A380 Effect on Capacity

The Effect of the Airbus A380 on Runway Passenger
Throughput
Alexander Donaldson
December 8th 2009
1
Background
The Airbus A380 can carry the most passengers and is also the heaviest commercial passenger aircraft to have entered service. The entry into service of the aircraft required
careful management by the airports, airlines and aviation authorities that would handle
the aircraft in order to minimize the disruption caused to the air transportation system.
Airports were required to upgrade runways, taxiways and gates to deal with both the size
and passenger volume of the A380. The authorities responsible for aviation safety were
particularly concerned about the danger posed by the wake of such a high gross weight aircraft and initially took a conservative approach to wake separation standards which could
potentially have reduced the passenger capacity at airports served by the A380. This study
will examine the tradeoff between the additional passenger capacity of the A380 and the
additional wake separation that the aircraft requires.
1.1
The Aircraft
The A380 entered into service in October 2006 with Singapore Airlines after an 18 month
delay due to a variety of technical issues during development of the aircraft. At the time
of writing (November 2009) only 20 A380s have entered service [1], with a production rate
of approximately 1 aircraft a month for 2008 and 2009 [2] potentially increasing to 20
deliveries in 2010 [3]. This means that the impact of the A380 on the air transportation
system to date has been gradual and sparsely distributed. However as more of these aircraft
enter service in the coming years the effect of their operations will become more significant
at the major international hubs where they operate.
For the purposes of this study the seating capacity of the A380 is an important variable.
However there is considerable variability in this value even amongst the 20 aircraft delivered
1
Airport Systems: Term Project
Alexander Donaldson
4
+
5 "6"
3.
2.
1.
/.
.
&*
+,
+-
)
%
$
(
#
&'
!"'
%
#$
"
!
.
& 0.
Figure 1: Current (November 2009) A380 Orders and Deliveries by Airline [1]
to date from a minimum of 450 seats in the aircraft operated by Qantas up to 525 seats
in the aircraft recently delivered to Air France. This variation in seating capacity makes
a significant difference in the runway passenger throughput, therefore the capacity model
will be run at these high and low bounds.
1.2
Integration into the Air Transportation System
In addition to an unprecedented passenger capacity for a commercial airliner, the size and
weight of the A380 brought with it the likelihood of an exceptionally powerful wake. During
development of the aircraft and the flight test program the International Civil Aviation
Organization (ICAO) recommended a very conservative separation criteria of 10 n.m. for
all aircraft following the A380 (Table 1a) on approach, unless that aircraft was another
A380 in which case there was no wake separation requirement (the A380 could follow any
aircraft including another A380 without any wake separation
requirement). Just before the
2 of 15
Airport Systems: Term Project
Alexander Donaldson
entry into service of the A380 the ICAO draft guidance was revised based on the results of
an extensive wake vortex measurement campaign carried out by Airbus. The final ICAO
guidance was to simply add two nautical miles to the separation required behind a Heavy
aircraft (Table 1b. This change in guidance had important implications for the throughput
achieved by the A380 as will be demonstrated in this paper. The United Kingdom CAA
largely mirrors the ICAO guidance with modifications to fit its own weight categorization
scheme (Table 1c). It is interesting to note that the UK CAA found it necessary to
revise upwards the ICAO separation guidelines with regard to the A380 as a following
aircraft, “based upon operational experience with the aircraft in busy UK terminal airspace
environments” [4]. The United States FAA is taking a more conservative approach to
A380 operation requiring separations (Table 1d) greater than the ICAO recommendation
particularly with regard to Medium and Light aircraft Following the A380.
