You are on page 1of 15

The Eect of the Airbus A380 on Runway Passenger Throughput

Alexander Donaldson December 8th 2009

Background

The Airbus A380 can carry the most passengers and is also the heaviest commercial passenger aircraft to have entered service. The entry into service of the aircraft required careful management by the airports, airlines and aviation authorities that would handle the aircraft in order to minimize the disruption caused to the air transportation system. Airports were required to upgrade runways, taxiways and gates to deal with both the size and passenger volume of the A380. The authorities responsible for aviation safety were particularly concerned about the danger posed by the wake of such a high gross weight aircraft and initially took a conservative approach to wake separation standards which could potentially have reduced the passenger capacity at airports served by the A380. This study will examine the tradeo between the additional passenger capacity of the A380 and the additional wake separation that the aircraft requires.

1.1

The Aircraft

The A380 entered into service in October 2006 with Singapore Airlines after an 18 month delay due to a variety of technical issues during development of the aircraft. At the time of writing (November 2009) only 20 A380s have entered service [1], with a production rate of approximately 1 aircraft a month for 2008 and 2009 [2] potentially increasing to 20 deliveries in 2010 [3]. This means that the impact of the A380 on the air transportation system to date has been gradual and sparsely distributed. However as more of these aircraft enter service in the coming years the eect of their operations will become more signicant at the major international hubs where they operate. For the purposes of this study the seating capacity of the A380 is an important variable. However there is considerable variability in this value even amongst the 20 aircraft delivered

Airport Systems: Term Project


4
+
 3.


5 
" 6"

Alexander Donaldson

2.

1.

0.

& 
 

/.

.

. (

 
 
 

 #  
 
  

 
" 
 $
   

  
 !

 
 %

 

 
 ) %  
    
 #$  &  '
 !" ' 
& *
+ , 
+ - 
       


Figure 1: Current (November 2009) A380 Orders and Deliveries by Airline [1] to date from a minimum of 450 seats in the aircraft operated by Qantas up to 525 seats in the aircraft recently delivered to Air France. This variation in seating capacity makes a signicant dierence in the runway passenger throughput, therefore the capacity model will be run at these high and low bounds.

1.2

Integration into the Air Transportation System

In addition to an unprecedented passenger capacity for a commercial airliner, the size and weight of the A380 brought with it the likelihood of an exceptionally powerful wake. During development of the aircraft and the ight test program the International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO) recommended a very conservative separation criteria of 10 n.m. for all aircraft following the A380 (Table 1a) on approach, unless that aircraft was another A380 in which case there was no wake separation requirement (the A380 could follow any   aircraft including another A380 without any wake separation requirement). Just before the 2 of 15

Airport Systems: Term Project

Alexander Donaldson

entry into service of the A380 the ICAO draft guidance was revised based on the results of an extensive wake vortex measurement campaign carried out by Airbus. The nal ICAO guidance was to simply add two nautical miles to the separation required behind a Heavy aircraft (Table 1b. This change in guidance had important implications for the throughput achieved by the A380 as will be demonstrated in this paper. The United Kingdom CAA largely mirrors the ICAO guidance with modications to t its own weight categorization scheme (Table 1c). It is interesting to note that the UK CAA found it necessary to revise upwards the ICAO separation guidelines with regard to the A380 as a following aircraft, based upon operational experience with the aircraft in busy UK terminal airspace environments [4]. The United States FAA is taking a more conservative approach to A380 operation requiring separations (Table 1d) greater than the ICAO recommendation particularly with regard to Medium and Light aircraft Following the A380. Table 1: Dierent Approach Separation Standards (R denotes Radar separation minimum applies - 2.5 n.m. for JFK and LHR)
(a) Initial ICAO Guidance (b) Nov. 2009 ICAO Guidance

A380 H M L

A380 R R R R

Following H M 10 10 4 5 R R R R

S 10 6 5 R

A380 H M L

Following A380 H M R 6 7 R 4 5 R R R R R R

S 8 6 5 R

Leading

(c) United Kingdom CAA

Leading

(d) United States FAA

A380 H UM LM S L

A380 4 4 R R R R

H 6 4 R R R R

Following UM LM 7 7 5 5 3 4 R R R R R R

S 7 6 4 3 3 R

L 8 7 6 5 4 R

A380 H B757 M L

A380 6 R R R R

Following H B757 6 8 4 5 4 4 R R R R

M 8 5 4 R R

L 10 6 5 4 R

1.3

Leading

Example Airports

The impact of the A380 on three major airports will be examined in this paper. These airports have been chosen because they have dierent modes of operation and mixes of aircraft sizes, yet they are all expected to receive a signicant number of A380 operations in the coming years. 3 of 15

