Archives

by Dr. Ruwantissa Abeyratne, International Civil Aviation Organization

(Excerpts from a presentation made to the Twelfth Session of the Facilitation Division of ICAO, Cairo 22 March - 2 April, 2004)

Very Large Transport Aircraft (VLTA) have the capacity of carrying more than 500 passengers. The first in the generation of these aircraft (also called new large aircraft, because there are already large aircraft in operation such as the Boeing 747-400) will be headed by the Airbus A380 which is already in production and will be in service in 2006.

Airlines such as Singapore Airlines, Emirates, QANTAS, Virgin Atlantic and Air France have placed firm orders. Total orders for the aircraft are 129 at present, of which 15 will be delivered in 2006; 21 in 2007; 21 in 2008 and 2009 and 12 in 2010.

The A380 will have two decks running throughout the fuselage and will accommodate over 550 passengers. It will have the widest cabin the world and a much larger cockpit than in any aircraft now in service. It has been claimed that this aircraft, which sets the pace for a new generation of large aircraft, will afford even more standards of luxury to passengers whilst increasing the operator's return by 35 per cent.

The A 380 will provide airline operators with a quantum leap in productivity and its increased seat capacity and cargo space, along with increased and extended range in distance will provide airlines with more seat miles on every flight.

The largeness of the A 380 aircraft, and indeed others of its kind, poses some questions to the aviation industry, particularly to the air transport and airport sectors. For instance, what are the security and facilitation implications presented by these aircraft?

Would the turn around time of these aircraft be significantly more than those of smaller aircraft? Would evacuation be more difficult in an emergency situation? How would unruly passengers be handled in the midst of such a large contingent of passengers? Do airports have the capacity to service these aircraft or should existing terminals be revamped? Would insurance costs of these aircraft be significantly more than those associated with similar or smaller aircraft?

It is claimed that many airports around the world will have trouble accommodating the Airbus A380. However, airports such as John F. Kennedy in New York have already made arrangements. JFK's Terminal 4 can handle super jumbo aircraft and its Gate A7 has two loading bridges that the A380 can use for embarking and disembarking passengers.

Some operators and airport personnel claim that the introduction of the A380 will not pose insurmountable problems since the Boeing 747 -400 jumbo jet already in use has a capacity of nearly 500 passengers and is being serviced by airports throughout the world.

On a basic comparison of the A380 and B747-400 aircraft, one sees that there are differences between the two aircraft. For instance the A380 has a maximum takeoff weight of 560 tonnes while that of the B 747 is 395 tonnes - a difference of 41.7 per cent.

The maximum landing weight of the two aircraft are 386 tonnes and 286 tonnes which has a difference of 35 per cent. The wingspan of the A380 is 79.8 meters while that of the B747 is 64.4 meters.

The length of the two aircraft are 73 meters and 70.7 meters respectively. The latter two statistics, i.e. length and breath of the two aircraft are critical comparisons in terms of parking, loading and unloading passengers and cargo.

The extended range of new large aircraft will reach levels of 20 to 24 hours non-stop, which will add to the stress and fatigue experienced by flight attendants. Another relevant and important factor is the manner in which flight attendants will communicate with each other, and with the flight deck, particularly during emergency situations, between the two lengthy flight decks.

There is also no doubt that some significant changes will have to be made to many aspects of existing airport infrastructure so as to accommodate new large aircraft such as the A380. The introduction of the aircraft will present new challenges for airport and airline security as well as border control authorities.

It cannot be assumed that the impact of an aircraft of this size on airport facilities will be merely directly proportional to the extra numbers of passengers. In some areas, an exponential increase in choke points may be experienced.

Security and facilitation issues

Key airport systems such as runways, taxiways, aircraft flows, aprons and gates will all be affected. Consideration should be given to the impact of the A380 on the ability of existing airport facilities to manage the increased throughput of passengers and their baggage whilst maintaining adequate service levels. Airports are interrelated systems that process aircraft, passenger, baggage and vehicle flows.

