Common Use Facilities and Equipment at Airports (2008)

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.

78 AIRLINES 1. Does your airline have a common use strategy? APPENDIX D Compiled Survey Results No 17% Not sure 0% Common use strategy Yes 83% Yes No Not sure 2. Is your airline operating in a Common Use Terminal Equipment (CUTE) environment at any of the airports which you service? Don’t know 8% No 0% Airline CUTE currently operating Yes 92% Yes No Don’t know

79 3. Is your airline operating in a Common Use Self-Service (CUSS) environment at any of the airports which you service? 4. Approximately what percent of your passengers check in on the Internet prior to arrival at an airport? No 25% Not sure 0% Airline CUSS currently operating Yes 75% Yes No Not sure 10-19% 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 20-29% 30-39% 40-49% 50-59% 60-69%

5. How did your airline arrive at this number? 80 6. For which of the following vendor’s platforms do you have a CUTE application? Please mark all that apply. Best Guess 11% Actual counts 89% Actual counts Best Guess 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 Oth er SIT A Re saIER AR INCAir IT Ma ter na Ult ra Ele ctr on ics Number of airlines with applications - survey results

81 7. For which of the following vendors do you have a CUSS compliant application? (check box) 8. We are identifying 4 divisions to the common use development process. Please rank these in order of most expensive, in your view. For the purposes of this question, 1 equals most expensive, 4 equals least expensive. a. Common Use Terminal Emulation (CUTE): 0 2 4 6 8 10 ARINC IBM IER Materna SITA CUSS platform applications 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 Development Certification Deployment Maintenance

b. Common Use Self-Service (CUSS) 9. Does your airline have a service level agreement with the common use provider (CUTE and CUSS) to provide timely application distributions and updates? 82 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 Development Certification Deployment Maintenance Yes No Not sure Yes 16%Not sure 17% No 67%

83 10. Please rank the following common use inhibitors from most (1) to least (6). a. Common Use Terminal Emulation (CUTE): b. Common Use Self-Service (CUSS) 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 Co sts to o m uch Dif ficu lt t o d ep loy Dif ficu lt t o c ert ify Lo ss of bra nd ing ab ility La ck of co ntr ol Ma int en an ce /Su pp or t 0 10 20 30 40 5 15 25 35 45 50 Co sts to o m uch Dif ficu lt t o d ep loy Dif ficu lt t o c ert ify Lo ss of bra nd ing ab ility La ck of co ntr ol Ma int en an ce /Su pp or t

12. Does your airline have an official policy or statement with respect to common use? 11. Please rank the following reasons why your airline would choose to use a CUTE system at a particular airport from most important (1) to least important (8): 84 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 Air por t re qui re d Ne ed to spe ed en try into ne w ma rke t Ne ed to us e e xis ting gat es mo re effi cie ntly Allo ws en try into a n ew airp or t/m ar ket Air line alli an ce Co de sha re agr ee me nt wit h a no the r a irlin e Ne ed to sha re gat es Co st o f de plo yin g a irlin e e qui pm en t a nd infr as tru ctu re Yes No Not sureYes 58% Not sure 17% No 25%

85 13. If yes, can you provide this official policy or statement to the surveyor? Yes No Not sure Yes 50% Not sure 40% No 10% 14. Does your airline prefer to provide the common use equipment, provide a CLUB arrangement, or does your airline prefer the airport to provide? Airline provided Airport provided Prefer club arrangement Depends on location Airline provided 8% Depends on location 67% Prefer club arrangement 25%

