The Malé International Airport is the main international airport of the Republic of Maldives. It serves millions of passengers every year. This paper briefly provides some basic facts about the airport. Such information as facts about its terminals, its location, and its history, is supplied in this paper.
Main body
Location of the Airport, its Terminals
The Malé International Airport, which is also known as Velana International Airport, is situated on the Hulhulé Island (Velana International Airport n.d.). This island can be found in the North Malé Atoll, not far from the isle of Malé, the city on which serves as the capital of the Republic of Maldives (Velana International Airport n.d.).
On the whole, there are three terminals in the airport (Maldives Airport Co. n.d.). These terminals are called the Domestic Terminal, the International Terminal, and the Seaplane Terminal (Velana International Airport n.d.). It should be noted that the Seaplane Terminal provides access to the water aerodrome.
When it comes to the International Terminal, it should be noted that it consists of two floors. On the ground floor, there is the area for departure, the area for arriving passengers, and several restaurants. At the same time, on the first floor, one can find stores, restaurants, and waiting lounges (Airport Technology n.d.). There are numerous advantages in this terminal. For instance, there is an office of the Bank of Maldives, a lounge with satellite TV, Wi-Fi and Internet, and phones. There are also a number of souvenir shops, duty-free stores, a flower shop, and a drugstore. Finally, there is a medical emergency center that is open 24/7, a children’s playground, and a lost-and-found desk (Airport Technology n.d.).
As for the Domestic Terminal, it should be noted that it is much smaller than the International Terminal. It was created in 2004-2006 to serve for passengers that wish to travel inside the country, and to address the lack of space in the other terminals (Airport Technology n.d.). There are such advantages as jetty services and wheelchair services (Airport Technology n.d.). As for the disadvantages, the Domestic Terminal does not have as many various facilities as the International Terminal (Airport Technology n.d.).
Finally, the Seaplane Terminal serves customers who want to board seaplanes. It works as one of the largest world’s operators of seaplanes, and also provides speedboat access to the city of Malé and the resorts that are located nearby (Velana International Airport n.d.).
Other Buildings in the Airport, Surrounding Areas and Community
On the whole, the airport is located on an island, and takes up most of its territory. There is a single asphalt runway that is 3.2 kilometers (10,500 feet) long (World Aero Data n.d.). In addition, there is a water aerodrome along the island. It has four water runways; their length is approximately 1.2 km (3,900 feet), 1.1 km (3,600 feet), 1.0 km (3,280 feet), and 0.8 km (2,620 feet). The three terminals that are located on the island, and which were described above, permit passengers to get access to the planes (Airport Technology n.d.; World Aero Data n.d.). On the island, one can also find a hotel, several restaurants, a mosque, an Island Aviation Services Engineering office, and the Central Headquarters for the Maldives National Defense Force (Google Maps n.d.).
The local community consists of the population of the surrounding isles. The most closely located islands to the airport are the Hulhulé Island and the Malé Island. On the latter isle, the capital of the Republic of Maldives, the city of Malé, is to be found (Google Maps n.d.); it houses nearly 130,000 inhabitants.
Approach and Access to the Airport
As has been noted previously, the Malé International Airport is located on a separate island. The island is connected to another isle, Hulhulé Island, with a bridge called the Hulhulé Link Road (Google Maps n.d.). Therefore, it is accessible with ground transport from the Hulhulé Island. In addition, it is connected to Malé Island, which houses the capital of the Republic of Maldives, via ferry (Google Maps n.d.). Finally, it is possible to get to the airport using the speedboat and sea plane transfers (Velana International Airport n.d.).
Statistics About the Terminals
The International Terminal serves those passengers who desire to travel to the Republic of Maldives from foreign countries, and vice versa. This terminal was previously capable of accommodating nearly 350 passengers at the same time (Airport Technology n.d.). However, today, when the terminal was expanded to consist of two floors, it allows for accommodating over 1,000 customers at a time (Airport Technology n.d.). There are six gates in the terminal, as can be seen from the map (see Figure 1 below).
Figure 1: Map of the International Terminal
When it comes to the Domestic Terminal, it is important to observe that it can accommodate nearly 140 clients at a time (Airport Technology n.d.). It serves those individuals who wish to travel inside the Republic of Maldives, without going to or from a foreign country. Although it is known that the terminal has eight check-in counters for the passengers (Airport Technology n.d.), the information about the number of gates in this terminal was not found on the Internet.
Finally, the Seaplane Terminal serves provides services for passengers who wish to use seaplanes. The terminal provides access to seaplanes from such companies as Trans Maldivian Airways or Maldivian Air Taxi (Velana International Airport n.d.).
The Growth of the Airport
The Malé International Airport was first opened in 1966, and today it serves as the main international airport of the Republic of Maldives (Airport Technology n.d.). The airport has been growing since the day when it was opened, but major growth has taken place since the beginning of the 21st century. In particular, as has been noted, the International Terminal was only able to accommodate nearly 350 passengers at the same time previously; however, today it is capable of accommodating approximately 1,000 clients (Airport Technology n.d.). The Domestic Terminal was opened in 2006 to address the problem of the limited space in the airport, and to improve the security of the facility (Airport Technology n.d.). It allowed for handling nearly 140 clients at the same time, also increasing the capacity of the airport and signifying its growth (Airport Technology n.d.).
Due to the increasing demand on the services of the airport, it might be expected that it will grow further in the future (Airport Technology n.d.; Jameel 2012). However, such growth will be faced by a number of challenges. One of these challenges is related to the territorial constraints of the airport; it only has one landing runway, and there is simply no space on the islands where additional runways could be built.
Conclusion
On the whole, it should be stressed that the Malé International Airport plays the role of the key international airport of the Republic of Maldives. It serves a considerable number of passengers annually, and provides access to air flights both to domestic and international destinations.
After the terrorist attack of September 11, 2001, the federal government responded through the enactment of legislations that were aimed at making airports secure and increasing air passenger safety. In this regard, President Bush signed into law the ATSA (Aviation and Transportation Security Act) under the Transportation Security Administration (TSA) that aimed to consolidate security efforts, and it was mandated to deliver several changes in security procedures in the aviation sector. Changes that were initiated included enhanced customer and luggage screening at all commercial airports. All these were aimed at ensuring passenger safety and restoration of confidence in the United States aviation system, and the overall effect of the new regulations was to ensure passenger satisfaction in services provided by the aviation sector. The aim of this study was to investigate changes and developments associated with airport security systems after 9/11, and the impact of these new security systems on passengers’ satisfaction.
Background to the Project
The tragic events of September 11, 2001 have changed the way in which the American citizens viewed their safety forever. Insecurity rates sharply increased after the infamous attack, making people abandon air transportation for quite a while. Even nowadays, after the hysteria has subsided to a considerable extent, the fear for people’s lives still defines the measures used to ensure passengers’ safety. However, the increase in safety rates has also changed procedures that passengers undergo when checking in for their flights. Specifically, the time that the process of checking in and handing in the luggage typically takes has been extended for security reasons, which was bound to affect the satisfaction rates of the target audience. Although precaution measures used nowadays in airports are aimed only at increasing the passengers’ safety and promoting security, they also cause a gradual reduction in customer satisfaction rates because of the rise in the procedures’ duration and associated inconvenience (Hoffman & Reinares 2014).
Passenger satisfaction has been an integral element in the aviation industry because greater confidence in passenger safety will increase demand for services. However, aviation specialists have noted that more time and effort are necessary from passengers, but such requirements could lead to low utilization of air travel because of inconvenience associated with security procedures (Williams & Waltrip 2004).
Research Objectives
To examine the development of aviation security changes since 9/11 attacks
To identify different kinds of airport security
To analyse the success of implementing new security systems
To explore the improvements in the aviation safety
To analyse the airport security impacts on passenger travel satisfaction
To evaluate the future improvements of airport security and passenger safety
Overview of this Report
This is a lengthy report. This overview is intended to cover, section by section, the key areas of interest of the report. The research approach or methodology used was a deductive approach because it is based on pre-existing theory of aviation safety, which includes theory hypothesis, observations, and confirmation. In this research, a survey was used to collect data because passengers were the only ones who could answer whether or not they were satisfied with new security systems.
The literature review section covered literature that focuses on changes in airport security after the 9/11 attacks, outcomes associated with the security regulations, enhanced passenger data, and increased cost of flying. Additionally, the literature review also explores applicable theories and frameworks, such as the Theory of Perceived Attributes, the DMAIC principle, and the Just-in-Time (JIT) framework. This section also covers previous findings on the subject. Based on the developments and changes after the 9/11, it is imperative to understand how such new security systems have affected users.
In the primary data findings section, the outcomes of collected data are presented. Based on the respondents, the report covers issues related to passengers’ satisfaction since the introduction of the new laws and changes. The findings present any issues and experiences of passengers to reflect their levels of satisfaction with airport security systems after the 9/11. In this section, the research presents new findings after data analysis rather than past results from other studies.
The analysis and discussion section presents a critical view of the primary findings and relates them to past findings. The key points are presented and responsibilities for offering passenger safety against convenience are covered. The section also draws attention to any emerging security issues and passengers’ satisfaction with the current practices.
Finally, the conclusion section presents a summary of the study, findings, and future direction for airport security systems and passenger satisfaction with practical implications for all both security providers and passengers.
Research Approach/Methodology
A descriptive study type was used to determine airports security systems’ impact on passengers’ satisfaction (post 9/11). As such, this type of study revealed insights in time of customer attitudes toward airports security systems. The descriptive nature of passenger satisfaction was realised through this type of study.
The study method was quantitative in design. This design was chosen to allow the researchers to develop a comprehension of the ‘big picture’ passengers’ experiences at the airport during security checks based on the sampled populations.
Based on the typical processes in survey sampling, the issue of the study was clearly defined and the target population was identified as passengers at the airports. A sample of 50 respondents was randomly selected to ensure that all potential respondents had equally chances to participate in the survey. The design of the study ensured that samples were carefully drawn for the findings to be considered as representative of the passenger populations as a whole who are affected by new security safety measures. The sample was considered adequate to provide insights on passenger experiences.
An Internet-based survey was used for data collection. This technique offered the easiest way to collect data from passengers from any part of the globe because the aftermath of the 9/11 attacks has been felt throughout the world. The process was also rapid. The Internet-based survey was low-cost and offered the fastest means of collecting data from passengers. Additionally, data input and handling were automated. Responses were also stored online and could be easily retrieved. The Internet-based survey minimized errors associated with human handling of data. This approach also ensured that the response rate was high because of convenience offered to respondents in terms time, pace, and preferences. The design was also flexible to facilitate responses and the way in which participants answered questions. There were open-ended questions so the absence of the researcher did not hinder data collection, and no incentives were offered to respondents to avoid survey fraud where participation is driven by the incentive rather than the desire to contribute toward knowledge creation in the field.
Data were analysed using descriptive statistics involving percentages and frequencies. The results were then presented using tables and graphs. The descriptive statistics was used to present data in a meaningful way and facilitate the ease of understanding.
For ethical consideration, the research met all requirements for code of ethics, and informed consent was obtained from passenger participants before they proceeded with the study. Moreover, respondents of different calibres were involved in this study, and all data collected were classified and treated as confidential.
Literature Review
Airports Security Systems’ Impact on Passengers’ Satisfaction (Post 9/11)
As stressed above, the enhancement of the systems facilitating passenger security is what the post—9/11 social attitudes manifest themselves in. Though the fear of terrorism has subsided to a considerable extent, there is still a fear of an imminent threat that the exposure to the global environment implies. As a result, the check-in procedures may become overly complicated and time-consuming.
The delays that accompanied security and the long checks can be considered the main source of customer dissatisfaction at the airport (Perkins 2007). In addition, the routine checks that the passengers have to go through, as well as the baggage handling, could use a significant improvement. For instance, the time that it takes to check the luggage and allow the passengers to pick it after the flight is over needs to be reduced. For this purpose, the purchase of more efficient equipment and the rearrangement of the checking process must be considered.
The Theory of Perceived Attributes helps shed some light on the nature of the dissatisfaction as well. According to the principal postulates of the theory, people do not accept innovations instantly; instead, they need encouragement and support throughout the process of getting used to the novelties in the company’s design.
It should be noted, though, that the process of implementing change, in general, and altering the quality of the airport services, in particular, could become much easier once an efficient model for change is incorporated into the corporate framework. For example, the DMAIC principle suggested by Thomas Pyzdek (Pyzdek & Keller 2014) may be considered an essential addition to the firm’s change management strategy. When evaluating the suggested approach, one must give Pyzdek credit for creating the model that can be used to encourage an unceasing improvement of the services and a regular update of the quality standards. Thus, the premises for a regular update of the services can be created, which modern airport companies lack significantly.
As far as the time issue is concerned, there seems to be a lack of tools that can support a more efficient use of the personnel’s time in contemporary airport facilities. For example, the Just-in-Time (JIT) framework, which is aimed at minimizing the defects and maximizing the positive outcome, can be included in the range of tools used by the staff of modern airport companies (Lai & Cheng 2012). Furthermore, the management of the essential processes will be enhanced with the help of a redesign of the corporate values and the philosophy of leadership used in the target facilities currently.
