RESTART: ANALYSIS OF POST-COVID 19 CAPACITY IN SECURITY CHECKPOINTS

OF AN AIRPORT
Miguel Mujica Mota(a) Paolo Scala(b)
Alejandro Di Bernardi(c) Angel Orozco(d)
(a)
Amsterdam University of Applied Sciences,(b)Amsterdam School of International Business, (c) National University of La
Plata, (d)Independent Researcher
(a)
[email protected] (b) [email protected] (c)
[email protected] (d)
[email protected]

ABSTRACT
COVID-19 arrived in the world suddenly and
unexpectedly. It caused major disruptions at
economical, operational and other levels. In the case of
flight traffic, the operations were reduced to 10% of
their original levels. The question after COVID-19 is
how to restart the operations and how to keep the
balance between safety and capacity. In this paper we
present an analysis using simulation techniques for
understanding the impact in a security area of an
important airport in Latin America; the airport of
Mexico City. The results allow to illustrate the potential
consequences of implementing some actions and also
some policies to deal with the raised limitations. The
results will raise situational awareness for airport
stakeholders when implementing the actions suggested
by different international institutions like WHO, IATA
or ICAO.

Keywords: AICM, congestion, airports, multimodal,

logistics, simulation, decision support systems, COVID
could be exposed in the present document, however, it
1. INTRODUCTION goes out of the scope for the present paper as the focus
Until December 2019, the world was, with few will be on the Latin American traffic. Reality shows us
exceptions, unaware of the impact that the appearance that aircraft are not flying, that they are stopped at
of a new pandemic would have on our daily lives, and different airports around the world, giving the paradox
that it would transform everything in a radical and of having the airside occupied and the landside empty at
abrupt way. the airport terminals. In this context, the only certainty
Naturally, no planning scenario foresaw situations like we have today is that any recovery scenario is uncertain,
the ones we are going through, being, to this day, which leads us to ask ourselves how and when we will
unable to foresee, with a certain level of certainty and return to what we were. It is therefore important to
confidence. Or what will happen in the immediate become independent from the temporal projections and
future despite the wide range of strategies and to carry out studies through simulations (Mujica et al.,
intentions that are being carried on. 2017), and evaluating different operational milestones.
The emergence of COVID-19 has impacted all value These can represent certain flows and operations in
chains and production of economic/financial activity certain areas of the airport as it can be the airside or the
and the commercial air transport system is not an landside, but always considering their systemic linkage.
exemption, affecting it directly and forcefully to the In the case of terminals (where this work is focused),
point of having close to 90% less than normal different processes can be evaluated considering the
operations for this season. capacities of the areas and the resources involved in
An example of this abrupt decline can be seen in the each task. An example is the security area controls for a
graph of Figure 1, where possible recovery scenarios for passenger and their luggage, without disregarding the
the Latin American and Caribbean region are also seen. general guidelines expressed in the ICAO Annex 9
Figure 1. COVID recovery scenarios (ICAO, 2020a) "Facilitation" (ICAO, 2017a), or in the ICAO Annex 17
"Security" of the Chicago Convention (ICAO, 2017b)
This figure is produced by ICAO for evaluating and in the ICAO Doc 10144 about "Management of
potential recovery scenarios. Similar situations in other
regions of the world, with their natural differences,
Aviation Safety Risks related to Covid-19" (ICAO, investigating the impact in capacity of keeping a
2020b) among other important documents. separation and also by implementing policies like
In this context, the present work evaluates through sanitary corridors that can be used dedicated only for
simulation different processes of a specific area of vulnerable people.
Mexico City Airport terminal (Terminal 1 Checkpoint
J) considering social distancing in the process of 3. SYSTEM DESCRIPTION &
security and boarding pass control for passengers and METHODOLOGY
their respective hand luggage. This study is just a taste The methodology followed for this study follows the
of what type of problems the airports will face at methodology presented by Mujica et al. (2018). Figure
different areas of the terminal buildings once the 2 illustrates the steps of the methodology; in this case it
recovery is taking place. The insight obtained from the was used one layer with the layout and a 2 nd layer with
study can be extrapolated to other processing areas like the simulation model was built over it.
check in, passport control or boarding gates.
For analyzing the recovery phase, different scenarios
with a certain passenger mix will be evaluated assuming
different percentages of traffic.
The Key Performance Indicators (KPIs) evaluated are:

● Queue length (average number of passengers

queuing)
● Queuing time (average time spent queuing per
passenger)
● Capacity (number of passengers processed in a
hour)

In the next sections we present the different scenarios

and at the end of the paper we conclude with the most
important remarks.

