The infamous event, September 11, 2001 at ground zero, the World Trade Center was like Pearl Harbor but on a more frightening scale. This is because the attack was made at the heart of U.S. Mainland. Aside from the target what is most chilling about this attack is the weapon of choice. It was no sophisticated military gadget but a commercial airplane used by terrorists to topple two towers of glass and steel. Afterwards there is no other sector of society that received greater scrutiny other than the aviation industry and the main goal is to make it more secure against terrorists.
Advanced Technology
This is the Information Age, created without a doubt by computers and sophisticated networking of computers. But instead of relying merely on interconnected but unmanageable networks the Federal Government must continue to invest in technology that will enhance information sharing. At a conceptual level experts labeled this relatively new technology as “data fusion” (National Research Council, p. 21). In its simplest form “data fusion” is the creation of system where various government agencies and data coming from these different agencies can be registered and consolidated in one system (National Research Council, p. 21). This will enable the Federal government to link and associate different information and this system can easily find the connection between suspected terrorists and suspicious activities.
Human scanners can be used to protect airports from terrorist attacks. Yet, this method is prone to human error. There is a need to use equipment such as x-ray machines and metal detectors. Yet, it does not take a security expert to know that these measures are not enough, especially when it comes to detecting weapons not made of metal. In response, new technology is being deployed such as the Explosives Trace Detection or ETD (Greene, p. 37). As the name suggests the ETC system enables security officials to detect trace amounts of explosives (Greene, p. 38). This is very helpful as it will provide an advantage for security personnel against a carefully planned attack.
Secure Cargo
One major weakness when it comes to airline security is the place where they will store cargo that will subsequently be loaded to outgoing airplanes. If terrorists can access these sensitive areas then they can easily plant a bomb that they can remote-detonate or use a timer for it to explode in midair. One way of securing this very sensitive area is to use biometric screening procedures (Elias, p. 357). This system uses fingerprint scanners to prevent unauthorized entry. For those who are not familiar with this equipment, a biometric scanner requires that each employee and those given access to sensitive areas will have to register their fingerprint together with the needed personal information. Each human being has a unique fingerprint and this ensures that only those who are authorized are able to enter in.
Advanced biometrics technology will not only rely on human fingerprint detection but also the person’s facial features, iris, retina, and voice (Green, p. 38). According to experts, biometrics technology allows airport security to link the identification of the person to their physiological features, which cannot be faked (Greene, p. 38). The use of biometrics can be used not only in places where cargo must be secured. This type of technology must be installed in every access point of the airport in order to enhance its security. These advanced technologies will create a powerful deterrent that will make terrorist think many times before attempting their dastardly acts but when they do make the attempt, the same will help bring them to justice.
Works Cited
Greene, Jack. The Encyclopedia of Police Science. New York: Routledge, 2007.
National Research Council. Fusion of Security System Data to Improve Security. Washington, D.C.: The National Academies Press, 2007.
Poor security at the US airports was highly blamed following the twin attack of the September 11 2001 in the United States. Since then, the US government has invested heavily in security, particularly in the airports, in order to protect its citizens. There has been advancement in technology besides the extensive screening of passengers before they board the airplanes.
The airport security has been tightened using video surveillance and advanced data exchange technology. Besides, the aircraft security has also been advanced using bulletproof cockpit doors and restricted access to the airports. Advanced personal identity screening has been fine-tuned at the airport. The paper thus gives details of these advancements made in the US following the attack.
Introduction
Since the September 11, 2001 terrorist attack in the United States, there has been a deliberate move by both the US and the federal governments to seal the loopholes that existed before in the airports sector. The 19 hijackers who terrorized the US in the twin attacks were able to go through the normal security checks and even shut the alarms of the metal detectors.
The hijackers forced the planes to fly into the World Trade Center and the Pentagon thus pushing thousands of people to respond to the attack. However, thousands died innocently portraying the fact that the United States airports were insecure.
The many questions raised concerning the incidence about safety of the US airports form the basis of this paper that discusses the advancement of airport security since September 11, 2001.
Advanced Passenger Screening
The previous poor airport security in the US that led to the attacks was highly criticized by people like Saine who have declared the “transport security author as “too reactive, imposing screening procedures that respond to past terrorist plots and not doing enough to anticipate future threats” (2012, Para. 2).
As a result, the airports have adapted advanced screening devices that can screen any bomb materials and or even metals (Foster, 2011, Para. 3). Before the September 11, 2001 attack, passengers could not carry bottled water into the airport leave alone the airplanes.
However, the new technology has enabled them to do so comfortably. Computer companies like Siemens have played an important role in helping the airports install baggage screeners, which now allow the passengers to drop off any bag that they are carrying immediately they enter the airports.
The new luggage screening system has also speeded up the process of screening. For example, the Delta airline has been able to increase the number of luggage screened per hour from 200 to 500 (Saine, 2012, Para. 4).
The step that has resulted out of technology has also eased the previous congestion in the airport thus reducing the safety risks because the aircraft hijackers of September 11 were able to pass their luggage though security checks without raising any alarm. For example, they carried box cutters that they used in threatening other passengers
The government has also provided a good administration by investing heavily on the development of sophisticated sensors that have the ability to recognize dangerous persons like those who carry explosives in their clothes long before they get into the gates of the airports. The success of the fast advancement in the security management at the airports has been because of government funding.
Following the September 11 2001 incidence, the government dedicated huge sums of money for the US airport security, approximately 700% more than before. Other authorities have also taken part in the financial support, for instance, “the customs and border patrol unit of the U.S., the coast guard, and the authorities of the ports that are in charge of maintaining, managing, and even owning the airports” (Ziebauer et al., 2003, p. 5).
Airport security
The US airports have also acquired advanced information technology devices that enable the police and special units that deal with border patrol to exchange data faster than they used to before the twin attacks. The step has been possible because only the agencies previously had common data banks that could share information.
However, the new technology has allowed the police units and airports authorities to exchange information freely and quickly even when they are using different databases. The security personnel employed in airports must pass through a vetting session for any criminal record.
Before September 11, some airports had hired employees with criminal records. For example, according to Ziebauer et al. (2003, p.5), the Philadelphia International Airport had hired untrained security personnel with criminal records. This has really reduced the time taken for the security agents to identify the criminals with intentions of committing acts of terror.
Airports are also adopting the use of video surveillance gargets that enable monitors to supervise and detect abnormal behavior in crowds. The technology enabled the security agent to identify the person who was behind the bombing of the Times Square. This equipment was able to identify this bomber accurately amongst other people in a crowd.
The federal government planned and established the homeland security unit, which is consistently investigating terrorism attacks besides taking pre-emptive actions to prevent any act of terror in the U.S.
All the security persons must be trained on how to perform screenings since, during the September 11 attack, Khali al-Mihdhar, Nawaf-al-Hazmi, Majed Moqed, and even Salem al-Hazmi were able to set off all the metal detectors and their alarms at the security checks (Zielbauer & Sullivan, 2001, Para. 4). Security personnel have now been trained on advanced checks.
Improved aircraft security
Today, the airports have been able to strengthen cockpit doors. This ensures that no passenger or unauthorized persons can interfere with the pilot and the co-pilot especially when the airplane is airborne. The doors of the airplanes have also been made bulletproof to prevent any forceful entry to the cockpit. This has made it safer to the cabin crew and even the passengers.
The government also employs air marshals that board the flight for security purposes. The companies that had been put on probation for not complying with regulatory authority requirements on airplanes and pilots were forced to have their period of probation extend until 2005, as reported by CNN (2001, Para. 3).
Improved Personal Identity Screening
In conclusion, the airports have also been given the authority to inspect the identity documents of any passenger to confirm whether their names are in line with those in the air tickets. However, identity checks are usually done manually making it difficult to validate the names and other details of the passengers.
The government and the authorities are still researching on this area. In fact, Ball (2001, Para. 5) says, “We continue to explore and implement additional mitigation measures to prevent the manipulation of boarding passes and are working with the airlines to develop systems and methods to prevent illegal tampering.”
Any person exempted and allowed to fly without IDs is subjected to more screening. There are also tight requirements like the ramps of the airport, which detect any suspicious material in anyone’s luggage before entering the operation bases of the airport.
Saine, C. (2012). Law Makers Criticize US Government Airport Screening. Web.
Zielbauer, P., & Sullivan, J. (2001). After the Attacks: Airport Security; F.A.A. Announces Stricter Rules; Knives No Longer Allowed. New York: The New York Times, 2001. Print.
Airports have become a part of everyday existence, as air travel is necessary for many aspects of life. The design and technology that goes into building and engineering an airport is unseen but is very complex and structured. There are many details that are important to keep in mind in order to build a well functioning and effective airport.
The runway is key part of any airport and at first, it might seem simple enough. The landing and takeoff of an airplane are considered to be one of the most important parts of any flights and so, great care must be taken in designing and building the runway. Usually, it is made of asphalt or concrete and the specifics of the plane are taken into account.
The runways have a close relationship with the Earth’s magnetic poles and their shifts. The changes in magnetic poles, which can slowly drift in a certain direction, will result in a name or number change for the runway. Some runways are designed for takeoff and some for landing. This is due to the fact that during landing the physics are different when compared to takeoff or rolling of the plane into position.
Runways are connected by ramps and the path that connects the two is called taxiway. As most of the airports are busy and the speed of traffic adds to the effectiveness of the functioning, taxiways are constructed to be used for a high speed usage. The markings on runways, ramps and taxiways are extremely important as they tell the pilots their specific purpose.
It is done with letters, numbers and different color lighting. The marking lights are heavily relied on during night time for obvious reasons. There is a great amount of technology used to test and monitor surfaces, markings and other safety details of the airport and its features (Woods 23).
Most of the time runways are made with concrete to provide obstruction free, smooth and hard surface. The thickness of concrete depends on the planes that are used and their mass is what determines if it is 10 inches or 1 meter thick. Modern airplanes that are used for commercial transports have one of the highest masses and so, the pressure from the chassis or landing gear is a key determinant.
The construction and materials for the runways are very expensive and so, the manufacturers of the aircraft must keep in mind the amount of wear that the airplane will have on the concrete. Due to this, the weight of the airplane must be equally distributed between the touching points and the amount of tires play an important role in the pressure on the pavement.
Weather conditions are also taken into consideration, as some places are suscepted to frosting conditions while others never have to deal with temperatures below zero degrees. The pavement surface is an integral part of the runway because it is an area that comes into most contact with the plane. The contact between the surface and the tires must be maximized for braking and acceleration.
As sometimes there is heavy rain, the surface is made with grooves that let water flow into them, which decreases hydroplaning or gliding of tires along the surface. Some of the materials that are used for the surface layer are asphalt, concrete, clay, a mixture of several materials called composite, coral which is made from coral reefs and others. The surface of the runways is important but so is the direction.
It is determined by the wind, as takeoff and landing happen as closely as possible to the wind direction. As the wind changes, so does the “active” runway being used. The length of the runways is related to the mass of the plane and geographical elevation. At least 1800 meters is required for aircraft that are below 90000 kilograms.
Planes that are larger in size and wider in their dimensions will have a minimum 2400 meters takeoff length. The higher the altitude the longer the runways will be. This is because the air is less dense at a higher altitude and more speed and distance is needed for an airplane to takeoff (Ashford 80).
The changes in technology have greatly affected the design of the airports. The engines are made to have more power and so, the design of the airport is changed and aligned according to the plane, its power and dimensions. The amount of fuel needed for the plane will have an effect on its mass and power output, so the types of planes that use the airport play a key role.