Leading

Airport Systems: Term Project

Alexander Donaldson

1.3.1

London Heathrow

London Heathrow will be used as the baseline airport in this study for several reasons: Large number of expected A380 operations. Extensive operational data readily available. Arrivals and departures are always segregated. Operation at close to runway capacity throughout the day.
UK AIP

(22 Oct 09) AD 2-EGLL-2-1

AERODROME CHART - ICAO


Highest Elev in TDZ 81 512839.15N 0002824.83W (GUND Elevation 151) I-RR 110.30D 512838.88N 0002937.08W 130
(47) IRR

ARP 512839N 0002741W

AD ELEV 83FT

LONDON HEATHROW
EGLL
VAR 2.1W - 2009

HEATHROW
IAA/ IRR

I-AA & I-RR 110.30D (Ch 40X)

Rwy 09L Thr Elev 79 512839.00N 0002906.05W (GUND Elevation 151)

512843.78N 0002732.86W 89'

Highest Elev in TDZ 79 512839.50N 0002641.18W (GUND Elevation 151)

Rwy 27R Thr Elev 78 512839.63N 0002559.74W (GUND Elevation 151)

MLS M-HAA Ch 522

I-AA 110.30D 512839.71N 0002537.49W


IAA

N
RVP North ILS GP
092M
MEHT 66

116 117
(34) (33)

Annual Rate of Change 0.14E


ILS GP
272M

103
(20)

PAPI (3)

3901m x 50m

AB13
MLS M-HER Ch 522

AB12 SNAPA
Link 57
Tw

AB11 A11
Taxiway A
Twy C Twy D

ARP A10W A10E AY10


Taxiway B

PAPI (3)
MEHT 73

27 R
A4 A3 AY4
Tw
yA
T

09 L
A12 A9W
Taxiway A Twy H

A1 A2
Link 22

A13

A9E
Link 11 Link 12

A8
Link 13

A7
Taxiway A

A6
Twy J

AY5

A5

PLUTO
Twy L

Snow Base AY1 M1

Link 23

yA

105
(22)

Link 58

RABIT
yB

23

COBRA

Tw

Link 56

Taxiway B

Taxiway B

TITAN
B

AY3
Link 21

126
(43)

Link 55

Under Construction Fire Station


Taxiway D

Twy G

Control Tower
362

(143)

226

Tw y

Radar
Terminal 1

r3 Pie
Under Construction

Lin

DINGO

C2

D2

Northern Fuel Farm

E2

Pier 4A F2
xi r4 Ta Pie Under Construction

yJ wa

L2

wy

Maintenance Area 1
M

Taxiway D

xiw Ta H ay

Twy L

Pie

RVP East SATUN Maintenance Area 1


Twy A

(138)

221

Taxiway E

r5

Taxiway F

Twy B

Terminal 5A

Taxiway C

Taxiway B

Taxiway A

Terminal 5B

ro

Link 54

Terminal 3
Ta

Ta x

Link 36

Under Construction Terminal 2


Pie Ta r2 xiw Pie ay r1 Q
Ta xiw ay

Eu

iw

ay

29

Lin

MLS M-HRL Ch 514

Taxiway B

Taxiway B Twy R
Twy A

Link 34

Link 33

Link 32

Under Construction

Ta x

D1
Twy D

E1

F1

iw

HANLI
Twy Y

DASSO

N11
100 105
(22) (17)

RVP NB11 West

VIKAS C1 OSTER Link xiw Taxiway B Link 53 ay B 53 Link HORKA 51 wa Taxiway A Link 52 yA Disused N8 N10 PAPI (3) NB8 NB10

ay

Link 35

Pier 6

Twy A

Twy

101
(18)

SB7 S11 ILS GP S7


Taxiway S

3660m x 50m SY6 S6


Taxiway S
Ta

SB3 S5 S4
Taxiway S
43

PAPI (3)
MEHT 64

272M 119
(36)

