The sector challenge
Compare performance without losing the operating context.
Airport activity changes with traffic, weather, schedules and equipment availability. A reduction in total consumption does not by itself show a more efficient process, while an apparently lower-impact technology may introduce charging, availability or safety constraints.
Development is organized around a specific airport process and a defensible baseline. The collaboration framework connects operational knowledge, equipment performance and environmental analysis so that an improvement can be judged in the context of the task it needs to perform.
Programme development priorities
- Define a process boundary and a relevant unit of activity.
- Compare an improvement scenario with the baseline using documented assumptions.
- Examine operational feasibility and safety alongside environmental performance.
Technical scope & method
A structured approach to the question.
- 01Process and baseline
- Map the activity, equipment, duty cycle and data sources. Define suitable normalization, such as a task or operating-hour basis, and record seasonal or operational variation.
- 02Resource and emissions picture
- Assess energy, water, waste, air-quality or ground-operation noise questions within the chosen scope. Emissions inventories use documented factors and consistent boundaries.
- 03Improvement scenario
- Examine options such as ground-support equipment electrification, scheduling changes or resource controls. Consider infrastructure, charging, equipment availability, maintenance and cost assumptions.
- 04Comparative evaluation
- Compare like-for-like activity and document uncertainty. Test whether an option remains workable during peak demand and within the responsible operator’s safety constraints.
- 01Ground processTask, duty cycle and safety boundary
- 02Measured baselineEnergy, resources and activity units
- 03Improvement scenarioInfrastructure and availability
- 04Comparative reviewPerformance, cost and feasibility
Pilot development & application
A bounded ground-support equipment improvement study.
The ground-support development framework compares a representative duty cycle with an electrified equipment scenario. It examines charging demand, infrastructure, resource use, equipment availability and operating conditions using a consistent activity boundary. Sensitivity analysis tests whether the comparison remains useful as utilization and energy assumptions change.
Establish the baseline
Define the task, fleet boundary, activity unit, data quality and operating assumptions. Separate measured information from estimates.
Develop the scenario
Assess charging windows, infrastructure, equipment availability, maintenance and a documented emissions-calculation approach.
Test the comparison
Review sensitivity to utilization and energy assumptions. Address safety permissions and operational questions as part of demonstration planning.
Development connects a defined application, measurable criteria and a traceable technical review.
Technical deliverables
Outputs and evaluation.
The development workstreams connect these deliverables to reviewable evidence and application-specific evaluation criteria.
- Operational process map
- Baseline measurement plan
- Environmental performance indicators
- Improvement concept
- Comparative evaluation method
- Technical findings report
Evaluation priorities
- Normalized performance
- Resource use and documented emissions per relevant activity unit, not unsupported aggregate savings.
- Operational availability
- The scenario can meet the defined task, duty cycle and resilience needs.
- Feasibility
- Infrastructure, cost assumptions, safety constraints and data limitations are explicitly assessed.
Participation & boundaries
The right expertise. Clear responsibilities.
The collaboration framework defines roles for airport-process specialists, ground handlers, equipment engineers, resource analysts and information users. Contributions are organized around the selected operating process and the evidence needed to assess it.
Scope and safeguards
Airport demonstrations require the responsible operator’s permission, airside controls, competent safety review and applicable authorizations. Safety, security and operational continuity are integral to the development approach.
Environmental and cost comparisons depend on a defined boundary, credible inputs and transparent assumptions. Supplier selection and operator endorsement remain independent decisions.
Participation and technical decisions remain separate.
Participation does not automatically confer membership rights, AF Recognition, accreditation, certification, standards-setting authority or procurement preference. Sponsorship must not determine technical conclusions, evaluation results or governance decisions.
Development pathway
Development, grounded in evidence.
Technical objectives, responsible coordination and application needs shape the development process. Resources, safety, confidentiality, data protection, intellectual property and reporting arrangements are reviewed alongside the methods and deliverables, keeping progress focused and accountable.
A structured development pathwayExplore the seven connected development stages
Programme development connects technical requirements, responsible coordination and reviewable evidence. Each stage informs the next, while review findings refine the scope, methods and priorities.
- Requirements & Objectives
Define the technical problem, user need and scope.
- Feasibility & Evidence
Examine methods, resources, interfaces and dependencies.
- Scope & Responsibilities
Align workstreams, coordination and review arrangements.
- Pilot Development
Connect the evaluation plan to funding, safety, data and intellectual-property controls.
- Controlled Implementation
Maintain the agreed technical boundary and responsible delivery arrangements.
- Technical Evaluation
Review evidence and outcomes against application-specific criteria.
- Knowledge & Further Development
Translate reviewed findings into useful outputs and the next development priorities.