Changes in Airport Security
According to Caslione and Thomas (2002), air travelers experienced many changes in security procedures after the terrorist attack since most airlines informed their customers to report earlier than two hours prior to departure. Consequently, passengers were required to pass through security checks with some individuals randomly selected for additional screening (Caslione & Thomas 2002). Later, studies have discovered that following some security breaches in flights, security staff needed passengers to remove various items, such as shoes and belts, during screening procedures at checkpoints (Lyon 2003).
Lyon (2003) outlines that changes experienced were two folds and were aimed at ensuring security by enhancing passenger satisfaction. First, it was observed that the federal government took over security operations at the airport to improve passenger safety (Price & Forrest 2012). Moreover, more and more passengers are now seen as ‘suspicious or potential terrorists’, and security practices have become intricate and more integrated. Lyon (2003) points out that the security practices are now designed to advance racial profiling since individuals are categorized differently, and they get different treatment from security staff during screening. According to Lyon (2003), the promise made when such stringent security measures were introduced – preventing terrorism – remains hard to justify. Further, enhanced surveillance is more likely to have social impacts whose outcomes could be extensive – the dejection of social trust and of democratic engagement (Lyon 2003). These surveillance practices ultimately impact passenger satisfaction.
In order to ensure customer satisfaction, the agency increased the number of staff to help reduce wait time in security lines that could discourage passengers (Sweet 2004). Sweet (2004) notes that employees needed to be motivated in order to effectively handle passengers and this was achieved through increased compensation and wages by TSA. The screeners were also taken through training on how best to handle clients and perform background checks.
It has been outlined that all airlines had to revamp their security screening practices by matching luggage with their owners and further screening all baggage for any explosives (Sweet 2009). While passengers are significantly affected, Sweet (2009) also shows that cargo and passenger safety and security has become extremely critical for the aviation industry and must be considered in policies and business processes.
The Effects of Security Regulations
Terrorist attacks in the United States prompted security apparatus in airports to change security procedures drastically that to some extent inconvenienced domestic passengers who were now required to report early than usual (Sweet 2004). Subsequently, random hand-searches were adopted for passengers to identify any objects classified as non-risky, and the inclusive improved security screening all affected passenger convenience (Sweet 2009). Concerning satisfaction, a survey conducted discovered that most passengers were complaining that rigorous (strict) security measures made travelling less convenient (Zellan 2003; Johnstone 2006). In the same measure, airline firms argued that challenges associated with new security measures had negatively affected their revenues noted in lost ticket sales, as some customers travelers decided to stay home or use alternative modes (Zellan 2003). However, surveys also found out that after the attack some passengers were willing to accept additional inconvenienced through enhanced security checks so long as they would be secure (Zellan 2003). This was in the form of increased confidence in the aviation industry and some passengers derived satisfactions from the procedures.
Enhanced Passenger Data
Passenger information is always collected through tickets; the terrorist attack of 9/11 made security authorities to collect data and even performed background checks on certain individuals. Surveys conducted highlighted that additional useful information on passengers was important in assessing the impacts of security threats in airports (Thomas 2008). Most of these data were from screening and were useful in enhancing security in airports; data collected from screening were useful in providing precise indications of each airport and the likely threats (Miller 2002).
To some extent, most clients’ derived satisfaction from such events as most airports had begun screening and, thus, clients felt secure and comfortable in any commercial airport around the country.
Increased Flying Costs
The terrorist attack increased the cost of travelling through airlines because individuals had to pay additional fees to finance and support TSA staff operation and screening equipment. It has been established that airline firms introduced new ways to collect fees for checked luggage and bags, as well as fuel surcharges to increase their earnings (Thomas 2008).
Noteworthy, increased fee to travel reduced demand coupled with inconveniences, but passenger satisfaction increased significantly because rates of cancellation declined and cases of mishandled luggage were few relative to past periods before the introduction of new laws (Thomas 2008). Concerning this, Price and Forest (2012) reveal that most passengers were willing to forego other activities by arriving early for their flight just to ensure their security. Passengers, therefore, must understand that such interventions are necessary because the aviation security systems are complex and need sustained attention and concentration to predict potential attacks (Price & Forrest 2012).
In conclusion, the literature review above has outlined that the purpose of security enhancement in airports is to contribute and increase safety in flights and prevent illegal activities directed at most commercial airlines. The paper has discussed changes in airport security, the effects of security regulations, enhanced passenger data collection, and increased flying costs in relation to passenger satisfaction.
Primary Data Findings
Airport Security Systems (Post 9/11): “Passengers’ Satisfaction”
Background Information
Respondents who participated in the study were 50 consisting of 60.98% (25) female and 39.02% (16) male, but 9 respondents declined to specify their gender. Majorities of the respondents (46%) were in the age group of 18-24 years, followed by 18% in the age group of 25-34 years, 16% in the age group 35-44 years, 10% were in the age range of 45-54, and a similar percentage in the age group of 55-64 years. No respondents aged above 65 years to part in this survey.
Necessity of the Legislations Enacted After the 9/11 Attack
Participants were asked if they thought the enactment of legislations applied by the federal government after the terrorists’ attack of September 11, 2001 were necessary. Majorities of the respondents (88%) agreed that the enactment of such legislations were necessary following the 9/11 attack, but 12% did not share this view.
Consolidated Security Efforts
Researchers also wanted to find out if authorities had adequately consolidated security efforts on the aviation field. Most respondents (91.84%) answered ‘yes’, 8.1% did not agree, while one respondent skipped the question.
The Current Safety Regulations are Satisfactory
When asked whether the current safety regulations were satisfactory, only 20.41% strongly agreed, 71.43% agreed, 8.16% disagreed, and no single respondent strongly disagreed if the current safety regulations are satisfactory. One respondent did not respond to this question.
Confidence about Safety
Study participants were asked if they were confident about their safety in airports because of the measures that have been applied by the authorities. Majorities (56.00%) agreed that they were confident about their safety in airports, 32.00% strongly agreed, and 12% disagreed. All 50 participants responded to this question.
Willingness to Spend More Time in the Airport
According to the survey results, many passengers (74.00%) were willing to spend more time in the airports if it meant that security would be enhanced. On the contrary, other respondents (26%) did not want to spend more time in the airport for enhanced security.
Use Alternative Travelling Modes
Respondents were also asked if they would rather use alternative travelling modes than waste time in the numerous airport security checkpoints. Survey results showed that 20% of the respondent answered ‘yes’ while majorities did not prefer alternative traveling modes.
Random Security Screening
Respondents gave diverse views when asked about their belief on the effectiveness of random security screening in enhancing security in the airports. The results showed that 52% agreed, 20% strongly agreed, 24% disagreed, and 4% strongly disagreed.
Long Queues and Waiting Time
Additional security measures have brought about long queues and waiting time. Consequently, respondents were asked whether they were okay with the long queues and the waiting time required in the screening checkpoints. Interestingly, 54.00% of the respondents replied ‘yes’, while only 46% responded ‘no’, implying that passenger safety was of utmost important to majorities of the passengers.
Victim of Unfair Treatment at the Security Airport Checkpoints
The researchers also sought to determine if participants have ever been victims of unfair treatment by the employees at the security checkpoints in any airport. A significant percentage (42%) of the respondents had been victims while 58% had not been victims of unfair treatment.
Bags are Always Screened for Explosives at the Security Checkpoints
The results indicated that, in most instances, bags were always screened at the security checkpoints. Specifically, 38% of the respondents strongly agreed, 36% agreed, and 26% disagreed – this percentage perhaps reflected cases of security lapse at the airport during passenger and bag screening.
With or Against Random Hand Searches
Random hand searches are also frequently used. As such, 84% of the respondents supported random hand searches while only 16% opposed these random security practices.
More Time Spent at the Security Leads to Higher Confidence
Since the enactment of new security laws, passengers now have to spend more time at the security checkpoints. Consequently, respondents were asked if the more the time they spent at the security checkpoints leads to higher confidence to use an airline, and 55.10% totally agreed while 44.90% did not necessarily agree – implying that more or less time spent at the checkpoints could significantly influence passengers’ perception about their safety.
Always Willingness to Provide Personal Information
As observed, one outcome of the new laws relates to data collection about passengers, particularly personal information. Most passengers (74%) were always willing to provide the security staff at the checkpoint with personal information if required, but 26% were not.
Security Staff Always Handles Bags with Care
A small percentage (2%) strongly disagreed that security staff always handled bags with care, 44% disagreed, 48% agreed, and 6% strongly agreed.
Passenger Screening
Respondents were also asked if they lost confidence in an airline if it did not spend more time screening the passengers in front at the security check queues. Interestingly, 70% of the respondents said ‘no’ while only 30% replied ‘yes’ to the question.
Some Recommended Changes
Only a small percentage (8.16%) of the respondents recommends that some changes are necessary in the current status of the security checks at the airport. On the contrary, majorities of the respondent want to maintain the status quo (91.84%).
Passenger Satisfaction with the Services at the Airport (Generally)
Participants rated their satisfaction levels on a scale of 1-5. Six percent rated 1, another six percent rated 2, 38% rated 3, 28% rated 4, and 22% rated 5. The weighted average was 3.54, implying that passenger satisfaction rating with the services at the airport was generally above average.
The Degree of Inconvenience (where 1 is less convenient and 5 is more convenient)
For the ‘removal of particular attires e.g., belts’, 10% rated 1, 4% rated 2, 36% rated 3, 20% rated 4, and 30% rated 5. The weighted average for the removal of particular attires was 3.56. Participants were also asked about the ‘restriction of liquids’, and 14% rated 1, 18% rated 2, 28% rated 3, 10% rated 4, and 30% rated 5, all with the weighted average of 3.42. For ‘rigorous searching of bags’, 16% rated 1, 20% rated 2, 28% rated 3, 14% rated 4, and 22% rated 5, all with the weighted average of 3.06. Finally, respondents were also asked about convenience associated with ‘testing of electrical items’, and they rated as follow: 6.12% rated 1, 22.45% rated 2, 18.37% rated 3, 24.49% rated 4, and 28.57% rated 5.
Overall, the ‘removal of particular attires e.g. belts’ has the highest weighted average of 3.56 relative to ‘rigorous searching of bags’ with weighted average of 3.06. As such, these practices were generally convenient for majorities of passengers.
Analysis and Discussion
The aim of this research was to investigate changes and developments associated with airport security systems after 9/11, and the impact of these new security systems on passengers’ satisfaction. The specific question that determined the passenger satisfaction with the services at the airports determined that passenger satisfaction rating with the services at the airport was generally above average.
Since the 9/11 attack, airport screening procedures and processes in the US and in other areas globally have changed over time. However, some other aspects of airport practices and outcomes have been significantly affected. Passenger satisfaction and customer service, for instance, have become areas of key concerns for all stakeholders. Long queues and waiting times have been major sources of concerns where passenger satisfaction is involved. The finding of this study showed that majorities of the passengers did not have any issues with long queues and waiting times during passenger screening, implying that passenger safety was of utmost important to many passengers. This finding reflects previous results by other studies. For instance, a study by Gkritza, Niemeier and Mannering (2006), showed that passengers were willing to tolerate the wait for airport security screening, particularly if interruptions were regular among airports and at various periods of day. The increased rate in passenger delay has attracted attention of all stakeholders. The TSA, for instance, launched a program to facilitate changes in airline passenger screening particularly targeted at reducing screening time at the airport security checkpoints. The program involved the use of registered passengers and biometrics to facilitate screening processes. Certainly, the appreciation of the fact that passengers require swift processes for enhanced customer services by lessening security screening associated delays is now increasingly a critical issue in the aviation industry as commercial airlines struggle with additional costs related to operations (Gkritza, Niemeier & Mannering 2006). Further, Price and Forest (2012) reveals that most passengers were willing to forego other activities by arriving early for their flight just to ensure their security.
Contrary to popular belief, long queues and waiting times associated with screening did not contribute to dissatisfaction among many passengers. In fact, about 30% of the passengers notably lose confidence in an airline if it does not spend more time screening the passengers in front of them at the security check queues, according to findings by this study. Additionally, some passengers showed that spending more time at security checkpoints did not necessarily translate to higher confidence among passengers. While passengers value their time and it was extremely important, the study showed that it was not the only critical element that influenced how effectively airline passengers endure airport securing screening processes (Gkritza, Niemeier & Mannering 2006). Many other factors, such as how baggage, searches are conducted and professionalism of staff among others, affect customer satisfaction (Oflac & Yumurtaci 2014). As process screening changes, customer satisfaction is most likely to change, demonstrating that determinants of passenger satisfaction also change to reflect new realities. This finding demonstrates that further improvements in airport screening processes should focus on major factors that influence passenger satisfaction, and how such factors may change across time, rather concentrating exclusively on reducing long queues and waiting time. Still, changes in airport screening process must be set with regards to developing traveler tastes and desires, and the probability that they will be pleased with screening techniques. Comprehending the dynamics of traveler satisfaction is basic since a definitive achievement of new screening methods (based on customer service point of view) and the fiscal sustainability of the aviation business will be influenced (Gkritza, Niemeier & Mannering 2006).