The airplane itself has many characteristics that differentiate it from others. The wing span, seating capacity, length of the fuselage, amount of fuel needed, on board specifications and age, all play a role in the development of the airport (Ashford 76). For example, a higher wing span will decrease the flying speed of an airplane and the speed of landing and takeoff will also be lower.
The purpose of the plane plays a significant role in the design of the airport. If it is a military base or an airplane used by the military might land in a particular airport, the mass and dimensions are taken into account. Commercial and private airplanes have a great number of specifications that dictate the design of the airports.
The amount of traffic and the loads are also factors that determine the layout and details of engineering a smooth functioning airfield. The safety of people on the ground and on the plane is an important matter and so, the conditions of the surface are constantly monitored.
The wear on the runways is inevitable and specific division of airport workers must have a close eye on any defects and irregularities. Another factor that affects the design of the airport is the area it is located in and the usage by the public. A major city airport will have a larger area with bigger size terminal and more pockets or aprons for plane parking (Graham 207).
The greater the amount of people that uses the airport, the higher is the amount of airplanes and the tower must take more effective and orderly control of the large number of airplanes. Smaller or private airports are not so demanding when comparing to major city airports and military bases.
The airports that are used by the army have different types of aircraft: helicopters, smaller and faster airplanes and transport planes, which are sometimes more demanding than those used publicly (Edwards 71).
Overall, a lot of engineering thought and planning goes into designing an airport. It is an intricate structure of systems that are all connected and serve a specific purpose. It is a place of extreme speeds and conditions that are taken very seriously, which reflects in the organization of both airplanes and airfields.
Works Cited
Ashford, Norman. Airport Engineering: Planning, Design and Development of 21st Century Airports, Hoboken, John Wiley & Sons, 2011. Print.
Edwards, Brian. The Modern Airport Terminal: New Approaches to Airport Architecture, Abingdon, United States: Routledge, 2004. Print.
Graham, Anne. Managing Airports, Burlington, United States: Routledge, 2003. Print.
Woods, Jessica. A Study of Airport Pavement-aircraft Interaction Using Wavelet Analysis, Ann Arbor, United States: ProQuest, 2008. Print.
Airport screening has become an essential component of transportation security policy in the United States following a security breach that precipitated the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001 (Fritteli, 2005).
In response to the terrorist attacks, the US Congress moved with speed to pass the Aviation and Transportation Security Act (ATSA), which in turn established the Transportation Security Administration (TSA) to ensure the security of the travelling public through screening of passengers for explosives and other dangerous items (Blalock, 2007; Lord, 2012).
Although the TSA mandated a federalized workforce of security screeners to conduct inspections on online passengers and their luggage, available literature demonstrates that this piecemeal and reactive mandate resulted in significant cost increases, adverse privacy implications, and inconveniences (McLay, Lee, & Jacobson, 2010).
The present paper measures the impact of the federalization of airport screening and attempts to advocate for a more responsive, intelligence-based, and technology-focused screening aimed at cutting costs, ensuring passenger privacy, and reducing inconveniences.
Impact of Federalization of Airport Screening
Understanding the Federalization of Airport Screening
The two fundamental changes in airport security visible to passengers after the terrorist attacks included “the federalization of passenger security screening at all US commercial airports by November 19, 2002, and the requirement to begin screening all checked baggage by December 31, 2002” (Blalock, 2007, p. 2).
When TSA officially took over the mandate for airport security in February 2002, it embarked on an effort to substitute private security screeners with federal employees who were charged with the responsibility of conducting passenger-screening operations at all US commercial airports.
TSA not only embarked on hiring 56,000 federal screeners to help reduce waiting time in security lines but also increased the compensation and training of screeners by offering them higher wages and expanding training requirements (Blalock, 2007). Fritteli (2005) argues that federalizing the screener workforce was offered as a potential solution to address the challenges of high staff turnover, low wages, poor supervision and training, as well as lack of regulatory oversight.
Impacts and Concerns
This paper looks into three impacts related to the federalization of airport screening, namely travelers’ inconveniences, privacy concerns, and cost implications. The discussion around inconvenience is embedded in the fact that, although greater confidence in the safety of air travel has been found to trigger demand, the inconvenience of security procedures that necessitate additional time and effort on the part of travelers due to the high expectations associated with airport screening may indeed minimize demand for air travel (Blalock, 2007).
The intrusive security measures occasioned by the federalization of airport screening (e.g., arbitrary hand-searches of travelers and their carry-on luggage, expansive inspection and prohibitions on non-dangerous items) have been found to minimize the convenience of air travel, resulting in lost revenues for airline companies as potential travelers choose to stay at home (Hessick, 2002).
Although studies have found that travelers often value-enhanced airport security and are prepared to allow some extra inconvenience and/or high prices in order to feel more secure and confident (Blalock, 2007), the requirements for additional time and effort on the part of customers have been found to substantially reduce passenger convenience in domestic and foreign arenas (Hessick, 2002).
From the ongoing, it is evident that risk-based approaches to airport screening such as selective screening and behavioral profiling can be used to avoid unnecessary passenger inconveniences in contemporary airport security operations. As postulated by McLay et al. (2010), selective screening applies high-order security technologies and procedures on a targeted cluster of high-risk passengers and employs lower levels of scrutiny to screen low-risk passengers.
However, as acknowledged by Markarian, Kolle, and Tarter (2011), it is always essential to have a prescreening system that undertakes an accurate risk assessment of passengers before their arrival at the airport to enhance the accuracy of passenger assessment. On its part, behavioral profiling is able to minimize passenger inconveniences by focusing attention to high-risk passengers (Poole & Carofano, 2006).
Due to lack of passenger privacy that followed the implementation of the new security procedures such as the federalization of airport screening and comprehensive baggage screening, a huge decline in passengers flying shorter trips was noted as such passengers preferred to drive to their destinations (Blalock, 2007).
Calculations demonstrate that the substitution of flying for driving by travelers seeking to safeguard their privacy not only led to fatal road accidents but also triggered a slump in traveler volumes as well as airline profit margins (Selzer, 2003). Available literature demonstrates that the creation of multiple levels of security (e.g., concentric protection) may indeed be more effective than treating all passengers the same, particularly in terms of safeguarding their privacy and removing bottlenecks that trigger privacy concerns (McLay et al., 2010).
Security frameworks such as concentric protection are not intrusive to passengers as they help to integrate security systems and increase the level of penetration difficulty through what is commonly referred to as defense in depth (Markarian et al., 2011).
In terms of costs, airline companies are of the opinion that “the increased inconvenience caused by security measures has cost them billions in lost ticket revenues as potential business travelers opt to stay at home” (Blalock, 2007, p. 8).
Tough security measures imposed by the TSA through the federalization of airport screening and comprehensive screening of baggage, though appropriate in thwarting terrorist attacks, have nevertheless imposed a huge cost in terms of reduced profits in the airline industry and less tax revenue for the federal government due to stunted ticket sales (Selzer, 2003).
Plan Validation
It is evident that the federalization of airport screening has witnessed adverse outcomes in terms of travelers’ inconveniences, privacy concerns and cost implications, though it has had a corresponding increase in security (McLay et al., 2010). The solution to these adverse outcomes and concerns, it seems, is nested on the development of a more responsive, intelligence-based and technology-focused screening process that utilizes the federal and private workforce of screeners.
Federal screeners will be included in the plan as many travelers feel safer with federal security screeners as opposed to private ones (Blalock, 2007), while private screeners will be included for their innovation and flexibility to provide screening services more competently and with superior customer service (Lord, 2012). The combination of safety, efficiency, competency and enhanced customer service will be instrumental in reducing travelers’ inconveniences and reinforcing privacy.
As already acknowledged, the proposed plan will include three main components, namely responsiveness, intelligence collection, and technology. It is essential to have a competent and flexible workforce to man the responsiveness component of the plan. These human resources will be sourced from the private sector as available literature demonstrates that private airport screeners are more innovative, flexible, and competent in customer service than federal screeners (Lord, 2012).
Overall, this workforce will be charged with the responsibility of implementing risk-based approaches to airport screening (e.g., selective screening and behavioral profiling) with the view to ensuring that the interventions are more responsive to the needs and expectations of travelers.
As demonstrated in the literature, “the risk-based approach would produce significant cost savings in both capital and operating costs, while targeting those funds spent on airport security toward the passengers more likely to pose threats to people and property” (Poole, 2006, p. 27).
Additionally, it is now common knowledge that selective screening is a useful technique in reducing costs and waste of scarce security resources as air travelers are not treated equally in terms of threat potential (Poole & Carofano, 2006). This way, it is assumed that the private screeners will have the capacity to substantially reduce travelers’ inconveniences and associated costs due to the responsive nature of available airport security interventions.
The intelligence collection component of the plan will be allocated to duly qualified and competent federal screeners and their mandate will entail the use of available security and safety systems, existing criminal databases, and risk-based prescreening techniques to identify passengers and baggage for inspection.
The use of these systems and risk-based screening techniques in airport safety operations will increase travelers’ confidentiality and privacy while ensuring that sufficient levels of safety are maintained to deter terrorist attacks (Edwards, 2013).
It is proposed that the screening force will be part of the intelligence collection fraternity and will be directly involved in providing concentric circles of security to, among other things, (1) help separate sensitive areas from the airside or other areas, (2) provide defense in depth by instituting another gateway that needs to be altered from a less-secure environment to a higher-secure environment, (3) assist in the integration of security systems for effective airport screening, and (4) enhance the level of penetration difficulty (Markarian et al., 2011).
This workforce is also expected to focus on the ‘human factor’ of security provisions and exercise comprehensive due diligence, common sense, and consistency to be useful in the provision of optimal passenger safety using a methodology that does not violate passenger safety (Canody, 2015; McLay et al., 2010). Overall, such screening interventions are bound to increase aviation safety and decrease privacy and confidentiality violations.
Lastly, both federal and private screeners will be exposed to emerging safety technologies and information technology (IT) solutions to ensure the optimal uptake of technology-focused interventions in airport screening. Use of state-of-the-art security technologies will be useful in decentralizing operations, re-orienting security policies along risk-based lines, as well as devolving screening functions to each individual airport for efficiency and effectiveness (Poole, 2006).
The workforce handling emerging technology devices must be trained to improve airport security by targeting more of these sophisticated devices towards passengers who pose comparatively more significant risk of harm and developing technology-focused screening methodologies that are able to rely on various datasets to quantify the threat potential of a passenger as opposed to undertaking full screening.
Such a technology-focused platform for airport screening, in my view, will substantially reduce passenger inconveniences, address privacy concerns and cut operating costs. Furthermore, the emerging technology and IT infrastructure can be used in aviation environments to integrate security systems for optimal productivity and efficiency.
Conclusion
This report has not only measured the impact of federalization of airport screening in terms of passenger inconvenience, privacy concerns and cost implications but also advocated for a more responsive, intelligence-based and technology-focused airport screening intervention to remedy the situation.
The proposed plan will utilize a mix of federal and private airport screeners as the two groups have their unique skills and competencies. Overall, it is felt that the proposed plan will be useful in addressing the deficits and contributing towards an effective and efficient airport screening system. Comprehensive training of the workforce is critical in making the proposed plan a reality.
Hessick, F. A. (2002). The federalization of airport security: Privacy implications. Whittier Law Review, 24(2), 43-69.
