ISSN 1648-4142 / eISSN 1648-3480

2023

TRANSPORT
Volume 38
Issue 2
Pages 67–76
https://doi.org/10.3846/transport.2023.18334

Original Article

THE DECISION SUPPORT FACILITATING THE CHECK-IN

SERVICE AT THE CHOPIN AIRPORT WITH THE USE
OF COMPUTATIONAL EXPERIMENTS IN SIMIO

Izabela KALBARCZYK, Anna KWASIBORSKA , Sylwester GŁADYŚ

Faculty of Transport, Warsaw University of Technology, Poland

Highlights:
■ several scenarios for improving the passenger service process were presented;
■ models were built and implemented in a simulation program;
■ simulation results showing the benefits of modifying passenger schedules were presented;
■ a comparison was made with the level of passenger service defined by IATA;
■ conclusions were presented that may be valuable in the modernization of the passenger and baggage handling process.

Article History: Abstract. Airlines strive to minimize the waiting time for passenger service at the airport. Modification of the
■ submitted 1 November 2021; passenger service process at check-in stands can be carried out by modelling and then simulating various sce-
■ resubmitted 23 May 2022, narios in order to obtain time benefits. The organization of service for departing passengers is the most complex
■ accepted 20 November 2022. system, which includes numerous maintenance activities aimed at preparing them and their luggage for trans-
port by aircraft. Therefore, this article aims to present a few scenarios to improve the passenger service process.
Based on the research, assumptions were made for each check-in scenario. Then, the models were implemented
in the SIMIO simulation program. In the next step, the passenger distribution for individual desks was modified
and a comparison was made with the level of passenger service defined by International Air Transport Associa-
tion (IATA). The simulation results for individual scenarios are presented and the benefits to be achieved after
introducing the proposed changes are indicated. The simulations carried out showed 2 important elements in the
current and proposed layout of the ticket and luggage service stations and the introduction of changes to the
baggage desks. Article presents the specification of the time spent in the system and waiting in the queue. The
conducted analyses have shown that the proposed concept will allow for taking over 40% of passengers using
the adjacent Fast Bag Drop (FBD) stands. Research has shown that adding more machines for use will fully cover
the demand for FBD. The conclusions presented in the article are valuable when introducing modernization of the
passenger and baggage handling process. For future researches, it would be beneficial to test other simulation
tools and other scenarios to compare these results with those presented in this article.

Keywords: SIMIO, check-in service, self-service baggage drop-off machine, level of service at airports, modelling, simulation.

Corresponding author. E-mail: [email protected]

Notations SC – self-check-in;
SSK – self-service kiosk;
BD – bag drop; ST – self-tagged BD;
CR – crew; S–NS – Schengen–non-Schengen;
EC – economy class; S–S – Schengen–Schengen.
FBD – fast BD;
FC – family check-in;
IATA – International Air Transport Association; Introduction
ID – identity document;
The process of ground handling of aircraft and passengers
NS–NS – non-Schengen–non-Schengen;
NS–S – non-Schengen–Schengen; has been analysed in many interesting scientific publica-
PRM – passengers with reduced mobility; tions. The period of the pandemic caused a temporary
SA – special assistance; collapse of the aviation market, but the forecasts of air
SBD – self-BD; traffic are optimistic. The issues of passenger service, air-

Copyright © 2023 The Author(s). Published by Vilnius Gediminas Technical University

This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/),
which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.
 68 I. Kalbarczyk et al. The decision support facilitating the check-in service at the Chopin airport ...

