xiii sitraer são paulo 17/11/20141 collaborative decision making and it at airports félix...

XIII SITRAER São Paulo 17/11/2014 1

Collaborative Decision Making and IT at Airports

Félix Mora-CaminoAutomation Research Group, MAIAA, Ecole Nationale de l’Aviation Civile, Toulouse

1


1. Introduction and current situation 2. Historical perspective of A-CDM

3. Main concepts of A-CDM

4. Main components of A-CDM

5. Cost Benefit Analysis of A-CDM

6. Conclusion and Perspectives

2

CDM and IT at Airports


Introduction and current situation

33

High rate increase of European air traffic

. Traffic over France increased 250% in the last 25 years, reaching 2 500 000 flights/day with about 7000 flights/day and about 20 to 25 aircraft by control sector


4XIII SITRAER São Paulo 17/11/2014 44

Introduction and current situation CDM and IT at Airports

Source: Eurocontrol

12 million of flights took place in 2012 in the European airspace, which equals to around 33,000 flights every day.


A fragmented European airspace : 10,8 million km², 41 states, 37 ANSPs , 1750 Sectors and 64 en-route centers, 1348 Aircraft Operators, 450 Airports.




Traffic at Main European Airports in 2013



Delays at European Airports


Departure delays causes at European Airports (> 15min)



EUROCONTROL “Challenges of Growth” report in 2013 details the constraints in the European air transport system between now and 2035. This report provides a strong warning that despite a slower air traffic growth in the next 20 years than previously expected, Europe still faces a significant airport capacity problem, which will limit the growth of the European aviation system.

As a result of insufficient airport capacity, it is considered that 12% of demand for air transport will not be accommodated by 2035 - or 1.9 million flights per year will not happen, impeding 237 million passengers to fly.


A need for more efficient airports

XIII SITRAER São Paulo 17/11/2014 10XIII SITRAER São Paulo 17/11/2014 10

The main cause of this capacity problem is that airports have been forced to sharply reduce their capacity expansion plans:

Revenue pressures, high capital costs, lack of political support, poor planning processes and decreasing confidence are all contributing to constrain airport development throughout Europe.

While in 2008 a European airport capacity expansion of 40% was expected by 2030, these previsions have been severely cut down with now an expected capacity expansion of only 17% by 2035.


A need for more efficient airports


The initiative launched in United States in 1992 and called FAA/Airline Data Exchange (FADE), with the support of airlines such as Northwest Airlines, can be considered as the first step towards what evolved into the today US CDM concept.The value of information sharing was demonstrated immediately since, just by being better informed, airlines shown to be able to attend in a much more efficient way the constraints imposed by ATM.

The concept of Collaborative Decision Making (CDM) was explicitly stated (1996) in the United States by a group of airlines, leadered by US Airways, in response to the perception by these airlines of the inefficient cooperation between them, the airports and the FAA.

12

Historical perspective of A-CDM CDM and IT at Airports

The value of information sharing


They created a so called CDM Group which started analyzing the reasons why several airports presented recurrent traffic flow problems. The CDM Group produced first reports in which it established three basic rules which remain valid until today:

- Most traffic flow problems have simple causes with simple solutions;

- Better information sharing eliminates a large proportion of these problems;

- For collaboration be successful, trust must be present from the start between the different decision makers.

13

CDM and IT at AirportsHistorical perspective of A-CDM

The three basic rules


While the CDM Group addressed at first airport traffic flow problems (Atlanta and Philadelphia international airports) when the FAA adopted the CDM concept, it started to apply it to en-route traffic flow problems: At that time en-route capacity problems where in United States more critical than those present at airports. Some large American airports where involved with CDM as early as 1998 with the FAA’s ground-delay program (GDP).

The CDM concept was introduced in Europe by experts of IATA and was first treated as a research topic by the European EUROCONTROL Experimental Centre.

