Whole

Methodology to determine airport check-in counter
arrangements
Author:
Ahyudanari, Ervina
Publication Date:
2003
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.26190/unsworks/17978
License:
https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/3.0/au/
Link to license to see what you are allowed to do with this resource.
Downloaded from http://hdl.handle.net/1959.4/38559 in https://

unsworks.unsw.edu.au on 2024-03-03
Methodology to Determine
Airport Check-in Counter Arrangements
Submitted by
Ervina Ahyudanari
In fulfillment of the requirement for the degree of Master of Engineering,
The University of New South Wales, Sydney, Australia
2003
In the name of Allah, Most Gracious, Most Merciful
Say: "If the ocean were ink (wherewith to write out) the words of my Lord. Sooner
would the ocean be exhausted than would the words of my Lord, even if we added another
ocean like it, for its aid."
[QS Al Kahfi:109]
CONTENTS
Abstract ............................................................................................................................. v
Acknowledgements .......................................................................................................... vi
Publications .................................................................................................................... vii
List of Figures ........................................................................................................................... viii
List of Tables ................................................................................................................. IX
1 INTRODUCTION ....................................................................................................... 1
1.1 RESEARCH OVERVIEW ..................................................................................................... 1
1.2 PROJECT OBJECTIVES ..................................................................................................... 1
1.3 RESEARCH BOUNDARIES ................................................................................................ 3
1.4 STRUCTURE OF THE THESIS...…………………. …………………………...5
2 ISSUES RELATED TO CHECK-IN COUNTER SPACE ...................................... 7
2.1 INTRODUCTION OF THE MODELLING APPROACH................................................... 7
2.1.1 Method and Model Development ..................................................................... 8

2.1.2 Data Collecting ................................................................................................. 9
2.1.3 Data Manipulation ............................................................................................ 9
2.1.4 Evaluation of Case Studies ............................................................................... 9
2.2 LITERATURE REVIEW ....................................................................................................... 9
2.2.1 Passenger Characteristics ................................................................................ 10

2.2.1.1 Determine the Demand ........................................................................... 10
2.2.1.2 Space per passenger ................................................................................ 12
2.2.1.3 Level of Service ...................................................................................... 14
2.2.2 Check-in Counters .......................................................................................... 15
2.2.2.1 Size and Configuration ............................................................................ 16
2.2.2.2 Number of Check-in Counters ................................................................ 20
2.2.3 Service Time ................................................................................................... 22
i
2.2.4 Queuing System .............................................................................................. 23
2.3 EVALUATION OF EXISTING METHODS TO DETERMINE SPACE
REQUIRED ...........................................................................................................................24
2.3.1.1 IATA method .......................................................................................... 24

2.3.1.2 Other Methods......................................................................................... 25
2.4 SUMMARY............................................................................................................................25
3 DATA COLLECTION .............................................................................................. 27
3.1 INTRODUCTION .................................................................................................................27
3.2 GENERAL INFORMATION ...............................................................................................28
3.2.1 Birmingham International Airport (UK) ......................................................... 29

3.2.2 Brisbane International Airport (Australia) ...................................................... 29
3.2.3 Hong Kong International Airport (China) ....................................................... 29
3.2.4 Melbourne International Airport (Australia) ................................................... 30
3.2.5 Orlando International Airport (USA) .............................................................. 30
3.3 INPUT DATA USED IN THE PROPOSED MODEL ........................................................31
3.4 SUMMARY............................................................................................................................34
4 ESTIMATION OF ARRIVAL DISTRIBUTION ................................................... 36
4.1 INTRODUCTION .................................................................................................................36
4.2 THE CONCEPT ....................................................................................................................37
4.3 IATA DISTRIBUTION FOR ARRIVAL EARLINESS ......................................................38
4.4 PASSENGER DISTRIBUTION PROGRAM DEVELOPMENT .......................................41
4.4.1 Arrival Distribution Worksheet ...................................................................... 42

4.4.2 Input Data Worksheet ..................................................................................... 43
4.4.3 Daily Worksheet ............................................................................................. 43
4.4.4 Summarize Worksheet .................................................................................... 45
4.4.5 Chart ............................................................................................................... 48
4.5 PROGRAM EXECUTION ...................................................................................................49
4.6 SUMMARY............................................................................................................................52
ii
5 MODEL DEVELOPMENT:TIME BLOCK SYSTEM ......................................... 54
5.1 INTRODUCTION .................................................................................................................54
5.2 BACKGROUND ....................................................................................................................56
5.3 MODEL CONCEPT .............................................................................................................57
5.4 METHODOLOGY ................................................................................................................60
5.4.1 Review The Elements Involved ...................................................................... 60

5.4.2 Expected Output ............................................................................................. 61
5.4.3 Module Design................................................................................................ 61
5.4.4 Develop Suitable Formulae ............................................................................ 61
5.4.4.1 Determining Queue Length and Waiting Time ....................................... 61
5.4.4.2 Determining Number of Servers ............................................................. 63
5.4.5 Optimization Tool ........................................................................................... 66
5.5 PROGRAM DEVELOPMENT .............................................................................................67
5.5.1 Central Module ............................................................................................... 67

5.5.1.1 Module description ................................................................................. 68
5.5.1.2 Program execution (without optimization) ............................................. 70
5.5.2 Queuing Module ............................................................................................. 76
5.5.3 Waiting Time Module..................................................................................... 78
5.5.4 Optimization Module ...................................................................................... 80
5.6 SUMMARY............................................................................................................................83
6 SIMULATION MODEL ........................................................................................... 86
6.1 INTRODUCTION .................................................................................................................86
6.2 PREVIOUS RELATED WORK ...........................................................................................86
6.3 THE CONCEPT ....................................................................................................................88
6.4 METHODOLOGY ................................................................................................................89
6.4.1 Problem Statement .......................................................................................... 89

6.4.2 Collection of Data and Definition of the Model.............................................. 90
6.4.3 Selecting Simulation Program Language ........................................................ 90
iii
6.4.4 Simulation Program Development .................................................................. 91
6.4.5 Verification ...................................................................................................... 91
6.5 THE DEVELOPMENT OF SIMULATION PROGRAM ...................................................91
6.5.1 Generating Customers ..................................................................................... 92

6.5.1.1 Generating Customer from Timetable .................................................... 94
6.5.1.2 Generating Customers Using Random Number ...................................... 96
6.5.2 Simulation Procedure ...................................................................................... 97
6.5.3 Program Execution Process ........................................................................... 101
6.6 VERIFICATION PROCESS ..............................................................................................103
6.7 SUMMARY..........................................................................................................................107
7 MODEL EVALUATION ........................................................................................ 109
7.1 INTRODUCTION ...............................................................................................................109
7.2 COMPARISONS OF RESULTS ........................................................................................110
7.2.1 Comparison between the Real Situation and Program Results .................... 110
7.2.2 Waiting Time and Queue Length ................................................................. 113
7.2.3 Method Comparison ..................................................................................... 117
7.3 INFLUENCE OF DEMAND FLUCTUATION ................................................................118
7.4 INFLUENCE OF DIFFERENT EARLINESS ARRIVAL DISTRIBUTION .................120
7.5 THE INFLUENCE OF QUEUE SYSTEMS .....................................................................121
7.6 THE INFLUENCE OF SERVICE TIME .........................................................................123
7.7 INFLUENCE OF CHECK-IN COUNTER SIZES AND ARRANGEMENTS ................124
7.8 THE INFLUENCE OF COST TO THE DESIGN ............................................................124
7.9 PROGRESSIVE OPENING COUNTERS.........................................................................125
7.10 LIMITATIONS OF THE MODEL……………………………………………………. 126
7.11 FUTURE WORK...............................................................................................................127
7.12 SUMMARY........................................................................................................................128
8 CONCLUSIONS ...................................................................................................... 129
iv
REFERENCES ............................................................................................................ 132
APPENDICES
A. Raw Data
B. Passenger Arrival Distribution Program
C. Time Block Program
D. Simulation Code
E. Correspondences
v
ABSTRACT
Check-in area is an important component of airports. All passengers, except transit

passengers and remote check-in passengers, have to enter this area prior to their
departure. The convenience for passengers at this area is essential in order to gain more
customers using the airports.
In estimating the check-in counter arrangements, this thesis introduces a method that is
based on spreadsheet software packages. Two programs are developed to assist the
optimization computations. The programs provide the optimum number of servers
required at the airport. This will help airport management to select the number of
counters at a given time.
The results of the execution process of these two programs indicate the variables, such
as earliness distribution, service time, queue system, and the check in counter sizes and
configurations have strong influence to overall cost.
A number of applications have been attempted and distribution has been explored. The
results also demonstrated that under the condition imposed the multiple queue system
provides less maximum queue length but longer waiting time compared to single queue
system.
vi
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
I would like to thank Australian Government and Australian Agency for International
Development (AusAID) for providing me post-graduate research scholarship for Master by
research program. I also like to thank my university, Sepuluh Nopember Institute of
Technology, Surabaya, Indonesia for assisting me to get this scholarship. I would like to
place on records the encouragement and moral support rendered by my supervisor Dr.
Upali Vandebona. My heartfelt thanks to him for following me to choose a topic of my
choice, and the freedom given to me to pursue my research. Special thank to Mr. and Mrs
Suprayitno for their assistance in preparing my research proposal.
My very special word of thanks is due to my dear husband, my daughter, my mother and
my mother in law, also my brothers and sisters in law who had been a continuous source of
inspiration and instigated me to complete this thesis on time. This I felt all through my
study and particularly while facing real life situation. My warmest appreciation for their
sustained effort to see me complete this thesis successfully.
My deeply thank to my husband, Julendra, for the valuable suggestion, apposite comments,
and critical discussion, which came handy in developing conceptual clarity of confusing
topics. I would like to thank Pam and Alfa for their valuable time to shape this thesis in
presentable form. Also, I thank to Robert and Jong for their help in printing and computing
facilities.
A sincere note of thanks due to all my friends here for their great support and appreciation.
Also, a word of special gratitude to my friend Lina and her family, Rina, Anti,and Dewi for
helping me during my stressful time.
vii
PUBLICATIONS
Ahyudanari, E., 2001, ‘Space Requirement at Airport Check-in Area’, Conference of

Australian Institute of Transport Research, Institute of Transportation Studies, Monash
Univeristy, Melbourne, Australia, 11p.
Ahyudanari, E., 2002, ‘Methodology to Determine Airport Check-in Counter

Arrangement, Conference of Australian Institute of Transport Research, School of Civil
and Environmental Engineering, The University of New South Wales, Australia, 10p.
viii
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1-1 Time Block Concept........................................................................................ 2

Figure 1-2 Simulation elements ........................................................................................ 3
Figure 1-3 Departure Passengers Flow Diagram .............................................................. 4
Figure 2-1 Procedure in model development process ....................................................... 8
Figure 2-2 IATA passengers earliness pattern ................................................................ 12
Figure 2-3 Passenger dimension ..................................................................................... 14
Figure 2-4 Examples of check-in layouts........................................................................ 17
Figure 2-5 Linear type..................................................................................................... 18
Figure 2-6 Pass-through type .......................................................................................... 19
Figure 4-1 The methodology of passenger arrival distribution ....................................... 38
Figure 4-2 IATA arrival earliness distribution................................................................ 39
Figure 4-3 Relationship of arrival time for enplaning passenger.................................... 40
Figure 4-4 Adjustment patterns of arriving passenger .................................................... 41
Figure 4-5 Flow chart in preparing passenger arrival distribution .................................. 42
Figure 4-6 Daily arriving passengers .............................................................................. 49
Figure 4-7 The first stage in Summarize worksheet ........................................................ 51
Figure 4-8 Manual transfer of the passenger distribution ............................................... 52
Figure 5-1 The congestion caused by flight schedule arrangements .............................. 57
Figure 5-2 Structure of time block program ................................................................... 59
Figure 5-3 Cumulative arrivals and exits ........................................................................ 62
Figure 5-4 Concerning elements in the estimation process of number of servers .......... 64
Figure 5-5 Relationships among the four modules ......................................................... 67
Figure 5-6a Congestion at check-in area......................................................................... 74
Figure 5-6b Congestion at check-in area……………………………………………….75
Figure 5-7 Flow chart for queuing distribution process .................................................. 78
Figure 5-8 The optimization process............................................................................... 83
Figure 6-1 Simple flow diagram ..................................................................................... 88
Figure 6-2 The Simulation process ................................................................................. 92
viii
Figure 6-3 Process of generating customers ................................................................... 93
Figure 6-4 User interface to generate customers............................................................. 93
Figure 6-5 Generate customers from timetable ............................................................... 94
Figure 6-6 Estimation process of customer arrival time ................................................. 96
Figure 6-7 User interface for selecting program options ................................................ 99
Figure 6-8 Flow diagram of simulation procedures ...................................................... 100
Figure 6-9 The process in executing simulation program............................................. 102
Figure 7-1 Comparison of program results and real situation....................................... 111
Figure 7-2 Example of waiting time estimation............................................................ 114
Figure 7-3 Waiting time comparison for single queue and multiple queues ................ 115
Figure 7-4 Maximum queue length ............................................................................... 116
Figure 7-5 Queuing distributions: Hong Kong case study ............................................ 117
Figure 7-6 Maximum waiting time ............................................................................... 119
Figure 7-7 Different patterns applied in investigation .................................................. 120
Figure 7-8 Arrival distributions .................................................................................... 121
Figure 7-9 Counter sizes and arrangement comparisons .............................................. 124
Figure 7-10 Relationship between cost and number of servers .................................... 125
Figure 7-11 Number of counters needed at a particular time........................................ 125
ix
LIST OF TABLES
Table 2-1 FAA Recommended relationship for TPHP Computations from Annual
Figures (Source: Ashford, 1992) ...................................................................... 11
Table 2-2 BAA and IATA design standards for check-in areas ..................................... 13
Table 2-3 Check-in area space standard (in square metres per occupant). ..................... 15
Table 2-4 List of Check-in Counter Types and Sizes ..................................................... 20
Table 2-5 BAA and IATA service standard for check-in area.
(Source: Ashford, 1988) ................................................................................. 22
Table 3-1 General information of the selected airports .................................................. 32
Table 3-2 Data example. ................................................................................................. 33
Table 3-3 Data Summary ................................................................................................ 34
Table 4-1 IATA pattern of arrival earliness (Source: IATA, 1989) ................................ 39
Table 4-2 Adjustment time of international passengers arrival pattern .......................... 40
Table 4-3 Arrival distribution worksheet ........................................................................ 43
Table 4-4 Example for passenger arrival distribution ..................................................... 44
Table 4-5 Daily distribution ............................................................................................ 44
Table 4-6 Summarize Worksheet .................................................................................... 47
Table 4-7 Average value ................................................................................................. 48
Table 5-1 Comparison of Space Calculation Methods ................................................... 55
Table 5-2 Time block concept......................................................................................... 59
Table 5-3 Central module program ................................................................................. 69
Table 5-4 Inputs variable in Central module................................................................... 70
Table 5-5 Queuing module.............................................................................................. 76
Table 5-6 Waiting Time module ..................................................................................... 79
Table 5-7 Costs List ........................................................................................................ 81
Table 5-8 Optimization Module ...................................................................................... 81
Table 6-1 Optimization Parameter ................................................................................ 101
Table 6-2 Summaries .................................................................................................... 105
Table 6-3 Result observation based on the customer .................................................... 106
Table 6-4 Final results................................................................................................... 107
ix
Table 7-1 Applied data of the programs ....................................................................... 111
Table 7-2 Waiting time estimates (minute)................................................................... 113
Table 7-3 Comparison of IATA methods and simulation ............................................. 118
Table 7-4 Impact of daily demand variations ............................................................... 118
Table 7-5 Comparisons after applying new distribution ............................................... 121
Table 7-6 The impact of queue systems applied to the design ..................................... 122
Table 7-7 Influence of Service time .............................................................................. 123
Table 7-8 Evaluation results ......................................................................................... 128
x
1
INTRODUCTION
1.1 RESEARCH OVERVIEW
The check-in area is one of the busiest sections at airports at certain periods. The
passengers are subjected to queues and delays during the check-in process. These delays
and queues are due to constraints in the capacity of service facilities. The service
facilities for this process include the amount of floor space that accommodates the
check-in desks and passengers in queue, and the equipment assisting the check-in
process. This project focuses on the investigation of required space in check-in areas.
Several different empirical methods have been practiced for estimating the required
space in airport check-in areas. The methods are suggested by International Air
Transport Association (IATA) 1989, 1995; Federal Aviation Administration (FAA)
1988; Ralph M. Parsons Company 1975; Ashford 1988; Horonjeff et al. 1993. The
reported methods involve use of peak hour passenger flow rates and service times as
design variables. However, elements such as check-in desk sizes and configuration,
construction and operational cost, passenger arrival pattern, and queue system are
known to influence the required space that will lead to effective design of check-in area
arrangement.
1.2 PROJECT OBJECTIVES

The thesis objective is to propose a new method to estimate the airport check-in area
arrangements. This project tries to address the issue of whether above elements have a
great influence in designing check-in areas. The proposed method includes passenger-
waiting time as a parameter that accounts for the quality of service during the check-in
process. The quality of service is the degree of passenger satisfaction when receiving
1
Chapter 1 - Introduction
some services from the system. Software is designed to estimate the optimum
arrangement of check-in areas. The proposed method together with the developed
computation programs forms an analysis model that represents the nature of airport
check-in areas.
The designed software has two systems. The first system handles the arriving
passengers as groups based on time blocks. The time blocks follow the increments
period of passenger arrival distribution available. This is called time block method.
Figure 1-1 shows the block arrangement used in this method. Description of this method
is provided later in section 5.3. The second one assigns passengers as individuals in the
queue process. This is a simulation technique. Figure 1-2 show the microscopic analysis
nature of this simulation. Passengers are treated as individual entities in this method.
In the time block concept, passengers are framed in counting periods. The length of
this counting period depends on the increment period of the passenger arrival
distribution available. During the service process, the passengers are grouped into
smaller blocks. The length of smaller blocks is the same as the average service time
applied, and the capacity of the smaller block depends on the number of servers
provided. By treating arriving passengers in block fashion, the estimation of the queue
length and waiting time is also based on the block system. It is seem that this system
tends to overestimate the value of waiting time and queue length.
Counting period
Passenger
Time block
Figure 1-1 Time Block Concept
The results regarding the queue length and waiting time obtained from the simulation
technique are slightly different. The results are smaller in magnitude than the time block
results. This is caused by the way the program handles the arriving passengers.
The advantage of having two different methods is that they allow cross checking the
outputs for consistency of results. These results are then utilized to obtain the optimum
space required for the check-in process area. In reporting the optimum design, the
proposed method focuses on the number of required servers. The optimization is
2
conducted by minimizing the total cost. The check-in process applied costs in the
optimization process covers construction cost, equipment and furniture cost, worker fee
and user cost. The user cost is represented by a waiting time penalty.
Passenger
Servers
Queue area
Figure 1-2 Simulation elements
The usage of the model is demonstrated by analyzing data from five different airports.
The collected data covers number of passengers, number of check-in desks available,
applied queue system, and applied service time. The information regarding the check-in
desk sizes and configurations, passengers arrival distribution pattern, and cost are
adopted from industry references. This allows the proposed model results to be
compared to the real situation. The sensitivity of results to selected variables has also
been investigated. The objective of this process is to demonstrate the capability of the
proposed model.
1.3 RESEARCH BOUNDARIES

This project is limited to the investigation of international check-in counters and
examination of the check-in area arrangement. International passengers require longer
processing times compared to domestic passengers (Chung and Sodeinde, 2000). For
example, international check-in process requires activities related to, i.e.: flight
connection (if required), and checking passport and visa. Besides, the processing time
may be influenced by passenger luggage weight restrictions.
The restrictions applied may vary; however, international passengers are generally
restricted to have two pieces of luggage. For checked luggage, the restriction is no more
than 30 kg per item. In situations where an individual piece of luggage exceeds the
3
weight limit, the luggage must be unpacked and the contents are transferred to other
luggage or discarded. As a result, the service time could be increased.
Passengers approach the departure terminal frontage at different points and times.
Figure 1-3 presents the activities followed by departure passengers. After unloading the
luggage from vehicles, passengers may be required to screen the luggage. This
screening process may influence the arrival pattern at check-in areas. To simplify the
proposed model, the area of interest is limited to check-in space. The activities before
and after the check-in area are ignored in this project.
Passengers approach the terminal from

different points
Preliminary
Baggage
Screening
i
Check-in area Research

focus area
Immigration
Departure
Lounge
Aircraft
Figure 1-3 Departure Passengers Flow Diagram
4
1.4 STRUCTURE OF THE THESIS

In order to convey the information regarding the project, this thesis is organized into
eight chapters.
A brief description regarding the project, the objective and the background of this
project are given in chapter 1. This chapter aims to help the readers understand the
scope of the project and main elements of the project development process.
Then, the project development process is explained in more detail in the

methodology chapter (chapter 2). The development stages and the thinking process
followed during the project are presented in this chapter. The description of model
stages provides background material and references to support the underlying concepts.
A data collection process is also performed during project work. This data collection
is presented in Chapter 3. The relevance of some data will be clearer later when model
development is presented in Chapter 5. Five different airports around the world were
used as data sources.
Data collected from airports requires mathematical manipulations to estimate

passenger arrival distributions. This process is described in Chapter 4. The flow rate of
arriving passenger is adopted from IATA recommendations since individual airports
were not able to provide the passenger arrival distribution. This chapter presents the
process in converting the flight schedule into passenger arrival distribution. In other
words, the passenger arrival pattern is synthesized from the flight schedules.
Chapter 5 explains model development. The model development entails a developing

representative model based on an established method. The concept of the time block
program is also explained in this chapter. The time block program is consistent with the
IATA distributions for earliness passenger arrivals of distribution which is given at
intervals of ten-minute periods.
The time block is only able to handle single line queue and generalizes the estimation
of the queue length and waiting time values. Simulation program assigns passengers in a
different way compared to time block program (refer to Figure 1-1 and 1-2). The
simulation program provides a facility to produce synthesized passengers if required
data is unavailable. The process of developing the simulation program is explained in
Chapter 6.
5
The programs are then applied to analyze five airports. The estimates from the two
programs are compared to the real situation. The programs are also evaluated to answer
the research objective by attempting to determine check-in area arrangement. These
evaluations are presented in Chapter 7. The limitations of the proposed model and
recommendations for future work are also presented in this chapter
Chapter 8 provides conclusions of the project.
The appendices consist of raw data related to the five airports, worksheets for
estimating passenger arrival distributions, worksheets for time block program,
worksheets for simulation program, and the software code.
6
2
ISSUES RELATED TO
CHECK-IN COUNTER SPACE
2.1 INTRODUCTION OF THE MODELLING APPROACH

This chapter presents how the project approaches the issue of designing airport check-in
area arrangements.
The required space at airport check-in area is estimated by several methods. In

practice, the reported methods only consider the passenger space. The passenger space
is designed based on the established standard by some organizations. Another method
makes use of charts in determining space for passengers. The charts are based on
aircraft mix factor. Some researchers have attempted to design the space based on the
minimum required space for passengers and luggage carts. Other researchers estimate
required space based on occupancy rate and cost optimization.
Most of the reported methods consider one element in estimating the required space.
In practice, there are a number of elements may influence the space design. Those
elements will be investigated in this project. The considered elements are passengers
flow, number of servers, queue system, and service time.
Figure 2-1 shows the brief procedure in carry out this project. Pre-modeling is the
stage before determining the method. These stages are aimed to review the involved
elements in airport check-in area and to evaluate existing methods in determining
check-in area arrangement. The explanation of elements involved and evaluation of
existing methods are presented in Section 2.2 and 2.3 respectively.
7
Chapter 2 – Issues Related To Check-in Counter Space
Pre-modeling
Modeling
Evaluation of
Case Studies
Figure 2-1 Procedure in model development process
The next stage is modeling. In this stage, the proposed method and the design of the
model are established. The term ‘method’ in this project is a technique in solving the
problems. The techniques here could be establishing a formula, developing software, or
adopting available standards. The ‘model’ is a replication of the method that represents
the real situation. The model is assumed as the complete picture of check-in area
together with all involved elements. More about this stage is presented in sub section
2.1.1. The complete discussion regarding this stage is in Chapter 5.
The modeling stage includes data collection as well. This stage also includes the
process of data modification to obtain the passengers arrival distributions.
The last stage is application for real airports. Data from five different airports are
utilized in this analysis. Sensitivity analysis is also performed.
2.1.1 Method and Model Development

The process of establishing the proposed method is available in Chapter 5. Based on the
new method and considered information, this project develops a software model. The
proposed model is intended to represent the real situation of check-in areas. To fulfill
this objective, the computations accommodate the selected aspects of check-in areas.
The designed software has two different systems to carry out the computation process.
The systems are time block system and simulation. These two systems apply different
8
approaches in assigning arriving passengers. More details about these two programs are
described in Chapter 5 and 6.
2.1.2 Data Collecting

Data collecting is carried out during the model development. Data collection requires
much time. Data is collected from five different airports. The collected data is flight
schedule, number of counters, service time and queue system applied. However, not all
airports provide the desired data. Chapter 3 presents the information regarding the
collected data, selected airports and other related information.
2.1.3 Data Manipulation

A program is developed to assist the data manipulation process. The program is
designed to distribute the passengers in each flight. The program is required since the
obtained data is flight schedules. Passenger distribution in this program is based on
IATA pattern for passenger earliness arrivals. Chapter 4 presents the details regarding
this program and explains the distribution process.
2.1.4 Evaluation of Case Studies