2. STATE OF THE ART

There are several studies related to security in different
areas. For instance, in Janssen et al. (2019), the authors
focus on the analysis using ABM using a RISK
approach for improving performance in the security of
airport terminals. In Al-Safwani et al. (2018) the
authors look for reducing vulnerability using an Figure 2. Methodology of the n-model virtual cycle approach
information security control prioritization that can for airport capacity
determine the critical vulnerable controls based on
diverse assessment criteria. Other authors focus on the The simulation model developed represents the
use of optimization techniques for selecting the best operations conducted in the security area of an airport
strategy based on current performance of technology, terminal. We did not consider the whole terminal
which is the case of Candalino et al. (2004). The work building; instead we put focus on the security revision
of Sahin and Feng (2009) focuses on the selection of
points using real data from Pre-COVID 19 times. This
different technologies for reducing the probability of
errors like false positives or false negatives. Other will enable us to illustrate the potential consequences
authors like Pettersen and Bjornskau (2015) approach and/or adequate policies to deal with the transition
the problem from a more strategic angle. Lee and restarting phase.
Jacobson (2011) focus on assigning passengers based The model simulates a specific area of the Mexico City
on the type of technology available which might be Airport terminal (Terminal 1 Checkpoint J).
complicated to apply. Stewart and Mueller (2015)
In the security area the following operations are
present a risk analysis for the pre/check programs in
order to increase safety. As it is reviewed, none of the conducted:
previous studies considered a similar situation as the
one we have with the COVID 19. The analysis ● Boarding pass control
presented in this paper uses a simulation model based ● Passengers dropping their small
on discrete events to analyze different policies that can bags/belongings
be used in the post-covid phase and we developed this ● Bag scan
model for investigating the effect of the
● Body scan
implementations suggested by the different international
organisms (ICAO, IATA, ACI, WHO). It aims at ● Potential body re-scan
 ● Potential bag re-scan The area under study is a security control area in a
Mexican airport which has suffered from a lot of
Due to the Covid-19, extra measures have been given to congestion during the peak hours of the days during
Pre-COVID times. As it can be expected, some days are
the airport operators (ACI, 2020), such as:
worse than others depending on the season of the year.

● Passenger distance between each other of 1.5 The current layout is illustrated by Figure 3. As it can
meters be seen there are four lines available. However, with the
restrictions caused by the COVID-19 regulations, only 2
● No adjacent lines
out of those four lines can be used, as adjacent lines are
● Frequent cleanings of the tray/equipment area forbidden. With these restrictions in place, the capacity
is expected to decrease.
○ Passengers queuing to the boarding pass
control
The passengers go to the boarding pass control where
they are processed according to a specific processing
time. Two different types of queue are tested: a “snake”
shape queue, and a “normal” queue. The former is the
one traditionally used, the latter is more likely to be
used due to the Covid-19 restrictions (see Fig. 1).

○ Passengers bags drop

Passengers reach one of the available bag drop lines
based on two criteria: the line that is free will be
chosen; if both lines are busy, the line with the shortest
queue will be chosen. Passengers drop their bags on the
tray, this process is modeled by a certain processing
time.

○ Passenger body scan/bag scan

These two operations are done in parallel. People pass
through a body scan device and bags pass through a bag
Figure 3. Current layout of security
scan device.
4.1. Experimental Design and results
○ Passenger body scan To investigate the effect of the actions implemented at
Passengers walk through a body scanner. This operation airports due to the Covid-19 pandemic, we have tested
takes a specific time. different scenarios based on the following parameters:

● traffic recovery
○ Passenger bags X-Ray scan
● layout of the queue
Bags are moved through the X-Ray scan. The scanning ● dedicated line for vulnerable passengers
operation takes a specific time.
Traffic Recovery
○ Passenger body re-scan/bag re-scan For the “traffic recovery” parameter we have tested 5
This operation is conducted based on a specific different values which consider a gradual recovery of
occurring probability, and it takes a certain time. the traffic starting from 10% until 30%, this will cover a
time frame of short-medium term (next 2 years).
○ Passenger bags claim
After being scanned, the passengers take their own bags Queue Layout
and leave the area. This operation is based on a specific The parameter “layout of the queue” indicates whether a
processing time. “snake” shaped queue or a parallel queue is utilized (see
Figure 4). Due to the COVID-19, the latter is being
4. CASE STUDY recommended, however, the former is currently in use
We will evaluate the impact of the different actions in our case study airport.
suggested by ICAO, IATA or WHO for managing
passengers.
 Extra-Line Scenario
An extra scenario was tested based on a potential
mitigation of the current restrictions where an extra line
is added besides the line for regular passengers and the
line for vulnerable passengers, to have in total 3 lines.

