National Academies Press: OpenBook

Reference Guide on Understanding Common Use at Airports (2010)

Chapter: Chapter 3 - Analysis and Implementation Considerations

« Previous: Chapter 2 - Common Use as Applied Throughout the Industry
Page 17
Suggested Citation:"Chapter 3 - Analysis and Implementation Considerations." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2010. Reference Guide on Understanding Common Use at Airports. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/14375.
×
Page 17
Page 18
Suggested Citation:"Chapter 3 - Analysis and Implementation Considerations." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2010. Reference Guide on Understanding Common Use at Airports. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/14375.
×
Page 18
Page 19
Suggested Citation:"Chapter 3 - Analysis and Implementation Considerations." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2010. Reference Guide on Understanding Common Use at Airports. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/14375.
×
Page 19
Page 20
Suggested Citation:"Chapter 3 - Analysis and Implementation Considerations." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2010. Reference Guide on Understanding Common Use at Airports. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/14375.
×
Page 20
Page 21
Suggested Citation:"Chapter 3 - Analysis and Implementation Considerations." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2010. Reference Guide on Understanding Common Use at Airports. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/14375.
×
Page 21
Page 22
Suggested Citation:"Chapter 3 - Analysis and Implementation Considerations." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2010. Reference Guide on Understanding Common Use at Airports. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/14375.
×
Page 22
Page 23
Suggested Citation:"Chapter 3 - Analysis and Implementation Considerations." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2010. Reference Guide on Understanding Common Use at Airports. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/14375.
×
Page 23
Page 24
Suggested Citation:"Chapter 3 - Analysis and Implementation Considerations." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2010. Reference Guide on Understanding Common Use at Airports. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/14375.
×
Page 24
Page 25
Suggested Citation:"Chapter 3 - Analysis and Implementation Considerations." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2010. Reference Guide on Understanding Common Use at Airports. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/14375.
×
Page 25
Page 26
Suggested Citation:"Chapter 3 - Analysis and Implementation Considerations." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2010. Reference Guide on Understanding Common Use at Airports. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/14375.
×
Page 26
Page 27
Suggested Citation:"Chapter 3 - Analysis and Implementation Considerations." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2010. Reference Guide on Understanding Common Use at Airports. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/14375.
×
Page 27
Page 28
Suggested Citation:"Chapter 3 - Analysis and Implementation Considerations." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2010. Reference Guide on Understanding Common Use at Airports. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/14375.
×
Page 28
Page 29
Suggested Citation:"Chapter 3 - Analysis and Implementation Considerations." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2010. Reference Guide on Understanding Common Use at Airports. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/14375.
×
Page 29
Page 30
Suggested Citation:"Chapter 3 - Analysis and Implementation Considerations." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2010. Reference Guide on Understanding Common Use at Airports. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/14375.
×
Page 30
Page 31
Suggested Citation:"Chapter 3 - Analysis and Implementation Considerations." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2010. Reference Guide on Understanding Common Use at Airports. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/14375.
×
Page 31
Page 32
Suggested Citation:"Chapter 3 - Analysis and Implementation Considerations." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2010. Reference Guide on Understanding Common Use at Airports. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/14375.
×
Page 32
Page 33
Suggested Citation:"Chapter 3 - Analysis and Implementation Considerations." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2010. Reference Guide on Understanding Common Use at Airports. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/14375.
×
Page 33
Page 34
Suggested Citation:"Chapter 3 - Analysis and Implementation Considerations." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2010. Reference Guide on Understanding Common Use at Airports. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/14375.
×
Page 34
Page 35
Suggested Citation:"Chapter 3 - Analysis and Implementation Considerations." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2010. Reference Guide on Understanding Common Use at Airports. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/14375.
×
Page 35
Page 36
Suggested Citation:"Chapter 3 - Analysis and Implementation Considerations." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2010. Reference Guide on Understanding Common Use at Airports. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/14375.
×
Page 36
Page 37
Suggested Citation:"Chapter 3 - Analysis and Implementation Considerations." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2010. Reference Guide on Understanding Common Use at Airports. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/14375.
×
Page 37
Page 38
Suggested Citation:"Chapter 3 - Analysis and Implementation Considerations." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2010. Reference Guide on Understanding Common Use at Airports. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/14375.
×
Page 38
Page 39
Suggested Citation:"Chapter 3 - Analysis and Implementation Considerations." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2010. Reference Guide on Understanding Common Use at Airports. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/14375.
×
Page 39
Page 40
Suggested Citation:"Chapter 3 - Analysis and Implementation Considerations." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2010. Reference Guide on Understanding Common Use at Airports. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/14375.
×
Page 40
Page 41
Suggested Citation:"Chapter 3 - Analysis and Implementation Considerations." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2010. Reference Guide on Understanding Common Use at Airports. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/14375.
×
Page 41
Page 42
Suggested Citation:"Chapter 3 - Analysis and Implementation Considerations." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2010. Reference Guide on Understanding Common Use at Airports. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/14375.
×
Page 42
Page 43
Suggested Citation:"Chapter 3 - Analysis and Implementation Considerations." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2010. Reference Guide on Understanding Common Use at Airports. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/14375.
×
Page 43
Page 44
Suggested Citation:"Chapter 3 - Analysis and Implementation Considerations." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2010. Reference Guide on Understanding Common Use at Airports. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/14375.
×
Page 44
Page 45
Suggested Citation:"Chapter 3 - Analysis and Implementation Considerations." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2010. Reference Guide on Understanding Common Use at Airports. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/14375.
×
Page 45
Page 46
Suggested Citation:"Chapter 3 - Analysis and Implementation Considerations." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2010. Reference Guide on Understanding Common Use at Airports. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/14375.
×
Page 46
Page 47
Suggested Citation:"Chapter 3 - Analysis and Implementation Considerations." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2010. Reference Guide on Understanding Common Use at Airports. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/14375.
×
Page 47
Page 48
Suggested Citation:"Chapter 3 - Analysis and Implementation Considerations." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2010. Reference Guide on Understanding Common Use at Airports. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/14375.
×
Page 48
Page 49
Suggested Citation:"Chapter 3 - Analysis and Implementation Considerations." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2010. Reference Guide on Understanding Common Use at Airports. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/14375.
×
Page 49

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.

17 This chapter discusses analysis and implementation considerations associated with common use in terms of the following major operational areas: 1. Planning 2. Design and Construction 3. Terminal Operations 4. Airside Operations 5. Facilities Maintenance 6. Business Considerations 7. Technology Each area is discussed within a section. Within each of these sections, various common-use application areas at airports applicable to the respective operational area are discussed. Each sec- tion contains a brief summary, a description of the airport application area, and issues to con- sider. Details about the issues to be considered are discussed in various appendices. Planning This section provides information needed by airport operators in considering and planning for the many aspects of common use. The information in this section is built on in subsequent sections of this chapter. This section consists of the following: • Initial Planning Steps—First steps that airport operators should consider when evaluating common use • Airport Operational and Physical Characteristics—Viability and benefit of common use, when considering these issues • Counting the Cost—Criteria to be used in helping the airport operator evaluate the viability of common use within the airport • Airport Procedural Considerations—Important aspects for the airport operator to consider as plans are put in place to move to common use Note: Detailed information on each of these operational areas can be found in Appendix B1. Initial Planning Steps Description Three steps were identified as being essential to a successful implementation of common use: • Develop a change in airport operator and airline way of thinking • Thoroughly define the business reasons behind common use • Include airlines as business partners C H A P T E R 3 Analysis and Implementation Considerations

