National Academies Press: OpenBook

Common Use Facilities and Equipment at Airports (2008)

Chapter: Chapter Two - Common Use Continuum

« Previous: Chapter One - Introduction
Page 7
Suggested Citation:"Chapter Two - Common Use Continuum." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2008. Common Use Facilities and Equipment at Airports. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/14164.
×
Page 7
Page 8
Suggested Citation:"Chapter Two - Common Use Continuum." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2008. Common Use Facilities and Equipment at Airports. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/14164.
×
Page 8
Page 9
Suggested Citation:"Chapter Two - Common Use Continuum." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2008. Common Use Facilities and Equipment at Airports. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/14164.
×
Page 9
Page 10
Suggested Citation:"Chapter Two - Common Use Continuum." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2008. Common Use Facilities and Equipment at Airports. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/14164.
×
Page 10
Page 11
Suggested Citation:"Chapter Two - Common Use Continuum." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2008. Common Use Facilities and Equipment at Airports. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/14164.
×
Page 11
Page 12
Suggested Citation:"Chapter Two - Common Use Continuum." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2008. Common Use Facilities and Equipment at Airports. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/14164.
×
Page 12

Below is the uncorrected machine-read text of this chapter, intended to provide our own search engines and external engines with highly rich, chapter-representative searchable text of each book. Because it is UNCORRECTED material, please consider the following text as a useful but insufficient proxy for the authoritative book pages.

7Airport operators and airlines are continually looking for op- portunities to be more efficient and at the same time improve the customer experience. In this search for efficiency, every as- pect of the business model is reviewed, analyzed, and inspected to determine if there are better ways to provide a more stream- lined travel experience at a lower cost and a higher profit. It is at the airport where the goals of airports and airlines meet. Air- lines may be looking to increase or decrease the number of flights to a given market, change seasonal flight schedules to meet demand, or adjust their fleet based on the requirements of a given market. Airport operators, on the other hand, are look- ing for ways to improve and ensure the continuity of the service provided to their region by adding flights, adding additional air- lines, and maximizing the use of their facilities. One key factor in any decision making is the cost of doing business in a given market. “Airport operators are constantly challenged by the dual objective of needing to maximize limited resources while providing a passenger- friendly experience” (Finn 2005). Because of these contra- dictory factors, airport operators are challenged with increasing their passenger throughput while minimizing their capital expenditures and construction. One effective way to reduce capital expenditures is to develop programs to utilize existing space more efficiently so that capital expen- ditures end up being deferred. It has also been shown that once capital expenditures are incurred for new construction of a gate, concourse, or terminal, these costs can be reduced by as much as 30% if a common use strategy is used in the design (de Neufville and Belin 2002). The concept of the common use continuum, as shown in Figure 1, indicates that airport operators can gain centralized control over facilities and technology, increase passenger pro- cessing options, and acquire shared use efficiencies as they move from exclusive use toward common use. Conversely, airline tenants in an exclusive use arrangement retain a level of tenant autonomy over their physical space. Airport com- mon usable space is defined as space in which any airline may operate and, as space that is not specifically dedicated to any single airline. As shown in Figure 1, it is highly unlikely that any airport with more than one airline servicing it does not provide some level of common use. Table 1 defines several airport management models on the common use continuum, shows key differences and benefits of each, differences in common use locations, and their impact on key stakeholders (e.g., airlines, passengers, and airport operators). All airports begin with a basic level of common use. Based on interviews, once an airport facility moves beyond the basic level, the airport operator, airlines, and passengers begin to see additional benefits with common use. Beyond the basic level, however, there is an inherent lag-time be- tween when an airport is capable of a common use model and when they choose to implement that common use model. As explained in chapter seven, there may be operational and business considerations that have to be identified before moving along the common use continuum. EXCLUSIVE USE MODEL At one end of the common use continuum is the exclusive use model. This model defines all airline-specific space as used exclusively by a given airline. In this model, each airline has dedicated ticketing counters, gates, office space, ramp space, etc. Airlines have traditionally favored this model because it gives them the most direct control over their flight schedule and operations. The airline provides gate management and other specialty applications to ensure efficient operations within the airline’s allotted space. To add flights, the airline must have space available at its gates or be able to acquire additional gates at the airport. In the exclusive use model, airlines pay for the space, even if the airline is not using that space. Airport operators therefore reap the benefit of having space leased whether it is actively used or not. Another benefit for the airport operator is that man- agement of space is minimal. In the exclusive use model, air- port operators only manage their airport usage based on airline and total number of gates used exclusively by those airlines. Airports, however, do not achieve maximum utilization in the overall use of the facility, especially if the airlines that service that airport do not have fully loaded schedules. There will be obvious times of day when concourses will be crowded, with many flights arriving and departing at the same time, as well as times when the concourses are com- pletely empty. The airport operator has few options available to manage the peaks and valleys in the demand effectively over the course of a day. As more flight services are added within peak time peri- ods in the airport, the airport operator must add more gates and/or counter space. Once the airport operator is physically CHAPTER TWO COMMON USE CONTINUUM

