Modeling Checked Baggage Requirements for Dallas/Fort Worth International Airport Eric Miller Presented at the 2003 Annual Sunday Simulation Workshop January 12, 2003
Introduction On November 19, 2001, the U.S. Congress passed the Aviation and Transportation Security Act requiring 100% checked baggage screening at all airports by December 31, 2002. To meet Congress mandate and to determine the impact of this law on its operations, DFW fielded a team of 18 firms to develop the best solution for DFW.
DFW Unique Characteristics Terminal configuration Average depth for passenger processing: 35 ft Quantity of ticket counter positions: 340 Number of ticketing lobbies: 18 Wide mix of type of air carrier operations 55,000 bags daily
Performance Metrics Time 95% of bags in the peak-hour spend no more than 10 min in the security screening process. Space The system must have adequate processing and storage capacity to process all passengers and baggage: Accommodate EDS/ETD footprint; Adequate bag system capacity; and Adequate level of service for passengers.
Data Gathering Flight schedules Originating and departing percentages by time of day Load factors Passenger arrival curves by time of day and market Passenger party (group) size Number of bags per passenger ATO and curbside check-in time and percentage split EDS/ETD processing times
Data Sources Airport/airline data On-site data collection Previous DFW studies
Forecast Demand Processing data to generate passenger and bag volumes: Applying load factors to the equipment capacity of each departing flight; Estimating number of originating passengers for each flight; Estimating number of originating bags for each flight; Arrival time; Group size; and Check-in location.
Forecast Demand Rolling One Hour Demand Number of Passengers 2500 2000 1500 1000 500 A4 A3 A2 A1 0 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 1011121314151617181920212223 Time of Day
Approach Mathematical Modeling Provided Initial Estimates Concepts Initial Simulation Modeling Designs Provided Final Requirements Detailed Simulation Modeling Provided Intermediate Requirements
Mathematical Modeling Developed peakhour demand Used queuing models to determine requirements Number of Passengers per Hour 1000 800 600 400 200 0 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 1213 14 15 16 17 18 19 2021 22 23 24 Time of Day
Initial Simulation Modeling Evaluated conceptual EDS designs Specific geometry and location of EDS equipment was not available Interdependence between processes modeled Determined equipment requirements Level1 EDS Alarm Alarm Alarm Operator Screening Level 3 EDS Level 4 ETD Clear Clear Clear Clear
Detailed Simulation Modeling Determines equipment and facility requirements using detailed design drawings Incorporates geometry of buildings and baggage systems
Possible Configurations In-Line EDS System EDS (only) in garage EDS before ticketing Ticketing/EDS in garage Expand ticketing/eds at curbside check-in EDS before baggage handling system after ticketing EDS in garage with check-in at ticketing Inbound baggage in garage Secure airport model Heathrow Concept ETD pre-ticketing (Salt Lake City)
In-Line EDS System BHS Resolved Resolved ETD/Hand Search Level II Alarmed Alarmed ETD/Hand Search Level II CTX 9000 Level I CTX 9000 Level I BHS Ticket Counters Passengers
EDS Pre-Ticketing Ticket Counters Cleared Pax CTX 9000 Level I BHS Passengers Resolved EDS Queue Alarmed ETD/ Hand Search Level II Passengers Alarmed Bags From Curbside LEO Level III
EDS Post Ticketing BHS Resolved Resolved ETD/Hand Search Level II Alarmed Alarmed ETD/Hand Search Level II CTX 9000 Level I CTX 9000 Level I Right Behind ATO Ticket Counters Passengers
ETD Pre-Ticketing (Salt Lake City) LEO Level IV Ticket Counters BHS Cleared CAPS To EDS Cleared To ATO ETD/Hand Search Level III Alarmed ETD Level I ETD Queue Alarmed To EDS Pax waiting at EDS CTX 9000 Level II Passengers
Heathrow Concept Level V Hand Search Level IV LEO Cleared Bags to BHS (1-2 Bags per Day) CTX 9000 Level III Cleared by Operator after further review Alarmed Cleared Bags to BHS Operator Advanced Technology X-Ray Level I and Level II Ticket Counters Passengers
