Frankfurt – The International Air Transport Association (IATA) called on security regulators around the world to work together to make the skies more secure by addressing the challenges related to cargo security and data collection. IATA also unveiled plans to lead a global effort to build an airport checkpoint of the future, which will tighten security and ease passenger hassle.
“We are much more secure than in 2001, but there is room for improvement,” said Giovanni Bisignani, IATA’s Director General and CEO at the opening of AVSEC World in Frankfurt, Germany. Bisignani identified several areas where more progress is needed to further improve aviation security and address passenger frustrations:
.....
IATA presented five recommendations based on these principles:
1. Implement formal consultation with all airlines including non-US carriers
2. Refine existing emergency orders to address the international environment
3. Streamline the data collection process
4. Strengthen government to government outreach for greater harmonization and coordination
5. Start developing a next generation checkpoint
http://ht.ly/3307D
Showing posts with label IATA. Show all posts
Showing posts with label IATA. Show all posts
Thursday, December 2, 2010
Sunday, November 21, 2010
Defining Capacity of Airport Passenger Buildings
The new IATA LOS accounts for more space needed for movement,taking into consideration, presence of trolleys, bags, occupants standing or sitting, etc
Standards include:
(new version: Airport Development Manual, 9th ed., 2004 )
http://ardent.mit.edu/airports/ASP_current_lectures/ASP%2004/Defining_Capacity04.pdf
Standards include:
- Wait / Circulate
- Passport / Hold
- Bag Claim Area
- Check-in Area
(new version: Airport Development Manual, 9th ed., 2004 )
http://ardent.mit.edu/airports/ASP_current_lectures/ASP%2004/Defining_Capacity04.pdf
Tuesday, November 16, 2010
IATA e-services: Vertical Campaign for top 200 airlines
Objectives:
http://www.iata.org/whatwedo/stb/e-services/Documents/Final-Report-e-services-29102010.pdf
- Drive the implementation of the global IATA electronic miscellaneous document (EMD) standard across the industry, completing the final step to reach e-travel (after e-ticketing and mobile boarding pass) and allowing:
- Removal of paper miscellaneous documents from airline distribution systems
- Airlines to offer more ancillary services to passengers
http://www.iata.org/whatwedo/stb/e-services/Documents/Final-Report-e-services-29102010.pdf
Friday, November 12, 2010
Automated Baggage Rules (ABR)
http://www.iata.org/whatwedo/stb/Pages/abr.aspx
The Board of Governors in June 2010 confirmed a new StB (Simplifying the Business) project: Automated Baggage Rules. An automated baggage rules solution will enable airlines to electronically file their own baggage allowance policies and charges to a centralized database to be developed by the Airline Tariff Publishing Company (ATPCO). This will reduce loss of revenues for airlines and lessen complexities for travel agents, check-in agents and interline partners, who will be able to correctly assess carrier baggage policies, and deliver consistent information to the passenger.
To be successful, the ATPCO solution needs to be embedded within reservations, pricing and ticketing systems as well as departure control systems.
Ben: looks like i need not produce that Baggage training aid for CIAS any more
The Board of Governors in June 2010 confirmed a new StB (Simplifying the Business) project: Automated Baggage Rules. An automated baggage rules solution will enable airlines to electronically file their own baggage allowance policies and charges to a centralized database to be developed by the Airline Tariff Publishing Company (ATPCO). This will reduce loss of revenues for airlines and lessen complexities for travel agents, check-in agents and interline partners, who will be able to correctly assess carrier baggage policies, and deliver consistent information to the passenger.
To be successful, the ATPCO solution needs to be embedded within reservations, pricing and ticketing systems as well as departure control systems.
