Study on economic and other benefits of one stop security arrangements › transport › sites › transport › files › ... · 2018-11-23 · European Commission Study on One Stop

Study on economic

and other benefits of

one stop security

arrangements

Project Report

[Restricted]

by o&i consulting

October 2018

European Commission Study on One Stop Security Arrangements

October 2018 – Restricted 2

Contents

Contents ................................................................................................................ 2

1. Disclaimer ........................................................................................................ 5

2. Abstract ........................................................................................................... 6

3. Glossary of terms ................................................................................................ 7

3.1 European Union (EU) Member States ........................................................................ 7

3.2 European Economic Area (EEA) States ...................................................................... 7

3.3 Non-EU Schengen States ...................................................................................... 7

3.4 Third countries participating in OSS .......................................................................... 8

3.5 Third countries in negotiations with EU regarding OSS ................................................... 8

3.6 Airports and airport codes (involved or discussed in study) .............................................. 8

3.7 Other acronyms ................................................................................................. 9

4. Executive summary ........................................................................................... 11

4.1 Background and introduction ................................................................................ 11

4.2 Objectives ...................................................................................................... 11

4.3 Study approach and methodology .......................................................................... 11

4.4 Findings ......................................................................................................... 13

4.5 Conclusions and recommendations ......................................................................... 15

A. Project background and set up ............................................................................. 17

5. Introduction .................................................................................................... 17

5.2 Objectives of the study ....................................................................................... 20

5.3 Project scope ................................................................................................... 20

6. Approach ....................................................................................................... 21

6.1 Responsibilities ................................................................................................ 21

6.2 Stakeholder engagement .................................................................................... 22

7. Methodology ................................................................................................... 25

7.1 Survey of the status of OSS application in EU Member States and Third Countries ................ 26

7.2 Survey of One Stop Security implementation at airports ............................................... 27



7.3 Fact finding discussions with 16 airports .................................................................. 27

7.4 Fact finding with other stakeholders ....................................................................... 28

7.5 Analysis and consolidation of findings ..................................................................... 29

7.6 Stakeholder workshop ........................................................................................ 29

B. Findings ......................................................................................................... 30

8. State participation in OSS .................................................................................... 30

8.1 Status quo of OSS implementation at a State level ...................................................... 33

9. OSS implementation at airport level........................................................................ 45

9.1 Implementation by airport size.............................................................................. 53

10. Reasons for lack of OSS implementation .................................................................. 65

10.1 Lack of transfer passengers ................................................................................. 69

10.2 State regulation ................................................................................................ 71

10.3 Border control and infrastructure limitations.............................................................. 73

11. Assessment of cost and benefits ............................................................................ 81

11.1 Transfer passenger market .................................................................................. 83

11.2 Study airports .................................................................................................. 85

11.3 Investment required to enable OSS ........................................................................ 87

11.4 Direct financial benefits of OSS ........................................................................... 101

11.5 Other airport and airline benefits of One Stop Security ............................................... 103

11.6 Security benefits of OSS: raising global security standards .......................................... 107

11.7 Political benefits of OSS .................................................................................... 109

C. Conclusions and Recommendations ...................................................................... 110

12. Conclusions ................................................................................................... 110

12.1 Status quo of One Stop Security .......................................................................... 110

12.2 Reasons for lack of implementation at airport level ................................................... 110

12.3 Cost of implementing OSS ................................................................................. 112

12.4 Benefits of One Stop Security ............................................................................. 112

12.5 Types of airports likely to benefit most from OSS ..................................................... 113



12.6 Expanding OSS to new countries ......................................................................... 114

13. Recommendations........................................................................................... 115

13.1 Alignment of security standards .......................................................................... 115

13.2 OSS development strategy ................................................................................ 116

14. Acknowledgements ......................................................................................... 118

D. Appendices ................................................................................................... 119

1. Appendix 1: Questionnaire to States / Appropriate Authorities ...................................... 119

2. Appendix 2: Questionnaire to Airports ................................................................... 119

3. Appendix 3: Top 46 third countries from which the EU received transfer traffic in 2017 ....... 120

Contact ............................................................................................................. 121



1. Disclaimer

“The information and views set out in this study are those of the author(s) and do not

necessarily reflect the official opinion of the Commission. The Commission does not

guarantee the accuracy of the data included in this study. Neither the Commission nor

any person acting on the Commission’s behalf may be held responsible for the use which

may be made of the information contained therein.”



2. Abstract

DG MOVE commissioned o&i consulting ltd to conduct a One Stop Security (OSS) study

to understand the status quo of its application, identify reasons for non-implementation

and to assess its costs and benefits.

OSS is fully allowed at a State level across the EU/EEA, Switzerland and participating

third countries, with notable exceptions being the UK and USA. Implementation at an

airport level is more varied; small airports with few/no transfer passengers typically do

not offer any OSS or provide full OSS using process solutions. Larger airports, which

benefit most from OSS due to larger transfer volumes, offer either full OSS, typically

following significant investment in infrastructure change, or partial OSS, often for

Schengen passengers who are already segregated.

OSS is usually achieved via a separate arrivals corridor, or via an additional floor in the

terminal. The primary inhibitor to OSS implementation at airports is the cost of making

these infrastructure changes, though several airports said they would incorporate OSS

into future development plans.

Benefits of OSS include cost savings from eliminating re-screening, improved connection

times and better experience for passengers, as well as supporting improved cooperation

between participating States and raising and aligning overall global aviation security

standards.



3. Glossary of terms

3.1 European Union (EU) Member States

3.1.1 Schengen

▪ Austria

▪ Belgium

▪ Czech Republic

▪ Denmark

▪ Estonia

▪ Finland

▪ France

▪ Germany

▪ Greece

▪ Hungary

▪ Italy

▪ Latvia

▪ Lithuania

▪ Luxembourg

▪ Malta

▪ Netherlands

▪ Poland

▪ Portugal

▪ Slovakia

▪ Slovenia

▪ Spain

▪ Sweden

3.1.2 Non-Schengen

▪ Bulgaria

▪ Croatia

▪ Cyprus

▪ Ireland

▪ Romania

▪ United Kingdom

3.2 European Economic Area (EEA) States

▪ All EU states

▪ Iceland

▪ Lichtenstein

▪ Norway

3.3 Non-EU Schengen States

▪ Iceland

▪ Lichtenstein

▪ Norway

▪ Switzerland



3.4 Third countries participating in OSS

▪ Canada

▪ Faroe Islands

▪ Greenland

▪ Guernsey

▪ Isle of Man

▪ Jersey

▪ Montenegro

▪ Singapore

▪ USA

3.5 Third countries in negotiations with EU regarding OSS

▪ Hong Kong

▪ Israel

▪ Serbia

▪ Japan

3.6 Airports and airport codes (involved or discussed in study)

Airport Code

Amsterdam Airport Schiphol AMS

Berlin Schönefeld SXF

Brussels BRU

Calgary YYC

Changi SIN

Copenhagen CPH

Dublin DUB

Frankfurt FRA

Hamad International DOH

Heathrow LHR

Helsinki HEL

Istanbul Atatürk IST



Airport Code

Lisbon LIS

Ljubljana Jože Pučnik LJU

Lyon LYS

Madrid Barajas MAD

Montreal YUL

Munich MUC

Ostend OST

Palma PMI

Podgorica TGD

Porto (Francisco Sá Carneiro) OPO

Prague PRG

Rome (Leonardo da Vinci–Fiumicino) FCO

Stockholm Arlanda ARN

Thessaloniki SKG

Toronto YYZ

Vancouver YVR

Vienna VIE

Vilnius VLN

Warsaw WAW

Zurich ZRH

3.7 Other acronyms

Acronym Meaning

A4E Airlines 4 Europe

CBSA Canadian Border Security Agency



Acronym Meaning

EC European Commission

ECCA European Common Aviation Area

EEA European Economic Area

ETD Explosive Trace Detection

EU European Union

HBS Hold baggage screening

IATA International Air Transport Association

ICAO International Civil Aviation Organisation

LH Lufthansa

MCT Minimum Connection Time

MoI Ministry of Interior

mppa Millions of passengers per annum

MSMs More Stringent Measures

NASP National Aviation Security Programme

OSS One Stop Security

PRM Passengers with Reduced Mobility

QCAA Qatar Civil Aviation Authority

SAGAS Stakeholder Advisory Group for Aviation Security

TSA Transportation Security Administration

USG United States Government



4. Executive summary

4.1 Background and introduction

In the context of aviation security, recognition of equivalence (One Stop Security, or

OSS) is defined as the acceptance and formal approval by a State that security

measures carried out in another State are at least equivalent, in terms of the security

outcome, to its own security measures.

OSS enables passengers, their cabin baggage, hold baggage and/or cargo to be

exempted from re-screening at a transfer airport. The principle of OSS is to deliver

speed and convenience, whilst achieving cost savings and maintaining an equivalent high

level of security, avoiding the repetition of security checks to people and items which

have remained in a secure environment since their point of departure.

OSS is widely established across the EU/EEA and Switzerland, enabled by application of

a common set of aviation security rules set by the EU. The EU also has OSS

arrangements with the United States, Canada, Montenegro, Singapore, Faroe,

Greenland, Guernsey, Jersey and the Isle of Man, with initiatives ongoing to expand the

list of countries participating in OSS.

Despite formal OSS arrangements being in place at a country level, the degree of

application within participating States varies. Implementation at airport level varies

considerably, e.g. OSS for baggage but not passengers (or vice versa); or only from

certain origins.

4.2 Objectives

The study had three core objectives:

1. To understand the status quo of the application of One Stop Security

2. To identify reasons for lack of full implementation

3. To determine the costs and direct / indirect benefits of establishing One Stop

Security, establishing which type of airport benefits most from One Stop Security and

recommending how to address obstacles to full implementation.

4.3 Study approach and methodology

The following schematic describes the methodology o&i consulting used to complete the

study:



Figure 1: Overview of the project methodology employed by o&i consulting

An initial survey was distributed to all 37

OSS participating States to understand OSS

application at a State level and the States’

understanding of the extent of

implementation at an airport level,

including a view of benefits and reasons for

non-implementation.

A second survey was issued to 51 airports,

their selection guided by responses

received from the State surveys. From

these respondents, sixteen airports of

varying size and location were identified

with whom to discuss OSS in more detail,

to more fully understand the costs and

benefits associated with OSS.

Other stakeholders engaged during the

study included IATA, Airlines for Europe

(A4E), ACI EUROPE, Transport Canada, the TSA, Montenegro Civil Aviation Agency,

Istanbul Ataturk Airport and Hamad International Airport in Qatar.

Identify audience for objective 2

Survey of the status of OSS application in Member States

and third countries

Stakeholders: Appropriate Authorities of relevant countries

Survey of the status of OSS implementation at airports and

reason for not implementing

Stakeholders: Airports of relevant countries

Identification of 15 airports for further investigation of the

costs, benefits and obstacles to OSS

Detailed discussions with airports

Stakeholders: 15 airports from Member States and third

countries


Draft and final reports

Presenting overall conclusions and recommendations; identifying

which stakeholders benefit and possible solutions to obstacles

Sta

keh

old

er

co

mm

un

ica

tio

ns

Discussions with other

relevant stakeholders:

Appropriate

authorities; airport and

airline associations; airlines

Stakeholder workshop

Discussion and peer review of conclusions

and recommendations

Develo

pm

en

t o

f

co

nclu

sio

ns a

nd

re

co

mm

en

da

tio

nsA

na

lysis

Table 1: Airports participating in study inc

size and OSS implementation status



4.4 Findings

4.4.1 Status quo of the application of One Stop Security – State level

The following infographic summarises the current global status of One Stop Security type

arrangements that were identified in the study:

Figure 2: One Stop Security status of all applicable States

Out of these States:

▪ USA does not allow inbound OSS, the process only works outbound from the USA

▪ Canada allows OSS at four Class 1 airports from EU/EEA, Switzerland and USA only

▪ United Kingdom (+Jersey, Guernsey and Isle of Man) allows OSS from domestic

origins only, with some exceptions

▪ Turkey (Istanbul Ataturk) has its own OSS type arrangement for international to

international transfer passengers from EU, non-EU Schengen and OSS 3rd countries

▪ Qatar: Independent “exempt transfer process” for passengers from 12 origin

airports.

4.4.2 Application of OSS at airport level and reasons for non-implementation

Although OSS applies throughout the EU/EEA and Switzerland (with the exception of the

UK), implementation at an airport level is more varied. The chart below highlights the

differences in levels of OSS implementation by airport size:

Singapore

Hong KongQatar

Israel

Montenegro

**



Figure 3: OSS implementation summary by airport size

Almost all medium to large EU/EEA airports offer full or partial OSS, with the full offering

typically requiring significant infrastructure investment. Most of the airports offering

partial OSS do so for Schengen origin passengers only, since these passengers are all

OSS eligible and are already segregated from non-OSS passengers, so there is no

additional requirement to create segregated routes. A number of airports said that they

would include OSS flows in future terminal development plans but could not justify the

cost for a standalone OSS project.

For airports below 10 million passengers per annum (mppa), insufficient transfer

volumes are the main reason that OSS is not implemented. The majority of these

airports state that they offer either full OSS or no OSS. For full OSS, a process solution

is typically used to escort any OSS passengers to bypass screening. Although the

number of small airports not offering OSS is high, the number of transfer passengers

affected is very low.

4.4.3 Cost benefit assessment

The costs of implementing OSS can be significant, requiring major infrastructure change.

Some of the larger airports in the study spent between €50m and €100m to deliver full

OSS capability, although in these instances, the changes were made as parts of wider

airport projects, since OSS could not justify such investment by itself. At the other

extreme, some airports spent little or no money implementing OSS, either because their

infrastructure allowed for the segregation of passenger flows, or process solutions were

used to achieve OSS segregation (typically the case in small airports with few transfers).

The main direct financial benefit of One Stop Security centres around reducing transfer

passenger security costs which translate into reduced transfer passenger security fees.

An indicative assessment of savings for the EU/EEA and Swiss OSS market is shown in



the table below. This demonstrates that while an estimated EUR 339m pa in savings has

already been already realised, OSS is only implemented to 71% of its potential (based

on the existing OSS market and including potential from the UK) and that further

savings can be achieved by EU/EEA airports implementing OSS fully. Equally, expanding

OSS to other countries will create more savings to the aviation industry.

Table 2: Potential OSS market size and value of OSS within the EU/EEA/Swiss market in

terms of transfer passenger security fee savings

As well as cost savings, other key benefits are improved passenger processes, with

reduced / more robust connection times and better passenger experience of most

commercial importance to airports, airlines and passengers.

At a more macro level, primary benefits of OSS include global alignment and raising of

security standards and increased cooperation between States.

4.5 Conclusions and recommendations

OSS is generally allowed at a State level across EU, non-EU Schengen and participating

third countries, with the major exceptions being the UK which only allows OSS from

(most) domestic origins, Canada which allows OSS at four Class 1 airports only and the

USA which does not allow any inbound OSS. OSS implementation at an airport level is

more varied, mainly due to the volume of transfer passengers at individual airports and

the configuration of terminal infrastructure.

Our study draws the following key conclusions:

Airport level assessment

▪ The largest hub airports (>40 mppa) stand to benefit most from OSS implementation

due to their high volumes of transfer passengers, but their size and the fact that they

are often multi-terminal (separate buildings) present challenges to full OSS.

▪ Medium sized airports appear to be more able to offer full OSS than the major hubs,

possibly because most are single terminal, with a larger proportion of transfer

passengers being Schengen – Schengen than is the case with the global hubs.

OSS market in EU/EEA and Switzerland

Transfer

passengers

% of

market

Potential OSS

saving

Total potential market size 116,827,418 100% € 571,286,000

Potential OSS market based on existing OSS countries 97,997,498 84% 479,208,000€

Realised OSS market based on airport implementation 69,382,229 59% 339,279,264€



▪ A large number of small airports have few, if any transfer passengers and so many

do not offer OSS. Those that do offer OSS typically process eligible passengers by

exception, using a low cost, manual (escort) process.

▪ A high proportion of eligible passengers and their hold bags already benefit from OSS

processes. While some medium-large airports have implemented OSS for all

passenger flows, and most Schengen origin OSS flows have been implemented, a

significant proportion of non-Schengen origin OSS flows are not yet in place. This is

often because major terminal infrastructure changes are required to enable OSS

segregation, and the costs far out-weigh the benefits in terms of reduced security

costs. Many airports stated that they would include OSS requirements in future

terminal development plans, and States should encourage airports to do this, thus

ensuring the application of OSS will continue to increase across the EU over time.

Expanding OSS to new third countries

▪ Since airports require significant OSS passenger flows to justify expenditure on

infrastructure changes to enable OSS, it is logical to focus on high volume transfer

lanes for future OSS countries. The non-OSS origins with the largest passenger flows

into the EU are China, India, Russia Brazil and Ukraine. However, there may still be

political and economic benefit in targeting countries with smaller passenger flows.

▪ Montenegro became an OSS country recently but found that many of its airlines’

passengers flying through EU airports did not benefit from OSS processes. Based on

this experience, assessing whether hub airports in existing OSS countries are able to

handle OSS flows from potential new States may be a useful part of the decision-

making / engagement process, especially for smaller countries considering becoming

an OSS State.

▪ Working with airports, both in existing and potential OSS States, to understand the

timing and nature of future facility upgrades and how they fit with the OSS schedule

will help provide transparency of achievable OSS benefits.

▪ Some States will inevitably set higher security standards than ICAO Annex 17, which

provides a defacto baseline for recognition of equivalence of security measures. While

making OSS more complex, other countries may still seek to establish equivalence

with these States on a bilateral basis if the benefits are sufficient. Such discussions

should be encouraged, as, even though they do not fit in with a “global standard of

equivalence,” they can achieve the same outcomes – improved security, reduced

costs and an improved process for passengers. Similarly, more “local” and targeted

unilateral recognitions of security equivalence, such as those established by Turkey

and Qatar, should be encouraged to the same end.



A. PROJECT BACKGROUND AND SET UP

5. Introduction

One Stop Security is a recognition of equivalence of security measures arrangement that

allows air passengers, baggage and / or cargo which have been security checked at an

OSS approved departure origin, to transfer onto connecting flights without being subject

to additional security checks. As the most widely known arrangement of this type, One

Stop Security can be holistic, exempting passengers, cabin baggage, hold baggage and

cargo from re-screening, or itemised, exempting only passengers & cabin baggage or

hold baggage for example. The principle of OSS is to deliver speed and convenience,

whilst achieving cost savings and maintaining an equivalent high level of security, by

preventing the repetition of security checks to passengers, baggage and cargo which

have remained in a secure environment since their point of departure.

5.1.1 Recognition of equivalence of security measures1

For recognition of equivalence to operate, a formal arrangement needs to be in place. In

the context of aviation security, recognition of equivalence is defined as the acceptance

and formal approval by a State that security measures carried out in another State are

at least equivalent, in terms of the security outcome, to its own security measures.

States can enter into unilateral, bilateral or multilateral arrangements which can include

all transfer operations between the States involved, or they may limit the scope to

specific airports or terminal operations. In all cases, ICAO recommends States should

ensure their national legal framework supports such arrangements and follow a clear

process to recognition of equivalence. In the case of unilateral arrangements, even

though only one State is recognising equivalence, all involved States must be full

participants in the verification process. The recommended process is summarised in the

following schematic:

1 Context for this section sourced in part from Recognition of Equivalence of Security Measures,

ICAO, August 2015 (Restricted)



Figure 4: ICAO Recognition of equivalence process

The formal recognition document should detail the arrangement between the States

involved and include a reciprocal review of appropriate documentation as well as a

formal on-site assessment of security procedures. The document should also lay out a

schedule for ongoing future operational assessments. To ensure transparency and

preservation of equivalent security standards, there should be a process in place to

inform affected States and stakeholders of new arrangements and to communicate

future significant changes to the arrangements to stakeholders. This should include

communication mechanisms in the event that a State no longer achieves equivalence so

that flights from that origin can be re-classified as non-OSS at receiving airports.

Additionally, other one stop arrangements with participating States should be considered

i.e. passengers and baggage may have already transferred through the ‘origin’ State

before transferring in your State, the ‘origin’ State airport must therefore be able to

demonstrate that effective, and equivalent, security controls of those transfer

passengers and baggage have taken place.

5.1.2 One Stop Security background

One Stop Security is widely established across the European Union (EU) and non-EU

Schengen countries, enabled by application of a common set of aviation security rules

set by the EU. The EU has also entered into One Stop Security arrangements with the

United States, Canada, Montenegro, Singapore, Faroe, Greenland, Guernsey, Jersey and

the Isle of Man; these arrangements vary in their application to passengers, baggage

and cargo.