15. In your airline’s view, what are airports doing well in the deployment of common use? – Some airports are working closely with us to understand our needs and then attempting their best to apply those needs in the com- mon use environment. – That more and more airports are opting for a common use platform at their airport. – CUTE is working really well within Europe and more and more airports are adopting CUTE. This is great news for our business model—the more CUTE the better. In Europe (especially the UK) airports are doing NOTHING well with regard to CUSS. – Not making common use a profit center. – Most CUTE/CUSS airports are providing good/timely service for hardware problems, restocking, troubleshooting issues, and just being responsive and working with our technical staff to determine root cause of problems when they occur and not just pointing fingers. – Airports that have an open book policy toward common use and do not see it as another revenue stream/profit target are likely to succeed in convincing airlines to participate. – N/A – CUTE directs—A few airports are including the end users group in the discussion leading up to which vendor they will choose operational requirements and/or basically using the airlines experience to help them through the process. CLUB sites—The air- port is allowing the end user to manage the platform. This results in a much more user friendly environment allowing the airlines a voice in the size and scope of CUTE products, installations, path of existing CUTE products, and timely retirement of obsolete technologies. – Done well if airlines are involved in selection process and decisions for cost-effective hardware fit-up that meets with business strategy & StB objectives. The cost recovery model must be designed in such a way that ANY/ALL airlines operating at the site contribute, including any charter operation or one-time/seasonal operators since the facilities are available to them by virtue of common use. Not charging ALL results in scheduled carriers subsidizing others! – Candidly, not much! Varies by airport. As I struggle to stay away from my negative list, they typically install enough computer terminals and they spell our name correctly on the invoices. 16. What are airports not doing well in the deployment of common use? – Not listening. Not responding at the speed I need them to. Not presenting costs up front. Poor phasing. – Not involving airlines during the planning stages of a new common use IT platform (ask airlines what they need, listen to their requirements). – CUSS is destined to fail because airports are hesitant to move into CUSS in the correct manner—having said that, CUSS standards make it nigh on impossible for us as an airline to consider expanding our existing operation going forward. In Europe (especially the UK) airports cannot get themselves organised to adopt the CUSS systems and make terminals that are ready for “self-service.” A prime example is [deleted airport identifier], which in CUSS terms is nothing short of a bad joke! In the U.S. you look at [deleted airport iden- tifier] and they have made the process work for airlines and themselves. The CUSS standard MUST be standardised for this to suc- ceed—CUSS 2 should be amalgamated into CUPPS development so that all parties, airlines, airports, and providers can work from one common standard. With regards to CUTE, the biggest issue with airports is where they interfere with the day-to-day operation of the airlines using the systems—this does vary dramatically depending on the CLUB arrangements, etc. There are some airports that have no idea what they are entering into with regard to moving to CUTE—this is a frightening prospect for an airline such as us! – Inadequate hardware selection. Restricting the timely application releases. Increased complexity in making the product work and troubleshooting other single airport issues. Some airports use CUTE/CUSS as a profit center. – Some providers require too much time to get new software changes tested and ready to distribute. Could be they don’t have ade- quate staff and facilities to support their sales/installed base. – Not engaging airlines, or not engaging early enough. Inflexible, illogical, pricing. Not prepared to stick with tried and trusted ven- dors. Not considering airline IT security issues. – Working with carriers on unique requirements. – Many airports are failing to utilize and listen to airline experiences with vendor and CUTE products. Very often the airports will go with the cheapest price. They are not comparing apples to apples resulting in a less than adequate system that costs more and does meet the airlines needs. Many airports are slow to evolve to new technologies. – Unilaterally making decision based on vendor’s sales presentations with no practical experience/understanding of the business needs or platform reliability. – No vendor/airline SLA with enforcement, used for airport revenue generation, maintenance/support painful, costs not clearly defined, forced to use poor business process, minimum configuration vs. maximum, our hardware tools not allowed (even though certified), updates take too long, vendor not always able to use their existing standards, insufficient skilled support, unable to innovate, unable to market our product or services, lack of differentiation, airport wants to micro manage our customer, if the cus- tomer is “abused” the airline takes the hit ... 17. What facility changes would your airline anticipate in the implementation of common use (e.g., better dynamic signage to support branding needs, new ticket counter positions with embedded kiosks, etc.)? – Better passenger flow management with the use of this technology. – None. – Process, process, process... Plonking CUSS kiosks in random areas in an airport will not work (again this has been proven at [deleted airport identifier])! Waste of time, money, effort. They have to be built into an operational process that customers can work with and easily understand: Clearly marked out passenger direction, kiosks, bag drop, security. . . At all costs the perception of queuing many times MUST be eliminated. The biggest issue facing us now is the ability to drop bags quickly. Kiosks and In- ternet check-in are great concepts when travelling with hand luggage only, but can be pointless without a quick effective fast bag drop process. Many UK airports are suffering from bag capacity, so the introduction of remote bag drop needs to be considered fully and intro- duced where it is feasible. Introduction/integration of data systems in an airport and usage of 2D technology could also speed the 86

