!!!!kuwait

The Airport Gate Assignment Problem: Scheduling Algorithms and Simulation Approach
MARCH, 2012
Ahmed Thanyan AL-Sultan
Graduate School of environmental science
(Doctor Course)
OKAYAMA UNIVERSITY
Contents
1 introduction 4
1.1 General preview 5 1.2 previous works .. 7 2 Kuwait International Airport (KIA) 11
2.1 KIA gates terminal 12 2.2 Data collection .. 14 3 Problem description and model formulation 3.1 Problem description 17 18
3.2 Identify decision variables . 20 3.3 Constraints and objective function 22 4 Algorithms and data generation 24
4.1 Greedy algorithm .. 25 4.2 Other scheduling algorithms ..... 27 4.3 Tabu search heuristic .. 30
4.3.1 New neighborhood search methods .. 30 4.3.2 The interval exchange move . 4.3.3 The apron exchange move 4.3.4 Tabu short-term memory . 4.4 Data generation . 31 33 34 35
5 Results and analysis
37
5.1 Results 38 5.1.1 Result of objective 1 . . 38 5.1.2 Result of objective 2 .. 47 6 Simulation approach 53
6.1 Objective of the simulation approach . 54 6.2 Arrival rate estimation and simulation steps 55
6.3 Simulation results . 57 7 Conclusion Bibliography Acknowledgements Appendix 65 68 72 73
Chapter 1
Introduction
1.1 General preview The rapid development of airlines has made airports busier and more complicated. The assignment of schedule to available gates is a major issue for daily airline operations. We consider the over-constrained airport gate assignment problem (AGAP) where the number of flights exceeds the number of available gates, and where the objectives are to minimize the number of ungated flights and the total walking distance or connection times. The procedures used in this project are to create a mathematical model formulation to identify decision variables to identify, constraints and objective functions. In addition, we will consider in the AGAP the size of each gate in the terminal and also the towing process for the aircraft. We will use a greedy algorithm and a Tabu search meta-heuristic to solve the problem and compare it with other scheduling methods. Actual and forecasted data will be simulated in the experiment. The greedy algorithm minimizes ungated flights while providing initial feasible solutions that allow flexibility in seeking good solutions, especially in case when flight schedules are dense in time. Experiments conducts give good results. The distance a passenger has to walk in any airport to reach various key areas, including departure gates, baggage belts and connecting flights provide for an important performance measure for the quality of any airport. While
certain walking distances are fixed, others are dynamic. In particular, the distances traversed by passengers from check-in counters to gates and from gate to gate, in the case of transfer or connecting passengers, change according to how scheduled flights are assigned to gates. This allows for the ground handling agents and airlines, together with airport authorities, to dynamically assign airport gates to scheduled flights so as to minimize walking distances while, consequently, minimizing connection times. Which flight to gate assignment policy to be used so as to achieve such minimum times can be derived at the start of such planning day based on published flights schedules and booked passenger loads. The airport gate assignment problem (AGAP) seeks to find feasible flight to gate assignments so that total passenger connection times and walking distances is minimized. Distances that are taken into account are those from check-in to gates in the case of embarking or originating passengers, from gates to baggage claim areas (check-out) in the case of disembarking or destination passengers and from gate to gate in the case of transfer or connecting passengers. In the over-constrained case, where the number of aircraft exceeds the number of available gates, we include the distance from the apron or tarmac area to the terminal for aircraft assigned to these areas.
The problem of assigning gates to flight arrivals and departures is an important decision problem in daily operations at major airports all over the world. Strong competition between airlines and the increasing demands of passengers for increased comfort has made the measures of quality in their decisions at an airport as important performance indices of airport management. This is why mathematical modeling of this problem and the application of Operations Research (OR) methods to solve those models have been studied widely in OR literature. The common characteristics of busy international airports usually involve serving a large number of different airlines, a large number of flights over day, and accommodating various types of aircrafts.
1.2 previous works Much work has been centered on the gate assigning problem with the objective of minimizing distance cost (or variants of this). One of the first attempts to use quantitative means to minimize intra-terminal travel into a design process was given by Braaksma and Shortreed (1971). The assignment of aircraft to gates that minimize travel distances is an easily motivated and understood problem but a difficult one to solve. The total passenger walking distance is based on passenger embarkation and
disembarkation volumes, transfer passenger volumes, gate to gate distances, check in to gate distances and aircraft to gate assignments. In the gate assignment problem, the cost associated with the placing of an aircraft at a gate depends on the distances from key facilities as well as the relations between these facilities. The basic gate assignment problem is quadratic assignment problem as shown to be NP-hard in Obata (1979). Babic et al. (1984) formulated the gate assignment problem as linear 0-1 IP. A branch and bound algorithm is used to find the optimal solution where transfer passengers are not considered. Haghani and Chen (1998) proposed an integer programming formulation of the gate assignment problem and heuristic solution procedure for solving the problem. The multiple objective model for the gate assignments were proposed in Yan and Huo (2001) where the model is formulated as a multiple objective 0-1 integer programming. Network model (Yan and Chang, 1998) and simulation models (Cheng, 1998a, b) were also proposed to formulate the problem. Since the gate assignment problem is NP-hard, various heuristic approaches have been suggested by researches, e.g. Haghani and Chen (1998) proposed a heuristic that assigns successive flights parking at the same gate when there is no overlapping. Flights are assigned based on the shortest walking distance coefficients. Xu and Bailey (2001) provide a
Tabu search meta heuristic to solve the problem. The algorithm exploits the special properties of different types of neighborhood moves, and creates highly effective candidate list strategies. The work of Yan et al. (2008) considered stochastic disturbances in daily passenger demand that occur in actual operations. They established a stochastic demand flight scheduling model, SDFSM. Two heuristic algorithms, based on arc-based and route based strategies, were developed to solve the SDFSM. In addition, previous work (Ding et el., 2004) has considered the over constrained gate assignment problem which addressed both the objectives of minimizing the number of ungated aircraft while minimizing total walking distance. In the work of AL-Sultan, A.T. (2011) considered in the airport gate assignment problem the size of each gate in the terminal and also the towing process for the aircraft. In addition, analyses were added for the buffer time that is the time that locks the aircraft gate after departure. In the current project, Actual and forecasted data will be simulated in the experiment to estimate the percentage of the ungated flights and walking distance cost. Furthermore, we will compare between four aircraft scheduling algorithms which are greedy algorithm and other three scheduling methods. We will use actual aircrafts arrival and departure schedules. The number of
passengers for each aircraft will be generated randomly using the Monte Carlo method. The Airport gate assignment problem (AGAP) seeks to find feasible flight to gate assignments so that the number of the flights that need be assigned to the apron and total passenger connection times, as can be proxies by walking distances, are minimized. This project is organized as follows. Since we will apply our mathematical model on a real data, in chapter 2 we explain Kuwait international airport gates terminal and the actual data collection. Next, we will describe the problem and explain the objective functions on chapter 3. In chapter 4, the aircrafts scheduling Algorithms that will be used in this project will be explained. The analysis of the results will be showed in chapter 5. The simulation approach will be explained in chapter 6.
10
Chapter 2
Kuwait International Airport (KIA)
11
2.1 KIA gates terminal We will apply our model at Kuwait international airport (KIA) that has becomes busier after applying the Open Skies policy that applies to both passenger and cargo operations, forms an essential part of the Kuwait governments latest initiative to promote the state as a major centre for financial, commercial and economic activities in the Gulf Region. KIA is already serves more than 50 airlines currently connect Kuwait directly with over 100 international destinations; In addition, there is considerable scope for expansion. The airport underwent a massive renovation and expansion project from 19992001, in which the former parking lot was cleared and a terminal expansion was built. This incorporated new check-in areas, a new entrance to the airport, the construction of a multi-storey parking structure, and an airport mall. Kuwait International Airport can currently handle more than seven million passengers a year. A new general aviation terminal was completed in 2008 under a BOT scheme and is operated by Royal Aviation. Kuwait international airport has one terminal that has ten gates for the aircrafts. The gate numbers are 1,2,3,4,5,21,22,24,25 and 26. Figure 2.1 describes the shape of the terminal.
12
Figure 2.1 KIAs gates terminal
Next to the terminal there are stands (aprons) for the ungated flights, there are several locations for aircraft stands such as cargo flights stand area, VIP or privet flight stand area, and the regular stand area which is used mostly for the ungated commercial aircrafts. In this project, we will use actual aircraft arrival and departure schedules. The number of passengers for each aircraft will be generated randomly using the Monte Carlo method.
13
2.2 Data collection Table 2.1 presents a sample from the actual schedule (daily movement) for the arrival and departure flights for a specific week. The rest of the data is presented in the appendix. The schedule contents: 1. A/L: Airline. 2. A/C: Type of aircraft. 3. Time: arrival / Departure time. 4. FLT: Flight number. 5. Arrival from / Departure to 6. Gate: gate number.
Table 2.1 Sample of the daily movement Arrival Departure FLT 574 5256 408 1172 614 From COK AMM BEY IST CAI Time 0040 0045 0110 0115 0145 Gate 25 3 21 26 22 FLT 573 5257 409 1173 615 To COK AMM BEY IST CAI Time 0140 0130 0200 0215 0245 Gate 25 3 21 26 22
A/L JAI RJA MEA THY MSR
A/C 737 319 320 737 737
Note that the time which presented in the daily movement is the actual time for the arrival or departure time. For example, the arrival time for the first flight in table 2.1 is 0040 which means the aircraft arrived at 00:40. Furthermore, the rest of the data which is presented in the appendix shows
14
the daily movement for whole week. For example, if a flight arrived at time 14700 mean that the flight arrived at time 21:00 in the 7th day (21*7 = 147).
From the collected data: - We have 756 arrival flights and 754 departure flights. From the arrival flights, we have 212 flights ungated (which means that 28.04% from the arrival flights are ungated). From the departure flights, we have 193 flights ungated (which means that 25.60% from the departure flights are ungated). Table 2.2 presents the types of aircrafts that could be assigned to each gate in the terminal. The sign O means that the type of aircraft can be assigned to the gate. We can notice that Gate 1 is the smallest gate in the terminal since it has the smallest number of types of aircraft which can be assigned to it. On the other hand, Gate 2, Gate 4, Gate 5, Gate 21 and Gate 22 are considered the largest gates in the terminal since they could be used to any type of aircraft.
15
Table 2.2 types of aircrafts that could be assigned to each gate in the terminal A/C 310 319 320 321 300 330 340 727 737 747 767 777 DC10 E95 MD90 Gate1 Gate2 Gate3 Gate4 Gate5 Gate21 Gate22 Gate24 Gate25 Gate26
16
Chapter 3
Problem description and model formulation
17
3.1
Problem description In this project, we consider the airport gate assignment problem
(AGAP), where the number of flights exceeds the number of gates available. Our main objective is to minimize the number of ungated flights or minimize the number of flights assigned to the apron and the total walking distance or connection times. We will consider the size of each gate in the terminal. We represent i set of gates that can be assigned to flight. To show how i will be used, table 3.1 shows the values of i for each type of aircraft that been used in KIA.
Table 3.1 values of Type of aircrafts 310,319,320,321,727,737,E95 300,767,MD90 767,MD90 330,340,DC10 747 777
for each type of aircraft Values of
{1,2,3,4,5,21,22,24,25,26} {2,3,4,5,21,22,24,25,26}
{2,3,4,5,21,22,25,26} {2,3,4,5,21,22,26} {2,4,5,21,22,26}

{2,3,4,5,21,22}
According to the KIA officials, the towing process for the aircrafts will be applied if this aircraft is scheduled to a specific gate for more than 6 hours. The towing process means pulling off an aircraft from the terminal gate to the aircraft stand area. The same process will be used to pull off an aircraft from the stand area to the terminal gate for departure. According to the KIA officials, the towing process takes approximately one hour. One of
18
the reasons for using the towing process is if a flight is scheduled to use a gate for more than 6 hours, we pull off this aircraft from the assigned gate after one hour from its arrival to give an opportunity to other aircrafts to use this gate. Table 3.2 shows an example for using the towing process if a flight is scheduled to use a gate for more than 6 hours.
Table 3.2 example for using the towing process Before applying the towing process A/L KAC A/C 320 Arrival FLT 672 From DXB Arrival FLT 672 From DXB Time 1400 2000 FLT 551 Time 1400 FLT 551 Departure To DAM Departure To DAM Time 1500 2100 Time 2100
After applying the towing process A/L KAC KAC A/C 320 320
In addition, we will add a buffer time which is added between two continuous flights that assigned to the same gate. The time interval locked for particular aircraft equals to [ ai , d i + ] . Where a i and d i are the arrival and the departure time of flight i.
and represent the earliest and
the latest time that the flight can be assigned to a gate. In this project, we will let the sum of
and represents the buffer time . The goal of buffer
time is to enlarge the interval between any two adjacent aircrafts assigned to the same gate, which naturally decrease the probability of conflict between these two aircrafts. It is recommended to let the latest time higher
19
or equal to the earliest time since in KIA (in most of the cases) the delay departures are more than the early arrivals.
3.2
Identify decision variables.
Notations: N: Represents set of flights arriving to/departing from the airport. M: Represents set of gates available at the airport. n: Total number of flights. m: Total number of gates.
ai : Arrival time of flight i.

d i : Departure time of flight i.
f i, j
: Number of passengers transferring from flight i to flight j.
wk ,l : Walking distance for passengers from gate k to gate l.

: The earliest time that the flight can be assigned to a gate.
: The latest time that the flight can be assigned to a gate.

: The buffer time which is equal to + .
: Represents set of gates that can be assigned to flight i.
DF: the difference between the departure and the arrival time (6 hours). TP: The towing process (1 hour)
20
Additionally, we will make use of two dummy gates. Gate 0 represents the entrance or exit of the airport, and gate m + 1 represents the apron where flights arrive at when no gates are available. Hence, wk ,o represents the walking distance between gate k and the airport entrance or exit, and f 0,i represents the number of originating departure passengers of flight i; f i , 0 represents number of the disembarking arrival passengers of flight i. So wm+1,k represent the walking distance between the apron and gate k (usually significantly larger than the distance among different gates). The binary variables
1 yik = 0
if flight i is assigned to gate k (0 < k m + 1) . otherwise
The following constraint must be satisfied:
(i, j ), k i & k j
y ik = y jk = 1(k m + 1) Implies a i > d j or a j > d i
This condition disallows any two flights to be scheduled to the same gate simultaneously (except if they are scheduled to the apron).
21
3.3
Constraints and objective function
Our objective is to minimize the number of flights assigned to the apron and the total walking distance. The mathematical formulation can be expressed as follow:
Minimize
y
i =1
n
i , m +1
(3.1)
wk ,l y i ,k y j ,l + f 0,i w0,i + f i , 0 wi , 0
i =1 i =1 n n
Minimize
f
i =1 j =1 k =1 l =1
n m +1 m +1
i, j
(3.2)
Equation (3.1) refers to the first objective which minimizes the number of flights assigned to the apron. And equation (3.2) refers to the second objective which is minimizes the total walking distance. We will call the value of equation (3.2) the walking distance cost.
The constraints: 1. Ensures that every flight must be assigned to one and only one gate or assigned to the apron.
y
i
i ,k
= 1, ( i ,1 i n ).
Where
i represent set of gates that can be assigned to flight i.
2. Each flight's departure time is later than its arrival time
22
ai < d i , (i,1 i n).

