Turnaround Times
Thread Starter
Turnaround Times
I'm not sure if this is the right forum, but here goes.
On a recent trip around the US what struck me was the amount of time it took to load passengers. A full narrow bodied (and US airlines are typically operating at 85% load factors) seemed to take about 30 minutes to board meaning that a turnaround took about 50 minutes.
Can anyone tell me if there are any rules of thumb used and whether turnaround times have been increasing over the years. I seem to remember that Southwest used a 20 minute turnaround for 737s that was certainly without allocated seats - I don't know if they used two entrances like most European locos.
I always thought that it was common to start loading aircraft from the rear although I personally preferred the WILMA approach starting with window seats (but allowing groups to board together) although this seems to have been an experiment that was quickly discontinued. I notice that Delta loads by status so frequent / premium flyers are allowed to board first. This is doubtless to give them priority with the overhead bins but causes congestion. Later boarders have to check their truly enormous wheelies (for free mind you, I paid $25 to check in my not much larger ruck sack which did admittedly contain a couple of 125ml liquid containers). This adds to turnaround time. I know that airlines love the ancilliary revenue but I wonder if given the hassle that it is the way to go. Why not add $10 to fares and allow the first bag for free? Is the current business model really working?
Thirdly, I departed from the rear a 747 at Schiphol (OK the middle it was a Combi). I think that this has been covered before, but would the economics of having two jetties for single aisle aircraft be compelling? This has happened in the past.
Docked Dc8s Stock Photo | Getty Images
There would certainly be a capital cost associated with it but if it were to reduce turn around times by say ten minutes it might be well worth it. Has anyone ever done the calculations? (The locos have certainly worked out that it is worthwhile using the rear entrance.) Many crews are paid according to block rather than duty hours and you would probably need larger ramp crews so there may not be any saving in staff costs but airlines would require smaller fleets. It just seems more efficient.
Any thoughts on any of the above?
On a recent trip around the US what struck me was the amount of time it took to load passengers. A full narrow bodied (and US airlines are typically operating at 85% load factors) seemed to take about 30 minutes to board meaning that a turnaround took about 50 minutes.
Can anyone tell me if there are any rules of thumb used and whether turnaround times have been increasing over the years. I seem to remember that Southwest used a 20 minute turnaround for 737s that was certainly without allocated seats - I don't know if they used two entrances like most European locos.
I always thought that it was common to start loading aircraft from the rear although I personally preferred the WILMA approach starting with window seats (but allowing groups to board together) although this seems to have been an experiment that was quickly discontinued. I notice that Delta loads by status so frequent / premium flyers are allowed to board first. This is doubtless to give them priority with the overhead bins but causes congestion. Later boarders have to check their truly enormous wheelies (for free mind you, I paid $25 to check in my not much larger ruck sack which did admittedly contain a couple of 125ml liquid containers). This adds to turnaround time. I know that airlines love the ancilliary revenue but I wonder if given the hassle that it is the way to go. Why not add $10 to fares and allow the first bag for free? Is the current business model really working?
Thirdly, I departed from the rear a 747 at Schiphol (OK the middle it was a Combi). I think that this has been covered before, but would the economics of having two jetties for single aisle aircraft be compelling? This has happened in the past.
Docked Dc8s Stock Photo | Getty Images
There would certainly be a capital cost associated with it but if it were to reduce turn around times by say ten minutes it might be well worth it. Has anyone ever done the calculations? (The locos have certainly worked out that it is worthwhile using the rear entrance.) Many crews are paid according to block rather than duty hours and you would probably need larger ramp crews so there may not be any saving in staff costs but airlines would require smaller fleets. It just seems more efficient.
Any thoughts on any of the above?
The jetty is so much safer than boarding using stairs, what with all the vehicles moving about under and by the plane. But using front and rear has to be quicker, as long as there is proper separation between the passengers. I frequently see passengers in row 10 of an A320 say boarding at the rear which is crazy, as they push past the other passengers trying to move to the rear.
Paxing All Over The World
You have the right forum as this problem does crop in here up all the time. I have just got back from an extended trip to Australia and observed the loading of: A388, A332, B738, E190 with both bridges and stairs at about eight or nine airports.
For the most part, aircraft are still loaded one person at a time. The 388s were loaded with three bridges: 1 for Suites (1st) on lower deck. 2 for Economy and PE on rest of lower deck. 3 for all upper deck. So for the greatest part of the aircraft, that's loading one person per deck at a time. However, the staff (SQ) did work hard to start boarding promptly and all four sectors left on time, even when at capacity.
The 332s had two bridges, one for Biz and then the rest. Some 738s were loaded with a bridge and stairs at the rear, some just with a single bridge.