18 Reference Guide on Understanding Common Use at Airports Issues to Consider 1. Develop a change in airport operator and airline way of thinking. Throughout the ranks of airport management and airline operations, common use is often considered an “IT” issue. Common use adds the best value when all divisions and management of air- ports, along with airline partners, contribute to the planning and business justification of implementations. 2. Thoroughly define the business reasons behind common use. There are business reasons why airport operators consider common use. Chapter 4 presents many of these reasons and includes tools to help airport operators determine their specific business reasons. 3. Include airlines as business partners. A common mistake for airport operators is to plan the implementation of common use without early input from airline business partners. Consider how best to keep airline partners active and participating in the ongoing planning and con- tinuous improvement process. For example • Establish a loyal partner program, where criteria for the program are presented clearly to the airlines. Such criteria may include reaching a set threshold for years of continued service. As part of the program, consider special arrangements with airlines achieving loyal part- ner 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 success in imple- menting such programs, care must be taken not to alienate other airlines or violate Federal regulations regarding equal treatment of air carriers. • Work with airline partners to include corporate airline staff as well the local station manager and staff. Airport Operational and Physical Characteristics Description Capacity constraints are not the only factor in determining the beneficial utilization of common use. Given that common use is not a “one-size-fits-all” solution, the operational and physical char- acteristics of an airport should be taken into account as well when considering the viability and benefit of common use. Three characteristics of an airport factor into the evaluation of common use. These are • Airport Size • Physical Configuration of the Airport • Airline Operations within the Airport Issues to Consider 1. Airport Size. The FAA defines airport size by the percent of airline passenger enplanements and categorizes airports as “large, medium, small, or non-hub” (TRB, 2003, pp. 11–12). Airport sizes, ranging from non-hub to large-hub are all finding benefit for common use. Small-hub airports increasingly are pursuing the implementation of common use. 2. Airport Physical Configuration. Airport physical configuration refers primarily to the lay- out of airport terminals, concourses, and baggage handling systems. Figure 3-1 compares these configurations. Much like airport size, physical configuration does not necessarily dic- tate the benefit of common use, but it can affect the viability of the implementation of com- mon use significantly. 3. Airline Operations. 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 passengers to their intended destinations. Airline operations probably has the greatest affect on both viability and benefit for common-use installations.

Analysis and Implementation Considerations 19 Figure 3-1. Physical airport configuration comparison. Counting the Costs of Common Use Description This section presents many of the aspects of common use where costs can be accumulated— sometimes substantial, and often times, overlooked: • Facility flexibility • The true costs of owning common-use assets • The true costs of services and support • The costs of technology Chapter 4 provides further detail on cost issues. Issues to Consider 1. Initial Assessment of Use—Facility Flexibility. Facility flexibility is a key benefit of imple- menting common use. Many of the benefits associated with facility flexibility are identified in Chapter 4. In providing this flexibility, airport operators should consider the following: • Adding the ability to use existing capacity during non-peak hours of operation. Doing so may or may not result in new flights. • 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 should ensure there is sufficient counter space to accommodate peak-hour operations. • Limitations in check-in counter operations. As with limitations in space, the airport oper- ator must consider limitations with the operations of the check-in counters. • Throughput capacity of in-line baggage screening compared with peak-operations under the planned common-use model. • Potential choke points at security check points, as shown in Figure 3-2. • Added congestion in hold room areas. 2. Assessing the True Costs of Ownership with Common-Use Assets. Common use typically results in airport operators owning and maintaining more of airport assets associated with the

20 Reference Guide on Understanding Common Use at Airports Figure 3-2. Security check point—potential choke point. operation of a common-use gate or other common-use areas. As a result, airport operators often have to buy assets from airlines. In doing so, the following issues should be considered: • Ascertain the true value of the airline asset at the time of acceptance. • Consider the cost of upgrade or replacement of major assets (e.g., passenger boarding bridges) due to operational differences under common use. 3. Assessing the True Costs of Services and Support. Throughout this chapter, the costs of ser- vices and support are discussed. In planning for common use, airport operators should con- sider the service and support elements discussed throughout this chapter, along with the ones summarized here. This is not an easy assessment and takes continued 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.” Airport operators should consider: • Increases in operational hours support. Airlines are concerned that aviation organizations are typically static and not equipped to manage the dynamic environment of common use. • Contract and labor issues. Organizational and contract hurdles can affect the support and operations of common-use gates. 4. Assessing the Costs of Technology. In planning for common use, airport operators should eval- uate how common use may affect existing technology infrastructure. Key considerations include • Ownership of communications infrastructure and demarcation points between airport operator equipment and airline-owned equipment. • Costs of supporting technology systems such as gate management and others. • Operational costs of technology support. • Emerging trends in technology that may affect common use. Airport Procedural Considerations Description In considering the successful implementation of common use, airport operators have noted several procedural considerations that must be assessed. Many of these considerations typically are included as part of the lease process for common-use gates.

Analysis and Implementation Considerations 21 Issues to Consider 1. Use Criteria. Airport operators need to determine whether common use should be manda- tory or voluntary, what happens if an airline fails to meet the minimum use, give-back criteria and take-back criteria (e.g., some airport operators have worked with the airlines to define conditions so that airlines can give back common-use facilities if the airlines no longer wants them; however, airport operators should determine if this approach will be appropriate for their airports or if take-back criteria will be better or some combination thereof), and expan- sion of use (e.g., how will airlines be allowed to expand their operations into additional com- mon use facilities if needed). 2. Use of Airline Assets and Equipment. In general, airlines prefer to maintain the right to use proprietary applications or equipment under prescribed conditions. There can be valid situ- ations where an airport operator may wish to allow the use of airline proprietary equipment at a common-use location. 3. Preparation of Policy and Procedural Documents. Airport operators noted the need for the preparations of policy and procedural documents to help with the planning and operation of common use. Some of the documents may already exist; others would be specifically estab- lished for common use. Design and Construction This section provides information needed by the airport operator in incorporating common use in a design and construction project. This section considers design and construction to be the physical addition of a new gate, concourse, or terminal which requires the use of professional engineers, architects, and licensed contractors. The information in this section is built on in sub- sequent sections of this chapter. This section discusses the following: • Initial Design—First steps airport operators should consider when incorporating common use in design projects. • Design Cycle—How incorporating common use in the design phase affects the design of the project. • Construction—During construction, elements of common use must be monitored and considered and decisions must be made so that the construction project is not affected by schedule delays. • Testing and Commissioning—Important testing and commissioning items to be considered during a construction project. Note: Detailed information on each of these operational areas can be found in Appendix B2. Initial Design Description The initial design phase is the phase of a construction project that must be completed prior to the actual designers and constructors being hired. This phase sometimes includes the cre- ation of a design narrative, a set of requirements, or some type of document to convey infor- mation to the team that will design the project. This is also the phase where the delivery method is chosen (e.g., design/bid/build, Construction Manager at Risk, and other delivery methods). Issues to Consider 1. Coordination with Airlines. Coordination with the airlines operating at the airport is paramount (see Figure 3-3). In many cases, it is not just the airlines that will be initially

22 Reference Guide on Understanding Common Use at Airports affected by the construction project, but all airlines operating at the airport, because a move toward common use can affect other areas of the airport not considered part of the original construction project. Airlines should be brought in early in the initial design process so that their needs and requirements can be identified. The design manager should coordinate with the airline station, corporate, and IT personnel—all will have input for the initial design considerations. 2. Airport Culture. As discussed in the Planning section of this Chapter, the airport operator’s culture will need to be considered, and possibly changed, to implement common use success- fully. The airport operator’s culture also can affect how decisions are made—ultimately, the culture of each airport will affect how and if a decision to include common use in the design project will be made. 3. Goals for the Project. 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 implementing common use or not. If the project is not addressing passenger process- ing, then there probably is no effect on common use. If the project is to increase, or some- how affect passenger processing capacity, the airport operator should determine if common use will apply. 4. Non-Airport Influences. Many projects have outside influences that affect the overall project. These should be identified in the initial design phase. If outside influences are identified, and common use is considered, the airport operator must determine if these outside influences will affect common use positively or negatively. 5. Airport Master Plan. As a construction project is considered, the effect on the overall airport master plan and the airport layout plan should be considered. 6. Staffing. A staffing analysis should be performed to evaluate the need for IT specialists and other staff to operate and maintain the common-use system. Design Cycle Description The design cycle is the portion of a construction project when the engineers, architects, and other design disciplines work closely with the airport operator to convert the requirements, goals, and desires identified in the initial design phase into physical drawings and specifications for use by the construction contractor. This process usually is iterative, as the designers become familiar with the initial design and understand the goals of the airport operator. Figure 3-3. Coordination with airlines.

