passenger building concepts - ituaviation.itu.edu.tr/img/aviation/datafiles/lecture... · heathrow...

Passenger Building ConceptsProf. Richard de Neufville

Airport Planning and Management

Module 16

January 2017

Istanbul Technical University

Air Transportation Management

M.Sc. Program

Motivation

No Agreement in Industry about good

configuration X-shaped satellites in parallel rows (NACO):

Bangkok/Suvarnabhumi; Kuala Lumpur

Midfield lines (‘toast rack’): Atlanta; Denver;

London/Stansted; London/Heathrow

Triangles on spine: Paris/ de Gaulle (Aéroports de Paris)

Many Errors -- Many Choices have been

inadequate for eventual traffic Dallas/Ft Worth -- linear building bad for transfers

Boston/Logan: International => NY Air => domestic hub

Passenger Building Concepts / RdN

Important Ideas

“Airport Passenger Building”NOT A TERMINAL, many passengers do

not “terminate”, or end their air trips there

Many passengers “transfer” between

• Aircraft ; Airlines ;

“Correct Choice”

NOT OPTIMUM, for assumed conditions

RIGHT RESPONSE, over RANGE of

conditions


Change to View of Airport as

“Passenger Buildings”

Single (or Few) Multiple

Prevalent in

Current Practice

"Terminals"

Broad Range,

Multiple Criteria

Performance

"Airport Passenger

Buildings"

N

a

r

r

o

w

B

r

o

a

d

F

o

r

e

c

a

s

t

Criteria Considered


Misplaced focus on Symmetry

Symmetric Configuration is norm for

Master Planning and Architectural

processes:

Examples: ‘everywhere’

But this is not what gets built!Airport serves a variety of users

… with different needs

… deserving different configurations


SBIA Development – 30 MAP


../../../../../../pci%20presentation/map30.PDF



../ASP%2007/50-map.PDF



../ASP%2007/100-map.PDF

CONFIDENTIAL DOCUMENT / MEGA TERMINALS - MIT AIRPORT SYSTEMS PLANNING, DESIGN AND MANAGEMENT CLASS / Claire MAZELET - 25 OCTOBER 2016

1 – ADPI MEGA TERMINAL PROJECTS OVERVIEW

13/

Seoul/Incheon latest Master PlanSource: Kojects.com and Complexitys.com

Note:

basic

symmetry

being

maintained


Shanghai/Pudong Master plan


Kuala Lumpur: as original planSource: KLIA Master Plan December 2008


KLIA2 Terminal being builtSource: http://weehingthong.wordpress.com/2013/03/17/klia2/


Hong Kong Master Plan as of 2001Source: Master Plan for 2020 dated October 2001

Source: FAA Office of

System Capacity

Aviation Capacity

Enhancement Plan


Hong Kong Master Plan as of 2012Source: Master Plan for 2030 dated 2012


Range of Configurations

“Pure” ConceptsLinear or Gate ArrivalPier ; SatelliteMidfieldTransporter

“Hybrid” ConceptsCombinations of Pure Elements

Centralized and Decentralized

Rail AccessAutomated People MoversMetropolitan


Linear: Munich Terminal 1Source: Munich Airport


Dallas / Fort WorthGate Arrival Plan

Linear (Gate Arrival): DFWSource: DFW International Airport


Linear: Dallas/Forth Worth

Source: FAA Office

of System Capacity

Aviation Capacity

Enhancement Plan


Finger Pier: Miami/International


System Capacity

Aviation Capacity

Enhancement Plan


Satellites: NY/Newark -- LibertySource: Port Authority of New York and New Jersey


Satellites: Tampa

Source: FAA Office

of System Capacity

Aviation Capacity

Enhancement Plan


Midfield, Linear: Denver

Source: FAA Office

of System Capacity

Aviation Capacity

Enhancement Plan


Midfield, X-shaped: Pittsburgh

Source: FAA Office

of System Capacity

Aviation Capacity

Enhancement Plan

Why X-Shaped?

Instead of linear?

