Turnaround Times

[Peter47]

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 (http://www.gettyimages.co.uk/detail/photo/docked-dc-8s-high-res-stock-photography/82580779)

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?

[Espada III]

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.

[PAXboy]

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.

[Phileas Fogg]

Compare "boarding passengers" to "herding cattle" ... I prefer to be treated with just a little dignity!

[Hotel Tango]

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.

[Rwy in Sight]

PAXboy

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.

[ExXB]

Compare "boarding passengers" to "herding CATS" ...

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 ...

[DaveReidUK]

Shaving 10 mins for a short haul aircraft, which possibly could do six daily rotations (12 flights) isn't going to allow another rotation.

Actually, it might well do.

[PAXboy]

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.

[ExXB]

Actually, it might well do.
Another flight perhaps, but not another rotation. And that would be on a perfect Spring, or Autumn, day between non-congested airports.

[alserire]

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.

[PAXboy]

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.

[ExXB]

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.

[farci]

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.
http://www.pprune.org/images/statusicon/user_online.gif http://www.pprune.org/images/buttons/report.gif (http://www.pprune.org/report.php?p=9348401) http://www.pprune.org/images/buttons/quickreply.gif (http://www.pprune.org/newreply.php?do=newreply&p=9348401)
@PAXboy - still standard practice with Norwegian at selected airports. Works well IMHO

[edi_local]

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.
British Airways use this method at both EDI and GLA on selected LHR flights and gates. Mostly just on the Airbus fleets. If you're sat in the back half you go down the stairs and along the tarmac, those in the front board straight on the jetty.

[PAXboy]

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 ...

[Rwy in Sight]

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.

[Phileas Fogg]

Just like when boarding a Dash 8- 400 some passengers are instructed to board from the front or rear door.

And apparently turboprop door are only designed, strong enough, for one passenger on their steps at any one time ... So what might the true cost be of trying to save perhaps 5 minutes per turnround?

[Piltdown Man]

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

[PAXboy]

That's certainly all true, PM. :D 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'.

[Phileas Fogg]

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

I haven't had that problem PM.

When I emigrated from LHR with CX I was allowed a 20kg checked-in bag and some 7kg in the cabin, I was all over the place, my checked-in bag weighed some 26kg, my cabin bag some 10kg, "not a problem sir" came the words of the check-in lady who I had already become in to a banter with regarding if I required a visa for my destination country or not.

You get what you pay for!

[PAXboy]

When leaving SYD a couple of weeks ago we were a little overweight but had prepared by having some easily removable items in a plastic bag - cosmetics, shampoo, sun block etc., which we offerred to the check-in agent and were readily accepted. We shifted a bit more into our backpacks and were still slightly overweight - but then all was well.

The agent thanked us for making the changes and showing willing, "Many passengers don't want to make any effort and - if it's a bad day - some of my colleagues relish the fight ...!"

You still get what you pay for!

[IBMJunkman]

Mythbusters did a test.

ss1S3-Kv6R8

http://youtu.be/ss1S3-Kv6R8

The key to any loading procedure is the door staff enforcing the loading rules.

[Haven't a clue]

I find a frequent contribution to any boarding delay is people stopping to extract reading material or what ever from the single piece of cabin baggage permitted, before putting their bag in the locker. Last Saturday morning for example I watched someone pause in the aisle by my seat and spent the best part of 2 minutes extracting her handbag, magazine and book from her carry on. She seemed completely oblivious that she was holding up everyone behind her. How on earth would any boarding procedure stop that?

(Perhaps if she had been allowed to bring on 2 bags that delay wouldn't have happened :\)

[Rwy in Sight]

How on earth would any boarding procedure stop that?

Maybe making an announcement "kindly keep reading materials or tablets on you person, not on your bag" during the other pre-boarding announcements.

[ExXB]

(Perhaps if she had been allowed to bring on 2 bags that delay wouldn't have happened :\)

When my wife isn't allowed a second item she does exactly the same. When she is she's got everything in her handbag which she puts under the seat in front. On Easy everyone has access to this second item, it comes at a cost, but it is available.