Lord, S. M. (2012). Screening partnership program: TSA should issue more guidance to airports and monitor private versus federal screener performance. Web.
Markarian, G., Kolle, R., & Tarter, A. (2011). Aviation security engineering: A holistic approach. London, UK: Artech House.
McLay, L. A., Lee, A. J., & Jacobson, S. H. (2010). Risk-based policies for airport security checkpoint screening. Transportation Science, 44(3), 339-349.
Selzer, M. (2003). Federalization of airport security workers: A study of practical impact of the aviation and transportation security act from a labor law perspective. Journal of Labor and Employment Law, 5(2), 363-381.
London is one of the most significant cities in the world. Very few cities can boast of a rich heritage such as London. The city is centuries old and has been the seat of the monarchy.
London is a very important city, not just in Europe, but also in the world. It provides vital access to Europe from other continents.
In addition to the role London plays as a transport and communication hub, it is also the financial hub of the European continent. It is a centre of commerce and an international meeting point for various cultures, traders, scholars and scientist.
These responsibilities continue to inform the transport and communication design of the city. London is home to some of the most sophisticated air, water, road and rail infrastructure that help the city to keep moving.
Currently, London has six airports. These are, Heathrow, Gatwick, Stansted, Luton City and Southend. Each of these airports plays an important role in ensuring that London maintains its international leadership status.
The goal of this paper is to examine London’s airport strategy. The examination will consider the organization of each of the six airports to uncover the general strategy in use to manage air transport in the city.
It will include the study of the impact the airports have on the economy of London, as well as the economic opportunities they bring to London. It will be paramount to find out the traffic size and patterns for the airports in order to appreciate the difficulties inherent in developing an airport strategy for the city.
Finally, the paper will consider the strategic initiatives that the city can use to enhance its airport strategy, against a backdrop of the initiatives currently underway.
Background to London
The rise of London as the most important city in Europe in the industrial age came with a heavy burden to streamline transport. In response, London developed a rail and bus system.
At the turn of the century, the airline industry began operations, initially as part of the war efforts in the First World War and then the Second World War. After the Second World War, London quickly became of the busiest air transport hubs, and currently houses the world’s busiest international airport.
The UK Civil Aviation Authority (CAA) regulates the entire industry. Different companies own and run the airports in different areas of the UK.
London is of itself a very vibrant market. Arguably, it is one of the largest markets anywhere on earth in terms of buying power. It is a relatively affluent city by comparison. Therefore, international business people from different countries seek a presence in London as a gateway to the commonwealth nations, and for the opportunity to buy into the lucrative London market.
Having presence in London usually gives companies a competitive advantage because of the seriousness that the city’s name holds in business arenas. The city houses many of the headquarters of international companies, while the London Stock Exchange is one of the most influential stock markets in the world.
The city’s unmatched connections to different cities across the world make it an important connection point for both goods and services. Both travellers and airlines find it easy to connect via London because of the opportunity that the city gives to them.
London is also home to some of the most reputed institutions of higher learning, or is the transit route to access internationally reputed learning institutions scattered across the UK. This makes students and professors to be among the important users of the London airports.
Other users include tourists on vacation seeking to enjoy the historical views that London has to offer. In fact, they comprise the largest traffic at Heathrow.
In addition, a number of people who visit London to access advanced healthcare services. These, among other factors, contribute to the importance of London as an international air traffic hub.
Analysis of Physical design of London Airports
The six London airports have distinct features and characteristics. This section analyses the airfields, terminals, use and access of the six London airports.
Heathrow
The London Heathrow Airport is the world’s busiest international airport by passenger traffic. The airport is in the Borough of Hillingdon, and is twenty-two miles from central London. Heathrow’s history as a large airport goes back to the Second World War.
There was need to build a large airport to support the war effort. However, the war ended before the completion of the airport. This did not halt the project, but led to its repurposing a civilian air terminal. It has since grown to become the world busiest airport by passenger traffic.
The airport has five terminals. Four are operational, while the fifth will be operational in part after completion of its first phase in 2014. The airport is currently operating beyond its capacity. While it should handle 55 million passengers per year, it handled 70 million passengers in 2011.
There extra passengers cause overcrowding at the airport making it one of the least favoured airports by travellers in Europe. The airport serves eighty-six airlines, which operate fights between one hundred and eighty six destinations in ninety countries.
The British flag carrier, British Airways operates from Heathrow while Virgin Atlantic uses Heathrow as one of its major hubs. The airport supports a mix of local and international flights with the latter forming the greater source of traffic.
Heathrow has two runways, each of them dedicated to either landing or taking off. There are plans to increase the number to three in order to increase the capacity to the airport. Initially, the airport had six runways but the other four became unusable as the needs of the airport changed.
To access Heathrow, passengers use the M25, high-speed trains using the subway or passenger buses from central London. There is access to parking for London residents, and there are cars for hire for those that want to drive themselves to their destinations. Taxis also provide transport services in and around the airport.
The airport is famous for its innovative methods aimed at increasing the efficiency of operations. As planes approach the airport, the join four holding stacks and spiral on their way down to the airport.
A plane leaves the bottom of the stack to the runway from each stack in succession while new planes join the top of the stack. This arrangement is unique to Heathrow, and is part of the reason why the airport has been able to keep up with demand despite serious capacity constraints.
Gatwick
The London Gatwick Airport is the second busiest airport in London after Heathrow when measured by passenger traffic. The history of the airport dates back to the late twenties when an aerodrome begun operations adjacent to the current airport site.
It was also part of the war effort. It provided a base for the Royal Air force. Gatwick has the largest number of point-to-point flights in Europe. It serves an average of fifty-two aircraft every hour.
The airport has two terminals, the Northern terminal and the Southern terminal. The airport is operating at seventy-eight percent capacity, which will run out by 2030. The airport will handle forty million passengers by the year 2020.
There is a proposal to construct a new runway and terminal, which will double the effective capacity of the airport. However, there are complaints by conservationist who oppose the expansion of the airport because it will increase noise and air pollution in the area.
Another plan that is in the works is the linking of the Heathrow and Gatwick airports by high-speed rail to turn the two airports into a single hub which will only require one check at Customs and Immigration. If this plan materialises, then it will make this hub the largest of its kind in the world.
It will make it possible to transfer flights between the two airports seamlessly. This idea aims at increasing the efficiency of both airports. It will allow one airport to relieve the other in case of any emergency.
Just like Heathrow, Gatwick provides services to many airlines including British Airways, Virgin Atlantic and Ryan air. Initially, most American bound planes used Gatwick airport, but this changed because of the Bermuda II treaty that led to the use of Heathrow as the airport of choice for American air companies.
Gatwick holds the key to the continued leadership position of London as an international business destination. London’s capacity to increase its potential lies in the expansion of the Gatwick airport to take up future traffic.
Stansted
Just like Heathrow and Gatwick, Stansted’s life as an airport received momentum during the Second World War, but did not begin civil aviation until the early sixties. The UK government decided to develop the Stansted airport as the third airfield in London to ease capacity constraints on Heathrow and Gatwick in the future.
The airport supports local and regional flights and is the main hub of Ryan air, among other airlines. The airport mainly serves low cost carriers because of its lower operational charges compared to Heathrow and Gatwick. There carriers include charter services. Stansted is the third busiest airline in London and the fourth busiest in the UK.
The M11 serves the airport as the main road access to the airport. In addition, there is access to other nearby towns via the A120. In addition, there are coaches and buses that provide transport to the airport. High-speed rail also provides passengers with another option of accessing the airport.
The airport operates with a single runway. Plans to construct a second runway failed to materialise because of local opposition, changes in the political landscape, and pressure on BAA, the then owners, to sell the airport.
BAA owned three out of the six airports in London, which presented a challenge to regulators charged with control of competition in the industry. In addition to the single runway, the airport operates using one terminal, which has three wings. A fourth wing is under construction and it will help to expand the existing capacity.
Luton
The London Luton Airport, located in the Borough of Luton, is the fourth busiest airport in London. The airport is relatively small with a total land area of 245 hectares. In 2010, ten million passengers used the airport, marking its highest number of passengers in its history.
The number fell to nine and a half million in 2011. Luton will need to serve up to sixteen million passengers by the year 2030. There is a master plan underway to increase the airport’s capacity to handle the rising passenger numbers.
The airport is the base for easyJet, and other low cost airlines. While the airport mainly serves local routes, it handles chartered flights to nearby continents. Access to the airport is via junction 10a which branches off from the M1 motorway. Like the other London airports, access to Luton can be by road, or rail, using cars buses and coaches.
The owner of the airport up to the mid nineties was a consortium of companies called the London Luton Airport Operations Limited. This consortium was a public private partnership that brought together Airport Group International (AGI) and Barclays Private Equity. However, the parties sold their interest in the airport to the TBI plc.
There is a lot of activity going on in the approval process of the expansion plans that include extending the runways and the taxiways to increase the capacity of the airport. Currently, it cannot carry craft with heavy payloads because of these constraints. The main opponents to the project cite environmental concerns including noise pollution, landscape and visual impact, and destruction of the local ecology and heritage.
London City Airport
The London city airport serves the financial district of London because of its proximity to the centre of the city. In 2011, three million passengers passed through the airport.
Operations at the airport began in 1987 after its original conception in 1981. The current owner of the airport is a consortium made up of Global infrastructure Partners (GIP) and AIG Financial Products.
There are some significant restrictions on the London City Airport. The first restriction came about because of the location of the airport in one of the busiest air spaces in London. A new authority came up to control airspace use.
The second restriction is that the airports runway is short and thirdly, in order to abate noise pollution, the airport allows only aircraft that can manoeuvre a steep glide slope. These restrictions mean that there are only certain types of aircraft can use the London City Airport.
The airport has only one terminal. Its location makes it very competitive for business travellers. However, the number of tourist travellers is on the rise.
Southend
The London Southend Airport also has its roots in the world wars. It started operations in First World War. After a brief return to its use as a grazing field, it gained prominence in the Second World War.
The current owner of the airport is the Stobart Group, which also operates the Carlisle Airport. Southend airport, located in the east of London at Essex, was the third busiest airport in the UK until Stansted took up that position in the seventies. Just like many of London’s airports, the Southend airport operates one runway.
The airport hopes to raise its passenger traffic to two million by the year 2030.Like the other London airports, access to Southend is by road, train, bus, and coaches. In addition, there are taxis and cars for hire at the airport to facilitate personal travel.
One of the major prospects for the airport is the upcoming London Olympic Games. Due to its location, the airport will have a major advantage as the airport serving the games. The airport anticipates a lot of business from visitors coming into London to participate in the 2012 Olympic Games.
The airport currently operates from a single terminal. There are major works underway to make it possible for the airport to support intra European flights once again.
Two airlines operate flights from the Southend Airport. Aer Lungus and easyJet operate flights to destinations within the UK, but easyJet has plans to expand its flight routes beyond the UK via the airport.
Airlines using London’s airports
The list of airlines using London’s airports is long. The British flag carrier, British Airways, flies to three London airports. The airports are Heathrow, Gatwick and London City Airports. The British Midland Airways, a fully owned subsidiary of Lufthansa operates almost two thousand flights from London’s airports every week making it one of the largest users of London’s airports.
The airlines serve routes in Europe, Asia and Africa. Virgin Atlantic is the other significant airline operating from London airports. It has destinations in America, Europe, Asia, and Africa and Australia. A number of national airlines from other countries operate flights to London with five or less flights per week from various capitals of the world. This makes London one of the most connected of all international cities in the world.
