# Presentation: 869336

## Improving the Passenger Experience; Concepts to Incorporate Technology into Landside Airport Operations and Aircraft

- Susan E. Cliff 		Ames Research Center
- John E. Melton		Ames Research Center
- Scott D. Thomas		Raytheon
- Mary E. Livingston		Ames Research Center

- January 26, 2006

- Revolutionary Systems Concepts in Aeronautics

## Agenda

- Introduction
- Status/trends of the air transportation industry
- Airport diversity issues
- Concepts
- Logistics
- Pros and Cons
- Interviews
- Turn-around-time assessment of concepts
- Impact of reduced turn-around-time on delays
- Recommendations

## Introduction

- Flying was fun at the start of the jet age...
- Economic performance is the design goal due to deregulation and privatization
- 1.7 billion PAX in 2000, $1 trillion in revenues (half in U.S.)
- Traffic will double within the next 20 years
- Airports take 10+ years to plan and need renovation after 20
- < 20% further capacity gains predicted via airside technology
- U.S. must continue to lead and maintain growth in this industry
- Little new technology in 30 years on landside – little NASA involvement
- Investment in IT and telecommunications on the rise
- NASA can help

**Notes:**
Flying was a valued part of ones vacation, a pleasant and exciting experience.
Clearly this is no longer the case.
Since 1978 when the airlines became de-regulated by the government and they could specify their own routes for profitability rather than passenger convience, the goal is now economic performance and efficiency are the design goals.
The air transportation industry has grown rapidly.  In involved 1.7 billion PAX in 2000, with about the same number today, and annual revenues total over 1 trillion dollars.  Half of the air travel is in the United States.
Even with a conservative growth rate of 3.5% results in a doubling of traffic in 20 years.
Airports now conservatively take 10 years to plan.  They involve the public and environmental issues such as the writing and approval of the enviromental impact statement are the long pole in the tent.
It is now expected that only 20 percent increase in capacity can be obtain via Air traffic management
Very little technology has been incorporated into landside.  There has been also very little NASA involvement
Investment in IT and is on the rise, airports are investing twice what the airlines are.  71 percent of airports are planning on increasing monies in IT.  Airport are investing 4.6% in revenue.  2.5 billion this year as opposed to 2.0 billion last year.   They are seeing the value of IT with automated check-in kiosks.
It appears a good and necessary time for NASA to become involved.

## Current Trends/Status of the Air Transport Industry

- Several legacy carriers have filled bankruptcy and many have disappeared
- New “low cost” carriers (LCCs) emerging and proving successful
- Point-to-point routes ensure high load factors
- Utilizing the secondary airports (lower landing and service fees)
- Lower levels of service to passengers at a decreased ticket price
- Intense competition forcing reduced levels of service across all airlines
- C&D forces economic efficiency with less/no government involvement
- Largest airports in the world are now transfer hubs (consequence of C&D)
- Inconvenience to PAX - lengthens total trip time, increases delays and risk of lost baggage
- Airlines benefit from more frequent flights, a ready supply of backup flights, and higher load factors

**Seat-cost /mile**

## Airports appear simple but no two airports are alike!“If you’ve seen one airport, you’ve seen one airport”

- Diversity (*Covered in written report*)
- Cost structure (user charges / residual or compensatory)
- Owner / Management structure
- Planning
- Architecture
- Controlling power
- Finance
- 9/11 limits access
- Fundamental problems
- Limited information
- 2 textbooks (one current)
- A handful of research articles, and the Internet
- Much is proprietary
- Who do we talk to? Who will talk to us?