Table 1: Different Approach Separation Standards (R denotes Radar separation minimum
applies - 2.5 n.m. for JFK and LHR)
A380
R
R
R
R
A380
H
M
L
Following
H M
10 10
4
5
R R
R R
(b) Nov. 2009 ICAO Guidance
S
10
6
5
R
Leading
Leading
(a) Initial ICAO Guidance
1.3
A380
H
UM
LM
S
L
A380
4
4
R
R
R
R
H
6
4
R
R
R
R
Following
UM LM
7
7
5
5
3
4
R
R
R
R
R
R
A380
H
M
L
S
8
6
5
R
(d) United States FAA
S
7
6
4
3
3
R
L
8
7
6
5
4
R
Leading
Leading
(c) United Kingdom CAA
Following
A380 H M
R
6
7
R
4
5
R
R R
R
R R
A380
H
B757
M
L
A380
6
R
R
R
R
Following
H B757
6
8
4
5
4
4
R
R
R
R
M
8
5
4
R
R
L
10
6
5
4
R
Example Airports
The impact of the A380 on three major airports will be examined in this paper. These
airports have been chosen because they have different modes of operation and mixes of
aircraft sizes, yet they are all expected to receive a significant number of A380 operations
in the coming years.
3 of 15
Airport Systems: Term Project
1.3.1
Alexander Donaldson
London Heathrow
London Heathrow will be used as the baseline airport in this study for several reasons:
• Large number of expected A380 operations.
• Extensive operational data readily available.
• Arrivals and departures are always segregated.
• Operation at close to runway capacity throughout the day.
(22 Oct 09) AD 2-EGLL-2-1
UK AIP
LONDON HEATHROW
AD ELEV 83FT
ARP 512839N 0002741W
AERODROME
CHART - ICAO
EGLL
VAR 2.1°W - 2009
HEATHROW
I-AA & I-RR
110.30D
(Ch 40X)
Highest Elev in TDZ 81
512839.15N 0002824.83W
(GUND Elevation 151)
I-RR 110.30D
IRR
512838.88N 0002937.08W
Highest Elev in TDZ 79
512839.50N 0002641.18W
(GUND Elevation 151)
IAA/ IRR
512843.78N 0002732.86W
89'
Rwy 09L Thr Elev 79
512839.00N 0002906.05W
(GUND Elevation 151)
MLS
M-HAA
Ch 522
Rwy 27R Thr Elev 78
512839.63N 0002559.74W
(GUND Elevation 151)
I-AA 110.30D
IAA
512839.71N 0002537.49W
N
130
Annual Rate
of Change 0.14°E
(47)
117
RVP North
103
(33)
ILS GP
PAPI
(3°)
(20)
(34)
ILS GP
MEHT 66
272°M
3901m x 50m
09
L
27
R
092°M
k
Lin
M
NEVIS
ETTIV
MORRA
Link 28
Taxiway M
Twy A
LOKKI
Under Under
Construction
Construction
Link
N2E
ILS GP S1N
Tw
Tw
SURFACE
BEARING STRENGTH
83/F/A/W/T
83/F/A/W/T
ConcreteAsphalt
-
Taxiways
Concrete/Asphalt
-
100
500
0
0
100
200
500
(36)
Lin
k
43
SB1
Rwy 27L Thr Elev 77
512753.83N 0002602.68W
(GUND Elevation 151)
Link 41
Link 44
W
RUNWAY/TAXIWAY/APRON PHYSICAL CHARACTERISTICS
Grooved Asphalt
(35)
119
ay
42
Ta
xiw
Lin
k
Taxi
T
way
V
S1S
COM
Terminal
4
ATIS
TWR
Highest Elev in TDZ 78
512753.67N 0002651.99W
(GUND Elevation 151)
RVP South
ay
xiw
Ta
T
HEATHROW
Grooved Asphalt
118
272°M
MEHT 64
Twy S
ay
xiw
Royal Suite
PAPI (3°)
S3
Taxiway S
Ta
Cargo
Apron
362
(279)
RWY 09R/27L
IRR
27
L
SB3
Cargo
Apron
Highest Elev in TDZ 76
512753.39N 0002816.43W
(GUND Elevation 151)
Aprons
I-BB 109.50D
512753.86N 0002542.15W
N1
NB1
NB2E
S4
BEARINGS ARE MAGNETIC
ELEVATIONS AND HEIGHTS ARE IN FEET
APRON / RWY / TWY
MLS
M-HBB
Ch 514
28
Twy
Q
Twy
R
Taxiway Z
Rwy 09R Thr Elev 75
512753.25N 0002856.41W
(GUND Elevation 151)
ELEVATIONS IN FEET AMSL
HEIGHTS IN FEET ABOVE AD
221
(138)
Maintenance Area 1
Link 27
N4E
Taxiway S
Southern
Fuel Farm
512753.14N 0002928.03W
GUND (Geoid Undulation) =
The height of the Geoid (MSL) above the
Reference Elipsoid (WGS 84) at the stated position.