Apart from international long haul flights, London’s airports also support a large number of local and regional flights from its airports. The most prominent among these are Ryan Air and easyJet, which operate point-to-point no frills services to many destinations in Europe and in the UK.
Ryan air is the largest low cost carrier in Europe followed by easyJet. easyJet’s headquarter is in London Luton Airport while its main operating hub is the London Gatwick Airport. It is the largest airline by passenger traffic as s result of its point-to-point flights. Ryanair on the other hand largely operates its flights from London Stansted Airport, though its head office is at the Dublin Airport.
London is one of the busiest aviation routes with over a hundred airlines operating flights to the city. It is impossible to list each of the airlines within the scope of this paper. London has one of the best networks of international flight destinations in the world. This position will remain in that state for some time to come.
London’s Existing Capacity limitations
London has three significant capacity limitations that will limit its growth as an international air transport hub. First, most of London’s airports use single runways. While this is not an immediate problem, it is a very risky position for the city given the capacity constraints witnessed at Heathrow.
Heathrow has two runways, but it is operating at almost full capacity with very little margin for emergencies. Most of the other London airports will approach full capacity usage within the next two decades. The runway problem will be more difficult to mitigate because of the increasing pressure from social and environmental activists who are against the expansion of airports in their neighbourhoods.
The second significant capacity constraint that London airports face comes from the single terminal structure of most of its airports. While this is not necessarily a problem if the airport functions efficiently, it limits the overall capacity of the airport.
Heathrow has increased its passenger carrying capacity by the construction of new larger terminals demonstrating the potential impact of increasing terminal capacity. The single terminal structure used on more than half of London’s airports will become a significant constraint on the city once it exceeds its capacity to handle all the passengers in the city.
Thirdly, most of the airports do not own sufficient land to make it possible for them to expand their runways, taxiways and terminals. The worst affected airport is the London City Airport, which cannot extend its runway to allow aircraft with larger payloads to access it.
In addition to this limitation, the cost of real estate surrounding most of these airports is prohibitive to enable the airport authorities to acquire and develop them conveniently. If the city does not take radical action, it will find itself in a situation where it does not have any reserve capacity, which will in turn stall the city’s growth.
Consequences of Physical Design
Air Service Provided in London’s Airports
Due to their strategic nature, London’s airports provide a number of air services for both airlines and passengers. These services include aircraft maintenance, hotel, airport transfer services and parking service. The range of services is much broader.
The airports provide hangers for aircraft maintenance for the airlines with local bases. Airlines such as British Airways and easyJet use their bases in London airports to maintain their aircraft.
In addition, international aircraft that require emergency maintenance services get them from the London airports while on transit there. This is a significant economic resource for London because it provides jobs for maintenance crews and thereby stimulates the local economy.
The hospitality industry is also a critical provider of services at the London airports. The high numbers of passengers using London’s airports make them a perfect place to put up hotels. These hotels provide connecting passengers and crew with an opportunity to rest between flights.
This is very critical in London because of its place as an international hub. The presence of hotels also adds value to the local economy because it makes the provision of services a source of foreign exchange. The two largest airports, Heathrow and Gatwick have a number of hotels near their locations while there are plans to build an airport hotel at Stansted.
The third service area that is significant is the array of transport services linking the airports to the city of London. All the airports have road, and rail connections. Under road transport, several options exist for users. It is possible to use buses and coaches, or taxis to access locations within London.
In addition, there are car hire services for people who want to drive themselves into town. There are concepts in the books relating to the linking of the airports directly to facilitate better connection for passenger with connecting flights.
Airports also provide parking services for people flying out of London. The provision of parking is an important part of the service industry provided by airports that determines which airports people prefer to use.
As a result, the airports make it possible for passengers to book their parking spaces in advance to reassure them that they will have space to park their cars when they arrive.
How Airports Affect London’s Economy
The impact of the airports to London’s economy is very significant. The airports provide both direct and indirect jobs to the city residents and to some international workers. In addition, the airports bring in many business people from all countries of the world seeking trading opportunities in London. It also makes it possible for students, tourists and people seeking specialised services to travel to London.
Heathrow airport employs seventy six thousand people directly in the various services it provides there. These people come from all cadres from aeronautical engineers to baggage handlers.
The sheer numbers of people that pass through the airports make it necessary to have a very large number of people working in different departments. Passengers must go through security checks, medical exams, and other types of screening to ensure that the airport is safe for everyone.
This means that there are police officers, medical service providers and anti-terror operatives active at all times. The passengers also need food when they land or when they are stopping over for flights. This calls for hotel and fast food services. Some travellers like to get gifts from different countries hence the need to have souvenir shops at the airports.
The major impact the airports have on the UK economy is that it provides direct jobs for many Londoners, and gives London a special place in the world as a trading centre. Indeed, London is the financial capital of Europe because of the ease of access to it from different cities across Europe and the world.
Tourists also come to London bringing in foreign exchange. On the outward bound, Londoners can access jobs and opportunities in any city in the world that has a connection with London through one of its airports. They can export goods and services through these vital links. The airports are arguably the lifeblood of the city of London.
Consequences of Capacity Limitations
There are stark warnings that if London does not address its capacity limitations in the coming days then it may end up making huge losses in lost opportunities. Heathrow already has a bad reputation as a crowded airport, and one that may not handle an emergency effectively.
Most of the other airports have some reserve capacity, which will run out by 2030. The lack of space to expand airport runways in some airports and the already tight schedules that Heathrow operates threatens London’s expansion as an international destination.
In particular, London is very vulnerable in the South East where there is no international airport. A report by FTI Consulting showed that there will be “lost long benefits from around twenty million pounds to forty seven million pounds in net present value terms over periods of thirty to fifty years”.
The report adds that this is equivalent to loss of the opportunity to create fifteen thousand jobs every year . If London does not spruce up its capacity, then there is a real chance that the city will lose the related opportunities to other cities in Europe that have greater capacity for expansion.
London’s strategy
London’s airport strategy has several aspects informing its development. The first key feature of this strategy is that it evolved over time. Most of the airports did not arise from a citywide design but came up because of the needs at their time. The Second World War was especially influential in the location of the current airports.
Most of them came up to support the war effort as bases for the Royal Air Force, and the American forces. The administration of civil use airports also underwent several changes further demonstrating the fact that the London Airport strategy evolved over time as a reactive and not a proactive process.
This strategy development process explains the fact that there are issues currently with London’s vulnerability in the South East relating to its access to air transport.
The second significant element of London’s strategy is that it responded to demand, and still does. While this make a lot of business sense, it adversely affects the long range planning potential of the city hence exposes the city to serious bottlenecks.
The growth of Heathrow, and its expansion plans all respond to demand. The case of Heathrow is testament to the fact that demand patterns alone are a dangerous way of planning because of the potential for demand patterns to change. Currently, Heathrow is approaching full capacity and there is little space left to expand the airport.
The opening of terminal two will help to ease current congestion but it does not address the strategic issues relating to the airline industry. Other airports such as Gatwick are under increasing pressure to take up the Load from Heathrow with plans to connect the two airports to increase efficiencies.
This overreliance on Heathrow is very dangerous for London because of the adverse effects the economy would experience if Heathrow went offline.
The third aspect of London airport strategy is that the city is currently under immense pressure to increase its demand if it hopes to remain competitive. The only two airports with the capacity to handle international flights using long haul, heavy payload aircrafts on a constant basis are Heathrow and Gatwick.
If either of them went offline, then the city will simply be unable to cope with the consequences and it will lose its attractiveness as an international business and travel hub. This is the source of the pressure behind efforts to develop a second runway for Gatwick and a third one for Heathrow.
The final element of London’s airport strategy is that it is under increasing pressure from conservationists not to expand. There is very little that the London City Airport can do to expand its size because of its limited space.
Gatwick and Heathrow can annex some of the nearby land, but this is not acceptable to many conservation groups within London because they feel it will only increase pollution, and destroys heritage sites. Heathrow called off plans to builds new access routes based on concerns by conservationists and lack of political support.
Finally, each airport seems to respond to its challenges using its own priorities. While this is fine for business, it can be dangerous for London because it means that strategic decisions with a large upfront cost but greater longer-term benefits will not feature in the current plans.
This element of London’s airport strategy may cost the city future revenues because of the capacity limitations. It is true that some locations have better chances of hosting successful businesses, but neglecting others bring about problems as described by FTI consulting, where the South East of London lacks access to an airport.
This example demonstrates the need to develop a proactive strategy that looks at the longer term than simply those that make the most business sense in the short term.
The final feature of London’s airport strategy is the move towards greater efficiency with existing resources as compared to expansion of the resource base. This is one of the most promising trends in the London airport strategy.
This strategy is what makes Heathrow operational today despite its traffic load. Without the efficiencies that the airport uses to handle landings and takeoffs, it would not be possible to operate Heathrow at its current levels.
The only issue is the risk that these methods bring. If an accident took place at Heathrow, the economic cost will be very high. This explains why there is need to develop more capacity at Heathrow.
Alternative strategy
The following proposals can help London to improve its airport strategy.
Coordinated development: London’s airports have different owners who have different priorities hence they pursue different development models. While this is the main philosophy behind liberalization of markets, it often fails to deliver all round development.
Business people go for the best opportunities to make a profit as soon as possible hence they may fail to consider the overall needs of the communities that host them. There is a critical need to control the development of London’s airports to enable the city to respond better to both unforeseen disasters and opportunities.
For instance, there is need to develop risk analysis models to determine whether London can survive the catastrophic loss of either Gatwick or Heathrow.
Expansion of Gatwick and Stansted: The second proposal for London to consider is expanding the physical size of both Gatwick and Stansted to ensure that they can handle Heathrows traffic if need arises. It will be better if the city uses a longer planning horizon such as fifty years as opposed to the current fixation with 2030.
All the airport expansion plans seem to look at 2030 as the crunch year for London’s airports. A longer planning horizon can look at issues like reserving space for development such that when the time comes for further airport expansion, then the process will be quicker.
It will eliminate constrains such as those outlined regarding the London Luton Airport, which is currently too small, and it cannot acquire the land it needs because of local resistance.
Work on an efficiency focussed paradigm: There is a real opportunity for the airports in London such as the London City Airport to expand its operational capacity by increasing its operational efficiency. The example of Heathrow on this front provides lessons on how to manage increasing demand versus dwindling capacity.
The idea behind this proposal is that if there is an airport that cannot expand its capacity simply by increasing the size of its runways and taxiways, and also its terminals, then it can improve the efficiency of handling the passengers to ensure that they take as little time as possible at the airport.
It means that the airports should invest in efficiency by studying better handling methods, such as online check in and remote security checks, and faster baggage handling to reduce check in and checkout time.
Development of a gateway to the South East of London: On the issue of South East London, it may not be viable to construct a new airport, but it may be sensible to connect the nearest airports to the southeast using high-speed dedicated rail service.
In fact, the idea of remote check in and remote frisking can work here. Using remote sites to conduct security checks means that the airports will become rapid transit zones. It will be even safer because no one, such as terrorists seeking access to the airport will be near enough to inflict any damage on it.
This approach will also ensure that there is an area in London free from air traffic. This in itself will make the place attractive to locate facilities evading noise from aircraft.
