chosen for
its ease of model building, its visual model development environment, its flexibility, and its 3D
animation. The program is of easy use for its drag-n-drop capabilities with the help of multiple
libraries and it gives the possibility to create complex models with limitless extensibility due to its
Java environment and the possibility of creating agent-based, discrete event and system
dynamics hybrid models (AnyLogic, AnyLogic Simulation Software Overview, 2015).
So to give an insight of the interface of this complex program, in the working area there
are four main window that are used:
- The Projects windows, on the left, where all the agents, objects, etc, are organized;
- The Palette windows, on the left, housing the different libraries for drag-n-drop of the
objects;
40
- The Main windows, in the centre, being the windows where the model is created;
- The Properties window, on the right, where the properties for each agent, object, etc,
are presented and can be modified, through the properties of the program itself or through the
writing of Java code.
An image of the working area of the program is presented below.
Figure 7 – AnyLogic working environment
The model created has four different parts that are represented in the Main windows:
- The logic part, where the logic of the model is created, through drag-n-drop of the
objects, connecting each other and the manipulation of the properties of each object of the logic;
Figure 8 – Model’s Logic part representation
- A part where all the variables, parameters, functions, etc, that interact with the elements
of the logic are located;
41
Figure 9 – Model’s storing of variables and parameters representation
- A graphical part, where the 2D and 3D environment of the simulation is created.
Figure 10 - Model’s graphical part representation
- And finally, a statistical part, where all the statistical variables are allocated;
Figure 11 – Model’s Statistical part representation
42
Chapter 5 – METHODOLOGY: DISCRETE-EVENT

SIMULATION
As described in the literature review, simulation is a technique widely used to evaluate
check-in performance in airports, and not only for academic purposes. It was easy to opt for the
discrete event simulation as it is one of the most complex and complete form of simulation used
nowadays.
This chapter explains the methodology, the specification of the model, their premises and
engineering.
5.1 – Justification of Methodology choices
To clearly understand how the model developed works, the methodology behind it must
first be explained.
Discrete Event
As it was stated before, Discrete Event Simulation with Agent Based characteristics was
the chosen methodology, due to its complexity and accuracy to represent the real world. But what
makes Discrete Event Simulation more complex and accurate, and therefore, more useful for our
model in comparison with other methodologies?
a) System Dynamics
This methodology offers the user a perspective and a set of tools that makes possible for
one to understand the structure of a complex system, through the construction of a computer
simulation. It is normally used to perform strategic long-term models, bearing a high level of
aggregation of the objects in use due to its representation that is made in quantities, losing their
individual properties. Therefore this methodology is considered a high abstraction level modelling
approach. (AnyLogic, System Dynamics, 2015)
Figure 12 – System Dynamics representation
b) Discrete Event Simulation
Discrete Event Simulation is composed mainly of queues. When a continuous and

complex system is not appropriate, the Discrete Event Simulation can be a solution due to its
43
Chapter 5 – METHODOLOGY: DISCRETE-EVENT SIMULATION
ability to simplify the analysis by dividing a continuous process into a sequence of discrete events.
The sequence of events, or operations, are performed on the entities, that can have attributes
that influence the flow, but they are mainly passive entities. Meaning this that even though each
entity is modelled individually, many physical details are ignored. This methodology is considered
a medium abstraction level modelling approach. (AnyLogic, Discrete Event Simulation Modeling,
2015)
Figure 13 – Discrete Event representation
c) Agent Based Simulation
Being a decentralized and individual-centric approach to model design in Agent Based

simulation, the global behaviour of the model emerges from the interactions of many individual
behaviours. The user can identify the entities and their behaviour, put them in an environment
and establish connections, before running the model. Opposed to System Dynamics, where the
modeller must pre-write all the assumptions, and the Discrete Event Simulation, that can only
separate the different events, but not the different entities, due to its focus on the individual, only
Agent Based Simulation can use the fact that every individual is different from one another to
obtain a more accurate representation of the reality. (AnyLogic, Agent Based Modeling, 2015)
Figure 14 – Agent Based representation
The choice for using Discrete Event Simulation
As it was stated before, the method of modelling makes it possible to represent the real
world, and the possible simulation methodologies were detailed. It is known from common sense
that when the right processes are used for a problem, the chance of success is higher. Therefore,
44
it is crucial to understand why Discrete Event Simulation with Agent Based characteristics was
the methodology chosen for the present research project.
There are some aspects that must be taken into account when choosing the right
methodology:
 Purpose of the project – this will establish the processes, behaviours and variables
that should be contemplated to achieve the appropriate outcome from the model;
 Properties of the real world environment – this will install the limitations and the
possibilities of the research project;
 The adequacy of the modelling method – so the best outcome possible can be
achievable.
To support the decision of this methodology, it is important to have in mind the purpose
of this project: improve the check-in sub-process in Terminal 1. To make this possible, a theory
was needed to be tested in different scenarios to determine the performance, and to meet that
end, there was the need to construct a methodology. Evaluating the performance made it possible
to compare different scenarios with the actual one. And for that, and based on what was written
on the previews sub-chapter, Discrete Evet Simulation, with Agent Based characteristics was
granted as the best candidate to accomplish the objectives.
5.2 –Model Description
In this chapter the author will describe the simulation model that was developed for the
present thesis.
5.2.1 – Objectives
The developed model was designed to evaluate the performance of various hypotheses
for the check-in sub-process, in Lisbon’s Airport Terminal 1. The model created provides
information that is in favour or against the ground of each test, answering the theory that was
proposed.
To correctly evaluate the performance of the present model, the author analysed the
element time, more specifically, the time a passenger spends from the moment he/she intends to
perform the check-in and enter the queue to the respective check-in agent, to the moment when
he/she starts being served by the check-in service; more specifically, the queueing time. And why
was this element the chosen one? Not only because it is one of the main indicators of the quality
of a sub-process, but also because time is money, and therefore, by minimizing this dimension,
the airport can offer a better quality of service while spending less to perform the service. Thus,
the scenarios chosen will be assessed mainly by the queueing time of each service.
45
To achieve this end, a model should be able to (Faria, 2015):
 Simulate the check-in sub-process;
 Be capable of representing real-world data for a period of time of 24 hours;
 Represent every type of check-in that already exists in the Terminal 1 and new
technics that are intended to essay;
 Be a good representation of Lisbon’s Airport Terminal 1;
 Have at least one indicator of performance, in this case, time;
 Offer a simple and clear graphic interface;
 Consider singularities that influence the sub-process.
5.2.2 – Model Structure
The following sub-chapter defines the blueprint of the developed model so to explain what
is happening behind the scenarios. Having already explained what Discrete Event Model is, the
structure of the model and its realities and assumptions will be the spotlight.
The main agents in the present model are the passengers, but there are also other
relevant agents, such as the check-in and baggage-drop counters and the check-in kiosks. Each
agent has a set of different attributes that are imposed to them when they are generated, and
throughout the model. The passengers will have to pass through a set of different phases before
exiting the model and continuing their journey through the airport, while the other agents are there
to interact with the passengers in the course of the simulation.
The following diagram represents an interpretation of the check-in model in the Discrete
Event Environment. The model is composed of many different details and rules.
Figure 15 - Interpretation of the check-in model
a) In the beginning of the model, passengers are generated with their flight and
check-in type programed at the time of the generation.
Figure 16 – Passenger Generation in the model
46
b) Afterwards, they chose one of the entrances, based on a frequency for each entrance,
and enter the Airport’s terminal through one of five different entrances and head directly to their
check-in point, according to their check-in type.
Figure 17 – Choosing of the entrance
Figure 18 – Entrance of passengers in the airport
47
c) The check-in is performed, and the baggage, if there is one, is dropped-of.
Figure 19 – Steps for passenger to be served by a check-in agent
d) If the passenger still needs to dispatch a baggage, he/she can go to the baggage drop
service. Otherwise, with no more matters to attend, the passenger heads to the security area,
leaving the model.
Figure 20 – Final part of the model
For a more detailed interpretation of the model, there are some aspects needed to
remember.
The five different entrances are: Main Departure, Metro, Park1, Park2 and Arrivals
entrance. The six types of check-in are: Economic Counter, Business Counter, Kiosk Check-in
and Two-Step, Kiosk One-Step, Curbside and Online Check-in.
A more detailed interpretation of the model is presented as follows.
48
Figure 21 – Detailed interpretation of check-in model
Different types of check-in have different functionalities.
The “Economic”, “Business” and “Curbside” types all function like desks, where the
passenger can perform the check-in and drop the baggage. While “Economic” and “Business”
have their own companies allocated, “Curbside” deals with all the companies the Terminal in
question serves.
On the “Kiosk One” type, passengers must find the closest kiosk and perform, by
themselves, the check-in, baggage tag allocation and baggage drop.
For the “Kiosk Check” and “Kiosk Two” type, passengers must perform by themselves
the check-in and if they travel with Tap or United, they can even print and allocate a baggage tag.
If they travel with baggage, passengers must afterwards go to a baggage drop point to drop their
baggage.
As for the “Online” type, these passenger already made their check-in online, via a
computer or a mobile device. They can either have a baggage do dispatch or not. If they do not
have baggage, after entering the airport, they go directly to the security area. If they do have
baggage, they go to the dedicated baggage drop counter.
Throughout the simulation, the agents will have to interact with different objects and
agents of the model. These interactions are crucial to recreate as similar as possible, the situation
in real life, and to extract statistical data.
As for the passenger’s demand through the full day of flights used for the model, the
airport being studied comprises 28 companies, 211 flights and 28180 passengers. The calculation
of the number of passengers was made based on the number of seats available for each flight.
49
After a meticulous study about the number of seats of each aircraft for each flight on the given
day, it was considered that every flight carried 85% of its maximum capacity.
To be more specific, the following table shows how many flights and passengers exists
by company in the day tested by the model.
Company Total nº of Flights Total nº of Passengers