3. Two flights schedule cannot overlap if they are assigned to the same gate
y i ,k y j ,k ( d j ai )(d i a j ) 0,
(i, j , k i & k j ,1 i, j n, k m + 1), y i ,k {0,1}.
23
Chapter 4
Algorithms and data generation
24
4.1 Greedy algorithm To solve the AGAP, we will use Greedy algorithm which uses a heuristic methods for minimizing the number of flights assigned to the apron. And then compare it with other scheduling method. First we will explain the basic details of greedy algorithm. The steps are as follow: 1. Sort the flights according to the departure time d i (1 i n). Let
g k (1 k m) represents the earliest available time (actually the departure

time of last flight) of Gate k Set g k = 1 for all k. 2. For each flight i. - Find gate k such that g k < a i and g k is maximized; and k i ; - If such k exists, assign flight i to Gate k, update g k = d i . - If k does not exist, assign flight i to the apron. 3. Output the result.
Note that in step 2 before assigning flight i to gate k, we will check if

d i ai > DF = 6 hours. If the answer is yes, we will divide this flight into
two flights and apply the towing process which will take TP=1 hour. The first flights time interval becomes [ a i , a i + 1] and the second flights time interval become [d i 1, d i ] . This means if a flight is scheduled to use a gate
25
for more than 6 hours, we pull off this aircraft from the assigned gate after one hour from its arrival to give an opportunity to other aircraft to use this gate. Then for this flights departure, if we find a gate, we will assign this flight to this gate one hour before its departure.
Proof of the correctness of the greedy algorithm: By induction, assume we have found the optimum solution after scheduling flight i by the greedy algorithm. Now by this, we will assign flight f to gate k . But the optimal solution is to drop flight f and assign f ' ( f ' > f ) to gate k ' . Hence we can always replace f ' by f to make our greedy solution no worse than the optimal solution. There are two cases we should consider: 1. If k = k ' , since we sort the flight by departure time, d f d f ' we have
g k g ' k as we considered the earliest available time of the gates, we find
the greedy solution is better or at least equal to the optimal solution. 2. If k k ' , we find that gk g'k ' , and g k ' g ' k since we choose the maximum g k in the greedy solution. The figure 4.1 illustrates this.
26
Figure 4.1 the correctness of the greedy algorithm
4.2 Other scheduling algorithms In this section, we will present other three scheduling algorithms that will be compared with greedy algorithm. We call those three scheduling algorithms Method 1, Method 2 and Method 3. The only difference between those algorithms and greedy algorithm is the condition of flights sorting (according to the arrival or departure time) and also the earliest available time g k (maximized or minimized). We will explain in more detail the difference between those algorithms by showing the steps for each aircraft scheduling method.
27
Method 1 1. Sort the flights according to the arrival time d i (1 i n). Let

time of last flight) of Gate k Set g k = 1 for all k. 2. For each flight i. - Find gate k such that g k < ai and g k is minimized; and k i ; - If such k exists, assign flight i to Gate k, update g k = d i . - If k does not exist, assign flight i to the apron. 3. Output the result.
Method 2 1. Sort the flights according to the arrival time d i (1 i n). Let

time of last flight) of Gate k Set g k = 1 for all k. 2. For each flight i. - Find gate k such that g k < ai and g k is maximized; and k i ; - If such k exists, assign flight i to Gate k, update g k = d i . - If k does not exist, assign flight i to the apron. 3. Output the result.
28
Method 3 1. Sort the flights according to the departure time d i (1 i n). Let

time of last flight) of Gate k Set g k = 1 for all k. 2. For each flight i. - Find gate k such that g k < ai and g k is minimized; and k i ; - If such k exists, assign flight i to Gate k, update g k = d i . - If k does not exist, assign flight i to the apron. 3. Output the result.
Note that we will apply in step 2 for each of the three scheduling algorithms as we did for greedy algorithm. In step 2, we will apply the towing process. The conditions are the same which as follow: before assigning flight i to gate k, we will check if d i ai > DF = 6 hours. If the answer is yes, we will divide this flight into two flights and apply the towing process which will take TP=1 hour. The first flights time interval becomes [ a i , a i + 1] and the second flights time interval become [d i 1, d i ] . Table 4.1 summarizes the difference between greedy algorithm and other scheduling algorithms.
29
Table 4.1 difference between greedy algorithm and other scheduling algorithms Method greedy Method 1 Method 2 Method 3 Flight sorting departure arrival arrival departure
gk
maximized minimized maximized minimized
4.3 Tabu search heuristic Tabu search (TS) algorithm is specially designed for the AGAP. TS is meta-heuristic approach that is recognized as a very effective tool for many combinatorial optimization problems. The basic TS approach is to search for the optimum solution with the assistance of an adaptive memory procedure that proceeds as follows. At each iteration, candidate neighborhood moves are evaluated, which then lead from the current solution to a new solution.
4.3.1
New neighborhood search methods
- The insert move: move a single flight to a gate other that the one it currently assigns. This move is the same as the original insert move. - The interval exchange move: exchange two flight intervals in the current assignment. A flight interval consists of one or more consecutive flights in one gate.
30
- The apron exchange move: exchange one flight which has been assigned to the apron with a flight that is assigned to a gate currently. We now discuss the interval exchange move and apron exchange move in greater detail.
4.3.2 The interval exchange move The essential reason for the interval exchange move is to find two compatible intervals, which will allow us to get a feasible solution. In order to get this, interval data should contain four time points: the earliest available time (t1), the start time (t2), the end time (t3) and latest available time (t4). Figure 4.2 illustrates the meaning of these four time points.
Figure 4.2 the four time points of an interval
Further to this, we define two functions on intervals. Extend Left () extends the current interval by adding the flight which is just left to it, and Extend Right () extends the current interval by adding the flight which is just right to it.
31
Additionally, previous (i) returns the flight just arranged before flight i in the same gate, next (i) returns the flight just arranged after flight i. With these, we can now stat an algorithm for finding compatible intervals in Algorithm 1.
Algorithm 1 finding compatible intervals 1. Select two flights a, b in different gate, where a, b have overlap time. 2. Initialize interval A a ,interval B b; 3. A.t1 previous (a). Departure; 4. A.t2
a. arrival;
next (a). Arrival;
5. A.t3 a. departure; 6. A.t4
7. B.t1 previous (b). Departure; 8. B.t2 9. B.t3 10. B.t4
b.arrival;
b.departure;
next (b). Arrival; true;
11. Success
12. While A and B are incompatible and success is true do 13. If (A.t2 < B.t1 and extend left (B)) 14. Success
false;
32
15. If (B.t2 < A.t1 and extend left (A)) 16. Success false; 17. If (A.t3 > B.t4 and extend right (B)) 18. Success
false;
false;
19. If (B.t3 > A.t4 and extend right (A)) 20. Success
21. End while 22. If success 23. Exchange interval A and B; 24. Else output exchange Failed;
4.3.3 The apron exchange move The apron exchange move is used to deal with the flights that are assigned to the apron. In each move, we exchange one flight that is assigned to the apron currently with a flight that has been assigned to a gate. As the minimal number of flights out of the gates has been determined by the greedy algorithm, we cannot perform a many- many exchange, so we can only effect a single flight exchange.
33
4.3.4 Tabu short-term memory Tabu search memory plays an important role in the search process. It forbids the solution attribute changes recorded in the short-term memory to be reused. How long a restriction is in effect depends on the tabu tenure parameter, which identifies the number of iterations a particular restriction remains in force (F. Glover and M. Laguna, 1997)
In our AGAP problem, since there are three types of neighborhood search moves, the tabu short-term memory can be implemented as follows (where iter denotes the current iteration number): 1. Insert Move: denoted as (i, k ) (i, l ) ,
tabu((i, k ) (i, l )) = iter + tabu _ tenure
to prevent the move (i, k ) (i, l ) ; 2. Interval Exchange move: denoted as

(a, b, k ) (c, d , l ), tabu((a, b, k ) (c, d , l )) = iter + tabu _ tenure
to prevent the move (a, b, l ) (c, d , k ) ; 3. Apron Exchange Move: denoted as

