ACRP Synthesis 8 – Common Use Facilities and Equipment at Airports

AIRPORT

COOPERATIVE

RESEARCH

PROGRAM

ACRP

SYNTHESIS 8

A Synthesis of Airport Practice

Common Use Facilities and

Equipment at Airports

ACRP OVERSIGHT COMMITTEE*

CHAIR

JAMES WILDING

Independent Consultant

VICE CHAIR

JEFF HAMIEL

Minneapolis–St. Paul

Metropolitan Airports Commission

MEMBERS

JAMES CRITES

Dallas–Ft. Worth International Airport

RICHARD DE NEUFVILLE

Massachusetts Institute of Technology

KEVIN C. DOLLIOLE

UCG Associates

JOHN K. DUVAL

Beverly Municipal Airport

STEVE GROSSMAN

Oakland International Airport

TOM JENSEN

National Safe Skies Alliance

CATHERINE M. LANG

Federal Aviation Administration

GINA MARIE LINDSEY

Los Angeles World Airports

CAROLYN MOTZ

Hagerstown Regional Airport

RICHARD TUCKER

Huntsville International Airport

EX OFFICIO MEMBERS

SABRINA JOHNSON

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

RICHARD MARCHI

Airports Council International—

North America

LAURA McKEE

Air Transport Association of America

HENRY OGRODZINSKI

National Association of State Aviation

Officials

MELISSA SABATINE

American Association of Airport

Executives

ROBERT E. SKINNER, JR.

Transportation Research Board

SECRETARY

CHRISTOPHER W. JENKS

Transportation Research Board

*Membership as of May 2008.*Membership as of June 2008.

TRANSPORTATION RESEARCH BOARD 2008 EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE*

OFFICERS

Chair: Debra L. Miller, Secretary, Kansas DOT, Topeka

Vice Chair: Adib K. Kanafani, Cahill Professor of Civil Engineering, University of California,

Berkeley

Executive Director: Robert E. Skinner, Jr., Transportation Research Board

MEMBERS

J. BARRY BARKER, Executive Director, Transit Authority of River City, Louisville, KY

ALLEN D. BIEHLER, Secretary, Pennsylvania DOT, Harrisburg

JOHN D. BOWE, President, Americas Region, APL Limited, Oakland, CA

LARRY L. BROWN, SR., Executive Director, Mississippi DOT, Jackson

DEBORAH H. BUTLER, Executive Vice President, Planning, and CIO, Norfolk Southern

Corporation, Norfolk, VA

WILLIAM A.V. CLARK, Professor, Department of Geography, University of California, Los Angeles

DAVID S. EKERN, Commissioner, Virginia DOT, Richmond

NICHOLAS J. GARBER, Henry L. Kinnier Professor, Department of Civil Engineering,

University of Virginia, Charlottesville

JEFFREY W. HAMIEL, Executive Director, Metropolitan Airports Commission, Minneapolis, MN

EDWARD A. (NED) HELME, President, Center for Clean Air Policy, Washington, DC

WILL KEMPTON, Director, California DOT, Sacramento

SUSAN MARTINOVICH, Director, Nevada DOT, Carson City

MICHAEL D. MEYER, Professor, School of Civil and Environmental Engineering, Georgia

Institute of Technology, Atlanta

MICHAEL R. MORRIS, Director of Transportation, North Central Texas Council of Governments,

Arlington

NEIL J. PEDERSEN, Administrator, Maryland State Highway Administration, Baltimore

PETE K. RAHN, Director, Missouri DOT, Jefferson City

SANDRA ROSENBLOOM, Professor of Planning, University of Arizona, Tucson

TRACY L. ROSSER, Vice President, Corporate Traffic, Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., Bentonville, AR

ROSA CLAUSELL ROUNTREE, Executive Director, Georgia State Road and Tollway Authority,

Atlanta

HENRY G. (GERRY) SCHWARTZ, JR., Chairman (retired), Jacobs/Sverdrup Civil, Inc.,

St. Louis, MO

C. MICHAEL WALTON, Ernest H. Cockrell Centennial Chair in Engineering, University of

Texas, Austin

LINDA S. WATSON, CEO, LYNX–Central Florida Regional Transportation Authority, Orlando

STEVE WILLIAMS, Chairman and CEO, Maverick Transportation, Inc., Little Rock, AR

EX OFFICIO MEMBERS

THAD ALLEN (Adm., U.S. Coast Guard), Commandant, U.S. Coast Guard, Washington, DC

JOSEPH H. BOARDMAN, Federal Railroad Administrator, U.S.DOT

REBECCA M. BREWSTER, President and COO, American Transportation Research Institute,

Smyrna, GA

PAUL R. BRUBAKER, Research and Innovative Technology Administrator, U.S.DOT

GEORGE BUGLIARELLO, Chancellor, Polytechnic University of New York, Brooklyn, and Foreign

Secretary, National Academy of Engineering, Washington, DC

SEAN T. CONNAUGHTON, Maritime Administrator, U.S.DOT

LEROY GISHI, Chief, Division of Transportation, Bureau of Indian Affairs, U.S. Department

of the Interior, Washington, DC

EDWARD R. HAMBERGER, President and CEO, Association of American Railroads, Washington, DC

JOHN H. HILL, Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administrator, U.S.DOT

JOHN C. HORSLEY, Executive Director, American Association of State Highway and

Transportation Officials, Washington, DC

CARL T. JOHNSON, Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administrator, U.S.DOT

J. EDWARD JOHNSON, Director, Applied Science Directorate, National Aeronautics and

Space Administration, John C. Stennis Space Center, MS

WILLIAM W. MILLAR, President, American Public Transportation Association, Washington, DC

NICOLE R. NASON, National Highway Traffic Safety Administrator, U.S.DOT

JAMES RAY, Acting Administrator, Federal Highway Administration, U.S.DOT

JAMES S. SIMPSON, Federal Transit Administrator, U.S.DOT

ROBERT A. STURGELL,

Acting Administrator, Federal Aviation Administration, U.S.DOT

ROBERT L. VAN ANTWERP (Lt. Gen., U.S. Army), Chief of Engineers and Commanding

General, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Washington, DC

TRANSPORTATION RESEARCH BOARD

WASHINGTON, D.C.

2008

www.TRB.org

AIRPORT COOPERATIVE RESEARCH PROGRAM

ACRP SYNTHESIS 8

Research Sponsored by the Federal Aviation Administration

SUBJECT AREAS

Aviation

Common Use Facilities and

Equipment at Airports

A Synthesis of Airport Practice

CONSULTANT

RICK BELLIOTTI

Barich, Inc.

Chandler, Arizona

AIRPORT COOPERATIVE RESEARCH PROGRAM

Airports are vital national resources. They serve a key role in

transportation of people and goods and in regional, national, and

international commerce. They are where the nation’s aviation sys-

tem connects with other modes of transportation and where federal

responsibility for managing and regulating air traffic operations

intersects with the role of state and local governments that own and

operate most airports. Research is necessary to solve common oper-

ating problems, to adapt appropriate new technologies from other

industries, and to introduce innovations into the airport industry.

The Airport Cooperative Research Program (ACRP) serves as one

of the principal means by which the airport industry can develop

innovative near-term solutions to meet demands placed on it.

The need for ACRP was identiﬁed in TRB Special Report 272:

Airport Research Needs: Cooperative Solutions in 2003, based on

a study sponsored by the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA).

The ACRP carries out applied research on problems that are shared

by airport operating agencies and are not being adequately

addressed by existing federal research programs. It is modeled after

the successful National Cooperative Highway Research Program

and Transit Cooperative Research Program. The ACRP undertakes

research and other technical activities in a variety of airport subject

areas, including design, construction, maintenance, operations,

safety, security, policy, planning, human resources, and adminis-

tration. The ACRP provides a forum where airport operators can

cooperatively address common operational problems.

The ACRP was authorized in December 2003 as part of the

Vision 100-Century of Aviation Reauthorization Act. The primary

participants in the ACRP are (1) an independent governing board,

the ACRP Oversight Committee (AOC), appointed by the Secretary

of the U.S. Department of Transportation with representation from

airport operating agencies, other stakeholders, and relevant indus-

try organizations such as the Airports Council International-North

America (ACI-NA), the American Association of Airport Execu-

tives (AAAE), the National Association of State Aviation Officials

(NASAO), and the Air Transport Association (ATA) as vital links

to the airport community; (2) the TRB as program manager and sec-

retariat for the governing board; and (3) the FAA as program spon-

sor. In October 2005, the FAA executed a contract with the National

Academies formally initiating the program.

The ACRP beneﬁts from the cooperation and participation of air-

port professionals, air carriers, shippers, state and local government

officials, equipment and service suppliers, other airport users, and

research organizations. Each of these participants has different

interests and responsibilities, and each is an integral part of this

cooperative research effort.

Research problem statements for the ACRP are solicited period-

ically but may be submitted to the TRB by anyone at any time. It is

the responsibility of the AOC to formulate the research program by

identifying the highest priority projects and deﬁning funding levels

and expected products.

Once selected, each ACRP project is assigned to an expert panel,

appointed by the TRB. Panels include experienced practitioners and

research specialists; heavy emphasis is placed on including airport

professionals, the intended users of the research products. The panels

prepare project statements (requests for proposals), select contractors,

and provide technical guidance and counsel throughout the life of the

project. The process for developing research problem statements and

selecting research agencies has been used by TRB in managing coop-

erative research programs since 1962. As in other TRB activities,

ACRP project panels serve voluntarily without compensation.

Primary emphasis is placed on disseminating ACRP results to the

intended end-users of the research: airport operating agencies, service

providers, and suppliers. The ACRP produces a series of research

reports for use by airport operators, local agencies, the FAA, and other

interested parties, and industry associations may arrange for work-

shops, training aids, ﬁeld visits, and other activities to ensure that

results are implemented by airport-industry practitioners.

ACRP SYNTHESIS 8

Project 11-03, Topic S10-02

ISSN 1935-9187

ISBN 978-0-309-09805-2

Library of Congress Control Number 2008925354

Authors herein are responsible for the authenticity of their materials and for

obtaining written permissions from publishers or persons who own the

Cooperative Research Programs (CRP) grants permission to reproduce

material in this publication for classroom and not-for-profit purposes.

Permission is given with the understanding that none of the material will

be used to imply TRB or FAA endorsement of a particular product, method,

or practice. It is expected that those reproducing the material in this

document for educational and not-for-profit uses will give appropriate

acknowledgment of the source of any reprinted or reproduced material. For

other uses of the material, request permission from CRP.

NOTICE

The project that is the subject of this report was a part of the Airport

Cooperative Research Program conducted by the Transportation Research

Board with the approval of the Governing Board of the National Research

Council. Such approval reﬂects the Governing Board’s judgment that the

project concerned is appropriate with respect to both the purposes and

resources of the National Research Council.

The members of the technical advisory panel selected to monitor this

project and to review this report were chosen for recognized scholarly

competence and with due consideration for the balance of disciplines

appropriate to the project. The opinions and conclusions expressed or

implied are those of the research agency that performed the research, and

while they have been accepted as appropriate by the technical panel, they

are not necessarily those of the Transportation Research Board, the National

Research Council, or the Federal Aviation Administration of the U.S.

Department of Transportation.

Each report is reviewed and accepted for publication by the technical

panel according to procedures established and monitored by the

Transportation Research Board Executive Committee and the Governing

Board of the National Research Council.

The Transportation Research Board of the National Academies, the National

Research Council, and the Federal Aviation Administration (sponsor of

the Airport Cooperative Research Program) do not endorse products or

manufacturers. Trade or manufacturers’ names appear herein solely because

they are considered essential to the clarity and completeness of the project

reporting.

Published reports of the

AIRPORT COOPERATIVE RESEARCH PROGRAM

are available from:

Transportation Research Board

Business Office

500 Fifth Street, NW

Washington, DC 20001

and can be ordered through the Internet at

http://www.national-academies.org/trb/bookstore

Printed in the United States of America

The National Academy of Sciences is a private, nonproﬁt, self-perpetuating society of distinguished schol-

ars engaged in scientiﬁc and engineering research, dedicated to the furtherance of science and technology

and to their use for the general welfare. On the authority of the charter granted to it by the Congress in

1863, the Academy has a mandate that requires it to advise the federal government on scientiﬁc and techni-

cal matters. Dr. Ralph J. Cicerone is president of the National Academy of Sciences.

The National Academy of Engineering was established in 1964, under the charter of the National Acad-

emy of Sciences, as a parallel organization of outstanding engineers. It is autonomous in its administration

and in the selection of its members, sharing with the National Academy of Sciences the responsibility for

advising the federal government. The National Academy of Engineering also sponsors engineering programs

aimed at meeting national needs, encourages education and research, and recognizes the superior achieve-

ments of engineers. Dr. Charles M. Vest is president of the National Academy of Engineering.

The Institute of Medicine was established in 1970 by the National Academy of Sciences to secure the

services of eminent members of appropriate professions in the examination of policy matters pertainin

to the health of the public. The Institute acts under the responsibility given to the National Academy of

Sciences by its congressional charter to be an adviser to the federal government and, on its own initiative,

to identify issues of medical care, research, and education. Dr. Harvey V. Fineberg is president of the

Institute of Medicine.

The National Research Council was organized by the National Academy of Sciences in 1916 to associate

the broad community of science and technology with the Academyís p urposes of furthering knowledge and

advising the federal government. Functioning in accordance with general policies determined by the Acad-

emy, the Council has become the principal operating agency of both the National Academy of Sciences

and the National Academy of Engineering in providing services to the government, the public, and the scien-

tiﬁc and engineering communities. The Council is administered jointly by both the Academies and the Insti-

tute of Medicine. Dr. Ralph J. Cicerone and Dr. Charles M. Vest are chair and vice chair, respectively,

of the National Research Council.

The Transportation Research Board is one of six major divisions of the National Research Council. The

mission of the Transportation Research Board is to provide leadership in transportation innovation and

progress through research and information exchang

e, conducted within a setting that is objective, interdisci-

plinary, and multimodal. The Board’s varied activities annually engage about 7,000 engineers, scientists, and

other transportation researchers and practitioners from the public and private sectors and academia, all of

whom contribute their expertise in the public interest. The program is supported by state transportation depart-

ments, federal agencies including the component administrations of the U.S. Department of Transportation,

and other organizations and individuals interested in the development of transportation. www.TRB.org

www.national-academies.org

ACRP COMMITTEE FOR PROJECT 11-03

CHAIR

BURR STEWART

Port of Seattle

MEMBERS

GARY C. CATHEY

California Department of Transportation

KEVIN C. DOLLIOLE

Unison Consulting, Inc.

BERTA FERNANDEZ

Landrum & Brown

JULIE KENFIELD

Jacobs

CAROLYN MOTZ

Hagerstown Regional Airport

FAA LIAISON

LORI PAGNANELLI

ACI–NORTH AMERICA LIAISON

RICHARD MARCHI

TRB LIAISON

CHRISTINE GERENCHER

COOPERATIVE RESEARCH PROGRAMS STAFF

CHRISTOPHER W. JENKS, Director, Cooperative Research Programs

CRAWFORD F. JENCKS, Deputy Director, Cooperative Research

Programs

EILEEN P. DELANEY, Director of Publications

ACRP SYNTHESIS STAFF

STEPHEN R. GODWIN, Director for Studies and Special Programs

JON M. WILLIAMS, Associate Director, IDEA and Synthesis Studies

GAIL STABA, Senior Program Officer

DON TIPPMAN, Editor

CHERYL Y. KEITH, Senior Program Assistant

TOPIC PANEL

GERRY ALLEY, San Francisco International Airport

CHRISTINE GERENCHER, Transportation Research Board

SAMUEL INGALLS, McCarran International Airport

HOWARD KOURIK, San Diego County Regional Airport Authority

ALAIN MACA, JFK International Air Terminal, LLC

TIM McGRAW, American Airlines

ROBIN R. SOBOTTA, Embry–Riddle Aeronautical University

GIL NEUMANN, Federal Aviation Administration (Liaison)

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

Special thanks are extended to Dr. Robin Sobotta for her major con-

tributions to the common use continuum table and chart. Additional

thanks are extended to members of the Topic Panel. Thanks are also

extended to Frank Barich, Ted Melnik, Paul Reed, Justin Phy, Yvonne

Esparza, and Theresa Belliotti for their editing and content updates.

Thanks to Alexandra, Mykenzie, Courtney, Gabriella, and Lyndsee.

Special thanks also to San Francisco Airport, Las Vegas Airport, and

JFK Terminal 4 for providing images of their airports for inclusion in

this paper.

Airport operators, service providers, and researchers often face problems for which infor-

mation already exists, either in documented form or as undocumented experience and prac-

tice. This information may be fragmented, scattered, and unevaluated. As a consequence,

full knowledge of what has been learned about a problem may not be brought to bear on its

solution. Costly research ﬁndings may go unused, valuable experience may be overlooked,

and due consideration may not be given to recommended practices for solving or alleviat-

ing the problem.

There is information on nearly every subject of concern to the airport industry. Much of

it derives from research or from the work of practitioners faced with problems in their day-

to-day work. To provide a systematic means for assembling and evaluating such useful

information and to make it available to the entire airport community, the Airport Coopera-

tive Research Program authorized the Transportation Research Board to undertake a con-

tinuing project. This project, ACRP Project 11-03, “Synthesis of Information Related to

Airport Practices,” searches out and synthesizes useful knowledge from all available

sources and prepares concise, documented reports on speciﬁc topics. Reports from this

endeavor constitute an ACRP report series, Synthesis of Airport Practice.

This synthesis series reports on current knowledge and practice, in a compact format,

without the detailed directions usually found in handbooks or design manuals. Each report

in the series provides a compendium of the best knowledge available on those measures

found to be the most successful in resolving speciﬁc problems.

FOREWORD

By Gail Staba

Senior Program Officer

Transportation

Research Board

This synthesis study is intended to inform airport operators, stakeholders, and policy

makers about 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 air-

lines and their passengers.

Common use is a fundamental shift in the philosophy of airport space utilization. It

allows the airport operator to use existing space more efficiently, thus increasing the capac-

ity of the airport without necessarily constructing new gates, concourses, terminals, or

check-in counters. Common use, while not new to the airlines, is a little employed tactic in

domestic terminals in the United States airport industry.

This synthesis was prepared to help airport operators, airlines, and other interested par-

ties gain an understanding of the progressive path of implementing common use, noted as

the common use continuum. This synthesis serves as a good place to begin learning about

the state of common use throughout the world and the knowledge currently available and

how it is currently employed in the United States. It identiﬁes advantages and disadvan-

tages to airports and airlines, and touches on the effects of common use on the passenger.

This synthesis attempts to present the views of both airlines and airports so that a complete

picture of the effects of common use can be gathered.

The information for the synthesis was gathered through a search of existing literature,

results from surveys sent to airport operators and airlines, and through interviews conducted

with airport operators and airlines.

Rick Belliotti, Barich, Inc., Chandler, Arizona, collected and synthesized the informa-

tion and wrote the report. The members of the topic panel are acknowledged on the pre-

ceding page. This synthesis is an immediately useful document that records the practices

that were acceptable within the limitations of the knowledge available at the time of its

preparation. As progress in research and practice continues, new knowledge will be added

to that now at hand.

PREFACE

CONTENTS

1 SUMMARY

5 CHAPTER ONE INTRODUCTION

Background, 5

Purpose, 5

Scope, 5

Data Collection, 6

Document Organization, 6

7 CHAPTER TWO COMMON USE CONTINUUM

Exclusive Use Model, 7

Full Common Use Model, 8

Common Use Technology, 10

State of Airports Along the Continuum, 11

13 CHAPTER THREE ADVANTAGES AND DISADVANTAGES OF COMMON USE

Advantages of Common Use, 13

Airport Considerations for Common Use, 13

17 CHAPTER FOUR AIRPORTS—IMPLEMENTING COMMON USE

Technology, 17

Physical Plant, 17

Competition Planning, 18

Fiscal Management, 18

Maintenance and Support, 19

21 CHAPTER FIVE AIRLINES OPERATING IN COMMON USE

Additional Resources for Planning, Design, and Implementation, 21

Airline Operations, 22

Common Use Hardware and Software, 22

Additional Costs, 22

Branding, 23

Local Support, 23

25 CHAPTER SIX REAL-WORLD EXPERIENCE

Airlines, 25

Airports, 28

30 CHAPTER SEVEN AIRPORT CONSIDERATIONS FOR COMMON USE

IMPLEMENTATIONS

Political Backing, 31

Business Model and Business Case, 31

Assessing Impact on All Airport Operations, 31

Understanding Airline Operations, 32

Airline Agreement Modiﬁcations, 32

33 CHAPTER EIGHT ANALYSIS OF DATA COLLECTION

Survey, 33

Literature, 39

Industry Sources and Experience, 39

42 CHAPTER NINE SUMMARY OF FINDINGS AND SUGGESTIONS FOR FURTHER RESEARCH

45 GLOSSARY

47 REFERENCES

48 BIBLIOGRAPHY

49 APPENDIX A CUTE AND CUSS IMPLEMENTATIONS, WORLD-WIDE

64 APPENDIX B CASE STUDIES

69 APPENDIX C SURVEY INSTRUMENT

78 APPENDIX D COMPILED SURVEY RESULTS

116 APPENDIX E FAA INITIATIVE SUMMARIES

121 APPENDIX F SURVEY RESPONDENTS

Airport operators and airlines are trying to balance growth and costs. This search for balance

has caused airlines to consider carefully how changes at airports affect the airlines’ overall

expenses. It has also encouraged airport operators to ﬁnd alternative ways to facilitate growth

and competition, while keeping the overall charges to the airlines as low as possible. The

entry of many new low-cost carriers has also highlighted the need to keep costs down at

airports. One opportunity that airport operators around the world are seizing is the imple-

mentation of common use. Common use technology enables an airport operator to take space

that was previously assigned exclusively to a single airline and make it available for use by

multiple airlines and their passengers.

Common use is a fundamental shift in the philosophy of airport space utilization. It allows

the airport operator to use existing space more efficiently, thus increasing airport capacity

without necessarily constructing new gates, concourses, terminals, or check-in counters.

In the construction of new gates, concourses, terminals, or check-in counters, it has been

determined by de Neufville and Belin that the deployment of a common use strategy can help

an airport save up to 30% of the costs of such new construction. Common use, although not

new to the airline industry, is a seldom-employed tactic in domestic airline terminals in the

United States.

This synthesis was prepared to help airport operators, airlines, and other interested parties

gain an understanding of the progressive path of implementing common use, noted as the

“common use continuum.” It serves as an introduction to the state of common use through-

out the world, reviews the knowledge currently available, and provides examples of how it is

currently employed in the United States. The report identiﬁes advantages and disadvantages

of common use to airports and airlines, and touches on how common use affects the airline

passenger. It also presents seven case studies of real-world experiences with common use.

This synthesis presents the views of both airlines and airports so that a complete picture of

the effects of common use can be determined.

Information for this synthesis was gathered through a search of existing literature, surveys

sent to airport operators and airlines, and through interviews conducted with airport opera-

tors and airlines. Because the common use continuum is an ever-changing concept and

practice, the literature search generally was restricted to information less than seven years

old. Resources used in conducting the literature search included industry organizations [Inter-

national Air Transport Association (IATA), ATA, ACI-NA], Internet and web searches, and

vendor documents.

In conjunction with the literature search, surveys were sent to a broad sample of airports,

including European, Asian, and North American airports. The airports selected had varying

experiences with common use so as to gain an accurate picture of the state of common use

throughout the industry. Surveys were also sent to airlines from the same regions and with

the same varying experiences with common use. A total of 13 airlines and 24 airports were

invited to complete the surveys; with survey responses received from 12 airlines and 20 air-

ports, an overall response rate of 86%.

SUMMARY

COMMON USE FACILITIES AND EQUIPMENT

AT AIRPORTS

The survey responses conﬁrmed that airports outside of the United States have progressed

further along the common use continuum. This affects U.S. airlines that ﬂy to destinations

outside the United States, because they have to operate in airports that are already moving

along the common use continuum.

Interviews were conducted with representatives from airlines and airports that have

implemented common use in some fashion. The airlines interviewed included Alaska Air-

lines, American Airlines, British Airways, and Lufthansa Airlines. The airports interviewed

included Amsterdam Airport Schiphol, Las Vegas McCarran, and Frankfurt International

Airport. Interviews were also conducted at Salt Lake City Airport because it had previously

considered, but chose not to implement, common use.

The information acquired was processed and is presented in this synthesis. From the

information, the following conclusions were drawn:

• Industry-Wide Importance and Beneﬁt of the Common Use Continuum

Common use is of a growing interest to airports and airlines. Although the literature and

available recorded knowledge are limited, common use is an important ﬁeld and has a

great impact on the airport and airline community. U.S. airport operators and airlines

have an opportunity to beneﬁt from the implementation of common use technology. Air-

port operators gain by using their space more efficiently, expanding the capacity of the

airport, providing for greater competition, being more ﬂexible in the use of the space, and

creating an environment that is easier to maintain. Airlines gain greater ﬂexibility in

changing schedules (either increasing or decreasing service) and greater ease in accom-

modating failed gate equipment or other disruptive operational activities, such as con-

struction; acquire the opportunity to lower costs; and potentially obtain a lower cost of

entry into a new market. The converse is also true, in that if a common use implementa-

tion is poorly planned and implemented, airport operators and airlines stand to lose.

Passengers also recognize the beneﬁts of common use. When an airport operator

moves along the common use continuum, the passenger experience can be greatly en-

hanced. Common use enables airport operators and airlines to move the check-in

process farther from the airport, thus allowing passengers to perform at least part of the

check-in process remotely, sometimes at off-site terminals. In some cases, the passen-

ger can complete the check-in process, including baggage check, before ever entering

the airport. This allows passengers to travel more easily, without the need to carry their

baggage.

It also allows the passenger to have a more leisurely trip to the airport and to enjoy

their travels a little longer, without the stress of having to manage their luggage. Pas-

sengers arriving at an airport that has implemented common use have more time avail-

able to get to their gate and may not feel as rushed and frustrated by the traveling expe-

rience.

Passengers also beneﬁt because space utilization can be optimized as necessary to

accommodate their needs. In today’s environment, air carriers often increase their

schedules very dynamically. With dynamic changes, passengers can suffer by being

placed into waiting areas that are too small and/or occupied, and by having to cope with

concessions, restroom facilities, and stores that are unable to accommodate the

increased demand. Through common use, the airport operator is able to adjust airport

space dynamically to help accommodate passenger needs. This creates a positive expe-

rience for the passenger, and results in a positive image of both the airport and the

airline. This positive experience can lead to recognition and increased business for the

airlines and the airport operators.

• Lack of Information Resources

Throughout this process, it has become evident that the lack of resources available to

educate interested parties leads to their gaining knowledge about the beneﬁts of com-

mon use through site-speciﬁc experience—an inefficient way of learning about this

industry “best practice.” There is a signiﬁcant amount of “tribal” knowledge through-

out a portion of the industry; however, it has not been formally gathered and evaluated

for industry-wide consumption. Most of the existing documented sources consist of

vendor-provided marketing materials. Although the key concepts of common use may

be gleaned from these documents, they do not present a balanced, unbiased picture

of the common use continuum to assist stakeholders in learning about common use.

Unlike some topics, there was no central place to go to learn about the topic of common

use. Information available from industry organizations, such as IATA, is provided at a

very high level or is not freely available.

• Need for Careful Planning and Open Communication

It is important that any movement along the common use continuum be carefully con-

sidered so that the beneﬁts and concerns of all parties are addressed. Airport operators

must consider whether or not common use would be appropriate at their airport. If the

airport has only one or two dominant carriers, it may not make sense to move too far

along the common use continuum. If common use were to become widely adopted

throughout the United States, however, more of the “dominant” carriers at many loca-

tions would be inclined to work in a common use environment. In essence, this is a

“Catch-22” situation, where the wide acceptance of common use technology is some-

what dependent on it being widely accepted. Airports and airlines must work closely

together during the design of the common use strategy at each airport operator’s loca-

tion to ensure that the passengers receive the beneﬁt of the effort.

It is the airline that brings the customer to the airport, but it is the airport that is nec-

essary for the airline to operate in a given market. Both airlines and airport operators

must move toward working together cooperatively for the beneﬁt of their mutual cus-

tomer.

It is important for both airlines and airport operators to communicate openly and

honestly when introducing common use. If airport operators include airlines, ground

handlers, and other stakeholders in the design process, then all interested parties are able

to affect the outcome of the strategy, usually for the better. In addition, the airport

operators should make an extra effort to ensure that airline participation is facilitated.

Having tools that facilitate remote meetings along with face-to-face meetings is one way

to allow the inclusion of airline staff. Airlines, likewise, need to make a commitment

to participate in the process. When an airport operator moves along the common use

continuum, it is in the best interest of the airline to participate in the design. In many

cases, the airport operator will move forward without the input of the airlines, if the air-

lines refuse to participate.

• Understanding of the Airlines’ Resistance to the Common Use Continuum

In general, U.S. airlines have a skeptical view of common use for many reasons. As will

be shown in the body of this synthesis, when a non-U.S. airport operator views common

use as a proﬁt center, the airlines are not inclined to favor the initiative.

Also, when airport operators move along the common use continuum without the

input of the airlines currently serving that airport there is distrust in their motivation and

also a concern that the strategy will not support the airlines’ business processes put in

place to support their passengers. The converse is also true, in that the airlines must sup-

port the airport operators in their common use implementation strategy to ensure the air-

ports achieve maximum beneﬁt from the common use implementation.

The common use continuum continues to be of interest to airports and airlines as both

ACI–NA and IATA are at the forefront, creating the standards and recommended practices

governing the common use continuum.

Through further development, experience, and knowledge of the common use continuum,

the airport and airline industry can jointly discover new ways to accommodate growth and

competition.

BACKGROUND

The U.S. air travel industry is undergoing a period of econo-

mization to remain competitive and solvent. As a result, air-

lines and airport operators are working together to reduce

costs and make air travel more efficient. At the same time,

the air travel industry continues to look for ways to improve

customer service, the customer experience, and to speed up

the passenger processing ﬂow.

Concurrent with the airlines seeking to economize to re-

duce their operating costs is that airport operators across the

United States are regaining control of their airport re-

sources (i.e., terminals, gates, etc.) through the expiration

of long-term leases, and sometimes by airlines ceasing or

dramatically reducing operations at the airport operators’

locations. This has caused U.S. airport operators to reeval-

uate the business model used to work with airlines to ensure

the local needs of the cities being served are met, as well as

the needs of the airlines.

One solution with the potential for addressing these

needed areas of improvement is the implementation of com-

mon use. Common use 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. These

spaces include ticketing areas, gate hold rooms, gates, curb-

side areas, loading bridges, apron areas, and club spaces.

Common use provides airports and airlines with the ability to

better manage operations in the passenger processing envi-

ronment, improving passenger ﬂow and ultimately reducing

overall costs. However, even with more than two decades of

implementation history, the beneﬁts of common use are still

not adequately catalogued.

Common use may also include any space that is used or

can be used to provide a service to the passenger. In this way,

parking lots, baggage claim areas, and passageways can be

considered common use. Common use also affects physical

plant facilities such as preconditioned air and power. Other

systems typically affected include ticketing, kiosks, baggage

systems, check-in, next-generation check-in, and telephony.

Airport common use systems also are increasingly being em-

ployed in cruise ship terminals, hotels, ground transportation,

and other nonairport environments.

PURPOSE

The objective of this synthesis is to provide a document that

consolidates information on common use for airports in a sin-

gle source. This report therefore functions as a good starting

point in the understanding of common use. It is intended that

this synthesis be presented to all stakeholders, including air-

lines, airport operators, passengers, government entities,

vendors, and ground handlers.

The synthesis assembles literature and survey informa-

tion on the effect of common use on airport and airline fi-

nances, technology, operations, facilities, and business and

policy decisions. Common use information is synthesized

from the perspectives of passenger processing, ground

handling, and technology infrastructure. The synthesis

should leave the reader with a better understanding of com-

mon use and the expected risks, rewards, and issues that

may exist.

SCOPE

This synthesis presents the research conducted with airports,

relevant committees, airlines, and applicable vendors on

their collective experience with current and planned common

use strategies. Throughout the document, the synthesis draws

from both actual experiences to date, as well as from known

future developments.

Collection of information was through the following

resources:

• Existing knowledge source research:

– Objective literature from international and domestic

locations on facilities and practices (whether or not

common use is in place);

– Aviation industry emerging standards;

– Airline literature;

– International Air Transport Association’s (IATA’s)

Simplifying the Business surveys, initiatives, and

articles; and

– Applicable vendor literature.

• Airline and airport surveys (conducted in coordination

with this synthesis).

• Interviews with airport operators and airlines represent-

ing different aspects of common use implementation.

CHAPTER ONE

INTRODUCTION

DATA COLLECTION

Data for this synthesis were collected in the following ways.

First, a thorough literature search was conducted to deter-

mine the scope of available information. This search revealed

that whereas journal articles and documentation exists, it is

not abundant—highlighting the relative lack of information

on this topic industry-wide. Of the documentation found

through the literature search, it was noted that many of the

same people were interviewed for inclusion in the articles.

An Internet search was also conducted, which revealed a

limited amount of available information on common use. Most

of the information available was provided by vendors in the

form of marketing material. Although information can be

gleaned from these documents, they do not present a balanced,

unbiased picture of common use strategies to assist stakehold-

ers in the learning process. Unlike some topics, there was no

central place to go to study the topic of common use. Informa-

tion available from industry organizations, such as IATA, is

provided at a very high level or is not freely available.

Information was also obtained from IATA, vendors who

provide common use solutions, and airlines and airports that

have implemented these solutions. This information was

primarily focused on CUTE (Common Use Terminal Equip-

ment) and CUSS (Common Use Self-Service) installations

(discussed further later in this synthesis). A spreadsheet

containing the information acquired is contained in Appen-

dix A. The researchers veriﬁed the data contained in this

spreadsheet to conﬁrm their accuracy; however, as time pro-

gresses, the data will become stale, and ultimately irrelevant.

Additional information was gathered through interviews,

conversations, and experience. Although this synthesis does

not formalize the collection of this interview information,

primary use of the knowledge gathered is found in chapters

two through ﬁve.

Surveys were also conducted to find out the state of

the industry, both in implementation and understanding

of common use strategies. Full survey results can be found

in Appendix D. The survey results are analyzed later in

this document. Separate surveys were sent to airlines and

to airports. This was done primarily because the perspec-

tive of each is different, and therefore warranted different

questions.

