The continuing growth in aviation has meant that the 35 largest airports in Europe reached saturation in 2005. The consequences have been increasing air traffic congestion, delays and associated costs. There is therefore a clear need to create more capacity. However, airports in particular and the air transport system in general are also subject to sudden fluctuations in demand and capacity. This research synthesizes the mechanisms of airport capacity fluctuations through the analytical formulation of concepts of capacity dynamics, capacity elasticities and capacity stability. It demonstrates the usability of these concepts through, firstly, a case study application to Brussels National Airport and, secondly, the development of a 'proof of concept' decision-support tool for strategic and tactical airport planning. Capacity dynamics and elasticities provide a performance indication as to how quickly capacity is able to change in response to fluctuations brought about by one or more capacity disrupters, whilst capacity stability provides airport planners with a measure of capacity robustness. These three concepts - capacity dynamics, elasticities and stability - contribute to a better a priori understanding of the airport system to be modelled. They demonstrate a better quantification of the impact and sensitivity of all the factors that affect runway capacity. It is also shown how the three concepts can assist in a better quantification of the risk of potential capacity fluctuation within the scope of airport planning. Based on this analytical formulation and quantification, mitigation should be an integral part of any effective airport plan in order to predict better the response to any given potential capacity degradation. It has been found that, from a capacity perspective, an airport becomes less stable the higher its level of performance. This capacity/stability paradox enables the ultimate goal of investment in capacity enhancement to be challenged, and it is legitimately questioned whether a similar investment would not be more worthwhile at secondary airports rather than at major airports.

The purpose with this thesis is to investigate how the logistic and the configuration of the terminal buildings and the perceptions of the passengers at Stockholm Arlanda Airport are related to each other, and what effect it has on the passengers and their traveling within the airport. The focus will be on the logistic at all four terminal buildings that is within the Airport. To create a perception of the logistic at the Airport and how it is related to the passengers perceptions, the investigators need to make knowledge of the terminal buildings, and thereby try to link the logistic with the perception of the experience room. Swedavia is the company that own, operate at and manage Stockholm Arlanda Airport. The investigators will make an interview with employees at Swedavia to get a more profound understanding of how the company is thinking about the logistic issues that they need to overlook. There will also be interviews with travelers to get their perception of the logistic, design and atmosphere at the Airport. Observations will also be made at various times at the Airport with focus on all of the terminal buildings.  The investigators use qualitative and quantitative methods to reach a result. To achieve a result, the investigators will use theories and scientific facts and other available facts that will be helpful to reach a result that will be analyzed. / Denna uppsats handlar om Stockholm Arlanda Airport och syftet med uppsatsen är att undersöka hur logistiken och utformningen i upplevelserummet hänger ihop, samt vilken påverkan detta har på resenärerna och resandet inom flygplatsen. Fokus kommer att läggas på logistiken i de fyra terminalbyggnaderna som finns inom flygplatsen. I undersökningen ses terminalbyggnaderna över för att skapa en uppfattning om logistiken och på så vis försöka koppla ihop logistiken med upplevelserummet. Swedavia är det företag som är verksam och driver Stockholm Arlanda Airport. Det är med de anställda inom Swedavia som intervjuer kommer att ske för att få en djupare förståelse hur företaget tänker i de logistikfrågor som eventuellt behöver ses över. Intervjuer kommer även att ske med resenärer för att få deras uppfattning om logistik, design och atmosfär inom flygplatsen. Förutom intervjuer kommer även observationer att genomföras på flygplatsen vid olika tillfällen och tider på dagen. De metoder som har använts i undersökningen för att komma fram till de resultat som behövs är kvalitativa och kvantitativa metoder. Detta uppnås genom att göra undersökningar i form av intervjuer, observationer, tillgänglig fakta, samt med hjälp av olika lämpliga teorier för att på bästa möjliga sätt komma fram till ett resultat som har analyserats fram.

