2003-2004 aci-na air cargo facilities and security survey...

2003-2004 ACI-NA Air Cargo Facilities and Security Survey

Summary

ACI-NA Air Cargo Subcommittee ACI-NA Economic Affairs Department

August 2004

TABLE OF CONTENTS

INTRODUCTION........................................................................................................................ 3

SURVEY SAMPLE: SIZE & DISTRIBUTION ....................................................................... 4

SURVEY QUESTION COMPOSITION................................................................................... 5

ON-AIRPORT CARGO FACILITIES – GENERAL CHARACTERISTICS.............................. 5

TRUCKING .................................................................................................................................. 7

INDIVIDUAL FACILITIES......................................................................................................... 8

TREND AND PLANNING........................................................................................................... 9

CONCLUSION........................................................................................................................... 10

APPENDIX 1: 2003 RANKINGS OF PARTICIPATING AIRPORTS................................ 12

APPENDIX 2: 2003-2004 ACI-NA AIR CARGO FACILITIES AND SECURITY SURVEY QUESTIONNAIRE .................................................................................................. 15

APPENDIX 3 – AIRPORT CARGO VOLUME PERCENTAGE CHANGE (2003 VS 2000) ........................................................................................................................................... 18

2

AIRPORTS COUNCIL INTERNATIONAL – NORTH AMERICA 2003-2004 AIR CARGO FACILITIES & SECURITY SURVEY

INTRODUCTION The Airports Council International – North America (ACI-NA) launched its 2003 Air Cargo Facilities and Security Survey right before Christmas 2003. This survey was based on the survey questionnaire of 2002 cargo survey, with an additional set of questions. To provide airport operators with as much guidance and effective representation as possible, ACI-NA undertook this survey effort again to assure that we had the most up-to-date airport air cargo data as possible. Both surveys delved deeply into security issues at airport cargo facilities, access points and the potential to mitigate threats to airport cargo infrastructure and operations at North American airports. One of ACI-NA’s goals is to promote the development of a balanced air cargo security program that provides the necessary level of security enhancements while minimizing the negative operational and cost impacts to air cargo transport. This is particularly important since the air transport mode is the most acutely affected by delays and increased costs. Therefore, the primary objective for both of these surveys was to create a substantive database to assist ACI-NA in coordinating with the North American federal security agencies – the Canadian Air Transportation Security Authority (CATSA) and the Transportation Security Administration (TSA). Another key objective was to elevate airport operators’ awareness of air cargo security issues prior to the scrutiny anticipated in 2004, as federal agencies shift focus from passenger and baggage screening to cargo screening. Airports indicated that completing the surveys had required considerable research, and that the process stimulated new concerns about air cargo security. The fact that the number of respondents has increased, by more than 44% from 2002 to 2003, also reflected this elevated concern. The survey response was comprehensive and representative. The eighty-nine airport respondents included forty-five of the top fifty (90%) North American cargo airports1. The survey results capture the tremendous variety of airport operating environments accommodating air cargo carriers and allied services. To cite a few variations: some airports are land-rich while others are critically land-constrained; cargo facilities may be for a single or multiple tenants; some have dedicated cargo roadways leading to a single concentrated cargo area while others have cargo operations spread all over the airport and roadways with both cargo trucks and passenger vehicles; some airport operators develop and directly lease cargo facilities to cargo carriers, others lease the land to the cargo carriers to develop their own facilities, while still others lease land to third-party developers who develop, lease and manage the facilities.

1 2003 Survey ranked by 2003 cargo volumes, and 2002 Survey ranked by 2002 cargo volumes.

3

The variety and unique character of air cargo operations at airports supports ACI-NA’s fundamental belief that the optimal national air cargo security program(s) would entail a variety of approaches with the flexibility to be customized to fit the specific operating characteristics and resources of each individual airport. Equally fundamental is ACI-NA’s position that the optimal program(s) would focus interdiction of the threat as early/close as possible to its origin – resultantly, as far as possible from the airport and aircraft. ACI-NA strongly supports a program that is threat-based focusing on the shipper, rather than an arbitrary (inevitably inefficient and likely ineffective) approach focusing on the contents of each shipment. While recognizing and fully supporting the need to enhance airport cargo security capabilities to strengthen the “last line of defense”, the first line of defense must be an intelligence-intensive program largely implemented by direct and indirect cargo carriers in cooperation with federal agencies. ACI-NA is pleased to share this summary with our airport and associate members, as well as allied partners with whom we are cooperating on air cargo security. SURVEY SAMPLE: SIZE & DISTRIBUTION As listed in Appendix 1, a total of 89 airports responded, 77 in the United States, 11 in Canada and one outside US and Canada. The airports represent a broad cross-section of cargo volumes. While the inclusion of all 15 large cargo airports assures that the survey sample represents airports responsible for the majority of air cargo in North America, the robust sample distribution includes a good sample of medium and small airports as well. The air cargo industry functions as a system in which individual cargo facilities (whether on-airport or off) are nodes – any of which, large or small, potentially can be exploited to compromise the system integrity. Figure 1 shows the size distribution of airports represented in this survey. Given the size definitions below, the sample consisted of 15 Large Cargo Centers; 28 Medium Cargo centers; 38 Small Cargo Centers and 8 cargo centers not included in the 2003 ACI-NA traffic report:

