Team Control Number

1101
For office use only For office use only
T1 ________________ F1 ________________
T2 ________________ F2 ________________
T3 ________________ F3 ________________
T4 ________________ Problem Chosen F4 ________________
B
2007_ Mathematical Contest in Modeling (MCM) Summary Sheet
(Attach a copy of this page to each copy of your solution paper.)

Type a summary of your results on this page. Do not include

the name of your school, advisor, or team members on this page.

To determine the airplane boarding schedule that minimizes passenger boarding time, a
simulation scheme is proposed. A Fortran 90 program has been developed that simulates
passenger boarding within a set of assumptions. The model replicates three airplane config-
urations that can each be simulated for a range of passengers. Algorithms were developed
to emulate three popular boarding schedules. The simulation emulates a realistic airplane
with passengers boarding, walking down the aisle(s), stopping at their row, delaying any
passengers behind them in order to store baggage and let passengers stand who are already
sitting in between aisle and the assigned seat, and taking a seat. Assumptions were made
that create a uniform passenger profile. Variability was added by randomly assigning seats
and randomly assigning delay times.
The Monte Carlo Method was applied to the simulation model. The simulation was executed
1,500 times for each airplane configuration and boarding schedule combination. Total board-
ing times were determined for the different scenarios. Statistical analysis was completed by
determining the sample mean, approximate population mean, 95% confidence intervals about
the mean, standard deviation, and variances.
Sensitivity analysis was preformed on the distribution of delay times, time delays associated
with passengers standing in order to allow another to sit, and the size of boarding groups.
For each of these analyses, the conclusions remained the same.
The Outside In Boarding (OIB) schedule consistently outperformed the Random Boarding
Assigned (RBA) and Back to Front Block Boarding (BTF) schedules. Although the OIB
performed best, it would be difficult to implement because of passenger desires and needed
control measures. The most practical, of the three schedules investigated, is the RBA sched-
ule.
Contents

Table of Contents . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . i
List of Figures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ii
List of Tables . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . iii
Executive Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
1 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
2 Background Information . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
2.1 Airplane Boarding Techniques . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
2.2 Previous Modeling Approaches . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
3 Model Development . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
4 Model Application . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
5 Results . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
6 Conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
7 Further Research . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
Appendix . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
A. Data Tables . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
B. Model Source Code . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1

i
List of Figures

1 Different Boarding Systems (van den Briel, 2006) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6

2 General Flow Chart of Entire Program . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8

3 Simulation Flow Chart of Entire Program . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9

4 Average Loading times . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15

5 Description of Simulated Loading Techniques . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16

6 Standard deviation of average loading time . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17

7 Histograms FINISH ME . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20

ii
List of Tables

1 Description of Simulated Boarding Schedules (van den Briel, 2006) . . . . . . 1

2 Seating Arrangements Used in Simulation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1

3 Common Seating Arrangements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4

4 Passenger Movement Times (Van Landeghem, 2002) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4

5 Description of Simulated Boarding Schedules (van den Briel, 2006) . . . . . . 12

6 Description of Airplane Details . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12

7 Simulation Parameters . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13

8 Parameters Varied in Sensitivity Analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13

9 Time Conversions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14

10 Results for RBA and OIB Loading . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18

11 Results for BTF Loading . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19

iii
 TEAM 1101

Executive Summary

To determine the airplane boarding schedule that minimizes boarding time, a simulation was
created. A computer program was written, which replicates three boarding schedules (Table
1) and for three airplane layouts (Table 2).

Table 1: Description of Simulated Boarding Schedules (van den Briel, 2006)

Short
Boarding Name Name Description
Random Boarding All passengers are assigned a seat. The assignment is random. Passengers
RBA
Assigned Airplane
enter the plane Layouts
at random.
2-3 All passengers A B
are assigned D E F
a seat. A block of rows at the rear of the plane
Back to Front Block
Boarding 3-3BTF is filled first. When the block is filled, the adjacent block (towards the front
of the plane)Ais filled.
B C The filling
D of E seats
F within a block is random.
2-4-2 A B C D E F G H
All passengers are assigned a seat. For planes with one aisle, window seats
3-4-3 A filled
are B C D seats
first. Next, E adjacent
F G to the H windows
I J are filled. This pattern
2-5-2 is repeated
A B until all seats
D E F G H are filled. The seating
J K within each boarding group
is completely random (e.g. the first passenger to enter the plane might be
Outside In Boarding 3-5-3
OIB A B Ca window
assigned D seat
E onF theGportH side inIthe J3rdKrow and the second
passenger a window seat on the starboard side in the last row). Similarly,
planes with two aisles fill the window seats and the ”middle” seats first.
The pattern continues to fill from the windows in and from the ”middle”
seat out until all seats are filled.