Aer Lingus PLC 1 160
Aigle Azur 1 167
Air Algerie 1 81
Air Europa 5 537
Air France 6 874
Air Transat 1 347
British Airways PLC 3 436
Brussels Airlines NV/SA 2 285
Deutsche Lufthansa, AG 5 893
Emirates 1 361
Euro Atlantic Airways 1 119
Germanwings GmbH 2 357
Iberia, L.A.E. S.A. Operadora 5 556
KLM Royal Dutch Airlines 3 526
Luxair SA 1 127
Orbest, SA 1 163
Privilege Style SA 1 181
Royal Air Maroc 1 114
Ryanair Ltd 2 360
Sata Internacional Serviços e Trans. Aér 6 1233
Swiss International Airlines AG 2 354
TAAG Linhas Aéreas de Angola 2 340
TACV, Transportes Aéreos de Cabo Verde 1 207
TAP Transportes Aéreos Portugueses, S.A. 148 18007
Turkish Airlines 2 308
United Airlines 1 215
US Airways, INC 1 168
Vueling Airlines S.A. 5 704
Table 11 – Total number of flights and passengers by airline
50
In Annex 1, the Schedule file3 can be consulted, presenting all the flights considered,
including their company and flight number, number of passengers, time of the flight (in minutes,
considered from the beginning of the day of flights) and the specific Economic, Business and
Baggage Drop counter for each flight are detailed for the functioning of the model.
The following graph shows the passenger’s total traffic in the airport terminal during the
model time:
Passenger total traffic in the airport

