Check-in process at Lisbon Airport

Event-based Simulations and Collaborative Design

[Transportation]

ERASMUS Program Master in Aeronautical Engineer Universidad Politcnica de Madrid (UPM)

Student: DAZ ESTEBAN, PEDRO J.

Supervisor: Prof. Dr. ROSRIO MACRIO

September 2008

Check-in process at Lisbon Airport

Event-based Simulations and Collaborative Design

[Transportation]

Student: DAZ ESTEBAN, PEDRO J.

Supervisor: Prof. Dr. ROSRIO MACRIO Tutor: MARIN MARINOV (Eng., Ph.D.)

September 2008

Student: DAZ ESTEBAN, PEDRO J.

Universidad Politcnica de Madrid Escuela Tcnica Superior de Ingenieros Aeronuticos Madrid, Spain

Supervisor: Prof. Dr. ROSRIO MACRIO Assistant Professor at the Department of Civil Engineering and Architecture Transport Infrastructure, Systems and Policy Group (NISPT) Instituto Superior Tcnico, Technical University of Lisbon, Portugal

SUMMARY
The main objective of this study is to analyse and evaluate the check-in process at Lisbon Airport, since the passengers have entered into the terminal until they have passed through the security controls, in order to estimate their throughput times through the terminal in question and the times needed for the passengers to be served. This process is one of the most problematic services that the airports provide because when the check-in process is illexecuted initial undesirable delays as well as long waiting times occur and thus the service provided becomes of poor quality. The selected area for study is the second check-in area within the departure passenger terminal of Lisbon Airport. More specifically we focused on from the performance of checkin desks from 14 to 36. In this study two methods are implemented, namely: event based simulations and collaborative design. The simulation was implemented using SIMUL8 software. This simulation product allows us to deal with peaks in arrivals and offers us the possibility of testing alternative check-in rules, such as: overflow of economy class passengers to business class counters or extension of the check-in period prior to the flight. With a combination of actual data and observations at the airport a model for 5 flights was designed. The results obtained from the simulation experiments show that with an extension of check-in period prior to the respective flight, the average queuing time and the average queue size drop significantly. Opening the check-in counters by 15 or 20 minutes earlier, international standards (as stipulated by air companies) for expected waiting time during the check in process on average are achieved. Moreover, in this situation the queues do not exceed their capacities. In addition, the use of business counters for economy passengers, as well as, the use of Quick check-in kiosks, show great improvements in terms of queuing times and average queue size. The collaborative design technique employed was a survey fulfilled through questionnaires. The aim of the collaborative design is to know the opinion and needs of the participants involved in the check-in process. In this study, passengers and staff are the two target groups. In collecting the required information the aim was to analyse whether the service provided corresponds to what is expected by both passengers and staff or on the contrary, meaning it is necessary to make some Physical or/and Operational changes in order to meet those expectations. It was found that the space for the queues, the queues configuration, and the number of check-in counters should be improved. Furthermore, the lighting and the wideness of the airport should be ameliorated as well.

Key words: Traditional check-in, Quick check-in, simulation, collaborative design

TABLE OF CONTENTS
LIST OF FIGURES ..............................................................................................................7 LIST OF TABLES.................................................................................................................9 CHAPTER 1. INTRODUCTION........................................................................................11 1.1. 1.2. Motivation .........................................................................................................11 Objectives ..........................................................................................................12

1.3. Methodology .......................................................................................................13 CHAPTER 2. STATE OF THE ART ..................................................................................15 2.1. Literature Review ...............................................................................................15 2.1.1. 2.1.2. 2.2.1. Simulation ..............................................................................................15 Collaborative design ..............................................................................19 Perspectives ...........................................................................................24

2.2. World Wide Traffic Evolution ............................................................................23 CHAPTER 3. EEVALUATION OF THE CHECK-IN PROCESS......................................25 AT LISBON AIRPORT .......................................................................................................25 3.1. Lisbon airport.......................................................................................................25 3.1.1. Traffic at Lisbon Airport .........................................................................25 3.1.1.1. Airlines...............................................................................................26 3.1.1.2. Alliances .............................................................................................28 3.1.1.3. Seasonality .........................................................................................29 3.1.1.4. Passenger profiles ..............................................................................31 3.1.2. Current situation .....................................................................................31 3.1.3. Passenger Terminals ..................................................................................33 3.2. Check-in process ..................................................................................................37 3.2.1. General concepts .......................................................................................37 3.2.1.1. Types of Check-in ..............................................................................39 3.2.1.2. Types of Queue Configuration ..........................................................40 3.2.1.3. Passengers Characteristics ..............................................................40 3.2.1.4. IATA recommendations ....................................................................42 3.2.2. Zone 2: Object of study ..............................................................................46 3.2.2.1. Dimensions .........................................................................................47 3.2.2.2. Airlines...............................................................................................47 3.2.2.3. Routes to Zone 2 ................................................................................48 3.2.2.4. Check-in counter requirement ..........................................................49

3.2.3. Conclusions ...............................................................................................54 3.3. Simulation ............................................................................................................55 3.3.1. Simulation package, SIMUL8 .................................................................55 3.3.1.1. The SIMUL 8 Building Blocks. .........................................................55 3.3.1.2. Routing. .............................................................................................57 3.3.1.3. Measures of Performance (MOPs). ..................................................58 3.3.1.4. Set of results.......................................................................................61 3.3.2. Required data for conducting the simulation experiment..........................62 3.3.2.1. Considerations ...................................................................................62 3.3.2.2. Assumptions.......................................................................................65 3.3.3. Check-in process .....................................................................................66 3.3.3.1. Considerations ...................................................................................67 3.3.3.2. Results ................................................................................................69 3.3.3.4. Conclusions ........................................................................................77 3.3.4. Check-in process and passenger movements ............................................78 3.3.4.1. Simul8 building blocks ...................................................................78 3.3.4.2. Results ................................................................................................84 3.3.4.3. Conclusions ........................................................................................91 3.4. Collaborative design .............................................................................................92 3.4.1. Surveys ...................................................................................................92 3.4.1.1. Passenger survey results....................................................................97 3.4.1.2. Staff survey results ..........................................................................105 3.4.2. 3.4.3. Comparison between passengers and staff survey results ......................110 Conclusions ..........................................................................................111

CHAPTER 4. RESULTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS..................................................112 ACKNOWLEDGMENTS ..................................................................................................115 REFERENCES .................................................................................................................116 Annexe I ............................................................................................................................118

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 1. Annual passengers and movements evolution ........................................................25 Figure 2. Passenger evolution by airline type........................................................................26 Figure 3. Home based airlines passenger evolution. ..............................................................27 Figure 4. Top 5 foreign airlines: Passenger evolution............................................................27 Figure 5. Passengers market share by group of carriers .........................................................28 Figure 6. Passengers traffic by month..................................................................................29 Figure 7. Passengers traffic by day of the week ....................................................................29 Figure 8. Aircraft movements by day of the week.................................................................30 Figure 9. Hourly distribution of aircraft movements and passengers .....................................31 Figure 10. Information screen. ..............................................................................................35 Figure 11. Scketch of check-in counters distribution at Terminal 1. ......................................36 Figure 12. Standards for Pedestrian Dimensions ...................................................................41 Figure 13. Recommended Dimensions for Frontal Type Check-in taking into account a Maximum Queuing Time of 30-35 Minutes ..................................................................43 Figure 14. Recommended Dimensions for Check-in Island with Single Queue Per Flight taking into account a Maximum Queuing Time of 30-35 Minutes .................................43 Figure 15. Layout of the Zone2.............................................................................................46 Figure 16. Layout of the Terminal provided by ANA[15] .......................................................48 (Note that there are 3 possible way for access, as shown in blue) ..........................................48 Figure 17. Maximum Queuing Time (MQT) chart ................................................................52 Figure 18. Control of the routing out of the items. ................................................................58 Figure 19. Queue length and its pattern.................................................................................58 Figure 20. Distribution of queuing times...............................................................................59 Figure 21. Work center results and activity. ..........................................................................60 Figure 22. Work complete results and histogram of the time distribution ..............................60 Figure 23. Irregular distribution of the passenger arrival to the check-in counters .................63 Figure 24. ANA passenger profile survey. ............................................................................63 Figure 25. Example of Check in simulation in SIMUL8 Environment replicating one flight .67 Figure 26. Arrival patterns:...................................................................................................69 Figure 27. Exponetial and Fixed distribution for a time interval............................................70 Figure 28. Exponential and Fixed distribution for several time intervals. ..............................70 Figure 29. Maximum queue size for economy queues...........................................................86

Figure 30. Percentage of economy passengers at queue less than 10 min. ............................87 Figure 31. a) Queuing time for 2H before; b) Queuing time (15min).....................................87 Figure 32. a) Queue evolution with time (2H); b)Queue evolution with time (15min) ...........87 Figure 33. Maximum time in system.....................................................................................89 Figure 34. a) Percentage of time in system (2H before); b)Percentage of time in system (15min).........................................................................................................................90 Figure 35. Example of a passengers questionnaire...............................................................95 Figure 36. Example of a staffs questionnaire .......................................................................96 Figure 37. a) Age groups; b) Advanced departure time .........................................................98 Figure 38. Average index for each operational characteristic ..............................................100 Figure 39. Average index for each physical characteristic...................................................100 Figure 40. Information obtained by ANA during 4th quarter of 2007...................................101 Figure 41. Proportion in percentage of every possible answer. ............................................102 Figure 42. Proportion in percentage of every possible answer for each question .................102 Figure 43. Proportion in percentage of every possible answer for each question .................103 Figure 44. Age groups ........................................................................................................105 Figure 45. Average index for each operational characteristic ..............................................107 Figure 46. Average index for each physical characteristic...................................................107 Figure 47. Proportion in percentage of every possible answer. ............................................108 Figure 48. Proportion in percentage of every possible answer for each question .................108 Figure 49. Proportion in percentage of every possible answer for each question. ................109 Figure 50. Comparison between passengers and staff results...............................................110 Figure 51. Comparison between passengers and staff results...............................................111

LIST OF TABLES

Table 1. Airlines in Operation at Terminal 1.........................................................................34 Table 2. Distribution of the check-in counters at Terminal 1 .................................................36 Table 3. Range of level of service measures according to IATA ...........................................42 Table 4. Level of Service Space Standards (m2/Occupant) at check-in for a single queue......44 Table 5. Level of Service Maximum Waiting Time Guidelines.............................................45 Table 6. Space and speed for levels of service C in waiting/circulation areas ........................46 Table 7. Possible ways for access and distances....................................................................49 Table 8. F1: Peak 30-minute at check-in as a percentage of the peak hour period (PHP). ......50 Table 9. F2: Additional demand generated by the flights departing before and after the peak hour period. ..................................................................................................................51 Table 10. S value obtained....................................................................................................53 Table 11. Number of economy counters for each MQT.........................................................53 Table 12. Number of check-in servers including ...................................................................54 Table 13. Number of counters...............................................................................................54 Table 14. Irregular distribution of the passenger arrival to the check-in counters ..................62 Table 15. Measures of the airport performance .....................................................................64 Table 16. Flights data for the simulation............................................................................65 Table 17. Estimated inter-arrival rates. .................................................................................67 Table 18. Scenarios ..............................................................................................................68 Table 19. Results on Average per Scenario...........................................................................72 Table 20. Results for non-zeros queuing time for each scenario ............................................74 Table 21. Operational rules test. ..........................................................................................75 Table 22. Results of the performed test. ................................................................................76 Table 23. Passengers arrived per flight and period prior to flight departure...........................78 Table 24. Estimated inter-arrival rates values (pax/min) per flight and period prior to flight departure.......................................................................................................................78 Table 25. Way distances and travel times .............................................................................79 Table 26. Class counters and capacity of the queues .............................................................80 Table 27. Type Distributions per work center and its values .................................................81 Table 28. Queue measures, On Average ...............................................................................85 Table 29. System measures, On Average ..............................................................................88 Table 30. Travel times ..........................................................................................................89

Table 31. Measures of flight LH 4533 ..................................................................................90 Table 32. Answers of the passengers about the operational and physical characteristics........99 Table 33. Average rate for each question depending on different criteria ............................104 Table 34. Answers of the staff about the operational and physical characteristics................106

CHAPTER 1. INTRODUCTION
1.1. Motivation

Nowadays the air transport is suffering a huge development. People travel and flight more than ever despite the generalized fear to the air transport caused by terrorist attacks, or by the inconveniences due to security policies requirements and operational policies such as being at airport at least two hours before the departure of the flight, or the expensive prices of the tickets for some distances in comparison with other transports. There might be many reasons fro such a fear, although it appears that all of them are related to a certain extent. Probably the most relevant reason for European destinations (at the moment) is the appearance of low-cost airlines that have reduced the price of the tickets significantly. Another reason is the trend to live in a global world in terms of relationships and markets; therefore business travellers represent a high percentage. Moreover, it is a fact that the peoples purchasing power contributes to the increasing use of the air transport for tourism. In the past, national destinations were usually selected and terrestrial transport modes were more used. These days, international and exotic destinations are more common. Furthermore, the frenetic way of life in which the society is involved and the tagline The time is gold lead to spend minimum time in achieving the goal. Hence, these are some of the probable reasons that have helped to fortify this mode of transport. But there is an important problem with the current air transport development; more effective and bigger airports are required. The airports are huge facilities that provide a lot of services and involve many people, means and resources. An effective and efficient use of the resources (both static and dynamic) is mandatory in order for the airports to be competitive providing services of good quality and hence keeping a high level of customer satisfaction, which is a prime goal. The growth of the air transport challenges the experience of the passengers at the airports terminals. A new airport will be built in Lisbon because the current Airport in Portela begins with demonstrating deficiencies which indicates that this airport is not be prepared for the future growth of the traffic volume. It is expected that the Airport in Portela will operate efficiently by 2017, but until that moment, it will have to face up its problems by providing

11

services to meet the increasing demand. Therefore, it is necessary to consider some investments and to conduct studies to developing and improving the current situation. The check-in process is one of the most problematic services that the airport provides because initial delays and long waiting times occur if this process is not well fulfilled. Moreover it is the most public or perceptible process by the passenger; it is at the land side and any problem, as an overload check-in hall with long queues, is easily identified by people. In principle, there are two groups of needs. On the one hand, the passengers, as mentioned before, do not want to spend too long on the check-in process, and on the other hand, the airport manager and the airlines want to provide an excellent level of service, with quality and the minimum cost. In order to achieve all these requirements , it is of interest to study the check-in problem with the purpose of discovering and achieving niches for improvements. Airports or airport terminals are investigated by applying simulation techniques which allow us to replicate real situations and give the opportunity to invent alternatives and test different scenarios in a short period of time in labs.

1.2.

Objectives

The main objective of this study is to analyse the performance of the current functional design of the passenger departure terminal at Lisbon Airport. More specifically, this study is focused on the check-in process, since the passengers have entered at the terminal (checked-in at the counters in the meantime) until they passed through the security controls. This work is conducted with the purpose of evaluating and identifying improvements within the Terminal under study, fulfilling surveys that employ collaborative design, taking into account the requirements and expectations of the different agents that interact in the check-in process, such as: airline; ground handler, travel agent, passengers, etc. One of the prime aims of this study is to identify whether the current situation fits well with the current demand and whether it is efficient, or on the contrary, whether there are needs to make improvements through either Physical or/and Operational changes. As the future traffic increases, it would be interesting to study (and further consider) adequate changes in the passenger departure terminal in question. These changes are needed in order to accommodate that traffic growth.

12

1.1. Motivation______________________________________________________________ On Physical changes it is understood modifying the Physical design of the terminal. This research tries to suggest a new configuration of the terminal, a possible enlargement, or both. On Operational changes it is understood exploring alternative ways to run the terminal. An attempt of proposing new production schemes for service configuration is made, employing a process management approach to meet the operational requirements of the check-in. In general, the selected method of analysis is by using eventbased simulation methods. In addition, collaborative design employing surveys through questionnaires is implemented in order to evaluate the terminal performances through the passenger and staff perspectives. These surveys reveal both the passengers and the staff opinion.

1.3.

Methodology

In order to achieve the objectives of this study, steps of action are launched in the following sequence: 1. The state of the art survey 1.1. 1.2. Airport performance Literature review 1.2.1. Simulation 1.2.2. Collaborative Design 2. Analyse of the current situation 2.1. 2.2. 2.3. 2.4. 3. The Lisbon Airport Check-in Process Observations and Interviews Data Collection

Evaluation of the check-in process through event based simulations using appropriate software

4.

Analysis of the results. The conclusions are focused on:

13

1.2. Objectives______________________________________________________________ 4.1. 4.2. 4.3. 5. Physical Improvements Operational Improvements (New Production Schemes) Combination

Suggestions and recommendations for improvements of the check-in process as

well as terminal design.

14

CHAPTER 2. STATE OF THE ART

2.1.

Literature Review

Several studies have been focused on the passengers who are served at various stages in the airport terminals. Specifically, many studies related to check-in processes, passenger flows and measuring the level of service at airport terminals have been performed in the past. The knowledge of the departure passenger flows is a benchmark for different applications e.g., developing design plans and identifying improvements for an existing terminal, improving the airport design the quality of the service provided, as well as suggesting terminal plans before the actual construction of an airport terminal. Some studies focused on check-in process are presented and discussed next.

2.1.1. Simulation Airports are an ideal application area for simulation. The processes are in a continuous state of change, complex and stochastic, involving many moving objects, which require a good level of performance. The level of performance can be measured by a number of different performance indicators. Check-in processes have been regarded by Joustra and Van Dijk[1] in 2001, e.g.. They carried out simulations in order to study the check-in process in Amsterdam Airport Schiphol. In this paper, the authors firstly make an effort to describe why simulation is necessary to evaluate the check-in. It is explained why queuing theory results are too restricted but nevertheless useful to predict queuing times in the check-in counters at the airport departure terminals. Although queuing theory uses analytical formulas to calculate waiting times, unfortunately these formulas represent so-called steady state situations; hence, this implies that the arrival patterns of passengers are constant during long periods of time. But this is clearly not the case in the check-in patterns, where non-stationary processes are present. Queuing theory seems to be more applicable in situations where common check-in process is applied. If the passengers of several flights check-in at the same set of counters, the collective arrival pattern will show insignificant fluctuations which may lead to a pseudo steady state situation in which results from queuing theory become more realistic.

