Professional Documents
Culture Documents
LHR
CDG
FRA
Why Airport Benchmarking?
• Finding the „best-in-class“ based on performance and
efficiency
• Giving answers to private owners, stock market,
governments, users and regulators
50
45
40
25
60
20
50 15
10
Departures in Ops per hour
40
5
0
30 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50
Arrivals in Ops per hour
20
10
Scheduled Flights Actual flights
0
0 10 20 30 40 50 60
Arrivals in Ops per hour
Main Workpackages for Thesis
• Static Benchmarking of 60 European airports, of different
size, chosen randomly, but partly based on
interconnectivity and importance for the Air Transport
Network representing 50% of overall European traffic.
140
• Which airport is most
120
100
„productive“?
• Most important output is
Ops per hour
80
60
„flights per hour“!
• PAX not directly under
40
20
0
00-01 01-02 02-03 03-04 04-05 05-06 06-07 07-08 08-09 09-10 10-11 11-12 12-13 13-14 14-15 15-16 16-17 17-18 18-19 19-20 20-21 21-22 22-23 23-24
managerial control, depends
FRA_2009-03-16_TOT FRA_2009-03-17_TOT
Time
FRA_2009-03-18_TOT
on aircraft size chosen by Weekdays Operations Pattern and Capacities
(Sample Week Mon 03/16/2009 - Fri 03/20/2009)
airline
FRA_2009-03-19_TOT FRA_2009-03-20_TOT maximum declared capacity of all sources
FRA technical capacity vfr FRA technical capacity ifr peak_day_2008_total
Slot coordination total min Slot coordination total max 200
140
100
Ops per hour
120
80 100
Ops per hour
80
60
60
40
40
20 20
0
0
00-01 01-02 02-03 03-04 04-05 05-06 06-07 07-08 08-09 09-10 10-11 11-12 12-13 13-14 14-15 15-16 16-17 17-18 18-19 19-20 20-21 21-22 22-23 23-24
00-01 01-02 02-03 03-04 04-05 05-06 06-07 07-08 08-09 09-10 10-11 11-12 12-13 13-14 14-15 15-16 16-17 17-18 18-19 19-20 20-21 21-22 22-23 23-24
Time Time
• Eugene .P. Gilbo: "Optimizing airport capacity utilization in air traffic flow
management […]“ 1993 & “Airport capacity: representation, estimation,
optimization” 1997
• Milan Janic: “The Sustainability of Air Transportation” 2007
• Adib Kanafani: “The Consistency of Traffic Forecasts for Airport Master
Planning” 1981
Static Analysis: Data Sources
• OAG flight schedule data, for daily demand profile at airports and
aircraft mix on typical busy day and later SIMMOD
• Flightstats flight schedule data, for daily demand on peak days and
actual flight times
• Airport charts for runway, taxiway and apron system configuration and
number of parking positions, needed for ultimate capacity of airfield
• Google Earth (GE) for airport coordinates
• IATA Airport Capacity and Demand Profiles 2003 for maximum
declared runway and terminal capacities
• National Airport Coordinators for most recent slots per hour or
maximum declared capacity, respectively, though slot distribution may
vary over the day.
BEG Nikola Tesla
Airport Diagram
BEG Demand Diagram
Weekdays Operations Pattern and Capacities
(Sample Week Mon 03/16/2009 - Fri 03/20/2009)
60
50
40
Ops per hour
30
20
10
0
00-01 01-02 02-03 03-04 04-05 05-06 06-07 07-08 08-09 09-10 10-11 11-12 12-13 13-14 14-15 15-16 16-17 17-18 18-19 19-20 20-21 21-22 22-23 23-24
Time
y= 0.02025% x= 0.04653%
10 2500
9
Operations per hour
8 2000
y=HO/AO Max decl terminal cap PAX/hr Max decl terminal cap PAX/hr HP in PAX/hr
Where does BEG fit into?