Conclusions
London is a strategic city with a lot of economic potential because of its network of airports. The city has six airports each with some kind of capacity to handle international flights. The connections of the airports to many cities around the world make London a convenient connection point and stop over for many flights and passengers.
The current capacity constraints threaten future prospects for the city as an international hub. The airports cannot expands as easily as they would like hence London stands to lose some of the aviation business to better placed European countries. This will lead to massive losses in future opportunities in both revenues and jobs.
The most significant forces derailing the expansion of London’s airports include rise in property prices and conservation activism. Airports that must acquire land to expand have to spend much more that it cost to acquire the original sites because of the rise in value of lands adjacent to airports because of their commercial value. In addition, there is pressure from social activists and environmental activists who are against the expansion of airports citing air and noise pollution, and the destruction of natural habitats and heritage sites.
Efficiency is one of the major opportunities for the growth of the aviation industry in London. Airports can significantly increase their operating capacity by improving the efficiency of operations. The model available for the development of this concept is Heathrow Airport.
A possible idea to use to increase airport efficiency is the development of remote immigration and customs, and security checks to help expand the airports capacity. It will transform the airports to rapid transit zones. It also calls for a similar baggage handling system.
The future of London rests in the actions that the current industry players will take. If they choose a strategic route that takes into account the future needs of the city, then all will be well. However, if they follow the current demand driven models and short range planning, then London will lose its competitive advantage as an international hub.
Reference List
Bazargan, M., 2010. Airline Operations and Scheduling. 2nd ed. Hampshire: Ashgate publishing.
Bieger, T. & Agosti, S., 2005. Business Models in the Airline Sector: Evolution and Perspectives. In Strategic Management in the Aviation Industry. Hampshire: Ashgate Publishing, Ltd. pp.41-48.
Button, K., 2010. Transport Economics. Cheltenham, UK: Edward Elgar Publishing.
Cento, A., 2008. The Airline IndustryL Challenges in the 21st Century. Heidelberg: Springer.
FTI Consulting, 2011. The Importance of Aviation Infrastructure to Sustainable Economic Growth. Consultancy Report. London: FTI Consulting Gatwick Airport.
Goedeking, P., 2010. Networks in Aviation: Strategies and Structures. Heidelberg: Springer.
According to the International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO), the global demand for commercial air transport recovered and has since increased from the year 2010 (International Civil Aviation Organization 6). Between the year 2009 and 2010, there was a remarkable demand for scheduled commercial flights, which rose by 4.5 percent globally. This represented positive financial results for the aviation industry.
Consequently, in this context of increased demand for commercial flights and the expected growth in the aviation industry, the industry has continued to focus on safety measures to improve outcomes and potential threats in the future. However, increased airport commercialisation has also exposed the industry to increased threats. This essay explores the increased airport commercial activities and threats to the aviation industry.
Negative
In the year 2010, ICAO noted that there was a resurgence of traffic in the aviation industry. However, there was an increase in the number of accidents estimated at 4.0 for every million departures. This was a slight increase relative to the previous year’s record.
The organisation assesses aviation accident cases for scheduled commercial flights based on the United Nations designated regions.
Africa recorded the highest rate of regional accidents. It also accounts for the least number of global air traffic volumes (3%).
The Asian region had the lowest rate of accident. However, it had the highest number of accidents, which accounted for fatalities (38% represented fatal accidents in the region).
The European region had a slightly low rate relative to the global average accident rate. Also, it experiences a few cases of fatalities (8%).
About 31% of accidents result in fatalities in Latin America and the Caribbean. The region only accounts for 13% of the commercial scheduled flights.
North America continues to record accident rates that are below the world’s average. It had the highest number of accidents, but there were no cases of fatal accidents noted in the year 2010.
The Oceanic region also records low rates of air accidents relative to North America. It also did not record any fatal accidents in the year 2010.
It is imperative to consider different rates of traffic volumes in different regions to draw a practical conclusion when examining accidents and other negative impacts of increased commercial aviation activities.
In the recent reports, ICAO has noted that the number of aviation accidents has slight declined relative to the previous years. However, increased traffic volumes have led to high rates of accidents against millions of flights recorded every year. On this note, the year 2011 remained the safest in the history of commercial flights. Turner noted that most accidents involved on-demand flights (Turner 1).
Apart from accidents, the commercial aviation industry also faces other forms of threats and security concerns from different sources.
Cyber threats
Since the recent incident, which involved the missing Malaysian Airlines Flight MH370, many security experts have turned on the possibility of hacking airplane systems and securing its total control (Paganini 1). Many experts have touted this theory as a major threat in the growing aviation industry.
Although the search for the missing flight is on progress, some security analysts and experts have explored the possibility of a cyberattack against the flight. Some have claimed that hackers could have infiltrated the entertainment system to gain complete control of the airplane. Security experts have noted that such attacks are possible on airplanes because hackers can exploit specific vulnerable features within the airplane.
Terrorism
Another emerging threat to the growing airline industry is terrorism. Terrorism risks pose serious threats to the industry due to its vulnerability. Terrorists can infiltrate intelligence and attack airplanes or hold onboard passengers hostage.
Therefore, the industry must understand how terrorists can infiltrate their security measures. In this regard, the industry should understand proliferation, intelligence, and prevention measures required in the aviation industry. Also, they must consider vulnerability and survivability in cases of attacks (O’Sullivan 4). Despite the rapid expansion and thriving commercial activities in the air transport industry, the industry stakeholders should address terrorist threats and develop appropriate response strategies and policies in cases of attacks.
Volcanic ash
This is a natural threat, which has continued to affect commercial flight schedules. It leads to flight cancellation and causes massive losses.
Extended diversion time operations (EDTOs)
Currently, there are no clear guidelines for EDTOs in the aviation industry. Consequently, operators lack a specific guideline to follow. Thus, there are no clear safety standards about EDTOs and its implementation processes.
Dangerous goods
As the demand for commercial fights surges, there are also growing concerns for dangerous cargo. Such goods pose security concerns and safety to the airplane and its passengers. Dangerous goods remain major sources of security concern for the industry.
Runway safety concerns
Several accidents have resulted from collisions between airplanes and cars on runways. Therefore, runway safety concerns continue to affect the commercial aviation industry. The Runway Safety Measures account for safe flights during the start and conclusion. This measure remains one of the highest priorities among aviation safety authorities. Pilots, traffic controllers, and vehicle drivers must adhere to Runway Safety Measures.
Accident investigations
Accident investigations tend to take long in the aviation industry. This implies that the increasing number of commercial airplanes and accidents may require additional resources to facilitate investigations and implementation of recommendations.
Human fatigue factors
The growing expansion and demands for flights in the aviation industry have led to human fatigue issues. Human fatigue issues are risk factors in aviation safety concerns. Human fatigue may result from many and combined factors like temperature, light, noise, sleep, and vibration, among others.
These multifaceted factors accelerate fatigue, affect outputs, and change the lifestyle habits of the workforce. Consequently, the aviation industry collects data on fatigue-related factors to determine their impacts on the growing aviation industry (McGee 1).
This indicates that fatigue is a major source of concern for the workforce in the aviation industry and may pose a serious challenge to its growth.
Positive outcomes
Commercial flights and revenues have increased in the commercial aviation industry due to rapid demands for air transport services. While there were also cases of accidents, including fatal ones, ICAO noted that commercial airplane accidents reduced in the year 2011 relative to previous years (International Civil Aviation Organization 1). The trend continued in the year 2012.
According to ICAO, such positive trends in the aviation industry indicate progress, which results from ongoing collaborative safety measures. Also, there have been specific improvements in runway safety procedures.
ICAO and other aviation stakeholders have stressed the relevance of safety based on collected data from its member states, particularly from commercial flights. The organisation continues to work with other international bodies in the aviation industry to enhance safety and achieve a maximum global reduction in accidents.
The emphasis has been on improving safety performances and outcomes, particularly in areas with high rates of fatal accidents or with certain safety issues. The organisation also provides regular State of Global Safety report to address challenges in the sector at the global, regional, and state levels. In this regard, stakeholders in the commercial aviation industry have focused on several initiatives to enhance safety performances, reduce threats, and promote a safe industry for a passenger. Some of the approaches involve:
Implementation of the Runway Safety Measures
IATA, ICAO, and other safety authorities in the airline industry have formulated the Runway Safety Program, which promotes safety in the aviation industry globally. The Runway Safety Measures account for safe flights during the start and conclusion. This measure remains one of the highest priorities among aviation safety authorities. Pilots, traffic controllers, and vehicle drivers must adhere to Runway Safety Measures.
A focus on the IATA Operational Safety Audit (IOSA)
The IATA Operational Safety Audit (IOSA) is a safety approach that has achieved global recognition and acceptance in the aviation industry. The IOSA evaluates and assesses operational processes and control elements of airlines (Fadugba, 2006). IATA members must obtain IOSA registration, and they have to uphold their registration to remain members of IATA.
Safety Management System (SMS)
SMS is a systematic strategy for managing safety issues in the aviation industry. It accounts for the suitable “organizational structures, procedures, accountability and policies” (International Air Transport Association, 2012), which can meet safety standards in the aviation industry.
The IATA Operational Safety Audit (IOSA) is a safety approach that has achieved global recognition and acceptance in the aviation industry. The IOSA evaluates and assesses operational processes and control elements of airlines (Fadugba, 2006). IATA members must obtain IOSA registration, and they have to uphold their registration to remain members of IATA.
Flight Data Analysis (FDA)
Implementation of the FDA is an important approach to enhance safety in the air transport industry in Africa. The IATA promotes the “Implementation Program for Safe Operations in Africa (IPSOA) to ensure that flight data analysis tools are available to all IATA carriers in Africa” (International Air Transport Association, 2012).
Studies on human fatigue factors
The aviation industry conducts extensive studies to determine factors that have negative impacts on its human resources and growth strategies. The major objectives of such studies include:
Setting the right working hours for aviation mechanics, traffic controllers and airplane crew
Evaluating recommended levels of rest and sleep
Developing and encouraging members to adopt fatigue management strategies and assessing the impacts of such approaches on the workforce
Conclusion
There is increased commercialisation of flights in the aviation industry. This condition has facilitated growths and returns for investors. On the other hand, threats and safety issues to the industry have also emerged. Such threats include potential acts of terrorism, cyber threats, safety implementation, and investigation processes, human fatigue, accidents, including fatal ones, runway accidents, and dangerous goods.
However, the industry has managed to control the number of accidents through collaborative processes on safety matters. Overall, the most effective strategy to mitigate threats in the industry must focus on potential errors, control measures, and increased vigilance. Such approaches will ensure flight and passenger safety for the growth of the aviation industry.
Works Cited
Fadugba, Nick. Improving air safety in Africa. 2006. Web.
International Air Transport Association. News Brief: Strategic Action Plan to Improve Aviation Safety in Africa. 2012. Web.
International Civil Aviation Organization. 2011 State of Global Aviation Safety Report. Montréal, Canada: ICAO, 2011. Print.
McGee, Bill. Focus on terrorism may obscure other airline safety threats. 2007. Web.
O’Sullivan, Terry. External Terrorist Threats to Civilian Airliners: A Summary Risk Analysis of MANPADS, Other Ballistic Weapons Risks, Future Threats, and Possible Countermeasures Policies. Los Angeles, CA: USC Center for Homeland Security, 2005. Print.
Paganini, Pierluigi. Cyber Threats against the Aviation Industry. 2014. Web.
Turner, Aimee. General aviation accidents increased: NTSB. 2012. Web.