Analysis and Implementation Considerations 23 Issues to Consider During the design cycle, the effects of common use must be considered. Coordination with other design disciplines is essential. Construction Description Once a project has been fully designed and construction documents have been prepared, the construction process begins, depending on the delivery method. Although elements of the construction process can begin at different stages with the different delivery methods, the final construction documents will dictate when final construction of the project is started. During this time, constructability issues will surface, and many elements could affect com- mon use. Issues to Consider 1. In-Field Design Changes. The design of a project probably will be changed as physical con- struction begins. Technology and operations liaisons should be considered for construction projects that include common use. Airlines should be coordinated with during the construc- tion project to address in-field design changes. 2. Inspections. Inspecting is critical for any construction project. Inspectors will look for code and safety violations, but there also needs to be an inspection for usability of the space. Testing and Commissioning Description At the end of the construction project, but prior to beneficial use of the space, testing and com- missioning must occur to ensure that the systems needed to support common use are operating properly and will support the airlines’ business processes. Issues to Consider 1. Effects on passenger processing flow 2. Effects on existing facility systems and technology 3. Test plans 4. Commissioning plans 5. Final acceptance Terminal Operations This section discusses operational issues and opportunities for areas inside the airport facil- ity, when considering a common-use installation. Relevant areas of effect and services include the following: • Check-in Counter Assignments • Gate Area Assignments • Passenger Processing in Shared-Use Areas • Airline Back Office • Terminal Security • Terminal Services Operation • Janitorial Services • Curbside Note: Detailed information on each of these operational areas can be found in Appendix B3.

24 Reference Guide on Understanding Common Use at Airports Terminal Check-in Area and Curbside Operations Description This section discusses the issues and opportunities of a common-use installation within the airport terminal check-in area (see Figure 3-4) and curbside check-in areas. Airline concerns and opportunities are noted first, followed by concerns and opportunities drawn from the experi- ence of airport operators. Issues to Consider 1. Airline Business Issues and Opportunities. Airlines noted several business reasons why common use may be a viable solution for counter and self-service check-in. Many of the rea- sons are the result of proper planning and implementation of the business issues and oppor- tunities. Airlines typically are against common-use installations where the installation hin- ders the airline business process. For the airline, the business process dictates the counter configuration. 2. Airline Operational Issues and Opportunities. Airlines invest substantially in evaluating passenger flow methodologies. Once a methodology is established, the airline begins to migrate all check-in counter operations to the new model. Airlines noted that common use can affect their passenger flow methodologies adversely, if not properly planned for. 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. Airlines noted that the size of their airport operation is not the primary decision 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 air- port operator should prepare and present its business case analysis. Figure 3-4. Terminal check-in area.

Analysis and Implementation Considerations 25 Airlines expressed concern that airline operations must not be affected by airport outages of any kind. In providing common use, airport operators should plan to mitigate outages caused by the common-use system. Airlines expressed considerable concern about the risk of lost functionality with the common-use system, when compared with the functionality the airline-specific systems provide to each operation. 3. Airline Facilities Issues and Opportunities. 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 and available for overflow and so forth are seen as beneficial. 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 operators should work with the airlines in planning for common-use spaces. 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 and operations related items were addressed by airport operators with regard to applying common use in the terminal check-in area: • Establishing the Performance Criteria. Airport operators should work closely with airlines in establishing performance criteria for check-in areas. • Establishing the Operational Criteria. Airport operators should work closely with airlines in establishing the operational criteria for check-in areas. • Define the function of the counters. Using the performance and operational characteristics established, airport operators can then layout optimum counter configurations and queu- ing areas. • Define counter configurations suited for check-in space. Figure 3-5 illustrates how a counter module might look after this step is complete. 5. Curbside Check-In. Depending on the airport, curbside check-in may or may not be a significant part of the airport’s processing of passenger check-in—there is no clear trend. Figure 3-5. Counter module example.

26 Reference Guide on Understanding Common Use at Airports Airport operators and airlines see added flexibility to curbside check-in through the use of self-service check-in kiosks. As with terminal check-in counters, airport operators may expe- rience similar benefits and obstacles for curbside check-in. Two significant hurdles that most airports must overcome when moving to common use for curbside check-in is how to process bags from multiple carriers and training the staff performing the check-in under each airline’s host system that may operate from that counter. 6. Passenger Queuing and Processing. Designing the check-in facility to provide optimum pro- cessing of passengers is a primary emphasis for airport operators and airlines. 7. Staffing Considerations. Improving the use of passenger self-service can increase the need for passenger assistance. Also, with common use, airport operators often are called on to assist passengers. Two positions should be considered: • Terminal Operations FTE • Airline Affairs FTE 8. Accessibility. Accessibility issues arise with the areas in which passengers interface. For check- in areas, this includes self-service check-in kiosks and graphic display devices. Graphic display devices can include wayfinding, airline information, and flight information displays. Further discussion on accessibility issues in these areas is in the Technology section of this Chapter. Gate Area Description This section discusses the issues and opportunities of a common-use installation within the airport terminal gate area. Issues regarding the airside and ramp control areas of the gate are dis- cussed later in this Chapter. Airline-specific concerns and opportunities are noted first and are followed by concerns and opportunities drawn from the experience of airport operators. Issues to Consider 1. Airline Issues and Opportunities. Airline issues and opportunities regarding common-use gate operations are presented in the Airside Operations section of this Chapter. Specific to the gate, in relation to other terminal areas, the airlines noted that they prefer their back offices near their gates. 2. Airport Issues and Opportunities. Performance-related items were addressed by airport operators with regard to applying common use in the terminal gate areas. Few U.S. airports are fully configured for common use throughout all gates. However, several airport operators are considering a phased-in approach to common use. Regarding the management of common-use gates, airport operators require routine monitoring of gate activity. Although gates are common use, over time, airlines may install proprietary equipment at the gates they normally operate from. In the layout of the gate area, airport operators should consider the use of passenger self-service kiosks in key gate area locations. Related Terminal Services Description This section discusses the terminal services typically associated with common-use installa- tions. Airline concerns and opportunities are noted first and are followed by concerns and opportunities drawn from the experience of airport operators. Issues to Consider 1. Airline Issues and Opportunities. Airlines generally are in favor of airport operators provid- ing terminal services as noted in this section, provided that costs and service standards are carefully planned for.

Analysis and Implementation Considerations 27 2. Airport Issues and Opportunities. At most airport locations, wheelchair services typically are provided by the supporting airline. Terminal cleaning services generally are provided by airport operators, except for airline hub operations, where hub airlines maintain a lump sum cleaning and maintenance agreement for major locations. Airside Operations This section addresses Airside Operations applications and issues that should be considered when evaluating common use. Airline concerns and opportunities are noted first, followed by concerns and opportunities drawn from the experience of airport operators. Figure 3-6 illustrates the airport area of impact, which includes the following primary opera- tional items: • Owning and Assigning Common-Use Gates • Providing Ramp Control Services • Owning and Maintaining the Passenger Boarding Bridges • Owning and Maintaining the Inbound Baggage Handling Area • Owning and Maintaining the Outbound Baggage Handling Area • Providing Ramp and Ground Handling Services • Providing Common-Use Ramps for Cargo Operations Note: Detailed information on each of these operational areas can be found in Appendix B4. Figure 3-6. Airside operation space.

