National Academies Press: OpenBook

Common Use Facilities and Equipment at Airports (2008)

Chapter: Chapter Six - Real-World Experience

« Previous: Chapter Five - Airlines Operating in Common Use
Page 25
Suggested Citation:"Chapter Six - Real-World Experience." 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 25
Page 26
Suggested Citation:"Chapter Six - Real-World Experience." 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 26
Page 27
Suggested Citation:"Chapter Six - Real-World Experience." 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 27
Page 28
Suggested Citation:"Chapter Six - Real-World Experience." 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 28
Page 29
Suggested Citation:"Chapter Six - Real-World Experience." 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 29

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.

25 A search of the available documentation revealed that al- though there are some journal articles and other resources that address issues surrounding the common use continuum, the amount available in relation to this topic is relatively small. In addition, a small group of subject experts currently appears to be providing most of the information to those that are writing about the topic. Sources such as IATA, ATA, and ACI do not have information readily or freely available for researchers. Also, the number of airports that have embraced common use is relatively small, compared with the total number of commercial airports in operation worldwide. Although the list of airports is growing, the industry is still in the early adopter stage. To support the findings of the knowledge-based resources noted in the previous chapters, the development of this syn- thesis also included the preparation of case studies of specific airlines and airports selected as relevant samplings of com- mon use implementation. Seven case studies were completed as a part of this synthesis. The participants in the case studies were Alaska Airlines, American Airlines, Amsterdam Airport Schiphol, British Airways, Frankfurt International Airport, Las Vegas McCarran International Airport, and Lufthansa Airlines. These case studies can be found in Appendix B of this document. This chapter summarizes the findings of these case studies. During the preparation of the case studies, it was noted that any discussion about common use appears to lead to a discussion of common use technology systems, such as CUTE and CUSS. Although the common use continuum em- braces much more than just IT systems, IT is a vital part of the equation and needs to be explored. Even though CUTE has been around since 1984, its implementation is relatively limited. CUSS has been around since 2003 and its imple- mentation is even more limited. These two systems, how- ever, form the technological basis for common use. AIRLINES Airline case study participants have witnessed an increase in common use implementations during the last six to seven years. Respondents interviewed noted that it has been their experience that each airport operator creates its own unique common use platform, thus making it less and less ‘common use.’ This uniqueness is the result of requirements that an airport operator places in its procurement process. Examples of these unique requirements are network connectivity, hard- ware preferences, software application functionality, etc. Many of the case study respondents have been using com- mon use for many years. As international airports began migrating across the common use continuum, it became nec- essary for airlines to determine their overall approach to common use. Some respondents determined that it was best for their applications to migrate to a common use platform, whereas others work to maintain a proprietary environment. Even though they may be using common use systems, many of the airlines participating in the case studies indicated that they do not prefer operating in a common use environ- ment. Figure 6 shows an airline operating at a dedicated gate at its hub airport. Their preference is to install dedicated sys- tems, but some airlines will consider each airport indepen- dently. If common use makes sense at a given airport, some airlines try to work with the airport operator to ensure that the airline’s needs are met. The experience of the case study par- ticipants has shown that implementations at airports differ, even if the same vendor is selected. The start-up of a com- mon use system at an airport can be a labor-intensive effort for the airlines. The airlines want to ensure that the installed system functions in a manner that allows them to conduct business. Even though airports may have the same common use provider, since each airport is slightly different, airlines are forced to create site-specific application versions. This approach defeats the purpose of common use and creates an environment that is very difficult for an airline to support and manage. In the same way, vendors choose to make these unique site-specific decisions to win the procurement opportunity. Case study respondents recognize that there are benefits to an airport implementing common use. They also recognize that common use can provide advantages to airlines; how- ever, respondents have indicated that their experience shows that the cost of a common use implementation still tends to be more expensive overall than a dedicated environment. Much of the additional cost comes from the inability of a common use system to support an airline’s ability to control the distribution process in a timely fashion. On proprietary systems, airlines can remotely update and distribute their applications on demand. In a common use environment, the update and distribution processes are dramatically longer, CHAPTER SIX REAL-WORLD EXPERIENCE