(43)
Tw
y
L
pie
r
ay
ro
iw
Eu
Ta
x
29
k
Lin
ay
Ta
x
R
iw
ay
A
Link 26
Link 26
Under
Construction
Tw
P y
Link 2
Twy
N4W
S5
S6
S7
(42)
Taxiway S
126
Maintenance
Area 1
U
xiw
L
P
y
Tw
Ta
ILS GP
S11
Link 22
F
L1
ay
09
R
SY6
125
ILL
105
(22)
M1
SATUN
Link 25
3660m x 50m
SB7
(18)
I-LL 109.50D
Snow
Base
AY1
RVP
East
Twy A
ay
Link
32
Link
33
N5E
Link
21
Twy B
r7
x
N5W
yA
G
Ta
xiw
Twy A
N6
AY3
Twy L
r5
ay
Link
34
Twy A
Under
Construction
TITAN
B
Pie
H
ay
xiw
Under
Construction
Pie
Ta
r2
xiw
Pie
ay
r1
Q
A2
Tw
T
MEHT 67
101
RWY 09L/27R
Under
Construction
Terminal
2
Pier 6
Taxiway B
Twy
D
x
092°M
(22)
r3
Pie
Terminal
1
(143)
F1
E1
Taxiway B
N7
xi
r4
Ta
Pie
Under
Construction
Radar
226
PLUTO
wy
yJ
wa
Terminal
3
Link 35
D1
A5
L2
Ta
xiw
Ta
Pie
T5C
Twy
C
Taxi
RVP NB11
West
Taxiway B
xiw
Ta
Taxiway F
362
(279)
Link
36
Taxiway D
Terminal 5B
Taxiway C
VIKAS
C1
OSTER
Link xiw
Taxiway B
Link 53
ay B
53
Link HORKA
51
wa
Taxiway A
Link 52
yA
Disused
N8
N10
PAPI
(3°)
NB8
NB10
Twy Y
105
(17)
Twy
G
Control
Tower
Twy Y
DASSO
N11
100
Fire
Station
Ta
MLS
M-HRL
Ch 514
Taxiway B
Taxiway A
Car Park
Terminal 5A
Link
54
Taxiway Y
HANLI
Under
Construction
F2
AY5
Taxiway A
Pier 4A
E2
Taxiway E
Link
55
Link
13
Twy
L
D2
Taxiway D
C2
DINGO
A6
A7
Link
12
Link
11
Taxiway B
A1
A4
A3
AY4
MEHT 73
A8
A9E
A9W
Taxiway A
AY10
Northern
Fuel Farm
Twy
J
COBRA
A10E
A10W
A11
Taxiway A
Taxiway B
yB
PAPI (3°)
ARP
AB11
A12
RABIT
Twy
D
Link
58
Twy
C
yA
Twy
H
Link 57
Link 56
Link 23
SNAPA
A13
9
AB12
AB13
MLS
M-HER
Ch 522
23
116
300
1000
400
500m
1500ft
I-BB & I-LL
109.50D
(Ch 32X)
IBB/ ILL
512749.56N 0002730.77W
92'
CHANGE: AREAS UNDER CONSTRUCTION ADDED/AMENDED/REMOVED. TWY A EXTENDED (TO THE SOUTH). HOLDS N3/NB3/N2W & TWY N REMOVED. LINK 28/HOLD N2E/NB2E/NEW ACCESS TO RWY 27L/REPORTING POINT L2 ADDED.
