Benchmarking Airport Productivity and The Role of Capacity Utilization - A Study of Selected European Airports

Benchmarking Airport Productivity
and the Role of Capacity Utilization –

A Study of Selected European Airports
Branko Bubalo
Thesis submitted to the faculty of the

University of Applied Sciences Berlin
In partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of
Diplom-Wirtschaftsingenieur
Umweltmanagement
Dr. Jürgen Müller

Dr. Anne Graham
Berlin, Germany, February 15, 2009
E-mail: branko.bubalo@googlemail.com
To my family,
my best friend and partner
Claudia
and our lovely son
Richard Alexius.
Statutory Declaration
I hereby confirm, that I have independently composed this Diploma

Thesis and that no other than the indicated aid and sources have been
used. This work has not been presented to any other examination board.
___________________________________
(Branko Bubalo), Berlin, February 15, 2009
Table of Contents
Table of Contents
Table of Contents .................................................................................................................4
Abbreviations .......................................................................................................................6
Sample Airports .................................................................................................................11
Basic Annual Indicators for Sample Airports.................................................................12
Preface.................................................................................................................................15
1 Introduction..............................................................................................................18
1.1 Recent Developments and Future Outlook in Air Transportation ............................ 19
1.2 Fuel Prices Affecting Air Transportation ................................................................. 24
1.3 New Airspace Surveillance Technologies ................................................................ 25
1.4 Capacity .................................................................................................................... 26
1.5 Ultimate Capacity ..................................................................................................... 30
2 Methodologies and Models......................................................................................31
2.1 Data Collection ......................................................................................................... 32
2.2 Peak Period Estimation and Data.............................................................................. 33
2.3 Considerations Concerning the Data ........................................................................ 37
2.4 The Benchmarking Concept ..................................................................................... 37
2.5 Criticism and Findings of Technical, Operational and Infrastructural Inputs used in
Previous Benchmarking Studies ............................................................................... 40
3 Airport Capacity Assessment..................................................................................44
3.1 The “Kanafani Model” and Assessment Results ...................................................... 46
3.2 Analytical Model for Calculating Ultimate Capacity ............................................... 51
3.3 Simulation Setup....................................................................................................... 53
3.3.1 Available Simulation Models ..................................................................... 53
3.3.2 Single Runway Airports.............................................................................. 57
3.3.3 Airport Charts ............................................................................................. 58
3.3.4 Airport Coordinates .................................................................................... 59
3.3.5 Separation Minima and Wake Vortex Classification.................................. 60
3.3.6 Weather Data .............................................................................................. 63
3.3.7 Wind Direction............................................................................................ 63
3.3.8 Preferential Runway System....................................................................... 65
3.3.9 Apron, Runway Exits and Taxiway layout ................................................. 66
3.3.10 Gate, Departure Queue and Airspace...................................................... 67
3.4 Simulation Run and Scenarios .................................................................................. 68
Benchmarking Airport Productivity and the Role of Capacity Utilization 4

Table of Contents
4 Results of the Simulation Benchmarking ..............................................................69

4.1 Results for the LHR and BBI Simulations................................................................ 73
4.2 Traffic Flows at the Simulated Airports ................................................................... 76
5 Summary of Results and Conclusions....................................................................79
6 Outlook......................................................................................................................82
References and further readings ......................................................................................84
Electronic and Internet Sources .......................................................................................95
Appendix.............................................................................................................................99
Figures 23...................................................................................................................... 102
Figures 26 and 27.......................................................................................................... 112
Figures 16...................................................................................................................... 117
Figures 17...................................................................................................................... 147
Figures 18...................................................................................................................... 169
Figures 19...................................................................................................................... 179
Figures 28...................................................................................................................... 186
Contacts......................................................................................................................... 216

Abbreviations
Abbreviations
ABS Airport Business Suite

ACD Airport Capacity And Delay
ACI Airports Council International
ADRM Airport Development Reference Manual
ADS-B Automatic Dependent Surveillance Broadcast
ADV Arbeitsgemeinschaft Deutscher Verkehrsflughäfen
AO Annual Operations
AP Annual Passengers
ARC Aachen Research Center
ARR Arrival
ASV Annual Service Volume
ATA Air Transport Association
ATAC The Air Transport Association of Canada
ATC Air Traffic Control
ATM Air Traffic Management
ATS Air Traffic System
ATSL Air Transportation Systems Laboratory
BAA British Airport Authority
BRIC Brazil, Russia, India, China (emerging Markets)
BSE Berlin School of Economics
CAA Civial Aviation Authority
CAMACA Commonly Agreed Methodology for Airport Airside
Capacity Assessment
CDM Collaborative Decision Making
CEO Chief Executive Officer
CFMU Central Flow Management Unit
DEP Departure
DFS Deutsche Flugsicherung
DfT Department for Transport
DOT U.S. Department of Transportation
DPH Design Peak Hours
FAA Federal Aviation Administration
FSX Flight Simulator® (Microsoft)
GAP German Airport Performance
GE Google Earth® (Software)
GPS Global Positioning System
GUI Grafical User Interface Software
H Aircraft Class Heavy (> 136,000 kg)
Ha Hectar
HO Design Peak Hour Operation
HP Design Peak Hour Passengers
IATA International Air Transport Association
ICAO International Civial Aviation Organization
IFR Instrument Flight Rules
INM Integrated Noise Model
IMC Instrument Meteorological Conditions
IVAO International Virtual Aviation Association
L Aircraft Class Large (7,000 to 136,000 kg)
Abbreviations
LCC Low Cost Carriers, Low Fares Airline

M refer to L
MIT Massachuchettes Institute of Technology
MTOW Maximum Take-Off weight
Mvts Movements (Ops and Flights)
NAS National Airspace System
NASA National Aeronautics ans Space Administration
NGATS Next Generation Air Transportation System
NextGen Next Generation Air Transportation System
NLR National Aerospace Laboratory of the Netherlands
nmi Nautical Miles
OAG Official Airline Guide
Ops Operations
PACS Pan-European Airport Capacity and Delay Analysis
Support
PAX Passengers
PD Peak Days
PDTHUW26 Design Peak Day, Thursday of Week 26
PH Peak Hour
PHW122009 Peak Hour Of Week 12, 2009
PPP Public Private Partnership
RAMS Reorganized ATC Mathematical Simulator
RNP Required Navigation Performance
ROT Runway Occupancy Time
Rwy Runway
S Aircraft Class Small (<7000 kg)
SES Single European Sky
SESAR Single European Sky ATM Research Programme
SIMMOD Airport and Airspace Simulation Model
SLF Seat Load Factor
TAAM Total Airspace and Airport Modeler
THENA Thematic Network on Airport Activities
TRB Transportation Research Board
UK United Kingdom
USD United-States Dollar
VFR Visual Flight Rules
Virginia Tech Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University
VMC Visual Meteorological
VS Visual SIMMOD

List of Figures
Main Text
Figure 1 Annual Passengers at Sample European Airports with above 10 million PAX
from 2003 to 2007 (Bubalo 2009, EUROSTAT 2008) page 11
Figure 2 Annual Passengers at Sample European Airports with below 10 million PAX
from 2003 to 2007 (Bubalo 2009, EUROSTAT 2008) page 11
Figure 3 Annual Flights at Sample European Airports with above 100,000 flights from
2003 to 2007 (Bubalo 2009, EUROSTAT 2008) page 12
Figure 4 Annual Flights below 100,000 Operations at Sample European Airports from
2003 to 2007 (Source: Bubalo 2009, EUROSTAT 2008) page 12
Figure 5 Passengers and Operations Change from 2003 to 2007 (Source: Bubalo 2009,
EUROSTAT 2008) page 13
Figure 6 Most Constraining Points in European Air Traffic in 2007 page 13
Figure 7 Annual monthly traffic and variations (PRC 2007) page 19
Figure 8 The long-term view of growth is of a stable long-termed trend page 29
Figure 9 Ranking of the main global hubs (Ambrosetti 2008) page 21
Figure 10 Limiting Factors for Capacity and Interdependencies at Airports page 26
Figure 11 Target Groups and Offerings at Airports (Bubalo 2009 adapted from
Leutenecker & Fraport 2008) page 28
Figure 12 Relationship between delay-related and ultimate capacity page 29
Figure 13 Traffic and total delays comparison with equivalent weeks of the previous year
(CFMU 2008) page 34
Figure 14 Capacity and ASV for long-range planning (FAA 1995) page 100/101
Figure 15 Groupings of runway configurations in relation to Annual Service Volume

(ASV), (Bubalo 2009 derived from FAA 1995) page 40
Figure 16a STN Weekdays Operations Pattern and Capacities page 44
Figure 17a Assumption Rectangle and Capacities of FRA Airport for the year 2007/2008
(Bubalo 2009) page 48
Figure 18a Typical Capacity Envelope for LHR airport page 51

Figure 18b Typical Capacity Envelope for IST airport page 51
Figure 19a STR Airport Layout for SIMMOD page 59
Figure 20 Vortex generation on take-off and landing (CAA 1999) page 60
Figure 21 Ceiling and Visibility Routines (De Neufville 2003) page 61
Figure 22 Example printout of windrose (two bi-directional runways) page 63
Figure 23a Example BHX Flights and Delays per Flight from SIMMOD page 69
Figure 24 LHR airport SIMMOD simulation for 20% growth scenario page 74
Figure 25 BBI airport SIMMOD simulation for 100% growth scenario page 74
Figure 26 Flows of Airport Traffic at LHR: SIMMOD Base and 20% growth scenario,
(Bubalo 2009) page 75
Figure 27 Flows of Airport Traffic at BBI Airport: SIMMOD Base, 20% and 100%
growth scenario, (Bubalo 2009) page 77
Appendix
Figures 16 Weekday Operations Pattern and Capacities (Demand Diagrams) for Sample
Airports pp. 117
Figures 17 Assumption Rectangles for Sample Airports pp. 147
Figures 18 Typical Capacity Envelopes for Selected Airports pp. 169
Figures 19 Airport Layout for SIMMOD Sample Airports pp. 179
Figures 23 Flights and Delays per Flight from SIMMOD pp. 102
Figures 28 Airport Charts for Sample Airports pp. 186

List of Tables
Table 1 Sample Airports and Codes, (Bubalo 2009) page 10
Table 2 Freedom of Action for Airlines before and after Deregulation (De Neufville
2008) page 20
Table 3 Top Five Traffic Days 2005-08 (EUROCONTROL CFMU 2008) page 33
Table 4 Basic Indicators and Airport Configurations Groups for sample airports
(Bubalo 2009) pp. 41/42
Table 5 'Static' Capacity Assessment (Bubalo 2009) pp. 46/47
Table 6 Weight parameters (CAA 1999) page 61
Table 7 Average Seatload Factors for Sample Airports page 116
Table 8 SIMMOD arrivals injection time adjustment for flight schedule data, (Bubalo
2009) page 178

Sample Airports
Sample Airports
Index IATA ICAO Name Country

1 AMS EHAM Amsterdam NL
2 ARN ESSA Arlanda SE
3 ATH LGAT Athen GR
4 BBI EDDB* Berlin Brandenburg Int DE
5 BCN LEBL Barcelona ES
6 BHX EGBB Birmingham UK
7 BRU EBBR Bruessel BE
8 BSL LFSB Basel CH/FR
9 CDG LFPG Paris Charles de Gaule FR
10 CGN EDDK Köln Bonn DE
11 CIA LIRA Rom Ciampino IT
12 CPH EKCH Kopenhagen DK
13 DRS EDDC Dresden DE
14 DUB EIDW Dublin IE
15 DUS EDDL Duesseldorf DE
16 EDI EGPH Edinburgh UK
17 FCO LIRF Rom Fiumicino IT
18 FMO EDDG Muenster Osnabrueck DE
19 FRA EDDF Frankfurt Main DE
20 GLA EGPF Glasgow UK
21 GRZ LOWG Graz AT
22 HAJ EDDV Hannover DE
23 HAM EDDH Hamburg DE
24 HEL EFHK Helsinki FI
25 HHN EDFH Hahn DE
26 IST LTBA Istanbul TK
27 LBA EGNM Leeds Bradford UK
28 LCY EGLC London City UK
29 LEJ EDDP Leipzig DE
30 LGG EBLG Liege FR
31 LGW EGKK London Gatwick UK
32 LHR EGLL London Heathrow UK
33 LIS LPPT Lisbon PT
34 LTN EGGW London Luton UK
35 LYS LFLL Lyon FR
36 MAD LEMD Madrid ES
37 MAN EGCC Manchester UK
38 MUC EDDM Muenchen DE
39 MXP LIMC Mailand Malpensa IT
40 NCE LFMN Nizza FR
41 NUE EDDN Nuernberg DE
42 ORY LFPD Paris Orly FR
43 OSL ENGM Oslo NO
44 PMI LEPA Palma Mallorca ES
45 PRG LKPR Prag CZ
46 PSA LIRP Pisa IT
47 RHO LGRP Rhodos GR
48 RTM EHRD Rotterdam NL
49 SCN EDDR Saarbruecken DE
50 STN EGSS London Stansted UK
51 STR EDDS Stuttgart DE
52 SXF EDDB Berlin Schoenefeld DE
53 SZG LOWS Salzburg AT
54 TXL EDDT Berlin Tegel DE
55 VIE LOWW Wien AT
56 WAW EPWA Warschau PL
57 WRO EPWR Wroclaw PL
58 ZAG LDZA Zagreb HR
59 ZRH LSZH Zuerich CH
Table 1. Sample Airports and Codes. (Source: Bubalo 2009)

Basic Annual Indicators for Sample Airports
Annual Passangers at Sample European Airports above 10 million PAX 2003-2007
80,000,000
70,000,000
60,000,000
50,000,000
Annual PAX
40,000,000
30,000,000
20,000,000
10,000,000
0
ORY
FRA
AMS
DUB
OSL
VIE
DUS
LIS
HAM
HEL
NCE
PMI
PRG
LHR
CDG
FCO
MAN
CPH
ZRH
ARN
BRU
MAD
MUC
BCN
MXP
CGN
STN
ATH
STR
TXL
LGW
2003 2004 2005 2006 2007
Fig. 1. Annual Passengers at Sample European Airports with above 10 million PAX from 2003
to 2007 (Bubalo 2009, EUROSTAT 2008)
Annual Passangers at Sample European Airports below 10 million PAX 2003-2007
10,000,000
9,000,000
8,000,000
7,000,000
6,000,000
Annual PAX
5,000,000
4,000,000
3,000,000
2,000,000
1,000,000
0
LYS
LCY
GLA
CIA
PSA
EDI
MRS
NUE
HHN
LBA
DRS
SCN
HAJ
LEJ
GRZ
BSL
LTN
BHX
RHO
SZG
FMO
RTM
LGG
SXF
WRO
WAW
2003 2004 2005 2006 2007
Fig. 2. Annual Passengers at Sample European Airports with below 10 million PAX from 2003
to 2007 (Bubalo 2009, EUROSTAT 2008)

Annual Flights at Sample European Airports from 2003 to 2007 above 100,000 Flights
600,000
500,000
400,000
Annual Ops
300,000
200,000
100,000
0
MXP
TXL
BHX
MAD
MUC
MAN
PMI
HAM
OSL
HEL
CDG
LHR
AMS
BCN
FCO
CPH
BRU
ZRH
ARN
ATH
STN
STR
CGN
PRG
FRA
VIE
ORY
DUS
DUB
NCE
LIS
LYS
EDI
LGW
WAW
2003 2004 2005 2006 2007
Fig. 3. Annual Flights at Sample European Airports with above 100,000 flights from 2003 to
2007 (Bubalo 2009, EUROSTAT 2008)
Annual Flights at Sample European Airports from 2003 to 2007 below 100,000 Flights
100,000
90,000
80,000
70,000
60,000
Annual Ops
50,000
40,000
30,000
20,000
10,000
0
SXF
FMO
MRS
LTN
HHN
SCN
RTM
GLA
LCY
NUE
CIA
LBA
BSL
PSA
DRS
GRZ
RHO
LGG
SZG
HAJ
LEJ
WRO
2003 2004 2005 2006 2007
Fig. 4. Annual Flights below 100,000 Operations at Sample European Airports from 2003 to
2007 (Source: Bubalo 2009, EUROSTAT 2008)

PAX and Ops Change in Percent from 2003 to 2007*

*LGG & WRO change to 2006; WAW change to 2004
300%
250%
200%
150%
Change
100%
50%
0%
ATH
CIA
GLA
ARN
HAJ
PSA
LBA
FRA
MAD
MAN
HAM
LTN
STR
STN
AMS
LCY
ORY
LYS
TXL
HHN
BCN
DUB
CGN
LHR
BRU
SCN
CPH
ZRH
LEJ
SXF
VIE
DUS
OSL
HEL
PRG
NUE
DRS
FCO
SZG
LGG
NCE
GRZ
BHX
BSL
RTM
RHO
CDG
EDI
LIS
MUC
FMO
WAW
MRS
MXP
WRO
PMI
LGW
-50%
% change Ops % change PAX
Fig. 5. Passengers and Operations Change from 2003 to 2007*. (Source: Bubalo 2009, EURO-
STAT 2008)
Fig. 6. Most Constraining Points in European Air Traffic in 2007. (Source: PRC 2007)

Preface
Preface
The last four months have been the most interesting, educational and demand-
ing in my life. After struggling to find an appealing topic for my diploma thesis
and having a background in process and industrial engineering and environ-
mental management, I do not exaggerate by saying I found a new passion: Ana-
lysing the air transport system.
Once the system is generally understood it becomes even more interesting and
every new piece of information falls into its place.
I want to thank everybody, who helped me along the way to make my diploma
thesis happen. Of course first of all I want to thank my supervisors, Dr. Anne
Graham from Westminster University, London and Dr. Jürgen Müller from
Berlin School of Economics (BSE) for their motivation, support and trust in me
to create this peace of work, which I’m very proud of. Both being busy in their
fields of work, they gave me complete freedom to seek the goals needed for my
thesis.
Also I want to thank my family for having patience with me through all the
years, giving me the freedom to work the way I work, for motivation and for
giving financial support for last minute trips or any needed investment.
My son Richard is my main spring for inspiration, discipline and aspirations,
even without the need of verbal communication.
It’s amazing how helpful the aviation community was to me. I usually received
immediate responses to my requests. Mr. Gregory Bradford of Airport Tools
Inc. and Mory Camara of Official Airline Guide (OAG) clearly stand out with
providing the tools needed for my study, being the Visual SIMMOD (VS)
simulation software and detailed flight schedule data for all European air traf-
fic.
I do not know where I would stand had I not had the chance of using Gregory
Bradford’s modelling software VS. Initially I thought this would be a nice addi-
tion to my study, which commonly involves reading, data collection, applica-
tion of models, analysis and writing.

Preface
The common way had to be done, too, with enormous amounts of data analysis
involved, but the adoption of the software and the simulation I wanted to realise
simultaneously. I was indeed aware of the large learning curve for SIMMOD
and the challenges involved in getting accustomed to the software, but Gregory
Bradford has unbelievably good documentation and tutorials for his software,
and he even provided immediate support. This proved to be vitally necessary,
and I can’t thank him enough for his assistance.
For a pilot’s experience at many European airports I deeply thank Daniel Lam-
berg of Air Berlin for explaining flight and airport operations-related questions
to me. He also gave hints for fine-tuning the simulation.
Another new friend of mine is Charles Eypper, an English teacher from
Berlitz School Berlin and an American native, who looked over my writing
on very short notice. I deeply want to thank him for help and motivation.
I met Prof. Dr. Joachim Daduna of Berlin School of Economics unfortunately

only at a late stage of my thesis preparation. He was the first and only person I
could share and discuss my simulation and data analysis outcome with. Since
he has had years of experience as a logistics professor, has consulted compa-
nies and governments worldwide on the efficient operation of various transport
systems and knows about the complexity of a capacity assessment of such a
sophisticated system as the air transport system, he gave me invaluable imme-
diate feedback on my results.
I also want to thank my mother Gabriele Bubalo, having over 35 years of ex-
perience as a travel agent and tourist guide, for giving me answers to some ba-
sic flight schedule related questions, like code sharing and the importance of
only considering non-stop flights, for providing useful information and data on
the development of new routes, the demise of airlines, the development of in-
formation technology over the years, major aircraft accidents, minimum con-
necting times, modal split at airports, distances from city centres, and so on.
My familiarity with different IATA (International Air Transport Association)
codes proved to be very useful as well. That knowledge dates back to my
childhood years, when I loved to study flight schedules and travel operators’

Preface
catalogues to dream myself away to different countries and destinations. And as

a child I got around a lot, too, and visited many international destinations.
From my colleagues on the German Airport Performance (GAP) student re-

search project, I want to thank Tolga Ülkü of the airport finance team for doing
preliminary work on capacity utilization and productivity and for helping me
set the basic approach and structure for my diploma thesis about “Benchmark-
ing Airport Productivity and the Role of Capacity Utilization – A Study of Se-
lected European Airports” and Marius Barbu of the airport charges team for
fruitful conversations.
For a much needed scholarship I'm indebted to the Erich-Becker-Stiftung,

a foundation of Fraport AG for supporting research and science.
It became clear to me upon seeing the full picture of the air transport system
that the key to an evaluation and comparison lies in the knowledge and experi-
ence of many different parties. I therefore completely support so called “Col-
laborative Decision Making” (CDM) among all stakeholders of the industry,
decision-makers, managers as well as politicians, environmental or other non-
governmental organizations, to collectively work on problems together, share
data and information, and focus on the efficiency of the air transport system
and the true needs and welfare of the users of this system and the general pub-
lic.
Branko Bubalo, Berlin, February 2009

Introduction
“The difficult we do immediately,

the impossible takes a little longer”
Motto of the Navy Seabees in World War II
1 Introduction
We live in adventurous times where everything in the future seems to be possi-

ble. As most of the first decade in the new millennium lies behind us, it is time
to reflect. We saw ups and downs in almost every global market or industry, the
banking industry, the information technology industry, the real estate industry,
the automobile industry, the tourism industry, commodities market, and of
course the aviation industry. We saw political challenges and military conflicts;
we fully realized the damaging potential of climate change by experiencing
surprising extremes in global weather and realized the new threats to our life-
style resulting from religious extremism.
Surely this is nothing new. These have, in one way or another, always been
with us, but in addition to those events we saw also major catastrophic natural
and climatic events, like the flooding of New Orleans by hurricane “Katrina”
and the tsunami in South-East Asia. These events were rather unique.
In the world today with its communication, global transportation and globaliza-
tion, all people seem to sit in the same boat. Every major event has affected our
lives, directly or indirectly. As we watched the news on television, we felt in-
stantly connected with victims, survivors and helpers independent of country,
belief or political agenda. This is the positive part of reflecting on the current
decade; the world has never been more united.
It is becoming ever more important for the global community to exchange

knowledge, information, ideas, opinions, products, capital and culture among
its constituent countries. We want to know more about each other; we want to
explore; and we want to taste each others’ cuisine, listen to each others' music,
and share each others’ experiences.

Introduction
With the explosive expansion of the Internet over the last 15 years, the speed of
globalisation has accelerated, flows of information and products now cover the
whole world, and this has became the natural state of affairs for the people and
the economy worldwide.
China and India are in the throes of a huge transformation process which will
almost certainly lead to two new economic “super powers” among a whole
group of super powers being the BRIC countries, Brazil, Russia, India and
China. This brings challenges to developed regions like Europe as well.
To keep up with the increasing needs of the global community, mass transpor-
tation must meet the demand – especially in the area of air transportation.
Since time nowadays is such a valuable and precious resource and we already
can communicate and share information globally in real time, it is specifically
the duty of air transportation to provide timely traffic on a global scale. We
physically and virtually want to be anywhere at anytime.
1.1 Recent Developments and Future Outlook in Air Transportation
Air transportation is nowadays so important to the global economy, for both the
transportation of passengers and goods, that I doubt it will be permanently af-
fected by the current “financial crisis”. Demand for travel and air transportation
will, despite the current financial crisis, continue to grow in the future, not only
globally, but also regionally within Europe.
Basil Borim, vice president for operations and safety of the Air Transport As-
sociation (ATA), claims that “if carriers can develop a business case that makes
sense, they’ll have access to capital to make those investments” (Aviation To-
day January 1, 2009). Same will be true for airports, because both industries are
tightly connected.
All sources to my knowledge( like the “Challenges of Growth” report of

EUROCONTROL) forecast a strong demand for air transportation in the future
(Fig. 7). Business and consumption will continue to grow on a global scale
(EUROCONTROL 2008).

