A carregar...
Publicação
A influência dos Departure Procedures-66B nos atrasos da Companhia Aérea Portugália Uma análise exploratória
| Nome: | Descrição: | Tamanho: | Formato: | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2.02 MB | Adobe PDF |
Autores
Orientador(es)
Resumo(s)
A pontualidade constitui um dos principais indicadores de desempenho na aviação
comercial, com impacto direto na reputação e eficiência das companhias aéreas. O código
66 (IATA) é usado para identificar atrasos relacionados com a tripulação de cabine nos
procedimentos de partida. A TAP/PGA acrescenta o B quando estão em causa
procedimentos sob responsabilidade da cabine que impedem o embarque no horário
previsto ou causam um atraso na saída do voo. Este estudo analisa o atraso 66B - Departure
Procedures (DP) numa amostra com 14.127 registos (efetuados entre set.–dez. 2022),
19,6% dos quais (N=2765) suscetíveis de intervenção pela companhia e 80,4% não
controláveis, ocorrendo de forma isolada (10,8%) e combinada (89.2%) com outros tipos
de atraso. Pretendeu-se compreender a especificidade do atraso 66B nos voos da PGA
quanto à sua frequência, impacto temporal e relação com outros tipos de atraso, visando
propostas de melhoria. Os resultados mostraram que, quanto à sua frequência, o 66B
ocupa a 12ª posição na amostra global e o 4º lugar no grupo dos atrasos controláveis.
Quanto à sua duração, o 66B ocupa o 26º lugar no ranking da duração total, o 160º lugar
quanto à duração média (M= 8,08) por ocorrência, em geral. No grupo dos controláveis, o
66B situa-se no 57º nos rankings. Verificaram-se diferenças significativas entre os dois tipos
de atraso, controláveis (onde se insere o 66B) e não controláveis, através do teste t de
Welch (F(1,14126)=131.23, p<. 001) e do teste de U de Mann-Whitney (U=12312897.0, z=-
17,65, p<.001.). Quanto aos atrasos compostos com o envolvimento do 66B, o teste
Kruskal-Wallis revelou diferenças significativas entre grupos de complexidade distinta até
um máximo de 2 atrasos compostos, a duração média do atraso global cresce de forma
significativa (H=95,06 p<.001). Conclui-se que o comportamento do atraso do 66B na
amostra revela (1) frequência expressiva dentro dos atrasos controláveis, (2) tendência
clara para a inserção em cadeias de atraso compostas, com impacto amplificado; (3)
articulação com falhas em planeamento, cockpit e embarque. Propõem-se medidas
concretas, como a padronização de procedimentos e melhoria da coordenação entre
equipas, para reforçar a eficiência da operação.
Punctuality is one of the main performance indicators in commercial aviation, with a direct impact on airline reputation and operational efficiency. IATA code 66 is used to identify delays related to cabin crew during departure procedures. TAP/PGA adds the suffix “B” when the delay is caused by processes under the cabin crew’s responsibility that prevent timely boarding or delay the aircraft’s departure. This study analyses delay code 66B – Departure Procedures (DP) – based on a sample of 14,127 records (collected between September and December 2022), of which 19.6% (N=2,765) were controllable by the airline and 80.4% were not. These occurred either in isolation (10.8%) or in combination with other delay codes (89.2%). The aim was to understand the specific behaviour of delay 66B on PGA flights in terms of frequency, duration, and its relationship with other delay types, to support operational improvements. Results show that 66B ranked 12th in the overall frequency and 4th among controllable delays. In terms of duration, it ranked 26th in total delay time and 160th in average delay per occurrence (M=8.08). Within the controllable group, 66B ranked 57th. Significant differences between controllable (including 66B) and non-controllable delays were confirmed using Welch’s t-test (F(1,14126)=131.23, p<.001) and the Mann-Whitney U test (U=12312897.0, z=-17.65, p<.001). Regarding compound delays involving 66B, the Kruskal-Wallis test revealed significant differences between levels of complexity: up to two combined delays, the overall average duration increases significantly (H=95.06, p<.001). It is concluded that 66B delays in the sample demonstrate: (1) high frequency within controllable delays, (2) a clear tendency to form part of compound delay chains with amplified impact, and (3) strong association with planning, cockpit, and boarding failures. Concrete measures are proposed, such as the standardisation of procedures and improved coordination between teams, to enhance operational efficiency.
Punctuality is one of the main performance indicators in commercial aviation, with a direct impact on airline reputation and operational efficiency. IATA code 66 is used to identify delays related to cabin crew during departure procedures. TAP/PGA adds the suffix “B” when the delay is caused by processes under the cabin crew’s responsibility that prevent timely boarding or delay the aircraft’s departure. This study analyses delay code 66B – Departure Procedures (DP) – based on a sample of 14,127 records (collected between September and December 2022), of which 19.6% (N=2,765) were controllable by the airline and 80.4% were not. These occurred either in isolation (10.8%) or in combination with other delay codes (89.2%). The aim was to understand the specific behaviour of delay 66B on PGA flights in terms of frequency, duration, and its relationship with other delay types, to support operational improvements. Results show that 66B ranked 12th in the overall frequency and 4th among controllable delays. In terms of duration, it ranked 26th in total delay time and 160th in average delay per occurrence (M=8.08). Within the controllable group, 66B ranked 57th. Significant differences between controllable (including 66B) and non-controllable delays were confirmed using Welch’s t-test (F(1,14126)=131.23, p<.001) and the Mann-Whitney U test (U=12312897.0, z=-17.65, p<.001). Regarding compound delays involving 66B, the Kruskal-Wallis test revealed significant differences between levels of complexity: up to two combined delays, the overall average duration increases significantly (H=95.06, p<.001). It is concluded that 66B delays in the sample demonstrate: (1) high frequency within controllable delays, (2) a clear tendency to form part of compound delay chains with amplified impact, and (3) strong association with planning, cockpit, and boarding failures. Concrete measures are proposed, such as the standardisation of procedures and improved coordination between teams, to enhance operational efficiency.