Sunday 29 April 2012

Aerobridge – A Revolutionary Architect

History Of The Aerobridge
In 20th Century, when Wilbur Wright built his first glider where he climbed into his seat in the glider. With the passage of time, small aircraft were developed in which boarding was done via stairs which were part of the aircraft door. This was possible due to the fact that aircraft’s were generally low in height, thus enabling the stairs to be fitted on the door. This method of boarding is still used today in small regional aircraft. The larger aircraft required a different method of loading. External stairs are connected from the aircraft door to the ground. This method can be used virtually on all commercial passenger and cargo aircraft. Initially, these stairs were manually moved by ground staff. It was easy to move these fixed units by ground staff when serving small aircrafts. However, problems cropped up when serving larger aircraft and at larger airports. For serving larger aircraft, manually moving stairs measuring up to 5 meters height would be bigger problems. Also, at large busy airports, it would be virtually impossible to move these stair units around the airport manually. This problem was solved by building the stairs above a truck which would drive the stairs to the aircraft. This allowed transportation of large stairs and also moving it at a quicker speed.

Reason For Introducing The Aerobridge
The main reason for introducing the aerobridge is for passenger comfort. However, it was only possible with the advancement in technology in the 1970s when manufacturers were able meet the mechanical requirements for the operation of the aerobridge.

Considering the social side for introducing the aerobridge, one of the main reasons was to serve disabled passengers without great difficulties. Their immobility may prevent them from using the stairs, thus creating a problem as they may need crews to carry them onto the aircraft and will also likely to slow the boarding process. If the boarding process took longer than expected, the flight may miss their time slot for take-off and clearance thus causing delays.

Another problem the aerobridge solved was sheltering passenger from the weather. At stormy, rainy weathers, passengers are likely to get wet while walking to the stairs. Even once on the stairs which provides an overhead covering, they may get wet due to the uncovered sides. The aerobridge provided a shelter for passengers as the aerobridge is in the form of a tunnel where it shields the weather from the passengers inside. This method of boarding and disembarking have saved a considerable amount of time which is to the advantage of the airline as the turnaround time for the aircraft is shorter thus allowing the airline to maximize the usage of each aircraft.

Since the introduction of the first aerobridge, there have been several improvements made to aerobridges. One of the earliest types is made of aluminium. Although it is light in weight but aluminium would limit its strength considerably. The problem arises when using aluminium since it burns easily and quickly thus it would not meet the safety requirements.

The improved type of an aerobridge manufactured and used nowadays is made out of mild construction steel which is corrugated (Apron Dive Bridge). This provides extra strength and with its coating of fire resistant paint, it can withstand fire for up to 45 minutes which meets the fire safety standard (NFPA-417). The newest type of material used on aerobridge is glass as its side panels. This uses the construction of trusses to support the bridge and is also preferred as glass will not corrode.

The earlier types of aerobridges had fixed supports at both ends which limited its movements thus restricting the number of different types of aircraft the bridge may serve. As design improved over the period of time, aerobridges were constructed with a pivot support at the end closest to the terminal and a roller support at the end closest to the aircraft which allowed the aerobridge to serve a wider range of aircraft. The roller support is created by installing wheels on the end closest to the aircraft which maybe driven, for changing the position of the aerobridge.

Supports Used On The Aerobridges
There are two major types of aerobridges. One uses fixed supports at both ends of the bridge (Pedestal Bridge) while the other type has a pivot support at the end closest to the terminal and a roller support at the end closest to the aircraft. (Apron Drive Bridge)

The Pedestal bridge has fixed supports at both the terminal end and at the aircraft end and may only serve a limited range of aircraft as different types of aircraft have different door height in relations to the ground and the slope should not be greater than 8.33% for passenger comfort. The fixed support also requires the aircraft to be stopped at a near exact position to the cab. The Pedestal Bridge is suitable and useful at terminals which serve a large number of same types of aircraft. Using the pedestal bridges is also advantageous as there is less number of serviceable parts in the pedestal bridge comparing to the apron drive bridge thus minimizing the chance of failure. This is attractive to airport operators as reliability is very important because failures causing the gate to be out of use will lead to delays and inconvenience of passengers.

