The E ect of the Airbus A380 on Runway Passenger Throughputardent.mit.edu/airports/ASP_exercises/2009 reports/A380 Effect on... · The E ect of the Airbus A380 on Runway Passenger

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 pas-senger aircraft to have entered service. The entry into service of the aircraft requiredcareful management by the airports, airlines and aviation authorities that would handlethe 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 sizeand passenger volume of the A380. The authorities responsible for aviation safety wereparticularly concerned about the danger posed by the wake of such a high gross weight air-craft and initially took a conservative approach to wake separation standards which couldpotentially have reduced the passenger capacity at airports served by the A380. This studywill examine the tradeoff between the additional passenger capacity of the A380 and theadditional wake separation that the aircraft requires.

1.1 The Aircraft

The A380 entered into service in October 2006 with Singapore Airlines after an 18 monthdelay due to a variety of technical issues during development of the aircraft. At the timeof writing (November 2009) only 20 A380s have entered service [1], with a production rateof approximately 1 aircraft a month for 2008 and 2009 [2] potentially increasing to 20deliveries in 2010 [3]. This means that the impact of the A380 on the air transportationsystem to date has been gradual and sparsely distributed. However as more of these aircraftenter service in the coming years the effect of their operations will become more significantat 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��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

� ��

��

��

��

��

��

!��

��

��

��

�"

��

��

#��

$

% ��

��

��

��

�&��

��

'��

��

!�

��

"�

'�

��

��

��

��

#��

��

� ��

�

(�

��

��

��

��

��

$��

��

��

��

��

��

%�

� �

��

��

��

�

��

��

��

��

��

��

��)

��&�

��

*��

�+�

,�

�+��

-��

.

�.

/.

0.

1.

2.

3.

4��+�� 5� �� "6�"��

��

&�

� �

��

�

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 seatsin the aircraft recently delivered to Air France. This variation in seating capacity makesa significant difference in the runway passenger throughput, therefore the capacity modelwill 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 andweight of the A380 brought with it the likelihood of an exceptionally powerful wake. Duringdevelopment of the aircraft and the flight test program the International Civil AviationOrganization (ICAO) recommended a very conservative separation criteria of 10 n.m. forall aircraft following the A380 (Table 1a) on approach, unless that aircraft was anotherA380 in which case there was no wake separation requirement (the A380 could follow anyaircraft 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 ofan extensive wake vortex measurement campaign carried out by Airbus. The final ICAOguidance was to simply add two nautical miles to the separation required behind a Heavyaircraft (Table 1b. This change in guidance had important implications for the throughputachieved by the A380 as will be demonstrated in this paper. The United Kingdom CAAlargely mirrors the ICAO guidance with modifications to fit its own weight categorizationscheme (Table 1c). It is interesting to note that the UK CAA found it necessary torevise upwards the ICAO separation guidelines with regard to the A380 as a followingaircraft, “based upon operational experience with the aircraft in busy UK terminal airspaceenvironments” [4]. The United States FAA is taking a more conservative approach toA380 operation requiring separations (Table 1d) greater than the ICAO recommendationparticularly with regard to Medium and Light aircraft Following the A380.

Table 1: Different Approach Separation Standards (R denotes Radar separation minimumapplies - 2.5 n.m. for JFK and LHR)

(a) Initial ICAO Guidance

FollowingA380 H M S

Lea

ding

A380 R 10 10 10H R 4 5 6M R R R 5L R R R R

(b) Nov. 2009 ICAO Guidance

FollowingA380 H M S

Lea

ding

A380 R 6 7 8H R 4 5 6M R R R 5L R R R R

(c) United Kingdom CAA

FollowingA380 H UM LM S L

Lea

ding

A380 4 6 7 7 7 8H 4 4 5 5 6 7

UM R R 3 4 4 6LM R R R R 3 5S R R R R 3 4L R R R R R R

(d) United States FAA

FollowingA380 H B757 M L

Lea

ding

A380 6 6 8 8 10H R 4 5 5 6

B757 R 4 4 4 5M R R R R 4L R R R R R

1.3 Example Airports

The impact of the A380 on three major airports will be examined in this paper. Theseairports have been chosen because they have different modes of operation and mixes ofaircraft sizes, yet they are all expected to receive a significant number of A380 operationsin the coming years.