1) Large cargo centers – 500,000 or more metric tonnes in 2003 2) Medium cargo centers – 100,000 – 499,999 metric tonnes in 2003 3) Small cargo centers – 100,000 or less metric tonnes in 2003

4

Figure 1: Distribution of Sample Size 2002 Vs 2003

2003 Vs. 2002 ACI-NA Air Cargo Facilities & Security Survey Number of Respondents by Air Cargo Volume Ranking

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

"1-10" "11-20" "21-30" "31-40" "41-50" "51-60" "61-70" "71-80" "81-100" "101-161" "Notranked"

20032002

For this analysis, all Canadian airports have been separated from the US airports, and all US airports not included in the ranking are categorized under small cargo centers. Therefore, the sample distribution for this analysis is as below:

1) 15 large cargo centers; 2) 24 medium cargo centers; 3) 39 small cargo centers; and 4) 11 Canadian cargo centers

SURVEY QUESTION COMPOSITION The survey had four main subject areas: (1) general airport operating characteristics with an emphasis on roadway and AOA access, including the management of trucks and other ground vehicles; (2) specific characteristics of individual cargo facilities, including ownership, tenant mix (belly carriers vs. all-cargo, and single-tenant vs. multi-tenant) and capacity; (3) expansion plans for new cargo facilities; and (4) impact of recent industry market developments – annual increase/decrease of all-cargo operations. For organizational purposes, this survey summary has been organized as follows: (1) On-Airport Cargo Facilities – General Characteristics; (2) Trucking; (3) Individual Cargo Facilities; and (4) Trend and Planning.

ON-AIRPORT CARGO FACILITIES – GENERAL CHARACTERISTICS Centralization: The extent to which air cargo facilities are centralized is one of the key indicators of the potential challenge to securing cargo operations. Airport respondents were asked whether cargo operations are concentrated in “a single main area”. Not surprisingly, responses varied greatly between airport sizes. Only two of the fifteen (13%) large cargo center respondents

5

reported having a single main cargo area. While only 13% of the large gateways replied affirmatively, 37.5% of the medium cargo airports and 64% of the small cargo airports reported that their cargo operations are limited to a single area. Two Canadian airports (20%, 10 Canadian airports responded to this question) reported having a single main cargo area. It appears that the main cargo complex of large and small cargo airports are closer to Airside with an average distance of 0.9 miles and 1 mile respectively than medium cargo airports with an average distance of 1.4 miles. However, it is farther away from Landside for large cargo airports with an average distance of 1.6 miles than medium and small cargo airports averaging 1.2 miles and 0.8 miles respectively. The main cargo facilities at Canadian airports are closer to the nearest passenger terminal in terms of both airside and landside distances.

Table 1: Distance of the Main Cargo Complex from the Nearest Passenger Terminal Average Airside

Distance (in Miles) Average Landside Distance (in Miles)

Large Gateways 0.9 1.6 Medium Gateways 1.4 1.2 Small Gateways 1.0 0.8 Canadian Gateways 0.5 0.7 Total 1.0 1.0 Number of Airport Operational Area (AOA) access gates: Similarly pertinent to security control, airport respondents were asked the number of AOA access gates2 used by cargo operators to enter the AOA. Unlike the preceding question, responses to this question were far less related to cargo volumes. Of the 82 respondents to this question, 27 (about 33%) reported using five or more gates for cargo operations. Of these, two were Canadian cargo airports, eight were large, ten were medium, and seven were small cargo centers. Airports using four or fewer gates for cargo operations comprised two thirds of all respondents. About 43% of all respondents used two or fewer gates to accommodate cargo operators. Access gate security systems: Airport respondents were asked what type of access gate security (i.e. swipe-card, cameras, manned) was utilized at the gates. About three-fourths of the respondents gave multiple answers, as many airports use different technologies for multiple access gates and in some cases, different technologies for the same gate depending on the hour of operations. Airports man at least some of the gates at 67% of the airports and use swipe-cards at also roughly 67% of the airports surveyed. Of the large and medium cargo centers, more than 80% man at least some of their gates. Among the 11 Canadian airports, seven airports gave multiple answers; airports man at least some of the gates at more than 80% of the Canadian airports; and about 36% use swipe-cards. Of the 59 total airports with manned gates, 22 man the gates with airport personnel. The balance has either directly hired security or has security provided by facilities developers or cargo carriers.

2 Specifically, gates forming part of fencing securing AOA from surface access road.

6

TRUCKING

Airport respondents were asked a variety of questions about the degree of AOA access given to cargo trucks, the extent of control over current trucking operations, and resources available for controlling trucking operations in the future. Of the eight-six airports that responded to the question, 90% “permit cargo trucks to enter the AOA”. Medium cargo airports were relatively less likely (87.5%) to allow these operations but a substantial majority of affirmative responses were given by large (93%) and small (92%) cargo centers. About 82% of Canadian airports “permit cargo trucks to enter the AOA”. A slight majority (54%) of all respondents reported allowing through-the-fence cargo operations. At all levels, airport operators were less tolerant of through-the-fence operations than to cargo trucks in general. Medium and small cargo airports were evenly split (50% and 46% respectively) on allowing through-the-fence truck operations. Canadian airports (70%) and large (67%) cargo centers were relatively more inclined to permit through-the-fence cargo operations. Airport operators were asked which varieties of ground vehicles (tugs only, vans, over-the-road trucks) are allowed on the AOA. Only 7 of the 85 respondents to this question limited cargo ground vehicles to tugs only including one large cargo gateway, five small cargo gateways and one Canadian cargo gateway.

