Available online at www.sciencedirect.

com

ScienceDirect
Available online at www.sciencedirect.com
Transportation Research Procedia 00 (2019) 000–000
www.elsevier.com/locate/procedia
ScienceDirect
Transportation Research Procedia 51 (2020) 82–97

9th International Conference on Air Transport – INAIR 2020, CHALLENGES OF AVIATION

DEVELOPMENT

Airline on-time performance management

Jakub Hajkoa, Benedikt Badánikb*
a
Heathrow
Heathrow Airport Limited,The Compass Centre, Nelson Road, Hounslow Middlesex, TW6 2GW, England
b
Air Transport Department, University of Žilina, Univerzitná 1, 010 26 Žilina, Slovakia

Abstract

This paper deals with the problematic of airline on-time performance, more specifically with the airline schedule buffer that airlines
incorporate into their schedules. Various studies examine the impact of the schedule buffer on various operational factors - costs,
daily aircraft utilization, etc. This paper offers insights into the reasons why airlines use the schedule buffer. On top of that it
explains factors influencing the schedule buffer and it proposes methodology for calculation of the appropriate airline schedule
buffer and subsequent analysis. The analysis uses artificial data so that the purpose of the calculation can be demonstrated. The
benefits of reducing (or controlling) the airline schedule buffer are also explained. In the end, the paper proposes additional
possibilities of how to use the calculation.
© 2020 The Authors. Published by ELSEVIER B.V.
© 2020
This The
is an Authors.
open accessPublished by Elsevier
article under B.V.
the CC BY-NC-ND license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/)
This is an open
Peer-review access
under article under
responsibility of the
the CC BY-NC-ND
scientific license
committee (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/)
of the 9th International Conference on Air Transport – INAIR 2020,
Peer-review under responsibility
CHALLENGES OF AVIATION DEVELOPMENTof the scientific committee of the 9th International Conference on Air Transport – INAIR 2020, CHALLENGES
OF AVIATION DEVELOPMENT
Keywords: delay; schedule buffer; airline schedule; calculation benefits

1. Introduction

On-Time Performance (OTP) is a widely accepted method of understanding punctuality for different modes of
public transport, including aviation. It provides a standardised means of comparing how well one service provider
operates according to its published schedule compared to another (OAG, 2020). Airlines have their way to manage
on-time performance of their flights. Even when slightly delayed against scheduled arrival time, they often manage to

* Corresponding author. Tel.: +0-000-000-0000 ; fax: +0-000-000-0000 .

E-mail address: [email protected]

2352-1465 © 2020 The Authors. Published by Elsevier B.V.

This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/)
Peer-review under responsibility of the scientific committee of the 9th International Conference on Air Transport – INAIR 2020, CHALLENGES
OF AVIATION DEVELOPMENT
2352-1465 © 2020 The Authors. Published by ELSEVIER B.V.
This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/)
Peer-review under responsibility of the scientific committee of the 9th International Conference on Air Transport – INAIR 2020,
CHALLENGES OF AVIATION DEVELOPMENT
10.1016/j.trpro.2020.11.011
 Jakub Hajko et al. / Transportation Research Procedia 51 (2020) 82–97 83
2 Author name / Transportation Research Procedia 00 (2019) 000–000

get their aircraft to the gate on time. Partially, this is possible thanks to the airline schedule buffer – some additional
time added to the schedule in case something goes wrong.
This paper presents a method for calculation of airline schedule buffer. The method has been designed by the
authors and has not been approved by any authority or organization yet. Authors hope that it will serve as the basis for
further work in this field. The analysis presented in this paper uses artificial data instead of actual flight data, however
it brings an explanation of the importance of airline schedule buffer. The set of data represents a traditional airline
operating scheduled services and using hub & spoke system of operations. To cope with frequently occurring
predictable delays that are outside of airline’s control (minor hold-ups on airport ground, congested airspace, etc.) and
in order to arrive on time, airlines incorporate schedule buffer into their schedules. This way they can absorb some
delay without negative effect on their network operations from regional (Tomová and Materna, 2018) to long-haul
level.
Having good and consistent schedule is basic requirement for airlines, therefore careful planning has to be done.
Development of schedule takes place well in advance of actual flight and many trade-offs have to be made (departure
time, frequency, capacity, etc.). At this point in the scheduling process it remains quite unclear what the actual situation
will be like at the time of operation of particular flight and one can only make predictions and assumptions. Various
tools are used for this task, mostly mathematical models and historical data evaluation and analysis. The most accurate
scenario can be created in this way and airline’s planning department can act accordingly, but still a level of uncertainty
is present. After all, many factors have direct or indirect influence on air transport and most of these are uneasy or
impossible to be predicted well in advance. Because of this uncertainty, new methods and alternative plans have to be
developed to cope with disruptions and to keep operational performance as punctual as possible. One of the easiest
methods is adding surplus time to calculated block time of a flight. The airline schedule buffer is created in this way
and it is able to absorb potential delay in order to help the airline retain its performance. It is similar to extra time
people usually plan for their trips when they need to get to the airport, time for ‘unforeseen circumstances’. Similarly,
aircraft also face obstacles on their journey but these obstacles are of different nature, e.g. long runway queue on
departure, rapidly changing weather en-route, passengers arriving late for their flight, etc. Nevertheless, airlines still
manage to cope with them in some way and deliver passengers to their destinations.

