Constraints on the airport ramp can be a nuisance for ground service personnel. Crowded aprons and parking stands as well as the layouts of terminals and gates can create challenges for ground handlers working to safely turnaround aircraft in an efficient manner.
Many of these challenges can be explained when examining how airports were designed in the past.
In Europe and North America, where many airports were built in the 1940s and 1950s, or even earlier, there wasn’t much dialogue about design, explains Fabio Gamba, director general at the Airport Services Association (ASA). The focus was more on whether a location could accommodate an airport.
“Traditionally, it’s not been the case [to collaborate],” Gamba says. “Airports have been designed without taking too much into consideration the operational needs of those who would want to use this runway and the airport, itself.”
Even as airport development evolved and input was sought from airlines, ground support was historically an extension of airline services. So, issues faced by today’s independent ground handlers may not have been addressed.
As a result, ground service providers must often navigate several operational hurdles.
To make their tasks more manageable, ground handlers can work with airports and airlines to ensure new designs are optimized to enable smooth ground service. And until those design projects are underway, ground service providers can address their equipment needs to work within existing constraints.
Part of the Process
According to published materials from the International Air Transport Association (IATA), aircraft aprons, including parking stands, taxiways and apron service roads should all be evaluated when determining the optimum workflow of an airport.
“Aircraft aprons, including their associated support network of taxiways and taxi-lanes, should be designed so that their layout does not impede the free flow of aircraft and ground service equipment,” IATA officials say. “Aircraft delayed on the ground, either on stand or while maneuvering between stand and runway, can cause severe disruption to airlines’ schedules with resultant cost penalties and unnecessary inconvenience for passengers.
“Recurring delays over time will influence airlines’ route viability decisions and passengers’ willingness to patronize the airport in question again, particularly when transferring between flights.”
As airport designs vary, so too does the ability to handle flights at a given airport.
“Running ground handling, just like running an airline company, is a complex task. It’s known across the world that one station is never like another one. If you’re successful at one station as Brand X for ground handling, it doesn’t automatically mean that you’ll be so successful in another station because the configuration will definitely change,” Gamba says. “It’s a known limitation to the seamless application operation of ground handling and to the seamless operation of airlines simply because you have runways here that are crossing each other, here they are parallel, here you have two, here you have four and you only have one central terminal.
“All of that impacts, quite heavily, the way ground handling can be done,” Gamba continues. “That will impact, quite heavily, the way you can operate.”
So, while airports may have been designed without significant input from stakeholders decades ago, the process has begun to change.
“You have a much more concerted way of doing things precisely because, amongst other things, it is recognized that ground handling is a major aspect of the operation of an airport, and then would have to have a say if you want this airport to be operationally successful,” Gamba says, adding that there are no uniform approaches as, in addition to third-party ground handlers, some airlines self-handle and in other cases airports own ground service companies.
“You have quite different situations, and those different situations would obviously have an impact on the say ground handlers would have on the making and design of an airport,” he says.
The ability for ground service providers to get involved in airport design reverts back to these relationships between ground handlers and airports.
Gamba explains that typically, a license is granted by the airport to a ground handler. In the European Union, as per directive 96/67/EC, at least two ground handlers must be licensed to operate, given the size the airport. These licenses generally run for a period of seven years. After that period, there are no guarantees a specific ground handler will still be in operation at that airport.
“Seven years is a relative short period of time. So, you could imagine that the airport would only be interested to a certain point in what the ground handler thinks of how it should expand or how it should be redesigned in the future, simply because of the nature of their relationship,” Gamba says. “There is only so much a ground handler can do with respect to having influence on the design of an airport.”
However, challenges that one ground handler faces would conceivably be a hurdle for another, so the input may still prove valuable when considering airport designs.
Removing any constraints that exist for ground ops is ultimately vital as the airport seeks to attract airlines. If sufficient turnaround times cannot be achieved, airlines may look for other airports to operate out of.
“The turnaround time, which I believe is absolutely essential now to new, modern airports was not something that was taken into consideration,” Gamba says of previous airport designs.
With airlines, airports and ground service providers relying on one another to be successful, various platforms have been established to involve all stakeholders at a given airport. One example, Gamba explains, is a Common Decision Platform where representatives from different areas of the airport, including air traffic control and even the public, can collaborate on solutions to overcome difficulties and other conditions hindering efficiency.
“This is a rather bottom-up type of approach where you’re really looking at a typical scenario that constitutes a barrier or problem or something to try and overcome,” Gamba says.
“It’s proven to be an extremely useful, if not absolutely necessary, instrument for any modern airport to run its operations,” he continues, noting omitting it means missing out on feedback from the airport’s own users.
Through the use of Common Decision Platforms, participants can look closely at questions raised and determine the essential answers.
“All these necessary answers are related to the local situation of the airport. What is true at this airport will not be true in another airport,” says Gamba. “That’s why it’s so important to have input.”
The Right Equipment for the Job
Being involved in the planning process for an airport’s creation or redesign is beneficial to the ground handling community.
However, development plans can be impacted by financial, geographical or political factors. Often, ground service providers must work within the confines of the job, as is.