port efficiency and air transport safety are still important. The above types of transfers take place at Schengen
Modern technologies are implemented in air transport, airports. The S–S transfer is, in terms of steps, the easi-
increasing the safety and efficiency of ground handling est passenger transition between planes, as the passen-
processes, taking into account, inter alia, use of UAVs (Hrúz ger only needs to check the information board and then
et al. 2021). Such caveats may be used during the ground proceed to the destination gate. The S–NS transfer differs
handling of aircraft. In airport terminals, to handle passen- from the S–S transfer in that after exiting the terminal, pas-
gers, modern devices are also used to shorten the service sengers must go to passport control and then head to the
at the check-in desk. appropriate destination and flight number. NS–S transfer
Check-in service is the first stage of passenger ser- consists of 2 stages. After disembarking from the aircraft,
vice, requiring necessary pre-flight activities to be com- passengers are taken by airport bus from a position away
pleted within a specified time frame. Today, airlines are from the terminal or enter the terminal by a passenger
looking to reduce check-in processing times, as well as to gangway from the aircraft, then proceed to identity docu-
minimize waiting times for service (Araujo, Repolho 2015; ment control.
Bruno, Genovese 2010). This requires the introduction of An important stage of passenger service is secu-
new technologies, but also the proper management of the rity control, which is compulsory for both travellers and
process and equipment to minimize the duration of the employees heading to the restricted area of the airport
process (ACI 2001). The process of handling a departing (Skorupski, Uchroński 2019). The control of passengers
passenger begins in the terminal at the check-in desk and and hand baggage is carried out by means of a metal
check-in can be done in the traditional way, at a SSK or detecting gate or manually (Skorupski, Uchroński 2018).
online. The process of service an arriving passenger de- When a passenger randomly actuates the gate, they are
pends on the infrastructure of the airport, as they can ei- checked for the presence of gunpowder on himself and
ther head to the terminal on their own or be transported his personal belongings. Carry-on baggage is placed on a
by bus. Travelers traveling from Schengen countries are conveyor belt that passes through an X-ray inspection ma-
not subject to document control. When they arrive at the chine. If any kind of prohibited items are detected during
terminal, they can go to the baggage claim hall. Passen- the inspection, they are first taken away from the passen-
gers arriving from non-Schengen countries are directed to ger, then the staff decides whether or not the passenger
document control (Figure 1) (WCA 2021). can continue to travel.
A transfer passenger begins a journey on one aircraft
and continues it on another aircraft. In order to streamline
the service, separate passageways are separated for Schen- 1. Check-in process analysis
gen and non-Schengen passengers (Figure 1). Due to the
The organization of departing passenger service is the
direction from which the transfer passenger arrived, we
most complex system. Departing passengers who enter
can distinguish the following types of transfer (WCA 2021):
the airport perimeter go through numerous handling ac-
■ S–S; tivities to prepare themselves and their baggage for trans-
■ S–NS; port by aircraft (Bevilacqua, Ciarapica 2010). Passengers
■ NS–S; taking the flight head to the check-in desk. There are 2
■ NS–NS. types of passenger check-in:
■ common check-in: it is a common check-in for all desti-
Arrivals
NS S nations of a given airline, the desks are open during the
service hours of the carrier’s flights and the passenger
can check-in at any time,
Shops GATE’S for
Security NS ■ destination check-in: opened a certain number of hours
Document
before departure.
Document
control control Depending on the size of the airline and the agree-
ment with the airport operator, carriers have a set number
N–S
document Shops GATE’S for
NS
of check-in desks available to travellers and these may be
Baggage claim
control as follows:
■ desks for EC;
Custom
Security
■ desks for business class or loyalty card holders;
Check-in
■ FC desks;
■ desks for passengers requiring special care, known as
Arrivals hall Departures hall PRM.
At the check-in desks, travellers’ IDs, visas (if required)
Arrivals Departures
and e-ticket or booking confirmations are checked. Next,
the passenger checks in their baggage, the handling agent
Figure 1. Arrival, transfer and departure passenger path hangs a tag on it, and then the baggage is sent to the
 Transport, 2023, 38(2): 67–76 69