3 of 15


1.3.1 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.

DisusedDisusedDisusedx x

27 L09R27 R09L

UnderConstruction

UnderConstruction

UnderConstruction

UnderConstruction

UnderConstruction

UnderConstruction

UnderConstruction

UnderConstruction

AY4SNAPA

HORKA

OSTER

F2E2C2

MORRA

SATUN

ETTIVNEVIS

TITAN

PLUTOAY1

AY3

AY5

SY6

L1

E1C1 D1 F1

LOKKI

M1

D2DINGO

RABIT

COBRA

DASSO VIKASHANLI

AY10

L2

NAnnual Rate

of Change 0.14°E

VAR

2.1°W - 2009

092°M

092°M

272°M

272°M

Car ParkCar Park

Terminal4

Terminal2

Terminal3

Terminal 5A

Terminal 5B T5C

Terminal1

Taxiway A

Taxiway C

Taxiway A

Taxiway BTaxiway B

Taxiway E

Taxiway F

Taxiway D

Taxiway D

Taxiway F

Twy Y

Twy Y

TwyG

Taxiway B

Link 53

Link 57

Link 52

Link53

Link55

Link58

Link54

Taxiway B

Taxiway B

Taxiway A

Taxiway G

Twy A Twy A

Taxiway S

Taxiway B

Taxiway A

Taxiway P

Twy U

Twy B

Link 23

Twy A

Twy A

Taxiway J

Taxiway MTaxiw

ay L

Taxiw

ay L

Link 29

Twy M

Link 2

3

Twy A

Taxiway STwy S

Taxiw

ay V

Taxiw

ay T

Taxiway TRVP SouthRVP South

Royal SuiteRoyal SuiteCargoApronCargoApron

Taxiway Z

ILS GPILS GP

Taxiway STw

yC

Twy

C Twy

DTw

yD

PAPI(3°)

MEHT 67

Link51

ILS GP117(34)

116(33)

PAPI(3°)

MEHT 66

Pier 5

Link36

Taxiway HTw

yH

Pier 4

Radar

Link11

Link12

Link13

ControlTower

362(279)

226(143)

3901m x 50m

ARP

Pier 6

Pier 7

Link34

Link 35

Taxiway RTw

yR

Pier 3

Europier

ILS GP

Maintenance Area 1

Taxiway Q

Twy

Q

Taxiway W

Link33

Link 41Link 44Link 4

3

Link 22

Link 27

Link 28

Link 2

9

Link21

TwyJ TwyL

Pier 2 Pier 1

SnowBase

Link32

105(22)

PAPI (3°)MEHT 73

PAPI (3°)MEHT 64

TwyP

3660m x 50m

RVP North ILS GP

CargoApron

MaintenanceArea 1

221(138)

Link 42

RVPEast

Pier 4APier 4A

FireStation

FireStation

SouthernFuel FarmSouthernFuel Farm

NorthernFuel FarmNorthern

Fuel Farm

125(42)

126(43)

105(22)

101(18)

100(17)

103(20)

130(47)

119(36)

118(35)RVP

West

Twy A

Taxiway A

Taxiway B

Link 56

Taxiway Y

Taxiway BTaxiway A

Tw

y A

Tw

y B

Twy L

Link 26 Link 26

Link 25

Twy B

Link 28

A1

S3S4S5

A8 A7 A6 A5A4 A3

A2

S6

N6

S7

N7N8N5E N4E

A9E

N2ENB2EN5W

N4W

A9W

N1NB1

SB7

N10

A12A13

N11

S11

NB8NB10

AB13 AB12 AB11

NB11

A10W A10E

SB3

S1NSB1

S1S

A11

100 0 100 200 300 400 500m

500 0 500 1000 1500ft

MLSM-HAACh 522

MLSM-HBBCh 514

MLSM-HERCh 522

MLSM-HRLCh 514

HEATHROWI-BB & I-LL

109.50D

(Ch 32X)IBB/ ILL

512749.56N 0002730.77W92'