15

2.1. Studies in the past and literature study______________________________________ In order to realistically predict queuing times at the check-in counters, the authors performed a simulation. This approach deal plausibly with the peaks in the arrival patterns and offers the possibility of testing alternative ways for check-in. Thus, the simulation toolbox is suited for several purposes, such as: analyzing operational check-in rules, performing check-in capacity studies, evaluating the level of performance of the check-in counters, and improving personnel scheduling. They conclude that when analyzing the check-in process, a simple calculation on the basis of workloads by applying queuing theory implies several shortcomings. Therefore, by using such analytical queuing methods, the queuing times cannot be predicted accurately. By using simulation Joustra and Van Dijk[1] have studied some operational rules, such as: Common versus dedicated check-in. The results from the simulation

experiment have showed a considerable reduction in average waiting times using common check-in. On the other hand they have observed that with dedicate check-in it is possible to reduce the number of opened check-in counters maintaining the average queuing time. Dynamic versus static opening and closing. Significant reductions in queuing

time have been achieved in implementing the Dynamic opening and closing with the same or less amount of operator hours, and less counter operators are required for comparable queuing times. Extension of check-in period prior to a flight. When opening the check-in

counters an hour earlier, the average queuing time can drop significantly. Overflow for economy class passengers to business class counters. Offering

economy class passengers the possibility to check-in at an available business class counter will have considerable impact on the average queuing time of economy class passengers, but a small disadvantage for business class passengers. As a result, the shared resources are used more efficiently. Bank lining. It is the usage of a single queue for multiple counters. The effect

on the queuing time strongly depends on to what extent the passengers are evenly distributed over the counters. A second study was conducted to determine the maximum possible growth of Schiphol with regard to the physical capacity of check-in counters.

16

2.1. Studies in the past and literature study______________________________________ In 2003, Takakuwa and Oyama[2] perform a simulation analysis for studying passenger flows in Kansai International Airport in Japan. They have examined specifically international departures. Firstly, they have studied the times needed for the passengers to be served at the airport terminal. It was found that the waiting time for available counters and the check-in process, accounted for more than 80 percent of the total waiting time that the passengers spent in the airport. Preliminary simulation experiments indicated that when more passengers than usual are to be processed at the terminal, it becomes more difficult to process the designated number of passengers to meet their boarding times. It was found that passengers would miss their flights a couple of hours later because of the corresponding peaks causing the congestions at the check-in counters. Therefore, a data-generator was designed and developed to create experimental data, containing time of departure and number of passengers for each class, for executing a series of simulation experiments by varying the level of the congestion. Through these simulation experiments, Takakuwa and Oyama[2] have found that it is possible to drastically reduce the number of passengers that are about to miss their flights by adding supporting staff to the regular staff and by making use of businessclass check-in counters for processing economy class passengers. Soon after, in 2003 too, Cao, Nsakanda and Pressman[3] carried out a simulation study of the passenger check-in system at Ottawa International Airport. The object under study was a system dedicated to domestic flights, only. Cao, Nsakanda and Pressman[3] have investigated how various scenarios could contribute to improve the quality experience of customers at this airport, by alternatives such as changing the queue structure to reduce the need for additional space for queues, and modifying staffing scheduling practices at the check-in counters. The queuing time the passengers spend at the check-in is one of the most important criteria for passenger satisfaction and service quality. The authors collected real data and interviewed airport managers to define the inputs for their simulation model. Three pieces of information were gathered: the number of passengers arriving over minute interval; and for each passenger, the destination city and the flight departure time. The passenger arrival patterns for each flight were obtained after splitting the three-hour predeparture time period of each flight into eighteen ten-minutes intervals and determining the number of passengers within each interval. Cao, Nsakanda and Pressman[3] study considers counters for business class (J-class) customers, for economy class (Y-class) passengers, and for travellers dropping their baggage off after using kiosk check-in. A single waiting line was dedicated to each type of customers.

17

2.1. Studies in the past and literature study______________________________________ There was also a possibility that some counters might serve passengers coming from other queues if certain business rules were met. The queue structure, in any case, was that of a single queue with multiple servers. The performance measures used were such as: the distribution of passenger waiting time (Y-class, J-class), the average waiting times in queues, the maximum waiting time in queues, the average queue length and the maximum queue length. A linear programming (LP) model was developed to provide alternate agent working schedules that minimizes the total agent person hours and meets the passenger loads that vary throughout the day. They concluded that the critical factor that impacts the check-in service performance proved to be the agents working schedule. The outputs of this alternative indicated a significant improvement in the performance measures discussed above since it provided shorter queue length, shorter waiting time, and an increase of the percentage of customers that met the service levels standards. Changing the queue structure did not appear to improve the service performance of passenger check-in process. Later, in 2005, Van der Sluis and again Van Dijk[4] investigated more in detail the check-in problem. An efficient planning of check-in capacities was required at various levels: at daily and operational level to determine the number of counters and opening and closing hours for each individual flight, at weekly level for flight allocation and reservations, at monthly level for contract negotiations with airlines and finally at yearly level for the total counter capacity required. They fixed their attention at the daily level and used simulation to determine: the minimal number of counters in order to meet a service level for each separate flight in term of waiting times, which clearly dealt with queuing and thus stochastic aspect; and the minimal total number of counters and staffing hours in order to meet these numbers, which in contrast was of a scheduling and thus deterministic nature. Next, they provided some integer programming formulations to minimize the total number of counters and the total number of counter hours under the realistic constraint that counters for one and the same flight should be adjacent. Both opening intervals with constant and variable capacities were studied. A numerical example of real world order showed a triple win in waiting time performance, in number of counters and in number of counter hours.

18

2.1. Studies in the past and literature study______________________________________ 2.1.2. Collaborative design Collaborative design is an activity that requires participation of individuals for sharing information and organizing design tasks and resources. Particularly in a complex and large project, design often involves multiple participants (representing individuals, teams, entire organizations or even the clients), each potentially capable of proposing values for design issues and/or evaluating these choices from their own particular perspective. The purpose of design collaboration is to share expertise, ideas, resources, or responsibilities. Many studies have focused on issues of design collaboration including the process, team works, the design settings, groupware, communication patterns, and pedagogy, such as the one performed by Chiu[5] in 2002. This paper provided a basic understanding of the role of organization in design collaboration and how it affected design communication and collaboration by empirical case studies and design experiments. The research indicated that collaborative design could proceed effectively through structured collaboration for sharing design information. Almost all complex artefacts nowadays, including physical artefacts such as airplanes, as well as informational artefacts such as software, organizations, business processes, plans and schedules, are defined via the interaction of many, sometimes thousands of participants, working on different elements of the design. This collaborative design process is typically expensive and time-consuming because strong interdependencies between design decisions make it difficult to converge on a single design that satisfies these dependencies and is acceptable to all participants. Recent research from the complex systems and negotiation literatures has much to offer to the understanding of the dynamics of this process. Klein, Sayama, Faratin, and Bar-Yam[6] published a paper which reviewed some of these insights and offered suggestions for improving collaborative design. But collaborative design is not only a technique that requires a large team. Questionnaire technique is another kind of collaborative design because with the opinion of the users about a product, it is possible to improve it a lot. In 2007, Chang and Yang[7] studied specifically the case of the kiosks, or automated self-service check-in machines. With the purpose of reducing the operating costs and enrich passengers travel experience, during the last years IATA has made an effort to implement five initiatives: electronic ticketing, common-use self-service kiosks, bar-coded boarding passes, radio frequency identification, and paperless cargo. The self-service check-in machines are multi-functional and act as a: (i)

19

2.1. Studies in the past and literature study______________________________________ time saver for passengers, (ii) cost saver for airlines, and (iii) space saver for airports, letting passengers a quick and easy check-in at airports, and select or change seats, update their frequent-flyer status, and receive boarding and lounge passes. With this method a noticeable reduction of the overall cost of the check-in process and alleviation of passenger queues are produced. The authors developed a questionnaire, which was intended to collect opinions on the importance and performance of services quality provided by the self-service check-in machines at the airports for passengers. An empirical study was then undertaken to interview 590 randomly sampled air passengers who visited the express baggage drop-off counters or the kiosks at the Taiwan Taoyuan International Airport. The results not only provided valuable information for improving the service quality of self-service kiosks, but also assisted the industry in developing a CUSS (Common-use self-service) standard that would enable airlines to share kiosks. The questionnaire was formed based on the results of the CIT (Critical Incident Technique). The incidents encountered by passengers who had used the kiosks were classified into five groups, which then were subdivided into 18 subgroups: Expected speed of delivery and time waiting for service. Expected ease of use. Expected reliability. Expected enjoyment. Expected control from the passenger.

Based on the 18 subgroups developed through the CIT procedure, a questionnaire with 18 items, in which each item corresponded to one subgroup of service attribute, was then designed to collect customers opinions on using kiosks. The respondents were asked to indicate their opinions via a five-point Likert scale. The results of their study showed that although previous studies had indicated that the widespread application of technology-based services had benefited consumers, consumers did not possess entirely positive attitudes toward them. Potential kiosk users expected to have a highly controllable environment during kiosk usage. Airlines might mitigate frequent flyers resistance to kiosks by providing extra benefits or seat-selecting privileges. Also, kiosks were expected to be light and compact, and should be installed near the luggage conveyor belt to

20

2.1. Studies in the past and literature study______________________________________ provide satisfactory services for both airlines and passengers in the limited space available at airports. Other kinds of studies performed using questionnaires try to reveal more information about level of service (LOS). One of the first studies was performed by Mumayiz and Ashford[8], in 1986. They provided a method called perception-response concept, using graphical displays constructed from passenger responses concerning the LOS provided at airports in England. Later on, Omer and Khan[9] (1988) employed the concept of utility theory to develop a relationship between characteristics of facilities (e.g. waiting time, space available) and user responses about the LOS offered. Used in a relationship similar to this one, Mller and Gosling[10] (1991) applied a psychometric scaling technique to obtain quantitative measure of level of service. In 2001, Yen[11] presented a quantitative model to define the level of service at airport passenger terminals. The model related subjective service ratings to time measurements of associated waiting or service processes. All the above studies concentrated on the LOS eevaluation of individual components. No study had developed an objective overall LOS measure, reflecting the LOS provided by the airport passenger terminal represented by a single scale. This study was performed by Correia, Wirasinghe and De Barros[12] in 2007. These measures are useful to evaluate the overall LOS in a single scale at the planning, design and management level, according to user perceptions. The procedure of their study consisted of observing passengers and collecting several socio-economic and physical variables that might influence the user eevaluation of the airport as a whole. At the overall level, variables such as waiting time, processing time, walking time, walking distance, level changes, orientation/information, space availability for passengers, space availability for cars at the curb side, and number of seats were talking into account. The modelling of level of service in this paper assumed that there was a causal relationship between passenger perceptions (ratings obtained from questionnaire application) and actual physical measures experienced by the passenger. A psychometric scaling technique was used to obtain quantitative LOS ratings from survey data. Regression analysis was used to obtain mathematical relationships between the quantitative LOS ratings and global indices (total service time, total walking distance and two orientation indices). Although this was a complex research, it was capable of obtaining overall measures that were used to derive quantitative relationships between physical measures and passenger responses.

21

2.1. Studies in the past and literature study______________________________________

~o Paulo/Guarulhos The methodology was illustrated with its application at Sa

International Airport in Brazil. 119 passengers were observed and interviewed in two surveys done at this airport. According to the study results, the majority of the passengers interviewed ~o Paulo/Guarulhos were pleased (good/excellent) with the overall services provided at Sa International Airport. However, a considerable number of respondents rated the service as poor/fair. No passenger rated the walking distance or service time as unacceptable and only two passengers rated the orientation as unacceptable. On the other hand, transfer passengers have quite different needs than those of originating and terminating passengers. For example, they do not make use of airport access roads. Other facilities may or may not be used depending on the type of transfers, the airports operational configuration and the airline services. Typically, passengers transferring directly from one domestic flight to another domestic flight operated by the same airline are not required to leave the boarding area and therefore will not make use of check-in counters, security checkpoints and baggage claims. Despite the increasing importance of transfer passengers for airport operations, little research has been done to determine their needs. In 2007, de Barros, Somasundaraswaran and Wirasinghe[13] analysed transfer passengers views on the quality of services at the terminal building, using data collected at Bandaranaike International Airport in Sri Lanka, which aspired along with the airline Sri Lankan to be a major hub for South Asia. Regression analysis was used to identify the transfer passenger facilities and services with the strongest effect on the overall perception of level of service. For the eevaluation of level of service for transfer passengers, this work used the passenger responses to a questionnaire survey. The questionnaire included questions about several different facilities and services commonly used by transfer passengers. Passengers were asked to rate their experience at each facility and with each service. The ratings were classified into six categories, ranging from 1 (excellent) to 6 (very bad). The passengers were also asked to rate their overall experience at the airport. The application of regression analysis to the data collected at Bandaranaike International Airport showed that the courtesy of the security check staff and the quality of the Flight Information Display are among the most valued by transfer passengers at that airport. This is a strong indication that the heightened security at airports is significantly affecting the passenger experience and how the passenger judges the quality of the airport. So it is recommended that airports pay close attention to the training of security staff in that regard to reduce passenger discomfort and inconvenience. 22

2.2. World wide traffic evolution_______________________________________________

2.2.

World Wide Traffic Evolution

The optimistic world economic scenario, the positive evolution of the traffic and the increasing profitability of the airline companies reduces the impact of the fuel price increases. As expected, the airline industry achieved a record net profit, which according to the International Air transport Association, totalled US$5.6 thousand millions. Provisional data for 2007 presented by the International Air Transport Association (IATA) reveals a 6% growth in the worldwide traffic. International traffic continued to be a boost of this development, increasing 7%. On the other hand, domestic traffic showed a lower increase of 4%. The Middle East continued to lead with a 16% increase, followed by the African market with 15%. With a 30% market share of the worldwide market, Europe showed a positive variation of 6%. Apart from North America, which had a moderate 3% growth, all other American regions grew around 7%. The figures presented by the International Civil Aviation Organization also show a growth of 6.6% in terms of passengers-kilometre, corresponding to 6% in the total number of passengers in scheduled routes, which totalled 2.2 thousand million passengers worldwide. The passenger growth and an optimized offer led to an increase of the aircraft occupancy rates up to 76.5%. Boosting the increase of passengers, the tourism industry showed, according to the World Tourism Organization, an estimated increase of 5.7%, corresponding to a total of 900 million tourist arrivals. Thus, for the fourth consecutive year, a growth higher than the average long-term rate of 4% foreseen by this organization was registered. Tourist demand continues its positive evolution resisting to the potential negative influence of several factors such as: insecurity in financial markets, fuel price increase, terrorism and increase of air transport charges.

23

2.2. World wide traffic evolution_______________________________________________ 2.2.1. Perspectives In the period of 2008-2015 different predictions are expected: The worldwide average annual passenger growth rate foreseen by the Airports Council International is 4%. This exposes in a positive manner the growing liberalization of markets and the development of new routes and services. But a negative factor of this is a slowdown in the economic growth. Although continuing the positive evolution of traffic. A change of the levels of growth of the past 5 years will occur, with a slowdown in terms of passengers. Nevertheless, according to this organization, the number of passengers will surpass 5 thousand millions in 2010. The evolution of movements estimated for this period is not as high, with a growth rate of 3%. This fact reflects an expected increase of the number of passengers per aircraft, showing a future change in the aircraft configuration. According to the International Air Transport Association (IATA), this slowdown in traffic, together with the growing delivery of new aircrafts, will cause a slowdown on the airlines profits, which will have its impact in 2008. with an average weight of 30% of operational costs, the price of fuel will reach never before registered values. This will be one cause of the increase on others for more efficient aircrafts, increasing fuel efficiency to levels higher than the current ones. The forthcoming years are thus of challenge to aviation industry. Airports will face even more important responsibilities in the areas of security and environment, along with the need to increase efficiency, profitability and quality of rendered service. New growth opportunities will be present to the airlines, along with higher competition. Both the need to rationalize offered capacities and better operational management will be important development tools.

24

CHAPTER 3. EEVALUATION OF THE CHECK-IN PROCESS AT LISBON AIRPORT

3.1. Lisbon airport
3.1.1. Traffic at Lisbon Airport In 2007[14], Lisbon Airport continued its positive evolution, surpassing the 13 billion passengers barrier. With a growth of 8.8%, once again higher than the average of the last 5 years (7.4%), the number of processed passengers reached a total of 13.418.747, 1.085.199 more passengers than in 2006. This passengers increase was closely followed by the increase of seats offered (7%), which resulted in a positive evolution of the average load factor which in 2007 presented a value of 68%, 1% above the one registered in the previous year. The growth rate of the movements reached 5.6%, which was lower than the passenger growth rate, but it was still significant enough. A total of 144.800 movements was registered, 7.691 more than in 2006. It is possible to verify these data observing the figure below (Fig. 1).

Figure 1. Annual passengers and movements evolution The international evolution in the aviation sector and the increase of internal demand for new markets, partly due to the appearance of new airlines and new routes, led to this result. During 2007, 14 new destinations were available: Alicante, Berlin, Birmingham, Brasilia, Bristol, Bucharest, Cairo, Hamburg, Helsinki, Krakow, Liverpool, Manchester, Zaragoza and Vienna; and 6 new airlines started their operation to Lisbon: Bmibaby (Birmingham), Blue Air (Bucharest), Egyptair (Cairo), Finnair (Helsinki), Thomsonfly (Manchester) and SkyEurope (Vienna). Lisbon Airport managed to take another step towards

25

3.1. Lisbon Airport___________________________________________________________ its goal of diversifying traffic by attracting new companies, increasing frequencies and broadening its destinations. In the summer of 2007 Lisbon Airport was regularly and non-stop connected to 93 airports and 88 cities, 54 of which in Europe, 12 in America and 11 in Africa. 11 Portuguese destinations were also available. The traffic structure continued to reflect the increasing growth of schedule traffic, opposite to charter traffic. The development of the destinations network from Lisbon and the growing of low costs at the Lisbon Airport have led to a growing demand for schedule flights. With a total of 12.824.126 passengers and 133.082 movements, which compared to 2006, meant an increase of 10% and 6% respectively, schedule traffic was the main cause of the year positive results. The average load factor in scheduled flights was 60%, 1% higher than in the previous year, due to an increase of passengers higher than the seats offered, which was of 8%. On the other hand charter flights only represented 5% of the movements, with 4% of the total of passengers. This reduction of the non-scheduled traffic led to a decrease of 9% in passengers and 1% in movements comparing to 2006. A lower demand led to a decrease of seats offered (-8%) and to a decrease of average load factor, which was of 75%, 2% less than in 2006. 3.1.1.1. Airlines The analysis of the historic evolution of scheduled airlines operating from Lisbon Airport shows the evident increase of low cost companies and of TAP Portugal (Fig. 2).