The Vancouver Airport Planning Committee met from 19 73 to 1976 to examine the implications of an expansion of Vancouver International Airport proposed by the Ministry of Transport. The committee was an experiment for it included participation by eleven agencies, including eight from all levels of gov-^ ernment and three non-governmental organizations (two from industry, one from the general public). The committee concluded its activities with the release of a report presenting three decision options for further public discussion. The report is remarkable in the degree of disagreement among agencies that it displays. This study first presents four political models of public participation in the planning process. One of the models, agency-public joint planning, very closely matches the Airport Planning Committee. Then a number of normative criteria for public participation are developed, against which the experience of the committee can be evaluated. The case of the Vancouver Airport Planning Committee is presented, based on readings of reports, minutes of meetings, correspondence, memoranda, related documents, and interviews with participants. Application of the criteria to this committee process reveals a number of shortcomings, most serious of which was the failure to develop and assess alternatives which "expressed the full range of values represented on the committee. Further interpretation of the reasons for difficulties encountered in the process, reveals that the central factor was the narrow and rigid policy position adopted, by the Ministry of Transport when other agencies perceived the issue to be much broader. The narrow policy position was the result of an interpretation of the role of the committee as only to advise on measures to mitigate the specific runway proposed by MOT. Some other agencies believed that the committee's role was much broader, to study and advise on a number of alternative policies for managing the growing demand for air transportation services. Fundamental differences of values separated the agencies involved, so that the disagreement on the nature of the process was never overcome. Instead conflict characterized the committee process, conflict which is reported and recorded in the Final Report. Despite these problems the Airport Planning Committee was basically successful in expressing the range of views, and in generating relevant information on the runway proposal. Public participation was successful in stating a value position (characterized as the 'conserver' viewpoint) which governmental agencies did not express. However the committee process demonstrated an inherent flaw in the agency-public joint planning model. When a diverse set of values is represented within a small problem-solving group dealing with a single issue the necessary conditions for evaluation, bargaining, and decision do not exist. Conflict resolution must take place at the political level; it must not be expected of such a group. The appropriate and important role of such a group is to develop the relevant range of alternatives and to assess their impact on the values represented. This information must then be passed to the political level for bargaining and decision-making. / Applied Science, Faculty of / Community and Regional Planning (SCARP), School of / Graduate

<p>  </p> <p>Although airports of all sizes have incorporated sustainability practices into planning, there is a gap in literature concerning the impacts of sustainability initiatives on airport operations and stakeholders. This multiple case study sought to explore the impact assessment methods used by six small hub airports (cases) that received the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) airport sustainability Airport Improvement Program (AIP) grants to prepare airport sustainability planning documents.</p> <p>The objective of the study was twofold. The first objective was to gain in-depth understanding of sustainability metrics and Key Performance Indicators (KPIs), and sustainability impact assessment methods and tools used by small hub airports. The second objective was to develop a preliminary framework for assessing the impacts of sustainability initiatives in airports. Three types of data were collected airport sustainability planning documents, archival records, and interviews with 14 airport executives and two airport planning consultants. Sustainability planning processes, sustainability assessment methods and tools, and sustainability metrics and KPIs were identified from data for each case and compared to one of the most comprehensive industry-specific airport sustainability rating systems, the Airport Cooperative Research Program (ACRP) <em>Report 119: Protype Airport Sustainability Rating System: Characteristics, Viability, and Implementation Options</em>. Interview responses from airport executives and consultants were used to corroborate information in the sustainability planning documents.</p> <p>The findings of this study showed more commonalities than differences in the approaches to sustainability impact assessment by the six small hub airports in this study. Commonalities were evident in the criteria for selecting sustainability initiatives, indicating that cost and return on investment were the major factors. In addition, small hub airports in this study reported similar challenges on tracking sustainability metrics and KPIs, indicating that more work is needed in this area. The differences noted were driven by airport operating conditions such as geographical location and local community goals. </p>