Buch Block

Contents
Preface
1 INTRODUCTION ....................................................................................... 1
1.1 Project Overview ......................................................................................................................... 1
1.2 Significance of The Proposed Method .................................................................................. 1
1.3 Project Boundaries ..................................................................................................................... 3
1.4 Book Organization ................................................................................................. 4
2 ISSUES RELATED TO CHECK-IN COUNTER SPACE ..................................... 7
2.1 Introduction to The Modeling Approach ............................................................................... 7
2.2 Previous Work .............................................................................................................................. 9
2.3 Evaluation of Existing Methods in Determination of Space Required ..................... 23
2.4 Summary...................................................................................................................................... 24
3 DATA COLLECTION ................................................................................ 25
3.1 Introduction.................................................................................................................................. 25
3.2 General Information .................................................................................................................. 26
3.3 Input data for The Proposed Model ..................................................................................... 28
3.4 Summary...................................................................................................................................... 31
4 ESTIMATION OF ARRIVAL DISTRIBUTION ................................................. 33
4.1 Introduction.................................................................................................................................. 33
4.2 The Concept ............................................................................................................................... 33
4.3 IATA Distribution of Arrival Earliness .................................................................................. 34
4.4 Passenger Distribution Program Development ................................................................ 36
4.5 Program Execution ................................................................................................................... 43
4.6 Summary...................................................................................................................................... 46
5 MODEL DEVELOPMENT:TIME BLOCK SYSTEM ......................................... 47
5.1 Introduction.................................................................................................................................. 47
5.2 Background ................................................................................................................................. 49
i
5.3 The Conceptual Model ............................................................................................................ 50

5.4 Methodology ............................................................................................................................... 52
5.5 Program Development ............................................................................................................. 57
5.6 Summary...................................................................................................................................... 72
6 SIMULATION MODEL .............................................................................. 75
6.1 Introduction.................................................................................................................................. 75
6.2 Previous Related Work ............................................................................................................ 75
6.3 The Concept ............................................................................................................................... 76
6.4 Methodology ............................................................................................................................... 77
6.5 The Development of Simulation Program .......................................................................... 79
6.6 Verification Process .................................................................................................................. 89
6.7 Summary...................................................................................................................................... 92
7 MODEL EVALUATION ............................................................................. 95
7.1 Introduction.................................................................................................................................. 95
7.2 Comparisons of Results .......................................................................................................... 95
7.3 Influence of Demand Fluctuation ........................................................................................ 102
7.4 Influence of A Different Earliness Distribution ................................................................ 103
7.5 The Influence of Queue Systems ....................................................................................... 105
7.6 The Influence of Service Time ............................................................................................ 107
7.7 Influence of Check-in Counter Sizes and Arrangements ............................................ 107
7.8 The Influence of Number of Servers on The Overall Cost ......................................... 108
7.9 Progressive Opening of Counters ...................................................................................... 109
7.10 Limitation of The Model....................................................................................................... 109
7.11 Future Work ............................................................................................................................ 110
7.12 Summary ................................................................................................................................. 110
8 CONCLUSIONS .................................................................................... 113
REFERENCES ......................................................................................... 117
APPENDIX
ii
Preface
This book is developed based on a thesis project carried out by the first author at
School of Civil and Environmental Engineering, University of New South Wales, Sydney,
Australia. We publish this book with some trepidation as we have made numerous
simplifications due to resource and time limitations, although design of airport terminals
involves many variables and complex relationships. Anyhow, the simplicity of the
method we have devised motivated us to share the idea through this book.
This book is about a computational aid to assist in design of effective arrangements for
airport check-in lobbies. The main idea we use is that it is possible to synthesize a key
input variable required, the passenger arrival pattern, by manipulation of airline
schedules. Then we link selected concepts from level of service, queuing theory and
optimization methods to develop the methods proposed.
Two simulation models for design of check-in area arrangements are proposed in this
book. The first is named the time block concept and assigns passengers in groups to
specified time periods. The second method treats passengers as individual entities.
Computational tools using these two methods have been developed using a
spreadsheet platform. Interested readers can modify the software code included in the
book to suit their particular requirements.
Finally, we would like to express our sincere thanks to all who made this project
possible. First, we like to express our gratitude to financial support provided by the
Australian Development Scholarship (ADS). Then there are numerous agencies and
administrators that provided support in the form of data and advice.
We thank
International Air Transport Association (IATA) for allowing the use of their copyrighted
material mentioned in this book. Airport Council International (ACI) provided useful data
in the form of airport traffic reports. We also express our gratitude to the seven airport
authorities mentioned earlier. Special thanks are also extended to Mr. Ariatedja for his
suggestions and help during the development of the models. We hope that this book
provides an insight to the reader for an alternative approach to determine appropriate
check-in area arrangements.
E. Ahyudanari
U. Vandebona
June 2009
iii
iv
INTRODUCTION
1.1 PROJECT OVERVIEW
The check-in area is one of the busiest sections in airports at certain periods. The
passengers are subjected to queues and delays during the check-in process. These
delays and queues are due to constraints in the capacity of service facilities. The
area required for service facilities for this process includes the amount of floor space
that accommodates the check-in desks and passengers in queue, and the space for
equipment assisting the check-in process. This project focuses on the investigation
of space requirements in check-in areas.
The estimation of space requirements in airport check-in areas practices several
different empirical methods. The methods are suggested by International Air
Transport Association (IATA) 1989, 2003; Federal Aviation Administration (FAA)
1988; Ralph M. Parsons Company 1975; Ashford 1988; Horonjeff et al. 1993. The
reported methods involve utilization of peak hour of passenger flow rates and service
times as design variables. Elements such as check-in desk sizes and configuration,
construction and operational cost, passenger arrival pattern, and queue system are
known to influence the required space that will lead to effective design of check-in
area arrangement. This project attempts to propose an alternative method to design
airport check-in area arrangement by considering the elements mentioned.
1.2 SIGNIFICANCE OF THE PROPOSED METHOD
This project attempts to propose a method that incorporates the elements mentioned
above in designing check-in areas. The proposed method includes passengerwaiting time as a parameter that accounts for the quality of service during check-in
process. The quality of service is the degree of passenger satisfaction when
receiving some services from the system. The proposed method utilizes software,
which is designed to estimate the optimum arrangement of check-in areas. The
proposed method together with the computation programs developed forms an
analysis model that represents the nature of airport check-in areas.
The software designed has two systems. The first system handles arriving
passengers as groups based on time blocks. The time blocks follow the increment
period of passenger arrival distribution available. This is called time block method.
1
1 Introduction
Figure 1-1 shows the block arrangement applied in this method. Description of this
method is provided later in section 5.3. The second one assigns passengers as
individuals in the queue process. This is a simulation technique. Figure 1-2 shows
the nature of microscopic analysis of this simulation. Passengers are treated as
individual entities in this method.
In the time block concept, passengers are framed in counting periods. The length
of this counting period depends on the increment period of the passenger arrival
distribution available. During the service process, the passengers are grouped into
smaller blocks. The length of smaller blocks is the same as the average service time
applied, and the capacity of the smaller block depends on the number of servers
provided. The estimation of the queue length and waiting time is based on the block
system that treats arriving passengers in this block fashion. It seems that this system
tends to overestimate the value of waiting time and queue length, and therefore
provides upper bound solutions.
Counting period
Passenger
Time block
Figure 1-1
Time Block Concept
The results, regarding the queue length and waiting time, which is obtained from
the simulation technique, are slightly different. The results are smaller in magnitude
than the time block results. This is caused by the specified way of the program in
handling the arriving passengers.
The advantage of having two different methods is that this allows cross checking
the outputs for consistency of the results. Then, these results are utilized to obtain
the optimum space required for the check-in process area. In reporting the optimum
design, the proposed method focuses on the number of servers required to handle
passengers. The optimization is conducted by minimizing the total cost. The costs
considered in the optimization process covers construction cost, equipment and
furniture cost, payments to check-in counter officers and user cost. The user cost is
represented by a waiting time penalty.
The application of the model is demonstrated by analyzing data from five different
airports. The collected data covers number of passengers, number of check-in desks
available, applied queue system, and applied service time. The information regarding
the check-in desk sizes and configurations, passengers arrival distribution pattern,
and cost are adopted from industry references. This allows the proposed model
results to be compared to the real situation. The results sensitivity of selected
variables is investigated as well. The objective of this process is to demonstrate the
capability of the proposed model.
2
Passenger
Servers
Queue area
Figure 1-2
Simulation elements
1.3 PROJECT BOUNDARIES

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

different points
Preliminary Baggage
Screening
(If required)
Check-in area
Research
focus area
Immigration
Departure
Lounge
Aircraft
Figure 1-3
Departure Passengers Flow Diagram
1.4 BOOK ORGANIZATION

In order to convey the information regarding the project, this book is organized into
eight chapters.
A brief description regarding the project, the objective and the background of this
project are given in Chapter 1. This chapter aims to help the readers to understand
the scope of the project and main elements of the project development process.
The project development process is explained in detail in the methodology chapter
(Chapter 2). The development stages and the thinking process followed during the
project are presented in this chapter. The description of model stages provides
background material and references to support the underlying concepts.
A data collection process is also performed during project work. This data
collection is presented in Chapter 3. The relevance of some data will be clearer later
when model development is presented in Chapter 5. Five different airports around
the world were utilized as data sources.
4
Data collected from airports require mathematical manipulations to estimate

passenger arrival distributions. This process is described in Chapter 4. The flow rate
of arriving passenger is adopted from IATA recommendations since individual
airports were not able to provide the passenger arrival distributions. This chapter
presents the process in converting the flight schedule into passenger arrival
distribution. In other words, the passenger arrival pattern is synthesized from the
flight schedules.
Chapter 5 explains model development. The model development entails a
developing representative model based on an established method. The concept of
the time block program is also explained in this chapter. The time block program is
consistent with the IATA distributions for earliness of passenger arrivals given at
intervals of ten-minute periods.
The time block is only able to handle a single line of queue and generalizes the
estimation of the queue length and waiting time values. The simulation program
assigns passengers in a different way compared to time block program (refer to
Figure 1-1 and 1-2). The simulation program provides a facility to produce
synthesized passengers if required data is unavailable. The process of developing
the simulation program is explained in Chapter 6.
The programs are applied to analyze five airports. The estimates from the two
programs are compared to the real situation. The programs are also evaluated to
answer the research objective by attempting to determine check-in area
arrangement. These evaluations are presented in Chapter 7. The limitations of the
proposed model and recommendations for future work are also presented in this
chapter
Chapter 8 provides conclusions of the project.
The appendices consist of raw data related to the five airports, worksheets for
estimating passenger arrival distributions, worksheets for time block program,
worksheets for simulation program, and the software code.
1 Introduction
ISSUES RELATED TO
CHECK-IN COUNTER
SPACE
This chapter presents how the project approached the issues of designing airport
check-in area arrangement. The chapter starts with the process of how the model
deals with the issues, inventory of the elements involved, and evaluation of the
available methods.
2.1 INTRODUCTION TO THE MODELING APPROACH
Several methods are available to estimate the required space at airport check-in
areas. In practice, the passenger space is the common variable adopted. The
passenger space design utilizes established standards provided by relevant
organizations. Another method utilizes look-up charts in determining space for
passengers. The charts are based on aircraft mix factors. Some researchers
attempted to design the space based on the minimum required space for passengers
and luggage carts. Other researchers estimated required space based on occupancy
rate and cost optimization. The next section presents more details of previous work
done in this particular area.
In the real situation, there is a number of elements that may influence the space
design required of a check-in area. Those elements are passengers flow, number of
servers, queue system, and service time during the check-in process. The proposed
method attempts to involve these elements into the designed model. This model may
be used as an alternative approach in designing the check-in area.
Figure 2-1 shows the procedure in brief to accomplish these project objectives.
Pre-modeling is a data assessment stage before determination of the applicable
method. This stage is aimed to review the involved elements in airport check-in area
and to evaluate existing methods in establishment of check-in area arrangement.
The explanation of elements involved and evaluation of the existing methods are
presented in Section 2.2 and 2.3 respectively.
The next stage is modeling. In this stage, the proposed method and the design of
the model are established. The term method in this project is a technique in solving
the problems. The techniques here could be establishing a formula, developing
software, or adopting available standards. The model is a replication of the method
that represents the real situation. The model is assumed as the complete picture of
check-in area together with all involved elements. More about this stage is presented
7
2 Issues related to check-in counter space

in sub section 2.1.1. A complete discussion regarding this stage is available in
Chapter 5.
Pre-modeling
Modeling
Evaluation of
Case Studies
Figure 2-1
Sequence of the model development process
The modeling stage includes data collection as well. This stage also covers the
process of data editing and manipulation to obtain passengers arrival distributions.
The last stage is application of the model to some airports. Data from five different
airports are utilized in this analysis. Sensitivity analysis is also performed to evaluate
the sensitivity of each element in design process.
2.1.1 Method and Model Development
The establishment of the proposed method is available in Chapter 5. This project
develops a software model based on the proposed method and relevant elements.
The proposed model is intended to represent the real situation of check-in areas by
accommodating selected aspects of the check-in process. The software developed
has two different systems to perform the computation process. The systems are
called time block system and simulation. These two systems apply different
approaches in assigning arriving passengers. More details about these two
programs are described in Chapter 5 and 6.
2.1.2 Data Collection
Data collection is performed during the model development. The process of data
collection is time consuming due to unavailability of field data. The information in the
literature provides a sample of arriving passenger distribution patterns. Based on this
pattern, the data related to passenger flow could be obtained after manipulation of
data of flight schedules. Therefore the required data is flight schedule, number of
counters, service time and queue system applied. Five different airports agreed to
provide the required data through some correspondences. The airport authorities
contacted provided information in seasonal flight schedule forms. However, not all
airports provided the desired data. Chapter 3 presents the information regarding the
data collection, selected airports and other related information.
2.1.3 Data Manipulation
A program is developed to assist the data manipulation process. The program is
designed to distribute passengers in each flight based on the data of flight
schedules. Passenger distribution in this program is developed based on the pattern
as presented in IATA reference manual for passenger earliness arrivals (IATA,
1989). The results will provide passenger arrival pattern in check-in area. Chapter 4
presents details regarding this program and explains the distribution process.
2.1.4 Evaluation of Case Studies
This stage is the last step in this project. The evaluations cover: (1) the association
of the results of the two programs with the real situation, (2) analyzing queue length
and waiting time of the two programs, and (3) sensitivity analysis of the programs
related to service time, arrival distribution, counter arrangements, queue system, and
cost. These evaluations aim to discover the influence of passengers, servers, service
time, and queue system in designing airport check-in area arrangements. More
about this stage is in Chapter 7.
2.2 PREVIOUS WORK
This section aims to review the elements in airport check-in process that may
influence check-in area arrangements. The elements involved can be examined by
observing the real process in airport check-in area. The acknowledged influencing
factors are number of passengers, number of counters available, service time
applied, and queue system applied. A number of research works related to the
factors mentioned has been conducted in order to improve the system in airport
check-in area. These works are cited later to support the assumptions applied in this
project.
2.2.1 Passenger Characteristics
Passenger characteristics are important in estimating check-in area arrangement.
Passenger characteristics in this context mean properties related to passengers,
such as the number of passengers, the passenger flow rate, and the required space
per passenger.
The number of passengers influences the number of counters and queue space
that should be provided. It is important to know how to determine the demand and to
understand the arrival distribution of passengers for design purpose. The required
space per passenger and level of service perceived are other passenger related
issues that are considered in developing the proposed model. The resume of
acquaintance related to passenger characteristics and the literatures cited are
presented in a separate section.

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

Flow
More than 20 million
0.030 %
10 million 19.9 million
0.035 %
1 million- 9.9 million
0.040 %
0.5 million 0.99 million
0.050 %
100,000 499,999
0.065 %
Less than 100,000
0.120 %
(Source: Ashford, 1992)
Other method for determination of demand is Standard Busy Rate (SBR). SBR is
the thirtieth highest hour of the year. Some European designers still use this factor.
The figure obtained based on SBR is exceeded by only 29 hours of annual
operation. Another feature used by the British Airport Authority (BAA) is the Busy
Hour Rate (BHR) that is slightly different from SBR.
For practical purposes, the method presented by FAA is easy to follow since data
on annual passengers from airports around the world is easy to obtain from the
airports authority websites. Unlike the FAA method, the SBR and BHR require
annual daily peak hour data, which is difficult to obtain directly from airport authority.
The methods based on peak hour estimation (TPHP, SBR and BHR) yield different
figures for planning (Fernandes and Pacheco, 2002). The different figures obtained
lead to a puzzle in estimation of demand. IATA (1989) suggests estimation of
demand by conducting a survey to obtain a passengers arrival distribution. In airport
10
reference manual, IATA gives an example of passenger arrival pattern. Figure 2-2
presents the example of IATA pattern or IATA passenger earliness distribution.
IATA earliness pattern shows the number of passengers that arrives at a particular
time before the departure time of the respective flight. There are different curves for
different times of the day. This project adopts IATA pattern since a field survey is
avoided for this application, the project needs flight schedules from different airports.
The details regarding data collection and estimation of passengers arrival
distribution process are explained in Chapter 3 and Chapter 4 respectively.
30%
Percentage
25%
0:00
20%
6:00
15%
10:00
10%
18:00
5%
0%
-2:50
-2:40
-2:30
-2:20
-2:10
-2:00
-1:50
-1:40
-1:30
-1:20
-1:10
-1:00
Arrival time (hour:minutes) before departure flight
Figure 2-2
IATA passengers earliness distribution pattern
(Source: IATA, 1989)
Figure 2-2 shows four different curves. The curves are for the flights that depart
between 00:00 to 06:00, 06:01 to 10:00, 10:01 to 18:00, and 18:01 to 00:00.
Horizontal axis indicates hour: minutes before departure time. For example, -2:10
means 2 hours and 10 minutes before departure time. The number in horizontal has
10 minutes increment. Vertical axis is percentage of total passengers in a particular
flight.
2.2.1.2 Space per passenger
The factor that needs to be considered in calculation of the total space for queuing
area is the minimum required space for each passenger. International passengers
usually use luggage carts if available. The width of passengers with luggage carts is
determined based on the average length of the largest luggage positioned
crossways on the cart (Davis and Braaksma, 1988). Figure 2-3 shows the passenger
dimensions with luggage carts. From this picture, the minimum required space is 1.1
square meters per passenger. This value is the result of the multiplication of the
width of the luggage (0.64 meters) to total length of the space occupied by the
passenger and the cart (1.72 meters).
FAA has overall standards for gross floor size. These standards are the guidelines
for planners who adopt the TPHP figures for design. It means that in designing the
required space, the planner estimates the demand based on TPHP as presented in
Table 2-1. Overall passenger terminal area per annual enplanement is 0.007 0.011
square meters, and 14 square meters per design hour passenger. Ashford (1984)
prescribes that these recommendations are not suitable for international terminals.
11

Some planners and engineers use Ralph M. Parson Charts (Ashford, 1984). This
procedure presents space required for different facilities in airports based on
variables such as aircraft mix, share of originating passengers, annual enplanement,
and type of baggage devices. This recommendation applies assumptions that may
be not suitable for every airport. For example, Ashford (1984) presents a diagram
adopted from M. Parson Charts that is valid only for domestic terminals. The value
for aircraft mix factor presented in this chart is unable to accommodate a large
number of aircraft mix or designing large airports.
The FAA standards and M. Parson Charts, are simple to understand and relatively
effortless to use. However, the vagueness of passenger traffic flow leads to
difficulties in efforts to meet existing conditions.
BAA and IATA also present the space standard for passengers in check-in area.
Table 2-2 gives these values. The recommended space by BAA and IATA is less
than the space recommended by Davis and Braaksma. The figures in Table 2-2
could be the space for passengers and baggage without cart. However, it is common
in international airport to provide the passengers with carts.
Table 2-2
BAA and IATA design standards for check-in areas
BAA
Space
standard
IATA
0.8 square meter per

passenger with
checked baggage
0.8 square meter

per passenger with
checked baggage
0.6 square meter per

passenger with cabin
baggage
0.6 square meter for

visitor
In this project, a method of determination the required space for check-in areas is
developed to compliment the above methods. The proposed model adopts the
minimum space for passengers with carts, and proceeds through microscopic
analysis. The results of the model are compared to the available standards.
Additionally, the results will be controlled by evaluation on passengers convenience
that is discussed in the next section (Level of Service).
2.2.1.3 Level of Service
In designing facilities for passengers, it is important to consider comfort level of
passengers. Passengers require enough space to stand and move in the queue
area. IATA proposed a method in determining service level of airport passenger
terminal based on six different levels of space provision as shown in Table 2-3.
Based on level of service stated in IATA document (1989), the space applied in this
project (1.1 square meters) is considered as level of service D. This condition is
acceptable for short periods.
12
On the other hand, according to Martel and Seneviratne (1990), in quality of

service analysis, the waiting time is the most important factor for passengers. The
survey has shown that 60 percent of the respondents feel that waiting time is the
most important variable
Figure 2-3
Passenger dimensions
(Source: Davis and Braaksma, 1988)
Table 2-3
Check-in area space standard (in square meter per occupant)
Level of
Service
Space per person

(square meter)
Description
1.8
Excellent level of comfort
1.6
High level of comfort
1.4
Related subsystems in balance
1.2
Conditions acceptable for short periods

of time
1.0
Limiting capacity of the system
<0.8
System breakdown
(Source: IATA in Subprasom, 2002)
Another important point is that perceived service time and waiting time tend to be
higher than the objective data. Yen (2001), presented that the actual and perceived
mean waiting time are 6.9 minute (coefficient of variation 0.70) and 9.1 minute
(coefficient of variation 0.83) respectively. The mean of actual and perceived service
13

time is 3.1 minute (coefficient of variation 0.65) and 10.6 minute (coefficient of
variation 1.17) respectively. These results indicate that the level of service measures
tend to be different depending on the measuring instrument utilized.
This project tries to incorporate the required space per passenger and waiting time
simultaneously. It means that the design aims to provide acceptable space with
optimum average waiting time.
2.2.2 Check-in Counters
Check-in counter is a stand up desk. There is a low shelf placed to the left and/or
right of the check-in counter to provide inlet for outbound baggage. Here the bags
are deposited, checked-in, tagged, and weighed. Afterwards, the baggage is
transported using conveyor belt near the counter to a location sorting outbound
baggage.
Check-in counters have two characteristics that may influence the design. These
characteristics are size and configuration. IATA reference manual (1989) provides
the size and configuration applied in this project. Some airports may have their own
furniture designs.
In addition, the number of check-in counters needs to be considered as well. The
small number of check-in counters for busy airports generates long queues and
waiting time. As a result, the airport must provide a wide area to accommodate the
long queue. It means the cost for queue area will increase.
The size and configuration, and the process in determination of the number of
check-in counters are described separately in this section.
2.2.2.1 Size and Configuration
The space for each counter must include the space for baggage handling as well.
The arrangement in handling the baggage depends on the counter configurations.
The baggage handling arrangement influences the location of weighing machine and
conveyor belt. Therefore, the space required for each counter depends on the type
of the counters.
There are two main types of check-in counter facilities: frontal, and island. These
two types of arrangement are shown in Figure 2-4. Frontal type counters are usually
placed along the wall. The arrangements of these counters could be uninterrupted or
separated. The uninterrupted arrangement is called linear type. Uninterrupted means
that the counters are arranged side by side. The separated arrangement is also
called pass through type. The space between the counters allows passengers to
walk through after check in.
The island type consists of number of counters in one location. This type of
counters usually consists of 10 15 individual counters. This number could be
doubled if the baggage conveyor belts installed are also doubled.
14
a.
Check-in desk
Conveyor belt and scale
Outbound conveyor belt
FRONTAL LINEAR
b.
Check-in desk
Underground
outbound
conveyor belt
Conveyor belt and

scale
Void
FRONTAL PASS-THROUGH
c.
Conveyor belt and scale
Check-in desk
Outbound +
underground
conveyor belt
Partition
ISLAND
Figure 2-4
Examples of check-in layouts (redraw not to be scaled)
15
Conveyor
Officer
Check-in
Passenger in service
Circulation area
Passenger finished
Passenger in queue
Arriving passenger
a. Linear type with multiple single-server queues
Outbound conveyor belt

Officer
Check-in desk
Passenger completing
service
Passenger in queue
Queue line
Passenger entering
system
b. Linear type with multiple servers queue
Figure 2-5
Linear type
The selection of the configuration of check-in counters depends on the design of
the terminal building and management of passenger flow. Figure 2-5 gives more
detail of linear type. The circulation area must be considered carefully since there
16
could be a conflict between flow of passengers waiting for service and passengers
completing service. The conflict for linear type with multiple single-server queues is
that passengers who complete the service may interfere with other passengers that
move forward to obtain the service. For linear type with multiple servers queue,
placing the outlet of the queue at the beginning of the counter desks and the outlet
for passengers completing service at the end of the chain of check in counters can
reduce the conflict. Therefore, the moving passengers for service will have the same
direction as passengers completing service. The problem arises if the vacant counter
is at the end of the counters group. This situation could increase the waiting time for
service since the passengers have to walk for a longer distance, i.e.: from the queue
area to the last counter. In this case, the number of multiple servers needs to be
carefully defined.
If the check-in counters arrangement selected is pass-through type, the conflict in
circulation area will not occur. In a pass-through type, after completing service,
passengers continue their departure process by passing through the check-in
counters. Figure 2-6 gives details of the pass-through arrangement. Based on this
situation, it is possible to reduce the circulation area for pass-through type. However,
this type requires more lateral space.
Passengers route after completing service