Process

• Verification of equivalence (all involved States)

Decision

• Validation of equivalence

Outcome

• Recognition of equivalence (unilateral, bilateral or multilateral)

Continuous Verification of equivalence



These third country arrangements are achieved by virtue of Commission Implementing

Regulation amending Regulation (EU) 2015/1998 of 5 November 2-15 which lays down

detailed measures for the implementation of the common basic standards in aviation

security. These arrangements are not bi-lateral agreements, rather they are unilateral

decisions taken by each participating party, though cooperation and coordination

between the countries is necessary to facilitate this.

Supported by stakeholders including ICAO, airports, airlines and governments, initiatives

are ongoing to expand the list of third countries participating in OSS and other

recognition of equivalence security arrangements, with the most recent being the

inclusion of Singapore since February this year. Further third country OSS arrangements

are being explored with Japan, Hong Kong, Israel and Serbia.

Recognised local benefits of OSS include removal of duplicate security checks, shorter

connection times and fewer delays or missed connections, improved facilitation and

passenger experience, cost savings, increased commercial opportunities and making the

airport a more attractive choice for passengers and airlines.

Broader benefits can also be attributed to One Stop Security. Economic benefits result

from the savings in transfer security costs that are ultimately passed on to the

passenger. Politically, there is the potential for OSS to contribute to stronger

international relations as authorities and airports work together to define, assess and

implement common security standards. Furthermore, better national security standards

and processes make a country and its airports more attractive travel destinations and,

from a transfer passenger perspective, would facilitate quicker and easier global travel.

Despite formal OSS arrangements being in place at a country level, the degree of

application at airports within participating States varies; some States have worked

directly with national airports to encourage them to implement OSS, whereas others

advise airport operators of the regulatory framework, but implementation is left to the

discretion of the airport. As a result, active implementation at airport level differs

considerably both geographically (e.g. partial OSS from specific origins) and in practice

(e.g. OSS for baggage but not passengers). In reality, airports are often not set up to

offer full One Stop Security and would need to make, for example, terminal and baggage

infrastructure changes to enable it; low transfer volumes or limited flight connections

may also make it difficult to justify this level of investment.

Differences in the level of implementation at State and airport level alongside a range of

reasons for the lack of implementation at airport level creates a rather complex picture

of the current situation for One Stop Security implementation.



As a result, o&i consulting was commissioned, following a formal tender process, by the

European Commission to investigate and clarify the status quo of One Stop Security,

identify reasons for the lack of implementation as well as to develop a cost-benefit

analysis which may help facilitate an increased take-up driven by a better understanding

of the financial picture alongside the other benefits.

At the request of the EC, the study will focus on One Stop Security for Passengers and

Cabin and Hold Baggage; therefore OSS for Cargo is excluded from this study.

5.2 Objectives of the study

This study “on economic and other benefits of one stop security arrangements” has three

core objectives, as specified by DG MOVE in the Invitation to Tender:

1. To understand the status quo of the application of One Stop Security; One

Stop Security is an option and not an obligation; the study will collect information on

the current application of One Stop Security arrangements in force now, both in the

Member States concerned and the respective third countries.

2. Identification of reasons for lack of full implementation: To determine why

One Stop Security has not yet been implemented by certain Member States, third

countries or airports.

3. Cost-benefit analysis: To determine the costs and direct / indirect benefits of

establishing One Stop Security, studying 15 airports across Member States and in

certain third countries (hubs and smaller airports).

The study will establish which type of airport will in particular benefit from One Stop

Security (size, hub, regional airport) and will make recommendations on how to

address the obstacles to full implementation which have / may be encountered.

5.3 Project scope

The scope of the project is all Appropriate Authorities of European Union States, and

third countries offering One Stop Security type arrangements as well as airports within

those countries, regardless of whether One Stop Security has been implemented at

those airports.

Study participation was also extended out to other parties that have a vested interest in

One Stop Security including airlines, ground handlers and industry associations.



6. Approach

With broad experience in airport security operations and in leading large research

projects within the transportation sector, o&i consulting took a structured and inclusive

approach to engaging the high number of stakeholders involved in the One Stop Security

project. It was important to ensure that all relevant parties were appropriately

represented in our research.

Our knowledge of the complexities of aviation security along with an understanding of

the intricacies of airside passenger flows and infrastructure enabled us to communicate

with stakeholders at an appropriate level of detail and fully understand One Stop

Security arrangements, stakeholder viewpoints, and the challenges faced by

stakeholders in realising OSS operations.

It was important from the early stages of the project to determine the core

responsibilities of each stakeholder, and to have a clear approach to stakeholder

communications.

6.1 Responsibilities

A large number of stakeholders were involved directly and indirectly with the project.

Responsibilities during the project were generally recognised as follows:

European Commission, DG MOVE

▪ Commissioning body for the study

▪ Definition of project scope and objectives

▪ Stakeholder communication support

o&i consulting

▪ Communications with the European Commission

▪ Stakeholder engagement and management

▪ Survey design, distribution, communications and analysis

▪ Pre-workshop communications, coordination and organisation

▪ Workshop leadership and facilitation

▪ Analysis of results

▪ Reporting of findings, conclusions and recommendations based on results from all

participant feedback

Participating States and Appropriate Authorities

▪ Internal survey distribution



▪ State survey completion

▪ Subject matter communications

Participating airports

▪ Internal survey distribution

▪ Survey completion

▪ Local workshop organisation

▪ Engagement of relevant stakeholders for workshops

▪ Participation in discussions and workshops

▪ Validation of individual airport responses and details

▪ Sharing best practice

▪ Peer review of recommendations

Airlines and airline associations (IATA and Airlines 4 Europe)

▪ Workshop coordination and participation

▪ Subject matter input

▪ Sharing of experience and opinion

▪ Sharing best practice

▪ Sharing of data

ACI EUROPE

▪ Facilitation of airport communications

▪ Discussion organisation and participation

▪ Subject matter input

▪ Sharing of experience and opinion

6.2 Stakeholder engagement

It was clear from the outset that the success of this project would be dependent on

strong stakeholder engagement and a robust communications strategy. Given the

number and broad range of parties that were to be integrated in our research, our

strategy was based around email communications to ensure that a consistent message

was delivered across all stakeholders for each survey (primarily Appropriate Authorities

and airports). We were aware that this channel would present some challenges, in

particular failure by some parties to acknowledge our communications; we prepared

accordingly for this.



The EC provided support in obtaining the email contact details of the Appropriate

Authorities for the States relevant to the study. In terms of airport stakeholders, we

engaged with our own airport contacts as well as receiving contact details for airports

from ACI EUROPE and from some of the Appropriate Authorities involved in Objective 1

of the study. This combination of support enabled us to reach a wide audience.

Objectives 2 and 3 required the study to collect information on the level of

implementation at airports, reasons for lack of implementation and the costs and

benefits associated with implementation of One Stop Security at an airport level. As part

of the questionnaires distributed to identify the level of OSS implementation across a

number of airports, o&i consulting asked airports if they would be happy to participate in

a discussion or workshop on One Stop Security. A number of airports declined to

participate. From those offering to participate, we created a list of potential airports for

Objective 3 that included a range of airport types, incorporating criteria such as:

▪ Size: large, medium and small airports

▪ Location: A range of Member States and third countries that allow OSS

▪ Level of OSS implementation: full, partial, not implemented, including airports that

are in the process of trialling new One Stop Security processes.

The following table lists the 16 airports that agreed to participated in the study:

Airport Airport

1 Amsterdam 9 Lisbon

2 Brussels 10 Madrid

3 Calgary 11 Munich

4 Copenhagen 12 Ostend

5 Dublin 13 Podgorica

6 Frankfurt 14 Prague

7 Heathrow 15 Toronto

8 Helsinki 16 Vilnius

Figure 5: Airports participating in study



Figure 6: Geographic spread of study airports



7. Methodology

o&i consulting followed a structured project plan to facilitate gathering as much relevant information as possible to support the study. The

following schematic provides an overview of the methodology used to conduct the study:

Figure 7: Overview of the project methodology employed by o&i consulting


Survey of the status of OSS application in Member States

and third countries

Stakeholders: Appropriate Authorities of relevant countries

Survey of the status of OSS implementation at airports and

reason for not implementing

Stakeholders: Airports of relevant countries

Identification of 15 airports for further investigation of the

costs, benefits and obstacles to OSS

Detailed discussions with airports

Stakeholders: 15 airports from Member States and third

countries


Draft and final reports

Presenting overall conclusions and recommendations; identifying

which stakeholders benefit and possible solutions to obstacles

Sta

keh

old

er

co

mm

un

ica

tio

ns

Discussions with other

relevant stakeholders:

Appropriate

authorities; airport and

airline associations; airlines

Stakeholder workshop

Discussion and peer review of conclusions

and recommendations

Develo

pm

en

t o

f

co

nclu

sio

ns a

nd

re

co

mm

en

da

tio

nsA

na

lysis



7.1 Survey of the status of OSS application in EU Member States and

Third Countries

With 37 States to contact, we determined that the most appropriate means of

communication and distribution of the survey would be via email. We distributed a

detailed introductory email to the Appropriate Authority of each of the 28 EU Member

States, as well as a number of Non-EU Schengen States that are SAGAS members and a

number of third countries with existing OSS arrangements with the EU. The email

advised the authorities on the content and significance of the study and our role in the

study as well as including a letter of recommendation signed by DG MOVE, a request for

participation in the survey and a request for confirmation of the relevant State contact

for the study.

To ensure an objective assessment and enable comparison of responses from each

participating State, o&i created a questionnaire in Microsoft Excel , including a range of

standard questions covering key subject matter that we wished to obtain from each

State. An example of the survey is provided in Appendix 1. The survey covered the

following areas of interest:

▪ The States with which the responding Appropriate Authority allows OSS

▪ The categories (passenger, cabin baggage, hold baggage, cargo) for which OSS is

allowed

▪ The States with which the responding Appropriate Authority would allow OSS if an

agreement was in place

▪ The OSS status of airports in the responding State, for which categories, and if not

implemented the reason why, if known

▪ Level of State–airport collaboration regarding OSS and how it can be improved

▪ The State’s view on benefits or disadvantages of OSS

▪ State participation in OSS initiatives

We distributed the survey with completion guidance to the contacts provided by the

European Commission or each authority. Where communications were not acknowledged

or survey responses not received, we followed a schedule of follow-up communications,

emphasising the importance of their participation to achieve broad State representation

for the study.



7.2 Survey of One Stop Security implementation at airports

A similar approach was taken in collecting information on the status of One Stop Security

implementation at airports. Based on the responses from the Appropriate Authorities and

on our own research, we short-listed 51 airports, from Member States and relevant Third

Countries, to contact and request participation in a second survey; the full survey is

provided in Appendix 2.

The airport survey contained questions on the following areas:

▪ Whether OSS is in place at the airport and for which categories (passenger and cabin

baggage; hold baggage)

▪ The number of departing passengers in 2017 and the proportion of transfer

passengers

▪ Whether the airport would be willing to engage in a fact-finding discussion regarding

OSS at its facilities

If OSS is implemented at the airport:

▪ The proportion of transfer traffic currently benefiting from it at the airport in question

▪ The proportion that could benefit from OSS if fully implemented

▪ What changes the airport had to make to implement OSS

▪ Estimated costs of implementation, if known

▪ The reason why OSS was implemented

▪ Benefits of OSS for the airport

▪ Any negative experiences

▪ Whether the airport intends to expand its OSS offering

If OSS is not implemented at the airport:

▪ Why it is not implemented for an individual or all categories – providing specific

reasons for lack of implementation

▪ Whether the airport plans to implement OSS and the changes that would need to be

made

In our analysis of these findings, we also integrated the responses given by the

Appropriate Authorities regarding the reason for lack of implementation at national

airports.

7.3 Fact finding discussions with 16 airports

16 airports, as listed in Section 6.2, were selected for the fact-finding discussions from

those who responded positively to a request to participate in this phase of the study.



From these responses, we selected a range of airports that best represented a broad

spectrum of airport characteristics (including size, geography, profile, transfer volumes).

Having made initial contact by email and telephone, we held the fact-finding discussions

at the client airport or via telephone conference. During the workshops, we sought to

explore in greater detail the responses given by the airport in the survey response, gain

an understanding of the approach taken at the airport to OSS, how flows function at the

airport, or why OSS is not possible, as well as the changes made at the airport to enable

OSS, the associated costs (if known) and the benefits of OSS for the airport.

Typically, the discussion participants provided an understanding of how OSS operates at

the airport (if in place) including how OSS passengers are segregated from Non-OSS

flows, and how OSS baggage is handled. If OSS was not or only partially in place, the

conversation focused on how the flows are not suitable for OSS and how high the

investment to make the necessary changes would be. The discussion then progressed to

work through the survey responses, covering all areas identified in Section 7.2 and

gather additional detail on costs and benefits of OSS, whether there are plans or

potential to expand OSS at the airport, or the reason why it has not been implemented.

7.4 Fact finding with other stakeholders

Since airports and States are not the only participants and beneficiaries of One Stop

Security, we engaged with other parties that have an interest in OSS. This engagement

was in the form of meetings and telephone conversations, and explored stakeholder

experiences of OSS, benefits and disadvantages of OSS from their perspective, how they

would like to see OSS develop in the future, and how they think the implementation of

OSS at airports could be promoted and improved going forward.

These stakeholders included:

▪ IATA

▪ Airlines for Europe (A4E)

▪ ACI EUROPE

▪ Transport Canada

▪ Montenegro Civil Aviation Agency

▪ TSA

Additionally, some of these contacts were able to support us by providing detailed data

relating to passenger traffic volumes which was extremely useful for the study.



7.5 Analysis and consolidation of findings

As responses to the State and airport surveys were received, we reviewed them and

integrated the findings into a master document to enable us to analyse results and

identify trends and common themes.

Findings from the individual discussions with 16 airports were added to the database to

create a detailed overview of OSS across all States and airports participating in the

study.

We identified key themes and trends related to OSS participation at State level and OSS

implementation at airport level and developed charts and diagrams to illustrate our

findings.

From the more detailed information obtained from the study airports, we analysed the

transfer passenger segment, and the proportion attributed to OSS for each airport, and

looked at the overall potential across the study airports. We explored by airport size

category the level of implementation of One Stop Security and costs / developments

required at each airport to achieve this level of One Stop Security. We considered the

range of OSS benefits cited by the study airports and if / how these benefits could be

quantified.

Moreover, to provide a global view of the potential size of the opportunity to expand One

Stop Security across more markets, we analysed a detailed set of passenger volume

data provided by IATA.

7.6 Stakeholder workshop

In order to peer review and validate the findings, conclusions and recommendations

drawn from the project, o&i consulting held a stakeholder workshop on 11th September

2018, inviting all parties that have been involved in the study.

The purpose of the workshop was to share the findings and conclusions with airports,

authorities and industry associations and generate discussion on this content, exchange

and understand viewpoints, and work towards an approach to improve involvement in

One Stop Security at State level and implementation at airport level. Participants

included airport operators, ACI EUROPE, IATA, A4E and the European Commission.

Feedback and additional findings resulting from this workshop have been incorporated

into this final report.



B. FINDINGS

8. State participation in OSS

Overview: Status quo at State level

State participation: EU/EEA and Switzerland

Within the group of EU/EEA and Swiss State respondents, all except the UK confirmed

they allow OSS with all EU and all non-EU Schengen countries that also allow OSS for

passengers, cabin baggage and hold baggage. Most States also confirmed that they

would offer One Stop Security to any additional countries that enter into recognition of

security measures agreements with the European Union in the future.

State participation: Third countries

One Stop Security is permitted as follows within participating third countries:

▪ Canada: Allowed at four Class One Canadian airports, (Vancouver, Calgary,

Toronto and Montreal). At these airports, OSS is accepted inbound from Canadian

domestic airports, EU / EEA States and Switzerland, and the USA only.

▪ Faroe Islands: Approved for Vagar airport

▪ Greenland: Approved for Kangerlussuaq Airport

▪ Guernsey, Jersey and the Isle of Man: All follow UK security rules and therefore

do not offer OSS from origin countries other than the UK.

▪ Montenegro: OSS allowed with all participating States approved by the EU.

United States of America: All EU/EEA States except the UK, Switzerland, and all

third country OSS States except Jersey, Guernsey and the Isle of Man, allow OSS

on transfer flights inbound from the USA. The USA does not allow OSS for

passengers or bags arriving from any OSS State, with the exception of those

specific foreign airports where established pre-clearance operations exist. The

reasons for this are both security and legislation related.

State participation: Potential future OSS States

The EU is currently in discussions about extending OSS to Serbia, Israel, Hong Kong

and Japan. Most responding States said that they would allow OSS with these four

countries once approved by the EU. However, Bulgaria, Czech Republic and



Luxembourg stated that they would not allow OSS with these countries; Germany

stated that it would allow OSS only with Israel out of the current discussion States.

Other States with arrangements to recognise the equivalence of security

measures

Although not part of EU One Stop Security, some third countries have entered into

their own form of security equivalence arrangements for passengers transferring from

certain origins; these are:

▪ Turkey: Ataturk Airport in Istanbul allows passengers and hold baggage

transferring from certain origins to transfer onto departing flights without passing

through security screening. Origin countries from which this process applies

include the EU/EEA and Switzerland, and all of the non-EU third countries that

operate OSS with the EU. The process applies to international to international

transfers, but not to passengers transferring onto domestic flights.

▪ Qatar: Hamad International Airport (HIA), in collaboration with the Qatar CAA

(QCAA) and Ministry of Interior (MoI) has implemented a form of OSS at HIA

called the Exempt Transfer Process, whereby passengers and bags arriving from

origins that have been granted exemption are able to pass through the transfer

process without further screening checks. Currently, twelve airports are included

as exempt transfer origins, enabling more than 10% of peak transfer passenger

flows to bypass screening.

▪ Japan: OSS applies to hold baggage only from the United States to Japan, but not

inbound to the USA from Japan.



For an airport to be able to provide One Stop Security for transfer passengers the

process must first be permitted at State level. A logical first step for the study was

therefore to understand, at a State level, where OSS was allowed.

With the core objective of understanding the status quo of application of One Stop

Security at a State level, o&i consulting developed a questionnaire in Microsoft Excel to

distribute to the Appropriate Authority of each of the 28 EU Member States, as well as a

number of Non-EU Schengen States that are SAGAS members and relevant third

countries with existing OSS arrangements with the EU.

The questionnaire, as shown in the example in Appendix 1, was distributed to 37 states

in total and asked each State to provide the following information:

▪ Confirmation of Member States and third countries with which the responding State

allows OSS, or would allow if an agreement were in place, and for which categories

(passenger, cabin baggage and hold baggage)

▪ An indication of which airports in the responding State have implemented OSS, and

reasons for not implementing, if known

▪ Background on the involvement of the Appropriate Authority in an airport’s decision

to implement OSS; how collaboration between State and airport and implementation

of OSS can be improved; perceived advantages and disadvantages of OSS.

The survey received wide ranging participation; the table below indicates the number of

responses received and the origins of the respondents.

Distributed Responses Received

Total 37 33

Member States 28 25

Non-EU Schengen 3 3

Third Countries 6 5

Table 3: Distribution and receipt of OSS survey at State level

Of the 28 EU states, only France, Estonia and Slovenia did not respond. Similarly, we did

not receive a response to the survey from Singapore.

The following findings are based on the 33 responses received from EU, non-EU

Schengen and third country Appropriate Authorities. In addition, through other sources

we have obtained some understanding of the status of OSS in France, Slovenia and

Singapore, so have included this information in the “status quo” findings.



8.1 Status quo of OSS implementation at a State level

From our research, we determined the current status of One Stop Security at State level. This is summarised as follows:

Figure 8: Current One Stop Security status of all relevant States

Singapore

Hong KongQatar

Israel

Montenegro

* France, Singapore and Slovenia authorities did not respond to our survey, howeverother sources provided us with confirmation of the OSS status of these States

** Canada: OSS is currently allowed at four Class One Canadian airports, (Vancouver, Calgary, Toronto and Montreal). At theseairports, OSS is accepted inbound from Canadian domestic airports, EU and Non-EU Schengen States, and the USA only.USA: All EU and Non-EU Schengen States except the UK, and all third country OSS States except Jersey, Guernsey and the Isle ofMan, allow OSS on transfer flights inbound from the USA. The USA does not allow OSS for passengers or bags arriving from anyOSS State, except from pre-clearance airports. Greenland and Faroe Islands: for specific airports only

**



The table below summarises exceptions to the main trend whereby most participating

States allow OSS from all other participating States and will also allow OSS from new

States as they become eligible.

Figure 9: Flows where OSS is limited or not permitted at State level

8.1.1 OSS implementation in Europe – State Reponses

Within the group of responding European countries, all but one State confirmed they

allow OSS with all EU / EEA and Swiss nations that also allow OSS for passengers, cabin

baggage and hold baggage. Most States also confirmed that they would offer One Stop

Security to any additional countries that become eligible for OSS with the European

Union in the future.

