DOCSLIB.ORG

ACRP Problem Statement No. 13-10-11 Recommended Allocation:

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
ACRP Problem Statement No. 13-10-11 Recommended Allocation: ACRP Problem Statement No. 13-10-11 Recommended Allocation: -- Airport Jet-Way Maintenance and Operation Impact on Aircraft ECS ACRP Staff Comments: The term, "ECS" stands for Environmental Control Systems, and was not defined in the problem statement. TRB Aviation Group Committees Comments: AIRCRAFT/AIRPORT COMPATIBILITY: Jetways, APUs, and preconditioned air systems are separate pieces of equipment, and may be owned by individuals as opposed to airports. Perhaps this area of study is best left to the vendors, although tracking of O&M could be an element of overall airport asset management. AVIATION SECURITY AND EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT: The research problem points to work already done in this area with regard to ASHRAE standards and FAA's lack of regulation in this area. The concern seems to be largely regulatory in nature and not specifically a research concern. It remains unclear if there is a need to pursue new standards given that general assessment of the current situation is that existing standards are not followed. Additional thought for consideration: This study addresses conditioned air (hot/cold) supplied to airline aircraft parked at a jetway [aka passenger loading bridge; aka jet bridge]. The air handler affixed to the loading bridge provides the conditioned air to the aircraft via 12”- to 18”-diameter flexible pipe/duct which is manually attached by ground crew to the parked aircraft. Ownership of loading bridges at US airports is 5/6th airport and 1/6th airline (proposer’s figures). The proposer is asking to survey the US to determine the condition and dedicated maintenance of all of these air handler units, associated parts, and the loading bridges themselves. Opinion: For the air handler unit and condition of the loading bridge to be as pervasively poor as the proposer asserts, the owning airports and airlines are at fault. Is a study whose resultant findings prove the proposer’s assertions correct necessary? No. It’s the job of the airports and airlines to attend to their equipment. Review Panel: Not recommended — There are already established maintenance procedures between owner/operator and manufacturer. There is no need for the proposed research. AOC Disposition: No funds allocated. No discussion. AACCRRPP Problem Number: 13-10-11 Problem Title: Airport Jet-Way Maintenance and Operation Impact on Aircraft ECS Research Problem Statement: A recent informal study provided data showing that there was significant variation in the quality of maintenance of jet bridge air supply unit s for aircraft. The jet way functions to support the aircraft by providing a source of power and air-conditioning and/or heating to the aircraft without using independent contractors for ground support equipment. This docking time includes aircraft flight crew changes, loading and discharging passengers, staying overnight, and/or staying for an extended period. While docked, there are times the entire aircraft and airport gate is unattended. Service connections (i.e. hoses, lines, ducts) are also part of utility service provided by the jet way. It appears that minimal maintenance of these service connections occur, and replacement only if a complete failure is noted. There are no routine checks and balances scheduled for these service connections. One of the important areas of impact is the severe damage that occurred to the jet way service air conditioning panels while stowing wires and hoses on top of equipment. This caused equipment access / protection panels to become severely damaged; in some cases, damaged to a point they no longer fit properly. This repeated panel damage reduces the filtering ability of the service units considerably. Another important observation was debris catchers for these units have been eliminated, broken or removed, most likely due to the rough handling of these connections. A secondary random observation occurred. Aircraft departing from any gate could have intentional contamination via powders, liquids, aerosols, or gaseous contaminants into the unprotected duct system from the jetway utility service. Such introduction would quickly and effectively impact cabin air and environmental hygiene. Crew and passenger response to such contamination would most likely occur hours later; well into a lengthy domestic or international flight. Units that have not received adequate maintenance have resulted in degraded performance of aircraft air conditioning. It is highly likely that all other US Air Carriers would be subject to the effects on aircraft environmental systems caused by ground systems that are not properly maintained. Airport jet-way supply air to the aircraft may be provided by building HVAC systems or by stand-alone HVAC systems. ASHRAE Standard 161, paragraph 6.3.3 requires air provided to aircraft during ground operations drawn from air in the building conform to ANSI/ASHRAE 62.1-2004. No requirement is placed on stand-alone systems that supply air to the aircraft. It is not clear which standard that jet-way systems must conform to. Lack of control of jet-way supply air systems leaves the systems vulnerable to contaminants, both from air quality and biological sources that would affect the health and comfort of the aircraft crew and passengers. Thirty four percent of the 178 jet bridge air handlers inspected were in need of immediate replacement of the flexible ducts that conduct air from the air handler to the aircraft. If this random sampling is representative of all US Airport then approximately 1400 flexible ducts are due for immediate replacement at US Airports. Manufacturers of flexible ducts, which range in cost from $2000 