S3

ILS GP S1N
Twy S

125
(42)

Lin

I-LL 109.50D 512753.14N 0002928.03W


ILL

Southern Fuel Farm

Cargo Apron

27 L

Ta xiw

Rwy 09R Thr Elev 75 512753.25N 0002856.41W (GUND Elevation 151)

Taxi

Lin k

ay

Cargo Apron

way

GUND (Geoid Undulation) = The height of the Geoid (MSL) above the Reference Elipsoid (WGS 84) at the stated position. BEARINGS ARE MAGNETIC ELEVATIONS AND HEIGHTS ARE IN FEET

Car Park
ELEVATIONS IN FEET AMSL HEIGHTS IN FEET ABOVE AD

(279)

pie r

Ta xiw ay G

Link 25 Link 26 Link 26

T5C

Pie

Ta xiw ay F

L1
P

NEVIS ETTIV
y Tw U

MORRA

r7

Link 27

Taxiway Y

Twy Y

Tw P y

Under Construction
Taxiway M

xiw ay R

Link 2

Link 28
Twy A

Link
28

Ta

LOKKI Under Under Construction Construction

MLS M-HBB Ch 514

I-BB 109.50D 512753.86N 0002542.15W 118


(35) IRR

Twy Q

Twy C

Taxi

N2E NB2E

N7

N6

N5W

N5E

N4W

N4E

N1 NB1

092M

MEHT 67

09 R
ay xiw

SB1
Rwy 27L Thr Elev 77 512753.83N 0002602.68W (GUND Elevation 151)

Taxiway Z

Royal Suite

Link 44

Link 41

W
42

S1S

COM ATIS TWR 128.075, 113.750, 115.100 (Arrival) 121.935 (Departure) 118.700, 118.500, 124.475 121.975 (GM Planning) 121.900, 121.700, 121.850 (GMC) 121.600 LIGHTING THR 09L 09R THR 27L 27R HI Green with HI W bars. HI Green with HI W bars. HI bi-d colour coded C/L. TDZ 900m. HI bi-d white edge (first 300m Red). End lights red. HI bi-d colour coded C/L. TDZ 901m. HI bi-d white edge. End lights red. HI bi-d colour coded C/L. TDZ 899m. HI bi-d white edge (first 300m Red). End lights red. HI bi-d colour coded C/L. TDZ 901m. HI bi-d white edge. End lights red. Green C/L and Red stop bars with selective switching on all taxiway routes. HEATHROW INFO HEATHROW TOWER HEATHROW DELIVERY HEATHROW GROUND HEATHROW FIRE

Terminal 4
Highest Elev in TDZ 78 512753.67N 0002651.99W (GUND Elevation 151)

Highest Elev in TDZ 76 512753.39N 0002816.43W (GUND Elevation 151)

RVP South

xiw Ta

ay

362 (279)
100 500 0 0 100 500 200 300 1000 400 500m

RUNWAY/TAXIWAY/APRON PHYSICAL CHARACTERISTICS APRON / RWY / TWY RWY 09L/27R RWY 09R/27L Aprons Taxiways SURFACE Grooved Asphalt Grooved Asphalt ConcreteAsphalt Concrete/Asphalt BEARING STRENGTH 83/F/A/W/T 83/F/A/W/T -

1500ft

I-BB & I-LL 109.50D (Ch 32X) IBB/ ILL 512749.56N 0002730.77W 92'

HEATHROW

RWY 09L RWY 27R RWY 09R RWY 27L TWY

CHANGE: AREAS UNDER CONSTRUCTION ADDED/AMENDED/REMOVED. TWY A EXTENDED (TO THE SOUTH). HOLDS N3/NB3/N2W & TWY N REMOVED. LINK 28/HOLD N2E/NB2E/NEW ACCESS TO RWY 27L/REPORTING POINT L2 ADDED. AERO INFO DATE 17 AUG 09