28 Reference Guide on Understanding Common Use at Airports For each airport area discussed in this section, the issues and opportunities to be considered by airport operators are grouped as follows: 1. Airline Business Issues and Opportunities 2. Airline Operational Issues and Opportunities 3. Airline Facilities Issues and Opportunities 4. Airport Performance Issues and Opportunities 5. Airport Physical Considerations Issues and Opportunities 6. Staffing Considerations Issues and Opportunities 7. Accessibility Considerations Issues and Opportunities Owning and Assigning Common-Use Gates Description When considering common use, airport operators generally start at the gate. For airport operators, this area generally has the greatest effect on business. The options, however, for how to implement common use and how much to implement, are as varied as there are air- ports. Consideration of the concerns and opportunities presented in this section, along with the tools provided further in this Guide, will help airport operators make informed decisions about whether common use at the gates is appropriate and, if so, how to best plan for successful installations. Issues to Consider 1. Airline Business Issues and Opportunities. 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 business issues and opportunities noted here in this sec- tion. These include • Adding real value to the airport operator and airlines • Providing airlines with the functionality they need and airport operators with the flexibil- ity they need • Maximizing utilization of gate positions and lowering overall airline facility costs • Paying per turn for gate usage, when an airline is in need of only a few slots per day • Accommodating the temporary need of an airline • Accommodating new entrant airlines, seeking limited gate use and minimal capital costs • Providing International gate operations Airlines typically are against common-use installation where the airport operator’s instal- lation opposes the airline business process. Airlines do not see the benefit of imposing com- mon use if the particular airline maximizes the gate capacity. Airlines should have a financial reason to move to common use. The airline provides gate capacity to generate a revenue stream. Some airlines prefer that airport operators not get involved with airline affairs in terms of the use of gate and sublease opportunities. 2. Airline Operational Issues and Opportunities. 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, can be successful. The size of air- port operation is not the primary factor. Airlines oppose operating from a common-use gate because, typically, this operation is not “common” to the other airport locations they operate from. Airport operators should properly plan for the gate reallocation methodol- ogy and coordinate with the airlines. Airlines expressed a need for airport operators to define the airport’s use of Remain Over-Nights (RONs ) properly when working in com- mon use. Airlines expressed concerns that airline operations must not be affected by air- port outages of any kind. There are several operational reasons why common-use gates may be an advantage.

3. Airline Facilities Issues and Opportunities. Airlines noted the following: • Concerns regarding the consistency of the assignment of gates and operating space. • That the airport operator should provide space, but not dictate how the space is used, given that airlines typically design the gate setup to board passengers as it best seems to fit them. • Common-use space can sometimes be space-constrained. • Common baggage sort and baggage screening areas can tend to be space-constrained. • Airport operators should work with the airlines in planning for common-use spaces. • A need to coordinate storage space requirements, especially in gate and ticket counter areas. • When common use is planned and implemented appropriately, it can provide a proper level of facility flexibility. 4. Airport Performance Issues and Opportunities. The following items were addressed by air- port operators with regard to applying common use in the airside gate area: • Set the culture, goals and vision, directed from the Airport executive level, down. Define the business case by involving Airport Operations, Business/Finance, Technology, and Facilities. • Define gate management responsibilities. • Establish appropriate means and methods for managing the normal scheduling of gates. • Define gate occupancy times and criteria for compliance. • Define rules for scheduling of gates and for resolving gate conflicts. • Define rules for scheduling of gates during irregular operations. Establish clear rules regarding the scheduling of which airlines get preference during peak or irregular operations. • Define rules for RON and remote parking. 5. Airport Physical Considerations Issues and Opportunities. Issues and opportunities related to the physical considerations of the airside gates are discussed in detail in Ramp Control Ser- vices in this chapter. 6. Staffing Considerations Issues and Opportunities. The management of common use gates introduces activities, and thus staff, not normally found in daily operations of airports oper- ating without common use. Airport operators noted that the following staff positions should be considered: • Gate Manager/Planner. • Airline Liaison. • Airline Interface to the airport operator. 7. Accessibility Considerations Issues and Opportunities. Accessibility issues related to com- mon use gate management are discussed in detail in Providing Ramp Control Services and in the Terminal Operations Section of this Guide. Providing Ramp Control Services Description When considering common-use and gate operations, the airport operator generally assumes the ramp control services for the common-use gates. Some airport operators have assumed full ramp control services for all gates, common use or not. Although, this may be a growing trend for airports of all sizes, any one of the following three models can be seen at airports: • Airline provides the services through airline employees or through contracted services • Airport control through contracted services • Airport control through airport employees Ramp controllers coordinate and control departure and arrival operations of aircraft within the ramp area and ensure that aircraft are serviced and loaded. Consideration of the concerns and opportunities presented in this section, along with the tools provided further Analysis and Implementation Considerations 29

30 Reference Guide on Understanding Common Use at Airports in this Reference Guide document will help airport operators make informed decisions regarding ramp control services within common-use operations. Issues to Consider Related issues are presented in Owning and Assigning Common-Use Gates. 1. Airline Business Issues and Opportunities. Some airlines noted that if done properly, the airport operator can provide Ramp Control Services more cost effectively than can the airline. Airlines typically are against common-use installation where the airport operator opposes the airline business process. Airlines expressed concern in the handling of labor contracts when the airport operator provides some of the ramp control services. At best, this can be confusing in a common-use environment. 2. Airline Operational Issues and Opportunities. Some airlines think it best for the airport operator not to get involved with airline operations in the ramp control area. Some airlines expressed that the ability to dictate risk should be with the airline. Airlines expressed concern regarding the level of trained and experienced staff an airport operator may provide to per- form ramp control services. 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. Airlines expressed concern that airline operations must not be affected by airport outages of any kind. When airport operators provide ramp control and ground handling services, airlines expressed concern about which airlines would get scheduling preference during peak or irregular operations. Airport operators that elect to participate in these services will ultimately need to choose between airlines and the resulting winners and losers from a customer per- spective. How these decisions will be made should be defined and followed in agreement with the airline partners. 3. Airline Facilities Issues and Opportunities. Airlines noted that • Airport operators sometimes schedule flights in gate areas not suitable for their aircraft. • 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 opera- tor 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 con- trol services to common-use gates. Related issues regarding gate assignments can be found in Owning and Assigning Common-Use Gates. • Define the information sharing, communication, and coordination requirements between all stakeholders involved with ramp control • Manage gate operations at each gate • Control gate use based on the operational characteristics of each gate • Establish consistent gate striping requirements • Consider passenger boarding bridge issues • Manage and control the baggage sortation pier assignment and criteria • Establish and maintain an effective training program 5. Airport Physical Considerations Issues and Opportunities. In general, physical consid- erations issues and opportunities, with regard to ramp control, have been discussed throughout this section. Regarding the overall layout of the airport, airport operators noted the following: • Ramp control depends highly on the ability to monitor the gate areas visually. • The location and number of ramp control towers must be considered 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.

