National Academies Press: OpenBook

Common Use Facilities and Equipment at Airports (2008)

Chapter: Chapter Eight - Analysis of Data Collection

« Previous: Chapter Seven - Airport Considerations for Common Use Implementations
Page 33
Suggested Citation:"Chapter Eight - Analysis of Data Collection." 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 33
Page 34
Suggested Citation:"Chapter Eight - Analysis of Data Collection." 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 34
Page 35
Suggested Citation:"Chapter Eight - Analysis of Data Collection." 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 35
Page 36
Suggested Citation:"Chapter Eight - Analysis of Data Collection." 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 36
Page 37
Suggested Citation:"Chapter Eight - Analysis of Data Collection." 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 37
Page 38
Suggested Citation:"Chapter Eight - Analysis of Data Collection." 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 38
Page 39
Suggested Citation:"Chapter Eight - Analysis of Data Collection." 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 39
Page 40
Suggested Citation:"Chapter Eight - Analysis of Data Collection." 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 40
Page 41
Suggested Citation:"Chapter Eight - Analysis of Data Collection." 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 41

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.

33 SURVEY Surveys were conducted to find out the state of common use facilities and equipment at airports, both in implementation and in the understanding of common use strategies. Full sur- vey results can be found in Appendix D. The surveys proved to be very interesting and the results are analyzed in this chapter. Since airline and airport operator perspectives differ, separate surveys were sent to both. The TRB Panel identified 24 airports to be surveyed. A total of 20 surveys were re- ceived, for an 83% response rate. The TRB Panel also iden- tified 13 airlines to be surveyed. A total of 12 airlines surveys were received, for a 92% response rate. The overall response rate to the surveys was 86%. The following airports responded to the survey: • JFK International Terminal (Terminal 4) • Clark County Department of Aviation, McCarran Inter- national Airport • San Francisco International Airport • Tampa International Airport • Greater Toronto Airports Authority • Greater Orlando Airport Authority • Metropolitan Airports Commission, Minneapolis–St. Paul International Airport • San Diego County Regional Airport Authority • Salt Lake City International Airport, Salt Lake City Department of Airports • Williams Gateway Airport • Halifax International Airport Authority • Vancouver International Airport Authority • Dallas–Fort Worth International Airport • Amsterdam Airport, Schiphol • Aéroports de Montréal • Miami–Dade Aviation Department • Four anonymous responses. The following airlines responded to the survey: • Lufthansa AG • EasyJet Airline • American Airlines • United Airlines • Qantas Airlines • Southwest Airlines • Skybus Airlines • Delta Airlines • Air Canada • Alaska Airlines • Two anonymous responses. The survey instruments created revealed many interesting pieces of information with respect to the use, understanding, and implementation of common use strategies. One of the key pieces of information the surveys revealed is that airport operators and airlines have different opinions about the in- hibitors of both CUTE and CUSS implementations at air- ports. When the question of CUTE implementation was asked, airport operators identified the top three reasons air- lines do not accept CUTE as: 1. Airline preference for dedicated systems 2. Loss of branding ability 3. Lack of control. When airlines were asked the same question, they identi- fied the top three reasons as: 1. Lack of control 2. Costs too much 3. Maintenance and support. These results are shown in Figure 8. When asked the same question regarding CUSS, airport operators rated the top three causes of inhibiting implemen- tation of CUSS as: 1. Airline preference for dedicated systems 2. Lack of control 3. Loss of branding ability. Airlines rated the top three reasons as: 1. Lack of control 2. Difficulty with deployment 3. Costs too much. These results are shown in Figure 9. Both of these charts indicate there is a difference of opin- ion as to what inhibits the implementation of common use systems at airports. Unfortunately, airlines were not asked if CHAPTER EIGHT ANALYSIS OF DATA COLLECTION