However, when a range of aircraft is to use the same gate, the Apron Drive Passenger Boarding Bridge (PBB) is more suitable as it may serve a large variety of aircraft since it is capable to move into a range of position. The PBB has a pivot support at the terminal end and a roller support at the aircraft end. This allows the PBB to swing a total of 175degrees (87degrees both clockwise and counterclockwise) and also have the ability to extend out at greater length allowing serving a wide range of aircraft. As noted above, any aerobridge may not generate a slope greater than 8.33% as it may create problems for passengers boarding the aircraft. Therefore, for the PBB to serve in the same gate both large aircraft and small aircraft, which has a door height difference of over 2 meters, the rotunda at the terminal end is positioned at the average height of the minimum and maximum door height of the aircraft which it is designated to handle.

Loading Of The Aerobridge
According to the Airport Equipment Ltd/ Jetway Systems General Specification, the maximum live load for the PBB is 195kg/m2. The PPB need to also withstand a wind load of 122kg/m2 (145km/hr) when unused and an operational wind load of 61kg/m2 (97km/hr). A roof load of 122kg/m2 is also required when technicians and engineers are required to work on the roof. The base of the tunnels comprise of corrugated ASTM-A36 medium carbon construction steel to withstand this load along with a centre beam running perpendicular to the corrugated patterns.

Future Designs
Although the Apron Drive PBB is sufficient for today’s aviation industry, improvements in design are being continuously thought of to minimize aircraft turn around time thus maximizing the usage of each single aircraft. This resulted in busy airports having 2 separate apron drive PBBs at each gate so that passengers may board and deplane the aircraft at a much quicker rate. Another improvement on existing apron drive PBB is the Glass Boarding Bridge where the side panels of the tunnels are made of glass. The main reason for this improvement is for consumer’s requirement as it provides passenger with a clear view of the apron prior boarding their aircraft.

Cost Advantage Over Old Method
As the technology has advanced from the manual moving stairs to truck driven stairs the advantages seemed to be enormous, until the development of the Aerobridges. Not only it has saved on turnaround time of each aircraft, it has helped the passengers to seamlessly move inside the airport before boarding the aircraft. Neither they have to bother about the freezing cold or the scorching sun while boarding and disembarking. The biggest advantage has been to the handicap people who don’t have to rely on attendants to carry them over the staircases. All these social advantages cannot over outshine the economic advantages it has given over the period of time.

We can discuss about the passenger buses from the terminus to the aircraft and elaborate about the advantages. As the airports have grown rapidly over the years, number of aircraft landing and taking off per hour has gone up. Just imagine, if a passenger bus have to travel 3km to the place where a 380 seater Jet standing, how many trips or how many buses are required to shift the passengers. What is the amount of fuel consumed for such one trip? If an airport handles 1,000 aircrafts per day we can imagine how many buses are required to handle the passengers coming in or going out of the airport. Now, multiplying it by the number of airports around the world will give an idea about the amount of fuel they would have consumed. This would deplete the reserves of our natural resources.

Let us elaborate it for our better understanding. There are around 45,000 airports around the world. Let’s say out of these 45,000 airports, 15,000 airports handle the air traffic of 1,000 aircrafts per day. If an average aircraft handles 200 passengers per trip then the number of passengers per day would be 200,000. If, 40 passengers are traveling at a time in the bus, number of trips from terminus – aircraft – terminus would be 5,000. Conservatively if we consider each trip is consuming 2 liters of fuel, then per day fuel consumption stands at 10,000 liters per airport. As we have considered 15,000 airports of similar capacity, the consumption of fuel per day stands at a staggering 150 million liters. If we consider full operation on 300 days per year then the consumption of fuel stands at 45,000 million liters. This is just by considering 33% of the total number of airports. As day by day the airports are growing, air traffic handling is also increasing.

