Being Prepared for IROPS: A Business-Planning and Decision-Making Approach (2014)

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.

41.1 Objective The objective of ACRP Project 10-14 was to develop and test an analytical approach and software tool to evaluate the value of projects that airports might fund to reduce the disruptive impact of irregular operations (IROPS). For the purpose of this study, the term IROPS was used to describe exceptional events that result in operational conditions beyond the airport’s normal planning activities and capabilities. The study resulted in this guidebook to understanding business planning for mitigating IROPS events and an accompanying decision support tool— the IROPS Investment Support (IRIS) Tool, an application for use in Microsoft Excel. The guidebook and the IRIS decision support tool were developed to help airport operators and others to understand the business case for funding airport improvements intended to mitigate IROPS events. In particular, IRIS helps prioritize airport funding across different mitigation initiatives addressing the impacts of one or more types of IROPS events. The tool is designed to be applicable to the widest possible range of airports, including general aviation, non-hub, small hub, medium hub, and large hub facilities. Although delays and emergencies have challenged airports since the development of modern air transportation, the issue of more disruptive IROPS events has risen to the forefront during the last 5 to 10 years. Reasons for increasingly disruptive IROPS events include increasing passenger load factors, frequency of disruptive weather events, the high level of connectivity in the U.S. National Airspace System, and growing public, media, and political attention, particularly as applied to extended tarmac delays, which have also been the focus of the regulatory response. The U.S.DOT has reacted to the potential of IROPS events to severely disrupt airport opera- tions and passenger itineraries. In particular, rules have been published that direct airlines and airports to plan for and prepare for extended tarmac delays. These rules require the preparation of contingency plans and enable the U.S.DOT to impose fines on airlines. In the airport and research communities, focus has been placed on providing information and tools for airports to plan and prepare for the risks associated with IROPS. The research presented in this guidebook represents a continuation of the emerging body of knowledge addressing planning for IROPS. Whereas the focus of previously completed research has been on operation, planning, and risk management, a missing component has been busi- ness case analysis—determining the economic value of investments in airport improvements that mitigate the impact of IROPS. Given the scarcity of airport funding and that there are a number of possible IROPS events an airport can face, a business-planning approach is needed to prioritize alternatives prior to committing funds. This guidebook presents a decision analysis approach that can be used to rapidly evaluate mitigation initiatives across a wide range of criteria. The approach is implemented in the IRIS C H A P T E R 1 Introduction

Introduction 5 decision support tool. IRIS is intended to help airports prepare business case analyses in support of IROPS investment decisions. The approach combines business-planning principles with the planning and operational expertise of the airport’s management and operational teams. It does so by taking into account preferences and constraints of the airport and its stakeholders. The main output of IRIS is a ranked list of IROPS mitigation initiatives, with quantitative scores assessing impact, benefit, cost, and overall economic value. 1.2 How to Use This Guidebook The guidebook is designed to provide a practical approach for prioritizing funding deci- sions related to mitigating the impacts of IROPS events. The guidebook contains the following information: 1. Background material on business planning for IROPS that is intended to expand the reader’s knowledge base. The guidebook describes the analytical approach and how it was implemented in IRIS. This material is intended for the reader who wants to understand the methodology used by IRIS to have a deeper understanding of the model results. 2. The IRIS User Guide, a comprehensive reference that describes the features of IRIS and provides instructions for its use. The User Guide describes how to get started, the features of the user interface, the inputs required to perform an IROPS business case analysis, and the output tables (see Appendix B). The material in the guidebook is organized to provide a logical path leading up to the use of IRIS to support IROPS-related investment decisions. This guidebook is organized as follows: • Chapter 1 provides an overview of the guidebook, objectives, information for the reader, and background material on the history of IROPS events and related research projects. • Chapter 2 covers the fundamentals of business planning for IROPS mitigations that an airport might consider funding. This chapter defines key terms that are used throughout the guidebook. It also describes how the alternative approach for IROPS investment planning presented in this guidebook augments traditional business case analysis techniques. • Chapter 3 provides detailed information on the business-planning and decision-making approach that was adapted for this project. This chapter includes an introduction to the analytic hierarchy process (AHP) methodology used in the accompanying decision support tool. • Chapter 4 is a guide to IRIS, the decision support tool that implements the business-planning approach selected for IROPS investment planning. This chapter describes how to define a portfolio of IROPS investment initiatives to be evaluated, what information should be collected by the airport prior to using the tool, how this Microsoft Excel-based tool should be used, and how to interpret the results. It also describes limitations of the tool that should be under- stood prior to using the results. • Chapter 5 describes the relationships between business planning for IROPS initiatives and airport strategic planning and financing, as well as potential interactions with airport use agreements. • Chapter 6 summarizes lessons learned, drawing both on internal findings from the ACRP research project and results from an external airport demonstration project. Recommendations for future work also are included in this chapter. Where appropriate, reference material has been placed in appendixes. Appendix A contains a primer on traditional business case analysis techniques. Appendix B contains the IRIS User Guide. Appendix C contains a sample IROPS investment portfolio that can be used for training and testing purposes. Notice that full understanding of the material in this guidebook is not necessary for the purpose of using IRIS. The information provided is intended to explain the selected decision

