Reference Guide on Understanding Common Use at Airports (2010)

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.

Appendix B1 Planning B-2 Appendix B2 Design and Construction B-10 Appendix B3 Terminal Operations B-12 Appendix B4 Airside Operations B-19 Appendix B5 Facilities Maintenance B-33 Appendix B6 Business Considerations B-37 Appendix B7 Business Considerations: Use Rate and B-51 Charge Models Appendix B8 Technology B-63 B-1 A P P E N D I X B Supplemental Information for Chapter 3

B-2 Initial Planning Steps The following first-step issues are presented for the airport operator when considering com- mon use: 1. Develop a Change in Airport and Airline Way of Thinking: a) Throughout the ranks of airport Management and airline Operations, common use is all too often considered as an “IT” issue. As a result, the decision to implement common use is based on justifications solely provided through the airport Technology organization. This is not to say that the technology justifications provided are not valid, but only that when common use is justified by technology alone, complete airport acceptance and buy- in may not have been achieved; especially over the long-term operations of common use. One airport operator interviewed noted that common use has always been driven from Technology up to Management. Therefore, they continually struggle with justifying the benefits of common use to Airport Management. b) Common use adds the best value when all divisions and management of the airport, along with its airline partners, contribute to the planning and business justification of the imple- mentation. As stated by one airport operator interviewed: “Success comes when culture change is from the Director on down.” The following four points summarize the efforts of airport operators where common use has been proven successful over time: • The decision to implement common use was driven by and supported from the Exec- utive level down • Common use became a part of the airport culture • Airline collaboration a must at every step of the process • The decisions to implement common use were based on financial / fiscal benefit – Drive more efficiencies through the facilities and keep cost down through reduction in capital. 2. Thoroughly Define the Business Reasons Behind Common Use: a) There are business reasons why an airport operator considers common use. Chapter 4 of this Reference Guide presents many of these reasons, with tool sets to help the airport operator determine its own business reasons. Important to note here, is that the business reasons should consider upfront, all airport divisional responsibilities. The airport oper- ator should work with the airport division managers to carefully evaluate each business reason and objective. In doing so, the airport operator must consider the road blocks ver- sus the benefit. A common use solution is not necessarily a fit for every airport. 3. Include Airlines as a Business Partner: a) A common mistake for airport operators is to plan the implementation of common use, without the input from its airline business partners. As noted above, successful common use installations always had the airlines as a critical and early part of the planning process. This often is not an easy decision, especially when airport operators have heard the statements A P P E N D I X B 1 Planning

Planning B-3 that U.S. airlines oppose common use. However, in considering the airline’s position, often, it has been poor planning and execution that has led to the opposition. In general, airline opposition can be summarized by the following: • When the common use installation opposes the airline business process. • When cost of operation is higher than with a dedicated environment. • When common use limits airline functionality. With that said, as stated by one airline interviewed: “We understand that there are airport locations and situations where common use can be of benefit. Where it makes good busi- ness sense, we will work with an airport. We would like to see a point where all applications (back office, agent facing, passenger facing) could be accommodated with common use. If this was achieved, costs would be reduced such that the airline’s only infrastructure related role would be to go train users upon a new startup. If common use would evolve to a fully rich solution, then we would consider doing it at our largest locations as well.” Noted below are statements made by airlines interviewed regarding the planning phases of airport common use installations. • The airport operators must allow the airlines to be at the forefront of all discussions/ negotiations regarding common-use. • Airport operators often engage in meaningful dialogue when common use issues are raised. Some airport operators are proactive and some are not. We generally discuss options with the local airport operators, once they decide to pursue common use. We then attempt to cooperate with the airport operator. • Yes, most Airports Operators engage in consultation with the airlines regarding installation plans, but unfortunately there are also exceptions where the decisions are mandated and not consultative. • Planning matters to us, because we deal with so many providers, that we can help pro- vide historical information on providers, and other situations. • It always works better when we have the opportunity to provide consultation / input upfront. We look at the business case, and demonstrate how it will work for us. For example, increased capacity. • We don’t understand why common use always costs more. Airport operators typically justify common use through deferment of large capital costs, or by savings on airline operational costs, yet never has an airport operator sat down at the table and showed us these cost savings. Having prepared detailed spreadsheets producing cost comparisons of actionable data is important when trying to show an airline the cost benefit in going to common use. Even having cost avoidance issues such as, what does it cost to have a posi- tion out would be beneficial. • Functionality is often based on the lowest common user which is a disincentive to those carriers who want to invest in more services and functionality. • Decisions are made that we don’t particularly agree with regarding equipment implemented b) Consider how best to keep the airline Partners active and participating in the on-going planning and continuous improvement process. Airlines and airport operators alike noted one of the best benefits to common use is the ability to continuously improve the process for the betterment of both parties. Constantly brainstorming ideas to do it cheaper or bet- ter is the life-blood of a common use installation. Open channels of communications are important. It is not enough, simply to set up a monthly meeting. One airport operator noted that in doing so, after time passed, no one was attending. Ideas noted included: • Assign an airport staff member as liaison to the airlines. Through the liaison, various means of communication can be achieved • In setting up monthly meetings, take into account the schedules of airline staff. Recog- nize that station personnel can more easily accommodate the on-site meeting, than

airline Properties and IT. Look ahead to when you might need airline Properties and / or IT representatives and schedule accordingly. • Consider the formation of an airline consortium. This may be tied to long-term finan- cial support, and it may not. To implement a consortium effectively is challenging. As such, most airport operators have not pursued this approach. c) Establish a “loyal partner program,” where criteria for the program are clearly presented to the Airlines. Such criteria may include reaching a set threshold for years of continued ser- vice. As part of the program, consider special arrangements with airlines achieving loyal partner status. Airports noted successful relationships can be formed in a positive manner, specifically regarding preferential and non-exclusive use arrangements. Some Airports extended this status to the dominant carrier. Although Airports reported good success in implementing such a program, care must be used in implementing such a program to make sure not to alienate the other airlines or violate Federal regulations regarding equal treat- ment of air carriers. d) Work with the airline partners to include not only the local station manager and staff, but also the corporate airline’s staff as well. Airport Operational and Physical Characteristics 1. Airport Size: a) The FAA defines the airport size by its percent of airline passenger enplanements and cat- egorizes the airport under a “large, medium, small, or non-hub” classification. These are broken down as follows: • Large hubs are all airports that account for 1 percent or more of total airline passenger enplanements. About 30 airports meet this threshold each year. • Roughly 35 airports are categorized by FAA as “medium hubs” because they each account for between 0.25 and 0.99 percent of total airline enplanements. • The next-busiest airports, described as “small hubs,” account for 0.05 to 0.249 percent of enplanements; they total about 150. • The remaining 300 or so commercial-service airports are referred to as “non-hubs,” including about 100 (often only partly certificated) that are used by airlines on an irreg- ular or seasonal basis (Transportation Research Board, 2009, pp. 11–12). b) Airport sizes, ranging from non-hub to large-hub are all finding benefit for common use. In fact, there is a growing trend of small-hub airports pursuing the implementation of common use. Typical factors considered, along with the size of the airport are: • Capacity Constrained • Airport Flexibility • For medium and large hub airports, the amount of international carriers often dictate the need of some level of common use • For small and non-hub airports, marketing and revenue opportunities often play a major role. For example, the small hub airport operator may determine that providing all of the ground control services, produces a revenue stream, and promotes a lower cost of entry for the airlines it attempts to attract. 2. Airport Physical Configuration: a) Airport physical configuration refers primarily to the layout of airport terminals, con- courses, and baggage handling systems. Figure B1-1, as shown on the next page, compares these configurations. b) Much like the airport size, the physical configuration does not necessarily dictate the ben- efit of common use, but it can have a significant impact on the viability of the implemen- tation of common use. In other words, for the same reasons as described under airport B-4 Reference Guide on Understanding Common Use at Airports

Planning B-5 size, the various airport configurations can also benefit from common use. However, due to the physical configuration and limitations imposed, the cost of implementing common use may outweigh the benefit. Issues that should be considered include: • Multi Terminal / Concourse configurations may limit the ability of splitting airline operations between the terminals and concourse. Issues such as signage, roadways, and baggage systems must all be taken into consideration. • Certain layouts of the terminals, such as “X” Terminal layouts may hinder the ability of a common use ramp control tower’s view of all operations. Airport operators have noted line of site (critical for effective airside operations) is far more advantageous with a lin- ear layout. • Baggage handling systems separated and dedicated to specific areas of the terminal / concourse can also limit the effectiveness of a common use installation. 3. Airline Operations: a) Within any of the airports, an airline may operate what is referred to as “hub” operations. An airline hub operation is an airport that an airline uses as a transfer point to get passen- gers to their intended destination. It is part of a “hub and spoke” model where travelers move between airports, not served by direct flights. In contrast to an airline hub operation, airports served by a large amount of direct flights are typically referred to as “origination and destination” (O&D) airports. Many airlines also use “focus cities,” which function much the same as hubs, but with fewer flights. Examples of each are shown below: • Airline Hub Operations – George Bush Intercontinental Airport (IAH). Continental services its hub operations here. • O&D – Las Vegas McCarran International Airport (LAS). • Focus Cities – Sacramento International Airport. Southwest Airlines considers this location as a focus city airport. b) Airline Operations has probably the greatest impact to both viability and benefit for com- mon use. The following considerations are included : • O&D airports hold the greatest opportunity for airport wide common use considera- tions. In such cases, capacity constraints and facility flexibility issues are magnified when Figure B1-1. Physical airport configuration comparison.

the number of airlines operating at an airport begins to exceed the number of avail- able gates. • Airports with airline hub operations show the greatest success for common use with the non-hub or spoke airline operations portions of the airport. • As stated by some airlines interviewed, common use is often needed by the airline hub operations, in an over-flow situation. Counting the Costs of Common Use 1. Initial Assessment of Use – Facility Flexibility: Facility flexibility is a key benefit to implementing common use. Many of the benefits asso- ciated with facility flexibility are identified in Chapter 4. In providing this flexibility, the air- port operator should also consider the following: • Adding capacity during non-peak hours of operation may or may not result in new flights. Some airport operators consider non-peak hours as “dead zones,” however, airport oper- ators have found through negotiations with airlines that accommodations can be made to fill the non-peak hours. Typically, airlines will consider the following: – New entrant carriers - Is it the only slot(s) available? – For flight times that can be adjusted, is there a cost benefit for me to do so? – Other airport operational incentives • Limitations in check-in counter space. A typical common use model is to maximize turns per gate, thereby avoiding “bricks and mortar” costs. Even though gate capacity may increase, an airport operator must ensure there is sufficient counter space to accommodate peak-hour operations. Key issues include: – Consider gate occupancy time in comparison with available check-in counter occupancy time. Depending on aircraft size and passenger demographics (ex. number of passenger checking in before arriving at airport), the ratio between the two can change. However, typical ratios of required use per gate between check-in counter to gate counter can range from 2:1 to as high as 4:1. – Consider number of check-in counters required per flight. Again, this ratio changes based on aircraft size and passenger demographics. Typical positions required for smaller air- crafts can range from 1 to 4, while larger aircrafts may require 4 to 6 check-in counter posi- tions. Some airport operators use a calculation of the number of passengers that a given aircraft type can carry divided by 50. The resultant is the number of check-in counters nec- essary to process passengers for the given aircraft type. • Limitations in check-in counter operations. As with limitations in space, the airport oper- ator should consider limitations with the operations of the check-in counters. Key issues include: – Counter configurations for common use, including:  Millwork suitable for common use inserts  Bag scales available for each counter position  Counters configured for airline operations (collection of money for additional bag- gage, etc.). – Counters configured related to baggage make-up areas. Even if there is a sufficient ratio of check-in counters to gate peak-operations, there may be counters dedicated to specific gates, due to the back wall belts serving specific baggage make-up areas. For an airport operator, it may be cost prohibitive to tie all baggage systems together. a) Depending on how well the original facility was balanced against peak hour usage, the air- port operator should consider the following facility limitations typically overlooked: • Throughput capacity of in-line baggage screening compared with peak-operations under the planned common use model B-6 Reference Guide on Understanding Common Use at Airports

Planning B-7 • Potential choke points caused at security check points due to increased passenger flow • Added congestion in hold room areas. 2. Assessing True Costs of Ownership with Common Use Assets: Common use typically results in the airport operator owning and maintaining more of the airport assets associated with the operation of a common use gate or other common use areas. As a result, the airport operator often is in a position of having to buy assets from the airline. In doing so, the following key issues should be considered: a) Ascertain the true value of the airline asset at the time of acceptance. The value of the airline-owned equipments is often times much higher than an airport operator planned to pay. Before finalizing cost estimates, it is wise to sit down and negotiate the true cost with the airline. To help with this process, one airport operator developed detailed equipment asset score cards. From the airport operator’s perspective, it is important to be able to assess the value of all equipment. One specific example, where this airport operator was not pre- pared was in taking over a building. Roof conditions and other items were not evaluated, which ended up in a considerable amount of unplanned costs. b) Consider the cost of upgrade / replacement of major assets due to operational differences under common use. Boarding bridges are a good example. An airline may have purchased the boarding bridge for specific aircraft. In common use this boarding bridge may be in- adequate to service the various sizes of aircraft that the common use gate would be expected to accommodate. This one item can cost hundreds of thousands of dollars of unplanned costs. 3. Assessing True Costs of Services / Support: Throughout the sections of this chapter, service and support elements are discussed and drawn out. In planning for common use, the airport operator should consider these elements, along with the ones summarized here. This is not an easy assessment, and one that takes con- tinued re-evaluation. As one airport operator stated: “All airport divisions struggle with staffing issues. Over time, we have not had any real rationale for figuring out staffing needs: we try it to see what works.” a) Consider the increase in operational hours support. Airlines are concerned that Aviation organizations are typically static and not equipped to manage the dynamic environment of common use. Increased hours of operations can affect any of the following: • Operations Center – some have gone to 24 X 7 X 365 • Help Desk – IT support • Terminal Services, such as Janitorial • Facilities Maintenance • Airside Operations b) Consider the contract and labor issues. Organizational and contract hurdles can impact the effective support and operations of common use gates. Examples include: • SkyCaps providing service to multiple airlines • Wheelchair services • Ramp Control Tower Operations 4. Assessing the Costs of Technology: Technology applications and infrastructure are discussed in detail later on in this Appen- dix. In planning for common use, the airport operator should carefully evaluate the impacts common use may have on its existing technology infrastructure. Key considerations include: a) Ownership of communications infrastructure and demarcation points between airport operator equipment and airline owned equipment. b) Costs of supporting technology systems such as Gate Management and others discussed later in this chapter. c) Operational costs of Technology support. d) Emerging Trends in Technology that may impact common use

Airport Procedural Considerations (Note: Many of these considerations are typically included as part of the lease process for com- mon use gates): 1. Use Criteria: a) Mandatory or Voluntary. Will common use be mandated or on a voluntary basis? This issue should be considered carefully. Many airports operators “mandate” common use, only to find themselves having to compromise on its own mandate. It is a good business practice to establish this in coordination with the airlines. The following issues and con- siderations have been noted: • Define terms of mandatory and acceptable exceptions. • Define rights in keeping an airline under common use verses preferential or exclusive use • Define rights and costs of moving an airline under common use b) Take Back Criteria. What happens if an airline fails to meet the minimum use? This issue is important, since justification and costs for common use are typically determined based on a minimum aircraft turns per gate. Airport operators typically have take back defined in the airline lease agreement, but in practice, seldom reported the use of the clause. Never the less, for common use, having the right, when necessary has proven beneficial, being that the airport operator can “take back” the preferential or exclusive use gate and con- tract with the airline on a per-use basis. Take back criteria is generally based on an airline failing to meet the minimum use requirements, over a prescribed duration of time. Other basis have included, excessive dwell time per flight, airline mergers, and others. c) Give Back Criteria. Some airport operators have worked with the airlines to define a cri- terion so that airlines can give back common use facilities if the airline no longer wants them. The airport operator should determine if this approach will be appropriate for their airport, or if the take back criteria will be better – or some combination thereof. d) Expansion of use. How will airlines be allowed to expand their operations into additional common use facilities if needed? 2. Use of Airline Assets and Equipment: In general, airlines prefer to maintain the right to use proprietary applications or equip- ment under prescribed conditions. One of the main reasons noted by airlines is when com- mon use hinders the airline’s ability to conduct business as it requires. For example, at least two airlines have developed proprietary, sophisticated Gate Information Display Systems (GIDS). Current common use systems do not allow the display of these airline GIDS. At loca- tions where the airline has deemed it important, it has requested the right to install additional equipment and software, so that the GIDS could be displayed. Along with the above example, airport operators noted various instances where airlines use proprietary equipment at common use locations. Some of these instances are requested and approved; others are installed without the immediate knowledge of the airport operator. As with the example noted above, there can be valid situations where an airport operator may wish to allow the airline to use proprietary equipment at a common use location. To objec- tively address this situation, the airport operator should define upfront what the basis of deci- sion will be when a request of this is made by an airline. The following should be considered: a) Does the installation of the proprietary equipment interfere with the safe and/or efficient use of the common use system? b) Does the installation of the proprietary equipment go against the stated business objec- tive of the airport operator? c) Consider granting waivers when the airline business objective cannot be performed under the installed common use system. d) Consider granting the temporary use, in times of unique situations B-8 Reference Guide on Understanding Common Use at Airports

Planning B-9 e) Consider strict guidelines of removal of equipment at each completed cycle of use for the airline. 3. Preparation of Policy and Procedural Documents: Airport Operators noted the need for the preparations of several policy and procedural doc- uments to help with the planning and operation of common use. Some of the documents may already exist; others would be specifically established for common use. Some of these include: a) Responsibilities Guidelines – One stop location where airport operator and airline define the responsibilities of both parties b) Leasing Agreements – modified to include specific common use requirements c) Gate Operations – modified to include ramp control requirements d) Rates and Charges – modified to include specific common use requirements e) Security Operations – modified to include criteria for use of airport facility by one or more airline tenants f) Airline Operations Training – The understanding and use of policies and procedures gov- erning common use. Airport operators noted that airline station managers are in and out at the airport. As a result, the policies and procedures put in place are not commonly understood. Continuous education would be a benefit.

