Greening the Airport Airside Area I: Increasing Runway Capacity Without Increasing Airport Size

  • Milan Janić
Part of the Green Energy and Technology book series (GREEN)


The parties involved in the air transport system such as airport operators, airlines, and ATC (Air Traffic Control), the systems’ regulatory bodies at both national and international level, planners and researchers (academic and consultants) have made great efforts to provide sufficient airport runway capacity to adequately serve the continually growing demand. However, these efforts have had very limited success or have even, in many cases, been unsuccessful. In addition to the growing air transport demand, the specific environmental (mainly noise) and particularly the land take (use) constraints at many large airports both in Europe and the US have prevented the full utilisation of the designed airport runway “ultimate” and “practical” capacities. The former is defined as the maximum number of atms (air transport movements) carried out at a given runway system under conditions of constant demand for service during the specified period of time, while the latter is defined as the maximum number of atms per period of time, which enables maintaining the average delay per atm within the prescribed limit(s) (one atm is one landing or one take-off). Under the continuously growing demand, these capacity constraints have caused an increasing imbalance between demand and capacity, which has increased airport airside congestion, delays, and related costs for airlines, air passengers, and air cargo shipments.


Wake Vortex Service Discipline Approach Speed Landing Aircraft Airport Runway 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


  1. 1.
    Andreatta G, Romanin-Jacur G (1987) Aircraft flow management under congestion. Transp Sci 21(4):249–253CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Blumstein A (1959) The landing capacity of a runway. Oper Res 7(1):752–763CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Choroba P (2003) A vision of wake vortex research for next 20 years. Working paper, EUROCONTROL, Bretigny sur de Orge, Paris, FranceGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Czerny AI, Forsyth P, Gillen D, Niemeier HM (2008) Airport slots: international experiences and options for reform. Ashgate Publishing Limited, AldershotGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Donahue GL, Shorttle J, Jeddi B (2008) Looking for the capacity in NGATS. On Transportation Research Board (TRB) annual meeting, Washington DC, USA, 14 Jan 2008Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    EC (2002) Study on competition between airports and the application of state aid rules, volume II. Air Transport Group, Canfield University, European Commission DG VII-F, Brussels, BelgiumGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    EC (2003) Analysis of the European transport industry. European Commission–DG TREN, Final report, Brussels, BelgiumGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    EC (2005) Optimal procedures and techniques for the improvement of approach and landing–OPTIMA, Sixth framework program, FP6-2002-Aero 1502880, Deliverable 1.2, European Commission, Brussels, BelgiumGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    EC (2007) Gaps identification airport, TMA, En route and TBS–reduced separation minima-RESET. Deliverable D4.2, Sixth framework program, European Commission, Brussels, Belgium, p 86Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    FAA (2004) Summary results from long-term wake turbulence measurement at San Francisco international airport. U.S. Department of transportation, Federal Aviation Administration, DOT-VNTSC-FA27-PM-04-13, Washington, DC, USAGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
  12. 12.
    Gilbo EP (1993) Airport capacity: representation estimation, optimization. IEEE Trans Control Syst Technol 1(3):144–153CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Harris RM (1972) Models for runway capacity analysis. The MITRE Corporation technical report, MTR-4102, Rev. 2, Langley, Virginia, USAGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Janic M, Tosic V (1982) Terminal airspace capacity model. Transp Res 16A(4):253–260Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Janic M (2001) Air transport system analysis and modeling: capacity, quality of service and economics. Transport series books, vol 16. Taylor and Francis, UKGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Janic M (2008) Towards time-based separation rules for landing aircraft. Transportation Research Record (TRB), No. 2052 Aviation, pp 79–89Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Janic M (2008a) Modeling the capacity of closely-spaced parallel runways using innovative approach procedures. Transp Res C 16(6):704–730CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Janic M (2009) A concept for prioritizing the aircraft operations at congested airports. Transportation Research Record (TRB), No. 2106 Aviation, pp 100–108 Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Newell GF (1979) Airport capacity and delays. Transp Sci 13(3):201–241CrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    NASA (1999) Benefit estimates of terminal area productivity program technologies. NASA/CR–1999 208989. National Aeronautics and Space Administration, VAGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    NASA (2001) Enhancement airport capacity through safe dynamic reduction of aircraft separation: NASA’s aircraft vortex spacing system (AVOSS). National Aeronautical and Space Administration, HamptonGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Odoni AR, Bowman J (1997) Existing and required modelling capabilities for evaluating ATM systems and concepts. Final report no. NAG2-997, International Centre for Air Transportation. Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Massachusetts, Boston, USAGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    RITA (2008) Airport statistics 2007. The Research and Technology Innovative Administration, US Department of Transportation, Washington DC. http://www.transtat.bts.govGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Robinson III JE, Davis TJ, Isaacson DR (1997) Fuzzy reasoning based sequencing of arrival aircraft in the terminal area. The American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics (AIAA) Guidance, Navigation, and Control Conference, New Orleans, USA, p 11Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Sarpkaya T (2000) New model for vortex decay in the atmosphere. J Aircr 37(1):53–61CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Shortle JF, Jeddi BG (2007) Probabilistic analysis of wake vortex hazards for landing aircraft using multilateration data. 86th TRB Conference, Transportation Research Board, Washington DC, USAGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Swedish WJ (1981) Upgraded airfield capacity model. The MITRE Corporation Technical Report, MTR-81W16, Vols 1 and 2. Langley, Virginia, USAGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Terrab M, Odoni AR (1993) Strategic flow management in air traffic control. Oper Res 41(1):138–152MATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag London Limited 2011

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Transport and Planning, Faculty of Civil Engineering and GeosciencesDelft University of TechnologyCN DelftThe Netherlands

Personalised recommendations