Table 2: Varieties of Ground Transport Vehicles Allowed on AOA

Tugs Only Vans Over-The-Road

Trucks Large Gateways 7% 93% 93%

Medium Gateways 0% 79% 83% Small Gateways 14% 75% 83%

Canadian Gateways 13% 70% 90% Total 8% 79% 86%

Of the 89 responding airports, only 14 (16%) responded affirmatively that they “presently have a separate area dedicated as a marshalling area for all over-the-road commercial trucks.” The vast majority of airports have truck marshalling only within the parking area for individual cargo facilities. Asked whether the airport “presently has any system in place to monitor the movement of over-the-road trucks arriving/departing the airport complex”, only 29% of the total responded affirmatively: large gateways (33%), medium gateways (22%) and small gateways (24%). Five out of the nine (56%) responding Canadian airports responded affirmatively. Of the ten large gateways that answered negatively, only two believe that their layout could accommodate dedicated truck access with such monitoring. Of the eighteen medium-sized airports that do not presently have commercial truck monitoring, 28% thought that this could be achieved given their current airport layouts. Of the twenty-eight small gateway airports that did not presently have such monitoring, a higher percentage (75%) responded that they could probably establish

7

separate truck access routes with monitoring of these operations. Out of the four Canadian airports that responded negatively, only one reported that the current airport layout could accommodate dedicated truck access with monitoring. When asked “if truck inspections were to be required prior to arrival at the cargo complex, such inspections would be more feasible (given airport layout and available land)” on-airport or off-airport, the groups responded as follows:

Table 3: Likely Location for Potential Truck Inspection Stations On-Airport Off- Airport

Large Gateways 92% 8% Medium Gateways 41% 59%

Small Gateways 79% 21% Canadian Gateways 90% 10%

Total 73% 27%

INDIVIDUAL FACILITIES In addition to the generalized airport-wide characteristics noted in the preceding section, airports were asked to provide detailed information about each individual air cargo facility. We received descriptions of 341 individual cargo facilities located at 84 airports (five airports did not respond to this question). Although individual facilities information will not be presented, aggregate general findings are included in this summary (please refer to Appendix 2 for this questionnaire section.) Airport respondents answered the same questions for each facility. Large Cargo Centers (15 respondents) 111 Individual Cargo Facilities (not all respondents answered all sub-questions)

59 Multi-Tenant; 38 Single-Tenant 53 Airport-Owned; 33 Carrier-Operated, 12 3rd-party developed Medium Cargo Centers (22 respondents) 99 Individual Cargo Facilities (not all respondents answered all sub-questions)

47 Multi-Tenant; 37 Single-Tenant 44 Airport-Owned; 11 Carrier-Operated, 34 3rd-party developed

Small Cargo Centers (36 respondents) 98 Individual Cargo Facilities (not all respondents answered all sub-questions)

55 Multi-Tenant; 42 Single-Tenant 67 Airport-Owned; 7 Carrier-Operated, 23 3rd-party developed Canadian Cargo Centers (11 respondents) 33 Individual Cargo Facilities (not all respondents answered all sub-questions)

14 Multi-Tenant; 19 Single-Tenant 7 Airport-Owned; 12 Carrier-Operated, 12 3rd-party developed

8

Overall, 46% of these facilities are used for all-cargo operations, 36% are for mixed utilization and 17% are for belly cargo operations. A slightly less than half of these facilities (47%) are currently screening visitors. Over 64% of these facilities are served by contiguous ramp, and about 36% are served by tug road. Out of the 263 individual facilities that responded, only 8% reported to have substantial space for prospective additional screening/inspections, 59% reported to have limited space, and 33% reported no space to accommodate such facilities. When asked “if additional cargo screening and/or physical inspections were to be required at the cargo complex, given facilities layout(s), airport layout and available land”, 43% of the respondents said that inspections could likely be performed within existing facilities while 57% said that it would most likely require additional facilities.

Table 4: Likelihood for Additional Cargo Screening and/or Physical Inspections

Could likely be performed within

existing facilities Would most likely require

additional facilities Large Gateways 42% 58%

Medium Gateways 68% 32% Small Gateways 29% 71%

Canadian Gateways 50% 50% Total 43% 57%

TREND AND PLANNING Airport respondents were asked the number of all-cargo carriers from October 2000 to October 2003 as well as the number of daily all-cargo operations during the same period of time. Of the 65 respondents who reported the data change, about 42% of the respondents had a decrease in October 2003 in the number of all-cargo carriers from October 2000 and about 58% either returned to the October 2000 level or slightly increased the number of all-cargo carriers. When it comes to the number of daily all-cargo operations, the situation was even worse. Of the 55 airports that responded to this question, more than 55% incurred a decrease in terms of the number of daily all-cargo operations, and only 45% of airport respondents either returned to the October 2000 level or achieved a slight increase. According to ACI’s traffic reports, out of the 138 airports that reported Total Freight/Mail volume data from 2000 to 2003 only 27 airports, about 20%, returned to or slightly exceeded the 2000 level.

