Resources – Developing a Holistic Airport Common Use Program

Even though the industry has relaxed the six-foot distancing requirement, virtual queuing has shown itself to be a tremendous customer service with the potential for improved operational efficiencies. Equally important to the success of virtual queuing is the adoption of airlines into the program. Even with the great passenger acceptance of these programs, and the added customer service and potential new revenue streams virtual queuing offers, in all cases, after the trial period is over, passenger use drops. Airports are quickly learning that to sustain and grow passenger use, they need to provide airlines with an easy way of identifying and understanding all of the various airport virtual queuing opportunities so they can easily connect their passengers into the program. This also applies to other users, such as transportation network companies (such as Uber and Lyft). In other words, virtual queueing works best in a common use approach, where all stakeholders are heavily involved, including airlines, federal agencies, and solution providers. Recognizing this, the ACI-NA BIT VQ working group, in cooperation with at least three airports and three airlines, are embarking on an interoperability test across airports/airlines/solutions. These tests will help prove out the common use applications needed to mature virtual queuing at airports.

How is data used to facilitate seamless travel? The federal agencies are increasingly partnering with airlines and airports to utilize (and share) data across traditional stakeholder boundaries. For example, the CBP architected the Traveler Verification Service (TVS) system, which registers those departing the country to share that piece of identification data with the airline’s departure control system (DCS) at that gate. The DCS can then check the identity against its database of departing passengers on the subject flight and can allow the identified persons to board without scanning anything. This biometric exit and boarding are an excellent example of the same piece of data going into two completely separate systems, owned by different entities, and used for entirely different purposes. Increasingly, there are other such examples, with the TSA joining in with trials to prove out biometric identity use, not just for international travel, but for domestic travel as well.

As airport-owned systems are put into place, appropriate cleaning care has to be applied to them. The proper materials and cleaning fluids must be used, or damage may occur. This requires special training for staff and appropriate staffing for the assignments. Cleaning high signs and other display devices may also require lifts, which would then require lift certification for the group, storage areas (complete with recharge capability) for the lifts, safety cones, and other related standardized safety procedures.

Irregular operations occur on a rather regular basis, for any number of reasons. The ability of a common use airport to facilitate these many challenging operational scenarios by flexing on facilities is very important to overall recovery—and to a reasonable level of customer service in the process. Also important is the ability to process flight changes on a mobile device, which often utilizes the airport’s Wi-Fi network. This is especially critical where arriving international passengers may not have the data capability enabled on their phone. But in many cases, common use kiosks can also be deployed on the airside to further facilitate the ability to rebook travel, rather than standing in a line of a couple of hundred persons to talk to a (usually overwhelmed and frustrated) live agent.

Self-service bag drops greatly aid passenger processing time and can be installed and operated in a common use fashion, extending self-service fully into the baggage handling process. The ability to self-tag has been in place for more than a decade now, with virtually all major airlines allowing their customers to attach the bag tag themselves. This was the first step of the self-service baggage journey, and itself brought many efficiencies in processing time to the experience, with a very streamlined drop process after tagging away from the drop location. Self-bag drop just takes this to the next level, cutting (by most all implementation reports) minutes from the processing time. It can also be configured to accommodate many airlines at a single location, usually managed by a ground handling representative of all of the users. In a common use environment, the airport may provide the baggage tag stock to the airlines. This is particularly true in a case where RFID has been widely deployed.

Example installation of self-service bag drop

Fast Track vs. Deep Dive

The Fast Track is a summary of the Deep Dive, providing less examples and focusing on key points. Read only the chapter pages if you wish to stay on the Fast Track. You can also download a PDF version of the Fast Track.

The Deep Dive is the full set of content, rich with examples and analysis of key concepts. Skip the chapter pages and dive right into sub-sections if you wish to read the Deep Dive.