Automated Baggage Rules Task Force (ABRTF)
http://www.iata.org/workgroups/Pages/abrtf.aspxBen: looks like i need not produce that Baggage training aid for CIAS any more
Monday, September 20, 2010
A global perspective: IATA GAP
Article Abstract
http://www.quirks.com/articles/a2000/20001102.aspx?searchID=113689271&sort=9
The Global Airline Performance (GAP) study is a joint venture between P. Robert and Partners (PRP), a Swiss research firm, and the London-based Aviation Information and Research unit of IATA, the International Air Transport Association.
The syndicated study uses a two-part survey to measure the opinions of air travelers on 22 airlines departing from 30 airports in North America, Europe, and Asia. Each year, 240,000 passengers are interviewed. Depending on the airline routes being researched, the survey can be conducted in seven languages: English, French, Dutch, German, Swedish, Chinese, or Japanese.
GAP Transatlantic (operating since July 1999) covers 16 airlines, 15 airports in North America and 10 in Europe. GAP Transpacific (October 1999) covers 12 airlines, 15 North American and four Asian airports. GAP Europe to Asia (April 2000) encompasses 12 airlines, six European airports and four Asian airports.
No airline or airport personnel are involved in the survey distribution process, which eliminates any potential for airline employee-introduced bias and also frees cabin crews from an extra burden. Instead, GAP interviewers in each airport approach air travelers at their gate or in the departure lounge to engage them in the survey process, which entails completing a four-page questionnaire prior to departing and a second, shorter form at the conclusion of their flight.
“We interview them when they are the most available: before the flight,” says David Perroud, GAP manager, P. Robert and Partners. “Many people at that time are just waiting for the flight to board so anything that can distract them from waiting is welcome. We have very few refusals.”
The respondent gives the completed first part to the GAP representative, who then instructs him or her on how to return the second part, either by the postage-paid mailer, by fax or by telephone.
In 20-some questions, part one of the survey examines the performance of airline staff during reservation and check-in, the respondent’s impression of the airport facilities, and gathers other information about flying habits, frequent flyer program membership, and demographic data.
Part two looks at the boarding process, the airplane’s cabin comfort and features, the cabin crew, food and beverage service, onboard amenities, and post-flight impressions in addition to overall assessment of the airline and the flight in question.
Rather than contacting respondents after their flight by phone or mail, the GAP study reaches the passengers while the experience is still fresh in their minds. “We want to capture their opinions very close to the moment of truth,” says Paul Lai, general manager - marketing research, Delta Air Lines, Atlanta, a GAP subscriber.
The survey boasts a response rate of better than 50 percent, that is, about 50 percent of respondents who complete part one also follow through and submit part two.
“That response rate is a far cry from the less than 10 percent response rate from previous studies,” Lai says. “When the response rate is so low, results could be inconsistent and unreliable. We would see results going up or down without any reasonable explanation. That’s when internal customers may question the validity of your research, and rightly so.”
While Lai does not want to cite specific examples of issues uncovered by the research, he does offer that the GAP research gives Delta opportunities to benchmark industry leaders in any service area and then act accordingly. “If we see that airline X is doing very well in the area of food and beverage, for example, we may want to find out what is going on there. So then we put our product people on the case and have them do some competitive flying to find out what they are doing to make their rating so high.”
As is typical with syndicated studies, participants receive data on their own performance as well as that of competitors. “The first and most important thing with GAP is that it is a benchmark,” Perroud says. “Airlines used to have a lot of information about their own passengers. Now they can measure their own performance and compare it to the competitors.
“The other important thing is that it’s an ongoing survey, so they can track their passenger satisfaction over time. So if they change something in their in-flight service, the food perhaps, they can see how their rating is affected. They can track quarter-by-quarter.”
Study subscribers receive results quarterly, in the form of data tables, raw data in SPSS or Quanvert, etc., and an Excel macro that allows them to produce charts from the data. Every six months a full report is issued.
Active in development
The airlines have been active participants in the development of the GAP study. “The design process has been a long one, involving around 15 airlines,” says Perroud. “We have done two different pilot studies and also have analyzed the study to see what is the most effective way of asking the questions. All of these airlines were already asking those kinds of questions so we had a good starting point.”