(a, k ) (b.OUT ), tabu((a, k ) (b, OUT ) = iter + tabu _ tenure
to prevent the move (a, OUT ) (b, k ) .
34
4.4
Data generation
The arrival time and the departure time for flight i are actual data from the schedule department at Kuwait international airport. But other data should be generated or assumed to apply our model. Those data are concerning the walking distance and number of passengers. First for the walking distance, we assume that the distance measure between two gates which are next to each other is 1 unite. For example, if one passenger arrived at gate 25 his walking distance to the passport control is 5 units (The distance measure is known as Manhatten Distance). Table 4.2 represents a summary for the assumed walking distance from a specific gate to the passport control.
Table 4.2 walking distance Gate 1,21 2,22 3,24 4,25 5,26 Apron Distance (in units) 2 1 4 5 6 10
We can use table 4.2 to assume the walking distance from gate k to the airport entrance or exit ( wk ,0 ) or the walking distance from the airport entrance or exit to gate k ( w0,k ). For the transferring passengers, the walking distance from gate k to gate l ( wk ,l ) is randomly generated in the interval [1, 10].
35
Now for the arriving passengers f i , 0 and the departing passengers f 0 ,i are randomly generated from different interval sizes depending on the type of the aircraft. Table 4.3 represents the scenarios to generate the arriving and the departing passengers.
Table 4.3 data generation for the arriving and departing passengers Data Type Generation 310 [180,280] 319 [80,126] 320 [80,180] 321 [86,186] 300 [235,335] 330 [235,335] 340 [195,295] 727 [87,187] 737 [89,189] 747 [324,424] 767 [88,188] 777 [244,344] DC10 [270,370] E95 [80,110] MD90 [87,187]
There are rarely small numbers of passengers transferring from one flight to another flight. The number of transfer passengers will increase if flight schedules are close, but not too close (At least 1 hour different). The number of transferring passengers from flight i to flight j ( f i , j ) is usually within a certain interval, say [1, 50].
36
Chapter 5
Results and analysis
37
5.1
Results
We implement R (statistical software) to solve the problem. We have two objective functions. The first objective function minimizes the number of flights assigned to the apron. And the second objective function minimizes the total walking distance. In this chapter, we will present the detailed results and analysis for both objective functions separately.
5.1.1 Result of objective 1 We will represent the results for each scheduling algorithm for the first objective function which is minimizing the number of ungated flights. First, we will use greedy algorithm and then Method 1 then Method 2 and finally Method 3. First, we will apply greedy algorithm to obtain initial feasible solutions for the first objective function. Table 5.1 represents a sample for the output for the aircraft scheduling. We can notice from the presented table that the first five flights have no arrival information since those flights arrived in the previous day.
38
Table 5.1 the output for the aircraft scheduling using greedy algorithm A/L AXB SYZ MSR LZB IAC RJA KLM JZR PIA A/C 737 320 320 320 320 310 330 320 310 Arrival From time AMM 2310 AMS 2315 DXB 2350 LHE 2355 Gate 2 1 4 5 21 1 Apron 3 22 Departure To TRV/CCJ DAM LXR BOJ BOM/MAA AMM AMS PEW/LHE time 0010 0020 0030 0040 0050 2405 2435 2450 2510
We have used the buffer time ( which is equal to + ) that will be added between two continuous flights that assigned to the same gate. The time interval locked for particular aircraft equals to [ ai , d i + ] . By using greedy algorithm, we tried equal to 0, 10, 20 and 30 minutes. In addition, we have tried = 40 minutes but output gives negative result. The next results represent the output results for using greedy algorithm for the incoming and outgoing flights for different values of . Table 5.2 represents the output analysis for the ungated flights for different values of .
39
Table 5.2 output analysis for the ungated flights using greedy algorithm
=0
= 10
Outgoing 113 80 41.45% Outgoing 168 25 12.95%
Incoming Greedy algorithm Difference from the actual data Saving percentage 85 127 59.91% Incoming Greedy algorithm Difference from the actual data Saving percentage 135 77 36.32%
Incoming 112 100 47.17% Incoming 168 44 20.75%
= 20
= 30
From the output, after applying Greedy algorithm, the total number of ungated flights for = 0 is 85 for the incoming flights and 82 for the outgoing flights. The difference between the actual data and the output is 127 for the incoming flights and 111 for the outgoing flights. Note that the number of the ungated flights for the actual data is 212 in the incoming flights and 193 in the outgoing flights. So we have minimized the number of ungated flights by 59.91% in the incoming and 57.51% for the outgoing flights. Choosing the values of
or
depends on the airports conditions. In
KIA the delay departure flights are more than the early arrivals. As a result, KIA could consider giving a buffer time for the departure flights more than the arrival flights (i.e. letting < ). For example, if KIA agree to let
= 30 minutes then the possible time intervals for flight i are
40
[ ai 0, d i + 30] and [ai 10, d i + 20] . Both intervals give same result
regarding the number of ungated flights and saving percentage. We will summary the output for the ungated flights by using greedy algorithm in table 5.3 by showing the positive and negative results for the different values of
and . A positive result means that the saving
percentage for the ungated flights is positive. However, a negative result means that the saving percentage for the ungated flights is negative. The (O) mark shows a positive result and (-) mark shows a negative result.
0 10 20 30 40
Table 5.3 positive and negative results using different values of and . 0 O O O O 10 O O O 20 O O 30 O 40 -
Next, we will apply Method 1 to obtain initial feasible solutions for the first objective function (minimize the number of flights assigned to the apron). Table 5.4 represents a sample for the output of the aircraft
scheduling.
41
Table 5.4 the output for the aircraft scheduling using Method 1 A/L AXB SYZ MSR LZB IAC RJA UAL KLM KAC A/C 737 320 320 320 320 310 777 330 340 Arrival From time AMM 2310 2315 AMS/BAH 2315 2320 Gate 2 1 4 5 21 25 3 22 21 Departure To time TRV/CCJ 0010 DAM 0020 LXR 0030 BOJ 0040 BOM/MAA 0050 AMM 2405 IAD 2345 AMS 2435 KUL 2350
The next results represent the output results for using Method 1 for the incoming and outgoing flights for different values of . Table 5.5 represents the output analysis for the ungated flights for different values of .
Table 5.5 output analysis for the ungated flights using Method 1
=0
= 10
Outgoing 122 71 36.79%
Incoming Method 1 Difference from the actual data Saving percentage 93 119 56.13% Incoming Method 1 Difference from the actual data Saving percentage 145 67 31.60%
= 20
= 30
Outgoing 184 9 4.66%
From the output, after using Method 1, the total number of ungated flights for = 0 is 93 for the incoming flights and 102 for the outgoing
42
flights. The difference between the actual data and the output is 119 for the incoming flights and 91 for the outgoing flights. We have minimized the number of ungated flights by 56.13% for the incoming and 47.15% for the outgoing flights. Then will apply Method 2 to obtain initial feasible solutions for the first objective function (minimize the number of flights assigned to the apron). Table 5.6 represents a sample for the output of the aircraft scheduling.
Table 5.6 the output for the aircraft scheduling using Method 2 A/L AXB SYZ MSR LZB IAC RJA UAL KLM KAC A/C 737 320 320 320 320 310 777 330 340 Arrival From AMM AMS/BAH time 2310 2315 2315 2320 Gate 2 1 4 5 21 4 5 Apron Apron Departure To TRV/CCJ DAM LXR BOJ BOM/MAA AMM IAD AMS KUL time 0010 0020 0030 0040 0050 2405 2345 2435 2350
43
=0
= 10
Outgoing 129 64 33.16%
= 20
= 30
Outgoing 182 11 5.70%
From the output, after using Method 2, the total number of ungated flights for = 0 is 94 for the incoming flights and 99 for the outgoing flights. The difference between the actual data and the output is 118 for the incoming flights and 94 for the outgoing flights. We have minimized the number of ungated flights by 55.66% for the incoming and 48.70% for the outgoing flights. Finally, we will apply Method 3 to obtain initial feasible solutions for the first objective function (minimize the number of flights assigned to the apron) Table 5.8 represents a sample for the output of the aircraft scheduling.
44
A/L AXB SYZ MSR LZB IAC RJA AXB KLM JZR
Table 5.8 the output for the aircraft scheduling using Method 3 Arrival Departure A/C Gate From time To time 737 2 TRV/CCJ 0010 320 1 DAM 0020 320 4 LXR 0030 320 5 BOJ 0040 320 21 BOM/MAA 0050 310 AMM 2310 1 AMM 2405 737 CCJ/IXE 2305 24 IXE/CCJ 2410 330 AMS/BAH 2315 Apron AMS 2435 320 DXB 2350 4 2450
=0
= 10
Outgoing 153 40 20.73%
Outgoing 141 52 26.94%
= 20
Outgoing 181 12 6.22%
= 30
Outgoing 200 -7 -3.63%
From the output, after using Method 3, the total number of ungated flights for = 0 is 141 for the incoming flights and 141 for the outgoing
45
flights. The difference between the actual data and the output is 71 for the incoming flights and 52 for the outgoing flights. We have minimized the number of ungated flights by 33.49% for the incoming and 26.94% for the outgoing flights. Note that when we let = 30 minutes, the output gives negative result in the outgoing flights since the saving percentage is not positive. In table 5.10, we will compare greedy algorithm and the other aircraft scheduling algorithms (Method 1, Method 2 and Method 3) by taking the average between the incoming and outgoing flights for the saving percentage for the ungated flights for different values of .
Table 5.10 Saving percentage averages comparison for the ungated flights Algorithm Greedy Method 1 Method 2 Method 3
=0
58.71% 51.64% 52.18% 30.22%
= 10
44.31% 41.27% 38.04% 23.58%
= 20
32.93% 27.72% 25.44% 11.13%
= 30
16.85% 10.59% 10.87% 1.49%
From table 5.10, we conclude that greedy algorithm gives the best result among all the other scheduling methods regarding the saving percentage for the ungated flights. Method 1 and Method 2 give almost same percentage. However, Method 3 gives the worst result among the other scheduling methods.
46
5.1.2 Result of objective 2 Before applying the scheduling algorithms to get an initial feasible solution for the first objective function, we have estimated the walking distance cost for the actual data by generating random data for the number of passengers and walking distance. The estimated cost was 1,509,752. In this section, we will use the previous output for the ungated flights to find the solution for the second objective function (minimize the total walking distance). To do this, we must generate random data for the number of passengers and walking distance as explained in the data generation section in chapter 4. The method that will be used to solve the second objective function is Tabu search heuristic which was also explained in chapter 4. First we will present the results by using the results of greedy algorithm and then Method 1 then Method 2 and finally Method 3. First, we will use the result of greedy algorithm. Table 5.11 represents the sample for the generated data for the number of passengers and the walking distance for each flight.
47
Table 5.11 generated data for the number of passengers and the walking distance (greedy algorithm) A/L AXB SYZ MSR LZB IAC DLH AFG KAC RJA RJA KLM JZR PIA A/C 737 320 320 320 320 330 310 320 319 310 330 320 310 Arrival From BEY AMM RJA KLM JZR PIA time 0005 0045 2310 2315 2350 2355
f 0, j
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 80 107 212 327 154 246
Gate 2 1 4 5 21 2 1 4 5 1 Apron 3 22
Wi , j
2 1 4 5 6 2 1 4 5 2 8 4 1
f i, j
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 44 0 0 0 0
f i ,0
178 137 127 99 140 322 236 0 97 0 0 0 0
Departure To TRV/CCJ DAM LXR BOJ BOM/MAA FRA KBL AMM AMM AMS time 0010 0020 0030 0040 0050 0055 0100 0105 0130 2405 2435 2450 2510
Table 5.12 presents the estimated walking distance cost with different values of . The saving percentages are calculated by comparing the estimated walking distance cost after using the Tabu search heuristic with the estimated walking distance cost for the actual data which is 1,509,752.
Table 5.12 Estimated walking distance cost and actual data comparison by using greedy algorithm 0 10 20 30 walking distance cost Saving percentage 1242082 17.73% 1351051 10.51% 1413588 6.37% 1497324 0.82%
With a buffer time = 0 the walking distance costs was 1,242,082. This means that the walking distance saving percentage is 17.73%. Next, we will use the result of Method 1. Table 5.13 represents the sample for the generated data for the number of passengers and the walking distance for each flight.
48
Table 5.13 generated data for the number of passengers and the walking distance (Method 1) A/L AXB SYZ MSR LZB IAC DLH AFG KAC JAI RJA UAL KLM KAC A/C 737 320 320 320 320 330 310 320 737 310 777 330 340 Arrival From time BEY 0005 COK 0040 AMM 2310 2315 AMS/BAH 2315 2320
f 0, j
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 158 96 223 0 238 0
Gate 1 2 3 4 5 21 22 24 25 25 3 22 21
Wi , j
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 7 3 1 0 6
f i, j
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 39 33 16 0 4
f i ,0
134 84 123 135 123 239 276 0 189 180 292 295 199
Departure To time TRV/CCJ 0010 DAM 0020 LXR 0030 BOJ 0040 BOM/MAA 0050 FRA 0055 KBL 0100 0105 COK 0140 AMM 2405 IAD 2345 AMS 2435 KUL 2350
Table 5.14 presents the estimated walking distance cost with different values of . With a buffer time = 0 the walking distance costs was 1,309,913. This means that the walking distance saving percentage is 13.24%. However, the saving percentage is negative when we let = 30 minutes.
Table 5.14 Estimated walking distance cost and actual data comparison by using Method 1 0 10 20 30 walking distance cost Saving percentage 1309913 13.24% 1338398 11.35% 1442087 4.48% 1561896 -3.45%
Next, we will use the result of Method 2. Table 5.15 represents the sample for the generated data for the number of passengers and the walking distance for each flight.
49
Table 5.15 generated data for the number of passengers and the walking distance (Method 2) A/L AXB SYZ MSR LZB IAC DLH AFG KAC JAI RJA UAL KLM KAC A/C 737 320 320 320 320 330 310 320 737 310 777 330 340 Arrival From BEY COK AMM AMS/BAH -
time 0005 0040 2310 2315 2315 2320
f 0, j
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 158 96 223 0 238 0
Gate 1 2 3 4 5 21 22 24 3 4 21 Apron Apron
Wi , j
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 7 3 1 0 6
f i, j
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 39 33 16 0 4
f i ,0
134 84 123 135 123 239 276 0 189 180 292 295 199
Departure To time TRV/CCJ 0010 DAM 0020 LXR 0030 BOJ 0040 BOM/MAA 0050 FRA 0055 KBL 0100 0105 COK 0140 AMM 2405 IAD 2345 AMS 2435 KUL 2350
Table 5.16 presents the estimated walking distance cost with different values of . With a buffer time = 0 the walking distance costs was 1,294,204. This means that the walking distance saving percentage is 14.28%. However, the saving percentage is also negative when we let = 30 minutes.
Table 5.16 Estimated walking distance cost and actual data comparison by using Method 2 0 10 20 30 walking distance cost Saving percentage 1294204 14.28% 1382662 8.42% 1467441 2.80% 1557137 -3.14%
Finally, we will use the result of Method 3. Table 5.17 represents the sample for the generated data for the number of passengers and the walking distance for each flight.
50
Table 5.17 generated data for the number of passengers and the walking distance (Method 3) Arrival Departure f 0, j Gate Wi , j f i , j f i , 0 A/L A/C From time To time AXB 737 0 1 0 0 184 TRV/CCJ 0010 SYZ 320 0 2 0 0 142 DAM 0020 MSR 320 0 3 0 0 128 LXR 0030 LZB 320 0 4 0 0 123 BOJ 0040 IAC 320 0 5 0 0 129 BOM/MAA 0050 DLH 330 0 21 0 0 241 FRA 0055 AFG 310 0 22 0 0 202 KBL 0100 KAC 320 BEY 0005 110 24 0 0 0 0105 RJA 319 AMM 0045 131 25 8 21 107 AMM 0130 RJA 310 AMM 2310 253 1 4 3 253 AMM 2405 AXB 737 CCJ/IXE 2305 119 24 8 37 185 IXE/CCJ 2410 KLM 330 AMS/BAH 2315 305 Apron 2 42 244 AMS 2435 JZR 320 DXB 2350 167 4 0 0 0 2450
Table 5.18 presents the estimated walking distance cost with different values of . With a buffer time = 0 the walking distance costs was 1,418,381. This means that the walking distance saving percentage is 6.05%. However, the saving percentage is negative when we let = 20 and 30 minutes.
Table 5.18 Estimated walking distance cost and actual data comparison by using Method 3 0 10 20 30 walking distance cost Saving percentage 1418381 6.05% 1449698 3.98% 1541133 -2.08% 1579837 -4.64%
In table 5.19, we will give a summary for the comparison between the four scheduling methods by showing the positive and negative results for the different values of regarding the saving percentage for the walking
51
distance cost. The (O) mark shows a positive result. However, (-) mark shows a negative result.
Table 5.19 positive and negative results for the walking distance cost using different values of Algorithm Greedy Method 1 Method 2 Method 3
=0
O O O O
= 10
O O O O
= 20
O O O -
= 30
O -
= 40
-
For the second objective function which is minimizing the passengers walking distance cost. From table 5.19, we also conclude that greedy algorithm gives the best result among all the other scheduling methods regarding the saving percentage for the walking distance cost. By using greedy algorithm, the saving percentage for the walking distance cost gives positive result until = 30 minutes. Method 1 and Method 2 give almost same result. The saving percentage for the walking distance cost for both Method 1 and Method 2 gives positive result until = 20 minutes. However, Method 3 gives the worst result among the other scheduling methods. The saving percentage for the walking distance cost gives positive result until = 10 minutes.
52
Chapter 6
Simulation approach
53
6.1
Objective of the simulation approach
The rapid development of airlines has made airports became busier. As a result, the problem of assigning gates to flight arrivals and departures is an important decision problem in daily operations at major airports all over the world. With the increasing of flights frequency every year, some airport officials want to estimate how many gates in the terminal will be needed in the future so that the airport could handle the increasing number of flights. The objective of this approach is to use an aircraft scheduling algorithm to estimate the optimum number of gates in the terminal needed in the future under a specific percentage of the total number of ungated flights and buffer time limit. Further more, we will analyze the walking distance estimation in this approach. In order to estimate the optimum number of gates, in this simulation approach we suppose that the total number of ungated flights should be at most 20% from the total number of flights and the latest time that the flight can be assigned to a gate is at least 30 minutes. In other word, for the flight time interval we will let = 30 minutes and
be always equal to 0. So we will let the flight time interval equal to

[ai , d i + 30] and run the simulation until we find the optimum number of
gates when the total number of ungated flights should be at most 20% from the total number of flights.
54
6.2 Arrival rate estimation and simulation steps Before we explain the simulation steps, we should find the arrival rate for the aircrafts. We have collected actual data for the incoming aircrafts frequency. The collected data is monthly data for 5 years period (60 observations). We will use the Stochastic Models Box & Jenkins methodology (1976) to do forecasting for the number of incoming aircrafts and then estimate the arrival rate for the aircrafts. The general Box & Jenkins model of order (p, P, q, Q) abbreviated by ARIMA (p, d, q) x (P, D, Q) L And the ARIMA model will be expressed as
p ( B) p ( B L )(1 B L ) D (1 B) d Z t = 0 + q ( B) Q ( B L )at
Regarding to our data, after applying Box & Jenkins methodology, the best model for the incoming aircrafts frequency that has been found is as follow: ARIMA (1, 0, 0) x (1, 1, 1)12 The Estimates of Parameters:
= 0.9844 , = 0.7898 and = 56.41 = 0.9305 , 1,12 1,12 0 1
Therefore, the fitted ARIMA model can be expressed as follow
B )(1 B12 )(1 B12 ) Z = + (1 B12 )a (1 t t 1 1,12 0 1,12
55
(1 0.9305 B )(1 + 0.9844 B12 )(1 B12 ) Z t = 56.41 + (1 + 0.7898 B12 ) at

Or
Z t 0.9305 Z t 1 0.0156 Z t 12 + 0.0145 Z t 13 0.9844 Z t 24 + 0.9160 Z t 25 = 56.41 + at + 0.7898at 12

Figure 6.1 shows aircraft arrival pattern with the forecasted data including upper and lower bound for monthly data. From the results, after 2 years ahead it has been forecasted that in most crowded case that the number of arrivals will be 401,760 flights. Then the arrival rate is one flight every 9 minutes (401760 / 31*24*60 = 9). In addition, it has been estimated that the departure time for each flight is between 90 and 100 minutes.
Figure 6.1 shows aircraft arrival pattern with the forecasted data (AC is the incoming aircrafts frequency)
Time Series Plot for AC

(with forecasts and their 95% confidence limits)
5500
4500
AC
3500
2500
1500 6 12 18 24 30 36 42 48 54 60
Time
56
The simulation steps are as follow: (1) The arrival time for flight i is ai = 9i and the departure time is
d i = [ai + 90, ai + 100] .