Figure 2. Passenger evolution by airline type In what concerns the home based companies, and after the disappearance of AirLuxor in 2006 and Portuglia in 2007, TAP Portugal, SATA Internacional and Aerocondor now represent the Portuguese market. Together they had a market share of 60% (Fig. 3).

26

3.1. Lisbon Airport___________________________________________________________

Figure 3. Home based airlines passenger evolution. TAP Portugal represents the majority of Lisbon Airport traffic, with a share of 51%. TAP Portugal acquired Portuglia in 2007 and during the second half of the year, the progressive combining between the operations of the two companies took place, aimed to achieve an optimization of flights, frequencies and equipments. This market strategy, along with the positive evolution of traffic, allowed for a growth of TAP Portugal which closed the year with an increase of 21% in movements and 12% in passengers. The network foreign airlines operating regular flights showed a slowdown in their traffic growth, with an average annual growth rate of 2,5% in the last 5 years, and a decreasing market share (-7% less than in 2002). Amongst the biggest network foreign airlines the growth of Iberia stands out, with a passenger increase of 14% in 2007 and an average annual rate of 9% in the last 5 years. A more moderate growth was presented by Air France (4%), KLM (4%) and Lufthansa (2%), with an average annual passenger growth rates between 1% and 2% since 2003. The next figure reflects this last issue (Fig. 4).

Figure 4. Top 5 foreign airlines: Passenger evolution.

27

3.1. Lisbon Airport___________________________________________________________ As was mentioned before, 2007 was a year of strong growth for low cost companies with the opening of 8 new destinations, either by airlines already operating in Lisbon such as EasyJet, or by new operators. This type of airlines registered 16.651 movements during 2007, 47% above the number of movements of the previous year. In this segment, the evolution of EasyJet stood out. It registered an increase of 81% on both passengers and movements, and it became the second largest carrier at Lisbon Airport, having transported over 750 thousand passengers. 3.1.1.2. Alliances The operation of the 3 alliances, Star Alliance, SkyTeam and OneWorld is very significant at Lisbon Airport, having processed in 2007, 69% of the commercial traffic. In a joint vision of the Airport traffic and the market share of the alliances, Star Alliance, which includes TAP Portugal and 3 other airlines (Lufthansa, Swiss e US Airways), stood out with 56% of the traffic. The other two alliances, SkyTeam and OneWorld, obtained market shares of 7% and 6%, respectively. OneWorld registered, comparing with 2006, an increase of 8%, namely due to the growth registered by Iberia which represented 60% of the traffic of this alliance, and the beginning of Finnair's operation. SkyTeam, including Air France and KLM as the most significant airlines (70%), and also Continental and Alitalia, registered an increase of 7% regarding 2006. (Fig. 5)

Figure 5. Passengers market share by group of carriers

28

3.1. Lisbon Airport___________________________________________________________ 3.1.1.3. Seasonality Lisbon airport is characterized with a seasonal variation at monthly, weekly and daily levels, more noticeable in passengers than in aircraft movements. At monthly level, the distribution of passengers indicates particular seasonal variation between summer and winter, due to the profile of the Lisbon Airport passenger with its travel motivations focused on leisure and tourism. July, August and September concentrated the majority of the traffic with a daily average of 45.500 passengers and 410 movements. Approximately the 31% of the yearly passengers processed and the 27% of movements take place during these months. August is usually the peak month. The figure below (Fig. 6) shows these data.

Figure 6. Passengers traffic by month At weekly level, the bigger concentration of passengers is presented at the end and the beginning of the week (Friday to Monday). In terms of passengers, in 2007 Sunday became the busiest day with 16% of the total of the weekly passengers, 3% more than the previous year. This can be observed in the next figure (Fig. 7). Another remarkable thing is that due to the seasonal profile of the Airport, the daily averages should be analyzed between the Summer and the Winter. Therefore, it is noticed that the traffic in the Summer is significantly bigger than the in Winter.

Figure 7. Passengers traffic by day of the week 29

3.1. Lisbon Airport___________________________________________________________ Regarding aircraft movements, the weekly distribution proved to be more homogeneous, none of the days stands out, neither during Summer or Winter, which reveals the regular characteristics of the airports traffic (Fig. 8).

Figure 8. Aircraft movements by day of the week At hourly level, the most marked peak period usually occurs early in the morning, between 8 and 10 a.m., showing an hourly average of 2.680 passengers and 31 aircraft movements. This is mainly fed by the TAP flights with departure from and to Europe. On this traffic period, 64% of the passengers and 61% of the movements belonged to that airline. During those 2 hours, throughout the year, 15% of the total passengers and 16% of the movements were registered. Throughout the morning and early afternoon it is possible to witness a concentration of operations of the majority of the low cost airlines. 47% of these airline passengers were processed between 9 a.m. and 2 p.m. There is also a greater concentration of flights around the middle of the day, between 2 and 4 p.m. and a lower peak at the end of the day, between 6 and 8 p.m. During these three peak periods, which are equivalent to just seven hours, nearly 35% of the movements at the airport take place. Among the midnight and 6 a.m. the number of flights is practically no-existent. All these data are reflected in the graphic below (Fig. 9).

30

3.1. Lisbon Airport___________________________________________________________

Figure 9. Hourly distribution of aircraft movements and passengers 3.1.1.4. Passenger profiles The profile of passenger served by Lisbon airport is specified by the following characteristics: Nationality: Portuguese (52%); Brazilian (10%); Spanish (7%); German (6%); others (25%). Age: Between 20 and 39 years old (68%); others (32%) Sex: Male (55%); Female (45%) Travelling: alone (53%); in family (33%) and in group (11%) Aim of the travel: Tourism (35%), business (33%), visiting family or friends (27%)

3.1.2. Current situation Lisbon airport is the most important one in Portugal, with the biggest number of passengers, on average statistics and plays an important role in the Lisbon's economic development and that of the entire Lisbon Region. It was inaugurated in 1942 and it is located 6 km far away from downtown. This proximity to the city is one of its best added - values but at the same time, it is a matter in order to achieve developments and enlargements to accommodate the increasing demand. It is among the top 30 in the ranking of the European airports with more passengers. In 2007, more than 13 millions of passengers used the airport and it presents an average annual growth of 7%, approximately.

31

3.1. Lisbon Airport___________________________________________________________ The airport capacity is limited by the most restrictive system. In the case of the Lisbon Airport this restrictive system appears to be its runways. More accurately, Lisbon airport has a system of two cross runways, the principal with 3805 m and the secondary with 2400 m. Nowadays the airport is involved on a development and enlargement plan which started in 2006 and will be finished in 2010. Its objectives, among others, are: To overcome the capacity restrictions that the airport began to present. To accommodate the present and the increasing demand until 2017, data in which the new airport will be operative. To improve the levels of quality, comfort and security of the services provide. To improve the access and the connexions between the airport and the city.

At the end of the improvements, there will be an increase of physical/operational capacity seen in [16]: Movements: from 36Mov/Hour to 40Mov/Hour Passengers: 3200Pax/Hour to 4320Pax/Hour Aircraft stands positions: from 46/51 to 57/64, Fingers: from 7 to 20 Boarding gates: from 26 (17 Schengen and 9 No Schengen) to 47 (30 Schengen and 17 No Schengen) The airport is composed by two terminals. Terminal 1 is used for both domestics and international arrivals, and international departures, and Terminal 2 (inaugurated in 2007 as a part of the development plan) is used for domestic departures, only.

32

3.1. Lisbon Airport___________________________________________________________ 3.1.3. Passenger Terminals It was mentioned in section 3.1.1 that Lisbon Airport is composed by two terminals. It should be noted that an area of Terminal 1 is the object of this study. Terminal 1 As it was explained before within Terminal 1 located are international departures (Schengen and No Schengen) and two types of arrivals, i.e., international and domestic. The terminal services and operating processes are distributed in three levels (Level 2, 3 and 4). Arrivals are placed on Level 2, and international departures on Levels 3 and 4. The services and operating processes fulfilled in these 3 levels are listed next: Level 2 Arrivals (international and domestic) Information stands Left baggage Baggage lost and found Access to parking Lounge concessions International departures Shuttle to Terminal 2 Police Post office Lost properties Commercial area International departures Ticketing offices Access to boarding gates

Level 3

Level 4

Some typical airport terminal configurations with rectangular plant have placed departures and arrivals flows at the same building but on different levels. In contrast to them, this does not happen in the case of Lisbon airport. As it was seen before the processes are segregated by levels but whereas the arrivals take place on the front side of the building, the departures entrances are located on its lateral side. When the passengers enter to the terminal,

33

3.1. Lisbon Airport___________________________________________________________ they find a huge commercial area all over the entrance departure hall, which differs from the usual check-in terminal areas. It is interesting to communicate that a security perimeter exits at Level 4 of the terminal in question, which can be called previous security controls. The mission of these previous security controls is to allow the access only to passengers with boarding cards or flight tickets, so the companions of the passengers cannot cross these points. This perimeter was created in 2007 to avoid the illegal traffic which happened on flights to African destinations and to prevent the check-in areas from being crowed, because an average of 5 companions per passenger was encountered at the time. Inside this perimeter, the check-in counters and the access to the embarking lunge with its own security, are located. Hence, there are a total of 4 previous security controls. The airlines that operate within Terminal 1 are given in the following table (Table 1). Aer Lingus Aerocondor Aigle Azur Air Berlin Air France Air Moldova Air Nostrum Air Transat Alitalia Blue Air bmi baby British Airways Brussels Airlines Clickair Continental EasyJet Egyptair EuroAtlantic Finnair Germanwings Iberia KLM Krasair Lufthansa Regional Airlines Royal Air Maroc SAS Braathens Sata Internacional SkyEurope SWISS TAAG TACV Tap Portugal Tunisair Turkish Airlines Ukraine International US Airways Vueling White Airways

Table 1. Airlines in Operation at Terminal 1.

34

3.1. Lisbon Airport___________________________________________________________ The aim of this work is to study the check-in process, so its scope is focused on the components of this process. The arrival of the passengers who are going to departure takes place at Level 3. There are four entrance points placed ensuring the access through the building facade with 1, 3, 1 and 2 doors respectively. In front of these entrance points placed are information screens (see Fig. 10), except on the left hand entrance point that provide varied information about the flights such as: the check-in counters assigned, hour of the flight and other useful announcements (flight delayed, boarding, and so on). On the top of these screens exits a signposting that indicates the direction to the check-in counters, as it can be also seen in Figure 10. Inside the building, near the entrance points, the carts and a service for protecting the baggage are disposed.

Figure 10. Information screen. There are 107 check-in counters at the terminal distributed over four different check-in areas or zones, without considering auto check-in machines. The check-in zones with the number of their corresponding counters are distributed, as follows, in Table 2.

35

3.1. Lisbon Airport___________________________________________________________ Check-in zone Counters Level at the terminal Zone 1 Zone 2 Zone 3 Zone 4 1-13 14-36 37-89 90-107 3 4 4 4

Table 2. Distribution of the check-in counters at Terminal 1 Next, a schematic layout of the terminal (Fig. 11) is presented to help the understanding of the distribution explained before.

Figure 11. Scketch of check-in counters distribution at Terminal 1. Note that, the present study is focused on the check-in process at Zone 2.

36

3.2. Check-in Process_________________________________________________________

3.2. Check-in process

3.2.1. General concepts The airports concentrate a huge amount of static and dyniamic recourses with the purpose of providing services (seen in information, check-in, handling, security, etc.) to their customers. The customers of prime importance of the airport are the passengers, but also the airlines, the ground handlers, and the forces and security corps of the state, among others. There are close relationships between all these services. Most of them are interlinked and they must work together, in other words, the services depend on each other. The goal of the airport manager is a good integration of all the services for the sake of satisfying the customers. In providing the airport services a set of operating processes are needed (e.g., circulation of passengers, luggage and airplanes treatment and the like). These operating processes consist of sub-processes (such as: maintenance, security, monitoring, etc.) and involve means (software systems, infrastructure and equipments) operated by human resources. As mentioned before, the check-in is one of the services that airports provide. This service comes up from the needs of accommodating passengers in cabin and loading their baggage. The volume and number of baggage carried by each passenger (the cabin size is not very big), and the current security policies that forbid some articles in cabin, require that this luggage should be loaded in the bellies of the airplane. Therefore, it is necessary a check-in process joined with a luggage treatment system and a handling service. The check-in can be studied in the framework of Analysis of Processes (quality of service in order to satisfy the necessities of the customers and obtaining the maximum profit with the minimum cost), with inputs (the duality passenger-baggage) and outputs (the passengers with their boarding card, and their luggage carried at the airplane). In order to attend this service such a part of a system management process its necessary to define and evaluate: the clients or groups of interest (identifying their needs and requirements), the means and resources, the processes involved, etc. The clients or groups of interest are the passengers, the airlines and the handling agents. The processes involved would be: the obtaining of information, the circulation of the passengers in the terminal, and their process at the counters. The means are the trolleys, the information panels (static or dynamic), the information points, elevators and ramps, the check-in desks and the luggage processing system. And last but not least, the human recourse. 37

3.2. Check-in Process_________________________________________________________ One of the steps of the management process is to identify the indicators of the activities involved in the process for a subsequent measure, control and analyse of them, in order to get a feedback that may lead to a potential improvement. Some of these indicators could be, as follows: a. Walking times and walking distances. b. Average and maximum queuing time per passenger. c. Average and maximum processing time per passenger. d. Size queue area per passenger. e. Queue length. f. Percentage of passengers that lose the flight. g. Percentage of baggage that does not arrive to destination. h. Available surfaces (commercial and movement areas). On the other hand, there are some phenomena that influence the indicators enumerated above, such as: a. Congested Terminal, bad distribution of spaces and flows, bad signs, passengers behaviours, knowledge or ignorance about the airport... b. Number of desks available for the flight, number of passengers, efficiency of the staff, capacity of the airplane... c. Efficiency of the staff, irregularities on the passenger (baggage excess weight, lack or expired documents ...), capacity of the airplane... d. Number of passengers, baggage per passenger and space available for the queue. e. Available space. f. Number of counters available, overload, passengers behaviours (late arrival to the check-in, lack of documents, expired documents), ... g. Bad carried and labelled of the luggage by the check-in staff in the conveyor system, bad operation of the baggage system, bad work of the handling staff, late arrival to check-in, ...

38

3.2. Check-in Process_________________________________________________________ h. Design of the terminal, space distributions, number of concessions, ...

3.2.1.1. Types of Check-in The passengers have at their disposal several ways to do the check-in, but they can be grouped on two main categories: Traditional check-in and Self check-in. Traditional check-in is the usual option where the passengers are processed on checkin counters. Again, it could be divided into two types: common or dedicate check-in. Common check-in: any of the check-in counters can be used by different flights of the same or different airline (i.e. the Hanover airport, in which the passengers can check-in in any desk for any flight of any airline). Dedicate check-in: each desk is used by an airline for a specific flight.

The self-service check-in is being developed in our days a lot, with the help of the technology. At the moment, there are options such as: Auto check-in, or also named by some airlines as Quick check-in, which uses kiosks and lets the passenger to get his/her boarding card by himself/herself, to choose their seats at the airplane, etc. It requires counters to left the baggage, but in some airports these counters are shared with the traditional check-in passengers, although in a less processing time because they already have their boarding card. Therefore, it is mainly recommended for those passengers that only travel with hand luggage. Online check-in, the passengers print their boarding cards at home. Then, if they only have hand luggage, they can directly to their assigned gate. If they have to check-in any baggage, they have to wait to be processed in a counter, although the process will be faster. Again, this option is mainly recommended for those passengers that only travel with hand luggage. Check-in by mobile-phone. It is the same concept as in the case of online check-in, but it is performed with your mobile-phone.

39

3.2. Check-in Process_________________________________________________________ 3.2.1.2. Types of Queue Configuration There are two configurations of the queues; a common queue for all the counters assigned to a flight, groups of flights or the same flight class, which is called bank lining. The other possibility is a single queue for each counter. 3.2.1.3. Passengers Characteristics It should be noted that different flight segments have diverse characteristics and needs, as well as in the case of different passenger segmentation. Passengers behaviour can be seen as a source of uncertainty and thus a source of fluctuation, not only in demand but in capacity as well. Queuing phenomena at check-in counters are a good example of this. The arrival pattern may change from flight to flight, mainly in function of its destination, and from day to day. The time to process passengers also fluctuates and is not entirely under the control of the agents. Two general types of passengers can be identified within the context of the check-in process: origin passengers who begin their travel, and passengers on transfer who have arrived at the airport but it is not their final destination and they have to change of airplane, and perhaps the air company. In the second case, due to the airlines alliances, the passenger avoids to repeat the check-in process in the stopover. If the air companies are not legally agreed on providing complete package of service, the passenger who uses such two companies in one journey should pick up his/her baggage and starts again the process as an origin passenger. These two general types of passengers can be classified in some groups according to: their origin, purpose of the travel, type of flight, flight class and their human characteristics. Origin National International EU Schengen EU No Schengen Tourism Business Business 40

Purpose of the travel

Flight class:

3.2. Check-in Process_________________________________________________________ Economy Domestic International Short Distance Long Distance Human characteristics Passengers alone Families with children Children alone Old people Handicapped people Groups

Kind of flight

The difference between these types of passengers lies on the circumstances, expectations and behaviours, such as, the time before the flight departure that they have to be at airport as well as the volume of their luggage, for example. According to this, space standards for a short-haul flight, with passengers that carryout hand luggage only (i.e., business class flyers), should be different from a flight with passengers on tourism travel mostly, who have two or three pieces of luggage piled on a cart. These space standards are shown in the next picture (Fig. 12)[17].