Initial Design 1. Coordination with Airlines: a) As is mentioned elsewhere in this Guide, coordination with the airlines operating at the air- port is paramount. In many cases, it is not just the airlines that will be initially affected by the construction project, but all airlines, as a move towards common use has the potential to impact other areas of the airport that were not considered a part of the original construc- tion project. b) Airlines should be brought in early in the initial design process so that their needs and requirements can be identified. It is important to remember that the airlines will be most affected by the decision to implement a common use strategy, and their input is important to success. c) The design manager should coordinate with the airline station, corporate, and IT person- nel, as each will have input into the initial design considerations. 2. Airport Culture: a) As discussed in the Planning section of this Appendix, the airport operator’s culture will need to be considered, and possibly changed, in order to successfully implement common use. b) The airport operator’s culture also can impact how decisions are made, and therefore the culture of each airport operator will ultimately affect how and if a decision to include com- mon use in the design project will be made. 3. Goals for Project: a) Not all construction projects lend themselves to include a common use element. The team must identify the goals of the project, and determine if these goals can be met implement- ing common use, or if they do not facilitate common use. b) If the project is not addressing passenger processing, then there is most likely no common use impact. c) If the project is to increase, or somehow affect passenger processing capacity, the airport operator should determine if common use will apply. 4. Non-Airport Drivers: a) It is understood that many projects have outside influences that affect the overall project. These should be identified in the initial design phase. b) If outside influences are identified, and common use is being considered, then the airport operator must determine if these outside influences will impact common use in a positive or negative way. 5. Airport Master Plan: a) As a construction project is considered, the impact to the overall airport master plan, and the airport layout plan, needs to be considered. These plans could be impacted should a con- struction project consider using common use. Future terminals, concourses, or gate require- ments may need to be reconsidered based on the impacts of a common use decision. A P P E N D I X B 2 Design and Construction B-10

Design and Construction B-11 6. Staffing: a) A staffing analysis should be performed to evaluate the need of IT specialists and others that will be required to properly operate and maintain the common use system. Design Cycle 1. Constructability Impacts: a) During the design cycle, the impacts of common use must be considered. For example, implementing a common cabling infrastructure will change the way that communications closets, conduit, and cable plant are designed. These affect the design in many ways, including cost. b) Coordination with other design disciplines is essential. Any technology project requires close coordination with disciplines such as electrical design, plumbing, and mechanical design. Construction 1. In-Field Design Changes: a) There is a high probability that the design of a project will be changed as the physical con- struction begins. These changes could have impacts on common use, and must be moni- tored appropriately. b) A Technology liaison should be considered for a construction project which includes common use. This technology liaison should work closely with the constructor and the designers to address any design changes, or construction issues that arise and affect the technology portions of common use. c) An Operations liaison should be considered for a construction project which includes com- mon use. This liaison should work closely with the constructor and designers to address any design changes, or construction issues that might affect the ultimate operation in com- mon use. d) Airlines should be coordinated with during the construction project to address in-field design changes. 2. Inspections: a) Inspecting is a critical part of any construction project. The inspectors will be looking for code violations, and safety violations, but there also needs to be an inspection for usability of the space. When a construction project includes common use, it is important that fre- quent inspections be conducted to ensure that the construction project is being completed in a way that meets the goals of the airport operator. Testing and Commissioning • Impacts to passenger processing flow • Impacts to existing facility systems and technology • Test plans • Commissioning plans • Final acceptance

Terminal Check-in Area and Curbside Operations 1. Airline Business Issues and Opportunities: a) Airlines noted several business reasons why common use may be a viable solution for counter and self service check-in. Many of the reasons are the obvious result of proper plan- ning and implementation of the business issues and opportunities noted here in this sec- tion. These include: • When common use adds real value to the airport operator and airlines. This statement appears to be an obvious reason. However, many airport operators move towards a common use solution without first identifying the intended value of the installation for both the Airport and the airline. • Airlines generally agreed that common use provided potential benefit in non-hub or spoke stations. In such situations, and if properly designed and priced, common use provides the airlines with the functionality they need and the airport operator with the flexibility it needs. Further, common use can allow for maximizing utilization of check- in counter positions which has the potential of lowering overall airline facility cost. • Cost advantage to paying per use, when an airline is in need of handling only a few flights per day. This may be a small carrier or even a larger carrier with temporary or overflow requirements. • Accommodating the temporary need of an airline to cover seasonal traffic needs, or new markets under development. • New Entrant airlines, seeking limited counter use and minimal capital costs (remove barriers of entrance). • Providing facility flexibility for check-in capabilities at curbside and re-check. • When an airport operator is providing International operations, airlines typically sup- ported the need for common use. b) Airlines are typically against common use installations where the installation negatively impacts the airline business process. For the airline, it is the business process that dictates the counter configuration. Most airlines expressed a strong desire for the airport operator to bring the airline into the decision making process early, so that the airline has an oppor- tunity to clearly define its passenger check-in business drivers. Finding resolution to the key business drivers noted here, along with others discovered through early meetings, will greatly help in the overall implementation. • Counter configurations to aid in passenger processing, including baggage handling and fee collections. • Marketing/branding – Marketing/branding remains an important issue for airlines. Some airlines use their check-in and gate areas as the “door way” to the passenger’s fly- ing experience. A P P E N D I X B 3 Terminal Operations B-12

Terminal Operations B-13 • Customer Service - Generally speaking it is not about the “price” of the common use system; it is about customer service. • Access to airline proprietary systems - Being able to access all the individual function- ality that most carriers have developed for their specific business processes. 2. Airline Operational Issues and Opportunities: a) Airlines invest substantially in the evaluation of passenger flow methodologies. Once a methodology is established, the airline then begins to migrate all check-in counter opera- tions to the new model. Airlines noted that common use can have an adverse impact on their passenger flow methodologies, if not properly planned for. b) Self service check-in is an increasingly important element of processing passengers through the check-in process. Airlines are opposed to common use self service (CUSS), when it hinders the airline’s operational process for self service check-in. c) Airlines noted that size of airport operation is not the primary factor. If the Airport is not facility–constrained, it typically does not make sense to the airline to be forced to share gates and counters, or to pay for a common use system. In such cases, the airport opera- tor should prepare and present its business case analysis. d) Airlines expressed concern that airline operations must not be impacted by airport out- ages of any kind. In providing common use, airport operators should effectively plan for mitigation of outages caused by the common use system. e) Airlines expressed a big concern in the risk of lost functionality with the common use sys- tem, when compared with the functionality the airline specific systems provide to each operation. 3. Airline Facilities Issues and Opportunities: a) Airlines noted that when common use is planned and implemented appropriately, it can provide a proper level of facility flexibility. Generally speaking, some counters controlled by the airport operator are available for overflow, etc. b) Common use space can sometimes be space-constrained. Airlines noted that common bag- gage sort and baggage screening areas can tend to be space-constrained. Airport operators should work with the airlines in planning for common use spaces. c) Airlines noted a need to coordinate storage space requirements, especially in gate and ticket counter areas. 4. Airport Performance Issues and Opportunities: The following performance operational related items were addressed by airport operators with regard to applying common use in the terminal check-in area. a) Establishing the Performance Criteria. The airport operator should work closely with the airline in establishing the performance criteria of the check-in area, including: • Maximum throughput calculations of check-in counters, in coordination with gate peak operations. Counter throughput calculations must take into account the mini- mum number of positions needed to accommodate various aircraft sizes. A typical number is 2 to 4 positions for an RJ, and 4 to 6 positions for a narrow body aircraft. Another common calculation is to divide the number of passengers an aircraft type can carry by 50, and that equates to the number of required ticket counters. • Passenger flow calculations in the check-in area and security check points • Baggage handling calculations for bag weighing, screening areas, and baggage make up. Several considerations apply to the baggage make-up system(s). First, is that the back wall belts that serve specific baggage make-up areas and check-in counters that may be associated with these areas. Secondly, the throughput of the in-line baggage screening capability must balance with the number of flights at any one time. The number of flights may be greater than the number of gates since the time window for the processing of bags (about 2.5 hours) is greater than the ground time for an aircraft (between 25 and 50 minutes).

• Baggage handling calculations from curbside and other off-site bag drop off facilities. • Available airline time per check-in counter, per departing flight – use of ticket counter time slots before gate utilization • Consider future airline performance opportunities. Airlines are continually reworking the check-in process, with attempts of improving passenger processing, reducing dwell times, and facility utilization. b) Establishing the Operational Criteria. Again, the airport operator should work closely with the airlines in establishing the operational criteria of the check-in area, including: • The functional use of check-in counters: full service, agent-to-passenger ratios, re-check, and others. • Passenger demographics (lots of bags to check, vice business traveler, etc.) • Use of passenger self service check-in. • Optimum passenger flow through the queuing area. This is important, since the available space will dictate how best to layout queue lines, which in turn, will help to establish placement / location of self service check in kiosks. For example, some airports are space constrained, with narrow queuing depth. In this case, placement of self service kiosks is generally best in or near the check-in counters. • Need and function for signage over or near the counters and throughout the check-in area • Consider check-in counter allocations physically limited to specific gates, or baggage han- dling systems tied to specific allocation of check-in counters. This is an important and often overlooked step. For many airports such limitations prohibit the full implementa- tion of common use counters. If this is the case, it is important to attempt to balance the number of flights at any given time, to ensure optimum flexibility. • Consider other airport facility limitations such as location of check-in counters to air- line ticketing office or gates, or Inter or multi - Terminal configuration(s) • Anticipate the event of airline full counter change outs, due to airline mergers, or other reasons. • Consider need for counter space to accommodate seasonal or charter flights. • Consider the use of airline temporary equipment and airline space requirements. • Consider future technology or operational enhancements, such as passenger self tagging and/or common bag drop off locations. Planning for space allocation for these may be important. c) Define the function of the counters. Using the performance and operational characteristics established, the airport operator can then layout the optimum counter configurations and queuing areas. Options may include any of the following: • Establish all counters as common use, providing full flexibility • Establish only a set of counters, between airlines and at the ends as common use, provid- ing the ability to ‘flex’ check-in operations when required to accommodate peaking activ- ities. This option is best used when the airport operator finds that the facility has an excess of counters. • Use of mobile check-in counters for added flexibility in the check-in area to handle peak loads or curbside area. This function provides added mobility for gate and recheck areas. d) Define counter configurations suited for check-in space. The options listed below should be considered when evaluating check-in configurations. Figure B3-1 represents a schematic example of how a counter module might end up looking after this step is complete. • Full service counters –These counters are found in the more traditional counter con- figurations. Being full service, these counters can be used to accommodate all airline check-in services. The disadvantages for these counters include: – Consume a greater foot print – Require dedicated airline staff (one-to-one service) – Longer dwell times B-14 Reference Guide on Understanding Common Use at Airports

Terminal Operations B-15 • Passenger facing check-in kiosks embedded in counter – These counters are configured to accommodate two passengers per one airline agent. As seen in Figure B3-1, this counter can be designed to consume less foot print than that of the traditional counter, thereby enabling the airport operator to install a higher number of counters. These counters can also be configured in a variety of means to help accommodate passenger services (example: passenger self service; check-in, and print boarding pass only). The disadvantages for these counters include: – May result in temporary congestion points due to passengers dwell time at the counter, attempting to use self service check-in with bags to check. – Costs are higher than traditional counters, due to equipment requirements • Dedicated function counters – In an effort to improve passenger processing, airlines and airport operators are installing counters for specific functions such as ticket sales or bag- gage drop off, allowing the check-in counters to process passengers more effectively. On occasion, counters can be configured for irregular operations or rebooking functions. • Location of free standing self service kiosks. • Location of dynamic signage 5. Curbside Check-In a) Depending on the airport, curbside check-in may or may not be a significant part of the Airport’s processing in passenger check-in. At present, there is not a clear trend either way. b) Airport operators and airlines see added flexibility to curbside check-in through the use of self service check-in kiosks. One airport envisions that at some point, passengers will be able to check in at a curbside common-use kiosk, choose their airline, and then proceed to a common-use bag check where boarding passes will be checked and bags will be tagged and checked by a common-use representative and enter the in-line system through a single feed. This would eliminate the need for passengers to bring baggage into the terminal and wait in line at airline counters or kiosks. c) As with terminal check-in counters, the airport operator may experience similar ben- efits and obstacles for curbside. One significant hurdle most airports must overcome, Figure B3-1. Counter module example.

when moving to common use curbside is how to process the bags from multiple carri- ers. Traditional curbside counters depended on the airline using the counter to rou- tinely move the checked bags by cart. Ideally, and as pointed out in the Airport example noted above, the airport bag sortation and screening system should be extended out to curbside. At present, this is a cost burden most airport operators are not prepared to assume. d) Common use curbside check-in also presents another challenge, where staff performing the check-in functions must be trained under each airline’s host system that may operate from that counter. 6. Passenger Queuing / Processing a) How to design the check-in facility, to provide the optimum processing of passengers is a primary emphasis for both airport operators and airlines. Many of the airlines have invested significant cost and effort in designing new check-in processes that include the passenger queuing at the check-in counters and kiosks. The following items were noted when considering passenger processing: • Meet with each airline to discuss the airline’s passenger processing plans and initiatives, so as to best accommodate the final design. • Design passenger flow around the back side of kiosks, so as to not block the view or use of the kiosk • Consider the demographics of the passenger. One airport operator, whose passenger demographics showed a heavy count of checked luggage, chose to place kiosks imbed- ded into the check-in counters, with sufficient depth between the counters and where the queuing began. When the kiosks were placed away from the counters, the airport operator was faced with flow congestion due to the excessive luggage. • Consider the depth of the check-in lobby. • Several airports are moving towards no queue lines. In this scenario, the kiosks are lined up in an order in the lobby, and then the passengers move from the kiosks freely to the bag drop area. These airports expressed better usage of their kiosks in this configura- tion because they were not obscured by the queue lines. 7. Staffing Considerations a) Improving the use of passenger self service, can also increase the need for passenger assis- tance. Also, with common use, the airport operator is often called upon to assist passen- gers. Two positions should be considered: • Terminal Operations FTE • Airline Affairs FTE 8. Accessibility a) Accessibility issues arise with the areas in which the Passenger interfaces. For the check- in area, this includes the self-service check-in kiosks and the graphic display devices. The graphic display devices can include way finding, airline information, and flight informa- tion displays. Further discussion on the accessibility issues in these areas can be found in the Technology section of this Appendix. Gate Area 1. Airline Issues and Opportunities: a) Airline Issues and Opportunities regarding common use gate operations are presented in the Airside Operations section of this Appendix. Specific to the gate, in relation to other terminal areas, the airlines noted the following. • Airlines prefer their back office located near their gates. Accommodation to this pref- erence working under common use is sometimes problematic. B-16 Reference Guide on Understanding Common Use at Airports

Terminal Operations B-17 • Associated with the gate, is the back office. At least one airport has begun pushing the idea that airports should present options to provide common use equipment and ser- vices in the airline back office areas. By doing so, the airline can truly get out of the IT support business at that particular airport. 2. Airport Performance Issues and Opportunities: The following performance related items were addressed by airport operators with regard to applying common use in the terminal gate areas. a) Few U.S. airports are fully configured for common use throughout all gates. However, sev- eral airport operators are considering a phased in approach toward common use. “When it makes sense, we will take control of more of the gates.” In cases such as this, the airport operator should consider the following: • Establish a migration plan that makes sense to both the Airport and airlines. Sound business rules should be in place that will make the decision for you, when it is time to move a gate to common use. • Consider strategically, which gate will function best as a common use gate. Items to consider include: – Gate location between carriers that may require overflow use of gates – Gate locations for seasonal carriers – Gates are suited on airside with equipment suitable for various aircraft type and size • Consider IT infrastructure requirements. If appropriate, the airport operator should prepare the IT infrastructure, such that moving to a common use gate will be as cost effective and timely as possible. • Consider signage requirements. b) Regarding the management of common use gates, airport operators require routine mon- itoring of gate activity. Even though gates are common use, over time, airlines may install ‘proprietary’ equipment at the gates they normally operate from. This can cause delays in operation and unexpected costs to the airline, if in the event; the airport operator is forced to move the airline to another gate. c) In the layout of the gate area, airport operators should consider the use of passenger self ser- vice kiosks in key gate area locations. Self Service Kiosks in the gate area are being used for: • Checking in bags and processing baggage fees for bags that need to be checked in at the gate. • Recheck functions, due to flight cancellations or other irregular operations • Convenience factor for the business traveler who wishes to print a boarding pass for a later flight out. • Self service of the passenger’s flight record, such as changing seat assignments, or adding additional services to the itinerary. Related Terminal Services 1. Airline Issues and Opportunities a) Airlines are generally in favor of the airport operator providing terminal services as noted in this section, provided that costs and service standards are carefully planned for. 2. Airport Performance Issues and Opportunities a) Wheel Chair Services. At the majority of airport locations, wheel chair services are typi- cally provided by the supporting airline. Airport operators that are either considering or have already assumed this role is on the increase. Airport operators view this service as a key customer service issue that when handled poorly, reflects directly on the image of the airport. Many times, the airline is simply not of the size of operation to easily provide this service.

b) Terminal Cleaning Services are generally provided by the airport operator, except for air- line hub operations, where the hub airline maintains a lump sum cleaning and mainte- nance agreement for its major locations. With the recent down turn in flight operations, airport operators and airlines are evaluating cost cutting measures in this area. One air- port operator reported a 50% savings in cost by converting from airport staff to an out- sourced contract. Since this service is many times a shared responsibility between airlines and airport operator, another cost savings opportunity may be in consolidating the ser- vices under one. B-18 Reference Guide on Understanding Common Use at Airports

B-19 Owning and Assigning Common Use Gates The following issues should be considered by the airport operator when evaluating the oppor- tunity of owning and maintaining common use gates. 1. Airline Business Issues and Opportunities: a) Airlines noted several business reasons why common use gates may be an advantage. Many of the reasons are the obvious result of proper planning and implementation of the busi- ness issues and opportunities noted here in this section. These include: • When common use adds real value to the airport operator and airlines. This statement appears to be an obvious reason. However, many airport operators move towards a common use solution without first identifying the intended value of the installation for both the airport operator and the airline. • Airlines generally agreed that common use provided potential benefit in non-hub or spoke stations. In such situations, and if properly designed and priced, common use pro- vides the airlines with the functionality they need and the airport operator with the flex- ibility it needs. Further, common use can allow for maximizing utilization of gate positions which has the potential of lowering overall airline facility cost. • Cost advantage to paying per turn for gate usage, when an airline is in need of only a few slots per day. This may be a small carrier or even a larger carrier with temporary or over- flow gate use needs. Airlines noted a true advantage for the ability to handle an addi- tional flight or two, and not have to over-congest their existing gate or pay full price for another preferential or exclusive use gate. Airlines generally expressed a supportive posi- tion for airport operators who effectively controlled some gates in a per-turn common use environment. • Accommodating the temporary need of an airline to cover seasonal traffic needs, or new markets under development. • New Entrant airlines, seeking limited gate use and minimal capital costs (remove barri- ers of entrance). • When an airport operator is providing International gate operations. Airlines typically supported the need for common use, due to the business operations of International gates. b) Airlines are typically against common use installation where the airport operator opposes the airline business process. Most airlines expressed a strong desire for the airport operator to bring the airline into the decision making process early, so that the airline has an oppor- tunity to clearly define its gate usage business drivers. Finding resolution to the key business drivers noted here, along with others discovered through early meetings, will greatly help in the overall implementation. • Marketing - Marketing remains an important issue for airlines. Some airlines use their check-in and gate areas as the “door way” to the passenger’s flying experience. Some air- A P P E N D I X B 4 Airside Operations

B-20 Reference Guide on Understanding Common Use at Airports lines noted that marketing was used more predominately on the domestic side of the Air- port, to that on the international side, due to the international security requirements, however, both remain important. • Customer Service - Generally speaking it is not about the “price” of the common use system; it is about customer service • Access to airline proprietary systems - Being able to access all the individual functional- ity that most carriers have developed c) Airlines do not see the benefit of imposing common use if the particular airline maximizes the gate capacity. Two items for the airport operator to consider: • Should work with the airline to determine how many turns per gate equates to full gate utilization. • Clearly define Airport business drivers behind making the gate common use. d) Airlines should have a financial reason to move to common use. The airline provides gate capacity to generate a revenue stream. Common Use pricing schemes can often strip the airline of its ability to achieve the needed revenue. Key points include: • Prefer that airlines pay for the facilities that they use: no more, no less. • Standard compensatory model works best. In other words, the airline should pay for the actual cost of the gate, and not pay for other space in that rate. • Some airlines noted that cost per passenger is not an efficient use of fixed assets. The cost per passenger model does not necessarily promote an incentive to shrink the num- ber of gate operations, since the airline is paying per passenger, not per gate. e) Some airlines think it best for the airport operator not to get involved with airline affairs, as to use of gate and sublease opportunities. These airlines stated that in the end, “we will lease the gates required and they will get payment for the gates.” This opinion, however, was not shared across all airlines. Some actually preferred the airport operator to negoti- ate other airline uses of the gate. The ‘take-away’ for this one is that the airport operator should make sure its business decisions for sublease gate usage are discussed early on with all its airline partners. 2. Airline Operational Issues and Opportunities: a) It is generally regarded by airlines that the best potential facility candidates for common use systems include baggage claim, gates, and stand alone kiosks. These, if properly planned for are defensible. b) Airlines noted that size of airport operation is not the primary factor. If the Airport is not gate–constrained, it typically does not make sense to the airline to be forced to share gates and counters, or to pay for a common use system. In such cases, the airport operator should prepare and present its business case analysis. c) Airlines oppose operating from a common use gate because, typically, this operation is not “common” to the other airport locations they operate from. In many cases, common use does not work well with the airline’s boarding process, which is a key success factor for the airline’s business. Airlines expressed a strong desire for the airport operator to con- duct effective operations planning, to avoid changes to airline operations. It should be the goal of the airport operator to continually work with the airline to improve in perfor- mance. Through this efficiencies go up and costs go down. d) Airlines noted that airport operators should properly plan for, and coordinate with the airlines the gate reallocation methodology. Issues noted included: • The responsibilities of the airport operator and airlines should be clearly defined • The airport operator should at least perform an oversight role for problem resolution • Depending on the level of involvement provided by the airport operator, the airport operator should ensure personnel provided have the proper experience and expertise. Airlines noted that airport operators many times, do not have the expertise to provide a turn-key approach.