Passenger leave the system
Void
Conveyor belt
Officer
Check-in desk
Passengers in service
Passengers in queue
Figure 2-6
Pass-through type
The island type has the same problem as linear type in the circulation area. It is
important to have enough width and good circulation arrangement to avoid
congestion in this area, especially during peak periods.
17

For reference, Table 2-4 presents sizes of check-in counters obtained are from
Airport Terminal Reference Manual (1989) of IATA. This project adopted the checkin counter sizes as written in Table 2-4. However, the latest issue of IATA document
entitled Airport Development Reference Manual (2003) provides the sizes of checkin counter more detail as shown in Table 2-5.
Table 2-4
List of check-in counter types and sizes
Type
Pass-through
Linear
Island
Size
Width (m)
Length (m)
2.20
7.60
2.60
7.60
1.80
4.70
1.80
5.40
2.20
5.40
2.00
5.40
2.50
5.12
3.00
5.12
3.00
5.28
3.00
5.40
Table 2-5
List of check-in counter sizes (IATA, 2003 Used with permission)
18
Letters A, B,,V, denote as element of check-in counter general design

requirements. Those letters are shown in Figure 2-7.
Figure 2-7a
Detail requirements for check-in counter design top view,
section B-B and section C-C
(Source: IATA, 2003 - Used with permission)
19
Figure 2-7b
Detail requirements for check-in counter design section A-A
(Source: IATA, 2003 - Used with permission)
The length of the check-in counter includes the main conveyor and passenger
circulation space in front of the counter. The variation on the size for each type is
caused by different system characteristics applied to each check-in counter. Some
important characteristics are baggage handling mode (manual or automatic
transferring baggage to main conveyor), standing or sitting check-in agent, and easy
or difficult access to working position. Those system characteristics are not
considered in this project.
The optimum design of check-in area depends mainly on the number of required
counters. Details of this issue will be discussed in Chapter 7. The IATA method to
determine the number of check-in counters is presented in the next section.
2.2.2.2 Number of Check-in Counters

The number of check-in counters usually depends on the number of departure
passengers and the average processing time per passenger. The convenience of the
passengers in the check-in process should also be taken into account. Psychological
factor of the passengers is important. This factor is covered in the level of service
section (subsection 2.2.1.3). To calculate the number of check-in desks, IATA in
Airport Development Reference Manual (1989) gives the following formula:
20
N=
where:
( a + b )t
desks ( +10%)
60
(2-1)
N = number of desk required

a = peak hour number of originating passengers
b = number of transfer passengers not processed airside
t = average processing time per passenger (minutes)
This equation does not guarantee that the number of check-in desks provided will
meet the service standard. Service standard here is associated with the level of
service.
The number of check-in counters is considered to accommodate the maximum
queue. However, the airport management must consider the operational cost. To
provide the maximum service rate with minimal cost, in his article, Hon (1999)
presented an intelligent resource simulation system. This system allocates the
number of check-in counters efficiently to meet business demand. The system
considers a number of factors, such as different service rates for different
destinations, airlines, and handling agents; different passenger arrival rates for
different departure times; and different requirements service levels. These are the
benefit of this system,
Intelligent resource simulation system provides a progressive opening of service
counters instead of opening all the counters for the entire check-in period. It means
that the check-in officers are assigned to provide services based on certain period.
This scheduling depends on the arrival pattern of passengers at the counter. For
example, a counter profile of 8-10-12 means that eight counters are opened in the
first hour of operation, ten counters for the next hour, and twelve counters for the last
hour. During the implementation in Kai Tak airport, Hong Kong, this system claimed
to be able to save up to 40% of resources.
However, the intelligent resource simulation system requires the availability of
statistical data of the demand. Besides, there is no information regarding the
achieved level of service in this system. The author did not discuss whether the
system could be implemented during planning period of a new airport since the
available data at this stage is only forecast of total demands. It is important for the
planners to have a tool to calculate the number of check-in counters required to meet
a particular demand. This project includes the information regarding the number of
required counters to open at certain time. This information assists the airport
authority in using the progressive opening check-in counters.
Based on the review on some results from previous work, it is important to have
data related to the existing number of check-in counters in selected airports. This
project utilizes the data to validate the model results.
2.2.3 Service Time
The value of service time influences the number of check-in counters and required
space. The longer service time requires more space to accommodate queuing
passengers or requires more check-in counters to reduce the waiting time.
Some references provide the estimated values of service time and waiting time.
The literature suggests service time based on standards from aviation organizations,
21

economic point of view, interviews with passengers, and the measured actual
service time using objective instruments.
BAA and IATA provide design and service standard for departure passengers as
shown in Table 2-6.
The specified standards by BAA and IATA need to be investigated further. The
defined time standard may require a high cost. Omer and Khan (1988) investigated
the correlation between quality of service and cost. They illustrated the application
of utility and cost effectiveness theory. The authors adopted this theory to measure
user perceived level of service and establishes economical design criteria. They
suggested that the level of service that corresponds to the optimal alternative is the
best one for facility design. The optimal alternative is the option with the minimum
expected social cost.
Table 2-6
BAA and IATA service standard for check-in area
Indicator
Time standard
BAA
IATA
95% of passengers are 95% of passengers less

less than 3 minutes.
than 3 minutes
80% passengers less
than 5 minutes at peak
time
Allowable waiting time
10 min.
Not applicable
(Source: Ashford, 1988)
Park (1999) attempted to classify passenger perception of service level. The

classification is based on time spent at airport terminal processing facility. In
determination of this perception, he is using three linguistic identifiers. Those
identifiers are good, tolerable and bad applied to perception-response (P-R) model.
This methodology was applied at Kimpo International Airport, Seoul, Korea. The
results for check-in processing time for long haul journey are good for time spent
when the service is less than 13.5 minutes, tolerable for 13.5-22.5 minutes and bad
for service that more than 22.5 minutes.
The above references have considered in the effect of service times to the waiting
time. This project will also consider the social and construction cost related to the
service time as one component.
2.2.4 Queuing System
The queuing system is the last aspect considered in designing the check-in area
arrangement. The most common queuing systems in airport are multiple singleserver queues and multiple server queues. Sketches of these two queue systems
are available in Figure 2-5. Figure 2-5a represents multiple single-server queues.
This picture shows that the number of queue lines is the same as the number of
counters. Figure 2-5b is a sketch of multiple server queues. This type applies one
queue line to feed a number of counters.
22
As shown in Figure 2-5, the space required for these queue systems is different.
For multiple single-server queues, the width of the queue line will always be the
same as the width of the counter desk. This occurs since one queue line feeds one
server. The width for multiple server queues is the minimum possible queue line
width. This minimum queue width depends on the maximum width of passenger with
baggage. This difference may influence space required in check-in area. Discussion
regarding this is in Chapter 7.
The other thing that needs to be investigated is the queue discipline. The common
queue discipline applied in airport is first-in first-out (FIFO) or first-come first-served
(FCFS). This queue discipline is possible to apply if the queue system is multiple
server queues. For multiple single-server queues, passenger who come at t and join
the queue line number 1 will not always obtains service before passenger who come
at t+1 and join queue line number 2. This situation occurs since the passengers in
queue 1 may require longer service than passengers in queue 2 do. The queue
discipline will be discussed more in Chapter 5.
This project includes the queue system as one factor influencing the design of
check-in area arrangements. The queue system is the last factor in the list of
involved elements in this project.
2.3 EVALUATION OF EXISTING METHODS IN DETERMINATION OF SPACE
REQUIRED
The purpose of evaluation of the available methods is to understand the
characteristics of the available methods. The proposed method attempts to provide
alternative solution in determination of check-in space. The alternative is expected to
have an improvement compare to the existing method.
2.3.1.1 IATA method
IATA in its Airport Terminal Reference Manual (1989) gives a formula to calculate
the space for queuing area in square meters. The formula is:
A= s x
20 3(a +b)
(a +b) = 0.25(a +b) .

x
60 2
(2-2)
Where a = peak hour number of originating passengers

b = number of transfer passenger not processed airside
s = required space per passenger
It is assumed that s = 1.5 square metres. This fits to the assumption that separation
between check in counters (also the queue width) is average 1.9 metres and lateral
space requirement per passenger is 0.8 metres (Note: 1.9 x 0.8 = 1.5 square
metres).
It is assumed that 50% of peak hour passengers arrive within the first 20 minutes.
However, the number of passengers could be more than this estimate. Therefore
additional 10% of space is allowed as a general rule when calculating the space.
This correction factor may vary depend on local conditions.
The space required per passenger in equation 2-2 is different from suggested
values in Table 2-2. There is no further information regarding this difference. The
23

space in Table 2-2 may have adopted different queue width or used different level of
service.
2.3.1.2 Other Methods
As mentioned earlier, some organizations suggested personal space based on the
six levels of service. On the other hand, FAA and Horonjeff proposed a method
based on the queue length, number of servers, service rate and spacing between
queuing passengers. Parson (in Ashford, 1984) recommended required space based
on aircraft mix by making use of the charts. The required space for passengers
depends on the occupancy rate (Seneviratne and Martel (1995)). Subprasom et al
(2002) introduce the most recent method. Their method considers cost of
constructing facility, cost of operation and maintenance, and user costs.
The total space in check-in counter consists of space for passengers and for the
counters. The method only estimates the space for passengers in queue. IATA
(1989) also provides the formula for estimating the number of servers required
(equation 2-1) and sizes of the counters (Table 2-4). The separation in estimating the
facility may present the required space, since elements in check-in area influence
each other.
The previous methods available also do not consider the influence of queue
system. From the explanation at section 2.2.4 regarding the queue system, it is clear
that different queue systems could be lead to different space requirements.
At this stage, aspects in check-in area and the limitation of the available methods
also have been identified. To avoid an overestimate in designing the check-in area
arrangement, this project tries to develop the proposed method.
2.4 SUMMARY
The project proposes a method to determine space requirement at airport check-in
areas. This project is approached in three steps, i.e.: pre-modeling, modeling and
evaluation of case studies. The pre-modeling step comprises two stages, i.e.:
making a list of involved elements and evaluation of the existing methods. The
elements considered are passengers, check-in counters, service time, and queue
systems.
It is important to observe passenger characteristics in order to avoid over
estimation of the checking area. The check-in counter arrangements may influence
the queue system applied and the passenger circulation process. Passengers
require different service times regarding the check-in process. This project will
investigate the sensitivity of service time value to the design (section 7.6).
Some references are cited to show that all elements have been considered
properly. Modeling and evaluation steps have been briefly discussed. These steps
are presented in detail in separate chapters in Chapters 5, 6 and 7.
24
DATA
COLLECTION
3.1 INTRODUCTION
As stated in previous chapters, this project requires data about demand;

number and type of available servers, applied service time, and implemented
queue system. This chapter presents the process of data collection, airports
selected to be investigated, and data presentation as data entry for the propose
model.
Data required for this project were received from five different airports. Field
surveys were not performed due to limitations on time and funds. This type of
surveys requires large number of surveyors to record the time of arriving
passengers and follow their progress until the passengers finish check-in
process. Field surveys are not possible to conduct since in each state, usually,
has only one international airport. To be able to model the check-in process,
data from different airports are preferred.
Data collection process involves three activities. Those are correspondences
with organizations related to air transport, browse through airport websites and
contact airport authorities. Organizations related to this project are International
Air Transport Association (IATA), Federal Aviation Administration (FAA),
International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO), and Airport Council
International (ACI).
IATA was the organization that provided information regarding the earliness
arrival distribution, check-in counters arrangement, and formulae for estimating
check-in space and number of required servers in its Airport Terminal
Reference Manual. This manual has been renewed with new edition entitled
Airport Development Reference Manual (2003). It was speculated that IATA
also has other required elements for this project. However, IATA was unable to
provide relevant documents. However, IATA made an annual report available
for this project. Unfortunately, information contained in the annual report was
insufficient.
Some research reports about similar issues have quoted several documents
from FAA regarding check-in area arrangements. FAA was contacted to obtain
25
3 Data Collection
the documents entitled Terminal Design Advisory Circular. Unfortunately, the

documents were still under revision during the period of this project.
ICAO was also contacted to obtain documents related to the project. ICAO
also did not have the required information. However, ICAO suggested
contacting ACI, which has documents on quality of service at airports. The
document entitled Quality of Service at Airports: Standards and Measurements;
contains measurements of airport quality of service. The document also
includes passenger preference regarding waiting time.
In order to obtain the necessary data, some airport websites were explored
and contacted the airport authorities. Not all airports responded. The
responded airports are Birmingham (UK), Brisbane (Australia), Brussels
(Belgium), Calgary (Canada), Hong Kong (China), Melbourne (Australia), and
Orlando (USA). Those airports, except Brussels, provided flight schedule
information instead of demand profile. However, flight schedules from Calgary
airport were in Gantt chart form and unclear to read. Therefore, Calgary airport
was excluded from the analysis presented later. Brussels airport provided its
annual report for year 1999.
The other data provided are number of servers, type of check-in desks, type
of queue system, average service time, and number of advised to passengers
hours to do their check-in. These data are presented in Section 3.3. This
additional information is retrieved from correspondences with the airport
planners in each airport. General information of selected airports is given in the
next section.
3.2 GENERAL INFORMATION
This section presents brief information about airports selected. The

description covers location of those airports, the size, and some passenger
demand information. Not all airport websites deliver complete information.
Table 3-1 presents comparison of information regarding all airports selected in
one table.
3.2.1 Birmingham International Airport (UK)
Birmingham International Airport (BIA) is the 5th busiest airport in UK. The
airport is situated 13 km (8 miles) southeast of Birmingham city center.
Transport modes available to the airport are train, bus, coach, car, and taxi.
Birmingham airport was opened in year 1939 and it became an international
airport in 1984. In year 2001, BIA handled 7.8 millions passengers. BIA serves
110 destinations offered by 40 airlines. Most of the destinations are in Europe
and North America. The IATA code for this airport is BHM.
Check-in desks for Birmingham airport is not merely for International
passengers. International, Domestic and Common Travel passengers use the
desks. Common travel passengers are frequent travelers that use charter
flights. A CUTE (common user terminal equipment - ARINC) system operates
26
at this airport, which makes it possible for all desks to be used by all categories
of passengers. The total area of departure concourse is 2088 sqm.
More information on BIA is available in its website: www.bhx.co.uk
3.2.2 Brisbane International Airport (Australia)
Brisbane airport is located 20 minutes drive (13 km) from the CBD. Coach, taxi,
and train are ground transportation alternatives to the airport. The airport size is
2,700 ha, which is three times larger than the Sydney airport (Australia). There
are 27 international airlines serving Brisbane airport. In 1998, there were 2.5
million international passengers and 10.5 million domestic passengers. The
forecast for year 2018, the total passengers, including international, domestic,
regional, are 33 million. The airport operates 24 hours a day.
The IATA code for this airport is BNE.
Information on Brisbane International Airport was available from the last
update of its website in 1999. The website is www.brisbaneairport.com.au.
3.2.3 Hong Kong International Airport (China)
Passengers from China and Asia have voted Hong Kong International Airport
as the best airport in year 2002. The airport is located in an island, 25 km west
of Hong Kong city; 23 minutes drive from downtown. Transportation links to the
airport are ferry, public busses, coach, taxi, hotel limousine, and private car.
The airport is able to handle maximum 49 movements (aircraft take off and
landing) per hour. The airport was designed to handle 87 millions passengers
per year and 13,680 pieces of baggage per hour at its peak usage in future.
The current capacity of the airport has been increased from 35 millions to 45
millions passengers. In 2000, the airport handled 34 millions passengers.
The Hong Kong airport provides nine check-in islands with 288 desks. The
target of the airport operator was passenger check-in in less than 30 minutes.
The airport operator claimed that arriving passengers can clear immigration
within 10 minutes.
The IATA code for Hong Kong airport is HKG.
For more information, visit the website of Hong Kong airport authority:
www.hkairport.com
3.2.4 Melbourne International Airport (Australia)
Melbourne airport is located 22 km northwest of the CBD. The airport can be

reached by car, taxi, and bus. The airport serves 22 international airlines and 3
domestic airlines. In 2001, this airport served 3.36 million international
passengers. To provide a good service, the airport authority has 88 check-in
desks and a 2800 square meters of check-in area.
The IATA code for this airport is MEL.
27
3 Data Collection
The website for more information is: www.melboune-airport.com.au
3.2.5 Orlando International Airport (USA)
Orlando International Airport is the third largest airport in the USA. It is located
in State of Florida. The passengers can reach the airport using rental cars, bus,
taxi, and shuttle bus. The airport is able to serve 72,000 passengers per day, or
more than 31 millions passengers per year. At the present, the airport handles
about 26 millions passengers per year. The area of the terminal building is
about 0.4 million square meters (4.5 million sqft).
The airport website:
additional information.
www.orlandoairports.net:/goaa/main.htm
offers
Orlando airport applies a system that is commonly used. International flights

are assigned a certain number of positions based on aircraft size. For example,
a narrow body and a wide body are assigned 2 and 4 positions (check-in
desks) respectively. Area for check-in desks and queuing available varies
depending on the airline. The majority of airlines operate a "snake-line" to
queue passengers. The snake line system is a line curved around several
times with stanchions to reduce the space occupied by the queuing
passengers. The snake line is the same system as multiple server queue
system (Figure 2-5). The length of the queue is built around the number of
check-in counters, which gives more space for larger aircraft. The queues are
generally 1.06 m (42 inches) wide. Each ticket counter desk is approximately
1.36 m (4 ft) wide. The length is generally 5.44 m (16 ft) from the desk to the
beginning of the queue.
3.3 INPUT DATA FOR THE PROPOSED MODEL
As mentioned earlier, flight schedules are adopted as data input in the

proposed model. The flight schedules provide information regarding departure
times and aircraft type. The aircraft type is useful since it describes the
passenger capacity. Table 3-2 presents an example of flight schedules. In this
table, the aircraft types are indicated by the capacity of respective aircraft.
Departure times shown in this flight schedules is utilized to derive passenger
arrival distribution. To do this process, this project adopts the earliness arrival
of IATA, as mentioned in Section 2.2.1.1 and Figure 2.2. Next chapter explains
more detail regarding the computation process of arrival distribution.
Data shown in Table 3-2 is from Birmingham airport for international
departures for summer 2001. Data presented in this table is organized the
same way as the input interface that will be explained later in conjunction with
the model. The first column (column A) shows the sequence number of the
schedule. Column B is the destination. In this column, one destination could
have more than one schedule since different airlines have different departure
times. The aim of the numbering of destinations is to distinguish each dispatch.
28
Table 3-1 General information of the selected airports

Detail
Birmingham
Brisbane
Melbourne
Year built
Location
13 km South East the city
Access modes
train, bus, coach, car, taxi,

coach, taxi, train
hire car
2088 sqm (departure
concourse)
2700 ha
1255 ha
2369 ha
1939
1964
1998
1970
1984
1995
1998
7.8 million (2001), 8 million 2.5 million (international), 34 million in 2002 (expected 45 3.36 million
million, ultimate 87 million)
(2002)
(international), 13.56
10.5 million (domestic) -
Terminal area
Airport area
Service commenced
International open
Volume (passengers/year)
Number of airlines served

Traffic volume
40
250 Air Traffic Movement/day,
Awards
19,000 passengers/day
-Best UK Bussiness Airport in
2000 (4 times in 6 years)
1925
13 km from CBD
Airport
Hong Kong (Chek Lap Kok)
in year 1998
27
-
-Most Improved Airport Runner up at The global

Airport
Service
Exelence
Award, November 2001
-Best Bussiness Terminus- 5
times in 9 years (in UK), 2002
Orlando
1989
in an island, 25 km West of Hong 25 km from city centre, 30
Kong city, 23 minutes from down minutes by car
town
ferry, public buses, taxi, coach,
car, taxi, bus
rental car, bus, taxi,
hotel limousine, private car
shutle bus
0.4 million sqm
-
60
49 Air Traffic Movements per
hour
6075 ha
1970
1976
26.750 million
million (domestic) in 2002

31
49
187Air Traffic Movement 790 Air Traffic Movement
per day
per day
-Best Airport, voted by TTG Asia -Top 10 World Airport by

and TTG China, October 2002
Bussiness Traveller
Magazine,
2000,1999,1998,1997,19
96
- Eagle Award from IATA, June -Victorian Tourism Award
2002
Hall of Fame, 2000
-Number
One
in
Passengers Satisfaction
voted
by
Frequent
Travellers,
November
2000
- Merit Award for Exellence from -Australian

Tourism
AVSECO
at
Edith
Cowan Award, 2000, 1998
University in Perth, June 2002
-World's Best Airport 2002, voted
by passengers around the world.
-Cargo Airport of The YearJanuary 2002, by London based
Air Cargo News
Website
www.bhx.co.uk
www.brisbaneairport.com. www.hkairport.com
www.melbourneairport.com.au
www.orlandoairports.net/
goaa/main.htm
29
3 Data Collection
Table 3-2 Data example.

