Below are the first 10 and last 10 pages of uncorrected machine-read text (when available) of this chapter, followed by the top 30 algorithmically extracted key phrases from the chapter as a whole.
Intended to provide our own search engines and external engines with highly rich, chapter-representative searchable text on the opening pages of each chapter. Because it is UNCORRECTED material, please consider the following text as a useful but insufficient proxy for the authoritative book pages.
Do not use for reproduction, copying, pasting, or reading; exclusively for search engines.
OCR for page 33
Check-in/Ticketing Model 33 Peak 30 minutes In this example the Peak 30 Min = 47% of the Arrival Period Figure 40. Example of an early arrival distribution chart. peak 30 minutes can range from 30% to 50% of the flight's load. The range for the peak 30 minutes comes from the early arrival distribution that passengers typically follow. Domestic passengers typically have an arrival distribution that spans up to two hours, whereas international passen- gers may arrive up to four hours before departure. The peak-hour originating passengers are, therefore, spread out over two to four hours and not just a one-hour period. Figure 40 is an early arrival distribution example of domestic passengers where the peak 30 minutes represents 47% of the entire flight's passengers. Other Analysis Techniques One alternative to the method used in the Check-in model is the ratio approach, where exist- ing ratios of check-in positions to design hour O&D passengers and/or EQA are used as a basis for future planning. These ratios should be based on actual peak period staffing of ATO positions (rather than leased counters) and numbers of available kiosks and should account for observed levels of service. The ratio approach can combine conventional staffed positions and kiosks as Equivalent Check-in Positions (ECP). Each airline's ECP is the number of conventional positions in use, plus the number of kiosks. The current ratio of Design Hour Enplaned Passengers per ECP is deter- mined and then either held constant for the forecast years or changed, based on the existing LOS. The ratio of staffed counters to kiosks can then be varied depending on the current utilization of kiosks at the airport and the trends in kiosk use identified. The Check-in model displays the results of both ratios in the dashboard (Figure 31) as Design Hour Originating Passengers per Check-in Position and ECP per EQA. These results can also be a measure for comparison to a benchmark level or another airport. The ratio approaches are incorporated on a separate tab that can be accessed by the command button as seen in Figure 41. The Ratio Approach Examples button is located just beneath the Staffed Counter Positions Figure 41. section in the Check-in model. Ratio Approach The Design Hour Originating Passengers per ECP method is shown in Figure 42. An advantage command of using a design hour to ECP ratio is that it requires less detailed data than the 30-minute service button.
OCR for page 34
34 Airport Passenger Terminal Planning and Design Figure 42. Example of ratio approach using design hour originating passengers. model. The disadvantage can be that it assumes a continuation of existing staffing assumptions and the approximate number of airlines. Another variation on this approach is to use a ratio of gate capacity (EQA) to ECP as shown in Figure 43. This may be appropriate when the airport is expecting new airlines and larger increases in gates versus growth in design hour passengers due to load factors and/or aircraft size growth within an aircraft group. Other factors that can affect the number of ECPs include the following: · Curbside check-in. The use of curbside, skycap check-in (although limited to domestic flights) is very popular among many passengers and airlines, especially when skycaps have the ability to issue boarding passes. While removing some passengers with checked bags from the ticket lobby, it relocates the queue to the curb, and has its own facility impacts. Recent trends in charging for curbside check-in may reduce utilization unless passengers believe they are getting a higher LOS. · Common-use counters using Common Use Terminal Equipment (CUTE) technology. This allows airlines to share counters based on schedule compatibility (one airline's schedule peaks coinciding with another's schedule valleys). These types of systems are often administered by Figure 43. Example of ratio approach using EQA.