Introduction
Fig. 7. Annual monthly traffic and variations (2007). (Source: EUROCON-

TROL 2007)
Also from immediate knowledge I know that people are still seeking to travel
and will continue doing so in the future. From earlier crises it is also known
that a decline in demand for air transportation is usually absorbed in the follow-
ing one or two years. In the long run the demand for air transportation will
grow 4% annually on average (Fig. 8).
Fig. 8. The long-term view of growth is of a stable long-term trend. (Source:

PRC 2007)
What also plays a significant role in the continuous growth of air traffic is the
much cited deregulation and liberalization of the air transport market since the
mid-seventies in the U.S and the mid-nineties in Europe. Airports formerly

Introduction
being under federal authority, must behave increasingly like business-driven

and profit-oriented entities (Graham 2005).
Regulations considering prices, routes and the scheduling process for air travel
were gradually abandoned, allowing more freedom and more competition
among airlines (Table 2). This led to the emergence of the “no-frills” low cost
carriers (LCC) or low fare airlines in the late nineties (e.g. Ryanair and easy-
Jet), which have different and more flexible business models than the more
established airlines have. This development brought more competition to vari-
ous portions of the entire air transport system.
Airport charges for example, which are weight- or passenger-based and which
airlines have to pay for each aircraft takeoff and landing and for the infrastruc-
ture used at an airport, are a significant cost factor for airlines. Therefore less
developed airports are seeking opportunities to provide services tailored for
those LCC’s (e.g. low charges, basic infrastructure and short turn-around times,
like Hahn or Stansted airports).
It is plausible to believe that a secondary network of these LCC airports will
develop. LCC airports will try to serve a catchment area comparable to the es-
tablished hubs or international airports; others will see their opportunity in spe-
cialized services (e.g. cargo, business flights or general aviation, like Liège
(LGG) airport for cargo).
Table 2. Freedom of Action for Airlines before and after Deregulation. (Source:
De Neufville 2008)
We will also see more competition on comparable routes. It will not make
much difference in time when flying from Rome Ciampino airport to London

Introduction
Stansted airport or flying from Rome Fiumicino airport to London Heathrow

airport. But the ticket price will make a difference.
In metropolitan areas we will usually find more than one airport. The greater
London area has five airports (LHR, STN, LGW, LCY, LTN), which are, with
the exception of LTN, all operated by the company British Airport Authority
(BAA), until 2008 Berlin had three airports (THF, SXF, TXL), and from 2011
on Berlin will most likely only have one newly constructed airport (Berlin-
Brandenburg International (BBI)), Rome and Paris have two each FCO, CIA
and ORY, CDG, respectively. In addition to these airports, there are airfields
and airstrips scattered all across Europe and also others near the large urban
areas, which could serve as reliever airports in the future.
Although reliever airports will grow strong, it is still the main European hubs
that will dominate the air transport system. A hub is a main international airport
which links the regional and national routes, the spokes, with international con-
nections. We therefore speak of a hub-and-spoke network in Europe. Over
time, with new routes and airports, this might transform more into a point-to-
point network.
In the top ten major global hub ranking of 2007, there are three European air-
ports in the top five, first being London Heathrow airport (LHR), third being
Paris Charles-de-Gaule (CDG) airport and fifth being Frankfurt am Main air-
port (FRA) (Fig. 9).
Fig. 9. Ranking of the main global hubs. (Source: the European House Am-
brosetti 2008)

Introduction
As the simulation of current and future air traffic has shown, LHR is the main
bottleneck of the European air traffic system (ATS). LHR faces delays for
every departure from early morning on and is highly congested. The problem
is, that LHR is the main hub for global air traffic as well (Fig. 9) and creates
delays for many destination airports and will affect any connection flight.
Through air traffic procedures during the flights, this can only marginally be
reduced. As my simulation has shown, the last flight on each day at LHR air-
port could already face up a few hours delay.
Since LHR operates at a calculated level much over its maximum capacity (ul-
timate/technical capacity), at around 30% over its ultimate capacity, this is
clear.
Thankfully the government and the British Airport Authority (BAA) resolved a
long-lasting battle and saw the urgency of the matter to expand London Heath-
row as quickly as possible. It is proposed to build a third runway and a sixth
terminal by 2020 (BBC November 22, 2008).
Paris Charles-de-Gaulle (CDG) airport is the third global hub and my analysis
has shown, that CDG has enough spare capacity for some more years, since it
operates at approximately 84% of its technical or ultimate capacity.
Frankfurt (FRA) ranks fifth in the ranking of main global hubs and faces simi-
lar problems. FRA operates at a level of 40% over its technical capacity, which
means over a years time the demand is 40% higher, than the airport can possi-
bly handle. In this case the fourth runway is already planned and construction
began. The new runway is expected to go into service by 2015.
One may ask how operations can work every day under the circumstance of
operating over the technical capacity. Well, firstly the technical capacity is an
estimate of the annual manageable flights of an airport and secondly, the obser-
vations to come up with these estimates for each runway configuration were
done several years ago and do not take into account the technical development
in air traffic control equipment, which allows less separation between aircrafts

Introduction
while taking-off or landing and therefore allows more operations per hour or
per year (FAA 1995).
Still, the estimates of the so called annual service volume (ASV) are approved
by the FAA and make the assumption, that only this amount of annual flights
should be operated at an airport with the defined configuration and with regard
to current ATC rules and practices (FAA 1995, p.5).
As a result we see these everyday delays at airports, which either operate close
or over the ASV. With the forecasted growth in European air traffic these de-
lays will multiply at over-utilized airports and will affect other airports in the
network (Table 4).
1.2 Fuel Prices Affecting Air Transportation
The decline in demand for air travel during the last three to fourth months dur-
ing the financial crisis and the high fuel prices over the past year, were a tough
to handle combination of events for airlines, airports and travel operators to-
gether.
The fuel prices have dropped and the oil barrel price is expected to stabilize at
around 40 USD, so some financial pressure has been released. At the same time
we can again see in Figure 2, that oil price shifts do occur frequently.
In IATA’s view, the industry lost $5.2 billion in 2008, and will see losses of
$4.1 billion in 2009. The earnings of 2009 will be important to many airlines
and to the whole aerospace industry, and some will have to adjust their business
models, routes or services, because the damage of 2008 will be “difficult to
overcome” (Aviation Today January 1, 2009).
In October 2008 Calyon Securities published a research report which points out
that the U.S. air transport industry is expected to lose $3 billion in 2008 “before
posting earnings of $5 billion in 2009”. Calyon also points out that “carriers
have positioned themselves such that they should be able to survive the credit
challenges until spring, when traffic demand is expected to increase and we
forecast the industry returning to profitability”.
IATA Director General and CEO Giovanni Bisignani is more gloomy; he ex-
pects the situation to remain “bleak” and “the toxic combination of high oil

Introduction
prices and falling demand continues to poison the industry’s profitability”

(Aviation Today January 1, 2009). The combination of efficient business mod-
els, a stabilisation of fuel prices and the global economic environment will
bring relief to the aerospace industry. There is still a lot of uncertainty, which
pushes even more towards an efficient air transport system, with lower fuel
consumption and lower costs for airlines and therefore lower ticket prices for
the end consumer.
Speaking of the operational side of air transportation, Basil Baromo indicates

that if “you can trim a minute or two off every approach in and out of an air-
port, the fuel savings are significant. […] They’re more significant at $140-a-
barrel oil than they are at $80-a-barrel oil, but they still are very significant.
We’re talking industry-wide, potentially hundreds of millions of dollars [saved]
annually.”
Barimo of the ATA further suggests that “introducing some changes to proce-
dures [...] allows [the air transport industry] to squeeze more capacity out of the
system and at the same time makes it even safer. […] And once we do this, that
capacity translates into reduced delay, and that translates into real savings of
[turnaround] time of aircraft, crew, fuel burn and all of those things.” (Aviation
Today January 1, 2009)
This means that by efficient airport operation and the smart use of airport ca-
pacities, which will result in fewer delays and queuing or ground times, huge
amounts of money can be saved by airlines. Cutting costs might be another way
to increase profitability, but this has already been done over the past few years
due to the new competitive dynamics created by the LCCs.
Cutting more costs will call the reputation and business models of main carriers
deeply into question, but a saving potential through efficiency is there.
1.3 New Airspace Surveillance Technologies
For airlines it would require new investments in technical equipment, such as

communication and non-radar GPS-based surveillance systems, which would in
general allow aircraft to use, runways, airports and airspace more precisely and

Introduction
in higher frequencies. Same is true for the various air traffic control (ATC) sta-
tions at airports, which would need more staff and would also need state-of-the-
art communication and surveillance equipment.
There are developments in that direction all over the world, like the U.S. Next
Generation Air Transportation System (NextGen) or the European Single
European Sky Programme (SES II, SESAR).
Airlines or alliances of airlines even independently plan to implement new
technologies to operate their fleets more efficiently. Because the situation is not
changing fast enough, airlines are willing to pay millions of dollars for more
efficiency. What is missing is the will and speed of most airports and federal
governments to also invest in new technologies or capacity expansion. This
imbalance has to be evened out.
One example: Dallas-based Southwest Airlines wants to invest $175 million in
their fleet for Required Navigation Performance (RNP) procedures,, which are
expected to “yield $25 million in fuel savings annually” (Aviation Today
1/1/2009). As a comparison a new runway at an airport costs about $300 mil-
lion (AMS and MAD airports for example in IATA 2003) and would bring
benefits to all airlines.
Since every party involved would benefit from those investments, costs could
be divided between airlines and airports and would in some cases require public
private partnership (PPP) (Interview: Daduna January 15, 2009).
In Europe we see a similar development with the installation of Automatic De-

pendent Surveillance Broadcast (ADS-B) which Air Berlin is already installing
in its fleet (ACSS 2009; Interview: Lamberg). Air Berlin is far ahead in its im-
plementation of the European SES programme, which mandates all fleets be
equipped with ADS-B by 2015.
1.4 Capacity
I was overwhelmed to discover the fact that there is not only one capacity, or
capacity utilization, at airports, there are many, maybe hundreds of capacities
involved.

Introduction
Actually every process involved in serving passengers and/or aircraft and/or

cargo has its own capacity. On the landside, think of a security capacity, which
is the maximum throughput of passengers per unit of time through airport secu-
rity, or a gate area capacity, which could serve a certain maximum number of
passengers per unit of time and allow them to spend their waiting time com-
fortably before boarding.
The same is true with parking position capacity, air traffic control staff capacity
and runway capacity, all of which define the maximum number of aircraft that
can be processed per given unit of time.
As can be seen, the airport system is highly dynamic, and the situation at an
airport can change significantly in a matter of minutes. This is especially true
for many secondary airports that have strong peaks in the morning for two or
three hours and then experience a sharp decline of traffic after this period (e.g.
HAM and ARN).
With arriving and departing aircraft carrying as many as 400 passengers at a
time (Boeing 747) and airports processing up to 180,000 passengers per day or
around 10.000 passengers per hour (LHR), there is an enormous amount of
traffic activity at an airport over the course of a day.
So there is no simple answer to “capacity” (Fig. 10).
Fig. 10. Limiting Factors for Capacity and Interdependencies at Airports.

(Source: Bubalo 2009)

Introduction
Due to time and data factors, I have almost exclusively concentrated on the
most crucial capacity of an airport system, the runway capacity. One could ar-
gue that terminal capacity might be more important, but I think that is not the
case.
The fundamental function of an airport is to provide an interface between air
traffic and ground traffic. So therefore the concept is that a runway is the most
significant construction at an airport. You need a runway or a system of run-
ways to meet your local demand in air traffic services. Everything else is rather
an additional “service” for the customers. You can see this at the first airstrips
built in Australia and Europe or as a matter of fact at any of the original air-
strips.
Almost immediately there was a need for hangars for aircraft repair, sufficient
parking stands and fuel stations, as is the case at military air bases.
With the emergence of commercial air traffic and the establishment of regular
routes or “lines”, the need for passenger facilities arose at developed airports.
Since flying was very costly in the early days, passengers expected some con-
venient services at airports and from the airlines. With larger aircraft and more
air travellers, airports needed passenger waiting areas, luggage arrival and pick
up areas.1.
At large airports nowadays around 50% of the total airport revenue is generated
by non-aviation activities. This means that revenue generated through charges
and service fees for processing aircraft and passengers account for only half of
the overall revenues, the other half comes from commercial activities like rents,
leases, concessions and marketing, by providing room for shops, restaurants,
offices, conference rooms and hotels. Airports have become places where pas-
sengers and consumers like to spend time and money. The close proximity to
air transport proves to be rather beneficial to many enterprises and constantly
attracts more businesses (TRB 1975, p.1)(Fig. 11).
In fact for main hubs and large airports it is an obvious fact that terminals are
strong revenue generators. Internationally we find many other examples of still
1
I strongly recommend the “Air Australia” documentary by Alan Lindsay
about the adventurous times of aviator Charles Kingsford Smith and the devel-
opment of Qantas Airline in Australia. It gives an insight into the
transformation of an air traffic service over the years from its early
adventurious beginnings. http://www.guba.com/watch/3000056128

Introduction
developing airports which provide only basic service. Duty-free and souvenir
shops or restaurants are very popular among all airports.
Additionally the amount of passenger traffic, tourists and level of privatization
play a significant role in revenue generation.
Thus, incentives are in place to get more revenue from the passengers, but
nonetheless after all has been said and done, it is still the runway which pro-
vides the needed traffic.
In a discussion with Klaus Knoepfle, a former ground handling operation man-

ager at Stuttgart airport (STR), he gave an example of a quick adaptation to the
unanticipated need for additional terminal capacity at STR. As the number of
passengers, especially in the no-frills sector grew strongly, an old terminal was
demolished, but, as it would take some time to rebuild, the only solution was to
transform a maintenance hangar into a passenger terminal, which now is Ter-
minal 4. And that worked perfectly well for the low-fare and charter airlines
(Interview: Knoepfle 2008).
This kind of temporary solution is of course not possible with runways.
Fig. 11. Target Groups and Offerings at Airports. (Source: Bubalo 2009
adapted from Leutenecker & Fraport 2008)

Introduction
1.5 Ultimate Capacity
The ultimate capacity expresses the maximum physical capability of a runway

system to process aircraft [ed. Demand] for specific conditions (Horonjeff
1994, p. 310). This type of capacity is also refered to as the technical capacity.
Beyond this capacity, which is expressed as total flights per time (usually one
hour), the acceptable level of average delays per flights is too high to be able to
operate the airport, or the runway, any further.
It is suggested in various literature (De Neufville 2003; ADRM 2004; ACD
1995 and others) that the acceptable average level of delay per flight of four
minutes should never be exceeded. This therefore is a strong criterion to esti-
mate the practical capacity. The relationship between average delays per flight
and practical capacity is shown in Fig. 12.
Fig. 12. Relationship between delay-related and ultimate capacity. (Source:

Horonjeff 1994)
The correlation of delay and capacity also shows that the delay reacts very sen-
sitive to an increase in operations per hour when surpassing the practical capac-
ity. It makes a huge difference if an airport operates at 60% to 65% or if it op-

Methodologies and Models
erates between 85% and 90% of it ultimate capacity (de Neufville 2003, p.
448).
And it is because airport inhancement programmes, especially for constructing
a runway, take many years to plan (usually more than 10 years, due to long
lasting approval procedures concerning environmental concerns), that a timely
planning process should be started as soon as capacity shortages are foresee-
able.
We will see the relationship between demand, delay and capacities further in
the ‘static’ airport analysis and later in the ‘dynamic’ airport system analysis
when running different airport simulations.
2 Methodologies and Models
The flood of information on airport benchmarking, management, engineering,

efficiency and operations is interesting, but also never-ending. It is difficult to
point out one specific model which could be applied to measure airport produc-
tivity or to generate a benchmark. The research on airport benchmarking is still
ongoing and the obstacles involved have been pointed out in many academic
papers.
That is why this study will only cover a selection of models, the idea being
more to produce a workbook which will give an overview of what is going on
at airports on a day-to-day basis and to identify a greater choice of inputs for
statistical and econometric calculations than has thus far been done.
With the collection of very recent data, I wanted to create a snapshot of the
airports today. This very transparent approach should answer questions like
“What is the annual/hourly capacity of an airport?”, “Is the airport congested,
and when?”, “Is there enough spare capacity for development in the years to
come with respect to growth in traffic and the continuous emergence of new
(LCC) airlines and routes?” and “How do I operate airports efficiently to meet
modern environmental challenges and to help airlines reduce delays and the
costs of fuel consumption?”.

Regarding the literature, it was handled quite differently, as it spans the last
four decades. In this case I wanted to try to get to the roots of models and
thoughts about airport capacity, like the wonderful “Airport Landside Capac-
ity” Special Report 159 of the Transportation Research Board (TRB) from
1975 which could be published today without loosing any of its topicality.
In short, there was a need felt to understand the capacity problem in the air
transport system.
I started collecting relevant books, and did some data collection. From within
the GAP project I had access to a great deal of airport-related literature and
data. Unfortunately much of the data had been modified by different people,
was outdated or simply didn’t have the scope of what I needed. Also much of
the literature was related to economics and econometrics and had little rele-
vance to airport infrastructure and operations. But still it provided me with use-
ful information.
The “Airport Capacity and Delay” (ACD) guideline from the U.S. Federal
Aviation Administration (FAA 1995, p. 14) generally suggests what kind of
data would be needed for a capacity and delay assessment of airports, and,
while referring to different components like taxiways, exits and gates, it mainly
concentrates on runway capacity.
Another valuable source of information is the IATA “Airport Development
Reference Manual” (ADRM) (IATA 2004) which also gives hints on how to do
capacity measurements on land- and airside, covering passenger and aircraft
facilities, and where to look for data. The main assessment data requires infor-
mation on flight schedules, aircraft, airspace, airport configuration and weather
data.
2.1 Data Collection
An often cited source of reliable flight schedule data is the Official Airline
Guide (OAG) database. A substantial amount of this analysis is completely
based on available OAG data. OAG provides for a 5000 USD subscription fee
for access to recent and 12 month forward flight schedules data for over 1000
airlines and 3500 airports. The 14-day trial access to their database was fully

functional, but limited to one week of data between 16th and 22nd March 2009.
Access to their database is via an online Java application which provides the
ability to choose from among 130 different indicators, filtering and putting
these together in tabular form.
OAG provided many conversation and decoding tables, this being aircraft in-
formation, maximum take-off weight (MTOW), seat numbers, ranges, speeds,
etc., and airline or aircraft coding and decoding.
Flight schedules data for all European airports for the whole week period was
collected. This resulted in about 20-25,000 daily European flight entries.
The result is a main operational database with information on each flight, such
as carrier, departure time, arrival time, aircraft type, origin, destination, dis-
tance, flying time, seat configuration, seat number, service type (passenger,
cargo or mixed) and flight number. It was possible to choose any European
airport for this analysis. A sample of 58 airports was selected because of the
strong interconnectivity between the airports and because of the importance of
the data for the GAP research project.
Unfortunately, using the OAG trial access, the flight data of peak periods was
neither accessable nor calculatable. So the next step was to obtain the peak pe-
riod information for European airports and traffic elsewhere.
2.2 Peak Period Estimation and Data
From the EUROCONTROL Pan-European Airport Capacity and Delay Analy-

sis Support (PACS) and OneSky Central Flow Management Unit (CFMU)
online sources and databases I collected the relevant data, such as daily, weekly
and monthly reports of overall European traffic and delays for the years 2000 to
2008.

2005 Flights 2006 Flights 2007 Flights 2008 Flights

Fri 17/06/2005 30663 Fri 15/09/2006 31914 Fri 31/08/2007 33506 Fri 27/06/2008 34476
Fri 01/07/2005 30569 Fri 01/09/2006 31841 Fri 29/06/2007 33480 Thu 26/06/2008 33895
Fri 02/09/2005 30469 Fri 30/06/2006 31686 Fri 14/09/2007 33371 Fri 13/06/2008 33833
Fri 16/09/2005 30338 Fri 08/09/2006 31553 Fri 07/09/2007 33279 Thu 19/06/2008 33383
Fri 09/09/2005 30169 Fri 22/09/2006 31550 Fri 21/09/2007 32971 Fri 04/07/2008 33342
Table 3. Top Five Traffic Days 2005-08. (Source: EUROCONTROL CFMU

2008)
Each weekly report provides a diagram of the previous week’s traffic and de-
lays, so in the report of week 52 or 53 I would be able to find a yearly diagram
which includes the traffic development over the past year (Fig. 13).
When studying these graphs for the development of European air traffic during
the year a repeating pattern is observable. It became obvious that in weeks 25,
26, 35 and 36 the traffic will always have its peak for the whole year. The aver-
age delays per week are also the highest during these four weeks.
From the literature, especially chapter 24 of de Neufville’s “Airport Systems –
Planning, Design and Management” (de Neufville 2003, p.851) I knew what to
consider in isolating the “peak days” (PD), the “design peak hours” (DPH), and
the peak periods in general. From observations it is known that Thursdays and
Fridays are almost always the busiest days of the whole week at airports. So I
figured that on the mentioned four weeks on Thursdays and Fridays must be the
busiest days of the whole year (Table 3).
What can also be seen from the diagram (Fig. 13) is that the peak days of the
previous year are exceeded by the traffic on peak days in the current year, at
least as long as there is growth, which might not be true in the year 2009.
The isolation of peak weeks must have been made due to the lack of precise
schedule data of a whole year for each airport. Depending on the source, per
definition:
“The design peak hour (DPH) is a busy hour, but not the busiest hour - the
peak hour (PH), of the year, maybe the 20th, 30th, 40th PH, or the 95th percentile
of the busiest day [ed. (PD]), or the PH of the average day of the peak month of
the year, or the PH of the average day of the two peak months of the year” and
so on (de Neufville 2003, p.853).

Fig. 13. Traffic and total delays comparison with equivalent weeks of the pre-
vious year; PC Objective set to 1.7 min of delay per flight (Source: Weekly
report 52/2008 EUROCONTROL CFMU 2008)
IATA (1981) has a more general definition for the peak period: “A period that
is representative of a normal busy period, and not one related to peak time,
such as religious festivals or some other short holiday period.”
I found it not very useful to use any of the definitions for DPH as a reference,
since I observe a conciderable sample of overall European traffic with many
airports and had to find a simple solution.
Since doing these DPH calculations would require more or less daily traffic
data from each airport for a whole year for each of the 58 sample airports, the
following simple method was applied.
Most sources point out that it largely depends on the study and availability of
data, which definition for estimating the DPH will be the best. Therefore the
Thursday of week 26 is suggested to be used as design peak day (PDTHUW26)
of all airports. Overall air traffic in Europe on this day is so high, that through
interconnections it will have an effect on all analysed airports.
The peak week 26 always falls into the top 5 busiest weeks of the year. The
peak hour of the second busiest day of week 26, the Thursday (PDTHUW26),

is equivalent to roughly the 1st to 30th 2 busiest hour during the whole year at
each airport.
The PH of PDTHUW26 is then the design peak hour (DPH).
For peak day information the website FlightStats.com has been used, which has
information about all recent flights and gives one the ability to track flights in
real time with scheduled and actual times and delays. Flightstats.com also al-
lows viewing scheduled and actual times at each airport for recent and past
flights, with origin and destination, flight number, gate, delayed status and ac-
tual delays in minutes.
With some tricks it is possible to extract the flight schedules for different air-
ports for the last five years.
The outcome is flight schedule data for another 25 airports for the PDTHUW26
from the last four years. Unfortunately, for the resulting tables major formatting
would have been needed, so only peak data for the PDTHUW26 of 2008 is
included in the diagrams for this study.
As mentioned above peak day data could only be obtained for 25 airports. This
means that for most of the sample airports another peak period had to be se-
lected. In the cases without PDTHUW26 data the peak hour (PH) of week 12 of
2009 (PHW122009), where I have OAG flight schedules data for, was chosen.
This was usually the Monday, Thursday or the Friday. Since the data is from a
week in March, the resulting PH or DPH is lower than the DPH for
PDTHUW26.
Another step was to obtain annual data to have an overview of the different
annual throughputs at airports, namely the number of passengers per year and
the number of take-offs and landings per year.
EUROSTAT is a one-stop resource for various statistics of the European Union
and a subdivision of EUROCONTROL. From here annual figures for all ana-
lysed airports (except for IST) was collected. The data is categorized into cargo
2
This largely depends on the individual peak hours over the peak days. Usually
airport have one to five peak hours on those days, when considering arrivals
and departures separately, they have even more. So there is variation which can
be finetuned.
traffic and passenger traffic, available seats, and boarded passengers. This al-
lowed the calculation of the annual average seat load factors (SLF) at each air-
port.
To sum up the panel data collection, there remains to mention the data from the
slot coordinators of each involved country on the maximum declared capacities
or slots, which represent the maximum number of operations allowed at air-
ports in any given one hour period and usually divided into departures and
landings and for different seasons into arrival and departure patterns.
This data is included in many diagrams to give an overview of the limit set by
the slot coordinators on the number of possible operations at an airport. The
limitation of slots per hour could have various reasons, for example lack of
ATC equipment or local noise restrictions.
2.3 Considerations Concerning the Data
The reader of this study should be aware of the quality of the data. Even with
the maximum care in editing the data it is possible that certain information
might not be correctly displayed or calculated. Since accurate data is the back-
bone of this study, as little as possible of the data was inserted manually. Most
of it was processed through links and scripts from the original sources. If there
were errors in the input tables at the point of origin, then these errors probably
have persisted throughout all calculations.
If the reader recognizes certain errors, please do not hesitate to contact the au-
thor. I will be glad to follow up on identified errors and correct them as neces-
sary.
2.4 The Benchmarking Concept
From the point of view of the literature, it almost seems as though the only
widely accepted way of doing performance (productivity) benchmarking
among airports is to use econometric calculations like the Data Envelopment
Analysis or the Stochastic Frontier Analysis. Both methods are very appealing

either for their simplicity or their usability in data analysis. At the same time
each have major drawbacks.
In reality there is no universally adopted benchmarking method. There are in-

stead many different benchmarking methodologies emerging.
The concept of benchmarking was first invented and introduced by copy-
machine manufacturer Rank Xerox in the 1970s.
The most prominent benchmarking method in use today is the 12-stage meth-
odology by Robert Camp, which consists of the following stages:
1) Select subject ahead
2) Define the process
3) Identify potential partners
4) Identify data sources
5) Collect data and select partners
6) Determine the gap
7) Establish process differences
8) Target future performance
9) Communicate
10) Adjust goal
11) Implement
12) Review/recalibrate.
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Benchmarking, January 12, 2009)
These are rather basic steps and do not reveal which indicators should be used
and how it is possible to collect confidential data from your competitors. But
these are the core problems, the solutions to which could cost huge amounts of
time and money.
The goal of a benchmarking study should be the identification and isolation of
a Best Practice, which is more efficient in a process, technique or method and
which provides more output for a given input by comparison among similar
entities.
During the preparation of this study, I came across many benchmarking studies
comparing different airports across regions or globally and I quickly learned

the difficulties involved in making these airports comparable in multiple as-

pects. There is a wide range of financial models, regulatory systems and opera-
tional policies which must be considered when doing a cross regional bench-
marking study (Pilling 2002).
As Graham (2005) points out it is indeed very difficult, if not impossible, to
establish methodologies to benchmark airports, especially when making com-
parisons across different national borders. This lies partly in the diversity of
accounting procedures for economic indicators. Depreciation of assets is but
one such example, where one will find huge differences among countries or
enterprises. This will result in totally misleading financial productivity indica-
tors.
It is therefore necessary to carefully predefine any input and output measure for
any productivity analysis, whether financial, operational or environmental.
There has been some thought given to developing a methodology for a

stripped-down airport, where accounts and physical measures are universally
adjusted to a “common set of rules”, to make airports internationally compara-
ble. So far this attempt has foundered due to a lack of the timely receipt of re-
sources, or a simple lack of financial or personnel resources (Graham 2005).
The attempt in this study for benchmarking must be seen in the larger context
of performance and productivity benchmarking studies. This in no way is the
“final” product of an airport productivity benchmarking, but should be seen as
a definite step in that direction.
This thesis is based around the questions: Which operational and infrastructural
input data is needed for productivity benchmarking? How can one reasonably
include that data into further calculations? And how can one obtain that data in
a rapid and sustained way?