A
B
2 NO.
DESTINATION
3
4
1 Aberdeen1
5
2 Aberdeen2
6
3 Aberdeen3
7
4 Aberdeen4
8
5 Aberdeen5
9
6 Alicante
10
7 Amsterdam1
11
8 Amsterdam2
12
9 Amsterdam3
13 10 Amsterdam4
14 11 Amsterdam5
15 12 Amsterdam6
16 13 Amsterdam7
17 14 Amsterdam8
18 15 Amsterdam9
19 16 Amsterdam10
20 17 Amsterdam11
21 18 Amsterdam12
22 19 Amsterdam13
23 20 Amsterdam14
24 21 Arrecife
25 22 Ashkhabad
26 23 Barcelona
215
216
217
218
219
220
221
222
223
224
225
226
30
A
212
213
214
215
216
217
218
219
220
221
222
223
B
Tenerife2
Toronto1
Toronto2
Toulouse1
Toulouse2
Vienna1
Vienna2
Vienna3
Zurich1
Zurich2
Zurich3
Zurich4
C
D
E
PASSENGERS
100% 80%
1
70
56 8:45
70
56
70
56
70
56 15:10
70
56 18:30
130 104
95
76 6:10
130 104 6:45
95
76 8:15
78
62
130 104 10:45
95
76 10:55
78
62
78
62 12:30
95
76 12:35
95
76 15:00
130 104
95
76 17:50
78
62
95
76 19:10
185 148
185 148 18:20
124
99 10:35
C
185
185
250
78
71
78
78
78
44
50
50
50
F
G
H
I
J
DAY DEPARTURE & TIME
2
3
4
5
6
8:45 8:45 8:45 8:45
K
7
10:10
13:15
15:10 15:10 15:10 15:10
18:30 18:30 18:30 18:30
6:10
6:45
8:15
6:10
6:45
8:15
6:10
6:45
8:15
10:45 10:45 10:45

10:55 10:55 10:55
12:30 12:30 12:30
15:00 15:00 15:00
17:50 17:50 17:50
18:05
16:00
6:10 6:10 6:10
6:45
8:15 8:15 8:15
10:15
10:45
10:55 10:55 10:55
12:05
12:30
12:35 12:35
15:00 15:00 15:00
16:30
17:50
17:50
18:10
19:10
19:10
19:10 19:10 19:10

9:25
9:30 12:00
17:45
10:35 10:35 10:35 10:35 10:35 10:35
D
E
F
G
H
I
J
K
148
19:40
148
8:10
200
12:55
62 9:55 9:55 9:55 9:55 9:55
57
14:30
62 8:40 8:40 8:40 8:40 8:40 8:40
62
12:15
62 14:40 14:40 14:40 14:40 14:40
35 7:00 7:00 7:00 7:00 7:00 7:00
40 10:15 10:15 10:15 10:15 10:15
40 15:50 15:50 15:50 15:50 15:50
15:50
40
15:50
Column C indicates the capacity of the aircraft. In reality, seldom the

aircraft flies with a full capacity or 100% of seats occupied. For this reason,
the number of passenger per aircraft is factored by 80% as seen in column
D. This is a constant selected for passenger load factor. In real situation, the
passenger load factor is likely to be variable. The process of changing the
number of passengers based on load factor is automatically done in the
computer model. The user is only required to fill the 100% capacity.
However, if the user has a different assumption, the load factor can be
changed.
The columns E to K describe the departure time for each day. The
columns are sub headed by numbers from 1 to 7. 1 means Monday, 2
means Tuesday, and so on. Thus, 7 means Sunday. These days represent
departure day. This information is useful to shows that each day has a
different distribution of time.
The flight schedule is stored in spreadsheet form. The computer program
makes use of Excel functions to estimate passenger arrival distribution that
match the aircraft schedule given as input. Details of passenger distribution
estimation is presented in the next chapter.
The other data acquired from airports are average service time, number of
check-in desks, queue system, and number of hours advised to allow for
passengers. These are summarized in Table 3-3.
Table 3-3
Queue Data Summary
N/A
Number of
Hours
Allowed to
Check-in
2:15
N/A
N/A
3:18
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
Pass
through
Snake line
4:30
2 to 3
Airport
Number of
Check-in
Desks
Type of
Check-in
Desks
Queue
System
Birmingham
70
Brisbane
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
Hong Kong
288
N/A
Melbourne
88
Orlando
N/A
Average
Service
Time
(min:sec)
2:10
3.4 SUMMARY
A data collection process is followed to understand system properties that

could be input to the proposed model. During this process, air transport
organizations were contacted. These organizations were IATA, FAA, ICAO
and ACI. The data collection process also contained exploring airport
websites. In addition, e-mail correspondence were made with the airport
authorities.
Data obtained from the airports are flight schedules, service time, number
of check-in counters, type of the check-in desk, and queue system applied.
31
3 Data Collection
The flight schedules provide information about aircraft type and aircraft
departure time. The aircraft type provided an indication of the capacity of the
aircraft. Aircraft capacity and load factor concept was applied to determine
the number of departing passengers. From departure time and number of
departing passengers, the frequency distribution for passenger arrivals can
be derived by adopting IATA earliness distribution. The proposed software
program for this purpose is presented in the next chapter.
32
Estimation of
Arrival
Distribution
4.1 INTRODUCTION
The proposed model requires data input related to passenger arrival. Data collection
process presented in the previous chapter has shown that information regarding the
passenger arrival is unlikely to be readily available. To have this information, the
project decided to synthesize passenger distribution in realistic ways. This chapter
discusses the process of estimating the passenger arrival distribution.
As explained in Section 2.2.1, IATA gives an example of arrival earliness
distribution (refer to Figure 2.2). The figure shows the percentage of passengers that
arrives at a particular time before scheduled departure time. The available data is
about flight schedules as presented in Table 3-2, and the advised number of hours
for check-in (Table 3-3). To determine the initial time passengers start to arrive for a
particular departure flight, this project adopts the advised number of hours for checkin as a reference. This reference is significant since the IATA pattern of arrival
distribution is for domestic passengers, which has a different initial time of passenger
arrival. More detail concerning this initial time is available in section 4.3. Based on
this concept, distribution of each schedule is developed by applying the IATA
pattern. The following sections explain details of this transformation process.
To explain the transformation process, this chapter starts with the concept of the
process. This chapter also reviews the IATA pattern and supporting references to
have a better understanding regarding this earliness distribution. Following this
review is a section describing program development to accommodate the process of
spreading passengers of each scheduled flight to an arrival distribution. Explanation
regarding program execution is available in a subsequent section. The last section
presents synthesized passenger arrival distribution estimated in this project.
4.2 THE CONCEPT
The basic concept in estimating passenger arrival distribution is transforming the
available passenger count data into a description of demand profile. As mentioned
before, important factors regarding the passenger arrival distribution are flight
schedule and number of hours advised for check-in. The flight schedules provide
information about departure time and aircraft type for each scheduled dispatch. The
33
4 Estimation of Arrival Distribution
aircraft type gives an indication of the seat capacity. The flight schedules can be
now written in a slightly different format as shown in top left corner of Figure 4.1.
The earliness distribution obtained from IATA is referred to here as the IATA
pattern. An example of the IATA pattern is at the lower left hand side of Figure 4.1.
The number of passengers for each flight schedule then is drawn out according to
the IATA pattern to obtain passenger arrival distribution. In distributing passengers, it
is important to link the departure time to the appropriate pattern. As shown in Figure
4-2, there are three different patterns depending on the time of day. Arrival
distributions for all scheduled flights during the day are distributed and summed up to
obtain the daily passenger distribution. The program computes the average of
passenger arrival distribution at a particular time for a particular airport after
obtaining all daily distributions over the week,
DESTINATION
NUMBER OF
PASSENGERS
DEPARTURE
TIME
Aberdeen
56
15:10
Amsterdam
76
6:10
Barcelona
99
10:35
Flight Schedules
300
250
200
150
100
50
23:20
21:40
20:00
18:20
16:40
15:00
13:20
11:40
8:20
10:00
6:40
5:00
3:20
1:40
0
0:00
Number of Passengers
Monday
Time arrival
Percentage
Arrival Earliness Distribution
Passenger Arrival Distribution
30%
25%
20%
15%
10%
5%
0%
-2:50
-2:40
-2:30
-2:20
-2:10
-2:00
-1:50
-1:40
-1:30
-1:20
-1:10
-1:00
Arrival time (minutes) before departure flight
Earliness Distribution
Figure 4-1
Methodology of synthesizing passenger arrival distribution
4.3 IATA DISTRIBUTION OF ARRIVAL EARLINESS
IATA, in Airport Terminal Reference Manual (1989), provides an example pattern of
arrival earliness at check-in as shown in Table 4-1 and Figure 4-2. Figure 4-2 is a
reproduction of Figure 2-2 for convenience of reading this chapter. Table 4-1 shows
the passenger flow rate at check-in desks. The tabulation provides arriving
passengers at intervals of ten minutes before departure time. The table also shows
that the pattern will be different depending on the time of day. There are three
34
different periods applied, i.e.: from 06.00 to 10.00, 10.00 to 18.00, and 18.00 to
24.00. For example, for a flight scheduled at 11.10, the pattern adopted is the one
that is valid for period from 10.00 to 18.00. The table does not provide a pattern for
flights scheduled in the 00.00 to 06.00 period. The pattern for this period is assumed
to be same as the 06.00-10.00 pattern.
Table 4-1
IATA pattern of arrival earliness
Percentage arrival of passengers at the check-in counters by

10 minutes periods prior to flight departure
Time of
day
120- 110- 100- 90- 80- 70- 60110 100 90 80 70 60 50
5040
4030
30- 20- 1020 10 0
06.0010.00
10
20
26
20
12
10.0018.00
18.0024.00
11
15
17
18
15
10
11
14
15
15
15
30%
Percentage
25%
0:00
20%
6:00
15%
10:00
10%
18:00
5%
0%
-2:50
-2:40
-2:30
-2:20
-2:10
-2:00
-1:50
-1:40
-1:30
-1:20
-1:10
-1:00
Figure 4-2
IATA arrival earliness distribution
The arrival pattern in Table 4-1 and Figure 4-2 is for a domestic flight. The figure
shows that the last passenger arrives 10 to 20 minutes before departure time. This
situation is impractical for international flights since international flights require longer
processing times. Thus, this project adjusts the available distribution.
Ashford (1984) presented the comparison of passenger arrival. There is a
difference of passenger arrival earliness for international and domestic flights.
According to Ashford, for international flights, the last passengers should arrive 60
minutes before departure time. For domestic flights, the passengers may arrive
much later. Passengers for international flights are required to arrive early since
there is further processing such as immigration checks. In some countries,
35
passengers may be also required to pay certain charges and duties. There could be
also quarantine and customs checks in some regions.
In Table 4-1, the last passengers arrive at 10 20 minutes before departure time.
That was for a domestic flight. To prepare the distribution for an international flight,
the program shifts the passenger flow rates by an amount of 40 minutes earlier to
these times. These shifts are applied to all periods as shown in Table 4-2 and Figure
4-3.
This project converts the flight schedule data presented in Table 3-2 to passenger
arrival distribution with the patterns presented in Figure 4-3.
Table 4-2
Adjusted times of departing international passenger arrival pattern
Period
After
0:00
6:00
10:00
18:00
-2:50
0%
0%
0%
0%
-2:40
0%
0%
0%
3%
-2:30
0%
0%
1%
4%
-2:20
1%
1%
3%
6%
-2:10
2%
2%
8%
9%
Time before departure

-2:00 -1:50 -1:40
6%
10%
20%
6%
10%
20%
11%
15%
17%
11%
14%
15%
-1:30
26%
26%
18%
15%
-1:20
20%
20%
15%
15%
-1:10
12%
12%
10%
7%
-1:00
3%
3%
2%
1%
-0:50
0%
0%
0%
0%
-0:40
0%
0%
0%
0%
30%
Percentage
25%
0:00
6:00
10:00
18:00
20%
15%
10%
5%
0%
-2:50
-2:40
-2:30
-2:20
-2:10
-2:00
-1:50
-1:40
-1:30
-1:20
-1:10
-1:00
Figure 4-3
Adjusted patterns of arrival of international passengers
4.4 PASSENGER DISTRIBUTION PROGRAM DEVELOPMENT
This computer program is aimed to compute the appropriate passenger arrival
distribution. The program is developed by utilizing excel spreadsheet functions. The
program consists of 5 worksheets: Arrival distribution, Input data, Daily distribution,
Summarize, and Chart. The Arrival distribution worksheet contains the shifted IATA
pattern as shown in Table 4-2. The Input data worksheet accommodates the flight
schedule data as presented in Table 3-2. The Daily distribution worksheet is
designed to facilitate the distribution process. The Summarize worksheet
accommodates results after averaging process for the whole week. The last
worksheet is the Chart worksheet that pictures the passenger distribution. Figure 4-5
describes the process.
The process starts with application of the appropriate earliness pattern for each
flight schedule. After all scheduled flight departures in a particular day have been
converted to passenger arrival patterns, the next step is summation of the number of
passengers at a particular time. Sub section 4.4.3 explains this process in more
36
detail. The daily summary accommodates the totals of passengers arrival in each
time in a day (sub section 4.4.4). The average of those results is determined by
completing the daily processes for a week.
The program developed can be applicable to any airport as the flight schedules
from any airport can be loaded into the Input data worksheet. In addition, the
earliness distribution may follow the trend at a particular airport if such information is
already available. These points are explained more detail in the discussions of each
worksheet.
Flight schedules
Find appropriate pattern
Sum up the total passengers at

a particular time increment
Daily process
Place the results in daily

summary
Repeat for a week

Determine the average count of
passengers at a particular time
Final process
Figure 4-4
Flow chart in preparing passenger arrival distribution
4.4.1 Arrival Distribution Worksheet
The Arrival distribution worksheet is designed to accommodate the arrival earliness
patterns. Table 4-2 is an example of the arrival earliness distribution used in this
worksheet. Table 4-3 presents a similar table as Table 4-2, but in worksheet format.
Column A in Table 4-3 represents the start time of the departure period for each
pattern. Column B is the pattern number. The pattern number represents a different
pattern depending on the time of day. The aim of this numbering is to simplify the
program when selecting the corresponding pattern. The fourth row of columns C to P
indicates hours and minutes before departure time. The fifth row to the eighth row
and columns C to P, show the percentage of passengers arrival. Zero percent
means that no passengers arrive at this particular time.
37
The values in table 4-3, i.e.: the period, the time before departure, and percentage,
can be modified depending on the planner knowledge. The important thing is that the
total of each row for columns C to P add up to 100%.
Table 4-3
Arrival distribution worksheet
A
4
5
6
7
8
-1:30
26%
26%
18%
15%
-1:20
20%
20%
15%
15%
-1:10
12%
12%
10%
7%
-1:00
3%
3%
2%
1%
-0:50
0%
0%
0%
0%
-0:40
0%
0%
0%
0%
Time before departure
Period
After #Tbl
0:00
1
6:00
2
10:00
3
18:00
4
-2:50
0%
0%
0%
0%
-2:40
0%
0%
0%
3%
-2:30
0%
0%
1%
4%
-2:20
1%
1%
3%
6%
-2:10
2%
2%
8%
9%
-2:00
6%
6%
11%
11%
-1:50
10%
10%
15%
14%
-1:40
20%
20%
17%
15%
100%
100%
100%
100%
4.4.2 Input Data Worksheet

This worksheet (Table 4-4 column A, B, and C) contains the same table as Table
3-2. This worksheet is assigned to accommodate the flight schedule. In this
worksheet, the occupancy level per aircraft (column C) can be changed depending
on the planner assumptions. The program adopts flight schedule in this worksheet
to obtain daily passenger distribution. The passenger distribution is processed in the
next worksheet.
4.4.3 Daily Worksheet
The daily worksheet facilitates the passenger arrival distribution for one day. Table
4-4 shows the heading lines of this worksheet and a single row (row 183) related the
Munich flight. This example is for day 6 (cell D3), Saturday.
For example, flight to Munich (row 183) departs on Saturday at 6:40. The number
of passengers in this flight is 57 passengers. Arrival passenger distribution for this
particular flight follows the second pattern of arrival earliness pattern (refer to Table
4-3). The passenger arrival distribution (cells AV183 to BD183) shows that
passengers start to arrive at 4:20 and the last passenger arrives at 5:40, one hour
before departure time. The number of passengers at a particular time follows the
percentage given in the corresponding pattern (pattern number 2 in this example or
cell E183).
Table 4-4
Example for passenger arrival distribution
A
B
1
2 No.
DESTINATION
3
183 180 Munich1
PASS. DAY Tbl

80%
6
57 6:40 2
F
5263
AR
0
AV
14
AW
30
AX
49
AY
76
AZ
100
BA
108
BB
99
BC
84
BD
70
BE
73
BF
78
5263
57
3:40
3:50
0
4:00
0
4:10
0
4:20
1
4:30
1
4:40
3
4:50
6
5:00
11
5:10
15
5:20
11
5:30
7
5:40
2
5:50
0
6:00
0
AS
AT
AU
Table 4-5 shows a larger portion of this worksheet. This has columns up to FI, and
goes up to row 226. The large table is expected to accommodate all flights and their
passengers.
38
Columns A C are the same as in Table 3-2 These columns are aimed to
accommodate all available flight schedules in a particular airport. Thus, during the
program execution, the user does not have to repeatedly input the schedules.
Column D shows the departure time for each destination in a particular day. Cell D3
is the day number. Day number corresponds to day of the week as mentioned in
section 4.3. This number can be changed from the Summarize worksheet to select a
different day.
Table 4-5
Daily distribution
A
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
221
222
223
224
225
226
N o.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
A
218
219
220
221
222
223
D E S T IN A T IO N
A berd een 1
A berd een 2
A berd een 3
A berd een 4
A berd een 5
A lic a n te
A m s te r d a m 1
A m s te r d a m 2
B
V ien n a 2
V ien n a 3
Z u rich 1
Z u rich 2
Z u rich 3
Z u rich 4
C
PASS.
80%
56
56
56
56
56
104
76
104
D
DAY
6
T bl
F
5263
5263
1 3 :1 0
1 6 :0 0
6 :1 0
3
2
D
62
62
35
40
40
40
7 :0 0
1 5 :5 0
FF
FI
T IM E
-2 :3 0
-2 :2 0
2 3 :2 0
2 3 :3 0
2 3 :4 0
2 3 :5 0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
G
0
0
35
0
0
39
FH
0
0
56
0
0
104
77
0
FG
FF
FG
FH
FI
The time in column D is rounded down to the nearest ten minutes. This is applied
to this column to simplify the distribution process since the earliness distributions are
in ten-minute intervals. The time shown in this column is only the schedules for the
corresponding day. In other words, blank cells mean no scheduled flights for those
destinations on that day.
Column E is for the earliness pattern number. The pattern number shown in the
column means that the flight schedule is distributed according to the corresponding
pattern in the Arrival Distribution worksheet. For example, if in column D the time
shown is 6:10, the distribution pattern in column E is pattern number 2 (refer to Table
4-3). The computer executes the pattern number selection automatically. In other
words, this worksheet has been programmed to select the pattern based on the
departure time.
The total number of passengers for each destination is in column F. The figure in
column F will be generally the same as the figure in column C. The value in these
two columns could be different because of rounding down in the distribution process.
Besides, the figure in column F will be zero if there is no flight in the day observed.
The total number of passengers of the particular day is shown in two places in cells
F1 and F3. Cell F1 is for the total number in the first row, cell F3 is for the total
number in column F. These two cells are there for cross checking the total number of
passengers. The matrix in cells from G4 to FI 226 is allocated to accommodate the
passenger distribution.
39
Cells G3 to FI3 are arrival time before scheduled departure. The number of
passengers from all flights at a particular time is summed up here. This total number
of passengers at a specified time is placed in the first row from cell G1 to FI 1. This
process is explained in section 4.5.
4.4.4 Summarize Worksheet
The Summarize worksheet as shown in Table 4-6 contains the results of daily
distributions of passengers as presented in the Daily worksheet. In other words, the
values in cells G1FI1 in the Daily worksheet (Table 4-5) are copied to the
Summarize worksheet automatically. This worksheet presents the distributions of
each day of the week, the total passengers and the average passenger arrivals at
each time interval. The average passenger arrival at each time interval will be
adopted as the input for the proposed model.
Column A in Table 4-6 is arrival time sampled at 10 minute intervals. Column B is
the sum of passenger arrival for the whole week per corresponding time interval.
Columns C to I are to accommodate daily distribution of passengers from the Daily
worksheet. Column J is a temporary column used to obtain results from the daily
distribution worksheet. The result of daily distribution from a particular day can be
obtained by changing cell J3 manually into the number of the day required. Cell J3 is
the key in the distribution process of the entire program execution.
Cells K4 to K18 represent the number of passengers who arrived at the day before
a particular day. These cells are set aside since for some airports there are a
number of flights that depart few minutes after midnight. Passengers on these flights
must arrive around two hours before departure time. This means that passengers
arrive on the day before the departure day. If the day number in cell J3 is 6, then K3
will shows the day before or 5. The values in cells K4 to K18 will be the same as J4
to J18.
Cells L148 to R162 facilitate the summation of the total passenger arrival in period
21:30 to 23:50 and in period -2:30 to -0:10. This means that passengers who arrive
and depart in day a will be added to passengers who arrive in day a but depart in
day a+1. After all cells are filled, these cells are copied and pasted to appropriate
cells in columns C to I.
The Summarize worksheet also prepares another table placed on the right-hand
side of Table 4-6 in column T. This column is provided to calculate the average
number of passengers in a week. This is shown in Table 4-7. The average value is
adopted as data input for the model developed in this project. The average values
here are from time 0:00 to 23:50 as shown in Table 4-7. The average value is
expected to be a representative value for the number of passenger arrivals over the
whole week.
Tables 4-6 and 4-7 show a small part of the entire worksheet. The length of the
table is the same as Table 4-4.
40
Table 4-6
Summarize Worksheet
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
I
J
D ay
1
T em p
2 SU M
66856 10254 10180 10567 11450 11003 5263 8139 5263
3
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
6
T im e
SU M
4
-2 :3 0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
5
-2 :2 0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
6
-2 :1 0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
7
-2 :0 0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
8
-1 :5 0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
9
-1 :4 0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
10
-1 :3 0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
11
-1 :2 0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
12
-1 :1 0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
13
-1 :0 0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
14
-0 :5 0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
15
-0 :4 0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
16
-0 :3 0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
17
-0 :2 0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
18
-0 :1 0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
19
0 :0 0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
20
0 :1 0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
21
0 :2 0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
22
0 :3 0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
23
0 :4 0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
24
0 :5 0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
87
88
89
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
97
98
99
A
11:20
11:30
11:40
11:50
12:00
12:10
12:20
12:30
12:40
12:50
13:00
13:10
13:20
B
445
408
425
551
684
835
893
917
926
903
724
644
563
C
65
56
60
82
104
130
140
145
148
146
119
105
90
D
57
54
60
82
104
130
140
145
148
146
119
105
90
E
93
84
80
86
104
130
140
145
148
146
119
105
90
F
57
54
60
82
104
130
140
145
148
146
119
105
90
G
65
56
60
82
104
130
140
145
148
146
119
105
90
H
52
53
53
62
68
71
72
71
62
52
29
27
28
I
56
51
52
75
96
114
121
121
124
121
100
92
85
J
52
53
53
62
68
71
72
71
62
52
29
27
28
5
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Number of the day

146
147
148
149
150
151
152
153
154
155
156
157
158
159
160
161
162
A
21:10
21:20
21:30
21:40
21:50
22:00
22:10
22:20
22:30
22:40
22:50
23:00
23:10
23:20
23:30
23:40
23:50
B
14
2
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
D
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
E
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
F
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
G
14
2
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
H
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
I
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
J
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
K
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
L
1
-2:30
-2:20
-2:10
-2:00
-1:50
-1:40
-1:30
-1:20
-1:10
-1:00
-0:50
-0:40
-0:30
-0:20
-0:10
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
4
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
5
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
6
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
7
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
41
Table 4-7
Average value
3
19
20
21
22
23
24
87
88
89
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
97
98
99
A
B
T
Time SUM Ave
0:00
0
0
0:10
0
0
0:20
0
0
0:30
0
0
0:40
0
0
0:50
0
0
A
11:20
11:30
11:40
11:50
12:00
12:10
12:20
12:30
12:40
12:50
13:00
13:10
13:20
B
445
408
425
551
684
835
893
917
926
903
724
644
563
T
64
58
61
79
98
119
128
131
132
129
103
92
80
A
B
T
146 21:10
14
2
147 21:20
2
0
148 21:30
0
0
149 21:40
0
0
150 21:50
0
0
151 22:00
0
0
152 22:10
0
0
153 22:20
0
0
154 22:30
0
0
155 22:40
0
0
156 22:50
0
0
157 23:00
0
0
158 23:10
0
0
159 23:20
0
0
160 23:30
0
0
161 23:40
0
0
162 23:50
0
0
163
164 SUM
66856 9550
42
4.4.5 Chart
The chart module shows the daily distribution of passenger arrivals in graph form.
An example is shown in Figure 4-5. This chart is prepared from the Summarize
worksheet. This chart is useful to planners who need a picture of passenger arrival
distribution. The numbers in the graph legend are the day numbers. The planner can
focus on only one graph by removing other data using a chart wizard. The planner
also can obtain the picture of the average distribution by inserting the average value
into the graph data source in the chart wizard.
Arival Distribution
300
250
200
Passenger
2
3
4
150
5
6
100
50
0:
00
1:
00
2:
00
3:
00
4:
00
5:
00
6:
00
7:
00
8:
00
9:
00
10
:0
0
11
:0
0
12
:0
0
13
:0
0
14
:0
0
15
:0
0
16
:0
0
17
:0
0
18
:0
0
19
:0
0
20
:0
0
21
:0
0
22
:0
0
23
:0
0
T ime
Figure 4-5
Daily passenger arrival distribution graph
4.5 PROGRAM EXECUTION
After all worksheet preparation is complete, the next important thing in this program
is the process of program execution. This process requires attention since it involves
eight stages. This process was earlier mentioned with the aid of Figure 4-4. All steps
in the execution process are controlled from the Summarize worksheet. The stages
are:
1
Copy flight schedules to the Input Data worksheet. Make sure the format is
correct.
Check the arrival distribution worksheet. For most purposes, the default IATA
pattern is acceptable. If another pattern is applicable, the worksheet cell
values can be manually modified.
Check whether all flight schedules in the Input Data worksheet are already
present in the Daily worksheet. This is important since the number of flight
43
schedules is different from one airport to another. Also, check whether the
equation applied in cells G4 to FI226 is already extended to the last schedule
in the list.
4
In the Summarize worksheet, manually enter a number in cell J3. Initially,

start with the value 1 here to denote Monday. By entering the number of the
day in cell J3, all passengers in flight schedules available in the
corresponding day will be distributed and summed up. The summation is in
cells G1 to FI1. The values in cells G1-FI1 will also be automatically copied to
column J in the Summarize worksheet.
TIME
Column K
Previous day
-2:30
-2:30
Day 3 (column J)
0:00
0:00
23:50
Daily summation from Daily

worksheet (cells G1-FI1)
Passenger arrival distribution in Summarize

worksheet (column Temp)
23:50
Figure 4-6
Fourth stage in the Summarize worksheet execution
5
Transfer process of the daily summation in the Summarize worksheet. There

are two steps here:
a) Copy and Paste the number of passengers in column J at the time 0:00
to 23:50 to appropriate day column.
b) Copy and Paste the number of passengers in the adjacent column to
column J in the time frame 2:30 to 0:00 to the appropriate day column
(the day before)
6 Repeat stages 3 and 4 seven times to cover each day of the week.
44
7 Copy figures in column L to R to the corresponding day columns in the range

