cabin operations

AE4443 Airline Operations & Management 2012-2013

1

Achieving the perfect flight through cabin operations

Georgios Tzimourtos1, Marc Nicholls2,

Christos Bafatakis3, Christos Meintanis4

MSc Transport Infrastructure and Logistics, CITG, Stevinweg 1, 2628 CN Delft, Netherlands

Abstract In this paper the authors try to optimize the cabin operation procedure. The storage of carrying luggage is the most-time consuming component of the boarding procedure and hence its separation from the passengers is examined. Moreover, the development of a smartphone application that will offer more personalized service to KLM passengers is proposed. The findings reveal that several benefits could be gained by implementing those ideas both for the passengers and the airline companies.

Nomenclature k = number of passengers per group

I. Introduction erfect flight; this is the name of the project, held by Dutch Airline KLM, aiming to reduce emissions and costs during all phases of a flight. In the context of this project, KLM collaborates with several partners,

such as Boeing, Schiphol airport and LVNL, in order to optimize numerous elements (Zwan, 2012). There are five areas for analysis and potential improvements where innovations can be realized, namely flight operation, ground operation, cabin operation, kpi’s and cost index. The area, this paper will focus on, is the cabin operation. While this area involves all operations in the aircraft related to the passengers, a more broad area will be explored including segments of the ground operation, in relation however to the passengers, in order to achieve a more holistic approach and conclude to more concrete solutions. The perfect flight of KLM is the flight from Amsterdam to New York carried out with the Boeing 777-200ER airplane (Zwan, 2012).

A. Problem statement Lack of space at departures will become an even larger issue due to growing amount of passengers and in

order for the airlines to address that increase, every handling that can be anticipated before arriving at the airport should be addressed (Koopmans, 2012). Moreover, due to the demand growth, airport infrastructure will become more and more scarce, leading to higher costs for the airlines (Smith, 2004). Dealing with such an increase, requires the development of new, more efficient, processes that will allow the airline industry to perform better than before, increase profit and meet the requirements of future air transportation demand.

B. Literature review Literature was studied that covered several components of cabin operations, which are seen as important

areas to study, because they relate to the focus of the problem statement. In relation to boarding time, research was done by Steffen (2008) to investigate the optimal boarding scheme. This was done under the assumption that the main component of the total boarding time consists of the time needed by the passengers to load their luggage. In his analysis, he found that optimality is directly related to the distance between the seats of two consecutively boarding passengers, indicating the space needed to load luggage unhindered. Steffen and Hotchkiss (2012) compared the previous mentioned boarding scheme (Steffen J. H., 2008) with four other boarding methods, but they concluded that Steffen's original boarding scheme was the fastest (Steffen & Hotchkiss, 2012). While before mentioned research had a macroscopic perspective, Tang, et al. (2012) took a

1 MSc Transport Infrastructure and Logistics, CITG, TU Delft, [email protected], 4185269 2 MSc Transport Infrastructure and Logistics, CITG, TU Delft, [email protected], 1234501 3 MSc Transport Infrastructure and Logistics, CITG, TU Delft, [email protected], 4186230 4 MSc Transport Infrastructure and Logistics, CITG, TU Delft, [email protected], 4187881

P

mailto:[email protected]





2

microscopic approach at the boarding problem. This means that each passenger has specific kinematic properties and the time needed to load luggage varies between individuals. Their analysis identified overtaking and queue-jumping as main delay factors, besides aisle and seat conflicts. Furthermore in the same study, the comparison with other methods showed that random boarding is slower by a factor of 2.8, indicating that there is much room for improvement on the Steffen method once the passengers’ individual properties are taken into account (Tang, Wub, Huang, & Caccetta, 2012). Nyquist & McFadden (2008) also stated that the most time-consuming component is the storage of carry-on luggage. The main conclusions of their research was that the best strategies for reducing boarding time were: the usage of non-traditional boarding methods, the development of more effective policies regarding carry-on luggage and the usage of more than one door for loading the aircraft (Nyquist & McFadden, 2008). Also, Steiner & Philipp (2009) looked at methods to reduce boarding time. They concluded that with a reduced number of hand luggage, the use of a pre-boarding areas and a proper boarding strategy, reduction of the boarding time can be achieved (Steiner & Philipp, 2009).