According to Alards-Tomalin et al. (2014), airport security interventions are classified into two groups, including “standardized screening techniques, which all passengers must undergo (e.g., baggage X-rays, metal detecting scans); and elevated-risk screening (including pat-downs and strip searches) for which only a sub-set of passengers are selected” (p. 60). This study sought to determine if any passengers have been victims of unfair treatment at the security airport checkpoints, and 42% claimed that they had been victims. The discourse over privacy issue, which is a constituent of security measures, involving body scans and pat-downs have persisted. It is observed body scanners are less invasive relative to pat downs or X-ray scanner, but they still reveal intimate details about passengers and airport security staff can observe them. While this study did not specifically ask about forms victimization experienced by passengers, it appears that such invasive techniques could contribute to them. Passengers consider pat down as more intrusive and humiliating. As such, it is most likely to reduce passenger satisfaction with airport service providers and ultimately determine enplanement intentions. In this regard, Alards-Tomalin et al. (2014) point out that security professionalism at the airport is extremely critical, particularly when passengers are subjected humiliating experiences through screening measures. Previous studies show disrespectful treatment toward customers (Alards-Tomalin et al. 2014). However, if passengers perceive the process as justifiable, then they tend to perceive the procedure as fair. For instance, when passengers are randomly picked for further security screening, which is seen as unfavorable process, the outcome may be perceived as fair if passengers perceive interpersonal treatment as satisfactory (Alards-Tomalin et al. 2014). Thus, perceived safety is important for passenger and leads to satisfaction, but the procedures should be fair. However, high rates of feelings of violation of privacy, humiliation, and any degradation of dignity need further improvements because this study determined that some aspects of security screening require changes at the airport security checkpoints. Higher rates of humiliation that passengers experienced negatively affected perceived safety of at the airports.
Conclusion
Following the 9/11 attacks, airport security screening has experienced multiple changes to protect passengers, airplanes, and other installations. Consequently, TSA and other authorities were instituted to enhance passenger screening standards. While such passenger security screening procedures have resulted in longer queues, waiting time, and other forms of inconvenience, this study determined that passenger satisfaction was beyond average. They were pleased with security measures, new laws, practices, and other forms of screening. However, they were also victims of some of these procedures at the airports. Passenger security was much more important than factors that simply lead to inconvenience. Moreover, passenger security, itself, enhances passenger satisfaction and determines enplanement intentions. When various forms of passenger security screening are studied, it is shown that many other factors are responsible for passenger satisfaction. Hence, security screening procedures, whether elevated or standard, are equally important in improving passenger satisfaction. In this regard, many passengers support current security screening procedures at the airports. This implies that most passengers cannot dismiss personal safety when travelling, and safety is an important factor for consideration when choosing commercial air carriers. Bad experiences, such as being a victim of humiliation, also negatively reduce customer satisfaction. This implies that passenger satisfaction is dynamic and changes based on prevailing practices and staff professionalism.
The results of this study could be applied in improving security procedures and offering methods to improve customers, especially where passengers have been victims during security screening procedures. These new developments are associated with additional cost burden to the airline industry, and most carriers now struggle to realize profits. Low passenger satisfaction may make a section of passengers to opt for alternative modes of transport, thereby denying the airline industry an opportunity for more revenues. As the industry strives to ensure safety of their passengers, they should also invest in processes and procedures that reduce longer queues and waiting times to improve passenger satisfaction. The practices should also be consistent to meet expectations of customers. Airports can facilitate security screening procedures for passengers who have pre-registered, but customer preference is equally important when initiating such projects. For effective improvements, airports should base their efforts on recent data because passenger satisfaction changes based on various experiences, expectations, and expectations are vital in influencing customer satisfaction. For instance, when passengers spend more time on longer queues than their expectations, then they are most likely to be less satisfied.
Future Work
Future works should explore this topic to determine changes in passenger satisfaction using both qualitative and quantitative research methodology. Additionally, further studies should also focus on any new laws and procedures to reduce victimization and their subsequent impacts on passenger satisfaction because satisfaction is based on expectations and experiences.
Reference List
Alards-Tomalin, D, Ansons, LT, Reich, TC, Sakamoto, Y, Davie, R, Leboe-McGowan, JP & Leboe-McGowan, LC 2014, ‘Airport security measures and their influence on enplanement intentions: responses from leisure travelers attending a Canadian University’, Journal of Air Transport Management, vol. 37, pp. 60–68.
Caslione, JA & Thomas, AR 2002, Global manifest destiny: growing your business in a borderless economy, Dearborn Trading Publishing, Chicago.
Gkritza, K, Niemeier, D & Mannering, FL 2006, ‘Airport security screening and changing passenger satisfaction: an exploratory assessment’, Journal of Air Transport Management, vol. 12, no. 5, pp. 213-219.
Hoffman, B & Reinares, F 2014, The evolution of the global terrorist threat: from 9/11 to Osama bin Laden’s death, Columbia University Press, New York.
Johnstone, RW 2006, 9/11 and the future of transportation security, Praeger Security International, Westport.
Lyon, D 2003, Surveillance after September 11, Polity Press, Cambridge.
Miller, D 2002, Terrorism: are we ready?, Nova Science, Huntington.
Oflac, BS & Yumurtaci, IO 2014, ‘Improving passenger satisfaction at airports: an analysis for shortening baggage access time’, Journal of Management, Marketing and Logistics, vol. 1, no. 4, pp. 339-347.
Perkins, RA 2007, ‘Using Rogersʼ Theory of Perceived Attributes as a framework for understanding the challenges of adoption of open educational resources’, International Journal of Humanities and Social Science, vol. 1, no. 18, pp. 59-66.
Flight cancellations, lengthy lines, piles of misplaced baggage, and strike threats have frequently plagued the airport that boldly announced development plans and charged its patrons a steep premium. Operational inconsistencies like this are referred to as disruptions (Alderighi and Gaggero, 2018). In one of the biggest airports in the United Kingdom, Heathrow Airport, there has been a persistent problem with luggage delays and a staffing deficit (Efthymiou et al., 2019). As the airport grappled with delayed planes and a lack of baggage handlers, reports and images of travelers standing in line for hours appeared (Akhtar, 2022). The company currently suffers from understaffing problems in the baggage department, which resulted in operational problems like prolonged check-in lines, security concerns, problems with baggage claims, and IT problems that cause aircraft delays and flight cancellations.
In the case of Heathrow, there was a failure to provide efficient services, which can be explained by queuing theory. The arrival time, service and departure processes, the waiting regulation, the lineup size, and the customers being serviced are the six components that make up a line as it is studied employing queuing theory (Gelhausen et al., 2019). According to such theory, it can be claimed that Heathrow was unable to predict the queuing size and available staff members effectively.
Moreover, aside from queuing theory, airports must adhere to the Aircraft Recovery Problem (ARP), which helps navigate crises. The airline must intervene to fix scheduled flights, airplane timetables, crew timelines, and customer routes to lessen the impact of these interruptions (Hassan et al., 2021). However, the central dilemma of Heathrow was in labor relations and recruiting, which pushed the system to its crisis level (Başpınar et al., 2023). Now, due to such inefficiency and the following cancellations and service charges, Heathrow Airport is experiencing due to all operational issues.
Measures of Heathrow Airport
At the moment, Heathrow Airport strives to implement several changes to ensure smooth operations. British Airways put a two-week hold on selling short-haul flights out of the airport (Strauss and Georgiadis, 2022). Moreover, to limit additional travel inconvenience, the airport took the extraordinary step of capping the number of flights per day until September (Strauss and Georgiadis, 2022). Although the airport claimed to be protecting vacations, there was an intense backlash. Therefore, such measures were not successful since, while benefiting some, they did more harm to others.
Another measure, which is among the company’s main initiatives, involves automation and the incorporation of technologies. However, their report claims that changes will be implemented fully only by 2040 (Heathrow, 2022-b). In addition to highlighting the need for reform, the existing issues of personnel shortages, lengthy lines, delays, and disgruntled passengers additionally provide the potential for automation (McKinsey and Company, 2022). Despite having a staffing shortage, airports and airlines may take advantage of this situation to automate and digitize (Sun et al., 2020; Drljača et al., 2020). Future systems will respond automatically, with minimal human involvement and no delays, to problems including congestion or late passengers (Kazda et al., 2022). With the optimistic goal of allowing passengers to go to and from the plane in minutes without conventional check-in queues, the neighboring Terminal 2 is Heathrow’s most contemporary development. However, even though passengers had checked in online, they still needed to stand in the long United Airlines line to get through US security (The Guardian, 2022). Improved predictability and passenger experiences will result from this intuitive and human-like computer vision.
Lastly, Heathrow strives to recruit more personnel and open new spaces to reduce congestion. The company began recruiting in November last year to prepare for capacity recovery for the summer months (Heathrow, 2022-a). To expand the customer service staff and provide customers with more room, the corporation reopened Terminal 4 and transferred 25 airlines there (Heathrow, 2022-a). Therefore, out of the changes that can be seen immediately, so far, this one is the most effective.
Human Resource Issues
Finally, regarding the human resource issues in British Airways, human capital theory can be first reviewed to understand how HR should work. When used in the context of organizations, the human capital theory contends that employees who receive proper training and development will become more productive (Bratton et al., 2021). Moreover, they will have a better skill level than those who do not and may justify a pay raise (Lanza and Simone, 2020). However, in the case of British Airways, there are significant issues that impede proper training, recruiting, and retaining of staff.
The first issue is that British Airways fails to recruit needed staff quickly. During a legislative inquiry on the travel disruption, the company said over 3,000 potential hires are waiting on background checks that could take a minimum of four months (Ryan, 2022). The second issue is poor training, which leads to poor performance at Heathrow Airport. A potential employee has criticized British Airways over accusations that they went to the UK to work as a flight crew only to have their training delayed by months, the day before the scheduled launch date (Boyd, 2023). Thus, British Airways fail to ensure efficient approaches to recruiting, training, and retaining its team members.
Conclusion
Overall, considering the queuing theory Heathrow was unable to accurately forecast the size of the line and the staffing levels. The company’s check-in and check-out procedures are being automated and digitalized as one of its primary efforts. Future technologies will react automatically to issues like traffic or late passengers, with little to no human intervention and no delays. According to the human capital idea, people who obtain the right training and development will produce more. However, significant problems with British Airways prevent the appropriate hiring, training, and retention of employees.
Gelhausen, M. C., Berster, P., and Wilken, D. (2019) Airport capacity constraints and strategies for mitigation: A global perspective. U.K.: Elsevier Science.
Managing an airport is technical as it comprises of a massive variety of systems, rules and regulations, workers, facilities, and users. Operations are usually intricate, finely-tuned balance between demand and volume, customer experience and the service cost, and the anticipated and the unexpected. The success of an airport is defined by its capacity to be the place where cargos and commuters travel to and from other airstrips. Many difficulties encountered in planning are caused by the size and diversity, and through controlled by laws, every airport has its specific issues as each is an independent decision maker. This paper discusses the issues of airport capacity and delay and the related causes.
Airport Capacity and Delay
Delay is a key concern of airport operators and users associated with flights operating out of schedules due to prolonged aircraft queues before landing or take-off. The delays usually culminate in augmented costs of operations and wastage of passengers’’ time. Lack of capacity is a term commonly used to refer to the cause of the airport delay (Santos et al., 2017). It implies that facilities such as taxiways, runways and gates are insufficient and cannot accommodate the passengers at the peak of demand.
Practically, a flight is said to have delayed if it departures or arrives fifteen minutes past the scheduled time. For instance, according to Santos et al. (2017), in the year 2015, about 17.5% of the scheduled flights in the United States had delays, and about 21.0% experienced the same in the European market. This translates into over 2800 daily delayed U.S flights and 6000 flights in Europe (Santos et al., 2017). Therefore, there has been adrift in the literature of airline disruption management to try and assimilate the management of several resources including the passengers, crew, and the aircraft. Though the task itself is challenging, the main objective is to minimize the operational costs, recovery cost due to disruption, and reduction of passenger delays (Sternberg et al., 2017). Essentially, flight cancelling, re-timing, swapping, and making requests for the usage of surplus ferrying may serve well to deter aircraft delays.
Factors Affecting Capacity and Delay
An airport capacity is not constant with time, but varies considerably through the year or day due to related operational and physical factors. Airspace and airfield geometry, weather, air traffic procedures, and traffic mix are some of the factors causing the capacity variance (Petersen, 2018). A figure allocated to the airfield capacity represents an average which is either based on experience of operating or a presumed array of conditions. The variability is more detrimental to the operation as compared to the average value (Petersen, 2018). The strategies for a successful management may include developing ways of compensating for the factors which prompt delay, or focusing on lowering the capacity.
Airfield Characteristics
The layout, along with the physical characteristics of taxiways, run-ways, and aprons greatly determine the capability of accommodating various aircrafts and the rates they can handle. The problem of delay prediction is treated from different views, including delay propagation, cancellation, and root delay (Sternberg et al., 2017). The equipment type installed is also a determinant, though the capacity remains constant for a given alignment of taxiways and runways which are in use.
Airspace Characteristics
Relative to the nearby airfields, features, and natural obstacles, the condition of an airport influences the pathways through the flight exclusion zone considered for use to and from the airstrip. The geometry of the airspace is constant over time, but whenever the airstrips are two or more in close vicinity, operations in one can considerably interfere with those in the other. The rate of acceptance of either of the airstrips may suffer or may require an aeroplane to fly circuitous routes to prevent conflict (Petersen, 2018). The interdependence of departure and approach routes can push one airport to hold departures till arrivals in the nearby aircraft clear the airspace.