To minimize the Global Warming, everybody is in a state of change to save every bit of carbon footprint. On an average, it has been estimated that every liter of fuel consumed is having a 2.5 kg of CO2 emission.  So for 45000 million liters it stands at a staggering 112.50 million tones of CO2 emission.

If we go a bit deeper, there will be at least 100 buses carrying the number of passages. The parking spaces for these are again a big problem, especially when there is a concept of best space utilization going around in every architectural design of the world.  Another big problem is the continuous maintenance of these buses which is much costlier than maintain the aerobridges.

Conclusion
An aerobridge has helped in conserving our natural resources and our environment at the same time. Just realize the importance of an architectural steel structural design made for only boarding and disembarking of passengers from aircraft to airport. It has come a long way since the first aerobridge was installed on July 29, 1959 at San Francisco International Airport. From aluminum to steel structure, has improved not only its strength but also the safety factors. As toughened glasses are now a day used for the sides, it gives a beautiful aesthetic look apart from the corrosion resistant property. There is no end to human thinking and who knows there might be something better in store for our future.

Enron Saga – An Ethical Point of View

A sketch of Enron
The Enron financial rout, is fascinating because it reveals that the ‘invisible hand’, which is meant to bring rationality into the market forces, may have no shadow, much like the character of a German novel, who had sold his own shadow to the devil thinking it was of little value, until it made him a monster banned from any human society.

At the time of its filing for bankruptcy in December 2001, there were 2,800 offshore units and 54 page list of people and companies who owed money from Enron. This was a far cry from the firm which, in the 1980s, specialized in the provision of natural gas pipelines and related services. But Enron rapidly expanded into trading activities in 1,800 products or contracts, the great majority of which were not subject to the regulatory oversight of the United States Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC).

Birth of Enron
Enron Corporation was created in 1985, after the federal deregulation of natural gas in North America. It was formed by the merger of two natural-gas pipeline companies from Houston and Nebraska. This merger was primarily debt-financed, which meant that Enron started life with a large level of debt. Enron’s first CEO, Kenneth Lay knew that his firm would have to be innovative to survive. McKinsey & Co. was hired to assist in developing Enron’s business strategy. McKinsey not only gave Enron a business strategy, they also gave Jeffrey Skilling, who officially joined Enron in 1990. Skilling hired Andrew Fastow, a specialist in financial derivatives. Both Skilling and Fastow were MBAs from leading US business schools, having expertise in sophisticated financial instruments but having a dangerous drive of short-term wealth creation. Their ‘ethic’ was very simple and unambiguous; maximize Enron’s short-term stock price appreciation at any cost.

Enron’s corporate culture
The banners hanging in the foyer of Enron’s Head Office in Houston were emblazoned with Enron’s ‘R.I.C.E.’ principles: Respect, Integrity, Communication and Excellence. Anybody may have been fooled into thinking that this RICE acronym in fact had some bearing on Enron’s corporate culture. Given what we now know about Enron, RICE should more appropriately have stood for Risk-taking, Individualism, Contempt and Exploitation.

Enron’s CFO & CEO’s Ambitious Plan
Enron’s rapid growth involved large capital investments not expected to generate significant cash flow in the short term. Maintaining Enron’s credit ratings at an investment grade was vital to Enron’s energy trading business. One perceived solution was to create partnerships structured as Special Purpose Entities (SPEs) that could borrow from outside investors without having to be consolidated into Enron’s balance sheet. SPE 3% rules said, no consolidation is needed if at least 3% of SPE total capital was owned independently of Enron.

