Click for next page ( 79


The National Academies | 500 Fifth St. N.W. | Washington, D.C. 20001
Copyright © National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.
Terms of Use and Privacy Statement



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

OCR for page 78
79 3. Is your airline operating in a Common Use Self-Service (CUSS) environment at any of the airports which you service? Airline CUSS currently operating Not sure 0% No 25% Yes No Not sure Yes 75% 4. Approximately what percent of your passengers check in on the Internet prior to arrival at an airport? 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 0 10-19% 20-29% 30-39% 40-49% 50-59% 60-69%

OCR for page 78
80 5. How did your airline arrive at this number? Best Guess 11% Actual counts Best Guess Actual counts 89% 6. For which of the following vendor's platforms do you have a CUTE application? Please mark all that apply. Number of airlines with applications - survey results 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

OCR for page 78
81 7. For which of the following vendors do you have a CUSS compliant application? (check box) CUSS platform applications SITA Materna IER IBM ARINC 0 2 4 6 8 10 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): 45 40 35 30 25 20 15 10 5 0 Development Certification Deployment Maintenance

OCR for page 78
82 b. Common Use Self-Service (CUSS) 40 35 30 25 20 15 10 5 0 Development Certification Deployment Maintenance 9. Does your airline have a service level agreement with the common use provider (CUTE and CUSS) to provide timely application distributions and updates? Yes Not sure 16% 17% Yes No Not sure No 67%

OCR for page 78
C C 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 os os ts ts to to o o m m uc uc h h D D iff iff ic ic b. Common Use Self-Service (CUSS) ul ul tt tt o o de de pl pl oy oy a. Common Use Terminal Emulation (CUTE): D D iff iff icu ic lt ul to tt o ce ce Lo rti Lo rti fy fy s s ss of of br br an an d in di g ng ab ab ilit ilit y y 10. Please rank the following common use inhibitors from most (1) to least (6). La La ck ck of of co c on nt ro tro M l M l ai ai nt nt en en an an ce ce /S /S up up po po r t r t 83

OCR for page 78
84 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): 90 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 re s e e t tly t d te lin nc ke ke ire ctu ga ir ia ar i en ar u tru e ra all t/m ef fi c m e q ra s ar he e r w tr inf sh n ot i r lin i r po re ne por o a o o r nd d t th a A w sm int Ai n ta N ee t wi a ne a te ntry e en o g e m nt ti n g d quip r e em t r yi i s pee e ag n ex to s r lin e re w se u se d i a o e g a sh Al l to Ne yin o de e ed pl o C N f de s to Co 12. Does your airline have an official policy or statement with respect to common use? Not sure 17% Yes No No 25% Yes Not sure 58%

OCR for page 78
85 13. If yes, can you provide this official policy or statement to the surveyor? Not sure Yes 40% Yes 50% No Not sure 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 8% Airline provided Prefer club arrangement Airport provided 25% Prefer club arrangement Depends on location Depends on location 67%

OCR for page 78
86 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

OCR for page 78
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? Not sure 8% Yes No Not sure Yes 92%

OCR for page 78
88 20. Does your airline use/support or have plans to support 2D barcode? Not sure 8% Yes No Not sure Yes 92% 21. Is your airline planning on providing 2D barcode check-in via cell phone? Not sure Yes Yes 42% 50% No Not sure No 8%

OCR for page 78
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? No 19% Yes No Not sure Yes 81%

OCR for page 78
106 29. What type of phone service do you provide? Standard analog voice over IP 25% 25% Standard analog Digital voice over IP Digital 50% 30. Do you provide WiFi for operational use, either in-building or exterior to the building, as a part of your common use system? No 19% Yes No Not sure Yes 81%

OCR for page 78
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? Yes 33% Yes No Not sure Not sure 67% 32. Do you provide WiFi for Internet access within public concourses for use by the public? Yes No Not sure Yes 100%

OCR for page 78
108 33. What business model do you use for your WiFi access for passenger use? Free to Free to passengers passengers 47% Pay for use Pay for use 53% Other 34. Does your airport provide other shared/common services (baggage handling, check-in agents/multi-airline check-in, other)? No 29% Yes No Not sure Yes 71% 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

OCR for page 78
109 36. What is the support model that your airport uses for common use systems? Self support Other 13% 27% Self support Vendor support Vendor support 20% Third party support Other Third party support 40% 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? Not sure 6% No 23% Yes No Not sure Yes 71%

OCR for page 78
110 38. Does your airport have a common bag-drop solution/system? Yes Yes 47% No No 53% Not sure 39. Does your airport use a baggage reconciliation system? Not sure 6% Yes Yes 47% No No Not sure 47%

OCR for page 78
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. Other hardware Platform upgrades Network Accessibility for the disabled 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.

OCR for page 78
112 42. Is your airport planning to implement common use in the future? No 33% Yes No Not sure Yes 67% 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 Maximize use of gates for multiple carriers Attract new tenants Inability to expand Cost reduction Passenger flow Defer capital expenditures Customer service 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Other responses: Maximize airport capacity Change of business model

OCR for page 78
113 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)? Not sure 19% Yes 37% Yes No Not sure No 44% 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? Not sure 7% Yes 33% Yes No Not sure No 60%

OCR for page 78
114 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 17, where 1 is the greatest inhibitor and 7 is the least inhibitor. a. Common Use Terminal Emulation (CUTE): Airline(s) prefer dedicated systems Maintenance/support Lack of control Loss of branding ability Difficult to certify Difficult to deploy Costs too much 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 b. Common Use Self-Service (CUSS) Airline(s) prefer dedicated systems Maintenance/support Lack of control Loss of branding ability Difficult to certify Difficult to deploy Costs too much 0 20 40 60 80 100

OCR for page 78
115 50. If we have any clarifying questions or require additional information, may we contact you? Not sure 6% Yes No Not sure Yes 94% 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.