AIRPORT PASSENGER BUILDINGS: EFFICIENCY THRU SHARED USE

1
AIRPORT PASSENGER BUILDINGS EFFICIENCY THRU
SHARED USE

• Dr. Richard de Neufville
• Professor of Engineering Systems Civil and
  Environmental Engineering
• M.I.T.
• Based on work with
• Steven Belin, Senior Analyst, S H E

2
Shared Space and Facilities in Airport
Passenger Buildings

• Sharing between Units of Activity gt 10 to 60
  improvements
• either in cost reduction for overall airport
  capacity
• or in capacity for fixed building and facilities

3
Major Improvement over Traditional Approach to
Design

• Traditional Approach
• Defines maximum capacity different units
  (international, domestic, gates, etc.)
• Provides facilities to meet these demands
• Overall, provides more than required
• Shared Use Approach
• Takes advantage of overlap
• Uses Space and Facilities more intensely
• Provides Capacity more cost-effectively

4
Example Contrasting Shared Use and Traditional
Approach (1)

• Bangkok Phase 1 30 MAP
• Design Traffic
• International 21 to 25 MAP
• Domestic 5 to 9 MAP
• Traditional Approach Has Space for 25 9 34
  MAP
• But intended for 30 MAP capacity!

5
Example Contrasting Shared Use and Traditional
Approach (2)

• Shared Approach Designs for
• 21 5 4 (shared) 30 MAP
• 13 savings in space
• or 24 6 4 (shared) 34 MAP
• 13 increase in capacity over traditional
• More value for money either way!

6
Primary and Secondary Drivers Motivating Use of
Shared Space
7
Analysis Methods Recommended for each motivating
factor
8
Peak Capacity Sharing -- Short time,
needs identical

• Basic example Lounge space for aircraft gates
• people all have same needs
• Other examples
• bag claims, car parks, curb space, etc
• Sharing of Lounge Space is Common Practice in US
  Airports
• Not in Europe, Japan, Asia

9
Example Pattern of Occupancy Shared Lounge for 4
Gates
10
Sharing lounges saves Space
11
Concept of Shared Lounge Space
12
Shared Departure Lounge Las Vegas/McCarran
Shared Lounge
13
Shared Departure Lounge Miami/International
Shared Lounge
Shared Lounge
14
Percent of Lounge Space needed depends on
situation (table)
15
Percent of Lounge Space needed depends on
situation (graph)
16
Shared Departure Lounge,Widebody
17
Shared Departure Lounge,Narrowbody
18
Peak Capacity Sharing -- Longer Time, Needs
Different

• Basic examples
• Gates for Aircraft, Processing of International
  and Domestic Passengers
• Investment to enable flexibility (airbridges,
  sterile corridors, etc)
• Examples applications
• Las Vegas, Wellington, Boston...
• Kuala Lumpur, Mombasa, New Bangkok...

19
International or Domestic Only
20
Both International and Domestic
21
International / Domestic Swing GatesLas
Vegas/McCarran
Concourse
Gate T2-3
Gate T2-2
Gate T2-1
To FIS
22
International / Domestic Swing GatesWellington,
New Zealand
23
Swing Baggage ClaimWellington, New Zealand
24
Uncertainty Space -- Insurance for Current
Needs

• Uncertainty in Operations (Schedule delays,
  maintenance)
• Spare Capacity gt Insurance
• Simple Formula for Design Gates
• Design Gates Maximum scheduled (G)
  Allowance for Delay (G1/2)
• Sharing gt Smaller Buffer (as )
• (G1/2)/G 1/(G1/2) units together raise G

25
Concept of Shared Insurance Space
26
Expanded Concept of Shared Space Time Overlaps
Insurance
27
Uncertainty Space -- Insurance for Future
Needs

• Uncertainty in Future Traffic Mix
• Normal Variability -- from historical record
• Extraordinary Variability -- Major Shift (airport
  becomes international gateway, hub)
• Insurance Flexible Future Capacity
• Adapt Capacity to Future Traffic Mix

28
Structure of Decision Analysis to select
optimal shared capacity
29
Flexible Space Easily Adapts to Changes in Future
Demand
30
Percent Swing Gates Needed -- Normal Variability
31
Percent Swing Gates ( 20 cost) --
Extraordinary Variability
32
Percent Swing Gates ( 5 cost) --
Extraordinary Variability
33
Practical Conclusions

• For Design
• Routine Use of Shared Lounges
• 20 to 30 shared gates, etc...
• For Analysis
• Spreadsheets do excellent job
• Existing results can be used
• Formulas also available