In addition to information on existing facilities, airport respondents were asked whether new cargo facilities are planned. With the air cargo industry already facing economic difficulties and some contraction since late 2000, the need for new facilities has been affected. Some previously heavily congested airports are actively involved in long-term capacity planning with the belief that the recent industry contraction may have provided a year or two of relief against confronting absolute capacity crises. Virtually all airports are affected by the recent shifts of cargo from aircraft to pure trucking operations, from belly air carriers to freighters, and the movement of US

9

Postal Service mail shipments to trucks and FedEx. In terms of facilities planning, all of these new developments have had ramifications. Thirty-eight of the total eighty-nine (43%) respondents reported to have some cargo facility expansion projects in planning, down from 55% of the previous survey. Of the fifteen large cargo centers, eight responded that new cargo facilities are presently planned with four of those planned for completion by 2006. Of the twenty-four medium centers, eleven currently plan additional cargo facilities with eight of those planned to open by 2006. Of the thirty-nine small centers, fifteen responded that they plan new cargo facilities and ten of these are planned for completion by 2006. Finally, of the eleven Canadian airports, four reported to have new cargo facilities currently planned, with three planned for completion by 2006. These findings are consistent with the concern that the economic recession and tightened security rules have caused many development delays. However, if one believes that near-term forecasts are relatively reliable, it is worth noting that 25 (more than 65%) of the respondent airports are presently planning for new cargo facilities investments within the next two years. It is also a valid concern that due to the postponing of the anticipated air cargo security NPRM, airports might incur expensive retroactive corrective investments or cause further project delays.

Table 5: Planned Expansion of Cargo Facilities

Respondents Respondents with

cargo facility expansion projects

Respondents with cargo facility expansion projects

planned for 2006 completion Large Cargo Center 15 8 4

Medium Cargo Center 24 11 8 Small Cargo Center 39 15 10

Canadian Cargo Center 11 4 3 Total 89 38 25

CONCLUSION Even in the general form incorporated in this summary document, the tremendous range of airport operating environments and subsequent issues for air cargo security are compelling. While gathering such data as resulted from this effort is no more than an input to the beginning of the analysis, one compelling conclusion already appears to be evident. The Transportation Security Administration and the Canadian Air Transportation Security Authority must fully account for the myriad of differences among airports and fully engage airport operators from the outset of cargo security planning efforts. A “one size fits all” security program may be appropriate for most passenger operations but would be inappropriate and, more gravely, ineffective in addressing cargo security concerns at North American airports. Similarly, airport operators and their allied partners critically need input from the federal agencies as soon as possible. Twenty-five new cargo facilities are currently planned for completion by 2006 and a total of thirty-eight airports have new facilities in their plans.

10

Development of the actual facilities requires substantial physical and financial planning, as well as possible solicitations of third-party developers. Developing supporting infrastructure (landside roadways, apron expansions, taxiway connectors, etc.) can be even more challenging. Until new federal cargo security regimens are definitively specified, new cargo improvements cannot be initiated confidently – no matter how needed. Nor can airport operators (already critically strained by the budgetary effects of passenger volume reductions and security costs attributable to the 2002 passenger/baggage-focused security programs) estimate new costs directly related to cargo security implementation. While airport operators have been most heavily injured by erosion of passenger volumes, this survey also found substantial anecdotal evidence of many airport budgets impacted by losses in freighter activity (and subsequent landing fees). In fact, cargo levels began their descent well before September, 2001, with the grounding of Emery Worldwide and cutbacks by numerous other cargo carriers due to the larger economic slowdown. An effective cargo security program must account not only for cargo screening, but also the shippers, logistics employees and their equipment. Among the greatest potential challenges could be the screening of cargo trucks and their drivers/occupants. Only fourteen of eighty-nine (16%) respondents presently have separate marshalling areas dedicated for over-the-road commercial truck screening. Only 29% have any systems in place for monitoring the arrival/departure of commercial trucks. According to survey airports which do not “presently have any system in place to monitor the movement of over-the-road trucks, only 20% of the large gateways and 28% of the medium gateways would be able to segregate dedicated truck access routes, given airport layouts. If truck screening were mandatory, more than 59% of medium gateway respondents believed this would need to occur at an off-airport site. Not surprisingly, airport operators’ singular economic development roles have left many severely limited in terms of on-airport and contiguous land available for construction of prospective cargo screening facilities. Often, the most constrained airports are the international gateways in the major cities, whose cargo activities may be jeopardized unless a flexible security program is implemented. Because of the relatively higher cargo market shares of passenger carriers in transatlantic and transpacific segments (where trucking is an unacceptable substitute), these often-congested gateways have had relatively greater concerns pertaining to cargo carried in the bellies of passenger aircraft, as well as cargo originating in foreign markets. Distinctions between international and domestic cargo, as well as cargo carried in freighters versus in the bellies of passenger aircraft, also justify diverse security applications. Integrators such as FedEx and UPS are more likely to have their own drivers, truck loaders and aircraft ground-handlers, whereas freight forwarders may contract for these services.