5. Results
Table 2 and 3 show the results regarding the queue
length and queuing time of the pre-security area. The
pre-security area is defined as the airport corridor just
before entering the security area and undergoing the
boarding pass control and security control operations.
By measuring its performance in terms of queue length
and queuing time we evaluate the level of congestion of
the airport and whether the security area is able to
Figure 4. Queue layout: snake queue (left); parallel process the total inbound passenger flow or not. The
queue (right) results reveal that for the snake queue and parallel
queue without a dedicated line for vulnerable
Dedicated Lines passengers we obtained similar results both for queue
The parameter “dedicated line for vulnerable length and queuing time, generating long queues in the
passengers” is a boolean where, in a parallel queue airport corridor once the traffic recovery gets to 25%..
layout scenario, means that one security line (and the
Table 2. Queue length Pre-security (Passengers)
related queue) will be entirely dedicated to vulnerable
passengers. In this context, vulnerable passengers are
defined as the ones more exposed to be infected by the Queue layout
virus, due to age or to current illness. In the present
study, the amount of passengers with this condition is Traffic Snake Parallel queue
assumed to be 20% of the total passengers. This value recovery queue
Dedicated line for vulnerable
was based on statistics reports. Table 1 summarizes the
passengers
values used for each of the parameters. It is worth
mentioning that the scenario with a dedicated line for no yes yes + extra line
vulnerable passengers was considered only for the
parallel queue layout. 10% 8,72 9,1 10,4 8,8

Table1. Experimental Design 15% 10,8 11,1 208,4 11.1

Parameter Value 20% 26,6 33,8 700,9 14,5

25% 417,2 438,6 1191,3 44,9

Traffic 10% 15% 20% 25% 30%
recovery 30% 916 932,1 1686,5 432.0

Layout of the snake parallel What can be noticed is that the trend for both queue
queue length and queuing time is not linear with the increase
of traffic, as it gets congested between 20% and 25% of
Dedicated line yes no traffic recovery. Regarding the scenario where a
for vulnerable dedicated line is reserved for vulnerable passengers, it
passengers generates big queue lengths and high queuing time just
with the increase in 15% for the traffic recovery. On
the other hand, the extra line scenario, shows better
Base Case Scenario values for all the scenarios. In this scenario, the queue
The base case is chosen as the one currently length starts to get considerably big only when the
implemented in Mexico City airport terminal and it has traffic recovery reaches 30%, while queuing times are
the following parameters: 10% traffic; snake queue; no kept low. These trends can be better illustrated in
dedicated line for vulnerable passengers. The simulation figures 5 and 6.
of each scenario has been run for 50 replications.
Results are presented as average values of the different
KPIs
 Table 3. Queuing time Pre-security [min] from there stays stable for the other scenarios. On the
other hand, the snake and parallel queue without a
Queue layout dedicated line scenario reaches the maximum capacity
at 20% traffic recovery scenario, with a value of 101
Traffic Snake Parallel queue passengers per hour until reaching 105 passengers per
recovery queue hour in both traffic recovery scenarios 25% and 30%.
Dedicated line for vulnerable The extra line scenario, shows similar values of
passengers capacity as the snake queue and the parallel queue
without a dedicated line scenario, in the instances of
no yes yes + extra line traffic recovery up to 20%, then the capacity increases
up to 127 and 132 passengers per hour for the traffic
10% 1,0 1,0 1,0 1,0
recovery of 25% and 30%, respectively.
15% 1,0 1,0 18,8 1,0
Figure 7. Security area capacity
20% 2,3 4,0 19,9 1,1