and require at least one certification process by the vendor before being released. This can delay the update process by as much as four months, according to survey results and case study participants. Many of the perceived benefits of common use have not yet proved true for many of the respondents. For example, common use is expected to make entry into a market quicker and easier. It has been the respondents’ experience that the need still exists to provide a dedicated connection back to the host, as well as to install back office proprietary systems. Based on their experience, the installation of the dedicated connection back to their host system is the long lead item in any installation. Thus, common use does not accelerate the overall schedule of starting up a new service to a new market. Case study participants see a benefit with common use in international terminals, which must support many airlines in a limited amount of space. Implementation of common use at an international arrivals terminal could help airlines more quickly turn a flight into a domestic continuation. In today’s environment at many airports, flights must arrive at an inter- national terminal, deplane, and then the airplane must be towed to their domestic gates for departure. If common use were implemented in an airport such as the one described, the airlines could leave a plane at the gate where it arrived and then reboard the plane for the continuation of the do- mestic flight, assuming that the gate is not needed for another international flight. Case study participants also indicated that local support personnel may not always be adequately trained to support the system. In many instances, the local support is supplied directly or indirectly by the vendor. The implication is that the knowledge transfer from site to site is not adequately managed. This can affect the airlines’ business, because what may otherwise be a minor event is not quickly resolved, and the resolution is not clearly communicated to the airlines. 26 A seemingly minor event results in a ripple effect throughout the downstream system, affecting not only the current flight, but flights from/to other airports within the air- line’s entire system. Case study respondents reported that they have less func- tionality with a common use implementation than they do with their proprietary system. For example, the functionality of one respondent’s gate information display system (GIDS) is not available through common use installations. This sys- tem enables the gate agents to display the status of their stand-by list for the current flight, among other features. For GIDS to be present in a common use environment, the airport operator must provide a second computer or space for a second computer to drive the data to the gate display. Most airports object to adding the airline-specific computer, be- cause this changes the gates to a more dedicated format, thus somewhat diminishing the airport’s ability to use the gate as a common use gate. In some of the common use sites that respondents operate, they also use their proprietary check-in application in their back offices and lounges. Whenever possible, airlines con- tinue to install their own dedicated equipment. These airlines assert it is still more cost-effective to have dedicated equip- ment at a station rather than CUTE equipment. Caveats to this are whether the station is located at a significant distance from the airline’s headquarters and whether the station has local IT staff support. The difficulty with CUTE installations at non-U.S. airports is that the airport operators are continu- ally moving toward profit making. This causes the airport op- erators to start charging too much for the CUTE usage, which affects the airlines’ business. When possible, some airlines interviewed prefer to use the CLUB model, as they then have an influence with the provider. Several case study partici- pants work with very experienced CUTE developers, and have developed a close relationship with the CUTE vendors to help speed the deployment of application upgrades to their stations. In an effort to streamline the deployment of their CUTE applications, at least one case study participant has created a “terminal emulator,” which allows them to deploy one pack- age to all sites and all vendors. This terminal emulator is the only portion of the system that is certified CUTE; however, it allows the airline to make business functionality upgrades on a regular, shortened deployment cycle. The application is able to determine the vendor and configuration of the station and to launch the appropriate set of applications for that ven- dor platform. In this way, the airline has simplified the man- agement of its code and the deployment of its applications. Several respondents’ concerns with CUTE is the timeli- ness of upgrades. In their proprietary sites, many of the re- spondents are able to upgrade almost instantaneously. For CUTE sites, there is no control over the release at local sites, and therefore the release time is variable. This adds an FIGURE 6 Airport on-gate parking.

