Resource Guide to Airport Performance Indicators

277 Pages·2003·13.96 MB·English

ACRP OVERSIGHT COMMITTEE* TRANSPORTATION RESEARCH BOARD 2011 EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE*
CHAIR OFFICERS
James Wilding CHAIR:Neil J. Pedersen, Administrator, Maryland State Highway Administration, Baltimore
Metropolitan Washington Airports Authority (re- VICECHAIR:Sandra Rosenbloom, Professor of Planning, University of Arizona, Tucson
tired)
EXECUTIVEDIRECTOR:Robert E. Skinner, Jr., Transportation Research Board
VICE CHAIR
MEMBERS
Jeff Hamiel
Minneapolis–St. Paul J. Barry Barker, Executive Director, Transit Authority of River City, Louisville, KY
Metropolitan Airports Commission Deborah H. Butler,Executive Vice President, Planning, and CIO, Norfolk Southern Corporation,
Norfolk, VA
MEMBERS William A.V. Clark, Professor, Department of Geography, University of California, Los Angeles
James Crites Eugene A. Conti, Jr., Secretary of Transportation, North Carolina DOT, Raleigh
Dallas–Fort Worth International Airport James M. Crites, Executive Vice President of Operations, Dallas-Fort Worth International Airport, TX
Richard de Neufville Paula J. Hammond, Secretary, Washington State DOT, Olympia
Massachusetts Institute of Technology
Adib K. Kanafani, Cahill Professor of Civil Engineering, University of California, Berkeley
Kevin C. Dolliole
Susan Martinovich, Director, Nevada DOT, Carson City
Unison Consulting
John K. Duval Michael R. Morris,Director of Transportation, North Central Texas Council of Governments, Arlington
Austin Commercial, LP Tracy L. Rosser, Vice President, Regional General Manager, Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., Mandeville, LA
Kitty Freidheim Steven T. Scalzo, Chief Operating Officer, Marine Resources Group, Seattle, WA
Freidheim Consulting
Henry G. (Gerry) Schwartz, Jr.,Chairman (retired), Jacobs/Sverdrup Civil, Inc., St. Louis, MO
Steve Grossman
Beverly A. Scott, General Manager and CEO, Metropolitan Atlanta Rapid Transit Authority,
Jacksonville Aviation Authority
Tom Jensen Atlanta, GA
National Safe Skies Alliance David Seltzer, Principal, Mercator Advisors LLC, Philadelphia, PA
Catherine M. Lang Lawrence A. Selzer, President and CEO, The Conservation Fund, Arlington, VA
Federal Aviation Administration
Kumares C. Sinha, Olson Distinguished Professor of Civil Engineering, Purdue University, West
Gina Marie Lindsey
Los Angeles World Airports Lafayette, IN
Carolyn Motz Daniel Sperling, Professor of Civil Engineering and Environmental Science and Policy; Director, Institute of
Hagerstown Regional Airport Transportation Studies; and Interim Director, Energy Efficiency Center, University of California, Davis
Richard Tucker Kirk T. Steudle, Director, Michigan DOT, Lansing
Huntsville International Airport
Douglas W. Stotlar,President and CEO, Con-Way, Inc., Ann Arbor, MI
C. Michael Walton, Ernest H. Cockrell Centennial Chair in Engineering, University of Texas, Austin
EX OFFICIO MEMBERS
Paula P. Hochstetler EX OFFICIO MEMBERS
Airport Consultants Council
Sabrina Johnson Peter H. Appel, Administrator, Research and Innovative Technology Administration, U.S.DOT
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency J. Randolph Babbitt, Administrator, Federal Aviation Administration, U.S.DOT
Richard Marchi Rebecca M. Brewster, President and COO, American Transportation Research Institute, Smyrna, GA
Airports Council International—North America
Anne S. Ferro, Administrator, Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration, U.S.DOT
Laura McKee
Air Transport Association of America John T. Gray,Senior Vice President, Policy and Economics, Association of American Railroads,
Henry Ogrodzinski Washington, DC
National Association of State Aviation Officials John C. Horsley, Executive Director, American Association of State Highway and Transportation
Melissa Sabatine Officials, Washington, DC
American Association of Airport Executives
David T. Matsuda,Deputy Administrator, Maritime Administration, U.S.DOT
Robert E. Skinner, Jr.