128.075, 113.750, 115.100 (Arrival)
121.935 (Departure)
118.700, 118.500, 124.475
HEATHROW INFO
HEATHROW TOWER
121.975 (GM Planning)
HEATHROW DELIVERY
121.900, 121.700, 121.850 (GMC)
HEATHROW GROUND
121.600
HEATHROW FIRE
LIGHTING
THR 09L 09R
THR 27L 27R
HI Green with HI W bars.
HI Green with HI W bars.
RWY 09L
HI bi-d colour coded C/L. TDZ 900m. HI bi-d white edge
(first 300m Red). End lights red.
RWY 27R
HI bi-d colour coded C/L. TDZ 901m.
HI bi-d white edge. End lights red.
RWY 09R
HI bi-d colour coded C/L. TDZ 899m. HI bi-d white edge
(first 300m Red). End lights red.
RWY 27L
HI bi-d colour coded C/L. TDZ 901m.
HI bi-d white edge. End lights red.
TWY
Green C/L and Red stop bars with selective switching on all taxiway routes.
AERO INFO DATE 17 AUG 09
Civil Aviation Authority
AMDT 11/09
Figure 2: London Heathrow Airport Layout[5]
In November 2009 London Heathrow accommodated 4 daily Heathrow operations (2 flights
to Singapore, one to Dubai and one to Sydney), this figure will rise substantially as Airbus
delivers more aircraft across the world given that Heathrow is a major international hub.
Heathrow is also likely be the base of operations for the 18 A380s to be operated by British
Airways and Virgin Atlantic. In addition to the volume volume of future A380 operations
Heathrow is a useful baseline airport given the wealth of data available about operations
at the airport as well as the simple operational modes of its runways. Heathrow always
operates one runway for arrivals and one runway for departures (to minimize the noise
impact on communities under the approach path [6]). Heathrow also operates close to its
runway capacity for most of the day due to slot controls at the airport. These factors
4 of 15
Airport Systems: Term Project
Alexander Donaldson
together mean that a simple runway capacity model described in Section 2.1 should yield
an accurate estimate of arrival capacity at Heathrow.
1.3.2
New York JFK
An American airport was included in the study in order to examine the effects of the more
stringent separation requirements impose by the FAA as well as the effect of the lower
aircraft size seen on average in the U.S. New York JFK (JFK) is likely to be one of the top
U.S airports in terms of A380 operations1 . JFK is also an interesting contrast to London
Heathrow because its runways are frequently operated in a mixed-mode configuration, with
arrivals and departures sharing the same runway.
392 X 2 6
ELEV
13
ZA
31R
FB
C
YA
840 X 20
H
D
JOHN F. KEN EDY INTL
F
C
Y
WA
W
CA
V
VA
A
B
B
NEW YORK /
V
CB
U
G
B
H
UA
13L
U
A
U
V
HOLDING INSTRUCTIONS IS REQUIRED.
READBACK OF AL RUNWAY
RUNWAY CROS ING CLEARANCES.