sorting office, from where it is transported to the aircraft. ■ ST: checked-in passengers who have self-printed a hang
In addition, a boarding pass will be issued to the pas- tag at the SSK who want to drop-off their baggage go
senger, entitling them to go to the restricted area of the to this exact desk;
airport and to use the duty-free stores. If the passenger ■ SC: people traveling with carry-on baggage only, check-
is traveling with carry-on baggage only, they may bring it ing in or who are already checked in, self checking-in
with them on the plane. Both those who travel with car- their baggage.
ry-on baggage only and those who leave their checked Passenger departure waves during the day (morn-
baggage at the check-in desk later can use the so-called ing, midday, afternoon and evening) mean that queues
online check-in. Using the carrier’s mobile app or website, can form in the check-in area. SC desks minimize these
the passenger fills out a form with their booking number queues, but are usually dedicated to travellers with only
and name. Once the check-in is approved by the carrier, a carry-on baggage, as well as for travellers who want to
link with the boarding pass for the flight arrives via email check in their checked baggage on their own. Passengers
or text message (Kwasiborska 2016). It can be printed out should go through the following steps to check in their
or saved on the phone. If a person has checked baggage checked baggage on their own:
to be checked in, upon arrival at the terminal, they should ■ check-in at a SSK or online: – the traveller has a boarding
go to the “Drop-off” desk to check in the baggage (Ki- pass for the selected flight;
erzkowski, Kisiel 2018; Kierzkowski et al. 2019). The au- ■ print a baggage tag at the SSK: by scanning the board-
tomated check-in system sends a message to your cell ing pass received online, or by continuing to check-in
phone or email address with an attachment containing at the kiosk;
your boarding pass. For status passengers and those trav- ■ approach ST desks: an employee scans the tag printed by
elling in the highest class, such check-in is active all the the passenger, tags the bag, weighs it, and then sends
time, while passengers not belonging to any frequent flyer the bag via conveyor belt to the sorting facility.
These stages show that checking in checked baggage
program should request such a check-in when booking a
requires the passenger to wait in at least one queue, which
ticket. Passengers who are traveling with carry-on baggage
is the queue at the baggage drop-off desks. In addition,
have the option of using SC kiosks for their flight. Among
there is one employee dedicated to each of the desks,
SC, 2 types of desks can be distinguished:
even though the idea is to check-in baggage on your
■ dedicated: the owner of such a kiosk is a specific airline own. In addition, it sometimes happens that a passenger
and only persons using the services of that carrier may
accidentally prints out a baggage tag with no intention
check-in at that desk;
of checking the baggage in and the tag is abandoned or
■ common use self-services: these are SSKs that check in thrown in the trash, while still being entered into the sys-
passengers from different airlines, regardless of the De-
tem. At that point, the baggage and passenger correlation
parture Control System used.
procedure is aborted. This procedure allows for providing
Those checked in at such a machine, provided they are
indirect security related to, for example, baggage that will
traveling with carry-on baggage only, can go directly to
not fly without its owner.
security control. Using SSKs helps minimize queuing time,
Streamlining the desk described above would not only
e.g., during the departure wave when many passengers
save the time passengers spend waiting in line, but also the
want to drop-off their checked baggage. Figure 2 shows
number of staff that could sit at other desks. During the
an example diagram mapping the layout of the various
simulations performed in SIMIO (https://www.simio.com)
desks to which individuals from the passenger groups can software, the authors propose to introduce machines for
report: SC of checked baggage: SBD machine instead of ST desks.
■ FC: dedicated for passengers traveling with children un- It is used in many airports both in Europe and around the
der 12 years of age, as well as parents with children who world, such as Amsterdam, Munich, or Frankfurt, Dublin
will be traveling under the care of the carrier; and Tokyo. The change involving these desks would in-
■ SA: people with mobility problems requiring assistance clude eliminating the ST positions and replacing them with
(PRM), elderly, disabled, travellers with animals or guide 2 SBD machines. The proposed desk distribution is shown
dogs, and requiring emotional support; in Figure 3.
■ CR: flight crew members, airline employees, and those The new stations can be placed in place of the ST
authorized to use employee tickets may report here; desks making it easier for passengers to arrive directly
■ EC: any passenger traveling in EC without need of prior after checking in at the SC. Changing the equipment of
check-in; baggage check-in desks is economically beneficial for the
■ FBD: passengers who already have a boarding pass and airline (instead of a dedicated employee for each of the
wish to check in their checked baggage; in practice, desks, one person can be designated to help with their
however, any passenger with checked baggage can ap- operation), and such a solution is convenient for passen-
ply here); gers by minimizing the time spent in the airport terminal.
 70 I. Kalbarczyk et al. The decision support facilitating the check-in service at the Chopin airport ...

ber of requests that come into the system per unit of time
FBD FBD FBD FBD EC CR SA FC FC FC
to the average number of requests that can be handled
per unit of time (Gosavi 2021). When ƍ < 1, the system
remains stable, when ƍ = 1, the system is at the stability
limit, and with ƍ > 1, the system remains unstable. This was
Common use self-services

used to compare with the requirements placed on carriers

and airport managers by IATA (2016).

2.1. Parameters for execution

of check-in service scenarios
The characteristics of each desk type include service
times – minimum, average and maximum. Table 1 shows
the check-in service times for the different passenger
ST ST FBD FBD FBD FBD FBD FBD FBD FBD
check-in methods.
In addition to service times, it was necessary to deter-
Figure 2. Example of check-in service desk layout (source: mine the frequency of passengers reporting in. The study
own elaboration) was done with the assumption of a departure wave begin-
ning at 16:00. The first passengers showed up at the airport
up to 3 h before the planes were scheduled to depart (e.g.,
FBD FBD FBD FBD EC CR SA FC FC FC
long-haul flight participants), so a time slot of 13:00…18:00
was included. Passengers present at check-in around 13:00
may also be passengers on flights around 15:00. There-
fore, a sample flight schedule was generated based on
Common use self-services