Rwy Annual Demand
config. no. of VFR Annual Service Ops *2007 Annual Demand/
Rank Airport Group no. rwy Mix Index % ops/hr IFR ops/hr Volume (ASV) EUROSTAT ASV
1 VIE 1 14 2 109 77 59 225,000 251,216 111.7%
2 STN 1 1 1 102 55 53 210,000 191,520 91.2%
3 DUB 1 14 3 108 77 59 225,000 200,891 89.3%
4 PRG 1 9 2 102 76 59 225,000 164,055 72.9%
5 LIS 1 1 2 117 55 53 210,000 141,905 67.6%
6 HAM 1 9 2 106 76 59 225,000 151,752 67.4%
7 STR 1 1 1 101 55 53 210,000 139,757 66.6%
8 WAW 1 9 2 103 76 59 225,000 147,985 65.8%
9 CGN 1 9 2.5 104 76 59 225,000 138,528 61.6%
10 EDI 1 14 2 100 77 59 225,000 115,177 51.2%
11 BHX 1 1 1 104 55 53 210,000 104,480 49.8%
12 GLA 1 1 1.5 101 55 53 210,000 93,654 44.6%
13 LTN 1 1 1 102 55 53 210,000 83,318 39.7%
14 LCY 1 1 1 100 55 53 210,000 77,274 36.8%
15 NUE 1 1 1 108 55 53 210,000 57,922 27.6%
16 SXF 1 1 1 100 55 53 210,000 55,114 26.2%
17 CIA 1 1 1 100 55 53 210,000 54,870 26.1%
18 BEG 1 1 1 100 55 53 210,000 44,454 21.2%
19 LBA 1 1 1 97 55 53 210,000 39,603 18.9%
20 RHO 1 1 1 100 55 53 210,000 32,776 15.6%
21 HHN 1 1 1 128 51 50 240,000 34,311 14.3%
22 DRS 1 1 1 100 55 53 210,000 28,257 13.5%
23 BSL 1 9 2 102 76 59 225,000 27,879 12.4%
24 FMO 1 1 0.5 100 55 53 210,000 21,968 10.5%
25 SZG 1 1 1 100 55 53 210,000 21,166 10.1%
26 ZAG 1 1 1 100 55 53 210,000 20,442 9.7%
27 RTM 1 1 1 100 55 53 210,000 18,517 8.8%
28 WRO 1 1 1 100 55 53 210,000 17,861 8.5%
29 GRZ 1 1 1 100 55 53 210,000 17,286 8.2%
30 SCN 1 1 1 100 55 53 210,000 9,731 4.6%
Groups of Runway Systems
Rwy Annual Demand
config. no. of VFR Annual Service Ops *2007 Annual Demand/
Rank Airport Group no. rwy Mix Index % ops/hr IFR ops/hr Volume (ASV) EUROSTAT ASV
1 CDG 3 8 4 140 189 120 675,000 569,281 84.3%
2 MAD 3 8 4 118 210 117 565,000 470,315 83.2%
3 AMS 3 4+9 5.5 136 175 159 635,000 443,677 69.9%
1 FRA 2 16 3 149 129 60 355,000 486,195 137.0%
2 MUC 2 4 2 112 111 105 315,000 409,654 130.0%
3 LHR 2 4 2 170 103 99 370,000 475,786 128.6%
4 BCN 2 12 3 103 111 105 315,000 339,020 107.6%
5 FCO 2 12 3 114 111 105 315,000 328,213 104.2%
6 LGW 2 2 2 118 105 59 285,000 258,917 90.8%
7 CPH 2 12 2.5 109 111 105 315,000 250,170 79.4%
8 DUS 2 2 2 107 105 59 285,000 223,410 78.4%
9 ORY 2 12 2.5 112 111 105 315,000 238,384 75.7%
10 MAN 2 2 2 116 105 59 285,000 206,498 72.5%
11 OSL 2 4 2 101 111 105 315,000 226,221 71.8%
12 MXP 2 3 2 122 103 75 365,000 257,361 70.5%
13 IST 2 16 3 117 146 59 300,000 206,188 68.7%
14 NCE 2 2 2 55 121 56 260,000 173,584 66.8%
15 ZRH 2 10 3 121 94 60 340,000 223,707 65.8%
16 ARN 2 12 3 106 111 105 315,000 205,251 65.2%
17 BRU 2 12 3 123 103 99 370,000 240,341 65.0%
18 BBI 2 4 2 105 111 105 315,000 200,565 63.7%
19 ATH 2 4 2 110 111 105 315,000 193,123 61.3%
20 PMI 2 4 2 100 111 105 315,000 184,605 58.6%
21 HEL 2 12 3 107 111 105 315,000 174,751 55.5%
22 TXL 2 2 2 107 105 59 285,000 145,451 51.0%
23 LYS 2 2 2 102 105 59 285,000 132,076 46.3%
24 HAJ 2 4 2.5 100 111 105 315,000 70,481 22.4%
25 PSA 2 2 2 103 105 59 285,000 38,525 13.5%
26 LEJ 2 4 2 121 103 99 370,000 41,370 11.2%
27 LGG 2 2 2 237 94 60 340,000 26,815 7.9%
BEG Results from SIMMOD
BEG Flights and Delays per Flight from SIMMOD
(Flightplan OAG Thu 03/19/2009)
5 60
50
4
Delay in min per flight
40
3
2
20
1
10
0 0
0-1 1-2 2-3 3-4 4-5 5-6 6-7 7-8 8-9 9-10 10-11 11-12 12-13 13-14 14-15 15-16 16-17 17-18 18-19 19-20 20-21 21-22 22-23 23-24
Time
DEP delay min per flight BEG DEP delay min per flight BEG 100 DEP delay min per flight BEG 200 Total Ops BEG
Total Ops BEG 100 Total Ops BEG 200 Tech. IFR Cap. Max. Delay per Flight
Static Analysis Results
• Having more insight into airport activities will bring better
answers and will deliver better indicators for productivity
benchmarks.