Civil Aviation Authority

AMDT 11/09

Figure 2: London Heathrow Airport Layout[5] In November 2009 London Heathrow accommodated 4 daily Heathrow operations (2 ights to Singapore, one to Dubai and one to Sydney), this gure will rise substantially as Airbus delivers more aircraft across the world given that Heathrow is a major international hub. Heathrow is also likely be the base of operations for the 18 A380s to be operated by British Airways and Virgin Atlantic. In addition to the volume volume of future A380 operations Heathrow is a useful baseline airport given the wealth of data available about operations at the airport as well as the simple operational modes of its runways. Heathrow always operates one runway for arrivals and one runway for departures (to minimize the noise impact on communities under the approach path [6]). Heathrow also operates close to its runway capacity for most of the day due to slot controls at the airport. These factors 4 of 15

Airport Systems: Term Project

Alexander Donaldson

together mean that a simple runway capacity model described in Section 2.1 should yield an accurate estimate of arrival capacity at Heathrow. 1.3.2 New York JFK

An American airport was included in the study in order to examine the eects of the more stringent separation requirements impose by the FAA as well as the eect of the lower aircraft size seen on average in the U.S. New York JFK (JFK) is likely to be one of the top U.S airports in terms of A380 operations1 . JFK is also an interesting contrast to London Heathrow because its runways are frequently operated in a mixed-mode conguration, with arrivals and departures sharing the same runway.
NE-2, 17 DEC 2009 to 14 JAN 2010
D

(JFK)

ELEV 13

AUX FIRE

STATION

392 X 2 6

NE 1 7.7

GND CON

CLNC DEL

DEP 1 5.1

40^40N

1 9.1 281.5

123.9 281.5

SW 1 5.4

135.05 348.6

E
ELEV 12
2 4.1^
22R

ATIS ARR 128.725

KENNEDY TOWER

121.9 348.6

FB

NEW YORK, NEW YORK

Rwys 4L-2 R and 13R-31L

Rwys 4R-2 L and 13L-31R

FB
C

ZA

YA
ELEV 13

CH

C
H

YA
ZA
Y

JOHN F. KEN EDY INTL

CB

CD

HOLDING INSTRUCTIONS IS REQUIRED.

RUNWAY CROS ING CLEARANCES.

READBACK OF AL RUNWAY

CAUTION: BE ALERT TO

NEW YORK /

UA

U
B

G
Y

ELEV 13

TA

ASDE-X Surveil ance System in use.

A 197

Pilots should operate transponders

1 351 X 150

CONTROL

AL-610 (FA )

SD

ARRIVAL TERMINAL

U.S CUSTOMS

ELEV 12

INTERNATIONAL

SC

31L

KA

A A A
LA

SB

314.1^ KC

SA

NC

NA

CAT 2

MA

STATION

A
P

FIRE

B
M

HOLD

73^49W

EMAS

Q
QB
H

P
14572 X 150

KB
04 .1^

Q
QD PB

QC

PA

405 X 2 7

Q
P
PD

K1

QG

QF

QH

PC

PE

0.0^E

4L
VAR 13.3 ^W

134.0^

JANUARY 20 5

AIRPORT DIAGRAM

ANNUAL RATE OF CHANGE

ELEV 12

40^37N

73^46W

NB

FIELD ELEV

4R

04 .1^

13

with Mode C on al twys and rwys.

TOWER

09351

AIRPORT DIAGRAM

GENERAL AVIATION TERMINAL

40^38N

ELEV

12

73^47W

NE-2, 17 DEC 2009 to 14 JAN 2010

Figure 3: New York JFK Airport Layout[7]

1.3.3

Dubai International

Dubai International Airport (DXB) was chosen as the third airport in this study due to the potentially unmatched future level of A380 operations asa result of Emirates Airlines
Los Angeles International (LAX) my handle more A380s however it was not used in this study due to the complications imposed on A380 operations by its closely spaced parallel runways and the uncertainty surrounding the resolution of these issues.
1

5 of 15

09351

SE

38

NEW YORK /
KD

CB

C
13L

VA

73^48W

134.1^

10 0 X 150

CA

WA

S10 , D185, ST175, DT5 0, DDT823

840 X 20

DA

EA

RWYS 4R-2 L, 4L-2 R, 13R-31L, 13L-31R

JOHN F. KEN EDY INTL

2 4.1^

CE

73^45W

FA

NEW YORK, NEW YORK

31R

314.1^

FB

2L

40^39N

EMAS

(JFK)

MB

TB

CB

13R

Airport Systems: Term Project

Alexander Donaldson

(based at DXB) large order for 58 of the type (Figure 1). The airport also adds a third distinct separation standard by applying the ICAO recommendations without modication. Like JFK, Dubai International has a pair of parallel runways assumed to be operating independently with mixed arrivals and departures for the purposes of this study.
I

CHANGES: Twyr.
INC., 1007. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.