25% 11,6 12,2 20.2 4,3

30% 12,0 12,4 20,3 10,0

Figure 5. Pre-security area queue length

6. CONCLUSIONS AND FUTURE WORK

As the study has illustrated, the impact of COVID-19 in
the airport system is dramatic. The different scenarios
showed that the new regulations regarding the use of
airport facilities due to the Covid-19 will bring issues in
terms of capacity management for some areas of the
airport. This study has revealed that the security area is
Figure 6. Pre-security area queuing time [min.] very sensitive, as congestion problems start to appear
when the traffic starts recovering. The best scenarios
were the snake queue layout, and the parallel queue
layout. In these two scenarios, the security area started
to get congested when 20% of the traffic was recovered.
However, these two scenarios were not including any
possibility to have an extra dedicated line for vulnerable
passengers as it would be desired. The scenario with
two parallel queues, where one of them was dedicated
to vulnerable passengers, obtained the worst results,
where congestion was obtained already at 15% of traffic
recovery. The capacity improved considerably when an
For the scenarios with two lines where one was a extra line was added to this scenario, highlighting the
dedicated one for vulnerable people, the results revealed sensitivity of the system performance to additional
that as soon as the traffic increases (starting of the security lines. However, this scenario goes in contrast
traffic recovery phases), the dedicated line will start to with the current regulation due to the Covid-19. Despite
congest.. The extra line scenario proved that by adding this study being focused on a specific security area of
one line, the system would maintain up to 25% traffic the terminal, similar performance is expected to the
recovery without being congested. other security areas of the airport, as they have similar
Another KPI that was measured is the capacity layouts and expected number of passengers.
measured in pax/hr.This is presented in Figure 7. It This study revealed future problems that the airport will
shows that the snake and parallel queue layout without a face once the traffic starts to recover. For that reason, it
dedicated line for vulnerable passengers are more is strongly suggested that airport operators and other
efficient than the scenario with a dedicated line. We stakeholders use simulation techniques for identifying
notice that the maximum capacity for the scenario with potential problems and as a support in their plans for the
a dedicated line (grey bar) is reached at the 15% traffic coming months.
recovery scenario with 66 passengers per hour, and
ACKNOWLEDGMENT PreCheck, Journal of Air Transport Management,
The authors would like to thank the AUAS Aviation v. 48, pp.13-22
Academy for supporting this study and IGAMT
expertise (www.igamt.eu) for the support provided. In AUTHORS BIOGRAPHY
addition, the authors would like to thank the Dutch Miguel Mujica Mota is an associate Professor in
Benelux Simulation Society (www.DutchBSS.org) and Aviation Management and senior researcher at the
EUROSIM for disseminating the results of this work. Aviation Academy of the Amsterdam University of
Applied Sciences in the Netherlands. He holds a PhD
REFERENCES and a MSc. in informatics from the Autonomous
ACI, 2020. Common Measures Implemented at University of Barcelona and a PhD and MSc. in
Airports in Asia-Pacific to prevent the Spread of operations research from the National University of
COVID-19. Mexico. He is the current president of EUROSIM
Al-Safwani, N., Fazea, Y., Ibrahim,H., 2018. ISCP: In- (www.eurosim.info) the Federation of Simulation
depth model for selecting critical security controls. Societies in Europe and the Chair of the Dutch Benelux
Computers & Security, 77 (2), 565–577. Simulation Society (www.DutchBSS.org), In recent
Breier J ,Hudec L . Risk analysis supported by years he funded the IGAMT, International Group on
information security metrics. Proceedings of the Aviation and Multimodal Transport with renewed
twelfth international conference on computer Scientifics from different areas for coping with relevant
systems and technologies; 2011. 393–398. international problems.
Candalino,T.J., Kobza, J.E., Jacobson, S., 2004, Dr. Mujica is also a member of the Mexican National
Designing optimal Aviation baggage screening Research system (SNI) with a level I where he also
strategies using simulated annealing participates as a scientific evaluator for Latin America.
ICAO, 2017a. Annex 9 - Facilitation. Fifteenth Edition, He is the co-author of four books and numerous
October 2017. scientific papers on simulation, operations research,
ICAO, 2017b. Annex 17 - Security. Tenth Edition April aviation, manufacturing and logistics. His research
2017. interests lie in the use of simulation, modelling
ICAO, 2020a. Effects of Novel Coronavirus (COVID- formalisms and heuristics for the optimization and
19) on Civil Aviation: Economic Impact Analysis. performance analysis of aeronautical operations,