(2) Let the latest time that the flight can be assigned to a gate equal to 30 minutes (in other word we let = 30 minutes). (3) Types of aircrafts and passengers are generated randomly. (4) Apply the scheduling algorithm. (5) Apply Tabu search (TS) algorithm (6) Run time is one week period. (7) Do 30 times replicate.
6.3 Simulation results We will apply our simulation approach for each aircraft scheduling method. For each method, we will present flights scheduling output, average and the percentage of the ungated flights from the total flights with different number of gates and the walking distance cost change percentage. The walking distance cost change percentage will be calculated by comparing the estimated walking distance cost by using the simulation approach and the estimated value for the walking distance cost for the actual data which is 1,509,752.
57
First, we will apply our simulation approach to greedy algorithm. Table 6.1 shows a sample of the output for one replicate with number of gates equal to ten and = 30 minutes.
Table 6.1 simulation output using greedy algorithm Arrival f 0, j Gate Wi , j f i , j f i ,0 From time CAI 0009 153 1 0 0 97 DXB 0018 305 2 5 13 299 DOH 0027 153 3 2 4 102 AMM 0036 163 4 3 5 158 BOM 0045 84 5 8 6 117 AWZ 0054 180 21 5 43 102 BEY 0103 124 22 2 23 177 SYZ 0112 156 24 0 0 0 BEY 0121 269 26 10 26 274 AUH 2100 168 26 5 22 127 BOM 2109 179 22 8 25 167 BOM 2118 163 Apron 7 36 131 CAI 2127 324 21 2 39 302 Departure To time CAI 0210 DXB 0221 AMM 0234 AMM 0243 HBE 0252 AWZ 0303 DAM 0313 0321 BEY 0321 AUH 2310 BOM 2314 HBE 2319 CMB 2336
A/L MSR UAE JZR RJA JZR IRA JZR JZR MEA ETD JAI JZR KAC
A/C 320 330 320 320 320 727 320 320 330 320 737 320 300
Next, we do all the 30 times replicates for the simulation. Table 6.2 presents the average and the percentage of the ungated flights from the total flights with different number of gates. Table 6.3 presents the walking distance cost change percentage using the simulation approach.
Table 6.2 percentage of ungated flights using simulation approach (greedy algorithm) Number of gates Ungated flights Percentage 10 367 32.73% 11 295 26.29% 12 225 20.07%
Table 6.3 percentage of walking distance cost using simulation approach (greedy algorithm) Number of gates Walking distance cost Change% 10 2208202.9 46.26% 11 2133456.7 41.31% 12 2080175.4 37.78%
58
We conclude that we will reach to out target which is the total number of ungated flights should be at most 20% of the total flights and the latest time that the flight can be assigned to a gate at least 30 minutes latest time when we let the number of gates equal to 12. Or in other word, the current number of gates in the terminal is 10 gates. After two years KIA should add two new gates in the terminal if they want to keep the percentage of the ungated flights at most 20% of the total fights with buffer time equal to 30 minutes. By letting the number of gates equal to 12, the estimated number of ungated flights is 225 and the walking distance cost will be increased 37.8%. Next, we will apply our simulation approach to Method 1. Table 6.4 shows a sample of the output for one replicate with number of gates equal to ten and = 30 minutes.
59
A/L KAC GFA JZR MEA IRA JZR JZR KAC JZR QTR GFA KAC KAC
A/C 320 320 320 321 727 320 320 340 320 321 330 310 320
Table 6.4 simulation output using Method 1 Arrival f 0, j Gate Wi , j f i , j From time BAH 0009 178 1 0 0 BAH 0018 151 2 4 2 0027 0 3 4 1 BEY 0036 93 4 0 0 SYZ 0045 159 5 9 23 DOH 0054 166 21 4 27 0103 0 22 9 39 FRA 0112 245 26 0 0 LCA 0121 120 24 3 46 DOH 2306 117 5 5 36 BAH 2315 282 21 6 24 DOH 2324 205 22 8 8 2333 0 26 9 41
f i ,0
0 172 124 116 180 117 174 0 152 165 304 234 141
Departure To time 0213 BAH 0226 AMM 0235 BEY 0246 SYZ 0245 ATZ 0302 SSH 0306 0318 DOH 0330 DOH 2516 BAH 2517 HYD 2534 DOH 2533
Based on 30 times replicates, table 6.5 presents the average and the percentage of the ungated flights from the total flights with different number of gates. Table 6.6 presents the walking distance cost change percentage using the simulation approach.
Table 6.5 percentage of ungated flights using simulation approach (Method 1) number of gates 10 11 12
Ungated flights percentage 366 32.68% 294 26.25% 223 19.91%
Table 6.6 percentage of walking distance cost using simulation approach (Method 1) number of gates 10 11 12
walking distance cost change% 2187555.7 44.90% 2134526.7 41.38% 2058271.367 36.33%
The results are almost same as greedy algorithm. Using Method 1 we conclude also that we will reach to out target when we let the number of
60
gates equal to 12. The estimated number of ungated flights is 223 and the walking distance cost will be increased 36.33%. Also we will apply our simulation approach also to Method 2. Table 6.7 shows a sample of the output for one replicate with number of gates equal to ten and = 30 minutes.
Table 6.7 simulation output using Method 2 Arrival f 0, j Gate Wi , j f i , j From time CGK/KUL 0009 250 2 0 0 DXB 0018 95 1 3 34 SAH/BAH 0027 82 3 2 49 MHD 0036 142 4 0 0 CAI 0045 137 5 2 18 DXB 0054 99 21 0 0 HYD 0103 276 22 6 3 DXB 0112 134 24 4 36 0121 0 Apron 3 31 MNL/BKK 2315 221 Apron 0 0 LHR 2324 305 4 0 0 MCT 2333 111 2 3 34 BOM 2342 248 22 9 9 Departure To time CAI 0218 HRG 0228 BOM 0227 0236 BAH 0246 0255 IKA 0309 DXB 0317 CAI 0327 2521 2534 MCT 2543 LHR 2544
A/L KAC JZR JZR JZR KAC JZR KAC KAC KAC KAC KAC OMA KAC
A/C 340 320 320 320 320 320 310 320 777 340 777 737 777
f i ,0
198 163 85 0 109 0 267 152 299 0 0 135 341
Based on 30 replicates, Table 6.8 presents the average and the percentage of the ungated flights from the total flights with different number of gates. Table 6.9 presents the walking distance cost change percentage using the simulation approach.
61
Table 6.8 percentage of ungated flights using simulation approach (Method 2) Number of gates 10 11 12 Ungated flights 367 295 225 Percentage 32.77% 26.34% 20.09% Table 6.9 percentage of walking distance cost using simulation approach (Method 2) Number of gates 10 11 12 Walking distance cost 2196257.4 2142121.5 2071356.1 Change% 45.47% 41.89% 37.20%
The results are almost same as the previous two algorithms. Using Method 2 we conclude also that we will reach to out target when we let the number of gates equal to 12. The estimated number of ungated flights is 225 and the walking distance cost will be increased 37.20%. Finally we will apply our simulation approach also to Method 3. Table 6.10 shows a sample of the output for one replicate with number of gates equal to ten and = 30 minutes.
Table 6.10 simulation output using Method 3 Arrival f 0, j Gate Wi , j f i , j f i , 0 A/C From time 320 DOH 0009 131 1 0 0 129 300 BOM 0018 276 2 3 26 290 310 DXB 0027 255 3 4 14 249 320 0036 0 4 6 30 178 340 BOM 0045 283 5 0 0 0 300 TRV 0054 311 21 3 39 330 737 FRA 0103 103 22 4 18 186 320 DOH 0112 117 24 6 43 110 737 CCJ/IXE 0121 136 25 2 42 147 300 CMN/AGP 2315 248 22 7 31 328 320 DXB 2324 100 Apron 9 30 101 320 DEZ 2333 120 24 8 41 130 320 DOH 2342 164 Apron 3 9 124 Departure To time AMM 0209 JED 0219 AMM 0235 SAW 0244 0247 BEY 0301 FRA 0313 AMM 0319 IXE/CCJ 0325 CAI 2524 DXB 2532 LXR 2538 DOH 2546
A/L JZR KAC KAC JZR KAC KAC DLH JZR AXB KAC KAC JZR QTR
62
Based on 30 replicates, Table 6.11 presents the average and the percentage of the ungated flights from the total flights with different number of gates. Table 6.12 presents the walking distance cost change percentage using the simulation approach.
Table 6.11 percentage of ungated flights using simulation approach (Method 3) Number of gates 10 11 12 Ungated flights Percentage 367 32.77% 294 26.25% 223 19.91%
Table 6.12 percentage of walking distance cost using simulation approach (Method 3) Number of gates 10 11 12 Walking distance cost 2189787.4 2119571.5 2067572.3 Change% 45.04% 40.39% 36.95%
As expected, the results are almost same as the previous algorithms. Using Method 3 we conclude also that we will reach to out target when we let the number of gates equal to 12. The estimated number of ungated flights is 223 and the walking distance cost will be increased 36.95%. We will summary the simulation approach outputs for the 4 scheduling algorithms. Table 6.13 represents the output for each scheduling algorithm after reaching the simulation target which is the total number of ungated flights should be at most 20% and the latest time that the flight can be assigned to a gate is at least 30 minutes. This target will be reached if we let the number of gates equal to 12 for all scheduling algorithms.
63
Table 6.13 summary of the simulation approach outputs for the 4 scheduling algorithms Percentage of the Change of walking Algorithm ungated flights distance cost percentage (Number of gates=12) Greedy 20.07% 37.78% Method 1 19.91% 36.33% Method 2 20.09% 37.20% Method 3 19.91% 36.95%
In chapter 5, we have showed by using the actual data that greedy algorithm gives the best result among all the other scheduling methods regarding the saving percentage for the ungated flights. But in the simulation approach, all of the 4 scheduling algorithms give the same result. We run the simulation model for each flight i and we let the arrival time
ai = 9i and the departure time is d i = [ai + 90, ai + 100] . In other word, we

let the inter arrival time for every flight is fixed constant and the service time in the gate is random variable between 90 and 100 minutes. That explains the similarity of the results for percentage of the ungated flights and the walking distance cost for all aircrafts scheduling algorithms (greedy algorithm, Method 1, Method 2 and Method 3) in the simulation approach output since the only difference between those four algorithms is the flights sorting method (arrival or departure) and criteria of choosing the value g k which is explained in chapter 4.
64
Chapter 7
Conclusion
65
In this project, we considered the over constrained The AGAP (Airport gate assignment problem) to minimize the number of flights assigned to the apron while minimizing the total walking distances. We have used actual aircrafts scheduling data from Kuwait international airport for a specific week period. We provided a greedy algorithm that minimizes the number of flights not assigned to gates. This algorithm can allocate the flights that will be ungated as well as to provide an initial feasible solution while putting in our considerations the size of each gate in the terminal and the towing process for the aircrafts and the aircraft capacity. In addition, we added some analysis for the buffer time which is added between two continuous flights that assigned to the same gate. We then proposed a Tabu search algorithm with a neighborhood search technique, the interval exchange move, which is more flexible and more general than previously employed exchange moves used for this problem. This search move allows us to find good quality solutions more effectively for more diverse neighborhoods. Furthermore, in the AGAP, we have compared greedy algorithm with other aircrafts scheduling algorithms (named Method 1, Method 2 and Method 3) by comparing the saving percentage for number of flights
66
assigned to the apron and the total walking distances costs by using different values of the buffer time. In the last chapter, we proposed a simulation approach to find the optimum number of gates required for a specific percentage of the total number of ungated flights and buffer time limit. In the simulation approach, we have forecasted the arrival rate for the flights and use greedy algorithm and other scheduling methods to simulate flights scheduling for one week period.
67
Bibliography
68
[1] Al-Sultan,A.T., Ishioka, F. and Kurihara, K.(2011). An airline scheduling model and solution algorithms, Communications of the Korean statistical society. Vol. 18, No. 2, 257-266. [2] Al-Sultan,A.T., Ishioka, F. and Kurihara, K.(2009). Aircraft and Gate scheduling optimization at Airports, Proceeding of the 23rd Symposium Japanese Society of Computational Statistics. 191-194. [3] Al-Sultan,A.T., Ishioka, F. and Kurihara, K.(2010). Optimizing gate assignments at airport terminal, proceeding of JKSC 2010 Join Meeting of Japan Korea Special Conference of Statistics and the 2nd Japan Korea Statistics Conference of Young Researchers, 159-166. [4] Al-Sultan,A.T., Ishioka, F. and Kurihara, K.(2011). Aircrafts scheduling algorithms: A simulation based approach, The 2011 Japanese Joint Statistical Meeting, 60. [5] Al-Sultan,A.T., Ishioka, F. and Kurihara, K.(2011). Acomparative study of Aircrafts scheduling algorithms based on a simulation approach, Proceedings of Joint Meeting of the Korea Japan Conference of Computational Statististics and the 25th Symposium of Japanese Society of Computational Statistics, 73-76.
69
[6] Babic, O.,Teodorovic, D. and Tosic, V. (1984). Aircraft stand assignment to minimize walking. Journal of Transportation Engineering, 110:55-66. [7] Box, G. E. P. And Jenkins, G. M. Time series analysis: Forecasting and control. 2nd edition, San Francisco: Holden Day, 1976. [8] Braaksma, J. and Shortreed, J (1971).Improving airport gate usage with critical path method. Transportation Engineering Journal of ASCE 97 pages 187-203. [9] Cheng, Y. (1998a). Arule- based reactive model for the simulation of aircraft on airport gates. Knowledge-based systems, 10:225-236. [10] Cheng, Y. (1998b). Network based simulation of aircraft at gates in airport terminals. Journal of Transportation Engineering, pages 188-196. [11] Ding, H., Lim, A., Rodrigues,B. and Zhu, Y (2004): Aircraft and gate scheduling optimization at airports. 37th Hawaii international conference on system sciences, 3, 30074b. [12] Haghani, A. and Ching, M.C. (1998). Optimizing gate assignments at airport terminals, Transportation Research part A: Policy and Practice, 32(66): 437-454. [13] F. Glover and M. Laguna. Tabu search. Kluwer Academic Publishers, 1997.
70
[14] Obata, T (1979). The quadratic assignment problem: evaluation of exact and heuristic algorithms. Tech. Report TRS- 7901, Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute, Troy, New York. [15] Xu, J. and Bailey, G. (2001). The airport gate assignment problem: mathematical model and a Tabu search algorithm. 34th Hawaii international conference on system sciences, 3, 3032. [16]Yan, S. and Chang, C.M. (1998).A network model for gate assignment. Journal of advanced Transportation, 32(2): 176-189. [17] Yan, S. and Huo,C. M. (2001). Optimization of multiple objective gate assignments. Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, 35, 413-432. [18] Yan, S., Tang, C.H. and Fu, T.C. (2008). An airline scheduling model and solution algorithms under stochastic demands. European Journal of operational research, 190, 22-39.
71
Acknowledgements
Studying in Japan and especially in Okayama University was a greet opportunity for me and really helped my research. The research period which I spend in Okayama University will be always a good memory for me. I really enjoyed studying in this University everybody was kind and helpful. I am really happy that I could make a lot of friends in Japan. I really want to thank my parents and my family for their encouragement and support during my studying period in Japan. I would like to give a special thanks to Professor Koji Kurihara who gave me the opportunity to study in Japan and in Okayama University. I am really gratitude to his guidance, encouragement and helpful comments and supports for my research. I also want to express my gratitude to Dr. Fumio Ishioka for doing the software programming and helping me for my research. I also want to thank Professor Tomoyuki Tarmi, Kaoru Fueda and Masaya Iizuka for their helpful comments and suggestions. I want to thank everyone who gave comment and opinion on my research during the seminar presentations.
72
Appendix
73
Daily movement for the actual data (One week data)