Dissatisfaction with syndicated transatlantic route research brought various airlines together two years ago to discuss development of a new study, Lai says. “Since a lot of airlines felt that need, it was easy to get people together to talk about possible solutions. So taking the first step was not that bad.”
While the first step was easy, those that followed were considerably more difficult. The biggest problem was crafting a consensus among the participating airlines during the survey development process, Lai says. “Everything from how a question is worded to how we use the results, even the look of the graphics, has been a bit challenging. There are so many airlines involved, and each has its own quirky preferences. Now, with the survey in full bloom, it is almost a miracle that we were able to pull it off.”
Help from the airlines was also instrumental in translating/back-translating the questionnaires into the various languages. Cathay Pacific helped with the translation of the Chinese questionnaire, for example. No matter the language, the survey forms use the same scales and are structured the same way.
Airline involvement in the study is ongoing. For example, Lai and other airline representative members of the GAP Technical Committee met in London in January and in Miami in October to discuss a host of issues pertaining to the survey, from adding new routes to data weighting options.
Integral part
As the link between the survey and the respondent, the interviewers are an integral part of the process and great care is taken to train them, monitor their performance and provide them incentives for doing good work.
“When we started a year ago we had a response rate of 44 percent and now it’s up to 52 percent and every quarter it is improving. The interviewers play a key role and they are probably one of our big strengths,” Perroud says.
“It is very important that they are smartly-dressed and professional in appearance. And they have to be very easygoing with other people. They are given a script to follow as a guideline but we encourage them to sound as natural as possible and not merely recite the words.”
Perroud and other GAP representatives visit the airports to meet with the interviewers. In addition, PRP sends them a quarterly newsletter showing how they and their airport performed compared to others. “We do some contests on the response rates, not on how many surveys they distribute but how many completed surveys they get back. We rate the airports and the interviewers and the three best interviewers [globally] get a check.”
Service issues
Lai says there are two main service issues facing airlines today. One is operational reliability – arriving and departing on-time, not canceling or delaying flights. “We have found that that is one of the greatest drivers of satisfaction, especially for domestic service,” he says.
The second is the interaction between airline employees and passengers. “This is more a dissatisfier than a satisfier,” Lai says. “By that I mean people take for granted a basic level of civility from the staff, whether it’s the reservation agent or gate agent. If a representative has an attitude problem, and if a customer doesn’t feel special, isn’t given the basic courtesy of a smile or a sorry or a thank you, they can become angry.”
In Delta’s case, with 78,000 employees, Lai says the question is, how do you manage and motivate them to give great, consistent customer service day in and day out? That human element is not as immediately controllable as on-time performance or the quality of in-flight meals. Measuring and monitoring customer service is part of the job of marketing research.
Lai says the GAP study provides good information on how Delta’s SkyTeam partner airline Air France is doing. “That does not replace the need for doing alliance-specific research with Air France and other partners but [the GAP study] certainly gives us a good idea of how they are perceived by their customers.”
Competitive view
The information from the GAP study affords Delta a one-of-a-kind competitive view, Lai says. “You have to put your performance into perspective, into the context of the other airlines. You might look at your own results and say things are stable or improving compared to last year. But if you find that your slight improvement actually puts you a few notches below other carriers, that is quite a different story. So the information we get from the GAP study is unique and invaluable in that sense.”
This article discusses the Global Airline Performance (GAP) study, a joint venture between P. Robert and Partners (PRP), a Swiss research firm, and the London-based Aviation Information and Research unit of IATA, the International Air Transport Association. The syndicated study uses a two-part survey to measure the opinions of air travelers on 22 airlines departing from 30 airports in North America, Europe and Asia. Each year, 240,000 passengers are interviewed. Depending on the airline routes being researched, the survey can be conducted in seven languages: English, French, Dutch, German, Swedish, Chinese or Japanese.
http://www.quirks.com/articles/a2000/20001102.aspx?searchID=113689271&sort=9
The Global Airline Performance (GAP) study is a joint venture between P. Robert and Partners (PRP), a Swiss research firm, and the London-based Aviation Information and Research unit of IATA, the International Air Transport Association.