14

US CDM: from Airports to En-route



While in Europe the need for improved traffic flow management was growing with the increasing traffic the CDM concept remained inoperative although at that time the main delays where originated en-route. In fact, the fragmentation of the European airspace turned impossible the application of the CDM approach as developed by the FAA.

EUROCONTROL acknowledged the lack of progress and proposed a new idea for Europe (2000) since it was very difficult to get European States to turn operative the CDM in the en-route context.

It appeared more feasible to propose to the largest European airports operating with a multiplicity of partners to improve their decision making by introducing CDM at the level of European airports.

This is how Airport CDM (A-CDM) began.

15

European CDM: from En-route to Airports



In more recent years in Europe airports became a major source of delays and the development of the A-CDM concept has proven quite useful.

Many other projects in the field of air traffic management have been launched taking into account A-CDM as a pragmatic sub-set of CDM implementation considering the initial failure of getting CDM on-board in the en-route context.

A-CDM has not been an immediate success: Although many airports created CDM teams, built systems and even booked some initial results, A-CDM was at first limited to some large European airports before to be adopted more recently by large as well as regional airports in Europe.

16

Historical perspective of A-CDM



Before 2012: Brussels, Frankfurt, Munich, London Heathrow, Paris CDG. 2012: Helsinki, Zurich. 2013: Berlin Brandenburg Int., Dusseldorf, Amsterdam, Dublin, Milan Malpensa, Vienna, Prague, Geneva, Kiev , Madrid, Manchester, London Gatwick , Oslo Gardemoen. 2014: Stuttgart, Stockholm Arlanda, Milan Linate, Birmingham, Lisboa, Palma, Warsaw , Lyon, Athens, Istanbul 2015: Hamburg, Copenhagen, Zagreb, Ljubljana, Budapest, Vilnius, Rome Fiumicino, Venice, Paris Orly, Tallinn, Barcelona

A-CDM Development in Europe

12 years ago 8 years ago 4 years ago



As the consequence of the development of A-CDM at European

Airports, it appeared that the individual airports formed “CDM islands”

and they could achieve improved benefits if the air traffic

management network of which they are a part was more fully

involved.

Bringing back the Central Flow Management Unit (CFMU, now

NMOC-Network Manager Operations Centre) into the CDM picture has

been recently a major issue in CDM implementation in Europe leading

to what can be called “network CDM”.

18


Network CDM


NETWORK CDM


Departure Planning

Information DPI

Flight Update messages

FUM

A-CDM


Source: Eurocontrol


The US CDM projects are expected to benefit from advanced information

sharing functionalities delivered by the System Wide Information

Management (SWIM) program which has as its main objective the data level

integration of the legacy systems as well as the new ATFM system elements

being implemented.

Unfortunately, information sharing in Europe is still at its beginning and the

only real islands of SWIM-like activity are the airports themselves even if the

information sharing practiced there is local and far from the flexible

information sharing proposed by the SWIM concept.

20

SWIM and CDM



CDM in the USA encompasses today the whole traffic operation and is not split

into clearly identifiable elements like A-CDM and network CDM.

In Europe, A-CDM is composed of clearly defined concept elements which are

in fact applications that can be realized in software. They cover areas where a

limitations have been identified and they are meant to ease these shortcomings. It

is the case with:

- the CDM Information Sharing (the basis for everything else in CDM),

- the Variable Taxi Time Calculation,

- the Collaborative Flight Data Update which is in fact a network CDM

element related with the CFMU.

21




The European CFMU has several tools used to establish network demand

and capacity and to influence both. These tools interact with the users and

the providers but their activity is not yet fully recognized as part of the

CDM concept.

This should change however as in Europe the CFMU moves progressively

from a prescriptive to collaborative approach of traffic flow management

through programs such as SESAR (Single European Sky ATM Research)

and DMEAN (Dynamic Management of the European Airspace Network).

The A-CDM concept is an integral part of such programs.

22


A-CDM and SESAR


A-CDM Theoretical background

Identification: Airport flow management copes with a multi-agent multi-objective system composed of event driven interconnected stochastic processes (traffic flows and networked queues).