Daily movement contents: 1. A/L: Airline. 2. A/C: Type of aircraft. 3. FLT: Flight number. 4. Arrival from / Departure to 5. Gate: gate number. 6. ND: Next day. Terminal gates: Gate 1, Gate 2, Gate 3, Gate 4, Gate 5, Gate 21, Gate 22, Gate 24, Gate 25 and Gate 26.
ID 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 A/L AXB SYZ MSR LZB IAC DLH AFG KAC RJA JAI KAC MEA THY JZR ETH MSR JZR JZR JZR UAE KAC ETD CSA A/C 1504 5256 574 544 408 1172 513 620 614 477 539 433 853 108 305 FLT 737 320 320 320 320 330 310 320 319 737 777 320 737 320 737 737 320 320 320 777 300 320 320 Arrival From BEY AMM COK CAI BEY IST SSH ADD CAI AYT RMF MHD DXB LHR AUH Time 0000 0000 0000 0000 0000 0000 0000 0005 0045 0040 0050 0110 0115 0125 0150 0145 0150 0210 0230 0225 0305 0250 Gate 26 22 24 5 4 Apron 3 25 2 21 26 24 Apron 22 4 Apron 3 5 21 25 FLT 396 342 607 778 994 637 406 5257 573 409 1173 621 615 854 306 295 Departure To Time TRV/CCJ 0010 DAM 0020 LXR 0030 BOJ 0040 BOM/MAA 0050 FRA 0055 KBL 0100 AMM 0130 COK 0140 BEY 0200 IST 0215 BAH/ADD 0230 CAI 0245 DXB 0345 AUH 0410 PRG 0525 Gate 26 22 24 Apron Apron 5 4 3 25 21 26 Apron 22 5 25 22
74
ID 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76
A/L QTR JZR JZR JZR JZR JZR JZR JZR JZR JZR JZR BAW KAC IRA KAC JZR KAC KAC KAC KAC JZR GFA ABY UAE QTR KAC KAC JZR ETD JZR IRA JZR IRC GFA MEA KAC JZR JZR JZR KAC KAC MSR JZR JZR ETJ KAC RJA OMA JZR SVA KAC JZR JZR
A/C 138 503 527 517 607 157 382 615 412 206 161 220 121 855 132 676 301 603 447 6801 211 404 372 453 427 165 284 332 610 171 190 362 800 643 479 500 672 413 457
FLT 321 320 320 320 320 320 320 320 320 320 320 777 320 727 310 320 340 777 310 320 320 320 320 330 321 320 320 320 320 320 727 320 727 320 321 310 320 320 320 330 300 320 320 320 737 300 320 737 320 MD90 320 320 320
Arrival From DOH LXR HBE HRG BOM LHR DEL CQD MNL/BKK ISB DXB BAH SHJ DXB DOH DXB AUH SYZ DOH AWZ BAH BEY HYD DEZ DXB/BAH DXB DAC TRV CAI DXB BGW CMB AMM MCT SAW JED DXB BEY DAM
Time 0340 0500 0510 0520 0600 0630 0720 0735 0615 0715 0740 0830 0850 0825 0845 0800 0925 0920 1015 1030 1045 1100 915 1125 1130 1120 810 755 1220 1305 1255 1010 1335 1400 1450 1430 1415 1520 1515
Gate 26 Apron 5 Apron 25 22 Apron 26 21 Apron 24 Apron 26 5 22 Apron 21 25 4 24 26 5 3 25 1 22 Apron Apron 4 24 Apron 2 26 5 24 21 3 1 26
FLT 139 452 162 446 478 164 406 156 614 1801 422 171 117 1551 561 412 221 122 856 133 511 671 456 302 644 602 416 6802 212 405 1773 430 344 522 785 501 611 176 176 189 541 801 644 216 503 551 458 414
Departure To Time DOH 0530 DEZ 0605 DXB 0615 DOH 0700 SAW 0710 DXB 0715 BAH/DXB 0755 LHR 0815 CQD 0835 CAI 0845 DEL 0850 FRA 0855 JFK 0905 DAM 0910 AMM 0915 BEY 0920 BAH 0925 SHJ 0935 DXB 0940 DOH 0945 IKA 0955 DXB 1000 DAM 1005 AUH 1010 LCA 1020 SYZ 1020 AMM 1105 AWZ 1130 BAH 1135 BEY 1200 RUH 1205 MHD 1215 BAH/SAH 1220 HBE 1225 JED 1250 BEY 1300 CAI 1320 DXB 1350 DXB 1350 BGW 1355 CAI 1400 AMM 1430 MCT 1500 IFN 1540 MED/JED 1545 DAM 1550 DAM 1610 BEY 1615
Gate 26 3 4 24 1 5 Apron 22 26 3 25 21 2 4 Apron 24 Apron 26 5 22 Apron Apron 1 21 Apron 25 4 24 26 5 3 25 1 22 5 21 4 24 24 Apron 2 26 5 24 21 3 1 26
75
ID 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 100 101 102 103 104 105 106 107 108 109 110 111 112 113 114 115 116 117 118 119 120 121 122 123 124 125 126 127 128 129
A/L QTR KAC KAC KAC JZR KAC JZR KAC ETD GFA UAE KAC THA ABY SVA JZR JZR KAC ALK JZR JZR OMA KAC SIA JZR MEA JAI RJA DLH KAC GFA KAC KAC KAC KAC KAC JZR UAE KAC OAL KAC KAC JZR QTR JZR KAC KAC JZR JZR JZR MEA KAC UAL
A/C 134 1552 1802 417 512 645 562 303 213 857 519 125 510 177 431 178 227 217 423 645 102 458 523 402 572 802 630 786 215 502 614 552 1774 172 459 859 674 347 618 449 136 345 744 542 407 415 185 406 982
FLT 321 310 310 310 320 320 320 320 320 320 777 300 340 320 MD90 320 320 300 330 320 320 737 777 777 320 321 737 320 747 330 320 300 320 320 310 340 320 777 310 737 310 777 320 321 320 320 300 320 320 320 330 340 777
Arrival From DOH DAM CAI AMM IKA LCA AMM AUH BAH DXB BKK SHJ RUH DXB MHD GVA/CDG CMB/DXB IFN DEL MCT JFK/LHR SIN/AUH HBE BEY BOM AMM FRA JED BAH BEY BAH DAM RUH FRA DAM DXB DXB ATH DOH DOH DOH SAH DMM CAI DXB/BAH BEY DXB BEY IAD
Time 1505 1435 1530 1605 1425 1620 1420 1710 1705 1655 1635 1745 1720 1755 1750 1805 1800 1820 1850 1840 1925 1915 1900 2020 2030 2045 2055 1825 2105 1910 2000 2110 1525 2120 2125 2115 2100 2145 1950 2040 2200 1935 2015 2050 2210 2200 2240 2230 1715
Gate 2 4 5 Apron 22 24 25 26 3 2 21 24 5 1 Apron Apron 22 Apron 2 3 21 4 24 5 22 3 2 26 Apron Apron 25 Apron Apron Apron 4 Apron Apron 24 Apron 1 22 Apron Apron Apron 3 5 25 26 4
FLT 135 617 673 673 182 613 448 743 304 214 858 1805 520 126 511 184 486 228 520 512 646 457 694 403 571 803 630 281 216 361 675 343 188 860 381 348 371 301 526 137 528 205 353 502 636 516 407 411 981
Departure To Time DOH 1620 DOH 1625 DXB 1630 DXB 1630 DXB 1655 BAH 1700 DOH 1710 DMM 1725 AUH 1755 BAH 1800 DXB 1805 CAI 1810 BKK 1820 SHJ 1825 RUH 1835 DXB 1840 BAH/DXB 1845 DXB/CMB 1910 HBE 1915 SSH 1950 MCT 2000 AUH/SIN 2045 SYZ 2105 BEY 2120 BOM 2130 AMM 2140 DXB 2145 DAC 2145 BAH 2150 CMB 2155 DXB 2210 MAA 2215 DXB 2220 DXB 2225 DEL 2230 DXB/ATH 2235 HYD 2240 BOM 2245 HBE 2250 DOH 2300 ATZ 2300 ISB 2305 COK 2310 LXR 2315 ALP 2320 HRG 2325 BEY 2330 BKK/MNL 2340 IAD 2345
Gate 2 4 5 5 24 22 Apron 25 26 3 2 Apron 21 24 5 1 25 22 Apron 2 3 4 24 5 22 3 2 26 Apron Apron 25 Apron 4 Apron Apron 24 Apron 21 1 22 Apron Apron Apron 3 5 25 26 2 4
76
ID 130 131 132 133 134 135 136 137 138 139 140 141 142 143 144 145 146 147 148 149 150 151 152 153 154 155 156 157 158 159 160 161 162 163 164 165 166 167 168 169 170 171 172 173 174 175 176 177 178 179 180 181 182
A/L KAC MSR RJA AXB KLM JZR DLH IAC PIA JAI KAC MEA THY MSR UAE ETD ETH QTR JZR JZR KAC JZR KAC JZR JZR JZR BAW DLH KAC KAC KAC JZR JZR JZR JZR GFA ABY UAE QTR KAC JZR JZR ETD KAC JZR JZR JZR SYR GFA KAC JZR KAC KAC
A/C 302 612 5258 389 447 189 636 981 205 574 1806 408 1172 614 853 305 620 138 503 517 412 382 513 527 157 634 206 637 521 161 220 121 857 132 676 695 301 344 529 447 341 211 354 165 302 282
FLT 340 330 310 737 330 320 330 320 310 737 300 320 737 737 330 320 737 330 320 320 340 320 310 320 320 320 777 737 320 320 320 320 320 320 320 320 320 777 321 320 320 320 320 310 320 320 320 320 320 300 320 777 330
Arrival From BOM CAI AMM CCJ/IXE AMS/BAH DXB FRA HYD/AMD LHE COK CAI BEY IST CAI DXB AUH ADD/BAH DOH LXR HRG MNL/BKK DEL SSH HBE LHR FRA ISB ALP HBE DXB BAH SHJ DXB DOH DXB SYZ AUH MAA ATZ DOH DAM BAH COK DXB BOM DAC
Time 750 2255 2310 2305 2315 2350 2235 2205 2355 2440 2450 2510 2515 2545 2625 2650 2735 2740 2900 2920 3015 3120 2525 2910 3030 2850 3115 2905 2540 3140 3230 3250 3225 3245 3200 2410 3325 3310 2915 3415 3420 3445 3405 3520 3150 3400
Gate Apron Apron Apron 24 21 22 Apron Apron 3 5 Apron 26 2 21 3 5 26 2 21 22 2 22 4 3 5 Apron 26 1 24 Apron 25 4 2 22 24 Apron 26 3 Apron 1 22 24 25 26 21 4
FLT 415 613 5259 390 447 637 981 206 573 409 1173 615 854 306 621 139 446 162 164 547 406 524 156 635 545 677 1801 422 478 412 221 122 856 133 671 456 302 551 500 416 342 212 177 522 103 1785
Departure To Time KUL 2350 CAI 2355 AMM 2405 IXE/CCJ 2410 AMS 2435 FRA 2455 AMD/HYD 2505 PEW/LHE 2510 COK 2540 BEY 2600 IST 2615 CAI 2645 DXB 2745 AUH 2810 ADD 2820 DOH 2925 DOH 3100 DXB 3015 DXB 3115 LXR/SSH 3145 BAH/DXB 3155 HBE 3200 LHR 3215 FRA 3225 ALK 3235 AUH/MCT 3240 CAI 3245 DEL 3250 SAW 3310 BEY 3320 BAH 3325 SHJ 3335 DXB 3340 DOH 3345 DXB 3400 DAM 3405 2510 AUH 3410 DAM 3415 LXR 3440 AMM 3505 DAM 3520 BAH 3535 CDG/GVA 3540 HBE 3625 LHR 3630 JED 3655
Gate Apron Apron Apron 24 21 Apron Apron 3 5 26 2 21 3 5 26 2 21 22 25 22 4 3 5 Apron 26 Apron Apron 1 24 Apron 25 4 2 22 24 Apron 26 3 Apron 1 22 24 25 26 21 4
77
ID 183 184 185 186 187 188 189 190 191 192 193 194 195 196 197 198 199 200 201 202 203 204 205 206 207 208 209 210 211 212 213 214 215 216 217 218 219 220 221 222 223 224 225 226 227 228 229 230 231 232 233 234 235
A/L KAC MSR JZR ETJ KAC RJA SVA JZR JZR JZR QTR KAC KAC KAC KAC KAC JZR KAC JZR KAC LMU ETD GFA UAE SVA ABY JZR JZR IRA ALK KAC JZR OMA DLH JZR KLM KAC KAC MEA JAI KAC RJA KAC GFA KAC JZR UAE KAC QTR KAC KAC JZR JZR
A/C 372 610 171 190 362 800 500 525 457 413 134 672 1802 548 118 552 479 678 417 546 104 303 213 857 510 125 177 427 3407 227 104 501 645 628 819 445 772 674 402 572 1786 802 542 215 618 459 859 614 136 744 502 415 449
FLT 300 330 320 737 300 320 MD90 320 320 320 321 320 310 310 777 310 320 320 320 320 320 320 320 777 MD90 320 320 320 300 330 747 320 737 330 320 330 310 310 321 737 330 320 300 330 320 320 330 320 321 320 300 320 320
Arrival From HYD CAI DXB BGW CMB AMM JED HBE DAM BEY DOH DXB CAI LXR/SSH JFK DAM SAW MCT/AUH AMM ALY ALY/ATZ AUH BAH DXB RUH SHJ DXB DXB/BAH MHD CMB/DXB LHR LXR MCT FRA BAH AMS RUH DXB BEY BOM JED AMM CAI BAH DOH DAM DXB BAH DOH DMM BEY BEY DOH
Time 3315 3620 3705 3655 3410 3735 3830 3840 3915 3920 3905 3815 3930 3910 4015 3940 3850 3935 4005 3950 4050 4110 4105 4055 4120 4145 4155 3530 4150 4200 4235 4020 4240 4340 4345 4355 4405 4500 4420 4430 4225 4445 4450 4505 4350 4525 4515 4400 4535 4415 4310 4600 4440
Gate 5 3 24 22 2 25 21 4 22 2 3 26 Apron 24 5 25 1 Apron Apron Apron 3 22 4 21 26 24 25 Apron Apron 5 22 Apron 3 4 21 26 24 4 25 2 Apron 3 Apron 21 Apron 26 22 Apron 24 Apron Apron 4 5
FLT 501 611 176 189 541 801 501 818 458 414 135 617 673 1803 771 182 613 448 743 105 304 214 858 511 126 184 486 3406 228 432 646 628 606 445 331 373 403 571 281 803 216 675 188 860 381 137 203 301 526 528
Departure To Time BEY 3700 CAI 3720 DXB 3750 BGW 3755 CAI 3800 AMM 3830 JED 3945 BAH 3955 DAM 4010 BEY 4015 DOH 4020 DOH 4025 DXB 4030 CAI 4040 RUH 4045 DXB 4055 BAH 4100 DOH 4110 DMM 4125 ATZ/ALY 4150 AUH 4155 BAH 4200 DXB 4205 RUH 4235 SHJ 4225 DXB 4240 BAH/DXB 4245 THR 4250 DXB/CMB 4310 MHD 4345 MCT 4400 DMM 4420 BOM 4435 BAH/AMS 4455 TRV 4500 HYD 4515 BEY 4520 BOM 4530 DAC 4545 AMM 4540 BAH 4555 DXB 4610 DXB 4620 DXB 4625 DEL 4630 DOH 4635 LHE 4640 BOM 4645 HBE 4650 ATZ 4700
Gate 5 3 24 22 2 25 21 4 22 2 3 26 24 5 25 1 Apron Apron Apron 3 22 4 21 26 24 25 Apron Apron 5 Apron 3 4 21 26 24 4 25 2 Apron 3 21 Apron 26 22 Apron 24 Apron Apron 4 5
78
ID 236 237 238 239 240 241 242 243 244 245 246 247 248 249 250 251 252 253 254 255 256 257 258 259 260 261 262 263 264 265 266 267 268 269 270 271 272 273 274 275 276 277 278 279 280 281 282 283 284 285 286 287 288
A/L JZR JZR JZR JZR KAC UAL MSR AXB KAC PIA IAC JZR SFW DLH JAI THY TAR MSR UAE ETD QTR CSA DLH BAW UAE GFA QTR ETD GFA MEA MSR RJA OMA SVA QTR THA UAE GFA ETD UAL SVA ABY ALK MLR OMA SIA SYR KLM IAC MEA JAI MSR RJA
A/C 407 423 523 185 982 612 393 1804 239 575 189 215 629 574 1172 327 614 853 305 138 294 634 157 855 220 132 301 211 404 610 800 643 500 134 519 857 213 303 982 510 125 227 403 645 458 341 443 993 402 572 618 802
FLT 320 320 320 320 340 777 330 737 777 737 320 320 737 330 737 737 319 321 777 320 321 320 737 777 330 320 321 320 320 321 737 320 737 MD90 321 340 777 320 320 777 MD90 320 330 320 737 777 320 330 320 321 737 320 320
Arrival From DXB/BAH DEL HBE DXB IAD CAI CCJ/COK CAI ISB/SKT MAA/GOI DXB KBL DMM COK IST TUN CAI DXB AUH DOH PRG FRA LHR DXB BAH DOH AUH BAH BEY CAI AMM MCT JED DOH BKK DXB BAH AUH IAD RUH SHJ CMB/DXB CMB/DXB MCT SIN/AUH DAM AMS MAA/CCJ BEY BOM ALY AMM
Time 4610 4250 4300 4640 4115 4655 4705 4725 4715 4330 4750 4650 4820 4840 4915 4935 4945 5025 5050 5140 5210 5250 5430 5625 5630 5645 5725 5845 5900 6020 6135 6200 6230 6305 6435 6455 6505 6510 6515 6520 6545 6600 6615 6640 6715 6740 6755 6815 6820 6830 6835 6845
Gate 25 1 Apron Apron 2 3 26 22 24 Apron 4 Apron 5 25 3 26 24 2 21 22 5 25 2 22 Apron Apron 25 5 22 24 22 26 3 4 21 22 3 25 5 4 24 2 Apron 25 21 24 2 Apron 5 Apron Apron Apron
FLT 502 636 516 411 981 613 394 240 576 216 626 573 1173 328 615 854 306 139 295 635 156 856 221 133 302 212 405 611 801 644 501 135 520 858 214 304 981 511 126 228 404 646 457 342 443 994 403 571 619 803
Departure To Time LXR 4715 ALP 4720 HRG 4725 BKK/MNL 4740 IAD 4745 CAI 4755 COK/CCJ 4810 SKT 4830 GOI/MAA 4850 KBL 4900 FRA 4920 COK 4940 IST 5015 DXB/TUN 5025 CAI 5045 DXB 5145 AUH 5210 DOH 5330 PRG 5325 FRA 5625 LHR 5615 DXB 5740 BAH 5725 DOH 5745 AUH 5810 BAH 5935 BEY 6000 CAI 6120 AMM 6230 MCT 6300 JED 6345 DOH 6420 BKK 6620 DXB 6605 BAH 6600 AUH 6555 IAD 7145 RUH 6635 SHJ 6625 DXB/CMB 6710 DXB/CMB 6715 MCT 6800 AUH/SIN 6845 ALP/DAM 6840 BAH/AMS 6855 BOM/CCJ 7250 BEY 6920 BOM 6930 ALY 6935 AMM 6940
Gate 25 1 Apron 2 21 3 26 24 Apron Apron 5 25 3 26 24 2 21 22 5 25 2 22 Apron Apron 25 5 22 24 22 26 3 4 21 22 3 25 5 4 24 2 Apron 25 21 24 2 Apron 5 Apron Apron Apron
79