27 amount of uncertainty to the release cycle that is difficult to manage. The respondents’ noted that because of this uncertainty, there are some sites that are several months out of date from their current CUTE application release cycle. These occur even though some of the respondents send out their follow- ing year’s release schedule months in advance. Airlines are also concerned about the visibility of charges for common use. From their perspective, as they are planning and budgeting for the following years, they need to account for costs appropriately. It has been some respondents’ expe- rience that CUTE charges are line-itemed into a single bill, eliminating visibility of those charges. Bundling of the CUTE charges into the overall rates and charges also hides this visibility. Respondents recommend transparency in costs and, as much as possible, that the price remains somewhat level, not subject to frequent changes. Some of the airline respondents viewed CUTE as a strategic advantage for their airline. As such, these airlines will encour- age an airport to install CUTE. One of the criteria these airlines seek in an airport when they are investigating new routes is whether or not that airport has CUTE implemented. If the air- port does not have CUTE installed, then these airlines educate the airport operator about the benefits of CUTE. Hopefully the airport operator will choose to install CUTE as a result. Other respondents have a unique process for creating, up- dating, certifying, and releasing CUTE applications. In some cases, the airline is responsible for the creation and updating of the software for its CUTE applications. Once the applica- tion is created or updated, however, the code is handed over to another division or company for precertification, certifica- tion with the CUTE vendors, and deployment to the local sites. The other division or company may also provide certi- fication services to more than one airline. These third-party entities provide precertification for multiple CUTE providers and operating systems, thus offering an economy of scale for the precertification process. The benefit of this configuration is that airlines are able to test their CUTE applications on multiple vendor platforms in one location. These third-party precertification entities have highly trained experts who have worked with the CUTE vendors for many years. Case study participants indicated that they have created their self-service kiosk application utilizing the CUSS stan- dard, and as such the application is CUSS certified. However, none of the case study participants promotes common use kiosks in airports as they do CUTE. These airlines have many concerns about the implementation of CUSS kiosks that to date have prevented them from taking the same approach as they have with CUTE. For example, it is difficult to meet the branding needs of an airline using CUSS. Also, airports are standardizing boarding pass stock to help reduce costs. Bag tag printing is another issue. For example, as each airport standardizes, there are different lengths of standard bag tags. One airport uses one length and another airport uses a differ- ent length. These airlines have to develop their bag tags to meet all possible scenarios. Some respondent airlines are very concerned about the stock used to print their boarding passes. One reason is the quality of what is printed by the boarding pass printers. For example, low- quality paper stock affects the ability of the gate reader to read a two-dimensional (2D) barcode, thus causing more gate delays during boarding. This can be especially troublesome to these airlines as they continue to automate the boarding process. Also, to meet customer branding images, some of the respon- dent airlines require use of their current boarding pass stock. The stock is high quality, but is not usable in thermal printers, which are becoming a popular type of printer for CUTE and CUSS terminals. All of the case study airlines are members of IATA and they are fully ready and compliant with the Simpli- fying the Business initiatives that IATA is implementing. They are already compliant with the 2D barcode initiative as well as with the e-ticketing initiative. With both of these initiatives, however, these airlines are facing challenges. Although these airlines are 2D barcode compliant, the current installed base of printers is not. They require firmware, which is the software resident in the printer itself, and, in some cases, hardware up- grades. In a common use airport, this cost could be the respon- sibility of the airport. As such, many airports are currently not supporting the migration to 2D barcode printing and therefore are preventing the roll-out of this IATA initiative. In some countries having only an e-ticket and not a paper ticket presents a problem. Customs agents for the United States, for example, may require a passenger to show a return ticket before allowing that passenger entry into the country. With e-tickets, there is no return ticket, causing entry to the country to be denied. Another example is India, where one must have a ticket to enter the air- port terminal. E-tickets do not suffice as a ticket in this case and can result in denial of entry to the airport, thus causing the pas- senger to miss the flight. Case study participants had some recommendations for airports that are considering a common use implementation. It is important for the airport operator to have a good rela- tionship with the technical people at the airlines as well as with the vendor providing the solution. The airport operator should have a sharp technical staff that understands the com- mon use system and its inherent issues. Common use has both a business side and a technical side, and the airport op- erator must be able to address the needs of both. The airport operator needs to treat service partners as partners, not turn them into adversaries. Another recommendation is that the airport operator needs to remember that the operation of the check-in and boarding process is part of the airlines’ core business, and to ensure that it is not removing core business requirements from airline control. Respondents also recommended that airport operators work with the airlines during the design, bidding, and installation