Airside Operations B-21 • Work with the airlines to define gate occupancy times. The operational characteristics such as aircraft size and seasonal schedules often result in the need for varied time frames. As a result, airlines would like to be a part of the decision making process up front. • Define requirements of use for an airline that may not be operating under common use, but for a short duration, may be reallocated to a common use gate. Some airlines noted that they typically would prefer to double up equipment at the required gates / coun- ters if common use equipment is installed. • Define requirements for irregular operations and offloading from another gate. In such cases, some airlines expressed a need for the airport operator to consider the Airport- provision of supplemental staff. e) Airlines expressed a need for airport operators to properly define its use of RONs when working in common use. To point out the need for this coordination, one airline noted it has 500 airplanes in their working schedule, with only 400 gates to meet the RON need f) Airlines expressed concern that airline operations must not be impacted by airport outages of any kind. In providing common use, airport operators should effectively plan for mitiga- tion of outages caused by the common use system. g) Airlines noted several operational reasons why common use gates may be an advantage. Many of the reasons noted, are the obvious result of proper planning and implementation of the operational concerns and opportunities noted here in this section. These include: • The dominant airline will typically not stand in the way of the airport operator installing common use, as long as it does not affect the operations or cost of the dominant airline. • If the airport is gate-constrained, it makes sense for the “spoke” airlines to share gates. • Carriers that are willing to make long term commitments to airports should be provided the opportunity to lease preferential space, but potentially with common use equipment if their utilization warrants. • Generally international gates at both domestic and international airports and some domestic airports require use for domestic flights. In such cases, common use equip- ment is an advantage. 3. Airline Facilities Issues and Opportunities: a) Airline noted concern with the consistency of the assignment of gates and operating space. The following items were of greatest benefit to the airlines: • Schedule common use gates in close proximity to the airline’s operating space • To the best extent possible, schedule assignment of the same gates on a regular and con- sistent basis. • Gate selection strategically near concessions and/or services for passenger b) Airlines also stated that the airport operator should provide space, but not dictate how the space is used, since airlines typically design the gate setup to board its passengers as it best seems fit. c) Common use space can sometimes be space-constrained. Airlines noted that common baggage sort and baggage screening areas can tend to be space-constrained. Airport oper- ators should work with the airlines in planning for common use spaces. d) Airlines noted a need to coordinate storage space requirements, especially in gate and ticket counter areas. e) Airlines noted that when common use is planned and implemented appropriately, it can provide a proper level of facility flexibility. Generally speaking, some gates controlled by the airport operator and available for overflow, etc. 4. Airport Performance Issues and Opportunities: The following items were addressed by airport operators with regard to applying common use in the airside gate area. a) Setting the goals As discussed earlier, common use has the best chance of success, when the vision and culture for common use are directed from the Airport executive level, down. Assuming,

this be the case, Airport Operations, Business / Finance, Technology, and Facilities should work together to set the goals for operating common use gate facilities. The goals should be developed, based on the business drivers discussed later in this Guide. These goals should then be reviewed with the airline business partners, and if necessary, adjusted based on airline input. b) Define gate management responsibilities Effective operations of common use gates require the coordinated effort of all involved. Understanding the full cost involved in operating common use, requires upfront planning of these responsibilities. Airport operators noted the following areas. Some areas of respon- sibilities shown are obviously airport operator or airline specific responsibilities. However, depending on the airport and its goals, these responsibilities may be shared or performed by airport or airline personnel. • Perform Airport Liaison with airlines for gate utilization and management – Facilitate the Gate Management meetings as needed – Send monthly email notifications to remind air carriers of the schedule submission due – Work with airlines in continuous process improvement • Monitor gate usage, including Remain Overnight or remote parking area • Assign or reassign aircraft for gate capacity optimization • Assign or reassign Remote Aircraft Parking positions as required • Ensure timely correspondence between Airside Operations, airlines, and ground han- dlers to share information and advise of gate management issues. • Develop gate usage schedules and make daily gate assignments – Review airline schedules – Manage gates between scheduled operations – Resolve gate usage conflicts – Assign gates in real-time, when required • Manage Irregular Operations For the airline: • Provide timely and accurate flight schedules to Airside Operations • Provide Airside Operations with issues and concerns for resolution • Participate in Gate Management Meetings when conducted • Provide immediate notification to Airside Operations, of all off-schedule flights that may impact a flight operation proceeding or following an irregular operation • Comply with the MOD or Airside Operation’s directions regarding Gate assignments • Interact with the Gate Management System to update delayed departure flight information c) Establish the appropriate means and methods for managing the normal scheduling of gates. Airport operators typically use a gate management system to help with the facilitation of this effort. With that said, many airport operators expressed dissatisfaction with the gate management system available to them. The primary reason was that the system was selected and implemented prior understanding the means and methods as to how to effectively man- age the gates. As a result, day-to-day activities are cumbersome, if not impossible to perform through the system. The Operator then ends up using external resources, such as spread- sheets or other means to supplement the gate management system. To avoid these prob- lems, planning prior to selecting the system is always preferred. System selection is then performed, based on the results of this planning. The following are areas to consider during the planning process: • Define airline requirements for submission of flight schedule information. This may include forms and / or airline automatic feeds. If automatic feeds will be used, make sure to define the systems interface requirements. This may also include other data sources such as OAG. B-22 Reference Guide on Understanding Common Use at Airports

Airside Operations B-23 • Define the gate assignments protocol. This primarily includes defining the flow of infor- mation from the airline and other sources, to: Operations; to Ramp Tower Manager; etc, and the decision making protocol for each step. This includes the submission times (ex. 30 days prior to flights) and the requirements for advanced notification duration prior to schedule change. • Define the distribution of consolidated gate schedule information of arriving and departing flights as supplied by each airline. Information is valuable and technology allows the easy distribution of this information. If done properly, Airport Administra- tion, finance, and others can receive the timely distribution of information. • Define rules for governing gate closures / routine maintenance issues. • Define gate occupancy times and criteria for compliance. This item is discussed below in detail. It is mentioned here; since the criteria defined should be an integrated compo- nent of the resultant gate management system. • Define rules for resolving gate conflicts. Again, this item is discussed below in detail, and is mentioned here, since the criteria defined should be an integrated component of the resultant gate management system. • Define rules for using preferential assigned gates that may not be on the common use system. d) Define gate occupancy times and criteria for compliance. Since this is aircraft and airline dependent, airlines noted a strong desire to be a part of this effort. The success of this effort is critical, since the mismanagement of one airline in a common use gate has the potential of impacting the operations of another airline sched- uled for use at the same gate, during the next time slot. Airport operators typically develop a simple matrix describing the gate occupancy periods, per flight and aircraft criteria. An example of such a matrix is shown in Table B4-1 on the next page. One noted exception to the above table is with the first flight of the day for airlines. Since it typically takes the airline a longer time to start up with the first flight of the day, some air- port operators are allowing a longer gate occupancy time. Airlines are in favor of this mea- sure, since the first flight of the day typically sets the pace for National airline on-time arrivals, and if the first flight of the day is delayed, it can have a ripple effect on the other flight schedules throughout the day. A key component of this effort is defining the maximum scheduled gate occupancy periods and the rules to follow if these periods are exceeded. Such rules assist in provid- ing conflict resolution between airlines sharing a gate, and which may include reschedul- ing the next flight, pushback of the stalled flight, and criteria for when penalties will be imposed. Criteria and penalties should consider at least the following: • Impact resulting from a delayed flight – Delayed departure could result in the arrival of another aircraft destined for that gate which could block the departure of the delayed flight, leading to any of a number of “on-the-fly” operations to remedy the situation. • Impact resulting from mechanical or other failure results – Airline responsibility: aircraft, ground handling, etc. – Airport Operator responsibility: boarding bridge, construction, etc. Table B4-1. Gate occupancy matrix. Regional Jet and Commuter Aircraft Narrow Body Aircraft Wide Body Aircraft Originating Flight 30 minutes 1 hour 1 hour 30 min Terminating Flight 30 minutes 1 hour 1 hour Through/Term Fl. 1 hour 1 hour 30 min 2 hours

Also a part of this planning period is to address non-occupancy times, including: • Decisions when there is no gate demand – this may include performing routine main- tenance, or other issues that can be scheduled. • Managing separation time between flights e) Define rules for scheduling of gates and for resolving gate conflicts. Airport Operators typically establish a basic set of rules that govern selection of gates. Depending on the Airport business process, the set of rules differ from Airport to Airport, but generally comprise a subset of those shown below. • Emergency flight accommodations shall have priority over all other gate scheduling. • Per-Gate Operational Characteristics to account for unique limitations in each gate (Availability of gate or pad that can accommodate the aircraft type). It is important to note that the rules established by the airport operator are impacted by each gate’s unique operational characteristics and must be taken into consideration. Gate Opera- tional characteristics are discussed in detail under the Ramp Control Services section of this Guide. • Medical emergencies • Preferential, Signatory, and/or dominant carrier priorities • Seniority / loyalty priorities • International arrivals have priority over domestic • Arrivals over departures • Arrival and departure times • Close proximity to existing operations or connecting flights • Boarding and ground support location • Aircraft that have a wait time greater than 30 minutes for a gate will have priority • Actual time on the ground • Anticipated time of available gate • If a conflict time still exists, the gate manager shall use all gates and gaps in schedules available to accommodate all flights on available gates • If all gates are full and a conflict cannot be resolved on a gate, then Hard-stand opera- tions can be activated • First ones to submit advanced gate schedule • Specific to International Gates: – Scheduled international arrivals requiring Federal Inspection Service (FIS). – Charter, non-scheduled, or general aviation international arrivals having made prior arrangements with Airport Operations and requiring FIS. – Unscheduled international arrivals or departures without prior arrangements. – Selected airlines’ domestic arrivals and/or departures. – Other domestic arrivals and/or departures f) Defining rules for scheduling of gates during Irregular Operations. These rules may be a subset of the rules used for normal scheduling. First and foremost, airport operators noted the need to clearly define what constitutes an irregular operation or emergency flight. g) Defining rules for Remain Over-Night (RON) and Remote Parking. Airport Operators noted the following areas of importance. • Who assigns and resolves conflict • Available gates subject to gate demand each morning and to off-schedule operations throughout the night. • Criteria for parking at common use gates: – Last arrivals for those gates that day or the first scheduled departures for those gates. – Proximity to normal airline activity B-24 Reference Guide on Understanding Common Use at Airports

Airside Operations B-25 • Additional requirements at other common use gates • Managing Off – Gate parking • Monitoring Usage – Assigning numbers to all locations – Managing to the numbers 5. Airport Physical Considerations Issues and Opportunities: Issues and opportunities related to the physical considerations of the Airside gates are dis- cussed in detail in Providing Ramp Control Services. 6. Staffing Considerations Issues and Opportunities: The management of common use gates introduces activities, and thus staff, not normally found in the day-to-day operations of airports operating without common use. Airport opera- tors noted the following staff positions that should be considered: a) Gate Manager / Planner Part time to full time position, depending on the defined Airport Business process. This position can be at a technician level, controlling day-to-day gate management, and provid- ing coordination between airlines, Ramp Control, and Airport Operations. The Primary tool to aid this position is a gate management system. Proper training is crucial for this posi- tion, as cost savings and efficiencies are recognized by both airlines and airport operators when this role is performed properly. b) Airline Liaison Part time to full time position, depending on the defined Airport Business process. This position is filled by the airport operator and coordinates the meetings and flow of informa- tion between airlines and Airport decision makers. The success of this role is defined by air- line satisfaction levels, and by introduction of continuous improvement measures that help passenger processing and airline operational efficiencies. c) Airline Interface to the airport operator Each airline now takes on additional staff requirements for coordination with each of the above new airport operator positions. Careful planning with the airlines should be per- formed to minimize the impact of this requirement. 7. Accessibility Considerations Issues and Opportunities: Accessibility issues related to common use gate management are discussed in detail in Pro- viding Ramp Control Services in this Appendix, and in the Terminal Operations Section of this Guide. Providing Ramp Control Services The following issues should be considered by the airport operator when evaluating the oppor- tunity of providing Ramp Control Services. Other related issues are presented in Owning and Assigning Common Use Gates in this Appendix. 1. Airline Business Issues and Opportunities: a) Some airlines noted that if done properly, the airport operator can provide Ramp Con- trol Services more cost effectively than can the airline. b) Airlines are typically against common use installation where the airport operator opposes the airline business process. Most airlines expressed a strong desire for the airport opera- tor to bring the airline into the decision making process early, so that the airline has an opportunity to clearly define its gate usage business drivers. With regard to airport opera- tors providing Ramp Control Services, the airline is concerned whether or not the airport operator is providing the service in a manner that is consistent with specific airline stan- dards for aircraft movement and separation. In working within the standards, the airline

wants the ability to make the decisions, especially where waivers to the standards are pres- ent. Examples of such decisions given include: • The willingness of airlines to allow waivers of wingtip separation differ from company to company • Decisions must be made that impact the flexibility and dynamics of the ramp, and may impact the airline’s ability to operate at the ramp c) Airlines expressed concern in the handling of labor contracts when the airport operator provides a portion of the Ramp Control services. At best, this can be confusing in a com- mon use environment. 2. Airline Operational Issues and Opportunities: a) Some airlines think it best for the airport operator not to get involved with airline opera- tions in the Ramp Control area. b) Some airlines expressed that the ability to dictate risk should be with the airline. For exam- ple, allowing fifteen foot wing tip clearance, when 25 foot is called for. c) Airlines expressed concern regarding the level of trained and experience staff an airport operator may provide to perform Ramp Control Services. d) Airlines noted that airport operators should properly plan for, and coordinate with the airlines the gate reallocation methodology. This issue is discussed in detail in Owning and Assigning Common Use Gates in this Appendix. e) Airlines expressed concern that airline operations must not be impacted by airport out- ages of any kind. In providing common use, airport operators should effectively plan for mitigation of outages caused by the common use system. 3. Airline Facilities Issues and Opportunities: a) Airline noted concern that airport operators sometimes schedule flights in gate areas not suitable for their aircraft. The following items were of greatest benefit to the airlines: • Schedule common use gates in close proximity to the airline’s operating space • Aircraft mechanical and power requirements are as needed • Sufficient space provided to properly service the aircraft. b) Airlines noted that when common use is planned and implemented appropriately, it can provide a proper level of facility flexibility. Generally speaking, some gates controlled by the airport operator and available for overflow, etc. 4. Airport Performance Issues and Opportunities: The following performance related issues and opportunities were addressed by airport operators with regard to providing Ramp Control Services to common use gates. Related issues regarding gate assignments can be found in Owning and Assigning Common Use Gates in this Appendix. a) Define the information sharing, communication, and coordination requirements between all stakeholders involved with Ramp Control. This may include any / all of the following: • Ramp Tower Manager • Other airline ramp control agents • FAA Tower Management and Staff • All airlines • Airport Operations • Airport Facilities. Working with the stakeholders, the airport operator should define the rules for provid- ing service, along with the specific and shared responsibilities of the any of the listed stake- holders. In working with the stakeholders, airport operators noted the following important criteria: • Set the goals for airport operator controlled Ramp Management, the use of the tower(s) and automated equipment within the tower. In doing so, also define the Management area: gate areas, out to the taxiways, etc. B-26 Reference Guide on Understanding Common Use at Airports

Airside Operations B-27 • Many of the tasks defined will require the communication of information among the various airport users who contribute to surface activities. To the best extent possible, for each task, a communication matrix should be established. • The operations of one airline may affect the operations of one or many other operators. • There is considerable need for shared situation awareness to assist both operators and FAA Tower staff, so that they can coordinate their actions in order to make the most efficient use of limited airport resources, particularly when demand exceeds supply. • Rules related to ‘blocking’ in common use environments – airlines pushing back in the ‘alleyways’ of terminals and blocking another airline’s on-time departure b) Managing gate operations at each gate Airport Operators expressed the need to establish an effective set of policies and proce- dures that dictate the management of gate operations at each gate. Such policies and pro- cedures must be established with airline requirements taken into consideration, since airline policies and procedures differ from airline to airline. Specific issues noted by air- port operators included: • Ramp Control guidebook (what systems should be available to Ramp Control Opera- tors, what are the typical functions performed, suggestions for staffing, interaction with the FAA and airlines, etc.) • Airline time for staging and tear-down of equipment (PC air, and other connections) • Managing Ground Handling Services Equipment (GSE) – Removal and storage of GSE, not in use by current airline at the gate. Some airport operators see this as a limiting condition to try and move various airlines to another gate that may be too far from where the airline stores their Ground Handling equip- ment. – Staging locations and timing for ground handling services equipment – Tug circulation space (park and drive areas) – Equipment Asset Tracking • Airline reporting mechanism and protocol for: – Equipment malfunctions or facility problems. – RON or off gate parking – Notification of gate safety or clean up issues • Managing internal issues that need to be compared with airlines, since their standard operating procedures may differ • Safety Requirements – Responsibility of the using carrier – Training and Inspection requirements – Rules and Regulations – Communications / Reporting requirements • Gate Area Clean up – Rules and Responsibilities – Responsibility of the using carrier – Airport Use agreement issue and Procedure Requirements – Training and Inspection Requirements – Control of “Airport FOD” per Federal Requirements – Communications / Reporting requirements c. Controlling gate use based on the operational characteristics of each gate. Airport operators have noted a common mistake of thinking that once a common use system is installed, any airline on the system is prepared to use that particular gate, only to find out the unique operational characteristics of the gate, many times, limit the use of the gate. Controlling and using the gate specific information is a key component of success and must be available to those responsible for the management of gate facilities. Some airport

operators are importing this information into their gate management system for near-real time call up. Other airport operators maintain matrices, documenting the specific crite- ria at each gate, as shown by a sample gate use matrix in Table B4-2. As seen from this table, and as noted by airport operators, operating with common use, at least the following gate criteria must be considered and logged for each gate, to ensure effective gate management: • Aircraft size and movement restrictions for each gate • Gate restrictions, based on size of aircraft at neighboring gates • Aircraft power requirements, such as dual voltage connection requirements or 480 volt requirements • Fuel pits configurations and air craft fueling location • Passenger boarding bridge size and accessibility limitations • Configuration of gate power, air, water, etc. • Ground Loading Restrictions • Front and rear door loading • NFPA restrictions • Gates that have limited provisioning truck access to aircraft B-28 Reference Guide on Understanding Common Use at Airports Table B4-2. Aircraft parking gate capabilities matrix.