34 Airport Response Airline Response Air line s p ref er de dic ate d s yst em s Lo ss of bra nd ing ab ility Dif ficu lt t o d ep loy Dif ficu lt t o c ert ify Ma int en an ce /Su pp ort Co sts to o m uch La ck of Co ntr ol 25% 20% 15% 10% 5% 0% FIGURE 9 CUSS inhibitors ranked by airports and airlines. Airport Response Airline Response Air line s p ref er de dic ate d s yst em s Lo ss of bra nd ing ab ility Dif ficu lt t o d ep loy Dif ficu lt t o c ert ify Ma int en an ce /Su pp ort Co sts to o m uch La ck of Co ntr ol 30% 25% 20% 15% 10% 5% 0% FIGURE 8 CUTE inhibitors ranked by airports and airlines. they preferred dedicated systems, so this somewhat skews the data results. However, it is interesting how different the remaining inhibitors are between the two entities. These charts alone indicate that there is a need for an open and hon- est dialog between airport operators and airlines. Until there is an agreement as to what the inhibitors are, it will be diffi- cult to determine how to overcome them for the benefit of the industry. Airlines were also asked to rank the reasons why their airline might choose to use a CUTE system at a given air- port. The number one answer was that the airport operator required its use. This was followed by a need to share gates. This question indicates that in general there is not a willingness to use CUTE voluntarily at an airport. When combined with the answers shown in Figure 9, it is clear that the airport operator needs to consider airlines’ in- volvement in the process of procuring, implementing, and maintaining a CUTE system. Figure 10 shows the response to this question. As a related question, airlines were asked whether they believed airport operators were doing well in implementing common use at their airports. There were some common themes in the answers. Overall, CUTE was viewed as a suc- cess, but CUSS was not. It was noted on several responses that airport operators that included airlines early in the process were viewed as successful. CUTE’s success in Eu- rope was identified, as was the ability of an airport to keep an open book policy toward the fees charged for common use.

35 Air por t re qui re d Ne ed to spe ed en try into ne w ma rke t Ne ed to sha re gat es Co st of d epl oyi ng airl ine equ ipm en t a nd infr as tru ctu re 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 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 FIGURE 10 Airlines’ reasons to choose to operate on CUTE. Airlines expressed the concern that non-U.S. airport oper- ators are starting to view common use as a profit center, which has a great impact on the airline. In interviews with airlines, there seems to be a willingness to accept common use expenses as a cost plus model, but it is when this service is looked at as a way to increase profits, as it is in some non- U.S. airports, that airlines begin to struggle with the concept. From an airline point of view, the airport operator receives the greatest benefit from common use strategies. As such, air- port operators should be willing to take that into account when developing pricing models for common use (Behan 2006). However, the type of charging system also needs to be considered, as to whether it is residual or compensatory rates and charges system. It could be that if the airport benefits, then all of the airlines do too. When asked what airport operators were not doing well, the responses paralleled what the airport operators were doing well. Survey results showed it is very important to the airlines that they be included early on in the procurement process. It is also noted that several airlines believe CUSS has not been implemented well. It is important to note that some of the responses indicated an animosity between airlines and airport operators. Some airlines responded that airport operators are doing nothing well. Again, this indicates a lack of communication. Of the airlines surveyed, 68% stated they do not have a service-level agreement with a common use provider. This information is interesting in that it is the airline, or its vendor, that has to create the application, but the platform provider that has to deploy it to the end location. The air- lines are dependent on the platform provider to certify and release their code, but they have no service-level agreement to enforce a timely release cycle (see Figure 11). A suc- cessful common use installation at an airport must take this into account. If the contractual relationship with the vendor is owned by the airport, then the airport operator must work with the airlines to ensure that reasonable terms are put in place to facilitate the efficient release of application updates. Although this is traditionally viewed as the air- line’s issue and not the airport operator’s, in the common use continuum, airport operators are taking more of the air- line’s traditional responsibilities. Not sure 17% Yes 16% No 67% Yes No Not sure FIGURE 11 Airline service-level agreements with common use providers.