CB
CAUTION: BE ALERT TO
Z
73^48’W
10 0 X 150
134.1^
C
NEW YORK /
S10 , D185, ST175, DT5 0, DDT823
2 4.1^
EA
DA
W
A
CB
CD
A
B
RWYS 4R-2 L, 4L-2 R, 13R-31L, 13L-31R
ZA
D
E
CE
JOHN F. KEN EDY INTL
B
B
C
F
W
C
Y
H
ELEV
13
FA
YA
C
73^45’W
CH
E
Rwys 4R-2 L and 13L-31R
FB
Rwys 4L-2 R and 13R-31L
E
314.1^
NEW YORK, NEW YORK
2 4.1^
ELEV
12
KENNEDY TOWER
ATIS ARR 128.725
2R
NEW YORK, NEW YORK
(JFK)
EMAS
40^39’N
STATION
AUX FIRE
40^40’N
CLNC DEL
GND CON
121.9 348.6
123.9 281.5
135.05 348.6
DEP 1 5.1
1 9.1 281.5
NE 1 7.7
E
SW 1 5.4
2L
(JFK)
D
NE-2, 17 DEC 2009 to 14 JAN 2010
E
FB
G
TB
Y
J
1 351 X 150
CONTROL
04 .1^
Z
31L
U.S CUSTOMS
A
ARRIVAL
TERMINAL
KA
K
N
LA
CAT 2
NA
K
M
MA
FIRE
STATION
N
405 X 2 7
EMAS
73^49’W
P
QB
KB
K
04 .1^
PA
QC
H
14572 X 150
P
40^37’N
QD
PB
Q
13
73^46’W
L
B
L
KC
B
MB
Q
B
K
NB
NC
SB
A
A
A
A
4R
FIELD
ELEV
R
R
SA
314.1^
HOLD
S
INTERNATIONAL
KD
H
B
A
J
Z
S
SC
ELEV 12
B
R
A
A
P
PC
QF
K1
4L
JANUARY 20 5
AIRPORT DIAGRAM
09351
73^47’W
40^38’N
12
ELEV
GENERAL
AVIATION
TERMINAL
VAR 13.3 ^W
AIRPORT DIAGRAM
134.0^
09351
ELEV 12
13R
Q
ANNUAL RATE OF CHANGE
H
PE
0.0^E
PD
QH
QG
Q
P
with Mode C on al twys and rwys.
38
TOWER
B
T
SD
H
Pilots should operate transponders
B
197
S
SE
Z
AL-610 (FA )
ASDE-X Surveil ance System in use.
H
A
ELEV
13
TA
T
Y
Z
A
NE-2, 17 DEC 2009 to 14 JAN 2010
Figure 3: New York JFK Airport Layout[7]
1.3.3
Dubai International
Dubai International Airport (DXB) was chosen as the third airport in this study due to
the potentially unmatched future level of A380 operations asa result of Emirates Airlines
1
Los Angeles International (LAX) my handle more A380s however it was not used in this study due to
the complications imposed on A380 operations by its closely spaced parallel runways and the uncertainty
surrounding the resolution of these issues.
5 of 15
Airport Systems: Term Project
Alexander Donaldson
(based at DXB) large order for 58 of the type (Figure 1). The airport also adds a third
distinct separation standard by applying the ICAO recommendations without modification.
Like JFK, Dubai International has a pair of parallel runways assumed to be operating
independently with mixed arrivals and departures for the purposes of this study.
CHANGES: Twyr.
I
8 JEPPESEN SANDER%M,
INC., 1007. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.
I
Figure 4: Dubai International Airport Layout
2
Methodology
This study compares the passenger throughput and arrival capacity of the three study
airports for the three cases of moving heavy operations to a 525 seat A380, a 450 seat A380
and a 418 seat 747-400. The A380 cases include the appropriate higher wake separation
criteria required by that type of aircraft, while the 747-400 case reflects a simple “upgauging” of the heavy category aircraft with no additional separation required.
The second part of the study looks only at LHR and compares the effect of applying the
four different described in Table 1 to the LHR operations to examine the behavior of these
criteria for a common set of operations.
2.1
Runway Capacity Model
Simple queueing theory will be used to model runway capacity of the airports being studied,
using the model described in de Neufville and Odoni [8]. The time separation (in seconds)
6 of 15
Airport Systems: Term Project
Alexander Donaldson
between a lead aircraft in weight category i and a following aircraft in category j can be
found from Equation 1.
r + sij
r
−
, od2 + max(oi , od1 ) for vi > vj
Tij = max 3600
vj
vi
(1)
sij
Tij = max 3600
, od2 + max(oi , od1 ) for vi ≤ vj
vj
The time required per arriving passenger (in seconds) can then be calculated for different
sequences of arriving aircraft as shown in Equation 2.