2. Reasons for introducing schedule buffer by airlines

Air transport is one of the most time-effective means of moving people and goods from one place to another,
however this was not always true. In the early stages of development and innovation of aviation the time factor was
mostly ‘additional value’ to the transportation itself. People who enjoyed flying and could afford it took it as privilege
and something extraordinary. With the introduction of faster and bigger aircraft the importance of being on-time
became apparent - more and more people relied on air transport to get them to their destination at promised time. With
increasing demand for air transportation also the number of flying aircraft increased, thus saturation of airspace
emerged as a problem. It became more complicated to control and coordinate increased number of aircraft in the air,
which resulted in increased delays and disruptions. Despite this, airlines tried to offer the best service and deliver
passengers and cargo as expected i.e. according to their schedules, which has become more problematic due to
increasing congestion at airports. The need for time buffer emerged in order to keep time schedules and to meet
operational restrictions at airports.

2.1. On-time performance

On-time performance (OTP) is also greatly perceived by public and is often the most important factor in choice of
airline for passengers. OTP influences not only punctuality reputation of an airline but also public perception and
satisfaction of passengers with the airline.
Customers value reliability in schedules. All other things being equal, customers will prefer an airline with a
consistent record of dependability (Berdy & Gershkoff, 2000). For many business travellers, being on-time is top
priority.
Note that the OTP definition can differ between the passenger and the aviation sector. While passengers tend to
understand any additional time beyond the scheduled time of arrival as arrival delay, the aviation sector (mainly
84 Jakub Hajko et al. / Transportation Research Procedia 51 (2020) 82–97
Author name / Transportation Research Procedia 00 (2019) 000–000 3

airports and airlines) use what is commonly called “the 15-minute rule”. If the flights arrives on stand within 15
minutes of its scheduled arrival time, it is still considered “on-time”.
Delays take away the time that the passenger could be spending at their destination, and this time has some value
to the passenger regardless of how little time is involved. Extensive delays can result in missed appointments or
connections, and other consequences to the customer. In general, the magnitude of consequences is proportional to
the length of the delay (Berdy & Gershkoff, 2000). This is especially true for business passengers because of the
nature of their travels. Often having tight schedules, they cannot afford being late and disrupt their plans. Business
travellers are usually familiar with passenger handling processes at airports and they tend to arrive at the airport shortly
before their flight takes off (approximately 45 minutes) (Matas and Novak, 2008), because they simply do not want
to spend their time at airport and they know that arriving earlier will not help to speed up their departure. Because of
these reasons, they strongly rely on reliability of airlines.
Next time-critical group are connecting and transferring passengers. During the limited time provided for transfer,
many events may occur that prevent passenger from getting on the desired flight (anxiety in unfamiliar environment,
need for refreshment, restroom use, injury, etc.). Anxiety greatly increases when first flight of the journey is delayed,
and passenger is not sure whether they will have enough time to change flights. With increased stress level, the
perception of airline might decrease, and it might lose passengers. Therefore, it is important to provide high quality
product adhering to its schedule.
The following list covers other potential causes of delays:
- airport ground operations - whether it is refueling, lost baggage or missing passenger, all unpredictable events
stack up delay. This is a problem especially at larger and coordinated airports, where punctuality in airport’s
schedule is crucial.
- congestion problems in the airspace, i.e. at route intersections (Havel et al., 2017 ; Novák et al., 2019) - great
part of air transport is situated above Europe, North America and Eastern Asia – causing problems en-route
when air traffic control officers (ATCOs) are not able to cope with increasing number of flights.
- industrial actions - although industrial actions are usually announced in advance, their extent and duration can
be different than anticipated, which makes it difficult to prepare for them. They tend to cause local disruptions,
occasionally having significant effect on the global network. Schedule buffer would not probably help diminish
delay primarily propagated due to industrial action, but it could be effective against smaller secondary delays,
e.g. a last-minute diversion to another airport if the original airport is disrupted due to an industrial action.
OTP is connected to airline’s turnaround time as well. Turnaround time is the time spent on stand, when tasks
necessary to prepare the airplane for its next flight are performed (e.g. offloading passengers and/or cargo, refueling,
cleaning of the aircraft, onloading passengers and/or cargo, etc.). This time is usually optimized for aircraft utilization
while taking safety into account. All the tasks have to be performed in a manner as not to endanger or affect the safety
of the aircraft and passengers on board. Because turnaround time is not greatly flexible, a late arriving aircraft would
usually depart late too (unless the turnaround time has a significant buffer built in).
All the reasons discussed in this chapter mean complications for all, airlines, airports and passengers. Airlines
suffer from delayed airport ground operations or congestion problems in the airspace, airports need to deal with
industrial actions and passengers suffer from delayed arrivals to their final destinations (Lazar et al., 2015 ). Therefore,
elimination and minimization of delay is one of the top priorities of the aviation industry. In an ideal world, everything
would work as smooth as possible – according to schedule. But we don’t live in an ideal world and many factors affect
the efficiency of operations, therefore delays build up in the schedule.

2.2. Delays

Fig. 1. All-causes, airline – reported delay: Main primary delay categoriesillustrates the main primary delay
categories and it is based on CODA Digest 2019 (CODA EUROCONTROL, 2019) – annual report prepared by the
Central Office for Delay Analysis (CODA), a service of EUROCONTROL. The report is based on the
EUROCONTROL CODA database that contains delay data provided directly by airlines.
4 AuthorJakub
nameHajko et al. / Transportation
/ Transportation Research00Procedia
Research Procedia 51 (2020) 82–97
(2019) 000–000 85

7 6,68

6 5,69
Minutes of delay per flight

4 3,55 3,41

2 1,68 1,55

0,9 0,92
1
0,43 0,39 0,54 0,36 0,4 0,31 0,3 0,29 0,2 0,18
0

2018 2019

Fig. 1. All-causes, airline – reported delay: Main primary delay categories. Source: CODA EUROCONTROL, 2019.