11

APPENDIX 1: 2003 RANKINGS OF AIRPORTS PARTICIPATING IN THE ACI-NA CARGO SURVEY (2003 ACI-NA Traffic Report)

Large Cargo Centers

RANK CITY/CODE CARGO (metric tonnes)

1 MEMPHIS (MEM) 3 390 515 2 ANCHORAGE (ANC)** 2 102 025 3 LOS ANGELES (LAX) 1 833 300 4 MIAMI (MIA) 1 637 278 5 NEW YORK (JFK) 1 626 722 6 LOUISVILLE (SDF) 1 618 336 7 CHICAGO (ORD) 1 510 746 8 INDIANAPOLIS (IND) 889 163 9 NEWARK (EWR) 874 641

10 ATLANTA (ATL) 798 501 11 DALLAS/FT WORTH AIRPORT (DFW) 667 574 12 OAKLAND (OAK) 597 383 13 SAN FRANCISCO (SFO) 573 523 14 PHILADELPHIA (PHL) 524 485 15 ONTARIO (ONT) 518 710

** INCLUDES TRANSIT FREIGHT Medium Cargo Centers


16 HONOLULU (HNL) 421 930 18 HOUSTON (IAH) 381 926 19 BOSTON (BOS) 363 082 20 SEATTLE (SEA) 351 418 21 DAYTON (DAY) 327 255 22 DENVER (DEN) 325 350 23 MINNEAPOLIS/ST PAUL (MSP) 315 987 25 WASHINGTON (IAD) 285 352 26 TOLEDO (TOL) 281 427 27 PORTLAND (PDX) 239 265 28 BALTIMORE/WASHINGTON (BWI) 235 576 30 SALT LAKE CITY (SLC) 216 870 31 VANCOUVER (YVR) 215 839 32 ORLANDO (MCO) 193 037 33 FT LAUDERDALE/HOLLYWOOD (FLL) 156 449 34 FORTH WORTH (AFW) 156 367 35 CHARLOTTE (CLT) 142 563 37 KANSAS CITY (MCI) 136 687

12

38 SAN DIEGO (SAN) 135 547 39 MONTREAL (YUL) 135 383 40 FT WAYNE (FWA) 123 630 41 PITTSBURGH (PIT) 121 536 42 SAN ANTONIO (SAT) 116 433 44 ST LOUIS (STL) 115 574 45 AUSTIN (AUS) 114 407 46 WINNIPEG (YWG) 113 497 47 SAN JOSE (SJC) 108 622 48 MONTREAL (YMX) 106 810

Small Cargo Centers


49 CLEVELAND, OH (CLE) 95 761 50 TAMPA, FL (TPA) 93 457 51 COLUMBUS (LCK) 92 823 52 MILWAUKEE (MKE) 90 470 53 OMAHA (OMA) 89 039 54 DES MOINES (DSM) 88 582 55 LAS VEGAS (LAS) 82 153 56 NEW ORLEANS (MSY) 80 831 57 MANCHESTER (MHT) 72 850 60 SACRAMENTO (SMF) 71 230 61 JACKSONVILLE (JAX) 70 650 63 HUNTSVILLE (HSV) 56 163 64 SACRAMENTO (MHR) 54 533 67 SPOKANE (GEG) 49 230 68 TULSA (TUL) 48 344 70 RALEIGH-DURHAM (RDU) 47 261 71 RENO (RNO) 47 018 75 BOISE (BOI) 39 728 76 NASHVILLE (BNA) 39 453 78 KNOXVILLE (TYS) 34 842 82 OKLAHOMA CITY (OKC) 33 393 83 NORFOLK (ORF) 32 283 84 FAIRBANKS (FAI) 31 726 87 HALIFAX (YHZ) 29 312 89 TUCSON (TUS) 28 461 95 ALBANY (ALB) 22 403 96 ALLENTOWN (ABE) 21 904 98 OTTAWA (YOW) 21 348 100 MONCTON (YQM) 19 625 106 FT MYERS (RSW) 15 652

13

109 ROANOKE (ROA) 12 085 112 JACKSON (JAN) 10 957 121 WASHINGTON (DCA) 5 774 122 CHATTANOOGA (CHA) 5 345 129 YUMA (YUM) 2 459 141 ABILENE (ABI) 678 154 DAYTONA BEACH (DAB) 132 161 GULFPORT (GPT) 11

Cargo Centers responded but not included in the 2003 ACI-NA Cargo Ranking

REINA BEATRIX (AUA) MIDAMERICA SAINT LOUIS (BLV)

STOCKTON METROPOLITAN AIRPORT (SCK) HAMILTON INT’L AIRPORT, CA (YHM)

WILLOW RUN (YIP) QUEBEC, CA (YQB)

GANDER INT’L, CA (YQX) TORONTO, CA (YYZ)

14

APPENDIX 2: 2003-2004 ACI-NA AIR CARGO FACILITIES AND SECURITY SURVEY QUESTIONNAIRE

2003-2004 ACI-NA Air Cargo Facilities and Security Survey

Airport: _________________________ Airport Identifier: ______________ Respondent’s Name:________________________________________________ Phone: (______)______-________ Email:________________________

I. All On-Airport Facilities

1. Are cargo operations concentrated in a single main area? ! Yes ! No 2. How far is the main cargo complex from the (nearest) passenger terminal?

Airside distance (roadway) __ Landside Distance (tug-road) 3. What is the total number of gates to AOA used by cargo operators? ___

(Specifically, gates forming part of fencing securing AOA from surface access road) 4. What type of cargo area gate security system is in place at your airport (check all that apply)

! Swipe-card ! Cameras ! Manned – by whose representative ! Other (please specify) ! If systems vary by gate (please indicate mix)

5. a. Does your airport permit cargo trucks to enter the AOA? ! Yes ! No b. Does your airport permit through-the-fence cargo operations? ! Yes ! No c. If yes, who presently controls gate access allowing trucks to enter the AOA? ___________________________________________________________ _______

6. What types of vehicles are allowed on the AOA? ! tugs, only ! vans ! commercial over-the-road trucks ! other, specify

7. If only AOA pre-approved vehicles are allowed, who provides the approval/badge? ! Airport Management ! FAA ! Facilities Developers ! Tenants

8. How many 3rd-party ground handlers serve cargo operations at your airport? _________ 9. Please identify the ground handling firms operating on-ramp for cargo (if more than three, please

list others on separate sheet): a.________________________________ b.______________________________ __ c.______________________ _____ ____

10. Does the airport presently have a separate area dedicated as a marshalling area for over-the-road commercial trucks? ! Yes, ___________sq. ft/acres (circle) ! No 11. If more than one, please describe all.