All the problems of loading that I have seen throughout my travels were replicated. Which is to say that, even if the carrier tried to board by groups/rows/areas - as soon as the boarding process started most pax surged forward and jostled to get on. Only occasionally did I see the gate staff telling people to wait until their row was called. The discipline of queuing and waiting to board in the most efficient manner? Those days are gone.
Once on board, many were not aware of the protocol to get your bag into the locker and SIT DOWN! Or, stand into your row and wait for a gap in the line of pax going past you to other rows - and then put your bag up and SIT DOWN! Groups of tourists being herded by the guide (as they spoke no English) just did what the group did and then what they wanted and took up time. The CC knew that they could not enforce the concept of pax sitting in their allocated seat etc.
On one flight people had taken our row by mistake, it was lightly loaded and so the CC agreed that we should take their seats in the row behind.
So I suggest that even if the carrier had more bridges/stairs you could not speed up the people.
For the most part, aircraft are still loaded one person at a time. The 388s were loaded with three bridges: 1 for Suites (1st) on lower deck. 2 for Economy and PE on rest of lower deck. 3 for all upper deck. So for the greatest part of the aircraft, that's loading one person per deck at a time. However, the staff (SQ) did work hard to start boarding promptly and all four sectors left on time, even when at capacity.
The 332s had two bridges, one for Biz and then the rest. Some 738s were loaded with a bridge and stairs at the rear, some just with a single bridge.
All the problems of loading that I have seen throughout my travels were replicated. Which is to say that, even if the carrier tried to board by groups/rows/areas - as soon as the boarding process started most pax surged forward and jostled to get on. Only occasionally did I see the gate staff telling people to wait until their row was called. The discipline of queuing and waiting to board in the most efficient manner? Those days are gone.
Once on board, many were not aware of the protocol to get your bag into the locker and SIT DOWN! Or, stand into your row and wait for a gap in the line of pax going past you to other rows - and then put your bag up and SIT DOWN! Groups of tourists being herded by the guide (as they spoke no English) just did what the group did and then what they wanted and took up time. The CC knew that they could not enforce the concept of pax sitting in their allocated seat etc.
On one flight people had taken our row by mistake, it was lightly loaded and so the CC agreed that we should take their seats in the row behind.
So I suggest that even if the carrier had more bridges/stairs you could not speed up the people.
Join Date: Jun 1999
Location: world
Posts: 3,424
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I think that airlines are their own worse enemies because of their baggage policies. They should go back to including hold baggage in the basic fare and greatly limit the size of carry-ons in the Economy cabin. This will avoid the race for bin space and make the boarding process a little more dignified. Can't see it happening though.
PAXboy
.
How did it worked? More often than not there is no ramp access from a bridge lounge so using both present some difficulties.
Some 738s were loaded with a bridge and stairs at the rear,
How did it worked? More often than not there is no ramp access from a bridge lounge so using both present some difficulties.
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Confoederatio Helvetica
Age: 69
Posts: 2,847
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Fixed that for you, cattle are usually well behaved.
Peter47, you are right about the 20 minute 'turns' that WN but in those days their 737-200s had fewer than 120 seats vs 175 seats on their current -800s. (Ryanair has 195 on their -800s). That makes a difference. Also I think most of the 20 minute turns were at intermediate points on a multi-sector where a full load off/on wasn't taking place. Obviously no fuel, catering or other stores were loaded at these intermediate points. Their turns at terminus stations were longer.
Shaving 10 mins for a short haul aircraft, which possibly could do six daily rotations (12 flights) isn't going to allow another rotation. And of course the aircraft needs to be catered for on-board sales and fuel at least every few turns.
Slots are a problem at many airports ...
Peter47, you are right about the 20 minute 'turns' that WN but in those days their 737-200s had fewer than 120 seats vs 175 seats on their current -800s. (Ryanair has 195 on their -800s). That makes a difference. Also I think most of the 20 minute turns were at intermediate points on a multi-sector where a full load off/on wasn't taking place. Obviously no fuel, catering or other stores were loaded at these intermediate points. Their turns at terminus stations were longer.
Shaving 10 mins for a short haul aircraft, which possibly could do six daily rotations (12 flights) isn't going to allow another rotation. And of course the aircraft needs to be catered for on-board sales and fuel at least every few turns.
Slots are a problem at many airports ...
Paxing All Over The World
Rwy in Sight
When the gate staff scanned your pass, they said: "To the left, please" or "To the right and down the steps, please" (OK, the 'please' was not said every time!
)
The left was the bridge and the right was down two flights of stairs and out across the tarmac in the usual LCC fashion. I know that Virgin Australia used this but cannot recall if QA also did. I did not use JetStar or TigerAir Australia.