Rwy 09L Thr Elev 79512839.00N 0002906.05W

(GUND Elevation 151)

Rwy 09R Thr Elev 75512753.25N 0002856.41W


Rwy 27L Thr Elev 77512753.83N 0002602.68W


Rwy 27R Thr Elev 78512839.63N 0002559.74W


HEATHROWI-AA & I-RR

110.30D

(Ch 40X)IAA/ IRR

512843.78N 0002732.86W89'

I-LL 109.50D

ILL

512753.14N 0002928.03W

I-RR 110.30D

IRR

512838.88N 0002937.08W

I-BB 109.50D

IRR

512753.86N 0002542.15W

I-AA 110.30D

IAA

512839.71N 0002537.49W

Highest Elev in TDZ 81512839.15N 0002824.83W








Civil Aviation Authority AMDT 11/09

AERO INFO DATE 17 AUG 09

LONDON HEATHROWUK AIP

EGLLAERODROMECHART - ICAO

ARP 512839N 0002741W AD ELEV 83FT(22 Oct 09) AD 2-EGLL-2-1

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.

BEARINGS ARE MAGNETICELEVATIONS AND HEIGHTS ARE IN FEET

ELEVATIONS IN FEET AMSL 362HEIGHTS IN FEET ABOVE AD (279)

GUND (Geoid Undulation) =The height of the Geoid (MSL) above the

Reference Elipsoid (WGS 84) at the stated position.

RUNWAY/TAXIWAY/APRON PHYSICAL CHARACTERISTICSAPRON / RWY / TWY SURFACE BEARING STRENGTHRWY 09L/27R Grooved Asphalt 83/F/A/W/TRWY 09R/27L Grooved Asphalt 83/F/A/W/TAprons ConcreteAsphalt -Taxiways Concrete/Asphalt -

LIGHTING

THR 09L 09R HI Green with HI W bars.THR 27L 27R 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.

COMATIS 128.075, 113.750, 115.100 (Arrival) HEATHROW INFO 121.935 (Departure)

TWR 118.700, 118.500, 124.475 HEATHROW TOWER 121.975 (GM Planning) HEATHROW DELIVERY 121.900, 121.700, 121.850 (GMC) HEATHROW GROUND 121.600 HEATHROW FIRE

Figure 2: London Heathrow Airport Layout[5]

In November 2009 London Heathrow accommodated 4 daily Heathrow operations (2 flightsto Singapore, one to Dubai and one to Sydney), this figure will rise substantially as Airbusdelivers 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 BritishAirways and Virgin Atlantic. In addition to the volume volume of future A380 operationsHeathrow is a useful baseline airport given the wealth of data available about operationsat the airport as well as the simple operational modes of its runways. Heathrow alwaysoperates one runway for arrivals and one runway for departures (to minimize the noiseimpact on communities under the approach path [6]). Heathrow also operates close to itsrunway capacity for most of the day due to slot controls at the airport. These factors

4 of 15


together mean that a simple runway capacity model described in Section 2.1 should yieldan 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 morestringent separation requirements impose by the FAA as well as the effect of the loweraircraft size seen on average in the U.S. New York JFK (JFK) is likely to be one of the topU.S airports in terms of A380 operations1. JFK is also an interesting contrast to LondonHeathrow because its runways are frequently operated in a mixed-mode configuration, witharrivals and departures sharing the same runway.

(JFK)JOHN F. KE

NNEDY INTL

NEW YORK /

AIRPORT DIAGRAM

09351

H

73^49’W

AIRPORT DIAGRAM

09351

73^48’W

AL-610 (FAA)

NEW YORK /

QH

QG QF

PE

13R

PD

QD

PC

PB

QC

PQ

Q

H

AB

G

Y

G H

73^45’W

8400 X 200

224.1^ELEV 13

SB

GENERAL AVIATION TERMINALELEV 12

134.0^

RWYS 4R-22L, 4L-22R

, 13R-31L, 13L-31R

S100, D185, ST175, DT

550, DDT823

NEW YORK, NEW YOR

KQ

C

CAELEV 13

13L

UA

CB

VV

VAW WA10000 X 150

B

R

S

SCSD

SSE

H

134.1^CB

CAUTION: BE ALERT

TORUNWAY C

ROSSING CLEARANCE

S.READBACK

OF ALL RUNWAY

HOLDING INSTRUCTIO

NS IS REQUIRED.

