Resilience of passenger boarding strategies to priority fares offered by airlines

Kisiel, Tomasz

doi:10.1016/j.jairtraman.2020.101853

Cited by 11 publications

(9 citation statements)

References 19 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…As a general rule, the methods in this category separate the passengers to be boarded into two-to-six groups-except for the "by row" methods that assign the passengers to a number of groups equal to the number of the airplane rows-and assign passengers to groups based on specific rules. For example, with the WilMA (window-middle-aisle) boarding method, the first boarding group contains those passengers with seats adjacent to the window, the second boarding group contains those passengers with middle seats, and the third (and final) group to board contains passengers with seats adjacent to the aisle [9,19,[26][27][28]. Within a given boarding group, the passengers board the airplane in a random sequence [29].…”

Section: Literature Reviewmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Symmetry 2020, 11, x FOR PEER REVIEW 3 of 23 boarding group contains those passengers with seats adjacent to the window, the second boarding group contains those passengers with middle seats, and the third (and final) group to board contains passengers with seats adjacent to the aisle [9,19,[26][27][28]. Within a given boarding group, the passengers board the airplane in a random sequence [29].…”

Section: Literature Reviewmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

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

2020

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

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.

show abstract

Section: Literature Reviewmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Literature Reviewmentioning

confidence: 99%

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

2020

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…This approach implies the division of the passengers prior to the airplane boarding process into different groups based on some given rules and their boarding in a random manner within the group. Some of the well-known methods belonging to this category are: back-to-frontdivides the passengers in groups starting from the back of the airplane (Jafer and Mi, 2017;Steiner and Philipp, 2009), WilMAdivides the passengers in three groups depending on their seat position: near the window, middle seat or near the aisle (Bachmat et al, 2009;Ferrari and Nagel, 2005;Kisiel, 2020), reverse pyramiddivides the passengers in groups that load diagonally starting from the window-rear seats (Bazargan, 2007;van den Briel et al, 2005;Jafer and Mi, 2017). The "by seat" category features the boarding of each passenger at a time following a given boarding rule.…”

Section: Literature Reviewmentioning

confidence: 99%

Grey clustering of the variations in the back-to-front airplane boarding method considering COVID-19 flying restrictions

Delcea

Cotfas

Milne

et al. 2021

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

PurposeThe airline industry has been significantly hit by the occurrence of the new coronavirus SARS-CoV-2, facing one of its worst crises in history. In this context, the present paper analyses one of the well-known boarding methods used in practice by the airlines before and during the coronavirus outbreak, namely back-to-front and suggests which variations of this method to use when three passenger boarding groups are considered and a jet bridge connects the airport terminal with the airplane.Design/methodology/approachBased on the importance accorded by the airlines to operational performance, health risks, and passengers' comfort, the variations in three passenger groups back-to-front boarding are divided into three clusters using the grey clustering approach offered by the grey systems theory.FindingsHaving the clusters based on the selected metrics and considering the social distance among the passengers, airlines can better understand how the variations in back-to-front perform in the new conditions imposed by the novel coronavirus and choose the boarding approach that better fits its policy and goals.Originality/valueThe paper combines the advantages offered by grey clustering and agent-based modelling for offering to determine which are the best configurations that offer a reduced boarding time, while accounting for reduced passengers' health risk, measured through three indicators: aisle risk, seat risk and type-3 seat interferences and for an increased comfort for the passengers manifested through a continuous walking flow while boarding.

show abstract

“…Many studies can be done in the direction of process improvement in the aviation sector. For example, resource planning at airports with limited capacity, considering the number of landing times and passengers, simulation to reduce passenger waiting times [2], analysis of the effects of human factors onboarding [3], seat assignments [4] or hand luggage placements [5].…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Internet of Things Supported Airport Boarding System and Evaluation with Fuzzy

Memika¹,

Polat²

2023

Intelligent Automation &Amp; Soft Computing

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The existing systems sustained with the investments made require more automation and digital transformation with the continuous advancement of technology. The aviation industry is a sector that is open to more automation and digital transformation, mainly because of the intense competition and the analysis of a large variety of data. The long duration of operations in current airline processes and some process flows cause customer dissatisfaction and cost increase. In this study, the boarding process, which is one of the operational processes of airline transportation and is open to improvement, was discussed. The classical boarding process has been redesigned using Internet of Things technology a model called Boarding 4.0 was created. With Boarding 4.0, it is aimed to design a process where passengers can take their time before boarding more efficiently. In the study, the sub-processes of the Boarding 4.0 model, other processes that the sub-processes interact with, their activities, and data exchange passenger movements during the activities are explained in detail. Compared to the classical boarding process and Boarding 4.0 with the fuzzy ahp technique, it has been shown that boarding 4.0 is more advantageous and passenger movement times can be reduced during boarding. As a result of the evaluation made with the fuzzy ahp, it was determined that boarding 4.0 is more advantageous than the classical boarding process. In addition, when the total time of the sub-activities in the boarding process is calculated, boarding activities for a passenger take 50 min with the classic boarding process and 20 min with Boarding 4.0. Thus, when Boarding 4.0 is used, the passenger gains 30 min. Furthermore, when the calculation is made concerning the airport's current capacity, two passengers are hosted with the classical boarding process, while five passengers are hosted with Boarding 4.0. This acquisition is significant for airports in terms of efficient use of resources.

show abstract

Resilience of passenger boarding strategies to priority fares offered by airlines

Cited by 11 publications

References 19 publications

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

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

Grey clustering of the variations in the back-to-front airplane boarding method considering COVID-19 flying restrictions

Internet of Things Supported Airport Boarding System and Evaluation with Fuzzy

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About