Comparing the Alternatives Term Section Sub Airlines Inline Pre ATO Post ATO SLC Concept Heathrow Concept Bags Section (ATO positions) EDS ETD EDS ETD EDS ETD ETD EDS ETD X-Ray EDS HS 0 0 0 0 0 1 a American, American Eagle, Grupo TACA 4918 2 9 2 12 4 15 7 2 2 2 2 5 A 2 a American 4002 2 7 1 9 3 9 7 2 2 2 2 5 3 a American 1475 1 3 1 6 2 5 3 2 2 2 2 3 FIS FIS Recheck Demand 3542 5 12 4 20 4 20 7 1 1 1 1 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 a American 4237 2 10 2 9 3 8 6 2 2 2 2 4 a Frontier (2), Continental-America West (10) 3227 2 8 2 7 3 9 7 2 2 2 2 5 2 U.S.Airways (8), b Midwest Express (4), Mesa 1491 1 4 2 4 2 5 3 2 2 2 2 3 (0) B c American Trans Air (11) 386 1 2 1 2 2 3 2 2 2 2 2 3 d Sun Country (12) 373 1 2 1 2 1 2 1 1 1 1 1 2 a United (10) 2732 2 9 2 8 3 7 5 2 2 3 2 5 National (4),British Airways 3 b (10), Lufthansa (8), Japan Airlines (6), Korean (6), 2075 2 9 2 7 4 12 6 2 2 2 2 5 Champion (0) FIS FIS Recheck Demand 1084 3 7 3 5 3 5 3 1 1 1 1 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 a American 3740 2 11 2 10 3 9 7 2 2 2 2 5 C 2 a American 4793 3 11 2 11 4 10 7 2 2 2 2 5 3 a American 3296 2 11 1 7 2 7 5 2 2 2 2 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Northwest (8), AirTran (0), a 2942 2 5 1 BigSky (2), Vanguard (2) 3 10 5 10 7 2 2 2 2 4 b Delta 1376 1 5 3 2 2 2 2 2 2 a Delta, Half of Delta Connection 5354 4 11 4 11 7 11 12 2 2 2 2 8 E (ASA, ComAir, Skywest) 3 a Delta (14), Half of Delta Connection (ASA, ComAir, Skywest), Air Canada (0), 4071 2 7 3 8 5 8 7 2 2 2 2 5 Aeromexico (8), Air France (0), FIS Recheck Demand 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 DFW Total 55114 40 143 38 148 60 155 105 35 35 36 35 78
Comparing the Alternatives Only the EDS in-line and ATO options complied with TSA requirements. All options required a significant investment in equipment and personnel. Bags Inline Pre ATO Post ATO SLC Concept Heathrow Concept Term per Day EDS ETD EDS ETD EDS ETD ETD EDS ETD X-Ray EDS HS A 13,937 10 31 8 47 13 49 24 7 7 7 7 15 B 15,605 14 51 15 44 21 51 33 14 14 15 14 29 C 11,829 7 33 5 28 9 26 19 6 6 6 6 15 E 13,743 9 28 10 29 17 29 29 8 8 8 8 19 Total 55,114 40 143 38 148 60 155 105 35 35 36 35 78
Baggage Delivery Time T im e In Sy stem( Minutes) 35 30 25 20 15 10 5 0 99th Percentile Average Baseline EDS Inline EDS Pre ATO EDS Post ATO ETD Pre ATO (SLC) Heathrow Concept Alternatives
Passenger Bag Check-In Time 40 99th Percentile Time In System(Minutes) 35 30 25 20 15 10 5 0 Average Baseline EDS Inline EDS Pre ATO EDS Post ATO ETD Pre ATO (SLC) Heathrow Concept Alternatives
Space Requirements % of Total Available Space 200 150 100 50 0 Queue Space Security Space Circulation Space A B C E A B C E DFW Interim Mixed Technology Lobby ETD
Space Requirements Many of the terminal sections lobbies could not accommodate a lobby solution and maintain an acceptable level of service to passengers. Problem was not necessarily the queue created by the lobby solution but the space displaced by the equipment. DFW developed a Mixed Technology solution to address the unique constraints of each terminal section.
Initial Costs Costs (Millons of Dollars) Equipment Manpower Total EDS Inline EDS Pre ATO EDS Post ATO ETD Pre ATO (SLC) Heathrow Concept Alternatives
Recurring Staffing Costs Costs (Millons of Dollars) EDS Inline EDS Pre ATO EDS Post ATO ETD Pre ATO (SLC) Heathrow Concept Alternatives
Avoid Confusion Airports
Avoid Congestion Airports
Impact of Reducing Airline Staffing on Queue Space Percent of Total Available Queue Space 300% 250% 200% 150% 100% 50% 0% 100% Staffing 75% Staffing 50% Staffing 94% 93% 91% 46% 47% 56% 21% 23% 23% Section 1 Section 2 Section 3 Lobby Section
Impact of Reducing TSA Staffing on Queue Space Percent of Total Available Queue Space 300% 250% 200% 150% 100% 50% 0% 100% Staffing 223% 239% 75% Staffing 50% Staffing 137% 94% 89% 46% 40% 21% 21% Section 1 Section 2 Section 3 Lobby Section
Best Alternative: In-Line EDS
Conclusions Best solutions identified to ensure airports performance goals could be achieved while meeting the requirements of ATSA. No magic bullet solution. In-line system is the best long term option: Most efficient, Best customer service, and Lowest long-term cost.
Conclusions Flexible modeling approached enabled DFW to quickly adapt our simulation models to different alternatives. DFW s recommended long-term solution hasn t changed since March 2001. DFW was the first airport to present a plan to the TSA. The approach used by DFW became a template for identifying requirements nationwide.
For more information TransSolutions 14600 Trinity Blvd., Suite 200 P.O. Box 155486 Fort Worth, TX 76155 Tel: (817) 359-2950 Fax: (817) 359-2959 E-mail: info@transsolutions.com URL: www.transsolutions.com