DOCUMENT ORGANIZATION

Chapter one contains the background information required to

set the basis for the remaining chapters. Chapter two uses the

information gathered through the existing knowledge

sources noted in chapter one and presents the general pro-

gression for implementing common use. This is noted as the

“common use continuum.” This chapter discusses the vari-

ous systems and technologies typically associated with com-

mon use. To support its case, the synthesis references speciﬁc

industry documentation or “expert knowledge” sources

where applicable. Chapter three presents information on the

perceived advantages and disadvantages of common use

from airline, airport, and passenger perspectives. As with

chapter two, this chapter presents its ﬁndings from informa-

tion gathered through the existing knowledge sources noted

in chapter one. Chapters four and ﬁve build on the informa-

tion presented in chapters two and three and reviews business

and operational practices affected by common use. These

chapters further discuss modiﬁcations needed to implement

common use from both the airline and the airport perspec-

tives. Chapter six presents seven case studies representing

different aspects of “real-world” common use implementa-

tions. Further information on the case studies and the inter-

view process is included in the appendices. Chapter seven

presents airport considerations for common use implementa-

tions. Chapter eight provides the results and analysis of a

survey conducted as part of the synthesis. Chapter nine sum-

marizes the ﬁndings and presents suggestions for further

study.

Appendices are included where needed for supporting

documentation and are noted throughout this synthesis.

Airport operators and airlines are continually looking for op-

portunities to be more efficient and at the same time improve

the customer experience. In this search for efficiency, every as-

pect of the business model is reviewed, analyzed, and inspected

to determine if there are better ways to provide a more stream-

lined travel experience at a lower cost and a higher proﬁt. It is

at the airport where the goals of airports and airlines meet. Air-

lines may be looking to increase or decrease the number of

ﬂights to a given market, change seasonal ﬂight schedules to

meet demand, or adjust their ﬂeet based on the requirements of

a given market. Airport operators, on the other hand, are look-

ing for ways to improve and ensure the continuity of the service

provided to their region by adding ﬂights, adding additional air-

lines, and maximizing the use of their facilities.

One key factor in any decision making is the cost of

doing business in a given market. “Airport operators are

constantly challenged by the dual objective of needing to

maximize limited resources while providing a passenger-

friendly experience” (Finn 2005). Because of these contra-

dictory factors, airport operators are challenged with

increasing their passenger throughput while minimizing

their capital expenditures and construction. One effective

way to reduce capital expenditures is to develop programs to

utilize existing space more efficiently so that capital expen-

ditures end up being deferred. It has also been shown that

once capital expenditures are incurred for new construction

of a gate, concourse, or terminal, these costs can be reduced

by as much as 30% if a common use strategy is used in the

design (de Neufville and Belin 2002).

The concept of the common use continuum, as shown in

Figure 1, indicates that airport operators can gain centralized

control over facilities and technology, increase passenger pro-

cessing options, and acquire shared use efficiencies as they

move from exclusive use toward common use. Conversely,

airline tenants in an exclusive use arrangement retain a level

of tenant autonomy over their physical space. Airport com-

mon usable space is deﬁned as space in which any airline may

operate and, as space that is not speciﬁcally dedicated to any

single airline. As shown in Figure 1, it is highly unlikely that

any airport with more than one airline servicing it does not

provide some level of common use. Table 1 deﬁnes several

airport management models on the common use continuum,

shows key differences and beneﬁts of each, differences in

common use locations, and their impact on key stakeholders

(e.g., airlines, passengers, and airport operators).

All airports begin with a basic level of common use.

Based on interviews, once an airport facility moves beyond

the basic level, the airport operator, airlines, and passengers

begin to see additional beneﬁts with common use. Beyond

the basic level, however, there is an inherent lag-time be-

tween when an airport is capable of a common use model and

when they choose to implement that common use model. As

explained in chapter seven, there may be operational and

business considerations that have to be identiﬁed before

moving along the common use continuum.

EXCLUSIVE USE MODEL

At one end of the common use continuum is the exclusive use

model. This model deﬁnes all airline-speciﬁc space as used

exclusively by a given airline. In this model, each airline has

dedicated ticketing counters, gates, office space, ramp space,

etc. Airlines have traditionally favored this model because it

gives them the most direct control over their ﬂight schedule

and operations. The airline provides gate management and

other specialty applications to ensure efficient operations

within the airline’s allotted space. To add ﬂights, the airline

must have space available at its gates or be able to acquire

additional gates at the airport.

In the exclusive use model, airlines pay for the space, even

if the airline is not using that space. Airport operators therefore

reap the beneﬁt of having space leased whether it is actively

used or not. Another beneﬁt for the airport operator is that man-

agement of space is minimal. In the exclusive use model, air-

port operators only manage their airport usage based on airline

and total number of gates used exclusively by those airlines.

Airports, however, do not achieve maximum utilization in

the overall use of the facility, especially if the airlines that

service that airport do not have fully loaded schedules.

There will be obvious times of day when concourses will

be crowded, with many ﬂights arriving and departing at the

same time, as well as times when the concourses are com-

pletely empty. The airport operator has few options available

to manage the peaks and valleys in the demand effectively

over the course of a day.

As more ﬂight services are added within peak time peri-

ods in the airport, the airport operator must add more gates

and/or counter space. Once the airport operator is physically

CHAPTER TWO

COMMON USE CONTINUUM

unable to add more gates, the growth of service to that airport

stops. Likewise, as airlines add more ﬂights into their sched-

ule to a speciﬁc market, they must manage these ﬂights based

on the physical limitations of the exclusive space leased. At

some point, the only way to add new ﬂights or new airlines

under the exclusive use model is to remove other services or

wait until another airline relinquishes space.

In the exclusive use model, passengers are affected by the

peaks and valleys caused by the ﬂight schedules of the various

airlines. In all areas of the airport, a peak demand of ﬂights is

the root cause of congestion. “Passengers are eager to reduce

the time spent ‘processing’” (Behan 2006). To the passenger,

the airport is not the destination, but merely a point along a

journey. The goal should be to move passengers through that

point as expeditiously as possible. The exclusive use model

may be a reasonable choice for airports that do not have a large

number of airlines servicing the airport. If the airport has one

or two dominant carriers, or if a particular terminal within an

airport is dominated by a few carriers, the airport operator may

choose not to implement common use. If the airport is not re-

quired to complete a competition plan, or is not planning to add

additional airlines, then a traditional exclusive use model will

probably remain and limited common use strategies and tech-

nologies may be implemented instead. For instance, for a hub

airport, where 60% or more of the airport usage is dominated

by one airline (e.g., Salt Lake City International Airport), a

common use strategy may not make sense. The remaining

40% (or less) of airport capacity, however, may represent an

excellent opportunity for common use implementation, be-

cause the remaining 40% of the gates may be in high demand.

As will be discussed later, these “hub” airport operators need

to consider all potential scenarios that could result if one of

their dominant airlines ceased operations, or declared bank-

ruptcy, necessitating drastic changes in its operations.

FULL COMMON USE MODEL

At the other end of the common use continuum is the full com-

mon use model. In this model, all airline usable airport space

is available for use by any airline. The goal of the full common

use model is to minimize the amount of time any given airline

resource is not in use, as well as maximize the full use of the

airport. Airports beneﬁt from increased utilization of existing

resources. In a full common use airport, airlines are assigned

with no preferences given to any individual airline, similar to

the air traffic control process. For example, each aircraft is put

in the queue and assigned to a gate that best ﬁts the needs of the

airport gate management process. Technology plays a key role

in the full common use model. To manage resources properly,

computer software and systems are put in place to perform

complex calculations, monitor usage, and provide status re-

porting. There are no dedicated spaces in a full common use

airport. All resources are managed very closely by the airport

operator, and the result is an efficient use of limited resources.

Airlines are less comfortable with this model because it

removes direct control over their gate assignments within the

market. The beneﬁt of this model to the airlines, however, is

more ﬂexibility. Gates and ticket counters that were once ex-

clusively held by a competing airline 24 hours a day, 7 days

a week now become available for everyone’s use.

Airlines can enter markets, expand in markets, and even

exit markets much easier under this model because the lease

changes from exclusive to common use. Although there are

many models for leasing, airlines begin paying for only the

portion of the airport used. In addition, there are more

options available to airlines should a ﬂight be delayed. The

airline no longer has to wait for one of its exclusive gates to

become available; the ﬂight can be assigned to any available

open gate. A common use airport allows “...carriers to focus

on what they do best: moving passengers from one destina-

tion to another” (Guitjens 2006).

Airport operators must manage airport space at a more de-

tailed level under the full common use model. The airport

operator takes on full responsibility for the common use infra-

structure; any service that is space-speciﬁc must now be

viewed as common use. For example, jet bridges are now pur-

chased and maintained by the airport operator. Again, tech-

nology plays a large role in allowing this to take place. As with

space-speciﬁc resources, the common use terminal equipment

(CUTE) systems and hardware also become the airport opera-

tor’s responsibility, except in the cases of CUTE Local User

Boards (CLUB) models. Airports beneﬁt from increased uti-

lization of existing resources. A CUTE CLUB is a system in

which the airlines make the decisions on how the CUTE sys-

tem will be paid for, operated, and maintained, for the beneﬁt

of all the CUTE CLUB members. Under this scenario, the air-

port operator does not usually own the CUTE system. In the

United States this model is sometimes modiﬁed, where main-

tenance of the common use system is under a “CUTE CLUB”

type model, while the airport retains ownership of the assets.

The passengers’ experience in the full common use model

is improved as they ﬂow through the process of enplaning or

Airport Passenger Processing “Common Use” Continuum

Common

Use

Preferential

Use

Exclusive

Use

Mixed Use

FIGURE 1 Common use continuum.

Models Exclusive Use (EU) Mixed Use (MU) Preferential Use (PU) (Full) Co mm on Use (CU)

Approach

Passenger Processing

Facilities (PPFs), technology,

and agreem ents are

predom inately owned/leased

and operated by singular

users.

Som e investment and conversion

to CU PPF technology and

system s. CU equipm ent may be

installed but not implemented,

pending renegotiation.

Substantial invest me nt and conversion to

CU technology and systems. PU

agreem ents are established, allowing select

tenants priority over space under specific

term s.

Complete commitment to CU equipment,

system s, and agreem ents. (Few or no EU

or PU agreem ents.) CU ma y extend

beyond term inal curbs and walls (to ramps

and other facilities).

Common

Use

Locations

Som e baggage claim devices,

paging system s, access

control, building system s, etc.

CUTE in new/remodeled areas,

international gates/jet bridges,

CCTV, CUSS, re mo te check -

in/out, inform ation displays, etc.

CUTE at all PPFs, including ticket

counters and in gate ma nagem ent.

Extensive com puter/phone system

hard/software acquisition and integration.

CU ma y extend to ram p area: gate

ma nagem ent, ground handling (GH), and

other airport and non-airport areas.

Stakeholders EU tends to: MU tends to: PU tends to: CU tends to:

Airports

Create underutilized spaces

Deter new air service

entrants

Help to ensure air service

continuation by som e

existing airlines in

precarious ma rkets

Increase efficient use of

selected underutilized spaces

Reduce space expansion needs

Prom pt renegotiation of

existing agreem ents

Familiarize tenants with CU

Increase efficient use of underutilized

spaces

Reduce future expansion needs/costs

Increase technology costs/expenditures

Offer mo re consistency for users than

Require staff/vendor for CU

main tenance and IT functions. (Assume

risks with outages.)

Maxi mi ze efficient use of space and

technology

Require high initial technology

invest me n t , b u t resu lt in long er term per

passenger savings

Reduce future expansion needs/costs

Allow increased access to new entrants

Require staff/vendor for GH functions

Passengers

Be relatively uncomplicated

and allow ease in way-

finding

Lim it PP F choices

Increase PPF choices

Complicate way-finding, if not

consistently used

Increase PPF choices

Offer elevated tenant consistency, which

supports way-finding

Increase PPF choices

Support way-finding if coupled with

effective dynam ic signage

Tenant/Airline

Offer high tenant autonom y

and perception of ìcontrol ”

Support traditional branding

of physical spaces

Allow use of existing

co mp any

equipm ent/program s, so no

retraining/learning curve

Lim

CUTE = common use terminal equipment; CCTV = closed-circuit television; CUSS = common use self-service; IT = information technolo

it access to com petitors

Lessen tenant autonom y

Lessen opportunity for

traditional branding of spaces

Require CU technology

training (learning curve)

Allow som e increased access

and cost benefits

Create delays in transactions

atte mp ted on CU equipment

Lessen tenant autonom y

Prom pt branding concerns, unless

addressed with dynam ic signage

Require CU technical training (learning

curve)

Create dependence on non-airline

personnel (for CU system main tenance)

Provide space for em ergencies and new

service

Allow for cost savings when

underutilized spaces are released

Lessen tenant autonom y

Prom pt branding concerns, unless

addressed with dynam ic signage

Require CU technical training (learning

curve

Additionally create dependence on non-

airline personnel for ground handling

Provide space for em ergencies and new

service

Allow for cost savings when

underutilized spaces are released

TABLE 1

COMMON USE CONTINUUM

deplaning. This improvement is the result of more efficient

ﬂow through the airport. Because the overall airport space is

used more efficiently, congestion, queues, and general

crowding can be better managed and peaks in ﬂight sched-

ules can be spread across the airport more efficiently. Com-

mon use implementation can lead to satisﬁed customers and

result in awards to airports and airlines for improved cus-

tomer service, such as the Las Vegas McCarran International

Airport’s 2006 J.D. Power & Associates award for customer

service (Ingalls 2007).

As will be discussed later in this document, there are chal-

lenges, concerns, and risks involved with implementing

common use. Airport operators surveyed and interviewed for

this report indicated that often, airlines are not always will-

ing to make the change from proprietary, exclusive space, to

some other step along the common use continuum. As shown

in Table 1, as airport operators move their airports along the

common use continuum, airlines perceive a loss of autonomy

and control over their operations.

COMMON USE TECHNOLOGY

The role of technology is critical in implementing common

use because the processes needed to manage a common use

environment are complex. Technology systems can include:

• Networking—both wired and wireless,

• Passenger paging systems—both audible and visual,

• Telephone systems,

• Multi-User Flight Information Display Systems

(MUFIDS) (see Figure 2),

• Multi-User Baggage Information Display Systems

(MUBIDS),

• Resource and gate management,

• Common use terminal equipment (CUTE),

• Common use self-service kiosks (CUSS),

• Local departure control systems (LDCS),

• Airport operational database (AODB),

• Common use baggage sorting systems, and

• Baggage reconciliation.

Although this list is not exhaustive, it does demonstrate the

impact that technology has on making an airport common

use.

Common use technology implementation requires coordi-

nation among several entities, which ultimately become part-

ners in this endeavor. These partners include the platform

provider, the entity that provides the technology and the

hardware; the application provider, the entity that provides

the computer applications that operate on the technology and

the hardware; and the service provider, the entity that pro-

vides ﬁrst- and second-level support for the technology.

These partners, together with the airport operator and the air-

lines, must cooperate to make any common use technology

implementation successful (Gesell and Sobotta 2007).

Wired and wireless networks, often referred to as premises

distribution systems (PDS), are the backbones of all other

technology systems. The PDS provides a way for 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 envi-

ronment, it is does allow for the management of another ﬁnite

resource—the space behind the walls, under the ﬂoors, in the

ceilings, and in roadways.

Passenger paging systems are those systems used to com-

municate information to the passenger. Traditionally, this

system was the “white paging phone” and the audio system

required to broadcast messages throughout the airport. These

systems are installed inside buildings in almost all passenger

areas, and used by the airport staff, airlines, and public

authorities. Today, these systems are expanding to include a

visual paging component for those who are deaf or hard of

hearing.

MUFIDS are dynamic displays of airport-wide ﬂight in-

formation. These consolidated ﬂight information displays

enable passengers to quickly locate ﬂight information and

continue on their journey (see Figure 2). MUBIDS are dy-

namic displays capable of displaying arriving baggage

carousel information for more than one airline. MUFIDS,

MUBIDS, and a resource management system should inter-

act with a central AODB to aid and complement the most

efficient utilization of an airport common use system. Imple-

mentation of multi-user displays manages the space required

to communicate ﬂight information.

Resource and gate management systems allow the airport

operator to effectively manage the assignment of gates and

associated passenger processing resources to airlines. These

FIGURE 2 Multi-user ﬂight information display systems

(MUFIDS).

systems operate on complex algorithms to take into account

information such as preferential gate assignments, altered

ﬂight schedules, size of aircraft, and other factors that affect

the airline use of gates. Such systems may tie into accounting

and invoicing systems to assist the airport operator with air-

line ﬁnancial requirements.

CUTE systems allow an airport to make gates and ticket

counters common use. These systems are known as “agent-

facing” systems, because they are used by the airline agents

to manage the passenger check-in and boarding process.

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 ﬁrst created the recommended practice

(RP) 1797 deﬁning CUTE. It should be noted that ATA does

not have a similar standard for common use. From 1984 until

the present, approximately 400 airports worldwide have in-

stalled some level of CUTE.

Since 1984, several system providers have developed

systems that, owing to the vagueness of the original CUTE

RP, operate differently and impose differing airline system

modiﬁcations and requirements. This has been problematic

for the airlines, which must make their software and opera-

tional model conform with each individual, unique system.

Making these modiﬁcations for compatibility’s sake has

been a burden for the airlines.

As a result, IATA is currently developing a new standard

of RPs for common use systems called “common use pas-

senger processing systems” (CUPPS). The updated RP was

expected to gain approval at the fall 2007 Joint Passenger

Services Conference (JPSC), conducted jointly by ATA and

IATA. Subsequent IATA plans are that the CUPPS RP will

fully replace the current CUTE RP in 2008. This action will

eliminate airline concerns about continuing system compati-

bility to manage multiple system/vendor compatibility.

In addition to IATA, the CUPPS RP is to be adopted by

ATA (RP 30.201) and ACI (RP 500A07), giving the RP

industry-wide endorsement. The Common Use Self-Service

(CUSS) Management Group is monitoring the progress of

the CUPPS committee to assess future migration with

CUPPS.

“CUSS is the standard 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 appli-

cations, relocating the check-in process away from tradi-

tional check-in counters. Passengers can check in and print

boarding passes for ﬂights in places that heretofore were

unavailable. Examples include parking garages, rental car

centers, and even off-site locations such as hotels and con-

vention centers. The CUSS RP was ﬁrst published by IATA

in 2003 (Behan 2006) (see Figure 3 for a display of CUSS

kiosks).

LDCSs are stand-alone check-in and boarding systems.

These systems allow airlines that do not own or have access

to a host-based departure control system (e.g., seasonal char-

ter operators) to perform electronic check-in and boarding

procedures at the gate. Without an LDCS, airlines that do not

have access to a departure control system must board pas-

sengers through a manual process.

AODBs are the data storage backbone of a common use

strategy. These databases enable all of the technology com-

ponents of a common use environment to share data. The

AODB facilitates integration between otherwise disparate

systems and enables data analysis and reporting to be com-

pleted on various components of the common use system.

These databases also help in the calculation of charges for

airport operators. Baggage recognition systems provide the

necessary components to track bags and ensure that they

reach their intended aircraft.

Baggage reconciliation systems provide positive bag

matching, baggage tracking, and reporting functionality. As

airports move along the common use continuum, common

baggage systems, and eventually common baggage drop lo-

cations, will necessitate the need for baggage reconciliation

systems.

STATE OF AIRPORTS ALONG THE CONTINUUM

Common use acceptance and implementation differ dramat-

ically between U.S-based airports and non-U.S-based

airports. Much of this relates to the geography of the coun-

tries, as well as to the history of how airports were founded

in the United States versus other countries. In Europe, for ex-

ample, the close proximity of multiple countries makes the

FIGURE 3 Common use self-service kiosks.

majority of ﬂights international. Because these airports sup-

port more international ﬂights, they have been more disposed

to implementing common use. Historically, airports in the

United States were developed in conjunction with a ﬂagship

carrier. These relationships resulted in long leases and cre-

ated the hub airport. European airports were developed

mostly by governments and therefore do not have as many

long-term leases with ﬂagship carriers.

Although most airports started out as exclusive use, many

have begun the journey along the common use continuum.

Some U.S.-based airport operators, such as at Westchester

County Airport (White Plains, N.Y.), manage counter and

gate space by use of a lottery system (McCormick 2006),

whereas other airport operators, such as at Orlando Interna-

tional Airport, assign gates and counter space by preferential

use and historical precedence (“Common Use Facilities”

2004). Some airports employ a minimalist “use it or lose it”

approach to gate assignments.

Another U.S.-based airport that has migrated along the com-

mon use continuum is Terminal 4 at JFK. JFK, Terminal 4, is

unique in the United States in that it is operated by JFK IAT,

LLC, a private consortium of Amsterdam Airport Schiphol;

LCOR, Inc.; and Lehman Brothers. Unlike an airline-operated

terminal, Terminal 4 serves multiple international and domes-

tic airlines and manages its gate allocations (Guitjens 2006).

The Clark County Airport Authority at Las Vegas

McCarran International Airport has taken a slightly different

common use approach by moving check-in operations off

site. The airport operator has installed CUSS kiosks in

locations such as hotels, convention centers, and other desti-

nations where travelers may be located. By doing this, the

airport operator has effectively extended the stay of vaca-

tioning passengers, allowing passengers to perform most of

their check-in processes (e.g., check bags and obtain board-

ing passes) before coming to the airport.

Outside the United States, airport operators are also mov-

ing along the common use continuum. Amsterdam Airport

Schiphol has long been identiﬁed as a leader in the effort to

improve passenger processing. Much of the airport is com-

mon use, even though the airport has a dominant carrier,

KLM. Amsterdam Airport Schiphol is working on fully

automating the passenger process from check-in, through

border crossing, and ﬁnally through security.

To understand common use, it is helpful to understand,

from a technology point of view, how many airports in the

world (outside the United States) have enthusiastically

adopted CUSS and CUTE. The reason that these two systems

are a focus is because they serve as key ingredients in the

common use continuum. Based on information from vendors,

IATA, airports, and airlines, as of June 2007, approximately

400 airports worldwide had some level of CUTE installed.

Approximately 80 airports worldwide have CUSS installed.

As mentioned earlier in this document, CUTE has been in

existence since 1984, whereas CUSS has been in existence

since 2003. It is interesting to note that only 60 airports

worldwide have implemented both CUSS and CUTE (see

Appendix A for more detail).

Common use implementations are increasing annually.

For example, in 2005, seven airports had signed memoranda

of understanding with IATA to implement CUSS. By early

2006, 17 airports had implemented CUSS (Behan 2006).

From early 2006 to early 2007, the number of implementa-

tions increased to 62. Similar interest is being shown with

other common use technologies.

One airport that was interviewed, Salt Lake City, stated

that it had determined that it was not in the best interest of the

airport to pursue common use. The main reason given was

that Delta Airlines accounted for 80% of its ﬂight operations.

The airport noted that, as it looks toward the future and con-

struction of a new terminal, it may reconsider common use.

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,

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.

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 req uire 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 requ

irem 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 s s a ging to all airport

users

Im proved me ss aging 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

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 nag em 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)

For an airport that is fully exclusive use, common use is a

major shift in philosophy. Many areas of an airport’s opera-

tions will be affected when the airport operator chooses to

move along the common use continuum. In doing so, the air-

port operator must consider the impact of common use on all

areas of airport operations. It has been shown that the pri-

mary areas where airports are most affected when changing

to common use include:

• Technology,

• Physical plant,

• Competition planning,

• Fiscal management, and

• Maintenance and support.

TECHNOLOGY

Many of the solutions that help to move an airport along the

common use continuum involve technology. Technology

can be used to facilitate the multi-use of gates and ticket

counters, as well as to manage gate assignments and bag-

gage carousel assignments. In an exclusive use airport, the

airport operator typically provides the basic services such as

conditioned air and electricity. In an airport that is moving

along the common use continuum, the airport operator

becomes responsible for providing a greater number of ser-

vices. As such, the airport operator is forced to become

much more aware and involved in the management and sta-

tus of its facility and its use.

Technology offers many tools to help an airport manage

the limited resources it provides to the airlines. Development

of an airport’s common use strategy should include the

involvement of the airport’s technology organization. Com-

mon use implementations are a cooperative effort among

operations, business management, technology, facilities

management, and senior management. These functions need

to have input into the full common use strategy for it to suc-

ceed. When an airport is considering a common use strategy

there is typically a need to upgrade and/or procure new tech-

nologies. The airport operator must have access to people

who understand technology and speciﬁcally the common use

technology being considered. Although not all-inclusive,

Table 2, which can be found in chapter three, presents

technologies found to have various levels of use/beneﬁt in

the common use continuum and varying impacts on airport

operations. It is important to note that each airport is affected

differently.

For example, an airport servicing 10 million or more pas-

sengers a year may ﬁnd great beneﬁt in using geographic in-

formation systems to help manage common use lease space,

where smaller airports can be managed cost-effectively with-

out the use of this technology. Also, note that each of the

technologies listed are general categories that potentially

include many technology systems.

PHYSICAL PLANT

Common use impacts the airport facility in many ways, some

of which create beneﬁts not previously available to the air-

port operator. For example, common use enables the airport

operator to move airlines from one gate to another to facili-

tate construction and maintenance of existing gate areas.

In an exclusive use airport, if construction around an ex-

isting gate must be performed, the airline has to move its

operations to another exclusive use gate that may already be

fully utilized. Under a common use strategy, the airport op-

erator can move the scheduled airline operations to another

gate that is not being used, according to the resource man-

agement schedule. This allows for construction to occur

without interrupting ﬂight operations and without affecting

the local station manager’s already scheduled ﬂights. Along

with its beneﬁts, common use affects an airport in ways that

require additional management of the physical plant. The

following general areas affecting airports that implement the

common use continuum were noted:

• Standardized counters;

• Signage;

• Off-gate parking;

• Technology infrastructure closets and core rooms and

Intermediate Distribution Frames (IDFs) and Main Dis-

tribution Frames (MDFs); and

• Passenger, concessionaire, and vendor communications.

Standardized Counters

Airport operators often attempt to standardize ticket and gate

counters. Typically, airports migrating from an exclusive use

environment have existing counters that are conventional hard-

CHAPTER FOUR

AIRPORTS—IMPLEMENTING COMMON USE

faced surfaces. The lengths of the counters for each airline will

vary, reﬂecting the individual designs that were installed over

time. Several of the counter positions may have been retroﬁtted

or changed out by the airlines to include self-service units

imbedded in the counters. In the common use environment, any

counter (gate or ticket) speciﬁcally conﬁgured for an airline

must be reconﬁgured in a manner that allows that counter to be

used by any airline. This standardization may also reveal that

although the gates and ticket counters look the same, the over-

all dimensions of the gates and ticket counters can be drastically

different. This podium size standardization can enable the air-

port operator to gain useable space at the gates and additional

ticket counters at the check-in desks.

Signage

Airport operators often replace static signage with dynamic

signage designed for common use. The primary areas include

ticket and gate counters, but also may include new areas

where free-standing CUSS kiosks have been installed. Al-

though it is not necessary to change to dynamic signage, it is

more efficient than using static signage. The change in sign-

age may require reinforcement or reconstruction of the back

walls to ensure that the walls or overhead are sturdy enough

to support the weight of dynamic signage.

Off-Gate Parking

Airport operators changing to common use often need to re-

consider space needed to park aircraft. In an exclusive use

airport, airlines may choose to park an aircraft at their exclu-

sive use gate. In a common use airport, parking an aircraft at

a gate may not be considered a valid use of the gate. When

calculating physical space needs, airport operators must

factor in the off-gate space required to park aircraft that pre-

viously were parked at a gate. This change results in new

parking formulas that allow the airport operator to calculate

accurately the required off-gate parking per use of gate by a

given airline. Figure 5 shows an example of off-gate parking.

Technology Infrastructure Closets/Intermediate

Distribution Frames/Main Distribution

Frames/Core Rooms

Airport operators often require additional rooms and closets

and utility resources for use with communications infrastruc-

ture, network electronics, and computer servers/workstations

to implement the common use systems. Depending on the de-

cisions the airport operator makes regarding management of

these rooms, access control and other security measures can

also be affected. Other shared uses of space noted include

training rooms and testing facilities. It should be noted that

these spaces can also generate rental revenue while main-

taining an overall common use approach.

Passenger, Concessionaire, and Vendor

Communications

Airport operators need to consider the impact of common use

on passengers, concessionaires, and other vendors at the air-

port. When an airport is full common use, passengers can

become disoriented and confused as to where to ﬁnd their

ﬂight. It is important that an airport that chooses to move to

a full common use model enhance way-ﬁnding and other

modes of communication to passengers. Concessionaires are

also affected by common use, because the products they sell

are marketed based on the airlines that are operating.

Airport operators need to maintain good communications

with vendors and concessionaires so they will know which

airlines are operating out of which terminals or concourses.

In this way, they can appropriately target their product selec-

tion to the airline clientele served in various airport locations.

COMPETITION PLANNING

As presented in previous chapters, it has been determined

that there are many reasons why airport operators choose to

move toward common use. For U.S. airports that receive

FAA grants and passenger facility charges (PFCs), the air-

port operator is obligated to ensure access for new entrant

airlines. In some cases, the FAA requires the airport operator

to submit a competition plan that deﬁnes how competitive

access is achieved. Usually it is only a limited number of

large- and medium-sized hub airports that the FAA will

determine need to prepare and submit such a plan. These air-

ports are characterized by having one or two airlines control-

ling more than 50% of the annual passenger enplanements.

For those airports that are required to prepare a competition

plan, movement along the common use continuum can be a

part of the strategy that is outlined in their plans.

FISCAL MANAGEMENT

Changes in technology, space management, and services

resulting from the common use implementation affect the

ﬁscal requirements and ﬁnancial management of the airport

FIGURE 5 Off-gate parking.

operator. Some effects are obvious, whereas others are fre-

quently overlooked. The following ﬁscal requirements were

noted:

• Accounting efficiency,

• Usage fee calculations,

• Physical infrastructure costs, and

• Capital planning.

Accounting Efficiency

Common use has an immediate impact on the accounting ef-

ﬁciency of an airport. As a result of the more efficient use of

existing space, the airport operator can more closely monitor

the use of airport facilities. This can equal better accounting

of enplanement fees, as well as other fees charged to airlines.

With the use of tools such as an operational database, the

airport operator can get an earlier look at the data needed to

calculate fees charged to an airline. Flight information data,

combined with gate utilization, provide the airport operator

with real-time data and allows for closer monitoring of the

fees reported by airlines.

Airport operators can also “load-balance” their airport,

thus creating a friendlier environment for passengers. In an

exclusive use airport, there are certain times of day when all

carriers in a geographically close area have peak activity. In

a common use airport, the airport can spread that peak activ-

ity around to different areas of the terminals, thus allowing

for better passenger ﬂow through the airport.

Usage Fee Calculations

Airport operators track the actual usage of gate and ticket

counter assignments and charge airlines accordingly. When

an agent logs into the common use system, or when the air-

port operator uses gate management, data are collected that

give a clear picture of when a gate or counter is occupied, and

when it is not. The result is accurate charges to an airline for

its speciﬁc use.

The rates and charges for a common use airport become

much more focused to the exact utilization of the airport,

rather than simply charging an airline for a gate lease. This

level of charging compels the airport operator to be more

diligent in tracking an airline’s actual use of the airport’s

facilities than under a non-common use strategy. The airport

operator adjusts the existing ﬁnancial models to account for

the more detailed billing, as well as for data collected for

backup of the billing process. Depending on the speciﬁc rea-

sons at each airport, the airport operator determines how to

charge, or if to charge, for the common use systems imple-

mented at the airport. If the airport operator chooses to embed

the common use operational costs into the rates and charges,

the need for detailed billing is diminished, and is necessary

only for the operations of signatory and itinerant airlines.

Physical Infrastructure Costs

In addition to any system costs incurred in common use, air-

port operators must account for costs of physical infrastruc-

ture that an airline traditionally installs to facilitate the use of

gates. One major cost that tends to be overlooked is jet or

loading bridges. At many airports, it is the airlines that own

the loading bridges, not the airports. Once a gate is converted

to common use, the airport operator typically assumes own-

ership of the jet bridge. This could entail purchasing new jet

bridges or purchasing the existing jet bridges from the cur-

rent carriers. One hidden risk of such a purchase is that a jet

bridge that was acceptable for use before common use im-

plementation may become “unusable” after the common use

implementation.

Airport operators are establishing new charging models

resulting from common use implementation, such as the cost

of parking aircraft. Typically, once a gate is converted to

common use, on-gate parking may become a nonlegitimate

use of the gate, except where the gate is not needed for nor-

mal operations. If a ﬂight needs to use the gate for enplaning

or deplaning, then the aircraft parked at the gate must be

moved. Although the movement of the aircraft is the airline’s

responsibility, the actual space used to park the aircraft may

need to be accounted for in the charges to the airline.

Capital Planning

Finally, airport operators noted that the implementation of

common use requires careful planning for the future. The air-

port operator is able to defer and possibly reduce capital

expenditures to build additional gates, concourses, or termi-

nals. Airport traffic continues to increase, in most cases,

therefore it is improbable to assert that common use will pre-

vent construction expenditures. The ﬂexibility and efficiency

of common use enable the airport operator to plan better for

growth, allowing for the management of landing fees, rates

and charges, and other fees that increase owing to increased

capital expenditures. This ﬂexibility allows the airport oper-

ator to plan future changes, utilize capital funds differently,

or simply defer expenditures until absolutely necessary.

In the event that land is not available for expansion, the

airport operator is able to derive maximum utilization of

existing physical resources through implementation of

common use systems. Airport operators must also consider

the planning for, and funding of, replacement of assets that

were not considered before. This includes CUTE systems,

CUSS kiosks, passenger loading bridges, baggage sys-

tems, etc.

MAINTENANCE AND SUPPORT

Airport operators noted the increase in requirements for

maintaining and supporting existing and new items resulting

from the common use implementation. The following areas

found for this report included:

• New equipment maintenance,

• Technology support, and

• Risk considerations.