to $4000 each, recommend replacement of the ducts every 6 months to 3 years, depending on the severity of the operation. Not changing flexible ducts can result in safety of flight issues for aircraft if aircraft are not serviced to clean the debris from the system. Many aircraft operators may not be aware of the issue and the risk posed to their aircraft. Cost to remove the debris from an aircraft requires approximately 350 man hours at an estimated cost of $17,000. The cost to the US fleet of commercial aircraft from lack of jet bridge system maintenance, assuming a fleet size of 5000 aircraft would be $85 million additional cost to the airlines when performing heavy maintenance. Cost to maintain jet bridges is $45.9 million dollars per year to the owners of the jet bridge air conditioning systems. The problem is that the level of maintenance given to ground based aircraft air supply systems is not known. A broad study is needed to assess the range of maintenance practices for building and ground sources of air provided to aircraft. Recommendations for future steps may be determined once the severity of the problem is determined, and the potential risk exposure faced by the aircraft operators and the secondary risk to the airports. The study will need to consider the range of ownership of gates and jet bridges within the 89 hubs within the United States. The study should also consider any differences between airport owners of the 2869 gates and 3660 jet bridges that are airport owned, and the 1303 gates and 667 jet bridges that are airline owned. Airports have the opportunity to obtain grants through the FAA Voluntary Airport Low Emission Program (VALE) to install ground power and air sources that reduce airport emissions encourage use of airport services. It is not known if the annual maintenance cost of ground systems has been considered (estimated at $11K per jet way) or if there is a cost trade in some areas where utilizing APU power may be more cost effective and pose lower risk to the aircraft environmental control system. Alternatively, the study may indicate monitors for HVAC systems or more significant operational checks and procedures would be a more cost effective approach than the use of aircraft system auxiliary power units. Objective: The objective of this study is to assess current jet-way HVAC maintenance practices and procedures as they relate to delivery of conditioned air to aircraft ECS, and examine the impact of the current maintenance procedures and practices on long term aircraft operation and heavy maintenance requirements. The study will also identify the manner in which airports protect supply air systems to prevent contaminants and water from entering the supply duct when it is stored between aircraft uses. The study may indicate that a standard or regulation would be advised to prevent contaminated air from entering aircraft air supply ducting that could lead to long term degradation of the aircraft ECS. Research Proposed: The proposed research would necessitate a survey of the 89 hub airports and the US airlines within the US who own and maintain the 4172 jet bridges and other ground air supply systems. The study will examine the service frequency of the aircraft supply HVAC and associated ducting. The study will assess the range of maintenance practices. The study will require examination and ranking of ducts based on physical condition, and level of contamination such as moisture, mold, and, dirt. The study will examine potential standards and recommend whether a new standard is necessary, or if existing building standards are sufficient if properly enforced. Estimate of the Problem Funding and Research Period: Recommended Funding: The recommended funding level for this study is $500K. The approximate value of the project is based on the assumption that significant travel will be required of the 2 researcher(s) for approximately 18 months to examine jet-ways at the 89 hubs and, to perform other program activities. Research Period: A research period of 18 months will be necessary. 12 months would be utilized for planning and conducting the primary research, and 6 months would be utilized for reporting and interaction with the Transportation Research Board (TRB) committee. Urgency and Payoff Potential There is an urgent need to perform the study.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Reno – Stead Airport
    Reno-Tahoe Airport Authority FY 2017-18 ANNUAL BUDGET Table of Contents SECTION 1 – Introduction and Summary Airport System Overview. ......................................................................................... 1-2 National and Regional Economic Outlook. ............................................................. 2-13 Air Service Market Update. ................................................................................... 13-17 Air Cargo Update. .................................................................................................. 17-19 Operating Environment. ........................................................................................ 19-29 Budget Process. ..................................................................................................... 29-30 Revenue Bond Resolution .......................................................................................... 30 Planning for the Future .......................................................................................... 30-32 Budget Document Structure ....................................................................................... 32 Conclusion ............................................................................................................. 32-33 Acknowledgments ...................................................................................................... 33 Distinguished Budget Presentation Award ................................................................. 34 SECTION 2 – Executive Summary