Air Traffic Control (ATC)
Flight safety is assured by the rules of air traffic control, and they are the main determinants of airport delay and capacity. The procedures which govern runway occupancy, use of converging or parallel runways, aircraft separation, and departures and arrival spacing can induce delays between subsequent operations. ATC rules impact capacity and delay, especially in cases where there is simultaneous use of two or more runways, or when arrival streams combine on a final approach pathway (Petersen, 2018). An example is the procedure on noise-abatement which affects delay, as it is a kind of restriction on airstrips over areas said to be noise sensitive.
Meteorological Conditions
During clear weather, airport capacity is highest because visibility is at its finest. However, extremes of weather such as strong winds, fog, precipitation, and snow accumulation on the runway reduce the capacity (Rodríguez-Sanz et al., 2021). A common incident such as wind shift disrupts operations, but traffic is redirected to another pattern. In case the new pattern is not optimal, capacity decreases as much as the wind prevails. Indeed, the combined influence of runway configuration, weather, and ATC rules causes severe capacity loss and delays in many airports.
Conclusion
Airport delay is epitomised by the difference between scheduled arrival and departure times and is caused by lack of capacity. Apart from increasing operational costs, flight delays hurt airlines, passengers, and the management airports as well. It is important to predict the occurrence in the decision making process and consider the factors that induce the delay. In any case, airports are a part of a country’s system and economy and must therefore operate successfully.
Rodríguez-Sanz, Á., Cano, J., & Fernández, B. R. (2021). Impact of Weather Conditions on Airport Arrival Delay and Throughput. In IOP Conference Series: Materials Science and Engineering (Vol. 1024, No. 1, p. 012107). IOP Publishing.
Santos, B. F., Wormer, M. M., Achola, T. A., & Curran, R. (2017). Airline delay management problem with airport capacity constraints and priority decisions. Journal of Air Transport Management, 63, 34-44.
Airport operations encompass all the processes that are part of an airport’s service. These processes include governance, licensing, and resolving legal issues, air and ground traffic control, maintenance, ground handling, and security. As an airport is a complex system of multiple interdependent elements, managing all of these elements is a challenging task. Although multiple standards and regulations exist that govern various aspects of an airport’s function, each facility is designed independently, causing different approaches to meeting these standards. Furthermore, airports remain in function for decades, often being designed before new standards are enacted and receiving modifications for which they were not originally designed. Because of this, each airport is a unique system, the operation of which requires specialized knowledge and understanding of not only the general standards but the particular airport’s specifics.
As entities that operate in a tightly regulated international space, airports are subject to heavy standardization. Furthermore, operation processes are usually carried out by several independent entities. Thus, the organization and licensing of these groups encompass a significant portion of an airport’s operation. Air traffic control is necessary to ensure that aircraft movement is safe and quick; ground traffic follows the same goals for landed aircraft and ground vehicles. Ground handling encompasses towing, maintaining, refueling, loading and unloading, transporting passengers and luggage to and from the terminal, and other services necessary for the operation of an aircraft. Finally, due to the potentially disastrous consequences of an emergency situation at an airport or in-flight aircraft, maintaining safety and security at every part of the airport operation is crucial. As each of these parts can be performed by a different entity or entities, managing their cooperation and interaction is a complex, but necessary task.
Although international security standards exist, their implementation is not always consistent or even technically possible, particularly in smaller airports. Furthermore, because of different airports’ unique designs, the specific implementation of a security system will differ between them. However, the ultimate goal of prevent dangerous materials or terrorists from entering an airport’s premises or aircraft. To this end, security measures are often designed specifically for a particular airport, taking into account its scope of operation, nature and frequency of operation, and other factors.
Considering the significant number of employees in an airport, and the importance of areas restricted for security reasons, staff identification is a crucial part of an airport’s landside security. Most often, it is achieved by a system that utilizes magnetic or chip cards that allow employees to enter restricted areas (Kazda & Caves, 2015). Such a system also allows maintaining records of authorized employee movement through the facility by logging his or her use of the card (Kazda & Caves, 2015). However, each authorized person is a potential point of a security breach due to the possibility of losing the card or having it stolen. Thus, maintaining such a system is a significant challenge for ground handling personnel. Although personnel identification systems can be enhanced with additional measures, including biometric devices, this increases the complexity and costs associated with maintaining the system (Kazda & Caves, 2015). Ultimately, however, the most significant challenge faced by airport security is the potential severity of the consequences of security failure. Because of this, there is no margin of error for security measures; every aspect of a facility’s security system should be as resilient to errors as possible. Thus, adapting to new threats and changing security regulations and guidelines is a complex, challenging task.
Government oversight on air cargo security
To ensure the safety and security of air transport, including air cargo, international standards have been drafted. Most of these standards are enforced by the International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO); they must be unconditionally followed to ensure international air navigation security (Kazda & Caves, 2015). Furthermore, acceptance of ICAO recommendations is considered to be desirable (Kazda & Caves, 2015). These form the basis of government oversight on air cargo security.
After the September, 11, 2001 terrorist attacks, the threat of subsequent attacks on or using aircraft has become a matter of national security. The government oversight on air transport, and specifically air cargo security has increased. The U.S. enforces additional legislation intended to improve air cargo security. These measures primarily target two threats: “in-flight detonation of explosives concealed in an air cargo shipment and the hijacking of a large all-cargo aircraft” (Elias, 2018, para. 1). To combat these threats, the Transportation Security Administration (TSA) worked together with ICAO to improve existing worldwide standards regarding screening of cargo and the standardization of screening equipment (Elias, 2018). Nonetheless, as total cargo screening is considered unrealistic or impossible, risk-based evaluations of shipments are being used.
Risk-based programs include the known shipper program and certified cargo screening program. Under the former, an industry-wide database is maintained, containing shippers that are approved for shipping cargo aboard passenger aircraft; other shippers cannot be placed on such aircraft, including inbound international flights (Elias, 2018). The latter program aims to minimize logistical complexities related to screening air cargo at off-airport locations before it is loaded onto aircraft (Elias, 2018). Together, these two programs are aimed at optimizing the screening of cargoes to improve air security while also reducing the amount of unnecessary work.
Economic impact
Air transportation in general significantly contributes directly and indirectly to the economy. The direct contribution is enabled by the substantial amount of jobs that airports can create in the local area, whereas the indirect contribution is achieved through enabling other industries, such as tourism (Dimitrios & Maria, 2018). These contributions are particularly high in regions where the tourism industry is prominent. Furthermore, as evidenced by research in Greece, the air transportation industry is economically resilient, sustaining limited losses in income and employment growth even during economic downturns (Dimitrios & Maria, 2018). In the U.S., airports also represent a significant portion of the national economy. Commercial airports are estimated to directly create 1.2 million jobs, with an overall direct economic output of $277 billion (Airports Council International [ACI], 2018). Indirectly, a total output of $1.4 trillion constitutes a significant portion of the nation’s GDP (ACI, 2018). Thus, airports create a significant economic impact on local and national scales.
By facilitating quick transportation of passengers and cargoes, airports enable other industries to thrive. In addition to bringing in visitors who contribute to the local economy, airports also attract businesses that operate within their grounds, such as car rentals or restaurants. They can also be crucial contributor to local businesses; for example, the Aransas County Airport in Texas is critical for transporting oil workers to and from oil platforms (Texas Department of Transportation, 2018). Ultimately, an airport is a significant economic factor that encourages the growth of local businesses while also attracting new players to the economy, as well as creating substantial amounts of jobs. This bolsters competition and creates a major positive influence on the local economy.
Airport security and its challenges
Airport security concerns all unlawful acts on an airport’s grounds, their detection, prevention, and resolution. The perpetrators of such acts can range from international terrorists to disruptive passengers (Kazda & Caves, 2015). Airport security measures are aimed at mitigating the potentially significant threat of unlawful acts aboard aircraft in flight. To that end, significant limitations on the luggage passengers are allowed to take with them, particularly liquids, aerosols, and directly dangerous items such as weapons. However, such serious threats are rare, with the majority of incidents related to unruly and disruptive passengers (Kazda & Caves, 2015). Thus, maintaining airport security requires a balance of measures intended to protect passengers from ill-intentioned individuals hiding among them.
An airport’s space can be designed to facilitate security by following certain principles. Surveillance, a critical part of security, can be easily achieved in a large, open interior space; however, the same spaces can cause discomfort for passengers (Kazda & Caves, 2015). High passenger density can have a similar negative effect; therefore, ensuring a balance between ease of surveillance and passenger comfort is a major step during an airport’s initial design (Kazda & Caves, 2015). Complicating matters further, old airports were designed and built before modern security regulations went into effect or measures became available (Kazda & Caves, 2015). Furthermore, new measures can become available in the future, or new regulations can be legislated to address emerging threats (Kazda & Caves, 2015). This ongoing process of adapting an existing airport to new circumstances is a critical part of ensuring that an airport remains safe secure as time goes on.
Considering the high potential danger of security breaches at an airport and the high likelihood of international involvement in such incidents, individual states can impose and implement regulations concerning airport security. They can implement more or less stringent security requirements based on a risk assessment, while remaining within the ICAO regulations (Kazda & Caves, 2015). Thus, receiving an airport identificantion card requires a 5-year background check in EU countries, whereas some countries extend this check to a 20-year period (Kazda & Caves, 2015). State security regulations can also concern passengers and cargoes; therefore, it is crucial to be aware of such regulations that apply to both sides of an interstate or international flight.
Since a security breach at an airport generally constitutes a criminal act, airport security must work closely with local law enforcement to ensure protection. This means that a specialized force dedicated to airport security can be drafted from, or provided by, the local police. Occasionally, local military or paramilitary forces may be employed in this capacity. In any case, an airport’s security must comply with the local law enforcement regulations.
Cargo operations
A significant amount of cargo is transported by aircraft today. While mail is the most notable type of cargo, both currently and historically, air freight is not limited to it. 60% of freight is carried by passenger aircraft in specialized compartments (Kazda & Caves, 2015). Importantly, cargo flow can be asymmetrical, that is, demand and rates can be significantly higher in one direction than the opposite (Kazda & Caves, 2015). Therefore, an aircraft can arrive at an airport carrying cargo, but leave with passengers. Some are specifically designed to be quickly convertible by removing passenger seats to increase their freight capacity (Kazda & Caves, 2015). Furthermore, significant competition exists between airports for cargo flights, particularly in Europe (Kupfer, et al., 2016). Because of this, transporting and handling cargo is a significant part of airport operations.
In an airport terminal, cargo is taken through several operations. It arrives by one mode of transport, often trucks, and then has to be sorted, packaged, loaded into aircraft, and, possibly, stored (Kazda & Caves, 2015). A similar process is required to handle cargo arriving by plane. During these processes, documentation, such as submission, completion, and transmission, is crucial (Kazda & Caves, 2015). Importantly, significant portions of the cargo handling process are entirely manual, necessitating special consideration in designing and managing this part of an airport’s operation (Kazda & Caves, 2015). Considering the potential threats during cargo handling, security is another significant concern in cargo operations. Specific elements of a cargo security system include CCTV systems, access control for visitors and staff, employee background checks, and systems which can detect dangerous or illicit cargo, such as explosives (Kazda & Caves, 2015). Thus, a well-operated cargo operation system is expedient, reliable, and secure.
Impact of air cargo disruptions on the supply chain
Some industries rely on fast transportation and delivery of relatively small volumes of goods in their operation. For these industries, choosing to transport their goods by aircraft is an obvious solution. However, this reliance creates a dependency for such businesses where disruptions affecting the air transport can cause a significant detrimental effect further along the supply line. Industries that heavily rely on air transport include the flower trade, mail, clothing and fashion industry, and high-value personal electronics, such as smartphones. Flowers in particular are a highly perishable good, and even slight delays in delivery can lead to the shipment being spoiled, thus incurring significant losses at every link in the supply chain. Manufacturers of personal electronics, similarly, derive a substantial portion of their profits from first-day sales. For them, a late delivery can translate to significant lost sales, as well as reputation damage due to the inability to deliver their product on time. This sector in particular uses aircraft to transport components used for the manufacture of its finished product. Therefore, a disruption at one point in the supply chain is likely to cause a chain reaction that incurs heavy losses.
In addition to commercial freight, air cargo is an important contributor to medicine and emergency services. Such cargoes include various precision medical devices, as well as pharmaceuticals and vaccines. These cargoes are both urgent and highly perishable, potentially costing human lives in case of a failed or late delivery. They also have a significant value to weight ratio, thus, suggesting heavy financial losses, as well. Ultimately, using air transport for cargo is an increasingly popular strategy, particularly in some emerging markets. Due to the high value to weight ratios, perishability, and need to quickly respond to consumer demand associated with the cargoes generally transported by air, disruptions in transport service can cause a substantial negative impact.
References
Airports Council International. (2018). Taking America Beyond the Horizon: The Economic Impact of U.S. Commercial Airports in 2017. Web.
Dimitrios, D., & Maria, S. (2018). Assessing air transport socio-economic footprint. International Journal of Transportation Science and Technology, 7(4), 283-290. Web.
Elias, B. (2018). Security of Air Cargo Shipments, Operations, and Facilities. Web.
Kazda, A., & Caves, R. E. (2015). Airport Design and Operation (3rd ed.). Emerald Group.
Kupfer, F., Kessels, R., Goos, P., Van de Voorde, E., & Verhetsel, A. (2016). The origin-destination airport choice for all-cargo aircraft operations in Europe. Transportation Research Part E: Logistics and Transportation Review, 87, 53-74.