Unlike runways - which have a "hard" capacity definition, the capacity of a passenger terminal relates directly to facility size and design, and the extent of congestion that might be caused by a particular operation. Particularly, any delays and/or interruptions to throughput that might result from that operation will have a significant impact on both terminal capacity and acceptable levels of services provided to the traveling public.

Performance and level of service are based on operating conditions and rules, but also upon passenger behavior and characteristics and the rate at which passengers flow through the facility. The flow rates for passengers disembarking from A380 aircraft utilizing three (3) contact bridges will be exceptionally high and may result in unpredictable behaviors in more crowded corridors and in queuing areas.

Savings in boarding/deplaning times do not necessarily convert into reduced aircraft turnaround time. Catering (possibly up to 100 trolleys) will be time consuming.

Facilities for handling the loading and unloading of potentially thousands of pieces of hold baggage and freight must be developed and supported to ensure a required level of service.

To maintain current maximum queuing times, the numbers of desks available for passport control must be increased, or new technologies must be deployed in order to expedite the flow of passengers and goods, whilst maintaining satisfactory border control checks.

Additionally, given the passenger disembarkation rates that might ensue where three (3) contact bridges are utilized, pre-inspection queuing areas will likely need to be enlarged to accommodate greater numbers of passengers awaiting inspection.

The number of security checkpoints and associated x-ray machines in use must also be increased in order to maintain current service levels, and to prevent an unacceptable level of congestion and delay from being introduced into the outbound passenger flow. The next series of the A380 may carry up to 650 passengers.

Each incremental increase in the number of passengers boarding or deplaning from this aircraft will have a direct impact on the terminal's ability to facilitate the movement of passengers and their goods through the airport.

As was said earlier, compared to the largest aircraft currently in regular commercial service, the Boeing 747-400 carrying 350 to 400 passengers, the Airbus A-380 is capable of carrying 555 to 800 passengers.

Its wingspan is 79.8 meters (250 feet), 50 feet wider than that of the B-747 and, with a take-off weight of up to 560 tonnes, it outweighs the B-747 by approximately 150 tonnes. It is able to upload over 300 000 liters of fuel, giving it a potential range of over 7 000 nautical miles which opens up a range of non-stop options, overcoming some current scheduling constraints. Initially, it is expected to serve a limited number of major destinations but that list will probably grow rapidly.

The A380 will require special handling by aerodromes. For the introduction of such large aircraft, reconsideration of the associated security practices will be required, including implications of the inevitable space limitations at existing aerodromes.

The significant increase in seating capacity of these aircraft raises some important pre-boarding, boarding/deplaning and in-flight security and facilitation issues. It is timely to reconsider some of the long-accepted, basic concepts and practices of passenger and baggage processing. To gain passenger acceptance, this means no extended delays in passenger processing. A major question in the future will therefore be the preparedness of airports to receive large aircraft.

A significant increase in the number of passengers arriving and departing together through one area will have an impact on each location. The effect could be similar to two B-747s arriving or departing at the same time, at the same gate or check-in area. It is estimated that such a large number of passengers would generate 1 200 to 2 000 pieces of baggage to be checked.

Arrangements will need to be made for shared-use terminal facilities to accommodate this requirement. Larger numbers of passengers in the check-in and pre-boarding areas place greater demands on passenger service staff. Issues such as handling difficult or unruly passengers in the event of unforeseen delays, or more serious incidents, would need to be considered.

It is undesirable to have such large numbers grouped together, both from a security point of view and the potential for passengers' adverse reactions. Further delays and unnecessary restrictions must be reduced or eliminated. A question arises whether traditional screening methods would manage to process such a large number of passengers in a timely fashion.

A simple calculation based on the average time to process a passenger, the estimated number of passengers and an acceptable pre-boarding cycle will dictate the number of screening units which would be required at the check-in area.