C to I.
8 Select the average number of passengers from column T. This average value
is automatically calculated.
A diagram is provided to give a clear view regarding stages in the Summarize
worksheet (Figure 4-6). Figure 4-6 shows how passenger distribution is transferred
from Daily distribution to the Summarize worksheet (stage 4). The user is required to
enter the number of the day in cell J3. By entering the number of the day in this cell,
the passenger distribution will be computed to cell G1 to FI1 in the Daily worksheet
and will be automatically transferred to column J in the Summarize worksheet. The
previous day column (column K) is also automatically filled in. The automation in this
process includes the heading that shows the number of the previous day. The
figures in columns J and K in the time frame 2:30 to 0:00 are the same.
Number of the day
-2:30
1
Day 3
0:00
23:50
Figure 4-7
Manual transfer of the passenger distribution
The next step is moving the number of passengers in column J at the time frame
0:00 to 23:50 to appropriate column in the same time frame. Figure 4-7 shows this
process. The number of passengers in the period from 0:00 to 23:50 is copied and
pasted in corresponding period in, for example, day 3. The number of passengers in
period 2:30 to -0:10 are transferred to the corresponding period in day 2. The
period 2:30 to 0:10 represents late night period of the previous day. This transfer
location may appear illogical but it assists later in adding up passenger counts during
late night periods. These additions go to column L to R.
45
There is no action taken for the number of passengers in the gray shadow area.
This is a manual copy and paste process.
The steps are repeated seven times until all passengers in day 1 to day 7 are
copied. Column B will automatically sum up the number of passengers in a particular
period. Column J will be not taken into account in the further process.
The next stage is to sum the number of passengers at a particular time in period 2:30 to 0:10 with the appropriate time in period 21:30 to 23:50. Columns L to R
(close to the end of the table) are provided to facilitate this process. In these
columns, the number of passengers in both periods adds up automatically. For
example, the number of passengers at 22:30 in day 1 will be added to the number of
passengers at 1:30 in day 1.
The Chart worksheet automatically draws the graphs when the column for each
day is completed.
4.6 SUMMARY
A method was presented to synthesize the passenger arrival distribution from the
flight schedules. Flight schedules are useful inputs since this provides departure time
and aircraft type. Departure time indicates the end point for earliness distribution of
passenger arrival. The aircraft type indicates the approximate number of passengers
departing at a particular time
The program consists of five worksheets. Those are Arrival distribution, Input
data, Daily distribution, Summarize, and Chart. The method sums up the passenger
distributions for all flights. The average of daily distributions over a week is adopted
as the passenger arrival distribution for the proposed software model.
46
Model Development:
Time Block System
5.1 INTRODUCTION
A number of researchers attempted to formulate the space required at airport
check-in areas (Mc Pearson 1975, Ashford 1988, IATA 1989, 2003, Horonjeff 1994, Seneviratne 1995, Subprasom 2002). These efforts were generally based
on specific circumstances being studied. There is a common situation where the
available models are difficult to implement in other conditions. It is also difficult to
meet existing requirements due to the vagueness of passenger traffic flow
(Seneviratne and Martel, 1995). Therefore, this project tries to introduce a new
method to estimate the airport check-in area arrangement.
As mentioned earlier, other researchers and organizations provided methods for
estimating the area required (refer to subsection 2.3). Table 5-1 lists the variables
used in those formulae. This table identifies organizations or researchers who
proposed the method; the method adopted; and variables included in the
corresponding method. This table enables comparison with the proposed model
shown in the last row. The aim of this comparison is to show that the proposed
method has a different approach from the previous methods. The variables included
in the proposed model are comprehensive compared to other models.
Table 5.1 shows that the proposed model attempts to cover all elements involved
in the check-in process. These variables can be expressed in the form of following
equations:
Ns = f [ts, a, Q, Type, C]
(5-1)
Amin. = min[ ALq-max.+ ANs]
(5-2)
Where:
Ns
ts
a
Q
Type
C
Amin.
= number of servers
= service time
= array representing distribution of arrival counts
= queue system applied
= check-in counter configuration
= cost of check-in area facility
= minimum total area required
47
5 Model Development
ALq-max.
ANs
= passenger queuing area based on maximum queue

= area for check-in counter based on number of check-in
counters
Table 5-1
Comparison of Space Calculation Methods
Organizations/
Researchers
IATA
Method
Linear equation
Variables
Peak hour number of originating
passengers,
Number of transfer passengers,
Space required per passenger
FAA
Look-up table
Peak hour demand
BAA
Charts
30th highest hour of the year
Ralph M.
Parson
Charts
Equivalent aircraft factor based on

aircraft mix in peak hour,
Share of originating passengers,
Annual enplanements
Seneviratne and
Martel
Proposed model
Passenger occupancy rate

Software program
Arrival passenger distribution,

Service time,
Queue system,
Type of check-in counters,
Unit costs of check-in area facilities
The proposed method estimates the number of servers required (equation 5-1) as
a function of the five elements mentioned. The estimation process must ensure that
the obtained number of servers is able to minimize the cost of construction and
operation in the check-in area. The estimation process is also required to deduce the
minimum required check-in area. The check-in area is the required total area for the
maximum number of passengers in queue based on the waiting time limit; and
required space for number of servers.
This chapter is prepared as a continuation of the basic idea presented in Chapter
2. This chapter presents the process of model development. To convey this process,
this chapter covers the background of the proposed method, the applied
methodology, the model structure, and limitations of the model.
48
5.2 BACKGROUND
Two interrelated issues crucial for the modeling process are the expected quality of
service at airport check-in and the congestion caused by flight scheduling. This
section discusses these two issues.
The quality of service should satisfy the customers in acceptable ways (Janic,
2000). This means that improvement in quality of service could reduce customer
costs. The customers in this context refer to passengers and airlines. However, in
this study, the customer considered is passenger since the project scope only covers
space in passenger processing area, particularly in the check-in area. Besides,
passengers are typically the main source of revenue for airports (Martel and
Seneviratne, 1990). Therefore, the design of service facility should consider
passenger requirements.
On the other hand, passengers are also the subjects in increasing congestion.
Congestion occurs in three different problems. The first one is fluctuation of demand.
Variations of demand occur within various time frames ranging from days to months.
Sometimes special events create a huge demand.
The second cause of congestion is operational problems. This project will not
explore these problems. The operational problems are the problems related to
computer and mechanical failures. This could be the inability of computers to access
the airline database. It could be an aircraft encountering a mechanical defect and
need to stay longer on the ground. Even though these problems occur temporarily,
the passengers have to wait. This situation leads to congestion in other areas
despite smooth operation of check-in area.
The last cause of congestion in check-in areas is flight scheduling. In other words,
the congestion depends on the arrangement of the scheduled exit times. Figure 5-1
illustrates the congestion caused by flight schedule arrangement.
Flight 1 exit
Flight 2 exit
9:00
10:00
Flight 3 exit
Time
Passenger arrivals time range
Time when congestion is likely to

occur
Figure 5-1
Congestion caused by flight schedule arrangements
49
5 Model Development
Figure 5-1 shows that the congestion can be determined by observing distribution
of passenger arrival times for each flight. The result of passenger distribution will
show the period for the congestion. The number of passengers in queues in the
check-in area represents the level of congestion.
Thus, the design of the check-in area must consider the quality of service and
congestion possibility. The length of waiting time primarily represents the quality of
service. According to a survey by Martel and Seneviratne (1990), the most important
issue influencing quality of service from the passengers point of view is waiting time
rather than space. The observation on demand profile can indicate congestion
problem at particular time.
5.3 THE CONCEPTUAL MODEL
The form of the model in this project is a numerical type that has been easily
implemented as a software program. The development of the model follows two
concepts. The first concept involves the development of time block program. The
Microsoft Excel platform has been selected to develop the spreadsheet software.
The second concept is the development of a simulation program. The simulation
program assigning arrival passengers is different from the time block program. It is
important to know the results of the two different concepts. The simulation program
utilizes visual basic application in Excel. This section only describes the time block
program; the simulation program is presented in the next chapter.
The time block concept is developed based on counting periods. The selected
counting period is distributed equally into time blocks based on the average service
time. For example, the project adopts a ten minute counting period. If the average
service time is 5 minutes, then each counting period has two time blocks. The
maximum number of passengers in each time block is equal to the number of
servers. A shortcoming of the model is the selection of a fixed service time. In reality,
service time for passengers is not a constant. However, this model selects the
average service time for simplicity.
The time block program is only applicable to multiple servers queue. Therefore,
equation 5-1 is not valid for the time block approach. The time block model applies
the following mathematical relationship (Equation 5-3).
Ns = f [ts, a, Type, C]
(5-3)
The time block method considers check-in counter configuration since the
selected configuration will influence the construction and operational cost. The
selected counting period is ten minutes. This period length is convenient because
the earliness of passenger arrival pattern of IATA is given in ten-minute increments.
Table 5-2 illustrates a part of the program. The assumptions applied are average
service time (5 minutes) and the number of servers (62). The table shows that if the
number of arrivals is less or equal to the number of servers, all the passengers can
be served at once. If the arrival number of passengers is more than the number of
servers, the remainder will have to wait and be allocated in the second column of the
service sequence. It means the remainder group of passengers must wait for 5
minutes or for a period equal to the selected service time.
50
Table 5-2
Time block concept
Service Sequence
Time
Number
Cumulative
Arrival
of Arrival
of Arrival
10
15
20
4:30
51
51
51
4.40
76
76
62
14
4:50
104
104
62
42
5:00
147
147
62
62
23
5:10
191
214
39
62
62
28
5:20
204
294
34
62
62
46
Table 5-2 illustrates the time block concept. At time 5:10 there are 191 arrivals.
The previous period left 23 passengers as shown in the third service sequence
column. Thus, only 39 (that is 62 minus 23) are selected from the current arrivals for
first time block. This time, the third time is saturated (i.e. 62 passengers), which
forces a zero in the first time block of the next time period starting at 5:20.
The program is based on four modules in Excel, which are linked to each other.
The basic structure of this time block concept is shown in Fig. 5-2.
Inputs: Service time,
Array of arriving passengers,
Counting period,
Number of servers
Time block program
Results: Queue length,

Waiting time,
Graphical output
Figure 5-2
Structure of time block concept
The array of passenger arrival is derived from the number of passengers exiting in
a flight schedule, which is distributed using earliness distribution. This process has
been explained in the previous chapter. The other inputs are average service time
51
5 Model Development
and number of servers (counters). The program processes passenger arrival

distribution to calculate the mean queue length and mean waiting time. This program
also presents a graphical representation of the passenger arrival and movement
through the service area. The graph is useful to identify the times when congestion
at check-in area occurs and its likely duration.
The following section discusses the methodology used for software development.
5.4 METHODOLOGY
The methodology applied in the process of program development consisted of three
steps:
Review the elements involved, i.e.: passenger arrival distribution, check-in

counter configuration, space per passenger, service time, and queue system.
Set up the expected output. The outputs of the model are waiting time, queue
length, number of servers, and required area for the design.
Create the formula to make the modules work properly. A graphical

representation is adopted to determine cumulative passenger arrival and exit.
5.4.1 Review the Elements Involved

The aim of reviewing the involved elements is to demonstrate how these elements
are related to the check-in process. Passenger arrival distribution has an influence in
determining queue length and waiting time. These two outputs affect the space
required for the queuing area. The queuing area also depends on space per
passenger provided.
The space for counters and circulation area (refer to Figure 2-5 and 2-6) depends
on the check-in counter configuration. The selected queue system also influences
the space required per passenger. The multilane queue requires a queue line width
that is equal to the counter width. On the other hand, a single line queue requires the
lane width to be at least the same size as the passenger width. The applied service
time during check-in process has an impact on the queue length and waiting time.
5.4.2 Expected Output
The aim of this project is to determine check-in area arrangement. The check-in area
arrangement covers check-in counter configuration (size and type), applied service
time, applied queue system, required number of counters, and required space for the
check-in process. In other words, these are expected outputs from the model. The
level of service is another output. This is represented by waiting time and cost of the
check-in area facility.
The program is able to provide information regarding the congestion period. This
information is important for an existing airport to evaluate the performance of the
existing design.
52
5.4.3 Module Design

There are four modules in the time block program. The modules are to record the
passenger arrival distribution and the other inputs; distribute passengers during the
queuing process to estimate the queue length; distribute passengers to estimate
waiting time; and prepare the optimization process. A number of equations and
numerical processes are interconnecting to these four modules.
As an output, the program provides a graph. This graph presents the picture of
passenger flows and indicates the congestion period. The graph appears at the end
of the program execution.
5.4.4 Develop Suitable Formulae
This sub-section discusses three key equations, which are incorporated to the
software. The three equations are for estimating number of servers, service capacity,
and total cost following the optimization process. Service capacity is the peak
number of passengers served in one at a time by the designed number of servers.
5.4.4.1 Determination of Queue Length and Waiting Time
The queue length and waiting time depends on the accumulation of passenger
arrival and exit processes. A graph of a function (or an equation) usually can convey
information more clearly than an analytical procedure (Newell, 1971). Figure 5-3
illustrates the cumulative arrival and exit processes for a single server. The purpose
of the graphical representation of the queue phenomenon is to determine the waiting
time and the queue length (refer to Figure 5-3) as an important performance criterion
for any queuing system. Besides, the graphical representation shows the busiest and
idle periods for the servers. This information is important in order to improve the
quality of service.
A(t)
Customers
5
4
Dq(t)
Lq
Ds(t)
Ws
1
ts
9:30
9:40
9:50
10:00
Time
Figure 5-3
Cumulative arrivals and exits
(Source: Hall, 1991)
53
5 Model Development
A(t) is denoted as passenger arrival at time t, Dq(t) is exiting passengers from

queue at time t, and Ds(t) is exiting passengers from the system at time t. Queue
length (Lq) is determined by vertical separation between the solid line and the bold
line. The vertical separation between the bold line and the dash line represents the
number of customers in service. The horizontal separation between the solid line and
the dash line reveals waiting time in the system (Ws).
Figure 5-3 shows that the first customer arrives at 9:35 and obtains the service
immediately. While the first customer is in service, the second customer arrives at
9:37. The second customer must wait until the first customer finishes the service
process at 9:40. This shows that each subsequent customer will be served after the
previous customer has completed the service. The queue length and waiting time for
Figure 5-3 are Lq at 9:49 = 2, Ls (number of customers in the system) at 9:49 = 3, ts
(service time) = 5 minute, Wq (waiting time in queue) = 7 min. and Ws (waiting time
in system) = 12 min.
Figure 5-3 indicates that the queue operates on first-come first-served (FCFS) and
first-in first-out (FIFO) basis. The queue discipline depends on the applied queue
system. In performing queue at airport check-in area, there are two applied queuing
systems in this project. The first one is multiple single-server queues. The number of
lines in the first system is equal to the number of servers. The second one is multiple
servers queue where a single queue feeds many servers. An illustration of these two
queuing systems has been presented in Figure 2-5 in Chapter 2. For the multiple
single-server queues system, it is assumed that customers do not jockey or switch
from one queue to another.
The example in Figure 5-3 applies to a multiple servers queue system. For
multiple single-server queues the first customer may not be the first one to obtain
service or to come out of the system. This statement applies to multiple lines as a
whole system, not for individual lines. In other words, the comparison of waiting time
here is between two line queues. For example, with two parallel servers, the first
customer might begin service at 2.00, before the second customer who begins at
2:02. Because the first customer requires longer service time than the second
customer, the second customer will be the first one out of the system. This situation
also influences the next customer in the queue. Suppose the first customer ends the
service at 2:10 and the second ends at 2:07, the third and fourth customers come at
2:05 and 2:06 respectively. The third customer joins the first queue, and the fourth
joins the second queue. Since the second one ends the service earlier, then the
fourth customer will be served earlier rather than the third customer. In this case, the
discipline is not strictly FCFS.
It is important to understand the queuing disciplines since it influences the
estimation of average waiting time, the queue length and the number of idle servers.
This situation is discussed in Chapter 7.
5.4.4.2 Determination of Number of Servers
Elements involved in determining the number of servers required are number of
passengers and service time applied. This is expressed in equation (5-4):
54
Ns =
Number of passengers
Service time
(5-4)
It is common practice for airports to allocate a number of counters for the

exclusive use of each airline. As a result, the number of servers computed from
equation (5-4) underestimates the total requirement.
As stated earlier, the objective of this project is to find the optimum arrangement
for the check-in area. The quantitative output of this optimum arrangement is the
number of counters required. The number of counters derived is obtained based on
minimum total cost and consider passenger convenience. The total cost consists of
construction and operations of the check in area. In addition, other elements may
influence the estimated number of servers, such as service time applied, queue
system, and server configuration. In other words, the process of determining the
required number of servers involves an optimization process. Figure 5-4 illustrates
elements concerned in determination of the number of server.
Service
time
Passenger
arrival
distribution
Queue
system
Proposed program
Server
configuration
Number
of servers
Cost
Figure 5-4
Elements in estimation of number of servers
For a given passenger arrival distribution, the number of servers obtained vary
depending on the four elements shown with dashed line arrows.
On the other hand, number of servers has a strong influence in determining
service capacity as expressed in equation 5-5:
Service capacity =
Counting period
x Number of servers
Service time
(5-5)
There is a problem if counting period is not a factor of service time. For example,
suppose the counting period is 10 minutes and the average service time is 3
minutes. The service capacity if the number of servers given is 2:
Service capacity =
10
x 2 = 6.666...
3
55
5 Model Development
To make service capacity value an integer, the number of servers must be a

multiplication of the service time. To solve this problem, a constant is introduced in
this project. The k value is a constant influencing the number of servers. More detail
regarding the k value is explained in the optimization process in section 5.5.4.
As mentioned before in section 5.4.2, the arrangement of the check-in area has
two constraints. The restrictions in the proposed program are: firstly, the design
should meet passenger preferences regarding level of service; secondly, the design
should have a minimum cost. Equation 5-6 caters for all these constraints.
Tc = (2 x O x Ns) + (
F
E
Co
Cn
x Ns) + (
x Ns) + (
x Ns) + (W x Lqover ) + ((S Ns + S Lq max)x
) (5-6)
365
365
365
365
where Tc
O
Ns
F
E
Co
W
Lqover
= total cost
= payment for check-in counter officers
= number of servers
= furniture cost
= equipment cost
= computer cost
= waiting time penalty
= number of people in queue with waiting time over the waiting time
limit
SNs
= space for number of servers required
SLq max = required space for maximum number of passengers in queue
Cn
= construction cost
365 = number of days in one year
The cost of check-in counters covers furniture costs for desks and chairs,
equipment costs that include scales and conveyor belts, computer costs, fees for
check-in counter officers, and construction costs that depend on the space required
for each counter. The costs applied are for each individual counter. Therefore, the
total cost for check-in counters is cost for individual counter multiplied by the number
of counters.
The cost of passenger space is the construction costs for the queuing area, which
in turn depends on the maximum number of passengers in the queue. The other cost
related to passengers is waiting time penalty. The waiting time penalty is applied if
passengers have to wait for more than a certain waiting time limit. This type of cost
reflects user costs. However, the cost is a burden to the airport authority since the
airport authority has an obligation to guarantee the smoothness of the service
process. For that reason, the costs considered for the passenger space are
construction cost and waiting time penalty cost.
Waiting time penalty (W) is treated as a constant. However, it is common
knowledge that people are more agitated as waiting time increase. Therefore, W
should be a function of waiting time with higher penalties for longer waiting times. In
addition, the revenue that the airport would get from airlines use of check-in facilities
was excluded. This affects the optimization results.
56
The total costs considered are total costs for counters plus total costs for
passengers (see also equation 5-2). Some of the costs are available as an annual
cost. To deduce a daily cost, all annual costs are divided by 365. This is applied
since the number of passengers observed is on daily basis. The list of these costs is
available in Table 5-7.
The equations presented in this subsection are the main ones in the calculation
process. Other equations are explained in other modules.
5.4.5 Optimization Tool
The time block program is able to do an optimization. The optimization process
requires the program to run many times until the optimal value is obtained. To
facilitate this requirement, the program utilizes the optimization tool available in
Excel. The tool is called solver. By identifying the target of the optimization, the
program will repeat calculation process. The target in this optimization is minimizing
the total costs.
5.5 PROGRAM DEVELOPMENT
The proposed program is developed in four modules. These are Central, Queuing,
Waiting Time, and Optimization. Central is a preliminary input-output module. All
output from other modules are deposited in Central. Queuing and Waiting Time are
sections that present the queuing and waiting time distributions respectively.
Optimization is another input module where all variables that may influence the
optimization process are gathered.
Figure 5-5 briefly describes relationships among the four modules.
QUEUING
CENTRAL
WAITING TIME
OPTIMIZATION
Program flow
Data flow
Figure 5-5
Relationships among the four modules
The arrival passengers in module Central is distributed in the Queuing section.
The result, in the form of the maximum and average number of passengers in queue,
is stored in Central. The waiting time of passengers in Queuing is estimated in the
Waiting Time module. This result is also stored in Central. The information in Central
together with additional information required to do the optimization is stored in the
Optimization module. The program does iterations to converge on the optimal result.
The optimal result is presented in Central as a final result. More details on these
modules are explained separately.
57
5 Model Development
5.5.1 Central Module

Central module is the first part of the four linked modules. This module has a duty to
provide all inputs required regarding the calculation process, except for the
optimization process. The cumulative arrival and exit of passengers and also the
graph of this process are provided in this module. Outputs for design of the check-in
area arrangements are also presented. To minimize complexity in calculations, the
program in this module is based on four assumptions. These are:
There is no separation among the airlines, all passengers are are treated in
one queue space.
Passenger arrival distribution is based on a ten minute counting period.
Therefore passenger distribution is arranged in ten minute intervals.
A constant service time is adopted for serving passengers at counters.
The queue has a single line of waiting passengers fed to different servers.
Passenger service follows the first-come first-serve system.
The Central module provides the opportunity to change input values for average
service time, number of servers, start time of the analysis, and the passenger arrival
distribution in terms of number of passenger arrivals in a ten-minute period. This
passenger arrival distribution is copied from the results of the passenger distribution
process as explained in Chapter 4.
Table 5-3 is an example of a Central module. The table is copied from the
program for Birmingham airport. The figures in this table are obtained after program
execution. This table shows a small part of the entire table. Rows 28 to 108 are
hidden because entire table is too long to show.
5.5.1.1 Module description
Table 5-4 shows the inputs required in this program. The number of servers acts as
input data if the user intends to evaluate the number of servers available. For
optimization purposes, the number of server cells is filled in by use of equation 5-9
(see section 5.5.4).
In Table 5-3, the cells in gray shadow in the upper right hand corner are input cells
(except the 5th row) but they can only be updated from the Optimization module.
Details of these inputs (in gray shadow) are explained later.
In practice, the Arrival Time and Arrival Count are copied and pasted from the
passenger arrival distribution result as presented in Chapter 4. In this example input
time starts from 3:40 and increments in ten-minute intervals until 22:00. Passenger
arrival count is based on the ten-minute counting period. In other words, the values
in this column do not mean that groups of passengers (1, 2, 6, etc.) are coming
simultaneously at the times shown in the preceding column. For example, at time
4:20 the number of passenger arrival is 30, it means that between 4:10 and 4:20,
there are 30 passenger arrivals.
58
Table 5-3
Central module of the program
See Optimum module
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
I
J
K
1 GRAPHICAL REPRESENTATION
2
10
min
k
Server
Pax
Counting Period
3
5
min
62
width
2.2
0.64
Service time
4
62
length
5.4
1.72
No. of Server
5
124
cust/10min
A_req
736.56 303.8208
1040.3808
Service capability
6 Time Periods
111
Above mean tw
68.51%
7
a max
204
Lq max
276
tw max
30
8
Mean a 86.04
mean Lq
55.00
Mean tw
06:10
Arrival
count Running
a(t)
Q(t)+
Cummulative
Arrival
(a)
total
+Lq(t-1)
Lq(t)
Q(t/2) tw min tw max Mean tw Exit (D)
D
time
9
4:00
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
10
3:40
1
1
1
0
0
0
0
00:00
1
1
11
3:50
2
3
2
0
0
0
0
00:00
2
3
12
4:00
13
6
9
6
0
0
0
0
00:00
6
9
14
4:10
14
23
14
0
0
0
0
00:00
14
23
15
4:20
30
53
30
0
0
0
0
00:00
30
53
16
4:30
51
104
51
0
0
0
0
00:00
51
104
17
4:40
76
180
76
0
14
0
5
00:55
76
180
18
4:50
104
284
104
0
42
0
5
02:01
104
284
19
5:00
147
431
147
23
85
0
10
03:40
124
408
20
5:10
191
622
214
90
152
0
15
07:04
124
532
21
5:20
204
826
294
170
232
5
20
12:56
124
656
22
5:30
197
1023
367
243
305
10
25
19:04
124
780
23
5:40
157
1180
400
276
338
15
30
23:36
124
904
24
5:50
124
1304
400
276
338
20
30
24:45
124
1028
25
6:00
98
1402
374
250
312
20
30
23:22
124
1152
26
6:10
75
1477
325
201
263
20
25
21:00
124
1276
27
6:20
79
1556
280
156
218
15
20
17:02
124
1400
109
110
111
112
113
114
115
116
117
118
119
120
121
122
A
20:00
20:10
20:20
20:30
20:40
20:50
21:00
21:10
21:20
21:30
21:40
21:50
22:00
B
13
9
9
7
5
4
4
2
0
0
0
0
0
C
9510
9519
9528
9535
9540
9544
9548
9550
9550
9550
9550
9550
9550
E
13
9
9
7
5
4
4
2
0
0
0
0
0
F
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
G
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
H
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
I
00:00
00:00
00:00
00:00
00:00
00:00
00:00
00:00
K
13
9
9
7
5
4
4
2
0
0
0
0
0
9510
9519
9528
9535
9540
9544
9548
9550
9550
9550
9550
9550
9550
Row 10 is filled with 0 for all cells, which is used at program start up.
59
5 Model Development
Table 5-4
Inputs variables in the Central module
Input cells
Cell number
Description
Function
Source
D2
Counting
period
To calculate server
capacity
Interval of
earliness arrival
distribution
D3
Service time
Calculation number of
servers, service
capacity, and maximum
and minimum waiting
time
User input
D4
Number of
servers
Calculation service
capacity, and maximum
and minimum waiting
time
User input*
A11-A154
Arrival time
Draw graph
B11-B154
Arrival count
Estimation of cumulative
arrival, queue length,
waiting time, maximum
and average arrival
Passenger arrival
distribution
*As an input if the optimization process is not included