God & Hintze (2009) studied the development of wireless internet availability in air operations, especially in the cabin. Sever wireless technologies were investigated and concluded that can increasingly be used for crew communication, safety and service to passengers (God & Hintze, 2009).

Catering is a major part of cabin operations according to Li, Poon, Lee, Chung, & Luk (2003). According to their research leftover food creates a lot of waste which adds up to a significant amount of weight. This is also the case for other forms of waste like papers and magazines. Weight savings in these categories can lead to significant cost savings for airlines (Li, Poon, Lee, Chung, & Luk, 2003).

Carlsson (2009) investigated the possibilities of weight reduction in current aircraft and translated these weight savings into fuel and CO2 reductions. While the research only focused on seats and trolleys, it was concluded that reduction in both equipment categories can be significant, but it is crucial to connect any weight savings with the required investment costs, in order to determine the investment’s profitability (Carlsson, 2009).

Finally, the subject of passenger comfort in general was studied. Chan & Cheng (2005) investigated the gaps in relation to the passengers’ service expectations, actual service received and the perceptions of the passengers’ service expectations by frontline managers and employees from an airline. Their conducted surveys concluded that there were significant differences between the passengers’ service expectations and actual service received, (Chan & Cheng, 2005). Vink, Bazley, Kamp, & Blok (2012) investigated possibilities to improve the aircraft interior comfort experience. They concluded that physical attributes like seat and entertainment are the most important aspects of passenger comfort, more so than “soft factors” like crew attention (Vink, Bazley, Kamp, & Blok, 2012).

According to a survey conducted by SITA for a seventh consecutive year (SITA - ATW, 2012) regarding passengers’ perception towards technology used throughout an airline journey, check-in, security and transfers are considered to be the most stressful parts of the journey. For this generated stress, three main causes can be identified, namely: loss of time, unexpected changes and lack of information, lack of control to rearrange the journey. It is also pointed out that passengers desire to simplify the pre-mentioned services and thus increase comfort (SITA - ATW, 2012).

Regarding the way travellers choose to check-in for their flight, the research article written by Lu, Choi and Tseng (2011) proves not only a strong relationship between check-in preferences of passengers and their nationality but also shows that certain travellers like, business, online ticketing users, small groups and younger passengers are more likely to use self-check-in services compared to the other questioned groups. According to a second survey (SITA-Airline Business, 2012) regarding the IT trends that airlines will follow in the near future, almost eight out of ten airlines already, or plan to, ‘personalise’ communication and service offers to their passengers. The current focus is personalisation via the direct distribution channels like websites, smart phones and social media that offer great potential for more personalisation in travel (SITA-Airline Business, 2012).


3

The main results of the two pre-mentioned surveys can be found in the table below:

Table 1. SITA survey’s summarized results (SITA - ATW, 2012), (SITA-Airline Business, 2012) Trend – Survey result Survey’s title

62% of passengers are active on social media; a higher penetration rate than recorded for the general population

Passenger self-service survey

Nine out of ten airlines are planning to sell tickets via mobile phones by 2015, establishing mobile as a mainstream distribution channel for airline tickets

Airline IT Trends survey

Mobile services for passengers top the list of investment programs for airlines, with six out of ten airlines planning major investments in the next three years


The popularity of self-service for passengers is still increasing. In 2012 68% of passengers used self-service systems for check-in


The survey respondents believe that beyond 2015, websites and mobile phones will be the two dominant channels for processing passengers.


83% of airlines have the ambition to sell ancillary service on smart phones by 2015.


In 2012 70% of the passengers owned a smartphone, and it is expected that this number will increase sharply in the near future


Passengers are also increasingly open to a personalised travel experience on mobile devices (SITA - ATW,

2012). Service personalisation as well as efficient operation, depends on the availability and analysis of data (SITA-Airline Business, 2012). In the survey exploring the future airline IT trends, the airline representatives questioned stated that among others, data warehouse, revamp of e-commerce and enterprise resource planning are the biggest IT future challenges that airlines have to deal with.