Clearly, there is a need to reduce the dependence on individual physical checking. Could a two-tier inspection system with higher-risk passengers, including potentially unruly ones, being given a second and more thorough processing, help to solve the problem? This would require a much higher degree of cooperation and exchange of information between authorities and operators globally, but it could lead to a much better use of resources.

Filtering out of potentially unruly passengers may arguably acquire a greater significance on extremely large aircraft when compared to smaller ones. Statistically, there is a greater chance for an incident to occur which would impact on a larger number of people.

Amendment 10 to Annex 17 requires the certification and training of security staff.

Will there be enough staff to meet these increased requirements? What would be the impact on peak-hour operations? Some better advance processing or a different approach could ease this requirement. Similar challenges will arise with respect to immigration and customs clearance of inbound passengers. Staffing increases cannot be assumed.

Progressive processes based on advance information and self-service, automated systems need to be installed.

Annex 17 to the Chicago Convention of 1944 (which regulates international civil aviation) , Standard 4.4.8 requires 100 per cent baggage screening by 1 January 2006.

Given the likely quantity of baggage to be screened, this will require faster and more reliable screening equipment, which raises the question as to whether it can be achieved at a price that airports, airlines and their customers can afford. In the absence of any significant improvement in the processing rate, long delays on the ground can be expected to dilute the productivity advantage of these new aircraft. The methods of screening, recognizing the physical limitations of the equipment as well as space and time constraints, will need to be reviewed.

A predictably larger number of passengers arriving or being processed at any known time for a particular flight on a new large aircraft may pose a tempting target to terrorists.

This could include increased waiting lines both inside and outside of secure areas, including parking areas, where an attack could be made with fewer risks of detection. Once security-checked, a large number of passengers must be kept isolated from inbound passengers and external threats. Suitable combinations of pre-boarding lounges will be needed and this requirement could pose a problem for operators, which may be further aggravated in the case of technical or weather delays.

Unruly passengers in a crowded area with many hundreds of others can pose a serious problem. Staff will now require additional skills in crisis management and/or negotiation in order to respond to such incidents in a timely manner.

Moving such large numbers onto and off the aircraft will also present a challenge to ground handling staff. This will be influenced by the aircraft class configuration and the number of available loading bridges.

Where apron or stand capacities limit access by new large-body aircraft (remembering the significantly increased wingspan), dedicated stands or areas may be required. Such predictability may not always be welcomed by the security authorities which may in turn impose scheduling constraints.

When unforeseen delays arise that block dedicated stands, use of alternative facilities will slow or complicate passenger boarding or deplaning, which in turn could stretch resources and pose security questions.

Pre- and post-flight aircraft security screening must also be considered. With significantly larger aircraft, more trained, security-cleared screeners will be required. In addition, as with all other aircraft, large-body aircraft will need to be kept sterile until boarding begins.

Apron space restrictions may require dedicated parking areas, possibly remote, posing their own enhanced security challenges. Aerodrome layout may dictate alternative and predictable taxiing routes that could rapidly become known to terrorists, making an attack easier. Parking sites would need to be carefully selected since an aircraft with an 80 ft (25.6 m) tail will be easily identifiable.

Increasing the number of passengers raises the question of how they will react to any form of incident or pressure, including delays, bad weather or unruly passengers. The risks will most likely increase in proportion to the numbers of passengers carried. With the potential for 200 upper deck passengers, what implications would there be to handling an emergency of a security nature?

How many sky marshals will be required in a 550- to 800-seat aircraft, and would their role be the same as in smaller aircraft at present? How would the flight crew now be constituted? What would the role of cabin staff be? What sort of training would be required? Additional numbers of passengers would increase the frequency of unforeseen events and companies would wish to reduce the incidence of medical emergency diversions.