5.5.1.2 Program execution (without optimization)
The program starts running when the number of servers is typed. The blank cells are
filled in and the graph of passenger arrival-exit distribution is drawn. The only results
that are adopted from other modules are the values in column Mean waiting time
(Mean tw the H column). These results are explained later in the Waiting time
module.
The Running Total value is the cumulative value of the Arrival Count in column B.
The maximum arrival (B7) is the maximum number of passenger arrivals in one
counting period. The mean arrival passenger (B8) is the average value of the
passenger arrival per ten minute period. The maximum and the mean arrival are
estimated based on the number of periods (B6). The number of periods here is the
same as the number of counting periods. The number of periods in B6 denotes the
length of the range of observed data. This value is obtained by electronically
counting the number of cells in column C. Column C is selected as reference since
this column always has values in its cells. The number of periods value is required in
later calculations.
The number of exits and its accumulation (columns J and K) are also calculated.
The number of exits depends on the server capacity. The maximum number of
customers exiting in each counting period is equal to the server capacity.
60
Cells in column D (D11 to D154) represent the number of passengers at a

particular time. The value is equal to the addition of the number of passenger arrivals
at t and the number of passengers in queue at (t-1). The t notation denotes the
number of the counting period. In other words, t refers to the whole counting period.
Therefore, t-1 means the counting period before the observed counting period (t).
The total passengers demanding service is adopted in calculating waiting time.
The queue length (Lq) for each counting period can be seen in column E. The
queue length here is derived from the difference of Exit accumulation (column K) and
Running total (column C). The maximum and the mean queue length (E7 and E8)
are obtained by utilizing the appropriate functions. These also require the number of
periods (B6).
The waiting time calculation involves the number of servers and service time
given. As explained before, if there is no arriving passenger, the cells in the waiting
time column are empty. The minimum waiting time at t is estimated by the equation
below:
t w min =
Lq
( t 1)
Number of servers
x Service time
(5-7)
The minimum waiting time at t is minimum waiting time for the group of passenger
arrivals at time t. The value of waiting time here is expressed as a multiple of service
time. This expression is based on the time block concept. For example, consider
there are 12 passengers in queue and 5 new passengers arrive. The number of
servers is assumed to be 5 and the service time is 2 minutes. The first and the
second 2-minutes service periods are used to serve the 10 passengers in queue.
The third 2-minutes is used to serve the remaining passenger in the queue (2
passengers left) and three of the new arrival passengers. Thus, the minimum waiting
time for the new passenger arrival is 4 minutes. From the calculation, the value is 4.8
minutes. Since the waiting time calculation is based on time block length being equal
to service time, the waiting time value is rounded down to the nearest service time
value.
The zero value means that all arriving passengers are served directly at the time
observed. This situation occurs when the number of passengers in queue is less
than the service capacity and there is no need for passengers to wait for service.
The maximum waiting time at t is obtained by applying the following equation:
t w max =
Lq
( t 1)
+ a(t )
Number of servers
x Service time
(5-8)
The number of passengers needing service is the total number of passengers in

queue at (t-1) and passenger arrival at t. The maximum waiting time value is
rounded down to the nearest multiple of service time. The aim of the rounding down
process is to avoid overestimation in the calculation process. Here, the first group of
passengers is served directly and there is no waiting time for this group. The waiting
time will start to be counted for the second group. For better understanding of this
process, Table 5-5 in the next subsection gives an illustration.
The minimum waiting time is based on the waiting time of the first group. On the
other hand, the maximum waiting time is the waiting time of the last group. In this
61
5 Model Development
context, the minimum waiting time could be zero if the group of arrival passengers
can be served at once. The minimum waiting time will be greater than zero if there
was already a queue at the time the group arrives.
The mean waiting time in column I (I11 to I154) is adopted from the Waiting Time
module. It represents the mean waiting time of passengers in queue in one counting
period. The overall average of the mean waiting time in this column is presented in
cell I8. Cell I7 shows the maximum value of the maximum waiting time in column H.
The other result is the value of the percentage of passengers who are in queue for
more than the average waiting time. This information is useful in determining the
performance of the service given to passengers. The total number of passengers in
queue is given in the Queuing module.
An important result that represents the objective of this project is the total space
required (Areq cell K5). The total space here is for passengers (J5) and for check-in
counters (I5). The space for check-in counters is derived from the product of the
number of servers and the check-in desk size (I3 and I4). The passenger space is
estimated by the multiplying the recommended space per passengers with a
baggage cart (the size is in J3 for the width and J4 for the length) by the maximum
passengers in queue (E7). The Optimum module provides the ability to change the
size of the counters and passengers.
In the Central module, there are some blank cells at the bottom part of the table.
These blank cells provide a buffer zone to prevent miss calculation of waiting time in
the corresponding columns. In calculating maximum or average waiting time (cells I7
and I8) the relevant equation is applied to all cells in the corresponding column. This
is important in estimating the average waiting time. The value in a cell in column I is
the average waiting time for passengers in corresponding counting period.
The problem is that not every cell along column B is filled with passenger arrival.
If the cells in the column for calculating waiting time contain value 0, those values (0)
will be included in estimating the average. Therefore, blank cells are ignored in the
calculation process. For example, for the series of numbers: 0,6,6,6,9,9,0,6. The
total of this series is 42. The average value is 42/8 = 5.25. If the 0 value is not
counted, the average value is 7. Therefore, the cells are programmed to be blank if
no customers arrive.
The Central module also provides a graphical output. The graph is located on the
right side of the table presented in Table 5-3. The graph (Figure 5-6a and 5-6b)
represents the accumulation of passenger arrival and passenger exit. This
fluctuation depends on the flight schedule of a particular airport (refer to Figure 5-1).
The rate of exiting passengers is constant during busy periods, when the number of
passenger arrivals exceeds the server capacity.
The picture of congestion in check-in area can be seen from this graph. The
congestion occurs if the number of exiting passengers is less than the number of
arrivals. Figure 5-6a presents the graph. The graph shows that at a certain periods
the passenger arrivals surpass the server capacity cannot handle this situation. As a
result, a long queue forms and waiting time increases. The black shadow area of the
graph shows the occurrence of queues and waiting time.
62
Cumulative Arrivals
The Figure 5-6a represents application of the model to Birmingham airport checkin area with 55 servers available at an average service time of 5 minutes. The graph
shows that there is congestion from 5.00 to 12.00 and 15.00 to 18.00. This graph is
useful in helping the planner during preliminary design to find out the number of
servers required to avoid congestion by changing the number of servers in the
Central module. The graph can also assist the operators of existing airports to
evaluate the service performance.
Congestion
Figure 5-6a
Congestion at check-in area
63
5 Model Development
12000
10000
Cumulative
Arrivals
No. of
People
8000
6000
4000
21:10
20:00
18:50
17:40
16:30
15:20
14:10
13:00
11:50
10:40
9:30
8:20
7:10
6:00
4:50
3:40
2000
Time
Arrival
Exit
Figure 5-6b
Small queue scenario
The graph in Fig.5-6b is graphical representation of queues at Birmingham
International Airport after optimization. The number of servers is 62. This graph
64
shows the improvement after increasing the number of servers from 55 to 62. The
graph shows that the queue size has considerably reduced at the check-in area.
5.5.2 Queuing Module
The Queuing module supports the Central module program to distribute
passengers to time blocks. The length of this time block is equal to the selected
average service time and the capacity of each time block depends on service
capacity. The capacity here means that the maximum number of passengers that
can be served in one time block and is equals to the designed number of servers.
The Queuing module has two tables for convenience in controlling the calculation
process. These two tables are arranged as shown in Table 5-5. The first table is the
same as the table in Central module. All values in this table are automatically copied
from the Central module. In other words, the table is already linked to the Central
module. The link is made through referencing to all cells in the Central module.
The second table, to the right of the first table, is a table for queuing distribution.
The aim of the queuing distribution is to simplify the calculation process of waiting
time.
Table 5-5 shows a small part of a complete module. As expected, the first table is
a copy of columns of the Central module. The second table shows passenger
arrivals grouped into time blocks as previously explained.
In the second table, the 4th row represents the multiplication of number of servers
and sequence number of time blocks (for row number, see the column on the far left
of the diagram). The sequence number is located in the 5th row. The values in row 4
are needed to calculate and allocate passengers to each time block. In this case, the
total of number of passenger arrivals and number in queue is compared to the 4th
row values. If the value in column C is less than the 4th row value in the first column,
then the value in column C at a particular time will be placed in the first column for
the corresponding time. Otherwise, it will be located in the next column.
The 6th row is waiting time for passengers in the time block before being served.
The waiting time in this row is dependent on the service time. This is the same as in
Table 5-3. The 7th row is the total number of passengers in the corresponding
column or time block. Column I is the total number of passengers in the queue for
each time period. Column J upwards represents the number of passengers in queue
for each time block. Passengers in column J are those passengers that receive
service directly without any waiting; passengers in column K have to wait for 5
minutes, and so on.
65
5 Model Development
Table 5-5
Queuing module
A
B
C
D
1 GRAPHICAL REPRESENTATION 2
2
Counting period 10
3
5
Service time
4
No. of Server 62
5
Service capacity 124
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
Arrival
time
4:00
3:40
3:50
4:00
4:10
4:20
4:30
4:40
4:50
5:00
5:10
5:20
5:30
5:40
5:50
6:00
6:10
6:20
6:30
6:40
6:50
7:00
7:10
7:20
7:30
7:40
7:50
8:00
8:10
8:20
8:30
8:40
8:50
9:00
Arrival
count (a)
1
2
6
14
30
51
76
104
147
191
204
197
157
124
98
75
79
97
137
158
171
162
132
104
74
68
78
84
98
111
130
151
164
a(t)
+Lq(t-1)
1
2
6
14
30
51
76
104
147
214
294
367
400
400
374
325
280
253
266
300
347
385
393
373
323
267
221
181
155
142
148
175
215
Lq(t)
23
90
170
243
276
276
250
201
156
129
142
176
223
261
269
249
199
143
97
57
31
18
24
51
91
min
min
Depart
ure
tw max (D)
5
10
15
20
20
20
15
10
10
10
10
15
20
20
20
15
10
5
5
5
10
15
20
25
30
30
30
25
20
20
20
20
25
30
30
30
25
20
15
10
10
10
10
10
15
1
2
6
14
30
51
76
104
124
124
124
124
124
124
124
124
124
124
124
124
124
124
124
124
124
124
124
124
124
124
124
124
124
9550
total
1
2
6
14
30
51
76
104
147
191
204
197
157
124
98
75
79
97
137
158
171
162
132
104
74
68
78
84
98
111
130
151
164
First table
Second table
(Passengers distribution)
(Queue distribution)
66
Qeueing Distribution
62
124
1
2
cust/10min
tw min
186
3
248
4
310 372 434

5
6
7
5
10
15
20 25 30
3007 2094 1601 1322 939 494 93
1
2
6
14
30
51
62
14
62
42
62
62
23
39
62
62
28
34
62
62 46
16
62 62 57
5 62 62 28
34 62 28
34 62
2
60 15
47 32
30
62
5
57
62 18
44
62 52
10
62 62 37
25 62 62 13
49 62 21
41 62
1
61 13
49 19
43
35
27
57
5
62
31
31
62
18
44
62
24
38
62
51
11
62
62
29
The grouping of queuing distribution is shown in the flow chart in figure 5-7:
Passenger arrivals
There are more

passengers than
servers?
No
Serve all passengers
Yes
Form passenger
groups
Serve 1st group
Serve 2nd group
End
Figure 5-7
Flow chart for queue distribution process
There is no need to enter any data to Queuing module. The data entry is
controlled via the module Central.
5.5.3 Waiting Time Module
This module is designed to calculate the average waiting time of passengers in each
counting period. The average waiting time can be obtained by dividing total waiting
time in each counting period by the number of passengers in queue in that counting
period. This number of queuing passengers is available in the Queuing module.
There is no input required; all equations and links to the other modules are already
in-built. Table 5-6 shows a section of the Waiting time module.
67
5 Model Development
Table 5-6
Waiting Time module
A
B
C
1 Time Consumption
2
total
ave
(time format)
3
0.00
0.00
0.00
4
0.00
0.00
00:00
5
0.00
0.00
00:00
6
0.00
0.00
00:00
7
0.00
0.00
00:00
8
0.00
0.00
00:00
9
70.00
0.92
00:55
10
210.00
2.02
02:01
11
540.00
3.67
03:40
12
1350.00
7.07
07:04
13
2640.00
12.94
12:56
14
3755.00
19.06
19:04
15
3705.00
23.60
23:36
16
3070.00
24.76
24:45
17
2290.00
23.37
23:22
18
1575.00
21.00
21:00
19
1345.00
17.03
17:02
20
1330.00
13.71
13:43
21
1860.00
13.58
13:35
22
2410.00
15.25
15:15
23
3195.00
18.68
18:41
24
3555.00
21.94
21:57
25
3160.00
23.94
23:56
26
2400.00
23.08
23:05
27
1545.00
20.88
20:53
28
1115.00
16.40
29
16:24
955.00
12.24
30
12:15
705.00
8.39
31
08:24
620.00
6.33
32
06:20
490.00
4.41
33
04:25
550.00
4.23
34
04:14
820.00
5.43
35
05:26
1365.00
8.32
36
08:19
1935.00
11.52
37
11:31
2300.00
14.74
38
14:45
2140.00
16.21
39
16:13
1380.00
15.33
40
15:20
D
1.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
E
2.00
10470.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
70.00
210.00
310.00
310.00
170.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
135.00
310.00
310.00
310.00
310.00
310.00
165.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
F
3.00
16010.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
230.00
620.00
620.00
160.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
300.00
570.00
440.00
100.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
430.00
570.00
310.00
180.00
240.00
510.00
620.00
620.00
510.00
190.00
110.00
G
4.00
19830.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
420.00
930.00
930.00
75.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
705.00
930.00
930.00
930.00
930.00
375.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
735.00
525.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
435.00
930.00
930.00
930.00
930.00
H
5.00
18780.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
920.00
1240.00
1240.00
680.00
680.00
1200.00
640.00
100.00
360.00
1040.00
1240.00
1240.00
980.00
820.00
1220.00
380.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
220.00
860.00
1020.00
340.00
I
6.00
12350.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
1425.00
1550.00
1550.00
1550.00
375.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
925.00
1550.00
1550.00
1550.00
325.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
J
7.00
2790.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
840.00
840.00
60.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
390.00
630.00
30.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
K
8.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
The 2nd row is the time block numbering. The values are the same as those of the
fifth row in the Queuing module. The 3rd row is the total waiting time in one column
that represent a time block.
Column A contains the total waiting time in all time blocks covered in a particular
counting period. The average waiting time from calculations is in column B, and
column C shows the average waiting time in time format. This average value in
column B is derived by dividing total waiting time in column A in each counting period
by the number of passengers in queue in column I in the Queuing module.
The next columns (starting from column D) through to the last column of the table
are to accommodate the waiting time distribution. The calculation process in this
module refers to the Queuing module. The waiting time for each column (column D
to the last column of the table) is obtained by multiplying the number of passengers
in queue in each time block in the Queuing module at the corresponding time and
the waiting time in each time block (the 6th row in second table in Queuing module).
68
5.5.4 Optimization Module

The Optimization module is aimed to calculate the optimal space required in
airport check-in area. This module focuses on the optimization process and
therefore, it is related to the cost issue.
This cost calculation makes Optimization a difficult module. The cause of this
difficulty is the lack of latest information regarding the cost to support the program.
Some airports were contacted to obtain cost information. Only Brussels International
Airport (BIA) provided some relevant information, and that was in the form of the
Annual Report for year 1999. This annual report covered the expenses for
construction and operational costs during year 1999. The costs applied in the
Optimization module are based on this annual report and information obtained from
furniture and computer companies. The life spans of furniture and equipment are
assumed three and five years respectively. Table 5-7 shows the list of the costs
adopted and information sources.
Some figures, such as the labor cost for check-in counter officers and waiting time
penalty, are estimates based on personal estimation. The money values were
converted to AU$.
The cost data are stored in the Optimization module shown in Table 5-8. If
necessary, program users are able to change the cost items by manually accessing
this software module. The 2nd to 10th rows are data inputs. Here the values are taken
from Table 5-7 and Table 2-4. By changing data in Table 5-8, the sizes for counters
and passengers in Central module (gray shadow in upper right hand corner in Table
5-3) are automatically changed. Thus, the sizes appearing in the Central module are
the sizes which are stored in Optimization module. The aim of this presentation in
Central is to make the planner have a complete picture of the check-in arrangements
after the optimization process by only looking at the Central module.
Table 5-7
Costs List
Item
Notation
Cost (AU$)
Unit
Source
Check-in counter
officer
50 per person
per hour
Furniture
1500 per counter

per year
Furniture
companies
Equipment (scale and

conveyor belt)
6000 per counter

per year
BIAC Annual
report
Computer + printer
Co
2500 per counter

per year
Computer
companies
Waiting time penalty
10 per min per

passenger
Construction cost
Cn
4,333,287 per year per

square meter
Assumption
Assumption
BIAC Annual
report
The sizes for counters and passengers vary; depending on planner preference
and level of service required. A high level of service requires more space. Since the
69
5 Model Development
space calculation has a strong relation to the optimization process, the sizes of the
counter and passenger space inputs are located in the Optimization module.
The 16th row is for the results obtained after the optimization process. The results
here are automatically transferred to appropriate cells in the Central module .
Table 5-8
Optimization Module
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
A
Data Entry
Worker fee:
Working time :
Furn+Eqpt:
Cost Area :
Waiting Time Penalty:
Size of counter
Size of passenger
50
20
4.10959
11872
0
Width =
Length
Width =
Length
/hr/person
hrs
/day
/day
/min
2.2
5.4
0.64
1.72
13
14 Temporary k =
15
16
Area (sqm)
Total Pax
Passenger Total space
(Pax)
requirement
Lq max.
Check-in
desk
m
m
m
m
Waiting time
12 No. of Server
limit (tw limit)
Lq over tw Sum Waiting Time

limit
over tw limit
Total cost
(A$)/day
62
62
276
736.56
1.1
1040.3808
9550
10
4449
69760 12475675.6
The optimization process is based on the equation 5-5 in section 5.4.4.2. The
program makes use of the solver facility in Excel. The solver function does
optimization by automatically repeating the computations. This is an iterative
process. The solver facility has options to determine the target cell and variable cells.
The target cell is the total cost (J16). The variable cell selected is k. The iteration
stops when the minimum total cost (J16) as a target cell has been attained.
During the iterative process, the number of servers (A16) will automatically
change. If the selected service time is not a multiple of the counting period, the
service capacity result is a fraction. To avoid this condition and to make the program
able to run in any service time selected, the control variable is not the number of
servers but the k value (refer to section 5.4.4.2). The k value is a constant affecting
the number of servers. Equation 5-9 shows the computation of number of servers
from the k value.
Ns = k x
Service time
GCD(Counting period , Service time)
(5-9)
where GCD = greatest common divider.

For example: suppose the counting period is 10 minute and the average service
time is 3 minute. The service capacity if the number of servers given is 2 will be:
Service capacity =
10
x 2 = 6.666...
3
By adopting equation 5-9, the service capacity from the example above becomes:
70
Service capacity =
10
3
x k x = 10k
3
1
From the example above, k = 1,2,3n. The number of servers involved in the
corresponding iteration will be 3, 6, 9, 12, and so on until the minimum cost is
achieved.
To check whether the obtained optimum number of servers is correct, the user
may enter the optimum number of servers into A16 and recomputed the results. The
reason to do this check is because the program works on the basis of a multiplication
of service time.
The optimization process can be summarized as shown in Figure 5-8
Select inputs
Select target
cell
Select variable
cell
Start
Select new
Estimate Cost
Minimum
cost?
No
Yes
Show number
of servers
End process
Figure 5-8
Optimization process
Restricting service capacity to an integer value is an unnecessary and
unreasonable constraint. This may yield results that are not truly optimum. This is
correct for ordinary calculations. However, since the calculation of service capacity is
strongly related to the number of passengers in each time blocks, it will look odd if
71
5 Model Development
the number of passengers in each time block is in fraction form. In addition, the
integer value helps to control the distribution of the arrival passengers into each time
block.
5.6 SUMMARY
This chapter has presented the time block program used to analyze the design of
check-in area arrangements; this being represented by the number of servers. By
obtaining the number of servers, other elements in the check-in process that have
influence on the overall cost, are also derived. The program is able to estimate the
congestion periods as well. The congestion period information is useful to airport
operators. The program also provides information on the service performance. The
service performance is represented by the percentage of passengers who have to
wait longer than the average waiting time.
In the time block concept, passenger arrivals are distributed into groups placed in
time-framed blocks. The length of time block depends on the service time. The
capacity of time block equals to the number of servers.
The time block concept concerns service time, demand profile, queue system,
sizes of counters and passengers, and total cost. The aim of the model is to find the
number of servers that yield the minimum total cost.
The time block model involves four modules; those are Central, Queuing, Waiting
time, and Optimization. Those four modules are linked to each other by means of
number of equations. These equations are written into the program using functions
available in Excel. Data inputs are stored mainly in the Central and Optimization
modules.
To run the program, there are two options. The first is running the program without
optimization. For this option, required data are entered in the Central module. The
user activates the program by typing the selected number of servers. Results shown
in the Central module include the queue length, the average waiting time, and a
graph that shows the queue performance of the selected arrangement.
The second option is to obtain the optimum number of open counters. Data
required for this option are placed in the Optimization module. This option can be
executed by pressing the solver button in the tools menu in the Optimization module.
The results of this process can be seen in the Central module. The results cover the
optimum number of servers, average waiting time and queue length, minimum cost,
and also a graph that represents distribution of cumulative arrivals and exits.
The time block program has some limitations. These can distort the result. Those
limitations that should be mentioned are:
72
The model is restricted to have only one line of passengers that is served by
many servers (multiple server queue system).
The service time is a constant. In reality the service time varies.
The model is restricted to counting periods that are multiples of the service
time. For example, if the counting period is 10 minutes and the service time
selected is 3 minutes, it makes an error on the waiting time for the

passengers in the fourth 3 minutes. The previous section introduced a k value
that assists in the calculation process in determining number of servers.
However, there is still an accuracy problem in estimating the queue length
and waiting time. This problem is explained in section 7.2.2.
The simulation program presented in next chapter is expected to reduce the
above program limitations.
This program facilitates the planner to select the appropriate service time based
on the demand profile. The planner can see how the suggested improvement will
reduce the congestion in check-in area.
The other benefit is that the planner can also investigate impacts of changes to
the passenger arrival distribution. It may be difficult to manipulate the arrival
distribution in a real situation. However, changing the check-in period may vary the
spread of the passenger arrival distribution. An example of this is presented in
Chapter 7. Another option is to change schedules of aircraft exits by negotiation with
airlines. The initiatives for such changes may be integrated into airline interests.
The program also allows investigation of the effect of different sizes of check-in
counters. Some numerical examples are presented later in Chapter 7.
73
5 Model Development
74
Simulation Model
6.1 INTRODUCTION
Simulation is an analysis technique based on numerical methods. Hall (1991) stated
that simulation is a powerful technique for evaluating the behavior of a system.
In order to improve the evaluation of the proposed model, this project developed a
simulation program. Some other simulation programs are already available.
However, this project developed its own simulation program to suit the project
objectives.
The objective of the development of a simulation model is to propose a model to
determine the optimum number of servers in the check-in area. This model
approaches the issues related to the passenger check-in process that to some
extent are different from the methods already reported. The simulation model
attempts to imitate the process in the check-in area by involving elements related to
that process. The elements involved are passenger arrival distribution, service time,
counter configuration, space per passenger, and total cost. The values and
variations of these elements influence the design.
This chapter covers the simulation concept of the proposed model, the simulation
methodology, the simulation program development, and the verification of the
program.
6.2 PREVIOUS RELATED WORK
Some researchers have developed simulation programs for passengers in airport
terminals. This section briefly presents these simulation programs. The differences
between the proposed model and previous simulation programs are presented.
Setti and Hutchinson (1994) presented a program called TERMSIM, a simulation
program written in Pascal. The program was designed to simulate passenger
movement in an airport terminal. It assessed the performance and capacity of the
passenger terminal for planning and design purposes by treating service sequences
of passengers in a terminal as a queuing network. This program has reported that
was applied in Canada.
75
6 Simulation Model
In Amsterdam, another simulation program called LOT: Logistiek Ontwikkeling