Tpax,ij =
Tij
ci
(2)
Given Tij and Tpax,ij it is possible to calculate the airport arrival capacity using the matrix
of likelihoods of any given pair of arrivals (pij ).
2.2
Cops =
3600(nr )
PK PK
j=1 (pij · Tij )
i=1
(3)
Cpax =
3600(nr )
PK PK
i=1
j=1 (pij · Tpax,ij )
(4)
Model Inputs
The required inputs for the runway capacity model were collected from a wide variety of
data sources with reasonable assumptions being made where data was unavailable. The
model inputs are summarized in Table 2 and where appropriate are further explained in
this section.
2.2.1
Final Approach Path Length
The final approach path length (r) is the distance over which air traffic control can no
longer separate aircraft based on speed since the aircraft are preparing to land. At London
Heathrow this distance is a minimum of 4 n.m.[9] and at JFK it is 5n.m[10]. The approach
path length for Dubai International could not be found and was therefore assumed to be
the same as used at JFK so as not to introduce an unnecessary additional variable.
7 of 15
Airport Systems: Term Project
Alexander Donaldson
Table 2: Summary of Inputs to the runway capacity model
Approach
Length (r)
Buffer time (bi )
Number of
Runways(nr )
Separation (sij )
LHR
JFK
DBX
4 n.m. UK CAA[9]
5 n.m. FAA[10]
5 n.m. Assumed
10 seconds (Assumed) [8]
1 segregated
UK CAA (Table
1c)
Approach
Velocity (vi )
Aircraft Mix
(pij )
Arrival
Occupancy Time
(oa )
Departure set-up
time for (od1 )
Departures roll
time (od2 )
Passenger
Capacity (ci )
2.2.2
2 mixed independent
US FAA (Table 1d)
ICAO (Table 1b)
Based only on Boeing aircraft in schedule
2008 Flight
Timetable (4 week
sample)
2008 ETMS
Database (4 week
sample)
2004 Annual
Operations
Based on data from LHR Study
Not Needed
45 s (Assumed) [8]
Not Needed
60 s (Assumed) [8]
Aircraft manufacturer data for typical multi-class configuration
Approach Velocity
Aircraft approach velocities vary significantly depending on the weight of the individual
arriving aircraft, because of this it is a difficult process to estimate actual approach velocities. Boeing provides a document [11] with reference approach speeds which was used
to estimate speeds for this study. The Boeing speeds were applied to all Boeing aircraft
(by sub-type e.g. 737-800) in the operational data sets and then averaged over the weight
categories in use at each of the study airports. Aircraft that were not manufactured by
Boeing or McDonald Douglas were not included in the approach speed calculation. This
method provides a reasonable estimate for the approach speeds given the large number of
Boeing aircraft represented at the study airports and the wide range of weights of these
aircraft.
8 of 15
Airport Systems: Term Project
2.2.3
Alexander Donaldson
Aircraft Mix
The probability (pi )of any given arrival being from a certain weight category is assumed
to be equal to the proportion of all arrivals that are from that weight category. For
LHR and JFK the proportion of aircraft from each weight category was estimated through
examination of 4 weeks of arrivals information from 2008. The first week in February,
May, August and November were chosen to provide a mix of different travel seasons while
avoiding the holiday period. For DXB only aggregate data from 2004 was available. Given
the already high proportion of heavy jets in this data no additional scaling was performed
to adjust the mix of aircraft to 2008 levels. Once the probability vectors were compiled the
probability of observing a pair of arrivals i followed by j is simply obtained by multiplying
together the two probabilities pi and pj .
H
B757
H
B757
M
L
H
M
S
H
H
UM
LM
S
L
M
LM
M
S
S
L
L
UM
H
The measured values of pi are shown in Figure 5. It is important to note the proportion of
heavy aircraft at each airport, with DXB having significantly more heavy arrivals than JFK
and LHR. A380 operations were simulated by moving a percentage of the heavy operations
at each airport to A380 operations. The model was run for up to half of the heavy operation
at each airport being converted to A380s.