New Equipment Maintenance

Airport operators must be ready to maintain equipment that

they may not have had to maintain previously. Jet bridges,

for example, become the airport’s responsibility. The airport

operator must either have the staff qualiﬁed to maintain jet

bridges or contract with a vendor that can provide those ser-

vices. Maintenance of equipment such as jet bridges and

common use systems that are needed to operate an airline re-

quires high availability of personnel to do the work. Airport

operators must consider service-level agreements for main-

tenance and response times that may not currently be in-

cluded in existing operations.

Ticket and gate counters may also require additional

maintenance. If an airport does not already own the ticket and

gate counters, they will have to add these areas to their main-

tenance rotation and be prepared to repair any damage. If an

airport operator chooses to remodel the counters, it needs to

keep in mind the access of equipment and the maintainabil-

ity of the counters themselves.

Technology Support

Technology support is also required in a common use airport.

Whether an airport operator hires a third party to perform

technology support, or hires its own support staff, the need

for a trained tech-support staff increases tremendously in a

common use environment. The diversity in types of systems

also requires diversity in support staff. The airport operator

must consider database administrators, system administra-

tors, equipment maintenance staff, and other technologists to

maintain the many different aspects of the system.

The airport operator also must consider the size of the

staff required to provide the necessary service-level agree-

ments to support ﬂight operations. This may include 24-7

support, quick response times, and high availability. Net-

work redundancy and availability also need to be factored

into the technology support functions. Vendor selection is

critical to technology support. When an airport operator

chooses a common use vendor to supply and install its com-

mon use technology, the airport operator must also evaluate

the vendor’s ability to provide staff support and training. It

has been indicated through interviews with airlines and air-

ports that some vendors have difficulty providing training for

the local support staff, and that knowledge gained at one site

is not transferred effectively to other support sites.

Risk Considerations

As with any project, it is important for airports to consider

the risks involved in moving along the common use contin-

uum. Because common use affects so many areas of an air-

port’s operations, there are many types of risks associated

with implementing common use that need to be considered.

For example, such risks can include labor contracts, impacts

on other tenants, security, passenger push-back, and airline

acceptance, to name a few. Airports should also consider the

impact on other airline operations that could result if one air-

line’s service is delayed and affects the airport operator’s

ability to assign gates to other airlines. The airport operator

must analyze these potential risks, determine the likelihood

that any of them could become an issue, and then decide

whether or not it is willing to accept these risks.

With a successful common use implementation, an airline has

the potential of receiving beneﬁts not available otherwise.

With common use gates and ticket counters, the airline is able

to grow more effectively because it is not constrained by the

exclusive use model. An airline can work with the airport op-

erator to ﬁnd gates that are open at the times the airline would

like to start new service. Instead of the local station manager

having to contend with assigned ﬂights in a limited number of

gates, the airport operator is able to open the search for avail-

able gate space to the entire airport. In reality, this is typically

limited to available gates adjacent to the airline’s normal op-

erational areas, resulting from ground service limitations and

proximity to operations offices. At an airport that is fully com-

mon use (i.e., common ground handlers in addition to com-

mon use technology) however, an airline has the ﬂexibility to

use gates farther away from its normal operational areas.

For any common use implementation to be successful, it

must simplify the airlines’ operations. Airlines expect con-

sistency in operations as well as invoicing and overall expe-

rience. Airport operators should consider their common use

implementations to ensure that these goals can be achieved.

If the airline is able to simplify its operations and can expect

consistent performance from the common use implementa-

tion, then it will be more apt to support moving along the

common use continuum.

If an airport is implementing CUSS kiosks, airlines also

stand to beneﬁt. “IATA estimates that [CUSS] will save air-

lines up to $2.50 per checked-in passenger through higher

productivity of traditional check-in facilities” (Simplifying

the Business Common Use Self Service 2006). Additional

cost savings are found in the elimination of the maintenance

of proprietary kiosks, redeployment of staff, and other oper-

ating efficiencies. These gains, along with e-ticketing, are

“...estimated to save an average of $14.50 on a typical return

ticket” (Rozario 2006).

Airlines also gain an advantage in entering a new market.

If an airport has already moved along the common use con-

tinuum, airlines have a lower cost of entry into that market. It

no longer becomes necessary for an airline to install technol-

ogy infrastructure, proprietary systems at gates and ticket

counters, or proprietary kiosks in the airport. The airport is

already conﬁgured to accept the new carrier. The carrier will

be responsible for adding a direct connection from its host

system to the common use system, also known as a circuit,

and have the common use service conﬁgured to accept its

application and log-ins.

As airport operators move along the common use contin-

uum, however, airlines that service these airports can be

adversely affected in several areas. Research noted that air-

lines can typically face an adverse impact from common use

in the areas of:

• Additional resources for planning, design, and imple-

mentation;

• Airline operations;

• Common use hardware and software;

• Additional costs;

• Branding; and

• Local support.

ADDITIONAL RESOURCES FOR PLANNING,

DESIGN, AND IMPLEMENTATION

Experience has shown that, as common use is implemented,

airport operators should engage the airlines that service their

airport early in the process. It is obviously important to in-

clude the airline local staff, such as the station manager, but

it is also critical to include the corporate airline staff. It is es-

pecially important for the airlines’ corporate technology staff

to be involved in discussions for common use systems be-

cause they are most knowledgeable about the impacts to the

airline and have experience from implementing common use

at other airports. It has been noted through interviews with

airlines that there is a general lack of trust between airports

and airlines. It is important that both parties present their rea-

sons, issues, and approaches in an open and honest dialogue

so that the parties can move beyond this distrust.

Airlines should also expect to work more closely with air-

ports in developing a common use strategy. As an airport con-

tinues to analyze the growth in passenger traffic, it will need to

make decisions for expending capital funds either to increase

the number of gates or to move toward a common use strategy.

It is important for airlines to participate with the airport in the

design of the common use strategy. As they work coopera-

tively, the strategy that is put in place can be beneﬁcial to both.

Airlines should also participate early on in the design

phase for the common use strategy to ensure that business

processes within the affected areas are taken into account.

CHAPTER FIVE

AIRLINES OPERATING IN COMMON USE

Because each airline may have different business processes,

and may use different equipment and peripherals to support

those business processes, open and honest communication is

necessary. Airlines and airport operators need to ensure that

the airline technology people communicate with the airport

technology people, and not, as is often the case, have airline

properties people attempting to communicate technical is-

sues to their technology staff.

Some airlines interviewed noted that the start-up of a com-

mon use system at an airport is always a labor-intensive effort.

It was also noted that many of the same functions that are cur-

rently available in their proprietary systems have not yet been

made available in their common use systems, thereby reducing

the functionality that the agents need to perform their tasks.

Airport operators should also consider that an airline may

have multiple airports that need the commitment and service

of the corporate staff, and should have other methods of open

communication available for airline staff to participate in the

dialogue. It would be of value for airport operators to seek

other technical methods to facilitate communication and

meetings, such as conference calls, collaborative Internet-

based tools, and other solutions. There is no substitute for

face-to-face meetings; however, these can be augmented by

other methods to ease the burden on those who may have to

travel from one site to another.

Likewise, it is good practice to schedule the design meet-

ings around the ﬂight schedules of the carriers that are going

to participate, so that the airlines can control their costs and

travel arrangements during the process.

Airport operators should also consider the evolutionary

approach that airlines have taken toward common use. As

airlines refresh their technologies, they will consider com-

mon use approaches. This will be particularly important to

the CUPPS initiative, as the airlines that are updating their

technology will be more likely to adopt the CUPPS applica-

tion approach.

AIRLINE OPERATIONS

Any common use strategy implemented by an airport affects

an airline’s operations at that airport. Fiscally, an airline is af-

fected by the change in rates and charges that can arise from

the common use strategy. Airports may choose to charge

back to the airlines the costs associated with the common use

strategy, effectively increasing the rates and charges to that

airline. Conversely, the argument can be made that imple-

mentation of a common use environment (in the long term)

can actually reduce the rates and charges to existing airlines

by increasing the number of signatories that share the costs

of doing business at the airport.

A common use strategy may also change the “remain over

night” practices at an airport. Airlines that park aircraft at

gates at a common use airport may need to move the air-

planes off-gate at any given time. Some common use airports

do not allow aircraft parking at gates, but require all aircraft

to be parked off-gate. This change could result in more

movements of aircraft to and from the gates, and off-gate

parking can sometimes be some distance from the gates.

COMMON USE HARDWARE AND SOFTWARE

With the common use implementation at a speciﬁc airport,

airlines are faced with hardware and software systems that

typically may not be supported by the airline. As a result, the

airline must be aware of and prepared to use the supported

hardware in a common use system to facilitate its business

process. It was noted through interviews with airlines that

each airport operator creates its own “unique” common use

platform, thus causing the airlines to modify their applica-

tions to support the unique requirements of the local installa-

tion. It was noted that this occurs even if the same vendor

solution is used at multiple airports. Unique requirements in-

clude network connectivity, hardware preferences, and soft-

ware application functionality, to name a few.

The airline must also make accommodations for software

certiﬁcations required by each common use vendor at each

airport. Airlines need to decide how much common use they

will use at the airport. In most instances, airlines do not en-

gage common use in their back offices. This means that their

local staff will need to use two sets of systems. Also, airports

in a common use environment usually do not support the air-

lines’ proprietary back office systems; therefore, the airline

will need local support for these systems.

ADDITIONAL COSTS

Although the potential for cost savings exists with the com-

mon use implementation, airlines noted that hidden or

additional costs often outweigh the cost savings. These costs

can include additional training for the agents, additional soft-

ware maintenance and upgrades for separate applications,

certiﬁcation and deployment costs under common use, and

delay costs in releasing software updates through the existing

common use processes. Airlines also indicated that there are

additional “soft” costs that have not yet been quantiﬁed.

These include the cost of time delays to distribute common

use applications versus proprietary applications, support of

more than one set of applications for multiple environments,

and costs associated with the certiﬁcation process to gain the

ability to operate in a common use environment. Under-

standing the true cost of doing business in a common use

implementation is a primary concern of many of the airlines.

It is therefore important for airports to consider the impacts

to airlines with respect to these costs. The airport operator

must consider the message that is conveyed when imple-

menting a common use strategy and the charges that are

added to the airlines. If an airport presents an honest picture

of why it is going toward common use, it can better account

for the costs of the common use strategy.

If an airport operator’s goal is to increase airport service

by increasing the number of airlines at the airport, it should

evaluate how it divides the total charges of the common use

strategy among the current carriers. It is also important to

consider the federal deﬁnitions and expectations of an airport

and the types of improvements that can be made, how those

improvements can be charged back, and how that could af-

fect other sources of federal funding. According to Section

601, “Terminal Development,” in FAA Order 5100.38C—

Airport Improvement Program Handbook (2005, p. 107),

except as noted, terminal development is deﬁned as “devel-

opment for non-revenue-producing public-use areas that are

directly related to the movement of passengers and baggage

in terminal facilities within the boundaries of the airport.”

With few exceptions, FAA funding eligibility requirements

for terminal development through the Airport Improvement

Program (AIP) limit the provision of federal ﬁnancial sup-

port to areas of the terminal that are for public use and do not

produce revenue for the airport or its exclusive users and

commercial tenants.

For example, Section 601, “Terminal Development,” des-

ignates parts of the airport terminal ineligible for AIP fund-

ing, including “areas that are primarily revenue producing

such as restaurants, concession stands, and airline ticketing

areas” (p. 108).

Section 606, “Expanded Eligibility under the Military

Airport Program (MAP)” speciﬁes that, “Some expanded

eligibility at MAP locations will facilitate the transition of

military facilities to civil airports.” Accordingly, with respect

to AIP funding eligibility for passenger terminal buildings,

“Section 47118(e) of the Act makes eligible the construction,

improvement, or repair of a terminal building facility, in-

cluding terminal gates used for revenue passengers getting

on or off aircraft. The gates must not be leased for more than

10 years. The gates must not be subject to majority in inter-

est clauses” (p. 111).

Section 611, “Eligibility Limitations” of the FAA hand-

book further substantiates “eligibility is limited to non-

revenue producing public-use areas that are directly related

to the movement of passengers and baggage in air carrier and

commuter service terminal facilities within the boundaries of

the airport” (p. 113). Airport operators noted that a more rea-

sonable charging model was based around the percentage of

use by each airline.

Airport operators must have a clear communication path to

the airlines, and present an honest and open dialogue. Through

this open dialogue, items such as cost can be discussed and

worked through so that both the airport and the airlines bene-

ﬁt. Many airlines understand that the cost of implementing a

common use strategy can be a cost savings, but they are leery

of the implementation of common use because many non-U.S.

airport operators, where common use is more prevalent, tend

to view the common use continuum as a revenue stream, rather

than a service. Because of this concern, airlines are less likely

to support a common use strategy, especially if the airport

operator does not include them in the discussions during the

design phase of the common use strategy.

BRANDING

During interviews, airlines noted concern with loss of airline-

speciﬁc branding. Although not as prevalent an argument as

in times past, an important facet of airline marketing remains

in its ability to use its facility locations as a means of “sell-

ing” its name. Airlines view common use as taking away

their branding ability. Many airports that implement com-

mon use are also seeking ways to address these branding con-

cerns. Airports are more commonly implementing digital

signage along with their common use strategies to facilitate

branding opportunities in a common use environment. The

digital signage can be added, as required, to ticketing coun-

ters, gates, and other areas in the airport that are temporarily

used as airline space in a common use environment. In addi-

tion to the gates and ticket counters, airports are using digital

signage to address branding issues on CUSS kiosks.

Many airports that have implemented common use and

provided digital signage also allow the airlines to provide

their own branding during the time that they are occupying

the common-use space. Some airports, such as JFK’s Termi-

nal 4, allow the airlines to customize the common use space

with as much branding as they would like, providing a sort of

marketplace feel to the environment.

Other airports provide distinct locations for additional

branding, such as additional signage locations. In any event,

common use airports continue to look for ways to allow air-

lines the ability to market their brand within the common use

space.

LOCAL SUPPORT

As an airport operator assumes responsibility for maintenance

support, it is noted that maintenance costs for the speciﬁc air-

line should decline. It is far less expensive for an airport to

provide dedicated maintenance personnel, able to respond

rapidly to failed devices, printer jams, and other maintenance

issues, whereas airlines typically must ﬂy in maintenance sup-

port from their central headquarters, thus spending signiﬁ-

cantly more time and money to achieve a repair.

Because airport common use implementations are still

relatively few and quite different from airport to airport, the

elimination of an airlines maintenance support require-

ments at a specific airport becomes a “one-off” scenario.

This scenario often results in the airline wasting money be-

cause it must treat a particular airport as unique. Some air-

lines have large maintenance and support contracts that are

based on the number of stations that need to be supported.

As airports implement common use, the short-term effect

could be a rise in support costs as the number of stations de-

crease. Overall, however, airlines should be able to experi-

ence lower maintenance and support costs as more airports

convert to common use, moving the costs of support from

the airline to the individual airport.

A search of the available documentation revealed that al-

though there are some journal articles and other resources

that address issues surrounding the common use continuum,

the amount available in relation to this topic is relatively

small. In addition, a small group of subject experts currently

appears to be providing most of the information to those that

are writing about the topic. Sources such as IATA, ATA, and

ACI do not have information readily or freely available for

researchers. Also, the number of airports that have embraced

common use is relatively small, compared with the total

number of commercial airports in operation worldwide.

Although the list of airports is growing, the industry is still in

the early adopter stage.

To support the ﬁndings of the knowledge-based resources

noted in the previous chapters, the development of this syn-

thesis also included the preparation of case studies of speciﬁc

airlines and airports selected as relevant samplings of com-

mon use implementation. Seven case studies were completed

as a part of this synthesis. The participants in the case studies

were Alaska Airlines, American Airlines, Amsterdam Airport

Schiphol, British Airways, Frankfurt International Airport,

Las Vegas McCarran International Airport, and Lufthansa

Airlines. These case studies can be found in Appendix B of

this document. This chapter summarizes the ﬁndings of these

case studies.

During the preparation of the case studies, it was noted

that any discussion about common use appears to lead to a

discussion of common use technology systems, such as

CUTE and CUSS. Although the common use continuum em-

braces much more than just IT systems, IT is a vital part of

the equation and needs to be explored. Even though CUTE

has been around since 1984, its implementation is relatively

limited. CUSS has been around since 2003 and its imple-

mentation is even more limited. These two systems, how-

ever, form the technological basis for common use.

AIRLINES

Airline case study participants have witnessed an increase in

common use implementations during the last six to seven

years. Respondents interviewed noted that it has been their

experience that each airport operator creates its own unique

common use platform, thus making it less and less ‘common

use.’ This uniqueness is the result of requirements that an

airport operator places in its procurement process. Examples

of these unique requirements are network connectivity, hard-

ware preferences, software application functionality, etc.

Many of the case study respondents have been using com-

mon use for many years. As international airports began

migrating across the common use continuum, it became nec-

essary for airlines to determine their overall approach to

common use. Some respondents determined that it was best

for their applications to migrate to a common use platform,

whereas others work to maintain a proprietary environment.

Even though they may be using common use systems,

many of the airlines participating in the case studies indicated

that they do not prefer operating in a common use environ-

ment. Figure 6 shows an airline operating at a dedicated gate

at its hub airport. Their preference is to install dedicated sys-

tems, but some airlines will consider each airport indepen-

dently. If common use makes sense at a given airport, some

airlines try to work with the airport operator to ensure that the

airline’s needs are met. The experience of the case study par-

ticipants has shown that implementations at airports differ,

even if the same vendor is selected. The start-up of a com-

mon use system at an airport can be a labor-intensive effort

for the airlines. The airlines want to ensure that the installed

system functions in a manner that allows them to conduct

business. Even though airports may have the same common

use provider, since each airport is slightly different, airlines

are forced to create site-speciﬁc application versions. This

approach defeats the purpose of common use and creates an

environment that is very difficult for an airline to support

and manage. In the same way, vendors choose to make

these unique site-speciﬁc decisions to win the procurement

opportunity.

Case study respondents recognize that there are beneﬁts to

an airport implementing common use. They also recognize

that common use can provide advantages to airlines; how-

ever, respondents have indicated that their experience shows

that the cost of a common use implementation still tends to

be more expensive overall than a dedicated environment.

Much of the additional cost comes from the inability of a

common use system to support an airline’s ability to control

the distribution process in a timely fashion. On proprietary

systems, airlines can remotely update and distribute their

applications on demand. In a common use environment, the

update and distribution processes are dramatically longer,

CHAPTER SIX

REAL-WORLD EXPERIENCE

and require at least one certiﬁcation process by the vendor

before being released. This can delay the update process by

as much as four months, according to survey results and case

study participants.

Many of the perceived benefits of common use have not

yet proved true for many of the respondents. For example,

common use is expected to make entry into a market

quicker and easier. It has been the respondents’ experience

that the need still exists to provide a dedicated connection

back to the host, as well as to install back office proprietary

systems. Based on their experience, the installation of the

dedicated connection back to their host system is the long

lead item in any installation. Thus, common use does not

accelerate the overall schedule of starting up a new service

to a new market.

Case study participants see a beneﬁt with common use in

international terminals, which must support many airlines in

a limited amount of space. Implementation of common use at

an international arrivals terminal could help airlines more

quickly turn a ﬂight into a domestic continuation. In today’s

environment at many airports, ﬂights must arrive at an inter-

national terminal, deplane, and then the airplane must be

towed to their domestic gates for departure. If common use

were implemented in an airport such as the one described,

the airlines could leave a plane at the gate where it arrived

and then reboard the plane for the continuation of the do-

mestic ﬂight, assuming that the gate is not needed for another

international ﬂight.

Case study participants also indicated that local support

personnel may not always be adequately trained to support

the system. In many instances, the local support is supplied

directly or indirectly by the vendor. The implication is that

the knowledge transfer from site to site is not adequately

managed. This can affect the airlines’ business, because what

may otherwise be a minor event is not quickly resolved, and

the resolution is not clearly communicated to the airlines.

A seemingly minor event results in a ripple effect

throughout the downstream system, affecting not only the

current ﬂight, but ﬂights from/to other airports within the air-

line’s entire system.

Case study respondents reported that they have less func-

tionality with a common use implementation than they do

with their proprietary system. For example, the functionality

of one respondent’s gate information display system (GIDS)

is not available through common use installations. This sys-

tem enables the gate agents to display the status of their

stand-by list for the current ﬂight, among other features. For

GIDS to be present in a common use environment, the airport

operator must provide a second computer or space for a

second computer to drive the data to the gate display. Most

airports object to adding the airline-speciﬁc computer, be-

cause this changes the gates to a more dedicated format, thus

somewhat diminishing the airport’s ability to use the gate as

a common use gate.

In some of the common use sites that respondents operate,

they also use their proprietary check-in application in their

back offices and lounges. Whenever possible, airlines con-

tinue to install their own dedicated equipment. These airlines

assert it is still more cost-effective to have dedicated equip-

ment at a station rather than CUTE equipment. Caveats to

this are whether the station is located at a signiﬁcant distance

from the airline’s headquarters and whether the station has

local IT staff support. The difficulty with CUTE installations

at non-U.S. airports is that the airport operators are continu-

ally moving toward proﬁt making. This causes the airport op-

erators to start charging too much for the CUTE usage, which

affects the airlines’ business. When possible, some airlines

interviewed prefer to use the CLUB model, as they then have

an inﬂuence with the provider. Several case study partici-

pants work with very experienced CUTE developers, and

have developed a close relationship with the CUTE vendors

to help speed the deployment of application upgrades to their

stations.

In an effort to streamline the deployment of their CUTE

applications, at least one case study participant has created a

“terminal emulator,” which allows them to deploy one pack-

age to all sites and all vendors. This terminal emulator is the

only portion of the system that is certiﬁed CUTE; however,

it allows the airline to make business functionality upgrades

on a regular, shortened deployment cycle. The application is

able to determine the vendor and conﬁguration of the station

and to launch the appropriate set of applications for that ven-

dor platform. In this way, the airline has simpliﬁed the man-

agement of its code and the deployment of its applications.

Several respondents’ concerns with CUTE is the timeli-

ness of upgrades. In their proprietary sites, many of the re-

spondents are able to upgrade almost instantaneously.

For CUTE sites, there is no control over the release at local

sites, and therefore the release time is variable. This adds an

FIGURE 6 Airport on-gate parking.

amount of uncertainty to the release cycle that is difficult to

manage.

The respondents’ noted that because of this uncertainty,

there are some sites that are several months out of date from

their current CUTE application release cycle. These occur

even though some of the respondents send out their follow-

ing year’s release schedule months in advance.

Airlines are also concerned about the visibility of charges

for common use. From their perspective, as they are planning

and budgeting for the following years, they need to account

for costs appropriately. It has been some respondents’ expe-

rience that CUTE charges are line-itemed into a single bill,

eliminating visibility of those charges. Bundling of the

CUTE charges into the overall rates and charges also hides

this visibility. Respondents recommend transparency in costs

and, as much as possible, that the price remains somewhat

level, not subject to frequent changes.

Some of the airline respondents viewed CUTE as a strategic

advantage for their airline. As such, these airlines will encour-

age an airport to install CUTE. One of the criteria these airlines

seek in an airport when they are investigating new routes is

whether or not that airport has CUTE implemented. If the air-

port does not have CUTE installed, then these airlines educate

the airport operator about the beneﬁts of CUTE. Hopefully the

airport operator will choose to install CUTE as a result.

Other respondents have a unique process for creating, up-

dating, certifying, and releasing CUTE applications. In some

cases, the airline is responsible for the creation and updating

of the software for its CUTE applications. Once the applica-

tion is created or updated, however, the code is handed over

to another division or company for precertiﬁcation, certiﬁca-

tion with the CUTE vendors, and deployment to the local

sites. The other division or company may also provide certi-

ﬁcation services to more than one airline. These third-party

entities provide precertiﬁcation for multiple CUTE providers

and operating systems, thus offering an economy of scale for

the precertiﬁcation process. The beneﬁt of this conﬁguration

is that airlines are able to test their CUTE applications on

multiple vendor platforms in one location. These third-party

precertiﬁcation entities have highly trained experts who have

worked with the CUTE vendors for many years.

Case study participants indicated that they have created

their self-service kiosk application utilizing the CUSS stan-

dard, and as such the application is CUSS certiﬁed. However,

none of the case study participants promotes common use

kiosks in airports as they do CUTE. These airlines have many

concerns about the implementation of CUSS kiosks that to

date have prevented them from taking the same approach as

they have with CUTE. For example, it is difficult to meet the

branding needs of an airline using CUSS. Also, airports are

standardizing boarding pass stock to help reduce costs. Bag

tag printing is another issue. For example, as each airport

standardizes, there are different lengths of standard bag tags.

One airport uses one length and another airport uses a differ-

ent length. These airlines have to develop their bag tags to

meet all possible scenarios.

Some respondent airlines are very concerned about the stock

used to print their boarding passes. One reason is the quality of

what is printed by the boarding pass printers. For example, low-

quality paper stock affects the ability of the gate reader to read

a two-dimensional (2D) barcode, thus causing more gate delays

during boarding. This can be especially troublesome to these

airlines as they continue to automate the boarding process.

Also, to meet customer branding images, some of the respon-

dent airlines require use of their current boarding pass stock.

The stock is high quality, but is not usable in thermal printers,

which are becoming a popular type of printer for CUTE and

CUSS terminals. All of the case study airlines are members of

IATA and they are fully ready and compliant with the Simpli-

fying the Business initiatives that IATA is implementing. They

are already compliant with the 2D barcode initiative as well as

with the e-ticketing initiative. With both of these initiatives,

however, these airlines are facing challenges. Although these

airlines are 2D barcode compliant, the current installed base of

printers is not. They require ﬁrmware, which is the software

resident in the printer itself, and, in some cases, hardware up-

grades. In a common use airport, this cost could be the respon-

sibility of the airport. As such, many airports are currently not

supporting the migration to 2D barcode printing and therefore

are preventing the roll-out of this IATA initiative. In some

countries having only an e-ticket and not a paper ticket presents

a problem. Customs agents for the United States, for example,

may require a passenger to show a return ticket before allowing

that passenger entry into the country. With e-tickets, there is no

return ticket, causing entry to the country to be denied. Another

example is India, where one must have a ticket to enter the air-

port terminal. E-tickets do not suffice as a ticket in this case and

can result in denial of entry to the airport, thus causing the pas-

senger to miss the ﬂight.

Case study participants had some recommendations for

airports that are considering a common use implementation.

It is important for the airport operator to have a good rela-

tionship with the technical people at the airlines as well as

with the vendor providing the solution. The airport operator

should have a sharp technical staff that understands the com-

mon use system and its inherent issues. Common use has

both a business side and a technical side, and the airport op-

erator must be able to address the needs of both. The airport

operator needs to treat service partners as partners, not turn

them into adversaries. Another recommendation is that the

airport operator needs to remember that the operation of

the check-in and boarding process is part of the airlines’ core

business, and to ensure that it is not removing core business

requirements from airline control.

Respondents also recommended that airport operators work

with the airlines during the design, bidding, and installation

process. It is important to bring in the airlines early in the

process so they can help the airport operator understand the re-

quirements the airline has for check-in and boarding processes.

By working with the airlines and allowing them to provide

the requirements for the common use implementation, the

airport operator will develop a good rapport with the airlines

and will eventually install a common use solution that meets

the needs of the customer. In addition, they should include

both the local airline representatives as well as corporate air-

line representatives. It may become necessary to use alternate

methods of communication, such as conference calls, Web

conferences, or some other method of communication, that

enable airline corporate employees to participate. Case study

respondents recommended that airport operators proceed

with common use based on open and honest communication.

Airports should specify the real reason they are moving to

common use. Airlines interviewed expressed concern that

the stated reasons an airport would move toward common

use may differ from the actual reasons, thereby indicating a

lack of trust between the airport and the airline.

Many of the airline respondents recommended that airports

not implement common use except where it is absolutely

required by constraints. Instead, the respondents recom-

mended that the industry should correct standards to better

meet the requirements of the airlines. Many respondents indi-

cated that they would reconsider their position on common use

once it is able to support the full functionality of the dedicated

systems, costs the same or less overall as installing and main-

taining dedicated systems, and provides a transparent delivery

mechanism for updates.

Based on their experiences, these airlines also advised air-

port operators to carefully consider the charging model. Fair

and equitable charging is understood, but the airport operator

should have an open book policy, helping airlines understand

what the charges are and why they are assessed. Airports

should bear in mind that although they are buying the system,

in most cases they are not a user, so they should seek the

input of those who will use the system. The airport operator

needs to work out the service-level agreements so that there

are neither too many variables nor too many parties involved

in troubleshooting problems. Finally, they recommended that

the airport seek a service-level agreement that has enforce-

able penalties for inadequate performance.

AIRPORTS

In 1984, Westinghouse worked with SITA at Los Angeles

World Airports to create what is now known as CUTE. It was

at this point that IATA ﬁrst created RP 1797 deﬁning CUTE.

It should be noted that ATA does not have a similar standard

for common use. As noted in an earlier chapter, approxi-

mately 400 airports have installed some level of CUTE since

1984. Today, airports are exploring ways to make more

efficient use of their space and to defer large capital expen-

ditures. Through case study interviews, airports have ex-

pressed a need to hold costs down and to increase customer

service and they are counting on common use as a way to im-

prove the customer experience at their airports and to keep

overall costs to airlines down.

Through case study interviews, it is clear that common

use is more prevalent outside of the United States. Many

larger Canadian and European airports indicated that they are

utilizing common use to facilitate their operations. Many of

these airports support a larger number of international ﬂights

than do U.S. airports. Because of the business environment

and the management differences in non-U.S airports, they are

also providing other “common use” services to the airlines.

These include ground handling services, fueling services,

and other services that are more commonly provided by air-

lines at U.S.-based airports.

Several airports interviewed for this report also indicated

that they work at developing good relationships with their

common use providers to ensure the success of their common

use implementations. Case study participants indicated that,

from a technology perspective, CUTE implementations are

more readily accepted and used by the airlines than CUSS

implementations. There are many different reasons for this

acceptance, including the airline’s concerns over branding,

lack of true standardization in the CUSS platforms, and cost

concerns. Both U.S. and non-U.S.-based airports are review-

ing their implementations to help address these concerns.

Even with the differing degrees of acceptance for common

use technologies, respondents indicated that they are seeking

more technologies that will help them along the common use

continuum. Several respondents are interested in developing

a common bag drop; however, IATA does not yet have a stan-

dard for common bag drop; hence there is no common solu-

tion for the airport operator.

European airport respondents also indicated that they are

considering future improvements in the way border crossings

are managed. The European Union (EU) for example has long

embraced the concept of the free movement of people in

Europe, and in the late 1990s adopted the Schengen Agree-

ment, which allows for the abolition of systematic internal bor-

der controls between the participating countries. Schengen

countries are those that have signed the Schengen Agreement.

To date, 27 EU countries have signed the agreement, as well as

three non-EU countries (Iceland, Norway, and Switzerland).

This means that the border crossing and security requirements

differ between Schengen and non-Schengen countries

(Wikipedia 2007). In addition to Schengen Agreement require-

ments, the United States security requirements also affect the

implementation of common use technologies. According to

European respondents, the implementation of the Federal

Bureau of Investigation’s terrorist watch list currently prevents

the use of CUSS kiosks for non-U.S. airlines.

Some survey respondents indicated that they negotiated

with the airlines when their airport made the decision to move

to common use. In several cases, the airport was renewing the

airlines’ leases, and they used the lease renewals as a catalyst

for open communication. Through this communication, the

airport operators were able to honestly address these concerns

to ensure success of the common use program.

During negotiations, several respondents indicated that

the airlines clearly wanted to retain their exclusive use of

gates, and that the airport operators wanted no gate assign-

ments. As a compromise, several of these respondents now

employ preferential use of gates.

U.S.-based airport respondents indicated that they ﬁrst in-

stall CUTE at the gates of their international terminals. As

these respondents continue their movement along the

common use continuum, they try to expand CUTE to the re-

mainder of their airports. Respondents indicated that the

installation of common use cost their airports about the

equivalent of one gate, but in return they gain the equiva-

lency of several gates. Respondents also noted the impor-

tance of quantifying the beneﬁts of common use to airport

management and demonstrating how common use facilitates

deferral of capital expenditures for constructing new gates,

concourses, and eventually a new terminal.

In some cases, part of the common use installation process

involved replacing or updating ticketing counters. Many re-

spondents discovered that the ticket counters were not the

same size, and they were able to gain additional check-in

locations by standardizing the size of the ticket counters.

According to respondents, one area of the airport not nor-

mally converted to common use is the operations space for

the airlines. When a new airline is added to the airport, it is

given operational space that is dedicated only to that airline.

Even with this requirement, many of these airport operators

are continuing to add new service and new airlines, which

allows continued growth and improved service to their

community.

Many of the respondent airports have also joined IATA

and helped to deﬁne the CUSS RP. The driver for this was the

airline implementation of dedicated check-in kiosks. Airlines

installed dedicated kiosks in the airport lobby areas that un-

dermined the airport operators’ common use strategy for ef-

ﬁcient use of airport space. The placement of dedicated

kiosks essentially forces ticket counter space to become

exclusive use. Locations not near the ticket counters cannot

be fairly shared by all airlines, in most cases. The airport

operators worked with the IATA Common Use Self-Service

Management Group to help deﬁne CUSS.

In addition to the ticket counters, some respondents are in-

stalling CUSS in areas outside the airport, including their

parking garages, rental car centers, remote hotels, and other

off-site locations. These installations essentially have al-

lowed airport operators to extend their check-in counters to

areas outside the airport. Although this improves passenger

processing, according to respondents it also improves the

passenger experience, because many passengers are now

able to fully check in before arriving at the airport.

Case study respondents recommended that other airports

consider moving along the common use continuum. Tech-

nology is a key enabler and allows the airport operator to

efficiently use and manage the limited space available. Tech-

nologies such as LDCS are very beneﬁcial in helping new

airlines start up, to charter operations, and as a backup to the

airline-owned departure control systems. Respondents also

suggest that airport operators not worry about managing

tasks currently handled by the airlines, such as gate assign-

ments. Through the use of new technologies the airport oper-

ator now has the means to manage these tasks effectively and

efficiently. Other areas to keep in mind during the migration

along the common use continuum are the ownership of jet

bridges and the management of off-gate parking. Both of

these issues are commonly overlooked during the start of any

common use strategy involving the gate areas. Case study

respondents recommended developing a formula for the

amount of off-gate parking that will be needed as operations

grow.

Airport case study participants had several pieces of ad-

vice for airports considering the common use continuum.

