Watch · from our studio
See it in motion.
A case study walk-through of how VB Engineering improves airport check-in time through discrete event simulation. The video covers best airport design case studies, the capacity and throughput trade-offs the simulation surfaces, and the IATA Level of Service compliance evidence the deliverable produces.
The check-in decision is fundamentally about capacity vs cost. How many counters at peak hour. How many self-service kiosks. How many staff on the roster. Get it wrong and you breach IATA Level of Service or you over-spend OPEX every operational day for the next decade. The simulation captures every counter, queue lane, transaction type, processing distribution, and staffing schedule · then puts the decision against IATA LoS A through C targets with a costed trade-off.
Counter rows · queue serpentine · transaction types (economy, premium, baggage drop, kiosk) · processing time distributions · staffing schedules · disruption events.
Average and P95 queue time · maximum queue length · counter utilisation · IATA LoS grade per period · staffing cost vs service-level trade-off.
Counter sizing · self-service kiosk policy · staffing roster · peak-hour readiness · summer-vs-winter scheduling · IROPS contingency.
Security lane sizing is one of the biggest capex decisions an airport makes · and it has to clear ICAO Annex 17 before a regulator visits. CT X-ray investment business cases. Fast-track policy validation. Staffing roster against the reject and re-screen rates you actually observe. Body scanner vs conventional WTMD throughput. We model every screening process step and quantify the trade-offs against operator and regulator thresholds.
X-ray lanes (conventional + CT) · walk-through metal detector · body scanners · pat-down booth · reject and re-screen logic · hand-baggage processing.
Screening throughput rate per lane · reject + re-screen rates · queue dwell time · staff utilisation · screening cost per passenger.
Lane sizing · CT X-ray business case · fast-track policy · pre-clearance lane allocation · staffing roster · screener training need.
Gate roster decisions lock in 30 years of operational economics. A widebody on a narrowbody gate costs you OTP every day. Insufficient turn-time crushes a hub-bank schedule. Jet bridge capex without simulation evidence is faith-based budgeting. The model captures gate seating capacity, desk processing, jet bridge connection, boarding sequence, and full turn-time chain · then validates the roster, the fleet mix policy, and the capex against punctuality and utilisation targets.
Gate seating capacity · gate desk processing · jet bridge connection · boarding sequence (zone, group, priority) · turn-time chain · fleet mix.
Average turn-time · boarding rate (pax/min) · gate utilisation · on-time performance · departure punctuality · gate-conflict frequency.
Gate roster optimisation · turn-time reduction policy · widebody vs narrowbody gate assignment · jet bridge investment · fleet introduction validation.
BHS upgrade business cases. New-BHS pre-commissioning validation. Mishandle-rate reduction targets the airline alliances have already agreed to. IATA Resolution 753 compliance evidence the regulator will ask for. The decision is whether you have the throughput, the recovery loop, and the availability your service-level commitments require · or whether the capex investment closes the gap. We model every conveyor, sorter, transfer point, and chute against design-day volume.
Conveyor network · primary and secondary sorters · transfer points · flight chutes · sortation logic · redirect-on-misroute rules · recovery loop · maintenance windows.
Design throughput (bags/hr) · mishandled bag rate per 1000 · recovery loop time · system availability · sortation accuracy · IATA 753 compliance evidence.
BHS upgrade business case · new-BHS pre-commissioning validation · sortation policy · maintenance window scheduling · spare strategy · IT system upgrade scoping.
First-bag and last-bag times are how passengers grade an airport · and how IATA LoS scores it. Carousel capex sizing. Belt assignment policy. Hall density that determines whether the experience feels premium or bus-station. The decision is whether the arrival hall can absorb the schedule you have signed up for, with the fleet mix you actually fly. We model the arrivals flight schedule, the bag-per-passenger ratio, the hold-to-belt time, and the hall geometry · validated against IATA LoS waiting-time and waiting-space targets.
Arrivals carousels (multiple) · belt assignment policy · arrival flight schedule · bag-per-passenger ratio · hall geometry and passenger flow.