(a) At LHR
(b) At JFK
(c) At DXB
Figure 5: Distribution of aircraft weight categories at each study airport
2.2.4
Arrival Runway Occupancy Time
A study conducted in 2005 at LHR [12] measured the runway occupancy times for 170
arrivals at London Heathrow for a wide range of different aircraft types and was conducted
during good visibility for a dry runway. The results of this study were averaged across
the weight categories appropriate for LHR, JFK and DXB. Given that runway occupancy
9 of 15
Airport Systems: Term Project
Alexander Donaldson
time measurements for JFK and DXB were not readily available this data provides realistic estimate of those times and was therefore used across all the airports in this study.
The actual runway occupancy time may vary based on actual taxiway geometry and how
expeditiously pilots vacate the runway.
2.2.5
Departure Runway Occupancy Time
Data could not be found for the runway occupancy time of departing aircraft, therefore
the estimates given in de Neufville and Odoni [8] were used. These
3
3.1
Results
Impact at Different Airports
The runway capacity model was run using the inputs described in Section 2.2, for both
low (450 seats) and typical (525 seats) aircraft passenger capacities as well as a baseline
747-400 with 418 seats. The results of this analysis are compared in Figure 6 and in detail
for each airport in Figure 7. The results show that runway passenger throughput does
increase in all cases however in the lower capacity A380 case the gains are marginal. Any
gains in passenger capacity come at a cost in terms of operations per hour.
The comparison with the 747-400 shows that in all cases a move to 747-400s (which have
no addition separation requirements) would increase the passenger throughput more than
any of the A380 configurations modeled. This implies that if passenger throughput were
the only motivation for customers of the A380 then a high capacity Heavy aircraft would
better suit their needs. Fortunately for Airbus the A380 has other economic, environmental
and passenger comfort benefits over other Heavy aircraft.currently on the market
10 of 15
Airport Systems: Term Project
Alexander Donaldson
Airport Airravl Passenger Capacity (per hour)
9000
LHR-High
JFK-High
DXB-High
LHR-Low
JFK-Low
DXB-Low
LHR-747
JFK-747
DXB-747
8500
8000
7500
7000
6500
6000
5500
50000
2
4
6
8
10
Hourly Arrivals (All runways)
12
14
Figure 6: Comparison of the effect of the A380 on operations at LHR, JFK and DXB for
450 seat and 525 seat variants of the A380 and a 416 seat 747-400
11 of 15
61
60
59
58
57
1
2 3 4 5 6 7 8
Hourly A380 Arrivals (All runways)
956
6800
35.0
6750
34.5
6700
34.0
33.5
6650
66000
(a) At LHR
33.0
1
4
5
2
3
Hourly A380 Arrivals (All runways)
632.5
(b) At JFK
5300
57
5250
56
55
Arrivals per Hour
Arrival Passenger Capacity (per hour)
35.5
Arrivals per Hour
62
Arrival Passenger Capacity (per hour)
8780
8760
8740
8720
8700
8680
8660
8640
86200
Alexander Donaldson
Arrivals per Hour
Arrival Passenger Capacity (per hour)
Airport Systems: Term Project
5200
54
5150
53
5100
50500
52
2
4 6 8 10 12 14 16 1851
Hourly A380 Arrivals (All runways)
(c) At DXB
Figure 7: Impact of A380 Operations on Arrival Capacity in terms of operations (black)
and passengers (colored - light: 450 seat A380, dark: 525 seat A380)
12 of 15
Airport Systems: Term Project
3.2
Alexander Donaldson
Effect of Different Separation Criteria
The comparison of the effect of different separation criteria Figure 8 shows considerable
variability in the effect of the different criteria on a common set of operational data. It
is particularly clear why the ICAO interim guidance was revised just before the A380
entered service - the interim guidance would have caused a substantial loss in passenger
throughput (difference between red and gray line in Figure 8). Also of note is the fact
that the conservative FAA guidance leads to a reduction in throughput for the low density
A380 configuration when applied to Heathrow. These results highlight the importance for
regulatory agencies for finding the right balance between ensuring safety and improving
the efficiency of the air transportation system.