87 processing of passengers—although I see sharing data between airlines and airport operators being a culture shift that will be hard to overcome for some airlines. – Have every airport implement share systems in the same way. Dynamic signage that supports unique airline products. – Could be all of the above depending on airport. [deleted airline identifier] prefers embedded kiosks to save the customers making multiple stops. – Support of current 2 step process. Semi-permanent branding in priority use areas. – Embedded, in-line kiosk screens in the ticket counter. – Better Internet access. – Redesign of the layout to optimize self-serve passenger flows. Leverage free-standing (not embedded) CUSS kiosks and a bag- gage drop-off designed to support kiosk or web check-in/mobile check-in flows. Limited “traditional desks” to handle the excep- tions only. – To allow the airlines to use their standard business processes and allow for continuous improvement of that process. To allow con- sistency of product and service between airports within our route structure ... 18. How would these changes affect the usage of existing facilities? Why do you feel that way? – Require movement of existing equipment. – Airports are getting busier year on year. Airports are NOT getting bigger (physically) year on year. As such, we have to look at the infrastructure of the airport and put in place systems (CUTE, CUSS, Fast Bag Drop, Remote Bag Drop, etc.) that can make an airport become more efficient in managing larger volumes of passengers without longer queues and delayed flights. I am certain that an average airport can process 30%–40% more passengers by building process and technology into its operation. This will cost airports, but it will probably be less cost than building a new terminal. – Beneficial to airlines and their customers. – Embedded kiosks for [deleted airline identifier] would increase use. [Deleted airline identifier] at international airports is subject to much tighter rules/regulations than other airlines that are not U.S. flag ship carriers. Airports don’t really get this... or why it’s a problem. – The ability to use a universal business process and present a common customer experience across all airports would be an enabler to commit to common use facilities. – Lessen the queue line confusion and offer more throughput or capacity at the ticket counter. The [deleted airport identifier] solu- tion is a poor design. – Decrease dependency on airport vendors and allow carriers more flexibility. – More fluidity on passenger movements, open spaces, increased throughput, better unit costs. Separating check-in and bag drop allows for better/quicker access to kiosks while enabling unhindered access to bag drops for all self-serve channels (kiosks, web, mobile, off-site check-in, etc . . .). – It would change today’s “Un-Common use” to “Common Use” and allow passengers and agents to use the same business process at all locations. Simplify our support model and training programs. 19. Is your airline aware of the IATA focus initiatives, such as e-ticketing, Bar Code Boarding Passes (BCBP), and CUSS? Yes No Not sure Yes 92% Not sure 8%

20. Does your airline use/support or have plans to support 2D barcode? 21. Is your airline planning on providing 2D barcode check-in via cell phone? 88 Yes No Not sure Yes 92% Not sure 8% Yes No Not sure Yes 50% Not sure 42% No 8%

89 22. Does your airline use/support or have plans to support e-ticketing? 23. Does your airline use/support or have plans to support CUSS? Yes No Not sure Yes 83% Not sure 8% No 9% Yes No Not sure Yes 100% Not sure 0% No 0%

