Master thesis report Maarten Houtzager
The influence of border control and security on the transfer process at Schiphol vii
Summary
Schiphol is a very important transfer hub for KLM and therefore short connection times are important to be competitive with other hubs. KLM sells flights with a minimal connection time of 40 minutes between European flights and 50 to, from, and between intercontinental flights. However passport control and security checks for transfer passengers can take much time resulting in missed (or delayed) flights.
The passenger terminal at Schiphol is divided into a part for flights to and from Schengen countries which do not have border control between them (including most European countries) and a part for Non-Schengen countries. Transfer passengers crossing the Schengen border must pass passport control. Transfer passengers into the Schengen area also pass a security check (the transfer passengers to Non-Schengen countries have this check decentralised at the gate). Often congestion occurs at the border control and security check causing passengers to miss or delay flights. Therefore KLM would like to gain more insight into the performance and influence of border filters at the Non-Schengen/Schengen filter in the terminal on the transfer passenger process for flights of KLM.
The main question is therefore formulated as follows:
Which, when and why do problems occur in the transfer passenger process at Schiphol and how can this situation be improved for KLM?
Actors
The various actors involved (notably KLM, the airport operator providing the infrastructure, the Royal Marechaussee performing the passport control and the companies performing the security check) have conflicting interests: for example a fast transfer process versus strict border control. The causal relation between a bad performance of the filters and missed/delayed flights is difficult to determine. That is why the different actors point fingers for the cause of the problems. Also for solutions they look at others. Many of the solutions can not be performed by KLM alone. By using the data of the report the discussion can be raised based on numbers, rather than feelings.
KLM is dependent on a fast filter process for its transfer passengers. Amsterdam Airport Schiphol (AAS) can provide the infrastructure for the filters and steer the security companies, but it can not control the number of Royal Marechaussee personnel. This makes the Royal Marechaussee a very important actor.
Master thesis report Maarten Houtzager
The influence of border control and security on the transfer process at Schiphol viii
Problems
By researching data on transfer passengers from history more insight has been created in the nature of the problems of missed and delayed flights.
Size of the problem
More than 25% of all flights depart late. Out of these delayed flights, 14% have filter-related causes causing 7% of all delay time. If delays caused by earlier delays (which are called reactionary delays) are left out, over a quarter of the primary delays are filter related with 14% of the primary delay time.
The percentage of missed connections for passengers who do not cross a transfer filter is 2.0%. For Schengen to NonSchengen (S-NS) this is slightly under 2% and for NS-S this percentage is 2.8%. For hot connections (max. 70 minutes scheduled connection time) these numbers more than triple. Some connections have no connection (NOC) rates up to 60%!
Where
The main bottleneck is the NS-S filter as the NS-S flow causes many NOCs: the chance of a missed flight on a NS-S connection is 42% higher than on a connection that does not involve a filter crossing. The influence of the NS-S filter in this high NOC rate is clear: even with the same current connection time, NS-S transfers tend to fail more often than other transfers. The average throughput time at the NS-S filter is too long: up to an average of 10 minutes in July and August. Within the NS-S filter the passport control by the Royal Marechaussee (KMar) is the biggest problem, but security does not comply with the norms either. The S-NS filter is not a bottleneck. When
The worst filter performance occurs during the morning peak. Many passengers arrive before 6 in the morning on an intercontinental flight and continue on a European flight departing around 7. This gives many critical passengers at the NS-S filter between these times. But also later in the morning and in the afternoon are some peaks.
Around 20 hours (bank 6) is the highest NOC peak. This consists of many UK to Schengen connections. This is probably caused by accumulating delays throughout the day leading to bad arrival punctuality in the evening.
Master thesis report Maarten Houtzager
The influence of border control and security on the transfer process at Schiphol ix
Why
The research has shown there are two main reasons for missing a flight: a late incoming flight and a slow filter process. The late incoming flights are the most important one as it is the cause of more than half of all NOC. But also the filter performance of the NonSchengen-Schengen filter is below the norms. During the peaks caused by the waves of arriving and departing flights the waiting lines are long. If the NS-S filter would not be a bottleneck anymore the number of missed connections from NonSchengen to Schengen can be reduced with more than 20%.
Solutions
Based on these results, improvements have been proposed. The most promising improvements have been evaluated with the help of simulation. This has shown that the best way to reduce the number of missed connections is to improve arrival punctuality: if all flights arrive on time, almost all missed connections have been solved. Even with a 50% better arrival punctuality nearly half of all NOC is solved.
Providing enough filter capacity also helps: it can reduce the number of missed connections with 20%. The best way for adding filter capacity is with a flexible capacity (number of employees working) based on the current queue length. This way the high costs for overcapacity can be trimmed down while the performance is good.
Also better informing critical passengers before arrival, better visibility of the short connection lane, more flexible personnel planning of the KMar and a proactive floorwalker for the short connection lane can help.
Master thesis report Maarten Houtzager
The influence of border control and security on the transfer process at Schiphol x
Recommendations
The research has resulted in several recommendations. A division has been made between solutions to be implemented by KLM and by others. All solutions are realistic options. The solutions by KLM can be implemented whatsoever, but for the other solutions KLM can only try to convince the other actors.
Solutions by KLM:
• KLM should give better information to critical passengers in the arriving airplane. This way the passenger knows he has a short transfer time and will do his best to hurry up and he knows to use the short connection lane.
• As better arrival punctuality greatly decreases the NOC rate, KLM should investigate if the costs for improving the arrival punctuality offset the NOC costs. This way the optimal arrival punctuality can be determined. It should also keep in mind that higher arrival punctuality (and thus more peaked flows) will lead to a higher load on the baggage handling system that could lead to higher costs there.
• Sharing data to improve the models of AAS and thus to improve filter allocation. Solutions by others:
• Providing enough filter capacity helps: it can reduce the number of NOCs with 20%. The best way for adding filter capacity is with a flexible capacity based on the current queue length. This way the high costs for overcapacity can be trimmed down while the performance is good.
• Better visibility of the short connection lane. • More flexible personnel planning of the KMar.
• A proactive floorwalker looking for passengers in the queue who can use the short connection lane.
Besides implementing the solutions above or convincing other to do so, the research has also resulted in two general remarks:
• KLM must emphasize the importance of a flexible occupation at the KMar. Quick scaling up and down will improve the filter performance a lot.
• Further all parties should be more focused on the complying with the waiting norms. The KMar (and security) should be made responsible for non-performance.