36 67% 25% 8% 0% Airline provided Airport provided Prefer club arrangement Depends on location No 8% Donít know 0% Yes 92% Yes No Don’t know FIGURE 12 CUTE equipment provisions. FIGURE 13 Airlines currently operating in a CUTE environment. No 25% Don’t know 0% Yes 75% Yes No Don’t know FIGURE 14 Airlines currently operating in a CUSS environment. When airlines were asked what type of common use arrangement was preferred, 67% answered that it was depen- dent on location, whereas 25% stated they preferred the CLUB arrangement. This bears further investigation, but it could indicate that airlines are open to different models based on the size and location of the station in question. None of the respondents preferred to have the airport operator provide the CUTE equipment. This again indicates a distrust of the process that airport operators are using and that airlines are concerned with their participation in the procurement of CUTE equipment (see Figure 12). Even with airlines concerns over the use and procurement of common use, almost all of the respondents are operating on a CUTE environment and a large percentage are operating on a CUSS environment. Of the 12 responses received, 11 airlines, or 93%, indi- cated they are already operating in a CUTE environment. Nine airlines, or 75%, indicated they are currently operating CUSS environment (see Figures 13 and 14). When looking at supporting technologies for common use, 67% of airline respondents stated that MUFIDS helped to improve the implementation of common use strategies. This was followed by 33% supporting Voice over IP (VoIP). This is also evident in practice, as more and more airport operators have installed MUFIDS systems to aide passengers in finding their flight, and to provide ‘meeters and greeters’ the ability to find their party efficiently. Respondents of the survey did not regard other technologies as beneficial. This could partly be because they are in limited use, the technolo- gies are not understood, or they are not seen as adding value to the process. In any case, it is important to discover the true reason, as well as to assist the industry in understanding the value, if any, of these supporting technologies. Figure 15 gives the airlines’ perspective on additional common use technologies, and their value or importance in a common use airport. Internet or online check-in is also having an impact on the common use continuum. As more travelers begin their check-in process at home, there will be a direct correlation to the use and need of check-in facilities at airports. Most of the airlines surveyed stated that 10% to 20% of their passengers

37 0 2 4 6 8 10 Other MUBIDS MUFIDS Integrated Paging Gate Management System Voice over IP Phone 20% 10% 10% 60% 10-19% 20-29% 40-49% 60-69% FIGURE 15 Common use supporting technologies. FIGURE 16 Percent of passengers using Internet check-in. check-in online. Three airlines indicated that 40% or more of their passengers check in online. Although one of these numbers is not substantiated, it does indicate the types of travelers that an airline is reaching as well as the increasing saturation of online check-in. Nine of the ten results are sub- stantiated through actual accounts or professional estimates. Figure 16 shows, by airline, the percent of passengers that are checking in by means of the Internet. For example, 60% of the respondents indicated that 10% to 19% of their passen- gers are using the internet to check-in for flights. The survey also sought from the airlines which vendors’ platforms the airlines had a CUTE application certified under. While there is currently no industry source to determine the number of airlines supported at a given CUTE installation, the results of this survey question indicate that there are two very dominant vendors, and two additional vendors that have a higher percentage of the respondent’s applications. Further re- search is required to get a better picture of the industry, but the results of this survey question support the idea that airlines would prefer the installation of vendors with which they al- ready have an application working and certified. IATA is cur- rently working on a survey to determine the exact airlines that are supported at a specific airport by a specific vendor. The sur- vey is expected to be released in August of 2007. This also be- comes a barrier to entry into the marketplace for new vendors wanting to provide solutions (see Figure 17). Additionally, the survey asked airlines about their CUSS applications and which vendors they currently had applica- tions certified with and deployed. Although the field of CUSS vendors is relatively small, smaller than CUTE ven- dors, there were two dominant vendors. Combining this with the data gathered from IATA and industry research, it is pos- sible to get a clear picture on the number of airline applica- tions and vendor supports. It is interesting to note that IBM has worked with ARINC and IER on past installations, so the picture of purely IBM, ARINC, and IER is somewhat blurred in the chart. Refer to Appendix A for the full data supporting the industry information in the figures. The survey also revealed a number of business models used to charge for common use facilities and services. Al- though there are several ways to charge for common use ser- vices, 60% of airport operators surveyed include the com- mon use fees in the rates and charges. Figure 18 shows a comparison between the survey results and the industry re- sults shown in Appendix A. In interviews with various airlines, and through industry experience, this method appears less desirable because it does not lend itself to visibility of the charges. Airport operators argue, on the other hand, that airlines want the vis- ibility so they can negotiate different terms. This is another area that requires research, but ultimately clear and open communication can resolve these differences (see Figure 19 for more information). For the airport operators surveyed, the main driver for moving along the common use continuum was the ability to maximize the use of existing gates. This indicates that airport operators believe their gates are underutilized and that this un- derutilization is the main inhibitor to growth at their airports. While this implies the deferral of capital expenditures, the ac- tual deferral of those expenditures was not a driving factor in