8unable to add more gates, the growth of service to that airport stops. Likewise, as airlines add more flights into their sched- ule to a specific market, they must manage these flights based on the physical limitations of the exclusive space leased. At some point, the only way to add new flights or new airlines under the exclusive use model is to remove other services or wait until another airline relinquishes space. In the exclusive use model, passengers are affected by the peaks and valleys caused by the flight schedules of the various airlines. In all areas of the airport, a peak demand of flights is the root cause of congestion. “Passengers are eager to reduce the time spent ‘processing’” (Behan 2006). To the passenger, the airport is not the destination, but merely a point along a journey. The goal should be to move passengers through that point as expeditiously as possible. The exclusive use model may be a reasonable choice for airports that do not have a large number of airlines servicing the airport. If the airport has one or two dominant carriers, or if a particular terminal within an airport is dominated by a few carriers, the airport operator may choose not to implement common use. If the airport is not re- quired to complete a competition plan, or is not planning to add additional airlines, then a traditional exclusive use model will probably remain and limited common use strategies and tech- nologies may be implemented instead. For instance, for a hub airport, where 60% or more of the airport usage is dominated by one airline (e.g., Salt Lake City International Airport), a common use strategy may not make sense. The remaining 40% (or less) of airport capacity, however, may represent an excellent opportunity for common use implementation, be- cause the remaining 40% of the gates may be in high demand. As will be discussed later, these “hub” airport operators need to consider all potential scenarios that could result if one of their dominant airlines ceased operations, or declared bank- ruptcy, necessitating drastic changes in its operations. FULL COMMON USE MODEL At the other end of the common use continuum is the full com- mon use model. In this model, all airline usable airport space is available for use by any airline. The goal of the full common use model is to minimize the amount of time any given airline resource is not in use, as well as maximize the full use of the airport. Airports benefit from increased utilization of existing resources. In a full common use airport, airlines are assigned with no preferences given to any individual airline, similar to the air traffic control process. For example, each aircraft is put in the queue and assigned to a gate that best fits the needs of the airport gate management process. Technology plays a key role in the full common use model. To manage resources properly, computer software and systems are put in place to perform complex calculations, monitor usage, and provide status re- porting. There are no dedicated spaces in a full common use airport. All resources are managed very closely by the airport operator, and the result is an efficient use of limited resources. Airlines are less comfortable with this model because it removes direct control over their gate assignments within the market. The benefit of this model to the airlines, however, is more flexibility. Gates and ticket counters that were once ex- clusively held by a competing airline 24 hours a day, 7 days a week now become available for everyone’s use. Airlines can enter markets, expand in markets, and even exit markets much easier under this model because the lease changes from exclusive to common use. Although there are many models for leasing, airlines begin paying for only the portion of the airport used. In addition, there are more options available to airlines should a flight be delayed. The airline no longer has to wait for one of its exclusive gates to become available; the flight can be assigned to any available open gate. A common use airport allows “...carriers to focus on what they do best: moving passengers from one destina- tion to another” (Guitjens 2006). Airport operators must manage airport space at a more de- tailed level under the full common use model. The airport operator takes on full responsibility for the common use infra- structure; any service that is space-specific must now be viewed as common use. For example, jet bridges are now pur- chased and maintained by the airport operator. Again, tech- nology plays a large role in allowing this to take place. As with space-specific resources, the common use terminal equipment (CUTE) systems and hardware also become the airport opera- tor’s responsibility, except in the cases of CUTE Local User Boards (CLUB) models. Airports benefit from increased uti- lization of existing resources. A CUTE CLUB is a system in which the airlines make the decisions on how the CUTE sys- tem will be paid for, operated, and maintained, for the benefit of all the CUTE CLUB members. Under this scenario, the air- port operator does not usually own the CUTE system. In the United States this model is sometimes modified, where main- tenance of the common use system is under a “CUTE CLUB” type model, while the airport retains ownership of the assets. The passengers’ experience in the full common use model is improved as they flow through the process of enplaning or Airport Passenger Processing “Common Use” Continuum Common Use Preferential Use Exclusive Use Mixed Use FIGURE 1 Common use continuum.