2500
2000
1500
1000
500
0
0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400
Passenger total traffic in the airport
Figure 22 – Passenger’s total traffic in the airport
To start, it must be said that the given model has three aspects of time that must be taken
into account:
 The time in the model is measured in minutes;
 The beginning of the model corresponds to the hour 00h00;
 The end of the model corresponds to the hour 22h10.
While the network of the model is the Arrival and Check-in area of Terminal 1, the entity
of the model is the passenger.
In its final form, the model is consisted of two main parts: a) the creation and arrival of
passengers to the airport, and b) making of the check-in and baggage drop.
Figure 23 - Interpretation of the check-in model
3 The information regarding the schedule of flights was gathered by the author through
the following websites: (ANA, 2015), (Flightradar24, 2015), (Planespotters, 2015), (SeatGuru,
2015).
51
Creation of the model
On the beginning of phase a), the program generates a passenger for a certain flight with
all the attributes linked to the given flight and its type of check-in chosen. As it was mentioned
earlier, the type of check-in will decide how the check-in is performed by the passenger. A it was
stated earlier, passengers can vary between six different check-in types, each having a different
frequency. Their values will be presented in a future chapter.
 Check-in Economic, with a frequency of 48%
 Check-in Business, with a frequency of 4%
 Performing the check-in in the kiosk without dropping baggage afterwards, with a
frequency of 4%
 Performing the check-in in the kiosk, printing the baggage tag with the intent of
dropping a baggage afterwards in a baggage-drop point, with a frequency of 25%
 Having already performed the check-in online, with a frequency of 19%. Also, from
low cost companies, only 10% of passengers goes to a counter to drop luggage, and
from the other companies, 79% of the passengers have baggage to drop.
These frequency intervals where chosen based on information gathered and treated by
the author.
The passengers with the types “Economic”, “Business”, “Curbside”, “Kiosk One”, “Kiosk
Two” and “Online” are all considered to have baggage, while only the passengers with the types
“Kiosk Check” is considered not to have baggage.
For passengers that are attending a flight from any of the following companies – Air
Europa, Aigle Azur, Vueling, Germanwings or Ryanair – 90% is considered not to have baggage
and they are considered not to have a business service, for they are passengers flying in a low-
cost company. The percentage of business passengers generated for these flights will perform
check-in in an economic counter. Also, these passengers take less time to perform the check-in,
as they do not carry luggage.
For every flight, and according to Dijk & Sluis (2006), the creation of passengers should
not be done at a regular pace, thus a transient computation would have to be used. So, to create
this irregular pace, a triangle shaped arrival pattern was created, with three different intervals:
 two low density intervals, where a lesser quantity of passengers is injected during a
certain period of time: 25%;
 one high density interval, where a higher quantity of passengers is injected during a
certain period of time: 50%.
52
Figure 24 – Passenger arrival intensity intervals
Also, for each interval, the generation of passengers, was made through a Poisson
process: a stochastic process that, by following an exponential distribution, counts the number of
events in a given time interval. Interarrival time is the name given to the time between two
consecutive events. The starting time between two different events is independent from one
another (Kalakou, 2012).
Knowing the time of departure of each flight, passengers will be created in the time span
between 210 and 80 minutes after the known time. The arrival times of each passenger are
generated randomly for each type of arrival intensity mentioned earlier.
Arrival of passengers to the airport
After being created, passengers must enter the model. To that end, they pass through a
decision object where, according to defined frequencies, they will enter in one of the five different
entrances mentioned earlier. Each entrance has a different frequency for having a passenger
arriving into the airport through it. The frequency for each entrance as well as their location in the
model animation are presented below.
Entrance Frequency
Main 45%
Metro 15%
Park1 35%
Arrivals 3%
Park2 2%
Table 12 – Percentage of passengers, entering the airport, for each entrance
So to approximate the model to reality, a different delay time is applied to the passengers
according with the entrance they pass through, making it possible for passengers to enter
separately or at the same time, as a group, in the airport.
When entering the model, the passenger icon will be placed in the simulation area and a
speed of 1 m/s will be allocated to each passenger.
53
Performing check-in and dropping baggage
When inside the simulation area, passengers enter on phase b). To start, passengers will
enter a block where, according to their check-in type, they will be routed to the correspondent
agent to perform the check-in. Each agent varies from one another in certain aspects, therefore
it is important to explain each one of them.
1. Check-in economic, business and curbside counters
Figure 25 - Check-in Economic Counters model interpretation
When passenger’s check-in type points to the economic or business check-in counters,
passengers will pass through a series of different steps, represented in the diagram above.
Has it was mentioned in an earlier section, passengers start arriving to the airport from
210 minutes until 80 minutes before the departure time of their flight, however, the check-in
counters only open in the time gap of 180 to 45 minutes before the flight departure time. Therefore,
if a passenger arrives earlier, it will wait in one of the service areas normally, but not always, the
closest one to the check-in counter they will attend.
On the curbside counters, as they are located at the entrance of the airport and serve
every airline, passengers can go directly to them, not having to walk through the terminal to the
dedicated check-in counters.
On the next step, passengers will head to the check-in counter. If all the counters destined
for the check-in of the flight are occupied, They will wait in the correspondent queue for its their
turn. The passenger will cease the first counter that is free. Checking-in a passenger takes
between 60 and 120 seconds for every flight that is not from a low-cost company. For these flights,
the check-in take between 40 to 60 seconds. These times were derived from personal
assumptions based on online information and timed testes made in the field by the researcher.
With the flight checked-in, the baggage is processed and the passenger leaves the
counter, leaving the agent.
2. Check-in kiosks
Figure 26 - Check-in Kiosk model interpretation
54
If passengers are meant to perform their check-in in a kiosk, they will not need to wait in
any service area if they arrive earlier, for every kiosk works during the all day for every flight.
However, kiosks only serve 12 different companies, as stated in sub-chapter 4.1.2. All the others
must use a different check-in method.
To decide which one is the kiosk passengers will walk to, they analyse the distance from
the place they are to every one of the eight kiosks and the queue size every kiosk has. The
passenger will chose the nearest kiosk that has a queue smaller than two passengers. If there
are no kiosks with queues with less than two passengers, they will chose the closest with less
than three, and so on.
When ceasing the kiosk, and according with their company – whether if they will fly with
TAP or United Airlines, or in any other company – they will perform a different type of check-in.
To help to understand this division, the following table was created:
Company Check-in Type What does passenger do
TAP or United Airlines Kiosk Two Check-in and print baggage tag
Twelve companies
Kiosk Check-in Only Check-in
(mentioned in 4.1.2)
Any Company Kiosk One Check-in, print baggage tag and dropping baggage
Table 13 – Services in a kiosks for by company
Performing only the check-in will take between 40 and 60 seconds while also printing the
baggage tag will take between 50 and 70 seconds. If passengers also drop their baggage, they
will take between 60 to 80 seconds.
With the flight checked-in, if passengers made only the check-in or if they checked in,
tagged and dropped the baggage, they will leave the agent and head to the security hall, while if
they printed the baggage tag, they should head to the baggage drop counter of their respective
flight company.
3. Online
The passengers that have already performed the check-in before entering the terminal
building either go directly to the security area or go to a baggage drop counter to drop a baggage.
This choice is made by a frequency, based on information gathered by the author, where 79% of
the passengers that are not from low-cost companies, have a baggage to drop off.
4. Baggage Drop
The diagram for the baggage drop is similar to the one for the counters. Passenger only
attend the baggage drop counters if they have any baggage to drop and only after doing the
check-in through a kiosk or online. It is considered that every passenger that printed a baggage
tag – passengers from the companies TAP and United Airlines with check-in type Kiosk Two –
55
and a percentage of the total number of passengers that made the check-in online will attend a
baggage counter.
Similar to the check-in counters, the baggage drop counters open 180 minutes before the
departure time of the flight, meaning this that if the passengers enter the baggage drop agent
before the opening of the counters – had already done the check-in in a kiosk or already entered
the model with the check-in done via online – they will wait in the same service areas as the
passengers that attend the check-in counters.
When entering the baggage drop counter queue, passengers interaction with the
baggage drop agent are similar to the interactions in the check-in counters agents. The only
attribute that varies is that if a passenger had already printed the baggage tag, it will only take
between 20 to 30 seconds to drop the baggage, while the others will take longer – between 40 to
60 seconds.
With companies that does not have baggage drop counters, the passengers will have to
drop the baggage in the check-in counters, having to wait in the same queue as the passengers
that want to perform the check-in.
With the baggage processed, the passenger can leave the agent.
Leaving the model
After leaving their respective check-in or baggage drop agents, the passengers will enter
the last block that makes them go to the security area, leaving the model.
Statistical variables gathered
For each test to be analysed, there are several different types of statistic variables that
must be gathered during the run time of the model. This statistical variables are stored in different
statistical blocks. These variables are described below.
 Queue time
The queue time is measured from the time a passenger enters the queue to the moment
it leaves the queue to be served. This information is stored for every single passenger in different
statistical blocks. There is one block for each cluster of counters/kiosks. With this statistical
information it is possible to obtain the number of passengers that were in the queue, the mean,
minimum and maximum values of queue time and the CDF (Cumulative Distribution Function),
with which it is possible to study the percentage of passengers that take certain amounts of time
in the queue.
 Service utilisation
The service utilisation is measured, for each counter/kiosk inside a cluster, through the
relationship between the time it is being used over the total time it is opened. The numerator is
the sum of the times each counter is serving a passenger, divided by the total number of counters
in that cluster. The dominator is the sum of the time the counters have to be opened for each
56
flight, knowing that the counters open 180 minutes before the flight departure and close 45
minutes before the flight departure. It is a variable analysed for each cluster of counters/kiosks
separately.
5.2.3 - Agents
As it was stated before, the agents in the present model are the passengers, the check-
in and baggage drop counters and the check-in kiosks. Each agent has a set of different attributes
and interactions they have to perform during the model.
Passengers
At the moment of their creation, passengers are given two main attributes: a check-in
type, and a flight.
With the check-in type, passengers will know which is the agent they will have to address
to perform the check-in:
 Check-in Economic: passengers that perform the check-in in an economic counter;
 Check-in Business: passengers that perform the check-in in a business counter;
 Curbside: passengers that perform the check-in in a curbside counter;
 Kiosk Check-in Only: passengers that attend a kiosk only to perform the check-in;
 Kiosk Two: passengers that attend a kiosk to perform the check-in and print a
baggage tag;
 Kiosk One: passengers that attend a kiosk to perform the check-in, print a baggage
tag and drop the baggage, all in the same kiosk;
 Online: passengers that arrive to the airport with their flight already checked in.
By knowing the flight they will attend, all its aspects will be known by the passengers,
such as the company, flight number, departure time and the check-in or baggage-drop counter
they will have to attend.
Every passenger walks at an average speed of 1 m/s.
Check-in and baggage-drop counters
There are four different types of agents among the counters, and each of them behaves
in a different way, mainly in terms of process time and location: check-in economic counters,
check-in business counters, curbside counters and baggage-drop counters.
As it was mentioned earlier, different counters attend different check-in types and different
companies, with different processing times.
Check-in Kiosks
Check-in kiosks are scattered throughout the model area. There are two types of kiosk.
In one of them the kiosk houses two different types of check-in, varying in the matter that only
57
passengers from two companies – TAP and United Airlines – can perform the check-in and print
their baggage tags while the others can only perform the check-in. The ones that print the
baggage tag will take longer than the others to finish the service. The other type of kiosks – Kiosk
One – are a total self-service kiosk, where passengers may perform the check-in, print the
baggage tag and drop the baggage.
5.2.4 - Range of view of the Simulation
In parallel with the construction of the model structure and logic, a model animation was
created so to make the model easier to understand, to detect possible mistakes and to make it
visually more attractive. Therefore, specific parts of the model will be presented further.
The range of view of the present model was defined as a full day of flights – from 00h00
of the 07/08/2015 to 22h10 of the same day – encompassing all the flights, airlines and
passengers present on Lisbon’s Airport Terminal 1, being served by up to 4 different check-in
services throughout the arrivals and check-in area. The image in the Annex 1 illustrates totality of
the graphical area of the airport that influences the model, including the check-in methods that
are presently in use in the airport.
The area in which the agents will work is a representation of the Lisbon’s Airport Terminal
1 entrance and check-in hall, their services, check-in and baggage-drop counters, kiosks and the
pathway to the security area.
All five entrances are represented in the model and four service areas are included. Three
entrances can be seen in the following image, represented as the green lines, and one service
area, represented as the dotted square. Passengers who will perform check-in in a counter and
arrive earlier than the time stated for the check-in counters to open will wait in one of the service
areas. When their check-in opens, they receive that information and head to their designated
check-in counter.
Figure 27 – Graphical representation of one of the entrance areas. All entrance areas are represented in
sub-chapter 5.2.2
58
The counters and the kiosks, also represented graphically through a line with arrows
(queues) and circles (counters), have a similar representation, although it varies in colour, number
of service points and configuration of the queue. The blue blocks represent the check-in economic
counters, the red represents the check-in business counters, the purple represents the baggage-
drop counters, the green ones, also visible on the previews image, represent the kiosks, yellow
ones would represent the Kiosk Ones and the ones in black, the curbside counters. Passengers
will enter the queue and, if a counter/kiosk is free, they will seize it and perform the check-
in/baggage-drop. If it is not, they will wait in the queue for their turn.
There are 14 different clusters of counters to serve the 28 companies. The grouping of
the companies was made based on observation and personal assumptions.
The 8 clusters of kiosks are located on the same place they are in real life.
Figure 28 – Graphical representation of counters and kiosks
After the check-in is performed and the baggage, if it is the case, checked, passengers
will head to the security hall, leaving the model, represented by the green line in the following
image.
Figure 29 – Graphical representation of the exit area
5.2.5 – Verification and Validation of the model
According to North and Macal (2007, pp 221), an untested model should not be used for
its outcomes have no value whatsoever. So that it can be considered appropriate, used and
59
accepted, it must first pass through a phase of verification and validation. Quoting the authors
“There is a sense that a model that has not been validated, is not ready for prime time”.
The issue lies whether a model can be completely verified or validated, and in accordance
with the same authors, any model is rarely ever verified, regardless the nature and amount of
tests being able, at best, to gain confidence on the model’s outcome. This comes from the fact
that models are a basal representation of reality, making verification and validation an issue of
credibility and judgement. (Sterman, 2000)
As it was said by Carson II (2002), verification and validation refer to different concepts
despite being done in parallel. Validation looks to guarantee that the model delivers an adequate
representation of the behaviour of the real world by controlling the techniques, steps and
processes (North & Macal, 2007, pp 222). Verification looks to assure that the model as an
appropriate behaviour in accordance with the initial assumptions and verifications through the
control of its techniques, steps and processes (North & Macal, 2007, pp 221).
Looking at each part separately, as stated by Reis (2010), verification worries with the
central part of the model, if every task that was specified initially is performed and if it is running
with no mistakes. Many tests were made to ensure the verification of the present model. The main
ones will be listed below:
 The model verification was ensured after running the model for 10 times;
 Debugging the model, using the debugging tools provided in the program, so to make
sure that there were no bugs in the final model;
 Every function and part of the model was tested separately and with the full model,
while it was being constructed all the way through to the end of it, making it easier
to identify and amend any error that occurred. It is obvious that an error in a single
part can provoke the model’s breakdown;
 Stress testing the model to ensure it would not breakdown in any circumstances;
 The documentation of every step of the model, while they were being created made
it possible for the model to be clear to any reader;
 The constant review by the model’s supervisors, that gave a tremendous help to
assure the model had no errors and was created in the best way possible.
 The queue lines for every counter or kiosk were nor to long nor too short for the
process.
 All passengers were correctly generated and processed in accordance with the
patterns introduced in the model.
 There were not any passengers executing the check-in after the closing time of the
airline counters.
 The range of the service time at the counters was never exceeded, according to the
maximum and minimum values introduced in the model.
60
As for the part of validation, and as it was mentioned earlier, it is meant to assure the
model represents the real world adequately. The validation techniques adopted in the present
thesis were based in the proposal of North & Macal (2007, pp 227) and Reis (2010):
a) Requirements Validation (the model should interpret questions and requirements of the real
world)
- Its specifications were described throughout chapter 5.
b) Data Validation (the data used in the model should be accurate)