process. It is important to bring in the airlines early in the process so they can help the airport operator understand the re- quirements the airline has for check-in and boarding processes. By working with the airlines and allowing them to provide the requirements for the common use implementation, the airport operator will develop a good rapport with the airlines and will eventually install a common use solution that meets the needs of the customer. In addition, they should include both the local airline representatives as well as corporate air- line representatives. It may become necessary to use alternate methods of communication, such as conference calls, Web conferences, or some other method of communication, that enable airline corporate employees to participate. Case study respondents recommended that airport operators proceed with common use based on open and honest communication. Airports should specify the real reason they are moving to common use. Airlines interviewed expressed concern that the stated reasons an airport would move toward common use may differ from the actual reasons, thereby indicating a lack of trust between the airport and the airline. Many of the airline respondents recommended that airports not implement common use except where it is absolutely required by constraints. Instead, the respondents recom- mended that the industry should correct standards to better meet the requirements of the airlines. Many respondents indi- cated that they would reconsider their position on common use once it is able to support the full functionality of the dedicated systems, costs the same or less overall as installing and main- taining dedicated systems, and provides a transparent delivery mechanism for updates. Based on their experiences, these airlines also advised air- port operators to carefully consider the charging model. Fair and equitable charging is understood, but the airport operator should have an open book policy, helping airlines understand what the charges are and why they are assessed. Airports should bear in mind that although they are buying the system, in most cases they are not a user, so they should seek the input of those who will use the system. The airport operator needs to work out the service-level agreements so that there are neither too many variables nor too many parties involved in troubleshooting problems. Finally, they recommended that the airport seek a service-level agreement that has enforce- able penalties for inadequate performance. AIRPORTS In 1984, Westinghouse worked with SITA at Los Angeles World Airports to create what is now known as CUTE. It was at this point that IATA first created RP 1797 defining CUTE. It should be noted that ATA does not have a similar standard for common use. As noted in an earlier chapter, approxi- mately 400 airports have installed some level of CUTE since 1984. Today, airports are exploring ways to make more 28 efficient use of their space and to defer large capital expen- ditures. Through case study interviews, airports have ex- pressed a need to hold costs down and to increase customer service and they are counting on common use as a way to im- prove the customer experience at their airports and to keep overall costs to airlines down. Through case study interviews, it is clear that common use is more prevalent outside of the United States. Many larger Canadian and European airports indicated that they are utilizing common use to facilitate their operations. Many of these airports support a larger number of international flights than do U.S. airports. Because of the business environment and the management differences in non-U.S airports, they are also providing other “common use” services to the airlines. These include ground handling services, fueling services, and other services that are more commonly provided by air- lines at U.S.-based airports. Several airports interviewed for this report also indicated that they work at developing good relationships with their common use providers to ensure the success of their common use implementations. Case study participants indicated that, from a technology perspective, CUTE implementations are more readily accepted and used by the airlines than CUSS implementations. There are many different reasons for this acceptance, including the airline’s concerns over branding, lack of true standardization in the CUSS platforms, and cost concerns. Both U.S. and non-U.S.-based airports are review- ing their implementations to help address these concerns. Even with the differing degrees of acceptance for common use technologies, respondents indicated that they are seeking more technologies that will help them along the common use continuum. Several respondents are interested in developing a common bag drop; however, IATA does not yet have a stan- dard for common bag drop; hence there is no common solu- tion for the airport operator. European airport respondents also indicated that they are considering future improvements in the way border crossings are managed. The European Union (EU) for example has long embraced the concept of the free movement of people in Europe, and in the late 1990s adopted the Schengen Agree- ment, which allows for the abolition of systematic internal bor- der controls between the participating countries. Schengen countries are those that have signed the Schengen Agreement. To date, 27 EU countries have signed the agreement, as well as three non-EU countries (Iceland, Norway, and Switzerland). This means that the border crossing and security requirements differ between Schengen and non-Schengen countries (Wikipedia 2007). In addition to Schengen Agreement require- ments, the United States security requirements also affect the implementation of common use technologies. According to European respondents, the implementation of the Federal Bureau of Investigation’s terrorist watch list currently prevents the use of CUSS kiosks for non-U.S. airlines.