Models Exclusive Use (EU) Mixed Use (MU) Preferential Use (PU) (Full) Co mm on Use (CU) Approach Passenger Processing Facilities (PPFs), technology, and agreem ents are predom inately owned/leased and operated by singular users. Som e investment and conversion to CU PPF technology and system s. CU equipm ent may be installed but not implemented, pending renegotiation. Substantial invest me nt and conversion to CU technology and systems. PU agreem ents are established, allowing select tenants priority over space under specific term s. Complete commitment to CU equipment, system s, and agreem ents. (Few or no EU or PU agreem ents.) CU ma y extend beyond term inal curbs and walls (to ramps and other facilities). Common Use Locations Som e baggage claim devices, paging system s, access control, building system s, etc. CUTE in new/remodeled areas, international gates/jet bridges, CCTV, CUSS, re mo te check - in/out, inform ation displays, etc. CUTE at all PPFs, including ticket counters and in gate ma nagem ent. Extensive com puter/phone system hard/software acquisition and integration. CU ma y extend to ram p area: gate ma nagem ent, ground handling (GH), and other airport and non-airport areas. Stakeholders EU tends to: MU tends to: PU tends to: CU tends to: Airports Create underutilized spaces Deter new air service entrants Help to ensure air service continuation by som e existing airlines in precarious ma rkets Increase efficient use of selected underutilized spaces Reduce space expansion needs Prom pt renegotiation of existing agreem ents Familiarize tenants with CU Increase efficient use of underutilized spaces Reduce future expansion needs/costs Increase technology costs/expenditures Offer mo re consistency for users than MU Require staff/vendor for CU main tenance and IT functions. (Assume risks with outages.) Maxi mi ze efficient use of space and technology Require high initial technology invest me nt, but result in longer term per passenger savings Reduce future expansion needs/costs Allow increased access to new entrants Require staff/vendor for GH functions Passengers Be relatively uncomplicated and allow ease in way- finding Lim it PPF choices Increase PPF choices Complicate way-finding, if not consistently used Increase PPF choices Offer elevated tenant consistency, which supports way-finding Increase PPF choices Support way-finding if coupled with effective dynam ic signage Tenant/Airline Offer high tenant autonom y and perception of ìcontrol ” Support traditional branding of physical spaces Allow use of existing co mp any equipm ent/program s, so no retraining/learning curve Lim CUTE = common use terminal equipment; CCTV = closed-circuit television; CUSS = common use self-service; IT = information technology. it access to com petitors Lessen tenant autonom y Lessen opportunity for traditional branding of spaces Require CU technology training (learning curve) Allow som e increased access and cost benefits Create delays in transactions atte mp ted on CU equipment Lessen tenant autonom y Prom pt branding concerns, unless addressed with dynam ic signage Require CU technical training (learning curve) Create dependence on non-airline personnel (for CU system main tenance) Provide space for em ergencies and new service Allow for cost savings when underutilized spaces are released Lessen tenant autonom y Prom pt branding concerns, unless addressed with dynam ic signage Require CU technical training (learning curve Additionally create dependence on non- airline personnel for ground handling Provide space for em ergencies and new service Allow for cost savings when underutilized spaces are released TABLE 1 COMMON USE CONTINUUM