24. What supporting technologies have helped to improve the implementation and use of a common use model? 25. What is the maximum response time your airline expects for support on common use technology systems for major failures? 90 0 2 4 6 8 10 Voice over IP Phone Gate Management System Integrated Paging MUFIDS MUBIDS Other 4 hours 3 hours 2 hours 1 hour other 1 hour 58% 2 hours 17%other 25%

91 26. What is the maximum response time your airline expects for support on common use technology systems for minor failures? 27. What is the maximum response time your airline expects for support on common use facilities (e.g., hold rooms, ticketing counters, and club spaces)? 4 hours 3 hours 2 hours 1 hour Other 2 hours 50% 1 hour 20% 4 hours 20% Other 10% 4 hours 3 hours 2 hours 1 hour Other 2 hours 30% 1 hour 10% 3 hours 10% 4 hours 20%Other 30%

28. Are there any areas of an airport that your airline would not be in favor of having common use activities? – In my preferred flyer club room. – Back office (greatly depends on the size of the operation at a given airport). – No—let’s make it as easy as we can for the passengers and try to avoid all passengers having to converge in one common standard check-in space. – Yes. Check-in desks, gates, gate information displays, self-service, and back office. – In most airports we prefer our own equipment. Where common use exists we have no choice. We will always install our own equip- ment if we have the choice. – Sales desks. – Generally, we are not in favor of common use unless there are agreed upon standards. – Back office, operations, underwing. – Probably not our club space in terms of design and branding. Equipment inside could still be CUTE for consistency. Other areas would be candidates for common use, assuming the targeted areas all have the necessary functionalities and can support the busi- ness needs at a competitive cost. – Depends on city . . . Although, based on current experiences, I would say gates and ticket counters. 29. Does your airline utilize common use space at any airports you service (club space, baggage handling, check-in agents/multi-airline check-in, other . . .)? 92 Yes Not sure No Yes 83% Not sure 8% No 9% 30. Does your airline utilize any common use office space (back office, baggage service office, or other)? Yes Not sure NoYes 55% Not sure 18% No 27%

93 31. Is your airline aware of the Common Use Passenger Processing Systems (CUPPS) project (RP 1797) currently being undertaken by IATA? Yes Not sure No Yes 92% No 8% 32. Is your airline in favor of the CUPPS initiative? Yes Not sure No Yes 92% Not sure 8%

33. Does your airline have an official position on CUPPS? 94 Yes Not sure No Yes 75% No 25% 34. If we have any clarifying questions or require additional information may we contact you? Yes Not sure No Yes 91% Not sure 9%

95 Other responses: – Common user terminal facility. – Mostly destination, but also significant connections. 2. Is your airport required to create a competition plan (U.S. airport only)? Other Destination Airport Hub Airport Hub Airport 47% Other 12% Destination Airport 41% Yes Not sure NoYes 53% No 27% Not sure 20% Airports 1. Is your airport a hub airport or a destination airport?

3. Do you provide a common network backbone for all systems or do you have discrete networks for each system? 4. Does your airport provide common baggage make-up area? 96 Combination of both common network and discrete network 61% Combination of both common network and discrete network Common network backbone Discrete network Common network backbone 33% Discrete network 6% Yes Not sure No Yes 78% No 22%

97 5. Does your airport provide gate management services? 6. Does you airport provide a local departure control system? No Yes Not sure Limited use Yes 78% No 17% Limited use 5% Yes Not sure No Yes 56% No 39% Not sure 5%

7. Does your airport provide common baggage drop-off at a single location for all airlines? This excludes off-site bag drop. 8. Do you provide dedicated space, preferential space, or other? 98 Yes Not sure No Yes 22% No 72% Not sure 6% Dedicated space Both Preferential space Both 67% Dedicated space 11% Preferential space 22%