Transportation Research Board Victor M. Mendez, Administrator, Federal Highway Administration, U.S.DOT
William W. Millar, President, American Public Transportation Association, Washington, DC
SECRETARY Tara O’Toole, Under Secretary for Science and Technology, U.S. Department of Homeland Security,
Washington, DC
Christopher W. Jenks
Transportation Research Board Robert J. Papp(Adm., U.S. Coast Guard),Commandant, U.S. Coast Guard, U.S. Department of
Homeland Security, Washington, DC
Cynthia L. Quarterman,Administrator, Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration,
U.S.DOT
Peter M. Rogoff, Administrator, Federal Transit Administration, U.S.DOT
David L. Strickland, Administrator, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, U.S.DOT
Joseph C. Szabo,Administrator, Federal Railroad Administration, U.S.DOT
Polly Trottenberg, Assistant Secretary for Transportation Policy, U.S.DOT
Robert L. Van Antwerp(Lt. Gen., U.S. Army), Chief of Engineers and Commanding General,
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Washington, DC
Barry R. Wallerstein, Executive Officer, South Coast Air Quality Management District,
Diamond Bar, CA
*Membership as of October 2010. *Membership as of March 2011.
A I R P O R T C O O P E R A T I V E R E S E A R C H P R O G R A M
ACRP
REPORT 19A
Resource Guide to
Airport Performance Indicators
Robert A. Hazel
OLIVERWYMAN, INC.
Reston, VA
Jan David Blais
JDBASSOCIATESLLC
Watertown, MA
Thomas J. Browne
TJB AVIATIONLLC
Clifton, VA
Daniel M. Benzon
TRILLIONAVIATION
Austin, TX
Subscriber Categories
Aviation
Research sponsored by the Federal Aviation Administration
TRANSPORTATION RESEARCH BOARD
WASHINGTON, D.C.
2011
www.TRB.org
AIRPORT COOPERATIVE RESEARCH PROGRAM ACRP REPORT 19A
Airports are vital national resources. They serve a key role in trans- Project 01-09
portation of people and goods and in regional, national, and inter- ISSN 1935-9802
national commerce. They are where the nation’s aviation system ISBN 978-0-309-15538-0
connects with other modes of transportation and where federal respon- Library of Congress Control Number 20111921215
sibility for managing and regulating air traffic operations intersects
with the role of state and local governments that own and operate most © 2011 National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.
airports. Research is necessary to solve common operating problems,
to adapt appropriate new technologies from other industries, and to
introduce innovations into the airport industry. The Airport Coopera-
COPYRIGHT INFORMATION
tive Research Program (ACRP) serves as one of the principal means by
which the airport industry can develop innovative near-term solutions Authors herein are responsible for the authenticity of their materials and for obtaining
written permissions from publishers or persons who own the copyright to any previously
to meet demands placed on it.
published or copyrighted material used herein.
The need for ACRP was identified in TRB Special Report 272: Airport
Research Needs: Cooperative Solutionsin 2003, based on a study spon- Cooperative Research Programs (CRP) grants permission to reproduce material in this
publication for classroom and not-for-profit purposes. Permission is given with the
sored by the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA). The ACRP carries
understanding that none of the material will be used to imply TRB or FAA endorsement
out applied research on problems that are shared by airport operating
of a particular product, method, or practice. It is expected that those reproducing the
agencies and are not being adequately addressed by existing federal material in this document for educational and not-for-profit uses will give appropriate
research programs. It is modeled after the successful National Coopera- acknowledgment of the source of any reprinted or reproduced material. For other uses of
tive Highway Research Program and Transit Cooperative Research Pro- the material, request permission from CRP.
gram. The ACRP undertakes research and other technical activities in a
variety of airport subject areas, including design, construction, mainte-
nance, operations, safety, security, policy, planning, human resources,
NOTICE
and administration. The ACRP provides a forum where airport opera-
tors can cooperatively address common operational problems. The project that is the subject of this report was a part of the Airport Cooperative Research
Program, conducted by the Transportation Research Board with the approval of the
The ACRP was authorized in December 2003 as part of the Vision
Governing Board of the National Research Council.