- As it was explained earlier, the data is from the real world and was obtained by the
author itself, and was respected by the program during every run of the model.
c) Face Validation (ensuring the accuracy of the assumption of the model)

- Every assumption of the model comes from the real world, through the author’s
observation and was respected by the program during every run of the model.
d) Process Validation (assuring that the processes in the model correspond to real world
processes)
- The architecture of the model replicates the check-in process, including their queue
type, of every different type of check-in in the Lisbon Airport’s Terminal 1.
According to Ashford, Mumayiz & Wright (2011), the time a passenger spends in a queue
for an economic check-in counter should always be less than 30 minutes – according to Kalakou
(2012), this time should never exceed 15 minutes for 90 % of the passengers – and for a business
check-in counter, less than 5 minutes. These values were never exceeded in any run of the model.
Using the validation techniques mentioned above and knowing that some unnecessary
activities that generally occur after and in parallel with the model time span were ignored, the
author considers that the model is adequately validated.
Through the means of a reunion, that took place on the 24th of Septembre with Dr. Ruas
Alves, board advisor for ANA Aeroportos de Portugal in their headquarters in Lisbon, where the
model was presented, the parameters and all its assumptions chosen, as well as all the inputs
and outputs, were discussed and rearranged when there was the necessity for it, thus further
validating the model.
Sensitivity analysis
A sensitivity analysis had to be done so that one may estimate the impact when varying
the maximum and minimum service time at counters and kiosks, since no data was found
concerning this information. The values mentioned in the present chapter were chosen after this
sensitivity analysis was made and so to ensure the verification of the present model.
61
Program Limitations
AnyLogic can be and excellent program for simulation models but it still has some
limitations that influenced the model. For example:
 When a passenger walks to a queue, it always goes straight to the end of queue,
ignoring its shape and passing over it. So that a passenger passes through the all
length of the queue before arriving at its end, barriers should be made along the
queue, but due to the design of the model’s area, this was not possible for
passengers would always find a way around to reach the end of the queue.
 If a great amount of passengers arrive at the same time at some point – the problem
in particular was when arriving at the queue of TAP baggage drop counters – they
come in a swarm-like group thus creating many problems when trying to follow the
queue. So to make them enter in order in the queue, a funnel had to be created near
the beginning of the same.
5.2.6 - Proposal of an intervention to increase the level of service of the check-in

sub-process
As the title of the present dissertation suggests, improvements to the check-in sub-
process should be found. For this end, three different intervention scenarios were chosen, based
on the main problems/limitations observed on the base scenario and discussed with Dr. Ruas
Alves, board advisor for ANA, on the meeting at ANA headquarters, on the 24th September
2015.
The intervention applied in the case study was the rearrangement of the check-in services
in the terminal building, namely the location and number of kiosks, check-in and baggage drop
counters and the encouragement to use self-service check-in methods, with the intent of
improving the check-in service without decreasing the passenger’s LOS – never exceeding the
maximum and main queue times. Nowadays, there are companies that pay for special privileges,
having a specific number of counters allocated for their use during the check-in time, or even for
long time periods, sometimes during the totality of the day – for example, Tap baggage drop
counters and Sata economic check-in and baggage drop counters – whether their service
utilisation is high or low. Also, the number of counters a company has at their disposal sometimes
exceeds their needs, for their objective is to check-in all passengers in time not having, has it was
stated before, 90% of the economy class passengers waiting more than 15 minutes in the queue.
There are also many companies that have specific counters for business passengers, and even
for first class passengers, counters that, when opened for check-in purposes, are not being used
during long time periods for there are not has many passengers flying in business and first class
as there are in economic.
62
As it was mentioned in an earlier section and discussed in the ANA meeting, the future of
check-in passes through the increased use of self-service check-in options, mainly the ones that
can process passengers outside the airport terminal, or even with new technologies that are being
tested, such as the One Stop Kiosks, mentioned in sub-chapter 2.5.2.
The three scenarios chosen will be explained below:
First Scenario
The first scenario proposed was the relocation of the kiosks in inner areas to areas near
the entrances, so to encourage the passengers to opt for this self-service check-in method rather
than the check-in counters. Apart from the incentive to use self-service check-in methods, this
proposal was based on the fact that the inner kiosks have a service utilisation considerably lower
than the kiosks near the entrances. By removing the kiosks from the inner areas, some
improvements would be found:
 The utilisation rate of every cluster of kiosks would be more homogenous, giving a
better use to the kiosks that were in the inner areas;
 By having a greater number of kiosks near the entrances, their visibility would
improve making their acceptance by the passengers higher, reducing the number of
passengers performing the check-in in counters and lowering the time in queue for
each cluster of kiosks and cluster of check-in economic counters;
 The amount of passengers in the areas where the kiosks previously were would be
less thus improving the LOS related to the space available in that area.
The kiosks removed will be relocated near each entrance according to the percentage of
passengers that comes through those entrances and the space available. A percentage of
passengers, corresponding to 8% was removed from the passengers that performed the check-
in in economic counters and given 5% to passengers who performed only the check-in in kiosks
and 3% to passengers who also printed the baggage tag.
Second Scenario
As it was stated before, the check-in kiosks in Lisbon’s Airport Terminal 1 cannot be used
by all the companies, not being a viable solution if the intent is to promote the usage of self-
service check-in methods for all companies. Although passengers can perform their check-in
through a self-service method, if a passenger has a baggage, it will always need to drop it in a
baggage drop counter. However, the present scenario of the terminal shows that only Tap and
Sata have baggage drop counters while every passenger from another company that wants to
drop a baggage will have to do so in a check-in counters, having to wait in a queue among
passengers who will not only drop the baggage, but also perform the check-in in the counter, thus
taking longer.
Therefore, the proposal for this scenario was the total elimination of the kiosks and the
replacement of some economic counters for baggage-drop counters, thus increasing the
63
percentage of passengers that perform check-in in online and decreasing the percentage of the
ones that perform in an economic counter and in a kiosk.
By creating baggage drop counters in the place of economic counters, and having a
higher percentage of passengers performing the check-in through a self-service method, the
queue time of the passengers for many of the economic service clusters will decrease for the
dropping of baggage would be decentralized. However, the queue time for baggage drop users
can either raise or drop, for there will be a higher percentage of passengers attending the baggage
drop services and there will be less counters than before – for now each service has their own
dedicated queue and counters. If there is a raise of the queue time in certain economic check-in
counters, it is related to the fact that the decrease of the percentage of passengers using this
service is not enough for the conversion of one or two counters into baggage drop counters,
leaving few counters to serve all passengers with the same LOS as in the base case scenario.
This scenario will also lead to an expansion of the free space in the terminal building for
the area occupied by the kiosks and the queues they formed would be free, leading to an
improvement in the LOS regarding the available space. Additionally, as it was stated in chapter
2.5.2, it will lead to a cost reduction for the airlines.
The kiosks were completely removed and one, two or even three baggage drop counters
were created for every cluster of companies but for the clusters that contained only two check-in
economic counters or the ones where the low-cost companies had the most flights – Royal Air
Maroc & Air Algerie, Air Europa & Aigle Azur, Ryanair and Vueling clusters – for the majority of
the low-cost passengers are assumed not to carry baggage.
To be more specific, the following table shows the number of baggage drop counters that
will be converted from economic counters in each cluster:
Turkish Airways British Airways TAAG SATA Lufthansa Air France Orbest United Airlines
1 2 3 1 3 2 2 2
Table 14 - Number of baggage drop added, by cluster of companies
The percentage of the passengers that made their check-in in a kiosk was transferred to
the online passengers, along with 10% of the passengers that performed their check-in in an
economic counter. Despites the incentive for the passengers to perform their check-in outside the
airport, some passengers that would perform the check-in in an economic counter still have
baggage to dispatch. To that end, the percentage of passengers that perform the check-in online
and will go to a baggage drop counter was raised to 83%.
Third Scenario
As it will be visible from the analysis of the base scenario, there are many aspects that
could be improved in the check-in sub-process. Some aspects were already taken into account
in the first two scenarios, reaching the intent of encouraging the self-service methods while
replacing some check-in counters into baggage drop counters. However, a further improvement
64
of the check-in service, on the behalf of the airport could be found when looking to the service
utilisation of the check-in counters and the new technologies that are already being tested.
With this in mind, the proposal for this scenario implicates the reduction of the number
and location of the check-in economic counters and a new arrangement for the economic,
business and baggage drop counters. It was assured that the queue time of the base scenario is
not exceeded.
To reach the intent of this last test, first of all, all the kiosks were removed. Then, only one
cluster of baggage drop counters, with 30 counters, was created to serve all the airlines. However,
the same aggregation was not made for the economic counters nor for the business counters, for
it is known that the airlines pay for such privileges. The number of economic and business
counters remained the same has in the scenario number 2 but for the economic counters of the
cluster of Vueling and Royal Air Maroc, where the first one lost one counter for the second and
the TAAG business cluster that was reduced to one counter.
In this last scenario, a reduction of the time in queue for both passengers that use the
check-in and baggage drop counters is expected.
The methodology that will be applied is the following:
 Exploration of the effects derived by the proposals made in each scenario.
 Examination of the base case scenario, that represents the situation as it was in
August 2015, comparing the following efficiency indicators with the ones obtained in
each scenario:
 Service Utilisation for counters and kiosks;
 Distribution of waiting times for passengers in each check-in zone.
65
66
Chapter 6 – CASE STUDY RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