On-board facilities away from passenger view may be required. What sort of training or level of qualification would the first caregivers require, and would this be to internationally agreed standards? Would they be indemnified against prosecution, and what special equipment would be required? Restraint of unruly passengers assumes greater importance with larger numbers of passengers.

In such an environment, a disturbed passenger could cause a considerable amount of trouble for fellow passengers and crew. Powers of restraint would be required and perhaps another secure area to detain that person.

The threat posed by man-portable air defense systems (MANPADS) is increasing and new large aircraft could pose a huge and attractive target. With its gross take-off weight and fuel capacity, the potential exists for massive destruction in the unfortunate event of an incident in the vicinity of a major city.

Insurance and Risk Management Issues

Statistics show that accident rates following the introduction of new aircraft are most prolific during the first six years of use.

For example, the first generation of aircraft such as the Boeing 707, DC-8 and Comet -4 suffered 45 accidents during the first 6 years of their use while the second generation aircraft such as B 727, DC-9, B 737 -100 suffered 6 accidents in 6 years and decreased over the following years.

The early wide bodies, including the B 747 jumbo; DC 10; L-1011 and A 300 suffered 12 accidents in a corresponding period of use while the current generation such MD 80/90; B 767; B 757 and A 340; along with B 737-600 and A 330 suffered 10 accidents in the early yeas of use.

It will be interesting to see whether this sustained trend will be a decisive factor which would influence the insurance underwriters and make them apprehensive about insuring the A 380 in its initial stages.

Liability for third party damage (such as liability incurred by the airline industry after the events of 11 September 2001 when aircraft were used as weapons of destruction for the first time in history) stands at a reserve limit of 1.5 billion US dollars per Boeing 747 aircraft and it is speculated (although not conclusively agreed upon by the insurance industry) that coverage for A 380 aircraft might go up to 3 billion U dollars per aircraft for third party liability. This is a speculated 100 per cent increase in liability limits in comparison to the current range for large aircraft.

Aviation premium evolution for aircraft insurance has had an interesting profile over the past decade. In 1990 the evaluation was around 450 million US dollars which went up to 870 million in 1991 and peaked at 2000 million in 1994.

There was a decline between 1995 and 2000 to approximately 1500 US dollars. In 2001, for obvious reasons, the premium level went up to 3500 US dollars and over the past two years the level has been steady at around 2700 million.

It is envisioned that the A380 will involve and represent peak exposures both in hull value and seating capacity in a single aircraft substantially above typical large exposures by approximately 32 per cent. Although, in the past, aviation insurers have sustained a tradition of taking advantage of abundant catastrophe reinsurance to provide clients with large limits, this is no longer applicable and has ceased to be an option.

The capital providers of aviation insurance are becoming increasingly reluctant to drive their insurance businesses with the use of reinsurance, simply because of high reinsurance prices and the shortage of reinsurance capacity.

However, exposure is being increasingly monitored both by regulators and capital providers as large commitments in aviation can threaten the solvency of the underwriting business. In order to retain confidence of secure capital resources and credibility, aviation underwriters need to deploy capacity prudently and strategically. Also, attendant risk must be balanced by the expected reward.

The above brings to bear the significance of insuring an A380 aircraft. Primary underwriters will probably be looking at a 30 percent adjustment of line size to gauge dollar line exposure of the aircraft while at the same time deploying primary placements to obtain the widest market involvement. They will also introduce aggregate limits of liability and reinstatement provisions while addressing specific underwriting issues endemic to a new large aircraft.

So, are we ready for new large aircraft? The answer is a definite yes, but we should be prepared and cautious.

www.Pathmaconstruction.com

www.ceylincoproperties.com

www.ppilk.com

www.crescat.com

News | Business | Features | Editorial | Security
Politics | World | Letters | Sports | Obituaries

Produced by Lake House
Copyright © 2003 The Associated Newspapers of Ceylon Ltd.
Comments and suggestions to :Web Manager