2.5 Criticism and Findings of Technical, Operational and Infrastruc-

tural Inputs used in Previous Benchmarking Studies
Number of runways: Using the number of runways as an input for productivity

analysis does not provide reliable output. The efficiency of a runway system,
which is most critical to airport operations, and therefore to the productivity of
the whole airport system, is not solely based upon the actual number of run-
ways. By studying the FAA and IATA guidelines, it is clear that the efficiency
and capability of a runway system is also based largely upon the configuration
of the runways, i.e., the physical location, width, length; orientation and type
of pavement of the runway(s). Even such additional factors as altitude, humid-
ity, temperature, obstacles in the flight paths (mountains, skyscrapers, towers,
bridges, poles, large trees, etc.), location of residential areas, and the slope of
the runway have an effect on the throughput of a runway.
Total length of runways: The overall length of the runway system of an airport
is another example of the difficulty researchers have so far encountered in
evaluating the efficiency of an airport system. This again is not an adequate
indicator. The total length of all runways at an airport is of little importance, as
it does not take into consideration the number of runways actually used, the
primary types of aircraft the airport serves, and the spacing between runways.
A Boeing 737 needs as little as 1400 meters or about 4600 feet for landing and
1800 meters or about 5900 feet for taking-off. So a runway system comprisisng
a total of 6000 metres could have many possible runway configurations, and
therefore could serve a wide range of aircraft types, resulting in the number of
passengers served and number of operations to differ tremendously.
The problem could be narrowed down to three groups of runway configurations

for which within each group the opportunities to serve aircrafts are about equal.
The runway configurations 1 to 19 are suggested by the FAA (FAA 1995)(Fig.
14).

Annual Service Volume (ASV) Range for Mix Index = 81% - 180%
800000
700000
600000
ASV in Ops per Year
500000
400000
300000
200000
100000
0
1 9 14 15 2 10 17 13 16 18 19 3 11 5 4 12 6 7 8
Runway Configuration Number (FAA)
asv_mi_121 asv_mi_81
Fig. 15. Groups of runway configurations in relation to Annual Service Volume

(ASV). (Source: Bubalo 2009 derived from FAA 1995)
As it can be seen in figure 15, the suggested groups for the most common Mix
Indices of airports between 81% and 180% are:
Group 1 includes configurations 1, 9, 14 and 15.
Group 2 includes runway configurations 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 10, 11, 12, 13, 16,
17, 18 and 19.
And Group 3 would include the more complex and productive configu-
rations 7 and 8.
I suggest considering groups 1 to 3 separately for a productivity analysis.

Annual numbers, capacity utilization and basic indicators are displayed in Ta-
ble 4 for all 58 sample airports.
Number of gates: Using the number of airport gates does not tell the whole
story concerning the productivity of an airport. Gates can be reserved for spe-
cific airlines and therefore are not made available to other airlines. It is also
questionable whether the number of gates includes all available parking posi-
tions, which is the preferred measurement for available stand capacity at an
airport.
Also one must consider the amount of time an aircraft actually blocks a gate or
a parking position. Hence average turn-around times should be factored in as
well.

Capacity
MI=%(C+3*D) (ops/hour) Saturated >75%
Rwy Annual Annual Demand

config. no. Of VFR IFR Service Ops *2007 Annual
Rank Airport Group no. rwy Mix Index % ops/hr ops/hr Volume (ASV) EUROSTAT Demand/ 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 LHR 2 4 2 170 103 99 370,000 475,786 128.6%
3 MUC 2 4 2 112 111 105 315,000 409,654 130.0%
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 MXP 2 3 2 122 103 75 365,000 257,361 70.5%
8 CPH 2 12 2.5 109 111 105 315,000 250,170 79.4%
9 BRU 2 12 3 123 103 99 370,000 240,341 65.0%
10 ORY 2 12 2.5 112 111 105 315,000 238,384 75.7%
11 OSL 2 4 2 101 111 105 315,000 226,221 71.8%
12 ZRH 2 10 3 121 94 60 340,000 223,707 65.8%
13 DUS 2 2 2 107 105 59 285,000 223,410 78.4%
14 MAN 2 2 2 116 105 59 285,000 206,498 72.5%
15 IST 2 16 3 117 146 59 300,000 206,188 68.7%
16 ARN 2 12 3 106 111 105 315,000 205,251 65.2%
17 BBI 2 4 2 105 111 105 315,000 200,565 63.7%
18 ATH 2 4 2 110 111 105 315,000 193,123 61.3%
19 PMI 2 4 2 100 111 105 315,000 184,605 58.6%
20 HEL 2 12 3 107 111 105 315,000 174,751 55.5%
21 NCE 2 2 2 55 121 56 260,000 173,584 66.8%
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 LEJ 2 4 2 121 103 99 370,000 41,370 11.2%
26 PSA 2 2 2 103 105 59 285,000 38,525 13.5%
27 LGG 2 2 2 237 94 60 340,000 26,815 7.9%
1 VIE 1 14 2 109 77 59 225,000 251,216 111.7%
2 DUB 1 14 3 108 77 59 225,000 200,891 89.3%
3 STN 1 1 1 102 55 53 210,000 191,520 91.2%
4 PRG 1 9 2 102 76 59 225,000 164,055 72.9%
5 HAM 1 9 2 106 76 59 225,000 151,752 67.4%
6 WAW 1 9 2 103 76 59 225,000 147,985 65.8%
7 LIS 1 1 2 117 55 53 210,000 141,905 67.6%
8 STR 1 1 1 101 55 53 210,000 139,757 66.6%
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 LBA 1 1 1 97 55 53 210,000 39,603 18.9%
19 HHN 1 1 1 128 51 50 240,000 34,311 14.3%

20 RHO 1 1 1 100 55 53 210,000 32,776 15.6%

21 DRS 1 1 1 100 55 53 210,000 28,257 13.5%
22 BSL 1 9 2 102 76 59 225,000 27,879 12.4%
23 FMO 1 1 0.5 100 55 53 210,000 21,968 10.5%
24 SZG 1 1 1 100 55 53 210,000 21,166 10.1%
25 ZAG 1 1 1 100 55 53 210,000 20,442 9.7%
26 RTM 1 1 1 100 55 53 210,000 18,517 8.8%
27 WRO 1 1 1 100 55 53 210,000 17,861 8.5%
28 GRZ 1 1 1 100 55 53 210,000 17,286 8.2%
29 SCN 1 1 1 100 55 53 210,000 9,731 4.6%
Table 4. Basic Indicators and Airport Configuration Groups for Sample
Airports. (Source: Bubalo 2009)
Number of check-in-counters: What is true for the number of gates vis-à-vis

aircraft is also true for the number of check-in-counters, in relation to passen-
gers. One does not know for how long a gate is kept open or is being reserved
for an airline. The category check-in-counters might be used in relation to the
capacity measure “passenger throughput”, which in this case could mean pas-
sengers per hour per check-in-counter (Marine Board 1986).
Area of an airport: The total airport area is sometimes used in productivity

analysis as an input measure. This category does not allow one to see the avail-
ability and costs of available property around an airport. The location of an
airport therefore plays an important role, as well. Also the efficient usage of
already acquired property should be considered as well as the share of property
used for the landside, like terminal area or car access and parking area. Passen-
gers, movements or runways per area could give a hint regarding the productiv-
ity of such property.
It is difficult to use “area of an airport” for capital productivity analysis without
considering the above-mentioned factors.
For this reason, I would suggest using the apron area for analysis instead, since
it is more important to operations. Sufficient apron area will provide space for
parking, maintenance, and manoeuvring aircraft. It is even more important for
the diverse streams of traffic that pass through its area, such as passenger trans-
port, freight/cargo transport, general aviation, and military flights.
Number of passengers or number of movements (Mvts, ATM, Ops): I see diffi-

culties in using number of passengers or movements processed per year. When

Airport Capacity Assessment
comparing data from EUROSTAT for annually boarded passengers or move-

ments at each airport tothe number of movements or passengers displayed on
the individual airport websites, there are differences, from 2% to 10%. In a
productivity analysis this could be significant. One does not know what kinds
of passengers are counted (transit, domestic, international or even simply visi-
tors to the terminal). The same is true of operations; it is usually unclear from
aggregated numbers, whether general aviation, cargo, or military operations are
included.
So it is advisable to try to use only one trusted source for this kind of data.
3 Airport Capacity Assessment
IATA (1981) categorizes three basic measurements “to assess the capacity of
an airport”.
One is the “Direct Observation” method, which would require traffic observa-
tions, during peak and off-peak periods. “By analysing this information it is
possible to determine a measure of utilization of the airport and its various sub-
systems and the total airport system” (IATA 1981).
Another method is the “Comparison” method which I understand nowadays as

a benchmarking method. This method compares airports of the same size, traf-
fic demand characteristics and configuration.
The third method mentioned in connection with airport capacity measurement

is the “Mathematical Modelling” method, which by computer simulations
would “predict the impact of projected schedules on the various airport facili-
ties”. “Such models, when calibrated with actual data of passenger behaviour
characteristics and traffic profiles, can serve as an effective tool for assessing
airport capacity” (IATA 1981).
For this thesis all three methods have been used for at least 20 of my sample of
58 airports. From my perspective the simulation method is really the only
method which allows a “dynamic” view of an airport system. Using this
method, it can therefore be observed how, where, and when “bottlenecks” can

occur at airports. It is also the only method which allows simulations of the
future growth of air traffic.
IATA points out that “regardless which method is used, two principle factors
must prevail: (i) the comfort and convenience of airport users is directly related
to the capacity and level of service provided by the facility, and (ii) capacity
and level of service [ed. e.g. Delay] are interrelated and must always be consid-
ered together” (IATA 1981).
Exactly that is considered throughout my analysis. Due to time limitations I
was only able to do a capacity assessment for runway capacities. Terminal ca-
pacities are only implemented into the “Kanafani Model” (Kanafani 1981) with
2003 data. Any recent changes in terminal capacity are going to be included in
the assumption rectangles for future publications.
The first most obvious assessment is done by plotting the demand curves for
each airport for the 12th week of 2009 with OAG flight schedule data (fig. 16a).
The individual explanation of each diagram is beyond the scope of this study,
but for different purposeses the collection of these capacity and demand dia-
grams will be very useful.
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
STN_2009-03-16_TOT STN_2009-03-17_TOT STN_2009-03-18_TOT

STN_2009-03-19_TOT STN_2009-03-20_TOT maximum declared capacity of all sources
STN technical capacity vfr STN technical capacity ifr peak_day_2008_total
tot_slots
Fig. 16a. STN Weekdays Operations Pattern and Capacities. (Source: Bubalo
derived from OAG 2009)

The collection of the operations or demand diagrams would most likely refer to
the observation method mentioned by IATA (1981). Table 5 incorporates the
main observed and calculated values for the airport capacity assessment includ-
ing mix index (a derived percentage value for the aircraft mix of percentages of
aircraft category Heavy (D) and Large (C); %(C+3*D)) and design factors for
the “Kanafani Model” (Kanafani 1981).
3.1 The “Kanafani Model” and Assessment Results
What I refer to as the “Kanafani Model” is a very simple yet informative rela-
tionship model, which connects different capacities of an airport with certain
factors.
By analysing the demand profiles of each airport, with maximum capacities and
peak day data integrated, it is possible to isolate the existing peak hour (PH),
which we use as design peak hour (DPH). To clear this up again, on figures 16
in the appendix the found maximum operations per hour of each diagram, the
PH during PDTHUW26 or PHW122009, is used as a DPH measure.
The PH passenger (PAX) or operations (Ops) numbers3 for either PHW122009
or PDTHUW26 are taken into consideration to be able to do DPH calculations
within this study. To complete the assumption rectangle with the values for HO
PAX, HO Ops, annual PAX and annual Ops it is also necessary to know the
average seat load factors (SLF) and the aircraft mix over the year and during
the DPH separately (Kanafani 1981).
In the calculations a DPH SLF of 90% was chosen, assuming the factor of
boarded PAX to available seats per aircraft. This SLF was also assumed to be
the average among all aircraft classes. By multiplying the average seat number
of the aircrafts during the DPH, ACH, and the SLF of 0.9, LFH, you receive the
value m. Without detailed flight schedule data the calculation of ACH will not
be easy to calculate.
The ‘static’ capacity assessment in table 5 provides basic numbers on peak
hour values and capacity.
3
Hourly Passengers (HP) and Hourly Operations (HO) and in the “Kanafani
Model”
IATA AO Annual AP Annual Max Max decl Max decl
Area in Mix Ops in Pax in IFR rwy cap terminal cap Terminal cap
ICAO Name Country ha Runways Capacity limit dictated by Index (000s) million Ops/hr Ops/hr PAX/hr million Pax/yr
AMS EHAM Amsterdam NL 2678 5.5 noise, atc, runway 136 443.68 47.85 169 108
ARN ESSA Arlanda SE 3100 3 Noise 106 205.25 18.01 105 80
ATH LGAT Athen GR 1700 2 110 193.12 16.53 105 52
BBI EDDB* Berlin Brand. Int (TXL+SXF) DE 2 105 200.57 19.72 105 (90) (20)
BCN LEBL Barcelona ES 3 103 339.02 32.81 105 60
BHX EGBB Birmingham GB 1 104 104.48 9.32 53 40
BRU EBBR Bruessel BE 1245 3 Atc 123 240.34 17.93 99 74 55.0
BSL LFSB Basel CH 536 1.5 noise, atc 102 27.88 0.92 59 3,500
CDG LFPG Paris Charles de Gaule FR 3238 4 noise, atc 140 569.28 59.55 120 106 20,300
CGN EDDK Köln Bonn DE 1000 2.5 Atc 104 138.53 10.55 59 52 4,000
CIA LIRA Rom Ciampino IT 1 100 54.87 5.35 53 35
CPH EKCH Kopenhagen DK 1180 2.5 109 250.17 21.40 105 83
DRS EDDC Dresden DE 280 1 100 28.26 1.89 53 30 1,500
DUB EIDW Dublin IE 3 108 200.89 23.31 59 44
DUS EDDL Duesseldorf DE 613 2 Noise 107 223.41 17.85 59 38
EDI EGPH Edinburgh GB 2 100 115.18 9.06 59 47
FCO LIRF Rom Fiumicino IT 1600 3 atc, runway, apron 114 328.21 33.62 105 90
FMO EDDG Muenster Osnabrueck DE 0.5 100 21.97 1.61 53 24 2,680
FRA EDDF Frankfurt Main DE 1900 3 runway 149 486.20 54.50 60-80 82 14,000
GLA EGPF Glasgow GB 1.5 101 93.65 8.86 53
GRZ LOWG Graz AT 1 100 17.29 0.97 53 14
HAJ EDDV Hannover DE 2.5 100 70.48 5.67 105 40
HAM EDDH Hamburg DE 563 2 runway 106 151.75 12.85 59 48
HEL EFHK Helsinki FI 3 107 174.75 13.10 105 50
HHN EDFH Hahn DE 1 128 34.31 4.11 50
IST LTBA Istanbul TK 940 3 Atc 117 206.19 25.49 59 40 1,619
LBA EGNM Leeds Bradford GB 1 97 39.60 2.90 53
LCY EGLC London City GB 39 1 noise, atc, runway,apron 100 77.27 2.91 53 24 3,600
LEJ EDDP Leipzig DE 2 121 41.37 3.04 99 20
LGG EBLG Liege BE 2 237 26.82 0.33 60
LGW EGKK London Gatwick GB 683 2 runway 118 258.92 35.27 59 50 12,000
LHR EGLL London Heathrow GB 1117 2 atc, runway, apron 170 475.79 68.28 99 88
LIS LPPT Lisbon PT 503 2 runway, apron, terminal 117 141.91 13.52 53 32
LTN EGGW London Luton GB 1 102 83.32 9.94 53
LYS LFLL Lyon FR 2000 2 runway 102 132.08 7.19 59 51 4,918
MAD LEMD Madrid ES 4 noise, atc, runway 118 470.32 51.40 117 78
MAN EGCC Manchester GB 883 2 116 206.50 22.33 59 61
MUC EDDM Muenchen DE 1500 2 Noise 112 409.65 34.07 105 90 16,000
MXP LIMC Mailand Malpensa IT 2 122 257.36 23.97 75 70
NCE LFMN Nizza FR 400 2 noise, runway 55 173.58 10.38 56 50 7,400
NUE EDDN Nuernberg DE 1 Atc 108 57.92 4.29 53 30 3.2
ORY LFPD Paris Orly FR 1530 2.5 Noise 112 238.38 26.42 105 76 24.0
OSL ENGM Oslo NO 1300 2 101 226.22 19.04 105 80 7,300
PMI LEPA Palma Mallorca ES 2 terminal 100 184.61 23.10 105 60 12,000
PRG LKPR Prag CZ 2 102 164.06 12.40 59 38
PSA LIRP Pisa IT 2 103 38.53 3.71 59 14
RHO LGRP Rhodos GR 1 atc, apron 100 32.78 3.63 53 13
RTM EHRD Rotterdam NL 1 100 18.52 1.13 53
SCN EDDR Saarbruecken DE 1 100 9.73 0.39 53 20
STN EGSS London Stansted GB 1 102 191.52 23.80 53 50
STR EDDS Stuttgart DE 400 1 terminal 101 139.76 10.35 53 40 12.5
SXF EDDB Berlin Schoenefeld DE 1 100 55.11 6.35 53 4.5
SZG LOWS Salzburg AT 1 100 21.17 1.98 53 20
TXL EDDT Berlin Tegel DE 2 107 145.45 13.37 59 41 11
VIE LOWW Wien AT 2 runway 109 251.22 18.77 59 66 4,400
WAW EPWA Warschau PL 506 2 atc, runway 103 147.99 9.29 59 34 3,000
WRO EPWR Wroclaw PL 1 100 17.86 1.27 53
ZAG LDZA Zagreb HR 1 100 20.44 1.99 53
ZRH LSZH Zuerich CH 783 3 atc, runway 121 223.71 20.81 60 66 9,200

HO Design m=HP/HO in n=AP/AO Design Hour PAX in Max IFR Min timeframe for ARR
Peak Hour HP in Terminal DPH PAX/ in Factor PAX Ops/ million/ Ops/hr per or DEP per runway in Main Peak
(DPH) Ops PAX Utilization Ops SLF 0.9 PAX/Ops x=HP/AP y=HO/HP x/y m/n Area Area Runway runway mm:ss Time IATA
110 13530 123 108 0.02828% 0.02479% 1.1405 1.1405 17,868 166 8.70 32 01:53 12-13 AMS
68 7344 108 88 0.04077% 0.03313% 1.2306 1.2306 5,811 66 6.00 37 01:37 8-9 ARN
35 4270 122 86 0.02584% 0.01812% 1.4257 1.4257 9,721 114 8.26 56 01:05 15-16 ATH
0 98 0.00000% 9.86 53 01:09 BBI
60 7380 123 97 0.02249% 0.01770% 1.2708 1.2708 10.94 35 01:43 19-20 BCN
30 3240 108 89 0.03477% 0.02871% 1.2109 1.2109 9.32 53 01:08 18-19 BHX
70 8050 33% 115 75 0.04489% 0.02913% 1.5411 1.5411 14,405 193 5.98 34 01:45 19-20 BRU
14 1120 32% 80 33 0.12179% 0.05022% 2.4252 2.4252 1,716 52 0.61 51 01:11 19-20 BSL
110 16280 80% 148 105 0.02734% 0.01932% 1.4148 1.4148 18,391 176 14.89 47 01:16 10-11 CDG
26 3198 80% 123 76 0.03031% 0.01877% 1.6151 1.6151 10,550 139 4.22 30 01:58 10-11 CGN
14 2310 165 98 0.04316% 0.02551% 1.6917 1.6917 5.35 53 01:08 20-21 CIA
66 6534 99 86 0.03054% 0.02638% 1.1574 1.1574 18,134 212 8.56 44 01:21 8-9 CPH
12 1032 69% 86 67 0.05466% 0.04247% 1.2871 1.2871 6,743 101 1.89 55 01:05 8-9 DRS
40 5880 147 116 0.02523% 0.01991% 1.2670 1.2670 7.77 20 03:03 7-8 DUB
52 5720 110 80 0.03204% 0.02328% 1.3767 1.3767 29,120 364 8.93 53 01:09 10-11 DUS
34 3910 115 79 0.04317% 0.02952% 1.4624 1.4624 4.53 30 02:02 8-9 EDI
80 11120 139 102 0.03308% 0.02437% 1.3572 1.3572 21,010 205 11.21 37 01:37 9-10 FCO
7 679 25% 97 73 0.04209% 0.03186% 1.3209 1.3209 3.23 106 00:34 6-7 FMO
88 13552 97% 154 112 0.02487% 0.01810% 1.3738 1.3738 28,685 256 18.17 43 01:24 12-13 FRA
26 2704 104 95 0.03050% 0.02776% 1.0988 1.0988 5.91 35 01:42 8-9 GLA
5 370 74 56 0.03802% 0.02893% 1.3143 1.3143 0.97 53 01:08 8-9 GRZ
17 1547 91 81 0.02726% 0.02412% 1.1303 1.1303 2.27 42 01:26 18-19 HAJ
46 4738 103 85 0.03687% 0.03031% 1.2163 1.2163 22,826 270 6.43 38 01:35 8-9 HAM
48 4704 98 75 0.03592% 0.02747% 1.3078 1.3078 4.37 35 01:43 16-17 HEL
8 1224 153 120 0.02980% 0.02332% 1.2781 1.2781 4.11 50 01:12 19-20 HHN
42 6174 381% 147 124 0.02422% 0.02037% 1.1892 1.1892 27,113 219 8.50 49 01:14 17-18 IST
13 1144 88 73 0.03941% 0.03283% 1.2005 1.2005 2.90 53 01:08 17-18 LBA
37 2442 68% 66 38 0.08386% 0.04788% 1.7513 1.7513 74,670 1,981 2.91 55 01:05 8-9 LCY
7 854 122 73 0.02813% 0.01692% 1.6623 1.6623 1.52 50 01:13 20-21 LEJ
4 0 0 12 0.00000% 0.01492% 0.0000 0.0000 0.16 30 02:00 19-20 LGG
51 7140 60% 140 136 0.02025% 0.01970% 1.0278 1.0278 51,634 379 17.63 53 01:09 8-9 LGW
100 18700 187 144 0.02739% 0.02102% 1.3031 1.3031 61,127 426 34.14 52 01:10 15-16 LHR
38 4750 125 95 0.03513% 0.02678% 1.3119 1.3119 26,882 282 6.76 28 02:11 8-9 LIS
24 3576 149 119 0.03599% 0.02881% 1.2495 1.2495 9.94 53 01:08 8-9 LTN
43 3655 74% 85 54 0.05082% 0.03256% 1.5608 1.5608 3,596 66 3.60 53 01:09 8-9 LYS
110 14630 133 109 0.02846% 0.02339% 1.2169 1.2169 12.85 29 02:03 10-11 MAD
46 4278 93 108 0.01916% 0.02228% 0.8600 0.8600 25,291 234 11.17 53 01:09 8-9 MAN
93 10044 63% 108 83 0.02948% 0.02270% 1.2987 1.2987 22,711 273 17.03 56 01:05 8-9 MUC
42 5040 120 93 0.02102% 0.01632% 1.2883 1.2883 11.99 38 01:36 10-11 MXP
52 3692 50% 71 60 0.03556% 0.02996% 1.1872 1.1872 25,953 434 5.19 61 01:00 10-11 NCE
19 1558 134% 82 74 0.03635% 0.03280% 1.1082 1.1082 4.29 53 01:08 7-8 NUE
62 8618 110% 139 111 0.03262% 0.02601% 1.2544 1.2544 17,265 156 10.57 44 01:21 19-20 ORY
68 8364 115% 123 84 0.04392% 0.03006% 1.4611 1.4611 14,649 174 9.52 56 01:05 8-9 OSL
42 5544 46% 132 125 0.02400% 0.02275% 1.0547 1.0547 11.55 53 01:09 8-9 PMI
44 4884 111 76 0.03940% 0.02682% 1.4691 1.4691 6.20 30 02:02 10-11 PRG
13 1820 140 96 0.04901% 0.03374% 1.4525 1.4525 1.86 30 02:02 12-13 PSA
6 636 106 111 0.01754% 0.01831% 0.9582 0.9582 3.63 53 01:08 21-22 RHO
8 664 83 61 0.05855% 0.04320% 1.3553 1.3553 1.13 53 01:08 7-8 RTM
6 318 53 40 0.08248% 0.06166% 1.3377 1.3377 0.39 53 01:08 7-8 SCN
46 7360 160 124 0.03092% 0.02402% 1.2875 1.2875 23.80 53 01:08 18-19 STN
40 4280 83% 107 74 0.04137% 0.02862% 1.4455 1.4455 25,863 349 10.35 55 01:05 10-11 STR
17 2329 137 115 0.03669% 0.03085% 1.1894 1.1894 6.35 53 01:08 21-22 SXF
8 904 113 93 0.04574% 0.03780% 1.2103 1.2103 1.98 53 01:08 21-22 SZG
47 5311 113 92 0.03971% 0.03231% 1.2289 1.2289 6.69 30 02:02 9-10 TXL
67 7169 163% 107 75 0.03819% 0.02667% 1.4319 1.4319 9.39 30 02:02 10-11 VIE
32 2848 95% 89 63 0.03066% 0.02162% 1.4180 1.4180 18,355 292 4.64 38 01:35 15-16 WAW
11 1353 123 71 0.10649% 0.06159% 1.7291 1.7291 1.27 53 01:08 10-11 WRO
18 1800 100 97 0.09034% 0.08805% 1.0260 1.0260 1.99 53 01:08 14-15 ZAG
56 7000 76% 125 93 0.03363% 0.02503% 1.3435 1.3435 26,582 286 6.94 31 01:55 12-13 ZRH
Table 5. ‘Static’ Capacity and Productivity Assessment. (Source:

Benchmarking Bubalo
Airport 2009 with
Productivity data
and thefrom
RoleIATA 2003, Utilization
of Capacity EUROSTAT 2007, OAG 2008) 48
The correspondend value to m is n is the annual number of PAX divided by

the annual number of Ops.
The condition of m being larger than n usually holds true.
When actually looking at an assumption rectangle we realize that the con-

nection between annual and DPH values are the design hour factors x and y.
These values are calculated by DPH value divided by annual value
(x=HO/AO; y=HP/AP).
The condition of x being larger than y usually also holds true. Consequently
the following relationship must always hold true (x/y)=(m/n), which has
been calculated to check the assumption triangle relationships and is incor-
porated in table 5.
In the model description, Kanafani (1981) states that the passengers at an

airport should be considered separately for domestic, international and in-
ternational transit. Due to the lack of data this kind of detail cannot be inte-
grated.
Assumption Rectangle and Capacities of FRA Airport Traffic for the year 2007/8
Annual Operations (AO)= 486195 n= 112 PAX/Ops Annual Passengers (AP)= 54501001
y= 0.01810% x= 0.02487%
Hourly Operations (HO)= 88 m= 154 PAX/Ops Hourly Passengers (HP)= 13552

hourly annually
Maximum Declared Capacity= 82 Max Decl. Terminal Capacity= 14000 0
(AP/MCTC)
Runway Utilization (HO/MCD)= 107% Terminal Utilzation (HP/MCTC)= 97%
Runway Capacity Terminal Capacity
100 16000
90 14000
Operations per hour
80
12000
PAX per hour
70
60 10000
50 8000
40 6000
30
4000
20
10 2000
0 0
Max decl rwy cap Ops/hr HO in Ops/hr Max decl terminal cap PAX/hr HP in PAX/hr
Fig. 17a. Assumption Rectangle and Capacities of FRA Airport for the year
2007/2008. (Source: Bubalo 2009 derived from IATA 2003, Flightstats.com
2008 and OAG 2009 data)

As we can see above in example fig. 17a it is now possible to directly apply
the maximum (declared) capacities for the runway and the terminal to the
assumption rectangle. The quotient of the DPH values, HO and HP, and the
maximum capacity values lead us to a capacity utilization value. In the case
of FRA this means a capacity utilization of 107% for the runway and a ca-
pacity utilization of 97% for the terminal.
Since the terminal data is from 2003, these values will be corrected in the
future.
The design hour factors are specifically useful for converting annual num-
bers for movements and passengers to DPH values. As long as the airport
configuration does not change and the SLFs and DPH average seat numbers
stay in limit, the design hour factors will also not change.
Therfore it is possible to estimate the DPH number of passengers from the
annual numbers.
For example in the case of FRA (fig. 17a) the annual number of Passengers
is AP=54,501,001 PAX, the DPH Ops have been looked up from the corre-
sponding demand diagram (fig. 10 in the appendix), which is HO=88 Ops
per hour, and the ACH value of m=154 PAX per Ops has been calculated
from the flight schedule data.
By multiplying HO with m we get the value for DPH PAX of HP=13552
PAX per hour.
The design peak hour factor for the passenger conversion is then
x=HP/AP=0.02487%.
If terminal planners forecast 70 million annual PAX five years into the fu-
ture (assuming an annual growth rate of 5%) this will lead to a DPH PAX
value of 70 million*0.02487%=17409 PAX per hour in the terminal. Under
current conditions this would mean a terminal capacity utilization of 124%,
which will most likely create unacceptable service quality conditions for
PAX in the terminal.
For each extension of capacity new design hour factors must be calculated.
For a collection of assumption rectangles please refer to all other figures 17
in the appendix.

3.2 Analytical Model for Calculating Ultimate Capacity
Janic (2000) and de Neufville (2003) both describes a very practical desci-
sion making model of Eugene P. Gilbo (2001) for estimating the ultimate
capacity of a runway or a runway system.
With the traffic data for each airport from the direct observation method, it
is possible to apply the model to my sample airports.
Firstly, it is necessary to plot the points for departures per hour (or by 15
minutes) over the corresponding arrivals per hour for each airports’ runway
system. Different sets of flight schedule or traffic data, for various time pe-
riods, on and off-seasonal, could be used. For the following model, OAG
flight schedule data for the 12 week of 2009 (March 16 until March 22,
2009) has been used on the airport sample.
Secondly, it is nescessary to construct an envelope over the maximum points
as indicated as a red line, in fig. 18a and 18b and in figures 18 in the Appen-
dix. The resulting typical capacity envelope (de Neufville 2003) is the visu-
alization of the maximum throughput capacity of the runway layout of the
airport under current conditions and distinguishes beween a feasible region
below the envelope, in which operations are possible, and an infeasible
reagion beyond the envelope, in which operations are not possible (De
Neufville 2003, p. 419)(Janic 2000, p. 282)(fig. 17a).
Thirdly, in the shown diagrams on typical capacity envelope (Fig. 17) it is
expect the departures and arrivals in the “capacity envelope” model to be
scattered along a 45° line (for my scaling) from the origin, which would
mean that arrivals and departures are evenly divided per hour (or 15 min-
utes). The further the crossing point, from the envelope and the 45° line, is
away from the origin, the more efficient is the runway system.
As we can see in fig. 18a, LHR airport almost represents such an ideal case
of maximum runway efficiency. Each runway is almost fully utilized, during
any operating time. LHR operates at a high utilization rate and is able to
serve 44 arrivals and 45 departures all day long. Of course we do not see the
actual delays occurring during the operation at such high utilisation rates,
but that would also be interesting to compare.

Fig. 18a. Typical Capacity Envelope for LHR airport. (Source: Bubalo
2009)
Fig. 18b. Typical Capacity Envelope for IST airport. (Source: Bubalo 2009)

IST airport, to the contrary, represent an airport, which is ineffectively oper-

ating its runways. Although IST can serve up to 28 departing or arriving
aircrafts per hour, resulting in about 56 operations per hour, this is never
achieved at the same time.
The typical capacity envelope of IST airport shows that a maximum of 20
arrivals and 20 departures, resulting in 40 operations, per hour could be
reached under present conditions.
It would be interesting to know, maybe through simulation, how far more
efficiency from procedure changes could increase the present maximum of
40 Ops per hour towards the achievable maximum or ultimate capacity of
56 operations per hour.
This model could easily be used for strategic planning and to isolate runway
inefficiencies, as it is “effective and efficient” (Janic 2000, p.283).
Please refere to figures 17 in the appendix for more examples of the applied
“Capacity Envelope” model.
3.3 Simulation Setup
Since financial resources were very limited, many potential software options
could not be used for this study. It was virtually impossible to convince
people to allow me to have a copy of their software for educational research
purposes. And on top to that there was not much time to learn the programs
anyway.
Some field search on available simulation software is shortly reviewed.
3.3.1 Available Simulation Models
In 2001 the Thematic Network on Airport Activities (THENA), a collabora-

tion of Aena, Deutsche Flugsicherung (DFS), National Aerospace Labora-
tory of the Netherlands (NLR), and Transavia the European Commission,
among others dealing with airport activities, provided an overview of “state

of the art” airport simulation and modelling solutions in Europe. This col-
laborative group pointed out the need for a pan-European attempt to develop
more or less standardized techniques for analysing and modelling the air
transport system. The three focal points for such a standardized analytical
technique that were mentioned are: the theoretical models for performing
analytical and statistical analysis, the fast time simulation which allows
“what if?” scenarios with real world parameters, and the real time simula-
tion which involves human “in-the-loop” techniques on real world techno-
logical equipment to test systems under as realistic conditions as possible
with live data feeds sometimes, like for example aircraft flight simulators
for pilot training or air traffic control simulators (AENA 2002). One could
imagine this to be the most expansive solution.
In 2003 the Air Transportation Systems Laboratory (ATSL) of the Virginia
Polytechnic Institute and State University (Virginia Tech) published another
overview of simulation models in the “Descriptions of Airport and Airspace
Simulation Models” presentation of Dr. Antonio A. Trani and Dr. Hojong
Baik (Virginia Tech 2003). They primarily compared the three programs
TAAM, SIMMOD and RAMS (Reorganized ATC Mathematical Simulator).
The latter, being an airspace-only simulation tool supported and developed
by EUROCONTROL, will not be further discussed in this context.
There was some discussion about using the CAST Software from Aachen
Research Center (ARC). They developed a simulation software called “To-
tal Airport Simulation” which would include a runway capacity simulation.
Currently ARC provides simulation software for terminal planning, ground
handling processes, and aircraft movements and operations. They are also
involved in various master planning projects such as for the terminals of the
new Berlin-Brandenburg International Airport.
Another simulation software package which has become quite popular in the
past few years is the Total Airport Airspace Modeller (TAAM), which pro-
vides a 4-D simulation (three dimensions plus time) of airspace and airport
traffic. This software is now distributed by Jeppesen, a subdivision of Boe-

ing. Jeppesen is also the main distributor for airport diagrams, airspace
maps, flight paths, and pilot information under the JeppView brand.
With TAAM and JeppView, Boeing has some powerful software products at
hand, that are invaluable for the aviation community.
TAAM is unfortunately a very costly simulation environment (> USD
300,000 per licence) which as a result is rarely used for academic research.
Although it is probably the most advanced fast-time simulation tool, as it
covers “gate-to-gate” operations through airports and 3-dimensional air-
space (and time).
To learn more about the TAAM simulation software, I strongly recommend
the “TAAM Best Practice Guidelines” of the MITRE Corporation, a divi-
sion of the Center for Advanced Aviation System Development, which not
only specifically covers the TAAM software, but also gives valuable in-
sights and instructions on fast-time simulation in general (MITRE 2001).
In Europe the modelling and simulation tool CAMACA (Commonly Agreed

Methodology for Airport Airside Capacity Assessment) is often cited. This
has however morphed into Pan-European Airport Capacity and Delay
Analysis Support (PACS), which is also accessible through the OneSky web
application of EUROCONTROL. PACS is a collaborative information-
sharing platform which enables airports and stakeholders to share informa-
tion and thereby maintain full control over their data distribution. This in-
formation is then used by EUROCONTROL for air transport system capac-
ity planning purposes. One drawback of PACS is that they are not especially
enthusiastic about sharing information for educational research purposes. At
least PACS did provide aggregate annual data from 2005 and 2006 for
maximum declared capacities, annual delays, busy hour values, and annual
movements at a predefined selection of airports. Unfortunately, due to poor
documentation and a lack of contemporaneity and support, this information
had to be checked against other sources, did not cover all of the sample air-
ports, or simply could not be used at all.
The Delft University of Technology developed the Airport Business Suite

(ABS) which is a collection of analysis and modelling tools for decision-

support and strategy improvement on airside capacities and delays, schedul-

ing, peak day and future scenario analysis, terminal capacities, and the im-
plementation of the Integrated Noise Model (INM) (Roling 2007). This tool
is used by master students in airport planning courses. Unfortunately ABS
could not be obtained for this study (Interview: Visser 2008).
During my research I came across many studies that used the Airport and
Airspace Simulation Model (SIMMOD) engine, which is a reliable and af-
fordable way of modelling and simulating airport operations, from the Fed-
eral Aviation Administration (FAA), a subdivision of the U.S. Department
of Transportation (DOT). The roots of this modelling software go back at
least 15 years. It is an extension of the “Airport Capacity and Delay” (ACD)
(FAA 1995) document, the first edition of which dates back to 1983. SIM-
MOD is frequently compared to the before-mentioned TAAM software.
Since the SIMMOD engine is freely available and has been proven over
many years, the choice was clear. I just needed GUI software to use this
modelling engine effectively and intuitively.
I had read about the AirportTools VisualSIMMOD (VS) software on the

internet. This is a competitor of the similar SIMMOD Plus! software of
ATAC corporation. I was delighted to obtain a copy directly from the author
of this fine piece of software, Gregory Bradford. He offers a free copy of VS
for educational purposes, which I promptly obtained from his website,.
From then on it took only some practice to be able to set up the first func-
tional airport simulation run.
For a very detailed microscopic view of airport operations, and especially

ground operations,, a much longer setup time would have been required. For
a rough estimation of ultimate capacity and for isolating bottlenecks around
the runway, I found this software well suited to my needs. It was much more
convenient to use in fact than having to break down annual data into daily or
even hourly figures on the basis of the typical peak hour, delay or capacity
analysis, and vague assumptions concerning daily operating times.

And again, the logic behind the VS program, SIMMOD, is from official
sources and has been proven dozens of times.
The only alternative to using this free engine is to use flat files, which means
using text files full of code, as inputs for the simulation. This is the way it
had been done in the past for traffic or system related calculations before
computer technology, memory, speed and graphic display were as devel-
oped as they are today (Interview: Daduna).
Such flat files, which the program and/or engine put out, are still an invalu-
able resource for the isolation of potential problems during the run of the
simulation. For example, so called gridlocks can occur, which means some
capacities or connections are badly configured, so the simulation comes to a
halt. This occurred very frequently during different runs of the traffic
growth scenarios, where either gate, link or departure queue capacities were
at their maximum. Doing the airport creation for a total of 21 airports meant
a lot of searching and correcting, but at the same time it speeded up my
learning process and got me used to the user interface, data requirements,
program and simulation.
My first desire was to try to do the simulation for all 58 of my sample air-
ports, to have a fast time simulation for a good portion of overall European
air traffic. This had to be limited early on, because, given the struggle with
airport complexities and the amount of time needed to configure a really
complex airport, it simply could not be done with that level of detail in the
time available.
3.3.2 Single Runway Airports
The literature covers “single runway airports” as a basic introduction to the

field of modelling or analysing airport systems.
The concepts are much clearer when starting simple and then evolving into
more complex configurations of airports, with many runways and different
take-off/landing patterns. In Europe the Amsterdam Schiphol airport (AMS)
is a good example of an extremely complex airport design.

Internationally, especially in the U.S., we find much more complex designs

than we have here in Europe. Dallas Fort Worth (DFW) and Chicago
O’Hare (ORD) airports, with 7 runways each, are typicalexamples.
So 18 airports of the total sample of 58 were chosen to be included in the

simulation. This drastically reduced the amount of time needed to set up the
airport simulation, since the departure/arrival system is much simpler for the
kinds of airports selected.
At a later stage in the project I began creating two more airports with paral-
lel runway systems, the planned Berlin-Brandenburg International (BBI)
airport and London Heathrow (LHR) airport.
Let me briefly explain the reason for a simulation in the first place.
The simulation is fed with the real future scheduled traffic data for Thurs-
day, March 19th of 2009. All other relevant data about the layout, dimen-
sions and specific operations at each simulated airport is also “real world
data”. A properly prepared airport simulation is run to show a possible real-
ity of the dynamics of this complex and unpredictable system. Any random
factors, like weather or gate wait times for example, can also be considered.
For the simulation the most recent SIMMOD Engine (Version: 3.1), which
includes the logic for airport and airspace simulation, was obtained directly
from the Federal Aviation Administration; for which I am greatly indebted
to Mr. John Zinna for his assistance.
3.3.3 Airport Charts
The main set up requires geographical data for each airport, with runways
lengths, names and coordinates of the initial points, also the location of
runway exits and main taxiways, location of departure queues, and so on.
The flight simulation enthusiasts’ community, the International Virtual
Aviation Association (IVAO), shares such information on flights, ATC,
aircraft and airports for real time flight simulations. Many of the community
members use a network version of Microsoft Flight Simulator® (FSX) to fly

online under real world weather conditions or to be in the position of an air

traffic controller, who is directing those flights.
These enthusiasts share their information through online forums on the

internet. It was therefore possible to obtain the most recent Jeppesen
JeppView airport charts, with relevant data for preferential runway systems
for time of day, length of runway, number and position of runways, descrip-
tions of the taxiways to and from the runways, threshold positions, number
of parking positions, airspace arrival, departure and noise abatement paths,
time restrictions, aircraft restrictions, airport maps, terminal dimensions, and
tower location and altitudes.
This is a lot of data, and I was pleased to find in JeppView a one-stop source
for this crucial information to use in the setup of my simulation.
There is a considerable amount of configuration time needed when the air-
port structure with its links, paths and connections is created. So the practi-
cal goal was to reduce the complexity of each individual airport to a mini-
mum. To make the simulation run accurately however, it was also necessary
to define and enter flight plans, travel routes, link and gate capacities, hold-
ing and departure queue points, separation minima, aircraft types, random
factors, taxi paths, displaced thresholds, and so on.
However anybody involved in airport master planning should give any fast-
time simulation software a try.
3.3.4 Airport Coordinates
Another fine invention of our time is the greatly and truly appreciated
Google Earth® (GE) software, which provided the coordinates for each
runway end and satellite imagery as a background layer for the simulation.
With the right positioning and scaling of the image it was possible to later
draw and place all airport links and connections correctly on the “map” (fig.
19a).

Fig. 19a. STR Airport Layout for SIMMOD. (Source: Bubalo 2009, Google
Earth)
I’m not aware that this has been done in other studies in the past. The only
downside would be if there were some kind of inaccuracy in the coordinates,
but a comparison with other sources indicated only minimal differences that
were not statistically significant. An accuracy of about plus or minus five
meters was perfectly accurate enough for simulation purposes. So the coor-
dinates for runway initial points of all 18 single runway airports were en-
tered into the program.
3.3.5 Separation Minima and Wake Vortex Classification
The most central limitation in airspace operations are the separation minima
in airspace, especially during arrival and departure approach on the same
runway. These separation minima define the minimum distance, in either
time or distance, between successive aircraft. During high altitude cruising,
this minimum separation is required to maintain accurate aircraft radar sur-
veillance by the ATC.

Fig. 20. Vortex generation on take-off and landing. (Source: CAA 1999)
During landing and departures approaches this distance is critical, as it en-

sures that turbulence, caused by the wingtips of an aircraft, the so-called
wake turbulance or wake vortex (fig. 20), will not harm the following air-
craft, causing it to roll or pitch. This wake turbulence is stronger the heavier
an aircraft is. This led to the development of the wake turbulance classifica-
tion, based on maximum take-off weight (MTOW) in the categories Heavy
(H) for aircrafts above 136 tons, Large (L) for aircrafts between 7 and 136
tons and Small (S) for aircrafts below 7 tons (FAA 1995). Abbreviations
HVY, LRG, SML are used in SIMMOD. Categories Heavy (H), Medium
(M) and Light (L) (CAA 1999) (Table 6) or Heavy (H), Medium (M) and
Small (S) (ICAO ADRM 2004) are also used. It is strongly advised to stick
to one set of abbreviations and definitions. As several source documents are
used, it is possible that more than one set are used in this study; the reader
will find they vary with the source.
Table 6. Weight parameters (maximum take-off weight in kg). (Source:

CAA 1999)
De Neufville lists in his book “Airport Systems” the “single-runway IFR

separation requirements in the United States in 2000” (p.380; 2003), which,
where used, was only slightly modified for my simulation. These kinds of

matrices define the required distances between each aircraft category de-
pending on the type of operation of the preceding aircraft (arrival or depar-
ture). A medium (M)/large (L) class aircraft following another me-
dium/large class aircraft thus would have to have 3 nautical miles (nmi) of
horizontal separation during arrival and 60 seconds of separation during
departure.
For each case, arrival followed by arrival (A-A), arrival followed by depar-
ture (A-D), departure followed by departure (D-D) and departure followed
by arrival (D-A), different separation minima must be applied.
This is basically the most difficult part of the set up and fine tuning of the
simulation.
For the simulation the separation minima are assumed to be identical at each
simulated airport. They could differ from airport to airport, however, de-
pending on the technical equipment of the ATC. Any future developments
concerning changes in separation minima, like for example the new GPS
based surveillance technology Automatic Dependent Surveillance Broadcast
(ADS-B) as part of FAA’s Next Generation Air Transportation System
(NextGen) and EUROCONTROL’s Single European Sky ATM Research
Programme (SESAR), can therefore be integrated into the simulation.
Fig. 21. Ceiling (ft) and Visibility (mi) Routines. (Source: de Neufville
2003)

3.3.6 Weather Data
There are five major flight routines based on ATC equipment and weather
(good visibility, cloud ceiling, and precipitation):
• Visual flight rules (VFR) are in force for a visibility of 5 miles and a
cloud ceiling of 2500ft/760 meters, which allows maximum opera-
tions per hour on a runway.
• Instrument flight rules (IFR) are required for a visibility of 1 mile
and a cloud ceiling of 800ft/240 meters, which allows for only re-
duced operations per hour on a runway.
• The CAT I routine for a visibility of ½ mile and a ceiling of 200ft/60
meters,
• The CAT II routine for a visibility of 0.223 miles and a ceiling of
100ft/ 30 meters and
• The CAT III routine for zero visibility and ceiling, which requires
automated landings such as in severe fog and weather conditions, as
often experienced in Great Britain and the Netherlands (Fig. 21).
So each weather condition dictates its own flight rules or routine. Which
routine can be flown, however, also depends on the technical equipment at
airports and on the type of aircraft. General aviation aircraft, with little so-
phisticated equipment on board, can usually only take off, fly, and land un-
der VFR conditions. All modern commercial aircraft are normally able to fly
and land in CAT III conditions, e.g. in case of severe rain, fog, or snow.
Due to the regional weather conditions, IFR is the flight routine most used
in Europe and is used about “99%” of the time (Interview: Lamberg 2009).
3.3.7 Wind Direction
Airports nowadays have up to seven runways to operate on, though the ma-
jority of international airports operate normally with only one or two,.
Even the airports with as many as seven runways can rarely use all of them
at the same time. AMS has six runways but rarely uses more than three.

The reason for this is again the weather.

For the initial planning of an airport, the master planning, weather data has
to be collected and analysed for the chosen site. Wind data is essential for
planning runways and must be obtained for many previous years from
nearby weather stations.
Wind data is then plotted by percentage of overall time, direction and
strength in a so called “wind rose diagram” or “wind data plot” (Horonjeff
1994, pp. 268).
Fig. 22. Example printout of windrose (two bi-directional runways). (FAA

1989)
A square, representing the future runway, is aligned over this wind rose in
the direction of the strongest and most persistent wind direction. For the
planned runway, the wind direction and opposite wind direction together
must represent roughly 95% of the overall wind conditions.

The reason for this is the sensitivity of aircraft to lateral winds. Aircraft are
therefore much safer to land and take-off when these operations are done
into the wind. In Germany most airport runways are oriented in an East-
West direction.
If the 95% condition cannot be met, another crosswind runway for the sec-
ond strongest condition must be built (Fig. 22). For airport master planning
or runway planning this preliminary work is mandatory.
This explains why some airports have multiple runways, but use only one at
a time. In regions with frequently changing wind directions (Netherlands,
AMS) this is often the case.
On the other hand, if an airport has a parallel runway system and experi-
ences strong crosswinds (> 15 miles per hour, Horonjeff 1994), it must
eventually stop operations and close down the airport.
3.3.8 Preferential Runway System
For all airports with more than one runway, a preferential runway system
exists. This means that 95% of the time the wind conditions will correspond
to the system. The preferential runway system information is given as part
of the material containing airport information for the pilot, including airport
diagrams. This material also explains the flight path and runway name (e.g.
9R or 27L) for arrivals and departures at that airport. Most of the time alter-
native runways or additional information concerning curfews or noise re-
lated procedures are also stated. With these documents a pilot can prepare
himself to configure the aircraft for landing or departure at airports, without
undue risk of facing surprises. When taking-off from an airport or a couple
of minutes before reaching an airport, the appropriate runway-in-use is
communicated to the pilot from ATC.
For airports with a complex system of runways, different combinations of

runways for different times of the day or during peak arrival and departure
periods, result in different preferential runways being announced for each

condition. This could mean that the departure and landing patterns change
over the day switching among all the runways.
That is the reason why the simulation of complex airport systems is so much
more sophisticated.
An airport having only one runway is a simple case, aircraft can land or
take-off in either direction, which does not affect the total number of opera-
tions. Airports with parallel runways mainly use one runway for departures
and one runway for arrivals, the segregated mode, this is also the assump-
tion that governs the simulation of the parallel runway airports BBI and
LHR.
The operation and simulation in mixed mode, which would allow departures
and landings on each of the parallel runways, is also difficult to simulate. It
is doubted that there is any advantage for air traffic controllers in mixed
mode runways for operational efficiency and hourly capacity with regard to
runway safety and stress, at least, at LHR. For Heathrow’s airport expansion
plan, which includes the construction of a third runway, the government
explicitly ruled out the possibility of using mixed mode at LHR in the in-
terim until the new runway is built (www.heathrowairport.com on January
23, 2009).
When the preferential runway system of an airport is known, e.g. which
runways are utilized most of the time, that information is integrated into the
simulation by designating arriving or departing aircrafts to the according
runways and routes of the simulated airport.
3.3.9 Apron, Runway Exits and Taxiway layout
The next step in the creation of the layout of an airport in the simulation is
the design of the apron, the runway exits, and the taxiways. SIMMOD al-
lows one to assign certain runway exits and taxiways to specific categories
of aircraft (see above). Heavy aircraft need a longer touch-down or take-off
distance than large or small aircraft and therefore different exits and taxi
paths for each category of aircraft are required.