Enron’s creation of over 3000 partnerships started about 1993 when it teamed with Calpers (California Public Retirement System) to create JEDI (Joint Energy Development Investments) fund. Enron initially thought of these partnerships as temporary solutions for cash flow problems. But it later used these SPE partnerships under 3% rules to hide bad debts. In Nov 1997, Calpers wanted to cash out of JEDI.  To keep JEDI afloat, Enron needs new 3% partner. It created another partnership with Chewco. Enron’s plan was to back short-term loans to Chewco to permit it to buy out Calper’s stake for $383 million. Chewco got $240 mil loan from Barclay’s bank guaranteed by Enron $132 mil credit from JEDI (whose only asset is Enron stock) Chewco still needed 3% of $383 million (about $11.5 million) from some outside source to avoid inclusion on Enron’s books. Chewco Capital Structure of outside 3% was made of $1.25 mil from William Dodson & Michael Kopper (an aide to Enron CFO Fastow), $11.4 mil loans from Big River and Little River (two new companies formed by Enron expressly for this purpose who get a loan from Barclay’s Bank). Barclay’s Bank begins to doubt the strength of the new companies, Big River and Little River. It requires a cash reserve of $6.6 million to be deposited (as security) for the $11.4 million dollar loans. This cash reserve is paid by JEDI, whose net worth by this time consists solely of Enron stock, putting Enron at risk position for this amount. In first quarter of 2000, the increase in price of Enron stock held by JEDI resulted in $126 million in profits to Enron. But everything fell apart when Enron’s share price started to drop in fall 2000 (Dotcom bubble). In November 2001, Enron admitted to the SEC that Chewco was not truly independent of Enron. Chewco went bankrupt shortly after this admission by Enron. On October 16, 2001, in the first major public sign of trouble, Enron announces a huge third-quarter loss of $618 million. On October 22, 2001, the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) begins an inquiry into Enron’s accounting practices. On December 2, 2001, Enron files for bankruptcy.

Accounting and transactional techniques used by Enron
Enron used seven accounting and transaction techniques extensively, which provides an idea of the ways in which the firm pushed against or overstepped the limits imposed by regulation. Not all of Enron’s use of these techniques was in conflict with accepted accounting rules and practice; nevertheless, investigations revealed that it led to the firm’s bankruptcy.

Enron Board of Directors and Nonobservance of Good Corporate Governance
Corporate governance is a relationship between the management and it’s Board of Directors, its shareholders and lenders, and it’s other stakeholders such as employees, customers, suppliers, and the community of which it is a part. Many Enron employees had invested in Enron’s own stock and the active encouragement of this practice by Enron’s own management continuing as late as September 2001. But at the same time, Enron officers and a few directors were themselves selling the firm’s stock on a massive scale – to the tune of US$1.1 billion between January 1999 and July 2001. By contrast, sales of Enron stock in employees’ retirement plans were subject to restrictions.

The Enron Board of Directors failed to safeguard Enron shareholders and contributed to the collapse by allowing Enron to engage in high risk accounting, inappropriate conflict of interest transactions, extensive undisclosed off the books activities, and excessive executive compensation. The Board witnessed questionable practices by Enron management, but chose to ignore them. The Enron Board consisted of fifteen members, many of them with more than fifteen years of experience on the Board of Enron and its predecessor companies, and many of them also members of the Boards of other companies. There were five committees of the Enron Board, the key Audit and Compliance Committee had six members, of whom two had formal accounting training and professional experience. The Compensation Committee had five members, three with at least fifteen years of experience with Enron

An increase in revenues from US$40 billion in 1999 to US$101 billion in 2000 should have been more questioned by the Board than was in fact occasioned. Arthur Andersen provided regular briefings to the Board concerning Enron’s accounting practices which were novel and involved a serious risk of non-compliance with generally accepted accounting principles. It drew special attention to the fact that, in 2001, executives received almost US$750 million in cash bonuses for performance in the year 2000, a period in which the company’s entire net income amounted to US$979 million.