ICAO, 2020b. Doc 10144 ICAP Handbook for CAAs manufacture and logistics. Currently he is doing
on the Management of Aviation Safety Risks research in the Aviation Network of Mexico City and
related to COVID-19. the Multi-airport System of North Holland among other
Jansen, S., Sharpanskykh, A., Curran, R, 2019, Agent- activities.
based modelling and analysis of security and
efficiency in airport terminals, Transportation Paolo Scala, is researcher/lecturer at the Amsterdam
Research part C, v.100, pp. 142-160 School of International Business of the Amsterdam
Lee, A., Jacobson, S., 2011, The impact of aviation University of Applied Sciences. He took his Bachelor
checkpoint queues on optimizing security and Master Degree in Industrial Engineering at the
screening effectiveness, Reliability Engineering University of Calabria, Italy. He took his PhD degree in
and System Safety, vol. 96, pp. 900-911 Applied Mathematics at the University of Toulouse –
Mujica Mota, M., Boosten, G>, de Bock, N., Jimenez, Paul Sabatier in 2019. His research interests lie on the
E., de Souse, J., P., 2017. Simulation-based use of optimization and modeling & simulation
turnaround evaluation for Lelystad Airport. techniques to solve aviation and logistics related
Journal of Air Transport Management, v. 64, pp. problems. Currently, he covers the role of secretary for
21-32. the Dutch Benelux Simulation Society.”
Mujica Mota, Di Bernardi A., Scala P., Ramirez-Diaz
G., 2018, Simulation-based Virtual Cycle for Alejandro Di Bernardi has obtained his Master in
Multi-level Airport Analysis, Aerospace, Vol 5(2), Airport Systems in Madrid Polytechnic University
pp. 44 (Spain), as well as three specialist titles in airport
Pettersen K., Bjornskau, T., 2015, Organizational subjects, in this same University. He graduated as an
contradictions between safety and security – Aeronautical Engineer in National University of La
Perceived challenges and ways of integrating Plata (Argentina), where he teaches the subjects
critical infrastructure protection in civil aviation, “Reaction Engines”, “Alternative Engines”, “Airports
Safety Science, V.71, pp.167-177 and Flight Operations”, “Planning and Design of
Sahin, H., Feng, Q.,2009, A mathematical framework Airports”. Director of the postgraduate specialization
for sequential passenger and baggage screening to “Airport Projects”. He is also Director of the "Unit of
enhance aviation security, Computers and Research, Development, Extension and Transfer"
Industrial Engineering, v.57, pp. 148-155 UIDET GTA.-GIAI. "GIAI" “Group of Engineering
Stewart, M., Mueller, J., 2015, Responsible policy Applied to Industry" and G.T.A. "Air Group Transport”
analysis in aviation security with an evaluation of of the Department of Aeronautics. Instructor in
seminaries ICAO/Aena in CAR-SAM region. ICAO
expert in the fields of “Aerodrome Engineer” , “Airport
Master Plan Expert”, “Airport and Engine Emissions
Expert”, and ”Aviation Trainer Expert”. Advisor and
instructor in the Central American Institute of
Aeronautical Capacitation (ICCAE) of COCESNA.
Responsible for the design and management of two
airport diplomats. He has taught courses, classes,
conferences or talks at more than 35 institutions and
universities in 17 countries. Co-author of several
publications in the area of airports, air transport and
aeronautical engines. Director of different investigation
and engineering projects, having worked on more than
100 airports and heliports in Argentina, Brazil, Chile,
Colombia, Ecuador, El Salvador, España, Peru and
Uruguay and having participated in the elaboration of
37 airport master plans in Argentina. He participate in
the development of various studies on safety
assessment, and on sustainable air transport, and the
elaboration of long-term air transport strategic plans in
Argentina and in Peru, His email address is
[email protected]

Angel Orozco Turrubiates is currently the AVSEC

Programme Director at Mexico City International
Airport, 22 years of progressive experience in aircraft
and airport operations enrolled in several disciplines
such as IATA Security Audit Program (IOSA), Air
Operator Certification, Analysis of operational and
financial risks of aircraft and airports, Fleet Planning,
PBN Navigation, Airworthiness, Certification of
Aerodromes, Safety and Civil Aviation Management
Systems (SMS and SeMS respectively), Facilitation,
CORSIA, Master Development Plans, Regulatory
Improvement, among others. He has been certified
under the FAA Air Operator Certification and Aircraft
Certification System Evaluation Programme , AVSEC
National Inspector and AVSEC Instructor by ICAO. He
is an Aeronautical Engineer graduated from the
National Polytechnic Institute (IPN), postgraduate in
Economic Sciences (Investment Projects), Aerodrome
Engineering and Certification by the same institution,
Airport Management by the Aeronautical University in
Queretaro (UNAQ). He is a member of the Mexican
Aeronautical Engineers Society.