Fundamental issues are related with cooperative games, information management, decentralized dynamic decision making and coordination.

Decision making tools are composed of coordination mechanisms, scheduling algorithms, dynamic programming, programming under uncertainty, sequencing algorithms, assignment algorithms, conflict resolution algorithms.

Implementation: Decision tools are designed to be used at the operations planning level (day horizon), operational level with sliding time horizon (some hours ahead) or at the real-time level through imediate reactive decision making.

CDM and IT at AirportsMain concepts of A-CDM


ATC: Apron and taxiway congestion, traffic and frequency overload, late incoming information which reduces pre-planning flexibility, sub-optimal pre-departure sequences.Network Operations (CFMU): Poor CTOT slot adherence, inaccurate traffic load predictions (over-deliveries or capacity under-utilization).Airport Operations: Inefficient use of airport infrastructure, poor airport slot compliance, inadequate information communication producing late stand and gate changes.Aircraft Operators: Poor punctuality caused by last minute delays, inefficient fleet operation, missed connections, preference and priorities not considered.Ground Handling: poor service level compliance, low turn-round predictability (last minute changes), inefficient use of manpower and equipment.

Classical limitations to Airport Flows Operations

25



In general airport stakeholders lack of up-to-date situational awareness due to an inadequate information sharing and the availability of fragmented information flows. Reasons for that are:

- Most relevant information is available somewhere around the airport in different systems but it is not made available on time to all the involved airport stakeholders.

- The information systems of each actor have been developed independently.

- Some stakeholders are reluctant to share with others what they consider to be commercially sensitive information.

26


Situation awareness


Source: Eurocontrol

Main Information flows between

Airport Partners



Aircraft Operator

Airport Operation

Ground Handling

CFMU

ATC ETA

Slot allocation

Slot allocation

ETD

Stand allocation

Rotation type and schedule

State of ground

operations

Main information transfers between airport partners



Airport Information Flows

Source: Stockholm Arlanda


A global vue of information flows at

Stockolm airport


Main airport information processing systems

Source: Frankfurt Airport



Airport Collaborative Decision Making-(A-CDM) proposes a global approach to improve efficiency of operational decision making at airports:

Main objectives: reduction of delays and costs

A-CDM drive all airport stakeholders to work as a team where individual partners must co-ordinate their decisions and activities to reach common goals.

Means: - Sharing of accurate and timely information, adaptation of procedures, mechanisms.- Tools to improve predictability of events and optimize the utilization of resources.

31

Main objectives



ATC: Flexible pre-departure planning, reduced apron and taxiway congestion, lighter controllers’ workload to cope with a smoother traffic flow.

Network Operations (CFMU): Enhanced compliance with Calculated Take-Off Time (CTOT), reduction of traffic sector overloads by a better utilization of available capacity.

Airport Operations: Increased punctuality in departures and arrivals by airport slot adherence, efficient use of stands and gates, better recovery in adverse conditions or disruptions, reduced environmental nuisance (emissions and noise).

Aircraft Operators: Daily program of flight operations on schedule, early prediction of schedule disruptions, preferences and priorities better taken into account, reduced taxiing and holding time.

Ground Handling: Enhanced punctuality of operations, optimized resource management, service level compliance.

32

Expected benefitsCDM and IT at AirportsMain concepts of A-CDM


« CDM Airport »

An airport is considered to be « a CDM airport » (Level 1) when the following applications:

- A-CDM Information Sharing (ACIS),

- Turn-Around Process (CTRP)

- Variable Taxi Time Calculation (VTTC)

are applied at the airport.

An EUROCONTROL Airport CDM team is responsible for ensuring in Europe the standardization and dissemination of the best practice of Airport CDM implementation.