______

12. Does the airport presently have any system in place to monitor the movement of over-the-road trucks arriving/departing the airport complex? ! Yes ! No

If the preceding answer is: a. Yes, then please describe the monitoring system:

______ b. No, then does the airport layout suggest that dedicated truck access to the air cargo complex could be achieved and such monitoring could occur? ! Yes ! No

13. If truck inspections were to be required prior to arrival at the cargo complex, such inspections would be more likely (given airport layout and available land)

! on-airport ! off-airport at a remote location?

15

II. Individual cargo warehouse facilities: (If more than four cargo facilities exist, please copy this section to provide descriptions of additional facilities)

Facility #1 Facility #2 Facility #3 Facility #4

Warehouse size sq. ft. sq. ft. sq. ft. sq. ft.Tenants ! Single-tenant

! Multi-tenant ! Single-tenant ! Multi-tenant

! Single-tenant ! Multi-tenant

! Single-tenant ! Multi-tenant

Ownership !Airport !3rd-party !Carrier

!Airport !3rd-party !Carrier



Are visitors screened?

! Yes ! No ! Yes ! No ! Yes ! No ! Yes ! No

Gated landside truck parking

! Yes ! No ! Yes ! No ! Yes ! No ! Yes ! No

Primary utilization

! belly-freight ! all-cargo ! mixed




Served by ! contiguous ramp ! tug-road

! contiguous ramp ! tug-road



Ramp size sq. ft. sq. ft. sq. ft. sq. ft.Aircraft parking positions

_____widebody _____narrowbody




Space availability for prospective additional screening/ inspections

! no space available ! limited space ! substantial space




14. If additional cargo screening and/or physical inspections were to be required at the cargo complex,

such inspections (given facilities layout(s), airport layout and available land): ! Could likely be performed within existing facilities ! Would most likely require additional facilities Please elaborate, if necessary

III. Planned Expansion of Cargo Facilities (list only the additional facilities planned in your airport’s expansion)

Warehouse sq. ft. Apron sq. ft. Tenants: !Single-tenant !Multi-tenant: Developed by !airport !3rd Party Projected year of completion:

16

IV. Volume of Cargo Operations

October 2000 October 2001 October 2002 October 2003 # of all-cargo carriers # of daily all-cargo operations

Estimate occupancy levels for cargo facilities. Some airports may need assistance from 3rd-Party developers for these responses. Please note if new facilities have been added during this period.

% Occupying October 2000 October 2003 New facilities added between 10/00 – 10/03

Cargo Apron % % Sq. ft.Warehouse % % Sq. ft.

14. % of 2003 (year-to-date) total cargo (freight & mail) carried by: passenger carriers % all-cargo carriers % through (please specify month) 15. Top 10 cargo carriers (in order, may include passenger carriers if applicable):

Carrier Market Share

1. %2. %3. %4. %5. %6. %7. %8. %9. %10. %

Alternatively, respondents may provide complete standard activity report for year-end 2003 (or most recent year-to-date report) for cargo.

17

APPENDIX 3: AIRPORT CARGO VOLUME PERCENTAGE CHANGE -- (2003 vs. 2000) TOTFRT/ML TOTFRT/ML TOTFRT/ML TOTFRT/ML % Change 2003 -AIRPORT CODE