StateEU Schengen

EU Non-

Schengen

Non-EU

Schengen3rd Countries

Potential future

3rd countries

Bulgaria No OSS

Canada1 USA only No OSS

Czech Republic No OSS

Germany Israel only

Luxembourg No OSS

United Kingdom2 No OSSUK Domestic

origins onlyNo OSS

Jersey,

Guernsey, Isle

of Man onlyNo OSS

USA

France

Estonia

Singapore

Slovenia

1. OSS only allowed at specified Class 1 airports

2. Includes Jersey, Guernsey and Isle of Man which follow UK regulation

No State response to survey

No OSS inbound to USA



Figure 10: Current One Stop Security status within Europe

France, Estonia and Slovenia did not respond to the survey at a State level. However,

based on feedback from other sources, OSS is allowed at a State level in France and

Slovenia. We received no responses to our surveys at State level or from other

stakeholders regarding OSS in Estonia.

8.1.2 OSS implementation in third countries – State responses

▪ Canada: OSS is currently allowed at four Class One Canadian airports, (Vancouver,

Calgary, Toronto and Montreal). At these airports, OSS is accepted inbound from

Canadian domestic airports, EU/EEA States and Switzerland, and the USA only.

* France and Slovenia authorities did notrespond to our survey, however other sourcesprovided us with confirmation of the OSSstatus of these States.

The United Kingdom was the only responding EU state which does not allow

OSS; the UK has More Stringent Measures in place in addition to the EU common rules

and therefore does not allow One Stop Security for flights arriving from international

origins. The UK does allow OSS from domestic airports (including Jersey, Guernsey and

Isle of Man) if the airports are appropriately set up to operate this way. It is our

understanding that no more than four airports in the UK actually offer any form of

domestic OSS.



▪ Faroe Islands: OSS is approved for Vagar airport

▪ Greenland: OSS is approved for Kangerlussuaq Airport

▪ Guernsey, Jersey and the Isle of Man: All follow UK security rules so do not offer

OSS from origin countries other than the UK.

Canadian State response

The Government of Canada is supportive of the implementation of OSS and has

established regulatory requirements for the implementation of OSS; however, the

programme is voluntary at airport-level. In the State survey and during a follow-up

conversation, Transport Canada stated that it had worked closely with the four

Canadian Class One airports listed above to negotiate and implement OSS.

Transport Canada continues to liaise with partners (domestic airports and other

stakeholders) regarding current and possible future OSS arrangements. The potential

of expanding the scope of one stop security style arrangements is being explored in

Canada, looking at agreements with other countries and conducting analysis of

inbound and transfer passenger volumes to identify other countries that would be

attractive partners.

The State’s view is that the successful uptake of OSS requires commitment from the

airports involved. Currently, the four Class One airports are not fully set up to offer

all types of OSS transfer; this is infrastructure dependent. Two of the four airports

have, however, integrated One Stop Security processes into terminal development

programmes. From the Authority’s perspective, the individual airports are responsible

for facilitating the OSS programme; they feel the airports are more aware of their

own needs in order to meet the requirements of OSS and are better suited to weigh

up the costs and benefits to identify if OSS is a beneficial investment and

subsequently make the necessary changes.

The subject of investment has led to some difference in opinion between airport and

State, when discussing the future expansion of OSS and attracting new countries.

The airports feel that the Authority needs to sign more agreements to justify them

making high cost infrastructure changes; at the same time the Authority states that

the airports need to make these changes in order to attract other nations to enter

into agreements.



▪ Montenegro: Allows OSS with all participating States approved by the EU.

Montenegro State response

Upon being recognised as an OSS State by the EU, the Montenegro Civil Aviation

Agency (CAA) asked it national airports (Podgorica and Tivat) to implement that

decision. Both airports ensured that OSS compliant processes and procedures were in

place for its transfer passengers; these currently involve escorting passengers

directly to the departure gate. Whilst not ideal, this is feasible given the low volumes

of transfer passengers at these airports; these processes will be improved when

infrastructure limitations for transfer passengers are addressed during future airport

developments.

However, the issue for the Montenegro Civil Aviation Agency is not with the level of

OSS implementation at its national airports, rather it is with the handling of

Montenegro originating passengers when transferring in other OSS States. Speaking

with a representative of the Montenegro CAA, he felt that of the airports with regular

connections with Montenegro (Zurich, Paris CDG, Vienna, Rome Fiumicino, Frankfurt,

Ljubljana), only Zurich has fully established OSS for outbound passengers from

Montenegro.

For some airports, the Montenegro CAA accepted that the necessary changes to

enable full OSS for all participating States require a high level of infrastructure

change and investment and are therefore not feasible in the short-term. For other

airports, however, he felt that the changes would be simple (e.g. larger kiosks for

border control personnel; change in procedure) but there appeared to be no

willingness to do so due to the low transfer volumes originating from Montenegro.

During this conversation it was made clear that Montenegro originating passengers

are becoming disgruntled as they have been told that they are eligible for One Stop

Security but are not able to experience the benefits of it at certain European airports.

Accepting that Montenegro is a small country with low transfer volumes and that not

all airports can offer OSS for all flows without high capex, the Montenegro Civil

Aviation Agency states that it simply asks if an airport is in a position to offer OSS for

its transfer passengers, it should do so, which is in line with EU regulation.



▪ United States of America: All EU/EEA and Swiss States except the UK, and all third

country OSS States except Jersey, Guernsey and the Isle of Man, which apply UK

security rules, allow OSS on transfer flights inbound from the USA.

The USA does not allow OSS for passengers or bags arriving from any OSS State,

with the exception of those specific foreign airports where established pre-clearance

operations exist. The reasons for this are both security and legislative related.

8.1.3 Other arrangements for recognising the equivalence of security

measures

The ability to offer One Stop Security is a decision that can be taken unilaterally by a

State. Although not part of the EU’s One Stop Security “family”, Turkey’s Ataturk Airport

(IST) and Hamad International Airport (DOH) in Qatar both operate arrangements that

recognise equivalent security measures, similar to one stop security, for transfer

passengers arriving from certain origins. Japan also has an inbound arrangement for

hold baggage arriving from the USA.

▪ Qatar:

Hamad International Airport (DOH), in collaboration with the Qatar CAA (QCAA) and

Ministry of Interior (MoI) has implemented a form of OSS at HIA called the Exempt

Transfer Process whereby passengers and bags arriving from origins that have

been granted exemption are able to pass through the transfer process without

further screening checks. The eligible origins (specific airports not States) are

Why OSS is not allowed inbound to the USA

▪ US security requirements are different to those in the EU, for example in the US

there is a requirement to screen all passengers’ shoes which is not the case in

the EU. US authorities do not currently recognise EU common rules as being

equivalent to their own.

▪ It is a legal requirement for all passengers arriving in the USA to present

themselves, with their hold baggage, to Customs and Border Protection (CBP).

Since a passenger can theoretically transfer an item from their hold baggage to

their hand baggage at this point, it is necessary to re-screen all transfer

passengers before they re-enter the sterile zone of the airport.

▪ Pre-clearance overcomes these issues, because US security requirements are

met in the pre-clearance airport, and the passenger also presents to a US federal

official at that departure airport, avoiding any requirement to collect bags when

transferring in the USA.



selected following QCAA risk assessments carried out at the airports, with the

cooperation of Qatar Airways. If security standards (including cargo screening and

staff access controls as well as primary passenger and baggage screening) are

deemed to be at least equivalent to those at HIA, then the airport can be proposed to

the QCAA as a potential exempt transfer origin. Currently, twelve airports are

included as exempt transfer origins, but these enable more than 10% of peak

transfer passenger flows to bypass screening.

Operationally, inbound aircraft from exempt transfer origins are allocated to one of

30 (out of 41) stands where there is a capability to direct transfer passengers

straight to the international departure lounge, while terminating passengers follow

the normal arrivals route one level below. Exempt transfer passengers are subjected

to random and continuous ETD screening.

While specific cost savings were not available, the airport estimated that the process

avoids the requirement to add 10-13% more staff and equipment to its transfer

screening process. This process also makes the transfer process more robust, with

more passengers able to achieve short connections. [The airport also has a dedicated

MCT product, whereby targeted groups of up to 30 passengers on tight connections

follow the exempt passenger flow but are screened with X-ray equipment positioned

before entry to the departure lounge.]

The exempt transfer process also applies to hold baggage, which is typically on the

critical path for transfers.

It is important to note that despite arriving from exempt origins, passengers may still

be subjected to secondary gate screening, depending on their outbound flight

destination and additional security requirements required by that State (e.g. USA,

UK). To that extent, these passengers still do not truly benefit from OSS.

▪ Turkey

Ataturk Airport in Istanbul allows passengers transferring from certain origins to

transfer onto departing flights without passing through security screening. Currently

in Turkey, this is only offered at Ataturk Airport, although other airports are evaluating

the opportunity. Origin countries from which the OSS process applies include the

EU/EEA and Switzerland and all of the non-EU 3rd countries that operate OSS with the

EU (USA, Canada, Montenegro, Faroe Islands, (Vagar airport), Greenland,

(Kangerlussuaq airport), Guernsey, Jersey, Isle of Man). The process applies to

international to international transfers, but not to passengers transferring onto

domestic flights. The decision to allow the OSS process from these countries was taken



unilaterally by the appropriate authority according to ECAC Regulations, and is a

government driven initiative.

In practical terms, physical separation of passengers is achieved by flowing them

through different corridors from arrival gates via directional signs and using security

officers to maintain segregation of OSS/non-OSS passengers. This process can also

be applied to coached arrivals. OSS also applies to hold baggage, which is loaded

onto a separate conveyor route to bypass screening.

Minor infrastructure changes were made to enable OSS for passengers, but no cost

information was available for the study. Some minor changes to enable baggage OSS

were also required, specifically, the creation of a separate sortation area; costs for

making these changes were not known but were not thought to be high.

Ataturk Airport handled around 19m transfer passengers in 2017, of which 7.9%

were eligible for OSS treatment, equating to over 1.5million annual transfer

passengers (and their bags). Benefits derived from implementing OSS at Ataturk

include improved facilitation, passenger convenience, reduced operational load on

resources and equipment, and improved cost efficiency.

▪ Japan

OSS applies to hold baggage only from the United States to Japan, but not inbound

to the USA from Japan.

8.1.4 Potential future OSS states

The EU is currently in discussions about extending OSS to Serbia, Israel, Hong Kong and

Japan. Most responding States said that they would allow OSS with all of these countries

once approved by the EU. However, Bulgaria, Czech Republic and Luxembourg stated

that they would not allow OSS with these countries; Germany stated in its survey

response that it would allow OSS only with Israel out of the current discussion States. It

is not clear whether these views would change if and when the States in current

discussions about OSS were accepted by the EU.

In our discussions with airports, the origins with largest inbound transfer flows were

deemed to be most important and to provide the most benefit. China in particular was

mentioned a number of times as an origin which would add significant value if it became

accepted as an OSS third country. Japan and Russia were also mentioned on a number

of occasions; and South America in general was stated by airports with particularly high

traffic from this region.



8.1.5 States’ perspective on One Stop Security

As part of our survey, we asked each State a series of additional questions in order to

develop a deeper understanding of their perspective of One Stop Security and how the

State works with its national airports in matters relating to OSS.

Advantages and disadvantages of OSS

All State respondents identified benefits to offering One Stop Security at airports. A

range of benefits were quoted ranging from economic and national security benefits to

airport and airline operational advantages. The most frequent responses were: better

passenger facilitation, quicker connection times, and cost savings / resource economies.

In terms of negatives, 24% of respondents identified downsides to OSS; these were

typically infrastructure and logistics challenges for airports. Other negatives and

concerns noted were implementing, monitoring and maintaining a sterile environment;

ensuring airports collaborate with other key stakeholders; and lack of assurance that

flights leaving their State would have met national security standards.

Level of State involvement in an airport’s decision to offer One Stop

Security

We asked the State / Authority what involvement it has in an airport’s decision to offer

One Stop Security. In most cases, the Authority is involved from a legislative and

security compliance perspective and informs the airport operator of the decision, made

at State level, to allow OSS from specific origin countries. For example:

Some States, however, noted a higher level of collaboration with national airports. OSS

tended to be in place at eligible airports in these States. They gave the following

responses to our survey:

▪ “The Authority evaluates the compliance of airport structures and equipment to

offer OSS.”

▪ “If the Authority/State has any objective reason (risk assessment), it may decide

not to apply OSS.”

▪ “We haven't been directly involved, however we expect [our] airports to live up to

the EU regulations on OSS.”

▪ “As the Appropriate Authority the only decision taken is from regulatory

perspective i.e. allowing OSS.”



Improving OSS in the future

We asked the participating States a number of questions regarding how the take up of

One Stop Security can be improved and how they feel that States and airports can better

work together to achieve this. The responses were varied, of which we provide a range

of examples below.

Suggestions by the States on how OSS take up at individual airports can be improved

were centred around commitment at airport level to integrate OSS into future plans,

infrastructure design and operational change. Specific responses included:

The above example responses, and indeed others received, suggest that once in place at

State level, the airport is largely responsible for the implementation of One Stop Security

▪ “Our airports are State owned, therefore persons delegated by the Ministry of

Transport and Communications to the airport’s Management Board have an

influence on all decisions.”

▪ “The CAA issued the decision where it is recognised which State is considered as a

State with equivalent measures, and asked airports to implement that decision.”

▪ “Our Government has championed OSS implementation and negotiation at all

national airports currently practicing OSS arrangements. The Government

continues to liaise with partners regarding current and possible future OSS

arrangements. However, the program is voluntary.”

▪ “From the State perspective there is no improvement possible because the ‘OSS-

decision’ depends on several airport specifics (passenger flow, minimum

connecting time, passenger movement, parking position of aircrafts, etc).

Therefore, it is the decision of each single airport to implement OSS or not.

Normally OSS is a benefit for the airport.”

▪ “The successful uptake of OSS requires commitment from the airports. Individual

airports are aware of their needs in order to meet the requirements of OSS and

are better suited to make the necessary changes. Increased passenger flow

through the airports and the realisation of costs vs. benefits will drive airports to

pursue the implementation of OSS.”

▪ “It is more of an operational question to the airport operator.”

▪ “The State cannot oblige airport operators to make specific works in order to

facilitate OSS.”

▪



due to the nature of its infrastructure and operations. However, when asked how the

State and airport can better work together to improve the take up of OSS, we received a

variety of broad ranging viewpoints that suggested a number of stakeholders are /

should be responsible for and active in influencing OSS take up. A number of these

focused on improved cooperation, communications and the exchange of information and

best practices in forums at airport level (e.g. airport security committees) and at

national level (e.g. national security committees). Other statements regarding

stakeholder involvement in achieving better OSS take up included:

To summarise the above, States clearly agree that there are wide-ranging benefits to

One Stop Security. However, while there is an expectation that State airports

follow national and / or EU regulations on One Stop Security, it is from a State

perspective, typically the airport that decides whether it is possible to offer OSS

at its facility, with greater involvement in implementation at airport level from a

handful of States. Understandably, process, procedures and infrastructure have to be in

place to enable OSS passenger segregation and these are largely the responsibility of

airport operators. With high capital expenditure involved in infrastructure development,

this can clearly be a barrier to OSS implementation at airport level.

When asked about how the future take up of One Stop Security can be improved, a

number of States suggested that improved cooperation and communication between

stakeholders is required, although the viewpoint remained that airports, and in some

▪ “As long as we as Appropriate Authority allow for implementation of OSS

arrangements, there is not very much more we can do since we have no

responsibility or influence on infrastructure investments etc.”

▪ “In some cases, the decision to offer OSS is taken by air carriers.”

▪ “If the Airport Operator and air carriers agree on the procedures to follow, the

State will of course provide the necessary assistance.”

▪ “When the design and infrastructure of the airport allows OSS to be offered, its

adoption should be made mandatory and not allow it to become the decision of

the air carriers.”

▪ “The Government is supportive of the implementation of OSS and has established

regulatory requirements for the implementation of OSS. However, the individual

airports are responsible to facilitate the OSS program. There is also room for

improvement in clarification of lines of responsibilities between air carriers,

aerodrome operators, and other stakeholders.”

▪ “Scheduled flights in Europe are very difficult from an airport which is not applying

OSS, therefore cooperation (within Working Groups, Task Forces) that would

enable wide implementation of OSS is supported.”



cases airlines, were ultimately responsible for implementing OSS. Overall, there is a

clear opportunity to encourage greater collaboration between States and

airports to find solutions, and if possible share responsibility, for driving OSS

implementation.



9. OSS implementation at airport level

Overview: Status quo at airport level

OSS implementation by airport size

Based on the feedback submitted by the States and airports participating in this

study, o&i consulting has summarised the level of OSS implementation, be it full,

partial or none/negligible, by airport size category. This is shown in the table below:

The degree of partial implementation covers a variety of situations, including

Schengen only flows or other origin country limitations e.g. certain third countries

only, passengers/cabin baggage or hold baggage only. Infrastructure constraints were

the major reasons provided for not implementing full OSS for airports with more than

10m ppa, with lack of transfer passengers the reason for non-implementation at small

airports.

The table below summarises, by airport size, the key reasons for non-implementation

and typical operating processes for partial and fully implemented OSS operations.

Reason for lack of implementation

Airport size (mppa) None / negligible Partial Full

<10No / low transfer pax

Legislation (UK, CA) Manual escort

10 - 20No / low transfer pax

Legislation (UK) Segregated flow

20 - 40Legislation (UK)

Infrastructure: inability to segregate flows Segregated flow

>40Legislation (UK)

Infrastructure: inability to segregate flows Segregated flow

If implemented, typical process

Typically applied only within

Schengen area of terminal, or

manual process for exception

passenger groups (e.g. PRMs)



Large hub airports

The largest hub airports (>40 mppa) should benefit most from OSS implementation in

terms of reduced security costs due to the high volumes of transfer passengers, but

their size also presents challenges to full implementation, hence the large proportion

with partial OSS in place. Larger airports are often multi-terminal (separate buildings)

which creates a major inhibitor to providing full OSS, since passengers are typically

not segregated when travelling between terminals. Infrastructure changes may also

need to be completed in multiple terminals to accommodate all OSS flows.

Expanding OSS to process third country flows in addition to Schengen origin

passengers often requires significant infrastructure change to create the necessary

segregated passenger flows; the cost of these changes is often high and may not be

justified by the direct reduction in security costs that OSS delivers. While some

airports have made the necessary changes already, others stated their intention to

expand their OSS offering as part of future terminal developments.

Airports with 10 – 40 mppa (million passengers per annum)

Airports with 20 – 40 mppa appear to be more able to offer full OSS than the major

hubs. These airports are more likely to be single terminal or single building

operations, which eliminates the challenge of moving “clean” passengers between

buildings while keeping them segregated from non-OSS passengers.

Facilities with 10 – 20 mppa are often regional hubs rather than global, with a larger

proportion of transfer passengers being Schengen – Schengen than is the case with

the larger hubs, simplifying implementation of OSS for these flows. These airports are

also likely to receive lower numbers of Non-Schengen transfers; for airports which

have not fully implemented an infrastructure solution for OSS, these passengers are

typically either directed through passenger screening or bypass screening using a

manual exception process.

Airports with less than 10 mppa

The smaller the airport, the more likely it is to have full or no OSS in place. Airports in

this category have minimal or no transfer passengers. However, an airport may have

a process in place that enables it to offer full OSS. This service is typically satisfied

via a manual “escorted” process utilised on demand to enable pre-advised groups to

bypass screening.

In brief, Schengen to Schengen OSS flows are almost all facilitated, and some

airports have invested significantly to increase OSS capability to all eligible

passengers. For smaller airports, although the number of airports not offering OSS is

high, the number of transfer passengers affected is very low.



In summary, Schengen to Schengen OSS flows are almost always facilitated, and

some airports have invested significantly to increase OSS capability to all eligible

passengers. For small airports, although the number of airports not offering OSS is

high, the number of transfer passengers affected is very low.

However, the cost of infrastructure changes to allow full OSS, particularly for larger,

multi-terminal airports, has slowed the pace of full implementation beyond Schengen

flows, with a number of airports holding off on expanding OSS capability to all eligible

passengers until the necessary segregated flows can be integrated into future

expansion plans.

Our analysis indicates that OSS is currently implemented to 71% of its

potential across EU/EEA and Swiss airports, limited by both State

restrictions (in the case of the UK) as well as the airport limitations

described above.



With broad One Stop Security acceptance among States, we asked the Appropriate

Authorities to indicate whether, to their knowledge, One Stop Security is in place at its

national airports and to what extent - fully, partially or not at all.

Their responses are summarised in the table below, which indicates by State how many

airports have achieved each level of OSS implementation (full, partial or none), and

where provided, the reasons why OSS has not been fully implemented.