33



The full A-CDM concept consists of six core elements (Eurocontrol, EUROCAE, European Commission):1. Information Sharing of the latest data important for the turnaround process to all partners involved at the right time using a A-CDM platform (IT-Tool, interface).2. Milestone Approach: Using the milestone approach, it becomes possible to the partners involved, to monitor in a coordinated way, through significant events (milestones), the whole process.3. Variable Taxi Time (VTT): By using variable taxi times instead of default times, more realistic in-block- and take-off times can be provided.4. Collaborative Pre-Departure Sequence: By implementing pre-departure sequencing, an optimized off-block sequence is being generated, taking into account operational aspects and limitations.5. CDM in Adverse Conditions: This element enables an efficient management of the operation when the capacity at the airport is limited (weather, ops).6. Collaborative Management of Flight Updates: The exchange of arrival and departure information with the CFMU (NMOC) allows a more accurate planning for all flights.


FULL A-CDM

Main concepts of A-CDM


1) A-CDM information sharing is the basis of all other A-CDM applications. In general, information sharing uses the existing IT infrastructure at the airports. The information flows can be improved by combining data from different sources. The adaptation of the existing information systems might be necessary to include data that is not currently processed.The responsibility and quality of information at each phase of a flight will be defined.

This should provide a common overview of the real-time operations to all stakeholders and should result in a common situation awareness which is necessary in a multi agent situation to insure an efficient use of the available airport resources.

36

Information sharing CDM and IT at Airports

CDM and IT at AirportsMain components of A-CDM


The sharing of information between the A-CDM partners is based on local Service Level Agreements, Memoranda of Understanding and Protocols for non disclosure of information to other parties. The quality of data is defined following the need of the different CDM applications and processes.

37

Information exchange agreementsCDM and IT at AirportsMain components of A-CDM


Information produced by main airport stakeholders:

Aircraft Operator/ Ground Handlers: Aircraft movement data, flight priority, changes in turn-around times, TOBT updates, planning data, flight plans, aircraft registration, aircraft type, flight type.

Airport: slot data, stand and gate assignment, environmental information, special events, airport capacity reduction.

Network Operations: Flight plans data, SAMs, SRMs, FUMs including change and cancellation messages.

Air Traffic Control: real time updates of ELDT, TLDT, ALDT, runway and taxiways conditions, taxi times ans SID, TSAT, TTOT, runway capacity, A-SMGCS data/radar information.

Service providers: Meteo office, fire, police, customs, ground handling, fuel, de-icing,…

38

Data sourcesCDM and IT at AirportsMain components of A-CDM


ATC Flight Plans

Airport Flight Data Base

Coordi-nated Airport Slots

Common Situation Awareness tool


Source: Franckfurt Airport

Main components of A-CDM

Data integration


2) The Milestone Approach involves:- A set of selected milestones along the processing of the aircraft at the airport (arrival, landing, taxi-in, turn-round, taxi-out and departure), at which the set of partners involved change.- The time performance, assessed at each milestone or between two milestones.

- The flight profile is built by linking these milestones: The time performance between each milestones with real time

updating and communication, are essential for the working of the Milestone Approach. Information must be timely communicated to enable each partner to react in time and to update their own milestones.

Then, predictability and efficiency can be improved with the collaboration of each partner leading to improved decision making processes.

40



number Milestones Time reference Mandatory/

Optional

123456789

10111213141516

ATC Flight Plan activation

EOBT – 2 hoursTake off from

outstationLocal radar update

Final approachLandingIn-block

Ground handling startsTOBT update prior to

TSATTSAT issue

Boarding startsAircraft ready

Start up requestStart up approved

Off-blockTake off

EOBT-3 hours EOBT-2 hours

ATOT from outstation

Varies with A/PVaries with A/P

ALDTAIBTACGT

Varies with A/PVaries with A/PVaries with A/P

ARDTASRTASATAOBTATOT

HRHRHRHRHRR

HRHRRR

HRRRRR

HRHR

41

Main milestones for A-CDM CDM and IT at AirportsMain components of A-CDM

XIII SITRAER São Paulo 17/11/2014 42XIII SITRAER São Paulo Novembro 2014

Different Airport CDM Partners can be responsible for different milestones, with the aim of integrating all of the milestones into a common seamless process for the flight.