• 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 designs tend to cause blockages. 6. Staffing Considerations Issues and Opportunities. Airlines and airport operators noted the need to select ramp control managers and operators already trained and experienced in ramp control. Airport operators noted consideration must be given to the hours of operation. Care- ful consideration must also be given to labor requirements when staffing these hours and coordinating work requirements with airline ramp control personnel. Airport operators noted that the following staff positions should be considered: • Ramp Tower Manager • Ramp Controller • Ramp Managers 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. Providing Ramp and Ground Handling Services Description The airport operator assumes some level of control and/or ownership of ground handling ser- vices. These services may include • Air starter and ground power units • Baggage handling • Catering handling • Cleaning • De-icing • Lavatory service • Liaison with fuel suppliers • Push back and towing • Steps and air bridge service • Water service These services may be provided through various means. Airlines can provide service either through their employee base or through a third party, exclusive of airport involvement. Airport operators can control the number of ground handling companies and the bidding process for airlines to select from. Airport operators can mandate ground handling services through one company or through airport-provided services. Issues to Consider 1. Airline Issues and Opportunities. Typically, airlines prefer to either use their own staff or control outsourced handlers. 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. One air- line noted that for above-the-wing services, it always employs in-house staff. Even when the airline outsources the services, any given airline holds their handlers to a service level that can- not be subject to another carriers operation. 2. Airport Issues and Opportunities. Frequently, it is the smaller airports that are looking into airport-provided ground handling services. Smaller airports also claim certain advantages for airlines when the airport operator provides the ground handling services. For airports considering providing ground handling services, electing not to pursue common-use ground handling services provided opportunities to consider how to help manage the services provided. Analysis and Implementation Considerations 31

32 Reference Guide on Understanding Common Use at Airports Facilities Maintenance This section provides information on considering and planning for the many aspects of facil- ity maintenance, one of which is shown in Figure 3-7, in a common- or shared-use function. The information in this section is built on throughout the subsequent sections of this chapter. This section discusses • Terminal and Airside Facility Maintenance Support • Maintaining Major Equipment Used in Common- and Shared-Use Facility Space Note: Detailed information on each of these operational areas can be found in Appendix B5. Terminal and Airside Facility Maintenance Support Description This section discusses the issues and opportunities with providing facility maintenance support to common-use installations within the Terminal and Airside areas primarily at the common-use gates, ticket counters, and shared-use facility area. Maintenance of the technology systems associated with common use is discussed in later sections of this Chapter. Issues to Consider 1. Airline Issues and Opportunities. Most airlines agreed that the airport operator is in a good position to provide facility maintenance in the common-use areas. Even within a pre- dominantly common-use airport or common-use facility within the airport, the airline still must maintain certain exclusive-use areas. Airlines generally view that airport operators spend too much on facility maintenance. Coordination and communication are needed. 2. Airport Issues and Opportunities. In providing facility maintenance service in a common- use facility, the airport operator places a high priority on providing a consistent level of ser- vice. 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 for or will voluntarily repair Figure 3-7. Airport maintenance.

Analysis and Implementation Considerations 33 facility issues in exclusive-use areas. In general, airport operators view this as part of their responsibilities; 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 controlled means. Table 3-1 is an example of a facility matrix used by one airport operator. Even with a matrix, airport operators must regularly coordinate issues with airlines and monitor progress. An increasing number of airport operators either have or are investigating the use of sophisticated maintenance management systems. Airport operators generally noted that, even with maintenance management systems, tracking staff and changes throughout a facil- ity is challenging. 3. Staffing Considerations. In general, staffing requirements will vary from airport to airport, depending on the level of outsourced providers and the level of airline-provided facility main- tenance. Airport operators should plan for at least one additional staff member to conduct regularly scheduled facility inspections. Maintaining Major Equipment Used in Common- and Shared-Use Facility Space Description This section discusses the issues and opportunities when airport operators assume responsibil- ity for maintaining and perhaps ownership of major equipment used in common- or shared-use applications (e.g., passenger boarding bridges and baggage conveyor systems). Maintenance of the technology systems associated with common use is discussed in later sections of this Chapter. Issues to Consider 1. Airline Issues and Opportunities. 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. In general, airlines think that airport operators charge too much for preventive maintenance and general upkeep of these assets. In cases where one airline is the predominant user of an asset, such as with bag belts or bag claim devices, the predominant user generally favors maintaining ownership and/or maintenance of that asset. 2. Airport Issues and Opportunities. In most cases, airport operators prefer to assume main- tenance of the major assets used in common- or shared-use functions. Airport operators noted that the cost of ownership of the major assets typically was higher than planned. Air- port operators typically consider that performing a Predictive or Preventive Maintenance (PM)/monitoring program a best practice and, in the long run, saves money over a reactive maintenance program. Maintaining a major piece of equipment operated by someone other than the one responsible for maintenance can lead to issues with failure resolution (“who- done-it”). As with general facility maintenance, airport operators typically agreed that using a sophisticated maintenance monitoring system was important. 3. Staffing Considerations. As with general facility maintenance, staffing requirements will vary from airport to airport. Staff requirements may include • Monitoring assets • Managing a preventive maintenance program • Help desk and troubleshooting • Problem resolution • Managing contractor staff Business Considerations This section addresses business issues and opportunities that should be considered when eval- uating common use. The discussion is a high-level overview of the financial decisions that will need to be made, as well as a look at the results of research as to the common practices in the

34 Reference Guide on Understanding Common Use at Airports Table 3-1. Facilities maintenance matrix.

Analysis and Implementation Considerations 35 industry today. Airline concerns and opportunities are noted first, followed by the concerns and opportunities reflecting the experience of airport operators. Airport areas of impact are as follows: • Check-In Area • Gate Area • Shared-Use Facilities • General Business Considerations • Leasing Options for Common-Use Technology Support Note: Detailed information on each of these operational areas can be found in Appendix B6. Detailed and related costing information can be found in Chapter 4 of this Guide. Check-In Area Description This section describes the business considerations for airport operators who assume the responsibility of owning and assigning check-in counters in a common-use model. Issues to Consider 1. Airline Issues and Considerations. Most airlines stated a preference for leasing the counter exclusively, with airline-provided equipment. 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. Airlines stated a preference for a rates and charges model that distributed the cost of the common-use system across only the airlines using the common-use system. Airlines find themselves having to work in various business models, when it comes to check-in counters. Air- lines maintain, as part of their business model, the ability to market themselves as terminal of choice, starting at the airport terminal check-in area. Common use limits their ability to do so. 2. Airport Issues and Opportunities. • Cost Distributions. Although no approaches for distributing costs to common-use assets are defined, airports surveyed generally used a hybrid compensatory type model as shown in Figure 3-8. The cost centers used in this model usually consist of a Terminal Area Cost Cen- ter, Airfield Area Cost Center, and Ground Side/Support Area Cost Center (see Figure 3-9). • Rates and Charges. Airport operators use various charging models to recover costs associ- ated 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. Appendix B7 provides examples of use rates and the accompanying basis, or charge model, currently in practice at various unidentified airports. • Leasing Considerations. The current trend is for shorter term airline agreements. Of the air- port operators surveyed, only 27% currently used a term agreement over 10 years in dura- tion (see Figure 3-10). Gate Area Description This section describes the business considerations for airport operators who assume the responsibility of owning and assigning gate counters and podiums in a common-use model. Issues to Consider 1. Airline Business Issues and Opportunities. 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. Airlines stated a preference for a rates and charges model that distributed the cost

36 Reference Guide on Understanding Common Use at Airports Compensatory Hybrid Compensatory Residual 58% 34% 8% Figure 3-8. Cost distribution model. Figure 3-9. Cost centers.