The simulation of the model, with the intent of exploring different possibilities for the
improvement of the sub-process was made for the base scenario and for all three test scenarios.
The results will be presented in separate sections for each one of the scenarios.
6.1 – Base case Scenario
The simulation of the current conditions of the airport’s operations was conducted as the
base case scenario. The locations of all the counters and kiosks can be checked in Annex 2.
The results achieved in the model were satisfactory, having in mind the statements made
in the previous chapter. It is visible on table 18 of Annex 2 that the clusters of kiosks nearer the
entrances that had the great majority of passengers entering through them – Metro, Main, Stairs
and Bar – are the ones chosen by the vast majority. Knowing that the kiosks are opened over the
total time of the model, the higher percentage of the service utilisation4 of a single kiosk was 19%,
however, it is visible that the kiosks in the inner areas are not as used as the ones near the
entrances, for their maximum service utilisation was of 6%. Through the analysis of the time in
queue, the clusters of kiosks most affected where the ones in the inner areas with the lesser
number of kiosks, where 25% of the passengers took more than 45 seconds to be served, and
the maximum time a passenger was in a queue was 10:30 minutes, while in the four clusters
mentioned above, 90% of the passengers took less than 45 seconds and the maximum time in
queue was of 6 minutes. The vast amount of passengers that use the check-in kiosks were flying
with Tap, who does not provide any check-in economic counters, making the passengers use a
kiosk to perform the check-in.
As for the check-in economic counters, as it can be seen in table 15 of Annex 2, 90% of
the passengers took a maximum of 3 minutes waiting in a queue, while the maximum time
achieved to perform the check-in varied from cluster of counters between 2:15 min and 15
minutes. These high maximum times where achieved during the peak periods of the day. It is also
evident that the service utilisation of a single counter, during the time the check-in for a flight is
opened, was not high for any cluster of counters, reaching a maximum of 27% in the Sata cluster.
It was also noted, during the model run time, that a swarm of passengers formed at the beginning
of the queues for the Orbest and Ryanair clusters, due to the high percentage of passengers
performing the check-in in economic counters in relation with the lack of space behind the queue.
4 As it was explained earlier, the service utilisation of a kiosk/counter is the relation

between the time it is being used over the total time it is opened.
67
In the check-in business counters, where the data can be access in table 16 of Annex 2
the totality of the passengers waited less than 3 minutes, and even in some clusters, the totality
of passengers waited less than 45 seconds. However, their service utilisation is low, passing the
barrier of 10% only in the Sata cluster with 12%.
As for the passengers who had baggages to drop, as it is visible in the table 17 of Annex
2 the maximum time passengers waited in a queue was of 9:45 minutes, but the times varied from
cluster to cluster of counters, having for example Royal Air Maroc and Air Algerie where the totality
of passengers wait less than 45 seconds, or Turkish Airways, Euro Atlantic, Privilege Style &
TACV where only 50% of the passengers took less than 45 seconds in the queue. Tap had the
great majority of passengers performing baggage drop, for they have the majority of flights in the
daily schedule and do not offer check-in counters service, as it was stated earlier. However, 95%
of their passengers took less than 45 seconds waiting in a queue, having a maximum of 3 minutes.
Tap and Sata are the only companies with baggage drop only counters, and their service
utilisation is low, having only 5% for the Tap cluster and 10% for the Sata. The percentage of
passengers from low-cost companies that performed baggage drop was ignored for it was a
considerably low value and irrelevant for the case study.
6.2 –Scenario 1
The results obtained in the present scenario were the ones expected and they are listed
in Annex 3. With the relocation of the less used kiosks to the clusters near the entrances where
the great majority of the passengers enter the airport, the queue time for almost every kiosk
dropped and their service utilisation was more homogeneous, as it is visible in table 23 of Annex
3. Only in the cluster of kiosks near the Park 2 entrance did the total time waiting raise, proving
that clusters of kiosks with a low number of kiosks is not always the best option.
However, even with this change in the kiosks, the time in queue for the check-in economic
counters and the business counters did not suffer any major improvements, nor did their service
utilisation percentages. The only cluster of counters that had a major improvement was the Sata
cluster, for it had baggage drop counters, and the passengers that decided to make their check-
in in a kiosk and dispatch their baggage did not have to wait in the same queue has the
passengers who wanted to perform the check-in in a counter. The Tap baggage drop cluster of
counters remained the same.
6.3 –Scenario 2
Such as the results in the last scenario, the results in the present scenario where the ones
expected. As it can be seen in table 25 of Annex 4, the queue time on the economic counter
68
clusters where the passengers had to wait longer – Turkish Airlines, TAAG and Orbest –
decreased greatly, while the other clusters did not have any important increase nor decrease.
And as it was expected, the service utilisation for almost every cluster of counters dropped, for
there was a lesser percentage of passengers performing check-in in economic counters.
As for the baggage drop, table 26 of Annex 4 shows that in the baggage drop service,
almost every cluster had improvements, especially the Turkish Airlines cluster, where 90% of the
passengers waited less than 45 seconds in a queue, while in the base case, only 25% of the
passengers waited 45 seconds and 90% of the passengers had to wait at least 4:30 minutes.
From the nine clusters, only two did not improve in terms of the time in queue – TAAG and SATA
clusters – but Sata service utilisation percentage doubled, for there were more passengers with
the intent to drop their baggage. The service utilisation of every new cluster of baggage drop
counters did not go over 16%.
6.4 –Scenario 3
Alike the last two scenarios, as shown in Annex 5, the results for the present one were
the expected. With a new common use baggage drop cluster of counters, encompassing 30
counters, the time in queue for every passenger dropped, in comparison with the passengers who
performed baggage drop in the base case scenario who, apart from Sata and Tap passengers,
were mixed in among the passengers who performed check-in in the counters. Even in
comparison with the last scenario, where there were more clusters of baggage drop counters, did
the time in queue wait decrease, despite the total number of baggage drop counters being less,
dropping from 39 to 30 counters. When analysing the service utilisation percentage, it is visible
that it is still a low percentage.
As it was expected from the reduction of passengers who wanted to perform the check-
in in a counter, due to the raising of the self-service methods, the time in queue for the check-in
economic counters also dropped, for the total number of passengers for those counters also
dropped.
6.5 – Discussion of the results obtained
Different points of view had to be considered and explored so to reach the objectives
proposed by the dissertation. Starting with the literature review, where different methodologies
based on different principles used by different authors to represent real world case studies was
examined and with it, the importance of the simulation methodology was revealed due to its
capacity to represent the real world with a high level of detail through the Discrete Event
Simulation methodology. Therefore to build the model, the terminal building and the various
check-in methods active and their organization inside the airport were analysed and represented
as well as the flight schedule of an entire day. The correct representation of the real world is of
69
the highest importance so that the real world problems can be interpreted and solutions can be
found, and to that end literature research was examined and on-site observations were made.
The model in question, developed in AnyLogic software, was the core of the present dissertation,
and through it, three different scenarios were tested and through their analysis, the proposed
intervention was verified.
On the first scenario, where the focus were the kiosks alongside with the increase of the
self-service check-in methods (in detriment of performing in check-in counters), with the intent of
decreasing the total time spent in queue for both, the results were satisfactory for the purpose. It
was visible that an increment of the self-service check-in methods must come along with baggage
drop dedicated facilities, for there would be no use for the kiosks if the passengers that performed
the check-in in them and want to drop-off a baggage would have to wait in the same line as the
passengers that will perform the check-in in a counter. Another problem that made the results not
be so satisfactory is the fact that less than half of the airlines operating in the airport authorise
their passengers to perform the check-in in the kiosks. With this in mind, the time in queue for
every cluster of check-in economic counters did not suffer any relevant changes.
The second scenario brought a different insight. With the incentive to the self-service
check-in methods being undertaken through the online check-in instead of the kiosks, and with
the creation of baggage-drop counters for other companies, it was proved that the incentive for
self-service check-in methods, when accompanied by baggage drop facilities, produces efficient
results, improving the sub-process. However, the improvements were not seen in the totality of
the samples for an equilibrium between the number of check-in and baggage drop counters could
not be found for every cluster of counters, among the counters available for the airlines in
question.
Therefore, in scenario number three, a reorganization was made. Without the kiosks and
with a higher incentive for the self-service check-in methods, namely online and mobile phone, it
was proved that a section with a great amount of baggage drop counters that could be used by
all the airlines gave the best results for the sub-process decreasing the time in queue for every
cluster of check-in counters and for the baggage drop cluster. Likewise the baggage drop
counters even better results, including reduction of queue time and number of counters needed,
could be achieved for the economic and business check-in counters if the service was common
for all airlines, as it was stated by Bevilacqua & Ciarapica (2010). Tests to the business check-in
counters were not made for any of the scenarios for it is known that the airlines afford having this
distinctive service. However, alike the baggage drop, if the a common area for the business
passengers was created, the number of counters could be decreased, increasing the service
utilisation and maintaining the queue time that is already low. The One Step kiosk was not taken
into account in any test for this technology still did not pass from a test case in airports around
the world. The curbside was not taken into account either.
In the base case scenario and in every single test for every cluster of counters, the service
utilisation did not ever surpass the 30% barrier. This fact is due to the static allocation of counters,
70
where every counter is opened during the total time the check-in is opened for a flight of a certain
cluster.
A table with the overview of every scenario, their advantages and disadvantages will be
presented below.
Variables at issue Advantages Disadvantages