- Passenger experience
- Safety and security
- Airline and airport ground operations
- Worker efficiency
- Aircraft efficiency
- Cost effectiveness
- Turn around time
- Total trip time
- Environmental friendliness

- Metrics for Innovative Landside and Aircraft Concepts

## List of Concepts

- Hardened cargo bins for narrow bodies (pressure and sniff tested)
- Modular aircraft with removable wings, toilets, and water holding tanks
- Oblique wing aircraft with LRU toilets and water holding tanks
- Passengers carry luggage – under seat/floor hardened bins
- Autonomous baggage carts
- Airlines offer door to door baggage delivery
- Personalized service stations
- Travel information pads (TIP)
- Two abreast seating
- Over-the-wing nacelles
-  Personalized rapid transit (PRT)

## 1.  Utilize hardened cargo bins

-  Utilize hardened cargo bins on all aircraft
-  Bins capable of withstanding an explosion below the detection threshold
-  Pressure and sniff test all bins for explosive devices prior to loading
-  Utilize demonstrated technologies for explosive proof Hardened Unit Loading Devices (HULD) L3-Titan or others

## 1.  Utilize hardened cargo bins

- Improved security
- Bin loading in place on large AC, so loading mechanism does not need development
- Passenger experience enhanced by additional safety precaution
- HULD technologies developed by L3-Titan & others
- Eases handling and maximizes storage on narrow bodied AC
- Near optimal bin loading is achievable – bins stacked based on destination

- Cons
- Bins may not be feasible on small AC, no room to enlarge cargo door
- Composite material maybe heavier than existing cargo bins
- Cargo door enlargement expenses for AC not using bins

## Passenger Terminal Dichotomy

| Configuration | Passenger |  | Airline | Owner | Retail |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
|  | Local | Transfer |  |  |  |
| Finger Pier | Fair | Poor | Fair | Fair | Good |
| Linear, one side aircraft | Fairly good | Poor | Good | Fair | Poor |
| Transporter | Fair | Poor | Good | Poor | Good |
| Midfield Linear | Fair | Good | Good | Fair | Good |
| Midfield X-shaped | Fair | Fair | Fair | Good | Good |

-  All terminal buildings must bridge the scale from human to airplane
-  Need to both concentrate and spread out facilities
-  Virtually every terminal has been rebuilt due to increased wing spans
-  Solutions are biased toward retail rather than the passenger

## 2.  Aircraft with removable wings and LRUs

-  Airplane transitions into bus
-  Rapid wing change out is accomplished in drive-through hangars
-  Utilizes rapid disconnect/reconnect fail-proof mechanical, electrical, and fuel couplings between the wing and fuselage
-  Drive-through hangars located near runway
-  Water valves are automatically closed at ramp arrival
-  Toilets and waste material replaced as a unit (eliminates toilet service)
-  Potable water tanks replaced (eliminates water filling)
-  New entry doors near the wing-body junction

## 2.  Aircraft with removable wings and LRUs

**Reduces apron and taxiway size or ****permits 2 vehicles and 2-way traffic**
**Improves access**** to terminal, less pollution and noise during taxi**
**Improves ****ground vehicle maneuverability**** and eliminates need for wing walker**
**Pre-fueled wing**** reduces fueling time and could be filled to mission requirements**
**Only requires ****one fuel vehicle**** on apron**
**Eliminates de-icing**** of wing – less use of ADF fluids over entire airport**
**Interchangeable wings ****designed to mission**** and rented**
**Modularity reduces ****out-of-service time**
**Reduces terminal size**** and walking requirements**
**Reduces ****TAT ****for potable ****water refilling and toilet servicing / cleaning**

- Cons
**Weight penalty**** for connection hardware**
**Safety issue**** for attaching pre-fueled wings**
**Storage and ****autonomous attachment**** hardware would require development**
**Connection must be ****as strong**** as integral wing-body aircraft and ****fail proof**
**Still need fuel service**** for some aircraft**
**Fuselage mounted engines would produce more ****cabin noise**
**Passenger may be ****kept on the ground longer ****depending on the wing removal and attachment time**

## 3. Oblique wing aircraft with LRUs

- Aircraft that rotates its entire wing during flight or on the ground
- Airplanes can essentially have the functionality of a bus during taxi
- Wing positioned for efficient flight over entire mission
- No sonic boom for flights up to Mach 1.2
- LRUs as discussed in 2
- Multiple door egress and rapid cargo loading feasible

