Below are the first 10 and last 10 pages of uncorrected machine-read text (when available) of this chapter, followed by the top 30 algorithmically extracted key phrases from the chapter as a whole.
Intended to provide our own search engines and external engines with highly rich, chapter-representative searchable text on the opening pages of each chapter.
Because it is UNCORRECTED material, please consider the following text as a useful but insufficient proxy for the authoritative book pages.
Do not use for reproduction, copying, pasting, or reading; exclusively for search engines.
OCR for page 33
33
CHAPTER EIGHT
ANALYSIS OF DATA COLLECTION
SURVEY · Delta Airlines
· Air Canada
Surveys were conducted to find out the state of common use · Alaska Airlines
facilities and equipment at airports, both in implementation · Two anonymous responses.
and in the understanding of common use strategies. Full sur-
vey results can be found in Appendix D. The surveys proved The survey instruments created revealed many interesting
to be very interesting and the results are analyzed in this pieces of information with respect to the use, understanding,
chapter. Since airline and airport operator perspectives differ, and implementation of common use strategies. One of the
separate surveys were sent to both. The TRB Panel identified key pieces of information the surveys revealed is that airport
24 airports to be surveyed. A total of 20 surveys were re- operators and airlines have different opinions about the in-
ceived, for an 83% response rate. The TRB Panel also iden- hibitors of both CUTE and CUSS implementations at air-
tified 13 airlines to be surveyed. A total of 12 airlines surveys ports. When the question of CUTE implementation was
were received, for a 92% response rate. The overall response asked, airport operators identified the top three reasons air-
rate to the surveys was 86%. lines do not accept CUTE as:
The following airports responded to the survey: 1. Airline preference for dedicated systems
2. Loss of branding ability
· JFK International Terminal (Terminal 4) 3. Lack of control.
· Clark County Department of Aviation, McCarran Inter-
national Airport When airlines were asked the same question, they identi-
· San Francisco International Airport fied the top three reasons as:
· Tampa International Airport
· Greater Toronto Airports Authority 1. Lack of control
· Greater Orlando Airport Authority 2. Costs too much
· Metropolitan Airports Commission, MinneapolisSt. 3. Maintenance and support.
Paul International Airport
· San Diego County Regional Airport Authority These results are shown in Figure 8.
· Salt Lake City International Airport, Salt Lake City
Department of Airports When asked the same question regarding CUSS, airport
· Williams Gateway Airport operators rated the top three causes of inhibiting implemen-
· Halifax International Airport Authority tation of CUSS as:
· Vancouver International Airport Authority
· DallasFort Worth International Airport 1. Airline preference for dedicated systems
· Amsterdam Airport, Schiphol 2. Lack of control
· Aéroports de Montréal 3. Loss of branding ability.
· MiamiDade Aviation Department
· Four anonymous responses. Airlines rated the top three reasons as:
The following airlines responded to the survey: 1. Lack of control
2. Difficulty with deployment
· Lufthansa AG 3. Costs too much.
· EasyJet Airline
· American Airlines These results are shown in Figure 9.
· United Airlines
· Qantas Airlines Both of these charts indicate there is a difference of opin-
· Southwest Airlines ion as to what inhibits the implementation of common use
· Skybus Airlines systems at airports. Unfortunately, airlines were not asked if
OCR for page 34
34
30%
25%
20%
15%
10%
5%
Airline Response
0% l Airport Response
h
rt
fy
oy
y
s
tro
ilit
m
uc
po
rti
pl
e
on
ab
m
ce
up
de
st
C
sy
o
g
/S
o
o
to
in
of
tt
ce
tt
d
nd
ul
ts
te
ck
ul
an
ic
os
ra
ca
ic
La
iff
en
iff
b
C
di
D
D
of
nt
de
ai
ss
er
M
Lo
ef
pr
s
ne
rli
Ai
FIGURE 8 CUTE inhibitors ranked by airports and airlines.
they preferred dedicated systems, so this somewhat skews combined with the answers shown in Figure 9, it is clear
the data results. However, it is interesting how different the that the airport operator needs to consider airlines' in-
remaining inhibitors are between the two entities. These volvement in the process of procuring, implementing, and
charts alone indicate that there is a need for an open and hon- maintaining a CUTE system. Figure 10 shows the response
est dialog between airport operators and airlines. Until there to this question.
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 As a related question, airlines were asked whether they
industry. believed airport operators were doing well in implementing
common use at their airports. There were some common
Airlines were also asked to rank the reasons why their themes in the answers. Overall, CUTE was viewed as a suc-
airline might choose to use a CUTE system at a given air- cess, but CUSS was not. It was noted on several responses
port. The number one answer was that the airport operator that airport operators that included airlines early in the
required its use. This was followed by a need to share process were viewed as successful. CUTE's success in Eu-
gates. This question indicates that in general there is not a rope was identified, as was the ability of an airport to keep an
willingness to use CUTE voluntarily at an airport. When open book policy toward the fees charged for common use.