the current schedule along with the flight occupancy. The

operation of 51 flights divided into Schengen – 25 flights,
and non-Schengen – 13 flights, and domestic flights was
accepted. Based on aircraft capacity (from 70-seat Bom-
bardier Q400s, to 70-seat Embraer’s (E70, E75, E90, E95),
170-seat Boeing 737-800s, to wide-body Boeing 787-8/9s
accommodating up to 295 passengers), the number of pas-
sengers to be served at check-in was estimated at 5375. A
50% share of transfer passengers using the listed flights
SBD SBD FBD FBD FBD FBD FBD FBD FBD FBD was assumed. As a result, there were 2687 people using
check-in assumed. 10% of status passengers, i.e., those
travelling in Business Class, Premium Class or holders of
Figure 3. The concept of changing the stand-alone baggage
Star Alliance Gold Loyalty Cards, have been assumed. Ad-
check-in desks
ditionally, based on observation, it was found that the peak
check-in time occurs between 13:00 and 14:00. Slightly
2. Evaluation of the concept based on fewer people are checked in between 14:00 and 15:00.
simulation studies conducted From 15:00 to 16:00, check-in is mainly used by people
traveling around 17:00, so the departure wave in the check-
The authors assumed 3 scenarios that were modelled in in area calms down during this time. When the data on de-
SIMIO and simulated (Kwasiborska, Postół 2021). Upgrad- parting passengers was collected, the vast majority already
ing the desks and testing their usability considered the had boarding passes (68%) i.e., that they use early check-in
following assumptions: for their flight. The sample surveyed indicated that 45%
■ setting up check-in desks and SSKs; of passengers have checked baggage, while 55% travel
■ replacing ST desks with SBD machines; with carry-on baggage only. The percentage distribution
■ addition of 2 SBD machines. of passengers using each check-in desk is an important
The scenarios and the layout of each desk were element. Among the most popular was FBD, both among
mapped including: FC, SA, CR, and EC. During the tests passengers traveling with checked and carry-on baggage.
and simulations performed, the stability of the system was In addition, SSKs are popular, not only among travellers
verified and the time passengers would spend waiting for without baggage but also among those for whom quick
check-in service or using SSKs and modified machines was and self-service check-in is a priority (using ST desks). De-
estimated. The research problem was to check the sta- pending on the type of passengers (those traveling with
bility of the aforementioned service desks, as well as the children as well as those requiring special care), the interest
distribution of traffic between them and the neighbour- in using dedicated desks decreases (Figure 4).
ing desks – FBD off. The parameter that characterizes the Assuming an aircraft fill rate of 80…90%, a schedule
stability of the system is the traffic intensity ƍ (Erlang’s was generated supplemented with the assumed number
constant). Traffic intensity is the ratio of the average num- of passengers.
 Transport, 2023, 38(2): 67–76 71

Table 1. Passenger service times at individual check-in desks ■ entrance – exit; passengers already checked-in (e.g., via
Internet) without checked baggage are also included;
Desk Minimum time [s] Average time [s] Maximum time [s]
■ entrance – SSK – FBD – exit; people without boarding
FBD 50 118 183 passes, checking in at the kiosk, then dropping off their
ST 7 16 128 luggage at the FBD desks;
SC 30 83 194 ■ entrance – FBD – exit; those already holding a boarding
SBD 30 60 105 pass with checked baggage to be dropped off at FBD
Staff 51 122 193 desks;
SA 60 142 224 ■ entrance – ST kiosk – exit; individuals printing their own
EC 57 129 201 baggage tag, proceeding to the fast checked BD desks;
FC 58 132 198 ■ it was assumed that passengers using EC, SA, Staff and
FC desks immediately after entering the terminal go
Staff
SA directly to dedicated desks: entrance – EC/SA/Staff/FC
1%
desk – exit.
3% EC
5%
To implement the model, the following parameters
Kiosk FC
25% 8% were used: minimum, average and maximum passenger
service times at each desk, approximate number of pas-
sengers, their percentage distribution along with the char-
acteristics (having checked baggage or boarding pass). For
the simulation of arriving passengers, their minimum, aver-
age, and maximum speed of moving through the terminal,
the average number of units arriving at one time were
determined. Simulations of the request processing from
13:00 to 18:00 were performed. Based on the reports gen-
erated in the software, a summary (Table 2) of the times
FBD
ST 42% of each desk type was created, along with the minimum,
average, and maximum time spent in the system and wait-
16%

ing in the queue, and the system stability factor ƍ.