99 9. Is your airport aware of the Common Use Passenger Processing Systems (CUPPS) project (RP 1797) currently being undertaken by IATA, ATA, and ACI? 10. Has your airport implemented any common use models? By common use models we mean any systems or areas of your airport that are identified as common use by all operating airlines in that terminal, concourse, etc. Yes Not sure No Yes 94% No 6% Yes Not sure No Yes 85% No 15%

12. How many international gates (of the total available) are common use (example answer: 20 of 27)? – 37/37 16 ct gates, 20 hardstand, 1 bus gate – 21 of 21 – 16 of 16 – 9 of 127 – All – 15 of 15 – 36 of 36 – 10 of 28 – Don’t know – All are common use – 83 of 83 13. How many international ticketing counters (of the total available) are common use (example answer: 15 of 19)? – 184 of 184 – 168 of 168 – 83 of 83 – 43 of 43 – 196 – 65 of 65 – 150 of 150 – 60 of 98 – 24 of 32 – All are common use – 92 of 160 14. Do you have other common use systems in your international gates (please list)? – CUSS – Network infrastructure, WiFi system, FIDS, BIDS, dynamic signage, baggage system (including RFID), and gate/check-in counter assignment system. Coming soon to this facility: common-use kiosks. – Baggage reconciliation, FIDS, baggage system – All PBBs and accessories (water, air, 400 hz), BRS, wi-fi (ramp level) – BTRS – FIDS – MUFIDS BIDS gate management – Flight information systems, baggage system, baggage rec. phone, security system, paging – Common use self-service, common use baggage reconciliation – LBA, FIDS, RMS, LDCS, MuseLink – Don’t know – SITA CUTE 100 11. Do you have common use in international gates/check-in counters? Yes Not sure No Yes 88% No 12%

101 15. Do you have common use in domestic gates/check-in counters? 16. How many domestic gates (of the total available) are common use (example answer: 15 of 17)? – 37 of 37 – 32 of 80 – 10 of 127 – ALL—16 gates, 23 hard stands – 4 of 6 – 27 of 27 – 14 of 25 – All common use; a few are preferential – 22 of 45 17. How many domestic ticketing counters (of the total available) are common use (example answer: 15 of 17)? – 184 of 184 (same as international counters) – 96 of 240 – 43 of 43 – 196 – 4 of 6 – 65 of 65 – 42 of 89 – All are common use – 119 of 261 18. Do you have other common use systems in use in your domestic gates (please list)? – CUSS – Network infrastructure, WiFi system, FIDS, BIDS, dynamic signage, baggage system (including RFID), common-use kiosks, gate/check-in counter assignment system. – Baggage reconciliation, FIDS, baggage system – BTRS – FIDS – MUFIDS BIDS gate management – Flight information systems, baggage system, baggage rec, phone, security system, paging. – No. – Public address – Common use self-service, common use baggage reconciliation – LDCS, CUTE, RMS, LBA, FIDS Yes Not sure No Yes 82% No 18%

20. How many different locations? 19. Do you have common use at off-site locations? 102 Yes Not sure No Yes 41% No 59% Up to 9 Locations 40-49 locations 0 1 2 3 4 5 6

103 21. Do you have common use at curbside check-in locations? Yes Not sure No Yes 29% No 71% 22. How many curbside locations (of the total available) are common use (example answer: 37 of 37)? – 19 of? – 2 of 2 23. Does your airport have mobile common use terminals? Yes Not sure No Yes 37% No 63%

25. How are airlines charged for the use of the installed common use systems? 24. Does your airport have CUSS check-in locations? 104 Yes Not sure No Yes 80% No 20% Included in rates and charges per emplaned/deplaned/ recheckin passenger or other per-capita billing methodology time of use system Equally shared and billed separately from rates and charges 20% 60% 13% 7% Other responses: – Enplanement fees, counter charges, bag – combined equally shared and per capita – Signatory—Cost recovery – Per operation by aircraft type