Airport Airravl Passenger Capacity (per hour)
8200
8000
7800
7600
7400
UK-High
US-High
ICAO Ini-High
ICAO Final-High
UK-Low
US-Low
ICAO Ini-Low
ICAO Final-Low
7200
7000
6800
66000
2
4
6
Hourly A380 Arrivals (All runways)
8
10
Figure 8: Comparison of the effect on operations at LHR of different separation criteria
(UK CAA, US FAA, ICAO initial and ICAO final guidance)
13 of 15
Airport Systems: Term Project
4
Alexander Donaldson
Conclusions
This study has shown that the A380 does not have a detrimental impact on passenger
throughput as some members of the aviation industry had fear it would. The increasing
numbers of A380 operations at hub airports around the world will however have a significant impact on the breakdown of their traffic by weight category. Major international hubs
will operate most efficiently if the traffic mix is heavily weighted towards Heavy and A380
category aircraft. For airports (such as JFK) that expect to continue operating a substantial number of lighter aircraft as well as several A380 operations careful management of
the A380 operation will be required to ensure that the new aircraft has a positive impact
on their airport.
14 of 15
Airport Systems: Term Project
Alexander Donaldson
References
[1] Airbus. Orders and deliveries spreadsheet. http://www.airbus.com/fileadmin/
backstage/documents/od/November1_2009.xls, November 2009.
[2] Max Kingsley-Jones. Dubai 09: Airbus set to decide on A380 production revamp. http://www.flightglobal.com/articles/2009/11/17/335080/dubai-09airbus-set-to-decide-on-a380-production-revamp.html, November 2009.
[3] Max Kingsley-Jones.
Airbus slows A380 final assembly ramp-up.
http:
//www.flightglobal.com/articles/2009/05/14/326416/airbus-slows-a380final-assembly-ramp-up.html, May 2009.
[4] David Kaminski-Morrow. http://www.flightglobal.com/articles/2009/01/26/
321601/uk-rethinks-a380-wake-separation-from-heavy-jets.html,
January
2009.
[5] Civil Aviation Authority. London heathrow aerodrome chart. http://www.natsuk.ead-it.com/aip/current/ad/EGLL/EG_AD_2_EGLL_2-1_en.pdf, August 2009.
[6] BAA. BAA heathrow website: Mixed mode. http://www.heathrowairport.
com/portal/page/Heathrow%5EGeneral%5EOur+business+and+community%
5EFuture+growth%5EMixed+mode/1c8851dcd7423110VgnVCM10000036821c0a___
_/448c6a4c7f1b0010VgnVCM200000357e120a____/.
[7] FAA. New York JFK airport diagram. http://www.naco.faa.gov/d-tpp/0913/
00610AD.PDF, December 2009.
[8] R. De Neufville and A.R. Odoni. Airport systems: Planning, design, and management.
McGraw-Hill Professional, 2002.
[9] Safety Regulation Group. CAP 493 Manual of Air Traffic Services Part 1. Civil
Aviation Authority, November 2009.
[10] Federal Aviation Administration. Order JO 7110.65S Air Traffic Control, change 1
edition, February 2008.
[11] Boeing. Airport reference code and approach speeds for boeing airplanes. http:
//www.boeing.com/commercial/airports/faqs/arcandapproachspeeds.pdf, August 2007.
[12] British Airways and BAA Heathrow. Results from two surveys of the use of reverse
thrust of aircraft landing at heathrow airport. http://www.dft.gov.uk/adobepdf/
165217/282786/6_ENV1128.pdf, November 2005.
15 of 15