8 JEPPESEN SANDER%M,

Figure 4: Dubai International Airport Layout

Methodology

This study compares the passenger throughput and arrival capacity of the three study airports for the three cases of moving heavy operations to a 525 seat A380, a 450 seat A380 and a 418 seat 747-400. The A380 cases include the appropriate higher wake separation criteria required by that type of aircraft, while the 747-400 case reects a simple upgauging of the heavy category aircraft with no additional separation required. The second part of the study looks only at LHR and compares the eect of applying the four dierent described in Table 1 to the LHR operations to examine the behavior of these criteria for a common set of operations.

2.1

Runway Capacity Model

Simple queueing theory will be used to model runway capacity of the airports being studied, using the model described in de Neufville and Odoni [8]. The time separation (in seconds) 6 of 15

Airport Systems: Term Project

Alexander Donaldson

between a lead aircraft in weight category i and a following aircraft in category j can be found from Equation 1. Tij = max 3600 r + sij r vj vi sij vj , od2 + max(oi , od1 ) for vi > vj (1) Tij = max 3600 , od2 + max(oi , od1 ) for vi vj

The time required per arriving passenger (in seconds) can then be calculated for dierent sequences of arriving aircraft as shown in Equation 2. Tpax,ij = Tij ci (2)

Given Tij and Tpax,ij it is possible to calculate the airport arrival capacity using the matrix of likelihoods of any given pair of arrivals (pij ). Cops = Cpax = 3600(nr )
K i=1 K i=1 K j=1 (pij K j=1 (pij

Tij ) Tpax,ij )

(3) (4)

3600(nr )

2.2

Model Inputs

The required inputs for the runway capacity model were collected from a wide variety of data sources with reasonable assumptions being made where data was unavailable. The model inputs are summarized in Table 2 and where appropriate are further explained in this section. 2.2.1 Final Approach Path Length

The nal approach path length (r) is the distance over which air trac control can no longer separate aircraft based on speed since the aircraft are preparing to land. At London Heathrow this distance is a minimum of 4 n.m.[9] and at JFK it is 5n.m[10]. The approach path length for Dubai International could not be found and was therefore assumed to be the same as used at JFK so as not to introduce an unnecessary additional variable.

7 of 15

Airport Systems: Term Project

Alexander Donaldson

Table 2: Summary of Inputs to the runway capacity model LHR Approach Length (r) Buer time (bi ) Number of Runways(nr ) Separation (sij ) Approach Velocity (vi ) Aircraft Mix (pij ) Arrival Occupancy Time (oa ) Departure set-up time for (od1 ) Departures roll time (od2 ) Passenger Capacity (ci ) 2.2.2 4 n.m. UK CAA[9] JFK 5 n.m. FAA[10] 10 seconds (Assumed) [8] 1 segregated UK CAA (Table 1c) 2 mixed independent US FAA (Table 1d) ICAO (Table 1b) DBX 5 n.m. Assumed

Based only on Boeing aircraft in schedule 2008 Flight Timetable (4 week sample) 2008 ETMS Database (4 week sample) 2004 Annual Operations

Based on data from LHR Study Not Needed Not Needed 45 s (Assumed) [8] 60 s (Assumed) [8]

Aircraft manufacturer data for typical multi-class conguration

Approach Velocity

Aircraft approach velocities vary signicantly depending on the weight of the individual arriving aircraft, because of this it is a dicult process to estimate actual approach velocities. Boeing provides a document [11] with reference approach speeds which was used to estimate speeds for this study. The Boeing speeds were applied to all Boeing aircraft (by sub-type e.g. 737-800) in the operational data sets and then averaged over the weight categories in use at each of the study airports. Aircraft that were not manufactured by Boeing or McDonald Douglas were not included in the approach speed calculation. This method provides a reasonable estimate for the approach speeds given the large number of Boeing aircraft represented at the study airports and the wide range of weights of these aircraft.