Texas Department of Transportation. (2018). Texas Aviation Economic Impact Study. Web.
In order to ensure safe landing and taking off of aircrafts, airports provide visual aids. These aids provide guidance to the pilot on the runway or taxiway. Airport aids include runway and taxiway markings and signs, navigation aids, edge lighting and runway light landing aids.
Runway markings, signs and lighting are important in enabling the airplane to navigate the surface and avoid incursions on the runway. They help the pilot in knowing his location on the runway or taxiway. These markings and signs provide useful information to a pilot when landing, taking off or taxiing. This paper explores the importance of these aids and the role of the airport manager in maintaining them in good condition.
Runway and Taxiway Markings
There are various types of airport markings. These include runway markings, taxiway markings, holding position markings, among others. Runway markings are white while those in taxiways are yellow (Horonjeff, McKelvey and Sproule, 2010).
Runway Markings
There are three types of runways namely precision instrument runway, non-precision instrument runway and visual runway. These runway types have various marking elements which include runway designation, threshold markers, side stripes, centerline, touchdown zone and runway aiming point markings (Ashford, Mumayiz and Wright, 2011).
Runway designation markings are letters which differentiate right, left or center parallel runways. These letters are determined from the direction of approach. “L” “C” “R” is used to designate three parallel runways and two parallel runways are designated by “L” “R”. Runway centerline markings are used to identify the runway center in order to enable aircrafts to be properly guided into alignment when landing and taking off.
The centerline marking is a straight line with regularly spaced gaps and stripes. Runway aiming point marking provides a landing aircraft with a visual aiming point. These markings are two white rectangular stripes on each side of the runway centerline marking. They are positioned 1,000 feet away from the landing threshold (Steon, 2002).
The runway touchdown zone markings help the pilot to identify the landing touchdown zone. These markings are coded and provide information after every 500 feet. These markings are rectangular stripes that are grouped in ones, twos and threes and arranged about the runway centerline markings in pairs.
Runway side stripe markings are two white stripes on each side of the runway to identify the runway edges. This helps the pilot to see the edges of the runway and distinguish it from the surrounding areas. Runway shoulder markings are yellow stripes used to highlight the pavement areas that are next to the runway and are not supposed to be used by aircrafts (Horonjeff, McKelvey and Sproule, 2010).
The runway threshold markings are used by the pilot to identify where the runway available for landing begins. These markings can either be a pair of four lines on each side of the runway centerline, or the number of lines can depend on the runway width.
A runway demarcation bar is a three-feet wide yellow bar used to demarcate a runway with a threshold from a stop-way, taxiway or blast pad that precede the runway. This marking is located outside the runway. A runway threshold bar is a 10 feet wide marking used to demarcate the beginning of the available runway for landing in the event that the threshold has been displaced or relocated (Stanton, Ashford and Moore, 1998).
Taxiway Markings
Whenever they intersect a runway, taxiways should have runway holding position markings and centerline markings. Taxiways have edge markings, holding position markings, shoulder markings and taxiway intersection markings. The taxiway centerline can either be normal or enhanced.
Normal Taxiway centerlines are single yellow continuous lines with a width of between six to twelve inches. During taxiing, aircrafts are supposed to be centered over this line. Enhanced taxiway centerlines found in larger airports are positioned on either side of a normal taxiway centerline as lines of yellow dashes.
These enhancements are found 150 feet before a runway holding position marking and their purpose is to alert the pilot that he/she is near a runway holding position marking and should therefore start preparing to stop if he/she is not cleared to enter across or onto the runway (Steon, 2002).
Taxiway edge markings identify the edges of the taxiway and demarcate it from the other parts of the pavement. Continuous double yellow markings are used to identify the taxiway edge and distinguish it from the shoulder or any other part of the pavement not meant to be used by aircrafts.
Dashed double yellow lines are used when it is necessary to demarcate the taxiway edge on a surface where the pavement next to the taxiway is meant to be used by aircrafts. Taxi shoulder markings are yellow markings used to identify shoulders that are used to prevent blast or water erosion. Shoulders are not meant to be used by aircrafts. Surface painted taxiway direction signs are used at intersections to provide taxiway direction signs or to supplement the signs.
These are black inscriptions on a yellow background located next to the centerline indicating turns either to the right or left of the centerline. Surface painted location signs are used to supplement location signs and consist of a yellow inscription on a black background. These markings are positioned on the right side of the centerline and are used to confirm to the pilot the description of the taxiway on which the aircraft is located (Ashford, Mumayiz and Wright, 2011).
Geographic position markings are used during low visibility operations to help the pilot to identify the location of the taxiing aircraft. Low visibility operations occur when the runway visible range is less than 1200 feet. These marks are found on the left of the taxiway centerline. These markings comprise of a pink inner circle followed by a white ring and a black outer ring (Stanton, Ashford and Moore, 1998).
Holding Position Markings
These are markings on the runway which show where an aircraft is supposed to stop. These markings can be found on runways and taxiways and consist of two dashed and two solid yellow lines that cut across the runway width. They are spaced by between six to twelve inches. Runway holding position markings on taxiways indicate where an aircraft is supposed to stop on the taxiway if there is no clearance to enter the runway (Stanton, Ashford and Moore, 1998).
There are also holding position markings for taxiway intersections which consist of one dashed line running across the taxiway width. They are used to hold aircrafts short of taxiway intersections. Surface painted holding position signs are inscribed in red on a white background and are used to supplement the signs at the holding position (Stanton, Ashford and Moore, 1998).
Runway Signs
These signs emphasize the markings on the pavement and show directions of various locations in the airport. The signs have standard color, shapes and meaning but have varied uses. The number of signs varies depending on the size of the airport, with the larger ones having more.
Airport signs will usually be positioned next to the taxiway, runway or ramp area, while the airport markings will be found painted on the pavement. There are various types of airport signs found in the airport. These include the location signs, mandatory instruction signs, direction signs, information sings, destination signs, and runway distance remaining signs (Steon, 2002).
The mandatory instruction signs are written in white on a red background and notify the pilot when entering a critical area, a runway or a prohibited area. These include the No Entry signs and the runway holding position signs. The runway holding position signs are found at the holding position on taxiways intersecting with runways.
They are marked with numbers signifying the direction of runways. For instance, “36-18” means that the departure end of runway 36 is to the left while that of runway 18 is to the right. Aircrafts are not supposed to cross the Holding Position markings until they get clearance. The holding position signs enable the pilot to know the position of the Holding Position Marking.
The No Entry sig n is used to prevent aircrafts from entering some areas, like on a one-direction taxiway or where taxiways or runways intersect with roadways or at points where it is hard to distinguish between taxiways and roadways (Ashford, Mumayiz and Wright, 2011).
Location signs are used in the identification of taxiway and runway locations. The background of the signs is black, written in yellow and with a yellow border. There are no arrows in these signs. The inscription on signs identifying runways is written in numbers while that identifying taxiways is in letters. Taxiway location signs can be combined with runway Holding Position signs, for instance, “T 36-18”. Direction signs are written in black on a yellow background.
They notify the pilot about the intersecting taxiways that lead out of an intersecting runway. These signs have arrows which point towards the direction of the intersecting taxiway. The background of destination signs is yellow with arrows and a black writing. These signs help the pilot to locate things like runways, fuel, parking, ramps, among others (Steon, 2002).
Runway distance remaining signs have white numbers written on a black background. The numbers on the signs signify remaining distance on the runway in thousands of feet. For instance, a sign reading 4 means that there are 4,000 remaining feet on the runway. Runway boundary signs help the pilot to know when the aircraft is leaving the runway safety area and is out of the runway. These signs have a black writing on a yellow background.
They also have a graphic signifying the Holding Position Marking. The pilot can see the sign as he exits the runway. These signs are positioned next to the Holding Position Marking. There are also other information signs which give certain information to the pilot on things such as procedure for reducing noise and the radio frequencies that are applicable. These signs vary in location and size depending on the airport operator (Stanton, Ashford and Moore, 1998).
Lighting
Lighting is very important in guiding aircrafts through runways and taxiways at night or when there is fog or rain. There are green runway threshold lights signifying the beginning of the runway and red runway end lights indicating the end. There are also runway edge lighting which comprise of white lights on both edges of the runway. These indicate the runway edges. Some runways also have lights along the runway centerline to identify the centerline. Others have lights indicating the approach (Stanton, Ashford and Moore, 1998).
Touchdown zone lighting is used to enhance identification of the touchdown zone in low visibility conditions. Caution zone lighting is used on runways that do not have centerline lighting to provide the pilot with a visual alert of the approaching runway end. Taxiways have blue lights indicating the edges of the taxiway and green lights highlighting the centerline. Taxiway turnoff lights enable the pilot to turn off runways (Ashford, Mumayiz and Wright, 2011).
Navigational Aids
There are other aids used to enable pilots to land safely. Visual approach slope indicators help the pilots in flying the approach for landing. VHF Omni-directional range enables the pilots in determining the direction of the airport. There is also distance measuring equipment used to determine the distance to the airport.
An instrument landing system is used by pilots in poor weather to find the runway and land safely since they cannot see the ground. Precision approach radar is used to notify the pilot of his position relative to the approach slope (Horonjeff, McKelvey and Sproule, 2010).
Maintenance and Upkeep of Airport Landing Aids
The airport manager is in charge of managing the overall coordination, direction and evaluation of the airport operations. In order to prevent any incursions, the airport manager must ensure that the landing aids are maintained in good condition.
The airport manager should ensure that the runway markings and signs are not confusing or deteriorating. Airport diagrams and signs should also be accurate. The manager also ensures that the airport lighting is in operation and has the right intensity. Poorly illuminated areas should be corrected immediately (Wells and Young, 2004).
The airport manager should ensure that all the landing aids are functioning and if they are not, he/she is supposed to take the necessary actions to make them functional. He/she ensures that all the markings and signs are inspected and repaired if they are not in good condition. The manager should also ensure that there are appropriate signs and markings at confusing intersections. Missing or rubbed out markings and signs should be replaced immediately.
He/she must ensure that closed runways or taxiways are marked clearly. The manager also ensures that he /she is in constant communication with the co-workers, pilots, and other workers so that he can be aware of any problems with the landing aids. The manager should ensure that all the navigation aids like the precision approach radar and visual approach slope indicator are functional (Wells and Young, 2004).
The airport manager formulates policies and procedures to ensure that all the runway and taxiway aids are in good condition. He/she ensures that these aids comply with the State and local laws, and in accordance with the Federal Aviation Administration (Wells and Young, 2004).
Conclusion
In order to ensure safe landing and taking off without any incursions, all airports must have landing aids. These include various markings and signs that direct the pilot on the runway and taxiway. Lighting also helps the pilots to be able to see the runway clearly especially at night and during bad weather conditions.
There are also other navigation aids which give the pilot specific runway information. The airport manager should ensure that all the necessary landing aids are available on the runway and taxiways and that they are in a good condition and unambiguous. He/she should ensure that the runway/taxiway lighting is in good condition. This will ensure that all airport incursions are avoided.
Reference List
Ashford, N. J., Mumayiz, S. and Wright, P.H. (2011). Airport engineering: Planning, design and Development of 21st century airports. USA: John Wiley and Sons.
Horonjeff, R., McKelvey, F. and Sproule, W. (2010). Planning and Design of Airports. USA: McGraw-Hill.
Stanton, M., Ashford, N. and Moore, C.A. (1998). Airport operations. USA: McGraw-Hill Professional.
Steon, H. (2002). Runways and taxiways. Web.
Wells, A. T. and Young, S. B. (2004). Airport planning & management. USA: McGraw-Hill.
An airport is presumed as an aerodrome facilitated for commercial air transportation. Air transport has been thought of as a public utility with little ability to make considerate market opportunities. However, the business has faced a transition from government ownership to privatization, leading to stiff competition among the various stakeholders in the industry. Intensification of the airport advertisement is vital in keeping the business thriving despite the competition encountered. Making advertisements for the airport informs and attracts customers to the facility, making the airport profitable (Romanova & Smirnova, 2019). Moreover, asking the customers to provide the advert with a direct rating ensures an evaluation of its effectiveness by giving the customer impression.
The sponsor’s principal role is to provide funding and resources for the airport’s operations and decision-making on the quality of its services. An influential supporter plays the role of mentorship, providing support and encouragement to the airport staff. Sponsorship is beneficial as it improves the airport’s efficiency and effectiveness of its operation. Moreover, relationships with external partners are forged for expertise sharing. Funding, however, comes with a share of disadvantages that may affect the airport. There is a risk of controversies whereby any ill action done by the sponsor stains the airport’s name. This will cause underwriters to withdraw their support leaving the airport operations in a dilemma.
Public relations keep the prospective clients, airport staff, public, and other stakeholders informed of the airport and its operation. This helps in persuading them to maintain a favorable opinion (Nugraha, 2019). Pittsburg International Airport should build a personal relationship with the media and, consequently, a positive brand image. The company should produce articles that inform the customers about the industry’s services and incentives.
Moreover, social media ought to be utilized as a source of customer feedback, desires, and current threats or competition in the market. This will help in identifying the shortfalls and improving on them to the clients’ satisfaction. It can also serve as a tool for passing information since many people use several social media sites. The business of Pittsburg Airport will flourish through sponsorship and following the mentioned recommendations.