The simulation indicated that during the departure
Figure 4. Percentage distribution of passengers wave, 3 desks (EC, SA and Staff) are at the limit of stabil-
using particular check-in desks ity, while the remaining desks are stable. The maximum
time spent in the system does not exceed 5 min. When
2.2. Implementation of the model cumulating the times of using the self-service kiosk and
in the SIMIO simulation software ST, the maximum time slightly exceeds 5 min. Considering
3 scenarios for which the research was conducted were the average waiting times in the queue, the highest time
adopted. The Scenario 1 reflected the current setup of ser- is characterized by the EC desk, which is chosen by a large
vice desks. The Scenario 2 was to replace the ST positions number of people, mainly due to the lack of awareness
with 2 SBD positions. The Scenario 3 was to set up 2 more that service at this desk will definitely increase the waiting
SBD machines. System stability tests were carried-out, the time in the service queue.
time spent by passengers waiting for service was calculat-
ed. The time was compared with the requirements of IATA. 2.2.2. Scenario 2
The data and assumed parameters allowed the execu- The Scenario 2 replicates a station layout improved by re-
tion of passenger handling scenarios in the SIMIO soft- placing the ST with SBD machines (Figure 6).
ware. For the analysed airport, 3 scenario models were The Scenario 2 differs with the times in operating the
built, equipped with: upgraded SBD desk. 2 of the passenger route were modi-
■ traditional check-in desks; fied:
■ ST desks instead of SBD; ■ a route was added: entrance – SBD – exit; SBD desk only
■ 2 additional SBD machines. requires a boarding pass;
■ route: entrance – kiosk – (ST) SBD – exit, was changed
2.2.1. Scenario 1 due to machine replacement.
The Scenario 1 replicates the traditional airport check- The departure wave simulation was carried out during
in desk layout (Figure 5). The model built shows check- the same hours as Scenario 1. An analogous table was
in desks, sample passenger movement routes, and the created showing the results from the reports generated in
“source” and “outlet” of passengers generated by the the software (Table 3).
program. Among the different types of passengers, there The summary shows that, as in Scenario 1, EC, SA, and
are several basic routes that passengers take: Staff desks are at the limit of stability, while the remain-
■ entrance – SSK – exit; passengers without boarding ing desks are within system stability limits. The maximum
passes traveling with carry-on baggage only; system dwell times again are approximately 5 min. It is
 72 I. Kalbarczyk et al. The decision support facilitating the check-in service at the Chopin airport ...

Figure 5. Traditional check-in desk layout in the SIMIO software

Table 2. Summary of time spent in the system and waiting in the queue

Minimal time in Mean time in Maximal time in Minimal waiting in Mean waiting time Maximal waiting time
Desk
system [min:s] system [min:s] system [min:s] the queue [min:s] in queue [min:s] in queue [min:s]
FBD 0:57 1:56 3:00 0:00 2:46 4:57
ST 0:37 1:06 1:46 0:00 0:11 1:34
SC 0:47 1:47 2:50 0:00 0:08 1:15
FC 1:15 2:11 3:07 0:00 2:06 8:34
EC 1:06 2:13 3:13 0:00 12:28 24:44
SA 1:01 2:19 3:40 0:00 4:41 10:31
Staff 0:54 2:03 2:55 0:00 0:38 3:16

Figure 6. Layout of desks upgraded with SBD machines

Table 3. Summary of time spent in the system and waiting in the queue for Scenario 2

Minimal time in Mean time in Maximal time in Minimal waiting in Mean waiting time Maximal waiting time
Desk
system [min:s] system [min:s] system [min:s] the queue [min:s] in queue [min:s] in queue [min:s]
FBD 0:56 1:58 2:58 0:00 5:24 9:23
SBD 0:33 1:08 1:47 0:00 1:04 6:37
SC 0:45 1:39 2:41 0:00 1:04 2:42
FC 1:05 2:08 3:02 0:00 1:17 8:07
EC 1:07 2:10 3:14 0:00 10:26 22:16
SA 1:08 2:24 3:42 0:00 5:35 13:43
Staff 1:10 2:05 3:06 0:00 0:18 2:42
 Transport, 2023, 38(2): 67–76 73

significant that for passengers with boarding passes who ing for service. Therefore, the stability of the system will
wish to drop their luggage off independently, the time is be most at risk during this time frame. The simulation per-
under 3 min. Average queue times for each desk average formed was to estimate the impact of moving some pas-
between 1 and 10 min for the EC desk. In addition, pas- sengers from FBD to SBD desks. The results obtained were
sengers using the SA need to be patient while waiting for compared to passenger service levels published by IATA.
service, as passenger service time at this desk is slightly IATA has set the following optimum service desk queue
longer than usual due to its specifics. times:

2.2.3. Scenario 3
■ self-service boarding pass/tagging desk or SBD: 0…
2 min;
In the Scenario 3, 2 SBD machines were added (Figure 7). ■ BD or FBD desks: 0…5 min;
The parameters used in the simulation of this model ■ check-in desk or EC: 10…20 min.
are also identical to the previous Scenario 2. Table 4 con- The analysis was performed for the assumed scenari-
tains data relevant to further analysis. os. Table 5 shows the simulation results of Scenario 2 at
Table 4 indicates that the average times in the system 13:00…14:00 considering eight of the twelve FBD desks.
are similar to those of Scenario 2, while among the av- Table 5 indicates that the queuing time for SBD is with-
erage queuing times, a significant difference can be ob- in the IATA guidelines for initial traffic only. When some
served for the SBD machines. The average queuing time traffic is moved, the queue times become far too long.
dropped to 11 s, where it was more than 1.5 min in the
The waiting time for FBD desks is also too long in most
previous case. Stabilities of all desks are quite similar, be-
scenarios considered – the waiting time is almost twice as
ing stable or borderline stable.
long as suggested.
An analogous simulation was performed for Scenario 3.
2.3. Modification of passenger distribution
During the same time frame, 8 FBD and 4 SBD desks were
at individual service desks at the rush hour
analysed (2 more were added). Queue times for each were
Passenger traffic during the rush hour (13:00…14:00) is then compared to IATA requirements. Table 6 shows the
characterized by the highest frequency (more than 800 results of the studies conducted for Scenario 3 for various
passengers), resulting in long queues of passengers wait- passenger traffic alternatives.

Figure 7. Layout of desks upgraded with 2 additional SBD machines

Table 4. Summary of time spent in the system and waiting in the queue for Scenario 3

Minimal time in Mean time in Maximal time in Minimal waiting in Mean waiting time Maximal waiting time
Desk
system [min:s] system [min:s] system [min:s] the queue [min:s] in queue [min:s] in queue [min:s]
FBD 0:57 1:56 3:00 0:00 2:46 4:57
SBD 0:37 1:06 1:46 0:00 0:11 1:34
SC 0:47 1:47 2:50 0:00 0:08 1:15
FC 1:15 2:11 3:07 0:00 2:06 8:34
EC 1:06 2:13 3:13 0:00 12:28 24:44
SA 1:01 2:19 3:40 0:00 4:41 10:31
Staff 0:54 2:03 2:55 0:00 0:38 3:16
 74 I. Kalbarczyk et al. The decision support facilitating the check-in service at the Chopin airport ...

Table 5. Passenger traffic simulation results for Scenario 2, Table 6. Passenger traffic simulation results for Scenario 3,
13:00…14:00 13:00…14:00

Mean rate of arrival | mean Mean waiting time Mean rate of arrival | mean Mean waiting time
Desk ƍ Desk ƍ
service rate [passengers] in the queue [min:s] service rate [passengers] in the queue [min:s]
Initial traffic Initial traffic
FBD 245 | 237 0.129 8:29 FBD 241 | 233 0.129 8:18
SBD 77 | 77 0.500 1:26 SBD 86 | 86 0.250 0:35
Moving 50% of traffic Moving all of traffic
FBD 131 | 131 0.125 4:24 FBD 0|0 0.000 0:00
SBD 187 | 115 0.866 11:32 SBD 346 | 213 0.406 11:45
Moving 25% of traffic Moving 50% of traffic
FBD 185 | 185 0.125 5:53 FBD 143 | 143 0.125 4:10
SBD 138 | 111 0.621 5:51 SBD 184 | 184 0.250 4:16
Moving 5% of traffic Moving 30% of traffic
FBD 232 | 229 0.127 6:58 FBD 175 | 175 0.125 4:39
SBD 92 | 92 0.500 2:47 SBD 159 | 159 0.250 1:47

28:48:00 enter – EC – exit

enter – SKK – STBD – exit
24:00:00 enter – SBD – exit
ente – SBD(ґ2) – exit
19:12:00
ente – FBD – exit
h:min:s

14:24:00

9:36:00

4:48:00

0:00:00
Minimal time Mean time Maximal time Mean waiting Maximal time
in system in system in system time in queue in queue