This stage is the last step in this project. The evaluations cover the comparing results of
the two programs with the real situation, analyzing queue length and waiting time of the
two programs, and sensitivity analysis of the programs related to service time, arrival
distribution, counter arrangements, queue system, and cost. This is aimed to discover
the influence of passengers, servers, service time, and queue system in designing airport
check-in area arrangements. More about the stage is in Chapter 7.
2.2 LITERATURE REVIEW

This section is aimed to review the elements in airport check-in area that may influence
check-in area arrangements. The investigation to the elements involved can be executed
by observing the real airport check-in area. The known influencing factors are
passengers, number of counters available, service time applied, and queue system
applied.
9
The assumed constituents that have influence in designing check-in area arrangement
are presented in following sub-section. The presentation reviews references regarding
the aspects. The references assist in the process of determining the proposed method.
This section starts with discussion on demand or passengers and it is followed by

check-in counters, service time, and queue system. Each factor is discussed in separate
subsection.
2.2.1 Passenger Characteristics

Passenger properties are important in estimating check-in area arrangement. Passenger
characteristics in this context mean properties related to passengers. These properties
include the number of passengers, the passenger flow rate, and the required space per
passenger.
The number of passengers influences the number of counters and queue space that
should be provided. It is important to know how to determine the demand for design
purpose. It is also important to understand arrival distribution of passengers. A design
based on the number of passengers only might lead to over design. The overestimate in
designing may be avoided if during the design process, the demand fluctuation is
considered. The required space per passenger and level of service perceived are other
passenger related issues that are considered in developing the proposed model. The
information related to passengers is presented as follows.
2.2.1.1 Determine the Demand

The initial step in developing the proposed model is identifying the demand at airport
check-in area. Previously, the methods for planning check-in area capacity were based
on peak-hour demand. There were three concepts of peak hour for planning purposes:
the Typical Peak Hour Passenger (TPHP), used by Federal Aviation Administration
(FAA); the Standard Busy Rate (SBR), used by British Airports Authority; and the
Planning Peak Hour Passenger (PPHP), used by Transport Canada.
TPHP is a figure that may be exceeded only for a short period. It means that the figure
obtained will only be exceeded by a small number of days in a year. Table 2-1 shows
recommended factors from FAA to compute the TPHP from annual passenger volumes.
For example, if the total annual passengers of an airport is 5 million, then the peak hour
10
passengers that will be taken into account in design is: 5 million x 0.04 % = 2,000
passengers/hour.
Table 2-1 FAA Recommended relationship for TPHP Computations from Annual
Figures (Source: Ashford, 1992)
TPHP as Percentage of Annual

Total Annual Passenger
Flow
More than 20 million 0.030 %
10 million – 19.9 million 0.035 %
1 million- 9.9 million 0.040 %
0.5 million – 0.99 million 0.050 %
100,000 – 499,999 0.065 %
Less than 100,000 0.120 %
Standard Busy Rate (SBR) is the thirtieth highest hour of the year. This factor is still
used by some European designers. The figure obtained based on SBR is exceeded by
only 29 hours of annual operation. Another feature used by the British Airport Authority
(BAA) is the Busy Hour Rate (BHR) that is slightly different from SBR.
The method presented by FAA is easy to follow since data on annual passengers from
airports around the world is easy to obtain. The data of annual passengers can be
obtained from the airports authority websites. Unlike the FAA method, the SBR and
BHR require annual daily peak hour data, which is difficult to obtain.
The methods based on peak hour estimation yield different figures for planning
(Fernandes and Pacheco, 2002). The different obtained figures lead to a puzzle in
estimating the demand. IATA (1989) suggests estimating the demand by doing a survey.
The aim of doing a field survey is to obtain a passengers arrival distribution. In airport
reference manual, IATA gives an example of passenger arrival pattern. Figure 2-2
presents the example of IATA pattern or IATA passenger earliness distribution.
IATA pattern shows the amount of passenger arrival time before the departure time of
the flight. There are different curves for different times of the day. This project adopts
IATA pattern since a field survey was not carried out. For this application, the project
needs flight schedules from different airports. The detail regarding collecting data and
11
estimating the passengers arrival distribution process are explained in Chapter 3 and
Chapter 4 respectively.
30%
25%
0:00
Percentage
20%
6:00
15%
10:00
10% 18:00
5%
0%
-2:50 -2:40 -2:30 -2:20 -2:10 -2:00 -1:50 -1:40 -1:30 -1:20 -1:10 -1:00
Arrival time (hour:minutes) before departure flight
Figure 2-2 IATA passengers earliness pattern

(Source: IATA, 1989)
2.2.1.2 Space per passenger

The factor that needs to be considered in calculating the total space for queuing area is
the minimum required space for all passengers. International passengers usually use
luggage carts if available. The width of the passengers with luggage carts is calculated
based on the average length of the largest luggage positioned crossways on the cart
(Davis and Braaksma, 1988). Figure 2-3 shows the passenger dimensions with luggage
carts. From this picture, the minimum required space is 1.1 square meters per passenger.
This is derived from the width of the luggage, 0.64 meters; multiplied by total length of
the space occupied by the passenger and the cart, 1.72 meters.
FAA has overall standards for gross floor size. These standards are the guidelines for
planners if the design is related to the TPHP figures. It means that in designing the
space required, the planner estimates the demand based on TPHP as presented in Table
2-1. Overall passenger terminal area per annual enplanement is 0.007 – 0.011 square
meters, and 14 square meters per design hour passenger. Ashford prescribed that these
recommendations are not suitable for international terminals.
Some planners and engineers use Ralph M. Parson Charts (Ashford, 1984). This
procedure presents space required for different facilities in airports based on variables
such as aircraft mix, share of originating passengers, annual enplanement, and type of
baggage devices. This recommendation applies assumptions that may not suit every
airport. For example, Ashford (1984) presents a diagram valid only for domestic
12
terminals. The value for aircraft mix factor in this chart is unable to accommodate a
large number of aircraft mix. In other words, that particular chart cannot be used in
designing large airports.
The FAA standards and M. Parson Charts, are simple to understand and relatively
effortless to use. However, the vagueness of passenger traffic flow leads to difficulties
in efforts to meet existing conditions.
BAA and IATA also present the space standard for passengers in check-in area. Table
2-2 gives these values. The recommended space by BAA and IATA is less than the
space recommended by Davis and Braaksma. The figures in Table 2-2 could be the
space for passengers and baggage without cart. However, it is common in international
airport to provide the passengers with carts.
Table 2-2 BAA and IATA design standards for check-in areas
BAA IATA
Space standard 0.8 square meter per 0.8 square meter per
passenger with checked passenger with
baggage checked baggage
0.6 square meter per 0.6 square meter for
passenger with cabin visitor
baggage
In this project, a new method for determining the space required for check-in areas is
developed to compliment the above methods. The proposed model adopts the minimum
space for passengers with carts, and proceeds through microscopic analysis. The result
of the model is then compared with the available standards. Whether the minimum
space required already fulfills the passengers convenience is discussed in level of
service section
13
.
Figure 2-3 Passenger dimension
(Source: Davis and Braaksma, 1988)
2.2.1.3 Level of Service

In designing facilities for passengers, it is important to consider comfort level of
passengers. Passengers require enough space to stand and move in the queue area.
IATA proposed a method in determining airport passenger terminal service level based
on six different levels of space provision. These are shown in Table 2-3. Based on
IATA level of service standard, the space applied in this project (1.1 square meters) is
considered as level of service D. This condition is acceptable for short periods.
On the other hand, according to Martel and Seneviratne (1990), in quality of service
analysis, the waiting time is the most important factor for passengers. The survey has
shown that 60 percent of the respondents feel that waiting time is the most important.
Another important point is that perceived service time and waiting time tend to be
higher than the objective data. Yen (2001), presented that the actual and perceived mean
waiting time are 6.9 minute (coefficient of variation 0.70) and 9.1 minute (coefficient of
variation 0.83) respectively. The mean of actual and perceived service time is 3.1
14
minute (coefficient of variation 0.65) and 10.6 minute (coefficient of variation 1.17)
respectively. These results indicate that the level of service measures tend to be different
depending on the used measuring instrument.
Table 2-3 Check-in area space standard (in square meter per occupant).
Level of Space per person Description

Service (square meter)
A 1.8 Excellent level of comfort
B 1.6 High level of comfort
C 1.4 Related subsystems in balance
D 1.2 Conditions acceptable for short periods of
time
E 1.0 Limiting capacity of the system
F <0.8 System breakdown
(Source: IATA in Subprasom, 2002)
This project tries to deal with the required space per passengers and waiting time
simultaneously. It means that the design aims to provide acceptable space with optimum
average waiting time.
2.2.2 Check-in Counters

Check-in counter is a stand up desk. There is a low shelf placed to the left and/or right
of the check-in counter to provide inlet for outbound baggage. Here the bags are
deposited, checked-in, tagged, and weighed. Afterwards, the baggage is transported
using conveyor belt near the counter to a location sorting outbound baggage.
Check-in counters have two characteristics that may influence the design. These
characteristics are size and configuration. The size and configuration applied in this
project are adopted from IATA reference manual (1989). Some airports may have their
own furniture designs. However, IATA specified size and configuration are considered
in this project.
Beside the size and configuration of check-in counters, the number of check-in
counters also needs to be considered. The small number of check-in counters for busy
airports generates long queues and waiting time. As a result, the airport must provide a
15
wide area to accommodate the long queue. It means the cost for queue area will
increase.
The size and configuration, and the process in determining the number of check-in
counters is describe separately in this section.
2.2.2.1 Size and Configuration

The space for each counter must include the space for baggage handling as well. The
arrangement in handling the baggage depends on the counter configurations. The
baggage handling arrangement influences the location of weighing machine and
conveyor belt. Therefore, the space required for each counter depends on the type of the
counters.
There are two main types of check-in counter facilities: frontal, and island. These two
types of arrangement are shown in Figure 2-4. Frontal type counters are usually placed
along the wall. The arrangements of these counters could be uninterrupted or separated.
The uninterrupted arrangement is called linear type. Uninterrupted means that the
counters are placed side by side. The spaced arrangement is also called pass through
type. The space between the counters is aimed to allow passengers to walk through after
check in.
The island type consists of number of counters in one location. This type of counters
usually consists of 10 – 15 individual counters. This number could be doubled if the
installed baggage conveyor belts are also doubled.
16
a.
b.
c.
Figure 2-4 Examples of check-in layouts

17
The selection of the configuration of check-in counters depends on the design of the
terminal building and management of passenger flow. For linear type, Figure 2-5 gives
more detail.
a. Linear type with multiple single-server queues
b. Linear type with multiple server queues
Figure 2-5 Linear type
The circulation area must be considered carefully since there could be a conflict
between flow of passengers waiting for service and passengers completing service. The
conflict for linear type with multiple single-server queues is that passengers who
complete the service may interfere with other passengers that move forward to obtain
the service. For linear type with multiple server queues, placing the outlet of the queue
at the beginning of the counter desks and the outlet for passengers completing service at
18
the end of the chain of check in counters can reduce the conflict. Therefore, the moving
passengers for service will have the same direction as passengers completing service.
The problem arises if the vacant counter is at the end of the counters group. This
situation could increase the waiting time for service since the passengers have to walk
for a longer distance, i.e.: from the queue area to the last counter.
The conflict in circulation area is not to be encountered if the check-in counters

arrangement selected is pass-through type. In a pass-through type, after completing
service, passengers continue their departure process by passing the check-in counters.
Figure 2-6 gives details of the pass-through arrangement.
Figure 2-6 Pass-through type
Based on this situation, the circulation area for pass-through type can be reduced.
However, this type requires more lateral space.
The island type has the same problem as linear type in the circulation area. It is
important to have enough width and good circulation arrangement to avoid congestion
in this area, especially during peak periods.
Table 2-4 shows sizes of check-in counters obtained are from Airport Reference
Manual (1989) of IATA.
19
Table 2-4 List of Check-in Counter Types and Sizes
Type Size
Width (m) Length (m)
Pass-through 2.2 7.6
2.6 7.6
Linear 1.8 4.7
1.8 5.4
2.2 5.4
2.0 5.4
Island 2.5 5.12
3.0 5.12
3.0 5.28
3.0 5.4
The length of the check-in counter includes the main conveyor and passenger
circulation space in front of the counter. The variation on the size for each type is
caused by different system characteristics applied to each check-in counter. Some
important characteristics are mode-manual or automatic transferring baggage to main
conveyor, standing or sitting check-in agent, and easy or difficult access to working
position. Those system characteristics will not be discussed in this project.
The optimum design of check-in area depends mainly on the number of required
counters. Details of this issue will be discussed in Chapter 7. The IATA method for
determine the number of check-in counters is presented in the next section.
2.2.2.2 Number of Check-in Counters

Information about the available number of check-in counters in selected airports is
useful in comparison with the model results. The model can be evaluated by knowing
the actual number of counters.
The number of check-in counters usually depends on the number of departure

passengers and the average processing time per passenger. The convenience of the
passengers in the check-in process should also be taken into account. Psychological
20
factor of the passengers is important. This is briefly explained in the level of service
section (subsection 2.2.1.3). To calculate the number of check-in desks, IATA in
Airport Development Reference Manual (1995) gives the following formula:
( a + b )t
N= desks ( +10%) (2-1)
60
where: N = number of desk required

a = peak hour number of originating passengers
b = number of transfer passengers not processed airside
t = average processing time per passenger (minutes)
This equation does not guarantee that the number of provided check-in desk will meet
the service standard. Service standard here is associated to level of service.
The number of provided check-in counters is considered to accommodate the

maximum queue. However, the airport management must consider the operational cost.
To provide the maximum service rate with minimal cost, in his article, Hon (1999)
presented an intelligent resource simulation system. This system allocates the number of
check-in counters efficiently to meet business demand. The benefits of this system are
that it considers a number of factors, such as different service rates for different
destinations, airlines, and handling agents; different passenger arrival rates for different
departure times; and different requirements service levels.
Intelligent resource simulation system provides progressive opening of service

counters instead of opening all the counters for the entire check-in period. It means that
the check-in officers are assigned to counters based on certain time period. This
scheduling depends on the arrival pattern of passengers at the counter. For example, a
counter profile of “8-10-12” means that eight counters are opened in the first hour of
operation, ten counters for the next hour, and twelve counters for the last hour. During
the implementation in Kai Tak airport, Hong Kong, this system is claimed to be able to
save up to 40% of resources.
However, the intelligent resource simulation system can be used only if statistical data
of the demand is available. Besides, the achieved level of service by this system is not
mentioned. The author did not discuss whether the system could be implemented during
planning period of a new airport since the available data at this stage is only forecast of
21
total demands. It is important for the planners to have a tool to calculate the number of
check-in counters that should be provided to meet a particular demand. This project
includes the information regarding the number of required counters to open at certain
time. This information is aimed to assist the planners of using the progressive opening
check-in counters.
2.2.3 Service Time

The value of service time influences the number of check-in counters and required
space. The longer service time requires more space to accommodate queuing passengers
or requires more number of check-in counters to reduce the waiting time.
Some references provide estimated values of service time and waiting time. The
literature suggests service time based on standards from aviation organizations,
economic point of view, interviews with passengers, and the measured actual service
time using objective instruments.
BAA and IATA provide design and service standard for departure passengers as
shown in Table 2-4.
Table 2-5. BAA and IATA service standard for check-in area. (Source: Ashford,
1988)
BAA IATA
Time standard 95% of passengers are less 95% of passengers less
than 3 minutes. than 3 minutes
80% passengers less than 5
minutes at peak time
Allowable waiting time 10 min. Not applicable
The specified standards by BAA and IATA need to be investigated further. The
defined time standard may require a high cost. The correlation between quality of
service and cost has been investigated by Omer and Khan (1988). They illustrated the
application of utility and cost effectiveness theory. This theory was used for measuring
user perceived level of service and establishes economical design criteria. They
suggested that the level of service that corresponds to the optimal alternative is the best
one for facility design. The optimal alternative is the alternative with the minimum
expected social cost.
22
Some efforts have been established to determine the user perceived level of service.
Park (1999) attempted to classify passenger perception of service level to time spent at
airport terminal processing facility using three linguistic components. Those elements
are good, tolerable and bad applied to perception-response (P-R) model. This
methodology was applied at Kimpo International Airport, Seoul, Korea. The result for
check-in processing time for long haul journey is good if time spent for the service is
less than 13.5 minutes, tolerable if 13.5-22.5 minutes and bad if more than 22.5
minutes.
The above references were considered in the current investigation of the impact of
service times to the waiting time. This project will also consider the social and
construction cost related to the service time as one component.
2.2.4 Queuing System
The last aspect considered in designing check-in area arrangement is that the queuing
system. The most common queuing system in airport is multiple single-server queues
and multiple server queues. Sketches of these two queue systems have already been
presented in Figure 2-5. Figure 2-5a represents multiple single-server queues. This
picture shows that the number of queue line is the same as the number of counters.
Figure 2-5b is a sketch of multiple server queues. Here, one queue line feed a number of
counters.
As shown in Figure 2-5, the required space for these queue systems is different. For
multiple single-server queues, the width of the queue line will always be the same as the
width of the counter desk. This occurs since one queue line feeds one server. The width
for multiple server queues is the minimum possible queue line width. This minimum
queue width depends on the maximum width of passenger with baggage. This
difference may influence space required in check-in area. Discussion regarding this is in
Chapter 7.
The other thing that needs to be investigated is the queue discipline. The common
queue discipline applied in airport is first-in first-out (FIFO) or first-come first-served
(FCFS). This queue discipline is possible to apply if the queue system is multiple server
queues. For multiple single-server queues, passenger who come at t and join the queue
line number 1 will not always obtains service before passenger who come at t+1 and
23
join queue 2. This situation occurs since the passengers in queue 1 may require longer
service than passengers in queue 2 do. The queue discipline will be discussed more in
Chapter 5.
This project includes the queue system as one factor influencing the design of check-
in area arrangements. The queue system is the last factor in the list of involved elements
in this project.
2.3 EVALUATION OF EXISTING METHODS TO DETERMINE SPACE

REQUIRED
The aim in evaluating available methods is to understand the limitations of the available
methods, so the proposed method can be established. The review covers methods
regarding the estimation of space required in check-in areas.
2.3.1.1 IATA method

IATA in its Airport Terminal Reference Manual (1989) gives a formula to calculate
the space for queuing area in square meters. The formula is:
20 ⎛3(a +b) ⎞ (2-2)

A= s x x⎜ −(a +b)⎟ = 0.25(a +b) .
60 ⎝ 2 ⎠
Where a = peak hour number of originating passengers

b = number of transfer passenger not processed airside
s = required space per passenger
It is assumed that s = 1.5 square metres. This fits to the assumption that separation
between check in counters (also the queue width) is average 1.9 metres and lateral space
requirement per passenger is 0.8 metres (Note: 1.9 x 0.8 = 1.5 square metres).
It is assumed that 50% of peak hour passengers arrive within the first 20 minutes.
However, the number of passengers could be more than this estimate. Therefore
additional 10% of space is allowed as a general rule when calculating the space. This
correction factor may vary depend on local conditions.
The required space per passenger in equation 2-2 is different from suggested values in
Table 2-2. There is no further information regarding this difference. The space in Table
2-2 may have adopted different queue width or used different level of service.
24
2.3.1.2 Other Methods
As mentioned earlier, some organizations suggested personal space based on the six
level of service. On the other hand, FAA and Horonjeff proposed a method based on the
queue length, number of servers, service rate and spacing between queuing passengers.
Parson (in Ashford, 1984) recommended required space based on aircraft mix by
making use of the charts. The required space for passengers depends on the occupancy
rate (Seneviratne and Martel (1995)). The most recent method is introduced by
Subprasom et al (2002). Their method considers cost of constructing facility, cost of
operation and maintenance, and user costs.
The total space in check-in counter consists of space for passengers and for the
counters. The method only estimates the space for passengers in queue. IATA (1989)
also provides the formula for estimating the number of required servers (equation 2-1)
and sizes of the counters (Table 2-4). The separation in estimating the facility may
present the required space, since elements in check-in area influence each other.
The previous methods available also do not consider the influence of queue system.
From the explanation at section 2.2.4 regarding the queue system, it is clear that
different queue systems could be lead to different space requirements.
At this stage, aspects in check-in area and the limitation of the available methods also
have been identified. To avoid an overestimate in designing the check-in area
arrangement, this project tries to develop a new method.
2.4 SUMMARY
The project proposes a method to determine space requirement at airport check-in areas.
This project is approached in three steps, i.e.: pre-modeling, modeling and evaluation of
case studies. The pre-modeling step comprises two other stages, i.e.: taking list of
involved elements and evaluation of the existing methods. The elements considered are
passengers, check-in counters, service time, and queue systems.
It is important to observe passenger characteristics in order to avoid an over estimate

of the checking area. The check-in counter arrangements may influence the queue
system applied and the passenger circulation process. Passengers require different
25
service times regarding the check-in process,. This project will investigate the
sensitivity of service time value to the design (section 7.6).
Some references are cited to show that all elements have been considered properly.
Modeling and evaluation steps have been briefly discussed here. These steps are
presented in detail in separate chapters in Chapters 5, 6 and 7.
26
3
DATA COLLECTION
3.1 INTRODUCTION
Chapter 1 has mentioned the aim of this project, which is to propose a new method in
estimating check-in area arrangement. A model is developed in order to achieve the
purpose of the project. Certain data are required to see whether the model works
properly. This chapter presents how the required data are collected.
The required data for this project are demand, number of available servers, applied
service time, and applied queue system. These are the same as the elements considered
and stated in Section 2.1
The data collection process involves three activities. Firstly, the organizations related
to air transport were contacted. These organizations are International Air Transport
Authority (IATA), Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), International Civil Aviation
Organization (ICAO), and Airport Council International (ACI). The second and third
processes were browsing through airport websites and contacting the airport authorities
respectively.
IATA was contacted since this organization provides information regarding the
earliness arrival distribution, check-in counters arrangement, and formulae for
estimating check-in space and number of required servers in Airport Terminal
Reference Manual. It was speculated that IATA also has other required elements for
this project. However, IATA was unable to provide such a document and tried to help
by sending the annual report. Unfortunately, information contained in the annual report
is inadequate.
Some research reports under similar issues quote several documents from FAA
regarding check-in area arrangements. FAA was contacted to obtain the documents
27
Chapter 3 – Data Collection
named “Terminal Design Advisory Circular”. Unfortunately, the documents are still
under revision.
ICAO was also contacted to obtain related documents related to the project. ICAO
was also incapable of providing such information. However, ICAO suggested
contacting with ACI, which has documents on quality of service at airport. The
document entitled: “Quality of service at airports: Standards and measurements”
contains the measurements of the airport quality of service. It also includes the
passenger preference regarding waiting time.
Some contacted organizations suggested that the researcher may carry out a field
survey. This was not done due to lack of funds and time. In order to obtain the
necessary data, some airport websites were visited and the airport authorities were also
contacted. Not all airports were responded. The reported airports represent a
geographical spread. The responded airports are Birmingham (UK), Brisbane
(Australia), Brussel (Belgium), Calgary (Canada), Hong Kong (China), Melbourne
(Australia), and Orlando (USA). Those airports, except Brussels, provided flight
schedules information instead of demand profile. However, flight schedules from
Calgary airport are in gant chart form and unclear to read. Because of this difficulty,
Calgary airport is not considered in the analysis presented later. Brussels airport
provided its annual report for year 1999.
The other data provided are number of servers, type of check-in desks, queue system,
average service time, and number of advised hours to do check-in. These data are
presented in Section 3.3. This additional information is retrieved from correspondences
with the airport planners in each airport. General information of the selected airports is
given in the next section.
3.2 GENERAL INFORMATION
This section presents brief information about the airports selected. The description
covers the location of the airports, the size, and other information that present the
description of the selected airport. Not all airport websites deliver complete information.
Table 3-1 presents information regarding the selected airports in one table.
28
3.2.1 Birmingham International Airport (UK)
Birmingham International Airport (BIA) is the 5th busiest airport in UK. The airport is
situated 8 miles southeast Birmingham city center. The airport can be reached by train,
bus, coach, car, and taxi. Birmingham airport was opened in year 1939 and it became an
international airport in 1984. In year 2001, BIA handled 7.8 millions passengers. BIA
serves 110 destinations offered by 40 airlines. Most of the destinations are in European
and North America. The IATA code for this airport is BHM.
The number of check-in desks for Birmingham airport is not merely for International
passengers. The desks are used by International, Domestic and Common Travel
passengers. Common travel passengers are frequent travelers that use charter flights. A
CUTE (common user terminal equipment - ARINC) system operates at this airport,
which makes it possible for all desks to be used by all categories of passengers. The
total area of departure concourse is 2088 sqm.
More information on BIA can be obtained from its website: www.bhx.co.uk
3.2.2 Brisbane International Airport (Australia)
Brisbane airport is located 20 minutes drive (13 km) from the CBD. The location can be
reached by coach, taxi, and train. The airport size is 2,700 ha, which is three times
larger than the Sydney airport. There are 27 international airlines using Brisbane airport.
In year 1998 there were 2.5 million international passengers and 10.5 million domestic
passengers. The forecast for year 2018, the total passengers, including international,
domestic, regional, are 33 million. The airport operates 24 hours a day.
The IATA code for this airport is BNE.
The information on Brisbane International Airport is from the last update of its
website in year 1999. The website is: www.brisbaneairport.com.au.
3.2.3 Hong Kong International Airport (China)
Passengers from China and Asia have voted Hong Kong International Airport as the
best airport in year 2002. The airport is located in an island, 25 km west of Hong Kong
city; 23 minutes drive from down town. The transport links to the airport are ferry,
public busses, coach, taxi, hotel limousine, and private car. In 24 hours, the airport can
29
handle maximum 49 movements (aircraft take off and landing) per hour. It is planned to
handle 87 millions passengers per year and 13,680 pieces baggage per hour at it peak
usage in future. The current capacity of the airport increased from 35 millions to 45
millions passengers in year 2000. In 2000, the airport handled 34 millions passengers.
The Hong Kong airport provides nine check-in islands with 288 desks. The target of
the airport operator is passenger check-in in less than 30 minutes. Besides, the airport
operator claims for arriving passengers to clear immigration in 10 minutes.
The IATA code for Hong Kong airport is HKG.
For more information, visit the website of Hong Kong airport authority:
www.hkairport.com
3.2.4 Melbourne International Airport (Australia)
Melbourne airport is located 22 km northwest of the CBD. The airport can be reached
by car, taxi, and bus. The airport serves 22 international airlines and 3 domestic airlines.
In 2001, this airport served 3.36 million international passengers. To provide a good
service, the airport authority has 88 check-in desks and a 2800 square meter of check-in
area.
The IATA code for this airport is MEL.
The available website for more information: www.melboune-airport.com.au
3.2.5 Orlando International Airport (USA)
Orlando International Airport is the third largest airport in the USA. It is located in State
Florida. The passengers can reach the airport using rental cars, bus, taxi, and shuttle bus.
The airport is able to serve 72,000 passengers per day, or more than 31 millions
passengers per year. At the present, the airport handles about 26 millions passengers.
The area of terminal building is 4.5 million sqft.
The airport website: www.orlandoairports.net:/goaa/main.htm offers additional

information.
Orlando airport applies a system that is commonly used. International flights are
assigned a certain number of positions based on the aircraft size. For example, a narrow
body is assigned 2 positions (check-in desks) and a wide body is assigned 4. The area
30
for check-in desks and queuing available varies depending on the airline. The majority
of the airlines operate a "snake-line" to queue passengers. The snake line system is a
line curved around several times with stanchions to reduce the space occupied by the
queuing passengers. The snake line is the same system as multiple server queue system
(Figure 2-5). The length of the queue is built around the number of check-in counters,
which gives more space for larger aircraft. The queues are generally 1.06 m (42 inches)
wide. Each ticket counter desk is approximately 1.36 m (4 ft) wide. The length is
generally 5.44 m (16 ft) from the desk to the beginning of the queue.
3.3 INPUT DATA USED IN THE PROPOSED MODEL
As mentioned in the first section of this chapter, the used data is airport flight schedules.
The flight schedules provides information regarding departure times and aircraft type.
The aircraft type is useful since it can describe the passenger capacity. Table 3-2
presents an example of a flight schedule. In this table, the aircraft types are already
represented by the capacity of corresponding aircraft.
Departure times shown in the flight schedules can be used to derive passenger arrival
distribution. To do this process, the earliness arrival is required. IATA, as mentioned in
Section 2.2.1.1 and Figure 2.2 provides the earliness arrival distribution. More detail
regarding the arrival distribution computation process is explained in the next chapter.
Data shown in Table 3-2 is from Birmingham airport for international departures for
summer of 2001. Data presented in this table is organized the same way as the input
interface that will be explained later with the model. The first column (column A)
shows the sequence number of the schedule. Column B is the destination. In this
column, one destination could have more than one schedule from different airlines. The
aim of the numbering of destinations is to distinguish each dispatch. A shortcoming of
the method followed is a constant bevy selected for the passenger load factor. In real
situation, the passenger load factor is likely to be variable.
31
Table 3-1 General information of the selected airports
D e t a il A ir p o r t
B ir m i n g h a m B ris b a n e H o n g K o n g (C h e k L a p K o k ) M e lb o u r n e O r la n d o
Y e a r b u ilt - 1925 1989 - -