• Throuput measures seem adequate since they cover
productivity, efficiency and service quality (e.g. PAX/hr
per check-in-counter, Aircraft/hr per parking position)
-> more research needed!
CDG Capacity and Demand
Demand Diagram for CDG airport on PDTHUW26 2009
130 17
120 16
15
110 14
in Minutes
10 70
70 9
60
110 25
100
90
15 PDTHUW26 2009
60
Minutes
60
50
Average Delays in Minutes per Scheduled Flight Scheduled Arrivals LHR 2009-06-25
Scheduled Departures LHR 2009-06-25 Total Scheduled Flights
Actual Arrivals LHR 2009-06-25 Actual Departures LHR 2009-06-25
Total Actual Flights Maximum Declared Runway Capacity
Maximum IFR Capacity
FRA Capacity and Demand
Demand Diagram for FRA airport on PDTHUW26 2009
100 30
90
25
60
50 15 60
8000
aircraft type. 6000
2000
assumed, to 0
convert further 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23
Time of Day
into Design Peak
Hour (boarded) Total Seats per Hour Arrivals Seats per Hour Departure Seats per Hour
PAX.
Dynamic Analysis
• Using FAA„s SIMMOD engine with Visual SIMMOD (VS)
for estimating runway capacity and DELAY per flight.
• SIMMOD uses airport design data, flight plan data,
aircraft data, flight path data, distances and coordinates
as inputs.
• Configuration of holding points in airspace and departure
queues (DQ) on the ground is needed
• Gate, link, DQ and holding capacities must be defined
30
100
25
Delay in min per flight
80
40
10
20
5
0 0
0-1 1-2 2-3 3-4 4-5 5-6 6-7 7-8 8-9 9-10 10-11 11-12 12-13 13-14 14-15 15-16 16-17 17-18 18-19 19-20 20-21 21-22 22-23 23-24
Time
DEP delay min per flight clone000 DEP delay min per flight clone005 DEP delay min per flight clone010 DEP delay min per flight clone015
DEP delay min per flight clone020 DEP delay min per flight clone030 DEP delay min per flight clone050 DEP delay min per flight clone100
Total Ops clone000 Total Ops clone005 Total Ops clone010 Total Ops clone015
Total Ops clone020 Total Ops clone030 Total Ops clone050 Total Ops clone100
Max. Decl. Cap. Tech. IFR Cap. Max. Delay per Flight
Conclusion
• Hopefully „one step closer“ to a „valid“ productivity benchmark.
• More indicators at hand for econometric and other benchmarking
analysis -> further research needed
• Application of revenue factors, airport charges, and investment
plans is interesting, challenging and promising.
• Cross checking needed against similar studies (e.g.
EUROCONTROL Performance Review Report (PRR 2007) and
airport master plans.
• Biggest Problems:
• Is slot coordination really effective? Is „grandfathering“ a
utilization & performance limitor with regard to LCC expansion?
• Coordination among stakeholders, environmental debates,
funding and politics -> collaborative descision making (CDM)
• Lack of technology, concerning aircraft separation standards
(ADS-B, SESAR, NextGEN)
Thank you for your attention!