Analysis and Implementation Considerations 37 10 or more years 30 days 5 years Varies 28% 18% 18% 27% Ordinance 9% Figure 3-10. Term of use agreement. Estimated Total Turns X Total Sq. Ft. Common- Use Gates Terminal Revenue Rqmt for Common-Use Gates per Sq. Ft. Figure 3-11. Gate fee per turn. of the common-use system across only the airlines using the common-use system. Airlines maintain, as part of their business model, the ability to market themselves as an airline of choice, starting at the airport terminal check-in area and continuing on to the gates. Com- mon use limits their ability to do so. 2. Airport Performance Issues and Opportunities. • 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, typically applied by total square footage of common-use gate spaces, to obtain the amount needed to recover for use of the spaces associated with a common-use gate. • 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 – Per turn, versus other models. A per turn gate fee, as shown in Figure 3-11), may be charged by dividing the allocated gate revenue requirement by the total estimated turns.) – Threshold for break-even on per-turn costs. In its fundamental application, the thresh- old 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 3-12. A shortfall or overage, as shown in Figure 3-13, can occur when the anticipated income is greater or lesser than the revenue obtained from the per turn rate based on estimated gate utilization. Based on the rates and charges provided by a major U.S. airport, the fol- lowing 6-step example, as shown in Tables 3-2 through 3-7, presents a practical applica- tion for analyzing break-even using a per turn rate reflecting different gauges of aircraft. • Leasing Considerations. Such considerations include – Use of preferential gate assignment by a non-signatory airline – Grandfathering/preferred arrangements – Minimum use and take-back criteria (see Figure 3-14). Not all airports implement a for- mal set of take-back criteria. In practice this is sometimes an unwritten policy such as if an airline drops below a certain number of turns, the airport operator will evaluate and take back use of the gate if needed. Figure 3-14 shows how surveyed airport operators defined minimum use in connection with take-back evaluations. Shared-Use Facilities Description This section describes the business considerations for airport operators who assume the responsibility of owning and assigning shared-use facilities in a common-use model. 38 Reference Guide on Understanding Common Use at Airports Fee Charged Per Turn Total Cost of Common-Use Gates Total Number of Common-Use Gates ÷ Figure 3-12. Number of turns needed for break-even per gate. Total Income Obtained From Per Turn Rates Revenue Obtained from Estimated Gate Utilization (Shortfall) / Overage =— Figure 3-13. Formula for (shortfall) /overage. Cost Per Gate Table 3-2. Step 1: Identify costs per gate.

Analysis and Implementation Considerations 39 Estimated Annual Turns Estimated Annual Turns Per Gate = Annual Turns (÷) No. of Gates (5) Daily Turns Per Gate = Annual Turns Per Gate (÷) 365 Days Estimated Turns Table 3-3. Step 2: Estimate turns. Estimated Annual Turns per Gate Assigned Weight FACTOR 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 Charge Per Turn Table 3-4. Step 3: Establish charge per turn. Revenue Per Gate Per Aircraft Class (=) Per Turn Rate (x) Estimated Annual Turns per Gate Anticipated Income Table 3-5. Step 4: Calculate anticipated income. Potential Income (100% Utilization) Table 3-6. Step 5: Calculate potential income (100% utilization). Anticipated (Shortfall)/Overage Table 3-7. Step 6: Calculate anticipated (shortfall)/overage.

40 Reference Guide on Understanding Common Use at Airports Seats Other Departures Per Gate Per Day Operations Per Gate Per Day Passengers Per Gate 17% 25% 33% 17% 8% Figure 3-14. Criteria used to define minimum use. Issues to Consider 1. Airline Business Issues and Opportunities. Airlines typically recognize the need for shared- use facilities, such as with baggage claim areas. Airlines did express concern about how air- port operators attempted to recover costs. 2. Airport Performance Issues and Opportunities. • 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. • Rates and Charges. Various rate mechanisms are used to recover costs for use of shared facil- ities, including the 90/10 split formula, per passenger fee, leased square footage, 10/45/45 formula, and other formulas. General Business Considerations Description This section describes business considerations applicable across all aspects of common use. Issues to Consider 1. Leasing Considerations. When establishing a leasing agreement for common use, the follow- ing items should be considered: • The airport operator’s right to relocate the airline operation • How damage to common-use assets will be charged • Whether the airline may use either its own printer stock or airport-supplied common stock • Rules and allowances for modifications to airport-owned common-use equipment • Network usage requirements and any other airport-owned special systems supporting the common-use operation • Allowances on airline deployment of technologies • Placement of airline-owned signage 2. Liability and Safety. When asked about 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. Because common-use assets are shared by all airlines, airport operators should build budget contingencies for damaged assets that cannot be charged directly to the responsible

Analysis and Implementation Considerations 41 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 a competi- tive advantage. If not planned and implemented properly, common-use installations can adversely affect an airline’s ability to process passengers (both at check-in and at board- ing) in the means it sees best, thus giving a very important advantage to its competitors. 5. Customer Service. Airport operators view common use as a means to improve customer service. For the airline, common use can hinder the ability to provide customer service at the level the airline requires. Unlike the airport operator, who is concerned about only the cus- tomers using its facility, the airline must address customer service across all facilities it ser- vices. To address the different perspectives, airport operators should include customer service issues as one of the key early planning items with airlines. 6. Marketing. 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. 7. Environmental/Sustainability. Common use is enabling airport operators to use new and sometimes creative ways to improve the sustainability of the airport environment. Common use provides the ability to consolidate resources from many airlines, to one, thereby promot- ing resource reductions in the following: • Power consumption • The footprint of physical machines • Thermal output (cooling requirements) • The costs of disposal hardware Some of the examples noted included • Technology: – Consolidation of communication infrastructure (e.g., copper, fiber, electronics) from many airline systems into one – Overall server and personal computer reductions – Reductions in telecommunication rooms – Reduction of emissions by providing a common source for aircraft pre-conditioned air. This allows planes to shutdown their auxiliary power units, which expend CO2 gases and cost the airlines fuel to run. Significant cost savings and significant reductions in emis- sions are expected. • Through a common means of aircraft trash collection, one airport recycles coffee grounds, saving several tons of refuse a year. Leasing Options for Common-Use Technology Support Description Airport operators typically lease technology maintenance service (and sometimes equipment) through one of the following means: • The airport operator purchases equipment and provides maintenance services (either through contracted services, or in-house staff, or a combination of the two). • The airport operator purchases equipment and airlines establish and pay for third-party main- tenance service through a Common-use Local Users Board (CLUB) arrangement. • Airlines lease equipment and maintenance services through a CLUB arrangement. • Individual airlines lease equipment and maintenance services directly with third-party providers.

42 Reference Guide on Understanding Common Use at Airports Issues to Consider Some airlines think common-use CLUBS are problematic, given that most airlines are try- ing to cut costs rather than bolster the system, resulting in unacceptable service conditions. On the other hand, airports tend to care about maintaining and improving the system. Technology This section addresses technology issues and opportunities that should be considered when evaluating common use. The technologies and resources that may be required to support those technologies are discussed as well. Emerging technologies are presented briefly—these new technologies will have an overall effect on common use. As with many technologies, over- arching industry effects also apply, so there is a discussion on PCI, sustainability, and business continuity. Airline concerns and opportunities are noted first, followed by concerns and opportunities drawn from the experience of airport operators. A critical concern for the airlines is that imple- mentation of common-use technologies often results in loss of airline-specific functionality in the equipment replaced. This loss can be both customer-facing functionality and operational func- tionality. To the extent these issues cannot be resolved, the “costs” to the airlines can be very sig- nificant. For example, some airlines have invested in developing ticket readers or gate informa- tion display systems that are not supported by most common-use installations. The airport operator should work with the airlines in identifying the potential for lost functionality and estab- lish a mutual resolution. Airport areas of impact include the following: • Common-Use System Software—Agent Facing • Common-Use System Software—Passenger Facing • Airport Communications Infrastructure • Common-Use Supporting Systems and Software • Emerging Systems/Software and IT Issues • Business Continuity, PCI-DSS, and Environmental Concerns • IT Maintenance Note: Detailed information on each of these areas can be found in Appendix B8. Common-Use System Software – Agent Facing Description The first widely used and accepted common-use system software was IATA’s Common Use Ter- minal Equipment (CUTE). It is known as an “agent-facing” system, because it is used by airline agents to manage passenger check-in and boarding. Whenever an airline agent logs onto the CUTE system, the terminal is reconfigured and connected to the airline’s host system. From an agent’s point of view, the agent is now working within his or her airline’s information technology (IT) network. CUTE was first implemented in 1984 for the Los Angeles Summer Olympic Games (Finn, 2005). It was at this point that IATA created the recommended practice (RP) 1797 defining CUTE. From 1984 until the time of the research, approximately 400 airports worldwide have installed some level of CUTE. Since 1984, several system providers have developed systems that, given the vagueness of the original CUTE RP, operate differently and impose differing airline