First-bag time · last-bag time · carousel utilisation · hall density (pax/sqm) · waiting time per passenger · IATA LoS grade.
Carousel sizing and length · belt assignment policy · hall layout · arrivals capacity validation for new flight introduction.
Apron capex decisions size the GSE fleet, the pushback tug fleet, the fueling and catering capex, the de-icing pad capacity. Land-side capex decisions size the curbside footprint, the parking and kiss-and-fly bays, the ground transport interchange. Wrong-size either half and you bottleneck the operation the moment a new airline contract delivers extra movements. The simulation closes the loop from inbound vehicle at the access road to outbound aircraft at the runway threshold · with capex sizing evidence at every decision point.
Runway capacity · taxiway routing · apron stand allocation · GSE fleet · pushback tugs · fueling and catering cycles · de-icing · turnaround chain.
Curbside drop-off and pick-up · parking and kiss-and-fly · bus and taxi bays · ground transport access · forecourt vehicle flow.
Apron capex sizing · GSE fleet right-sizing · runway capacity validation · curbside expansion business case · parking sizing · ground transport access design.
Every airport simulation engagement conforms to eight layered standards covering platform, validation, passenger experience, aerodrome geometry, security, baggage tracking, operational data, and live data exchange. Every standard is documented per deliverable. The platform is the tool. The discipline is the model. The Chartered Engineer is the signature.
Hero discrete event simulation platform · the .fsm model is the canonical deliverable
Validation, Verification and Accreditation framework · the discipline every model is built to
International framework grading airport passenger experience A through F across functional areas
Aerodrome design standards · runway, taxiway, apron geometry the model conforms to
Security framework · the screening process the model represents
Baggage tracking standard · the BHS model output supports
Operational data model · the simulation input data structure
Live data exchange standard · for AODB and BHS integration
The model is the proof. The report is the audit trail. The recommendations are the executable artifact. Outputs map to Wistwin digital twin layer for live-vs-design comparison once the airport is operational.
Delivered to client as a FlexSim .fsm file · runs on client license · documented with parameter sheets and assumption log · the artefact your team can re-run for the next decade of decisions.
Build-spec verification · historical data validation · sensitivity analysis on top 3 input drivers · ASA VV+A framework.
IATA Level of Service mapped per functional area · operational KPIs · target vs actual vs simulated.
Layout · process · technology interventions tied to KPI gaps · order-of-magnitude costed.
Every run captured · scenario name · input set · output set · timestamp · for audit and reproducibility.
Every section signed · audit-ready · regulator-ready · lender-ready · concessionaire-ready.
Three illustrative engagements. Client names withheld · representative of multiple engagements in the airport simulation category.
Design-day peak hour throughput modelled across 3 terminals. Gate assignment policy informed by simulation. Pre-opening 12-week engagement. BHS validated against 5,400 bags/hour design. Passenger flow met IATA Level of Service B+ at design day.
BHS bottleneck identified through simulation. Alternative sortation layout modelled. 18% throughput uplift validated. Mishandled bag rate dropped from 4.2 to 2.1 per thousand. Implementation board-approved on the strength of the simulation evidence.
Two-lane to four-lane security expansion modelled before construction. Lane assignment policy validated. CT X-ray vs conventional X-ray throughput trade-off quantified. Pre-opening commissioning validated against ICAO Annex 17 and operator KPIs.
Airport discrete event simulation is a computer-based modeling technique that represents the airport operational chain as a sequence of discrete events · passenger arrivals, check-in transactions, security screening, boarding, baggage handling, apron movements, runway operations · each progressing the system clock by a measurable interval. It produces statistically valid throughput, queueing, and capacity outputs without disrupting live operations. VB Engineering builds these models in FlexSim and validates them against historical airport data using the ASA VV+A framework.
VB Engineering's hero discrete event simulation platform for airport work is FlexSim · current production release with the FlexSim Aviation library where the engagement requires it. AnyLogic and Simio are available where the client has standardised on those platforms. The platform is the tool · the methodology and the CEng MIE signature are the value.