First, it is important that airlines see an advantage in moving

toward common use. To make the transition from exclusive

use toward common use, airport operators must work closely

with the airlines and ensure that there is interest and buy-in.

Also, it is important for the airport operator to ensure that

there is a service-level agreement in place for any services

that are the airport operator’s responsibility. Several respon-

dents indicated that they have to guarantee service for the

network and infrastructure for the common use installation

to succeed. The focus of support should be toward the air-

line agent, especially if the airline has a small station at the

airport.

Many respondents also suggested considering how com-

mon use can assist an airport operator during construction

and growth. In some cases, as they have needed to maintain

and upgrade the apron areas, these airports have been able to

move airlines to other gates efficiently without affecting the

airlines’ operations. This has saved time and money, during

the maintenance and construction projects that continue at

the airport.

For various reasons, airport operators are establishing a need

for moving along the common use continuum. Based on in-

terviews and limited documentation on the subject, an airport

operator may establish need through any one or combination

of the following:

• Promote competition. Several airport operators have

implemented common use as a method of meeting their

FAA competition planning requirements. These plan-

ning requirements apply to a limited number of airports.

The FAA makes a determination and publishes a list of

large- and medium-hub airports that it requires to pre-

pare and submit a competition plan. These airports are

characterized as having one or two airlines controlling

more than 50% of the annual passenger enplanements.

Several of these airport operators have identiﬁed com-

mon use as a method to enable the required competition

at their airport, thus allowing the airport operator to

have its PFCs approved to receive a grant issued under

the Airport Improvement Program. Many of these com-

petition plans use common use as a tool to provide rea-

sonable and necessary access to ensure that an airport

has a level playing ﬁeld for all entrants to the market.

• Increase efficiencies with limited resources. According

to interviews, several airport operators needed to in-

crease service at their airports while keeping airline op-

erating costs down. These operators employed common

use to increase gate utilization efficiency and to help

defer capital expenditures that would otherwise be nec-

essary for gate, concourse, or terminal construction.

Common use can enable airport operators to operate

more efficiently and cost-effectively. Increased effi-

ciency is also important if airports are to keep pace with

growing workloads brought on largely by low-cost car-

riers, which typically bring a higher number of ﬂights

into a facility. Airports today are squeezing more peo-

ple through fewer resources. This is a growing concern

today, because many existing terminal facilities were

not designed to accommodate such intense traffic.

• Increase ﬂexibility of airport resources. For airport op-

erators, a basic mandate today is increased ﬂexibility in

both costs and business models, which allows them to

adapt to shifts in the business environment. Both air-

lines and airports are in the process of reinventing them-

selves and developing business plans that are ﬂexible

enough to make dramatic shifts in operations. To a large

extent, this means changing the often-rigid agree-

ments that airports have with airlines. Other reasons for

increased ﬂexibility include temporary relocation of

airline operations owing to construction and demolition

and handling of seasonal overﬂows.

• Provide equal access and facilities. Many of the inter-

viewees identiﬁed the need to ensure that airlines have

equal facilities available to them, which also enables

competition. Some airports have installed LDCSs to en-

able smaller airlines, charters, and others to provide an

alternative to the manual boarding process. This solu-

tion allows airlines that do not have LDCS to still sup-

port automated, or electronic, boarding procedures. In

addition, GIDS are increasingly being added to com-

mon use implementations. If GIDS are provided to the

airlines by the airport, then airlines that do not have

their own GIDS can provide their passengers with in-

formation about ﬂight status, standby passengers, and

other features that are provided by a GIDS system.

• Allow for new entrant carriers or expansion of existing

carriers. Several airport operators indicated that they

are concerned about the potential for large, dominant air

carrier operations either eliminating or greatly reducing

operations at their airport. Without common use, these

airports would be unable to reassign these gates to other

carriers in a quick and efficient manner. Airport opera-

tors are implementing various levels of common use to

accommodate access requests of several new entrants

and expanding carriers.

• Combination of all. Noted in a recent FAA summary

document, an airport stated the following as the basis

for common use:

Installing common use ticketing equipment at ticket counters

and gates so that all airlines operating there will use identical

gate check-in and gate CUTE equipment, thereby providing

maximum ﬂexibility in assigning gates, even on a per ﬂight

basis, thereby increasing the opportunities for competition; pro-

vides Airline Entry Package and airport facilitates negotiations

between requesting carriers and incumbents.

Airport operators that were interviewed all agreed that it

is critical for airport operators to identify the needs they are

attempting to meet through common use and to clearly con-

vey that need to all of the stakeholders. Once a need is clearly

established, there is a growing list of issues an airport opera-

tor must consider. Key considerations that were raised in

interviews and research included obtaining political backing,

identifying the proper business model, assessing impact on

all operations, understanding airline operations, and making

necessary modiﬁcations to airline agreements. Each of these

key considerations is discussed in this chapter.

CHAPTER SEVEN

AIRPORT CONSIDERATIONS FOR COMMON USE IMPLEMENTATIONS

schedules. Any common use implementation should facili-

tate expansion of, as well as contraction of, operations. In this

way, the business model allows the airport to quickly

respond to changes in airline operations without negatively

affecting overall airport efficiency.

When presenting the business case to the airlines operat-

ing at the airport, the airport operator should clearly commu-

nicate its intentions, the needs to be met, and beneﬁts to the

airlines. Some airports have successfully supported airlines

by enabling them to create their own identity in a common

use space and then clear out once they have completed their

use of that space. One example is JFK Terminal 4, as seen in

Figure 7.

Airport operators should be clear on how common use

will beneﬁt the airlines. Areas of consideration include sup-

porting split operations, quarterly growth, and constrictions

in routes, as well as facilitating operations to handle changes

in passenger volumes. Airport operators should indicate

which areas of the airport will be made common use, such as

ticketing counters, gate hold rooms, gates, or a combination

of areas. The more an airport operator communicates, and

the earlier in the process that they communicate, the better

informed the airlines will be during the design and imple-

mentation process.

ASSESSING IMPACT ON ALL

AIRPORT OPERATIONS

During interviews, airport operators stressed the need to ana-

lyze carefully all areas of airport operations and the potential

impacts of common use installation on each. For example, an

airport may choose to install common use at the gates, but

may overlook that ticket counters are fully allocated, thereby

barring entrant carriers at the ticket counters. Also, increased

utilization of the ticket counter areas may adversely affect

outbound baggage facilities. The demands placed on utility

facilities of “clean power,” air conditioning, and backup

power must also be considered.

POLITICAL BACKING

Information gleaned through interviews indicated that it is

critical for airport operators to have the proper political back-

ing to support any common use initiative. As discussed in

this paper, airlines traditionally do not support common use.

As with many decisions at airports, there is a large amount of

political inﬂuence that comes to bear on any major decisions

involving airport operations. Airport operators should have a

clear understanding of the needs that are required to be ﬁlled,

as well as any federal or local policies that could inﬂuence

the decision to implement common use. In many instances,

there are no applicable federal or local policies and it may be

necessary to create a local policy to facilitate the common

use initiative. There are, however, national level strategies

that are addressing future demand and capacity. These are

causing a ripple effect, from a terminal planning perspective,

on airport operators, who are increasingly looking toward

common use to solve terminal, capacity, and roadway capac-

ity issues. For a summary of some of the FAA initiatives that

affect common use, see Appendix E.

A key element of the political backing is to ensure that

the money is available to pay for any common use solu-

tions. It is important not only to ensure that the money is in

the budget, but that the authorities required for expenditure

approval are properly informed and prepared for the air-

port’s request. Although common use implementations are

not as expensive as constructing a concourse or a terminal,

the costs are significant, and must be appropriately planned

for in the budget.

BUSINESS MODEL AND BUSINESS CASE

All interviewed airport operators emphasized how critical it

is to establish a clear business case for common use. As part

of this business case, they also indicated that the business

model for operating in a common use environment needed to

be deﬁned and presented to the airlines. These two elements

were identiﬁed as the most critical factors in the success or

failure of any common use implementation.

Although there are many different business models, the air-

port operators and airlines interviewed indicated that consis-

tency and cost transparency were critically important. It was

clear that airlines were more accepting of the charges neces-

sary to operate a common use implementation if those costs for

the system were readily available, explained, and easily un-

derstood. Airlines indicated that they were not in favor of

including the common use costs as part of a larger, roll-up

number in the invoices submitted to the airlines. Airlines and

airport operators both appeared to agree that charging based on

an enplaned rate may simplify billings and make charges as

transparent as possible.

When deﬁning the business case, it is necessary to con-

sider the possibilities of airline bankruptcy, ﬂight schedule

reductions, as well as additional airlines and increased ﬂight

FIGURE 7 JFK Terminal 4.

Once airport operators begin using the common use

continuum, they ﬁnd themselves in new areas of liability,

support, and staffing needs that many times are at ﬁrst over-

looked. Here are some examples.

• Maintenance support and costs. Getting beyond the ini-

tial capital costs and warranties, one issue to be decided

is who will provide the long-term maintenance and sup-

port. Some airports have chosen to increase staffing and

provide the ﬁrst-line maintenance support; others have

chosen to outsource this function, whereas others have

chosen to let the airlines establish a “club maintenance”

contract. Each approach has its advantages and dis-

advantages.

• Accessibility and security. Being the equipment owner

of common use components, the airport operator now

assumes co-responsibility for issues dealing with ac-

cessibility and data security. Compounding the situa-

tion is that both of these areas are currently in a state of

ﬂux vis-à-vis common use technology components.

Airport operators need to be attuned to the latest

updates from governing bodies that regulate business

operations covered by, for example, ADA and the Pay-

ment Card Industry Data Security Standard (PCIDSS).

• Shared access to facility rooms. This is a primary con-

cern when it comes to accessing the various telecom-

munications network rooms, where the common use

network components may share closet space with air-

port-dedicated network equipment.

• Customer service staff. With the use of CUSS ticketing

and other similar common use components, passengers

and airlines alike view these services as airport-provided,

and airport operators ﬁnd themselves having to supple-

ment customer service staff, especially in the common

areas of the airport.

UNDERSTANDING AIRLINE OPERATIONS

Although most airport operators fully understand that air-

lines may be hesitant to endorse common use, they still fre-

quently make the mistake of taking the “if you build it, they

will come” approach. For example, one airport recently in-

stalled a series of free-standing CUSS units throughout the

airport facility and is now ﬁnding most of the airlines ﬁght-

ing the use of the CUSS units.

One airline explained that with its new business model, it

no longer has any need for the self-service check-in kiosks as

located and installed by this airport. The airline further stated

that the airport operator never really asked its opinion about

the function and location of this equipment.

Understanding and working with airline internal mainte-

nance and operations schedules will continue to grow in

importance as more airports move down the common use

continuum. Airlines have limited resources that must work

with each of these airports. To manage their costs, the air-

lines are establishing internal dates for software changes,

hardware deployments, and procedural changes; all of

which will impact an airport’s success in deploying

common use. Airport operators must realistically analyze

implementation schedules and help set appropriate expec-

tations for management regarding completion dates and

major milestones.

AIRLINE AGREEMENT MODIFICATIONS

Another area for airport operators to consider is the existing

airline agreements. Before a common use initiative begins,

airport operators should review their existing airline agree-

ments and prepare any needed language updates. Although it

is outside the scope of this document to directly address any

language within these agreements, the airport operators who

were interviewed all recommended that the airline operators

consult with their attorneys about the terminology to change,

modify, or update in their agreements. It is important, how-

ever, to ensure that the airline agreements are not overlooked

during the initial planning process to determine whether or

not to implement common use. As discussed earlier, each

step along the common use continuum requires a different

agreement to move from exclusive use, to mixed use, to pref-

erential use, and ﬁnally to full common use.

SURVEY

Surveys were conducted to ﬁnd out the state of common use

facilities and equipment at airports, both in implementation

and in the understanding of common use strategies. Full sur-

vey results can be found in Appendix D. The surveys proved

to be very interesting and the results are analyzed in this

chapter. Since airline and airport operator perspectives differ,

separate surveys were sent to both. The TRB Panel identiﬁed

24 airports to be surveyed. A total of 20 surveys were re-

ceived, for an 83% response rate. The TRB Panel also iden-

tiﬁed 13 airlines to be surveyed. A total of 12 airlines surveys

were received, for a 92% response rate. The overall response

rate to the surveys was 86%.

The following airports responded to the survey:

• JFK International Terminal (Terminal 4)

• Clark County Department of Aviation, McCarran Inter-

national Airport

• San Francisco International Airport

• Tampa International Airport

• Greater Toronto Airports Authority

• Greater Orlando Airport Authority

• Metropolitan Airports Commission, Minneapolis–St.

Paul International Airport

• San Diego County Regional Airport Authority

• Salt Lake City International Airport, Salt Lake City

Department of Airports

• Williams Gateway Airport

• Halifax International Airport Authority

• Vancouver International Airport Authority

• Dallas–Fort Worth International Airport

• Amsterdam Airport, Schiphol

• Aéroports de Montréal

• Miami–Dade Aviation Department

• Four anonymous responses.

The following airlines responded to the survey:

• Lufthansa AG

• EasyJet Airline

• American Airlines

• United Airlines

• Qantas Airlines

• Southwest Airlines

• Skybus Airlines

• Delta Airlines

• Air Canada

• Alaska Airlines

• Two anonymous responses.

The survey instruments created revealed many interesting

pieces of information with respect to the use, understanding,

and implementation of common use strategies. One of the

key pieces of information the surveys revealed is that airport

operators and airlines have different opinions about the in-

hibitors of both CUTE and CUSS implementations at air-

ports. When the question of CUTE implementation was

asked, airport operators identiﬁed the top three reasons air-

lines do not accept CUTE as:

1. Airline preference for dedicated systems

2. Loss of branding ability

3. Lack of control.

When airlines were asked the same question, they identi-

ﬁed the top three reasons as:

1. Lack of control

2. Costs too much

3. Maintenance and support.

These results are shown in Figure 8.

When asked the same question regarding CUSS, airport

operators rated the top three causes of inhibiting implemen-

tation of CUSS as:

1. Airline preference for dedicated systems

2. Lack of control

3. Loss of branding ability.

Airlines rated the top three reasons as:

1. Lack of control

2. Difficulty with deployment

3. Costs too much.

These results are shown in Figure 9.

Both of these charts indicate there is a difference of opin-

ion as to what inhibits the implementation of common use

systems at airports. Unfortunately, airlines were not asked if

CHAPTER EIGHT

ANALYSIS OF DATA COLLECTION

Airport Response

Airline Response

Airlines prefer dedicated systems

Loss of branding ability

Difficult to deploy

Difficult to certify

Maintenance/Support

Costs too much

Lack of Control

25%

20%

15%

10%

FIGURE 9 CUSS inhibitors ranked by airports and airlines.

Airport Response

Airline Response

Airlines prefer dedicated systems

Loss of branding ability

Difficult to deploy

Difficult to certify

Maintenance/Support

Costs too much

Lack of Control

30%

25%

20%

15%

10%

FIGURE 8 CUTE inhibitors ranked by airports and airlines.

they preferred dedicated systems, so this somewhat skews

the data results. However, it is interesting how different the

remaining inhibitors are between the two entities. These

charts alone indicate that there is a need for an open and hon-

est dialog between airport operators and airlines. Until there

is an agreement as to what the inhibitors are, it will be diffi-

cult to determine how to overcome them for the beneﬁt of the

industry.

Airlines were also asked to rank the reasons why their

airline might choose to use a CUTE system at a given air-

port. The number one answer was that the airport operator

required its use. This was followed by a need to share

gates. This question indicates that in general there is not a

willingness to use CUTE voluntarily at an airport. When

combined with the answers shown in Figure 9, it is clear

that the airport operator needs to consider airlines’ in-

volvement in the process of procuring, implementing, and

maintaining a CUTE system. Figure 10 shows the response

to this question.

As a related question, airlines were asked whether they

believed airport operators were doing well in implementing

common use at their airports. There were some common

themes in the answers. Overall, CUTE was viewed as a suc-

cess, but CUSS was not. It was noted on several responses

that airport operators that included airlines early in the

process were viewed as successful. CUTE’s success in Eu-

rope was identiﬁed, as was the ability of an airport to keep an

open book policy toward the fees charged for common use.

Airpor

t requi

red

Nee

d to

eed e

ntr

y into new

rke

Nee

d to

gates

Cost

dep

loying

airline

equi

ent

d infra

structu

Nee

d t

o use

exi

stin

g gates

re eff

icien

tly

Allo

ent

ry i

nto a new

rport/mar

ket

line

alli

anc

Cod

e s

har

e agr

eemen

t with

anot

her a

irline

FIGURE 10 Airlines’ reasons to choose to operate on CUTE.

Airlines expressed the concern that non-U.S. airport oper-

ators are starting to view common use as a proﬁt center,

which has a great impact on the airline. In interviews with

airlines, there seems to be a willingness to accept common

use expenses as a cost plus model, but it is when this service

is looked at as a way to increase proﬁts, as it is in some non-

U.S. airports, that airlines begin to struggle with the concept.

From an airline point of view, the airport operator receives

the greatest beneﬁt from common use strategies. As such, air-

port operators should be willing to take that into account

when developing pricing models for common use (Behan

2006). However, the type of charging system also needs to be

considered, as to whether it is residual or compensatory rates

and charges system. It could be that if the airport beneﬁts,

then all of the airlines do too.

When asked what airport operators were not doing well,

the responses paralleled what the airport operators were

doing well. Survey results showed it is very important to the

airlines that they be included early on in the procurement

process. It is also noted that several airlines believe CUSS

has not been implemented well. It is important to note that

some of the responses indicated an animosity between

airlines and airport operators. Some airlines responded that

airport operators are doing nothing well. Again, this indicates

a lack of communication.

Of the airlines surveyed, 68% stated they do not have a

service-level agreement with a common use provider. This

information is interesting in that it is the airline, or its

vendor, that has to create the application, but the platform

provider that has to deploy it to the end location. The air-

lines are dependent on the platform provider to certify and

release their code, but they have no service-level agreement

to enforce a timely release cycle (see Figure 11). A suc-

cessful common use installation at an airport must take this

into account. If the contractual relationship with the vendor

is owned by the airport, then the airport operator must work

with the airlines to ensure that reasonable terms are put in

place to facilitate the efficient release of application

updates. Although this is traditionally viewed as the air-

line’s issue and not the airport operator’s, in the common

use continuum, airport operators are taking more of the air-

line’s traditional responsibilities.

Not sure

17%

Yes

16%

67%

Yes

Not sure

FIGURE 11 Airline service-level agreements with common

use providers.

67%

25%

Airline provided

Airport provided

Prefer club arrangement

Depends on location

Donít know

Yes

92%

Yes

Don’t know

FIGURE 12 CUTE equipment provisions.

FIGURE 13 Airlines currently operating in a CUTE

environment.

25%

Don’t know

Yes

75%

Yes

Don’t know

FIGURE 14 Airlines currently operating in a CUSS

environment.

When airlines were asked what type of common use

arrangement was preferred, 67% answered that it was depen-

dent on location, whereas 25% stated they preferred the

CLUB arrangement. This bears further investigation, but it

could indicate that airlines are open to different models based

on the size and location of the station in question. None of the

respondents preferred to have the airport operator provide the

CUTE equipment. This again indicates a distrust of the

process that airport operators are using and that airlines are

concerned with their participation in the procurement of

CUTE equipment (see Figure 12).

Even with airlines concerns over the use and procurement

of common use, almost all of the respondents are operating

on a CUTE environment and a large percentage are operating

on a CUSS environment.

Of the 12 responses received, 11 airlines, or 93%, indi-

cated they are already operating in a CUTE environment.

Nine airlines, or 75%, indicated they are currently operating

CUSS environment (see Figures 13 and 14).

When looking at supporting technologies for common

use, 67% of airline respondents stated that MUFIDS helped

to improve the implementation of common use strategies.

This was followed by 33% supporting Voice over IP (VoIP).

This is also evident in practice, as more and more airport

operators have installed MUFIDS systems to aide passengers

in ﬁnding their ﬂight, and to provide ‘meeters and greeters’

the ability to ﬁnd their party efficiently. Respondents of the

survey did not regard other technologies as beneﬁcial. This

could partly be because they are in limited use, the technolo-

gies are not understood, or they are not seen as adding value

to the process. In any case, it is important to discover the true

reason, as well as to assist the industry in understanding the

value, if any, of these supporting technologies. Figure 15

gives the airlines’ perspective on additional common use

technologies, and their value or importance in a common use

airport.

Internet or online check-in is also having an impact on the

common use continuum. As more travelers begin their

check-in process at home, there will be a direct correlation to

the use and need of check-in facilities at airports. Most of the

airlines surveyed stated that 10% to 20% of their passengers

02468 10

Other

MUBIDS

MUFIDS

Integrated Paging

Gate Management System

Voice over IP Phone

20%

10%

60%

10-19%

20-29%

40-49%

60-69%

FIGURE 15 Common use supporting technologies.

FIGURE 16 Percent of passengers using Internet check-in.

check-in online. Three airlines indicated that 40% or more

of their passengers check in online. Although one of these

numbers is not substantiated, it does indicate the types of

travelers that an airline is reaching as well as the increasing

saturation of online check-in. Nine of the ten results are sub-

stantiated through actual accounts or professional estimates.

Figure 16 shows, by airline, the percent of passengers that are

checking in by means of the Internet. For example, 60% of

the respondents indicated that 10% to 19% of their passen-

gers are using the internet to check-in for ﬂights.

The survey also sought from the airlines which vendors’

platforms the airlines had a CUTE application certiﬁed under.

While there is currently no industry source to determine the

number of airlines supported at a given CUTE installation, the

results of this survey question indicate that there are two very

dominant vendors, and two additional vendors that have a

higher percentage of the respondent’s applications. Further re-

search is required to get a better picture of the industry, but the

results of this survey question support the idea that airlines

would prefer the installation of vendors with which they al-

ready have an application working and certiﬁed. IATA is cur-

rently working on a survey to determine the exact airlines that

are supported at a speciﬁc airport by a speciﬁc vendor. The sur-

vey is expected to be released in August of 2007. This also be-

comes a barrier to entry into the marketplace for new vendors

wanting to provide solutions (see Figure 17).

Additionally, the survey asked airlines about their CUSS

applications and which vendors they currently had applica-

tions certiﬁed with and deployed. Although the ﬁeld of

CUSS vendors is relatively small, smaller than CUTE ven-

dors, there were two dominant vendors. Combining this with

the data gathered from IATA and industry research, it is pos-

sible to get a clear picture on the number of airline applica-

tions and vendor supports. It is interesting to note that IBM

has worked with ARINC and IER on past installations, so the

picture of purely IBM, ARINC, and IER is somewhat blurred

in the chart. Refer to Appendix A for the full data supporting

the industry information in the ﬁgures.

The survey also revealed a number of business models

used to charge for common use facilities and services. Al-

though there are several ways to charge for common use ser-

vices, 60% of airport operators surveyed include the com-

mon use fees in the rates and charges. Figure 18 shows a

comparison between the survey results and the industry re-

sults shown in Appendix A.

In interviews with various airlines, and through industry

experience, this method appears less desirable because it

does not lend itself to visibility of the charges. Airport

operators argue, on the other hand, that airlines want the vis-

ibility so they can negotiate different terms. This is another

area that requires research, but ultimately clear and open

communication can resolve these differences (see Figure 19

for more information).

For the airport operators surveyed, the main driver for

moving along the common use continuum was the ability to

maximize the use of existing gates. This indicates that airport

operators believe their gates are underutilized and that this un-

derutilization is the main inhibitor to growth at their airports.

While this implies the deferral of capital expenditures, the ac-

tual deferral of those expenditures was not a driving factor in

ARINC IBM IER Materna SITA

Survey

Industry

Travelsky

FIGURE 18 CUSS airline applications, by vendor.

Included in rates and charges

Time of use system

Other

60%

13%

20%

Per emplaned/deplaned/recheckin

passenger or other per-capita billing

methodology

FIGURE 19 Costing models for common use.

Other

Ultra Electronics

SITA

Resa

Materna

IER

ARINC

AirIT

FIGURE 17 CUTE airline applications, by vendor.

making the decision to move along the common use contin-

uum. Passenger ﬂow and customer service ranked second in

importance, and combined they are the largest factor for im-

plementing common use strategies, since passenger ﬂow is

related to customer service. Limitations to growth and other

factors were not as important as these in the opinions of the

airport operators surveyed (see Figure 20).

One airport responded to the survey that they did not have

common use and had no plans to implement any common use

Other

Max

imize use of gat

es for mul

tiple airlines

Attract new te

nant

Inabili

ty to expand

Cost reductio

Pas

seng

er f

low

Defer

cap

ital

expenditures

Cust

omer

service

FIGURE 20 Reasons to move along the common use continuum.

strategies. The response indicated that because the airport

was a hub for a single airline there was no need to implement

common use. This also supports the need to review an air-

port’s airline make-up to determine if a common use strategy

would make sense to implement.

When asked about Common Use Passenger Processing

Systems (CUPPS), 92% of airlines and 95% of airport oper-

ators responded that they were aware of the initiative. When

asked if they supported the CUPPS initiative, 92% of airlines

stated they were in support of CUPPS.

This shows that there has been a tremendous amount of

education done on the CUPPS initiative and there is a high

level of awareness and support within the industry. Several

airlines have stated both in survey results as well as in offi-

cial company positions, that they fully support CUPPS and

are actively participating in the development of the standard.

The CUPPS standard, set to go before the Joint Passengers

Service Committee (JPSC) in September of 2007, is sup-

ported across industry organizations. IATA, ATA, and ACI

have agreed to support the ﬁnal recommended practice, and

each has reserved a number in their recommended practices

for inclusion of the CUPPS standard.

LITERATURE

As stated in previous chapters, the amount of published liter-

ature on common use currently available is limited in nature

and scope. One interesting source of information is the pro-

curement documents produced by airport operators that have

begun the migration along the common use continuum.

While these documents tend to be large and have a lot of con-

tractual information, they also contain a wealth of knowledge

about what airport operators are searching for to meet their

common use strategies. Many of these documents are avail-

able through Freedom of Information Act requests to the

respective governmental institutions.

INDUSTRY SOURCES AND EXPERIENCE

The aviation industry, in general, has a large amount of “tribal

knowledge” that has not been documented. This knowledge is

passed through experience from person to person. As a result,

it becomes important to develop relationships with people

across the industry to gather information on topics of interest.

For this purpose it has become common practice to meet

through industry associations, conferences, and training oppor-

tunities. Credible and useful sources of information include

IATA, ATA, ACI, and AAAE. Each of these organizations

provides opportunities for airlines and airport operators to share

knowledge as well as learn about the state of the industry.

IATA continues to work with its members to create spec-

iﬁcations and recommended practices for the industry.

Among the speciﬁcations and recommended practices that

IATA has created are the speciﬁcations for Common Use

Terminal Equipment (CUTE), Common Use Self-Service

(CUSS), and other common use speciﬁcations.

These speciﬁcations and recommended practices shape

the industry and the manner in which common use is imple-

mented at airports. IATA continues to review speciﬁcations

and recommended practices, updating or replacing them as

necessary. One recommended practice currently being up-

dated is the CUTE RP. The replacement to CUTE is known

as Common Use Passenger Processing System (CUPPS).

The guiding principles for CUPPS are:

1. Applications that run on any platform

2. CUPPS facilitates business processes rather than man-

dates

3. CUPPS platform with minimum and deﬁned func-

tionality

4. Affordability

5. Serviceability

6. Predictability.

The CUPPS Recommended Practice is planned to go before

the Joint Passenger Services Committee for approval in Sep-

tember 2007.

Through experience, airports are learning about many of

the concerns an airline may have that are inhibiting common

use strategies. It is important to be ready to address these

concerns if the move along the common use continuum is to

be successful. Listed here are common concerns that have

been raised through the implementation of a common use

strategy. Although there are many possible resolutions, some

suggestions are offered here to aide in the process.

Concern: Although common use strategies are widely

accepted in Europe, the whole basis of the rela-

tionship between airport and air carrier is dif-

ferent in the United States. It is not the way in

which the U.S. airlines are accustomed to

working, and there can be some resistance.

Response: Work closely with the airport and the airlines

on the original installation, working around the

airlines’ schedules so that there is minimal dis-

ruption to operation of the airport. Develop a

timeline with each airline to ensure they can

successfully convert to the common use envi-

ronment, but within a timeframe to which they

have agreed.

Concern: Airlines can perceive common-use as an in-

fringement of their control.

Response: Before installation, perform even more-then-

perceived as necessary consultation sessions

with the airlines to obtain stakeholder involve-

ment. This can contribute greatly to the success

of the acceptance of the project. Make one of

the selection criteria for the successful Plat-

form Provider that they support the majority of

the airlines at that airport.

Concern: Service support after installation can be costly

and/or poor. Response time seldom meets the

near-immediate needs of the airlines.

Response: Whether service is provided by platform

provider, in-house, or third party, this service

should be competitively bid, and assurances

made (SLAs) for single-point of contact, access

to a pool of trained engineers, and 24-7 support

for the airport. In addition, the selection criteria

for support services should not be based on

cost, but the majority of the points should be

based on experience and knowledge.

Concern: Our full system functionality will not be avail-

able unless you use our peripherals.

Response: CUTE uses a common set of peripherals that all

airlines must use. There are cases where one or

two airlines need specialized equipment or pe-

ripherals. In these cases, the platform providers

have certiﬁed hardware that provides the func-

tionality required. If they do not, the platform

providers have a method to certify peripherals as

necessary. In addition, since the airline is respon-

sible for the common use application, all func-

tionality is based on the application that they

create, or that is created for them by a vendor.

Concern: Airlines do not want to pay for the more ex-

pensive system equipment other airlines may

be using.

Response: Some airport operators have required that spe-

cialized equipment be purchased by the airline

that requires it, rather than embedding that cost

in the PFC charges for all airlines. Other airport

operators have accepted this cost as the cost of

doing business and do not pass the charges on

to the airlines. Still others have added a nomi-

nal increase to the PFCs. Airport operators and

airlines must work up front and throughout the

process in an open-discussion atmosphere as to

how to distribute costs.

Concern: The system will end up either being the least

common denominator from a technology side

or it will end up being more costly for low cost

air carriers.

Response: All major airlines now have CUTE applica-

tions and are supporting them for other air-

ports. The small commuter airlines, and some

foreign airlines, mostly from South and Central

America, do not have CUTE applications and

will need to have other facilities provided for

them. Support costs for those airlines that

already have CUTE applications are already

accounted for in their cost models.

Concern: Facilitating is better than mandating. We have

immediate needs across many airports and we

do not like being told what to do at any partic-

ular airport.

Response: Develop a timeline with each airline to ensure

they can successfully convert to the common

use environment, but within a timeframe to

which they have agreed.

Concern: We need the ability to understand costs. Cost

transparency is always necessary. No additional

cost for updates and software delivery, either

local or through provider. Cost per passenger

should be known. The airport should provide

equal treatment for all IT users in all billing,

charging, and invoicing issues.

Response: Airport policy will dictate the sharing of cost

information with airlines. However, upgrade

costs and software costs should be included in

the original contract with the platform provider.

Any costs associated with the airline’s applica-

tion should already be accounted for in their

costing models.

Concern: We need the installation of a local IT member

board to communicate with the airlines, IT

provider(s), and airports for problem solutions,

further developments, and provider RFPs.

Response

: The inclusion and support of airline IT mem-

bers early in the process should be encouraged

and facilitates a cooperative environment.

This member(s) should be a part of all

phases of the process through installation and

acceptance.

Concern: CUTE is a “great system” suited to international

Air Carriers, but not so great for domestic carri-

ers. “CUTE is the common way of accessing

information within international terminals.”

Response: Many domestic carriers also fly international

or will be flying international (Canada and

Mexico). CUTE is also used for domestic

flights in airports that are constrained in the

current facilities and space that they have in

which to operate.

The common use continuum continues to develop and the

beneﬁts continue to increase. From its beginnings in 1984,

the common use movement and the growth of the continuum

have beneﬁted the industry. As airport operators continue to

struggle with the best use of their constrained space, vendors,

airlines, airports, and other interested parties continue to

push the limits of the common use continuum. The following

conclusions are based on this continued change and the re-

sults of the literature and knowledge search contained in this

synthesis.

• Industry-Wide Importance and Beneﬁts of the Common

Use Continuum

Common use is of growing interest to airports and airlines.

Although the literature and available recorded knowledge is

limited, it is an important ﬁeld and has a great impact on the

airport and airline community. Both airport operators and

airlines stand to beneﬁt from the implementation of common

use. Airport operators gain by greater efficiency and more

ﬂexibility in using their space, expanded airport capacity, op-

portunities for increased competition, and an environment that

is easier to maintain. Airlines gain more ﬂexibility in changing

schedules, opportunities to lower costs, and a potentially lower

cost of entry into a new market. The converse is also true, in

that if a common use implementation is poorly planned and

implemented, airport operators and airlines stand to lose.

Passengers also recognize the beneﬁts of common use

when an airport operator moves along the common use con-

tinuum. Common use enables airport operators and airlines

to move the check-in process farther from the airport, thus

allowing passengers to perform at least part of the process

remotely. In some cases, the passenger can complete the

check-in process, including baggage check, before ever

entering the airport. This allows passengers to travel lighter.

It also affords passengers a more leisurely trip to the airport,

allowing them to enjoy their vacation a little longer, and with

less stress. Passengers arriving at an airport that has imple-

mented common use have more time to spend getting to their

gate and may not feel as rushed and frustrated by the travel-

ling experience. A positive experience translates into a

positive image for both the airport and the airline. Such an

experience can lead to recognition and awards for the airlines

and the airport operators.

• Lack of Information Resources

Throughout this process, it has become evident that the lack

of formal, documented studies; educational resources; and

published materials about common use systems and strate-

gies compels anyone interested in learning about common

use to do so through trial and error, acquiring knowledge

through ﬁrst-hand experience. There is considerable “tribal”

knowledge in the focused portion of the industry, but it has

not been formally gathered.

Much of the documented information available is pro-

vided by vendors in the form of marketing material.

Although information can be gleaned from these documents,

they do not present a balanced picture of the common use

continuum to assist stakeholders in learning about common

use. Unlike some topics, there was no central location to go

to learn about the topic of common use. Information avail-

able from industry organizations, such as the International

Air Transport Association (IATA), is provided at a very high

level or is not freely available.