8 of 15

Airport Systems: Term Project

Alexander Donaldson

2.2.3

Aircraft Mix

The probability (pi )of any given arrival being from a certain weight category is assumed to be equal to the proportion of all arrivals that are from that weight category. For LHR and JFK the proportion of aircraft from each weight category was estimated through examination of 4 weeks of arrivals information from 2008. The rst week in February, May, August and November were chosen to provide a mix of dierent travel seasons while avoiding the holiday period. For DXB only aggregate data from 2004 was available. Given the already high proportion of heavy jets in this data no additional scaling was performed to adjust the mix of aircraft to 2008 levels. Once the probability vectors were compiled the probability of observing a pair of arrivals i followed by j is simply obtained by multiplying together the two probabilities pi and pj . The measured values of pi are shown in Figure 5. It is important to note the proportion of heavy aircraft at each airport, with DXB having signicantly more heavy arrivals than JFK and LHR. A380 operations were simulated by moving a percentage of the heavy operations at each airport to A380 operations. The model was run for up to half of the heavy operation at each airport being converted to A380s.
H UM LM S L H B757 M L H M S

B757

UM

LM

(a) At LHR

(b) At JFK

(c) At DXB

Figure 5: Distribution of aircraft weight categories at each study airport

2.2.4

Arrival Runway Occupancy Time

A study conducted in 2005 at LHR [12] measured the runway occupancy times for 170 arrivals at London Heathrow for a wide range of dierent aircraft types and was conducted during good visibility for a dry runway. The results of this study were averaged across the weight categories appropriate for LHR, JFK and DXB. Given that runway occupancy

9 of 15

Airport Systems: Term Project

Alexander Donaldson

time measurements for JFK and DXB were not readily available this data provides realistic estimate of those times and was therefore used across all the airports in this study. The actual runway occupancy time may vary based on actual taxiway geometry and how expeditiously pilots vacate the runway. 2.2.5 Departure Runway Occupancy Time

Data could not be found for the runway occupancy time of departing aircraft, therefore the estimates given in de Neufville and Odoni [8] were used. These

3
3.1

Results
Impact at Dierent Airports

The runway capacity model was run using the inputs described in Section 2.2, for both low (450 seats) and typical (525 seats) aircraft passenger capacities as well as a baseline 747-400 with 418 seats. The results of this analysis are compared in Figure 6 and in detail for each airport in Figure 7. The results show that runway passenger throughput does increase in all cases however in the lower capacity A380 case the gains are marginal. Any gains in passenger capacity come at a cost in terms of operations per hour. The comparison with the 747-400 shows that in all cases a move to 747-400s (which have no addition separation requirements) would increase the passenger throughput more than any of the A380 congurations modeled. This implies that if passenger throughput were the only motivation for customers of the A380 then a high capacity Heavy aircraft would better suit their needs. Fortunately for Airbus the A380 has other economic, environmental and passenger comfort benets over other Heavy aircraft.currently on the market

10 of 15

Airport Systems: Term Project

Alexander Donaldson

9000 Airport Airravl Passenger Capacity (per hour) 8500 8000 7500 7000 6500 6000 5500 50000 2 4 6 8 10 Hourly Arrivals (All runways) 12

LHR-High JFK-High DXB-High LHR-Low JFK-Low DXB-Low LHR-747 JFK-747 DXB-747

14

Figure 6: Comparison of the eect of the A380 on operations at LHR, JFK and DXB for 450 seat and 525 seat variants of the A380 and a 416 seat 747-400

11 of 15

Airport Systems: Term Project

Alexander Donaldson

8780 8760 8740 8720 8700 8680 8660 8640 86200

Arrival Passenger Capacity (per hour)

61 Arrivals per Hour 60 59 58 57 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Hourly A380 Arrivals (All runways)


(a) At LHR

Arrival Passenger Capacity (per hour)

62

6800 6750 6700 6650 66000 1 4 5 2 3 Hourly A380 Arrivals (All runways)
(b) At JFK

35.5 35.0 Arrivals per Hour 34.5 34.0 33.5 33.0 632.5

956

Arrival Passenger Capacity (per hour)

5300 5250 5200 5150 5100 50500 2

57 56 Arrivals per Hour 55 54 53 52 51 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 Hourly A380 Arrivals (All runways)