Figure 8. The diagram of the comparison time

The analysis of the initially adopted traffic showed that Replacing the ST desks would not only result in a re-
for the 2 SBD desks, the queuing time for these desks is duction in passenger dwell time in the system, but also
within the guidelines proposed by IATA. The queuing time there would be no need to wait in 2 queues (to the SSK
for FBD desks is long again. Due to the doubling of the to print a bag tag and to the ST desk where an employee
number of SBD devices, the simulation of the passenger would drop-off the passenger’s baggage). Waiting in 2
schedule change began by moving all traffic from the FBD queues would not be a necessity, in case the passenger
desks to the SBD desks mentioned above. This traffic was already had a boarding pass. Otherwise, they would have
then reduced in search of a common consensus on queue to go to a SSK to print their boarding pass.
wait times by obtaining queue wait times that fall within SBD stations could be an interesting alternative for
the ranges defined by IATA. those using FBD – the average service time at SBD is al-
most double that of FBD. Moreover, the waiting time in
queues is also shorter. Considering the most passenger-
2.4. Analysis of results obtained loaded hour of the departure wave: 13:00…14:00, even
The simulations conducted have shown several aspects with the heaviest load on the SBD machines, as well as
related to the characteristics of the introduction of SBD the FBD desks, the systems remain stable. Therefore, the
desks as well as the current FBD desks. Taking into account attempt to change the distribution of passengers at these
the dwell time in the system (this is the time from the desks had the objective of checking the waiting time in the
passenger arriving to leaving, i.e., completing the check-in queue. At the same time, a distribution of passengers was
process) for the entire departure wave, the introduction of proposed in view of IATA’s requirements for an optimal
SBD desks in place of ST desks allows to save this time, de- level of service at check-in desks – in this case, queuing
spite the fact that the time of waiting in queues is similar. time was taken into account. If the ST desks were replaced
The time comparison is shown in the diagram (Figure 8). with exactly 2 SBD units, the queue time at the FBD desks
 Transport, 2023, 38(2): 67–76 75

would be higher than IATA assumed. Simulations showed Author contributions

that moving about 5% of the traffic from the FBD desks to
the SBD desk would provide slightly shorter queue times The authors confirm contribution to the article as follows:
(less than 7 min), and for the SBD, the time would be less ■ study conception and design: Anna Kwasiborska and
than 3 min – both of which would be slightly longer than Sylwester Gładyś;
IATA is proposing. The addition of 2 more SBD devices ■ preparation of model in SIMIO analysis: Izabela Kalbarc-
would not initially result in significant changes – queue zyk;
times at the FBD desk would look the same as with 2 SBD ■ interpretation of results: Izabela Kalbarczyk and Sylwest-
devices. Wait times at SBD desks would be reduced by er Gładyś;
2 times. Moving 30% of passenger traffic from the FBD ■ draft manuscript preparation: Anna Kwasiborska.
desks would establish queue times, both at this desk and All authors reviewed the results and approved the final
at the SBD, within the standards given by IATA. version of the manuscript.