Figure 12. Standards for Pedestrian Dimensions

41

3.2. Check-in Process_________________________________________________________ 3.2.1.4. IATA recommendations In this section some IATA (International Air Transport Association) suggestions are exposed. They were obtained from IATA-ADRM (i.e., Airport Development Reference Manual)[17], which is a valuable reference for airlines, airports, government authorities, architects and engineering consultants involved in airport development. It provides guidance on designing facilities with airport user needs in mind, and contains expanded Airport Capacity chapter including a section on enhanced level of service standards. It is completely revised from one edition to the other. Level of service Level of service could be considered as a range of values, or assessments of the ability of the supply to meet the demand, and combines both quantitative and qualitative measures of respective comfort and convenience. In order to allow comparison between the systems and subsystems performances of the airport and to reflect the dynamic nature of demand upon the entire facility, IATA has defined ranges of level of service measures from A through to F, as given in next table (Table 3). LEVEL A B C D E F Quality of service EXCELLENT HIGH GOOD Passengers flow Free-Flow Stable Stable Delays No Very Few Acceptable Acceptable ADEQUATE Unstable (Short periods of time) INADEQUATE UNACCEPTABLE Unstable Cross-flows Unacceptable Unacceptable Inadequate Ok Adequate Ok Comfort Excellent High Good System Ok Ok Ok

Unacceptable Breakdown

Table 3. Range of level of service measures according to IATA It should be noted that the Level of Service C is specified as a required bottom line design objective, since it denotes a good service at a reasonable cost.

42

3.2. Check-in Process_________________________________________________________ Check-in queue area It is possible to place the check-in counter layouts in either linear type or island type. For the two main types of counter layouts, several variants exist. The size recommended by IATA for these types of check-in configuration can be seen in the next figures (Fig. 13 and 14).

Figure 13. Recommended Dimensions for Frontal Type Check-in taking into account a Maximum Queuing Time of 30-35 Minutes

Figure 14. Recommended Dimensions for Check-in Island with Single Queue Per Flight taking into account a Maximum Queuing Time of 30-35 Minutes IATA recommends using four different sets of space standards at the check-in. The classification is based on the characteristics described in the table below (Table 4).

43

3.2. Check-in Process_________________________________________________________ A B C D E

1. Few carts and few passengers with check-in luggage (row 1,7 1,4 1,2 1,1 0,9 width 1.2m) 2. Few carts and 1 or 2 pieces of luggage per passenger (row 1,8 1,5 1,3 1,2 1,1 width 1.2m) 3. High percentage of passengers using carts (row width 2,3 1,9 1,7 1,6 1,5 1.4m) 4. Heavy flights with 2 or more items per passenger and a 2,6 2,3 2,0 1,9 1,8 high percentage of passenger using carts (row width 1.4m) Table 4. Level of Service Space Standards (m2/Occupant) at check-in for a single queue The area around the check-in should be large enough to accommodate passengers friends too, although at some airports only the people who are going to travel are allowed at this hall. Limited seating devices should be made available in the check-in hall to be used by the companions while passengers check-in. Readable and illuminated signs are required over each check-in counter so passengers can identify easily the airline operating from that counter and its number. The signs should also indicate: The type of service (Business class or Economy class) The flight number The destination.

Departure flight information displays (FIDS) must be available within the check-in hall. The FIDS should show which airlines are operating from which check-in counters. Another point that should be considered the distance that a passenger must carry his/her baggage to the closet terminal check-in point, which should be kept to the minimum. Moreover, baggage trolleys and related storage areas need to be provided. Maximum queuing time The occupancy patterns in various subsystems change rapidly and thereby affect the space available to the occupants. In addition, the occupancy time for a subsystem can vary, resulting in a change in comfort. For this reason, the time is a significant factor in determining the quality of service and must be considered as a prime variable in measuring the level of service provided. It is very difficult to establish a precise, quantified relationship between

44

3.2. Check-in Process_________________________________________________________ available space, time and level of service. This explains why the time is often neglected as a factor of level of service and standards are sometimes set purely to space requirements, only. In making an attempt to create a reference in spite of its limitations, the IATA manual establishes an acceptable maximum waiting time for the specified level of service C, from 30 to 35 minutes. Considering that maximum, the following table (Table 5) shows maximum queuing times guidelines. Short to acceptable Acceptable to long Check-in Economy Check-in Business Class 0-12 0-3 12-30 3-5

Table 5. Level of Service Maximum Waiting Time Guidelines Waiting /Circulation Area Walking distances for passengers should be as short as possible. In determining the distance between major functions in the terminal, the planner must consider whether baggage is to be carried or not, the availability of baggage trolleys and changes in levels. The suggested maximum walking distances between the major functions (i.e., car park to the check-in) is 300m. Greater distances can be accepted providing a form of mechanical assistance. If passengers required changing levels while there are walking, escalators or moving ramps should be provided, at least in the upward direction. Passengers should not be required to move baggage other than hand baggage between levels. Experience has shown that the use of elevators to enable passengers, other than disabled passengers, to change levels is not satisfactory from a capacity point of view. Pedestrians adapt their walking speed to the environment based on the following variables: The occupancy or flow in the corridor. The proportion of passengers with baggage and carts. The presence of searching or standing pedestrians obstructing the natural oneway flow. Their companions, because children and old people walk slower. 45

3.2. Check-in Process_________________________________________________________ Next table (Table 6) shows the space and speed for levels of service C in various waiting/circulation areas of the passenger terminal. Space (m2/pax) Airside (no carts) Public area after the check-in (few carts) Departure before check-in (carts) 1.5 1.8 2.3 Speed (m/s) 1.3 1.1 0.9

Table 6. Space and speed for levels of service C in waiting/circulation areas

3.2.2. Zone 2: Object of study The area selected for study is the second check-in area, i.e., check-in desks from 14 to 36. These 23 check-in counters in total are arranged in an uninterrupted linear or frontal layout type. Next the layout of the check-in zone (Fig. 15) is shown, where one observes a scheme of the area, with metrical dimension marks (i.e., the distances are given in mtres).

Figure 15. Layout of the Zone2

46

3.2. Check-in Process_________________________________________________________ 3.2.2.1. Dimensions The surface of the area is 440 m2, approximately. The available space for queues is 233 m2. The length of them is 6.75 m (measured from the waiting mark until the pillars line) and the width for the set of counter and conveyor is 1.5m. (See Fig. 15). Considering a space standard of 1.2 m2/pax for a level of service C (See Table 3), the capacity of the queue per counter will be 9 passengers. Behind the columns there is a corridor of 3m wide that can be used for the passengers flow and to accommodate the queues when these overflow their capacity. If the dimensions of this check-in area are compared with the size area recommended by IATA for this type of check-in configuration (Fig. 13), it seems that the actual dimensions are a little bit below but nevertheless close to them. 3.2.2.2. Airlines The airlines that usually operate in this area are: those include in the Sky Team alliance (Alitalia, AirFrance and KLM), due to the proximity of their ticket sale desks, Lufthansa, and the low cost companies: Bruselles airlines and Germanwings. In this area they operate European flights. Some of these airlines offer the possibility of doing Quick Check-in (or Self check-in): Lufthansa, Alitalia, AirFrance and KLM. These two last share the quick check-in kiosks. The numbers of quick check-in machines available for each of these air companies are: 2, 2 and 5 respectively. The assignment of the check-in counters in function of the airline can change day to day, depending on the flight schedule and the number of passengers that could be processed on every flight. Lufthansa is the only airline that has the same check-in counters, from 14 to 18, assigned indefinitely. The other check-in counters are assigned in function of the day requirements but a usual situation is that AirFrance uses the counters from 21 to 24 and Alitalia utilizes the counters from 34 to 36, due to the fact that these counters are closed to their respective Quick Check-in kiosks. As it can be observed at the airport, Lufthansa, Airfrance and Alitalia normally divide their counters between flight-class as follows: Lufthansa: 2 business counters, 1 Quick check-in baggage deliver and 2 economy. 47

3.2. Check-in Process_________________________________________________________ Airfrance: 1 business counter, 1 economy and 2 for Quick check-in. Alitalia: 1 business and 2 economy counters. All these companies usually employ a common queue for those counters that are assigned to the same flight class. 3.2.2.3. Routes to Zone 2 Passenger orientation is one of the important aspects in any airport terminal. In order to achieve successful passenger orientation an evaluation of the ease of passenger orientation in the terminal is of interest. From the main entrance there are several ways to arrive to the Zone 2. According to the signs of the airport three options are possible. The three different possible routes can be observed in the picture below (Fig. 16).

Figure 16. Layout of the Terminal provided by ANA[15] (Note that there are 3 possible way for access, as shown in blue)

48

3.2. Check-in Process_________________________________________________________ WAY DISTANCE (m) 1 2 3 104 98 196

Table 7. Possible ways for access and distances There is practically no difference between way 1 and 2. On the other hand way 3 is much longer and also forces passengers to pass through the previous security control two times, the first is when they go to the check-in area and the second is after the check-in when they go to the boarding gates. 3.2.2.4. Check-in counter requirement The departure schedule generates originating passengers arriving at the terminal from several minutes to several hours before departure time. The originating passengers are first processed at the check-in counters or at the self service kiosks. Check-in counters are key facilities with huge footprints and significant impact on the level of service, terminal development costs and operations. The following rule of thumb determines the requirements for common use of check-in counters. The procedure to determine the required number of check-in counter according with the IATA document ADRM (Airport Development Reference Manual)[17 ]: Step A: Calculate the peak 30 minute demand at check-in. Step B: Determine the intermediate result using the chart provided. Step C: Calculate the number of economy class (common use) check-in counters. Step D: Calculate the total number of check-in counters (including business class). Step E: Make adjustment for dedicate facilities.

Next, this procedure will be applied for the area object of the study according with the flight schedule provided by ANA (see annexe 1), considering there was not transfer passengers, in other words, all the passengers embarked in every flight were checking-in at the counters. With this assumption (the worst situation) is possible to evaluate if the check-in area can hang on with the number of counters required for this situation.

49

3.2. Check-in Process_________________________________________________________ Step A: Calculate the peak 30 minute demand at check-in The peak 30-minute demand is a good predictor of the performance and requirements at check-in. It should be based on the site-specific planning schedule and hourly distribution of passengers arriving at check-in. The following procedure is recommended if the sitespecific demand/capacity characteristics required to determine the peak 30-minute load are not available.
X = PHP economy class F1 F 2

(3.1)

Where: X=Peak 30-minute at check-in PHP = Peak hour originating economy class passengers. F1 = % of the PHP in the peak 30-minute from table 1. F2 = Additional demand generated by the flights departing before and after the peak hour period from table 2.
Number of flight during the Domestic/Schengen/ peak hour period 1 2 3 4 or more Short Haul international 39% 36% 33% 30% Long-Haul international 29% 28% 26% 25%

Table 8. F1: Peak 30-minute at check-in as a percentage of the peak hour period (PHP).

50

3.2. Check-in Process_________________________________________________________

Average passenger load in the hour before and a after the peak hour period in % of Domestic the PHP 90% 80% 70 % 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 1.37 1.31 1.26 1.22 1.18 1.14 1.11 1.07 1.03

Schengen/Short international 1.43 1.40 1.35 1.30 1.25 1.20 1.15 1.10 1.06

Haul Long-Haul international 1.62 1.54 1.47 1.40 1.33 1.26 1.19 1.12 1.06

Table 9. F2: Additional demand generated by the flights departing before and after the peak hour period. In the studied day (1 of August of 2008) and at the Zone 2, the peak period occurred between 11 a.m. to 12 a.m.. During this hour there were 3 flights (Two international flights and one Schengen flight) and a total of 622 passengers were processed. Assuming that 10% of passengers were business passengers, the PHP would be 622*0.9 = 560 economy-class passengers. In the hour before and after the peak hour period there were 425 and 409 economy class passengers respectively. Talking in percentage of PHP: 75,88% and 72,99%, so the average passenger load in the hour before and a after the peak hour period will be 74.44% 75%. Therefore, the value of F1 is obtained from Table 6, with the data of the number of flights during the peak period and taking into account the proportion of each type of flight. It would be:

(3.2) In the same way, from table 7 the value of F2 is calculated averaging the data for 70% and 80%, and taking into account the proportion of each type of flight.

(3.3) 51

3.2. Check-in Process_________________________________________________________ So the peak 30-minute at check-in results: (3.4) Step B: Determine the intermediate result, S. The intermediate result S takes into account the MQT using the following chart (Fig. 17). Where: X = Peak 30-minute at check-in. S = Intermediate result. MQT = Maximum Queuing time (minutes)

Figure 17. Maximum Queuing Time (MQT) chart With the value of Peak 30-minute calculated previously and using the last chart, the S value is obtained for the MQT suggested by IATA for a level of service C (30 minutes) and for the less MQT that the chart provides (10 minutes), in order to establish a range of counters depending of this MQT.

52

3.2. Check-in Process_________________________________________________________ S MQT (30min) 11 MQT (10min) 15 Table 10. S value obtained Step C: Calculate the number of check-in servers: economy class, common use during peak period C/Y = S * (PTci / 120) Where: C/Y = Number of economy check-in servers assuming common use. PTci = Average processing time at check-in in seconds. With the intermediate results obtained in the last step (Table 10) and supposing an average processing time of 90 seconds (1.5 minutes), the number of economy counters for each MQT is: MQT C/Y 30 10 8 11 (3.5)

Table 11. Number of economy counters for each MQT Step D: Calculate the number of check-in servers including desks dedicated to business class passengers It is estimated that a 20% of the check-in desks must being designated to business passengers. C/J = C/Y *20% C/ = C/Y + C/J Where: C/ = Number of check-in servers including business class counters assuming common use. C/Y = Number of economy check-in servers assuming common use. (3.7) (3.8)

53

3.2. Check-in Process_________________________________________________________ C/J = Number of business class check-in servers. Applying these formulas and using the previous CIY values: MQT C/J C/ 30 10 2 3 10 14

Table 12. Number of check-in servers including Step E: Dedicate facilities Due to the widely varying applications of dedicated facilities from airport to airport, it is difficult to develop a general rule to account for the impact of dedicate facilities on supply. Experience shows that the total number of check-in positions should be increased by 30 to 40% for dedicated facilities. Alternatively, planners may calculate and add up the number of check-in servers per alliance or user group if the individual peak loads are known. In the case of the area of study all the flights use dedicate check-in facilities, so if an increase of 35% is considered, the result of number of counters will be: (3.9) C MQT (30min) 13 MQT (10min) 18 Table 13. Number of counters 3.2.3. Conclusions For a maximum queuing time of 30 minutes 13 counters would be necessary. If the purpose is to reduce the MQT to 10 minutes, logically, the number of counters must be increased. Under such conditions the analytical method provides a value of 18 counters. Comparing these results with the 23 counters available at Zone 2, it seems that the area has the sufficient physical capacity to accommodate the demand and more flights or passengers could be processed.

54

3.3. Simulation______________________________________________________________

3.3. Simulation
3.3.1. Simulation package, SIMUL8 SIMUL8[19] is a computer package for Discrete Event Simulation from SIMUL8 Corporation. It allows the user to create a visual model of the system investigated by drawing simulation objects directly on the screen. During this section, a brief explanation of its operation will be given. Typical objects might be work items, queues or service points. The work items may be physical entities such as manufactured goods, which could be held in a storage area before being processed on a machine, or they may be virtual work items such as telephone enquiries, which are held in a queue before being processed by an operator. The characteristics of simulation objects will be defined in terms of, for example, capacity or speed of operation. When the structure of the model has been confirmed, a number of trials can be run and the performance of the system described statistically. Statistics of interest may be average waiting times, utilization of work centers or resources, etc. 3.3.1.1. The SIMUL 8 Building Blocks. When SIMUL 8 simulates queuing systems, there is a set of building blocks to be described and used. Each block is characterized with specific and irreplaceable properties. The accuracy of the models and the representation of the real systems, which are being simulated, depend on the accurate description and position of the blocks, and on the right linkages between them. The linkages identify the service path of the work items which are the objects to be processed by the system being scrutinized. In a simulation model there are four main building blocks; work entry points, queues, work centers and work exit points, which are described below.

Work Entry Point This is a work items generator. The work items are served by the system, but these items could be of many different natures. In the present case, the items will be the departure passengers of the airport.

55

3.3. Simulation______________________________________________________________ The Work Entry Point is characterized by an arrival pattern. This arrival pattern of the work items can be controlled in order to follow a scheduled arrival pattern (deterministic behaviour) or a particular probability distribution (stochastic behaviour). It should be notice that it is possible to have more than one Work Entry Point just as more than one type of raw material may be required, and they could enter at any stage of the process. For every simulated flight a work entry point will be generated. The arrival pattern will be controlled using a time dependent distribution in order to generate the number of passengers per flight close to the reality as much as possible and to allocate the passengers by subintervals of time, knowing the proportion of them, which is different for each subinterval.

Work Center This is the place where the work is performed by a machine or server. The length of time that the work takes can be controlled in order to follow a particular probability distribution. Moreover, the output can be routed to other objects in a variety of ways. The work centers will be employed to recreate some of the processs means, such as; the check-in counters, the information screens and the airport entrances. Other use of the work centers will be to replicate the travel times that the passengers spend through the terminal. The software allows to take into account the travel times between different simulation objects, but these times are proportional to the on-screen distance between the blocks connected and fixed for every item. Using this block is possible to consider the stochastic behaviour by means of a probability distribution, in other words, it takes into account that each passenger walks at a different speed and that the passenger terminal sometimes is more crowded than others. In this way, the travel times are calculated and the random behaviour is considered.

56

3.3. Simulation______________________________________________________________

Queue Here the work items, in this case the passengers, are held while they are waiting to be processed. The idea of queues is similar to, the storage areas in a manufacturing system, virtual queues in call centers, etc. It is possible to control the queues by: Their capacity The shelf life of items in a queue, And, their service discipline of storage (FIFO, LIFO ).

Work Exit Point The work exit point is where the work leaves the system and the service is declared as finished. 3.3.1.2. Routing. Routing is the way to connect the building blocks in order to manage the sequence of services to the customers. These are the linkages of the whole structure and in the simulation experiment they are thought in order to follow the throughput line of the service. Simply, the linkages are made up by Work Flow Arrows which indicate the default path for the customer moving through the technological (sub)systems and storage areas of which the simulation model consists. An important feature is that when there is no buffer between two successive technological (sub)systems but there is a direct link between them, by default, the customers do not move from the first technological (sub)systems to the second until the second technological (sub)systems is ready to serve them. When there are several destinations from one building block, the routing out of the items (passengers) in the system can be controlled using several rules or disciplines: uniformly, establishing a priority or by percentage for example, as it can be observed in the next picture (Fig. 18).