L o c a tio n 8 m ile s s o u th e a s t th e c ity 1 3 k m fr o m C B D in a n is la n d , 2 5 k m w e s t o f H o n g 2 5 k m fr o m c ity c e n t r e , 3 0 -
K o n g c it y , 2 3 m in u te s fr o m d o w n m in u te s b y c a r
to w n
Access tr a in , b u s , c o a c h , c a r , ta x i, c o a c h , t a x i, t r a in f e r r y , p u b lic b u s e s , ta x i, c o a c h , c a r , t a x i, b u s r e n t a l c a r , b u s , ta x i,
h ir e c a r h o te l lim o u s in e , p r iv a te c a r s h u tle b u s
T e r m in a l a r e a 2 0 8 8 s q m ( d e p a r tu r e 0 . 4 m illio n s q m
- - -
c o n c o u rs e )
A ir p o r t a r e a - 2700 ha 1255 ha 2369 ha 6075 ha
S e r v ic e c o m m e n c e d 1939 1964 1998 1970 1970
I n t e r n a t io n a l o p e n 1984 1995 1998 - 1976
V o lu m e ( p a s s e n g e r s /y e a r ) 7 .8 m illio n ( 2 0 0 1 ) , 8 m illio n 2 .5 m illio n ( in t e r n a tio n a l) , 3 4 m illio n in 2 0 0 2 ( e x p e c te d 4 5 3 .3 6 m illio n 2 6 .7 5 0 m illio n
(2 0 0 2 ) m illio n , u ltim a t e 8 7 m illio n )
1 0 .5 m illio n ( d o m e s t ic ) - ( in te r n a tio n a l) , 1 3 .5 6
in y e a r 1 9 9 8 m illio n ( d o m e s tic ) in 2 0 0 2
N u m b e r o f a ir lin e s s e r v e d 40 27 60 31 49
T r a f fic v o lu m e 2 5 0 A ir T r a f fic M o v e m e n t/d a y , - 4 9 A ir T r a ff ic M o v e m e n t s p e r 1 8 7 A ir T r a ffic M o v e m e n t 7 9 0 A ir T r a ff ic M o v e m e n t
hour per day per day
1 9 , 0 0 0 p a s s e n g e r s /d a y
A w a rd s - B e s t U K B u s s in e s s A ir p o r t in - B e s t A ir p o r t , v o te d b y T T G A s ia - T o p 1 0 W o r ld A ir p o r t b y -N u m b e r O ne in
2 0 0 0 ( 4 t im e s in 6 y e a r s ) a n d T T G C h in a , O c to b e r 2 0 0 2 B u s s in e s s T r a v e lle r P a s s e n g e r s S a tis fa c tio n
M a g a z in e , v o te d by fr e q u e n t
2 0 0 0 ,1 9 9 9 ,1 9 9 8 ,1 9 9 7 ,1 9 9 tr a v e lle r , N o v e m b e r 2 0 0 0
- 6
-M o s t Im p r o v e d A ir p o r t - - E a g le A w a r d fr o m IA T A , J u n e - V ic to r ia n T o u r is m A w a r d
R u n n e r u p a t T h e g lo b a l 2002 H a ll o f F a m e , 2 0 0 0
A ir p o r t S e r v ic e E x e le n c e
A w a rd , N o v e m b e r 2 0 0 1
- B e s t B u s s in e s s T e r m in u s - 5 - M e r it A w a r d f o r E x e lle n c e f r o m - A u s tr a lia n T o u r is m
tim e s in 9 y e a r s ( in U K ) , 2 0 0 2 AVSECO at E d ith C o w a n A w a rd , 2 0 0 0 , 1 9 9 8
U n iv e r s it y in P e r th , J u n e 2 0 0 2
- W o r ld 's B e s t A ir p o r t 2 0 0 2 , v o t e d
b y p a s s e n g e r s a r o u n d th e w o r ld .
-C a rg o A ir p o r t o f T h e Y e a r-
J a n u a ry 2 0 0 2 , b y L o n d o n b a s e d
A ir C a r g o N e w s
W e b s ite w w w .m e lb o u r n e - w w w .o r la n d o a ir p o r ts .n e t /
w w w .b h x .c o .u k w w w .b r is b a n e a ir p o r t. c o m . w w w .h k a ir p o r t.c o m
a ir p o r t.c o m .a u g o a a / m a in .h tm
32
Table 3-2 Data example.
A B C D E F G H I J K
2 NO. DESTINATION PASSENGERS DAY DEPARTURE & TIME
3 100% 80% 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
4 1 Aberdeen1 70 56 8:45 8:45 8:45 8:45 8:45
5 2 Aberdeen2 70 56 10:10
6 3 Aberdeen3 70 56 13:15
7 4 Aberdeen4 70 56 15:10 15:10 15:10 15:10 15:10
8 5 Aberdeen5 70 56 18:30 18:30 18:30 18:30 18:30 18:05
9 6 Alicante 130 104 16:00
10 7 Amsterdam1 95 76 6:10 6:10 6:10 6:10 6:10 6:10 6:10
11 8 Amsterdam2 130 104 6:45 6:45 6:45 6:45 6:45
12 9 Amsterdam3 95 76 8:15 8:15 8:15 8:15 8:15 8:15 8:15
13 10 Amsterdam4 78 62 10:15
14 11 Amsterdam5 130 104 10:45 10:45 10:45 10:45 10:45
15 12 Amsterdam6 95 76 10:55 10:55 10:55 10:55 10:55 10:55 10:55
16 13 Amsterdam7 78 62 12:05
17 14 Amsterdam8 78 62 12:30 12:30 12:30 12:30 12:30
18 15 Amsterdam9 95 76 12:35 12:35 12:35
19 16 Amsterdam10 95 76 15:00 15:00 15:00 15:00 15:00 15:00 15:00
20 17 Amsterdam11 130 104 16:30
21 18 Amsterdam12 95 76 17:50 17:50 17:50 17:50 17:50 17:50
22 19 Amsterdam13 78 62 18:10
23 20 Amsterdam14 95 76 19:10 19:10 19:10 19:10 19:10 19:10
24 21 Arrecife 185 148 9:25
25 22 Ashkhabad 185 148 18:20 9:30 12:00 17:45
26 23 Barcelona 124 99 10:35 10:35 10:35 10:35 10:35 10:35 10:35
215 212 Tenerife2 185 148 19:40
216 213 Toronto1 185 148 8:10
217 214 Toronto2 250 200 12:55
218 215 Toulouse1 78 62 9:55 9:55 9:55 9:55 9:55
219 216 Toulouse2 71 57 14:30
220 217 Vienna1 78 62 8:40 8:40 8:40 8:40 8:40 8:40
221 218 Vienna2 78 62 12:15
222 219 Vienna3 78 62 14:40 14:40 14:40 14:40 14:40
223 220 Zurich1 44 35 7:00 7:00 7:00 7:00 7:00 7:00
224 221 Zurich2 50 40 10:15 10:15 10:15 10:15 10:15
225 222 Zurich3 50 40 15:50 15:50 15:50 15:50 15:50 15:50
226 223 Zurich4 50 40 15:50
33
Column C illustrates the capacity of the aircraft. In reality, seldom the aircraft flies
with a full capacity or 100% of seats occupied. For this reason, the number of passenger
per aircraft is factored by 80% as seen in 4th column. This process has been done in the
model. The user is only required to fill the 100% capacity. However, if the user has
another assumption, the factor can be changed.
The columns E to K describe the departure time for each day. The column E is
denoted by 1, it means Monday, F is denoted by 2 which means Tuesday, and so on.
Thus, 7 means Sunday
The flight schedule is then stored in designed spreadsheets. The program makes use
of excel functions to estimate passenger arrival distribution that match the aircraft
schedule given as input. The detail of passenger distribution estimation is presented in
the next chapter.
The complete data from selected airports are in Appendix A
The other data provided by airports are average service time, number of check-in
desks, queue system, and number of hours advised to allow by passengers. These are
summarized in Table 3.3.
Table 3-3 Data Summary
Airport Number of Type of Average Number of

Check-in Check-in Queue Service Hours
Desks Desk System Time allowed to
(min:sec) Check-in
Birmingham 70 N/A N/A 2:10 2:15
Brisbane N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A
Hong Kong 288 N/A N/A 3:18 N/A
Melbourne 88 N/A N/A N/A N/A
Orlando N/A Pass through Snakeline 4:30 2 to 3
3.4 SUMMARY
Data collection process is required in order to have enough input to evaluate the
proposed model. During this process, air transport organizations were contacted. These
organizations are IATA, FAA, ICAO and ACI. The data collection process was
continued by browsing airport websites. In addition, e-mails were sent to the airport
authorities.
34
Data available from the airports are flight schedules, service time, number of check-in
counters, type of the check-in desk, and queue system applied. The flight schedules
provide information about aircraft type and aircraft departure time. The aircraft type
represents the capacity of the aircraft, which is generally proportional to the number of
departing passengers. From departure time and number of departing passengers, the
passenger arrival distribution can be derived by adopting IATA earliness distribution.
The designed program for this purpose is presented in the next chapter.
35
4
ESTIMATION OF
ARRIVAL DISTRIBUTION
4.1 INTRODUCTION
The proposed model requires data about passenger arrival. However, data collection
efforts presented in the previous chapter has shown that the information regarding the
passenger arrival is unlikely to be readily available. So it has been decided to synthesize
passenger distribution in realistic ways. This chapter discusses the process of estimating
the passenger arrival distribution.
As explained in Section 2.2.1, IATA gives an example of arrival earliness distribution

(refer to Figure 2.2). The figure shows the percentage of passengers that arrive at a
particular time before scheduled departure time. The available data is about flight
schedules as presented in Table 3-2, and the advised number of hours for check-in
(Table 3-3). The advised number of hours for check-in is adopted as a reference to
determine the initial time passengers start to arrive. This reference is required since the
IATA pattern is for domestic passengers, which has a different initial time of passenger
arrival. More detail concerning this initial time is explained in section 4.3. Based on this
data, each schedule is distributed by adopting the IATA pattern. The detail of this
transformation process is explained in the following sections.
To explain the transformation process, this chapter starts with the concept of the
process. The review of IATA pattern and supporting references are explained to have a
better understanding regarding this earliness distribution. This explanation is followed
by a section describing program development to accommodate the process of spreading
each scheduled flight into the passenger arrival distribution. This is followed by an
36
Chapter 4 – Estimation of Arrival Distribution
explanation regarding program execution. Finally, the passenger arrival distribution

results are presented.
4.2 THE CONCEPT
The basic concept in estimating passenger arrival distribution is transforming the

available data into a description of demand profile. As mentioned before, important
factors regarding the passenger arrival distribution are flight schedule and number of
hours advised for check-in. The flight schedules provide information about the
departure time and aircraft type for each scheduled destination. From the aircraft type,
information about the seat capacity can be obtained. The flight schedules are then
written in slightly different format as shown in top left corner of Figure 4.1.
The earliness distribution obtained from IATA sources as mentioned earlier is

referred to here as the IATA pattern. An example of the IATA pattern is at the lower left
hand side of Figure 4.1.
The number of passengers for each flight schedule then is drawn out according to the
IATA pattern to obtain passenger arrival distribution. This can be done by considering
the departure time for each flight. In distributing passengers, it is important to link the
departure time to the appropriate pattern. As shown in Figure 4-2, there are three
different patterns depending on the time of day. The flight schedules in each day are
distributed and summed up to obtain daily passenger distribution. After all daily
distributions over the week have been obtained; the average of passenger arrival
distribution at a particular time for a particular airport is computed. More details
regarding the process are explained later in this chapter.
37
DESTINATION NUMBER OF DEPARTURE

PASSENGERS TIME
Aberdeen 56 15:10
Amsterdam 76 6:10
Barcelona 99 10:35
Flight Schedules
Monday
Number of Passengers
300
250
200
150
100
50
0
0:00
1:40
3:20
5:00
6:40
8:20
10:00
11:40
13:20
15:00
16:40
18:20
20:00
21:40
23:20
Time arrival
Arrival Earliness Distribution

Passenger Arrival Distribution
30%
25%
Percentage
20%
15%
10%
5%
0%
-2:50 -2:40 -2:30 -2:20 -2:10 -2:00 -1:50 -1:40 -1:30 -1:20 -1:10 -1:00
Arrival time (minutes) before departure flight
Earliness Distribution
Figure 4-1 The methodology of passenger arrival distribution
4.3 IATA DISTRIBUTION FOR ARRIVAL EARLINESS
IATA, in Airport Terminal Reference Manual (1989), provides an example pattern of

arrival earliness at check-in as shown in Table 4-1 and Figure 4-2. Figure 2-2 is
repeated here for convenience. The table showing the passenger flow rate at check-in is
provided at intervals of ten minutes before departure time. The table also shows that the
pattern will be different depending on the time of day. There are three different periods
applied, i.e.: from 06.00 to 10.00, 10.00 to 18.00, and 18.00 to 24.00. For example, for a
flight scheduled at 11.10, the pattern adopted is the one for the period from 10.00 to
18.00. The table does not provide a pattern for flights scheduled in the 00.00 to 06.00
period. The pattern for this period is assumed the same as the 06.00-10.00 patterns.
38
Table 4-1 IATA pattern of arrival earliness (Source: IATA, 1989)

Percentage arrival of passengers at the check-in counters by 10 minutes periods prior to flight
Time of departure
day
120-110 110-100 100-90 90-80 80-70 70-60 60-50 50-40 40-30 30-20 20-10 10-0
06.00- 0 0 1 2 6 10 20 26 20 12 3 0
10.00
10.00- 0 1 3 8 11 15 17 18 15 10 2 0
18.00
18.00- 3 4 6 9 11 14 15 15 15 7 1 0
24.00
30%
25%
0:00
Percentage
20%
6:00
15%
10:00
10% 18:00
5%
0%
-2:10 -2:00 -1:50 -1:40 -1:30 -1:20 -1:10 -1:00 -0:50 -0:40 -0:30 -0:20
Figure 4-2 IATA arrival earliness distribution

The arrival pattern in Table 4-1 and Figure 4-2 is for a domestic flight. It can be seen
that the last passenger arrives 10 to 20 minutes before departure time. This situation is
impractical for international flights since international flights require longer processing
times. Thus, the distribution needs to be adjusted.
Ashford (1984) has presented the comparison of passenger arrival earliness as shown
in Figure 4-3. These show the difference of passenger arrival earliness for international
and domestic flights. For international flights, the last passengers should arrive 60
minutes before departure time. For domestic flights, the passengers may arrive much
later. Passengers for international flights are required to arrive early since there is
further processing such as immigration checks. In some countries, passengers may be
also required to pay certain charges and duties. There could be also quarantine and
customs checks in some regions.
39
Figure 4-3 Relationship of arrival time for enplaning passenger

(Source: Ashford, 1984)
In Table 4-1, the last passengers arrive at 10 – 20 minutes before departure time. That
was for domestic flight. To prepare the distribution for an international flight, the
passenger flow rates at these times are shifted by 40 as shown in Table 4-2 and Figure
4-4. These shifts are applied to all periods.
The flight schedule data presented in Table 3-1 is converted to passenger arrival
distribution with the patterns presented in Figure 4-4.
Table 4-2 Adjustment time of international passenger arrival pattern
Period
After Time before departure
-2:50 -2:40 -2:30 -2:20 -2:10 -2:00 -1:50 -1:40 -1:30 -1:20 -1:10 -1:00 -0:50 -0:40
0:00 0% 0% 0% 1% 2% 6% 10% 20% 26% 20% 12% 3% 0% 0%
6:00 0% 0% 0% 1% 2% 6% 10% 20% 26% 20% 12% 3% 0% 0%
10:00 0% 0% 1% 3% 8% 11% 15% 17% 18% 15% 10% 2% 0% 0%
18:00 0% 3% 4% 6% 9% 11% 14% 15% 15% 15% 7% 1% 0% 0%
40
30%
25%
0:00
Percentage
20%
6:00
15%
10:00
10% 18:00
5%
0%
-2:50 -2:40 -2:30 -2:20 -2:10 -2:00 -1:50 -1:40 -1:30 -1:20 -1:10 -1:00
Figure 4-4 Adjustment patterns of arrival passenger
4.4 PASSENGER DISTRIBUTION PROGRAM DEVELOPMENT
This program is aimed to obtain the appropriate passenger arrival distribution. The
program is developed by utilizing excel functions. The program consists of 5
worksheets: Arrival distribution, Input data, Daily distribution, Summarize, and Chart.
An Arrival distribution worksheet is provided to accommodate the shifted IATA pattern
as shown in Table 4-2. The Input data worksheet accommodates the flight schedule data
as presented in Table 3-2. The Daily distribution worksheet is aimed to facilitate the
distribution process. The Summarize worksheet accommodates the results after the
distribution process. The last worksheet is the Chart worksheet that pictures the
passenger distribution. The process is briefly described in Figure 4-5.
The process starts with the application of the appropriate earliness pattern for each
flight schedule. After all schedules in a particular day have been converted to passenger
arrival data, the next step is summation of the number of passengers at a particular time.
This process is explained more detail in sub section 4.4.3. The totals are then placed in
the daily summary (sub section 4.4.4). The average of those results is determined by
completing the daily processes for a week.
The program developed is applicable to any airport as the flight schedules from any
airport can be loaded into the Input data worksheet. In addition, the earliness
distribution can be changed depending on the trend at a particular airport. These points
are explained more detail in the discussions of each worksheet.
41
Flight schedules
Daily process
Find appropriate pattern
Sum up the total passengers

at a particular time increment
Place the results in daily

summary
Repeat for a week
Determine the average

passengers at a particular Final process
time
Figure 4-5 Flow chart in preparing passenger arrival distribution
4.4.1 Arrival Distribution Worksheet

The Arrival distribution worksheet is designed to accommodate the arrival earliness
patterns. Table 4-2 is the arrival earliness distribution that is provided in this worksheet.
Table 4-3 presents a similar table as Table 4-2 in worksheet format. Column A
represents the time of the beginning of the departure period for each pattern. Column B
is the pattern number. The pattern number represents a different pattern in a day
42
depending on the period. The aim of this numbering is to simplify the program when
selecting the corresponding pattern. The fourth row of columns C to P indicates hours
and minutes before departure time. The fifth row to the eighth row and columns C to P,
show the percentage of passengers arrival. Zero percent means that no passengers arrive
at this particular time.
Table 4-3 Arrival distribution worksheet

A B C D E F G H I J K L M N O P Q
1 Time before departure
Period
4 After #Tbl -2:50 -2:40 -2:30 -2:20 -2:10 -2:00 -1:50 -1:40 -1:30 -1:20 -1:10 -1:00 -0:50 -0:40
5 0:00 1 0% 0% 0% 1% 2% 6% 10% 20% 26% 20% 12% 3% 0% 0% 100%
6 6:00 2 0% 0% 0% 1% 2% 6% 10% 20% 26% 20% 12% 3% 0% 0% 100%
7 10:00 3 0% 0% 1% 3% 8% 11% 15% 17% 18% 15% 10% 2% 0% 0% 100%
8 18:00 4 0% 3% 4% 6% 9% 11% 14% 15% 15% 15% 7% 1% 0% 0% 100%
The values in table 4-3, i.e.: the period, the time before departure, and percentage, can
be modified depending on the planner knowledge. The important thing is that the total
of each row for columns C to P add up to 100%.
4.4.2 Input Data Worksheet

This worksheet contains the same table as Table 3-1. This worksheet is assigned to
accommodate the flight schedule. In this worksheet, the occupancy rate per aircraft can
be changed depending on the planner assumptions. The flight schedule in this
worksheet is adopted to obtain daily passenger distribution as explained in the next
worksheet.
4.4.3 Daily Worksheet

The daily worksheet facilitates the passenger arrival distribution for one day. Table 4-
4 shows the heading lines of this worksheet and a single row (row 183) related the
Munich flight. This example is for day 6 (cell D3), Saturday.
The flight to Munich departs on Saturday at 6:40. The number of passengers in this
flight is 57 passengers. The arrival passenger distribution for this particular flight
follows arrival earliness pattern number 2 (refer to Table 4-3). The passenger arrival
distribution (cells AV183 to BD183) shows that passengers start to arrive at 4:20 and
the last passenger arrives at 5:40, one hour before departure time. The number of
43
passengers at a particular time follows the percentage given in the corresponding pattern
(pattern number 2 in this example, cell E183).
Table 4-4 Example for passenger arrival distribution

A B C D E F AR AS AT AU AV AW AX AY AZ BA BB BC BD BE BF
1 5263 0 1 2 7 14 30 49 76 100 108 99 84 70 73 78
2 No. DESTINATION PASS. DAY Tbl ∑
3 80% 6 5263 3:40 3:50 4:00 4:10 4:20 4:30 4:40 4:50 5:00 5:10 5:20 5:30 5:40 5:50 6:00
183 180 Munich1 57 6:40 2 57 0 0 0 1 1 3 6 11 15 11 7 2 0 0
Table 4-5 shows a larger portion of this worksheet. This has columns up to FI, and
goes up to row 226. The large table is expected to accommodate all flights and their
passengers.
Table 4-5 Daily distribution