Airside Operations B-29 d. Establishing consistent gate striping requirements. In making the common use gates prepared for the optimum level of aircraft types, most airport operators noted the need to assume the responsibility of defining, applying, and maintaining all gate striping. Whether or not an air- port operator chooses to take over this responsibility, the airport operator must take the lead in clearly defining the lines of responsibility between airline and airport operator. Airport Operators noted the need to establish a common striping plan to be applied to all common use gates. This effort must be carefully coordinated with all airlines, since symbols and colors differ between air carriers. Airport operators noted success in working with the airlines to come up with a common striping plan for their common use gates. In preparing the plan, airport operators noted the following items to consider: • Establish a consistent set of symbols and colors to be used at all common use gates • Set up rules for allowance of hash marks for all aircraft. Due to the difference in geom- etry, some airport operators apply aircraft hash marks for all aircraft using the gate, while, other airport operators establish a single, common hash mark. • Include cargo requirements • Establish a consistent set of all gate markings, including: – Boarding bridge and equipment foul lines – Fuel pits – Fuel carts – Safety symbols – Employee walk areas / bus drop off – Other equipment configurations / locations • Establish airline employee safety rules to comply with, per striping plan. • Ensure passenger boarding bridge access will comply with all sizes of aircraft using the gate • To the best means possible, establish consistent staging of equipment. • Consider arrivals of next generation aircraft Figure B4-1 is an example of applying gate striping in a common use configuration. Figure B4-1. Gate striping.

In this figure, note how the various aircraft size scenarios are tested to ensure passenger boarding bridge access. Also shown in this figure, is the airport operator’s effort to establish consistent staging of equipment. For example, the fuel cart located in front of the right wing remains in this position regardless of aircraft size. e) For Passenger Boarding Bridges, the following issues should be considered: • Airport Operators noted the major operational issue with passenger boarding bridges, is their consistency of operations at common use gates. Typically, airport operators pur- chase the PBB from airlines who probably use them for a single purpose. In using the PBB at a common use gate, airport operators often find that the purchased PBB may not nec- essarily meet all of the aircraft requirements. Issues noted include: – Size and accessibility limitations – Aircraft power requirements – Configuration of gate power, air, water, etc. – Increased maintenance due to overuse. • Monitor operational use. Even though airlines are responsible for the operation of the passenger boarding bridge, when the airport operator owns the asset, it is the responsi- bility of the airport operator to ensure proper operating conditions. As a result, airport operators have noted an interest in ensuring that the airline staff operating the PBB are properly trained and certified. As a part of the monitoring program, airport operators should provide regularly scheduled and ad-hoc inspections. • Use Airport owned Access Control System as a means of training verification. Airline PBB Operators, after completing training are granted access through the airport owned access control system. Some ACS are sophisticated enough to cancel access if training expira- tion dates are passed. • Provide security / access control requirements. Most airport operators state that it is the responsibility of the using airline to ensure that the passenger boarding bridge doors are secured upon completion of use. At common use gates, airport operators normally equip the PBB doors with some measure of access control through; keyed entry, cipher or pin code entry, card access, biometrics, or a combination thereof. In working in common use, airport operators have noted the need for additional security measures to ensure security breech is not caused through the sharing of access control keys, pin codes, or badges. • Prepare airline Operations Procedures defining training and use requirements. f) For baggage carts the airport operator must manage and control the baggage sortation pier assignment and criteria. This issue becomes critical when operating under common use. Key issues include: • Scheduling of stage carts at the assigned outbound sort pier prior to departure time. Typically the time window is up to two (2) hours prior to departure. • Providing access rights to the sort pier by other users. g) Establish and maintain an effective training program which includes all ramp control responsibilities, including airline support services such as baggage handling and passen- ger boarding bridge operations. The Training program should be mirrored off FAA and military training. 5. Airport Physical Considerations Issues and Opportunities: In general, physical considerations issues and opportunities, with regard to Ramp Control, have been discussed throughout this section. Regarding the overall layout of the airport, air- port operators noted the following: • Ramp Control depends highly on the ability to visually monitor the gate areas. • The location and number of ramp control towers must be consider to ensure effective monitoring of the common use gates and off gate parking areas. Some airport operators have thus invested capital for the construction of new tower locations. B-30 Reference Guide on Understanding Common Use at Airports

Airside Operations B-31 • Consideration should also be given to the overall concourse design layout. Some airport operators noted that linear designs are far easier to monitor than “X” designs. In addition, “X” type designs tend to cause blockages. 6. Staffing Considerations Issues and Opportunities: Airlines and airport operators noted the need to select Ramp Control Managers and oper- ators already trained and experienced in Ramp Control. One airport operator stated they hire only former ATC controllers. Others noted similar criteria, such as the following: • Two (2) years of full-time journey-level air traffic controller experience in an airport traffic control facility tower, OR • Four (4) years of full-time ramp control or gate management experience at a large commer- cial airport. Airport Operators also noted consideration must be given to the hours of operation. Typical ranges included either 20 hours a day (6 AM to 2 AM), to 24 X 7 hours of operation. Careful consideration must also be given to labor requirements when staffing these hours and coordinating work requirements with airline Ramp Control personnel. Airport Operators noted the following staff positions that should be considered: • Ramp Tower Manager – Manages the affairs of all Ramp Control • Ramp Controller - Coordinates and administers ramp control and gate management throughout the geographic boundaries of the Airport non-movement area on a per shift basis. Serves as focal point for the safe, efficient, and expeditious ground movement of air- craft ingress and egress within the confines of the ramp. Serves as liaison between the airport operations staff, tenants and the Federal Aviation Administration Airport Traffic Control Tower for administering flow management staging of departing aircraft and strategic gate management for arriving aircraft. • Ramp Managers – Airport personnel responsible for monitoring ramp operations. • Some airport operators maintain a small staff of qualified passenger boarding bridge oper- ators. The purpose for this is to provide overflow or irregular operations support to airlines in need at common use gates. A secondary purpose is to have personnel qualified to moni- tor the efficient operation of the PBB. 7. Accessibility Considerations Issues and Opportunities: Airport Operators noted the need to consider accessibility issues for service contractors. The primary accessibility issue is with the Operations of Passenger Boarding Bridges. • General access through the bridge • Accommodating smaller aircraft (RJs) may cause excessive angles in the bridge. ADA requirements mandate a maximum Slope of just over 8% (8.33%). Providing Ramp / Ground Handling Services 1. Airline Issues and Opportunities a) Typically, airlines prefer the use of their own staff or control of outsourced handlers. By doing so, the airline has control of performance measures, and can more quickly respond to problems. If they do not perform to our level, we have the ability to get rid of or correct them. b) When it comes to Ramp Control Services, the airlines maintain that there is a material safety issue in providing services in and around the aircraft. c) One airline noted that for above-the-wing services, it always employs in-house staff. Even in low operations (ex. 3 times a week). This is a key component of their business model. d) Even when the airline outsources the services, any given airline holds their handlers to a service level that cannot be subject to another carrier’s operation.

2. Airport Performance Issues and Opportunities a) Although not completely true in all cases, it is the smaller airports that are looking into Airport-provided ground handling services. Reasons for this trend by small airports pro- viding the ground handling services can be summarized as follows: • Increases the airport’s marketability • Strengthens relationships with the airlines • Provides an alternate source of revenue • Provides a means to maximize equipment utilization and ultimately reduce cost by eliminating unused equipment b) Smaller airports also claim the following advantages for airlines when the airport opera- tor provides the ground handling services: • Eases entry into the market • Reduces the cost for the airline • Provides better control over the level of service • Improves response time to problem calls • Provides one-stop shopping c) For Airports considering providing ground handling services, the following challenges should be considered: • Environmental compliance issues with deicing, secondary containment for fuel trucks, etc. • Public health concerns with aircraft drinking water, and international trash. • Regulatory compliance with Customs & Border Protection (CBP) and Transportation Security Administration (TSA) issues. • Procedural and Policy requirements set forth by each airline, meeting FAA standards, yet differing in application. d) Airports, electing not to pursue common use ground handling services provided the fol- lowing opportunities to consider in how to help manage the services provided: • Ensure top-quality ground handling options for the airlines. One way to do this is for the airport operator to competitively bid the services and limit the number of ground han- dlers who have opportunity of providing service. • Set a minimum standard that all ground handlers must meet to continue operating at the Airport. • Establish a means of positive monitoring of equipment to ensure that assets are being used cost effectively. One such example given was through the use of Global Positioning System (GPS) technology to retrieve and employ its idle ramp handling equipment. In order to reduce the number of expensive GPS modules, each piece of ground support equipment (GSE), including each container dolly were permanently and uniquely labeled by a low cost Radio Frequency Identification (RFID) Tag. RFID readers and Differential GPS modules together with a Wireless LAN communication interface were installed on a limited number of patrol vans driving around the ramp. When the patrol van passes by a GSE or a group of GSE, the RFID reader identifies the GSE and the position informa- tion from the GPS will be relayed to the Control Room through an existing private Wire- less LAN which is constructed for the use of a real-time ramp handling system. This application greatly saves the ground handler’s budget on new equipment. Moreover the equipment location information is very useful for decision-making of pooling equipment with other ground handlers. B-32 Reference Guide on Understanding Common Use at Airports

B-33 Terminal and Airside Facility Maintenance Support 1. Airline Issues and Opportunities: a) Most airlines agreed that the airport operator is in a good position to provide facility maintenance in common use areas. Although airlines stated that they do not typically track internal costs for facility maintenance, most agreed that there was some level of financial benefit to the airport operator providing the service. In summary, airlines pro- vided the following issues to consider: • Trouble tickets are all reactive, requiring time to repair • Communication is the key to avoid overlap of service • Each airport has its own policies, which make it difficult to stay up with changes b) Even within a predominantly common use airport, or common use facility within the air- port, the airline is still required to maintain certain exclusive use areas. Again, communi- cations is the key to effective coordination of services. c) Airlines generally view that airport operators spend too much on facility maintenance. Coordination and communication is needed. 2. Airport Performance Issues and Opportunities: a) In providing Facility Maintenance Service in a common use facility, the airport operator places a high priority on providing a consistent level of service. It is important that an air- port operator’s maintenance service is consistent and supports required customer service goals. b) Considering the full breadth of the facility, an airport operator views the maintenance of all items important, be it common use or exclusive use space. Airport operators report that many times, Airport facility maintenance staff are called out, or will voluntarily repair facility issues in exclusive use areas. In general, the airport operator views this as part of their responsibility; however, many airport operators and airlines alike are attempting to track to a greater detail, the costs and assets associated with facility maintenance. To help with this airport operators are tracking the responsibilities through established and con- trolled means, such as with a facility matrix, as shown in Table B5-1. Note that even with such a matrix, it remains important that the airport operator coordinate the issues with the airlines on a regular basis, and monitor progress. c) An increasing amount of airport operators either have, or are investigating the use of sophisticated Maintenance Management Systems. Through these systems, the airport operator can track assets, manage preventative maintenance, and track costs at a finer level. d) Airport Operators generally noted that even with maintenance management systems, tracking staff and changes throughout the facility is challenging. One airport operators is using its installed GIS (Geographical Information System) to better manage maintenance and the use of contracted staff. A P P E N D I X B 5 Facilities Maintenance

B-34 Reference Guide on Understanding Common Use at Airports Table B5-1. Facilities maintenance matrix.

Facilities Maintenance B-35 3. Staffing Considerations: a) In general, staffing requirements will vary from Airport to Airport, depending on the level of outsourced providers and the level of airline provided facility maintenance. b) Airport Operators should account for at least one additional staff member used in conduct- ing regularly scheduled facility inspections. Airport operators, experienced in providing facility maintenance in common use facilities, generally agreed a position of this was needed. Maintaining Major Equipment used in Common and Shared Use Facility Space 1. Airline Issues and Opportunities: a) Most airlines agreed that the airport operator is in a good position to provide maintenance services on the major equipment assets used in common or shared use areas. b) In general, airlines think that airport operators charge to much for preventative mainte- nance and general up keep of these assets. With that said, one airline noted that they were not in objection to paying for good service. c) In the case where there is one airline that is the predominant user of the asset, such as with bag belts or bag claim devices, the predominant user generally favors maintaining owner- ship and/or maintenance of that asset. 2. Airport Performance Issues and Opportunities: a) In most cases, the airport operator prefers to assume maintenance of the major assets used in common or shared use functions. Examples were noted by many airport operators that they had plans to assume maintenance of certain assets, due to continued maintenance issues. The primary reason given included: • Stability of the Asset, now used by multiple airlines • Business Objective of the airline may be such that minor failures are overlooked. One example was noted where when a single airline used and maintained a baggage carousel, the airline overlooked the failed read rate optical system. For that airline, this function was not needed. However, under common use, the airport operator required this func- tion to perform correctly. b) Airport Operators noted that cost of ownership of the major assets, typically were higher than planned. Reasons given for this included: • Airlines typically expect more money for the asset than the airport operator is prepared to pay. • Age of asset may cause unexpected failures. • Failure rates are also increased under common use operations, since the asset is cycled or used more than when it functioned in an exclusive use model. • The function of the asset may not be suitable in a common use model, resulting in unexpected upgrades or replacement. c) Airport Operators typically consider performing a Predictive or Preventive Maintenance (PM) / monitoring program was a best practice and in the long run saves money over a reactive maintenance program. Issues noted included: • The major assets usually include multiple mechanical parts, all of which, if maintained properly will generally function as required • An effective PM typically extends the life of the asset beyond its anticipated failure time (mean time between failure, MTBF, and ultimately beyond the expected life of the asset, thereby deferring thousands of dollars. d) Maintaining a major piece of equipment that is operated by someone other than the one responsible for maintenance can lead to issues with failure resolution (“who-dun-it”). Air- port operators noted only a few instances where failure resolution was required. One such example was with an airline operating the passenger boarding bridge and damaging the air-

craft (auto-leveler issue). The airline operator claimed it was faulty equipment. The airport operator claimed is was incorrect use of the equipment. To resolve the issue, the airport operator had to provide staff to monitor the use of the PBB, and discovered the operator error. The end result was a change in training, and some modifications to the equipment options. Most incidents are small and are brought up in monthly station manager meetings, where they are discussed. Since all airlines know they share the costs in ‘small’ incidents, they typically work together to resolve such incidents. e) As with general facility maintenance, airport operators typically agreed that using a sophisticated Maintenance Monitoring system was important. Reasons given included: • Asset tracking • Cost tracking • Tracking demographics and standardizing approach to PM. 3. Staffing Considerations: a) As with general facility maintenance, staffing requirement will vary from airport to air- port. Typical scenarios for providing maintenance staff included the following: • Airport Operator maintains a level of in-house staff for first responder situations. • Airport Operator maintains a level of in-house staff for routine maintenance, fixtures, painting, etc. • Airport Operator may contract out services for specialized equipment. b) Other staff requirements may include: • Monitoring assets • Managing Preventative Maintenance Program • Help desk / trouble shooting • Problem resolution • Managing Contractor Staff B-36 Reference Guide on Understanding Common Use at Airports

B-37 Check-In Counter 1. Airline Business Issues and Considerations: a) Most airlines stated a preference for leasing the counter exclusively, with airline provided equipment b) As with airport gate counters, most airlines do not see the need to move to common use when the airport operator has sufficient check-in counter space. c) Airlines stated a preference to a rates and charges model that distributed the cost of the common use system across only the airlines using the common use system. d) Airlines find themselves having to work in a variety of business models, when it comes to check-in counters, which include: • Lease the counter and own the equipment • Own the counter, and use airport provided equipment • Lease counter and equipment: common use e) Airlines maintain as part of their business model, the ability to market themselves as ter- minal of choice, starting at the airport terminal check-in area. Common use limits their ability to do so. 2. Airport Performance Issues and Opportunities: a) Cost Distributions. While there are no defined approaches for distributing costs to com- mon use assets, Airports surveyed generally used a hybrid compensatory type model as shown in Figure B6-1. The cost centers used in this model usually consist of a Terminal Area Cost Center, Airfield Area Cost Center and Ground Side/Support Area Cost Center, as shown in Fig- ure B6-2. Indirect costs, such as operation and administration, maintenance, police, fire, and util- ities expenses are applied to these cost centers as well as capital costs such as debt service and equity amortization (see Cost Center Exhibit for additional detail). When charging for check-in counter use, Airports Operators generally use the terminal area cost center consisting of all direct costs allocable to the terminal area and allocated indi- rect costs and apply it to a space that includes the check-in counters, typically by total square footage, to obtain the amount needed to recover in association for use of the check-in counter. This is then charged through a rate mechanism such as per position per hour. Dif- fering rates are typically provided to signatory and non-signatory airlines under the lease agreement. This mechanism and others are discussed in detail later in this section. Some airport operators distribute the total terminal revenue requirement into additional cost groups and assign a relative weight based on class of space, which are then normalized to equal the total terminal revenue requirement. For example an airport may use four groups consisting of: Group A (Gates, Check-in counters and Business/Service Counters); Group B (offices and VIP lounges); Group C (Baggage Areas and the FIS); and Group D (closed A P P E N D I X B 6 Business Considerations

B-38 Reference Guide on Understanding Common Use at Airports Figure B6-1. Cost distribution model. Figure B6-2. Cost centers.

Business Considerations B-39 storage space). The costs assigned to the space within each of these four groups then bear a weight relative to each other on a square foot basis. For example weights may be applied such as: Group A is 2.50 times the basis; Group B is 1.50 times the basis; Group C is 1.00 times the basis and Group D is 0.50 times the basis. This allows the airport operator to distribute terminal costs to the spaces that would cost more to operate. In practice, the cost distribution method used can be a point of contention. Airlines have stated a desire to have separate cost pools for common use assets rather than using a single cost pool which may be prohibitive in providing rates for differing levels of service or options within the common use environment. b) Rates and Charges. Airport operators use a variety of charging models to recover costs asso- ciated with common use check-in counters. Some of these models include: Per Time Use, Per Passenger, Per Check-in counter Position, Per Total Counters and Per Aircraft Turn. Refer to Appendix B7 for examples from lease agreements. The following paragraphs define and assess the more frequently used rates and charges model in practice today. i. Per time use - through the common use system, airport operators can charge per check- in counter position based on login / logout session times. An hourly fee may be charged by dividing the allocated check-in counter revenue requirement by the expected total number of hours of use of all common use check-in counters during that Fiscal Year, as shown in Figure B6-3. It may also be denominated by the total available hours, as shown in Figure B6-4. Estimating and using annual hours of use versus total available operating hours may lower vacancy risk associated to the check-in counter, as vacancy is built into the rate and passed to the airline. The use of an hourly rate may also provide economies of scale to airlines for efficient use of the charged space. This can benefit low-cost carriers with high volume and quick turnarounds. As a result of this strategy, some airport operators state a use limit on the hourly fee, for example, 50 passengers per check-in counter max- imum and then another fee is used. This helps prevent the cost burden from being unequally allocated to airlines with lower volume. Figure B6-3. Fee per hour (estimated hours of use). Figure B6-4. Fee per position per hour (total operating hours).

ii. Per Passenger - airport operators may charge per enplaned passenger, per flight for use of check-in counter space. A per passenger fee may be charged by dividing the allocated check-in counter revenue requirement by the estimated annual enplaned passengers, as shown in Figure B6-5. Using a fee per passenger prevents the economies of scale that can be achieved by airlines under an hourly rate fee, and allocates costs based on passenger volume of the airline. This rate method may be more susceptible to seasonal volatility while costs to maintain common use check-in counter spaces may be more evenly spread throughout the year. iii. Per Check-in counter Position – A per position fee may be charged by dividing the allo- cated check-in counter revenue requirement by the total check-in counter positions, as shown in Figure B6-6. A per fee position may be used when the usage of a common use check-in counter is inclusive with the use of a common use gate. In this case a single fee is used to recover the cost of the check-in counter use and gate spaces. iv. Per total counter positions – airlines can be charged an all inclusive periodic fee (total counter positions and associated equipment), usually on a monthly or annual basis. This model is typically used by application providers, directly leasing to an airline(s). In this case, airlines are generally charged on the basis of the total square footage of counters leased and may be calculated by multiplying the leased check-in counter space by the per-square foot cost of the terminal revenue requirement for all check-in coun- ters, as shown in Figure B6-7. Using leased space versus total rentable space, as shown in Figure B6-8 lowers vacancy risk associated with the check-in counter, as vacancy is built into the rate and passed to the airline. Using leased space as opposed to total rentable space is also a growing trend in lease agreements when this rate is used. B-40 Reference Guide on Understanding Common Use at Airports Figure B6-5. Fee per passenger. Figure B6-6. Per position fee. Figure B6-7. Per total counter positions (total lease space).