Many airlines have a standard announcement regarding bags, coats, duty free stuff in the lockers. It would make sense if they made this announcement in the local language to pax in the gate area before boarding starts.

[Phileas Fogg]

Maybe making an announcement "kindly keep reading materials or tablets on you person, not on your bag" during the other pre-boarding announcements.

Let it not be missed that on our way to boarding the aircraft we pass thru one, two or more security checks where we are required to remove everything from our pockets, our belt, our shoes whatever.

Pre-security check(s) I, for one, put everything from my pockets in to the side pocket of my hand baggage so once I'm in the clear of those jobsworth types, which is sometimes once on board the aircraft, I need to transfer everything back to my pockets again.

[Hotel Tango]

so once I'm in the clear of those jobsworth types, which is sometimes once on board the aircraft

Sorry Phileas, don't agree with you there. I too have prepared myself prior to reaching security (not like the two women the other day who nattered incessantly until it was their turn and only then began their 5 minute preparation ritual, keeping all behind waiting). All my needed items are in one compartment of my carry-on bag. As soon as I'm through security I find that there are always areas immediately after where one can reconfigure oneself. When I board, all items I will need during flight are on my person or in my hands. As soon as I reach my seat the bag and coat (which I have taken off whilst waiting for the other punters to sort themselves out) goes into the overhead and I'm straight into my seat. If all passengers boarded fully prepared the procedure would be much more efficient.

[Phileas Fogg]

HT,

As an ex airline professional of some 30 years it seems that we are similarly organised, I was making the point regarding the ordinary 'Joe Public" who shall not be so organised as you and I and shall delay boarding as a result.

[419]

It might not be true nowadays (in fact, it might never have been true), but I do recall reading somewhere that one of the main limiting factors regarding aircraft turnaround times is the aircraft brake temperatures.

Could someone confirm if this is still (or ever was) a limiting factor regarding when an aircraft can depart following a recent landing.

[NCL-TRC]

I wouldn't imagine so, some of the European LCCs minimum turnaround times are now down to 25 minutes for 180 or so pax, and that's nigh on impossible. offloading 180 pax and their bags and then re-loading the same, whilst re-fuelling for a 4+ hours flight from the UK to somewhere like the canaries, amd that's giving time for the crew to perform their required tasks is really pushing it.

In terms of boarding, from a professional stand point I prefer to have an airbridge stand, but with passenger access to the ramp, meaning I have the comfort of the bridge if the turnaround is long enough or the weather is really bad, but if I need it I can still board front and rear.

[scr1]

EZY's turns used to be 20mins years ago in the days of 737's and plastic boarding cards

[Rwy in Sight]

Phileas Fogg,

I am not aware of any airport that additional security checks are after the departure lounge where those announcements can be played. So along with "xxx airlines to nnn is ready for boarding, ff members may board first ..." you add a line about prepare your stuff for storing aboard.

NCL-TRC the question contact vs remote stand (or whatever the terminology of the week is), can be the base of a good thread.

[DaveReidUK]

It might not be true nowadays (in fact, it might never have been true), but I do recall reading somewhere that one of the main limiting factors regarding aircraft turnaround times is the aircraft brake temperatures.

Could someone confirm if this is still (or ever was) a limiting factor regarding when an aircraft can depart following a recent landing.

In the past, brake temperature was sometimes addressed by fitting aircraft with integral brake cooling fans (some are still so equipped).

[fdcg27]

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 (http://www.gettyimages.co.uk/detail/photo/docked-dc-8s-high-res-stock-photography/82580779)

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?