As seen in Fig. 1. All-causes, airline – reported delay: Main primary delay categories, the main cause for delays in
Europe is the reaction to previous delays (reactionary delays). Such delay is produced due to late arrival of flight and
has a knock-on effect on following flights or the whole network of the affected airline. The main purpose of schedule
buffer is dealing with this type of delay. Reactionary delays are followed by airline-caused ones as the second most
frequent delay cause. IATA (CODA EUROCONTROL, 2019) specifies the following components of airline caused
delay:

• Passenger and baggage

• Cargo and mail
• Aircraft and ramp handling
• Technical and aircraft equipment
• Damage to aircraft & Automated equipment failure
• Flight operations and crewing
• Other airline related causes

Other causes have relatively small impact on total delay, but their influence cannot be neglected. Air Traffic Flow
Management (ATFM) slots and weather do not affect every single flight, but when they do, created delay can be
significant.

3. Aspects influencing airline schedule buffer

Schedule buffer is used for a variety of reasons, but each of them requires different size of the buffer. If the buffer
is too small, the delays may not be eliminated, if it is too big, aircraft utilization would drop. The decision about the
size of the buffer is up to the airline, but both can prove beneficial in some cases (slight delay can be eliminated en-
route during the next leg of the flight and a relatively small surplus time may not be significant especially for long-
86 Jakub Hajko et al. / Transportation Research Procedia 51 (2020) 82–97
Author name / Transportation Research Procedia 00 (2019) 000–000 5

haul flights). In general, the length of airline schedule buffer is affected by many variables and the buffer cannot take
into account all of them.
Because airline industry depends on infrastructure provided by airports, planned intentions and schedules of airlines
must be coordinated with airports in order to plan their operations and allocate resources. Generally, the buffer length
cannot be changed ad-hoc. Because everything has to go as planned, any one-sided decision about prolonging buffer
time is unacceptable – the approval of airport and mutual coordination is needed. Based on this, the buffer cannot be
prolonged on the day of flight, or only very rarely, therefore other actions for delay mitigation must be taken.
Basic factors influencing the size of schedule buffer are:
- Length of flight: The longer the flight, the higher the probability that an unexpected event can occur, therefore
long-haul flights require more careful planning and bigger buffer. However, this is not always true as many
short-haul flights fly to/from/over areas with high density of air traffic and delays are highly probable. Such
flights are more sensitive to disruptions, because they do not have enough time en-route to speed up and
minimize the delay (compared to long-haul flights).
- Airports: Airports influence schedule buffer in more ways. Size of the airport, equipment and resources
available, traffic volume are the most important variables. Size influences primarily taxi times - the bigger
the airport, the higher the probability of longer taxi time. This also depends on the runway assigned and its
distance from gate, where the airplane is placed (Kazda, et al., 2013).
- ATFM slots: ATFM slots (or ‘slots’) are measures against airport congestion to prevent delays and
unnecessary fuel burn (in holding patterns) by delaying flights while they are still on the ground at departure
airports. This delay is usually bigger than the planned buffer, so it can only hardly be dealt with. However,
slots affect only a limited number of busy airports leaving smaller regional airports intact, creating an
advantageous situation for airlines using such airports (in terms of OTP) (ACI International, 2020). Using
hub airports also creates traffic ‘waves’ throughout the day (see Fig. 2). Such wave can be defined as a
complex of incoming and outgoing flights, structured such that each incoming flight creates a bookable
connection with every outgoing flight (Danesi, 2006).

Fig. 2 Qatar Airways weekly movements at Doha Airport 2011. Source: Authors based on Qatar Airways, 2011.
 Jakub Hajko et al. / Transportation Research Procedia 51 (2020) 82–97 87
6 Author name / Transportation Research Procedia 00 (2019) 000–000

- Time of day: Time of the day is also factor influencing schedule buffer. Peak periods with big volumes of
traffic exist due to the nature of airline operations (mostly hub & spoke). These aircraft want to depart as
soon as possible to their destinations or land at the airport to deplane passengers and fly another leg of their
schedule. Such behaviour inevitably congests the airport and airspace around it, blocking other traffic from
using it and increasing delays.
- Seasonal changes in traffic volume: Generally speaking, winter season experiences less traffic than summer
season, decreasing the probability of congestion and airspace sector unavailability, which potentially allows
for the use of smaller buffers. However, snow presents another threat restricting the use of airport
infrastructure.
- Airline costs: Airline schedule buffer indirectly influences (and is influenced by) airline costs. This is done
via trade-off between buffer use and daily utilization of an aircraft. These two things directly influence each
other, especially at short-haul flights where high aircraft daily utilization is desired in order to be profitable.
Delays increase airline costs and costs tend to decrease profit.
Because of reasons stated above, it would be unwise to reduce schedule buffer and risk production of delay, because
flawless operations according to the schedule are impossible in current environment. No buffer policy would be
feasible only in ideal case scenario, or at some airports with very low volume of air traffic located in uncongested
regions. Airlines have to decide whether they will choose more stable schedule and better OTP for the price of another
flight leg, or another revenue producing leg at the risk of delay occurrence connected to passenger compensations and
another delay related costs.