• The Need for Careful Planning and Open Communi-

cations

It is important that any movement along the common use

continuum be carefully considered to address the beneﬁts

and concerns of all parties. Airport operators must consider

whether or not common use would be appropriate at their air-

port. If the airport has one or two dominant carriers, it may

not make sense to move too far along the common use con-

tinuum. Airports and airlines must work closely during the

design of the common use strategy to ensure that the passen-

gers receive the beneﬁt of the effort. It is the airline that

brings the customer to the airport, but it is the airport that

allows the airline to operate in a given market.

Both airlines and airport operators must communicate

openly and honestly when introducing common use. If air-

port operators include airlines in the design process, then all

interested parties are able to affect the outcome of the strat-

egy for the better. Airport operators could make the extra

effort to ensure that airline participation is facilitated. Sched-

uling both remote meetings and face-to-face meetings is one

way to put in the effort needed to include airline staff. Air-

lines, likewise, need to make a commitment to participate in

the process. When an airport operator moves along the com-

mon use continuum, it is in the best interest of the airline to

participate in the design.

CHAPTER NINE

SUMMARY OF FINDINGS AND SUGGESTIONS FOR FURTHER RESEARCH

• Understanding the Airline’s Resistance to the Common

Use Continuum

Airlines generally have a somewhat negative view of com-

mon use initiatives, for several reasons. As has been shown

in this report, when a non-U.S. airport operator views com-

mon use as a proﬁt center, the airlines are not in favor of the

initiative. Also, when airport operators move along the com-

mon use continuum without the input of the airlines currently

serving that airport there can be distrust in the motivation and

a concern that the airport’s strategy will not support the air-

line business processes put in place to support its passengers.

The converse can also be true, in that airport operators that

engage the airlines in the process generally succeed in their

common use initiatives.

This review of the common use continuum highlights

six areas for continued study. A discussion of these areas

follows.

1. Complete a Full Common Use Continuum Analysis—

This synthesis generally deﬁnes the common use

continuum and gives it a high-level overview. It is rec-

ommended that a full analysis of the common use con-

tinuum be performed. Such an analysis would examine

each of the elements of common use, from technology

to facilities, and from physical modiﬁcations to per-

sonnel requirements. The analysis of the common use

continuum would identify which elements need to be

addressed to move along the common use continuum.

Additionally, this analysis could identify other areas

where common use solutions need to be developed for

future migration along the common use continuum.

The results of this analysis itself could help the indus-

try better understand the beneﬁts, impacts, and con-

cerns of common use initiatives. Also, the results of

such an analysis could have direct input to the follow-

ing recommendations.

This analysis could consider space planning review

to ensure that growth on the common use continuum

does not exceed the inherent limitations of the airport

space or operations. Two such examples include:

• Common use ticket counter design—It is possible to

design too much counter utilization, such that the

baggage conveyor systems are rendered inadequate

to accommodate the full implementation of the com-

mon use counters.

• Gate utilization and off-gate parking models—As an

airport moves along the common use continuum,

gate utilization becomes much more granular and

off-gate parking becomes much more important. Air-

ports need to have a model that can assist them in cal-

culating efficient gate utilization. The model also

needs to identify the ratio of off-gate parking to the

number of airlines operating at an airport. The ratio

of off-gate parking also needs to be compared with

the number of gates and the number of aircraft turns

per gate. This model could add value to the analysis

process of determining whether a common use strat-

egy should be implemented. Furthermore, this model

could help airports account for needed off-gate park-

ing to facilitate further growth of the passenger

activity at the airport.

This analysis could also consider certiﬁcation and de-

ployment models for common use applications that

have been identiﬁed as an area of concern within the

industry. Current certiﬁcation and deployment models

are looked on today with varying degrees of success.

A valuable area of research might be to identify other

industries with similar certiﬁcation and deployment

needs, and determine how their models of certiﬁcation

and deployment would be applied to the airline indus-

try. Opportunity exists for improving the certiﬁcation

and deployment process and ensuring that the time that

it takes to release a certiﬁed application is reduced to

the shortest time possible.

As a ﬁnal element of the analysis, a cost-recovery

model should be developed. Common use strategies

have implementation costs. Some airlines argue that the

common use strategies should be implemented by air-

port operators without cost to the airlines. Many airport

operators are unable to give goods or services for free

owing to municipal, state, or federal government laws.

Airport operators may need to charge airlines on a cost-

recovery basis. This information, along with the

cost/beneﬁt analysis, could provide airports with the

ability to properly charge for a common use strategy, al-

lowing airlines and airports to receive beneﬁt from the

implementation of the common use strategy.

2. Prepare a Cost/Beneﬁt Analysis Template—Creation

of a cost/beneﬁt analysis template could enable both

airport operators and airlines to review the beneﬁts of a

common use strategy. The identiﬁed beneﬁts of this

strategy have not been clearly tied to costs that could be

incurred when making a move along the common use

continuum. Each airport installation will be different;

however, there are some common costs and beneﬁts

that could be analyzed and made available to the indus-

try. It could also be beneﬁcial to conduct a review of the

costs associated with proprietary airline systems and

develop a comparative cost model where implementa-

tion of a common use strategy could be compared with

the airline expenses for installing and maintaining

dedicated systems. This would be a general assessment

that would include quantitative and qualitative system

factors. Although individual airlines deploy differing

systems with differential investments, a generalized

comparative assessment could be a demonstration of

cost compatibility. Preparation of the cost/beneﬁt

analysis template could be conducted in coordination

with the preparation of the design guidelines.

3. Establish a Common Use Knowledge Base and Users

Group—The amount of information available to edu-

cate and share on common use is limited. Tools and

forums exist today for people to share information

about topics of mutual interest. A common use knowl-

edge base would allow airports and airlines the ability

to research industry knowledge that is currently avail-

able, but not well documented. A user group for the

common use continuum would allow airports and air-

lines to share experience, answer questions, and gain

knowledge about common use strategies and how to

implement them successfully.

The knowledge base could consist of its own website,

electronic library, and on-line user group. A global or-

ganization could solicit endorsement/sponsorship from

the existing professional organizations such that user

group sessions could be held in coordination with an-

nual conferences. The documentation resources identi-

ﬁed in this synthesis can be a starting point, along with

the results of the full analysis. Continuing feedback

from this knowledge base and user group would beneﬁt

all stakeholders in preparation of design guidelines as

recommended here.

4. Prepare a Common Use Design and Implementation

Guide—IATA has created a Common Use Self-Service

(CUSS) implementation guide that can be of assistance

to airports wanting to implement CUSS. Similarly,

IATA has introduced intelligence tools such as Air-

portIS, which help airport operators understand market

dynamics and peer-to-peer comparisons. Through such

tools, the end user can conduct various analyses to

identify and evaluate new ideas, benchmark one airport

against another, and improve design-related tech-

niques. It is recommended that the preparation of these

guidelines take the same approach, so that an airport

operator could have one document at its disposal to

begin a common use strategy and design process. A

common use design and implementation guide would

provide the tools necessary for the airport operators to

determine what elements of a common use strategy to

implement and the beneﬁt of those implementations.

The design and implementation guide could provide

best practices, answer common questions, and assist in

the initial design and implementation of a common use

strategy. It could also give airport operators some guid-

ance about the order in which to implement common

use strategies to make the most effective use of capital

expenditures. The guide could also be timed with the

release of the IATA/ATA/ACI recommended practice

for the Common Use Passenger Processing System

(CUPPS) so as to take into account the implementation

requirements of CUPPS.

5. Establish Best Practices in Support and Maintenance—

Support and maintenance of common use strategies and

solutions are important to their success and require best

practices research. Such research could examine ac-

count processes, such as ITIL and ISO, as well as

review support and maintenance practices in other in-

dustries. The best practices could then be gathered and

presented to the industry so that support and mainte-

nance would be at levels that exceed the expectations of

the industry.

6. Develop a Funding Model—Airport operators need to

identify sources of funding common use initiatives.

Along with identifying potential sources of funding,

they also need to develop a model that will aid them in

determining the feasibility of implementing common

use. This model would allow airport operators to de-

termine appropriate funding sources, as well as deter-

mine the business model, costing, etc., of a common

use system. Based on the variables deﬁned in the

model, the airport operator would be able to determine

the potential beneﬁts of implementing common use.

Access control—Practice of restricting entrance to a prop-

erty, a building, or a room to authorized persons only.

Air Operations Database (AODB)—Central database to be

used for collecting, analyzing, and sharing the airports

operational data among the approved users and other

applications.

Airports Council International (ACI)—Worldwide airport

organization that focuses primarily on international avia-

tion issues while concurrently supporting the services and

programs of the members in each of its ﬁve regions.

Air Transport Association (ATA)—Trade association of

U.S. airlines. Its primary purpose is to represent the air-

lines in government decisions regarding aviation.

American Association of Airport Executives (AAAE)—

Professional organization of airport executives, whose pri-

mary goal is to assist airport executives in fulﬁlling their

responsibilities to the airports and communities they serve.

Application provider—Entity responsible for the provision

and management of its applications accessible from a

CUPPS workstation; for example, an airline or third party.

Application supplier—Entity responsible for the develop-

ment and/or support of an application.

Association of European Airlines (AEA)—Commonly refers

to the ATB and BTP printer speciﬁcations maintained by

AEA.

Baggage Reconciliation System (BRS)—Automated system

designed to provide for the electronic tracking and match-

ing of baggage.

Baggage reconciliation/tracking—Method of baggage man-

agement that creates a bag tag and tracks the baggage

throughout the sortation process until it is delivered to the

aircraft or the baggage belt.

Building management systems—Building management

systems are the systems necessary to operate a building.

These systems include heating, ventilation, and air condi-

tioning (HVAC); energy management control systems;

ﬁre detection systems; standby power systems; lighting

systems; etc.

Closed circuit television (CCTV)—Surveillance equipment

used to monitor activities within a required area.

Common use—Process, systems, and physical changes needed

at an airport to make gates useable by multiple airlines.

Common use continuum—Method of measuring the capac-

ity of common use changes at an airport.

Common Use Passenger Processing (CUPPS)—Describes

the range of services, speciﬁcations, and standards enacted

to enable multiple airlines to share physical check-in

and/or gate podium positions (whether simultaneously or

consecutively).

Common Use Self-Service (CUSS)—Standard for multiple

airlines to provide a check-in application for use by pas-

sengers on a single device. IATA and ATA adopted

this new standard during the Joint Passenger Service

Conference in November 2000. The IATA reference is

RP1706C and the ATA reference is 30.100.

Common use strategy—Plans put together by an airport or an

airline to execute common use solutions.

Common use technical equipment (CUTE)—Computer sys-

tem provided to airlines by the airport that allows airline

staff to access their own computer systems without having

their own dedicated equipment, while allowing more ﬂex-

ible and efficient use of airport facilities.

CUPPS application—Certiﬁed business application that will

run on all CUPPS certiﬁed platforms. The CUPPS appli-

cation is the essential part of the CUPPS system providing

the functionality the CUPPS workstation offers. It depends

on the CUPPS application whether a workstation can be

used for ticketing, as a gate podium workstation, jet way

podium, or anything else. There is theoretically no limita-

tion as to the nature and number of applications that can be

offered on a CUPPS system. The provider of the CUPPS

application could be an airline, airport, or a third party.

CUPPS management group—A CUPPS management group

comprised of airlines, airports and IATA partners will be

responsible for managing the certiﬁcation process and

amending CUPPS standards.

CUPPS platform—This deﬁned environment supports applica-

tions for one or more airlines and conforms to the standards

as described in this Recommended Practice.

CUTE CLUB—Cute Local User Board.

Dynamic signage—Signage using electronic screens such as

liquid crystal display (LCD) or plasma screens that can be

used to display information to passengers. The informa-

tion on these screens can change, thus making them

dynamic.

Gate management system (GMS)—Automated system used

to manage, consistent with speciﬁed airport/airline busi-

ness goals, the assignment of airport gates for use by

aircraft and potentially services through different airlines.

A GMS allows an airport operator or airline to plan,

operate, manage, and document the usage of the gates.

Depending on sophistication, a GMS can also manage the

many resources critical to the movement of aircraft at air-

port gates. Highly sophisticated systems are better known

as resource management systems.

GIDs—Gate information displays.

GIS—Geographical information system.

Hard stand—Hard-surfaced area for parking aircraft or

ground vehicles, usually away from the gates.

Information Technology Infrastructure Library (ITIL)—Set

of concepts and techniques for managing information

technology (IT) infrastructure, development, and opera-

tions.

International Air Transport Association (IATA)—Global

trade organization for airlines whose mission is to repre-

sent, lead, and serve the airline industry.

GLOSSARY

Joint Passenger Services Committee (JPSC)—Joint commit-

tee between IATA and ATA.

Local Boarding Application (LBA)—Allows each airline to

communicate with its own host computer system.

Local Departure Control System (LDCS)—Facilitates re-

conciliation of passenger check-in with reservations,

records seat assignments, and prints boarding passes, bag

tags, and ﬂight manifests. An LDCS is intended for use by

airlines that are not linked to a host system.

MOU—Memorandum of Understanding.

Multi-User Baggage Information Display System (MU-

BIDS)—Dynamic display that shows baggage carousel

locations for all incoming ﬂights.

Multi-User Flight Information Display System (MUFIDS)—

Dynamic display that shows consolidated ﬂight informa-

tion for all ﬂight activity at an airport for a deﬁned period

of time.

OPDB—Operational database (see AODB).

Platform provider—Entity responsible for ongoing provision

and management of the platform. The platform provider

could be an airport, airline, or third party company.

Platform supplier—Entity that provides any component of

the platform.

Premise Distribution System (PDS)—Engineered cable plant

designed with the intent of supporting all communications

systems network interconnection needs for a substantial

period of time.

Remain over night (RON)—Areas of an airport used for the

overnight parking and staging of an aircraft.

Service provider—Entity responsible for maintaining the

operational service performance of the platform.

Simplifying the Business (StB)—Collection of the following

ﬁve initiatives by IATA to improve passenger processing

and airline business:

1. E-ticketing

2. Common Use Self-Service

3. Bar-coded boarding pass

4. Radio frequency ID

5. IATA e-Freight.

Telephony—Use or operation of an apparatus or device for the

transmission of sounds between distinct, separate points.

Voice over IP (VoIP)—Technology used to transmit voice con-

versations over a data network using the Internet protocol.

Web application services—Standardized way of integrating

web-based applications using standard protocols over the

Internet.

Behan, P., “The Case for Common Use Self Service,” Inter-

national Airport Review, Issue 1, 2006, pp. 67–68.

Broderick, S., “One for All,” Airport Magazine, Vol. 16, No.

3, 2004, pp. 52–53.

“Common Use Facilities,” Operating Procedures, Greater

Orlando Aviation Authority, Orlando, Fla., 2004.

de Neufville, R. and S. Belin, “Airport Passenger Buildings:

Efficiency through Shared Use of Facilities,” Journal of

Transportation Engineering, Vol. 128, No. 3, May/June

2002, pp. 201–210.

“E-Ticketing Comes of Age,” Jane’s Airport Review, Vol.

18, No. 2, Mar. 2006, pp. 28–29.

FAA Order 5100.38C—Airport Improvement Program

Handbook, Federal Aviation Administration, U.S. Depart-

ment of Transportation, Washington, D.C., June 28, 2005.

Finn, M., “The Common Use Journey: From LA to Athens:

The Olympic Games and the Common Use Journey,” Air-

ports International, 2005, p. 27.

Gesell, L. and R. Sobotta, The Administration of Public Air-

ports, Coast Aire Publications, Chandler, Ariz., 2007.

Guitjens, H., “Balancing Capacity Issues,” Airports Interna-

tional, Vol. 39, No. 3, 2006, pp. 36–37.

Ingalls, S., “McCarran International Airport—A Case Study

in Enhancing Passenger Processing Efficiency,” Journal

of Airport Management, Jan. 2007.

McCormick, C., “Uncommon-Use Kiosks,” Airports Inter-

national, Vol. 39, No. 5, 2006, pp. 36–38.

Rozario, K., “CUSS Trims Check-in Costs,” Jane’s Airport

Review, Dec. 2005/Jan. 2006, pp. 30–31.

Sanders, D., “Look Ahead—Combining RFID, RTLS, and

Biometrics Can Secure and Simplify Air Travel,” Airport

Magazine, Nov./Dec. 2005, pp. 57–58.

Simplifying the Business Common Use Self Service, 1st ed.,

Implementation Guide, International Air Transport Asso-

ciation, Geneva, Switzerland, 2006.

Wikipedia, Schengen Agreement, July 3, 2007 [Online]. Avail-

able: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schengen_Agreement

[accessed July 8, 2007].

REFERENCES

AAAE Service Corporation, Inc., “Inline Systems: An Air-

line’s Take,” Airport Magazine, July 2003, pp. 43–45.

Alaska Air Group 2006 Annual Report, Alaska Air Group,

Seattle, Wash., 2006.

Bates, J., “Back to the Future,” Airport World: The Magazine

of the Airports Council International, April–May 2006,

pp. 27–29.

Citrinot, L., “Airports Step Up IT Spending,” Janes Airport

Review, Mar. 2006, p. 26.

Cross, B., “Checks Do a Double Take—Biometrics Provide

a Second Layer of Security and Help Speed Up Passenger

Flow at the Boarding Gate,” Jane’s Airport Review, Apr.

2006, pp. 10–11.

Dungan, J., “Finding Convenience,” Airports International,

Vol. 38, No. 6, pp. 20–21.

Jarrell, J., “Airport Systems Integration,” Airports Interna-

tional, June 2001, pp. 37–39.

King, E., “Dubai—Managing the Future,” Airports Interna-

tional, Vol. 38, No. 4, pp. 40–41.

Mansﬁeld, J., “Network Lockdown,” Airports International,

Nov. 2006, pp. 22–23.

McCormick, C., “Modelling the Future,” Airports Interna-

tional, Vol. 39, No. 5, 2006 pp. 39–41.

McCormick, C., “Halifax—Building for Growth,” Airports

International, Vol. 39, No. 3, 2006 pp. 18–19.

“Montreal Looks Forward,” Airports International, Vol. 38,

No. 6, 2005, pp. 24–25.

Planning and Design Guidelines for Airport Terminal Facili-

ties, Advisory Circular 150/5360-13, Federal Aviation

Administration, Washington, D.C., U.S. Government Print-

ing Office, 1988.

“Preliminary Airport Traffic Results for 2006,” Airports

Council International, Geneva, Switzerland, Mar. 2007

[Online]. Available http://www.airports.org/aci/aci/ﬁle/

Press%20Releases/2007_PRs/PR060307_PrelimResults

2006.pdf (accessed July 24, 2007).

Simplifying the Business—What it Is and What it Means

for Airport Operators, Bulletin for Members, Airports

Council International, Geneva, Switzerland, Jan. 2006,

Issue #2.

“T5 Team Shapes IT Landscape,” Jane’s Airport Review,

Apr. 2006, pp. 32–33.

“The Future Shape of Maintenance,” Airports International,

Vol. 39, No. 4, 2006, pp. 36–37.

Van Verseveld, K., “Self-Esteem: KLM’s Self-Service

Check-In Has Revolutionised Passenger Processing at

Schiphol,” Passenger Terminal World, July 2004, pp.

43–44.

Wilson, B., “Picking Up the Pace,” International Airport

Review, Issue 2, 2006, pp. 67–68.

Yan, S., C.H. Chang, and K.C. Tang, “Minimizing Inconsis-

tencies in Airport Common-Use Checking Counter As-

signments with a Variable Number of Counters,” Journal

of Air Transport Management, 2005, pp. 107–116.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

APPENDIX A

CUTE and CUSS Implementations, World-Wide

Key:

Airport has selected CUSS vendor, but has no airlines currently using CUSS.

Airport has identified airlines using CUSS, but no identified vendor.

Not applicable cell.

Airport Code Airport Region CUSS Vendor Airline Code—CUSS Airline—CUSS CUTE Vendor

ACC Accra Airport Africa Ultra

AGP Malaga Airport Europe Other

AKL Auckland Airport Asia Pacific SITA

ALG Algiers Airport Africa RESA CREWS

AMM Qaia (Queen Alia International Airport) MENA IER RJ Royal Jordanian SITA

AMS Amsterdam Schiphol Europe IBM 8Q Onur Air SITA

AMS Amsterdam Schiphol Europe IBM A9 AirZena Georgian Airways

AMS Amsterdam Schiphol Europe IBM AT Royal Air Maroc

AMS Amsterdam Schiphol Europe IBM BA British Airways

AMS Amsterdam Schiphol Europe IBM BY Thomsonfly

AMS Amsterdam Schiphol Europe IBM CB Scot Airways

AMS Amsterdam Schiphol Europe IBM F2 Fly Air

AMS Amsterdam Schiphol Europe IBM HV Transavia Holland

AMS Amsterdam Schiphol Europe IBM IB Iberia Airlines

AMS Amsterdam Schiphol Europe IBM VR Cabo Verde Airlines

AMS Amsterdam Schiphol Europe IBM CI China Airlines

AMS Amsterdam Schiphol Europe IBM group KLM Skyteam

AMS Amsterdam Schiphol Europe IBM LH Lufthansa

AMS Amsterdam Schiphol Europe IBM N/A Corendon Airlines

AMS Amsterdam Schiphol Europe IBM BD BMI

AMS Amsterdam Schiphol Europe IBM LO LOT Polish Airlines

AMS Amsterdam Schiphol Europe IBM LS Jet2.com

AMS Amsterdam Schiphol Europe IBM NB Sterling Airlines

Airport Code Airport Region CUSS Vendor Airline Code—CUSS Airline—CUSS CUTE Vendor

AMS Amsterdam Schiphol Europe IBM OR Arkefly

AMS Amsterdam Schiphol Europe IBM OU Croatia Airlines

AMS Amsterdam Schiphol Europe IBM TS Air Transat

AMS Amsterdam Schiphol Europe IBM VG VLM Airlines

AMS Amsterdam Schiphol Europe IBM W6 Wizz Air

ANE Angers Europe RESA CREWS

ANG Angouleme Europe RESA CREWS

AOI Ancona Europe RESA CREWS

AQJ

Aqaba—King Hussein International

Airport MENA IER RJ Royal Jordanian

ARN Stockholm—Arlanda Europe SITA

ATH Athens Europe SITA IB Iberia Airlines SITA

ATH Athens Europe SITA KL KLM Royal Dutch Airlines

ATH Athens Europe SITA LH Lufthansa

ATL Atlanta United States SITA

AUH Abu Dhabi International Airport MENA SITA

AYT Antalya MENA Ultra

AYT Antalya MENA RESA CREWS

BAH Bahrain MENA Ultra

BCN Barcelona Europe Other

BDA Bermuda/Hamilton Airport The Americas ARINC

BES Brest Europe RESA CREWS

BEY Beirut International Airport MENA SITA

BFS Belfast International Airport Europe SITA BE Flybe

BFS Belfast International Airport Europe SITA KL KLM Royal Dutch Airlines

BGI Grantley Adams International Airport United States ARINC

BGY Milan-Bergamo—Oro Al Serio Europe RESA CREWS

BHX Birmingham International Airport Europe ARINC BE Flybe ARINC

BKK Bangkok Don Muang International Airport Asia Pacific SITA

Airport Code Airport Region CUSS Vendor Airline Code—CUSS Airline—CUSS CUTE Vendor

BLR Bangalore Asia Pacific RESA CREWS

BNE Brisbane International Airport Asia Pacific SITA

BOD Bordeaux—Merignac Europe RESA CREWS

BOH Bournemouth International Europe Ultra

BOM Mumbai Asia Pacific KL KLM Royal Dutch Airlines SITA

BOM Mumbai Asia Pacific NW Northwest Airlines

BOS Boston Logan International Airport United States

SITA

BRE Bremen Airport—Flughafen Bremen Europe SITA

BRU Brussels Europe IER IB Iberia Airlines RESA CREWS

BRU Brussels Europe IER LH Lufthansa

BRU Brussels Europe IER BD BMI

BRU Brussels Europe IER SN Brussels Airlines

BSL Basil EuroAirport Europe SITA LX Swiss International Air Lines

BUD Budapest Europe SITA MA Malev Hungarian Airlines SITA

CAI Cairo MENA ARINC SITA

CAN Guangzhou Baiyun International Airport North Asia SITA

CAY Cayenne Africa RESA CREWS

CDG Paris Charles De Gaulle Europe IER JP Adria Airlines RESA CREWS

CDG Paris Charles De Gaulle Europe IER KF Blue1 (SAS)

CDG Paris Charles De Gaulle Europe IER LH Lufthansa

CDG Paris Charles De Gaulle Europe IER LO LOT Polish Airlines

CDG Paris Charles De Gaulle Europe IER OU Croatia Airlines

CDG Paris Charles De Gaulle Europe IER SK Scandinavian Airline System

CFE Clarmont Ferrand Auvergne Europe RESA CREWS

CGN Konrad Adenaur—Cologne Europe Materna 4U German Wings

CHC Christchurch International Airport Ltd Asia Pacific SITA

CHD Chandler Williams Gateway United States Ultra

BLQ Balogna Europe RESA CREWS

Airport Code Airport Region CUSS Vendor Airline Code—CUSS Airline—CUSS CUTE Vendor

CMN Mohammed V Airport MENA SITA

CPH Copenhagen Europe IBM 1I Novair SITA

CPH Copenhagen Europe IBM AZ Alitalia

CPH Copenhagen Europe IBM BA British Airways

CPH Copenhagen Europe IBM FI Iclandair

CPH Copenhagen Europe IBM IB Iberia Airlines

CPH Copenhagen Europe IBM KL KLM Royal Dutch Airlines

CPH Copenhagen Europe IBM LF Flynordic

CPH Copenhagen Europe IBM NB Sterling Airlines

CPH Copenhagen Europe IBM U2 Easyjet

CPH Copenhagen Europe IBM UG Tuninter

CPH Copenhagen Europe IBM VKG Mytravel

CPT Cape Town International Airport Africa SITA KL KLM Royal Dutch Airlines SITA

CPT Cape Town International Airport Africa SITA KQ Kenya Airways

CTA Catania Europe RESA CREWS

CUF Cuneo Europe RESA CREWS

CUN Cancun The Americas SITA SITA

DAC Dhaka Asia Pacific SITA

DEL Delhi Asia Pacific SITA

DEN Denver International Airport United States SITA

DFW Dallas/Fort Worth International Airport United States ARINC/IBM AA American Airlines

DFW Dallas/Fort Worth International Airport United States ARINC/IBM AC Air Canada

DHA Dhahran International Airport MENA SITA

DJE Djerba Zarzis Airport Africa Ultra

DKR Dakar Africa RESA CREWS

DLA Douala Africa RESA CREWS

CIA Ciampino—Roma Europe RESA CREWS

CMF Chambery (Aix les Bains) Europe RESA CREWS

DLM Dalaman Europe RESA CREWS

Airport Code Airport Region CUSS Vendor Airline Code—CUSS Airline—CUSS CUTE Vendor

DUB Dublin Europe Ultra

DUR Durban Airport Africa SITA SITA

DUS Dusseldorph Europe SITA

DXB Dubai MENA SITA

EBB Entebbe Africa RESA CREWS

EDI Edinburgh Europe SITA

EMA Nottingham East Midlands Airport Europe ARINC KL KLM Royal Dutch Airlines

EMA Nottingham East Midlands Airport Europe ARINC WW bmibaby

EWR New York Newark United States SITA

EZE Ministro Pistarini Airport The Americas SITA

FCO

Rome—Leonardo da Vinci Fiumicino

Airport Europe RESA CREWS

FDF Fort de France, Martinique The Americas RESA CREWS

FLO Florence Europe RESA CREWS

FMO Munster Osnabruck Airport Europe ARINC

FNI Nimes Europe RESA CREWS

FPO Freeport (Bahamas) The Americas Ultra

FRA Frankfurt Airport Europe SITA AA American Airlines SITA

FRA Frankfurt Airport Europe SITA AC Air Canada

FRA Frankfurt Airport Europe SITA BA British Airways

FRA Frankfurt Airport Europe SITA IB Iberia Airlines

FRA Frankfurt Airport Europe SITA NW Northwest Airlines

FRL Forli L. Ridolfi Europe RESA CREWS

GIG Rio De Janeiro The Americas SITA

GLA Glasgow Europe Ultra

DME Moscow Domededovo CIS Ultra

DSA Doncaster Europe Ultra

GNB Grenobel Europe RESA CREWS

GOA Genoa Europe RESA CREWS

Airport Code Airport Region CUSS Vendor Airline Code—CUSS Airline—CUSS CUTE Vendor

GVA Geneva Europe SITA LO LOT Polish Airlines

GVA Geneva Europe SITA LX Swiss International Air Lines

GVA Geneva Europe SITA OS Austrian Airlines

GVA Geneva Europe SITA TP TAP Portugal

HAJ Hannover Airport Europe SITA

HAK Haikou Airport North Asia Travelsky/IER CA Air China

HAK Haikou Airport North Asia Travelsky/IER MU China Eastern Airlines

HAM Hamburg Europe SITA

HAN Hanoi Asia Pacific RESA CREWS

HEL Helsinki Europe IBM RESA CREWS

HGH Hangzhou North Asia Ultra

HKG Hong Kong North Asia SITA

HND Tokyo–Haneda International Airport Asia Pacific ARINC JL Japan Airlines

HNL Honolulu Airport United States SITA

HPN Westchester County Airport United States ARINC/IBM AA American Airlines

HPN Westchester County Airport United States ARINC/IBM AC Air Canada

HPN Westchester County Airport United States ARINC/IBM NW Northwest Airlines

HRE Harare Africa RESA CREWS

HUY Humberside International Airport Ltd. Europe ARINC KL KLM Royal Dutch Airlines

HYD Hyderabad–Begumpet Asia Pacific RESA CREWS

IAD Washington Dulles United States ARINC

IAH Houston—George Bush Intercontinental United States SITA

ICN Seoul—Incheon International Airport Asia Pacific SITA CX Cathay Pacific ARINC

GRU Sao Paulo The Americas SITA

GVA Geneva Europe SITA BA British Airways

GVA Geneva Europe SITA LH Lufthansa

ICN Seoul—Incheon International Airport Asia Pacific SITA KE Korean Air

ICN Seoul—Incheon International Airport Asia Pacific SITA OZ Asiana Airlines

Airport Code Airport Region CUSS Vendor Airline Code—CUSS Airline—CUSS CUTE Vendor

JNB Johannesburg Africa SITA KL KLM Royal Dutch Airlines SITA

JNB Johannesburg Africa SITA KQ Kenya Airways

KBP Kiev Boryspil CIS SITA

KEF Keflavik Airport Europe IER BA British Airways

KEF Keflavik Airport Europe IER FI Iclandair

KEF Keflavik Airport Europe IER SK Scandinavian Airline System

KHI Quaid-E–Azam International Airport Asia Pacific SITA

KIX Kansai Asia Pacific ARINC JL Japan Airlines

KMG Kunming Airport North Asia Travelsky/IER CA Air China

KMG Kunming Airport North Asia Travelsky/IER MU China Eastern Airlines

KRK Krakow Europe SITA

KUL Kuala Lumpur Airport Asia Pacific SITA

KWI Kuwait International Airport MENA SITA

LAS Las Vegas–McCarran International Airport United States ARINC/IBM AA American Airlines ARINC

LAS Las Vegas–McCarran International Airport United States ARINC/IBM AQ Aloha Airlines

LAS Las Vegas–McCarran International Airport United States ARINC/IBM AS Alaska Airlines

LAS Las Vegas–McCarran International Airport United States ARINC/IBM B6 JetBlue Airways

LAS Las Vegas–McCarran International Airport United States ARINC/IBM CO Continental Airlines

LAS Las Vegas–McCarran International Airport United States ARINC/IBM DL Delta Airlines

LAS Las Vegas–McCarran International Airport United States ARINC/IBM F9 Frontier Airlines

LAS Las Vegas–McCarran International Airport United States ARINC/IBM FL AirTran Airways

LAS Las Vegas–McCarran International Airport United States ARINC/IBM HP America West Airlines

LAS Las Vegas–McCarran International Airport United States ARINC/IBM NW Northwest Airlines

ILE Killeen United States Ultra

ISB Islamabad International Airport Asia Pacific SITA

JED

Jeddah–King Abdulaziz International

Airport

MENA

Ultra

JFK New York JFK International Airport United States SITA LX Swiss International Air Lines

LAS Las Vegas–McCarran International Airport United States ARINC/IBM UA United Airlines

LAS Las Vegas–McCarran International Airport United States ARINC/IBM US US Airways

Airport Code Airport Region CUSS Vendor Airline Code—CUSS Airline—CUSS CUTE Vendor

LED St. Petersburg Pulkovo CIS Ultra

LGW London Gatwick Europe IER BY Thomsonfly

LGW London Gatwick Europe IER VS Virgin Atlantic Airways

LHR London Heathrow Europe IER AA American Airlines

LHR London Heathrow Europe IER AC Air Canada

LHR London Heathrow Europe IER BA British Airways

LHR London Heathrow Europe IER CX Cathay Pacific

LHR London Heathrow Europe IER EK Emirates

LHR London Heathrow Europe IER JL Japan Airlines

LHR London Heathrow Europe IER KL KLM Royal Dutch Airlines

LHR London Heathrow Europe IER UA United Airlines

LIG Limoges Europe RESA CREWS

LIL Lile Europe RESA CREWS

LIM J Chavez International Airport The Americas SITA

LIN Milan Linate Europe ARINC

LIS Lisbon Europe SITA

LMP Lampedusa Europe RESA CREWS

LOS Lagos Africa RESA CREWS

LOS Lagos Africa Ultra

LRM Casa de Campo—La romana The Americas RESA CREWS

LRT Lorient Europe RESA CREWS

LTN London–Luton Europe Ultra

LAS Las Vegas–McCarran International Airport United States ARINC/IBM WN Southwest Airlines

LAS Las Vegas–McCarran International Airport United States ARINC/IBM YX Midwest Airlines

LAX Los Angeles International Airport United States SITA

LCA Larnaca Europe SITA

LDE Lourdes—Tarbes Europe RESA CREWS

LTQ Le Touquet Paris Plag Europe RESA CREWS

LUX Luxembourg Europe RESA CREWS

Airport Code Airport Region CUSS Vendor Airline Code—CUSS Airline—CUSS CUTE Vendor

