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 12
12 Reference Guide on Understanding Common Use at Airports
States. As hub airport operators gain a better understanding of how to operate in a common-use
environment, they may consider implementing in non-hub gates.
Non-Hub Airports
Non-hub airports have different needs and different operating requirements than hub airports.
Non-hub airports are smaller than hub airports and often do not have one carrier that dominates
a large percentage of the air traffic at that airport. In the case of non-hub airports, factors involved
in determining whether or not to implement common use are different than at hub airports.
Origin and Destination Airports
Origin and destination airports may be hub or non-hub airports. Most of the passenger traffic
for the local market starts at that airport and ends at that airport. As a rule, there are fewer
through-passengers. These airports are usually in destination cities (e.g., Las Vegas and Orlando),
where there is high demand for passenger service. Factors that must be considered in these loca-
tions are space constraints, efficient utilization of the facility and resources, and the need to sup-
port a larger number of air carriers.
Current Range of Common-Use Facilities and Services
within the United States
Many airport operators are considering the implementation of common use at various levels
of operation as follows:
· Wireless for Operations: 39% implemented or to implement within 2 years. An additional
28% to implement in 35 years.
· Common Ramp Display Information (RIDS): 50% implemented or to implement within
2 years. An additional 14% to implement in 35 years.
· Managed Campus-Area Network for All Tenants: 48% implemented or to implement within
2 years. An additional 15% to implement in 35 years.
· Passenger Self-Boarding Gates: 10% implemented or to implement within 2 years. An addi-
tional 35% to implement in 35 years.
· Off Airport Check-In: 24% implemented or to implement within 2 years. An additional 32%
to implement in 35 years.
· Common Bag Drop: 18% implemented or to implement within 2 years. An additional 33%
to implement in 35 years.
· Baggage Tracking Services: 26% implemented or to implement within 2 years. An additional
30% to implement in 35 years.
Figure 2-3 illustrates the information above (ACI, 2009).
These results reflect a building-block approach to common use that allows airport operators to
implement portions of common use over time while achieving the most value for all parties
involved. In many cases, airport operators implement a common cabling backbone as one of the
first elements of common use. This allows the airport operator to better manage the cabling infra-
structure installed in the airport, while positioning the airport operator to add services in the future.
With any major shift in process, there is also a shift in culture. Airport operators need to be
prepared to address cultural changes, which not only affect the airport operator, but the local
airline station personnel as well. To address this issue, Appendix A5 discusses some fundamen-
tal concepts when managing organizational change.
Technology is an important enabler for any common-use implementation. Technology does
not drive these changes, but the use of technology facilitates the move to a common-use facility.