Terminal (in Dutch) or Logistics Development Terminal was presented by
Gatersleben and van der Weij (1999). It is claimed that this program provided:
1. Identification of logistics bottlenecks in passenger handling within a time
scope of five years.
2. Solutions used to support the process of decision making for future
development of the airport.
In their article, Mumayiz and Jain (1991) presented two-simulation approaches in
designing an airport landside. They were Airport Landside Simulation Model (ALSIM)
designed by FAA, and the Canadian Airport Planning Model.
Pedroute is a computer simulation program designed by Gerry Weston at London
Underground Limited. Pedroute used widely to model crowdedness in underground
transit networks and modal interchanges. This program is able to identify the
pedestrian density at a certain location at the interchange. However, some
researchers have reported inaccuracies, such as pedestrian speed, in this program
(Still, G.K, 2000)
Another well-known simulation is SLAM II simulation program written in advanced
FORTRAN language. SLAM II as well as LOT, provides a facility to observe the
congestion of passenger flows within terminal facilities. Singapore Changi Airport
was a case study used to verify and validate this program (Jim, H. K. and Chang, Z.
Y. 1998).
The above simulations are designed to simulate passenger facilities in airport
terminals. Those reported programs, basically, involve pedestrian flow. The
programs are observing passengers/pedestrians in a building or transport
interchange as a whole. It means that those programs simulate passenger flow from
arrival at the building through different passenger processes. Those programs end
the simulation after passengers complete the movement through the airport and exit
the system. The proposed simulation model focuses only on the check-in area. The
following section presents the concept of the proposed simulation program.
6.3 THE CONCEPT
This section attempts to clarify the idea underlying the proposed simulation program.
The simulation program planned is not much different from the time block program
explained in the previous chapter. In the time block program, passengers are
grouped into ten-minute counting periods. However, in the proposed simulation
program, passengers are treated as individual entities.
The proposed model follows the simulation process for queuing behavior. The
diagram in Figure 6.1 presents the general concept of similar simulation models.
This figure is modified from Poole (1977).
The square symbols represent activity, and the circle shows an idle state, waiting
in queue. Generator activity represents the passenger arrival process at the check-in
area. Server activity is the serving process at the check-in counter until passenger
leaves the service counter. An important attribute of the generator is the number of
passengers that arrive per time unit. The relevant server attributes are service time
and number of servers.
76
The simulation program attempts to imitate the passenger check-in process at

airports. The data used in the simulation program is the same as in time block
system. Based on the available data, passengers are distributed evenly in counting
periods. In other words, the passenger headway is equal during a counting period.
As the counting period is a small value, treatment of arrivals in that period as evenly
distributed is acceptable. However, to facilitate the situation where the data are
unavailable, the generator is also able to synthesize arrival passengers with random
headways. Passengers are designated to join the shortest queue. The passengers
obtain service as soon as they depart from the queue line, in other words, the loss of
time walking (possibly carrying bags) from the head of the queue to the counter is
ignored.
Queue
Generator
Server
Figure 6-1
General flow diagram for queuing processes
6.4 METHODOLOGY
In designing the simulation, five stages are considered. The first is problem
statement. In problem statement, the entire puzzle representing the process in the
check-in area is considered. The second stage is identification and collection of data
needed to guarantee the mathematical validity of the program. The third stage is the
selection of the program language. The fourth stage is the development of the
program, and the last stage is the validation of the program coding. The goal of this
section is to explain briefly this methodology.
6.4.1 Problem Statement
Problem statement is the first stage that requires careful consideration. At this
stage, difficulties expected during program design stage must be clarified. In
addition, aspects that may affect the result must be clearly stated. This can be
achieved by observing the passenger check-in process at the airport. Since there are
number of problems related to each element involved in the check-in process, the
problems stated are presented under each element considered.
1. Arrival Passengers.
The data available is reported per ten-minute period. The simulation
program designed treats passengers as individuals. As the data is grouped
in ten-minute periods, the simulation program must be able to distribute the
number of passengers recorded a single count. For simplicity, the
distribution is done in a way that makes the headway of arrival passengers
in a particular counting period is equal.
Besides, the simulation program is expected to have the ability to generate
the demand without any passenger arrival data. In this situation, the
expectation is for the program to synthesize data.
77
6 Simulation Model
2. Queuing System
The designed simulation program is required to consider the two types of
queuing systems observed in airports.
3. Queuing Discipline
As explained in subsection 5.5.2, the simulation program should be able to
adopt the nature of passenger behavior in waiting line.
4. Service Time
The program must accommodate the differences of passenger service
times.
5. Optimization
The variables regarding the optimization process must be included in the
program design. The facility to accommodate a range of values for the
number of servers is required. The idea of implementing a waiting time limit
also needs special consideration.
The above problems are recorded in order to assist program development.
6.4.2 Data Requirement
The simulation program has the same data and information requirement as the time
block concept. The program operating procedures and probability distributions for
the random variables in the model need to be specified. The operating procedures
represent the model procedures in generating passengers and running the
simulation process. These procedures are explained in the section of simulation
program development (6.5.1).
The model definition in this simulation program is the same as in the time block
concept. The proposed simulation program is designed to mimic the passenger
check-in process.
6.4.3 Selection of Simulation Program Language
Before the simulation program is developed, a programming language has to be

selected. The programming languages available are from general-purpose
languages such as FORTRAN, Pascal, Visual Basic, or C. The other programs
specifically designed for simulations are GPSS, SIMAN, SIMSCRIPT II.5, or SLAM
II. SIMMU, ITHINK, CYCLONE were available at the research site. However, these
programs are not explored more since these are time consuming to understand
characteristics of the programs available. The simulation programs may reduce the
required programming time by providing many of the features needed in
programming a model.
It is observed that a general-purpose language is usually available in a common
software package in typical computers. Based on the time and funding limitations,
and the capability of the modeler, the program used is Visual Basic in Excel. The
reasons of selecting this application are:
The program is a relatively simple language.
It is able to present the variables in tables, since it is a capability of Excel.
78
There is no time constraint in simulation process.

The program provides sufficient facilities to design user interface.
6.4.4 Simulation Program Development
The development of the simulation program began after the programming language
is selected. Section 6.5 discusses details of the subroutines, functions and variables
of the model.
6.4.5 Verification
Verification is important for simulation programs. At this stage, the program is run
using small amount of data. To see whether each part of the program works
appropriately, users need to check the results manually. More about this phase is
presented in section 6.6.
The development of the simulation program is explained in the next section.
6.5 THE DEVELOPMENT OF SIMULATION PROGRAM
Simulation program developed in this project is utilizing the Visual Basic
application in Excel. The simulation program consists of five modules and eight
worksheets. Those modules are Beginning, Functions, Main, Menus, and
Optimization.
The Beginning module prepares all worksheets. The Function module organizes
all functions used in this program such as functions to determine arrival time, number
of arrival customers, and number of customers in queue. The Main module
coordinates the loop in the simulation process. The Menus module designs menus at
the tools bar to assist users in selecting the menus. The menus control generating
customers and simulation. The last module is the Optimization module. This module
arranges the optimization process.
The worksheets are Customer-Time, Customer, Queue, Server, Summarize,
Result, Optimization Parameter, and Random Number. These worksheets are
designed to accommodate:
The data input, i.e.: passengers arrival times and optimization parameters;
The information regarding passengers, servers, queuing, summary of the
process, and the results;
The data required to create random numbers used in generating customers.
The program is equipped with two-user interfaces to generate customer data and to
run the program. These user interfaces are aimed to assist in selecting user
preferences regarding the passenger processing system and check-in area
arrangement.
The program activities are grouped into three processes as presented in Figure
6.2. The following subsections explain these three processes.
79
6 Simulation Model
Generate arriving customers
Input optimisation parameters
Simulate check-in process
Figure 6-2
The Simulation process
6.5.1 Generating Customers
To generate customers, the program has two options. The first option generates
customers from a Timetable whereby customers are generated from the data
available. It is called a timetable method since the data adopted is from the
passenger arrival distribution based on aircraft schedule as in the time block
program. The process is shown in Fig. 6-3a.
The second option is generating customers by making use of random numbers as
inter-arrival time of customers. In this second option, information required is initial
arrival time, number of customers, and arrival rate () of the customers. This method
is presented in Fig. 6-3b.
Timetable
Synthesize arrival
passengers
Input data required:

- Initial arrival time
- Number of customers
- Passenger arrival rate
Generate list of customers
Generate list of customers
a.
b.
Figure 6-3
Process of generating customers
80
The program provides an input interface to select the appropriate option. Figure 64 presents this interface.
a.
b.
Figure 6-4
User interface to generate customers
The button Time table in figure (a) can be toggled to get the interface shown in
figure (b).
6.5.1.1 Generating Customer from Timetable
The principle of generating customer from timetable is presented in Figure 6-5.
Time Block
Number of
Customers
In Time
Block
Customer
Number
Arrival
Time
3:40
48
3:40
3:50
37
3:40
3:40
3:40
3:41
23:20
(Total
number)
Table 1
Table 2
Figure 6-5
Generating customers to match timetable
Table 1 in Figure 6-5 shows the number of arrival passengers in each time block.
Table 2 is the individual passenger arrival sequence.
81
6 Simulation Model
The values in table 1 of Figure 6-5 are copied from the data in the Central module
in the Time Block program (Chapter 5). The copied cells are pasted to the Customer
Time worksheet in the simulation program. The values are adopted from Time Block
program since the proposed simulation program is using the same information. If
data from other sources are available, they can keyed into the Customer Time
worksheet. This is possible as long as the data have the same format as the Time
Block system.
In Table 1 of Figure 6-5, the number of customers is recorded every ten minutes.
Since the simulation program treats the customers as individuals, the number of
customers in ten minutes is distributed evenly during that period. This provides an
arrival time for each passenger. These arrival times are recorded in Table 2. These
values are in the Customer worksheet of the simulation program. The inter-arrival
time for a customer is:
Inter _ arrival time =
Time block period

Number of customers in time block
(6-1)
If the number of customers in one time block is large, the inter-arrival time for
each customer in the corresponding time block will be very small. The simulation
program is designed to round off the time to the nearest minute to simplify the
program.
The arrival time for each customer will then be:
Arrival time = Initial time of the time period + (Inter arrival time x (Customer numberInitial customer number))
(6-2)
The initial customer number in equation 6-2 refers to the first customer of the
particular time period.
The explanation of equation 6-2 is shown in Figure 6-6. For example, customer
number 8 is the initial customer number in a particular time block period. The time
block length is 10 minutes. There are four people in the corresponding time block.
The inter arrival time is 10/4 = 2.5 minutes. This person number 8 is assumed to
arrive at time block start time t8 = 10:30. Thus, the arrival time for customer number
11 would be:
t11 = 10:30 + (2.5*(11-8)) = 10:30 + 0:07 = 10:37
6.5.1.2 Generating Customers Using Random Numbers
The random number is created using the random generator in excel. The distribution
for these random numbers is uniform distribution. A list is prepared with numbers to
denote a probability in the range of 1 to 100. There are 3000 random numbers in the
list. The aim of using the list of random numbers is to make the simulation program
have the same passenger distribution when comparing project scenarios. This list of
random numbers is located in the Random Number worksheet.
82
Time
Next time period
Next time period
t11
t10
t9
t8
10 11
Customer
Figure 6-6
Estimation process of customer arrival time
The process in generating customers from random numbers is not much different
from the previous process. The difference is in inter-arrival time estimation. The
equations for this are:
Arrival time = Initial arrival time + Inter arrival time

Inter arrival time =
log(1 probbability of arriving customer )

(customer arrival rate)
(6-3)
(6-4)
Equation 6-4 is derived from the equation for the negative exponential distribution.
The equation is adopted since the negative exponential distribution is the accepted
distribution used for inter arrival times. This selection does not mean that the
exponential distribution is always applied on passenger arrival distribution in check-in
area. The distribution can be changed based on the knowledge of the user by
changing the simulation program code.
The probability of an arrival customer is taken from the ratio of random number to
100.
The generated customers are placed into the Customers worksheet. The lists of
generated customers look similar to Table 2 in Figure 6-5.
After the customers are generated, the next step is to run the simulation program.
If the program objective is to find the optimum result, the optimization parameters
must be stored at this stage. More details on optimization will be included in the next
section.
83
6 Simulation Model
6.5.2 Simulation Procedure
A user interface as shown in Figure 6-7 provides facilitation for user in selecting
model configuration.
The user interface has three buttons to activate the program. Those are Start,
Close, and Clean Result. The Start button function is to start running the program.
The Close button closes the user interface. The Clean result button provides tool
to remove previous results. This option is to avoid mixing up of results from different
simulation runs.
Other facilities available in this user interface are:
1. Number of Server Line
Number of server line is the number of servers to be used in the simulation. User
types the number of servers in this space.
2. Number of Queue Line
This section has facility for two options in selecting the queue system. These
options are one (single line queue), and as many as server lines (multiple line
queues). By selecting one of these options, the program assigns passengers to
perform queue operation as the selected queue system characteristics.
3. Waiting time limit
Waiting time limit is the allowed maximum waiting time without penalty for
passengers. User may type the preferred time limit into space available.
4. Service Duration
There are two options provided regarding the length of service time. The first
option is random service time. The uniform distribution between the two input
limits is applied to distribute the random service time. This distribution maybe
assumed since there is no available data regarding service time distribution.
However, the distribution designed here can be changed when data or statistical
information regarding service time distribution are available.
The upper and lower limits of service time designed must be entered into the
spaces available. By selecting this option, different passengers are assigned
different service times. The service time is an integer number in minutes to
simplify the program.
The other option is to apply the average service time. It means all passengers are
assumed to receive the same service time.
5. Iteration Ending
This facility is aimed to assist the user to select the condition at which the
program will be terminated. The first choice allows the program to stop after all
arrival passengers have been served. The second alternative depends on the
user preference regarding the time. This means that the program runs only for a
certain period. The third choice counts the number of customers servers.
Therefore, the program stops after a specified number of passengers.
84
6. Simulation Level
Initially, input cells in simulation level options are shaded as shown in the Figure
and not accessible to the user. The simulation level options show up only when
the toggle button labeled One Iteration is pressed. There are three different
preferences for this simulation level. This section allows the user to control the
range of values feasible for the number of servers.
First, the program runs only for once iteration with the specified number of
servers. To be able to do this, the user fills the selected number of servers into
the number of server space at the top of this interface.
Second, the program is executed for several scenarios. For this option, the user
has to select a range for the number of servers. The range selection is typed into
two spaces available below the button. The program will limit to the range
selected. The step space selects the increment value for the number of servers
in the range. For example, if the range selected is from 5 to 15 numbers of
servers with a step of 5, the program only runs at 5, 10, and 15 servers.
Third, the program is assigned to find the optimum. At this stage, the
optimization parameters are required. In this situation, the number of servers
range helps to reduce the search time. It is suggested that the time block result
be adopted as reference to select this range.
Figure 6-7
User interface for selecting program options
85
6 Simulation Model
The simulation procedure is expressed in the form of a flow diagram shown in Figure
6-8.
Clean workspace
Select number of
servers
Select number of
waiting lines
Select preferred
waiting time limit
Select service duration
Select program ending

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

servers range
Start simulation
End
Figure 6-8
Flow diagram for the simulation program
86
For simulation directed to find the optimum number of servers, parameters shown
in Table 6-1 are required by the program. These optimization parameters are stored
in the Optimization parameter worksheet.
Table 6-1
Optimization Parameters
OPTIMIZATION PARAMETER
Equipment Cost of Servers
Furniture + Equipment Cost
Counter Officer Cost of Server
Officer per server
Officer fee
Working hours
Construction Cost of Server
Construction cost
Server width
Server length
Construction Cost of Queue Area
Construction cost
Passenger width
Passenger length
Waiting Time Penalty Cost
Waiting time penalty cost
VALUE
UNIT
4.11 $/server
2 Person/server
50 $/hr.person
20 Hrs
11872.02 $/sqm.server
2.60 m
7.60 m
11872.02 $/sqm.passenger
2.20 m
1.72 m
10 $/passenger
exceeded waiting
time limit
User can change values shown in optimization parameter in Table 6-1. For
example, the value for customer width can be changed depending on the queuing
system applied. If the queuing system selected is multiple of single-server queues,
the customer width will be the same as the server width. However, for multipleservers queue, the customer width is equal to 0.64 m (refer to Figure 2-3). This value
is required in this program.
6.5.3 Program Execution Process
During the execution process, the simulation program follows three steps. The
curved arrows in Figure 6-9 show these steps.
The first step is ending services and exiting customers. The aim of this process is
to clear the previous processes and generate new customers. This ending service
process is activated by pressing the clean result button in the simulation user
interface as shown in Figure 6-7.
87
6 Simulation Model
The second step is generating new customers and locating customers in arrivals
list. In this step, generating customers is done by using values given in the user
interface shown before in Figure 6-4. The user selects one of the two options
available. If the timetable is selected, the user must copy the data and paste it into
the Customer-Time worksheet in the simulation program. After timetable is copied,
the user starts the generating process by pressing the generate button. In case the
user prefers to synthesize the customer arrival times, the user interface as shown in
Figure 6-4b provides this facility. The user may input all three boxes available with
the preferred configuration. Pressing generate button begins this process. The
program places customers and their arrival times in the Customer worksheet.
Generator
Generate
customers,
Locating
customers in
queue
Ending service,
Exiting
customers
2
Queue
Start
services,
Move
customers
from queue
3
Servers
Figure 6-9
The process for executing simulation program
The program checks the number of customer arrivals at a particular simulation
clock time and locates the customers in appropriate lines. The appropriate line
means that the program selects the line with minimum number of customers in
queue. The program allocates customers to the servers sequentially, so when there
is more than one queue with the smallest number of waiting passengers, the
customer is placed in the queue with the smallest sequence number.
The last step is starting service and moving customers in the queue line. At this
stage, no action is required from the user. This process begins when the program
simulation starts. In this process, each server starts serving customers. The program
estimates the service duration, records starting, and ending times of service. When
88
one customer completes the service, the program moves another customer from the
queue line to the empty server. If there is no customer, the program records the idle
time for the server. The program also checks the simulation clock to find whether the
customer is the last one.
All processes are recorded in the Summarize worksheet. The information
available in this worksheet is simulation clock (time), the cumulative number for
passenger arrivals, the number of passengers in queue, in service, the cumulative
number for exiting passengers, the number of active servers, total service duration,
total idle duration, and maximum queue in each line.
In developing the program, it is important to verify the program both during the
development process and after the completion of the program development. It is
important to ensure the translation of the conceptual simulation model into a
correctly working program. Next section discusses the verification process for the
proposed simulation program.
6.6 VERIFICATION PROCESS
Verification determines that a simulation computer program performs as intended
(Law, 1991). This project applies the verification technique under simplified
assumptions. The assumptions selected that are appropriate to the program
characteristics and can be checked easily are used in the verification process.
For example, consider the following scenario:
Number of customers: 20
(arrival rate): 20 customer/60 minute
Starting time: 3:40
Number of servers: 4
Queue system: multiple single-server queues
Average service time: 2 minute
Iteration ending after all customers have been served
Simulation level is one iteration
Optimization parameters applied as shown in Table 6-1.
Even though this example is not for optimization purposes, the optimization
parameter is still required to be filled in, in order to see whether the optimization
parameters are already linked to the program.
The results are available in three parts, i.e.: summary of the program, customer
activity, and the result including the cost.
Table 6-2 summaries the program execution process. This information is located
in Summary worksheet in the program. The Summary covers:
A column that accommodates the activity time, which is called simulation

clock column. The program records this activity. The range of time
recorded in this column is appropriate for the scenario. The scenario asks
to generate 20 passengers with an arrival rate of 20 passengers per hour.
Thus, the operation time is approximately one hour.
89
6 Simulation Model
Arrival cumulative column provides the cumulative number of passenger

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

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

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

passengers completed service and exit from the system. The last number
shows that 20 passengers exited. This number equals the number of
arrival passengers. Thus, all passengers have left the system.
Table 6-2
Summary of simulation
Simulation Arrive
Depart
Active
Active
Total Service Total Idle Maximum
Clock
Cumulative in Qeue in Service Cumulative QeueLine ServerLine Duration
Duration Qeue in Line
3:40
2
0
2
0
0
2
0:00
0:00
0
3:41
3
0
3
0
0
3
0:00
0:01
0
3:42
5
0
3
2
0
3
0:04
0:00
0
3:43
5
0
2
3
0
2
0:02
0:00
0
3:44
5
0
0
5
0
0
0:04
0:00
0
3:47
6
0
1
5
0
1
0:00
0:03
0
3:49
6
0
0
6
0
0
0:02
0:00
0
3:54
7
0
1
6
0
1
0:00
0:05
0
3:56
7
0
0
7
0
0
0:02
0:00
0
4:06
8
0
1
7
0
1
0:00
0:10
0
4:08
8
0
0
8
0
0
0:02
0:00
0
4:12
9
0
1
8
0
1
0:00
0:04
0
4:13
10
0
2
8
0
2
0:00
0:29
0
4:14
10
0
1
9
0
1
0:02
0:00
0
4:15
10
0
0
10
0
0
0:02
0:00
0
4:17
11
0
1
10
0
1
0:00
0:03
0
4:19
11
0
0
11
0
0
0:02
0:00
0
4:20
13
0
2
11
0
2
0:00
0:06
0
4:22
16
0
3
13
0
3
0:04
0:39
0
4:23
17
0
4
13
0
4
0:00
0:43
0
4:24
17
0
1
16
0
1
0:06
0:00
0
4:25
17
0
0
17
0
0
0:02
0:00
0
4:28
18
0
1
17
0
1
0:00
0:04
0
4:29
19
0
2
17
0
2
0:00
0:05
0
4:30
20
0
2
18
0
2
0:02
0:00
0
4:31
20
0
1
19
0
1
0:02
0:00
0
4:32
20
0
0
20
0
0
0:02
0:16
0
90
The active queue line column indicates the number of queue lines active at
a particular time. If there are no passengers in queues, the active queue
line is zero. This column is useful for a multiple single-server queue
system.
The active server line values are the same as the value in in service
column.
The total service duration column represents the total service duration
completed at a particular time. This value can be checked by multiplying
the number of passengers exited by the average service time.
Total idle duration presents the time length for the number of servers that
are not active.
Maximum queue in line column shows the maximum number of

