CHANGING LANDSCAPE OF FBO SERVICES Continued from page 61 increased capacity of FBO services could not be supported. It is signifi- cant to note that 2006 was consid- ered one of the pinnacle years in the general aviation and FBO industry, and there was significant investment being made across the country by private enterprises in FBO services. In 2010, the CMAA published another RFP for the management of an FBO facility to be owned and developed by the CMAA. The fol- lowing year, utilizing CMAA, State, and FAA funds, the CMAA opened a second FBO facility at the airport to compete with TAC Air (a private enterprise). In conjunction with the opening of the CMAA-owned FBO, the CMAA modified the Airport’s Minimum Standards to eliminate the requirement for FBOs to pro- vide aircraft maintenance services. After several years of operating losses at the CMAA-owned FBO, the CMAA negotiated the purchase of TAC Air’s FBO at the airport and the CMAA returned the airport back to a one FBO airport—the exact situation the CMAA had invested millions in capital and operating losses to avoid. Cross-Utilization of Airport and FBO Staff As mentioned in the DuPage Airport Authority/DuPage Jet Center case study, the DPA does not cross- utilize the airport and FBO staff. However, this is not always the case at many airports where the airport sponsor owns and operates the FBO. While cross-utilization of airport and FBO staff can be economically beneficial for the airport sponsor and the airport-owned and-operated FBO, it can also create undesirable safety, security, and service issues for the airport, the FBO, and, most importantly, the users of the airport. • Safety — One of the top safety focuses at airports today is related to the presence and operation of vehicles, Ground Support Equipment (GSE), and pedes- trians within the air operations area (AOA). Cross-utilization of airport and FBO staff substan- tially increases the number of vehicle and GSE operations and related pedestrians on the AOA as the airport/FBO staff travel and transition between airport duties and responsibilities (e.g., snow removal, mowing, FOD inspection and removal, perimeter security inspection, etc.) and FBO duties and responsibilities (e.g., aircraft fueling, aircraft ground handling, crew and passenger support, AOA escorts, etc.). Some of the safety issues associ- ated with the cross-utilization of airport/FBO staff can be reduced by: (1) the utilization of industry- sponsored airport safety training programs (e.g., American Association of Airport Executives (AAAE) Airport Certified Employee, AAAE Airport Safety and Operations Specialist, airport specific AOA driver train- ing programs, etc.) and FBO safety training programs (e.g., National Air Transportation Association’s (NATA) Safety 1st , International Business Aviation Council (IBAC) International Standard for Business Aircraft Operations, etc.); also, by Approximately 18% of all runway incursions at airports in the United States involve vehicles and pedes- trians. Beyond runway incursions, the number of accidents and incidents in the non-movement area of airports in 2014 resulted in the FAA issuing a National Part 139 CertAlert. There was a sig- nificant increase in the number of vehicles and/or GSE inadvertently hitting aircraft in the non-movement area resulting in injury or death as well as damaging aircraft. (2) the development and imple- mentation of airport and FBO safety and standard operating procedures, the use of dedicated vehicle and GSE driving lanes, and the requirement of operation of radio-equipped vehicles and GSE to monitor aircraft movements on the AOA. While these methods may improve safety, only dedicated airport and FBO staff can signifi- cantly reduce these safety issues. • Security — Cross-utilized airport/FBO staff tend to have their time and attention pulled in multiple directions associ- ated with their airport and FBO duties and responsibilities; and, are unable to be in more than one place at a time. Therefore, cross-utilized staff may monitor and inspect security doors and gates less frequently creating an opportunity for a security breach. Continued on page 65 Aviation Business Journal | 1st Quarter 2017 63