100-Century of Aviation Reauthorization Act. The primary partici-
pants in the ACRP are (1) an independent governing board, the ACRP The members of the technical panel selected to monitor this project and to review this
report were chosen for their special competencies and with regard for appropriate balance.
Oversight Committee (AOC), appointed by the Secretary of the U.S.
The report was reviewed by the technical panel and accepted for publication according to
Department of Transportation with representation from airport oper-
procedures established and overseen by the Transportation Research Board and approved
ating agencies, other stakeholders, and relevant industry organizations by the Governing Board of the National Research Council.
such as the Airports Council International-North America (ACI-NA),
The opinions and conclusions expressed or implied in this report are those of the
the American Association of Airport Executives (AAAE), the National
researchers who performed the research and are not necessarily those of the Transportation
Association of State Aviation Officials (NASAO), and the Air Transport
Research Board, the National Research Council, or the program sponsors.
Association (ATA) as vital links to the airport community; (2) the TRB
The Transportation Research Board of the National Academies, the National Research
as program manager and secretariat for the governing board; and
Council, and the sponsors of the Airport Cooperative Research Program do not endorse
(3) the FAA as program sponsor. In October 2005, the FAA executed a
products or manufacturers. Trade or manufacturers’ names appear herein solely because
contract with the National Academies formally initiating the program. they are considered essential to the object of the report.
The ACRP benefits from the cooperation and participation of airport
professionals, air carriers, shippers, state and local government officials,
equipment and service suppliers, other airport users, and research orga-
nizations. Each of these participants has different interests and respon-
sibilities, and each is an integral part of this cooperative research effort.
Research problem statements for the ACRP are solicited periodically
but may be submitted to the TRB by anyone at any time. It is the
responsibility of the AOC to formulate the research program by iden-
tifying the highest priority projects and defining funding levels and
expected products.
Once selected, each ACRP project is assigned to an expert panel,
appointed by the TRB. Panels include experienced practitioners and
research specialists; heavy emphasis is placed on including airport pro-
fessionals, the intended users of the research products. The panels pre-
pare project statements (requests for proposals), select contractors, and
provide technical guidance and counsel throughout the life of the
project. The process for developing research problem statements and Published reports of the
selecting research agencies has been used by TRB in managing cooper- AIRPORT COOPERATIVE RESEARCH PROGRAM
ative research programs since 1962. As in other TRB activities, ACRP
are available from:
project panels serve voluntarily without compensation.
Primary emphasis is placed on disseminating ACRP results to the Transportation Research Board
intended end-users of the research: airport operating agencies, service Business Office
500 Fifth Street, NW
providers, and suppliers. The ACRP produces a series of research Washington, DC 20001
reports for use by airport operators, local agencies, the FAA, and other
interested parties, and industry associations may arrange for work- and can be ordered through the Internet at
shops, training aids, field visits, and other activities to ensure that http://www.national-academies.org/trb/bookstore
results are implemented by airport-industry practitioners. Printed in the United States of America
The National Academy of Sciences is a private, nonprofit, self-perpetuating society of distinguished scholars engaged in scientific
and engineering research, dedicated to the furtherance of science and technology and to their use for the general welfare. On the
authority of the charter granted to it by the Congress in 1863, the Academy has a mandate that requires it to advise the federal
government on scientific and technical matters. Dr. Ralph J. Cicerone is president of the National Academy of Sciences.
The National Academy of Engineering was established in 1964, under the charter of the National Academy of Sciences, as a parallel
organization of outstanding engineers. It is autonomous in its administration and in the selection of its members, sharing with the
National Academy of Sciences the responsibility for advising the federal government. The National Academy of Engineering also
sponsors engineering programs aimed at meeting national needs, encourages education and research, and recognizes the superior
achievements of engineers. Dr. Charles M. Vest is president of the National Academy of Engineering.