passengers in a line queue at a particular time.
To have different point of view of this result, Table 6-3 shows the results based on
the customer count.
Table 6-3 presents observations for each passenger. The first column shows the
identification number of each passenger. The second column indicates the
passenger arrival time. The third and the fourth columns are the identification
number for queue line and servers. Since the queue system applied to this example
is a multiple line queue, the number for queue lines is the same as the number of
servers. If the queue system selected is a single line queue, the number for queue
lines will be one for every customer. The service time column shows the same time
as the passenger arrival time. This shows that there is no queuing and waiting time
during the service process. This is also shown in the third column of Table 6-2. The
last one is the departure time column where the values indicate a two minutes
difference from arrival time, which is correct for the stipulated input conditions.
Table 6-3
Result observation based on the customer
Customer ID
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
Arrive Time
Qeue Line
3:40
3:40
3:41
3:42
3:42
3:47
3:54
4:06
4:12
4:13
4:17
4:20
4:20
4:22
4:22
4:22
4:23
4:28
4:29
4:30
Server Line
1
2
3
1
2
1
1
1
1
2
1
1
2
1
2
3
4
1
2
1
1
2
3
1
2
1
1
1
1
2
1
1
2
1
2
3
4
1
2
1
Service Time
Depart Time
Waiting Duration
Service Duration
3:40
3:42
0:00
0:02
3:40
3:42
0:00
0:02
3:41
3:43
0:00
0:02
3:42
3:44
0:00
0:02
3:42
3:44
0:00
0:02
3:47
3:49
0:00
0:02
3:54
3:56
0:00
0:02
4:06
4:08
0:00
0:02
4:12
4:14
0:00
0:02
4:13
4:15
0:00
0:02
4:17
4:19
0:00
0:02
4:20
4:22
0:00
0:02
4:20
4:22
0:00
0:02
4:22
4:24
0:00
0:02
4:22
4:24
0:00
0:02
4:22
4:24
0:00
0:02
4:23
4:25
0:00
0:02
4:28
4:30
0:00
0:02
4:29
4:31
0:00
0:02
4:30
4:32
0:00
0:02
Both tables presented previously (Table 6-2 and 6-3) show the validity of the
simulation program under conditions of no queue. Table 6-4 presents the result.
Values in Table 6-4 confirm the results obtained from the previous two tables.
Two things need to be highlighted in this table. The first one is regarding idle
duration. This value is useful for planners to recognize the efficiency of the design.
The second thing is about the cost element. The cost presented here is the daily cost
that includes construction, operations, equipment, and furniture costs. The
information concerning the total cost is required in comparing the impact of number
of check-in counters.
The example presented here is only a simple one where the passenger demand
level is low. The program has been explored with many different runs to check and
correct any abnormalities.
91
6 Simulation Model
Table 6-4
Final results for the example
Parameter
Value
Iteration
Start time
3:40 AM
Finish
4:32 AM
Total arrive
20 customers
Total depart
20 customers
Number of queue lines
Number of servers
Waiting time (average)
0:00
Waiting time (maximum)
0:00
Waiting time (minimum)
0:00
Waiting time limit
0:25
Number of customers Exceed Penalty time limit
Queue max
Queue max per line
Total service duration
0:40
Total idle duration
2:48
Waiting penalty cost
Total cost per day
$ 572174.81
6.7 SUMMARY
Understanding the physical system is important in building a simulation program.
This understanding is useful in introducing real life into the program language. The
ability to utilize the computer program language is also important.
This simulation program consists of five different modules. Those modules are
Beginning, Functions, Main, Menus, and Optimization. This program provides eight
worksheets to record the process in detail. In addition, two user interfaces have been
developed to allow users with the control of the simulation program.
The first of the eight worksheets is Customer-Time. This worksheet is designed to
accommodate the simulation information regarding arrival time and number of
customers at a particular time. The second one is the Customer worksheet. This one
provides columns to record the customer identification number, the time when a
particular customer arrives, the number of the queue used by the customer and
server number, the times the customer starts and ends service, waiting time
duration, and service time duration. The Queue worksheet shows the number of
92
queue lines, the number of customers in a particular queue line, and maximum
number of customers in a particular line. The Server worksheet provides information
regarding the server identification, start and end service times for a particular server,
idle duration, the number of customers served, total service duration, and the
number of customers departed from this particular server. The Summarize
worksheet function is to summarize all the activities during the simulation. The Result
worksheet provides information such as minimum, maximum and average waiting
time, queue length, and total cost after the program completes the simulation. The
Optimum worksheet is provided to help the users change optimization parameters if
necessary. The last worksheet is the Random worksheet. This worksheet provides a
list of random numbers to be used in the simulation.
93
6 Simulation Model
94
Model Evaluation
7.1 INTRODUCTION
This chapter presents an evaluation of the proposed model. The evaluation here is
trying to assess the results of the two programs, i.e.: the time block and simulation
programs.
The check-in area consists of check-in counters, circulation area, and an area for
passengers in queue (refer to Figure 2-5). The size of the check-in counter area thus
depends on the check-in counter size and arrangement, and number of check-in
desks provided.
The circulation area has to be sufficiently large to cater for the queue system
applied and the check-in counters arrangement. The selected queue system and
check-in counter arrangements influence the passenger circulation area. This may
impact waiting times if passengers obtaining service collide with passengers exiting
service.
The queue area is the area for passengers waiting. The queue length depends on
the arrival rate of passengers, the number of counters, and the average service time.
These three elements also influence the waiting time. The average waiting time is an
important measure of service performance of the check-in process.
The model represented by the two programs developed in this project tries to
combine elements mentioned above in a single calculation process. Equation 5-1
and 5-2 are representing the proposed model.
7.2 COMPARISONS OF RESULTS
This project develops two computer-aided analysis tools. Chapter 5 and 6 describes
the detail of these two programs. The programs are called time block and simulation
programs. To evaluate the proposed equations (5-1 and 5-2), this project utilize
these two programs and adopts data from five different airports.
This section presents the application of the two programs to five airports. The aim
of this application is to investigate the importance of elements mentioned above for
an check-in area. The required data as explained in Chapters 3 and 4 are applied in
the two programs. A comparison of the results to the existing situation is the next
step. The results of time block program and simulation program are evaluated to see
the sensitivity of each program. Checking the sensitivity of the considered elements
95
7 Model Evaluation
involves variation of input data. However, since the complete data needed for the
programs were not available from the airports selected, the comparisons are
addressed as a preliminary assessment to the proposed method. Complete analysis
requires data related to individual of passenger arrival times at check-in area.
The results need to be evaluated by comparison with the IATA formula. Other
methods explained in Chapter 2 are not taken into consideration due to lack of data.
7.2.1 Comparison between the Real Situation and Program Results
Number of servers is the key variable selected to make the results easy to compare.
The number of servers in the airport check-in area influences the required space
for counters and passengers in queue. The more servers are available, the more
space is required for check-in counters, and the less space is required for queuing
area. Large number of servers may increase the cost for the airport authority. The
best design for airport check-in area is balancing the number of servers available
and waiting time applied. The programs are designed to find the optimum space
required that indicate equilibrium between the number of servers available and
passenger convenience.
Table 7-1 presents the list of data applied to the programs. Only three airports
provided the average service time applied. For the other airports, the selected
average service time is assumed. The programs were designed to consider service
time in whole minutes. Thus the service time applied is 2, 5, 3, 5, and 5 minutes for
Birmingham, Brisbane, Hong Kong, Melbourne, and Orlando airports respectively.
The programs also require counter size and cost elements in order to obtain the
optimum total space required. The counter sizes are adopted from Table 2-4. The
width of the passengers with carts space is selected as 0.64 meters (Figure 2-3).
Table 7-1
List of selected input data
Airport
Average
service time
Service time
Cost
used in the
Operational
time (hr)
Counter Size (m)
Passengers With
Cart Size (m)
programs
(minutes)
Birmingham
Brisbane
Hong Kong
Melbourne
Orlando
2:10
(*) 5:00
3:18
(*) 5:00
4:30
Worker fee
2
5
3
5
5
($/hr/person)
50
50
50
50
50
Furniture +
Construction
Equipment
($/day)
($/day)
4.11
11872.02
4.11
11872.02
4.11
11872.02
4.11
11872.02
4.11
11872.02
Width
20
20
24
20
20
2.20
2.20
2.20
2.20
2.20
Length
5.40
5.40
5.40
5.40
5.40
Width
0.64
0.64
0.64
0.64
0.64
Length
1.72
1.72
1.72
1.72
1.72
(*) The assumed average service time, since the real average service time is unavailable.
Table 5-7 has provided data related to the cost. The operational time is based on
the time span of flight schedules at the airports. In this case, only Hong Kong
International airport has a 24-hour service at the time of this research project. The
program uses the operational time to estimate the total cost of workers per day.
To account for passenger demand, the program generator uses one year flight
schedule for the individual airport. The total number of international passengers per
day were selected as 9,550; 4,252; 57,727; 6,386; 3166 for Birmingham, Brisbane,
Hong Kong, Melbourne, and Orlando airports respectively.
96
Number of Check-in Counters
Figure 7-1 presents the number of servers computed. Brisbane and Orlando have
only three bars of the histogram since information regarding the actual number of
servers were not available from these two airports for this research project.
350
300
250
Time Block
Simulation-Single Q
Simulation-Multiple Q
Real Situation
200
150
100
50
0
Birmingham
Brisbane
Hong Kong
Airports
Melbourne
Orlando
Figure 7-1
Comparison of analysis results and real situation
Figure 7-1 shows that the optimum number of servers obtained from the programs
tends to be less than the number of servers in the real situation. Some possible
reasons for these indications are:
Airline separation. Airports usually provide check-in counters based on
airline requirements. In serving passengers, airlines do not mix the
counters. Each airline has separate counters. The number of counters for
each airline depends on the airline demand. The programs assume airlines
mix counters to simplify the calculation process. Besides, the information
regarding the required number of counters for each airline at airports was
not readily available. However, Birmingham airport mix airline counters
since it applies the CUTE system (refer to Chapter 2).
Domestic and International passenger separation. Birmingham airport
mixes counters for domestic and international passengers. At other airports,
it was not clear whether the number of servers available was for
international passengers or includes domestic passengers. The input for the
programs was driven by international schedules. Therefore, the program
results are for that portion of passengers and tend to be less than the total
in real situation.
First and economic class separation. This separation may lead to provide
more servers. The programs were not designed to be able to handle the
passenger class separations.
Over design. Over design occurs when the expected demand is less than
the real situation. For example, the number of passengers expected is less
than forecasts due to the global downturn. Zhang (2001) has explained this
situation for Hong Kong International Airport.
Figure 7-1 also presents the differences between the two programs. The results of
time block program are compared to the results of simulation program for a single
queue. The time block program is applicable only for a single queue system (refer to
97
7 Model Evaluation
Chapter 5). The results are nearly the same. A difference occurs when the demand
is high as the case for Hong Kong International Airport. The possible reason for this
condition is the different methodology in the two programs. As explained in Chapters
5 and 6 passengers are assigned in different ways. The time block program assigns
passengers in groups based on the counting period, the simulation program assigns
passengers as individuals (refer to the limitation of time block program in Chapter 5).
From the space optimization point of view, there is very little difference between
operations with multiple single-server queues and multiple-server queue.
The other results such as waiting time and queue length are also obtained. These
results are presented in the next sub section.
7.2.2 Waiting Time and Queue Length
Besides the number of servers, waiting time and queue length are also examined.
Table 7-2 presents the waiting time value in minutes accrdoing to the analysis
programs. The waiting time and the queue length in the real situation are not
examined since the actual information regarding those two elements is not available.
Table 7-2
Waiting time estimates (minute)
Airport
Program
Birmingham Time block

Simulation single queue
Simulation multiple queue
Brisbane
Time block
Hong Kong Time block
Melbourne Time block
Orlando
Time block
Waiting time (minutes)

Maximum
Average
16
3
2
1
2
1
25
3
18
5
20
5
18
7
4
1
6
1
25
6
14
3
15
3
25
1
19
2
15
2
Table 7-2 shows that the waiting time values at the optimum number of servers
from the two programs are different. In the time block program, passengers are
grouped based on counting periods (refer to Chapter 5). This system tends to
generalize the waiting time for passengers in one group. That is why the maximum
waiting time for the time block program is higher than for the simulation program.
The average waiting time of the time block program is less than the result of the
simulation program for the Orlando application. The variation in the time block result
is caused by the grouped system adopted in the system.
For example, consider 204 passenger arrivals. The 204 passengers are grouped
into time blocks, which have a length, equal to service time as shown in Figure 7-2.
The waiting time is the number above the boxes. It shows 0, 5, 10, and 15.
98
0
Server
Counting period
5
62
10
62
62
Waiting time
15
18
Number of server or
passenger in queue in
one time block
Figure 7-2
Example of waiting time estimation
The total waiting time is a multiplication of average service time, the service time
applied is 5 minute, and number of servers available is 62. The queuing distribution
is described in Figure 7-2.
In the simulation program, the maximum waiting time is different. The maximum
waiting time for multiple queues tends to be larger than with a single queue.
In the process of joining the queue, passengers could unintentionally select the
queue line that has longer service time. Figure 7-3 depicts joining the queuing
process. The value above each bar is the time when the customers start and finish
the service process. The value under each bar is the time length between events. To
exaggerate the presentation here in this diagram, the service time selected is one
hour. The first four bars are with a single line scenario. The other four bars are with
multiple a waiting lines scenario for the same passenger group.
When C8 arrives, all servers are serving customers. C8 has no idea which
customer in service is nearly finishing the process. The program was designed to
join the shortest queue, thus C8 joins Q1. The decision to join the Q1 is based on the
decision policy of the program that the new customer will join the smallest sequence
number queue if number of queue lines are empty and all servers are busy.
99
7 Model Evaluation
ServiceTime = 1:00
3:00
S1
4:00
C1, A=3:00, W=0:00
5:00
C5, A=3:42, W=0:18
1:00
1:00
3:10
4:10
C2, A=3:10, W=0:00
S2
0:10
Q1
S3
1:00
3:00
C8, A=4:21, W=0:11

1:00
0:38
4:00
5:00
6:00
C1/Q1, A=3:00, W=0:00
C5/Q1, A=3:42, W=0:18
C8/Q1, A=4:21, W=0:39
1:00
4:10
C2/Q2, A=3:10, W=0:00
S2
0:10
3:13
S3
3:32
S4
0:32
0:10
1:00
1:00
5:10
6:10
C6/Q2, A=3:50, W=0:20
C10/Q2, A=4:57, W=0:13
1:00
1:00
4:13
5:13
C3/Q3, A=3:13, W=0:00
C7/Q3, A=3:55, W=0:18
0:13
Q4
5:32
1:00
3:10
Q3
0:57
1:00
4:32
C4, A=3:32, W=0:00

0:32
Q2
C7, A=3:55, W=0:18
1:00
3:32
S1
1:00
5:13
C3, A=3:13, W=0:00
S4
Q1
6:10
C10, A=4:57, W=0:13
4:13
0:13
0:10
1:00
5:10
C6, A=3:50, W=0:20
1:00
3:13
(a) Single waiting line
6:00
C9, A=4:41, W=0:19
1:00
4:32
C4/Q4, A=3:32, W=0:00
1:00
1:00
0:57
1:00
4:41
5:41
C9/Q4, A=4:41, W=0:00
0:09
1:00
0:29
(b) Multiple waiting lines
When C8 arrived (at 4:21), all servers are busy and the
queue line is empty.Based on the decission policy, C8
join the Q1.
Customer C9 arrives at 4:41observes:

- Q1 has C8 and S1 has C5
- Q2 has and S2 has C6
- Q3 is empty and S3 has C7
- Q4 is empty and S4 is empty
So, C9 decides to enter S4.
Figure 7-3
Waiting time comparison for single queue and multiple queues
Where:
Q = queue line, numbers from 1 - 4

S = server, numbers from 1-4
C = customer, numbers from 1 - 10
A = arrival time
W= waiting time
The other interesting element is comparison of the queue length of the two
programs. Figure 7-4 presents the result of the two programs regarding the
maximum number of passengers in queues. For multiple queues here, the maximum
queue length is for the whole system, not for single line.
The figures in Figure 7-4 are with number of servers as seen in Figure 7-1 and
Table 7-2. The maximum queue length for the time block program is generally higher
than for the simulation program. The simulation results for the two queue systems
applied are also different. However, the results shown in Figure 7-4 must be related
to the number of servers obtained as presented in Figure 7-1. From both figures, the
correlation between the number of servers and the queue length obtained is clear,
the smaller the number of servers the longer the queue.
100
1000
Time Block
800
Simulation-Single
Queue
600
400
Simulation-Multiple
Queues
200
el
bo
ur
ne
O
rla
nd
o
Ko
ng
Ho
ng
Br
isb
Bi
rm
an
e
0
in
gh
am
1200
Airports
Figure 7-4
The maximum queue length
There is a large difference for the results for Hong Kong airport as mentioned in
the summary of Chapter 5. One of the limitations of the time block program is the
difficulty in determining waiting time and queue length if the service time is not a
factor of the counting period. For example, in the Hong Kong scenario, the counting
period is 10 minutes but the average service time is 3 minute. The Figure 7-5
illustrates this situation.
The last number of passengers in the last time block occupies 1/3 of the time block
capacity. The program has difficulty in placing the first passengers in the second
arrival period. This situation requires further investigation to accommodate the
situation if the counting period is not divisible by service time ger. This situation need
future work. The next section investigates other elements involved in the proposed
model.
1st
951
279
279
279
114
2nd
1134
258
279
279
279
Number of arrivals
in counting period
Counting period = 10 min.
39
Time block = 3 min
Figure 7-5
Queuing distributions: Hong Kong case study
101
7 Model Evaluation
7.2.3 Method Comparison
As mentioned in Chapter 2 (subsections 2.2.2.2 and 2.3.1.1), IATA has two formulae
to estimate the number of counters and required queue space. It is important to
know the comparison of the IATA method and the proposed method. Due to
limitation of the time block method, the simulation program is utilized here for
comparison with the IATA method.
The IATA method has two elements involved in determining the required number
of servers and queue space. According to Equations 2-1 and 2-2, the required data
are peak hour number of passengers, number of transfer passengers, and average
processing time. Since there is no data regarding the number of transfer passengers,
this value is not included in the current analysis.
The peak hour passenger count is derived from the schedule of Birmingham
airport (refer to column T in Table 4-7 or in the Summarize worksheet. The flow rate
of passenger during the peak is 1020 passengers per hour. This figure arises from
5:00 to 5:50. To apply the peak hour passengers in the simulation program, the time
and number of passengers is copied and pasted into the Customer Time worksheet
in the program. The average service times applied in these comparisons are 2, 3, 4,
and 5 minutes. Table 7-3 presents the comparison results.
Table 7-3
Comparison of IATA methods and simulation
Service time
2
3
4
5
Number of servers
IATA
Simulation
34
32
51
45
68
56
85
62
Queue space required

IATA
Simulation
255
123.29
255
170.28
255
215.76
255
303.82
The first column lists service time applied in these comparisons. The second and
third columns are the optimum number of servers obtained by the IATA method and
the simulation program. The fourth and the last columns are the required queue
space in square meters.
The results indicate that there is significant difference between simulation program
estimates and the IATA method. The difference transpires in queue space required
when the service time applied is 2 and 3 minutes. In practice, it is unlikely to have an
average service time as high as 4 and 5 minutes. The difference may be caused by
the assumption adopted by IATA. Since IATA is an international association, the
method provided needs to be conservative and able to implement in any situation in
any country.
7.3 INFLUENCE OF DEMAND FLUCTUATIONS
The number of arriving passengers applied in the simulation program is the average
of the seven days of the week. Since the number of passengers varies with the day
of the week, the required number of servers will also vary. Design of the number of
check-in desks is based on the busiest day, which may lead to over design. Table 74 presents the variation of number of passengers in a week and the results of
102
maximum waiting time and maximum queue length for each day. The results are
obtained by applying the optimum number of servers for the average day.
Table 7-4
Impact of daily variations of demand
Day
Monday
Tuesday
Wednesday
Thursday
Friday
Saturday
Sunday
Number of passengers
10254
10180
10567
11450
11003
5263
8139
Maximum waiting
time (minutes)
8
9
12
18
2
1
2
Maximum queue
length
150
175
214
325
45
9
35
Table 7-4 shows results for Birmingham International Airport with a multiple of
single server-queues system. The average number of passengers in a day is 9550.
The optimum number of servers for the average day is 39. The 39 servers are
adopted for daily application. Table 7-4 shows results that the maximum waiting time
is still below the waiting time limit (25 minute).
However, if the number of passengers is large, it may exceed the capacity of the
servers at a certain point. Figure 7-6 presents the effect of increasing the number of
passengers up to 75 % above the daily average of 9550 to estimate when the
maximum waiting time exceeds the waiting time limit. Figure 7-6 shows that an
additional 55% of the average of passenger flow rate will create unacceptable
situations for passengers.
Above analysis indicates that the solution from this program can be useful to
explore the tolerance to fluctuations of the daily demand.
7.4 INFLUENCE OF A DIFFERENT EARLINESS DISTRIBUTION
The example of IATA pattern is selected as earliness distribution of arrivals for the
time block and simulation programs. It is important to investigate the influence of
different arrival distribution pattern. The aim of this investigation is to identify the
sensitivity of arrival patterns to the results obtained. In practice, passenger arrival
distribution may vary according to the airline operation. For this analysis, this project
changes the percentage of number of arriving passengers in each time period. The
modification made to the IATA pattern is shown in Figure 7-7. The IATA pattern is
also shown in Figure 7-7, adopted from the pattern for the period after 10:00 (pattern
number 3).
There is no special formula in modifying the percentage of the IATA pattern. It was
changed by taking the mirror image pattern. The modified earliness distribution is
applied to the simulation program (refer to chapter 4 for details of application of
earliness patterns for arrivals). Figure 7-8 presents the influence of the modified
pattern. The Figure 7-8 is for Birmingham International Airport.
103
7 Model Evaluation
60.00
Waiting time (minute)
50.00
Maximum waiting time

40.00
30.00
20.00
Waiting time limit
10.00
0.00
25%
50%
75%
Additional number of passengers

(percentage)
Figure 7-6
The average service time selected is 2 minutes and multiple waiting lines are
applied. The optimum number of servers obtained with the modified distribution is 35
(compared to 39 servers for the IATA distribution). Table 7-5 shows the comparison
in waiting time and number of passengers in queue. The distribution of arrival
earliness has an influence in on queue length. There is some effect on waiting times
as well.
Percentage of passengers
20%
15%
Modified
IATA
10%
5%
-2
:5
0
-2
:4
0
-2
:3
0
-2
:2
0
-2
:1
0
-2
:0
0
-1
:5
0
-1
:4
0
-1
:3
0
-1
:2
0
-1
:1
0
-1
:0
0
-0
:5
0
-0
:4
0
0%
Figure 7-7
Alternative earliness pattern applied in the investigation
.
104
250
200
150
IATA
Modified
100
50
23:50
22:00
20:10
18:20
16:30
14:40
12:50
11:00
9:10
7:20
5:30
3:40
1:50
0:00
Arrival Time
Figure 7-8
Arrival distribution during the day
Table 7-5
Comparison of results obtained with the alternative earliness distribution
Number of
servers
30
31
32
33
34
35
36

(minutes)
IATA
Modified
12
11
10
9
9
8
7
6
6
6
5
4
4
4
Queue length
IATA
171
153
138
123
107
91
75
Modified
156
136
116
96
76
56
41
7.5 THE INFLUENCE OF QUEUE SYSTEMS

The queue systems applied in this program are multiple single-queues and multipleserver queue (refer to chapter 2). The queue system selected may influence the
required space, which affects the total cost. The number of servers and the
maximum number of passengers in queue represent the required space. To observe
the impact of the queue system in the program result, the simulation has been
applied with data from the selected airports with different queue systems.
The results of the simulation are already shown in Figures 7-1 and 7-4, and also in
Table 7-2. Table 7-6 shows results for the five different airports under the two queue
systems. The average service time is as shown in sub-section 7.2.2. The optimum
number of servers for a multiple single-server queue is slightly less than for multipleserver, single line, queue. The maximum waiting time is also somewhat less. The
105
7 Model Evaluation
results show that multiple single-server queues have fewer people waiting in queue.
This is in agreement with the slightly higher number of servers.
Table 7-6
The impact of queue systems
Airport
Queue
System
Birmingham
Multiple-server
queue
Multiple single
server queues
Brisbane
Multi server
queue
Multiple
single-server
queues
Hong Kong
Multi server
queue
Multiple
single-server
queues
Melbourne
Multi server
queue
Multiple
single-server
queues
Orlando
Multi server
queue
Multiple
single-server
queues
Number of Number of
Passengers
Servers
Maximum
waiting
time (min)
Maximum
Queue
Length
9550
38
41
9550
39
31
4252
50
18
179
4252
52
20
102
57727
321
458
57727
289
867
6386
41
14
114
6386
41
15
114
3166
46
19
145
3166
56
15
109
However, results for the Hong Kong International Airport shows the opposite
pattern compared to the other airports. It is speculated that this situation could be
related to the number of passengers. This phenomenon needs further investigation.
The finding shows that queuing system has little influence on maximum waiting
time and queue length contradicts both theory and field observations. It is known
that, compared with a multiple single-server system, a multiple-server system is
more efficient and results in less delay and smaller number of passengers in queue
(when the number of servers is the same in the both systems). This is mainly
106
because in the latter system, no server will be idle unless there is no one in the
queue.
7.6 THE INFLUENCE OF SERVICE TIME
In a real situation, different passengers require a different service time. The influence
of a different pattern of service time is analyzed by applying a constant service time
for some scenarios and random service time for other scenarios. The average
service time selected is 5 minute, and that is referred to as the Fix 5 scenario as the
service time is a constant at 5 minutes. For the scenario with random service time,
the random values are between 2 and 8 minutes. The queue system applied is the
multiple-server queue. The other variables are the same as presented in Table 7-1.
Table 7-7 shows that random service time leads to a higher optimum number of
servers. As a result, waiting time and passengers in queue are less than in
operations with fixed service time.
Table 7-7
Influence of Service time variability
Airport
Service time Number of Maximum

server
Birmingham Fix2
Fix 5
Rand2-8
Brisbane
Fix 5
Rand2-8
Hong Kong Fix 3
Fix 5
Rand2-8
Melbourne Fix 5
Rand2-8
Orlando
Fix 5
Rand2-8
39
49
50
50
52
289
525
518
41
46
56
56
Waiting time
2
15
13
20
14
9
5
8
15
7
15
14
Maximum Construction cost

queue for queue per day
length
($million)
31
1.75
184
9.8
123
6.5
183
8.98
102
4.57
867
38.89
524
98.68
517
97.37
114
5.5
45
2.06
168
7.5
109
5.03
7.7 INFLUENCE OF CHECK-IN COUNTER SIZES AND ARRANGEMENTS