4. Calculation method

Establishing schedule buffer can be useful in realizing deficiencies of an airline and its operations. It is important
part of airline’s schedule and helps minimizing delay and improving OTP. On the other hand, big buffer can increase
turnaround time and reduce daily aircraft utilization (Wu & Caves, 2000).

The flight time that includes also schedule buffer consists approximately of:

• Taxi-out time – is the duration of outbound taxiing, from the moment when the airplane is off-block to
runway holding point where it queues for runway. This time may include also ground holding time or
aircraft de-icing when needed. Taxi-out time is basically time spent on movement areas of an airport.
• Time waiting for runway – time spent queuing and waiting for runway to vacate. It is usually done at
runway holding point.
• Line-up and take-off – when the runway is clear and all clearances are given, airplane may enter the
runway, line-up and take-off. These actions usually follow immediately one after another.
• Flight itself (en-route) – portion of flight when no wheel touches ground and airplane is flying. Airplane
performs 3 basic phases of flight – climb, level flight (en-route flight) and approach.
• Airborne holding time – when the flight arrives early and/or the airport is congested, flight may be
requested to hold over a specified point. For simplification this part of flight will not be considered in the
analysis.
• Approach and landing – following after en-route flight (or holding, if needed), airplane prepares for
landing and after necessary ATC clearances and with appropriate meteorological conditions it lands. This
time can be measured from final approach fix (or leaving holding pattern) to touchdown.
• Taxi-in time – similar to Taxi-out time, but backwards. It expresses time from runway to the gate where
airplane is parked and ground handling performed. Its length depends on airport congestion, route assigned
by ground control (if more taxiways are possible) and location of assigned gate (if it is far from runway
or near).
• Schedule buffer – surplus time added to schedule to cope with minor delays and unexpected events. It is
able to minimize the impact of delay and retain OTP, but too much buffer reduces daily aircraft utilization.
88 Jakub Hajko et al. / Transportation Research Procedia 51 (2020) 82–97
Author name / Transportation Research Procedia 00 (2019) 000–000 7

Unimpeded time - is time needed for a completion of task using normal procedures and without delays. It is not
necessarily the shortest time a task can be done. For example, unimpeded taxi-in time is the time an airplane needs to
taxi from runway to assigned gate in non-congested conditions if it takes the shortest route and taxis at standard speed.
Scheduled departure/arrival time – for the purpose of this paper, the departure/arrival time is equal to on/off-block
time. Departure/arrival delay is then defined as time difference between the actual and scheduled departure/arrival
time.
When airlines plan schedule buffer, they use various planning, optimization and modelling software, as well as
their historical data of previous flights. With all this data and tools at hand, the airline is able to predict the situation
at the time of operation with only minor differences, provided nothing of bigger scale occurs (airport closure,
extremely bad weather, industrial actions, etc.). Such disruptive events are probably impossible to predict long time
ahead, when airline schedule is being created. They can only be anticipated with some probability and therefore a plan
or preventive measure must be developed to cope with them. All airlines try to anticipate the unexpected and to build
some flexibility into their schedules. Commonly used techniques include:
- Add slack in the plans: instead of operating all day at a minimum turnaround time, a slack is incorporated
into the plans such that each line of work has some degree of self-recovery.
- Crew follows each other and the aircraft: This technique makes monitoring of operations easier. It also allows
for a simple recovery strategy that preserves some of the properties of the original schedule.
- Out and back: If an aircraft flies from a hub to a spoke and back to the same hub, these two flights can be
cancelled without affecting the rest of the aircraft schedule. If the same crew is planned for these two flights,
the cancellation will not affect the rest of the crew schedule either.
- Stand by crew and aircraft: A spare crew or an aircraft are valuable but very costly resources that can be used
in case of disruption.
- Extra buffers added to turnaround times: Extra buffers are often added to schedules of frequently delayed
flights, but they also provide slack in the schedule that can be used for recovery.
- Increased cruise speed: Aircraft have an interval of possible cruise speeds. Airlines will typically operate
aircraft at the most economic speed that will always be lower than top speed (Kohl et al., 2007).
The calculation provided in this paper is simplified as it uses only illustrational data, and considers only the largest
contributing factors to the flight’s buffer. However, for better understanding of the overall picture, real airports will
be used. Analysis will deal with 3 types of flights as these might have different buffer integrated into their schedule
(long-haul west, long-haul east and short-haul to Europe). Central airport of operations will be London-Heathrow
(LHR) from where the airline will fly to its destinations:
- Long-haul east: New York JFK (JFK) – chosen as the ‘gateway’ to North America and representative of
trans-oceanic flights. Flight from Europe takes approximately 7 hours. Buffer for these flights is expected to
be the biggest because of oceanic weather conditions are changing on a daily basis.
- Long-haul west: Dubai (DXB) – Dubai airport is one of the most rapidly evolving airports in the world and
is chosen to represent western long-haul flights. Flight to DXB takes approximately 7:30 hours. The buffer
for this flight will not be probably as big as for JFK, because it mostly flies over continent where the weather
does not change so often and avoids most congested airspace in Europe. However, geopolitical instability in
Eastern Europe and Middle East in recent years have most probably influenced the flight planning to DXB.
- Short-haul Europe: Frankfurt (FRA) – one of the busiest airports in Europe in terms of traffic volume. Flight
from LHR to FRA takes approximately 1:45 hours. Unlike previous examples, FRA belongs to frame falling
under influence of ATFM, thus probability of ATFM slot assignment is quite high. However, in this analysis
none of the flights will be regulated in such way. Despite this fact, the buffer can be expected to be relatively
high, because both airports belong to the busiest ones in Europe and airport congestion is almost daily routine.
Number of flights analysed for each option is 20, each representing an outbound flight from LHR.
First, Taxi times need to be calculated, denoted
(1a) Taxi-out times,
(1b) Taxi-in times.
The Next step is calculating Unimpeded taxi times, which is done by averaging each, (1a) and (1b). Results
are denoted as
(2a) Unimpeded taxi-out time, and
 Jakub Hajko et al. / Transportation Research Procedia 51 (2020) 82–97 89
8 Author name / Transportation Research Procedia 00 (2019) 000–000