- Queue time for cluster of - Shows the importance of - Does not bring many changes
kiosks dropped choosing the correct placement in the check-in counters for only
- Queue time for check-in of kiosks in the airport and the 12 airlines let passengers
Scenario 1 economic counters number of kiosks in each cluster perform check-in in kiosks
remained the same - Static allocation of counters,
- Service utilisation of not being able to achieve a
kiosks more homogenous better service utilisation
- Queue time for the - Shows the importance for self- - Not enough counters in the
passengers performing service check-in methods airport to meet the perfect
baggage drop and - Shows that online method is a relation between number of
economic check-in in more viable option than kiosks counters needed for baggage
Scenario 2
some airlines decreased - Shows the importance of drop and economic check-in
- Service utilisation of baggage drop counters when - Static allocation of counters,
every cluster of counters improving self-service check-in not being able to achieve a
dropped methods better service utilisation
- Queue time for all - Shows the importance of a - Static allocation of counters,
passengers performing baggage drop common facility not being able to achieve a
economic check-in and when improving the self-service better service utilisation
Scenario 3 baggage drop decreased check-in methods
- Service utilisation for
every cluster was below
20%
Table 15 – Discussion of different scenarios
71
72
Chapter 7 – CONCLUSION
The final chapter of the dissertation at hand compiles the main achievements, conclusions
and limitation of the present work and brings together a list of approaches that could be taken into
account in future researches.
Starting with a succinct summary, the present research work focused on the check-in
sub-process, one of the security sub-processes that is a vital part of the passenger’s voyage
through the airport, with the author claiming that money time and stress could be reduced if the
sub-process was to be improved. This need for improvement was precisely the motivation for the
research work.
As it was explained in chapter 2.5, check-in is one of the main sub-processes that every
single passenger has to traverse to continue its journey through the airport. Therefore, as it was
mentioned above, it is a phase that involves a lot of money, with specific equipment and staff
being needed to perform the sub-process, and a lot of time, for every passenger is obliged to
pass through it, with the already known fact that the loss of time is one of the major factors for
stress among passengers. It is also known that time is a major factor to evaluate the airport’s
LOS, especially the amount of time needed to perform a certain process/sub-process. Having this
in mind, the objective of the research project was to contribute to the improvement of the sub-
process at issue.
Through the analysis of the current scenario that can be observed in Lisbon’s Airport
Terminal 1, it was considered that a boost for the self-service check-in methods that can be
performed outside the airport accompanied by an improvement in the baggage drop service was
the right option for the improvement of the sub-process. The self-service check-in methods are
proposed in various ways – through kiosks inside the airport, mobile applications or via the
internet – while the baggage drop service can target each airline separately or a cluster of airlines.
So to understand how to generate this improvement, the understanding of the airport operations
as they are in real life was imperative.
With the research work characterized, Chapter 2 had the objective to give an insight of
the airport, its process, sub-process, agents and quality indicators so to have a better
understanding of the work at hand. A focus was given to the check-in sub-process and the agents
that interact in it, underlining the different types of check-in existent and others that are being
tested.
At the same time, on Chapter 3, the method through which the scenario of the present
activities of the airport and each case scenario was going to be tested was analysed, explained
and compared with other methods such as Queueing Theory, Simulation, Integer Programming
and Survey Analysis. Research works from many different authors based on each method were
presented and analysed, reaching the conclusion that Simulation with a Discrete Event
methodology that encompasses Agent Based characteristics was the right option for the present
research work, due to its complexity and accuracy to represent the real world.
73
Chapter 7 – CONCLUSION
With the method that was going to be used finally defined, a presentation of the case
study and the methodology used was made in Chapter 4 and 5. It started with the examination of
the facilities that were present in the terminal building, from the entrances to check-in facilities
and the passengers, being this last one the main agent of the model to be constructed. On
Chapter 5, the objectives of the model, its structure and the agents involved were meticulously
examined, as well as the range of view of the simulation. In sub-chapter 5.2.2, the main variables
to be tested were declared, and they were the following:
 Queue time: measured from the time a passenger enters the queue to the moment
it leaves the queue to be served.
 Service Utilisation: measured, for each counter/kiosk inside a cluster, through the
relationship between the time it is being used over the total time it is opened.
Continuing on Chapter 5, the tests that ensure the verification of the model were
presented. And finally, in sub-chapter 5.2.6, the different case scenarios that would be analysed
and compared with the base case scenario were stated. A set of four experiments was made:
Base case scenario – the representation of the real world as it is today, its purpose was
to represent the actual airport’s conditions;
Scenario 1 – decentralization of the kiosks with an enhancement for this particular self-
service check-in method;
Scenario 2 – elimination of the kiosks and placement of a stronger focus on the online
check-in self-service method while emphasizing the importance of the baggage drop facilities;
Scenario 3 – an even stronger focus was given to the online check-in self-service method
with the creation of a common baggage drop facility.
The results, advantages and disadvantages of the simulation assessment were displayed
and discussed in Chapter 6. The outcomes can be summarized as follows:
 Although kiosks are a self-service check-in method, their influence for the sub-
process improvement is not relevant for few companies let their passengers perform
the check-in in them;
 A stronger focus should be given for the self-service check-in methods that can be
performed outside the airport, accompanied by an equal strong focus for the
baggage drop facilities, especially if this baggage drop facility is of common use.
The hypothesis were tested and the framework was validated based in the proposal of
North & Macal (2007, pp 227) and Reis (2010), as it was explained in sub-chapter 5.2.5.
Recalling the motivation and objective of the present dissertation, to find improvements
of the check in operations at the Terminal 1 of the Airport of Lisbon, and considering the results
presented, it may be considered that the research work met the proposed objective, with its main
conclusion being as follows:
74
 Self-service check-in methods are the future of the check-in sub-process, and
alongside, a strong focus should be given for baggage drop facilities and its
improvement.
Despite having valuable results, the current study has its own limitations and could
achieve more accurate results if the following approaches were taken into account:
 The services that exist between the airport entrance and the security area, such as
coffee shops, magazines, toilets were not represented, and such elements could
influence the model’s results. Accidental occasions, such as the cancel of a flight,
passengers with oversize baggage or even passengers that take too long to be
served were also not taken into account.
 The values of the check-in times, the allocation of counters, the number of
passengers and the information for each flight could be more precise, for the values
that were used were not exact, due to the difficulty there is to obtain this information.
A fluctuation in these variables could affect the results significantly. Also, some
consideration should be given to the delays of the flights, for this factor could also
influence greatly the statistical information of the model.
 Due to the fact that it was not possible to obtain any information regarding costs of
any activity of the airport, the present study did not focus on the financial part of the
sub process.
Finally, the current model could be further improved if the following concepts were
considered:
 A flexible allocation would better represent the real world scenario. This means that,
in contrast with the present model, where a static allocation of the counters was
considered, the number of counters would vary during the day according to the time
of the flights and the number of passengers for each flight. This fact would improve
the service utilisation of each counter.
 A longer time period should be examined. If more than one day was to be examined,
the data gathered could be interpolated thus increasing the accuracy and leading to
more accurate results.
 More realistic values could be achieved if the limitations presented above were to be
implemented in the model.
75
76
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Airportwatch. (2012, October 22). European airports, like those in UK, make large part of their
income as shopping centres. Retrieved January 3, 2015, from Airportwatch:
http://www.airportwatch.org.uk/2012/10/late-arrival-lands-bid-for-gatwick-lysander/
ANA. (2015). Lisbon Airport: Departures. Retrieved from ANA: http://www.ana.pt/en-
US/Aeroportos/lisboa/Lisboa/Departures/FlightInformation/Pages/FlightInformation.aspx
ANA, A. d. (2015). About the Airport. Retrieved from Ana Aeroportos de Portugal:
http://www.ana.pt/en-
US/Aeroportos/lisboa/Lisboa/TheAirport/AbouttheAirport/Pages/AbouttheAirport.aspx
AnyLogic. (2015). About Us. Retrieved from AnyLogic: http://www.anylogic.com/about-us
AnyLogic. (2015). Agent Based Modeling. Retrieved from AnyLogic:
http://www.anylogic.com/agent-based-modeling
AnyLogic. (2015). Discrete Event Simulation Modeling. Retrieved from AnyLogic:
http://www.anylogic.com/discrete-event-simulation
AnyLogic. (2015). Features. Retrieved from AnyLogic: http://www.anylogic.com/features
AnyLogic. (2015). System Dynamics. Retrieved from AnyLogic: http://www.anylogic.com/system-
dynamics
Appelt, S., Lin, L., & Hall, B. (2007). Simulation of passenger check-in at a medium-sized us
airport. Proceedings of the 2007 Winter Simulation Conference, 1252-1260.
doi:10.1109/WSC.2007.4419729
Ashford, N., Mumayiz, S., & Wright, P. (2011). Airport Engineering - Planning, Design and
Development of 21st-century airports. Canada: John Wiley & Sons, INC.
Ashford, N., Stanton, H., & Moore, C. (1997). Airport Operations. New York: McGraw-Hill.
ASP. (2014). Airport Cities Asia Pacific. Retrieved January 3, 2015, from About Airport Cities:
http://www.airportcities.aero/content/About-Airport-Cities
Bag Drop kiosk. (2014). Retrieved March 19, 2015, from ARINC:
http://www.commonbagdrop.aero/applications-of-express-drop/bag-drop-kiosk
Bevilacqua, M., & Ciarapica, F. (2010). Analysis of Check-in procedure using simulation : a case
study. Proceedings of the 2010 IEEE IEEM II., 1621-1625. doi:10.1109/IEEM.2010.5674286
Bruno, G., & Genovese, A. (2010). A Mathematical Model for the Optimization of the Airport
Check-In Service Problem. Electronic Notes in Discrete Mathematics, 703-710.
doi:10.1016/j.endm.2010.05.089
Burke, E., & Kendall, G. (2005). Search Methodologies - Introductory Tutorials in Optimization
and Decision Support Technics. New York: Springer US.
Cambridge Dictionaries. (2015). Cambridge Dictionaries Online. Retrieved May 12, 2015, from
Cambridge Dictionaries Online: http://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/business-
english/queuing-theory
Carson II, J. (2002). MODEL VERIFICATION AND VALIDATION. Proceedings of the 2002 Winter
Simulation Conference (pp. 52 - 58). U.S.A.: IEEE.
Chang, H.-L., & Yang, C.-H. (2008). Do airline self-service check-in kiosks meet the needs of
passengers? Tourism Management, 980-993. doi:10.1016/j.tourman.2007.12.002
77
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Chun, H. W., & Way, R. T. (1999). Intelligent Resource Simulation for an Airport Check-In Counter
Allocation System. IEEE Transactions on Systems Man and Cybernetics Part C, 325-335.
doi:10.1109/5326.777069
Cooper, R. (1981). Introduction to Queueing Theory. 52 Vanderbilt Avenue, New York, New York
10017: North Holland.
Coutinho, M., & Partidário, M. (n.d.). História de um processo de decisão: o Novo aeroporto de
Lisboa. Retrieved from http://www.apai.org.pt/m1/1226941490sub.73.pdf.pdf
de Neufvile, R., & Odoni, A. (2013). Airport Systems - Planning, Design and Management. New
York: McGraw-Hill Education.
Dijk, N. v., & Sluis, E. v. (2006). Check-in computation and optimization by simulation and IP in
combination. European Journal of Operational Research, 1152-1168.
doi:10.1016/j.ejor.2005.01.023
Esteban, P. D. (2008). Check-in process at Lisbon Airport. Masters Thesis. Lisboa, Portugal:
Instituto Superior Técnico.
Faria, F. (2015, 03). Restructuring of Logistics Processes: Case Study of Order Picking at
Terminal C2 of Grupo Luís Simões. Master Thesys. Lisbon, Lisbon: IST.
Flightradar24. (2015). Flightradar24. Retrieved from Flightradar24: http://www.flightradar24.com
Future Travel Experience. (2013). The future of self-service bag drop – traditional, home-printed
or permanent bag tags? Retrieved March 19, 2015, from Future Travel Experience:
http://www.futuretravelexperience.com/2013/07/future-of-self-service-bag-drop-traditional-home-
printed-or-permanent-bag-tags/
Future Travel Experience. (2014, October 16). Asia’s airports and airlines embrace self-service,
roaming agents and mobile technology to improve the passenger experience on the ground.
Retrieved March 19, 2015, from Future Travel Experience:
http://www.futuretravelexperience.com/2014/10/self-service-gains-traction-with-asian-airports-
and-airlines/#
Future Travel Experience. (2015). Twenty self-service bag drops go live at Paris CDG. Retrieved
March 19, 2015, from Future Travel Experience:
http://www.futuretravelexperience.com/2015/03/twenty-self-service-bag-drops-go-live-at-paris-
cdg/
Graham, A. (2014). Managing Airports - An international perspective. 2 Park Square, Milton Park,
Abingdon, NY 10016: Routledge.
Helmenstine, A. (2015). Theory Definition. Retrieved from About Education:
http://chemistry.about.com/od/chemistryglossary/g/theory-definition.htm
Horonjeff, R., McKelvey, F., Sproule, W., & Young, S. (1994). Planning and Design of Airports.
(Fifth, Ed.) USA: McGraw-Hill.
Hsu, C.-I., Chao, C.-C., & Shih, K.-Y. (2012). Dynamic allocation of check-in facilities and dynamic
assignment of passengers at air terminals. Computers & Industrial Engineering, 410-417.
doi:10.1016/j.cie.2012.0
Institute for Simulation and Training. (2014). University of Central California - Institute for
Simulation and Training - What is M&S? Retrieved December 15, 2014, from
http://www.ist.ucf.edu/background.htm at 01 November 2014
78
International Air Transport Association. (2008). Retrieved from