ID 289 290 291 292 293 294 295 296 297 298 299 300 301 302 303 304 305 306 307 308 309 310 311 312 313 314 315 316 317 318 319 320 321 322 323 324 325 326 327 328 329 330 331 332 333 334 335 336 337 338 339 340 341
A/L GFA UAE QTR OAL DLH MSR AXB PIA KAC KAC KAC KAC KAC KAC KAC KAC KAC KAC KAC KAC KAC KAC KAC KAC KAC KAC KAC KAC KAC KAC KAC KAC KAC KAC KAC KAC KAC KAC JZR JZR JZR JZR JZR JZR JZR JZR JZR JZR JZR JZR JZR JZR JZR
A/C 215 859 136 347 636 612 389 205 104 676 672 1774 382 744 618 550 204 1802 614 374 512 562 552 332 502 178 302 282 786 412 416 542 674 215 493 189 637 165 693 407 447 417 449 649 517
FLT 330 777 321 737 330 330 737 310 777 777 777 320 320 320 320 320 320 320 320 320 320 320 310 310 310 310 310 300 300 300 300 330 330 340 340 340 340 340 320 320 320 320 320 320 320 320 320 320 320 320 320 320 320
Arrival From BAH DXB DOH ATH FRA CAI CCJ/IXE LHE/PEW LHR DXB DXB RUH DEL DMM DOH ATZ LHE CAI BAH HYD IKA AMM DAM TRV BEY GVA/CDG BOM DAC JED MNL/BKK CGK/KUL CAI DXB IFN JED DXB ALP DXB SYZ DXB/BAH DOH AMM DOH LCA HRG
Time 6905 6915 6935 6945 7020 7055 7105 7155 6635 5600 6215 6805 5520 6245 6750 6445 5510 6330 6800 5530 6745 6220 6910 5555 6710 6605 5555 5800 6625 5415 5435 6850 6900 5935 6550 7150 5305 5920 6310 7010 5815 6405 6840 7005 5320
Gate Apron 21 2 4 3 Apron 24 25 3 26 Apron Apron Apron 2 Apron Apron Apron Apron Apron Apron 4 25 25 4 3 Apron 3 2 Apron 21 22 22 26 25 Apron Apron 26 3 Apron Apron 24 1 1 Apron Apron
FLT 216 860 137 348 637 613 390 206 101 1805 671 1773 675 743 617 569 1801 613 511 351 561 551 381 501 371 343 121 785 283 165 541 301 673 411 214 492 486 164 692 182 636 446 416 448 526 646 528 406
Departure To Time BAH 6955 DXB 7025 DOH 7035 DXB/ATH 7040 FRA 7255 CAI 7155 IXE/CCJ 7210 LHE 7310 LHR/JFK 5730 CAI 6610 DXB 5800 RUH 6445 DXB 7010 DMM 5955 DOH 6425 SSH/ATZ 5635 CAI 5645 BAH 6500 IKA 6340 COK 6905 AMM 5715 DAM 6350 DEL 7030 BEY 6100 HYD 6915 MAA 6900 CMN/AGP 5750 JED 6050 DAC 6755 FCO/CDG 5945 CAI 6200 BOM 7045 DXB 6430 BKK/MNL 7140 IFN 5655 JED 6035 BAH/DXB 6645 DXB 5515 SYZ 6040 DXB 6455 ALP 7120 DOH 5500 AMM 5905 DOH 6510 HBE 7050 LCA 6410 ATZ 7100 BAH/DXB 5555
Gate Apron 21 2 4 3 Apron 24 25 5 3 26 Apron Apron Apron 2 Apron Apron Apron Apron 4 Apron 25 25 4 3 Apron 3 2 Apron 21 21 22 Apron 26 1 25 Apron 26 3 Apron Apron Apron 24 1 1 Apron Apron Apron
80
ID 342 343 344 345 346 347 348 349 350 351 352 353 354 355 356 357 358 359 360 361 362 363 364 365 366 367 368 369 370 371 372 373 374 375 376 377 378 379 380 381 382 383 384 385 386 387 388 389 390 391 392 393 394
A/L JZR JZR JZR JZR JZR JZR JZR JZR JZR JZR JZR JZR JZR JZR JZR JZR JZR JZR JZR JZR JZR MEA THY KNE MSR ETH JAI UAE ETD QTR BBC BAW GFA UAE QTR ABY IRA ETD IRC GFA MEA MSR MSR ETJ MSR SVA RJA SVA QTR LMU IYE UAE GFA
A/C 171 177 185 510 439 523 437 161 413 415 503 427 343 457 459 433 453 501 529 607 408 1172 703 614 620 574 853 305 138 46 157 220 855 121 121 603 301 6791 211 404 610 1610 190 621 508 800 500 134 110 822 857 213
FLT 320 320 320 320 320 320 320 320 320 320 320 320 320 320 320 320 320 320 320 320 320 320 737 E95 737 737 737 777 320 330 DC10 777 320 330 320 320 727 320 727 320 321 321 320 737 321 MD90 320 777 321 320 737 777 320
Arrival From DXB DXB DXB HBE IKA HBE IKA DXB BEY BEY LXR DXB/BAH SAH/BAH DAM DAM MHD DEZ LXR ATZ BOM BEY IST RUH CAI ADD COK DXB AUH DOH DAC LHR BAH DXB DOH SHJ SYZ AUH MHD BAH BEY CAI CAI BGW ATZ RUH AMM JED DOH ALY/LXR SAH DXB BAH
Time 6105 6555 7040 5310 5940 6700 7145 5540 6320 7000 5300 5930 6735 6315 6925 4920 5925 6550 5315 5400 7310 7315 8625 7345 7350 7240 7425 7450 7540 7600 7830 7955 8025 8045 8050 8120 8125 8150 8245 8300 8420 8425 8455 8525 8530 8535 8630 8705 8830 8840 8855 8905
Gate 5 Apron Apron Apron 1 22 21 24 5 Apron 3 Apron 26 24 24 4 26 Apron Apron Apron 22 26 25 5 24 4 22 3 26 Apron 21 4 5 3 25 21 24 4 2 22 3 24 Apron 26 2 22 21 4 5 24 21 22
FLT 176 184 438 522 436 412 414 162 342 606 456 458 188 452 500 502 409 1173 704 615 621 573 854 306 139 46 156 221 856 133 122 602 302 6792 212 405 611 1611 189 622 509 801 505 135 111 823 858 214
Departure To Time DXB 6150 DXB 6640 IKA 5550 HBE 6025 IKA 6750 BEY 5720 BEY 6415 DXB 5415 SAH 6020 BOM 6835 DAM 5805 DAM 6410 DXB 7020 DEZ 5405 LXR 6010 LXR 7115 BEY 7400 IST 7415 MED 8715 CAI 7445 BAH/ADD 7430 COK 7340 DXB 7545 AUH 7610 DOH 7725 DAC 8605 LHR 8015 BAH 8050 DXB 8140 DOH 8145 SHJ 935 SYZ 8220 AUH 8210 MHD 8250 BAH 8335 BEY 8400 CAI 8520 CAI 8525 BGW 8555 ATZ 8625 MED 8645 AMM 8630 JED 8800 DOH 8820 ALY 8930 DOH/SAH 8940 DXB 9005 BAH 9000
Gate 5 Apron Apron 1 22 24 5 Apron 3 Apron 26 Apron 24 24 4 26 Apron 22 26 25 5 24 4 22 3 26 Apron 21 4 5 3 25 21 24 4 2 22 3 24 Apron 26 2 22 21 4 5 24 21 22
81
ID 395 396 397 398 399 400 401 402 403 404 405 406 407 408 409 410 411 412 413 414 415 416 417 418 419 420 421 422 423 424 425 426 427 428 429 430 431 432 433 434 435 436 437 438 439 440 441 442 443 444 445 446 447
A/L ETD UAL SVA ABY ALK SYR OMA IAC DLH MEA JAI RJA GFA UAE QTR MEA SAI MSR AXB KLM MSR PIA KAC KAC KAC KAC KAC KAC KAC KAC KAC KAC KAC KAC KAC KAC KAC KAC KAC KAC KAC KAC KAC KAC KAC KAC KAC KAC KAC KAC KAC KAC KAC
A/C 303 982 510 125 227 341 645 575 628 402 572 802 215 859 136 406 441 612 393 447 606 215 102 676 672 618 546 614 352 382 562 548 372 542 344 502 122 544 772 552 674 284 786 166 412 172 302 103
FLT 320 777 MD90 320 330 320 737 320 330 321 737 320 330 330 321 330 737 340 737 330 320 737 777 777 320 320 320 320 320 320 320 320 310 310 310 310 300 300 300 300 300 300 300 300 300 300 330 330 340 340 340 340 747
Arrival From AUH IAD RUH SHJ CMB/DXB DAM MCT MAA/GOI FRA BEY BOM AMM BAH DXB DOH BEY LHE/KHI CAI CCJ/COK AMS/BAH LXR KHI JFK/LHR DXB DXB DOH ALY BAH COK DEL AMM SSH/LXR HYD CAI MAA BEY CMN/AGP CAI RUH DAM DXB DAC JED CDG/FCO MNL/BKK FRA BOM LHR
Time 8910 8915 8920 8945 9000 9005 9040 9130 9155 9220 9230 9245 9305 9315 9335 9430 9435 9455 9505 9515 9530 9555 9125 8000 8615 9150 8750 9200 8005 7920 8620 9510 7930 9250 8020 9110 7610 8730 9205 8635 9300 8010 9025 9215 7815 9320 7950 8430
Gate 26 4 2 25 3 5 24 Apron 5 25 24 Apron 5 3 26 22 Apron 2 3 26 25 24 Apron Apron Apron Apron 25 Apron Apron 22 5 Apron Apron Apron Apron 2 24 2 26 26 Apron Apron Apron 21 26 Apron Apron 21
FLT 304 981 511 126 228 342 646 576 628 403 571 803 216 860 137 407 442 613 394 447 607 216 117 301 671 675 617 381 545 613 203 561 547 541 343 501 1805 543 771 331 551 673 353 785 281 415 171 -
Departure To Time AUH 8955 IAD 9545 RUH 9035 SHJ 9025 DXB/CMB 9110 DAM 9105 MCT 9200 GOI/MAA 9650 DMM 9235 BEY 9320 BOM 9330 AMM 9340 BAH 9355 DXB 9425 DOH 9435 BEY 9530 LHE 9535 CAI 9555 COK/CCJ 9610 AMS 9635 LXR 9630 KHI 9710 JFK 8105 BOM 9445 DXB 8200 DXB 9410 DOH 8825 DEL 9430 ALY 8035 BAH 8900 LHE 9440 AMM 8115 SSH/LXR 8740 CAI 8600 MAA 9415 BEY 8500 CAI 9255 CAI 8045 RUH 8845 TRV 9300 DAM 8110 DXB 8830 COK 9510 JED 8450 DAC 9345 KUL/CGK 9550 FRA 8055 -
Gate 26 5 2 25 3 5 24 Apron 5 25 24 Apron 5 3 26 22 Apron 2 3 26 25 24 2 Apron Apron Apron Apron Apron Apron 25 Apron 22 5 Apron Apron Apron 2 24 2 26 Apron 26 Apron 26 Apron 21 26 -
82
ID 448 449 450 451 452 453 454 455 456 457 458 459 460 461 462 463 464 465 466 467 468 469 470 471 472 473 474 475 476 477 478 479 480 481 482 483 484 485 486 487 488 489 490 491 492 493 494 495 496 497 498 499 500
A/L KAC JZR JZR JZR JZR JZR JZR JZR JZR JZR JZR JZR JZR JZR JZR JZR JZR JZR JZR JZR JZR JZR JZR JZR JZR JZR JZR JZR JZR JZR JZR JZR DLH JAI THY OAL MSR UAE ETD SAI ETH QTR DLH BAW IRA UAE GFA QTR ABY ETD GFA MSR RJA
A/C 1806 457 415 637 427 431 189 527 423 529 165 523 171 177 185 447 417 449 407 607 525 497 161 413 459 503 479 819 629 574 1172 346 614 853 305 771 620 138 634 157 605 855 220 132 121 301 211 601 800
FLT 777 320 320 320 320 320 320 320 320 320 320 320 320 320 320 320 320 320 320 320 320 320 320 320 320 320 320 320 320 320 320 320 330 737 737 737 737 330 320 737 737 320 737 777 727 330 320 320 320 320 320 330 320
Arrival From CAI DAM BEY ALP DXB/BAH MHD DXB HBE DEL ATZ DXB HBE DXB DXB DXB DOH AMM DOH DXB/BAH BOM HBE RUH DXB BEY DAM LXR SAW BAH DMM COK IST ATH/DXB CAI DXB AUH PEW/MCT ADD/BAH DOH FRA LHR IFN DXB BAH DOH SHJ AUH BAH CAI AMM
Time 7250 8715 9400 7705 8330 8950 9550 7710 9050 7715 8320 9100 8505 8955 9440 8215 8805 9240 9410 7800 8640 9045 7940 8720 9325 7700 8650 9145 9620 9640 9715 9720 9745 9825 9850 9915 9935 9940 10050 10230 10345 10425 10430 10445 10450 10525 10645 10820 10935
Gate 2 1 25 22 5 1 1 Apron 21 3 25 25 4 Apron Apron 26 3 Apron 24 25 3 22 Apron 22 2 5 24 3 5 21 2 3 24 5 3 2 24 4 Apron 4 25 5 24 21 4 25 24 26 21
FLT 456 414 526 162 430 486 530 422 538 165 522 512 406 176 184 516 446 416 448 636 182 502 524 496 694 412 458 188 478 818 432 629 573 1173 346 615 854 306 772 621 139 635 156 606 856 221 133 122 302 212 611 801
Departure To Time DAM 8205 BEY 8815 HBE 9450 DXB 7815 MHD 8415 BAH/DXB 9045 ATZ 9645 DEL 8050 RMF 9140 DXB 7915 HBE 8425 SSH 9150 BAH/DXB 7955 DXB 8550 DXB 9040 HRG 9525 DOH 7900 AMM 8305 DOH 8910 ALP 9520 DXB 8855 LXR 9515 HBE 8000 RUH 8730 SYZ 9305 BEY 8120 DAM 8810 DXB 9420 SAW 7910 BAH 8755 MHD 9240 FRA 9720 COK 9740 IST 9815 ATH 9810 CAI 9845 DXB 9945 AUH 10010 PEW 10000 ADD 10020 DOH 10130 FRA 10420 LHR 10415 MHD 10445 DXB 10540 BAH 10525 DOH 10545 SHJ 10535 AUH 10610 BAH 10735 CAI 10920 AMM 11030
Gate 1 1 25 22 5 1 1 Apron 21 3 25 25 1 4 Apron Apron 4 26 3 Apron Apron 24 25 3 22 Apron 22 2 5 24 3 5 21 2 3 24 5 3 2 24 4 Apron 4 25 5 24 21 4 25 24 26 21
83
ID 501 502 503 504 505 506 507 508 509 510 511 512 513 514 515 516 517 518 519 520 521 522 523 524 525 526 527 528 529 530 531 532 533 534 535 536 537 538 539 540 541 542 543 544 545 546 547 548 549 550 551 552 553
A/L MSR KNE SVA QTR SYR THA GFA BAB UAE ETD UAL SVA IRA ABY ALK MLR OMA SIA MEA KLM JAI MSR RJA GFA UAE QTR IAC DLH MEA SFW MSR BBC AXB MSR AUI LZB PIA KAC KAC KAC KAC KAC KAC KAC KAC KAC KAC KAC KAC KAC KAC KAC KAC
A/C 621 745 500 134 341 519 213 344 857 303 982 510 617 125 227 403 645 458 402 445 572 618 802 215 859 136 981 636 406 215 612 43 389 606 374 777 205 118 302 678 676 618 382 512 674 204 550 614 672 562 -
FLT 321 320 777 321 320 340 330 320 777 320 777 MD90 727 320 330 320 737 777 321 330 737 320 320 320 330 321 320 330 330 737 330 310 737 320 737 737 310 777 777 320 320 320 320 320 320 320 320 320 320 310 310 310 310
Arrival From ATZ JED JED DOH DAM BKK BAH BAH DXB AUH IAD RUH AWZ SHJ CMB/DXB CMB/DXB MCT SIN/AUH BEY AMS BOM ALY AMM BAH DXB DOH HYD/AMD FRA BEY KBL CAI DAC CCJ/IXE LXR KBL/DXB VAR LHE JFK BOM MCT/AUH DXB DOH DEL IKA DXB LHE ATZ BAH DXB AMM -
Time 10955 11005 11030 11105 11120 11235 11245 11250 11255 1710 11315 11320 11340 11345 11400 11415 11440 11515 11545 11555 11630 11635 11645 11705 11715 11735 11805 11820 11830 11850 11855 11900 11905 11930 11935 11950 11955 11215 10350 11135 10400 11550 10320 11025 11700 10310 11140 11600 11015 11640 -
Gate 5 25 2 24 5 2 21 Apron 5 3 22 25 Apron 24 26 Apron 5 2 26 22 4 21 Apron 25 26 22 Apron 5 4 Apron 2 26 22 3 24 25 Apron 4 2 Apron Apron Apron Apron 3 Apron 26 Apron Apron 4 Apron Apron
FLT 622 746 505 135 342 520 214 345 858 304 981 511 616 126 228 404 646 457 403 445 571 619 803 216 860 137 982 637 407 216 613 44 390 607 382 778 206 543 101 677 617 675 511 673 549 613 205 671 561 381 1551
Departure To Time ATZ 11055 JED 11050 JED 11200 DOH 11220 DAM 11220 BKK 11420 BAH 11345 BAH 11345 DXB 11405 AUH 11355 IAD 11945 RUH 11435 AWZ 11440 SHJ 11425 DXB/CMB 11510 DXB/CMB 11515 MCT 11600 AUH/SIN 11645 BEY 11640 BAH/AMS 11655 BOM 11730 ALY 11735 AMM 11740 BAH 11750 DXB 11825 DOH 11835 AMD/HYD 12105 FRA 12055 BEY 11930 KBL 12100 CAI 11955 DAC 12015 IXE/CCJ 12010 LXR 12030 KBP 12035 VAR 12050 LHE 12110 CAI 11410 LHR/JFK 10530 AUH/MCT 10440 DOH 11225 DXB 11810 IKA 10555 DXB 11230 ATZ 10505 BAH 11300 ISB 11905 DXB 10600 AMM 11135 DEL 11830 DAM 10510
Gate 5 25 2 24 5 2 21 Apron 5 3 21 25 Apron 24 26 Apron 5 2 26 22 4 21 Apron 25 26 22 Apron 5 4 Apron 2 26 22 3 24 25 Apron 4 2 Apron Apron Apron Apron 3 26 Apron Apron Apron 4 Apron Apron
84
ID 554 555 556 557 558 559 560 561 562 563 564 565 566 567 568 569 570 571 572 573 574 575 576 577 578 579 580 581 582 583 584 585 586 587 588 589 590 591 592 593 594 595 596 597 598 599 600 601 602 603 604 605 606
A/L KAC KAC KAC KAC KAC KAC KAC KAC KAC KAC KAC KAC KAC KAC KAC KAC KAC JZR JZR JZR JZR JZR JZR JZR JZR JZR JZR JZR JZR JZR JZR JZR JZR JZR JZR JZR JZR JZR JZR JZR JZR JZR JZR JZR JZR JZR JZR JZR JZR JZR JZR JZR JZR
A/C 1552 772 344 542 1502 332 502 354 552 282 786 412 174 104 527 171 177 189 531 807 241 453 345 165 493 185 457 415 637 447 417 407 503 439 523 427 723 161 413 459 525 449 695