Business Considerations B-41 Per Aircraft Turn – A per aircraft turn fee is typically used when the usage of a com- mon use check-in counter is inclusive with the use of a common use gate. In this case a single fee is used to recover the cost of the check-in counter use and gate spaces. c) Leasing Considerations Currently there are trends for shorter term airline agreements. Of the airport operators surveyed, only 27% currently used a term agreement over 10 years in duration, as shown in Figure B6-9. These shorter term leases allow airlines to “resize” more frequently and allow the air- port operator to reevaluate the use of their space” (ACI, 2007). Airport operators may also limit the annual charges to a Signatory airline for the use of any common use check-in counter during the Fiscal Year to not exceed what the airline would have been charged if it had been assigned that common use check-in counter for its preferential use. While this consideration prevents Signatory airlines from being charged in excess of their leased gate agreement, the airport operator should consider this cap when estimating usage for setting its rates and charges. Gate Area 1. Airline Business Issues and Opportunities: a) As with Airport check-in counters, most airlines do not see the need to move to common use when the airport operator has sufficient gate capacity. Figure B6-8. Per total counter positions (total rentable space). 5 years 28% 10 or more years 27% 30 days 18% Varies 18% Ordinance 9% Figure B6-9. Term of use agreement.

b) Airlines stated a preference to a rates and charges model that distributed the cost of the common use system across only the airlines using the common use system. c) Airlines maintain as part of their business model, the ability to market themselves as ter- minal of choice, starting at the airport terminal check-in area and continuing on to the gates. Common use limits their ability to do so. 2. Airport Performance Issues and Opportunities: a) Cost Distribution. As with the cost distribution methods described for check-in counters, airport operators generally use a single Terminal Cost Center to distribute costs to gates (see the cost center example), typically applied by total square footage of common use gate spaces, to obtain the amount needed to recover in association for use of the spaces asso- ciated with a common use gate. Again, some airport operators distribute the total termi- nal revenue requirement to additional weighted cost groups that have been normalized to equal the total terminal revenue requirement. Differing rates are also generally provided to signatory and non-signatory airlines. Remain Overnight (RON) parking revenues associated with common use gates typi- cally offset the costs distributed to common use gates in many of the lease agreements in practice. In addition, common use technology system costs are often assessed to the Ter- minal Cost Center and may be allocated within the gate fee. b) Rates and Charges. The most common rate model used to charge back expenses allocated for use of a common gate is the Per Turn rate. Many airport operators further define a Per Turn rate by aircraft class turned or by type of gate, such as with, or without, a loading bridge. Other common rate models in practice include: • Per landed weight • Per passenger • Per use i. Per turn, versus other models. A per turn gate fee, as shown in Figure B6-10 may be charged by dividing the allocated gate revenue requirement by the total esti- mated turns. Using a flat per turn fee provides economies of scale, especially to airlines with maximized fleets of larger aircraft; however, this may cause a greater cost burden per passenger to airlines operating smaller aircraft. As a result this fee may be weighted by aircraft class, to establish a fee based on the differing types of aircraft turned at the gate. As an example, the rate could be weighted by multiplying the per turn fee by the following classes of aircraft: – Wide body: 1.50 – Narrow body: 1.00 – Regional: 0.50 – Commuter 0.40 These per turn charges for each class of aircraft would then be normalized so that expected aggregate common use gate charges equal the common use gate revenue requirement. In comparison, using a fee per passenger prevents the economies of scale that can be achieved by airlines under a per turn fee, and allocates costs based on passenger B-42 Reference Guide on Understanding Common Use at Airports Figure B6-10. Gate fee per turn.

Business Considerations B-43 volume of the airline. While this rate method may allocate costs more evenly per pas- senger it also makes the airport more susceptible to seasonal volatility while costs to maintain common use gate spaces and equipment may be more evenly spread throughout the year. Some airport operators are beginning to define rates per use of common gates. This may include providing separate rates for differing use of the common gate, such as a charge for Airside use Only, Landside Only, Arrival Only or Departure Only. In addition, peak, and off peak rates have also been considered. ii. Threshold for break-even on per-turn costs In its fundamental application, the threshold for break-even on a per-turn basis can be obtained by calculating the total cost applied to all common use gates, which may include costs for gate equipment, dividing that total cost among total common use gates to obtain the cost per gate. The cost per gate is then divided by the per turn fee charged by the airport operator to identify the number of turns needed to recover the costs of the gate, as shown in Figure B6-11. A shortfall or overage, as shown in Figure B6-12, can occur when the anticipated income is greater or lesser than the revenue obtained from the per turn rate based on estimated gate utilization. To use the per turn fee effectively, the airport operator must accurately forecast the annual estimated turns at common use gates. If the estimated gate utilization is not accurate, the airport operator can run a deficit for use of the facilities. Cur- rently, some airport operators cap the per turn fee charged to Signatory airlines so that the per turn fees charged at a common use gate does not exceed the per gate fees charged under a preferentially leased gate. These capped turns should be accounted for when estimating gate utilization to set the per turn fee. Break-even Analysis Example: Based on the rates and charges provided by a major U.S. airport, the following 6-step example, as shown in Tables B6-1 through B6-6, presents a practical appli- cation for analyzing break-even using a tiered per turn rate. c) Leasing Considerations i. Use of preferential gate assignment by a non-signatory airline • Subleasing requirements. Airport operators that allow the sublease of preferential gates may allow the airline to provide a markup for administrative and other costs, but may limit that to not exceed, for example 15% of those costs without requir- ing the excess to be paid to the airport operator. Other airport operators may require the airline subleasing the preferential gate to directly pay the operator the Figure B6-11. Number of turns needed for break-even per gate. Figure B6-12. Formula for shortfall (overage).

B-44 Reference Guide on Understanding Common Use at Airports Cost Per Gate Table B6-1. Step 1: Identify costs per gate. Estimated Turns Estimated Annual Turns Per Gate = Annual Turns () No. of Gates (5) Daily Turns Per Gate = Annual Turns Per Gate () 365 Days Estimated Annual Turns Table B6-2. Step 2: Estimate turns. Change Per Turn Weighted Annual Turns (=) Estimated Annual Turns per Gate (X) Weight Per Turn Rate (=) Total Cost Per Gate () Estimated Annual Turns Per Gate (x) Assigned Weight Factor Estimated Annual Turns per Gates Assigned Weight FACTOR Table B6-3. Step 3: Establish charge per turn. Anticipated Income Revenue Per Gate Per Aircraft Class (=) Per Turn Rate (x) Estimated Annual Turns per Gate Table B6-4. Step 4: Calculate anticipated income. established non-preferential gate fee, which is then credited in the calculation of the rentals, fees and charges for leasing airline. ii. Grandfathering / preferred arrangements. The majority of airports surveyed do not implement any grandfathering clauses in preferred lease arrangements, or provide this on an informal basis. Some airports offer airlines preferential use gates equal in number to those held prior, without any minimum use criteria applied. iii. Minimum use and take-back criteria, as shown in Figure B6-13. Not all airports cur- rently implement a formal set of take-back criteria. In practice this is sometimes an

Business Considerations B-45 unwritten policy such as if an airline drops below a certain number of turns, the air- port operator will evaluate and take-back use of the gate if needed. Figure B6-13 shows how surveyed airport operators defined minimum use in connection with take-back evaluations. Some airport operators govern the take-back criteria by a gate policy review committee, representative of airlines, when a take-back criterion is defined. Other airport operators have secondary use rights which allow them to install com- mon use equipment at the gate. Potential Income (100% Utilization) Table B6-5. Step 5: Calculate potential income (100% utilization). Anticipated (Shortfall)/Overage Table B6-6. Step 6: Calculate anticipated (shortfall)/overage. Seats Other Passengers Per Gate Operations Per Gate Per Day Departures Per Gate Per Day 8% 17% 25% 33% 17% Figure B6-13. Criteria used to define minimum use.

Shared Use Facilities 1. Airline Business Issues and Opportunities: a) Airlines typically recognize the need for shared use facilities, such as with baggage claim areas. The concern that airlines expressed in this area, was in how the airport operator attempted to recover costs. Varying positions were presented by airlines, depending on the airline operation (hub / non-hub) and size. These included: • A small operator in an airport stated that they preferred the variable formula. Whether it is an 80/20 rule or any other, it has to be reflective of the nature of the actual cost. • The cost rules put in place must ensure the airlines with minimal use, pay their share of the investment, which is a good thing. • A large carrier stated that they typically have significant infrastructure investments. Some airlines prefer high fixed costs, with low variable rates, based on their operating structures. The 80/20 may not be appropriate to be applied to other areas of facility. 2. Airport Performance Issues and Opportunities: a) Cost Distribution. Costs for the maintenance, operation, and capital recovery of shared use facilities may be prorated among the airlines according to a shared use formula or based on their respective share of airline Leasable square footage. In practice, costs of shared use facilities are also incorporated into terminal rental rates or passenger fees, while some airport operators do not recover costs for shared use spaces and are offset with other revenues. b) Rates and Charges. Currently there are a number of rate mechanisms used in practice to recover costs for use of shared facilities, including: 90/10 split formula, per passenger fee, leased square footage, 10/45/45 formula and other formulas i. 90/10 split formula – This formula calculates a monthly fee that is charged to each air- line for use of shared facilities with 90% of the shared used revenue requirement pro- rated according to the ratio of enplaned passengers while 10% of the shared use revenue requirement is equally allocated to all airlines, as shown in Figure B6-14. Use of this formula theoretically allows costs to be distributed to airlines in proportion to their use of the shared space. While in practice actual use may differ from proportional market share it is generally viewed as an amicable distribution of costs. ii. Per passenger fee – This formula calculates a monthly fee that is charged to each airline for use of shared facilities according to market share, as shown in Figure B6-15. iii. Leased square footage – This formula calculates a monthly fee that is charged to each airline for use of shared facilities based on their respective share of airline leasable square footage, as shown in Figure B6-16. Use of this formula may not always distrib- ute costs to airlines in proportion of their actual use of the shared space as leased square footage may not always be indicative of passenger use, especially in light of low cost airlines. iv. 10/45/45 formula – This formula calculates a monthly fee that is charged to each air- line for use of shared facilities by allocating 10% of the shared use revenue require- ment equally among all airlines, allocating 45% based on number of flights and allocating another 45% of the shared use revenue based on number of passengers, as shown in Figure B6-17. v. 80/20 split formula – Similar to the 90/10 formula this formula calculates a monthly fee that is charged to each airline for use of shared facilities with 80% of the shared use revenue requirement prorated according to the ratio of enplaned and deplaned passengers while 20% of the shared use revenue requirement is equally allocated to all airlines. As an example, the following formula shows how an airport operator may define its rate. RA = (20% × RJ / N) + (80% × RJ × PA / PT) B-46 Reference Guide on Understanding Common Use at Airports

Business Considerations B-47 – RA is the airline’s monthly rent payable for the Joint Use Area in the Relevant Ter- minal Unit. – RJ is the total monthly rent payable for the Joint Use Area in the Relevant Terminal Unit for the Month, and the calculation of which is as follows: RJ = RM × S / 12 – RM is the annual rental rate per square foot for participating airlines in the Relevant Terminal Unit. – S is the number of square feet in the Joint Use Area in the Relevant Terminal Unit. – N is the number of participating airlines in the Relevant Terminal Unit required to participate in sharing the costs of the Joint Use Area. – PA is the number of total passengers enplaned and deplaned by airline through the Relevant Terminal Unit during the calculation period. – PT is the number of total passengers enplaned and deplaned by all participating air- lines through the Relevant Terminal Unit during the calculation period. Figure B6-14. 90/10 split formula. Figure B6-15. Per passenger fee.

General Business Considerations 1. Leasing Considerations: When establishing a leasing agreement for common use, the following items should be considered: a) Airport operator’s right to relocate the airline operation. b) How damage to common use assets will be charged. While maintenance costs are typically rolled into rates and charges by airport operators, significant maintenance costs shown specifically to an air carrier should be able to be billed directly. c) Whether the airline may use either its own printer stock or airport-supplied common stock. Responsibilities of stock removal, load and reload should also be defined. If an air- line is allowed to use its own stock, it should be subject to airport operator approval to ensure proper operation with the common use equipment. d) Rules and allowances for modifications to airport-owned common use equipment. Mod- ifications can include equipment changes, adhesive markings, etc. The lease agreement should also clearly define whether the airline will be allowed to install airline-owned equipment, and if so, what criteria must be followed. B-48 Reference Guide on Understanding Common Use at Airports Figure B6-16. Per square footage. Figure B6-17. 10/45/45 formula.

Business Considerations B-49 e) Network Usage requirements, and any other airport-owned special systems supporting the common use operation. f) Allowances on airline deployment of technologies. g) Placement of airline-owned signage 2. Liability and Safety: When asked regarding liability and safety issues, directly associated with the check-in counter area, airport operators stated that there have not been any significant issues. Issues are generally addressed through standard liability clauses maintained in the Lease Agreement. 3. Assets: As common use assets are shared by all airlines, airport operators should build budget con- tingencies for damaged assets that cannot be charged directly to the responsible party. Having a lease or operating agreement that clearly defines how damage to common use assets will be charged is also operationally important. 4. Competitive Factors: From the airline perspective, common use often removes their competitive advantage. If not planned and implemented properly, common use installations can adversely impact an airline’s ability to process passengers (both at check-in and at boarding) in the means it sees best and thereby can remove a very important advantage to its airline competitors. Airport operators noted promoting common use as a means of lowering the airline’s cost of entry was the primary competitive factor. Airport operators and airlines are trying to balance growth and costs. This balance has caused airlines to carefully consider how changes at airports affect the airlines’ overall expenses. It has also caused airport operators to find alternative ways to facilitate growth and competition, while keeping the overall charges to the airlines as low as possible. When properly planned for, airlines have noted that common use can lower the cost of entry to an airport. Several airport operators have considered, and implemented, common use as a method of meeting their FAA competition planning requirements. This is a limited number of airports, as the FAA makes a determination and publishes a list of large and medium hub airports that it requires to prepare and submit a competition plan. These airports are characterized by having one or two airlines controlling more than 50% of the annual passenger enplanements. Several of these airport operators have identified common use as a method to enable the required com- petition at their airport, thus allowing the airport operator to have their Passenger Facility Charges (PFCs) approved as well as allowing the collection or a grant to be issued under the Air- port Improvement Program (AIP). It has been shown in many of these competition plans that common use is a tool that can be used to provide reasonable access which is necessary to ensure that an airport has a level playing field for all entrants to the market. 5. Customer Service: Airport operators view common use as a means to improve customer service. For the air- port operator, common use provides the ability to implement consistency across its airport facility. This results in a means to correct any customer service issues reported quickly, across the entire common use facility. For the airline, common use can hinder its ability to provide customer service at the level the airline requires. Unlike the airport operator, who is concerned about only the customers using its facility, the airline must address customer service across all facilities it services. For the airline, this creates a greater challenge when each airport facility is operated differently. To solve the different perspectives, airport operators should include customer service issues as one of the key early planning items with airlines. Compromises will obviously have to be made, but if both parties have the same goal in mind, the final result will be positive for the customer. 6. Marketing: As stated above airport operators generally market common use as a means of lowering the airline’s cost of entry. For some airlines, common use is becoming a decision point for entering

a new market, while other airlines view common use as a deterrent to entering the market. It is up to the Airport Marketing Team to support their position with clear and substantiated facts. Using the planning and cost benefit sections of this Guide should help in defining good mar- keting points. 7. Environmental / Sustainability: Common use is opening the doors for new and sometimes creative ways an airport oper- ator can improve the sustainability of the airport environment. The obvious position is that common use provides the ability to consolidate resources from many airlines, to one, thereby promoting resource reductions in the following ways: • Power consumption • Footprint of physical machines • Thermal output (cooling requirements) • Lower costs of disposal hardware Some of the examples noted included: • Technology examples included: – Consolidation of communication infrastructure (copper, fiber, electronics) from many airline systems into one. – Overall server and personal computer reductions – Reductions in telecommunication rooms • Reduction of emissions – through providing a common source for aircraft pre-conditioned air. This allows planes to shutdown their auxiliary power units which spew CO2 gases and cost the airlines fuel to run. Significant cost savings significant reductions in emissions are expected. • Through a common means of aircraft trash collection, one Airport is able to recycle cof- fee grounds, saving several tons of refuse a year. Leasing Options for Common Use Technology Support • Airport operator purchases equipment and provides maintenance services • Airport operator purchases equipment and airlines establish and pay for third-party mainte- nance service through a CLUB arrangement – Airline Perspective: Some think common use CLUBS are problematic, since ideally, most airlines are trying to cut costs rather than bolster the system, resulting in unacceptable ser- vice conditions. On the other hand, Airports tend to care about maintaining and improv- ing the system. Some airlines don’t have a problem paying for good service. • Airlines establish lease of equipment and maintenance services through a CLUB arrangement • Individual airline leases equipment and maintenance services directly with a third-party system provider. B-50 Reference Guide on Understanding Common Use at Airports

B-51 Appendix B7 is a companion to the business considerations posed in Appendix B6 for com- mon use rates and charges. This appendix (in Tables B7-1 through B7-8) provides examples of use rates currently in practice and the accompanying basis, or charge model, as indicated in the example airport’s lease or fee agreement. As practice is so varied in regards to use rates and charge models, this appendix is intended to be used as a reference to current practice allowing the air- port operator to examine differing mechanisms for comparison with their fee structure. In addition to providing reference on the fees specifically used to charge for common use, this appendix provides examples of other use fees as well. As described in appendix B6, airports often apply costs to use fees based on cost centers that usually consist of a Terminal Area Cost Center, Airfield Area Cost Center, and Ground Side/Support Area Cost Center (see Figure B6-2 in Appendix B6 for additional detail). As airports typically do not have separate cost centers to charge for use common use assets, these other fees are provided to give reference on how costs may be distributed and recovered in relation to those used to charge for common use. Two cross referenced examples are provided in Tables B7-9 and B7-10 as examples of how an airport may structure its fees to recover costs. These are provided solely as an informational reference and are not intended to be viewed or used as models. Table B7-9 shows an example of an airport’s use fees. It can be seen that the costs of common use equipment are incorporated into apron area requirements and terminal building requirements. Table B7-10 provides another example of an airport’s use fees. Here it can be seen that the costs of common use equipment are incorporated into a cost center consisting of all Gates, Ticket Counters, and Business/Service Counters. A P P E N D I X B 7 Business Considerations: Use Rate and Charge Models

B-52 Reference Guide on Understanding Common Use at Airports Use Rate Charge Model Airport 1 Per one thousand pounds of the Approved Maximum Landing Weight of each aircraft, or a minimum landing fee, whichever is greater. Maintenance & Operating expenses + administrative costs + amortization expenses – general aviation and fuel revenue +/- prior year = net expenses / total landed weights = landing rate per 1,000 lbs Airport 2 Per 1,000-pound unit of Maximum Certificated Gross Landed Weight Operating Expenses - Apron Area Operating Expense (8%) = Net Operating Expenses + Equipment & Capital Outlays + GO Bond Debt Service + Other Debt Service + Amortization of Capital Improvements = Total Airfield Area Cost - 100% Military Airfield Use Fee - 100% Estimated Fuel Sales - 100% Farmland Rentals = Net Airfield Area Cost / Landed Weight of all Aircraft Arrivals = Landing Fee Rate Airport 3 Per 1,000 lbs of gross allowable landing weight of all aircraft Landing fees are calculated on a cost center residual basis to recover all airfield costs at International Airport and the Reliever Airports operating deficit, net of airfield revenues generated from users other than the scheduled passenger and cargo airlines. Landing fee = allocable direct and indirect operating expenses + allocable equipment purchases and other capital outlays + allocable debt service and associated coverage requirements + allocable amortization of capital improvements and Maintenance & Operating projects funded by the County Airport System from internal cash + allocable amounts of required Airport System bond fund deposits - airfield revenues other than scheduled passenger and cargo airline landing fees = Net Airfield Requirement / landed weight of the scheduled passenger and cargo airlines. Airport 4 Per 1,000 lbs of gross allowable landing weight of all aircraft Landing Fee Rate: Total Annual Airfield Area Expenses - Surplus Airfield and Airport Support Revenues from previous fiscal year - Surplus Airfield and Airport Support Revenues previous to above fiscal year + Allowance for rental credits - Airfield area revenues from sources other than landing fees paid by the Scheduled Airlines = Airfield Area net expense - Surplus/(Deficit) in Airport Support Area cost center = Gross landing fees payable by the Scheduled Airlines Divided by composite Landing Weight forecast for the Scheduled Airlines (1,000 pounds) = Basic Landing Fee Rate (per 1,000 lbs.) Landing Fee Surcharge: Amount of surcharge (credit) attributable to Terminal Area and Groundside Area x 50% = Landing Fee Surcharge Divided by composite Landing Weight forecast for the Scheduled Airlines (1,000 pounds) = Landing Fee Surcharge rate (per 1,000 lbs.) Airport 5 Per 1,000 lbs of gross allowable landing weight of all aircraft Landing Fee = Airfield Revenue Requirement / projected landed weight Airfield Revenue Requirement = 1.0 times the sum of the annual debt service allocable to bondfunded Airfield capital projects and the share of annual debt service allocable to bond-funded Airport roadway projects or other bond-funded Airport infrastructure or system wide projects that is allocable to the Airfield + annual amortization allocable to equity-funded Airfield capital projects and other equity-funded projects allocable to the Airfield + annual operating and maintenance expenses allocable to the Airfield + annual interest charges used to provide interim financing for Airfield capital improvements + allocated share of annual debt service + deposits needed to replenish debt service reserve funds allocable to the Airfield to required levels + allocated share of annual capital costs, amortization and operating costs attributable to Port-occupied space in the Terminal used in connection with the management, administration or operation of the Airfield - Landing Fee premiums paid by Non-Signatory Airlines – annual aircraft parking land rental charges +/- amounts allocable to the Airfield required to maintain a Security Deposit Fund. Table B7-1. Landing fees.