To minimise the actual runway occupancy time (ROT), the time which an
aircraft actually spends on the runway, so called high-speed exits are con-
structed. These exits have a 45° angle from the runway and allow the air-
craft a rapid exit at a higher speed from the runway.
The layout of the taxiways and exits are taken from the individual airport
diagrams of an airport and are also entered into the VS program. Using the
aircraft data, the SIMMOD logic then assigns the corresponding exit and
taxiway to each flight. This can test the efficiency of the current exit and
taxiway layout of an airport in serving the current aircraft mix, which means
the mix of heavy, large and small aircraft using the airport.
For the present study, the apron area was kept fairly simple. The apron was
assumed to have unlimited capacity and was represented by shortcut links in
the direction of the taxiways and the ends of the runways. The focus was on
displaying an average distance from the taxiway interfaces to the gate areas
by as few links as possible. Aircraft were also allowed to pass each other in
the same or opposite direction on these apron links.
3.3.10 Gate, Departure Queue and Airspace
The gates for the simulation are representative gates, which means there is
one gate having the capacity of all available parking positions for aircraft at
each single airport. This information is also taken from the airport diagrams.
No differentiation between remote parking positions or gate stands has been
made. Since remote parking would require additional ground handling
equipment, like shuttle busses and stair vehicles, and would take more time
for passengers to reach the terminal, it can be integrated into the simulation
at a later time.
All aircraft move with low push-back speed a short distance away from the
gate until they reach the apron link. All speed limits on the ground links are
realistic. The speed limit for the apron area is between 5 and 10 knots (10 to
20 kilometres per hour), for the taxiways between 15 and 20 knots (30 to 40
kilometres per hour), for the push-back 5 knots, and for the high speed exits
35 knots (65 kilometres per hour) (Interview: Lamberg 2009).

For departing aircraft the last point before turning onto the runway to take
off is the runway hold position. Beginning from this point and stretching
rearwards, a departure queue will form composed of the following aircraft
waiting to take-off. Under ideal circumstances a departure queue will never
form, since the number of arriving and departing aircraft should never be
higher than the number of aircraft that can be processed by the runway.
Unfortunately it does not work this way in reality. As we know from the
daily demand diagrams of the airports, the arriving and departing aircraft
come and go in waves or patterns, because different airlines have scheduled
their flights at similar times. So we can observe these peaks at certain hours
of the day. Departure queues will develop usually only during these peak
periods. It is also here at this point that most flight delays occur. For this
reason we will closely look at the situation of departure queues during peak
hours.
This is actually one of the main reasons for running the simulation.
One more element is missing for the simulation setup, that is the definition
of approach and departure paths in the airspace.
For this I hand defined only basic airspace routes for the simulation. These
paths, represented by links, reach maybe 15 to 20 nautical miles (30 to 40
kilometres) beyond an airport.
Arriving aircraft that enter the simulation at the beginning of these links
have to meet the separation standards between succeeding aircraft, other-
wise they will have to wait in a holding airspace or holding pattern until the
preceding aircraft has reached its proper separation. The holding airspace is
represented by the entry point of the arriving aircraft into the simulation.
3.4 Simulation Run and Scenarios
Please refer to the figures 19 in the Appendix for the final setup for the
simulated airports. With this configuration and the definition of separation
minima, gates, speed limits and so on, the simulation could be started.

Results of the Simulation Benchmarking
Following the documentation for the VS software, I created a base scenario,

which represents the status quo at each airport (www.airporttools.com). Af-
ter a successful run more scenarios were set up. With the VS’s functionality
of cloning flights, it is possible to simulate growth scenarios or future sce-
narios by applying a probability factor to each flight. A cloning probability
of 0.3, for example, would represent a 30% growth rate of traffic at each
airport. Therefore every flight would have a 30% chance of creating a copy
of itself to simulate additional scheduled flights in the future.
This leads to the demand and delay diagrams, figures 16 in the Appendix.
The following scenarios were created: A base scenario and scenrios with
5%, 10%, 15%, 20%, 30%, 50%, 100% and 150% cloning probability or
growth rate.
The scenarios should test each airport’s current and future conditions, its
operational performance, and its ultimate capacity through occurring delays.
It is also remarkably useful for isolating potential bottlenecks in the airport
layout which disturb the operational flow of aircraft.
Another probability factor is implemented into the gate departure times,

which are the scheduled departure times, to simulate the probability of late-
ness or delay of each flight from 0 to 4 minutes, which could result from late
passengers or other airline-related delays. Short delays of this sort are con-
sidered acceptable by most airlines.
4 Results of the Simulation Benchmarking
The comparison of similar-sized airports, each having only one effective

runway, is a great advantage, since the similar preconditions make the simu-
lation operator’s task simpler, as he can use the same input for operational
productivity and process efficiency for each.
The input for productivity at single runway airports includes its length, the
location of its exits, its gate and departure queue capacities, and the length
of its taxiways (Duran 2005). The maximum throughput and ultimate capac-
ity in flight operations per hour is basically the same for each simulated air-
port runway, with around 55 operations per hour.

Now each flight is directed by the SIMMOD logic from the initial or injec-
tion point, where the flight enters the simulation, to the termination point,
where the flight exits the simulation. All movements and procedures of each
flight are recorded and reported. The changing traffic over the simulated day
represents the changing demand for air transportation, which is given by the
flight schedule.
The pattern of airport demand, its related maximum declared capacity, and
its ultimate capacity under IFR conditions is exemplarily shown in fig. 23a.
BHX Flights and Delays per Flight from SIMMOD

(Flightplan OAG Thu 03/19/2009)
40 80
35 70
30 60
Delay in min per flight
25 50
Ops per hour

20 40
15 30
10 20
5 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 clone000 DEP delay min per flight clone005 DEP delay min per flight clone010 DEP delay min per flight clone015
DEP delay min per flight clone150 Total Ops clone000 Total Ops clone005 Total Ops clone010
Total Ops clone015 Total Ops clone020 Total Ops clone030 Total Ops clone050
Total Ops clone100 Total Ops clone150 Max. Decl. Cap. Tech. IFR Cap.
Max. Delay per Flight
Fig. 23a. Example BHX Flights and Delays per Flight from SIMMOD.
(Source: Bubalo 2009)
VS and SIMMOD report each change of movement of aircraft at each air-

port. The most important measurements are the individual times needed to
get from one node over the link to the next node in the simulation. This re-
sults in taxiing times, ROT, approach times, push-back times- and waiting
times at gates, on runways, and in theairspace. The waiting times are the
delays.
Consequently the reports allow analysis of gate wait delays, departure queue
delays, and airspace delays.

The delays per flight per hour of the day are also displayed in the demand
and delay diagrams in the Appendix (Figures 23). The yellow straight hori-
zontal line in each diagram suggests the maximum tolerated delay of 4 min-
utes per flight as recommended by the FAA and EUROCONTROL (de
Neufville 2003, p. 448) (A maximum tolerated delay of 5 minutes has actu-
ally been graphed to add another buffer minute. This will be corrected for
subsequent publication to avoid confusion). Just as in all other demand dia-
grams, the dotted red horizontal line indicates the maximum declared capac-
ity, and the light blue horizontal line indicates the ultimate capacity of IFR
flights.
When considering the various growth scenarios for each airport, one can
observe just when the ultimate capacity, in operations per hour, or the
maximum acceptable delay will be reached.
This of course assumes that the daily pattern in demand will not dramati-
cally change in the future. From observations it is known that the character-
istics of the demand patterns do not change much over the years. Airports
with strong seasonal variability might exhibit different characteristics in the
demand pattern for in season and off-season periods, but this is truer for
airports in the Mediterranian region.
Generally it can be said that, with a few exceptions, the observed single
runway airports have enough spare runway capacity for future development.
BHX airport will reach its current maximum declared capacity with a
growth of 50% over today’s traffic, the ultimate capacity will be reached at
somewhere around 100% growth.
CIA, DRS and FMO airports have by far sufficient spare capacity for future
development and from a runway operational view do not actually require a
maximum declared capacity.
GLA airport will be able to meet a growth of 150% over today’s traffic, so
the possibility of future expansion is definitely there.
GRZ and HHN airports do not require any restrictions and have sufficient
capacity to develop freely.

LBA airport will reach its ultimate capacity measured in acceptable delays
at a growth rate of 100-150% over current traffic, and thus will be able to
expand freely without any restrictions.
LCY airport already has immense problems serving its current demand in
traffic. During the morning and evening periods, the maximum declared
capacity is exceeded. This will only of course get worse in the future. Al-
though when considering the ultimate capacity of the runway, the limit will
be reached with a growth of as little as 50% over the current level. It is
highly advisable to implement peak-hour charges or other instruments to
spread the traffic more evenly throughout the day. Since LCY airport has a
sharp decline in demand between 10 and 16 o’clock, much otherwise wasted
spare capacity can be profitable utilized in this manner.
LGW airport is the most congested of all in the entire simulated airport
sample. Like LCY airport, LGW already faces a huge current congestion
problem and actual saturation.
LGW airport still operates below its maximum declared capacity, but this
limit will likely be reached at a growth rate of only 10% over today’s traffic.
Because the limits for maximum declared capacity and ultimate capacity are
so close to each other, the ultimate capacity of LGW’s current airport run-
way configuration will be reached at a growth rate of 30-50%. This does not
give LGW much room for further development without major investment in
new airport infrastructure, mainly in increasing runway capacity.
LTN is the reliever airport for the London area, since this is the only airport
in the whole region that is not yet saturated. Though the current layout of
LTN looks very poor and could use some major investment. LTN is ex-
pected to be able to grow freely until a growth of above 150% (but below
200%) of current traffic is reached.
Concerning their runways, PSA and SCN airports do not need any restric-
itions on maximum declared capacity. There is ample spare capacity to al-
low for free future development. These two airports would benefit from an
increase in their attractiveness.
STN airport is another example of a London regional airport that is already
hugely oversaturated and will be at its absolute limit in only a very few
years. Like LGW’s maximum capacity, STN’s maximum declared capacity

and its ultimate capacity are very close together. This means that STN will
reach its maximum declared capacity at a growth rate of between 10% and
20% over today’s traffic level and will reach its ultimate capacity at around
50%. A schedule change or peak hour charge is required to free up more
spare runway capacity.
STR is perhaps the only single runway airport in Germany that will face
saturation in the near future. The traffic especially in the morning periods
between 6 and 10 o’clock is responsible for severe peaking at STR and will
therefore limit the growth of the airport. Under current conditions a future
traffic growth of 50% will be the maximum growth rate until the ultimate
runway capacity is reached. Even growth scenarios with smaller growth
rates (as little as 10%) will lead to unacceptable average delays of over four
minutes per flight in the morning periods. Airport expansion programmes,
schedule changes, and peak hour charges are highly recommended for STR.
SXF airport as it is today, in 2009, will easily be able to process any future
air traffic demand. It will not be before a growth of 150% over current traf-
fic is reached that any limits in either delay per flight or ultimate capacity
are reached. But in 2011 the new Berlin-Brandenburg International Airport
(BBI) will replace the current Airports TXL and SXF, therefore this sce-
nario projection is rather academic. Therefore the BBI airport will have to
process the demand of both airports. A simulation scenario has been pro-
duced for that case as well and will be discussed below.
The remaining two airports, SZG and ZAG, will not have their expansion
restricted in the near future. Although SZG has a maximum declared capac-
ity of 20 flights per hour, the reasons for this limitation are clearly not run-
way-related, since the ultimate capacity is calculated as 53 operations per
hour.
ZAG airport might face some delays beyond a 150% growth in traffic.
4.1 Results for the LHR and BBI Simulations
To provide a starting point for possible future simulations of more complex

airport runway systems, I tried to create at least two parallel runway air-
ports, namely LHR and BBI. Both airports are modelled in segregated mode

for simplicity reasons and because segregated mode is believed to be a safer

operational mode than is mixed mode.
The creation of a parallel runway airport is somewhat similar to that of a
single runway airport. You need some additional taxiways for the second
runway, but only the one gate is needed. Then, in the flight schedule, you
need to assign all arrivals to the arrival runway and all departures to the de-
parture runway.
The traffic demand for the BBI airport is the combined flight schedule of
SXF and TXL. This is an oversimplification, but still it provides a practical
traffic scheme.
The simulation run went so smoothly, that additional information could be
processed.
For LHR airport a base scenario and a 20% growth scenario were simulated.
Beyond that growth rate the delays experienced were simply absurd, and,
because exceptionally long departure queues blocked all the apron and taxi-
way links, the whole simulation gridlocked and stopped.
In Fig. 24 it can be seen that as early as 8:10 in the morning at LHR already
29 aircraft are waiting in the departure queue for take-off. This departure
queue will persist for the entire day and will dissolve only late at night. And
just to remind the reader, this demand is derived from a daily sample of off-
season traffic on March 19th, 2009!
For BBI a base, a 20% growth, and a 100% growth scenario were created.
With a forecasted doubling of traffic over current levels, it was analysed that
BBI will reach its ultimate capacity. With a steady growth in LCC traffic at
SXF or BBI, the projected maximum capacity level will be approached in 14
years (estimating 5% average growth; 1.05^14=1.98 -> 98% growth after 14
years).
In the 100% scenario, BBI airport faces problems similar to LHR given a
20% growth scenario (Fig. 25 & Fig. 27).

Fig. 24: LHR airport SIMMOD simulation for 20% growth scenario (ARR
are indicated in red, DEP are indicated in blue)(Source: Bubalo 2009)
Fig. 25. BBI airport SIMMOD simulation for 100% growth scenario. (with-
out arrivals and gate occupation; Source: Bubalo 2009)

4.2 Traffic Flows at the Simulated Airports
To indicate the flow of operations at LHR, a flow chart, which is a diagram

of the cumulative operations at the airport, has been graphed (Fig. 26). This
kind of graph is also known from queuing theory. This theory cannot be
discussed here as any examination would fall beyond the parameters of my
thesis (Hansen 2002; de Neufville 2003, 838; Janic 2000, p.48).
Flows of Airport Traffic at LHR: SIMMOD Base Scenario
1500
1400
1300
1200
1100
1000
900
800
Operations
700
600
500
400
300
200
100
0
-100
00:00 - 01:00
01:00 - 02:00
02:00 - 03:00
03:00 - 04:00
04:00 - 05:00
05:00 - 06:00
06:00 - 07:00
07:00 - 08:00
08:00 - 09:00
09:00 - 10:00
10:00 - 11:00
11:00 - 12:00
12:00 - 13:00
13:00 - 14:00
14:00 - 15:00
15:00 - 16:00
16:00 - 17:00
17:00 - 18:00
18:00 - 19:00
19:00 - 20:00
20:00 - 21:00
21:00 - 22:00
22:00 - 23:00
23:00 - 24:00
00:00 - 01:00
01:00 - 02:00
02:00 - 03:00
03:00 - 04:00
04:00 - 05:00
05:00 - 06:00
-200
-300
Time
cumulative ARR Flow cumulative ARR Demand cumulative DEP Flow cumulative DEP Demand cumulative Total Flow
cumulative Total Demand Total Difference DEP Difference ARR Difference
Flows of Airport Traffic at LHR: SIMMOD 20% Growth Scenario
1800
1700
1600
1500
1400
1300
1200
1100
1000
900
Operations
800
700
600
500
400
300
200
100
0
-100
00:00 - 01:00
01:00 - 02:00
02:00 - 03:00
03:00 - 04:00
04:00 - 05:00
05:00 - 06:00
06:00 - 07:00
07:00 - 08:00
08:00 - 09:00
09:00 - 10:00
10:00 - 11:00
11:00 - 12:00
12:00 - 13:00
13:00 - 14:00
14:00 - 15:00
15:00 - 16:00
16:00 - 17:00
17:00 - 18:00
18:00 - 19:00
19:00 - 20:00
20:00 - 21:00
21:00 - 22:00
22:00 - 23:00
23:00 - 24:00
24:00 - 25:00
25:00 - 26:00
26:00 - 27:00
27:00 - 28:00
28:00 - 29:00
29:00 - 30:00
-200
-300
-400
-500
Time
cumulative ARR Flow cumulative ARR Demand cumulative DEP Flow cumulative DEP Demand cumulative Total Flow
cumulative Total Demand Total Difference DEP Difference ARR Difference
Fig. 26. Flows of Airport Traffic at LHR: SIMMOD Base and 20% Growth
scenario. (Source: Bubalo 2009)

The flow, service and queuing diagrams are particularly interesting for the
actual and maximum amount of delayed flights per hour. In these flow dia-
grams demand curves for arrivals, departures and total operations are drawn.
Additionally the service curves and the difference of both flows is shown.
Generally the demand curve represents the demand for a service at a specific
time. If the airport or runway is congested, the demand cannot be met at that
specific moment and is delayed. This ‘delayed demand’ is represented by
the service curve.
It is interesting to note that arrival demand is usually not significantly de-
layed in any scenario. It is virtually always delays in departure flows and
delays occurring in the departure queue that are observed.
From the queuing diagrams we see that under current conditions, LHR has
as many as 200 aircraft waiting at about 9:00 pm to depart from the runway.
These 200 airplanes will have to wait as long as 6 ½ hours to take-off. Even
with a margin of error, this still gives an indication of the current saturation
level of LHR as the world’s largest hub. The government-approved expan-
sion of LHR with a third runway and a new 6th terminal is therefore vital for
the airport’s future development (BBC January 15, 2008)
Flows of Airport Traffic at BBI Airport: SIMMOD Base Scenario
700
600
500
400
Operations
300
200
100
0
00:00 - 01:00
01:00 - 02:00
02:00 - 03:00
03:00 - 04:00
04:00 - 05:00
05:00 - 06:00
06:00 - 07:00
07:00 - 08:00
08:00 - 09:00
09:00 - 10:00
10:00 - 11:00
11:00 - 12:00
12:00 - 13:00
13:00 - 14:00
14:00 - 15:00
15:00 - 16:00
16:00 - 17:00
17:00 - 18:00
18:00 - 19:00
19:00 - 20:00
20:00 - 21:00
21:00 - 22:00
22:00 - 23:00
23:00 - 24:00
-100
Time
ARR Difference DEP Difference Total Difference cumulative ARR Flow cumulative ARR Demand
cumulative DEP Flow cumulative DEP Demand cumulative Total Flow cumulative Total Demand

Flows of Airport Traffic at BBI Airport: SIMMOD 20% Growth Scenario
800
700
600
500
Operations
400
300
200
100
0
00:00 - 01:00
01:00 - 02:00
02:00 - 03:00
03:00 - 04:00
04:00 - 05:00
05:00 - 06:00
06:00 - 07:00
07:00 - 08:00
08:00 - 09:00
09:00 - 10:00
10:00 - 11:00
11:00 - 12:00
12:00 - 13:00
13:00 - 14:00
14:00 - 15:00
15:00 - 16:00
16:00 - 17:00
17:00 - 18:00
18:00 - 19:00
19:00 - 20:00
20:00 - 21:00
21:00 - 22:00
22:00 - 23:00
23:00 - 24:00
-100
Time
1100
1000
900
800
700
600
500
Operations
400
300
200
100
0
00:00 - 01:00
01:00 - 02:00
02:00 - 03:00
03:00 - 04:00
04:00 - 05:00
05:00 - 06:00
06:00 - 07:00
07:00 - 08:00
08:00 - 09:00
09:00 - 10:00
10:00 - 11:00
11:00 - 12:00
12:00 - 13:00
13:00 - 14:00
14:00 - 15:00
15:00 - 16:00
16:00 - 17:00
17:00 - 18:00
18:00 - 19:00
19:00 - 20:00
20:00 - 21:00
21:00 - 22:00
22:00 - 23:00
23:00 - 24:00
-100
-200
-300
Time
Fig. 27. Flows of Airport Traffic at BBI Airport: SIMMOD Base, 20% and
100% growth scenario. (Source: 2009).
It would be interesting to compare the results of the base scenarios with de-
lay analysis to actual real-world values. At a future stage it might be possi-
ble to collect actual data for the 12th week of 2009. This could be used to
further fine-tune the simulation.

Summary of Results and Conclusions
5 Summary of Results and Conclusions
The outcome of the data analysis is very promising. With basically only
detailed flight schedule data and some basic annual statistics on airports,
many mathematical models can be applied to airport capacity analysis. With
additional airport configuration and infrastructure data, airport simulations
can be programmed.
Some models like the “Kanafani” model, for calculating the relationship
between the annual numbers of PAX and Ops to their referring design hour
values (Figures 17), the analytical model to estimate the ultimate capacity of
the runway system (Figures 18), part of the queing model with flow dia-
grams (Fig. 26 & 27) and the SIMMOD simulation have been applied to the
analysed airports.
Since airport managers, planners and regulators want to have accurate ca-
pacity data at their finger tips, I think they have good choices in operational
models, that could increase the productivity and efficiency of an airport or
could give estimates of the current and future capacity utilization.
If some preliminary work has been done in collecting data, setting up a base
scenario in the simulation and creating dynamic working tables in a spread-
sheet program like Microsoft Excel, different models can be tried out.
The free online data sources (Flightstats.com, OAG, EUROSTAT, ACI,
EUROCONTROL and others) and computer capacities make it nowadays
simple to estimate runway capacities and ultimate capacities at airports very
quickly. The work that has been put into this study makes it even realistic to
build an instant calculator for runway capacity utilization.
As soon as recent flight schedules data, with informations on aircraft type, is
available, basic models like the ones presented in this paper can be repro-
duced.
The first step, however, should be plotting the daily demand diagrams like
shown in figures 16. With recent data and informations on maximum de-
clared capacity from the national slot coordination, the demand diagrams
give a good indication of the situation at the studied airport.

It should be mentioned that for a thorough terminal capacity analysis much

more detailed data must be known about each passenger facility at airports,
like number of check-in-counters, number of people precessed over time,
number of security lanes, number of baggage belts, streams of people going
in and out the entrance and so on. Therefore terminal capacity and utiliza-
tion is only analyised roughly in the assumption rectangles presented in the
Appendix (figures 17).
Since Benchmarking involves the comparison of similar processes among

competitors, it depends on the objective of the benchmarking you want to
realise. The basic indicators in table 4 and the (static) Airport Capacity As-
sessment, listed in Table 5, give an overview over annual numbers and
throughput and productivity indicators. Benchmarking airports by these in-
dicators can sometimes lead to contrary results.
The productivity indicator annual Ops per area of airport property is maybe
a good measure for capital productivity and the LCY airport for example has
with 1,981Ops per area the highest score. NCE ranks second, 434 Ops/ha,
and LHR ranks third, 426 Ops/ha.
When looking at PAX per area we see a different picture, with LCY being
first again with 74,670 PAX per area, LHR is second with 61,127 PAX/ha
and LGW is third with 51,634 PAX per area per year.
This is just to show how difficult it is to complete a partial productivity
benchmarking study based on operational indicators.
Airports are so highly dynamic systems, that just looking at averaged annual
numbers just does not give credible results. Looking at daily and hourly pat-
tern of airport traffic gives a much better indication.
However simulation of single runway airports was chosen as another tech-
nique to analyse the capacity utilization of airports and their runway system.
As the word is, simulation of airports is believed to be very complicated and
time-consuming, which is true for the first set ups. Unfortunately in practice
of planners, you would need to simulate an airport maybe only every few
years. With some practice and regular tasks, simulations can actually be set
up in no time. I actually created the BBI and LHR airport simulations on one

day each, pasting all flight related data into the simulation and having it run
during a 3 hour train ride from Berlin to Bremen on one occasion. A senior
who sat face to face to me got very interested in my work. It turned out that
he was a former aircraft engineer of Messerschmitt and he was deeply im-
pressed that simulations can run on a laptop.
So simulation is also a tool which seems to appeal to people and makes
them curious for the subject ‘traffic’. Maybe its more like watching a movie,
than looking at a complex mathematical model, what makes the difference.
As soon as there is some basic framework from preparing a previous simula-

tion study, it will always be possible to set up any new airport scenario. I
can again strongly recommend the AirportTool VS software, which delivers
a user friendly interface and a thorough online documentation and tutorial
(www.AirportTools.com).
Working with a simulation also give a “feel” for the whole airport system.
You almost suffer with those passengers being delayed at congested virtual
airport, like at LGW, STN or LHR, and you feel it is your duty to provide
relief for that specific airport by fine-tuning the operations.
Many technical aspects of the simulation and an airport is now logical, since
mostly physical. Even highly sophisticated mathematical models like the
queuing theory in operations research are well understood, when working
with airport flow charts from the simulation reports (Fig. 26 & 27).
The reports put out by the SIMMOD engine and the VS software also de-
liver detailed delay data for each processed flight. With simple spreadsheet
applications all necessary capacity related informations from the simulation
can be put together as it is shown in figures 23 in the Appendix.