(2b) Unimpeded taxi-in time.

After obtaining (2a), (2b) and Scheduled flight time (3), the Unimpeded flight time + Schedule buffer (4) can be
calculated. Scheduled time of flights can be found on the websites of airlines or in specialized databases.

(4) = (3) – (2a) – (2b)

Because we still deal only with scheduled and unimpeded times that are used for scheduling purposes, another
unimpeded time will be obtained by the calculation. Eq. (4) includes both, Flight time and Schedule buffer, because
we do not know how the airline calculates the Flight time and are therefore not able to use exact one.
With next step, calculation of delays starts. First is Taxi-out delay (5a) and Taxi-in delay (5b). They represent the
amount of time that could be saved, if the flight used the shortest and most direct route from gate to runway and vice-
versa.
(5a) = (1a) – (2a)
(5b) = (1b) – (2b)

Next variables needed are Actual flight times (6) which can be obtained from various flight processing systems
and databases. Combining them together with previous equations, we can calculate the amount of Total delay (7) per
flight.
(7) = (6) – (2a) – (2b) – (4), after substitution for (4) we get
(7) = (6) – (2a) – (2b) – (3) + (2a) + (2b), which can be further reduced to
(7) = (6) – (3)

Eq. (7) represents the amount of delay an aircraft experiences during its flight, in comparison with its planned flight
time. It does not represent the delay against schedule with which the flight arrives to its destination, therefore flight
with (7) positive (delayed, takes longer to fly the route than planned) can still arrive on-time due to various reasons.
This delay however includes also delays produced while taxiing.
Flight delay (8) is the final equation representing the delay produced only en-route portion of flight (wheels off
runway to landing), therefore taxi delays need to be removed.

(8) = (7) – (5a) – (5b), where (7) can be substituted as

(8) = (6) – (3) – (5a) – (5b)

If the result of eq. (8) is negative, planned buffer was sufficient for this flight, because no additional delay against
scheduled flight time was produced. On the other hand, if it is positive, the buffer was all consumed by delay produced
during the flight.
This calculation does not give the exact value of schedule buffer; it can only be guessed or estimated. Further
analysis would be needed to make exact calculations. The analysis would need to include meteorological situation
around the flown route, traffic volumes in sectors, regulations in use, etc. Eq. (8) gives comparative result of situation
specific flight experienced – whether a particular flight was able to shorten the flight time or not, but it does not give
the reason why. This might be because of favourable wind conditions, more optimal flight level assigned, higher travel
speed, but also because of schedule buffer used. With these primary results further analyses regarding on-time
performance or effect on turnaround time can be done. These analyses would be able to specify and quantify the effect
of increasing/decreasing schedule buffer.

4.1. Analysis of calculation

Three representative routes were examined; artificial data was used for the calculation. Each route was represented
by 20 flights.
90 Jakub Hajko et al. / Transportation Research Procedia 51 (2020) 82–97
Author name / Transportation Research Procedia 00 (2019) 000–000 9

Table 1. Calculation results in minutes. Source: Authors.

Early Late Average

JFK -15.4 17.8 -5.4
DXB -10.5 7 -0.9
FRA -8.7 9 4.6

Numbers in Table 1 represent the results of calculation performed with the artificial data. Column ‘Early’ shows
average value of flights with negative Flight delay. It means that flights which managed to shorten their flight time
did so on average by values in this column. Column ‘Late’ depicts opposite situation – it represents flights that
prolonged their flight time. Third column – ‘Average’ – gives values of all Flight delays for respective destinations,
regardless of prolongation or shortening of the flight time. It can be explained as the average time the flights were
able to save (or lose) en-route. As expected, long-haul flights saved on average more time in comparison with short-
haul ones, primarily because longer overall flight time, where they have plenty of space and time to make up for any
delay. Short-haul flight is also more constrained by the distance of respective airports and by the usual situation at
LHR, where congestion occurs on a daily basis and flights have to hold before landing.
The following figures (Fig. 3, Fig. 4 and Fig. 5) show the situation of Flight delay and Arrival delay for individual
flights. Minutes of delay are projected onto the vertical axis, whereas minutes of flight are on the horizontal one. Each
point represents delay recorded for particular flight of particular duration.
In the first case (long-haul eastbound from JFK) more flights managed to shorten total flight time, but some of
them arrived later than some other flights that prolonged their flight time. Arrival delay is affected not only by the
length of flight, but also the off-block delay on departure. If the flight departs relatively late, even speeding up en-
route and favourable weather cannot help eradicate the delay. This delay also includes taxi times and excessive taxi
times (compared to unimpeded ones), which can contribute to delay.
More than half of the flights shown in Fig. 3 had arrived on time, because airports and airlines consider flights
delayed by no more than 15 minutes as on-time (not late). We can conclude that the buffer set for these flights is
sufficient for the operations and keeps desired OTP.
The situation for long-haul flights from DXB is a bit different from JFK. More flights prolonged their flight times
but despite this fact managed to arrive mostly on time. This can be explained by a large schedule buffer that provides
a measure of security in the schedule. These flights have therefore even better OTP than JFK ones.
10 Author nameHajko
Jakub / Transportation Research Procedia
et al. / Transportation Research00Procedia
(2019) 000–000
51 (2020) 82–97 91