R

UA

B

UU

VV

QB

PAP

P

P

N

N

MB MAA

NA

BANBNC

AA

A

A

M

B

B

LA

LL

CONTROL TOWER 338

KA

A

A

B

B

H 11351 X 150

Y

YH

JZELEV 12

K

K

KB

ELEV 12

4L

044.1^

314.1^

31L

4R FIELD ELEV 1340^37’N

73^47’W40^38’N

73^46’W

044.1^

14572 X 150

KD

KK

JANUARY 2005

ANNUAL RATE OF CH

ANGE0.0^E

Q

J

Z

Z

VAR 13.3 ^W

EMAS405 X 227

CAT 2 HOLD

FIRESTATION

SA

INTERNATIONAL

ARRIVAL TERMINALU.S CUSTO

MS

197

TB

TA

A

T

B AS

TT

R

B

ASDE-X Surveillance S

ystem in use.

Pilots should operate

transponders

with Mode C on all twys

and rwys.

Z

Z

JOHN F. KENNEDY INT

L Y

YA

FA

F

22L

ELEV 13

31R

E

224.1^

FB

314.1^

EMAS392 X 226

FEA

ZA

C

C D

W

CD

CCCB

DA H

BE

DB

B A

CE W

A

H

(JFK)NEW YORK

, NEW YORK

ATIS ARR 128.725

NE 117.7 SW 1

15.4DEP 115.1

KENNEDY TOWER

Rwys 4R-22L and 13L-3

1R119.1 281.5

5Rwys 4L-22

R and 13R-31L

123.9 281.55

GND CON121.9 348.

6CLNC DEL

135.05 348.6

40^39’N

E

FB

22R

40^40’N

ZA

EE

ELEV 12

CCH

D

AUX FIRE STATION

YA

FBC

K1

KC

KK

NE-2, 17 DEC 2009 to 14 JAN 2010

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 tothe potentially unmatched future level of A380 operations asa result of Emirates Airlines

1Los Angeles International (LAX) my handle more A380s however it was not used in this study due tothe complications imposed on A380 operations by its closely spaced parallel runways and the uncertaintysurrounding the resolution of these issues.

5 of 15


(based at DXB) large order for 58 of the type (Figure 1). The airport also adds a thirddistinct separation standard by applying the ICAO recommendations without modification.Like JFK, Dubai International has a pair of parallel runways assumed to be operatingindependently with mixed arrivals and departures for the purposes of this study.

I CHANGES: Twyr. I

8 JEPPESEN SANDER%M,

INC., 1007. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.

Figure 4: Dubai International Airport Layout

2 Methodology

This study compares the passenger throughput and arrival capacity of the three studyairports for the three cases of moving heavy operations to a 525 seat A380, a 450 seat A380and a 418 seat 747-400. The A380 cases include the appropriate higher wake separationcriteria required by that type of aircraft, while the 747-400 case reflects a simple “up-gauging” 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 thefour different described in Table 1 to the LHR operations to examine the behavior of thesecriteria 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


between a lead aircraft in weight category i and a following aircraft in category j can befound from Equation 1.

Tij = max(

3600(

r + sij

vj− r

vi

), od2 + max(oi, od1)

)for vi > vj

(1)

Tij = max(

3600(

sij

vj

), od2 + max(oi, od1)

)for vi ≤ vj

The time required per arriving passenger (in seconds) can then be calculated for differentsequences 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 matrixof likelihoods of any given pair of arrivals (pij).

Cops =3600(nr)∑K

i=1

∑Kj=1(pij · Tij)

(3)

Cpax =3600(nr)∑K

i=1

∑Kj=1(pij · Tpax,ij)

(4)

2.2 Model Inputs

The required inputs for the runway capacity model were collected from a wide variety ofdata sources with reasonable assumptions being made where data was unavailable. Themodel inputs are summarized in Table 2 and where appropriate are further explained inthis section.