Outlook
6 Outlook
It would be very interesting to know how the results for this study would
change over time. A Benchmarking study like this should be made on a
regular basis, like annually or even quarterly, to furthermore understand the
air traffic system over longer periods.
Growth of traffic, economic changes, terrorist threats, jumping fuel prices,
new LCC airlines, new airports, expanding airports, new routes, bigger air-
port operating and management companies, higher efficiencies and so on,
will bring frequent challenges to the air transport system. Having a regular
detailed report about airport developments over many years, like this or the
IATA Capacity and Demand Profiles (IATA 2003), the Performance Re-
view Report of EUROCONTROL (2007) or the ICCSAI Factbook (2008),
will give much deeper results for airport evaluation.
Unfortunately, the IATA Capacity and Demand Profiles are not only very
expensive, they are also only published once every few years.
To make some final comments it should be pointed out that the role of ca-
pacity utilization is very important in measuring airport productivity. From
simulation we have seen that the closer an airport is to its ultimate capacity,
the more delays will occur at an airport. The actual capacity utilization of
the runway component, the apron, the gates and the terminal or any other
potential congestion point in the system, is mandatory for operators to know
at any time. For airport planners and managers it is also necessary to know
the utilization of airport components to make predictions for future devel-
opments and investment descissions.
If the circumstance of strong delays will have a strong impact on cus-

tomer satisfaction and might result in declining passenger numbers must be
assessed by questionaires of airport passengers. Most likely it depends, how
an airport manages its delays. Delays should never directly occur at the
runways or on the apron. If delays are predictable it is more useful to let pas-
sengers stay in the terminal area as long as possible. If the environment of

Outlook
an airport terminal is friendly to the consumer, he or she will most likely

tolerate some delay. Every minute waiting in an airplane, waiting in the de-
parture queue for taking-off will be much more frustrating. So there is also a
psychological component to benchmarking, which is hard to measure.
The next research objective should be to extend this study with financial
data, on revenues through charges and non-aviation activities, to possibly
develop methods for estimating total revenues of an airport per any time
period.
Furthermore a DEA study should be developed trying to overcome the pre-
vious obstacles related to this model. Researchers should be invited for
comments and support on the present outcome and on further steps regard-
ing econometric or other analysis’.
The combination of benchmarking and simulation of airport has been tried
for this study for the first time to my knowledge and should be continued in
the future. With a hand full of tools many airport capacity related questions
could be answered.
All in all, I had a very good time doing the work for this thesis and I don’t
regret a minute. It is still almost unbelievable that I can finally say I am fin-
ished.
I thank everybody, who supported me during the last months and helped me
to create something, which I can be proud of.
I’m very positive with the results and I think I accomplished my mission.

References and further readings
Adivar, B. (2008), “ Airport Capacity and Delay”, LOG 490, Working Ma-
terial, Izmir University of Economics, Izmir.
International Air Transport Association (IATA) (1981), “ Guidelines for

Airport Capacity / Demand Management”, Airport Associations Coordinat-
ing Council (AACC) and TRAP WG, November 1981, Montreal – Geneva.
Arbeitsgemeinschaft Deutscher Verkehrsflughäfen (ADV) (2005), “

Jahresstatistik 2004”, Dezember 2005, Bereich Verkehr, Berlin.
Arbeitsgemeinschaft Deutscher Verkehrsflughäfen (ADV) (2008), “

Jahresstatistik 2006”, Januar 2008, Bereich Verkehr, Berlin.
Ashford, N., Stanton, H. P., Moore, C. A. (1997), “Airport Operations”, 2nd

ed. New York: McGraw-Hill.
Ashford, N., Moore, C. (1992), “Airport Finance”, published by Van

Nostrand Reinhold, New York.
Ashford, N., Wright, P. (1998), “Transportation Engineering”, Planning and

Design, 4th ed., published by John Wiley & Sons, Inc., New York.
Bazargan, M. (2004), “Airline Operations and Scheduling”, Ashgate Pub-

lishing Company, Hampshire.
Benchmarking (2005), An International Journal, “Benchmarking in civil

aviation”, Volume 12 Number 2, Emerald Group Publishing Limited.

Bianco, L., Dell'Olmo, P., Odoni, A. R. (2001), “New Concepts and Meth-
ods in Air Traffic Management”, 1st ed. Heidelberg, Springer-Verlag Berlin.
Button, K., Stough, R. (2000), “Air Transport Networks”, Theory and Policy
Implications, published by Edward Elgar Publishing Limited.
C
Coelli, T. J., Prasada Rao, D. S., O'Donell, C. J., Battese, G. E. (2006), “An
Introduction to Efficiency and Productivity Analysis”, 2nd ed. Heidelberg,
Springer-Verlag Berlin.
Civil Aviation Authority (CAA) (1999), “Wake Turbulence”, Aeronautical

Information Circular, (AIC 17/1999 – Pink 188), February 1999, London.
Civil Aviation Authority (CAA) (2001), “Economic Regulation and Capital

Expenditure”, Consultation Paper, January 2001, London.
Collet, F. (1980), “The Importance of Runway Capacity: An Analytical Ap-

proach”, airport forum No. 2/1980, p. 63-66.
Competition Commission (2008), “BAA Airports Market Investigation”,

Provisional findings report, published 20th of August 2008.
D
Daduna, J., Voss, S. (2000), “Informationsmanagement im Verkehr”,
Physica-Verlag, Heidelberg.
Delcaire, B., Feron E., (2007), “Development of an on-site Ground Opera-

tions Model for Logan International Airport“, Final Report December 2007,
FAA Air Transportation Center of Excellence in Operations Research, Re-
search in Report RR-97-09, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, 2007.
Dempsey, P. S. (2000), “ Airport Planning & Development Handbook: A

Global Survey”, 1st ed. New York: McGraw-Hill.

Department for Transport (2000), “Air Traffic Forecasts for the United
Kingdom 2000”, London.
Department for Transport (2003), “The Future of Air Transport”, London.
Department of Transportation (2004), “ Airport Capacity Benchmark Report

2004”, September 2004, Federal Aviation Administration, The MITRE
Corporation, London.
Federal Aviation Authority (FAA) (1989), “Airport Design”, September

1989, Advisory Circular (AC 150/5300-13), initiated by AAS-110, Depart-
ment of Transportation, 1989.
FAA (1995), “Airport Capacity and Delay”, December 1995, Advisory Cir-
cular (AC No: 150/5060-5), initiated by AAS-100, Department of Transpor-
tation, 1983 and 1995.
FAA (2005), “Airport Master Plans”, July 2005, Advisory Circular (AC No:
150/5070-6B), initiated by APP-400, Department of Transportation, 2005.
Deutsche Gesellschaft für Luft- und Raumfahrt Lilienthal-Oberth e. V.

(DGLR) (2004), “ Professionelles Ressourcen-Management in der
Luftfahrt”, Internationales Wirtschaftsingenieuerwesen, Fachhochschule
Wiesbaden, Rüsselsheim.
Doganis, R., Nuutinen, H. (1983), “ Economics of European Airports: A

Study of the Economic Performance of 14 European Airports”, Transport
Studies Group, Research Report No. 9, Polytechnic of Central London.

EUROCONTROL (2003a), European Organization for the Safety of Air

Navigation, “Enhancing Airside Capacity”, Edition 2.0, General Public re-
leased, Brussels.
EUROCONTROL (2003b), European Organization for the Safety of Air

Navigation, “Airside Capacity Enhancement Implementation Manual, Edi-
tion 1.0, General Public released, Brussels.

Navigation, “European Medium-Term ATM Network Capacity Plan As-
sessment 2009-2012”, Brussels.

Navigation, “A Matter of Time: Air Traffic Delay Europe”, EUROCON-
TROL Trends in Air Traffic, Volume 2, Brussels.

Navigation, “A Place to Stand: Airports in the European Air Network”,
EUROCONTROL Trends in Air Traffic, Volume 3, Brussels.
EUROCONTROL (2007c), European Organization for the Safety of Air

Navigation, “Capacity Assessment & Planning Guidance: An Overview of
the European Network Capacity Planning Process”, APN/CEF, Capacity
Enhancement Function, Brussels.

Navigation, “Challenges of Growth 2008”, EUROCONTROL Summary
Report, Volume 3, Brussels.

F
Federal Aviation Administration/ Department of Transportation (2007),
“Capacity Needs in the National Airspace System 2007-2025: An Analysis
of Airports and Metropolitan Area Demand and Operational Capacity in the
Future”, the MITRE Corporation, Center for Advanced Aviation System
Development, Washington D.C.
Niemeier, H.-M. (2002): preliminary Paper: “Capacity Expansion and Regu-

lation of German airports – towards reform of the basic rules of the indus-
try”, found printed in:
Forsyth, P., Gillen, D.W., Knorr, A., Mayer, O.G., Niemeier, H.-M., Starkie,
D. (2004), “The Economic Regulation of Airports: Recent Developments in
Australia, North America and Europe”, in association with the German
Aviation Research Society. Published by Ashgate Publishing Limited.
Forsyth, P., Button, K., Nijkamp, P. (2002), “Air Transport”, published by

Edward Elgar Publishing Limited.
G
Gesell, L. E. (1999), “The Administration of Public Airports”, 4th ed.
Arizona State University, Coast Air Publications.
Giesberts, L. (2002), “Bereitstellungsentgelte für Flughafeninfrastruktur”,

Schriften zum Luft- und Weltraumrecht, Band 18, Carl Heymanns Verlag
KG Köln.
Graham, Anne (2005). Airport Benchmarking: a review of the current situa-

tion. Taken from Francis, G., Humphreys, I. (2005), “Benchmarking”, An
International Journal, “Benchmarking in civil aviation”, Volume 12 Number
2, Emerald Group Publishing Limited.
Graham, A. (2008), “Managing Airports”, 3nd ed. Oxford: Elsevier Ltd.

H
Horonjeff, R., McKelvey, F. X. (1994), “Planning and Design of Airports”,
4th ed. New York: McGraw-Hill.
Hujer, J. (2007), “Regionalökonomische Effekte von Flughäfen”,

sozialökonomische Schriften, Band 31, Peter Lang Internationaler Verlag
der Wissenschaften.
Hüschelrath, K. (1998), “Infrastrukturengpässe im Luftverkehr”, Die

Vergabe von Start- und Landerechten an Flughäfen, Gabler Verlag,
Deutscher Universitätsverlag, Gabler Edition Wissenschaft, Wiesbaden.
International Center for Competitiveness Studies in The Aviation Industry

(ICCSAI 2008). Fact Book 2008 – Air Transport in Europe. Bergamo 2008.
International Air Transport Association (IATA) (1995), “Airport Develop-

ment Reference Manual”, 8th ed. Effective April 2005, Montreal – Geneva.
International Air Transport Association (IATA) (2004), “Airport Develop-

ment Reference Manual”, 9th ed. Effective January 2004, Montreal – Ge-
neva.
International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO) (1984), “Aerodrome De-

sign Manual”, (Doc 9157-AN / 901), Part 1: Runways, 2nd Edition 1984,
Montreal.
International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO) (1985), “Manual On Traf-

fic Forecasting”, (Doc 8991-AT / 722/2), 2nd ed. 1985, Montreal.

International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO) (1987), “Airport Planning

Manual”, (Doc 9184-AN / 902), Part 1: Master Planning, 2nd Edition 1987,
Montreal.
International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO) (1991), “Aerodrome De-

sign Manual”, (Doc 9157-AN / 901), Part 2: Taxiways, Aprons and Holding
Bays, 3rd Edition 1991, Montreal.
International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO) (2001), “Procedures for

Air Navigation Services: Air Traffic Management”, (Doc 4444-ATM / 501),
14th ed. Montreal.
International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO) (2004a), “Manual on Si-

multaneous Operations on Parallel or Near-Parallel Instrument Runways
(SOIR)”, (Doc 9643 AN / 941), 1st ed. 2004, Montreal.
International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO) (2004b), “Aerodromes”,

Annex 14 to the Convention on International Civil Aviation, Volume 1:
Aerodrome Design and Operations, 3rd ed., ICAO, Montreal.
International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO) (2004c), “Aerodromes”,

Annex 14 to the Convention on International Civil Aviation, Volume 1:
Aerodrome Design and Operations, 4th ed., ICAO, Montreal.
International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO) (2006), “Airport Econom-

ics Manual”, (Doc 9562), 2nd ed., Montreal.
International Center for Competitiveness Studies in the Aviation Industry

(ICCSAI) (2008), “Fact Book 2008: Air Transport in Europe”, Orio al Serio
International Airport.

J
Janic, M. (2000), “Air Transport System Analysis and Modelling: Capacity,
Quality of Services and Economics”, OPA (Overseas Publishers Associa-
tion) N.V., published by license uner the Gordon and Breach Science Pub-
lishers imprint, Amsterdam.
Janic, M. (2007), “The Sustainability of Air Transportation: A Quantitative

Analysis ans Assessment”, 1st ed. Burlington: Ashgate Publishing Company.
Jelaska, M., Jovanovic, T., “A Method to Determine Runway Capacity”,

Airport Forum No. 4/1982, p. 44-48.
K
Kanafani, A. (1981), “The Consistency of Traffic Forecasts for Airport Mas-
ter Planning”, University of California Berkeley, Institute of Transportation
Studies Working Paper.
Kaupp, M. (1996). “Simulation im Luftverkehr: Analyse, Modellierung,

Implemtierung, Ergebnisse, Gabler Verlag, Gabler Edition Wissenschaft,
Deutscher Universitäts-Verlag, Wiesbaden.
Kazda, A., Caves, R. E. (2007), “ Airport Design and Operation”, 2nd ed.
Oxford: Elsevier Ltd.
Klaver, S., Gordijn, H., Harbers, A. (2007), “Atlas of Cargo Airports in

Europe”, Ruimtelijk Planbureau, Den Haag, July 2007, version 1.0.
Kralicek, P., Böhmdorfer, F., Kralicek, G. (2008), “Kennzahlen für

Geschäftsführer”, 5. Auflage, mi-Fachverlag, FinanzBuch Verlag GmbH,
München.

L
Littlejohns, A., McGairl, S. (1998), “Aircraft Financing”, 3rd ed. Published
by Euromoney Publications PLC.
M
Mensen, H. (2007), “Planung, Anlage und Betrieb von Flugplätzen”, 1. Au-
flage, Springer-Verlag Berlin, Heidelberg.
Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC) (2008), “Regional Airport

Capacity and Delay”, Bay Area Airports Study, April 2008, Oakland, Cali-
fornia.
N
De Neufville, R., Odoni, A. (2003), “Airport Systems: Planning, Design,
and Management”, The McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc., 2003.
Niemeier, H.-M. (2004), “Capacity Utilization, Investment and Regulatory

Reform of German Airports”, Chapter 12 – P. Forsyth, et. al. The Economic
Regulation of Airports.
O
OAG (2002), “OAG Flight Atlas Worldwide”, ed.: May 2002 – November
2002, OAG Worldwide Limited.
Peovic, T. (2008), “An Integrated Strategy for Alleviating the Negative Im-
pacts of Seasonal Traffic Fluctuations at Small and Medium-size Airports”,
Master's Thesis, University of Continuing Education - Danube University
Krems, Dubrovnik, March 2008.
Performance Review Commission (PRC) (2007), “Performance Review

Report 2007”, EUROCONTROL, Brussels.

Poldy, F. (1982) “Airport Runway Capacity and Delay: Some Models for
Planners and Managers”, Australian Government Publishing Service, Can-
berra 1982.
Pompl, W. (2002), “Luftverkehr: Eine ökonomische und politische

Einführung”, 4. Auflage, Springer-Verlag Berlin, Heidelberg.
R
Ruimtelijk Planbureau (2005), “Atlas of Airports in Northwest Europe”,
Den Haag 2005.
S
Seiringer, M. (2007), “Europäische Flughäfen im Performance-Vergleich:
Eine Untersuchung mittels Data Envelopment Analysis”, 1. Auflage, VDM
Verlag Dr. Müller, Saarbrücken
Smith, D. I., Odegard, J. D., Shea, W. (1984), “Airport Planning and

Management”, 1st ed. Belmont: Wadsworth Company, Inc.
SRI International/IATA (1990), “ A European Planning Strategy for Air

Traffic to the Year 2010”, Volume 1: Analysis and Recommendations,
March 1990, SRI International Project 7474, Menlo Park, CA.
SRI International/IATA (1990), “ A European Planning Strategy for Air

Traffic to the Year 2010”, Volume 2: Supporting Data, January 1990, SRI
International Project 7474, Menlo Park, CA.
Sterzenbach, R., Conrady, R. (2003), “Luftverkehr”, 3. Auflage, Oldenbourg

Wissenschaftsverlag GmbH.
T
Transportation Research Board (TRB) (1975), National Research Council,
National Academy of Sciences, “Airport Landside Capacity”, Special Re-
port 159, Washington D.C. 1975.

Transportation Research Board (TRB), National Research Council, National

Academy of Sciences (1976), “Airport and Air Transport Planning”, Trans-
portation Research Record 588, Washington D.C. 1976.
U
Urbatzka, E. (2004), “Future Airport Capacity Utilization in Germany:
Peaked Congestion and/or Idle Capacity”, Journal of Air Transportation,
University of Nebraska at Omaha 2004.
V
Vasigh, B., Fleming, K., Tacker, T. (2008), “Introduction to Air Transport
Economics: From Theory to Applications”, 1st ed. Burlington: Ashgate
Publishing Company.
Verkehrswissenschaftliches Institut der Rheinisch-Westfälischen

Technischen Hochschule Aachen (RWTH) (2001), “Überprüfung der
Prognose zur Entwicklung der Flugbewegungen bis zum Jahr 2010 der
Augsburger Flughafen GmbH unter Berücksichtigung der im
Planfeststellungsverfahren vorgebrachten Einwendungen und auf der Basis
aktueller Verkehrszahlen”, September 2001, Aachen.
W
Wells, A. T. (1999), “Air Transportation: A Management Perspective”, 4th
ed. New York: McGraw-Hill.
Wells, A. T. (1996), “Airport Planning & Management”, 3rd ed. London:

International Thomson Publishing Europe
Winston, C., de Rus, G. (2008), “Aviation Infrastructure Performance: A

Study in Comparative Political Economy”, Brookings Institution Press,
Washington, D.C.

Electronic and Internet Sources
Wolf, P. (1981), “Entscheidungshilfen für die Flughafenplanung”, Heft 34,

Veröffentlichungen des Verkehrswissenschaftlichen Institutes der
Rheinisch-Westfälischen Technischen Hochschule Aachen.
Wolf, H. (2003), “Privatisierung im Flughafensektor: Eine

ordnungspolitische Analyse”, Kieler Studien 325, Institut für Weltwirtschaft
an der Universität Kiel, Springer-Verlag, Berlin, Heidelberg.
Wolf, H., Soltwedel, R., Sichelschmidt, H., Kumkar, L., Bickenbach, F.

(2005), “Ausbau der Flughafeninfrastruktur: Konflikte und institutionelle
Lösungsansätze”, Kieler Studien 335, Institut für Weltwirtschaft an der
Universität Kiel, Springer-Verlag Berlin, Heidelberg.
AENA 2002. Summary on Airport Simulation & Modelling

Issue. http://thena.aena.es/WSII/files/ppapers-
summarised/PPSimulation&Modelling_Summary.pdf
Ambrosetti (2008). The Future of the Air Transportation System: A Key

Challenge for Europe and Italy.
http://www.ambrosetti.eu/_modules/download/download/en/documenti/ricer
ca/092008_SEA_Abstract_ENG.pdf
ACSS January 12, 2009. Safety, Efficiency, and Cost Savings.

http://www.acssonboard.com/SiteCollectionDocuments/Press%20Releases/
SafeRoute%20for%20Air%20Berlin%20final.pdf
Gilbo, Eugene P. (2001). Arrival/Departure Tradeoff Optimization at STL: a

Case Study. Volpe Center 2001,
http://cdm.fly.faa.gov/analysis/analysisdocs/CDM_Jan_24_01_slide.ppt.
Pilling, Mark (2002), “Making the Grade”, Airline Business, June 2002,
Vol.18 Issue 6, p.70.

Ülkü, Tolga (2008), “Capacity Measurement in Airport Sector: Drawbacks

of Conventional Methods and Benchmarking Airports Using Declared Ca-
pacity”, Preliminary Draft, 30.06.2008, GAP research project.
EUROCONTROL February 7, 2009,

http://www.eurocontrol.int/aim/public/standard_page/pacs.html
Roling 2007
http://pdf.aiaa.org/preview/CDReadyMATIO07_1768/PV2007_7851.pdf
Mitre 2001. TAAM Best Practice Guidelines.

http://www.mitre.org/work/tech_papers/tech_papers_01/gladstone_taam/gla
dstone_taam.pdf
Virginia Tech 2003. Simulation Models.

http://128.173.204.63/courses/cee5614/cee5614_pub/Simulation_models.pd
f
de Neufville 2008. “Building the Next Generation of Airport Systems," The

Bridge, Journal of the National Academy of Engineering, pp. 41-46, Sum-
mer 2008
http://ardent.mit.edu/real_options/Real_opts_papers/NAS%20Bridge%20Ar
ticle.pdf
CAA 1999, (Pink 188). Aeronautical Information Circular. AIC 17/99. Civil
Aviation Authority 1999.
http://www.nats-uk.ead-
it.com/aip/current/aic/pink/EG_Circ_1999_P_017_en.pdf
PRC 2007, Performance Review Report. Performance Review Commission.

EUROCONTROL
http://www.eurocontrol.int/prc/gallery/content/public/PRR_2007.pdf

Duran, Engin H., (2005):

Developing Measures of Airport Productivity and Performance: Application
of Data Envelopment Analysis; FHW Berlin, 2005.http://userpage.fu-berlin
.de/~jmueller/gapprojekt/downloads/WS_dec_05/developing_measures_of_
aiport_productivity.ppt
Hansen, Mark (2002); Micro-level analysis of airport delay externalities

using deterministic queuing models: a case study; University of California,
Berkley, 2002.
BBC News; (January 15, 2009); Go-ahead for new Heathrow runway; 2009;
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/politics/7829676.st
Aviation Today January 1, 2009. “Airline Uncertainty”.

http://www.aviationtoday.com/av/issue/cover/28584.html
Leutenecker, Sandra (2008). Die Entwicklung des Non-Aviation-Bereichs

und seine Bedeutung für die europäischen Flughäfen. http://opus.bsz-
bw.de/fhnu/volltexte/2008/912/pdf/Diplomarbeit.pdf.


Appendix
Appendix

Appendix

Appendix
Fig. 14. Capacity and ASV for long range planning. (Source: FAA 1995)

Appendix
Figures 23
Flights and Delays per Flight for Sample Airports from SIMMOD

Appendix
BHX Flights and Delays per Flight from SIMMOD

40 80
35 70
30 60
25 50
Ops per hour

20 40
15 30
10 20
5 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
CIA Flights and Delays per Flight from SIMMOD

6 60
5 50
4 40
Ops per hour

3 30
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

Appendix
DRS Flights and Delays per Flight from SIMMOD

6 60
5 50
4 40
Ops per hour

3 30
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
FMO Flights and Delays per Flight from SIMMOD

6 60
5 50
4 40
Ops per hour

3 30
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

Appendix
GLA Flights and Delays per Flight from SIMMOD

7 60
6
50
5
40
Ops per hour

4
30
3
20
2
10
1
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
GRZ Flights and Delays per Flight from SIMMOD

6 60
5 50
4 40
Ops per hour

3 30
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

Appendix
HHN Flights and Delays per Flight from SIMMOD

6 60
5 50
4 40
Ops per hour

3 30
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
LBA Flights and Delays per Flight from SIMMOD

7 60
6
50
5
40
Ops per hour

4
30
3
20
2
10
1
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

Appendix
LCY Flights and Delays per Flight from SIMMOD

60 100
90
50
80
70
40
60
Ops per hour

30 50
40
20
30
20
10
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
LGW Flights and Delays per Flight from SIMMOD

35 120
30
100
25
80
Ops per hour

20
60
15
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
Max. Decl. Cap. Tech. IFR Cap. Max. Delay per Flight

Appendix
LTN Flights and Delays per Flight from SIMMOD

6 60
5 50
4 40
Ops per hour

3 30
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
PSA Flights and Delays per Flight from SIMMOD

6 70
60
5
50
Ops per hour

40
3
30
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

Appendix
SCN Flights and Delays per Flight from SIMMOD

6 60
5 50
4 40
Ops per hour

3 30
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
STN Flights and Delays per Flight from SIMMOD

100 140
90
120
80
70 100
60
Ops per hour

80
50
60
40
30 40
20
20
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

Appendix
STR Flights and Delays per Flight from SIMMOD

60 100
90
50
80
70
40
60
Ops per hour

30 50
40
20
30
20
10
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
SXF Flights and Delays per Flight from SIMMOD

7 60
6
50
5
40
Ops per hour

4
30
3
20
2
10
1
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

Appendix
SZG Flights and Delays per Flight from SIMMOD

6 60
5 50
4 40
Ops per hour

3 30
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
ZAG Flights and Delays per Flight from SIMMOD

6 60
5 50
4 40
Ops per hour

3 30
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

Appendix
Figures 26 and 27
Flows of Airport Traffic from SIMMOD

Operations Operations
-500
-400
-300
-200
-100
0
100
200
300
400
500
600
700
800
900
1000
1100
1200
1300
1400
1500
1600
1700
1800
-300
-200
-100
0
100
200
300
400
500
600
700
800
900
1000
1100
1200
1300
1400
1500
00:00 - 01:00 00:00 - 01:00
01:00 - 02:00 01:00 - 02:00
02:00 - 03:00 02:00 - 03:00
03:00 - 04:00 03:00 - 04:00
cumulative ARR Flow

cumulative ARR Flow
04:00 - 05:00 04:00 - 05:00
cumulative Total Demand

05:00 - 06:00 05:00 - 06:00
06:00 - 07:00 06:00 - 07:00
07:00 - 08:00 07:00 - 08:00
08:00 - 09:00 08:00 - 09:00
Total Difference
Total Difference
09:00 - 10:00 09:00 - 10:00
10:00 - 11:00 10:00 - 11:00
cumulative ARR Demand

