Aircraft Turnaround Management

Supporting station operations managers to prevent flight delays

My team and I conducted an end-to-end UX process to redesign the user experience of Turnaround Management by APiJET for Station Operation Managers (SOMs)--the people resonsible for making sure turnarounds runs smoothly--at airports to make informed decisions to reduce flight delays.

I present a tl;dr version of the entire process for this senior capstone project. Please refer to the process book below for a full discussion on design decisions and research methods.

Google Drive - Full process book


Main contributions

Demo video of finished designs, illustrated by Leanne Liu and voice over by Jordan Kussman.

Problem space

Flight delays are costly

If you’ve used air travel before, you might have experienced your flight being delayed. Flight delays are definitely annoying for passengers, and also have a big impact on airline companies as well. In fact, flight delays cost approximately $76 per minute, and $28.9 billion dollars a year. [1, 2]--That’s a lot of money!

Infographic: flight delays can cause frustrated passengers and expensive fees for airline companies.

The "turnaround"

A turnaround is the 30-60 minute interval between an aircraft arriving at a gate to prepare for its next flight, which includes cleaning, catering, fueling, and more. A smooth turnaround saves airlines money in delay fees and reduces passenger frustration.

The aircraft turnaround is the process for airplanes to get ready for its next flight.

APiJET Turnaround Management

When I joined the project with my capstone team, our sponsor APiJET already had a beta version of Turnaround Management, a software which had the core functionality of visualizing aviation data and activity statuses to help Station Operations Managers (SOMs) better lead turnaround processes. This is currently being tested by Iceland Air.

Summary of Turnaround Management by APiJET. [3]

Project goals

How might we improve Turnaround Management's design to help flights depart on time?

Business goal

To design for scalability and provide streamlined user experience.

APiJET was getting interest from larger airlines, and they emphasized designing a scalable product for different airline companies while providing a streamlined user experience.

Solution tl;dr

We designed three main features addressing pain points and supporting SOMs to manage aircrafts, preventing future flight delays.

Research the context and the user

We conducted seven semi-structured interviews to understand the turnaround process and how different teams collaborated.

Station Operation Manager x1

Pilots x2

Inflight leaders x2

APiJET chief officers x2

I directed my team to create a communication map based on the interviews to find who had the largest impact on the turnaround process running smoothly,

Aircraft Turnaround Communication Map, showing lines of communication between groups working on the aircraft.

Station Operations Manager (SOM)

“...[I’m] the heartbeat of the airport: things come in, they get deciphered, they get understood, and then they get distributed.”

We confirmed our main persona, the Station Operations Manager, had the largest network and responsibility to address controllable delays. 

Monitor conditions

  • Pain point
    Information overload

Solve issues

  • Pain point
    Can't prevent delays

Improve future turnarounds

  • Pain point
    Inconvenient interpreting past data

Monitor conditions

Monitor conditions

Skim relevant information

When SOMs develop situational awareness, they can be looking at 8 monitors to keep up with 30 aircraft turnarounds at one time, while listening to the radio, and handling calls. That can cause information overload! A Multi Flight View focusing on skimmable, organized statuses and progress information was a great way to efficiently consume relevant information.

The Multi Flight View provides flight information organized by time and gate.

We considered divergent design directions, such as map and table formats. We eventually converged into a Gantt chart design. This works best to organize information by time, a critical factor in prioritization of attention.

APiJET's initial design - Map format

First round of brainstorming - Table format

After user testing - Final design

Prevent delays early

A major pain point for SOMs was not being able to prevent delays. That meant reacting to issues as they arise, putting flights at risk of delay. We propose a Delay Feed that shows two types of delays to stay updated with potential or current issues that can delay a flight.

  • Preventative delays warn activities at risk of being behind schedule
  • Critical delays warn current issues that could delay the flight

Delay Feed. An overlay tab that is visible on Multi Flight and Single Flight views. The delay feed allows an SOM to see all of the critical and preventative delay issues that need action, allowing them to resolve delays quickly.

Accessible design decisions - Icons

Icons serve a critical role in conveying information to the user. I pushed for the icons used in our design to have at least two differentiating visual treatments to accommodate for visual impairments, as recommended by the WCAG 2.0.

However, I had one icon left to complete the accessibility treatment. If I had additional time during this project, I will definitely give the Preventative delay icon a unique shape.

Icon list. Each given at least two different visual treatments with the exception of one delay icon.

Solve issues

Identify issue causes

When SOMs resolve issues, the most important thing to know is who and what the resources are. Phone calls and emails are a common way to locate the resources. Single Flight View focusing on transparency of activity completion statuses and progress was a great way to effectively understand where issues originate and figure out how to resolve problems.