Table 2: Seating Arrangements Used in Simulation

Airplane Layouts
2-3 A B D E F
2-5-2 A B D E F G H J K
3-5-3 A B C D E F G H I J K

The simulation emulates a realistic airplane with:

• passengers boarding;

• passengers walking down the aisle(s);

• passengers stopping at their row and holding up forward movement while stowing
carry-on bags; and

1
 TEAM 1101

• passengers holding up forward movement when other passengers are already seated in
the same row and have to get up and step out of the way.

To simplify the simulation, the following assumptions were applied.

• The total amount of time it takes the first class passengers to reach their assigned seats
is not a limiting factor.

• First class seating is completed before coach begins to board, and therefore, first class
passengers do not interfere with coach boarding.

• No special needs passengers.

• The ’special needs’ and first class passengers do not get in the way of any of the other
passengers and do not account for any of the seats being simulated.

• Everyone boards the plane in their designated boarding group (i.e. no one is late or
breaking the rules).

• The amount of time it takes any single passenger to move one seat position down the
aisle is fixed at 1 second.

• Every passenger boarding the plane has carry-on baggage. The amount of time it takes
a passenger to stow their bag(s) varies between 10 and 20 seconds.

• The amount of time it takes for any single passenger to get up and let another passenger
get to their seat in the same row is fixed at 10 seconds.

The simulation was executed 1,500 times for each airplane configuration and boarding sched-
ule combination. Total boarding times were determined for the different scenarios. Statistical
analysis was completed by determining the sample mean, approximate population mean, 95%
confidence intervals about the mean, standard deviation, and variances.

Sensitivity analysis was preformed on the distribution of delay times, time delays associated
with passengers standing in order to allow another to sit, and the size of boarding groups.
For each of these analyses, the conclusions remained the same.

The Outside In Boarding (OIB) schedule consistently outperformed the Random Boarding
Assigned (RBA) and Back to Front Block Boarding (BTF) schedules. Although the OIB
performed best, it would be difficult to implement because of passenger desires and needed
control measures. The most practical, of the three schedules investigated, is the RBA sched-
ule.

2
1. INTRODUCTION TEAM 1101

1 Introduction

The number of passengers traveling on U.S. airline carriers increased 5% between 2004 and
2005 (DOT, 2006). In total, 738.6 million passengers flew on 890,000 flights during 2005.
The amount time that a plane is on the ground between flights is referred to as turnaround
time. An airline’s revenue is inversely proportional to its turnaround times; airlines only
make money while in their planes are in the air (Finney, 2006). According to a November
14, 2006 New York Times article Loading an Airliner is Rocket Science, Southwest Airlines
would need to increase its airplane fleet by 18 planes at an approximate cost of $972 million
if turnaround times were increased by five minutes per flight (Finney, 2006).

Many factors influence boarding time:

• boarding method/schedule applied by airline;

• the needs of passengers (special conditions etc.);

• order in which passengers enter the plane;

• time spent by passengers putting luggage in overhead compartments and taking their
seat;

• speed of walking pace through plane;

• airplane schematics; and

• the human factor.

Although all the above factors impact loading, research has found that the boarding schedule
is one of the most significant. A boarding schedule describes the method in which an airline
chooses to load passengers onto their planes. There are a number of applied methods rang-
ing from completely random (no assigned seats or boarding schedule) to extensively rigid
(assigned seats and assigned spot in boarding schedule).

The objective of this project is to evaluate airplane boarding times for different boarding
schedules applied to different airplane layouts and configurations. Understanding and im-
proving upon airplane boarding times is important for both the airlines and passengers.

3
2. BACKGROUND INFORMATION TEAM 1101

2 Background Information

Many airlines utilize airplanes from the same manufacturers resulting in a limited number
of seating arrangements (Table 3). The time it takes passengers to make certain movements
around airplanes has been studied (Table 4).

Table 3: Common Seating Arrangements

Airplane Layouts
2-3 A B D E F
3-3 A B C D E F
2-4-2 A B C D E F G H
3-4-3 A B C D E F G H I J
2-5-2 A B D E F G H J K
3-5-3 A B C D E F G H I J K

Table 4: Passenger Movement Times (Van Landeghem, 2002)

Process times (seconds)
Min Modus Max
Passing one row 1.8 2.4 3
Luggage install time (per piece) 6 9 30
Exit from seat into aisle 3 3.6 4.2

2.1 Airplane Boarding Techniques

The minimization of boarding time has been looked at in the past and seven main boarding
schedules (Figure 7) have been recognized as ‘optimal.’ All schedules divide the passengers
into boarding groups (represented by the number in each seat). Note that these boarding
schedules include first class as the first boarding group.