6 Being Prepared for IROPS: A Business-Planning and Decision-Making Approach analysis approach and how it is implemented in IRIS. It provides background material to help the user understand the inner workings of IRIS and be able to explain the results. For readers who are interested in quickly getting started with IRIS, the following sections of this guidebook are recommended: • Section 2.1 Definitions • Section 2.3 Identifying Mitigation Initiatives • Section 2.7 Overview of the Business Case Methodology for IROPS Business Planning • IRIS User Guide (Appendix B) 1.3 Who Can Use This Guidebook? This guidebook can be used by all airports that are considering acquisitions or construction projects with the purpose of mitigating IROPS events. The only requirement is that each invest- ment option be associated with a cost. Costs can include soft costs, such as the value of the labor hours used by an airport’s own staff to prepare a mutual assistance plan. The focus of the business- planning approach is on airports with passenger operations. This focus mirrors the regulatory focus of the U.S.DOT, which has centered on mitigating extended tarmac delays affecting domes- tic and international passengers; however, the approach and the accompanying decision support tool are not limited to passenger applications. When developing an IROPS business plan, it will be useful to have participation and input from a broad range of functional areas at the airport. The areas of responsibilities that should be represented include: • Management: Executive leadership, policy, and overall compliance with airport mission. • Operations: Operational and certification requirements, efficiency, and safety. • Emergency Response/Law Enforcement: Operational and certification requirements, safety, and security. • Planning: Capital improvement planning, funding, and land use compatibility. • Finance: Finance, funding, and airport use agreements. At larger airports, these functional areas may be represented by separate individuals. Conversely, at a general aviation airport, the airport manager may be solely responsible for all functions. Because the decision-making approach and support tool also take into account impacts on passengers and airlines, it may be valuable to also seek tenant input into the decision-making process. The guidebook and accompanying decision support tool can also be used by decision makers and planners at regional, state, and federal agencies with oversight over the operation, management, and funding of airports. For example, state aviation planners can use the tool to compare projects proposed at different airports. The board of an airport authority may use the output of the tool to review and prioritize funding requests submitted by the airport management team. The decision support tool requires certain hardware and software to be available. These include a computer with an optical disc drive or Internet connection (to install or download IRIS) and Microsoft Excel (version 2007 or later). 1.4 History IROPS events are not a new phenomenon, but over the last few years they have received increased attention from the media, policy makers, operators, and the research community. Table 1 contains a sample of seminal and typical IROPS events that have affected U.S. airports

