American Airlines Next Top Model 457 Weaknesses It does not account for passengers other than economy-class passengers It cannot simulate structural differences in the boarding gates which could possibly speed up the boarding process. For instance, some airlines in Eu pe board planes from two different entrances It cannot account It does not account for passenger preferences or satisfaction sults and data analysis For each plane layout and boarding algorithm, we ran 500 boarding simu lations, calculating mean time and standard deviation. The latter is important because the reliability of plane loading is important for scheduling flights We simulated the back-to-front method for several possible group sizes Because of the difference in the number of rows in the planes, not all group size possibilities could be implemented on all planes Small Plane For the small plane, Figure 2 shows that all boarding techniques except for the Roller Coaster slowed the boarding process compared to the random board structure is added to the bo passenger seat assignments continue to be random within each of the board while others seat themselves immediately upon entering the plane, preventing any more from stepping off of the gate and onto the plane. These gaps pre- vent passengers who board early and must travel to the back of the plane from causing interference with many passengers behind them. However, when we implement the Roller Coaster algorithm, seat interference is eliminated, with the only passenger causing aisle interference being the very last one to board from each group Interestingly, the small plane's boarding times for all algorithms are greater than their respective boarding time for the midsize plane! This is because the number of seats per row per aisle is greater in the small plane than in the midsize Midsize plane The results experienced from the simulations of the mid-sized plane are in Figure 3 and are comparable to those experienced by the small plaAmerican Airlines' Next Top Model 457 Weaknesses "* It does not account for passengers other than economy-class passengers. "* It cannot simulate structural differences in the boarding gates which could possibly speed up the boarding process. For instance, some airlines in Eu￾rope board planes from two different entrances at once. "* It cannot account for people being late to the boarding gate. "* It does not account for passenger preferences or satisfaction. Results and Data Analysis For each plane layout and boarding algorithm, we ran 500 boarding simu￾lations, calculating mean time and standard deviation. The latter is important because the reliability of plane loading is important for scheduling flights. We simulated the back-to-front method for several possible group sizes. Because of the difference in the number of rows in the planes, not all group size possibilities could be implemented on all planes. Small Plane For the small plane, Figure 2 shows that all boarding techniques except for the Roller Coaster slowed the boarding process compared to the random board￾ing process. As more and more structure is added to the boarding process, while passenger seat assignments continue to be random within each of the board￾ing groups, passenger interference backs up more and more. When passengers board randomly, gaps are created between passengers as some move to the back while others seat themselves immediately upon entering the plane, preventing any more from stepping off of the gate and onto the plane. These gaps pre￾vent passengers who board early and must travel to the back of the plane from causing interference with many passengers behind them. However, when we implement the Roller Coaster algorithm, seat interference is eliminated, with the only passenger causing aisle interference being the very last one to board from each group. Interestingly, the small plane's boarding times for all algorithms are greater than their respective boarding time for the midsize plane! This is because the number of seats per row per aisle is greater in the small plane than in the midsize plane. Midsize Plane The results experienced from the simulations of the mid-sized plane are shown in Figure 3 and are comparable to those experienced by the small plane