Analysis and Implementation Considerations 43 system modifications and requirements. This has been problematic for the airlines, which must make their software and operational model conform to each unique system. Making these mod- ifications for compatibility’s sake has been a burden for the airlines. Given the deficiencies of CUTE, IATA developed a new standard of RPs for agent-facing common-use systems called Common-Use Passenger Processing Systems (CUPPS). The first draft of the RPs and associated Technical Requirements (TR) are complete and received unani- mous approval at the Joint Passenger Services Conference (JPSC), conducted jointly by ATA and IATA. In addition to IATA, the CUPPS RP was adopted by ATA (RP 30.201) and ACI (RP 500A07), giving the RP industrywide endorsement. In the current common-use environments, using CUTE applications, where system configu- rations differ from airport to airport, airlines tend to have more configuration management requirements on the back end. A prime purpose for CUPPS is to address this issue from a tech- nology standards perspective, allowing airlines to manage only one configuration for all common- use airports in which they participate. From the airline perspective, having to deal only with the systems they implement greatly simplifies their operations. Subsequent IATA plans are that the CUPPS RP will fully replace the current CUTE RP in fall of 2009. This action will eliminate airline concerns about continuing system compatibility to manage multiple system/vendor compatibility. As of the writing of this Guide, CUPPS is under- going proof-of-concept testing at selected airport sites in the United States and other locations throughout the world. It is expected that this testing will be completed during the summer of 2009. Following completion of testing, IATA will update the TR and release it for use by the sys- tem providers. The Common-Use Self-Service (CUSS) Management Group is monitoring the progress of the CUPPS committee to assess future migration with CUPPS. Issues to Consider • Airline Issues and Opportunities. Many of the airlines, which oppose CUTE, have stated that once CUPPS is proven to meet expectations, these airlines will support CUPPS installations. – Grace period to move from CUTE Applications. – Costs, timing, and convenience of the certification and recertification process of CUPPS. – The ability to use airline proprietary systems at common-use locations. – Costs and effort to add an entrant airline to an existing CUPPS airport site. – Airlines have different needs for different types of paper stock. • Airport Performance Issues and Opportunities. – CUTE-to-CUPPS Migration/Phasing requirements are as follows:  As with airlines, airport operators are anxious for and optimistic about the approved release of CUPPS.  Recognizing the near-release of CUPPS, IATA has developed recommended statements (see Table 3-8) for inclusion in Airport Request for Proposal Packages. These statements will help the migration of a CUTE-to-CUPPS platform. – Printers are critical for an agent-facing common-use system. • Physical Considerations. Millwork can be affected by the installation of an agent-facing common- use system. Such equipment needs to be readily accessible for support and maintenance. In order to support multiple airlines, the amount of equipment installed at the check-in counters and the gates may differ from the amount of equipment installed with a proprietary system. • Staffing Considerations. Staffing issues are discussed in the technology maintenance section later in this chapter. • Accessibility. The airport operator needs to consider accessibility issues to support airline staff who may be using the equipment.

44 Reference Guide on Understanding Common Use at Airports Source: CUPPS 2008. “IATA CUPPS RFP Guidelines,” Sept 17 Retrieved May 16 2009 from http://www.cupps.aero/documents. Table 3-8. IATA CUPPS RFP Guidelines (Sept 17, 2008). Common-Use System Software—Passenger Facing Description In 2003, IATA published the Common Use Self Service (CUSS) Recommended Practice for multiple airlines to provide a check-in application for use by passengers on a single [kiosk] device (Simplifying the Business Common Use Self Service, 2006). CUSS devices run multiple airlines’ check-in applications, providing the ability to relocate the check-in process away from traditional check-in counters. Passengers can check in and print boarding passes for flights in places that heretofore were unavailable. CUSS kiosks are typically located either at or near the check-in coun- ters, or within queuing stations in the check-in areas, but other examples of kiosk locations include parking garages, rental car centers, and even off-site locations such as hotels and conven- tion centers. Approximately 80 airports worldwide have CUSS installed. CUTE has existed since 1984 while CUSS has existed since 2003. Only 60 airports worldwide have implemented both CUSS and CUTE. IATA recently updated the CUSS specification to CUSS 1.2, which addresses many of the airline-related concerns with CUSS 1.0 and 1.1.

Analysis and Implementation Considerations 45 Issues to Consider 1. Airline Issues and Opportunities. Typically, airlines tend to have more objections to CUSS than CUTE. Issues noted by the airlines include the following: • Airport operators may install CUSS kiosks in locations where an airline agent cannot see the equipment. • The costs of CUSS kiosks are expensive, starting at $12,000 per kiosk. • Airlines have developed software work-arounds for the different ways platforms operate. 2. Airport Performance Issues and Opportunities. CUTE and CUSS are not always installed together. In the United States, many airport operators are hesitant to install CUSS, primarily for two reasons: • The focus for U.S. airports has been on common-use gates. Only recently have airport operators begun to investigate common-use self-service seriously. • The airlines have already installed proprietary kiosks. Airport operators should determine if airlines will be permitted to use proprietary paper stock or be required to use the common-use paper stock. As with agent-facing common use, paper stock and printers are essential to a successful CUSS installation. Airline connec- tivity back to the host is required for CUSS kiosks. CUSS kiosks are becoming popular for remote check-in, both on the airport campus (e.g., at rental car centers and parking garages) and off the airport campus (e.g., at hotels, convention centers, and cruise ship terminals). 3. Physical Considerations. Placement of CUSS kiosks is important. Airport operators should work with the airlines to ensure that the placement of kiosks does not prevent airlines from using kiosks. Some airlines require that the kiosks be within sight of their agents for customer service/satisfaction considerations. Other airlines permit kiosks to be installed farther away so as to reduce passenger congestion in and around the check-in counters. 4. Staffing Considerations. Staffing considerations are addressed in the Technology Mainte- nance section. 5. Accessibility. Accessibility is a key issue for self-service kiosks. Several states are addressing accessibility, as well as the Federal Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). Although self- service kiosks can be designed to accommodate accessibility issues (e.g., height, reach range, and other mobility challenges), the software provided by the airlines must also be designed to use any non-standard input devices added to the kiosk for better accessibility. Airport Communications Infrastructure Description Wired and wireless networks (often referred to as premises distribution systems [PDS]) are the backbones of all other technology systems. The PDS allows technology systems to be interconnected throughout the airport campus and, if necessary, to the outside world. Although a PDS is not necessary in a common-use environment, it allows for the manage- ment of another finite resource—the space behind the walls, under the floors, in the ceilings, and in roadways. Issues to Consider 1. Airline Issues and Opportunities. Airlines state that network connectivity in a common-use environment causes poor application performance and hampers trouble-shooting. When imple- menting common use in an airport, the airport operator often does not have an upgrade pro- gram in place to ensure that the technology solution remains current. Airport operators need to work with airlines to ensure that a technology refresh in a common-use environ-