10 deplaning. This improvement is the result of more efficient flow through the airport. Because the overall airport space is used more efficiently, congestion, queues, and general crowding can be better managed and peaks in flight sched- ules can be spread across the airport more efficiently. Com- mon use implementation can lead to satisfied customers and result in awards to airports and airlines for improved cus- tomer service, such as the Las Vegas McCarran International Airport’s 2006 J.D. Power & Associates award for customer service (Ingalls 2007). As will be discussed later in this document, there are chal- lenges, concerns, and risks involved with implementing common use. Airport operators surveyed and interviewed for this report indicated that often, airlines are not always will- ing to make the change from proprietary, exclusive space, to some other step along the common use continuum. As shown in Table 1, as airport operators move their airports along the common use continuum, airlines perceive a loss of autonomy and control over their operations. COMMON USE TECHNOLOGY The role of technology is critical in implementing common use because the processes needed to manage a common use environment are complex. Technology systems can include: • Networking—both wired and wireless, • Passenger paging systems—both audible and visual, • Telephone systems, • Multi-User Flight Information Display Systems (MUFIDS) (see Figure 2), • Multi-User Baggage Information Display Systems (MUBIDS), • Resource and gate management, • Common use terminal equipment (CUTE), • Common use self-service kiosks (CUSS), • Local departure control systems (LDCS), • Airport operational database (AODB), • Common use baggage sorting systems, and • Baggage reconciliation. Although this list is not exhaustive, it does demonstrate the impact that technology has on making an airport common use. Common use technology implementation requires coordi- nation among several entities, which ultimately become part- ners in this endeavor. These partners include the platform provider, the entity that provides the technology and the hardware; the application provider, the entity that provides the computer applications that operate on the technology and the hardware; and the service provider, the entity that pro- vides first- and second-level support for the technology. These partners, together with the airport operator and the air- lines, must cooperate to make any common use technology implementation successful (Gesell and Sobotta 2007). Wired and wireless networks, often referred to as premises distribution systems (PDS), are the backbones of all other technology systems. The PDS provides a way for technology systems to be interconnected throughout the airport campus and, if necessary, to the outside world. Although a PDS is not necessary in a common use envi- ronment, it is does allow for the management of another finite resource—the space behind the walls, under the floors, in the ceilings, and in roadways. Passenger paging systems are those systems used to com- municate information to the passenger. Traditionally, this system was the “white paging phone” and the audio system required to broadcast messages throughout the airport. These systems are installed inside buildings in almost all passenger areas, and used by the airport staff, airlines, and public authorities. Today, these systems are expanding to include a visual paging component for those who are deaf or hard of hearing. MUFIDS are dynamic displays of airport-wide flight in- formation. These consolidated flight information displays enable passengers to quickly locate flight information and continue on their journey (see Figure 2). MUBIDS are dy- namic displays capable of displaying arriving baggage carousel information for more than one airline. MUFIDS, MUBIDS, and a resource management system should inter- act with a central AODB to aid and complement the most efficient utilization of an airport common use system. Imple- mentation of multi-user displays manages the space required to communicate flight information. Resource and gate management systems allow the airport operator to effectively manage the assignment of gates and associated passenger processing resources to airlines. These FIGURE 2 Multi-user flight information display systems (MUFIDS).