Country Passenger & cabin baggage OSS implementation (# Airports)

Reason (& notes)

Full Partial None No response

Austria 2 4 Not transfer airports & Graz has OSS for hold bags but not passengers

Belgium 2 3

1 airport has no transfer traffic, no other reasons provided

Bulgaria 1 3 1 airport has no transfer traffic, 2 airports do not do OSS because of the infrastructure

Canada 4 18

In place at 4 Class one airports only; one of which is currently trialling its new OSS process with 2 airlines, with the objective of fully implementing

Croatia 3 4

4 airports not fully implemented because of airport design (infrastructure) and operational issues

Cyprus

2

Infrastructure: Air carriers require passengers to report to arrivals transfer desk (airside), access is via the transfer screening checkpoint. OS for hold baggage

Czech Republic

1 4

3 airports have no transfer traffic, no reason provided for 1 airport. OSS is carried out for transfer passengers at Prague from Schengen area, EEA and EU countries and Switzerland. All transfer passengers from third countries (including UK and Ireland) are required to go through security check.

Denmark 4

Estonia 2

Finland 11

2 airports have no transfer traffic, no other reasons provided

France 2 33 No State response (estimate for CDG)

Germany 7 1 11

No transfers or no reason provided for not operating OSS.

Greece 2 19 No reason provided - no transfers?

Hungary 5

BUD stated that they have minimal transfer passengers so in practice do not offer OSS

Iceland 1 3 No reason provided

Ireland 6

Italy 4 26 15 airports have no transfers, 9 airports OSS is not applicable (reason not stated), MXP OSS for



Country Passenger & cabin baggage OSS implementation (# Airports)

Reason (& notes)


passengers not hold bags, LIN & NAP complete OSS for hold bags not passengers.

Latvia 2

Lithuania 4

Luxembourg 1

Malta 1

Montenegro 2

Netherlands 1 4 Not applicable at 4 airports (no transfers?)

Norway 12

Poland 11 1

WAW offers OSS to all Schengen passengers and only LOT Non-Schengen OSS passengers on request, due to infrastructure constraints

Portugal 8

Due to infrastructural reasons (border control), non-Schengen OSS airports may not be exempted from screening

Romania 7

Singapore 1 No State response; other sources used

Slovakia 6 No reason provided

Slovenia 3 No State response

Spain

27

OSS offered (except for 3rd countries at BCN & MAD. 25 other airports OSS is offered for EU flights with EU destination (and domestically flights). If the passenger has to pass border control, OSS is not applied.

Sweden 12 No transfers at 11 airports and infrastructure prevents OSS at ARN.

Switzerland 2 1

Not applicable at BSL, since security at EuroAirport is subject to French Regulation

UK

4 25

International OSS in not applied in the UK - The UK applies a number of 'More Stringent Measures' over and above EU baseline standards for passenger and baggage screening. UK allows OSS from most domestic airports if infrastructure allows. (airports not offering partial OSS have no transfer passengers). Our understanding is that no more than 4 UK airports offer domestic OSS.


TOTAL 91 48 146 38 TOTAL 323 airports

Total % 28% 15% 45% 12% 100%

Table 4: State response summary table regarding OSS implementation at airports

It is important to recognise in the numbers above that the airports listed vary

significantly in size, from major international hubs to small regional airports, so the

proportion of airports participating in OSS does not reflect the proportion of transfer



passengers benefiting from the process. The chart below shows the airports not offering

any OSS by size – the small airports typically do not offer OSS because they have no

transfer passengers.

Figure 11: Airports not offering OSS by size

Only one airport offered passenger and cabin baggage OSS but did not offer OSS for

hold baggage; nine airports offered OSS for hold baggage but not for passenger and

cabin baggage. Reasons given for not offering passenger OSS in these cases were either

infrastructure related (6) with the other two responses simply stating that passenger and

cabin baggage OSS was not applicable at those airports.

The chart below provides insight into the detail behind “partial” OSS implementation.



Figure 12: Partial OSS implementation – State responses

▪ 36 of the 48 airports offering partial OSS allow it for Schengen transfers only, making

this by far the largest category of partial OSS provision. This is logical considering a

typical Schengen – Schengen transfer flow, where passengers disembark into a

common departure lounge and then board the departing aircraft from the same area.

Many airports have been designed or modified to accommodate the requirement for

Schengen passengers to bypass border control, thereby creating a segregated

passenger flow. Since all transfer passengers arriving from Schengen origins are by

default also coming from OSS origins, the segregation required for Schengen also

acts as a segregation for OSS.

▪ The UK allows OSS from domestic origins only, if airports have the necessary

capability. However, most UK airports do not process transfer passengers so, only

the larger airports are able to offer any form of OSS. For the purposes of the study

we have assumed only those airports are able to offer domestic OSS.

▪ Prague Airport allows OSS for transfer passengers from Schengen area EEA and EU

countries and Switzerland. All transfer passengers from third countries (including UK

and Ireland) are required to go through a security checkpoint.

▪ OSS is allowed at four Class 1 international airports in Canada. OSS flows are

permitted at these airports from Canadian domestic airports, the USA, EU/EEA

countries and Switzerland.

At Montreal Airport, hold baggage OSS is not offered as the OSS transfer volumes

were determined to be too low to justify the investment required to modify the

baggage system to divert bags past screening. Any decisions about further



expansions of OSS are to be determined, pending a statistical study of current OSS

impacts and a budgetary review. Canada may consider pursuing additional

agreements if more Canadian airports invest in the required changes necessary to

implement OSS. At present however, there are no discussions underway with other

third countries, though countries which join the EU in the future are likely to be

added to the range of accepted OSS States.

Airport Int’l – Int’l Int’l - Domestic Domestic – Int’l Hold baggage

Vancouver Y Y Y Y

Montreal Y Y Y N

Calgary Trial Trial Y Trial

Toronto Y* Y* Y Y*

*For T1 only

Table 5: Permitted OSS flows at the four Canadian Class 1 airports

▪ The other two airports described as offering partial OSS are Frankfurt (FRA) and Paris

Charles de Gaulle (CDG).

o In Frankfurt, OSS is available in Terminal 1, where the infrastructure allows

segregation of passengers to accommodate all OSS flows. This covers around

80% of transfer passengers. Only Schengen - Schengen OSS is possible in

Terminal 2, but this is largely a point to point terminal with limited transfer

traffic.

No inter-terminal OSS process flows exist at Frankfurt. When new routes are

introduced to the airport, the management team decides on stand location to

accommodate OSS flows; a group decision between Airline, Apron and Terminal

management determines whether to offer OSS (e.g. if there is only a small

number of transfer passengers, it may be preferable not to offer OSS to them in

order to benefit the terminating passengers with a better arrival process).

o We have been unable to verify the level of OSS implementation at CDG with

either the State or the airport. However, feedback from Air France indicated that

for the majority of passengers, cabin and hold baggage transferring from France

and/or EU/Schengen origins, OSS is possible (apart for some destinations based

on the terminal of departure).

For passengers and cabin baggage transferring from third countries (U.S.,

Canada, Singapore) OSS is not possible due to the specific infrastructure of the



airport, though for hold baggage from these third countries, OSS works if the

terminal they are transferring to is connected to the baggage conveyer system,

which seems to be the case for the majority of flights.

9.1 Implementation by airport size

To identify whether patterns of OSS implementation exist by airport size, we used the

data provided by the States, updated using data from other sources where available

(e.g. if an airport survey provided more detail than or different information to the State

response) to analyse implementation by airport size.

9.1.1 Large airports - >40 mppa

Eleven airports with more than 40 mppa were included in the study.

Table 6: Airports with total annual passenger numbers greater than 40m

The following chart describes the degree of OSS implementation at each airport.

Country Airport

UK Heathrow Airport

Netherlands Schiphol Amsterdam Airport

France* Charles de Gaulle Airport

Germany Frankfurt Airport

Singapore* Changi Airport

Spain Madrid-Barajas Airport

Spain Barcelona Airport

Canada Toronto Pearson International Airport

UK Gatwick Airport

Germany Munich Airport

Italy Leonardo da Vinci-Fiumicino Airport

* France and Singapore did not respond to State or airport surveys.



Figure 13: OSS implementation at large (>40 mppa) airports

▪ Three airports (Amsterdam, Munich and Rome Fiumicino) offer full OSS for

passenger, cabin and hold baggage.

▪ Four airports (Frankfurt, Paris Charles de Gaulle, Madrid-Barajas and Barcelona) offer

partial OSS; all are limited to what they can offer by airport infrastructure.

Frankfurt, as described above, offers full OSS in one terminal, covering around 80%

of passengers, and intra-Schengen OSS in other terminals, but with no intra-terminal

OSS, and Paris offers OSS for most Schengen transfers, plus some third country OSS

for baggage.

Madrid and Barcelona do not offer OSS for flights from third countries or for inter-

terminal transfers due to the infrastructure and design of the airport and the

locations where border controls are applied. The Spanish airports make use of

manual processes to offer OSS to third country PRM passengers and families and also

by exception when a large number of passengers on a flight have a connecting flight.

▪ Only the two UK airports do not offer OSS for hold baggage; these airports are only

allowed to offer OSS for domestic flights due to more stringent measures in place in

the UK. At all UK airports, domestic OSS (eg. Manchester > Heathrow > Detroit) may

be possible but this depends on factors such as terminal layout. For example,

transfer passengers arriving on domestic flights in Terminal 5 at Heathrow and

departing from the same terminal do not need to pass through security screening,

but domestic origin passengers arriving at other terminals or those transferring



between terminals have to be re-screened. Heathrow does not provide OSS capability

for hold bags, since the baggage system routes all bags through hold baggage

screening.

▪ Toronto offers OSS from the USA, the EU and non-EU Schengen countries, but not

other OSS third countries.

▪ Although we did not receive a response from Singapore, our understanding is that

Changi cannot offer OSS in its main international terminal because security screening

is carried out at the departure gate, so potential OSS passengers cannot be

segregated from other passengers.

Of the four airports offering partial OSS, we held more detailed discussions with Madrid-

Barajas and Frankfurt which enabled us to understand how many more passengers could

benefit from OSS if it was enabled for all eligible passengers.

In the case of Frankfurt, 56% of transfer passengers currently benefit from one stop

security. If all eligible passengers were able to follow OSS flows, this would increase to

75%.

Similarly, in Madrid, 56% of transfer passengers currently benefit from OSS with the

proportion increasing to 70% if OSS flows could be enabled for all eligible passengers.



9.1.2 OSS implementation at airports handling 20-40 mppa

Information was received for 15 airports processing between 20 and 40m passengers per

year.

Country Airport

Austria Vienna International Airport

Belgium Brussels Airport

Canada Vancouver International Airport

Denmark Copenhagen Airport

Germany Düsseldorf Airport

Greece Athens International Airport

Ireland Dublin Airport

Italy Malpensa Airport

Norway Oslo Airport-Gardermoen

Portugal Lisbon Portela Airport

Spain Palma de Mallorca Airport

Sweden Stockholm-Arlanda Airport

Switzerland Zurich Airport

UK Manchester Airport

UK Stansted Airport

Table 7: Airports with total annual passenger numbers between 20 and 40m


Figure 14: OSS implementation at airports between 20 and 40 mppa



▪ Nine of the fifteen airports listed by participating States were said to offer full OSS

for passengers, cabin and hold bags. However, our research discovered some

possible discrepancies in this information whereby “full” OSS implementation as

described at State level still has some limitations following discussions with the

airports. For example:

o Vienna responded to the airport survey stating that 66% of transfer passengers

currently benefit from OSS but that this would increase to 70% if OSS was fully

implemented for all eligible passengers, implying that a small proportion of

eligible passengers are not currently receiving the service. This was validated by

discussions with the Montenegro Civil Aviation Agency who stated that their

passengers did not receive OSS benefits when travelling through Vienna.

o Brussels offers full OSS to all eligible flights, but it is sometimes not offered from

a late arriving UK origin flight as border staff have limited resource available at

this time.

o Dublin is not set up for OSS in Terminal 1, however this terminal is mainly point

to point traffic so affects minimal passenger numbers

▪ Two airports (Palma and Lisbon) offer OSS for Schengen arrivals only.

▪ Manchester Airport does not offer OSS from non-UK origins due to more stringent

measures (MSMs) in place in the UK.

▪ Vancouver offers OSS from the USA, the EU/EEA and Switzerland, but not from other

OSS third countries.

▪ Of the other airports in this size category, Arlanda does not offer OSS (except for

hold baggage), due to infrastructure constraints, and Stansted does not offer even

domestic OSS due to low transfer passenger numbers.


Information was received for 24 airports processing between 10 and 20m passengers per

year.

Country Airport

Canada Montreal-Pierre Elliott Trudeau International Airport

Canada Calgary International Airport

Czech Republic Prague Václav Havel Airport

Finland Helsinki-Vantaa Airport

France Saint-Exupéry Airport

Germany Berlin Tegel Airport



Country Airport

Germany Hamburg Airport

Germany Berlin Schönefeld Airport

Germany Cologne/Bonn Airport

Germany Stuttgart Airport

Hungary Budapest Ferenc Liszt International Airport

Italy Orio al Serio Airport

Italy Venice Marco Polo Airport

Poland Frédéric Chopin Airport

Portugal Francisco Sá Carneiro Airport

Romania Henri Coanda International Airport

Spain Málaga Airport

Spain Alicante Airport

Spain Gran Canaria Airport

Spain Tenerife South Airport

Switzerland Geneva International Airport

UK Luton Airport

UK Edinburgh Airport

UK Birmingham International Airport

Table 8: Airports with total annual passenger numbers between 10 and 20m



▪ Almost half of the airports in this size category were stated as offering full OSS

capability.



▪ The four Spanish airports in this size category are primarily point to point airports

with minimal transfer passengers. Where there are transfer passengers, OSS is

offered for EU flights with EU destinations (we understand this to mean Schengen to

Schengen transfers) and for domestic flights. If the passenger has to pass border

control, OSS is not applied.

▪ Similarly, Francisco Sá Carneiro Airport (Porto) in Portugal offers OSS for Schengen

passengers, but no reason was provided for this limitation.

▪ Lyon Saint-Exupéry Airport was the only French airport response received in relation

to the study. OSS is possible for all Schengen transfer passengers at Lyon, which

covers most OSS eligible passengers. The airport stated that it does not have many

international connecting flights (non-Schengen) and does not expect to develop this

line of business in the near future. Lyon has implemented OSS with Air Canada for

hold baggage of passengers transferring onto Schengen Flights, but not for

passengers.

▪ We understand that only one of the three UK airports in this group (Birmingham)

offers an OSS process for passengers transferring from domestic flights; UK airports

only allow OSS from UK domestic origins due to UK More Stringent Measures (MSMs)

where infrastructure allows and where the airport has transfer passengers.

▪ The two Canadian airports in this category only accept OSS passengers from the

USA, the EU/EEA and Switzerland, but not from other third countries. In Calgary,

OSS is still operating in a trial phase with two airlines participating (Air Canada and

WestJet).

▪ Berlin Schönefeld does not offer OSS, and our understanding is that Luton and

Edinburgh airports in the UK do not offer any OSS either.




134 airports between 1 and 10m passengers per annum were included in State

responses to the OSS survey.

Table 9: Geographic spread of study airports in 1-10m ppa category





A marked difference in OSS implementation exists as airport size reduces below 10

mppa.

▪ More than half of the airports do not offer any form of OSS. Of these 78 airports:

o 37 do not offer OSS because they have no transfer passengers (this includes the

14 UK airports, where, although OSS is potentially allowed for domestic transfer

passengers, airports in this size category are unlikely to have any transfer

passengers or transfer facilities to process them).

o 8 stated that OSS was not applicable (which we understand to mean there are no

eligible transfer passengers)

o 11 airports were in Canada, where OSS is not allowed other than at 4 Class 1

airports

o 5 airports stated infrastructure as a reason and

o 16 did not provide a reason.

▪ 28% of airports were stated as offering full OSS. With airports of this size and

smaller, “offering full OSS” does not necessarily mean establishing a complex set of

passenger and bag flows to automatically segregate and direct OSS passengers.

Many of these airports will not have dedicated transfer passenger facilities, with the

natural passenger flow to be for passengers to land themselves and then proceed as

departing passengers, with OSS achieved through manual intervention processes. For

example, at Thessaloniki in Greece, there is no separate transfer passenger route,

but for the small number of transfer passengers passing through the airport, it is

possible to instigate a manual process whereby OSS passengers are taken directly

from the inbound flight into the departure lounge, avoiding the need to land

themselves first and be re-screened. These types of processes are more likely to be

carried out for tight connecting passengers, families and PRMs on an ad hoc, on

demand basis and can also be applied to hold baggage.

▪ 14% of airports (all located in Spain and Portugal) provide OSS for Schengen

connections only.



9.1.5 OSS implementation at airports handling less than 1 mppa

101 airports handling less than 1m passengers per annum were included in State

responses to the OSS survey.

Table 10: Table 6: Geographic spread of study airports in <1m ppa category


Figure 17: OSS implementation at airports with less than 1 mppa

Country Count of Airports Country Count of Airports

Austria 3 Italy 7

Belgium 3 Latvia 1

Bulgaria 1 Lithuania 2

Canada 7 Netherlands 2

Croatia 4 Norway 1

Czech Repubic 4 Poland 5

Denmark 1 Portugal 3

Finland 9 Romania 3

Germany 1 Slovakia 5

Greece 12 Spain 4

Hungary 4 Sweden 5

Iceland 3 UK 8

Ireland 3 Grand Total 101



Very small airports (<1 mppa) follow a similar pattern to those in the 1-10m size

category up with 61% of the airports stating they do not offer OSS and a third offering

full OSS. The Schengen OSS airports are all located in Spain and Portugal.

Based on the airport size, it is likely that all of the airports in this category have minimal

or no transfer passengers, but any passengers processed via OSS are likely to follow a

manual “escorted” process to bypass screening.

9.1.6 Summary of OSS implementation by airport size

Figure 18: OSS implementation summary by airport size

The chart above summarises the variation in OSS implementation by airport size.

▪ The largest hub airports (>40 mppa) clearly stand to benefit most from OSS

implementation due to the high volumes of transfer passengers, but their size also

presents challenges to full implementation. Schengen to Schengen flows are typically

easiest to implement for Schengen hub airports, since passenger flows are already

segregated; however, other transfer flows can also be made OSS compatible,

typically through either infrastructure or process change. The fact that larger airports

are often multi-terminal (separate buildings) creates a major inhibitor to providing

full OSS, since passengers are not typically segregated when travelling between

terminals.

▪ Medium sized airports appear more able to offer full OSS than the major hubs. This

could be because:

o The airports are typically single terminal (or at least single building) operations,

eliminating the challenge of moving “clean” passengers between buildings while

keeping them segregated from non-OSS passengers.



o The airports are more likely to be regional hubs than global, with a larger

proportion of transfer passengers being Schengen to Schengen than is the case

with the global hubs. Airports located within the Schengen area had to be

designed and or modified to accommodate Schengen flows, which did most of

the work to allow OSS for a large proportion of transfer passengers. [Passengers

are segregated to comply with Schengen requirements and since none of these

passengers need to be re-screened, it is straightforward to implement OSS for

these flows.]

o Expanding OSS from Schengen to full OSS often requires significant

infrastructure change to create the necessary additional segregated passenger

flows. Some airports have implemented the necessary changes already, either

specifically to enable OSS or as part of a larger terminal expansion. Those who

have not done so, and currently only offer Schengen OSS, typically cannot cost

justify the necessary changes as part of an OSS business case unless they are

incorporated into other expansion plans; in such cases, a number of airports

stated that they would expand their OSS offering when terminal expansion plans

were introduced.

▪ Small airports (<10 mppa) typically have very low numbers of transfer passengers, if

any. The majority of these airports state that they offer either full OSS or no OSS.

For those offering full OSS, the service is typically delivered through process rather

than infrastructure change, for example by using airport staff “on demand” to escort

pre-advised groups of passengers to bypass screening. Although the number of

airports offering no OSS is high, the number of transfer passengers affected is very

low.

In summary, OSS is generally allowed at a State level across the EU/EEA, Switzerland

and participating third countries, with the major exceptions being the UK which only

allows OSS from (most) domestic origins, Canada which allows OSS at four Class 1

airports only and the USA which does not allow any inbound OSS.

OSS implementation at an airport level is more varied. For airports of sufficient size to

handle significant volumes of transfer passengers, all appear to facilitate OSS to the

maximum extent possible within certain infrastructure constraints. Schengen to

Schengen OSS flows are almost all facilitated, and some airports have invested

significantly to increase OSS capability to all eligible passengers. However, the cost of

infrastructure changes necessary to allow full OSS has slowed the pace of full

implementation, with a number of airports holding off on expanding OSS capability until

the necessary segregated flows can be integrated into future expansion plans.



10. Reasons for lack of OSS implementation

Overview: Reasons for lack of OSS implementation

The chart below provides a summary of the reasons for lack of full OSS

implementation at airports within the States that responded to the survey.