105 26. What is/was the most expensive portion of your common use system? – Vendor costs for the ridiculously high CUSS kiosks – Support (comprised mostly of staffing costs) – Enplanement fees – Baggage system – Flight information system – Annual support for Operation and Maintenance – Common use passenger processing—ticket counters, gates – CUTE and infrastructure – Capital upfront costs – Hardware infrastructure – Hardware (magnetic printers and BGRs) check-in kiosks – Long-term on-site support – Don’t know 27. What is/was the most difficult portion of your common use system to support? – The baggage system is most difficult to support. All of the data flow necessary to keep that system actively sorting accurately and the various airline systems involved makes it very challenging. – There are multiple issues that are difficult to support/manage, and depending on whom you are speaking with would rate the most difficult. Fare policy regarding gate/hardstand assignments for arrivals/departures, Fare policy regarding check-in counter as- signments and airline branding needs. IT support for systems that interface with airline specific services (terminal emulators with airline host with CUTE). – Integrated IT systems are the most complex. 25 plus or minus airlines whose hosts often don’t integrate completely, or easily, with the CUTE system. – Accuracy of flight information data feed(s) to system. – Support for airline application upgrades. – Printers – CUSS kiosks – Individual airline connectivity to CUTE. Airline emulation. – Education – Integration of CUTE FIDS and PHONES – Integrated with airline hosts – It requires a level of cooperation between the airlines, the airport, and the service providers that none of them is accustomed to providing. – Don’t know. 28. Do you provide phone service as a part of your common use system? Yes Not sure No Yes 81% No 19%

29. What type of phone service do you provide? 30. Do you provide WiFi for operational use, either in-building or exterior to the building, as a part of your common use system? 106 Standard analog Digital voice over IP Digital 50% voice over IP 25% Standard analog 25% Yes Not sure No Yes 81% No 19%

107 31. Are you planning on offering WiFi for operational use, either in-building or exterior to the building, as part of your common use system? 32. Do you provide WiFi for Internet access within public concourses for use by the public? Yes Not sure No Yes 33% Not sure 67% Yes Not sure No Yes 100%

33. What business model do you use for your WiFi access for passenger use? 34. Does your airport provide other shared/common services (baggage handling, check-in agents/multi-airline check-in, other)? 108 Other Pay for use Free to passengersFree to passengers 47% Pay for use 53% Yes Not sure No Yes 71% No 29% 35. Please list any shared/common services that your airport provides. – CUTE, CUSS, VoIP – Support for all of the systems provided – Ground handlers, passenger service (check-in), baggage inductors – In-line baggage handling – Baggage handling – Ground handler contracted to airport provides charter check-in. Airport provides LDCS. – Baggage induction, security pre-screening – BHS, visual messaging, public address, CCTV, MATV, access control – Baggage handling (part) CUSSCI CUTE – Bag tag activation points

109 36. What is the support model that your airport uses for common use systems? Other Third party support Vendor support Self support Vendor support 20% Self support 13% Third party support 40% Other 27% Other responses: – All apply – CUTE—vendor, all others—3rd party – Combination of above depending on service – Combination of self and vendor supported 37. Does your airport have a common use baggage makeup system? Yes Not sure No Yes 71% No 23% Not sure 6%

38. Does your airport have a common bag-drop solution/system? 110 Yes Not sure No Yes 47% No 53% 39. Does your airport use a baggage reconciliation system? Yes Not sure No Yes 47% No 47% Not sure 6%