42

Sequential view of milestones and processes

(source Eurocontrol)


XIII SITRAER São Paulo 17/11/2014 43XIII SITRAER São Paulo Novembro 2014

The main objective of the Milestone Approach is to further improve the common situational awareness of all partners when the flight is inbound and in the turn round flight phases. The main objectives are to:

- Ensure linkage between arriving and departing flights by determining significant events in order to track the progress of flights and the distribution of these key events as Milestones.

- Enable early decision making by defining information updates and triggers: new parameters, downstream estimates updates, alert messages, notifications, etc.

- Improve quality of information by specifying data quality in terms of accuracy, timeliness, reliability, stability and predictability based on a moving time window.

43

Main objectives of the Milestone ApproachCDM and IT at AirportsMain components of A-CDM

XIII SITRAER São Paulo 17/11/2014 44XIII SITRAER São Paulo Novembro 2014 44

Aircraft processing monitoring

(source Malpensa Airport)



A-CDM

Taxi in

Unload luggage

Deboarding passengers

Sanitation

Fuelling

Load luggage

Boarding passengers

cleaning

Catering

Water

Pushing back

Taxi out

Ground handling composition

Managing ground handling


Arrival traffic management

Ground handling

Departure traffic

management

Crew&

maintenance management by airlines

Arrival Passengers/fret management

Arrival Passengers/fret management

Departure passengers/fret management

Departure passengers/fret management

Arriving passengers

Departure passengers

Departing aircraft

Arriving aircraft

Ground handling position



Xx Ii Ij

txjijiTt

tjj

tj tk

ptk

f

aDSAGHTf ,,,'

' 1min

Xx Ii

tx

jitkp

a 1,

,kt

fIj 2Tt

tkp

tkfIi Ij

txjia 1,

,

ktXx 2Tt

tk

ftk

p Ik

txkjIi

txji aa ,

,,

,kt

fIj ktXx 2Tt

1,0,, tx

jiakt

pIi

ktfIj ktXx 2Tt

'tj

tj fb kt

fIj Tt '

txji

x

jiti

ti

tj a

V

DSbb ,

,

,

ktpIi kt

fIj ktXx 2Tt

tj

ttj Sbf

j 2Tt kt

fIj

Initial milestone of

ground handling

Objectif function:

under the following constraints :

Information given by another ground handling fleet service provider

Example of assignment problem for ground handling resources



One of the main contributions to performance from Airport CDM is the establishment of the TOBT (Target Off-Block Time) since the confidence for decision making relies on the quality (timeliness, accuracy and predictability) of the TOBT, which in turn depends on several other milestones. So the precision of each milestone should also be analyzed to identify which ones need to be improved to obtain an accurate TOBT.

The progress of the flight is monitored automatically and as the flight progresses through each of the milestones, more information is added and modified as it becomes available (i.e. flight plan, ATFM measures, actual progress etc), and the downstream milestones are updated while eventual alerts are emitted if required.

48

Target Off-Block Time



A delayed arrival will usually have an impact on the departure phase of the flight using the same aircraft, and can also affect:

- the involved crew- the flights carrying transfer passengers- the gate/stand occupation and subsequent partner resource planning.

If a flight becomes late, the Aircraft Operator is prompted to modify the assigned stands and gates or re-schedule the corresponding outbound flight and any associated connecting flights.

49


Delayed arrival


50

3) Pre Departure Sequencing

Although many sequencing algorithms have been developped, in many cases the First Come First Served (FCFS) principle is still adopted. This results in most cases in increased queues at the runway threshold and additional waiting times for engine-on aircraft, resulting in over consumption of fuel and pollutant emissions.

Pre-Departure sequencing uses the Target Off-Block Times (TBOT) obtained from the turn-round process to make the ATC handle more efficiently the depart of aircraft from their parking stand.