No or low transfer volumes

Assuming “not applicable” responses meant there were no applicable transfer

passengers at the airport, 40% of airports which have not fully implemented OSS

cited lack of transfer passengers as the reason. All but three of these airports handle

less than 10 mppa. The three larger airports were all UK airports without dedicated

transfer facilities and where only domestic OSS is allowed.

State regulation

United Kingdom: The UK applies a number of 'More Stringent Measures' over and

above EU baseline standards for passenger and baggage screening, and because

there is a 'host state responsibility' for aircraft leaving the UK, it is not possible to

guarantee that flights leaving the UK which were subject to non-UK screening would

meet the same security standards as flights screened to UK standards.

No transfers, 64, 33%

Not applicable, 14, 7%

No reason provided, 42,

22%

Border control,

33, 17%

Infrastructure, 14, 7%

Not permitted in CA, 18, 9%

CA State Limitations, 4, 2%Other, 1, 1% UK MSM: Domestic only, 4, 2%

Reasons for airports not fully implementing OSS



The UK therefore allows OSS only from most domestic origins, including the Crown

Dependencies of Jersey, Guernsey and the Isle of Man. Our understanding is that no

more than 4 of the 29 UK airports handle transfer traffic and have the capability to

provide domestic OSS.

Canada: In Canada, the State only allows OSS at four Class 1 airports (Montreal,

Calgary, Toronto and Vancouver), and at those airports OSS only applies to domestic

flights, flights from the EU/EEA, Switzerland, and the USA.

United States of America (US airports not included in the above chart): One Stop

Security is not permitted inbound into the USA for both legal and security equivalence

reasons. The only exceptions are those specific foreign airports where there are

preclearance operations in place.

The US did look into establishing a pilot OSS airport several years ago, but the

infrastructure and resource challenges associated with segregating passengers

arriving from OSS origins from those arriving from non-OSS origins proved to be too

great. These complexities resulted in the pilot being abandoned at the concept stage.

Border control and infrastructure limitation

Introduction of the Schengen area required airports to make changes to segregate

Schengen passengers so they could avoid border controls. By creating this separate

flow, most airports in the Schengen area by default created a flow enabling OSS for

transfer passengers from Schengen origins. This explains why many European

airports which have partially implemented OSS, have done so for the Schengen area

only.

Expanding OSS to passengers from non-Schengen origins (and introducing any form

of OSS for non-Schengen airports) requires a method of segregating flows of inbound

transfer passengers from OSS and non-OSS origins. It may physically be difficult to

achieve this without significant investment due to the nature of the terminal

infrastructure or the location of border control, and there is often limited financial

benefit to be derived since much of the OSS traffic is from Schengen origins where

the benefits have already been realised.



Three primary methods of segregating OSS passengers were identified in the study:

1. A manual escort process – typically used for low volume / ad hoc groups of

passengers in small airports and in large airports for some passengers where not

all OSS flows are otherwise feasible. Reasons why airports have not implemented

this method as a general solution to enable full OSS include:

o Increased operational costs – particularly as volumes increase

o Reluctance to introduce non-standard processes, which increase the risk of

failure.

2. A separate corridor from arrivals gates in the non-Schengen arrivals area which

flows non-OSS passengers through a security screening area before re-joining the

non-Schengen OSS flow. There are a number of reasons why airports have not

simply added a corridor to their gate areas to segregate OSS flows, including:

o Space limitations in existing buildings prevent the additional corridor from

being added

o Reduction in effective stand capacity and impact on punctuality caused by

restrictions on simultaneous use of adjacent stands

o Resource cost associated with manually opening / closing / guarding doors to

prevent passenger cross flows and sweeping areas after arrival of non-OSS

flights and / or capital cost of implementing an automated process to achieve

the same objectives

2. An additional floor in the terminal building can be added to provide a

separate flow for OSS and non-OSS passengers and still allows independent use of

aircraft stands, overcoming some of the limitations of the corridor solution

described above.

Creating another level in a terminal (or terminals) is an expensive solution and is

not physically feasible for some airports based on existing infrastructure. The

business case for making such a change purely for OSS is often difficult to make,

especially if the number of passengers benefiting is not large. As such, this type of

solution is more likely to be incorporated into a new terminal design.

Some airports which have not fully implemented OSS stated in survey responses that

they would look to implement full OSS capability into future terminal upgrades /

builds.



Having obtained a high-level understanding at a State level of reasons for non-

implementation of OSS, we developed a second, more targeted questionnaire to

distribute directly to airports to understand more about the OSS status at their airports

and, if relevant, the reasons for not or only partially implementing. The survey is

described in greater detail in Section 7.2: Methodology and a copy of the survey

template is shown in Appendix 2.

The survey was distributed to a total of 51 airports in EU Member, Non-EU Schengen and

Third States. When preparing this questionnaire, we also took the opportunity to request

additional information to include in the cost-benefit analysis phase of the project.

We received responses from 28 airports, including the 16 with whom we later held more

detailed discussions. We used the information from the surveys to obtain a

comprehensive understanding of the reasons why airports have not fully implemented

OSS.

Combining these responses with those received from the State authorities, we were able

to develop the following overview of the reasons for lack of OSS implementation at

airports.

Figure 19: Distribution of the reasons OSS is not fully implemented at airports within

States participating in the study

These reasons are explored in more detail in the following sections.

No transfers, 64, 33%

Not applicable, 14, 7%

No reason provided, 42,

22%

Border control,

33, 17%

Infrastructure, 14, 7%

Not permitted in CA, 18, 9%

CA State Limitations, 4, 2%Other, 1, 1% UK MSM: Domestic only, 4, 2%

Reasons for airports not fully implementing OSS



10.1 Lack of transfer passengers

Given that the responses cover airports of all sizes, including small regional point-to-

point airports, it is understandable that, in terms of airport numbers, “low or no transfer

volume” is the main reason provided for the lack of OSS implementation. Including the

“not applicable” category, which we understand to mean that OSS is not applicable due

to lack of transfer passengers, 28% of all airports for which we received a response in

the study fall into this group, where there is no reason for the airports to introduce OSS.

The chart below illustrates, by airport size, which airports do not offer OSS for this

reason.

Figure 20: Airports not offering OSS due to lack of transfer passengers - by size

As the chart clearly shows, almost all of the airports not implementing OSS for this

reason are small airports, with the others being UK airports which are not allowed to

offer OSS for anything other than domestic passengers and are primarily point to point

airports.

Reviewing full OSS implementation by airport size provides an interesting alternative

perspective on OSS at small airports.



Figure 21: Full OSS implementation by airport size

Acknowledging that there are more small airports in the study than large airports, it is

clear that a large number of small airports appear to offer either full OSS or no OSS.

Those offering full OSS may not in reality have any (or many) transfer passengers but

may simply process them as OSS on a manual basis as and when required.

Ostend was one of our study airports which provides an example of how a small airport

can offer either full and no OSS.

Such manual processes for handling low volumes / infrequent occurrences of OSS

eligible transfer passengers can also be used in a targeted way at larger airports. At

Madrid-Barajas Airport, PRM passengers and families on transfer flows not currently

covered by the standard OSS process are processed manually on occasions, and at

Manual processes

Ostend Airport (OST, <1 mppa) does not currently offer OSS because it has no

transfer passengers. However, in the period following the Brussels terrorist attack,

OST accepted some additional flights, which did carry a low number of transfer

passengers. Because of the low numbers, it was possible for the airport team to

handle these passengers using manual OSS processes, which can work for a small

airport, but would not be as feasible solution for large OSS passenger volumes.

As a consequence of this experience, during a period of terminal development, Ostend

Airport chose to make provision for potential future transfer passengers by integrating

an OSS transfer route at relatively low cost.



Warsaw Airport, the airport manually processes non-Schengen LOT transfer passengers

via OSS when requested by the airline.

10.2 State regulation

Three of the States currently included in the OSS arrangements restrict implementation

to some extent in their home countries.

10.2.1 United Kingdom

The UK applies a range of 'More Stringent Measures' over and above EU baseline

standards for passenger and baggage screening, and because there is a 'host state

responsibility' for aircraft leaving the UK, it is therefore not possible to guarantee that

flights leaving the UK which were subject to non-UK screening would meet the same

security standards as flights screened to UK standards.

The UK therefore allows OSS only from domestic origins. The Crown Dependencies of

Jersey, Guernsey and the Isle of Man apply in full the UK NASP, including all MSMs over

and above the EU baseline, so these are generally treated as domestic. An exception is

that in the case of some smaller (eg. Scottish Highlands and Islands) airports,

rescreening may be required at UK mainland airports before further transfer is allowed.

In order to allow full OSS in the UK, the EU baseline screening standards would need to

be raised to UK levels (or there would have to be a lowering of the level of threat to civil

aviation which resulted in the UK withdrawing its MSMs). Similarly, to allow OSS from

third countries, the UK would require assurance that UK equivalent screening standards

were consistently met.

Of the 29 UK airports which have not fully introduced OSS due to MSMs, most do not

handle transfer passengers so could realistically be placed in the “no transfer

passengers” category. Our understanding is that no more than four of the UK airports

handle transfer passengers and may facilitate domestic OSS.

Of the UK airports, only Heathrow was included in the airport survey and subsequent

study. Heathrow’s Terminal 5 was designed with domestic OSS in mind, and passengers

arriving on domestic flights into T5 and departing from T5 are not re-screened. All other

transfer flows are subjected to re-screening (including domestic T5 to other terminal

transfers), so the net benefit of OSS is relatively small, though still significant because of

the total volume of domestic origin passengers transferring through T5.

As with passengers, there is no requirement to re-screen transfer bags from domestic

origins at Heathrow. However, all of the airport baggage systems have been designed to



screen 100% of bags and the cost of re-designing systems to bypass a relatively small

number of bags away from hold baggage screening (HBS) was not considered to be cost

effective.

All other UK airports have much lower transfer volume than Heathrow, so terminals are

unlikely to have been designed to accommodate domestic OSS. Some of these airports

may use a manual OSS process for domestic transfer passengers, though this has not

been confirmed as part of the study.

We understand from our workshop with Heathrow that discussions are ongoing at a

senior level between the UK and USA authorities in relation to possible one stop security

type arrangements between the two countries. The airport has not yet investigated in

detail the cost or feasibility of how this would be implemented, but US flights currently

arrive and depart from multiple terminals, which would make segregated flows

challenging to achieve.

10.2.2 Canada

In Canada, the State only allows OSS at four Class 1 airports (Montreal, Calgary,

Toronto and Vancouver), and at those airports OSS only applies to inbound domestic

flights, flights from the EU/EAA, Switzerland and the USA. Other OSS third countries are

likely to be included only if they join the EU, and in the case of Singapore, any decisions

about further expansion of OSS are still to be determined, pending a statistical study of

current OSS impacts and a budgetary review. Canada may consider additional OSS

arrangements if more Canadian airports invest in completing the required changes to

implement OSS.

We received survey responses from Toronto, Calgary and Montreal airports, and held

more detailed workshop discussions with Toronto and Calgary to understand their

experiences with introducing OSS. OSS is being rolled out in Calgary on a trial basis but

is in place in Toronto and Montreal. Infrastructure limitations which restrict the extent of

the OSS offering are discussed in the report section addressing infrastructure reasons for

non-implementation.

10.2.3 United States of America

As described earlier in Section 8.1.2, One Stop Security is not permitted inbound into

the USA for legal and security equivalence reasons. The only exceptions are those

specific foreign airports where there are preclearance operations in place. U.S. law

requires passengers arriving from an international airport to present themselves to a

Federal customs official at the arriving port of entry. Passengers must present



themselves with all their property, including checked luggage. Following customs and

immigration, passengers recheck their luggage for any connecting flight. Because they

have had access to their checked luggage, and thus potentially to items allowed in

checked luggage but prohibited in accessible property (carry-on luggage), all transferring

passengers must go through security screening before being allowed into the sterile area

which would negate any potential benefit of OSS.

The US did look into establishing a pilot OSS airport several years ago, but the

infrastructure and / or resource challenges associated with segregating passengers

arriving from OSS origins from those arriving from non-OSS origins proved to be too

great. The pilot was abandoned at the concept stage so no detailed cost estimates for

implementation are available.

The closest the USA gets to allowing OSS inbound to the USA is from Pre-Clearance

airports, which in the EU/EAA are currently only Dublin and Shannon airports (though

the United States Government is looking to expand if possible and is in discussion with

Amsterdam and Stockholm). At these agreed locations, passengers clear customs and

immigration at the departing airport and their hold baggage is transferred automatically

at the arriving U.S. airport; passengers arriving on a pre-cleared flight do not undergo

additional security screening as they remain in the sterile area for any transferring

flight.

Pre-clearance partly overcomes the issues which OSS presents, by ensuring:

▪ Passengers are screened to US standards (carried out by additional screening at the

gate in Dublin and by screening all departing passengers to US equivalent standard

in Shannon)

▪ Hold bags are checked – by viewing HBS images held at the departing airport

▪ The necessary checks are conducted by US Federal officials (CPB staff are based at

the pre-clearance airports)

However, this process is not true OSS since passengers are subjected to additional

screening at the origin airport to meet US requirements because the US does not

recognise EU security standards as equivalent.

10.3 Border control and infrastructure limitations

Border Control and Infrastructure jointly represent 24% of the reasons given for non-

implementation of full OSS. These typically relate to the design and location of border

control facilities restricting OSS flows, the challenges associated with creating

segregated routes for OSS flows due to the structure and layout of terminals, and



baggage infrastructure design. However, in some instances, “border control” may relate

to lack of available resource to man additional border check-points.

To understand why “infrastructure” can be an impediment to OSS implementation, it is

important to first understand the process flows and changes required for transferring

passengers and hold bags at OSS enabled airports.

10.3.1 Passenger transfer flows at OSS airports

Recognising that all airports are different and that it is impossible to illustrate in a single

diagram how passenger flows are organised in all airports, the following schematics

describe typical passenger transfer flows in an OSS enabled (single terminal) Schengen

airport:

Figure 22: Transfer flows in an OSS airport



Combining these separate flows into a single flowchart illustrates that the key differences

in flows, i.e. where infrastructure or process changes are required, take place on arrival.

Figure 23: Flow segregations required for OSS

10.3.2 Typical infrastructure changes required to enable passenger OSS

Introduction of the Schengen area created a requirement for airports to make changes

to segregate Schengen passengers so they could avoid border controls. By providing this

separate flow, most airports in the Schengen area by default created a flow enabling

OSS for transfer passengers from Schengen origins. Many airports direct terminating

passengers from Schengen origins through the departure lounge area to baggage

reclaim, thereby also eliminating any requirement to segregate transferring and

terminating passengers. This simplicity of passenger flow explains why many European

airports which have partially implemented OSS, have done so for the Schengen area

only.

Expanding OSS to passengers from non-Schengen origins (and introducing any form of

OSS for non-Schengen airports) requires a method of segregating flows of inbound

transfer passengers from OSS and non-OSS origins. This can be achieved in a number of

ways, but the cost and challenge of implementation is very much dependent on the

layout of the airport. For medium sized airports where much of the transfer passenger

traffic is intra-European, the Schengen-Schengen OSS processes are addressed as

described above, leaving a relatively small amount of non-Schengen transfer traffic.



Three primary methods of segregating OSS passengers were identified in the study:

1. A manual escort process – typically used for low volume / ad hoc groups of

passengers in small airports and in large airports for low numbers of passengers

where not all OSS flows are otherwise feasible. Reasons why airports have not

implemented this method as a general solution to enable full OSS include:

o Increased operational costs – particularly as volumes increase

o Reluctance to introduce non-standard processes, which increase the risk of

failure.

2. A separate corridor from arrivals gates in the non-Schengen arrivals area which

flows non-OSS passengers through a security area before re-joining the non-

Schengen OSS flow. In the schematic below, Schengen arriving passengers

disembark directly into the Schengen zone, where they can either proceed directly

to baggage reclaim and exit, or in the case of transfer passengers, proceed directly

to the departure gate (via passport control for non-Schengen departures).

Non-Schengen OSS passengers disembark into the non-Schengen gate area, where

they can transfer directly onto a non-Schengen departure, or pass through border

control to arrivals or Schengen departures.

Non-Schengen non-OSS passengers need to be directed on a separate route either

via security screening (transfer passengers) or via a separate passport control for

terminating passengers, ensuring they do not mix with OSS passengers until they

have been screened, and do not mix with Schengen passengers until they have

passed through passport control.

The fact that implementing Schengen OSS has been relatively straightforward for

many airports in the Schengen area has meant that moving to full OSS is more

challenging, since this is where significant infrastructure cost has to be incurred, but

the benefit / payback is often only for a relatively low number of (non-Schengen)

passengers.



Figure 24: Example of "corridor" segregation to facilitate OSS

In the example above, the non-Schengen gates are split into three zones, where

some gates are dedicated to OSS flights and some to non-OSS flights with a number

of “flex-gates” which can be used for either. Operationally, this solution is sub-

optimal because the flex-gates connected to the OSS/non-OSS corridor cannot be

used independently and simultaneously for OSS/non-OSS arrivals because of the

risk of mixing “clean” and “dirty” passengers.

In Helsinki, the airport has some gates available that use doors in a corridor to

divert passengers to passport control or not, depending on the flight origin. The

process is managed by opening or closing specific doors during aircraft arrivals to

prevent cross flows of passengers and ensure OSS passengers do not mix with non-

OSS passengers. This may involve holding passengers on aircraft on adjacent stands

for a short time until one set of passengers is clear, to prevent mixing of flows. This

process creates restrictions on which stands can be used for different flights and can

cause delays for passengers if the process is not well not managed. The airport

manages these constraints by trying to plan the most convenient sequence when

allocating gates to arriving and departing aircraft.

As the Helsinki example shows, this method of segregating OSS and non-OSS

passengers is not perfect and illustrates why airports have not simply added a

corridor to their gate areas in order to segregate OSS flows. Reasons include:



o Space limitations in existing buildings prevent the additional corridor from being

added

o Reduction in effective stand capacity and impact on punctuality caused by

restrictions on simultaneous use of adjacent stands

o Resource cost associated with manually opening / closing / guarding doors to

prevent passenger cross flows and sweeping areas after arrival of non-OSS

flights and / or capital cost of implementing an automated process to achieve

the same objectives

3. An additional floor in the terminal building can be added to provide a separate

flow for OSS and non-OSS passengers and still allow independent use of aircraft

stands, overcoming some of the limitations of the corridor solution described above.

The diagram below illustrates how the additional level works in Frankfurt. Terminal 1

is the Lufthansa/Star Alliance terminal handling 80% of passenger volumes; flows

are segregated as follows:

o Level 1 – Apron

o Level 2 – Schengen arrivals and departures

o Level 3 – Non-Schengen OSS arrivals and departures

o Level 4 – Non-OSS arrivals (incorporating transfer security screening)

Figure 25: Cross section of Pier A in Frankfurt Airport, illustrating how different levels

are used to segregate passenger flows

Creating another level in a terminal (or terminals) is an expensive solution and is not

physically possible for some airports based on existing infrastructure. The business case

for making such a change purely for OSS would be difficult to make, especially if the



number of passengers benefiting is not large, as is the case for smaller hub airports

which have already enabled OSS for Schengen routes. As such, this type of solution is

more likely to be incorporated into a new terminal design rather than a retro-fit to

enable OSS. Indeed, some airports which have not fully implemented OSS stated in

survey responses that they would look to implement full OSS capability into future

terminal upgrades / builds.

10.3.3 Reasons for non-introduction of hold baggage OSS

If OSS is allowed by the State and the airport has transfer passengers, the primary

reason for not implementing hold baggage OSS is typically that the costs of

infrastructure changes necessary to enable OSS for hold baggage outweigh the

perceived benefits of offering it.

Most transfer bags arriving on an aircraft from an OSS origin will be mixed, i.e. for

multiple departures, so the bags must be sorted, and generally cannot simply be

transferred “tail to tail” as a unit directly to a single departing aircraft. The bags are

normally loaded into the baggage system for sortation by departing flight; this creates a

requirement for the system to be able to segregate OSS bags, which can go directly to

the sorter, from those which require screening. There are three basic ways in which this

segregation can take place, all of which have advantages and disadvantages:

1) Create a separate transfer bag input feed for OSS bags, which feeds directly into the

baggage sortation system, bypassing hold baggage screening (HBS)

▪ Reduces the number of bags which are screened, potentially reducing HBS

equipment and resource costs

▪ Requires infrastructure change to create the new input and link to the existing

baggage system

▪ Baggage teams must know which arriving flights are OSS, to ensure bags which

require screening are not loaded into the wrong input point

2) Build a bypass conveyor route into the existing baggage system, so when the system

reads a tag on a bag from an OSS origin, it is directed to the sorter, bypassing HBS

▪ Reduces the number of bags which are screened, potentially reducing HBS

equipment and resource costs

▪ Requires infrastructure change and the physical space in the system to create the

additional bypass route

3) All bags follow the same physical route through HBS, but OSS bags are identified

from a bag tag scan prior to the X-ray and simply pass through the X-ray without

being screened

▪ No infrastructure change required



▪ Reduced requirement for screeners to view images of bags referred to level 2/3

screening, potentially reducing resource costs

▪ Since bags physically pass through HBS, no significant reduction in primary (level

1 HBS) screening capacity.

In most case, bypassing HBS will not significantly reduce the bag processing time, since

the baggage “in system time” only makes up a small amount of the overall bag transfer

process. Also, most bags pass through HBS without adding any time to the process as

they are screened in line, unless they are diverted for enhanced screening, which is a

relatively low proportion of bags.