MAN Manchester Europe ARINC LH Lufthansa

MAN Manchester Europe ARINC BE Flybe

MAN Manchester Europe ARINC KL KLM Royal Dutch Airlines

MAN Manchester Europe ARINC VS Virgin Atlantic Airways

MCO Orlando United States SITA

MEL Tullamarine Airport Asia Pacific ARINC

MEX Mexico City The Americas SITA

MGM Montgomery United States Ultra

MIA Miami International Airport United States SITA

MIL Milan Europe RESA CREWS

MIR Monastir Africa Ultra

MLH Basel–Mulhouse Europe RESA CREWS

MME Teesside Europe Ultra

MNL Ninoy Aquino International Airport Asia Pacific SITA

MPL Montpelier–Frejorgues Europe RESA CREWS

MRS Aéroport Marseille Provence Europe RESA CREWS

MSP Minneapolis International Airport United States Ultra

MUC Munich Europe SITA

MXP Milan Malpensa Europe ARINC

MZM Metz Europe RESA CREWS

NAN Nadi International Airport Asia Pacific ARINC

LYS Lyon Saint Exupéry Europe RESA CREWS

MAA Chennai Asia Pacific SITA

MAD Madrid Europe IER BA British Airways

MAD Madrid Europe IER IB Iberia Airlines

MAN Manchester Europe ARINC BA British Airways

NAP Naples Europe RESA CREWS

NBO Nairobi Africa SITA

Airport Code Airport Region CUSS Vendor Airline Code—CUSS Airline—CUSS CUTE Vendor

NRT Tokyo Narita Asia Pacific ARINC NH All Nippon Airways

NRT Tokyo Narita Asia Pacific ARINC OS Austrian Airlines

NRT Tokyo Narita Asia Pacific ARINC LH Lufthansa

NRT Tokyo Narita Asia Pacific ARINC NW Northwest Airlines

NRT Tokyo Narita Asia Pacific ARINC JL Japan Airlines

NRT Tokyo Narita Asia Pacific ARINC UA United Airlines

NTE Nantes Europe RESA CREWS

NUE Nuremberg Europe Materna AB Air Berlin ARINC

NUE Nuremberg Europe Materna KL KLM Royal Dutch Airlines

ODS Odessa CIS RESA CREWS

OLB Olbia Europe RESA CREWS

ORD Chicago United States SITA

ORY Paris Orly Europe IER AT Royal Air Maroc RESA CREWS

ORY Paris Orly Europe IER TU Tunisair

ORY Paris Orly Europe IER UX Air Europa

OSL Oslo Europe ARINC AF Air France

OSL Oslo Europe ARINC KL KLM Royal Dutch Airlines

OSL Oslo Europe ARINC NB Sterling Airlines

PEK Beijing North Asia IER CA Air China SITA

PEK Beijing North Asia IER MU China Eastern Airlines

PER Perth Asia Pacific SITA

NCE Nice Europe IER AF Air France RESA CREWS

NCE Nice Europe IER BA British Airways

NCL Newcastle Airport Europe SITA KL KLM Royal Dutch Airlines

NGO Nagoya—Centrair International Airport Asia Pacific JL Japan Airlines ARINC

NOU Noumea Asia Pacific RESA CREWS

NRT Tokyo Narita Asia Pacific ARINC AC Air Canada ARINC

PGF Perpignan Europe RESA CREWS

PHX Phoenix Sky Harbor International Airport United States SITA

Airport Code Airport Region CUSS Vendor Airline Code—CUSS Airline—CUSS CUTE Vendor

PMV Porlamar—Margarita The Americas Ultra

PNL Pantelleria Europe RESA CREWS

PRG Prague Europe SITA

PSA Pisa—Galileo Galilei Europe RESA CREWS

PTP Pointe-a-Pitre The Americas RESA CREWS

PVG Shanghai Pu Dong North Asia SITA

PTY Panama City Tocumen International The Americas Ultra

PUJ Punta Cana International Airport The Americas RESA CREWS

QUF Tallinn—Pirita Harbour CIS RESA CREWS

REG Reggio Calabria Europe RESA CREWS

RFD Rockford United States AirIT

RIX Riga Europe RESA CREWS

RMI Rimini Europe RESA CREWS

RNS Rennes Europe RESA CREWS

RSW Fort Myers Southwest Florida Reg United States Ultra

RTM Rotterdam Europe RESA CREWS

RUH Riyadh–King Khaled International MENA Ultra

RUN Saint Denis de la Reunion Africa RESA CREWS

SCL Santiago Airport The Americas SITA

SDQ Santo Domingo—Las Americas The Americas ARINC

PIT Pittsburgh International Airport United States ARINC B6 JetBlue Airways

PIT Pittsburgh International Airport United States ARINC US US Airways

PLZ Port Elezabeth Airport Africa SITA SITA

PMF Parma Europe RESA CREWS

PMI Palma Mallorca Europe AB Air Berlin Other

PMO Palermo Punta Raisi Europe RESA CREWS

SFA Safaqis Africa RESA CREWS

SFB Orlando Sanford United States Ultra

Airport Code Airport Region CUSS Vendor Airline Code—CUSS Airline—CUSS CUTE Vendor

SIN Singapore Asia Pacific SITA

SJC San Jose United States AirIT

SMF Sacramento United States AirIT

SRQ Sarasota–Bradenton United States AirIT

STI Santiago Cibao International The Americas Ultra

STN London—Stansted Europe AB Air Berlin

STR Stuttgart Europe SITA

SUF Lamezia Terne Europe RESA CREWS

SVO Moscow Sheremetievo CIS ARINC

SXB Strasbourg Europe RESA CREWS

SYD Sydney Asia Pacific SITA

SZX Shenzhen—Baoan International Airport North Asia IER CA Air China

TAO Qingdao Liuting International Airport North Asia 3U Si Chuan Airlines Ultra

TAO Qingdao Liuting International Airport North Asia CA Air China

TAO Qingdao Liuting International Airport North Asia EU

Empresa Ecuatoriana De

Aviacion

TAO Qingdao Liuting International Airport North Asia FH Futura International Airways

TAO Qingdao Liuting International Airport North Asia MF Xiamen Airlines

TAO Qingdao Liuting International Airport North Asia MU China Eastern Airlines

TAO Qingdao Liuting International Airport North Asia NH All Nippon Airways

TAO Qingdao Liuting International Airport North Asia SC Shandong Airlines

TAO Qingdao Liuting International Airport North Asia ZH Shenzhen Airlines

SFO San Francisco International Airport United States IER UA United Airlines ARINC

SFO San Francisco International Airport United States IER BA British Airways

SFO San Francisco International Airport United States IER CX Cathay Pacific

SFO San Francisco International Airport United States IER B6 JetBlue Airways

SGN Ho Chi Minh City Airport Asia Pacific ARINC

SHE Shenyang North Asia Ultra

THR Tehran (Teheran) Mehrabad MENA RESA CREWS

TLN Toulon—Hyeres Europe RESA CREWS

Airport Code Airport Region CUSS Vendor Airline Code—CUSS Airline—CUSS CUTE Vendor

TUR Tucurui The Americas SITA

TXL Berlin Tegel Europe SITA

UIO Quito The Americas Ultra

VCE Venice Europe SITA

VIE Vienna Europe Materna IB Iberia Airlines SITA

VIE Vienna Europe Materna AF Air France

VIE Vienna Europe Materna AB Air Berlin

VIE Vienna Europe Materna HG Fly Niki

VIE Vienna Europe Materna LX Swiss International Air Lines

VIE Vienna Europe Materna KL KLM Royal Dutch Airlines

VIE Vienna Europe Materna OS Austrian Airlines

VRN Verona–Villafranca Europe Ultra

WAW Warsaw Europe SITA

WDH Windhoek—Jg Strijdom Airport Africa SITA

WNZ Wenzhou Yongqiang Airport North Asia IER

WUH Wuhan Tianhe Airport North Asia IER

XIY Xi'an–Xianyang North Asia Ultra

YAO Yaounde Africa RESA CREWS

YEG Edmonton International Airport The Americas ARINC/IBM AC Air Canada

YHM Hamilton Airport The Americas ARINC AC Air Canada

YHM Hamilton Airport The Americas ARINC WJ Air Labrador

TLS Toulouse—Blagnac Europe RESA CREWS

TLV Tel Aviv Europe SITA

TPE Taipei North Asia SITA

TPS Trapani–Birgi Europe RESA CREWS

TRN Turin Europe RESA CREWS

TUN Tunis Carthage Africa Ultra

YHZ Halifax International Airport The Americas ARINC/IBM AC Air Canada ARINC

YLW City of Kelowna Airport The Americas IBM AC Air Canada

YLW City of Kelowna Airport The Americas IBM WS WestJet

Airport Code Airport Region CUSS Vendor Airline Code—CUSS Airline—CUSS CUTE Vendor

YVR Vancouver International Airport The Americas ARINC/IBM CO Continental Airlines

YVR Vancouver International Airport The Americas ARINC/IBM KL KLM Royal Dutch Airlines

YVR Vancouver International Airport The Americas ARINC/IBM NW Northwest Airlines

YVR Vancouver International Airport The Americas ARINC/IBM QK Air Canada Jazz

YVR Vancouver International Airport The Americas ARINC/IBM QX Horizon Air

YVR Vancouver International Airport The Americas ARINC/IBM UA United Airlines

YVR Vancouver International Airport The Americas ARINC/IBM WS WestJet

YYC Calgary International Airport The Americas ARINC/IBM AA American Airlines ARINC

YYC Calgary International Airport The Americas ARINC/IBM AC Air Canada

YYC Calgary International Airport The Americas ARINC/IBM BA British Airways

YYC Calgary International Airport The Americas ARINC/IBM NW Northwest Airlines

YYC Calgary International Airport The Americas ARINC/IBM UA United Airlines

YYC Calgary International Airport The Americas ARINC/IBM WS WestJet

YYJ Victoria International Airport The Americas ARINC/IBM AC Air Canada

YYJ Victoria International Airport The Americas ARINC/IBM WS WestJet

YYZ

Toronto Lester B. Pearson International

Airport The Americas SITA AA American Airlines

YYZ

Toronto Lester B. Pearson International

Airport

The Americas SITA AC Air Canada

YYZ

Toronto Lester B. Pearson International

Airport

The Americas SITA QK Air Canada Jazz

YYZ

Toronto Lester B. Pearson International

Airport

The Americas SITA WS WestJet

ZAG Zagreb Airport CIS ARINC LH Lufthansa

ZRH Zurich Europe ARINC BA British Airways SITA

ZRH Zurich Europe ARINC AB Air Berlin

ZRH Zurich Europe ARINC KL KLM Royal Dutch Airlines

ZRH Zurich Europe ARINC LX Swiss International Air Lines

YUL Montreal Pierre Trudeau Airport/Dorval The Americas SITA AA American Airlines

YUL Montreal Pierre Trudeau Airport/Dorval The Americas SITA AC Air Canada

YVR Vancouver International Airport The Americas ARINC/IBM AA American Airlines

YVR Vancouver International Airport The Americas ARINC/IBM AC Air Canada

YVR Vancouver International Airport The Americas ARINC/IBM AS Alaska Airlines

YVR Vancouver International Airport The Americas ARINC/IBM CI China Airlines

ALASKA AIRLINES—TECHNOLOGY ENABLING

BUSINESS

Interview Participants

Bill Hepner

Loesje de Groen

Summary

Alaska Airlines strives to differentiate itself by using technology to

enable business processes. As Alaska Airlines continually reviews

business processes for improvement, they look for areas where

technology can play a role in facilitating, or improving, that busi-

ness process. If there is no technology solution available to affect

the business process, then Alaska Airlines creates the solution

themselves. When the industry establishes a standard to perform the

task that Alaska Airlines has already improved, they prepare a plan

to migrate to the standard.

Alaska Airlines Proﬁle

The foundation for Alaska Airlines was laid in 1932, when Mac

McGhee began ﬂying in Alaska. In 1934, McGhee Airlines merged

with another airline, and then after several more mergers, Alaska

Airlines was born. In 1952, Alaska Airlines began scheduled ser-

vice to the lower 48 states. In 1995, Alaska Airlines became the ﬁrst

U.S. airline to sell tickets via the Internet. In 2006, Alaska Airlines

carried 17.2 million passengers (Alaska Air Group . . . 2006).

Situation

Alaska Airlines is an innovator in both aviation and aviation tech-

nology. It has continually been among the ﬁrst to implement new

technologies to improve airline efficiency and passenger satisfac-

tion. Because of this pioneering spirit, Alaska Airlines tends to be

in a position to create new technologies and then work with the in-

dustry to create the standards around those new technologies.

Alaska Airlines is based in Seattle, Washington, and services

mostly the western United States, Canada, and Mexico. This service

area has limited their exposure to common use. In spite of this,

Alaska Airlines has been using common use systems, and develop-

ing their own common use applications, for about ﬁve years.

There are two main reasons for Alaska Airlines’ late entry into

the common use environment. First, many of the airports they ser-

vice have not implemented common use.

Second, because of their pioneering spirit in technology, many

of the business processes that they developed prior to common use

utilized technology solutions that were not supported by common

use systems. This situation is changing, as more airports adopt com-

mon use. Alaska Airlines will only adopt technology where it will

facilitate, or improve, their business processes.

The goal for Alaska Airlines is to improve customer service,

building upon their award-winning customer service reputation.

Technology plays an important role in that goal. Alaska Airlines is

very interested when one of the airports in the 48 destinations that it

services is considering a common use strategy. The main focus for

their interest is how it will affect customer service. Alaska Airlines

is concerned that when an airport moves along the common use con-

tinuum, it could cause difficulties and thus negatively impact the ex-

perience of Alaska Airlines’ customers.

Alaska Airlines sees many beneﬁts with common use. For ex-

ample, at some airports, Alaska Airlines has to arrive as an interna-

tional ﬂight. Its passengers must deplane and proceed through cus-

toms and immigration, only to enplane at another gate. The

passengers and the aircraft must be transported to another gate,

sometimes at another terminal, to continue the ﬂight. Common use

would improve this process by allowing the airline to stay at the gate

and thus be able to turn the ﬂight faster.

Alaska Airlines likes to be involved early on in the design dis-

cussions with airports that are considering moving along the com-

mon use continuum. The airline wants to ensure their success by

protecting their business processes, and making sure that customer

service is not negatively impacted by the common use strategy.

Alaska Airlines likes to look at each airport independently. The

same common use strategy that applies at one airport may not apply

to another. It is important to Alaska Airlines to ensure that each air-

port station that Alaska Airlines operates is efficient, and is provid-

ing award-winning customer service.

AMERICAN AIRLINES—A CALL FOR IMPROVED

STANDARDS

Interview Participants

Tim McGraw

Summary

American Airlines has been testing and implementing self-service

devices since the early 1980s, with a focus to improve customer ser-

vice. When IATA began creating standards for common use,

American Airlines was involved because of their focus on customer

service. American Airlines has continued to work on both their pro-

prietary self-service applications and with the industry to improve

the common use standards. They continue to support developing

the standards so that as the industry matures in common use, they

will be there deﬁning the functionality required to meet customer

service.

American Airlines Proﬁle

In 1926, Charles A. Lindbergh was the chief pilot of Robertson

Aircraft Corporation. By 1929, Robertson Aircraft Corporation was

acquired by The Aviation Corporation, along with many other

young aviation companies. By 1930, The Aviation Corporation was

incorporated into American Airways, Inc., and in 1934 American

Airways became American Airlines, Inc. In 2006, American

Airlines carried 99.835 million passengers (World Air Transport

Statistics, 51st ed., IATA, May 2006), making it the largest air car-

rier in the world, by number of passengers carried.

Situation

American Airlines has always looked at information technology as

a way to facilitate passenger service. In 1984, American Airlines

APPENDIX B

Case Studies

was one of the ﬁrst airlines to implement a self-service, passenger

facing kiosk. The system was installed in several airports, but

eventually it was decommissioned. Through this implementation,

American Airlines learned many lessons in self-service. In 1995,

American Airlines began investigating e-ticketing. About that

time, they were also experimenting with self-service at the gate, al-

lowing passengers to check themselves in directly at the gate and

board the airplane. This implementation was limited to their Ad-

miral’s Club members, with plans to roll out to all passengers at

some point in the future.

In 1998, American Airlines opened Love Field and needed to fa-

cilitate curbside check-in. This need also facilitated the next gener-

ation in American Airlines’ self-service kiosks. These kiosks were

designed to work with AAdvantage members, and at the time only

supported ﬂights from Love Field and other destinations.

The application was not able to print boarding passes for con-

necting ﬂights to continuing destinations. When American Airlines

started service at Dallas Terminal B, it modiﬁed the application to

support connecting ﬂights.

At the same time, other airlines were pursuing self-service

kiosks. The airlines and IATA recognized that it was necessary to

create a standard to control the proliferation of these kiosks, and the

CUSS speciﬁcation was born. The committee to create this industry

initiative was comprised of airlines, airports, and vendors. It was

through this process of creating CUSS that IATA recognized the

need for a rewrite of the CUTE recommended practice. Throughout

this process, American Airlines has participated in the committees

and provided expertise and input. In addition, American Airlines is

also participating with TRB to study and bring a better understand-

ing of common use to the industry.

Although American Airlines believes that the standards are re-

quired to create a better environment for airlines and airports to ef-

ﬁciently operate in today’s environment, it also recognizes that the

current standards and implementations are not achieving its goals.

American Airlines continues to work with the standards organiza-

tions to create standards that improve the use of the airport, allow

for a timely distribution of applications updates, and are transparent

to the airlines. Even so, until common use systems meet these re-

quirements, it will continue to look toward proprietary systems to

facilitate its business process.

AMSTERDAM AIRPORT SCHIPHOL—ADVANCED

PASSENGER PROCESSING

Interview Participants

Annemieke Nuesink

Summary

Amsterdam Airport Schiphol is constantly looking to the future to

improve their business and service to passengers. Amsterdam Air-

port Schiphol has a history of being on the leading edge of technol-

ogy. As they continue to improve their customer service, they look

for ways to implement technology to gain competitive advantages.

If there is no current technology that does what Amsterdam Airport

Schiphol is attempting to do, they will create it themselves.

Amsterdam Airport Schiphol Proﬁle

Amsterdam Airport Schiphol started in 1916 as a military airbase,

and was used for military operations exclusively until 1920. The air-

port derives its name from a former fortiﬁcation, named Fort

Schiphol, which was part of the Amsterdam defense works. The air-

port sits below sea-level and is the world’s lowest major commer-

cial airport. Amsterdam Airport Schiphol has ﬁve main runways,

and an additional runway used for general aviation only. In 1996,

Amsterdam Airport Schiphol was ranked 12th in the world in terms

of passenger traffic, with a total passenger count of 46,088,211

(Airports Council International 2007).

Situation

Amsterdam Airport Schiphol is competing for passengers with

other major airports in the region. Amsterdam has a strategic plan

to become a main port for both The Netherlands and Europe, and

is competing for cargo and passenger traffic with Heathrow,

Fraport, and Charles de Gaulle airports. To reach this goal,

Amsterdam Airport Schiphol has employed technology. To con-

tinue to grow in passenger traffic, Amsterdam Airport Schiphol

needed to improve passenger processing and passenger flow. In

July 2006, Amsterdam Airport Schiphol released a storyboard

outlining the vision for improving passenger processing. Their vi-

sion goes beyond improving passenger processing, but they intend

to completely redesign passenger processing at the Amsterdam

Airport Schiphol.

A major step in the redesign of passenger processing was taken

when Amsterdam Airport Schiphol installed Common Use Self-

service (CUSS) kiosks. These kiosks have enabled passengers to

check themselves in for ﬂights, and then proceed to a check-in desk

to have their baggage tagged and injected into the baggage system.

Amsterdam Airport Schiphol continues to expand the number of

kiosks, and currently has 23 airline applications installed on its

CUSS kiosks.

Any passenger for one of the 23 airlines simply needs to ﬁnd an

open kiosk for ﬂight check-in and proceed to baggage check-in at

their airline.

Amsterdam Airport Schiphol has also installed Common Use

Terminal Equipment (CUTE) to allow its check-in desks to be com-

mon use. This ﬂexibility allows Amsterdam Airport Schiphol to

facilitate the expansion, movement, or addition of airlines without

having to have dedicated kiosks or dedicated check-in desks.

Although the major carrier, KLM, still has dedicated space, many

other carriers are using common use space. As new airlines are

added into the airport, they can be added to the common use systems

and integrated into the CUSS kiosks.

Amsterdam Airport Schiphol plans to complete the redesign of

passenger processing by 2011. The culmination of this redesign is a

completely automated passenger check-in process. The automated

process will allow passengers to authorize themselves to cross the

border with their passport, label their own baggage, and place it

onto the baggage belt. Passenger processing will eventually have all

of the processes linked and integrated so that the number of times a

passenger has to identify themselves is reduced. The goal is to alert

passengers only if something goes wrong and to eliminate the need

of any aid from a ground host/hostess.

The stated goals of this redesign is to eliminate most queues, en-

able the airport to handle 60 million passengers within the current

terminal building, and implement cost savings throughout the

process for both the airport and airlines. The elements that are going

to facilitate this vision are the self-service Internet check-in, self-

service baggage drop-off, self-service border authorization, and

high secure boarding. As Amsterdam Airport Schiphol moves to-

ward fundamentally changing the way the airport works in ﬁve

years, technology will play a key role.

BRITISH AIRWAYS—SIMPLY COMMON USE

BY NECESSITY

Interview Participants

Julian Lloyd

Rhonda Rose

Summary

British Airways (BA) has pursued Common Use out of necessity.

As international airports began installing Common Use Terminal

Equipment (CUTE) systems, British Airways pursued developing

applications for CUTE systems. British Airways had no technology

need to implement CUTE, however they made a strategic decision

to migrate away from all proprietary agent facing check-in equip-

ment and focus solely on their CUTE applications to reduce the du-

plication of support issues that were being driven by the common

use implementations at airports it was servicing.

British Airways Proﬁle

British Airways can trace its history back to the start of civil avia-

tion. The forerunner to British Airways, Aircraft Transport and

Travel Limited, launched the world’s ﬁrst daily international sched-

uled air service between London and Paris in 1919. In 1935, several

small airlines offering services within the United Kingdom merged

and formed the original privately owned British Airways Limited.

In 1939, the airlines were nationalized to form British Overseas Air-

ways Corporation. In 1987, British Airways was privatized. In

2006, British Airways carried 29.498 million passengers (World Air

Transport Statistics, 51st ed., IATA, May 2006), making it the

fourth largest international carrier, by number of enplaned passen-

gers, in the world.

Situation

British Airways entered the CUTE development life cycle out of ne-

cessity because many of the airports British Airways serviced were

migrating to CUTE. CUTE is installed at many of the 150 airports

that British Airways serves. British Airways decided to create their

CUTE applications to support these airports. Now, British Airways,

along with Lufthansa, KLM, and Air France, are the largest inter-

national CUTE users, by number of installed sites. British Airways

has created a PRS Terminal Emulator that allows it to release up-

dated code and product enhancements every 8 weeks. British Air-

ways considers CUTE as a necessary part of doing business in

today’s airline industry. In British Airway’s opinion, CUTE is more

expensive than proprietary equipment at large-scale installations.

At smaller stations, where British Airways does not have the sup-

port staff necessary to maintain equipment, CUTE installations are

less expensive to support and maintain because British Airways

does not need to dispatch support to the smaller, and possibly re-

mote, stations.

British Airways has developed their CUTE code base where

they deploy a single application for all CUTE vendors’ platforms.

The application determines the conﬁguration, platform, and release

level and automatically loads the correct code. The code is deployed

on the CUTE platform in a matter of seconds, enabling the airline

agent to use the system immediately. Access to the airline’s host

system is emulated and the passenger check-in process is ﬂawlessly

executed.

CUTE platforms require either vendor or airport support. British

Airways maintains local IT support for their non-CUTE back office

applications such as e-mail access, enterprise business applications,

and other applications not needed for the check-in or boarding

process. In the case of small installations, British Airways may issue

a laptop and a dial-up connection to facilitate the back office appli-

cations. In these instances, local support is limited.

Although British Airways has developed a sophisticated ap-

plication to keep their development and deployment costs down,

trouble-shooting and problem resolution continue to be difficult.

With more than 150 locations, determining the source of problems

with a release is complicated by the complexities of the network.

Each location has different support mechanisms and may also have

multiple parties involved in the separate elements of the problem.

Communication between the various entities involved can cause

delays in ﬁnally resolving the problems.

Each airport has a unique conﬁguration of equipment, support,

and expertise. To address the problem of delays in trouble shooting,

British Airways makes every attempt to get to know the local CUTE

technical support personnel. The airline believes that personal rela-

tionships are key to troubleshooting and ﬁxing problems that occur

in the ﬁeld.

FRANKFURT AIRPORT—EARLY COMMON USE

Interview Participants

Stefan Meyer

Mira Seitz

Summary

Frankfurt Airport has been using common use almost as long as

common use has been in existence. They were one of the ﬁrst air-

ports worldwide, and one of the ﬁrst airports in Europe to recognize

the beneﬁts of common use to more efficiently utilize the limited

terminal space that was available. In partnership with its largest

carrier, Lufthansa, Frankfurt Airport continues to look at ways in

implementing common use to beneﬁt passengers, airlines, and the

airport.

Frankfurt Airport Proﬁle

Frankfurt Airport started in 1936 as the Rhein-Main Airport and

Airship base. During World War II, the airport was almost com-

pletely destroyed. In 1945, a United States air base was created at

the old site, and in 1947, Verkehrsaktiengesellschaft Rhein-Main

was founded. In 1972, the new terminal, now known as Terminal 1,

was inaugurated and became the start of the international hub that is

Frankfurt Airport. In 1996, Frankfurt Airport was ranked 8th in the

world in terms of passenger traffic, with a total passenger count of

52,810,683 (Airports Council International 2007).

Situation

Frankfurt Airport installed its ﬁrst Common Use Terminal Equip-

ment (CUTE) system in 1985. By some accounts, this was SITA’s

ﬁrst CUTE installation in Europe. The driving force for CUTE at

Frankfurt Airport was Lufthansa AG’s desire to migrate their sys-

tems to CUTE for cost savings and uniformity. Since that time,

Frankfurt Airport has installed more than 1,500 CUTE terminals in

Terminal 1, making it the largest SITA installation in the world.

Frankfurt Airport’s CUTE installation is managed as a CUTE

CLUB site. Airlines and ground handlers are members of the CUTE

CLUB and each has one vote to determine the future changes to the

CUTE system. Because Fraport, the management company of the

Frankfurt Airport, also provides ground handling, they are a mem-

ber of the CUTE CLUB. CUTE CLUB members determine the cost

increases for the CUTE system and make decisions to upgrade, mi-

grate, add new stations, etc.

Fraport, as the airport management company, only provides

Local Area Network (LAN) infrastructure to support the CUTE in-

stallation. All other components of the CUTE installation are pro-

vided by the CUTE CLUB.

Fraport charges the airlines a usage fee for the network that is

based on a formula utilizing passenger counts. The airport has a

concession agreement with SITA, and has built a good relationship

with its servicing airlines. Through these relationships Fraport is

able to improve the passenger experience and passenger travel

through the airport.

Fraport has also installed Common Use Self-Service (CUSS)

kiosks, but only on a trial basis. The airport has 14 CUSS kiosks

throughout its airport campus. Fraport has 5 of its 44 CUTE CLUB

member carrier applications installed on its CUSS kiosks. The

CUSS installation is also a part of the CUTE CLUB, and is managed

by the airlines. In this arrangement, all airlines are paying equally

for the CUSS installation, even though many of them are not using

the system. It was determined by the CUTE CLUB that this would

be the best arrangement.

Fraport works with the airlines that service Frankfurt Airport to

ensure that the airport is efficiently utilized. They continue to

evaluate technology, with their airport partners, to determine if the

technology can make the airport operate more efficiently. One tech-

nology of interest to Fraport is common bag drop. However, Fraport

is currently not pursuing a common bag drop solution because

IATA does not currently have a standard for it. Fraport believes that

for any common use strategy to be successful, the airlines must see

beneﬁts for that strategy.

LAS VEGAS MCCARRAN INTERNATIONAL

AIRPORT—COMMON USE BY NECESSITY

Interview Participants

Samuel Ingalls

Summary

Las Vegas McCarran International Airport has become one of the

foremost common use airports in the world. Implementing common

use strategies started during construction of the D gates concourse.

To make their move, Las Vegas McCarran International Airport took

the then unusual step of joining with airlines and airline organiza-

tions to help develop standards for common use. Today, they are rec-

ognized for their forward thinking and impact on the industry to

adopt common use and helping to write speciﬁcations for its future.

Las Vegas McCarran International Airport Proﬁle

Las Vegas McCarran International Airport started out as a private

airstrip owned by George Crockett, a descendant of the legendary

Davey Crockett. In 1947, Clark County purchased the remote

airstrip, much to the dismay of the local residents. In 1948, the air-

port was renamed McCarran Field, after U.S. Senator Pat McCar-

ran. Over the years, Las Vegas McCarran International Airport has

continued to grow and in 2006 was the 11th largest airport in the

world, in terms of passenger traffic, handling 46,194,882 passen-

gers (Airports Council International 2007).

Situation

In 1978, Las Vegas McCarran International Airport adopted a plan

called McCarran 2000. The purpose of this plan was to increase the

capacity and efficiency of the airport. Part of this plan became

the use of technology to allow ﬂexibility, efficiency, capacity, and

competition at the airport. In the 1990s, a crucial meeting with the

Airport Director was conducted over construction of new gates. As

the staff was discussing the need for additional gates at the airport

because capacity had been reached, the participants looked out the

window and saw 60–70 gates empty at that very moment. It was

then that Las Vegas McCarran International Airport identiﬁed the

need to implement a common use strategy.

Las Vegas McCarran International Airport became exposed to

Common Use Terminal Equipment (CUTE) through ACI-NA, and

realized that this technology could help the airport meet its goals for

capacity and efficiency. In 1997, Las Vegas McCarran International

Airport became the ﬁrst U.S. airport to implement CUTE.

Although the initial design and implementation of CUTE cost

the equivalent of the cost of constructing a new gate, Las Vegas Mc-

Carran International Airport realized the capacity and efficiency

equal to constructing 14 gates. Las Vegas McCarran International

Airport initially installed CUTE at the gates and only later installed

it at the ticket counters, when requested by the air carriers.

Las Vegas McCarran International Airport included the airlines

in the design process for all of the common use strategies that were

implemented over the years. This has helped Las Vegas McCarran

International Airport to be very successful in implementing a com-

mon use strategy. Early on, the airport was interested in making all

gates fully common use, with no gate assignments. However, as a

compromise with the airlines, Las Vegas McCarran International

Airport agreed to use a preferential lease arrangement.

The next major common use strategy for Las Vegas McCarran

International Airport came with the implementation of Common Use

Self-Service (CUSS) kiosks. Las Vegas McCarran International Air-

port was driven to this new technology because airlines were in-

stalling proprietary kiosks and defeating the initiatives to make the

ticketing counters common use. CUSS implementation allowed Las

Vegas McCarran International Airport to improve the passenger pro-

cessing experience by moving the ticketing process away from the

traditional check-in desks, to outside the terminal, such as parking

lots, the rental car center, and even off-site locations.

The off-site locations have enabled Las Vegas McCarran Inter-

national Airport to take its next major implementation of a common

use strategy. The airport has installed remote, off-site bag check for

passengers, allowing passengers to check their bags prior to arriv-

ing at the airport. Passengers may now fully check in and be ready

for their ﬂight before leaving their hotel or the convention center.

This allows passengers to take a more leisurely trip to the airport,

without having to carry baggage and without needing to rush to the

airport for the check-in process. Las Vegas McCarran International

Airport has proven that implementing common use strategies im-

proves customer satisfaction. The airport recently won the coveted

2006 J.D. Power & Associates award for customer service.

LUFTHANSA—COMMON USE ADVANTAGE

Interview Participants

Thomas Jeske

Carsten Fuhrmann

Siegfried Schulz

Summary

Lufthansa Airlines (LH) is continually looking to grow its business

through expanding service at their existing airports and initiating

service to new airports. Part of their strategy to facilitate this growth

is to utilize Common Use Terminal Equipment (CUTE) installa-

tions. Lufthansa views CUTE as part of their competitive advan-

tage, and encourages the airports they service to install CUTE.

Lufthansa Proﬁle

Lufthansa was formed in 1926 as Deutsche Luft Hansa Aktienge-

sellschaft (later renamed Lufthansa) by the merger of Deutsche

Aero Lloyd (DAL) and Junkers Luftverkehr. In Lufthansa’s early

years, they were inﬂuential in the creation of several airlines, in-

cluding Iberia, Syndicato Condor, and Eurasia airlines. After a brief

hiatus during World War II, Lufthansa began ﬂying scheduled

ﬂights again in 1955. In 2006, Lufthansa carried 51.213 million pas-

sengers (World Air Transport Statistics, 51st ed., IATA, May

2006), making it the sixth largest airline, by number of enplaned

passengers, in the world.

Situation

When Lufthansa Airlines is considering starting service to a new

airport, one of the questions it asks is if that airport has CUTE. If the

airport does not, Lufthansa works with the airport authorities to de-

termine if it makes sense for the airport to install a CUTE system.

For Lufthansa, the startup and operating costs of a CUTE airport are

signiﬁcantly less than the startup and operating costs of a dedicated,

proprietary system installation at an airport of similar scope and size

because Lufthansa does not have to incur the costs of installing

cabling, infrastructure, computers, and other equipment provided

by a CUTE installation.

When Lufthansa considers the cost of starting and operating a

station, they include the costs associated with support of the IT sys-

tems necessary to process passengers and prepare them to board

Lufthansa’s airplanes. Part of the cost equation is the cost of pro-

viding system support, which is especially higher on a per ﬂight

basis in smaller stations where they may only have one or two

ﬂights a week. Lufthansa seeks to minimize support costs for the

start up and operation of a station.

CUTE allows Lufthansa to obtain support from the local airport

staff, from the vendor, or from remote, centralized support centers.

In all of these cases, the support cost is much less than the cost of

having to dispatch a technician to support a small station in terms of

ﬂight activity.

Lufthansa seems to be unique in this approach. From a U.S. car-

rier-based perspective, CUTE systems are less likely to be sup-

ported than dedicated, proprietary systems. This may be due in part

to the fact that Lufthansa has been working with CUTE systems

since the founding of CUTE in 1985. They have a long history and

a deep understanding of the CUTE recommendations (IATA RP

1797) and are considered one of the founding members of the

CUTE requirements.

