Loading in 2 Seconds...
Loading in 2 Seconds...
Aviation Security Impact Assessment Working Group (ASIA-WG) Report to ASAC. May 3, 2006 . Aviation Security Impact Assessment WG. TSA Administrator. ASAC Aviation Security Advisory Committee. ASIA – WG Aviation Security Impact Assessment Working Group. Membership:
Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author.While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server.
May 3, 2006
Aviation Security Advisory Committee
ASIA – WG
Aviation Security Impact Assessment
AAAE, ACI-NA, ATA, Boeing, DHS, DOT, TSA, Airbus, ALPA, CAA, NACA, RAA, NASA
RMAP - TWG
(Risk Management Analysis Process -
Technical Working Group)
Risk and Effective/Efficient Countermeasures
USCAP - TWG
(U.S. Commercial Aviation Partnership – Technical Working Group)
Operational/Economic Impact Analyses
AAAE, ACI-NA, Airbus, ALPA, ATA, Boeing, CAA, DHS, DOT, FAA, NACA, NASA, NGATS/JPDO, RAA, TSA
AAAE, ACI-NA, ATA, Boeing, DHS, DOT, TSA
I am pleased that the USCAP Econometric Tool has been selected to be a finalist in the 2006 Franz Edelman Award.
In 2004 I lead an independent review of the this tool so I am familiar with it\'s structure and general assumptions. The review was conducted at the request of Boeing and the TSA and indicates both the level of collaboration and also the approach to quality involved in the program.
The USCAP Econometric Tool is an extremely broad tool developed to evaluate the operational and economic impacts of security measures considered in the wake of the September 11 events. This was and is an extremely important issue as there was no comprehensive approach to evaluate the overall cost of the many security measures proposed in this difficult time. Because of the sensitivity of the threat analysis the tool does not include a threat mitigation analysis component (eg the benefit in a classical cost benefit) but does an admirable job at evaluating cost and is an extremely useful tool at informing both policy and implementation decisions.
The tool is unique in it\'s attempt to assess the breadth of the air transportation system and to evaluate both economic and operational effects. The tool includes a broad range of system models including those for airports, airlines, aircraft, air traffic control and others. These models include detailed sub processes including security screening and queuing, airport operations, aircraft operations etc. The tool is designed with an evolutionary structure which allows additional elements of the air transportation system to be incorporated as they become impacted by proposed measures.
The tool has been used to evaluate a number of proposed security measures and has yielded unexpected insights. For example, in an evaluation of airport perimeter security and airport personnel identification policies, the frequency and number of transient personnel involved in airport construction and maintenance (which are significant) was not fully appreciated until the UACAP model was run.
In summary I strongly support the USCAP Econometric Tool for the 2006 Franz Edelman Award.
Prof. R. John Hansman
Director, MIT International Center for Air Transportation
Department of Aeronautics & Astronautics Massachusetts Institute of Technology
Average security times
688m (2004); 1,842m (2030)
45,000 (2004); 65,000 (2030)
1,835 (2004); 2,527 (2030)
Impact of Fare changes is quite apparent in history not only when “big” changes take place, but also in the accumulation of continuous “little” changes –
Long term airline ticket prices have been declining in real terms for 20+ years.
USCAP regression model accounts for ~97% of long term history
* Total Fare = Pax Revenue + Taxes, Fees, & Surcharges per Enplanement
USCAP uses - 0.625
Source: Gillen et al.,. Air Travel Demand Elasticities: Concepts, Issues and Measurement, Final Report, Prepared for Department of Finance Canada, December 2002
D Security Charges Collected
+$900m/yr (2007); +1.8b/yr (2030)
D Enplaned Passengers
- 3m/yr (2007); - 6m/yr (2030)
D Aeronautical Revenue at the Airport
-$4m/yr (2007); -$60m/yr (2030)
D Airline Revenue
-$700m/yr (2007); -$1.5 b/yr (2030)
Note: The model behavior in 2016 and beyond is an accurate depiction of model behavior, as the two scenarios experience a different set of dynamics, stimulating different airline pricing behavior.
Understand attractiveness/risks and uncertainties
Total risk reduction
Various countermeasure suites
Total risk reduction
in best value sequence requires analysis of incremental risk reduction