11 systems operate on complex algorithms to take into account information such as preferential gate assignments, altered flight schedules, size of aircraft, and other factors that affect the airline use of gates. Such systems may tie into accounting and invoicing systems to assist the airport operator with air- line financial requirements. CUTE systems allow an airport to make gates and ticket counters common use. These systems are known as “agent- facing” systems, because they are used by the airline agents to manage the passenger check-in and boarding process. Whenever an airline agent logs onto the CUTE system, the terminal is reconfigured and connected to the airline’s host system. From an agent’s point of view, the agent is now working within his or her airline’s information technology (IT) network. CUTE was first implemented in 1984 for the Los Angeles Summer Olympic Games (Finn 2005). It was at this point that IATA first created the recommended practice (RP) 1797 defining CUTE. It should be noted that ATA does not have a similar standard for common use. From 1984 until the present, approximately 400 airports worldwide have in- stalled some level of CUTE. Since 1984, several system providers have developed systems that, owing to the vagueness of the original CUTE RP, operate differently and impose differing airline system modifications and requirements. This has been problematic for the airlines, which must make their software and opera- tional model conform with each individual, unique system. Making these modifications for compatibility’s sake has been a burden for the airlines. As a result, IATA is currently developing a new standard of RPs for common use systems called “common use pas- senger processing systems” (CUPPS). The updated RP was expected to gain approval at the fall 2007 Joint Passenger Services Conference (JPSC), conducted jointly by ATA and IATA. Subsequent IATA plans are that the CUPPS RP will fully replace the current CUTE RP in 2008. This action will eliminate airline concerns about continuing system compati- bility to manage multiple system/vendor compatibility. In addition to IATA, the CUPPS RP is to be adopted by ATA (RP 30.201) and ACI (RP 500A07), giving the RP industry-wide endorsement. The Common Use Self-Service (CUSS) Management Group is monitoring the progress of the CUPPS committee to assess future migration with CUPPS. “CUSS is the standard for multiple airlines to provide a check-in application for use by passengers on a single [kiosk] device” (Simplifying the Business Common Use Self Service 2006). CUSS devices run multiple airlines’ check-in appli- cations, relocating the check-in process away from tradi- tional check-in counters. Passengers can check in and print boarding passes for flights in places that heretofore were unavailable. Examples include parking garages, rental car centers, and even off-site locations such as hotels and con- vention centers. The CUSS RP was first published by IATA in 2003 (Behan 2006) (see Figure 3 for a display of CUSS kiosks). LDCSs are stand-alone check-in and boarding systems. These systems allow airlines that do not own or have access to a host-based departure control system (e.g., seasonal char- ter operators) to perform electronic check-in and boarding procedures at the gate. Without an LDCS, airlines that do not have access to a departure control system must board pas- sengers through a manual process. AODBs are the data storage backbone of a common use strategy. These databases enable all of the technology com- ponents of a common use environment to share data. The AODB facilitates integration between otherwise disparate systems and enables data analysis and reporting to be com- pleted on various components of the common use system. These databases also help in the calculation of charges for airport operators. Baggage recognition systems provide the necessary components to track bags and ensure that they reach their intended aircraft. Baggage reconciliation systems provide positive bag matching, baggage tracking, and reporting functionality. As airports move along the common use continuum, common baggage systems, and eventually common baggage drop lo- cations, will necessitate the need for baggage reconciliation systems. STATE OF AIRPORTS ALONG THE CONTINUUM Common use acceptance and implementation differ dramat- ically between U.S-based airports and non-U.S-based airports. Much of this relates to the geography of the coun- tries, as well as to the history of how airports were founded in the United States versus other countries. In Europe, for ex- ample, the close proximity of multiple countries makes the FIGURE 3 Common use self-service kiosks.