ment does not adversely affect airline business. Airlines noted that airport operators should work to ensure that the common-use system has the necessary redundancies to ensure uptime is kept at acceptable standards. 2. Airport Performance Issues and Opportunities. Airport operators that provide a common communications infrastructure can better manage the pathways, resources, and space within the airport. Both passenger-and agent-facing common-use systems have exhibited latency issues when using a wireless connection. Support of system connectivity back to the airline host system and support of connectivity from airline back-offices to airline point-of-presence loca- tions on the airport campus must be addressed early on. Network configurations—the actual configuration of the network, and the protocols that an airport operator’s network uses, seri- ously affect the ability to connect the common-use system to the airline host system. 3. Physical Considerations. IT infrastructure is supported and routed through telecommuni- cation closets, main distribution rooms, and core network rooms. Effective design of room spacing. Common-Use Supporting Systems and Software Description This section presents and discusses other technology solutions which may be used to support common use. These solutions will vary by airport, depending on the decisions made by the air- port operator, as well as factors such as airport configuration and operational decisions. Issues to Consider 1. Airline Issues and Opportunities. Most U.S.-based airlines do not need a local departure control system. This makes the business case for purchasing such a system very difficult. Air- lines tend not to use airport-operator-supplied baggage reconciliation systems. Airlines pro- vide many applications to their agents for conducting business. Airlines today have to create data feeds for each airport specific to flight information. Airlines generally are concerned with problem reporting and resolution. 2. Airport Performance Issues and Opportunities: • Local departure control systems • Gate and Resource Management Systems • Baggage Reconciliation System • FIDS / BIDS Information Displays • GIDS Gate information Displays • RIDS • Operational Database. As shown in Figure 3-15, the AODB can facilitate data sharing, reduce data entry, and ensure that the data integrity throughout the airport operator’s systems is more maintainable. • Dynamic Signage—airline information, wayfinding • Telephony • Wireless 3. Accessibility. According to the U.S. Access Board, dynamic displays are a key item to support accessibility. Emerging Systems/Software and IT Issues Description This section discusses some of the emerging technology solutions coming to the aviation industry over the next several years. These technologies focus on the passenger processing expe- 46 Reference Guide on Understanding Common Use at Airports

rience and are designed to reduce the overall cost to the airlines of processing a passenger. Because these technologies focus on passenger processing, any common-use implementation should keep these emerging technologies in mind, as well as how they may affect various busi- ness processes. Issues to Consider 1. Electronic boarding pass scanners are now being installed in several airports to support the bar coded boarding pass initiative by IATA. 2. IATA and ACI have created working groups to explore a common bag drop solution. 3. Self Tagging is currently in limited use outside of the United States. 4. 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. Analysis and Implementation Considerations 47 Figure 3-15. Air operations database (AODB).

Business Continuity, PCI-DSS, and Environmental Concerns Description This section discusses key business initiatives from an IT perspective that affect common-use implementations. Issues to Consider 1. Business continuity is the process of ensuring that the business can operate should a disaster occur that affects IT systems. This is especially important for common-use implementations, given that the airport operator now owns IT systems that are key to the airlines business operations. 2. Sustainability is a key component in today’s aviation environment. Sustainability can range from turning off monitors and computers when not in use to full integration of building management 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 Business and Information Technology Committee (BIT) which is addressing sustainability issues for IT. 3. The payment card industry (PCI) security standards council, an assembly of major credit card companies (e.g., Visa, MasterCard, and American Express), was formed to manage the ongo- ing evolution of the PCI Data Security Standard (DSS). Information Technology Maintenance Description This section discusses issues and opportunities associated with providing maintenance on common-use systems installed in airports. For common-use systems, maintenance support is either provided by airport operators or by third-party companies contracting directly with the airline(s). Airport-provided maintenance support typically includes a combination of airport staff and third-party contractor support. Issues to Consider 1. Airline Issues and Opportunities. Airlines want the maintenance services provided to meet airline business requirements. Airline preference as to who provides the service varies depending on the specific airline business model. Some airlines stated that they have found airport operators are not always entirely knowledgeable about the systems and, therefore, the services provided may not be adequate. A primary concern voiced by airlines is that the Ser- vice Level Agreements are often negotiated between the airport operator and the service provider with little airline input. Some airlines noted that when implemented properly, air- port operators provide very good maintenance service. Airlines noted that communication is important. Because each airport can have unique policies as to how maintenance is provided, it can be difficult for airlines to stay current with how and what changes are going to be made. Airlines also noted not having good communi- cations with the airport operator regarding problem issues that may be between airline applications and airport-provided technology systems and infrastructure. 2. Airport Performance Issues and Opportunities. Establishment of a maintenance program presents the following issues and opportunities for the airport operator: • Determine whether the maintenance model will be an airport- or airline-controlled model. • Establish the goals of the maintenance program in coordination with the airlines. • Determine responsibilities of support levels, where different support levels indicate a spe- cific extent of technical assistance. • Determine requirements for a Service Level Agreement (SLA). 48 Reference Guide on Understanding Common Use at Airports

• Establish the Change Management Process in support of the SLA. (Appendix A5 contains further information about change management processes and procedures.) • Implement a continuous improvement program. Table 3-9 shows the frequency and type of problem calls. Note the excessive printer issues. 3. Staffing Considerations. Various IT support staff members may be required as follows: • Technology Liaison with airlines • Level 1 Technician Support—Helpdesk Technician • Level 2 Technician Support • Training—The airport operator will have to provide ongoing training as staff members migrate in and out of support roles. The actual number of staff may vary, depending on the size and type of installation. Analysis and Implementation Considerations 49 Common-Use System Problem Calls - Issue Classifications (12-month Period) Table 3-9. Frequency and types of problem calls.

Next: Chapter 4 - Business Value Assessment »
Reference Guide on Understanding Common Use at Airports Get This Book
×
MyNAP members save 10% online.
Login or Register to save!
Download Free PDF

TRB’s Airport Cooperative Research Program (ACRP) Report 30: Reference Guide on Understanding Common Use at Airports is designed to assist airports and airlines exploring the possibility of and evaluating the appropriateness of integrating “common use” in their operations. The report’s accompanying CD-ROM provides an alternative source of and approach to the information found in the reference guide and includes spreadsheet models that can be used in analyzing and evaluating how to integrate common use.

“Common use” most generally refers to a technological method that airlines use to process passengers: at the ticket counter, at self-service kiosks, or at the gates. In this report, however, “common use” is also discussed as an operating philosophy that an airport can use in managing and administering the airport--representing a paradigm shift in the traditional tenant-landlord relationship.

The CD-ROM is also available for download from TRB’s website as an ISO image. Links to the ISO image and instructions for burning a CD-ROM from an ISO image are provided below.

Help on Burning an .ISO CD-ROM Image

Download the .ISO CD-ROM Image

(Warning: This is a large file that may take some time to download using a high-speed connection.)

View information about the February 9, 2010 TRB Webinar, which featured this report.

The October 2013 ACRP Impacts on Practice explores how the San Diego County Regional Airport Authority applied ACRP Report 30 to develop new business models for common use systems at its airport.

  1. ×

    Welcome to OpenBook!

    You're looking at OpenBook, NAP.edu's online reading room since 1999. Based on feedback from you, our users, we've made some improvements that make it easier than ever to read thousands of publications on our website.

    Do you want to take a quick tour of the OpenBook's features?

    No Thanks Take a Tour »
  2. ×

    Show this book's table of contents, where you can jump to any chapter by name.

    « Back Next »
  3. ×

    ...or use these buttons to go back to the previous chapter or skip to the next one.

    « Back Next »
  4. ×

    Jump up to the previous page or down to the next one. Also, you can type in a page number and press Enter to go directly to that page in the book.

    « Back Next »
  5. ×

    To search the entire text of this book, type in your search term here and press Enter.

    « Back Next »
  6. ×

    Share a link to this book page on your preferred social network or via email.

    « Back Next »
  7. ×

    View our suggested citation for this chapter.

    « Back Next »
  8. ×

    Ready to take your reading offline? Click here to buy this book in print or download it as a free PDF, if available.

    « Back Next »
Stay Connected!