Because runways

built close together

due to hills (as here)

or to save on fill (as

for Hong Kong).


‘Toast Rack’: London/StanstedSource: BAA plc.


Midfield: Washington/Dulles

Configuration

as planned

Source: FAA Office

of System Capacity

Aviation Capacity

Enhancement Plan


Transporter: Washington/Dulles

Source: FAA

Office of System

Capacity

www.asc.faa.gov

Configuration

as it has been


Planemate transporter (up)Source: Accessair systems


Planemate transporter (down) Source: Emaco S.A.


Hybrid: New York/LaGuardia


System Capacity

Aviation Capacity

Enhancement Plan


Hybrid: Chicago/O’Hare


System Capacity

Aviation Capacity

Enhancement Plan


New Trends in Layouts

Special buildings for low-cost airlinesOutside US this is a novelty

In US, airlines pay for, define passenger

Buildings; elsewhere, usually government or

owner does so

JetBlue at New York/Kennedy;

London/Stansted (Ryanair); Paris/de Gaulle;

Consolidated rental-car building (Conrac) Increasingly used: saves valuable space;

reduces circulating busses

San Francisco/Int’l; Boston; etc.Passenger Building Concepts / RdN

Low Cost: Ryanair at RightSource: BAA plc. (London/Stansted)


Elements of Evaluation

Criteria of SelectionMultiple Criteria

Broad Forecasts

Methods of AnalysisRapid, Computerized

Different Traffic Loads on BuildingsPercent Transfers

Variability of Traffic

Need for Services

Performance of BuildingsPassenger Building Concepts / RdN

Criteria of Selection

MultipleWalking Distances – effect on passengers

• Average, Extremes

• Terminating, TransfersAircraft Delays – these can be decisive

(for example: 250,000 ops x 4 min x $100/min = $100Million --- this justifies about $1 billion in construction !)

Costs of construction

Under Range of ConditionsHigh, Low Traffic

High, Low Transfer RatesPassenger Building Concepts / RdN

Methods of Analysis

Manuals (IATA, ICAO, etc.)Limited Perspective

not good for Major Projects

OK for details

Variations on Previous or Top-down

decisions about configurations

Detailed SimulationsDifficult to Set Up with appropriate data

Too Slow for Planning most initial

planning

Expert assistance neededPassenger Building Concepts / RdN

Difference in Loads

“Total Number of Passengers” does not properly define loads on Buildings

Need to know Types Passenger Needs

Transfer Rates (%) -- passengers changing

aircraft, buildings or airlines

Traffic Variability -- Daily, Seasonal Patterns

Services needed -- International controls;

Meals; accommodations; etc.

Industry Structure -- few or many airlines?

Fleet Mix – % of Narrow, Wide-body aircraftPassenger Building Concepts / RdN

Transfer Rates

Transfer passengers require:Easy Internal Flow ; No Airport Access

Hub Airports

have very high transfer rates, over 50%

Examples:

High Rates: Dubai; Chicago/O’Hare,

Denver/Intl, Dallas/Fort Worth, Hong

Kong/Chek Lap Kok,

Amsterdam/Schiphol...

Low Rates: Boston/Logan, San

Francisco/Int’l, Paris/de Gaulle,

London/Gatwick...Passenger Building Concepts / RdN

Variability of Traffic

Steady LoadsLow Cost/Passenger for Built Facilities

Typical Case: Business Market

Example: New York/LaGuardia

Variable LoadsLow Utilization for Marginal (less

Attractive) Facilities

High Cost/Passenger for Built Facilities

Typically Tourist, Special Event Markets

Examples: London/Gatwick; Jeddah


Variability decreases with traffic


Variations in Traffic at New York

and London Airports (1995)