The Institute of Medicine was established in 1970 by the National Academy of Sciences to secure the services of eminent members
of appropriate professions in the examination of policy matters pertaining to the health of the public. The Institute acts under the
responsibility given to the National Academy of Sciences by its congressional charter to be an adviser to the federal government
and, on its own initiative, to identify issues of medical care, research, and education. Dr. Harvey V. Fineberg is president of the
Institute of Medicine.
The National Research Council was organized by the National Academy of Sciences in 1916 to associate the broad community of
science and technology with the Academy’s purposes of furthering knowledge and advising the federal government. Functioning in
accordance with general policies determined by the Academy, the Council has become the principal operating agency of both the
National Academy of Sciences and the National Academy of Engineering in providing services to the government, the public, and
the scientific and engineering communities. The Council is administered jointly by both Academies and the Institute of Medicine.
Dr. Ralph J. Cicerone and Dr. Charles M. Vest are chair and vice chair, respectively, of the National Research Council.
The Transportation Research Board is one of six major divisions of the National Research Council. The mission of the Transporta-
tion Research Board is to provide leadership in transportation innovation and progress through research and information exchange,
conducted within a setting that is objective, interdisciplinary, and multimodal. The Board’s varied activities annually engage about
7,000 engineers, scientists, and other transportation researchers and practitioners from the public and private sectors and academia,
all of whom contribute their expertise in the public interest. The program is supported by state transportation departments, federal
agencies including the component administrations of the U.S. Department of Transportation, and other organizations and individu-
als interested in the development of transportation. www.TRB.org
www.national-academies.org
C O O P E R A T I V E R E S E A R C H P R O G R A M S
CRP STAFF FOR ACRP REPORT 19A
Christopher W. Jenks,Director, Cooperative Research Programs
Crawford F. Jencks, Deputy Director, Cooperative Research Programs
Michael R. Salamone, ACRP Manager
Joseph J. Brown-Snell, Program Associate
Eileen P. Delaney, Director of Publications
Ellen M. Chafee, Editor
ACRP PROJECT 01-09 PANEL
Field of Administration
Christopher A. Poinsatte,Dallas/Fort Worth International Airport, DFW Airport, TX (Chair)
Ismael L. Bonilla,Broward County (FL) Aviation Department, FT Lauderdale, FL
Rochelle L. “Chellie” Cameron,Metropolitan Washington Airports Authority, Washington, DC
Linda G. Frankl,Columbus Regional Airport Authority, Columbus, OH
Ellis L. Johnson,Georgia Institute of Technology, Atlanta, GA
Joseph E. Richardson, Jr.,JERichardson Aviation Services, LLC, Louisville, KY
Deborah H. Schwartz,Strategic Aviation Solutions, LLC, Little Rock, AR
Elisha Novak,FAA Liaison
Liying Gu,Airports Council International–North America Liaison
Heather M. Krause,US Government Accountability Office Liaison
Laura McKee,Air Transport Association of America, Inc. Liaison
AUTHOR ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
ACRP Report 19A: Resource Guide to Airport Performance Indicatorswas prepared under Airport Coop-
erative Research Program (ACRP) Project 01-09. The Project Research Team was composed of prime con-
tractor Oliver Wyman, Inc., with subcontractors JDBAssociates LLC; TJB Aviation LLC; Trillion Aviation;
Meetings Unlimited LLC; and Creative Strategies Public Relations LLC. The Principal Investigator was Jan
David Blais, President of JDBAssociates. Robert Hazel, Partner at Oliver Wyman, served as a Key
Researcher, as did Tom Browne, President of TJB Aviation, and Dan Benzon, President of Trillion Avia-
tion. Other research support was provided by Eric Ford and Albert Zhong of Oliver Wyman and John
DeCoster of Trillion Aviation. Meeting planning and public relations support were provided by Kristin
Ballance of Meetings Unlimited and Shawn Flaherty of Creative Strategies. Graphics and production sup-
port were provided by Melissa Ureksoy of Oliver Wyman.
The authors would also like to thank the large number of individuals who provided vital input to the
Resource Guidethrough their participation in interviews and workshops conducted by the Resource Team.