References
Nugraha, W. (2019). Safety documentation: A communication approach for safety management system in aerodrome operator. International Journal of Scientific & Technology Research, 8(11), 1705-1711.
Romanova, I. D., & Smirnova, I. V. (2019). Persuasive techniques in advertising. Training Language and Culture, 3(2), 55-70. Web.
As part of my appointment as Chief Project Manager at Qatar Airlines, I announce the start of a project to build a new international airport in Dubai, United Arab Emirates. The new airport will be situated away from the existing one in the city’s center, on E66 near Dubai Outlet Mall. As part of our project, we plan to create a convenient airport directly linked to the city center. The implementation of the project will take place in several stages, including the construction of the airport building and runways, the organization of internal and external management, and the creation of specialized teams in narrow areas (Koseoglu, Sakin, and Arayic, 2018).
The project management will take place under my supervision and a team of trained specialists from different fields that will regulate the construction and internal organization of the airport. For the project to be completed on time, we will cooperate with the local authorities to achieve the best fit between the idea and the final result.
Project Overview
The airport project consists of several phases involving the construction and equipping of the interior and exterior of the airport, as well as its connection to the city. The project’s primary goal is to build a new airport in Dubai, UAE, located at the intersection of highways E66 and E611, which is best suited for international traffic. The design and construction of the airport will be carried out using modern standards, complying with international and local laws. The project will have plans, allowing timely coordination of each stage.
The project will include the material costs of building the airport: the main terminal, runways and ancillary facilities, adding terminals and ancillary facilities as the project progresses, and installing advanced security systems and other technologies to ensure passenger safety. Costs for other services will be included: provision of a restaurant complex, stores, passenger and staff notification systems, and indoor seating areas. The plan will consider the human resources and time it will take to realize the project thoroughly and include an outlook for future use of the airport.
Project Deliverables
The Dubai New Airport Project results are complex and require careful planning and execution for successful completion. Key project deliverables include designing and constructing all necessary airport facilities, including runways, terminals, control towers, and support buildings (Hargaden et al., 2019). It involves working with architects and engineers to develop airport plans and overseeing the construction process to ensure that all facilities are built to the necessary specifications and standards. Personnel will be hired to provide interior construction and organize the airport’s waiting and rest areas.
Except the physical construction of the airport facilities, the project will include installing all necessary equipment. It includes air traffic control, baggage handling, and other systems necessary for safe and efficient airport operations (Almansoori, Rahman, and Memon, 2021). The project team will work with equipment vendors to procure and install these systems and conduct thorough testing and commissioning to ensure they work correctly before the airport is commissioned. The equipment includes public address systems, smoke detectors, security cameras for significant entrances and exits, electronic signage, and billboards. Passenger communication systems will be installed in the rest areas.
Another significant result of the project is the development of the surrounding infrastructure, including access roads and utility networks. It involves coordination with local authorities and utility providers to ensure that the necessary infrastructure is in place to support the airport. It contains construction of all necessary parking facilities and installing lighting and signage to make the airport easily accessible and navigable for passengers and airport employees. Our goal is to establish connections between the airport and the city so that passengers can quickly get to where they need to go before or after arrival/departure. Our plan includes creating several routes allowing passengers to travel directly to the airport from significant city locations.
Work Breakdown Structure
The work for constructing the new airport will be divided into several major phases, allowing us to quickly and efficiently achieve the above mentioned results. The first phase of the project will be the design and planning phase, during which the layout and design of the airport will be completed and all necessary permits and approvals obtained (Al-Mazrouie et al., 2020). The project’s second phase is the construction phase, during which all airport facilities and infrastructure will be built. It involves coordinating with a team of architects, engineers, and contractors who oversee the construction process and ensure its continuity (Güner and Cebeci, 2021).
The construction phase will include laying the foundation for the internal breakdown of the airport – adjusting the ratio of the interior appearance, and forming each area (rest, waiting, restrooms, and mosque).
The project’s third phase will be the testing and commissioning phase, during which all systems and equipment will be tested and fine-tuned. It will thoroughly test all airport systems, including air traffic control systems, baggage handling systems, and other equipment, to ensure that they work correctly and meet all necessary standards (Koseoglu, Sakin, and Arabic, 2018). The interior set-up will be organized and finished – stores will start operating, and restaurants will be able to form the kitchen and other areas. The fourth and final phase of the project will be the operations phase, during which the airport will be handed over to the airlines.
This phase will include final inspections and evaluations to ensure the airport is ready for operation, as well as training airport personnel in using all systems and equipment. The staff training phase will begin almost from the beginning of construction to ensure that the airport has highly qualified and responsible staff.
Stakeholder Roles and Responsibilities
In terms of stakeholder roles and responsibilities, the project team will oversee the airport’s overall construction. It includes managing the project budget, developing and implementing the project plan, coordinating the efforts of contractors and subcontractors, and ensuring that the project is completed on time and within budget (Chipulu et al., 2019). The project team will liaise with other stakeholders to keep them informed of the project’s progress and address any issues that arise.
Government agencies will play several essential roles in the project. They will provide the necessary approvals and permits and ensure that the airport’s construction complies with all relevant laws and regulations (Almansoori, Rahman, and Memon, 2021). It may include building codes, environmental regulations, and other legal requirements. Government agencies can provide funding for the project and will be involved in overseeing its progress to make sure it is done responsibly and sustainably.
Contractors and subcontractors will be responsible for the actual construction work. It includes excavating and grading the site, laying utilities and infrastructure, and constructing various airport facilities. Residents will be involved in the project, as the new airport construction will likely impact the surrounding area. The project team needs to engage with these communities, listen to their concerns, and address any issues that arise. These could be noise and air pollution, traffic impacts, and others. (Mostafaio and Dulaimi, 2022). The project team must work closely with local authorities and community groups to ensure that construction is done in a way that minimizes any negative impact on the local area. To ensure the success of the airport Project, all of these stakeholders must work together and communicate effectively.
Project Constraints
As with any project activity, there are operations constraints that can affect airport construction’s success and shorten the budget, lengthen the timeline, and reduce the potential payback. Constraints typically include budget constraints, lack of a developed plan for urgency, delays in state and legal approvals of the project, and potential harm from airport operations. More often than not, it is the state of the budget that is the primary source of constraint, as it creates a critical operating framework for projects (Alsulami, 2022).
Concerning the construction of the Dubai airport, the budget could be significantly adjusted due to issues such as lack of approval from the authorities, the need for some equipment and machinery to level the terrain, and weather conditions for construction. An additional category of contingencies will be allocated for the project, reducing the risks.
Timing of the project is necessary to ensure that the project activities are completed on time and that there are no inconsistencies with the documentation and regulations. Completing construction on time is our primary objective, which we will implement through reconciling project plans and consultation with third-party contractors (Cherian, 2020). We believe that using outside personnel to evaluate the plan will allow us to see whether construction can be completed on time. In the context of our task, the overlap with timelines can be due to the coordination of airport-city routes and access roads with city officials, so this is an issue the team will begin to address as early as possible. Regular monitoring and reporting will help manage the work and monitor each step.
Finally, potential environmental impacts could deter the airport project. Airport construction can significantly impact the environment, and the project team needs to consider this (Imran Latif, Al Saadi, and Abdul Rahman, 2019; Petratos, 2020). It may include noise and air pollution, traffic impacts, and other environmental issues. The design team will need to work closely with environmental agencies and other stakeholders to ensure that construction is conducted to minimise any negative environmental impact.
Project Appraisal of the New Airport
The evaluation of a project consists of a thorough review of the potential outcomes of the project. Among the provisions to be included in the evaluation are the location of the airport, internal functionality and travel destinations, the surrounding infrastructure and the services of the airport itself. The location chosen for the airport project is a remote location from the centre of Dubai, located at the intersection of two critical highways.
The location has space and possibilities for implementation, as there is space for preparing access roads and signage (Sharma, 2019). The presence of highways makes it convenient to create routes towards and away from the city. The remoteness of the airport construction area can affect the costs associated with utility bills. This remoteness is offset by the convenience of access roads and connections to parts of the city and the lack of the need for complex schemes to acquire land from communities (Cherian, 2020). The Outlet Mall is nearby, so there is no need to worry about not being able to run any utility lines during construction.
Current air traffic needs are high, and congestion at Dubai’s main downtown airport can be reduced by redistributing the load to the new airport. It will gradually pay for the construction and avoid the absence of airport downtime, as passenger traffic will increase as the city itself grows and the demand for high-quality companies’ services. The new airport will be built by current trends for the cultural environment of Dubai and global trends so that any passenger can feel comfortable despite the presence of remoteness from the city.
Another factor to consider is the financial viability of the new airport will depend on several factors, including the size and design of the airport, its efficiency and the availability of funding (Kumar, 2022; Petratos, 2020). It will be influenced by external factors such as the state of the economy, changes in fuel prices, and competition from other airports. Building a new airport in Dubai is a feasible and potentially successful project based on these considerations.
Other Recommendations and Suggestions
Constructing a new airport in the UAE is feasible, and several other recommendations can improve output quality. It is essential to engage with stakeholders and the local community to understand their concerns and needs and to incorporate these into the design and operation of the new airport. It can include measures to minimize noise and other environmental impacts and initiatives to support the local economy and create jobs. Engaging with stakeholders and the local community can help build project support, which can be critical in obtaining the necessary permits, financing, and approvals.
The project team should carefully plan and coordinate the construction of the new airport to ensure that it is completed on time and within budget. It will require strong project management skills and a focus on efficient and effective construction techniques. Effective project planning involves managing risks, setting clear goals, and monitoring progress to ensure that the project remains on track. It will involve working with the parties involved to ensure that their activities are coordinated and aligned with the project’s overall objectives.
The new airport should be designed with flexibility and adaptability. It means considering future developments in technology and air travel, potential changes and other factors that may affect the airport’s operations. The new airport should be designed to be resilient and withstand potential disruptions such as extreme weather events or other emergencies. This can include measures such as redundant systems, backup generators, and other features that can ensure the airport’s continued operation even in challenging circumstances.
Conclusion
The construction of a new airport in the UAE is a feasible and potentially successful project. By carefully considering the location, demand, and financial viability of the project, and by engaging with stakeholders and the local community, we can ensure that the new airport is a valuable asset for the region. The success of the new airport project will depend on effective planning and coordination. By addressing these key considerations, we can ensure that the new airport is a successful and valuable addition to the UAE’s transportation infrastructure.
Reference List
Almansoori, M.T.S., Rahman, I.A. and Memon, A.H. (2021) ‘Correlation between the management factors affecting PMO implementation in UAE construction’, International Journal of Sustainable Construction Engineering and Technology, 12(3), pp. 155-165.
Al-Mazrouie, J. R. et al. (2020) ‘An operations readiness typology for mitigating against transitional ‘disastrous openings’ of airport infrastructure projects’, Production Planning & Control, 32(4), pp.283-302.
Alsulamy, S. (2022) ‘Investigating critical failure drivers of construction project at planning stage in Saudi Arabia’, Frontiers in Engineering and Built Environment, 2(3), pp. 154-166.
Cherian, A. (2020) ‘The construction industry in the perspective of an economic boost of the United Arab Emirates (UAE)’, International Journal of Engineering and Technology, 7(8), pp. 270-276.
Chipulu, M. et al. (2019) ‘A dimensional analysis of stakeholder assessment of project outcomes.’ Production Planning & Control, 30(13), pp. 1072-1090.
Güner, S., and Cebeci, H. İ. (2021) ‘Output targeting and capacity utilization for a new-built airport: Analysis for the new airport in Istanbul.’ Socio-Economic Planning Sciences, 76, p. 100963.
Hargaden, V. et al. (2019) ‘The role of blockchain technologies in construction engineering project management.’ In 2019 IEEE International Conference on Engineering, Technology and Innovation (ICE/ITMC) (pp. 1-6). IEEE.
Imran Latif, Q. B., Al Saadi, A. M., and Abdul Rahman, I. (2019) ‘Identification of delay factor in Oman construction industry.’ International Journal of Sustainable Construction Engineering Technology, 10(1).
Koseoglu, O., Sakin, M. and Arayici, Y. (2018) ‘Exploring the BIM and lean synergies in the Istanbul Grand Airport construction project.’ Engineering, construction and architectural management, 25(10), pp.1339-1354.
Kumar, B.R. (2022) ‘Case 6: Al Maktoum International Airport’, in Project Finance. Management for Professionals. Springer, Cham , pp. 117-121.
Mostafaio, A. and Dulaimi, M. (2022) ‘Alignment of construction procurement strategies for the effective implementation of BIM in the UAE’, IOP Conference Series: Earth and Environmental Science, 1101.
Petratos, P. (2020) ‘Sustainability and financing project: the UAE paradigm’, Sustainable Development and Social Responsibility. Springer, Cham, pp. 163-170.
Sharma, M. (2019) ‘Inaugurate risks factors in construction projects.’ International Journal for Research in Applied Science and Engineering Technology, 7(12), pp.934-943.
Aviation security has been a big problem in the United States of America. Critics have argued that terrorists have used airports to get into and even move all over the US. This has created various debates on what should be done to ensure more security in airports. This paper looks into the agencies that have to cooperate to ensure safety in the airports. These agencies have been working independently, trying to deal with the issue of insecurity in airports. However, a joint effort is the best option to deal with insecurity in airports. Several challenges that have been faced and can be solved by joining forces have also been discussed.