The syndicated study uses a two-part survey to measure the opinions of air travelers on 22 airlines departing from 30 airports in North America, Europe, and Asia. Each year, 240,000 passengers are interviewed. Depending on the airline routes being researched, the survey can be conducted in seven languages: English, French, Dutch, German, Swedish, Chinese, or Japanese.
GAP Transatlantic (operating since July 1999) covers 16 airlines, 15 airports in North America and 10 in Europe. GAP Transpacific (October 1999) covers 12 airlines, 15 North American and four Asian airports. GAP Europe to Asia (April 2000) encompasses 12 airlines, six European airports and four Asian airports.
No airline or airport personnel are involved in the survey distribution process, which eliminates any potential for airline employee-introduced bias and also frees cabin crews from an extra burden. Instead, GAP interviewers in each airport approach air travelers at their gate or in the departure lounge to engage them in the survey process, which entails completing a four-page questionnaire prior to departing and a second, shorter form at the conclusion of their flight.
“We interview them when they are the most available: before the flight,” says David Perroud, GAP manager, P. Robert and Partners. “Many people at that time are just waiting for the flight to board so anything that can distract them from waiting is welcome. We have very few refusals.”
The respondent gives the completed first part to the GAP representative, who then instructs him or her on how to return the second part, either by the postage-paid mailer, by fax or by telephone.
In 20-some questions, part one of the survey examines the performance of airline staff during reservation and check-in, the respondent’s impression of the airport facilities, and gathers other information about flying habits, frequent flyer program membership, and demographic data.
Part two looks at the boarding process, the airplane’s cabin comfort and features, the cabin crew, food and beverage service, onboard amenities, and post-flight impressions in addition to overall assessment of the airline and the flight in question.
Rather than contacting respondents after their flight by phone or mail, the GAP study reaches the passengers while the experience is still fresh in their minds. “We want to capture their opinions very close to the moment of truth,” says Paul Lai, general manager - marketing research, Delta Air Lines, Atlanta, a GAP subscriber.
The survey boasts a response rate of better than 50 percent, that is, about 50 percent of respondents who complete part one also follow through and submit part two.
“That response rate is a far cry from the less than 10 percent response rate from previous studies,” Lai says. “When the response rate is so low, results could be inconsistent and unreliable. We would see results going up or down without any reasonable explanation. That’s when internal customers may question the validity of your research, and rightly so.”
While Lai does not want to cite specific examples of issues uncovered by the research, he does offer that the GAP research gives Delta opportunities to benchmark industry leaders in any service area and then act accordingly. “If we see that airline X is doing very well in the area of food and beverage, for example, we may want to find out what is going on there. So then we put our product people on the case and have them do some competitive flying to find out what they are doing to make their rating so high.”
As is typical with syndicated studies, participants receive data on their own performance as well as that of competitors. “The first and most important thing with GAP is that it is a benchmark,” Perroud says. “Airlines used to have a lot of information about their own passengers. Now they can measure their own performance and compare it to the competitors.
“The other important thing is that it’s an ongoing survey, so they can track their passenger satisfaction over time. So if they change something in their in-flight service, the food perhaps, they can see how their rating is affected. They can track quarter-by-quarter.”
Study subscribers receive results quarterly, in the form of data tables, raw data in SPSS or Quanvert, etc., and an Excel macro that allows them to produce charts from the data. Every six months a full report is issued.
Active in development
The airlines have been active participants in the development of the GAP study. “The design process has been a long one, involving around 15 airlines,” says Perroud. “We have done two different pilot studies and also have analyzed the study to see what is the most effective way of asking the questions. All of these airlines were already asking those kinds of questions so we had a good starting point.”