JFK

Flight delay Arrival delay

80,0
Flight delay/Arrival delay (mins)

60,0

40,0

20,0

0,0
380 390 400 410 420 430 440 450
-20,0

-40,0
Flight time (mins)

Fig. 3. Scatter plot of Flight delay and Arrival delay against Flight time (in minutes) for flights from JFK. Source: Authors.

DXB

Flight delay Arrival delay

30,0

20,0
Flight delay/Arrival delay (mins)

10,0

0,0
425 430 435 440 445 450 455 460 465 470
-10,0

-20,0

-30,0

-40,0
Flight time (mins)

Fig. 4. Scatter plot of Flight delay and Arrival delay against Flight time (in minutes) for flights from DXB. Source: Authors.
92 Jakub Hajko et al. / Transportation Research Procedia 51 (2020) 82–97
Author name / Transportation Research Procedia 00 (2019) 000–000 11

FRA flights in most cases fly longer than scheduled and also arrive behind schedule. However, OTP is retained
thanks to the 15 minute window when flights are still regarded as on-time. Arrival delay is higher when compared
with previous cases, because flights from FRA have to fly through several busy airspaces, where they have many
opportunities to produce and accumulate delay. Bigger schedule buffer could be used to improve OTP, but this
wouldn’t be the best solution for such short-haul flight that needs to make as many flight legs per day as possible.
Increasing buffer would disrupt overall schedule and lower daily aircraft utilization, reducing revenues of an airline.
It is therefore important to stick to the schedule and avoid departure delays when possible, otherwise reactionary delay
would increase. On the other hand, increasing buffer and decreasing daily utilization on purpose could be more
beneficial to avoid the effect of ad-hoc delays, which are hard to eliminate with busy schedules and short turnaround
times.

FRA
Flight delay Arrival delay
100,0
Flight delay/Arrival delay (mins)

80,0

60,0

40,0

20,0

0,0
80 90 100 110 120 130
-20,0
Flight time (mins)

Fig. 5 Scatter plot of Flight delay and Arrival delay against Flight time (in minutes) for flights from FRA. Source: Authors.

The results of the analysis show that trans-oceanic flights do not seem to have enough buffer time incorporated in
the schedule, or their departure delays are so big that the buffer available is not sufficient. Westbound long-haul flights
have probably bigger buffer than their eastbound counterparts, because their buffer is sufficient enough to retain good
OTP, even with flights flying relatively longer than others. Third case is the case of European short-haul flight, which
seems to have the right amount of schedule buffer, thus retaining its OTP (also with help from “the 15-minute rule”).
However, there is a quite high risk of reactionary delay production in the schedule of FRA flights because of late
arrivals that are covered only by “the 15-minute rule”.

5. Benefits of introduction of reduced airline schedule buffer

By controlling the schedule buffer, or better predicting the influencing variables of flight delay, the airline can
produce several benefits to itself and other participants in civil aviation. Benefits can be achieved by both, reducing
and increasing the buffer size, to the benefit of different parties.
Airlines could achieve benefits that are more substantial by reducing schedule buffer for a series of flights instead
of a single flight. If a specific aircraft flew 6 legs a day of which each would take 1.5 hours to fly and turnaround time
at the airport would be 10 minutes, by reducing the buffer (and scheduled flight time) by 15 minutes to 1.25 hours the
 Jakub Hajko et al. / Transportation Research Procedia 51 (2020) 82–97 93
12 Author name / Transportation Research Procedia 00 (2019) 000–000

airplane would be able to fly one additional leg in that day. Such concept would be perfect mainly for low-cost carriers
(Tomová and Materna, 2017), that strive for making as many flights per day as possible in order to earn revenues. But
traditional carriers could use this concept as well, if not for additional passenger flight, then at least for positioning or
maintenance flights. However, this model of operations would be extremely vulnerable and prone to delays. Reducing
the buffer would mean that airline knows what is going to happen next with really high probability (almost certainty).
Therefore, rather than reducing the buffer, airlines try to develop and improve their prediction systems and simulation
models, otherwise their OTP could drastically decrease what could cost a lot of money.
On the other hand, increasing the buffer would bring some security into the schedule for the cost of daily utilization.
Increasing the buffer by 15 minutes, described in the example above, would result in the need to decrease the number
of flights to 5 flights per day. Such reduction might be not feasible for an airline in terms of revenue generation and
would probably choose a different option, but everything depends on the circumstances and decision-making process
of an airline.
Another group that benefits from reduced airline schedule buffer are airports. This might sound quite strange, but
if we consider buffer reduced at only one airline and schedules of other airlines remain intact, the time saved by
eliminated buffer could be used by airport for its own purposes. Whether it is runway check, repositioning of handling
equipment and personnel or even minor maintenance or adjustments, airports can use every extra minute as well
(Bugaj et al., 2019). Airports have also busy schedules like airlines, and they need to perform in a timely manner in
order for airlines to be on-time. Resources provided by airports are extremely valuable to airlines and every extra time
could only help them to use the resources more effectively.
Lastly, the passengers could benefit from changes to the buffer size too. By increasing the buffer, the airline could
give its passengers a peace of mind, knowing that the flight will most probably arrive at their destination on time.
Small delays and good on-time performance could improve the public perception of an airline, what would make it
more obvious choice for returning passengers. Reducing the buffer, on the other hand, would bring the passengers to
their destination in shorter time. This is particularly applicable on long-haul flights where time savings can be
potentially tens of minutes. There are types of passengers who would appreciate shorter flight times, e.g. business
travelers, people not comfortable on board of an aircraft.