Introduction
Diplomatic wrangles that have led to acts of terrorism have made airports and port key focus points for terrorists. Due to this, Elias (2009) argues that various agencies have to come together to enhance the security levels in these two mentioned points. This paper will look into the cooperation of various agencies in an attempt to tighten the security in airports and in aviation in general.
Agencies involved in airport security
The airport personnel
The airport personnel is the first agency that has the responsibility to ensure security in the airport. Airport personnel include the security guards that the airport has hired and the staff. Some of the things that the airport personnel does in relation to security include frisking the passengers and anyone else in the airport, checking the luggage, keeping an eye on anyone who is not supposed to be in the airport, keeping an eye on the passengers to reduce conflict, reporting any person who is trying to travel and has been denied access, and arresting and holding anyone who, for obvious reasons, is considered to be a terrorist or a criminal.
The first thing that the airport personnel have to do is to confirm the identity of the passengers. Rodriguez (2008) explains that many criminals have been caught trying to flee using fake passports and other documents. Checking and confirming documents not only highlights terrorists and criminals, but it also highlights illegal immigrants.
Airports have upgraded their technology to make this process easier. Many airports, including the John F. Kennedy, Los Angeles International Airport and O’Hare International Airport, among others, have adopted the biometric technology of identifying their passengers. Biometrics include checking fingerprints, scanning the retina and at times even checking facial patterns to confirm that the individual is who they say they are.
Elias (2009) adds that many airports are also trying to adopt CAPPS II technology. This is the Computer Assisted Passenger Pre-screening System. This technology will require passengers to give detailed information about themselves when they are booking their flights. Currently, identity is confirmed just before the passenger boards the aeroplane.
Government agencies
The government agencies also have a role to play in airport security. Salter (2008) explains that many people do not understand the role of the government in the airports. However, he goes further and explains that the government is responsible for providing the airport personnel with information on possible terrorists and criminals who would try to travel.
Price and Forrest (2012) add that the government has the means and the resources to know possible terrorists and criminals. The pictures and any other needed documents that are used by the airport authority to confirm the identity of the passengers have to come from government agencies.
Stakeholders
The stakeholders are the people who invest or are affected by the business part of the airport. These include the shops, cafeterias, and airlines, among other stakeholders. The stakeholders can provide security by ensuring that they work hand in hand with the airport authority. For example, criminals are known to change money at airports (Rodriguez, 2008). The forex bureau owners have an obligation to report any suspicious individuals to the airport authority. The airport authority will then determine whether the person is a suspect or not.
Passengers
The passengers also have a responsibility and a role to play in security in aviation. The passengers are responsible for reporting other suspicious passengers and working with the airport authority to ensure security. The passengers have to agree to be frisked and their luggage to be checked in the bid to identify criminals.
How cooperation can be fostered
As mentioned, cooperation between all the mentioned agencies has to be fostered to enhance security. Elias (2010) explains that the airport authority needs to cooperate with the government to enhance security because the government agencies are the only agencies that can provide the legal documents of the passengers. Williams (2007) agrees that airports have spent a lot of money on upgrading their technology.
However, the technology only uses databases that the government gives the airport authorities. This is the reason a criminal will be flagged down when they are trying to board a plane. The government agencies usually send a picture and a request for arrest for the criminal in question. The pictures of other criminals are also provided to airport authority from the government bureaus.
An example of a criminal who was arrested due to cooperation between the government agencies and the airport authority is Kevin Brown. Brown, a former veteran who was suspected of having turned a criminal, was caught at Orlando International Airport with luggage that had bomb-making material. This arrest happened in 2008. The airport authorities argued that the passengers were not under any danger as Brown did not assemble the parts together. He appeared to want to travel with the parts. GAO (2009) explains that there have been no big arrests that have made in airports, other than the case of Brown.
It is important to note that the cooperation between the agencies is limiting and this is the reason why more arrests have not been made. Terrorists have entered the United States of America via airports. This clearly states that there is not enough security in aviation.
The relationship and the cooperation between the mentioned agencies can be smoothened by the creation of a team of security personnel that represent the four agencies. Currently, the government agencies have their own personnel, the stakeholders have their own personnel, and the airport authority also has their own security personnel. Creation of a body that works for all the agencies will make work easier for the security personnel in general.
It is also important to mention that the cooperation can be made almost perfect through an agreement on rules and guidelines for the newly formed security force. The rules and guidelines have to be discussed by representatives from the four agencies.
It is prudent that all the agencies be represented for their needs to be heard and considered. For example, the airport authority can suggest that the government provide a task force that can arrest the criminals. However, the government might not be in a position to provide a task force for all the airports in the country. Due to this, another suggestion would be made to fill this gap.
Challenges to the cooperation of the agencies
The cooperation of agencies has never worked because of various challenges. The first challenge, as mentioned, is the autonomy of the agencies. Each agency has been working on the issue of security in aviation alone. In fact, the agencies that have been working together for the longest time are the government agencies and the airport authority. However, their relationship has also been challenged due to lack of proper structures of authority.
Another challenge is corruption. Salter (2008) explains that many an occasion, the criminals have bribed airport authority, stakeholders, and even the government agencies to allow them into and out of the country. The issue of corruption has proven difficult to control because of the autonomy of the agencies in the sense that a criminal can bribe airport personnel to allow them to fly into and out of the US and the government agencies or the passengers would not know about it.
In the same breadth, if a criminal were to bribe a government agent to remove their name and picture from the no-flight list, the people at the airport would not be able to know. This can, however, be avoided by using one security unit. This does not mean that the criminals will not try to bribe the security agents who have been employed; however, it will be much easier to hold people accountable for such incidences.
The suggestions that have been given to enable the cooperation between the agencies to be more effective can also be applied in solving the challenges that the cooperation faced in the past. Salter (2008) also adds that enhancing accountability in all the agencies will help enhance security in the airports. This means that people must be held accountable for their actions. Incidences should be thoroughly investigated in order to fish out the corrupt agents in all the agencies.
Conclusion
In conclusion, there have been problems making agencies cooperate in an attempt to enhance security in the airports. These problems have been caused by the fact that the agencies have focused on fighting security issues independently. One of the ways in which the agencies can cooperate is by having one security unit. This would mean that the four agencies mentioned, government agencies, airport agencies, passengers, and stakeholders, come up with one security unit that can be used in all airports.
One of the challenges that have mired the cooperation of agencies in aviation security is corruption. This can also be reduced by having one security unit that represents all the agencies involved. The four agencies mentioned above have to provide guidelines and rules that are specific to the security unit for the security unit to function as expected and efficiently. The four agencies can also ensure that the management of the security unit is unbiased and uncompromised.
References
Elias, B. (2009). Airport passenger screening: Background and issues for congress. Washington, D.C.: Congressional Research Service. Web.
Elias, B. (2010). Airport and aviation security: U.S. policy and strategy in the age of global terrorism. Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press. Web.
Price, J., & Forrest, J. (2012). Practical aviation security: Predicting and preventing future threats. Oxford, UK: Butterworth-Heinemann. Web.
Rodriguez, B. M. (2008). Perception towards airport security as it relates to terrorism: An analysis of criminology/criminal justice majors and non majors. Arlington, TX: University of Texas. Web.
Salter, M. B. ed. (2008). Politics at the airport. Minneapolis, MN: The University of Minnesota Press. Web.
Williams, C. G. (2007). It came from airport security. San Francisco, CA: Creative Commons. Web.
Aviation security is of paramount importance in the modern world. Today, vast numbers of people have to use planes in order to travel to distant areas; without aviation, their trips would take considerably more time or would even be impossible, and the loss of aviation capabilities would significantly hinder both the economic and technological development of the world. In any case, it is a fact that each year, hundreds of millions of individuals utilise air transport. It is also a fact that planes are sometimes used as targets of malefactors such as terrorists who aim to achieve some political, business, or personal goal. The risk of terrorism and other events which pose a hazard to the health, safety, and lives of passengers and airport personnel corroborates the need to implement considerable safety measures at airports.
In many cases, the security of airports, as well as other aspects of aviation safety, are determined by certain regulatory acts created by the government or governmental institutions. For instance, in the EU, there exist a number of regulatory documents which provide basic definitions and standards for aviation security. For example, the document entitled Regulations: Commission implementing regulation (2015) supplies a detailed account of measures which should be utilized in order to provide the execution of common basic standards for the safety of air transport. Another document also determines the ways in which aviation security should be implemented, for instance, describing the procedures for aircraft security search or screening of passengers (European Commission 2015). These standards and measures are regularly updated; for example, Regulation (EC) No 300/2008 of the European Parliament (2008) cancels a 2002 regulation pertaining to airport security, and introduces certain new common rules in the field. Clearly, such updates are necessary, for potential malefactors gain access to more advanced technologies as the latter develop continuously.
However, the implementation of such security measures is associated with numerous inconveniences for passengers, who are forced to wait in long queues, be subjected to scans, have their luggage checked, and so on. Moreover, airports are also forced to spend considerable sums of money and employ large numbers of workers to carry out these security measures (see Fig. 1)—all while continuing to provide their many clients with viable service.
Figure 1. Airports have to employ a large number of people to carry out security measures (Rosenbloom 2012).
This paper investigates state regulation of safety measures in airports. General problems tied to physical security and passenger and cargo screening are discussed; then, arguments against and for prescriptive airport security measures are considered. A general discussion follows in which it is demonstrated that the traditional, prescriptive nature of these security measures is a better choice than the deregulation of security issues and the situation in which the airlines themselves are completely responsible for overseeing the safety of their passengers.
Physical Security
Physical security can be defined as a variety of measures which are aimed at stopping unauthorised individuals from gaining access to certain facilities, equipment, materials, and documents; at averting damage to the property of the organization for which the security is provided and guarding it against theft, sabotage, or espionage; and at preventing injures to the staff working for the organization (Baker & Benny 2012, p. 2). Physical security measures in aviation include trained personnel and a number of procedures and routines, as well as a variety of equipment; all of these allow for the identification of individuals who might have criminal intent and the prevention of unlawful or hazardous acts.
Whereas it is clear that safety is of paramount importance in airports, it should also be noted that the number of physical security measures which can be taken in an airport is limited by a wide array of factors (Scotti, Dresner & Martini 2016). Of these factors, one of the most important is the need to deliver viable service to the clients of an airport, in particular, the need to handle a great number of passengers every day. In fact, many airports deal with tremendous numbers of passengers every day (Baker & Benny 2012); to thoroughly check each one of them requires much time and effort and slows the flow of customers considerably. Because of the need to continuously move passengers through the airport, only a certain amount of time can be reasonably spent on checking each passenger for potential threats to the safety of the airport.
In addition, the fact that all customers need to be individually scanned in order to detect a possible threat means that the airports must purchase the costly equipment which performs the scanning procedures. As it has already been stressed that airports must serve great numbers of clients daily, it follows that the personnel of airports have to handle large amounts of data and analyse them to detect any potential threats (Hainen et al. 2013). As a result, airport security employees may feel exhausted and become dissatisfied with their constant and large workloads, a factor which has also been found to decrease the overall effectiveness of the security procedures (Baeriswyl, Krause & Schwaninger 2016). Staff scarcity also means significant inconveniences and problems for the clients, who are forced to wait in long queues in order to get on their planes (see Fig. 2).
Figure 2. Passengers may have to wait hours in long queues before they can board their planes (Collman & Chia 2016).
It is also important to point out the fact that the current security procedures and protocols are based on a set of assumptions, one of which is that compliance with rules and regulations will allow for maximised safety in the airport and on the plane. In fact, passengers are viewed as passive agents, whereas the personnel of an airport are those who take an active stance with respect to the problem of safety (Kirschenbaum 2013; Kirschenbaum 2015). However, it has also been stressed that passengers very often tend not to comply with the rules and procedures which are aimed at making air transport safer (Kirschenbaum 2013; Kirschenbaum 2015). In fact, the situation usually tends to be the opposite: customers of airports are active participants in the safety procedures (Kirschenbaum 2015). Moreover, it has been argued that passengers often behave defiantly, a defiance which is actually encouraged by the currently existing safety protocols and procedures (McHendry 2016).
As a result of these factors and realities, the procedures aimed at providing physical security in airports often take considerably more time than they were originally meant to take, thus causing delays in the flow of passengers and air traffic (Hainen et al. 2013; Kirschenbaum 2015; Skorupski & Uchronski 2015). Therefore, it is clear that if the safety procedures are obligatory, they may adversely affect the efficiency of the airports, lowering their overall passenger traffic capacity.
Passenger, Baggage, and Cargo Screening
The cargo and passenger screening procedures utilise a wide range of methods such as X-ray detection, laser-based molecular detection, radio-frequency identification, and many others (Michel et al. 2014; Simbro 2014). However, the use of these methods is also associated with a wide array of problems and complications. For instance, the utilisation of X-ray scanning is made more difficult by the fact that this procedure requires the employee responsible for interpreting the results of the scan to have a great amount of competence and experience; otherwise, this employee may miss something that is dangerous indeed, simultaneously slowing down the passenger throughput with an excessive number of false alarms and asking the clients of the airport to undergo additional scans (Michel et al. 2014).