2.2 Previous Modeling Approaches

Past studies on airplane boarding schedules have been governed by the critical path method.
The critical path method identifies the longest route through a task flow chart. The only

4
2. BACKGROUND INFORMATION TEAM 1101

way to minimize total time is to minimize the critical path route by reconfiguring the flow
chart.

Simulation and optimization have also been used to analyze the airplane boarding prob-
lem. Simulation models are used when the impacts of a planning schedule are desired while
optimization models are used to identify an optimal schedule (Willis and Finney, 2004).

5
2. BACKGROUND INFORMATION TEAM 1101

1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
6 6 6 6 6 6 3 3 3 3 3 3 2 2 2 2 2 2
6 6 6 6 6 6 3 3 3 3 3 3 2 2 2 2 2 2
6 6 6 6 6 6 3 3 3 3 3 3 2 2 2 2 2 2
6 6 6 6 6 6 3 3 3 3 3 3 2 2 2 2 2 2
6 6 6 6 6 6 3 3 3 3 3 3 2 2 2 2 2 2
5 5 5 5 5 5 3 3 3 3 3 3 2 2 2 2 2 2
5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 2 2 2 2 2 2
5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 2 2 2 2 2 2
5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 2 2 2 2 2 2
5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 2 2 2 2 2 2
4 4 4 4 4 4 5 5 5 5 5 5 2 2 2 2 2 2
4 4 4 4 4 4 6 6 6 6 6 6 2 2 2 2 2 2
4 4 4 4 4 4 6 6 6 6 6 6 2 2 2 2 2 2
4 4 4 4 4 4 6 6 6 6 6 6 2 2 2 2 2 2
4 4 4 4 4 4 6 6 6 6 6 6 2 2 2 2 2 2
3 3 3 3 3 3 4 4 4 4 4 4 2 2 2 2 2 2
3 3 3 3 3 3 4 4 4 4 4 4 2 2 2 2 2 2
3 3 3 3 3 3 4 4 4 4 4 4 2 2 2 2 2 2
3 3 3 3 3 3 4 4 4 4 4 4 2 2 2 2 2 2
3 3 3 3 3 3 4 4 4 4 4 4 2 2 2 2 2 2
2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2
2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2
2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2
2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2
2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2

(a) Back-to-Front (b) Rotating-Zone (c) Random

1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
4 5 6 6 5 4 4 5 6 6 5 4 2 3 4 4 3 2
4 5 6 6 5 4 4 5 6 6 5 4 2 3 4 4 3 2
4 5 6 6 5 4 4 5 6 6 5 4 2 3 4 4 3 2
4 5 6 6 5 4 4 5 6 6 5 4 2 3 4 4 3 2
4 5 6 6 5 4 4 5 6 6 5 4 2 3 4 4 3 2
2 4 6 6 4 2 2 4 6 6 4 2 2 3 4 4 3 2
2 4 6 6 4 2 2 4 6 6 4 2 2 3 4 4 3 2
2 4 6 6 4 2 2 4 6 6 4 2 2 3 4 4 3 2
2 4 6 6 4 2 2 4 6 6 4 2 2 3 4 4 3 2
2 4 6 6 4 2 2 4 6 6 4 2 2 3 4 4 3 2
2 4 6 6 4 2 2 4 6 6 4 2 2 3 4 4 3 2
2 4 6 6 4 2 2 4 6 6 4 2 2 3 4 4 3 2
2 4 6 6 4 2 2 4 6 6 4 2 2 3 4 4 3 2
2 4 5 5 4 2 2 4 5 5 4 2 2 3 4 4 3 2
2 3 5 5 3 2 2 3 5 5 3 2 2 3 4 4 3 2
2 3 5 5 3 2 2 3 5 5 3 2 2 3 4 4 3 2
2 3 5 5 3 2 2 3 5 5 3 2 2 3 4 4 3 2
2 3 5 5 3 2 2 3 5 5 3 2 2 3 4 4 3 2
2 3 5 5 3 2 2 3 5 5 3 2 2 3 4 4 3 2
2 3 5 5 3 2 2 3 5 5 3 2 2 3 4 4 3 2
2 3 5 5 3 2 2 3 5 5 3 2 2 3 4 4 3 2
2 3 5 5 3 2 2 3 5 5 3 2 2 3 4 4 3 2
2 3 5 5 3 2 2 3 5 5 3 2 2 3 4 4 3 2
2 3 5 5 3 2 2 3 5 5 3 2 2 3 4 4 3 2
2 3 5 5 3 2 2 3 5 5 3 2 2 3 4 4 3 2