Let’s examine the situation of flights departing from three different airports (as outlined in Chapter 4.1): JFK, DXB
and FRA. Flights (Chyba! Nenašiel sa žiaden zdroj odkazov.) are categorized into three groups:
- Early – flights arriving more than 15 minutes before their scheduled arrival time
- On-time – flights arriving no earlier than 15 minutes before and no later than 15 minutes after their scheduled
arrival time
- Late – delayed flights that arrive later than 15 minutes behind their schedule

Table 2. Punctuality of flights. Source: Authors.

Early On-time Late

JFK 2 8 10
DXB 2 16 2
FRA 0 12 8

Chyba! Nenašiel sa žiaden zdroj odkazov. shows current situation of flights based on their on-time performance
(see Chyba! Nenašiel sa žiaden zdroj odkazov., Chyba! Nenašiel sa žiaden zdroj odkazov. and Chyba! Nenašiel
sa žiaden zdroj odkazov.). We can see that most of the flights arrived On-time, although half of JFK flights arrived
late. Situation with the other two routes is not bad, but there is still some room for improvement, more for FRA than
DXB. Now, what would happen if we increase the schedule buffer by 10 minutes? How will the situation change?
94 Jakub Hajko et al. / Transportation Research Procedia 51 (2020) 82–97
Author name / Transportation Research Procedia 00 (2019) 000–000 13

Table 3. Punctuality of flights with 10 minutes bigger schedule buffer. Source: Authors.

Early On-time Late

JFK 6 7 7
DXB 7 13 0
FRA 1 15 4
As seen in Chyba! Nenašiel sa žiaden zdroj odkazov., if we add 10 more minutes, the change in punctuality will
be significantly different. Late arrivals would decrease by 9 which represents 15% of total 60 flights. Interesting part
is actually reduction in number of On-time arrivals by 1, what is compensated by increase in Early arrivals by 10.

JFK + 10 minutes

JFK Arrival delay

80,0
Flight delay/Arrival delay (mins)

60,0

40,0

20,0

0,0
380 390 400 410 420 430 440 450
-20,0

-40,0

-60,0
Flight time (mins)

Fig. 6 Scatter plot of Flight delay and Arrival delay against Flight time (in minutes) for flights from JFK with increased schedule buffer by 10
minutes. Source: Authors.

Flights from JFK are quite diverse; their Arrival delay probably depends much on Departure delay. Nevertheless,
additional 10 minutes improved the performance by 15% as seen in Fig. 6 (when compared to Chyba! Nenašiel sa
žiaden zdroj odkazov.). With better departure punctuality, the arrival punctuality would also greatly improve,
because even managing to shorten the Flight time is not enough to avoid Arrival delays.
 Jakub Hajko et al. / Transportation Research Procedia 51 (2020) 82–97 95
14 Author name / Transportation Research Procedia 00 (2019) 000–000

DXB + 10 minutes

Flight delay Arrival delay

20,0

10,0
Flight delay/Arrival delay (mins)

0,0
425 430 435 440 445 450 455 460 465 470
-10,0

-20,0

-30,0

-40,0

-50,0
Flight time (mins)

Fig.7 Scatter plot of Flight delay and Arrival delay against Flight time (in minutes) for flights from DXB with increased schedule buffer by 10
minutes. Source: Authors.

Quite opposite to JFK is the situation of DXB, where only 2 flights were considered Late. Now, with 10 more
minutes no flight arrives late and even the number of on-time arrivals has decreased (16 flights On-time without 10
more minutes added, 13 flights On-time with additional 10 minutes). However, the number of Early arrivals has
increased by 25%, which is sizeable improvement. On the other hand, flights arriving such time before their schedule
can cause problems to airport as well. Resources at the airport are carefully planned for each individual flight and
early arriving airplane would disrupt this schedule. It is highly probable that this flight would be required to hold in
holding pattern and would be allowed to land only if the airport has enough spare capacity to accommodate it.
96 Jakub Hajko et al. / Transportation Research Procedia 51 (2020) 82–97
Author name / Transportation Research Procedia 00 (2019) 000–000 15

FRA + 10 minutes

Flight delay Arrival delay

80,0

60,0
Flight delay/Arrival delay (mins)

40,0

20,0

0,0
80 85 90 95 100 105 110 115 120 125 130
-20,0

-40,0
Flight time (mins)

Fig.8 Scatter plot of Flight delay and Arrival delay against Flight time (in minutes) for flights from FRA with increased schedule buffer by 10
minutes. Source: Authors.