F O R E W O R D
By Michael R. Salamone
Staff Officer
Transportation Research Board
ACRP Report 19A: Resource Guide to Airport Performance Indicatorsprovides needed depth
and detail on airport performance indicators (APIs) for use in benchmarking and perfor-
mance measurement. These APIs are sorted by functional type and their criticality to the air-
port strategic plan. More than 800 performance indicators are presented in three main cate-
gories: Core, Key, and Other APIs. “Core” or fundamental indicators are important for
overall operation of the airport and of interest to the CEO or governing board. “Key” or
departmental indicators are important for the operations of key airport functions and
departments. The remaining “Other” indicators are considered useful as secondary depart-
mental unit performance indicators but not critical to the airport’s overall function. The
comprehensive listing of metrics will be useful as a stand-alone document, especially for air-
ports already experienced in performance measurement; it will also be useful for airports that
know something should be measured but have not identified what to measure or how to
measure performance. The guide addresses performance in nearly every functional area at
the airport including administration, human resources, properties, engineering, environ-
ment (noise/air/water/sustainability), facility and infrastructure maintenance, finance, infor-
mation technology, legal, marketing, public relations, operations (airside/landside), and
public safety (police/fire/security). An electronic version of the guide, provided with the print
version as CRP-CD-94,has complete cross-referencing of all performance indicators to help
users find and recognize the performance measures that are most relevant to their functional
interest. This guide will interest airport board members, directors, department leaders, and
other airport employees—as well as industry associations and airport planning profession-
als and consultants.
Under ACRP Project 01-09, a research team led by Oliver Wyman, Inc., reviewed literature
related to airport performance measures; reached out to trade associations, government agen-
cies, and other experts in the field; and conducted two workshops to solicit industry views on
airport performance indicators (APIs). Through this process, the researchers developed an
extensive list of APIs that can be used in an airport performance-measurement system.
To assist airport practitioners in selecting the APIs that are most appropriate for their
particular airport functional interest, each API listing in ACRP Report 19A presents and
defines each indicator, suggests methods for collecting relevant data, and, generally, sup-
ports the implementation of an airport’s performance-measurement system as described in
ACRP Report 19: Developing an Airport Performance-Measurement System.
ACRP Report 19Ais the third in a series of ACRP publications focused on measuring and
managing airport performance. In addition to the previously mentioned ACRP Report 19,
readers of this report are encouraged to examine ACRP Report 20: Strategic Planning in the
Airport Industry,which provides practical guidance on the strategic planning process.
C O N T E N T S
1 Section 1 Overview
1 Types of Airport Performance Indicators
3 Selection of Airport Performance Indicators
4 Core, Key, and Other Airport Performance Indicators
6 Navigating the Resource Guide
8 Self-Benchmarking and Peer Benchmarking
13 Section 2 Airport Performance Indicators
Categorized by Functional Area and Type
19 Airfield Operations (AO)
29 Air Service (AS)
43 ARFF (AR)
51 Cargo (CA)
59 Concessions (CN)
69 Energy Management (EN)
81 Environmental (EV)
95 Financial (FN)
121 Fuel (FL)
125 General Aviation (GA)
131 Grants (GR)
137 Human Resources (HR)
153 Information Technology (IT)
157 Legal (LG)
161 Maintenance (MN)
171 Parking (PK)
181 Planning/Construction (PL)
189 Police/Security (PS)
199 Properties/Contracts (PC)
207 Public Affairs (PA)
213 Safety/Risk Management (SR)
229 Service Quality (SQ)
245 Terminal Operations (TO)
250 Section 3 Additional Resources
250 Glossary of Terms
256 Bibliography
261 Alphabetical Index of Airport Performance Indicators
Note: Many of the photographs, figures, and tablesin this report have been converted from color to grayscale
for printing. The electronic version of the report (posted on the Web at www.trb.org) retains the color versions.
S E C T I O N 1
Overview
ACRP Report 19A: Resource Guide to Airport Performance Indicatorsis the third in a series of Air-
port Cooperative Research Program (ACRP) publications designed to provide airports with tools
for developing and implementing strategic planning and performance-measurement systems.