11. Assessment of cost and benefits

Overview: Costs and benefits of OSS

Transfer passenger market

Approximately 117 million passengers transferred at EU/EEA/Swiss airports in 2017.

The chart below shows where these passengers originated, identifying whether they

arrived from an OSS origin.

Only 16% of EU/EEA/Swiss transfer traffic does not come from an OSS enabled

origin. However, OSS is not fully implemented at all airports within this area, so the

full 84% OSS opportunity has not yet been achieved in practice.

As illustrated, 25% of the total EU/EEA/Swiss transfer traffic originates from third

countries; this third country traffic is split out by country in the diagram below:



43% of these transfer passengers originate from countries with existing OSS

arrangements with the EU or who are currently in OSS discussions. The biggest other

potential “targets” for future OSS discussion would be China, India, Russia, Brazil and

Ukraine.

Costs and benefits of OSS

Working with 16 study airports, o&i consulting researched the costs and benefits of

One Stop Security. The costs of implementing OSS can be significant, requiring major

infrastructure change. Some of the larger airports in the study spent between €50m

and €100m to deliver full OSS capability, although in these instances, the changes

were made as parts of wider airport projects, since OSS could not justify such

investment by itself. At the other extreme, some airports spent little or no money

implementing OSS, either because their infrastructure allowed for the segregation of

passenger flows, or process solutions, such as manual escorts, were used to achieve

OSS segregation (typically the case in small airports with few transfers).

The main direct financial benefit of One Stop Security centres around reducing

transfer passenger security costs which typically translate into reduced transfer

passenger security fees. An indicative assessment of savings for the EU/EEA and

Swiss OSS market is shown in the table below:

This demonstrates that while an estimated EUR 339m pa in savings has already been

already realised, only 71% of eligible passengers are processed as OSS (based on the

existing OSS market and including potential from the UK) and that further savings

can be achieved by EU/EEA/Swiss airports implementing OSS fully. Equally,

expanding OSS to other countries will create more savings to the aviation industry as

only 59% of all transfer passengers in the EU/EEA and Switzerland are currently

processed as OSS.

As well as cost savings, other key benefits are improved passenger processes, with

reduced / more robust connection times and better passenger experience of most

commercial importance to airports, airlines and passengers.

At a more macro level, primary benefits of OSS include global alignment and

improvement of security standards and increased cooperation between States.


Transfer

passengers

% of

market

Potential OSS

saving






o&i consulting worked with 16 study airports as well as stakeholders from the broader

aviation sector to complete an assessment of the costs and benefits of One Stop

Security. During this exercise, it became apparent that only a small amount of

information about One Stop Security is available. To provide a robust assessment, we

therefore worked closely with stakeholders, asking for specific data to help us provide a

detailed understanding of the costs and benefits associated with OSS.

In addition to the information collected directly from study airports, we analysed data

about the broader transfer market. IATA kindly offered to work with us to establish a

dataset representative of a large proportion of the transfer market for EU / EEA /

Switzerland and OSS third countries.

11.1 Transfer passenger market

To provide a full assessment of the economic benefits One Stop Security, it was

necessary to develop a full understanding of the current and potential OSS transfer

market. From the IATA sourced data, we made the following observations.

Approximately 117 million passengers transferred at EU/EEA/Swiss airports in 2017. The

following chart shows where these passengers originated, identifying whether they

arrived from an OSS origin2 .

Figure 26: How much of the EU/EEA/Swiss transfer market is covered by OSS

arrangements

2 Third country data is made up of the 46 countries from which the EU/EEA and Switzerland receive the highest

volume of transfer passengers, regardless of final destination. Details of these countries in Appendix 3.



The chart shows that 75% of EU/EEA/Swiss transfer traffic is generated internally, with

another 9% coming from third countries where the EU recognises security equivalence

(USA, Canada and Singapore). Another 2% of transfer passengers come from Japan,

Israel, Hong Kong and Serbia, who are all in discussions with the EU about OSS

arrangements. This only leaves 14% of transfer traffic that does not come from an OSS

enabled origin. (Note that the actual percentage will be slightly higher than this as the

data only includes the top 46 third countries.)

As described elsewhere in this report, OSS is not fully implemented at all airports within

the EU/EEA and Switzerland, so the full 84% OSS opportunity has not yet been achieved

in practice. In particular, the UK, which only allows domestic OSS, accounts for around

9% of all transfers in the region, and a number of airports have not implemented OSS

for non-Schengen origins, reducing the realised percentage further.

11.1.1 Third country transfers in the EU

As demonstrated in Figure 26, the total EU/EEA/Swiss transfer traffic which originated

from third countries was 25% of the total market in 2017.

The chart below shows that, from the top 46 third countries for EU transfer traffic, 43%

of transfer passengers originate from countries with existing OSS arrangements with the

EU or who are currently in OSS discussions.

Figure 27: Third country origins of passengers transferring in the EU



From the viewpoint of increasing the number of OSS eligible passengers transferring

through the EU/EEA and Switzerland, the biggest potential “targets” for future OSS

discussion would be China, India, Russia, Brazil and Ukraine. However, increasing the

number of passengers benefitting from OSS is only one of a number of factors to be

considered in determining the feasibility of developing OSS arrangements with other

countries, and these must also be considered in evaluating the countries with which it

would be ideal to start further discussions.

11.2 Study airports

To obtain more detail about OSS implementation, o&i consulting engaged closely with 16

airports. These airports were selected from those who responded positively in the airport

survey to a request to participate in this phase of the study. From the survey responses,

we selected airports that best represented a range of airport characteristics (including

size, geography, profile, transfer volumes) to further the study objectives.

As shown earlier in this report, the participating airports were as follows:

Airport

Size (mppa

departing)

% Transfer

passengers

Level of OSS

implementation

1 Amsterdam 34.2 37 Full

2 Brussels 12.4 18.4 Full

3 Calgary 16.3 37 Trial

4 Copenhagen 14.6 20 Full

5 Dublin 14.8 10.8 Partial / Trial

Montenegro does not appear in the top 46 third countries for transfer traffic

into the EU. The bottom country of the 46 (Kazakhstan) generated 102,000

EU/EEA/Swiss transfer passengers in 2017. While we do not have the figure for the

number of EU/EEA/Swiss transfer passengers originating in Montenegro, knowing it is

below 102,000 means it would be at a maximum 0.3% of the total EU transfer

passenger opportunity from third countries. This, combined with the typical cost of

making changes to accommodate OSS flows, may help to explain why, at an airport

level, some operators have not chosen to reconfigure their infrastructure to enable

OSS for Montenegrin transfer traffic.



Airport

Size (mppa

departing)

% Transfer

passengers

Level of OSS

implementation

6 Frankfurt 32 58 Partial

7 Heathrow 38.2 30 Partial Domestic

8 Helsinki 6.3 24 Full

9 Lisbon 13.5 22.6 Partial

10 Madrid 26.5 33 Partial

11 Munich 22.2 36 Full

12 Ostend 0.3 0 Full

13 Podgorica 0.53 0.4 Full

14 Prague 15.4 1.3 Partial

15 Toronto 24 30 Partial

16 Vilnius 3.8 0.5 Full

Table 11: Airports participating in study including size and OSS implementation status

Our team engaged with each airport to develop a detailed understanding of:

▪ Transfer passenger statistics, including the proportion benefiting from One Stop

Security

▪ The level and maturity of One Stop Security implementation at their airport and the

reasons for lack of full implementation

▪ The developments and investments required to enable OSS at its facilities

▪ The cost of implementing OSS

▪ Benefits of OSS, for the airport and other stakeholders

▪ Whether the airport plans to expand OSS and the costs associated with this

▪ Any other relevant information relating to OSS.

For context, nine of our study airports are in the top 20 EU airports by passenger

numbers. These 9 airports account for 59% of the total EU transfer traffic and the top 20

account for 87%. This is shown in the chart below, split by airport:



Figure 28: Study airports within the top 20 EU airports

The remaining 7 airports selected for the study were selected to provide geographic

spread, represent third countries (Calgary, Toronto and Podgorica) and provide a range

of airport sizes (Helsinki, Prague, Vilnius and Ostend).

11.3 Investment required to enable OSS

The o&i team worked closely with each of the airports involved in the study to

understand the level of investment required to realise One Stop Security in their

operations and the nature of work that was required to ensure segregated passenger

flows.

The following sections provide more detail, grouping airports by size.

LHR, 8%

AMS, 12%

FRA, 15%

MAD, 7%MUC,

8%

DUB, 1%CPH, 3%

LIS, 3%

BRU, 3%

Other top 20 apts, 27%

Other smaller airports,

13%

Study airports account for 59% of EU transfer traffic and the top 20 EU airports account for 87%



11.3.1 Study airports >40 mppa

o&i consulting worked with 5 airports handling over 40 mppa as part of this study. The table below summarises the level of OSS

implementation at each of these hub airports and the changes and investment required to deliver this level of One Stop Security.

Table 12: An overview of the investment required to achieve current levels of OSS at study airports with +40 mppa

Amsterdam Frankfurt Heathrow Madrid-Barajas Munich

OSS implementation level Full

Partial

(Schengen and Non-

Schengen in T1; Schengen

possible in T2; no inter-

terminal OSS)

Partial (Domestic >

International in T5)

Partial

(Schengen only in T2;

other by exception; no inter-

terminal OSS)

Full

Change made to enable OSS Construction of a new pier level

Change of gate and stand

allocation

T1: an additional level was added

to a section of the terminal

Not yet required Terminal redevelopment

Development of an additional level to

terminal

Adaption of IT systems and baggage flows

Modification of door management

Modification of passenger flow

Dedicated OSS implementation

projectN Y N N N

Investment level

EUR 100+m

for pier level construction as part of

broader terminal redevelopment

No additional cost for change of

allocation

EUR 250m for T1 developments to

satisfy Schengen requirements

Part of original terminal design as

British Airways has a high

proportion of such Dom > Int flows

Major infrastructure development to

enable Schengen flows

EUR 60m

for additional level to terminal, as part of

developments to implement Schengen

flows

Plans to expand OSS Not required Not plannedEarly stages of discussion focusing

on flows from USANo plans Not required

Changes required to expand OSS Not required

Major infrastructural change to

Terminal 2

OSS flows will be integrated into

new Terminal 3 flows

Reciprocal convergence of security

arrangements between UK and

USA

Major infrastructural change

Movement of aircraft between

terminals

Change of aircraft stands

Major infrastructural change to other

terminals (separate passport control

and potentiall separate levels) and

consideration of how OSS

passengers connect between

terminals

Not required



Two of the five hub airports have fully implemented One Stop Security and are therefore

able to handle all OSS flows. In both cases, this has been made possible as part of a

broader airport development project:

▪ Amsterdam Airport Schiphol: OSS for non-Schengen / third country flows was

made possible by the development of an additional level, Level 2, to the pier serving

Terminals 2 and 3. Level 2 enables the segregation of non-OSS transfer passengers,

for transfer screening, from OSS and terminating passengers, who are directed along

Level 1. Schengen OSS flows were already served via the airport’s Schengen facility.

While the construction of the additional level was for One Stop Security handling

purposes, these developments took place as part of a broader airport development

programme. The overall objective of the programme was for the airport to move

from gate screening to central security which was also a requirement for the

implementation of OSS.

▪ Munich Airport: Implementation of One Stop Security was relatively straight-

forward for Munich Airport as the airport had already constructed an additional level

onto its Terminal 2 in 2006 to enable Schengen flows. With transfer screening on the

new upper floor, non-OSS transfer passengers can be directed to this level while OSS

passengers bypass screening via Level 5, flowing directly to passport control if

required. Additional considerations for the airport were door management for

passenger flows and IT modifications for OSS baggage flows, however these were at

no additional cost to the airport.

Terminal 1 at Munich Airport is typically a point-to-point terminal that only processes

a very low proportion of transfer passengers. The small number of OSS passengers

transferring at this terminal and between terminals are handled by exception.

A further two of the study airports with more than 40 million passengers per year have

international OSS in place, however only partially.

▪ Madrid-Barajas Airport is only able to offer OSS for Schengen passengers;

Terminal 4 was designed to handle these flows. The other three terminals are

somewhat older and would require significant redevelopment to enable One Stop

Security flows. Non-Schengen OSS flows can only be handled by exception, for PRM

passengers or groups of around 20 – 30 passengers, who are escorted to their

transfer flight once corridors are cleared of other passenger flows.

The key issue at this airport, as with most Spanish airports, is a result of the

positioning of border control within the arrivals / transfer flows. While the airport

would like to be in a position to offer full OSS, the operator states that it would be

very difficult to adapt the design of existing terminals and far easier to accommodate



in new building designs, however this would need to be part of future capital

expenditure plans.

▪ Frankfurt offers partial OSS across the airport. Terminal 1, which processes around

80% of passengers, is set up to offer full OSS, as a result of a EUR 250m

construction project to raise a section of the terminal by one level in order to

accommodate Schengen requirements. This development also made Non-Schengen

OSS possible in Terminal 1.

In Terminal 2, Schengen > Schengen OSS would be possible however it is not

required due to the terminal predominantly receiving point-to-point traffic. Non-

Schengen OSS is not possible due to the design of the terminal flows. There is no

capability (and no current requirement) to accommodate inter-terminal OSS

passenger flows.

The new Terminal 3 at Frankfurt Airport, expected to be commissioned in 2022/23, is

designed to be fully One Stop Security enabled. However, it will still not be possible

to offer inter-terminal OSS. There has been discussion of a long-term plan for a

potential inter-terminal bus or train service that will segregate OSS passenger flows;

this however remains a discussion point.

It is important to note a clear distinction between the two sets of hub airports discussed

above. The first two airports that have fully implemented One Stop Security are

effectively single terminal hub operations: one has multiple terminals which are all linked

by a large, single departure lounge; the other operates one major ‘hub terminal’ which

handles almost all of the transfer traffic, with a separate predominantly point-to-point

terminal.

The second pair of airports that have partially implemented One Stop Security have at

least two separate terminals with no physical link (e.g. corridor, bridge), with

distinctively different layouts and flows. In these instances, not all terminals are

appropriately structured to enable OSS. Notably, it is typically extremely challenging to

segregate OSS passengers transferring between terminals from other passengers,

without a dedicated service which would be both resource and cost intensive.

Heathrow, the final airport in this group, is currently only able to offer OSS for domestic

origin flights due to More Stringent Measures (MSMs) in place in the UK. In Terminal 5,

only domestic to international intra-terminal OSS flows are possible. These flows were

built into the original terminal design to accommodate the high proportion of British

Airways traffic of this nature set to use the terminal.



The potential to enable One Stop Security for passengers transferring at Heathrow from

the USA is currently in the early stages of discussion at senior level between UK and USA

authorities. As an airport with a number of separate terminals, and with US flights

operating from three of its terminals, it will be important for the operator to consider the

cost and feasibility of how OSS passengers would move within and between terminals.

Currently, based on IATA 2017 data, around 22% of Heathrow’s transfer traffic (ca. 1.9

mppa) originates from the USA, so this would be a key lane on which to introduce OSS

type arrangements.



11.3.2 Study airports of 20 – 40 mppa

Six study airports handle between 20 and 40 mppa. The table below summarises the level of OSS implementation at each of these hub

airports and the change and investment required to achieve this level of One Stop Security.

Table 13: An overview of the investment required to achieve current levels of OSS at study airports with 20 - 40 mppa

Brussels Copenhagen Dublin Lisbon Calgary Toronto

OSS implementation level Full Full

Partial / Trial

(Full OSS in Terminal 2; currently

trialling new transfer security

area and flows)

Partial

(Passengers: Schengen only;

Baggage: Full)

Partial / Trial

(currently trialling new OSS

infrastructure and flows with 2

airlines; potential to extend airport-

wide)

Partial

(Terminal 1 only)

Change made to enable OSSAdapted all airbridges to allow 2

(split) levels to be accessed.

No change required: all gates

have a multifunction for different

passenger types

New transfer security area

This facility is currently being trialled;

it has been in place for ca 3-4 months.

Modification of HBS system

parameters

Integration of OSS flows and

infrastructure into ongoing terminal

development programme

Integration of 2 screening points as part

of broader terminal development

programme


projectY N/A Y Y N N

Investment levelEUR 3 m

on airbridge adaptationNo additional cost EUR 15m No additional cost

EUR 46.2m

for the OSS aspect of the overall terminal

development programme

Unknown cost

However the OSS dedicated investment

was the cost of the two screening points

Plans to expand OSS Not required Not requiredThe airport is working to facilitate OSS

in T1Not planned

Yes, as part of the current OSS

integration programme. The trial

currently involved two airlines. The

airport would like to gradually roll out

across airlines.

Expansion of OSS would be when T3 is

reconfigured

Changes required to expand OSS Not required Not required Structural development of T1Infrastructural change to the

airport would be required

Gradual implementation of OSS

arrangements airport and airline wide.

This would need to be part of a broader

full terminal development



Two of the study airports in this size bracket are able to offer full One Stop Security.

▪ Copenhagen Airport was able to achieve this at no additional cost to the airport as

the infrastructure and flows already in place provided the flexibility to accommodate

different passenger types.

At Copenhagen, the gates in the main non-Schengen pier are multifunctional,

meaning they can handle Schengen and Non-Schengen passengers. When

passengers disembark, certain doors are opened and closed automatically, triggered

by the flight number (which defines the aircraft origin and whether the passengers

are eligible for OSS). OSS passengers are routed directly to passport control, which

takes them into the Schengen departure lounge. Different doors are opened for non-

OSS arrivals, and these passengers are directed to an upper floor, where they are

screened, before dropping down a level to pass through the same passport control as

OSS passengers and joining the Schengen departure flow. After each arrival the

corridors are swept to ensure no passengers or objects are left there. This used to be

manual process, but cameras have recently been installed to allow the task to be

carried out by viewing CCTV.

In addition to the primary non-Schengen pier described above, Copenhagen has

another set of stands which can facilitate non-Schengen OSS arrivals. These stands

are located at the opposite end of the Schengen area, and the introduction of a

passport control desk in the arrival flow has enabled non-Schengen OSS arrivals to

be processed before entering the Schengen area of the terminal. Non-OSS origin

flights cannot be processed here as there are no screening facilities.

▪ With Schengen and Non-Schengen passengers in separate buildings, Brussels

Airport implemented One Stop Security at a relatively low cost to the airport.

Investing around EUR 3 million, the airport adapted all airbridges to the Non-

Schengen building to enable 2 split levels to be accessed, therefore providing the

flexibility to segregate passenger flows.

Toronto and Lisbon airports, with 24 and 26.6 mppa respectively, offer One Stop

Security on a partial basis.

▪ OSS has been in place for 2 years at Toronto Airport, one of four Canadian Class 1

airports offering One Stop Security. As Air Canada’s main hub, it was important to

the airport to be able to process OSS passengers; however, reconfiguration of the

airport was necessary to achieve this. As part of a broader terminal construction

programme in Terminal 1, OSS flows were integrated into the design.



Figure 29: Terminal 1 Toronto Airport, with 65% of the airport’s passenger volume

The Terminal 1 pier has two levels, arriving and departing passengers move up or

down between levels (depending on where in the terminal they arrive). Non-OSS

passengers are 'captured' and rescreened and OSS passengers follow a separate

flow, without screening, on one side of the pier. Both flows clear the Canadian

border.

The OSS aspect of the terminal redevelopment expenditure required the installation

of two new screening points within the secure side of the terminal as well as enabling

the necessary flows to ensure OSS and non-OSS passengers are segregated.

Toronto Airport fully supports the expansion of One Stop Security at its facilities.

However, this can only be achieved when Terminal 3 is reconfigured, which again

would require a full terminal redevelopment.

▪ Lisbon Airport has Schengen flows in place, which benefit from OSS. However

significant infrastructure change to Terminal 1, the airport’s main international

terminal, would be required to adapt terminal flows to process Non-Schengen OSS

flows effectively.

The airport has, however, been able to easily adapt its Hold Baggage System by

adjusting the system parameters, at no additional cost, and is therefore able to offer

full OSS for baggage flows.

A further two airports in this category, Dublin and Calgary, are currently trialling new

One Stop Security related infrastructure and processes.