Introduction 7 Airport Date (Start) Description Bradley International Airport 10/29/2011 Poor weather forecasting, a heavy early winter snowstorm and a planned Instrument Landing System maintenance shutdown resulted in four aircraft diversions from the New York City airports to Bradley International Airport. The aircrafts/passengers experienced 7- to 10-hour tarmac delays at Bradley. The delays were attributed to lack of gate space because of previous diversions, snow-contaminated apron, intermittent power outages, and lack of Federal Inspection Services personnel and facilities to process international diversions. Midway Airport 4/27/2012 While in flight, a woman returning from a trip to Uganda told her mother of bites she suffered during her trip along with contact with a sick child. The mother called the local hospital for guidance on treating her daughter's symptoms. The hospital informed the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention because of the possibility of infectious disease and the woman’s travel to a tropical country. Health officials boarded the aircraft at Midway Airport when it landed. The flight was quarantined on the tarmac for 3 hours until the woman and the rest of the passengers were cleared. Seattle-Tacoma (Sea-Tac) International Airport 2/28/2001 At 10:55 a.m. a magnitude 6.8 earthquake struck Western Washington State. Sea-Tac Airport was immediately closed after the earthquake because of extensive damage to the Air Traffic Control Tower (ATCT). The tower had been constructed circa 1970 atop a building dated to the 1940s. Sufficient damage occurred to sever the welded connections at the base of the steel columns supporting the tower roof. The glass in the tower failed and the ceiling collapsed. The airport reopened the next evening using a portable control facility, and a new ATCT has since been built using modern seismic standards. King County International Airport/Boeing Field 2/28/2001 An earthquake caused minor structural and nonstructural damage to the ATCT. Soil liquefaction and lateral spreading caused gaps in the runway pavement resulting in the closure of the airport for 1 week. Denver International Airport 12/20/2006 Back-to-back snowstorms deposited an initial 24 inches of snow followed by an additional 9 inches approximately 3 days later. On top of the record snowfall, the airport and surrounding areas experienced ground blizzard conditions reducing visibilities to levels below operational minimums, closing the airport. During the closure, crews were pulled from the airfield to assure their personal safety. When it became possible for crews to resume their work, it took approximately 22 hours for the snow drifts to be cleared sufficiently to resume aircraft operations. Los Angeles International Airport 11/30/2011 High winds in the Los Angeles area caused a temporary power outage at Los Angeles International Airport and the closure of one runway due to debris. At least 20 inbound flights were diverted and flights were delayed. Detroit Metropolitan Wayne County Airport 1/2/1999 A snowstorm stranded hundreds of passengers on Northwest Airlines aircraft, which were queued on taxiways for up to 8 hours. The delays and cancellations were most severe for Northwest Airlines because the airport is a connecting hub for that carrier. As the storm increased in intensity, departing flights experienced ground delays because of snow accumulation and the deicing crews' inability to treat aircraft. Aircraft were forced to return to the terminal as gates became available. Weather conditions made it unsafe for ground personnel to properly move aircraft to hangars or remote parking areas, which prevented gates from opening to unload stranded passengers. The next day, aircraft could not be moved until the aprons and taxiways could be plowed. Passengers reported lack of food and beverages, as well as full lavatory tanks. Table 1. Historical IROPS events. (continued on next page)