2000 2001 2002 2003 2000

GAINESVILLE REGL GNV 172 478 452 473 175

ABILENE REGIONAL ABI 361 1,080 1,173 678 88

YUMA INTL YUM 1,512 1,283 1,398 2,459 63

CHATTANOOGA METRO CHA 3,815 3,332 3,181 5,345 40

MEMPHIS INTL MEM 2,489,078 2,631,631 3,390,800 3,390,515 36

MID-CONTINENT ICT 25,648 24,565 32,136 30,638 19

BURBANK-GLENDALE-PASADENA BUR 37,398 32,878 39,751 44,654 19

T STEVENS ANCHORAGE INTL ANC 1,804,221 1,873,750 1,771,595 2,102,025 17

JACKSONVILLE INTL JAX 60,944 60,794 68,910 70,650 16

SACRAMENTO INTL SMF 61,472 60,197 70,642 71,230 16

ONTARIO INTL ONT 464,164 419,039 496,547 518,710 12

NORFOLK INTL ORF 28,928 28,786 32,851 32,283 12

MIDWAY INTL MDW 21,097 15,684 26,309 23,266 10

JOE FOSS FIELD FSD 30,632 27,719 29,070 33,761 10

WINNIPEG INTL YWG 102,994 97,771 100,714 113,497 10

KONA INTL AT KEAHOLE KOA 26,971 24,924 28,477 28,772 7

LOUISVILLE INTL SDF 1,519,528 1,468,837 1,524,181 1,618,336 7

KAHULUI OGG 43,979 42,921 46,287 46,107 5

G BUSH INTERCONTINENTAL IAH 368,498 337,842 329,788 381,926 4

PIEDMONT TRIAD INTL GSO 69,670 58,259 69,898 71,881 3

LONG BEACH LGB 49,415 53,190 53,356 50,873 3

O'HARE INTL ORD 1,468,553 1,299,628 1,473,980 1,510,746 3

ALBANY INTL ALB 21,783 20,020 20,205 22,403 3

FAIRBANKS INTL FAI 30,900 30,308 31,128 31,726 3

SOUTH BEND REGL SBN 13,393 11,008 12,096 13,683 2

NORTH LAS VEGAS VGT 759 781 696 771 2

CINCINNATI/NO KENTUCKY INTL CVG 390,820 321,917 350,014 392,695 0

MONTEREY PENINSULA MRY 836 729 866 839 0

SAN LUIS OBISPO COUNTY REGL SBP 1,264 1,102 1,127 1,265 0

BALTIMORE/WASHINGTON INTL BWI 236,043 225,083 251,354 235,576 (0)

MIAMI INTL MIA 1,642,744 1,639,760 1,624,242 1,637,278 (0)

SOUTHWEST FLORIDA INTL RSW 15,802 15,891 15,772 15,652 (1)

GERALD R FORD INTL GRR 33,895 29,881 33,884 33,475 (1)

SHREVEPORT REGL SHV 30,020 26,246 30,107 29,582 (1)

SAN DIEGO INTL SAN 139,260 129,485 151,644 135,547 (3)

RICKENBACKER INTL LCK 96,204 96,759 83,739 92,823 (4)

HONOLULU INTL HNL 441,163 337,631 414,947 421,930 (4)

SANTA BARBARA SBA 2,970 2,946 2,832 2,825 (5)

PHILADELPHIA INTL PHL 559,452 518,385 541,039 524,485 (6)

HILO INTL ITO 23,218 24,184 21,790 21,752 (6)

LOUIS ARMSTRONG NEW ORLEANS INTL MSY 86,312 75,700 84,150 80,831 (6)

LEHIGH VALLEY INTL ABE 23,416 20,344 21,554 21,904 (6)

SAN ANTONIO INTL SAT 124,653 98,699 121,055 116,433 (7)

18

TOTFRT/ML TOTFRT/ML TOTFRT/ML TOTFRT/ML % Change 2003 -AIRPORT CODE 2000 2001 2002 2003 2000

BANGOR INTL BGR 1,715 1,358 1,396 1,579 (8)

RENO/TAHOE INTL RNO 51,121 45,587 48,242 47,018 (8)

BUFFALO NIAGARA INTL BUF 52,081 48,218 47,291 47,875 (8)

HUNTSVILLE INTL HSV 61,606 59,666 61,303 56,163 (9)

SAVANAH/HILTON HEAD INTL SAV 8,005 7,477 7,209 7,295 (9)

KANSAS CITY INTL MCI 150,583 142,563 135,888 136,687 (9)

TAMPA INTL TPA 103,038 79,897 91,665 93,457 (9)

LOS ANGELES INTL LAX 2,038,784 1,774,402 1,779,855 1,833,300 (10)

JF KENNEDY INTL JFK 1,817,727 1,495,128 1,589,648 1,626,722 (11)

TULSA INTL TUL 54,111 48,438 45,551 48,344 (11)

HARTSFIELD ATLANTA INTL ATL 894,471 735,796 734,083 798,501 (11)

LAMBERT-ST LOUIS INTL STL 130,152 122,184 129,114 115,574 (11)

BOISE BOI 45,501 40,375 39,135 39,728 (13)

PALM BEACH INTL PBI 20,971 20,409 17,890 18,300 (13)

OAKLAND INTL OAK 685,425 593,633 634,643 597,383 (13)

ROANOKE REGL ROA 13,997 12,024 11,868 12,085 (14)

SPRINGFIELD-BRANSON REGL SGF 12,087 11,226 10,203 10,362 (14)

VANCOUVER INTL YVR 251,771 228,692 234,854 215,839 (14)

MINNEAPOLIS/ST PAUL INTL MSP 369,888 339,676 319,455 315,987 (15)

PHOENIX SKY HARBOR INTL PHX 339,367 283,336 298,945 288,350 (15)

PORTLAND INTL PDX 282,019 242,967 245,134 239,265 (15)

SALT LAKE CITY INTL SLC 256,602 216,617 216,127 216,870 (15)

BIRMINGHAM INTL BHM 40,722 35,433 32,353 34,184 (16)

ALBUQUERQUE INTL SUNPORT ABQ 86,208 72,876 74,460 71,599 (17)

GENERAL MITCHELL INTL MKE 109,322 93,516 103,207 90,470 (17)

PITTSBURGH INTL PIT 147,014 139,055 140,169 121,536 (17)

COLUMBIA METRO CAE 139,839 116,599 108,979 115,601 (17)

GREATER PEORIA REGL PIA 27,578 26,569 22,914 22,463 (19)

BRADLEY INTL BDL 171,451 154,473 139,195 138,666 (19)

NEWARK LIBERTY INTL EWR 1,082,406 894,443 850,050 874,641 (19)

SPOKANE INTL GEG 61,009 49,202 48,320 49,230 (19)

CLEVELAND HOPKINS INTL CLE 119,439 101,492 101,396 95,761 (20)

RICHMOND INTL RIC 65,811 52,654 52,935 52,548 (20)