A B C D E F G H FF FG FH FI
1 5263 0 0 0 0 0 0
2 N o. D E S T IN A T IO N PASS. DAY T bl ∑ T IM E
3 80% 6 5263 -2 :3 0 -2 :2 0 2 3 :2 0 2 3 :3 0 2 3 :4 0 2 3 :5 0
4 1 A b erd een 1 56 0
5 2 A b erd een 2 56 0
6 3 A b erd een 3 56 1 3 :1 0 3 56 0 0 0 0
7 4 A b erd een 4 56 0
8 5 A b erd een 5 56 0
9 6 A lic a n te 104 1 6 :0 0 3 104 0 0 0 0
10 7 A m s te r d a m 1 76 6 :1 0 2 77 0 0 0 0
11 8 A m s te r d a m 2 104 0
A B C D E F G H FF FG FH FI
221 218 V ien na 2 62 0
222 219 V ien na 3 62 0
223 220 Z u rich 1 35 7 :0 0 2 35 0 0 0 0
224 221 Z u rich 2 40 0
225 222 Z u rich 3 40 0
226 223 Z u rich 4 40 1 5 :5 0 3 39 0 0 0 0
Columns A – C are the same as in Table 3-1. These columns are aimed to
accommodate all available flight schedules in a particular airport. Thus, during the
program execution process, the users do not have to change the schedules all the time.
Column D shows the departure time for each destination in a particular day. Cell D3 is
the day number. Day number corresponds to day of the week as mentioned in section
4.3. This number can be changed from the Summarize worksheet to obtain a different
day.
The time in column D is rounded down to the nearest ten minutes. This is applied to
this column to simplify the distribution process since the earliness distributions are in
44
ten-minute intervals. The time shown in this column is only the schedules for the
corresponding day. In other words, blank cells mean no scheduled flights for those
destinations on that day.
Column E is for the earliness pattern number. The pattern number shown in the
column means that the flight schedule is distributed according to this pattern in the
Arrival Distribution worksheet. For example, if in column D the time shown is 6:10, the
distribution pattern in column E is pattern number 2 (refer to Table 4-3). The computer
executes the pattern number selection automatically. In other words, this worksheet has
been programmed to select the pattern based on the departure time.
The total number of passengers for each destination is in column F. The figure in
column F generally will be the same as the figure in column C. The value in these two
columns could be different because of rounding down in the distribution process.
Besides, the figure in column F will be zero if there is no flight in the day observed. The
total number of passengers of the particular day is shown in two places in cells F1 and
F3. Cell F1 is for the total number in the first row, cell F3 is for the total number in
column F. These two cells are for cross checking the total number of passengers. The
matrix in cells from G4 to FI 226 is located to accommodate the passenger distribution.
Cells G3 to FI3 are arrival time before scheduled departure. The number of
passengers from all flights at a particular time is summed up. This total number of
passengers at a particular time is placed in the first row from cell G1 to FI 1. This
process is explained in section 4.5.
4.4.4 Summarize Worksheet

The Summarize worksheet as shown in Table 4-6 is contains the results of daily
distributions of passengers as presented in the Daily worksheet. In other words, the
values in cells G1–FI1 in the Daily worksheet (Table 4-5) are copied to the Summarize
worksheet automatically. This worksheet presents the distributions of each day in a
week, the total passengers and the average passenger arrivals at each time interval. The
average passenger arrival at each time interval will be adopted as the input for the
proposed model.
45
Column A in Table 4-6 is arrival time sampled at 10 minute intervals. Column B is

the sum of passenger arrival for the whole week per corresponding time interval.
Columns C to I are to accommodate daily distribution of passengers from the Daily

worksheet. Column J is a temporary column used to obtain results from the daily
distribution worksheet. The result of daily distribution from a particular day can be
obtained by changing cell J3 manually into the number of the day required. Cell J3 is
the key in the distribution process of the entire program execution.
Cells K4 to K18 represent the number of passengers who arrived at the day before a
particular day. These cells are set aside since for some airports there are a number of
flights that depart few minutes after midnight. Passengers on these flights must arrive
around two hours before departure time. This means that passengers arrive on the day
before the departure day. If the day number in cell J3 is 6, then K3 will shows the day
before or 5. The values in cells K4 to K18 will be the same as J4 to J18.
Cells L148 to R162 facilitate the summation of the total passenger arrival in period
21:30 to 23:50 and in period -2:30 to -0:10. This means that passengers who arrive and
depart in day ‘a’ will be added to passengers who arrive in day ‘a’ but depart in day
‘a+1’. After all cells are filled, these cells are copied and pasted to appropriate cells in
columns C to I.
The Summarize worksheet also prepares another table placed on the right-hand side of
Table 4-6 in column T. This column is provided to calculate the average number of
passengers in a week. This is shown in Table 4-7. The average value is adopted as data
input for the model developed in this project. The average values here are from time
0:00 to 23:50 as shown in Table 4-7. The average value is expected to be a
representative value for the number of passenger arrival over the whole week.
Tables 4-6 and 4-7 show a small part of the entire worksheet. The length of the table
is the same as Table 4-4.
46
Table 4-6 Summarize Worksheet

A B C D E F G H I J K L M N O P Q R
1 D ay T em p
2 SU M 66 8 5 6 1 0 25 4 1 0 1 8 0 1 0 5 6 7 11 4 5 0 1 1 00 3 5 2 6 3 8 13 9 5 2 6 3
3 T im e SU M 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 6 5
4 -2 :3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
5 -2 :2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
6 -2 :1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
7 -2 :0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
8 -1 :5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
9 -1 :4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
10 -1 :3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
11 -1 :2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
12 -1 :1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
13 -1 :0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
14 -0 :5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
15 -0 :4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
16 -0 :3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
17 -0 :2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
18 -0 :1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
19 0 :0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
20 0 :1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
21 0 :2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
22 0 :3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
23 0 :4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
24 0 :5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
87 11:20 445 65 57 93 57 65 52 56 52
88 11:30 408 56 54 84 54 56 53 51 53
89 11:40 425 60 60 80 60 60 53 52 53
90 11:50 551 82 82 86 82 82 62 75 62
91 12:00 684 104 104 104 104 104 68 96 68
92 12:10 835 130 130 130 130 130 71 114 71
93 12:20 893 140 140 140 140 140 72 121 72
94 12:30 917 145 145 145 145 145 71 121 71
95 12:40 926 148 148 148 148 148 62 124 62
96 12:50 903 146 146 146 146 146 52 121 52
97 13:00 724 119 119 119 119 119 29 100 29
98 13:10 644 105 105 105 105 105 27 92 27
99 13:20 563 90 90 90 90 90 28 85 28
Number of the day

146 21:10 14 0 0 0 14 0 0 0 0
147 21:20 2 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
148 21:30 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 -2:30 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
149 21:40 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 -2:20 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
150 21:50 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 -2:10 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
151 22:00 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 -2:00 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
152 22:10 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 -1:50 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
153 22:20 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 -1:40 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
154 22:30 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 -1:30 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
155 22:40 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 -1:20 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
156 22:50 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 -1:10 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
157 23:00 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 -1:00 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
158 23:10 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 -0:50 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
159 23:20 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 -0:40 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
160 23:30 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 -0:30 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
161 23:40 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 -0:20 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
162 23:50 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 -0:10 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
47
Table 4-7 Average value
A B T
3 Time SUM Ave
19 0:00 0 0
20 0:10 0 0
21 0:20 0 0
22 0:30 0 0
23 0:40 0 0
24 0:50 0 0
A B T
87 11:20 445 64
88 11:30 408 58
89 11:40 425 61
90 11:50 551 79
91 12:00 684 98
92 12:10 835 119
93 12:20 893 128
94 12:30 917 131
95 12:40 926 132
96 12:50 903 129
97 13:00 724 103
98 13:10 644 92
99 13:20 563 80
A B T
146 21:10 14 2
147 21:20 2 0
148 21:30 0 0
149 21:40 0 0
150 21:50 0 0
151 22:00 0 0
152 22:10 0 0
153 22:20 0 0
154 22:30 0 0
155 22:40 0 0
156 22:50 0 0
157 23:00 0 0
158 23:10 0 0
159 23:20 0 0
160 23:30 0 0
161 23:40 0 0
162 23:50 0 0
163
164 SUM 66856 9550
4.4.5 Chart
The chart module shows the daily distribution of passenger arrival in graph form. It is
shown in Figure 4-6. This chart is prepared from the Summarize worksheet. This chart is
useful to planners who need a picture of passenger arrival distribution. The numbers in
the graph legend are the day numbers. The planner can focus on only one graph by
removing other data using a chart wizard. The planner also can obtain the picture of the
48
average distribution by inserting the average value into the graph data source in the
chart wizard.
Arival Distribution
300
250
200 1
2
3
Passenger
150 4
5
6
100 7
50
0
00
00
00
00
00
00
00
00
00
00
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
:0
:0
:0
:0
:0
:0
:0
:0
:0
:0
:0
:0
:0
:0
0:
1:
2:
3:
4:
5:
6:
7:
8:
9:
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
T ime
Figure 4-6 Daily passenger arrival
4.5 PROGRAM EXECUTION

After all worksheet preparation has been done, the other important thing in this program
is the process of program execution. This process requires attention since it involves
eight stages. This process was earlier mentioned with the aid of Figure 4-5. All steps in
the execution process are controlled from the Summarize worksheet. The stages are:
1 Copy flight schedules to the Input Data worksheet. Make sure the format is
correct.
2 Check the arrival distribution worksheet. For most purposes, the default IATA
pattern is acceptable. If another pattern is desired, the worksheet cell values can
be manually modified.
3 Check whether all flight schedules in the Input Data worksheet are already
present in the Daily worksheet. This is important since the number of flight
schedules is different from one airport to another. Also check whether the
equation applied in cells G4 to FI226 is already extended to the last schedule in
the list.
4 In the Summarize worksheet, manually enter a number in cell J3. Initially, start
with the value 1 here to denote Monday. By entering the number of the day in
49
cell J3, all passengers in flight schedules available in the corresponding day will
be distributed and summed up. The summation is in cells G1 to FI1. The values
in cells G1-FI1 will also be automatically copied to column J in the Summarize
worksheet.
5 The transfer process of the daily summation in the Summarize worksheet. There
are two steps here:
a) Move the number of passengers in column J at the time 0:00 to 23:50 to

appropriate day column.
b) Move the number of passengers in the adjacent column to column J in the

time frame –2:30 to 0:00 to the appropriate day column (the day before)
6 Repeat stages 3 and 4 seven times to cover each day of the week.
7 Copy figures in column L to R to the corresponding day columns in the range C

to I.
8 Select the average number of passengers from column T. This average value is
automatically calculated.
A diagram is provided to give a clear view regarding stages in the Summarize

worksheet (Figure 4-7). Figure 4-7 shows how passenger distribution is transferred from
Daily distribution to the Summarize worksheet (stage 3). The user is required to enter
the number of the day in cell J3. By entering the number of the day in this cell, the
passenger distribution will be computed to cell G1 to FI1 in the Daily worksheet and
will be automatically transferred to column J in the Summarize worksheet. The previous
day column (column K) is also automatically filled in. The automation in this process
includes the heading that shows the number of the previous day. The figures in columns
J and K in the time frame –2:30 to 0:00 are the same.
50
-2:30 0:00 23:50

TIME
-2:30
Column K
Previous day
Daily summation from Daily
worksheet (cells G1-FI1)
0:00
Day 3 (column J)
Passenger arrival distribution in Summarize

worksheet (column Temp)
23:50 Figure 4-7 the first stage in the Summarize worksheet
The next step is moving the number of passengers in column J at the time frame 0:00
to 23:50 to appropriate column in the same time frame. Figure 4-8 shows this process.
The number of passengers in the period from 0:00 to 23:50 is copied and pasted in
corresponding period in, for example, day 3. The number of passengers in period –2:30
to -0:10 are transferred to the corresponding period in day 2. The period –2:30 to –0:10
represents late night period of the previous day. This transfer location may appear
illogical but it assists later in adding up passenger counts during late night periods.
These additions go to column L to R.
There is no action is taken for the number of passengers in gray shadow area. This is
a manual copy and paste process.
The steps are repeated seven times until all passengers in day 1 to day 7 are copied.
Column B will automatically sum up the number of passengers in a particular period.
Column J will be not taken into account in the further process.
51
Number of the day

-2:30
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
0:00
Day 3
23:50
Figure 4-8 Manual transfer of the passenger distribution
The next stage is to sum the number of passengers at a particular time in period -2:30
to –0:10 with the appropriate time in period 21:30 to 23:50. Columns L to R (close to
the end of the table) are provided to facilitate this process. In these columns, the number
of passengers in both periods adds up automatically. For example, the number of
passengers at 22:30 in day 1 will be added to the number of passengers at –1:30 in day
1.
The Chart worksheet automatically draws the graphs when the column for each day
is completed.
4.6 SUMMARY
A method was presented to estimate the passenger arrival distribution from the flight
schedules. Flight schedules are useful inputs since this provides departure time and
aircraft type. Departure time indicates the end point for earliness distribution of
passenger arrival. The aircraft type indicates the approximation of the number of
passengers departing at a particular time
52
The program consists of five worksheets. Those are Arrival distribution, Input data,
Daily distribution, Summarize, and Chart. The method sums up the passenger
distributions for all flights. The average of daily distributions is adopted as the
passenger arrival distribution for the proposed software models.
53
5
MODEL DEVELOPMENT:
TIME BLOCK SYSTEM
5.1 INTRODUCTION
A number of researchers attempted to formulate the space required at airport check-
in areas (Mc Pearson – 1975, Ashford – 1988, IATA - 1989, Horonjeff - 1994,
Seneviratne – 1995, Subprasom – 2002). These efforts were generally based on the
specific circumstances being studied. However, the models available are difficult to
implement in other conditions. It is hard to meet existing requirements due to the
vagueness of passenger traffic flow (Seneviratne and Martel, 1995). Therefore, this
project tries to introduce a new method to estimate the airport check-in area
arrangement.
As mentioned earlier, other researchers and organizations provided methods for

estimating the area required (refer to subsection 2.3). Table 5-1 lists the variables used
in those formulae. This table contains the organizations or researchers who provided the
method; the method adopted; and variables included in the corresponding method. This
table enables comparison with the proposed model shown in the last row. The aim of
this comparison is to show that the proposed method has a different approach from the
previous methods. The variables included in the proposed model are comprehensive
compared to other models.
54
Chapter 5 – Model Development: Time Block System
Table 5-1 Comparison of Space Calculation Methods
Organizations/ Method Variables

Researchers
IATA Linear equation Peak hour number of originating
passengers,
Number of transfer passengers,
Space required per passenger
FAA Look-up table Peak hour demand
BAA Charts 30th highest hour of the year
Ralph M. Charts Equivalent aircraft factor based on
Parson aircraft mix in peak hour,
Share of originating passengers,
Annual enplanements
Seneviratne and Passenger occupancy rate
Martel
Proposed model Software program Arrival passenger distribution,
Service time,
Queue system,
Type of check-in counter,
Costs of check-in area facility
The tabulation shows that the proposed model covers all elements involved in the
check-in process. These variables can be expressed in the following equations:
Ns = f [ts, a, Q, Type, C] (5-1)
Amin. = min[ ALq-max.+ ANs] (5-2)
Where: Ns = number of servers

ts = service time
a = array representing distribution of arrival counts
Q = queue system applied
Type = check-in counter configuration
C = cost of check-in area facility
Amin. = minimum total area required
ALq-max. = passenger queuing area based on maximum queue
ANs = area for check-in counter based on number of check-in
counters.
55
The proposed method estimates the number of servers required (equation 5-1) as a
function of the five elements mentioned. The estimation process must ensure that the
obtained number of servers is able to minimize the cost of construction and operation in
the check-in area. The estimation process is also required to deduce the minimum
required check-in area. The check-in area is the required total area for the maximum
number of passengers in queue based on the waiting time limit; and required space for
number of servers.
This chapter is prepared as a continuation of the basic idea presented in Chapter 2.

This chapter presents the process of model development. To convey this process, this
chapter covers the background of the proposed method, the applied methodology, the
model structure, and its limitations.
5.2 BACKGROUND
Two interrelated issues inspire the project: the expected quality of service at airport
check-in and the congestion caused by flight scheduling. These two issues are discussed
in this section.
The quality of service should satisfy the customers in acceptable ways (Janic, 2000).
This means that the quality of service is expected to reduce customer costs. The
customers in this context refer to passengers and airlines; however, in this study only
passengers are considered as the customers since the project scope only covers space in
a passenger processing area, particularly the check-in area. Besides, passengers are
typically the main sources of revenue for airports (Martel and Seneviratne, 1990).
Therefore, the design of service facility should consider passenger requirements.
On the other hand, passengers are also the subjects in increasing congestion.
Congestion is caused by three different problems. The first one is fluctuation of
demand. Variations of demand occur within various time frames ranging from days to
months. Sometimes special events create a huge demand.
The second cause of congestion is network problems. This will not be explored in
this project. The network problems are the problems related to the computer and
mechanical failures. This could be the computer being unable to access the airline
database. It could be an aircraft encountering a mechanical defect and being delayed on
56
the ground. Even though these problems occur temporarily, the passengers have to wait.
This situation leads to congestion.
The last cause of congestion in check-in areas is flight scheduling. In other words,
the congestion depends on the arrangement of the scheduled exit times. Figure 5-1
illustrates the congestion caused by flight schedule arrangement.
Flight 1 exit Flight 2 exit
Flight 3 exit
9:00 10:00
Time
Time when congestion is likely to

Passenger arrivals time range occur
Figure 5-1 Congestion caused by flight schedule arrangements
Figure 5-1 shows that the congestion can be determined by observing distribution of
passenger arrival times for each flight. From this, the period for the congestion can be
estimated. The number of passengers in queues in the check-in area represents the level
of congestion.
Thus, the design of the check-in area must consider the quality of service and
congestion. The quality of service is primarily measured by the length of waiting time.
According to a survey by Martel and Seneviratne (1990), the most important issue
influencing quality of service from the passengers’ point of view is the waiting time
rather than space. The congestion problem is measured by observing the demand
profile.
5.3 MODEL CONCEPT

The model in this project is formed as a software program. The model is developed
based on two concepts. The first concept involves the development of the time block
computer program. The work presented has been done using Excel. The second concept
57
is the development of a simulation program. The way the simulation program assigns
passenger arrival differs from the time block program. It is important to know the
results of the two different concepts. The simulation program is based on visual basic
applications in Excel. This section only describes the time block program; the
simulation program is presented in the next chapter.
The time block concept is developed based on counting periods of time. The selected
counting period is divided into time blocks of equal size based on the average service
time. For example, the project adopts a ten minute counting period. If the average
service time is 5 minutes, then each counting period has two time blocks. The
maximum number of passengers that can be accommodated in the time block is equal to
the number of servers. A shortcoming of the model is the selection of a fixed service
time. In reality, service time for passengers is not a constant. However, the average
service time is selected in this model for simplicity purpose.
The time block program is only applicable to multiple servers queue. Therefore,
equation 5-1 is not valid for the time block approach. The following mathematical
relationship would be applied in the time block model.
Ns = f [ts, a, Type, C] (5-3)
The check-in counter configuration is still considered in the time block method since
it will influence in the cost calculation process. The selected counting period is ten
minutes. This is convenient because the earliness of passenger arrival pattern of IATA is
based on ten-minute periods.
The illustration in Table 5-2 is adopted from the program with the assumptions:
average service time is 5 minutes and the number of servers is 62. It can be seen that if
the number of arrivals is less or equal to the number of servers, all the passengers will
be served at once. If the arrival number is more than the number of servers, the
remainder will have to wait and be allocated in the second column of the service
sequence. It means the remainder group of passengers must wait for 5 minutes or for a
period equal to the selected service time.
58
Table 5-2 Time block concept
Number of Cummulative of Service Sequence

Time Arrival Arrival Arrival 0 5 10 15 20
4:30 51 51 51 0 0 0 0
4:40 76 76 62 14 0 0 0
4:50 104 104 62 42 0 0 0
5:00 147 147 62 62 23 0 0
5:10 191 214 39 62 62 28 0
5:20 204 294 0 34 62 62 46
Table 5-2 illustrates the time block concept. At time 5:10 there are 191 arrivals. But
23 are left over from the previous time period shown in the third service sequence
column. Thus, only 39 (that is 62 minus 23) are selected from the current arrivals for
first time block. This time, the third time is saturated (i.e. 62 passengers), which forces a
zero in the first time block of the next time period starting at 5:20.
The program is based on four modules in Excel, which are linked to each other. The
basic structure of this time block concept is shown in Fig. 5-2.
Service time,
Array of arriving passengers,
Counting period,
Number of servers
Time block program
Queue length,
Waiting time,
Graphical output
Figure 5-2 Structure of time block concept
59
The array of passenger arrival is derived from the number of passengers exiting in a
flight schedule, which is distributed using earliness distribution. This process has been
explained in the previous chapter. The other inputs are average service time and number
of servers (counters). The program processes passenger arrival distribution to calculate
the mean queue length and mean waiting time. This program also presents a graphical
representation of the passenger arrival and movement through the service area. The
graph is useful to identify the times when congestion at check-in area occurs and its
likely duration.
The following section discusses the methodology used for software development.
5.4 METHODOLOGY
The methodology applied in the process of program development is:
• Review the elements involved, i.e.: passenger arrival distribution, check-in
counter configuration, space per passenger, service time, and queue system.
• Set up the expected output. The outputs of the model are waiting time, queue
length, number of servers, and required area for the design.
• Create the formula to make the modules work properly. A graphical

representation is adopted to determine cumulative passenger arrival and exit.
The following sections discuss the above methodology.
5.4.1 Review the Elements Involved

The aim of reviewing the involved elements is to demonstrate how these elements are
related to the check-in process. Passenger arrival distribution has an influence in
determining queue length and waiting time. These two outputs affect the space required
for the queuing area. The queuing area also depends on space per passenger provided.
The space for counters and circulation area (refer to Figure 2-5 and 2-6) depends on
the check-in counter configuration. The selected queue system also influences the space
required per passenger. The multilane queue requires a queue line width that is equal to
the counter width. On the other hand, a single line queue requires the lane width to be
the same size as the passenger width. The applied service time during check-in process
has an impact on the queue length and waiting time.
60
5.4.2 Expected Output

The aim of this project is to determine check-in area arrangement. The check-in area
arrangement covers check-in counter configuration (size and type), applied service time,
applied queue system, required number of counters, and required space for the check-in
process. In other words, these are expected outputs from the model. The other outputs
that should be considered are the level of service represented by waiting time and cost
of the check-in area facility.
The program is also expected to be able to provide information regarding the

congestion period. This information is important for the existing airport to evaluate the
performance of the existing design.
5.4.3 Module Design

There are four modules in the time block program. The modules are to record the
passenger arrival distribution and the other inputs; distribute the passengers during the
queuing process to estimate the queue length; distribute passengers to estimate waiting
time; and prepare the optimization process. These four modules are interconnected by a
number of equations and numerical processes.
A graph is also designed as an output. This graph presents the picture of passenger
flows and indicates the congestion period. The graph appears at the end of the program
execution.
5.4.4 Develop Suitable Formulae

Three key equations which is adapted in the software are discussed in this sub-section.
The three equations are for estimating number of servers, service capacity, and total cost
for the optimization process. Service capacity is the number of passengers that can be
served in one at a time by the designed number of server.
5.4.4.1 Determining Queue Length and Waiting Time

The queue length and waiting time depends on the accumulation of passenger arrival
and exit processes. A graph of a function usually can convey information more clearly
than an analytical procedure (Newell, 1971). The function of graphical representation is
to determine the waiting time and the queue length (refer to Figure 5-3) as an important
61
performance criterion for any queuing system. Besides, the graphical representation
shows the busiest and most idle periods for the servers. This information is important in
order to improve the quality of service. Figure 5-3 illustrates the cumulative arrival and
exit processes.
A(t)
5
Lq
Customers
4
Dq(t)
3 Ds(t)
2 Ws
Passenger in service
1
ts
9:30 9:40 9:50 10:00

Time
Figure 5-3 Cumulative arrivals and exits
(Source: Hall, 1991)
A(t) is denoted as passenger arrival at time t, Dq(t) is exiting passengers from queue
at time t, and Ds(t) is exiting passengers from the system at time t. Queue length (Lq) is
determined by vertical separation between the solid line and the bold line. The vertical
separation between the bold line and the dash line represents the number of customers in
service. The horizontal separation between the solid line and the dash line reveals
waiting time in the system (Ws).
The first customer arrives at 9:35 and obtains the service immediately. While the first
customer is being served, the second customer arrives at 9:37. The second customer
must wait until the first customer finishes the service process at 9:40. This shows that
each subsequent customer will be served after the previous customer has completed the
service. The queue length and waiting time for Figure 5-3 are Lq at 9:49 = 2, Ls
(number of customers in the system) at 9:49 = 3, ts (service time) = 5 minute, Wq
(waiting time in queue) = 7 min. and Ws (waiting time in system) = 12 min.
Figure 5-3 indicates that the queue operates on first-come first-served (FCFS) and
first-in first-out (FIFO) basis. The queue discipline depends on the applied queue
62
system. In performing queue at airport check-in area, there are two applied queuing
systems in this project. The first one is multiple server queue which is only single queue
feeds many servers. The second is a multiple single-server queues. The number of lines
in the second system is equal to the number of servers. An illustration of these two
queuing systems is presented in Figure 2-5 in Chapter 2. For the multiple queue system,
it is assumed that customers do not jockey or switch from one queue to another.
The example in Figure 5-3 applies to a multiple server queue system. For multiple
single-server queues the first customer may not be the first one to obtain service or to
come out of the system. This statement applies to multiple lines as a whole system, not
for individual lines. In other words, the comparison of waiting time here is between two
line queues. For example, with two parallel servers, the first customer might begin
service at 2.00, before the second customer who begins at 2:02. Because the first
customer requires longer service time than the second customer, the second customer
will be the first one out of the system. Thus the overall system is not FIFO. This
situation also influences the next customer in the queue. Suppose the first customer ends
the service at 2:10 and the second ends at 2:07, the third and fourth customers come at
2:05 and 2:06 respectively. The third customer joins the first queue, and the fourth joins
the second queue. Since the second one ends the service earlier, then the fourth
customer will be served first rather than the third customer. In this case, the discipline is
neither FCFS not FIFO.
It is important to understand the queuing disciplines since it will influence the

estimation of average waiting time, the queue length and the number of idle servers.
This situation is discussed in Chapter 7.
5.4.4.2 Determining Number of Servers