57

3.3. Simulation______________________________________________________________

Figure 18. Control of the routing out of the items. 3.3.1.3. Measures of Performance (MOPs). In SIMUL 8 the measures of the system performance are assessed per building block, as well as for the system as a whole. The software provides several types of results (graphic or analytical) that can be directly taken from it or can be exported to an Excel file to be manipulated then. For a Work Entry Point, the computed measure of performance is Number of work items entered. For a Storage Area, the computed MOPs are, as follows: Number of work items in storage. This is the queue length and its pattern can be seen in a graphic window. Moreover, it is possible to select the plot with every change, or to present the results collected in intervals of time that the user can specified (Fig. 19).

Figure 19. Queue length and its pattern.

58

3.3. Simulation______________________________________________________________ Queuing Time is demonstrated in two stages: the first stage is to all work items; the second stage is only to those work items that had to queue. The distribution of queuing times can be observed in a graph window as well. (Fig. 20)

Figure 20. Distribution of queuing times. For a Work Center the computed MSPs are: Number of work items (currently in the center; completed; average; minimum and maximum) The percentage of time for which the Work Center is either waiting work, working, blocked or stopped. It can be plainly visualized by a pie chart (Fig. 21).

59

3.3. Simulation______________________________________________________________

Figure 21. Work center results and activity. For a Work Exit Point the computed MSPs are work-complete results, as follows: - Number of work items completed (Fig. 22). - Times in system (average, minimum and maximum as well as standard deviation) - The time distribution in the system can be depicted by a histogram.

Figure 22. Work complete results and histogram of the time distribution

60

3.3. Simulation______________________________________________________________

3.3.1.4. Set of results. Talking in general, when modelling and simulating with SIMUL8 there are two different sets of results that it is possible to obtain. These are, as follows: set of results at the end of a run set of results of a trial

The set of results at the end of a run demonstrates what happened during the conducted run on either average and/or as limit values, or in other words these are the relevant values that were found over the length of the conducted single run. The set of results of a trial demonstrates a result summary on average for a conducted trial as well as the level of variability over the simulation experiment. In the result sheet the level of variability is assessed by computation of confidence intervals. Each run is characterized with a proper set of random numbers. It is called Random Sampling. Every random sampling yields a different set of results.

61

3.3. Simulation______________________________________________________________ 3.3.2. Required data for conducting the simulation experiment ANA provided two files and a scaled plan of the terminal. One file was the schedule of the total departure regular flights for August, 1st, 2008, and the other document was the schedule of those flights which were processed at the Zone 2. Sourcing information from the files provided by ANA, a table was elaborated consisting of the following data: Airline, Flight code, departure time (STD), number of passengers embarked, the counters assigned for each flight and the type and capacity of the aircraft. In this day, 34 flights were processed in the Zone 2. Some of them were charter flights and the number of passengers embarked for these flights was not available on the schedules so in order to estimate the number of those passengers, calculated was the average load factor with the regular flights. The capacity of the airplanes for each flight was also not included in the schedule, therefore a deep look at the website of each airline was made, because although some flights used the same aircrafts models, this capacity can change from one airline to another as a result of the airplane model version in operation. The average load factor of the regular flight was, 89.40%. 3.3.2.1. Considerations Passenger arrival pattern

The passengers arrive in different proportion (i.e., irregularly distributed) over periods prior to the flight departure, as the following table (Table 14) and Figure 23 show: Advanced arrival time to STD Percentage of passengers arrived 2h 30min 2h 2h 1h 30min 1h 30min 1h 1h 30min 23% 40% 26% 11%

Table 14. Irregular distribution of the passenger arrival to the check-in counters

62

3.3. Simulation______________________________________________________________

Figure 23. Irregular distribution of the passenger arrival to the check-in counters These intervals and the percentage have been defined according to a passenger profile survey carried out by ANA[15] (Fig. 24). This information is available in ANA web site (www.ana.pt reviewed on July, 20th , 2008 ). Instead of the 7 intervals that are applied in the ANA survey, in this study some of them have been joined to obtain intervals having the same size. Furthermore, it has been considered that all the passengers arrive before the counters are closed.

Figure 24. ANA passenger profile survey.

63

3.3. Simulation______________________________________________________________

To calculate the inter-arrival rates, it is necessary to know how many passengers arrive within each interval and the size of each interval. So if over X minutes Y passengers arrive, one passenger is envisaged to arrive every Z minute(). In formula it is, as follows:

(3.10) Standard criteria for counters opening and close by ANA. - Short/Medium haul flights: 2 hours before flight departure. - Long haul flights: 3 hours before flight departure. European destinations (Schengen, No Schengen, No UE) can be considered medium haul flights and long haul for Intercontinental flights. For both cases counters normally close 30 minutes before flight departure. Standard criteria for average service times at counters[20] - Short/Medium haul flights: 1.5 minutes - Long haul flights: 3 minutes Measures of the airport performance

The measurements of the airport performance were carried out in July 2008. Roughly about 50 passengers have been observed with the purpose of obtaining: The time that they spent in getting the necessary information to see where were assigned their counters for their flights and what was the way. And the time they spent at the counter (service time).
Traditional check-in Quick check-in Getting information Average Std Deviation 1,85 1,39 1,45 0,84 0,65 0,29

Table 15. Measures of the airport performance

64

3.3. Simulation______________________________________________________________ The period chosen for the simulation experiment is the second peak hour, meaning from 4 p.m. to 5 p.m... The flights over this period are as given in Table 16, below :
Simulation Airline Code F1 KLM F2 F3 F4 F5 F6 Air France Regional Air Lines Alitalia Fine airlines Lufthansa Flight IATA Destination code Airport code KL 1694 AMS Amsterdam, Schiphol AF 1625 FN 231 AZ 021 FB 6926 LH 4533 CDG CMN FCO BOJ FRA Paris, Charles de Gaulle Casablanca, Mohamed V Rome, Fiumicino Bourgas, Bulgary Frankfurt Regular Check-in Pax STD counters embarqued or charter Regular 15:30 25-28 194 Regular Regular Regular Charter Regular 15:45 16:15 16:30 16:35 16:45 20-24 19-19 34-36 30-31 14-17 186 19 130 125 210

Table 16. Flights data for the simulation The flight to Casablanca was not included in the simulation experiment due to its atypical characteristics seen in a few number of passengers as well as the fact that employs 1 check in counter, only. 3.3.2.2. Assumptions In this study, for the purposes of the creation of the event-based simulation models the following assumptions have been made: All the passengers have to check-in at counters. This is the worst situation. So it is assumed that no passenger is considered as a transfer passenger as well as no passenger does on-line check-in. All the flights are short/medium haul in the considered period, so check-in counters open two hours before the flight departure and close 30 minutes before the flight departure, in other words, there is a total of 90 minutes for fulfilling the check-in process. The average service time observed at the counters is close to the standard criteria. In the simulation models the standard rate for short/medium flights (i.e., 1.5 min) is used. Passengers arrive one by one. Although in many real situations passengers arrive in families, i.e., in groups, this phenomenon does not affect to a certain extent, the service process at the counters. The time elapsed for check-in a whole family or a group appears to be equal to the sum of the individual service times (meaning, each person of the group was checked-in separately). It is a common situation to work with this assumption in studying check-in processes through simulations.

65

3.3. Simulation______________________________________________________________ It should be noted that the characteristics of the flights and the configuration of the counters such as number, service class and working times of the counters, have been supplied by ANA. This information is also available on line in: http://www.ana.pt/img/SLA/SLA_LIS_ENG.swf [consulted on: September, 8th, 2008]. 3.3.3. Check-in process As a starting point, the check-in process is studied by taking into account the passengers arrival patterns at the queues and how the passengers are served at the check-in counters. In order to scrutinize the different types of arrivals as well as distributions for both passenger arrival process and service process at the counters, a set of scenarios are defined. One of these scenarios is then chosen with the aim of evaluating different operational checkin rules, such as: bank lining, overflow of economy class passengers to business class counters or extension of the check-in period prior to the flight, in order to improve the service.

For this purpose a model with only one flight has been created, first. The flight selected fro conducting this experiment, is the flight AZ 021 (F4) by Alitalia. Its characteristics are, as follows: - Aircraft type: A320 (Aircraft capacity: 153 Passengers) - Load factor of the flight: 85% - Number of passengers: 130 - Number of check-in counters: 1 counter for business class and 2 counters for economy class. The following picture (Fig. 25) shows how the produced simulation model may look like in SIMUL8 Environment.

66

3.3. Simulation______________________________________________________________

Figure 25. Example of Check in simulation in SIMUL8 Environment replicating one flight 3.3.3.1. Considerations Arrivals

There are two defined ways for the passenger arrival. The first way considers that passengers arrive during the whole period in which the check-in counters are open regularly distributed (i.e. equal proportions), starting to arrive when the counter opens and stopping their arrival when the counter closes (one interval). The second one considers the arrival pattern explained previously (several intervals). This second one seems to be more realistic. Then for the inter-arrival times two distributions have been chosen; a fixed distribution and an exponential distribution, which is normally used in the literature to define arrival processes. The estimated inter-arrival rates for each type of arrival are as given below (Table 17).
Arrival type One interval Period time 90 minutes 2h30min 2h 2h 1h30min Several intervals 1h30min 1h 1h 30min 34 14 0,89 2,10 Passengers 130 30 52 0,69 1,00 0,58

Table 17. Estimated inter-arrival rates.

67

3.3. Simulation______________________________________________________________ Check-in counters

For the service time at the counters three simple distributions are used, namelly: fixed, average and normal; Fixed and average with the same value (1.5 minutes) about the service time, and normal with average (1.5 minutes) and standard deviation (1 minute). The different scenarios simulated are described in the following a list (Table 18). All the scenarios are run for the initial system configuration shown in the picture of the model above (Fig. 25). This configuration implies individual queues for each counter. Also, overflow of economy class passengers to business class counters does not exist. Arrival type One interval Scenario 1 2 3 4 5 6 Several intervals 7 8 9 10 11 12 Pax Arrival Fixed Fixed Fixed Exponential Exponential Exponential Fixed Fixed Fixed Exponential Exponential Exponential Table 18. Scenarios The choice of fixed distribution is to evaluate how the system would work if it was a machine, meaning the passengers arrive completely on regular basis. Every passenger is served with the same time at the counters. The results obtained in this scenario were used as benchmarks in comparison with the obtained results from the other scenarios exercised within the context of this experiment. Counter Fixed Average Normal Fixed Average Normal Fixed Average Normal Fixed Average Normal

68

3.3. Simulation______________________________________________________________ 3.3.3.2. Results Each scenario consists of a trial of 10 runs characterized by different random set numbers. The software provides the results for each run and also the average and the confidence interval of total runs. The different random set numbers only affect to the exponential distribution and the fixed remains unalterable by them. In the following figures (Fig. 26) it is possible to observe the arrival patterns for one run of the simulation trial employing the exponential and the fixed distributions and the foreexposed concepts (one interval and several intervals). They were obtained with the results produced by SIMUL8. Perhaps, if more than one run of the simulation trial was done, the aspect of the following figures would be different.

a)

b)

c) Figure 26. Arrival patterns:

d)

a) Exponential distribution and one interval of time; b) Fixed distribution and one interval of time; c) Exponential distribution and several intervals of time; d) Fixed distribution and several intervals of time

69

3.3. Simulation______________________________________________________________ The graphics shown below (Fig. 27 and 28) compares the arrival patterns obtained for one and several time intervals, respectively, using exponential and fixed distribution in the simulation experiment.

Figure 27. Exponetial and Fixed distribution for a time interval.

Figure 28. Exponential and Fixed distribution for several time intervals. 70

3.3. Simulation______________________________________________________________ In the graphics above (Fig. 27 and 28) the different behaviour of the arrival patterns for each distribution can be observed. In the case of Exponetial and Fixed distribution for a time interval (Fig 27), the difference of behaviour between the two observed distributions is bigger and irregular. Note that the fixed distribution shows a linear evolution and on the other hand, the experimental distribution indicates fluctuations in the arrivals over the time period of analysis. However, in the case of Exponential and Fixed distribution for several time intervals (Fig 28), the difference of behaviour of the two observed distributions is almost constant over the time. The number of passengers generated with the exponential distribution varies with every run of the simulation due to the stochastic nature of the distribution and the random set numbers generated by the software. It is rare to get the exact number of passenger defined at the beginning (130 pax) by the analyst. Either way, the average of these runs gets the number of passengers that one wants to replicate. The results obtained for the two queues of economy check-in counters are practically the same and therefore only the results obtained for one of them are presented, below, and so the performance measures on average for each scenario are given next (Table 19).

71

3.3. Simulation_______________________________________________________________________________________________________ SCENARIOS Simulation Object Pax arrival Performance Measure Number Entered Number Completed Average Time in System Maximum Time in System Minimum Time in System % In System less than time limit (10min) Maximum queue size Average queue size Maximum Queuing Time Average Queuing Time Maximum queue size Average queue size Maximum Queuing Time Average Queuing Time Working % Waiting % Working % Waiting % 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 129,00 127,30 20,89 30,64 1,01 11,60 3,60 0,53 22,51 5,20 16,70 10,03 28,51 20,86 20,39 79,61 98,31 1,69 9 129,00 124,20 22,24 33,34 0,21 11,40 3,60 0,53 22,53 5,23 17,70 10,64 30,96 22,97 20,69 79,31 98,41 1,60 10 129,50 124,30 22,59 32,76 1,50 11,12 3,70 0,57 23,77 5,73 19,50 11,08 30,59 22,61 20,01 79,99 94,49 5,51 11 129,50 123,90 23,00 33,83 1,01 11,30 3,80 0,57 23,72 5,74 19,60 11,29 31,56 23,38 19,88 80,12 95,18 4,82 12 129,50 121,00 24,09 36,77 0,31 11,70 3,80 0,58 23,73 5,79 20,20 11,88 34,43 25,09 19,94 80,06 95,77 4,23

Passengers processed

130,00 130,00 130,00 130,00 130,00 130,00 129,00 126,00 124,10 119,80 121,20 120,60 117,50 127,80 2,54 3,11 4,66 5,11 5,42 6,45 20,46 4,32 6,04 10,98 10,36 11,38 14,95 30,50 1,50 0,81 0,17 1,50 0,82 0,13 1,50 100,00 99,83 1,10 0,02 0,71 0,10 2,30 0,74 2,65 1,16 20,33 79,67 94,61 5,39 1,00 0,02 0,73 0,10 3,00 1,15 4,01 1,82 20,35 79,65 94,38 5,62 91,90 1,10 0,02 1,23 0,16 5,80 2,28 9,03 3,63 20,64 79,36 93,77 6,23 91,68 1,30 0,03 1,21 0,20 6,90 2,75 8,81 3,97 19,97 80,03 92,45 7,55 84,79 1,30 0,03 1,06 0,18 7,00 2,98 9,63 4,38 19,83 80,17 92,97 7,03 76,61 1,20 0,03 1,43 0,23 8,20 3,79 12,67 5,71 19,83 80,17 92,82 7,18 11,97 3,60 0,53 22,50 5,20 16,70 9,81 28,20 20,08 20,34 79,66 97,26 2,74

Queue for Business counter Queue for Economy counter 1 Business counter Economy counter 1

Table 19. Results on Average per Scenario

72

3.3. Simulation______________________________________________________________ A significant amount of the time spent in the system is basically determined by the waiting time at queues. Moreover, these times and queue sizes are directly related and their values are fruit of a combination of the arrival patterns and the capacity of counters to process passengers. Based on the obtained results, it is appreciable an expected logical increase in the maximum times and average times, in system and queues when the exponential distribution is used instead of the fixed distribution at the arrival process due to the stochastic behaviour of the first one. When utilizing the different distributions for the counters service, and keeping the same distribution for the arrivals, the results now show an increase in times (maximum and average) with average and normal distributions in comparison with fixed, more significant with the normal due to its random nature. On the other hand for scenarios 7 to 12, the higher values of times and queue sizes are mainly due to the fact that passengers start to arrive when counters are still close and about to be open. Thus, when counters open there is a formed queue already. The minimum time in system is always achieved at the business counter due to the fact that few passengers use this option, so the probability for one business passenger who arrives at the counter and there are none queues, is really high confirming that the time the passenger spends in the system is just the time that the passenger wastes at the counter being served, and this value is considered in the respective service processes in all the created scenarios. This minimum time at business queues always appears to tend towards zero. This is simply because the business passenger does not find any queue at the counter, according to the invented initial configuration of the present simulation experiment (t.e., the present virtual model). Queues always materialize because of the random factor in the systems behaviour. Even under these perfect initial conditions for seamless check-in process, the present model is able to consider this random factor and thus one is able to see in the following table the minimum time spent in queue as produced by the current simulation model. In the real word this situation may differ significantly. In the next table (Table 20) the results for non-zeros queuing times are presented.

73

3.3. Simulation______________________________________________________________
SCENARIOS Simulation Object Performance Measure Minimum (non-zeros) 0,11 0,18 0,15 0,28 0,43 0,46 Queuing Time Average (non-zeros) Queue for Economy counter 1 Queuing Time Number of non zero queuing times Items Entered 53 58 50 58 47 57 50 59 49 59 46 58 57 59 57 58 54 57 56 59 55 58 53 57 1,25 2,02 3,96 4,30 4,72 6,20 20,50 21,09 23,24 22,86 23,63 25,26 2,29 3,22 7,34 7,80 9,74 13,32 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12

Table 20. Results for non-zeros queuing time for each scenario Higher values in the minimum queuing time can be observed for the scenarios with several arrival intervals (7 to 12), once again due to the anticipation of arrivals when the counters are not yet open. On the other hand, there is not a big variation on the average queuing times because the number of passengers having zero queuing time is insignificant in comparison with the total number of passengers that are processed in this counter. The software also provides the percent of time in which the work centers are either working or not. Analyzing the results, business counters are clearly being wasted because the 80% of time are free waiting for work. Otherwise economy counters are working the 95% of time. It seems mandatory that overflow of economy passengers to business counters took place in order to use efficiently the available resources and provide a better service. In addition, in rough estimates the total number of passengers are processed in the available time for it. Only few passengers would lose the flight in these conditions, thus better results are achieved for scenarios 7 to 12 if they are compared with the results obtained forom scenarios 1 to 6. The main reason for this fact could be that in the last 30 minutes of the check-in period less passengers arrive with the several intervals arrival definition than those who arrive according to the one period arrival definition. If it is considered that some passengers carry out an online check-in or other type of check-in, none of them would lose the flight. Now, making reference to the Scenario 11 (several arrive intervals, exponential distribution for inter-arrival time and average distribution for counters), the different operational check-in rules mentioned before will be tested. At first, only one queue for both economy counters is considered (Bank lining), and after that, the overflow of economy passengers to business counters using a single queue for economy counters is considered too, 74

3.3. Simulation______________________________________________________________ because it seems easier for the staff to allow the overflow of economy passengers to business counter with just one queue than having one queue for each economy counters. Finally, with this last configuration of bank lining and overflow of passengers, because it looks more consistent with the use of resources, the extension of the check-in time in 30 minutes for deal with the queue formed is additionally considered. A summary table is included next to clarify the operational rules tested (Table 21). Scenario Operational rule 13 14 15 Bank lining Overflow economy to business + Scenario 13 Extension of check-in time + Scenario 14 Table 21. Operational rules test. The table below (Table 22) includes the results of the test performed with the operational rules explained before.