When the gate staff scanned your pass, they said: "To the left, please" or "To the right and down the steps, please" (OK, the 'please' was not said every time!
)The left was the bridge and the right was down two flights of stairs and out across the tarmac in the usual LCC fashion. I know that Virgin Australia used this but cannot recall if QA also did. I did not use JetStar or TigerAir Australia.
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Confoederatio Helvetica
Age: 69
Posts: 2,847
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I agree 10000% re; hold baggage. The problem with loading on passengers has been made immeasurably more difficult by people chancing their arm and carrying on as much as they can without "buying a bag". An enormous amount of the boarding problem would be solved by giving people a hold bag again.
It's the one thing I absolutely hate about air travel.
It's the one thing I absolutely hate about air travel.
Paxing All Over The World
It's my view that the excessive cabin baggage started long before LCCs. When the Hub-and-Spoke era began. American pax (in particular) found that their bags were not making the connection - so they started carrying them on. The airlines wanted the biz and it was less hassle for them if the pax carried, so no action was taken.
I contend that the LCC model only built on that. Now it's too late.
I contend that the LCC model only built on that. Now it's too late.
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Confoederatio Helvetica
Age: 69
Posts: 2,847
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I agree. Carry-on has always been a 'problem'. Not enough space (and older bins/hat racks were much smaller).
The airlines unbundle the prices letting one pick and choose what they want to pay for. Passengers do want the lower price, but don't want to pay extras - even if their airfare, plus a bag, is still much cheaper than the old days.
Some airlines (Swiss for example) have two prices on routes where they compete heavily with LCCs (GVA-LON for example) one including the bag, the other carry-on only. This allows them to compete 'price wise' with the LCC and give the passengers a choice. It isn't a much different choice with adding a bag-charge to a LCC price though.
The airlines unbundle the prices letting one pick and choose what they want to pay for. Passengers do want the lower price, but don't want to pay extras - even if their airfare, plus a bag, is still much cheaper than the old days.
Some airlines (Swiss for example) have two prices on routes where they compete heavily with LCCs (GVA-LON for example) one including the bag, the other carry-on only. This allows them to compete 'price wise' with the LCC and give the passengers a choice. It isn't a much different choice with adding a bag-charge to a LCC price though.
When the gate staff scanned your pass, they said: "To the left, please" or "To the right and down the steps, please" (OK, the 'please' was not said every time! )
The left was the bridge and the right was down two flights of stairs and out across the tarmac in the usual LCC fashion. I know that Virgin Australia used this but cannot recall if QA also did. I did not use JetStar or TigerAir Australia.
)The left was the bridge and the right was down two flights of stairs and out across the tarmac in the usual LCC fashion. I know that Virgin Australia used this but cannot recall if QA also did. I did not use JetStar or TigerAir Australia.
Join Date: Jul 2011
Location: Edinburgh
Age: 39
Posts: 642
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Rwy in Sight
When the gate staff scanned your pass, they said: "To the left, please" or "To the right and down the steps, please" (OK, the 'please' was not said every time!)
The left was the bridge and the right was down two flights of stairs and out across the tarmac in the usual LCC fashion. I know that Virgin Australia used this but cannot recall if QA also did. I did not use JetStar or TigerAir Australia.
When the gate staff scanned your pass, they said: "To the left, please" or "To the right and down the steps, please" (OK, the 'please' was not said every time!
)The left was the bridge and the right was down two flights of stairs and out across the tarmac in the usual LCC fashion. I know that Virgin Australia used this but cannot recall if QA also did. I did not use JetStar or TigerAir Australia.
Paxing All Over The World
It is good to separate folks in that way - but as we have discussed in here before - gate agents have all but given up trying to board by rows or groups of rows. They might announce that they are boarding in that way but what happens next ...
I would say that it is a different league from boarding by rows. You are not refusing to board you just send them from a different gate. Just like when boarding a Dash 8- 400 some passengers are instructed to board from the front or rear door.
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Cloud 9
Posts: 2,948
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Just like when boarding a Dash 8- 400 some passengers are instructed to board from the front or rear door.