    [Show full text]
  • Rules and Regulations Commissioners
    Airport Commission City and County of San Francisco Edwin M. Lee Mayor Rules and Regulations Commissioners: Larry Mazzola President San Francisco International Airport Linda S. Crayton Vice President Adopted: March 15, 2016 Eleanor Johns Issued by: The Airport Commission Richard J. City and County of San Francisco Guggenhime Peter A. Stern John L. Martin Director CityandCountyofSanFrancisco AirportCommissionRulesandRegulations AIRPORT COMMISSION CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO EDWIN M. LEE MAYOR COMMISSIONERS LARRY MAZZOLA PRESIDENT LINDA S. CRAYTON VICE PRESIDENT ELEANOR JOHNS RICHARD J. GUGGENHIME PETER A. STERN CityandCountyofSanFrancisco AirportCommissionRulesandRegulations FOREWORD The statements contained herein express the policy of the San Francisco Airport Commission, duly adopted as the Rules and Regulations, and are intended to ensure the safe and efficient operations of San Francisco International Airport. These Rules and Regulations govern the general conduct of the public, tenants, employees, and commercial users of San Francisco International Airport as their activities relate to the possession, management, supervision, operation and control of San Francisco International Airport by the City through its Airport Commission. JOHN L. MARTIN AIRPORT DIRECTOR City and County of San Francisco Airport Commission Rules and Regulations TABLE OF CONTENTS Rule .....................................................................................................................Page RULE 1.0 DEFINITIONS....................................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Presentation: Electrification of Airport Ground Support Equipment
    Heavy-Duty Vehicle Electrification and its Impacts Tuesday, March 27, 2018 2018 Advanced Energy Conference New York City, NY Baskar Vairamohan Senior Technical Leader © 2018 Electric Power Research Institute, Inc. All rights reserved. About the Electric Power Research Institute Independent Objective, scientifically based results address reliability, efficiency, affordability, health, safety, and the environment Nonprofit Chartered to serve the public benefit Collaborative Bring together scientists, engineers, academic researchers, and industry experts 2 © 2018 Electric Power Research Institute, Inc. All rights reserved. Airport Ground Support Equipment (GSE) Drivers for Electrification: .Air quality improvements – Benefits of emissions produced using electricity as a fuel versus diesel fuel or gasoline .Economic benefits – Reduced fuel costs – Reduced maintenance costs 3 © 2018 Electric Power Research Institute, Inc. All rights reserved. Electric GSE equipment options Common GSE, all available in electric options .Bag Tugs/Bag Tractor .Belt loaders .Pushback Tractor/Aircraft Tractor 4 © 2018 Electric Power Research Institute, Inc. All rights reserved. Electric GSE equipment options Not typical but all available in electric options .Container/cargo loaders .Passenger Stairs .Lavatory Truck .Catering Truck .…golf carts 5 © 2018 Electric Power Research Institute, Inc. All rights reserved. Other electric options . Auxiliary Power PC Air (PCA) Unit – Pre-conditioned Air Units are used to cool the aircraft while it is parked at the gate – Southwest Airlines project objective in 2002: Provide external pre- conditioned air (heat and cool) and 400 HZ power to the Aircraft to minimize the use of the Aircraft’s Auxiliary Power Units (APU) while the Aircraft is at the gate. Saving fuel and reducing emissions. 6 © 2018 Electric Power Research Institute, Inc.
    [Show full text]
  • Appendix A: Gsemodel Operating Instructions
    APPENDIX A GSEMODEL OPERATING INSTRUCTIONS GSEMODEL OPERATING INSTRUCTIONS Introduction GSEModel is a personal computer spreadsheet-based analysis tool that has been developed to quantify emission benefits and calculate the cost-effectiveness of converting existing airport ground support equipment (GSE) to cleaner-burning fuels and engine technologies. The model has been developed as a planning tool for use by metropolitan planning organizations (MPOs), airports, and other agencies interested in evaluating potential emission benefits and cost savings resulting from available GSE emission control technologies. It has been designed with a mouse-enabled graphical user interface to make it simple and easy to use. The GSEModel tool is based upon the “best practice” methodologies and information presented earlier in the body of this report. It has been designed to utilize local (i.e., airport-specific) GSE usage and cost information coupled with best-available emission factor data to perform the following functions using a consistent methodology: & Estimate current and alternative technology GSE emissions by individual equipment category (e.g., aircraft pushback tractors, baggage tugs, cargo loaders, etc.); & Compute the emission benefits of the available alternative technologies; & Quantify the incremental capital, operating, and life-cycle costs of converting GSE units to these alternative technologies; and & Calculate and compare the cost-effectiveness (cost per unit emissions reduced, e.g., $/ton) of these alternative technologies for each equipment category under airport-specific operating and usage conditions. Nevertheless, as with any analysis tool, the results computed by the model retain the inherent uncertainties of the data and estimates upon which they are based. As described in the operating instructions that follow, the model provides “default” values for a number of inputs to enable the user to quickly develop GSE emission reduction and cost- effectiveness estimates associated with alternative technologies.