To do so efficiently, proper GSE management is crucial.
According to Sophia Hanafi, who handles business development at Mercury GSE, GSE management typically includes top-down considerations from the management team as well as bottom-up input from ramp agents.
“For example, management will often provide reasoning to allocate a specific number of assets to a station, yet ramp managers may have a different thought on where assets should be allocated. This is mainly because ramp agents are first-handedly seeing and experiencing traffic on the tarmac,” she says. “Because of this variance in opinion, collaborative discussion and analysis from both parties is critical in order to avoid clutter while ensuring efficient ramp operations.”
What’s more, regular preventative maintenance service can reduce GSE downtime.
“Because most of these machines are used anywhere from eight to 16 hours a day, it’s important to ensure that all service and maintenance are up-to-date. This limits excess GSE and poor allocation of resources,” says Hanafi.
“Lastly, there are areas on the airfield where ramp managers park their equipment when it is not in use or when there is equipment that has been taken out of service,” she continues. “Equipment that is out-of-service is normally red-tagged to indicate the need for attendance. This is just one of the ways ramp handlers avoid any unnecessary clutter on the ramp.”
Jan De Leeuw, managing director for North America at TCR, notes delays in preventative maintenance can prove costly.
“In the long run, it’s not helpful. In the short-term, you might cut some corners or save a penny here or there. You’re really saving the penny, but losing the pounds afterwards,” De Leeuw says. “It increases the reliability of the equipment and you have much less chance of having a break-down of the equipment and all the consequences that come with that.”
Advancements in telematics are allowing ground handlers and GSE maintenance personnel to keep equipment running efficiently.
De Leeuw explains telematics provide efficiency in terms of allowing the dispatch room to find assets that may be scattered around a large airport. Telematics also provide access control to the GSE units themselves and bring accountability to the users operating the equipment on crowded ramps.
“A lot of damage happens when GSE is being used in an improper way. People just don’t care about it or people use somebody else’s ground support equipment. Or damage occurs when GSE is being moved around the stand, or is being moved around from one terminal to another terminal,” De Leeuw says. “By bringing that down, we see the damage to ground support equipment decreases dramatically.”
When it comes to avoiding congestion around the gate, right sizing a GSE fleet offers many benefits. According to De Leeuw, TCR focuses on the number of pieces of GSE at an airport and helps ground handlers determine if they can operate with less equipment, thereby delivering more space for ground support personnel to operate.
“There is very often too much,” De Leeuw says in regard to GSE fleets.
“You have this conflict or tension between the operational guys who need to deliver the punctual departure of the flight – the safe departure and turnaround of the flight. They need the equipment, and they need it in a good state. And if they don’t have it in a good state, they want another piece to make sure they have sufficient GSE to handle their operation,” he continues. “On the other side, there is the financing people who are often on the brakes. The key to solving this dilemma is increasing the availability level of GSE, which is a direct consequence of proper GSE maintenance planning and execution.”
According to Hanafi, the biggest factor that must be considered when determining the correct size for a GSE fleet is the volume of flights per day that a ground handling operation expects to see.
“The higher the number of flights expected, the greater the quantity of equipment in demand,” says Hanafi, adding it is crucial to distinguish between cargo and passenger flights, so the proper types of GSE are available. “Another important factor is the distance of two aircrafts when parked on the ground between take-off and landing. If it’s difficult to move GSE in between flights, it’s advisable to position additional GSE to minimize any disruptions. Flights can be losing thousands of dollars for any flight delays that they see. Because of that, it is critical to avoid as many unforeseen delays as possible.”
Depending on how the airport is designed, different types of GSE may be able to boost efficiencies and help ground personnel work around constraints.
“That can be important when planning on fuel trucks versus hydrants or mobile versus fixed GPUs,” Hanafi explains. “Depending on the length of the ground handling contract, ground handlers can plan on whether renting or purchasing GSE would be a better fit.
“Ultimately, the layout of the airport, the budget of the ground handling company and the number of ground handling contracts a ground handler has at an airport will all play a critical role in determining the best process for GSE planning.”
While TCR works with multiple equipment manufacturers, to help ensure equipment availability De Leeuw says the company seeks partners who have a reliable product and good after-sales service.
“When we bring new GSE into a certain airport, we will always strive towards standardization,” he adds.
Beyond standardization, TCR has also assisted its customers with GSE common pooling programs.
“In terms of pooling, it’s obvious that there are efficiencies to be taken on all levels,” De Leeuw says.
Gamba notes that more than ever, pooling is becoming a topic of conversation between airports and ground handlers.
“It can be quite daunting and quite complex to try and make the best use of GSE, especially when you have three or four or five ground handlers using different pieces at different times,” he says. “The question that is becoming more and more recurrent is should that be owned by the airport as a function of the traffic and used by the ground handler, rather than the ground handler having its own equipment?
“This is an essential question that also probably would have an impact on how an airport should be either designed or redesigned in order to maximize the use of GSE,” Gamba points out, while noting common pooling could be a way to minimize an airport’s carbon footprint as well.
Whether running as a standalone operation or as part of common pooling program, proper GSE management improves efficiencies and assist with reducing ramp constraints.