(d) Block (e) Rev-Pyramid (f) Outside-In

Figure 1: Different Boarding Systems (van den Briel, 2006)

6
3. MODEL DEVELOPMENT TEAM 1101

3 Model Development

As discussed in the previous section, there are numerous approaches to evaluating the board-
ing of passenger airplanes. A simulation approach was applied in this project. Figure 2 details
the general logic of the program including:

• initialize static variables;

• generate boarding queue of random seating assignments specific to boarding schedule;

• set random variable bounds for delay times (time spent putting carry on bags away
and sitting);

• determine if passengers will need to wait for another passenger in their row to stand
so they can assume their seat(if so, they are assigned a penalty); and

• run simulation (see below for simulation logic).

Figure 3 details the logic of the simulation including:

• begin time;

• move first person onto plane;

• if any passengers have a delay time equal to 1, then they are ready to move into their
seat;

• decrease all delay times;

• evaluate who can move;

• determine if person waiting to board plane can board (if person at first row, in the
appropriate aisle, has a delay time, then waiting person waiting cannot board plane);

• assess if any new delays need to be assigned after latest movement (i.e. the person has
reached their row);

• determine if everyone has been seated; and

• report current or final results.

7
3. MODEL DEVELOPMENT TEAM 1101

Begin

Assign Variables
•Passengers (n)
Read Passenger
•Rows (nRows) Seating Assignment
•Seats (nSeats)
•Delay time (d)
•Walk time (l)
•Aisle Number (as) Assign first
•Number of Aisle passenger assigned to
•Etc… 1 or 2 2 “middle” seat use
Aisles? aisle 1. The next “middle”
passenger goes down
aisle 2. Repeat
1

Determine Penalties
Yes Assign Time
Is someone Penalty (p)
Begin going to have to All Seats Yes
stand up when xi End
Checked?
arrives at r(xi)?
No No
Penalty

No

Perform Simulation
(See Simulation Flow
Chart for details)

End

Figure 2: General Flow Chart of Entire Program

8
3. MODEL DEVELOPMENT TEAM 1101

Begin Simulation

t=0

t=t+1

Yes
Assign
Move 1st person Assigned
Delay
onto plane 1st Row?
Time
No
t=t+1

Decrease No Yes Record

Passengers “seat”
All Assigned Delay=0 Passenger
Delay =1? Passenger
Delay times Sit time

i=nRows

All Yes
on Plane?
Yes
i=1?
No No
No one in front of
passenger i, in aisle? No Yes
i=1? Correct
Passenger i is not No
1st Aisle spot
i=i-1 at assigned row? Empty?
i=i-1 Yes
Move False Move next
True
All Passenger i Person
on Plane? Yes forward on Plane

No

Correct
No
1st Aisle spot
Empty? Latest movements Yes Apply
Yes
cause any
new delay
new delays?
Move next
Person
on Plane No

Report No Report
Yes
Current Everyone Seated? Final
Results Results

End Simulation

Figure 3: Simulation Flow Chart of Entire Program

9
3. MODEL DEVELOPMENT TEAM 1101

The applied simulation incorporates a Monte Carlo approach by creating random values for
the seat assignments and the delay times. All passengers are assigned a seat and no two
passengers can have the same seat. The boarding queue (the order in which people will enter
the plane) is broken into boarding groups delineated by either position on plane or by row
of assigned seat. The queueing order of passengers within each boarding group is random.

For example, if a Back to Front Block boarding schedule is applied, the boarding groups are
designated by a row number range. However, the passengers in a single group will appear
randomly in their boarding group queue. The next boarding group enters the plane only
after the previous is completely on. All boarding groups will have a random queue consisting
of the people assigned to that group.

The delay times represent the time it takes a passenger to sit from the time they arrive at
their row. The portion of the delay times associated with stowing carry-on bags is randomly
assigned and uniformly distributed over a set interval.

The random numbers were generated using Fortran’s intrinsic random number subroutine.
Output was verified by comparing them to realistic values and to other studies’ results
(Ferrari and Nagel, 2004) (see Figure 5 on page 16 for sample output).

Statistical analysis was performed on the resulting total time data. This included:

• determining the sample mean x̄;

• determining the approximate population mean µx̄ ;

• determining the 95% confidence interval about µx̄ ;

• determining variance σx̄2 ; and

• determining standard deviation σx̄ .

10
3. MODEL DEVELOPMENT TEAM 1101

The above variables are defined as (Devore, 2000):

Pn
i=n xi
x̄ = (1)
Pnn
i=n x̄i
µx̄ = (2)
n
n
1 X
σx̄2 = (x̄ − µx̄ )2 (3)
n i=n
v
u n
u1 X
σx̄ = t (x̄ − µx̄ )2 (4)
n i=n

where xi is the ith observation and

n is the sample size.