12 majority of flights international. Because these airports sup- port more international flights, they have been more disposed to implementing common use. Historically, airports in the United States were developed in conjunction with a flagship carrier. These relationships resulted in long leases and cre- ated the hub airport. European airports were developed mostly by governments and therefore do not have as many long-term leases with flagship carriers. Although most airports started out as exclusive use, many have begun the journey along the common use continuum. Some U.S.-based airport operators, such as at Westchester County Airport (White Plains, N.Y.), manage counter and gate space by use of a lottery system (McCormick 2006), whereas other airport operators, such as at Orlando Interna- tional Airport, assign gates and counter space by preferential use and historical precedence (“Common Use Facilities” 2004). Some airports employ a minimalist “use it or lose it” approach to gate assignments. Another U.S.-based airport that has migrated along the com- mon use continuum is Terminal 4 at JFK. JFK, Terminal 4, is unique in the United States in that it is operated by JFK IAT, LLC, a private consortium of Amsterdam Airport Schiphol; LCOR, Inc.; and Lehman Brothers. Unlike an airline-operated terminal, Terminal 4 serves multiple international and domes- tic airlines and manages its gate allocations (Guitjens 2006). The Clark County Airport Authority at Las Vegas McCarran International Airport has taken a slightly different common use approach by moving check-in operations off site. The airport operator has installed CUSS kiosks in locations such as hotels, convention centers, and other desti- nations where travelers may be located. By doing this, the airport operator has effectively extended the stay of vaca- tioning passengers, allowing passengers to perform most of their check-in processes (e.g., check bags and obtain board- ing passes) before coming to the airport. Outside the United States, airport operators are also mov- ing along the common use continuum. Amsterdam Airport Schiphol has long been identified as a leader in the effort to improve passenger processing. Much of the airport is com- mon use, even though the airport has a dominant carrier, KLM. Amsterdam Airport Schiphol is working on fully automating the passenger process from check-in, through border crossing, and finally through security. To understand common use, it is helpful to understand, from a technology point of view, how many airports in the world (outside the United States) have enthusiastically adopted CUSS and CUTE. The reason that these two systems are a focus is because they serve as key ingredients in the common use continuum. Based on information from vendors, IATA, airports, and airlines, as of June 2007, approximately 400 airports worldwide had some level of CUTE installed. Approximately 80 airports worldwide have CUSS installed. As mentioned earlier in this document, CUTE has been in existence since 1984, whereas CUSS has been in existence since 2003. It is interesting to note that only 60 airports worldwide have implemented both CUSS and CUTE (see Appendix A for more detail). Common use implementations are increasing annually. For example, in 2005, seven airports had signed memoranda of understanding with IATA to implement CUSS. By early 2006, 17 airports had implemented CUSS (Behan 2006). From early 2006 to early 2007, the number of implementa- tions increased to 62. Similar interest is being shown with other common use technologies. One airport that was interviewed, Salt Lake City, stated that it had determined that it was not in the best interest of the airport to pursue common use. The main reason given was that Delta Airlines accounted for 80% of its flight operations. The airport noted that, as it looks toward the future and con- struction of a new terminal, it may reconsider common use.

Next: Chapter Three - Advantages and Disadvantages of Common Use »
Common Use Facilities and Equipment at Airports Get This Book
×
MyNAP members save 10% online.
Login or Register to save!
Download Free PDF

TRB’s Airport Cooperative Research Program (ACRP) Synthesis 8: Common Use Facilities and Equipment at Airports explores common use technology that enables an airport operator to take space that has previously been exclusive to a single airline and make it available for use by multiple airlines and their passengers.

View information about the February 9, 2010 TRB Webinar, which featured this report.

  1. ×

    Welcome to OpenBook!

    You're looking at OpenBook, NAP.edu's online reading room since 1999. Based on feedback from you, our users, we've made some improvements that make it easier than ever to read thousands of publications on our website.

    Do you want to take a quick tour of the OpenBook's features?

    No Thanks Take a Tour »
  2. ×

    Show this book's table of contents, where you can jump to any chapter by name.

    « Back Next »
  3. ×

    ...or use these buttons to go back to the previous chapter or skip to the next one.

    « Back Next »
  4. ×

    Jump up to the previous page or down to the next one. Also, you can type in a page number and press Enter to go directly to that page in the book.

    « Back Next »
  5. ×

    To search the entire text of this book, type in your search term here and press Enter.

    « Back Next »
  6. ×

    Share a link to this book page on your preferred social network or via email.

    « Back Next »
  7. ×

    View our suggested citation for this chapter.

    « Back Next »
  8. ×

    Ready to take your reading offline? Click here to buy this book in print or download it as a free PDF, if available.

    « Back Next »
Stay Connected!