29 Some survey respondents indicated that they negotiated with the airlines when their airport made the decision to move to common use. In several cases, the airport was renewing the airlines’ leases, and they used the lease renewals as a catalyst for open communication. Through this communication, the airport operators were able to honestly address these concerns to ensure success of the common use program. During negotiations, several respondents indicated that the airlines clearly wanted to retain their exclusive use of gates, and that the airport operators wanted no gate assign- ments. As a compromise, several of these respondents now employ preferential use of gates. U.S.-based airport respondents indicated that they first in- stall CUTE at the gates of their international terminals. As these respondents continue their movement along the common use continuum, they try to expand CUTE to the re- mainder of their airports. Respondents indicated that the installation of common use cost their airports about the equivalent of one gate, but in return they gain the equiva- lency of several gates. Respondents also noted the impor- tance of quantifying the benefits of common use to airport management and demonstrating how common use facilitates deferral of capital expenditures for constructing new gates, concourses, and eventually a new terminal. In some cases, part of the common use installation process involved replacing or updating ticketing counters. Many re- spondents discovered that the ticket counters were not the same size, and they were able to gain additional check-in locations by standardizing the size of the ticket counters. According to respondents, one area of the airport not nor- mally converted to common use is the operations space for the airlines. When a new airline is added to the airport, it is given operational space that is dedicated only to that airline. Even with this requirement, many of these airport operators are continuing to add new service and new airlines, which allows continued growth and improved service to their community. Many of the respondent airports have also joined IATA and helped to define the CUSS RP. The driver for this was the airline implementation of dedicated check-in kiosks. Airlines installed dedicated kiosks in the airport lobby areas that un- dermined the airport operators’ common use strategy for ef- ficient use of airport space. The placement of dedicated kiosks essentially forces ticket counter space to become exclusive use. Locations not near the ticket counters cannot be fairly shared by all airlines, in most cases. The airport operators worked with the IATA Common Use Self-Service Management Group to help define CUSS. In addition to the ticket counters, some respondents are in- stalling CUSS in areas outside the airport, including their parking garages, rental car centers, remote hotels, and other off-site locations. These installations essentially have al- lowed airport operators to extend their check-in counters to areas outside the airport. Although this improves passenger processing, according to respondents it also improves the passenger experience, because many passengers are now able to fully check in before arriving at the airport. Case study respondents recommended that other airports consider moving along the common use continuum. Tech- nology is a key enabler and allows the airport operator to efficiently use and manage the limited space available. Tech- nologies such as LDCS are very beneficial in helping new airlines start up, to charter operations, and as a backup to the airline-owned departure control systems. Respondents also suggest that airport operators not worry about managing tasks currently handled by the airlines, such as gate assign- ments. Through the use of new technologies the airport oper- ator now has the means to manage these tasks effectively and efficiently. Other areas to keep in mind during the migration along the common use continuum are the ownership of jet bridges and the management of off-gate parking. Both of these issues are commonly overlooked during the start of any common use strategy involving the gate areas. Case study respondents recommended developing a formula for the amount of off-gate parking that will be needed as operations grow. Airport case study participants had several pieces of ad- vice for airports considering the common use continuum. First, it is important that airlines see an advantage in moving toward common use. To make the transition from exclusive use toward common use, airport operators must work closely with the airlines and ensure that there is interest and buy-in. Also, it is important for the airport operator to ensure that there is a service-level agreement in place for any services that are the airport operator’s responsibility. Several respon- dents indicated that they have to guarantee service for the network and infrastructure for the common use installation to succeed. The focus of support should be toward the air- line agent, especially if the airline has a small station at the airport. Many respondents also suggested considering how com- mon use can assist an airport operator during construction and growth. In some cases, as they have needed to maintain and upgrade the apron areas, these airports have been able to move airlines to other gates efficiently without affecting the airlines’ operations. This has saved time and money, during the maintenance and construction projects that continue at the airport.

Next: Chapter Seven - Airport Considerations for Common Use Implementations »
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!