38 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 ARINC IBM IER Materna SITA Survey Industry Travelsky FIGURE 18 CUSS airline applications, by vendor. Included in rates and charges Time of use system Other 60% 13% 7% 20% Per emplaned/deplaned/recheckin passenger or other per-capita billing methodology FIGURE 19 Costing models for common use. Oth er Ult ra Ele ctr on icsSIT A Re sa Ma ter naIER AR INCAir IT 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 FIGURE 17 CUTE airline applications, by vendor. making the decision to move along the common use contin- uum. Passenger flow and customer service ranked second in importance, and combined they are the largest factor for im- plementing common use strategies, since passenger flow is related to customer service. Limitations to growth and other factors were not as important as these in the opinions of the airport operators surveyed (see Figure 20). One airport responded to the survey that they did not have common use and had no plans to implement any common use

39 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Oth er Ma xim ize us e o f ga tes for mu ltip le a irlin es Att rac t ne w ten an ts Ina bilit y to ex pan d Cos t re duc tion Pa ss en ger flow De fer ca pita l ex pen ditu res Cus tom er se rvic e FIGURE 20 Reasons to move along the common use continuum. strategies. The response indicated that because the airport was a hub for a single airline there was no need to implement common use. This also supports the need to review an air- port’s airline make-up to determine if a common use strategy would make sense to implement. When asked about Common Use Passenger Processing Systems (CUPPS), 92% of airlines and 95% of airport oper- ators responded that they were aware of the initiative. When asked if they supported the CUPPS initiative, 92% of airlines stated they were in support of CUPPS. This shows that there has been a tremendous amount of education done on the CUPPS initiative and there is a high level of awareness and support within the industry. Several airlines have stated both in survey results as well as in offi- cial company positions, that they fully support CUPPS and are actively participating in the development of the standard. The CUPPS standard, set to go before the Joint Passengers Service Committee (JPSC) in September of 2007, is sup- ported across industry organizations. IATA, ATA, and ACI have agreed to support the final recommended practice, and each has reserved a number in their recommended practices for inclusion of the CUPPS standard. LITERATURE As stated in previous chapters, the amount of published liter- ature on common use currently available is limited in nature and scope. One interesting source of information is the pro- curement documents produced by airport operators that have begun the migration along the common use continuum. While these documents tend to be large and have a lot of con- tractual information, they also contain a wealth of knowledge about what airport operators are searching for to meet their common use strategies. Many of these documents are avail- able through Freedom of Information Act requests to the respective governmental institutions. INDUSTRY SOURCES AND EXPERIENCE The aviation industry, in general, has a large amount of “tribal knowledge” that has not been documented. This knowledge is passed through experience from person to person. As a result, it becomes important to develop relationships with people across the industry to gather information on topics of interest. For this purpose it has become common practice to meet through industry associations, conferences, and training oppor- tunities. Credible and useful sources of information include IATA, ATA, ACI, and AAAE. Each of these organizations provides opportunities for airlines and airport operators to share knowledge as well as learn about the state of the industry. IATA continues to work with its members to create spec- ifications and recommended practices for the industry. Among the specifications and recommended practices that IATA has created are the specifications for Common Use Terminal Equipment (CUTE), Common Use Self-Service (CUSS), and other common use specifications. These specifications and recommended practices shape the industry and the manner in which common use is imple- mented at airports. IATA continues to review specifications and recommended practices, updating or replacing them as

