Adapting the reverse pyramid airplane boarding method for social distancing in times of COVID-19

Abstract

Social distancing resulting from the new coronavirus (SARS-CoV2) has disrupted the airplane boarding process. Social distancing norms reduce airplane capacity by keeping the middle seats unoccupied, while an imposed aisle social distance between boarding passengers slows the boarding. Recent literature suggests the Reverse Pyramid boarding method is a promising way to reduce health risk and keep boarding times low when 10 apron buses (essentially 10 boarding groups) are used to transport passengers from the airport terminal to a two-door airplane. We adapt the Reverse Pyramid method for social distancing when an airplane is boarded using a jet bridge that connects the terminal the airplane’s front door. We vary the number of boarding groups from two to six and use stochastic simulation and agent-based modelling to show the resulting impact on four performance evaluation metrics. Increasing the number of boarding groups from two to six reduces boarding time only up to four groups but continues to reduce infection risk up to six groups. If the passengers carry fewer luggage aboard the airplane, health risks (as well as boarding times) decrease. One adaptation of the Reverse Pyramid (RP) method (RP-Spread) provides slightly faster boarding times than the other (RP-Steep), when luggage volumes are high, while RP-Steep results in less risk to window seat passengers from later-boarding passengers walking by their row. Increasing the minimum aisle social distance from 1 m to 2 m increases boarding times but results in lower health risks to passengers walking down the aisle and to the previously seated passengers they pass.

An Investigation of Social Distancing and Quantity of Luggage Impacts on the Three Groups Reverse Pyramid Boarding Method

“…For example, with luggage scenario S1, a solution of (25,24) will result in the decreasing values of aisle seat risk of 2338.0, 2295.3, and 2254.8 s for aisle social distancing of 1, 1.5, and 2 m respectively, and a solution of (26,26) would have decreasing aisle seat risks of 2628.4, 2583.2, and 2554.1 for aisle social distancing of 1, 1.5, and 2 m, respectively. This pattern is consistent with Reference [16], that found aisle seat risk durations decrease when aisle seat risk durations increase. However, as noted above, that relationship holds only when the optimal solution is held constant.…”

“…The optimal solution for C4 is (15,15) in most of the scenarios. The optimal solution is (16,16) for the S1 luggage scenario with 1 and 1.5 m aisle social distance and the S2 luggage scenario with 1 m aisle social distance. For the three scenarios leading to (16,16) for C4, the second-best solution is (15,15), which has similar performance.…”

“…The two health risk performance indicators (aisle seat risk and window seat risk) are calculated as follows and are both measured in terms of the potential exposure duration (in seconds) from later boarding passengers for the passengers already seated in the airplane in the aisle seats and window seats, respectfully [15,16,43,57]:…”

“…When a limited number of boarding groups are permitted, recent studies during the pandemic suggest that the Reverse Pyramid boarding method provides the smallest health risk, accompanied by a small value for the boarding time when passengers board through one jet-bridge or through the use of apron buses [15,16].…”

COVID-19 pandemic and air transportation: Successfully navigating the paper hurricane

“…Authors suggest to fall back to earlier boarding strategies or use better random processes. Milne et al (2020) Adapted reverse pyramid methods have best health metrics.The risk of infection spread to previously-seated passengers decreases when the aisle social distance increases from 1 m to 2 m. Milne et al (2020b) Fewer luggage, reduced health risks. Increase aisle social distance.…”