111 40. What benefits have you noticed with the implementation of common use models? Please describe. – More vendors to work with – Common use has been the single item that has allowed us to efficiently use the terminal space, despite significant growth. – Increased optimization of resources (gates, hardstands, check-in) allowing for increased capacity/growth within the facility. – Cost savings (less capital for facilities), more options to attract new airlines or expansion by existing, more control over use of resources. – Efficiencies in facilities utilization; maintenance of baggage sortation systems. – Flexibility with airline exit/entry, airline allocation for check-in/gates/baggage laterals/baggage arrival carousels. – Better utilization of critical resources, ease of airline relocation. – Accommodate new carriers quickly. Better service to charter airlines via LDCS. Ability to manage gates. Resources. – Increased resource utilization to effect positive change in capacity. – Flexibility—one model for all carriers. – Improved availability of gate and check-in positions. Better control management of technical infrastructure in the terminal build- ing. – Increased passenger processing capacity, faster passenger processing, more efficient use of space, deferred capital expenses for construction of new terminals. – The primary benefit realized at [airport identifier removed] with the implementation of common use systems is the flexibility to move, add, or change resources assigned to an airline or flight. Secondarily, the increase in operational awareness gives us an abil- ity to be more effective in managing the airport resources. Finally, it has begun to change the role of the airport from landlord to service provider. – Capacity—Being able to handle growth of passengers without expanding check-in desks. – Efficiency, service level, lower cost. 41. Please identify any upgrades/enhancements you are considering to your installed common use system. Accessibility for the disabled Network Platform upgrades hardware Other 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 Other responses: – In the midst of replacing common use software. – 2D barcode readers at kiosks. Baggage self tagging.

42. Is your airport planning to implement common use in the future? 112 Yes Not sure No Yes 67% No 33% 43. What problem does your airport envision a common use installation will facilitate, or solve? – Reduce passenger congestion – It will facilitate facilities usage, on a cost-effective basis. – Immediate: Better utilization of FIS related gates, long term: better utilization of domestic gates. 44. What is the main driver for your common use initiative? Other responses: – Maximize airport capacity – Change of business model Customer service Defer capital expenditures Passenger flow Cost reduction Inability to expand Attract new tenants Maximize use of gates for multiple carriers Other 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

113 Comments: – Private company without access to AIP. – Have used AIP to complete aprons and fuel systems for common use gates. – AIP money has not yet been applied for. 46. Please describe the elements of these systems that have been identified as public use for the AIP funding application. – N/A – We actually used PFC funds. Use of AIP funds was negligible. – Have used AIP to complete aprons and fuel systems for common use gates. – None as we are a private entity. – Not applicable. 47. Did your airport apply Passenger Facility Charges (PFCs) to offset the costs of the common use systems? Yes Not sure No Yes 37% Not sure 19% No 44% 45. Did or will your airport apply for Airport Improvement Program (AIP) funding to help pay for common use systems (U.S. based airports only)? Yes Not sure No Yes 33% Not sure 7% No 60%

b. Common Use Self-Service (CUSS) Other responses: – Private company without access to AIP – BHS to date; CUPPS in future – PFC funding for a pilot common use installation 48. If your airport is a non-U.S. airport, please describe any funding that was used to pay for common use systems, such as airport usage fees, taxes, etc. – N/A – Airport improvement fees, airline departing seat fees – Airport improvement fee for every enplaned passenger, similar to the U.S. PFC – All included as part of the rates and charges 49. What does your airport view as the greatest inhibitor to acceptance of common use models from airlines? Please rank 1–7, where 1 is the greatest inhibitor and 7 is the least inhibitor. a. Common Use Terminal Emulation (CUTE): 114 Costs too much Difficult to deploy Difficult to certify Loss of branding ability Lack of control Maintenance/support Airline(s) prefer dedicated systems 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 Costs too much Difficult to deploy Difficult to certify Loss of branding ability Lack of control Maintenance/support Airline(s) prefer dedicated systems 0 20 40 60 80 100

115 50. If we have any clarifying questions or require additional information, may we contact you? 51. If your airport has no intentions of implementing common use systems, what is the major reason for this decision? – We are a hub for [airline identifier removed] and 80% of our operation is [airline identifier removed]. Management has decided they do not want to go with common use. However, we are in the design phase of new terminal and concourse building and the concept could be revisited through the design. Yes Not sure No Yes 94% Not sure 6%