C. Research question Two elements were taken into consideration while developing the research question. The objectives set

during the methodology need to follow the S.M.A.R.T. principle (Specific, Measurable, Achievable, Realistic, Time) and innovation should be present in the design, but not being the ultimate goal. (Zwan, 2012)

The research question is the following: “How to diminish the uncertainties of passengers’ related choice, by creating more efficient cabin

operations processes in order to reduce total costs and lower emissions, while maintaining or increasing the level of service, within the scope of KLM’s perfect flight program for the year 2013.”

II. Design and procedures In this section, an answer to the research question is presented. More specifically, in the following lines two

main designs will be explained. The first one focuses on making the boarding procedure faster while the second one is related to the development of a smartphone application that will offer personalized services to the passengers.

A. Design

i) Boarding All previously undertaken research regarding the passenger boarding procedure has identified the presence

of cabin luggage as the main source of delay, regardless the boarding method used. Based on this main finding, we designed a new boarding process that aims towards decreasing the total time needed for passenger boarding.

The concept for the new boarding procedure involves the complete separation of flows between the passenger and the luggage. So far, hold luggage already follows a separate, airport-specific, flow that ends with it being loaded on the cargo department of the aircraft. Since the airline industry has specific rules and regulations regarding the weight and size of cabin luggage, it is safe to assume that this part of the process has very low stochasticity and that uncertainty arises mainly due to the human factor; the passenger.


4

Figure 1. The new airplane boarding process elements as an extension of the current situation

Splitting passengers from cabin luggage before boarding creates a new luggage flow that is measurable and

can be planned in detail by the airline. At this point, it is important to clarify that this new flow for the cabin luggage must end with the luggage being placed in the designated overhead compartment over the seat assigned to the owner of the luggage, in order to leave the level of service unaffected. Furthermore, the absence of luggage in the passenger flow can lead to better performance by improving the kinematic characteristics of the passenger, who will not be slowed down by having to carry luggage towards and inside the aircraft and placing it in the special compartment over the seats. Additionally, any interference related to the cabin luggage will disappear, making the process of boarding faster.

Passengers can part from their cabin luggage either at check-in or at the gate, prior to boarding the aircraft. In the first case, the cabin luggage follows the same flow as the hold luggage. However, it should be sheltered with cover bags for protection from bumps and dirt. Once it passes through the baggage handling system of the airport, the luggage is loaded on the existing carts that lead to the airplane, where the working stuff undertake to store it in the cabin. For maintaining the same level of service, airline should provide to the passengers who give away their handling baggage, specially made bags (Fig. 9) for storing their necessary items, such as wallets, tickets, books to name but a few. Such a solution may prove easier to automate and integrate into the current processes of an airline, but on the other hand, it is heavily airport-dependent and will require an increase in the handling capacity of the system. Specifically for KLM and Amsterdam Schiphol airport, where a very advanced automated handling system is in place, such improvements in capacity might prove difficult and expensive to implement.

The latter can lead to a process design that is not airport-bound. Considering that, in our boarding process the passengers arrive with their cabin luggage at the gate where, after the necessary security check, they hand in their luggage to be boarded in the aircraft. In that case, two main issues arise. First, the arrival of the passengers (and their cabin luggage) at the gate should match the luggage loading sequence and second the cabin luggage must be tagged with a seat number. Tagging of the cabin luggage can take place at check-in, similarly to the hold luggage. The arrival issue can be addressed by creating time windows for gate opening, according to the passengers’ seat. Assuming that the airline wishes to board the cabin luggage from back to forth in groups of k, then the k number of passengers that are assigned to seat in the furthest back will get the earliest gate opening time on their boarding pass. The next group of passengers will have a gate opening time that is later by exactly the amount of time needed to process the previous group of passengers.

ii) Smartphone application The second part of this research paper focuses, based on KLM’s business model and the current trends in

self-service mentioned in the literature review part, to create a unified smartphone application that will combine all KLM products (both airport and in-flight services) in one application and will at the same time offer more personalized service to KLM passengers and thus increase the airline’s offered level of service. This aligns with KLM’s future vision regarding passenger service as stated by Koopmans (2012): “Through personal profile preference, all services will be arranged at home prior to travelling.”

