Determining the Number of Passengers for Each of Three Reverse Pyramid Boarding Groups with COVID-19 Flying Restrictions

Abstract

The onset of the novel coronavirus SARS-CoV2 has changed many aspects of people’s economic and social activities. For many airlines, social distancing has reduced airplane capacity by one third as a result of keeping the middle seats empty. Additionally, social distancing between passengers traversing the aisle slows the boarding process. Recent literature has suggested that the reverse pyramid boarding method provides favorable values for boarding time and passenger health metrics when compared to other boarding methods with social distancing. Assuming reverse pyramid boarding with the middle seats unoccupied, we determined the number of passengers to include in each of three boarding groups. We assumed that passengers use a jet-bridge that connects the airport terminal to the airplane’s front door. We used agent-based modeling and a stochastic simulation to evaluate solutions. A full grid search found an initial good solution, and then local search optimization determined the best solution based upon the airline’s relative preference for minimizing average boarding time and minimizing risks to previously seated passengers from later-boarding, potentially contagious passengers breathing near them. The resulting solution contained the number of passengers to place into each of the three boarding groups. If an airline is most concerned about the health risk to seated passengers from later boarding passengers walking near them, the best three-group reverse pyramid method adapted for social distancing will first board passengers with window seats in the rear half of the airplane, then will board passengers with window seats in the front half of the airplane and those with aisle seats in the rear half of the airplane, and finally will board the passengers with aisle seats in the front half of the airplane. The resulting solution takes about 2% longer to board than the three-group solution that minimizes boarding time while providing a 25% decrease in health risk to aisle seat passengers from later boarding passengers.

An Investigation of Social Distancing and Quantity of Luggage Impacts on the Three Groups Reverse Pyramid Boarding Method

“…Depending on the airline's strategy of balancing between the performance indicators (boarding time vs. health risks), other variations in Reverse Pyramid with three unequal size boarding groups can be considered. The present paper extends the work of Delcea et al [11] to analyze how different values of aisle social distancing and different volumes of carry-on luggage yield changes in the quantities of passengers to assign to each of the three Reverse Pyramid boarding groups and the resulting impact on performance. Based on this analysis, airlines can determine the number of passengers to include in each of the three Reverse Pyramid board- The present paper extends the work of Delcea et al [11] to analyze how different values of aisle social distancing and different volumes of carry-on luggage yield changes in the quantities of passengers to assign to each of the three Reverse Pyramid boarding groups and the resulting impact on performance.…”

“…The present paper extends the work of Delcea et al [11] to analyze how different values of aisle social distancing and different volumes of carry-on luggage yield changes in the quantities of passengers to assign to each of the three Reverse Pyramid boarding groups and the resulting impact on performance. Based on this analysis, airlines can determine the number of passengers to include in each of the three Reverse Pyramid board- The present paper extends the work of Delcea et al [11] to analyze how different values of aisle social distancing and different volumes of carry-on luggage yield changes in the quantities of passengers to assign to each of the three Reverse Pyramid boarding groups and the resulting impact on performance. Based on this analysis, airlines can determine the number of passengers to include in each of the three Reverse Pyramid boarding groups depending on the particular conditions during times of social distancing.…”

“…Delcea et al [11] determines the quantities of passengers to include in each of the three Reverse Pyramid boarding groups when jet bridges are used and accounting for social distance (Figure 2). They assume aisle social distancing among passengers of 1 m and a luggage scenario in which 70% of the passengers carry inside the airplane one large and one small bag, 10% carry one large bag, 10% one small bag, and the remaining 10% of the passengers have no bag.…”

“…Observing the measures employed by the airlines and the passengers' expectations, two common practices for social distancing are: keeping a minimum distance among the passengers walking down the aisle to their assigned seats and keeping the middle seat between passengers empty [11].…”

“…The present paper further analyzes how three factors (social distancing, passengers' carry-on luggage, and relative preferences for boarding performance indicators) influence the quantity of passengers associated with each of the three boarding groups in the Reverse Pyramid boarding method. Expanding upon previous research [11], we increase the number of situations to be considered related to the social distance among the passengers when proceeding down the aisle to their assigned seats by considering aisle social distances of 1, 1.5, and 2 m, we vary the quantity of luggage brought by passengers into the airplane cabin, and we consider different weights for the performance indicators (boarding time, aisle seat risk, window seat risk).…”