Business Considerations: Use Rate and Charge Models B-53 Use Rate Charge Model Airport 6 Per 1,000 lbs of gross allowable landing weight of all aircraft Airport System Landing Fee Requirement divided by the composite estimate of the Total Landed Weight of all Signatory Airline Aircraft Arrivals at the Airport for the succeeding Fiscal Year Airport System Landing Fee Requirement = total of direct and allocated indirect estimated Operation and Maintenance Expenses of the Airport System; 1.25 times Airport System Annual Bond Debt Service; estimated amount of the annual requirement, including coverage, of any subordinate security or other loans pertaining to the Airport System; estimated amount, if any, for other deposits required by the Bond Ordinance or this Agreement; total amount or the pro-rata portion of the annual amortization allocation to the Terminal Building, Airfield Area and Apron Area of any Capital Improvements; total amount or the pro-rata portion of the annual amortization allocation to the Terminal Building, Airfield Area, Apron Area, Terminal Area, Other Buildings, and Reliever Airports of any Capital Improvements, including Land, placed in service; estimated amount of any assessment, judgment, or charge (net of insurance proceeds); variance of budget vs. actual expenses for operation of the Airport System - less the total of the following credits revenue derived from Airport System concessions, rentals and fees from nonsignatory Air Transportation Companies, other tenants, and service fees; unrestricted investment income earned; total of all Terminal Building rentals, Aircraft Gate Use Fees, and Aircraft Gate Use Fee, and Per-Turn charges from owned gates paid by the Signatory Airlines during the Fiscal Year; credit equal to the balance available in the Prepaid Airline Revenue Account Table B7-1. (Continued).

B-54 Reference Guide on Understanding Common Use at Airports Use Rate Charge Model Airport 1 per square foot per year Total Terminal Expenses divided by terminal square footage (not including concession space) = M&O rate + capital recovery rate + debt service rate = Gross Terminal Rental Rate – janitorial credit + relocation reimbursement = Total Terminal Rental Rate per Square Foot. Airport 2 Per square foot of rented space Operating Expenses - Allocation to TSA Security = Net Operating Expenses + Equipment & Capital Outlays + GO Bond Debt Service + Other Debt Service + Amortization of Capital Improvements = Total Terminal Building Area Cost - 100% Basement & 2nd Floor Rentals - 50% Concession Revenue - 100% Terminal Telephone System Revenue = Net Terminal Building Area Cost / Rentable Space (Square Feet) = Basic Rate per Square Foot The average rental rate paid by the Signatory Passenger Airlines in each Fiscal Year shall not be less than the rate obtained by dividing the total of the following pro rata portion of (i) Annual General Obligation Bond Debt Service; (ii) Annual Airport Revenue Bond Debt Service; and (iii) budgeted deposits to reserve accounts established pursuant to the Bond Resolution(s) by the total area of enclosed space in the terminal building. Airport 3 Per square foot of rented space per month Net Terminal Building Requirement divided by the total amount of Rentable space. Net Terminal Building Requirement: total of direct and allocated indirect estimated Airport System Operation and Maintenance Expenses allocated to the Terminal Building; the total of capital outlays allocable to the terminal building; 1.25 times the pro-rata portion of Airport System Annual Bond Debt Service, if any, allocated to the Terminal Building; an amount equal to 1.10 times the Annual Accrued Debt Service on Subordinate bonds allocable to the Terminal Building; the Annual Accrued Debt Services on Junior Subordinate bonds allocable to the Terminal Building; The annual amortization of Capital Improvements financed by the County from its own resources and operating expenses that the County has chosen to amortize allocable to the Terminal Building, based on the economic life for each capital Improvement and calculated using an interest rate set to equal the average all-In cost of bonds sold by the County during the fiscal year when such Improvement i. put In service or, if no bonds were sold, set to equal comparable published average borrowing costs. in performing the calculations under this section, no amortization charges shall be included for the portion of capital expenditures that have been funded with the proceeds of County Airport System Revenue Bonds or any other obligations for which debt service Is recovered through rents, fees or other charges; approved Passenger Facility Charges; or grants-in-add; The amount of any deposit to the Operating Reserve Account allocable to the Terminal Building required by a Bond indenture; The amount of any deposit to the Reserve and Contingency Fund allocable to the Terminal Building required by a Bond Indenture; The estimated amount of any assessment, Judgment or charge (net of insurance proceeds) to become payable relating directly to the Airport System, or Its operation, allocable to the Terminal Building; The amount required to replenish the Senior Debt Service Reserve Requirement, Subordinate Debt Service Reserve Requirement, and Junior Subordinate Debt Service Reserve Requirement allocable to the Terminal Building; deduct the estimated revenue from the rental to Airlines of unenclosed operations space In the Terminal Building and the amounts of any federal operating grants from the TSA to yield the Net Terminal Building Requirement. Airport 4 Per square foot Per Class of Space Required Category I Rate (per square foot) * Class Rate: Category I – 1.00 Category II – .75 Category III – .5 Category IV – .25 Category V – .1 Class I. Ticket counters and holdrooms. Class II. Ticket counter back offices, VIP clubs and lounges, baggage claim lobbies, baggage service offices, curbside check-in, and administrative and operations offices located on the mezzanine or concourse upper level. Table B7-2. Terminal rental space.

Business Considerations: Use Rate and Charge Models B-55 Use Rate Charge Model Class III. Administrative and operations offices. Class IV. Inbound/outbound baggage handling areas, baggage transfer areas, and equipment rooms. Class V. Unenclosed or covered areas at ramp level. Required Category I Rate = (Aggregate annual rentals payable by the Scheduled Airlines + Terminal Area Rental Surcharge) / Divided by Equivalent Category I space (square feet) Aggregate annual rentals payable by the Scheduled Airlines = Total Terminal Area Expenses- Surplus Groundside and Terminal Revenues from previous fiscal year- Surplus Groundside and Terminal Revenues previous to above fiscal year+ Allowance for rental credits / Gross building area (square feet) = Annual cost per sq. ft. ("Basic Rate") x Airline Leased Space (square feet) Terminal Area Rental Surcharge = Annual cost per sq. ft. ("Basic Rate") x "Public" Space (square feet) = Cost of "Public" space - Terminal area revenues from sources other than aggregate rentals paid by the Scheduled Airlines - Surplus/(Deficit) in Groundside Area cost center = Amount of surcharge x 50% Airport 5 Per square foot Per Class of Space Terminal Revenue Requirement is distributed into four cost assignment groups: Group A (consisting of Gates, Ticket Counters and Business/Service Counters); Group B (consisting of offices and VIP lounges); Group C (consisting of Baggage Areas and the FIS); and Group D (consisting of closed storage space). The costs assigned to the rented space within each of these four groups shall bear the following relativities to each other on a square foot basis: Group A: 2.50 Group B: 1.50 Group C: 1.00 Group D: 0.50 Costs per square foot of rented space in each group is normalized to equal the Terminal Revenue Requirement. Terminal Revenue Requirement = annual debt service + the annual amortization + annual interest charges+ annual operating and maintenance expenses + deposits needed to replenish debt service reserve funds - revenues received from separately established tariffs - annual capital costs, amortization and operating costs attributable to Terminal systems dedicated to use by Air Carriers - allocated share of the remaining annual capital costs, amortization and operating costs attributable to space in the Terminal reserved for nonaeronautical facilities or activities - allocated share of the remaining annual capital costs, amortization and operating costs attributable to Port-occupied space in the Terminal used in connection with the management, administration or operation of the Airfield Area or of nonaeronautical facilities or activities at the Airport- Port’s pro rata share of the remaining annual capital costs, amortization and operating costs attributable to Public Areas +/- amounts allocable to the Terminal required to maintain a Security Deposit Fund - terminal revenues derived from premiums paid by Non-Signatory Airlines Airport 6 Per square foot of rented space per annum Terminal Building Requirement divided by total Rentable Space on an exclusive, preferential, or joint use basis. Terminal Building Requirement: total of direct and allocated indirect estimated Airport System Operation and Maintenance Expenses allocated to the Terminal Building; 1.25 times the pro-rata portion of Airport System Annual Bond Debt Service, if any, allocated to the Terminal Building; The pro-rata portion of any subordinate security or other loans allocated to the Terminal Building; The total amount or the pro-rata portion of the annual amortization allocated to the Terminal Building, of Capital Improvements; The estimated amount of any assessment, judgment, or charge and allocated to the Terminal Building; Any estimated variance of budgeted vs. actual expenses for the operation of the Terminal Building Table B7-2. (Continued).

B-56 Reference Guide on Understanding Common Use at Airports Use Rate Charge Model Airport 1 Per Turn by Type of Gate: with loading bridge and without loading bridge Per Turn Fee = cost of each gate (including rental or holdroom space but net of RON fees) / 152 turns per month (assumes that, on average, there will be five turns/day on each common use gate) Common Use Gate Requirement = Terminal Building Rental Rate X total amount of square footage of all common use gates – RON revenues associated with common use gates. Airport 2 Per Turn by Aircraft Class; not exceed total charges under a preferential use gate. Classes of aircraft: (i) wide body (with capacity for 200 or more passengers); (ii) narrow body (100-199 passengers); (iii) regional (50-99 passengers); and (iv) commuter (less than 50 passengers), Square footage of all Common Use Gates multiplied by Cost Pool consisting of all Gates, Ticket Counters and Business/Service Counters / total number of turns made in each class of aircraft. The charges for use of Common Use Gates by aircraft within each of these classes shall bear the following relativities to each other: Wide body: 1.80 Narrow body: 1.00 Regional: 0.70 Commuter 0.40 For rate-setting purposes, the charges per turn for each of these four classes of aircraft will be normalized so that expected aggregate Common Use Gate charges equal the Common Use Gate revenue requirement. Airport 3 Per Turn by Aircraft Class; Classes of aircraft: narrow body aircraft operations; wide body aircraft operations Apron Area Requirement divided by the total number of Aircraft Gates Apron Area Requirement: The total of direct and allocated indirect estimated Airport System Operation and Maintenance Expenses allocated to the Apron Area; An amount 1.25 times the pro-rata portion of Airport System Annual Bond Debt Service, if any, allocated to the Apron Area; The pro-rata portion of any subordinate security or other loans allocated to the Apron Area; The total amount or the pro-rata portion of the annual amortization allocated to the Apron Area, of Capital Improvements; The estimated amount of any assessment, judgment, or charge and allocated to the Apron Area; Any estimated variance of budgeted vs. actual expenses for the operation of the Apron Area. Table B7-3. Common use gates. Use Rate Charge Model Airport 1 Per hours used Square footage of all Common Use Ticket Counters multiplied by the distributed terminal revenue requirement to a Cost Pool consisting of all Gates, Ticket Counters and Business/Service Counters divided by expected total number of hours of use of all Common Use Ticket Counters during that Fiscal Year. Airport 2 Per enplaned passenger or per position per hour for each ticket counter position. Per enplaned passenger: Terminal Building Rent X Square footage of queuing, ticketing, baggage make-up, tunnel, and skycap podiums per Airline / annual enplaned passengers Per Position Per Hour: Terminal Building Rent X Average Square footage of queuing, ticketing, baggage make-up, tunnel, and skycap podiums per Airline / Total Operating Hours (20 hours per day) / Total Ticket Counter Positions Table B7-4. Common use ticket counters. Use Rate Charge Model Airport 1 Per Outbound available Seats; not to exceed total charges under a preferential use Baggage Makeup Area. Revenue requirement based on multiplying the square footage of the assigned Baggage Makeup Area by the per-square foot cost for Baggage Areas and FIS divided by available seats Available Seats for the months of September through August of the immediately preceding Fiscal Year (the “Cost Per Available Seat” “CPAS”); and (ii) determining the ninetieth (90th) percentile CPAS among all qualifying Signatory Airlines. Table B7-5. Common use baggage.

Business Considerations: Use Rate and Charge Models B-57 Use Rate Charge Model Airport 1 Charged the % value of the total annual requirement, respective share of airline leasable square footage, per concourse $=ann req X (Airline A sq ft/tot sq ft) Airport 2 square foot per annum for space jointly used Ninety percent (90%) of the charge for joint use space will be prorated according to the ratio of (i) the number of each air transportation company’s or airline servicing company’s enplaning passengers at the Airport during the most recent month for which such information is available to (ii) the total number of enplaning passengers at the Airport during the most recent month for which such information is available of all air transportation companies and airline servicing companies using joint use space. The remaining ten percent (10%) will be prorated in equal shares among all air transportation companies and airline-servicing companies that use the joint use space and operate flight schedules five or more days per week. One equal ten percent (10%) share shall be further divided on a direct proration basis among the Permitted carriers. Airport 3 Per 1,000 lbs of gross allowable landing weight of all aircraft Apron Area Operating Expenses + Stormwater Charges X % Allocation to Passenger Terminal Apron = Net Operating Expenses + Equipment & Capital Outlays + GO Bond Debt Service + Other Debt Service + Amortization of Capital Improvements = Total Passenger Terminal Apron Area Cost - 50% Ground Handling Fees = Net Passenger Terminal Apron Area Cost / Landed Weight = Basic Rate per 1,000 lb X Signatory Passenger Airline Landed Weight = Signatory Passenger Apron Fees The Passenger Terminal Apron Area Requirement for Airline shall then be calculated by a formula that (i) prorates ninety percent (90%) of the cost of that proportionate amount that Airline's (and its Affiliated Airline Companies) Total Landed Weight bears to the Total Landed Weight of all Air Transportation Companies (including their Affiliated Airline Companies) providing Scheduled Service, then (ii) ten percent (10%) of the cost based on that proportion which the Airline's number of assigned aircraft parking position(s) bears to the total number of assigned aircraft parking positions of all Air Transportation Companies providing Scheduled Service. Airport 4 RA = (20% x RJ / N) + (80% x RJ x PA / PT) RA is the Airline's monthly rent payable for the Joint Use Area in the Relevant Terminal Unit. RJ is the total monthly rent payable for the Joint Use Area in the Relevant Terminal Unit for the Month, and the calculation of which is as follows: RJ = RM x S / 12 RM is the annual rental rate per square foot for participating airlines in the Relevant Terminal Unit. S is the number of square feet in the Joint Use Area in the Relevant Terminal Unit. N is the number of participating Airlines in the Relevant Terminal Unit required to participate in sharing the costs of the Joint Use Area. PA is the number of total passengers enplaned and deplaned by Airline through the Relevant Terminal Unit during the calculation period. PT is the number of total passengers enplaned and deplaned by all participating Airlines through the Relevant Terminal Unit during the calculation period. Table B7-6. Joint use space charges.

B-58 Reference Guide on Understanding Common Use at Airports Use Rate Charge Model Airport 1 All airlines using CUTE system. Assume full utilization of equipment. Based on landed weight per 1,000 lb unit All costs associated with the installation and maintenance of common use terminal equipment including debt service, allocated operations, maintenance and indirect costs / aggregated gate utilization. Gate Utilization = estimated number of turns x average plane landed weight per gate configuration Airport 2 Per loading bridge - charged to each airline preferentially assigned to the holdroom where City-owned bridges are located Passenger Loading Bridge Area Fee = estimated Passenger Loading Bridge Cost Center Requirement divided by the total number of City-owned loading bridges Passenger Loading Bridge Cost Center Requirement = total of estimated direct and indirect Operating Expenses allocable to loading bridge repair and maintenance + Equipment and Capital Outlays allocable to the passenger loading bridges + pro rata portion of Annual General Obligation Bond Debt Service allocable to the Passenger Loading Bridge Cost Center + pro rata portion of Annual Airport Revenue Bond Debt Service allocable to the Passenger Loading Bridge Cost Center + pro rata portion of any required deposits to the reserve accounts established pursuant to the Bond Resolution(s) allocable to the Passenger Loading Bridge Cost Center + annual amortization of the cost of those Capital Improvements that has been or is substantially completed before July 1 of any year and that are allocable to the Airfield Area. Airport 3 Per Loading Bridge associated with Gates assigned to an Airline on a Preferential Use basis Loading Bridge Fee = Loading Bridge Requirement / total number of loading bridges Loading Bridge Requirement: The Total Direct and Indirect estimated Operating Expenses allocable to the Loading Bridges; The total of Capital Outlays allocable to the Loading Bridges; An amount equal to 1.25 times the Annual Accrued debt Service on Senior Bonds allocable to the Loading Bridges or such other amount as may be required by a Bond Indenture; An amount equal to 1.10 times the Annual Accrued Debt Service on Subordinate Bonds allocable to the Loading Bridges or such other amount as may be required by a Bond Indenture; The Annual Accrued Debt Service on Junior Subordinate Bonds allocable to the Loading Bridges or such other amount as may be required by a Bond Indenture; The annual amortization of Capital Improvements financed by the county from its own resources and operating expenses that the County has chosen to amortize allocable to the Loading Bridges, based on the economic life for each Capital Improvement and calculated using an Interest rate set to equal the average all-In cost of bonds sold by the county during the fiscal year when such Improvement is put in service or, if no bonds were sold, set to equal comparable published average borrowing costs. In performing the calculations under this section, no amortization charge shall be Included for the portion of capital expenditures that have been funded with the proceeds of County Airport System Revenue Bonds or any other obligations for which debt service is recovered through rents, fees or other charges; approved Passenger facility Charges; or grants-in-aid; The amount of any deposit to the Operating Reserve Account allocable to the Loading Bridges required by a Bond Indenture; The amount of any deposit to the Reserve and contingency Fund allocable to the Loading Bridges required by a Bond Indenture; The estimated amount of any assessment, judgment or charge (net of insurance proceeds) to become payable by the County relating directly to the Airport System, or its operation, allocable to the Loading Bridges; The amount required to replenish the Senior Debt Service Reserve Requirement, Subordinate Debt Service Reserve Requirement, and Junior Subordinate Debt Service Reserve Requirement allocable to the Loading Bridges. Table B7-7. Shared use systems equipment in terminal.