40 necessary. One recommended practice currently being up- dated is the CUTE RP. The replacement to CUTE is known as Common Use Passenger Processing System (CUPPS). The guiding principles for CUPPS are: 1. Applications that run on any platform 2. CUPPS facilitates business processes rather than man- dates 3. CUPPS platform with minimum and defined func- tionality 4. Affordability 5. Serviceability 6. Predictability. The CUPPS Recommended Practice is planned to go before the Joint Passenger Services Committee for approval in Sep- tember 2007. Through experience, airports are learning about many of the concerns an airline may have that are inhibiting common use strategies. It is important to be ready to address these concerns if the move along the common use continuum is to be successful. Listed here are common concerns that have been raised through the implementation of a common use strategy. Although there are many possible resolutions, some suggestions are offered here to aide in the process. Concern: Although common use strategies are widely accepted in Europe, the whole basis of the rela- tionship between airport and air carrier is dif- ferent in the United States. It is not the way in which the U.S. airlines are accustomed to working, and there can be some resistance. Response: Work closely with the airport and the airlines on the original installation, working around the airlines’ schedules so that there is minimal dis- ruption to operation of the airport. Develop a timeline with each airline to ensure they can successfully convert to the common use envi- ronment, but within a timeframe to which they have agreed. Concern: Airlines can perceive common-use as an in- fringement of their control. Response: Before installation, perform even more-then- perceived as necessary consultation sessions with the airlines to obtain stakeholder involve- ment. This can contribute greatly to the success of the acceptance of the project. Make one of the selection criteria for the successful Plat- form Provider that they support the majority of the airlines at that airport. Concern: Service support after installation can be costly and/or poor. Response time seldom meets the near-immediate needs of the airlines. Response: Whether service is provided by platform provider, in-house, or third party, this service should be competitively bid, and assurances made (SLAs) for single-point of contact, access to a pool of trained engineers, and 24-7 support for the airport. In addition, the selection criteria for support services should not be based on cost, but the majority of the points should be based on experience and knowledge. Concern: Our full system functionality will not be avail- able unless you use our peripherals. Response: CUTE uses a common set of peripherals that all airlines must use. There are cases where one or two airlines need specialized equipment or pe- ripherals. In these cases, the platform providers have certified hardware that provides the func- tionality required. If they do not, the platform providers have a method to certify peripherals as necessary. In addition, since the airline is respon- sible for the common use application, all func- tionality is based on the application that they create, or that is created for them by a vendor. Concern: Airlines do not want to pay for the more ex- pensive system equipment other airlines may be using. Response: Some airport operators have required that spe- cialized equipment be purchased by the airline that requires it, rather than embedding that cost in the PFC charges for all airlines. Other airport operators have accepted this cost as the cost of doing business and do not pass the charges on to the airlines. Still others have added a nomi- nal increase to the PFCs. Airport operators and airlines must work up front and throughout the process in an open-discussion atmosphere as to how to distribute costs. Concern: The system will end up either being the least common denominator from a technology side or it will end up being more costly for low cost air carriers. Response: All major airlines now have CUTE applica- tions and are supporting them for other air- ports. The small commuter airlines, and some foreign airlines, mostly from South and Central America, do not have CUTE applications and will need to have other facilities provided for them. Support costs for those airlines that already have CUTE applications are already accounted for in their cost models. Concern: Facilitating is better than mandating. We have immediate needs across many airports and we do not like being told what to do at any partic- ular airport. Response: Develop a timeline with each airline to ensure they can successfully convert to the common use environment, but within a timeframe to which they have agreed. Concern: We need the ability to understand costs. Cost transparency is always necessary. No additional

41 cost for updates and software delivery, either local or through provider. Cost per passenger should be known. The airport should provide equal treatment for all IT users in all billing, charging, and invoicing issues. Response: Airport policy will dictate the sharing of cost information with airlines. However, upgrade costs and software costs should be included in the original contract with the platform provider. Any costs associated with the airline’s applica- tion should already be accounted for in their costing models. Concern: We need the installation of a local IT member board to communicate with the airlines, IT provider(s), and airports for problem solutions, further developments, and provider RFPs. Response: The inclusion and support of airline IT mem- bers early in the process should be encouraged and facilitates a cooperative environment. This member(s) should be a part of all phases of the process through installation and acceptance. Concern: CUTE is a “great system” suited to international Air Carriers, but not so great for domestic carri- ers. “CUTE is the common way of accessing information within international terminals.” Response: Many domestic carriers also fly international or will be flying international (Canada and Mexico). CUTE is also used for domestic flights in airports that are constrained in the current facilities and space that they have in which to operate.

Next: Chapter Nine - Summary of Findings and Suggestions for Further Research »
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!