National Academies Press: OpenBook

Common Use Facilities and Equipment at Airports (2008)

Chapter: Chapter Three - Advantages and Disadvantages of Common Use

« Previous: Chapter Two - Common Use Continuum
Page 13
Suggested Citation:"Chapter Three - Advantages and Disadvantages of Common Use." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2008. Common Use Facilities and Equipment at Airports. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/14164.
×
Page 13
Page 14
Suggested Citation:"Chapter Three - Advantages and Disadvantages of Common Use." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2008. Common Use Facilities and Equipment at Airports. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/14164.
×
Page 14
Page 15
Suggested Citation:"Chapter Three - Advantages and Disadvantages of Common Use." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2008. Common Use Facilities and Equipment at Airports. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/14164.
×
Page 15
Page 16
Suggested Citation:"Chapter Three - Advantages and Disadvantages of Common Use." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2008. Common Use Facilities and Equipment at Airports. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/14164.
×
Page 16

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.

13 As airports and airlines move along the common use contin- uum, it is important that they understand the advantages and disadvantages associated with common use. Although the common use model is implemented at airports, airlines have a high stake in the changes as well. Changes may affect all facets of airport operations including lease structures, oper- ating procedures, branding, traveler way-finding, mainte- nance, and software applications. Therefore, although the implementation of common use occurs at the airport, the air- port should take into consideration the impact of common use systems on the airlines that service the market. More of this will be discussed in later sections of this document. ADVANTAGES OF COMMON USE The greatest benefit driving common use in airports is more efficient use of existing airport space. Other benefits include improved traveling options for passengers and reduced capi- tal expenditures for airports and airlines. In New York’s JFK International Airport, Terminal 4 is privately operated and currently has 16 gates. The terminal is expandable by up to 42 gates. With just the current 16-gate configuration, Terminal 4 is able to support 50 different airlines. A typical domestic U.S. terminal without common use would only be able to handle 4 or 5 airlines, instead of 50. In 2005, Terminal 4 processed more than 3.2 million international departing pas- sengers within its 1.5 million square feet of space. Airlines are able to focus on flying their aircraft instead of dealing with terminal operations. As a true common use facility, the airport management is responsible for the terminal and any infrastructure required in supporting terminal operations (Guitjens 2006). Another airport with common use experience is Las Vegas McCarran International Airport. In 2006, the airport processed more than 46 million passengers through its terminals. One way the airport operator has alleviated con- gestion in the ticketing area is through the use of CUSS kiosks. Before the installation of CUSS at McCarran, indi- vidual airlines installed a number of proprietary check-in kiosks to support their customers. This caused the passenger queuing in the ticketing lobbies to become unmanageable. McCarran International Airport needed not only to control the number of kiosks installed in its ticketing lobbies, but also to find ways to move the ticketing process out to other areas of the airport and, in some cases, other areas of the city. The result of McCarran’s efforts is that ticketing lobbies, once crowded with departing passengers, have smooth pas- senger flow, and passenger queuing at the ticket counters is now limited. The airport also has the ability now to move air- lines, add airlines, and expand service as needed, given its status as a destination airport (Broderick 2004). Airlines also reap a benefit from common use. Many of the common use strategies implemented in airports actually reduce the airline costs. According to IATA, with the imple- mentation of CUSS and e-ticketing, the average cost savings on a typical return ticket is $14.50 (Rozario 2006). CUSS kiosks can also improve efficiency during the check-in process. Compared with traditional agent check-in, which can process between 20 and 25 passengers per hour, a CUSS kiosk can enable the check-in of 40 to 50 passengers per hour (“E-Ticketing Comes of Age” 2006). Even CUTE implementations can help reduce costs to airlines. Figure 4 presents a common use ticketing lobby with CUSS kiosks. Results of an interview with Lufthansa Systems revealed that CUTE sites can be 35% to 50% less expensive to start up, support, and maintain than proprietary sites. Beyond the cost savings, an airline has an opportunity to enter into a new market, or expand an existing market, at a much lower cost when that airport is common use. Airlines have a lower bar- rier to exiting a market or reducing their presence in a market as well. If the systems, infrastructure, and required accouter- ments are owned by the airport, then the airline has one less factor to consider when managing seasonal schedules. Table 2 lists the technologies that are commonly associ- ated with the common use continuum, describes the benefits of each technology for both airports and airlines, and high- lights the impact of each technology on airline operations. Although the common use continuum encompasses more than just technology, technology is a tremendous enabler to the common use continuum. AIRPORT CONSIDERATIONS FOR COMMON USE Although common use has many advantages, the major con- sideration when assessing common use is cost. Although the cost of implementing common use is significantly less than the capital cost of constructing new gates, concourses, or CHAPTER THREE ADVANTAGES AND DISADVANTAGES OF COMMON USE