(c) At DXB

Figure 7: Impact of A380 Operations on Arrival Capacity in terms of operations (black) and passengers (colored - light: 450 seat A380, dark: 525 seat A380)

12 of 15

Airport Systems: Term Project

Alexander Donaldson

3.2

Eect of Dierent Separation Criteria

The comparison of the eect of dierent separation criteria Figure 8 shows considerable variability in the eect of the dierent criteria on a common set of operational data. It is particularly clear why the ICAO interim guidance was revised just before the A380 entered service - the interim guidance would have caused a substantial loss in passenger throughput (dierence between red and gray line in Figure 8). Also of note is the fact that the conservative FAA guidance leads to a reduction in throughput for the low density A380 conguration when applied to Heathrow. These results highlight the importance for regulatory agencies for nding the right balance between ensuring safety and improving the eciency of the air transportation system.

8200 Airport Airravl Passenger Capacity (per hour) 8000 7800 7600 7400 7200 7000 6800 66000 2

UK-High US-High ICAO Ini-High ICAO Final-High UK-Low US-Low ICAO Ini-Low ICAO Final-Low
4 6 Hourly A380 Arrivals (All runways) 8 10

Figure 8: Comparison of the eect on operations at LHR of dierent separation criteria (UK CAA, US FAA, ICAO initial and ICAO nal guidance)

13 of 15

Airport Systems: Term Project

Alexander Donaldson

Conclusions

This study has shown that the A380 does not have a detrimental impact on passenger throughput as some members of the aviation industry had fear it would. The increasing numbers of A380 operations at hub airports around the world will however have a signicant impact on the breakdown of their trac by weight category. Major international hubs will operate most eciently if the trac mix is heavily weighted towards Heavy and A380 category aircraft. For airports (such as JFK) that expect to continue operating a substantial number of lighter aircraft as well as several A380 operations careful management of the A380 operation will be required to ensure that the new aircraft has a positive impact on their airport.

14 of 15

Airport Systems: Term Project

Alexander Donaldson

References
[1] Airbus. Orders and deliveries spreadsheet. http://www.airbus.com/fileadmin/ backstage/documents/od/November1_2009.xls, November 2009. [2] Max Kingsley-Jones. Dubai 09: Airbus set to decide on A380 production revamp. http://www.flightglobal.com/articles/2009/11/17/335080/dubai-09airbus-set-to-decide-on-a380-production-revamp.html, November 2009. [3] Max Kingsley-Jones. Airbus slows A380 nal assembly ramp-up. http: //www.flightglobal.com/articles/2009/05/14/326416/airbus-slows-a380final-assembly-ramp-up.html, May 2009. [4] David Kaminski-Morrow. http://www.flightglobal.com/articles/2009/01/26/ 321601/uk-rethinks-a380-wake-separation-from-heavy-jets.html, January 2009. [5] Civil Aviation Authority. London heathrow aerodrome chart. http://www.natsuk.ead-it.com/aip/current/ad/EGLL/EG_AD_2_EGLL_2-1_en.pdf, August 2009. [6] BAA. BAA heathrow website: Mixed mode. http://www.heathrowairport. com/portal/page/Heathrow%5EGeneral%5EOur+business+and+community% 5EFuture+growth%5EMixed+mode/1c8851dcd7423110VgnVCM10000036821c0a___ _/448c6a4c7f1b0010VgnVCM200000357e120a____/. [7] FAA. New York JFK airport diagram. http://www.naco.faa.gov/d-tpp/0913/ 00610AD.PDF, December 2009. [8] R. De Neufville and A.R. Odoni. Airport systems: Planning, design, and management. McGraw-Hill Professional, 2002. [9] Safety Regulation Group. CAP 493 Manual of Air Trac Services Part 1. Civil Aviation Authority, November 2009. [10] Federal Aviation Administration. Order JO 7110.65S Air Trac Control, change 1 edition, February 2008. [11] Boeing. Airport reference code and approach speeds for boeing airplanes. http: //www.boeing.com/commercial/airports/faqs/arcandapproachspeeds.pdf, August 2007. [12] British Airways and BAA Heathrow. Results from two surveys of the use of reverse thrust of aircraft landing at heathrow airport. http://www.dft.gov.uk/adobepdf/ 165217/282786/6_ENV1128.pdf, November 2005.

15 of 15

You might also like