International passengers only

arrive at the Hammerhead end

of the main pier in T1.



▪ Until recently, to offer One Stop Security to Non-Schengen passengers, Dublin

Airport had to engage personnel to complete a sweep of airside areas to verify that

they were ‘clean’ after non-OSS flight arrivals. This was cumbersome and costly.

Over the past few months a new transfer security area has been opened and is being

trialled in Terminal 2, alongside new transfer flows to complement the new area. At a

cost of ca. EUR 15 million, the new screening area location and associated flows

provide the airport with the flexibility to segregate transfer passengers by ‘type’ and

therefore eliminate the need to manually security sweep corridors following the

arrival of Non-OSS flights.

One Stop Security is not currently possible in Terminal 1, however transfer volumes

are much lower here as a large proportion of flights in this terminal are point-to-

point. Configuring Terminal 1 to accommodate OSS flows would require

redevelopment of airside infrastructure to ensure flows are segregated.

▪ One Stop Security operations have been on trial at Calgary Airport for the past 2

years. These were introduced as part of a broader development project that involved

the commissioning of a brand-new international facility.

Figure 30: Airside areas of the new international facility at Calgary Airport

OSS flows were not part of the original plan for the new facility, however during the

design stage, it was agreed to integrate OSS into the developments. This added ca

EUR 46.2 m (CAD$70m) to the overall project.

The trial is currently taking place with two airlines, Air Canada and WestJet,

alongside CBSA (Canadian Border Security Agency). The airport is awaiting final

approval of its processes at State level to enable it to extend the trial out to other



carriers. The trial has received positive feedback from the airlines involved and more

are keen to get involved.

In terms of baggage, a temporary connection baggage process has initially been put

in place during developments (involving manual movements). Automatic connections

to the domestic baggage facility are now in place with links between domestic and

international flows scheduled to be in place by 2020.

Upon approval by the Appropriate Authorities and full implementation of all processes

for all relevant airlines, the airport will be able to offer full OSS for the routes

approved by Canadian authorities.

Calgary Airport provided a breakdown of the key OSS-associated costs that were part

of the overall international facility development programme:

Investment Value (EUR m)

New Automated Border Control kiosks 1.85

Connections centre 9.3

Int’l to Domestic corridor modifications 6.7

International to domestic baggage upgrade 11.5

Other 16.85

Table 14: Costs to integrate OSS into YYC’s new facility




Two of the study airports handle between 10 and 20 mppa. The table below summarises

the level of OSS implementation at each of these airports and the change and

investment required to achieve this level of One Stop Security.

Table 15: An overview of the investment required to achieve current levels of OSS at

study airports with 10 - 20 mppa

▪ Helsinki Airport offers OSS to all eligible passengers. OSS flows and passenger

segregation were integrated into the design of Terminal 2 prior to construction; any

future facilities will also be designed in this way. Additionally, what was previously

locally known as the Norwegian corridor (originally a pier for Norwegian flights as

part of a Scandinavian travel agreement before Norwegian flights were able to be

processed via Schengen facilities) was retro-fitted to meet EU Non-Schengen

requirements, meaning UK and Irish flights could arrive into this terminal. As a result

of these developments, there was no additional direct cost for the integration of One

Stop Security requirements.

In order to process different passenger types, the airport uses different doors in the

corridor to manage and steer the passenger flow, with doors / gates being closed to

prevent cross flows. This can involve retaining passengers on the aircraft for short

periods to ensure flows do not mix, especially if the previous flight arrives late.

Helsinki Prague

OSS implementation level FullPartial

(Schengen only)

Change made to enable OSS

Corridor refit to meet EU Non-Schengen

requirements; terminal infrastructure

developments

New terminal construction


projectN N

Investment level

No additional cost

All infrastructure changes were made as part of

the broader terminal development programme

No additional cost

All included in the construction of terminal 2 for

intra-Schengen operations

Plans to expand OSS Not required

No plans

The airport states that general transfer traffic and

therefore OSS transfers are too low.

Changes required to expand OSS Not required

Major infrastructure development.

It would be difficult and expensive to adapt T1 due

to all departure piers being on 1 level; significant

infrastructure change would be necessary to

separate flows. The solution would be to rebuild

the terminal.



The airport has some gates available with doors to divert passengers to passport

control or to bypass this function, but to accommodate OSS segregation, there are

limits to which stands / corridors can be used. The airport tries to plan the most

convenient sequence of flights and stands to minimise disruption and address all

requirements.

In terms of baggage facilities, an additional bypass flow was created, requiring a

diverter and additional conveyors. This was part of the automated baggage system

design for the new terminal. Typically, all transfer bags go to sortation and OSS bags

follow a different channel that bypasses screening. On some occasions, OSS transfer

bags may be transported directly from aircraft to aircraft, however this is by

exception and usually for very short connection bags if they can be easily identified.

▪ One Stop Security is in place for Schengen passengers only at Prague Airport. OSS

flows were included as part of the design of the newly constructed Terminal 2

commissioned for intra-Schengen operations.

In terms of baggage, typically all bags are processed through the Hold Baggage

System as it is quicker, easier and more convenient to send bags via the HBS for

sorting and distributing. The HBS does not have a function / route to divert bags past

the X-ray. If there is a short connection, the airline may take a low number of OSS

transfer bags and deliver directly to departing aircraft; this depends on airline choice

as to whether they decide to use the short connection process. In theory, the ‘short

connection’ process could be applied to all OSS bags. However, in reality bags will

continue to be sent to the HBS for speed and convenience.

To extend One Stop Security processing to Non-Schengen passengers, it would be

necessary for the airport to reconfigure Terminal 1, which would come at a high cost

for the airport. Due to the low transfer volumes, partly due to the lack of presence of

a main carrier, the incremental benefits realised by delivering full OSS would not

justify the cost of modifying the terminal to deliver it. Terminal 1 would not

therefore be redeveloped solely for OSS purposes; however if the airport decided to

modernise T1 in the future, it may integrate OSS flows as part of this project.




Two study airports handle between 1 and 10 mppa. The table below summarises the

level of OSS implementation at each of these airports and the change and investment

required to achieve this level of One Stop Security.

Table 16: An overview of the investment required to achieve current levels of OSS at

study airports with 1 - 10 mppa

Both Podgorica and Vilnius airports, with 1.06 and 3.76 mppa respectively, have fully

implemented One Stop Security at their airports.

▪ Podgorica Airport was able to achieve this for passenger and baggage operations

with no additional investment for the airport. The main requirement to make the

changes was to train ground handling (gate and ramp) staff in the processes and

procedures necessary to effectively handle OSS and non-OSS passenger and

baggage flows.

With very low levels of transfer passengers at its airport, there is currently no need

for the operator to consider expanding One Stop Security or developing infrastructure

solutions.

▪ Five years ago, Vilnius Airport made structural changes to improve its terminal,

and the decision was made to include changes to enable OSS as part of this. The

airport constructed a three-level building, into which the necessary infrastructure and

equipment changes were made to segregate passenger flows and meet OSS and

Schengen requirements. Non-Schengen and Schengen flows arrive on different levels

and transfer passengers are diverted accordingly. The OSS part of the expenditure

was EUR 926,000.

With transfer volumes growing very slowly, strong local competition from Riga, and

its main Non-Schengen flows being to / from Moscow, Kiev and Minsk, Vilnius Airport

does not foresee a growth in OSS demand unless Russia becomes an OSS third

country.

Podgorica Vilnius

OSS implementation level Full Full

Change made to enable OSSIntroduction of a new procedure for ground

handling staff

Structural changes:

passenger terminal reconstruction that included

reconstruction of 2 jet bridges and installation of 4 one-

way corridors. Dedicated OSS implementation

projectY Y

Investment level No additional cost EUR 926,000

Plans to expand OSS Not required

No plans to expand

Transfer passenger numbers have not increased as

expected

Changes required to expand OSS Not required Not required



11.3.5 Study airports of <1 mppa

One study airport, Ostend, handles less than 1 mppa. The table below summarises the

level of OSS implementation at this airport and the change and investment required to

achieve this level of One Stop Security.

Table 17: The investment required to achieve current levels of OSS at Ostend Airport

▪ In the period following the attack on Brussels Airport, Ostend Airport was required

to handle some of the displaced passengers from Brussels, with a small number of

these requiring transfer flights. As a point-to-point airport, Ostend Airport did not

have a process in place to handle transfer passengers at the time and therefore

provided dedicated resource to escort these passengers through the airport.

Although Ostend Airport does not currently host transfer flights, the airport saw the

opportunity to integrate transfer passenger flows into its design, during a recent

redevelopment phase, and set itself up for potential future transfer traffic. The

investment required to ensure OSS and Non-OSS flows are segregated was the

addition of three doors within airside corridors.

Ostend

OSS implementation level Full

Change made to enable OSS

Addition of 3 doors to arrivals / transfer

flows, as part of a broader terminal

development project

Dedicated OSS implementation project YInvestment level ca EUR 6,000

Plans to expand OSSNot required

Currently no transfer traffic

Changes required to expand OSS None



11.4 Direct financial benefits of OSS

All of the study airports had difficulty in quantifying the benefits associated with One

Stop Security. However, one clear benefit of eliminating the need to security screen

transfer passengers is the saving that can be made in the transfer security costs.

Using a representative transfer security fee per passenger of EUR 4.89 (an average of

the fees provided by three study airports) and estimating the size of the potential OSS

market in the EU/EAA and Switzerland based on data provide by IATA, we established

the potential savings in terms of transfer security fees for that market i.e. the reduction

in costs (fees) if all eligible OSS passengers were to be screened. The table below shows

the potential financial benefit if all passengers transferring through EU/EEA/Swiss

airports were to be processed as OSS passengers.

Table 18: Potential security savings if OSS applied to all transfer passengers in EU/EEA

and Swiss airports

As the table above shows, based on the current status of OSS arrangements, the

annual potential savings, if transfer passengers from all countries globally were

OSS eligible, are approximately EUR 571m, with EUR 479m of that amount

realisable from existing OSS countries.

However, from our study research and understanding of the state of implementation at

the 20 largest EU airports, we know that this EUR 479m should be reduced to provide a

more realistic level of savings. Specifically:

▪ OSS is not OSS is not in place in the UK or in Stockholm airports

▪ Partial (typically Schengen only) OSS is implemented in a number of other airports.

The following table takes these factors into account and provides an estimate of the

maximum security fee savings currently realised from OSS in the EU/EEA and

Potential OSS market for EU/EEA/Swiss

airports Transfer pax % of total

Theoretical

security cost

savings

Current OSS market (EU/EEA, Switzerland &

3rd countries) 97,997,498 84% 479,208,000€

3rd countries discussing OSS with EU 2,731,668 2% 13,358,000€

Untapped market 16,098,252 14% 78,720,000€

TOTAL 116,827,418 100% 571,286,000€



Switzerland 3 and illustrates that OSS is implemented to approximately 71% of its

current potential, achieving EUR 339m of annual savings.

Table 19: Estimated security cost savings realised from OSS in EU/EEA and Switzerland

At a market or country level these savings are significant and a clear demonstration of

the financial benefits of One Stop Security. However, since much of the potential benefit

of OSS is already realised, at an airport-level it is often difficult to financially justify the

investment required for the marginal gain (e.g. non-Schengen OSS traffic) that remains.

Taking two of our study airports as an example:

Table 20: Remaining transfer security fee savings to be realised at two study airports

3 Excludes data from Swiss/EEA airports and from smaller airports outside the EU top 20; therefore, data

shows maximum savings assuming these airports offer full OSS or have no transfer passengers.

Realised savings from current OSS market at

EU/EAA airports (based on top 20 EU airports)

Transfer

passengers

% of OSS

market

Potential OSS

saving

Current OSS market (EU/EEA, Switzerland &

3rd countries) 97,997,498 100% € 479,208,000

No OSS in place (UK, ARN) (12,739,675) 13% 62,297,040-€

Schengen only airports (assumes approx.

60% of transfers are Schengen) (15,875,595) 27% 77,631,696-€

Revised OSS savings (current) 69,382,229 71% 339,279,264€

Airport 1 Airport 2

Departing pax (m) in 2017 26.5 24

Departing pax in 2017 26,500,000 24,000,000.00

% of total transfer passengers 33.0% 30.0%

Total transfer pax (m) 8,745,000 7,200,000

Current % transfer pax that are OSS 56.0% 60.0%

Number of current OSS pax (m) 4,897,200 4,320,000

Current OSS savings in EUR (based on av

EUR 4.89 transfer security fee)€ 23,947,308 € 21,124,800

Potential % OSS transfer pax if all

OSS flows are enabled60.0% 70.0%

Total number of potential OSS pax

(m)5,247,000 5,040,000

Total potential OSS savings in EUR (based on av EUR 4.89 transfer security fee)

€ 25,657,830 € 24,645,600

Remaining potential to be realised in

EUR (based on av EUR 4.89 transfer

security fee)

€ 1,710,522 € 3,520,800



The two example airports above would both require significant infrastructure

reconfiguration to equip their facilities to handle transfer traffic that they are not

currently able to treat as OSS. At both airports, the investment does not justify the

additional savings which could be realised from additional OSS passengers; therefore,

the changes to enable these flows are not likely to take place until the airports are

developing the terminals as part of broader expansion plans.

11.4.1 Beneficiaries of reduced airport security costs

Eleven of the study airports noted that by screening fewer transfer passengers, as a

result of One Stop Security, fewer screening staff hours, and potentially less screening

equipment, was required at transfer screening facilities.

Although as one airport stated when discussing these benefits, “it is not easy to promote

‘less’ security”.

While it is the airport which physically reduces its costs by having to re-screen fewer

passengers, it is not only the airport who benefits financially. While the cost savings

achieved from not re-screening transfer passengers are real, the variation of charging

mechanisms in existence in different countries and at different airports means that the

direct beneficiary of the cost reduction is not always easily identifiable. In many cases

reductions in security costs ultimately flow back to the passengers in the form of reduced

airport passenger charges, so financially, the passenger may stand to benefit the most

from OSS rather than the airport.

11.5 Other airport and airline benefits of One Stop Security

As well as the direct cost reductions described above, airports and airlines derive a

number of significant, sometimes less tangible benefits from OSS.

All of the study airports that currently offer some form of OSS (i.e. all except Ostend)

agreed that the initiative, once implemented, results in benefits for the airport and its

stakeholders.

The following diagram illustrates the proportion of the 15 airports with some OSS in

place that cited each benefit.

70% fewer transfer passengers need to be screened in Dublin Airport’s

Terminal 2 following the recent commissioning of the new transfer screening area and

new passenger flows. The new developments are currently still in trial phase;

however, the airport is already welcoming the benefits.



Figure 31: The key benefits of One Stop Security and the proportion of study airports

that named these as benefits to their business and stakeholders

While in theory many of these benefits should be quantifiable, in practice it is difficult for

the airports to quantify the proportion of the benefit attributable to OSS versus other

initiatives, and historically there has been no reason to attempt to measure these

benefits. We asked all of the study airports, and other survey airports, for the same

information regarding benefits and all expressed a difficulty in providing this level of

detail. The exceptions to this were connection times and passenger security fees.

11.5.1 Reduced connection times

Five of the eleven study airports and one of the survey airport respondents that quoted

reduced connection times as a benefit of One Stop Security were able to quantify the

time savings.

Two airports experienced a connection time reduction of up to 30 minutes and four of

at least 15 minutes. This benefit is typically the result of eliminating the need for

passengers to be screened and the associated dwell and waiting times for screening and

Lower screeningcosts73%

Quickerconnection times

73%

Better passenger experience

60%

Attract more passengers

20%

Increased retail spend20%

Attract more airlines20%

Better service for airlines20%

Fewer delays / missed

connections13%

OSS

Benefits



redressing / repacking. Some airports also cited reduced walking time as a contributor to

the time saving.

Although OSS speeds up connection times, this does not necessarily translate to a

reduction in the airport published MCT (minimum connection time) which is one of the

key differentiators for a hub airport (airlines and passengers prefer to fly through hubs

where the MCT is low as it reduces the end to end journey time). MCTs are not published

for different passenger flows, so if a terminal has a mix of OSS and non-OSS transfers,

the published MCT will reflect the longer, non-OSS transfer time. Conversely, if all

passengers on a given transfer flow are eligible for OSS (e.g. in a Schengen or OSS only

terminal) then it would be feasible that OSS could result in a reduction in published MCT.

Even those airports which could not reduce published MCTs indicated that OSS

makes connections more robust, with passengers less likely to miss their

departing flights.

Resource planning for transfer security screening is often challenging since demand

fluctuates away from the plan in line with late and early arriving aircraft. This means

airports often have to either over-resource the transfer screening area in order to

maintain service levels, or service levels suffer if aircraft arrivals do not match the

planned demand. Reduced screening requirements for OSS passengers can benefit non-

OSS passengers who do need to be processed through screening, because a lower

overall demand at screening can reduce the size of the peaks caused by off schedule

arrivals, potentially reducing delays for the passengers going through screening.

Reduced flight delays were noted as perceived benefits and a direct consequence of the

time saved by eliminating passenger screening and the associated waiting time from the

transfer process. No airports, however, were able to provide statistics demonstrating

that delays have reduced as a consequence of OSS.

Three airports suggested that a reduced MCT, particularly if flights can be promoted as

short connections, makes their airport more favourable amongst passengers and

influences their decision regarding the airport at which they choose to transfer. However,

this benefit could not be quantified.

Reduced connection times are beneficial for airlines as well as airports. Shorter

connection times reduce the risk that a passenger misses his or her connecting flight if

the inbound flight is delayed, particularly if the airport MCT allows time for security

screening of those passengers who need to be re-screened. Also, many passengers book

flights based on the end to end journey time, which, for flights involving a connection,

can be significantly influenced by the time spent on the ground in the hub airport.



Airlines therefore prefer to fly through airports offering low connection times, which in

turn provides increased business opportunity for those airports with such capability.

11.5.2 Other airport and airline benefits

For many of the benefits quoted during our research, the study airports did not have the

relevant detail to quantify their statements. Some points were simply not quantifiable,

for others it was difficult for the airports to identify and define the proportion of the data

that could be attributed to One Stop Security. These benefits are outlined below:

Improved passenger facilitation and experience

60% of the study airports felt that One Stop Security contributed to an overall positive

travel experience for passengers. Various statements were made to define how they felt

the experience was enhanced:

smoother passenger journey; better passenger facilitation; better transfer

product; quicker connections; shorter walking distances; an easier process

As mentioned above, this positive passenger experience may play a role in influencing

the transfer airport choice of passengers.

Increased retail spend

Increased retail spend was a benefit quoted by a number of airports. With more time

available in the airside departure zone between flights, as a result of not having to wait

at passenger security screening, there is theoretically a greater opportunity for

passengers to purchase retail and F&B. However, after examining available retail spend

data, airports found it difficult to identify if / how they could determine the direct impact

of OSS on retail spend. As one airport stated: “Every additional minute (in the departure

lounge) is an opportunity to spend, however we are not sure that the benefits are

quantifiable.”

Other airports had slightly different views. One felt that passengers would see OSS as an

opportunity to benefit from shorter connections, not choosing to spend additional time at

the airport and as a result not contributing to increased retail sales. Another airport felt

that their OSS passengers were not the sector that took advantage of their airport retail

offering; “Russian and Chinese passengers were the main contributors in terms of retail

spend and OSS passengers were less likely to have an increasing effect on sales”.



Improved competitive position of the airport

A small number of the study airports felt that by offering One Stop Security they were

giving their airport a competitive edge. One Canadian airport felt that the relatively

recent introduction of One Stop Security processes was enabling it to improve its hub

and spoke product, and therefore directly compete for routes against other national

airports.

In addition to passengers choosing an airport for its shorter connection times, airports

felt that by offering One Stop Security they were making their airport more attractive to

airlines. As mentioned earlier, airlines will try to minimise end to end journey times for

passengers, which is one of the factors considered when deciding which flight to book.

Potential for increased aircraft utilisation

It had been suggested that a reduced MCT resulting from OSS could reduce aircraft

turnround times and therefore increase aircraft utilisation and rotations, saving large

amounts of money for airlines. However, aircraft turnround times are based on the time

it takes to unload, clean, security check and reload the aircraft and not the airport MCT.

A lower MCT does not mean the aircraft takes off earlier, simply that passengers who

could not otherwise have made that connection may now do so.

While not within the scope of this study, another benefit of recognition of security

equivalence could be that if an aircraft is security checked at an OSS origin, it may not

need to have a security check carried out at the destination before boarding for the

onward flight takes place. This could potentially reduce turnround times by removing the

security check from the turnround process. However, following discussions with IATA and

A4E, it was not possible to determine whether this saving would be significant enough to

affect aircraft utilisation, as many other factors have to be considered when determining

aircraft rotations.