75

3.3. Simulation______________________________________________________________ SCENARIOS Simulation Object Pax arrival Performance Measure Number Entered Number Completed Average Time in System Passengers processed Maximum Time in System Minimum Time in System % In System less than time limit (10 min) Maximum queue size Queue for Business counter Average queue size Maximum Queuing Time Average Queuing Time Maximum queue size Queue for Economy counters Average queue size Maximum Queuing Time Average Queuing Time Business counter Working % Waiting % Economy counter 1 Working % Waiting % Table 22. Results of the performed test. The use of bank lining (Scenario 13) does not give a better performance as regards of queuing time or queue capacity. This check-in rule is only interesting in terms of making the organization easier when economy passengers can use the business counters. 11,30 3,80 0,57 23,72 5,74 19,60 11,29 31,56 23,38 19,88 80,12 95,18 4,82 11,23 3,80 0,57 23,72 5,74 38,80 22,55 31,56 23,06 19,88 80,12 94,72 5,28 30,57 100,00 3,80 0,62 23,72 6,19 32,10 13,15 29,47 13,26 73,39 26,61 71,78 28,22 1,80 0,07 1,99 0,70 6,70 0,56 3,39 0,56 57,12 42,88 53,31 46,69 11 13 14 15

129,50 129,50 129,50 129,50 123,90 123,90 128,90 128,70 23,00 33,83 1,01 22,99 33,38 1,05 14,16 31,31 0,92 2,09 4,93 0,65

76

3.3. Simulation______________________________________________________________ If additionally the business counters are used to process also economy passengers (Scenario 14) benefits in terms of average times and average queue size for the economy counters queue are clearly provided. These values have been reduced to approximately the half of the Scenario 13 values, whereas the performance of the business counter queue is still the same, so this check-in rule represents a small disadvantage for business class passengers. Furthermore the workload of all the counters is balanced and the shared resources are used more efficiently. The maximum time in the system is practically the same high value for scenarios 11, 13 and 14, due to the fact that the arrival of passengers still happens with counters already close. If a considerable part of the passengers arrives before any of the counters is open, a huge peak will appear at the moment the counters open. This peak is the reason that produces extreme queuing times. If the check-in counters are opened 30 minutes earlier (Scenario 15), all the times spent in the system, and consequently at queues, drop significantly. Great performances has been achieved on times and queue size, however, counters are worse used. The time that the staffs are waiting for customers has increased on a 20%, so maybe it would be interesting to close any counter at some time. For most flights a single open counter is sufficient during the last hour before departure, hence, the last 30 minutes of the check-in period. 3.3.3.4. Conclusions The arrival of passengers according to the schedule pattern (several intervals) is more realistic than the arrival during one period, so this will be used in futures simulations. There is no much difference between choosing the average distribution or the normal distribution in terms of time or queuing size. The average distribution will be used in subsequent simulations. The overflow of economy passengers to business counters produces large improvements and it is usually made by the airlines. So this rule will be used, as well as the bank lining to facilitate the organization. Finally early opening of counters will be considered.

77

3.3. Simulation______________________________________________________________ 3.3.4. Check-in process and passenger movements Now, considered is the movement of passengers since they have entered into the terminal in addition to the check-in process for the selected period with 5 flights. 3.3.4.1.Simul8 building blocks The throughput diagrams followed in developing the simulation models are shown in the Annexe I. Work entry points One work entry point has been defined to replicate the arrival of passengers per flight, called (Pax Fi). A time dependent distribution is used according with the arrival pattern previously indicated. The percentage of passengers per interval and its inter-arrival rates are collected in Tables 23 and 24. Flight >2H 2H-1:30H 1:30H-1:00H 60min-30min <30min
KL 1694 AF 1625 FN 231 AZ 021 FB 6926 LH 4533

45 78 50 21 0

43 74 48 20 0

4 8 5 2 0

30 52 34 14 0

29 50 33 14 0

48 84 55 23 0

Table 23. Passengers arrived per flight and period prior to flight departure Flight >2H 2H-1:30H 1:30H-1:00H 60min-30min
KL 1694 AF 1625 FN 231 AZ 021 FB 6926 LH 4533

0,67 0,39 0,59 1,41

0,70 0,40 0,62 1,47

6,86 3,95 6,07 14,35

1,00 0,58 0,89 2,10

1,04 0,60 0,92 2,18

0,62 0,36 0,55 1,30

Table 24. Estimated inter-arrival rates values (pax/min) per flight and period prior to flight departure Entrance 4 work centers have been defined to replicate each terminal entrance. The passengers are randomly distributed with equal chance of crossing for each entrance. The average time considered it is the time spent in crossing the door and arriving at the information screens in

78

3.3. Simulation______________________________________________________________ front of it. The average time for Entrance 1 is the double than the others because it does not have an information screen in front of it. Getting information 3 work centers have been defined to replicate each information screen. Travel to the counters 4 work centers have been defined for each possible way considered. During section 3.1.2 it was seen that according to the signposting of the airport, three ways were the most probable to arrive at the Zone 2. Way 1 and Way 2 are practically the same so in the simulation only will be considered Ways 1 and 3. As it was observed at the airport the passengers who arrived to Information screen 2 and 3, always took the shorter way 1. Moreover 3 of each 10 passengers that arrived to Information screen 1 took the long way, due to a signposting in front of that screen that offers this way. Depending from which information screen they started the way 1, the distances are different and also the travel times. The travel times for each way are shown in table 25, considering a passengers walking speed of 0.9 m/s. WAY DISTANCE (m) TRAVEL TIMES (min) 1,1 1,2 1,3 3,1 104 83 62 196 1.92 1.54 1.15 3.63

Table 25. Way distances and travel times Previous security control One Work center was defined to replicate the previous security control, called PSC. To PSC just arrived the passengers that takes the Way 3,1. Queues It will be used common queues for the counters designated to same passengers class. The capacity of the queues is set up to infinity. One more time, this type of queue configuration is in accordance with the configuration use by the airlines at the airport.

79

3.3. Simulation______________________________________________________________ Check-in counters One work center (Ck) was defined to replicate each counter designated for each flight. The counters open 2 hours before the flight departure. For the scenario in which the Quick check-in is considering, one work center (QCk) was defined to replicate each kiosk. 2 for Lufhansa, 2 for Alitalia and 5 shared by Airfrance and KLM. The next table (Table 26) shows the distribution of counters per flight class for each flight according to the airport observation and the real capacity of the queues considering a space standard of 1.2m2/pax.
Number Flight KL 1694 (F1) AF 1625 (F2) AZ 021 (F4) FB 6926 (F5) LH 4533 F(6) Business Economy Flight Class Business Economy Business Economy Business Economy Economy of counters 1 3 2 3 1 2 2 2 2 Maximum capacity of the queue (pax) 9 27 18 27 9 18 18 18 18

Table 26. Class counters and capacity of the queues

80

3.3. Simulation______________________________________________________________ Distribution used for each work center and its values (Table 27)
Work center Entrance 1 Entrance 2, 3 and 4 Way 1,1 Way 1,2 Way 1,3 Way 3,1 Getting information (1,2 and 3) Distribution average average average average average average normal Value (min) 0.3 0.15 1.92 1.54 1.15 3.63 Average: 0.65 Std: 0.29 PSC uniform Lower bound: 0.1 Upper bound:0.5 Check-in counters Quick check-in kiosks average average 1.5 1

Table 27. Type Distributions per work center and its values Simul8 models look similar to that: Generation of passengers, enter in the Terminal, looking for information and walking to their counters. This is common for all created simulation models:

81

3.3. Simulation______________________________________________________________ Distinguishing passengers per flight and class (Business and economy), the traditional check-in process with their respective class queues and counters as well as the end of process with the passengers checked-in:

- Simul8 Window Screenshot of the whole model for traditional check-in, only:

82

3.3. Simulation______________________________________________________________ Distinguishing passengers per flight, check-in type and flight class:

Quick check-in process:

83

3.3. Simulation______________________________________________________________ - Simul8 Window Screenshot of the whole model with traditional and quick check-in:

3.3.4.2. Results In using traditional check-in, only: A trial of 50 runs for each scenario was made. In the first scenario, the counters open at the stipulated 2 hours before the flight departure. In the other scenarios an effort is made to evaluate what happens if the counters open at 5, 10, 15, or 20 minutes prior to the stipulated 2 hours of opening the counters before the flight departure, looking for the service time decrease as well as reductions of queue sizes.

84

3.3. Simulation______________________________________________________________

Queue measures on average are presented in Table 28, below.

Fligth Flight Class Measures 2Hour before Maximum queue size 4 0,48 Average queue size 20,92 Maximum Queuing Time 4,36 Average Queuing Time 41 Maximum queue size 10,07 Average queue size 26,88 Maximum Queuing Time 11,96 Average Queuing Time 37,34 % Queued less than 10 min Maximum queue size 4 0,33 Average queue size 20,39 Maximum Queuing Time 3,18 Average Queuing Time 35 Maximum queue size 5,61 Average queue size 26,90 Maximum Queuing Time 6,72 Average Queuing Time 72,05 % Queued less than 10 min Maximum queue size 3 0,25 Average queue size 4,07 Average Queuing Time 18,04 Maximum Queuing Time 26 Maximum queue size 5,22 Average queue size 26,69 Maximum Queuing Time 9,53 Average Queuing Time 55,49 % Queued less than 10 min Maximum queue size 37 12,59 Average queue size 29,65 Maximum Queuing Time 21,19 Average Queuing Time 6,81 % Queued less than 10 min Maximum queue size 5 Average queue size 0,36 20,60 Maximum Queuing Time 3,54 Average Queuing Time 49 Maximum queue size 12,85 Average queue size 27,67 Maximum Queuing Time 15,17 Average Queuing Time 21,63 % Queued less than 10 min 5min 4 0,38 16,12 3,17 31 6,66 21,86 7,55 66,70 3 0,24 15,44 2,19 27 3,40 21,88 3,77 84,34 3 0,18 2,88 13,37 20 3,26 21,63 5,81 76,59 31 9,49 24,68 16,16 14,51 4 0,25 15,76 2,49 37 8,78 22,44 10,28 45,85 10min 3 0,30 11,48 2,29 24 3,85 16,84 3,92 86,87 3 0,17 10,60 1,37 22 2,07 16,88 1,99 90,83 2 0,14 1,97 9,20 16 1,91 16,58 3,27 87,19 24 6,65 19,71 11,38 39,72 3 0,17 11,05 1,59 28 5,07 17,34 5,84 78,68 15min 2 0,24 7,17 1,48 17 2,28 11,83 1,92 96,22 2 0,14 6,42 0,82 16 1,34 11,86 1,00 97,95 2 0,10 1,29 5,84 12 1,16 11,53 1,85 96,17 19 4,26 14,94 7,24 72,43 3 0,11 6,68 0,97 20 2,62 12,19 2,89 93,39 20min 2 0,21 4,01 1,06 11 1,60 6,85 1,05 100,00 2 0,10 3,24 0,44 9 0,90 6,86 0,40 100,00 2 0,08 0,89 3,18 8 0,72 6,58 1,03 100,00 16 2,90 11,52 4,85 87,01 2 0,08 3,13 0,58 15 1,65 7,47 1,76 99,79

KL 1694 (F1)

Business

Economy

AF 1625 (F2)

Business

Economy

AZ 021 (F4)

Business

Economy FB 6926 (F5) Economy

LH 4533 (F6)

Business

Economy

Table 28. Queue measures, On Average Looking at the maximum queuing times obtained for the first scenario, all of them pass the 15 minutes agreed by ANA for this type of flights. Moreover if they are compared with the maximum queuing times recommended by IATA (Table 3) for each class, these times are close to long, especially for business class. The situation is practically the same for each flight and class. 85

3.3. Simulation______________________________________________________________ If the maximum queue size is observed, all the economy queues exceed their respective capacities, so the check-in hall would be occupied for these passengers and the circulating flows would be hindered. With an early opening of the counters there is a clearly improvement in terms of queue size and times. Opening between 15 and 20 minutes before, the ANA level of service agreed would be achieved and according with the IATA recommendations the times would be within short and acceptable. In terms of queue size the queues would not exceed their capacities at any time.

Figure 29. Maximum queue size for economy queues As can be seen in Figure 30 with the early counters opening, the percentage of economy passengers that reach the counters in less than 10 minutes increases sygnificantly. Looking to fulfill with the service level (norm) that 90% of all passengers[4] reach their desk within 10 minutes, the counters should open among 10 and 15 minutes early; by this way four of the five flights simulated would fulfill with this standard. The poor values of the flight FB 6926 (F5) in comparison with the flight of AZ 021(F4) that has a similar number of passengers are due to the fact that it has one less counter than the other.

86

3.3. Simulation______________________________________________________________

Figure 30. Percentage of economy passengers at queue less than 10 min. Next are present some examples of the evolution of the queue (by time and size) for one of the flights and one of the runs for the opening stipulated and for 15 min. early.

a)

b)

Figure 31. a) Queuing time for 2H before; b) Queuing time (15min)

a)

b)

Figure 32. a) Queue evolution with time (2H); b)Queue evolution with time (15min)

87

3.3. Simulation______________________________________________________________ System measures, on average are presented in Table 29.

Fligth Measures Number Entered Number Completed KL 1694 Maximum Time in System (F1) Average Time in System % In System less than time limit(10min) Number Entered AF 1625 (F2) Number Completed Maximum Time in System Average Time in System % In System less than time limit(10min) Number Entered AZ 021 (F4) Number Completed Maximum Time in System Average Time in System % In System less than time limit(10min) Number Entered FB 6926 (F5) Number Completed Maximum Time in System Average Time in System % In System less than time limit(10min) Number Entered Number Completed LH 4533 Maximum Time in System (F6) Average Time in System % In System less than time limit(10min) 2Hour before 193 189 31,57 15,62 28,31 187 184 31,46 10,70 58,55 130 129 31,41 13,38 41,10 125 117 34,87 25,64 2,91 210 207 33,04 18,37 19,93 5min 193 189 26,53 11,48 46,33 187 184 26,41 7,94 76,71 130 129 26,24 9,87 62,48 125 120 29,92 20,57 7,89 210 207 27,82 13,84 30,72 10min 193 190 21,50 8,10 72,28 187 184 21,37 6,24 86,30 130 129 21,11 7,47 79,14 125 122 24,92 15,78 17,17 210 207 22,59 9,74 58,21 15min 193 190 16,40 6,19 88,26 187 184 16,23 5,30 92,31 130 129 15,99 6,12 88,03 125 123 20,20 11,63 40,40 210 207 17,45 7,02 81,00 20min 193 190 11,43 5,36 96,98 187 184 11,19 4,71 98,53 130 129 11,35 5,34 96,52 125 123 17,30 9,22 62,63 210 207 12,95 5,96 91,21

Table 29. System measures, On Average Practically, all the passengers for each flight are processed in the time available with the 2 hours before opening, but the level of service that they are receiving, it could be poor. The times in system (maximum and average) are logically very similar with the waiting times at queue, and they follow the same decreasing trend with the different early opening.

88

3.3. Simulation______________________________________________________________

Figure 33. Maximum time in system Travel measures from entrance until the check-in hall. Maximum Average Travel times 7.34 2.83

Table 30. Travel times The travel times represented a 20% of the total time spent in system. It is an expected value in this type of process and it reflects that the information provided is good. Higher values could have indicated that the orientation in the airport is poor. Eliminating the Way 3, in other words, all the passengers would take the shorter way, does not give improvements on the average times in system due to the percentage of passengers that takes this way is small. However if it is possible prevent this fact with changes on the signposting, the passengers would achieve a better vision of the airport.

89

3.3. Simulation______________________________________________________________ The following figures show the distribution in percentage of the time spent by passengers in the system for the opening stipulated and for 15 min. early.

a) (15min) With the use of Quick check-in kiosks

b)

Figure 34. a) Percentage of time in system (2H before); b)Percentage of time in system

This situation is the same as previous but now it is going to be considered that the 20% of passengers made quick check-in and these passengers only has cabin luggage; in other words, they do not have to deliver the baggage at any counter. This consideration does not affect to flight FB 6926 (F5) because this airline do not offer this type of check-in. More or less this type of check-in has the same effect on the other flights, so just the measures for one of them are going to be presented.
LH 4533 (F6) Measures Maximum queue size Business Average queue size Maximum Queuing Time Average Queuing Time Maximum queue size Economy Average queue size Maximum Queuing Time Average Queuing Time Number Entered Number Completed System Maximum Time in System Average Time in System % In System less than time limit(10min) 2Hour before Use of Quick check-in 5 0,36 20,60 3,54 49 12,85 27,67 15,17 210 207 33,04 18,37 19,93 4 0,26 19,80 3,30 34 6,05 26,81 8,85 210 208 31,94 10,98 55,98

Table 31. Measures of flight LH 4533 90

3.3. Simulation______________________________________________________________ The use of Quick check-in by the passengers is above all seen in a reduction of the average queue size, average time in system and the increase of the percentage of passengers processed in less than 10 min. The average measures have decreased on a 50%, approximately and the percentage of passengers in system less than 10 min. has increased a 30%. It could be thought that with the use of the Quick check-in all the passengers must be checked-in but this depends on how the software generates and distributes the passengers along the simulation time. Moreover, when percentage routing-out is selected, the percentages for each possible route are approximate. 3.3.4.3. Conclusions As it happens in the previous simulation for one flight only high values on time and size measures are mainly because of the fact that passengers start to arrive before the opening of the counters, so when the counters open there is a formed queue already. The opening of the counters between 15 and 20 minutes earlier should be considered in order to provide good levels of service and so the quality standards given by ANA and IATA are to be fulfilled. Furthermore, with the earlier counters opening, the percentage of economy passengers that reach the counters in less than 10 minutes increases significantly and the queues would not exceed their capacities at any time. The use of Quick check-in reduces the average time in queue and hence the queue sizes.