ACRP Report 19A,the product of ACRP Project 01-09, has gathered into one place an extensive
and categorized set of airport performance indicators (APIs) from which airports can select
specific APIs to use in benchmarking, an important component of a successful performance-
measurement system. Part 1 of this Resource Guide describes the process through which the
APIs were developed, explains the system of categorization used to organize and present the APIs,
and provides an overview of the Resource Guide itself. Part 2 presents descriptions of the APIs
grouped by functional area and level of importance along with providing a short introduction
to each functional area. Part 3 of the Resource Guide provides additional resources, including a
glossary of terms, a bibliography, and an alphabetized index of APIs.
To meet the needs of a variety of users, this Resource Guide is provided in print and as a hyper-
linked PDF on CD-ROM (CRP-CD-94: Interactive Resource Guide for ACRP Report 19A). The print
version will be useful to those who wish to read the material straight through or to obtain a more
comprehensive understanding of the full array of APIs within each functional area. The hyper-
linked electronic version will be useful for those who wish to quickly and easily find related APIs
and groups of APIs.
Types of Airport Performance Indicators
In this Resource Guide, three categories of APIs are presented (see Exhibit 1):
• Core APIs: Important for airport overall operation or otherwise important to the airport
executive level (CEO and Aviation Director) and/or the airport’s governing board
• Key (Departmental) APIs:Important for the operations of key airport departments or func-
tions (e.g., Finance and Maintenance)
• Other APIs:Not considered as useful for airport overall operation, to the executive level, or
to key airport departments/functions. However, these APIs can be useful as secondary depart-
mental unit APIs at or below the manager level
Depending on the circumstances of an airport at a given time, APIs may transition among the
categories of Core, Key, and Other. For example, Key and Other APIs dealing with fuel discharges
may rise to the level of Core APIs after a significant discharge, particularly if it attracts media
attention.
Although some Core and Key APIs will apply to nearly all airports, others will be more limited.
For example, APIs using Passengers as the denominator of the ratio (e.g., Concession Revenue to
1
2 Resource Guide to Airport Performance Indicators
Exhibit 1. Core, Key, and Other APIs.
Core APIs: Important for airport overall
operation or otherwise important to the
airport executive level (CEO and Aviation
Core Director) and/or the airport’s governing
(29) board
Key (Departmental) APIs: Important for the
operations of key airport departments or
Key (132) functions (e.g., Finance and Maintenance)
Other APIs: Not considered as useful for
airport overall operation, to the executive
level, or to key airport departments/
Other (679) functions. However, can be useful as
secondary departmental unit APIs,
at or below the manager level
the Airport per Enplanement), will not be applicable to general aviation airports and cargo
airports. Some other indicators useful for commercial service airports will not apply to gen-
eral aviation airports with different traffic bases, funding sources, and clientele. Among com-
mercial service airports, larger airports will focus on different APIs than smaller airports.
Even among airports with similar characteristics, managers will have different views on which
APIs are most important, and over time these views are likely to change as new issues and
challenges arise.
These divergences are illustrated by poll results at two workshops conducted for ACRP Proj-
ect 01-09, one held in Miami, Florida, and the other in Dallas, Texas. At the Miami workshop,
there was 100% agreement on the classification of only a single indicator (out of 33 Core APIs
and 50 Key APIs): Airline Cost per Enplanement. Everyone agreed it should be a Core API. At
the Dallas workshop, there was not unanimity on the classification of any of the APIs polled.
Individual airport managers will also take different approaches regarding the number of APIs
to be used. Some will be comfortable using 20 or more Core APIs; others will be comfortable
with less than 10. At the Miami workshop, the largest group of respondents thought airports
should use between 11 and 20 Core APIs; the Dallas participants thought 6 to 10 Core APIs was
optimal. See Exhibit 2 for a graph illustrating the results of the workshop polls.
These considerations indicate that each airport director and manager will likely develop
his/her own set of APIs. The function of this Resource Guide is to suggest choices airport man-
Exhibit 2. Results of workshop polls on the number of core APIs
an airport should use.
50%
g
n
ei 40%
e
gr
a
s 30%
nt
e Miami Workshop
d
on 20% Dallas Workshop
p
s
e
of r 10%
%
0%
≤5 6–10 11–20 21–30 31–40 41–50 > 50
Number of core APIs airports should use