2.2.1 Final Approach Path Length

The final approach path length (r) is the distance over which air traffic control can nolonger separate aircraft based on speed since the aircraft are preparing to land. At LondonHeathrow this distance is a minimum of 4 n.m.[9] and at JFK it is 5n.m[10]. The approachpath length for Dubai International could not be found and was therefore assumed to bethe same as used at JFK so as not to introduce an unnecessary additional variable.

7 of 15


Table 2: Summary of Inputs to the runway capacity model

LHR JFK DBXApproachLength (r)

4 n.m. UK CAA[9] 5 n.m. FAA[10] 5 n.m. Assumed

Buffer time (bi) 10 seconds (Assumed) [8]Number of

Runways(nr)1 segregated 2 mixed independent

Separation (sij)UK CAA (Table

1c)US FAA (Table 1d) ICAO (Table 1b)

ApproachVelocity (vi)

Based only on Boeing aircraft in schedule

Aircraft Mix(pij)

2008 FlightTimetable (4 week

sample)

2008 ETMSDatabase (4 week

sample)

2004 AnnualOperations

ArrivalOccupancy Time

(oa)Based on data from LHR Study

Departure set-uptime for (od1)

Not Needed 45 s (Assumed) [8]

Departures rolltime (od2)

Not Needed 60 s (Assumed) [8]

PassengerCapacity (ci)

Aircraft manufacturer data for typical multi-class configuration

2.2.2 Approach Velocity

Aircraft approach velocities vary significantly depending on the weight of the individualarriving aircraft, because of this it is a difficult process to estimate actual approach ve-locities. Boeing provides a document [11] with reference approach speeds which was usedto 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 weightcategories in use at each of the study airports. Aircraft that were not manufactured byBoeing or McDonald Douglas were not included in the approach speed calculation. Thismethod provides a reasonable estimate for the approach speeds given the large number ofBoeing aircraft represented at the study airports and the wide range of weights of theseaircraft.

8 of 15


2.2.3 Aircraft Mix

The probability (pi)of any given arrival being from a certain weight category is assumedto be equal to the proportion of all arrivals that are from that weight category. ForLHR and JFK the proportion of aircraft from each weight category was estimated throughexamination 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 whileavoiding the holiday period. For DXB only aggregate data from 2004 was available. Giventhe already high proportion of heavy jets in this data no additional scaling was performedto adjust the mix of aircraft to 2008 levels. Once the probability vectors were compiled theprobability of observing a pair of arrivals i followed by j is simply obtained by multiplyingtogether the two probabilities pi and pj .

The measured values of pi are shown in Figure 5. It is important to note the proportion ofheavy aircraft at each airport, with DXB having significantly more heavy arrivals than JFKand LHR. A380 operations were simulated by moving a percentage of the heavy operationsat each airport to A380 operations. The model was run for up to half of the heavy operationat each airport being converted to A380s.

H

UM

LM

S

L

HUMLMSL

(a) At LHR

H

B757

M

L

HB757ML

(b) At JFK

H

M

S

HMS

(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 170arrivals at London Heathrow for a wide range of different aircraft types and was conductedduring good visibility for a dry runway. The results of this study were averaged acrossthe weight categories appropriate for LHR, JFK and DXB. Given that runway occupancy

9 of 15


time measurements for JFK and DXB were not readily available this data provides real-istic 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 howexpeditiously pilots vacate the runway.

2.2.5 Departure Runway Occupancy Time

Data could not be found for the runway occupancy time of departing aircraft, thereforethe estimates given in de Neufville and Odoni [8] were used. These

3 Results

3.1 Impact at Different Airports

The runway capacity model was run using the inputs described in Section 2.2, for bothlow (450 seats) and typical (525 seats) aircraft passenger capacities as well as a baseline747-400 with 418 seats. The results of this analysis are compared in Figure 6 and in detailfor each airport in Figure 7. The results show that runway passenger throughput doesincrease in all cases however in the lower capacity A380 case the gains are marginal. Anygains 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 haveno addition separation requirements) would increase the passenger throughput more thanany of the A380 configurations modeled. This implies that if passenger throughput werethe only motivation for customers of the A380 then a high capacity Heavy aircraft wouldbetter suit their needs. Fortunately for Airbus the A380 has other economic, environmentaland passenger comfort benefits over other Heavy aircraft.currently on the market