http://www.iata.org/whatwedo/stb/Documents/CUSS-ImpGuide-2ndEd-Dec2008.pdf at 02
November 2014
J. Appold, S., & D. Kasarda, J. (2011). Seeding growth at airports and airport cities: Insights from
the two-sided. Research in Transportation Business & Management, 10.
JetBlue. (2015, 03 14). Curbside Check-in. Retrieved from JetBlue:
http://www.jetblue.com/travel/jfk/
Joustra, P., & Dijk, N. V. (2001). Simulation of check-in at airports. Proceedings of the 2001 Winter
Simulation Conference, 1023-1028. doi:10.1109/WSC.2001.977409
Kalakou, S. (2012). Performance Evaluation of Passenger-related Processes at an Airport with a
Simulation Model Acknowledgments. Masters Thesis. Lisbon, Portugal: Instituto Superior
Técnico.
Kazda, A., & E. Caves, R. (2007). Airport Design and Operations (1ª ed.). Linacre House, Jordan
Hill, Oxford OX2 8DP, U.K.: Elsevier.
Macário, R., Reis, V., Viegas, J., & Magalhães, L. (2012, March 08). Hermes Project. High
Efficient and Reliable Arrangements for Crossmodal Transport. Lisbon: IST.
Magalhães, L. (2014, February). Depicting Airport Processes: Definitions, Activities and
Modelling. Lisbon, Portugal: Instituto Superior Técnico. Retrieved June 2015
Marković, N., Drobnjak, Z., & Schonfeld, P. (2012). Nonstationary Markov Chain Framework for
Optimizing Dedicated Check-In Service. Transport Research Board, 12-3902-1.
Norin, A. (2008). Airport Logistics – Modeling and Optimizing the Turn-Around Process. Licentiate
Thesis. Norrköping, Sweden: Linköping University.
North, M., & Macal, C. (2007). Managing Business Complexity. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Retrieved from https://www.scribd.com/doc/125469873/Managing-Business-Complexity-2007-1-
pdf
Oxford University Press. (2004). Oxford Advanced Learner's Dictionary of Current English. Great
Clarendon Street, Oxford OX26DP.
Oxford University Press. (2014). Retrieved from
http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/stochastic at 01 November 2014
Park, Y., & Ahn, S. (2003). Optimal assignment for check-in counters based on passenger arrival
behaviour at an airport. Transportation Planning and Technology, 397-416.
doi:10.1080/03081060310001635887
Parker, G., & Alstyne, M. (2013). Two-Sided Markerts. Retrieved January 3, 2015, from Platform
Economics and Strategy: http://platformeconomics.org/two-sided-markets/
Planespotters. (2015). Planespotters.net. Retrieved from Planespotters.net:
www.planespotters.net
Program, A. C. (2008). Innovations for Airport Terminal Facilities. 10. Washington D.C: Transport
Research Board.
Reis, V. (2010). DEVELOPMENT OF CARGO BUSINESS IN COMBINATION AIRLINES:
STRATEGY AND INSTRUMENT. PhD Thesis. Lisbon, Portugal: IST.
Report 10, A. (2008). Inovations for Airport Terminal Facilities. Washington D.C.: Transportation
Research Board.
79
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Sakurada, N., & Miyake, D. (2006). Aplicação de simuladores de eventos discretos no processo
de modelagem de sistemas de operações de serviços. São Paulo: Gestão e Produção.
SeatGuru. (2015). SeatGuru. Retrieved from SeatGuru: http://www.seatguru.com/
Service, P. S. (2011). Bag Drop. Retrieved 05 16, 2015, from Passenger Self Service:
http://www.passengerselfservice.com/2011/03/11/bag-drop/
SITA. (2012). 2012 Passenger Self-Service Survey Highlights. Retrieved from
http://atwonline.com/site-
files/atwonline.com/files/archive/atwonline.com/sites/files/misc/SITA_Passenger-Self-Service-
Survey-2012.pdf at 02 November 2014
Sklenar, J. (2014). Elements of Queuing Systems. Retrieved May 12, 2015, from University of
Malta: http://www.um.edu.mt/search
Sterman, J. (2000). Business Dynamics: Systems, Thinking and Modeling for a Complex World.
United States of America: Irwin McGraw-Hill.
University, N. I. (n.d.). Introduction. Retrieved 04 28, 2015, from Northern Illinois University:
http://www.niu.edu/ems/introduction/constraints.html
Vitale, W. (1980). Planning and design of airport terminal building facilitites at nonhub locations.
Washington, D. C.: Department of Transportation, Federal Aviation Administration.
Yan, S., Chang, K.-C., & Tang, C.-H. (2005). Minimizing inconsistencies in airport common-use
checking counter assignments with a variable number of counters. Journal of Air Transport
Management, 11, 107-116.
Yan, S., Tang, C.-H., & Chen, M. (2004). A model and a solution algorithm for airport common
use check-in counter assignments. Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, 101-
125. doi:10.1016/j.tra.2003.10.001
80
Appendix 1 – Model
Figure 30 - Base Case Scenario Terminal model blueprint
Total No.
Company Time Reference
Passengers
KLM Royal Dutch Airlines 04:00 KL1692 176
Air France 05:00 AF1125 124
Deutsche Lufthansa, AG 05:10 LH1793 165
TAP Transportes Aéreos Portugueses, S.A. 05:45 TP1050 99
81
Iberia, L.A.E. S.A. Operadora 05:55 IB3107 96