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Wor Yerm
Age: 68
Posts: 4
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Reduced turnaround times are the 'Holy Grail' of increased aircraft untilisation. Myopia, lack of investment, conservatism and passengers frustrate any improvement. Taking the last one first. Most poeople board and aircraft, find their seat, throw their bag in the overhead locker and sit down. But I'm convinced that one or two people per hundred are paid to travel with us by our competitors. They haul on three or four items of handbaggage, are unable to find their row, have multiple layer of clothing that have to be removed before they sit down, have multiple gadgets that have to be set up and one of those ridiculous neck cushion things - all for a 50 minute flight. Their boarding alone can cost five minutes. The other time consuming people of those passengers with babies and those dreadful 'strap a kid to you' devices. To date, I haven't seen one parent disembark as part of the normal flow. It is usual that they will be last off and take an additional five minutes to disembark. I've also noticed that this is normally their first baby. By the time it comes to No. 2 the infernal strap thing is placed in the bin and they carry their offspring off, in the the normal flow of traffic. Then we have the control aspect. People just don't listen or if they do, refuse to follow advice. When told to board at the rear, they don't. They board at the front and walk the entire length of the aircraft, the last half against the flow of passengers who did as they were asked, to get to their seat.
With regard to baggage, airlines are their own worst enemies. Charging for checked in bags means passengers will go to almost any limit to avoid paying. Unsurprisingly this results in excess cabin baggage that can take a considerable amount if time to stow. My record in now approaching 20 minutes.
Then there are the other issues. It is an unfortunate fact that people who design airports haven't worked at the sharp end of commercial aviation. Judging by their designs, I smell degrees in fine art and politics etc. Terminals are designed with nose in gates, necessitating push-backs yet no Fixed Ground Power nor air conditioning is installed. Access to and from the apron is only possible if you have a local pass, so walk-arounds are often delayed. The nose-in parking also means the rear doors, if fitted, are either not used or under utilised - if you can get steps. Too often nose-in stands also means cul-de-sacs and single aircraft movements meaning that as soon as one aircraft is in the taxi lane, nothing else can move. This causes more delays.
Then we have the song and dance act with barriers, cones and tapes under the wings etc. I don't know what they are there for and no handling agent has ever come up with a good reason. I've heard of lame excuses like "to stop fluids dropping on passengers" but nothing that makes sense (if fluid comes out of a wing, I don't want to fly that plane).
Personally I like going to Scandinavian airports. They have more open aprons, have normally FEP and A/C and seem to know that the things underneath people's bottoms are called legs. Amazing devices that allow human beings to move around. Yes, there are still too many push-back stands but at least most of their aprons allow multiple ground movements.
And this is not an exhaustive list. There are plenty of other things that cause turnaround delays.
That we ever depart amazes me.
PM
With regard to baggage, airlines are their own worst enemies. Charging for checked in bags means passengers will go to almost any limit to avoid paying. Unsurprisingly this results in excess cabin baggage that can take a considerable amount if time to stow. My record in now approaching 20 minutes.
Then there are the other issues. It is an unfortunate fact that people who design airports haven't worked at the sharp end of commercial aviation. Judging by their designs, I smell degrees in fine art and politics etc. Terminals are designed with nose in gates, necessitating push-backs yet no Fixed Ground Power nor air conditioning is installed. Access to and from the apron is only possible if you have a local pass, so walk-arounds are often delayed. The nose-in parking also means the rear doors, if fitted, are either not used or under utilised - if you can get steps. Too often nose-in stands also means cul-de-sacs and single aircraft movements meaning that as soon as one aircraft is in the taxi lane, nothing else can move. This causes more delays.
Then we have the song and dance act with barriers, cones and tapes under the wings etc. I don't know what they are there for and no handling agent has ever come up with a good reason. I've heard of lame excuses like "to stop fluids dropping on passengers" but nothing that makes sense (if fluid comes out of a wing, I don't want to fly that plane).
Personally I like going to Scandinavian airports. They have more open aprons, have normally FEP and A/C and seem to know that the things underneath people's bottoms are called legs. Amazing devices that allow human beings to move around. Yes, there are still too many push-back stands but at least most of their aprons allow multiple ground movements.
And this is not an exhaustive list. There are plenty of other things that cause turnaround delays.
That we ever depart amazes me.
PM
Paxing All Over The World
That's certainly all true, PM. 
Some others are:
Some others are:- Even with allocated seats, they only realise that they been split up when they get to the row - so start playing musical chairs.
- There is a row number above each row?
- Going to the toilet.
- Discovery by the CC that the person placed into the emergency exit row - cannot speak English (or the language of the carriers as the case may be) and has to be moved. Then finding someone who can speak their language to explain why they cannot sit there.
- Between the gate and the aircraft door - they have put away/lost their boarding pass.
- On widebodies, they like to choose the wrong aisle if at all possible.
- The elderly person who refused the help of a wheelchair because "I'm not old" but now has difficulty climbing the rear steps.
- Finding out that seat 'C' is not the window.
- Talking on their mobile all the way down the bridge and to their seat and still going when the CC start the 'dance'.