25%
20%
15%
10%
5%
Airline Response
0%
Airport Response
h
y
rt
fy
y
l
s
tro
o
lit
em
uc
po
rti
pl
i
on
ab
m
ce
up
de
st
C
sy
o
ng
/S
o
to
to
tt
of
ce
i
d
nd
t
ul
ts
te
ul
ck
an
ic
os
ra
ca
ic
La
iff
en
iff
b
C
di
D
D
of
nt
de
ai
ss
er
M
Lo
ef
pr
s
ne
rli
Ai
FIGURE 9 CUSS inhibitors ranked by airports and airlines.
OCR for page 35
35
90
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
re s e e t tly t d
tu te lin nc ke en ke ire
c ga ir ia ar i ar qu
tru r e ra all t /m f f i c m e
ra
s a he ne
r e w tr
inf sh ot irli po e ne or
d to an A ai r or to i rp
w m in A
ta
n ed ith ne es ry
en Ne n tw a g at e nt
e o
uip
m
em int in g ed
eq re try x i st s pe
e a g e n e to
lin e e
air h ar l o ws us e ed
g s l t o N
A
yin de ed
plo Co Ne
de
t of
s
Co
FIGURE 10 Airlines' reasons to choose to operate on CUTE.
Airlines expressed the concern that non-U.S. airport oper- vendor, that has to create the application, but the platform
ators are starting to view common use as a profit center, provider that has to deploy it to the end location. The air-
which has a great impact on the airline. In interviews with lines are dependent on the platform provider to certify and
airlines, there seems to be a willingness to accept common release their code, but they have no service-level agreement
use expenses as a cost plus model, but it is when this service to enforce a timely release cycle (see Figure 11). A suc-
is looked at as a way to increase profits, as it is in some non- cessful common use installation at an airport must take this
U.S. airports, that airlines begin to struggle with the concept. into account. If the contractual relationship with the vendor
From an airline point of view, the airport operator receives is owned by the airport, then the airport operator must work
the greatest benefit from common use strategies. As such, air- with the airlines to ensure that reasonable terms are put in
port operators should be willing to take that into account place to facilitate the efficient release of application
when developing pricing models for common use (Behan updates. Although this is traditionally viewed as the air-
2006). However, the type of charging system also needs to be line's issue and not the airport operator's, in the common
considered, as to whether it is residual or compensatory rates use continuum, airport operators are taking more of the air-
and charges system. It could be that if the airport benefits, line's traditional responsibilities.
then all of the airlines do too.
When asked what airport operators were not doing well, Yes
the responses paralleled what the airport operators were Not sure 16%
doing well. Survey results showed it is very important to the 17%
airlines that they be included early on in the procurement Yes
process. It is also noted that several airlines believe CUSS
has not been implemented well. It is important to note that No
some of the responses indicated an animosity between Not sure
airlines and airport operators. Some airlines responded that
airport operators are doing nothing well. Again, this indicates
a lack of communication. No
67%
Of the airlines surveyed, 68% stated they do not have a
service-level agreement with a common use provider. This FIGURE 11 Airline service-level agreements with common
information is interesting in that it is the airline, or its use providers.
OCR for page 36
36
0%
8%
Airline provided
25% Airport provided
Prefer club arrangement
67% Depends on location
FIGURE 12 CUTE equipment provisions.
When airlines were asked what type of common use to improve the implementation of common use strategies.
arrangement was preferred, 67% answered that it was depen- This was followed by 33% supporting Voice over IP (VoIP).
dent on location, whereas 25% stated they preferred the
CLUB arrangement. This bears further investigation, but it This is also evident in practice, as more and more airport
could indicate that airlines are open to different models based operators have installed MUFIDS systems to aide passengers
on the size and location of the station in question. None of the in finding their flight, and to provide `meeters and greeters'
respondents preferred to have the airport operator provide the the ability to find their party efficiently. Respondents of the
CUTE equipment. This again indicates a distrust of the survey did not regard other technologies as beneficial. This
process that airport operators are using and that airlines are could partly be because they are in limited use, the technolo-
concerned with their participation in the procurement of gies are not understood, or they are not seen as adding value
CUTE equipment (see Figure 12). to the process. In any case, it is important to discover the true
reason, as well as to assist the industry in understanding the
Even with airlines concerns over the use and procurement value, if any, of these supporting technologies. Figure 15
of common use, almost all of the respondents are operating gives the airlines' perspective on additional common use
on a CUTE environment and a large percentage are operating technologies, and their value or importance in a common use
on a CUSS environment. airport.