11
4. MODEL APPLICATION TEAM 1101

4 Model Application

After review of past work, the three loading schedules (Table 5), off of which all others are
modeled, were chosen to be simulated. Each of the three loading techniques were simulated
on three plane sizes (Table 6).

Table 5: Description of Simulated Boarding Schedules (van den Briel, 2006)

Short
Boarding Name Name Description
Random Boarding All passengers are assigned a seat. The assignment is random. Passengers
RBA
Assigned enter the plane at random.

All passengers are assigned a seat. A block of rows at the rear of the plane
Back to Front Block
BTF is filled first. When the block is filled, the adjacent block (towards the front
Boarding
of the plane) is filled. The filling of seats within a block is random.

All passengers are assigned a seat. For planes with one aisle, window seats
are filled first. Next, seats adjacent to the windows are filled. This pattern
is repeated until all seats are filled. The seating within each boarding group
is completely random (e.g. the first passenger to enter the plane might be
Outside In Boarding OIB assigned a window seat on the port side in the 3rd row and the second
passenger a window seat on the starboard side in the last row). Similarly,
planes with two aisles fill the window seats and the ”middle” seats first.
The pattern continues to fill from the windows in and from the ”middle”
seat out until all seats are filled.

Table 6: Description of Airplane Details

Plane Size
Variable Small Medium Large
Seats 100 387 605
Rows 20 43 55
Seats/Row 5 9 11
Aisles 1 2 2

To decrease the amount of variability in the problem, a set of assumptions were made:

• The total amount of time it takes the first class passengers and the ‘special needs’
passengers to reach their assigned seats is fixed for each airplane layout.
• The ‘special needs’ and first class passengers do not get in the way of any of the other
passengers and do not account for any of the seats being simulated.
• Everyone boards the plane in their designated boarding group (i.e. no one is late or
breaking the rules).

12
4. MODEL APPLICATION TEAM 1101

• The amount of time it takes any single passenger to move one seat position down the
aisle is fixed.

• Every passenger boarding the plane has carry-on baggage. The amount of time it
takes them to stow the bag is uniformly distributed and lies within an interval of size
10 seconds.

• The amount of time it takes for any single passenger to ’get up’ to let another passenger
get to their seat is fixed.

Table 7: Simulation Parameters

Parameter Variable Initial Value (s)
Passenger travel time between rows L 1
Time to move past seated passenger p 10
Average time to load bag and sit down d 15
Minimum possible time to load bag and sit down ll d-5
Maximum possible time to load bag and sit down ul d+5

Table 8: Parameters Varied in Sensitivity Analysis

Initial Value Change in New Value
Parameter (s) Parameter Value (s)
+ 20% 12
-20% 8
p 10
+40% 14
-40% 6
+ 20% 18
-20% 12
d 15
+40% 21
-40% 9
Block* (rows) 5 33.3% 3
50% 10
*Variable in BTF loading schedule. Refers to the number of rows
in a boarding group.

13
5. RESULTS TEAM 1101

5 Results

Sample program output represents the movement of passengers over time as the boarding
process proceeds (Figure 4). Due to random variables in the simulation, output of one
simulation represents a single stochastic realization of the boarding process. To mitigate
the random effects of the boarding process 50 samples were taken from the population and
averaged to find a single sample mean (X̄). 30 sample means {X̄1 , X̄2 , ..., X¯3 0} were

calculated for each combination of boarding schedule and plane layout. The average of the
30 sample means (µX̄ ) equals the population mean (µX̄ = µX ). The sensitivity analysis
shows how the parameters affect the resulting average boarding time (Figure 11). All results
are reported in seconds(Table 9).

Table 9: Time Conversions

Seconds Minutes
500 8.33
1,000 16.66
2,000 33.33
3,000 80

The Back to Front boarding took the longest for all airplane layouts (Figure 4) because
the schedule contains many Outside in boarding took the shortest amount of time and the
Random Assigned Seat boarding took an amount of time in between BTF and OIB. OIB took
the shortest amount of time for all airplane layouts and is therefore the optimal simulation
solution. Out of the boarding schedules simulated, BTF was the least optimal.

An increase in the average delay time (d) caused a increase in the total boarding time for
all seating schedules. An increase in the penalty (p) for moving around a seated passenger
caused an increase in the average loading time as well for RBA and BTF. For all schedules the
opposite case was true (decrease in parameter → decrease in average boarding time) except
for OIB. OIB was not affected by an increase or decrease in p because no passenger ever
needed to move around a seated passenger. An increase in the block size of BTF boarding
caused a decrease in the average loading time for all airplane layouts. The opposite case is
true as well (decrease in block size → decrease in average boarding time).