## 3. Oblique wing aircraft with LRUs

## 3. Oblique wing aircraft with LRUs

## 3. Oblique wing aircraft with LRUs

**Most efficient configuration for low supersonic flight:**** lighter, quieter, and more fuel efficient than symmetrical configurations with same mission**
**Reduces terminal size and walking requirements**** for passengers**
**No sonic boom**** for Mach 1.2 flight and allows for efficient and low boom flight to Mach 1.4**
**Reduces apron and taxiway size or ****permits 2 vehicles and 2-way traffic**** on conventional taxi lanes**
**Provides ****reduced landing speeds ****and**** runway length, additional taxiways**
**SIGNIFICANTLY REDUCES TRAVEL TIME**
**Improves ****ground vehicle maneuverability**
**Reduces time for ****de-icing**** of aircraft**
**Possible ****multiple door egress**** for reduced boarding time and possibly TAT**

- Cons
**Increased ****weight**** for pivot mechanism, wing box and fuselage structural reinforcements**
**Fuselage mounted nacelles will produce more ****cabin noise**
**Stability and control system more complex**** for asymmetric configuration and dynamic wing**

## 4.  Passengers carry their own luggage 

- No checked baggage service
- Utilize small portion of cargo area for additional luggage:
-  Explosive-hardened compartment below seat/floor
-  Floor lowered for additional luggage room
- PRT system facilitates this concept since PAX only have to walk short distances

## 4.  Passengers carry their own luggage

- Pros
- Eliminates risk of lost luggage
- Reduces baggage handling costs
- Eliminates waiting for luggage at destination airport
- Reduces total trip time
- Passengers may pack less if they know they have to transport own luggage
- Strong boxes can offer another layer of security if able to withstand explosives

- Cons
- Passengers have to haul their own luggage
- Retrofitting costs for luggage room under moveable seats and suitable seat movement mechanism for public use
- Boarding and de-plane times may be increased
- May decrease space availability for pay cargo services

## 5.  Autonomous baggage carts

-  Autonomous, self-propelled luggage carrying vehicles
-  Uses GPS, inertia sensing, navigation, collision avoidance systems technologies
-  Linked to passenger through RFID system
-  Finds its way onto airplane and to passenger
-  Near optimal loading is feasible
-  Orientation and tamper sensing devices used
-  Passenger and baggage would separate early (security/parking garage)

## 5.  Autonomous baggage carts

- Pros
- Provides link between passenger and luggage
- Allows for “smart” baggage placement on airplane with multiple destinations
- Frees the passenger from tracking down luggage by reversing the process – the luggage finds its owner
- Information of the luggage location available at all times when tied with TIP
- Offers savings in total trip time
- Reduces baggage handling costs of loading bags in cargo hold

- Cons
- Requires multiple systems to work together and would require testing
- May be costly although all technologies are in hand to accomplish all functionalities
- Start up costs for such a system may be large
- Development of separate luggage lanes may be necessary

## 6.  Door to door baggage service

- Airlines provide door-to-door baggage delivery
- Cost infrastructure with airline (single transaction)
- Baggage picked up 0-7 days ahead of trip (reduced fares for longer lead times)
- Airlines contract with large parcel carriers
- Utilize “Just in Time” delivery system
- Passengers with bags given 2-day service, unless premium paid
- Transportation via all modes of travel (air, rail, or ground)

## 6.  Door to door baggage service

- Pros
- Security enhanced by baggage decoupling
- Airport/airlines do not have (time, labor, and passenger building size) expenses associated with baggage handling
- Passenger not required to haul baggage around expansive airports
- Passenger able to track bags
- Relieves passenger of transporting bags to and from airport
- Parcel service may be more efficient than airlines at single task
- Allows for more cargo to be carried

- Cons
- May require baggage carrying flights to same destinations
- Delivery costs maybe higher than the cost reduction of eliminating baggage operations.  Costs difference would be incurred by traveler with security tax
- Requires passenger to pack farther in advance of departure

## 7.  Personalized service stations

- Located in terminal with sufficient numbers to easy access
- Privacy bubble and seat
- Includes an identity authentication mechanism
- Information shared wirelessly using RFIDs
- Functions include:
-  Directions
-  Airline service
-  Weather information
-  Telephone
-  Internet services
-  Flight statistics
-  Delay statistics
-  Baggage location

## 7.  Personalized service stations

- Pros
- Provides personalized service
- Provides a mechanism to keep the passengers informed.
- Ties passenger to their bags via RFIDs