Lufthansa Airlines has built an extensive support structure to de-

sign, test, implement, and deploy their CUTE application at air-

ports. Lufthansa has a team responsible for writing and maintaining

the CUTE application code. Once the code is ready, it is transferred

to Lufthansa Systems for certiﬁcation testing. Lufthansa Systems

then works closely with all of the CUTE platform suppliers to en-

sure that the code produced by Lufthansa is fully certiﬁed by all of

the vendors that provide CUTE systems at the airports Lufthansa

services. Once certiﬁed, Lufthansa Systems works with each site to

deploy the application. Throughout the entire development, certiﬁ-

cation, and deployment process, Lufthansa follows a very rigorous

quality process to ensure success.

Lufthansa is also very particular about the quality of the paper

and printing of their boarding passes. They view the quality of their

boarding passes as a reﬂection on the quality of service to the cus-

tomers, and Lufthansa works with Lufthansa Systems to ensure that

the quality of the printers, paper, and print quality meet the exacting

standards of Lufthansa. Lufthansa works with all airports it services

to ensure that the printers associated with the CUTE systems are

able to print Lufthansa’s boarding card stock. In addition, the board-

ing stock is viewed as part of the ﬂying experience for their passen-

gers. Lufthansa believes that passengers are choosing to ﬂy on their

airline for the service and experience, and the boarding card stock

plays an important role.

Lufthansa is active in the current Common Use Passenger Pro-

cessing Systems (CUPPS) initiative to update the existing IATA

1797 recommended practice. The airline serves as the co-vice chair

for the team working on completing the update. With their history

in implementing CUTE, and their leadership on the update to the

IATA RP 1797, Lufthansa continues to ensure that agent facing

common use systems will be a part of their competitive advantage

moving forward.

The purpose of this Transportation Research Board Synthesis Report is to survey and collect information about common

use practices from a diverse group of airports and airlines. The synthesis will also include a review of currently pub-

lished, relevant literature.

The attached survey is designed to gather a variety of information that will lead to the ﬁnal synthesis report. The report

will include common use strategies for airports and airlines. The survey includes questions about airport and airline com-

mon use strategies and philosophies. For the purposes of this survey, common use relates to the facilities and physical

plant changes required to enable airport space to be utilized by more than one tenant (non-exclusive use) as well as sup-

port of IATA common use standards and the physical plant changes required to facilitate common use.

The survey attempts to cover as many aspects of common use as possible; however, given the diversity of recipients

of this survey, some sections may not be applicable. Please attempt to ﬁll out as much of the survey as possible. If any

question does not apply to your operation, please answer “N/A.”

An important part of the synthesis will be follow-on interviews with selected airports and individuals to identify

relevant case studies and industry best practices. Based on the answers received you may be contacted for further infor-

mation. Thank you in advance for your participation in this survey. If you have any questions, please contact Rick

Belliotti at 602.919.0348 or via e-mail at [email protected].

SURVEY INSTRUMENT

FOR

ACRP SYNTHESIS S10-02

COMMON USE FACILITIES AND EQUIPMENT AT AIRPORTS

APPENDIX C

Survey Instrument

Respondent Information

Date: _____________________________________________________________________________________________________

Name and Title of Respondent: _______________________________________________________________________________

Organiz ation Name: ________________________________________________________________________________________

Respondent Telephone Number: ______________________________________________________________

Respondent E-Mail Address: _________________________________________________________________

Ai rlines

1. Does y our airline have a common use strategy ?

Yes

Not sure

2. Is your airline operating in a Common Use Terminal Equipment (CUTE) environment at any of the airports which you service?

Yes

Not sure

3. Is y our airline operating in a Common Use Self-Service (CUSS) environment at any of the airports which you service?

Yes

Not sure

4. Approximately what percent of your passengers check in on the Internet prior to arrival at an airport?

________%

5. How did y our airline arrive at this number?

Professional estimate

Actual counts

Other: __________________________________________________________

6. For which of the following vendor’s platforms do y ou have a CUTE application? Please mark all that apply.

ARINC MATERNA SITA

Ultra electronics AirIT Resa

IER Other: ________________________________________________________________

7. For which of the following vendors do y ou have a CUSS compliant application? (check box)

ARINC MATERNA SITA

IBM Other: ________________________________________________________________

8. We are identifying 4 divisions to the common use development process. Please rank these in order of most expensive, in your

view. For the purposes of this question, 1 equals most expensive, 4 equals least expensive.

a. Common Use Terminal Emulation (CUTE):

___ Development

___ Certification

___ Deployment

___ Maintenance

b. Common Use Self-Service (CUSS)

___ Development

___ Certification

___ Deployment

___ Maintenance

9. Does your airline have a service level agreement with the common use provider (CUTE and CUSS) to provide timely

application distributions and updates?

Yes

Not sure

10. Please rank the following common use inhibitors from most (1) to least (6).

a. Common Use Terminal Emulation (CUTE):

___ Costs too much

___ Difficult to deploy

___ Difficult to certify

___ Loss of branding ability

___ Lack of control

___ Maintenance/support

b. Common Use Self-Service (CUSS)

___ Costs too much

___ Difficult to deploy

___ Difficult to certify

___ Loss of branding ability

___ Lack of control

___ Maintenance/support

11. Please rank the following reasons why your airline would choose to use a CUTE system at a particular airport from most

important (1) to least important (8):

___ Cost of deploying airline equipment and infrastructure

___ Need to share gates

___ Code share agreement with another airline

___ Airline alliance

___ Allows entry into a new airport/market

___ Need to use existing gates more efficiently

___ Need to speed entry into new market

___ Airport required

12. Does your airline have an official policy or statement with respect to common use?

Yes

Not sure

13. If yes, can you provide this official policy or statement to the surveyor?

Yes

Not sure

14. Does your airline prefer to provide the common use equipment, provide a CLUB arrangement, or does your airline prefer the

airport to provide?

Airline provided

Airport provided

Prefer CLUB arrangement

Depends on the location

15. In your airline’s view, what are airports doing well in the deployment of common use?

_____________________________________________________________________________________________________

16. What are airports not doing well in the deployment of common use?

_____________________________________________________________________________________________________

17. What facility changes would your airline anticipate in the implementation of common use (e.g., better dynamic signage to

support branding needs, new ticket counter positions with embedded kiosks, etc.)?

_____________________________________________________________________________________________________

18. How would these changes affect the usage of existing facilities?

Why do you feel that way?

_____________________________________________________________________________________________________

19. Is y our airline aware of the IATA focus initiatives, such as e-ticketing, Bar Code Boarding Passes (BCBP), and CUSS?

Yes

Not sure

20. Does y our airline use/support or have plans to support 2D barcode?

Yes

Not sure

21. Is y our airline planning on providing 2D barcode check-in via cell phone?

Yes

Not sure

22. Does y our airline use/support or have plans to support e-ticketing?

Yes

Not sure

23. Does y our airline use/support or have plans to support CUSS?

Yes

Not sure

24. What supporting technologies have helped to improve the implementation and use of a common use model?

Voice over IP phone

Gate management system

Integrated paging

MUFIDS

MUBIDS

Other: ________________________________________________________________________________

25. What is the maximum response time y our airline expects for support on common use technology systems for major failures?

4 hours

3 hours

2 hours

1 hour

Other: ________________________________________________________________________________

26. What is the maximum response time y our airline expects for support on common use technology systems for minor failures?

4 hours

3 hours

2 hours

1 hour

Other: ________________________________________________________________________________

27. What is the maximum response time y our airline expect s for support on common use facilities (e.g., hold rooms, ticketing

counters, and club spaces)?

4 hours

3 hours

2 hours

1 hour

Other: ________________________________________________________________________________

28. Are there any areas of an airport that your airlin e would not be in favor of having common use activities?

_____________________________________________________________________________________________________

29. Does y our airline utilize common use space at any airports you service (club space, baggage handling, check-in agents/multi-

airline check-in, other…)?

Yes

Not sure

30. Does your airline utilize any common use office space (back office, baggage service office, or other)?

Yes

Not sure

31. Is your airline aware of the Common Use Passenger Processing Systems (CUPPS) project (RP 1797) currently being

undertaken by IATA?

Yes

Not sure

32. Is your airline in favor of the CUPPS initiative?

Yes

Not sure

33. Does your airline have an official position on CUPPS?

Yes

Not sure

34. If we have any clarifying questions or require additional information, may we contact you?

Yes

Not sure

Airports

1. Is your airport a hub airport or a destination airport?

Hub airport

Destination airport

Other: _________________________________________________________________

2. Is your airport required to create a competition plan (U.S. airport only)?

Yes

Not sure

3. Do you provide a common network backbone for all systems or do you have discrete networks for each system?

Common network backbone

Discrete network

Combination of both common network and discrete network

Other: _________________________________________________________________

4. Does your airport provide common baggage make-up area?

Yes

Not sure

5. Does your airport provide gate management services?

Yes

Not sure

6. Does you airport provide a local departure control system?

Yes

Not sure

7. Does your airport provide common baggage drop-off at a single location for all airlines? This excludes off-site bag drop.

Yes

Not sure

8. Do y ou provide dedicated space, preferential space, or other?

Dedicated space

Preferential space

Both

Other: ________________________________________________________________________

9. Is y our airport aware of the Common Use Passenger Pr ocessing Sy stems (CUPPS) project (RP 1797) currently being

undertaken by IATA, ATA, and ACI?

Yes

Not sure

Other: ________________________________________________________________________

10. Has y our airport implemented any common use models? By common use m odels we mean any systems or areas of your airport

that are identified as common use by all operating airlines in that terminal, concourse, etc.

Yes

Not sure

11. Do y ou have common use in international gates/check-in counters?

Yes

Not sure

12. How many international gates (of the total available) are common use (example answer: 20 of 27)?

_____________________________________________________

13. How many international ticketing counters (of the total available) are common use (example answer: 15 of 19)?

_____________________________________________________

14. Do y ou have other common use sy stems in y our international gates (please list)?

_____________________________________________________

15. Do y ou have common use in domestic gates/check-in counters?

Yes

Not sure

16. How many domestic gates (of the total available) are common use (example answer: 15 of 17)?

_____________________________________________________

17. How many domestic ticketing counters (of the total available) are common use? (example answer: 15 of 17)?

_____________________________________________________

18. Do y ou have other common use sy stems in use in y our domestic gates (please list)?

_____________________________________________________

19. Do y ou have common use at off-site locations?

Yes

Not sure

20. How many different locations?

_____________________________________________________

21. Do y ou have common use at curbside check-in locations?

Yes

Not sure

22. How many curbside locations (of the total available) are common use (example answer: 37 of 37)?

__________________________________________________

23. Does y our airport have mobile common use terminals ?

Yes

Not sure

24. Does y our airport have CUSS check-in locations?

Yes

Not sure

25. How are airlines charged for the use of the installed common use sy stems?

Included in rates and charges

Per enplaned/deplaned/rechecking passenger or other per-capita billing methodology

Time of use of system

Equally shared and billed separately from rates and charges

Other: __________________________________________________

26. What is/was the most expensiv e portion of y our common use sy stem?

_____________________________________________________________________________________________________

27. What is/was the most difficult portion of y our common use sy stem to support ?

_____________________________________________________________________________________________________

28. Do y ou provide phone service as a part of y our common use sy stem?

Yes

Not sure

29. What ty pe of phone service do y ou provide?

_____ Standard analog _____ Voice over IP _____ Digital

30. Do y ou provide WiFi for operational use, either in-building or exterior to the building, as a part of y our common use sy ste m?

Yes

Not sure

31. Are y ou planning on offering WiFi for operational use, either in-building or exterior to the building, as part of y our comm on

use sy stem?

Yes

Not sure

32. Do y ou provide WiFi for Internet access within public concourses for use by the public?

Yes

Not sure

33. What business model do y ou use for y our WiFi access for passenger use?

_____ Free to passengers _____ Pay for use

34. Does y our airport provide other shared/common services (b aggage handling, check-in agents/multi-airline check-in, other)?

Yes

Not sure

35. Please list any shared/common services that your airport provides.

_____________________________________________________________________________________________________

36. What is the support model that y our airport uses for common use systems?

Self-support

Vendor support

Third party

Other: ______________________________________________________________

37. Does y our airport have a common use baggage makeup sy stem?

Yes

Not sure

38. Does y our airport have a common bag-drop solution/sy stem?

Yes

Not sure

39. Does y our airport use a baggage reconciliation sy stem ?

Yes

Not sure

40. What benefits have y ou noticed with the impl ementation of common use models? Please describe.

______________________________________________________________________________________________________

41. Please identify any upgrades/enhancements you are considering to your installed common use system.

Accessibility for the disabled Network

Platform upgrades

Hardware Other: ______________________________________________________

42. Is y our airport planning to im plement common use in the future?

Yes

Not sure

43. What problem does y our airport envision a common use installation will facilitate or solve?

______________________________________________________________________________________________________

44. What is the main driver for your common use initiative?

Customer service

Defer capital expenditures

Passenger flow

Cost reduction

Overall facilities usage

Inability to expand

Attract new tenants

Maximize use of gates for multiple carriers

Other: ______________________________________________________________

45. Did or will your airport apply for Airport Improvement Program (AIP) funding to help pay for common use systems (U.S.-based

airports only)?

Yes

Not sure

46. Please describe the elements of these sy stems that have been identified as pu blic u se for the AIP fu nding application.

______________________________________________________________________________________________________

47. Did your airport apply Passenger Facility Charges (PFCs) to offset the costs of the common use systems?

Yes

Not sure

48. If your airport is a non-U.S. airport, please describe any funding that was used to pay for common use systems, such as airport

usage fees, taxes, etc.

______________________________________________________________________________________________________

49. What does your airport view as the greatest inhibitor to acceptance of common use models from airlines? Please rank 1–7,

where 1 is the greatest inhibitor and 7 is the least inhibitor.

a. Common Use Terminal Emulation (CUTE):

___ Costs too much

___ Difficult to deploy

___ Difficult to certify

___ Loss of branding ability

___ Lack of control

___ Maintenance/support

___ Airlines prefer dedicated systems

b. Common Use Self-Service (CUSS)

___ Costs too much

___ Difficult to deploy

___ Difficult to certify

___ Loss of branding ability

___ Lack of control

___ Maintenance/support

___ Airlines prefer dedicated systems

50. If we have any clarifying questions or require additional information, may we contact you?

Yes

Not sure

51. If your airport has no intentions of implementing common use systems, what is the major reason for this decision?

______________________________________________________________________________________________________

AIRLINES

1. Does your airline have a common use strategy?

APPENDIX D

Compiled Survey Results

17%

Not sure

Common use strategy

Yes

83%

Yes

Not sure

2. Is your airline operating in a Common Use Terminal Equipment (CUTE) environment at any of the airports which you service?

Don’t

know

Airline CUTE currently operating

Yes

92%

Yes

Don’t know

3. Is your airline operating in a Common Use Self-Service (CUSS) environment at any of the airports which you service?

4. Approximately what percent of your passengers check in on the Internet prior to arrival at an airport?

25%

Not sure

Airline CUSS currently operating

Yes

75%

Yes

Not sure

10-19%

20-29% 30-39% 40-49% 50-59% 60-69%

5. How did your airline arrive at this number?

6. For which of the following vendor’s platforms do you have a CUTE application? Please mark all that apply.

Best Guess

11%

Actual counts

89%

Actual counts

Best Guess

Other

SITA

Resa

IER

ARINC

AirIT

Materna

Ultra Electronics

Number of airlines with applications - survey results

7. For which of the following vendors do you have a CUSS compliant application? (check box)

8. We are identifying 4 divisions to the common use development process. Please rank these in order of most expensive,

in your view. For the purposes of this question, 1 equals most expensive, 4 equals least expensive.

a. Common Use Terminal Emulation (CUTE):

0246810

ARINC

IBM

IER

Materna

SITA

CUSS platform applications

Development Certification Deployment Maintenance

b. Common Use Self-Service (CUSS)

9. Does your airline have a service level agreement with the common use provider (CUTE and CUSS) to provide timely

application distributions and updates?

Development Certification Deployment Maintenance

Yes

Not sure

Yes

16%

Not sure

17%

67%

10. Please rank the following common use inhibitors from most (1) to least (6).

a. Common Use Terminal Emulation (CUTE):

b. Common Use Self-Service (CUSS)

Costs too much

Difficult to deploy

Difficult to certify

Loss of branding ability

Lack of control

Maintenance/Support

Costs too much

Difficult to deploy

Difficult to certify

Loss of branding ability

Lack of control

Maintenance/Support

12. Does your airline have an official policy or statement with respect to common use?

11. Please rank the following reasons why your airline would choose to use a CUTE system at a particular airport from most

important (1) to least important (8):

Airport required

ry i

rket

sti

s m

ficie

tly

All

try into

irp

rke

line

lian

e s

hare

agree

ent

ith

othe

r airl

ine

d t

o share

tes

t of d

yin

line

d i

nfr

str

ctu

Yes

Not sure

Yes

58%

Not sure

17%

25%

13. If yes, can you provide this official policy or statement to the surveyor?

Yes

Not sure

Yes

50%

Not sure

40%

10%

14. Does your airline prefer to provide the common use equipment, provide a CLUB arrangement, or does your airline

prefer the airport to provide?

Airline provided

Airport provided

Prefer club arrangement

Depends on location

Airline provided

Depends on

location

67%

Prefer club

arrangement

25%

15. In your airline’s view, what are airports doing well in the deployment of common use?

– Some airports are working closely with us to understand our needs and then attempting their best to apply those needs in the com-

mon use environment.

– That more and more airports are opting for a common use platform at their airport.

– CUTE is working really well within Europe and more and more airports are adopting CUTE. This is great news for our business

model—the more CUTE the better. In Europe (especially the UK) airports are doing NOTHING well with regard to CUSS.

– Not making common use a proﬁt center.

– Most CUTE/CUSS airports are providing good/timely service for hardware problems, restocking, troubleshooting issues, and just

being responsive and working with our technical staff to determine root cause of problems when they occur and not just pointing

ﬁngers.

– Airports that have an open book policy toward common use and do not see it as another revenue stream/proﬁt target are likely to

succeed in convincing airlines to participate.

–N/A

– CUTE directs—A few airports are including the end users group in the discussion leading up to which vendor they will choose

operational requirements and/or basically using the airlines experience to help them through the process. CLUB sites—The air-

port is allowing the end user to manage the platform. This results in a much more user friendly environment allowing the airlines

a voice in the size and scope of CUTE products, installations, path of existing CUTE products, and timely retirement of obsolete

technologies.

– Done well if airlines are involved in selection process and decisions for cost-effective hardware ﬁt-up that meets with business

strategy & StB objectives. The cost recovery model must be designed in such a way that ANY/ALL airlines operating at the site

contribute, including any charter operation or one-time/seasonal operators since the facilities are available to them by virtue of

common use. Not charging ALL results in scheduled carriers subsidizing others!

– Candidly, not much! Varies by airport. As I struggle to stay away from my negative list, they typically install enough computer

terminals and they spell our name correctly on the invoices.

16. What are airports not doing well in the deployment of common use?

– Not listening. Not responding at the speed I need them to. Not presenting costs up front. Poor phasing.

– Not involving airlines during the planning stages of a new common use IT platform (ask airlines what they need, listen to their

requirements).

– CUSS is destined to fail because airports are hesitant to move into CUSS in the correct manner—having said that, CUSS standards

make it nigh on impossible for us as an airline to consider expanding our existing operation going forward. In Europe (especially the

UK) airports cannot get themselves organised to adopt the CUSS systems and make terminals that are ready for “self-service.” A prime

example is [deleted airport identiﬁer], which in CUSS terms is nothing short of a bad joke! In the U.S. you look at [deleted airport iden-

tiﬁer] and they have made the process work for airlines and themselves. The CUSS standard MUST be standardised for this to suc-

ceed—CUSS 2 should be amalgamated into CUPPS development so that all parties, airlines, airports, and providers can work from one

common standard. With regards to CUTE, the biggest issue with airports is where they interfere with the day-to-day operation of the

airlines using the systems—this does vary dramatically depending on the CLUB arrangements, etc. There are some airports that have

no idea what they are entering into with regard to moving to CUTE—this is a frightening prospect for an airline such as us!

– Inadequate hardware selection. Restricting the timely application releases. Increased complexity in making the product work and

troubleshooting other single airport issues. Some airports use CUTE/CUSS as a proﬁt center.

– Some providers require too much time to get new software changes tested and ready to distribute. Could be they don’t have ade-

quate staff and facilities to support their sales/installed base.

– Not engaging airlines, or not engaging early enough. Inﬂexible, illogical, pricing. Not prepared to stick with tried and trusted ven-

dors. Not considering airline IT security issues.

– Working with carriers on unique requirements.

– Many airports are failing to utilize and listen to airline experiences with vendor and CUTE products. Very often the airports will

go with the cheapest price. They are not comparing apples to apples resulting in a less than adequate system that costs more and

does meet the airlines needs. Many airports are slow to evolve to new technologies.

– Unilaterally making decision based on vendor’s sales presentations with no practical experience/understanding of the business

needs or platform reliability.

– No vendor/airline SLA with enforcement, used for airport revenue generation, maintenance/support painful, costs not clearly

deﬁned, forced to use poor business process, minimum conﬁguration vs. maximum, our hardware tools not allowed (even though

certiﬁed), updates take too long, vendor not always able to use their existing standards, insufficient skilled support, unable to

innovate, unable to market our product or services, lack of differentiation, airport wants to micro manage our customer, if the cus-

tomer is “abused” the airline takes the hit ...

17. What facility changes would your airline anticipate in the implementation of common use (e.g., better dynamic signage to support

branding needs, new ticket counter positions with embedded kiosks, etc.)?

– Better passenger ﬂow management with the use of this technology.

– None.

– Process, process, process... Plonking CUSS kiosks in random areas in an airport will not work (again this has been proven at

[deleted airport identiﬁer])! Waste of time, money, effort. They have to be built into an operational process that customers can

work with and easily understand: Clearly marked out passenger direction, kiosks, bag drop, security. . . At all costs the perception

of queuing many times MUST be eliminated. The biggest issue facing us now is the ability to drop bags quickly. Kiosks and In-

ternet check-in are great concepts when travelling with hand luggage only, but can be pointless without a quick effective fast bag

drop process.

Many UK airports are suffering from bag capacity, so the introduction of remote bag drop needs to be considered fully and intro-

duced where it is feasible. Introduction/integration of data systems in an airport and usage of 2D technology could also speed the

processing of passengers—although I see sharing data between airlines and airport operators being a culture shift that will be hard

to overcome for some airlines.

– Have every airport implement share systems in the same way. Dynamic signage that supports unique airline products.

– Could be all of the above depending on airport. [deleted airline identiﬁer] prefers embedded kiosks to save the customers making

multiple stops.

– Support of current 2 step process. Semi-permanent branding in priority use areas.

– Embedded, in-line kiosk screens in the ticket counter.

– Better Internet access.

– Redesign of the layout to optimize self-serve passenger ﬂows. Leverage free-standing (not embedded) CUSS kiosks and a bag-

gage drop-off designed to support kiosk or web check-in/mobile check-in ﬂows. Limited “traditional desks” to handle the excep-

tions only.

– To allow the airlines to use their standard business processes and allow for continuous improvement of that process. To allow con-

sistency of product and service between airports within our route structure ...

18. How would these changes affect the usage of existing facilities?

Why do you feel that way?

– Require movement of existing equipment.

– Airports are getting busier year on year. Airports are NOT getting bigger (physically) year on year. As such, we have to look at

the infrastructure of the airport and put in place systems (CUTE, CUSS, Fast Bag Drop, Remote Bag Drop, etc.) that can make an

airport become more efficient in managing larger volumes of passengers without longer queues and delayed ﬂights. I am certain

that an average airport can process 30%–40% more passengers by building process and technology into its operation. This will

cost airports, but it will probably be less cost than building a new terminal.

– Beneﬁcial to airlines and their customers.

– Embedded kiosks for [deleted airline identiﬁer] would increase use. [Deleted airline identiﬁer] at international airports is subject

to much tighter rules/regulations than other airlines that are not U.S. ﬂag ship carriers. Airports don’t really get this... or why it’s

a problem.

– The ability to use a universal business process and present a common customer experience across all airports would be an enabler

to commit to common use facilities.

– Lessen the queue line confusion and offer more throughput or capacity at the ticket counter. The [deleted airport identiﬁer] solu-

tion is a poor design.

– Decrease dependency on airport vendors and allow carriers more ﬂexibility.

– More ﬂuidity on passenger movements, open spaces, increased throughput, better unit costs. Separating check-in and bag drop

allows for better/quicker access to kiosks while enabling unhindered access to bag drops for all self-serve channels (kiosks, web,

mobile, off-site check-in, etc . . .).

– It would change today’s “Un-Common use” to “Common Use” and allow passengers and agents to use the same business process

at all locations. Simplify our support model and training programs.

19. Is your airline aware of the IATA focus initiatives, such as e-ticketing, Bar Code Boarding Passes (BCBP), and CUSS?

Yes

Not sure

Yes

92%

Not sure

20. Does your airline use/support or have plans to support 2D barcode?

21. Is your airline planning on providing 2D barcode check-in via cell phone?

Yes

Not sure

Yes

92%

Not sure

Yes

Not sure

Yes

50%

Not sure

42%

22. Does your airline use/support or have plans to support e-ticketing?

23. Does your airline use/support or have plans to support CUSS?

Yes

Not sure

Yes

83%

Not sure

Yes

Not sure

Yes

100%

Not sure

24. What supporting technologies have helped to improve the implementation and use of a common use model?

25. What is the maximum response time your airline expects for support on common use technology systems for major failures?

0 2 4 6 8 10

Voice over IP Phone

Gate Management System

Integrated Paging

MUFIDS

MUBIDS

Other

4 hours

3 hours

2 hours

1 hour

other

1 hour

58%

2 hours

17%

other

25%

26. What is the maximum response time your airline expects for support on common use technology systems for minor failures?

27. What is the maximum response time your airline expects for support on common use facilities (e.g., hold rooms,

ticketing counters, and club spaces)?

4 hours

3 hours

2 hours

1 hour

Other

2 hours

50%

1 hour

20%

4 hours

20%

Other

10%

4 hours

3 hours

2 hours

1 hour

Other

2 hours

30%

1 hour

10%

3 hours

10%

4 hours

20%

Other

30%

28. Are there any areas of an airport that your airline would not be in favor of having common use activities?

– In my preferred ﬂyer club room.

– Back office (greatly depends on the size of the operation at a given airport).

– No—let’s make it as easy as we can for the passengers and try to avoid all passengers having to converge in one common standard

check-in space.

– Yes. Check-in desks, gates, gate information displays, self-service, and back office.

– In most airports we prefer our own equipment. Where common use exists we have no choice. We will always install our own equip-

ment if we have the choice.

– Sales desks.

– Generally, we are not in favor of common use unless there are agreed upon standards.

– Back office, operations, underwing.

– Probably not our club space in terms of design and branding. Equipment inside could still be CUTE for consistency. Other areas

would be candidates for common use, assuming the targeted areas all have the necessary functionalities and can support the busi-

ness needs at a competitive cost.

– Depends on city . . . Although, based on current experiences, I would say gates and ticket counters.

29. Does your airline utilize common use space at any airports you service (club space, baggage handling, check-in agents/multi-airline

check-in, other . . .)?

Yes

Not sure

Yes

83%

Not sure

30. Does your airline utilize any common use office space (back office, baggage service office, or other)?

Yes

Not sure

Yes

55%

Not sure

18%

27%

31. Is your airline aware of the Common Use Passenger Processing Systems (CUPPS) project (RP 1797) currently being

undertaken by IATA?

Yes

Not sure

Yes

92%

32. Is your airline in favor of the CUPPS initiative?

Yes

Not sure

Yes

92%

Not sure

33. Does your airline have an official position on CUPPS?

Yes

Not sure

Yes

75%

25%

34. If we have any clarifying questions or require additional information may we contact you?

Yes

Not sure

Yes

91%

Not sure

Other responses:

– Common user terminal facility.

– Mostly destination, but also signiﬁcant connections.

2. Is your airport required to create a competition plan (U.S. airport only)?

Other

Destination Airport

Hub Airport

47%

Other

12%

Destination

Airport

41%

Yes

Not sure

Yes

53%

27%

Not sure

20%

Airports

1. Is your airport a hub airport or a destination airport?

3. Do you provide a common network backbone for all systems or do you have discrete networks for each system?

4. Does your airport provide common baggage make-up area?

Combination of

both common

network and

discrete

network

61%

Combination of both

common network and

discrete network

Common network

backbone

Discrete network

Common

network

backbone

33%

Discrete

network

Yes

Not sure

Yes

78%

22%

5. Does your airport provide gate management services?

6. Does you airport provide a local departure control system?

Yes

Not sure

Limited use

Yes

78%

17%

Limited use

Yes

Not sure

Yes

56%

39%

Not sure

7. Does your airport provide common baggage drop-off at a single location for all airlines? This excludes off-site bag drop.

8. Do you provide dedicated space, preferential space, or other?

Yes

Not sure

Yes

22%

72%

Not sure

Dedicated space

Both

Preferential space

Both

67%

Dedicated

space

11%

Preferential

space

22%

9. Is your airport aware of the Common Use Passenger Processing Systems (CUPPS) project (RP 1797) currently being

undertaken by IATA, ATA, and ACI?

10. Has your airport implemented any common use models? By common use models we mean any systems or areas of your

airport that are identiﬁed as common use by all operating airlines in that terminal, concourse, etc.

Yes

Not sure

Yes

94%

Yes

Not sure

Yes

85%

15%

12. How many international gates (of the total available) are common use (example answer: 20 of 27)?

– 37/37 16 ct gates, 20 hardstand, 1 bus gate

– 21 of 21

– 16 of 16

– 9 of 127

–All

– 15 of 15

– 36 of 36

– 10 of 28

– Don’t know

– All are common use

– 83 of 83

13. How many international ticketing counters (of the total available) are common use (example answer: 15 of 19)?

– 184 of 184

– 168 of 168

– 83 of 83

– 43 of 43

– 196

– 65 of 65

– 150 of 150

– 60 of 98

– 24 of 32

– All are common use

– 92 of 160

14. Do you have other common use systems in your international gates (please list)?

– CUSS

– Network infrastructure, WiFi system, FIDS, BIDS, dynamic signage, baggage system (including RFID), and gate/check-in counter

assignment system. Coming soon to this facility: common-use kiosks.

– Baggage reconciliation, FIDS, baggage system

– All PBBs and accessories (water, air, 400 hz), BRS, wi-ﬁ (ramp level)

–BTRS

–FIDS

– MUFIDS BIDS gate management

– Flight information systems, baggage system, baggage rec. phone, security system, paging

– Common use self-service, common use baggage reconciliation

– LBA, FIDS, RMS, LDCS, MuseLink

– Don’t know

– SITA CUTE

100

11. Do you have common use in international gates/check-in counters?

Yes

Not sure

Yes

88%

12%

101

15. Do you have common use in domestic gates/check-in counters?

16. How many domestic gates (of the total available) are common use (example answer: 15 of 17)?

– 37 of 37

– 32 of 80

– 10 of 127

– ALL—16 gates, 23 hard stands

– 4 of 6

– 27 of 27

– 14 of 25

– All common use; a few are preferential

– 22 of 45

17. How many domestic ticketing counters (of the total available) are common use (example answer: 15 of 17)?

– 184 of 184 (same as international counters)

– 96 of 240

– 43 of 43

– 196

– 4 of 6

– 65 of 65

– 42 of 89

– All are common use

– 119 of 261

18. Do you have other common use systems in use in your domestic gates (please list)?

– CUSS

– Network infrastructure, WiFi system, FIDS, BIDS, dynamic signage, baggage system (including RFID), common-use kiosks,

gate/check-in counter assignment system.

– Baggage reconciliation, FIDS, baggage system

–BTRS

–FIDS

– MUFIDS BIDS gate management

– Flight information systems, baggage system, baggage rec, phone, security system, paging.

–No.

– Public address

– Common use self-service, common use baggage reconciliation

– LDCS, CUTE, RMS, LBA, FIDS

Yes

Not sure

Yes

82%

18%

20. How many different locations?

19. Do you have common use at off-site locations?

102

Yes

Not sure

Yes

41%

59%

Up to 9 Locations 40-49 locations

103

21. Do you have common use at curbside check-in locations?

Yes

Not sure

Yes

29%

71%

22. How many curbside locations (of the total available) are common use (example answer: 37 of 37)?

– 19 of?

– 2 of 2

23. Does your airport have mobile common use terminals?

Yes

Not sure

Yes

37%

63%

25. How are airlines charged for the use of the installed common use systems?

24. Does your airport have CUSS check-in locations?

104

Yes

Not sure

Yes

80%

20%

Included in rates and

charges

per

emplaned/deplaned/

recheckin passenger or

other per-capita billing

methodology

time of use system

Equally shared and billed

separately from rates and

charges

20%

60%

13%

Other responses:

– Enplanement fees, counter charges, bag

– combined equally shared and per capita

– Signatory—Cost recovery

– Per operation by aircraft type

105

26. What is/was the most expensive portion of your common use system?

– Vendor costs for the ridiculously high CUSS kiosks

– Support (comprised mostly of staffing costs)

– Enplanement fees

– Baggage system

– Flight information system

– Annual support for Operation and Maintenance

– Common use passenger processing—ticket counters, gates

– CUTE and infrastructure

– Capital upfront costs

– Hardware infrastructure

– Hardware (magnetic printers and BGRs) check-in kiosks

– Long-term on-site support

– Don’t know

27. What is/was the most difficult portion of your common use system to support?

– The baggage system is most difficult to support. All of the data ﬂow necessary to keep that system actively sorting accurately and

the various airline systems involved makes it very challenging.

– There are multiple issues that are difficult to support/manage, and depending on whom you are speaking with would rate the most

difficult. Fare policy regarding gate/hardstand assignments for arrivals/departures, Fare policy regarding check-in counter as-

signments and airline branding needs. IT support for systems that interface with airline speciﬁc services (terminal emulators with

airline host with CUTE).

– Integrated IT systems are the most complex. 25 plus or minus airlines whose hosts often don’t integrate completely, or easily, with

the CUTE system.

– Accuracy of ﬂight information data feed(s) to system.