14
5. RESULTS TEAM 1101

3500

3000
Random
Assigned
2500 Seat

Outside
2000 Inside
Time (s)

1500 Back to
Front

1000

500

0
Small Medium Large
Plane Size

Figure 4: Average Loading times

15
5. RESULTS TEAM 1101

FRONT OF AIRPLANE
Passenger Passenger
Number in Que Total Time # Passengers
(m) Number in Que
(for passengers on Board
Seat Column (for passengers
in aisle 1) Designations in aisle 2)
Time (s)= 444 (m)= 7.40 Passengers on board= 130
Airplane
_______________________________
q# delay A B C D E F G H I q# delay
128 0 || 83 0 | 32| 0 0 131 0 0| 0| 0 313|| 0 0
126 0 || 413 0 | 38| 0 0 164 0 0| 0| 0 284|| 0 0
125 0 || 311 0 | 7| 0 0 98 0 0| 0| 0 190|| 0 0
124 0 || 346 0 | 11| 0 0 284 0 0| 0| 0 100|| 0 0
123 0 || 174 0 | 39| 0 0 336 0 0| 42| 0 126|| 130 0
122 0 || 143 0 | 12| 0 0 0 0 0| 6| 0 41|| 129 9
121 0 || 0 0 | 27| 0 0 379 0 0| 0| 0 71|| 0 0
119 0 || 63 0 | 24| 0 0 278 0 0| 0| 0 66|| 0 0
118 0 || 116 0 | 28| 0 0 225 0 0| 0| 0 252|| 0 0
117 0 || 409 0 | 28| 0 0 381 0 0| 0| 0 349|| 0 0
115 1 || 0 0 | 11| 0 0 0 0 0| 0| 0 322|| 0 0
0 0 || 0 0 | 0| 0 0 385 0 0| 0| 0 375|| 0 0
0 0 || 84 0 | 0| 0 0 130 0 0| 0| 0 161|| 0 0
0 0 || 95 0 | 0| 0 0 203 0 0| 0| 0 195|| 0 0
0 0 || 343 0 | 0| 0 0 237 0 0| 0| 0 182|| 0 0
0 0 || 417 0 | 0| 0 0 129 0 0| 0| 0 424|| 0 0
114 0 || 41 0 | 43| 0 0 48 0 0| 0| 0 222|| 0 0
112 0 || 438 0 | 25| 0 0 288 0 0| 0| 0 104|| 0 0
111 0 || 351 0 | 25| 0 0 224 0 0| 0| 0 422|| 0 0
109 0 || 372 0 | 35| 0 0 53 0 0| 34| 0 315|| 127 0
106 1 || 80 0 | 21| 0 0 0 0 0| 0| 0 34|| 0 0
0 0 || 238 0 | 0| 0 0 119 0 0| 0| 0 48|| 0 0
0 0 || 270 0 | 0| 0 0 356 0 0| 0| 0 64|| 0 0
0 0 || 0 0 | 0| 0 0 297 0 0| 31| 0 161|| 120 0
0 0 || 0 0 | 0| 0 0 0 0 0| 36| 0 134|| 116 0
0 0 || 386 0 | 0| 0 0 316 0 0| 41| 0 95|| 107 0
0 0 || 0 0 | 0| 0 0 266 0 0| 42| 0 108|| 105 0
0 0 || 0 0 | 0| 0 0 0 0 0| 28| 0 0|| 104 10
0 0 || 246 0 | 0| 0 0 189 0 0| 0| 0 101|| 0 0
0 0 || 158 0 | 0| 0 0 110 0 0| 0| 0 365|| 0 0
101 3 || 0 0 | 31| 0 0 0 0 0| 0| 0 185|| 0 0
0 0 || 88 0 | 0| 0 0 0 0 0| 0| 0 143|| 0 0
0 0 || 204 0 | 0| 0 0 55 0 0| 0| 0 132|| 0 0
0 0 || 143 0 | 0| 0 0 0 0 0| 0| 0 349|| 0 0
0 0 || 0 0 | 0| 0 0 279 0 0| 0| 0 304|| 0 0
0 0 || 428 0 | 0| 0 0 0 0 0| 0| 0 102|| 0 0
0 0 || 182 0 | 0| 0 0 369 0 0| 0| 0 101|| 0 0
0 0 || 0 0 | 0| 0 0 159 0 0| 0| 0 141|| 0 0
0 0 || 0 0 | 0| 0 0 303 0 0| 0| 0 332|| 0 0
0 0 || 171 0 | 0| 0 0 219 0 0| 0| 0 368|| 0 0
0 0 || 111 0 | 0| 0 0 0 0 0| 0| 0 273|| 0 0
0 0 || 199 0 | 0| 0 0 187 0 0| 0| 0 0|| 0 0
0 0 || 0 0 | 0| 0 0 443 0 0| 0| 0 408|| 0 0