The Single Flight View provides flight information for one flight, and shows respective turnaround activity situation.

We looked to the feedback we received from usability testing and sponsor input to continuously iterate on our designs.

Concept sketches

Wireframes

Final

Track turnaround activities

The highlight for this view is the turnaround activity timeline, which makes it easier for SOMs to track activities. SOMs resolve issues often in a time crunch, so different data values including boolean or progress values are visually different for quick skimming. Unavailable values are grayed out to prevent misinforming the user, improving information confidence. 

Turnaround activity timeline. Displays progress to identify where issues occur.

Accessible design decisions - Timeline

Instead of assuming that SOMs had vision requirements, I advocated for accessible design for vision impairments. To address green and red color blindness, I added two form based visual indicators to separate the colors in this bar.

Though my teammates were skeptical at first, I still pushed for accessible design practices. Good design practices will help SOMs understand the timeline better with additional indicators regardless of possible vision requirements.

Close up of additional form-based visual indicators to address green and red color blindness.

Improve future turnarounds

Filter and compare

When SOMs review past turnaround data with their managers and teams, they often use raw data formats in a spreadsheet. Without involved visuals, SOMs experienced inconvenience interpreting past data. We proposed a reports feature dedicated for the visualizing and comparing relevant high-level delay information and performance data for SOMs to improve their turnaround process. 

Reports provide turnaround data to compare and analyze for future improvements.

Date picker UI. This filter is the most important as it includes the comparison feature option.

We proceeded with a filter design to preserve the freedom to compare data types relevant to unique use cases. Based on that constant, we drafted various data visualizations, eventually settling on a monochromatic color scheme for easy comparison. 

Results

We presented our designs to our sponsors, the SOM we interviewed, and HCDE Capstone showcase. Along with our final product, we also provided suggestions on the design for future work to APiJET. Our designs were very well received, and they are looking into implementing our designs. APiJET was especially excited about the turnaround timeline in the Single Flight View, my efforts for accessible design in it, and the comparison feature in the Reports view. 

Retrospective

Balancing user and business needs

This project was an incredible learning experience for me because it was my first end-to-end project in industry. I learned that design in industry is part of business, it is critical to balance business needs and communicate reasons in such terms as well as user-centered terms.

Need for accessibility

Another learning moment was confirming the importance of accessibility practices I learned to this project. The sponsor was looking for accessible designs as well, which made me even more confident in my efforts. If this was a real project, I would take more time to recruit user testing participants with SOMs and address the last icon accessibility.

Remote workflows with the team

Finally, a big shoutout to my wonderful capstone team mates! A large part of the project took place during requirements to social distance and quarantine. We experienced challenges that came with this circumstance and design process obstacles, but we managed to overcome them through clear communication and focusing on the well-being of the team. We all brought forth unique insights and skills to make this challenge eventually into a success. Wishing my team mates the best in their journeys ahead!

Capstone team mates. Leanne Liu (top left), Cara Pangelinan (top right), Jordan Kussman (bottom left), and Esther Lin (bottom right).

Cited Sources

[1] Schonland, Addison. US Airlines "Lost" Nearly $2Bn between January and April from Flight Delays " AirInsight. (2019).

[2] Ball, Michael, et al. "Total delay impact study: a comprehensive assessment of the costs and impacts of flight delay in the United States." (2010).

[3] Turnaround Management, https://apijet.com/turnaround-management/

^ top

Solution

My team developed the concept of visualizing information based on a Multi Flight, Single Flight, and Reports view in our redesigned aircraft Turnaround Management application used by Station Operation Managers during their work. This application sources real-time aviation data to reduce flight delays through supporting SOMs to identify delay risks and coordinate smoother aircraft turns efficiently.

Mockup screens of the application's three main pages are described below.

Reports

Reports provide SOMs with relevant visualizations regarding high-level delay information and performance data. Users can apply filters and use a comparison tool in order to get more specific information about certain turnaround activities, gates, delay codes, etc.

Click the thumbnails above to see details.

📣 Under construction!📣
Please see the following process book PDF for details. I would be more than happy to chat with you if you have any questions--just send me a ping via email or LinkedIn. 👋

Research

First part of the process is research.

To better understand the problems of the turnaround process and how the different turnaround teams collaborated, we conducted a total of seven semi-structured interviews: one station operations manager, two former pilots, two inflight leaders, and two chief officers from APiJET. All participants spoke to their experiences of handling aircraft turnarounds.

