Passenger Building Concept Prof. Richard de Neufville

Size: px

Start display at page:

Download "Passenger Building Concept Prof. Richard de Neufville"

Lorena Hunter
5 years ago
Views:

1 Passenger Building Concept Prof. Richard de Neufville Istanbul Technical University Air Transportation Management M.Sc. Program Airport Planning and Management Module 15 January 2016

2 Outline Introduction Motivation and Important Ideas Range of Configurations Process of Evaluation Criteria of Selection Method of Analysis Differences in Traffic Loads on Buildings Performance of Configurations Recommendation: Hybrid design responsive to future traffic

3 Motivation No Agreement in Industry about good configuration X-shaped satellites in parallel rows (NACO): Bangkok/Suvarnabhumi; Kuala Lumpur Midfield lines ( toast rack ): Atlanta; Denver; London/Stansted; London/Heathrow Triangles on spine: Paris/ de Gaulle (Aéroports de Paris) Many Errors -- Many Choices have been inadequate for eventual traffic Dallas/Ft Worth -- linear building bad for transfers Boston/Logan: International => NY Air => domestic hub

4 Important Ideas Airport Passenger Building NOT A TERMINAL, many passengers do not terminate, or end their air trips there Many passengers transfer between Aircraft ; Airlines ; Correct Choice NOT OPTIMUM, for assumed conditions RIGHT RESPONSE, over RANGE of conditions

5 Change to View of Airport as Passenger Buildings F o r e c a s t N a r r o w B r o a d Criteria Considered Single (or Few) Prevalent in Current Practice "Terminals" Multiple Broad Range, Multiple Criteria Performance "Airport Passenger Buildings"

6 Misplaced focus on Symmetry Symmetric Configuration is norm for Master Planning and Architectural processes: Examples: everywhere But this is not what gets built! Airport serves a variety of users with different needs deserving different configurations

7 SBIA Development 30 MAP

8 SBIA Development 50 MAP

9 SBIA Development 100 MAP

10 Seoul/Incheon latest Master Plan Source: Kojects.com and Complexitys.com Note: basic symmetry being maintained

11 Shanghai/Pudong Master plan

12 Kuala Lumpur: as original plan Source: KLIA Master Plan December 2008

13 KLIA2 Terminal being built Source:

14 Hong Kong Master Plan as of 2001 Source: Master Plan for 2020 dated October 2001 Source: FAA Office of System Capacity Aviation Capacity Enhancement Plan

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

16 Range of Configurations Pure Concepts Linear or Gate Arrival Pier ; Satellite Midfield Transporter Hybrid Concepts Combinations of Pure Elements Centralized and Decentralized Rail Access Automated People Movers Metropolitan

17 Linear: Munich Terminal 1 Source: Munich Airport

18 Linear (Gate Arrival): DFW Source: DFW International Airport Dallas / Fort Worth Gate Arrival Plan

19 Linear: Dallas/Forth Worth Source: FAA Office of System Capacity Aviation Capacity Enhancement Plan

20 Finger Pier: Miami/International Source: FAA Office of System Capacity Aviation Capacity Enhancement Plan

21 Satellites: NY/Newark -- Liberty Source: Port Authority of New York and New Jersey

22 Satellites: Tampa Source: FAA Office of System Capacity Aviation Capacity Enhancement Plan

23 Midfield, Linear: Denver Source: FAA Office of System Capacity Aviation Capacity Enhancement Plan

24 Midfield, X-shaped: Pittsburgh Why X-Shaped? Instead of linear? Because runways built close together due to hills (as here) or to save on fill (as for Hong Kong). Source: FAA Office of System Capacity Aviation Capacity Enhancement Plan

25 Toast Rack : London/Stansted Source: BAA plc.

26 Midfield: Washington/Dulles Configuration as planned Source: FAA Office of System Capacity Aviation Capacity Enhancement Plan

27 Transporter: Washington/Dulles Configuration as it has been Source: FAA Office of System Capacity

28 Planemate transporter (up) Source: Accessair systems

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

30 Hybrid: New York/LaGuardia Source: FAA Office of System Capacity Aviation Capacity Enhancement Plan

31 Hybrid: Chicago/O Hare Source: FAA Office of System Capacity Aviation Capacity Enhancement Plan

32 New Trends in Layouts Special buildings for low-cost airlines Outside US this is a novelty In US, airlines pay for, define passenger Buildings; elsewhere, usually government or owner does so JetBlue at New York/Kennedy; London/Stansted (Ryanair); Paris/de Gaulle; Consolidated rental-car building (Conrac) Increasingly used: saves valuable space; reduces circulating busses San Francisco/Int l; Boston; etc.