FLT 310 310 300 300 300 300 300 300 300 300 330 330 340 340 340 340 747 320 320 320 320 320 320 320 320 320 320 320 320 320 320 320 320 320 320 320 320 320 320 320 320 320 320 320 320 320 320 320 320 320 320 320 320
Arrival From DAM RUH MAA CAI BEY TRV BEY COK DAM DAC JED MNL/BKK FRA/GVA LHR HBE DXB DXB DXB ATZ BEY AMM DEZ SAH DXB JED DXB DAM BEY ALP DOH AMM DXB/BAH LXR IKA HBE DXB/BAH SLL DXB BEY DAM HBE DOH SYZ
Time 11035 11605 10510 11650 11050 10355 11510 10605 11710 10600 11425 10215 11959 11435 10110 10905 11355 11950 10305 11455 11830 10725 11535 10720 11350 11840 11115 11800 10105 10615 11205 11810 10100 10740 11500 10730 11340 10340 11120 11725 11040 11640 9610
Gate 26 3 Apron Apron Apron Apron 24 22 Apron 3 21 3 Apron 3 24 2 1 Apron Apron Apron 25 5 25 4 Apron Apron 21 3 2 26 1 24 5 25 4 21 Apron 22 25 2 Apron 5 22
FLT 771 351 541 361 1501 1807 501 371 551 301 785 283 173 411 165 406 176 486 806 240 502 452 344 606 164 492 184 516 456 414 526 446 416 182 528 438 522 512 162 722 476 412 458 188 524 448 218 -
Departure To Time RUH 11245 COK 11705 CAI 11000 CMB 11805 BEY 10450 CAI 11320 BEY 10900 HYD 11715 DAM 11150 BOM 11845 JED 10850 DAC 11555 FRA/GVA 10455 BKK/MNL 11940 FCO/CDG 10745 BAH/DXB 10355 DXB 10950 BAH/DXB 11445 BEY 10905 AMM 11315 LXR 11915 DEZ 10205 BAH/SAH 10820 BOM 11635 DXB 10315 JED 10835 DXB 11440 HRG 11925 DAM 10605 BEY 11215 HBE 11850 DOH 10300 AMM 10705 DXB 11255 ATZ 11900 IKA 10350 HBE 10825 SSH 11550 DXB 10215 SLL 10815 AYT 11500 BEY 10520 DAM 11210 DXB 11820 HBE 10400 DOH 11310 IFN 11745 -
Gate 26 3 Apron Apron Apron Apron Apron 24 22 Apron 3 21 3 Apron 2 24 2 1 1 Apron 25 26 5 25 25 4 Apron Apron 1 21 3 2 26 1 24 5 25 4 22 21 Apron 22 25 2 21 Apron 5 -
85
ID 607 608 609 610 611 612 613 614 615 616 617 618 619 620 621 622 623 624 625 626 627 628 629 630 631 632 633 634 635 636 637 638 639 640 641 642 643 644 645 646 647 648 649 650 651 652 653 654 655 656 657 658 659
A/L JZR JZR JZR JZR KAC MEA JAI THY MSR UAE ETD QTR CSA BAW UAE GFA QTR ABY ETD GFA MEA OMA MSR PIA RJA IYE QTR THA UAE GFA ETD UAL SVA ABY ALK OMA IAC TAR DLH MEA JAI SVA RJA GFA QTR UAE MEA SAI MSR AXB KLM MSR DLH
A/C 513 539 433 517 1806 408 574 1172 614 853 305 138 294 157 855 220 132 121 301 211 404 643 610 239 800 824 134 519 857 213 303 982 510 125 227 645 575 327 628 402 572 506 802 215 136 859 406 441 612 393 447 606 629
FLT 320 320 320 320 300 320 737 737 737 777 320 321 320 777 330 320 321 320 320 320 320 737 330 737 321 737 321 340 777 320 320 777 MD90 320 330 737 320 319 330 321 737 MD90 321 320 321 777 330 737 330 737 330 320 330
Arrival From SSH RMF MHD HRG CAI BEY COK IST CAI DXB AUH DOH PRG LHR DXB BAH DOH SHJ AUH BAH BEY MCT CAI SKT AMM SAH/DOH DOH BKK DXB BAH AUH IAD RUH SHJ CMB/DXB MCT MAA/GOI TUN/DXB FRA BEY BOM JED AMM BAH DOH DXB BEY LHE/KHI CAI CCJ/COK AMS/BAH LXR DMM
Time 9725 9730 9830 10120 9945 12110 12040 12115 12145 12225 12250 12340 12410 12630 12825 12830 12845 12850 12925 13045 13100 13135 13220 13250 13335 13355 13505 13635 13655 13705 13710 13715 13720 13745 13800 13840 13930 13935 13940 13945 14030 14035 14045 14105 14155 14200 14230 14235 14255 14305 14315 14330 14355
Gate 25 26 21 Apron Apron 2 4 22 24 5 3 4 2 2 22 26 24 5 2 25 26 2 21 25 24 4 5 2 22 24 25 21 26 5 4 25 Apron 22 2 5 Apron 4 25 22 Apron 5 Apron 25 4 3 26 2 21
FLT 409 573 1173 615 854 306 139 295 156 856 221 133 122 302 212 405 644 611 240 801 824 135 520 858 214 304 981 511 126 228 646 576 328 628 403 571 507 803 216 137 860 407 442 613 394 447 607 629
Departure To Time BEY 12200 COK 12140 IST 12215 CAI 12245 DXB 12345 AUH 12410 DOH 12530 PRG 12525 LHR 12815 DXB 12940 BAH 12925 DOH 12945 SHJ 12935 AUH 13010 BAH 13135 BEY 13200 MCT 1235 CAI 13320 SKT 13340 AMM 13430 SAH 13455 DOH 13620 BKK 13820 DXB 13805 BAH 13800 AUH 13755 IAD 14345 RUH 13835 SHJ 13825 DXB/CMB 13910 MCT 14000 GOI/MAA 14450 TUN 14025 DMM 14010 BEY 14040 BOM 14130 JED 14155 AMM 14140 BAH 14150 DOH 14255 DXB 14310 BEY 14330 LHE 14335 CAI 14355 COK/CCJ 14410 AMS 14435 LXR 14430 FRA 14455
Gate 2 4 22 24 5 3 4 2 2 22 26 24 5 2 25 26 2 21 25 24 4 5 2 22 24 25 22 26 5 4 25 56 22 2 5 Apron 4 25 22 Apron 5 Apron 25 4 3 26 2 21
86
ID 660 661 662 663 664 665 666 667 668 669 670 671 672 673 674 675 676 677 678 679 680 681 682 683 684 685 686 687 688 689 690 691 692 693 694 695 696 697 698 699 700 701 702 703 704 705 706 707 708 709 710 711 712
A/L KAC KAC KAC KAC KAC KAC KAC KAC KAC KAC KAC KAC KAC KAC KAC KAC KAC KAC KAC KAC KAC KAC KAC KAC KAC KAC KAC KAC KAC KAC KAC KAC KAC KAC KAC JZR JZR JZR JZR JZR JZR JZR JZR JZR JZR JZR JZR JZR JZR JZR JZR JZR JZR
A/C 102 672 562 676 744 614 546 206 552 618 382 1804 352 772 362 542 674 372 502 302 786 166 284 1802 416 172 1808 544 457 459 503 447 417 407 525 497 517 453 501 189 527 165 309 449
FLT 777 777 320 320 320 320 320 320 320 320 320 320 320 310 310 310 310 310 300 300 300 300 300 300 300 300 300 330 330 340 340 340 747 300 777 320 320 320 320 320 320 320 320 320 320 320 320 320 320 320 320 320 320
Arrival From JFK/LHR DXB AMM DXB DMM BAH ALY ISB DAM DOH DEL CAI COK RUH CMB CAI DXB HYD BEY BOM JED CDG/FCO DAC CAI CGK/KUL FRA CAI CAI DAM DAM LXR DOH AMM DXB/BAH HBE RUH HRG DEZ LXR DXB HBE DXB BAH DOH
Time 13925 13415 14040 12800 13445 14000 13550 12715 13435 13950 12720 14325 12805 14005 13010 14110 14100 12730 13910 12750 14225 14015 12810 13640 12635 14120 12005 12050 13515 14125 12500 13015 13605 14210 13440 13845 12520 13125 13750 14350 12510 13120 13620 14040
Gate 21 22 Apron Apron Apron Apron Apron Apron Apron Apron Apron Apron Apron 26 3 24 2 Apron Apron Apron Apron 3 4 Apron 3 21 Apron 21 25 1 24 21 3 Apron 2 Apron 22 24 1 Apron 5 5 4 Apron
FLT 117 671 561 743 613 545 675 551 617 203 343 1803 771 381 541 351 673 331 501 785 361 1801 281 171 301 411 103 456 458 188 446 416 182 524 496 452 500 486 164 308 448 636
Departure To Time JFK 12905 DXB 13000 AMM 13535 DMM 13155 BAH 13700 ALY 12835 DXB 14210 DAM 12910 DOH 13625 LHE 14240 MAA 14100 CAI 13640 RUH 13645 DEL 14230 CAI 13400 COK 14305 DXB 13630 TRV 14235 BEY 13300 JED 13650 CMB 14205 CAI 12955 DAC 14145 FRA 12855 BOM 14245 BKK/MNL 14340 LHR 13230 12105 12150 DAM 13005 DAM 13610 DXB 14220 DOH 12700 AMM 13105 DXB 13655 14310 HBE 12800 RUH 13530 13945 DEZ 12605 LXR 13210 BAH/DXB 13845 14450 DXB 12715 BAH 13330 DOH 13710 ALP 14320
Gate 21 Apron 22 Apron Apron Apron Apron Apron Apron Apron Apron Apron Apron Apron 26 3 24 Apron 2 Apron Apron 3 4 Apron 3 21 Apron 22 1 25 1 24 21 3 1 2 22 24 1 5 5 4 Apron
87
ID 713 714 715 716 717 718 719 720 721 722 723 724 725 726 727 728 729 730 731 732 733 734 735 736 737 738 739 740 741 742 743 744 745 746 747 748 749 750 751 752 753 754 755 756 757 758 759 760 761 762 763 764 765
A/L JZR JZR JZR JZR JZR JZR JZR JZR JZR JZR JZR JZR JZR JZR JZR JZR JZR JZR JZR JZR PIA JAI THY OAL MSR ETH UAE QTR BAW UAE GFA QTR ABY ETD GFA MSR MSR RJA OMA KNE SVA QTR IRC THA GFA UAE ETD UAL SVA BAB ABY ALK MLR
A/C 423 427 523 171 177 185 161 413 649 479 415 219 513 477 529 607 215 574 1172 346 614 620 853 138 157 855 220 132 121 301 211 610 621 800 643 745 500 134 6791 519 213 857 303 982 510 344 125 227 403
FLT 320 320 320 320 320 320 320 320 320 320 320 320 320 320 320 320 320 320 320 320 737 737 737 737 737 737 330 321 777 330 320 321 320 320 320 330 321 320 737 320 777 321 727 340 330 777 320 777 MD90 320 320 330 320
Arrival From DEL DXB/BAH HBE DXB DXB DXB DXB BEY LCA SAW BEY IFN SSH AYT ATZ BOM KHI COK IST ATH/DXB CAI ADD DXB DOH LHR DXB BAH DOH SHJ AUH BAH CAI ATZ AMM MCT JED JED DOH MHD BKK BAH DXB AUH IAD RUH BAH SHJ CMB/DXB CMB
Time 13850 13130 13900 13305 13755 14240 12740 13520 14205 13450 14200 12025 12125 12150 12515 12600 14405 14440 14515 14520 14545 14550 14625 14740 15030 15225 15230 15245 15250 15325 15445 15620 15725 15735 15800 15805 15830 15905 15955 16035 16045 16055 16110 16115 16120 16135 16145 16200 16215
Gate 24 4 Apron 26 3 Apron 25 26 Apron 21 Apron Apron 26 Apron Apron Apron 24 5 4 25 3 22 2 26 22 2 26 4 Apron 22 21 2 24 3 Apron 25 5 2 24 21 4 22 Apron 2 Apron 24 Apron Apron Apron
FLT 422 606 162 522 502 406 176 184 412 646 526 478 414 528 216 573 1173 346 615 621 854 139 156 856 221 133 122 302 212 611 622 801 644 746 505 135 6792 520 214 858 304 981 511 345 126 228 404
Departure To Time DEL 12850 BOM 14035 DXB 12615 HBE 13225 LXR 14315 BAH/DXB 12755 DXB 13350 DXB 13840 14340 BEY 12920 LCA 13610 HBE 14250 SAW 12710 BEY 13615 ATZ 14300 12125 12225 12250 12615 12700 KHI 14520 COK 14540 IST 14615 ATH 14610 CAI 14645 BAH/ADD 14630 DXB 14745 DOH 14930 LHR 15215 DXB 15340 BAH 15325 DOH 15345 SHJ 15335 AUH 15410 BAH 15535 CAI 15720 ATZ 15825 AMM 15830 MCT 15900 JED 15850 JED 16000 DOH 16020 MHD 16055 BKK 16220 BAH 16145 DXB 16205 AUH 16155 IAD 16745 RUH 16235 BAH 16215 SHJ 16225 DXB/CMB 16310 DXB/CMB 16315
Gate Apron 24 26 4 Apron Apron 26 3 25 26 Apron Apron 21 Apron 24 5 4 25 3 22 2 26 22 2 26 4 Apron 22 21 2 24 3 Apron 25 5 2 24 21 4 22 Apron Apron Apron 24 Apron Apron Apron
88
ID 766 767 768 769 770 771 772 773 774 775 776 777 778 779 780 781 782 783 784 785 786 787 788 789 790 791 792 793 794 795 796 797 798 799 800 801 802 803 804 805 806 807 808 809 810 811 812 813 814 815 816 817 818
A/L OMA IRA SIA KLM IAC MEA JAI MSR RJA GFA UAE QTR MEA DLH MSR AXB AFG SYR MSR KAC KAC KAC KAC KAC KAC KAC KAC KAC KAC KAC KAC KAC KAC KAC KAC KAC KAC KAC KAC KAC KAC KAC KAC KAC KAC KAC KAC KAC KAC KAC KAC KAC KAC
A/C 645 607 458 445 993 402 572 618 802 215 859 136 406 636 612 395 405 341 606 118 548 772 676 618 204 672 344 522 562 1502 614 382 162 352 332 502 1802 362 1702 282 786 302 412 542 104
FLT 737 727 777 330 320 320 737 320 320 330 777 321 330 330 340 737 310 320 320 777 777 320 320 320 320 320 320 320 320 310 310 310 310 310 310 310 310 300 300 300 300 300 300 300 300 330 330 340 340 340 340 340 747
Arrival From MCT MHD SIN/AUH AMS MAA/CCJ BEY BOM ALY AMM BAH DXB DOH BEY FRA CAI CCJ/TRV KBL DAM LXR JFK LXR RUH DXB DOH LHE DXB MAA DAM AMM BEY BAH DEL FCO COK TRV BEY CAI CMB JED DAC JEB BOM MNL/BKK CAI LHR
Time 16240 1905 16315 16355 16415 16420 16430 16435 16445 16505 16515 16535 16630 16635 16655 16705 16715 16720 16730 16015 16255 15925 15200 16350 15110 15815 15220 15835 16510 15855 16400 15120 16410 15405 15350 16310 15930 15410 16320 15400 16225 15150 15015 16450 16235
Gate Apron 5 22 3 Apron 25 Apron Apron Apron 26 5 2 Apron 26 5 25 24 2 4 3 Apron Apron Apron Apron Apron Apron 25 22 4 Apron Apron 3 Apron 25 Apron 24 Apron 26 2 5 4 Apron 4 21 Apron
FLT 646 604 457 445 403 571 619 803 216 860 137 407 613 543 101 547 381 771 675 617 671 205 551 561 371 1501 613 161 177 331 501 361 1801 1701 785 283 541 411 301 -
Departure To Time MCT 16400 IFN 16405 AUH/SIN 16445 BAH/AMS 16455 ND BEY 16520 BOM 16530 ALY 16535 AMM 16540 BAH 16555 DXB 16625 DOH 16635 BEY 16730 ND CAI 16755 ND ND ND ND CAI 16210 LHR/JFK 15330 LXR 15710 DEL 16630 RUH 15605 DXB 16610 DOH 16025 16450 DXB 15400 ISB 16705 DAM 15310 AMM 16005 HYD 16640 BEY 15255 BAH 16100 16500 FCO 15250 16510 CDG/GVA 15540 TRV 16500 BEY 15700 CMB 16605 CAI 15245 16030 JED 15805 16420 JED 15650 DAC 16355 15250 15115 CAI 15800 BKK/MNL 16740 BOM 16645 16335
Gate Apron 5 22 3 25 Apron Apron Apron 26 5 2 Apron 5 3 21 Apron Apron Apron Apron Apron 34 Apron 25 22 4 Apron Apron 3 25 Apron 22 24 Apron 26 2 5 4 21 21 51 -
89
ID 819 820 821 822 823 824 825 826 827 828 829 830 831 832 833 834 835 836 837 838 839 840 841 842 843 844 845 846 847 848 849 850 851
A/L JZR JZR JZR JZR JZR JZR JZR JZR JZR JZR JZR JZR JZR JZR JZR JZR JZR JZR JZR JZR JZR JZR JZR JZR JZR JZR JZR JZR JZR JZR JZR JZR JZR
A/C 427 455 437 165 723 511 171 407 457 607 343 503 447 417 433 493 449 413 185 501 461 527 529 637
FLT 320 320 320 320 320 320 320 320 320 320 320 320 320 320 320 320 320 320 320 320 320 320 320 320 320 320 320 320 320 320 320 320 320
Arrival From DXB/BAH DEZ IKA DXB SLL SSH DXB DXB/BAH DAM BOM SAH/BAH LXR DOH AMM MHD JED DOH BEY DXB LXR DAM HBE ATZ ALP
Time 15210 16105 16610 15355 16140 16125 15720 16405 15955 15000 16020 14900 15345 16025 16625 16040 16530 16100 16600 16150 14905 14910 14915 14935
Gate 24 1 Apron 1 26 Apron 4 1 Apron 5 Apron 24 3 26 Apron 25 22 5 3 Apron Apron Apron Apron Apron
FLT 545 436 162 722 476 510 486 406 176 460 456 526 342 606 446 416 432 492 448 516 412 184 410 500 502 462 -
Departure To Time DEZ 15500 IKA 16230 16710 DXB 15000 SLL 15615 AYT 16300 SSH 15515 BAH/DXB 16340 BAH/DXB 15155 DXB 15835 DAM 16725 DAM 15455 16055 HBE 16650 SAH 15300 BOM 16510 DOH 15025 AMM 15505 MHD 16055 16725 JED 15525 DOH 16215 HRG 16730 BEY 15510 DXB 16200 BEY 16720 LXR 15610 LXR 16715 DAM 14401 15005 15010 15015 15035
Gate 24 1 1 1 26 Apron Apron Apron 4 1 Apron 1 5 Apron 24 3 26 Apron 25 22 Apron 5 3 Apron Apron Apron -
90