Station Operation Manager x1

Pilots x2

Inflight leaders x2

APiJET chief officers x2


A key finding from research was the importance of reducing controllable delays. Controllable (turnaround) delays include passenger boarding, tardy service teams, and replenishing items.

Passenger experiencing a delay.

To address who had the largest impact on the turnaround process running smoothly, I directed my team to create a communication map based on the interviews. A lot of the communication went through people in the station operations room.

Aircraft Turnaround Communication Map, showing lines of communication between groups working on the aircraft.

We confirmed our main persona, the Station Operations Manager, who had the largest network and responsibility to address controllable delays. 

Station Operations Manager (SOM)

Ensures planes depart on time.

“...[I’m] the heartbeat of the airport: things come in, they get deciphered, they get understood, and then they get distributed.”

Monitoring conditions

  • Paint points:
  • Information overload

Solving issues‍

  • Pain points:
  • Can’t prevent delays
  • Unknown resources to solve issues
  • Difficulty prioritizing flights

Improving future turnarounds‍‍

  • Paint points:
  • Inconvenient interpreting past data

Project goal

To increase transparency of turnaround activity progress and early alerts.

Pain points revolved around situational awareness and understanding the next actions as issues arise. That led us to prioritize the goal of increasing the transparency of turnaround activity progress and alerting SOMs before issues arise to prevent delays.

Ideation

Second part of the process is ideation.

To truly provide transparency of turnaround activity, SOMs need to see different levels of information. I proposed a structure with three main levels of informationMulti Flight View with high level statuses of different turnarounds, Single Flight View with specific information of one turnaround to understand contexts of the current situation, and a Reports feature to prevent flight delays in the future.

Monitoring conditions

  • Multi Flight View
  • ✈️✈️✈️

Solving issues‍

  • Single Flight View
  • ✈️

Improving future turnarounds‍‍

  • Reports
  • 📊📈

Multi Flight View

Monitoring conditions

  • Multi Flight View
  • ✈️✈️✈️

Solving issues‍

  • Single Flight View
  • ✈️

Improving future turnarounds‍‍

  • Reports
  • 📊📈

Flight tracker

Pain point:
Information overload

Solution:
S
kimmable overviews with summarized information regarding completion statuses of activities.

Iteration 1: Map


First, we reviewed the current Turnaround Management interface. I diverted from this map view because it was not scalable for larger companies. There would be just too many airplanes on the map to efficiently keep track. 


Iteration 2: Table


Table format with all the flights in chronological order addressed skimmability but lacked visual connection to time and completion.


Iteration 3: Gantt chart


The Gantt chart-like flight tracking timeline used by the SOM we interviewed was a good jumping off point for our team because it focused on progress rather than location. We created a cleaner and skimmable Gantt chart design. In this chart, each bar in this is a single flight turnaround and is organized based on gate and time.

Delay feed

Pain point:
Can't prevent delays

Solution:
Delay feed with alerts
for SOMs to receive timely notice of potential delays to prevent late departures.


The Delay feed helps the SOM stay updated with potential or current issues that can delay a flight. Preventative delays warn SOMs that a turnaround activity is at risk of being behind schedule which could delay the flight. Critical delays warn SOMs that there is currently an issue with a turnaround activity and could delay the flight.


The user can select an alert in the Delay Feed, which takes them to the corresponding Single Flight View. On the Single Flight View, the user can see other alerts that are connected to this turnaround.

Single Flight View

Monitoring conditions

  • Multi Flight View
  • ✈️✈️✈️

Solving issues‍

  • Single Flight View
  • ✈️

Improving future turnarounds‍‍

  • Reports
  • 📊📈

Turnaround activity timeline

Pain point:
Unknown resources to solve issues

Solution:
Turnaround activity timeline
 to examine delay issues, its source, and figuring out how to resolve it


I thought a granular version of that may help increase transparency of each turnaround. I sketched a Gantt chart-based activity timeline in the scale of a single turnaround to help users identify where things originate, and track inflight (turnaround) activities.

Delay factor metrics

Pain point:
Difficulty prioritizing flights

Solution:
Show delay risk factors
that impacts prioritization.


The factors that influences a flight’s priorities are listed such as the number of pets and wheelchairs. 

Reports

Monitoring conditions

  • Multi Flight View
  • ✈️✈️✈️

Solving issues‍

  • Single Flight View
  • ✈️

Improving future turnarounds‍‍

  • Reports
  • 📊📈

Filter based data visualizations

Pain point:
Inconvenient interpreting past data

Solution:
Data visualizations
that help interpret past data.