91

3.4. Collaborative design______________________________________________________

3.4. Collaborative design

One of the aims of the collaborative design is to know and take into account the opinion, expectations and requirements of the different parts or groups of interest involved in a process, in this case, the check-in process, in order to adequate the service provided with the requirements. To know the requirements the communication between the parts is needed and the opinion polls or surveys are a good way for getting the information. Moreover the next step would consist on trying to improve the system according with the results obtained on those areas where the real situation is far away from the performances expected and in the cases that the improvements were feasible to carry out. 3.4.1. Surveys The study was approached among two of the groups of interest which were the following: Passengers Staff (Check-in counter workers)

In the case of the passengers a survey conducted via face-to-face interviews was performed in the check-in hall (Zone 2) of the Lisbon Airport in August 2008. The interviewees were randomly selected and the surveyor completed a questionnaire via a question and answer session, about their subjective perception of the check-in process, which they had just experienced, and about their perception of the passengers Terminal. Additional passengers surveys were performed on-line. However, the check-in workers completed the questionnaires without the presence of the surveyor due to the difficulty to agree an appointment which did not interfere in their job. The questionnaires were handed to the staff and a few days later, they were picked up by the surveyor. On the other hand, in the case of the passengers, in order to minimize the misinterpretation of questions by passengers, and to maximize the number of questions answered, the surveyor was responsible for reading the questions to the passengers in person and writing their answers. The respondents were asked to indicate their opinions regarding the satisfactions with the performance of each service attribute provided by the check-in process and their 92

3.4. Collaborative design______________________________________________________ eevaluation of the Terminal via a five-point Likert scale: 1-unacceptable, 2-poor, 3-fair, 4good, and 5-excellent. Or 1 Strongly disagree, 2 Disagree, 3 Neither agree nor disagree, 4 Agree, 5 Strongly agree, depending on the questions. The principal points of interest were: Waiting and service times Information provided Orientation (clarity of routes) Facilities Space distribution of the Terminal Kinds of check-in (the utility of Quick check-in)

The questionnaires were designed with the purpose of getting the following specific information, divided on two groups: personal questions and airport questions. Furthermore the airport questions were divided on two subgroups; operational characteristics and physical characteristics of the Terminal. Age Gender: Male or Female. Nationality. Trip purpose: business, tourism or personal (family or friendly visit). Passengers expectations are very different depending on the trip purpose. Arrival time prior to flight departure. The prior arrival can get an effect particularly on the eevaluation of the service time and processing time. Type of flight class: Business or Economy. Passengers answers differ a lot depending on this. Type of check-in: traditional check-in o quick check-in (self service check-in). First time at the airport. Passengers perceptions differs too much if the passenger already familiarized with the airport, mainly on aspects related with the orientation and walking distances.

93

3.4. Collaborative design______________________________________________________ Hence, these questions have closed answers. They included their specific and personal answers, in comparison with the five-point scale questions. As it has been mentioned before, five categories were proposed for passengers and staff ratings in order to evaluate user opinions about operational characteristics of the check-in process and physical characteristics of the terminal. Finally was offered to the passengers and staff the possibility to bring any suggestion or comment. One drawback of the simple survey method is that much of the information obtained is based on what the passengers have experienced or expect to experience in the future. With respect to past actions, the interviewed passengers can make mistakes in trying to recall what has happened, particularly when some time has elapsed since the event, which, for example, it could occur in the case of the on-line questionnaires. The models of the actual passengers and staff questionnaires are shown next in Figure 35 and Figure 36. Although each group of study has different needs and requirements most of the questions are similar for them. Moreover, those related with the terminal physical aspects are the same.

94

3.4. Collaborative design______________________________________________________

Passenger Personal questions Age: ______ Sex: Male ____ Female ____ Nationality: Aim of travel: Tourism _____ Business _____ Personal (family or friendly visit) _____ How much time before flight departure do you arrive at airport? Less than 1 hour: ____ 1H to 1H30min: 1H30min to 2H: ____ More than 2 hours: ____ Which is your flight class? Business ____ Economy ____ What type of check-in have you used? Traditional check-in____ Quick check-in____ Is this your first time at Lisbon airport? Yes____ No____

Airport questions Operational characteristics of the Terminal

How would you evaluate the next issues using a 1 to 5 scale; 1-unacceptable, 2-poor 3-fair, 4-good, and 5-excellent? - O1: Trolleys (Simplicity to find them and enough quantity) - O2: Information provided (by panels, screens, arrows, PA system, languages) - O3: Information desks or points - O4: Distance from main entrance until your check-in area - O5: Number of check-in counters available for your flight - O6: The available space for the queues - O7: Time spent (waiting time) in check-in queue - O8: Processing (service) time at counters - O9: Kindness of the staff and quality of the service - O10: Clarity of routes (Ease of finding your way through the airport) Have you used the Quick check-in or auto check-in service anytime? Yes___ No___ If Yes, do you find it useful, comfortable or/and easy? Yes___ No___ Physical Characteristics of the Terminal 12345 12345 12345 12345 12345 12345 12345 12345 12345 12345

How would you evaluate the next issues using a 1 to 5 scale-, 1-unacceptable, 2-poor 3-fair, 4-good, and 5-excellent? - P1: Cleanliness - P2: Maintenance - P3: Comfort - P4: Lighting - P5: Number of ramps, escalators and/or elevators - P6: Number of seats and/or benches to rest - P7: Wideness of the areas - P8: Commercial areas - P9: Security (security guarantee) feeling in the air terminal Do you have any suggestions? 12345 12345 12345 12345 12345 12345 12345 12345 12345

Figure 35. Example of a passengers questionnaire

95

3.4. Collaborative design______________________________________________________

Staff Personal questions Age: _______ Sex: Male ____ Female ____

Air Line or Handling agent: _________________________ Airport questions Operational characteristics of the Terminal How would you evaluate the next issues using a 1 to 5 scale; 1-unacceptable, 2-poor 3-fair, 4good, and 5-excellent? - O1: Comfort of the check-in desk - O2: Desk lighting - O3: Information provided to the passengers to arrive at the counters - O4: Number of check-in counters to provide your service with quality - O5: The distribution and configuration of queues - O6: Check-in hall surface to place the queues - O7: Terminal space distribution (Check-in areas, boarding gates access, commercial concessions, services) Answer the following questions using this scale: 1 Strongly disagree, 2 Disagree, 3 Neither agree nor disagree, 4 Agree, 5 Strongly agree. - O8: Is the airport equipped with devices for handicapped people? - O9: In your opinion is the Quick check-in useful? - O10: Do you think that the previous security control is needed? Physical Characteristics of the Air Terminal 12345 12345 12345 12345 12345 12345 12345 12345 12345 12345

How would you evaluate the next issues using a 1 to 5 scale-, 1-unacceptable, 2-poor 3-fair, 4good, and 5-excellent? - P1: Cleanliness - P2: Maintenance - P3: Comfort - P4: Lighting - P5: Number of ramps, escalators and/or elevators - P6: Number of seats and/or benches to rest - P7: Wideness of the areas - P8: Commercial areas - P9: Security (security guarantee) feeling in the air terminal 12345 12345 12345 12345 12345 12345 12345 12345 12345

Do you have any suggestions?

Figure 36. Example of a staffs questionnaire

96

3.4. Collaborative design______________________________________________________ During the analysis process of all the surveys, it should be taking into account that their results are subjective. Many different factors may influence on passengers answers, such as: their personality (if they are demanding/conformist), their experience at the airports (if it is their first time at an airport or they are used to them), their socio-cultural level (language or familiarity with air transport), etc. On the other hand, the staffs answers should be more reliable, but still subjective. They are used to observe all kind of situations, and they are in continuous contact with the passengers, so they receive their opinions or problems directly every day. Therefore, they have at their disposal more data in order to answer the questionnaire more objectively. The size of the sample was 52 passengers in total, and 26 check-in staff. At the airport a total of 103 air passengers were invited to participate in the survey. The respondent rate was 35% (36 passengers). The other 16 passengers answered via the online surveys. The 26 check-in workers who completed the questionnaire were staff of the ground handling company Portway, Handling Portugal S.A. Portway is one of the two handling companies at the Lisbon Airport. It has succeeded in attaining market shares of close on 35% in the number of aircraft movements handled in 2007. Talking in number of passengers processed it is translated on roughly 2 million. This data has been obtained from Portway website[18 ] in August 2008. 3.4.1.1. Passenger survey results From the total of 52 passengers, 52% were female and 48% were male. The primary age group was 20-29, representing 46% of the respondents; the other two main age groups were 30-39 (25%) and 50-59 (15%). (See Fig. 37a). Talking about the motivation of their travels, 69% were on a tourism travel, while 10% were on a business travel, and the purpose of the remaining 21% was a family or friendly visit. The flight class for the 88% was economy class and the remaining 12% was business class. In this occasion a 77% used the traditional check-in and the 23% the Quick check-in option. But the 50% of the total interviewed people admitted to have used this last option in the past; among them, the 80% found this method easy, useful, comfortable and fast. The other 20% found that they did not take any advantage in comparison with the traditional

97

3.4. Collaborative design______________________________________________________ check-in, because they had to do also a queue for leaving the baggage in the belt and they needed help with the auto check-in machine. As a remark the most of these passengers who did not like it were old people. As for the advanced departure time, the 42% of the respondents used to arrive at the airport more than 2 hours before the departure time of their flights and only a 12% less than hour. In the next figure (Fig. 37b) these distributions of advanced departure time are

represented. Finally, it should be noticed that for the 44%, it was their first time at Lisbon airport.

a)

b)

Figure 37. a) Age groups; b) Advanced departure time The answers of the total number of passengers about the operational and physical characteristics are summarized in the next table (Table 32). All the items of the subgroups were valuated with average rates over 3 (fair), although just 4 of them pass over 4 (good). Within the operational characteristics, the simplicity to find the trolleys and the enough quantity of them, and the kindness of the staff, obtained the higher marks (over 4). The space for the queues and the number of available check-in counters for the flight were the worst valuated. Among the physical characteristics, security feeling, cleanliness and maintenance were the best valuated with an average index of 4.2, 4.1 and 3.9, respectively. On the other hand, the worst valuated items were seats to rest, commercial areas and lighting, with an average rate of 3.0, 3.2 and 3.3, respectively.

98

3.4. Collaborative design______________________________________________________ Operational characteristics O1: Trolleys O2: Information (panels, screens) O3: Information desks O4: Distance O5: Number of check-in counters O6: Space for queues O7: Waiting time O8: Service time O9: Kindness of staff O10: Clarity of routes Physical Characteristics P1: Cleanliness P2: Maintenance P3: Comfort P4: Lighting P5: Ramps, elevators P6: Seats to rest P7: Wideness P8: Commercial areas P9: Security feeling 1 0 0 6 2 3 5 4 1 0 3 1 0 0 0 1 0 4 1 0 0 2 2 2 4 6 14 13 12 1 0 7 2 2 1 2 8 7 10 3 9 1 3 10 12 16 13 12 15 12 17 7 10 3 8 13 26 22 18 23 25 25 8 4 21 27 21 18 16 12 11 21 20 22 4 25 27 21 18 18 13 20 15 24 5 19 11 5 13 7 7 13 12 25 10 5 17 11 3 3 9 2 3 3 19 Average 4,1 3,9 3,3 3,7 3,2 3,1 3,3 3,8 4,3 3,6 Average 4,1 3,9 3,5 3,3 3,6 3,0 3,4 3,2 4,2

Table 32. Answers of the passengers about the operational and physical characteristics

The values of Table 32 are represented by graphics next (Fig. 38 and 39). They show the average index for each item or question of the operational and physical characteristics.

99

3.4. Collaborative design______________________________________________________

Figure 38. Average index for each operational characteristic

Figure 39. Average index for each physical characteristic

These data could be compared with similar information obtained by ANA at Lisbon Airport during the fourth quarter of 2007, which is included in Figure 40. According with the results obtained with the questionnaires performed on August 2008: Check-in parameter has decreased from 3.7 to an average value of 3.4, if the number of check-in counters, the waiting time and the service time, are considered as part of this parameter.

100

3.4. Collaborative design______________________________________________________ Finding your way parameter has increased from 3.4 to 3.6, if it is understood as the clarity of routes parameter. Airport facilities parameter has increased from 2.9 to 3.6, if trolleys, information (panels, screens), ramps, elevators, seats to rest and commercial areas are considered as part of this parameter. Airport environment parameter has increased from 3.3 to 3.6, if distance, space for queues, cleanliness, maintenance, comfort, lightning and wideness are included in this parameter.

Figure 40. Information obtained by ANA during 4th quarter of 2007. If the average of the overall of satisfaction with the airport is calculated with the totality of the results obtained with the questionnaires performed on August 2008, an increase on this parameter from 3.2 to 3.6 is achieved. Next graphic (Fig. 41) represents the proportion in percentage of every possible answer in the eevaluation of the overall satisfaction with the airport.

101

3.4. Collaborative design______________________________________________________

Figure 41. Proportion in percentage of every possible answer. This same concept could be used with each question of the survey about the operational or physical characteristics of the airport shown before. Next graphics (Fig. 42 and 43) give an idea about the proportion in percentage of every possible answer for each question.

Figure 42. Proportion in percentage of every possible answer for each question

102

3.4. Collaborative design______________________________________________________

Figure 43. Proportion in percentage of every possible answer for each question

As it was mentioned during this section, many different characteristics of the passengers may influence on their answers. Depending on the groups considered in the surveys, their opinions and perceptions of the service may differ. Following it will be presented the average rate for each question depending on some different criteria of the personal information (Table 33).

103

3.4. Collaborative design______________________________________________________

Travel purpose Operational characteristics O1: Trolleys O2: Information (panels, screens) O3: Information desks O4: Distance O5: Number check-in counters O6: Space for queues O7: Waiting time O8: Service time O9: Kindness of staff O10: Clarity of routes Physical Characteristics P1: Cleanliness P2: Maintenance P3: Comfort P4: Lighting P5: Ramps, elevators P6: Seats to rest P7: Wideness P8: Commercial areas P9: Security feeling Flight class Check-in method

Tourism Business Personal Business Economy Traditional Quick 4,31 3,94 3,33 3,78 3,00 2,97 3,25 3,89 4,42 3,69 3,80 4,00 3,80 4,00 3,80 3,40 3,60 3,40 4,20 3,00 3,55 3,73 2,91 3,09 3,55 3,18 3,45 3,73 4,18 3,36 3,33 3,83 3,83 4,00 3,50 3,67 2,67 3,00 4,17 3,33 4,20 3,91 3,22 3,61 3,15 2,98 3,41 3,91 4,37 3,59 4,08 4,00 3,35 3,55 3,05 3,10 3,00 3,68 4,30 3,68 4,17 3,58 3,08 4,00 3,67 2,92 4,42 4,25 4,50 3,17

Tourism Business Personal Business Economy Traditional Quick 4,08 4,00 3,53 3,22 3,61 2,89 3,47 3,08 4,19 4,40 3,60 3,40 3,20 3,40 3,60 3,60 3,40 4,20 4,00 3,82 3,36 3,45 3,45 3,00 3,09 3,64 4,09 4,00 3,67 3,67 3,50 3,83 3,33 3,50 3,17 4,00 4,11 3,96 3,46 3,24 3,52 2,93 3,39 3,24 4,20 4,15 4,03 3,55 3,35 3,65 3,08 3,48 3,35 4,23 3,92 3,58 3,25 3,00 3,25 2,67 3,17 2,83 4,00

Table 33. Average rate for each question depending on different criteria In this case, the results obtained about the physical characteristics were very similar independently of the travel purpose, the flight class and the check-in method. On the other hand, some of the operational characteristics revealed differences and therefore, subjectivity, depending on the category. For example, in question O4, the average value is higher when the travel purpose is business than when it is personal. The passenger on a business travel probably only carried a laptop or a little suitcase, however, the one on a personal travel perhaps carried more baggage. Hence, their points of view differed, because their spent different time on doing the same distance due to the weight of their baggage. So the subjectivity influenced their answers. A remarkable difference could be noticed in the eevaluation of the waiting and the service time between a passenger who did traditional check-in and another who did auto check-in; the passenger who did traditional check-in clearly showed less satisfaction than the passenger who did auto check-in . This could be because people are not yet used to the new 104

3.4. Collaborative design______________________________________________________ technologies and prefer to do the traditional check-in. Therefore, there are fewer queues at the auto check-in machines, and the people who use them are more satisfied with the check-in process. In short, according to Tables and figures presented during this section, the conclusion that could be drew from the passengers results is that the majority of passengers interviewed were pleased (fair/good) with the overall services provided at Lisbon Airport. A few passengers made some suggestions or comments about anything of the airport that they would like to improve. The most repeated was the lack of information and the confusion to find the security checks points and the boarding gate accesses, mentioning that it was a bit unusual in comparison with other airports. They suggested having better indications. Next are collected other suggestions or reviews that the passengers mentioned: - Available space for the queues it is not enough. - Information for arriving at the airport it is a bit confused and the signposting is too close to the road exits. - Improve comfort and cleanliness. - Railway from downtown and more shops. 3.4.1.2. Staff survey results From the total of 26 respondents, 58% were female and the 42% male. The average age of the employees is 28 years old and how they are distributed within age groups can be observed in the next graphic (Fig. 44).

Figure 44. Age groups The answers of the staff about the operational and physical characteristics are summarized in the next table (Table 34).