Months for which Traffic Exceeds % of Base

100%

120%

140%

160%

180%

200%

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12

Source: Port A ut horit y o f N Y / N J, 1 9 9 5

Kennedy La Guardia


100%

120%

140%

160%

180%

200%

220%

240%

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12

Source: IC A O D igest o f St at ist ics, 1 9 9 5

Gatw ick Heathrow


Past Variations in Traffic at New

York and London Airports

80

120

160

200

240

280

1 3 5 7 9 11


JFK International JFK Domestic La Guardia

80

100

120

140

160

180

200

220

240

260

280

300

320

1 3 5 7 9 11

Months for Which Traffic Exceeds % of Base

Gatw ick Heathrow


Example Daily Traffic Fluctuations

Heathrow - Hourly Distribution of Passengers (Averaged over August 1997)

0

2,000

4,000

6,000

8,000

10,000

12,000

14,000

0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22

Source: www.baa.co .uk Hour of the Day

Arrivals Departures Total

Gatwick - Hourly Distribution of Passengers (Averaged over August 1997)

0

1,000

2,000

3,000

4,000

5,000

6,000

7,000

8,000

0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22

Source: www.baa.co .uk Hour of the Day

Arrivals Departures Total


Performance of Configurations

Linear

Centralized

Satellite

Midfield

Transporter

Sensitivity to Transfer Rates

Industry Structure


Performance: Linear

CostHigh ( in terms of relative cost/gate)

Aircraft use only one side of “fingers”

AccessPassengers – Mixed overall: OK for

locals, Terrible for Transfers

Aircraft: Good

Services:Poor: Low Traffic for Shops (Munich T1)

Excessive Staff/Passenger


Centralized – Access Issues

Consider the following image

Where are the largest aircraft, with the

most passengers?

And the small aircraft, with few?

Logic of this configuration is that is

makes the most people travel farthest!

One would want it to be the other way

around – big aircraft more accessible!


CONFIDENTIAL DOCUMENT / MEGA TERMINALS - MIT AIRPORT SYSTEMS PLANNING, DESIGN AND MANAGEMENT CLASS / Claire MAZELET - 25 OCTOBER 2016

8 – chengdu nEW international AIRPORT

13/

Performance: Centralized

CostRelatively Low

High per Passenger if Variability is high

expensive building often under used

AccessOK overall; Especially good for transfers

Not so good for aircraft

ServicesGood: Efficient use of Personnel

High traffic for concessions


Midfield: Access Solutions

Consider the following image, for

Concourse B (United) at Denver

Where are the largest aircraft, with the

most passengers?

And the small aircraft, with few?

Logic of this configuration is that

large aircraft are closest to access,

small aircraft (few pax) are farthest.


Denver concourse B (United)

de

Source: iFly.com

Performance: Midfield

Big Differences betweenLinear buildings (London/Heathrow T5)

X-Shaped (Kuala Lumpur)

LinearSpace Needed/Aircraft Stand: Excellent

Delays to Aircraft: Minimal

Practical for wide-spaced runways

X-ShapedSpace/Aircraft Stand: Poor (corners)

Delays to Aircraft: Large (many turns)


Performance: Satellite

• Efficient Use of Waiting AreasMany flights can share waiting areas

Much more efficient use of space

Reduces total lounge area by 30% or more

Efficient for Transfers If volume not too high

Designs Sensitive to Transfer Rates


Performance: Transporter

CostVariability high: Good -- when service not

needed costs reduced (busses parked…)

Low Variability: High Costs (labor costs)

AccessGood Overall

Passengers: good (for short flights delays)

Aircraft: Great - parked for easy operation)

ServicesGood (because can be concentrated)


Hybrid designs best because:

Meet Variety of Existing Needs

Adapt Easily to Future Needs

Cost-Effective

Maximize quality of service to

• Passengers

• Airlines

• Airport Owners

Examples:

Paris / de Gaulle; Chicago/O’Hare

Recommendation:

“Hybrid” Designs Best


Major Take-aways

ConfigurationsCannot be best for all conditions

... only for some limited conditions

Since Conditions VaryFor Airport Users:

• Business Shuttles, Holiday Traffic

Over Time

• With Traffic Levels and Types

• Changes in Industry Structure

Do not apply single configuration!


passenger building concepts - ituaviation.itu.edu.tr/img/aviation/datafiles/lecture... · heathrow...

Documents