The developed application incorporates the subjects addressed in Figure 2 and the way the application is structured will be presented below. The application has a direct benefit for the airline since it will offer the


5

airline valuable information on the choices passengers make regarding their flight prior to the actual flight. This information can be used from KLM in order to organize their cabin operations and passenger handling at the airport more efficiently and thus generates time and cost savings. Moreover, through the feedback option that will be included in the application the gap in relation to the passengers’ service expectations and the perceptions of the passengers’ service expectations by the airline, which now exists (Chan & Cheng, 2005), can be reduced. The airline now has a far better picture of what the passenger expects of them. Also, by data collection within the application, the airline has the ability to collect valuable information for reviewing service performance over a certain amount of time. Furthermore, regarding KLM’s future agent plans, this gap can also be reduced by designing short term innovative feedback loops that will enrich both passenger and customer satisfaction (Koopmans, 2012).

Although the development of the application is still in a conceptual design phase and requires further research in order to be realized, the following components are considered essential by the authors. The table briefly describes the components that can be incorporated in the design and are divided into different detail levels as seen in the table and in the related graphs. The user can choose the desired seat, make choices regarding food, select a movie, socialize through the existing Meet & Seat program of KLM (KLM, 2013) or choose additional amenities in advance, provide feedback to KLM. Through these options the user is offered a more personalized travel experience, while KLM has available data in advance reducing unused resources, like additional meals to satisfy unpredicted demand during the flight. Taking into consideration the significant smartphone penetration in the airline industry, as mentioned in the literature review part, KLM can substitute the existing safety videos shown in the aircraft before the flight with similar videos reproduced in the traveller’s smartphone during the flight. The same idea can also be applied to the Holland Herald magazine offered to passengers during the flight, which can now be provided in a digital. Eliminating the magazine from the cabin will reduce the aircraft’s total weight and will lead to savings in fuels, emissions and thus operating costs. Finally, KLM can use the application for advertising or product promotion by offering tailored products according to the customer’s preferences. A recent survey shows that customers are more receptive for advertising if they were given more control over what they receive (SITA - ATW, 2012). 61% of questions passengers show a positive attitude towards smartphone advertisements as long as it personalized (SITA - ATW, 2012). A description of the main components is seen in the table below, where an example of all the different levels is given, if the user chooses the following path: Level 1: Main Menu: choose Flight options; Level 2: Flight options menu: choose Luggage; Level 3: Luggage menu: choose hand luggage; Level 4: Hand luggage menu: multiple options possible.

Table 2. Proposed smartphone application main components Smartphone application components divided in different levels

Level 1 – Main menu (Fig.4) Category Description Profile User’s personal profile with contact information, interests, social data etc. Bookings The user can make a flight booking or check available schedule and fares Flight options Numerous flight related options In-flight mode Downloaded preferences like movies, magazines, in-flight shopping etc. can be

used during the flight. Safety videos can be viewed during the flight Travel info Overview of any booked travel Share your experiences

The user can share experiences with other KLM users, upload pictures, make recommendations etc.

Feedback Feedback provided to the KLM Privacy Privacy options and regulations can be read and agreed by the user Level 2 – Flight Options menu (Fig. 5) Check-in On line check-in for a booked flight Seat selection Seat selection or seat upgrade prior to departure Luggage Number of luggage have to be determined prior to the flight Catering According to the seat category numerous catering options will be available Entertainment In-flight entertainment related choices In-flight amenities

The user can select additional amenities like pillows, sleeping masks etc. and based on the booked seat category pay any additional fare

Meet & Seat The existing meet and seat program is updated and incorporated with the user’s profile in KLM

Flying Blue Flying Blue related options Level 3 – Luggage menu (Fig. 6) Checked Number and size of checked luggage


6

luggage Hand Luggage Number and size of hand luggage to be boarded in the plane No luggage The user might choose to hold no luggage Level 4 – Hand luggage menu (Fig. 7) What kind of luggage will you be carrying on board

The user can then choose among a list of different options, like cabin bag, purse/briefcase etc. and also agree to hand in the cabin luggage prior to boarding

B. Internal Validity Lower turnaround time is desired by airlines because then it is possible to create more flight time, creating

revenues (Wu & Caves, 2000). Considering that, the feasibility of separating the passengers from the hand luggage depends on the airline, by how much revenues can it create by having more flight hours, and the airport, by how much it charges the airlines for the use of the infrastructure. If there are significant gains that can overcome costs of new system components and extra manual work needed, then this design can be deemed feasible.