LIHUE LIH 17,069 15,243 13,578 13,539 (21)

THE EASTERN IOWA CID 28,498 24,728 23,716 22,510 (21)

DES MOINES INTL DSM 112,511 95,017 95,251 88,582 (21)

PALM SPRINGS INTL PSP 131 92 74 103 (21)

MCGHEE TYSON TYS 44,330 38,805 36,130 34,842 (21)

EPPLEY AIRFIELD OMA 114,268 98,454 89,811 89,039 (22)

JOHN WAYNE SNA 15,589 14,849 13,730 12,050 (23)

SEATTLE TACOMA INTL SEA 455,997 401,535 374,753 351,418 (23)

LOGAN INTL BOS 474,943 395,126 387,960 363,082 (24)

INDIANAPOLIS INTL IND 1,165,431 1,112,434 901,917 889,163 (24)

WP HOBBY HOU 7,755 6,049 5,368 5,775 (26)

19

AIRPORT CODE TOTFRT/ML 2000

TOTFRT/ML -2001

TOTFRT/ML 2002

TOTFRT/ML -2003

% Change 2003 – 2000

WASHINGTON DULLES INTL IAD 383,848 330,914 324,872 285,352 (26)

TUCSON INTL TUS 38,289 30,332 26,546 28,461 (26)

COLORADO SPRINGS COS 22,816 20,012 19,777 16,950 (26)

EL PASO INTL ELP 93,938 76,305 80,219 69,669 (26)

DETROIT METRO WAYNE COUNTY DTW 298,135 240,831 232,930 220,246 (26)

DALLAS/FT WORTH INTL DFW 904,994 742,428 670,310 667,574 (26)

NORMAN MINETA SAN JOSE INTL SJC 147,929 143,914 140,152 108,622 (27)

FT WAYNE INTL FWA 170,476 132,124 118,043 123,630 (27)

ORLANDO INTL MCO 271,362 223,545 198,271 193,037 (29)

PENSACOLA REGL PNS 6,433 5,042 4,518 4,569 (29)

AUSTIN-BERGSTROM INTL AUS 162,053 145,702 129,654 114,407 (29)

NORTH PLATTE REGL/LEE BIRD FIELD LBF 1,022 696 825 715 (30)

DENVER INTL DEN 471,510 358,631 332,914 325,350 (31)

NASHVILLE INTL BNA 58,657 47,084 40,436 39,453 (33)

FT LAUDERDALE/HOLLYWOOD INTL FLL 236,669 181,907 165,043 156,449 (34)

TOLEDO EXPRESS TOL 426,733 320,565 292,785 281,427 (34)

SAN FRANCISCO INTL SFO 869,839 635,143 589,730 573,523 (34)

ORLANDO SANFORD INTL SFB 11,573 9,212 7,892 7,588 (34)

BURKE LAKEFRONT BKL 711 546 475 465 (35)

MOBILE REGL MOB 744 878 599 486 (35)

JACKSON INTL JAN 16,815 14,634 13,863 10,957 (35)

FORTH WORTH ALLIANCE AFW 241,460 208,228 176,429 156,367 (35)

WILL ROGERS WORLD OKC 51,954 47,280 34,635 33,393 (36)

SARASOTA-BRADENTON INTL SRQ 600 476 401 375 (38)

WILLIAMS GATEWAY IWA 270 104 35 160 (41)

STEWART INTL SWF 32,437 19,931 13,257 19,024 (41)

DAYTONA BEACH INTL DAB 228 197 137 132 (42)

BROWNSVILLE/SOUTH PADRE ISLAND INTL BRO 32,684 23,527 22,150 17,424 (47)

PAGE FIELD FMY 561 538 377 289 (48)

PORT COLUMBUS INTL CMH 22,572 15,260 10,700 10,766 (52)

TRI-CITIES REGL TRI 2,789 2,824 1,793 1,142 (59)

RALEIGH-DURHAM INTL RDU 118,115 107,910 100,477 47,261 (60)

LA GUARDIA LGA 71,153 54,642 32,223 28,402 (60)

DAYTON INTL DAY 832,246 532,306 360,823 327,255 (61)

GULFPORT-BILOXI REGL GPT 28 16 12 11 (61)

NATRONA COUNTY INTL CPR 22,471 7,018 7,735 8,024 (64)

MATHER MHR 167,491 110,692 56,058 54,533 (67)

MELBOURNE INTL MLB 1,493 1,456 669 446 (70)

QUAD CITY INTL MLI 7,434 2,269 2,117 1,996 (73)

FRESNO YOSEMITE INTL FAT 19,327 16,854 14,588 5,176 (73)

SIOUX GATEWAY SUX 248 184 56 41 (83)

BLUE GRASS LEX 2,160 1,415 873 336 (84)

R REAGAN WASHINGTON NATIONAL DCA 37,710 25,186 5,862 5,774 (85)

20

21

AIRPORT CODE TOTFRT/ML TOTFRT/ML TOTFRT/ML TOTFRT/ML % Change 2003 -

2000 2001 2002 2003 2000

BATON ROUGE METRO BTR 3,106 1,822 703 405 (87)

BISMARCK MUNICIPAL BIS 2,709 796 329 317 (88)

BARKLEY REGL PAH 275 78 63 31 (89)

LINCOLN MUNICIPAL LNK 1,181 601 64 49 (96)

2003-2004 aci-na air cargo facilities and security survey...

Documents