FRA would probably benefit the most from increasing schedule buffer by 10 minutes (see Fig.). Number of Late
arrivals would drop by half and number of On-time arrivals would increase by 3. However, 10 minutes is 10% of 100-
minute flight and this big increase in scheduled flight time would most probably disrupt daily utilization of airplane
flying this route.

6. Conclusions

This paper provides insights into various aspects of airline schedule buffer. For the first time has schedule buffer
been defined and described in a way that is outlined in this paper. Information included is mostly theoretical, but also
calculation formula has been developed. Although it is not possible to establish the exact size of the buffer with this
calculation, we can calculate the delay that has the biggest impact on it and also analyses the results of
adding/subtracting additional buffer time to the schedule. The formula is quite simple but can be easily amended by
additional factors to gain more complex results and bigger set of data to gain more precise results. The set of 20 flights
used in this paper serves only for demonstration. However, the results explain the impact of some of the described
factors on schedule buffer.
Ideas presented in the paper could be used for future evaluations of airline schedules and models of operation. The
paper stresses the importance of the use of schedule buffer. The calculation formula can be easily expanded so that it
takes more factors influencing schedule buffer into account, for example holding time, ATFM slots, alternative route,
etc. Adding these variables expands the possibilities of the formula and its results, also giving more space for data
interpretation. Authors were not able to consider all these factors in this paper; therefore, different options are left
open for future analyses. Few of the possibilities can include:
- Flights at different daytime
- Analysis of winter season
- Comparison of summer and winter season
 Jakub Hajko et al. / Transportation Research Procedia 51 (2020) 82–97 97
16 Author name / Transportation Research Procedia 00 (2019) 000–000

- Analysis of different airline model (charter, low-cost carrier, cargo, integrator, hybrid models)
Additionally, costs analysis can be performed on the basis of this paper. Evaluating single factors influencing schedule
buffer could provide overall picture of costs development of an airline based on the size of schedule buffer and various
delay components. Afterwards, different scenarios can be created to cope with various situations (in order to save
money for an airline).

Acknowledgement

This paper is an output of the project of the Ministry of Education, Science, Research and Sport of the Slovak
Republic KEGA No. 011ŽU-4/2018 "New technologies and best practices in education in the Air Transport and
Professional Pilots".

References

ACI International, 2020. Slot Sanctions [online]. Available online at: http://www.acl-uk.org/slotSanctions.aspx
Berdy, P., Gershkoff, I., 2000. Improving On-Time Performance and Operational Dependability. In Handbook of Airline Operation. New York:
Aviation week, 2000. ISBN 007-982386-6. pp. 310
Bugaj, M., Urminský. T., Rostáš. J., Pecho. P., 2019. Aircraft maintenance reserves – new approach to optimization. Transportation Research
Procedia. 43. 31-40. 10.1016/j.trpro.2019.12.016.
Coda Eurocontrol, 2019. All-causes delay and cancellations to air transport in Europe SUPPORTING EUROPEAN AVIATION Q2 2019.
Available on the internet: https://www.eurocontrol.int/sites/default/files/2019-09/coda-digest_q2-2019.pdf
Danesi, A. 2006. Measuring airline hub timetable co-ordination and connectivity: definition of a new index and application to a sample of
European hubs. In European Transport \ Trasporti Europei [online]. 2006, issue 34. Available online at: http://www.istiee.org/te/. ISSN
1825-3997. 54-74.
Havel, K., Balint, V., Novák, A., 2017. A number of conflicts at route intersections - Rectangular model. Communications - Scientific Letters of
the University of Zilina 19(2), 145-147.
Kazda, A., Badánik, B., Tomová, A., Laplace, I., Lenoir, N., 2013. Future airports development strategies. In: Communications : scientific letters
of the University of Žilina. - ISSN 1335-4205. - Vol. 15, no. 2, 19-24.
Kohl, N. et al. 2007. Airline disruption management – Perspectives, experiences and outlook. In Journal of Air Transport Management [online].
2007, vol. 13, issue 3. Available online at: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/journal/09696997/13/3. ISSN 0969-6997. 149-162.
Lazar, T., Novák Sedláčková, A., Bréda, R., 2015. Regression in personal air transport of passengers evolution at selected airport time series
method. Naše More 62, 228-232. doi:10.17818/NM/2015/SI26.
Matas, M., Novak, A., 2008. Models of processes as components of air passenger flow model. Komunikacie 10(2), 50-54.
Novák, A., Havel, K., Adamko, P., 2019. Number of conflicts at the route intersection – Minimum distance model. Aviation 23(1), 1-6.
OAG, 2020. On-time performance is becoming increasingly important to an airlines and airports. Available online at: https://www.oag.com/on-
time-performance-airlines-airports
Qatar Airways, 2011. Available online at: https://sky4all.wordpress.com/2011/10/30/qatar-airways-ultimate-operational-analysis/
Tomová, A., Materna, M., 2017. The Directions of On-going Air Carriers' Hybridization: Towards Peerless Business Models? Procedia
Engineering 192, 569-573.
Tomová, A., Materna, M., 2018. Miscellaneous "modi vivendi" of regional and network airlines: The tracks for future research. Transportation
Research Procedia 35, 305-314.
Wu, C.- L., Caves, R. E., 2000. Aircraft operational costs and turnaround efficiency at airports. In Journal of Air Transport Management [online].
2000, vol. 6, issue 4. Available online at: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/journal/09696997/6/4. ISSN 0969-6997. 201-208.