Furthermore, researchers stress that members of airport security personnel tend to treat passengers differently depending on a variety of factors, including their race. For example, a study that was carried out in a large East Coast airport in the United States (which supports international flights for its clients) found that passengers of non-White ethnicity were much more likely to have to undergo an additional screening procedure than White passengers; moreover, these affected clients were also less likely to receive an apology and/or explanation for the reasons for searching them (Lum et al. 2015). In fact, passengers of non-White background faced a greater chance of having their possessions confiscated and of feeling embarrassed due to the actions of the security personnel, and so on (Lum et al. 2015). These findings reasonably allow for the assumption that similar problems exist in airports in other countries as well, not only in the United States. Therefore, it is possible to state that the need to undergo screening and adhere to strict safety protocols might result in customer dissatisfaction, therefore possibly lowering the profitability of airports.
Arguments against Prescriptive Airport Security
Given the current situation in airport security, a number of arguments for making security scanning and controls non-obligatory might be given. These arguments are mostly rooted in the disadvantages and inconveniences for the passengers caused by the process of security scanning, as well as in the high costs necessary in order to comply with security guidelines imposed by the state.
For instance, it has already been highlighted that the need to perform thorough scans of passengers and their baggage, as well as several other measures aimed at maintaining the physical security of airports, require considerable effort from the personnel responsible for the security of the airport (Baeriswyl, Krause & Schwaninger 2016). This demanding workload may lead to severe exhaustion of the staff and also poses the risk of burnout (Baeriswyl, Krause & Schwaninger 2016). In order to prevent this workplace hazard, airports might need to reduce the workload of their employees, which can result in complications pertaining to human resource management issues, and, eventually, in greater costs that need to be spent to carry out the process of scanning according to state requirements.
The equipment that is employed to execute the safety measures is also costly (see Fig. 3), and the money spent on purchasing such equipment might be better used for other purposes—for instance, increasing the quality of customer service in the airport.
Figure 3. Baggage scanning requires purchasing a large amount of costly equipment (Airport baggage scanner n.d.).
Finally, perhaps the key argument utilised by proponents of cancelling the prescriptive security demands in air transport are related to the belief that the free market would be able to properly regulate airport security measures. Indeed, it might be assumed that once the prescriptions related to airport security are lifted, the airports will implement their own security strategies and methods in accordance with their needs and the market situation. In other words, it is supposed that airports will not implement or carry out those safety protocols and procedures which are redundant, instead utilizing only those methods of safety provision that are needed to supply a level of security high enough to attract clients. In fact, some scholars argue that a risk assessment which was carried out in a study of a number of airports in Europe, the United States, and the Asia-Pacific region demonstrates that many airports implement redundant safety measures and that it would be reasonable to make the security demands less strict than they are (Stewart & Mueller 2014). Thus, according to the proponents of this argument, self-regulation is bound to occur once the requirements imposed by the state are removed; the airports will then seek to eliminate redundant safety measures, leaving only those which are indeed necessary and economically justified.
At the same time, it is clear that if the prescriptions related to airport security issues are cancelled and if airports are to supply their own forms of security according to the demands of the market, then the spending required in order to provide this security should also be covered by the airports. Because private organizations gain money by selling their products or services to their clients, it is clear that as a result of such deregulation, customers will have to fully cover the cost of safety measures when they purchase their airplane tickets. Proponents of this solution might argue that this is a logical step, because passengers would essentially be purchasing their own safety; in other words, those clients who purchase cheaper tickets must be willing to enjoy lower levels of security and higher levels of risk while travelling.
Today, there already exist a number of examples of deregulation of airport security. For instance, Prentice (2015) highlights that in Mexico airport security is financed completely by the government, while in the United States, the spending on safety is split evenly between the clients of the airports and the government; in Canada, however, the costs of air safety are shouldered fully by the air passengers. The process of the deregulation and privatisation of air security in Canada began in 1973, when it was decided that the airports should create and utilise safety programs on their own, using their own financing for this purpose. The process took place gradually over a number of steps and was completed only in 2003, when “all the international airports [were] commercialised” (Prentice 2015, p. 54). The Canadian example serves to demonstrate how the policy of deregulation has been implemented in a highly developed country and has proven capable of existing so far.
Arguments for Prescriptive Airport Security
Despite the many arguments for the deregulation of airport security, it is also possible to provide a variety of reasons that airport security should be regulated by the state. Many of these arguments are rooted in the considerably adverse impact that insufficient safety measures implemented in airports would have; however, arguments related to the issues of economic fitness have also been given by certain authors.
First of all, it should again be stressed that the problem of air traffic safety is of critical importance due to the fact that the lives of passengers may (and do) depend on it (Sakano, Obeng & Fuller 2016). If an airport or airline decides to cut their spending on security measures in order to make tickets cheaper and attract additional customers, this organization, in fact, may be risking the lives of their clients. This problem is likely to be exacerbated by the fact that, due to the lower prices of tickets, it will be easy to identify that a particular airport probably utilises less strict security measures, which could potentially attract individuals having some criminal intentions to attempt to realise these intentions in that airport. Indeed, it is apparent that risking the lives of individuals using air transport is too high a price to pay to identify which security measures would be sufficient according to the situation in the market.
Also, it has been emphasised that a breach of security in air transport resulting in an incident of terrorism against airplane passengers is not only capable of causing mass loss of life; it also results in considerable harm to national reputation, and the “cost estimates for even limited events are stunning” (Prentice 2015, p. 52). Indeed, the whole society of a country whose airline is subjected to a terrorist attack might be affected by this security breach. Therefore, it is clear that the safety of air transport is not only a problem for the air company that delivers this service; it is, in fact, an issue of public safety (Prentice 2015; Leese 2016).
One example that demonstrates why security issues should not be made the responsibility of air companies alone is also provided by Leese (2016). According to the researcher, the issues of airport security in Germany have been handled in an increasingly marketised manner, which has resulted in a number of disadvantages. One of these issues is related to the fact that under these conditions, the airport workers who provide private security suffer from a variety of problems. For instance, they bear additional responsibility for their actions due to the fact that they are representatives of private companies rather than state organisations. In addition, they are forbidden to act in the case of a real emergency; in such cases, they are forced to call the state police instead (Leese 2016). These serious limitations also adversely affect the efficacy of air transport safety measures, increasing the risks for both passengers and personnel of the aviation company.
Another argument that can be used to support the existence of prescriptive aviation security measures is related to economic issues. As mentioned above, Canadian airports are responsible for the implementation of security measures on their own, and the money which is used for this purpose is raised from passengers by including the price of security in the cost of tickets; security is not financed by the government. According to Prentice (2015), this system has led to a situation in which airplane tickets in Canadian airports are too costly for many customers. Therefore, a large number of clients opt to utilise other means of transport whenever possible; when using air transport is absolutely necessary, they often choose to travel first to the United States in order to use the services of U.S. aviation companies, where half of the security cost is covered by the state (Prentice 2015).
As a result, Canadian air companies have suffered from a greatly reduced number of passengers. Interestingly, it has also been estimated that the Canadian government would spend less money if it paid for aviation security than the amount of money it loses due to the fact that the passengers who use U.S. airlines instead of Canadian ones do not pay tax to the Canadian treasury when purchasing tickets (Prentice 2015). In this way, the Canadian airline industry has become unviable for many of its target customers. Therefore, it can be concluded that state-funded airport safety measures are more economically justified than the market-based situation in which security expenses are covered by airport clients; not only is the state-funded option more convenient for the passengers, it is also more profitable for the government and the airports of the country in question.
Of course, if the state finances the safety measures in an airport, it is logical that the government will also make certain demands about the level of security which is to be provided in that airport. An airport can attempt to do more than simply meet these minimal demands, supplying a greater level of security when justified.
Discussion
It is clear that the implementation of safety measures in airports needs to be constantly controlled, revised, and adjusted to the changing situation in the world. New technologies that permit quicker passenger, luggage, and cargo screening should be introduced if the operators and employees of airports are to provide their clients with viable, effective, and competitive service. Moreover, continuous optimization of security procedures must be carried out. For example, according to Cole and Kuhlmann (2012), current safety airport measures are largely reactive: they are aimed at detecting criminals who have already begun acting. The authors recommend instead taking a proactive stance in aviation crime prevention, and they offer certain methods in order to accomplish this goal (Cole & Kuhlmann 2012).
In addition, an unfortunate consequence of constant technological progress is that malefactors also gain access to more complicated methods and technologies which can be utilised to commit a crime, and the detection of offenders in such public places as airports becomes more difficult by the day. Moreover, the developing safety technologies and methods should also take into account a wide array of other aspects related to airports and crime, such as various human factors.
As Kirschenbaum (2015) argues, it is also critical to revise the assumptions that passengers are completely passive objects in airports and that compliance alone will allow for high levels of safety; instead, it should be taken into account that many airline customers actively participate in the security processes and the related decision-making. The effects of various safety techniques on people also ought to be considered in the optimization of safety measures; for instance, McHendry (2016, p. 1) argues that the existing methods result in “secure airport[s] and defiant public”.
On the whole, it is apparent that government-regulated security measures in airports are more justified than the alternative in which companies decide which safety measures to use and pay for them out of the costs of enterprise, that is, from the money gained from their passengers. Moreover, it is clear that the sheer magnitude of the impact of possible threats to passengers, as well as airline personnel, justifies the need to impose at least some minimal standards for the provision of safety. Thus, it is recommended that aviation security remain prescriptive.
Of course, this recommendation does not mean that the evident disadvantages of this situation should not be addressed. Perhaps one of the most considerable disadvantages of governmental regulation of safety issues is that this system is generally much slower and more cumbersome than the one in which companies handle the security problems on their own. Moreover, it might be the case that the government requires the use of a particular type of security measure or a certain kind of technology that is outdated; in this case, of course, the safety of airline passengers and personnel might be compromised. Therefore, it can be concluded that while the government should establish certain minimal (but sufficient) requirements for the security measures used in airports, these demands should be flexible enough to allow airports to implement more innovative approaches to safety as well. In addition, the government ought to regularly revise guidelines and adjust them in accordance with developing technologies and the changing situation in the world.
Lastly, the previously mentioned racial issues are a problem of a different sort. Although they can exist independently of whether airport security is provided by the state or a private organization, it is a problem that clearly needs to be addressed. Further research is recommended to determine the most appropriate solution for ending racial bias in airport security.
Conclusion
Above all, it is clear that both the provision of security in airports and the process of passenger and baggage screening are associated with considerable effort and expense for the party that pays for them and with significant inconveniences for the passengers. It might appear justified to deregulate airport safety measures and allow airports to create and implement their own methods and protocols for providing security to their clients. However, it has been demonstrated that this system might lead to increased risks of a security breach, which would have a considerable impact on the reputation of the whole nation; in this way, aviation safety is truly a public safety issue.
The example of Germany further points to the ineffectiveness of security measures when they are carried out without the help of the state. In addition, it has been shown that it is difficult for airports to provide viable services when safety measures are not at least partially paid for by the state; in Canada, for example, passengers seek ways to lower the cost of air travel by going to the neighbouring United States, thus not purchasing the services of Canadian airports and not paying taxes to the Canadian government. Taking all of these factors into consideration, it is possible to conclude that prescriptive security in aviation (particularly in passenger, baggage, and cargo screening) is a better choice than deregulated security.
European Commission 2015, Commission implementing decision of 16.11.2015 laying down detailed measures for the implementation of the common basic standards on aviation security containing information, as referred to in point (a) of Article 18 of Regulation (EC) No 300/2008, EC no. C(2015) 8005 final, Publications Office of the European Union, Brussels.
Hainen, AM, Remias, SM, Bullock, DM & Mannering, FL 2013, ‘A hazard-based analysis of airport security transit times’, Journal of Air Transport Management, vol. 32, pp. 32-38.
Kirschenbaum, A 2013, ‘The cost of airport security: the passenger dilemma’, Journal of Air Transport Management, vol. 30, pp. 39-45.
Kirschenbaum, A 2015, ‘The social foundations of airport security’, Journal of Air Transport Management, vol. 48, pp. 34-41.
Leese, M 2016, ‘Governing airport security between the market and the public good’, Criminology & Criminal Justice, vol. 16, no. 2, pp. 158-175.
Lum, C, Crafton, PZ, Parsons, R, Beech, D, Smarr, T & Connors, M 2015, ‘ Discretion and fairness in airport security screening’, Security Journal, vol. 28, no. 4, pp. 352-373.
Michel, S, Mendes, M, de Ruiter, JC, Koomen, GCM, & Schwaninger, A 2014, ‘Increasing X-ray image interpretation competency of cargo security screeners’, International Journal of Industrial Ergonomics, vol. 44, no. 4, pp. 551-560.
Sakano, R, Obeng, K & Fuller, K 2016, ‘Airport security and screening satisfaction: a case study of U.S.’, Journal of Air Transport Management, vol. 55, pp. 129-138.
Scotti, D, Dresner, M & Martini, G 2016, ‘Baggage fees, operational performance and customer satisfaction in the US air transport industry’, Journal of Air Transport Management, vol. 55, pp. 139-146.
Simbro, AM 2014, ‘The sky’s the limit: a modern approach to airport security’, Arizona Law Review, vol. 56, no. 2, pp. 559-588.
Skorupski, J & Uchronski, P 2015, ‘A fuzzy model for evaluating airport security screeners’ work’, Journal of Air Transport Management, vol. 48, pp. 42-51.
Stewart, MG & Mueller, J 2014, ‘Cost-benefit analysis of airport security: are airports too safe?’ Journal of Air Transport Management, vol. 35, pp. 19-28.
