PRM equipment - you get what you pay for

Athough the IATA standard ground handling agreement (SGHA) places responsibilities squarely on the shoulders of the airport operators/owners and the airlines, it still seems that there is a reluctance or difficulty to turn those responsibilities into anything more than a duty. 

It is accepted that the volume of PRMs is steadily increasing as our population ages. Yet, even with this information, the way that PRMs in the UK are handled remains rooted in the past.

Vehicles that are used to load restricted mobility passengers are being fitted with a number of gadgets and gizmos, but the fact is that they are still expensive to buy, operate and maintain and, regardless of their performance, still give an airport the same level of service and problems that have always existed.

Ambulifts, due to the fact that they have to travel to pick up and drop off passengers, cannot be in more than one place at one time.  Any delay to one aircraft, for any reason, delays another.

Often the final link in the chain, the PRM handler finds himself in the firing line of complaints from passengers and investigations by the airport and airlines.

As we will have read on many occasions, passengers with mobility issues are still being left behind from their flights because, for whatever reason, the services provided fail or cannot achieve the loading deadlines demanded by airlines. There is very little room for error and mechanical defects and that, inevitably, leads to delays for everyone.  

Why are EU regulations ignored?

In 2011, nobody should ever be refused from boarding an aircraft on the grounds that insufficient and inadequate equipment is available on the day that they travel.

That is the vision of AER. With the Ambistair, a relatively low cost piece of equipment, we believe that it is not only desirable for everyone to be loaded within the airline schedule, but quite possible provided that everyone is prepared to think about the process in a new way. 

Despite EU regulations that require equal rights for all air travellers they are not being achieved.  Airlines and operators are still making negative headlines.  It really is time to take a fresh look and a new approach.

The fitted cost of the Ambistair is just £12,500 so you would think that selling a piece of ground service equipment that starts first time, every time in all weathers; that does not require eight services a year and does not break down, would be easy to sell compared to a unit which can cost ten times as much.

It isn’t easy for the simple reason that the European aviation industry is stuck in the past in this regard.  There is a strong sense of “we have always done it this way” leading to a reluctance to change. 

The notification process about the need for PRM services seems to be an issue in many cases. Despite the SGHA code for a particular disability type, a company or airport may interpret it very differently and produce a PRM service that is not fit for purpose.

The change to a standard code for each disability would appear to be an easy starting point to avoiding such a problem.

Ambistair also helps with late notifications. By having a few Ambistair units available at an airport there is far less chance that the arrival of another PRM will lead to delays. And if the only ambulift vehicle on site is busy then delays are likely or, worse, ground staff use inappropriate methods of handling such passengers.

Why is America so keen?

America is a different animal.  There, airlines are solely responsible for the passenger from their ticket purchase, to boarding the aircraft, during the flight and until the passenger has left the destination airport.

In addition to everything else, they also have to provide a seat free of charge for a carer. Failure to do so can cost the airline $25,000 in fines per occasion. This makes America very keen on the Ambistair as the price works out at around $20,000.

Our biggest American customer so far is Alaska Airlines. As a result of an enthusiastic pitch from Dewey Kulzer of Elite Line Services, the airline agreed to test the unit in snowbound Nome, Alaska.

After the trial, the company realized that not only had the ramp staff chosen to use the Ambistair instead of the ambulift trucks, but they had noticed an improvement in aircraft turnaround times as they were not waiting for the ambulift service to arrive at the aircraft or terminal.

Ambistair coped, without fault, in the snow and ice of Nome, which has lead to Alaska Airlines purchasing a number of units for its operations in Seattle, Anchorage, Barrow, Bethel, Bellingham and Burbank.

Perhaps the fact that Alaska Airlines often handles its own aircraft gave it a good reason to replicate the efficiencies found during the trial in Nome.

Who is responsible for PRM equipment?

However there’s plenty of room for change and improvement. For example, imagine the following situation:    

It is 2011 and an ambulift truck has never been seen on a particular airport. All of the PRM movements have been carried out by the Ambistair for the past 30 years. 

So here I am in a meeting with an airport operator, airline and ground handler introducing a fantastic new vehicle that carries PRM’s from the terminal building to the aircraft door.

The prospective buyer takes notes: It costs at least ten times the amount of current PRM loading equipment; some may even cost 23 times more than the Ambistair for the new large A380; will need several of them to service the variety aircraft that land at the airport; uses diesel and requires regular servicing by the already busy MT department; unit may increase the chances of aircraft delays if it is unavailable due to a defect - or being used on another aircraft at the same time; will require at least two staff to operate it safely as opposed to one the Ambistair needs; may be accidents to aircraft and injury to staff and passengers; means more equipment on the already crowded airport stand; cannot be used during high winds; cannot be used during fuelling; family members may be separated before the flight.

After that, I would expect to be shown the door - but not so.

Unlike America, or where airlines handle their own passengers, there is a certain ambiguity in who should buy PRM equipment at UK airports.

Under the IATA SGHA, an airport must provide such services to passengers.  However the passenger becomes the airline’s responsibility where the jet bridge meets the aircraft fuselage or as soon as one foot is placed on the stairs to the aircraft.

On many occasions an airline gives the responsibility for passenger handling to an agent.  In turn, the PRM handling may be contracted out to a dedicated company.

So who is responsible for buying PRM equipment? Whatever the answer, the benefits of using an Ambistair are fairly obvious as airline and airport profits become increasingly constrained. We recently showed a handler they could save £1 million of reduced capital cost, servicing and staffing costs associated with ambulift vehicles.

What about the Olympics?

Frankly, I don’t think that airports are ready for the Paralympics and Olympic Games next year. And I am sure that a decision to purchase a new ambulift, just to overcome the increased demand during the summer months, is not one that the finance departments are going to be comfortable with.

Airports and handlers will try to cope with the obvious increase in demand by using the services and equipment that they already have but it won’t be enough.

This is where the Ambistair will make it possible to meet the increase in demand without risking long delays to passengers and aircraft. Not to mention the inconvenience and reputational damage to handler, airport, airline – and Britain.

Based at Stansted airport, Paul Crowther is an executive with Aviation Equipment Resources. The company provides GSE solutions to airports and airlines worldwide