Among many directions my team proposed, we boiled down to a filter based data visualization, the most important filter being time. We also began planning for a comparison view, as seen in my concept sketch

Iteration

The third step of the process was iteration on our design ideas.

Usability research plan

We made click-through prototypes for usability testing for each view. This helped us clarify whether we had misinterpretations of visualizing data and evaluate the understandability of the design. 

  • Main tasks
  • Find detailed information about a turnaround - ✈️✈️✈️
  • Identify activities in progress and completed - ✈️
  • Filter and compare flight data - 📊📈
  • Post-task questions
  • Understandability
  • Areas for improvement
  • Correct data interpretations

Multi Flight View

Monitoring conditions

  • Multi Flight View
  • ✈️✈️✈️

Solving issues‍

  • Single Flight View
  • ✈️

Improving future turnarounds‍‍

  • Reports
  • 📊📈

Clarify actual vs scheduled times

There was confusion with the meaning of the different colored bars due to the participant's prior experience with a similar tool. To address this, we reversed our previous color assignments.

Before user testing, color assignments were white for actual and blue for scheduled times.

After user testing, color assignments were reversed: blue for actual and white for scheduled times.


SOMs can monitor high-level turnaround information of all flights they are responsible for (past, current, and future scheduled). Each bar represents one turnaround and has different color assignments to clearly indicate its status - in progress, on time, or delayed.

Delay Feed awareness

During both think-aloud studies, participants did not notice the Delay Feed. Lack of visual indication of new delays did not entice an SOM to open the Delay Feed and address issues. To resolve this, we added colored indicators on the Delay Feed Header.  

Before user testing, there were no indications for new delay alerts.

After user testing, visual indications were added: red dot for new delay alerts, and triangle icons for delay alerts that have not been resolved.


Corresponding triangle icons in the tab are added next to critical and preventative delays within the window.

Single Flight View

Monitoring conditions

  • Multi Flight View
  • ✈️✈️✈️

Solving issues‍

  • Single Flight View
  • ✈️

Improving future turnarounds‍‍

  • Reports
  • 📊📈

Confusing data representation

Two metrics were ambiguous to testing participants, passengers and pets. The passengers data point confused participants because of uncertainty whether the numbers represent boarded passengers or available seats. In response, two data points were added, "# of Avail Seats,” and “# of Passengers." Lastly, pets can be loaded in two places, cabin and cargo hold. SOMs prioritize the number of pets in the cabin. Therefore, we changed the wording from “# of Pets” to “# of Carry-on Pets.”

Before user testing, the metrics for passengers and pets were ambiguous.

After user testing, metrics clearly indicate the passengers and pets.


SOMs can view detailed turnaround activities and flight information on a specific turnaround. The turnaround activity timeline makes it easier for SOMs to know which activity is on track or behind.


The timeline shows different data values including boolean or progress values as visually different elements for quick skimming. Unavailable values are grayed out to prevent misinforming the user, improving information confidence.

Reports

Monitoring conditions

  • Multi Flight View
  • ✈️✈️✈️

Solving issues‍

  • Single Flight View
  • ✈️

Improving future turnarounds‍‍

  • Reports
  • 📊📈

Revise Color Palette

Our sponsors expressed concern over interpreting information for comparison visualizations. The initial color palette was inconsistent and difficult to compare data. In order to address this concern, we created two sets of monochromatic color schemes to use for the Reports view.

Before user testing, colors made sense only with one set of data.

After user testing, color schemes became monochromatic for easy comparison.


Reports view provide SOMs with relevant visualizations regarding high-level delay information and performance data. Users can apply filters and use a comparison tool in order to get more specific information about certain turnaround activities, gates, etc.


The context of flight delays are preserved in the table in the bottom half of the page.


Comparison feature is triggered by the toggle at the top of the date picker. 


When the comparison tool is used, the data visualization shows two different hues to easily distinguish one set of data from the other. 

Visual

Last part of the process is visual touchups.

Design Language


We created our own design language inspired from the sponsor’s UI and Google Material Design for visual consistency.

Accessibility Efforts


I championed the importance of good design practices that were also accessible as stated in Web Content Accessibility Guidelines 2.0. My efforts manifested in two main areas, the general design language and Single Flight View turnaround timeline.

Two visual differences are given for different meanings for icons. I pushed for all the icons to have two different visual indicators, with the exception of the one icon. If I had more time, I would give the last icon to have a different shape. 

In the Single Flight View, I added two non-color visual indicators to separate the green and red in this bar because it’s a common color blindness combination.

Though my teammates were skeptical at first, I pushed for adding these elements. My reasoning was, regardless of possible vision requirements, it will help SOMs understand the timeline better with additional indicators.