Transport is important for the economies of all countries across the world. One of the key features of transport systems is airports, which are essential landing and taking off with regard to airplanes that transporting cargo and passengers. In fact, the use of airports is important in the process of improving foreign trade and policies because airports act as the key entry points to all countries. This paper has established that security is important at airports so that they could effectively play their roles. In the last few decades, the transport industry has witnessed a number of changes, some of which have resulted in increased levels of airport commercialization and privatisation.
As a result, there has been an increase in cargo and passengers that airports can support. However, there has also been an increase in the level of threats in airports. In order to reduce the levels of threats, it is important to implement strict measures that regulate the operations of airports. For example, the UK and the US were targeted due to their increased levels of airport commericialisation.
Introduction
Airports are principal avenues to air transport and play a primary role in facilitating the running of the transport system. It is a key player in the economic development of any country considering that airports are the entry points for both domestic and international travels (Ashford, 2000). It is within the airport that passengers, their luggage and other types of cargo pass, in addition to allowing aircraft to take off and land to and from any part of the world. Principally, apt infrastructure such as runaways, aprons, taxiways, as well as a terminal for departures and arrivals, including terminals for ground and stowage interchange is requisite and mandatory for smooth running of operations within the airport (Roper, 1999).
In addition, facilities and amenities such as passenger lounges, food stores, and shops are mandatory necessities. This article provides an analysis elucidating the impact of airline commercialisation. An exploration of the threats posed by airline commercialisation is provided with the United States attack on September 11, 2001, and the UK terrorist threats as the primary examples of such threats.
Security Implications of Airport Commercialisation
The safety and security of passengers and their cargo is pertinent to flawless operations within the airport. In this regard, facilities and technologies commanding air traffic controls and monitoring of incoming and outgoing aircrafts as well as landing and taking off with regard to planes are required (Ashford, 2000).
Maintenance of personal security and the personnel to carry out luggage security screening, use of metal detectors to screen illicit objects threatening the security of passengers, staff and the airport itself, is a mandatory requirement for the airport. Airport command wealth in any country’s economy by generating foreign revenue, employment, and stabilising the community in which it serves both socially and economically (Douganis, 1992).
Transformations accompanied with the conversion of airports from public utilities to commercial enterprises with the adoption of businesslike attributes entail airport commercialisation. In many cases, airport commercialisation includes its privatisation, which encapsulates the transfer of airport management from the government or airport authority to private ownership either through share floatation, or introduction of contracts that are privately managed (Choi, 1993). In all cases, there is adoption of strategies leading to profit maximisation, of which, many a times, important measures required for smooth running of airport operations are overlooked. Among these, overlooking the security detail of an airport constitutes a major threat to the airport itself, airline, passengers or even the luggage itself.
Airport commercialisation has been shown to result in an increase in the number of airlines and planes that engage in domestic, regional and international freights. As a result, the lead management in the airport maximises all avenues to collect optimal revenue possible. Security detail in any airport is a primary concern (Graham, 2001). In fact, many terrorist attacks have targeted airports, which are ever busy and are characterised by passengers of diverse races across the world. This is because, every minute an increasing number of customers pass through any commercialised airport. In addition, the increase in the number of people concentrated in large airline terminals posses an increased potential to death threat resulting from aircraft attacks.
In many cases, it has been reported that airplanes have been hijacked as used as a lethal weapon. Airport commercialisation is an avenue to such target for terrorism (Roper, 1999). Such alluring terrorist targets have been in the news in the recent past, particularly in developed countries where technology and security detail are superior, with many such threats failing due to the high sophistication of security and nature of the attack.
Good airport security is meant to avert the contemplation of threats, including potentially precarious situations with the airport. Essentially, flawed airport security due to increased influx and/or efflux of people and goods result in increased changes of perilous situations happening or entry of illicit items in the country through the airport, which threaten the aircraft, airport and the country at large (Choi, 1993). As such, airport commercialisation adversely affects the security detail of the airport leading to a failure to protect the airport, passengers, goods under freight, and the country from any ominous events. In the same vein, there is a failure in reassuring the travelling public their safety, or even the safety of citizens in the country.
In order to command a superior security detail in any airport, it means that the airport enforcement authority must invest in employing qualified security personnel that are well equipped. In some countries where airports are under the government control as is the case in Kenya and Australia, where the Kenya Police and the Australian Federal Police, respectively, provide total security at major entry points in all airports, there are elaborate security protocols. In other countries, security provisions are manned by local or state authorities (Bentley, 2000; Graham, 2001).
Basically, a well detailed security personnel may include a police force specifically employed to provide airport security, as is the case in Ireland where the Irish Airport Police Service provides security. In other airports, the airport authority has recruited a substation of the local police authority to man airport security, or some members of the local police authority being assigned to provide security in patrol areas within the airport. In other cases, police dog services may be used for drug detection, or detection of explosives among other uses (Roper, 1999). Investing in such a detailed security personnel translates to a large financial input, time and a dedicated airport management. In commercialised airports, such managerial commitment to security lacks or is poor, leading to increased potential to security threats. Thus, there is a need for authorities to focus on security in airports as they also aim at commercialising them.
Considering the level of airport commercialisation in developed countries, the potential to security threats is very high. For instance, the American airport security protocol was shaken following the terrorist events of the September 11th 2001. To date, the US airport security procedures have been forced to embark on meticulous security transformation with the airport security personnel engaging in security update and redesigning screening procedures meant to address equitable security threats in future while using aircrafts or other hideous wares. It is from this threat that the US airport security was transferred to the US transportation security administration. Under this new security scheme, all passengers are subjected to absolute screening including their luggage. The screening procedures evolve with technology in order to detect explosives that pose a great threat to the lives of Americans.
In the same vein, terrorist threats culminated in the development of a Secure Flight Program, in which a terrorist watch is made at a 100% absolute level to all domestic and international airlines for domestic and international flights. Such intense and rigorous security advances in airport security are only available in the US, considering its financial ability to achieve the reality of zero airport security threats (Condie, 2001; United States Subcommittee on Federal Workforce and Agency Organisation, 2006). In considering other countries whose technological advances are way behind the US level, airport commercialisation would still be a major threat to airport security. Critics argue that America still has only improved its airport security in the 1990s from 1970s following the 9/11 attacks.
In another case, commercialisation of the UK airports has resulted in increased security threats and heightened terrorist episodes in the recent past. For instance, since January 2011, there has been increased terrorist security threats in the UK directed against the airports. The level of terrorist threats in UK airports has increased significantly from substantial to severe levels, a threat change attributed to airport commercialisation. Although there are no intelligence reports directly showing possibility of imminent terrorist attacks in the UK, the adversities associated with airport commercialisation including the railway transport are severe and project increased changes of security breach. Projections from the UK aviation chiefs detail possibilities of the presence of al-Qaeda in the region with considerations of a possible airport attack. In addition, their projections portray the need to increase security precaution in its major transport hubs in order to handle such threats.
Conclusion
Airport commercialisation and privatisation have an impact on a country’s economy, with major effects being felt in social development, employment, infrastructure, and airline operational capacity. However, the competition between different airports and airlines brought about by economic factors of commercialization, such as liberalisation and airline consolidation results in a decline in adherence to operational requirements some of which affect the security of the airport and the people therein. The increase in business activities with airport expansion, airline addition and increased travel’s impact security, as exemplified in the US attacks in September 2001 or the current security threat potential facing the UK air and trail transport systems.
References
Ashford, N. (2000). Airport 2000: Trends for the New Millennium. London, United Kingdom: Sovereign Publications. Web.
Bentley, D. (2000). World airport Study: the finance and development of airports at the turn of the 21 century. New York, NY: Euromoney Institutional Investor Plc. Web.
Choi, J. (1993). Aviation Terrorism: Historical survey, perspectives, and responses. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley. Web.
Condie, S. (2001). Airport privatization and development. Airport privatization seminar 2001. Web.
Douganis, R. (1992). The airport business. London, United Kigdom: Routledge. Web.
Graham, A. (2001). The changing nature of airports. London: University of Westminster Press. Web.
Roper, C. (1999). Risk management for security professionals. Boston, MA: Butterworth-Heinemann. Web.
United States Subcommittee on Federal Workforce and Agency Organization. (2006). Travel Vs. Terrorism. Washington D.C.: Pearson. Web.
Air travel has progressively been considered the defining mode of transport in the 21st century because of its appeal, scale, and speed. Air transport has opened up the world by establishing connections to different geographical regions. The increasing demand for air travel underscores the importance of establishing airports that are operational and efficient. Some of the fundamental issues that airports should take into consideration entail the airports’ physical design and capacity management. This paper assesses the consequences of physical design and capacity limitations for an airport. Additionally, it also assesses the current situation of Buenos Aires that is served by two airports, namely Ezeiza-Ministro Pistarini [EZE] and Aeroparque-Jorge Newbery [AEP]. The paper further proposes a strategy for Buenos Aires as a city and its two airports.
The Consequences of Physical Design and Capacity Limitations of an Airport; Aeroparque-Jorge Newberry
Hissler (2011) asserts that airports will be the restricting bottleneck in air travel management. A report conducted by the Central Office of Delay Analysis [CODA] further emphasizes that airlines are associated with over 49% of delays while airports account for 18% of the stoppages (Hissler 2011). These findings show that the causes of flight delays are within human control. To resolve or minimize such occurrences, airport management authorities must appreciate the importance of physical design and capacity management.
Waters (2006) asserts that an airport’s capacity is determined by assessing the number of passengers who use a particular airport within a year. Different aspects such as the number of runways influence an airport’s capacity. Waters (2006, p. 395) affirms, ‘The number of runways limits the number of slots that are available for planes to land and take off’. Alternatively, an airport’s physical design comprises different aspects such as the number of runways, locality and length of the landing strips, taxiways, junctions, and the distance between the landing strips. Edwards (2005) confirms how an airport’s objective design is the principal component that specifies an airport’s capability. This observation highlights the correlation between airport capacity management and physical design. Stakeholders in the aviation industry must collaborate in improving the operating efficiency of the airports by focusing on aptitude management and objective design.
The AEP airport operates as a public/military landing field. It serves Buenos Aires City. Aeropuertos Argentinas 2000 manages the landing base. The airfield can be conveniently accessed due to its close location to Buenos Aires. The AEP acts as the hub for various domestic flights in addition to connecting flights to other border countries such as Chile, Brazil, Uruguay, Paraguay, and Bolivia. Some of the airlines that operate in the AEP airport include Austral Lineas Aereas, Gol Transportes Aereos, Sol Lineas Aereas, Aerolineas Argentinas, and LAN Argentina (CAPA Center for Aviation 2015). The airlines that operate in the AEP airport serve both permanent and recurrent destinations.
The number of passengers who use the AEP is expected to increase in the future due to the high rate of liberalization of the airline industry. The rise in demand for air travel presents a major challenge for AEP airport concerning capacity management. AEP airport might experience traffic congestion because of the increase in the number of passengers using the airport. Congestion might be worsened by the poor design of the airport’s landside. One of the aspects that indicate the poor landside design entails the location of the arrival and departure terminals. The two arrival and departure facilities are located on the same line/road. This situation, which might increase traffic jams in front of the airport, arises from the fact that airport landsides are subject to high and multiple peak times throughout the day. If the physical design of the airport’s landside is not improved, the congestion might lead to an increment in incidents of delays for passengers who leave or access the different airport facilities. Subsequently, the level of positive passenger experience at the airport will deteriorate.
