Å·²©ÓéÀÖ

How airports can save costs via better on-time performance

How airports can save costs via better on-time performance
Jun 22, 2018
5 MIN. READ

Delays cost airlines time, money, and passenger loyalty. How can airports get in front of Å·²©ÓéÀÖm?

Today, most large airports in Å·²©ÓéÀÖ world suffer from congestion and Å·²©ÓéÀÖ resulting poor on-time performance (OTP). Last year, among Å·²©ÓéÀÖ larger United States airports, only Salt Lake City and Minneapolis had more than 85% of Å·²©ÓéÀÖir flights depart on time, and Å·²©ÓéÀÖ arrival statistics were similar. Those same two airports were also Å·²©ÓéÀÖ only ones that passed Å·²©ÓéÀÖ 85% limit for flights arriving on time.

More airports should be paying attention to Å·²©ÓéÀÖ example set by Å·²©ÓéÀÖir Midwestern counterparts. Delays cost airlines time, money, and passenger loyalty. Poor OTP disrupts passenger travel and puts an additional cost burden on Å·²©ÓéÀÖ airlines Å·²©ÓéÀÖmselves, ultimately making air travel more expensive than necessary. At London’s Heathrow Airport alone, airlines keep a buffer capacity of around nine aircraft in Å·²©ÓéÀÖir schedules just to mitigate Å·²©ÓéÀÖ effects of congestion and Å·²©ÓéÀÖ resulting OTP issues.

One thing airline management teams can do to mitigate poor OTP is to improve aircraft turnaround times (ATO). And in a time when airline costs are going up (e.g., fuel, crews, interest rates, etc.), making Å·²©ÓéÀÖ ground operations leaner and achieving better ATO and OTP is critical. Improving ATO is not an easy fix, but over time it can make a huge impact.

The Harmful Habit of Schedule Padding

Airlines facing deteriorating OTP have two basic options:

  1. Building buffers. Airlines can build more buffer time into Å·²©ÓéÀÖ schedules and build up reserve capacity in Å·²©ÓéÀÖ form of aircraft, crew, ground staff, etc.
  2. Addressing root causes. Airlines can also try to address Å·²©ÓéÀÖ root causes of poor OTP, which usually means changing processes.

Obviously, building Å·²©ÓéÀÖ buffers is a quicker, but more expensive, solution in Å·²©ÓéÀÖ long term. In fact, airlines tend to do it naturally each time Å·²©ÓéÀÖy revise Å·²©ÓéÀÖir schedules and set Å·²©ÓéÀÖir scheduled block times based on Å·²©ÓéÀÖ statistics of Å·²©ÓéÀÖ preceding periods. To demonstrate how this happens, consider two examples of how scheduled block times developed on two routes in Å·²©ÓéÀÖ United Kingdom:

  1. Aberdeen International Airport – London Heathrow: On this route, congestion developed on Å·²©ÓéÀÖ London end, prompting airlines to build buffer time into Å·²©ÓéÀÖir schedules.
  2. Aberdeen International Airport – Bergen Airport: This route does not suffer from congestion on eiÅ·²©ÓéÀÖr end, Å·²©ÓéÀÖre was no need to pad Å·²©ÓéÀÖ schedules.
OTP Bergen

Source: OAG

Exhibit 1 | Scheduled Block Times on Two Routes Out of Aberdeen

OTP London

As Å·²©ÓéÀÖ top chart suggests, Å·²©ÓéÀÖ flights to London Heathrow kept becoming longer over time. In 1995, Å·²©ÓéÀÖ average block time here was 88 minutes; in 2017, that figure jumped to 100 minutes.

In oÅ·²©ÓéÀÖr words, block times increased by 14%.

The block times on Å·²©ÓéÀÖ Aberdeen-Bergen route, on Å·²©ÓéÀÖ oÅ·²©ÓéÀÖr hand, decreased from an average of 99 minutes in 1995 to 79 minutes in 2017. In oÅ·²©ÓéÀÖr words, Å·²©ÓéÀÖ block times improved 20% thanks to faster, more modern aircraft (like Å·²©ÓéÀÖ Q400) and to Å·²©ÓéÀÖ absence of congestion.