11.6 Security benefits of OSS: raising global security standards

With aviation security remaining a priority on every State’s and airport’s agenda, known

and trusted security standards amongst States help to alleviate the demands on national

airport infrastructure. One of the main non-financial benefits cited by study participants

was the potential for OSS to help with global alignment and overall improvement of

security standards. For States to participate in OSS they must be able to demonstrate

sufficient levels of security screening; the ICAO recommended equivalence verification



process is premised upon the States involved complying, at a minimum, with Annex 17

Standards. In many cases for joining countries, this may involve making improvements

to existing security processes, which has a broader security benefit for all parties using

their airports.

Currently, when considered globally, security standards and procedures can vary greatly

by nation and airport which can make it difficult to compare security outcomes. This

creates a barrier to creation of a ‘global’ aviation security community and while countries

are unable to agree equivalence in security outcomes, a barrier to OSS will remain. The

USA, for example, has a specific set of security screening requirements for passengers

travelling from the USA, that the authorities feel are not fulfilled by other global States;

therefore, every transferring passenger is required to be processed through US airport

passenger screening before travelling on an onward flight 4.

Achieving a consensus of international security standards, including processes,

procedures and outcomes, that are commonly performed, audited and reported

internationally amongst participant States and airports would have significant security,

financial and service benefits for the aviation industry and broader community.

Equally, equipment manufacturers currently need to develop equipment and algorithms

to meet different States’ requirements; closer alignment of standards should enable

costs to be reduced in this area, benefitting airports, and ultimately passengers, through

reduced security costs.

The One Stop Security initiative already goes some way to realising a global aviation

security community. Expanding this programme further would help to promote common,

high levels of security among participant States and airports and to align the variation in

security levels that currently exists between States with the best in class security

regimes.

To extend this initiative and realise the greater potential of the global opportunity, which

would entail recognising security equivalence with nations with potentially quite different

security processes and standards to those of current OSS participants, the OSS

programme requires a robust approach to ensuring future participating States achieve a

set of ‘OSS eligible’ standards. Following the ICAO recommended process for the

recognition of equivalence of security measures provides a structured schedule for initial

verification of equivalence, validation, formal recognition and then ongoing verification

4 Exceptions are passengers travelling from airports with whom the US has pre-clearance arrangements.



which can be used by any State wishing to establish recognition of security equivalence

with other countries.

11.7 Political benefits of OSS

One Stop Security has the potential to play a role in improved socio-political relations

between participant countries. Working to achieve the security benefits addressed earlier

in this report can contribute to stronger international ties as authorities work together to

define, assess and implement common security standards. A collaborative aviation

community working towards a consensus of internationally recognised aviation security

outcomes can have benefits reaching far beyond the direct sphere of One Stop Security.

Better national security standards and processes make a country and its airports more

attractive travel destinations and, from a transfer passenger perspective, would facilitate

quicker and easier travel if part of the OSS initiative. Overall passenger security fee

savings, alongside other opportunities to reduce the cost of travel for passengers

travelling from OSS countries, would also be of political interest when looking to

maintain affordable means of travel.

Improved, secure transportation standards and facilities have the potential to influence

travel choices and encourage more travel to and within countries. As a consequence,

increased travel can strengthen tourism, improve international relations politically as

well as airport to airport and airport to airline relations as certain traffic routes grow, and

improve the competitive position of certain airports. Smooth, efficient processes can

contribute to positive experiences of a country and airport.

Conversely, negative feedback may result if expected OSS benefits have not been met.

In conversation with the Montenegro Civil Aviation Agency, it became apparent that

Montenegro originating passengers are becoming disgruntled as they are not able to

benefit from OSS transfer arrangements at certain European airports because these

airports are not set up to handle (all or some) OSS third country flows.

When asked about the benefits of offering OSS at its airports, one State responded:

“There are significant economic benefits for tourism, trade and business development

with appropriate air links. From an aviation security perspective, it supports a more

risk-based approach.”



C. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

12. Conclusions

12.1 Status quo of One Stop Security

In the context of aviation security, recognition of equivalence is defined as the

acceptance and formal approval by a State that security measures carried out in another

State are at least equivalent, in terms of the security outcome, to its own security

measures.

▪ With the exception of the UK, which cites More Stringent Measures (MSMs) as a

reason for allowing OSS only from (most) UK domestic origins5, all other EU6 / EEA

States and Switzerland recognise equivalence in security measures from all countries

with which the EU has OSS arrangements (Canada; Faroe Islands; Greenland;

Guernsey; Isle of Man; Jersey; Montenegro; Singapore; USA)

▪ Canada allows OSS at four Class 1 airports only; equivalence is recognised with the

EU/EEA, Switzerland and the USA only, but not from other EU recognised third

countries.

▪ The USA does not allow any inbound OSS, with the exception of flights from specified

pre-clearance airports.

12.2 Reasons for lack of implementation at airport level

While One Stop Security is widely recognised at a State level across the EU/EEA,

implementation at an airport level is more varied. Legislation stipulates that once

measures of a third country are recognised as equivalent, that country is listed in the

relevant EU legislation and becomes part of the EU legal system. As such, application

of OSS is not optional for airports, though obstacles to implementation relating to

airport infrastructure can allow for exemption until the necessary modifications are

introduced.

For airports of sufficient size to handle significant volumes of transfer passengers, all

appear to facilitate OSS to the maximum extent possible within existing infrastructure

5 Including from Jersey, Guernsey and Isle of Man which are subject to UK security rules.

6 Throughout the study, we received no response from the Estonian State or airports to requests for

information about OSS so have no independent confirmation that OSS applies in Estonia.



constraints. However, some airports have gone farther than others to deliver OSS

capability for all eligible passenger flows.

Our study highlighted significant variation in OSS implementation at an airport level,

with some airports fully implementing OSS, some partially implementing and others not

implementing OSS at all.

▪ Small airports handling less than 10 mppa, overwhelmingly said that either they offer

“full” or “no” OSS capability. These airports typically have minimal or no transfer

passengers, which explains why many do not offer OSS. Those which do offer OSS

process those passengers using a manual escort process to segregate OSS

passengers from those requiring re-screening. Although the number of small

airports not offering OSS is high, the number of transfer passengers affected

is very low.

▪ Larger airports are more likely to offer partial or full OSS. Schengen to Schengen

OSS flows are almost always facilitated; creation of the Schengen area

necessitated airport modifications to segregate Schengen passengers from others,

and since all Schengen origins are also OSS origins, the segregation for these

passengers for OSS has been straightforward.

▪ A number of medium - large airports have invested heavily to facilitate OSS

capability for all eligible passengers. In many cases, the infrastructure changes

required have been incorporated into other modernisation plans, for example new

terminal developments or strategic shifts to move from gate to centralised screening.

▪ For those medium – large airports which have not fully implemented OSS, the key

reason for lack of full implementation centres around the costs and physical

challenges of creating a method of segregating flows of inbound non-Schengen

transfer passengers from OSS and non-OSS origins. These passengers typically make

up less than 50% of transfer passengers so the additional proportion who would

benefit from OSS over and above Schengen passengers does not always justify the

expense of modifying the airport infrastructure. However, the necessary

infrastructure changes are more likely to be made when these changes bring

additional benefits for the airport, for example increased capacity associated with a

broader terminal development. To this end, a number of airports stated that they

would incorporate delivery of full OSS capability into future terminal

development plans.



12.3 Cost of implementing OSS

The cost and challenge of implementing OSS fully at an airport is very much dependent

on the layout of the airport; however, based on our research this investment is usually

either:

Investment type Investment

cost

OSS numbers most

appropriate for

Manual escort Manpower Low Low

Infrastructure

development

Creation of a separate

corridor / flow from arrivals High Medium/High

Infrastructure

development

Creation of an additional

terminal level High High

Table 21: Summary of typical investments made to achieve OSS at airport-level

A small number of study airports were able to achieve full OSS with relatively low

incremental capital expenditure; benefiting from the existing layout of their airport they

were able to create segregated flows by, for example, adapting airbridges or capitalising

on pre-existing multifunctional gate infrastructure.

12.4 Benefits of One Stop Security

12.4.1 Airport, airline and passenger benefits

OSS can deliver a wide range of benefits for States, airports, airlines and passengers,

though many of these are difficult to quantify. The most quantifiable benefit results from

the cost savings which can be made by not re-screening OSS transfer passengers.

Using an average transfer security fee of EUR 4.89 per passenger, our analysis identified

the potential annual EU/EEA/Swiss OSS market savings to be EUR 571 m, if OSS was

applied globally (Table 22 below). Based on the existing countries with which the EU

currently recognises equivalence, there is potential for annual savings of EUR 479 m in

transfer security fees, of which we estimate EUR 339m have already been realised.

Table 22: Table showing the potential OSS market size and value of OSS within the

EU/EEA/Swiss market in terms of transfer passenger security fee savings


Transfer

passengers

% of

market

Potential OSS

saving






Only 71% of eligible passengers are currently processed as OSS (based on the existing

OSS market and including potential from the UK). Significant further savings can

therefore be achieved by EU/EEA/Swiss airports implementing OSS fully. Equally,

expanding OSS to other countries will generate more savings to the aviation industry

and to passengers as only 59% of all transfer passengers in the EU/EEA and Switzerland

are currently processed as OSS.

As well as direct cost savings, a major benefit of OSS identified for airports and airlines

was reduced connection times, often between 15 and 30 minutes, leading to an

improved passenger experience and less missed connections. Shorter connection times

also make an airport more attractive to airlines as a hub, since one of the differentiators

in passengers choosing who to fly with is total journey time; a short connection time can

therefore influence a passenger’s decision to fly with a specific airline on a specific route.

12.4.2 Global benefits of OSS

At a macro level, OSS contributes to an overall alignment and improvement in global

security standards. For States to participate in OSS they must be able to demonstrate

equivalence in security screening; in many cases for joining countries, this may involve

making improvements to existing processes, which has a broader security benefit of

improving global security outcomes. Alignment of security standards can also reduce

costs for equipment manufacturers if they do not need to develop solutions to meet

multiple States’ requirements. Ultimately, focussing R&D on common objectives should

improve detection capabilities more effectively than if development resource is spread

thinly responding to multiple requirements.

One Stop Security has the potential to play a role in improved socio-political relations

between participant countries. Working to achieve equivalence of security measures can

contribute to stronger international relations as authorities work together to define,

assess, implement and review security measures. Better national security standards and

processes make a country and its airports more attractive travel destinations and could

encourage more travel to and within OSS countries.

12.5 Types of airports likely to benefit most from OSS

Airports that would benefit most from OSS are naturally those with significant numbers

of transfer passengers. As the study showed, most transfer passengers fly through a

relatively small number of airports, so although the number of airports where OSS is

implemented may not be high, the percentage of transfer passengers covered by OSS is

much higher.



Airports in the Schengen area benefit from OSS for Schengen origin passengers with

little additional investment, since Schengen segregation effectively creates an OSS route

for these passengers. Typically, these OSS flows are already in place; therefore, the

potential to expand OSS at an airport level lies in implementing OSS solutions to

segregate non-Schengen transfer flows.

Categories of airports which benefit most from OSS are:

▪ The largest hub airports (>40m ppa), due to the high volumes of transfer

passengers; however, their size and the fact that many are multi-terminal (separate

buildings) present challenges to full implementation, both in terms of cost of

modifying multiple terminals and the complexity of segregating OSS inter-terminal

transfers.

▪ Hub airports where all or most transfer passengers are processed within the same

terminal building, since infrastructure changes only need to take place in one area,

and there is no requirement to manage segregated inter-terminal flows.

▪ Medium sized airports appear to be more able to offer full OSS than the major hubs.

This could be because:

o The airports are typically single terminal / single building operations

o The airports are more likely to be regional hubs than global, with a larger

proportion of transfer passengers being from Schengen origins than is the case

with the global hubs. However, expanding OSS from Schengen to full OSS

generally requires significant infrastructure change to create the necessary

additional segregated passenger flows.

The study has shown that, with some exceptions, airports are unlikely to undertake a

multi-million EUR investment programme exclusively to realise a marginal increase in

OSS uptake. A number of airports involved in the study are holding off on expanding

OSS capability until the necessary segregated flows can be integrated into future

expansion plans.

12.6 Expanding OSS to new countries

Expanding recognition of security equivalence to more countries is beneficial for a variety

of reasons, both at a State level and an airport/airline/passenger level:

▪ At an airport, airline and passenger level, the benefit is realised most when

significant numbers of transfer passengers can bypass screening, with a number of

airports involved in this study identifying Russia and China as origins which would

provide significant benefit if they became OSS 3rd countries.



▪ At a State level, identifying countries to include in OSS is more complex. There must

be confidence that the prospective country has or will have a security regime in place

that provides equivalence, and also the assurance that this will remain so going

forward and can be audited. It is important to understand the expected benefits

before embarking on what is a significant undertaking in seeking equivalence.

o The “macro” benefits of aligning and improving security outcomes and improved

state relations described earlier should result from the process, but it is important

to also understand the potential benefits at a more micro, passenger level.

o For example, if the prospective country’s main airports handle limited numbers of

transfer passengers, they may not see the benefit in making significant

infrastructure changes to implement OSS locally.

o Similarly, the OSS hubs through which the 3rd country passengers transfer may

not have implemented OSS for all passenger flows, so passengers flying from the

new OSS country may not actually benefit from OSS and may still need to be re-

screened at the transfer airport.

This was the case with a number of routes from Montenegro, where, on becoming

an OSS 3rd country, passengers found that when transferring through some

EU/EEA and Swiss airports they were still being subjected to re-screening. On

investigation it appears that these airports have not fully implemented OSS for all

non-Schengen flows, and given the low transfer passenger volumes generated,

there was little commercial benefit for the airports to make changes to enable

OSS for the Montenegro flights. As a result, transfer passengers originating in

Montenegro only benefit from OSS at certain EU/EAA and Swiss airports and do

not receive the full benefits they expected.

13. Recommendations

13.1 Alignment of security standards

For OSS to work effectively on a global scale it must be clear to States, airports and

security equipment manufacturers what they need to aim for in terms of meeting “OSS

eligible” security standards. While ICAO’s Annex 17 provides that defacto standard,

some States will inevitably choose to set their own standards which exceed this. This

variance in standards will inevitably make it challenging to establish equivalence based

on Annex 17.

However, it is still possible to achieve recognition of equivalence for States who set

higher standards, but these standards must be transparent to countries which seek



equivalence with them. If the benefits are sufficient, whether political or economic, it is

feasible that other countries will seek to establish equivalence with these States on a

bilateral basis. For example, large numbers of US origin passengers transfer through UK

airports, providing an incentive for the UK and US governments to discuss options for

recognition of equivalence. Such discussions should be encouraged, as, even though

they do not fit in with a “global standard of equivalence” they can achieve the same

outcomes – improved security, reduced costs and an improved process for passengers.

Similarly, more “local” and targeted unilateral recognitions of security equivalence, such

as those established by Turkey and Qatar, should be encouraged.

13.2 OSS development strategy

OSS would benefit from a clear development strategy addressing two key areas:

1) a mechanism to evaluate which States would be most beneficial to include in OSS and

2) development of airport infrastructure and changing operational processes at airports

in existing OSS states to facilitate full OSS implementation.

13.2.1 OSS third country selection

Selecting countries to work with as potential future OSS third countries must consider a

number of factors, as well as the most obvious one of likelihood of achieving and

maintaining security equivalence. Considerable effort goes into achieving that goal, and

it is important to first consider the benefits that will result, and which stakeholders will

benefit:

▪ At an operational level, parties involved should seek an understanding of how many

passengers transferring through the joining country’s airports could benefit from

OSS, and what changes the airports must make to facilitate this. It is clear from

States within the EU/EAA where OSS is already agreed, that even though the State

has signed up to OSS, the airports may encounter significant infrastructure

challenges to facilitate it, reducing the benefits realised for passengers.

Understanding the potential benefit in terms of passenger numbers and what is

needed to deliver OSS in terms of physical and process change at the affected

airports provides transparency regarding potential realisable benefits.

▪ Assessing whether destination hub airports in existing OSS countries would be able

to handle OSS flows for potential new States may be a useful part of the decision-

making process, especially for smaller countries considering becoming an OSS State.

▪ To maximise the benefits of OSS it is logical for future OSS discussions to focus on

high volume transfer lanes. For these routes, or even specific long-haul flights with a



large number of transfer passengers, an airport may be able to cost justify

infrastructure developments to handle passengers from potential new OSS States, if

not already possible.

13.2.2 Airport infrastructure and process development

While all EU and non-EU Schengen States participate in and encourage OSS, this study

has highlighted that a significant number of airports do not currently offer OSS to all

eligible passenger flows, primarily because their infrastructure does not support it:

▪ States should encourage airports to include OSS capability in all future

terminal developments, increasing the benefits over time as airport

expansions progress throughout OSS countries. States should also ensure

airports understand that OSS is not optional, and that if they can offer the

capability, then they should do so, with “infrastructure constraints” being

seen as short-term reasons for non-implementation.

▪ Airports in future OSS States with relevant volumes and passenger flows should be

made aware of OSS discussions and how their airport could benefit economically as

this may influence operators in the timing and nature of future facility upgrades.

▪ Some airports receiving OSS traffic, but not able to handle it as OSS, may only

require relatively low-cost infrastructure changes to enable some OSS flows.

Identifying these airports and working with them to justify and ultimately make these

changes would be a first stage to addressing the lack of implementation at some

airports.

▪ Equally, process solutions can be introduced to facilitate low volume / low frequency

OSS transfers. Since some airports have already done this successfully, there may be

opportunities for them to work with other airports to help develop solutions which

provide a more comprehensive OSS package for all transferring passengers, thereby

increasing the overall attractiveness of OSS to potential joining States.



14. Acknowledgements

We would like to thank, in no particular order, the many stakeholders involved in the

preparation and execution of this project including, but not exclusive to:

▪ The European Commission: DG MOVE

▪ The Appropriate Authorities of the 33 States that responded to the questionnaire

▪ Study airports:

o Amsterdam Airport Schiphol

o Brussels Airport

o Calgary Airport

o Copenhagen Airport

o Dublin Airport

o Frankfurt Airport

o Heathrow

o Helsinki Airport

o Lisbon Airport

o Madrid Airport / Aena

o Munich Airport

o Ostend Airport

o Podgorica Airport

o Prague Airport

o Toronto Airport

o Vilnius Airport

▪ Hamad International Airport

▪ TAV

▪ ACI EUROPE

▪ Airports 4 Europe (A4E)

▪ IATA

▪ Montenegro Civil Aviation Agency

▪ TSA

▪ Transport Canada



D. APPENDICES

1. Appendix 1: Questionnaire to States / Appropriate

Authorities

Please see attached document: Appendix 1 FI OSS Obj 1

2. Appendix 2: Questionnaire to Airports

Please see attached document: Appendix 2 OSS Survey Obj 2 Airports



3. Appendix 3: Top 46 third countries from which the EU

received transfer traffic in 2017

1. Country

RankingOrigin country

OSS Status

with EU

Transfers

in EU

1 United States Existing OSS 7,838,711

2 Canada Existing OSS 1,927,390

3 China 1,581,003

4 India 1,454,043

5 Russian Fed. 1,285,663

6 Brazil 1,180,402

7 Japan Potential OSS 1,002,851

8 Israel Potential OSS 963,423

9 Ukraine 715,786

10 Mexico 558,866

11 Morocco 550,971

12 South Africa 541,192

13 Turkey 537,678

14 Argentina 522,042

15 South Korea 475,676

16 Thailand 467,427

17 Cuba 442,313

18 United Arab Emirates 432,660

19 Hong Kong Potential OSS 428,802

20 Egypt 366,275

21 Lebanon 359,397

22 Serbia Potential OSS 336,592

23 Peru 319,109

24 Nigeria 317,429

25 Singapore Existing OSS 310,365

26 Chile 308,763

27 Dominican Republic 296,697

28 Colombia 293,788

29 Algeria 279,785

30 Senegal 244,490

31 Saudi Arabia 237,726

32 Albania 225,322

33 Tunisia 217,427

34 Jordan 195,515

35 Kenya 194,500

36 Mauritius 171,262

37 Ghana 169,286

38 Iran 167,119

39 Ecuador 162,675

40 Panama 155,363

41 Bosnia and Herzegovina 126,622

42 Cameroon 125,861

43 Malaysia 107,770

44 Guadeloupe 104,068

45 Ivory Coast (Cote d'Ivoire) 103,712

46 Kazakhstan 102,569



Contact

For questions or more information about this report, we invite you to contact us at:

David Calder

M: +44 (0) 7990 572 895

E: [email protected]

www.oandiconsulting.com

o&i consulting ltd.

117a Guildford Street,

Chertsey, KT16 9AS, UK

mailto:[email protected]

Documents

Study on economic and other benefits of one stop security arrangements › transport › sites › transport › files › ... · 2018-11-23 · European Commission Study on One Stop