10 of 15


0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14Hourly Arrivals (All runways)

5000

5500

6000

6500

7000

7500

8000

8500

9000

Air

port

Air

ravl Pass

enger

Capaci

ty (

per

hour)

LHR-HighJFK-HighDXB-HighLHR-LowJFK-LowDXB-LowLHR-747JFK-747DXB-747

Figure 6: Comparison of the effect of the A380 on operations at LHR, JFK and DXB for450 seat and 525 seat variants of the A380 and a 416 seat 747-400

11 of 15


0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9Hourly A380 Arrivals (All runways)

8620

8640

8660

8680

8700

8720

8740

8760

8780

Arr

ival Pass

enger

Capaci

ty (

per

hour)

56

57

58

59

60

61

62

Arr

ivals

per

Hour

(a) At LHR

0 1 2 3 4 5 6Hourly A380 Arrivals (All runways)

6600

6650

6700

6750

6800

Arr

ival Pass

enger

Capaci

ty (

per

hour)

32.5

33.0

33.5

34.0

34.5

35.0

35.5

Arr

ivals

per

Hour

(b) At JFK

0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18Hourly A380 Arrivals (All runways)

5050

5100

5150

5200

5250

5300

Arr

ival Pass

enger

Capaci

ty (

per

hour)

51

52

53

54

55

56

57

Arr

ivals

per

Hour

(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


3.2 Effect of Different Separation Criteria

The comparison of the effect of different separation criteria Figure 8 shows considerablevariability in the effect of the different criteria on a common set of operational data. Itis particularly clear why the ICAO interim guidance was revised just before the A380entered service - the interim guidance would have caused a substantial loss in passengerthroughput (difference between red and gray line in Figure 8). Also of note is the factthat the conservative FAA guidance leads to a reduction in throughput for the low densityA380 configuration when applied to Heathrow. These results highlight the importance forregulatory agencies for finding the right balance between ensuring safety and improvingthe efficiency of the air transportation system.

0 2 4 6 8 10Hourly A380 Arrivals (All runways)

6600

6800

7000

7200

7400

7600

7800

8000

8200

Air

port

Air

ravl Pass

enger

Capaci

ty (

per

hour)

UK-HighUS-HighICAO Ini-HighICAO Final-HighUK-LowUS-LowICAO Ini-LowICAO Final-Low

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


4 Conclusions

This study has shown that the A380 does not have a detrimental impact on passengerthroughput as some members of the aviation industry had fear it would. The increasingnumbers of A380 operations at hub airports around the world will however have a signifi-cant impact on the breakdown of their traffic by weight category. Major international hubswill operate most efficiently if the traffic mix is heavily weighted towards Heavy and A380category aircraft. For airports (such as JFK) that expect to continue operating a substan-tial number of lighter aircraft as well as several A380 operations careful management ofthe A380 operation will be required to ensure that the new aircraft has a positive impacton their airport.

14 of 15


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 re-vamp. http://www.flightglobal.com/articles/2009/11/17/335080/dubai-09-airbus-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-a380-final-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, January2009.

[5] Civil Aviation Authority. London heathrow aerodrome chart. http://www.nats-uk.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. CivilAviation Authority, November 2009.

[10] Federal Aviation Administration. Order JO 7110.65S Air Traffic Control, change 1edition, February 2008.

[11] Boeing. Airport reference code and approach speeds for boeing airplanes. http://www.boeing.com/commercial/airports/faqs/arcandapproachspeeds.pdf, Au-gust 2007.

[12] British Airways and BAA Heathrow. Results from two surveys of the use of reversethrust of aircraft landing at heathrow airport. http://www.dft.gov.uk/adobepdf/165217/282786/6_ENV1128.pdf, November 2005.

15 of 15

Documents

The E ect of the Airbus A380 on Runway Passenger Throughputardent.mit.edu/airports/ASP_exercises/2009 reports/A380 Effect on... · The E ect of the Airbus A380 on Runway Passenger