I'm not sure that turn times are any shorter in the UK or Europe than they are in the US. That has not been my observation.
Part of it may be that most US airlines are not usually very aggressive in enforcing carryon rules, so many pax ignore them, which does slow things down. It's always remarkable to see cabin crew manage to find space for everything in the bins of aircraft never intended to hold so much cabin baggage. It's also only fair, since the later boarding passengers should have as much right to carry their bag aboard as did the earlier boarding bin hogs. You are correct in noting that domestic US flights typically have very high load factors these days. Most of us have fond memories of many empty seats and easy upgrades even a decade ago. All gone now.
People do carry on more than they should, but this isn't simply to avoid the checked bag fees. Some folks feel that it'll take too long to get their checked bags, although this is rarely the case in our experience and some fear lost bags, although this also happens only very rarely. In fifty years of airline flying, I've never had a bag lost or delayed, although our checked bags have sometimes arrived on earlier flights than we did.
Airlines needing or wanting more utilization out of their aircraft usually don't depend upon quick turns for this. They'll more typically schedule either an early pink eye or a late red eye for their birds. They'll also put their TATL aircraft on shorter out and backs during what would otherwise by downtime between arriving in the US and setting out for Europe again.
In short, I don't think that turn times in the US are comparatively long and I'd doubt that you could speed things up enough to get another flight each day out of each aircraft.

[Heathrow Harry]

The answer to the carry-on problem is to hand the enforcement over to those loveable people who do the Security searches................ - but I can imagine the outcry................

[wowzz]

I am actually on a Jet Blue flight to FLL as I write, and I too cannot believe the size of some of the cases wheeled on board. Ryanair would have a fit. Fortunately not every pax had a 'jumbo' carryon, otherwise we would still be in Boston trying to stuff everything in.

[PAXboy]

That is it Heathrow Harry - the carriers know they have created their own problem and enforcement is always done lightly. Whilst it is the case that the LCCs enforce the regs, they do not do so all the time on every flight. The publicity would lose them customers. So they strike a balance of checking closely once in a while and a few people get fined. But they pay up as they usually get away with it.

Since it is impossible for all carriers to agree to enforce all their baggage regulations all the time - what we have now will persist for some time.

[Reverserbucket]

Paxing last week ex-LHR T2, following boarding complete and a head count, the Captain informed us that a passenger had boarded that shouldn't have (same operator, different destination and adjoining gate). Everyone had to deplane and return to the gate waiting area to enable a security search. The miscreant had left the aircraft prior to boarding complete (his seat was occupied which required the CC to scrutinise his boarding card and identify the error), but I'm curious as to how he was able to apparently pass through an electronic boarding pass scanner and doc (passport) cross-reference inspection at the gate by Menzies staff? Although his flight was parked on an adjoining stand, the gate heads are not shared so it wasn't a case of taking a wrong turn. This resulted in a 40 min delay and some tight connections at the other end.

My suggestion with gate procedures, better management and more efficient boarding is to ensure that gate PA's are loud enough and clear enough for everyone to hear - I find pre-boarding announcements are often mumbled or indistinct, leading to everyone in the vicinity standing up and congregating near the gate agents. Essentially, as has been said, enforcement of boarding sequence and proper identification of fast-track or priority boarding lanes is required...and a change to hand-baggage allowances.

[Espada III]

There are so many ways to improve the boarding of an aircraft (and like reverserbucket I am astonished as to how someone was able to apparently pass through an electronic boarding pass scanner and doc (passport) cross-reference inspection at the gate by Menzies staff)..

However as ever it comes down to cost and willingness of the staff to deal firmly with passengers. Most of the problems would go away if hold luggage was included in the ticket price. The worry (and it is a genuine worry for some people) that they will not be able to find a place for their large cabin bag makes them crush up by the gate. It is exacerbated in some flights by having large numbers of children (especially those under two) and parents who are not frequent flyers.

Alternatively, if you pay for luggage there is a guarantee that luggage is waiting on the carousel within say 15 minutes of the plane arriving on stand and stopping the engines. At least that way, you can be certain of being out of the airport within a reasonable time.

[Rwy in Sight]

if you pay for luggage and there is a guarantee

Fix it for you EspadaIII. My policy was to take the bag with me just to be out of the airport without needing a new shave.

[Peter47]

I was interested to read that the rate at which passengers board narrow bodied aircraft has decreased from 20 to 9 per minute owing to pax carrying more hand baggage. That could be an extra ten minutes on the ground per turnaround. I wonder how the cost compares with baggage fees.