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 39
39 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 0 e es on nd ts es r rvi c ur low cti pa an lin he e it erf u x te n air Ot rs nd ng red oe e me pe e st yt ne w ltip l to ex ss Co l i t t us ita l Pa b i ac mu C ap Ina At tr or c sf fer ga te De f eo us ize xim Ma FIGURE 20 Reasons to move along the common use continuum. strategies. The response indicated that because the airport While these documents tend to be large and have a lot of con- was a hub for a single airline there was no need to implement tractual information, they also contain a wealth of knowledge common use. This also supports the need to review an air- about what airport operators are searching for to meet their port's airline make-up to determine if a common use strategy common use strategies. Many of these documents are avail- would make sense to implement. able through Freedom of Information Act requests to the respective governmental institutions. 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 INDUSTRY SOURCES AND EXPERIENCE asked if they supported the CUPPS initiative, 92% of airlines The aviation industry, in general, has a large amount of "tribal stated they were in support of CUPPS. knowledge" that has not been documented. This knowledge is passed through experience from person to person. As a result, This shows that there has been a tremendous amount of it becomes important to develop relationships with people education done on the CUPPS initiative and there is a high across the industry to gather information on topics of interest. level of awareness and support within the industry. Several For this purpose it has become common practice to meet airlines have stated both in survey results as well as in offi- through industry associations, conferences, and training oppor- cial company positions, that they fully support CUPPS and tunities. Credible and useful sources of information include are actively participating in the development of the standard. IATA, ATA, ACI, and AAAE. Each of these organizations The CUPPS standard, set to go before the Joint Passengers provides opportunities for airlines and airport operators to share Service Committee (JPSC) in September of 2007, is sup- knowledge as well as learn about the state of the industry. ported across industry organizations. IATA, ATA, and ACI have agreed to support the final recommended practice, and IATA continues to work with its members to create spec- each has reserved a number in their recommended practices ifications and recommended practices for the industry. for inclusion of the CUPPS standard. Among the specifications and recommended practices that IATA has created are the specifications for Common Use LITERATURE Terminal Equipment (CUTE), Common Use Self-Service (CUSS), and other common use specifications. As stated in previous chapters, the amount of published liter- ature on common use currently available is limited in nature These specifications and recommended practices shape and scope. One interesting source of information is the pro- the industry and the manner in which common use is imple- curement documents produced by airport operators that have mented at airports. IATA continues to review specifications begun the migration along the common use continuum. and recommended practices, updating or replacing them as
OCR for page 39
40 necessary. One recommended practice currently being up- should be competitively bid, and assurances dated is the CUTE RP. The replacement to CUTE is known made (SLAs) for single-point of contact, access as Common Use Passenger Processing System (CUPPS). to a pool of trained engineers, and 24-7 support for the airport. In addition, the selection criteria The guiding principles for CUPPS are: for support services should not be based on cost, but the majority of the points should be 1. Applications that run on any platform based on experience and knowledge. 2. CUPPS facilitates business processes rather than man- Concern: Our full system functionality will not be avail- dates able unless you use our peripherals. 3. CUPPS platform with minimum and defined func- Response: CUTE uses a common set of peripherals that all tionality airlines must use. There are cases where one or 4. Affordability two airlines need specialized equipment or pe- 5. Serviceability ripherals. In these cases, the platform providers 6. Predictability. have certified hardware that provides the func- tionality required. If they do not, the platform The CUPPS Recommended Practice is planned to go before providers have a method to certify peripherals as the Joint Passenger Services Committee for approval in Sep- necessary. In addition, since the airline is respon- tember 2007. sible for the common use application, all func- tionality is based on the application that they Through experience, airports are learning about many of create, or that is created for them by a vendor. the concerns an airline may have that are inhibiting common Concern: Airlines do not want to pay for the more ex- use strategies. It is important to be ready to address these pensive system equipment other airlines may concerns if the move along the common use continuum is to be using. be successful. Listed here are common concerns that have Response: Some airport operators have required that spe- been raised through the implementation of a common use cialized equipment be purchased by the airline strategy. Although there are many possible resolutions, some that requires it, rather than embedding that cost suggestions are offered here to aide in the process. in the PFC charges for all airlines. Other airport operators have accepted this cost as the cost of Concern: Although common use strategies are widely doing business and do not pass the charges on accepted in Europe, the whole basis of the rela- to the airlines. Still others have added a nomi- tionship between airport and air carrier is dif- nal increase to the PFCs. Airport operators and ferent in the United States. It is not the way in airlines must work up front and throughout the which the U.S. airlines are accustomed to process in an open-discussion atmosphere as to working, and there can be some resistance. how to distribute costs. Response: Work closely with the airport and the airlines Concern: The system will end up either being the least on the original installation, working around the common denominator from a technology side airlines' schedules so that there is minimal dis- or it will end up being more costly for low cost ruption to operation of the airport. Develop a air carriers. timeline with each airline to ensure they can Response: All major airlines now have CUTE applica- successfully convert to the common use envi- tions and are supporting them for other air- ronment, but within a timeframe to which they ports. The small commuter airlines, and some have agreed. foreign airlines, mostly from South and Central Concern: Airlines can perceive common-use as an in- America, do not have CUTE applications and fringement of their control. will need to have other facilities provided for Response: Before installation, perform even more-then- them. Support costs for those airlines that perceived as necessary consultation sessions already have CUTE applications are already with the airlines to obtain stakeholder involve- accounted for in their cost models. ment. This can contribute greatly to the success Concern: Facilitating is better than mandating. We have of the acceptance of the project. Make one of immediate needs across many airports and we the selection criteria for the successful Plat- do not like being told what to do at any partic- form Provider that they support the majority of ular airport. the airlines at that airport. Response: Develop a timeline with each airline to ensure Concern: Service support after installation can be costly they can successfully convert to the common and/or poor. Response time seldom meets the use environment, but within a timeframe to near-immediate needs of the airlines. which they have agreed. Response: Whether service is provided by platform Concern: We need the ability to understand costs. Cost provider, in-house, or third party, this service transparency is always necessary. No additional
OCR for page 39
41 cost for updates and software delivery, either Response: The inclusion and support of airline IT mem- local or through provider. Cost per passenger bers early in the process should be encouraged should be known. The airport should provide and facilitates a cooperative environment. equal treatment for all IT users in all billing, This member(s) should be a part of all charging, and invoicing issues. phases of the process through installation and Response: Airport policy will dictate the sharing of cost acceptance. information with airlines. However, upgrade Concern: CUTE is a "great system" suited to international costs and software costs should be included in Air Carriers, but not so great for domestic carri- the original contract with the platform provider. ers. "CUTE is the common way of accessing Any costs associated with the airline's applica- information within international terminals." tion should already be accounted for in their Response: Many domestic carriers also fly international costing models. or will be flying international (Canada and Concern: We need the installation of a local IT member Mexico). CUTE is also used for domestic board to communicate with the airlines, IT flights in airports that are constrained in the provider(s), and airports for problem solutions, current facilities and space that they have in further developments, and provider RFPs. which to operate.