Orbest, SA 06:25 6O5501 163
Air Europa 06:30 UX1152 77
Sata Internacional Serviços e Trans. Aér 07:00 S4151 158
British Airways PLC 07:10 BA499 155
Vueling Airlines S.A. 07:45 VY1984 158
Euro Atlantic Airways 08:00 YU351 119
Ryanair Ltd 09:10 FR2623 180
United Airlines 09:25 UA917 215
82

US Airways, INC 09:55 US739 168
TAAG Linhas Aéreas de Angola 10:00 DT651 167
Turkish Airlines 10:30 TK1756 168
Air Transat 10:40 TS337 347
Brussels Airlines NV/SA 11:25 SN3816 160
Germanwings GmbH 11:45 4U2605 184
Germanwings GmbH 11:45 4U603 173
Privilege Style SA 12:15 P67953 181
Luxair SA 12:30 LG3752 127
Swiss International Airlines AG 12:55 LX2093 175
Emirates 13:25 EK192 361
Swiss International Airlines AG 13:30 LX2085 179
83

Aer Lingus PLC 14:10 EI485 160
Royal Air Maroc 14:15 AT981 114
Turkish Airlines 14:45 TK1760 140
TACV, Transportes Aéreos de Cabo Verde 15:10 VR002 207
Aigle Azur 17:30 ZI308 167
Air Algerie 17:30 AH3005 81
Brussels Airlines NV/SA 18:45 SN3820 125
84

TAAG Linhas Aéreas de Angola 20:50 DT653 173
Ryanair Ltd 21:15 FR2625 180
Table 16 - Daily Schedule of the 07 August 2015 in Lisbon's Terminal 1
85
Appendix 2 – Base case Scenario
Table 17 – Queue time for economic check-in counters
Table 18 – Queue time for business check-in counters
86
Table 19 – Queue time for baggage drop counters
Table 20 – Queue time for check-in kiosks
87
Table 21 – Service utilisation for each service
88
Appendix 3 –Scenario 1
Table 23- Queue time for business check-in counters
89
Table 25 – Queue time for check-in kiosks
90
Table 26 – Service utilisation for each service
91
92
Table 29 – Service Utilisation over the time each service is opened
93
Table 31 – Queue time Baggage Drop counters
94
Table 32 – Service Utilisation over time each service was opened
95

Dissertacao

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Dissertacao

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Micro-simulation of check-in operations: case study of

Terminal 1 of Lisbon's Airport

Manuel Maria Santos Dias Duarte Félix

Dissertation to obtain the Master of Science Degree in

Supervisor: Doctor Vasco Domingos Moreira Lopes Miranda dos Reis

Thank you all!

Devido aos atuais desenvolvimentos tecnológicos, a veracidade que se consegue extraír

O modelo desenvolvido simula o tráfego de passageiros no terminal desde que entram

 Redução de tempos de espera

1.2 – Thesis objectives ..................................................................................................... 1

1.3 – Methodological approach ........................................................................................ 2

1.4 – Dissertation Structure .............................................................................................. 2

Chapter 2 – COMPONENTS AND ACTIVITIES OF AN AIRPORT .............................................. 5

2.2 – Characterization of Airport’s Typical Activities ........................................................ 8

2.2.1 – Aeronautical Activities ................................................................................... 8

2.2.2 – Non-Aeronautical Activities ........................................................................... 8

2.3 – Terminal ................................................................................................................... 9

2.3.1 Passengers Departure ................................................................................... 10

2.3.2 Passengers Arrival ......................................................................................... 13

2.4 – Users of the Airport ................................................................................................ 15

2.5.1 Concept and definitions ................................................................................. 17

2.5.2 Types of check-in ........................................................................................... 18

2.5.3 – Passenger’s steps for each check-in type .................................................. 21

Chapter 3 – SIMULATION IN AIRPORTS ................................................................................... 27

3.1.1 – Simulation ................................................................................................... 27

3.1.2 – Queueing Theory ........................................................................................ 30

3.1.3 – Mathematical and Integer Programming problems .................................... 32

3.1.4 – Survey Analysis .......................................................................................... 33

3.2 Important remarks .................................................................................................... 34

Chapter 4 – CASE STUDY ......................................................................................................... 37

4.1.1 – Facilities ...................................................................................................... 37

4.1.2 – Check-in Facilities....................................................................................... 38

4.1.3 – Passengers ................................................................................................. 40

4.2 – Anylogic Interface .................................................................................................. 40

Chapter 5 – METHODOLOGY: DISCRETE-EVENT SIMULATION ........................................... 43

5.2 –Model Description ................................................................................................... 45

5.2.1 – Objectives ................................................................................................... 45

5.2.2 – Model Structure .......................................................................................... 46

5.2.3 - Agents ......................................................................................................... 57

5.2.4 - Range of view of the Simulation .................................................................. 58

5.2.5 – Verification and Validation of the model ..................................................... 59

5.2.6 - Proposal of an intervention to increase the level of service of the check-in

Chapter 6 – CASE STUDY RESULTS AND DISCUSSION ........................................................ 67

6.2 –Scenario 1 .............................................................................................................. 68

6.3 –Scenario 2 .............................................................................................................. 68

6.4 –Scenario 3 .............................................................................................................. 69

6.5 – Discussion of the results obtained ........................................................................ 69

Chapter 7 – CONCLUSION ........................................................................................................ 73

CUSS – Common-use Self-Service Check-in

DUCC – Dedicated Use Check-in Counters

IATA – International Air Transport Association

IRSS – Intelligent Resource Simulation System

LOS – Level of Service

SLA – Service Level Agreements

ATB – Automated Ticket and Boarding

LCC – low cost carriers

RFID – Radio Frequency Identification Devices

IBS – Immigration and Boarder Service

1.2 – Thesis objectives

 A methodology must be elaborated to evaluate the performance of the concerned

1.3 – Methodological approach

1) Meticulous study of the operations has they are today

2) Analysis of airlines market share and daily schedule