- Cons
- Many kiosks would be required to provide adequate access to all passengers
- Space requirement may negatively impact available space in terminal

## 8.  Travel Information Pad (TIP)

- Wireless electronic tablet (PDA)
- Mobile alternative to the personalized kiosk (7)
- Essentially identical functionality of personalized kiosk with the addition of:
-  Voice navigation
-  Biometric scanner to streamline security
-  Additional services and advertising opportunities

## 8.  Travel Information Pad (TIP)

- Cons
- TIP would have to be durable and easy to operate
- Cost of wireless network infrastructure

- Pros
- Provides personalized service
- Provides a mechanism to keep the passengers informed.
- Ties passenger to their bags via RFIDs

## 9.  Two abreast seating

- Pros
- Improves boarding and de-plane rates
- Rapid exit improves passenger safety
- Everyone has access to an isle for bathroom breaks, etc.
- Eliminates the undesirable middle seat
- More spacious seating and less intrusive to neighbors
- Satisfies majority of travelers, most travel in pairs or alone
- 2-abreast seating can be used as selling point for airlines

- Cons
- Families with odd number will require one person to sit alone
- Reduces seating capacity, implying new mix of passengers to remain profitable
- Retrofitting aircraft with less than 5 across seating may be difficult
- Wider-bodied aircraft will significantly reduce performance characteristics
- Lose the ability to lie down on low-load factor flights

- B747-400 adding 2 isles and maintaining 10 seats adds 38 inches to diameter and results in a 16,000 lbs increase in fuselage weight

## 10.  Over-the-wing nacelles

- Pros
- Reduces airport community noise via wing shielding engine
- Greater ground clearance improves safety – reduces nacelle strikes, blown tire and gear out landings safer and less costly to repair
- Reduced likelihood of FOD
- Quicker service vehicle placement
- Provides more flexible placement of landing gear for new designs
- Powered lift USB may improve aerodynamic performance during landing
- Reduced gear size and weight for modern aircraft with large engines

- Cons
- Installation drag penalty + additional trim drag from high mounted engine
- Engine may be more difficult to access for repair and maintenance
- Horizontal tail may be less effective from the turbulent flow from the nacelles and may need to be moved
- Emergency doors may need to be moved to a new location

## 11.  Personal Rapid Transit APM

- Type of Automated People Mover (APM)
- Driverless
- Electrically powered
- Small vehicles that hold up to 4 passengers
- Short headways with many vehicles (2-10 seconds)
- Takes passenger from origin to destination without stopping

## 11.  Personal Rapid Transit APM

- Pros
- Origin to destination, no waiting, no stops or transfers
- Small guide ways (7 ft width), easily installed and inexpensive to build
- Facilitates remote concourses reducing aircraft taxi and operating costs
- Light weight vehicles for 4 passengers and luggage - 1,800 lbs gross wt.
- Environmentally friendly -no emissions
- Capacities can be greater than APMs using existing infrastructure
- Travel time is less than APM
- Lower max speed provides safety
- Eliminates crowding (security vulnerability)
- Capital, operating and maintenance costs  less than light rail or APMs

- Cons
- Capital cost greater than a bus
- Require 6-12 months of testing
- Not widely used (yet)
- Not easy to fully understand
- Would require monitoring by CCTV

## BAA choose the ULTra PRT system for Heathrow

- ULTra installed three-span guideway plus columns in 4 hours
- BAA has invested ₤7.5M in acquiring 25% of ATS Ltd.
- (Dec. 2005) ATS demonstrated the first three milestones:
- Automatic vehicle battery charging in station
- Berth-to-berth transit from airport car park to terminal
- Robust fault tolerant guidance: autonomously maintain course in the absence of a signal from one of its guidance sensors