    [Show full text]
  • A Two-Door Airplane Boarding Approach When Using Apron Buses
    sustainability Article A Two-Door Airplane Boarding Approach When Using Apron Buses Camelia Delcea * , Liviu-Adrian Cotfas , Nora Chirit,ă and Ionut, Nica Department of Economic Informatics and Cybernetics, Bucharest University of Economic Studies, 010522 Bucharest, Romania; [email protected] (L.-A.C.); [email protected] (N.C.); [email protected] (I.N.) * Correspondence: [email protected]; Tel.: +40-769-652-813 Received: 3 September 2018; Accepted: 8 October 2018; Published: 10 October 2018 Abstract: Boarding is one of the major processes of airplane turnaround time, with a direct influence on the airline companies’ costs. From a sustainable point of view, a faster completion of the boarding process has impact not only on the airline company’s long-term performance, but also on customers’ satisfaction and on the airport’s possibility of offering more services without additional investments in new infrastructure. Considering the airplane boarding strategies literature, it can be observed that the latest papers are dealing with developing faster boarding strategies, most of them considering boarding using just one-door of the aircraft. Even though boarding on one-door might be feasible for the airports having the needed infrastructure and sufficient jet-bridges, the situation is different in European airports, as the use of apron buses is fairly common. Moreover, some of the airline companies have adapted their boarding pass in order to reflect which door one should board once they get down from the bus. While using these buses, the boarding strategies developed in the literature are hard to find their applicability. Thus, a new method for boarding on two-door airplanes when apron buses are used is proposed and tested against the actual boarding method.
    [Show full text]
  • FRIENDLY AIRCRAFT HANDLING – Case Study: ZAGREB AIRPORT MODEL of ENVIRONMENT - FRIENDLY AIRCRAFT HANDLING – CASE STUDY: ZAGREB AIRPORT
    Igor Štimac, Damir Vince, Bruna Jakšić MODEL OF ENVIRONMENTAL FRIENDLY AIRCRAFT HANDLING – Case Study: ZAGREB AIRPORT MODEL OF ENVIRONMENT - FRIENDLY AIRCRAFT HANDLING – CASE STUDY: ZAGREB AIRPORT Igor Štimac, MSc, IAP Damir Vince, MSc, IAP Zagreb Airport Ltd., Rudolfa Fizira Street 1, p.p. 40, HR-10150 Zagreb, Croatia [email protected], [email protected] Bruna Jakšić, mag.ing.el City office for energetics, environment protection and sustainable development, Dukljaninova 3, HR-10000 Zagreb, Croatia [email protected] ABSTRACT In the era of increased awareness surrounding global warming and the importance of renewable energy, airports are affected by the rising costs of fossil fuels, as well as by the demands for the reduction of greenhouse gases emission. This paper reports the effort to determine the benefits of replacing gasoline and diesel-fueled internal combustion engine ground support equipment (ICE GSE) with electric ground support equipment (eGSE). The model of environment-friendly aircraft handling will be based on the examination of cost- effectiveness and reduction of greenhouse gases in the case of replacing fossil-fueled GSE with cleaner, more efficient electric-powered alternatives. In comparison with the current procedures of Ground Handling, the authors choose Zagreb Airport Ltd. as the representative airport for building Case Study and Airbus A319/A320 as the reference aircraft for calculation of greenhouse gases emission during handling process. The calculation method will be based on real time duration of processes performed by each piece of GSE during aircraft handling procedure. The usage of the model will be tested on aircraft handling for two airline business models: network and low cost.