When it comes to the internal validity of the smartphone application certain aspects can be addressed. Mobile advertisement is considered to have a certain risk since 35% of the questioned passengers were extremely negative towards smartphone advertisements (SITA - ATW, 2012) and this might lead to a reduced level of service. Moreover, having knowledge of passenger’s choices is advantageous for KLM and can lead to more efficient use of resources, however passengers are humans that might simply change their minds just before boarding causing problems or disruptions to KLM’s operations. Finally privacy or data sensitivity issues might rise from passengers that are unwilling or reluctant to share their personal information.

III. Results a) Boarding Boarding passengers without any cabin luggage can save on average 46% in boarding time (Nyquist &

McFadden, 2008). According to the terminal servicing manual for the Boeing 777-200 aircraft (Boeing, 2011), boarding 375 passengers from two doors starts at 31.5 minutes after the aircraft is positioned at the gate and takes 12.5 minutes, in a total turnaround time of 45 minutes. Subtracting the duration of 7.5 minutes for deplaning of the passengers, we can conclude that in order for this process to produce time savings, all the cabin luggage should be loaded in the cabin within 31.5 − 7.5 + (1 − 0.46) ∙ 12.5 = 30.7 minutes or 68% of the total turnaround time.

At this point is worth mentioning that due to the competitive nature of airline business, there is a lack of available publicly information, including both the exact procedure on luggage handling system of Schiphol airport and the precise times of KLM’s boarding procedure. Hence, no claims can be made on the innovative nature of the suggested idea and no quantified results can be presented. However, several benefits can be achieved by separating the flows of passengers and hand luggage. As far as the passengers are being concerned, such a separation could increase the level of service in terms of the unstresfull and faster boarding procedure. The passengers will be relieved from the bother of carrying their hand luggage around the airport, leading to an increase in their satisfaction. In addition, the reduction in the boarding time achieved will offer a higher fleet utilization leading to financial benefits for KLM.

b) Smartphone application In relation to weight reduction, the application for tablets and smartphones has a significant quantifiable

positive result, because it replaces physical objects in the cabin. Next to that, the option to pre-order meals leads to elimination of food waste, because the passengers now receive what they have ordered in advance. Regarding food waste, a comprehensive study shows that the average food waste per passenger on long-haul flights is 0.55 kg (Li, Poon, Lee, Chung, & Luk, 2003). The researchers determined this by measuring the weight of food waste in the food carts over a range of different flights. For a fully loaded KLM Boeing 777-200ER with 318 seats (KLM, 2013) the total produced food waste is 234 kg. Thus, a maximum of 175 kg of waste can be saved per flight, resulting on significant weight and cost saving annually. Regarding physical objects, tablets and smartphones can replace the paper airline magazine that passengers read while seating in their seats. The authors of this paper measured the weight of the Holland Herald magazine used by KLM (KLM, 2013). The measured weight was 0.35 kg/magazine. This means that for the previously mentioned KLM Boeing 777-200ER, the total saved weight of these magazines in the cabin is 112 kg. This also


7

leads to a significant amount of weight reduction per year. The increasing penetration of smartphones and tablets will decrease the amount of paper waste in the cabin even more, because they can replace other types of papers and magazines like newspapers, boarding passes, safety leaflets, etc. The weight of the tablets or smartphones was not taken into account, because it can be said that they will replace the current entertainment systems. It is assumed that the internal entertainment systems will be removed in the near future, so the weight of the tablets and smartphones is at least compensated. Finally, according to Carlsson (2009) all weight savings in the aircraft should be correlated to their costs and the break-even point of these costs with the fuel prices should be calculated in order to see under which terms it is profitable for the airline.

IV. Conclusions & Recommendations The research question is answered by designs that reduce the uncertainty in passengers’ choices, while increasing passenger comfort and the offered level of service. However, data scarcity and the involvement of the human factor still cause uncertainties and increase the number of assumptions made when investigating solutions. Hence, analysis via questionnaires to the passengers is recommended in order to obtain accurate information about their choices and optimise the designs.


8

Appendix The figures presented in the appendix section are produced by the authors unless stated otherwise.