- Tunnel bores at Heathrow

- 4 PRT

- 1 APM

## Merit Estimates for Concepts

|   | C1 | C2 | C3 | C4 | C5 | C6 | C7 | C8 | C9 | C10 | C11 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
| Safety / Security |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |
| Passenger Experience |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |
| Airline and Airport Ground Ops |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |
| Worker Efficiency |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |
| Aircraft Efficiency |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |
| Turn Around Time |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |
| Total Trip Time |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |
| Cost Effectiveness |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |
| Environmental Friendliness |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |
|   |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |
| 1.  Utilize hardened cargo bins and pressure and sniff test  for explosives |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |
| 2.  Modular aircraft with removable wings, toilets, and water holding tanks |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |
| 3.  Oblique wing aircraft |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |
| 4.  Passengers carry their own baggage |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |
| 5.  Autonomous baggage carts |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |
| 6.  Airlines offer door to door baggage delivery |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |
| 7.  Personalized service stations |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |
| 8.  Travel Information Pad (TIP) |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |
| 9.  Two-abreast seating |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |
| 10. Over-the-wing nacelles |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |
| 11. Personalized rapid transit (PRT) |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |

## Computer Simulations are Needed

| Concept | Simulation to be Modeled | Value of |
| --- | --- | --- |
| Bins | Bin vs. individual baggage loading | Time and personnel s |
| Oblique wing | A/C pulling into terminal with multiple door egress and direct cargo loading | Terminal size/cost s |
|   |  | Loading time s |
| Door–to–door bags | Terminal changes for no baggage system | Terminal size/cost s |
|   |   | Passenger time |
|   |  | Personnel s |
| OTW | A/C servicing / vehicle placement | Time savings |
|   |  | Personnel s |
| ABCs | Terminal changes with new baggage system | Terminal size/cost s |
|   |   | Passenger time |
|  |   | Passenger hauling s |

## Interviews

- PRT consultant: Peter Muller
- Cultural anthropologist: Roxana Wales
- Airport planning expert: Gene Lewis
- Airport simulation modeling: Regine Weston
- Airport architect: Joseph Romano
- HULD engineer: Philemon Chan

## Peter Muller (PRT Consulting)

- _[Visualization](file:///PRT_Visualization.ppt)_

_*Transcription Appendix F of Report*_

- Animation shows how ***many*** ***small*** vehicles (T-pods) can carry as many or more people than a conventional APM with a ***few large*** vehicles
- Equal numbers of passengers come from the left and right at the same rate
- Simulates 21 people being transported over a 90 second time period
- 11 T-pods with an average occupancy of two per trip is compared  to a single conventional APM
- Headway is 4.4 seconds and station rate is 840 passengers per hour

## Roxana Wales (Cultural Anthropologist, NASA)

- 2.5 years “inside” UAL (Pre 9/11)
- Airlines need to know “It’s people not planes”
- Software needs to be rewritten
- If travel plans fail – NI’s are the big bottleneck
- NI = Negotiated Interaction between traveler and airline
- Provided proposal to UAL for wireless communications similar to (TIP concept)

_*Proposal in Appendix B in report*_

## Gene Lewis (Leigh Fisher Associates)

_*Transcription Appendix C of Report*_

- Semi-retired airport planner with 40 years experience ($20 billion)
- Recognized expert in the field with great knowledge and experience
- Designed world’s first “landside/airside” people-mover terminal concept for Tampa International Airport
- Gene discussed:
- airport planning and design process and how decisions about airports are actually made
- environmental issues lengthening airport project planning time
- How he envisions 2X passengers will be accommodated in the next 20 years
- Type of markets that would be most profitable
- Roles for NASA in developing technological solutions for airport terminals

## Regine Weston (Arup / Weston-Wong)

- Recognized expert in computer modeling simulations (primarily landside)
- 20 year experience (Jet Blue terminal modeling at JFK recently)
- Very interesting, impressive, and informative discussion
- Why use computer simulations
- What simulations are available
- How to decide which model to use
- Data requirements vs model fidelity
- Simulation modeling with intelligent agents
- Discussed how to assess our concepts

_*Transcription Appendix E of Report*_

## Terminal Simulation

- Click to launch Movie

## Turn-around-time

*“**Recognize first that the direct operating cost of a large commercial jet is of the order of about $100 per minute*.  Consider next an airport with 100,000 operations per year, which might serve approximately 10 million passengers a year. **   A configuration that saved just 1 min per operation at this airport would save the airlines around $10 million a year in direct costs alone – the equivalent of about $100 million in extra capital cost **.”  (Ref 1).*