terminals, the added cost is still something that must be con- sidered. If not properly planned and executed, cost overruns can have a significantly negative impact on the benefit of the common use installation. From a technology perspective, converting ticketing counters and gates to common use is expensive. The current CUTE technology required to facilitate the common use of a gate or ticketing counter is somewhat proprietary to the se- lected CUTE vendor, and therefore is generally more costly than simply purchasing a computer workstation and printer. Making the decision to implement common use also affects costs not generally first considered. For example, common use at the ticket and gate counters necessitates the replace- ment of static signage with costly dynamic signage. Cabling and network infrastructure for new equipment must also be added. There is also the cost in setting up the connections to the airline host systems, as well as the servers necessary to support the CUTE operations. In addition to technology costs, an exclusive use airport must consider the cost of ownership of assets once controlled by the individual airlines. For example, the jet bridge is an asset typically owned by the exclusive use airline. To convert a gate to common use, the airport operator must consider and evaluate the cost to own and maintain the jet bridge, adding a capital cost as well as an ongoing operational cost. Other physical property items such as waiting lounge seating, ticket and gate counters, and other items originally provided by the airline, may now be the airport operator’s responsibility. On the surface, this appears to have shifted the cost from the air- lines to the airport. Depending on how the costs are recov- ered, however, the airline most likely winds up paying the bill anyway. What basically has changed is that responsibil- ity for the asset has shifted from the airline to the airport. Costs often overlooked include the “soft costs” required to support the common use installation such as additional maintenance and administrative staff, management costs, 14 ongoing licensing, and other recurring costs. Airports and airlines also need to consider the labor implications of switching to a common use model. For example, if ground handling is moved from the airlines to the airport, the exist- ing labor contracts would need to be revisited. In the case of Montreal Trudeau airport, when the airport instituted self- tagging, the labor issues forced airport management to con- tinue using existing counter agents to handle the process of receiving the bags and injecting them into the system. Again, these costs ultimately are paid for by the airline; however, the responsibility has shifted from the airline to the airport. According to interviews, these costs become quite evident to the airport operator when support for the airport-controlled common use system is reported as “inadequate” by the airlines. Depending on the airline’s operation and the plan set forth by the airport, the airport operator may also have to consider additional storage accommodations located near the gates to allow the airlines to store items that agents use during the processing of passengers at a gate. These could include spe- cial boarding card stock, headsets, or other items that are given to the passenger at the time of boarding. The airport operator will also have to make accommodations at the tick- eting counters as well. Depending on the number of airlines serving the airport, it may also become difficult to find back office space dedicated to an individual airline. In this case, the back office space would also become common use. Airlines may also see disadvantages to common use. First, when moving from an exclusive use environment to a com- mon use environment, airlines lose some control over the use of their dedicated gates and ticket counters. For small stations, this may not be an issue, but for larger operations, airlines see this as a loss of flexibility. No longer can they assign flights to their gates based on gate utilization, but instead they must sub- mit gate requests for airport approval. In the case of a delayed flight, the airport operator manages how this flight is routed on the ground and what gates are available. At large hub airports, the hub airline generally remains in control of its gates, and in most cases those gates are not converted to common use. Air- ports also need to consider how this could affect their ability to make gates available to handle irregular operations. From a technology perspective, airlines lose some control over the quality of the systems installed, as well as the abil- ity to have direct control over the costs of those systems. In the current common use environments where system config- urations differ from airport to airport, airlines tend to have more configuration management requirements on the back end. In the future, CUPPS will 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. In a poorly implemented common use system, the ability to process passengers quickly through the check-in FIGURE 4 Common use check-in desk layout.