Auditor’s and Bank’s involvement
Enron’s external auditor was Arthur Andersen, which also provided the firm with extensive internal auditing and consulting services. Some idea of its relative importance in these different roles during the period leading up to Enron’s insolvency is indicated by the fact that in the year 2000, consultancy fees (at US$27 million) accounted for more than 50 per cent of the approximately US$52 million earned by Andersen for work on Enron.

Enron’s banks were deeply involved in the firm’s recourse to techniques for the manipulation of its reported earnings and balance sheet under the seven major transactions and accounting headings. The court-appointed bankruptcy examiner concludes that there is evidence that the bank had actual knowledge of the wrongful conduct in the transactions giving rise to the breaches of fiduciary duty by Enron’s officers. The bank also gave substantial assistance to certain Enron’s officers by participating in the structuring and closing of such transactions. Finally, injury to Enron was the direct or reasonably foreseeable result of such conduct.

An Ethical Analysis
In order to conduct an ethical analysis of the Enron affair, we need a clear idea of what ethic means. This is tricky, as the word ‘ethics’ has almost as many meanings as it has users. Ethics is all about acting for good, and everyone has his or her own idea.  Ethical principles are not about what induces players to act for good or their motivation but about the rational logic behind their actions. In our turbulent world, the most popular principle is the precautionary principle, which induces us to act without waiting for scientific proof of potential damage. Professional ethics, for its part, have traditionally invoked the responsibility, transparency and fair play principle that dominates the business world. There are countless principles of action, as numerous as the various ways of linking up ends and means, some of which are discussed below:

Perceiving complexity
Perceiving complexity means being able to identify the full range of rationalities in given economic situations. Short-term and longer-term rationality, sociological rationality, and psychological rationality, which is often multiple and sometimes diverges from what instrumental rationality would demand plus the host of conflicting legal references, the bane of auditors particularly when they have to deal with multinational firms.

The limitations of rational self-interest
In its crudest form, from Adam Smith’s famous book The Wealth of Nations (1776) that due to the rational self-interest rather than altruism the baker endeavors to serve his customers to the best of his ability.

Strengthening people’s sense of belonging and solidarity.
People will have fewer ulterior motives if they have ties of affection with their fellow players. In order to achieve this, it is necessary to strengthen their sense of belongingness, affection, solidarity that unites all the players in a market economy despite their diverging interests.

Fostering pride
A second, more positive way of increasing self-esteem would be to foster pride. The most direct way is to set an example. It is not about behavioral management, which teaches to adopt the attitudes expected by the people around them, but which proves counterproductive once their duplicitous attitudes are exposed.

Accepting symbols
The ultimate, and most intimate, degree of motivation is based on the symbolic approach. This approach is based on mutual recognition by people who have never met. This approach leads us to the foundation for good actions through the experience of uniqueness.


Conclusion
There is little point in identifying the foundation of ethics, in the hope that managers and companies that seek to avoid the misfortunes suffered and caused by Enron will be spurred into action. Laws that are upheld by a combination of fear and enticement, feelings that are sustained in the social game of commercial relationships, and the self-esteem that one acquires by showing respect for stakeholders are merely words that cannot replace the actual things they stand for, especially since the foundation of financial ethics cannot be seen in isolation from those who practice it. This very process is part of the practice of ethics, as the foundation of ethics cannot remain frozen in previously tested positions, however valid these may seem. Instead, it has to be reinvented in response to each new dilemma. The practice of ethics is thus rather similar to the practice of science, in which the analytical frameworks and formal models that serve as principles of ethical action are there to be challenged and stretched to breaking point. Once we are aware of the limitations of our own ethics, we can begin to act for good and as we do so, discover who we really are.

When the voyage becomes more perilous, the crew demands more of the captain. As ‘perfect storms’ gather on the horizon of the world economic scene, captains of industry are coming under increasing pressure to live up to the expectations of more nervous and demanding crews.
Related Posts Plugin for WordPress, Blogger...