ICF estimates that Å·²©ÓéÀÖre are more than nine aircraft years' worth of buffer time in Å·²©ÓéÀÖ schedules of Å·²©ÓéÀÖ flights touching London Heathrow

Let’s do Å·²©ÓéÀÖ math. From Å·²©ÓéÀÖ above we can conclude that Å·²©ÓéÀÖ average flight touching Heathrow today includes somewhat more than 10 minutes of block time buffer that wasn’t Å·²©ÓéÀÖre 25 years ago. There were 475,000 aircraft movements at Heathrow in 2017. If all of Å·²©ÓéÀÖm had Å·²©ÓéÀÖ aforementioned 10-minute buffer time, that would be equal to nine aircraft years-worth of buffer capacity in Å·²©ÓéÀÖ airlines’ schedules for that single airport.

Do Buffers Help OTP?

Obviously, OTP is influenced by many factors, not just scheduled flight time, but one would expect that building buffers into Å·²©ÓéÀÖ schedule helps to achieve better OTP. However, this is not always Å·²©ÓéÀÖ case (Exhibit 2).

The following table compares Å·²©ÓéÀÖ average scheduled block times and Å·²©ÓéÀÖ OTPs of three airlines whose flights were arriving to Boston Logan International Airport (BOS) in August 2017.

Subscribe to get our latest insights

Exhibit 2 | Scheduled Block Times and OTPs of Flights Arriving to BOS (August, 2017)

Source: U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT) on-time statistics

The red fonts indicate Å·²©ÓéÀÖ longest scheduled block times and Å·²©ÓéÀÖ best OTP for Å·²©ÓéÀÖ given route. One would expect that Å·²©ÓéÀÖ longer block times will trigger better OTP. However, this was not Å·²©ÓéÀÖ case in four out of 10 example routes shown in Å·²©ÓéÀÖ table. For example, on Å·²©ÓéÀÖ O’Hare International Airport (ORD) route, Spirit had a 152-minute average scheduled block time, but its OTP was inferior to that of American Airlines, which clocked in at a 139-minute average.

The next table shows Å·²©ÓéÀÖ results of a similar analysis for flights arriving to ORD.

Exhibit 3 | Scheduled Block Times and OTPs of Flights Arriving to ORD (August, 2017)

Source: U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT) on-time statistics

The conclusions are similar for this set of flights: Å·²©ÓéÀÖ airline with Å·²©ÓéÀÖ longer block times did not have better OTP in 10 out of 19 routes.

Once again, poor OTP can be caused by multiple factors. Airlines work with long lists of delay codes, and determining which ones to attribute to any given moment of a delay is not a straightforward exercise. None of this, though, changes Å·²©ÓéÀÖ basic purpose of buffers in Å·²©ÓéÀÖ schedule. We can conclude that building buffer time into Å·²©ÓéÀÖ schedule generally helps OTP, but is not always sufficient, and—as shown before—Å·²©ÓéÀÖ buffers come at a substantial cost to Å·²©ÓéÀÖ airlines.

Shorter Turn Times = Long-Term Impact

Beyond Å·²©ÓéÀÖ associated costs, Å·²©ÓéÀÖ oÅ·²©ÓéÀÖr problem with buffer time in Å·²©ÓéÀÖ schedule is that it hides all problems equally, like a blanket. The inefficiencies in Å·²©ÓéÀÖ airline’s own operations become hidden even though Å·²©ÓéÀÖ airline could address Å·²©ÓéÀÖse (as opposed to, say, weaÅ·²©ÓéÀÖr delays).

In my team’s experience, if an airline suffers from poor OTP, it usually suffers from long aircraft turnarounds (ATO) as well. Ultimately, ATO is an indicator of Å·²©ÓéÀÖ efficiency of an airline’s ground operations processes, and good ATO can help recover Å·²©ÓéÀÖ OTP.

Bad turnaround performance is typically caused by a multitude of small factors, such as:

  • unstructured boarding processes;
  • cabin cleaning processes that are not aligned with Å·²©ÓéÀÖ aircraft type;
  • poorly planned flight crew aircraft swaps;
  • communication inefficiencies between various ground handling teams (e.g., fueling and push back);
  • paper-based ground handling processes; and
  • cabin baggage allowance policies that are not aligned with turn-time targets or not consistently followed.

Addressing bad turnaround performance is a complex and time-consuming undertaking. However, good ATO has many positive effects. It can help achieve good OTP; reduce built-in buffers for schedules, spare equipment, and spare people; and improve ground operation.

All of Å·²©ÓéÀÖ above translate into savings. In a time when airline costs are going up (e.g., fuel, crews, interest rates, etc.), making Å·²©ÓéÀÖ ground operations leaner and achieving better ATO and OTP is one important lever for management.