Elements involved in determining the number of servers required are number of
passengers and service time applied. This is expressed in equation (5-4):
Number of passengers
Ns = (5-4)
Service time
63
It is common practice for airports to allocate a number of counters for the executive
use of each airline, so the number of servers computed from equation (5-4)
underestimates the requirement.
However, since the objective of this project is to find the optimum arrangement for
the check-in area, the number of counters derived from the calculation process is
obtained based on minimum total cost of construction and operations in the check in
area and considering passenger convenience. Also, there are other elements that may be
of influence in estimating the number of servers. In other words, the process of
determining the required number of servers involves an optimization process. Figure 5-4
illustrates all the concerns regarding number of server determination.
Service Queue
time system
Passenger Number
arrival Proposed program of servers
distribution
Server Cost
configuration
Figure 5-4 Concerning elements in the estimation process of number of servers
For a given passenger arrival distribution, the number of servers obtained will vary
depending on all the four elements shown with dashed line arrows.
On the other hand, number of servers has a strong influence in determining service
capacity as expressed in equation 5-5:
Counting period
Service capacity = x Number of servers (5-5)
Service time
There is a problem if counting period is not a factor of service time. For example:
suppose the counting period is 10 minutes and the average service time is 3 minutes.
The service capacity if the number of servers given is 2:
64
10
Service capacity = x 2 = 6.666...
3
To make service capacity value an integer, the number of servers must be a multiple of
the service time. To solve this problem, a constant is introduced in this project. The k
value is a constant influencing the number of servers. More detail regarding the k value
is explained in the optimization process in section 5.5.4.
As mentioned before in section 5.4.2, the arrangement of the check-in area has two
constraints. The restrictions in the proposed program are: firstly, the design should meet
passenger preferences regarding level of service; secondly, the design should have a
minimum cost. Equation 5-5 caters for all these constraints.
F E Co Cn
Tc = (2xOxNs) + ( xNs) + ( xNs) + ( xNs) + (WxLqover ) + ((S Ns + S Lq max)x ) (5-6)
365 365 365 365
where Tc = total cost
O = payment for check-in counter officer
Ns = number of server
F = furniture cost
E = equipment cost
Co = computer cost
W = waiting time penalty
Lqover = number of people in queue with waiting time over the waiting time
limit
SNs = space for number of servers required
SLq max = required space for maximum number of passengers in queue
Cn = construction cost
365 = number of days in one year
The cost of check-in counters covers furniture costs for desks and chairs, equipment
costs that include scales and conveyor belts, computer costs, fees for check-in counter
65
officers, and construction costs that depend on the space required for each counter. The
costs applied are for each individual counter. Therefore, the total cost for check-in
counters is cost for individual counter multiplied by the number of counters.
The cost of passenger space is the construction costs for the queuing area, which in
turn depends on the maximum number of passengers in the queue. The other cost
related to passengers is waiting time penalty. The waiting time penalty is applied if
passengers have to wait for more than a certain waiting time limit. This type of cost
reflects user costs. However, the cost is a burden to the airport authority since the
airport authority has an obligation to guarantee the smoothness of the service process.
For that reason, the costs considered for the passenger space are construction cost and
waiting time penalty cost.
Waiting time penalty (W) is treated as a constant. However, it is common knowledge

that people more agitated as waiting time increase. Therefore, W should be a function of
waiting time with higher penalties for longer waiting times. In addition, the revenue that
the airport would get from airlines’ use of check-in facilities was excluded. This effects
the optimization results.
The total costs considered are total costs for counters plus total costs for passengers
(see also equation 5-2). Some of the costs are available as an annual cost. All annual
costs are divided by 365 to deduce a daily cost, since the number of passengers
observed is on daily basis. The list of these costs is available in Table 5-6.
The equations presented in this subsection are only the main ones in the calculation
process. Other equations are explained in other modules and are attached in Appendix
C.
5.4.5 Optimization Tool

The time block program is able to do an optimization. The optimization process requires
the program to run many times until the optimal value is obtained. To facilitate this
requirement, the program makes use of the optimization tool in excel. The tool is called
solver. By identifying the target of the optimization, the program will repeat
calculations. The target in this optimization is minimizing the total costs.
66
5.5 PROGRAM DEVELOPMENT

The proposed program is developed in four modules. These are Central, Queuing,
Waiting Time, and Optimization. Central is a preliminary input-output module. All
output from other modules are deposited in Central. Queuing and Waiting Time are
sections that present the queuing and waiting time distributions respectively.
Optimization is another input module where all variables that may influence the
optimization process are gathered.
Figure 5-5 briefly describes the relationships among the four modules.
QUEUING
CENTRAL WAITING TIME
OPTIMIZATION
Program flow
Data flow
Figure 5-5 Relationships among the four modules
The passenger arrival in Central is distributed in the Queuing section. The result, in
the form of the maximum and average number of passengers in queue, is stored in
Central. The waiting time of passengers in Queuing is estimated in the Waiting Time
module. This result is also stored in Central. The information in Central together with
additional information required to do optimization is stored in the Optimization module.
The program does iterations to obtain the optimal result. The optimal result is then
presented to Central as a final result. More details on these modules are explained
separately.
5.5.1 Central Module

The Central module is the first part of the four linked modules. This module has a duty
to provide all inputs required regarding the calculation process, except for the
67
optimization process. The cumulative arrival and exit of passengers and also the graph
of this process are provided in this module. Outputs for design of the check-in area
arrangements are also presented. To minimize complexity in calculations, the program
in this module adopts some assumptions. These are:
• There is no separation among the airlines, all passengers are observed together.
• Passenger arrival distribution is based on a ten minute counting period.

Therefore passenger distribution is arranged in ten minute intervals.
• A constant service time adopted for passengers.
• The queue has a single line queue of waiting passengers fed to different servers.
Passengers are served based on first-come first-serve basis.
The Central module provides the opportunity to change input values for average
service time, number of servers, start time of the analysis, and the passenger arrival
distribution in terms of number of passengers arrival in a ten-minute period. This
passenger arrival distribution is copied from the results of the passenger distribution
process as explained in Chapter 4.
Table 5-3 is an example of a Central module. The table is copied from the program
for Birmingham airport. The figures in this table are obtained after program execution.
This table shows a small part of the entire table. Rows 28 to 108 are hidden to show the
length of entire table.
5.5.1.1 Module description

Table 5-4 shows the inputs required in this program. The number of servers acts as input
data if the user intends to evaluate the number of servers available. For optimization
purposes, the number of server cells is filled in by use of equation 5-9 (see section
5.5.4).
In Table 5-3, the cells in gray shadow in the upper right hand corner are input cells
(except the 5th row) but they can only be updated from the Optimization module. Details
of these inputs (in gray shadow) are explained later.
In practice, the Arrival Time and Arrival Count are copied and pasted from the
passenger arrival distribution result as presented in Chapter 4. In this example input
68
time starts from 3:40 and increments in ten-minute intervals until 22:00. Passenger
arrival count is based on the ten-minute counting period. In other words, the values in
this column do not mean that groups of passengers (1, 2, 6, etc.) are coming
simultaneously at the times shown in the preceding column. For example, at time 4:20
the number of passenger arrival is 30, it means that between 4:10 and 4:20, there are 30
passengers arrive.
See Optimum module

Table 5-3 Central module program
1 GRAPHICAL REPRESENTATION
2 Counting Period 10 min k Server Pax
3 Service time 5 min 62 width 2.2 0.64
4 No. of Server 62 length 5.4 1.72
5 Service capability 124 cust/10min A_req 736.56 303.8208 1040.3808
6 Time Periods 111 Above mean tw 68.51%
7 a max 204 Lq max 276 tw max 30
8 Mean a 86.04 mean Lq 55.00 Mean tw 06:10
Arrival
Arrival count Running a(t) Q(t)+ Cummulative
9 time (a) total +Lq(t-1) Lq(t) Q(t/2) tw min tw max Mean tw Exit (D) D
10 4:00 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
11 3:40 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 00:00 1 1
12 3:50 2 3 2 0 0 0 0 00:00 2 3
13 4:00 6 9 6 0 0 0 0 00:00 6 9
14 4:10 14 23 14 0 0 0 0 00:00 14 23
15 4:20 30 53 30 0 0 0 0 00:00 30 53
16 4:30 51 104 51 0 0 0 0 00:00 51 104
17 4:40 76 180 76 0 14 0 5 00:55 76 180
18 4:50 104 284 104 0 42 0 5 02:01 104 284
19 5:00 147 431 147 23 85 0 10 03:40 124 408
20 5:10 191 622 214 90 152 0 15 07:04 124 532
21 5:20 204 826 294 170 232 5 20 12:56 124 656
22 5:30 197 1023 367 243 305 10 25 19:04 124 780
23 5:40 157 1180 400 276 338 15 30 23:36 124 904
24 5:50 124 1304 400 276 338 20 30 24:45 124 1028
25 6:00 98 1402 374 250 312 20 30 23:22 124 1152
26 6:10 75 1477 325 201 263 20 25 21:00 124 1276
27 6:20 79 1556 280 156 218 15 20 17:02 124 1400
109 20:00 13 9510 13 0 0 0 0 00:00 13 9510
110 20:10 9 9519 9 0 0 0 0 00:00 9 9519
111 20:20 9 9528 9 0 0 0 0 00:00 9 9528
112 20:30 7 9535 7 0 0 0 0 00:00 7 9535
113 20:40 5 9540 5 0 0 0 0 00:00 5 9540
114 20:50 4 9544 4 0 0 0 0 00:00 4 9544
115 21:00 4 9548 4 0 0 0 0 00:00 4 9548
116 21:10 2 9550 2 0 0 0 0 00:00 2 9550
117 21:20 0 9550 0 0 0 0 9550
118 21:30 0 9550 0 0 0 0 9550
119 21:40 0 9550 0 0 0 0 9550
120 21:50 0 9550 0 0 0 0 9550
121 22:00 0 9550 0 0 0 0 9550
122
69
Row 10 is filled with 0 for all cells, which is used at program start up.
Table 5-4 Inputs variable in Central module
Input cells
Function Source
Cell number Description
D2 Counting period To calculate server capacity Interval of earliness
arrival distribution
D3 Service time Calculation number of User input
servers, service capacity,
and maximum and
minimum waiting time
D4 Number of Calculation service User input*
servers capacity, and maximum
and minimum waiting time
A11-A154 Arrival time Draw graph
B11-B154 Arrival count Estimation of cumulative Passenger arrival

arrival, queue length, distribution
waiting time, maximum
and average arrival
*As an input if the optimization process is not included
5.5.1.2 Program execution (without optimization)

The program starts running when the number of servers is typed. The blank cells are
filled in and the graph of passenger arrival-exit distribution is drawn. The only results
that are adopted from other modules are the values in column Mean waiting time (Mean
tw – the H column). These results are explained later in the Waiting time module.
The Running Total value is the cumulative value of the Arrival Count in column B.
The maximum arrival (B7) is the maximum number of passenger arrival in one counting
period. The mean arrival passenger (B8) is the average value of the passenger arrival
per ten minute period. The maximum and the mean arrival are estimated based on the
number of periods (B6). The number of periods here is the same as the number of
counting periods. The number of periods in B6 is a range of the observed data. This
value is obtained by electronically counting the number of cells in column C. Column C
is selected as reference since this column always has values in its cells. The number of
periods value is required in later calculations.
70
The number of exits and its accumulation (columns J and K) are also calculated. The
number of exits depends on the server capacity. The maximum number of customers
exiting in each counting period is equal to the server capacity.
Cells in column D (D11 to D154) represent the number of passengers at a particular

time. The value is equal to the addition of the number of passenger arrival at t and the
number of passengers in queue at (t-1). The t notation denotes the time of the counting
periods. In other words, t is one counting period. Therefore, t-1 means the counting
period time before the observed counting period (t). The total passengers demanding
service is adopted in calculating waiting time.
The queue length (Lq) for each counting period can be seen in column E. The queue
length here is derived from the difference of Exit accumulation (column K) and
Running total (column C). The maximum and the mean queue length (E7 and E8) are
obtained by making use of the appropriate functions. These also require the number of
periods (B6).
The waiting time calculation involves the number of servers and service time given.
As explained before, if no passengers arrive, the cells in the waiting time columns are
empty. The minimum waiting time at t is estimated by the equation below:
Lq ( t −1)
t w− min = x Service time (5-7)
Number of servers
The minimum waiting time at t is the minimum waiting time for the group passenger
arrival at time t. The value of waiting time here is expressed as a multiple of service
time. This expression is based on the time block concept. For example, if there are 12
passengers in queue and 5 new passengers arrive. The number of servers is 5 and the
service time is 2 minutes. The first and the second 2-minutes service periods are used to
serve the 10 passengers in queue. The third 2-minutes is used to serve the remaining
passenger in the queue (2 passengers left) and the three new arrival passengers. Thus,
the minimum waiting time for the new passenger arrival is 4 minutes. From the
calculation the value is 4.8 minutes. Since the waiting time calculation is based on time
block length being equal to service time, the waiting time value is rounded down to the
nearest service time value.
71
The zero value means that all passenger arrival are served directly at the time
observed. This situation occurs when the number of passengers in queue is less than the
service capacity.
The maximum waiting time at t is obtained by applying the following equation:
Lq ( t −1) + a(t )
t w− max = x Service time (5-8)
Number of servers
The number of passengers demanding service is the total number of passengers in queue
at (t-1) and passenger arrival at t. The maximum waiting time value is rounded down to
the nearest multiple of service time. The aim of the rounding down process is to avoid
overestimation in the calculation process. Here, the first group of passengers is served
directly and there is no waiting time for this group. The waiting time will start to be
counted for the second group. For better understanding, Table 5-5 in the next subsection
gives an illustration.
The minimum waiting time is based on the waiting time of the first group. On the
other hand, the maximum waiting time is the waiting time of the last group. In this
context, the minimum waiting time could be zero if the group of passenger arrival can
be serviced at once. The minimum waiting time will be greater than zero if there was a
queue at the time the group arrives.
The mean waiting time in column I (I11 to I154) is adopted from the Waiting Time
module. It represents the mean waiting time of passengers in queue in one counting
period. The overall average of the mean waiting time in this column is presented in cell
I8. Cell I7 shows the maximum value of the maximum waiting time in column H.
The other result is the value of the percentage of passengers who are in queue for
more than the average waiting time. This information is useful in determining the
performance of the service given to passengers. The total number of passengers in
queue is given in the Queuing module.
The important result that represents the objective of this project is the total required
space (Areq – cell K5). The total required space is for passengers (J5) and for check-in
counters (I5). The space for check-in counters is derived from the product of the number
of servers and the check-in desk size (I3 and I4). The passenger space is estimated by
72
the multiplying the minimum required space per passengers with a baggage cart (the
size is in J3 for the width and J4 for the length) by the maximum passengers in queue
(E7). The size of the counter desk and passenger can be changed in the Optimum
module.
In the Central module, there are some blank cells at the bottom part of the table. The
blank cells prevent miss calculation of waiting time in the corresponding columns. In
calculating maximum or average waiting time (cells I7 and I8) the equation calculates
for all cells in the corresponding column. This is important in estimating the average
waiting time. The average waiting time in each cell in column I is the average waiting
time of each passenger in each counting period.
The problem is, not every cell along column B is filled with passenger arrival. If the
cells in the column for calculating waiting time are filled in with value 0, those values
(0) will be included in estimating the average. The blank cells will not be included in
calculation process. For example, for the series of numbers: 0,6,6,6,9,9,0,6. The total of
this series is 42. The average value is 42/8 = 5.25. If the 0 value is not counted, the
average value is 7. Therefore the cells are programmed to be blank if no customers
arrive.
The Central module also provides a graphical representation. The graph is located on
the right side of the table presented in Table 5-3. The graph (Figure 5-6a and 5-6b)
represents the accumulation of passenger arrival and passenger exit. This fluctuation
depends on the flight schedule of a particular airport (refer to Figure 5-1). The rate of
exiting passengers is constant during busy periods, since the number of passenger
arrival exceeds the server capacity.
The picture of congestion in check-in area can be seen from this graph. The
congestion occurs if the number of exiting passengers is less than the number of
passenger arrival. Figure 5-6a presents the graph. The graph shows that at a certain
periods the passenger arrival increase and the server capacity cannot handle this
situation. As a result, a long queue forms and waiting time increases. The black shadow
area on the graph shows the long queue and waiting time.
The Figure 5-6a represents conditions at Birmingham airport check-in area with 55
servers available and an average service time of 5 minutes. The graph shows that there
73
is congestion from 5.00 to 12.00 and 15.00 to 18.00. This graph is useful in helping the
planner during preliminary design to find out the actual number of servers required to
avoid congestion by changing the number of servers in the Central module. The graph
can also assist the operators of existing airports to evaluate the service performance.
12000
10000
8000
No. of People
6000
4000
Congestion
2000
0
10:40
11:40
12:40
13:40
14:40
15:40
16:40
17:40
18:40
19:40
20:40
3:40
4:40
5:40
6:40
7:40
8:40
9:40
Time
Arrival Departure
Figure 5-6 congestion at check-in area

74
12000
10000
8000
No. of People
6000
4000
2000
0
3:40
4:50
6:00
7:10
8:20
9:30
10:40
11:50
13:00
14:10
15:20
16:30
17:40
18:50
20:00
21:10
Time
Arrival Exit
Figure 5-6b. Small queue scenario
The graph in Fig.5-6b is an example of a graphical representation of Birmingham

International Airport after optimization. The number of servers is 62. This graph shows
the improvement after increasing the number of servers from 55 to 62. The graph shows
that the queue size has reduced during the check-in process.
75
5.5.2 Queuing Module

The Queuing module supports the Central module program in distributing the
number of passengers to time blocks. The length of this time block is equal to the
selected average service time and the capacity of each time block depends on service
capacity. The capacity here means that the maximum number of passengers in one time
block equals to the designed number of server.
The Queuing module has two tables. These two tables are arranged as shown in
Table 5-5 for convenience in controlling the calculation process. The first table is the
same as the table in Central module. All figures in this table are copied from the
Central module automatically. In other words, the table is already linked to the Central
module. The link is made through referencing all cells in the Central module.
The second table, to the right of the first table, is a table for queuing distribution. The
aim of the queuing distribution is to simplify the calculation process of waiting time.
Table 5-5 shows a small part of a complete module. The first table is a copy of some
columns of the Central module. The second table shows that the passenger arrivals are
grouped in time blocks as previously explained.
In the second table, the 4th row represents the multiplication of number of servers to
sequence number of time blocks (for row number, see the column on the far left of the
two table chart). This sequence number is located in the 5th row. The values in row 4 are
used for calculating and allocating passengers in each block. In this case, the number of
passenger arrivals and in queue is compared to the 4th row values. If the value in column
C is less than the 4th row value in the first column, then the value in column C at a
particular time will be placed in the first column for the corresponding time. Otherwise,
it will be located in the next column.
The 6th row is waiting time for passengers in the time block before being served. The
waiting time in this row is dependent on the service time. This is the same as in Table 5-
2. The 7th row is the total number of passengers in the corresponding column or time
block. Column I is the total number of passengers in the queue for each time period.
Column J upwards represents the number of passengers in queue for each time block.
Passengers in column J are those passengers that will obtain service directly; passengers
in column K have to wait for 5 minutes, and so on.
76
Table 5-5 Queuing module
A B C D E F G H I J K L M N O P
1 GRAPHICAL REPRESENTATION 2
2 Counting period 10 min
3 Service time 5 min Qeueing Distribution
4 No. of Server 62 62 124 186 248 310 372 434
5 Service capacity 124 cust/10min 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Depart
Arrival Arrival a(t) ure
6 time count (a) +Lq(t-1) Lq(t) tw min tw max (D) 9550 5 10 15 20 25 30
7 4:00 total 3007 2094 1601 1322 939 494 93
8 3:40 1 1 1 1 1
9 3:50 2 2 2 2 2
10 4:00 6 6 6 6 6
11 4:10 14 14 14 14 14
12 4:20 30 30 30 30 30
13 4:30 51 51 51 51 51
14 4:40 76 76 5 76 76 62 14
15 4:50 104 104 5 104 104 62 42
16 5:00 147 147 23 10 124 147 62 62 23
17 5:10 191 214 90 15 124 191 39 62 62 28
18 5:20 204 294 170 5 20 124 204 34 62 62 46
19 5:30 197 367 243 10 25 124 197 16 62 62 57
20 5:40 157 400 276 15 30 124 157 5 62 62 28
21 5:50 124 400 276 20 30 124 124 34 62 28
22 6:00 98 374 250 20 30 124 98 34 62 2
23 6:10 75 325 201 20 25 124 75 60 15
24 6:20 79 280 156 15 20 124 79 47 32
25 6:30 97 253 129 10 20 124 97 30 62 5
26 6:40 137 266 142 10 20 124 137 57 62 18
27 6:50 158 300 176 10 20 124 158 44 62 52
28 7:00 171 347 223 10 25 124 171 10 62 62 37
29 7:10 162 385 261 15 30 124 162 25 62 62 13
30 7:20 132 393 269 20 30 124 132 49 62 21
31 7:30 104 373 249 20 30 124 104 41 62 1
32 7:40 74 323 199 20 25 124 74 61 13
33 7:50 68 267 143 15 20 124 68 49 19
34 8:00 78 221 97 10 15 124 78 43 35
35 8:10 84 181 57 5 10 124 84 27 57
36 8:20 98 155 31 10 124 98 5 62 31
37 8:30 111 142 18 10 124 111 31 62 18
38 8:40 130 148 24 10 124 130 44 62 24
39 8:50 151 175 51 10 124 151 38 62 51
40 9:00 164 215 91 15 124 164 11 62 62 29
First table Second table
(Passengers distribution) (Queue distribution)
77
The grouping of queuing distribution is shown in the flow chart in figure 5-7:
Error!
Passenger arrivals
No
More passengers
Serve all passengers
than servers?
Yes
Grouped passengers
Serve 1st group
Serve 2nd group
End
Figure 5-7 Flow chart for queuing distribution process
There is no need to enter any data to Queuing module. The process is done at the
time the user enters the number of servers in Central module.
5.5.3 Waiting Time Module

This module is designed to calculate the average waiting time of each passenger in each
counting period. The average waiting time can be obtained by dividing total waiting
time in each counting period by the number of passengers in queue in that counting
period. This number of queuing passengers is available in the Queuing module. There is
78
no input required; all equations and links to the other modules are already in built. Table
5-6 shows a section of the Waiting time module.
Table 5-6 Waiting Time module

1 Time Consumption
2 1.00 2.00 3.00 4.00 5.00 6.00 7.00 8.00
3 total ave (time format) 0.00 10470.00 16010.00 19830.00 18780.00 12350.00 2790.00 0.00
4 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
5 0.00 0.00 00:00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
6 0.00 0.00 00:00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
7 0.00 0.00 00:00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
8 0.00 0.00 00:00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
9 0.00 0.00 00:00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
10 70.00 0.92 00:55 0.00 70.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
11 210.00 2.02 02:01 0.00 210.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
12 540.00 3.67 03:40 0.00 310.00 230.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
13 1350.00 7.07 07:04 0.00 310.00 620.00 420.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
14 2640.00 12.94 12:56 0.00 170.00 620.00 930.00 920.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
15 3755.00 19.06 19:04 0.00 0.00 160.00 930.00 1240.00 1425.00 0.00 0.00
16 3705.00 23.60 23:36 0.00 0.00 0.00 75.00 1240.00 1550.00 840.00 0.00
17 3070.00 24.76 24:45 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 680.00 1550.00 840.00 0.00
18 2290.00 23.37 23:22 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 680.00 1550.00 60.00 0.00
19 1575.00 21.00 21:00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1200.00 375.00 0.00 0.00
20 1345.00 17.03 17:02 0.00 0.00 0.00 705.00 640.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
21 1330.00 13.71 13:43 0.00 0.00 300.00 930.00 100.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
22 1860.00 13.58 13:35 0.00 0.00 570.00 930.00 360.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
23 2410.00 15.25 15:15 0.00 0.00 440.00 930.00 1040.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
24 3195.00 18.68 18:41 0.00 0.00 100.00 930.00 1240.00 925.00 0.00 0.00
25 3555.00 21.94 21:57 0.00 0.00 0.00 375.00 1240.00 1550.00 390.00 0.00
26 3160.00 23.94 23:56 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 980.00 1550.00 630.00 0.00
27 2400.00 23.08 23:05 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 820.00 1550.00 30.00 0.00
28 1545.00 20.88 20:53 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1220.00 325.00 0.00 0.00
29 1115.00 16.40 16:24 0.00 0.00 0.00 735.00 380.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
30 955.00 12.24 12:15 0.00 0.00 430.00 525.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
31 705.00 8.39 08:24 0.00 135.00 570.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
32 620.00 6.33 06:20 0.00 310.00 310.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
33 490.00 4.41 04:25 0.00 310.00 180.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
34 550.00 4.23 04:14 0.00 310.00 240.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
35 820.00 5.43 05:26 0.00 310.00 510.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
36 1365.00 8.32 08:19 0.00 310.00 620.00 435.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
37 1935.00 11.52 11:31 0.00 165.00 620.00 930.00 220.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
38 2300.00 14.74 14:45 0.00 0.00 510.00 930.00 860.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
39 2140.00 16.21 16:13 0.00 0.00 190.00 930.00 1020.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
40 1380.00 15.33 15:20 0.00 0.00 110.00 930.00 340.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
The 2nd row is the time block numbering. The values are the same with those of the
fifth row in the Queuing module. The 3rd row is the total waiting time in one column or
each time block.
Column A is the total waiting time in each counting period. The average waiting time
from calculations is in column B, and column C shows the average waiting time in time
format. This average value in column B is derived by dividing total waiting time in
column A in each counting period by the number of passengers in queue in column I in
the Queuing module.
The next columns (starting from column D) through to the last column of the table
are to accommodate the waiting time distribution. The calculation process in this
module refers to the Queuing module. The waiting time for each column (column D to
79
the last column of the table) is obtained by multiplying the number of passengers in
queue in each time block in the Queuing module at the corresponding time to the
waiting time in each time block (the 6th row in second table in Queuing module).
5.5.4 Optimization Module
The Optimization module is aimed to calculate the optimal space required in airport
check-in area. This module focuses on the optimization process and therefore, it is
related to the cost issue.
This cost issue makes Optimization a difficult module. The cause of this difficulty is
the lack of further information regarding the cost to support the program. Some airports
were contacted to obtain the cost information. Only Brussels International Airport (BIA)
provided information, and that was in the form of the Annual Report for year 1999. This
annual report covers the expenses for construction and operational costs during year
1999. The costs applied in the Optimization module are based on this annual report and
information obtained from furniture and computer companies. The life spans of
furniture and equipment are assumed to be three years and five years respectively. Table
5-7 is the list of the costs adopted.
Some figures, such as fee for check-in counter officer and waiting time penalty, are
estimates based on personal prediction. The costs were converted to AU$.
The cost figures are manually placed in the Optimization module in Table 5-8. The
manual system is aimed to make users able to change the cost items. The 2nd to 10th
rows are data inputs. Here the values are taken from Table 5-7 and Table 2-2. By
changing data in Table 5-8, the sizes for counters and passengers in Central module
(gray shadow in upper right hand corner in Table 5-3) are also changed. Thus, the sizes
appearing in the Central module are the sizes which are filled in Optimization module.
The aim of this presentation in Central is to make the planner have a complete picture
of the check-in arrangements after the optimization process by only looking at the
Central module.
80
Table 5-7 Costs List
Item Notation Cost (AU$) Unit Source