    [Show full text]
  • Airport Terminal Beacons Recommended Practice
    Airport Terminal Beacons Recommended Practice Page | 1 1.0 Table of Contents 2.0 INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................ 4 3.0 BACKGROUND OF AIRPORT TERMINAL BEACONS ......................... 4 4.0 TECHNOLOGY DISCUSSION .................................................................. 6 4.1. What is an Airport Terminal Beacon? ............................................................................... 6 4.2. Building Beacon Business Models .................................................................................... 7 4.2.1. Introduction .......................................................................................................................... 7 4.2.2. Overview .............................................................................................................................. 7 4.2.3. Impact on Technology Deployment .................................................................................. 8 4.2.4. Building the Business Case ............................................................................................... 8 4.2.5. Options for Implementation ............................................................................................... 8 4.2.6. Recommendation ................................................................................................................ 8 4.2.7. Implementation Approach .................................................................................................. 9 4.3. Common Use
    [Show full text]
  • Determining the Number of Passengers for Each of Three Reverse Pyramid Boarding Groups with COVID-19 Flying Restrictions
    S S symmetry Article Determining the Number of Passengers for Each of Three Reverse Pyramid Boarding Groups with COVID-19 Flying Restrictions Camelia Delcea 1 , R. John Milne 2 and Liviu-Adrian Cotfas 1,* 1 Department of Economic Informatics and Cybernetics, Bucharest University of Economic Studies, 010552 Bucharest, Romania; [email protected] 2 David D. Reh School of Business, Clarkson University, 333 B.H. Snell Hall, Potsdam, NY 13699, USA; [email protected] * Correspondence: [email protected]; Tel.: +40-771-269-599 Received: 5 November 2020; Accepted: 4 December 2020; Published: 9 December 2020 Abstract: The onset of the novel coronavirus SARS-CoV2 has changed many aspects of people’s economic and social activities. For many airlines, social distancing has reduced airplane capacity by one third as a result of keeping the middle seats empty. Additionally, social distancing between passengers traversing the aisle slows the boarding process. Recent literature has suggested that the reverse pyramid boarding method provides favorable values for boarding time and passenger health metrics when compared to other boarding methods with social distancing. Assuming reverse pyramid boarding with the middle seats unoccupied, we determined the number of passengers to include in each of three boarding groups. We assumed that passengers use a jet-bridge that connects the airport terminal to the airplane’s front door. We used agent-based modeling and a stochastic simulation to evaluate solutions. A full grid search found an initial good solution, and then local search optimization determined the best solution based upon the airline’s relative preference for minimizing average boarding time and minimizing risks to previously seated passengers from later-boarding, potentially contagious passengers breathing near them.
    [Show full text]
  • OUR WORLD WORKS for YOU ABOUT WFS 18,000 50 Million Airport Service Professionals Working Airline Passengers Served for Our Airline for You All Over the World
    OUR WORLD WORKS FOR YOU ABOUT WFS 18,000 50 million Airport service professionals working Airline passengers served for our airline for you all over the world. customers annually. 198 300 Global locations on five continents. We are proud to serve over 300 airlines globally. More than €1 billion 4 million Annual sales, enabling us to Tonnes of cargo handled per invest in the services you need. annum worldwide. >03 WORKING WITH YOU In the fast-moving and highly competitive world of aviation, our aim is to provide our customers and our customers’ customers with the most professional, safe and secure service. This means ensuring passengers enjoy a fast and friendly journey through the required airport procedures. It means providing timely, safe and secure ramp handling to ensure on-time flight departures and efficient baggage handling for arriving and departing passengers. And, it means every piece of cargo we handle is managed securely and on-time to connect with outbound flights or made ready for customer collection. We, at WFS, consistently deliver to these high standards of quality and service through our investments in people, training, facilities and equipment – and our global commitment to best in class service. Our international organisation is enhanced through partnerships in key locations around the world with companies that share our business philosophy. This enables us to combine our global knowledge and expertise with a clear understanding of the needs of customers in local markets. We continue to explore and invest in new opportunities which extend the reach of our cargo, passenger, ramp, technical, baggage and premium services and that enable us to increase the scope of our offering to our global customers.