Dissatisfaction with syndicated transatlantic route research brought various airlines together two years ago to discuss development of a new study, Lai says. “Since a lot of airlines felt that need, it was easy to get people together to talk about possible solutions. So taking the first step was not that bad.”
While the first step was easy, those that followed were considerably more difficult. The biggest problem was crafting a consensus among the participating airlines during the survey development process, Lai says. “Everything from how a question is worded to how we use the results, even the look of the graphics, has been a bit challenging. There are so many airlines involved, and each has its own quirky preferences. Now, with the survey in full bloom, it is almost a miracle that we were able to pull it off.”
Help from the airlines was also instrumental in translating/back-translating the questionnaires into the various languages. Cathay Pacific helped with the translation of the Chinese questionnaire, for example. No matter the language, the survey forms use the same scales and are structured the same way.
Airline involvement in the study is ongoing. For example, Lai and other airline representative members of the GAP Technical Committee met in London in January and in Miami in October to discuss a host of issues pertaining to the survey, from adding new routes to data weighting options.
Integral part
As the link between the survey and the respondent, the interviewers are an integral part of the process and great care is taken to train them, monitor their performance and provide them incentives for doing good work.
“When we started a year ago we had a response rate of 44 percent and now it’s up to 52 percent and every quarter it is improving. The interviewers play a key role and they are probably one of our big strengths,” Perroud says.
“It is very important that they are smartly-dressed and professional in appearance. And they have to be very easygoing with other people. They are given a script to follow as a guideline but we encourage them to sound as natural as possible and not merely recite the words.”
Perroud and other GAP representatives visit the airports to meet with the interviewers. In addition, PRP sends them a quarterly newsletter showing how they and their airport performed compared to others. “We do some contests on the response rates, not on how many surveys they distribute but how many completed surveys they get back. We rate the airports and the interviewers and the three best interviewers [globally] get a check.”
Service issues
Lai says there are two main service issues facing airlines today. One is operational reliability – arriving and departing on-time, not canceling or delaying flights. “We have found that that is one of the greatest drivers of satisfaction, especially for domestic service,” he says.
The second is the interaction between airline employees and passengers. “This is more a dissatisfier than a satisfier,” Lai says. “By that I mean people take for granted a basic level of civility from the staff, whether it’s the reservation agent or gate agent. If a representative has an attitude problem, and if a customer doesn’t feel special, isn’t given the basic courtesy of a smile or a sorry or a thank you, they can become angry.”
In Delta’s case, with 78,000 employees, Lai says the question is, how do you manage and motivate them to give great, consistent customer service day in and day out? That human element is not as immediately controllable as on-time performance or the quality of in-flight meals. Measuring and monitoring customer service is part of the job of marketing research.
Lai says the GAP study provides good information on how Delta’s SkyTeam partner airline Air France is doing. “That does not replace the need for doing alliance-specific research with Air France and other partners but [the GAP study] certainly gives us a good idea of how they are perceived by their customers.”
Competitive view
The information from the GAP study affords Delta a one-of-a-kind competitive view, Lai says. “You have to put your performance into perspective, into the context of the other airlines. You might look at your own results and say things are stable or improving compared to last year. But if you find that your slight improvement actually puts you a few notches below other carriers, that is quite a different story. So the information we get from the GAP study is unique and invaluable in that sense.”
Sunday, June 6, 2010
AIRPORT AND AIR NAVIGATION SERVICES COMMERCIALIZATION by IATA
http://www.icao.int/icao/en/atb/ansconf2000/docs/wp26e.pdf
SUMMARY
The airline industry generally favours commercialising airport and air navigation
entities. It is concerned, however, that the process often leads to increases in the
cost base for charging purposes and thus higher user charges. The Conference is
asked to endorse the need for proper consultation and transparency during the
commercialisation process, independent economic oversight of commercialised
entities, and a neutral dispute settlement mechanism.