Check-in counter O 50 per person per Assumption
officer hour
Furniture F 1500 per counter per Furniture
year companies
Equipment (scale and E 6000 per counter per BIAC Annual
conveyor belt) year report
Computer + printer Co 2500 per counter per Computer
year companies
Waiting time penalty W 10 per min per Assumption
pax
Construction Cn 4,333,287 per year per BIAC Annual
square meter report
The sizes for counters and passengers vary; depending on planner preference and
level of service required. A high level of service requires more space. Since the space
calculation has a strong relation to the optimization process, the sizes of the counter and
passenger space inputs are located in the Optimization module.
The 16th row is for the obtained results after the optimization process. The results
here are automatically transferred to the Central module in the appropriate cells.
Table 5-8 Optimization Module
A B C D E F G H I J
1 Data Entry
2 Worker fee: 50 /hr/person
3 Working time : 20 hrs
4 Furn+Eqpt: 4.10959 /day
5 Cost Area : 11872 /day
6 Waiting Time Penalty: 0 /min
7 Size of counter Width = 2.2 m
8 Length 5.4 m
9 Size of passenger Width = 0.64 m
10 Length 1.72 m
11
Waiting time Lq over tw Sum Waiting Time Total cost
12 No. of Server Lq max. Area (sqm) Total Pax limit (tw limit) limit over tw limit (A$)/day
Check-in Passenger Total space
13 desk (Pax) requirement
14 Temporary k = 62
15
16 62 276 736.56 1.1 1040.3808 9550 10 4449 69760 12475675.6
The optimization process is based on the equation 5-5 in section 5.4.4.2. The
program runs by making use of the solver facility in Excel. The solver function does
optimization by repeating the program several times automatically. This is an iteration
process. The solver facility has options in determining the target cell and changing cell.
81
The target cell is the total cost (J16). The changing cell selected is k. The iteration will
stop if the minimum total cost (J16) as a target cell has been attained.
During the iteration process the number of servers (A16) will automatically change.
If the selected service time is not a multiple of the counting period, the service capacity
result is a fraction. To avoid this condition and to make the program able to run in any
service time selected, the control variable is not the number of servers but the k value
(refer to section 5.4.4.2). The k value is a constant affecting the number of servers.
Equation 5-8 shows the computation of number of servers from the k value.
Service time
Ns = k x (5-9)
GCD(Counting period , Service time)
where GCD = greatest common divider.
For example: suppose the counting period is 10 minute and the average service time
is 3 minute. The service capacity if the number of servers given is 2 will be:
10
Service capacity = x 2 = 6.666...
3
By adopting equation 5-9, the service capacity from the example above becomes:
10 ⎛ 3⎞
Service capacity = x ⎜ k x ⎟ = 10k
3 ⎝ 1⎠
From the example above, k = 1,2,3…n. The number of servers involved in the
iteration process will be 3, 6, 9, 12, and so on until the minimum cost is achieved.
To check whether the obtained optimum number of servers is correct, the user may
enter the adjacent number of servers into A16 and see the result. The reason to do this
check is because the program works on the basis of a multiplication of service time.
Restricting service capacity to an integer value is an unnecessary and unreasonable

constraint. This may yield results that are not truly optimal. This is correct for ordinary
calculation. However, since the calculation of service capacity is strongly related to the
number of passengers in each time blocks, it will look odd if the number of passengers
in each time block is in fraction form. In addition, the integer value will help to control
the distribution of the arrival passengers into each time block.
82
The optimization process can be summarized as shown in Figure 5-8
Select inputs Select target Select

cell changing cell
Start
Select new
Estimate Cost
No
Minimum
cost?
Yes
Show number
of servers
End process
Figure 5-8 the optimization process
5.6 SUMMARY
This chapter presented the time block program used to analyze the design of check-in
area arrangements; this being represented by the number of servers. By obtaining the
number of servers, other involved elements in the check-in process that have influence
in determining the minimum cost, are also derived. The program is able to estimate the
congestion periods as well. The congestion period information is useful to airport
83
operators. The program also provides information on the service performance. The
service performance is represented by the percentage of passengers who have to wait
longer than the average waiting time.
In the time block concept, the passenger arrivals are distributed into groups placed in
time-framed blocks. The length of each time block depends on the service time. The
capacity of each time block equals to the number of servers.
The time block concept concerns service time, demand profile, queue system, sizes
of counter and passenger, and total cost. The aim of the model is to find the number of
servers that yield the minimum total cost.
The time block model involves four modules; those are Central, Queuing, Waiting
time, and Optimization. Those four modules are linked to each other by means of a
number of equations. These equations are written in the program using functions
available in Excel. Data inputs are stored mainly in the Central and Optimization
modules.
To run the program, there are two options. The first is running the program without
optimization. For this option, all data required are entered in the Central module. The
user activates the program by typing the selected number of servers. Results shown in
the Central module include the queue length, the waiting time, and a graph that shows
the performance of the selected arrangement.
The second option is to obtain the optimum number of open counters. Data required
for this option are placed in the Optimization module. This option can be executed by
pressing the solver button in the tools menu in the Optimization module. The results of
this process can be seen in the Central module. The results cover the required number of
servers, average waiting time and queue length, minimum cost, and also a graph that
represents distribution of cumulative arrivals and exits.
The time block program has some limitations. These can distort the result. The
limitations that should be mentioned are:
• The model is restricted to have only one line of passengers that is served by
many servers (multiple server queue system).
• The service time is fixed. In reality the service time varies.
84
• The model is restricted to counting periods that are multiples of the service
time. For example, if the counting period is 10 minutes and the service time
selected is 3 minutes, it makes an error the waiting time for the passengers in
the fourth 3 minutes. The previous section introduces the k value that assists in
the calculation process in determining number of servers. However, there is still
a problem in estimating the queue length and waiting time. This problem is
explained in section 7.2.2.
Developing the simulation program presented in next chapter reduces the program
limitations.
This program facilitates the planner to select the appropriate service time based on
the demand profile. The planner can see how the suggested improvement will reduce the
congestion in check-in area.
The other benefit is that the planner can also change the passenger arrival distribution
to reduce the congestion. It may be difficult to implement a planned arrival distribution
in a real situation. However, changing the check-in period may spread the passenger
arrival distribution out. An example of this is presented in Chapter 7. Another option is
to change schedules of aircraft exits by negotiation with airlines. The ideas for changes
may be integrated into airline interests.
The program also allows investigation of the effect of different sizes of check-in
counter. Some numerical examples presented in Chapter 7.
85
6
SIMULATION MODEL
6.1 INTRODUCTION
Simulation is an analysis technique based on numerical methods. Hall (1991) said that
simulation is a powerful technique for evaluating the behavior of a system.
In order to improve the evaluation of the proposed model, this project develops a
simulation program. Some simulation programs are already available. However, this
project develops its own simulation program to suit the project objectives.
The objective of the development of a simulation model is to propose a model to

determine the optimum number of servers in the check-in area. This model approaches
the issues related to the passenger check-in process that to some extent are different
from the methods already reported. The simulation model attempts to imitate the
process in the check-in area by involving the elements related to that process. The
elements involved are passenger arrival distribution, service time, counter configuration,
space per passenger, and total cost. The values and variations of these elements
influence the design.
This chapter covers the simulation concept in the proposed model, the simulation
methodology, the simulation program development, and the verification of the program.
6.2 PREVIOUS RELATED WORK
Some researchers have developed simulation programs for passengers in airport

terminals. This section briefly presents these simulation programs. The differences
between the proposed model and the previous simulation programs are presented.
Setti and Hutchinson (1994) presented a program called TERMSIM. A simulation

program that is written in Pascal. The program was designed to simulate passenger
86
Chapter 6 – Simulation Model
movement in an airport terminal. It assessed the performance and capacity of the

passenger terminal during planning and design stages by treating passengers in
obtaining service sequences of terminal processes as a queuing network. This program
was applied in Canada.
In Amsterdam, another simulation program called LOT: Logistiek Ontwikkeling

Terminal (in Dutch) or Logistics Development Terminal was presented by Gatersleben
and van der Weij (1999). The program provided:
1. Identification of logistics bottlenecks in passenger handling within a time

scope of five years.
2. Solutions to support the process of decision making about future airport

developments.
In their article, Mumayiz and Jain (1991) presented two-simulation approaches in

designing an airport landside. They were Airport Landside Simulation Model (ALSIM)
that was designed by FAA, and the Canadian Airport Planning Model.
Pedroute is a computer simulation program that was designed by Gerry Weston at

London Underground Limited. Pedroute has been used widely to model crowdedness in
underground transit network and modal interchanges. This program is able to identify
the pedestrian density at a certain location at the interchange. However, some
researchers have found inaccuracies, such as pedestrian speed, in this program (Still,
G.K, 2000)
The other well-known simulation is SLAM II simulation program written in advanced

FORTRAN language. SLAM II as well as LOT, provides a facility to observe the
congestion of passenger flow within terminal facilities. This program has already been
verified and validated by Singapore Changi Airport (Jim, H. K. and Chang, Z. Y. 1998).
The reported simulations are designed to simulate passenger facilities in airport

terminals. Those reported programs, basically, involve pedestrian flow. The programs
are observing passengers/pedestrians in a building or transport interchange as a whole.
It means that those programs simulate passenger flow from arrival at the building
through all the passenger processes. Those programs end the simulation after passengers
complete all the processes and exit the system. The proposed simulation model focuses
87
only on the check-in area. The following section presents the concept of the proposed
simulation program.
6.3 THE CONCEPT
This section attempts to clarify the idea underlying the proposed simulation program.
The simulation program planned is not much different from the time block program
explained in the previous chapter. In the time block program, the passengers are
grouped into ten-minute counting periods. However, in the proposed simulation
program, passengers are treated as individual entities.
The proposed model follows the simulation process for queuing behavior. The general
diagram in Figure 6.1 presents the concept of this simulation model. This figure is
modified from Poole (1977).
The square symbols represent activity, and the circle shows an idle state, waiting in
queue. Generator activity represents the passenger arrival process at the check-in area.
Server activity is the serving process until passenger departure time. An important
attribute of the generator is the number of passengers that arrive per time unit. The
relevant server attribute is service time and number of servers.
The simulation program attempts to imitate the passenger check-in process at

airports. The used data in the simulation program is the same as in time block system.
Based on the available data, passengers are distributed evenly in counting periods. In
other words, the passenger headway is equal during a counting period. As the counting
period is a small value, treatment of arrivals in that period as evenly distributed is
acceptable. However, to facilitate the situation where the data are unavailable, the
generator is also able to synthesize arrival passengers with random headways.
Passengers are designated to join the shortest queue. The passengers obtain service as
soon as they depart from the queue line.
Generator Queue Server
Figure 6-1 Simple flow diagram

88
6.4 METHODOLOGY
In designing the simulation, five stages are considered. The first is problem statement.
In problem statement, the entire puzzle representing the process in the check-in area is
acknowledged. The second stage is identification and collection of the data that should
be prepared in order to guarantee the smoothness of the program. The third stage is the
selection of the program language. The fourth stage is the development of the program,
and the last stage is the validation of the program. The goal of this section is to explain
briefly this methodology.
6.4.1 Problem Statement
Problem statement is the first stage that requires careful consideration. At this stage,
the expected difficulties that may appear in program design stage must be clarified. In
addition, all aspects that may affect the result must be stated clearly. This can be
achieved by observing the passenger check-in process at the airport. Since there are
number of problems related to each element involved in the check-in process, the
problems stated are presented under each element considered.
1. Arrival Passengers.
The data available is reported per ten-minute period. The simulation program
is designed to treat passengers as individuals. As the data is grouped in ten-
minute periods, the simulation program must be able to distribute the grouped
passengers into a single arrival. In other words, the headway of arrival
passengers in each counting period is equal.
Besides, the simulation program is expected to be proficient in generating

demand without any passenger arrival data. In other words, the program may
synthesize data.
2. Queuing System
The designed simulation program is required to consider two queuing systems

applied in airports.
89
3. Queuing Discipline
As explained in subsection 5.3.2, the simulation program must be designed to

adopt the nature of passenger behavior in waiting line.
4. Service Time
The program must accommodate the different passengers required service

times.
5. Optimization
The variables regarding the optimization process must be included in the

program design. The facility to accommodate a range of number of servers is
required. The idea of implementing a waiting time limit also needs special
consideration.
The above problems are recorded in order to assist program development later.
6.4.2 Collection of Data and Definition of the Model
The simulation program has the same data and information requirement as the time
block concept. The program operating procedures and probability distributions for the
used random variables in the model need to be specified. The operating procedures
represent the model procedures in generating passengers and running the simulation
process. These procedures are explained in the section of simulation program
development (6.5.1).
The model definition in this simulation program is the same as in the time block
concept. The proposed simulation program is designed to mimic the passenger check-in
process.
6.4.3 Selecting Simulation Program Language
Before the simulation program is developed, the first thing to do is to select a

programming language. The programming languages available are from general-
purpose languages such as FORTRAN, Pascal, Visual Basic, or C. The other programs
specifically designed for simulations are GPSS, SIMAN, SIMSCRIPT II.5, or SLAM II.
SIMMU, ITHINK, CYCLONE are available in the school. However, since there is time
consumed in understanding the characteristics of the programs available, these
90
programs are not adopted. The simulation programs may reduce the required
programming time by providing many of the features needed in programming a model.
The general-purpose language is usually available in the computer. Based on the time
and finance limitations, and the capability of the modeler, the program used is Visual
Basic in Excel. The reasons of selecting this application are:
¾ The program is a simple language.

¾ It is able to present the variables in tables, since it is a capability of Excel.
¾ There is no time constraint in simulation process.
¾ The program provides facilities to design user interface.
6.4.4 Simulation Program Development
The development of the simulation program is started after the programming language
is selected. The details of the subroutines, functions and variables of the model are
discussed in section 6.5.
6.4.5 Verification
Verification is required for the simulation program. At this stage, the program is run
using small data. The results are checked manually to see whether each part of the
program works appropriately. More about this phase is presented in section 6.6.
The development of simulation program is explained in the next section.
6.5 THE DEVELOPMENT OF SIMULATION PROGRAM
Simulation program in this project is developed using the Visual Basic application in
Excel. The simulation program consists of five modules and eight worksheets. Those
modules are Beginning, Functions, Main, Menus, and Optimization.
The Beginning module prepares all worksheets. The Function module organizes all
functions used in this program such as functions to determine arrival time, number of
arrival customers, and number of customers in queue. The complete list of functions is
available in Appendix D. The Main module coordinates the loop in the simulation
process. The Menus module designs menus at the tools bar to assist users in selecting
91
the menus. The menus control generating customers and simulation. The last module is
the Optimization module. This module arranges the optimization process.
The worksheets are Customer-Time, Customer, Queue, Server, Summarize, Result,

Optimization Parameter, and Random Number. These worksheets are designed to
accommodate:
¾ The data input, i.e.: passengers arrival times and optimization parameters;
¾ The information regarding passengers, servers, queuing, summary of the

process, and the results;
¾ The data of random numbers used in generating customers.
The program is also equipped with two-user interfaces to generate customer data and to
run the program. These user interfaces are aimed to assist in selecting user preference
regarding the passenger processing system and check-in area arrangement.
The program is grouped into three processes as presented in Fig. 6.2.
Generate arriving customers
Input optimisation parameters
Simulate check-in process
Figure 6-2 The Simulation process
These three processes are explained in the following subsections.
6.5.1 Generating Customers
In generating customers, the program has two options. The first option generates
customers from “Timetable” whereby customers are generated from the data available.
It is called a timetable since the data adopted is from the passenger arrival distribution
92
based on aircraft schedule as in the time block program. The process is shown in Fig. 6-
3a.
The second option is generating customers by making use of random numbers as

inter-arrival time of customers. In this second option, information required is initial
arrival time, number of customers, and arrival rate (λ) of the customers. This is
presented in Fig. 6-3b.
Timetable Synthesize arrival

passengers
Input data required:

- Initial arrival time
- Number of customers
- Passenger arrival rate
Generate list of customers Generate list of customers
a. b.
Figure 6-3 Process of generating customers
The program provides an input interface to decide when selecting the options above.
This interface is presented in Figure 6-4.
a. b.
Figure 6-4 User interface to generate customers
93
The button ‘Random’ in figure (a) can be toggled to get the interface shown in figure
(b).
6.5.1.1 Generating Customer from Timetable
The principle of generating customer from timetable is presented in Figure 6-5.
Time Block Number of Customer Arrival

Customer In Number Time
Time Block
3:40 48 1 3:40
3:50 37 2 3:40
…. … 3 3:40
… … 4 3:40
… … 5 3:41
… … … …
… … … …
… …. … …
23:20 8 (Total …
number)
Table 1 Table 2
Figure 6-5 Generate customers from timetable
Table 1 in Figure 6-5 is data of the number of arrival passengers in each time block.
Table 2 is the passenger arrival sequence.
The values in table 1 of Figure 6-5 are copied from the data in the Central module in
the Time Block program (Chapter 5). The copied cells are pasted into the Customer
Time worksheet in the simulation program. The data is adopted from Time Block
program since the proposed simulation program is using the same data. If data from
other source is available, the data mentioned is just keyed into the Customer Time
94
worksheet. This is possible as long as the data have the same format as the Time Block
system.
In Table 1 of Figure 6-5, the number of customers is recorded every ten minutes.
Since the simulation program treats the customers as individuals, the number of
customers in every ten minutes is then distributed evenly during that period. This
provides an arrival time for each passenger. These arrival times are recorded into a table
2. These values are in the Customer worksheet in the simulation program. The inter-
arrival time for a customer is:
Time block period

Inter _ arrival time = (6-1)
Number of customers in each time block
If the number of customers in one time block is large, the inter-arrival time for each
customer in the corresponding time block will be very small. The simulation program is
designed to round off the time to the nearest minute to simplify the program.
The arrival time for each customer will then be:
Arrival time = Initial time in each time period + (Inter arrival time x (Customer
number- Initial customer number)) (6-2)
The initial customer number in equation 6-2 is the initial customer number in each
period.
The explanation of equation 6-2 is shown in Figure 6-6. For example, customer
number 8 is the initial customer number in a particular time block period. The time
block period is 10 minutes. There are four people in the corresponding time block. The
inter arrival time is 10/4 = 2.5 minutes. This person number 8 is assumed to arrive at
time block start time t8 = 10:30. Thus the arrival time for customer number 11 would
be:
t11 = 10:30 + (2.5*(11-8)) = 10:30 + 0:07 = 10:37
95
Time
Next time period
Next time period
t11
t10
t9
t8
8 9 10 11 Customer
Figure 6-6 Estimation process of customer arrival time
6.5.1.2 Generating Customers Using Random Number
The random number is created by the random generator in excel. The distribution for
these random numbers is normal distribution. A list is prepared in the range of 1 to 100.
There are 3000 random numbers in the list. The aim of the list of random numbers is to
make the simulation program have the same passenger distribution when comparing
project scenarios. This list of random numbers is located in the Random Number
worksheet.
The process in generating customers from random numbers is not much different from
the previous process. The difference is in inter-arrival time estimation. The equations
for this are:
Arrival time = Initial arrival time + ∑ Inter arrival time (6-3)
log(1 − probbability of arriving customer )

Inter arrival time = (6-4)
− (customer arrival rate)
Equation 6-4 is derived from the equation for probability exponential distribution.
The equation is adopted since the negative exponential distribution is the common
distribution used for inter arrival times. This selection does not mean that the
96
exponential distribution is the selected distribution applied on passenger arrival

distribution in check-in area. The distribution always can be changed based on the
knowledge of the user by changing the simulation program code.
The probability of an arrival customer is taken from the ratio of random number to
100.
The generated customers are placed into the Customers worksheet. The lists of
generated customers look similar to Table 2 in Figure 6-5.
After the customers are generated, the next step is to run the simulation program. If
the program objective is to find the optimum result, the optimization parameters must be
stored at this stage. More details on optimization will be included in the next section.
The simulation program follows the procedure as explained in the next subsection.
6.5.2 Simulation Procedure
The user interface as seen in Figure 6-7 is provided to facilitate the user in selecting
model configuration.
The user interface has three buttons to activate the program. Those are ‘Start’,
‘Close’, and ‘Clean Result’. The ‘Start’ button function is to start running the program.
The ‘Close’ button closes the user interface. The ‘Clean result’ button is provided for
removing the previous result. This option hopes to avoid mix up of results.
The other facilities available in this user interface are presented as follows:
1. Number of Server Line
Number of server line is the number of servers to be used in the simulation. The user
just types the number of servers in this space.
2. Number of Queue Line
This facility has two options in selecting the queue system. These options are one or
single line queue, and as many as server line (multiple line queue). By selecting one
of these options, the program assigns passengers to perform queuing with the
selected queue system characteristics.
97
3. Waiting time limit
Waiting time limit is the maximum waiting time allowed without penalty for
passengers. The user simply types the preferred time limit into space available.
4. Service Duration
There are two options provided regarding the length of service time. The first option
is random service time. The uniform distribution is used to distribute the random
service time. The selected distribution is assumed since there is no available data
regarding service time distribution. However, the designed distribution here still can
be changed when the data or statistical test regarding service time distribution are
available.
The range of service time designed must be entered into the spaces available. By
selecting this option, passengers have different service times. The service time is in
integer number in minutes to simplify the program.
The other option is to apply an average service time. It means all passengers are
assumed obtain the same service time.
5. Iteration Ending
This facility is aimed to assist the user in selecting the stage at which the program
will be terminated. The first choice is the program will be stopped after all arrival
passengers have been served. The second alternative depends on the user
preference regarding the time. This means that the program runs only for a certain
period. The third choice counts on the number of customers. Therefore, the
program stops after a definite number of passengers.
6. Simulation Level
All options available are visible except for simulation level options. The
simulation level options will show up if the toggle button labeled ‘One Iteration’ is
pressed. There are three different preferences for this simulation level.
First, the program runs only for once iteration. To be able to do this, the user fills
the number of servers selected into the number of server space at the top of this
interface.
98
Second, the program is executed for several iterations. For this option, the user has
to select a range for the number of servers. The range selection is typed into two
spaces available below the button. The program will limit to the range selected.
The ‘step’ space selects the increment value for the number of servers in the range.
For example, if the range selected is from 5 to 15 numbers of servers with a step of
5, the program only runs at 5, 10, and 15 servers.
Third, the program is assigned to find the optimum. At this stage, the optimization
parameters are required. In addition, the number of servers range is required to
reduce the search time. The time block result can be adopted as reference to select
this range.
Figure 6-7 User interface for selecting program options
The simulation procedure is also expressed in the flow diagrams shown in Figure 6-8.
99
Clean result
Select number of
servers
Select number of
waiting lines
Select preferred
waiting time limit
Select service duration
Select iteration ending

criterion
Select simulation level
One iteration Several iterations Find optimum number
Select the number of

servers range
Start simulation
End
Figure 6-8 Flow diagram of simulation procedures
100
For the simulation level that finds the optimum number of servers, some parameters
(Table 6-1) should be completed before running the program. The optimization
parameters are provided in the Optimization parameter worksheet.
Table 6-1 Optimization Parameter
OPTIMIZATION PARAMETER Value Unit

