The novel coronavirus (SARS-CoV-2) has imposed the need for a series of social distancing restrictions worldwide to mitigate the scourge of the COVID-19 pandemic. This applies to many domains, including airplane boarding and seat assignments. As airlines are considering their passengers’ safety during the pandemic, boarding methods should be evaluated both in terms of social distancing norms and the resulting efficiency for the airlines. The present paper analyzes the impact of a series of restrictions that have been imposed or mooted worldwide on the boarding methods used by the airlines, featuring the use of jet-bridges and one-door boarding. To compare the efficacy of classical airplane boarding methods with respect to new social distancing norms, five metrics were used to evaluate their performance. One metric is the time to complete the boarding of the airplane. The other four metrics concern passenger health and reflect the potential exposure to the virus from other passengers through the air and surfaces (e.g., headrests and luggage) touched by passengers. We use the simulation platform in NetLogo to test six common boarding methods under various conditions. The back-to-front by row boarding method results in the longest time to complete boarding but has the advantage of providing the lowest health risk for two metrics. Those two metrics are based on passengers potentially infecting those passengers previously seated in the rows they traverse. Interestingly, those two risks are reduced for most boarding methods when the social distance between adjacent passengers advancing down the aisle is increased, thus indicating an unanticipated benefit stemming from this form of social distancing. The modified reverse pyramid by half zone method provides the shortest time to the completing boarding of the airplane and—along with the WilMA boarding method—provides the lowest health risk stemming from potential infection resulting from seat interferences. Airlines have the difficult task of making tradeoffs between economic productivity and the resulting impact on various health risks.

Research related to creating new and improved airplane boarding methods has seen continuous advancement, in recent years, while most of the airline companies have remained committed to the traditional boarding methods. Among the most-used boarding methods, around the world, are back-to-front and random boarding with and without assigned seats. While the other boarding methods used in practice possess strict rules for passengers’ behavior, random without assigned seats is dependent on the passengers own way of choosing the “best” seats. The aim of this paper is to meticulously model the passengers’ behavior, especially, in random boarding without assigned seats and to test its efficiency in terms of boarding time and interferences, in comparison with the other commonly-adopted methods (random boarding with assigned seats, window-middle-aisle (WilMA), back-to-front, reverse pyramid, etc.). One of the main challenges in our endeavor was the identification of the real human passengers’ way of reasoning, when selecting their seats, and creating a model in which the agents possess preferences and make decisions, as close to those decisions made by the human passengers, as possible. We model their choices based on completed questionnaires from three hundred and eighty-seven human subjects. This paper describes the resulting agent-based model and results from the simulations.

We present a method that reduces the time it takes to complete the passenger boarding of an airplane. In particular, we describe a two-stage mixed integer programming (MIP) approach, which assigns passengers to seats on an airplane based on the number of bags they carry aboard the plane. The first stage is an MIP that assigns passengers to seats to minimize the time to complete the boarding of the plane. The second-stage MIP also determines seating assignments, while constraining the total boarding time to that determined by the stage-one MIP and maximizing weighted slack times to provide a more robust assignment. Numerical results show that this two-stage approach results in lower average boarding times than the one-stage approach, when the time it takes passengers to walk and sit in their seats is random. Experiments indicate that the magnitude of the improvement is not very sensitive to variations in the slack time weights.

This paper investigates the time to complete the boarding of a partially occupied two-door airplane when its passengers are transported from the airport terminal to the airplane using two apron buses. We propose a greedy method that assigns each passenger to a particular apron bus based on the passengers’ airplane seat assignments. This greedy approach exploits the airplane’s symmetry by providing essentially the same method for those boarding through the front door of the airplane as those boarding through the rear door of the airplane. The symmetrical properties of window, middle, and aisle seats of each row/side are considered in the proposed method as well. Computer simulation results indicate that, when using the greedy method, the boarding time can be reduced by up to 8.33% compared to the boarding time resulting from the best known practices in the literature, and with up to a 43.72% improvement in boarding time when compared to the boarding method commonly used in many airports. Furthermore, experimental results confirm our hypothesis that when the capacity of the apron buses exceeds the number of passengers to be transported to the airplane, the most time-efficient results of the proposed greedy method occur when an equal number of passengers are assigned to each of the two apron buses.