Conclusions References
Providing passengers with safe and fast service is a priority ACI. 2001. Quality of Service at Airports: Standards and Measure-
for both carriers and airport managers. Modifying the ser- ments. Airports Council International (ACI), Montreal, Canada.
Available from Internet: https://aci.aero
vice desks to improve ticket and baggage handling will not
Araujo, G. E.; Repolho, H. M. 2015. Optimizing the airport check-in
only make it easier for travellers to use the new facilities,
counter allocation problem, Journal of Transport Literature 9(4):
but will streamline the entire process. Moreover, travellers
15–19. https://doi.org/10.1590/2238-1031.jtl.v9n4a3
will spend less time in queues, which will contribute to Bevilacqua, M.; Ciarapica, F. E. 2010. Analysis of check-in proce-
less time spent in the check-in area. The replacement of dure using simulation: a case study, in 2010 IEEE International
ST desks with SBD devices may contribute to improved Conference on Industrial Engineering and Engineering Manage-
passenger comfort. ment, 7–10 December 2010, Macao, China, 1621–1625.
The simulations conducted showed 2 faces of the cur- https://doi.org/10.1109/IEEM.2010.5674286
rent layout of the baggage handling points as well as the Bruno, G.; Genovese, A. 2010. A mathematical model for the op-
proposed modifications: the direct replacement of the ST timization of the airport check-in service problem, Electronic
machines and the addition of 2 more machines of this type Notes in Discrete Mathematics 36: 703–710.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.endm.2010.05.089
in the next scenario. The analysis created a specification of
Gosavi, A. 2021. Tutorial for Use of Basic Queueing Formulas. De-
dwell and queue times and estimated the stability of the
partment of Engineering Management and Systems Engineer-
system. An important consideration is that the modified
ing, Missouri University of Science and Technology, Rolla, MO,
desks allow to save time if you go directly to the drop US. 9 p. Available from Internet: https://web.mst.edu/~gosavia/
station. The study indicated that the new type of machines queuing_formulas.pdf
proposed for use could capture 40% of the passengers us- Hrúz, M.; Bugaj, M.; Novák, A.; Kandera, B.; Badánik, B. 2021. The
ing the adjacent FBD desks. If 2 more machines are added use of UAV with infrared camera and RFID for airframe condi-
for use, they could completely cover the demand for FBD. tion monitoring, Applied Sciences 11(9): 3737.
Increased traffic would involve longer waits in queues for https://doi.org/10.3390/app11093737
machines. The conducted research will contribute to the IATA. 2016. Airport Development Reference Manual (ADRM). 10th
improvement of passengers’ comfort in the terminal area. Edition. International Air Transport Association (IATA).
Kierzkowski, A.; Kisiel, T. 2018. Analysis of the check-in process
The performed analyses may also be used to improve air-
functioning on the typology of air carriers, in Conference Pro-
craft maintenance processes at parking spaces. A similar
ceedings – CLC 2015: Carpathian Logistics Congress, 4–6 No-
area was analysed in an article on the implementation of
vember 2015, Jesenik, Czech Republic, 325–331. Available from
the Internet of Things (Mrňa et al. 2021), indicating that Internet: https://www.confer.cz/clc/2015/2823-analysis-of-
the implementation of the concept can speed up the pas- check-in-process-functioning-on-the-typology-of-air-carriers
senger service process. Air carriers strive to automate the Kierzkowski, A.; Kisiel, T.; Pawlak, M. 2019. A method for passenger
process of ticket and baggage handling and minimize the level of service estimation at the airport landside, Advances in
contact between the employee and the traveller. It also Intelligent Systems and Computing 761: 281–291.
affects the economic part of airport operations, especially https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-91446-6_27
regional airports (Remencová, Novák Sedláčková 2021). In Kwasiborska, A. 2016. Proces obsługi pasażerów w porcie lotni-
addition, the COVID-19 pandemic worsened the economic czym, Studia Oeconomica Posnaniensia 4(7): 91–111. (in Polish).
Kwasiborska, A.; Postół, J. 2021. Modeling of ground handling
situation of airports; hence it is important to research the
processes in SIMIO software, in A. Kwasiborska, J. Skorupski,
process of passenger service in order to rebuild the profit-
I. Yatskiv (Eds.). Advances in Air Traffic Engineering: ATE 2020,
ability of airports. Currently, air traffic is gradually increas-
20–21 October 2020, Warsaw, Poland, 57–75.
ing, the more the research on the passenger service pro- https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-70924-2_6
cess may be important in implementing the automation of Mrňa, D.; Badánik, B.; Novák, A. 2021. Internet of things as an op-
the ticket and baggage handling process and organizing timization tool for smart airport concept, European Transport –
innovative passenger and baggage handling devices. Trasporti Europei 82: 6. https://doi.org/10.48295/ET.2021.82.6
 76 I. Kalbarczyk et al. The decision support facilitating the check-in service at the Chopin airport ...

Remencová, T.; Novák Sedláčková, A. 2021. Position of central Eu-

ropean regional airports, Transport Problems 16(3): 163–172.
Available from Internet: http://transportproblems.polsl.pl/pl/
Archiwum/2021/zeszyt3/2021t16z3_14.pdf
Skorupski, J.; Uchroński, P. 2019. An analysis of the cabin baggage
security screening process incorporating automation elements,
Archives of Transport System Telematics 12(1): 42–48.
Skorupski, J.; Uchroński, P. 2018. Evaluation of the effectiveness of
an airport passenger and baggage security screening system,
Journal of Air Transport Management 66: 53–64.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jairtraman.2017.10.006
WCA. 2021. Transfer Passenger. Warsaw Chopin Airport (WCA),
Poland. Available from Internet: https://www.lotnisko-chopina.
pl/en/transfer-passenger.html
 © 2023. This work is published under
https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ (the “License”).
Notwithstanding the ProQuest Terms and Conditions, you may use this
content in accordance with the terms of the License.