Aisle 1
Outside Edge Aisle 2 Outside Edge Delay time (s)
Values Represent
of Plane Values Represent of Plane remaining of
Passengers in
Passengers in passenger in
aisle and thier
Passenger in Seat. aisle and thier aisle 2.
assigned row.
Value = Time of assigned row.
Zero=No one there
taking seat. Zero = No one there
(Row 37, Seat A
sat at 182 sec.)
REAR OF AIRPLANE

Figure 5: Description of Simulated Loading Techniques

16
5. RESULTS TEAM 1101

40

35

30

25
Standard Deviation (s)

Random
20 Assigned seat

Outside In

15
Back to Front

10

0
Small Medium Large
Plane Size

Figure 6: Standard deviation of average loading time

17
 Table 10: Results for RBA and OIB Loading
5. RESULTS

Small Plane (85 Passengers) Medium Plane (387 Passengers) Large Plane (660 Passengers)
Note: All units in seconds 95% C.I 95% C.I 95% C.I
μx σx σx2 for μx μx σx σx2 for μx μx σx σx2 for μx
Standard 737.74 33.07 1093.95 64.83 1516.39 21.2 449.57 41.56 1899.31 13.02 169.56 25.52
40% 927.44 38.71 1498.29 75.87 1827.97 20.2 408.18 39.6 2319.17 14.32 204.97 28.06
20% 833.26 30.71 943.14 60.19 1670.54 20.04 401.64 39.28 2107.11 16.42 269.71 32.19
Delay
-20% 642.56 28.24 797.61 55.35 1369.41 16.18 261.69 31.71 1697.28 13.03 169.88 25.55
-40% 541.13 26.09 680.53 51.13 1222.62 16.34 266.87 32.02 1494.44 11.34 128.66 22.23

RBA
40% 805.38 36.9 1361.46 72.32 1609.65 20.57 423.15 40.32 2084.59 16.17 261.43 31.69

Sensitivity
20% 765.63 35.58 1265.93 69.74 1566.73 23.38 546.75 45.83 1986.16 13.75 189.11 26.95
Penalty
-20% 708.23 25.43 646.68 49.84 1471.69 18.66 348.06 36.57 1809.1 12.36 152.84 24.23

18
-40% 668.38 31.79 1010.74 62.31 1433.61 15.33 235.03 30.05 1725.92 12.91 166.78 25.31
Standard 950.8 34.02 1157.16 66.67 2212.41 17.5 306.1 34.29 3007.2 16.67 277.75 32.67
20% 1906.44 31.66 1002.27 62.05 2474.24 20.58 423.37 40.33 3422.24 17.33 300.44 33.97
10% 1234.15 29.76 885.62 58.33 2737.93 28.75 826.8 56.36 3835.53 1871 349.99 36.67
Delay
-10% 817.22 27.92 779.34 54.72 1950.96 16.75 280.43 32.82 2607.75 17.09 292.15 33.5
-20% 680.56 33.53 1123.98 65.71 1696.68 17.25 297.72 33.82 2193.11 11.7 136.94 22.94

OIB
20% 991.07 36.55 1336.13 71.64 2270.2 21.82 476.32 42.78 3158.73 15.81 250.07 30.99

Sensitivity
10% 1031.38 35.18 1237.59 68.59 2340.66 21.3 453.55 41.74 3304.31 18.52 342.92 36.3
Penalty
-10% 917.69 33.94 1151.87 66.52 2148.01 18.37 337.47 36.01 2870.1 20.1 404.17 39.4
-20% 881.74 27.31 745.67 53.52 2094.19 13.16 173.06 25.78 2734.68 14.92 222.65 29.25
TEAM 1101
 5. RESULTS

Table 11: Results for BTF Loading

Small Plane (85 Passengers) Medium Plane (387 Passengers) Large Plane (660 Passengers)
Note: All units in seconds 95% C.I 95% C.I 95% C.I
μx σx σx2 for μx μx σx σx2 for μx μx σx σx2 for μx
Standard 950.8 34.02 1157.16 66.67 2212.41 17.5 306.1 34.29 3007.2 16.67 277.75 32.67

20% 1906.44 31.66 1002.27 62.05 2474.24 20.58 423.37 40.33 3422.24 17.33 300.44 33.97