Equipment Cost of Servers
Number of Servers from_Result servers
Furniture + Equipmentt Cost 4.11 $/server
Worker Cost of Server
Workers per Server 2 persons/server
Worker Fee 50 $/hr.person
Working hours 20 hrs
Construction Cost of Server
Construction Cost 11872.02 $/sqm.server
Server Width 2.60 m
Server Length 7.60 m
Construction Cost of Queue
Maximum Number of
Passengers in Line from_Result passenegrs
Number of Queue Lines from_Result
Construction Cost 11872.02 $/sqm.passengers
Passenger Width 2.20 m
Passenger Length 1.72 m
Waiting Time Penalty Cost
Number of Passengers exceed
Waiting time-Limit from_Result passengers
Waiting Time Penalty Cost 10 $/cust
All values in optimization parameter in Table 6-1 can be changed. The value for
customer width requires to be changed depending on the queuing system applied. If the
queuing system selected is multiple single-server queues, the customer width will be the
same as the server width. However, for multi server queue, the customer width is equal
to 0.64 m (refer to Figure 2-5). This value is required in this program.
After all the parameters have been filled in, the simulation program can be executed.
6.5.3 Program Execution Process
During the execution process, three steps are done by the simulation program. The steps
are shown by the curved arrow in Figure 6-9.
The first step is ending services and exiting customers. The aim of this process is to
clear the previous processes and generate new customers. This ending service process is
101
activated by pressing the ‘clean result’ button in the simulation user interface as shown
in Figure 6-7.
The second step is generating new customers and locating customers in queue. In this
step, generating customers is done by using the user interface in Figure 6-4. The user
selects one of the two options available. If the ‘timetable’ is selected, the user must copy
the data and paste it into the Customer-Time worksheet in the simulation program. After
data is copied, the user starts the generating process by pressing the ‘generate’ button. In
case the user prefers to synthesize the customers, the users interface as shown in Figure
6-4b provides this facility. The user may input all three boxes available with the
preferred configuration. Pressing ‘generate’ button begins this process. The program
places customers and their arrival times in the Customer worksheet.
Generator
Generate
customers,
1 Locating
customers in
queue
Ending service, 2
Exiting
customers Queue
Start
services,
Move
customers
from queue
3
Servers
Figure 6-9 The process in executing simulation program
The program checks the number of customer arrivals at a particular simulation clock
time and locates the customers in appropriate lines. The appropriate line means that the
102
program selects the line with minimum number of customers in queue. The program
allocates the customers to the servers sequentially, so when there is more than one
queue with the smallest number of passengers is waiting, the customers will select the
queue with the smallest sequence number.
The last step is starting service and moving customers in the queue line. At this stage,
the user takes no action. This process begins when the program simulation starts. In this
process, each server starts serving customers. The program estimates the service
duration, records starting and ending times of service. When one customer completes
the service, the program moves another customer from the queue line to the empty
server. If there is no customer, the program records the idle time for the server. The
program also checks the simulation clock to find whether the customer is the last one.
All processes are recorded in the Summarize worksheet. The information available in
this worksheet is simulation clock (time), the cumulative number for passenger arrivals,
the number of passengers in queue, in service, the cumulative number for exiting
passengers, the number of active servers, total service duration, total idle duration, and
maximum queue in each line.
The complete codes for the whole program are attached in Appendix D
In developing the program, it is important to verify the program both during the
development process and after the completion of the program development process. It is
important to ensure the translation of the conceptual simulation model into a correctly
working program. Next section discusses the verification process for the proposed
simulation program.
6.6 VERIFICATION PROCESS

Verification determines that a simulation computer program performs as intended
(Law, 1991). This project applies the verification technique under simplified
assumptions. The selected assumptions that are appropriate to the program
characteristics and can be checked easily are used in verification process.
For example, consider the following scenario:
- Number of customers: 20
- λ (arrival rate): 20 customer/60 minute
103
- Starting time: 3:40

- Number of servers: 4
- Queue system: multiple single-server queues
- Average service time: 2 minute
- Iteration ending after all customers have been served
- Simulation level is one iteration
- Optimization parameters applied as shown in Table 6-1.
Even though this example is not for optimization purposes, the optimization
parameter is still required to be filled in, in order to see whether the optimization
parameters are already linked to the program.
The results are presented in three parts, i.e.: summary of the program, customer
activity, and the result including the cost.
Table 6-2 presents summaries of the program execution process. This information is
located in Summary worksheet in the program. The Summary covers:
• The column accommodates the activity time, which is called simulation

clock column. This activity is recorded by the program. The range of time
recorded in this column is appropriate for the scenario. The scenario asks to
generate 20 passengers with an arrival of rate 20 passengers per hour. Thus,
the operation time is approximately one hour.
• Arrival cumulative column provides the cumulative number of passenger

arrivals. This column shows that there are total of 20 passengers arrive. This
number is the same as expected.
• The ‘in queue’ column records the number of passengers in queue at a

particular time.
• The ‘in service’ column provides information regarding the number of

passengers in service at a particular time. This column shows that the number
of passengers in service does not exceed the number of available servers. It
means there are no queuing passengers.
104
• The ‘depart cumulative’ column represents the cumulative number of

passengers completed service and exit from the system. The last number
shows that 20 passengers exited. This number equals the number of arrival
passengers. Thus, all passengers have left the system.
Table 6-2 Summaries

Simulation Arrive Depart Active Active Total Service Total Idle Maximum
Clock Cumulative in Qeue in Service Cumulative QeueLine ServerLine Duration Duration Qeue in Line
3:40 2 0 2 0 0 2 0:00 0:00 0
3:41 3 0 3 0 0 3 0:00 0:01 0
3:42 5 0 3 2 0 3 0:04 0:00 0
3:43 5 0 2 3 0 2 0:02 0:00 0
3:44 5 0 0 5 0 0 0:04 0:00 0
3:47 6 0 1 5 0 1 0:00 0:03 0
3:49 6 0 0 6 0 0 0:02 0:00 0
3:54 7 0 1 6 0 1 0:00 0:05 0
3:56 7 0 0 7 0 0 0:02 0:00 0
4:06 8 0 1 7 0 1 0:00 0:10 0
4:08 8 0 0 8 0 0 0:02 0:00 0
4:12 9 0 1 8 0 1 0:00 0:04 0
4:13 10 0 2 8 0 2 0:00 0:29 0
4:14 10 0 1 9 0 1 0:02 0:00 0
4:15 10 0 0 10 0 0 0:02 0:00 0
4:17 11 0 1 10 0 1 0:00 0:03 0
4:19 11 0 0 11 0 0 0:02 0:00 0
4:20 13 0 2 11 0 2 0:00 0:06 0
4:22 16 0 3 13 0 3 0:04 0:39 0
4:23 17 0 4 13 0 4 0:00 0:43 0
4:24 17 0 1 16 0 1 0:06 0:00 0
4:25 17 0 0 17 0 0 0:02 0:00 0
4:28 18 0 1 17 0 1 0:00 0:04 0
4:29 19 0 2 17 0 2 0:00 0:05 0
4:30 20 0 2 18 0 2 0:02 0:00 0
4:31 20 0 1 19 0 1 0:02 0:00 0
4:32 20 0 0 20 0 0 0:02 0:16 0
• The active queue line column indicates the number of queue lines active at a
particular time. If there are no passengers in queues, the active queue line is
zero. This column is useful for a multiple single-server queue system.
• The active server line values are the same as the value in ‘in service’ column.
• The total service duration column represents the total service duration
completed at a particular time. This value can be checked by multiplying the
number of passengers exited by the average service time.
• Total idle duration presents the time length for the number of servers that are
not active.
• Maximum queue in line column shows the maximum number of passengers

in a line queue at a particular time.
105
To have different point of view of this result, Table 6-3 shows the result based on the
customer count.
Table 6-3 presents observations of each passenger activity. The first column shows
the identification number of each passenger. The second column indicates the passenger
arrival time. The third and the fourth columns are the identification number for queue
line and servers. Since the queue system applied to this example is a multiple line
queue, the number for queue lines is the same as the number of servers. If the queue
system selected is a single line queue, the number for queue lines will be one for every
customer. The service time column shows the same time as the passenger arrival time.
This shows that there is no queuing and waiting time during the service process. This is
also shown in the third column of Table 6-2. The last one is the departure time column
where the values indicated have two minutes difference from arrival time.
Table 6-3 Result observation based on the customer

Customer ID Arrive Time Qeue Line Server Line Service Time Depart Time Waiting Duration Service Duration
1 3:40 1 1 3:40 3:42 0:00 0:02
2 3:40 2 2 3:40 3:42 0:00 0:02
3 3:41 3 3 3:41 3:43 0:00 0:02
4 3:42 1 1 3:42 3:44 0:00 0:02
5 3:42 2 2 3:42 3:44 0:00 0:02
6 3:47 1 1 3:47 3:49 0:00 0:02
7 3:54 1 1 3:54 3:56 0:00 0:02
8 4:06 1 1 4:06 4:08 0:00 0:02
9 4:12 1 1 4:12 4:14 0:00 0:02
10 4:13 2 2 4:13 4:15 0:00 0:02
11 4:17 1 1 4:17 4:19 0:00 0:02
12 4:20 1 1 4:20 4:22 0:00 0:02
13 4:20 2 2 4:20 4:22 0:00 0:02
14 4:22 1 1 4:22 4:24 0:00 0:02
15 4:22 2 2 4:22 4:24 0:00 0:02
16 4:22 3 3 4:22 4:24 0:00 0:02
17 4:23 4 4 4:23 4:25 0:00 0:02
18 4:28 1 1 4:28 4:30 0:00 0:02
19 4:29 2 2 4:29 4:31 0:00 0:02
20 4:30 1 1 4:30 4:32 0:00 0:02
Both presented tables previously show the validity of the simulation program under
conditions of no queue. The final result is presented in Table 6-4. Values in Table 6-4
confirm the results obtained from the previous two tables.
Two things need to be highlighted in this table. The first one is regarding idle
duration. This value is useful for planners to recognize the efficiency of the design. The
second thing is about the cost element. The cost presented here is the daily cost that
includes construction, operations, equipment, and furniture costs. The information
concerning the total cost is required in comparing a number of check-in counters.
106
The presented example here is only a simple one where the passenger demand level
is low. The program has been run many different times to check and correct any
abnormalities.
Table 6-4 Final results
Parameter Value
Iteration 1
Start time 3:40 AM
Finish 4:32 AM
Total arrive 20 customers
Total depart 20 customers
Number of queue lines 4
Number of servers 4
Waiting time (average) 0:00
Waiting time (maximum) 0:00
Waiting time (minimum) 0:00
Waiting time limit 0:25
Number of customers Exceed Penalty time limit 0
Queue max 0
Queue max per line 0
Total service duration 0:40
Total idle duration 2:48
Waiting penalty cost 0
Total cost $ 572174.81
6.7 SUMMARY
Understanding the physical system is important in building the simulation program.
This understanding will be useful in introducing real life into the program language. The
ability to utilize the computer program language is also important.
This simulation program is based on five different modules. Those modules are
Beginning, Functions, Main, Menus, and Optimization. This program provides eight
107
worksheets to record the process in detail. In addition, two user interfaces have been
developed to assist users in running the program.
The first of the eight worksheets is Customer-Time. This worksheet is designed to

accommodate the data regarding arrival time and number of customers at a particular
time. The second one is the Customer worksheet. This one provides columns to record
the customer ID, the time when a particular customer arrives, the entered queue and
server line, the time the customer starts and ends service, waiting time duration, and
service time duration. The Queue worksheet shows the number of queue lines, the
number of customers in a particular queue line, and maximum number of customers in a
particular line. The Server worksheet provides information regarding the server ID, start
and end service times for a particular server, idle duration, the served number of
customers, total service duration, and the departed number of customers from this
particular server. The Summarize worksheet function is to summarize all the activities
during the simulation. The Result worksheet provides information such as minimum,
maximum and average waiting time, queue length, and total cost after the program
complete simulation. The Optimum worksheet is provided to help the users in changing
optimization parameters. The last worksheet is the Random worksheet. This worksheet
provides a list of random numbers to be used in the simulation.
108
7
MODEL EVALUATION
7.1 INTRODUCTION
This chapter presents an evaluation of the proposed model. The evaluation here is based
on the results of the two programs, i.e.: the time block and simulation programs. The
analysis is based on incomplete data available from an airport.
The check-in area consists of check-in counters, circulation area, and an area for
passengers in queue (refer to Figure 2-5). The size of the check-in counter area thus
depends on the check-in counter size and arrangement, and number of check-in desks
provided.
The circulation area has to be sufficiently large to cater for the queue system applied
and the check-in counters arrangement. The selected queue system and check in counter
arrangements influence the passenger circulation area. This may impact waiting times if
passengers obtaining service are disturbed by passengers exiting service.
The queue area is the area for passengers waiting. The queue length is governed by
the arrival rate of passengers, the number of counters, and the average service time.
These three elements also influence the waiting time. The average waiting time is an
important measure of service performance of the check-in process.
The model that is represented by the two programs developed in this project tries to
combine elements mentioned above in a single calculation process. The model is
presented in equation form as shown in Equation 5-1 and 5-2.
109
Chapter 7 – Model Evaluation
7.2 COMPARISONS OF RESULTS

Two computer-aided analysis tools have been developed to assist evaluation of the
check-in area arrangement. These two programs were described in the previous two
chapters. The programs are called time block and simulation programs.
This section presents the application of the two programs to five airports. The aim of
this application is to investigate the importance of involved elements in the check-in
area. The required data as explained in Chapter 3 and 4 are applied in the two programs.
The results of this application are compared with the existing situation. In addition, the
time block program results are also compared with the simulation program. The
involved elements are examined by changing variables in data input. However, since the
actual data needed for the programs were not available from the 5 airports selected, the
comparisons are addressed as a preliminary assessment to the proposed method.
The results are also compared with the IATA formula. The other methods explained
in Chapter 2 are not investigated due to lack of data.
7.2.1 Comparison between the Real Situation and Program Results

A number of servers is the key variable selected here to make the results easy to
compare.
The available number of servers in the airport check-in area influences the required
space for counters and passengers in queue. The more servers are available the more
space is required for check-in counters, and the less space for queuing area. The
programs are designed to find the optimum space required.
Table 7-1 presents the list data applied to the programs. Only three airports provide
the average service time applied. For the other airports, the selected average service
time is assumed. The programs were designed to consider service time in whole
minutes. Thus the service time applied is 2, 5, 3, 5, and 5 minutes for Birmingham,
Brisbane, Hong Kong, Melbourne, and Orlando airports respectively.
The programs also require data for counter size and cost elements in order to obtain
the optimum total space required. The counter sizes are adopted from Table 2-4. The
width of the passengers with carts space is 0.64 meter.
110
Table 7-1 applied data of the programs

Average Service time
service time Operational Passengers With
Airport used in the Cost Counter Size (m)
time (hr) Cart Size (m)
programs
(minutes) Worker fee Furniture + Construction
Equipment Width Length Width Length
($/hr/person) ($/day) ($/day)
Birmingham 2:10 2 50 4.11 11872.02 20 2.20 5.40 0.64 1.72
Brisbane (*) 5:00 5 50 4.11 11872.02 20 2.20 5.40 0.64 1.72
Hong Kong 3:18 3 50 4.11 11872.02 24 2.20 5.40 0.64 1.72
Melbourne (*) 5:00 5 50 4.11 11872.02 20 2.20 5.40 0.64 1.72
Orlando 4:30 5 50 4.11 11872.02 20 2.20 5.40 0.64 1.72
(*) The assumed average service time, since the real average service time is
unavailable.
The cost data are obtained from Table 5-7. The operational time is based on the time
span of flight schedules at the airports. In this case, only Hong Kong International
airport has a 24-hour service. The operational time is used by the program to estimate
the cost of workers per day.
A year flight schedule for each of the airport is used here to generate passenger
demand. Thus, the total number of international passengers per day was 9,550; 4,252;
57,727; 6,386; 3166 for Birmingham, Brisbane, Hong Kong, Melbourne, and Orlando
airports respectively.
Figure 7-1 presents the number of servers output. Brisbane and Orlando have only
three bars since both airports do not provide the information regarding the actual
number of servers.
Number of Check-in Counters
350
300
250
Time Block
200 Simulation-Single Q
150 Simulation-Multiple Q
100 Real Situation
50
0
Birmingham Brisbane Hong Kong Melbourne Orlando
Airports
Figure 7-1 Comparison of program results and real situation
111
From Figure 7-1, it is shown that the optimum number of servers obtained from the
programs tends to be less than the number of servers in the real situation. Some possible
reasons for these indications are:
¾ Airline separation. Airports usually provide check-in counters based on

airline requirements. In serving passengers, airlines do not mix the counters.
Each airline has separate counters. The number of counters for each airline
depends on the airline demand. Yet, the number of servers provided at this
airport is more than the estimates made by the proposed model optimization.
The programs assume airlines mix counters to simplify the calculation
process. Besides, the information regarding the required number of counters
for each airline at airports was unavailable. However, Birmingham airport
mix the airline counters since the Birmingham airport applies the CUTE
system (refer to Chapter 2).
¾ Domestic and International passenger separation. Birmingham airport mixes

counters for domestic and international passengers. At other airports, it was
not clear whether the number of servers available was for international
passengers or includes domestic passengers. The input for the programs was
driven by international schedules. Therefore, the program results are for
limited numbers of passengers and tend to be less than the real situation.
¾ First and economic class separation. This separation may lead to provide
more servers. The programs were not designed to be able to handle the
passenger class separations.
¾ Over design. Over design occurs if the expected demand is less than the real
situation. For example, the number of passengers expected is less than
forecasts due to the global downturn. Zhang (2001) has explained this
situation for Hong Kong International Airport.
Figure 7-1 also presents the differences in the programs results. The time block
program results are compared to results of the simulation program for a single queue.
The time block program is only able to run for a single queue system (refer to Chapter
5). The results are nearly the same. A difference occurs when the demand is high as
happened in Hong Kong International Airport. The possible reason for this condition is
112
the different methodology in the two programs. As explained in Chapter 5 and 6

passengers are assigned in different ways. The time block program assigns passengers
in-groups based on the counting period, the simulation program assigns passengers as
individuals (refer to the limitation of time block program in Chapter 5).
From the space optimization point of view, there is very little difference between
operations with multiple single-server queues and multi server queue.
The other results such as waiting time and queue length are also obtained. These
results are presented in the next sub section.
7.2.2 Waiting Time and Queue Length

Besides the number of servers, waiting time and queue length are also examined.
Table 7-2 presents the waiting time value in minutes from the programs. The waiting
time and the queue length in the real situation are not examined since the real
information regarding those two elements is not available.
Table 7-2 Waiting time estimates (minute)
Airport Program Waiting time (minutes)

Maximum Average
Birmingham Time block 16 3
Simulation single queue 2 1
Simulation multiple queue 2 1
Brisbane Time block 25 3
Hong Kong Time block 18 7
Melbourne Time block 25 6
Orlando Time block 25 1
Table 7-2 shows that the waiting time values at the optimum number of servers from
the two programs are different. In the time block program, passengers are grouped
based on counting time period (refer to Chapter 5). This system tends to generalize the
waiting time for passengers in one group. That is why the maximum waiting time for
the time block program is higher than for the simulation program. The average waiting
113
time of the time block program is less than the result of the simulation program for the
Orlando application. The variation in the time block result is caused by the grouped
system adopted in the system.
For example, consider 204 passenger arrivals. The 204 passengers are grouped into
time blocks, which have length, equal to service time as shown in Figure 7-2. The
waiting time is the number above the boxes. It shows 0, 5, 10, and 15.
Waiting time
0 5 10 15
Server 62 62 62 18
Number of server or
passenger in queue in
Counting period one time block
Figure 7-2 Example of waiting time estimation
The total waiting time is a multiplication of average service time, the service time
applied is 5 minute, and number of servers available is 62. The queuing distribution is
described in Figure 7-2.
In the simulation program, the maximum waiting time is different. The maximum
waiting time for multiple queues tends to be larger than with a single queue.
In the process of joining the queue, passengers could select the queue line that has
longer service time. Figure 7-3 depicts joining the queuing process. The value above
each bar is the time when the customers start and finish the service process. The value
under each bar is the time length between events. To exaggerate the presentation here in
this diagram, the service time selected is one hour. The first four bars are with a single
line scenario. The other four bars are with multiple a waiting lines scenario for the same
passenger group.
114
ServiceTime = 1:00 3:00 4:00 5:00 6:00

S1 C1, A=3:00, W=0:00 C5, A=3:42, W=0:18 C9, A=4:41, W=0:19
1:00 1:00 1:00 0:10
3:10 4:10 5:10 6:10
S2 C2, A=3:10, W=0:00 C6, A=3:50, W=0:20 C10, A=4:57, W=0:13
Q1 0:10 1:00 1:00 1:00

3:13 4:13 5:13
S3 C3, A=3:13, W=0:00 C7, A=3:55, W=0:18
0:13 1:00 1:00 0:57
(a) Single waiting line 3:32 4:32 5:32
S4 C4, A=3:32, W=0:00 C8, A=4:21, W=0:11
0:32 1:00 1:00 0:38
3:00 4:00 5:00 6:00

Q1 S1 C1/Q1, A=3:00, W=0:00 C5/Q1, A=3:42, W=0:18 C8/Q1, A=4:21, W=0:39
1:00 1:00 1:00 0:10
3:10 4:10 5:10 6:10
Q2 S2 C2/Q2, A=3:10, W=0:00 C6/Q2, A=3:50, W=0:20 C10/Q2, A=4:57, W=0:13
0:10 1:00 1:00 1:00
3:13 4:13 5:13
Q3 S3 C3/Q3, A=3:13, W=0:00 C7/Q3, A=3:55, W=0:18
0:13 1:00 1:00 0:57
3:32 4:32 4:41 5:41
Q4 S4 C4/Q4, A=3:32, W=0:00 C9/Q4, A=4:41, W=0:00
0:32 1:00 0:09 1:00 0:29
(b) Multiple waiting lines
Customer C9 arrives at 4:41observes:

When C8 arrived (at 4:21), all servers are busy and the - Q1 has C8 and S1 has C5
queue line is empty.Based on the decission policy, C8 - Q2 has and S2 has C6
join the Q1. - Q3 is empty and S3 has C7
- Q4 is empty and S4 is empty
So, C9 decides to enter S4.
Figure 7-3 waiting time comparison for single queue and multiple queues
Where: Q = queue line, numbers from 1 - 4

S = server, numbers from 1-4
C = customer, numbers from 1 - 10
A = arrival time
W= waiting time
When C8 arrives, all servers are serving customers. C8 has no idea which customer
in service is nearly finishing the process. The program was designed to join the shortest
queue, thus C8 joins Q1. The decision to join the Q1 is based on the decision policy of
the program that the new customer will join the smallest sequence number queue if
number of queue lines are empty and all servers are busy. Based on the policy applied in
the program, the waiting time could be different for any particular individual.
The other interesting element is comparison of the queue length of the two programs.
Figure 7-4 presents the result of the two programs regarding the maximum number of
passengers in queues. For multiple queues here, the maximum queue length is for the
whole system, not for single line.
115
1200
1000 Time Block
800
Simulation-Single
600
Queue
400 Simulation-Multiple
200 Queues
ne
ng
o
am
nd
an
ur
Ko
gh
rla
isb
bo
in
ng
O
Br
el
rm
Ho
M
Bi
Airports
Figure 7-4 The maximum queue length
The figures in Figure 7-4 are with number of servers as seen in Figure 7-1 and Table
7-2. The maximum queue length for the time block program is generally higher than for
the simulation program. The simulation results for the two queue systems applied are
also different. However, the results shown in Figure 7-4 must be related to the number
of servers obtained as presented in Figure 7-1. From both figures, the correlation
between the number of servers and the queue length obtained is clear, the smaller the
number of servers the longer the queue.
There is a big difference for the results for Hong Kong airport as mentioned in the
summary of Chapter 5, one of the limitations of the time block program is the difficulty
in determining waiting time and queue length if the service time is not a factor of the
counting period. For example, in the Hong Kong scenario, the counting period is 10
minutes but the average service time is 3 minute. The Figure 7-5 illustrates this
situation.
The last number of passengers in the last time block occupies 1/3 of the time block
capacity. The program has difficulty in placing the first passengers in the second arrival
period. This situation requires further investigation to accommodate the situation if the
ratio between counting period and service time is not an integer. This case will need
future work. The next section investigates the other elements involved in the proposed
model.
116
1st 951 279 279 279 114
2nd 1134 258 279 279 279 39
Time block = 3 min

Number of arrivals Counting period = 10 min.
in counting period
Figure 7-5 queuing distributions: Hong Kong case study
7.2.3 Method Comparison

As mentioned in Chapter 2 (subsection 2.2.2.2 and 2.3.1.1), IATA has two formulae to
estimate the number of counters and required queue space. It is important to know the
comparison of the IATA method and the proposed method. The simulation program is
used here for comparison with the IATA method.
The IATA method has two elements involved in determining the required number of
servers and queue space. According to Equation 2-1 and 2-2, the required data are peak
hour number of passengers, number of transfer passengers, and average processing time.
Since there is no data regarding the number of transfer passengers, this value is not
included in the current analysis.
The peak hour passenger count is derived from the schedule of Birmingham airport
(refer to column T in Table 4-7 or in the Summarize worksheet in Appendix B). The
peak passenger flow rate is 1020 passengers. This figure occurs from 5:00 to 5:50. To
apply the peak hour passengers in the simulation program, the time and number of
passengers is copied and pasted into the Customer Time worksheet in the program. The
average service times applied in these comparisons are 2, 3, 4, and 5 minutes. The
comparison results are presented in Table 7-3
117
Table 7-3 Comparison of IATA methods and simulation
Service time Number of servers Queue space required

IATA Simulation IATA Simulation
2 34 32 255 123.29
3 51 45 255 170.28
4 68 56 255 215.76
5 85 62 255 303.82
The first column lists service time applied in these comparisons. The second and third
columns are the optimum number of servers obtained by the IATA method and the
simulation program. The fourth and the last columns are the required queue space in
square meters.
The results indicate that the IATA method generalized the estimation. This can be
seen from the developed formulae. There are only two elements considered. Therefore,
the IATA method is not sensitive to other variables such as the service time, which the
simulation is able to incorporate. The IATA method is close to the simulation only with
average service time of four minutes.
7.3 INFLUENCE OF DEMAND FLUCTUATION