- *  The U.S. FAA and ICAO regularly publish estimates of direct operating costs of aircraft including fuel, pilots, and crew, insurance, depreciation, and maintenance.  However, they neither attempt to measure the multiplier effect that delays have on lower productivity of the aircraft or facilities in the airport passenger buildings, nor do they account for any value of time for the passengers.  These estimates are thus conservative estimates of the cost of delays to the airlines and their passengers.  Recent figures estimate the per-minute costs of the Boeing 747, Boeing 777, and Airbus 340 at $110, $140, and $70, respectively (FAA no date: ICAO, 2001).

- **  The translation between capital costs and annual costs in an imprecise art that depends on local circumstances.  In the United States, the capital for airport passenger buildings normally comes from municipal bonds exempt of interest to the owner.  It thus costs the airport on the order of 5 percent per year, which is about 2-3 percent a year in real terms.  Factoring incremental depreciation and maintenance over the cost of the older building, the total additional annual cost of a replacement building is of the order of 10 percent of its capital cost.  Private companies typically have a higher cost of capital, but may still be able to raise money through real estate mortgages on their buildings at about 5 percent a year in terms of real cost net of inflation.  The factor of 10 used to translate annual savings into justifiable additional capital expenditures is only an order-of-magnitude approximation.

## LMI’s Modeling of Turn Around Time (TAT) Changes for Concepts

- Derived from Boeing TAT specs for 6 transport aircraft
- Implemented in a spreadsheet model
- Analysis of concepts; changes in turn around time processes determined by LMI expertise
- Concepts linked to specific model parameters
- 3 processes (max of 3 queues is TAT)
- PS	=	Passenger Service
- BCS	=	Baggage and Cargo Service
- AS	=	Airplane Service

## Baseline 747-400 Gantt Chart

- Passenger
- Service

- Cargo/Baggage
- Service

- Airplane
- Service

## C1269 747-400 Model

- Passenger
- Service

- Cargo/Baggage
- Service

- Airplane
- Service

## Queue Triples for Each Aircraft and Concept Combo

- 777-200

- 767-400ER

- 757-200

- 747-400

- 737-700

- 717-200

- C2      	= Removable Wings
- C1_C2	= Bins, Removable Wings, LRU Water/Toilets
- C1_C3 	= Bins, Oblique Wing, LRU Water/Toilets
- C1_C9	= Bins, 2 Abreast Seating
- C1269	= Bins, Rem. Wings, No Bags, LRU W/T, 2 Abreast Seating

## Impact Assessment of Reduced TAT on Delay (Sensis)

- Examined runway delay impact due to reduced TAT at three airports:
- Chicago O’Hare (ORD)
- Boston Logan (BOS)
- Las Vegas McCarran (LAS)
- Applied ACES Airspace Concepts Evaluation System fast-time simulation
- Constructed arrival-departure gate connections using an actual daily flight schedule (19 Feb 2004) for each airport:
- Baseline schedule used current Minimum TATs (22 – 60 minutes)
- Alternative schedule used 50% Minimum TATs (11 -30 minutes)
- Ran ACES with alternate schedules and compared landing, takeoff and total delays

## ORD 2004 example: baseline schedule takeoff peaking is higher than landing peaking; reduced TAT lowers takeoff peaks 

## ORD 2004: 50% reduced TAT shifts takeoffs to earlier times (into baseline off-peaks), dispersing takeoff peaks 

**50% TAT**

**100% TAT Baseline**

## ORD, BOS, LAS 2004 examples: 50% reduced TAT leads to reduced overall runway system delay 

## Recommendations / Possible NASA Roles

- 1,  Continue / expand current research
- 		Curb-to-curb + TAT
- 		Evaluate concepts using appropriate computer sims
- 2.  A systems approach including airport and terminal impacts to vehicle design
- 		Landing field length, terminal size, taxi and ramp operations
- 		Oblique wing aircraft design
- 3.  Develop an airport simulation test facility
- 		Real people and hardware experimental site at ARC, combined with FFC
- 		Advanced technologies, terminal processing, autonomous transportation...
- 4.  Expand industry partners to Include airlines, airport planners and operators
- 		Partnerships at levels below JPDO
- 		Industry wants NASA help
- 5.  All fundamental research described relative to the concepts (written report)
- 		Look for synergies with new and existing aeronautics programs