Under such circumstances, the airport management authority such as the air traffic controllers who manage flights that are destined for the AEP airport may be forced to delay some aircraft on the ground. This strategy may be adopted in the event of anticipated congestion at the AEP airport. Furthermore, the AEP airport management authority may be forced to undertake aircraft queuing for aircraft that plan to land at the airport.
Congestion within the airport might lead to a loss of operational inefficiency (Hall 2008). For example, the headway between aircraft landing at the AEP airport may be too short. Alternatively, the airport management authority may be required to allow two aircraft to be on an active runway simultaneously. This situation, which might reduce the safety of both the aircraft and the passengers, arises from the occurrence of safety faults. Edwards (2005) says that most airports that are located in urban areas and are unable to expand their runways and terminals are forced to reduce their safety margins to 2 minutes between landing and takeoff times. Such aspects might result in a decline in passenger confidence. Ryerson and Woodburn (2014) assert that airports’ management authorities are charged with the responsibility of ensuring optimal safety.
To avoid such consequences, Aeropuertos Argentinas 2000 must focus on improving the landside physical design. Amongst the aspects that should be considered entail the effective design of the roadway systems. Additional routes should be included to provide passengers’ ease in navigating in and out of the terminals, which act as the main exchange points of an airport.
Another aspect that the airport might consider in improving the terminals’ operational efficiency entails expanding them. However, airports that operate within cities such as the AEP face a major limitation in undertaking such expansion. Expanding the terminals will require adequate landing fields to enlarge the runways, which are in turn limited by the airport’s urban location. The likelihood of undertaking expansion on airport facilities such as runways and terminals is also limited by the fact that the airport is located close to the sea.
Also, the airport management authority might encounter bureaucracies in its quest to expand the airport facilities such as the terminals and runways due to the limitations of the available land. This case might hinder the airport’s quest to improve its physical design. The management team will be required to engage in extensive consultation with other stakeholders such as the urban authorities to assess how the airports can be improved without adversely affecting other parties. The ineffective physical design of the AEP airport is illustrated by the location of the airside close to the roadways and premises outside the airport. Furthermore, the runways, which are also close to the roads, might compromise safety within the airport.
The existence of competing interests of different parties such as investors with commercial interests influences the physical design of the airport negatively. For example, some stakeholders intend to establish restaurants inside or close to the airport facility. Over 400 hotels are established close to the AEP airport. Commercial activities within the airport’s terminals also involve the operation of cafes, snack bars, and shops. These facilities are not centralized. They are relatively small because of the small size of the airport. However, their location within the airport affects terminal expansion efforts. The motive of the hotel investors is to provide passengers using the AEP airport convenience in accessing catering and accommodation services. Considering the existence of constraints concerning the space available, the AEP might be forced to offer efficient services within a limited space.
The Current Situation of the City that has Two Airports: Ezeiza-Ministro Pistarini [EZE] and Aeroparque
Two main airports, namely Ezeiza-Ministro Pistarini [EZE] and Aeroparque-Jorge Newbery [AEP], serve Buenos Aires City in Argentina. The EZE airport serves international flights while AEP serves domestic and local flights. The airports are a critical component of the city’s transport system. Different airlines ferry passengers to the two airports. However, some of the airlines that operate at the two airports include Aerolineas Argentinas and LAN Argentina. Both airports account for 75% of the country’s air traffic. It is estimated that each of the airports serves over 4 million passengers annually. The airports are undergoing capital improvements and privatization. Thus, it is projected that their capacity will increase to 12 million passengers over the next decade. Over the past years, the AEP has experienced a challenge due to the increase in demand for air travel. Currently, the airport serves over 25% of the total Argentine air traffic. Table 1 and Graph 1 show a considerable increase in the number of passengers who use AEP airport.
Year
Passengers
2010
7,558,148
2011
8,250,971
2012
8,849,465
2013
9,552,504
Table 1.
Graph 1. Change in passengers at AEP airport.
Year
Percentage change
2010
17.20%
2011
9.20%
2012
7.30%
2013
8.00%
Table 2: Percentage Change in the Number of Passengers.
The EZE is ranked as the largest international airport in Buenos Aires. The airport serves airlines from and/or to different destinations across the world. The chart below illustrates the destinations that EZE serves.
Region
Destination
Airline
Africa
Cape Town and Johannesburg
Malaysia Airlines and South Africa Airways
Central America
Punta Cana, Havana, and Panama City
Lan Argentina, Cubana de Aviacion, and Copa Airlines
Asia
Doha and Kuala Lumpur
Qatar Airways, Malaysia Airlines
North America
Atlanta, Mexico City, New York, Washington, and Dallas
Delta Airlines, Aeromexico, American Airlines, and the United Airlines
Europe
Paris, Rome, Madrid, Barcelona, Frankfurt, and London
Air France, Aerolineas Argentinas, Iberia, Lufthansa, and British Airways
Oceania
Sydney and Auckland
Aerolineas Argentina and Qantas
South America
Guayaquil, Quito, Recife, Ushuaia, and Curitiba
Lan Ecuador, Gol Linhas Aereas, and Tam Linhas Aereas.
Table 3: EZE Service Points.
The airport is very efficient in handling international flights. One of the main sources of EZE’s strength is its physical design. The landing field has three primary operating runways that can handle large passenger and international cargo flights. Furthermore, the airport is located approximately 35 kilometers outside Buenos Aires. This observation illustrates how the airport is strategically located to improve its accessibility [30 to 50 minutes drive from Buenos Aires City center]. Unlike EZE airport, the AEP airfield has a relatively low capacity. Thus, its ability to handle large international flights is limited. The length of the airport’s runway is relatively short. Therefore, only medium-sized and propeller planes can land at AEP airport. This situation highlights an ineffective physical design within the airport.
Despite the airfields’ effectiveness in connecting Buenos Aires regionally and globally, political forces might hinder their long-term operational efficiency. The Argentine government has established a concessional agreement with Aeropuertos Argentina 2000 [AA2000] stipulating how the airport should be managed. The agreement, which was enacted in 1998, is expected to last for 30 years. However, the treaty can be extended for an additional 10 years. Shareholding within AA2000 has changed considerably over the past few years. By the end of 2011, the shareholders included RIVA [1%], Milan Airport Operate SEA [10%], and Grupo Corporacion America [89%]. However, the Argentine government announced its intention to acquire a 15% stake in the company. The change of ownership structure might affect the airports’ operational efficiency due to political influence. For example, the modification of shareholding might affect concession, which is founded on the build-operate-transfer [BOT] basis (Brooks Events Limited 2015).
The existence of political influence might adversely affect the airport’s contribution to the country’s economy. The AEP and EZE are strategically located to improve the ability of the airlines that operate at the airports to connect different regions. Additionally, airports serve as a hub for several airlines. Thus, airports have a significant impact on the economic performance of airlines that operate at such airports. The airlines can establish diverse retail services such as hotels and conference facilities within the airport.
Strategy for Buenos Aires and its Airports
The increase in the number of passengers who prefer air travel indicates that the AEP and EZE airports in Buenos Aires will experience a challenge in managing capacity matters. Despite this situation, the two airports must serve passengers efficiently. To achieve this goal, the Argentine government in collaboration with the relevant stakeholders must consider several issues. Some of the fundamental aspects that should be taken into account are highlighted herein.
Managing Urban Crisis
Air travel in Buenos Aires is expected to become complex and highly profitable because of the establishment of different businesses such as hotels and other facilities. Edwards (2005) says that most airports that are located in urban areas lack a clear design and vision due to the existence of competing interests. Consequently, urban authorities tend to ignore the plan of adopting an effective urban design that takes into account the changing demands of the airports that are located within their regions. Therefore, airports that are situated in urban areas tend to grow in an unplanned and haphazard way. To deal with this challenge, the regulatory authorities at Buenos Aires should develop an effective urban design framework that defines how the airport should appear. Considering the unpredictability of the aviation industry, it is imperative for Buenos Aires in collaboration with the airports to incorporate airport designers, rather than only focusing on project managers and engineers in managing the airports.
Ignoring designers in managing airports reduces their operational efficiency (Edwards 2005). This challenge arises from the fact that some of the critical aspects such as passenger satisfaction and route eligibility are ignored. Authorities at Buenos Aires should be committed to improving its efficiency in landscape and urban design. Moreover, the authorities should adopt a long-term vision for the airport to cater to uncertainties that are associated with air travel.
Improving Legibility
Buenos Aires City should consider improving the airport experience. One of the ways through which this goal can be achieved entails making it easy for passengers to access the airport. Even though EZE and AEP airports are conveniently located within the city center, the authorities must consider improving the passengers’ experience. The routes that lead to the airport should be attractive to use. Some of the facilities that the airports should consider in improving legibility include the terminals. Such terminals should be spacious to provide passengers an opportunity to navigate to their plane conveniently.
Airside, Landside, and Terminal Capacity Balance
Landside provision to an airport significantly affects the airport’s operational efficiency. Furthermore, it can also compromise safety and/or increase delays. The size of runways normally influences an airport’s capacity. The airports should focus on improving the length, orientation, and the number of runways. To implement this strategy, airports and urban authorities should take into account environmental factors. They should ensure that the terminals’ capacity to process a large number of customers matches the runways’ ability to handle flight takeoff and landing. Thus, airports and urban authorities should establish a balance between the core processing components of the terminal building, airside, and landside. Edwards (2005, p. 13) confirms how ‘it is vital for the passenger throughput of the terminal to stay in balance with the processing capacity of the airfield and ground access components’.
Focusing on Growth
The ability of the EZE and AEP to handle the regional and international demand for air travel underscores the importance of promoting further growth. However, the location of the EZE and AEP airports in the urban areas presents a major challenge in undertaking airport expansion. Despite this issue, airports must improve their operational efficiency. This goal can be attained by focusing on the concept of inter-modality.
The large number of passengers who use the airports tends to increase pressure on the available facilities. The airports and urban authorities should collaborate in improving different airport facilities such as roads, catering, and parking facilities. Some of the aspects that the authorities should consider include establishing different modes of transport to and from the airport. The city should improve its rail and road systems to enhance accessibility. These elements will advance the passengers’ experience. However, airports must ensure that the developed rail and road systems are sustainable.
The growth of the airports can also be improved by implementing new technologies. The airports should consider implementing the emerging technologies to enhance the efficiency with which aircrafts land and take off. The two airports should reduce the flight takeoff and arrival to less than three minutes. This approach will make it possible for an airport that has two runways to handle close to 100 flights within one hour. Achieving this goal will also require airports to integrate efficient people’s movement and baggage handling facilities. However, the airports need to ensure that any reduction in the turnaround duration does not compromise the airports’ safety and security. Over the years, the increasing security requirements in airports have reduced passenger convenience and experience. To prevent such occurrences, the airports and Buenos Aires authorities should continuously improve passenger handling. They should integrate remote passenger processing by establishing off-airport airline shopping structures. This aspect will facilitate passenger handling outside the airport.
Conclusion
Airports constitute a critical component in a country’s economy due to its ability to promote the transportation of people, goods, and services. Airports must be strategically located and equipped with the necessary facilities. This strategy will improve their ability to establish connections within and without a country. Moreover, issues such as physical design and capacity management within the airport are vital in determining an airport’s operational efficiency. Airports that are located in urban areas such as Ezeiza-Ministro Pistarini [EZE] and Aeroparque-Jorge Newbery [AEP] in Argentina face different challenges. The two airports are located close to Buenos Aires. However, the AEP handles regional and domestic flights while EZE handles intercontinental flights. Additionally, EZE’s capacity is relatively strong compared to that of the AEP. For example, EZE has three runways that improve its ability to handle large aircraft. On the other hand, AEP has only one runway.