Using TBOT information as well as information about the current operational situation of aprons, taxiways and runways, ATC produces a Target Start-Up Approval Time (TSAT) to place efficiently each departing aircraft in a pre-departure sequence.



Objective of Pre-Departure sequencing

The main objective of Pre-Departure Sequencing is to improve punctuality (slot adherence, schedules of airline operators). This is achieved by improving event predictability through the on-line computation for each departing flight of TSAT and TTOT. This increase of predictability eases the ground handling activity which can be performed much more efficiently. Traffic controllers remain responsible for safety, runways throughput and capacity. The A-CDM approach allows to take maximum benefit of applications such as AMAN (Arrival Management), A-SMGCS (ground traffic management) and DMAN (Departure Management) by allowing to minimize the effect of the airport bottleneck (aprons, gates, taxiways or runways).



The TSAT is calculated by taking into account of TOBT, Calculated Take-Off Time (CTOT), wake vortex, Standard Instrument Departure (SID) routing, variable taxi times, and any capacity constraints such as Low Visibility Procedures.

ELDT : Estimated Landing Time, EXIT : Estimated Taxi-In TimeEIBT : Estimated In-Block Time, MTTT : Minimum Turn-round TimeTOBT : Target Off-Block Time, EXOT : Estimated Taxi-Out TimeTTOT : Target Take Off Time, TSAT : Target Start Up Approval Time

EIBT=ELDT + EXIT , TOBT=EIBT + MTTTTTOT=TOBT + EXOT + Constraints

TSAT=TTOT - EXOT

A re-assessment of a flight on the network (re-calculation of CTOT) will be done if the TTOT is outside a Slot Tolerance Window (for instance: STW = CTOT-5 min till CTOT+10 min). The Calculated Take-Off Time becomes tailor-made where possible.

ELDT TSAT


TSAT computation



Example of TSAT information display (Frankfurt Airport)


TSAT information display


XIII SITRAER São Paulo 17/11/2014 54XIII SITRAER São Paulo Novembro 2014 54







55XIII SITRAER São Paulo 17/11/2014

Airport CDM implementation and operation is not designed as a very expensive process, as it does not make use of completely new systems or procedures but mainly involves enhancing and improving existing systems and processes.

For example, information sharing is accomplished by combining data from various partners using the existing infrastructure at the airport.

Furthermore, milestones can be defined to improve the data quality and predictability of turn-round events without the need for new infrastructures, newly developed systems or procedural changes.

The relatively low investment needs of A-CDM make it a friendly concept for airport stakeholders.

55

A-CDM costs CDM and IT at AirportsCost Benefit Analysis of A-CDM


Definition and assumptions of IT

project

Baseline scenario and alternatives

Costs and benefits

identification

Common benefits to all stakeholders

Cost Benefit Analysis per stakeholder

Airlines AirportGround

handlersANSP

56

Cost Benefit Analysis of A-CDM

Flow chart steps of Cost

Benefit Analysis for

A-CDM projects

CDM and IT at AirportsCost Benefit Analysis of A-CDM


Barcelona-El Prat, with 34.4 million passengers, with almost 100 000 tons and 276.497 operations in 2013. The airport has 3 runways and two passenger terminals.

CBA A-CDM Barcelona Airport



A-CDM costs for Barcelona Airport




Actual off block time with scheduled,

estimated and target




TITAN CBA

The Turnaround Integration in Trajectory and Network (TITAN) project directly addresses airport operations focusing on the turnaround process. TITAN develops a new advanced operational concept for the turnaround process for an airport which is assumed to be operated under the A-CDM concept and compatible with the SESAR approach. The main improvement expected from TITAN is an increased predictability of the turnaround process.The Cost Benefit Analysis (CBA) considered here is relative to the implementation of TITAN tool at a generic airport. According to the CBA approach for A-CDM, a CBA has been developed for each of the stakeholders affected by TITAN project: Airlines, Airports, Ground Handlers, and Air Navigation Service Providers.The Tool prototype, the validation exercises, the expert judgments, and the interviews with the stakeholders are the sources for the data used in the assumptions for the cost benefit analysis.