## Acknowledgements

- LMI
- Jesse Johnson
- Sensis
- George Couluris			David Signor						Anna Dabrowski
- MIT Professors
- Amedeo Odoni			Richard de Neufville
- Interviewees
- Peter Muller			Gene Lewis							Regine Weston
- Roxana Wales			Joseph Romano				Don Shaw
- Philemon Chan			William Baumgardner
- Eloret /NASA
- Veronica Hawke			Sandra Cory						David Kinney

## BACKUP SLIDES

## Computer simulations necessary

*Bins*
- Simulate loading bins versus individual bags
- Loading time and required personnel differences
*Removable/Oblique Wing*
- Simulate and identify terminal changes (smaller pier length with greater width) where aircraft pull into terminal with multiple door egress
- Terminal size/cost and passenger egress time differences
- Simulate taxi and maneuver times of wingless AC
- Time differences
*Passenger carry on all baggage*
- Simulate terminal changes (no baggage system, carousals, check-in, baggage handlers and smaller  waiting room)
- Terminal size/cost and passenger time differences

- to assess concepts (1)

## Key Technology Simulation Issues

-  Validity
-  Complexity & Fidelity
-  Cost
-  Time
-  Skill

## Computer simulations necessary

- to assess concepts (2)

*Autonomous Baggage Carts*
-  Simulate terminal changes (required pathways for ABC’s)
-  Terminal size, passenger lug time, and personnel differences
*Door to door baggage delivery*
-  Simulate and identify terminal changes (no baggage system, carousals, check-in, baggage handlers & smaller  waiting room)
-  Terminal size/cost, passenger time differences
*Over-the-wing nacelle*
-  Simulate aircraft servicing & vehicle placement
-  Time savings

## Applying Concepts to Terminal Ops

- Baseline Spreadsheet

- Models

- PS
- BCS
- AS

## Boeing 747-400 from Internet

- Passenger
- Service

- Baggage/Cargo
- Service

- Airplane
- Service

## 1.  Potential NASA Research Topics

- Materials development for hardened “bomb proof” airplanes, extended airframe lifetimes, and crash safety.
- Sensor development
- RFID integration, networks of robots
- Passenger personal protection technologies

## Risk and structural assessment of modular aircraft and study of optimal location for break-away components in crash situation
Development of advanced rapid electromechanical coupling technologies. Parts that can be attached autonomously with fuel as well as electrical couplings.

- Development of advanced rapid electromechanical coupling technologies. Parts that can be attached autonomously with fuel as well as electrical couplings.

- 2.  Potential NASA Research Topics

## Air Transportation Riddled with Dichotomies

- Passenger (wants inexpensive flights and high LOS)
- Airlines (cost effective offer range of LOS)
- Government involvement (Needed but not wanted)
- Airplane design (Best design not conventional and not accepted by aviation community)
- Technology (needed but risk adverse)
- Forecasts (wrong and continually sought/needed)
- Airport planning (design time and wear out time approaching equal)
- Buildings (need to be compact and spread out)
- Capacity (bottlenecks is runways and no land available)
- Proximity (want close but not in my backyard)

## Commercialization and deregulation (C/D) forces economic efficiency with less/no government involvement 
        Governments do own the land of an airport which they typically lease for 30-50 years
Emergence of transfer hubs are a consequence of C/D
Inconvenience to the passenger since it lengthens the total trip time, increases the risk of lost baggage, and compounds delays
Airlines benefit from more frequent flights (drive the costs down), a supply of backup flights, and full flights using larger aircraft (less expensive)
Airport competition is fueling volatility of transfer hubs
The largest airports in the world are now transfer hubs

