4.6 Article

Evaluation of Boarding Methods Adapted for Social Distancing When Using Apron Buses

期刊

IEEE ACCESS
卷 8, 期 -, 页码 151650-151667

出版社

IEEE-INST ELECTRICAL ELECTRONICS ENGINEERS INC
DOI: 10.1109/ACCESS.2020.3015736

关键词

Airplanes; Measurement; Atmospheric modeling; Airports; Europe; Economics; Adaptation models; Airplane boarding; social distancing; COVID-19; SARS-CoV-2; apron buses; agent-based modeling; NetLogo

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Social distancing reduces the risk of people becoming infected with the novel coronavirus (SARS-CoV-2). When passengers are transported from an airport terminal to an airplane using apron buses, safe social distancing during pandemic times reduces the capacity of the apron buses and has led to the practice of airlines keeping the middle seats of the airplanes unoccupied. This article adapts classical boarding methods so that they may be used with social distancing and apron buses. We conduct stochastic simulation experiments to assess nine adaptations of boarding methods according to four performance metrics. Three of the metrics are related to the risk of the virus spreading to passengers during boarding. The fourth metric is the time to complete boarding of the two-door airplane when apron bus transport passengers to the airplane. Our experiments assume that passengers advancing to their airplane seats are separated by an aisle social distance of 1 m or 2 m. Numerical results indicate that the three variations (adaptations) of the Reverse pyramid method are the best candidates for airlines to consider in this socially distanced context. The particular adaptation to use depends on an airline's relative preference for having short boarding times versus a reduced risk of later boarding passengers passing (and thereby possibly infecting) previously seated window seat passengers. If an airline considers the latter risk to be unimportant, then the Reverse pyramid - Spread method would be the best choice because it provides the fastest time to board the airplane and is tied for the best values for the other two health risk measures.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.6
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据