61


Cost Benefit Analysis of TITAN


The generic airport presents 150.000 annual movements and considers a generic airport operator, a generic ANSP, ten generic airlines and three generic ground handlers.

Main assumptions are:• There exists an infrastructure where the information is located

(middleware, common repository, information management system, interfaces, etc.). The tool is granted access to this information. The existing infrastructure is provided by the airport operator who does not have to pay for the subscription to the TITAN Tool.

• The TITAN tool is supposed to be developed and provided by a developer company.

• The users have to pay for the TITAN Tool utilization; a single investment payment would grant them the access (investment/acquisition costs) besides the airport operator.

• Tool operation requires Hardware (HW), Software (SW), training and installation (implementation) to be connected.

62




• A key assumption is the existence of an infrastructure provided at the airport (A-CDM) where the information is located and the TITAN Tool will grant access to it.

• The TITAN tool requires maintenance and resources to be used (operational costs). This is included in the CBA as an annual fee.

• It is also assumed that any user (i.e. any stakeholders using the

tool) will have to pay for the TITAN Tool. These costs are split on Acquisition cost (one-off) and Recurring Costs. Cost figures are based on future tool developers/providers estimations (Annual Operational costs).

The main CBA effort for the TITAN project is to determine the benefits the TITAN Tool will be delivering to future users. These benefits can be translated into monetary terms through delay reductions savings (airlines benefit) and operational cost reduction for all the stakeholders.

63




With this operational cost reduction and the benefits derived from delays reductions, the main figures of merit (NPV) of the project for each stakeholder are:

Airline NPV 5.250.000 €Airport NPV 785.000 €

Negative NPV figures for ANSP and GH are due to the costs they have to pay for the tool and the small benefits they get compared with the Airport and Airlines.

GH NPV -45.000 €ANSP NPV -125.000 €

The main challenge for a specific TITAN Tool implementation will be to establish the effective operational cost reduction. Once this is made, other distribution of costs can be considered, based on the benefits of each stakeholder. Then it is easy to create a business case showing positive figures for all the involved stakeholders.

64

Cost Benefit Analysis of TITANCDM and IT at AirportsCost Benefit Analysis of A-CDM


Conclusion and Perspectives CDM and IT at Airports

• Today the A-CDM concept is well established in Europe and in spreading around the world. Examples are New Delhi, Sydney and New York (JFK) which are adopting it. In USA, the “surface CDM” is now under development.

• The Network CDM concept is taking shape within programs such as SESAR and NEXGEN.

• New enhancements of A-CDM can be expected in many fields to manage much more efficiently different aspects of airport operation and air transportation:- Environment issues : integrating balanced approach objectives in the A-

CDM process.- Safety issues : including ground vehicle fleets management into the A-

CDM process.- Improve collective intelligence to cope with disrupted situations.- Integrate the passenger as a pro-active stakeholder in the A-CDM

process.


Thank You very much for your attention, questions?

Félix Mora-Camino

CD and IT at Airports

XIII SITRAER , São Paulo, Novembro 2014


The European Commission started in 2004 the Single European Sky project with SESAR (Single European Sky ATM Research) being its technical program. SESAR aims at developing a new ATM system able to cope with greater safety and lower costs increasing traffic flows. Its new technologies and procedures should also lead to the reduction of the environmental impact of air transportation.

SESAR goals for 2020 are:

• enable 300% increase in airspace capacity• improve safety by a factor of 10• cut ATM costs by 50%• reduce environmental impact by 10%


SESAR



SESAR


The MetaCDM (Multimodal, Efficient Transportation in Airports – Collaborative Decision Making) project adopts a passenger-centric approach to examine how airside and landside CDM can be best interlinked with other transport modes to minimize in particular the impact of severe Disruptions.

A-CDM and Users


A-CDM and safety


xiii sitraer são paulo 17/11/20141 collaborative decision making and it at airports félix...

Documents