15 C OMMON U SE C ONTINUUM —R ELATED T ECHNOLOGIES Technology (general category) Benefit Airline Impact Access Control Shared use of security access Airport operator ma y require use of airport access control on airline controlled gates. Building Management Manages shared use of building utilities— Potential cost savings, cross billing to users I mme diate gate changes ma y im pact areas where building utilities are currently off. Baggage Reconciliation/ Tracking Manages the sortation of airline bags— Saves tim e, reduces bag loss Reduction of lost bags results in substantial cost savings. CCTV Shared use of video m onitoring Shared use of video m onitoring Communications Infrastructure Shared use of physical and electronic co mm unications Airlines ma y be forced to use shared infrastructure, which results in concerns related to ma intenance, perform ance, and accessibility. CUSS Allows sharing of check-in self-service units Significant change in airline operations (discussed throughout this paper) CUTE Allows sharing of gates/counters Significant change in airline operations (discussed throughout this paper) Dynam ic Signage Shared use of way finding/general inform ation system May im pact airlineís dedicated use of static signage or the use of airline gate inform ation displays. Gate Managem ent Manages gate/ticket counter assignm ents May im pact airline’s autom ated gate ma nage me nt system s in place. GIS Manages shared used of airport space Little to no im pact. Positive im pact can be experienced with better use of airport - related inform ation. LDCS/LBA Autom ates local departure and boarding Provides a m eans for the airport to assist with im proved boarding process Positive impact for airlines not currently using an autom ated system MUBIDS Multi-users of baggage inform ation displays —Provides mo re inform ation to the passengers in a single area May require advanced scheduling of baggage carrousels. MUFIDS Multi-users of flight inform ation displays— Efficient use of airport space; provides mo re inform ation to the passenger in a single area Affects airline use of dedicated FID system s; ma y com plicate requirem ents for data feeds. OPDB Storehouse of integrated data elem ents— Im proves use of shared data May com plicate data feed requirem ents Paging Shared use of zoned visual and audio paging—Im proved me ssaging to all airport users Im proved me ssaging to all airport users May affect means and methods airlines use to share information with passengers, particularly in the gate areas. Payroll System Used to charge shared use of resources— Im proved m eans of tenant cross-charging Little or no impact; airlines may experience im proved m eans of billing and charging. TABLE 2 COMMON USE ENABLING SYSTEMS (continued on next page)

and bag-drop procedures only moves problems to the gate area, causing delays in boarding. As an example, if the air- port purchases lower-quality printers to keep down the cost of the common use system, the boarding passes produced by those printers may not be readable by the equipment at the gate, or downstream in the airline system. There is also concern, from a technology perspective, that security can be compromised. Airlines expressed concern that there could be a breach of security within their network when operating in a common use environment. Airlines are also concerned that if one airline’s applica- tion fails, is compromised, or in some way causes the system to have a failure, then all airlines operating in that environ- ment will also fail. Most technologies available today are developed with security in mind; however, airport operators should consider this concern when preparing to implement common use. From a passenger’s perspective, common use installations have the potential to become confusing. As with all airports, way-finding is an extremely critical element of making an 16 airport easy to use. When an airport moves along the com- mon use continuum, consideration must be given to the types of signage that are used to convey information to the passen- gers. Although today most airlines have preferential gate assignments, in a fully common use airport any given airline can use any given gate. Way-finding complexity increases when an airline is located in one area one day, and then in an- other area another day. In a common use environment, static signage will not suffice. In practice, departing airline flights are generally clustered by airline, so as not to create such confusion for the passengers. However, within a terminal or concourse, signage is very important and must be considered when moving across the common use continuum. Usability of common use technology by disabled individ- uals is increasingly becoming an issue. In the United States, airports and airlines are mandated to meet Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) requirements in their construction, technology, and customer service. The predominant concept is to provide equal access to information and services. Many of the current common use technologies do not meet the equal access requirements, which will become more impor- tant as U.S.-based airports consider common use. C OMMON U SE C ONTINUUM —R ELATED T ECHNOLOGIES Technology (general category) Benefit Airline Impact Property Manage me nt System Manages shared airport space—Im proved m eans of tenant cross-charging Little or no impact; airlines may experience im proved m eans of billing and charging. Resource Management Manages airline/airport resources. Used with gate ma nagem ent. Improves airport operator’s ability to ma nage airport facility and resources used by airlines. May impact airline’s operations in ma naging dedicated space/resources. Typically, not all airline resources are ma naged by the airport resource ma nagem ent system , so that careful coordination is required between system s. VoIP Phone Allows shared use of phone system May impact airline’s current use of phones. Web Application Services Allows for shared access to airline-specific web applications through airport controlled/owned com puting system s Can result in positive impact for airline’s use of specific web-based services. Wireless Network Shared use of wireless co mm unications May impact airlines current use of wireless services. TABLE 2 (continued)

Next: Chapter Four - Airports Implementing Common Use »
Common Use Facilities and Equipment 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) Synthesis 8: Common Use Facilities and Equipment at Airports explores common use technology that enables an airport operator to take space that has previously been exclusive to a single airline and make it available for use by multiple airlines and their passengers.

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

  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!