10% 1234.15 29.76 885.62 58.33 2737.93 28.75 826.8 56.36 3835.53 1871 349.99 36.67
Delay
-10% 817.22 27.92 779.34 54.72 1950.96 16.75 280.43 32.82 2607.75 17.09 292.15 33.5

-20% 680.56 33.53 1123.98 65.71 1696.68 17.25 297.72 33.82 2193.11 11.7 136.94 22.94

19
20% 991.07 36.55 1336.13 71.64 2270.2 21.82 476.32 42.78 3158.73 15.81 250.07 30.99

BTF
10% 1031.38 35.18 1237.59 68.59 2340.66 21.3 453.55 41.74 3304.31 18.52 342.92 36.3

Sensitivity
Penalty
-10% 917.69 33.94 1151.87 66.52 2148.01 18.37 337.47 36.01 2870.1 20.1 404.17 39.4

-20% 881.74 27.31 745.67 53.52 2094.19 13.16 173.06 25.78 2734.68 14.92 222.65 29.25

3 rows 1001.61 39.09 1528.04 1528.04 2532.2 16.63 276.59 32.6 3473.67 17.05 290.81 33.42
Block
size
8 rows 818.81 30.11 906.62 59.02 1876.97 21.35 455.82 41.85 2534.31 16.12 259.92 31.6
TEAM 1101
 n=5 n=20

3 6

5
5. RESULTS

2 4

Frequency

Frequency
1 2

0 0
1495 1510 1525 1500 1509 1518 1528 1537 1546 1556 1565 1574 1584
Time (s) Time (s)

(a) Sample
n=50
Size=5 (b) Sample
n=100 Size=20

12 25

20
10 20

8
15

Frequency
10

Frequency
4

5
2

0 0
1483 1492 1501 1511 1520 1529 1538 1548 1557 1566 1485 1493 1501 1509 1517 1526 1534 1542 1550 1558
Time (s) Time (s)

(c) Sample Size=50 (d) Sample Size=100

Figure 7: Histograms FINISH ME

TEAM 1101
6. CONCLUSION TEAM 1101

6 Conclusion

The following can be concluded from the report:

• a simulation model was developed, using the Fortran programming language, to eval-
uate airplane boarding times;

• a number of assumptions were made in the development of the model

• three airplane layouts were used

• three boarding schedules were used;

• monte Carlo simulation was used to evaluate delay times;

• average boarding time was the least with the Outside In boarding schedule;

• average boarding time was the greatest with the Back to Front boarding schedule;

• average boarding time increased as airplane layout increased.

• standard deviation of average boarding time decreased as airplane layout increased.

• sensitivity analysis was preformed on the time taken to move past a seated passenger
(p) and the passenger delay time(d);

• a change in the value of p had a negligible effect on the OIB average boarding time;
and

• changes in the parameters had various effects on the average boarding time.

21
7. FURTHER RESEARCH TEAM 1101

7 Further Research

Recommendations for further research include, but are not limited to:

• simulate Rotating-Zone, Reverse-Pyramid, and Block Boarding schedules;

• include first class and ’special needs’ into simulation;

• include late passengers arriving late in simulation;

• add a ’passenger response’ randomness to boarding schedule to simulate how well

passengers would actually follow schedule;

• optimize boarding schedule by minimizing total boarding time; and

• optimize queue position to find optimal boarding schedule.

22
References

Devore, J. L. (2000). Probability and Statistics For Engineers and the Sciences. Duxbury
Thomson Learning, 5 edition.

DOT (2006). “October 2006 airline traffic data: Ten-month system traffic up 0.5 percent
from 2005.” Report no., Bureau of Transportation Statistics. Data Table at http://
www.bts.gov/press_releases/2007/bts002_07/html/bts002_07.html#table_01 Site
visited February 12, 2007.

Ferrari, P. and Nagel, K. (2004). “Robustness of efficient passenger boarding in airplanes.”

Report No. none given, Department of Computer Science, ETH Zurich and Institute for
Land and Sea Transport Systems.

Finney, P. B. (2006). “Loading an airliner is rocket science.” The New York Times, Nov. 14,
NA.

van den Briel, M. (2006). “Airplane boarding.” Report No. none given, Arizona State Uni-
versity. http://www.public.asu.edu/~dbvan1/projects/boarding/boarding.htm Site
visited 2/9/2007.

Van Landeghem, H. (2002). “A simulation study of passenger boarding times in airplanes.”

Report No. None Given, Ghent University, Industrial Management. Date of report not
specifically given in document. Estimated from included references.

Willis, R. and Finney, B. A. (2004). Environmetnal Systems Engineering and Economics.

Kluwer Academic Publishers.

23
Appendix
A. Data Tables
B. Model Source Code