Interest in Information Technology (IT) and telecommunications is on the rise for the Airport industry
71 percent of airports are planning to increase spending on IT
Airports are investing about twice the amount that the airlines are
Airports are investing $2.5 billion a year (up 20% from last year)
2/3 of airports will have shared-use kiosks in the next 2 years (only 2% dedicated use)
WI-FI, web services for passengers, managed airport networks on the rise, mobile passenger check-in and payment systems to a lesser extent

- Commercialization and deregulation (C/D) forces economic efficiency with less/no government involvement
-         Governments do own the land of an airport which they typically lease for 30-50 years
- Emergence of transfer hubs are a consequence of C/D
- Inconvenience to the passenger since it lengthens the total trip time, increases the risk of lost baggage, and compounds delays
- Airlines benefit from more frequent flights (drive the costs down), a supply of backup flights, and full flights using larger aircraft (less expensive)
- Airport competition is fueling volatility of transfer hubs
- The largest airports in the world are now transfer hubs
- Interest in Information Technology (IT) and telecommunications is on the rise for the Airport industry
- 71 percent of airports are planning to increase spending on IT
- Airports are investing about twice the amount that the airlines are
- Airports are investing $2.5 billion a year (up 20% from last year)
- 2/3 of airports will have ***shared-use*** kiosks in the next 2 years (only 2% dedicated use)
- WI-FI, web services for passengers, managed airport networks on the rise, mobile passenger check-in and payment systems to a lesser extent

## Background: Organization and Financing

- Airports must contend with: legal * financial * planning * public communication * administration * human resource * environmental * engineering/technical * commercial * operational issues
- Airport capital investments financed in ***many*** different ways: grants from national governments * revenue bonds issued and serviced by airport operators * general obligation bonds * user taxes *  bank loans * operating surplus
- Airport ownership: the licensed airport operator acts as owner and everyday decision maker.  Hence shareholders of the airport operator are treated as the owners.  Shareholders can be government or private interests or both.  Airport ownership is any combination of:
- National government.
- Local and State/regional governments
- Corporate entities
- Private investors
- (Many airports have agreements with the airlines that the airlines fees cover the difference in the total costs of running the airport and the total revenues from all sources.  Hence benefits accrue to the airline, if right to profit define ownership in these cases the airlines are the owner)

## Background: Airport User Charges

- User Charges include: Aeronautical and Non aeronautical fees
- Aeronautical charges regulated through target rates of return, price caps, and restrictions on the annual rate of increase of unit charges
- Aeronautical User Charges include:
- Landing fees (MTOW or MLW)
- Terminal air navigation fees (ATC and air navigation)
- Airport parking and hanger fees (Stand type and duration)
- Noise fees (time of day and noisiness of aircraft)
- Terminal/Passenger service (passenger building & security)
- ATM facility fee – paid out of a passenger ticket tax
- Ground handling services (confidential)
-  Non-aeronautical charges are usually highly profitable
- “Residual” and “compensatory” systems approaches to non-aero revenues
- Compensatory is difference between the total costs of running the airport and total revenues from all sources
- Residual is full cost recovery of facilities and services
- Non-Aeronautical User Charges include:
- Concession fees for fuel and oil (% of sales)
- Concession fees for retail shops, bars and restaurants (fixed or variable rent)
- Airport car parking and rental car fees (biggest source of revenues in US)

## Background: Organization & Financing of Airports 

- Private Interest

- Private minority shareholders (no publicly traded shares)

- Private minority shareholders (some publicly traded shares)

- Private investors (no publicly traded shares)

- OWNED BY:

- Branch of national government

- Branch of local or regional government

- Management contract by a publicly or privately owned company

- Autonomous airport authority

- Private investors (publicly traded shares)

- OPERATED / MANAGED BY:

- Background: Organization & Financing of Airports

## Slide 64

|  | Passenger |  |  |  |  |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
| Configuration | Local | Transfer | Airline | Owner | Retail |
| Finger Pier | Fair | Poor | Fair | Fair | Good |
| Linear, one side aircraft | Fairly good | Poor | Good | Fair | Poor |
| Transporter | Fair | Poor | Good | Poor | Good |
| Midfield Linear | Fair | Good | Good | Fair | Good |
| Midfield X-shaped | Fair | Fair | Fair | Good | Good |

## Slide 65

## Slide 66