There are a number of check-in counter sizes and arrangements as explained in
Chapter 2 (Table 2-4 and Figure 2-4). The multiple single-server queue system is
adopted to evaluate the sizes and arrangements of counters
Data for this simulation are adopted from Birmingham. The sizes of check-in
counters are as shown in horizontal axis of the graph in Figure 7-9.
In Figure 7-9, I indicates island, L is linear, and PT represents pass through
type of check-in arrangement (refer to Figure 2-4). Those are the common counter
arrangements. The number of servers is selected as 39 for this simulation. The
Linear shape has the lowest construction cost, followed by Island and Pass
through according to the analysis, as shown in Figure 7-9.
107
7 Model Evaluation
12
Cost ($miilions)
10
8
6
4
2
I/2
.5
x5
.1
2
I/3
x5
.1
2
I/3
x5
.2
8
I/3
x5
.4
L/
1.
8x
4.
7
L/
1.
8x
5.
4
L/
2x
5.
4
L/
2.
2x
5.
4
PT
/2
.2
x7
.6
PT
/2
.6
x7
.6
Counter sizes and configuration
Figure 7-9
Comparison of overall cost with different counter sizes and arrangements
7.8 THE INFLUENCE OF NUMBER SERVERS ON THE OVERALL COST
The cost elements considered in the analysis include construction costs for the
queue area, check-in counter furniture and equipment, equipment costs, worker fees
and costs for waiting time penalty.
The figures presented in Figure 7-10 are simulation results for Hong Kong
International Airport for a multiple queue (single-server) system at different number
of total servers. Figure 7-10 shows that the cost of server space increases with
increasing number of servers. On the other hand, cost of queue space reduces with
more servers and the two graphs intersect at 289 servers.
Cost $
To evaluate the influence of the waiting time penalty, that value has been changed.
However, since the optimal design has not created a queue exceeding waiting time
limit, the waiting time penalty element had no influence in this analysis.
200
210
220
230
240
250
260
270
280
290
Number of Server
Total cost
Queue space cost
Server space cost
Figure 7-10
Relationship between cost and number of servers
108
300
7.9 PROGRESSIVE OPENING OF COUNTERS

As mentioned in the last paragraph of section 2.2.2.2, this project also attempts to
analyze the progressive opening of check-in counters. This method is intended to
save the operational costs. For this purpose, the simulation outputs the number of
counters needed at a particular time. This information can be seen in the Summarize
worksheet in the simulation program in the Active Server column. Figure 7-11
presents the variation of required number of servers with the time of day. This figure
is for the Birmingham airport.
Number of servers
50
40
30
20
10
0
0:00
2:24
4:48
7:12
9:36
12:00
14:24
16:48
19:12
21:36
24:00
Time
Figure 7-11
Number of counters needed at a particular time
7.10 LIMITATION OF THE MODEL
The model developed in this project includes some simplifying assumptions that
act as limitations of the models. Many of these limitations have been mentioned in
previous sections. A summary of such limitations are listed below:
The determination of space required based on microscopic analysis using a
pre-specified pattern of passenger arrivals may not be a reliable method
when one cannot forecast accurately passenger demand, and certainly not
the arrival pattern, at the planning stage.
Estimates of the optimum number of servers and required space are based
on a constant passenger load factor for all flights. This is rather unrealistic,
and the value of the load factor selected is also arbitrary.
A constant service time for all passengers is unrealistic.
It is common practice for airports to allocate a number of counters for the
exclusive use of each airline. Therefore, the number of servers computed
from Equation 5-4 underestimates the practical requirement.
The length of the time block has to be a multiple of the service time in the
current version of the program.
It is common knowledge that people may get agitated as waiting time
increases. Therefore, cost of waiting should be a non-linear function of
waiting time with higher penalties for longer waiting times.
109
7 Model Evaluation
The revenue to the airport operator from airlines for the use of check-in
facilities was not included. This affects the cost computations and
optimization results.
The assumption that service time is the same for all passengers (in different
airlines and different classes of passengers) is unrealistic.
The assumption of uniform headway between arrivals in a counting period is
arbitrary. This can have an effect on the delay calculations. Field data
maybe required to derive the distribution of arrivals.
The model presented here has given an insight to how to improve the
methodology to determine check-in area arrangement. Removal of above limitations
can make the model more realistic.
7.11 FUTURE WORK
The decision to use the software programs is based on the ability of the simulationbased approach to give an insight regarding elements involved in the check-in
process. However, other approaches, such as analytical models, could be used. An
analytical approach may require some assumptions to simplify the model design.
This situation may provide another research tool to compare with the simulation.
Anyhow, the analytical approach is an interesting method for further research.
One important issue that requires looking further into, is the time required for
passengers to walk from the queue area to the check-in counter. In this thesis, this
move up time is ignored by considering it is already included in service time.
However, it may be worth considering them separately to ensure realism. This is
particularly true for a single line queue system, since the passengers may have to
walk to a counter a considerable distance away from where the passenger stands.
This requires a long access time. Also, possible impact of interference with other
passengers in the circulation area in front of check-in counters needs to be
investigated.
As mentioned before, the time block method is designed with the block length
being a multiple of service time. If this limitation can be fixed, the time block program
can produce results much faster than the simulation program. The time block
program can be further enhanced by improving the user interface that feeds
information about the check-in arrangements and parameters to the calculation of
check-in space required. .
Under certain circumstances, it has been observed that the simulation program
may suggest a design with no passengers in queue in its search for the minimum
cost solution. In this situation, the cost of queue space is zero and this traps the
method in an unrealistic local minimum cost solution. At the moment, the user has to
guide the program to a different search range when an unrealistic result is
encountered. The optimization procedure can be enhanced with further controls and
criteria to avoid convergence to such unrealistic results.
7.12 SUMMARY
This chapter has presented number of examples of application of the models. The
aim has been to assess the influence of the elements involved in designing check-in
110
arrangements. These evaluations are based on application of the two programs

developed in this project.
Results from the proposed models have been compared with results from the
IATA method. IATA method tends to generally overestimate the airport size,
particularly for scenarios with short service time values. This is understandable since
the IATA method accounts for only two system variables. The proposed model
allows for seven variables as shown in first column of Table 7-8.
Table 7-8
Some findings
Variable
Simulation findings
Passenger demand Unacceptable level of service daily if the number of

and distribution
additional demand exceeds 50% above the average
daily demand.
Earliness distribution
Encouraging earlier arrival at the airport reduces the

number of servers required, maximum waiting time and
queue length in the check-in area.
Queue system
Small influence on the number of servers required,

maximum waiting time and queue length.
Service time
High variability of service time requires more servers.
Counter size
Influences total cost of space.
Cost
metre
per
square Effects optimum number of servers.
Waiting time penalty
No influence to the optimum under the conditions

simulated.
It is acknowledged that the list of findings in Table 7-8 should not be treated as
generally applicable to any airport. These observations have been based on analysis
under specific conditions applicable for the five selected airports.
111
7 Model Evaluation
112
Conclusions
The aim of this project is to develop an alternative method to determine the optimum
size and arrangement of an airport check-in area. Some methods to determine number
of servers required and estimate the waiting time are available in literature and used in
planning of different airports. Such methods have their own advantages and
disadvantages. It appears though that the established methods are limited to account
for only few variables related to the check-in processes. This project is based on the
hypothesis that the airport check-in space can be better optimized by taking into
account properties such as passenger arrival distribution, service time, queue system
and check-in counter sizes as well as the planned layout.
The method proposed in this project is developed to analyze check-in counter
arrangements from the view point of quality of service. The method followed in this
project may be applied to other situations as well. For example, the software program
may be modified to evaluate the performance of fast food outlets, banks, supermarkets,
and major railway terminals. A model based on spreadsheet software is an outcome of
the method developed in this project.
As detailed in previous chapters, the design process of the model is approached by
observing the range of available data and making adjustments to meet the model
requirements.
The software model developed consists of two main programs. The first is based on
the time block concept and the second one is based on simulation techniques. A
spreadsheet software platform has been selected as it easily accommodates changing
values of variables. A number of user interfaces are also incorporated for further
assistance in controlling data inputs.
In the time block concept, passengers in a counting period are grouped into time
blocks. Time blocks length has been selected as equal to service time. Thus, passenger
service capacity during a time block is the same as the number of servers. Unlike the
time block program that deals with passengers in groups, the simulation program treats
passengers as individuals.
113
8 Conclusions
The simulation program has two menus in its user interface. The first menu controls
the generation of passengers and the second one is to provide simulation options. The
simulation options are related to the type of queue, average service time and
optimization settings.
Computer programs developed in this project are designed to obtain the optimum
number of servers as the key output. This is obtained by a numerical search for the
minimum cost solution for a particular arrangement. The system cost includes cost of
space and furniture as well as a penalty for waiting more than a specified time limit.
Inclusion of cost of space makes this methodology a useful tool to estimate the optimum
size of the check-in area.
Two significant problems arose during this model development. One is the variability
of data related to cost of various components. This problem is handled by allowing cost
parameters to be controlled via the user interface. Data suitable for a particular city and
time can be easily incorporated into the model with this functionality. The second
problem was the difficulty to obtain passenger arrival distributions. Therefore, the model
adopted a work around. A sub-model has been developed to determine the passenger
arrival distribution. This sub-model is based on using aircraft schedule to synthesize the
passenger arrival distribution. An advantage of this method is this allows the model to
incorporate the profile of earliness of arrivals into the analysis process.
Applications based on data from five different airports are presented in this project.
Applications have been able provide an insight to the impact of changing individual
variables. This process allowed a better understanding of the system characteristics.
This knowledge is helpful in making decisions about arrangements that may suit a
particular airport.
The analysis of applications indicates that earliness distribution, service time, queue
system, the check in counter sizes and service area configurations have a strong
influence on the optimization. Changing earliness distribution changes maximum waiting
time and queue length. Analyses have also demonstrated that the multiple lines of
single-server queues increase the total queue length and waiting time compared to
multiple server queue systems where one line feeds to all available servers. On the
other hand, a constant service time leads to a shorter average waiting time and average
number of passengers in queue compared to a system with random service times.
However, under conditions prevailing in the investigated applications, the effect of
waiting time penalty was found to be negligible.
The main learning outcome of this project is the better understanding regarding
queuing problems at airports. It is observed that different queue arrangements lead to
different maximum values for waiting time and queue lengths. However, the average
value of waiting time has only little change, for the alternatives considered in this
project. This is a useful insight consistent with queuing theory in general.
114
115
116
References
Airport Council International (ACI), 2000, Quality of service at airports: Standards
and measurements, First Edition, ACI World Headquarters, Geneva, Switzerland.
Allen, A.O. 1990, Probability, Statistics, and Queuing Theory with Computer Science
Applications, Second Edition, Academic Press, Inc., California, USA.
Brussel International Airport Company, 1999, Annual Report, Brussel International
Airport Company.
Ashford, N., 1997, Airport Operation, Second Edition, McGraw Hill, USA.
Ashford, N., 1992, Airport Engineering, Third Edition, Wiley, New York.
Ashford, N.J., 1988, Level of service design concept for airport passenger terminals:
a European view, Transportation Research Record no.1199, pp. 19-32.
Davis, D.G. and Braaksma, J.P., 1988, Adjusting for luggage-laden pedestrians in
airport terminals, Transportation Research - Part A, vol.22A, no.5, pp. 375-388.
de Neufville, R., 1976, Airport System Planning, The Macmillan Press Ltd., London.
Fernandes, E. and Pacheco, R.R., 2002, Efficient Use of Airport Capacity,
Transportation Research part A, Vol.36, pp. 225-238.
Gatersleben, M. R. and van der Weij, S.W., 1999, Analysis and simulation of
passengers flow in an airport terminal, Proceedings of The 1999 Winter Simulation
Conference, pp. 1226-1231.
Hall, R.W., 1991, Queuing Method, Prentice Hall, Inc. New Jersey, USA.
Hensher, D.A. and Button, K.J., 2000, Handbook of Transport Modelling, Pergamon,
Elsevier Science, Ltd. UK.
Hon W. C. and Raymond W.T.M., 1999, Intelligent resource simulation for an airport
check-in counter allocation system, IEEE Transaction on Systems, Man, a
Cybernetics Part C, pp. 325-335.
Horonjeff, R., McKelvey, F.X., 1994, Planning and Design of Airports, Fourth Edition,
McGraw-Hill, Inc., USA.
117
Hutcheson, S., 1996, An Introduction to Air Transport: political, economic,

operational and technical perspective of civil aviation, Aviation Training International,
Australia.
International Air Transport Association (IATA), 1989, Airport Terminal Reference
Manual, Seventh Edition, Montreal, Canada.
International Air Transport Association (IATA), 2003, Airport Development Reference
Manual, Section J-9, pp 348-355, Montreal, Canada.
Janic, M., 2000, Air Transport System Analysis and Modelling, Gordon and Breach
Science Publishers, The Netherlands.
Jim, H. K. and Chang, Z. Y., 1998, An airport passengers terminal simulation : A
planning design tool, Simulation practice and Theory, Vol. 6, pp. 387-396.
Law, A.M. and Kelton, D.W., 1991, Simulation Modeling and Analysis, Second
Edition, McGraw-Hill,Inc., New York.
Martel, N. and Seneviratne, P.N., 1990, Analysis of Factors Influencing Quality of
Service in Passenger Terminal Building, Transportation Research Record no.1273,
pp 1-10.
McKelvey, F., 1988, Use of an analytical queuing model for airport terminal design,
Transportation Research Record no.1199, pp. 4-11.
Mumayiz, S.A. and Jain, R.K., 1991, Interactive Airport Landside Simulation: An
Object-Oriented Approach, Transportation Research Record no. 1296, pp. 13-23.
Naylor, T.H., 1966, Computer Simulation Techniques, John Wiley and Sons, Inc.,
USA.
Newell, G.F., 1971, Application of Queuing Theory, Chapman and Hall Ltd., London.
Omer, K.F. and Khan, A.M., 1988, Airport landside level of service estimation,
Transportation Research Record no.1199, pp. 33-40.
Park, Y., 1999, A methodology for establishing operational standards of airport
passenger terminals, Air Transport Management no.5, pp.73-80.
Poole, T.G. and Szymankiewicz, J.Z., 1977, Using Simulation to Solve Problems,
McGraw-Hill, Inc., UK.
Seneviratne, P.N. and Martel, N., 1995, Space standards for sizing air terminal
check in areas, Journal of Transportation Engineering vol. 121, no.2, March/April,
pp. 141-149.
118
Setti, J. R. and Hutchinson, B. G., 1994, Passenger terminal simulation model,

Journal of Transportation Engineering, Vol. 120 No. 4, July/August, pp. 517-535.
Still, G.K., 2000, Simple Solutions to Complex Problem, PhD Thesis, University of
Warwick, UK (http://www.crowddynamics.com/Thesis/Contents.htm).
Subprasom, K., Seneviratne, P.N., and Kilpala, H.K., 2002, Cost-Based Space
Estimation in Passenger Terminal, Journal of Transportation Engineering,
March/April, pp. 191-197.
Vandebona, U., 1999, Passenger queue marshalling at transport interchange,
Conference of Australian Institute of Transport Research.
White, J.A., Schmidt, J.W., Bennet, G.K., 1975, Analysis of Queuing Systems,
Academic Press, Inc., New York, USA.
Yen, J R, Teng, C.H., and Chen, P.S., 2001, Measuring the level of service at
airport passenger terminals: Comparison of perceived and observed time,
Transportation Research Record, no. 1744, pp. 17-23.
Zhang, A and Zhang, Y., 2001, Airport Charge and Cost recovery: The Long-Run
View, Journal of Air Transport Management, Volume 7, Issue 1, pp.75-78.
119
120
Appendix
Appendix Simulation Program Code
The program code for generate customer from time table.

' ---------- Generate Customer from Timetable
Sub GenerateCustomerTimetable()
Dim InpRows As Integer, N_InpRows As Integer
Dim N_CustBlock As Integer, Start_CustBlock As Integer
Dim Start_TimeBlock As Date, InterArr As Date
Start_CustBlock = 1
N_InpRows = WorksheetFunction.CountA(wsCUSTTIME.Range("A:A"))
For InpRows = 2 To N_InpRows
Start_TimeBlock = wsCUSTTIME.Cells(InpRows, 1)
' ---------- calculate InterArr
With wsCUSTTIME
N_CustBlock = .Cells(InpRows, 2)
If N_CustBlock > 0 Then
If InpRows < N_InpRows Then
InterArr = (.Cells(InpRows + 1, 1) - Start_TimeBlock) / N_CustBlock
Else
InterArr = (Start_TimeBlock - .Cells(InpRows - 1, 1)) / N_CustBlock
End If
End If
End With
' ----------- generate customer
With wsCUST
For Customer = Start_CustBlock To Start_CustBlock + N_CustBlock - 1
.Cells(1, 1) = Customer & " cust."
.Cells(Customer + 1, 1) = Customer
.Cells(Customer + 1, 2) = Round((Start_TimeBlock _
+ InterArr * (Customer - Start_CustBlock)) * 1440, 0) / 1440
Next
End With
Start_CustBlock = Customer
Next
lblCust.Caption = wsCUST.Cells(1, 1) & " GENERATED"
wsCUST.Cells(1, 1) = "Customer ID"
End Sub
The code for generating customers from random number.

' ---------- Generate Customer from Random
Sub GenerateCustomerRandom()
Dim N_Customer As Integer, Lambda As Single
Dim Start_Time As Date, Cum_InterArr As Double
Start_Time = Round(wsINIT.Cells(5, 2) * 1440, 0) / 1440
N_Customer = wsINIT.Cells(6, 2)
Lambda = wsINIT.Cells(7, 2) / 60
With wsCUST
Cum_InterArr = 0
For Customer = 1 To N_Customer
.Cells(1, 1) = Customer & " cust."
.Cells(Customer + 1, 1) = Customer
.Cells(Customer + 1, 2) = Start_Time + TimeSerial(0, Round(Cum_InterArr, 0), 0)
Cum_InterArr = Cum_InterArr + InterArrT(Lambda, RNumber(Customer) / 100)
Next
lblCust.Caption = .Cells(1, 1) & " GENERATED"
.Cells(1, 1) = "Customer ID"
End With
End Sub
The Code for Simulation Process

' ---------- Start the Simulation
Sub Simulation()
Dim Sum As Integer, QeueLine As Integer, Looping As Boolean
Call SheetPreparation
wsSUM.Activate
NServer = wsINIT.Cells(1, 2)
NQeue = wsINIT.Cells(2, 2)
NextClock = wsCUST.Cells(2, 2)
Customer = 1
Sum = 1
'---------- Main Loop/Iteration
Do
Looping = False
CurrentClock = NextClock
'---------- Ending Service Loop (count/cycling by server)
For Server = 1 To NServer
If EndSvTime(Server) <> 0 Then
If EndSvTime(Server) = CurrentClock Then
Call EndingService(Server, CustomerS(Server))
End If
End If
Next
'---------- Customer Generator Loop (count by customer)
Do While ArriveTime(Customer) = CurrentClock
QeueLine = FindQeue(NQeue)
wsCUST.Cells(Customer + 1, 3) = QeueLine
Call UpdateQeueLength(QeueLine, Customer)
Customer = Customer + 1
Loop
'---------- Starting Service Loop (count/cycling by server)
For Server = 1 To NServer
Qeue = IIf(NQeue = 1, 1, Server)
If CustomerS(Server) = 0 And CurrQeueLength(Qeue) > 0 Then
ServiceDuration = GetServDur(NextCustomer(Qeue, Customer))
Call StartingService(Server, NextCustomer(Qeue, Customer), Qeue)
End If
Next
'---------- Clocking and Summarizing
Call ClockingAndSummarize(Sum)
wsSUM.Cells(1, 1) = wsSUM.Cells(Sum + 1, 1)
wsSUM.Cells(1, 5) = wsSUM.Cells(Sum + 1, 5)
' ---------- Breaking the loop
Select Case wsINIT.Cells(14, 2)
Case 1
'if all customer
Case 2
'if time breaking
If CurrentClock = wsINIT.Cells(15, 2) Or _
NextClock > wsINIT.Cells(15, 2) Then GoTo Jump
Case 3
'if customer breaking
If wsSUM.Cells(Sum + 1, 5) >= wsINIT.Cells(16, 2) Then GoTo Jump
End Select
Sum = IIf(NextClock > CurrentClock, Sum + 1, Sum)
Looping = True
Loop While Looping = True And NextClock > CurrentClock
Jump:
' ---------- Finish and write the result
wsSUM.Cells(1, 1) = "Simulation Clock"
wsSUM.Cells(1, 5) = "Depart Cumulative"
Call DurationFixer(Sum)
Call WriteResult(Sum)
End Sub
Appendix Simulation Program Code
The Code for Optimization Process

Sub OParaCalculation(RowRsl)
Dim RowOPara As Integer
Dim ParaVal As Single, TotalParaVal As Single
RowOPara = 2
ParaNum = 0
ParaVal = 0
TotalParaVal = 0
With wsOPARA
Do
If .Cells(RowOPara, 1) = "*" Then
RowOPara = RowOPara + 1
' ---------- ending the previous parameter
If ParaNum > 0 Then
wsRSL.Cells(RowRsl + 1, ParaNum + 16) = ParaVal
wsRSL.Cells(RowRsl + 1, ParaNum + 16).NumberFormat = "0.00"
TotalParaVal = TotalParaVal + ParaVal
End If
' ---------- setup for next parameter
ParaNum = ParaNum + 1
ParaVal = 1
' ---------- print Parameter Name if for the first ro of Result
If RowRsl = 1 Then wsRSL.Cells(1, ParaNum + 16) = .Cells(RowOPara, 1)
End If
If IsNumeric(.Cells(RowOPara, 2)) Then
ParaVal = ParaVal * .Cells(RowOPara, 2)
Else
ParaVal = ParaVal * wsRSL.Cells(RowRsl + 1, .Cells(RowOPara, 4))
End If
Loop While RowOPara <= WorksheetFunction.CountA(wsOPARA.Range("A:A"))
End With
wsRSL.Cells(RowRsl + 1, ParaNum + 16) = ParaVal
wsRSL.Cells(RowRsl + 1, ParaNum + 16).NumberFormat = "0.00"
TotalParaVal = TotalParaVal + ParaVal
' ---------- Total Parameter
ParaNum = ParaNum + 1
With wsRSL.Columns(ParaNum + 16)
If RowRsl = 1 Then .Cells(1) = "Total Parameter Value"
.Cells(RowRsl + 1) = TotalParaVal
.Cells(RowRsl + 1).NumberFormat = "0.00"
End With
End Sub

Buch Block

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Buch Block

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Contents

5.3 The Conceptual Model ............................................................................................................ 50

1.3 PROJECT BOUNDARIES

Passengers approach the terminal from

1.4 BOOK ORGANIZATION

Data collected from airports require mathematical manipulations to estimate

2 Issues related to check-in counter space

2 Issues related to check-in counter space

TPHP as Percentage of Annual

More than 20 million

10 million 19.9 million

1 million- 9.9 million

0.5 million 0.99 million

Less than 100,000

(Source: Ashford, 1992)

Arrival time (hour:minutes) before departure flight

2 Issues related to check-in counter space

0.8 square meter per

0.8 square meter

0.6 square meter per

0.6 square meter for

On the other hand, according to Martel and Seneviratne (1990), in quality of

Space per person

Excellent level of comfort

High level of comfort

Related subsystems in balance

Conditions acceptable for short periods

Limiting capacity of the system

(Source: IATA in Subprasom, 2002)

2 Issues related to check-in counter space

Conveyor belt and scale

Outbound conveyor belt

Conveyor belt and

Conveyor belt and scale

2 Issues related to check-in counter space

a. Linear type with multiple single-server queues

Outbound conveyor belt

b. Linear type with multiple servers queue

Passengers route after completing service

2 Issues related to check-in counter space

(Source: IATA, 1989)

Letters A, B,,V, denote as element of check-in counter general design

2 Issues related to check-in counter space

2.2.2.2 Number of Check-in Counters

N = number of desk required

2 Issues related to check-in counter space

95% of passengers are 95% of passengers less

Allowable waiting time

(Source: Ashford, 1988)

Park (1999) attempted to classify passenger perception of service level. The

(a +b) = 0.25(a +b) .

Where a = peak hour number of originating passengers

2 Issues related to check-in counter space

As stated in previous chapters, this project requires data about demand;

the documents entitled Terminal Design Advisory Circular. Unfortunately, the

This section presents brief information about airports selected. The

Melbourne airport is located 22 km northwest of the CBD. The airport can be

The website for more information is: www.melboune-airport.com.au

3.2.5 Orlando International Airport (USA)

Orlando airport applies a system that is commonly used. International flights

As mentioned earlier, flight schedules are adopted as data input in the

Table 3-1 General information of the selected airports

13 km South East the city

train, bus, coach, car, taxi,