Business Considerations: Use Rate and Charge Models B-59 Use Rate Charge Model Airport 4 LBA = (20% x LBJ / N) + (80% x LBJ x PA / PT) LBA is the Airline's monthly rent payable for the Loading Bridge(s) in the Relevant Terminal Unit. LBJ is the total monthly rent payable for the Loading Bridge(s) in the Relevant Terminal Unit for the Month, but is zero if Airline does not use any of the Loading Bridge(s) in the Relevant Terminal Unit, and the calculation of which is as follows: LBJ = RLB / LBT x LBR / 12 RLB is the total estimated annual expense to the Authority for all Loading Bridges located at Airport. LBT is the total number of Loading Bridges located at Airport. LBR is the number of Loading Bridges in the Relevant Terminal Unit. N is the number of participating Airlines in the Relevant Terminal Unit required to participate in sharing the costs of the Loading Bridge(s) as defined in LBJ. PA is the number of total passengers enplaned and deplaned by Airline through the Relevant Terminal Unit during the calculation period. PT is the number of total passengers enplaned and deplaned by all participating Airlines through the Relevant Terminal Unit during the calculation period. Table B7-7. (Continued). Use Rate Charge Model Airport 1 Charge a fee / night Monthly Aircraft Position Fee / 4 / 30 The Aircraft Parking Position Fee shall be calculated by dividing the Aircraft Parking Position Requirement by the total number of aircraft parking positions in the Apron Area, provided, however, that in making this calculation the number of Remote Overnight parking positions shall first be divided by four (4). Aircraft Parking Position Requirement: The Total Direct and Indirect estimated Operating Expenses allocable to the Apron Area; The total of Capital Outlays allocable to the Apron Area; An amount equal to 1.25 times the Annual Accrued debt Service on Senior Bonds allocable to the Apron Area or such other amount as may be required by a Bond Indenture; An amount equal to 1.10 limes the Annual Accrued Debt Service on Subordinate Bonds allocable to the Apron Area or such other amount as may be required by a Bond Indenture; The Annual Accrued Debt Service on Junior Subordinate Bonds allocable to the Apron Area or such other amount as may be required by a Bond Indenture; The annual amortization of Capital Improvements financed by the county from its own resources and operating expenses that the County has chosen to amortize allocable to the Apron Area, based on the economic life for each Capital Improvement and calculated using an Interest rate set to equal the average all-In cost of bonds sold by the county during the fiscal year when such Improvement is put in service or, if no bonds were sold, set to equal comparable published average borrowing costs. In performing the calculations under this section, no amortization charge shall be Included for the portion of capital expenditures that have been funded with the proceeds of County Airport System Revenue Bonds or any other obligations for which debt service is recovered through rents, fees or other charges; approved Passenger facility Charges; or grants-in-aid; The amount of any deposit to the Operating Reserve Account allocable to the Apron Area required by a Bond Indenture; The amount of any deposit to the Reserve and contingency Fund allocable to the Apron Area required by a Bond Indenture; The estimated amount of any assessment, judgment or charge (net of insurance proceeds) to become payable by the County relating directly to the Airport System, or its operation, allocable to the Apron Area; The amount required to replenish the Senior Debt Service Reserve Requirement, Subordinate Debt Service Reserve Requirement, and Junior Subordinate Debt Service Reserve Requirement allocable to the Apron Area. Table B7-8. Overnight parking.

B-60 Reference Guide on Understanding Common Use at Airports Fee Use Rate Charge Model Landing Fee Per 1,000 lbs of gross allowable landing weight of all aircraft Airport System Landing Fee Requirement divided by the composite estimate of the Total Landed Weight of all Signatory Airline Aircraft Arrivals at the Airport for the succeeding Fiscal Year Airport System Landing Fee Requirement = total of direct and allocated indirect estimated Operation and Maintenance Expenses of the Airport System; 1.25 times Airport System Annual Bond Debt Service; estimated amount of the annual requirement, including coverage, of any subordinate security or other loans pertaining to the Airport System; estimated amount, if any, for other deposits required by the Bond Ordinance or this Agreement; total amount or the pro-rata portion of the annual amortization allocation to the Terminal Building, Airfield Area and Apron Area of any Capital Improvements; total amount or the pro-rata portion of the annual amortization allocation to the Terminal Building, Airfield Area, Apron Area, Terminal Area, Other Buildings, and Reliever Airports of any Capital Improvements, including Land, placed in service; estimated amount of any assessment, judgment, or charge (net of insurance proceeds); variance of budget vs. actual expenses for operation of the Airport System - less the total of the following credits revenue derived from Airport System concessions, rentals and fees from nonsignatory Air Transportation Companies, other tenants, and service fees; unrestricted investment income earned; total of all Terminal Building rentals, Aircraft Gate Use Fees, and Aircraft Gate Use Fee, and Per-Turn charges from owned gates paid by the Signatory Airlines during the Fiscal Year; credit equal to the balance available in the Prepaid Airline Revenue Account Terminal Rental Space Per square foot of rented space per annum Terminal Building Requirement divided by total Rentable Space on an exclusive, preferential, or joint use basis. Terminal Building Requirement: total of direct and allocated indirect estimated Airport System Operation and Maintenance Expenses allocated to the Terminal Building; 1.25 times the pro-rata portion of Airport System Annual Bond Debt Service, if any, allocated to the Terminal Building; The pro-rata portion of any subordinate security or other loans allocated to the Terminal Building; The total amount or the pro-rata portion of the annual amortization allocated to the Terminal Building, of Capital Improvements; The estimated amount of any assessment, judgment, or charge and allocated to the Terminal Building; Any estimated variance of budgeted vs. actual expenses for the operation of the Terminal Building Common Use Gates Per Turn by Aircraft Class; Classes of aircraft: narrow body aircraft operations; wide body aircraft operations Apron Area Requirement divided by the total number of Aircraft Gates Apron Area Requirement: The total of direct and allocated indirect estimated Airport System Operation and Maintenance Expenses allocated to the Apron Area; An amount 1.25 times the pro-rata portion of Airport System Annual Bond Debt Service, if any, allocated to the Apron Area; The pro-rata portion of any subordinate security or other loans allocated to the Apron Area; The total amount or the pro-rata portion of the annual amortization allocated to the Apron Area, of Capital Improvements; The estimated amount of any assessment, judgment, or charge and allocated to the Apron Area; Any estimated variance of budgeted vs. actual expenses for the operation of the Apron Area. Fee Use Rate Charge Model Common Use Ticket Counters Per enplaned passenger or per position per hour for each ticket counter position. Per enplaned passenger: Terminal Building Rent X Square footage of queuing, ticketing, baggage make-up, tunnel, and skycap podiums per Airline / annual enplaned passengers. Per Position Per Hour: Terminal Building Rent X Average Square footage of queuing, ticketing, baggage make-up, tunnel, and skycap podiums per Airline / Total Operating Hours (20 hours per day) / Total Ticket Counter Positions. Joint Use Space Charges square foot per annum for space jointly used Ninety percent (90%) of the charge for joint use space will be prorated according to the ratio of (i) the number of each air transportation company’s or airline servicing company’s enplaning passengers at the Airport during the most recent month for which such information is available to (ii) the total number of enplaning passengers at the Airport during the most recent month for which such information is available of all air transportation companies and airline servicing companies using joint use space. The remaining ten percent (10%) will be prorated in equal shares among all air transportation companies and airline-servicing companies that use the joint use space and operate flight schedules five or more days per week. One equal ten percent (10%) share shall be further divided on a direct proration basis among the Permitted carriers. Table B7-9. Example 1 - Airport fee structure.

Business Considerations: Use Rate and Charge Models B-61 Fee Use Rate Charge Model Landing Fee Per 1,000 lbs of gross allowable landing weight of all aircraft Landing Fee = Airfield Revenue Requirement / projected landed weight Airfield Revenue Requirement = 1.0 times the sum of the annual debt service allocable to bondfunded Airfield capital projects and the share of annual debt service allocable to bond-funded Airport roadway projects or other bond- funded Airport infrastructure or system wide projects that is allocable to the Airfield + annual amortization allocable to equity-funded Airfield capital projects and other equity-funded projects allocable to the Airfield + annual operating and maintenance expenses allocable to the Airfield + annual interest charges used to provide interim financing for Airfield capital improvements + allocated share of annual debt service + deposits needed to replenish debt service reserve funds allocable to the Airfield to required levels + allocated share of annual capital costs, amortization and operating costs attributable to Port-occupied space in the Terminal used in connection with the management, administration or operation of the Airfield - Landing Fee premiums paid by Non-Signatory Airlines – annual aircraft parking land rental charges +/- amounts allocable to the Airfield required to maintain a Security Deposit Fund. Fee Use Rate Charge Model Terminal Rental Space Per square foot Per Class of Space Terminal Revenue Requirement is distributed into four cost assignment groups: Group A (consisting of Gates, Ticket Counters and Business/Service Counters); Group B (consisting of offices and VIP lounges); Group C (consisting of Baggage Areas and the FIS); and Group D (consisting of closed storage space). The costs assigned to the rented space within each of these four groups shall bear the following relativities to each other on a square foot basis: Group A: 2.50 Group B: 1.50 Group C: 1.00 Group D: 0.50 Costs per square foot of rented space in each group is normalized to equal the Terminal Revenue Requirement. Terminal Revenue Requirement = annual debt service + the annual amortization + annual interest charges+ annual operating and maintenance expenses + deposits needed to replenish debt service reserve funds - revenues received from separately established tariffs - annual capital costs, amortization and operating costs attributable to Terminal systems dedicated to use by Air Carriers - allocated share of the remaining annual capital costs, amortization and operating costs attributable to space in the Terminal reserved for nonaeronautical facilities or activities - allocated share of the remaining annual capital costs, amortization and operating costs attributable to Port-occupied space in the Terminal used in connection with the management, administration or operation of the Airfield Area or of nonaeronautical facilities or activities at the Airport - Port’s pro rata share of the remaining annual capital costs, amortization and operating costs attributable to Public Areas +/- amounts allocable to the Terminal required to maintain a Security Deposit Fund - terminal revenues derived from premiums paid by Non-Signatory Airlines. Common Use Gates Per Turn by Aircraft Class; not exceed total charges under a preferential use gate. Square footage of all Common Use Gates multiplied by Cost Pool consisting of all Gates, Ticket Counters and Business/Service Counters / total number of turns made in each class of aircraft. The charges for use of Common Use Gates by aircraft within each of these classes shall bear the following relativities to each other: Wide body: 1.80 Narrow body: 1.00 Regional: 0.70 Commuter 0.40 For rate-setting purposes, the charges per turn for each of these four classes of aircraft will be normalized so that expected aggregate Common Use Gate charges equal the Common Use Gate revenue requirement. Classes of aircraft: (i) wide body (with capacity for 200 or more passengers); (ii) narrow body (100-199 passengers); (iii) regional (50-99 passengers); and (iv) commuter (less than 50 passengers), to be levied on the basis of the total number of turns made in each class of aircraft. Weighted by: Wide body: 1.80; Narrow body: 1.00; Regional: 0.70; Commuter 0.40 Table B7-10. Example 2 - Airport fee structure.

B-62 Reference Guide on Understanding Common Use at Airports Fee Use Rate Charge Model Common Use Ticket Counters Per hours used Square footage of all Common Use Ticket Counters multiplied by the distributed terminal revenue requirement to a Cost Pool consisting of all Gates, Ticket Counters and Business/Service Counters divided by expected total number of hours of use of all Common Use Ticket Counters during that Fiscal Year. Common Use Baggage Per Outbound available Seats; not to exceed total charges under a preferential use Baggage Makeup Area. Revenue requirement based on multiplying the square footage of the assigned Baggage Makeup Area by the per-square foot cost for Baggage Areas and FIS divided by available seats Available Seats for the months of September through August of the immediately preceding Fiscal Year (the “Cost Per Available Seat” “CPAS”); and (ii) determining the ninetieth (90th) percentile CPAS among all qualifying Signatory Airlines. Table B7-10. (Continued).

B-63 Common Use System Software – Agent Facing 1. Airline Issues and Opportunities: Many of the airlines, which hold a position of opposition to CUTE, have stated that once CUPPS has proven to meet expectations, these airlines will support CUPPS installations. This statement, of course is predicated on the basis that CUPPS installations take into account air- line Business Requirements, costs, and functionality. Along with these core requirements, air- lines have noted the following items as important to the success of CUPPS. a) Grace Period to move from CUTE Applications. Recognizing that application development takes time and resources, IATA has provided in the CUPPS RP a three-year grace period for airlines to move their current CUTE application to the new CUPPS RP. During this time, airlines expect the CUPPS system providers to support the legacy CUTE applications under the new CUPPS application. b) Costs, timing and convenience of the certification and recertification process of CUPPS. Most airlines noted that the current “self certification” process used under CUTE takes too much time, is inconvenient for the airline, and generally costs too much. As with the appli- cation itself the certification process varies from system provider to system provider. Air- lines did note that some system providers “do it” better than others. Essentially, airlines noted the following: • Certification and recertification should be completed in a matter of days, not weeks. With the current process, an airline may have to hold up the deployment of its application update at much as three weeks or more, waiting for completion of the recertification. • Some system providers require an airline representative to travel to the recertification site. This takes time and resources. • Once certification is complete and the updated software is pushed to airline locations, the airline should receive positive notification. • Costs for certification should be managed consistently. Some system providers charge little to nothing, while others charge thousands of dollars per each recertification. c) The ability to use airline proprietary systems at common use locations. Airlines noted that it is possible for them to have the need of using common use and proprietary systems at the same gate or check-in counter location. For example, airlines provide web enabled functionality at a gate to provide services beyond passenger processing. This type of appli- cation should be able to run at a common use location. d) Costs and effort to add an entrant airline to an existing CUPPS Airport site. As with cer- tification, this process should be consistent, cost effective, and convenient. e) Airlines have different needs for different types of paper stock. In many instances, airports who provide common use platforms force a standardized paper stock for boarding passes and bag tags. Airlines can vary on the size of the boarding pass, such as Virgin America, Technology A P P E N D I X B 8

B-64 Reference Guide on Understanding Common Use at Airports and also on the quality of stock for the boarding pass. At least one airline interviewed stated that the boarding pass stock was one of the differentiators of their airline, and they were not as interested in using lighter paper stock unless they had no other choice. 2. Airport Performance Issues and Opportunities: a) CUTE to CUPPS Migration / Phasing requirements As with airlines, airport operators are anxious and optimistic for the approved release of CUPPS. Several Airports noted the intent to migrate to CUPPS once it is released. At pres- ent, at least three U.S. airports are in the process of procuring a common use solution, with the intent of the final solution being CUPPS. Currently with CUPPS proof of concept test- ing, two U.S. airport locations are running limited, live operations of CUPPS: LAS and MCO. Recognizing the near-release of CUPPS, IATA has provided recommended statements to be included in Airport Request for Proposal Packages that will aid toward the migra- tion of a CUTE-to-CUPPS platform. These statements are shown in Table B8-1. b) Printers are one of the critical pieces of equipment for an agent facing common use sys- tem. It is critical that the airport operator select the proper printers for the quality and durability. Technical support of the printers is also critical, as the printer requires imme- diate repair. Newer printers entering the market are more maintainable and dependable and will serve well in the common use market. 3. Physical Considerations: a) Millwork can be impacted by the installation of an agent facing common use system. If the system is going to be installed in existing counters, then the counters may require a retrofit to accommodate the new hardware. One area where millwork can be affected is in the changing of computer monitors, moving from CRT-type monitors to flat panel, LCD-type monitors. Since the form factor is so different between these types of monitors, the millwork may need to be reconfigured to accommodate, especially if there were inserts or recessed panels to accommodate the larger monitors. b) The equipment needs to be readily accessible for support and maintenance. One method is to use removable panels in the millwork. Another method is to design all shelves as pull-out shelves so that the technician can access the equipment to replace or maintain it. c) In order to support multiple airlines, the amount of equipment installed at the check-in counters, and the gates, may be different than the amount of equipment installed with a pro- prietary system. This is due to the fact that the common use system must support multiple business models whereas the proprietary system was designed specifically for the airline using it. 4. Staffing Considerations: a) Staffing issues are discussed in the technology maintenance section later in this chapter. 5. Accessibility: a) The airport operator needs to consider accessibility issues to support the airline staff that may be using the equipment. Common Use System Software – Passenger Facing 1. Airline Issues and Opportunities: Typically, airlines tend to have more objections to CUSS than with CUTE. Issues noted by the airlines include: a) Airport operators may install CUSS kiosks in locations where an airline agent is not in visual site of the equipment. For at least one airline, their business practice is to not support check- in kiosks at the airport, unless an agent has visual site and easy access to it. b) The costs of CUSS kiosks are expensive, starting a $12,000 per kiosk and going up from there.

Technology B-65 Source: CUPPS 2008. “IATA CUPPS RFP Guidelines”, Sept 17 Retrieved May 16 2009 from http://www.cupps.aero/documents. Table B8-1. IATA CUPPS RFP guidelines (Sept 17, 2008). c) Airlines have developed software work-arounds for the different ways platforms operate. While this makes the software appear to be one application capable of running anywhere, there are many customizations that need to be done to accommodate the kiosk devel- oper’s individual approach to the CUSS 1.0 standard. This should be resolved in CUSS 1.2, however there is an open issue of how to migrate the existing base of CUSS kiosks from 1.0 to 1.2, while supporting the existing applications.