Each engagement delivers six artifacts · the native simulation model (a FlexSim .fsm file delivered to the client), the verification and validation report against ASA VV+A, the KPI scorecard mapped to IATA Level of Service and operational targets, the recommendation register with order-of-magnitude cost estimates, the scenario log capturing every run, and the CEng MIE FIE signature on every section. The package is structured for direct lender, regulator, and board consumption.
Four to six weeks for a single terminal or single subsystem (check-in only, BHS only). Eight to ten weeks for a landside-to-airside full-terminal model. Twelve to sixteen weeks for a multi-terminal airport with apron, baggage, security, and gates integrated. Faster if AODB exports, BHS data, and security throughput data are clean and available on day one.
IATA Level of Service is the international framework for measuring airport passenger experience · queue times, waiting space, processing throughput · graded from A (excellent) to F (unacceptable) across functional areas including check-in, security, immigration, and boarding. VB Engineering's airport simulation deliverables map every KPI back to IATA LoS categories so the report reads directly against the framework an airport operator already governs to.
Yes. Greenfield airport master planning is a frequent use case. The model runs against design-day passenger throughput, design-day baggage volume, gate assignment policy, and equipment fleet alternatives. Outputs inform capex sizing, terminal layout final-fix, and pre-opening contingency procedures. The simulation can validate the master plan against IATA Level of Service before contracts are awarded.
Yes for offline data integration · AODB CSV exports, BHS sortation logs, security lane throughput files, and historical baggage data are standard inputs. Live AODB API integration is possible but rarely required · most engagements validate against 6 to 12 months of historical data, then run against design scenarios.
The BHS model captures every conveyor, sorter, transfer point, and chute. Belt speeds, sortation logic, redirect rules on misroute, and recovery loops are configured per the client's system specification. The model runs against design-day baggage volume with mishandled-bag rates, allocation-decision delays, and recovery times measured against IATA Resolution 753 and service level targets. Output supports BHS upgrade business cases, new-BHS commissioning validation, and ICAO Annex 17 evidence packs for security-affected diversions.
Yes. Standard disruption scenarios · weather diversion, security incident, BHS failure, runway closure, IT outage, ground stop · each runs against the steady-state baseline to compute recovery time, passenger delay accumulation, and KPI impact. The simulation supports operational resilience studies, business continuity plans, and IROPS (irregular operations) policy validation.
Yes. Bank and lender financial models for airport capex frequently require simulation-based throughput validation. Regulator and concession-holder reporting requires evidence of design-day performance under IATA Level of Service. VB Engineering's deliverable package · verification + validation report, KPI scorecard, recommendation register, CEng MIE FIE signature · is structured for direct submission to financiers and regulators.
VB Engineering has delivered airport simulations across GCC tier-1 international hubs, Indian domestic and international airports, and Southeast Asian regional terminals. Specific client names are withheld under non-disclosure but landmark the region engagements are available on request. The practice covers single-runway domestic hubs through three-terminal mega-airports.
Yes. Apron simulation covers pushback tug routing, GSE (ground service equipment) fleet utilisation, fueling truck cycles, catering truck scheduling, baggage tug routing, and de-icing operations. The model is built per stand and per equipment type. Output supports apron capex decisions, GSE fleet sizing, and turn-time optimisation studies.
Yes when the client has a BIM in place. FlexSim imports IFC geometry. The simulation output KPIs publish to the digital twin layer (Wistwin or any equivalent platform) for live-vs-design comparison once the airport is operational.
Engagement scope is confirmed during a 30-minute consultation. Written estimate within five business days · we don't publish standard prices because every engagement is scoped against the operational question, the data availability, and the validation depth required. Tell us the airport, the scope, and the timeline · we will scope and price it.
Tell us the airport, the decision you need to defend, and the timeline. A practice lead responds within one business day with scoping questions. Written estimate within 5 business days · no published price · scope drives the proposal.
Scope your modelWatch · from our studio