The number of arriving passengers applied in the simulation program is the average of
the seven days of the week. Since the number of passengers varies with day, the
required number of servers will also vary. Design of the number of check-in desks is
based on the busiest day, which may lead to over design. Table 7-4 presents the
variation of number of passengers in a week and the results of maximum waiting time
and maximum queue length for each day. The results are obtained by applying the
optimum number of servers for the average day.
Table 7-4 Impact of daily demand variations
Day Number of passengers Maximum waiting Maximum queue

time (minutes) length
Monday 10254 8 150
Tuesday 10180 9 175
Wednesday 10567 12 214
Thursday 11450 18 325
Friday 11003 2 45
Saturday 5263 1 9
Sunday 8139 2 35
118
Table 7-4 shows results for Birmingham International Airport with a multiple queue
system. The average number of passengers in a day is 9550. The optimum number of
servers for the average day is 39. The 39 servers are then applied each day. Table 7-4
shows that the maximum waiting time is below the daily waiting time limit (25 minute).
However, if the number of passengers is large, it may exceed the capacity of the
servers at a certain point. Figure 7-6 presents the effect of increasing the number of
passengers up to 75 % above the daily average of 9550 to observe when the maximum
waiting time exceeds the waiting time limit. Figure 7-6 shows that an additional 55% of
the average passenger flow rate will create unacceptable situations for passengers.
Above analysis indicates that the obtained solution from this program can
accommodate increasing demand up to a 50% above the average daily demand.
60.00
50.00
Maximum waiting time
Waiting time (minute)
40.00
30.00
20.00
10.00 Waiting time limit
0.00
25% 50% 75%
Additional number of passengers
(percentage)
Figure 7-6 Maximum waiting time
119
7.4 INFLUENCE OF DIFFERENT EARLINESS ARRIVAL DISTRIBUTION

The earliness arrival distribution applied in the time block and simulation program is the
IATA pattern. The investigation into the influence of distribution pattern is analyzed by
changing the percentage in each period. The modification made to the IATA pattern is
shown in Figure 7-7. The IATA pattern in Figure 7-7 is adopted from the pattern for the
period after 10:00 (pattern number 3).
There is no special formula in modifying the percentage of the IATA pattern. It was
changed by taking the mirror image pattern. The modified earliness distribution is
applied to the simulation program (refer to chapter 4 for detail of application earliness
arrival pattern). Figure 7-8 presents the influence of the modified pattern. The Figure 7-
8 is for Birmingham International Airport
20%
Percentage of passengers
Modified
15%
IATA
10%
5%
0%
0
0
0
:0
:5
:5
:4
:3
:2
:1
:4
:0
:3
:2
:1
:5
:4
-2
-2
-2
-2
-2
-2
-1
-1
-1
-1
-1
-1
-0
-0
Figure 7-7 Different patterns applied in investigation
. The average service time selected is 2 minutes and multiple waiting lines are
applied. The optimum number of servers obtained with the modified distribution is 35
(compared to 39 servers for the IATA distribution). Table 7-5 shows the comparison in
waiting time and number of passengers in queue. The distribution of arrival earliness
has an influence in on queue length. There is some effect on waiting times as well.
120
250
200
150
IATA
Modified
100
50
0
0:00
1:50
3:40
5:30
7:20
9:10
11:00
12:50
14:40
16:30
18:20
20:10
22:00
23:50
Arrival Time
Figure 7-8 Arrival distributions
Table 7-5 comparisons after applying new distribution
Number of Maximum waiting time (minutes) Queue length

servers IATA Modified IATA Modified
30 12 11 171 156
31 10 9 153 136
32 9 8 138 116
33 7 6 123 96
34 6 6 107 76
35 5 4 91 56
36 4 4 75 41
7.5 THE INFLUENCE OF QUEUE SYSTEMS

The queue systems applied in this program are single line queue and multiple queues
(refer to chapter 2). The queue system selected may influence the required space, which
affects the total cost. The required space here is represented by the number of servers
and the maximum number of passengers in queue. To observe the impact of the queue
system in the program result, the simulation program runs the data from the selected
airports with different queue systems.
121
Table 7-6 the impact of queue systems applied to the design
Airport Queue System Number of Number of Maximum Maximum

Passengers Servers waiting Queue
time (min) Length
Birmingham
Multi server 9550 38 2 41
queue
Multiple single- 9550 39 2 31
server queue
Brisbane
queue
server queue
Hong Kong
Multi server 57727 321 4 458
queue
server queue
Melbourne
queue
server queue
Orlando
queue
server queue
The results of the program are already shown in Figures 7-1 and 7-4, and also in
Table 7-2. Table 7-6 shows the figures from the five different airports regarding the
applied queue system. The average service time is as shown in sub-section 7.2.2. The
122
optimum number of servers for a multiple single-server queue is slightly less than for
multi server queues. The maximum waiting time is also somewhat less. The results
show that multiple single-server queues have fewer people in queue. This is in
agreement with the slightly higher number of servers.
However, Hong Kong International Airport has a different trend from the other
airports. This situation could be related to the number of passengers. The trend could be
change at a certain number of passengers. This needs further investigation.
7.6 THE INFLUENCE OF SERVICE TIME

In a real situation, each passenger requires a different service time. The influence of a
different pattern of service time is observed by applying the average service time and a
random service time. The average service time selected is 5 minute, and the random
values are between 2 and 8 minutes. The queue system applied is multiple queues. The
other variables are the same as presented in Table 7-1.
The results in Table 7-7 show that random service time leads to a higher number of
servers. As a result waiting time and passengers in queue are less than in operations
with fixed service time.
Table 7-7 Influence of Service time
Airport Service time Number of Maximum Maximum Construction cost

server queue for queue per day
Waiting time length ($million)
Birmingham Fix2 39 2 31 1.75
Fix 5 49 15 184 9.8
Rand2-8 50 13 123 6.5
Brisbane Fix 5 50 20 183 8.98
Rand2-8 52 14 102 4.57
Hong Kong Fix 3 289 9 867 38.89
Fix 5 525 5 524 98.68
Rand2-8 518 8 517 97.37
Melbourne Fix 5 41 15 114 5.5
Rand2-8 46 7 45 2.06
Orlando Fix 5 56 15 168 7.5
Rand2-8 56 14 109 5.03
123
7.7 INFLUENCE OF CHECK-IN COUNTER SIZES AND ARRANGEMENTS

There are a number of check-in counter sizes and arrangements. These arrangements are
explained in Chapter 2 (Table 2-4 and Figure 2-4). The applied queue system to
evaluate the sizes and arrangements of counters is multiple single-server queues.
Data in this simulation are adopted from Birmingham. The sizes of the counters are
changed as shown in Figure 7-9.
12
10
Cost ($miilions)
4
2
.4
2
.6
.6
.1
5.
4.
5.
5.
.1
.2
x5
x7
x7
x5
2x
8x
8x
2x
x5
x5
I/3
.2
.6
.5
L/
1.
1.
2.
I/3
I/3
/2
/2
I/2
L/
L/
L/
PT
PT
Counter sizes and configuration
Figure 7-9 Counter sizes and arrangement comparisons
In Figure 7-9, ‘I’ indicates island, ‘L’ is linear, and ‘PT’ represents pass through
(refer to Figure 2-4). Those are the common counter arrangements. The number of
servers is 39. The ‘Linear’ shape has the lowest construction cost, followed by ‘Island’
and ‘Pass through’.
7.8 THE INFLUENCE OF COST TO THE DESIGN

The cost elements cover construction costs for the queue area, check-in counter
furniture and equipment, equipment costs, worker fees and waiting time penalty costs.
The figures presented in Figure 7-10 are simulation results from Hong Kong
International airport for a multiple queue system. Figure 7-10 shows that the cost of
server space increases with more servers. On the other hand, cost of queue space
reduces with more servers at 289 servers.
124
To evaluate the influence of the waiting time penalty, that value has been changed.
However, since the obtained optimal design has not created a queue exceeding waiting
time limit, the waiting time penalty element has no influence in this analysis.
Cost $
200 210 220 230 240 250 260 270 280 290 300
Number of Server
Total cost Queue space cost Server space cost
Figure 7-10 relationship between cost and number of servers
7.9 PROGRESSIVE OPENING COUNTERS

As mentioned the last paragraph in section 2.2.2.2, the project also attempts to analyze
the progressive opening of check-in counters. This method is intended to save the
operational costs. The simulation outputs inform the number of counters needed at a
particular time. This information can be seen in the Summarize worksheet in the
simulation program in the Active Server column. Figure 7-11 presents the variation of
the number of servers required. This figure is for the Birmingham airport.
50
Number of servers
40
30
20
10
0
0:00 2:24 4:48 7:12 9:36 12:00 14:24 16:48 19:12 21:36 24:00
Time
Figure 7-11 Number of counters needed at a particular time
125
7.10 LIMITATION OF THE MODEL

The model developed in this project includes many simplifying assumptions that act
as limitations of the models. Many of these limitations have been already mentioned in
previous sections. A summary of such limitations are listed below:
¾ The determination of space required based on microscopic analysis using a

pre-specified arrival pattern does not improve the accuracy of estimation. This
is because one cannot forecast accurately passenger demand, and certainly not
the arrival pattern, in the planning stage.
¾ Estimates of the optimum number of servers and required space are not likely
to be more accurate because a constant passenger load factor for all flights was
used in this method. This is rather unrealistic, and the value of the factor
selected is also arbitrary.
¾ A constant service time for all passengers is unrealistic.
¾ It is common practice for airports to allocate a number of counters for the

executive use of each airline, so the number of servers computed from
Equation 5-4 underestimates the requirement.
¾ The model with time block system, the required number of servers must be a
multiple of the service time.
¾ It is common knowledge that people get more agitated as waiting time

increases. Therefore, W should be a function of waiting time with higher
penalties for longer waiting times. In addition, the revenue that the airport
would get from airlines’ use of check-in facilities was excluded. This affects
the optimization results.
¾ The assumption that there is no distinction among airlines and service time are
the same for all passengers are unrealistic.
¾ The assumption of uniform headway between arrivals in a counting period is

arbitrary. Since delay depends on arrival time, the results will be affected.
Field data should be use to derive the distribution of arrivals.
The developed model is giving an illustration of the possibility of using another

method in determining check-in area arrangement. The model limitations show that the
126
model requires some improvement to make the model more realistic. All limitations
create an idea to do some future works.
7.11 FUTURE WORK

The decision to use the software programs is based on the ability of the simulation-
based approach to give an insight regarding elements involved in the check-in process.
However, other approaches, such as analytical models, could be used. An analytical
approach may require some assumptions to simplify the model design. This situation
may lead to different results compared to the simulation. Anyhow, the analytical
approach is an interesting method for further research.
One important issue that requires looking further into, is the time required for
passengers to walk from the queue area to the check-in counter. In this thesis, the
required time is already included in service time. However, in actual conditions this
time should be considered separately. Especially for a single line queue system, since
the passengers may have to walk to a counter very far from where the passenger stands.
This requires a longer time to obtain service. Besides, interference with other passengers
in the circulation area needs to be investigated.
The programs also require having further improvement. As mentioned before the time
block program has difficulty in dealing with service times which are not a factor of
counting period length. If this situation can be remedied, it will help since the time
block program can produce results much faster than the simulation program. The other
problem with the time block program is that in calculating the space required for
passengers, it ignores the servers. It estimates the space by multiplying the number of
passengers in queue with space per passenger. In the real situation, the space provided
for passengers will, at least, have the same width as the server facility.
The simulation program has a problem that may suggest the design with no
passengers in queue for the minimum cost solution. In this situation, the queue space
cost is zero. Under certain circumstances, this leads to a local minimum cost solution.
The optimization procedure needs further controls and criteria to avoid convergence to
unrealistic results. Now, the user needs to guide the program to a different search range
if an unrealistic result is encountered.
127
7.12 SUMMARY
This chapter has presented examples of application of the models. The aim has been to
assess the influence of the elements involved in designing check-in arrangements. These
evaluations are based on two programs developed in this project..
It has been shown that the proposed models provide different results from the IATA
method. IATA tends to generally overestimate the airport size for short service time
scenarios. This occurs since the IATA method uses only two elements. The proposed
model allows for seven variables as shown in Table 7-8.
Table 7-8 Evaluation results
Variable Simulation findings

Daily distribution Unacceptable level of service if the number of additional
demand exceeds 50% above the average daily demand.
Earliness distribution Encouraging earlier arrival at the airport reduces the number
of servers required, maximum waiting time and queue
length.
Queue system Small influence on the number of servers required,
maximum waiting time and queue length.
Service time High variability of service time requires more servers.
Counter sizes Influences total cost of space.
Cost per square metre Effects number of servers in a linear relationship.
Waiting time penalty No influence to the optimum under the conditions simulated.
The list of findings in Table 7-8 is unlikely to be valid in many other cases. They
should not be treated as generally applicable findings. In addition, the finding that
queuing system used has little influence on maximum waiting time and queue length
contradicts both theory and field observations. Compared with a multiple single-server
system, a multi server system is always more efficient and results in less delay and
smaller number of passengers in queue (when the number of servers is the same in the
both systems). This is mainly because in the latter system, no server will be idle unless
there is no one in the queue.
128
8
CONCLUSIONS
The aim of this thesis is to develop a new method to determine the optimum size for the
airport check-in area arrangements. The new method is designed as previous methods seem
to be unable to account for more than one or two variables related to check-in processes.
The proposed model is able to account for passenger arrival distribution, service time,
queue system, and check-in counter sizes and configurations.
The method proposed in this thesis is developed for analysis of check-in counter
arrangements to improve quality of service at airport. However, the method followed in
this thesis may be adopted for other situations as well. For example, the software program
can be easily modified to evaluate the performance of fast food outlets, banks,
supermarkets, and major railway terminals. The method introduced in this thesis is
represented by a model based on spreadsheet software.
As detailed in previous chapters, the design process of the model is approached by

observing the available data, making adjustments to meet the model requirement and
designing the software programs.
The software package consists of two main programs. The first is based on time block
concept and the second one is based on simulation. The spreadsheet software format is
selected and it easily accommodates making any changes to variables. A number of user
interfaces have been developed during this project to further assist in control of inputs.
All programs are developed using Excel spreadsheets. In the time block concept,
passengers in a counting period are allocated in groups into time blocks. Time blocks have
a length equal to service time. Thus, the passenger service capacity of each time block is
129
Chapter 8 – Conclusions
the same as the number of servers. Unlike the time block program that assigns passengers
in groups, the simulation program treats passengers as individuals.
The simulation program has two menus in its user interface. The first menu controls the
generation of passengers and the second one is to provide simulation options. The
simulation options are related to the type of queue, service time type, and optimization
requirements.
The programs developed in this project are designed to obtain the optimum number of
servers as the key output. This is obtained by observing the minimum cost required for the
particular arrangement. The system cost includes cost of space, furniture and penalty for
waiting more than a specified time limit. Inclusion of cost of space makes this
methodology a useful tool in estimation of the optimum size of the check-in area.
Two significant problems arose during the model development. One is lack of data
related to cost of various component. This problem is handled by allowing cost parameters
to be controlled via user interfaces. When more reliable or relevant data is available, they
can be easily incorporated into the model. The second of the significant problems was the
difficulty to obtain passenger arrival distributions. Therefore, the model adopts a work
around method if arrival distribution is not available. This is based on using aircraft
schedule to synthesize passengers’ arrivals. An advantage of this method is this allows the
model to incorporate earliness of arrival profiles into the analysis process.
Applications based on data from five different airports are presented in this thesis.
Applications investigate the impact of changing individual variables. This process is
allows a better understanding of the system characteristics. This knowledge is helpful in
making decisions about the arrangement that suit a particular airport.
The analysis of program applications indicates that earliness distribution, service time,
queue system, and the check in counter sizes and configurations have a strong influence to
the design. Changing earliness distribution changes maximum waiting time and queue
length. The results also demonstrated that the multiple single-server queues systems
increase the value of queue length and waiting time compared to multi server queue
systems. Further more, system with a constant service time have a shorter average waiting
130
Chapter 8 – Conclusions
time and average number of passengers in queue compared to system with random service
times. However, under the conditions investigated in applications, the effect of waiting
time penalty was found to be negligible.
Based on the results, the method proposed in this thesis is formulated as combination of
estimation of earliness distribution depends on the passengers characteristics at any
particular airport, queue system, and service time. This combination is then executed using
the proposed program to see the performance of the combination design.
The learning outcome of this thesis is the better understanding regarding queuing
problems at airport. It is observed that different queue arrangements lead to different
maximum values of waiting time and queue length produced. However, the average
waiting time has very little change, under the alternatives considered in this project.. This
is a useful insight consistent with queuing theory in general.
131
References
Airport Council International (ACI), 2000, Quality of service at airports: Standards

and measurements, First Edition, ACI World Headquarters, Geneva, Switzerland.
Allen, A.O. 1990, Probability, Statistics, and Queuing Theory with Computer Science
Applications, Second Edition, Academic Press, Inc., California, USA.
Brussel International Airport Company, 1999, Annual Report, Brussel International

Airport Company.
Ashford, N., 1997, Airport Operation, Second Edition, McGraw Hill, USA.
Ashford, N., 1992, Airport Engineering, Third Edition, Wiley, New York.
Ashford, N.J., 1988, ‘Level of service design concept for airport passenger terminals: a
European view’, Transportation Research Record no.1199, pp. 19-32.
Davis, D.G. and Braaksma, J.P., 1988, ‘Adjusting for luggage-laden pedestrians in
airport terminals’, Transportation Research - Part A, vol.22A, no.5, pp. 375-388.
de Neufville, R., 1976, Airport System Planning, The Macmillan Press Ltd., London.
Fernandes, E. and Pacheco, R.R., 2002, ‘Efficient Use of Airport Capacity’,

Transportation Research part A, Vol.36, pp. 225-238.
Gatersleben, M. R. and van der Weij, S.W., 1999, ‘Analysis and simulation of
passengers flow in an airport terminal’, Proceedings of The 1999 Winter Simulation
Conference, pp. 1226-1231.
Hall, R.W., 1991, Queuing Method, Prentice Hall, Inc. New Jersey, USA.
132
Hensher, D.A. and Button, K.J., 2000, Handbook of Transport Modelling, Pergamon,
Elsevier Science, Ltd. UK.
Hon W. C. and Raymond W.T.M., 1999, ‘Intelligent resource simulation for an airport
check-in counter allocation system’, IEEE Transaction on Systems, Man, a Cybernetics
– Part C, pp. 325-335.
Horonjeff, R., McKelvey, F.X., 1994, Planning and Design of Airports, Fourth Edition,
McGraw-Hill, Inc., USA.
Hutcheson, S., 1996, An Introduction to Air Transport: political, economic, operational

and technical perspective of civil aviation, Aviation Training International, Australia.
International Air Transport Association (IATA), 1989, Airport Terminal Reference

Manual, Seventh Edition, Montreal, Canada.
Janic, M., 2000, Air Transport System Analysis and Modelling, Gordon and Breach
Science Publishers, The Netherlands.
Jim, H. K. and Chang, Z. Y., 1998, ‘ An airport passengers terminal simulation : A

planning design tool’, Simulation practice and Theory, Vol. 6, pp. 387-396.
Law, A.M. and Kelton, D.W., 1991, Simulation Modeling and Analysis, Second
Edition, McGraw-Hill,Inc., New York.
Martel, N. and Seneviratne, P.N., 1990, ‘Analysis of Factors Influencing Quality of

Service in Passenger Terminal Building’, Transportation Research Record no.1273, pp
1-10.
McKelvey, F., 1988, ‘Use of an analytical queuing model for airport terminal design’,
Transportation Research Record no.1199, pp. 4-11.
Mumayiz, S.A. and Jain, R.K., 1991, ‘Interactive Airport Landside Simulation: An
Object-Oriented Approach’, Transportation Research Record no. 1296, pp. 13-23.
133
Naylor, T.H., 1966, Computer Simulation Techniques, John Wiley and Sons, Inc., USA.
Newell, G.F., 1971, Application of Queuing Theory, Chapman and Hall Ltd., London.
Omer, K.F. and Khan, A.M., 1988, ‘Airport landside level of service estimation’,
Transportation Research Record no.1199, pp. 33-40.
Park, Y., 1999, ‘A methodology for establishing operational standards of airport

passenger terminals’, Air Transport Management no.5, pp.73-80.
Poole, T.G. and Szymankiewicz, J.Z., 1977, Using Simulation to Solve Problems,
McGraw-Hill, Inc., UK.
Seneviratne, P.N. and Martel, N., 1995, ‘Space standards for sizing air terminal check
in areas’, Journal of Transportation Engineering vol. 121, no.2, March/April, pp. 141-
149.
Setti, J. R. and Hutchinson, B. G., 1994, ‘Passenger terminal simulation model’,

Journal of Transportation Engineering, Vol. 120 No. 4, July/August, pp. 517-535.
Still, G.K., 2000, ‘Simple Solutions to Complex Problem’, PhD Thesis, University of
Warwick, UK (http://www.crowddynamics.com/Thesis/Contents.htm).
Subprasom, K., Seneviratne, P.N., and Kilpala, H.K., 2002, ‘Cost-Based Space
Estimation in Passenger Terminal’, Journal of Transportation Engineering,
March/April, pp. 191-197.
Vandebona, U., 1999, ‘Passenger queue marshalling at transport interchange’,

Conference of Australian Institute of Transport Research.
White, J.A., Schmidt, J.W., Bennet, G.K., 1975, Analysis of Queuing Systems,
Academic Press, Inc., New York, USA.
134
Yen, J R, Teng, C.H., and Chen, P.S., 2001, ‘Measuring the level of service at airport
passenger terminals: Comparison of perceived and observed time,’ Transportation
Research Record, no. 1744, pp. 17-23.
Zhang, A and Zhang, Y., 2001, ‘Airport Charge and Cost recovery: The Long-Run
View’, Journal of Air Transport Management, Volume 7, Issue 1, pp.75-78.
135

Whole

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

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

Whole

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Methodology to determine airport check-in counter

Downloaded from http://hdl.handle.net/1959.4/38559 in https://

In fulfillment of the requirement for the degree of Master of Engineering,

The University of New South Wales, Sydney, Australia

Publications .................................................................................................................... vii

List of Figures ........................................................................................................................... viii

List of Tables ................................................................................................................. IX

1.1 RESEARCH OVERVIEW ..................................................................................................... 1

1.2 PROJECT OBJECTIVES ..................................................................................................... 1

1.3 RESEARCH BOUNDARIES ................................................................................................ 3

1.4 STRUCTURE OF THE THESIS...…………………. …………………………...5

2 ISSUES RELATED TO CHECK-IN COUNTER SPACE ...................................... 7

2.1 INTRODUCTION OF THE MODELLING APPROACH................................................... 7

2.1.1 Method and Model Development ..................................................................... 8

2.2 LITERATURE REVIEW ....................................................................................................... 9

2.2.1 Passenger Characteristics ................................................................................ 10

2.3 EVALUATION OF EXISTING METHODS TO DETERMINE SPACE

2.3.1.1 IATA method .......................................................................................... 24

3 DATA COLLECTION .............................................................................................. 27

3.1 INTRODUCTION .................................................................................................................27

3.2 GENERAL INFORMATION ...............................................................................................28

3.2.1 Birmingham International Airport (UK) ......................................................... 29

3.3 INPUT DATA USED IN THE PROPOSED MODEL ........................................................31

4 ESTIMATION OF ARRIVAL DISTRIBUTION ................................................... 36

4.1 INTRODUCTION .................................................................................................................36

4.2 THE CONCEPT ....................................................................................................................37

4.3 IATA DISTRIBUTION FOR ARRIVAL EARLINESS ......................................................38

4.4 PASSENGER DISTRIBUTION PROGRAM DEVELOPMENT .......................................41

4.4.1 Arrival Distribution Worksheet ...................................................................... 42

4.5 PROGRAM EXECUTION ...................................................................................................49

5.1 INTRODUCTION .................................................................................................................54

5.2 BACKGROUND ....................................................................................................................56

5.3 MODEL CONCEPT .............................................................................................................57

5.4 METHODOLOGY ................................................................................................................60

5.4.1 Review The Elements Involved ...................................................................... 60

5.5 PROGRAM DEVELOPMENT .............................................................................................67

5.5.1 Central Module ............................................................................................... 67

6 SIMULATION MODEL ........................................................................................... 86

6.1 INTRODUCTION .................................................................................................................86

6.2 PREVIOUS RELATED WORK ...........................................................................................86

6.3 THE CONCEPT ....................................................................................................................88

6.4 METHODOLOGY ................................................................................................................89

6.4.1 Problem Statement .......................................................................................... 89

6.5 THE DEVELOPMENT OF SIMULATION PROGRAM ...................................................91

6.5.1 Generating Customers ..................................................................................... 92

6.6 VERIFICATION PROCESS ..............................................................................................103

7 MODEL EVALUATION ........................................................................................ 109

7.1 INTRODUCTION ...............................................................................................................109

7.2 COMPARISONS OF RESULTS ........................................................................................110

7.3 INFLUENCE OF DEMAND FLUCTUATION ................................................................118

7.4 INFLUENCE OF DIFFERENT EARLINESS ARRIVAL DISTRIBUTION .................120

7.5 THE INFLUENCE OF QUEUE SYSTEMS .....................................................................121

7.6 THE INFLUENCE OF SERVICE TIME .........................................................................123

7.7 INFLUENCE OF CHECK-IN COUNTER SIZES AND ARRANGEMENTS ................124

7.8 THE INFLUENCE OF COST TO THE DESIGN ............................................................124

7.9 PROGRESSIVE OPENING COUNTERS.........................................................................125

7.10 LIMITATIONS OF THE MODEL……………………………………………………. 126

7.11 FUTURE WORK...............................................................................................................127

8 CONCLUSIONS ...................................................................................................... 129

Check-in area is an important component of airports. All passengers, except transit

Ahyudanari, E., 2001, ‘Space Requirement at Airport Check-in Area’, Conference of

Ahyudanari, E., 2002, ‘Methodology to Determine Airport Check-in Counter

Figure 1-1 Time Block Concept........................................................................................ 2