2. Airport Performance Issues and Opportunities: a) As noted above, CUTE and CUSS are not always installed together. In fact, in the U.S. many airport operators are hesitant to install CUSS, primarily for two reasons: • The focus for the U.S. airports has been on common use gates. Only recently have the airport operators begun to seriously investigate common use self service. • The airlines have installed proprietary kiosks, which has deferred airport attentions. b) Airport operators should determine if the airline will be permitted to use its proprietary paper stock, or be required to use the common use paper stock. c) As with agent facing common use, paper stock and printers are a key component to a suc- cessful CUSS installation. The kiosks tend to need a larger supply of paper stock, as they are more difficult to re-stock than the agent facing common use printers. Because of this rea- son, the industry is beginning to favor the fan-fold paper stock, because of its higher stock capacity. d) Airline connectivity back to the host is required for CUSS kiosks. Airlines vary in the type of connectivity needed. Investigation is usually required to also determine if the existing circuits used to connect the agent facing common use can be reused for the CUSS connectivity. e) CUSS kiosks are becoming popular for remote check-in, both on the airport campus, such as rental car centers and parking garages, as well as off the airport campus, such as hotels, convention centers, and cruise ship terminals. Remote check-in presents other issues and risks, especially when baggage check-in is required. 3. Physical Considerations: Placement of CUSS kiosks is an important consideration. It is important for the airport operator to work with the airlines to make sure that the placement of the kiosks does not pre- vent the airlines from using them. As stated earlier, some airlines require that the kiosks be within sight of their agents for customer service/satisfaction considerations. Other airlines are fine with the kiosks installed further away to facilitate reducing passenger congestion in and around the check-in counters. 4. Staffing Considerations: Staffing considerations are addressed in the Technology Maintenance section. 5. Accessibility: a) Accessibility is a key issue for self-service kiosks. Several states are addressing accessibil- ity, as well as the Federal Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). According to the U.S. Access Board, a key area of interest for kiosks is that the kiosks be designed to accommo- date the ADA requirements for reach ranges, mobility, and accessibility. The state of Cal- ifornia has passed the California Civil code 54.9, which addresses the manufacturing of accessible self-service kiosks in airports. b) While self-service kiosks can be physically designed to accommodate accessibility issues, such as height, reach range, and other mobility challenges, the software provided by the airlines must also be designed to use any non-standard input devices that are added to the kiosk for better accessibility. This means the airport operator must partner with the air- lines to ensure that the applications can use the input devices to complete the check-in process. Airport Communications Infrastructure 1. Airline Issues and Opportunities: a) Airlines state that network connectivity into a common use environment is one of the key factors in poor performance of the application, and poor trouble-shooting ability. The air- port operator must work with the selected solution providers, and the airline information B-66 Reference Guide on Understanding Common Use at Airports

Technology B-67 technology staff to ensure that the network is configured to support the airline’s business processes. b) When implementing common use in an airport, the airport operator tends to not have an upgrade program in place to ensure that the technology solution remains current. Airlines have stated that many airports are so far behind in technology due to technology refresh rates of 5 years or more, that it forces the airline to keep multiple versions of the software in support due to the varying versions of the same technology solution. c) Conversely, airport operators need to work with airlines to ensure that a technology refresh in a common use environment does not adversely impact the airlines business. The airport operator needs to work closely with the airline information technology staff to ensure that the airline has software which will work on the planned technology upgrade. d) Airlines noted that airport operators should work to ensure the common use system has the necessary redundancies to ensure uptime is kept at acceptable standards. 2. Airport Performance Issues and Opportunities: a) Airport operators that provide a common communications infrastructure are able to bet- ter manage the pathways, resources, and space within the airport. Communications equip- ment takes space, which may otherwise be leasable, and adds to the overall costs of the airport. By providing a common infrastructure, the airport reduces the number of rooms required to support equipment, as the equipment can be shared by many tenants. b) Both passenger and agent facing common use systems have exhibited latency issues when using a wireless connection. This can be anything from slow response, to the system not functioning properly. Any design that includes a wireless component must be tested thor- oughly to ensure latency is not an issue. c) Support of airline connections – system connectivity back to the airline host system is an issue that must be addressed early on. Some airlines allow an IP connection via a secure connection, while others require a dedicated lease line for point-to-point connectivity. Depending on the airline make-up at a particular airport, the common use systems must be able to support multiple connectivity options. d) Support of connectivity from airline back-offices to airline point of presence locations on airport campus. e) Network configurations – the actual configuration of the network, and the protocols that an airport operator’s network uses, has tremendous impacts on the ability to connect the common use system to the airline host system. The airport operator will need to work closely with the airline corporate information technology representatives to ensure that the network configuration will work with the airline’s configuration. 3. Physical Considerations: a) IT infrastructure is supported and routed through telecommunication closets, main distribution rooms, and core network rooms. With regard to common use, the airport operator should consider the following: • Will the closets and rooms require shared access by both the airport operator and air- line? If so, the airport operator should work with the airlines to establish proper access procedures. • Security access control on all rooms. Will the airline tenants use the airport security access control system? b) Effective design of room spacing. To properly support a TCP/IP network, a commu- nications closet should be constructed within 300 feet of any point in the terminal where computer equipment will be installed. This is a standard in-building design cri- teria, due to the technical limitations of the cabling used. Communications closets can be connected using fiber, which allows for greater distances for TCP/IP networks. Equipment at the end devices usually requires copper cabling, and therefore is restricted to the 300-ft rule.

Common Use Supporting Systems and Software 1. Airline Issues and Opportunities: a) Most U.S. based airlines do not have a need for a local departure control system. This makes the business case for purchasing such a system very difficult. Many times, the LDCS is included as a part of the common use platform. Airport operators that install an LDCS do so for airport-specific customer service initiatives, to support charter airlines, or because it came as a part of the common use system. b) Airlines tend not to use airport operator supplied baggage reconciliation systems. In most cases, domestic flights do not use these services because they are not required to provide pos- itive bag matching on domestic flights. For international flights, most airlines use a propri- etary bag reconciliation system. c) Airlines provide many applications to their agents for the conducting of business processes. If these applications are not also written for common use by the airlines, the airline loses functionality at the counter to support their business process. d) Airlines today have to create data feeds for each airport specific to flight information. This creates large amounts of work and support as a new airport operator chooses to install dynamic displays for passenger information. The new AIDX standard will address this issue, and reduce overall costs and complexity for these data feeds for airlines. e) Airlines generally are concerned with problem reporting and resolution. 2. Airport Performance Issues and Opportunities: a) Local Departure Control Systems. Local departure control systems are implemented in com- mon use environments to support airlines that may not have their own departure control system to assign seats, and manage the boarding process. A charter airline is a typical exam- ple of an airline that does not normally have this capability. This is a customer service oppor- tunity for the airport operator, but is not usually a required element of common use. Other uses for an LDCS include use by an airline if the local station loses connectivity to their host system. b) Gate and Resource Management Systems. Airport operators may choose to implement a resource management system if the amount of resources that they are managing is large, or complex. Resources that could be managed by an RMS include gates, check-in counters, baggage claims, baggage make-up, hard stands, RONs, and other common use areas. RMS tends to be very complex, and can be difficult to use. The more sophisticated an operation is, managing ramp control tower, for example, will tend to use an RMS more often. Based on the particular need at the airport, a less complicated gate management system may be acceptable. c) Baggage Reconciliation System. Airport operators who install common use in their inter- national gates may consider installing a baggage reconciliation system to assist with positive bag match requirements for international flights. For domestic flights, positive bag match is not a requirement, and therefore most airport operators do not choose to install a BRS. A key concern for airport operators is how to manage the reconciliation, and if there is a need to use a local database or a global message clearing house. d) FIDS / BIDS Information Displays. These displays are a common building block system which airport operators install to improve customer service. Airport operators must work with airlines to ensure that the data feeds from the airline host systems are accurate, and that they provide the right updates at the right time. The industry is now working on a new data exchange standard, Airport Information Data Exchange (AIDX), which will standardize the data format so that airlines only have to create one data output, and airport operators can accept all data feeds from all airlines. e) GIDS Gate Information Displays. These displays are another form of information displays that provide specific flight related data at the gate, for the passenger. These systems B-68 Reference Guide on Understanding Common Use at Airports

Technology B-69 generally are airline proprietary, and most airlines have not migrated their GIDs appli- cations to common use. Because of this, there currently does not exist a solution to sup- port proprietary GIDS on common use hardware. Airport operators need to decide if they are going to allow the airline to access their proprietary GIDs on the common use displays, or if the airport operator is going to provide a more generic common use GIDs. f) RIDS. These systems are used to provide flight information to ramp-side personnel. This information is used by those who are servicing the plane, as well as can be used by the ramp tower to help with visual verification of flight to gate status. With common use, it is critical that this flight information be driven from the operational database and the resource management system, if one is installed, so that all personnel know where the air- craft is to be parked, off-loaded, and reloaded. g) Operational Database. Operational databases are another building block that airport oper- ators install to support a migration of common use implementations. An OPDB is the underpinnings of the operational airport data that is used to operate systems such as the information displays, as well as resource management systems and other systems. Airport operators should consider installing an AODB as a key building block when moving to a common use environment. As shown in Figure B8-1 the AODB can facilitate data shar- ing, reduce data entry, and ensure that the data integrity throughout the airport opera- tor’s systems is more maintainable. h) Dynamic Signage – Airline Information, Wayfinding. Dynamic signage is a category of tech- nologies that includes any type of informational signage that can be updated via a com- puter. Included in dynamic signage are the flight based signage previously presented (FIDS, BIDS, GIDS, and RIDS). Other forms of dynamic signage include displays used above check-in counter to announce airline counter information, wayfinding, and visual paging displays. Dynamic signs have the ability to be used for any type of data content, but the actual use is dependent on the airport operator’s business model and business decisions made by the airport operator and the airlines. i) Telephony. Telecommunications backbone, VoIP – In a common use environment, telephony services are an important element. These services are provided to the airlines, either using analog or digital telephone switches, or via a VoIP system. When a VoIP sys- tem is used, it is possible to re-program the local handset to act as if it were on the airline’s corporate-owned telephone switch, which reduces overall telephone charges by possibly removing long-distance charges from the service. j) Wireless. Wireless is generally provided to the travelling public by the airport operator as a customer service item. It may be free service, or paid service. Many airport operators are now considering installing wireless data services for business applications. This installa- tion includes support for operational use of airlines and other airport tenants. 3. Accessibility According to the U.S. Access Board, dynamic displays are a key item to support accessibility. Emerging Systems / Software and IT Issues • Electronic Boarding Pass Scanners are now being installed in several airports to support the bar coded boarding pass initiative by IATA. This initiative allows the support of the boarding pass on handheld devices, such as cell phones. Several U.S. airlines have begun pilot trials at a limited number of airports, and are working closely with the TSA to complete the projects. The pilots allow passengers to use their cell phone or other handheld electronic device to act as a boarding pass, and the TSA has readers installed at the security check point for verifica- tion and authorization of the boarding pass and the passenger. The passenger approaches the dais, places their electronic bar coded boarding pass over the reader at the dais, and the reader

decodes the security features, and validates that the bar code is in fact a valid boarding pass. The TSA representative then performs an identification check, and the passenger proceeds through security if everything is checked as valid. One planning point for this technology is the communications infrastructure required at checkpoint areas. • Common Bag Drop—IATA and ACI both have created working groups to look into a common bag drop solution. Although U.S. airport interest is growing, this emerging solution has not yet been piloted in the United States. Implementations have been done outside of the United States, and there is another ACRP report, Project 10-07, which will research common bag drop and self tagging. B-70 Reference Guide on Understanding Common Use at Airports Figure B8-1. Air operations database (AODB).

Technology B-71 • Self Tagging is another emerging technology that is currently in limited use outside of the United States. One of the most prominent implementations is in Montreal, Canada, where passengers are placing their own baggage tags on their luggage and then handing them to han- dling agents for induction into the baggage sortation system. Some of the issues to be resolved with self-tagging are the use of inactive/active tags, acceptance by the TSA, and quality con- trol with passenger’s placing bag tags on the luggage. • AIDX – a subset of CUPPS, is a new data exchange standard that aims to simplify the exchange of flight data from airlines to airport operators. It is currently a subset of the CUPPS standard, and is a recommended practice from IATA, ATA and ACI. There are currently pilot imple- mentations occurring in Denver, Seattle, San Francisco, and Las Vegas. Business Continuity, PCI-DSS and Environmental Concerns • Business continuity is the process of ensuring that the business can operate should a disaster occur which affects information technology systems. This is especially important for common use implementations, as the airport operator now owns information technology systems that are key to the airlines business operation. In order to meet service level expectations, the air- port operator should consider a business continuity plan that provides for redundant systems, data back up and retrieval, and even off-site duplication. It is paramount that the airport oper- ator conducts a business assessment to determine the types of risks that exist, if any of those risks are likely to occur, and the mitigation necessary to avoid critical down-time due to the occurrence of those risks. • Sustainability is a key component in today’s aviation environment. Sustainability can be as lit- tle as turning off monitors and computers when not in use, to full integration of building man- agement systems to reduce power consumption at low use times. Sustainability is also key in the design and construction process. ACI has created a working group under the BIT which is addressing the sustainability issues for IT. • The payment card industry (PCI) security standards council, an assembly of major credit card companies (Visa, MasterCard, American Express, etc.), was formed to manage the ongoing evolution of the PCI Data Security Standard (DSS). The PCI DSS is a standard that was devel- oped to safeguard customer information and prevent credit card fraud. PCI DSS compliance is required in order to process credit cards. PCI compliance is required for those who (Security Standard Council, 2009): – Collect – Process – Store or – Transmit, Cardholder Data The standard has 12 requirements for compliance, which are: – Build and Maintain a Secure Network  Install and maintain a firewall configuration to protect cardholder data.  Do not use vendor-supplied defaults for system passwords and other security parameters – Protect Cardholder Data  Protect stored cardholder data  Encrypt transmission of cardholder data across open, public networks – Maintain a Vulnerability Management Program  Use and regularly update anti-virus software  Develop and maintain secure systems and applications

– Implement Strong Access Control measures.  Restrict access to cardholder data by business need-to-know  Assign a unique ID to each person with computer access  Restrict physical access to cardholder data – Regularly Monitor and Test Networks  Track and monitor all access to network resources and cardholder data  Regularly test security systems and processes – Maintain an Information Security Policy  Maintain a policy that addresses information security PCI DSS becomes important to an airport operator as they begin allowing systems that process credit cards to use airport operator owned equipment. Key systems for airport operators include parking, point of sales, and operations fee collections. As an airport moves into common use, the airport also needs to keep in mind that they will need to become certified to some level for PCI-DSS. All common use systems installed in airports which process credit card data, usually limited to customer self service (CUSS), and agent-facing common use (CUPPS), must be PCI DSS com- pliant. This will affect the network, the core infrastructure design, and the security of the telecommunications rooms, to name a few. Information Technology Maintenance 1. Airline Issues and Opportunities: a) The airline’s primary concern is that the maintenance service is provided in a manner that meets the airline’s business requirements. b) The airline’s preference as to who provides the service varies depending upon the specific airline business model. Some airlines voiced strong opinions that they prefer maintenance support through the airport operator. For airlines that take this position, they believe that the airport operator is in the best position to sustain the management of the common use system while providing their tenants a high level of service, operational availability, consis- tency and coordination with all other operational entities at their airport. Other airlines voiced equally strong opinions that maintenance support be provided through third party companies contracted to the airlines through an airline CLUB or con- sortium arrangement. Through this method, the airlines have decision making power as to how the maintenance is provided on the systems they must rely on for aircraft board- ing and passenger processing. Airlines believe issues can be resolved quickly and efficiently when they are in control of the maintenance contracts. c) Some airlines stated that they have found airport operators are not always entirely knowl- edgeable on the systems and therefore, the services provided may not be adequate. d) A primary concern voiced by airlines is that the Service Level Agreements are often nego- tiated between the airport operator and the service provider with little airline input. e) Some airlines noted that when implemented properly, airport operators provide a very good maintenance service. f) Airlines noted that communication is important. Each airport can have their own poli- cies as to how maintenance is provided, which makes it difficult for the airline to stay cur- rent with how and what changes are going to be made. g) Along with communication issues, airlines noted a primary complaint is not having good communications with the airport operator regarding problem issues that may be between airline applications and airport provided technology systems and infrastructure. B-72 Reference Guide on Understanding Common Use at Airports

Technology B-73 2. Airport Performance Issues and Opportunities: The following issues and opportunities are presented for consideration by the airport oper- ator, regarding the establishment of a maintenance program. a) Determine the maintenance model; whether it will be an airport or airline controlled model. Most likely, this decision will be determined based on the business objectives of the specific airport. At present, the airline controlled model is usually found at Large Hub Airports with common use predominately for the International traffic. Most other air- ports are selecting an airport controlled maintenance model. There are exceptions to this trend. At present, at least one small airport is pursuing an airline controlled maintenance model. b) Establish the goals of the maintenance program in coordination with the airlines. The items presented below for Service Level Agreements should be used as a starting point in the discussion. c) Determine responsibilities of support levels, where different support levels indicate a spe- cific extent of technical assistance. A typical breakdown of support levels is as follows: • Level 1 – First stop in attempting to answer all trouble calls. Helpdesk functions are typ- ically considered Level 1 support. These questions might include help with simple problems or general “how-to” questions. Most airports maintaining control of the maintenance program either are investigating, or already have moved to providing in-house staff as Level 1 support. Typical reasons given for this included: – Providing Level 1 support is an easy addition to the already existing airport helpdesk function – Economies of scale are achieved, generally with quicker response times – Helps to maintain a level of in-house expertise. • Level 2 – Technician level generally handling more complex questions that are passed on from Level 1 support. Typically, an airport operator will outsource this level of support. However, airport operators with an experienced and skilled technician team may choose to handle Level 2 support in-house. It is important to note that Level 2 outsourced sup- port does not necessarily have to be with the system provider. Airport operators have noted very successful relations with vendors experienced with these types of applications. • Level 3 – Application support level, which requires knowledge of the software and hard- ware internals. Level 3 support is generally provided by the system provider. d) Determine requirements for a Service Level Agreement (SLA). The primary purpose of a SLA is for the airport operator, or airline to define what levels of service are required of the system provider. The SLA should not attempt to define how these requirements are to be satisfied. A separate document, which the supplier prepares, should detail how the SLA is executed. It is important to note that some airports have successfully provided mainte- nance support, with having a formal SLA in place. At present, 50% of the airports inter- viewed, did not have an SLA. However, the trend is moving toward using SLAs, especially with the advent of the CUPPS Technical Specifications. In preparing the Technical Speci- fications, IATA recommends the use of a SLA and provides a template SLA in the Techni- cal Specifications, to be used as a starting point. IATA presents the following reasons for establishing an SLA: • To facilitate CUPPS implementations and to streamline the administrative and legal processes required of all CUPPS stakeholders • Allows for quick customization by “plugging in” values into the SLA body • The template has already been reviewed by airline, airport, and industry bodies, includ- ing ACI-NA’s legal department, for acceptability and suitability in terms of its business, technical, and legal content • The use of a template that is standardized across CUPPS sites provides the opportunity for users, suppliers, and providers to streamline their business and legal processes regarding SLA issues

In preparing the SLA, IATA also recommends the following subject areas be covered: • Service Levels – Hours of Operation – Availability – System Response Times – Repair Levels • Reporting of Faults – Fault Reporting Responsibility – Assignment of Security Levels – On-Site and Off-Site Support • Preventative Maintenance • Environment and Asset Management – Local Area Network (LAN) – Physical Equipment – Workstation Devices – OS Patching – Virus Protection – Responsibilities • Platform Provider Responsibilities • Management of this SLA • Performance Review • Assumptions • Resolution of Conflict Airport operators also noted that it was important to define what was not covered by the Platform Provider (or system provider), since aspects of the common use system, such as the IT infrastructure may already be in place and supported by others. e) Establish the Change Management Process in support of the SLA. As with the SLA, IATA recommends that the CUPPS SLA processes must be managed by a comprehensive, stan- dards-based change control process. The goal of change management is to ensure that meth- ods and procedures are used to efficiently and expeditiously handle changes to the common use platform and the applications or hardware that resides on the platform. In addition change management is used to minimize the impact of change related incidents or prob- lems upon the various systems and improve day-to-day operations. The airport operator should investigate industry recommendations, such as those produced by the Information Technology Infrastructure Library (ITIL). Appendix A5 has also been included in the Guide for further help and information regarding change management processes and procedures. f) Implement a continuous improvement program. Through this program, establish a means to track problem calls, so as to resolve issues that continually occur. One airport operator has initiated a program similar to this. Table B8-2 shows the frequency and type of trouble calls. Note the excessive printer issues. 3. Staffing Considerations: The following list of IT Support staff members may be required. The actual number of staff may vary, depending on size and type of installation. a) Technology Liaison with airlines – responsibilities include coordinating regular airline meetings, including focus meetings on problem resolution and continuous improvement; and project management. This person will help to resolve airline issues as noted in this section. b) Level 1 Technician Support – Helpdesk Technician c) Level 2 Technician Support d) Training – The airport operator will have to provide ongoing training as staff members are migrated in and out of support roles. B-74 Reference Guide on Understanding Common Use at Airports

Technology B-75 Common Use System Problem Calls - Issue Classifications (12 month Period) Table B8-2. Frequency and types of problem calls.