8 Being Prepared for IROPS: A Business-Planning and Decision-Making Approach since 1999. The list is not meant to be exhaustive; rather, it demonstrates the range and nature of IROPS events. Notice that the table highlights several events that were widely reported in the media because of their extreme nature; however, airports also face IROPS events that have a less severe impact. Much of the initial focus on IROPS has been on extended tarmac delays and their impact on passengers. By 2012, federal rules were in place to protect passengers subjected to extended delays on both domestic and international flights (U.S.DOT 2012a). These rules require carriers to pre- pare contingency plans and give passengers the option of deplaning. They allow for substantial fines—up to $27,500 per passenger for delays extending beyond 3 hours (4 hours for international flights). After the issuance of these rules, the number of extended tarmac delays dropped sharply, but since then the number has increased somewhat (Trejos 2012). The initial regulatory actions focused on air carriers, but a subsequent rule was enacted requiring airports to file tarmac delay contingency plans (U.S.DOT 2012b). The deadline for airports to file these plans was May 14, 2012. At a minimum, these plans must address the deplanement of passengers following excessive tarmac delays, the provision of shared facilities and gates during IROPS events, and the provision of a sterile area for passengers on international flights that require U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) screening. 1.5 Related ACRP Projects This study is one of several projects conducted within the ACRP that are intended to help airports prepare for IROPS. Because this study focuses more narrowly on preparing business case analyses for possible IROPS mitigations, it is important for airports to be familiar with the broader literature on IROPS planning. Proper planning for contingencies and prolonged disruptions is by necessity a precursor to the preparation of the business case. This emerging body of research includes the following ACRP projects and publications: • ACRP Report 65: Guidebook for Airport Irregular Operations (IROPS) Contingency Planning (Nash et al. 2012), as well as a research report and Microsoft Word documents related to Ted Stevens Anchorage International Airport (ANC) 3/22/2009 Alaska's Mount Redoubt volcano erupted several times over the course of a week in late March 2009, ejecting ash into the air near Anchorage, Alaska. ANC was closed for 1 day because of the ash falling in the area. Alaska Airlines had limited flights to and from ANC for a couple of days during the red alert level, then canceled all flights to and from ANC on Thursday, March 26, 2009 after an eruption earlier in the day sent an ash cloud 65,000 feet high. Alaska Airlines had canceled more than 250 flights since March 22, affecting more than 10,000 passengers at airports in Seattle, Phoenix and Anchorage. Sea-Tac International Airport 3/22/2009 Eruptions of Alaska's Mount Redoubt volcano resulted in the diversion of numerous international/domestic cargo flights from Anchorage to Sea-Tac International Airport. According to airport officials, Sea-Tac received at least three times the normal arrivals of international cargo planes. Airports Nationwide Since 2001 According to reports from the Department of Homeland Security, airport security breaches have occurred, on average, seven times a day since 2001. Security breaches range from momentary loss of security to incidents that require terminals to be cleared and all passengers re-screened. These disruptions delay operations from a few minutes to several hours. Airport Date (Start) Description Table 1. (Continued).

Introduction 9 ACRP Project 10-10 which airports can use as interactive tools for preparing individual IROPS plans. • ACRP Report 74: Application of Enterprise Risk Management at Airports (Marsh Risk Consulting 2012). This guidebook covers risk management, which is functionally related to IROPS plan- ning. It contains a grading scheme for evaluating risks that is a useful template for developing effectiveness ratings. The project that developed ACRP Report 74 also developed an electronic tool, created using Microsoft Excel. • ACRP Project 03-18, “Operational and Business Continuity Planning for Prolonged Airport Disruptions.” The objective of this project is to develop a guidebook for airport operators to plan and prepare for catastrophic events that lead to prolonged airport closure. The project is more narrowly focused than the objectives of ACRP 10-10 and focuses on continuity planning. At the time of writing, the final deliverables had been submitted and were under editorial review. • ACRP Project 04-15, “A Tool for Developing Airport Terminal Incident Response Plans.” The objective of this research is to develop a tool to prepare and maintain incident response plans for airport terminals. Although limited to the airport landside, the resulting guide- book should help airports identify IROPS-related mitigations and initiatives. At the time of writing, this project was ongoing. For the purpose of ACRP Project 10-14, ACRP Report 65 is treated as the main collection of best management practices for operational planning for IROPS. Other sources were also reviewed, however, including 50 individual airport contingency plans for extended tarmac delays. The authors also coordinated with the principal investigators of ACRP projects that were ongoing at the time this guidebook was prepared.