SUMMARY
The airline industry generally favours commercialising airport and air navigation
entities. It is concerned, however, that the process often leads to increases in the
cost base for charging purposes and thus higher user charges. The Conference is
asked to endorse the need for proper consultation and transparency during the
commercialisation process, independent economic oversight of commercialised
entities, and a neutral dispute settlement mechanism.
Thursday, May 20, 2010
IATA - Travel Agent’s Handbook
http://www.iata.org/whatwedo/Documents/agenthome/tah_general_information.pdf
Thursday, May 13, 2010
Comment: A Decennis Horribilis (10 Horrible Years)
http://www.flightglobal.com/articles/2009/12/23/336481/comment-a-decennis-horribilis.html
"let's start with a sobering number: $68 billion. That's the total net loss for the industry in the past decade, according to data from the......."
"let's start with a sobering number: $68 billion. That's the total net loss for the industry in the past decade, according to data from the......."
FlightGlobal - Liberalisation: Breaking the bilateral web
http://www.flightglobal.com/articles/2010/04/22/340857/liberalisation-breaking-the-bilateral-web.html
Airlines call for changes to EC passenger rights rules
http://www.flightglobal.com/articles/2010/04/23/340999/airlines-call-for-changes-to-ec-passenger-rights-rules.html
Airlines are calling for changes to the European Commission's passenger rights rules to make an exception for the costs associated with feeding and accommodating passengers stranded as a result of the volcanic ash cloud.......
Airlines are calling for changes to the European Commission's passenger rights rules to make an exception for the costs associated with feeding and accommodating passengers stranded as a result of the volcanic ash cloud.......
Tuesday, May 11, 2010
IATA recommended practice 1630, cargo security
http://www.iata.org/nr/rdonlyres/ccb875f7-3968-47b0-a425-a75b691c626e/0/rp1630_adopted_csc31.pdf
statistics for aviation growth and economic
http://www.iata.org/whatwedo/economics/e_analyst/index.htm
IATA e-freight Business Process & Standards
http://www.iata.org/whatwedo/cargo/efreight/Pages/materials.aspx
n order to remove the paper and use electronic messages it is necessary to have common and clear business process and standards, which are the foundations of IATA e-freight as well as e-Freight Operational Procedures (e-FOP) that stakeholders can follow in an e-freight environment.
In this section you will find information on:
* IATA Cargo To-Be business process
* IATA e-freight operational procedures
* IATA e-freight functional specifications
* Standard electronic messages
n order to remove the paper and use electronic messages it is necessary to have common and clear business process and standards, which are the foundations of IATA e-freight as well as e-Freight Operational Procedures (e-FOP) that stakeholders can follow in an e-freight environment.
In this section you will find information on:
* IATA Cargo To-Be business process
* IATA e-freight operational procedures
* IATA e-freight functional specifications
* Standard electronic messages
IATA Freight Forwarder – Carrier – Ground Handling Agent Communication Functional Specifications
http://www.iata.org/SiteCollectionDocuments/Documents/IATAFFCarrierGHAFunctionalSpecificationsv07.pdf
As part of the IATA e-freight project, this document is intended to describe some of the information (electronic message) flows implemented between Freight Forwarders, Carriers and Ground Handling Agents at origin and at destination in an IATA e-freight environment. For IATA e-freight’s purposes, this information flow must preserve the Shipment Record1 (e-AWB) and ensure the data quality and integrity.
As part of the IATA e-freight project, this document is intended to describe some of the information (electronic message) flows implemented between Freight Forwarders, Carriers and Ground Handling Agents at origin and at destination in an IATA e-freight environment. For IATA e-freight’s purposes, this information flow must preserve the Shipment Record1 (e-AWB) and ensure the data quality and integrity.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)