Figure 2. Components incorporated in the proposed application for KLM


9

Figure 3. Log-in screen of the smartphone application

Figure 4. Main menu screen of the smartphone application

Figure 5. Flight options menu of the smartphone application


10

Figure 6. Luggage menu of the smartphone application

Figure 7. Hand luggage menu of the smartphone application


11

Figure 8. Turnaround station operations time chart for the Boeing 777-200 aircraft (Boeing, 2011)

Figure 9. KLM’s bag provided to the passengers (Flight001, 2013)


12

References Boeing. (2011). 777-200/300 Airplane Characteristics for Airport Planning. Retrieved January 16, 2013, from

http://www.boeing.com/commercial/airports/acaps/777_23.pdf Carlsson, M. (2009). Cost-Efficient Light-Weighting wihtin the Aviation Sector. Master Thesis, Swedish

University of Agricultural Sciences (SLU), Department of economics, Uppsala. Chan, F.-Y., & Cheng, Y.-H. (2005). Examining service quality from a process perspective. Journal of Air

Transport Management, 79-87. Flight001. (2013). www.flight001.com. Retrieved 1 7, 2013, from http://www.flight001.com/f-1-

exclusives/groom-bags/f1-airplane-mode-pouch.html God, R., & Hintze, H. (2009). Wireless communication for improved workflow and additional services in the

aircraft cabin. Selbstorganisierende Sensor und Datenfunknetze Workshop. Jones, P. (2006). Flight Catering. In H. Becker, & U. Grothues, Catering-Management Portrait einer

Wachstumsbranche in Theorie und Praxis (pp. 39-55). Hamburg: Behr's Verlag. KLM. (2013). Boeing 777 300-ER. Retrieved January 17, 2013, from KLM Royal Dutch Airline:

http://www.klm.com/travel/nl_nl/prepare_for_travel/on_board/seating_plans/777-300ER.htm KLM. (2013). KLM Meet and Seat. Retrieved January 10, 2013, from KLM PRepare for Travel:

http://www.klm.com/travel/gr_en/prepare_for_travel/on_board/Your_seat_on_board/meet_and_seat.htm

Koopmans, M. (2012). KLM Hub operations: the struggle to stay the best in Europe. KLM. Li, X., Poon, C., Lee, S., Chung, S., & Luk, F. (2003). Waste reduction and recycling strategies for the in-flight

services in the airline industry. Resources, Conservation and Recycling, 37, 87-99. Lu, J.-L., Choi, J., & Tseng, W.-C. (2011). Determinants of passengers' choice of airline checke-in services: A

case study of American, Australian, Korean and Taiwanese passengers. Journal of Air Transport Management, 17, 249-252.

Nyquist, D., & McFadden, K. (2008). A study of the airline boarding problem. Journal of Air Transport Management, 14(4), 197-204.

SITA - ATW. (2012). Passenger Self-Service Survey Highlits 2012. SITA-Airline Business. (2012). The Airline IT Trends Survey - Executive Summary. Retrieved November 29,

2012, from SITA: http://www.sita.aero/ Smith, A. D. (2004). LAGUARDIA SLOT ALLOCATION: A Clock-Proxy Auction Approach. Maryland:

University of Maryland. Steffen, J. H. (2008). Optimal boarding method for airline passengers. Journal of Air Transport Management,

14(3), 146-150. Steffen, J., & Hotchkiss, J. (2012). Experimental test of airplane boarding methods. Journal of Air Transport

Management, 18(1), 64-67. Steiner, A., & Philipp, M. (2009). Speeding up the airplane boarding process by using pre-boarding areas. 9th

Swiss Transport Research Conference (STRC). Tang, T.-Q., Wub, Y.-H., Huang, H.-J., & Caccetta, L. (2012). An aircraft boarding model accounting for

passengers’ individual properties. Transportation Research Part C, 22, 1-16. Vink, P., Bazley, C., Kamp, I., & Blok, M. (2012). Possibilities to improve the aircraft interior comfort

experience. Applied Ergonomics, 354-359. Wu, C.-L., & Caves, R. E. (2000). Aircraft operational costs and turnaround effciency at airports. Journal of Air

Transport Management, 6(4), 201-208. Zwan, F. v. (2012, 18 10). Airline innovation. Delft: Technical Univercity of Delft.

cabin operations

Documents