11:00 - 12:00 11:00 - 12:00
12:00 - 13:00 12:00 - 13:00
13:00 - 14:00 13:00 - 14:00
14:00 - 15:00 14:00 - 15:00
DEP Difference
DEP Difference
Time
Time
15:00 - 16:00 15:00 - 16:00
cumulative DEP Flow

cumulative DEP Flow
16:00 - 17:00 16:00 - 17:00
17:00 - 18:00 17:00 - 18:00
18:00 - 19:00 18:00 - 19:00
Benchmarking Airport Productivity and the Role of Capacity Utilization

19:00 - 20:00 19:00 - 20:00
20:00 - 21:00 20:00 - 21:00

Flows of Airport Traffic at LHR: SIMMOD Base Scenario
ARR Difference
ARR Difference
21:00 - 22:00 21:00 - 22:00

Flows of Airport Traffic at LHR: SIMMOD 20% Growth Scenario
22:00 - 23:00 22:00 - 23:00
cumulative DEP Demand

23:00 - 24:00 23:00 - 24:00
24:00 - 25:00 00:00 - 01:00
25:00 - 26:00 01:00 - 02:00
26:00 - 27:00 02:00 - 03:00
27:00 - 28:00 03:00 - 04:00
28:00 - 29:00 04:00 - 05:00
cumulative Total Flow

29:00 - 30:00 05:00 - 06:00
113
Appendix
Operations Operations
-100
0
100
200
300
400
500
600
700
800
-100
0
100
200
300
400
500
600
700
00:00 - 01:00 00:00 - 01:00
01:00 - 02:00 01:00 - 02:00
02:00 - 03:00 02:00 - 03:00
ARR Difference
ARR Difference
03:00 - 04:00 03:00 - 04:00
cumulative DEP Flow

cumulative DEP Flow
04:00 - 05:00 04:00 - 05:00
05:00 - 06:00 05:00 - 06:00
06:00 - 07:00 06:00 - 07:00
07:00 - 08:00 07:00 - 08:00
DEP Difference
DEP Difference
08:00 - 09:00 08:00 - 09:00

09:00 - 10:00 09:00 - 10:00
10:00 - 11:00 10:00 - 11:00
11:00 - 12:00 11:00 - 12:00
Time
Time
12:00 - 13:00 12:00 - 13:00
Total Difference
Total Difference
13:00 - 14:00 13:00 - 14:00

14:00 - 15:00 14:00 - 15:00
Benchmarking Airport Productivity and the Role of Capacity Utilization

15:00 - 16:00 15:00 - 16:00
16:00 - 17:00 16:00 - 17:00

Flows of Airport Traffic at BBI Airport: SIMMOD Base Scenario
17:00 - 18:00 17:00 - 18:00

18:00 - 19:00 18:00 - 19:00
cumulative ARR Flow

cumulative ARR Flow

19:00 - 20:00 19:00 - 20:00
20:00 - 21:00 20:00 - 21:00
21:00 - 22:00 21:00 - 22:00
22:00 - 23:00 22:00 - 23:00
23:00 - 24:00 23:00 - 24:00

114
Appendix
Appendix
1100
1000
900
800
700
600
500
Operations
400
300
200
100
0
00:00 - 01:00
01:00 - 02:00
02:00 - 03:00
03:00 - 04:00
04:00 - 05:00
05:00 - 06:00
06:00 - 07:00
07:00 - 08:00
08:00 - 09:00
09:00 - 10:00
10:00 - 11:00
11:00 - 12:00
12:00 - 13:00
13:00 - 14:00
14:00 - 15:00
15:00 - 16:00
16:00 - 17:00
17:00 - 18:00
18:00 - 19:00
19:00 - 20:00
20:00 - 21:00
21:00 - 22:00
22:00 - 23:00
23:00 - 24:00
-100
-200
-300
Time

Appendix
Sum of Annual SLF time

iata_code 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 % change
AMS 70.0% 70.2% 71.1% 65.2% 75.4% 7.6%
ARN 65.1% 63.4% 66.4% 69.2% 69.6% 6.9%
ATH 70.0% 70.0% 70.0% 70.0% 70.0% 0.0%
BCN 66.7% 60.5% 67.8% 69.9% 69.6% 4.4%
BHX 72.4% 71.6% 71.2% 72.2% 72.6% 0.2%
BRU 62.5% 64.0% 66.2% 67.3% 68.3% 9.3%
BSL 39.0% 70.0% 70.0% 70.0% 70.0% 79.6%
CDG 65.4% 70.0% 70.0% 70.0% 70.0% 7.0%
CGN 63.4% 68.1% 70.6% 72.1% 72.1% 13.8%
CIA 70.3% 72.1% 76.3% 77.6% 78.3% 11.3%
CPH 56.4% 57.1% 60.3% 70.7% 70.9% 25.7%
DRS 70.5% 70.9% 69.0% 70.1% 71.1% 0.8%
DUB 69.5% 71.1% 76.1% 74.7% 74.5% 7.1%
DUS 68.1% 69.6% 69.3% 69.1% 70.2% 3.1%
EDI 73.9% 67.4% 66.7% 68.8% 69.8% -5.5%
FCO 61.8% 63.8% 65.0% 66.1% 68.5% 11.0%
FMO 67.3% 71.9% 70.3% 71.5% 70.5% 4.8%
FRA 71.6% 73.3% 73.5% 73.8% 75.3% 5.2%
GLA 75.4% 75.0% 73.7% 73.8% 73.4% -2.8%
GRZ 64.0% 64.3% 64.8% 69.2% 68.0% 6.4%
HAJ 67.7% 69.6% 69.4% 70.1% 71.5% 5.5%
HAM 67.8% 69.8% 70.9% 70.6% 72.0% 6.1%
HEL 56.2% 58.6% 61.8% 66.4% 68.6% 22.1%
HHN 66.4% 73.7% 68.8% 64.2% 67.6% 1.7%
LBA 73.7% 73.6% 72.7% 69.9% 67.3% -8.7%
LCY 53.2% 51.9% 52.9% 56.6% 53.0% -0.5%
LEJ 71.3% 74.0% 73.7% 72.9% 71.4% 0.2%
LGG 70.0% 70.0% 70.0% 87.0% 32.5% -53.6%
LGW 76.0% 76.3% 75.0% 76.8% 77.4% 1.8%
LHR 72.1% 72.9% 72.8% 72.8% 73.6% 2.1%
LIS 56.8% 70.0% 70.0% 59.4% 61.0% 7.5%
LTN 78.6% 77.0% 78.0% 78.3% 78.6% 0.0%
LYS 61.0% 70.0% 70.0% 70.0% 70.0% 14.7%
MAD 66.9% 58.1% 68.2% 70.2% 71.2% 6.5%
MAN 76.9% 74.1% 73.1% 74.8% 75.1% -2.3%
MRS 65.8% 70.0% 70.0% 70.0% 70.0% 6.5%
MUC 67.9% 69.7% 71.0% 71.6% 73.3% 7.9%
MXP 65.8% 68.6% 69.2% 70.8% 72.0% 9.4%
NCE 67.7% 70.0% 70.0% 70.0% 70.0% 3.3%
NUE 68.0% 71.4% 71.8% 71.0% 71.1% 4.6%
ORY 70.6% 70.0% 70.0% 70.0% 70.0% -0.8%
OSL 62.3% 62.0% 65.5% 66.2% 68.7% 10.2%
PMI 80.2% 71.1% 79.4% 80.9% 81.0% 0.9%
PRG 64.7% 64.0% 65.0% 67.0% 66.4% 2.6%
PSA 63.7% 67.0% 70.4% 73.9% 71.7% 12.6%
RHO 70.0% 70.0% 70.0% 70.0% 70.0% 0.0%
RTM 70.0% 70.0% 70.0% 61.0% 56.2% -19.8%
SCN 65.6% 68.5% 68.2% 70.1% 66.3% 1.1%
STN 75.3% 74.0% 74.4% 75.4% 74.5% -1.1%
STR 66.3% 67.6% 69.0% 70.4% 70.0% 5.5%
SXF 68.4% 70.7% 73.7% 75.0% 75.7% 10.7%
SZG 71.0% 72.6% 70.8% 73.8% 72.1% 1.6%
TXL 66.7% 69.4% 69.4% 70.9% 70.7% 6.0%
VIE 65.5% 64.3% 66.4% 68.9% 69.5% 6.1%
WAW 70.0% 59.9% 62.8% 63.9% 64.7% -7.6%
WRO 70.0% 70.0% 70.0% 70.1% 75.0% 7.1%
ZRH 64.6% 65.1% 67.3% 71.0% 70.9% 9.7%
Mean 67.3% 68.6% 69.6% 70.6% 70.0%
Table 7. Average Seat Load Factors for Sample Airport from 2003 to 2007. (Source: Bubalo from
EUROSTAT 2008)

Appendix
Figures 16
Weekdays Operations Pattern and Capacities for Sample Airports

Appendix

(Sample Week Mon 03/16/2009 - Sun 03/22/2009)
200
180
160
140
Ops per hour
120
100
80
60
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
Time
AMS_2009-03-16_TOT AMS_2009-03-17_TOT AMS_2009-03-18_TOT

AMS_2009-03-19_TOT AMS_2009-03-20_TOT maximum declared capacity of all sources
AMS technical capacity vfr AMS technical capacity ifr peak_day_2008_total
tot_slots_arr_peak tot_slots_dep_peak

120
100
80
Ops per hour
60
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
Time
ARN_2009-03-16_TOT ARN_2009-03-17_TOT ARN_2009-03-18_TOT

ARN_2009-03-19_TOT ARN_2009-03-20_TOT maximum declared capacity of all sources
ARN technical capacity vfr ARN technical capacity ifr peak_day_2008_total

Appendix

120
100
80
Ops per hour
60
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
Time
ATH_2009-03-16_TOT ATH_2009-03-17_TOT ATH_2009-03-18_TOT

ATH_2009-03-19_TOT ATH_2009-03-20_TOT maximum declared capacity of all sources
ATH technical capacity vfr ATH technical capacity ifr peak_day_2008_total

120
100
80
Ops per hour
60
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
Time
BCN_2009-03-16_TOT BCN_2009-03-17_TOT BCN_2009-03-18_TOT

BCN_2009-03-19_TOT BCN_2009-03-20_TOT maximum declared capacity of all sources
BCN technical capacity vfr BCN technical capacity ifr peak_day_2008_total

Appendix

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
BHX_2009-03-16_TOT BHX_2009-03-17_TOT BHX_2009-03-18_TOT

BHX_2009-03-19_TOT BHX_2009-03-20_TOT maximum declared capacity of all sources
BHX technical capacity vfr BHX technical capacity ifr peak_day_2008_total

120
100
80
Ops per hour
60
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
Time
BRU_2009-03-16_TOT BRU_2009-03-17_TOT BRU_2009-03-18_TOT
BRU_2009-03-19_TOT BRU_2009-03-20_TOT maximum declared capacity of all sources
BRU technical capacity vfr BRU technical capacity ifr peak_day_2008_total

Appendix

80
70
60
50
Ops per hour
40
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
BSL_2009-03-16_TOT BSL_2009-03-17_TOT BSL_2009-03-18_TOT
BSL_2009-03-19_TOT BSL_2009-03-20_TOT maximum declared capacity of all sources
BSL technical capacity vfr BSL technical capacity ifr peak_day_2008_total

200
180
160
140
Ops per hour
120
100
80
60
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
Time
CDG_2009-03-16_TOT CDG_2009-03-17_TOT CDG_2009-03-18_TOT

CDG_2009-03-19_TOT CDG_2009-03-20_TOT maximum declared capacity of all sources
CDG technical capacity vfr CDG technical capacity ifr peak_day_2008_total
tot_slots

Appendix

80
70
60
50
Ops per hour
40
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
CGN_2009-03-16_TOT CGN_2009-03-17_TOT CGN_2009-03-18_TOT

CGN_2009-03-19_TOT CGN_2009-03-20_TOT maximum declared capacity of all sources
CGN technical capacity vfr CGN technical capacity ifr peak_day_2008_total
Slot coordination total min Slot coordination total max

(Sample Week Mon 03/16/2009 - Fri 03/20/2009;
Slot limitation to 15 Ops/hr due to noise impact analysis)
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
CIA_2009-03-16_TOT CIA_2009-03-17_TOT CIA_2009-03-18_TOT

CIA_2009-03-19_TOT CIA_2009-03-20_TOT maximum declared capacity of all sources
CIA technical capacity vfr CIA technical capacity ifr peak_day_2008_total
Slot coordination total max

Appendix

120
100
80
Ops per hour
60
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
Time
CPH_2009-03-16_TOT CPH_2009-03-17_TOT CPH_2009-03-18_TOT
CPH_2009-03-19_TOT CPH_2009-03-20_TOT maximum declared capacity of all sources
CPH technical capacity vfr CPH technical capacity ifr peak_day_2008_total

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
DRS_2009-03-16_TOT DRS_2009-03-17_TOT DRS_2009-03-18_TOT

DRS_2009-03-19_TOT DRS_2009-03-20_TOT maximum declared capacity of all sources
DRS technical capacity vfr DRS technical capacity ifr peak_day_2008_total

Appendix

90
80
70
60
Ops per hour
50
40
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
DUB_2009-03-16_TOT DUB_2009-03-17_TOT DUB_2009-03-18_TOT

DUB_2009-03-19_TOT DUB_2009-03-20_TOT maximum declared capacity of all sources
DUB technical capacity vfr DUB technical capacity ifr peak_day_2008_total
tot_slots

120
100
80
Ops per hour
60
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
Time
DUS_2009-03-16_TOT DUS_2009-03-17_TOT DUS_2009-03-18_TOT

DUS_2009-03-19_TOT DUS_2009-03-20_TOT maximum declared capacity of all sources
DUS technical capacity vfr DUS technical capacity ifr peak_day_2008_total

Appendix

90
80
70
60
Ops per hour
50
40
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
EDI_2009-03-16_TOT EDI_2009-03-17_TOT EDI_2009-03-18_TOT
EDI_2009-03-19_TOT EDI_2009-03-20_TOT maximum declared capacity of all sources
EDI technical capacity vfr EDI technical capacity ifr peak_day_2008_total

120
100
80
Ops per hour
60
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
Time
FCO_2009-03-16_TOT FCO_2009-03-17_TOT FCO_2009-03-18_TOT
FCO_2009-03-19_TOT FCO_2009-03-20_TOT maximum declared capacity of all sources
FCO technical capacity vfr FCO technical capacity ifr peak_day_2008_total

Appendix

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
FMO_2009-03-16_TOT FMO_2009-03-17_TOT FMO_2009-03-18_TOT
FMO_2009-03-19_TOT FMO_2009-03-20_TOT maximum declared capacity of all sources
FMO technical capacity vfr FMO technical capacity ifr peak_day_2008_total

140
120
100
Ops per hour
80
60
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
Time
FRA_2009-03-16_TOT FRA_2009-03-17_TOT FRA_2009-03-18_TOT

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

Appendix

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
GLA_2009-03-16_TOT GLA_2009-03-17_TOT GLA_2009-03-18_TOT
GLA_2009-03-19_TOT GLA_2009-03-20_TOT maximum declared capacity of all sources
GLA technical capacity vfr GLA technical capacity ifr peak_day_2008_total

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
GRZ_2009-03-16_TOT GRZ_2009-03-17_TOT GRZ_2009-03-18_TOT
GRZ_2009-03-19_TOT GRZ_2009-03-20_TOT maximum declared capacity of all sources
GRZ technical capacity vfr GRZ technical capacity ifr peak_day_2008_total

Appendix

120
100
80
Ops per hour
60
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
Time
HAJ_2009-03-16_TOT HAJ_2009-03-17_TOT HAJ_2009-03-18_TOT
HAJ_2009-03-19_TOT HAJ_2009-03-20_TOT maximum declared capacity of all sources
HAJ technical capacity vfr HAJ technical capacity ifr peak_day_2008_total

80
70
60
50
Ops per hour
40
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
HAM_2009-03-16_TOT HAM_2009-03-17_TOT HAM_2009-03-18_TOT

HAM_2009-03-19_TOT HAM_2009-03-20_TOT maximum declared capacity of all sources
HAM technical capacity vfr HAM technical capacity ifr peak_day_2008_total

Appendix

120
100
80
Ops per hour
60
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
Time
HEL_2009-03-16_TOT HEL_2009-03-17_TOT HEL_2009-03-18_TOT
HEL_2009-03-19_TOT HEL_2009-03-20_TOT maximum declared capacity of all sources
HEL technical capacity vfr HEL technical capacity ifr peak_day_2008_total

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
HHN_2009-03-16_TOT HHN_2009-03-17_TOT HHN_2009-03-18_TOT
HHN_2009-03-19_TOT HHN_2009-03-20_TOT maximum declared capacity of all sources
HHN technical capacity vfr HHN technical capacity ifr peak_day_2008_total

Appendix

160
140
120
100
Ops per hour
80
60
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
Time
IST_2009-03-16_TOT IST_2009-03-17_TOT IST_2009-03-18_TOT
IST_2009-03-19_TOT IST_2009-03-20_TOT maximum declared capacity of all sources
IST technical capacity vfr IST technical capacity ifr peak_day_2008_total

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
LBA_2009-03-16_TOT LBA_2009-03-17_TOT LBA_2009-03-18_TOT
LBA_2009-03-19_TOT LBA_2009-03-20_TOT maximum declared capacity of all sources
LBA technical capacity vfr LBA technical capacity ifr peak_day_2008_total

Appendix

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
LCY_2009-03-16_TOT LCY_2009-03-17_TOT LCY_2009-03-18_TOT
LCY_2009-03-19_TOT LCY_2009-03-20_TOT maximum declared capacity of all sources
LCY technical capacity vfr LCY technical capacity ifr peak_day_2008_total

120
100
80
Ops per hour
60
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
Time
LEJ_2009-03-16_TOT LEJ_2009-03-17_TOT LEJ_2009-03-18_TOT
LEJ_2009-03-19_TOT LEJ_2009-03-20_TOT maximum declared capacity of all sources
LEJ technical capacity vfr LEJ technical capacity ifr peak_day_2008_total

Appendix

100
90
80
70
Ops per hour
60
50
40
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
LGG_2009-03-16_TOT LGG_2009-03-17_TOT LGG_2009-03-18_TOT
LGG_2009-03-19_TOT LGG_2009-03-20_TOT maximum declared capacity of all sources
LGG technical capacity vfr LGG technical capacity ifr peak_day_2008_total

120
100
80
Ops per hour
60
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
Time
LGW_2009-03-16_TOT LGW_2009-03-17_TOT LGW_2009-03-18_TOT

LGW_2009-03-19_TOT LGW_2009-03-20_TOT maximum declared capacity of all sources
LGW technical capacity vfr LGW technical capacity ifr peak_day_2008_total
tot_slots

Appendix

120
100
80
Ops per hour
60
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
Time
LHR_2009-03-16_TOT LHR_2009-03-17_TOT LHR_2009-03-18_TOT
LHR_2009-03-19_TOT LHR_2009-03-20_TOT maximum declared capacity of all sources
LHR technical capacity vfr LHR technical capacity ifr peak_day_2008_total

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
LIS_2009-03-16_TOT LIS_2009-03-17_TOT LIS_2009-03-18_TOT
LIS_2009-03-19_TOT LIS_2009-03-20_TOT maximum declared capacity of all sources
LIS technical capacity vfr LIS technical capacity ifr peak_day_2008_total

Appendix

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
LTN_2009-03-16_TOT LTN_2009-03-17_TOT LTN_2009-03-18_TOT
LTN_2009-03-19_TOT LTN_2009-03-20_TOT maximum declared capacity of all sources
LTN technical capacity vfr LTN technical capacity ifr peak_day_2008_total

120
100
80
Ops per hour
60
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
Time
LYS_2009-03-16_TOT LYS_2009-03-17_TOT LYS_2009-03-18_TOT
LYS_2009-03-19_TOT LYS_2009-03-20_TOT maximum declared capacity of all sources
LYS technical capacity vfr LYS technical capacity ifr peak_day_2008_total

Appendix

250
200
Ops per hour
150
100
50
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
MAD_2009-03-16_TOT MAD_2009-03-17_TOT MAD_2009-03-18_TOT
MAD_2009-03-19_TOT MAD_2009-03-20_TOT maximum declared capacity of all sources
MAD technical capacity vfr MAD technical capacity ifr peak_day_2008_total

120
100
80
Ops per hour
60
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
Time
MAN_2009-03-16_TOT MAN_2009-03-17_TOT MAN_2009-03-18_TOT

MAN_2009-03-19_TOT MAN_2009-03-20_TOT maximum declared capacity of all sources
MAN technical capacity vfr MAN technical capacity ifr peak_day_2008_total
tot_slots

Appendix

120
100
80
Ops per hour
60
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
Time
MUC_2009-03-16_TOT MUC_2009-03-17_TOT MUC_2009-03-18_TOT
MUC_2009-03-19_TOT MUC_2009-03-20_TOT maximum declared capacity of all sources
MUC technical capacity vfr MUC technical capacity ifr peak_day_2008_total

120
100
80
Ops per hour
60
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
Time
MXP_2009-03-16_TOT MXP_2009-03-17_TOT MXP_2009-03-18_TOT
MXP_2009-03-19_TOT MXP_2009-03-20_TOT maximum declared capacity of all sources
MXP technical capacity vfr MXP technical capacity ifr peak_day_2008_total

Appendix

140
120
100
Ops per hour
80
60
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
Time
NCE_2009-03-16_TOT NCE_2009-03-17_TOT NCE_2009-03-18_TOT

NCE_2009-03-19_TOT NCE_2009-03-20_TOT maximum declared capacity of all sources
NCE technical capacity vfr NCE technical capacity ifr peak_day_2008_total
tot_slots

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
NUE_2009-03-16_TOT NUE_2009-03-17_TOT NUE_2009-03-18_TOT
NUE_2009-03-19_TOT NUE_2009-03-20_TOT maximum declared capacity of all sources
NUE technical capacity vfr NUE technical capacity ifr

Appendix

120
100
80
Ops per hour
60
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
Time
ORY_2009-03-16_TOT ORY_2009-03-17_TOT ORY_2009-03-18_TOT
ORY_2009-03-19_TOT ORY_2009-03-20_TOT maximum declared capacity of all sources
ORY technical capacity vfr ORY technical capacity ifr peak_day_2008_total

120
100
80
Ops per hour
60
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
Time
OSL_2009-03-16_TOT OSL_2009-03-17_TOT OSL_2009-03-18_TOT
OSL_2009-03-19_TOT OSL_2009-03-20_TOT maximum declared capacity of all sources
OSL technical capacity vfr OSL technical capacity ifr peak_day_2008_total

Appendix

120
100
80
Ops per hour
60
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
Time
PMI_2009-03-16_TOT PMI_2009-03-17_TOT PMI_2009-03-18_TOT
PMI_2009-03-19_TOT PMI_2009-03-20_TOT maximum declared capacity of all sources
PMI technical capacity vfr PMI technical capacity ifr peak_day_2008_total

80
70
60
50
Ops per hour
40
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
PRG_2009-03-16_TOT PRG_2009-03-17_TOT PRG_2009-03-18_TOT
PRG_2009-03-19_TOT PRG_2009-03-20_TOT maximum declared capacity of all sources
PRG technical capacity vfr PRG technical capacity ifr peak_day_2008_total

Appendix

120
100
80
Ops per hour
60
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
Time
PSA_2009-03-16_TOT PSA_2009-03-17_TOT PSA_2009-03-18_TOT
PSA_2009-03-19_TOT PSA_2009-03-20_TOT maximum declared capacity of all sources
PSA technical capacity vfr PSA technical capacity ifr peak_day_2008_total

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
RHO_2009-03-16_TOT RHO_2009-03-17_TOT RHO_2009-03-18_TOT
RHO_2009-03-19_TOT RHO_2009-03-20_TOT maximum declared capacity of all sources
RHO technical capacity vfr RHO technical capacity ifr peak_day_2008_total

Appendix

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
RTM_2009-03-16_TOT RTM_2009-03-17_TOT RTM_2009-03-18_TOT
RTM_2009-03-19_TOT RTM_2009-03-20_TOT maximum declared capacity of all sources
RTM technical capacity vfr RTM technical capacity ifr peak_day_2008_total

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
SCN_2009-03-16_TOT SCN_2009-03-17_TOT SCN_2009-03-18_TOT
SCN_2009-03-19_TOT SCN_2009-03-20_TOT maximum declared capacity of all sources
SCN technical capacity vfr SCN technical capacity ifr peak_day_2008_total

Appendix

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
STN_2009-03-16_TOT STN_2009-03-17_TOT STN_2009-03-18_TOT

STN_2009-03-19_TOT STN_2009-03-20_TOT maximum declared capacity of all sources
STN technical capacity vfr STN technical capacity ifr peak_day_2008_total
tot_slots

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
STR_2009-03-16_TOT STR_2009-03-17_TOT STR_2009-03-18_TOT
STR_2009-03-19_TOT STR_2009-03-20_TOT maximum declared capacity of all sources
STR technical capacity vfr STR technical capacity ifr peak_day_2008_total

Appendix

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
SXF_2009-03-16_TOT SXF_2009-03-17_TOT SXF_2009-03-18_TOT
SXF_2009-03-19_TOT SXF_2009-03-20_TOT maximum declared capacity estimate
SXF technical capacity vfr SXF technical capacity ifr peak_day_2008_total

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
SZG_2009-03-16_TOT SZG_2009-03-17_TOT SZG_2009-03-18_TOT
SZG_2009-03-19_TOT SZG_2009-03-20_TOT maximum declared capacity of all sources
SZG technical capacity vfr SZG technical capacity ifr peak_day_2008_total

Appendix

120
100
80
Ops per hour
60
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
Time
TXL_2009-03-16_TOT TXL_2009-03-17_TOT TXL_2009-03-18_TOT

TXL_2009-03-19_TOT TXL_2009-03-20_TOT maximum declared capacity of all sources
TXL technical capacity vfr TXL technical capacity ifr peak_day_2008_total