One of the major challenges that the airports face relates to the limitations of expanding because of their urban location. Despite this issue, the airports management authorities should consider improving the airfields’ physical design and capacity management. The authorities should collaborate with urban stakeholders in undertaking the airports’ physical design. Moreover, the airports should consider investing in improving the facilities such as terminal buildings, parking, and roads. These elements will focus on improving the passengers’ experience. Consequently, the likelihood of continued usage of the airports will be improved considerably. Also, airports should consider investing in new technologies to enhance their ability to handle different aspects such as baggage handling, security, and safety.
References
Brooks Events Limited 2015, Airports in Latin America and the Caribbean region. Web.
Edwards, B 2005, The modern airport terminal; new approaches to airport architecture, Taylor & Francis, New York, NY.
Hall, J 2008, Analysis of aircraft overruns and undershoots for runway safety areas, Transportation Research Board, Washington, DC.
Haussler, S 2011, Conditions for an airport operator to make use of an advanced surface movement guidance and control systems, GRIN Verlag, Munchen.
Ryerson, M & Woodburn, A 2014, ‘Building airport capacity of manage flight demand? How regional planners can lead American aviation into a new frontier of demand management’, Journal of American Planning Association, vol. 80, no. 2, pp. 138-152.
Waters, D 2006, Operations strategy, London Thomson Learning, London.
Security work in and around airports and wildlife control is a critical component in the aviation industry. The penetration of birds and animals into the airport territory can lead to undesirable and dangerous consequences. To avoid them, relevant scientific materials and articles of scientists were studied. Articles contained information that could be useful. The topic of wildlife control and security in airports is quite relevant and justified.
Statement of the Project
The main purpose of the paper is to describe possible ways to protect and control the airport area from wild animals and birds that are potentially dangerous to the safety of passengers and can disrupt the flight regime. The type of project is a research work, the essence of which is to analyze the available literature and to critically evaluate the information found in the process of work. The paper will describe eleven Program Outcomes of the course and present relevant information. The degree is the Bachelors of Science in Aeronautics.
Introduction
The topic of the research paper is as follows: “Wildlife Control in and Around Airports.” Research in this area is quite important and relevant. The safety of passengers and all the equipment in airports largely depends on how well the security services are coping with their duties and can restrict access of wild animals to the zone of the runway territory. Procedures for the paper development will be using data collection, analysis, as well as critical thinking, will be utilized. The project will cover the scope of all civil aviation airports, regardless of size or importance, and will describe the ways of improving wildlife control around airports.
Program Outcomes to be Addressed
Critical Thinking
“The student will show evidence of knowledge at a synthesis level to define and solve problems within professional and personal environments” (ERAU, 2015, p. 12). Due to such an analysis, recommendations on how to minimize the effect of these incursions will be made. The data and information to be analyzed will come from the general sources by Dolbeer and Franklin (2013), Scheideman et al. (2017), Sheridan et al. (2015).
Quantitative Reasoning
“The student will show evidence of the use of digitally-enabled technology & analysis techniques to interpret data for the purpose of drawing valid conclusions and solving associated problems” (ERAU, 2015, p. 14). The source of the data will be the article written by Sheridan et al. (2015). As one of the fundamental sources of control, the radar tracking system is still considered one of the most effective (Sheridan et al., 2015). According to Sheridan et al. (2015), modern systems can reach “reliability of 95%,” which means that they are efficient enough (p. 244).
Information Literacy
“The student will show evidence of meaningful research, including gathering information from primary and secondary sources and incorporating and documenting source material in their writing” (ERAU, 2015, p. 15). Relevant information will be obtained from the general sources by Atwell, Hilterbrand, Kaffka, Lauber, and Shore (2015), and Biondi, Belant, Martin, DeVault, and Wang (2014). For example, Atwell et al. (2015) disclose the priority areas for the development of protection and describe all the possible risks that airport security can face. The article by Biondi et al. (2014) can help to find optimal solutions and determine which of the methods to protect airports from wildlife incursions are the most efficient.
Communication
“The student will show evidence of communicating concepts in written, digital, and oral forms to present technical and non-technical information” (ERAU, 2015, p. 16). Desoky (2014) describes the system of protecting airports from the possible penetration of animals into runway areas. To achieve a detailed deepening in the topic, it can be necessary to contact an instructor, make a written report, and create an oral presentation. Thorough work will help to find out which threats are most likely to happen if no appropriate measures are taken.
Scientific Literacy
“The student will show evidence of analyzing scientific evidence as it relates to the physical world and its interrelationship with human values and interests” (ERAU, 2015, p. 18). Biondi et al. (2014) claim that mammals are more likely to damage aircraft than any other wildlife. Scheideman et al. (2017) prove that “wildlife incidents with aircraft cost airports and operators worldwide an average of US $1.28 billion annually” (p. 408). Therefore, the risk fully justifies the relevance of the topic, and the skill of Scientific Literacy should be demonstrated.
Cultural Literacy
“The student will show evidence of the analysis of historical events, cultural artifacts, and philosophical concepts” (ERAU, 2015, p. 19). The article by Dolbeer and Franklin (2013) will be analyzed; the authors note that almost 90% of all the birds struck by civil aircraft in the US are the species that are protected by the national laws (p. 67). Both passengers and flight crews will be able to know about the danger of wildlife incursions, and the results of the research will help to increase the awareness of airport staff concerning the existing issue.
Lifelong Personal Growth
“The student will show evidence of the skills needed to enrich the quality of life through activities, which enhance and promote lifetime learning” (ERAU, 2015, p. 20). The information will be retrieved and analyzed from the research by Biondi et al. (2014). The authors remark that people involved in working to eliminate the consequences of the wildlife incursions and ensuring security will have to constantly look for ways to provide for security at airports. Aircraft designers are to constantly pay attention to the construction of their planes and, if possible, make certain improvements. People who deal with the issue of wildlife control will use more modern techniques to reduce the risk of animals’ incursions, for example, implement modern means of tracking.
Aeronautical Science
“The student will show evidence of advanced concepts of aviation, aerospace, and aeronautics to solve problems commonly found in their respective industries” (ERAU, 2015, p. 22). In the process of working and finding appropriate measures to counter the penetration of wildlife on the territory of airports, it can be useful. For instance, according to Desoky (2014), the shape, sound, and color of any aircraft model do not affect how birds perceive it. Also, as the author notes, a plane can be equipped with mirror elements to drive away birds (Desoky, 2014). Thus, depending on the peculiarities of a specific model structure, specific protective measures can be taken.
Aviation Legislation and Law
“The student will show evidence of the basic concepts in national and international legislation and law as they pertain to the aviation, aerospace, and aeronautics industries” (ERAU, 2015, p. 23). The topic under investigation will be studied in the Wildlife Hazard Management Program (Atwell et al., 2015). Many provisions of this program tell how to accurately protect airport equipment and passengers from danger. Also, FAA Airport Grant Assurances is another state act that also provides support for some improvements in aviation (Atwell et al., 2015). These laws deserve close attention when discussing wildlife control.
Aviation Safety
“The student will show evidence of basic concepts in aviation safety as they pertain to the aviation, aerospace, and aeronautics industry” (ERAU, 2015, p. 24). According to Sheridan et al. (2015), recurrent incidents with animals and birds that occur accidentally cause significant losses and violate the safety of passengers (Sheridan et al, 2015). Therefore, the search for optimal methods of protection and controls is urgent and necessary for both passengers and transport companies.
Aviation Management and Operations
“The student will show evidence of sound, ethical, management principles within standard aviation, aerospace, and aeronautics operations” (ERAU, 2015, p. 25). According to Biondi et al. (2014), specific leadership practices that modern managers use to aim at reducing risks and controlling the activities of all subordinate structures. Therefore, certain operations can be beneficial in providing comprehensive protection.
References
Atwell, N., Hilterbrand, J., Kaffka, C., Lauber, A., & Shore, E. (2015). Hillsboro Airport wildlife hazard management plan. Portland, OR: Port of Portland.
Biondi, K. M., Belant, J. L., Martin, J. A., DeVault, T. L., & Wang, G. (2014). Integrating mammalian hazards with management at US civil airports: A case study. Human-Wildlife Interactions, 8(1), 31-38.
Desoky, A. S. S. (2014). A review of bird control methods at airports. Global Journal of Science Frontier Research: E Interdiciplinary, 14(2), 40-50.
Dolbeer, R. A., & Franklin, A. B. (2013). Population management to reduce the risk of wildlife–aircraft collisions. In T. L. DeVault, B. F. Blackwell, and J. L. Belant (Eds.), Wildlife in airport environments: Preventing animal–aircraft collisions through science-based management (pp. 67-78). Baltimore, MD: The Johns Hopkins University Press.
Embry-Riddle Aeronautical University (ERAU). (2015). College of aeronautics: Undergraduate capstone policy guide. Web.
Scheideman, M., Rea, R., Hesse, G., Soong, L., Green, C., Sample, C., & Booth, A. (2017). Use of wildlife camera traps to aid in wildlife management planning at airports. Journal of Airport Management, 11(4), 408-419.
Sheridan, E., Randolet, J., DeVault, T. L., Seamans, T. W., Blackwell, B. F., & Fernández-Juricic, E. (2015). The effects of radar on avian behavior: Implications for wildlife management at airports. Applied Animal Behaviour Science, 171, 241-252.
As with any business, airports aim to maximize their profits by offering travelers the best services that suit their needs. In this context, the question of parking lot spaces for short-term and long-term parking arises since the two distinct categories of airport visitors perceive parking and its price differently. This paper aims to examine the issue of redistributing parking lot spaces between short-term and long-term stay spots within airports and determine the necessity of this step.
Short-term and long-term parking lot clients have different needs and consider different characteristics when choosing the preferred parking lot. Qin et al. argue that two main characteristics, price, and distance, determine the attitude of customers regarding airport parking (164). Moreover, long-term travelers consider both the distance and price when choosing a parking lot, while the other category only considers distance. This suggests that airports should redistribute these spots to ensure that the ratio suits the needs of travelers.
In case of avoiding parking lot redistribution, short-term travelers may be unable to access spaces reserved for the second category of visitors. Cheng and Qi describe the issue as follows – “approximately 75% of the users (short-term) are served by 10% to 30% of the spaces, but the remaining 25% (long-term) may require up to 90% of the parking spaces” (2). Therefore, the traditional approach to parking lot distribution in airports fails to satisfy the needs of short-term travelers because the majority of the space is occupied by vehicles staying there long-term. In general, it is worth readjusting the number of parking spot distribution between long-term and short-term lots because airport service quality is mostly dependant on the usability of parking spaces.
Works Cited
Cheng, Cheng, and Peng Qi. “Impact Analysis Of Parking Price Adjustment On The Quality Of Service Of Airport Parking Lots For Light Vehicles.” Journal of Advanced Transportation vol. 2019, 2019, pp. 1-9.
Qin, Huanmei et al. “Nested Logit Model Formation To Analyze Airport Parking Behavior Based On Stated Preference Survey Studies.” Journal of Air Transport Management, vol. 58, 2017, pp. 164-175.