Summary
Airport IT support models must change because passenger demand, equipment criticality and operational risk vary throughout the day, while many contracts still rely on fixed staffing and uniform SLAs. A more dynamic model uses operational data to align engineering capacity, location and priority with the moments that matter most.
Why airport operational support models must change
Passenger demand, automation and data are reshaping airport operations. Yet many IT support contracts remain tied to fixed staffing and uniform response times. ESP Global Services CEO Andy Jenner explains why the support model now needs to follow the rhythm and risk of the airport itself.
Interview with Andy Jenner, CEO, ESP Global Services
When Andy Jenner talks about airport IT support, he starts with the operation rather than the technology. An airport can move from intense early-morning passenger pressure to a pronounced mid-morning trough, then build again around later waves of flights. The importance of a kiosk, bag-drop unit or gate device changes with the passengers and processes around it.
The support contract, however, may not change at all. It can specify the same engineering presence and the same response target throughout the day, treating every potential failure as though it creates the same operational consequence.
“Every airport has its own biorhythm. The modern operating service model should now align to it.”
Andy Jenner, CEO, ESP Global Services
Why the pressure is increasing
The operating challenge is growing. ACI World confirmed that global airports handled 9.8 billion passengers in 2025 and forecasts 10.2 billion in 2026. This is not simply more volume. It means more intensive use of passenger-processing systems, tighter recovery windows and greater consequences when technology interrupts flow.
Billion passengers
10.2bn global airport passengers forecast for 2026, up 3.9% year on year.
Source: ACI World Airport Traffic Forecasts 2025-2054, January 2026
At the same time, airports are digitising rapidly. SITA’s 2025 Air Transport IT Insights reports that 77% of airports use self-service kiosks, 63% use automated bag drop and 60% use AI in passenger-flow management. The operating estate is becoming more automated and more data-rich, but also more dependent on connected technology working coherently.
%
60% of airports report using AI in passenger-flow management.
Source: SITA Air Transport IT Insights 2025 – Airports
Investment is following. SITA reported that airport IT spend reached $14.8 billion in 2025, equivalent to 7.3% of revenue, while 89% of airports identified data-driven decision-making as a strategic priority. The question is whether service models are evolving at the same speed as the technology they support.
Billion USD
USD 14.8bn airport IT spend in 2025; 89% of airports prioritised data-driven decision-making.
Source: SITA Air Transport IT Insights 2025, published April 2026
The SLA ceiling
Jenner describes the central constraint as an ‘SLA ceiling’. A traditional service design works backwards from the fastest promised response or fix time. If the airport requires that commitment at all hours, the provider must maintain enough onsite capacity to meet it, regardless of actual equipment use or passenger impact.
“If you design everything around the fastest SLA, you staff for the ceiling rather than the operation.”
Andy Jenner, CEO, ESP Global Services
That approach is easy to specify and compare in an RFP. It can also be expensive. Engineering coverage is determined by the strictest contractual promise rather than the changing pattern of operational demand. Skilled people may wait for incidents during predictable troughs because the contract has no mechanism to recognise that the risk has moved elsewhere.
This matters because the economics of airport equipment have also changed. Many endpoint devices are cheaper, more standardised and deployed with redundancy. Skilled onsite support remains comparatively expensive. An airport can therefore spend heavily protecting a rapid response to a low-cost device failure that has little immediate effect on the passenger journey.
Not every failure is an operational incident
Jenner uses the example of passenger-processing equipment. If one kiosk fails during a quieter period while several others remain available, the technical fault may have almost no operational effect. The same failure during a constrained peak can reduce processing capacity, increase queues and create a very different priority.
A uniform 30-minute fix target does not capture that distinction. A more mature model combines technical severity with live context: passenger volume, remaining processing capacity, equipment location, available alternatives and the likely consequence of delay.
“The device may be the same. What changes is the impact it has on the operation at that moment.”
Andy Jenner, CEO, ESP Global Services
From dedicated resource to shared capability
ESP’s preferred approach is a leverage model. Where skills, security requirements and commercial arrangements allow, engineers can support multiple systems, contracts or customers within the same airport rather than remaining tied to one narrow service boundary.
For Jenner, this is not simply a headcount-saving exercise. Shared capability improves utilisation, broadens engineers’ knowledge and creates a more resilient pool of expertise. At larger airports, the opportunity is strengthened by scale, overlapping service requirements and greater equipment redundancy.
“The leverage model is about using one capable engineer across more of the airport, rather than paying several times for people to wait inside separate contract boundaries.”
Andy Jenner, CEO, ESP Global Services
Dedicated support still has a role where the operational risk justifies it. The difference is that it becomes a deliberate choice with a visible cost, not the automatic starting point for every contract.
| Model | How it works | Strength | Limitation |
| Dedicated | Fixed capacity assigned to one contract. | Clear ownership and predictable availability. | Potentially high cost and idle capacity. |
| Shared | Engineers support several appropriate systems or customers. | Better utilisation, broader skills and shared cost. | Needs clear access, governance and priorities. |
| Dynamic | Capacity and location flex with demand, risk and criticality. | Aligns effort to live operational impact. | Needs trusted data and flexible contracts. |
Following the airport through the day
The next step is to make the shared model dynamic. Passenger-flow forecasts, flight schedules, historic incidents, equipment usage and live operational data can help determine where engineering capability is most likely to be needed.
- Increase coverage around known passenger and flight peaks.
- Reduce or share capacity during predictable troughs.
- Move engineers from check-in towards gates, baggage or other areas as operational pressure shifts.
- Concentrate specialist support around genuinely critical systems and operating windows.
- Use peak-window or part-time coverage where smaller airports do not require continuous onsite presence.
This is not a case for slower support or fewer engineers at any cost. It is a case for placing capability where it protects the operation, rather than maintaining it where a historic SLA says it should wait.
Using data before the incident
Dynamic support should also move beyond resource scheduling. Device-health information, recurring error patterns, usage data and stock consumption can trigger earlier intervention. Predictive maintenance may identify deterioration before failure; better stock intelligence can put the right component closer to the likely demand.
The objective changes from reacting faster to preventing more: fewer passenger-impacting failures, fewer unnecessary dispatches and less dependence on costly standby capacity.
“The best response is sometimes the one the passenger never sees because the problem was predicted and prevented.”
Andy Jenner, CEO, ESP Global Services
Why the conversation must start before the RFP
Jenner believes the procurement process is one of the biggest barriers to change. RFPs understandably seek apples-to-apples pricing, but fixed staffing assumptions and uniform SLAs can embed yesterday’s operating model before suppliers have the opportunity to challenge it.
ESP will price the requested specification, but also uses airport-specific data to demonstrate alternative service designs and their operational and commercial trade-offs. The earlier that discussion happens, the greater the opportunity to shape requirements around the airport’s real needs.
“The conversation needs to start before the RFP. Once the assumptions are fixed, the opportunity to rethink the model is already constrained.”
Andy Jenner, CEO, ESP Global Services
Questions airport leaders should ask
- Which failures genuinely constrain the passenger journey at different times of day?
- How much redundancy is available across each critical process?
- Where does engineering demand move during the operating day?
- Which skills and security clearances can safely be shared?
- What data can forecast incidents, usage and passenger demand?
- Which operational outcomes should sit alongside response and fix times?
The future airport support model will not be defined by one universal SLA. It will combine clear commitments with the flexibility to follow demand, risk and operational impact. The technology and data are already moving in that direction. Jenner’s challenge is simple: the operating service model now needs to change to support today and tomorrow’s airport.