Of the 12 responses received, 11 airlines, or 93%, indi- Internet or online check-in is also having an impact on the
cated they are already operating in a CUTE environment. common use continuum. As more travelers begin their
Nine airlines, or 75%, indicated they are currently operating check-in process at home, there will be a direct correlation to
CUSS environment (see Figures 13 and 14). the use and need of check-in facilities at airports. Most of the
airlines surveyed stated that 10% to 20% of their passengers
When looking at supporting technologies for common
use, 67% of airline respondents stated that MUFIDS helped
Don't know
0%
Donít know
0%
No
No
25%
8%
Yes
Yes
No
No
Don't know
Don't know
Yes
75%
Yes
92%
FIGURE 13 Airlines currently operating in a CUTE FIGURE 14 Airlines currently operating in a CUSS
environment. environment.
OCR for page 37
37
Other
MUBIDS
MUFIDS
Integrated Paging
Gate Management System
Voice over IP Phone
0 2 4 6 8 10
FIGURE 15 Common use supporting technologies.
check-in online. Three airlines indicated that 40% or more comes a barrier to entry into the marketplace for new vendors
of their passengers check in online. Although one of these wanting to provide solutions (see Figure 17).
numbers is not substantiated, it does indicate the types of
travelers that an airline is reaching as well as the increasing Additionally, the survey asked airlines about their CUSS
saturation of online check-in. Nine of the ten results are sub- applications and which vendors they currently had applica-
stantiated through actual accounts or professional estimates. tions certified with and deployed. Although the field of
Figure 16 shows, by airline, the percent of passengers that are CUSS vendors is relatively small, smaller than CUTE ven-
checking in by means of the Internet. For example, 60% of dors, there were two dominant vendors. Combining this with
the respondents indicated that 10% to 19% of their passen- the data gathered from IATA and industry research, it is pos-
gers are using the internet to check-in for flights. sible to get a clear picture on the number of airline applica-
tions and vendor supports. It is interesting to note that IBM
The survey also sought from the airlines which vendors' has worked with ARINC and IER on past installations, so the
platforms the airlines had a CUTE application certified under. picture of purely IBM, ARINC, and IER is somewhat blurred
While there is currently no industry source to determine the in the chart. Refer to Appendix A for the full data supporting
number of airlines supported at a given CUTE installation, the the industry information in the figures.
results of this survey question indicate that there are two very
dominant vendors, and two additional vendors that have a The survey also revealed a number of business models
higher percentage of the respondent's applications. Further re- used to charge for common use facilities and services. Al-
search is required to get a better picture of the industry, but the though there are several ways to charge for common use ser-
results of this survey question support the idea that airlines vices, 60% of airport operators surveyed include the com-
would prefer the installation of vendors with which they al- mon use fees in the rates and charges. Figure 18 shows a
ready have an application working and certified. IATA is cur- comparison between the survey results and the industry re-
rently working on a survey to determine the exact airlines that sults shown in Appendix A.
are supported at a specific airport by a specific vendor. The sur-
In interviews with various airlines, and through industry
vey is expected to be released in August of 2007. This also be-
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
20%
area that requires research, but ultimately clear and open
10-19% communication can resolve these differences (see Figure 19
20-29%
for more information).
10%
40-49% For the airport operators surveyed, the main driver for
60% moving along the common use continuum was the ability to
60-69%
10% 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-
FIGURE 16 Percent of passengers using Internet check-in. tual deferral of those expenditures was not a driving factor in
OCR for page 38
38
12
10
8
6
4
2
0
rIT
C
R
na
cs
a
TA
er
es
IN
IE
th
ni
er
Ai
SI
R
AR
O
tro
at
M
ec
El
a
ltr
U
FIGURE 17 CUTE airline applications, by vendor.
35
30
25
20
Survey
15
Industry
10
5
0
ARINC IBM IER Materna SITA Travelsky
FIGURE 18 CUSS airline applications, by vendor.
Included in rates and charges
20%
Per emplaned/deplaned/recheckin
passenger or other per-capita billing
methodology
7%
Time of use system
60%
13%
Other
FIGURE 19 Costing models for common use.
making the decision to move along the common use contin- factors were not as important as these in the opinions of the
uum. Passenger flow and customer service ranked second in airport operators surveyed (see Figure 20).
importance, and combined they are the largest factor for im-
plementing common use strategies, since passenger flow is One airport responded to the survey that they did not have
related to customer service. Limitations to growth and other common use and had no plans to implement any common use