105

3.4. Collaborative design______________________________________________________ Within the operational characteristics, the number of check-in counters and the configuration of the queues were the worst valuated, although their general opinion about these characteristics is low (poor/fair). Among the physical characteristics, security feeling and commercial areas were the best valuated with an average index of 3.3 and 3.5 respectively. On the other hand, the items that obtained the worst evaluation were the seats to rest and the ramps, elevators with an average rate of 2.1 and of 2.5, respectively. Operational characteristics O1': Comfort counter O2': lighting counter O3': Information to passengers O4': Number check-in counters O5': Configuration of queues O6': Surface to place the queues O7': Terminal distribution O8': Devices for handicapped people O9': Quick check-in usefulness O10': Previous security control Physical Characteristics P1: Cleanliness P2: Maintenance P3: Comfort P4: Lighting P5: Ramps, elevators P6: Seats to rest P7: Wideness P8: Commercial areas P9: Security feeling 1 6 6 1 7 4 4 5 0 0 2 1 2 1 2 1 3 5 3 1 0 2 6 9 4 9 13 9 10 6 6 2 2 6 10 10 5 11 14 5 5 2 3 11 8 18 7 8 11 7 15 10 3 3 13 12 11 15 7 7 16 4 15 4 3 3 3 3 1 2 4 5 7 11 4 5 3 3 5 5 0 2 13 9 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 8 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 0 Average 2,4 2,3 2,9 2,2 2,2 2,4 2,4 3,0 3,3 3,8 Average 2,8 2,7 2,6 2,9 2,5 2,1 2,7 3,5 3,3

Table 34. Answers of the staff about the operational and physical characteristics

The values of Table 34 are presented by graphics next (Fig. 45 and 46). They show the average index for each item or question of the operational and physical characteristics. 106

3.4. Collaborative design______________________________________________________

Figure 45. Average index for each operational characteristic

Figure 46. Average index for each physical characteristic As it was done in the case of the passengers questionnaires, if the average of the overall of satisfaction with the airport is calculated with the results of the staffs questionnaires performed on August 2008, a value of 2.7 is obtained. Next graphic (Fig. 47) represents the proportion in percentage of every possible answer in the evaluation of the overall satisfaction with the airport.

107

3.4. Collaborative design______________________________________________________

Figure 47. Proportion in percentage of every possible answer. Again, this concept could be used with each question of the survey about the operational or physical characteristics of the airport shown before. Next graphics (Fig. 48 and 49) illustrate the proportion in percentage of every possible answer for each question.

Figure 48. Proportion in percentage of every possible answer for each question

108

3.4. Collaborative design______________________________________________________

Figure 49. Proportion in percentage of every possible answer for each question. In short, according to the tables and figures shown during this section, the conclusion that could be drew from the staffs results is that the majority of workers interviewed were not satisfied (poor/fair) with the overall services provided at Lisbon Airport. Some workers provided some suggestions or comments about the things that they would like to improve at the airport, which are mentioned next: - Build a new airport 2. - A changing room for the staff. - More and better sings for passengers. - Cleaner bathrooms. - WCs with shower for passengers. - Change the hardware of check-in counters and gates. - Implement single queue in the check-in for a better use of the spaces.

109

3.4. Collaborative design______________________________________________________ 3.4.2. Comparison between passengers and staff survey results It was mentioned at the beginning of this section that most of the questions of the surveys were similar for both groups. In the case of the physical characteristics of the airport, the questions were exactly the same, so they could be compared directly. Next graphic shows this comparison (Fig. 50). In general, the staff expressed a worse opinion about the physical characteristics than the passengers. Only the commercial areas are better valuated by the staff. There is a big difference (more than a point) on their answers about characteristics such as: cleanliness, maintenance, comfort, ramps and elevators, seats to rest and security feeling. If this is analysed, all these characteristics are related with the concept of a pleasant stay at the airport. Therefore, the staffs opinion should be understood as more reliable than passengers opinion. The staffs spends a lot of time at the airport each day, however, the passengers spend a few hours and only when they have a travel. They observe all kind of situations and are in continuous contact with the passenger, so they received their daily complaints. Hence, their opinion is the sum of their personal feeling and what they expect in order to satisfy the passengers as much as possible. The client is the most important, so they would like the passengers had an excellent opinion of the airport.

Figure 50. Comparison between passengers and staff results.

If some common operational characteristics are compared too, it is observed that again the staff expressed a worse opinion about the physical characteristics than the passengers did.

110

3.4. Collaborative design______________________________________________________ There is again a difference of more than a point. The staff thinks about the passengers good, so it appears that the staff is more critical. Next graphic shows this comparison (Fig. 51).

Figure 51. Comparison between passengers and staff results. Finally, if the overall satisfaction of both passengers and staff is compared, again a difference around a point is observed (i.e., passengers: 3.6 vs. staff: 2.7). 3.4.3. Conclusions Although the evaluation of the different characteristics varies depending upon the interviewed target groups, some conclusions could be withdrawn. About the operational characteristics, both the passengers and the staff agreed that the space for the queues or the queues configuration, as well as the number of check-in counters should be ameliorated. Additionally, the lighting and the comfort of the counters where the staff spends all their working time should be improved too. Among the physical characteristics, both the passengers and the staff agreed that the number of seats to rest and the lighting and the wideness of the airport should be increased. In order to get more precise conclusions it would be of interest to make supplemental surveys employing more time, more days, more observations and more data, and so increase the value of the sample.

111

CHAPTER 4. RESULTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

This study provides some insight into the check-in process at Lisbon Airport, since the passengers have entered into the airport departure terminal until they have passed through the security control. The selected method of analysis was an eventbased simulation method, using the computer package SIMUL 8. In addition a collaborative design technique, a survey, was used in order to evaluate the present situation of the check-in process and if necessary, the intended physical or/and operational changes. These surveys showed the actual passengers and staffs opinion about the check-in process. Additionally, in order to accommodate the present traffic growth, it was interesting to study adequate future changes of the passenger terminal. Until the moment that the passengers cross the security control, the steps that they need to do could be described as follows: 1. Arrive at the terminal. 2. Go to the information screens, looking for the number of the check-in counter assigned to their flight and its time information. 3. Cover the way until the check-in counters zone (Zone 2). 4. Wait at their correspondent check-in queue. 5. Be processed. 6. Previous security check According with these steps, some improvements related with this process that the passengers experience, are proposed during this chapter. The information panels are the most important tools for the passengers when they have just arrived at the terminal. They look for their flight information and these panels should be really close to the entrance doors of the terminal. Through the observation and the results of the passengers surveys, it seems that the information panels are well located around the departure hall of the terminal.

112

4._RESULTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS_____________________________________ Nevertheless, there are some considerations that could improve the service. As it was observed in Figure 10 of Chapter 3, there is a sing on the top of these screens that shows the recommended way to the passengers corresponding desk. In the case of the screen situated more on the left of the terminal (see Figure 16), there is a little confusion. The sign indicates that if the passengers must use the check-in counters from 14 to 107, they should go to the right (way 1). However, while they are reading their information screen they can see a very big sign, which indicates that for check-in counters from 14 to 107 the passenger should go straight ahead (way 3). If the passengers who have to check-in at a counter from 14 to 36 take this way, instead of the right way, they were covering more than the necessary distance, to be precise, almost the double, and they will have to pass the previous security control two times. Therefore, in order to avoid this confusion, the big sign should only say Check-in 36107. Additionally, another sign should be placed in the middle of the Commercial hall, with an arrow indicating the way 2 (see Figure 16) for check-in counters from 14 to 36. Other measure could be to add a map of the terminal under each information screen, showing the optimum way to arrive at their correspondent check-in counters. Furthermore other suggestion would be to place an information desk at the commercial hall, as the one placed at the arrival hall. About the facility of finding trolleys, and the quality of the accesses to the check-in zone (ramps, elevators), the interviewed passengers seemed to be satisfied. However, the staff recommended improving the accesses. A common complain observed was regarding to the number of seats to rest. They should be improved in order to provide more comfort to the passengers. When the passengers arrive to their check-in queues, different aspects could be enhanced. In general, the waiting queues are disposed as a common line for the economic class passengers of the flight. During the simulation it has been proved that there are very high values of occupation of the queues when the check-in counters open 2 hours before the departure time of the flight. Queues of more than 50 people have been found, by simulation and the author observation, with the consequent increase of the occupation at the zone of the hall near the check-in counters and the hindrance to the other users of the terminal that this entails.

113

4._RESULTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS_____________________________________ The simulation was run varying the time of opening of the counters. It was evaluated what happens if the counters open 5, 10, 15, or 20 minutes prior to the stipulated 2 hours of opening (see Table 29). In order to avoid the queues exceeding their allocated zone, if the check-in counters open 15 minutes before this stipulated time, then a significant decrease of the level of occupation of the queue is observed. Additionally, the distribution of the counters at the terminal should be taken into account. If the Zone 2 is observed (see Figure 16), counters from 24 to 36 have the assigned zone for placing the exceed of capacity of the queue limited by a wall, so it is smaller than the similar zone available to the rest of counters. It is recommended that counters from 24 to 36 open 20 minutes before the stipulated 2 hours previous to the departure time of the flight. Like this, it will be avoid the queues of these counters go beyond their limits and take up the space assigned to the queues of the counters 14-23. Furthermore, the number of check-in counters was studied during this research. The required number of check-in counters according with the IATA document ADRM (Airport Development Reference Manual) is 18. Comparing this result with the 23 counters available at Zone 2, it seems that the area has the adequate capacity facilities to accommodate the demand. On the other hand, the surveys showed that passengers and staff both agreed that the number of check-in counters should be improved. Another point of study was the processing time. It was observed by the author during the surveys study that it was an average value of 1.85 minutes. The standard processing time is 1.5 minutes, so they are quite similar. A recommendation for reducing this time could be the help of a person with mobile scales who was in charge of weighting and measuring the cabin baggage. Like this, when the passengers arrive at the check-in counter they know if they have to check-in their baggage or not, and the staff of the counter do not have to waste time on confirm if the weight or dimensions of the cabin baggage are correct. Additionally, this person could verify that all the passengers have their documents ready for the check-in process when it is their turn. Some recommendations about the auto check-in method could be given too. This method is mainly used for those passengers that only travel with cabin baggage. When the passengers need to check-in any baggage, they require counters to left it but in some airlines these counters are shared with the traditional check-in passengers. An improvement of this service could be to incorporate scales in the auto check-in machines. With them, the passengers could weight and their baggage and obtain the labels. If the baggage exceeds the 114

4._RESULTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS_____________________________________ weight they could pay there too. Then, the passenger only has to go to a belt and leave their baggage labelled. This belt could be shared between all the companies that offer auto check-in option. After the check-in process at zone 2, the passengers must go through the previous security control. This process is very quick, but sometimes is longer due to the fact that passengers have to look for their boarding cards or flight tickets, and also the people who stand in the way of the passengers (e.g., family representatives and companions that see the passengers off and do not travel). Some signs should be placed near this zone, warning that the passengers will need their documents ready. Additionally, in order to avoid crowding that blocks the entrance, a zone for the families and companions could be delimited allowing the passengers to flow easily and unimpeded. Additionally, basing on the results obtained from the surveys as it was mentioned before the lighting and the wideness of the airport should be improved.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

I would like to thank Prof. Rosrio Macrio for giving me the opportunity of carrying out this research on Airports, which I enjoy. Airports have been my area of study at Ingeniera Superior Aeronutica at Universidad Politcnica of Madrid. This report is written in fulfilling the requirements for completing these studies. Thanks to Eng. M. Marinov (PhD), who has helped me with the technical aspects of the software used and with other issues related to this job. Thanks to ANA, Aeroportos de Portugal, for providing some of the information needed for the project. Special thanks go to Sr. N. Costa. Finally, I would like to extend a word of thank you to my family and friends, who always has supported me in good and bad times during these years of study. I would like to give a special dedication to my girlfriend Beatriz. Without her help, patience and affect, it would not have been possible to arrive at this point.

115

REFERENCES
[1] Joustra, P.E. & Van Dijk, N.M., Simulation of check-in at airports, Proceedings of the 2001 Winter Simulation Conference. (2001) [2] Takakuma, S. & Oyama, T., Simulation analysis of international-departure passenger flows in an airport terminal, Proceedings of the 2003 Winter Simulation Conference. (2003) [3] Cao, Y., Nsakanda, A.L. & Pressman, I., A simulation study of the passenger check-in system at the Ottawa International Airport, SCSC, ISBN: 1-56555-268-7, pp. 573579. (2003) [4] Van Dijk, N.M. & Van der Sluis, E., Check-in computation and optimization by simulation and IP in combination, European Journal of Operational Research, 171, pp. 1152-1168. (2006) [5] Chiu, M., An organizational view of design communication in design collaboration, Elsevier Science Ltd, Design Studies 23, pp. 187-210. (2002) [6] Klein, M., Sayama, H., Faratin, P. & Bar-Yam, Y., The dynamics of collaborative design: Insights from complex systems and negotiation research. [7] Chang, H. & Yang, C., Do airline self-service check-in kiosk meet the needs of passengers?, Tourism Management, doi:10.1016. (2007) [8] Mumayiz, S.A. & Ashford, N.J., Methodology for planning and operations management of airport terminal facilities, Transportation Research Record 1094, TRB, National Council, pp. 24-35. (1986) [9] Omer, K.F. & Khan, A.M., Airport landside level of service estimation: utility theoretic approach, Transportation Research Record 1199, TRB, National Council, pp. 33-40. (1988) [10] Mller, C. & Gosling, G.D., A framework for evaluating level of service for airport terminals, Transportation Planning and Technology 16, pp. 45-61. (1991) [11] Yen, J.R., Teng, C.R. & Chen, P.S., Measuring the level of service at airport passenger terminals: comparison of perceived and observed time, Transportation Research Record 1744, TRB, National Council, pp. 17-23. (2001)

116

[12]

Correia, A.R., Wirasinghe, S.C. & De Barros, A., Overall level of service measures for airport passenger terminals, Transportation Research Part A 42, pp. 330-346. (2008)

[13]

De Barros, A., Somasundaraswaran, A.K. & Wiransinghe, S.C., Eeevaluation of level of service for transfer passengers at airports, Journal of Air Transport Management 13, pp. 293-298. (2007)

[14] [15] [16] [17] [18] [19]

ANA, Annual traffic report. (2005 and 2007) www.ana.pt (reviewed on August, 3rd , 2008)
~o do aeroporto de Lisboa. ANA, Plano de exp ansa

IATA, Airport Development Reference Manual, 9th Edition. (2004) www.portway.pt (reviewed on August, 3rd , 2008) Shalliker, J. & Ricketts, C., An Introduction to SIMUL8 2006 (Release 13), Heybrook Associates. (2006)

[20]

Jana Gonzalez Garces, Practical development about Witness simulation software of the passenger check-in process in Barcelona Airport. Universidad Politcnica de Catalunya (2008)

117

Annexe I
Flight Schedule of Zone 2 provided by ANA on August 1st of 2008
Flight code KL 1690 KL 1692 LH 4545 LH 4537 AF 2125 AY 922 ZI 300 AF 1325 US 739 EI 481 AF 1025 TP 121 5G 3078 LH 4531
WHT802

Airline KLM KLM Lufthansa Lufthansa Air France Finnair Aigle Azur Air France US Airways Aer Lingus Air France TAP Portugal Skyservice Lufthansa White Airways Germanwings EuroAtlantic Brussels Airlines Air France Lufthansa KLM Air France Regional Air Lines Alitalia Fine airlines Lufthansa Air France Germanwings Transavia airines SAS Aer Lingus Futura intenacional Ukraine Internat. KrasAir

IATA Airport code Destination AMS Amsterdam, Schiphol AMS MUC FRA CDG HEL ORY CDG PHL DUB CDG CCS YYZ FRA VRA STR HAV BRU BOD MUC AMS CDG CMN FCO BOJ FRA CDG CGN AMS OSL DUB TFS KBP DME Amsterdam, Schiphol Munich, Franz Joseph Strauss Frankfurt Paris, Charles de Gaulle Helsinki, Vantaa Paris, Orly Paris, Charles de Gaulle Philadelphia Dublin Paris, Charles de Gaulle Caracas, Simon Bolivar Toronto, Ontario Frankfurt Varadero, Cuba Stuttgart La Habana, Cuba Brussels Bordeaux Munich, Franz Joseph Strauss Amsterdam, Schiphol Paris, Charles de Gaulle Casablanca, Mohamed V Rome, Fiumicino Bourgas, Bulgary Frankfurt Paris, Charles de Gaulle

Regular or charter STD Regular 2:10 Regular 5:20 Regular Regular Regular Regular Regular Regular Regular Regular Regular Regular Charter Regular Charter Regular Charter Regular Regular Regular Regular Regular Regular Regular Charter Regular Regular 6:15 7:15 8:20 8:45 9:55 10:30 10:35 10:35 11:05 11:15 11:35 12:20 12:30 12:30 13:15 13:30 13:45 14:05 15:30 15:45 16:15 16:30 16:35 16:45 18:30 18:45 20:10 20:20 20:50 22:05 22:20 23:30

Check-in Type of counters aircraft 21-24 21-24 14-18 14-19 21-24 30-32 28-29 19-21 33-36 30-32 21-24 18-18 25-27 14-17 28-32 19-20 33-36 25-26 24-24 14-17 25-28 20-24 19-19 34-36 30-31 14-17 20-24 33-34 26-27 29-31 34-36 25-27 22-24 21-24 73H 73H 320 AB6 321 320 319 320 75W 320 320 332 752 320 313 319 763 734 ER3 321 73J 321 BEH 320 733 AB6 321 319 73H 73W 320 73H 733 752

Capacity Pax of the aircraft embarqued 173 173 156 280 206 159 144 168 190 174 168 260 233 156 220 132 250 165 37 190 200 206 19 153 140 280 206 168 180 134 174 180 140 150

Load Factor

173 100,0% 162 126 168 197 158 67 150 175 151 156 258 208 141 197 116 223 93,6% 80,8% 60,0% 95,6% 99,4% 46,5% 89,3% 92,1% 86,8% 92,9% 99,2% 89,4% 90,4% 89,4% 87,9% 89,4%

4U 2605
MMZ6651

SN 3816 AF 3171 LH 4541 KL 1694 AF 1625 FN 231 AZ 021 FB 6926 LH 4533 AF 1925 4U 605 HV 590 SK 4706 EI 485 FUA7254 PS 952 7B 402

165 100,0% 37 100,0% 174 194 186 91,6% 97,0% 90,3%

19 100,0% 130 125 210 166 150 161 127 158 161 134 148 85,0% 89,4% 75,0% 80,6% 89,3% 89,4% 94,8% 90,8% 89,4% 95,7% 98,7%

Cologne Bonn, Konrad Adenauer Regular Amsterdam, Schiphol Oslo, Gardermoen Dublin Tenerife Sur Kiev, Borispol Moscow, Domodedovo Charter Regular Regular Charter Regular Regular

118

Throughput diagram of the Traditional Check-in

119

Throughput diagram of the Traditional plus Quick Check-in

120