!!!!kuwait

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

!!!!kuwait

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

The Airport Gate Assignment Problem: Scheduling Algorithms and Simulation Approach

Ahmed Thanyan AL-Sultan

Graduate School of environmental science

5 Results and analysis

6.3 Simulation results . 57 7 Conclusion Bibliography Acknowledgements Appendix 65 68 72 73

Figure 2.1 KIAs gates terminal

A/L JAI RJA MEA THY MSR

A/C 737 319 320 737 737

for each type of aircraft Values of

{2,3,4,5,21,22,25,26} {2,3,4,5,21,22,26} {2,4,5,21,22,26}

and represent the earliest and

and represents the buffer time . The goal of buffer

Identify decision variables.

ai : Arrival time of flight i.

: Number of passengers transferring from flight i to flight j.

wk ,l : Walking distance for passengers from gate k to gate l.

: The latest time that the flight can be assigned to a gate.

: Represents set of gates that can be assigned to flight i.

if flight i is assigned to gate k (0 < k m + 1) . otherwise

The following constraint must be satisfied:

Constraints and objective function

i represent set of gates that can be assigned to flight i.

2. Each flight's departure time is later than its arrival time

ai < d i , (i,1 i n).

(i, j , k i & k j ,1 i, j n, k m + 1), y i ,k {0,1}.

g k (1 k m) represents the earliest available time (actually the departure

Note that in step 2 before assigning flight i to gate k, we will check if

Figure 4.1 the correctness of the greedy algorithm

g k (1 k m) represents the earliest available time (actually the departure

g k (1 k m) represents the earliest available time (actually the departure

g k (1 k m) represents the earliest available time (actually the departure

New neighborhood search methods

Figure 4.2 the four time points of an interval

5. A.t3 a. departure; 6. A.t4

7. B.t1 previous (b). Departure; 8. B.t2 9. B.t3 10. B.t4

next (b). Arrival; true;

to prevent the move (i, k ) (i, l ) ; 2. Interval Exchange move: denoted as

to prevent the move (a, b, l ) (c, d , k ) ; 3. Apron Exchange Move: denoted as

to prevent the move (a, OUT ) (b, k ) .

Outgoing 82 111 57.51% Outgoing 136 57 29.53%

Incoming 112 100 47.17% Incoming 168 44 20.75%

depends on the airports conditions. In

and . A positive result means that the saving

Outgoing 102 91 47.15% Outgoing 147 46 23.83%

Incoming 115 97 45.75% Incoming 177 35 16.51%

Outgoing 99 94 48.70% Outgoing 154 39 20.21%

Incoming 121 91 42.92% Incoming 178 34 16.04%

Outgoing 141 52 26.94%

Incoming 156 56 26.42% Incoming 198 14 6.60%

time 0005 0040 2310 2315 2315 2320

Gate 1 2 3 4 5 21 22 24 3 4 21 Apron Apron

Objective of the simulation approach

be always equal to 0. So we will let the flight time interval equal to

Therefore, the fitted ARIMA model can be expressed as follow

B )(1 B12 )(1 B12 ) Z = + (1 B12 )a (1 t t 1 1,12 0 1,12

(1 0.9305 B )(1 + 0.9844 B12 )(1 B12 ) Z t = 56.41 + (1 + 0.7898 B12 ) at

Z t 0.9305 Z t 1 0.0156 Z t 12 + 0.0145 Z t 13 0.9844 Z t 24 + 0.9160 Z t 25 = 56.41 + at + 0.7898at 12

Time Series Plot for AC

d i = [ai + 90, ai + 100] .

ai = 9i and the departure time is d i = [ai + 90, ai + 100] . In other word, we

Daily movement for the actual data (One week data)

Gate 26 3 4 24 1 5 Apron 22 26 3 25 21 2 4 Apron 24 Apron 26 5 22 Apron Apron 1 21 Apron 25 4 24 26 5 3 25 1 22 5 21 4 24 24 Apron 2 26 5 24 21 3 1 26