    [Show full text]
  • Airport Compatibility
    Airport Compatibility Airport Compatibility PPT 1 Airport Compatibility Airport operation status Since 2001 Grand Opening , traffic and Passenger volume have increased over 7.5% per year respectively. 305,445 flights and 49 million passengers in 2015 Daily traffic exceeded 1,000 flights for the first time in this summer 85 airlines fly over 193 cities Airport Compatibility Aerodrome facilities 3 runways & 6 taxiways 3 passenger, 2 cargo and 1 maintenance aprons 74 aircraft stands with boarding bridge 21 de-icing pads CAT-III b operation, landing and T/O minima RVR 75m Airport Compatibility Aerodrome facility – Runway and Taxiway Runway Length : 3,750m (RWY 1, 2), 4,000m (RWY 3) Width : 60m Shoulder : 12m (each side) Taxiway Width : 30m Shoulder : 15m (each side) Airport Compatibility Aerodrome facility - Apron Jet-Bridge Aircraft Stand Passenger terminal : 44, concourse :30 11 Stands accommodate ICAO Code F aircraft 126 122 112 110 106 17 15 43 12 46 10 Airport Compatibility New Large Aircraft….A380, B747-8 and… Is the airport able to accommodate a new large aircraft? A380 / Incheon Airport Compatibility Meeting : ’04 – ‘09 6 Aeronautical studies Route proving flight by Airbus : ’06 Route proving flight by Korean Air : ’07 Airport Compatibility Challenge : Runway holding point The runway holding position should be relocated to protect obstacle limitations surfaces from the Code F aircraft tail 107.5m 90m Airport Compatibility Challenge : Ground movement on passenger apron The distance between taxilane and obstacle shall not be
    [Show full text]
  • AC 150/5220-21C, Aircraft Boarding Equipment, 29 June 2012
    Advisory U.S. Department of Transportation Federal Aviation Circular Administration Subject: Aircraft Boarding Equipment Date: 6/29/2012 AC No: 150/5220-21C Initiated by: AAS-100 Change: 1. PURPOSE. This advisory circular (AC) contains the Federal Aviation Administration’s (FAA’s) performance standards, specifications, and recommendations for the design, manufacture, testing and maintenance of equipment used in the boarding of airline passengers. 2. CANCELLATION. This AC cancels AC 150/5220-21B, Guide Specification for Devices Used to Board Airline Passengers with Mobility Impairments, dated March 17, 2000. 3. SCOPE. This AC covers the four most common pieces of equipment used to board aircraft: a. Passenger boarding bridges (PBBs) that are entered from the passenger terminal boarding area, b. Ramps that are moved into place to allow boarding from the airport apron, c. Lifts to vertically transport passengers from the airport apron to the door of the aircraft, and d. Aircraft boarding chairs used to transfer passengers from their wheelchair or other apparatus to their seat in the aircraft cabin. The physical area covered in this AC is that which is bounded by the door of the passenger terminal area, on one end, to the door of the aircraft, on the other end. Although this AC refers only to aircraft boarding (enplaning), all references apply equally to disembarking (deplaning) with the described procedures occurring in reverse order. Chapters 3-5 for this AC are primarily based on the performance standards, specifications, and recommendations contained in the Society of Automotive Engineers (SAE) Aerospace Recommended Practice (ARP) 1247, General Requirements for Aerospace Ground Support Equipment (Motorized and Non-motorized), U.S.
    [Show full text]
  • Boarding an Aircraft
    Last update: 22.04.2021 Boarding an aircraft Boarding an aircraft takes place straight from the departure lounge, to which passengers are directed after checking in and passing through the security checkpoint. Each flight is given an appropriate gate/exit at which passengers wait to board the plane. Boarding can take place through a special jet bridge connected to the plane or directly from the airport apron - then passengers are transported by bus to the plane or they move along a separate path and go up the stairs to board it. Boarding time information is displayed on screens in the departure lounge. Priority boarding In most cases, it is a common practice used by airlines to first board people traveling with young children, pregnant women and the disabled. Priority boarding is also available to those who have purchased such a service or are traveling in a higher travel class (First Class, Business Class), as well as those with loyalty program cards. How to order? If you want to use the priority boarding option, you can purchase the service by selecting the suitable item in the booking process on our website or after booking the ticket, select the suitable option in the "My bookings" tab in Your eSky account. You can also use it to manage your booking yourself. If you are not a registered user, create an account and import your booking. In addition, it is worth using the eSky mobile application, thanks to which you will get immediate access to your reservations at any time and place. Boarding an aircraft - Travel guide - useful travel tips - FAQ - eSky.com Page 1 Seat reservation on a plane Cheap airlines Low-cost airlines usually allow you to reserve seats in advance for an additional fee.
    [Show full text]