33 Low Cost: Ryanair at Right Source: BAA plc. (London/Stansted)

34 Elements of Evaluation Criteria of Selection Multiple Criteria Broad Forecasts Methods of Analysis Rapid, Computerized Different Traffic Loads on Buildings Percent Transfers Variability of Traffic Need for Services Performance of Buildings

35 Multiple Criteria of Selection Walking Distances effect on passengers Average, Extremes Terminating, Transfers Aircraft Delays these can be decisive (for example: 250,000 ops x 4 min x $100/min = $100Million --- this justifies about $1 billion in construction!) Costs of construction Under Range of Conditions High, Low Traffic High, Low Transfer Rates

36 Methods of Analysis Manuals (IATA, ICAO, etc.) Limited Perspective not good for Major Projects OK for details Variations on Previous or Top-down decisions about configurations Detailed Simulations Difficult to Set Up with appropriate data Too Slow for Planning most initial planning Expert assistance needed

37 Difference in Loads Total Number of Passengers does not properly define loads on Buildings Need to know Types Passenger Needs Transfer Rates (%) -- passengers changing aircraft, buildings or airlines Traffic Variability -- Daily, Seasonal Patterns Services needed -- International controls; Meals; accommodations; etc. Industry Structure -- few or many airlines? Fleet Mix % of Narrow, Wide-body aircraft

38 Transfer Rates Transfer passengers require: Easy Internal Flow ; No Airport Access Hub Airports have very high transfer rates, over 50% Examples: High Rates: Dubai; Chicago/O Hare, Denver/Intl, Dallas/Fort Worth, Hong Kong/Chek Lap Kok, Amsterdam/Schiphol... Low Rates: Boston/Logan, San Francisco/Int l, Paris/de Gaulle,

39 Variability of Traffic Steady Loads Low Cost/Passenger for Built Facilities Typical Case: Business Market Example: New York/LaGuardia Variable Loads Low Utilization for Marginal (less Attractive) Facilities High Cost/Passenger for Built Facilities Typically Tourist, Special Event Markets Examples: London/Gatwick; Jeddah

40 Variability decreases with traffic

41 Variations in Traffic at New York and London Airports (1995) Kennedy La Guardia Gatw ick Heathrow 200% 240% 180% 220% 200% 160% 180% 140% 160% 140% 120% 120% 100% % Months for which Traffic Exceeds % of Base Months for which Traffic Exceeds % of Base So urce: Po rt A ut ho rit y o f N Y / N J, So urce: IC A O D ig est o f St at ist ics,

42 Past Variations in Traffic at New York and London Airports JFK International JFK Domestic La Guardia Gatw ick Heathrow Months for w hich Traffic Exceeds % of Base Months for Which Traffic Exceeds % of Base

43 Example Daily Traffic Fluctuations Heathrow - Hourly Distribution of Passengers (Averaged over August 1997) Gatwick - Hourly Distribution of Passengers (Averaged over August 1997) 14,000 Arrivals Departures Total 8,000 Arrivals Departures Total 12,000 7,000 10,000 6,000 8,000 6,000 4,000 2, So urce: aa.co.uk Hour of the Day 5,000 4,000 3,000 2,000 1, So urce: aa.co.uk Hour of the Day

44 Performance of Configurations Linear Centralized Satellite Midfield Transporter Sensitivity to Transfer Rates Industry Structure

45 Performance: Linear Cost High ( in terms of relative cost/gate) Aircraft use only one side of fingers Access Passengers Mixed overall: OK for locals, Terrible for Transfers Aircraft: Good Services: Poor: Low Traffic for Shops (Munich T1) Excessive Staff/Passenger

46 Performance: Centralized Cost Relatively Low High per Passenger if Variability is high expensive building often under used Access OK overall; Especially good for transfers Not so good for aircraft Services Good: Efficient use of Personnel High traffic for concessions

47 Performance: Satellite Efficient Use of Waiting Areas Many flights can share waiting areas Much more efficient use of space Reduces total lounge area by 30% or more Efficient for Transfers If volume not too high Designs Sensitive to Transfer Rates

48 Performance: Midfield Big Differences between Linear buildings (London/Heathrow T5) X-Shaped (Kuala Lumpur) Linear Space Needed/Aircraft Stand: Excellent Delays to Aircraft: Minimal Practical for wide-spaced runways X-Shaped Space/Aircraft Stand: Poor (corners) Delays to Aircraft: Large (many turns)

49 Performance: Transporter Cost Variability high: Good -- when service not needed costs reduced (busses parked ) Low Variability: High Costs (labor costs) Access Good Overall Passengers: good (for short flights delays) Aircraft: Great - parked for easy operation) Services Good (because can be concentrated)

50 Hybrid designs best because: Meet Variety of Existing Needs Adapt Easily to Future Needs Cost-Effective Maximize quality of service to Passengers Airlines Airport Owners Examples: Recommendation: Hybrid Designs Best Paris / de Gaulle; Chicago/O Hare

51 Major Take-aways Configurations Cannot be best for all conditions... only for some limited conditions Since Conditions Vary For Airport Users: Business Shuttles, Holiday Traffic Over Time With Traffic Levels and Types Changes in Industry Structure Do not apply single configuration!

Configuration of Airport Passenger Buildings. Outline

Configuration of Airport Passenger Buildings Dr. Richard de Neufville Professor of Engineering Systems and Civil and Environmental Engineering Massachusetts Institute of Technology Outline Introduction