SITA / Type B in OCC...waste of money?

[desertopsguy]

I would like to get some opinions on the usefulness of sita/type-b messages in OCC's these days now that email is well and truly established.

It seems like it is an outdated and uneccessary expense as a communication tool in an OCC.

I've seen several ops depts do quite fine without it which just goes to show that it is not needed.

It should be an area of interest to COO's/Operations heads everywhere as a possible cost cutting target. Do the math and you'd be surprised what a waste of money it is.

Be interesting to see if anyone from Sita/Arinc chimes in on this :}

D.O.G

[merlinxx]

E-mail fine until someone pulls the net, go to GSM until they close the cell. SITA stable in unstable areas, yup maybe a financial burden, but geopolitical stable.

[Opssys]

In summary:
Type B Costs can be high, but for certain types of Operational Message the Store and Forward, automatic re-routing and guaranteed delivery, means that Type B is the safe option.

Long Answer :O:
Having said that an OCC with a modern suite of Systems can mitigate Type B Costs by using a routing table so that Internal addressees receive MVT etc over an the LAN without going into the SITA Network. This, if the system is properly designed can also include certain external addresses using email (for instance Main Base Contractors, especially those with access to FIDS, or OCC System Displays).

Stepping up a level and assuming all the Airline Systems are sophisticated enough and there is a WAN to Outstations with network monitoring is in place, then the Outstation Systems can automatically transmit updates to local contractors/agents over their CUTE/CUSP/LAN.

This would mean in Normal Circumstances, Type B routing would only be required for Stations, or other Addressees outside the WAN/LAN coverage
(Using email can give them the 'We didn't get in time' excuse - A QU Priority over Type B doesn't).

But even then there should be exceptions DIV, or emergency Messages should for assurance use Type B as well as the standard message routing.
Also if the Networking Monitoring shows one, or stations off line, then routing to these locations should automatically fall back to Type B.

As Merlinxx says:
E-mail fine until someone pulls the net, go to GSM until they close the cell. SITA stable in unstable areas, yup maybe a financial burden, but geopolitical stable. So no matter how sophisticated your messaging and systems are, Type B access provides the fall back and in some cases the only means of getting a message through in a timely manner.

[underjet]

hi,
Since oil prices fluctuates on upside due mid east political sit. and we know m.e has only big resource of oil in world and no other fuel option available for airtransport carrier, no altarnate fuel availbale so almost all airlines go for cost cutting .I am currently working in OCC as manager and i know e-mail is best we if it downs we just use phone to get info from agent about recovery of skd.

[firepoint]

Have to say that SITA is a traditional message exchanging platform and some carriers would like to reduce the workflow on SITA.
Frankly, it's for cost saving that using e-mail iso SITA. It's quite expensive for the big carriers to use SITA Telex coz the company will charge you every character. However, the SITA telex is still popular in the air industry that most of the ground handling agents, ATC, carriers, even authorities, e.g. customs are still reply on SITA telex. But I did see some ground handling agents don't have the SITA because they don't want to spend money on this, and they still do the bussiness very well. Probably few years later, the SITA message would not be mandatory for most messages. Or it could be a back up only, in event that the internet and e-mail is down.

[groundbum]

rather than each organization create it's own alternative to SITA, with fallback to SITA available for mission critical messages, perhaps SITA themselves should make use of all the new lo-cost technology such as SMS and internet emails, and pass this savings onto the customers? Then only one organization does the engineering, and everybody benefits in the cost savings achieved...

G