90
80
70
60
Ops per hour
50
40
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
VIE_2009-03-16_TOT VIE_2009-03-17_TOT VIE_2009-03-18_TOT
VIE_2009-03-19_TOT VIE_2009-03-20_TOT maximum declared capacity of all sources
VIE technical capacity vfr VIE technical capacity ifr peak_day_2008_total

Appendix

80
70
60
50
Ops per hour
40
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
WAW_2009-03-16_TOT WAW_2009-03-17_TOT WAW_2009-03-18_TOT
WAW_2009-03-19_TOT WAW_2009-03-20_TOT maximum declared capacity of all sources
WAW technical capacity vfr WAW technical capacity ifr peak_day_2008_total

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
WRO_2009-03-16_TOT WRO_2009-03-17_TOT WRO_2009-03-18_TOT
WRO_2009-03-19_TOT WRO_2009-03-20_TOT maximum declared capacity of all sources
WRO technical capacity vfr WRO technical capacity ifr peak_day_2008_total

Appendix

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
ZAG_2009-03-16_TOT ZAG_2009-03-17_TOT ZAG_2009-03-18_TOT
ZAG_2009-03-19_TOT ZAG_2009-03-20_TOT maximum declared capacity of all sources
ZAG technical capacity vfr ZAG technical capacity ifr peak_day_2008_total

100
90
80
70
Ops per hour
60
50
40
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
ZRH_2009-03-16_TOT ZRH_2009-03-17_TOT ZRH_2009-03-18_TOT
ZRH_2009-03-19_TOT ZRH_2009-03-20_TOT maximum declared capacity of all sources
ZRH technical capacity vfr ZRH technical capacity ifr peak_day_2008_total

Appendix
Figures 17
Assumption Rectangles for Sample Airports

Appendix
Assumption Rectangle and Capacities of AMS Airport Traffic for the year 2007/8
y= 0.02479% x= 0.02828%
hourly annually
(AP/MCTC)
Runway Utilization (HO/MCD)= 102% Terminal Utilzation (HP/MCTC)=
120 16000
14000
100
Operations per hour
12000
PAX per hour

80
10000
60 8000
6000
40
4000
20 2000
0 0
Assumption Rectangle and Capacities of ARN Airport Traffic for the year 2007/8
y= 0.03313% x= 0.04077%

hourly annually
(AP/MCTC)
90 8000
80 7000
Operations per hour
70 6000
PAX per hour
60
5000
50
4000
40
3000
30
20 2000
10 1000
0 0

Appendix
Assumption Rectangle and Capacities of ATH Airport Traffic for the year 2007/8
y= 0.01812% x= 0.02584%

hourly annually
(AP/MCTC)
60 4500
4000
50
Operations per hour
3500
PAX per hour

40 3000
2500
30
2000
20 1500
1000
10
500
0 0
Assumption Rectangle and Capacities of BCN Airport Traffic for the year 2007/8
y= 0.01770% x= 0.02249%

hourly annually
(AP/MCTC)
70 8000
60 7000
Operations per hour
50 6000
PAX per hour
5000
40
4000
30
3000
20 2000
10 1000
0 0
Assumption Rectangle and Capacities of BHX Airport Traffic for the year 2007/8
y= 0.02871% x= 0.03477%

hourly annually
(AP/MCTC)
45 3500
40 3000
Operations per hour
35
2500
PAX per hour
30
25 2000
20 1500
15
1000
10
500
5
0 0

Appendix
Assumption Rectangle and Capacities of BRU Airport Traffic for the year 2007/8
y= 0.02913% x= 0.04489%

hourly annually
(AP/MCTC)
80 9000
70 8000
Operations per hour
60 7000
PAX per hour

6000
50
5000
40
4000
30 3000
20 2000
10 1000
0 0
Assumption Rectangle and Capacities of BSL Airport Traffic for the year 2007/8
y= 0.05022% x= 0.12179%

hourly annually
(AP/MCTC)
Runway Utilization (HO/MCD)= Terminal Utilzation (HP/MCTC)= 32%
16 4000
14 3500
Operations per hour
12 3000
PAX per hour
10 2500
8 2000
6 1500
4 1000
2 500
0 0
Assumption Rectangle and Capacities of CDG Airport Traffic for the year 2007/8
y= 0.01932% x= 0.02734%
hourly annually
(AP/MCTC)
120 25000
100
Operations per hour
20000
PAX per hour
80
15000
60
10000
40
5000
20
0 0

Appendix
Assumption Rectangle and Capacities of CGN Airport Traffic for the year 2007/8
y= 0.01877% x= 0.03031%

hourly annually
(AP/MCTC)
60 4500
4000
50
Operations per hour
3500
PAX per hour

40 3000
2500
30
2000
20 1500
1000
10
500
0 0
Assumption Rectangle and Capacities of CIA Airport Traffic for the year 2007/8
y= 0.02551% x= 0.04316%

hourly annually
(AP/MCTC)
40 2500
35
Operations per hour
2000
30
PAX per hour
25 1500
20
15 1000
10
500
5
0 0
Assumption Rectangle and Capacities of CPH Airport Traffic for the year 2007/8
y= 0.02638% x= 0.03054%

hourly annually
(AP/MCTC)
90 7000
80 6000
Operations per hour
70
5000
PAX per hour
60
50 4000
40 3000
30
2000
20
1000
10
0 0

Appendix
Assumption Rectangle and Capacities of DRS Airport Traffic for the year 2007/8
y= 0.04247% x= 0.05466%

hourly annually
(AP/MCTC)
35 1600
30 1400
Operations per hour
25 1200
PAX per hour

1000
20
800
15
600
10 400
5 200
0 0
Assumption Rectangle and Capacities of DUB Airport Traffic for the year 2007/8
y= 0.01991% x= 0.02523%

hourly annually
(AP/MCTC)
50 7000
45
6000
Operations per hour
40
5000
PAX per hour
35
30 4000
25
20 3000
15 2000
10
1000
5
0 0
Assumption Rectangle and Capacities of DUS Airport Traffic for the year 2007/8
y= 0.02328% x= 0.03204%

hourly annually
(AP/MCTC)
60 7000
50 6000
Operations per hour
5000
PAX per hour
40
4000
30
3000
20
2000
10 1000
0 0

Appendix
Assumption Rectangle and Capacities of EDI Airport Traffic for the year 2007/8
y= 0.02952% x= 0.04317%

hourly annually
(AP/MCTC)
50 4500
45 4000
Operations per hour
40 3500
PAX per hour

35 3000
30
2500
25
2000
20
1500
15
10 1000
5 500
0 0
Assumption Rectangle and Capacities of FCO Airport Traffic for the year 2007/8
y= 0.02437% x= 0.03308%

hourly annually
(AP/MCTC)
100 12000
90
10000
Operations per hour
80
PAX per hour
70 8000
60
50 6000
40
4000
30
20 2000
10
0 0
Assumption Rectangle and Capacities of FMO Airport Traffic for the year 2007/8
y= 0.03186% x= 0.04209%

hourly annually
(AP/MCTC)
30 3000
25 2500
Operations per hour
PAX per hour
20 2000
15 1500
10 1000
5 500
0 0

Appendix
Assumption Rectangle and Capacities of FRA Airport Traffic for the year 2007/8
y= 0.01810% x= 0.02487%

hourly annually
(AP/MCTC)
100 16000
90 14000
Operations per hour
80
12000
PAX per hour

70
60 10000
50 8000
40 6000
30
4000
20
10 2000
0 0
Assumption Rectangle and Capacities of GLA Airport Traffic for the year 2007/8
y= 0.02776% x= 0.03050%

hourly annually
(AP/MCTC)
Runway Utilization (HO/MCD)= Terminal Utilzation (HP/MCTC)=
30 3000
25 2500
Operations per hour
PAX per hour
20 2000
15 1500
10 1000
5 500
0 0
Assumption Rectangle and Capacities of GRZ Airport Traffic for the year 2007/8
y= 0.02893% x= 0.03802%

hourly annually
(AP/MCTC)
16 400
14 350
Operations per hour
12 300
PAX per hour
10 250
8 200
6 150
4 100
2 50
0 0

Appendix
Assumption Rectangle and Capacities of HAJ Airport Traffic for the year 2007/8
y= 0.02412% x= 0.02726%

hourly annually
(AP/MCTC)
45 1800
40 1600
Operations per hour
35 1400
PAX per hour

30 1200
25 1000
20 800
15 600
10 400
5 200
0 0
Assumption Rectangle and Capacities of HAM Airport Traffic for the year 2007/8
y= 0.03031% x= 0.03687%

hourly annually
(AP/MCTC)
60 5000
4500
50
Operations per hour
4000
PAX per hour
40 3500
3000
30 2500
2000
20 1500
1000
10
500
0 0
Assumption Rectangle and Capacities of HEL Airport Traffic for the year 2007/8
y= 0.02747% x= 0.03592%

hourly annually
(AP/MCTC)
60 5000
4500
50
Operations per hour
4000
PAX per hour
40 3500
3000
30 2500
2000
20 1500
1000
10
500
0 0

Appendix
Assumption Rectangle and Capacities of HHN Airport Traffic for the year 2007/8
y= 0.02332% x= 0.02980%

hourly annually
(AP/MCTC)
9 1400
8 1200
Operations per hour
7
1000
PAX per hour

6
5 800
4 600
3
400
2
200
1
0 0
Assumption Rectangle and Capacities of IST Airport Traffic for the year 2007/8
y= 0.02037% x= 0.02422%

hourly annually
(AP/MCTC)
45 7000
40 6000
Operations per hour
35
5000
PAX per hour
30
25 4000
20 3000
15
2000
10
1000
5
0 0
Assumption Rectangle and Capacities of LBA Airport Traffic for the year 2007/8
y= 0.03283% x= 0.03941%

hourly annually
(AP/MCTC)
14 1400
12 1200
Operations per hour
10 1000
PAX per hour
8 800
6 600
4 400
2 200
0 0

Appendix
Assumption Rectangle and Capacities of LCY Airport Traffic for the year 2007/8
y= 0.04788% x= 0.08386%

hourly annually
(AP/MCTC)
40 4000
35 3500
Operations per hour
30 3000
PAX per hour

25 2500
20 2000
15 1500
10 1000
5 500
0 0
Assumption Rectangle and Capacities of LEJ Airport Traffic for the year 2007/8
y= 0.01692% x= 0.02813%

hourly annually
(AP/MCTC)
25 900
800
Operations per hour
20 700
PAX per hour
600
15
500
400
10
300
5 200
100
0 0
Assumption Rectangle and Capacities of LGG Airport Traffic for the year 2007/8
y= 0.01492% x= 0.00000%

hourly annually
(AP/MCTC)
4.5 1
4 0.9
Operations per hour
3.5 0.8
PAX per hour
3 0.7
0.6
2.5
0.5
2
0.4
1.5 0.3
1 0.2
0.5 0.1
0 0

Appendix
Assumption Rectangle and Capacities of LGW Airport Traffic for the year 2007/8
y= 0.01970% x= 0.02025%

hourly annually
(AP/MCTC)
60 14000
50 12000
Operations per hour
10000
PAX per hour

40
8000
30
6000
20
4000
10 2000
0 0
Assumption Rectangle and Capacities of LHR Airport Traffic for the year 2007/8
y= 0.02102% x= 0.02739%
hourly annually
(AP/MCTC)
120 20000
18000
100
Operations per hour
16000
PAX per hour
80 14000
12000
60 10000
8000
40 6000
4000
20
2000
0 0
Assumption Rectangle and Capacities of LIS Airport Traffic for the year 2007/8
y= 0.02678% x= 0.03513%

hourly annually
(AP/MCTC)
40 5000
35 4500
Operations per hour
4000
30
PAX per hour
3500
25 3000
20 2500
15 2000
1500
10
1000
5 500
0 0

Appendix
Assumption Rectangle and Capacities of LTN Airport Traffic for the year 2007/8
y= 0.02881% x= 0.03599%

hourly annually
(AP/MCTC)
30 4000
3500
25
Operations per hour
3000
PAX per hour

20
2500
15 2000
1500
10
1000
5 500
0 0
Assumption Rectangle and Capacities of LYS Airport Traffic for the year 2007/8
y= 0.03256% x= 0.05082%

hourly annually
(AP/MCTC)
60 6000
50 5000
Operations per hour
PAX per hour
40 4000
30 3000
20 2000
10 1000
0 0
Assumption Rectangle and Capacities of MAD Airport Traffic for the year 2007/8
y= 0.02339% x= 0.02846%
hourly annually
(AP/MCTC)
120 16000
14000
100
Operations per hour
12000
PAX per hour
80
10000
60 8000
6000
40
4000
20 2000
0 0

Appendix
Assumption Rectangle and Capacities of MAN Airport Traffic for the year 2007/8
y= 0.02228% x= 0.01916%

hourly annually
(AP/MCTC)
70 4500
60 4000
Operations per hour
3500
50
PAX per hour

3000
40 2500
30 2000
1500
20
1000
10 500
0 0
Assumption Rectangle and Capacities of MUC Airport Traffic for the year 2007/8
y= 0.02270% x= 0.02948%

hourly annually
(AP/MCTC)
100 18000
90 16000
Operations per hour
80 14000
PAX per hour
70 12000
60
10000
50
8000
40
6000
30
20 4000
10 2000
0 0
Assumption Rectangle and Capacities of MXP Airport Traffic for the year 2007/8
y= 0.01632% x= 0.02102%

hourly annually
(AP/MCTC)
80 6000
70
5000
Operations per hour
60
PAX per hour
4000
50
40 3000
30 2000
20
1000
10
0 0

Appendix
Assumption Rectangle and Capacities of NCE Airport Traffic for the year 2007/8
y= 0.02996% x= 0.03556%

hourly annually
(AP/MCTC)
60 8000
7000
50
Operations per hour
6000
PAX per hour

40
5000
30 4000
3000
20
2000
10 1000
0 0
Assumption Rectangle and Capacities of NUE Airport Traffic for the year 2007/8
y= 0.03280% x= 0.03635%

hourly annually
(AP/MCTC)
35 1800
30 1600
Operations per hour
1400
25
PAX per hour
1200
20 1000
15 800
600
10
400
5 200
0 0
Assumption Rectangle and Capacities of ORY Airport Traffic for the year 2007/8
y= 0.02601% x= 0.03262%

hourly annually
(AP/MCTC)
80 10000
70 9000
Operations per hour
8000
60
PAX per hour
7000
50 6000
40 5000
30 4000
3000
20
2000
10 1000
0 0

Appendix
Assumption Rectangle and Capacities of OSL Airport Traffic for the year 2007/8
y= 0.03006% x= 0.04392%

hourly annually
(AP/MCTC)
90 9000
80 8000
Operations per hour
70 7000
PAX per hour

60 6000
50 5000
40 4000
30 3000
20 2000
10 1000
0 0
Assumption Rectangle and Capacities of PMI Airport Traffic for the year 2007/8
y= 0.02275% x= 0.02400%

hourly annually
(AP/MCTC)
70 14000
60 12000
Operations per hour
50 10000
PAX per hour
40 8000
30 6000
20 4000
10 2000
0 0
Assumption Rectangle and Capacities of PRG Airport Traffic for the year 2007/8
y= 0.02682% x= 0.03940%

hourly annually
(AP/MCTC)
50 6000
45
5000
Operations per hour
40
PAX per hour
35 4000
30
25 3000
20
2000
15
10 1000
5
0 0

Appendix
Assumption Rectangle and Capacities of PSA Airport Traffic for the year 2007/8
y= 0.03374% x= 0.04901%

hourly annually
(AP/MCTC)
16 2000
14 1800
Operations per hour
1600
12
PAX per hour

1400
10 1200
8 1000
6 800
600
4
400
2 200
0 0
Assumption Rectangle and Capacities of RHO Airport Traffic for the year 2007/8
y= 0.01831% x= 0.01754%

hourly annually
(AP/MCTC)
14 700
12 600
Operations per hour
10 500
PAX per hour
8 400
6 300
4 200
2 100
0 0
Assumption Rectangle and Capacities of RTM Airport Traffic for the year 2007/8
y= 0.04320% x= 0.05855%

hourly annually
(AP/MCTC)
9 700
8 600
Operations per hour
7
500
PAX per hour
6
5 400
4 300
3
200
2
100
1
0 0

Appendix
Assumption Rectangle and Capacities of SCN Airport Traffic for the year 2007/8
y= 0.06166% x= 0.08248%

hourly annually
(AP/MCTC)
25 350
300
Operations per hour
20
250
PAX per hour

15 200
10 150
100
5
50
0 0
Assumption Rectangle and Capacities of STN Airport Traffic for the year 2007/8
y= 0.02402% x= 0.03092%

hourly annually
(AP/MCTC)
60 8000
7000
50
Operations per hour
6000
PAX per hour
40
5000
30 4000
3000
20
2000
10 1000
0 0

Appendix
Assumption Rectangle and Capacities of STR Airport Traffic for the year 2007/8
y= 0.02862% x= 0.04137%

hourly annually
(AP/MCTC)
45 4500
40 4000
Operations per hour
35 3500
PAX per hour

30 3000
25 2500
20 2000
15 1500
10 1000
5 500
0 0
Assumption Rectangle and Capacities of SXF Airport Traffic for the year 2007/8
y= 0.03085% x= 0.03669%

hourly annually
(AP/MCTC)
18 2500
16
Operations per hour
14 2000
PAX per hour
12
1500
10
8
1000
6
4 500
2
0 0
Assumption Rectangle and Capacities of SZG Airport Traffic for the year 2007/8
y= 0.03780% x= 0.04574%

hourly annually
(AP/MCTC)
25 1000
900
Operations per hour
20 800
PAX per hour
700
15 600
500
10 400
300
5 200
100
0 0

Appendix
Assumption Rectangle and Capacities of TXL Airport Traffic for the year 2007/8
y= 0.03231% x= 0.03971%

hourly annually
(AP/MCTC)
50 6000
45
5000
Operations per hour
40
PAX per hour

35 4000
30
25 3000
20
2000
15
10 1000
5
0 0
Assumption Rectangle and Capacities of VIE Airport Traffic for the year 2007/8
y= 0.02667% x= 0.03819%

hourly annually
(AP/MCTC)
80 8000
70 7000
Operations per hour
60 6000
PAX per hour
50 5000
40 4000
30 3000
20 2000
10 1000
0 0

Appendix
Assumption Rectangle and Capacities of WAW Airport Traffic for the year 2007/8
y= 0.02162% x= 0.03066%

hourly annually
(AP/MCTC)
40 3500
35 3000
Operations per hour
30 2500
PAX per hour

25
2000
20
1500
15
1000
10
5 500
0 0
Assumption Rectangle and Capacities of WRO Airport Traffic for the year 2007/8
y= 0.06159% x= 0.10649%

hourly annually
(AP/MCTC)
12 1600
1400
10
Operations per hour
1200
PAX per hour
8
1000
6 800
600
4
400
2 200
0 0
Assumption Rectangle and Capacities of ZAG Airport Traffic for the year 2007/8
y= 0.08805% x= 0.09034%

hourly annually
(AP/MCTC)
20 2000
18 1800
Operations per hour
16 1600
PAX per hour
14 1400
12 1200
10 1000
8 800
6 600
4 400
2 200
0 0

Appendix
Assumption Rectangle and Capacities of ZRH Airport Traffic for the year 2007/8
y= 0.02503% x= 0.03363%

hourly annually
(AP/MCTC)
70 10000
9000
60
Operations per hour
8000
50
PAX per hour

7000
40 6000
5000
30 4000
20 3000
2000
10 1000
0 0

Appendix
Figures 18
Typical Capacity Envelope for Selected airports

Appendix
170
Appendix
171
Appendix
172
Appendix
173
Appendix
174
Appendix
175
Appendix
176
Appendix
177
Appendix
Origin ARR dec hour ARR hour:min:sec

BHX 0.050898286 00:03:03
CIA 0.047690539 00:02:52
DRS 0.045427225 00:02:44
FMO 0.046495328 00:02:47
GLA 0.049584016 00:02:59
GRZ 0.045793516 00:02:45
HHN 0.046062356 00:02:46
LBA 0.045504241 00:02:44
LCY 0.052258602 00:03:08
LGW 0.054734039 00:03:17
LTN 0.048612769 00:02:55
PSA 0.04931992 00:02:58
SCN 0.045496808 00:02:44
STN 0.052042623 00:03:07
STR 0.054858154 00:03:17
SXF 0.047341488 00:02:50
SZG 0.046007198 00:02:46
ZAG 0.050506007 00:03:02
Table 8. SIMMOD arrivals injection time adjustment for flight schedule

data. (Source: Bubalo 2009)
178
Appendix
Figures 19
Airport Layout for SIMMOD Sample Airports
179
Appendix
BHX Airport Layout for SIMMOD
CIA Airport Layout for SIMMOD
DRS Airport Layout for SIMMOD

180
Appendix
FMO Airport Layout for SIMMOD
GLA Airport Layout for SIMMOD
GRZ Airport Layout for SIMMOD
181
Appendix
HHN Airport Layout for SIMMOD
LBA Airport Layout for SIMMOD
LCY Airport Layout for SIMMOD
182
Appendix
LGW Airport Layout for SIMMOD
LTN Airport Layout for SIMMOD
PSA Airport Layout for SIMMOD
183
Appendix
SCN Airport Layout for SIMMOD
STN Airport Layout for SIMMOD
STR Airport Layout for SIMMOD
184
Appendix
SXF Airport Layout for SIMMOD
SZG Airport Layout for SIMMOD
ZAG Airport Layout for SIMMOD
185

Benchmarking Airport Productivity and The Role of Capacity Utilization - A Study of Selected European Airports

Caricato da

Informazioni sul documento

Titolo originale

Copyright

Formati disponibili

Condividi questo documento

Condividi o incorpora il documento

Opzioni di condivisione

Hai trovato utile questo documento?

Questo contenuto è inappropriato?

Copyright:

Formati disponibili

Benchmarking Airport Productivity and The Role of Capacity Utilization - A Study of Selected European Airports

Caricato da

Copyright:

Formati disponibili

Benchmarking Airport Productivity

and the Role of Capacity Utilization –

Thesis submitted to the faculty of the

Dr. Jürgen Müller

Berlin, Germany, February 15, 2009

I hereby confirm, that I have independently composed this Diploma

Benchmarking Airport Productivity and the Role of Capacity Utilization 4

4 Results of the Simulation Benchmarking ..............................................................69

Benchmarking Airport Productivity and the Role of Capacity Utilization 5

ABS Airport Business Suite

LCC Low Cost Carriers, Low Fares Airline

Benchmarking Airport Productivity and the Role of Capacity Utilization 7

Figure 6 Most Constraining Points in European Air Traffic in 2007 page 13

Figure 7 Annual monthly traffic and variations (PRC 2007) page 19

Figure 8 The long-term view of growth is of a stable long-termed trend page 29

Figure 9 Ranking of the main global hubs (Ambrosetti 2008) page 21

Figure 10 Limiting Factors for Capacity and Interdependencies at Airports page 26

Figure 12 Relationship between delay-related and ultimate capacity page 29

Figure 15 Groupings of runway configurations in relation to Annual Service Volume

Figure 16a STN Weekdays Operations Pattern and Capacities page 44

Figure 18a Typical Capacity Envelope for LHR airport page 51

Benchmarking Airport Productivity and the Role of Capacity Utilization 8

Figure 19a STR Airport Layout for SIMMOD page 59

Figure 20 Vortex generation on take-off and landing (CAA 1999) page 60

Figure 21 Ceiling and Visibility Routines (De Neufville 2003) page 61

Figure 22 Example printout of windrose (two bi-directional runways) page 63

Figures 17 Assumption Rectangles for Sample Airports pp. 147

Figures 18 Typical Capacity Envelopes for Selected Airports pp. 169

Figures 19 Airport Layout for SIMMOD Sample Airports pp. 179

Figures 28 Airport Charts for Sample Airports pp. 186

Benchmarking Airport Productivity and the Role of Capacity Utilization 9

Table 1 Sample Airports and Codes, (Bubalo 2009) page 10

Table 5 'Static' Capacity Assessment (Bubalo 2009) pp. 46/47

Table 6 Weight parameters (CAA 1999) page 61

Table 7 Average Seatload Factors for Sample Airports page 116

Benchmarking Airport Productivity and the Role of Capacity Utilization 10

Index IATA ICAO Name Country

Table 1. Sample Airports and Codes. (Source: Bubalo 2009)

Benchmarking Airport Productivity and the Role of Capacity Utilization 11

Basic Annual Indicators for Sample Airports

Annual Passangers at Sample European Airports above 10 million PAX 2003-2007

2003 2004 2005 2006 2007

Annual Passangers at Sample European Airports below 10 million PAX 2003-2007

2003 2004 2005 2006 2007

Benchmarking Airport Productivity and the Role of Capacity Utilization 12

2003 2004 2005 2006 2007

Benchmarking Airport Productivity and the Role of Capacity Utilization 13

PAX and Ops Change in Percent from 2003 to 2007*

% change Ops % change PAX

Benchmarking Airport Productivity and the Role of Capacity Utilization 14

Benchmarking Airport Productivity and the Role of Capacity Utilization 15

I met Prof. Dr. Joachim Daduna of Berlin School of Economics unfortunately

Benchmarking Airport Productivity and the Role of Capacity Utilization 16

catalogues to dream myself away to different countries and destinations. And as

From my colleagues on the German Airport Performance (GAP) student re-

For a much needed scholarship I'm indebted to the Erich-Becker-Stiftung,

Branko Bubalo, Berlin, February 2009

Benchmarking Airport Productivity and the Role of Capacity Utilization 17

“The difficult we do immediately,

We live in adventurous times where everything in the future seems to be possi-

It is becoming ever more important for the global community to exchange

Benchmarking Airport Productivity and the Role of Capacity Utilization 18

1.1 Recent Developments and Future Outlook in Air Transportation