– Support for airline application upgrades.

– Printers

– CUSS kiosks

– Individual airline connectivity to CUTE. Airline emulation.

– Education

– Integration of CUTE FIDS and PHONES

– Integrated with airline hosts

– It requires a level of cooperation between the airlines, the airport, and the service providers that none of them is accustomed to

providing.

– Don’t know.

28. Do you provide phone service as a part of your common use system?

Yes

Not sure

Yes

81%

19%

29. What type of phone service do you provide?

30. Do you provide WiFi for operational use, either in-building or exterior to the building, as a part of your common use system?

106

Standard analog

Digital

voice over IP

Digital

50%

voice over IP

25%

Standard

analog

25%

Yes

Not sure

Yes

81%

19%

107

31. Are you planning on offering WiFi for operational use, either in-building or exterior to the building, as part of your

common use system?

32. Do you provide WiFi for Internet access within public concourses for use by the public?

Yes

Not sure

Yes

33%

Not sure

67%

Yes

Not sure

Yes

100%

33. What business model do you use for your WiFi access for passenger use?

34. Does your airport provide other shared/common services (baggage handling, check-in agents/multi-airline check-in, other)?

108

Other

Pay for use

Free to passengers

Free to

passengers

47%

Pay for use

53%

Yes

Not sure

Yes

71%

29%

35. Please list any shared/common services that your airport provides.

– CUTE, CUSS, VoIP

– Support for all of the systems provided

– Ground handlers, passenger service (check-in), baggage inductors

– In-line baggage handling

– Baggage handling

– Ground handler contracted to airport provides charter check-in. Airport provides LDCS.

– Baggage induction, security pre-screening

– BHS, visual messaging, public address, CCTV, MATV, access control

– Baggage handling (part) CUSSCI CUTE

– Bag tag activation points

109

36. What is the support model that your airport uses for common use systems?

Other

Third party support

Vendor support

Self support

Vendor support

20%

Self support

13%

Third party

support

40%

Other

27%

Other responses:

– All apply

– CUTE—vendor, all others—3rd party

– Combination of above depending on service

– Combination of self and vendor supported

37. Does your airport have a common use baggage makeup system?

Yes

Not sure

Yes

71%

23%

Not sure

38. Does your airport have a common bag-drop solution/system?

110

Yes

Not sure

Yes

47%

53%

39. Does your airport use a baggage reconciliation system?

Yes

Not sure

Yes

47%

Not sure

111

40. What beneﬁts have you noticed with the implementation of common use models? Please describe.

– More vendors to work with

– Common use has been the single item that has allowed us to efficiently use the terminal space, despite signiﬁcant growth.

– Increased optimization of resources (gates, hardstands, check-in) allowing for increased capacity/growth within the facility.

– Cost savings (less capital for facilities), more options to attract new airlines or expansion by existing, more control over use of

resources.

– Efficiencies in facilities utilization; maintenance of baggage sortation systems.

– Flexibility with airline exit/entry, airline allocation for check-in/gates/baggage laterals/baggage arrival carousels.

– Better utilization of critical resources, ease of airline relocation.

– Accommodate new carriers quickly. Better service to charter airlines via LDCS. Ability to manage gates. Resources.

– Increased resource utilization to effect positive change in capacity.

– Flexibility—one model for all carriers.

– Improved availability of gate and check-in positions. Better control management of technical infrastructure in the terminal build-

ing.

– Increased passenger processing capacity, faster passenger processing, more efficient use of space, deferred capital expenses for

construction of new terminals.

– The primary beneﬁt realized at [airport identiﬁer removed] with the implementation of common use systems is the ﬂexibility to

move, add, or change resources assigned to an airline or ﬂight. Secondarily, the increase in operational awareness gives us an abil-

ity to be more effective in managing the airport resources. Finally, it has begun to change the role of the airport from landlord to

service provider.

– Capacity—Being able to handle growth of passengers without expanding check-in desks.

– Efficiency, service level, lower cost.

41. Please identify any upgrades/enhancements you are considering to your installed common use system.

Accessibility for the disabled

Network

Platform upgrades

hardware

Other

0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14

Other responses:

– In the midst of replacing common use software.

– 2D barcode readers at kiosks. Baggage self tagging.

42. Is your airport planning to implement common use in the future?

112

Yes

Not sure

Yes

67%

33%

43. What problem does your airport envision a common use installation will facilitate, or solve?

– Reduce passenger congestion

– It will facilitate facilities usage, on a cost-effective basis.

– Immediate: Better utilization of FIS related gates, long term: better utilization of domestic gates.

44. What is the main driver for your common use initiative?

Other responses:

– Maximize airport capacity

– Change of business model

Customer service

Defer capital expenditures

Passenger flow

Cost reduction

Inability to expand

Attract new tenants

Maximize use of gates for multiple carriers

Other

012345678910

113

Comments:

– Private company without access to AIP.

– Have used AIP to complete aprons and fuel systems for common use gates.

– AIP money has not yet been applied for.

46. Please describe the elements of these systems that have been identiﬁed as public use for the AIP funding application.

–N/A

– We actually used PFC funds. Use of AIP funds was negligible.

– Have used AIP to complete aprons and fuel systems for common use gates.

– None as we are a private entity.

– Not applicable.

47. Did your airport apply Passenger Facility Charges (PFCs) to offset the costs of the common use systems?

Yes

Not sure

Yes

37%

Not sure

19%

44%

45. Did or will your airport apply for Airport Improvement Program (AIP) funding to help pay for common use systems

(U.S. based airports only)?

Yes

Not sure

Yes

33%

Not sure

60%

b. Common Use Self-Service (CUSS)

Other responses:

– Private company without access to AIP

– BHS to date; CUPPS in future

– PFC funding for a pilot common use installation

48. If your airport is a non-U.S. airport, please describe any funding that was used to pay for common use systems, such as

airport usage fees, taxes, etc.

–N/A

– Airport improvement fees, airline departing seat fees

– Airport improvement fee for every enplaned passenger, similar to the U.S. PFC

– All included as part of the rates and charges

49. What does your airport view as the greatest inhibitor to acceptance of common use models from airlines? Please rank 1–7,

where 1 is the greatest inhibitor and 7 is the least inhibitor.

a. Common Use Terminal Emulation (CUTE):

114

Costs too much

Difficult to deploy

Difficult to certify

Loss of branding ability

Lack of control

Maintenance/support

Airline(s) prefer dedicated systems

0 20406080100120

Costs too much

Difficult to deploy

Difficult to certify

Loss of branding ability

Lack of control

Maintenance/support

Airline(s) prefer dedicated systems

0 20406080100

115

50. If we have any clarifying questions or require additional information, may we contact you?

51. If your airport has no intentions of implementing common use systems, what is the major reason for this decision?

– We are a hub for [airline identiﬁer removed] and 80% of our operation is [airline identiﬁer removed]. Management has decided

they do not want to go with common use. However, we are in the design phase of new terminal and concourse building and the

concept could be revisited through the design.

Yes

Not sure

Yes

94%

Not sure

116

OPERATION EVOLUTION PARTNERSHIP

The Operational Evolution Partnership (OEP) is the FAA’s plan for

implementing the Next Generation Air Transportation System. The

program is being developed by the Joint Planning and Development

Office (JPDO). The FAA expects to publish its ﬁrst version in the

next year.

The OEP was created to harmonize existing FAA plans and con-

cepts, and provide a real and tangible foundation against which the

FAA and our partners can chart the future. In the past the OEP

focused solely on increasing capacity and increasing efficiency at

the 35 OEP airports. In its new form, the OEP broadens its scope to

ensur the implementation of the operational improvements outlined

in the NextGen concept of operations. It will include key modern-

ization programs that provide enablers for operational change, such

as ERAM, SWIM, and ADS-B. The expanded OEP will grow to

include strategic dates beyond the current OEP’s 10-year time

frame, detailing the activities the agency must complete to achieve

the NextGen vision.

Who Is Developing OEP Version 1?

OEP is a FAA-wide plan. It is validated by the OEP Review Board,

which examines new programs for inclusion in the plan and for

resource prioritization. The OEP Review Board makes recommen-

dations to the OEP Associates Team, which includes the agency’s

top executives and which ultimately oversees the OEP. These

bodies include representatives from many FAA lines of business,

including Airports; Aviation Safety; the Air Traffic Organization;

Aviation Policy, Planning, and Environment; Financial Services;

Information Services; and the JPDO. The OEP Planning Staff pro-

duces the document, manages internal coordination, and facilitates

FAA-industry collaboration.

How Will FAA Use the OEP?

To Prioritize Resources

OEP will provide a single entry point for new NextGen initiatives

to enter the FAA capital budget portfolio. It will provide an inte-

grated view of the programs, systems, and procedures that are being

developed across all lines of business and are critical to transform-

ing the system. It will reveal the interdependencies of these activi-

ties, so we’ll understand how changes in resource allocation to one

program would impact the broader plan.

To Focus Future Development

To support NextGen needs, the FAA Research & Development

(R&D) program must be ﬂexible, balanced, and dynamic to respond

simultaneously to the critical near-term needs of the current system

while providing for future needs. The R&D program is helping the

FAA achieve NextGen by identifying challenges, understanding

barriers, and developing solutions across the parameters of safety,

environment, air traffic management, human factors, systems inte-

gration, and self-separation. Through OEP, the FAA will assess

NextGen research and development requirements and prioritize

new R&D initiatives before they are included in FAA’s budget

planning.

To Partner with Industry

OEP is also FAA’s tool for collaborating with the aviation commu-

nity on NextGen implementation. Through OEP we are seeking

stakeholder input, evaluating available technologies, deﬁning and

prioritizing research and development requirements, establishing

milestones and commitments, and providing status, context, and

guidance for initiatives related to NextGen. Industry collaboration

is imperative for ensuring that aircraft are properly equipped for

NextGen. RTCA functions as a federal advisory committee and

serves as industry’s voice to the OEP.

What Will Version 1 Contain?

OEP Version 1 describes the framework for the implementation

plan. The plan is divided into three domains:

• Airport Development, focused on capacity enhancements

and delay reduction for the airport surface.

• Aircraft and Operator Requirements, focused on develop-

ing standards for an avionics equipage package that provides

the new capabilities required by NextGen.

• Air Traffic Operations, focused on producing transforma-

tive air traffic control capabilities.

OEP will contain both commitments, which are fully funded im-

plementation activities, and strategic initiatives, which are being

validated for implementation. The ﬁrst version will show how cur-

rently funded programs support the NextGen vision, and is being

used to guide FY09 budget formulation.

What Is OEP’s Relationship to the JPDO?

Because the JPDO is not an implementing or executing agency, the

FAA and the other JPDO partner agencies must each develop an im-

plementation schedule for their NextGen activities. The FAA is

using the OEP to guide its transformation. JPDO representatives

will participate along with the FAA in OEP development and exe-

cution.

How Does the OEP Relate to Other

Planning Documents?

NextGen Concept of Operations

The Concept of Operations is a document that provides a basic op-

erational description of how the NextGen will function in 2025. The

version released for comment in March 2007 describes all segments

of a ﬂight, from the time an aircraft departs until it arrives at its des-

tination, as well as operations that take place before and after a

ﬂight, such as ﬂight planning and security screenings. OEP, in turn,

APPENDIX E

FAA Initiative Summaries

117

deﬁnes the major operational changes the FAA will enact through

technologies and procedures that will transform today’s National

Airspace System (NAS) into the NextGen system.

FAA Flight Plan

The Flight Plan is FAA’s ﬁve-year strategic plan. It focused on a se-

lect group of high-priority, measurable goals and initiatives for

achieving increased aviation safety, greater airspace capacity, inter-

national leadership, and organizational excellence. Further, each

FAA office links portions of its respective annual business plan to

the Flight Plan. In comparison, the OEP’s time frame stretches

through 2025 and includes a broader range of transformation activ-

ities related to the ﬁrst three Flight Plan focus areas.

Enterprise Architectures

The NAS and NextGen Enterprise Architectures are extremely de-

tailed system engineering plans that deﬁne timelines and milestones

for key infrastructure programs. They are the backbone of the OEP.

OEP describes the operational changes that these infrastructure pro-

grams, in coordination with new procedures, avionics . . . will ulti-

mately provide. Furthermore, a team of top agency executives met

regularly to assess the progress of OEP activities, and the planning

office conducts frequent outreach meetings with aviation commu-

nity organizations.

National Aviation Research Plan

Research and development is critical to ensuring the FAA meets

NextGen goals. The annual National Aviation Research Plan

(NARP) is an integrated, performance-based plan that describes the

FAA R&D programs that support both the day-to-day operations of

the NAS and the vision for NextGen. The OEP relates R&D activi-

ties to the plan’s transformative capabilities, to show explicitly how

research is moving NextGen forward.

NEXTGEN CONCEPT OF OPERATIONS—JOINT

PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT OFFICE (JPDO)

NextGen is a wide ranging transformation of the entire national air

transportation system—not just certain pieces of it—to meet future

demands and avoid gridlock in the sky and in the airports. It moves

away from ground-based surveillance and navigation to new and

more dynamic satellite-based systems. Technologies and activities

that support this transformation are currently part of the FAA’s

investment portfolio and represent a step beyond our legacy mod-

ernization programs. These new capabilities and the highly interde-

pendent technologies that support them will change the way the

system operates, reduce congestion, and improve the passenger

experience. This multi-agency initiative is led by the JPDO.

The Concept of Operations (ConOps), developed by JPDO, is a

document that provides a basic operational description of how the

air transportation system will function in 2025. The version re-

leased for comment in March 2007 describes all segments of a

ﬂight, from the time an aircraft departs until it arrives at its desti-

nation, as well as operations that take place before and after a ﬂight,

such as flight planning and security screenings. OEP, in turn, de-

ﬁnes the major operational changes FAA will make through tech-

nologies and procedures that will transform today’s NAS into the

NextGen system.

The ConOps forms a baseline that can be used to initiate a

dialogue with the aviation stakeholder community to develop the

policy agenda and encourage the research needed to achieve our

national and global goals for air transportation.

The goals for NextGen focus on signiﬁcantly increasing the

safety, security, and capacity of air transportation operations and

thereby improving the overall economic well-being of the country.

These beneﬁts are achieved through a combination of new proce-

dures and advances in the technology deployed to manage passen-

ger, air cargo, general aviation (GA), and air traffic operations. The

NGATS Vision Brieﬁng (2005) identiﬁes eight key capabilities

needed to achieve these goals:

• Network-Enabled Information Access

• Performance-Based Services (now Performance-Based Oper-

ations and Services)

• Weather Assimilated into Decision-Making

• Layered, Adaptive Security

• Broad-Area Precision Navigation [now Positioning, Naviga-

tion, and Timing (PNT) Services]

• Aircraft Trajectory-Based Operations (TBO)

• Equivalent Visual Operations (EVO) (the characteristics of

which are described throughout this concept)

• Super-Density Arrival/Departure Operations.

Airports are the nexus of many of the NextGen transformation

elements, including air traffic management (ATM), security, and

environmental goals. Accordingly, the sustainability and advance-

ment of the airport system is critical to the growth of the nation’s air

transportation system. Airports form a diverse system that serves

many aviation operators and communities with different needs. Air-

port operators include a mix of private and local government/public

entities that are responsible for aligning their activities with

NextGen goals. New technology and procedures will improve ac-

cess to airports, enabling better utilization of existing infrastructure

and currently underutilized airports. The sustainability of existing

airports will be enhanced with a preservation program to increase

community support and protect against encroachment of incompat-

ible land uses and impacts to airport protection surfaces. Finally,

new airport infrastructure will be developed using a comprehensive

planning architecture that integrates facility planning, ﬁnance, re-

gional system planning, and environmental activities to enable a

more efficient, ﬂexible, and responsive system that is balanced with

NextGen goals.

At the heart of the NextGen concept is the information-sharing

component known as net-centric infrastructure services or net-

centricity. Its features allow NextGen to adapt to growth in op-

erations as well as shifts in demand, making NextGen a scalable

system. Net-centricity also provides the foundation for robust, effi-

cient, secure, and timely transport of information to and from a

broad community of users and individual subscribers. This results

in a system that minimizes duplication, achieves integration, and fa-

cilitates the concepts of distributed decision making by ensuring

that all decision elements have exactly the same information upon

which to base a decision, independent of when or where the deci-

sion is made. The net-centricity component binds NextGen opera-

tional and enterprise services together, thereby creating a cohesive

link. Enterprise services provide users with a common picture of op-

erational information necessary to perform required functions. The

suite of enterprise services includes shared situational awareness

(SSA), security, environment, and safety.

SSA services offer a suite of tools and information designed to

provide NextGen participants with real-time aeronautical and

geospatial information that is communicated and interpreted

118

between machines without the need for human intervention. A reli-

able, common weather picture provides data and automatic updates

to a wide range of users, aiding optimal air transportation decision

making. PNT services reduce dependence on costly ground-based

navigation aids (NAVAIDs) by providing users with current lo-

cation and any corrections, such as course, orientation, and speed,

necessary to achieve the desired destination. Real-time air situa-

tional awareness is provided by integrating cooperative and non-

cooperative surveillance data from all air vehicles.

Security services are provided by a risk-informed security sys-

tem that depends on multiple technologies, policies, and procedures

adaptively scaled and arranged to defeat a given threat.

New technologies and procedures aid in passenger screening

and checkpoint responsibilities. Baggage screening improvements

include integrated chemical, biological, radiological, nuclear, and

high-yield explosives (CBRNE) detection and sensor fusion

systems in a range of sizes for increased portability and remote

screening.

Environmental interests are proactively addressed through the

development and implementation of an integrated environmental

management system (EMS). Technologies are incorporated before

and during operations to enable optimized route selection, landing,

and take-off procedures based on a range of data feeds including

noise, air emission, fuel burn, cost, and route efficiency. At airports,

a ﬂexible, systematic approach is developed to identify and manage

environmental resources that are critical to sustainable growth. En-

vironmental considerations continue to be incorporated into aircraft

design to proactively address issues including noise reduction and

aircraft engine emissions.

Because of the profound impact adverse weather has on trans-

portation, NextGen is focusing on a major new direction in aviation

weather information capabilities to help stakeholders at all levels

make better decisions during weather situations. For NextGen,

weather information has a core function—identify where and when

aircraft can or cannot safely ﬂy. These safe and efficient NextGen

operations will be dependent on enhanced aviation weather capa-

bilities based on three major tenets:

• A common picture of the weather for all air transportation de-

cision makers and aviation system users.

• Weather directly integrated into sophisticated decision sup-

port capabilities to assist decision makers.

• Utilization of Internet-like information dissemination capa-

bilities to realize ﬂexible and cost-efficient access to all nec-

essary weather information.

Aviation safety is steadily improved to accommodate the antic-

ipated growth in air traffic while the number of accidents is de-

creased through an integrated safety management system (SMS).

A national safety aviation policy is established that formalizes

safety requirements for all NextGen participants. The safety im-

provement culture is encouraged by management and utilizes non-

reprisal reporting systems. Safety assurance focuses on a holistic

view of operators’ processes and procedures rather than the indi-

vidual pieces of the system. Modeling, simulation data analysis, and

data sharing are utilized in prognostic assessments to improve

safety risk management.

Data from the above services are used to provide real-time sys-

tem-level risk assessments and operational impact reviews to eval-

uate the performance, system safety, and security of NextGen via

the performance management service. Real-time, onboard data are

monitored and shared to evaluate and manage individual aircraft

risk. Safety compliance is monitored through network-enabled data

gathering, which collects interaircraft and pilot-to-pilot perfor-

mance data.

This enhanced monitoring of operational characteristics facili-

tates the integration of “instantaneous” system performance metrics

into system management decisions.

NextGen is a complex system with many public and private

sector stakeholders that must smoothly, promptly, and capably

integrate with the changes in the global air transportation system.

National defense, homeland security, ATM, commercial and GA

operators, and airports work together to support passenger, cargo,

recreational, and military ﬂights. Through a net-centric infrastruc-

ture, enterprise services provide users with a common picture of

operational information necessary to perform required functions.

These integrated capabilities of NextGen will provide the capacity

required to meet the nation’s need for air travel in the most effec-

tive, efficient, safe, and secure manner possible.

FAA FACT 2 STUDY

FACT 2 is an assessment of the future capacity of the nation’s air-

ports and metropolitan areas. Its goal is to determine which airports

and metropolitan areas have the greatest need for additional capac-

ity. Traffic in the NAS was modeled using projections of future en-

planements and operations from two different sources: the FAA’s

Terminal Area Forecast (TAF) and the Center for Advanced Avia-

tion Systems Development’s experimental model of origin and des-

tination traffic. TAF assesses traffic on an airport-by-airport basis

based on the economic and demographic characteristics of the air-

port metropolitan area. The following is a summary of some of the

important ﬁndings.

Summary

Many existing airports will need to be expanded to meet future de-

mand. The metropolitan areas that have traditionally driven aviation

demand will continue to do so.

Metropolitan areas on both coasts have critical capacity prob-

lems that are becoming more chronic. In the last 40 years, two new

major commercial service airports have opened in the United States,

Dallas–Fort Worth and Denver International. We may need to add

as many as four more in the next 20 or 30 years. Atlanta, Chicago,

Las Vegas, and San Diego are among the likely candidates.

In addition to building new runways and airports, we need to ex-

pand regional planning in key areas of our country and examine the

role of congestion management measures in the few locations where

expanding airport capacity is unlikely. Eighteen of our biggest

airports are back to pre-9/11 levels. It is likely that four more—

Baltimore, Detroit, Newark, and Phoenix—will achieve those lev-

els in the next couple of years.

FACT 2 examined potential beneﬁts of some emerging concepts

of the NextGen air traffic system that might help alleviate congestion

at the busiest 35 airports, and the news was very encouraging. Every

single one of them experienced a projected drop in delays. The an-

ticipated beneﬁts of NextGen are critically important as efficiency

enhancements for airports with planned runway improvements and

even more so for airports in the NAS where geographic and other

constraints prevent physical expansion of the airﬁeld. In addition,

NextGen is critical to handling traffic volume and ensuring smooth,

high-capacity aircraft ﬂows between airports. It also enhances our

ability to meet our capacity requirements in ways that cause less

harm to the environment and less disturbance to our neighbors—so

the expansion of the airspace is beneﬁcial to everyone.

Planned Improvements

The FACT 2 analysis includes planned improvements affecting run-

way capacity for two future planning periods, 2015 and 2025:

• New or Extended Runways.

• New or Revised ATC Procedures.

• Airspace Redesign.

• Other Assumptions (existing environmental restrictions).

This updated study shows that some airports have higher capacities

than originally presumed and thus less need for additional capacity.

Input from Affected Airports

A few important issues were raised by a number of the airport spon-

sors:

• An airport’s runways are not necessarily the limiting capacity

factor. Often, taxiways and terminal gates can limit the annual

number of operations more than runway capacity by itself.

However, the present analysis did not consider potential lim-

itations imposed by the taxiway or terminal infrastructure.

• Airspace limitations also impact capacity. The ability of the

airspace around many of the airports to accommodate more

arrivals and departures may be limited, especially where

there are several major airports in the same area (Southern

California, Northern California, Chicago, New York,

Philadelphia, and Southern Florida). Enroute airspace

congestion may also impose departure delays. In other cases,

operational ﬂexibility may be affected by nearby military air-

space or environmentally sensitive areas.

Some Findings of the FACT 2 Study

The FACT 2 analysis found the total number of airports and metro-

politan areas needing additional capacity beyond what is currently

planned was lower than reported in FACT 1. The FACT 2 analysis

also identiﬁed a greater number of large hub airports that will need

additional capacity beyond what is currently planned.

New runways typically provide the greatest capacity enhance-

ment in the airport environment, and more will be needed to man-

age delays throughout the NAS. Some communities, however, are

constrained from building runways or implementing other airﬁeld

projects to enhance capacity. In such cases, NextGen, which in-

cludes various technology advancements planned to transform how

we move people and goods, will be required to provide solutions for

additional capacity.

FAA FLIGHT PLAN

The Flight Plan is a 5-year strategic plan outlining the FAA’s goals

and objectives. The Plan is updated every year and focuses on four

goals:

• Increased Safety

• Greater Capacity

• International Leadership—Aviation safety is a vital na-

tional export. We will enhance America’s leadership role by

sharing our expertise and new technologies with our interna-

tional partners.

• Organizational Excellence—To fulﬁll our mission, the FAA

must be a world-class organization. This requires greater ﬁs-

cal responsibility, stronger leadership, more cooperation, and

performance-based management.

FAA NAS Architecture 6

The National Airspace System Architecture 6 (NAS 6) is an update

to NAS Architecture 5. NAS 6 represents a continuation of FAA’s

multiyear framework to measure progress in modernizing the NAS.

NAS 6 incorporates many of the different agency plans and pro-

grams as well as reﬂects changes in the FAA’s budget and FAA Joint

Resources Council decisions. Updates in NAS 6 also reﬂect changes

in the Joint FAA/Industry concept of operations, and FAA Adminis-

trator goals and strategies that appear in the FAA Flight Plan.

Speciﬁcally, the NAS Architecture overall represents the pro-

posed execution of several key modernization plans: the FAA’s

Flight Plan; the NAS Operational Evolution Plan, which has been

expanded into the NAS Operational Evolution Partnership; the

NAS Capital Investment Plan; and the National Aviation Research

Plan. NAS 6 is a comprehensive, multiyear plan for improving the

NAS and ultimately reﬂecting the plans for the Next Generation Air

Transportation System, or the NextGen, to be fully operational in

the year 2025. The JPDO is coordinating the NextGen, and NAS 6

will be aligned with NextGen planning.

NAS 6 includes a series of Operational Improvements, or OIs, to

assist users and manufacturers in planning their operations and in-

vestments. The OIs in NAS 6 will be updated in line with the plans

for development of the NextGen.

NATIONAL AVIATION RESEARCH PLAN

The annual National Aviation Research Plan (NARP) is an inte-

grated, performance-based plan that describes the FAA R&D pro-

grams that support both the day-to-day operations of the National

Airspace System and the vision for NextGen. The OEP links R&D

activities to the plan’s transformative capabilities, to show explic-

itly how research is moving FAA toward NextGen.

The NARP uses ten R&D milestones to bridge the near-term

goals of the Flight Plan with the long-term goals of the NextGen In-

tegrated Plan.

1. Fast, ﬂexible, and efficient—a system that safely and

quickly moves anyone and anything, anywhere, anytime on

schedules that meet customer needs.

The approach includes developing and demonstrating

NextGen according to the FAA responsibilities in the JPDO

plan and continuing ongoing efforts related to increasing

airport capacity and reducing costs. Validation of the 2015

milestone will include a combination of modeling, analysis,

full-scale testing, and initial standards. The capacity evalu-

ation under the system knowledge goal supports the interim

assessment of progress and the validation of this milestone.

2. Clean and quiet—a signiﬁcant reduction of aerospace en-

vironmental impact in absolute terms.

The approach has four parts: measure current levels in the

system; determine the target levels of noise and emissions;

119

120

build models to assess and predict the impact of change; and

develop reduction techniques and assess their cost-beneﬁt.

Validation of the 2015 milestone will include modeling,

physical demonstrations, prototypes, full-scale tests, and

software beta tests. The environmental evaluation under the

system knowledge goal supports the interim assessment of

progress and validation of this milestone.

3. High quality teams and individuals—the best qualiﬁed

and trained workforce in the world.

The approach includes continued pursuit of efficiency gains

in en route and pursuit of new knowledge and results that

produce efficiency gains in terminal and tower. The baseline

for all demonstrations will be 2004 traffic levels. Validation

of the interim and 2015 milestones rely on simulation and

prototyping. Validation will involve ﬁeld trials only to the

extent that resources and funding are available. This goal

contributes to the integrated demonstration under the

human-centered design goal.

4. Human-centered design—aerospace systems that adapt to,

compensate for, and augment the performance of the

human.

The approach includes identifying roles and responsibili-

ties, deﬁning human and system performance requirements,

applying error management strategies, and conducting an

integrated demonstration across multiple goal areas. Vali-

dation of the 2015 milestone will include simulations and

demonstrations to conﬁrm the requirements and methodolo-

gies for human performance and error management. The

ﬁnal demonstration will integrate weather-in-the-cockpit

technologies, self-separation procedures, air traffic con-

troller productivity tools, and network-enabled collabora-

tive decision making to increase capacity, reduce delays,

and promote safety.

5. Human protection—no fatalities, injuries, or adverse

health impacts owing to aerospace operations.

The approach includes preventing injuries during regular

operations and protecting people in the event of a crash.

Validation of the supporting milestones will include demon-

strations, modeling, simulations, full-scale testing, and ini-

tial standards. Validation of the 2015 milestone will include

analysis of U.S. accident data. In 2010, progress will be

measured based on accident data from 2003 to 2008; in

2012 based on data from 2003 to 2010; and in 2015 based

on data from 2003 to 2012. Results from the safe aerospace

vehicle goal will contribute to the interim and ﬁnal mea-

surements of the reduction. The safety evaluation under the

system knowledge goal will support the interim assessment

of progress and validation of the 2015 milestone. The 2015

demonstration will show that the R&D is complete, and it is

possible to meet the targeted operational improvement by

2025.

6. Safe aerospace vehicles—no accidents and incidents owing

to aerospace vehicle design, structure, and subsystems.

The approach includes preventing accidents resulting

from engine failures, structural failures, and system failures;

developing a ﬁreproof cabin; integrating unmanned aircraft

into the system; and addressing safety problems speciﬁc to

general aviation. Validation of the 2015 milestone will

include modeling, ﬂight simulation, physical demonstra-

tion, prototypes, and initial standards. The results from this

goal will contribute to the 2015 milestone to demonstrate a

two-thirds reduction in fatalities and signiﬁcant injuries

under the human protection goal.

7. Self-separation—no accidents and incidents owing to aero-

space vehicle operations in the air and on the ground.

The approach includes conducting R&D to support the

standards, procedures, training, and policy required to im-

plement the NextGen operational improvements leading to

self-separation.

This goal does not develop technology, but it works with

the designated technology developer to prepare for the op-

erational use of the technology according to the JPDO

schedule identiﬁed below. Validation of the 2015 milestone

will include demonstrating that the research and develop-

ment is sufficient for the initial policy and standards that are

required to certify technology, procedures, and training

needed to implement the JPDO plan for self-separation

8. Situational awareness—common, accurate, and real-time

information on aerospace operations, events, crises, obsta-

cles, and weather.

The approach includes supporting development of stan-

dards and procedures for weather-in-the-cockpit to provide

the ﬂight crew awareness of weather conditions and fore-

casts; demonstrating wake turbulence technologies to sup-

port self-separation; and improving situational awareness at

airports. Validation of the 2015 milestone will include pilot-

in-the-loop simulations, modeling, tests, physical demon-

strations, and initial standards and procedures.

9. System knowledge—a thorough understanding of how the

aerospace system operates, the impact of change on system

performance and risk, and how the system impacts the

nation.

The approach includes developing the information analy-

sis and sharing system to support the FAA and NextGen

safety initiatives; generating guidelines to help stakeholders

develop their own safety management systems; and model-

ing activities to help measure progress toward achieving

safety, capacity, and environmental goals. Validation of the

2015 milestone will include analysis, modeling, prototypes,

and demonstrations. The evaluation efforts under this goal

support the interim assessment of progress and validation of

the 2015 milestones under the human protection, clean and

quiet, and fast, ﬂexible, and efficient goals.

10. World leadership—a globally recognized leader in aero-

space technology, systems, and operations.

The approach includes managing research collaborations

to increase value and leveraging research under the existing

R&D program to increase value. This goal applies to the

R&D program only. Validation of the 2015 milestone will

include developing agreements and conducting analysis.

The research results listed under activity 2 are generated by

the other nine goals in this plan. The purpose of this goal is

to help plan the use of these products in international part-

nering activities to produce the highest value. The method

of validation for the individual research results is provided

under the respective goal for each result.

121

The following airports responded to the survey:

• JFK International Terminal (Terminal 4)

• Clark County Department of Aviation, Las Vegas McCarran

International Airport

• San Francisco International Airport

• Tampa International Airport

• Greater Toronto Airports Authority

• Greater Orlando Airport Authority

• Metropolitan Airports Commission (Minneapolis–St. Paul In-

ternational Airport)

• San Diego County Regional Airport Authority

• Salt Lake City International Airport, Salt Lake City Depart-

ment of Airports

• Williams Gateway Airport

• Halifax International Airport Authority

• Vancouver International Airport Authority

• Dallas–Fort Worth International Airport

• Amsterdam Airport Schiphol

• Aéroports de Montréal

• Miami–Dade Aviation Department

• Four anonymous responses.

The following airlines responded to the survey:

• Lufthansa AG

• EasyJet Airline

• American Airlines

• United Airlines

• Qantas Airlines

• Southwest Airlines

• Skybus Airlines

• Delta Airlines

• Air Canada

• Alaska Airlines

• British Airways

• Two anonymous responses.

APPENDIX F

Survey Respondents

Abbreviations used without deﬁnitions in TRB publications:

AAAE American Association of Airport Executives

AASHO American Association of State Highway Officials

AASHTO American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials

ACI–NA Airports Council International–North America

ACRP Airport Cooperative Research Program

ADA Americans with Disabilities Act

APTA American Public Transportation Association

ASCE American Society of Civil Engineers

ASME American Society of Mechanical Engineers

ASTM American Society for Testing and Materials

ATA Air Transport Association

ATA American Trucking Associations

CTAA Community Transportation Association of America

CTBSSP Commercial Truck and Bus Safety Synthesis Program

DHS Department of Homeland Security

DOE Department of Energy

EPA Environmental Protection Agency

FAA Federal Aviation Administration

FHWA Federal Highway Administration

FMCSA Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration

FRA Federal Railroad Administration

FTA Federal Transit Administration

IEEE Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers

ISTEA Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act of 1991

ITE Institute of Transportation Engineers

NASA National Aeronautics and Space Administration

NASAO National Association of State Aviation Officials

NCFRP National Cooperative Freight Research Program

NCHRP National Cooperative Highway Research Program

NHTSA National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

NTSB National Transportation Safety Board

SAE Society of Automotive Engineers

SAFETEA-LU Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation Equity Act:

A Legacy for Users (2005)

TCRP Transit Cooperative Research Program

TEA-21 Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century (1998)

TRB Transportation Research Board

TSA Transportation Security Administration

U.S.DOT United States Department of Transportation